This is a magnificent presentation. I catch this guy’s podcast, I devour his videos etc, and I agree with probably 90% of what he says. I consider myself a better person for the decisions I make when considering the things I learn from Molyneux.
He styles himself a philosopher, and makes great efforts to engage in that arena. It’s adorable, really. He’s a mensch.
Here’s a talk that seems to make some of the motivations and actions of “Radicals” a lot clearer. The speaker contrasts “Liberals” (who believe the individual is the basic social unit, and that the person is distinct from the social group) with “Radicals” (who believe that the group is the basic social unit). Particularly interesting is the notion of “Social Determinism”, in which one group has power and another group resists the power (Apparently, the main human dynamic).
Anyways, it’s made it a lot clearer when hearing some of the “resist” jargon and the talk of intersectionality of groups. In a way it’s a bit scary to hear someone discussing the tenets of Radicalism in such a clear, calm tone.
Premium Member ctlaw pointed out a fascinating recent phenomenon on the recent RAMU: fraudulent reviews of Amazon products, accomplished not through the review process, but by the seller swapping out well-reviewed products for chintzy junk that doesn’t work, leaving the positive reviews in place.
Here’s a well-done overview of some aspects of Amazon review fraud. I don’t care much for BuzzFeed, but they’re good at two things — hit and run content, and SEO.
BuzzFeed News found items across many different Amazon categories — electronics, cookware, health and personal care — that include reviews that refer to wildly different products.
This earbuds listing includes a May 15 review that reads, “If you are looking for a long lightning charger, this is the one to get.” Based on a detail in the review, it appears the charging cable was added as a product “color” variation (“Earphones 46”) to the earbud listing by the manufacturer, CaseyPop.
I, having just met the love of my life (Reader, I married him!) was right here, with the living room darkened so nothing would obscure the TV , sneaking away upstairs occasionally ( to my usually placid, easygoing father’s extreme annoyance) to finish a dress I was making for my next glamorous outing with The Boy From New York City. (The dress, in a bright orange fabric , was simplicity (and Simplicity) itself, called a “bubble dress”: a loose shift with a low elastic band so the top part “bubbles” out over the bottom at about hip level…what a forgiving style!
But enough about (beautiful young) me! Im writing to tell you, O Ratty, that if you want to celebrate the moonwalk, the spirit, the ethos, of it—
in my opinion, you can’t do better than to read (or re-read) Tom Wolfe’s wonderful The Right Stuff.
Pennsylvania is on the verge of banning all “child” (under 18) marriages, even with the consent of parent or guardian of the minor. Last year Delaware, bolstering its creds as a member of the Union rather than the erstwhile Confederacy, became the first state in the US to enact such a ban.
That reminded me that, when I first started practicing, New Castle, Delaware was the Gretna Green of the tri-state area. AS it had been long ago in Pennsylvania, 16 was the age of consent there. Does any Ratty reading remember that as a thing? A quick online search reveals that New Castle still has a large number of “elopement chapels”.
But what struck me, O Ratty, was that back then (vicinity of 1980), getting married was regarded as a marker of freedom and independence.
I had a pro bono client, 16 and pregnant, in foster care, whose sole identifiable parent was…..well, I never met the biological grandmom but I’m not sure she was even compos mentis….for whatever reason, her consent to my client’s eminently reasonable desire to marry the baby-daddy was not forthcoming. ( I told my young client I would do everything I could to get the emancipation decree in time for her baby could be born in wedlock; she replied, “Where’s that?” )
Here’s where we are now: if a girl ( underage or just..still youngish) gets pregnant, marriage is the last thing on her, or anybody’s mind. The rationale for the absolute ban on any marriages by a party under 18 is that such “infants” are being sold or trapped into bondage without the mental capacity to comprehend the awful sentence of imprisonment to which they’re agreeing.
Here in our mountain fastness, I’ve often found myself congratulating a young friend who has conceived, and asking so, when’s the wedding?
The answer is very often: oh, not until after the baby is born; we’ve got no money, no sense in getting married when you don’t have money! ( Really? Cue Sonny and Cher’s I Got You Babe…)
Okay then—-who does have the money? Y’know, for prenatal care, infant accoutrements? Usually, the young mom’s own birth family. That’s the new American family unit: an unwed mom, her child, and the unwed mom’s mother or possibly both parents. Casey Anthony is the new face of American motherhood.
Getting married used to be thought of by American kids as a bold gesture of independence, as emancipation from the chafing strictures of childhood. An act of defiance, of self-determination. The troth could set you free!
Elopement was daring, romantic, defiant: “…and even if we hafta run away/ I’m marryin’ that boy some day!”
Now—well, God only knows what the boys are thinking. They’re liable for child support whether they marry the mom or not, so maybe they just don’t care. And the girls, even if pregnant, don’t even seem to seriously contemplate such radical change as marriage in their lifestyle or status.
In the course of my pro bono representation of minors, I dealt with many kids whose main problem in life was their parents or guardians. They couldn’t do much on their own because of the legal incapacities of infancy, and their elders, spitefully or just stupidly, sought to obstruct any course of action to which they aspired. They just had to wait it out. They longed to establish their own households.
It’s just…a big change in attitudes toward marriage, the enormity of which dawned on me with sudden clarity today. Any thoughts, O Ratty?
I went poking around for the Bible in ebonics. I lol’d at the lolcat version before it got done in by unfunny hacks. Figured I would try the ebonics version.
Closest I got was some faul Hawaiian thing. But a reference to an attempt is posted on an old C Language board, which see.
And what is the first thing that jumps out at me? Look at all of the conservatism! Computer programming even when done by old hippie greybeards who voted Democrat or worse was *still* a science which demanded right answers, and had an effect upon those who practiced it.
Look at the fearlessly casual rejection of political correctness! I don’t mean that these people voted for Reagan, W Bush, Gingrich, Rudy, Romney, or Trump, nor even McCain, HW Bush, or any other GOPE rentier. I mean that they had zero stomach for namby-pamby lectures arising from their midst about the proper way to go about enjoying a joke or understanding a squishy concept. And back in the day (this was contemporary with the heyday of Little Green Footballs), the internet was not a humorless danger zone.
It was the Wild Wild West, and it was funny as ksjdhfjdgfhjk\b \bd\b \bf\b \bh\b \b CONNECTION RESET BY PEER
Last year I wrote a dozen posts to report on the assaults by mass media on Evangelical Christians. I cited the many hatchet-job articles and a representative handful (out of many dozens) of editorials from mass media to document their collective attempt to suppress Trump voters and boost Democrat prospects in the 2018 midterm elections. Things quieted down after Christmas, but then heated up over abortion when a number of red states were working on bills to restrict abortion. The focus stayed on Culture of Death issues all spring, with a few occasional bursts of Catholic-bashing thrown in.
But now I see signs of a renewed energy in media attacks on Evangelicals. This looks like the ramp-up to 2020 campaigning. I am not alleging any conspiracy. All I am pointing out is that journalists as a group hate President Trump and hate the voters who put him in office. Since they are overwhelmingly irreligious, they neither understand nor wish to understand the concerns of Christians.
Journalists have latched on to the statistics about the overwhelming support from Evangelical Christians who form the core of President Trump’s voters. In particular, media accounts like to cite the statistics about white Evangelical support, as they set up a ‘people-of-color v whites’ meme going into the campaigns. Evidently they feel that they own non-Christian white women and have given up on white men entirely (except for gays and the Leftist elite white men who work in media or academia or Democrat politics).
Although Evangelicals have considered mass media to be hostile ever since the rise of Jerry Falwell Sr. and the Moral Majority in the Reagan era, the hostility expressed towards Evangelicals by mass media has only grown in the decades since then, and became an uproar after the election in November of 2016. Since it is old news now, the energy behind mass media attacks on traditionalist Christians is reduced, but it will resume its previous intensity as the 2020 election approaches.
The thrust of most of the coverage I have seen in the first half of 2019 was a trickle of articles either by or focused on theological liberals. These are Christians who have “emerged” beyond the Bible, and in many cases have “emerged” beyond Jesus. They still claim to be Christians, but that is a dishonest label for these heretics. Mass media love them because they complain bitterly about how traditionalist Christians have “tossed morality aside in their rush to embrace President Trump.” It seems to me that the main emphasis in these articles is to cause weak-minded Christians to fall away from support of President Trump.
Now, to recent activity:
In March, Pew Forum printed an article with new sifting of polling results. Their article was titled “Evangelical approval of Trump remains high, but other religious groups are less supportive.” Several articles and editorials were published that cited this poll. What the poll asked is “Do you approve of the way President Trump is handling his presidency?” Then they made a big deal out of the fact that the highest support for President Trump is among white Evangelicals.
Well now, when it comes to that, I might say I disapprove of the way President Trump is handling some aspects of his presidency, even though I enthusiastically approve of President Trump’s nominees, policy moves, and foreign relations. If you asked me right after some particularly cringeworthy tweet from the President, I might give you a negative answer. Especially I would think it is probably my duty to give a false answer to pollsters, just as a matter of principle. So I don’t think Pew’s finding is particularly meaningful, though I don’t doubt the finding.
At any rate, this became background for more recent ramping up of anti-Trump-voter media shenanigans.
In April, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend Indiana formally announced his candidacy for president in 2020. He was immediately treated to a round of fawning articles by media. They all took pains to quote Mayor Pete B.’s comments about his theologically liberal Episcopalian religion, and then they delighted when he went on the attack against Mike Pence. Pence, who had previously had friendly terms with Mayor Pete for several years, was caught blind-sided, but was gracious in his responses, indicating that he considered Buttigieg’s attacks to be just politics and not really personal. Buttigieg, as an out homosexual in a homosexual marriage, was swamped with a mountain of money from Big Gay, which garnered him even more media attention (they all reported the size of the contributions received and carefully did not report where they were coming from).
Buttigieg’s attacks on traditionalist Christian Mike Pence followed the typical template long established by Leftists for leveraging theologically-liberal religion in attacks against traditionalist Christians by proof-texting verses from the Bible. There really isn’t anything new there. It is very formulaic.
Buttigieg understands that the remarks he makes regarding religion are the remarks that hook reporters’ interest the most. They love attacking the GOP on the subject of religion, since they are unbelievers who think all religion is hypocrisy anyhow. Buttigieg has used religion as his main platform on several occasions. Regarding the border, he railed about Trump Administration treatment of minors and declared that the GOP “has lost all claim to ever use religious language again.”
New rape accusation leveraged by Nevers
E. Jean Carroll released a new book in June, in which she accused President Trump of rape in a 1996 incident. NeverTrump David French led the immediate charge, using the new allegation for a fresh attack against Christians who support President Trump. Other Nevers and several Leftist “Christians” jumped on that bandwagon. Mostly, they simply cited the new allegation and then proceeded to recycle stuff they have been saying interminably since 2016.
That story quickly faded since Ms. Carroll has absolutely nothing in the way of supporting evidence and there are some inconsistencies between the book and remarks she made pre-publication and post-publication. President Trump strenuously denies the allegation.
More of the old stuff recycled
A Democrat you never heard of gave a speech and followed up with tweets saying that it is un-Christian to support President Trump. Yawn.
A Leftist journalist with ties to a liberal church wrote a long feature trashing Evangelical whites.
The Washington Post wrote another feature about Paula White. Rev. White is a fave of President Trump. She is a “prosperity gospel” preacher. WashPo has written several previous features about her; they seem to think she is a sinister influence on the President, whom they hate. This feature is more mocking, scoffing and feigned shock; simply a rehash of their previous features on this topic.
(I am using the word “feature,” because these are longer than average and contain so much editorial content buried in an “article” that you cannot call it either an article or an editorial.)
The Atlantic ran another interminably long feature by Peter Wehner to trash Evangelicals. Wehner has Republican credentials on his resume, but went so strongly NeverTrump that he has been carrying water for the Left for over two years. (Wehner is associated with the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which Wikipedia calls “conservative.” They are conservative in the sense that they have religion, but it is “centrist” at best, in the sense that their positions are what you would expect from “conservative” Democrats from liberal churches. EPPC is the outfit that gives Mona Charen her “ethics” credential.)
Wehner’s feature cites and links to other Atlantic features that slime President Trump and the Trump Administration as “cruel” “immoral” “klansmen,” “guilty” of “white supremacy,” “angry” “ethnic cleansing” and a host of additional fevered-imaginary “malignant” “crimes.”
Wehner’s feature got a round of approval from the usual suspects. WashPo leveraged it by running a companion piece in which Jennifer Rubin interviewed Wehner. Salon and most of the Leftist blogosphere cited Wehner’s feature, and used it as a hook for launching their own opprobrium.
It is only notable for the way it directly attacks white Evangelicals. Here is a sample:
The enthusiastic, uncritical embrace of President Trump by white evangelicals is among the most mind-blowing developments of the Trump era. How can a group that for decades—and especially during the Bill Clinton presidency—insisted that character counts and that personal integrity is an essential component of presidential leadership not only turn a blind eye to the ethical and moral transgressions of Donald Trump, but also constantly defend him? Why are those who have been on the vanguard of “family values” so eager to give a man with a sordid personal and sexual history a mulligan? …
Politico correspondent Tim Alberta had a new book release about the 2016 campaign. There was a flurry of articles that are derivative of things in the book. Some are recent, but most of the quotes are from the context of the primary season in early 2016. But some old news made it into anti-Evangelical headlines that then got featured by the Google News aggregator. Here are two examples:
An article at BusinessInsider had this:
Michael Steele, the former chairman of the Republican National Committee, called evangelical Christians who support President Donald Trump “the biggest phonies of all,” in a new book by the journalist Tim Alberta. … He went on, “These are the people who spent the last forty years telling everyone how to live, who to love, what to think about morality. And then this motherf–ker comes along defiling the White House and disrespecting God’s children at every turn, but it’s cool, because he gave them two Supreme Court justices. They got their thirty pieces of silver.”
TalkingPointsMemo recycled this:
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) had some pointed words for evangelicals who supported then-candidate Donald Trump.
“If you’re a faithful person, if you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, emerged from the grave three days later and gives eternal life, and you’re supporting Donald Trump, I think there’s something fundamentally wrong with you,” he said according to Politico Magazine chief correspondent Tim Alberta book “American Carnage” obtained by the New York Times.
They loved those quotes from 2016 so much they just had to run them again. We will see them all several more times before November of 2020.
Most recently I heard a feature at NPR. Yeah, I know. I listen so you don’t have to. Nothing they had to say is worth repeating. As journalism, it was not bad quality, in that the reporters did not add a lot of editorializing. Of course, they did not need to add anything because they only covered one side of the story. They ran quotes from two Democrat consultants, two Democrat office holders, and then for balance they interviewed one woman described as:
“…child advocate Kelly Rosati, a Colorado-based evangelical activist who promotes adoption, foster parenting and orphan care. Rosati abandoned the Republican Party after concluding it was insufficiently compassionate, but neither does she identify as a Democrat, largely because of the party’s stance on abortion issues.”
So much for “balance.”
Actually, I am not much bothered by the lack of conservative voices. I have been thinking for years that all Republicans and conservatives should quit returning calls to NPR. They are a hostile entity.
Well, that is the state of media’s ongoing never-ending campaign for the Left, in so far as their assaults on Evangelical Trump voters.
Journalists are the Enemy of the People.
At least 95 % of them are.
Please do everything possible to spread ridicule on mass media Fake News. They oppose America and everything that America ever stood for. They oppose Christ and Christianity. They oppose liberty. They oppose traditional family formation. They oppose truth. They are working to bring about the collapse of western civilization.
We told gun-grabbing limey Piers Morgan to go back where he came from as well, and for the same reason. We didn’t like the content of his character.
If any person wishes to extol the virtues of some culture as superior to that of the United States, then that person should go to that place, and if they came from that place, then they would “go back” to that place.
Americans don’t have to take this pie-in-the-face.
I saw the poem in question and did not read it at American Greatness. Like most websites, I like some of what is there, and not everything else.
However, what struck me here, is this final line by Rich:
And this from the publication that imagines itself an intellectually serioustribune of Trumpism.
Well, golly! For years now, when someone writes something at NRO that I find appalling, I am told that is not the stance of NRO, but the individual writing it. NRO publishes Mona, after all, and she is openly telling Democrats what they need to do to defeat the most conservative administration since Reagan.
So, might I say about National Review on Mona:
And this from the publication that imagines itself the defender of standing athwart history and yelling “Stop!”
I suppose everyone saw that a terrorist had tried to bomb an ICE facility in Tacoma using Molotov cocktails and a propane tank bomb, and was killed in a shootout.
I doubt if any of you learned anything of the details, because journalists seemed really un-curious and unwilling to follow up. The details got left out; there was no reporting on several aspects of the attacker and his motives, which were vaguely reported as “unclear” by media outlets hostile to ICE.
Since the attack, the terrorist’s name or stated motivation has yet to be reported on CNN, MSNBC, or the evening/morning news shows on CBS, NBC, or ABC, based on a review of Grabien’s archive of news programming. Nor was the story mentioned on any of the Sunday morning political talk shows, despite border detention being such a dominant topic in the preceding months.
On Saturday, CNN’s Polo Sandoval reported on the terror attack, but only to say that “police have not established a motive.”
Willem van Spronsen was a part of AntiFa of Seattle, was known to police, and had previously been arrested for attacking that same facility in Tacoma last year. He was allowed to plead guilty to a lesser charge.
He was part of an AntiFa mob that roughed up Andy Ngo, and Ngo had reported him for making threats, but police showed no interest.
The manifesto he left behind borrowed language from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez likening ICE detainment facilities to “concentration camps,” which he did six separate times. He encourages others to follow him and “arm themselves.”
Once again mass media reveal themselves to be partizan hacks. The Enemy of the People.
This appeared in a newspaper in a little town, 40-odd years ago. Now I know why I saved it: so you all could see it on this day.
The full moon hangs above the trees, As if some giant on his knees Were peering down into the yard. Is he spying – or on guard? His huge, round head is milky white, As pale as death, as blank as light Itself, like an enormous hole In the purple sky. A mole Scurries across the field; a cat Pounces. The shadow of a bat Flitters across the face of the moon. Expressionless, he watches. Soon The giant will stand up and climb Into the sky. Now! It is time. He clambers over the trees and leaps – Has he stumbled? – No, he keeps His balance! He is free and flies Up swiftly through a cloud, which tries Vainly to pull him down to earth. Suddenly, he laughs. His mirth Spreads silently across the sky. The yard is washed in pale moonlight: The trees quiver in delight.