Category: Selwyn Duke

Why Should Whites Be Happy about Becoming a Minority?


White people are finding it “difficult to adjust” to becoming a minority, goes the premise of a new AP history textbook – with the implication that this reflects some kind of character defect.  Responding to this, conservative writers have generally denied the claim, sometimes calling it a “Marxist lie.”  But a different point should be made.

Imagine that a history book presented European colonization of North America by asserting, with the same character-defect implication, that Indians found it “difficult to adjust” to becoming a minority.  Would people be left scratching their heads?  Might this even be called offensive?  I think the only response really necessary would be “duh.”

So a question for libs: Can you cite for me one group, in all of history, that was happy about becoming a minority in what had been its homeland?  Just one.  I’ll be waiting.

Did the Ainus, the Japanese islands’ original inhabitants, jump for joy when being overrun and say, “Yay, now we can become a minority!  Maybe we’ll even be subsumed!” (which did happen, for the most part)?

Did the Formosan aborigines cheer when the Chinese began outnumbering them and exclaim, “Yippee!  Perhaps one day we’ll be just two percent of this island’s inhabitants” (which they are now)?

Did the population of Byzantine North Africa, faced with seventh-century Muslim invasion, declare, “Oh, joyous times!  Maybe we can look forward to the day when these lands are entirely Arab and Muslim!” (which came to pass)?

We could go on forever.  European history alone is replete with tribes – Alamanni, Franks, Angles, Vandals, Gepids, Burgundians, Lombards, etc. – that no longer exist as distinct peoples.

Now, I always fancied myself as having a keen grasp of man’s nature, but maybe I’m out of touch.  Perhaps all these groups really did make merry over coming minority status or, even, exult at possible extinguishment.  I’ve never heard of such a case, though.

Why would a group not be alarmed at the prospect of being reduced to minority status?  Leftists themselves never tire of stressing how minorities have ever been persecuted; “progressive” histories are narratives of minority struggle against majority oppression (though liberals love impugning the West on this score, they do sometimes speak of the same phenomenon occurring elsewhere).

As usual, the reality is precisely the opposite of what leftists claim: sleepwalking into cultural and demographic irrelevancy, there has never been a group less concerned about movement toward minority status than whites.

This is partially explainable by the fact that there has never before been a civilization as just as the West.  For example, whites probably weren’t the first to practice slavery.

But they certainly were the first to end it.

Whites might not have been the first to violate human rights.

They are, however, the only reason we even talk about such violation – because they birthed our whole modern concept of human rights to begin with.

The West is unique.  There simply has never been a civilization that has secured so much prosperity and so many rights for all its citizens, including minorities.  In fact, it now often subordinates majority well-being to minority whim (e.g., that of the sexual “devolutionaries”).  Thus, you truly might see no reason to fear becoming a minority if the modern West is your only frame of reference.

Yet this is an area where we actually should listen to the left and be mindful of their warnings about minorities’ historical plight.  If whites were more concerned about being reduced to minority status, their nations – gradually losing their Western character due to multiculturalism and the influx of unassimilable, non-Western foreigners – wouldn’t be so imperiled (though our growing immorality would still plague us).

The reality expressed in this article eludes most because of conditioning: the double standard, the prejudice, is ingrained.  Whites are simultaneously portrayed as uniquely inhuman and something more than human, in that they’re supposed to be above normal human concerns (desire to retain one’s own culture, etc.).  They’re cast as singularly oppressive for exhibiting the same moral failings as every other group, such as having practiced slavery, but as strikingly unexceptional despite taking unprecedented steps to mitigate those moral failings.  They’re condemned as “cultural appropriators” merely for using foreigners’ food recipes but given no credit for birthing a recipe for civilizational success copied the world over (which is why Western technology and economic practices are ubiquitous).

Lamentably, though, whites are uniquely successful in another way as well.  Those most effectively peddling the anti-white propaganda – and most efficiently destroying the West – are white themselves.

Whoever guessed that modern Westerners’ perhaps final triumph would be reaching the very heights of self-flagellation?

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

White people are finding it “difficult to adjust” to becoming a minority, goes the premise of a new AP history textbook – with the implication that this reflects some kind of character defect.  Responding to this, conservative writers have generally denied the claim, sometimes calling it a “Marxist lie.”  But a different point should be made.

Imagine that a history book presented European colonization of North America by asserting, with the same character-defect implication, that Indians found it “difficult to adjust” to becoming a minority.  Would people be left scratching their heads?  Might this even be called offensive?  I think the only response really necessary would be “duh.”

So a question for libs: Can you cite for me one group, in all of history, that was happy about becoming a minority in what had been its homeland?  Just one.  I’ll be waiting.

Did the Ainus, the Japanese islands’ original inhabitants, jump for joy when being overrun and say, “Yay, now we can become a minority!  Maybe we’ll even be subsumed!” (which did happen, for the most part)?

Did the Formosan aborigines cheer when the Chinese began outnumbering them and exclaim, “Yippee!  Perhaps one day we’ll be just two percent of this island’s inhabitants” (which they are now)?

Did the population of Byzantine North Africa, faced with seventh-century Muslim invasion, declare, “Oh, joyous times!  Maybe we can look forward to the day when these lands are entirely Arab and Muslim!” (which came to pass)?

We could go on forever.  European history alone is replete with tribes – Alamanni, Franks, Angles, Vandals, Gepids, Burgundians, Lombards, etc. – that no longer exist as distinct peoples.

Now, I always fancied myself as having a keen grasp of man’s nature, but maybe I’m out of touch.  Perhaps all these groups really did make merry over coming minority status or, even, exult at possible extinguishment.  I’ve never heard of such a case, though.

Why would a group not be alarmed at the prospect of being reduced to minority status?  Leftists themselves never tire of stressing how minorities have ever been persecuted; “progressive” histories are narratives of minority struggle against majority oppression (though liberals love impugning the West on this score, they do sometimes speak of the same phenomenon occurring elsewhere).

As usual, the reality is precisely the opposite of what leftists claim: sleepwalking into cultural and demographic irrelevancy, there has never been a group less concerned about movement toward minority status than whites.

This is partially explainable by the fact that there has never before been a civilization as just as the West.  For example, whites probably weren’t the first to practice slavery.

But they certainly were the first to end it.

Whites might not have been the first to violate human rights.

They are, however, the only reason we even talk about such violation – because they birthed our whole modern concept of human rights to begin with.

The West is unique.  There simply has never been a civilization that has secured so much prosperity and so many rights for all its citizens, including minorities.  In fact, it now often subordinates majority well-being to minority whim (e.g., that of the sexual “devolutionaries”).  Thus, you truly might see no reason to fear becoming a minority if the modern West is your only frame of reference.

Yet this is an area where we actually should listen to the left and be mindful of their warnings about minorities’ historical plight.  If whites were more concerned about being reduced to minority status, their nations – gradually losing their Western character due to multiculturalism and the influx of unassimilable, non-Western foreigners – wouldn’t be so imperiled (though our growing immorality would still plague us).

The reality expressed in this article eludes most because of conditioning: the double standard, the prejudice, is ingrained.  Whites are simultaneously portrayed as uniquely inhuman and something more than human, in that they’re supposed to be above normal human concerns (desire to retain one’s own culture, etc.).  They’re cast as singularly oppressive for exhibiting the same moral failings as every other group, such as having practiced slavery, but as strikingly unexceptional despite taking unprecedented steps to mitigate those moral failings.  They’re condemned as “cultural appropriators” merely for using foreigners’ food recipes but given no credit for birthing a recipe for civilizational success copied the world over (which is why Western technology and economic practices are ubiquitous).

Lamentably, though, whites are uniquely successful in another way as well.  Those most effectively peddling the anti-white propaganda – and most efficiently destroying the West – are white themselves.

Whoever guessed that modern Westerners’ perhaps final triumph would be reaching the very heights of self-flagellation?

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.



Source link

Parkland Kids: The Return of the Grieving Activist


According to many gun control advocates, 18-year-olds are too immature to handle guns – but are mature enough to advise us on gun policy.  Thus, we’re told we must “listen to the voices” of the young Parkland shooting survivors.  Not only that, but we’re not to question or oppose them because they’re young; they’re survivors; and, by golly, because it’s absolutely devastating to the anti-gun agenda!

There’s something truly reprehensible about this situation, and it’s not conservatives criticizing the positions of activist Parkland students such as David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez.  It’s that liberals are using the students as human props and human shields, letting them throw the punches and then condemning the assailed if they dare defend themselves.

Well, sorry, but as I wrote years ago in The Grieving Activist, if you want to grieve, grieve.  If you want to play politics, play politics.

But my sympathy for grieving ends when the use of grief as a political battering ram begins.

Now, putting minors on the front lines is not at all unprecedented.  The youngest U.S. naval captain was 12-year-old David Farragut, and the British would often have upper-class preteen boy officers aboard their warships, as accurately portrayed in the film Master and Commander.  But could you imagine if, after firing some salvos at French vessels and receiving a proportionate response, a British captain bellowed, “What do you think you’re doing?!  There are kids aboard this ship!”  Ridiculous.

But it’s no more ridiculous than doing likewise in our political campaigns – and, mind you, “campaign” is a military term, applied here because at issue is political warfare.  So put kids on the front lines if you wish, as the Nazis did in WWII’s waning days, but know they’re taking flak because you placed them in harm’s way.

This all is very calculated.  We know that CNN staged a town hall affair, cherry-picking the attendees and controlling the questions.  We know that, as pro-Second Amendment Parkland survivor Brandon Minoff related, the media are ignoring the voices of the pro-gun Parkland kids (so much for “listening to the children”).  Nonetheless, while this anti-gun operation may or may not have George Soros’s fingerprints all over it, as Sheriff David Clarke suggested, it’s also no doubt true that the student activists are “wildly motivated,” as CNN’s Alisyn Camerota put it in response to him.

Yet there’s an obvious question here: is it wise to have recently traumatized people advising on policy?  Would we let someone whose dog was just killed by a neighbor help determine punishment for cruelty to animals?  “Passion governs, and she never governs wisely,” as Ben Franklin warned.

Additionally, we’re a pretty immature civilization if we look to kids for policy advice.  There’s a reason why societies might traditionally have been governed by a council of (hopefully) wise elders: teen boys may sometimes have utility in warfare, but adolescent angst doesn’t make for sober heads.  Moreover, mainstream media love publishing articles about the impulsive “teen brain”; now they say we should bow before these brains’ latest impulses.  (Note: I instinctively knew that the “teen brain” thesis was nonsense, as this article explains, but immaturity is nonetheless a factor.)

Yet something else must be said about these “wildly motivated” teens.  To paraphrase late comedian Rodney Dangerfield, “They really care – about what, I have no idea!”

It’s fashionable to beatify survivors.  Endure a tragedy, and you’re suddenly a sainted soul whose motives are beyond reproach.  But while I’m sure many Parkland students are what we’d call, practically speaking, “good people,” I’m also sure about their character as a group.

They’re just people.

Their number includes the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Heck, we’re only talking about this issue right now because of a Parkland teen who attended Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSDHS) and who is not at all a good person (I won’t give him publicity by using his name).

Yet the mainstream media exalt Parkland students as fonts of wisdom – while simultaneously infantilizing them, saying they can condemn but not be criticized, offend but not be offended.  I’m different: realistic.  I’m thus going to exercise some logic here, even though it’s wholly out of fashion.

With approximately 3,000 Parkland teen survivors, what’s the probability that they’re all “good people”?  Oh, I’m sure a handful will go on to do great things and that most of the others will do good but average things.  Then there are the rest.  Whom might they include?

Well, without naming names, is it inconceivable that a few of the 3,000 might be Machiavellian enough to realize that the shooting’s aftermath is an opportunity for fame and possibly wealth and career-building?  This doesn’t mean they don’t have genuine anti-gun passions – they may, as people’s actions are often driven by multiple motivations, some noble and some ignoble – only that the primary impetus may be a more self-serving one.

And, actually, out of 3,000 people, it’s inconceivable that there wouldn’t be two or three of this mold.  Teens ain’t potted plants – they can be manipulative as well as meritorious.  Just ask “clock boy” Ahmed Mohamed about that.

The left can huff and puff about these observations, but it draws distinctions among gun crime survivors, too.  House majority whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was seriously wounded by a left-wing activist in last year’s congressional baseball shooting, and Colorado House minority leader Patrick Neville, also a Republican, survived the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.  But I don’t hear them trumpeted as voices “we must listen to.”  Why?  It could be what they have in common with the ignored Parkland pro-Second Amendment kids.

The latter, however, are just a few of the young voices about which leftists couldn’t care less.  Other examples are the Boy Scouts booed at the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the six-year-old lad in a 2012 anti-Obama video whom liberals wanted dead, and the 650,000 babies they actually do manage to kill annually via prenatal infanticide.  And this does reflect the culture-of-death mentality: liberals want to hear young voices – until they become inconvenient.  At that point, their freedom of speech can be aborted.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

According to many gun control advocates, 18-year-olds are too immature to handle guns – but are mature enough to advise us on gun policy.  Thus, we’re told we must “listen to the voices” of the young Parkland shooting survivors.  Not only that, but we’re not to question or oppose them because they’re young; they’re survivors; and, by golly, because it’s absolutely devastating to the anti-gun agenda!

There’s something truly reprehensible about this situation, and it’s not conservatives criticizing the positions of activist Parkland students such as David Hogg and Emma Gonzalez.  It’s that liberals are using the students as human props and human shields, letting them throw the punches and then condemning the assailed if they dare defend themselves.

Well, sorry, but as I wrote years ago in The Grieving Activist, if you want to grieve, grieve.  If you want to play politics, play politics.

But my sympathy for grieving ends when the use of grief as a political battering ram begins.

Now, putting minors on the front lines is not at all unprecedented.  The youngest U.S. naval captain was 12-year-old David Farragut, and the British would often have upper-class preteen boy officers aboard their warships, as accurately portrayed in the film Master and Commander.  But could you imagine if, after firing some salvos at French vessels and receiving a proportionate response, a British captain bellowed, “What do you think you’re doing?!  There are kids aboard this ship!”  Ridiculous.

But it’s no more ridiculous than doing likewise in our political campaigns – and, mind you, “campaign” is a military term, applied here because at issue is political warfare.  So put kids on the front lines if you wish, as the Nazis did in WWII’s waning days, but know they’re taking flak because you placed them in harm’s way.

This all is very calculated.  We know that CNN staged a town hall affair, cherry-picking the attendees and controlling the questions.  We know that, as pro-Second Amendment Parkland survivor Brandon Minoff related, the media are ignoring the voices of the pro-gun Parkland kids (so much for “listening to the children”).  Nonetheless, while this anti-gun operation may or may not have George Soros’s fingerprints all over it, as Sheriff David Clarke suggested, it’s also no doubt true that the student activists are “wildly motivated,” as CNN’s Alisyn Camerota put it in response to him.

Yet there’s an obvious question here: is it wise to have recently traumatized people advising on policy?  Would we let someone whose dog was just killed by a neighbor help determine punishment for cruelty to animals?  “Passion governs, and she never governs wisely,” as Ben Franklin warned.

Additionally, we’re a pretty immature civilization if we look to kids for policy advice.  There’s a reason why societies might traditionally have been governed by a council of (hopefully) wise elders: teen boys may sometimes have utility in warfare, but adolescent angst doesn’t make for sober heads.  Moreover, mainstream media love publishing articles about the impulsive “teen brain”; now they say we should bow before these brains’ latest impulses.  (Note: I instinctively knew that the “teen brain” thesis was nonsense, as this article explains, but immaturity is nonetheless a factor.)

Yet something else must be said about these “wildly motivated” teens.  To paraphrase late comedian Rodney Dangerfield, “They really care – about what, I have no idea!”

It’s fashionable to beatify survivors.  Endure a tragedy, and you’re suddenly a sainted soul whose motives are beyond reproach.  But while I’m sure many Parkland students are what we’d call, practically speaking, “good people,” I’m also sure about their character as a group.

They’re just people.

Their number includes the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Heck, we’re only talking about this issue right now because of a Parkland teen who attended Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School (MSDHS) and who is not at all a good person (I won’t give him publicity by using his name).

Yet the mainstream media exalt Parkland students as fonts of wisdom – while simultaneously infantilizing them, saying they can condemn but not be criticized, offend but not be offended.  I’m different: realistic.  I’m thus going to exercise some logic here, even though it’s wholly out of fashion.

With approximately 3,000 Parkland teen survivors, what’s the probability that they’re all “good people”?  Oh, I’m sure a handful will go on to do great things and that most of the others will do good but average things.  Then there are the rest.  Whom might they include?

Well, without naming names, is it inconceivable that a few of the 3,000 might be Machiavellian enough to realize that the shooting’s aftermath is an opportunity for fame and possibly wealth and career-building?  This doesn’t mean they don’t have genuine anti-gun passions – they may, as people’s actions are often driven by multiple motivations, some noble and some ignoble – only that the primary impetus may be a more self-serving one.

And, actually, out of 3,000 people, it’s inconceivable that there wouldn’t be two or three of this mold.  Teens ain’t potted plants – they can be manipulative as well as meritorious.  Just ask “clock boy” Ahmed Mohamed about that.

The left can huff and puff about these observations, but it draws distinctions among gun crime survivors, too.  House majority whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) was seriously wounded by a left-wing activist in last year’s congressional baseball shooting, and Colorado House minority leader Patrick Neville, also a Republican, survived the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.  But I don’t hear them trumpeted as voices “we must listen to.”  Why?  It could be what they have in common with the ignored Parkland pro-Second Amendment kids.

The latter, however, are just a few of the young voices about which leftists couldn’t care less.  Other examples are the Boy Scouts booed at the 2000 Democratic National Convention, the six-year-old lad in a 2012 anti-Obama video whom liberals wanted dead, and the 650,000 babies they actually do manage to kill annually via prenatal infanticide.  And this does reflect the culture-of-death mentality: liberals want to hear young voices – until they become inconvenient.  At that point, their freedom of speech can be aborted.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.



Source link

Race and IQ: A High School Science Fair Project Ignites a Storm


We don’t know the student’s name, but we do know that he hit a nerve — in fact, he hit a whole bunch of them. Identified only as a boy of Asian descent at C.K. McClatchy High School in California, the teen’s recent science-fair project, “Race and IQ,” propounded the thesis that differences in groups’ average intelligence influence their academic performance. He couldn’t win, though, because his project was removed after parents, staff and other students became “upset” and one girl said she felt “unsafe and uneasy.” The irony?

A project on evolution would no doubt have been well received — even though an assumption of racial differences is implicit in evolutionary theory.

In fact, The Sacramento Bee, which hasn’t yet evolved out of the progressive primordial soup, mentioned that the student’s thesis is associated with eugenics (which the Bee casts negatively), the science of improving the human race via selective breeding. The paper is likely unaware, however, that the term “eugenics” itself was coined by Sir Francis Galton — a cousin of famed evolutionist Charles Darwin — and that Galton made clear that in his eugenicist endeavors, he was merely building on his cousin’s work.

Philosopher G.K. Chesterton once noted that if people “were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.” This is easy to understand: What are the chances that different groups could have “evolved” isolated from one another for eons — subject to different environments, stresses, procreation-influencing cultural imperatives and adaptive realities — and ended up identical in every worldly measure? Why, even if the peoples evolved isolated in identical environments, the separation alone would make the prospects of winding up completely “equal” a virtual statistical impossibility.

Whatever you believe about evolution, it’s clear that equality is not a thing of this world. Do we see it in nature? Some species can dominate others or are more adaptable, which is why the rat is a pest and the dodo is extinct (and, in fact, the rat helped drive the dodo to extinction). Even within species, some members are hardier, smarter, faster or stronger than others. There are alphas and betas, with a silverback gorilla running his troop and a dominant lion leading his pride. And different breeds of dogs have different characteristic traits, with some being more intelligent than others.

As for people, how is it that we can even characterize different groups as “groups”? Since we don’t do it based purely on location (e.g., dividing 10 boys into two groups of five, each on opposite sides of a room), we can only do so because there are differences among them. We can only speak of “men” and “women” because sex differences actually exist. Regarding the races, we know there are distinctions relating to skin color and hair, for example. It’s differences that make groups “groups.”

But are the differences only skin deep? Tay-Sachs disease is most common among Ashkenazi Jews, while sickle cell anemia is almost exclusive to people of Middle Eastern, Indian, Mediterranean and African heritage. Relative to American whites, American blacks generally have longer limbs, more sweat glands (and thus dissipate heat better), narrower pelvises and greater bone density; and black men have higher free testosterone levels than white men do. Not that it’s the focus of this article, but all these characteristics bring advantages and disadvantages.

Now, next question: Are the differences only neck high? If evolution is a reality, would its principles be operational with the body but, somehow, some way, be suspended with the brain? My, believing that would truly take faith.

Of course, whether nature, nurture or both — whether the tests are valid or not — the fact remains that we do see marked IQ differences among groups. Ashkenazi Jews score the highest of all, at 115 (the world average is currently about 88); this may explain why Jews are only 0.2 percent of the world’s population but were 22 percent of the 20th century’s Nobel Prize winners. Hong Kong and Singapore lead the country list with average IQs of 108, while many nations register far, far lower. Note that while good scientists may debate why these differences exist and how meaningful they are, that they exist is not in dispute.

Of course, some may quibble with the numbers I provided or the group differences I cited, but the details aren’t really the point. The point is, again, that evolution and Equality Dogma contradict one another. Embracing both is akin to believing it likely that on two different occasions, you could spin a giant bin with one million numbers in it, remove them randomly and put them in a row, and they would end up in the precise same order each time. Random processes yield variable results.

That is, unless you believe that God guided evolution. Even this belief, however, allows for the inequality that is the world’s apparent norm. How could this be? It’s simple: Equality is our hang-up — not God’s.   

Is “equality” emphasized in any great, time-tested religious canon? It’s certainly only mentioned in the Bible in reference to weights and measures. In fact, Christian theology holds that in that perfect, sinless realm of happiness — Heaven — we will not all have equal glory, as St Thérèse of Liseaux once explained.

As for this fold, Hell on Earth is what Equality Dogma helps create. It has spawned perverted scientific priorities that deny Truth and demand ideological determinations. We’ve seen this before. The Soviet equality dogmatists did it with Lysenkoism, insisting that acquired traits could be inherited because Marxist ideology demanded a malleable human nature. The Nazi superiority dogmatists did it with their racial theories, believing in a “master race” that could become all the more masterful through selective breeding. And we’ve combined elements of both, demanding an unnatural and unattainable equality and measuring it by racial, ethnic and sexual representation in worldly endeavor.

In a saner time, Equality Dogma would be considered a vile heresy. The truth here isn’t hard to grasp: There are differences within groups, but there are also differences among groups. We know we mustn’t paint every individual with the same brush. Why would we paint every individual group with the same one?

One group we should paint over with the label “Rejected” is equality dogmatists. The McClatchy student’s scientific methods might very well have been shoddy, but this wasn’t what got his project scuttled. Rather, The Sacramento Bee article quoted individuals who said the it was “shocking” and its creator “closed-minded”; it spoke of how people felt “upset” and “unsafe and uneasy.” What’s notable is that no one quoted said the project’s conclusion was wrong or untrue.

Oh, if asked, the critics would surely bellow, “Well, of course it’s untrue!” But it’s no accident that they didn’t think to say it; in fact, this failure is typical today when fashionable emoters react to unfashionable science. These critics don’t think to call it untrue because the truth of the matter isn’t their focus. Ideology is.

It’s feelings over facts, emotion over education. But science doesn’t exist to make us feel good or bad; its purpose is the discovery of Truth via the scientific method. People who reject this, who subordinate Truth to agenda-driven lies, are dangerous to civilization. They also are hardly progressive — except insofar as they’re progressing toward ignorance.

 Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

We don’t know the student’s name, but we do know that he hit a nerve — in fact, he hit a whole bunch of them. Identified only as a boy of Asian descent at C.K. McClatchy High School in California, the teen’s recent science-fair project, “Race and IQ,” propounded the thesis that differences in groups’ average intelligence influence their academic performance. He couldn’t win, though, because his project was removed after parents, staff and other students became “upset” and one girl said she felt “unsafe and uneasy.” The irony?

A project on evolution would no doubt have been well received — even though an assumption of racial differences is implicit in evolutionary theory.

In fact, The Sacramento Bee, which hasn’t yet evolved out of the progressive primordial soup, mentioned that the student’s thesis is associated with eugenics (which the Bee casts negatively), the science of improving the human race via selective breeding. The paper is likely unaware, however, that the term “eugenics” itself was coined by Sir Francis Galton — a cousin of famed evolutionist Charles Darwin — and that Galton made clear that in his eugenicist endeavors, he was merely building on his cousin’s work.

Philosopher G.K. Chesterton once noted that if people “were not created equal, they were certainly evolved unequal.” This is easy to understand: What are the chances that different groups could have “evolved” isolated from one another for eons — subject to different environments, stresses, procreation-influencing cultural imperatives and adaptive realities — and ended up identical in every worldly measure? Why, even if the peoples evolved isolated in identical environments, the separation alone would make the prospects of winding up completely “equal” a virtual statistical impossibility.

Whatever you believe about evolution, it’s clear that equality is not a thing of this world. Do we see it in nature? Some species can dominate others or are more adaptable, which is why the rat is a pest and the dodo is extinct (and, in fact, the rat helped drive the dodo to extinction). Even within species, some members are hardier, smarter, faster or stronger than others. There are alphas and betas, with a silverback gorilla running his troop and a dominant lion leading his pride. And different breeds of dogs have different characteristic traits, with some being more intelligent than others.

As for people, how is it that we can even characterize different groups as “groups”? Since we don’t do it based purely on location (e.g., dividing 10 boys into two groups of five, each on opposite sides of a room), we can only do so because there are differences among them. We can only speak of “men” and “women” because sex differences actually exist. Regarding the races, we know there are distinctions relating to skin color and hair, for example. It’s differences that make groups “groups.”

But are the differences only skin deep? Tay-Sachs disease is most common among Ashkenazi Jews, while sickle cell anemia is almost exclusive to people of Middle Eastern, Indian, Mediterranean and African heritage. Relative to American whites, American blacks generally have longer limbs, more sweat glands (and thus dissipate heat better), narrower pelvises and greater bone density; and black men have higher free testosterone levels than white men do. Not that it’s the focus of this article, but all these characteristics bring advantages and disadvantages.

Now, next question: Are the differences only neck high? If evolution is a reality, would its principles be operational with the body but, somehow, some way, be suspended with the brain? My, believing that would truly take faith.

Of course, whether nature, nurture or both — whether the tests are valid or not — the fact remains that we do see marked IQ differences among groups. Ashkenazi Jews score the highest of all, at 115 (the world average is currently about 88); this may explain why Jews are only 0.2 percent of the world’s population but were 22 percent of the 20th century’s Nobel Prize winners. Hong Kong and Singapore lead the country list with average IQs of 108, while many nations register far, far lower. Note that while good scientists may debate why these differences exist and how meaningful they are, that they exist is not in dispute.

Of course, some may quibble with the numbers I provided or the group differences I cited, but the details aren’t really the point. The point is, again, that evolution and Equality Dogma contradict one another. Embracing both is akin to believing it likely that on two different occasions, you could spin a giant bin with one million numbers in it, remove them randomly and put them in a row, and they would end up in the precise same order each time. Random processes yield variable results.

That is, unless you believe that God guided evolution. Even this belief, however, allows for the inequality that is the world’s apparent norm. How could this be? It’s simple: Equality is our hang-up — not God’s.   

Is “equality” emphasized in any great, time-tested religious canon? It’s certainly only mentioned in the Bible in reference to weights and measures. In fact, Christian theology holds that in that perfect, sinless realm of happiness — Heaven — we will not all have equal glory, as St Thérèse of Liseaux once explained.

As for this fold, Hell on Earth is what Equality Dogma helps create. It has spawned perverted scientific priorities that deny Truth and demand ideological determinations. We’ve seen this before. The Soviet equality dogmatists did it with Lysenkoism, insisting that acquired traits could be inherited because Marxist ideology demanded a malleable human nature. The Nazi superiority dogmatists did it with their racial theories, believing in a “master race” that could become all the more masterful through selective breeding. And we’ve combined elements of both, demanding an unnatural and unattainable equality and measuring it by racial, ethnic and sexual representation in worldly endeavor.

In a saner time, Equality Dogma would be considered a vile heresy. The truth here isn’t hard to grasp: There are differences within groups, but there are also differences among groups. We know we mustn’t paint every individual with the same brush. Why would we paint every individual group with the same one?

One group we should paint over with the label “Rejected” is equality dogmatists. The McClatchy student’s scientific methods might very well have been shoddy, but this wasn’t what got his project scuttled. Rather, The Sacramento Bee article quoted individuals who said the it was “shocking” and its creator “closed-minded”; it spoke of how people felt “upset” and “unsafe and uneasy.” What’s notable is that no one quoted said the project’s conclusion was wrong or untrue.

Oh, if asked, the critics would surely bellow, “Well, of course it’s untrue!” But it’s no accident that they didn’t think to say it; in fact, this failure is typical today when fashionable emoters react to unfashionable science. These critics don’t think to call it untrue because the truth of the matter isn’t their focus. Ideology is.

It’s feelings over facts, emotion over education. But science doesn’t exist to make us feel good or bad; its purpose is the discovery of Truth via the scientific method. People who reject this, who subordinate Truth to agenda-driven lies, are dangerous to civilization. They also are hardly progressive — except insofar as they’re progressing toward ignorance.

 Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Leftist Toilet Mouths Condemn Trump as They Corrupt Nation


President Trump denies having used a vulgar term last Thursday to describe dysfunctional Third World countries. Yet there’s no denying that the leftist media, believing he did, responded by repeatedly disgorging the term in a childish orgy of decadence. Of course, the media no doubt think they’re damaging Trump — but they’re actually damaging society.

Let’s be clear: Leftists certainly object to the substance of Trump’s comments, that we shouldn’t continually absorb poor, unskilled, often functionally illiterate and unassimilable people from Third World nations. But they also object to his alleged style, labeling as obscene the use of s-hole (toilet) to describe such places. So to show us how bad such language is, the Crude News Network (CNN), for example, used it at least 36 times on Thursday. It’s sort of like inveighing against animal abuse and then bludgeoning dozens of dogs to death on air to prove your point.

Let’s be clear about a few other matters:

  1. You probably wouldn’t lose money betting that all the leftists now complaining about the toilet term use vulgarity themselves off air.
  2. In reality, most media leftists actually have mouths metaphorically resembling sewers.
  3. It’s the Left that, mainly via entertainment, has coarsened society, defining deviancy downwards and normalizing vulgarity. This is why the younger generations now use profanity, publicly, as a matter of course.
  4. This is very, very destructive to society.

Why it’s destructive I’ll explain momentarily. Note, however, that this article isn’t about immigration, on which I take a hard line and believe should be completely ended. Something else that should be ended, however, is our increasing tolerance for public crudity.

Let’s begin with what the Father of Our Nation and first president, George Washington, wrote about vulgarity in a 1776 order:

The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it.

In point of fact, few of us had great-grandparents who wouldn’t have been at least somewhat appalled at today’s tawdry tongues. And whatever a few of them might have occasionally uttered in private, they certainly wouldn’t use bad language in polite company (does this even still exist?) or around children. Now note that every time we use profanity publicly — on the Internet, for example — we are using it in front of children.

This raises the matter of the blessed asterisk and its cloaking cousins. Many will ask what the point is, since kids have already heard every vulgar word we’re obscuring. Yet this is a bit like saying: If children know about serial killers, what’s the big deal about inundating them with snuff films?

We (should) use asterisks or dashes in print, bleep out words in broadcast and generally obscure the obscene because doing so sends an important message:

The obscured things are wrong.

Opening up the closet of the coarse, crude and carnal sends the message that such things are okay. Sure, kids have heard bad language. But the point is to not normalize and legitimize it through continual and cavalier adult use. The point is to instill in the young virtue, good moral habits, not the bad ones called vice. And habits are created via repetition — a fact that should make us think twice about on-air repetition of vulgarity.

Instinctively, many of us still sense vulgarity’s ugliness, that it is in fact verbal violence. This ugliness is best illustrated by putting it in the prettiest of mouths: Would you find a group of nine-year-olds cursing like a drunken sailor an uplifting scene? Would you think they were on a good moral path?

Well, as poet William Wordsworth put it, “The Child is father of the Man”; a youth’s well-learned lessons become adult transgressions. Yet some will still wonder why this matters, maintaining that vulgarities are “just words” (actually, they’re unjust words). For an in-depth exposition on this, I strongly urge you to read “Cussing & Cultural Decay,” a magazine piece I penned last year that I believe is the definitive short work on the subject (it’s hard to find online but is available here).

Put simply, though, an immoral society cannot yield a moral government. Echoing many great thinkers, British philosopher Edmund Burke warned, “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (The Founding Fathers often expressed the same principle in different words.) Now, do people who habitually disgorge vulgarity — not to mention indulge decadence in general — strike you as men of temperate minds? Or do you think such habits reflect fetters-forging passions?

Too many suppose we can compartmentalize our virtue and vice. Like believing we can continually pollute one side of a lake yet swim in pure waters on the other, we act as if impurity intensely indulged in certain areas won’t bleed over into areas we’d like to keep pristine. But just as G.H.W. Bush once said that you can’t be one kind of man and another kind of president, we can’t be one kind of people and have another kind of polity. Do you really think we can embrace profound vice in language, entertainment and sexuality but then enjoy that for which profound virtue is necessary: fiscal restraint, respect for rights, honesty in government affairs, dutiful law-enforcement agencies, a Constitution-limited judiciary, sound schooling and truth-oriented media? As our second president, John Adams, put it, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue], and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.”

Thus is it distressing that even some conservative media outlets now lower standards, using terms such as a**, c**p, s-storm and WTF (with everyone knowing the acronym’s meaning). Perhaps they’re not mindful that it was yesterday’s leftists who normalized such vulgarity. Perhaps they don’t care. But it’s why I’ve long said that conservatives are the caboose to liberals’ engine of cultural decay. It’s why, ultimately, they lose political wars. For politics is downstream of culture, and conservatives never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose.

As for Trump, his alleged potty-mouth moment was reported by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), a scoundrel with a history of lying about White House meetings, according to Daily Wire. But whatever the president said, he said in private. This is far different from Durbin, who introduced the story. It’s far different from ex-California Democratic Party chairman John Burton, who led a “F*** Donald Trump!” chant at California’s Democratic Party convention in Sacramento early last year. And it’s far different from CNN and the rest of the effluent-stream media, which, like an exhibitionist, just revel in the chance to flaunt publicly what excites them privately.

They are despicable. May they be the first to drown in the wave of tyranny they invite.  

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

President Trump denies having used a vulgar term last Thursday to describe dysfunctional Third World countries. Yet there’s no denying that the leftist media, believing he did, responded by repeatedly disgorging the term in a childish orgy of decadence. Of course, the media no doubt think they’re damaging Trump — but they’re actually damaging society.

Let’s be clear: Leftists certainly object to the substance of Trump’s comments, that we shouldn’t continually absorb poor, unskilled, often functionally illiterate and unassimilable people from Third World nations. But they also object to his alleged style, labeling as obscene the use of s-hole (toilet) to describe such places. So to show us how bad such language is, the Crude News Network (CNN), for example, used it at least 36 times on Thursday. It’s sort of like inveighing against animal abuse and then bludgeoning dozens of dogs to death on air to prove your point.

Let’s be clear about a few other matters:

  1. You probably wouldn’t lose money betting that all the leftists now complaining about the toilet term use vulgarity themselves off air.
  2. In reality, most media leftists actually have mouths metaphorically resembling sewers.
  3. It’s the Left that, mainly via entertainment, has coarsened society, defining deviancy downwards and normalizing vulgarity. This is why the younger generations now use profanity, publicly, as a matter of course.
  4. This is very, very destructive to society.

Why it’s destructive I’ll explain momentarily. Note, however, that this article isn’t about immigration, on which I take a hard line and believe should be completely ended. Something else that should be ended, however, is our increasing tolerance for public crudity.

Let’s begin with what the Father of Our Nation and first president, George Washington, wrote about vulgarity in a 1776 order:

The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it.

In point of fact, few of us had great-grandparents who wouldn’t have been at least somewhat appalled at today’s tawdry tongues. And whatever a few of them might have occasionally uttered in private, they certainly wouldn’t use bad language in polite company (does this even still exist?) or around children. Now note that every time we use profanity publicly — on the Internet, for example — we are using it in front of children.

This raises the matter of the blessed asterisk and its cloaking cousins. Many will ask what the point is, since kids have already heard every vulgar word we’re obscuring. Yet this is a bit like saying: If children know about serial killers, what’s the big deal about inundating them with snuff films?

We (should) use asterisks or dashes in print, bleep out words in broadcast and generally obscure the obscene because doing so sends an important message:

The obscured things are wrong.

Opening up the closet of the coarse, crude and carnal sends the message that such things are okay. Sure, kids have heard bad language. But the point is to not normalize and legitimize it through continual and cavalier adult use. The point is to instill in the young virtue, good moral habits, not the bad ones called vice. And habits are created via repetition — a fact that should make us think twice about on-air repetition of vulgarity.

Instinctively, many of us still sense vulgarity’s ugliness, that it is in fact verbal violence. This ugliness is best illustrated by putting it in the prettiest of mouths: Would you find a group of nine-year-olds cursing like a drunken sailor an uplifting scene? Would you think they were on a good moral path?

Well, as poet William Wordsworth put it, “The Child is father of the Man”; a youth’s well-learned lessons become adult transgressions. Yet some will still wonder why this matters, maintaining that vulgarities are “just words” (actually, they’re unjust words). For an in-depth exposition on this, I strongly urge you to read “Cussing & Cultural Decay,” a magazine piece I penned last year that I believe is the definitive short work on the subject (it’s hard to find online but is available here).

Put simply, though, an immoral society cannot yield a moral government. Echoing many great thinkers, British philosopher Edmund Burke warned, “It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters.” (The Founding Fathers often expressed the same principle in different words.) Now, do people who habitually disgorge vulgarity — not to mention indulge decadence in general — strike you as men of temperate minds? Or do you think such habits reflect fetters-forging passions?

Too many suppose we can compartmentalize our virtue and vice. Like believing we can continually pollute one side of a lake yet swim in pure waters on the other, we act as if impurity intensely indulged in certain areas won’t bleed over into areas we’d like to keep pristine. But just as G.H.W. Bush once said that you can’t be one kind of man and another kind of president, we can’t be one kind of people and have another kind of polity. Do you really think we can embrace profound vice in language, entertainment and sexuality but then enjoy that for which profound virtue is necessary: fiscal restraint, respect for rights, honesty in government affairs, dutiful law-enforcement agencies, a Constitution-limited judiciary, sound schooling and truth-oriented media? As our second president, John Adams, put it, “Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private [virtue], and public virtue is the only foundation of republics.”

Thus is it distressing that even some conservative media outlets now lower standards, using terms such as a**, c**p, s-storm and WTF (with everyone knowing the acronym’s meaning). Perhaps they’re not mindful that it was yesterday’s leftists who normalized such vulgarity. Perhaps they don’t care. But it’s why I’ve long said that conservatives are the caboose to liberals’ engine of cultural decay. It’s why, ultimately, they lose political wars. For politics is downstream of culture, and conservatives never saw a culture-war battle they couldn’t lose.

As for Trump, his alleged potty-mouth moment was reported by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), a scoundrel with a history of lying about White House meetings, according to Daily Wire. But whatever the president said, he said in private. This is far different from Durbin, who introduced the story. It’s far different from ex-California Democratic Party chairman John Burton, who led a “F*** Donald Trump!” chant at California’s Democratic Party convention in Sacramento early last year. And it’s far different from CNN and the rest of the effluent-stream media, which, like an exhibitionist, just revel in the chance to flaunt publicly what excites them privately.

They are despicable. May they be the first to drown in the wave of tyranny they invite.  

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Killing Trump Is Deep State's 'Plan C,' Warns Adviser Roger Stone


It’s a shocking claim made by a political insider: the Deep State is so opposed to draining the swamp that it will, if necessary, kill President Trump to prevent it.

Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and confidant, certainly knows his way around Washington, having worked as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Senator Bob Dole as well as held many other political positions.  This proximity to the Deep State is what makes his claim, expressed in a recent wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman, that much more eyebrow-raising.  Stone outlined three plans the Deep State has for eliminating the president, as Newman relates:

The Deep State’s “Plan A,” Stone said, is the imploding “investigation” into alleged “Russian collusion” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  If and when that fails, which Stone suggested was likely, the establishment would move to “Plan B.”  In essence, that plot would involve trying to get a majority of Trump’s [C]abinet to declare him unfit for office.  This would allow Trump to be removed under the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment – another scheme Stone said would probably flop.  Last but not least, though, if all else fails, Stone warned of “Plan C”: [k]illing the president.   

Interesting here is that Newman’s piece was published January 1, just before talk of President Trump’s alleged mental instability became the month’s big news story.  In fact, released just four days later was journalist Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury, which makes the case that Trump is psychologically unfit to hold office.  Note, too, that Wolff has boasted that his book will bring down the president.

This bold claim will more likely just bring up book sales.  It’s not only that Wolff has said he can’t be sure everything in his book is true; that it contains factual errors; and that he is, as ex-Trump strategist Sebastian Gorka put it, “a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues[.]”  It’s that removing a president for inability to discharge his duties isn’t easy.

Per the 25th Amendment’s Section IV, Vice President Mike Pence would have to declare Trump unfit, 13 of the 24 Cabinet members would have to agree, and then two thirds of both houses of Congress would ultimately have to vote to uphold the decision. Unless Trump starts fainting right and left and throwing behind-the-scenes temper fits like Hillary Clinton, Stone is correct in saying this is unlikely.

This leaves the alleged “Plan C.” But is such a Deep State course of action really in the cards? Calling Trump “a shock to the system,” Stone explained his thinking to The New American: “It’s easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties.”  And with the economy flourishing and public confidence up, “it’s easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the [i]nsiders have for this president, and to underestimate their resolve to remove him.”

“If all else fails,” writes Newman, “Stone believes [that] the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president.”

Stone emphasized that if “Mueller should fail in his illegitimate coup d’état to take down the president,” he thinks “you will see an uptick in the ‘Trump-is-crazy’ talk,” reported Newman.  Again, we’ve already witnessed this.

Newman further relates:

Stone warned that even some of Trump’s most senior officials would throw him under the bus if given the opportunity.  “I can tell you, there are members of Trump’s [C]abinet that would stick a dagger in his heart,[“] he warned, echoing other warnings that he has offered publicly in recent weeks.  [“]There are globalist insiders who, for one reason or another[,] got into this [C]abinet, who do not share the president’s vision of reform, and are not loyal to him as I am and so many Americans are.”

Explaining the presence of these dangerous establishment figures within the administration, Stone said, “Unfortunately, I think that the president misunderstood early in the process that personnel is policy.”  Stone also believes that Trump’s lawyers are doing him a disservice, saying they’re currently “walking him into the blades.”

Stone, a colorful political operative known among other things as a “dirty trickster,” further explained the Deep State’s enmity for Trump.  As Newman reports, “‘Trump is a real American, a patriot, he’s a real believer in Americana, and also in American superiority – American exceptionalism, if you will – and a believer in American sovereignty,’ Stone said.  ‘He’s always been deeply suspicious of the international types that he was happy to sell condominiums to at inflated prices, but he never shared their politics.'”  Stone also emphasized that, unbeknownst to most, Trump comes from “a long line of anti-communists.”

Moreover, because of Trump’s wealth, Stone says he’s “unbought and unbossed[.] … Anybody who has tried to boss Donald Trump around knows that that won’t work.  He’s very much his own man.”

So a patriot and a believer in Americana, sovereignty, and American exceptionalism who can’t be bought or bullied – that certainly is the Deep State’s worst nightmare.  The question is: Would it resort to murder to end it?  Is Stone’s warning risible or realistic?

All I can say is that it’s a striking claim, and it certainly warrants more media exposure than a questionable book written by an attention-seeking journalist

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

It’s a shocking claim made by a political insider: the Deep State is so opposed to draining the swamp that it will, if necessary, kill President Trump to prevent it.

Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and confidant, certainly knows his way around Washington, having worked as a senior campaign aide to Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and Senator Bob Dole as well as held many other political positions.  This proximity to the Deep State is what makes his claim, expressed in a recent wide-ranging interview with The New American magazine’s Alex Newman, that much more eyebrow-raising.  Stone outlined three plans the Deep State has for eliminating the president, as Newman relates:

The Deep State’s “Plan A,” Stone said, is the imploding “investigation” into alleged “Russian collusion” by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.  If and when that fails, which Stone suggested was likely, the establishment would move to “Plan B.”  In essence, that plot would involve trying to get a majority of Trump’s [C]abinet to declare him unfit for office.  This would allow Trump to be removed under the U.S. Constitution’s 25th Amendment – another scheme Stone said would probably flop.  Last but not least, though, if all else fails, Stone warned of “Plan C”: [k]illing the president.   

Interesting here is that Newman’s piece was published January 1, just before talk of President Trump’s alleged mental instability became the month’s big news story.  In fact, released just four days later was journalist Michael Wolff’s book Fire and Fury, which makes the case that Trump is psychologically unfit to hold office.  Note, too, that Wolff has boasted that his book will bring down the president.

This bold claim will more likely just bring up book sales.  It’s not only that Wolff has said he can’t be sure everything in his book is true; that it contains factual errors; and that he is, as ex-Trump strategist Sebastian Gorka put it, “a partisan self-promoter with credibility issues[.]”  It’s that removing a president for inability to discharge his duties isn’t easy.

Per the 25th Amendment’s Section IV, Vice President Mike Pence would have to declare Trump unfit, 13 of the 24 Cabinet members would have to agree, and then two thirds of both houses of Congress would ultimately have to vote to uphold the decision. Unless Trump starts fainting right and left and throwing behind-the-scenes temper fits like Hillary Clinton, Stone is correct in saying this is unlikely.

This leaves the alleged “Plan C.” But is such a Deep State course of action really in the cards? Calling Trump “a shock to the system,” Stone explained his thinking to The New American: “It’s easy to forget that the shocking upset that Donald Trump pulled off has never been forgotten or acknowledged by the globalist cabal that has really infected both of our major parties.”  And with the economy flourishing and public confidence up, “it’s easy to misread the deep enmity and hatred that the globalists and the [i]nsiders have for this president, and to underestimate their resolve to remove him.”

“If all else fails,” writes Newman, “Stone believes [that] the Deep State would, in fact, attempt to murder the president.”

Stone emphasized that if “Mueller should fail in his illegitimate coup d’état to take down the president,” he thinks “you will see an uptick in the ‘Trump-is-crazy’ talk,” reported Newman.  Again, we’ve already witnessed this.

Newman further relates:

Stone warned that even some of Trump’s most senior officials would throw him under the bus if given the opportunity.  “I can tell you, there are members of Trump’s [C]abinet that would stick a dagger in his heart,[“] he warned, echoing other warnings that he has offered publicly in recent weeks.  [“]There are globalist insiders who, for one reason or another[,] got into this [C]abinet, who do not share the president’s vision of reform, and are not loyal to him as I am and so many Americans are.”

Explaining the presence of these dangerous establishment figures within the administration, Stone said, “Unfortunately, I think that the president misunderstood early in the process that personnel is policy.”  Stone also believes that Trump’s lawyers are doing him a disservice, saying they’re currently “walking him into the blades.”

Stone, a colorful political operative known among other things as a “dirty trickster,” further explained the Deep State’s enmity for Trump.  As Newman reports, “‘Trump is a real American, a patriot, he’s a real believer in Americana, and also in American superiority – American exceptionalism, if you will – and a believer in American sovereignty,’ Stone said.  ‘He’s always been deeply suspicious of the international types that he was happy to sell condominiums to at inflated prices, but he never shared their politics.'”  Stone also emphasized that, unbeknownst to most, Trump comes from “a long line of anti-communists.”

Moreover, because of Trump’s wealth, Stone says he’s “unbought and unbossed[.] … Anybody who has tried to boss Donald Trump around knows that that won’t work.  He’s very much his own man.”

So a patriot and a believer in Americana, sovereignty, and American exceptionalism who can’t be bought or bullied – that certainly is the Deep State’s worst nightmare.  The question is: Would it resort to murder to end it?  Is Stone’s warning risible or realistic?

All I can say is that it’s a striking claim, and it certainly warrants more media exposure than a questionable book written by an attention-seeking journalist

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.



Source link

The Lib-Con Utah School Porn War Rages On


Recently, I reported on the firing of Mateo Rueda, now an ex-art teacher after showing ten- and eleven-year-olds nude “artwork” at Lincoln Elementary School in Hyrum, Utah on Dec. 4, 2017.  Normally I would have let this story go by now, but Rueda continues playing the victim, aided and abetted by complicit reporters; libertines the world over; and, unfortunately, some good people who don’t realize that the media have mischaracterized his trespass.

Rueda, a native of Colombia, demands an apology, even as he condemns his fellow Cache Valley residents as “cultural dead-ends” and members of a “narrow-minded community.”  He also said, “I was overqualified[.]  I took the [teaching] position with an open heart to make a difference in a predominantly[] Mormon community where there isn’t much culture.”  My – charitable as well as charming!  Yet his defenders – who’ve called people such as me puritans, prudes, and even Nazi-like book-burners – should know that Rueda himself confessed that the nudes were out of bounds.

Claiming that the images were among a set of art postcards with which Rueda was unacquainted, the Herald Journal reported Dec. 28, “Asked if he thought the nudes were appropriate for the sixth-graders in his class, Rueda said he did not.  ‘This is not material at all that I would use. I had no idea,’ he said.”  So, honest mistake, right?

Well, that was before I conducted interviews with local parents and reported that after Rueda showed the nudes to the sixth-graders and got complaints, he must have found them appropriate for fifth-graders – because that’s exactly whom he later showed them to.  What’s more, the parents told me Rueda belittled the children who objected, said they might find some images inappropriate but he didn’t (which is all that apparently mattered), forced them to continue viewing the images over their protestations, and said he didn’t care if they reported him.  He also told them to “grow up.”

After I tipped off the Herald Journal that a second class had seen the images and that Rueda was “lying,” as one of the parents put it, the paper ran a Jan.2 piece mentioning the fifth-graders but also printing this: “Rueda said he told the class that they should not feel [that] the images are inappropriate or wrong.”

So do we believe the late December “not material at all that I would use.  I had no idea” Rueda or the early January “don’t ‘feel the images are inappropriate or wrong'” Rueda?  Hey, it is a different year – I guess his story evolved.

Speaking of which, smut can evolve, too – into art.  One of the paintings Late December Rueda said was inappropriate and Early January Rueda fancied culture is the full-frontal nude “Iris Tree,” a portrait of a sexually libertine, drug-using, bohemian woman by that name.  It’s a work the media consistently label “classical” (“Ooh, the rubes object to classical art!”), apparently unaware that the term references Greek and Roman antiquity.  In contrast, “Iris Tree” is an early 20th-century creation by Italian Amedeo Modigliani, a violent, woman-abusing, philandering, drug-addicted alcoholic known for dancing naked in Paris streets and who could be called a pornographer of his day.  (Other than that, he was a peach.)

For those who say I’m confusing art with artist, I have already examined the difference between legitimate art portraying the naked human form (e.g., the Sistine Chapel) and porn masquerading as art.  Suffice it to say here, something designed to symbolically relate theological concepts – e.g., the Garden of Eden – “Iris Tree” is not.  It’s more the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It’s one of those Modigliani paintings that, as the Daily Mail put it, exudes “raw sensuality” and is “an homage to the sex he so loved.”

So why are such things deemed fine art and shown to kids?  Because sometimes, the older they get, the better they were.  People have this curious notion that if smut is put to canvas with paint and some skill and allowed to age a century, the X-rated becomes the extraordinary.  It doesn’t help that a Chinese collector with more yuan than brains shelled out $153 million for a Modigliani nude in 2015 or that Modigliani’s works now enjoy art world approval.  

(Think this is meaningful?  Read the story of Estelle Lovatt, who in 2007 fooled the art world into thinking her two-year-old’s tomato-ketchup daubs were great works by a renowned, mature artist.)

Speaking of the fooled and foolish, the mainstream media continue writing inaccurate articles sympathetic toward Rueda.  A good example is this People piece, which portrays the teacher as a martyr, quoting him positively as saying the “works” are “icons of art history and human patrimony.”  Interestingly, however, People shows an image of “Iris Tree” with her nipples and nether region obscured.  So the painting is appropriate for ten-year-olds but not for an article meant for adults?

Apparently, People agrees that its picture refutes its thousand words.  You see, shortly before readying this article for publication, I learned that People had removed the “Iris Tree” image from its piece completely, no doubt as a response to my (and others’) having called them out on hypocrisy via Twitter.  Ah, but you know the internet – archiving and the computer “print screen” function saved the day.  Here’s how the People article looked before the people at People became apprised of their sheer stupidity.

Maybe it’s predictable that a media outlet would blur an image when it has already blurred the line between good and bad journalism.  But I’d still like to know why People is unwilling to show, in its entirety, a painting that it states “[m]illions of people worldwide have marveled at.”  What are you afraid of, dear editors?  That kids may see it?

Oh, wait…

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Recently, I reported on the firing of Mateo Rueda, now an ex-art teacher after showing ten- and eleven-year-olds nude “artwork” at Lincoln Elementary School in Hyrum, Utah on Dec. 4, 2017.  Normally I would have let this story go by now, but Rueda continues playing the victim, aided and abetted by complicit reporters; libertines the world over; and, unfortunately, some good people who don’t realize that the media have mischaracterized his trespass.

Rueda, a native of Colombia, demands an apology, even as he condemns his fellow Cache Valley residents as “cultural dead-ends” and members of a “narrow-minded community.”  He also said, “I was overqualified[.]  I took the [teaching] position with an open heart to make a difference in a predominantly[] Mormon community where there isn’t much culture.”  My – charitable as well as charming!  Yet his defenders – who’ve called people such as me puritans, prudes, and even Nazi-like book-burners – should know that Rueda himself confessed that the nudes were out of bounds.

Claiming that the images were among a set of art postcards with which Rueda was unacquainted, the Herald Journal reported Dec. 28, “Asked if he thought the nudes were appropriate for the sixth-graders in his class, Rueda said he did not.  ‘This is not material at all that I would use. I had no idea,’ he said.”  So, honest mistake, right?

Well, that was before I conducted interviews with local parents and reported that after Rueda showed the nudes to the sixth-graders and got complaints, he must have found them appropriate for fifth-graders – because that’s exactly whom he later showed them to.  What’s more, the parents told me Rueda belittled the children who objected, said they might find some images inappropriate but he didn’t (which is all that apparently mattered), forced them to continue viewing the images over their protestations, and said he didn’t care if they reported him.  He also told them to “grow up.”

After I tipped off the Herald Journal that a second class had seen the images and that Rueda was “lying,” as one of the parents put it, the paper ran a Jan.2 piece mentioning the fifth-graders but also printing this: “Rueda said he told the class that they should not feel [that] the images are inappropriate or wrong.”

So do we believe the late December “not material at all that I would use.  I had no idea” Rueda or the early January “don’t ‘feel the images are inappropriate or wrong'” Rueda?  Hey, it is a different year – I guess his story evolved.

Speaking of which, smut can evolve, too – into art.  One of the paintings Late December Rueda said was inappropriate and Early January Rueda fancied culture is the full-frontal nude “Iris Tree,” a portrait of a sexually libertine, drug-using, bohemian woman by that name.  It’s a work the media consistently label “classical” (“Ooh, the rubes object to classical art!”), apparently unaware that the term references Greek and Roman antiquity.  In contrast, “Iris Tree” is an early 20th-century creation by Italian Amedeo Modigliani, a violent, woman-abusing, philandering, drug-addicted alcoholic known for dancing naked in Paris streets and who could be called a pornographer of his day.  (Other than that, he was a peach.)

For those who say I’m confusing art with artist, I have already examined the difference between legitimate art portraying the naked human form (e.g., the Sistine Chapel) and porn masquerading as art.  Suffice it to say here, something designed to symbolically relate theological concepts – e.g., the Garden of Eden – “Iris Tree” is not.  It’s more the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.  It’s one of those Modigliani paintings that, as the Daily Mail put it, exudes “raw sensuality” and is “an homage to the sex he so loved.”

So why are such things deemed fine art and shown to kids?  Because sometimes, the older they get, the better they were.  People have this curious notion that if smut is put to canvas with paint and some skill and allowed to age a century, the X-rated becomes the extraordinary.  It doesn’t help that a Chinese collector with more yuan than brains shelled out $153 million for a Modigliani nude in 2015 or that Modigliani’s works now enjoy art world approval.  

(Think this is meaningful?  Read the story of Estelle Lovatt, who in 2007 fooled the art world into thinking her two-year-old’s tomato-ketchup daubs were great works by a renowned, mature artist.)

Speaking of the fooled and foolish, the mainstream media continue writing inaccurate articles sympathetic toward Rueda.  A good example is this People piece, which portrays the teacher as a martyr, quoting him positively as saying the “works” are “icons of art history and human patrimony.”  Interestingly, however, People shows an image of “Iris Tree” with her nipples and nether region obscured.  So the painting is appropriate for ten-year-olds but not for an article meant for adults?

Apparently, People agrees that its picture refutes its thousand words.  You see, shortly before readying this article for publication, I learned that People had removed the “Iris Tree” image from its piece completely, no doubt as a response to my (and others’) having called them out on hypocrisy via Twitter.  Ah, but you know the internet – archiving and the computer “print screen” function saved the day.  Here’s how the People article looked before the people at People became apprised of their sheer stupidity.

Maybe it’s predictable that a media outlet would blur an image when it has already blurred the line between good and bad journalism.  But I’d still like to know why People is unwilling to show, in its entirety, a painting that it states “[m]illions of people worldwide have marveled at.”  What are you afraid of, dear editors?  That kids may see it?

Oh, wait…

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.



Source link

The Decline and Fall of American Nationhood


It’s a sad fact of man’s nature that we tend to operate based on emotion more than reason. This comes to mind when considering how illegal migration, a.k.a. invasion, has now again surged back to almost Obama-era levels. Some are theorizing why this is so, looking at the micro, but an important factor is minimized: not enough people care.

Oh, they care about some things: sports, entertainment, money, sex, bread and circuses. But the familial passion that should characterize a nation is largely absent.

Passion is the actuator. You don’t become a concert pianist because of a cold intellectual calculation that you may have some talent and, well, you could make some good money being on stage. It’s passion that motivates you to sink your teeth into practicing hours a day. Just consider the difference between a child forced to engage in an activity and one with self-motivating passion, or the difference between soldiers fighting simply because they must and those truly believing in their cause.

When hearing about invaders streaming across our border, often with a sense of entitlement, we should be filled with righteous anger motivating us to robustly defend the homeland. We’re not. Or not enough of us are. In fact, a good percentage of the country works against the common good, passionate about the wrong things and acting as traitors would. Too many of the rest are comfortably numb.

This is why invasion has been tolerated (and often encouraged), why we talk about amnesty for people who should be unceremoniously shipped south, and why there isn’t yet funding for a border wall despite a record Republican House majority.

The reason for this, sadly, is that we’re not a nation — properly understood. A nation is an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family; it’s defined by blood, faith, language and culture. For example, the Sioux Nation wasn’t a “country” or “state”; it was a very large family sharing the aforementioned elements.

This truth was once recognized and emphasized. It was mentioned among the Founding Fathers that we enjoyed the benefit of “consanguinity,” meaning, a relationship based on having the same remote ancestors. This became less of a reality after the waves of 19th-century immigration, yet emphasis was still placed on maintaining nationhood. For example, President Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907 that treating people with “equality” was not a given, but was “predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.”

He went on to say, “Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.” Now consider how many people will describe themselves as a/an _________-American or, worse still, will say “I’m _________” (fill in, Polish, Irish, Greek, Italian, etc.). They may not be bad people; they may mean well. But they’re unwittingly strengthening the all-too-prevalent internationalist mentality and are acting contrary to the cause of nationhood.

Nationhood was defended legislatively in 1921 with the Emergency Quota Act and in 1924 with the enactment of the National Origins Act, which used immigration quotas to maintain our country’s demographic balance. This is called “racist” today, even though some Europeans had greater quotas than other Europeans (and they’re the same race), but demographic upheaval is precisely how you destroy a nation. Ask the Tibetans, American Indians or the Ainu in Japan (if you can find any) about that.

This brings us to the most significant and disruptive piece of legislation in American history: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Introduced by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), co-sponsored by Sen. Philip Hart (D-MI) and promoted by lady-killer Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), it should have earned them the designation (D-Demographic Destruction).

The act increased immigration levels from a historical annual norm of approximately 250,000 to more than one million; it also for the first time limited immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Since it took effect in ’68, 85 percent of immigrants have hailed from the Third World (70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat upon being naturalized; this is the real reason leftists love immigration). America would never be the same again.

Not only did the rate of immigration exceed the rate of assimilation, but many newcomers are not easily assimilable. Moreover, assimilation is never a one-way street when at issue are large numbers of immigrants; for while they may change, they will also change the wider society. In addition, even a very basic level of assimilation isn’t a given, as the Amish, Hasidim and some other groups prove.

Couple this with the rise of multiculturalism and what underlies it, moral relativism/nihilism, where people are essentially told “Hey, it’s all perspective; whatever works for you (unless that happens to be authentic Americanism)” and it’s no surprise what we’ve become: a multitude of disparate peoples trying (not always too hard) to co-exist within the same porous borders. We’re not divided. We’re fractured — religiously, philosophically, politically, socially, ideologically and culturally. In fact, what unites us most today is sin.

Our unofficial motto, once E pluribus unum, has beome E pluribus plura — out of many, many more. This is why we fight over everything, from life’s origin to politics to football to baking cakes to marriage to, even, what boys and girls are. It’s why everything ends up in court.

As for the end game, people with badly conflicting values trying to co-exist under the same roof will eventually go their separate ways — unless, as with bickering children, an iron hand keeps them in line. The large groups of people known as countries are no different. Unless something radically alters our cultural trajectory, as a nuclear blast might alter an asteroid’s, our fate is either dissolution or despotism.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

It’s a sad fact of man’s nature that we tend to operate based on emotion more than reason. This comes to mind when considering how illegal migration, a.k.a. invasion, has now again surged back to almost Obama-era levels. Some are theorizing why this is so, looking at the micro, but an important factor is minimized: not enough people care.

Oh, they care about some things: sports, entertainment, money, sex, bread and circuses. But the familial passion that should characterize a nation is largely absent.

Passion is the actuator. You don’t become a concert pianist because of a cold intellectual calculation that you may have some talent and, well, you could make some good money being on stage. It’s passion that motivates you to sink your teeth into practicing hours a day. Just consider the difference between a child forced to engage in an activity and one with self-motivating passion, or the difference between soldiers fighting simply because they must and those truly believing in their cause.

When hearing about invaders streaming across our border, often with a sense of entitlement, we should be filled with righteous anger motivating us to robustly defend the homeland. We’re not. Or not enough of us are. In fact, a good percentage of the country works against the common good, passionate about the wrong things and acting as traitors would. Too many of the rest are comfortably numb.

This is why invasion has been tolerated (and often encouraged), why we talk about amnesty for people who should be unceremoniously shipped south, and why there isn’t yet funding for a border wall despite a record Republican House majority.

The reason for this, sadly, is that we’re not a nation — properly understood. A nation is an extension of the tribe, which itself is an extension of the family; it’s defined by blood, faith, language and culture. For example, the Sioux Nation wasn’t a “country” or “state”; it was a very large family sharing the aforementioned elements.

This truth was once recognized and emphasized. It was mentioned among the Founding Fathers that we enjoyed the benefit of “consanguinity,” meaning, a relationship based on having the same remote ancestors. This became less of a reality after the waves of 19th-century immigration, yet emphasis was still placed on maintaining nationhood. For example, President Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907 that treating people with “equality” was not a given, but was “predicated upon the person’s becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.”

He went on to say, “Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn’t an American at all.” Now consider how many people will describe themselves as a/an _________-American or, worse still, will say “I’m _________” (fill in, Polish, Irish, Greek, Italian, etc.). They may not be bad people; they may mean well. But they’re unwittingly strengthening the all-too-prevalent internationalist mentality and are acting contrary to the cause of nationhood.

Nationhood was defended legislatively in 1921 with the Emergency Quota Act and in 1924 with the enactment of the National Origins Act, which used immigration quotas to maintain our country’s demographic balance. This is called “racist” today, even though some Europeans had greater quotas than other Europeans (and they’re the same race), but demographic upheaval is precisely how you destroy a nation. Ask the Tibetans, American Indians or the Ainu in Japan (if you can find any) about that.

This brings us to the most significant and disruptive piece of legislation in American history: The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. Introduced by Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-NY), co-sponsored by Sen. Philip Hart (D-MI) and promoted by lady-killer Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA), it should have earned them the designation (D-Demographic Destruction).

The act increased immigration levels from a historical annual norm of approximately 250,000 to more than one million; it also for the first time limited immigration from the Western Hemisphere. Since it took effect in ’68, 85 percent of immigrants have hailed from the Third World (70 to 90 percent of them vote Democrat upon being naturalized; this is the real reason leftists love immigration). America would never be the same again.

Not only did the rate of immigration exceed the rate of assimilation, but many newcomers are not easily assimilable. Moreover, assimilation is never a one-way street when at issue are large numbers of immigrants; for while they may change, they will also change the wider society. In addition, even a very basic level of assimilation isn’t a given, as the Amish, Hasidim and some other groups prove.

Couple this with the rise of multiculturalism and what underlies it, moral relativism/nihilism, where people are essentially told “Hey, it’s all perspective; whatever works for you (unless that happens to be authentic Americanism)” and it’s no surprise what we’ve become: a multitude of disparate peoples trying (not always too hard) to co-exist within the same porous borders. We’re not divided. We’re fractured — religiously, philosophically, politically, socially, ideologically and culturally. In fact, what unites us most today is sin.

Our unofficial motto, once E pluribus unum, has beome E pluribus plura — out of many, many more. This is why we fight over everything, from life’s origin to politics to football to baking cakes to marriage to, even, what boys and girls are. It’s why everything ends up in court.

As for the end game, people with badly conflicting values trying to co-exist under the same roof will eventually go their separate ways — unless, as with bickering children, an iron hand keeps them in line. The large groups of people known as countries are no different. Unless something radically alters our cultural trajectory, as a nuclear blast might alter an asteroid’s, our fate is either dissolution or despotism.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Misandry Rises: In Defense of Men



"Don’t vote for men!" is the message of a recent campaign ad.  Issued by Dana Nessel, Democratic attorney general contender in Michigan, what she literally says is, "Who [sic] can you trust most not to show you their [sic] penis in a professional setting?"



Source link

The Real Scandal in the Alabama Senate Race


Scandals take many forms. If you could be transported back to antebellum times, for example, would you not find scandalous the desire to perpetuate the legal institution of slavery? This brings us to the Alabama special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat, a contest now front-and-center with the recent sex allegations made against GOP hopeful Judge Roy Moore. Moore denies the charges, but there are certain things that can’t be denied.

Democrat Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, has some noteworthy positions. He’s pro-prenatal infanticide. It’s not a stance he took 40 years ago but has since abandoned, and it doesn’t mean he’s accused of once having kissed an underage girl.

It means he believes in the murder of underage girls — and boys. That’s beyond scandalous.

Jones supports de-facto amnesty, meaning, he wouldn’t even require illegal aliens to return to their home countries before being granted citizenship. This undermines the rule of law and exemplifies the treasonous attitude that subordinates the good of one’s countrymen to the good of invading foreigners — and all because they’ll vote Democrat after being naturalized. Selling out your culture for political power is scandal on steroids.

Jones supports the regulation of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food, because he pushes the dubious global-warmingclimate-change, uh, “global climate disruption” agenda. Since it’s average Americans who’ll pay these regulations’ costs, this serves to further impoverish the struggling. That’s scandalous.

Jones advocates the unscientific, socially disastrous “transgender” agenda. First, he said President Trump was “wrong, wrong, wrong” to return to the longtime status quo of banning so-called “transgender” people from the military; this means he supports social experimentation in the armed forces.

Second, he also supports allowing boys masquerading as girls to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. In fact, he said that Trump’s rescinding of Barack Obama’s school guidance to that effect was “wrong, wrong, wrong!” (Because, you see, when you say that way it makes the other guy three times as wrong.) By the way, below is a video of Jones expressing these sentiments just last month.

Oh, yeah — the above is scandalous, too.

In addition, Jones advocates using taxpayer money to fund fanciful, economically unviable energy schemes such as solar, wind and thermal energy. Apparently, he’d like to repeat Obama’s “green energy” boondoggles (e.g., Solyndra), which only turned out green in that they wasted 2.2 billion worth of Americans’ greenbacks.

But Jones loves spending other people’s money. While he doesn’t believe in cutting your taxes to spur economic growth, he thinks having government give away your tax money will do so.

Lastly, despite the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, has caused millions of Americans’ healthcare premiums to rise and created co-ops that have collapsed right and left, Jones opposes rescinding the program. Well, no matter. He’ll have great healthcare through the Senate if he wins December 12.

As for the last four positions, some would say calling them scandalous is a stretch, so you can apply your own adjective (stupid comes to mind). And whatever you might prefer for characterizing all his positions, “old” and “repudiated” don’t fit. “Current” sure does, though.

So, killing babies, killing the rule of law, killing with regulations, killing tradition and kids’ right to privacy, killing our pocketbooks, killing the economy and killing healthcare (sounds like an alternate-universe Bill O’Reilly book series). In the scandal department, Roy Moore has a long way to go to have a chance of keeping up with the Joneses.

Simply put, Doug Jones is the most scandalous of creatures: a leftist radical. It’s a wonder he isn’t seeking office in California, New York, Massachusetts or North Korea. Running someone whose positions are so wholly contrary to Alabaman culture is a slap in the face to the state. Is this a political version of Punk’d?

If I lived in Alabama, on December 12 I’d vote for Judge Roy Moore while holding my nose — but only because the stench from Doug Jones’ name would be rising right from the ballot.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

Scandals take many forms. If you could be transported back to antebellum times, for example, would you not find scandalous the desire to perpetuate the legal institution of slavery? This brings us to the Alabama special election to fill Jeff Sessions’ vacant Senate seat, a contest now front-and-center with the recent sex allegations made against GOP hopeful Judge Roy Moore. Moore denies the charges, but there are certain things that can’t be denied.

Democrat Doug Jones, Moore’s opponent, has some noteworthy positions. He’s pro-prenatal infanticide. It’s not a stance he took 40 years ago but has since abandoned, and it doesn’t mean he’s accused of once having kissed an underage girl.

It means he believes in the murder of underage girls — and boys. That’s beyond scandalous.

Jones supports de-facto amnesty, meaning, he wouldn’t even require illegal aliens to return to their home countries before being granted citizenship. This undermines the rule of law and exemplifies the treasonous attitude that subordinates the good of one’s countrymen to the good of invading foreigners — and all because they’ll vote Democrat after being naturalized. Selling out your culture for political power is scandal on steroids.

Jones supports the regulation of carbon dioxide, otherwise known as plant food, because he pushes the dubious global-warmingclimate-change, uh, “global climate disruption” agenda. Since it’s average Americans who’ll pay these regulations’ costs, this serves to further impoverish the struggling. That’s scandalous.

Jones advocates the unscientific, socially disastrous “transgender” agenda. First, he said President Trump was “wrong, wrong, wrong” to return to the longtime status quo of banning so-called “transgender” people from the military; this means he supports social experimentation in the armed forces.

Second, he also supports allowing boys masquerading as girls to use girls’ bathrooms and locker rooms. In fact, he said that Trump’s rescinding of Barack Obama’s school guidance to that effect was “wrong, wrong, wrong!” (Because, you see, when you say that way it makes the other guy three times as wrong.) By the way, below is a video of Jones expressing these sentiments just last month.

Oh, yeah — the above is scandalous, too.

In addition, Jones advocates using taxpayer money to fund fanciful, economically unviable energy schemes such as solar, wind and thermal energy. Apparently, he’d like to repeat Obama’s “green energy” boondoggles (e.g., Solyndra), which only turned out green in that they wasted 2.2 billion worth of Americans’ greenbacks.

But Jones loves spending other people’s money. While he doesn’t believe in cutting your taxes to spur economic growth, he thinks having government give away your tax money will do so.

Lastly, despite the fact that ObamaCare is unconstitutional, has caused millions of Americans’ healthcare premiums to rise and created co-ops that have collapsed right and left, Jones opposes rescinding the program. Well, no matter. He’ll have great healthcare through the Senate if he wins December 12.

As for the last four positions, some would say calling them scandalous is a stretch, so you can apply your own adjective (stupid comes to mind). And whatever you might prefer for characterizing all his positions, “old” and “repudiated” don’t fit. “Current” sure does, though.

So, killing babies, killing the rule of law, killing with regulations, killing tradition and kids’ right to privacy, killing our pocketbooks, killing the economy and killing healthcare (sounds like an alternate-universe Bill O’Reilly book series). In the scandal department, Roy Moore has a long way to go to have a chance of keeping up with the Joneses.

Simply put, Doug Jones is the most scandalous of creatures: a leftist radical. It’s a wonder he isn’t seeking office in California, New York, Massachusetts or North Korea. Running someone whose positions are so wholly contrary to Alabaman culture is a slap in the face to the state. Is this a political version of Punk’d?

If I lived in Alabama, on December 12 I’d vote for Judge Roy Moore while holding my nose — but only because the stench from Doug Jones’ name would be rising right from the ballot.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link

Godless! Atheism and the Texas Church Shooter


“If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov.  Mentioning this in association with Devin Patrick Kelley, the militant atheist who last Sunday perpetrated the worst church shooting in U.S.  history, is bound to raises hackles.  Of course, few atheists will descend into committing murder; in fact, I’ve known some I’d call “good people.” Moreover, note that I myself once not only didn’t believe in God, but like Kelley thought religious people were “stupid.” Yet is it possible a straight line can be drawn between atheism (the belief) and increasing crime and immorality? Ideas do have consequences, after all. 

George Washington once wrote, “[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  …[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Many great thinkers have expressed the same idea, yet, when it’s related today, the assumption is that what’s being said is atheists can’t be good people.  This is both because theists generally don’t explain their position well and atheists generally don’t seek to understand it well; passions run high and the two sides talk past each other.  But now I’ll explain exactly what Dostoevsky and Washington meant — in a way making it apparent why it’s an insight that helped bring me, formerly a dismissive unbeliever, to faith. 

A very near relation of a close friend said to him once, “Murder isn’t wrong; it’s just that society says it is.”  I’ve heard this sentiment expressed, in different words, many times.  In fact, notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, known as the “Milwaukee Cannibal,” said to his parents as a teen, “If there’s no God, why can’t I just make up my own rules?”

But here’s the question: What would you say to my friend’s relation? How could you refute him?  We could warn, as a painfully legalistic ex-cop once said to me, that committing murder will land him in the pokey.  But that doesn’t really address the matter’s heart, does it? We want people doing the “right thing” not just because — and when — they fear consequences.  (Atheists emphasize this when criticizing the “fear of God”; note, though, there’s also the love of God.)  In fact, we’ve staked our whole republic on people’s ability to, in a great measure, govern themselves from within. 

I know what I can say to the man.  On the surface, it sounds simplistic: “You’re wrong, because God exists and has created eternal, unchanging moral law — it’s called Truth.”

Now, my friend’s relation could disagree with my proposition (God exists), but he can’t dispute my logic.  If God exists and has decreed the relevant moral law, the man is wrong.  Yet what can an atheist tell him? For if the atheist’s proposition that there is no God is correct, the man is correct: Society is all that’s left, so it could only be society saying, “Murder is wrong.” 

To fully grasp this belief’s implications, we must delve into the nature of right and wrong.  If society is all there is and “Man is the measure of all things,” as ancient Greek Protagoras put it, can we even speak of “morality”?  Consider my standard explanation:

If we learned that the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla, would we claim this made vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? Of course not.  It’s just a matter of taste, or human preference.  Yet how is it any different asserting murder is “wrong” or “evil” if the only reason we do so is that we learn that the vast majority of the world hates the idea of killing others in a way the vast majority of the world considers unjust?

If man’s consensus is all it is, then it falls into the same category as flavors: human preference. 

Some may now say, “But wait, we’re not talking about killing my taste buds but killing people! It’s a totally different thing!” I don’t argue it doesn’t feel different (to all but sociopaths), but remember that the idea this should put murder in a different category would, under atheism, also just be a function of man’s preference. 

This is irrefutable.  The only way we can say “morality” properly defined — not as something synonymous with man’s preference, in other words — truly exists is if it’s a universal, eternal, unchanging moral law handed down by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe; that is, if, just as God created Physical Reality (matter and the “laws of physics”), He also created Moral Reality. 

And if God doesn’t exist? Then we should stop fooling ourselves and putting lipstick on the pig of mere preference.  Stop using words such as “values” (prevalent now precisely because “morality” connotes something absolute), designed to obscure atheism’s meaninglessness.  Like my friend’s relation and Dahmer, just accept that right and wrong is illusion. 

This brings us to the true meaning of “You can’t be moral without God”: If divine law isn’t real, no one can be “moral” because you cannot conform to a non-existent standard.  “Moral” is as incomprehensible a term in a universe without Truth as “physical” would be in one without matter.  So, if God doesn’t exist, neither atheists nor theists can be moral — only in or out of fashion. 

The reality, my atheist friends should note, is that embracing any moral is a matter of faith.  We cannot see a moral under a microscope or a principle in a Petri dish.  Science cannot prove murder (or anything else) is wrong — only possible.  For science merely tells us what we can do, not what we should

People generally don’t come to terms with these implications of atheism because most don’t take their world view to its logical conclusion; many also wouldn’t want to, for it means staring true meaninglessness in the face.  It means that all the causes moderns fill their lives with are mere vanity.  Tolerance can’t be better than intolerance, love better than hate, or respect for life better than murder in a godless, Moral-Truth-bereft world.

Then again, consistency can’t be better than hypocrisy, pretense better than sincerity, or fairness better than imposing one’s will, either.  Thus, someone who has thought these things through and accepted atheism’s correlative moral nihilism may push his agenda simply because he wants to.  As with atheist’s atheist Friedrich Nietzsche, he may blithely accept his own contradictions, boiling his creed down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

By the way, this may explain studies showing that sociopaths have above-average intelligence.  Perhaps they’re people smart enough to think these matters through, but unwise enough to come to the wrong conclusion (God doesn’t exist, thus Truth doesn’t exist, therefore right and wrong doesn’t exist).  For certain is that if you accepted this parenthetical proposition intellectually — and incorporated it into yourself on an emotional level so that it permeated not just your head but your heart — you would be a sociopath.  You wouldn’t have a conscience because you’d know, and feel, that there was nothing to be conscientious about. 

Of course, almost no atheist so thoroughly imbibes that proposition; most have strong feelings about various trespasses (real and imagined).  So not every atheist becomes a reprobate any more than every Muslim becomes a terrorist or every Nazi a genocidal maniac.  But ideas have consequences.  Atheism, just like misguided theism (e.g., Islam), is destructive. 

This may take a dark form or just that of the atheistic but generally good-hearted young man I once knew who responded, when I mentioned that something he was contemplating was wrong, “But it’s not wrong for me.” The point, however, is that atheism’s implied moral nihilism can justify anything.  Rape? Kill? Steal? Why not? Who’s to say it’s wrong? This brings us to one last matter. 

When someone points out that atheistic Marxist governments have killed 65 to 110 million people, atheists will often retort, “But atheism doesn’t prescribe that!” They’re correct.  Atheism doesn’t prescribe any behavior.

It also doesn’t proscribe any behavior.

And that’s the problem.  Silence on moral matters would be fine if man by nature were angelic.  But by nature, he’s barbaric — and he remains so unless some civilizing agency enters the equation.  Atheism’s mistake is one of omission. 

This is why Dostoevsky, Dahmer and Washington were right: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Ideas have consequences.  Be careful what you believe — and what you espouse. 

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

“If God does not exist, everything is permitted,” wrote Fyodor Dostoevsky in The Brothers Karamazov.  Mentioning this in association with Devin Patrick Kelley, the militant atheist who last Sunday perpetrated the worst church shooting in U.S.  history, is bound to raises hackles.  Of course, few atheists will descend into committing murder; in fact, I’ve known some I’d call “good people.” Moreover, note that I myself once not only didn’t believe in God, but like Kelley thought religious people were “stupid.” Yet is it possible a straight line can be drawn between atheism (the belief) and increasing crime and immorality? Ideas do have consequences, after all. 

George Washington once wrote, “[L]et us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.  …[R]eason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” Many great thinkers have expressed the same idea, yet, when it’s related today, the assumption is that what’s being said is atheists can’t be good people.  This is both because theists generally don’t explain their position well and atheists generally don’t seek to understand it well; passions run high and the two sides talk past each other.  But now I’ll explain exactly what Dostoevsky and Washington meant — in a way making it apparent why it’s an insight that helped bring me, formerly a dismissive unbeliever, to faith. 

A very near relation of a close friend said to him once, “Murder isn’t wrong; it’s just that society says it is.”  I’ve heard this sentiment expressed, in different words, many times.  In fact, notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer, known as the “Milwaukee Cannibal,” said to his parents as a teen, “If there’s no God, why can’t I just make up my own rules?”

But here’s the question: What would you say to my friend’s relation? How could you refute him?  We could warn, as a painfully legalistic ex-cop once said to me, that committing murder will land him in the pokey.  But that doesn’t really address the matter’s heart, does it? We want people doing the “right thing” not just because — and when — they fear consequences.  (Atheists emphasize this when criticizing the “fear of God”; note, though, there’s also the love of God.)  In fact, we’ve staked our whole republic on people’s ability to, in a great measure, govern themselves from within. 

I know what I can say to the man.  On the surface, it sounds simplistic: “You’re wrong, because God exists and has created eternal, unchanging moral law — it’s called Truth.”

Now, my friend’s relation could disagree with my proposition (God exists), but he can’t dispute my logic.  If God exists and has decreed the relevant moral law, the man is wrong.  Yet what can an atheist tell him? For if the atheist’s proposition that there is no God is correct, the man is correct: Society is all that’s left, so it could only be society saying, “Murder is wrong.” 

To fully grasp this belief’s implications, we must delve into the nature of right and wrong.  If society is all there is and “Man is the measure of all things,” as ancient Greek Protagoras put it, can we even speak of “morality”?  Consider my standard explanation:

If we learned that the vast majority of the world loved chocolate but hated vanilla, would we claim this made vanilla “wrong” or “evil”? Of course not.  It’s just a matter of taste, or human preference.  Yet how is it any different asserting murder is “wrong” or “evil” if the only reason we do so is that we learn that the vast majority of the world hates the idea of killing others in a way the vast majority of the world considers unjust?

If man’s consensus is all it is, then it falls into the same category as flavors: human preference. 

Some may now say, “But wait, we’re not talking about killing my taste buds but killing people! It’s a totally different thing!” I don’t argue it doesn’t feel different (to all but sociopaths), but remember that the idea this should put murder in a different category would, under atheism, also just be a function of man’s preference. 

This is irrefutable.  The only way we can say “morality” properly defined — not as something synonymous with man’s preference, in other words — truly exists is if it’s a universal, eternal, unchanging moral law handed down by an omnipotent, omniscient Creator of the Universe; that is, if, just as God created Physical Reality (matter and the “laws of physics”), He also created Moral Reality. 

And if God doesn’t exist? Then we should stop fooling ourselves and putting lipstick on the pig of mere preference.  Stop using words such as “values” (prevalent now precisely because “morality” connotes something absolute), designed to obscure atheism’s meaninglessness.  Like my friend’s relation and Dahmer, just accept that right and wrong is illusion. 

This brings us to the true meaning of “You can’t be moral without God”: If divine law isn’t real, no one can be “moral” because you cannot conform to a non-existent standard.  “Moral” is as incomprehensible a term in a universe without Truth as “physical” would be in one without matter.  So, if God doesn’t exist, neither atheists nor theists can be moral — only in or out of fashion. 

The reality, my atheist friends should note, is that embracing any moral is a matter of faith.  We cannot see a moral under a microscope or a principle in a Petri dish.  Science cannot prove murder (or anything else) is wrong — only possible.  For science merely tells us what we can do, not what we should

People generally don’t come to terms with these implications of atheism because most don’t take their world view to its logical conclusion; many also wouldn’t want to, for it means staring true meaninglessness in the face.  It means that all the causes moderns fill their lives with are mere vanity.  Tolerance can’t be better than intolerance, love better than hate, or respect for life better than murder in a godless, Moral-Truth-bereft world.

Then again, consistency can’t be better than hypocrisy, pretense better than sincerity, or fairness better than imposing one’s will, either.  Thus, someone who has thought these things through and accepted atheism’s correlative moral nihilism may push his agenda simply because he wants to.  As with atheist’s atheist Friedrich Nietzsche, he may blithely accept his own contradictions, boiling his creed down to occultist Aleister Crowley’s maxim, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.”

By the way, this may explain studies showing that sociopaths have above-average intelligence.  Perhaps they’re people smart enough to think these matters through, but unwise enough to come to the wrong conclusion (God doesn’t exist, thus Truth doesn’t exist, therefore right and wrong doesn’t exist).  For certain is that if you accepted this parenthetical proposition intellectually — and incorporated it into yourself on an emotional level so that it permeated not just your head but your heart — you would be a sociopath.  You wouldn’t have a conscience because you’d know, and feel, that there was nothing to be conscientious about. 

Of course, almost no atheist so thoroughly imbibes that proposition; most have strong feelings about various trespasses (real and imagined).  So not every atheist becomes a reprobate any more than every Muslim becomes a terrorist or every Nazi a genocidal maniac.  But ideas have consequences.  Atheism, just like misguided theism (e.g., Islam), is destructive. 

This may take a dark form or just that of the atheistic but generally good-hearted young man I once knew who responded, when I mentioned that something he was contemplating was wrong, “But it’s not wrong for me.” The point, however, is that atheism’s implied moral nihilism can justify anything.  Rape? Kill? Steal? Why not? Who’s to say it’s wrong? This brings us to one last matter. 

When someone points out that atheistic Marxist governments have killed 65 to 110 million people, atheists will often retort, “But atheism doesn’t prescribe that!” They’re correct.  Atheism doesn’t prescribe any behavior.

It also doesn’t proscribe any behavior.

And that’s the problem.  Silence on moral matters would be fine if man by nature were angelic.  But by nature, he’s barbaric — and he remains so unless some civilizing agency enters the equation.  Atheism’s mistake is one of omission. 

This is why Dostoevsky, Dahmer and Washington were right: “If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” Ideas have consequences.  Be careful what you believe — and what you espouse. 

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com



Source link