The eyes of the world (or at least the part of the world that cared about this) were on the nation-state of Texas and the Karmelo Anthony trial. If you’ve been living under a rock (which may not be such a bad thing these days), Anthony was accused of murdering Austin Metcalf in April of last year. In a decision that took less time than a PBS pledge break, the jury convicted Anthony, with a sentence of 35 years in prison with the possibility of parole after 17.
Although this piece isn’t about the death penalty, let me make myself crystal clear: any time a murderer gets even a little amount of time at the Gray Bar Hotel, he or she beats the rap. Sure, prison isn’t exactly the Ritz Carlton, but every breath taken by the perp is an insult to the victim and his/her family.
One of the more interesting aspects to the trial was introducing the concept of self-defense as a legal argument. Typically Leftists treat self-defense like it’s a job application, but they occasionally toss it out there in the hopes they can convince a jury, legal or of public opinion, the alleged perp didn du nuthin. But, it’s still worth a gander.
Or a goose if you’d prefer.
self-defense
What the Left thinks it means – an unnecessary tool used by the right wing to justify killing people in cold blood
What it really means – one of the fundamental rights we have, and one the Left wants to remove
I’ve said it before, but I’ll say it again: The Left is all about control over our lives. From their economic policies to their domestic policies, they want to have a say in whatever we do. We got a really good look at what that’s like during COVID by watching how Democrat Governors handled lockdowns.
Spoiler Alert: It fucking sucked.
But there was one positive that came out of it, namely we got to see what Leftists like Gavin “I Have the Hair of an 80s Movie Villain” Newsom, Gretchen “The Gretch Who Stole Christmas” Whitmer, and Andrew “I Didn’t Know Putting COVID Patients With Old People Would End So Badly” Cuomo let their masks (figurative and literal) slip to show what their endgame was. They were amongst the first to institute strict lockdown procedures and amongst the last to lessen those procedures when COVID started winding down.
Oh, and memo to Taylor Lorenz. You can take off the mask now. You look like an idiot, and this time not because of what you say or write.
The Left has the same fascination with control when it comes to self-defense. If they can’t force you to become victims, they will punish you through laws, regulations, and general dumbfuckery. Look at how they push for more gun laws when the existing ones aren’t stopping people from shooting others. It’s their standard MO, like “thoughts and prayers” but with more forms to fill out.
It should come as no surprise the blue states have the strictest gun laws in the country. Yet, these gun laws don’t result in lower gun-related death rates, with blue states recording some pretty high numbers. So, why would Leftists continue to push for more gun laws?
They’re dumbfucks.
Oh, and they want to control people’s lives.
But this goes beyond whether Jethro in Pigfuck, Arkansas or J’wan in New York City wants to pack heat. It can come down to whether Jethro or J’wan can protect himself/herself at a moment’s notice if the situation arises. And with the police being minutes away in most cases (if they even show up at all), that firearm may be the only thing saving Jethro and J’wan from getting robbed or worse.
To give a little grace, 911 can only respond so quickly, and they’re acting as a middle man to alert the police, but they don’t pass any savings onto you. Instead, it makes the possibility of the police showing up just in time to catch the robber smaller than the chances Hunter Biden starts a rehab clinic. Every second that goes by without law enforcement affects the likelihood of capturing the criminal. A lot of times the only thing working in the police’s favor is how fucking stupid the perps are. Not a sucker’s bet by any stretch of the imagination, but not something I’d be willing to risk a life on.
Aside from trying to pass more laws that criminals will ignore because they’re fucking criminals, what else do Leftists suggest? Let’s take a brief look.
– Shoot a shotgun through the door
– Call 911 and then hide or escape until the police show up. But they also say the police are racist and need to be defunded.
– If someone breaks into your house, offer to help them rebuild his/her life.
– Focus on prevention.
– Blame Republicans (naturally)
And these tactics work soooo well, Democrats are still victims of crime from carjackings to home invasions to murder, and many, many more. Being called soft on crime and having attorneys backed by our good friend Uncle George Soros decide not to prosecute actual criminals so they can, surprise surprise, commit more crimes doesn’t help them.
Nor does it help us.
Although the Left is eager to buy the concept of self-defense when it comes to Karmelo Anthony, they aren’t so quick to adopt it when it’s someone they don’t like using it. Just ask Kyle Rittenhouse, who had a legitimate self-defense claim. Even the much-maligned (and justifiably so) George Zimmerman had one. That doesn’t mean the Left has to accept it as legitimate, however. In fact, I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say they would reject most self-defense claims out of hand, except if they see political gain from it or…now this is the weird part, they’re the victims.
I know! I was as shocked as you are.
The point is the Left isn’t going to be a consistent defender of self-defense. Of course you could always self-identify as an oppressed group and watch their heads fucking explode, but there is another way.
Fuck ’em.
Not literally, of course. Never stick your dick in crazy, kids. That goes double for Dylan Mulvaney.
What I mean is you don’t need the Left’s sanction to protect yourself from those who would do you physical, mental, emotional, or fiscal harm. And given how relying on the government to move faster than molasses on a glacier is like relying on Hunter Biden to not do all the crack in a crack den, you’re better off doing it yourself. Take self-defense courses, arm yourself (legally, of course), install cameras, do what you need.
One additional thing I can suggest having lived on the mean streets of a moderately sized Midwestern city, be aware of your surroundings. Know where you are, who is around you, and have at least 2 different means of escaping a bad situation. That alone will help you as much as being strapped.
There is one caveat to any self-defense option you take. You cannot live your life in fear, and yes there is a difference between being afraid and being prepared. Fear is a great motivator, but it motivates you to do the wrong things. Being prepared means you can act calmly and decisively. Most people out there don’t give two fucks about you, or even enough fucks to want to fuck up your life. They’re dealing with the same societal shit you are and may be just as frustrated as you.
This is where you need to show a little humanity if only to spread some light in these dark times. This may seem counterintuitive when dealing with self-defense, but it’s a lot better way to go through life. Being prepared and humane makes you John Wick. Being prepared and anti-social makes you the Punisher. There’s a huge difference, namely in choice of work clothes and vehicles.
In the Karmelo Anthony case, it was a lack of humanity that caused Austin Metcalf’s death and, appropriately enough, negated his self-defense defense. See, the thing about self-defense is you can’t initiate conflict and use it. Call it the “Talk Shit, Get Hit” Principle. Self-defense is always reactionary, which is weird Leftists don’t like it because they’re usually in favor of reactionaries.
Regardless, you don’t have to play by the Left’s rules on this matter. They need you to be victims so they can swoop in and “protect” you via ineffective and illogical laws and enforcement. You don’t have to be one, though. You have the ability to defend yourselves and your loved ones and, even in the bluest of blue states, you’re better off taking a chance on getting arrested than getting killed.
Consider it the ultimate DIY project.
Category: Social Issues
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Since Donald Trump’s second inauguration, there’s been a lot of attention paid to illegal immigration, which is a continuation of Trump’s first inauguration where he paid a lot of attention to…illegal immigration. If I didn’t know any better, I’d say there’s a pattern here…
The latest battleground is at the Delaney Hall ICE facility in Newark, New Jersey. Allegations of poor conditions prompted Leftists to do what they seem to do on the regular these days: bitch and moan. Things got so bad, Mayor Ras Bakara instituted a curfew that was lifted a few days after it was initiated.
So, Summer of Love 2.0 anyone?
Actually, I think a closer look at Delaney Hall might be in order, if for no other reason than to give me something else to write about besides Graham Platner who has a literal Nazi tattoo. Oh, and is a total scumbag.
Delaney Hall
What the Left thinks it means – a horrible place indicative of Trump’s cruel treatment of undocumented aliens
What it really means – an ICE detainment facility that has turned into a focal point of stupidity
Delaney Hall is a relatively new building, but it already has a history which include, surprise surprise, protests. (Hey, if Uncle George Soros is willing to part with some of his cash, I’d be willing to protest full time, too!)
Where things got chippy was during a 2025 “oversight” inspection conducted by Rep. LaMonica McIver and two of her fellow New Jersey Representatives. And by oversight, I mean “making a fucking spectacle of herself,” where Rep. McIver tried to throw hands and wound up catching 3 felony charges for, you know, trying to throw hands at ICE officers.
The fact McIver isn’t trying out for a reboot of “Orange Is the New Black” is beyond me, but it set off a series of stunts where Congresscritters would bypass normal operating procedures and just show up whenever they wanted and expected, nay, demanded entry.
How’d that work out for ya, dipshits?
Not very well, but it created a framework by which Leftists could ratchet up their protests. After all, shouldn’t a Congresscritter be allowed to see the facility using Congressional oversight authority?
Yeaaaaaah. Not really.
Congressional oversight may be broad in nature, but it has to be related to the functions of Congress, not some capricious whim that Leftists thinks covers the powers of the legislature. ICE is a part of the Department of Homeland Security, which puts it in the Executive Branch, as is Customs and Border Protection. The role of Congressional oversight includes making sure laws are being carried out.
You know, like immigration law?
Anyway, the investigative part of Congressional oversight is typically done by having show trials…I mean PR stunts…I mean Congressional hearings. Although, to be fair, I would prefer more listening at these hearings, so calling them “hearings” is a bit misleading.
Much like what’s going on at Delaney Hall.
The Left has to try to make detention centers look and sound like concentration camps because it fits in with their existing “Trump is a Nazi” narrative. The problem? The narrative doesn’t fit the reality. The detainees get decent meals, which is vastly different from what was served at concentration camps. As far as the other allegations of subpar conditions, that’s subject to debate based on Tom Homan’s recent visit to Delaney Hall. Say what you will about the man (and believe me Leftists have said a shit-ton), Homan isn’t exactly the type to sugarcoat anything, especially if it’s bullshit. Just ask the Socialist Socialite.
This brings us to the “who benefits” portion of the program. On the one hand, we have Tom Homan, who admittedly has a vested interest in keeping Delaney Hall open due to his position as Border Czar. On the other hand, we have detainees, prison advocates, and politicians who have a vested interest in shutting down Delaney Hall. Both have reasons to lie or at least distort the truth to protect their positions.
That’s where we have to dig a little deeper and ask why someone on either side of this discussion would lie. Homan has been in law enforcement for decades prior to his current role and has a track record of dealing with illegal immigration. His “why” can be distilled down to wanting to protect his image and/or the Trump Administration. Not necessarily admirable if he lied, but understandable.
The same can’t be said for the detainees, advocates, and politicians, however. The Left has built a Kobayashi Maru (or at least they think they have) by boosting the claims of mistreatment, malnutrition, and medical malpractice. (And with that, I have earned my Unnecessary Alliteration Merit Badge from the Snark Scouts.) The problem? Their claims can’t be verified independently. Consider it Schrodinger’s Detention Facility. If you can’t see the detainees, you can’t tell if they’re being mistreated, but if you do and the detainees aren’t being mistreated, you either have to reject the narrative (rendering it all bullshit from the jump) or you have to perpetuate it (rendering it all bullshit after the jump).
And remember, kids, Leftists are smarter than us. Just ask them.
And, contrary to Leftist squawking points, dropping in unannounced but with a full camera crew and a throng of humanity backing you up isn’t the proper channels to visit Delaney Hall, or any detention facility anywhere. Before you can step foot in a prison, you have a cadre of investigation about facets of your existence that make the TSA look like rubber-stamping paper pushers. What these Congresscritters and their minions want to do is circumvent the rules because…reasons.
That means the detainees, advocates, and politicians all have a vastly different why than Homan. Their why comes down to protecting the power they have and playing hard and fast with established protocols for a political end.
When put that way, the “who benefits” clearly doesn’t bode well for the Left. Granted, Homan may have similar motivations, but he hasn’t tried to make every illegal immigrant into a sob story where he or she just wants a better life.
Kate Steinle was unavailable for comment.
Look, discussing immigration is like tap dancing in a minefield wearing clown shoes, but there are reasons why we have laws on the books. Instead of trying to prevent said laws from being enforced because your fee-fees get hurt, change the fucking laws. Sure, that would require you to win House and Senate elections while maintaining a favorability rating just south of leprosy, but that’s what you signed up for when you were elected.
As far as Delaney Hall’s alleged lack of oversight, let me put it this way. The Trump Administration is under the microscope so much they have glass slides permanently affixed to their asses. If they were truly as horrible as the Left claims, we would know about it because you Leftists wouldn’t shut the fuck up about it.
By the way, Chicken Little called. He wants his bit back.
Even with all that, I still think the Trump Administration should allow Congresscritters and critics to visit Delaney Hall with some conditions I put together.
1. They have to sign a contract binding them to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth under threat of libel/slander.
2. Everyone who goes inside gets an accountabilibuddy to make sure they abide by the terms of the contract.
3. Everyone who goes inside spends a full day inside so they get an actual day in the life.
4. Both the interested party and the accountabilibuddy have to wear bodycams.
5. If the interested party leaves the facility and fails to tell the truth, he/she (still two genders, kids) must get a tattoo on his/her forehead reading “Liar.” The judges would have also accepted “I’m A Dumbass” for people with more forehead space than brains.
6. Public mockery.
Okay, so I threw in that last one because I want it to happen, but you get the picture. The only way to get a true sense of what Delaney Hall is like is to ensure there is as little wiggle room to lie as possible. My humble proposal will go a long way towards getting the transparency necessary to ensure conditions are habitable.
Plus, I want to throw some business to the tattoo artists out there!
The N Word
The Left has a problem with the N word, but it’s not the one you think. It’s
“Nazi.”
Granted, Leftists call anyone to the right of Bernie Sanders a Nazi, so it’s not unusual. What is unusual is how the Venn Diagram between Leftists and actual Nazis/white supremacists is getting a lot closer to a single circle.
Let’s start with one of the most famous white supremacists today, Richard Spencer. Yes, the same Richard Spencer who got sucker punched during an interview while wearing a Make America Great Again hat. Well, since then, he’s started moving to the left, supporting Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. Sure, the Biden campaign denounced Spencer’s endorsement, but using Leftist logic (a paradox, I know) even being remotely connected to a white supremacist means you are one.
Don’t look at me. I don’t make the rules.
Then, there’s the curious case of Nick Fuentes, another white supremacist who has said he will vote for Democrats in the 2026 midterm elections. Of course, that might have something to do with Donald Trump not being enough like Hitler for his liking. So, Leftists, he’s all yours!
And nobody on the Right is chagrined by this.
The most recent example of the Left’s N-word problem comes in the form of Graham Platner, US Senate candidate from Maine. The dude with a literal Nazi tattoo. And the same Leftists who lost their shit over Pete Hegseth’s tattoos and tried to make the connection to white supremacy can’t seem to find the time to call out Platner’s literal Nazi tattoo. If anything, he’s getting the blessing of Leftist politicians like Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Yes, Bernie Sanders, a Jewish politician, is supporting a man with a literal Nazi tattoo.
I know I’m saying “literal Nazi tattoo” a lot here, but I really want to drive home the point Platner has a literal Nazi tattoo.
To anyone who has the attention span of a mayfly on meth, this is a shift of position. To anyone outside of the Leftist hivemind, though, this is par for the course. In fact, it’s not just par, it’s a fucking albatross for the course. (For those of you non-golfers out there, that’s a very good score.)
What isn’t so good is the Left doesn’t even recognize how close it’s gotten to being the very Nazis they claim the Right are. Let’s take a look at the oft-quoted 14 characteristics of fascism.
Powerful and Continuing Nationalism – Leftists have been trying to portray themselves and their allies as patriots. Some have even gone so far as to claim they’re more patriotic than the MAGA crowd.
Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights – The number of Leftists mocking Charlie Kirk’s death and wishing for the assassination of Donald Trump, among others? Yup.
Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause – The Left calls MAGA a terrorist organization comparing them to ISIS.
Supremacy of the Military – Hearing Joe Biden and Leftist politicians talk about our military, they’re pretty much in Republican Lite territory.
Rampant Sexism – Two words: Harry Sisson.
Controlled Mass Media – Fucking DUH!
Obsession with National Security – The Left has called white supremacy the greatest threat to Americans.
Religion and Government are Intertwined – Cult of Climate Change, anyone?
Corporate Power is Protected – The Left sided with Disney over Ron Desantis. Nuff said.
Labor Power is Suppressed – No need to suppress labor unions when they’re practically in the Left’s back pocket.
Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Ask a Leftist what he/she (still 2 genders, kids) thinks about J.K. Rowling.
Obsession with Crime and Punishment – Anyone want the J6ers thrown in jail under Biden to weigh in on this?
Rampant Cronyism and Corruption – I’ll take “Shit the Biden Administration Did” for $1000. Oh, and throw in Hunter Biden’s “artwork.”
Fraudulent Elections – 2020 ring a bell?
Would you look at that! A perfect 12 out of 12! Maybe the Nazi calls are coming from inside the house, and by house I mean DNC headquarters.
The Left has acted like Nazis when they’ve had any amount of power in the past 10 years, if not longer, but they’ll call you Nazis for merely disagreeing with them. Trust me. I’ve experienced this first hand on that online wasteland called Facebook. The last time I got called a Nazi that much, AOL chatrooms were still a thing.
And just like I did back then, I laughed it off. Seriously, you’re calling someone a Nazi based solely on a contrary position? Is that your go-to? If so, you need to step up your game. I’m Gen X and we were calling each other worse things in preschool. This “you’re a Nazi” shit is weak sauce.
While you’re doing that, work on actually understanding what a Nazi is and does and take an honest assessment of what your side is doing. Then, stop doing the shit that makes you look like Nazis.
Oh, and stop supporting candidates who have a literal fucking Nazi tattoo.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Remember after Barack Obama was elected President how we had entered a “post racial” period? Yeah, neither do I, but the concept was floated as proof we had gotten past the racial barriers we erected over the centuries.
Then, Obama started doing shit, and the “post racial” period was over.
Granted, I would argue we never started it, mainly because of fuckheads making everything about race. This week we got another stark reminder of this when Representative Jen Kiggans appeared on a conservative talk radio show where the host told House Minority Leader Hakeem “Not-So-Great-Value Obama” Jeffries to “get your cotton-picking hands off of Virginia.“
Now, the Left responded to this statement with the same kind of restraint and intellectual honesty we’ve come to know from them by…blaming Kiggans for making the statement (which she didn’t) and not disagreeing with the host on the spot. The reason for this is they’re fucking assholes, but the reason they gave was the term “cotton-picking” was racially coded, referring to slavery.
Hoo boy. There ain’t enough booze in the world to make that make sense, but at least we can drill down on the racially coded bit.
racially coded
What the Left thinks it means – language used to invoke historical racism
What it really means – a bullshit term to create racism where it doesn’t exist
As we’ve seen with the recent SPLC drama, the Left have a victimization fetish. And also as we’ve seen with the recent SPLC drama, they aren’t above inventing victims to advance their political and ideological needs. After all, you can’t really sell people on the idea of a racist system if nobody’s being racists, right?
That’s where racial coding comes into play. If you can convince enough people the phrases we use are somehow related to racism, you change the language and the culture. One day you could be talking about a xylophone and you suddenly become a Klansman because someone pulled the racial coding card on you.
By the way, Leftists, that isn’t a suggestion.
The point is with enough mental gymnastics to rival Nadia Comaneci you can make any turn of a phrase racially coded. That, and a lot of bullshit.
The first example I can think of (mainly because I have fewer hobbies than an Amish ham radio operator) is a gentleman who used the word “niggardly” while working as an aide to then-Washington DC Mayor Anthony Williams. Enough people got outraged over the use of this obscure word because it sounded a lot like another word that will get your ass kicked in some DC neighborhoods, and this man resigned.
And here’s the kicker: he wasn’t being racist. He could have chosen a different word to convey the same idea, but in context, it was used correctly. But because of the aforementioned word that will get your ass kicked in some DC neighborhoods, context didn’t matter. All that mattered was he was painted as a racist and that people got outraged over it for no reason.
That brings us to the cotton-picking “cotton-picking” controversy. Yes, blacks did pick cotton in the South before, during, and after the Civil War, and it wasn’t easy. Nor was it humane because slavery. You know who else picked cotton?
Poor whites.
Wait a minute…wouldn’t that fact destroy the entire “cotton-picking is racist” narrative? Why, yes. Yes it would. Or at least it should, but the Leftists won’t let it go for the same reason they latched onto “niggardly” as racist: context doesn’t help them whip up a hate mob.
And that’s what we’re seeing now. Not only are the media mischaracterizing the situation to make Kiggans look like she agreed with the racist undertones and not the idea that Jeffries should not get involved in redistricting efforts, but they’ve amplified the stupidity of the aforementioned Jeffries by letting him play the victim.
So, any day ending in, well, “day” really.
The late Rush Limbaugh loved to remind people “words mean things.” You may not have liked his politics, but only a fool would disagree at this point (which may be why Leftists are acting the way they are, but that’s not important right now). To turn an antiquated phrase like “cotton-picking” into a racist statement and grounds for resignation is the height of bullshit, yet completely expected in today’s political environment.
But before Leftists can take a victory lap over this, let me remind them your side supports a man with a literal Nazi tattoo on his chest, and you’re completely willing to let that shit slide, but a Representative who didn’t utter a phrase you’ve turned into a racist dog whistle? That’s just too damn far.
Take a seat. Preferably far away from the rest of thinking society.
The way to address this isn’t to cower in fear of being called a racist for defending Kiggans, but to point out the facts and context. Besides, at this point, the Left is going to call you racist merely for not voting like they do, so it’s not like they’re coming up with anything salacious. Drop a truth nuke on their heads and walk away. If people are so fucking stupid as to deny the truth, you don’t need to be around them or their name-calling.
The concept of anything being racially coded is so asinine it reflects more poorly on the ones who call it out than it does to the ones using the language these dumbasses call racially coded. These people need to be ignored, not only because you’ll never convince them you’re not racist, but because it annoys the shit out of them. Just remember these are the same people who hear racist dog whistles everywhere.
And since dogs are the only ones who can hear dog whistles…well, I think you know where this is going.
Extremist Makeover – Feminism Edition
With the recent sex scandals involving Democrats and Republicans, it seems everyone is speaking out and condemning the actions. But there’s one group that hasn’t said anything so far, and that group is feminists.
In fact, we haven’t heard much from feminists in recent years, mainly because not too many people care about feminists these days. And that’s including their alleged allies on the Left. In order to strike while the iron is hot, I want to help feminists regain their former glory, provided you want to hear from a man. Well, if that’s the case…I’m still gonna talk about it.
First we need to talk about the elephant in the room, and I’m not talking about Rosie O’Donnell. You guys…I mean gals…I mean women…I mean womyn have more issues than the New York Times Magazine, and it’s these issues that are preventing you from being considered anything other than the proto-Karens you became. And before you start in with the “that’s offensive” crap, this is part of the problem: nobody likes you!
And because nobody likes you, you have a hard time working and playing with other kids. Before you say it, it’s not the patriarchy; it’s you. You come off as rather abrasive to people who aren’t like you, maybe because…well, you are. Unless they kiss your butts (consensually of course) in the name of free abortions, you treat them like utter scum.
Which brings me to another issue you have: you don’t have a consistent message, and the women who were heading up the movement before you disappeared like Nick Fuentes in Harlem were the ones driving it. On the one hand, you claimed all you wanted was to be on equal footing with men, which I honestly don’t have a problem with. But some in your group didn’t get the memo and really want women to be more powerful than men.
Guess who have been the loudest voices in the feminist movement? That’s right, the proto-Karens! You know, the people we don’t like?
That has to change to change the perception of feminism today. Much like with the gay rights movement, the general public gets freaked out when the loudest people representing a movement are the absolute freaks and there are no voices to counter them. This may cause a less acrimonious split than Ike and Tina Turner, but to regain mainstream credibility you have to be willing to tell the loud freaks to shut up and let the adults talk.
Along with this, you also need to come to terms with a biological truth: men can’t be women. Although this isn’t controversial to anyone with even a slight knowledge of reality, this has become the norm with the Left. There are a few feminists out there who are brave enough to acknowledge men and women are different, the silence feminists have allowed to continue on this subject tells me (and a lot of other people) you agree. That has to stop, too, for the same reason as above.
The reason for these moves is the same: to normalize feminism to the point is becomes acceptable to the masses. Civil rights didn’t move forward until people learned to get over their biases and accept blacks as equals. Feminism is on the cusp of that, but the way to break on through to the other side is to reject the rantings of your more radical brethren…err sisteren and clearly state what feminism is.
And given how quiet some of you ladies have been, that’s going to take some doing.
The good thing is you have the opportunity to do that doing right now. Both major parties have been caught with their hands in the cookie jar (and by that I mean unwilling victims’ pants). Not to mention, actual women are being pushed aside in favor of men dressing up like women. Seriously, do you want to be replaced by Dylan Mulvaney, someone who is a living mockery to the class of Audrey Hepburn?
This is a giant neon sign with an arrow pointing at a door that reads “This is your chance to come back.” This is going to be a big ask, but if you want to be relevant again, you have to at least consider it.
You’re gonna have to align yourself with women you used to hate.
Over the past few years, women like Riley Gaines has done more to advance women’s rights than your ideological allies on the Left. Ditto with J. K. Rowling, Tammy Bruce, and Christina Hoff Sommers, to name a few. And I know the Left has a problem with TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists for those of you playing along at home), but right now they’re the ones doing the heavy lifting and taking the slings and arrows of outrageous Leftist hate.
Maybe it’s time you reevaluate who is really on your side. Spoiler Alert: it ain’t the Left anymore. They may have been on your side a couple of decades ago, but now they’re less reliable than Lindsey Lohan as your rehab accountability buddy. They have used you for votes and donations, and all you have to show for it is those weird looking pink hats you wore during the first Trump Presidency.
In other words, the Left has become your ex.
And you definitely need to cut ties and find someone new who will treat you better. I’m not saying that’s the Republican Party necessarily, but given your recent past, you can do a lot worse because you have.
This is only the beginning, but it’s going to have to do for now. Take these steps and you will be on your way to becoming relevant again. Now, go out and make history!
And don’t worry. I can make my own sammiches!
Leftist Lexicon Word 0f the Week
To put it mildly, it must really suck to be a Leftist these days. Sure, they have some bright spots like the Virginia fuck-up…I mean gerrymandering vote, pending the results of a legal challenge, but for every W it seems they have more Ls than Chicago’s public transit system. Prominent Leftist firebrands like Eric Swalwell and Jasmine Crockett are on their ways out of a job (at least in Congress). Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is issuing rulings that even her fellow Leftists on the Supreme Court are disregarding as woefully unimpressive.
And now, one of the Left’s favorite organizations, the Southern Poverty Law Center, finds itself under FBI scrutiny and public ridicule for, and I wish I were making this up, alleged money laundering and paying off white supremacists to, well, be white supremacists. And all while raising funds to try to fight them.
Although there are some on the Right who come close, this is one of the dumbest fucking things the Left has done. Which, of course, means, I get to make fun of it in this week’s Lexicon!
Southern Poverty Law Center
What the Left thinks it means – a vital tool in the fight against white supremacy and race-based hatred
What it really means – an organization in search of a problem
The SPLC started in 1971 as an outgrowth of the civil rights movement of the 1960s. When not fighting for blacks to get equal footing in the world, they tracked white supremacist groups and helped raise awareness of their activities. Not a bad gig, really.
But somewhere along the way, the arguably noble origins of the SPLC gave way to Leftist hackery. Racial equality expanded to LGBTQIA+14X-25YX42 rights, migrant (i.e. illegal immigrant) rights, and propagan…I mean education. And with that expansion came the expansion of what constituted a hate group. And, surprise surprise, all of them seem to be right wing in nature!
Now, if you were a Leftist, you would say “that’s because the Right is so hateful.” And if you weren’t a fucking dumbass, you would dig a bit deeper to see just what constitutes a hate group to the SPLC.
And, contrary to popular belief, I am not a fucking dumbass.
After Moms for Liberty got added to the SPLC’s list of hate groups for being “anti-government,” I decided to look into it. Let’s just say you would have to suspend disbelief like the guy from the Crazy Glue commercials from the 1970s to believe the SPLC’s bullshit.
And I’ll be damned if the Left didn’t start looking for steel girders and a hard hat.
When you designate anything outside of your ideological bubble as hate, it’s a crap shoot. There will be some pretty hateful asshats out there, but they tend not to be the majority, just the loudest and most boorish. When I’ve had disagreements with Republicans, MAGA or otherwise, I’ve been treated with respect for the most part and we wind up having a decent conversation. Ditto with most conversations I’ve had with Democrats.
But the Far Left and the Far Right? If I can get past the foam that forms around the sides of their mouths and can foot the bill for the series of rabies shots afterwards, there’s a non-zero chance I can have a decent conversation. Pretty damn close to zero, but still non-zero.
This is the problem the SPLC faces right now. Well, that and the allegations of money laundering and payments made to the people they were allegedly trying to fight, I mean. But more to the point, they’ve let their ideological bent taint their perspective. Here’s a prime example: Turning Point USA is considered a hard right group connected to possible violence, but you know who isn’t?
Antifa.
You know, the ones who are okay with literal violence?
But I’m sure they’ll get right on it. I mean, it’s not like it took them until 2009 to label the Nation of Islam a hate group…oh, fuck, it did. And even then, the SPLC had to make sure they were connected to the “Far Right” because who knows what would happen if they actually did their job correctly, amirite?
By playing picky-choosy with what constitutes a hate group, the SPLC undermines its own credibility as a definitive and objective source. Not that it stops the Left from using their laughable reports as cudgels to “prove” hate is on the rise and only the SPLC can stop it.
Yeah, about that…
What the SPLC and the Left (but, I repeat myself) fail to understand is people do tend to get along pretty well without them. Yes, there are still hate groups out there targeting vulnerable individuals, but by and large we live in harmony. Maybe it’s the Gen Xer in me, but I don’t care what you identify as or what you look like or what you think. Just don’t be an asshole. Simple rule, and it’s kept me in good stead for decades.
But even that one simple rule is too hard for Leftists to follow, let alone comprehend. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again (mainly because I need to fill space): Leftists can never be happy. They’re always pissed off about something or depressed because they aren’t getting their way. I say this this is exactly how I was before I became a recovering Leftist.
This plays into the SPLC situation perfectly because at some point you will run out of things to get pissed off about, but instead of realizing being pissed off all the time isn’t a lucrative as you were lead to believe it was, they figured out a way to keep their doors open by quietly encouraging the activity they were publicly against. Hmmm…that reminds me of someone, an aspiring President who had a public opinion and a private opinion…I can’t put my finger on who that was, but I’m sure Bill Clinton did at one time.
Anyway, this starts a circuit. The group paid off people to “investigate” hate groups and report back. Then, the SPLC “exposes” the hate groups, thus keeping up appearances they’re still doing what they claim to be doing. This, in turn, makes gullible Leftists fork over donations to keep up the good work, which gets filtered back to the organization and used to pay off more people to “investigate” hate groups, and so on.
You know what stops that circuit? People getting along.
The thing about hate groups is they’re loud, but tiny compared to the rest of the population. There’s a reason the Westboro Baptist Church has fewer members than Lorena Bobbitt’s exes; it’s because nobody wants to associate with those assholes! That keeps them small, manageable, and easy to track. And the best part? You don’t have to steal donations to do it! Just let them play badass on their own property and crack ’em in the skulls if they get out of hand. Knowing a whole group of people is going to whup your ass if you decide to get froggy is a pretty good deterrent. At worst, you might have to spring for a few cases of beer afterwards, so it’s more cost-effective than the SPLC.
That’s not to say the SPLC is doomed. That’s for the courts to decide. But even some of the most vigorous and faithful servants have to be asking themselves “Are we the bad guys?” And the answer is yes, yes you are. Whatever good you’ve done in the past is going to be overshadowed by the bullshit you’ve perpetuated in the name of keeping the SPLC relevant and funded. Well, you might be neither after the legal process does its thing and exposes you as frauds.
But look on the bright side. You could be Eric Swalwell.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
In case you hadn’t heard (and, really, why would you care at this point), the Grammys were recently held and a lot of anti-ICE sentiments, including from pop star Billie Eilish who said “No one is illegal on stolen land.” I’m pretty sure she would feel differently if there were squatters on her property claiming ownership.
And if you don’t think that would actually happen, look up squatters rights in New York City. Just don’t try their salsa.
Now, someone is holding Ms. Eilish to her word because…her house is on stolen land! Oops.
Anyway, Ms. Eilish’s current squatterhood isn’t the subject of this week’s Lexicon, as humorous as it is. Instead, I’m going to focus on a related subject the Left seems to have problems understanding, property rights. (Granted, I could put in just about anything after the comma and it would still be correct, but work with me here.) I will warn you this stuff is gonna be dryer than Ben Shapiro listening to Cardi B, but I will try to make it entertaining.
property rights
What the Left thinks it means – an outdated concept that reinforces power structures, including racism and sexism
What it really means – a bedrock Constitutional right around which many others revolve
Say what you will about the Founding Fathers (and believe me Leftists have), but two of the things they were passionate about were protecting one’s person and property. In fact, Thomas “You Need It When?” Jefferson’s original draft of the Declaration of Independence referenced “life, liberty, and property” which was kinda awkward when you consider he owned slaves at the time. Fortunately, cooler wigs prevailed and he changed it to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” which he most certainly did with Sally Hemmings, if you know what I mean.
Anyway, the point is the Founding Fathers understood the importance of property rights as an extension of human rights. The Bill of Rights itself posed a number of restrictions on government fucking around with our property. Here are a few:
Second Amendment – government can’t take our guns (not that it stopped them before…)
Third Amendment – government can’t use our property to house soldiers without our permission
Fourth Amendment – we have the right for our person and property to be safe from government conducting unreasonable searches and seizures (not that it stopped them before…)
Fifth Amendment – government can’t take our shit without paying us for it (not that it stopped…hey, is there an echo?)
Eight Amendment – government can’t jack up fines, depriving us of money
You could even make an argument for the First Amendment being a limit on intellectual property, but even if you don’t, that’s half of the Bill of Rights dealing at least in part with personal property. Later Amendments also dipped their toes into the property rights waters with a little less fervor and frequency than the Founding Fathers.
Wow. I haven’t seen that many Fs since my last report card.
Anyway, the concept of property rights is woven into our country’s DNA, so it’s not something that we should take lightly. Which means, of course, the Left wants to change that. Yes, I know it’s shocking to think people who believe socialism can work see property ownership and the rights that come with it are a bad thing.
It stems from an economic concept I’ve discussed previously, so of course I’m going to repeat it, called a zero-sum game. Basically, it’s the idea that when someone else wins, you lose. It’s always explained in terms of a pie (mmmmm…piiiiiie), so if someone takes a bigger piece, it deprives others of a piece or an equivalent size of a piece, which the Left tells us is bad.
Here’s where shit gets really weird, kids. Imagine if you will an infinite pie, one where it’s impossible to run out because it’s so massive. Not only will you be able to get your initial slice, but you can go back and get more without negatively affecting others. Or, to put it another way, the economy keeps making pies at a rate that surpasses the desire for it, so there is never a loss for pie.
You know, I’m starting to get hungry for some reason…
Meanwhile, back at the non-pie related subject, the Left views property rights the same way, although with fewer bakery references. If someone owns land or a house, they think it somehow deprives someone else of owning said land or house. Of course, the problems with this line of thought are a) it doesn’t prevent the second person from owning land/housing somewhere else, b) it presumes the first person did something to harm the second person, and c) it’s fucking stupid.
Then again, so are the Leftists getting their collectivist panties in a bunch over a person with land and a house.
You know, like…oh, I don’t know…Billie Eilish?
But apparently that’s okay because she’s saying the right thing about stolen land and illegal immigration. That’s the best thing about being a Leftist: as long as you have the “right” position, all of your sins get forgiven. The caveat is you have to keep the “right” position at all times or else you get excommunicated. Just ask Nikki Minaj.
But while you wait for her to get some time in her schedule, keep in mind the Left have a low opinion of property owners in general, whether it be a landlord or a business owner, mainly because they don’t understand how property ownership is a thing. (I refer you back to the number of Leftists who think socialism can work as evidence.) They especially dislike anyone who owns property and attempts to make money from it, citing it’s greed.
To which I say, “No fucking duh!”
Like it or not, people find ways to make money. Some people try counterfeiting, but most use their tools or talents to satisfy a need. That includes providing housing to people who want to rent a place to live, or who…now get this…need a place to house their goods and services. That in and of itself isn’t evil or even morally gray. It just is.
Which makes it all the more humorous to me when the Left tries to guilt/shame people into feeling bad about making money. There is no shame in using what you have to make a buck. Well, except if you’re a social media influencer, that is. The point is the Left wants you to feel bad because of something you have that they don’t. That’s why they lean into the rhetoric they do. Whether it’s “property ownership is racist” or “companies can go through insurance to pay for damage done” to “no one should be a billionaire” the song remains the same, and it’s no better with autotune.
Expecting a Leftist to be consistent with property rights is like expecting Hunter Biden not to do drugs; it’s theoretically possible, but highly unlikely. That’s why I’ve come up with a handy-dandy little tool to defend yourself against Leftist emotional manipulation.
Okay, I didn’t invent it, but merely adopted it from my schoolyard days. It’s called, “So What?” Whenever a Leftist tries to make you feel guilty about your property rights, ask them “So what?” You can also use the, “And?” approach if you’d prefer. What that will do is confuse them to the point you can make your escape if you so choose. Of course, if you do that, you’ll miss out on their heads exploding, but it saves on dry cleaning bills.
The secret of its effectiveness is in the fact it challenges the Leftist mindset that you must feel bad about property rights. Not only do they not expect it because they’re usually around like-minded individuals who don’t question the bullshit they’re saying, but it forces them to confront the reality that it may not be as morally egregious as they think. They’ll never admit that, though, and will try to double down.
Then, hit ’em with it again.
Blather. Rinse. Repeat.
At some point, the Leftist will either have an emotional meltdown that would make most toddlers look stoic or give up and move on with their days of…wait, what is it Leftists actually do? Oh, yeah, bilk taxpayer money through NGOs or get generous donations from Uncle George Soros to sit on their activist asses and pretend to be doing something meaningful.
You know, like making money off property ownership?
While we wait for Ms. Eilish to give up her stolen land (safety tip: don’t hold your breath waiting), understand the Left will not give up the fight against property rights for you, and in favor of property rights for them. The best way to fight back is to not even acknowledge their version of reality and insert your own, which I guarantee is a lot closer to actual reality.
What else do you expect from people taking their ideological cues from a pop star?
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
This is a topic I’ve wanted to cover for a while, but with the shitstorm of everything going on in the world, I had to put this one on the back burner.
There’s a new epidemic loose in the world, one that is worse than COVID, SARS, and Dylan Mulvaney getting a Broadway gig combined. It’s…whiteness. And it’s not some weird Bluesky bullshit either; it’s coming from the University of Minnesota. (Great. As if having Governor TIMMAH! wasn’t enough of an embarrassment.)
Little did I know my skin color was such as contagion! But if I had to learn about it as part of my research for this week’s Lexicon, you have to! (Don’t blame me. I don’t make the rules.)
whiteness epidemic
What the Left thinks it means – the widespread proliferation of white culture and its negative implications
What it really means – another attempt to make white people feel guilty for something out of their control
Much like Hunter Biden at a crack dealer’s convention, there are some things in life you cannot control, and skin color is one of them. Of course, that doesn’t stop Leftists from trying to make whites feel guilty about it. This is because white Leftists already feel guilty about it and they love to share their misery and expect everyone else to carry the cross they’ve put on our collective backs.
The thing is they’re not completely wrong. Whites have been utter pricks throughout world history. For every Issac Newton or Jonas Salk, there’s been an Adolph Hitler or agent who told Johnny Knoxville he could act. And to be fair there’s been more of the latter than there is of the former.
Now, having said that, unless we are the pricks in the aforementioned paragraph, we don’t have to share in the guilt by default. Last I checked, we haven’t invented a time machine that allows us to go back and prevent bad things from happening…or maybe somebody did and it fucked up the space-time continuum…
That would explain everything post-2020.
Or have I said too much?
Never mind.
The point is we aren’t responsible for the bad shit our ancestors did anymore than they’re responsible for the bad shit we do. Great Grandpa Zeke didn’t invent dub step, after all. That’s on us, and more specifically, the person who invented dub step.
The Left doesn’t see it that way. (White guilt, not necessarily the dub step thing.) To them, anything our ancestors did has to be atoned for right now, regardless of our family history. For example, I have two ancestors who fought for the Union in the Civil War, so that should exclude me from having to feel white guilt, right?
Nope!
Because as the University of Minnesota puts it:
Race matters in the United States because racism still exists and young children perceive much more than we usually realize. When parents and other adults are silent around race, it communicates apathy or approval of racism even if this is the opposite of what adults intend. On the other hand, parents can push back against racism through their words and actions, sending a powerful message to their children.
So, it’s not enough not to be racist anymore. You have to be anti-racist, as the Left puts it. But even that’s not enough unless you do everything the Left tells you to do, and even then that can be undone with an insensitive comment (that only the Left can determine because they’re aware of all the racism out there).
I know I’ve said it before, but it bears repeating. If Leftists are the ones hearing all the racist “dog whistles” that the rest of us can’t, wouldn’t that make them the racists?
I saw something similar to this during my college years at the University of Bedrock (Go Brontosauruses!) with Political Correctness. The Left attempted to change the culture through changing the words people used. On the surface, it was okay because it was sold as being done to raise awareness and be more respectful to others.
Then, everything went banana-shaped.
Once people bought into the idea of Political Correctness, the Left started holding us accountable for the rules they made up, which gave them a lot of unearned power. Then, the rules would change and those who weren’t using the “right” terminology anymore were shunned like a hooker in Amish country.
So much for inclusion and respect for others, amirite?
Although Political Correctness has gone the way of Crystal Pepsi (and thank God for both being out of my life), there are still remnants of it today. Remember how the Left insisted Latinos and Latinas be called Latinx to be more inclusive? Same principle, and same outcome in that it was resoundingly rejected by anyone with a lick of sense.
Eventually, the whiteness epidemic is going to wind up the same way, but it’s going to take some time. And in the meantime, there are some things to consider for our Leftist friends out there.
1. The whiteness epidemic is designed to address racism, yet by definition racism involves either the denigration or elevation of one race over another. So, how does it address racism when it’s racist by its very nature?
2. This is going to be a “whataboutism” but fuck it. Take everything you attribute to the whiteness epidemic and insert any other race or creed. Now, imagine you saying that to a member of that race or creed. More than likely, you’re going to get looked at funny at the very least. You know why? Because it’s fucking bigoted.
3. If whiteness is an epidemic, what is the cure? On the website, you say you want “to better understand the culture of Whiteness and support parents to challenge it, which motivated the Whiteness Pandemic Project, a research study in Minnesota.” If the cure is anti-racism, how will we know we’ve achieved the end of the epidemic?
4. Along those same lines, the way most epidemics are dealt with is through quarantine. How will you separate the parts of white culture you find objectionable from the other parts of white culture that help society? Is it going to be an all-or-nothing approach? And how will you separate white culture from human culture as a whole?
5. And while we’re here, what exactly is “white culture”? It wasn’t that long ago that the Left was calling George Zimmerman a “white Hispanic.” So, would that include him, even though his life choices would repulse a number of whites, including Leftists? What about people of different races who don’t think whiteness is an epidemic or who think white culture is okay? What role do they play in the “whiteness epidemic” and how will you deal with them?
6. Just how far up your ass does your head need to be to think like you do?
Okay, that last one is just for me.
The point is this idea hasn’t been fully fleshed out enough for it to accomplish anything. That may be by design in order to keep money flowing, but from a practical standpoint it’s a not-even-half-baked solution looking for a problem that may not even be a problem for most people. If you want someone like me on board, I’m going to need some more data.
You know. Follow the science?
Or pseudo-science as the case may be.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
Although the Lexicon primarily features issues originating in the US of A (as opposed to Canada, which is the US of Eh), sometimes the subject matter crosses international boundaries. In this case, the origin of this week’s Lexicon starts in Jolly Old England (as opposed to Canada, which is Jolly Old Eh-gland.)
It starts with an online game called Pathways (think a cheerier version of “Depression Quest”) where the user navigates through a series of events in an attempt to dissuade him or her from falling for online extremist propaganda. Welllll…let’s just say it backfired. Instead of educating users (primarily teenagers) about the dangers of propaganda, it is propaganda in and of itself by painting anyone to the right of Josef Stalin as an extremist.
I could talk all day about propaganda (as my lovely wife will tell you), but the focus of this week’s Lexicon is on the concept of online extremism. I’ll be the first one to tell you the Interwebs is a hotbed of people nuttier than elephant shit, but does that make them extremists?
Depends on who you ask.
online extremism
What the Left thinks it means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt right wing beliefs and ideas
What it really means – Internet propaganda designed to persuade gullible people to adopt any wing’s beliefs and ideas
So, where do I begin? Well, let me just start by saying online extremism is not just a right wing issue. There is and always has been a section of online culture dominated by left wing thinking, but they’ve been mostly relegated to backwater channels with an echo chamber bigger than the Grand Canyon. Or, as it’s called today, Bluesky.
That in and of itself isn’t that big a deal to me. I’m a big fan of letting people say what’s on their minds, even if I disagree with it. For one, it fosters more and better communication than banning it out of turn. For another, it’s always a good way to see where the assholes are so you can avoid them. Unless you want to point and laugh, which is easier when they make themselves known. So, there are plenty of good reasons not to silence people.
Having said all that, there are people out there who have completely lost the fucking plot and say/advocate for the weirdest shit out there. And that’s just the diaper fur community. (Safety Tip from your buddy Tom: If you don’t know, don’t look for it. Only furry evil in diapers greets you there.) Up until recently, people have been able to ignore the fringe players because they’ve been woefully unequipped to do anything about it. I knew a Pat Buchanan supporter who talked a big game, but was so short he made Nick Fuentes look like Andre the Giant. Needless to say, he wasn’t considered much of a threat.
Nowadays, it’s that kind of freak that has the power of an echo chamber telling him/her what they’re doing is completely cool and not at all too extreme. And it’s shit like this that got Renee Good shot and killed. Somewhere in her mind, she thought “running over an ICE agent is totes normal, dude” and used that thought to spur action.
Now, who could have put that idea in her head? I mean, it’s not like the Left has painted ICE in a negative light by calling them Nazis or comparing them to secret police or the Gestapo, right?
Except for Governor TIMMAH!
And Governor Gavin Newsom.
And Governor JB Pritzker.
And Senator Jeff Merkley.
And Senator Mark Warner.
And Representative Eric Swalwell.
And Representative Rashida Tlaib.
Wow. Come to think of it, there are a lot of Democrats and Leftists pulling the “ICE is the secret police/Gestapo/fascist/Nazi” card.
So, maybe the Left has a hand in the escalation of rhetoric against ICE, which is inspiring Leftist extremists to act. But remember, kids, it’s the MAGA crowd that are the violent ones because January 6th.
All that IMAX-level projection aside, online extremism is a legitimate problem, one being stoked by people we shouldn’t want to hang out with at all, man. And they all have the same problem: a messiah complex that rivals Oprah’s. With that messiah complex comes a lot of gatekeeping so only the true believers can stick around.
Naturally, that means more sensible people saying “Yanno, you might not want to drive a truck into a bunch of protesters/ICE agents” will be excommunicated and turned into the enemy, even if their opinions align with everything else the self-professed leader believes. The odd thing about these leaders of cults of personality is they often don’t have one of their own, so they borrow from someone else. Even self-styled “free thinkers” may fall victim to the kind of extremism that meets them where their biases are.
Not that this happens to too many people, right? (I’m looking at you, Bill Maher.)
Those assholes can be dangerous, what what of the followers themselves? That’s a bit of a mixed bag. The more gung ho a follower is, the more extreme he or she (still 2 genders) is likely to be. As you get further and further away from the epicenter of extremism, the less likely it is you’re dealing with an extremist. Sure, there are some who will drink the Flavor-Ade because everybody else is doing it (gotta love that peer pressure), but you’re going to find some who see the folly of it all and aren’t as willing to go along to get along.
The problem is neither side wants to separate the reasonable from the batshit insane. That would take too much effort, after all, and we don’t want people to think we’re not down for the cause because we happen to think not engaging in stupid shit is the correct path forward.
This is the time when we have to determine whether the loudest voices are the leaders or just so loud they drown out the actual leaders. I’ve seen this with the gay rights movement, the trans rights movement, the pro choice and pro life movements, the Religious Right, and so many others. And when you’re faced with the loudest voices, it gets really easy to slide into groupthink and become one of the masses, minus the “m.”
But that’s where being able to determine the difference comes in handy. If someone is loud, it doesn’t make him or her right; it just makes them harder to ignore. But is also makes them easier to mock for being loud and annoying, so there’s that.
How this applies to extremism is we have to separate the ring leaders from the ring followers because they are not always the same people. A militant trans rights activist may talk a big game, but wuss out at the first signs of it being go time. These are the ones who probably won’t decide to shoot up a Christian school, but they still have the ability to give those who do have a propensity towards violence to think the only way to fix things is to pull a “Death Wish.” They’re extremists of a sort, but more extremist-adjacent.
Think Charlie Manson versus the Manson Family members who murdered Sharon Tate, among others. The members committed the crimes, but they wouldn’t have happened without ole Charlie.
“But, Thomas,” you might be saying, “are you literally comparing trans activists to Charles Manson?” No. What I’m saying is there are some people who can inspire others to take action they might not otherwise take by instilling them with destructive thoughts. And we’re not just talking about Leftists here, folks. There are plenty of hair-triggers on the Right who would love nothing more than to start shit so they can pretend to be badasses, all from the safety of their double-wides, while others are doing the actual shit.
And all from the behind protection of a computer or phone screen.
There is a term from the Interwebs that describe these people perfectly: keyboard warriors. Now, there are some willing to put the emphasis on the latter rather than the former, which makes for a really awkward time all the way around when the fit hits the shan. (Hat tip to Larry Elder for that one.)
What Pathways gets wrong is it tries to water down the definition of extremism to an absurd degree. Even someone saying “we should be proud of being British” gets looped in with anyone who wants to put every immigrant into a chipper shredder, when that’s simply not the case. There may be some overlap between the two, but not enough to lump the former in with the latter.
Unless, of course, you’re being intellectually dishonest, which Pathways is being. The “right” course of action according to the game isn’t always the most logical. In one part of the game, you are given a choice to ignore what they deem inflammatory rhetoric, look for more information, or go from 0 to extremist by joining in the inflammatory fun. In the game, the only viable option is to ignore the rhetoric. Anything else gets you branded an extremist.
Put another way, the game punishes you for trying to be well-informed.
Which makes you more susceptible to extremist positions.
Which defeats the purpose of the game.
Unless, of course, the purpose of the game is to enable certain extremist positions…
Saaaaaaaaay! I think I’ve stumbled upon the real reason this game exists! And considering it’s targeting teenagers (who cling to popularity and clout like Hunter Biden hangs onto his crack dealer’s number), the goal is to get them to accept a set of ideas so they’ll be popular, cool, and have social clout, all without having to do anything but listen and believe.
Hmmmm…that’s a catchy little saying. I hope nobody unscrupulous ever latches onto it.
Meanwhile, what we can do to avoid being sucked in by online extremism, or extremism in general, is apply a little common sense. If you wouldn’t allow someone else to do it to you, don’t do it to other people. And if someone you know is rushing headlong towards extremism, try to pull them back. If they don’t want to come back from the edge, let them go. It may hurt, but it hurts a lot less than being buggered night after night in federal pound you in the ass prison.
Not that I know anything about that, mind you…
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With the recent shooting of Renee Good in Minnesota, a lot of attention has gathered around a single issue. Is it illegal immigration? Nope. Is it federal tax dollars being stolen by foreign scammers? Not at all. Is it, dare I speak it, the proliferation of buttons at the Golden Globes? Yes, but also no.
The focus from both sides of the political shitshow is on domestic terrorism. The Left is pointing at ICE and saying, “See? We told you they were domestic terrorists!” The Right is pointing at anti-ICE protesters and saying, “See? We told you they were domestic terrorists!” And meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, we have people like me scratching our heads. Mostly because of dandruff in my case, but also because I’m having a hard time understanding how both sides can come to the same conclusion from two different points of view, and yet be completely wrong about it.
Consider this my therapy session. You’re welcome?
domestic terrorism
What the Left thinks it means – right-leaning individuals in the government who are attacking average people without cause
What the Right thinks it means – left-leaning individuals against the government who are attacking ICE to try to prevent them from doing their jobs
What it really means – a term that’s waaaaaaay overused these days
American politics has never been a weak person’s game, although you wouldn’t know it by looking at current Congresscritters like Eric Swalwell or previous Congresscritters like Adam Kinzinger. I mean, we’ve had people duel over political differences, as Alexander Hamilton’s family can attest.
Having said that, today’s version of American politics is a different breed of cat altogether. To say people are on edge is like saying water is wet, fire is hot, and Al Gore is boring. People are willing to die (or in some cases let others die) for an ideological movement so they have a rallying cry. And, without even a hint of irony, they call anyone opposed to them domestic terrorists because, well, that’s how the game is played anymore.
Being a word guy, I take a different approach to word usage than most people. The impact of some words can throw a flaming tanker truck onto the world’s biggest pile of hay drier than the drinks at a Mormon strip club. And let me tell you calling someone a domestic terrorist kinda fits that bill.
Granted, each side has their own idea of what constitutes a domestic terrorist. The Left thinks it’s anyone whiter than Edgar Winter at an outdoor picnic at Ice Station Zero and more to the right than Pat Buchanan. The Right thinks it’s anyone whose hair colors don’t match anything remotely close to natural and have opinions so far to the Left they would make Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. Whether you’re MAGA or Antifa, you’re a dangerous extremist to someone.
And therein lies the problem.
With a political landscape so toxic, it gets frightfully easy to demonize your opponents, which ramps up the heated rhetoric. It’s not enough that your opponent disagrees with you; they are your blood enemies. And it even works within the ideological sides, as any Leftist kicked off Bluesky and any Rightist who isn’t 129,000,000% MAGA will tell you, as can your humble correspondent. I’ve been kicked out of so many ideological groups I have boot marks on my ass. Or was that from the time I spent in a sex dungeon in Amsterdam?
Never mind.
The point is when everybody can be seen as a domestic terrorist by one person or another, it dilutes the meaning of the term and makes it harder for us to recognize actual domestic terrorists. Yes, the Left and the Right have their extremists nuttier than squirrel shit, but for the most part they wouldn’t fall into the category of terrorism until they commit acts of actual terrorism.
Which brings us to the “what does that mean” section of the Lexicon entry. And, yes, I realize you ask that question all the time while reading my rants, but this is different. The good folks at Dictionary.com define terrorism thus:
1. the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism.
3. a terrorist method of governing or of resisting a government.
4. intimidation or coercion by instilling fear
So…that’s neat.
What this means in the context of our current political shitshow is there are a lot of people on both sides (albeit on the extremes) that subscribe to the notion their terrorism is freedom and other people’s terrorism is terrorism. But if you’re using the same tactics, it doesn’t matter if you’re red or blue; you’re a fucking terrorist.
This is why it’s important we don’t lump all of the Left and all of the Right under the same domestic terrorism umbrella. Not everyone is going to pick up arms and start shooting up a Congresscritter’s house. That’s reserved for people hired by Governor TIMMAH Walz.
Seriously, though, we’ve seen how absurd this approach is just by looking at some of the people caught up in the January 6th situation. Yes, there were some assholes in the crowd (I’m looking at you, Nick Fuentes), but not all the assholes got caught, and some of the people who were caught weren’t of the terrorist variety. Of course, that didn’t stop the Left from painting them all as domestic terrorists. Because as we all know grandmas are the real domestic terrorists, amirite?
Actually, I’m not right, in the head or otherwise.
The reason both sides throw the domestic terrorism label around like a football at a barbecue at Tom Brady’s place is because it allows the “otherization” of their perceived opponents. And, yes, Leftists, I see you doing this all the time with your “MAGAt” talk. Not that the “Libtard” calls coming from the Right are any better. Even so, there is a large difference between “MAGAt” and “Libtard” and actual domestic terrorism, but neither side wants to make that distinction because, well, it’s easy, fun, and doesn’t hurt anybody.
At least, not until the guns start firing.
And where we are right now, it’s only a matter of time. All it takes is one asshole to take it upon himself or herself (still two genders, by the way) to take matters into his/her own hands and strike a blow for his/her side. Then, we all become domestic terrorists unless we decide to take a different path.
The first step? Not calling the other side domestic terrorists unless they are domestic terrorists.
The second step is a little harder to accomplish, but it’s no less important. Call out the motherfuckers who are causing all the chaos and tell them to shut the fuck up. I don’t care if you’re Democrat or Republican, socialist or capitalist, a New England Patriots fan or wrong, we have to be brave enough to take on the more vocal provocateurs on our own side. For all of their bluster, there are more of us than there are of them, and judging solely by the idea the loudest voices are often the most chicken shit, they will run for their little hidey-holes the second someone tells them to take a seat.
Then, we get to step 3: realizing both sides of the political divide are people, not ideologies. Granted, some of those barely qualify as sentient let alone human, but we still need to try and find some common ground. I will speak for myself, mainly because I’m the only one who knows me best, but I try to remove the politics from the person and look for something we agree on and go from there.
I love Samuel L. Jackson for no other reason than he has perfected the use of the word “motherfucker.” He and I don’t see eye to eye on politics, but we can groove together on movies. Once you find that common denominator, ideology takes a back seat to fandom. And last time I checked, there has never been a world war started because of a fandom.
Now, online, on the other hand…well, let’s just leave it alone.
But you see the point, I hope. Neither side is comprised of only domestic terrorists, nor should we assume they are. I quote the great philosopher Dave Mason:
So let’s leave it alone
‘Cause we can’t see eye to eye.
There ain’t no good guy.
There ain’t no bad guy.
There’s only you and me, and we just disagree.
And if we can’t trust someone who gave us “Ooh, oh-oh-oh,” who can we trust?