That Was Then (and Them), This Is Now (and Us)

Two hundred years ago, there was money to be made "harvesting" the teeth of the battlefield dead to be used to make dentures for the wealthy. We today think that barbaric and ghoulish.

Today, there is even more money to be made "harvesting" the vital organs of the roadway not-quite-dead to be transplanted into the bodies of the wealthy-by-world-standards, and then more money to be made by keeping those people on immune-suppressant drugs for the rest of their lives. And we think this civilized and humane.

Isn't that odd?

A Real-Time Example of Unhinged/Irrational Jew-Hatred

First, here is a comment someone made to the YouTube video linked below --

These 2 are mouthpieces of Israel, they will tell lies like pushing democracy and will counter signal nationalism whilst promoting nationalism in Israel.

Next, here is my transcription of what Haviv Rettig Gur said at @10:44 mark --

I want 'International Law', I wish we had 'International Law'. Do you know what 'International Law' would mean? ... Palestinians? What the Hell has 'International Law' ever done for them? Has it protected them against Israel? Has it protected them from Lebanon, which for decades had laws on the books [... which] treated the Palestinian refugees, for four generations, in Lebanon, the way the Czarist regime treated the Jews ... Where was 'International Law' to protect Palestinians, either from us [Israel] or from anybody? ... Well, why didn't the Arab world take in any refugees from Syria? Why [do] Germany, Britain, and France have to take in more than all the Arab world combined; each one of them, on any given month, more than the Arab world ever has? 

As you can see, what the man actually said is the direct opposite of what the Jew-hater asserts that he (habitually) does.  If you pay attention, you'll see that this is a recurring theme amongst Jew-haters.

By the way, there is no such thing as 'International Law'. And, unlike the speaker, I don't want there to be such a thing, because I distrust the people who rule foreign countries even more than I distrust the ones who rule ours.  As he rightly says, a "law" which cannot be enforced -- you know, with force -- is not a law.  

To the very limited extent that there ever will be such a thing as 'International Law' in the foreseeable future, 'International Law' is whatever international agreements or obligations the United States is willing to expend treasure, and possibly lives, to enforce.

Winston Marshall:  “International Law” Doesn’t Actually Exist and The World ABUSES It | Haviv Rettig Gur

Tipping is not only un-American, it's downright anti-American

Tipping is not only un-American, it's downright anti-American. Even as a child, I understood it as a vestige of medievalesque class snobbery.

And while tipping in America may go back into the 19th Century, the widespread "tipping culture" -- which so many Europeans see as a baffling and uniquely American custom -- goes back only into my own childhood; that is, about 60 years ago.

I *know* that the general America populace did not tip 60 years ago because, even as a child, I used to read the 'Ann Landers' and 'Dear Abby' columns; and those two broads (*) periodically ran columns to "educate" their readers on: 1) how to tip. 2) when to tip, 3) what to tip, and 4) the "moral" obligation to tip. And, one of the thongs I noticed over time is that the "proper" percentage to tip increased over the years, with the "explanation" being that inflation necessitated it ,,, but no acknowledgement that inflation had worked its magic on both sides of the equation.

(*) those two actually bear a lot of the blame for the present-day moral degeneracy of American culture, for they were pushing "non-judgmentalism" (**). That is, they offered people, especially women, who were their main audience, a new set of "moral" expectations to replace of the ones that God gave us.

(**) which, in the end, turns out to be ultra-judgmental, just with the judgments based on morality turned on its head.

Matt Walsh: The History Of Tipping Culture, And How We Got To The "Tipping" Point

On "You Can't Legislate Morality"

Douglas Wilson: "Few statements are as vapid as 'You can't legislate morality.' As a matter of unvarnished fact, it is actually impossible to legislate anything else."

Amen.

My father was an intelligent man; I would say, a very intelligent man. But, even very intelligent people are products of their times, and tend to absorb and echo the perceived "elite consensus", same as everyone else does. My father was born in 1927, so his "time" was the last few years of the era of Prohibition and the aftermath of the repeal of Prohibition; and in that time, the "elite consensus" was very explicitly that "You can't legislate morality." (*)

Once, when I was quite young, in trying to explain to me why Prohibition turned out to be such an abject social and legal disaster, my father even said to me, "You can't legislate morality." As I recall, I was still at that young age wherein one tends to not seriously dispute one's parents pronouncements about how the world is. At the same time, even then the claim didn't sit well with me. I don't mean to imply that as a child I rejected the claim and could offer a logical and philosophical rationale for that rejection. Rather, my attitude was more, "I'll think about this when I'm older."

And, thinking about it when I was older, yet still in my teens, I came to the conclusion that, "As a matter of unvarnished fact, it is impossible to legislate anything else." That is, all prescriptive and proscriptive law is, in fact, the legislation of some morality or other. The question is never, "Shall we legislate morality?" but rather, "Which morality, how grounded, shall we legislate?"

(*) That "elite consensus", coupled with the fact that nearly everyone in our society accepted it as Gospel, is *why* all the immoral ills currently destroying our civilization were able to be inflicted upon us by our "elites".

Douglas Wilson: How to Bonk Heads With Yourself

Is Big Organ About to Face a Reckoning?

On this dusty little blog, I've been linking for years to news reports of "dead" people "waking up" as they were about to be chopped for parts. I long ago became one of the "conspiracy theorists" who understands that Big Organ is as corrupt, if not more so, as any other "Big 'X'" industry.

I will never consent to be either an organ donor nor a recipient, for the incentive structure in Big Organ is just to perverse: I don't want to be murdered to "save" another's life, nor do I want another to murdered to "save" mine (*).

Besides which, how awful must it be to spend the rest of your life as, in effect, a drug-addict to anti-rejection drugs? Not only is the organ transplant procedure a big money-maker for Big Hospital, but so too is the life-long prescription for immune-suppression drugs -- and the drugs to fight the subsequent infections -- a big money-maker for Big Pharma.

Always remember, and never forget: Big Medicine is not in the business of curing sick people, they are in the business of "treating disease" ... and a cured patient is a missed profit.

(*) ps: My life has already been saved by the murder of Christ; that's sufficient.

Matt Walsh: Man Is Almost Sacrificed In The Name Of Organ Donation

Matt Christiansen: RFK Jr. and HHS Investigate Botched Organ Harvesting | Whoops, They’re Still Alive

When Is Charity Not?

Notice the high-lighted claim this "whistleblower" makes -- the "migrant shelter" he was running was charging the tax-payers of Massachusetts $180 per room per night, even if the room was empty. *Someone* is making bank from this "charity".

Most institutional charity involves some sort of scam, and often fraud; it the very least, it is based on false premises. If there is "government money" involved, you can be sure that there is fraud involved ... and *you*, Dear Taxpayer, are on the hook for funding the scam.

I live in the middle of a city of 50K. This is an older part of the city, so the lots are on the small side, but they still average at least 50x150; that is, they are large enough that the residents could have a nice garden, did they wish to do the work to put in and maintain one.

Several years ago, the city -- at tax-payer expense -- put in a "community garden" on a vacant lot a few blocks from my house. During the summer, the city sends a water-truck around to water the "gardens". Shortly after creating the "gardens", the city -- again at tax-payer expense -- had to put a fence around the lot, to protect the "gardens" from vandalism (*). This wasn't a cheap fence; it's wrought-iron. And, it's gate is kept locked, except at posted times. So, that means that the city pays a public employee to come around to unlock the gate. I presume, but don't know, that that employee stays on the premises, at tax-payer expense, during open hours.

A few years ago, at a lot perhaps 1/2 mile from my house, a "charitable group", I presume a church, started serving a free meal once a day (at noon), regardless of weather. Because weather exists, they built a roof over the serving area. Then, due to the behavior of their clientele, they had to install ground-to-ceiling fencing around the roofed area. And, no surprise, the picnic tables are chained to weights.

I sometimes see some of the regulars "served" by this "charity". They tend to smoke, at the very least cigarettes; I've seen some of them "paper-bagging" alcohol. My point is that by indiscriminately giving people "free" food, what the "charity" is *really* doing is subsidizing their tobacco, and pot, and alcohol, and smart-phones.

(*) It's possible that what the city saw as vandalism was actually damage from deer. You see, while I live in the middle of a city of 50K, there is a family of deer who make my property their home-base. And that "community garden" is certainly close enough to be visited by them.

Every year, the matriarch doe has two fawns. Just the other day, I startled this year's twins. She seems to allow the previous year's fawns to stay with her, and I sometimes see all five together. A couple of years ago, I stepped out the front door and encountered a buck. It's not uncommon, as I'm working in my (fenced) garden, to notice one or two young deer watching me.

Believe you me, you don't want deer living in your yard: they eat nearly everything you try to grow.

Ex-Migrant Shelter Director Blows Whistle on Fraud

When Is a "Disabled" Person Not A "Disabled" Person?

Q: When Is a "Disabled" Person Not A "Disabled" Person?
A: Most of the time; and especially if there is a blue "Handicapped-On-Board" danglie on the rear-view mirror.

Diagnoses of 'Disability' -- whether in the military or in civilian life -- are in large part a scam of well-off people against the rest of us.

Consider the seemingly less contentious issue of "handicapped parking" -- When have you *ever* seen someone who is clearly "handicapped" using a "handicapped parking" spot?

No, what you almost always see played out is something I witnessed a few days ago at a home supply store. I had parked, and as I was opening the truck's door, another fellow parked near me ... and *then* affixed one of those blue "Handicapped-On-Board" danglies to his rear-view mirror Apparently, he didn't want other drivers to think he was a gimp. So, I sat in the truck to watch. He was not handicapped; I later encountered him in the store a couple of times. He was not handicapped.

Look, my mother was "handicapped" ... and I *detest* the "handicapped" mentality, and indeed the very term. To use *honest* straight-forward language, my mother was crippled. She was crippled from birth ... and her condition was made worse when she was a small child by *American* doctors and government bureaucrats using her as a human guinea-pig, much as was being done at the same time in Weimar Germany.

I can assure you, from many years experience of taking a crippled person shopping, that "handicapped parking" spots, no matter how close they are to the store entrance, are not really much of a help (*) to people who actually are "handicapped". But, they are indeed very useful to a certain type of upper-middle-class person (of either race) who wants the extra benefit of "reserved parking".

(*) It is much more helpful to your "handicapped" person to pull up to the entrance, help him or her exit the vehicle, go park it, and then meet the person. Why in the Hell would I have made my mother do all that extra walking (on crutches) just so that I had a "reserved" spot nearer the entrance?

Chicks on the Right: This Is Not What Disability Is Meant For!

More on "Big Organ Lost One"

I have written about this case before, back in October, 2024.

The news item linked below doesn't claim such, but an early statement in the piece *might* be understood as implying that the reason the man was declared to be "brain dead" in the first place was due to malpractice.

Understand this -- (the fact isn't examined as in depth as it deserves) some of the higher ups in the Donation-Industrial Complex were insistent upon chopping this man for parts, even after it was undeniable that he was not dead.

Understand this -- the *reason* that they now sedate the "corpses" from whom they harvest organs is because they *know* that there is a strong possibility that those people are not actually dead; there have been *many* cases, all across the world, in which "dead" people "woke up" as the surgeons were cutting into them. And thus, they now sedate the "dead" people before cutting into them.

Understand this -- once you know this truth about vital organ transplant (*), it is immoral -- it is damning of your immortal soul -- to take part, in any way, in this industry. It is better to die than to have the heart transplanted into your chest of a man who was murdered to make that heart available.

(*) The one exception I can think of would be to receive a "living donation" of a kidney.

Kentucky family demands answers after organs nearly taken from living man: 'Living nightmare'

Mossad ... and Equal Measures

You will see people asserting, with great pretense of knowledge, that Jeffery Epstein was a Mossad "asset", and that his criminal and immoral activities were done in furtherance of the interests of the State of Israel and in contradistinction to the interests of America.

Maybe this is so, I don't know either way. But, I *do* know, as a matter of reason, that Epstein could not have done what he did, nor for as long as he did, without the active protection of *American* "intelligence services".

So, here is my point -- when you see people blaming *Israel* for Epstein, and before any real evidence is in, but excusing America on the grounds that the CIA has "gone rogue", you can be assured that you are dealing with a Jew-hater, not a seeker of truth. And certainly not a Christian, for God requires us to judge with the same measure.

EDIT (2025/03/04):

Douglas Wilson: So Jeffrey Epstein Was a Jew . . .

A Twist in the Peanut the Squirrel and Fred the Raccoon Saga

Concerning Mr and Mrs Longo doing OnlyFans --

Well, of course they did! How can anyone be surprised at that twist, after seeing the short clip of Mr Longo describing the actions of the government agents and wherein Mrs Longo wiped fake tears from her fake eye-lashed eyes with her fake clawed hands while making sure to stay in the camera's field? I wish that all porno would be outlawed, and could be destroyed; it's destroying people's lives, on an industrial scale, and thus destroying our civilization. BUT, the Longos participation on OF is a separate matter from the abuse to which these government goons subjected them. Consider -- the goons had a warrant to search for and seize a squirrel and a raccoon ... and yet they spent five hours tearing those people's home apart. This is absurd; this is tyrannical.

===

Also, isn't it amazing that *this* governmental abuse is the one which "goes viral", while the daily ones -- such as releasing violent rapists and murderers onto society; such as facilitating the murders of millions of babies every year -- are met with a societal yawn?  What does that say about our society?  How can anyone be surprised that such an up-side-down society is committing suicide?

Keep in mind, this is the same State government which is currently prosecuting an innocent man for a charge of murder because his actions to protect the lives of a subway car full of other innocent people partially lead to the death of the mad druggie who was threatening them.  Keep in mind that the druggie seems still to have been alive when the "first responders" got there, but they didn't want to risk infection by trying to resuscitate him (*).  Keep in mind that there were *three* men who restrained the crazed druggie, but that only the white man is being prosecuted.

Keep in mind, this is the same State government which, according to Mr Longo, while being very concerned to verify the immigration status of his wife, ALSO releases violent illegal alien invaders onto the public.

(*) After I retired from a lifetime in IT, and until I couldn't take anymore of the Covid-19[84] bullshit, I took a very low-paying job ($10.60 per hour) driving wheel-chair bound people to their appointments. I -- with no particular professional training -- was expected to perform mouth-to-mouth resuscitation for these people, should the need arise, and to clean up any projectile vomiting that might occur (God be praised, I was spared both situations; though more than one passenger was delivered to me in a soiled state). AND, I wasn't permitted to know which of my passengers had AIDS (though, some were obvious).

Some online comments comment about Peanut and Fred --

=====

Government in a nutshell. Capricious, arbitrary, pointless, wasteful and dangerous exercise of state power.

=====

I hear all the "This generations Harambe".

I tell you, this is leagues worse. Harambe was a fully grown Gorilla in a stressful situation, and the kid was in genuine danger.

Peanuts was a squirrel barely the size of a house cat. He woudnt hurt anyone, even if he wanted to, and the raid was unwarranted (i dont care if they had a court ordered warrant, if the law does evil, the law is evil), not to mention all the agents swarming the place.

Harambe was a chain of accidents and bad decisions, Peanut and Fred were deliberate evil done by the state.

=====

Peanut's Story is the ultimate litmus test on whether or not you lick government boot. Peanut did not hurt anyone. In fact, he brought joy to thousands online. His owners took good care of him and he was neither physically abused nor malnourished. However, in New York State, it is technically illegal to own a squirrel as a domestic pet, especially without the proper licenses and permits allowing you to do so. As such despite the owners good intentions, they did break a series of laws, and if we are to live in a Trusted Society, we should apply proper punishments to those who do break laws. But now comes the question: Was the punishment that was given not only just, but appropriate and necessary? If not, what type of punishment should the owners have received? Should they have received one at all? What it really comes down to, is that Peanut's Story is total representation of the Anarcho-Tyranny that the Left wants across the West, wherein the State will ignore or even facilitate violent and lawless behavior by favored groups while cracking down with the full force of the armed law on irrelevant minor infractions by anyone else.

=====

"I have information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton" - Peanut the Squirrel, the final message.

Peanut meme

EDIT (2025/04/25):

It seems that the NY state bureaucrats had determined to kill the two animals even before the raid and seizure.

Viva Frei: Tom Fitton Exposes NY's Plot to Kill Peanut & Fred in Shocking FOIL Request!

Big Organ Lost One

I've written about this phenomenon several times over the years. And this is why the human chop-shops frequently sedate the "corpses" they are about to break down for parts. I guess they forgot to do that this time.

This is why I oppose the transplanting of vital organs as being immoral:
- because the "donors" aren't always dead;
- because the body-chopper declaring that the "donor" is dead does not mean that he is actually dead;
- because hospitals are not in the business of saving lives and alleviating suffering, they are in the business of making money ... and there is a lot of money to be made in selling off the vital organs of "donors".

Dead Man Wakes Up as Doctors Prepare to Harvest His Organs

About "Price-Gauging"

The puppet-masters of That Empty Vessel, Kaaamala (*) Sutra (**), recently instructed her that her policy will be to enact a federal law against "price-gauging", as she mispronounced the phrase.  Presumably, her TelePrompTer did have "price-gouging" written, but she, being as empty and vapid as she is, and perhaps not having been verbally informed as to what she would be fulminating against, could get no closer to the word "gouging" than to say "gauging".

Weird.

Still, my purpose here isn't to hammer on Kaaamala Sutra, but rather to demolish the concept of "price-gouging" itself -- to wit: I wish Gentle Reader to understand that there is no such thing as "price-gouging". The idea (and assertion) of "price-gouging" is founded upon a number of lies and hypocrisies. I'll try to elucidate these (with no guarantee that I've uncovered them all):

1) There is an objectively "right" price for a good or service: But, in fact, the only "right" price for a good or service is what someone else is willing to pay for it.  This "right" price" is both subjective and situational; it is subjective in that the persons who comprise the potential market for it will value it higher or lower in relation to other goods and services which they also desire; it is situational in that markets may change, both with respect to place and to time.

Consider: In the 19th century, before the invention of kerosene, the wealthier people lit their homes with lamps burning whale oil and/or candles made of whale oil.  There was an entire industry, centered in coastal New England, which sent thousands of men out onto the global oceans to "harvest" sperm whales to acquire this oil. The oil had a price -- based as all prices are, on the demand and the supply, and which varied over time as demand rose and supply fell. Yet, today, a century and a half later? Today, whale oil is both worthless and priceless: it is worthless in that there is no demand for it; it is priceless in that were there some eccentric individual who wanted whale oil to light his home, he would have to, in essence, rebuild that industry with his own effort and/or wealth.

2) There is some bureaucrat, somewhere, who, while knowing nothing about anyone else's life-circumstance, is competent to determine what the "right" price is for any good or service: This one is so absurd that I don't believe I need say more about it. I list it here for the sake of bringing it to Gentle Reader's attention.

3) It is "immoral" to offer a good or service for more than its "right" price: The corollary of this is, of course, that it is "immoral" to try to buy a good or service for less than its "right" price. We all know that no one who asserts the first will also assert the second, and certainly not with respect to his own desire to get a good or service as cheaply as he might.

4) "It's OK when I do it": This is related to 3) above; of those persons who whinge and fulminate about "price-gouging", there is not one person in one hundred who will not "price-gouge" in his turn should the opportunity arise.  The most prosaic example might be something like buying a house for $40,000 in 1980 and, having lived in it for 44 years (***), offering it for sale in 2024 for $250,000.

5) And, whatever other lies and hypocrisies I may have missed, the ultimate lie upon which the idea (and assertion) of "price-gouging" is based is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

(*) Don't you dare pronounce her name according to the normal stress and cadence of the English language, you raycisss!

(**) I wish to pay homage both to her ethnic heritage and to her "political" skills.

(***) BY THE WAY, since at least the Clinton years, the Democrats have dreampt of taxing homeowners for the "unrealized capital-gains" which accrue to them by virtue of not paying rent.  After all, how unfair is it that Person A pays rent for 44 years, and ends up owning nothing, while Person B pays a mortgage for 30 years and ends up owning a house which he might be able to sell for $250,000?!!!

And, they're openly at it again.

This is true in all years, but especially in this year: Vote Democrat at your own peril.

The Incoherence of Anti-anti-abortionism

I'm not "pro-life" -- that designation is the sort of "non-judgmental" pap cooked up on Madison Ave to appeal to a certain sort of woman -- I'm anti-murder, and thus I'm anti-abortion.

Earlier today, Jeremy at "The Quartering" uploaded a YouTube video in which he expresses his dismay, and even revulsion, about a recent trend on TikTok of "celebrating" the baby-murders one has commissioned.

Now, Jeremy's problem (as with Megyn Kelly) is wanting to have it both ways: wanting abortion to be "safe, legal, and rare" as the utterly immoral Clintons formulated it. But, this is incoherent, it is self-contradictory.

If an abortion is the murder of a helpless and innocent human being (and it is), then only a demon wants it to be "safe, legal"; and a moral person wants abortion to be not merely "rare" but illegal and prosecuted and punished, just as with any other method of murder.

But, if an abortion is of no more moral consequence than an appendectomy, then "safe, legal, and rare" is still incoherent and self-contradictory. Now, of a truth, all moral persons want appendectomies to be "safe, legal", but ""rare"!? No, a moral person wants appendectomies to be as numerous as they need to be.

I have had an inguinal hernia repaired, as had my father and also a great-nephew; I have had an appendectomy, as has one sister. The other sister has had her gall bladder removed, as had our mother.  Certainly, it would be odd and strange were any of us to be talking about these surgeries for no specific and relevant reason, much less to be boasting about them. But, would it really be "creepy"? Would these surgeries really be something to be ashamed of?  Of course not! They have no moral content of themselves. In contrast, and except for the super-rare case of "saving the life of the mother", abortion *is* immoral, utterly and always; for the *point* of all abortions except that super-rare case is to kill a baby.

The flood of lawlessness and degeneracy which is destroying America has many streams feeding it; two of the most important are: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Abortion Regime.  Either of those alone would have been enough to destroy the nation within just a generation or two -- and remember, both of those were set up within the lifetimes of millions of Americans now living. Do you *really* think that things can go on as they are for another 50 or 60 years?

It is not that "God is Gonna Get Us Because of Drag-Queen Story Hour", rather, Drag Queen Story Hour -- the deliberate grooming of children (*) into sexual perversion -- and much horror beside, IS the judgement of God upon this nation for its rejection of true morality and true law.

(*) You may have noticed that Drag Queen Story Hour is never held at Ye Olde Folkes Home.

The Quartering: "TikTok Abortion Vlogs Are Now A Popular Thing"

Matt Christiansen: "Whistleblower on Teen Gender Transitions, AZ Abortion Ban"

Comes the Word, Comes the Day

Comment by nihilist2christian:"Some day we are going to look back on this time and these practices the same way we view lobotomy, and those practising it in the same way we see people like Josef Mengele."

The arrival of that day requires, at a minimum, that sane people *refuse* to cooperate with their false language. Non-exhaustively, and in no particular order:

1. NEVER use ‘gender’ to refer to ‘sex’; people do not come in ‘genders’, we come in sexes, and there are precisely two sexes;
2. Refuse to use their made-up pseudo-pronouns;
3. Refuse to use “she/her” to refer to a male, or “he/him” to refer to a female;
4. Refuse to use the made-up words “transman” and “transwoman” and “transkids” and the demeaning and dehumanizing prefix “cis-“. The "cis-" prefix is especially grotesque, as its purpose is to trick you into mentally (and metaphysically) re-defining the true and normal in terms of the false and abnormal;
5. Train yourself to stop saying “they/them” when you are referring to one person;
6. Train yourself to stop saying “biological male” and “biological female” — there are no other kinds. So, using that qualifier is already to bow to the leftists' false language.  In a situation in which you want to make it undeniable that you are distinguishing *real* men and women from the fake, use words like "real", "actual" and "fake", "pretend".

Shadow to Light: Are “Gender Affirming” Procedures Doing Harm?

The Charitable-Industrial Complex

 According to the linked page, concerning the MS Society for 2022, the top three officers "earned" --

1) $473,993 compensation + $33,351 other
2) $331,191 compensation + $34,536 other
3) $325,645 compensation + $50,221 other

These, and other similarly "compensated" persons, are those who set the leftist/commie policies by which the organization tossed overboard a 90-year-old woman who had been a volunteer for 60 years ... because she didn't understand Current Year's Pronoun Madness.

One will find similar results for most "charities" -- the Charitable-Industrial Complex is a scam.

ProPublica: National Multiple Sclerosis Society

When is a Constitution "unconstitutional?"

The ongoing left-right political battle in the US is at root a battle between two conflicting and contradictory moral systems, as mediated by a battle between two conflicting and contradictory constitutions: the written US Constitution of 1787, on the one hand, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (*) and its penumbras and emanations, on the other hand.

When the Republicans enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1964, they weren't content simply to overturn the Democrats' various "Jim Crow" violations of the Constitution, which unconstitutionally differentiated citizens by race before the bureaucrats of various of the States and which violated citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association. Oh, no! The Republicans were too clever by half, imagining that there were going to "pwn" the Democrats, and so they were played by the leftists: they drafted a law which violates citizens' rights of association by compelling them to differentiate one another by race in private association (but in the opposite direction to what the Democrats had been doing theretofore) and laid the groundwork for future legislative acts and court rulings which unconstitutionally differentiate citizens by race, and eventually by "identification", before the bureaucrats of the totalizing administrative state.

"Woke culture" is the natural and inevitable out-working of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the subsequent additions to it.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- much of which is actually unconstitutional -- is being used by the leftists as the means to destroy the legitimacy of our Constitution and thus to destroy our Republic.

For example -- In 2008, the citizens of California passed Proposition 8, which amended the California Constitution to overrule a state-court imposition of "gay marriage" on the citizens of that State. A federal court later ruled that this legally-enacted provision of California's Constitution was "unconstitutional".

One might ask, "On what grounds was this amendment to the California Constitution decreed to be unconstitutional?" Why, on the grounds of the judge's interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Mind you, this was years before the US supreme court imposed "gay marriage" on the citizens of the entire nation, in contravention of the written US Constitution.

For example -- You may be aware of a Turkish-born rabid leftist by the name of Cenk Uygur, who claims (or claimed) to be running for the Democratic nomination to the US Presidency.

Now, Cenk Uygur is a naturalized US citizen; which is to say, the US Constitution expressly forbids him to occupy the office of the US Presidency. And what do you think is Mr Uygur's strategy to get around this encumbrance? Why, and of course, it is to try to get a federal judge to rule that the US Constitution itself is "unconstitutional" ... on the grounds that by the Civil Rights Act it is "unfair" for the US Constitution and US law to distinguish between a naturalized citizen and a natural born citizen, wedded to the false assertion that the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution erases the distinctions between classes of citizenship.

(*) A deep dive examination of these conflicting constitutions will take us from the false constitution's rancid fruiting in Current Year's "Woke culture", to its flowering in Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society", to its growth in Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal", to its cultivation in Woodrow Wilson's and Theodore Roosevelt's Progressive Movement, and will ultimately find the seed of the false constitution in Abraham Lincoln's violations of the written Constitution ... in the name of "preserving" that Constitution and the Union therewith established.

Auron MacIntyre: "Civil Rights Law Is a Problem"

Auron MacIntyre: "Why We're No Longer Governed by the Constitution"

Orphaned By Divorce

No matter how old you are, if your parents divorce, you eventually end up being orphaned twice! And the first orphaning feels like surviving a loved one's suicide.

On Internet Scams

For every Nigerian Prince trying to get access to your life's savings, there are 100 YouTubers doing ad-reads for scam products or services.  I'll try to explain the scamishness of the broad categories I can think of at the moment:

GOLD -- gold is not an investment. At best, gold is a hedge -- but only if you actually possess the physical gold.  Far more commonly, gold is a gamble, a speculation, and the more-so when all you have in hand is a piece of paper saying that you own some hypothetical amount of hypothetical gold in some hypothetical vault hypothetically somewhere.  And when do the big boy speculators ever let "the little guy" win at the game of speculation?  The whole point of speculative bubbles is to get you, "the little guy", to voluntarily dump the contents of your pockets into their pockets.

THE INTERNATIONAL ART MARKET -- The international art market is a massive money-laundering scheme.  Perhaps that bubble is about to burst, and so the people running it are trying to entice *you* into being the sucker left holding the (now empty) bag.  Even if those ad-reads to entice you to "invest" in the international art market were legit, at best you would have a speculation, not an investment.

DECLARE YOURSELF A LORD/LAIRD OR LADY -- You, Gentle Reader, are almost certainly a citizen of the  American Republic; thus, the very idea of declaring yourself to be a lord/laird or lady ought to be repugnant to you, even were this ad-read not a scam.  You do not become a laird or lady because someone enticed you to waste good money for a piece of paper claiming that you are the "owner" of a square foot of land in Scotland.

FAMOUS JAPANESE STEEL KNIVES -- With these scams, at least you get something of some value, however under-performing, in return.  Admittedly, the knives are over-hyped and over-priced; but at least the scammy ad-read doesn't claim that they are an investment.

MEN'S SKIN-CARE PRODUCTS -- Again, over-hyped and over-priced, but at least you get something of some sort of value in return.. However, what are you, some sort of sissy?  Are you going to use "foundation" next?  You know, one major reason that women often look older than men of the same age is all that shit which they slather over their faces from the time they are pre-teens.  That, and smoking -- a higher proportion of women than men smoke, and smoking dramatically ages one's skin.  By all means, take care of your health, including of your skin ... but these products will help neither your overall health nor the health of your skin. And, they're wildly expensive to boot.

DOG FOOD ADDITIVES -- Again, over-hyped and over-priced. If, as the ad-read asserts, typical dog-food, such as you are currently feeding you dog, is "dead" and bereft of nutrients, how is it that your dog hasn't already ascended to that Great Kennel In The Sky?

"QUALITY" MEATS and MEAL INGREDIENTS SHIPPED TO YOUR DOOR -- Once again, over-hyped and over-priced, but at least you get something with some degree of value for the money you wasted.  It's just meat, and it's just ingredients such as you can buy at any grocery store ... but with far more packaging to be thrown away and more shipping costs (i.e. a higher "carbon footprint").  You care about the environment, don't you, Hippy?

JOB STACKING -- "Job stacking" is the scam which claims to teach you how to successfully "work" multiple full-time jobs from home without getting "caught by corporate overlords".  Think about this: if you know you are not doing anything wrong, why would you be afraid of being caught by "corporate overlords"? AND, if you are a moral "influencer", why would you lend you name to this sort of scam?

So, what is my over-arching point? It is that to do these ad-read is to lend one's name and reputation to these scams -- it is to attempt to scam one's audience on behalf of these scammers.  "I need to assure a steady income" will no more withstand God's scrutiny than will "I was just following orders".

Socialized Medicine, Again

Headline: "Canadian Woman Dies After Waiting 10 Weeks for Cancer Treatment"

 Well, it's not quite that she simply died, it's that she was murdered by the Canadian state.

https://www.lifenews.com/2023/12/18/canadian-woman-euthanized-after-waiting-10-weeks-for-cancer-treatment-appointment/

Again. This Is Socialized Medicine

Listen carefully to this report -- they have done / are doing just the *opposite* counting these medical murders than they did counting "deaths 'with' Covid-19[84]"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTvaglqROCw