Will the evidence be enough to overcome skepticism?

According to reports on an official FBI Twitter account, their investigation of allegations of child abuse/neglect, as well as some very disturbing crimes involving children, it seems the rumors of ‘cult activity’, in this case at least, are true. Read the account at Atavisionary, here. Also, follow the link there to Anonymous Conservative’s blog, where AC summarizes the story, which is a little complicated.

The question I am asking is: after the public has become jaded by previous allegations going back many years, will people just dismiss this as more ”conspiracy theory” or so-called ”Satanic Panic”, as so many people still do?

I think people have become so inured to allegations (including convincing reports, in this case) of this kind that they may just shrug it off as more sensationalism, with no substance to the story.

It seems as if there is little concern on the part of the ‘average’ American about the children who are likely involved in this story and many other such situations which haven’t yet been exposed. If there are actual children who are being abused, harmed, and trafficked, why so little concern, I wonder?

Or is the nature of the crimes disturbing for some people, so much so that they prefer not to think about it, or to discourage others from discussing it?

The dismissive term ”Satanic panic”, originated by some cynical person, either in the media or among the public, implies that any concern about these crimes is some kind of groundless fear-mongering. I don’t believe that; I don’t believe that the ”McMartin Pre-School” allegations were false though the jury decided they were without substance. After the trials of the defendants, because there were doubts on the part of some people, a retired former FBI agent, Ted Gunderson, conducted forensic tests of the site of the pre-school and found, among other things, tunnels below the former school. The report on what he found is here, in pdf format.

Today, most commenters online, — people I would consider more knowledgeable than the average TV-watcher who gets all his news there –may shrug this story off as another ”Satanic Panic”. We’ll see, but for the sake of those children I hope this case is not brushed aside and that it doesn’t just disappear from the news. I seldom hear anyone express concern for the kids involved; who are they, how did they get into the hands of these ‘people’? Are they missing children? Aren’t there lots of parents of missing kids who may be worried sick over their lost children? Or is this to be just another yawn-inducing story, in the jaded eyes of the ‘average’ citizen?

Suppressing facts

Following on yesterday’s post here about legal immigration (“good”) vs. illegal immigration (“less good”), I have been trying to find some statistics about criminality, comparing legal to illegal immigrants. There seems to be an effort  to show that legal immigrants do not commit more crimes than native-born, and that illegals are the only immigrants who tend to commit more crimes.

It’s obvious that of late, what with the effort to gradually choke out all dissenting (politically incorrect) opinions online, that any data which casts a negative impression of immigrants is being scrubbed from the internet. It seems that in general fewer search engines will link to anything that is politically incorrect, whether to blogs or news articles and opinion pieces. Of course the reliably dishonest media report only data and opinions that reinforce the ”narrative” and attempt to discredit and exclude dissident thought or information. So it is getting harder to find truthful, factual data.

Despite the plethora of articles from the usual Mendacious Media sources, assuring us that immigrants do not increase the crime rates — in fact, that they commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans, I am not convinced.

At the very least we know of a good many crimes, reported in the media, involving immigrants, often ‘refugees.’ Examples: many cases of fraud by merchants (usually convenience-store owners) involving EBT/food stamps or other government benefits. These are not isolated stories, but part of a pattern.

We read of the rampant use by immigrants/refugees of counterfeit ID cards and theft of Social Security numbers/identity fraud. We need only go to certain areas in most cities of any size to find immigrants openly peddling forged ID cards for sale to anybody willing to pay. There are many people known, even by their employers, to be working under the table, not paying taxes on their earnings, because they are not legally here, or in some cases, some are here legally but unwilling to be taxed on their earnings — the money goes back ‘home’, so that billions of American dollars are sent to immigrants’ home countries each year.

The list could go on and on. Yet we are expected to believe that immigrants are scrupulously honest if they are here legally, despite many incentives to cheat and flout laws.

And what about prevalence of drunk driving on the part of many immigrants, especially Latinos? This is a well-known ”cultural practice” amongst Latinos, as is the ”cultural” acceptance of a very low age of consent for young girls to consort with adult men.

And as I have said before, look up the search term ”quinceanera shooting” or quinceanera stabbing. An inordinate number of assaults, even killings occur at girls’ fifteenth birthday celebrations, supposedly the age at which they are considered adult women.

But pay no attention to the facts; listen only to what the lying media tell us; nothing to see here. Immigrants, especially those with certain documents making them legal, are pure as driven snow, and do not have any proclivity to crime or violence.

However you might look up, for example, some of Ron Guhname’s data at the Inductivist website, where he provides interesting statistics on cultural habits and practices, broken down by nationality. This one, for example, on which ethnic groups are most arrested.

The usual rationalization is that ‘racist’ police ”target” certain groups. Given that most police forces now have ”diversity” quotas to ensure that “racist” White police can’t persecute innocent diversities, that excuse won’t cut it.

Another example from Inductivist, this time about the percentages, based on ethnicity, displaying traits like selfishness and pessimism.

And what about crime rates within certain countries, (most Latin American countries have far higher rates of violent crime, as is well-established as fact) but the data at Inductivist’s link show the effect of diversity (heterogeneity) in violent crime.

None of this is consistent with the Party Line laid down by immigration apologists and enthusiasts whether on the ”right” or on the left. We are being gaslighted, as usual, by both sides when it comes to immigration and diversity. And the disturbing thing is that there seems to be a more zealous effort to suppress any data that contradicts the propaganda. Soon this country may be more like Europe where even questioning offical dogma on ethnicity and immigration will be a criminal offense.

The ‘Galileo Gambit’

A former reader, ‘Flanders’, commenting on Savant’s blog, points out a logical fallacy called ‘The Galileo Gambit‘, which coincidentally ties in with my previous post.

In that post, expressing disagreement with the President’s sudden call for a large increase in legal immigration, I was inwardly pondering whether this change in direction was some kind of sudden decision or whether it was planned all along.

In posts during or just after the 2016 election I had questions as to whether Trump’s election was in fact intended to co-opt the dissident right all along.

I wondered the same about the election of G.W. Bush. Why? Because the left ramped up the insane anti-Bush rhetoric to previously unknown levels, even in the days of Nixon, when the left made Nixon out to be the biggest monster and villain in our history. It all seemed over-the-top and disconnected from reality. But then with the election of ‘W’ in 2000, along with the crazy antics of the left during the long election dispute, the left outdid themselves in histrionics and rabid rhetoric. But even that was mild compared to the 2016 election, when the millennials were all grieving and rending their garments about the ‘fear’ felt by their ‘Muslim and gay friends’  who feared for their lives — supposedly. I found this too absurd to be believed — but these young ‘snowflakes’ seemingly believed, silly as it seems. But did the Democrat party apparatchiks actually believe their own hysterical statements about Trump being ‘literally Hitler’? Or the rumors of roaming gangs of MAGA thugs attacking innocent people? Or was it a kind of calculated reverse psychology — a ‘Galileo Gambit’ plan?

So what is the Galileo Gambit fallacy? I admit I wasn’t familiar with that one:

“The Galileo gambit (also Galileo fallacy) is a logical fallacy that asserts that if your ideas provoke the establishment to vilify or threaten you, you must be right. Users of the fallacy are to be understood as being essentially “Galileo wannabes”. This logic is obviously flawed. For example, consider a horribly-oppressed ideology: Wahhabism. Western governments seek to persecute and censor Wahhabists at every opportunity. Does this mean that Wahhabism is correct?”

Obviously not; the fact that an idea or policy draws strong opposition or vilification — or to use the left’s favorite term, causes the proponent to be ‘demonized’ — does not necessarily prove that the idea is right or true, or that the proponent must be one of the good guys.

But we’ve all been conditioned to think that if the left opposes something, whatever they oppose must of necessity be true and sane and desirable — just because our foes are almost always found on the wrong side of every debate and dispute. They champion everything that is immoral, unnatural, destructive, and just deranged. (See their recent support of infanticide, as the most vivid example to date).

It’s normally safe to assume that the far left are likely to oppose anything and everything that’s good and wholesome and normal and true. But what if their excessive and exaggerated opposition to G.W. Bush, for example, was meant to induce the Republican party to champion and defend Bush — even when he was wrong on some issues, as he usually was? Things like the Iraq war, which many Republicans embraced all the more stubbornly because they thought Bush must be right if the left hated him so much. And it seems as if the Republicans stood by Bush and his open borders policy because they saw him as unfairly under attack by the scoundrels on the other side.

Suppose Donald Trump was the globalists’ preferred Republican opponent in the 2016 election, and the sudden rallying of the right to his cause was just the ‘briar patch’ that the Democrat globalists wanted to be thrown into. Whichever candidate won, the globalist, one-world cause would win. And yes, before anybody asks the rhetorical question ”would you rather have Hillary as President’? my response is no, I would not. But on the other hand, have we all been manipulated and ‘played’ by the ridiculous leftist attacks on Trump and on Trump voters?

The unrelenting attacks on the President elicited an automatic knee-jerk response from me, though I was ambivalent at best, harboring considerable doubts (expressed on this blog, if you remember) about whether Trump was the real thing. I had serious reservations, given his lavish praise of Hispanic immigrants as “wonderful, wonderful people” — even as he lamented Kate Steinle’s death at the hands of a many-times-deported Jose Zarate, one of those ‘wonderful, wonderful people.’ Was Trump channeling Jeb Bush, (remember Jeb’s ‘immigration is an act of love‘ drivel?) And after all the promises about a wall, why coddle the so-called ‘Dreamers’ and why invite millions more immigrants, even if they are ‘legal’?

Before the 2016 election many populists/dissident rightists held to the consensus that both parties were complicit in the destruction of legacy America; neither side was to be trusted, both parties, despite the fake ‘pro wrestling’ rhetoric were working towards the same ends, ultimately. I hate to return to that cynical assessment because I am not by nature a cynical person, but I am rethinking that.

I, at least, was probably fooled by the ‘Galileo Gambit’ fallacy.

Transforming America

A certain political candidate several years ago spoke (ominously, in my opinion) about ‘fundamentally transforming America.” The audience, as I recall, cheered this phrase.

Any sane person should be afraid when someone offers to ‘fundamentally transform’ the world or society, especially when it’s to be an open-ended process, constant change, or what was it Chairman Mao said? “Perpetual revolution”? There’s no end to trying to ‘transform the world’; the people who want to engineer these changes are never happy or satisfied with their work; the revolution must go on. There’s still so much more ‘work that needs to be done.’

And the social engineers, as we know, are not always politicians.

Look in on Vox Day’s blog, here.  Read the excerpts from a Hollywood story conference which included Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Larry Kasdan.

The year was 1978, and the story being discussed was “Raiders of the Lost Ark.” Spielberg et al discuss the idea that the character Indiana Jones and his ‘love interest’ in that movie had a relationship starting when the ex-lover was very much underage. Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan ‘negotiate’ over just how early this relationship started; the age of eleven is suggested by Lucas, (!) and eventually they settle on a compromise: fifteen is settled on. Sixteen or seventeen? “Not interesting anymore.”

Surely they knew they couldn’t get this kind of thing accepted by the mainstream movie audiences — yet — but these people take the long view; it may take decades of slowly pushing the boundaries back, but they do it relentlessly.

The metaphor of slowly boiling the frog, though overused now, is very appropriate here.

Most people would probably classify Spielberg, Lucas, and company as being purveyors of ”family” movies, of wholesome good old-fashioned entertainment. But as someone commenting on the Vox Day thread says, Spielberg was “pushing the envelope” with his ”wholesome” movies like ET, with the foul-mouthed kids in that film. I remember some parents being shocked by the crude talk from the children in the movie, but most were willing to let it go because the movie was “cute”. This is how we’ve gotten to where we are culturally, what with increasingly vile movies being accepted by mass audiences, and our culture reflects what the movies promote: children who are ‘worldly-wise’ at a very young age, and young adults who are very much jaded and experienced before they are out of their teens.

The older generations don’t escape blame; many who grew up in a more civilized society have gradually come to accept the corrupted world that we live in now, and made their peace with it. Few people are willing to reject the values of Hollywood and the entertainment/propaganda business; people love their pop culture and their distractions.

Recently in another blog post here I referred to the fascination many young people seem to have with ‘Pre-Code’ movies, that is, movies that were made in the early talkie days, before the Hays Office began to restrict the content of movies. The Pre-Code movie devotees never get enough of railing against the Hays Office and its namesake, Will Hays. They are, to the leftist post-modern movie fan, the equivalent of the hated Joe McCarthy of the political world. The Hays Office and the McCarthy ‘witch hunts’, so-called, are a favorite bete noire of the left.

The ‘Hays Code’ or the Motion Picture Production Code is often denounced as a heavy-handed, prudish censorship which infringed on people’s ”freedoms” and stifled artistic endeavors, and thwarted creativity. It does seem odd, if these criticisms were valid, that so many of Hollywood’s best efforts were movies made during the era of the Hays Code. It’s also strange that since the rules were first, loosened, then abandoned, movies have declined, becoming ever darker and more nihilistic as well as cruder and more profane.

For years I’ve been saying, when hearing of Hollywood’s latest over-hyped sleaze, ”how much worse can it get”? And I keep being surprised at how the movie moguls seem to outdo themselves in producing something worse, because that seems to be their mission: to drag society down to the gutter level at which the movie industry seems to operate. They are succeeding, and it seems to me that even the fact that movie attendance seems to be declining for some years does not discourage them. They are on a mission, and even shrinking profits don’t seem to daunt them.

The Hays Office and the Code, far from being villains as most movie fans seem to believe, served a good purpose for as long as it lasted. America — and the post-Christian West generally, was already in a moral crisis after World War I in particular. The ‘Roaring 20s’ are an example of how sexual morals became lax; drug and alcohol abuse and all the accompanying problems weakened us in many ways. Societies which are hedonistic and libertine are rarely, if ever, strong and powerful. Dissolute societies are always prey for invasion and conquest.

If not for the Hays Code, Spielberg, Lucas, and Kasdan would not have been having their discussion about how young the ‘love interest’ of Indiana Jones could have been — because by that time, had not the movie moguls been compelled to ‘clean up their act’, we would long since have had movies featuring “inter-generational love” or ”zoophilia” or whatever other euphemisms they’ve dreamed up for these various deviancies. The Hays Office was fighting a sort of rearguard action against the trends, which were already present in 1930s America. They at least bought us some time in which the worst tendencies of Hollywood were kept restrained to some extent, imperfectly. But that was better than nothing, better than just letting Hollywood and the rest of the ”entertainment” world run amok, as now, transforming our society at will, with our complicity.

What’s in a name?

I’m glad someone addressed this issue, though it seems to be a hopeless cause to change the politically correct terminology that dominates our language.

Jmsmith at The Orthosphere blog writes about the varying names given to followers of Islam, with ‘Muslim’ being the politically correct usage employed by the media, the educational establishment, the lefties — by everybody, in fact, left or right, except for a few ornery people who say ‘Mohammedan’ or ‘muzzie’ or some other less-than-reverential term.

A Mohammedan is not a Christian or Jew because he is: “one who accepts the proposition that an Arab named Mohammed or Ahmad, son of Abdallah, of the city of Mecca, in Central Arabia, who died in A.D. 632 is the main and indeed ultimate channel whereby the will of the Creator of the world has been revealed to mankind.”*

If you accede to calling this man a Moslem (i.e. Truly Religious), I believe that you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. If you accede to calling his religion Islam (i.e. True Religion), I believe you implicitly concede that this proposition is true. To draw this to its sharpest possible point, a Christian who accedes to using the words Moslem or Islam is at least flirting with apostasy.**

Well, then as a Christian I might be apostate because I have held to using ‘Moslem‘. However I have a different recollection as to which term was considered ‘offensive’ to Moslems, besides ‘Mohammedan,’, that is. I was not sure if my memory was accurate so after a little searching I came across this:

“According to the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,”Moslem and Muslim are basically two different spellings for the same word.” But the seemingly arbitrary choice of spellings is a sensitive subject for many followers of Islam. Whereas for most English speakers, the two words are synonymous in meaning, the Arabic roots of the two words are very different. A Muslim in Arabic means”one who gives himself to God,” and is by definition, someone who adheres to Islam. By contrast, a Moslem in Arabic means”one who is evil and unjust” when the word is pronounced, as it is in English, Mozlem with a z.

[…]Journalists switched to Muslim from Moslem in recent years under pressure from Islamic groups.”

From what I recall, that pressure came from the militant ‘Black Muslim’ sect back in the late 1960s when the ‘establishment’ was leaning over backwards (as now) to placate minorities, especially militant blacks. I doubt that many people today are aware of the origins of that sect, and how outré their belief system was/is. To think that we automatically kowtowed to them on the issue of what we are “allowed” to call them or their faith is pretty shameful for us. It shows how ‘cucked’ we were, even back in the late 60s when all this nonsense began.

“But the use of the word Moslem has not entirely ceased. Established institutions which used the older form of the name have been reluctant to change. The American Moslem Foundation is still the American Moslem Foundation (much as the NAACP is still the NAACP–the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). The journal The Moslem World–published by the Hartford Seminary in Connecticut–is still The Moslem World.”

Interesting; I didn’t know anybody officially still used ‘Moslem’, apart from me and a few others. Incidentally a friend of mine began using ‘Moslem’ after hearing me use it only to be scolded by her leftist millennial offspring, who, of course, know everything since attending college (and a Christian college, at that).

I am not looking to be contentious here or to argue with Jmsmith; I am in agreement  that we should not simply give in to pressure from those of a religion which is contradicts with our own Christian beliefs, a group which is essentially at war with us, and has been since its inception. We should not accede automatically and go along with their terminology and definitions. In doing that we are being less than true to our Christian beliefs.

There are lots of terms for followers of Mohammed: Musulman, Mahometan, Moslem, Mohammedan. They served us well for many centuries. Why change just to placate those who are never going to be appeased by anything less than total submission? Because that is what Islam means: submission.

The ‘racism’ scare and other scares

There’s an interesting piece at TakiMag, called Skeered o’ the Racisms. The writer points out the way in which lefties/SJWs gin up a fear of this mysterious entity, ‘racism’, which is said to exist everywhere, at least everywhere White people (including White babies, according to Time magazine) exist.

And just in case there isn’t enough of this mysterious force everywhere, it has to be conjured, or hoaxed into existence, as the ‘demand for racism exceeds the supply‘ as I think Steve Sailer said. It seems Whitey is slacking off on the job, not committing the requisite number of ‘racist’ acts, so somebody’s got to do it.

Just an aside: there are a shocking number of politically correct commenters at TakiMag; are they ‘cuckservatives’ or SJWs? It’s getting hard to tell them apart these days.

But back to the need for a good ‘scare’ to motivate the Left and their mascots/pets: it’s ironic that the left is very fond of referring to legitimate threats as ‘scares’ or ‘witch hunts’. I read the IMDB website a lot because I watch many old movies, and maybe it’s masochistic on my part to read the reviews there but I do read them. It’s disturbing how very many commenters cannot watch an old movie without scrutinizing a film for the ‘racisms’ and all the other naughty ‘isms’ like ‘sexism’, as well as all the ‘phobias’ like homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, and Islamophobia — have I left any of them out?  The IMDB commenters are also unhealthily obsessed with ‘pre-code’ films, which they prize very highly because, as one commenter said, it’s ”delightful” to find salaciousness and ‘corruption’ in old movies. Now, why this should evoke delight in a movie viewer is somewhat baffling to me, but I gather that it is because it confirms the lefty’s ‘faith’ that the popular image of the wholesome past is in fact false; that people were really hypocrites sinning it up behind closed doors, while putting up a false front of respectability. Human nature being what it is, certainly there were people who feigned innocence in public while being perverts, drunks, or druggies in private. But to say that ‘everyone’ was a liar and a hypocrite back then is just not true — still, it’s what the left believes. So they do love to see the pre-code movies in which we see drug usage (movies like ‘Three on a Match’) or other perversions (‘Wonderbar’).

Most of all, though, the left loves to uncover ‘racism’ in old movies, for example, a black character playing the role of a butler, maid, or janitor. And the SJWs are beside themselves with satisfaction if they spot an Oriental character (yes, I did say ‘Oriental’; it’s a perfectly good word) speaking pidgin English. One commenter on IMDB was shocked and troubled by the ‘‘degrading Chinese music‘ played in some movie with scenes of Chinese people or the Orient. I wasn’t aware that a musical score could be ‘degrading’ in and of itself. I actually found that complaint amusing.

Really, these obsessed lefties, these self-appointed advocates and ‘champions’ of their poor downtrodden minority clients/mascots, seem to need some evidence that their feared bogeyman, the spirit of ‘racism’, does exist now as then. It vindicates, for them at least, the enormous amounts of time and energy they devote to thinking and talking about it — and condemning it.

I think, personally, it’s a very appropriate use of the noun ‘scare‘ to describe their fixation with ‘racism’ as a scare. Interestingly, they almost always use the noun ‘scare’ to designate something they say is nonexistent: like the ‘Red scare’, as they call it, of the 1950s. There was no Communist threat in that era, so they say; it was all in the minds of the ‘far right’, people like Joe McCarthy and any number of others who warned of the presence of Communists in high places.  So it was just a ‘Red scare’, a mythical bogeyman created by the right.

They also favor the term ‘witch hunt’ in describing things like the HUAC (House Un-American Activities Committee) hearings. Just as they say there were no real witches in Salem or elsewhere, they say there were no Communists, the Venona papers notwithstanding.

So it was all a witch hunt, an attempt to harass and punish perfectly innocent people, for their political views. If it was a real ‘witch hunt’ the hunters were pretty inept, because despite the much-hyped ‘blacklists’ and other such measures, the Communist cabal went from strength to strength and they have pretty much enacted all their stated goals from the 1940s-50s. So who was paranoid?

Actually now the shoe is on the other foot; the lefties, despite having the whip hand, and having the media fully in their service, claim that the ‘far right’ is a threat to them.

I think it’s fitting to deploy their own terminology and rhetoric against them; yes, call the racism thing a ‘racism scare‘, in the spirit of their ‘Red scare’ propaganda. Call the racist hunt a ‘witch hunt’ because that, in truth, is what it is. Except that unlike in the past, there are no ‘witches’ on the White right working evil voodoo against the army of ‘victims’ the left has in tow.

I don’t know if the left really believes in their own hysterical rhetoric; some are utterly cynical and habitual liars, who lie to themselves, but it may be that some actually believe in their increasingly bizarre view of the world, especially the past. In any case, the SJWs are the ones who imagine, or pretend to imagine, threats and evil intentions around every corner.

If we’re lucky, in some saner time we will be able to read in honest history books about the ‘hysterical racism scare‘ of this era.

‘A safety valve’

Francesco Guicciardini, the Italian historian and statesman of the early 16th century, said some things about the uses of ‘angry words’:

guicciardini - safety valve in words_result

It’s not an original thought on my part, obviously, but I’ve often wondered if this is one of the reasons why the powers-that-be ”allow” the degree of freedom of speech that we still retain. It can’t be because they respect our Constitutional rights or that they really want to give every opinion a chance to be heard. Obviously they would like to shut down free speech altogether if it is not in line with the official PC dogma.

It makes sense that letting dissidents and political out-groups vent their thoughts on the Internet, if not in the government-controlled newspapers and TV outlets, is a means of letting us blow off steam, and though this is a necessary thing sometimes, as few of us have chances to express our ideas openly without repercussions, it’s also a bad thing potentially, as it may serve as a substitute for some sort of action.

As much as I dislike the frequent taunts from certain people online accusing those who blog or comment of being mere ‘keyboard warriors’, and of ‘doing nothing’, there might be some truth in that for some people.

Another reason for “allowing” dissenters and so-called ‘thought criminals’ to express themselves online is that it allows TPTB to keep tabs on the state of the average citizen, to gauge how much resistance is out there to the agenda. After all, the powers-that-be have to get some idea of ‘how much work still needs to be done‘ as the left always puts it. They want to know how much more relentless propaganda and gas-lighting they still have to churn out to get the population in the properly passive and compliant state, or to more fully demoralize us (in both the old and the new sense of the word).

Some of us have been saying for years now that any day now, our freedom of speech, such as it is, will be taken away and we will no longer have any opportunity to present our case to the fence-sitting ‘normies’ or apoliticals out there. However it seems it would be more profitable for those in authority to let us go on venting so that they can keep tabs on the state of the people, and also be alerted to those out there who they deem a ‘danger’ — at least among the White citizenry; dangerous folk of other ethnicities and races are allowed free rein to be a public danger.

And then, as Guicciardini said all those centuries ago, the use of ‘harsh words’ by dissenting elements may take the edge off their righteous indignation and enable them to refrain from doing anything that poses a ‘threat’ to the agenda. Still, though it may to some extent be a way of keeping us subdued and passive, there may be a limit to its usefulness in that way.

It isn’t wise, ultimately, to believe that we are still ‘free’ because we can still speak relatively frankly on certain subjects. It may just be part of creating an illusion of freedom, an illusion that seems to suffice for many middle-of-the-road Americans. The appearance of freedom is good enough for them, even without the substance.

Refugee admissions dropping?

I was a little doubtful when I saw the headlines claiming that refugee admissions had dropped by half; I know that so far the Administration has not lived up to the hopes of many people on the right, where the refugee racket is concerned.

Ann Corcoran of Refugee Resettlement Watch is the best source of information on this issue so checking in on her blog, I saw that in fact the claims of cutting the numbers significantly were not accurate.

This just serves as a reminder of how little regard for truth and accuracy the ‘mainstream media’ actually have.

Also on the RRW blog, news about an important upcoming ruling from SCOTUS on the ‘travel ban’ from several Moslem countries and on the refugee admissions ceilings.

I’ve learned to be skeptical over the years on the controlled media’s propaganda stories regarding refugees and the immigration issue. Over the years it’s been noticeable how they publish stories repeatedly claiming that the number of illegal border-crossers is ‘dropping dramatically’ or that the illegals are ‘returning to Latin America in droves.’ Until I begin to see the effects of the supposed exodus with my own eyes and through other trustworthy means, I’ll take the media fairy-tales with copious amounts of salt.

 

The Alexandria shootings and the ‘agenda’

The left is pretty predictable in their habit of calling for gun control whenever any kind of mass shooting happens, and oddly (one might think) even when the shooter is one of their own, one of their fellow fanatic ideologues, like the latest perpetrator.

Actually many if not most of these kinds of shootings are done by lefties, though maybe the mainstream GOP types make too much of the political affiliations of the perps in cases like this. For example, they will gleefully mention that some deranged shooter or assailant was a ‘registered Democrat’ when the important fact that they shy away from mentioning is usually race. If the perpetrator is black, the cucked GOP types will mention his party affiliation long before dreaming of mentioning race or religion (if said perp happens to be, oh, say, Jewish. Some things cannot be mentioned. For instance, the Columbine shootings?)

But in this case, the shooter, in Alexandria, VA, was very much a Democrat and his motivations were political; his intended targets were Republicans or Trump supporters in particular it seems.

Now we’re reading of how the shameless, callous left has been celebrating the shootings on Twitter and other social media. I can’t say I’m surprised; they are without shame or scruple, and it still astounds me how they are able to pull their double standard routine time after time. They have the unmitigated gall to pretend to be compassionate, sensitive ‘pacifists’ and Gandhi-devotees (BTW Gandhi was not as pacifistic as he pretended to be; he just got others to gin up conflicts for him) who shrink from violence. Part of this shameless play-acting of theirs is to pretend to be mortified at the mere thought of firearms, while when one of their own wields a gun, especially in an act of attempted assassination, they cheer it on, and make heartless, cynical statements disparaging the victim(s), especially if said victims are White.

It’s all who is doing what to whom. They heartily approve of violence provided it’s done against White, right-wing males, or even semi-right-wing Whites.

How does one shame people for whom shame is a foreign emotion? How can one stir guilt or conscience in ‘people’ without any sense of guilt, and lacking even the semblance of a conscience?

The left, almost to a man (or woman, or whatever other gender they believe themselves to be) are the clinical definition of psychopaths or sociopaths. I often scoff at psychology/psychiatry as pseudo-science, but if such things as psychopaths and sociopaths exist, the left fits the definition. (Incidentally, it’s sort of delicious for me to be able to cite HuffPost for the definition of those terms; if anybody knows what those terms mean, it’s that crowd.)

  • Prone to nervousness, distress and temper meltdowns, not easily calm and suave like the psychopath

  • Usually not well-educated, often non-gainfully employed, the drifter type, the one whom everyone sees as “troubled” or “disturbed.”

  • Their crimes typically are sloppy rather than meticulously premeditated and planned.

  • Capable of emotional bonds with others, but this is difficult to achieve.

  • Despite the capability of emotional attachments, they disregard social mores as a whole.

Notice they cite Ted Bundy as an example of a psychopath. I will say Ted was just evil and twisted, and leave the faux science to the lefties. I am sure they picked Bundy because he was, firstly, White, second, male, and third, supposedly an active member of the Republican party. Why not cite Coral Eugene Watts or Charles Ng?

The left, in typical not-taking-responsibility fashion, will not own its terrorists or psycho-killers, and when forced to acknowledge them, fall back on victimology excuse-making and rationalizing: ‘victim of racism’ or ‘childhood abuse and poverty’, or in this case, driven to it by Donald Trump, I suppose.

But maybe the left’s constant calls for gun control might be muted if they admitted to themselves that they enjoy seeing their fellow lefty-fanatics blasting away at Evil Whitey Republicans. When guns are outlawed, only right-wing gun-nuts will have guns. No, wait, the lefties represent the lawless, criminal side of society, the side their “hearts” always bleed for, and their kind can always obtain weapons, laws or no laws.