Welcome!
1. To be fair to Kerry Roberts, while we should not and cannot eliminate colleges, this is also true…From The American Thinker:
….Sarah Sanders made one of the best observations in recent weeks when, reflecting on the Democrats running for president, she observed, “I’m pretty sure they don’t even like America.” She’s right. They don’t. For those who are wondering how the Democrats could have produced such a distinguished slate of the sanity-challenged, it is because of radical liberal control of America’s colleges and universities. The Marxist radicals of yesterday became college professors of today, seizing ideological control of much of America….American universities are radicalizing an increasingly large share of America. This is aided by the fact that nearly 70% of kids now go to college, where most of them are taught not to think. Every candidate on stage is convinced that the lion’s share of Democrat primary voters are radical Marxists. Sadly, they’re all largely right, which is why any candidate who sounds remotely reasonable is running about the same percentage of voter support as you. These candidates should know their voters, since every one of them is likely a product of America’s universities. It is hard to overstate the damage this institution is inflicting on America but that outcome was on full display during the Democrat debate.
2. Stipulated: Using PolitiFact as an authority in any political debate is proof that the user is either so biased he can’t recognize partisan slant when it’s right under his nose, or lying. I remember how most of the Ethics Alarms boycotters from the progressive collective, before they turned tail and ran, liked to cite the obviously manipulative fact-check service, the worst of the worst, if you don’t count Snopes. (FactCheck.org, though leftward tilting, is by far the fairest one of all, according to my magic ethics mirror on the wall…) Kudos, then, to Ted Cruz, who took the time to point out in a tweet:
“Just a reminder, when I said it, PolitiFact (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the DNC) rated ‘Beto wants to take our guns’ as FALSE,.” “Maybe they should buy one of his new t-shirts.”
You know..these:
Now I’m tempted to imitate Cruz’s tweak with my Facebook friends who indignantly protested when I described their favorite party as the champion of open borders, gun confiscation, and late-term abortion.
3. Here’s a movie that I won’t be seeing...A new movie called “Judy,”opens in theaters on September 27. Starring Renée Zellweger as a Judy Garland before her death from drugs and generally deteriorating health, it depicts Garland’s outrageous behind the scenes behavior in her final weeks performing a series of concerts in London.
The source is Stevie Phillips, who was Garland’s manager from 1961 to 1964, accompanying the singer on her cross-country concert tours. She is, to be appropriately blunt, scum. As Garland’s paid employee, she was trusted to see and learn things that no one else was, and she had a professional obligation to take whatever horrors the abused, addicted and emotionally fragile performer inflicted on those around her to the grave. Now she’s cashing in and hitting the PR circuit while destroying Garland’s reputation. Hell, we all knew Judy was a wreck, and we knew why. Like so many other brilliant, damaged performers, she only felt safe and loved when she was receiving applause. I don’t want to think about her personal cruelty and her suicide attempts when I hear her sing…like this:
4. The national scourge of presumed virtuous bigotry. A transgender barista named Natalie Weiss ejected a young woman from the Cultiva coffee shop in Lincoln, Nebraska, saying, “Marilyn Synek! I didn’t recognize you until now, but I just realized who you are, what you stand for, and the work you do. You are fucking bigoted trash, and we do not want you in our restaurant. Over 80% of the people who work here are queer. You are not fucking wanted in our restaurant, so get out and don’t come back! If you do try to come back, we will all refuse any service to you.”
Synek is an employee of the Nebraska Family Alliance, and a former member of Nebraska Senator Ben Sasse’s campaign staff. She had patronized Cultiva regularly. She wrote on Facebook after the incident, in part,
“I’ve never broadcasted my political opinions in the shop before, and I have always treated the employees of Cultiva with respect and courtesy. While we, as Americans, can disagree politically, it is very important to maintain civility when interacting with people who hold different world views. Tolerance goes both ways, and the division in our current political climate will perpetuate if we neglect basic civility,”
Who could disagree with that? Oh, just Natalie Weiss, and the people who beat up and harass citizens wearing MAGA hats, among others. Weiss was fired as soon as the owners found out about the treatment of Synek, and they reached out to their abused customer to apologize. Weiss, however, is defiant, writing:
“Nebraskans like myself do lose our jobs, and sometimes our living arrangements, because of who we are, and people like the Nebraska Family Alliance are why…When this person was leaving the store, I told them in no uncertain terms, and admittedly vulgar ones, that they were not welcome to come back. For that, I have lost my employment. So, for those keeping track, in Nebraska, you can be fired or lose your home because you identify in the LGBT2QIA+ umbrella, and you can also be fired for telling people who fight for that status quo to get lost.”
No, you arrogant, hypocritical bully, you can and should be fired for discriminating against a citizen in a public accommodation based on that citizen’s political views.
5. And speaking of “good bigotry,” the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s newly appointed executive director Lucinda Guinn indicated on social media in February that she was intrigued by tha idea of not allowing men to run for office. In a tweet, Guinn responded to a query by liberal think tank Third Way’s senior vice president, Lanae Erickson, that read “Anyone else having the feeling that maybe we shouldn’t let boys run for office anymore?” by tweeting “Sure do.”
Now, what does that tell us about the organization that hired her to lead it, and the values it embodies?
Ethics Alarms 
#2 This is not new rhetoric…
Beto is just the first candidate with the guts to publicly state what they all want to do.
There are plenty more photos similar to those out there.
All I can say to these stupid imbeciles, and I’ve actually said this directly to some of their stupid faces…
“Choices have consequences. Bring it.”
This is aided by the fact that nearly 70% of kids now go to college, where most of them are taught not to think. Every candidate on stage is convinced that the lion’s share of Democrat primary voters are radical Marxists. Sadly, they’re all largely right, which is why any candidate who sounds remotely reasonable is running about the same percentage of voter support as you. These candidates should know their voters, since every one of them is likely a product of America’s universities. It is hard to overstate the damage this institution is inflicting on America but that outcome was on full display during the Democrat debate.
It occurred to me that perhaps I have an insight that might be useful. All of Latin America was inundated with a wave of neo-Marxist thought in the late 50s and then on into the 60s and 70s. Now, why did this happen? Why was the region susceptible to these doctrines? And what might have been taught instead?
The quote says that kids ‘are not taught how to think’. But this is not quite right. They are taught how to think in certain ways. In Latin America there is a very good reason why the Marxist-Leninist ‘analysis’ became popular, and this is because the elites that have controlled Latin American societies have traditionally been very very corrupt. There is hardly an example of good government in Latin America. Now, this is all very complex of course and has to do with the raison d’être for the existence of most Latin American countries: they were resource ports from which materials were extracted and shipped to Europe. That is why you can observe the highway and transportation systems in most of Latin American countries as being like a funnel: all the tributaries lead to the ports. The native populations could only be seen as resources to help move those products to the ports.
Now, this analysis — the one I am citing — is simply a fact of material history. The elite classes were, more or less, brokers or middle-men in this process of transference. And jurisprudence arose as a *support* for these processes. You can — and in a sense you should — see things in this way and to do so is to apply a kind of Marxian analysis, that is if you wish to understand Latin American dysfunction.
So, in such a corrupt environment, What sort of education will the elites provide to their populations? First, not much of one at all since to educate well means to have some sort of respect and even ‘love’ for those you rule. You are certainly not going to get a quality introduction into the intellectual history of Europe and the Occident! You are going to be trained how to be a docile subject. You are going to be taught how to sum numbers and read basic texts. That is about it.
But along came the fire of Marx-Leninism in a continent-wide nationalistic movement. It is a simple discourse (largely) which allows the poor and dis-privileged to visualize their ‘historical position’ and to conceive of a way to challenge the corrupt structures that enchain them. And only a very dense and cynical person with little love of struggling people and their difficult conditions would fail to recognize how they are ‘enchained’. It is not at all hard to see. The Marxist-Leninist *analysis* is a conceptual tool that seems to put power into the hands of people who did not even have it. It *awakens* them to material reality. This is all very simple and it is not hard to understand.
So, what is it that could possibly contradict a virulent Marxist-Leninist analysis? By ‘contradict’ I mean substitute as a tool to gain material and intellectual power within the field of life? and within conditions of bona fide oppression? Well there you have the Question of the Ages. The answer to this question is that it would require and it does require ‘enlightened conservative leaders’ and an elite class that does not act like a pimp on the backs of people for whom it has nothing but contempt. Additionally, it would require the reversal in significant ways of the way systems flow: the way they were originally set up as funnel-mechanisms, and not to mention modifications if not revolutions in the jurisprudential systems by which policy is administered. And of course a ‘revolution in attitude’: a whole different way of understanding culture, society and life.
Now, neo-Marxism is definitely gaining ground in the US and among the young generation. Even if the brainless idiots understand it not and it is almost a mental fashion. One significant reason for this is because of the demographic shift. Black Americans certainly have good reasons to resent the conditions that were established for them, and which they struggle to rise out of. Same for Native Americans and of course Meso-Americans. It is not only that populations ‘of color’ that should not even have been franchised were franchised (I recognize this is not a popular notion), leading to endless social and ethnic conflicts that are inevitable, but also that these specific people became susceptible to the simplicity of Marxist-Leninist tools in a revolutionary and insidious project of general undermining of the civil structures — excellent civil structures — through which America is defined. The feminist movement in American and Europe also has a branch that is Marxist-Leninist and this undermining influence has pervaded American culture from top to bottom.
So, what is the sane alternative? Well, first the problems have to be seen and laid out. You will not ever achieve a peaceful and harmonious culture if you demand that it be ‘multi-ethnic’ and ‘mixed’. I submit that this will not happen though some will disagree. There is no example of a harmonious society and culture that had not been largely homogeneous. Rome after a certain point shows what results. In order to have social harmony there is needed an homogeneous culture of people who share values. And these are developed through centuries of social struggle which, of course, defines Europe. So that fact must be faced.
But the New Classes (or relatively new classes) that are now vying for power on the American scene have recognized that blunt power-denominations are their best currency and weapon. It is en extension of what began in the Sixties: Power to the People. Direct manifestations of power. Disregard for the mediating institutions.
True indeed that these new classes are continuing forward the displacement and dispossession processes that Wilmot Robertson outlined (and which cannot be spoken of in this highly controlled present), and this does indeed mean eventual ‘replacement’ as our corrupt leaders are very much aware (cf: Joe Biden speaking on the unrelenting waves of immigration leading to ethnic displacement of the original demographic).
Once the conditions are seen and defined — not a small task! — then a relation to them becomes . . . easier I guess is the word. A proper situational analysis naturally flows into place. But in order to get to that point a de-mystification process, a deprogramming, has to take place.
OK then, so let us define a ‘proper paideia’ for this rambunctious and now misruled and unruled America?
Regarding ‘replacement’
Conservative (former Democrat) activist Candace Owens also uses this concept in her speech.
Another big factor that fanned the support for Marxist ideology in South America and southeast Asia is the conflation of capitalism and colonialism’s abuses. Comunists encouraged that connection and the European powers didn’t help, Vietnam being a perfect example of this.
1. It’s unfortunate, but a college degree means less and less at a time when it’s nearly essential for getting a white collar job.
2. I didn’t vote for Cruz, but I have to say that he is brilliant on Twitter in a way that President Trump will never be.
3. Too bad. Critics are calling this Zellweger’s best performance.
4. This is like an abuser blaming the victim, “I wouldn’t hit you if you would just be good”. And then saying he didn’t do anything wrong when he gets arrested.
5. And they wonder why men think they’re hated and why a few troubled men turn reactionary.
Just yesterday, George Takei posted this on Facebook.
Here was my response.
Pick and choose what laws to enforce? Does he mean sanctuary cities? Or his he only upset about not enforcing laws only when it is one he likes?
2. I thought to buy one of these shirts ironically… as in, ‘yes the left does say this.’ But the shirts cost $30, and that money goes to Francis, sooo I will be looking for someone to copy the shirt for much less.
God bless capitalism!
4. The left defends themselves by assaulting those they disagree with. When the gloves come off, they will learn what ‘assault’ means in the meaningless term ‘assault weapon.’
5. Meh… it is the Democrats, Jack.
White men are being told they should be treated like second class citizens. Some of us believe the left when they say so.