Day: September 8, 2018

1444287.jpg

New material to speed spacecraft to 134,000,000 mph…




Before man can cross the vast distances of space, the designs of spacecraft’s sails will be key – striking a delicate balance between mass, strength and reflectivity.

Working with NASA, California Institute of Technology (Caltech) scientists have created the new material out of silicon and its oxide, silica.

The team has figured out that super-thin structures made of this composite can transform infrared light waves into a momentum that would accelerate a probe to 134,000,000 mph.

Speeds like this can carry a small probe to our closest stellar neighbours, a huddle of stars called Proxima centauri, within decades rather than millennia.


“Light sails propelled by radiation pressure from high-power lasers have the potential to achieve relativistic spaceflight”


Caltech spokeperson

And it will enable humans to search nearby solar systems for extra-terrestrial life.

The Caltech engineers are exploiting the inertia of photons to reach the astronomical speeds required to cover big distances in relatively short amounts of time.

Unlike chunky air molecules, light doesn’t have a resting mass, so it doesn’t “blow” in the same way wind does.

But flying photons still pack a punch by exerting pressure via their momentum, according to Maxwell’s equations on electromagnetic radiation.


NASA


BREAKTHROUGH: Caltech’s new material can propel spacecraft to 20% of the speed of light

NASA


NASA: The material, made out of silicon and its oxide, silica, will be used in solar sails

The idea is to use a laser to coherently shoot a stream of photons at infrared wavelengths at a “light net”, or sail, attached to a spaceship.

Even for small objects that would mean casting a big sail, which in turn means adding more mass. So this sail needs to be as light as possible, which could make it prone to easy damage.

By turning to nanomaterials, engineers have the advantage of tweaking the way light is absorbed and emitted, allowing them to fine-tune the delicate balance of catching enough light to build up speed without overheating.

A spokesperson said: “Light sails propelled by radiation pressure from high-power lasers have the potential to achieve relativistic spaceflight.”



California Institute of Technology


LIGHT SPEED: The material can propel spacecraft to 20% of the speed of light



Source link

Media and the Rise of Homosexuality


India has just legalized gay sex. This is roughly one-sixth of the world’s population. A few years ago, this would have been unthinkable. What happened? An admission about homosexual influences, by a famous documentary, does much to explain society today.

We must first go back to the 1960s, to an amazing documentary by CBS, hosted by Mike Wallace, called “The Homosexuals.”

In the documentary, Mike Wallace noted that, as late as 1967:

Most Americans are repelled by the mere notion of homosexuality. A CBS news survey shows that two out of three Americans look upon homosexuals with disgust, discomfort or fear… The majority of Americans favor legal punishment, even for homosexual acts performed in private between consenting adults. “The Homosexuals,” (6:39), CBS, 1967, with Mike Wallace.

Not too long ago, people received severe sentences for homosexual behavior.

This man is twenty-seven, college educated… He has been in jail three times for committing homosexual acts. If he is arrested once more, he faces the possibility of life in prison. “The Homosexuals,” (6:03) CBS, 1967, with Mike Wallace.

Yet, within a generation, homosexuality became accepted, and today it is celebrated, almost as desirable and heroic. This would have been unthinkable, even in the 1960s. 

I have also noticed older people, whom I have known for decades, change their attitudes. In the 1960s, they would have been one of those Americans who saw homosexuality as disgusting. Now, they are “tolerant.” The brainwashing seems to have worked retroactively.

Do not get me wrong! I am not advocating the recriminalization of consensual homosexual acts. Some of the laws back then were unnecessarily strict. But neither do I celebrate homosexuality as a good thing, something to be sought. I would have preferred the limited accommodation of decriminalization, and nothing more.

The usual explanation given is that the Stonewall Riots of 1969 were the game changer. When police raided a homosexual bar, the patrons fought back. Homosexual rights were brought into the public eye. The problem is that the Stonewall Riots were not the cause.

One could track further back to the Mattachine Society founded in 1950, or the drawings by Tom of Finland, the latter of which would become the inspiration for the Village People.

Simply put, without Tom of Finland, there would have been no Village People. – The Guardian

An amazing admission in the 1967 CBS documentary confirms what many have said under their breaths, and what other have suspected.

Homosexuals are discriminated against in almost all fields of employment, in all parts of the country. But in the world of the creative arts, they received equal treatment; indeed, some would say better treatment. There is even talk of a homosexual mafia in the arts, dominating various fields. Theater, music, dance, fashion.


In painting, there is the commonly expressed notion that the homosexuals influence has been corrupting:


In the fashion industry, many observers see an effort to blend the sexes, to defeminize woman, to replace curve and counter with sexless, geometric sterility… “The Homosexuals,” (31:05) CBS, 1967, with Mike Wallace.

If someone said that out loud today, they would be charged with hate speech and have their lives destroyed.

But the problem is not even limited to homosexuality.

If one were to watch fashion shows, with a discerning eye, one would wonder why so much of women’s fashion has women dressed like boys. The women look almost androgynous.

This in not even a recent development

1920s women’s clothing was also extremely androgynous, especially considering the flouncy skirts and cruelly exaggerated waistlines that had gone before it during the Victorian period. – A History Of Androgyny In Fashion

Writers have noted how the ideal runway model seems perilously close to looking pre-pubescent.

Acne Confirms: Fashion’s Ideal Woman Is a 12-Year-Old Boy – Yahoo Lifestyle

Now, obviously, it is not the models who push this. It is the fashion designers. The very ones that Mike Wallace said might belong to a “homosexual mafia.”

Neither am I a fulminating fundamentalist who thinks women should not wear pants. I think jeans look good on a woman, when they accent her curves and contours. I do not expect all women to look like the quasi-androgynous Twiggy of the 1960s or Kate Moss. And why would androgyny be pushed as the ideal, anyway?

Since the rise of Hollywood, and mass media, we have allowed our culture to be directed, and led, by a minority. Though it be politically incorrect to admit, it seems that a disproportional amount of these people are what many, in the 1960s, would have called sexually deviant.

With the advent of movies, they could influence the population, but only to a point. If they became too radical, the public would not pay for the tickets. With radio in the 1930s and 40s, there was no visual input. Androgyny does not translate well over AM.

With the introduction of visual TV in the 1950s and 60s, these creative professionals set the tone. Most of the public had no choice about what was broadcast. And since TV was ostensibly free at that time, there was no disincentive not to watch. An advertiser might balk if things went too far, but it was a process of erosion.

So within a short period from 1967 to 1976, the media could move the public to accept homosexual rights. Rod Stewart released “The Killing of Georgie,” a song about the murder of a New York homosexual, and it got major airplay, something which would have been unthinkable nine years earlier.

There can be no doubt that Hollywood and New York were the most influential centers of art in the Western world, though that may be changing. Leveraging this influence, the embedded “homosexual mafia” changed the United States, which then started the ball rolling to change the world. Hence… India, which has just legalized gay sex.

A small “homosexual mafia” has foisted itself on the planet, and quite successfully.

The key was their control of the media.

The present cultural war is over that control. The internet truly democratized the media, which is no longer centralized. Hence, Facebook and Twitter are now shadow banning.

What would have been unthinkable 50 years ago – and might have landed one in jail – is today lauded and heralded. And much of this is due to the influences of a small, unrepresentative community. What is amazing is how easily people have allowed themselves to be led, rather than think for themselves. This mafia should never have had this much influence.

Now that the internet has broken the monopoly of those creatives, they seek new ways to reign in the true liberty that would counteract them.

Donald Trump has angered feminists all over again, after a new report suggests that he has told the female staff of his administration that they need to always “dress like women” when at work. – The Telegraph

Trump is not destroying democracy, he is contesting with the minority who would.

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish better in high school, lo those many decades ago. He runs a website about the Arab community in South America at http://latinarabia.com.

India has just legalized gay sex. This is roughly one-sixth of the world’s population. A few years ago, this would have been unthinkable. What happened? An admission about homosexual influences, by a famous documentary, does much to explain society today.

We must first go back to the 1960s, to an amazing documentary by CBS, hosted by Mike Wallace, called “The Homosexuals.”

In the documentary, Mike Wallace noted that, as late as 1967:

Most Americans are repelled by the mere notion of homosexuality. A CBS news survey shows that two out of three Americans look upon homosexuals with disgust, discomfort or fear… The majority of Americans favor legal punishment, even for homosexual acts performed in private between consenting adults. “The Homosexuals,” (6:39), CBS, 1967, with Mike Wallace.

Not too long ago, people received severe sentences for homosexual behavior.

This man is twenty-seven, college educated… He has been in jail three times for committing homosexual acts. If he is arrested once more, he faces the possibility of life in prison. “The Homosexuals,” (6:03) CBS, 1967, with Mike Wallace.

Yet, within a generation, homosexuality became accepted, and today it is celebrated, almost as desirable and heroic. This would have been unthinkable, even in the 1960s. 

I have also noticed older people, whom I have known for decades, change their attitudes. In the 1960s, they would have been one of those Americans who saw homosexuality as disgusting. Now, they are “tolerant.” The brainwashing seems to have worked retroactively.

Do not get me wrong! I am not advocating the recriminalization of consensual homosexual acts. Some of the laws back then were unnecessarily strict. But neither do I celebrate homosexuality as a good thing, something to be sought. I would have preferred the limited accommodation of decriminalization, and nothing more.

The usual explanation given is that the Stonewall Riots of 1969 were the game changer. When police raided a homosexual bar, the patrons fought back. Homosexual rights were brought into the public eye. The problem is that the Stonewall Riots were not the cause.

One could track further back to the Mattachine Society founded in 1950, or the drawings by Tom of Finland, the latter of which would become the inspiration for the Village People.

Simply put, without Tom of Finland, there would have been no Village People. – The Guardian

An amazing admission in the 1967 CBS documentary confirms what many have said under their breaths, and what other have suspected.

Homosexuals are discriminated against in almost all fields of employment, in all parts of the country. But in the world of the creative arts, they received equal treatment; indeed, some would say better treatment. There is even talk of a homosexual mafia in the arts, dominating various fields. Theater, music, dance, fashion.


In painting, there is the commonly expressed notion that the homosexuals influence has been corrupting:


In the fashion industry, many observers see an effort to blend the sexes, to defeminize woman, to replace curve and counter with sexless, geometric sterility… “The Homosexuals,” (31:05) CBS, 1967, with Mike Wallace.

If someone said that out loud today, they would be charged with hate speech and have their lives destroyed.

But the problem is not even limited to homosexuality.

If one were to watch fashion shows, with a discerning eye, one would wonder why so much of women’s fashion has women dressed like boys. The women look almost androgynous.

This in not even a recent development

1920s women’s clothing was also extremely androgynous, especially considering the flouncy skirts and cruelly exaggerated waistlines that had gone before it during the Victorian period. – A History Of Androgyny In Fashion

Writers have noted how the ideal runway model seems perilously close to looking pre-pubescent.

Acne Confirms: Fashion’s Ideal Woman Is a 12-Year-Old Boy – Yahoo Lifestyle

Now, obviously, it is not the models who push this. It is the fashion designers. The very ones that Mike Wallace said might belong to a “homosexual mafia.”

Neither am I a fulminating fundamentalist who thinks women should not wear pants. I think jeans look good on a woman, when they accent her curves and contours. I do not expect all women to look like the quasi-androgynous Twiggy of the 1960s or Kate Moss. And why would androgyny be pushed as the ideal, anyway?

Since the rise of Hollywood, and mass media, we have allowed our culture to be directed, and led, by a minority. Though it be politically incorrect to admit, it seems that a disproportional amount of these people are what many, in the 1960s, would have called sexually deviant.

With the advent of movies, they could influence the population, but only to a point. If they became too radical, the public would not pay for the tickets. With radio in the 1930s and 40s, there was no visual input. Androgyny does not translate well over AM.

With the introduction of visual TV in the 1950s and 60s, these creative professionals set the tone. Most of the public had no choice about what was broadcast. And since TV was ostensibly free at that time, there was no disincentive not to watch. An advertiser might balk if things went too far, but it was a process of erosion.

So within a short period from 1967 to 1976, the media could move the public to accept homosexual rights. Rod Stewart released “The Killing of Georgie,” a song about the murder of a New York homosexual, and it got major airplay, something which would have been unthinkable nine years earlier.

There can be no doubt that Hollywood and New York were the most influential centers of art in the Western world, though that may be changing. Leveraging this influence, the embedded “homosexual mafia” changed the United States, which then started the ball rolling to change the world. Hence… India, which has just legalized gay sex.

A small “homosexual mafia” has foisted itself on the planet, and quite successfully.

The key was their control of the media.

The present cultural war is over that control. The internet truly democratized the media, which is no longer centralized. Hence, Facebook and Twitter are now shadow banning.

What would have been unthinkable 50 years ago – and might have landed one in jail – is today lauded and heralded. And much of this is due to the influences of a small, unrepresentative community. What is amazing is how easily people have allowed themselves to be led, rather than think for themselves. This mafia should never have had this much influence.

Now that the internet has broken the monopoly of those creatives, they seek new ways to reign in the true liberty that would counteract them.

Donald Trump has angered feminists all over again, after a new report suggests that he has told the female staff of his administration that they need to always “dress like women” when at work. – The Telegraph

Trump is not destroying democracy, he is contesting with the minority who would.

Mike Konrad is the pen name of an American who wishes he had availed himself more fully of the opportunity to learn Spanish better in high school, lo those many decades ago. He runs a website about the Arab community in South America at http://latinarabia.com.



Source link

208943.png

Cory Booker Is Sharpton, Not Spartacus


What is the difference between Cory Booker and Emily Litella, the late Gilda Radner’s classic “Saturday Night Live” character who would go off on epic rants only to say, when told her premise was incorrect, “Never mind”? Cory Booker will not say, “Never mind.”

Booker, the new poster child for demagoguery, called it his Spartacus moment, pretending to risk his political career by releasing, in violation of Senate rules, an email by Judge Brett Kavanaugh on racial profiling that had already been cleared for release, a post 9/11 email that expressed the hope that a race-neutral set of rules for vetting terrorists could be found. Racist it was not, except in the mind of Booker, who was less like Spartacus and more like that little Martian in the movie Space Jam ready to fall on his rubber sword.

As Fox news contributor and Democratic pollster Doug Schoen opines about Booker’s latest tirade:

The senator was not elected to pretend to engage in civil disobedience that really isn’t civil disobedience – in an effort to appeal to the Democrats’ growing progressive wing – without taking any real risks at all.


And Booker was not elected to play the role of one of the many protesters who, during Kavanaugh’s hearing and previously, have taken well-publicized protest actions to “resist” the Trump administration in every way possible, including violating the law….


Even though the rule-breaking by Booker turned out not to be rule-breaking in the end, it set a bad precedent. Senators need to follow the rules of the chamber. That’s because in order for the Senate to operate smoothly in service of the American people it has to operate by rules – and members have to be able to trust each other to abide by those rules.


When senators feel they can ignore rules whenever they wish and fight their opponents with any means necessary the Senate can descend into chaos and paralysis, making it unable to function as what it used to be called – “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

This is not Mr. Smith goes to Washington. This is Saul Alinsky runs for president.

Somewhere Saul Alinsky, author of the progressive guidebook, Rules for Radicals, is smiling. His goal was to destroy America’s institutions through demonization of their occupants and the corruption of their functions. If Donald Trump’s election has done anything, it has exposed the depth and stench of the swamp; pulled back the curtain and forced us to pay attention to the anarchists who were running the show behind.

Cory Booker intends to ride the race card all the way to the White House and if good men like Judge Kavanaugh are to be sacrificed well, hey, break the eggs and make your omelet. His demonization of Kavanaugh as a racist is akin to his slanderous assault on then attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions who, whatever his other faults, is not a racist.

Cory Booker willingly stepped to the plate as the designated character assassin of fellow Sen. Jeff Sessions. It was a forum of great attention that perhaps Booker thought might launch a 2020 presidential run like another freshman Senator, Barack Obama, whose 2004 Democratic Convention speech launched his presidential campaign. As Sen. Tom Cotton noted on Facebook:

I’m very disappointed that Senator Booker has chosen to start his 2020 presidential campaign by testifying against Senator Sessions. This disgraceful breach of custom is especially surprising since Senator Booker just last year said he was “honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions” on a resolution honoring civil-rights marchers. Senator Booker says he feels compelled to speak out because Senator Session wants to keep criminals behind bars, drugs off our streets, and amnesty from becoming law. He’s welcome to oppose these common-sense policies and vote against Senator Sessions’ nomination, but what is so unique about those views to require his extraordinary testimony? Nothing. This hearing simply offers a platform for his presidential aspirations.

So too does the hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. Racism is the last refuge of political scoundrels like Cory Booker, something which requires an historical amnesia of historical and, yes, hysterical proportions.

Booker’s historical amnesia omits the fact that it was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and former “Grand Kleagle” with the Ku Klux Klan, who holds the distinction of being the only Senator to have opposed the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and led a 52-day filibuster against this legislation.

Sen. Al Gore, father of the former vice president, voted against the act, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright, to whom Bill Clinton dedicated a memorial, current senior senator from South Carolina Ernest Hollings, Sen. Richard Russell and, of course, Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at that time.

Booker forgets that it was Democrats who unleashed the dogs and turned on the fire hoses on civil rights marchers. It was Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse door and are still standing there by opposing school choice and trapping minority children in failing schools. It was Democrats who blocked the bridge in Selma.

Booker’s amnesia omits the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been possible without Republican leadership. Not only was that legislation a personal victory for Illinois Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, then Senate Minority leader; Republicans in both the House and Senate supported the measure in far greater percentages than Democrats. Only six GOP senators voted against the act, compared with 21 Democrats. The party of Abraham Lincoln and Jeff Sessions beat back the fire hoses and dogs of the party of Robert Byrd and Cory Booker.

As one pundit put it, the Democrats should know a lot about Jim Crow laws, since they are the ones who wrote them. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s national security advisor, and who introduced Kavanaugh at his hearing, explained at the 2000 GOP national convention  why a black college professor would be a Republican:

The first Republican I knew was my father John Rice. And he is still the Republican I admire the most. My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. I want you to know that my father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.

And neither should we. Booker is not Spartacus, fighting for the freedom of slaves and the proposition that all are created equal. He is Al Sharpton, a race-baiting demagogue lusting after the power of government, ready to rewrite history and demonize anyone blocking his progressive path as a racist.

Go ahead, Cory, play the race card. We’ll play our Trump card.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

What is the difference between Cory Booker and Emily Litella, the late Gilda Radner’s classic “Saturday Night Live” character who would go off on epic rants only to say, when told her premise was incorrect, “Never mind”? Cory Booker will not say, “Never mind.”

Booker, the new poster child for demagoguery, called it his Spartacus moment, pretending to risk his political career by releasing, in violation of Senate rules, an email by Judge Brett Kavanaugh on racial profiling that had already been cleared for release, a post 9/11 email that expressed the hope that a race-neutral set of rules for vetting terrorists could be found. Racist it was not, except in the mind of Booker, who was less like Spartacus and more like that little Martian in the movie Space Jam ready to fall on his rubber sword.

As Fox news contributor and Democratic pollster Doug Schoen opines about Booker’s latest tirade:

The senator was not elected to pretend to engage in civil disobedience that really isn’t civil disobedience – in an effort to appeal to the Democrats’ growing progressive wing – without taking any real risks at all.


And Booker was not elected to play the role of one of the many protesters who, during Kavanaugh’s hearing and previously, have taken well-publicized protest actions to “resist” the Trump administration in every way possible, including violating the law….


Even though the rule-breaking by Booker turned out not to be rule-breaking in the end, it set a bad precedent. Senators need to follow the rules of the chamber. That’s because in order for the Senate to operate smoothly in service of the American people it has to operate by rules – and members have to be able to trust each other to abide by those rules.


When senators feel they can ignore rules whenever they wish and fight their opponents with any means necessary the Senate can descend into chaos and paralysis, making it unable to function as what it used to be called – “the world’s greatest deliberative body.”

This is not Mr. Smith goes to Washington. This is Saul Alinsky runs for president.

Somewhere Saul Alinsky, author of the progressive guidebook, Rules for Radicals, is smiling. His goal was to destroy America’s institutions through demonization of their occupants and the corruption of their functions. If Donald Trump’s election has done anything, it has exposed the depth and stench of the swamp; pulled back the curtain and forced us to pay attention to the anarchists who were running the show behind.

Cory Booker intends to ride the race card all the way to the White House and if good men like Judge Kavanaugh are to be sacrificed well, hey, break the eggs and make your omelet. His demonization of Kavanaugh as a racist is akin to his slanderous assault on then attorney general nominee Jeff Sessions who, whatever his other faults, is not a racist.

Cory Booker willingly stepped to the plate as the designated character assassin of fellow Sen. Jeff Sessions. It was a forum of great attention that perhaps Booker thought might launch a 2020 presidential run like another freshman Senator, Barack Obama, whose 2004 Democratic Convention speech launched his presidential campaign. As Sen. Tom Cotton noted on Facebook:

I’m very disappointed that Senator Booker has chosen to start his 2020 presidential campaign by testifying against Senator Sessions. This disgraceful breach of custom is especially surprising since Senator Booker just last year said he was “honored to have partnered with Senator Sessions” on a resolution honoring civil-rights marchers. Senator Booker says he feels compelled to speak out because Senator Session wants to keep criminals behind bars, drugs off our streets, and amnesty from becoming law. He’s welcome to oppose these common-sense policies and vote against Senator Sessions’ nomination, but what is so unique about those views to require his extraordinary testimony? Nothing. This hearing simply offers a platform for his presidential aspirations.

So too does the hearing on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation as a Supreme Court justice. Racism is the last refuge of political scoundrels like Cory Booker, something which requires an historical amnesia of historical and, yes, hysterical proportions.

Booker’s historical amnesia omits the fact that it was Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia and former “Grand Kleagle” with the Ku Klux Klan, who holds the distinction of being the only Senator to have opposed the only two black nominees to the Supreme Court, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas, and led a 52-day filibuster against this legislation.

Sen. Al Gore, father of the former vice president, voted against the act, as did Sen. J. William Fulbright, to whom Bill Clinton dedicated a memorial, current senior senator from South Carolina Ernest Hollings, Sen. Richard Russell and, of course, Sen. Strom Thurmond, who was a Democrat at that time.

Booker forgets that it was Democrats who unleashed the dogs and turned on the fire hoses on civil rights marchers. It was Democrats who stood in the schoolhouse door and are still standing there by opposing school choice and trapping minority children in failing schools. It was Democrats who blocked the bridge in Selma.

Booker’s amnesia omits the fact that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would never have been possible without Republican leadership. Not only was that legislation a personal victory for Illinois Republican Sen. Everett Dirksen, then Senate Minority leader; Republicans in both the House and Senate supported the measure in far greater percentages than Democrats. Only six GOP senators voted against the act, compared with 21 Democrats. The party of Abraham Lincoln and Jeff Sessions beat back the fire hoses and dogs of the party of Robert Byrd and Cory Booker.

As one pundit put it, the Democrats should know a lot about Jim Crow laws, since they are the ones who wrote them. Condoleezza Rice, President George W. Bush’s national security advisor, and who introduced Kavanaugh at his hearing, explained at the 2000 GOP national convention  why a black college professor would be a Republican:

The first Republican I knew was my father John Rice. And he is still the Republican I admire the most. My father joined our party because the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to vote. The Republicans did. I want you to know that my father has never forgotten that day, and neither have I.

And neither should we. Booker is not Spartacus, fighting for the freedom of slaves and the proposition that all are created equal. He is Al Sharpton, a race-baiting demagogue lusting after the power of government, ready to rewrite history and demonize anyone blocking his progressive path as a racist.

Go ahead, Cory, play the race card. We’ll play our Trump card.

Daniel John Sobieski is a free lance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.



Source link

208952.jpg

The NY Times Op-Ed: Another Page from the Left's Utopian Playbook


Before we lose our minds over the New York Times’ anonymous op-ed, we should remind ourselves about who the leftists are.  And how they play their game.

Who are they?  As conservatives, why do we not agree with them?  That answer varies, but usually it is because we find their ideas foolish.  Ideas like “equality,” “tolerance,” “flourishing,” and “social justice” sound like wonderful concepts.  Conservatives are not against these ideals, which leftists claim to tout.  The problem for most conservatives is that we don’t believe that these goals are attainable through the methods the left provides, if at all.

The vision the left has of a good society seems, to most conservatives, like a lot of dreams that don’t match anything in the real world.  They are the descriptions of a society that exists nowhere and never will exist.

The left believes, in other words, in Utopia.  Thomas More wrote an entire book in Latin about that, back in the sixteenth century.  In Utopia, More satirizes the idea of a perfect society.  The book focuses on an island nation on which someone named “Raphael” claims he spent five years.  The word “utopia” means, literally, no place or “nowhere.”  The society of Utopia is a collection of ideal situations that look a lot like the left’s fantasies of social justice.

We hear that the Utopians “have very few laws” (87) because their cultural means of encouraging virtue work smoothly and do not require onerous enforcement.  In fact, so deeply are the fruitful habits of the Utopians imbued in their personality that their “first principle is that every soul is immortal and was created by a kind God, Who meant it to be happy” (71).

Most illustrative for readers of the New York Times op-ed is what the Utopians do to protect themselves from violent invasion without having to fight wars.  Take a look at this passage:

So the moment war’s declared they arrange through secret agents for lots of posters to go up simultaneously at all points on enemy territory where they are most likely to be seen.  These posters carry the official seal of the Utopian government and offer a huge reward for killing the enemy king.  They also offer smaller but still very considerable sums for killing certain individuals whose names appear on a list and who are presumed to be the chief supporters, after the king, of anti-Utopian policies.  The reward for bringing such people in alive is twice as much as for killing them – and they themselves are offered the same amount of money, plus a free pardon, for turning against their own associates.


The immediate result is that everyone mentioned on the list becomes suspicious of everything in human shape.  They all stop trusting one another and stop being trustworthy.  They live in a constant state of terror, which is perfectly justified for it’s often been known to happen that all of them including the king himself are betrayed by the very person that they pinned the most faith on. (92)

More describes the artful but sinister form of psychological manipulation, which history remembers from the Spanish Inquisition and wars of the Reformation.  In Utopia, this form of psychological operation constitutes “peaceful means” of achieving one’s political ends.

Should it surprise us that the anonymous op-ed in the New York Times seems to engage in Utopian warfare?  People exist who want the Trump administration to fall apart and who want a reinstatement of the Obama-Clinton cabal.  They have situated themselves in various posts across entities that would deliberately collaborate to wage some version of More’s Utopian mind games.  The idea is to breed maximum distrust among Trump’s allies and then cause them to fall apart.  Then the Democrats do not have to spend money or do the hard work in order to build a base of support, engineer intelligent policies, or execute their plans faithfully.

Every day, more information comes to light about the coordination among people in the major media outlets and members of the seventeen organizations in the Intelligence Community.  That is not to mention, as well, the disturbing links between intelligence and academia, as well as the churches.  Consider for instance what I came across in my recent study of the American Academy of Religion.  The published program from the 2017 conference of the Academy included Session “P17-241,” which states the following:

In the years following the 1993 confrontation between the FBI and a religious community called the Branch Davidians, religion scholars have occasionally offered the FBI advice regarding dissident religious groups who are less commonly well-understood and who come into conflict with law enforcement.  The American Academy of Religion has served as an interlocutor for the Critical Incident Response Group and has also established a relationship with the FBI Academy through its National Academy.  The mutual hope of religion scholars and the FBI officials with whom they have interacted has been that consultation might lead to better outcomes than occurred with the Branch Davidians.  This panel will reflect on the interaction between religion scholars and law enforcement officials over the past 25 years and what may be learned from the experience to inform interaction going forward.

In looking at this innocuous entry in a conference program that is hundreds of pages long, you may wonder how American society became so blasé about its totalitarian psy ops.  Here you have Harvard brokering a “collusion,” literally, between spies and the people studying religions that people don’t like.  If you think by “dissident religions” the Harvard pontiffs refer to Islam, you are probably not paying close enough attention.  The new Branch Davidians, at least in the mind of people engineering this modern-day Inquisition, are probably Christian sects that disagree with Democrats and might defy Democrat-led governments.

In order to defray the possibility of conflict, Barack Obama’s old alma mater has gathered together “religion scholars” whose field research involves spying on the religious opposition to the Democrats and feeding information to the FBI.  You do not have to go far to connect the dots from here to the media, either.  According to a press release by the American Academy of Religion on July 16, 2018, the Academy grants awards for “Best In-Depth Newswriting on Religion.”  The top three winners this year were:

Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor … Jack Jenkins, national reporter for Religion News Service, second; and Kelsey Dallas, faith writer for Desert News, third[.] …


Jurors described Burke’s winning articles on the mysteries, complexities, and divisiveness of religion involving Neil Gorsuch’s background, Roy Moore, LGBT rights, and the debate between moral evil and natural[.]

So the Academy’s top prize went to a “religion reporter” who works for CNN and did “in-depth reporting” on Neil Gorsuch, Roy Moore, and LGBT rights as they relate to people of faith.  The Academy giving him this award sits on an information pipeline between the FBI and the colleges whose faculty evaluated his work for a prize.  The runner-up:

Jack Jenkins presented a “smart, varied thematic approach to an issue at the heart of the national conversation – the resurgence of white nationalism,” commented one juror.  He approached the topic through the lenses of faith, history, Trump, the Charlottesville protest, and the presence of white nationalism in church pulpits.

Are you starting to smell the rat? Note who made up the jury:

The jury make-up included Evan Berry, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion, American University, and member of [Committee on the Public Understanding of Religion]; Michelle Boorstein, religion reporter for the Washington Post; and Jaweed Kaleem, national race and justice correspondent for the Los Angeles Times.

When you come across a column as provocative as the New York Times op-ed, you may be tempted to react to the cues immediately available to you.  It looks at first glance like the statement by someone working in the Trump administration sincerely worried about the future of the country.  But to reach print, such a document had to have passed through many sieves.

See the connections among academia, the intelligence community, the churches, and the press.  Because obvious networks of people with similar sympathies occupy key posts in all these institutions, they can coordinate and know how to do so.  They have a purpose: to bring the Obama regime’s cronies back to absolute power and to destroy the “dissident religion” represented by Trump’s evangelical base, which the Harvard Estate views as racist and anti-LGBT.  They have a strategy: avoid high financial costs, avoid difficult conflict, and give as much cover as possible to the colluders.

The idea here is to breed anxiety, distrust, and division in Trump’s camp.  Part of this involves culling key terms from the Christian and conservative base that girds Trump and developing emotionally fraught storylines that can turn such constituencies against each other.  They have the researchers who are paid (by tax-exempt non-profit colleges!) to look into the workings of the conservative Christian world as their full-time jobs.  They have collaborators in the churches who can spy on all information about Trump’s evangelical base through ministries on the ground.  They have the intelligence community ready to execute the dirty work.

And they have the media to spin the whole affair so people get distracted and don’t see the vicious inquisition right before them.

But here is one thing they can’t take from us: Thomas More.  He gives us the playbook.  We should read it and work from it.

Follow Robert Oscar Lopez at English Manif.  Also, keep an eye for a series he hosts for Mass Resistance called “Save Our Churches.”

WORK CITED

Thomas More.  Utopia.  Trans. Paul Turner.  New York: Penguin, 2003.

Before we lose our minds over the New York Times’ anonymous op-ed, we should remind ourselves about who the leftists are.  And how they play their game.

Who are they?  As conservatives, why do we not agree with them?  That answer varies, but usually it is because we find their ideas foolish.  Ideas like “equality,” “tolerance,” “flourishing,” and “social justice” sound like wonderful concepts.  Conservatives are not against these ideals, which leftists claim to tout.  The problem for most conservatives is that we don’t believe that these goals are attainable through the methods the left provides, if at all.

The vision the left has of a good society seems, to most conservatives, like a lot of dreams that don’t match anything in the real world.  They are the descriptions of a society that exists nowhere and never will exist.

The left believes, in other words, in Utopia.  Thomas More wrote an entire book in Latin about that, back in the sixteenth century.  In Utopia, More satirizes the idea of a perfect society.  The book focuses on an island nation on which someone named “Raphael” claims he spent five years.  The word “utopia” means, literally, no place or “nowhere.”  The society of Utopia is a collection of ideal situations that look a lot like the left’s fantasies of social justice.

We hear that the Utopians “have very few laws” (87) because their cultural means of encouraging virtue work smoothly and do not require onerous enforcement.  In fact, so deeply are the fruitful habits of the Utopians imbued in their personality that their “first principle is that every soul is immortal and was created by a kind God, Who meant it to be happy” (71).

Most illustrative for readers of the New York Times op-ed is what the Utopians do to protect themselves from violent invasion without having to fight wars.  Take a look at this passage:

So the moment war’s declared they arrange through secret agents for lots of posters to go up simultaneously at all points on enemy territory where they are most likely to be seen.  These posters carry the official seal of the Utopian government and offer a huge reward for killing the enemy king.  They also offer smaller but still very considerable sums for killing certain individuals whose names appear on a list and who are presumed to be the chief supporters, after the king, of anti-Utopian policies.  The reward for bringing such people in alive is twice as much as for killing them – and they themselves are offered the same amount of money, plus a free pardon, for turning against their own associates.


The immediate result is that everyone mentioned on the list becomes suspicious of everything in human shape.  They all stop trusting one another and stop being trustworthy.  They live in a constant state of terror, which is perfectly justified for it’s often been known to happen that all of them including the king himself are betrayed by the very person that they pinned the most faith on. (92)

More describes the artful but sinister form of psychological manipulation, which history remembers from the Spanish Inquisition and wars of the Reformation.  In Utopia, this form of psychological operation constitutes “peaceful means” of achieving one’s political ends.

Should it surprise us that the anonymous op-ed in the New York Times seems to engage in Utopian warfare?  People exist who want the Trump administration to fall apart and who want a reinstatement of the Obama-Clinton cabal.  They have situated themselves in various posts across entities that would deliberately collaborate to wage some version of More’s Utopian mind games.  The idea is to breed maximum distrust among Trump’s allies and then cause them to fall apart.  Then the Democrats do not have to spend money or do the hard work in order to build a base of support, engineer intelligent policies, or execute their plans faithfully.

Every day, more information comes to light about the coordination among people in the major media outlets and members of the seventeen organizations in the Intelligence Community.  That is not to mention, as well, the disturbing links between intelligence and academia, as well as the churches.  Consider for instance what I came across in my recent study of the American Academy of Religion.  The published program from the 2017 conference of the Academy included Session “P17-241,” which states the following:

In the years following the 1993 confrontation between the FBI and a religious community called the Branch Davidians, religion scholars have occasionally offered the FBI advice regarding dissident religious groups who are less commonly well-understood and who come into conflict with law enforcement.  The American Academy of Religion has served as an interlocutor for the Critical Incident Response Group and has also established a relationship with the FBI Academy through its National Academy.  The mutual hope of religion scholars and the FBI officials with whom they have interacted has been that consultation might lead to better outcomes than occurred with the Branch Davidians.  This panel will reflect on the interaction between religion scholars and law enforcement officials over the past 25 years and what may be learned from the experience to inform interaction going forward.

In looking at this innocuous entry in a conference program that is hundreds of pages long, you may wonder how American society became so blasé about its totalitarian psy ops.  Here you have Harvard brokering a “collusion,” literally, between spies and the people studying religions that people don’t like.  If you think by “dissident religions” the Harvard pontiffs refer to Islam, you are probably not paying close enough attention.  The new Branch Davidians, at least in the mind of people engineering this modern-day Inquisition, are probably Christian sects that disagree with Democrats and might defy Democrat-led governments.

In order to defray the possibility of conflict, Barack Obama’s old alma mater has gathered together “religion scholars” whose field research involves spying on the religious opposition to the Democrats and feeding information to the FBI.  You do not have to go far to connect the dots from here to the media, either.  According to a press release by the American Academy of Religion on July 16, 2018, the Academy grants awards for “Best In-Depth Newswriting on Religion.”  The top three winners this year were:

Daniel Burke, CNN Religion Editor … Jack Jenkins, national reporter for Religion News Service, second; and Kelsey Dallas, faith writer for Desert News, third[.] …


Jurors described Burke’s winning articles on the mysteries, complexities, and divisiveness of religion involving Neil Gorsuch’s background, Roy Moore, LGBT rights, and the debate between moral evil and natural[.]

So the Academy’s top prize went to a “religion reporter” who works for CNN and did “in-depth reporting” on Neil Gorsuch, Roy Moore, and LGBT rights as they relate to people of faith.  The Academy giving him this award sits on an information pipeline between the FBI and the colleges whose faculty evaluated his work for a prize.  The runner-up:

Jack Jenkins presented a “smart, varied thematic approach to an issue at the heart of the national conversation – the resurgence of white nationalism,” commented one juror.  He approached the topic through the lenses of faith, history, Trump, the Charlottesville protest, and the presence of white nationalism in church pulpits.

Are you starting to smell the rat? Note who made up the jury:

The jury make-up included Evan Berry, Associate Professor of Philosophy and Religion, American University, and member of [Committee on the Public Understanding of Religion]; Michelle Boorstein, religion reporter for the Washington Post; and Jaweed Kaleem, national race and justice correspondent for the Los Angeles Times.

When you come across a column as provocative as the New York Times op-ed, you may be tempted to react to the cues immediately available to you.  It looks at first glance like the statement by someone working in the Trump administration sincerely worried about the future of the country.  But to reach print, such a document had to have passed through many sieves.

See the connections among academia, the intelligence community, the churches, and the press.  Because obvious networks of people with similar sympathies occupy key posts in all these institutions, they can coordinate and know how to do so.  They have a purpose: to bring the Obama regime’s cronies back to absolute power and to destroy the “dissident religion” represented by Trump’s evangelical base, which the Harvard Estate views as racist and anti-LGBT.  They have a strategy: avoid high financial costs, avoid difficult conflict, and give as much cover as possible to the colluders.

The idea here is to breed anxiety, distrust, and division in Trump’s camp.  Part of this involves culling key terms from the Christian and conservative base that girds Trump and developing emotionally fraught storylines that can turn such constituencies against each other.  They have the researchers who are paid (by tax-exempt non-profit colleges!) to look into the workings of the conservative Christian world as their full-time jobs.  They have collaborators in the churches who can spy on all information about Trump’s evangelical base through ministries on the ground.  They have the intelligence community ready to execute the dirty work.

And they have the media to spin the whole affair so people get distracted and don’t see the vicious inquisition right before them.

But here is one thing they can’t take from us: Thomas More.  He gives us the playbook.  We should read it and work from it.

Follow Robert Oscar Lopez at English Manif.  Also, keep an eye for a series he hosts for Mass Resistance called “Save Our Churches.”

WORK CITED

Thomas More.  Utopia.  Trans. Paul Turner.  New York: Penguin, 2003.



Source link

208925.png

Sunday's Vote Could Snap Swedes out of Their Stockholm Syndrome


Swedes are set to vote Sunday, and soon the world may view another example of citizens frustrated by arrogant politicians and bureaucrats upending the status quo and changing the landscape of a rich country whose leaders manifestly have failed the working class. For in truth, Sweden is burning, physically and figuratively.  This reality is known better outside that country, because pro-globalist elites in Sweden work so hard to obscure brutal crimes and dislocations that occur as too many unvetted immigrants sweep into their generous nation.

But it is not simply burning cars, and savage assaults that capture the concern of Swedish citizens and international observers. An expensive, thirty year experiment in Sweden promoting global governance and attacking world problems has certainly helped Swedish elites, but many voters see more financial harm than benefit for themselves.

So, in mere days, the Swedish electorate will speak, and rumblings emanating various ways suggest that parties and politicians long in control of the government will suffer erosion in their influence.  How much power will a right-leaning party – Sweden Democrats – win at the ballot box, and what roles might candidates in this party play either supporting or obstructing the coalition government destined to emerge after September 9, 2018?

How closely will voters examine the qualifications and backgrounds of candidates for office, including their criminal records, if any, and the stated goals of their political parties concerning Sweden and regarding the wider world?

These major questions and looming answers must be seen in context.

Sparks Igniting Political Changes

In February 2017, when newly inaugurated President Trump drew attention to Tucker Carlson’s Fox News special on Sweden’s mounting problems with immigration policies, most critics around the world scoffed.

So, who was correct?

Months later, on April 7, 2017, an asylum-seeker killed five persons, and injured many more. These are the brutal losses that can be seen and measured.  How many more minds were wounded then, and how many still suffer from deep, lasting anxieties knowing there may no longer be safe spaces left in once-serene Sweden, especially for children and for grandchildren?

Lax vetting of visitors and immigrants is a poor choice for governments in rich nations. Evidently, the ancient lesson of the “Trojan horse” is one casualty of trends in education.  When will we start learning from history, recent and long past?

For years, the Swedish police, government officials, mainstream “journalists,” local educators and think-tankers did their best to cover up tragic incidents where newly settled immigrants committed violent crimes against persons and against property inside Sweden.

Much has changed following events in 2017 and then on August 14, 2018, when roving bands of black-clad youths overturned and burned vehicles in Gothenburg and several additional Swedish cities.  Even Sweden’s Prime Minister, Stefan Lofven, had to admit publicly that he was outraged over violent attacks that seemed coordinated almost with military precision.

As in other nations, crime statistics in Sweden apparently are not tracked carefully enough to catalog socio-economic characteristics of attackers and victims.   Moreover, concerns arise whether crimes against the vulnerable are accurately reported in “No-Go” zones scattered across Sweden that are chiefly populated by immigrants.

Yet, evidence is unmistakable that immigrants streamed into Sweden to take advantage of taxpayer-funded financial benefits that are not available in the war-torn, economically depressed zones whence immigrants originate. Sadly, in too many cases these immigrants exhibited little interest in assimilating peaceably, and instead attacked their economic benefactors.

Long-time residents and visitors to Sweden understand that welcoming numerous immigrants who despise secular society and reject Swedish cultural norms entails profound risks.

Do Swedes really wish to inhabit a globalist world, where artificial borders unfairly deny fair access to Sweden to fellow world citizens living in economically depressed or politically challenging conditions?  Are Swedes required to welcome and subsidize all immigrants, even those who may despise secular government, and local mores?

As challenging as Sweden’s immigration problems are in September 2018, they seem to be symptoms of deeper concerns.  Sending all unvetted immigrants back to their countries of origin would still leave Swedish workers as cogs in a globalist wheel of misfortune, where their wages may be crushed by cheaper human or machine alternatives.

Regulated Nationalism or Unregulated Globalism?

For 30 years, from 1989 to the present, the Swedish people have been in thrall to elites who tirelessly sell virtues of “globalism.”

Considering who may actually benefit from submitting to globalist impulses, American observers need to understand that Sweden’s economy is remarkably different from ours: Sweden’s businesses are much more dependent on foreign customers. For example, in 2016, exports from Sweden were $228 billion.  This figure is equal in size to the internal Swedish market for household goods and services (consumption). In contrast, American exports of $2,296 billion were just 17% of household consumption during 2016.  Without export sales, many Swedish companies would experience substantial economic losses. Whereas, American companies, even now, can still thrive catering primarily to our large, vibrant home market.

So, it is easy to understand why Swedish politicians would embrace globalism, thinking that doing so might help Swedish multinational companies and their employees to promote export sales.  And yes, large corporations there have indeed thrived – many Swedish-branded products sell across the world, and some private sector employees earn incomes that allow families to live well, even to save.

Academics, think-tankers, and writers in Sweden also have flourished while promoting unregulated globalism. But the people who have suffered are those in the private sector whose jobs and incomes stand ever more at risk.  Despite abundant evidence that globalist policies failed to lift wages for private sector workers in richer nations, Swedish voters, until now, continue to elect pro-globalist governments, and in so doing exhibit classic signs of “Stockholm Syndrome,” a condition that Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines as “the psychological tendency of a hostage to bond with, identify with, or sympathize with his or her captor.”

Will Swedish voters escape their captors and chart a new, more productive course for Sweden’s workers and entrepreneurs?

Will Sweden become safe again?

Soon, the world shall see.

Swedes are set to vote Sunday, and soon the world may view another example of citizens frustrated by arrogant politicians and bureaucrats upending the status quo and changing the landscape of a rich country whose leaders manifestly have failed the working class. For in truth, Sweden is burning, physically and figuratively.  This reality is known better outside that country, because pro-globalist elites in Sweden work so hard to obscure brutal crimes and dislocations that occur as too many unvetted immigrants sweep into their generous nation.

But it is not simply burning cars, and savage assaults that capture the concern of Swedish citizens and international observers. An expensive, thirty year experiment in Sweden promoting global governance and attacking world problems has certainly helped Swedish elites, but many voters see more financial harm than benefit for themselves.

So, in mere days, the Swedish electorate will speak, and rumblings emanating various ways suggest that parties and politicians long in control of the government will suffer erosion in their influence.  How much power will a right-leaning party – Sweden Democrats – win at the ballot box, and what roles might candidates in this party play either supporting or obstructing the coalition government destined to emerge after September 9, 2018?

How closely will voters examine the qualifications and backgrounds of candidates for office, including their criminal records, if any, and the stated goals of their political parties concerning Sweden and regarding the wider world?

These major questions and looming answers must be seen in context.

Sparks Igniting Political Changes

In February 2017, when newly inaugurated President Trump drew attention to Tucker Carlson’s Fox News special on Sweden’s mounting problems with immigration policies, most critics around the world scoffed.

So, who was correct?

Months later, on April 7, 2017, an asylum-seeker killed five persons, and injured many more. These are the brutal losses that can be seen and measured.  How many more minds were wounded then, and how many still suffer from deep, lasting anxieties knowing there may no longer be safe spaces left in once-serene Sweden, especially for children and for grandchildren?

Lax vetting of visitors and immigrants is a poor choice for governments in rich nations. Evidently, the ancient lesson of the “Trojan horse” is one casualty of trends in education.  When will we start learning from history, recent and long past?

For years, the Swedish police, government officials, mainstream “journalists,” local educators and think-tankers did their best to cover up tragic incidents where newly settled immigrants committed violent crimes against persons and against property inside Sweden.

Much has changed following events in 2017 and then on August 14, 2018, when roving bands of black-clad youths overturned and burned vehicles in Gothenburg and several additional Swedish cities.  Even Sweden’s Prime Minister, Stefan Lofven, had to admit publicly that he was outraged over violent attacks that seemed coordinated almost with military precision.

As in other nations, crime statistics in Sweden apparently are not tracked carefully enough to catalog socio-economic characteristics of attackers and victims.   Moreover, concerns arise whether crimes against the vulnerable are accurately reported in “No-Go” zones scattered across Sweden that are chiefly populated by immigrants.

Yet, evidence is unmistakable that immigrants streamed into Sweden to take advantage of taxpayer-funded financial benefits that are not available in the war-torn, economically depressed zones whence immigrants originate. Sadly, in too many cases these immigrants exhibited little interest in assimilating peaceably, and instead attacked their economic benefactors.

Long-time residents and visitors to Sweden understand that welcoming numerous immigrants who despise secular society and reject Swedish cultural norms entails profound risks.

Do Swedes really wish to inhabit a globalist world, where artificial borders unfairly deny fair access to Sweden to fellow world citizens living in economically depressed or politically challenging conditions?  Are Swedes required to welcome and subsidize all immigrants, even those who may despise secular government, and local mores?

As challenging as Sweden’s immigration problems are in September 2018, they seem to be symptoms of deeper concerns.  Sending all unvetted immigrants back to their countries of origin would still leave Swedish workers as cogs in a globalist wheel of misfortune, where their wages may be crushed by cheaper human or machine alternatives.

Regulated Nationalism or Unregulated Globalism?

For 30 years, from 1989 to the present, the Swedish people have been in thrall to elites who tirelessly sell virtues of “globalism.”

Considering who may actually benefit from submitting to globalist impulses, American observers need to understand that Sweden’s economy is remarkably different from ours: Sweden’s businesses are much more dependent on foreign customers. For example, in 2016, exports from Sweden were $228 billion.  This figure is equal in size to the internal Swedish market for household goods and services (consumption). In contrast, American exports of $2,296 billion were just 17% of household consumption during 2016.  Without export sales, many Swedish companies would experience substantial economic losses. Whereas, American companies, even now, can still thrive catering primarily to our large, vibrant home market.

So, it is easy to understand why Swedish politicians would embrace globalism, thinking that doing so might help Swedish multinational companies and their employees to promote export sales.  And yes, large corporations there have indeed thrived – many Swedish-branded products sell across the world, and some private sector employees earn incomes that allow families to live well, even to save.

Academics, think-tankers, and writers in Sweden also have flourished while promoting unregulated globalism. But the people who have suffered are those in the private sector whose jobs and incomes stand ever more at risk.  Despite abundant evidence that globalist policies failed to lift wages for private sector workers in richer nations, Swedish voters, until now, continue to elect pro-globalist governments, and in so doing exhibit classic signs of “Stockholm Syndrome,” a condition that Merriam Webster’s dictionary defines as “the psychological tendency of a hostage to bond with, identify with, or sympathize with his or her captor.”

Will Swedish voters escape their captors and chart a new, more productive course for Sweden’s workers and entrepreneurs?

Will Sweden become safe again?

Soon, the world shall see.



Source link

208945.png

The Elephant at the Southern Border


Why do the public discussions of immigration overwhelmingly focus on our Southern border while the influx of almost equal numbers of Asians, Europeans, and Indians goes unnoticed?  Why fixate on Hispanics?

The prevailing explanation, at least the one advanced publicly by Donald Trump and his supporters, is that Hispanic immigrants are disproportionately inclined toward criminality and long-term welfare dependency vis-à-vis other immigrant groups.

The elephant in the room is the low I.Q. of these would-be future Americans.  Specifically, the average I.Q. in central American countries – Honduras 81, El Salvador 81, Guatemala 79, for example – would assign these migrants and their offspring to the “educable” or mildly retarded category in schools, unable to master all but the basics (Mexico might be a small exception with an average I.Q. of 88).

To be sure, the newcomers may be a tad smarter than their countrymen left behind, but even so, an average of a few points higher would not substantially alter their intellectual shortcomings.  Put into context, the average I.Q. of black Americans is 85, so these Central Americans would be at the very bottom of America’s educational achievement hierarchy.  This awkward reality is not totally racial – notable exceptions exist, and these “educable” Hispanic immigrants will be far outnumbered by whites with similarly low cognitive abilities.

Critically, low I.Q. is likely to persist across generations and is intractable compared to reversing criminality or welfare dependency, since criminality can be mitigated by tougher law enforcement, while welfare rolls can be trimmed.  Low I.Q., by contrast, is impossible to boost.  Skeptics should consider the failure of Head Start and countless similar interventions in this futile quest.

The influx of millions of low-I.Q. people will likely transform America (politics included) and conceivably even edge us closer to nations like Brazil and even Venezuela.  While recent immigrants from places like El Salvador on their own lack the numbers to execute this transformation, added to those of the Bernie Sanders ilk already here, they can turn electoral minorities into majorities.  California may be a harbinger.  Make no mistake: Trump and his supporters have a credible case that an open southern border may well alter American quantitatively, qualitatively, irreversibly, and for the worse.

Anticipating this transformation is hardly rocket science.

First, this will be a population plagued by innumeracy in a society requiring at least some ability to comprehend numbers.  How many low-I.Q. people understand what a million or billion is, let alone trillions, all commonplace terms in deliberations over the national debt and trade deficits?  Keep in mind that many of those with low I.Q.s love the lottery, where one-in-a million odds seem “reasonable.”  These are also people who as jurors can award damages in the hundreds of millions thanks to junk science.  Imagine a judicial system where a handful of juries regularly dictates hundred-million-dollar judgments that bankrupt corporations while creating extensive unemployment and destroying pensions.  Do these “generous” jurors honestly believe that their outsized kindness makes economic sense?

Meanwhile, picture the cognitively challenged following environmental disputes where, for example, a proposed regulation shifts from one part per hundred million to two parts per hundred million, a change that may be portrayed (accurately but probably deceptively) as doubling the permitted toxic waste but in fact may be environmentally meaningless, given infinitesimal quantities.  What does “a part per hundred million” mean to those mystified by “million”?  More importantly, can they grasp how seemingly high-sounding environmental intervention may have business-killing ramifications?

Imagine a low-I.Q. person trying to follow a public debate on, say, spending more on education, that includes such basic economic concepts as opportunity costs and trade-offs.  Can he draw the connection between government mandating cheaper medical costs and fewer doctors?  Probably not.

Ditto for calculating non-economic costs, especially non-obvious ones.  Try explaining to those who can’t get past 6th grade that artificially high minimum wages in practice harms intended beneficiaries, since these mandates raise the cost of hiring alleged beneficiaries.  Or that alluring soak-the-rich tax rates will fail, since the wealthy will escape confiscatory taxes or refuse to invest in economically productive ventures.

Can they grasp America’s foundational political principles?  Try explaining that the rule of law requires only following certain detailed procedures and that it does not guarantee that those “obviously” 100% guilty will, in fact, be convicted.  Or why the First Amendment protects hurtful or offensive speech.  Or that the morally offensive – for example, adultery – is not illegal unless prohibited by a specific statute.

Such intellectual insufficiencies almost guarantee widespread Bernie Sanders-style demagogy, a world where voters embrace free lunches thanks, supposedly, to an endless supply of billionaires agreeable to being fleeced.  Campaigns will see rivals competing to be Santa Claus, as if every alluring benefit were an unalienable government-funded right.  Pandering office-seekers will also demand that government just get rid of “bad things” regardless of cost or legal obstacles.  Just try to convince those of limited intelligence why eliminating all sexual harassment invites totalitarian cures far worse than the offending behavior.  Does the concept “totalitarian” mean anything to those stymied by 4th-grade reading lessons?

There is some upbeat news here.  The Founders fully understood this danger and, for those accusing Trump, et al. of racism, the Constitution was written at a time when America (excluding slaves, of course) was overwhelmingly white and of European ancestry.  Warnings of low I.Q. are not dog-whistle racism.  Many Founders were personally familiar with mass foolishness where people demanded “free” government handouts.  The Constitution itself was created in response to the Shays Rebellion, when mobs of destitute farmers attacked courthouses in the hope of forcefully discharging their debts.

The Constitution reflects the fear of the Great Unwashed: checks and balances; the separation of powers; federalism; explicit limits on government power (for example, Article I, Section 9 and the Bill of Rights); the lifetime appointment of judges; and the Electoral College, not a popular majority, electing the president, among multiple other barriers to foolish mob rule.  Meanwhile, the states sharply limited the franchise to property-owners to block the easily misled poor from heeding soak-the-rich demagogy. 

Nevertheless, the threat of rapacious economic appetites remains relevant.  Constitutional limits can accomplish only so much.  Puerto Rico is constrained by the U.S. Constitution, but it has nevertheless overspent itself into near bankruptcy.  California seems headed in this direction thanks to widespread beliefs that any idea that sounds good – for example, universal health care for all immigrants – deserves to be implemented.  Several cities such as Detroit have declared bankruptcy due to never having to say “no” to “good ideas” while refusing to pay the bills.

It is impossible to specify a tipping point when the U.S. drifts into a Third World-like wealth-destroying “socialism,” where government barely functions thanks to an inept workforce.  It may require an influx of millions more low-I.Q. immigrants before this calamity finally arrives, but this fear is not racist hyperbole.  This is the elephant at our southern border.

Why do the public discussions of immigration overwhelmingly focus on our Southern border while the influx of almost equal numbers of Asians, Europeans, and Indians goes unnoticed?  Why fixate on Hispanics?

The prevailing explanation, at least the one advanced publicly by Donald Trump and his supporters, is that Hispanic immigrants are disproportionately inclined toward criminality and long-term welfare dependency vis-à-vis other immigrant groups.

The elephant in the room is the low I.Q. of these would-be future Americans.  Specifically, the average I.Q. in central American countries – Honduras 81, El Salvador 81, Guatemala 79, for example – would assign these migrants and their offspring to the “educable” or mildly retarded category in schools, unable to master all but the basics (Mexico might be a small exception with an average I.Q. of 88).

To be sure, the newcomers may be a tad smarter than their countrymen left behind, but even so, an average of a few points higher would not substantially alter their intellectual shortcomings.  Put into context, the average I.Q. of black Americans is 85, so these Central Americans would be at the very bottom of America’s educational achievement hierarchy.  This awkward reality is not totally racial – notable exceptions exist, and these “educable” Hispanic immigrants will be far outnumbered by whites with similarly low cognitive abilities.

Critically, low I.Q. is likely to persist across generations and is intractable compared to reversing criminality or welfare dependency, since criminality can be mitigated by tougher law enforcement, while welfare rolls can be trimmed.  Low I.Q., by contrast, is impossible to boost.  Skeptics should consider the failure of Head Start and countless similar interventions in this futile quest.

The influx of millions of low-I.Q. people will likely transform America (politics included) and conceivably even edge us closer to nations like Brazil and even Venezuela.  While recent immigrants from places like El Salvador on their own lack the numbers to execute this transformation, added to those of the Bernie Sanders ilk already here, they can turn electoral minorities into majorities.  California may be a harbinger.  Make no mistake: Trump and his supporters have a credible case that an open southern border may well alter American quantitatively, qualitatively, irreversibly, and for the worse.

Anticipating this transformation is hardly rocket science.

First, this will be a population plagued by innumeracy in a society requiring at least some ability to comprehend numbers.  How many low-I.Q. people understand what a million or billion is, let alone trillions, all commonplace terms in deliberations over the national debt and trade deficits?  Keep in mind that many of those with low I.Q.s love the lottery, where one-in-a million odds seem “reasonable.”  These are also people who as jurors can award damages in the hundreds of millions thanks to junk science.  Imagine a judicial system where a handful of juries regularly dictates hundred-million-dollar judgments that bankrupt corporations while creating extensive unemployment and destroying pensions.  Do these “generous” jurors honestly believe that their outsized kindness makes economic sense?

Meanwhile, picture the cognitively challenged following environmental disputes where, for example, a proposed regulation shifts from one part per hundred million to two parts per hundred million, a change that may be portrayed (accurately but probably deceptively) as doubling the permitted toxic waste but in fact may be environmentally meaningless, given infinitesimal quantities.  What does “a part per hundred million” mean to those mystified by “million”?  More importantly, can they grasp how seemingly high-sounding environmental intervention may have business-killing ramifications?

Imagine a low-I.Q. person trying to follow a public debate on, say, spending more on education, that includes such basic economic concepts as opportunity costs and trade-offs.  Can he draw the connection between government mandating cheaper medical costs and fewer doctors?  Probably not.

Ditto for calculating non-economic costs, especially non-obvious ones.  Try explaining to those who can’t get past 6th grade that artificially high minimum wages in practice harms intended beneficiaries, since these mandates raise the cost of hiring alleged beneficiaries.  Or that alluring soak-the-rich tax rates will fail, since the wealthy will escape confiscatory taxes or refuse to invest in economically productive ventures.

Can they grasp America’s foundational political principles?  Try explaining that the rule of law requires only following certain detailed procedures and that it does not guarantee that those “obviously” 100% guilty will, in fact, be convicted.  Or why the First Amendment protects hurtful or offensive speech.  Or that the morally offensive – for example, adultery – is not illegal unless prohibited by a specific statute.

Such intellectual insufficiencies almost guarantee widespread Bernie Sanders-style demagogy, a world where voters embrace free lunches thanks, supposedly, to an endless supply of billionaires agreeable to being fleeced.  Campaigns will see rivals competing to be Santa Claus, as if every alluring benefit were an unalienable government-funded right.  Pandering office-seekers will also demand that government just get rid of “bad things” regardless of cost or legal obstacles.  Just try to convince those of limited intelligence why eliminating all sexual harassment invites totalitarian cures far worse than the offending behavior.  Does the concept “totalitarian” mean anything to those stymied by 4th-grade reading lessons?

There is some upbeat news here.  The Founders fully understood this danger and, for those accusing Trump, et al. of racism, the Constitution was written at a time when America (excluding slaves, of course) was overwhelmingly white and of European ancestry.  Warnings of low I.Q. are not dog-whistle racism.  Many Founders were personally familiar with mass foolishness where people demanded “free” government handouts.  The Constitution itself was created in response to the Shays Rebellion, when mobs of destitute farmers attacked courthouses in the hope of forcefully discharging their debts.

The Constitution reflects the fear of the Great Unwashed: checks and balances; the separation of powers; federalism; explicit limits on government power (for example, Article I, Section 9 and the Bill of Rights); the lifetime appointment of judges; and the Electoral College, not a popular majority, electing the president, among multiple other barriers to foolish mob rule.  Meanwhile, the states sharply limited the franchise to property-owners to block the easily misled poor from heeding soak-the-rich demagogy. 

Nevertheless, the threat of rapacious economic appetites remains relevant.  Constitutional limits can accomplish only so much.  Puerto Rico is constrained by the U.S. Constitution, but it has nevertheless overspent itself into near bankruptcy.  California seems headed in this direction thanks to widespread beliefs that any idea that sounds good – for example, universal health care for all immigrants – deserves to be implemented.  Several cities such as Detroit have declared bankruptcy due to never having to say “no” to “good ideas” while refusing to pay the bills.

It is impossible to specify a tipping point when the U.S. drifts into a Third World-like wealth-destroying “socialism,” where government barely functions thanks to an inept workforce.  It may require an influx of millions more low-I.Q. immigrants before this calamity finally arrives, but this fear is not racist hyperbole.  This is the elephant at our southern border.



Source link

208944.png

Nike Goes Long on Kaepernick and America's Self-Hatred


Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention, however, knows that nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, as someone who watched the guy play for years, I take issue with the Nike’s choice to nourish this ridiculous myth that Kaepernick somehow wasn’t allowed to reach his peak athletic greatness in the NFL because he chose to take center stage as a Black Lives Matter protestor.

The unspoken truth in this campaign is that Kaepernick was just not a very good quarterback by NFL standards.  Yes, he took over for an injured Alex Smith in 2012 to lead the San Francisco 49ers to the Super Bowl.  After that, however, he fell hard from that early and short-lived pinnacle in his career.  In what you might call his three-season heyday of 2012-2014, he did manage to rack up an incredible 1,500+ rushing yards in San Francisco’s read-option scheme.  Yet even in these, his very best years, he was still one of “the league’s least-accurate passers,” according to Kevin Seifert at ESPN. 

In 2015 and 2016, he ranked 35th in off-target passing percentage (22.6%) and 32nd in completion percentage (59.1%).  These numbers are nothing short of abysmal.

Unsurprisingly, the beginning of the 2017 NFL season found him as a 29-year-old free agent, and all but washed up as an NFL starter.  “There’s no more important attribute for a quarterback than accuracy, especially for a free agent who is shopping himself to teams with various schemes,” Seifert writes. 

In short, protest or no protest, Kaepernick would likely be a backup today, at best.  Just as he was a backup when he first decided to kneel for the National Anthem in 2016.

Is that the “everything” that he “sacrificed?”

And what did Kaepernick “believe” so fervently that he “sacrificed” all of that mediocrity to promote it? 

He proudly refused “to stand up and show pride” in the American flag, because America is nothing more, in his mind, than “a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”  He believes that police officers are pigs (if we are to believe his socks represent his beliefs) who stalk the streets at night looking to maim and murder black people for no reason at all.  He praised mass-murderer and Communist Fidel Castro who made slaves of the Cuban people, while he enjoys the free speech rights allowing him to become millions of dollars richer via Nike endorsements. 

Perhaps the best indication of his deeper beliefs occurred back in November of 2016, when he invoked radical Black Panther ideology, hosting a “Black Panther-inspired youth camp” in which campers wore a T-shirt with “10 rights listed on the back that organizers said every child of color should know.”  These “10 rights” were “inspired by the popular Ten-Point Program created by the Black Panther Party,” which, at that time, had just “celebrated its 50th anniversary.”

The Washington Times reports this all very nonchalantly.  But what some of us know, though the general public may not, is that the Ten-Point Program he pressed upon those children was a racist call for revolutionary socialism and violence against White Americans.  Among these Ten Points is a suggestion that “the federal government has the obligation to give every man employment or guaranteed income.”  If the “White American businessman will not give full employment, then the means of production must be taken from the businessman and placed in the community.”

These points also include the demand that black men are to be exempt from military service so as not to “be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government” and a demand that “all Black people should be released from the many jails and prisons” because they have all, ostensibly, been wrongfully been imprisoned due to the color of their skin.

All of that militant radicalism and America-hatred is what Colin Kaepernick believes so fervently that he bravely gave up a few more years of being a backup in the NFL to promote it.

I have no idea how Nike’s new ad campaign will fare in a business sense.  Marketing data undoubtedly suggest that younger demographics may respond well to this campaign, and it may yield increased revenues for the company.

Dave Portnoy, founder of Barstool Sports, told Tucker Carlson on Wednesday that, “as a shareholder, I like the move.  Everyone’s talking about it, it makes [Nike] relevant.” 

Carlson went on to say, “So you think they’re going to gain more from people who are “fighting the power” with millionaire Colin Kaepernick than they will lose from people like me, who are, like, “I’m New Balance from here on out?””

Portnoy chides Carlson by saying, “I’d like to see the pair of Nikes you wore, ’cause I’m willing to bet they’re not that trendy, not that hip.”

Nike’s almost certainly thinking the same thing.  But consider that, perhaps, Portnoy and Nike are missing a key factor here. 

Who often buys the products, after all?

Take me, for instance.  I’m a husband, and dad of two, in my thirties.  I’d never suggest that I’m trendy or hip, and no, I don’t wear the most expensive Nike sneakers every day. 

However, I do own two pair of Nike cross-trainers that I regularly wear to the gym.  In fact, I think I’ve bought (or have had bought for me) a pair of Nike sneakers every year for as long as I can remember. 

And don’t get me started about the gear.  My family and I own countless shirts, pairs of shorts and wind pants, hats, etc. that bear Nike’s trademark Swoosh.  And I think I can safely say that I have, for years, annually spent at least $3-400 on Nike shoes and gear for me, my children, or as birthday or Christmas gifts for family members.

But I’m not going to buy Nike anything for myself, my kids, or anyone else as long as Kaepernick remains a face of the brand.  I’d wager I’m not alone in that. 

Nike’s certainly free to alienate unhip thirty-somethings like me.  Maybe that’s part of their good business move, I guess.  Time will tell.  But if I were a betting man, I’d bet that the move might yield a lot of grandparents, parents, and generally less-hip-older folks (you know, people with money) who have historically bought their product who will, in the future, choose to buy different products because of this stupid, tone-deaf marketing campaign celebrating a militant, mediocre sports figure who clearly and proudly hates everything for which America stands.

William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.

Nike, the world’s leading athletic footwear and apparel brand, recently made Colin Kaepernick the face most identifiable with the company after it released an ad with his picture, captioned: “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”  Kaepernick utters those very words in Nike’s new commercial, which depicts him staring reverently at the American flag.

The ad campaign seeks to present Kaepernick as a patriot who loves America, in spite of his having become a victim of its intolerance. 

Anyone paying the slightest bit of attention, however, knows that nothing could be further from the truth.

First of all, as someone who watched the guy play for years, I take issue with the Nike’s choice to nourish this ridiculous myth that Kaepernick somehow wasn’t allowed to reach his peak athletic greatness in the NFL because he chose to take center stage as a Black Lives Matter protestor.

The unspoken truth in this campaign is that Kaepernick was just not a very good quarterback by NFL standards.  Yes, he took over for an injured Alex Smith in 2012 to lead the San Francisco 49ers to the Super Bowl.  After that, however, he fell hard from that early and short-lived pinnacle in his career.  In what you might call his three-season heyday of 2012-2014, he did manage to rack up an incredible 1,500+ rushing yards in San Francisco’s read-option scheme.  Yet even in these, his very best years, he was still one of “the league’s least-accurate passers,” according to Kevin Seifert at ESPN. 

In 2015 and 2016, he ranked 35th in off-target passing percentage (22.6%) and 32nd in completion percentage (59.1%).  These numbers are nothing short of abysmal.

Unsurprisingly, the beginning of the 2017 NFL season found him as a 29-year-old free agent, and all but washed up as an NFL starter.  “There’s no more important attribute for a quarterback than accuracy, especially for a free agent who is shopping himself to teams with various schemes,” Seifert writes. 

In short, protest or no protest, Kaepernick would likely be a backup today, at best.  Just as he was a backup when he first decided to kneel for the National Anthem in 2016.

Is that the “everything” that he “sacrificed?”

And what did Kaepernick “believe” so fervently that he “sacrificed” all of that mediocrity to promote it? 

He proudly refused “to stand up and show pride” in the American flag, because America is nothing more, in his mind, than “a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”  He believes that police officers are pigs (if we are to believe his socks represent his beliefs) who stalk the streets at night looking to maim and murder black people for no reason at all.  He praised mass-murderer and Communist Fidel Castro who made slaves of the Cuban people, while he enjoys the free speech rights allowing him to become millions of dollars richer via Nike endorsements. 

Perhaps the best indication of his deeper beliefs occurred back in November of 2016, when he invoked radical Black Panther ideology, hosting a “Black Panther-inspired youth camp” in which campers wore a T-shirt with “10 rights listed on the back that organizers said every child of color should know.”  These “10 rights” were “inspired by the popular Ten-Point Program created by the Black Panther Party,” which, at that time, had just “celebrated its 50th anniversary.”

The Washington Times reports this all very nonchalantly.  But what some of us know, though the general public may not, is that the Ten-Point Program he pressed upon those children was a racist call for revolutionary socialism and violence against White Americans.  Among these Ten Points is a suggestion that “the federal government has the obligation to give every man employment or guaranteed income.”  If the “White American businessman will not give full employment, then the means of production must be taken from the businessman and placed in the community.”

These points also include the demand that black men are to be exempt from military service so as not to “be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government” and a demand that “all Black people should be released from the many jails and prisons” because they have all, ostensibly, been wrongfully been imprisoned due to the color of their skin.

All of that militant radicalism and America-hatred is what Colin Kaepernick believes so fervently that he bravely gave up a few more years of being a backup in the NFL to promote it.

I have no idea how Nike’s new ad campaign will fare in a business sense.  Marketing data undoubtedly suggest that younger demographics may respond well to this campaign, and it may yield increased revenues for the company.

Dave Portnoy, founder of Barstool Sports, told Tucker Carlson on Wednesday that, “as a shareholder, I like the move.  Everyone’s talking about it, it makes [Nike] relevant.” 

Carlson went on to say, “So you think they’re going to gain more from people who are “fighting the power” with millionaire Colin Kaepernick than they will lose from people like me, who are, like, “I’m New Balance from here on out?””

Portnoy chides Carlson by saying, “I’d like to see the pair of Nikes you wore, ’cause I’m willing to bet they’re not that trendy, not that hip.”

Nike’s almost certainly thinking the same thing.  But consider that, perhaps, Portnoy and Nike are missing a key factor here. 

Who often buys the products, after all?

Take me, for instance.  I’m a husband, and dad of two, in my thirties.  I’d never suggest that I’m trendy or hip, and no, I don’t wear the most expensive Nike sneakers every day. 

However, I do own two pair of Nike cross-trainers that I regularly wear to the gym.  In fact, I think I’ve bought (or have had bought for me) a pair of Nike sneakers every year for as long as I can remember. 

And don’t get me started about the gear.  My family and I own countless shirts, pairs of shorts and wind pants, hats, etc. that bear Nike’s trademark Swoosh.  And I think I can safely say that I have, for years, annually spent at least $3-400 on Nike shoes and gear for me, my children, or as birthday or Christmas gifts for family members.

But I’m not going to buy Nike anything for myself, my kids, or anyone else as long as Kaepernick remains a face of the brand.  I’d wager I’m not alone in that. 

Nike’s certainly free to alienate unhip thirty-somethings like me.  Maybe that’s part of their good business move, I guess.  Time will tell.  But if I were a betting man, I’d bet that the move might yield a lot of grandparents, parents, and generally less-hip-older folks (you know, people with money) who have historically bought their product who will, in the future, choose to buy different products because of this stupid, tone-deaf marketing campaign celebrating a militant, mediocre sports figure who clearly and proudly hates everything for which America stands.

William Sullivan blogs at Political Palaver and can be followed on Twitter.



Source link

208946.png

Ocasio Gets Knocked Out


In June 2018, young 28-year-old “Socialist Democrat” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated 10-term Democrat Joe Crowley in what was considered a major upset. Crowley – a tried-and-true Democratic congressman with 20 years of loyal party service, proved no match for Ocasio-Cortez and her embodiment of the new brand of über-liberal progressivism. In the new paradigm of Democratic Party politics, there is no such thing as social policies that are too liberal, no education, healthcare, or assistance initiatives that are too generous with government-funded payouts, no position on illegal immigration or gender identity that is too lenient or accommodating.

Now in Massachusetts, it has happened again. Ayanna Pressley, a Democratic African-American woman, decisively defeated 10-term Congressman Mike Capuano 59-41% in a primary contest on September 4. Since there is no Republican candidate in the MA 7th Congressional District, this was the de facto election for that seat and Pressley – who holds views essentially identical to Ocasio-Cortez – will be the officeholder come January 2019. Like Joe Crowley, Mike Capuano was a 50-something white male. “Old white guys” – with the somewhat ironic, humorous exception of Bernie Sanders – seem to be falling out of favor in the Democratic Party these days. Pressley’s acceptance speech was characterized by such lines as “We ran a campaign for those who were told their priorities can wait,” and “These times demand more from our leaders… change can’t wait.” This, of course, is merely liberal code-speak for the promise that new government giveaway programs to her constituency are on the way, financed by new taxes on the “rich.” Like Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley is seen as a Democratic rising star – female, non-Caucasian, solidly in the “Big Government Solves All Problems” camp.

It’s all in keeping with the idea of Democratic Socialism, in whose curious reality the playing field is leveled, differences in incomes are eliminated (or at least minimized) and wealth is redistributed to the deserving. The “deserving” according to the arbitrary whims of these new Democratic Socialists, where the ordinary rules of a market economy can be ignored as needed and Government funding is not generated by modest income taxes on a continually-expanding economic base, but instead by targeted, ever-increasing punitive taxation on a restricted, over-regulated economic base.

The “Ocasio” name has some interesting connotations. Boxing aficionados will undoubtedly remember Osvaldo “Ossie” Ocasio, a Puerto Rican-born heavyweight boxer who was active in the 1970s. He scored two big wins over highly-regarded contender Jimmy Young (who had given Muhammad Ali a very hard time in 1976 and then upset George Foreman in 1977), which catapulted Ocasio into the upper echelon of heavyweight contenders. On the strength of these wins, Ocasio was awarded a title fight against champion Larry Holmes in 1979.

Alas, Ocasio’s time in the limelight was short-lived and his lasting importance in heavyweight boxing ultimately proved to be both illusory and fleeting. Holmes dominated Ocasio for six rounds before dropping him four times in the 7th, en route to a devastating knockout victory. Ocasio was never heard from again.

The Ocasio-Cortez/Pressley contingent of the new Democratic Socialist movement may well score some impressive wins in the near term, upsetting a lot of long-standing Democratic incumbents and perhaps wresting a significant degree of national power as well. However, if they achieve a dominant position nationally and begin to implement their socialist agenda, they will be unpleasantly surprised and eventually suffer major disappointments.

This country is based on a market economy. It is capitalistic, driven by the profit motive. Virtually all economic activity in the private sector – whether it’s retail or pharmaceutical/healthcare or energy or manufacturing or entertainment or communications/information services and devices or transportation or real estate/construction or law – is predicated on generating a profit. Government policies that discourage profit-oriented activity – indeed, punish it – will serve only to slow the growth of the national economic pie – the very pie that Democratic Socialists intend on cutting into slices and giving away to those they’ve deemed “deserving” or “underserved” or “disadvantaged.”

Diminishing private sector profits will result in a continually-contracting downward spiral, in which economic activity is restricted, companies shrink, hiring decreases, and the general standard of living – across all demographic sectors, including the “deserving” – is reduced.

Democratic Socialism – a fraudulent idea based on fraudulent assumptions, foisted either by callous hypocrites like Sanders and Warren (who already have “theirs” and therefore can easily weather any economic downturn) or stunningly ignorant neophytes like Ocasio-Cortez (who simply don’t know any better) – will collapse from the illegitimacy of its own weight, as did Ossie Ocasio from the unapologetic power of champion Holmes’ inescapably real punches.

The country will suffer in the short run for having fallen prey to the false seduction of the promises of a Socialist free lunch. Perhaps we will be better off in the long run if we learn our lessons the hard way – with the Ocasio-Cortez/Pressley faction actually in office and making policy – and then we surgically remove the fantasy of government-supported Nirvana-for-all from our national consciousness once and for all.

Ultimately, if Ossie Ocasio had never been given the chance to climb into the ring in the first place, Holmes couldn’t have knocked him out and sent him into oblivion forever.

In June 2018, young 28-year-old “Socialist Democrat” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez defeated 10-term Democrat Joe Crowley in what was considered a major upset. Crowley – a tried-and-true Democratic congressman with 20 years of loyal party service, proved no match for Ocasio-Cortez and her embodiment of the new brand of über-liberal progressivism. In the new paradigm of Democratic Party politics, there is no such thing as social policies that are too liberal, no education, healthcare, or assistance initiatives that are too generous with government-funded payouts, no position on illegal immigration or gender identity that is too lenient or accommodating.

Now in Massachusetts, it has happened again. Ayanna Pressley, a Democratic African-American woman, decisively defeated 10-term Congressman Mike Capuano 59-41% in a primary contest on September 4. Since there is no Republican candidate in the MA 7th Congressional District, this was the de facto election for that seat and Pressley – who holds views essentially identical to Ocasio-Cortez – will be the officeholder come January 2019. Like Joe Crowley, Mike Capuano was a 50-something white male. “Old white guys” – with the somewhat ironic, humorous exception of Bernie Sanders – seem to be falling out of favor in the Democratic Party these days. Pressley’s acceptance speech was characterized by such lines as “We ran a campaign for those who were told their priorities can wait,” and “These times demand more from our leaders… change can’t wait.” This, of course, is merely liberal code-speak for the promise that new government giveaway programs to her constituency are on the way, financed by new taxes on the “rich.” Like Ocasio-Cortez, Pressley is seen as a Democratic rising star – female, non-Caucasian, solidly in the “Big Government Solves All Problems” camp.

It’s all in keeping with the idea of Democratic Socialism, in whose curious reality the playing field is leveled, differences in incomes are eliminated (or at least minimized) and wealth is redistributed to the deserving. The “deserving” according to the arbitrary whims of these new Democratic Socialists, where the ordinary rules of a market economy can be ignored as needed and Government funding is not generated by modest income taxes on a continually-expanding economic base, but instead by targeted, ever-increasing punitive taxation on a restricted, over-regulated economic base.

The “Ocasio” name has some interesting connotations. Boxing aficionados will undoubtedly remember Osvaldo “Ossie” Ocasio, a Puerto Rican-born heavyweight boxer who was active in the 1970s. He scored two big wins over highly-regarded contender Jimmy Young (who had given Muhammad Ali a very hard time in 1976 and then upset George Foreman in 1977), which catapulted Ocasio into the upper echelon of heavyweight contenders. On the strength of these wins, Ocasio was awarded a title fight against champion Larry Holmes in 1979.

Alas, Ocasio’s time in the limelight was short-lived and his lasting importance in heavyweight boxing ultimately proved to be both illusory and fleeting. Holmes dominated Ocasio for six rounds before dropping him four times in the 7th, en route to a devastating knockout victory. Ocasio was never heard from again.

The Ocasio-Cortez/Pressley contingent of the new Democratic Socialist movement may well score some impressive wins in the near term, upsetting a lot of long-standing Democratic incumbents and perhaps wresting a significant degree of national power as well. However, if they achieve a dominant position nationally and begin to implement their socialist agenda, they will be unpleasantly surprised and eventually suffer major disappointments.

This country is based on a market economy. It is capitalistic, driven by the profit motive. Virtually all economic activity in the private sector – whether it’s retail or pharmaceutical/healthcare or energy or manufacturing or entertainment or communications/information services and devices or transportation or real estate/construction or law – is predicated on generating a profit. Government policies that discourage profit-oriented activity – indeed, punish it – will serve only to slow the growth of the national economic pie – the very pie that Democratic Socialists intend on cutting into slices and giving away to those they’ve deemed “deserving” or “underserved” or “disadvantaged.”

Diminishing private sector profits will result in a continually-contracting downward spiral, in which economic activity is restricted, companies shrink, hiring decreases, and the general standard of living – across all demographic sectors, including the “deserving” – is reduced.

Democratic Socialism – a fraudulent idea based on fraudulent assumptions, foisted either by callous hypocrites like Sanders and Warren (who already have “theirs” and therefore can easily weather any economic downturn) or stunningly ignorant neophytes like Ocasio-Cortez (who simply don’t know any better) – will collapse from the illegitimacy of its own weight, as did Ossie Ocasio from the unapologetic power of champion Holmes’ inescapably real punches.

The country will suffer in the short run for having fallen prey to the false seduction of the promises of a Socialist free lunch. Perhaps we will be better off in the long run if we learn our lessons the hard way – with the Ocasio-Cortez/Pressley faction actually in office and making policy – and then we surgically remove the fantasy of government-supported Nirvana-for-all from our national consciousness once and for all.

Ultimately, if Ossie Ocasio had never been given the chance to climb into the ring in the first place, Holmes couldn’t have knocked him out and sent him into oblivion forever.



Source link