The Resolution: No remorse, no regret.

I am going to take a break from satire and discuss a very serious subject with you.

Do you like the iPhone or iPad in your hands? Thank Steve Jobs, the visionary behind them. Do you like the convenience of shopping through Amazon. Thank Jeff Bezos, the visionary. Do you search through Google? In the beginning, their motto was “don’t be evil”, and now they abet china’s suppression of freedom and suppress YouTube videos of viewpoints they don’t agree with. They are doing evil. The list goes on. Why are so many visionaries betraying their vision and/or their spouses? I don’t think that’s their intent.” I never meant for that to happen” is the refrain when they betray, the legacy of that refrain is regret. I promise you, your last conscious day on earth will be focused on what you regret, not what you have accomplished.

Just so you know, I have faced my last day on earth 8 times–in Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Florida, Arizona, Wyoming and Vietnam–yet here I am. Eight times the Lord has allowed me to taste death being imminent, and then snatched me from it’s jaws. Three of those times were in Vietnam. It was on the way to Vietnam that I had the big Revelation that led to the rule for the rest of my life. But you probably don’t want to know it. Do you? I’m teasing. Of course you do. If you don’t, well it’s my blog, you’re going to get it anyway. 😹

Here’s the deal. When I was on the flight to the ‘Nam, October 1969, thinking about death or worse, being maimed for life. When I said goodbye to my parents at the gate of Maguire Air Force base, I could see it in their eyes that they didn’t expect me to come back alive. Then I asked myself, “what if you do survive, how will you live the rest of your life?” I thought about the MyLai massacre of 1968, when a platoon of American soldiers murdered defenseless civilians. It remained the biggest scandal of the war. A group of mostly decent young men, barely out of their teens, being subjected to unbearable stresses, yielding to angry frustration with an elusive enemy who was killing their buddies with booby traps, yielding to an unreasoning hatred of people who were inscrutable to them, but most of all, surrendering to the expediency of the moment and the pressure of the peer group to hit those who were under their power, who became the proxies for the warriors they couldn’t find to hit.

The next thought was, “I need a resolution to help me avoid acting out of expediency and frustration.” The resolution I adopted was this. “I resolve not to do anything that I will look back on with remorse and regret, no matter what.” The gospel of positive thinking, the therapeutic culture and the cult of the visionary all tell us, “visualize and affirm what you want, don’t dwell on the negative, live your life without regret.” If that works so well, after the last 50 years of preaching it, why are divorces, single parent homes, male abdication of leadership and fearful, confused youth at perhaps an all time high? Let’s go back to my resolution. I could have made a list of all my goals for surviving Vietnam, I could have visualized positive outcomes, but when I came to my My Lai moment, what would have prevailed, my positive thinking or my negative–what I would not do–resolution? When Steve Jobs was dying slowly of cancer, was he reveling in all the tech his vision was responsible for, or was he regretting that he had not been a better husband and father? What do you think? I don’t know what kind of husband or father Bill Gates is, but the Gates Foundation is his focus now, doing good in the world. If he has time to think about his life before he dies, I would wager he will be prouder of the foundation than of Microsoft, even though Microsoft stock funded the foundation.

So back to the question in bold. Isn’t not doing easier than doing? I love analogies, so how about a universal issue. When I wanted to reduce my weight 20 pounds, I read that eating habits are far more important than exercise. No matter how hard you work out, you won’t burn close to the number of calories in the most popular menu item in 20 of the most well known national chain restaurants. I determined that of all my bad eating/drinking habits, the easiest to give up were drinking juices and eating ice cream. So I stopped buying both, drank water, ate Greek yogurt instead of ice cream and reduced the size of each meal. Now that I’m 72, I weigh two pounds more than 50 years ago. I had my MyLai moment in Vietnam, and remembered my resolution, giving me the will to resist peer pressure. This resolution sort of took over my life. It kept me from the temptations of adultery, of defrauding my clients, and the temptation of trying to be right all the time. Avoiding regret helped me admit to my children when I was wrong and ask their forgiveness. Okay, maybe it’s just me, but I have found it easier to do the right things by avoiding the wrong things. I think of it this way: If you were to make a list of everything you wanted to have and accomplish in your life, it would be unmanageably long. Too many decisions usually leads to decision constipation, the inability to get started. The list of everything you wanted to avoid doing would be much shorter, and you will encounter almost all those crossroads in your life. When you do, you may not know what to do, but you will know what not to do. “If I do X, will I regret it later?” is much easier to answer than “if I do Y, will I be glad later?” Why do I say X is easier than Y? If I cheat I will regret it, no matter how it seems to work out. If I cheat on my wife with Jane Fonda in her prime, will I be glad later? Glad of what? Betrayal of my wife? A one night stand with Jane? All parties–including my children– disrespecting me for my infidelity? If that example doesn’t convince you of the wisdom of “negative” resolutions, then you deserve Jane Fonda. Read about her life, you’ll see what I mean.

The major reason for my contention though is the Ten Commandments. Of the ten, two command “thou stall” (honor father and mother, and keep the sabbath day holy). The other eight are what? “Thou shall not…” What more need I say?

Let’s tour the narrative sausage factory.

We’ve all heard and seen the famous aphorism about sausages (vegans should cover their eyes): You might like the end result but you don’t want to see how sausages are made! If you’ve ever seen an uncooked sausage, you might have a clue; if that’s not enough, remove the casing but don’t say I didn’t warn you. Narratives–especially “social justice” narratives–are like sausages. The truth–like the cow or pig or fowl–gets ground up in the machine. A casing of feel- good lingo is wrapped around the mess to hold it together, and the finished product is sold to the unsuspecting carnivores public. In the coming days, we will touring the factory in all its glory, section by section, set in the glorious kapital of our nation, D.C. With that introduction, my fellow social justice warriors, let’s tour the narrative sausage factory.

Some of the narratives we will see crafted here include: inequality is bad, equity is good; inequality is de facto evidence of discrimination; diversity of color is our strength, diversity of thought is our weakness; free speech is not hate speech; attacking those who disagree with you is not tyranny, as long as you are more moral; the campus should be a totally safe space; a safe space should be a place where you are not exposed to disagreements; historical wrongs should give a people group extra rights in the present; groups matter, individuals don’t; academic freedom entails a professor teaching whatever Xe wants to; college tuition will continue to increase forever because it’s so valuable; everything is a social construct, except homosexuality #BornThisWay; anyone who disagrees with the preceding narratives is evil and deserves to be suppressed by any means, especially violence.

As you can see, this factory is never out of narratives; it runs on the ancient hydra principle: Cut off one limb, and another grows. The beauty of modern narrative sausage technology is, that we can go the hydra one better, actually many times better. Cut off one narrative, three more take its place, often at taxpayer expense! It’s a beautiful thing. The enemy also makes narratives, and I secretly filmed their factory in Philadelphia. Some of their’s include: My country ‘tis of thee; sweet land of liberty; of thee I sing; land where my fathers died; land of the Pilgrims’ pride; from every mountainside let freedom ring. What absolute garbage! At least it rhymes. The following narrative about Jane Fonda is not a digression, but you’ll have to slog your way through it to find out why it belongs here. These accounts come from the UK Daily Mail and a program, Jane Fonda in Five Acts.

For 16 years, 60’s radical icons Tom Hayden and Jane Fonda were married, had children, then split up. Of Fonda, Hayden said, “when you are internationally famous, and have Hollywood studios and public relations firms working 24 hours a day to make you larger than life, everything and everyone becomes a prop. Our bedroom was a prop, our kitchen was a prop, eventually I felt like a prop.” If this revelation was too much for him, he got his revenge. One day, at the height of her fame in the mid-70’s, Jane Fonda turned up on the doorstep of her ex-husband, Roger Vadim. She was lugging a bulging sack. Vadim’s glamorous new girlfriend let her in, thrilled to meet the movie icon at last. But her excitement soon turned to disbelief. The star of Julia, Klute and The China Syndrome had come to do her laundry. Why? Because her second husband, Tom Hayden, a Left-wing activist with a bulbous nose and acne-scarred cheeks, had forbidden her to have either a washing machine or dishwasher. Far too bourgeois. Not only that, but he’d made her sell her comfortable house in Los Angeles and buy a shabby two-bedroom shack in Santa Monica that smelled of mildew, where the couple shared a mattress on the floor. She couldn’t even wear her Cartier wristwatch any more, because Hayden disliked any show of possessions. Many of her friends looked on in disbelief as she once again subjugated herself to a man. Instead of procuring women for threesomes—as she had in her marriage to Vadim—she was now working herself to a frazzle to raise millions for her husband’s political campaigns. Hayden had a grandiose fantasy of becoming President of the United States—and Jane was determined to make him famous. To that end, stories about ‘Tom and Jane’ would appear in the Press—it was never ‘Jane and Tom’ because Hayden insisted on his name coming first.

Knowing Tom needed vast sums for his next electoral campaign, Jane looked for a way to earn more money. She launched an exercise studio called Workout in 1982 that spawned a $20 million fitness empire. More than $1 million of her profits went into his ‘war-chest’, and she poured $17 million into his Campaign for Economic Democracy, which he’d founded to promote progressive causes. In the mid-80’s, she was at her lowest ebb. Hayden had ridiculed her at a big benefit dinner and told people he resented being called Mr Jane Fonda. He was also spending a lot of time with Vicky Rideout, a sexy political speechwriter 20 years Jane’s junior. On the night his wife turned 51, Hayden told her he was in love with another woman. Jane threw him out after discovering he’d brought Rideout back to their own bedroom. Gathering all of his belongings into large plastic bags, she tossed them out of a window.

Hanoi Jane was soon to undergo her third radical makeover — as a trophy wife. Yet again, she would subjugate herself to a man, but this time he was a Right-wing billionaire who would lavish on her every luxury she’d once rejected. She ended up marrying Ted Turner, and for ten years, it worked because Jane was willing to give herself up to his need for control. She said she finally realized that she was stronger and braver than he was, that he couldn’t bear to be alone. Her revelation, the reason for leaving was, as she put it, “as long as you stay, you can never be authentic.” She also admitted to having plastic surgery, while hating the fact that she couldn’t bear to have a “lived in” face like Vanessa Redgrave. Relevant to this post, she summed up her quest to know who she was: I had to find my own narrative.If you’ve been wondering, “why stick Jane Fonda into a perfectly good satirical post?”, that one sentence is why. The story of Jane is the story of how many, if not all, social justice narratives, are the product of broken, narcissistic people who need a cause to make them feel worthwhile, while in private, they trample those who love them into the dust or subjugate themselves to same. Keep that truth in mind as we tour the narrative sausage factory in the coming posts.

Anti-Narrative: Envy, the rottenness in the bones.

We start the tour of the narrative sausage factory with the emotion of envy, which is the beating heart of the following narratives: 1- inequality is bad, equity is good; 2- inequality is de facto evidence of discrimination; 3- historical wrongs should give a people group extra rights in the present; 4- groups matter, individuals don’t; 5- free speech is not hate speech; 6- attacking those who disagree with you is not tyranny, as long as you are more moral. That fact is directly evident in narratives 1-4, and indirectly in 5-6.

Welcome to the ugly world of envy, defined by philosopher Immanuel Kant as…”a propensity to view the well-being of others with distress, even though it does not detract from one’s own. [It is] a reluctance to see our own well-being overshadowed by another’s because the standard we use to see how well off we are is not the intrinsic worth of our own well-being but how it compares with that of others. [It] aims, at least in terms of one’s wishes, at destroying other’s good fortune.

Envy is almost as old as the world itself. Cain killed Abel out of envy, that God accepted Abel’s offering but not his. Cain was angry, and The LORD said to Cain, “Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” Genesis 4:6-7. Envy is clearly a manifestation of sin, which is portrayed by this passage as a stealthy predator, ready to pounce. Several thousand years ago, the tenth of the Ten Commandments warned of envy’s close relative, “coveting.” Many Biblical passages from both Old and New Testaments caution against it, including Proverbs 14:30 (“A heart at peace gives life to the body, but envy rots the bones”) and Ecclesiastes 30:24 (“Envy and wrath shorten the life”). It comes in several shades.

The less harmful version, for example, is when you count the other guy’s blessings instead of your own but try to attain them for yourself peacefully—by trade or by emulating the decisions of the successful. A more malicious type takes this form: You despise someone for who he is or what he has and take personal delight in punishing him for it in the hope that you’ll benefit in one way or another. Maybe you’ll get some of his stuff or attain power by vilifying him. The worst kind of envy shows up when you take action to make sure no one can ever possess what the successful person has because you believe equality in misery is more virtuous than inequality, period. Narrative #1, inequality is bad, equity is good is a direct manifestation, regardless of whether we are referring to inequality of wealth and income—the most common concerns—or inequality of crime. What is wrong with inequality of wealth and income? Is everyone supposed to be equally adept at creating value, thus wealth, or making the same income, regardless of their preparation, abilities or intelligence? Is everyone equally inclined to save and invest rather than spend? No one thinks that, which is where the usage of “equity” comes in. Equality means equal worth and rights, equity means equal results. What a sneaky substitute! How do you get equity, equality of outcome? Either everyone above an arbitrary line must be torn down to the line, or everyone below the line must lifted up to the line. Since the latter is not really possible, the former becomes the strategy of the “social justice warrior.” Thus, narrative #2, inequality is de facto evidence of discrimination. The purposes of this narrative are to: Induce guilt in those above the arbitrary line–other than the politicians themselves–into allowing government to level them down, while giving politicians cover for noble-sounding sausage programs (affirmative action anyone?) that purport to “level the playing field” for those below the line, while NOT teaching the behaviors that keep someone above the line (thrift and saving for instance).

What does equality of crime have to do with this? If a group of people representing a particular race, ethnicity or nationality commits more crimes in the same society than other groups—inequality of crime—and thus has more encounters with police and prison, narrative #2 is also invoked. The logical, rational person will say, “inequality in both wealth and crime is related to behavior and decisions.” That principle is true, but harder to apply for wealth. The formula for wealth, according to the Millionaire Next Door (if you haven’t read it, you need to), is spend less than you earn and invest the difference over a long period of time. You may not end up a millionaire, but you will be much better off than the spender. However, the principle is obvious in the case of crime: Don’t break the law. There’s no corollary that says, “or blame discrimination.” Why do most lawbreakers commit crimes? Envy! (I deserve what you have).

Both capitalists and anti-capitalists frequently accuse capitalism of being a system driven by selfishness and greed. Capitalism’s defenders sometimes say: “By nature, man is selfish, which is why socialism will never work. Capitalism better reflects the fundamental characteristics of human nature.” Anti-capitalists claim that capitalism promotes the worst characteristics in man, especially greed. But are greed and unbridled selfishness really the driving forces of capitalism? Human self-interest is one—not the only—driving force of all human action. But this has nothing to do with a particular economic system. Rather, it is a human nature constant. In capitalism, however, this self-interest is curbed by the fact that only the entrepreneur who prioritizes other people’s needs can be successful. There is overwhelming evidence to suggest that empathy, rather than greed, is the true driving force of capitalism. Empathy is the ability to recognize and understand another person’s feelings and motives, and this is the most important characteristic of successful entrepreneurs.

Take Steve Jobs as an example. He came up with the iPhone and other products because he understood modern consumers’ needs and desires better than most. For many years, the Albrecht brothers were the richest people in Germany. They earned their fortunes from the food discounter Aldi, which was founded on the principle of offering good quality products at very reasonable prices. This was the same recipe for success followed by Sam Walton, the founder of Walmart, who was consistently one of the richest people in the United States. Consumers’ purchasing decisions confirm that Jobs, the Albrecht brothers, and Sam Walton had correctly understood their customers’ desires, needs, and emotions. Like most successful entrepreneurs, it was consumers who made Steve Jobs and the Walton family so rich.

In socialist/communist systems, on the other hand, consumers are powerless and at the mercy of state-owned companies. If a state enterprise acts with no regard for the needs of consumers, they have no alternative under socialism because there is no competition. Under capitalism, consumers can (and do) punish companies that behave selfishly and lose sight of the needs of their customers. Every day, customers vote on the company with their wallets—by buying its products or not. Monopolies under capitalism are a temporary phenomenon. Even companies that appeared omnipotent were eventually ousted by new competitors as soon as they overreached their power and lost sight of their customers’ needs.

But suppose you despise and seek to punish an entire class of people because they’re rich or successful. Is that bigotry, or is that the foundation of a political campaign? Sadly, it’s both. Frequently. Second only to Donald Trump—a specific individual whose sins and virtues we can largely identify and hold him responsible for—the number one punching bag every political season is “the rich.” They are monotonously demonized by candidates who vie for your vote and affection and count on your ignorance and myopia. We will tour the other sections of the narrative sausage factory in subsequent posts.

Climate change infidels: The children shall not lead us.

When I am not reading, writing my own satire, binge-watching Monty Python Flying Circus 6 seasons worth of sketches on Netflix or all 1,001 episodes of Seinfeld on Hulu, mainlining Farside cartoons, or amusing myself with Babylon Bee headlines and their fake photos, I am reading my favorite satirist, James Lileks, who has a column in National Review and the Minneapolis, Star-Tribune. He coined the phrase “climate infidel” and writes about the youth “leadership” of the international climate change feeding frenzy. I need to explain about the BB’s fake photos. They so ridiculous that those who think some of their headlines are real instead of satire (either a commentary on how ridiculous reality has become, or how gullible some people are, or both) can be disabused on that notion.

Lileks to the youth: “Even though you say the world is ending, you will go to college and try to find your way in the world. If you were truly, honestly fearful, you wouldn’t worry about college debt any more than someone strolling to the electric chair is concerned about the interest rate on this credit card for which he was just approved. We worry that the worst of you will go into politics, and the rest will vote for them because they care, and then you’ll be shocked when you’re standing in line with a meat-ration coupon. Like, the coupon should be in an app or something?

“We wish you well. We wish you a society so prosperous that you can spend your idle hours berating people who do not shave the cotton off their Q-tips and recycle the paper stem. But we do not wish to take orders from dour children whose Save the Earth poster occupies a space that had pictures of Pokémon two years ago. This may sound like the meanest, worst thing you’ve ever heard, and it’s going to go contrary to everything you believe, and I am truly sorry to break the news, but it needs to be said.”

Is this not true? Is it not a testament to the dearth of adult leadership in the world? This saying is generally attributed to Winston Churchill and usually quoted as, “If you are not liberal at 20, you have no heart and if you are not conservative at 40 you have no brain.” This aphorism doesn’t apply to “the worst of those” who go into politics and remain at 40. Those who still appear as liberals have a vested interest in doing so. May they all lose.

The immigration debate you’ll never see or hear.

Cartels make billions smuggling people into the U.S.

Hi folks, this is your host, Grand Sheik Ibn-Saud Hassan bin Sobre, and welcome to the first edition of What’s The Truth and Who Cares, sponsored by the International Association of Drug and Kidnap for Ransom Cartels and the No-Islamophobia Brotherhood. Tonight we present the first in a series of debates you’ll never see or hear anywhere else. Our guests are Chiwakeme Crimea-river and Knot Xeno-Phobia. How are you, gentlexem?

ChCri: First of all, it isn’t Crimea-river, it’s Cri-Meariver. Crimea is a white, racist country in Eastern Europe. Now let’s get to the facts.

KnotXen: I am a man, not a xam! I have only 1 X chromosome, but I have two balls and the almighty Y.

Hassan bin Sobre: Sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry, sorry (microphone cuts off). We’re back, I got a little stuck., but I won’t say sorry again..even though I am. Time to present your premises. Cri, you go first.

ChiCri: “Many may not realize that the crude description of migrants as ‘illegal immigrants’ is a relatively recent phenomenon, especially in the context of the southern border of the U.S. In fact, until one very specific year in history—1965—Mexican migrants crossing the U.S. border for work wasn’t considered much of an issue; they just came. For much of US history, there were no laws to break simply by coming to the United States. From 1880 to 1914, the US turned away just one percent of the 25 million European immigrants who made it to their shores. That last year, 1914, served as a watershed year because transatlantic immigration choked off significantly during World War I.

“The Immigration Act of 1917 required all new immigrants to pass a literacy test and pay a tax to mitigate any future expenses they might incur. Interestingly enough, the act excluded immigrants from Canada and Mexico, and Mexican migrant workers did not have to pay the tax because the government assumed they would return home with their earnings. In 1921, the U.S. passed the Emergency Quota Act, which was designed to prevent a stream of Jews fleeing persecution from immigrating to the United States. For the first time in our history, they put caps on the number of people who could immigrate. And they developed a formula that put a quota on how many people from any country could come to the U.S. based on how many people from that country already lived there: three percent.

“The Immigration Act of 1924 or the Johnson-Reed Act banned immigrants from all of Asia and reduced the quota from three percent to two percent based on population figures from the 1890’s. This especially affected Eastern Europeans—Italian, Jewish, and Greek immigrants, many of whom, you may recall, they didn’t consider white. The number of immigrants outside the Western Hemisphere was limited to 165,000 people.

“In 1965, the U.S. government passed the Immigration and Nationality Act also known as the Hart-Celler Act. Congress scrapped the existing visa system of quotas with the expressed intention of limiting discrimination against Asian and African immigrants. The new legislation limited all countries to 20,000 visas per year and capped the annual number of immigrants entering the U.S. at 170,000 visas. So at a time when migrant worker routes from Mexico were deeply etched into our shared geography and when Mexico’s population growth was accelerating, we sharply throttled the number of visas Mexicans could apply for. But the jobs didn’t disappear, and U.S. companies didn’t stop hiring. Naturally, then, migrant workers kept coming. And, not long after, the US began to look to Mexico and talk about this thing called ‘illegal immigration’.”

Hassan bin Sobre: Thank Crimea, I mean Cri, I mean Xr. Meariver, for that cogent but long-winded–I noticed you held your breath the entire time–presentation. What say you, Mr. Xeno-Phobia?

KnotXen: “What ChiCri-me said might be totally true, and completely irrelevant. His camp is always complaining how the laws need to be changed, whether it’s dumping the electoral college or legalizing drugs, then he complains that the immigration laws have been changed. Can you spell hypocrite?”

Hassan bin Sobre “hypo….”

KnotXen: “Stop, that’s known as a rhetorical question. 2019 is a totally different reality. Our government is unintentionally completing a criminal conspiracy to deliver Central American teens from cartels and smugglers, resettling them on our tax dollars, and sending them to our schools, all the while enriching some of the most evil organizations and nourishing the growth of MS-13 and drug traffickers. On April 4, 2019, HHS Secretary Alex Azar told the Senate Appropriations Labor-HHS-Education Subcommittee that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), which cares for and resettles unaccompanied alien children (UACs), will run out of cash before the end of the year. Why? At a pace of about 300-350 UACs arriving each day, HHS is taking custody of roughly 70-80 children from Central America each day who are not immediately released to other family members. Azar said that there are currently 12,340 mainly Central American children in HHS custody and bed space is almost full. We’ve been spending roughly $1.3 billion a year on this program, and Azar revealed at the hearing that the administration transferred $446 million from other HHS programs to help fund the UAC program and that it recently transferred another $385 million.

“Almost all of the Central American teens are self-smuggled into the country to be reunited with immigrant families. That makes them ineligible for the program (UAC) on two accounts–they are not victims of a ‘severe form of trafficking’ and they are not here without relatives. Charging $4,000-$8,000 per illegal, the cartels have made billions off this scam, so they can further ramp up their drug production to kill Americans. In fiscal year 2018, roughly 72 percent of the teens being held in ORR facilities were 15-17 years old, and 71 percent were males. Mark Morgan, former chief of Border Patrol, reiterated April 4, 2019 in testimony before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee what he told me in a previous interview: ‘As chief of the Border Patrol, I toured the detention facilities filled to capacity with unaccompanied minors, 17 years of age or younger, who had illegally entered the country alone, without any parents or guardians. As I looked on, I saw both hardened young men as well as vulnerable and lost youth.’

“I am using the term ‘smuggling’ instead of ‘trafficking.’ Human trafficking is mainly done for labor or sex. A major difference between human smuggling and human trafficking is that human smuggling is commonly done with the consent and knowledge of the smuggled person; in fact they may even pay the smuggler to be smuggled. Mr. Cri cites these law changes up to 1965 as if they weaken an argument for border security, but the 1960’s were the beginning of the breakdown in societal order that continues today. New realities require new approaches. I’m not saying our present system isn’t broken–it is–but ‘open borders’ today means a flood of immigrants, drugs and terrorists. If these immigrants were seeking assimilation into the United States like immigrants from another time who wanted to be Americans more than anything, I’d say ‘welcome’. But multiculturalism killed that hope.”

Hassan bin Sobre: Why do most immigrants come today?

KnotXen: “Despite Mr. Cri’s camp’s favorite narrative, ‘they’re fleeing crime and violence’, the truth is, the majority are seeking a better lifestyle. They are seduced by the promises made by smugglers, what they see on TV, and by the letters from relatives already here about how good they have it compared to ‘back home’. Does it make sense that people “fleeing crime” can afford to pay the smugglers and cartels $4,000-$8,000 each? There’s nothing wrong with wanting to improve your lifestyle, most would make good citizens here, but good citizenship doesn’t start with breaking our laws. We must fix our broken system, but will we ever get the chance with all the vested interests in the brokenness of the system–cartels, terrorists, politicians seeking votes–working against it?

Reparations, Revisionists, and Rivers

The N-word rapids

1- Tucked away behind a stretch of farm land in rural Quebec, about two hours north of Ottawa, are beautiful, pristine rapids that glisten in the sunlight. As striking as these waters are, they have an extremely ugly name. Welcome to Nigger Rapids. A quick search on Google or Bing shows that, yes, this is the correct spelling of the bit of choppy water along the Gatineau River no wider than the length of a hockey rink. But the provincial body that manages Quebec’s place names says there has been little public pressure to rename the sites. After decades of being known by their informal name by the locals, the commission officially recognized the name in 1983. “It was meant to describe the people who died,” LeBlanc said. “There was no pejorative connotation then as there is now.” Changing an official name in Canada is a lengthy process that requires public consultation, LeBlanc said. Not as easy as tearing down statues, is it?

The commission has recognized six place names that include the N-word in English and five that include the word nègre, which in French can mean both Negro and the N-word. A hill 50 kilometers south of Montreal near the U.S. border contains the N-word in its name. In Quebec’s Laurentides region, the commission has recognized three rapids along the Red River that have the N-word in their names. The Niger River was officially spelled with two g’s between 1986 and 2006. It was named for the large presence of African-Americans along its banks in the early 19th century, according to the commission. There’s also Lac du Nègre and Ruisseau du Nègre in west Quebec, Rivière du Nègre near Drummondville, Le Buttereau-du-Nègre on Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Lac à Ti-Nègre near Shawinigan. Is this the same Canada that is north of our border? The one that welcomes the whole world? Interesting, isn’t it, that the word negro denotes ‘black’ in the Spanish and Portuguese, derived from the Latin word, niger, or ‘black’, and it’s okay to call high melanin people black, but not negro, or niger, when they all mean the same thing? McGill University in Montreal has been recording “blackface incidents” since 1841–there have been 343. Jim Goad has helpfully offered to rename the country, Klanada.

2- “Like many show biz extravaganzas in Hollywood, a promised summit meeting of black and white racists and Holocaust revisionists here Saturday did not live up to its advance billing. Only three of the promised 13 speakers and about 15 listeners showed up, who were well outnumbered by reporters and television crews ready to cover the ‘ecumenical hate-fest’ anticipated by Anti-Defamation League officials. Missing was the expected star of the afternoon, Professor Leonard Jeffries of the African-American studies department at the City University of New York, whose list of alleged Jewish conspiracies ranges from control of the colonial slave trade to denigration of black characters in Hollywood movies. Also absenting himself was Willis Carto, founder of the white racist and anti-Semitic Liberty Lobby.

“What the meeting inside the 400-seat hall lacked in numbers and volume was made up by 300 noisy protesters outside, with bullhorns, banners and placards. They displayed and shouted such slogans as ‘No Nazis, No KKK, No Racism’ and ‘KKK Out of L.A.’ One Jewish participant wore a T-shirt emblazoned with a yellow star and the words ‘Auschwitz, Never Again.’ The protesters, mainly blacks but also some whites and Hispanics, identified with a bewildering number of organizations, reminiscent of the 1960s, including the Malcolm X Grass Roots Movement, L.A. Radical Women, International Committee Against Racism and People Against Racist Terror. Makungu Akinyela, spokesman for the Malcolm X group, told a street corner news conference, ‘We have learned from history that advocacy of white privilege and Aryan supremacy will ultimately lead to the genocides of African, Latino, Indian and other ‘non-Aryan’ people.Sounds like something most colleges would love to sponsor today, except: The foregoing two paragraphs are from a Jewish newspaper article, February 1992!

“That conference was organized by the Cosmopolitan Brotherhood Association, a black nationalist and separatist group, purportedly to discuss free speech and to question the uniqueness and veracity of the Holocaust. It was left largely to two speakers to carry the conference message. Robert Brock, president of the Cosmopolitan Brotherhood–promoter of a ‘black ethnostate’–complained bitterly that on one paid attention to what he called the black holocaust. ‘Blacks worked for 245 years and didn’t get paid. You don’t see that in the papers, you only read about Nazis and Jews,’ he said. Brock claimed that ‘whites had spread syphilis among slaves by forcing black women to breed with dogs and that there were 110 million slaves and the Jews brought most of them here’.Brock, the father of the black reparations movement, was an accomplished scammer of his own race. His call for reparations might sound noble, but (probably unrelated), he’d hold reparations ‘seminars’ in black neighborhoods, charging the gullible and often impoverished marks $50 each to file reparations ‘claims’ in their name. Juan Williams detailed this scam in his 2006 book Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America—and What We Can Do About It, writing ‘As crazy as all that seemed, Brock got 165,000 people to hand over fifty dollars before the government caught up with him.’ That’s $8,250,000 that the ‘father of the reparations movement’ scammed from the black community. Lord knows how much he got from moronic white nationalists looking to support his “ethnostate” plan. Reparations for everyone who has ever been exploited!

More bright ideas from the inscrutable mind of man.

“Alas, poor Pizol, I knew Xim/Xer well”

MSNBC political analyst Elise Jordan pressed 2020 presidential candidate Bill Weld on Monday after he mentioned execution as a consequence for President Donald Trump’s alleged treason. Weld responded again by noting that “the only penalty for treason is death,” doubling down on his thought that Trump needs “to be carted off to save us all.”“We have treason,” Weld said after Jordan noted she wanted to continue to see what he meant with his rhetoric. “We can go right for the hoop.” Have hoops replaced lethal injection, or did Weld-former governor of Massachusetts-confuse layups with being laid low? Progress is “not my President” to “dump the electoral college” to “MAGA hat crime” to “death to the President.” Welcome to the new banana republic of the United States of Amerika. Achtung!

“Over the weekend, nearly 250 people hiked up to what remains of Pizol glacier to mourn its melting due to climate change, according to CNN (the BBC said the number was in the ‘dozens’). Many hikers—a predominantly white group —wore all black to mourn the ‘death’ of the Pizol glacier in the Swiss Alps. Some even wore veils. The glacier’s remains sit at an altitude of 8,850 ft., near the borders of Liechtenstein and Austria. The mourners declared it dead at their ceremony on Sunday. At the ceremony, somber speeches were to be delivered by a chaplain and scientists (?) and a wreath was to be laid in remembrance of the glacier.” A follow-up report said that the black outfits shed on the glacier by the mourners who got overheated in the glare at that altitude further hastened the glacier’s demise.

At the University of North Carolina Charlotte, an event called “White Consciousness Conversations for Students” was sponsored by the school’s IEE—for the tragically sleepy among you, that’s the taxpayer-funded institution’s Office of Identity, Equity, and Engagement. The fascinating marketing brochure said: “Understanding the meaning and implications of whiteness and engaging in anti-racist practice is crucial in creating racial equity. This space is for all undergraduate and graduate students at UNC Charlotte who are interested in engaging in conversations to assist in their understanding of how racism is perpetuated individually, culturally, and systemically. This space is intended to be group-based, meaning we would love for participants to attend all sessions. Join in conversation with IEE staff as we work toward racial equity.” Just scintillating! Unfortunately for the IEE, of the roughly 30,000 students at UNC, only 9 showed up. CNN reported that all 30,000 students showed up but there was only room for 9 in the telephone booth.

Recently, a young Iowan named Carson King went viral after being photographed at a football game while holding up a sign “Busch Light supply needs replenished,” and giving his Venmo address for donations. When buckets of beer money began to pour in, King, 24, decided to donate the funds, minus the cost of one case of Busch, to the University of Iowa Stead Family Children’s Hospital. Anheuser-Busch and Venmo got into the act and also pledged money to the hospital, which has raised more than $1.1 million in the viral fundraiser. You’ve heard the aphorism “no good deed goes unpunished?” The feel-good story prompted editors of the Des Moines Register to send reporter Aaron Calvin to meet King for a profile. And during the journalist’s “routine research”, Calvin stumbled on 2012 tweets when King, then 16, seemed to mock black women and the Holocaust. King expressed shock over the tweets and apologized for them. Busch Light parent company Anheuser-Busch InBev said it will sever ties with King, although the company will still match his pledge to the children’s hospital. Routine research? What prompted Calvin to delve into 7 year old tweets? You don’t stumble upon 7 year old tweets. How were they relevant to his gift to the hospital? Modern “journalism?” Slow news day? “Public’s right to know?”

But here’s where it gets interesting. Some keen-eyed Internet sleuths decided to do their own routine background check on Aaron Calvin, the Des Moines Register reporter who wrote the story. Here are some of HIS tweets: 1- They’d rather give me the “nigger please” award, I’d rather have the “I got the cheese award.” Tell it like it is Kanye. 2- Too many of these nigger bitch made nowadays. Don’t pardon my french. 3- @gloomycutie, @benewavvy dude craisins are gay as hell I’m sorry that’s just the reality fo the situation. (this was regarding a gay “wedding”). If there are any typo’s, misspellings or nonsensical words, they are in the tweets. Then there was a new one today from Mr. Calvin: “Hey just wanted to say that I have deleted previous tweets that have been inappropriate or insensitive. I apologize for not holding myself to the same high standards as the Register holds others.This “reporter” appears close to functionally illiterate, if that tortured last sentence and his tweets are any indication. “Inappropriate, insensitive?” Which of those is “nigger bitch”? My translation of his lame pseudo-apology: I am a hypocrite, but I have dutifully deleted the incriminating tweets on penalty of being fired, at least I got in one final shot at my employer, who is even more hypocritical than me or I.