The US Political Class Is ‘Exhausted’

The US Political Class Is ‘Exhausted’, by Julie Kelly.

Their collective exhaustion is caused most of all by Donald Trump. In embarrassing fashion, anti-Trump pundits on the Left and Right are admitting that the president is getting the best of them. NBC’s Chuck Todd, mercifully giving the “white supremacy” canard a temporary rest, launched this week’s new narrative. “Weeks like this is [sic] what wear people out,” Todd told Andrea Mitchell on August 23. “Amen,” she replied. Todd further claimed, without evidence, that even Trump’s supporters are “exhausted.”

Kyle Smith, NR’s critic-at-large, concurred. “It really is hard to imagine 5 and a half more years of this. It’s just exhausting,” he tweeted. The affliction spread on the commentariat’s right-wing, with Washington Examiner editor Seth Mandel Twitter-whining, “Aren’t you tired? I’m tired.”

MSNBC contributor Neera Tanden told Chris Matthews on August 28 that she, too, was exhausted. When Tanden, head of a progressive think tank, asked the Twitterverse who else was exhausted, her tweet was liked more than 12,000 times.

No one, however, is more tired than New York Times columnist Frank Bruni. In what could be the most humiliating confession of the week/year/decade, Bruni told his readers how he spent a summer Saturday morning — incapacitated by news headlines about Donald Trump.

“He had commandeered too many of my thoughts, run roughshod over too many of my emotions, made me question too many articles of faith,” he explained. “I was sapped — if not quite of the will to live, then of the will to tweet, to Google and to surf the cable channels, where his furious mien and curious mane are ubiquitous. What I was feeling was beyond Trump fatigue and bigger than Trump exhaustion. It was Trump enervation. Trump enfeeblement.” …

You brought it on yourselves:

If there is exhaustion among Trump’s supporters, it is in response to the Left’s neverending assault on the president, his administration, and his voters — not because of anything the president himself has done.

It is Democrats, not Trump, who launched a destructive special counsel investigation based on manufactured evidence that divided the country for more than two years. It is Democrats, not Trump, who ridicule Republicans and Trump-supporting Americans as racist rubes who want children locked in cages and concentration camps built on the southern border.

It is Democrats, not Trump, who orchestrated the vilest attack on a Supreme Court nominee in American history. It is Democrats, not Trump, who now wish for an economic recession. It is Democrats, not Trump, who side with foreign adversaries against the best interests of the country. It is Democrats, not Trump, fomenting violence against political foes.

And all of it is amplified by a national press corps and punditry class now complaining about how tired they are. Clearly, working as de facto foot soldiers in #TheResistance after indulging in an eight-year nap has shown how badly out of shape these brave warriors have become.

There is one person, however, who doesn’t seem a bit exhausted: Donald Trump.

Crackup in the Democratic Party

Crackup in the Democratic Party, by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel.

This is not an attack on Biden, but he’s not going to be the nominee. So the actual race comes down to Warren’s and Sanders’ competing visions of how to achieve the same socialist fantasy.

Warren is promising reparations based on skin color. That’s popular. Sanders wants a government takeover of the entire energy sector. They will be working to out-crazy each other for the next six months. That is a dynamic guaranteed to produce even more extremism. And it has some Democratic leaders worried.

The Democratic National Committee voted on a proposal to hold a debate focused exclusively on climate change. Why wouldn’t they? Well, because the solutions the candidates would promise live on television are insane: spend $16 trillion, ban airplanes, seize control of the entire U.S. economy.

The Trustafarians love stuff like that. Normal people find it terrifying. Even the party hacks here in D.C. don’t like it, and that’s probably a compliment. You really think Nancy Pelosi believes climate change is an existential crisis? Of course, she doesn’t think that. Plus, she flies private. Obama can say whatever he wants about carbon emissions. He can shake his chin and be concerned, but when you’re spending 15 million of your own dollars on a beachfront estate in Martha’s Vineyard, you’re not too worried about the oceans rising.

But the Democratic base doesn’t get the joke. Democratic primary voters believe the talking points. And very soon, they will be powerful enough to nominate their own presidential candidate. And when that happens, it’s going to be a very different party.

‘Why Don’t We Murder More White People?’

‘Why Don’t We Murder More White People?’ By Edward Ross.

San Francisco’s Yerba Buena Center for the Arts (YBCA) is a large museum next to the Moscone Convention Center downtown. This non-profit is funded by the City of San Francisco, the National Endowment for the Arts, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and the James Irvine Foundation. From July 23 to August 25, YBCA screened Jonathan Garcia’s movie Why Don’t We Murder More White People? It was on an endless loop and each cycle lasted 11 minutes and 17 seconds …

Most of the video is of non-whites complaining about whites. They say such things as:

“I’m angry at white people most of the time.”

“It’s like, just part of like whiteness to be abusive and violent.”

“Whiteness invades my life and my mind.”

“You could be violent, and through that perpetuate whiteness. You could not look at your whiteness and be perpetuating that violence, still. Like, you could do nothing and still be violent.”

“Fuck the pigs.”

Some of the speakers encourage violence:

“I think if you’re not supporting people of color and to end white supremacy, and you’re neutral, or you are that person that’s perpetrating it, then you shouldn’t—I think you deserve harm.”

“I think that harm is radical. But I think sometimes radical is needed.”

“And, sometimes I feel like non-violence is not the best route.”

The video assumes that white people are a kind of plague; the only question is what to do about them. Some of the speakers do not call for violence, but they never say killing whites would be immoral. They have other reasons for hesitating to kill whites:

“I’m not gonna harm a white person, I’m not gonna murder a white person, ’cause I’m scared.”

“I think the reason we don’t murder more white people is because they are protected, in a sense.”

“You don’t wanna be violent ’cause that’ll make you look bad or something. Or like, make you and your community look bad. But, whiteness is violence.”

“I think that we don’t murder white people because there is a thought process around, ‘White is Right.’”

Leftist morality. This is where the left is leading us, like the Nazis all over again. Substitute “Jew” for “white” above. See what I mean?

The Tear-Stained Flogs of Climate Science

The Tear-Stained Flogs of Climate Science, by Tony Thomas. Every wonder where your tax goes? Some of it funded another propaganda study:

The authors … sample four female and nine male Australian climate scientists — half of a group of 26 rated “the nation’s leaders in this field”. Tragically, the names of this band of bedwetters are withheld. …

The study took at least three years. … It was funded from part of an ARC research grant of $2,467,256 [you read that right: nearly $2.5m] for “cultural dimensions of environmental sustainability and human-environment interactions, including climate change.”

The interviewees’ particular terror was the “strong climate denialist movement [that] was a source of pressure and a cause of anxiety”. Into the bargain the denialist discourses were “seen to undermine the legitimacy of science authority”. The authors seem unaware that Australia’s leading “denialist” is Joanne Nova, one-time professional science educator and now a housewife in outer suburban Perth with a global reputation. Her only resource is her intellect and her only income is from her blog’s tip jar. No $2.5m taxpayer grants for Joanne…

Joanne is my wife. We have solved the global warming debacle — book soon — with no cost to the taxpayer, living off donations made voluntarily (see the “Donate” button above).

The Federal Reserve Resistance

The Federal Reserve Resistance, by The Wall Street Journal (editorial).

What are we to make of former Fed monetary Vice Chair William Dudley ’s marker that the Fed should help defeat President Trump in 2020? That’s the extraordinary message from the former, and perhaps future, Fed grandee in Bloomberg. …

Mr. Dudley seems to be saying the Fed should do nothing to
assist the economy even if it heads into recession. Then he goes further and essentially says the Fed should join The Resistance.

“There’s even an argument that the election itself falls within the Fed’s purview,” Mr. Dudley writes. “After all, Trump’s reelection arguably presents a threat to the U.S. and global economy, to the Fed’s independence and its ability to achieve its employment and inflation objectives. If the goal of monetary policy is to achieve the best long-term economic outcome, then Fed officials should consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome in 2020.

Wow. Talk about stripping the veil. These columns wondered if Mr. Dudley was politically motivated while he was at the Fed, favoring bond buying to finance Barack Obama ’s deficit spending, urging the Fed to intervene in markets to boost housing, and keeping interest rates low for as long as possible. And now here Mr. Dudley is confirming that he views the Fed as an agent of the Democratic Party.

What do elections matter? The administrative state does what it wants anyway. Still, they must care, because it seems as if the US Federal Reserve is going to try and engineer a recession in 2020 so that Trump loses. Too bad for the rest of the world, eh?

Rebellious Thoughts

Rebellious Thoughts, by the Z-Man.

The likely answer right now is most normal white people are a bit shocked by what is happening, unable to process it. It’s one thing to overindulge in negativity and self-pity, calling the pols a bunch of crooks. That’s just a coping strategy. It is another thing to realize that it really is hopeless and the system is beyond redemption. It’s like that moment when you decide to find a new job or change careers. Nothing changes on the outside, but inside there is a revolution in your thinking and outlook.

That probably explains why the ruling classes in revolutionary times make so many costly blunders. In retrospect, it is baffling, but in the moment the people in charge look out and see nothing but calm. They conclude that things are going well enough that they don’t have to change course. …

Again, it is hard to gauge these things in the moment. One thing we know is that dissident ranks are growing. Even the Left is admitting it. The popularity of dissident sites, podcasts and video shows are at record highs. More important, the general sense within dissident ranks is that reform is impossible. We not only need a new ruling class, we need a new system. The center of gravity for the opposition to the status quo is moving further down that scale toward rebellion.

That said, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the civic nationalist to operate in anything but a fantasy world. Whatever you may think of Trump, the result of the last three years is proof that elections don’t matter. This shameless refusal by public officials to apply the law to Washington insiders makes a mockery of the rule of law. Throw in the stunning dishonesty of the mass media and the metastasizing surveillance state and it is impossible for even the most gullible to remain a civic nationalist.

Boris is about to put British voters back in charge

Boris is about to put British voters back in charge, by Brendan O’Neill.

The news that Boris Johnson has prorogued parliament for a month has Remoaner MPs in a froth. … He is destroying parliamentary democracy, his critics cry. …

The only reasonable reply to these self-styled doughty defenders of parliamentary democracy is: who do you think you are kidding? If these people cared one jot about parliament, they wouldn’t be devoting so much political and moral energy to trying to keep the UK inside the EU, an institution whose chief accomplishment has been to water down national parliaments through the pooling of sovereignty and the removal of key political and economic questions from the grubby sphere of national democracy.

The EU supports parliamentary democracy like an electric chair supports your back. To pose as warriors for the rights of parliament in one breath and then weep and wail for the return of the UK to the anti-democratic bosom of the EU in the next speaks to a serious infantilism of the mind. …

It is wrong to prorogue parliament; this indeed represents a problematic restriction on parliamentary democracy. And it is wrong to abuse parliament, as everyone from the Speaker down has been doing for three years now, to stymie the wishes of those whose beliefs and hopes are meant to be embodied in parliament — the people. This is a clash of two evils. Which evil is worse? People can decide that for themselves.

There Is No ‘Gay Gene,’ Comprehensive Scientific Study Finds

There Is No ‘Gay Gene,’ Comprehensive Scientific Study Finds, by Matt Margolis.

The belief that sexual orientation is innate has been crucial to the gay rights movement.

According to the most recent Gallup Poll on the subject, 88 percent of people who believe homosexuals are “born that way” support the legality of same-sex marriage, while only 39 percent of those who believe homosexuality is the result of environmental factors support the legality of same-sex marriage.

No ‘gay gene’, but study finds genetic links to sexual behavior, by Kate Kelland.

The research, which analyzed data on DNA and sexual experiences from almost half a million people, found there are thousands of genetic variants linked to same-sex sexual behavior, most with very small effects.

Five of the genetic markers were “significantly” associated with same-sex behavior, the researchers said, but even these are far from being predictive of a person’s sexual preferences.

“We scanned the entire human genome and found a handful — five to be precise — of locations that are clearly associated with whether a person reports in engaging in same-sex sexual behavior,” said Andrea Ganna, a biologist at the Institute of Molecular Medicine in Finland who co-led the research.

He said these have “a very small effect” and, combined, explain “considerably less than 1% of the variance in the self-reported same-sex sexual behavior.”

This means that non-genetic factors — such as environment, upbringing, personality, nurture — are far more significant in influencing a person’s choice of sexual partner, just as with most other personality, behavioral and physical human traits, the researchers said.

The study — the largest of its kind — analyzed survey responses and performed analyses known as genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on data from more than 470,000 people who had given DNA samples and lifestyle information to the UK Biobank and to the U.S. genetics testing company 23andMeInc. …

“Previous studies were small and underpowered,” Ganna said. “So we decided to form a large international consortium and collected data for (almost) 500,000 people, (which) is approximately 100 times bigger than previous studies on this topic.”

A gay orientation might be determined by conditions in the womb, such as inappropriate amounts of the various sex hormones at the crucial period about six weeks after conception. This is when the part of the brain that determines sexual orientation is being formed.

So, gays might be “born that way” even though it is not genetic.

Everybody Must Get Stoned – Except Ilhan Omar

Everybody Must Get Stoned – Except Ilhan Omar, by Robert Spencer.

“Everybody must get stoned,” Bob Dylan said, but despite the fact that she has been accused of committing an offense for which Islamic law prescribes stoning, the one person to whom Dylan’s words do not apply is Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.). Even the most hardline Muslim clerics worldwide are almost certain to remain silent about Omar’s alleged adultery, even in her home country of Somalia. The reason why is clear: she is simply too useful to their larger cause.

Roger L. Simon noted Tuesday that “going back to Somalia would definitely spell big trouble for Omar….To wit: ‘Somalia’s Islamist group al-Shabaab has publicly stoned a woman to death in a town in the south for cheating on her husband, an official told Reuters.’”

Simon is right: Omar is on extremely thin ice, Shariawise. …

Leftist privilege:

At this point, Ilhan Omar is simply too valuable to too many people to be sacrificed. To the Left, she is a symbol of their rejection of President Trump’s “Islamophobia” and their commitment to “diversity” and “inclusion,” especially of “women of color.”

That leads them to downplay or overlook altogether the massive amount of evidence … that Omar entered into a sham marriage with her brother in 2009 in order to commit immigration fraud. And to Sharia supremacists, Omar is too valuable as a sign of growing Muslim involvement in American politics, and of the acceptance of Sharia adherence in the American public square, to be denounced.

This effectively gives Ilhan Omar a free pass to do pretty much anything she wants. Omar has joined the Clintons and their cronies in the new protected class in America, made up of people who are above the law, any law, because their importance, power and influence overrides all other considerations.

Did Ilhan Omar’s Campaign Funds Mostly Go Toward Her Alleged Affair? By Katie Pavlich.

Yesterday the New York Post reported that Congresswoman Ilhan Omar is having an affair with Democratic strategist Tim Mynett. The allegation was made in divorce papers filed by his wife.  …

It turns out Mynett’s firm was funneled a boat load of Omar’s campaign cash. He was paid more than $200,000 for consulting and the campaign reimbursed at least $21,000 for his personal travel. That travel wasn’t properly reported or itemized. …

According to the divorce filing, Mynett’s “more recent travel and long work hours now appear to be more related to his affair with Rep. Omar than his actual work commitments.”

Ilhan Omar Demands UN Take Control of US Borders in Mirror of European Migrant Crisis.

If your country does not control who comes in and lives there, it’s not really a country, is it?

The 2020 US Election is the Last Hurrah of the Baby Boomers

The 2020 US Election is the Last Hurrah of the Baby Boomers, by the Z-Man.

The 2020 presidential election, which will probably be Trump versus Warren, is shaping up to be the final act of Baby Boomer America. Trump was born in 1946, while Warren was born in 1949. That means both came of age with the Beatles and the Stones. Both were in college when the hippies and anti-war protesters were taking over the college campus. They are children of the 1960’s. …

The 60’s were a vastly different time from the 70’s, in terms of the culture and outlook. The 80’s, 90’s and 00’s, in contrast, are not wildly different culturally. It’s like how the 50’s and early 60’s are really the same culture. The cultural revolution that stated in the 1960’s really did change the country, so by the 70’s it was a totally different experience for young people. …

Why Warren?

The polls say Creepy Uncle Joe is the favorite, but observation says otherwise. At some point in the fall, he will be found wandering in his bathrobe, demanding to talk to President Nixon. At that point it will be time to take his campaign keys away and pack him off to the home. His support will then flow to Warren, the next demographically pleasing option for them.

There’s also the fact that Warren is quietly drawing huge crowd to her speeches, which is always a sign the voters are at least considering a candidate. The feminist white women in the party think it is there turn to have a candidate. More important, they think they were robbed in 2016.

Warren is not just a less corrupt and less repulsive version of Hillary Clinton. She captures the seething rage of that demographic. Hell hath no fury like a scorned, menopausal feminist clutching her dream catcher. …

Male versus female baby boomers:

In terms of popular culture, Trump really is the quintessential Baby Boomer male. He made a lot of money, but will never have much to show for his time. Everything about Trump is wrapped up Trump the person, the selfish, boorish oaf living for the moment. When the wife got too old, he traded her in for a new one. When he hit middle-age, he bought a sports car and started dating young women. His story will be one of endless self-indulgence.

Warren, for her part, is the other side of that coin. She is the scorned ex-wife, who got the house and filled it up with trinkets from the various self-actualizing fads she got into after the divorce. In between glasses of chardonnay, she will spend hours telling you about how awful her ex-husband was during the divorce. She is the woman, who rejected the lifestyle of her mother, but at some point, when it was too late, realized her mother was right all along. That is the real source of her bitterness.

The 2020 campaign promises to be Trump running around the country telling his fans about all the winning, while Warren runs around wagging her bony finger at them, telling them about how she has been wronged. It will be the cad versus the nag, largely a fight among white people about how best to go into that dark night.

On the one side will be Trump nostalgic for a lost America. On the other will be Warren, haunted by an America that never was. Two characters from a soon to be forgotten past.

Neither side will have much to say about what comes after them, because they are from a generation that thought they would live forever and never grow old. The people who swore they would never trust anyone over thirty, now can’t spare a second to consider the future of those under 30. It’s going to be two perpetual adolescents throwing one final tantrum, demanding the rest of us indulge them one more time. It is the last hurrah for a generation that will be buried, but not praised, by those who follow.


The only socially acceptable racism today is racism against whites

The only socially acceptable racism today is racism against whites. By Bosch Fawstin.

Leftists keep saying, like a mantra, that “White Men Are Terrorists”. All white men? What about non-white men and women? This need to make evil things like terrorism appear to be somehow worse, by being “white”, is pathological, and racist, and characteristically leftist….

If we’re going to actually classify terrorism based on “race”, there is NO terrorism like “brown terrorism”, “brown” being the word that racist leftists use when they speak of other human beings, as all they see is color. And that’s why we keep hearing about “white terrorism”, because “brown terrorism” is so prevalent in the world.

If you criticize Islam and jihad, you get death threats and you’re smeared as a “racist Islamophobe”. If you rabidly criticize “white nationalist terrorism”, and talk it up as a “Major Threat”, you get a pat on the back from leftists. So it’s not surprising how many criticize “white nationalism”, and how few criticize Islam and jihad. …

The closest thing we have to Nazis today are Muslims who admire Hitler, and who hate Jews, but they’re ignored by those who place their fear of being called “racist Islamophobes” above the truth, and who spend an inordinate amount of time trying to make the case that there’s a “Nazi” threat in 2019. …

With racists always shoving race down our throats, here’s a thought: You can’t bitch and moan about “white privilege” when white people are the only people who can be openly and categorically trashed on the basis of skin color. …

Rags like the New York Times bitch and moan about so-called “white privilege”, and about racism, yet they happily publish a racist’s article titled “I Broke Up With Her Because She’s White”, when they’d Never publish “I Broke Up With Her Because She’s Black.” The reason leftists scream “white privilege” as loud as they possibly can, is to drown out the obvious reality that there’s No privilege today like Anti-White Privilege.

When the only socially acceptable racism is racism towards white people, it’s not a mystery why, all of a sudden, and with no proof, that “white supremacy” is spoken of as if it’s the only threat we face, while all other actual threats are ignored or downplayed.

Those who peddle the lie that “white terrorism” (whatever that means, as if “white” were an ideology) is a greater threat than Islamic terrorism, should produce for everyone the equivalent list of “white terrorist groups” (and not actual lone wolf terrorists) to match the very long list of Islamic terrorist groups below:

Al-Shabab (Africa)

Al Murabitun (Africa)

Al-Qeada (Afghanistan) …

[The list has 239 Islamic terrorist groups]

Leftists tell us that Islamic terrorist groups “aren’t Islamic”, but that individuals and groups who are Not “white nationalist”, are “white nationalist”. They refuse to acknowledge that jihadist attacks are all connected, whether they’re committed by individuals or groups, and are all part of a unified movement that jihadists acknowledge, but then they take it upon themselves to connect disparate shooters into a unified group based on “white” skin.

Some very anti-PC points. All obvious, if you think about it for a moment instead of just going along with the propaganda.

Why the Left Reject Science

Why the Left Reject Science, by the Z-Man.

Normal people look at the public performance of the Left and have the reaction all normal people have to irrationality. First, they will laugh or scoff at whatever the Left is doing, as both reactions come from the same instinct. It is a dismissal of whatever is going on, as too ridiculous to consider. A man in a sundress demanding to be called “they” is absurd. The kinder souls will laugh at it, while the less kind will dismiss it as vulgar degeneracy. Both reactions are justified, of course.

Once we pass the initial rejection, the reaction of normal people to the cultural lunacy we see on display falls into two buckets. One group will continue to dismiss this stuff, as a sign that the Left is just a bunch of crazy, middle-aged white women and their colored assistants, trying to get attention. The cat-lady factor is so strong on the Left it’s hard not to focus on it. Scan the crowd at an Elizabeth Warren event, for example, and it looks like a clearance sale at the wine mart. Spinsters everywhere.

Now, the other camp that forms up after the initial reaction is the people who suspect there is a deeper motive to what they are seeing. The Left has been in control of the culture for several generations now, so they cannot be all mad. Steve Sailer, for example, thinks these displays are about keeping the Progressive coalition focused on the evil white men so they don’t attack one another. The bad people suspect this is all part of a plot by the nefarious forces to undermine white society.

There is a third option. This insane behavior is not just performance art, but an assault on rationality and order. It is an attack on the very concept of truth. After all, if it is no longer possible to tell boys from girls, then what is true? The very basics of human biology start with the fact that humans come in two sexes. If the very axioms of human reality are now up for debate, then everything is up for debate, even the claims made by the Left. With no truth, nothing is false. The world is narrative of opinion.

Take, for example, the assertion that race is a social construct. This bit of biological denialism is popular with the Left. So much so they are now demanding white historical figures be played by black actors, to prove that race is imaginary. Now, the demand itself contradicts the assertion. If race is not real, then there would be no reason to demand a black guy play Henry VII or Queen Elizabeth. The demand itself is proof that race is very real, so much so the past must be black-washed. … If race is a social construct, then diversity must also be a social construct. …

The modern Left is the political implementation of the academic movement called post-modernism. Post-modernism is the 20th century academic movement popular in philosophy, the grievance studies and the humanities. It denies the existence of a universal, stable reality, insisting everything is arbitrary and subjective. It is a reaction to science and technology that explains reality in objective terms. …

This is why the Left is now so vehemently anti-science. …

Of course, the practical benefit of a world unbound from facts and reasons is that the actors in such a world are unbound from the limits of reason. It is the ultimate freedom, as everything is possible and everything can be justified.

Post-modernism did not spring from nothing. It is the continuation of political philosophy starting with Rousseau, through Nietzsche and into the current age. Western liberalism was born of the irrational belief that man comes into the world as a blank slate and can be fashioned into anything through the proper social structures. Ever since, the goal of liberal political philosophy has been to build the right social structure to achieve universal equality.

Since the utopian goal of universal equality is impossible, it leaves only the equality of nihilistic chaos. A world without truth is a world where noting is false. This is the ultimate equality, where everything is opinion and all opinion is equally worthless.

Today, the left embodies the anti-Enlightenment. They are going to kill it.

The US is Morphing into the USSR

The US is Morphing into the USSR, by Rod Dreher.

I’m getting in touch with people all over the US who emigrated from Communist countries. This week I interviewed one who came not long after Communism fell in her country. Like so many others, she’s been made deeply uneasy by things she’s seen emerge here — things that remind her of the old country.

This scientist-professor told me a detailed story about being at a high-level academic conference not long ago in which colleagues — all scientists — stood around after the day’s sessions speculating on the conditions under which political undesirables ought to be eliminated — killed — for the greater good. The academic said this wasn’t a joke to them. She said she remarked that she had actually lived in a country in which this was the practice, and it was a bad thing. The group turned on her, and began defending communism. She then retreated into her shell — a habit she learned in her life under Communism.

The scientist-professor told me that this is not unusual in her world. Academics are so uniformly on the Left that they can’t imagine anybody they esteem — certainly not a fellow professor — could possibly disagree. She said that the uncomplicated hatred for political and religious conservatives she’s observed among academic science types over the years she has been in America is bone-chilling. She said it has pushed her deep into the closet in her university, and within her profession — this, even though she works in science, which you’d think was apolitical. And it has made her afraid for what would happen to her adopted country, the United States, if people like her academic colleagues came to hold power.

“If feels like at some point if [my colleagues] discover that I don’t agree with the things they’re talking about, my career will be over,” she told me. “Everybody is so open, they’re talking in front of me like I’m really one of them. It really looks like this is what’s normal within that community.”

Now, that scientist lives in the United States, and has the protection of the First Amendment. I have no idea what her feelings are about gay Pride parades, but let’s say, for the sake of argument, that she tweeted out something like what the Finnish MP did, what would happen to her career? Based on our conversation (which was much more detailed than what I’m revealing here), she is absolutely convinced it would be over. She would be persona non grata in her department, and within her field. So she remains silent, closeted, afraid. The First Amendment is cold comfort to her. It’ll keep you out of jail, which ain’t nothin’, but it won’t protect your job, your reputation, or even your safety.

This morning I was talking to an academic friend who teaches on the East coast. When he called, I told him that I was working on this post. He and I discussed the ways it is possible to destroy the professional and personal lives of your political enemies without breaking the law. His work also has to do with the STEM field, and he was telling me how terrifying it is to discover how much power companies like Google have over our lives — without being accountable to anybody. It’s not only that Google (Facebook, et al.) have the power to control the information they know about us; it’s that they gather this information, and it’s available to all kinds of people, including bad actors. We are all far more vulnerable than we think.

In Finland, if you so much as question whether or not a Church ought to be approving of a gay Pride march, you can be investigated by the police. In the US, if you did that, the police won’t bother you, but depending on what you do for a living, you could still have your job taken away and your career destroyed. So you tell me: with that kind of social control in place, how free are we, really?

Stela of skulls, Cheung Ek Killing Fields site, near Phnom Penh, Cambodia.

Philip Barton comments:

It is important to understand the nature of the times that are upon us. Pol Pot was not some deranged outlier; he was the future. While intelligent people regard socialists as absurd idiots, the fact is that the majority of people vote for what sounds nice. They ‘feel’, they don’t think. They certainly don’t study history. Socialism – free things – sounds very nice indeed.

In a future dominated by the AOC generation, those people who believe in the right of all people, of whatever colour or creed, to pursue their own path in life, and who understand that a government central committee cannot successfully plan a village fete, let alone a civilization, will be exterminated – literally. You can add to that list of undesirables, people who insist on the right to express an opinion.

Poll: All Top Dems Beat Trump

Poll: All Top Dems Beat Trump, by Quinnipiac University.

If the 2020 presidential election were held today, 54 percent of registered voters say that they would vote for former Vice President Joe Biden, while only 38 percent would vote for President Trump. Matchups against other top Democrats show:

  • Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders topping Trump 53 – 39 percent;
  • Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren ahead of Trump 52 – 40 percent;
  • California Sen. Kamala Harris beating Trump 51 – 40 percent;
  • South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg leading with 49 percent to Trump’s 40 percent.

Looking at all of the matchups, President Trump is stuck between 38 and 40 percent of the vote. These low numbers may partly be explained by a lack of support among white women, a key voting bloc that voted for Trump in the 2016 election. Today, white women go for the Democratic candidate by double digits in every scenario.

Trump — or What, Exactly?

Trump — or What, Exactly? By Victor Davis Hanson with some much-needed perspective on the first almost-three years of Trump.

To counter every signature Trump issue, there is almost no rational alternative advanced.

That void helps explain the bizarre, three-year litany of dreaming of impeachment, the emoluments clause, the Logan Act, the 25th Amendment, the Mueller special-counsel investigation, Stormy Daniels and Michael Avenatti, Trump’s tax returns, White Supremacy!, Recession! — and Lord knows what next.

The subtext of all these Wile E. Coyote all-too-clever efforts at trapping road-runner Trump is not just the wish to abort an elected presidency; they’re offering the heat of hatred rather than the light of a viable political alternative.


The pushback against Trump on China is that tariffs are taboo and dangerous. Perhaps. But no serious critic has offered any other strategy to counter four decades of systematic Chinese mercantilism and economic exploitation.

Do any believe at this late date that the Chinese juggernaut wishes to pause to discuss at length patent infringement, copyright violation, dumping, currency manipulation, technological expropriation, systematic espionage, or massive subsidized surpluses — given that its comprehensive assault on the international commercial order has made China the second-richest country in the world? …

Illegal immigration:

Trump has not closed the border and made immigration strictly a legal enterprise. But to that aim, he has shut down the government, fought in the courts to build the wall, issued executive orders to contravene Obama’s second-term open-borders mandates, juggled funding from a variety of agencies, and jawboned Mexico nonstop. …

Progressives apparently believe that, without importing constituents, their agendas simply are not persuasive. So they’ll likely never close the border to illegal immigration or embrace meritocratic legal immigration or deport those who have broken criminal statutes or who are not working…

The media:

Granted, Trump has no need to burn up presidential time stooping to spar with the likes of irrelevant George Conway or Anthony Scaramucci. I agree that the back-and-forth with the “Squad” does not merit Trump’s attention and crowds out mention of his economic and foreign-policy records.

But then again, I and my family were not libeled as traitors, crooks, deviants, and imbeciles, and put in legal jeopardy for 22 months as the media and ex-Obama officials ginned up hoax after hoax. If I had been, perhaps I might have stooped to express outrage on Twitter.

In the age prior to Trump, what exactly was the status of the media?

In truth, it was mostly an extension of the progressive party, with a veneer of sober and judicious bipartisan pieties — while, after 2016, several media watchdogs have scored the media as 80 to 90 percent anti-Trump. …


But we are told that the boisterous Trump, our first president without military or political experience prior to his election, has disgraced the office. …

Did Trump conduct liaisons in the presidential bed or restroom or office in the manner of liberal lions such as FDR, JFK, or Bill Clinton? Did he habitually use the N-word or expose himself to staffers, as did the great civil-rights icon LBJ?

Is his terminal health condition now kept from the media in the conspiratorial fashion of Woodrow Wilson or FDR?

Is the Trump Foundation flush with infusions of hundreds of millions of dollars, as was the case with the Clinton Foundation during Hillary’s tenure as secretary of state? Does President Trump have a tendency to get handsy at public events, or come up behind female teenagers or blow in their ears à la Vice President Joe Biden? Did he weaponize the IRS, the DOJ, the FBI, and the CIA the way Obama-administration officials did to sabotage a political opponent’s campaign? Has Attorney General Barr surveilled the communications of Associated Press reporters in the fashion of Eric Holder?

Or perhaps Trump’s twitter crudity is shocking given the sober comportment of his current would-be presidential opponents. Has Trump, then, promised to take Joe Biden behind the gym and physically beat him up, or warned Cory Booker that in a testosterone rage he would beat him up too, as both have bragged about doing to Trump? Did he whip racial animosity in the manner of Elizabeth Warren by falsely alleging that the Ferguson shooting, thoroughly investigated by the Obama Justice Department, was murder?

Has Trump punned about Kamala Harris not coming out of an elevator alive?

Did he egg on Johnny Depp, Madonna, and a host of other creepy celebrity has-beens to brag about the ways to assassinate a president? Would current Democraticprimary leader Joe Biden be willing to take the Montreal Cognitive Assessment Test, given to Trump (who aced it) to remind his critics that he was not demented as they serially alleged?

Read it all.

hat-tip Charles