.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}
The Expansionist
Saturday, February 17, 2018
 
Russia Is Sovereign, Not a Colony of the United States
MSNBC's top news-talkshow anchor, Rachel Maddow, has a bugaboo about Russia "attacking" the U.S. national election of 2016. She has, indeed, in recent months become a "Janie One Note", giving over the bulk of her airtime to this one topic, of all the things going on in the Nation and world. She doesn't always make sense, and occasionally makes indefensible errors of pronunciation and grammar. Yesterday she actually said that Russians "target we the people"! Huh? "Target WE"? Is she retarded?
+
Maddow was in her glory last nite when Robert Mueller, Special Counsel in the investigation of Russian actions in the 2016 U.S. elections, issued what purported to be 13 indictments of Russian nationals and 3 Russian entities for 'interference' in that election.
+
Some of these unlawful pretend-indictments are of Russians IN RUSSIA. The U.S. Government cannot indict Russians IN RUSSIA! That is an attack upon the sovereignty of the Russian Federation, which nation is the exact equal of the United States in international law. Would we permit Russia to indict Americans on American soil for violations of Russian law? Mueller's asserted indictments are little short of an act of WAR.
+
The United States cannot extradite Russians from Russia to face charges in the United States for things that did not take place in the United States. Only 2 of the people indicted even set foot in the U.S., and that might only have been to do research, not commit acts in contravention of U.S. law. What Russians do in Russia is NONE OF OUR BUSINESS.
+
Hacking remotely into U.S. computers would not be possible if Americans would stop putting onto the Internet things that plainly do not belong on the Internet. If you put your computer online, you are essentially inviting everyone on Earth to hack into your computer. Yes, there are things like firewalls available to the general public, but governments need more protection than does the ordinary private citizen.
+
Computers do not come out of the box, plugged into the Internet. You have to choose actively to PUT your computer online. There are ways to partition your activities to things that can and cannot be seen by people trying to get into your computer. There are ways to password protect and encrypt things you don't want others to see. There are ways to prevent mass password attempts, such as America Online has done very effectively, permitting, say, three attempts to log in before you are barred from further login attempts for some specified period, such as an hour or day. It is most unlikely that any robot could try thousands of passwords if the most they could try per hour or day is THREE!
+
If you don't know how to do any of this, and your privacy is important to you, you should find out how to protect your information from intrusion. The onus is on YOU. To do nothing is like leaving all the doors and all the windows in your house unlocked and then being surprised that somebody came in and stole everything of value. Surprise, surprise!
+
Let us return to Russia's SOVEREIGN activities that may or may NOT have affected the 2016 U.S. election. As far as I have heard, NOT ONE VOTE was changed from what a citizen cast, by Russians or any other dirty-tricks actors, within the U.S. or anywhere else on Earth. NOT ONE VOTE!
+
Yes, we apparently know that Russians may have hacked into the computers of various boards of elections in various places in this country, but as far as we know from what has been reported, those Russian intruders did not change one single vote anywhere in the country, much less in key Electoral College states. NOR did Russians block from voting, anyone entitled to vote, much less EVERYone from voting. For, how could Russians know how John Smith in Kenosha, Wisconsin or Joanna Alexandropoulos in Astoria, New York would vote, if Russia did not interfere with their right to vote? (Names mentioned here are fictitious.) It was NOT Russia's intent to "attack" U.S. elections, but to tilt the outcome, and for that, you would need to know who would vote which way, and selectively block the people who would vote opposite to your preference.
+
Contrary to the silly assertion I have heard on TV, we do NOT have to go to paper ballots rather than electronic voting machines. Even if we did use paper ballots, how would the results from the various polling places be conveyed to the local board of elections, and totaled with the results from other polling places, and reported to the media? Are all these numbers going to be conveyed on paper or by telephone, only?
+
Neither Russia itself nor any of its governmental entities can commit a crime under U.S. law, because Russia is not SUBJECT to U.S. law, any more than the United States is subject to Russian law. It's the same as a New Jerseyan being indicted in Alabama for something that is a crime in Alabama but not in New Jersey. Would you like to be held accountable under the laws of every state in the Union and every country on Earth? Ridiculous.
+
Russia enjoys SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY from U.S. laws. The United States enjoys SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY from Russian laws. Tit-for-tat, even-steven.
+
Mueller is not the Czar of Earth. He is not all-powerful and cannot dictate to the entire planet. He is just some functionary within the United States, ONE country, not two, nor 193. He doesn't even have authority over Canada or the Bahamas, much less the Russian Federation, the geographically largest country on Earth, armed to the teeth with, authorities believe, some 4,300 nuclear missiles (as against our 4,000). How are you going to enforce your make-believe indictments, Mr. Muller?
+
The larger question, however, about fake identities and false information put out by Russian trolls is "Why would anyone believe anyone they never heard of when they say something ridiculous?" The moral of the story is that "gatekeepers" are indispensable to sensible credibility. If 'Mark Davidson' in Podunk says one thing, that you have never heard from any well-regarded media outlet, but The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, and Los Angeles Times all say the opposite, which should you believe? If idiots want to believe 'Mark Davidson' and disregard all major media, no one can stop them from letting idiocy determine their vote, because idiots will be idiots, and we don't have an IQ test for voting. Maybe we should.
+
Certainly if Texas and other states can discriminate against voters on racial and other grounds (see the Wikipedia article "Voter suppression"), we can impose a minimum intelligence requirement on voters. But we should not do that, even if we could make an intelligence test part of the voter-registration process -- which we COULD do, as a matter of public policy, if we were so to choose.
+
Quite the contrary, we should have MANDATORY VOTING in this country, as have various other democracies, to require everyone who is physically capable of voting to do so. Wikipedia reports, at its article "Compulsory voting", that "As of August 2013, 11 democracies — about 5% of all United Nations members — enforce compulsory voting out of 22 countries listed worldwide as having a compulsory voting system. [Emphasis added.]"
+
Another thing we could and should do is offer, in every election for government officials, a "None of the Above" ("NOTA") option, so that people who claim that they don't vote because there is no one they want to vote for, will no longer have that excuse, but will be given the opportunity to register their disapproval with all the candidates by voting NO to all of them. The advantage of NOTA is that it tells the parties that they HAVE to offer better candidates, and cannot just sluff off low voter participation as an artefact of apathy or laziness. Rather, the parties would be held to account, and they would be pressured to offer better candidates.
+
In short, the problems we have with our elections are not Russian "interference" or "attacks", but the gross defects of our electoral system, at all levels of society. The Electoral College must be abolished, and it's hard to understand why anyone would oppose that. After all, no other level of government has an Electoral College. The popular vote is not just the only vote that counts but is also the only vote cast, in school-board elections, elections for mayor and council, for state governor, state assembly, and state senate, and for members of the U.S. House and Senate. So why would anyone fight a simple popular vote for President? On what basis? Before we lose faith in democracy, we really should try it.

Friday, December 15, 2017
 
Welcome Back, Alabama!
(Welcome back to the Union, that is.) Alabama is no longer — or at least is not for now — in insurrection against the United States of America. Will this last? Will Alabamians enjoy no longer being pariahs, like their peers in neighboring Mississippi? Or will they, after a very few years of being truly part of the Nation, decide that the nation they'd rather rejoin is the Confederacy?
+
Only time will tell. Sometimes people adjust well to new realities under new circumstances, even being relieved at the changes they have seen. Other times, the mind rebels. People can become so agitated and uncomfortable that they have to return to their personal status quo ante a major change in their life or in social or political conditions around them.
+
A few people who begin to relax and accept new realities recognize more or less aloud that life is easier and more pleasant once they accept what the Great Seal of the United States calls "novus ordo seclorum" — "a new order of the ages". Few will consciously put two and two together to accept that in order to keep someone down, you have to stay down yourself, so that in taking your foot off another person's neck, you empower yourself to rise to such heights as your own abilities will take you. Wouldn't it be great if EVERYONE who in the past enjoyed unfair advantage in conspiring against some of their fellow-citizens, were to understand, and state aloud, that THEIR lives are better for not having to hold other people down, or even just somwhat back, but for now being able to SOAR above the vicious, the petty, the mundane, to think great thoughts and do great things?
+
Alabama is one of only six states in the (48) conterminous United States (Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Florida), and eight in the entire country (including Alaska and Hawaii) that I have not been to or thru. Maybe I will visit Alabama sometime, now that it is a Southern State, not a Confederate State.

Wednesday, December 13, 2017
 
Ridiculous Indignation
Seth Meyers, host of NBC's talkshow Late Night, on the nite of Tuesday-into-Wednesday, December 12-13, drew a preposterous distinction in a 'comedy' bit after his opening monolog ("Couple Things"; see it here), and became insanely indignant about that absolutely meaningless distinction.
+
Kayla Moore, wife of Ray Moore, candidate for U.S. Senate from Alabama, is shown rebutting the accusation that she and her husband do not like Jews by saying that "one of our lawyers is a Jew". For that simple, innocent, INNOCUOUS statement she was lambasted by Far Leftists, and Meyers piled on. It seems he found the term "a Jew" offensive, and insisted that she should have said instead that their lawyer was "Jewish". Hello?, sh*head: there is absolutely no difference between "a Jew" and "[a person who is] "Jewish". NONE.
+
"Jew" is not a dirty word, whereas "Jewish" is brite, shiny, pure, and unsullied. Mr. Meyers, don't you have legitimate issues to address?
+
Seth Meyers is a lazy S.O.B. who works only four nites a week, as does the other lazy late-nite host Jimmy Kimmel. These lazy bastards should be required to work five days a week, like everybody else in the real economy, and even fellow latenite talkshow hosts Jimmy Fallon and Stephen Colbert. It's not as tho they have to slave away dumping smelly trash cans into garbage trucks for 16 hours a day. Their program is ONE HOUR long, and even adding in some time for reading thru the things that WRITERS would have them say, and even if they participate in writing sessions (and I don't know whether they do or do not), and even if they have to rehearse — but why would they? they read from a f* TELEPROMPTER!, don't they? — their "workday" is hugely less than the standard seven or eight hours that everybody else, Americans living in the real world, works. NBC should tell Meyers, and ABC should tell Kimmel, to work their half-day FIVE NITES a week, or look for work elsewhere, because they will be FIRED.
+
As for the whole "Jew" / "Jewish" megilla / mishegoss, we have here the famous "distinction without a difference". Is Seth Meyers' personally rich and hugely overpaid life (Meyers is reported to make over $3 million a year, for a workWEEK of, what, 16 hours?) so lacking in substance that he has to FABRICATE issues? Apparently Meyers thinks the word "Jew" has (to cite the Wikipedia article linked to above) "connotations associated with it that one party to an argument prefers to avoid". So, little Mister Meyers, you think that "Jew" is a dirty word, do you? That's on YOU, not Kayla Moore.

Thursday, December 07, 2017
 
DO NOT RESIGN!
I present below the text of an email I sent this morning to U.S. Senator from Minnesota Al Franken, under the same subject line as the title of this post.
Fight the Castration Crowd, and tell the Radical Feminist lynch mob to go f* itself! The latest I heard of your "accusers" was December 6th, when a woman accused you of the horrendous crime of kissing her!  Do we really want to criminalize kissing?  Things have plainly gone way too far, and it's time to restore balance to male-female relations in the United States.  Lesbians and lesbian-led women want to impose an Eleventh Commandment on this country, "Boys Shall Not Be Boys" — and enforce it with preposterously excessive punishments for TRIVIA, physical trivia and emotional trivia.  Sex is just sex.  No big deal.
+
The conspiracy against manhood has risen to the level of a Castration Conspiracy, in which all things male are to be condemned, all men are to be regarded as sexual predators, and all women are "victims" of male abuse.  To borrow from what one woman, decades ago, urged us as to something else, "Just say no!"
+
The incidents I first saw reported involving you date back DECADES, and were not prosecuted by the supposed "victims".  What victim of RAPE or sexual molestation does not go to the police?  NONE.  Thus, even if something sexual did happen, the "victim" must have been a willing participant, not a "victim".  Even in the case of the pseudo-incriminating foto of your reaching toward a woman's breasts (but not actually touching them, as far as I could tell from the picture) while she was asleep, you would not have permitted yourself to be captured on film during the commission of a crime.  Res ipse loquitur:  there was no crime there.  If she didn't feel a thing and was not emotionally affected at the time, there was no crime.  Moreover, as I understand things, you were NOT in government at the time, so private actions of a private person that were NOT complained about to government have NO RELEVANCE to your role in society today.
+
We seem on the brink of a massive Sexual Counterrevolution, in which the efforts of millions of people to free society of insane prudery and individuals from ridiculous restrictions on sexual and affectional activity, could be largely undone, such that we would be plunged into The Bad Old Days when natural interests, urges, and activities are criminalized.  Would men be the only casualties of such a war against sex? Plainly not.  So in fighting to stop criminalization of manhood, you would simultaneously be fighting to stop criminalization of womanhood.
+
Perhaps you do not appreciate that Donald Trump became President not DESPITE his remarks on the Billy Bush tape, but BECAUSE of them:  because one of the things that the Angry White Men who are his core support are angriest about is the active contempt endlessly heaped upon all things masculine by an increasingly deviant and lunatic society.  Those Angry White Men — and as regards the mistreatment of men, nonwhite men also feel rage — are likely to elect Roy Moore to the Senate, again, not DESPITE his behavior decades ago but BECAUSE of it, in a state in which local traditions have always allowed of child marriage and young (sexual) love.
+
It seems to many men in this country that there aren't 7 working testes in the entire heterosexual population.  Men are treated like contemptible children whose only shred of masculinity is WATCHING children's games being played by college and professional athletes, that is, watching OTHER people exercising, while letting their own bodies fall to pieces.
+
Donald Trump proved he was a 'real man', not one of our tens of millions of latter-day psychological eunuchs, first, in his initial remarks to Billy Bush, and then in his defense that it was all just "locker-room" talk:  locker rooms in which women are not (yet) permitted.  Trump has had three wives (so far), and discarded each when he was done with her.  That sure hasn't hurt him politically either, has it?  So why should you play into your enemies' games?  Why abandon the Senate and reduce Democratic strength by one, at the self-same time that Republicans are likely to GAIN by one?  Or is all that talk of Republicans being consigned to legislative failure if even two of their members of the Senate do not toe the line, all bullsh*? [I should have added, and now do add, "Sorry, cowsh*."]
+
I have always been very glad to be gay, but rarely as much as now, when women are making plain that no sane man should have anything to do with women.  I'm the guy who at age 23 proposed the term "Gay Pride" as it is now used round the world.  But I don't want gay men to be "collateral damage" in what we might call attacks by 'efeminated' women (the equivalent of emasculated men) on all things masculine. We fought for our freedom once.  I don't want us to have to fight for it again.
+
Hugh Hefner died recently.  Will the Sexual Revolution in which he played so valuable a role be buried not long after him?
+
Fevered irrationality on men's sexual attentions to women, who CLAIM not to have wanted to be found attractive and be pursued, might work in unexpected ways. What if revulsion at men's sexual desires for women should turn to women's part in their own "victimization", and to punishing women for their participation in lustful encounters by forcing them to live with the consequences of their acts, such as being denied the 'right' to kill a child to cover up their tracks in willing sexual encounters?  Would the women now trying to push you out of office want a return to punitive behavior on pregnancy, and a total ban on medically unnecessary abortion?  Anyone who thinks that the furies of harpies could not possibly turn upon women in unexpected ways does not understand that emotions do not follow logical rules nor patterns, so anyone can be true victims of shame-driven antisexualism.
+
So fight the good fight for MEN'S rights to be men, and NOT to be presumed rapists because they have sexual thoughts and even activities with women, women who did not complain to the authorities at the time but now pose as innocents.  Fight back.  If you are told you must take the bullet for a Democratic Party that is increasingly estranged from American values; if people insist you go down in flames to protect the party, tell them that if you go down in flames, you are going to take as many of THEM with you as possible.
+
People of the hypocritical ilk you are dealing with are fond of saying things like "Freedom is indivisible".  Tell them that that cuts both ways:  women's rights are not one whit superior to men's rights, and men have no reason to permit themselves to be victimized by women.  That would be to co-conspire in doing injustice, because injustice to men would have to be injustice to women too, wouldn't it, if "Freedom is indivisible"?
+
The Democratic Party has lost its mind.  You can help bring it back in from the cold by trimming back the nonsense and telling the crazies to shut up!  The present course of enlisting in every lunatic movement hostile to our traditions is driving more and more people into the arms of the Republicans.  Save your own "seat" (so to speak), and contribute to saving the Democratic Party too.

Friday, October 13, 2017
 
Just Tell Us Why, and How
Network news programs keep "regaling" us (tho "regale" is supposed to mean give joy) with details about the Las Vegas massacre that we don't want to hear.  We don't need to know about a "new timeline" or ANYTHING but WHY did that madman kill all those strangers, and HOW he was able to buy all those guns and ammunition. We don't want up-close interviews with victims or first-responders, or agonized reactions from relatives of people killed. None of that has anything to do with what we DO care about: how can we prevent such things from happening in the future?
+
Tell us THAT.  If you don't know, tell us that you don't know and that no one you have consulted knows. Tell us WHOM you HAVE consulted, so we might suggest OTHER people you might consult.  Maybe someone will have a good suggestion.  Public input might not just be useless chatter on social media.

Thursday, September 07, 2017
 
More Maddow Nonsense about Russia; The Real Reasons Trump Won; Welfare for the Rich
Russia, Shmusha, Again. Rachel Maddow of MSNBC keeps ranting and raving about a Russian "attack on our election", without ever explaining why the release of accurate information about Hillary Clinton was somehow "negative". I don't recall ANYthing exposed in the Democratic National Committee's or the Clinton campaign's emails as being "negative", rather than merely informative, such that people hearing of it could make up their own mind as to how to process it. Everything exposed in real sources — not the genuinely Fake News put out over Russian propaganda websites and on "social media" — could be seen as being at least as positive for Hillary as negative. And what idiot gets their news from Facebook and other "social media" rather than reputable news media?
+
Maddow says repeatedly that the materials released about Hillary were "denigrating". HOW were those materials "denigrating" to Clinton? Specifics, please.
+
And how did the release of DNC and Clinton campaign emails affect voters? I have seen no persuasive proof that those emails played any significant part in voters' attitudes toward Hillary Clinton. Russia apparently did similar things to try to influence French voters to reject Emmanuel Macron, but he won a huge victory (66.1% of the vote), and is now President of France. So much for Russian power to affect elections in Western countries.
+
Russia did not "attack" our election. It PARTICIPATED in efforts to influence voters in our election, as any foreign government is entitled to do, for its own national purposes. The only legal issue is if AMERICANS knowingly took foreign money for their campaign. I am absolutely certain that the United States CANNOT control the activities of a sovereign foreign state in regard to taking ads or releasing information or in any other way trying to influence an election in the United States. The applicable legal principle is "sovereign immunity". The United States does NOT control the WORLD, but only the United States. Period. Got that, Maddow?
+
The Wikipedia article on sovereign immunity starts with this very clear statement:
Sovereign immunity, or crown immunity, is a legal doctrine by which the sovereign or state cannot commit a legal wrong and is immune from civil suit or criminal prosecution. It is a principle of international law which exempts a sovereign state from the jurisdiction of foreign national courts. Sovereign immunity is based on the concept of sovereignty in the sense that a sovereign may not be subjected without its approval to the jurisdiction of another sovereign. [Italics added.]
Lest any American think that it's not fair that we can do nothing if the Russian Government wants to influence our elections, turn it around to see that sovereign immunity protects the United States Government from being punished by Russia if the U.S. works to advance democracy in the Russian Federation, advocate that the people of Russia indict Vladimir Putin for multiple murder, or take ads in Russian media intended to promote the candidacy of a particular person in any Russian election.
+
Maddow makes much of Russian intelligence operatives hacking into state boards of elections and such to 'gather information on voters'. Yeah? So what? American hacking experts say that NOT ONE VOTE was altered. NOT ONE VOTE. Not ONE, out of 128,824,833 votes cast. So, Ms. Maddow, how does that constitute an "attack" on our election?
+
Why Trump Really Won. The Democrats lost the 2016 election because the Democrats have been seized by madness, a massive delusion that the people of this country HATE this country and want it to change massively in every way. The 'thinking' of the anti-American Left seems to most Americans to be that the United States is a horrible country that has been an unmitigated force for evil in the world; that real Americans want all separate races to disappear into a single HUMAN race, no blacks, no whites, no Orientals; everybody the same color, hair texture, eye shape, etc. That we want separate genders to disappear into a single, unisex world where everybody has a CHOICE as to biology, not just activities and occupations. That no one is entitled to be rich, no matter how long or arduously they prepared for success in life or how hard they worked, and no one should be poor, no matter how much they subverted themselves by refusing to pay attention in school, refusing to "just say no" to drugs, refusing to look for work, refusing to show up on time, refusing to do their job conscientiously, refusing to cooperate with fellow employees, refusing to be courteous to customers, refusing to watch their language on the job, refusing ... you get the picture.
+
The Democratic Left plainly does not understand that this is NOT a Radical Feminist society. Hillary Clinton was a TERRIBLE CANDIDATE, in large part because she is a woman, and the bulk of the people in the majority of states (and states are what matters in the Electoral College) DO NOT WANT A WOMAN PRESIDENT, a woman Commander–in-Chief of the military, a woman representing the Nation abroad (no pun intended).
+
The bulk of Americans do not accept that whitey is to blame for everything bad that happens to black people, but, rather, believe that this country affords almost unlimited opportunity to people who accept that, at end, they are responsible for themselves. No, we say, you can't control everything around you, but you can persevere against adversity if you do competent analysis, seek good advice, and take appropriate steps to extricate YOURSELF from difficulties posed by other people's acts and by social and economic circumstances you did not create. Nobody says the United States is perfect. But most Americans do a reverse "New York, New York" thinking: if you can't make it here, you can't make it anywhere.
+
Refusing National Pride. When Donald Trump said "Make America great again", the Democrats did not respond as I said here on Election Day 2016 that Hillary Clinton should have responded:
"If Donald Trump thinks the United States is no longer great, he is seriously disordered, mentally. The United States is the greatest country in the history of the world. No matter what area of human activity you consider, the United States is the first and best. We have the largest, most dynamic economy; the unchallengeably greatest military; the most inventive technology in every sphere, from robotics to medicine and anything else you might name. We so thoroughly permeate world culture that it is practically American in nature, and not just pop culture but also high culture. Americans dominate music, film, dance, literature, and pretty much every other type of high culture all around this planet. Americans also dominate the Nobel Prizes year after year, racking up 363 Nobel laureates as No. 1 in the world, almost three times as many as the next country, Britain, which has had only 123. By any measure except area and population, the United States is the greatest country in the history of the world, and has contributed more to the advancement of civilization and assistance to people in distress than any other country or empire, by far. We don't generally brag about these things, and I wouldn't brag now except to defend this greatest of all civilizations from Donald Trump's outrageous and contemptible slander that this is no longer a great country. Of course it is, and Donald Trump owes the United States a 'yuge' apology."
In rereading that passage now, I realize I didn't even mention that the United States is the only country in history ever to have landed a man — actually, several men — on the Moon and return them safely to Earth. (We don't know if the Soviet Union landed anyone on the Moon, just that we do know they never RETURNED anyone from the Moon!) But that is not current, and the point in my proposed statement above was that the United States PRESENTLY is beyond question great.
+
No, the Democratic Left said instead, in part by NOT saying that the U.S. is now, has always been, and will always be great, "You call this a great country? This sh*hole? What other country doesn't have universal, single-payer healthcare?" — never mind that only a small fraction of the countries on Earth, comprising an elite group of First World countries only, have free universal healthcare. "How can you call 'great' a country of disgraceful income inequality and astronomically disparate levels of wealth [accumultated income]? 43.1  million people, 13.5% of Americans, live in poverty! And how can you call 'great' a country in which almost 7 million people, 1 in 36 adults, are in prison or on probation? in which there are almost 1.2 million violent crimes per year; almost 16,000 murders, and over 90,000 rapes!" And on, and on.
+
You know what? The people of this country are very tired of endless harping on faults. We KNOW we have faults, but we also know we're WORKING ON THEM. We are not so naive as to believe in the perfectability of the human creature. We know that Homo sapiens is a killer ape, so there are limits to what we can achieve in reining in bad behavior. But WE'RE WORKING ON IT. And we want CREDIT for working on it.
+
Donald Trump is President today for two main reasons. First, in law, is the outrageous Electoral College system, which should long ago have been abolished, in favor of direct Presidential elections in which the popular vote rules. By that standard, even a candidate as crummy as Hillary Clinton would have won in 2016. But you don't hear anybody militating to abolish the Electoral College, even just going forward, not retroactively, do you? Why not? Why, instead of near riots on the streets against racism and in favor of illegal immigration, are there not massive, unending demonstrations and agitation in all realms of publicity and policy to abolish the Electoral College? No, that would make sense, and the Democratic Left never makes any sense!
+
The most basic reason Trump won, however, is the feeling in large swaths of the Nation that white people, who created this country and all its institutions, are disrespected and endangered; that everybody but English-speaking white, heterosexual men gets preference. That only nonwhites' problems receive attention, and white people's problems get no sympathy in today's America. Trumpistas do not look with equanimity to a postulated nonwhite majority in the United States by the mid-21st Century, less than 40 years from now. Some Trumpistas even worry that the majority of the population by 2055 won't even speak English! Defenders of the United States' historical demographics and culture do not accept that there is nothing they can do to stop such things from happening. They do not see that we are helpless in controlling our borders, even completely ending immigration save from countries that have contributed the bulk of the white population heretofore. The American majority believes that the United States today has as much right to determine the nature of its population and culture as they are expected to grant other countries' rights to protect their borders and cultures.
+
To the Democratic Left, such thoughts are anathema. We must HAVE no borders against people from whatever country, race, or culture who want to come here. We don't own the land! The land, the planet, belongs to EVERYONE, equally! Oh? Where is that written? The Constitution? The Declaration of Independence? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Nope. None of them gives anyone the right to move from one country to another no matter what the government or people of the intended receiving country want. Life in the real world is not about infinite choice, but about choosing among realistic alternatives. And unfettered migration is not a realistic alternative to having people stay put or ask permission to move to another country.
+
The Democratic Left is lost in fantasy, a world in which anything is possible. If you want rocks to fall up, they will fall UP! If you are born a boy, you can grow up to be a woman! No. The world does not work that way. You can't reverse gravity, nor change gender, race, or species. It might be wonderful if we could fly like the birds, but people don't have wings, so cannot fly without some external mechanism. The best we can do is glide in special aerodynamic clothing if we can find a cliff or skyscraper high enough to leap from. Even then, we can't fully control the direction or rate of descent, but can be killed if something goes wrong. So put aside dreams of flying above all the problems we face, and come down to Earth.
+
What people can do, however, is govern themselves — not others without those others' consent, but themselves. That means that Americans are entitled to say "yes" to some would-be immigrants and "no" to others, for ANY REASON WE WANT. That principle, or, as the Democratic Left might term it, "sentiment" or "prejudice", is behind Donald Trump's recent statement that the United States should change its immigration laws to favor people who speak English. He did not say "white people", but he did say people who speak English. The Democratic Left objects to such a stance. On what basis? Do they really want to see the United States fragmented, Balkanized by language? I don't. The Democratic Party overall does not. The Republican Party certainly does not. And the American people do not. But where is the leadership of the Democratic Party on this issue? Opposed! Let's just admit people without regard to language or culture, and if the Nation breaks up, it breaks up.
+
The claim is made that all controls on immigration would harm our economy. Ridiculous. The assertion that wage rates would NOT be undercut by a vast inpouring of foreigners is also contemptible nonsense. Supply-and-demand is one of the most basic of all rules in economics. The more there is of something, the lower the price. That includes labor. The more people there are to fill a job, the less an employer has to pay. So how could it possibly NOT be true that flooding the Nation with foreigners will undercut wages and benefits? It CANNOT be anything but true.
+
Again and again we see the Democratic Left lost in delusion. It has no grasp on reality. It does not understand the people of the United States AT ALL. That is why Trump is President. That is why the entire Federal Government is under the control of Rightwing Republicans: because the Republican Right is NOT lost in delusion, and DOES understand the people of this country, who do NOT want everything to change. Some things? Sure. Most things, NO.
+
I am an unabashed Liberal — forget about the noxious, cowardly euphemism "Progressive"; "Liberal" is not a dirty word, so does not need a euphemism. But I want to defend the values traditionally associated with Liberalism: fairness and open-mindedness, but not empty-headedness. I understand that freedom can go only so far before it becomes anarchy, and anarchy is always bad. I believe in the basic principles set out in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, JFK's Inaugural Address (a much better, more globally comprehensive speech than I had remembered and astonishingly relevant to today's exigencies), and other key statements of American civilization (except that I reject the preposterous religious references).
+
And I believe that no one knows how much we can change about this country before the entire structure comes crashing down on our heads. One half-inch chip in a granite column will not make it fall. A million half-inch chips, all around its circumference at the same height and increasing depth with each circuit, however, might well cause it to collapse. Better safe than sorry. The Democratic Party's Far Left does not believe in gravity, so does not believe that any combination of forces can destroy this country. I do believe in gravity, so understand that no country can withstand endless, grave strains. I know something of history. The Roman Empire was destroyed by barbarian invasions. The political unity of Roman civilization was destroyed by conquests both at the center and farther afield. The cultural unity was destroyed over time, and Latin broke up into a large number of "Roman"ce languages. If it could happen to Rome, it can happen to US. In which descendant country of a Balkanized America would the magnificent Roman building that is now the United States Capitol then be located?
+
Welfare for the Rich and Upper Middle Class. Public schools in New York City reopen today, and the idiots in City government have decided to offer free lunches to EVERY CHILD, no matter their family resources. So a program designed to help the poor will now help the RICH and upper middle class, who can perfectly well pay for their own children's lunch. What is WRONG with this country? The excuse given is that in order to reach the truly needy, the "stigma" associated with free lunch for the poor prevents some poor kids from getting the help they need. Bull!
+
What lesson does that teach? — and, remember, we're talking about schools here, so must realize that what the school system DOES, teaches more powerfully than what it SAYS. Don't ask for what you are entitled to? Don't speak up in defense of your rights? This crazy measure should be reversed, immediately. Why should poor and working-class New Yorkers have to pay for the children of families better off than they are? Remember, these lunches are not really free, but are paid for by taxes, including sales taxes. So even if poor and working-class taxpayers do not pay significant income taxes (and New York does have a state income tax), they still pay high sales taxes (8.875%, of which more than half, 4.5%, goes to the City). So everybody has to subsidize the children of the rich and upper middle class! What madness is this? How did this country get so crazy?
+
It's like Bernie Sanders' proposal to provide taxpayer-funded single-payer healthcare to everyone, including BILLIONAIRES. No, fairness does not require the less-fortunate to subsidize the more-fortunate. Quite the contrary. The less-fortunate should NEVER have to pay for the more-fortunate, EVER, in regard to ANYTHING.

Friday, July 28, 2017
 
Trump Is Right about (Nonexistent) 'Transgendered' People
In general, I detest Donald Trump in every regard, and do not want to call him "President Trump", in part because he LOST the popular vote, so is not legitimately President of the United States, in that he was REJECTED by the majority of the people of this country. But when he's right, which happens about once in every thousand things he does or says, I am perfectly willing to give credit where credit is due. Trump is right about so-called "transgendered" people in the military. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A TRANSGENDERED PERSON!
+
The human race comprises two approximate halves divided by gender, male and female, which are marked, indelibly and unmistakably, by chromosomal difference, XX for female, XY for male . There are a very, very few "intersexes" whose chromosomal configuration deviates from that pattern (some of whom are congenitally retarded) but they are NOT the people who demand "sex-change" or "sexual reassignment" surgery, or who dispense with such surgery and just demand that society 'accept' that they are not what they appear, physically or chromosomally.
+
Lest you think me a mindless, ignorant bigot who has only recently considered this matter, you need to understand that I am the man who, at age 25 in the spring of 1970, coined the term "Gay Pride" for events surrounding the first march in celebration of the Stonewall Riots the prior June. Even before that, on April 1st, 1969 (no fooling), I established the organization Homosexuals Intransigent! at the City College of New York. HI! was dedicated to helping gay men accept themselves, respect each other, and assert their right to be themselves and be intimate with each other.
+
I always understood that the most important thing for gay men was to understand and assert their manhood, which was always under attack. Gay men needed to REJECT all suggestions that they were somehow less than men, some kind of non-man, indeterminate thing rather than perfectly normal men who needed to be intimate with men. I created and edited a newsletter, originally mimeographed by Student Services at City College, in which I addressed the issues of identity, pride, and self-assertion. Many of the texts published by Homosexuals Intransigent! are preserved in a website to this day: http://mrgaypride.tripod.com/.
+
The first issue of the newsletter, published on November 12th, 1969, opened with a major article entitled, "I AM HOMOSEXUAL". It starts like this:
Homosexuals can effectively demand respect from others only if we first respect ourself as homosexuals. That requires that we admit to ourselves that we are homosexual; that we affirm it, understand it, realize it in all its implications: I am homosexual. Say it! aloud: "I am homosexual." Shout it, whisper it. Laugh it, cry it. State it, proclaim it, confess it in sobs, but say it: "I am homosexual." Say it today, say it tomorrow, say it the day after that. Say it when you wake up, when you go to bed, when you find yourself thinking of someone of your own sex. Say it as often as you need to until you realize that it is true and that the fact that it is true forces you to adjust your attitudes and actions to make the very best of your life as a homosexual. "I am a homosexual."

Not "Leonardo da Vinci was homosexual", but "I am homosexual." Not "Gore Vidal is homosexual", but "I am homosexual." Not "One man of every six, one woman of every eight is homosexual", but "I am homosexual." Not even, "Some of the finest, most beautiful, and most talented people in the world are homosexual", but "I am homosexual."

Your homosexuality affects you, not Leonardo da Vinci. You are the one who must come to terms with your homosexuality, not Gore Vidal. You need not justify yourself or console yourself in the homosexuality of others. Others don't have to respect and live with you — you do, and unless you adjust to your homosexuality, it doesn't matter if all the rest of the world is homosexual: you will still be uncomfortable. ...

So revise it as you must to feel that what you say is the absolute truth. But if what you arrive at is essentially "I am homosexual", then say it: "I am homosexual. And I will live my life as I choose — as a homosexual."
Never did HI! accept the insane notion that gay men were not men. Never did we suggest that self-hatred and delusions about being "a woman trapped in a man's body" were anything but INSANE. Somehow, the gay movement went off-the-rails INSANE, accepting the RIDICULOUS assertions of our ENEMIES that gay men are not really men, and started to PROMOTE the monstrous idea that people can "change sex", in order to accept and accommodate to antihomosexual bigotry.
+
Part of this was the artificial and all-around destructive notion of a nonexistent "LGBT" and then ~Q, "community" that never existed and never can exist. Gay men have no use for lesbians, "bisexuals" (gutless gay people who don't have the integrity to be homosexual), or nonexistent "transgendered" people, who used to be called simply "transvestites" but who have, in the era of mad scientists, insisted on clothing themselves with surgery, not fabric. But a drag queen is a drag queen is a drag queen, and nothing more.
+
The legitimacy of gay men's attraction to men, something found in every culture in every era throughout human existence, was subverted and used by people we had no reason to even TRY to identify with. We formed an alliance with the devil, and are now surprised that he betrayed us! He's the devil. Of course he betrayed us! Choose your friends, or even allies who are NOT your friends, wisely, because they may commit you to things you do NOT subscribe to but will be held responsible for, and compelled to defend, even tho you don't believe a word of what they insist you say..
+
There is no more such a thing as a "transgendered" person than there is a "transspecies person". If someone presented him- or herself as a "squirrel (or zebra, or chimpanzee or dolphin) in a human body", everyone on Earth would have the good sense to say, "That's crazy!", and treat that person as a lunatic. People of good will would try to help them get over their insane delusion. Others, less caring, might simply confine them to a mental institution and let them rot there if they cannot let go of their mad delusion even with talk therapy or psychoactive drugs.
+
In any case, if s/he demanded "transspecies" or "species-reassignment" surgery to make him or her into a squirrel or zebra or chimpanzee or dophin, not one doctor anywhere on this planet would undertake such surgery. And no government on Earth would PAY for it! — within the military budget or outside it.
+
This brings us back to Trump's tweet about ending participation by "trans" people in the U.S. military, which cites in part the enormous medical costs entailed in accommodating "transgendered" people's sex-change surgeries. Hell no! There is no way society should underwrite a CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY, mutilating the insane. Let's call it what it is: "sex-change" surgery on men is CASTRATION. Why would we smile upon, much less pay the costs of, CASTRATING unhappy men? That is not caring for people. It's ATTACKING them.
+
How did society get to be so crazy? It's a matter of two issues gone terribly awry. First, sympathy for unhappy people led tenderhearted, but soft-headed, people, to want to help desperately unhappy people. Second, uncritical generalization led some people to think that if homosexuality is normal, because it's found everywhere, and lesbianism is normal, because it too is found everywhere (but not nearly as commonly as homosexuality in men), and gay men and lesbian women align themselves in a single community, which they call "LGBT" and sometimes "Q", therefore the people represented by the "T" must also be normal, and legitimate. But the one thing does NOT follow from the others.
+
Gay men and lesbians must accept the blame for misleading people. We "came out", bit by bit over decades, to our friends, families, and then society in general, and got them to accept us as just being ourselves. That was good. But it went too far, in making people think, uncritically, that if homosexuality is normal, and lesbianism is normal, therefore the people covered by the T in LGBT (and sometimes Q), then "transsexuality", or "transgendered" people, are also normal.
+
We shall, for this purpose not deal extensively with the "B", so-called "bisexuals", who are NOT normal and NOT natural, but cowardly, worthless, subhuman scum who can't make up their mind as to what the f* they are!
+
In any case, the term "LGBT" and sometimes "Q", has been catastrophic for common sense and social good. There is in fact no universal agreement as to what the Q stands for. Is it "queer", an atrocious and inexcusable INSULT? If so, why would anyone in the other groups of the class accept that? Or is it "questioning"? Even then, why would anyone accept THAT? Don't question endlessly. Make up your god*mned f* mind as to what the f* you are, and move on!
+
The "LGBT(Q) community" does not exist. That artificial "community" was intended to be a temporary alliance to try to overcome a common enemy, heterosexual society's narrow-mindedness. It was like the alliance between the United States and Soviet Union during World War II, completely unnatural, but necessary at the time. Alas, it turned out to be worse. After Nazism was defeated, we had the good sense to stop pretending we were on the same side. Rather, we accepted that the wartime alliance ended with the defeat of Nazism, and we became enemies to each other immediately thereafter. We have never come to that realization as regards the "LGBT(Q)" "community".
+
There are two actual communities lumped together stupidly and dishonestly under that rubric, gay men and lesbian women, but there is no reason the two very different groups should be lumped together. They don't LIKE each other and do not hang out together. They feel they have NOTHING in common and have nothing to do with each other, in fact or logic. They spend NO time together, and RESENT impositions by each other upon their own group.
+
So why does this wartime alliance persist? Why are we still allied with the Soviet Union? Is it just mental laziness, or is it something worse? Are we afraid of being alone in the world, with no friends? Gay men, lesbian women, (nonexistent) "bisexuals" and (nonexistent) "transgendered" people are NOT friends. They have NOTHING to do with each other, do not RESPECT each other, and do not advocate that people become something they are not. If no one has told you that heretofore, I now HAVE. We must not generalize between things that are not the same. The Soviet Union was NOT a force for democracy in World War II. The U.S. made a TERRIBLE MISTAKE in permitting the Red Army to take over Eastern Europe. But this is the kind of idiotic error that can occur when people don't think things thru, but allow the human tendency to generalize, to go hog-wild. You'd think we'd have learned from that catastrophic mistake not to generalize uncritically. We did not.
+
Apart from the injury to individual lunatics who pretend to be of the opposite gender from what they were born — and they ARE pretending, because no one can REALLY believe they are not what they were born — there are issues of public safety. It is insane to give crazy people GUNS and teach them how to KILL!
+
There is also a very large issue here that I have not seen anyone in media address: the reaction of people in the traditional societies we are mainly concerned with in our military operations nowadays. Many, if not even most of them, already HATE us for sending WOMEN to kill men, women, and children in their countries. And, so, BILLIONS of people in the Third World want tu KILL us. How do you think those BILLIONS will react to an army of 'TRANSSEXUALS' killing their men, women, and children?
+
Why would we go out of our way to inflame passions against us? Is it our intent to recruit terrorists to kill us?
+
It is bad enuf that there are some people so astonishingly crazy that they can look in a mirror and see plainly that they are one gender, but persuade themselves that they are of the opposite gender. This is the same phenomenon as in anorexia nervosa: where people look into a mirror and see not skin stretched out over bones on a body wasting away from starvation, but FAT over fat, so continue to starve themselves until they die. The extreme confusion of "transgendered" people is exactly that pathological. But nobody says that people with anorexia nervosa, at the edge of death, are sane, or normal, and CORRECT in starving themselves to death. And nobody objects to intervening to STOP anorexic loons from killing themselves. So why does anyone pretend that "transgendered" people are anything but self-destructively deluded, and advocate that society HELP them destroy themselves?
+
"Trans" people are profoundly insane, but they can't help themselves. Society can, and does not have to go crazy too. People who cannot accept their biological reality need help. Mutilating them surgically or even rhetorically doesn't HELP them, but HURTS them, sometimes to the point where they KILL THEMSELVES because they cannot find peace in their own body or mind. Society needs to find ways to GET THRU to these extremely sad, extremely troubled individuals and wake them to reality. The very LAST thing society should do is play along with their insane, self-destructive delusions and co-conspire in mutilating them psychologically and even surgically.
+
There is another issue here that has not been addressed by media: innocent people being TRICKED into homosexual or lesbian relationships they NEVER intended to engage in. A man supposedly turned, as if by magic — poof! — into a woman so he can have sex with a man "normally", remains a man chromosomally. The only way there could be an actual sex change is if EVERY CELL in his body were somehow to expel his XY chromosomal configuration and take on an XX configuration, which cannot happen. So he remains a man, and if he fools another man into having sex with him, that other man will have been cruelly abused for being tricked into sex with a man, which he never intended. That is criminal activity, and should be punished severely.
+
At end, if someone is so unhappy that he or she cannot bear being who and what s/he is, we can end their misery, by ending their miserable LIFE. Take them in hand, tissue-type them, match them to people who need organ or tissue transplants, then put them out of their misery on an operating table and chop them up for parts for sane people. Every year in this country, thousands or tens of thousands of decent people die while waiting on transplant lists. Euthanizing "transgendered" loons and transplanting their organs to save well-adjusted people would be extremely useful socially. Maybe the prospect of being put to death and chopped up for parts will concentrate what remains of the mind of "transgendered" "people", and make them see things right, clear of delusions.
+
So, Mr. Trump, thank you for trying to shake this country out of its madness on gender, and saying NO to the insane agenda ("agender"?) of the people out to mutilate the insane. I don't want any lunatic to be handed a gun and trained how to use it to kill.
+
I am reproducing this post in my gay blog.


Powered by Blogger