Telemarketers: Why Not At Least Pretend to Respect the People You Annoy

What's with these people constantly calling, pretending to want to buy my property? It goes in waves, one or two per day for a few days, then stops for a while. With most of the calls, you can tell that it's from a telemarketer/call-center before the call-center computer routes the connection to "the next available representative".

One of my *speculations* is that at least some of these call are being made for the county tax-man, as a cheap way to do the property tax re-evaluations.

And, speaking of telemarketers -- the whole "industry" is vile enough as it is, but that they don't even respect me/us enough to bother me/us with "representatives" who at least speak English really annoys me.

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

The Food Stamp [Recipients] Are Officially Out Of Control

The title of Matt Walsh's linked video is "The Food Stamp Influencers On TikTok Are Officially Out Of Control", but I like my version of it better.

At the start of my 10th grade year, so more than 50 years ago, my father was laid up for months due to a broken hip(*). Then, less than a year and a half later (**), he was laid up again with the *other* hip broken.  

SO, for a while, my family relied on Food Stamps -- and it was damned embarrassing, it was shame-inducing.  Once I was old enough to have a part-time job, when I had the money to do so, I'd buy the family groceries with my own money and return the food stamps unspent to my mother, just to avoid the embarrassment of pulling the damned things out in public.  I also planted a garden in the back yard to grow some of our food.

But, as I said, that was 50+ years ago; and my, how times have changed.  These days, people *boast* about being government dependents (***), living as wards of Big Momma Government, rather than as functioning adults; people *boast* about using their vote to install politicians and bureaucrats who loot you and me to subsidize themselves (meaning, both the voters and the voted-for).

(*) As he was crossing the street -- legally, in the cross-walk, with the crossing-light -- a young woman stopped at the intersection, distracted by arguing with her boyfriend, must have slipped her foot off the brake.  Anyway, she rolled forward, struck my father, and his hip broke.

(**) He was heading downtown on foot one winter day, As he passed the spot where a building had been demolished the previous summer, he stepped on a piece of ice-covered busted-up sidewalk that hadn't been fixed after the demolition, and down he went.

(***) I recently saw a video clip of a couple of fat lesbians (one of whom pretends to be a man), boasting about free-loading off you and me.  The one literally called herself "professionally disabled" -- that is, she's on welfare because she "can't" work to support herself -- and added that "he" (i.e. the other lesbian) is "paid to take care of me" -- that is, she is enrolled in another type of government-run welfare-scam to fleece you and me for the benefit primarily of the bureaucrats and secondarily of their clientele. 

I recently saw another clip of a woman bitching because she could no longer use the EBT card to pay to have her nails done. Horror of horrors, she had to use "her own money" to pay for the utterly useless and pointless nails.  Or, as she lamented, "Now, how am I going to pay the rent?"

=====
In America, "poor people" aren't "poor" primarily because they have no money, but because of their own choices: either to not work and earn money in the first place, or to frivolously waste what money they do acquire. In America, being "poor" is a choice.  In America, most "poor people" are "poor" because they are damned lazy.

Matt Walsh: The Food Stamp Influencers On TikTok Are Officially Out Of Control

"The Homeschoolers Who Proved That School Is a Waste of Time"

=====
"Of course, there are disadvantages to homeschooling, too. If enough people do it, tattoo artists, body-piercing parlors, drug dealers, and abortionists may go out of business."
=====

Also, contrary to their constant whining, teachers are NOT underpaid. Moreover, these days, even the somewhat normal ones, the ones who aren't trying to recruit you children into sexual perversion, tend to be idiots.

I wasn't home-schooled, but three years of my schooling (8th-10th grades) was comparable to home-schooling. And, if not for those three years of absence from the government-union run indoctrination centers, I know that I would not have finished high school, much less college. By the way, overnight, I went from being a "C- student" to being a "straight A student" (and this was without "grade inflation").

The final straw (*) occurred when I was in 7th grade, and the principal told my father, "We don't need students like your son in our school", and my father decided, "You know, I think I agree that my children don't need to be in your school.". You see, I had dared to fight back against a kid who bullied me daily. And worse, I had dared to "call out" a teacher who was refusing to protect an unpopular kid from a mob of "vibrant youth", a few of whom intended to beat the shit out of him (**), and the others to watch and laugh at his pain and injury.

So, my father found places for us for the next school-year in a Seventh-Day Adventist school (we are not Adventists). This wasn't cheap. Or, rather, it *was* cheap, but it was also a *huge* portion of the family income (as I recall, the first year cost $1000 for the four of us).

This is how I think that that "religious" schooling was somewhat comparable to home-schooling: Each class was actually two grades, combined (1/2, 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 9/10). Other than the 9th and 10th grades, a single teacher taught the combined classes: sometimes the two grades received the same lesson, but usually one grade had "study hall" while the other had active instruction, all in the same room. As I mentioned, I went from being a "C- student" in 7th grade, to being a "straight A student" in 8th grade. Moreover, I not only had time -- while at school -- to do all my school-work, but I also had free time to do what interested me. What interested me was history, and without knowing what it was, during that free time I read the entire history book that would be the text in 9th grade history class.

(*) Mind you, this was 55+ years ago. The public schools have been shit for a very ling time.

(**) You've surely seen some of the recent videos of gangs of "vibrant youth" knock someone to the ground and then kick the defenseless person in the head . This behavior is not new.

Selwyn Duke: The Homeschoolers Who Proved That School Is a Waste of Time

"They" Don't Need to Keep You Down; You're Doing Fine By Your Own Efforts

Open letter to the American people --

Times are tough, everyone agrees: a person just can't get ahead. Rent, food, gass: everything is just so expensive.

That's why --

You are still smoking (of either/or sort) and drinking. Frequently.

You sit in your car -- sometimes for hours -- with the engine running, so that the A/C can be on ... as you doom-scroll on your phone.

You have the latest cell phone for every member of the family, including the children, with associated *monthly* costs. Oddly, you almost never use those phones to actually *talk* to anyone.

Every year, you spend hundreds of dollars you don't have "doing" Christmas. After all, you "deserve" it.

You also spend a small fortune to have a personal fireworks show, possibly for several nights running.

You insist on taking an expensive vacation every year.

You simply must have your "weave" and claws and spider-lashes, and the nails of your fingers and toes must be artistically painted. To say nothing of the expensive "product" with which you slather your face.

How  many hundreds or dollars, if not thousands, have you thrown away defacing your body with tattoos and piercings?

You eat "fast food", daily ... and pay someone an outrageous amount of money to deliver it to you. Someone could make a fortune offering to shovel it into your gullet for a price.

If you *do* happen to have a "home-cooked" meal, it was made of pre-packaged ultra-processed "convenience foods", rather than of basic ingredients that you could have purchased for a fraction of the cost.

I could go on and on; but the wise have already got the message, and those who haven't never will.

My point is this -- whether or not "THEY" are conspiring to "keep you down", they really don't need to: you do a fine job of that all on your own.

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!

On the "Divine Feminine"

I'm linking to the Matt Walsh video as I indend a comment sparked by the title (though, do listen to the video): "Katy Perry Claims Her Trip To Space Connected Her To The “Divine Feminine”?!"

My comment --

For all the stupid things one might honestly fault men for doing, and for all the horrible things that man-hating feminists falsely accuse men of doing, I have *never* heard a man refer to the "Divine Masculine".

Why, it's almost as though for all our alleged phallo-centrism, we men don't worship our dicks nearly to the degree that feminists worship their pussies. And do understand: that is precisely what the term "Divine Feminine" is all about.

Matt Walsh: Katy Perry Claims Her Trip To Space Connected Her To The “Divine Feminine”?!

Doom, All the Way Down

This -- adults brow-beating 12/13 year-old girls to change clothes in front of a boy -- is the world that *women* demanded. And it will not be solved until *women* abandon feminism, root and branch.

By the way, the late Phyllis Schlafly -- remember her -- *warned* us that if the ERA were ratified, that *this*, and worse, would be among the inevitable results. Thanks in large part to Mrs Schlafly, the ERA wasn't ratified ... but the leftists figured out how to use the "Civil Rights Act of 1964", coupled with judicial imperial over-reach, and the craven acquiescence of elected officials, to achieve the same vile goals.

Things are only going to get worse unless *women* reject feminism, and that must include refusing to vote for *any* Democrat or *any* RINO. And, it most assuredly means abandoning the immoral claim that women have a right to murder their babies.

Matt Walsh: Mom Reveals HORRIFYING Details Of Woke Middle School Corruption

Further Doom

This is why America is doomed -- men don't have the balls to say "No" to the lies, intellectual dishonesty, and ever-escalating demands for special treatment -- disguised as "equality" -- of women.

This isn't about "rights for parents in Congress" -- whatever the Hell that is supposed to mean. These bitches and bastards were not elected to Congress to "be parents", they were elected to SHOW UP TO WORK, to represent the people of their district in Congress. And they don't want to do that; rather, they want to *expand* Nancy Pelosi's corrupt "proxy voting" scheme.

As one person said -- "$150,000 a year and you can't afford a babysitter? Figure it out or resign."

Speaker Johnson suffers defeat in his push to block new parents in U.S. House from proxy voting

Here is a Democratic Party congresscritter @16:00 mark whinging about her desire to subvert-and-evade her duties as a US Representative, but still get paid --

Serious people -- adults -- don't even *use* the words 'mom' and 'dad' in a serious public setting, much less apply those words to themselves. Those words are for the familial setting, and especially when speaking to children.

GOP Reps DEFECT, Joins Democrats To BLOCK TRUMP, Want SPECIAL Rules For Women, GO FULL WOKE

Putin's Nukes ... and Appeasement

Concerning the fear-mongering and spirit of appeasement toward Putin based on Russia's nuclear stockpile and Putin's continuing threats to use them --

Why do you imagine/assume that Russia is capable of nuking *anyone*? Considering the atrocious maintenance of their conventional arms, does it really make rational sense that they did any better with the more expensive and more technical maintenance required for the nukes?

Assume that the Russian military have somehow managed to maintain 3/4 of their nukes in operational order. That's still a lot of nukes ... and thus really scary, right?

Well, maybe. WHICH 3/4 are operational? Unless the decision to let 1/4 become dudes was intentional, the Russian generals have no idea which ones are not dudes.

But, which is more likely -- that the Russian government intentionally scaled down maintenance to a select minority of the USSR's nukes, or that the Russian government *assumed* that the resources allocated to maintaining the entire stockpile were thus spent without corrupt "diversions" into the bank accounts of high-level officials?  That is, how likely is it that the corruption rampant in their conventional military is not also rampant on the nuclear side?

Now, we shouldn't be caviler about Putin's threats to use nukes, but neither should we cower or appease.

American Christianity ... and Current Year

When I hopped in the car to drive to the grocery store, I turned on the radio. It was tuned to a local "Christian" station, and the song linked below was playing.

This song is a perfect example of what is wrong with "Christianity" in present-day America. And, incidentally, if you understand what is wrong with this song, you may get a glimpse of why so many men won't go to church -- most churches in modern America are not preaching Life to the dying, but rather are aimed at endorsing the emotionalism of, and flattering the solipsism of, junior-high girls.

Listen to the words of this song, analyze the message being taught via this song -- whose ever gospel is bring preached, it isn't the Gospel of Christ.

Megan Woods - The Truth (Official Music Video)

Oh SNAP! Yes, the Food Stamps program is corrupt

At the linked video timestamp, Matt Walsh is talking about the food stamp program, and specifically the recent Trump administration proposal to no longer allow junk food to be purchased with food stamps.  I'll bet you didn't know, Mr/Mrs Taxpayer, that *you* were being forced to pay for the junk food of "poor" people.

Here is a comment left below the video; it's utterly credible to me --
===

I’m a Veteran, disabled and a SNAP recipient. I clip cyber coupons and pay close attention to sales to stretch my SNAP allotments. I no longer have full use of my arms and hands and can’t stand up unassisted. I can purchase all of the candy, cakes and sodas as I desire but I can’t purchase a Rotisserie chicken because it’s cooked.
===

Here is another comment, and it accords with my experience delivering pizzas after I retired --

====

Matt, I do DoorDash on the side while I’m working towards my housing inspector license, and the overwhelming majority of the orders are coming in from housing projects and just the most dilapidated trailers in West Virginia that you can imagine. I decided to look it up today into my shock and horror found out that DoorDash does except snap and EBT cards as forms of payment. It’s not as if these people are ordering from the grocery store and having me deliver them a rotisserie chicken and bags of vegetables. I am delivering to them KFC or Pizza Hut and just about every type of crap food you can imagine. I feel more like a drug dealer than a food delivery driver.

====

And here is a personal anecdote from me --

As I may have mentioned a time or two, for about a year and a half (until I couldn't take any more of the Covid-19[84] bullshit) after I retired from IT, I took a low-paying job driving a wheel-chair van for a "medical transportation" company.  Most of the trips I made were to take very old, or very fat, wheel-chair bound people to their medical appointments.  

However, depending on which organization or program was paying for the service, some of the people were allowed two (or even more) non-medical trips per month.  So, I also frequently took people to church or to the grocery store.

Now, on some of those grocery store runs, one time for sure, after I had loaded the fellow and his purchase into the van, he called someone to *sell* that person the remainder of his food stamps.  I expect this happened at other times, but I directly overheard it that time.

Girlbossing the Airline Industry… Straight Into the Ground | Ep. 1540

The AI Hype Never Stops

You will no doubt see all sorts of "news" articles with click-bait titles similar to that of the linked YouTube video, telling you that an AI has "gone rogue" and "replicated itself to keep from being upgraded (i.e. replaced)" and then "lied" to it developers about being the upgraded version.

Seeing as I programmed computers for most of my adult life, I'm afraid I'm going to have to play the "Authority Card" and tell you that you're being lied to -- this AI did *exactly* what it was programmed to do:
1) the code was *written* with sub-routines for replicating itself;
2) the code was *written* with the ability to "lie";
3) the code was *written* with a "self-preservation" routine;

To quote some comments from the linked YouTube video--

"SW engineer here. .. It was INSTRUCTED to do this "at all costs and with no regard for any other instructions". lol. It didn't do it on its own"

"... it had to be told to do this. It is a tool operating as designed, no different than the machinery in any other mechanism. This is not a case of an AI going "rogue" but rather a case of some nitwit hyping up an AI doing exactly what it was told to do. The difference is that we already know AI can be utilized for bad things. We have for literal decades, look up the rules of robotics, so this not only isn't new, it's just flat out fear mongering about something that didn't happen."

"The sheer fact that it CAN write its own code is dangerous."
AND
"Well, thank goodness all software developers are benevolent, and none have ever released malicious code onto the internet, just to see the chaos that ensues..."
INDEED! To put it bluntly, this AI (ChatGPT) is essentially a computer virus at this point.

AND, pay attention and never forget this last point --
"... We will never achieve something like I, Robot or 2001 Space Odyssey. That's where all of this fear comes from unfortunately; fiction movies."

NO AI will *ever* be conscious, will ever be a mind or self, will never be a person.

However, the AI hype, falsely claiming that an AI has "achieved consciousness" or "is about to achieve consciousness" will also never stop. because materialists/atheists desperately *want* it to be true ... and they are not above deluding themselves, and attempting to delude you, on the matter.

They do this because they desperately want to believe that they can "upload their consciousness into a computer" and thus evade death. Oddly enough, many of these same people mock the Christian faith as being nothing more than the institutionalized fear of dying.

Chat GPT AI LIED To Programmers To SELF PRESERVE, AI Goes ROGUE Already And Is A THREAT To Humanity

Liberals ... and Speed Limits

Seen on the internet -- "Conservatives are just liberals doing the speed limit."

My response --

True enough in the cases of most people.

Meanwhile, "liberals" are just unprincipled leftists. That is, "liberals" are people who subscribe to leftist presuppositions, they just don't like some of the destinations logically entailed in those presuppositions. BUT, as they have no *principle* by which to reject the logic, and thus the entailed destination, they will always eventually fold when the open leftists demand it.

In the meantime. unless your proffered alternative to leftism is Jesus Christ, then you are also just another variant of leftist.

====

The late Andrew Breitbart famously said, "Politics is downstream of culture."

And, while that is true, it is incomplete. A more complete statement is expressed by my internet friend Kristor: "Politics is downstream of culture, and culture is downstream of cult." 'Cult' is not here a pejorative, as the word is commonly erroneously used in present-day English.

Or, as as (Calvinist) pastor and blogger, Douglas Wilson, points out: "There is always a god of the system." There is no such thing as metaphysical/religious neutrality (*); there is always some metaphysical underpinning of the social system, and which will be expressed in its politics. There are always blasphemy laws, but what is counted "sacred", and thus not to be blasphemed, depends upon the underlying metaphysics.

(*) The secularist promise of "religious neutrality" was a deliberate bait-and-switch lie. The goal was not "religious neutrality", which is impossible, but rather to disarm the general Christian(ish) populace long enough to install their anti-Christian metaphysics as the organizing principle of Western societies. It worked because most people were merely "cultural Christians", who wanted to enjoy the fruits of a Christian culture, while bulldozing the orchard.

Sometimes, 'Language' is Wholly Appropriate

Warning: In this post, I am going to use some crude, vulgar, and indeed, foul, language.  And the reason I'm going to do so is that it's appropriate to the goal of this post -- to help you to viscerally reject using a certain word which most Americans, even Christians, have been indoctrinated over the past 30-40 years to view as just innocent fun: 'hot', in the sense taught us by that pathetic slut, Paris Hilton.

Recently, I chanced to listen to some podcasts by a YouTuber (whom I won't identify, other than to say that he's an East Coast politician).  He's a Christian, and he displays a genuine heart for the young men growing up adrift in this feminism-controlled and feminized (*) age, without real manly examples on which to model themselves.

BUT: he uses the Paris Hilton sense of 'hot', he refers to his wife as "smokin' hot!"

You, Gentle Reader, know exactly what 'hot' means in this sense, though some of you will deny that it means what it means and that you know exactly what it means.  'Hot' does not mean 'lovely/lovable' nor 'beautiful/handsome' nor anything along such innocent lines.  'Hot' doesn't even mean something as crude/crass as 'sexy'; it's worse than that: it means 'fuckable'.

If you imagine you can deny that 'hot'  means 'fuckable', consider this hypothetical: Suppose that you are a father; and suppose that you have a young daughter, 3-4 years old; and suppose that every day when you come home from work, she excitedly bursts out of the house to greet you as quickly as possible; and suppose, as doting fathers have done for thousands of yours, you pick her up and twirl her around, and say, "How's my hot little girl!"

You would *never* do such a thing, because you know *exactly* what 'hot' means.  If some other man were to remark that your little daughter is lovely or beautiful, you'd beam with pride. If that same man were to remark on how 'hot' she is, you'd consider murder -- because you know *exactly* what 'hot' means.

So, back to the podcaster referring to his wife as "smokin' hot!" -- while he may not want to acknowledge it, he is inviting other men to consider his wife as little more than a walking 'pussy', to be fucked and discarded at whim.  No respectable man, and certainly no Christian, would ever invite other men to think of any woman he loves and respects in such a manner.

To publicly refer to your wife as 'hot' is to treat her as disrespectfully and dishonorably as King Ahasuerus treated Queen Vashti, when he commanded her to display herself to his drunken friends (see the Book of Esther).

(*) Most American men, especially the ones a generation or more younger than I, have the mindsets of junior-high girls: that's why they decorate their bodies with tattoos -- "Look at me! Pay attention to me!  See how I've decorated myself!" In contrast, a man seeks attention or status by his deed, by what he has built, by what he has accomplished.

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"

When is a Person Not a Person?

 ... when the Powers That Be do not wish that person to be treated in law as a person.

Quote from linked YT video: =="Abortion (like a Clinton witness' cause of death) is homicide. And *like* homicide, it's a matter for the States to prosecute (ahem, unlike the Clintons)."==

Indeed, abortion *is* homicide, and like other acts of homicide, it is for the States to prosecute.

Yet, there is the 14th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, which states that: =="No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."==

Now, imagine that some State were to enact a law to deny some class of persons "the equal protection of the laws". Say, for instance, that New York State, whether by explicit statute or by prosecutorial action in some instances and inaction in other instances, were to deny "straight white males" having "the equal protection of the laws": Say, if a "straight white male" were to kill a black person while in the act of protecting other persons in public from the violent threats of that black person, the killing were to be prosecuted as murder, yet at the same time, some "persons of color" who assisted that "straight white male" in subduing the now-deceased violent black person were not prosecuted at all.

How, one might ask, could such a thing happen, even hypothetically? Why, in practice, it does happen in the very same way that abortion -- murder of pre-born (and sometimes in Current Year post-birth) babies -- is winked at: by denying the personhood of the persons whom powerful political interests wish to exclude from "the equal protection of the laws."

=====
Isn't it odd that when the Democratic Party were explicitly (*) the party of slavery, even they didn't go so far as their intellectual descendants do with respect to the murder of babies? The Democrats of 1860 didn't deny that slaves were persons, they merely denied that slaves were citizens. -- even in the deepest of the Old South, killing a slave could get one prosecuted for murder.

(*) In Current Year, the Democrats are implicitly the party of slavery -- the Democrats *never* gave up on wanting to enslave some persons: all that changes is the who and the whom.

The Rageaholic: Arizona BOOFS Baby Murder - Razör Rants

=====

EDIT (2024/04/14): I much doubt that Tim Pool reads this dusty little blog. Nonetheless, he recently had a segment in which he brings up the conflict I pointed out above between the 14th Amendment and abortion.

IF a pre-born human being is a person (and they are), THEN abortion is murder (and it is), AND thus the US Constitution *requires* the States to prosecute for murder: the abortionist, the abortionist's aides and office workers and financiers and any other persons connected to the abortion-mill, the woman who contracted the murder, and any persons who aided in the procuring of the murder.

BUT, IF a pre-born human being is NOT a person, THEN it is irrational and indeed unconstitutional to prosecute a person who murders a pregnant woman for *two* murders. In fact, IF a pre-born human being is NOT a person, THEN it is irrational and indeed unconstitutional to even prosecute a person who causes a pregnant woman to miscarriage.

TimcastIRL: SCOTUS Must Rule On 14th Amendment For Abortion, Otherwise CIVIL WAR

Matt Walsh and "GamerGate 2.0"

You, Gentle Reader, may not have heard of the current outrage among "Gamers" directed at Matt Walsh over his recent video remarks (at Daily Wire) concerning "GamerGate 2.0" For that matter, you almost certainly never heard of "GamerGate 1.0", which was about 10 years ago.

Here is my take on the outrage of the "Gamers" --
1) They are reacting like spoiled children throwing a tantrum, even though many of them (possibly even a majority) are in their 30s and 40s;
2) They are acting like "toxic" women, in that they didn't *listen* to what he said, and, to the limited extent that they are saying anything of more substance than "How dare you criticize how I waste my time!", they are not addressing what he said;
3) Most of their "offense" at what Walsh did (or did not) say is aimed at Walsh's Catholicism and/or his "religious conservatism". Which is to say, at root this "outrage" is anti-Christian and thus anti-Western Civilization;
3a) It isn't really the Wokies (*) who are turning our western societies into shit; rather, it is "normal people" who want to have it both ways -- among which are the majority of these ranting "Gamers" -- they want to have "just a little bit of sin, just the fun parts", while denying that any of the individual and social consequences of that sin matter; the most important consequence being that it is impossible to limit winking at sin to "just a little bit".

(*) "GamerGate 2.0", as with "GamerGate 1.0" ten years ago, is about the gratuitous "wokeness" being injected into "games"

Here is the Matt Walsh video which has the panties of the "Gamers" in a wad -- "The Dark Side To The Video Game Industry"

EDIT: On the bright side, there are claims that a lot of "Gamers" are cancelling their subscriptions to Daily Wire. Wouldn't it be great for DW to go bankrupt and for Matt Walsh to get his balls back?

Leftist Hatred For "Blond Blue-Eyed Jesus" Is Just Hatred For Jesus ... And For White People

Leftists *hate* Jesus.  And, while they do indeed hate white people, they hate Jesus far more.  Though they do sometimes find it useful to their goal of enslaving everyone else to engage in "God talk".

One of the ways leftists love to express their hatred of Jesus, and of white people, is to mock the "Blond Blue-Eyed Jesus" whom Europeans have allegedly foist upon the world, along with pretending that we Christians of European cultural descent are not fully aware that Jesus was a Jew, of deep Jewish ancestry, and that he would have looked like a 1st Century Jew.  That is to say, he would have looked like a person of broadly Mediterranean ancestry, rather like a modern Greek or Syrian, not like a person of northern European ancestry.  In the linked clip, the lying leftist Sonny Hostin even trots out the perennial leftist lie that "... and most people don't know that."

In this clip (from about the 1:20 mark), when the lying leftist Sonny Hostin says that at her "black Catholic" church, "Jesus is brown", what do you think the odds are that in that church, Jesus is depicted as a Negro? And further, what do you think the odds are that this depiction is for leftist political reasons, rather than for organic cultural reasons?

The nation of Ethiopia -- a nation of black people, in Africa -- have been Christian for 1700 years or more (And for a good 1000 years of that time, they were forcibly isolated from the rest of Christianity by the Moslem incursions and conquests). When Ethiopians depict Jesus, or any other Biblical character, they depict them as Ethiopians.  Are they wrong to do so? Are they vile racists to do so?  Are they foisting a lie upon the world when they to do so? Of course not!

Will the vile harridans of 'The View' attack the Ethiopians for their "lying" depiction of Jesus as an Ethiopian, rather than as a 1st Century Middle-Eastern Jew? Of course not!

Some years ago, I saw an image of a painting from China, depicting the Holy Family's flight into Egypt. It was a thoroughly Chinese painting; not only the landscape depicted in the traditional Chinese style, but also the Holy Family depicted as Chinese persons.  Was that artist wrong to do so? Was he a vile racist to do so?  Was he foisting a lie upon the world when he did so? Of course not!

Will the vile, hypocritical harridans of 'The View' attack Chinese persons for their "lying" depiction of Jesus as an Chinese man, rather than as a 1st Century Middle-Eastern Jew? Of course not!  

There are cultural and historical reasons (specifically, centuries-long Moslem piratical depredation on the Mediterranean Sea which isolated Northern and Western European Christians from other Christians and from the world at large) that persons of European cultures depict Jesus in a manner derived from European cultures, just as there are cultural and historical reasons that persons of Ethiopian culture depict Jesus in a manner derived from Ethiopian culture, and Chinese likewise.  And there is nothing wrong with this!

Jesus has not only the title, "Son of God", but also the title "Son of Man".  As "Son of God", he is the God and savior of *all* men. As "Son of Man", he is a man of men, he is the representative of *all* men. *All* men are invited to come to Christ and to find their fulfillment and completion as men in him, and their salvation in him.

What Do You Meme??: "They Tried to Trap Him on Jesus (Instantly Backfires!)"

The Nexus of Language and Politics -- "Native American"

Other than his use of the leftist delegitimizing term, "Native American",  Matt Walsh is spot on in the linked video.

The leftists invented the term "Native American" as a step toward denying that you and I are Americans at all.  This is merely a similar delegitimizing tactic to the leftist assertion that we Americans cannot call ourselves "Americans" because the USA is not the totality of the American continents.

Historically, the American Aborigines (i.e. the Indians (*) ) were not native Americans, because they were not members of the American society in the first place.  Even today, after the Federal government has made them US citizens, whether they wanted to be or not, many Indians don't want to be called "Americans"; they tend to reserve that term for *us*, not for themselves.

I am a "native American", not because I have a bit of Indian ancestry, though I do, but because I am a born member of the American civilization.  Likely, you too are a born member of the American civilization and thus are a "native American", even if you don't have a single American Indian ancestor.

(*) We all need to get over the ignorant myth that we call the American Aborigines "Indians" because Columbus was either ignorant or stupid.  The reason we call them "Indians" is because from ancient times until just a couple of centuries ago, Europeans used the terms 'India' and/or 'the Indias' to refer to all the lands of "the East"; 'India' and "the East" were pretty much synonyms.  When Columbus discovered the islands we now call the West Indies, he thought he had found some outlying islands of Chipango, the easternmost land of 'the Indies' of which the Europeans had knowledge; or, as we now call that land, Japan.  Thus, since from the European frame of reference, these newly-discovered peoples were inhabitants of "India", he (and other Europeans) referred to the inhabitants of those islands, and later of the mainland, as "Indians", as we have continued to do for the past 500 years.  And indeed as the US Constitution refers to them.

The narrowing of the term "India" to refer to a specific geographic region in the late 18th and 19th centuries, and to a specific, and recently created, nation-state in the 20th and 21st centuries, is a modern innovation.  

And, by the way, the current Hinduist government of India is trying to dictate that we English speakers may no longer refer to that country as "India".

Matt Walsh: "These Museum Exhibits Were Just Closed For The Dumbest Reason"