The ghouls that walk our streets

 

Following on from our first article this morning, my friend Lawdog has penned his thoughts on the ghouls in our midst.  They've been exposed (yet again) by the murder of Charlie Kirk, but that's only the latest episode in which they've metaphorically danced in the blood of those they dislike.

Charlie Kirk — like him or dislike him — was willing to hold a dialogue with those on the other side of the political spectrum from him. He was right-wing, and he was willing to have conversation with those on the left-wing.

He was murdered by someone on the left-wing — yes, the alleged murderer was a leftist, I’ve read the charging instrument — and Charlie Kirk wasn’t even cold before left-wing doctors, teachers, attorneys, media personalities, therapists, professors, real estate agents, insurance agents, administrators, food service people, and service members didn’t just get callous, contemptuous, and cruel; but were gleefully laughing, dancing, singing, and ghoulishly posting evidence of such on social media, along with suggested kill lists of other conservative names, and wishes of suffering and death upon his grieving widow, kith,and kin.

Huh.

Now the conservatives are smacking back. Performative exhibitions of merriment and joy at the murder of another human being are getting the performers fired.

And we’re suddenly hearing: “We need to open a dialogue between the two political sides.”

. . .

Tell me, do: why should conservatives open a dialogue with people whose ghouls so publicly and exuberantly celebrate the deaths of conservatives — whether the conservatives be a media personality, or eight-year-old girls who just happen to live in Texas — to the point that I worry about how they treat any suspected conservative in their care?

I should open a dialogue with people who — should Rita or I die — will caper mirthfully upon our bodies?

Conservatives should open a dialogue with the side that paints a bloody huge target on conservatives — using brushes dipped in “Nazi”, “fascist”, and other dehumanising epithets — and then cheers when a conservative who dares open a dialogue gets murdered?

Nah. I’m good.

. . .

Get your sodding ghouls under control, first. Teach them — loudly, publicly, firmly, and often — that this sort of behaviour is not to be tolerated in polite society.

Then I’ll think about a “dialogue”.

There's more at the link.

I try to be Christian in my approach to people;  not to pre-judge them, but to accept them as fellow sinners in need of the grace of God.  However, there have been times over the past week when I could have sworn that some of those dancing in Charlie Kirk's blood (metaphorically speaking) were no more than demons spouting the propaganda of their master in Hell.  There was precious little (if any) humanity to be found in their rejoicing over the murder of an innocent man whose only "offense" was to believe differently than they did.

If we in the center and right of American politics were to behave towards the Left, and speak of them, the way they do to and about us, we'd have civil war in a heartbeat.  There'd be no room left for discussion, civilized argument, or debate.  I can only thank God (literally) that saner heads have so far prevailed in the center-right of US politics . . . but I don't know whether that will (or even can) continue.

I'm seriously concerned about Charlie Kirk's memorial service in Arizona this weekend.  President Trump will be there.  How many hard left supporters will consider it a good idea to try to assassinate him while he's there?  How many are already making plans to do so?  How many are likely to follow through with their plans, and are capable of doing so?  If I were the Secret Service right now, I'd be losing sleep considering those possibilities.

And yes, I agree with Lawdog.  There is no possibility of meaningful "dialogue" unless and until the knee-jerk hatred stops.  Golda Meir once said of Arabs:  "We will only have peace with [the Arabs] when they love their children more than they hate us."  Our progressives hate us, and our children, with a burning fire.  We will not have peace with them unless and until that fire is extinguished.  That can happen through their choice.  I hope and pray that it will - because if it doesn't, it'll take a fire brigade to put it out.  That fire brigade won't be using hoses.

Peter

Sometimes one can only nod in agreement

 

Arthur Sido is what I would consider a right-wing blogger (some would say he's extreme right-wing, but I know of others much further along that spectrum than he is).  I disagree with many of his views on race and culture.  However, sometimes he hits the nail on the head, as he did yesterday.

Back in the years following Obama we saw a less than subtle shift taking place, one that really took off with the death via heart failure of George Floyd. It was in place and just waiting the right trigger, and the carefully edited video of Floyd’s death was just what the doctor ordered. No longer was it sufficient to be “color blind” or “not racist”. Now we were told “silence is violence” and that failure to be sufficiently outspoken in condemning “racism” was no different than lynching.

It wasn’t enough to simply not disagree with them, instead you were required to vocally agree with whatever they said. I recall vividly mobs confronting timid Whites in restaurants and forcing them to repeat “black lives matter” . It didn’t matter whether they agreed or not, the point was intimidation and humiliation.

We have moved into a new stage, one where you can now be forcibly silenced through violence, and a significant number of people on the Left seem to have no problem with using assassinations, whether the target was Trump or Charlie Kirk, a decidedly mild conservative ... Kirk for his faults was out there in the open. Even with Trump already in the White House he was outspoken and doing events, and because he was known he was able to be targeted. They couldn’t defeat even a fairly genteel conservative in debate so they shut him up the same way the Bolsheviks and their bastard offspring always have done: by terror and murder.

My general rule of thumb in the past was to say that the last thing I wanted was for the Left to be silenced or censored. Letting those idiots talk conveyed my arguments far better than I could dream of by blogging. Let them speak and let people see how stupid and vile they are.

Maybe that was a mistake, and maybe I am guilty of some of the same naive thinking that normies are guilty of ... The one thing that has marked leftist politics from the beginning is violence to overcome resistance to their retarded ideas. They are returning to form in America and Kirk won’t be the last to fall.

There's more at the link.

We can already see deliberate attempts from the progressive left to portray Charlie Kirk's murderer as a young man driven to extremes by his youthful love story.  Walter Kirn put it like this:

Here's how this will play out, here's the meta-script, and please don't laugh it off.

How this all started is not how it will end. A story that began with a clear traditional moral shape, an innocent victim, a vile perpetrator, will be transformed using secondary characters, new revelations, and other dramatic elements into its very opposite -- a story of forbidden love, persecution by religious bigots, a  poignantly rebellious heartfelt protest against a World that Doesn't Understand.

There will then be a total split, far deeper than mere "politics," between the segments of the public that were captivated by two incommensurate tragedies.

Rod Dreher explodes in righteous anger at such a mischaracterization.

Sure enough, look at Montel Williams on CNN, saying that poor sweet Tyler was simply trying to “defend his lover,” not attack an ideology. This is the play now.

Like I said, trying to keep a cool head, but … what world do these freaks live in?! Tyler Robinson blew a hole in Charlie Kirk’s throat because he despised what Charlie Kirk said, and this ABC News reporter has a sentimental boner about how sweet their gay-lover chit-chat is?!

. . .

I am seriously, seriously shaken up about the country. People don’t even know what reality is! These left-wing people will believe whatever they need to believe to maintain their narrative. Do I need to remind you that one of the signs that a country is ready to receive a totalitarian dictatorship is a refusal to believe in Truth, only “truth” as what satisfies you emotionally?

These people who are turning to their AI lovers for emotional gratification, while knowing full well that these things aren’t real — it’s a sign, y’all. It’s a sign of ever-growing detachment from reality. They prefer the “truth” of the way the Machine makes them feel to actual reality.

Again, more at the link.

Tyler Durden observes that the "woke" news media are marching in lock-step on this one.

The people dancing on TikTok and laughing about the murder come from all walks of life, from teachers to social workers and, of course, mainstream journalists.  The widespread vitriol has debunked the longtime claim that such psychopathy is relegated to a fringe minority. 

In reality, violent bloodlust is a feature of the political left, not an anomaly.  We saw it after the multiple assassination attempts on Donald Trump and we see it even more after the death of Charlie Kirk.

The justifications are rampant, with leftists claiming (falsely) that Kirk was a "fascist, misogynist, racist, homophobe, etc.", thereby absolving themselves of their elation over his shooting.  The real issue is that Kirk told the truth, on DEI, on transgender cultism, on feminism - And because they could not win against him in open debate, they wanted him dead.

. . .

Being a left-wing journalist, [Washington Post columnist Karen] Attiah's comments are strategically open to interpretation.  In the worst case, she appears to be justifying Charlie Kirk's killing because continuing to allow him to live is the same as absolving "white" American violence.  In other words, Kirk's words are the same as violence, therefore killing him is an act of self defense.

However, like most leftists in the media, Attiah is unable to produce any examples of Charlie Kirk actually espousing violence, or calling for violence.

. . .

Woke activists have been scrambling to control the narrative on Kirk's assassination for the past several days, at first applauding the incident as righteous vengeance, then claiming that the shooter was "right wing" (a false narrative), and now calling for conservatives to "cool things down" as if conservatives are the source of the problem.

More at the link.

We've seen this barrage of lies, propaganda and vitriol erupt and expand over the past week.  It's going to go on, and get worse, because the progressive left has to have a cause around which to gather.  If they can persuade people that "We're the oppressed ones here!", they can generate renewed and increased resistance to President Trump and his policies.  In reality, of course, they'll be relentless and merciless in pursuing those who expose their falsehoods and fanaticism.  I doubt very much whether Charlie Kirk will be the only martyr to their efforts.

Those of us who believe in our constitutional republic and the rule of law would do well to read the words of those I've quoted above, and gird our loins, both physically and metaphorically.  If we live in areas infested by such radical leftists (or even within striking distance of them), we should be prepared to defend ourselves, our loved ones, and our homes.  That may be more of a reality than we'd like to admit.

Peter

A certain deficiency in logic...

 

Circulating on social media:

Uh-huh.

Peter

The death of lecture-based universities?

 

That's what the Australian Courier-Mail foresees.  A tip o' the hat to our Australian reader Andrew for sending me the link to the article.

The future of face-to-face learning at Australia’s universities is in serious doubt as more institutions ditch old-school lectures in favour of full online or hybrid learning models.

While some students and staff are campaigning to save lectures from the chopping block, others in the sector say the train has already left the station and the future of universities is online as students “vote with their feet”.

The face-to-face debate reared its head again recently as Adelaide University students and staff protested what they claimed was a move away from in-person learning at Australia’s newest university – a claim the university continues to deny.

Meanwhile, Open University Australia helps potential students connect with more than 890 online degrees in response to changing student preferences.

University of South Queensland (USQ) Associate Professor Alice Brown has researched and written on the challenges and opportunities of online higher education learning, finding the ultimate determiner is the students themselves who routinely “vote with their feet”.

“There is a trend and phenomena of students becoming increasingly discerning about how they want to study and when they want to study,” Professor Brown said.

“If they are not offered an online option, then they will vote with their feet and go to courses that are fully online.”

. . .

The debate comes as a number of Victorian universities are now offering digital-only lectures, with most choosing not to reintroduce in-person models post-Covid.

RMIT environmental engineering student Ted Oldis, 24, said attending his university in-person was a toss-up decision he makes daily.

“If you’re trying to juggle work, friends and study you have to balance the convenience of the online lectures with attending in-person,” he said.

“If you don’t need the social aspect and you think the learning is the same, it honestly comes down to convenience, and more often than not it’s easier to do the online learning.”

Mr Oldis said he had toyed with attending as many lectures and tutorials as possible in-person this semester.

“This semester I made a conscious decision to attend every class and lecture I can in-person,” he said.

“I wanted to try to engage more and meet new people. But to be honest, I don’t feel it’s been worth it compared to doing the same stuff online.”

There's more at the link.

I have every sympathy with those students who are avoiding in-person classes and focusing instead on online and distance education.  I hold four university qualifications, two of which I obtained through distance education only (i.e. by post) and two by part-time evening classes plus distance education.  I can't say I felt in any way short-changed by not having the full "campus experience" of a full-time education.  In fact, the professors in my Masters degree often said to us students that they preferred working with us as opposed to full-time students, because we'd already learned to fend for ourselves and earn a living, and didn't expect the world to provide everything to us on a platter.  Comparing ourselves to the self-centered idle twits who infested that campus' post-graduate programs, it wasn't hard to see why they came to that conclusion.

Looking at the pro-Palestinian protests across many US universities over the past couple of years simply makes the contrast even starker.  The only reason those students could carry on so irresponsibly (not to mention violently) is that they had parents and trust funds and bursaries to pay for their existence while they did so.  The rest of us, who have to work for a living, may want to protest in favor of causes we support, but we can't afford to do so nearly as often or as long, because we know that our employers will kick us out and hire replacements who'll be willing to earn every dollar they pay us.  We've grown up.  Most of those students haven't.

I think American higher education would be a lot better off if we got rid of at least half the campuses in this country and fired all the professors who live in their academic cloud cuckoo land instead of in the real world.  I'd also suggest that we fire every student who doesn't pass at least half their courses every year.  No do-overs, no accommodations, no touchy-feely wishy-washy excuses.  Unless there are truly exceptional circumstances to excuse them, they can pass, or get out.  Why should my tax dollars be wasted on supporting them?

Grrr . . .

Peter

Don't just build the structure, pay attention to the foundations

 

I've been watching the outpouring of emotion over the murder of Charlie Kirk and the other blatant, in-your-face crimes that have shocked our nation in recent weeks.  I'm sure most of us agree that something needs to be done;  but what, precisely, should be done is fiercely debated.

I'd like to suggest that if we all "started small", we'd get a lot more done than if we all worried about the "big picture".  Each of us, as individuals, is too small and ineffectual a factor to get much attention on a state or national level.  However, at our local level, we can certainly organize ourselves into groups of like-minded people and put pressure on our town and city councils to fix the problems we encounter.  If a few dozen, or a few score, citizens were to insist that our local cops be given the authority, the budget and the free hand they need to control crime on our local streets, it would make all of our towns safer places to live.  If local towns were to come together and demonstrate that they can succeed in doing that, then our county executives might apply the same lesson on a larger scale.  If enough counties do likewise, then our state might begin to create the necessary conditions for change and improvement:  and if enough states do the same, then our entire nation might find a way forward.

However, it all starts locally, with the foundations rather than the superstructure.  We can't wave a magic wand and change our national government, or the Deep State bureaucracy, or so-called "blue state" policies.  However, we can affect the day-to-day lives of our communities at our own level.  If enough of us refuse to tolerate bigotry, extremism and dogmatism, we can take back our own environment.  If enough of us do that, we can inspire others to do likewise . . . but it all begins with the individual.

Therefore, let's not worry about founding new chapters of Turning Point USA, or joining the political party of our preference.  Let's join local churches, or make sure that local chapters of the Boy Scouts or Girl Guides are run in a balanced and sane manner, and do our best to see to it that local schools aren't infested with extremist views that make it a trial and a punishment for our children to attend them.  All that is within our power to do, if we're willing to exert ourselves for the good of our communities.

Have at it!

Peter

The writing life

 

I'm battling to complete a short story before the deadline for submissions later this week, so this cartoon made me laugh.  Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the Foxes In Love Web page.

I can almost hear the simultaneous groan from my writing and publishing buddies as they see it . . .

Peter

A very heartfelt "Thank you!!!" to my readers and friends

 

Last week on Monday my wife and I launched a fundraiser for my medical expenses.  I explained at the time that they're expected to total well over $100,000, possibly twice that.  We've been saving as best we can, and have taken out a second mortgage on our home, but we were still facing a big shortfall.  We set a fundraising target of $50,000.

To our surprise and great relief, you've responded very generously indeed.  As I write these words, the fundraiser stands at $49,236.  I expect we'll reach our target today or tomorrow, if this keeps up.  After the IRS takes its share and other expenses are met, we should get about $35,000 out of this campaign.  This is a huge relief to us, and gives us greater confidence that we can cope with the bills to come.

It's been suggested to us that we should raise the target to a higher figure, but that seems a bit cheesy somehow.  Yes, the total bills may be quite a bit higher, but we don't know that for sure yet (it'll take months to have any certainty), and we don't want to appear greedy.  We're more than grateful for what we've already received.  We'll probably leave the fundraiser open until the end of September to give late responders a chance to join in, and then close it down at whatever the level is then.  Meanwhile, if you would please continue to mention the fundraiser now and again to your friends and contacts on social media, we'll appreciate that very much.

We thank God for all of you, and for your great generosity.

Peter

Memes that made me laugh 278

 

Gathered from around the Internet over the past week.  Click any image for a larger view.

Sunday morning music

 

The tragic murder of Charlie Kirk a few days ago has swept across our nation like a wave.  Some celebrate his death;  others mourn it.  Some reject all he was and stood for;  others proclaim it with pride and promise to continue his legacy.  I rather think that his assassination might turn into one of the pivotal moments in US political history, on a level with the murder of JFK.  I, for one, will honor his memory, and do what little I can to make America all that he believed we could be.

To mark his passing, I wanted a piece of music that would speak to all Americans, whether men and women of faith or not.  Yes, I know Mr. Kirk was a man of strong, intense faith (as am I), and he should be remembered as such:  but his message is one that reached beyond sectarian divides, and I wanted music that reflects that universal appeal.  I found it in Samuel Barber's well-known Adagio for Strings.  Here's Leonard Slatkin conducting the Detroit Symphony Orchestra in 2016.  Turn up your volume, because the recording is relatively soft.

May Charlie Kirk rest in God's peace.  May his widow and children be comforted in their loss.  May their witness continue to spread his message;  and may we who remember him do likewise.

Peter