Wednesday, September 27, 2023

They're Ranking Churches Now

 

You can’t escape the Pride Mob these days, and it looks like your church won’t be able to escape it either. This probably shouldn’t come as a surprise to us, but a group at Oxford University in the UK has begun rating churches in the area based on their capitulation to the heresy of the LGBTQ movement.

“The Oxford Safe Churches project, run by a coalition of LGBTQ+ organisations and Churches in Oxford, have published their first faith report, titled ‘Attitudes to Queer Christians in Oxford Churches,’” reports the Oxford Student news website. “The report, published on Friday 22 September, uses a ‘traffic light’ system to rank the LGBTQ+ inclusivity of churches in Oxford.”

Needless to say, the red light means that a church preaches sound doctrine about gender, sex, and marriage, while a green light represents a church that affirms and celebrates open sin. Furthermore, churches receive a numerical score on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 and 2 corresponding to red lights, 3 equating to an amber (or yellow) light, and 4 and 5 representing green.

Here’s how the group’s report describes a church that receives a score of 1:

This is probably a church where there is public teaching calling homosexuality sinful. They are likely to use the ‘clobber passages’ to argue that any form of homosexual sex (within a same-sex marriage or otherwise) is a form of sexual immorality and are likely to use this as a means of arguing for celibacy or ‘conversion’ to a heterosexual ‘lifestyle’. It is also likely that trans and non-binary people are not openly affirmed. You might find people in this church who would express a ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ approach. There may be people attending this church who would describe themselves as same sex attracted and celibate. LGBTQ+ people may be asked to repent of any relationships before becoming members of the church. Heteronormativity is likely to be seen as the only life sanctified by God. No one drives through a red light without knowing they are taking an extreme risk. We believe, for some people, especially freshers [freshmen] and students, it may mean a high risk of spiritual abuse.

Contrast that with the characteristics that give a church a score of 5:

This is probably a church which has internalised a queer identity, it may be that a large number of LGBTQ+ people attend or even that they started or lead the church. Straight and cis people attend as part of the diversity of the church rather than the assumed norm. If someone were to speak against inclusivity, others would be very likely to defend it. LGBTQ+ relationships and milestones are publicly celebrated. Agencies and resources which offer LGBTQ+ people support and allyship are almost certainly linked to and promoted. Modelling of including behaviours and language is normative. Driving through a green light, you can be far more certain that the road will be clear and safe to drive.

A church that receives a 4 on the scale demonstrates “at least some public support for LGBTQ+ people and probably a specific public welcome.” Wait — wut? Are there actually churches that say, “If you’re LGBTQ+, welcome”? Do they do that with every specific identity group? If so, the welcome time might go on forever.

Lest someone accuse me of saying that homosexuality is the only sin that’s worth focusing on, let’s play a little game here. Suppose I like to steal things; should I be on the lookout for a church that is theft-affirming? (Maybe Joel Osteen’s church?) Or let’s say that my wife and I openly commit adultery; does that mean we should be seeking a church that has a special welcome for cheaters?


Of course not. The only reason there’s this debate about LGBTQ+-affirming churches is that the Rainbow Mafia demands acquiescence and will take nothing less. These days, we can’t simply love gay people for who they are; we must celebrate their lifestyles if we are to be in good standing with the Pride Mob.

You may also be thinking, “So what? This is just one community outside the U.S.” Don’t forget that these ideas always expand beyond their place of origin. It wouldn’t surprise me if these ideas make their way to this side of the Atlantic soon — of course, it wouldn’t surprise me if it’s happening already.

What do we do? Stand firm. Don’t yield to the pressure to “affirm” the LGBTQ agenda. Know the truth from scripture and be confident in the knowledge that we know how the war ends. Forget “the right side of history.” What’s most important is being on the right side of eternity.

Biden and Oil: Destroy America in Order to Save It

 

After getting kicked off the Human Rights Council over its invasion of Ukraine last year, Russia is reportedly attempting to get its seat on the United Nations body back.

Advertisement

According to the BBC, Russian diplomats distributed position papers to United Nations members campaigning to be re-elected for a three-year term when the vote takes place next month. 

In the document seen by the BBC, Russia promises to find "adequate solutions for human rights issues" and seeks to stop the council becoming an "instrument which serves political wills of one group of countries", understood to be a reference to the West.

Diplomats said Russia was hoping to regain some international credibility after being accused of human rights abuses in Ukraine and within its own borders.

The latest evidence of those abuses was presented to the human rights council on Monday in a report from its Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine.

Erik Mose, chair of the commission, said there was continuing evidence of war crimes including torture, rape and attacks on civilians.

A separate report two weeks ago by the UN's special rapporteur for Russia, Mariana Katzarova said the human rights situation in Russia had also "significantly deteriorated", with critics of the invasion subjected to arbitrary arrest, torture and ill treatment. (BBC)

U.S. State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller responded to the news during a press conference on Tuesday.

"The Secretary of State clearly stated that we have seen Russia commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine," he told reporters. "We have made it clear that there should be accountability for the crimes they committed, and therefore, of course, I believe that representation in a body that deals with human rights is not consistent with their actions in Ukraine."

Moscow is reportedly attempting to bribe smaller countries with grain and arms in exchange for their votes, so diplomats believe it's quite possible Russia regains its seat. 

UN Watch's Hillel Neuer blasted the prospect, though it would be par for the course at the United Nations if it does happen. 

Advertisement

California Will Fine Schools That Ban Books About Race, LGBTQ+ Issues

 

On Monday, California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) signed a bill into law that will fine schools that ban textbooks based on their teachings on race, sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Advertisement

The legislation, AB 1078, will punish school boards that choose to reject these kinds of textbooks for their students. Newsom called the measure “long overdue,” according to NBC News.

“From Temecula to Tallahassee, fringe ideologues across the country are attempting to whitewash history and ban books from schools. With this new law, we’re cementing California’s role as the true freedom state: a place where families — not political fanatics — have the freedom to decide what’s right for them,” Newsom said in a statement

On X, formerly known as Twitter, Newsom said that Republicans are pushing “extremist book bans” and described it as “discriminatory.”

In a video signing the bill, Newsom said that it’s “remarkable that we’re living in a country right now in this banning binge” and said that school boards are “banning books, banning free speech, criminalizing librarians and teachers.”

Townhall previously reported how Newsom announced that his administration will fine a school district $1.5 million after its school board voted to reject state-endorsed curriculum that includes a biography of a gay rights leader. 

In an interview this week, Nicki Neily, the president of Parents Defending Education, said that “saying that a sexually explicit book doesn’t belong in an elementary school is not the same as burning a book in Berlin in 1933.”

“We’re seeing activists on the left, teachers unions, politicians really try and muddy the water intentionally to confuse parents,” Neily. 

This week, it was announced that Newsom would debate GOP Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, who is running for president in 2024, in November.

Major Media Mogul Headed to See the Disaster at the Border

 

Elon Musk, the owner of giant social media platform “X” (formerly known as Twitter), is headed to the U.S. southern border with Mexico as the illegal immigration crisis continues to get worse by the hour. 

I spoke with Rep Tony Gonzales tonight – he confirmed that it is a serious issue.

They are being overwhelmed by unprecedented numbers – just hit an all-time high and still growing!

Am going to visit Eagle Pass later this week to see what’s going on for myself.— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 26, 2023

“Should be an interesting visit,” Republican Congressman Tony Gonzales, who represents Congressional District 23 along the border, tells Townhall

In recent days Musk has expressed concern and outrage over the ongoing catastrophe, which is playing out at the border and in cities across the country. He also lamented a lack of media coverage and vowed to amplify the situation with his platform. 

This is a severe crisis https://t.co/9JHpAQX2ma— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 26, 2023

!! https://t.co/4z6Iqeiwtj— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 22, 2023

Strange that there is almost no legacy media coverage of this.

About 2 million people – from every country on Earth – are entering through the US southern border every year.

The number is rising rapidly, yet no preventive action is taken by the current administration. https://t.co/EF7HTS1ktT— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) September 20, 2023

Meanwhile, the Texas National Guard continues efforts to stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the country while the White House refuses to put a cap on the number of people entering unlawfully. 

REPORTER: “How many people coming into this country is enough for president Biden?”

JEAN-PIERRE: “Enough for what?” pic.twitter.com/4Awzvx5dQS— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) September 21, 2023

House Judiciary Hearing Highlights Surging Violent Crime in Chicago

 

On Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing focused on violent crime in Chicago, Illinois. Three individuals who’ve seen Chicago’s crime crisis firsthand shared their shocking experiences with members of Congress.

Fox News commentator Gianno Galdwell spoke at the hearing. Last year, he lost his younger brother in a shooting in Chicago.

“I truly wish that it was not my place to be before you today. But, I believe I have no choice,” Caldwell said in the hearing. “I unfortunately understand the pain of thousands of victims whose families have been destroyed. On June 24 of last year, I received a call that my innocent teenage baby brother Christian had been murdered. Shot down in the street by a stranger…the police have repeatedly said that my brother was not the target, that he just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. But in Chicago, being at the wrong place at the wrong time could be sleeping in your bed and a bullet comes through your window.”

.@GiannoCaldwell lost his innocent teenage brother to Chicago’s violent crime crisis.

Listen to his powerful testimony ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/VHZVTig5lX— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) September 26, 2023

“Soft on crime policies come with a mentality, where criminals just simply take over and they have no fear or regard for repercussions of breaking the law. We have to change that immediately…law and order is the only way we’re going to change the situation here in the city of Chicago,” he continued, adding that many Democratic politicians who said “Black Lives Matter” did not show up to the hearing.

Later in the hearing, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) asked if “what we’ve seen from prosecutors who don’t charge cases appropriately” has made it more difficult to get witnesses of violent crime to come forward. 

Rec

“Do the witnesses potentially fear that despite their participation in the criminal justice system, they might be subject to some retaliation?” he pressed.

“Definitely, 100 percent,” Chicago Police Officer Carlos Yanez, Jr. answered. “You know, especially with this cash bond, you’re going to be releasing offenders and the first thing their lawyer tells them is, ‘there’s no victim, no witness, there’s no crime.’ So all they’re going to do is retaliate and threaten and at worst, maybe kill some of these re-victims – they’re going to basically re-victimize these victims and witnesses so they don’t have to have a trial or court.”

Yanez is a victim of violent crime himself. On Aug. 7, 2021, Yanez and other police officers were fired upon by a repeat offender during a traffic stop. The criminal had acquired the weapon through a straw purchaser. He killed one police officer, Ella Grace French, 29, and shot Yanez five times, four of which were aimed at his head. Yanez lost his vision in one eye, some hearing in both ears, and is partially paralyzed on the left side of his body.

🎥 Retired Chicago Police Officer Carlos Yanez, Jr. outlines how violent crime has destroyed communities in Chicago. pic.twitter.com/g2WXKM8EeI— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) September 26, 2023

“What would you do to warn other communities about some of the early things that they would want to rebuff so that their streets aren’t turned over to the criminals like Chicago’s have been,” Gaetz asked. 

“It’s very difficult because I would also fear for their safety,” Yanez said. “After the incident that happened to me, I had my family, and me, move out of the city…I just felt like I couldn’t protect my family the way that I used to, if that answers your question.”

Retired Chicago Police Lt. John Garrido chimed in.

“At the very basis of it, is to pay attention to who they’re voting for,” Garrido, who served in the police force for over 30 years, said. “It’s the mayor, the prosecutors, our judges, our legislators, even our alderman…it’s become such a cesspool of ill intent. It makes no sense when people are repeatedly voting against their interests and putting people in place that are having such a negative impact on our communities and it just almost appears as though everybody’s somewhat blind to it.”

Caldwell pointed out, “if the leadership doesn’t start changing, if the folks in Chicago don’t start voting differently and demanding justice instead of becoming numb to what we see is a daily slaughter, then we can’t get anything done.” 

Last week, Townhall reported how an Illinois law took effect that eliminated cash bail entirely in the state. Going forward, people charged with the state’s lowest level offenses will most likely never set foot in a jail cell, including at a police station, after their arrest. They will likely be released with a citation and a court date. Law enforcement will be allowed to take certain individuals into custody if they cannot be properly identified or if they believe the person is a danger to the community. Police will be required to explain why the person was held. Opponents of the legislation pointed out that violent criminals could slip through the cracks.

“On the first day of no-cash bail last week, individuals charged with violent crimes were released without any restrictions. Two people were charged with robbery and a guy was accused of punching a Chicago police officer in the face…another offender was sent home without any restrictions after being accused of attacking four police officers and sending two to the hospital,” Garrido explained.

Advertisement

Lt. John Garrido has seen Chicago’s crime crisis firsthand. Unfortunately, it will only get worse until the city BACKS THE BLUE and supports its officers. pic.twitter.com/nbTqTuOwb3— House Judiciary GOP 🇺🇸 (@JudiciaryGOP) September 26, 2023

“Despite Gov. Pritzker’s and the Democrats’ assurances that the SAFE-T Act would not result in the release of violent offenders, initial reports tell us a different story. The first individual released under this new policy had been arrested for pepper spraying four police officers,” Rep. Mary Miller (R-IL) said. “The release of such an individual who clearly poses a significant threat to the community without requiring bail, it clearly shows Gov. Pritzker lied to the people of Illinois.”

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

Post-Postmodern America

 

When the progressive woke revolution took over traditional America, matters soon reached the level of the ridiculous.

Take the following examples of woke craziness and hypocrisy, perhaps last best witnessed during Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution.

The Biden administration from its outset wished to neuter immigration law. It sought to alter radically the demography of the U.S. by stopping the border wall and allowing into the United States anyone who could walk across the southern border.

Over seven million did just that. Meanwhile, Biden ignored the role of the Mexican cartels in causing nearly 100,000 ANNUAL American fentanyl deaths.

Then border states finally wised up.

They grasped that the entire open-borders, “new Democratic majority” leftwing braggadocio was predicated on its hypocritical architects staying as far away as possible from their new constituents.

So cash strapped border states started busing their illegal aliens to sanctuary blue-state jurisdictions.

Almost immediately, once magnanimous liberals, whether in Martha’s Vineyard, Chicago, or Manhattan, stopped virtue-signaling their support for open borders.

Instead, soon they went berserk over the influx.

So now an embarrassed Biden administration still wishes illegal aliens to keep coming but to stay far away from their advocates—by forcing them to remain in Texas.

That means the president has redefined the US. border. It rests now apparently north of Texas, as Biden cedes sovereignty to Mexico.

Precivilizational greens in California prefer blowing up dams to building them.

They couldn’t care less that their targeted reservoirs help store water in drought, prevent flooding, enhance irrigation, offer recreation, and generate clean hydroelectric power.

Now an absurd green California is currently destroying four dams on the Klamath River. In adding insult to injury, it is paying the half-billion dollar demolition cost in part through a water bond that state voters once thought would build new—not explode existing—dams.

The Biden administration is mandating new dates when electric vehicles will be all but mandatory.

To prove their current viability, Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm led a performance art EV caravan on a long road trip.

When she found insufficient charging stations to continue her media stunt, she sent a gas-powered car ahead to block open charging stations and deny them to other EVs ahead in line.

Only that way could Granholm ensure that her arriving energy-starved motorcade might find rare empty charger stalls.

In some California charging stations, diesel generators are needed to produce enough “clean” electricity to power the stalls.

The state has steadily dismantled many of its nuclear, oil, and coal power plants. It refuses to build new natural gas generation plants.

Naturally, California’s heavily subsidized solar and wind plants now produce too much energy during the day and almost nothing at night.

So the state now begs residents to charge their EVs only during the day. Then at night, Californians may soon be asked to plug them in again to transfer what is left in their batteries into the state grid.

Apparently only that way will there be enough expropriated “green” electricity for 41 million state residents after dark.

One of the loudest leftist voices to defund the police, and decriminalize violent crimes in the post-George Floyd era, was Shivanthi Sathanandan, the 2nd Vice Chairwoman of the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party.

She was recently not shy about defunding: “We are going to dismantle the Minneapolis Police Department. Say it with me. DISMANTLE.”

But recently the loud Sathanandan was a victim of the very crime wave she helped to spawn.

Four armed thugs carjacked her automobile. They beat her up in front of her children at her own home, and sped off without fear of arrest.

The reaction of the arch police dismantler and decriminalizer on her road to Damascus?

The now bruised and bleeding activist for the first time became livid that criminals had taken over her Minneapolis: “Look at my face. REMEMBER ME when you are thinking about supporting letting juveniles and young people out of custody to roam our streets instead of HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.”

Andrea Smith was an ethnic studies professor at the University of California, Riverside. But now she has been forced out after getting caught lying that she was Native American.

Prior to her outing, she was well known for damning “white women” (like herself) who opted to “become Indians” out of guilt, and (like her) for careerist advantage.

The common theme of these absurdities is how contrary to human nature, impractical, and destructive is utopian wokism, whether in matters of energy, race, crime, or illegal immigration.

There are two other characteristics of the Woke Revolution.

One, it depends solely on its advocates never having to experience firsthand any of the nonsense they inflict on others.

And two, dangerous zealots with titles before, and letters after, their names prove to be quite stupid—and dangerous.

Two Sets of Laws for Two Americas

 

Two sets of laws now operate in an increasingly unrecognizable America.

Consider the matter of unlawfully removing and storing classified papers.

Donald Trump may go to prison for removing contested White House files to his home.

So far Joe Biden seems exempt from just such legal jeopardy.

But as a senator and Vice President with no right, as does a president, to declassify files, Biden removed and, as a private citizen kept for years classified files in unsecure locations.

Biden’s team strangely revealed the unlawful removals after years of silence.

It did so because the Biden administration found itself in the untenable position of prosecuting the former president for “crimes” that the current president committed as well—albeit far earlier and longer.

Impeachable phone calls?

Donald Trump was impeached by a Democratic House for delaying foreign aid until the Ukrainian government guaranteed that Hunter Biden and his family were no longer engaged in corrupt influence peddling in Kyiv.

In addition, the Left charged that Trump was targeting Joe Biden, his possible 2020 rival.

Yet Biden, with impunity, bragged that he had fired a Ukrainian prosecutor looking into his own son’s schemes by promising to cancel outright American foreign aid.

And the Biden administration’s Justice Department is now targeting Trump, currently the frontrunning challenger to Biden in 2024.

Election denialism?

Trump was indicted by Special Counsel Jack Smith, in part for supposedly conspiratorially “unlawfully discounting legitimate votes.”

Will Smith then also indict Stacey Abrams? For years Abrams falsely claimed that she was the real governor of Georgia. She toured the country in hopes of “discounting” the state vote count.

Or maybe Smith was referring to the conspiracist and former president Jimmy Carter.

He alleged that Trump in 2016 “lost the election, and he was put into office because the Russians interfered on his behalf.”

Will Smith charge Hillary Clinton?

She serially libeled Trump as an “illegitimate” president.

Clinton hatched the Russian collusion hoax, and bragged she joined the “Resistance” to continue her attacks on an elected president.

Or maybe Smith meant the Hollywood crowd.

Lots of actors cut commercials after the 2016 election—begging viewers to pressure the electors to ignore their constitutional duties to honor their states’ popular vote and instead swing their ballots to Hillary Clinton?

Was not that “insurrectionary?”

Or was Smith thinking of January 2005?

Then 32 Democratic House members and Sen. Barbara Boxer tried to nullify the legally certified vote in Ohio—to thereby elect the loser John Kerry.

How about destroying evidence?

Trump was also indicted for allegedly attempting to erase video material from his own cameras in his own house.

Yet Hillary Clinton with impunity eliminated subpoenaed communication devices and thousands of emails.

Violations of security? Trump was indicted for supposedly loosely talking about classified material to visitors at his home.

So will prosecutor Smith’s indictments also extend to Hillary Clinton? She sent classified documents illegally over her unsecure private server.

FBI Director James Comey memorialized a confidential president conversation.

Then he deliberately leaked what properly was a classified document to the media. It was all part of Comey’s Machiavellian gambit to prompt the appointment of a favorable special prosecutor.

What about subversion of the electoral process?

Donald Trump was indicted for supposedly undermining the election of 2020 by questioning the integrity of the balloting.

In 2016, Hillary Clinton’s campaign illegally hired two foreign nationals Christopher Steele and Igor Danchenko to compile falsehoods about her opponent Trump.

Clinton hid her payments behind three paywalls.

Her team, along with the FBI, helped leak the counterfeit dossier to the media and high officials to undermine her opponent—and thus subvert the election itself.

Lying and perjury?

Two Trump aides and Trump himself are indicted for supposedly stonewalling federal investigators by claiming either amnesia or ignorance.

That tact is exactly what James Comey did 245 times while under oath before Congress.

What do former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former Director of the CIA John Brennan, and former interim FBI Director Andrew McCabe all have in common?

All three admitted they flagrantly lied either under oath to Congress or to federal investigators.

The three were never indicted for their false and perjurious testimonies.

We have now serially devolved from the 2016 election “Russian collusion” hoax, to the 2020 election “Russian disinformation” laptop hoax, and down to the 2024 election weaponized indictments.

Out of pathological hatred or fear of Donald Trump, the Left has crafted one set of laws for themselves, and another for all other Americans.

They smugly believe their own moral superiority grants them such a right to apply laws unequally—or to ignore them altogether.

To retain power at all cost, and to destroy a political rival, leftwing Democrats are systematically dismantling the constitutional foundations of the United States as we once knew them.

Do We Even Know We Are All Socialists Now?

 

Sometimes when you are in the midst of a revolution, you do not even know it.

I doubt all the Germans who voted in National Socialism quite foresaw what quickly was to come. Those who overthrew the Bourbons or the Romanoffs had no real idea that they had sown the wind and were soon to reap the Jacobin and Bolshevik whirlwind.

Socialism With a Whimper

So it is with our “woke”—a euphemism for the socialist revolution we are in and do not fully appreciate or even understand.

Socialism is variously defined. The Merriam-Webster dictionary emphasizes the role of the state in near-communist terms: “Any of various egalitarian economic and political theories or movements advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.”

The Cambridge Dictionary more accurately notes that socialism is “the set of beliefs that states that all people are equal and should share equally in a country’s money, or the political systems based on these beliefs.”

The latter definition perhaps best sums up much of the operative ideology of the new Democratic Party, the Biden Administration, and its subordinates, both elected and administrative.

But perhaps socialism in America 2023 is even better described as something like “the doctrine of enforced ‘equity’ by government redistribution of money and power from one ‘oppressive’ group to another ‘oppressed,’ with the caveat that the elite redistributors have the right to supersede the law based on their own self-professed superior morality, and the assurance that they will never be subject to the baleful consequences of their own unnatural ideology.”

We have been drifting into such a socialist system for decades, but it was accelerated by the eight years of the Obama Administration and has arrived at near fruition with the Biden Administration. Note first that the more socialist we become, the greater the resistance grows, and the more desperate and cruel the socialists become to force down the throats of the public something they otherwise would vomit up.

Under the woke socialist model there are no longer any absolutes, laws, or customs. We are left instead with mere constructs deemed illegitimate and arbitrary, in need of systematic dismantling in the interest of the proverbial people.

Such redistributionist, compensatory and reparative efforts to make us equal on the backside have in common a war against all meritocracy and indeed any accomplishment deemed singular and beyond the abilities of the masses.

The Surrender of the Campuses

Socialism has become not just economic, but political, cultural, social, and even military. Take universities. Most are dropping the SAT and ACT entrance exams not because they fail to calibrate both past achievement and the likelihood of future aptitude, but because too many do too poorly and thus find themselves unequal to those fewer who do too well.

Grade point averages are losing significance, since the achievers succeed supposedly only by advantage and not by hard work, preparation, and talent. Free speech is nonexistent; racist and hate speech is protected if voiced by the “marginalized.”

University admissions increasingly have little to do with talent. Or rather talent is described not so much as the ability to think analytically and computationally, to have mastery of language, spoken and oral, or some acquaintance with the referents, historical, scientific, and literary, of our civilization. Instead, qualifications are becoming more a matter of “life experiences,” or “community service,” or “activities,” or commitments to hopey-and-changey “diversity, equity, and inclusion” as the traditional one-third of the application packet absorbed the other two-thirds of grades and test scores.

Under academic socialism, entrance, of course, is merely the first step.

Courses are watered down, grades inflated.

The D and F grades have all but disappeared. The A? It’s become inflationary to the point of being utterly meaningless, like a German mark circa 1923.

Everyone knows that current courses on comic books, movies, and social media, interspersed with the proper adjectives, black, queer, and feminist, promulgate not just for ideological reasons of indoctrinating impressionable teen fodder, but to ensure that almost anyone admitted to university can pass such “courses.”

In socialist campuses, graduation is almost assured upon and indeed equivalent to admission. “Flunking out” is an anachronism.

A Stanford, Yale, or Harvard Law degree is not synonymous with mastery of American jurisprudence—a fact as known to all as it is out of politeness unspoken.

In the Biden years, the elite socialist universities have done the near impossible: they 1) made it almost impossible for working class white males to go to top schools based on their proven achievement, 2) have taken us back to the anti-Jewish quota years of the 1920s and ’30s by radically and deliberately curtailing the presence of high-achieving American Jews on Ivy League campuses, and 3) have reinstated an entire neo-Confederate, unconstitutional set of discriminatory rules to accommodate those admitted without competitive test scores and grades, from racially segregated graduations, dorms, safe spaces, and workshops to one-drop, one-sixteenth Old South notions of racial purity.

From Taxes to Voting

The tax code is socialist. About one percent of households pay 50 percent of federal income taxes—and are damned as greedy for it. That asymmetry is true of most state income tax schedules as well. The antithesis of Reagan’s “Starve the Beast”—limiting revenues to force cuts in superfluous spending—is now “Gorge the beast”: spend so much indiscriminately, run up such astronomical multitrillion budget deficits, and inflate debt to GDP to over 130 percent, that redistributionist higher and higher taxes become perpetually necessary.

Voting is now socialist inspired. The old idea that each citizen chooses or not to participate in democracy by showing up to vote and presenting identification is considered discriminatory. The socialist answer in many states is to require no identification, and fast-track same-day voter registration, automatically mailed out ballots, and ballot harvesting and curing. The common theme is that if not enough of those deemed oppressed, victimized, and marginalized choose to vote, then the system must be warped to ensure somehow with minimum or no effort their ballots are cast.

Equity Jurisprudence

The law is socialist, or worse in the sense of Lavrentiy Beria’s “show me the man, and I’ll find the crime.” It now operates on the “critical legal theory” idea that most American laws are the manifestations of the powerful and wealthy.

What is illegal is only so because the wealthy never need to break such laws. So why not steal—or rather redistribute—a hair dryer or smartphone that a rich man never does, but makes illegal?

Thus smash-and-grab, looting, shoplifting, and even violent assault increasingly either do not lead to arrest, or to indictment or to conviction or to incarceration. The socialist mind insists laws do not represent natural and ancient ideas of morality—such as thievery is always wrong and assault endangers society—but simply a particular value system of the oppressive rich and increasingly in America the so-called rich white population.

The idea of deterrence is taboo. Socialists do not believe law, order, and calm exist because those who would disrupt them fear the consequences more than the advantage of taking what you want or hurting whom you please.

We talk about “George Soros” public prosecutors. But the nihilist Soros’ genius is always to be one step ahead of the game, applying what made him an outlaw in France to our popular culture.

No one anticipated that he would quietly flood rather obscure big-city prosecutorial races with hundreds of millions of dollars to elect hard socialists who were to use their ensuing power to engage in lawfare against conservatives and the prominent and make laws and target enemies that legislatures could not. Without a Soros-funded Letitia James, Alvin Bragg, and Fani Willis, the nation would now be reduced to speculating whether former president Donald Trump’s two-year unauthorized storage of some classified documents at a secure Mar-a-Lago was a worse infraction than former Vice President Joe Biden’s unauthorized storage of classified documents at three locations, including his garage, for six years.

Defunding the police is based on the implicit assumption that greater criminality and violence, mostly directed against the most vulnerable, is a small price to pay, given a) the stigmatized criminal is given exemption, and b) the architects of defunding have mechanisms to ensure they are exposed to inevitable spiraling crime rates.

Ditto gun control. The socialist point of neutering the Second Amendment is not just to disarm the populace, much less to prevent shootings. Rather, the aim is to ensure the government has a complete monopoly on arms, so that it can calibrate both the degree and nature of law enforcement, and thus render the citizen compliant and obsequious in order to ensure his protection from both criminals and the state.

Socialist Corruption

One key element of socialism we often forget is its innate corruption. The Castro family, the Chavezes of Venezuela, or the Ortegas of Nicaragua all became rich by taking large bites out of the transfer of money from the rich to the poor, taking bribes from the rich to win exemptions, or doling out concessions of the “people’s resources.” In other words, they were self-appointed gatekeepers. Socialists are often the very rich or at least become the wealthy when they achieve power; paradoxically, they despise those who make money legally apart from the mechanisms of the state.

Not a moment goes by that Joe Biden does not demagogue about “those who don’t pay their fair share”—even as the Biden syndicate is emerging as one of the most corrupt political families in U.S. history, specifically in gathering millions of dollars that apparently were not reported to the IRS. The family leveraged Biden’s vice presidency and future likely presidency to win lucrative payoffs from foreign governments, the majority of them hostile to the United States. Just as Hillary Clinton sent soon-to-be National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to push the phony “Russian collusion” hoax among the media and deep state, so the Bidens enlisted soon-to-be Secretary of State Antony Blinken to contact former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell to round up 50 former intelligence cronies to lie that the incriminating Hunter Biden laptop was “Russian disinformation.” Neither has nor will face consequences for attempting to warp two elections, given they are designated among the “good people.”

In fact, socialism has now almost permeated every aspect of our lives, disguised as it is by the rhetoric of “marginalized people” or “people of color” or particular interests who justify their war on rules, customs, meritocracy, and achievement by claiming the greater victimhood, past or present.

Tidbit Socialism

In California, a bill passed the Assembly mandating that power bills be massaged by income levels. The initial—but by no means the final—rewards and punishments schedule seeks to add a flat fee onto energy users, based on their income. The idea came from the power companies themselves both to ingratiate themselves to left-wing California legislators but also to find cash to cover their massive losses incurred by forced adherence to madcap wind and solar mandates. In sum, the more one is liable not to pay for the energy he uses, the cheaper the power bill, regardless how much power he consumes. Fail in business, get cheaper electricity; succeed and pay more.

Indeed, the unelected are the most effective socialists since they can achieve by administrative fiat what a legislator would have to otherwise enact by open debate, media scrutiny, and voter approval. On May 1, new rules governing home loans will go into effect that were advanced by the bureaucrats at the quasi-public Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae lending agencies. The Federal Housing Finance Agency is punishing would be homebuyers with excellent credit ratings by forcing them to pay higher mortgage rates and fees.

These surcharges supposedly will subsidize those with bad credit ratings who will pay less per month on their home loans.

Note the socialist ahistorical logic. Aside from the fact that no socialist regime has ever worked, we in America have the 2008 subprime meltdown to warn us what happens when massive home loans are taken out by those without the means or the track record to pay them back. That shock almost destroyed the U.S. economy and wrecked millions of American lives as we went into recession for a near decade. No matter, socialists must break eggs to achieve their supposedly perfect omelets.

Popular culture from publishing to Hollywood to awards are now T-ball socialist in nature. Thousands of gifted authors are denied book contracts because they are deemed a part of the oppressive white male class. Ditto movies as well. Few believe that the Tonys, the Oscars, the Emmys, or the Pulitzers reward the most talented achievement, but are rather predicated on spreading the awards around to the underrepresented and do not necessarily represent the merit of a song, play, film, or book.

Note how socialism despises unauthorized excellence. In our sick world, that means any singular individual who is not committed to the principles of the woke revolution.He is giving hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free Starlink satellite internet to the Ukrainians, without which they certainly would lose the war. His Teslas sparked the entire notion of a potentially viable electric car. His space projects, not NASA’s, are America’s best chance to obtain parity with the Chinese in space. He lost $40 billion to reboot Twitter into something the 1980s American Civil Liberties Union would have applauded. And yet he is despised as a leftist apostate, a crime greater than the sum of all his good left-wing deeds.

Any talent who is deemed an enemy of the socialist project by any evidence of apostasy—a Tom Brady, J.K. Rowling, or Matt Taibbi—is transmogrified from hero or genius to Leon Trotsky in a nanosecond.

A final note: the Orwellian police state is central to socialism, since the ideology is contrary to innate human nature and when fully implemented quickly ruins all that it touches and is commensurately despised in its fruition. So to force compliance is a 360 degree, 24/7 project that transcends all our institutions and culture.

That is why the woke FBI goes after counter-revolutionary parents at school board meetings or traditionalist Catholics rather than Pentagon leakers or Islamic terrorists.

That is why the FBI and the CIA respectively tried to warp the 2016 election with the phony Steele dossier and in 2020 probably did so by suppressing the truth about the “bombshell” evidence found on wayward Hunter Biden’s laptop.

That is why news disappears off Facebook and the old Twitter. That is why the order of Google search results seems bizarre. That is why Disney or Budweiser suddenly virtue signal their nihilist politics, or why Nike makes the mediocrity Colin Kaepernick a multimillionaire, or Stanford University attempts to purge vocabulary such as “citizen,” “immigrant,” and “American.”

Once socialism takes hold, every mediocrity, every ossified bureaucracy, every constipated careerist, every hack writer and nobody actor, comes out of the woodwork to find his socialist “fair share” of what he lacked in talent or accomplishment.

In the end, perhaps the best definition of socialism is simply “The endless war against merit.”

The Impending Thermidor Reaction in Jacobin America

 

The decade-long French Revolution that broke out in 1789 soon devolved into far more than removing the monarchy, as it became antithetical to the earlier American precedent. American notions of liberty and freedom were seen as far too narrow, given the state, if only all-powerful and all-wise, could mandate “equality” and force “fraternity” among its subjects.

Each cycle of French revolutionary fervor soon became more radicalized and cannibalistic—until it reached its logical ends of violent absurdity.

Originally, the idea of curbing the power of a Bourbon king through a parliamentary republic became lethally counter-revolutionary.

Soon even attacks on the Catholic Church and the abolition of the monarchy entirely were deemed insufficient. The king himself and his consorts had to be beheaded. Monasteries and churches were to be ransacked, and priests exiled or lynched.

The sometimes moderate Girondins, who favored constitutional government, were mostly executed by their former friends among the Montagnards. In turn, the latter were soon deemed too conservative for the emerging crazy Jacobins. So they, too, had to be decapitated. The ensuing year-long reign of terror guillotined thousands of innocents, deemed guilty of being guilty of something.

By 1793, the revolution had turned nihilist and suicidal. The foundational date of France was recalibrated (not as 1619 but) as 1789—or “year one.”

Jacobins sought to wipe out religion, both materially and spiritually. They replaced God, first, with the atheistic “Cult of Reason” and then a stranger still “Cult of the Supreme Being”—a dreamed-up, living, humanistic god that only the murderous Robespierre could fully envision, but eerily similar to our own Green New Deal deity.

The months of the year themselves were renamed, the days of the week renumbered and relabeled. Statues were toppled, first at night, later in shameless daylight. Place names were erased and renamed. The original revolutionary heroes were not to be mentioned; their uncouth successors deified. Money was printed to “spread the wealth”—until it was worthless.

Murderous cancel culture ran unchecked. Yesterday’s French revolutionary became today’s counterrevolutionary—and tomorrow’s decapitated.

Almost everyone who originally had opposed the absolute monarchy, and, like the Americans, wished for a constitutional replacement, was eventually executed by revolutionaries who were then executed by more radical revolutionaries. The longer and more radical the revolution ran, the meaner, dumber, and more deadly the revolutionaries who emerged from the woodwork.

Finally, what could not go on, did not go on, as French society unraveled. Then the so-called Thermidors put an end to the madness of the Robespierre brothers and their sidekick, the 26-year-old Saint-Just, and did to them what they had done to thousands.

The final revolutionary correction saw a Directory, then a Consulate, and finally the dictator Napoleon—the self-described emperor who claimed he was the final absolutist manifestation of the “Revolution.”

A Revolution of the Disingenuous

We are swept up in similarly scary revolutionary times, after the perfect storm of the 2020 rioting, the COVID destructive lockdowns, and a radical socialist takeover of the old Democratic Party.

Decades of successful and legitimate efforts to ensure equality of opportunity, a safety net for the poor, and increased civil liberties have transmogrified into an “equity” agenda, or state-mandated equality of result—or else!

“Diversity” is now an Orwellian word for racial essentialism to the one-drop degree. Jim Crow racism was not eliminated permanently. It now has resurfaced as woke or “good” segregation. Racially separate facilities and events are apparent “reparatory justice.” Black activists are calling for $800 billion in reparations from San Francisco, a city that is melting down as we speak.

The old precivilizational tribalism and monotony of thought are now deemed “diverse.” “Inclusion” means replacing one racial hierarchy of the 1950s with a newer one of the 2020s. Woke leftists prove “inclusive” by excluding as “haters” and “denialists” any who disagree and cannot be easily refuted.

Opportunists Abound

The Nike admen Colin Kaepernick and LeBron James ended up with millions of dollars in endorsements ultimately derived from Communist Chinese exploiters of servile labor—a fact that all their pseudo-revolutionary performance art cannot mask.

Like the rich and elite Montagnards and Jacobins, well-off, degreed suburban grifters suddenly became “woke” arbiters of the “correct.” Thousands of diversity, equity, and inclusion czars bloated administrations, broke university budgets, and terrified faculty and employees with their panopticon surveillance. And yet did any of them result in a single better student reader, or at least one more accomplished university math major? Have K-12 scores soared with DEI monitors on hand?

We have not descended to the guillotine yet, but we are getting there with online cancel culture, doxxing, deplatforming, boycotts, mandatory diversity statements, indoctrination training, ostracism for an incorrect word, and violence redefined as activism.

Black Lives Matter ended when its supposedly Marxist architects all vanished into comfortable bourgeoise estates and cushy retirements—along with the millions of dollars they shook down from guilt-ridden corporations.

#MeToo sputtered out once the mantra of “believe women” turned its attention to candidate Joe Biden and Tara Reade. It turned out that she most certainly must not be believed when she swore the Delaware Democrat had sexually assaulted her.

Supposed transgendered heroes vie for profitable TV endorsement commercials that are as lucrative to them as they are ruinous to their employers.

In our revolutionary times, mediocre biological male athletes “transition” into female sports and suddenly become rich and famous. Women who transition to males, for some reason, find no such profits from male competitions.

A black transient with 42 arrests and three assault convictions is accidentally killed by a would-be Samaritan bystander who takes action to stop his threats on the subway. The tragedy becomes a rallying cry for “activist” leaders, eager for continuous notoriety and profits, while 10,000 black people murdered per year, mostly by other black people, do not earn a snore from these same “civil rights” leaders.

The World Upside Down

Like Revolutionary France, our woke revolution was contrary to human nature and therefore had to be imposed by force or coercion.

Merit is the great enemy of wokeness. One day SAT tests were blind mechanisms to allow the less privileged to compete on the basis of talent rather than parentage. The next day such tests were deemed counterrevolutionary, racist enemies of the people. Universities boast of rejecting 60-70 percent of those who scored perfect on SATs, as if their excellence was proof of their “privilege.”

Jurisprudence was tarred as racist, as if laws against shoplifting, looting, smash-and-grab, car-jacking, and arson were created only by elite white men who never had the need to steal or loot and who therefore made silly, arbitrary laws against them.

Like the Jacobins, our woke elite deem prisons arbitrary detention centers. So thousands of those arrested for committing violent crimes have either never been charged, never convicted, never sentenced, or never incarcerated. These exemptions rest on the principle that the revolutionaries who destroyed the enforcement of law have the wherewithal to protect themselves from the dystopia they created.

Borders disappeared, apparently on grounds they were 19th-century racist relics. Yet sanctuary cities prove the least welcoming of the tens of thousands they all but invited into distant other towns and counties.

The homeless were no longer deemed vagrants, or selfish in their take-over of public spaces, but the victims of an oppressive society.

So public defecation, urination, fornication, and injection were rebranded as mere lifestyle choices of the unfortunate, not to be judged wrong or unlawful by the victimizers who supposedly made thousands homeless. Ancient laws of hygiene and municipal cleanliness were thrown out as bourgeois, as cities reverted to the protocols of their medieval forebears.

Leftists who created these Frankenstein-like monsters, like the fictive Dr. Frankenstein himself, became targets of their own experiments. It was no longer enough to support civil rights for the transgendered. Suddenly any questioning of the wisdom of biologically born males competing in women’s sports or of teenagers with penises undressing among teenage girls in locker rooms, or of state-sponsored drag-queen shows with children in attendance condemned one as transphobic and worse.

Advocating a secure border and strictly legal immigration was proof of nativism. Equal opportunity for all races was racism. Advocacy for the use of natural gas as a needed transitional fuel indicted one as a climate “denialist.”

As our woke version of the Jacobin revolution accelerated, society itself began to unwind—as expected given America relied on meritocracy, free expression dissent, the rule of law, forbearance, and tolerance.

In less than three years, our major cities became filthy to the point of unhealthiness. Violent crime and thievery drove businesses and commuters away. Subways at night became the domain of the homeless and criminal. Vacancy rates in San Francisco or downtown Portland shot up to 25 percent or more. Millions began leaving Jacobin blue cities and states, and headed for sanctuaries in more suburban and rural red states.

Once-trusted and familiar government agencies became weaponized—and inevitably incompetent. The FBI was not interested in the organizers of 120 days of violent looting, arson, murder, and rioting in summer 2020, or the threatening mobs who showed up at the homes of Supreme Court Justices. Instead, it fixated on parents at school board meetings, Latin Mass Catholics, former Trump Administration officials, and anyone daring to question the Russian collusion or Russian disinformation laptop hoaxes.

The Pentagon brass oversaw a flight from Afghanistan, in the greatest military humiliation in modern American history. Yet at the same time, it focused on rooting out white rage and white privilege despite presenting no data to substantiate its accusations. Former intelligence officers and “authorities” misled the country and warped an election, to ensure Americans did not take seriously the incriminating evidence in Hunter Biden’s laptop of the Biden family’s widespread corruption.

So, the world became topsy-turvy. Throwing a firebomb into a police-occupied patrol car earned a light sentence, while protesting illegally at the Capitol won a decade in prison.

An American who did not get vaccinated was to be thrown out of the U.S. military; an illegal alien crossing the border unlawfully without a vaccination might earn a free phone and free lodging in a big-city hotel.

The more the government printed money it did not have, the more the country was slandered as cruel and mean to its underclass. The more standards were dropped for admission, hiring, promotion, and retention, the more employers were deemed unfair and bigoted.

As the American Jacobin phase accelerated, the more it, too, seemed to pursue its own destruction. Few now trust that the graduates of the Ivy League and marquee universities know what they once did. And why not, when students are admitted without test scores, but are assured passing grades, watered-down classes, and graduation to be synonymous with admission?

The U.S. military fell short by thousands of recruits. And why not, when it advertised for manpower with invitations from drag queens, and hounded those as racists who had died at twice their numbers in the population in Afghanistan and Iraq?

A Counterrevolution Is Coming

At peak woke, our reign of terror is beginning to lose momentum because its continuation would erode all the work of 247 years of American progress and sacrifice.

Former and current liberals—an Elon Musk, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Glen Greenwald, Naomi Wolf, or a Richard Dreyfuss—are deemed counterrevolutionaries for questioning the excesses of wokeism, and so began questioning the premises of wokeism itself.

New polls showed scant public support for open borders, for multiple sexual identities, and for biological men competing in women’s sports. Reparations from an insolvent government to black Americans—on the principle that those whose ancestors might have been enslaved eight generations ago were owed money from those whose ancestors might have owned slaves eight generations ago—is widely rejected by the general population.

When corporations like Anheuser-Busch or Disney tried to ingratiate themselves to the woke Jacobins, they lost billions in revenue—just as the woke Pentagon has lost thousands of recruits.

Woke networks like CNN have smaller audiences than some one-person podcasts.

A desperate and woke NBA now brags that its recent playoff televised audience reached over 4 million viewers. A quarter-century ago, when the U.S. population was nearly 60 million smaller, the pre-Jacobin NBA won over 70 million viewers who watched the 1998 finals.

Joe Biden, the thin veneer of the woke revolution, polls below 40 percent. Even that favorability is propped up by the consensus that he has no idea where he is or what he is saying—and thus at least is deserving of 40 percent support for not being responsible for what he has empowered.

A counterrevolution is building, not just because people are angry at what has become of their country, but because they now are learning that if they do nothing, they will have no country—and soon.

Reckless Reparations Reckoning

 

The last time racial reparations made the major news was on the eve of September 11, 2001 attacks. The loss of 3,000 Americans, which for a time fueled a new national unity, quickly dispelled the absurdities of the reparation movement, and turned our attention toward more existential issues.

Now the idea is back in vogue again. Here are 10 reasons why the nation’s—and especially California’s—discussions of reparatory payouts are dangerous in a multiracial state, and why reparations are not viable either in an insolvent state or a bankrupt nation at large.

1) Identity Politics Absurdities

We live in an absurd woke age of retribalization. It has witnessed Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), for mutual advantage, advertised as Harvard’s first Native-American law professor.

Fellow Montecito mansion denizens Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle and multibillionaire Oprah Winfrey swap ridiculous televised stories of their own racial victimization.

“Empire” actor Jussie Smollett initially was canonized by our top elected leaders and exempted for months by Chicago legal authorities after claiming the following absurdity: two white, MAGA-hatted racists, on their apparently routine nightly racist patrols in a liberal Chicago neighborhood and equipped both with special bleach that does not freeze in subzero temperatures and an ever-ready, just-in-case noose, assaulted Jussie. They put a rope around his neck and libeled his predominately black “Empire” soap-opera show—only to be repulsed single-footedly by a courageous Smollett, while retaining in one hand his cell phone and in the other his late night Subway sandwich.

Note that in these nutty cases and thousands like them, there is the cynical assumption that current American society, and the government as well, reward claims of racial victimization. That is why a Ward Churchill or Rachel Dolezal constructed new racial identities to game the system for profit.

One of the racialist universities’ current admissions challenges is their checkbox of “mixed race.” Whites and Asians often feign mixed parentages in hopes of being assumed either part black, Latino, or Native American. Any such partial lineage is seen as preferable to their own race. In our old racist society, one used to attempt to pass for white; in our new racist society, one attempts to pass for non-white.

Current racial tribalization obsessions have descended into a nadir that makes Al Sharpton’s 1990s Tawana Brawley/Crown-Heights career start (“If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”/ “We taught philosophy and astrology and mathematics before Socrates and them Greek homos ever got around to it.”) look amateurish in comparison. In this context, new calls arise for ludicrous reparations simply because we have become a ludicrous society.

2) Who Is Who?

Lots of racially obsessed tribal groups, in our multiracial, intermarried, assimilated, and integrated postmodern America, for perceived advantage still claim racial purity.

Yet to further those claims, they ultimately will rely on DNA certification (ask Elizabeth Warren how that went down). Perhaps some will resort to the sort of sick rules of past racialized societies such as the Old South (“the one-drop rule”), Hitler’s Germany (yellow stars), or apartheid South Africa (racial certificates). Stanford University recently deplored its recent past of anti-Semitic admissions—even as it has adopted an entire canon of racial classifications to return to the very categories that it now claims to regret. After all, Jews with superior transcripts in the 1950s were turned away for being Jewish and now a century of regression later are turned away for being considered white.

Do we adopt the South’s 1/16 rule that is occasionally used by Native-American gaming casinos and perhaps, stealthily, universities? Will blacks applying for reparations have to hire genealogists to calibrate percentages of racial purity to assess corresponding reparatory remunerations?

How will the multimillionaire Barack Obama be adjudicated? He has zero African-American parentage. He went to prep school, funded by his white grandmother, a bank president. He is half-black due to his Kenyan father. But the latter was a temporary resident of the United States with no connection to slavery or Jim Crow.

Do we distinguish between African Americans born in the United States and African and Caribbean immigrants with no histories of ancestors who lived under Jim Crow or were American-based slaves? How white or Asian or Latino can one be and still qualify for black reparations? These are absurd questions only because our absurd system demands that they will ultimately have to be answered absurdly.

3) Whose Culpability?

California is at the forefront of the reparation lobbying effort. Yet it was neither a slave nor a Jim-Crow state. On the eve of the Civil War, the federal census recorded only about 4,000 free black citizens residing in the free state of California, or about 1 percent of the nearly 400,000 residents in 1860.

The relatively new state remained part of the Union, in which no major battles of the war over slavery were waged. The pathology did not exist anywhere in California and the population was overwhelmingly loyal to the Union.

In other words, reparations based on slavery is not a cohesive argument for the current-day 40 millions of California, in which over one-quarter of the residents were not even born in the United States.

Are whites with Confederate ancestors more culpable than Michiganders or Ohioans, whose great-great-great grandfathers marched through Georgia, freeing slaves or who died fighting side-by-side with black soldiers at Fort Pillow against General Nathan Bedford Forrest’s Confederates?

Will the ancestors of blacks who fought with the Confederacy, or were descended from slave traders in Africa, qualify for reparations? Will whites whose ancestors died fighting the racist Third Reich or the racist Imperial Japanese be given tax exemptions from paying the cost of reparations?

If prior violent felony convictions disqualify one from voting, will the same be true of reparations? Will convicted murders, rapists, and assaulters be issued government reparatory checks?

4) Comparative Grievances

Will Armenian- and Jewish-Americans have equal or more compelling claims as well? Both groups arrived following the genocides of their own people. Many had relatives who perished due to discriminatory immigration laws that denied them entry into the United States. Nearly 8 million Jews and Armenians were murdered in the Nazi and Turkish genocides. Those totals are 23,000 times greater than the 3,500 blacks believed to have been lynched from 1882-1968 (a period during which 1,300 whites were also lynched).

Arguably these two groups suffered more killed in their 20th-century histories than all other American racial and ethnic groups combined. And such genocide, in our current ways of thinking, was imprinted on their collective psyches in a way few other oppressed groups could imagine.

Both were subject to zoning restrictions on home purchases and Jews were overtly discriminated against in Ivy League admissions for a half-century.

Stanford University was founded in part on the profits of exploiting cheap Chinese railroad labor, often in racist fashion. For a time, 19th-century racialist discussions centered around whether starving Irish immigrants were fully human. The recorded hot-mic outbursts from various Latino Los Angeles City Council and union members reminds us that racism is not a black/white binary. Instead, it has become a circular firing squad, with ammunition that will be radically increased by discriminatory reparations.

5) Plus and Minus Ledgers

If we are to envision individuals only as racial collectives, and then assess their grievances on the basis of distant claims of ill-treatment, and if we are also to assess contemporary black claims as of greater immediacy than say those of Asians, Latinos, Native Americans, poor whites, gays, the disabled, and the transgendered, then if we are no longer individuals, are we to calibrate both relative pluses and minuses that help calculate oppressors versus the oppressed?

Therefore, should we also ascertain each racial group’s federal crime statistics? That way we could calibrate whether any one tribe has been collectively disproportionality guilty of hate crimes or violent rape, murder, and assault, committed against other groups, who have been percentagewise inordinately the victims of hate and violent crimes?

Then in our sick game of racial arithmetic, through such a complex calculus, should we assess which particular group falls on the plus or minus side of the reparations ledger? Will groups who have been denied college admissions and job opportunities on the basis of their race since 1965, likewise lodge claims against the state, calculating how institutionalized race-based discrimination has harmed them financially?

In this context, would Asians who proportionately are least likely as a collective to commit crimes, but suffer disproportionately as victims of hate crimes and reverse discrimination in college admissions, and who have weathered a history of anti-Asian discrimination, perhaps have the best claim on reparatory compensations?

Or are reparations really not about the past, but solely the present and thus fueled by one reality: blacks believe they collectively are not doing as well economically as Latinos or Asians and therefore attribute the lack of parity to the past, in order to find equity in the present that so far has not been attained?

6) Reparations Upon Reparations

The Heritage Foundation not long ago pegged the cost of Great Society redistributionist entitlement programs at $22 trillion. For a half-century the courts have engaged in multibillion dollar reparatory settlements. To take one example, under the so-called Pigford I and II payouts, black farmers received $5 billion dollars in payouts. Are we to total up thousands of such court settlements or other compensatory federal entitlements that were race-based to subtract from the current racialized reparatory obligations? Can a half-century of affirmative action be monetized, calibrated, and deducted from reparatory obligations?

Again, ridiculous questions like that arise because ridiculous people are ridiculously attempting to monetize purported reparations.

7) Class claims?

Over one-fifth of the California population currently lives below the poverty line. One third of the nation’s welfare recipients live in California. Will reparations in the state with the largest number of absolute poor and homeless people ignore class considerations—in an age when class and racial statuses are no longer synonymous?

Are some of the grandchildren of the Oklahoma diaspora, who work minimum-wage jobs and have no college-educated relatives in their families, to pay increased taxes to ensure reparations to third-generation, college educated, diversity, equity, and inclusion, six-figure salaried campus administrators?

8) Financial Insolvency

California is currently facing a mounting budget deficit of between $25 and $40 billion. The nation itself heads into a likely recessionary or stagflationary economy in 2023. Billions of dollars in capital and more than 300,000 residents a year are fleeing California, due to the highest combined basket of income, sales, property, and gas taxes in the nation. About half the state’s resident households do not pay income taxes, while the one percent often pays nearly 50 percent of all state income tax revenues.

So how does an insolvent state facing a huge budget deficit, and over $1 trillion in unfunded pension liabilities, in a nation with a $31 trillion national debt and a $1.5 trillion annual deficit, borrow hundreds of billions of dollars to pay 12 percent of the population for the purported sins of nearly 160 years ago, when most of those who enslaved and were enslaved have been dead for over a century? Upon which culpable group are the taxes necessary to redistribute such vast amounts to be leveled?

9) No Statutes of Limitations?

There has not been slavery in the United States in some 158 years since the end of the Civil War. If a generation can be defined as 25 years, there has not been a living American with personal experience of slavery in generations. Few of any Americans even know the names of, or much of anything about, their great-great-great-great grandparents.

In that context, what was the collective price that all of white America of 1861 was properly to pay for the contemporary slave-holding society of the Old South? Since we are going back 16 decades to ensure fairness in the present, were 500,000, 600,000, or 700,000 dead between 1861 and 1865 in battle or due to disease and illness on campaign, sufficient wages for the sins of slavery? Should the United States assess West-African nations reparatory fines for their active participation in the Atlantic slave trade, given the enslavement of black Africans by black Africans was essential for ensuring the slave trade’s trajectory to the New World?

The evil institution of slavery itself did not enrich generations of subsequent Americans. Reactionary slavery instead explains why the 11 Confederate states were, in aggregate, far poorer in almost every category of economic development than their Northern Union adversaries. After the war, almost all the riches of the plantation class and its prewar profits from slavery vanished during the fighting and reconstruction, and most antebellum slave-based wealth was not inheritable by the vast majority of the postbellum South.

10) Salutary Effect?

In 2020 nearly 10,000 blacks, mostly young males, were murdered, the vast majority by other blacks.

Blacks, who make up about 12 percent of the population account each year for about 50-55 percent of all homicide victims and murderers taken together. But beyond that, there is an epidemic of disproportionately black violent crimes (over 50 percent of all firearm assaults and juvenile violent crime). In the black community, over 72 percent of births are out of wedlock, one-parent households account for about 64 percent of all black families, and a third of blacks have felony convictions. These current challenges might deserve more focus and federal action than simple cash payouts for the sins of the pre-Civil-Rights era.

If there has been any lesson from the $22 trillion record of Great Society compensatory payouts, it is that massive infusions of federal money are more apt to ensure social disruption and dislocation than alleviate them.

In sum, it would be hard to imagine a more volatile idea than racial reparations in our current multiracial society. But if the goal of the architects of reparations is to accelerate our rendezvous with the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, then it certainly may get us there far sooner than we think.

The Baleful Cargo of Woke Diversity Worship

 

What do all our notable fabricators—George Santos, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama—have in common?

Well, quite like the Ward Churchills or Rachel Dolezals of the world, one way or another, they lied about their identities. Or they sought fraudulent ways of suggesting their ancestries were marginalized. Or they had claims on being victims on the theory their constructed personas brought career advantages.

George Santos claimed, apparently in search of a victimized status, that he was an “American Jew” and a “Latino Jew,” and a descendent of Holocaust survivors.

Joe Biden lied that he went to “shul” as well as that he grew up in a veritable Puerto Rican household and just happened to attend a black college as well as being an honorary Greek.

Elizabeth Warren ended up a laughingstock for claiming her high cheekbones were proof of her Native-American ancestry—a lie she rode all the way to being the “first” Native-American professor on the Harvard Law school faculty.

Somehow the half-white, prep-schooled Barry Soetoro, who had taken his Indonesian stepfather’s last name, rebooted in the university back to Barack Obama. The latter oddly did not catch his literary agent “misidentifying” him in a book promo as being born in Africa. And only as president, did we learn his “autobiographical” memoir was mostly a concoction.

This fixation with constructing identities is one of the great pathologies of our woke era.

When we obsess in neo-Confederate style on race, ethnicity, or religion as the defining element of who we are, and we do this to leverage political advantage, then we set off a chain-reaction of Yugoslavian- or Lebanese-style tribalism. Like nuclear proliferation, once one group goes tribal, then all others will strain to find their own deterrent tribal identity.

A Society of Lies

There are warning signs all around us of our fate to come if we do not stop this nihilism: Latino members of the Los Angeles City Council caught on a hot mic of matter-of-fact venting tribalist hatred and mocking of non-Latino tribes—blacks, gays, indigenous people, and whites. Or the Jussie Smollett farce, both the lies he concocted to promote his victimhood, and the lies the Chicago prosecutor office initially promulgated to ensure initial preferential treatment for Smollett based on his race. Read the comments posted below news stories of rampant swarming smash-and-grab, knockout game, or carjacking crimes—and be warned of the venomous and tribalist backlash to venomous tribalism.

In a world in which there are too many oppressed for the static number of oppressors, then it is perfectly logical that an Elizabeth Warren on the one hand would fabricate an advantageous identity for careerist opportunity, and a Jussie Smollett on the other hand would invent mythical white MAGA demons to ensure he was victimized and deserving of careerist reparations for his suffering.

Yet the tribal problem is not just an epidemic of false identities and fraudulent victims. Entire areas of social and political reality are now set off and exempt from rational discussion. We are currently witnessing an upsurge in black-male crime, often descending into disproportionate hate crimes perpetrated against Asians and Jews. Yet any discussion of this violence is taboo, lest one is deemed racist or illiberal.

Questioning the morality of allowing biological males to compete in women’s sports and to destroy decades of striving for equal female athletics likewise is put off-limits.

So are discussions about the epidemic of illegitimacy and the negative effects of fatherless families contributing to problems in some minority communities.

Even the national challenge of epidemic obesity is racialized, as if worries about unhealthy weight of all Americans derive somehow from mythical white “body shaming.”

So are inquiries about how the states in tough economic times are to house, feed, care, educate, and instruct 5 million entrants across the southern border, arriving en masse and illegally, all without simple background checks, knowledge of English or a high-school diploma, and in non-diverse fashion. If the first thing an immigrant does is to break U.S. law by illegally crossing the border, and the second thing is illegally residing in the United States, then it is only logical that he concludes further illegal activity will be similarly exempt. Illegal immigration is not a noble endeavor but a crime against its host.

In sum, woke tribalism inevitably turns us into fabricators and society itself becomes a liar.

Against Meritocracy

The old 1970s cynical canard that racial quotas would not extend to pilot training or neurosurgery is no longer true. Some of the major airlines have announced mandatory non-white acceptance quotas for pilot training, and not predicated on competitive résumés or standardized test scores. Many universities and professional schools are considering adopting pass/fail grading on the theory that affirmative action admissions must become synonymous with guaranteed graduation.

Yet what is the alternative once one travels this pathway? Suppose the idea of quota-based admissions is declared valid and salutary. In that case, grading must likewise be recalibrated along this long chain of anti-meritocracy to continue ensuring equality of results.

Licensing boards are next. If one is admitted to universities on diversity, equity, and inclusion concerns rather than demonstrable achievement as quantifiably determined by competitive grades and test scores and other definable exceptional achievements, and one is further graduated on the assurance that grades either will not be issued or will be inflated, then the logical next step is that licensing exam standards in law or medicine must likewise be relaxed so as not to interrupt the ever-lengthening wokeist chain.

In other words, soon where one went to medical school, or what one did in medical school, or where one did his residency, or his certification by a medical board of examiners will become rather irrelevant. The point is not to recruit applicants with the most competitive records and to ensure that they all are subject to the same standard of rigorous instruction and assessment to ensure the public can have confidence in the medical profession, but to make sure that profession measures up to some artificial notions about diversity, equity, and inclusion. The relationship between these metrics and health is beside the point.

We forget that what once separated the Western world from the rest was not race, climate, or natural bounty, but its gradual creation of meritocracies replacing the pre-civilizational rule of the clan, the tribe, or the race. The old inherited and stubborn obstacles remained: aristocratic privilege, class chauvinism, and plutocratic clout that warred with qualifications. They were the ancient impediments to merit whose power in the West slowly was also dethroned.

How ironic in their places, the reactionary Western world has simply created new exemptions and privileges, calibrated on premodern criteria such as race and sex that will set off chain tribal reactions as we degenerate into Hobbesian factionalism.

Anytime perceived merit, or something close to merit, was not the standard, a society either imploded or became impoverished and calcified. The racial, one-drop categories of the Old South or the Third Reich, or the colorized spectrum of the old apartheid South Africa, or the racial chauvinism of the new tribal South Africa, or the commissar system of the Soviet Union, or the religious intolerance of fundamentalist Islam, or the familial gangs and clannish tyranny of prewar Sicily ensured that all were dysfunctional societies, and often much worse than that. Opportunity was instead guaranteed, and excellence defined, by something other than demonstrable talent and achievement.

There will be no exceptions granted to the United States from these rules of history. There are many talented black women in the corporate world, private sector, and elsewhere who would have made excellent vice presidents given their race was incidental and an afterthought to their achievement and talent.

The Best We’ve Got?

But Kamala Harris is not among them. She was selected by Biden’s braggadocio not because of any past stellar record as a Bay Area prosecutor, an accomplished senator, an effective orator, or a superb presidential candidate, but because a frightened Joe Biden amid the George Floyd riots announced in advance that he would preselect his running mate exclusively on the basis of race and sex, sort of in the fashion of the white male-dominated world of the past.

Ditto Pete Buttigieg, who, in his dismal record as a rather inconsequential small city mayor and failed presidential candidate, had never evidenced aptitude for transportation issues—other than occasionally and ostentatiously riding a bike. He was never expected to seriously address problems like spiraling auto fuel prices, the bottlenecks at our harbors, the wild-west train robbing at the port of Los Angeles, the Southwest Airlines implosion, or our clogged freeways. Instead, he was appointed Transportation Secretary because of the diversity of his sexual orientation and his woke rhetoric that almost immediately surfaced in wildly out-of-pocket lectures about “racist” freeways.

Similarly, upon appointment as press secretary, we were immediately told Karine Jean-Pierre was the nation’s first black, gay press secretary rather than being asked to recognize any prior achievement that earned her such a coveted spot. Few said her appointment reflected a successful record as chief of staff for Kamala Harris’ not-one-delegate presidential campaign, or national megaphone for an ossified Moveon.org, or her stellar work as an MSNBC pundit.

What will a university like Stanford do when it admits much of its 2026 class largely on the basis of tribal considerations? It does not release who of the admitted opted not to take the now-optional SAT. It seems proud, in fact, that it has rejected in the past 70 percent of those applicants with perfect SAT scores. So why would one believe that Stanford truly deplores its past Jewish exclusionary quotas, when it easily trumps them in the present—and uses the same argument of diversity to excuse prejudice and disqualifying those who, by its own former standards, had earned admission?

Diversity is neither a strength nor a weakness. Diversity of thought can be helpful, or become chaotic as orthodoxy. Hitler’s 3.7 million soldiers who charged into Russia were especially diverse, but that fact did not make the invaders less murderous.

A multi-religious India is certainly diverse, but is not always calm or humane. Yugoslavia was diverse, and so is current-day Lebanon. Was either country a kinder, gentler, or more successful society than decidedly nondiverse Japan or Poland?

Just as uniformity can result in both stability and stagnation, so too can diversity sometimes ensure either dynamism or bedlam. In all these cases, the emphasis on tribalism is the critical determinative. If a 95 percent Asian or white country defines itself in blood-and-soil terms as did Japan of the 1930s and early 1940s and Germany between 1933 and 1945, then it becomes toxic, unlike a more natural assumption that race is incidental, not essential, even in a racially uniform society.

The same is true of diversity. Accentuate it; sharpen differences; treat individuals as part of tribal collectives—and a descent into violence and anarchy is assured. But consider tribal differences superficial, and human commonality more important than racial difference, then diversity can be enriching through voluntary contributions to the whole in terms of varieties of food, music, art, fashion, and literature. But again, envision diversity as iron-clad calibrations of identity in which the individual cedes to the collective tribe, then a tribally regressive America will be no different from the world elsewhere and our fate is assured.

So, we are headed, dangerously so, into an historically ugly, hateful, and volatile place—all the more so because we lie that it is utopian when it is pre-civilizational and reactionary.

Are Universities Doomed?

 

In a famous exchange in the The Sun Also Rises, Ernest Hemingway wrote: “How did you go bankrupt?” Bill asked. “Two ways,” Mike said. “Gradually, then suddenly.”

“Gradually” and “suddenly” applies to higher education’s implosion.

During the 1990s “culture wars” universities were warned that their chronic tuition hikes above the rate of inflation were unsustainable.

Their growing manipulation of blanket federal student loan guarantees, and part-time faculty and graduate teaching assistants always was suicidal.

Left-wing indoctrination, administrative bloat, obsessions with racial preferences, arcane, jargon-filled research, and campus-wide intolerance of diverse thought short-changed students, further alienated the public—and often enraged alumni.

Over the last 30 years, enrollments in the humanities and history crashed. So did tenure-track faculty positions. Some $1.7 trillion in federally backed student loans have only greenlighted inflated tuition—and masked the contagion of political indoctrination and watered-down courses.

But “gradually” imploding has now become “suddenly.” Zoom courses, a declining pool of students, and soaring costs all prompt the public to question the college experience altogether.

Nationwide undergraduate enrollment has dropped by more than 650,000 students in a single year—or over 4 percent alone from spring 2021 to 2022, and some 14 percent in the last decade. Yet the U.S. population still increases by about 2 million people a year.

Men account for about 71 percent of the current shortfall of students. Women number almost 60 percent of all college students—an all-time high.

Monotonous professors hector students about “toxic masculinity,” as “gender” studies proliferate. If the plan was to drive males off campus, universities have succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

The number of history majors has collapsed by 50 percent in just the last 20 years. Tenured history positions have declined by one-third to half at major state universities.

In the last decade alone, English majors across the nation’s universities have fallen by a third.

At Yale University, administrative positions have soared over 150 percent in the last two decades. But the number of professors increased by just 10 percent. In a new low/high, Stanford recently enrolled 16,937 undergraduate and graduate students, but lists 15,750 administrative staff—in near one-to-one fashion.

In the past, such costly praetorian bloat would have sparked a faculty rebellion. Not now. The new six-figure salaried “diversity, equity, and inclusion” commissars are feared and exempt from criticism.

Since 2020, the old proportional-representation admissions quotas have expanded into weird “reparatory” admissions. Purported “marginalized populations” have often been admitted at levels greater than percentages in the general population.

Consequently, “problematic” standardized tests are damned as biased and antithetical to “diversity.”

To accommodate radical diversity reengineering, the only demographic deemed expendable are white males. Their plunging numbers on campus, especially from the working class, are now much less than their percentages in the general population—regardless of grades or test scores.

At Yale, the class of 2026 is listed as 50 percent white and 55 percent female. Fourteen percent were admitted as “legacies.” In sum, qualified but poor white males without privilege or connections seem mostly excluded.

Stanford’s published 2025 class profile claims a student body of “23 percent white.” Fewer than half of the class is male. Stanford mysteriously does not release the numbers of those successfully admitted without SAT tests—but recently conceded it rejects about 70 percent of those with perfect SAT scores.

In fact, universities are quietly junking test score requirements. Ironically, these time-honored standardized tests were originally designed to offer those from underprivileged backgrounds, or less competitive high schools, a meritocratic pathway into elite schools.

At Cornell, students push for pass/fail courses only and the abolition of all grades. At the New School in New York, students demand that everyone receives “A” grades. Dean’s lists and class and school rankings are equally suspect as counterrevolutionary. Even as courses are watered down, entitled students still assume that their admission must automatically guarantee graduation—or else!

Skeptical American employers, to remain globally competitive, will likely soon administer their own hiring tests. They already suspect that prestigious university degrees are hollow and certify very little.

Traditional colleges will seize the moment and expand by sticking to meritocratic criteria as proof of the competency of their prized graduates.

Private and online venues will also fill a national need to teach Western civilization and humanities courses—by non-woke faculty who do not institutionalize bias.

More students will continue to seek vocational training alternatives. Some will get their degrees online for a fraction of the cost.

Alumni will either curb giving, put further restrictions on their gifting, or disconnect.

Eventually, even elite schools will lose their current veneer of prestige. Their costly cattle brands will be synonymous with equality-of-result, overpriced indoctrination echo chambers, where therapy replaced singular rigor and their tarnished degrees become irrelevant.

How ironic that universities are rushing to erode meritocratic standards—history’s answer to the age-old, pre-civilizational bane of tribal, racial, class, elite, and insider prejudices and bias that eventually ensure poverty and ruin for all.