The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: September 2018

A Midsummer Night’s Nightmare

Christine Ford: The Mouse that “roared”

By now, many readers are doubtless sick of reading about the latest whirligigs in the Brett Kavanaugh nomination brouhaha in the Senate Judiciary Committee.  They may have grown tired of all the speculative commentary about how or why the Dems have manipulated the Judicial hearings over Kavanaugh,  commentary with which they probably agree, and which explains how the Dems’ witch hunt plan suits their agenda to defeat Donald Trump and destroy Kavanaugh with the whiny testimony of an alleged rape victim. All in all, the whole charade has been and continues to be nauseous. As many commentators and even Republican Senators have remarked, the hearing’s vicious tone is unprecedented in our political history.
Christine Blasey Ford was obviously coached by her attorneys and the Dems on how and what to say in her testimony, and was probably coached on how to comport herself. I even suspect that she did not compose the typewritten testimony from which she read, as she played with her glasses and fussed with her hair, all the while playing to be a “nervous Nellie,” uncomfortable with her testimony with all eyes, ears, and cameras focused on her.
Wikipedia has an interesting observation on Shakespeare’s comedy, which has four interconnected subplots and a confusing cast of nineteen characters, not including dancing fairies. The comedy is less complex and confusing to follow than has been the Kavanaugh hearing.
In 1972, Ralph Berry argued that Shakespeare was chiefly concerned with epistemology in this play. The lovers declare illusion to be reality, the actors declare reality to be illusion. The play ultimately reconciles the seemingly opposing views and vindicates imagination.
Diane Feinstein and Company subscribe to this notion, and struggle to reconcile illusion and reality. She and her ilk “believe” Ford’s assertions, so, ergo, Kavanaugh “really” attacked Ford, with as much sutstance and evidence as wind storms on Pluto, and he’s automatically guilty (no amount of “mansplaining” by him or any other man will exonerate him). The illusion of guilt becomes a “fact” which must be further investigated by the FBI until the “truth” is discovered, thus delaying his nomination before the national elections at the end of the year. It isn’t as though Feinstein and her Democratic ilk place any importance on truth. Truth to them, if a malleable concept that can be fitted to their political agenda.
One Senator, aside from Lindsey Graham, Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, let Feinstein have it with both barrels:
Starting at the 4:00 mark (video below) Kennedy admonishes: “To the person who leaked Dr. Ford’s letter, to the person who breached Dr. Ford’s anonymity, and to the person who did not tell her she could have avoided this by testifying privately in her home in California, you know who you are. You should bow your head in shame, in my opinion, and you should hide your head in a bag every day for the rest of your natural life.” His remarks were clearly directed at Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), whose shenanigans were exposed at the hearings.
‘It’s not much consolation that in the last days of America the GOP finally found their tongues, but it has been a long time coming. Maybe they realize that if they don’t do something about the hostile coup attempt, the cold war we’ve been in for the last few years could degenerate into a hot one. If the protesters outside Lindsey Graham’s house manage to knock down his door, I have no doubt a hot war is what they intend. And instead of trying to calm the waters and cool passions, the Democrats are fanning the flames.’
Hiding their faces in a bag is not what Dems do. Shame is not in their vocabulary. They wiggle their butts, give all of us the finger, and continue to snort at us. They have power and see it threatened. No scandalous behavior is too low for the Democrats.
Take Jeff Flake, Senator from Arizona.
After announcing he would vote for Kavanaugh, he got mobbed by protestors and bought off by Feinstein and the Dems in a closed door meeting to demand, in “exchange” for his vote for Kavanaugh, yet another year of FBI investigation. Mike Walsh on Conservative News explains:
The flake that flipped
Jeff Flake flaked out and caved to the Democratic demand for an FBI investigation into Brett Kavanaugh. There is a reason why Democrats so desperately want this investigation, and, like everything else they say, it has nothing to do with getting to the truth.
Democrats are not interested in the truth at all, whatsoever. In fact, they’ve already said that Kavanaugh is unfit for the Supreme Court — no matter what the FBI investigation turns up. But it won’t turn up anything, as they are well aware, because there is no evidence, there are no witnesses, and the accuser doesn’t even know the year or place that this attack allegedly took place. They have absolutely nothing to go on. Nothing to investigate. The only thing they can do is ask the people who were allegedly involved or allegedly present. All of them have already been asked under penalty of felony and already denied that the party took place. What else can they say about a party that never occurred? There are only so many ways to say, “This didn’t happen.” Do Democrats want them to say it again in Greek? Do they need to draw a picture of the thing not happening? Do they need to sing it?
The investigation will accomplish nothing of substance and lead nowhere. So why are they so intent on it? Three reasons:
1) It will delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation to give time for more dirt to be dug up.
2) It will delay Kavanaugh’s confirmation to give time to put more pressure on squish Republicans.
3) They hope the FBI will follow irrelevant trails into unconnected but embarrassing matters, thus further destroying Kavanaugh’s reputation.
And, it goes without saying, Democrats will demand another delay after this delay, and they will call the investigation unfair no matter how it’s conducted or how it concludes. Neon Nettle reports:
 Not Diane Feinstein, but Michelle Pfieffer

as Titania, in the 1999 film of MND

In another obvious attempt to further disrupt Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination for the Supreme Court, his accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyer has called for the time limit of one week for the FBI’s investigation into the allegations to be lifted. An agreement reached by the Senate Judiciary Committee to delay the full Senate vote on Kavanaugh’s confirmation, allows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to conduct a week-long investigation into Dr. Ford’s accusations of sexual misconduct against President Trump’s nominee for the Supreme Court.
Now, in a statement released by Ford’s legal team, attorney Deborah Katz has demanded that there should be “no time limit” on the federal probe. That it should go on for  more weeks.
 The better to find more “dirt” on Kavanaugh, real or fabricated. The Dems won’t be satisfied with the FBI’s findings, even if it found that K assaulted a Martian on Venus.

The better to turn Kavanaugh’s confirmation into an unending nightmare.

The Democrats’ Code

The Feinstein Stare
It is ironic that a code of civil law, in which an innocent man is innocent of a crime unless proven guilty, was established under the aegis of a tyrant: Napoleon Bonaparte. It is the Napoleonic Code, adopted in 1804.
The Napoleonic Code (French: Code Napoléon; officially Code civil des Français, referred to as (le) Code civil) is the French civil code established under Napoleon I in 1804.
It was drafted by a commission of four eminent jurists and entered into force on 21 March 1804. The Code, with its stress on clearly written and accessible law, was a major step in replacing the previous patchwork of feudal laws. Historian Robert Holtman regards it as one of the few documents that have influenced the whole world.
….Article 294 of the Napoleonic Code of Criminal Procedure allowed the defendant to have a lawyer before the Court of Assizes (judging felonies), and mandated the court to appoint a lawyer for the defendant if the defendant did not have one (failure to do so rendered the proceedings null).
The new American criminal code, to judge by the conduct of the Judiciary Committee for the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh, is that he is guilty until proven innocent, on the mere improvable assertion that he committed a crime several decades in the past.
Proving Kavanaugh’s innocence is not an option for the Democrats. He is guilty. Period. No questions asked.
Lawyers representing a woman accusing Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of decades-old sexual assault have released a polygraph report conducted as part of an effort to establish the credibility of her claim.
“On August 7, 2018, Christine Blasey reported to the Hilton Hotel, 1739 West Nursery Road, Linthicum Heights, MD 21090, for the purpose of undergoing a polygraph examination,” the report explained. “The examination was to address whether Blasey was physically assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh while attending a small party in Montgomery County, MD.”
The accusations have stalled the nomination of President Donald Trump’s second Supreme Court nominee, who had been slated to replace retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy.
It is beyond suspicion that Senator Diane Feinstein likely cast about for a way to foil Trump and get Kavanaugh’s nomination scotched. Determined to defeat Donald Trump, it is possible that she or her wonks searched for a cat’s paw to write a letter claiming that she was assaulted by Kavanaugh in 1982. That cat’s paw turned out to be Christine Blaley Ford.
Ford’s potholes: We learned today that Ford cannot remember:
 Time/date/location of party – Who drove her to party – Who was at party – Who pushed her into room – Who drove her from party – Date/who paid for her polygraph – Grandmother’s funeral date? But “100% sure” it was Kavanaugh 36 yrs ago!
No corroborators. 2-3 friends deny it happened (or have no recollection of such an event) through sworn statements. Can’t remember where party was. Can’t remember who brought her to the party. Doesn’t know who paid for polygraph (her lawyers).
Doesn’t know if polygraph was recorded for video and/or audio.  Went with polygraph, instead of industry standard ‘forensic interview’ Afraid to fly (even though she flies regularly here and there to exotic locales on business and leisure.
Ford claimed a fear of flying, but that didn’t stop her from flying. Her attorneys “omitted to inform her that Senator Grassley offered to send several Judicial Committee people to California to hear her testimony. When asked about that her attorneys would not let her answer the question. The Western Journal reports:
It seems that even though senators offered to travel to Blasey Ford’s home state of California to meet with her, the anti-Kavanaugh accuser was completely unaware of this possibility … and either Democrats or the woman’s own attorneys may have never told her this was an option.
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had publicly extended an offer for an inquiry into the Palo Alto University professor’s claims to take place near her home location, which would eliminate the need for her to fly across the country — something that she said was difficult because of an apparently non-existent fear of flying.
But strangely, Ford seemed surprised when she was reminded of the offer, and her attorneys quickly pushed themselves in front of the microphone to stop her from talking about it.
In the beginning of the hearing with Ford, Kavanaugh fired back at the Dems with both pistols:
Judge Brett Kavanaugh delivered a fiery opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday afternoon, responding to accusations of sexual misconduct decades ago: “This confirmation process has become a national disgrace … You have replaced ‘advice and consent’ with ‘search and destroy.’”
Senator Lindsey Graham minced no words, either. Business Insider reported:
[To the Dems he said] “What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020. You’ve said that. Not me. You’ve got nothing to apologize for,” he said [to Kavanaugh].
“When you see Sotomayor and Kagan, tell them that Lindsey said hello because I voted for them. I would never do to them what you’ve done to this guy. This is the most unethical sham since I’ve been in politics,” he added, referring to President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominees Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
Addressing Democrats and then Kavanaugh, Graham said, “You had no intention of protecting Dr. Ford.  None. She’s as much of a victim as you are. God, I hate to say it because these have been my friends. But let me tell you, when it comes to this, you’re looking for a fair process, you came to the wrong town at the wrong time, my friend.”
Graham enlightened Kavanaugh and the public during his allotted time.
“Are you aware that at 9:23 on the night of July the 9th, the day you were nominated to the Supreme Court by President Trump, Senator Schumer said, 23 minutes after your nomination, ‘I’ll oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have. I hope a bipartisan majority will do that same,’” Graham asked.
HotAir has some salient comments:
From colleague Connor Marley. Feinstein on Ford. Says Ford “is a woman that has been, I think, profoundly impacted, on this..I can’t say that everything is truthful. I don’t know.”
On the one hand, what else can she say? As surely as the sun rises and sets, every Democrat in the Senate, Feinstein included, will claim to believe Ford over Kavanaugh by next Monday evening. But in the meantime they have to remain nominally undecided on the facts of what happened. They’re staying open-minded ‘n stuff until the hearing.
Feinstein, in so many words, says she believes Ford:
“Look I believe she is credible. What we have wanted is an investigation carried out to look at the facts before there was a hearing. The republican majority is apparently not going to do that. But based on what I know at this stage she is credible.”
The Dems also believe there was a connection between Donald Trump and the Russians, and spent about a year and a half looking for it, finding nothing.  They seem to be hooked on looking for mirages, in Russia and in Maryland, and creating them if they don’t shimmer on the road to power. The Dems, like Napoleon, have an appetite for supremacy.

Harpies of the Left

Diane Feinstein, harpy

Ancient Greek mythology offers the “Harpies,” foul, winged, bird-like creatures whose purpose was to berate, annoy, pester, torture, and otherwise make the lives of mortals miserable. They have a variegated genealogy in mythology.
The chief harpy in our time is Maxine Waters, the mentally ill representative from California who has promised to “get Trump.” She regularly bloviates against Donald Trump using threatening language to spur her “followers” to take action against the president. The net worth of Maxine Waters is presently assessed around $1.5 million. She is infamous now for advocating that fellow Trump haters harass anyone associated with Trump and his presidency. She is most infamous at present for urging followers – harpies in training – on the occasion of immigrant families being separated, to harass Trump people in restaurants, gas stations, anywhere
A Breitbart article notes:
Waters was roundly criticized after calling on her supporters to “create a crowd,” and “push back,” against Trump administration officials over its border policies. “You tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” the Congressional Black Caucus member said while speaking in front of Los Angeles’ Wilshire Federal Building.
The California Democrat in June told MSNBC she has “no sympathy,” for Trump administration officials who have been subjected to public harassment. “They tend to not want to confront this president or even leave, but they know what they’re doing is wrong,” Waters said. “I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store. They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you,’” she added.
Waters had been “reprimanded” in Congress for advocating violence against Trump staffers and a motion to censure her has been introduced.
Arizona Rep. Andy Biggs on Monday introduced a measure that would censure Rep. Maxine Waters and ask her to resign for inciting people to publicly confront Trump administration officials.
Biggs told The Hill that Waters’ comments do “not become somebody who’s in Congress” and warrant disciplinary action.
“So we just introduced it, we have some cosponsors, but what she did was to basically incite people to come after and attack members of the president’s cabinet,” the Arizona Republican told The Hill. “And also spread that out to more people.”
Figures like Waters have nothing else do but hate and rake in their ill-gotten gains. Waters’ Jim Jones-like fans keep calling Trump and others “fascists” (when the only fascists in their corner is Antifa), and you have to wonder if they’re all obsessed with John Cleese’s Nazi imitation on “Fawlty Towers.”  These creatures have no idea what a “fascist” is; it’s just a word to them, with cloudy images of Germans in Hugo Boss wardrobes goose-stepping. To them, it has no relevance to fact or history. Knowledge, to them, is rejected as “fascist.”
The latest episode of harpy harassment involves Ted Cruz, a junior Senator from Texas, and his wife dining at a DC restaurant and were “driven” out of the place by chanting protestors (aka harpies). This harpy incident was reported in numerous sites.
The catch is that the restaurant manager’s staff took Cruz and his wife to a “safe place” until the harpies left. Crux and his wife returned and finished their meal.
DHS Secretary Kirtstjen Nielsen was driven out of a Mexican restaurant in D.C. last night by activists shouting “shame” and excoriating her for the Trump administration’s policy separating children from their parents at the U.S. border.
The protesters were from the D.C. area chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
Maxine Waters, harpy supreme
In June, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, press secretary for Trump, was asked to leave the Red Hen restaurant in Lexington, VA by the restaurant owner. USA TODAY reports:
WASHINGTON – White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was asked to leave a restaurant in Virginia Friday night by the business owner because of her connection to President Donald Trump, Sanders acknowledged Saturday on Twitter.
“Last night I was told by the owner of Red Hen in Lexington, VA to leave because I work for @POTUS and I politely left,” Sanders tweeted. “Her actions say far more about her than about me. I always do my best to treat people, including those I disagree with, respectfully and will continue to do so.”
The restaurant’s Facebook page was inundated with posts supporting Sanders and deriding the restaurant in Lexington, about a three-hour drive southwest of Washington, D.C. Calls to the restaurant were routed to a voicemail box that was full.
This was before the Kavanaugh Judicial confirmation hearing. In the meantime, a Democratic Senator “believes” Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations without any corroborating or substantial evidence.  The Western Journal reported on September 24:
A Democratic senator implied Sunday that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh should be denied the presumption of innocence because she disagrees with his rulings as a judge.
Hawaii Democrat Mazie Hirono made it clear during a Sunday interview on CNN’s “State of the Union” that her views on Kavanaugh were shaped by her revulsion to his political beliefs…
CNN’s Jake Tapper wondered whether there was a double standard for conservative judges and other Americans.
“Doesn’t Kavanaugh have the same presumption of innocence as anyone else in America?” Tapper asked.
Hirono evaded a direct answer.
“I put his denial in the context of everything that I know about him in terms of how he approaches his cases,” she said.
She then framed a further response in partisan terms.
 “His credibility is already very questionable in my mind and the minds of a lot of my fellow judiciary committee members, the Democrats,” she said. “He has an ideological agenda that’s very outcome driven…”
When Tapper asked again about the presumption of innocence, Hirono replied, “Well, I believe her — let’s put it that way.”

A Democratic strategy meeting

And neither Hirono nor Diane Feinstein nor any of the other Democrats rooting for Ford have an “ideological agenda”?
“We believe survivors,” was the chant the harpies yelled at Cruz and his wife in the DC restaurant.  “We believe, regardless.” Reality is optional. To paraphrase Johnny Cochran, O.J. Simpson’s lawyer, “If the truth doesn’t fit what we feel ought to be the outcome, you can’t acquit Kavanaugh.”
She has also, from the beginning, rejected the concept of fairness for Kavanaugh.
“Judge Kavanaugh has not earned the benefit of the doubt,” she said in a July 9 statement issued the day President Donald Trump nominated Kavanaugh.
Let’s foil Trump, say the harpies. Put Kavanaugh and Trump and the American public through excruciating pain.

Targets of Malice

This column is a follow-up of my “Amazon Bans Cline” column, in which I emulate Jeff Bezos’s fictional announcement that he is banning all my books from the Amazon sales platform.  Now I link the ongoing, all-too-real farce of Brett Kavanaugh’s Judiciary nomination hearing to a fictional inquest in the Cyrus Skeen series, set mostly in San Mateo, California, in 1927. In this story, Inquest, a local assistant district attorney tries to pin a manslaughter charge on Skeen. The similarities between Skeen’s inquest, about whether or not he murdered a criminal, and Kavanaugh’s confirmation circus, are too similar to ignore.

Definition of inquest 

           1a : a judicial or official inquiry or examination especially before a jury a coroner’s inquest
       b : a body of people (such as a jury) assembled to hold such an inquiry
           c : the finding of the jury upon such inquiry or the document recording it
A succinct definition from Wikipedia is:
An inquest is a judicial inquiry in common law jurisdictions, particularly one held to determine the cause of a person’s death. Conducted by a judge, jury, or government official, an inquest may or may not require an autopsy carried out by a coroner or medical examiner. Generally, inquests are conducted only when deaths are sudden or unexplained.
The inquest in San Mateo was focused on the deceased Josephus Kringal. The Foreword to my novel reads:
Struggling to make a success of his detective agency, Skeen finds himself the target of an ambitious local assistant district attorney after an inquest is held surrounding the death of a criminal Skeen had tried to subdue and have him arrested; but the criminal resisted and chose to fight, resulting in the criminal’s death.
Skeen may be charged with manslaughter. The inquest is ended, over the medical examiner’s objections, with the assistant district attorney attempting to charge Skeen with manslaughter and demanding that he be arraigned on the charge. It is early February 1927. This is the twenty-seventh Cyrus Skeen detective novel. Skeen reflects on a case from earlier in his detective career, shortly after he had set up shop in San Francisco as a private detective.
It cannot be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Skeen deliberately had pulled the trigger that killed the criminal, or that the criminal had inadvertently shot himself with the gun as Skeen wrestled to get it away from him. Ford cannot prove the truth of her accusations, which have no substantial, provable evidence
The Kavanaugh nomination hearing is synopsized here:
In July 2018, Christine Blasey Ford sent a letter to Senator Diane Feinstein claiming that Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a party in 1982. Feinstein held onto the letter as the hearing of Kavanaugh ended, choosing to reveal it and its contents thus delaying a vote on his confirmation to the SCOTUS. Keeping up with the Judicial Committee hearings, it has taken on the tone of an inquest into Kavanaugh’s character and history, in which he has been judged by mere unsubstantiated say-to.
The longer that the Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegation scandal continues, the worse it looks for the accuser.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, the lawmaker whom Christine Blasey Ford confided in with her accusations, has done a great job at destroying any credibility Ford had going into this. By being informed of her allegations in the form of a letter back in July, and waiting until a week before Kavanaugh’s Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation vote to release the details, Feinstein has tainted Ford’s claims. Now, many suspect the allegations are too politically timed to be believed. Even some Senate Democrats are displeased by the suspect timing.)
At the beginning of this saga, Ford could have made a real, substantive case about her alleged assault. She could have made the allegations and demanded a full inquiry. Instead, she waited to go public, and, in turn, undermined her own case. Now Ford is refusing to testify before Congress, despite her attorney agreeing that she would just days prior.)
But it gets worse. It turns out that Sen. Feinstein’s office is withholding a key piece of information related to the Kavanaugh investigation: Ford’s unredacted original letter detailing the assault.
Now, if Feinstein really wanted to get to the bottom of what happened between Kavanaugh and Ford, you’d think she would share that letter with the rest of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is investigating the incident currently.
In Inquest, the assistant district attorney attempts to force Skeen to confess that he deliberately shot the criminal. Skeen does not. In the course of questioning, he handily dismisses the notion that he deliberately shot the criminal.
 The medical examiner, Hershel Frum,  who is on the panel along with the county sheriff who found the criminal’s body, protests the assistant district attorney’s line of questioning. The assistant district attorney declares the inquest concluded:
Lawrence Werner read from a prepared statement:
“The addendum has been called at the request of County Assistant District Attorney Lawrence Werner. Mr. Werner asserts that he noted irregularities in the manner of Mr. Kringal’s demise when Mr. Skeen engaged Mr. Kringal in a desperate struggle for the revolver in Mr. Kringal’s possession, and with which Mr. Kringal had a number of times fired at Mr. Skeen, striking him once in a non-lethal manner. These irregularities, which will soon be discussed, have convinced Mr. Werner that the possibility of a charge of wrongful death against Mr. Skeen may be justified, and also a charge of manslaughter in a suit by the county and by Mr. Kringal’s survivors, if any….”
The medical examiner then read from his autopsy report on the death of the criminal.
Frum sighed and added, “Sheriff Nicoloff is holding the revolver as evidence in his homicide investigation. He has had the weapon test-fired to compare the slugs from this revolver found in Mr. Kringal’s cranium and those from the plaster ceiling of his domicile. Our forensics department attests that they are all indeed were fired from the revolver. The slug which grazed Mr. Skeen’s waist could not be found, as it traveled from Mr. Skeen’s waist through a screen door. Two other slugs from the same weapon struck Mr. Kringal’s vehicle, which was parked outside close to the porch, and while they have been extracted from the vehicle and tentatively identified, the department could not swear they are from the same weapon. They had been too marred and shorn of identifiable markings for having struck hard metal. Possibly the slug that struck Mr. Skeen is one of them….
…“Projectile fired by the revolver at close proximity to the subject entered the under space of the mentum with such force that it not unexpectedly traveled from the undershot jaw or mandible, and the expelled gas from the explosion was such that it left a burn mark on the deceased’s skin in that area. The projectile entered initially into the submaxillary triangle and up through the tongue and soft palate, and passed through the vomer, partially disintegrating the sella turica, thence to the sphenoid sinus, and finally burrowing upward through the brain, coming to rest near the top of the skull, about an inch from the uppermost extremity of the parietal bone….”
Werner made some threats against Skeen. Skeen’s lawyer takes action:
Rouse rose from his seat and asked, “Is Mr. Skeen is being charged with anything?”  He paused and went on before Werner could reply. “I otherwise find these proceedings as frivolous and out of order, and lacking in dignity.”
Hershel Frum grinned, seemingly glad that Werner was being opposed.
Werner also grinned. It was a wicked grin. “That remains to be seen, sir. Mr. Frum, please read from Mr. Skeen’s deposition as recorded by Sheriff Nicoloff. Then Mr. Skeen will be orally examined…”
Frum read the dry statement I’d made to Nicoloff, taken by a stenographer and transcribed.

In answer to a question about his identity, Skeen says:
I smiled. “I am Jose Wannatabe, chief shaman of the Loose Goose Tribe of the Western Addition of San Francisco. My rain dances have ended many a drought.”
Several spectators snickered or laughed.
Hershel Frum abruptly rose and shouted at Werner. “I am done with this proceeding! This is a farce! We already know who he is and what he does! I would not blame him for turning this inquest into a greater farce than it is now!”
Werner shot up and faced Frum. “This is my proceeding, Mr. Frum! If you don’t sit down and be quiet I’ll have you escorted from the room!”
Frum jabbed a finger on the lapel of Werner’s jacket. “Pardon me, child, but this is my proceeding, and you are making a mockery of it! I did not understand in the beginning that you intended to railroad Mr. Skeen into a raft of false charges!” He turned, picked up the gavel near his mass of papers, and hammered the table twice. “This inquest is concluded!” He dropped the gavel, scooped up his papers, and left the table. He made to get past Werner, who stood in his way.
Sheriff Nicoloff also rose and his huge frame blocked Frum’s exit. The officer planted a hand on the wall and smiled at Frum.
Frum shouted at him, “Get out of my way, you pathetic oaf!”
I stepped forward and put a hand on Nicoloff’s shoulder. “Get out of his way, Sheriff,” I said softly.
Nicoloff turned to me.
“Or else what, Snoop?” So, we were back to that again. Nicoloff’s expression was an ugly one that dared me to touch him with anything but a hand on his shoulder.
Skeen escorts Frum away from Werner and Sheriff Nicoloff.
Rouse, Frum, and Skeen leave the inquest room. In the courthouse lobby, Skeen speaks with the local newspaper editor, who is covering the inquest, and learns that Lawrence Werner is a graduate of a Progressive law school near Portland, Oregon, the Sequoia Commons Law School, and was a recent hire of Hayden Sanger, the District Attorney, who is on vacation. Skeen investigates the school, which has a shady history.
Sanger dismisses Werner and exonerates Skeen.  Skeen investigates the school, which has a shady history.
Werner was a law clerk for a late Oregon Supreme Court justice.
There was no political agenda that Skeen can see behind Werner’s wanting to charge him with a crime. Werner was a Progressive, and charging people with crimes without a smidgen of proof was and still is what Progressives do and have done for decades. Observe the Kavanaugh confirmation circus. That circus is simply the application of Rule 12 from Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.
RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism
Kavanaugh has been targeted. Who knew? Diane Feinstein is an Alinsky creature and Charles Schumer’s hand-puppet. .
What led to the aborted inquest was that Skeen investigated the murder of a retired Cuban campaign veteran in a nursing home in Redwood City and found the murderer, Josephus Kringal, an aid at the nursing home, in San Bruno. He also learns that Sheriff Nicoloff had stolen the murder victim’s life savings when he investigated the vet’s murder.

Inquest ends with the usual satisfactory duel between good and evil, between Skeen and the chief villain. Justice is delivered with a .38 bullet.

Amazon Bans Cline: A Parody?

Moved by numerous customer complaints to Amazon that Edward Cline’s novels violated norms of current moral and community standards, Jeff Bezos, the owner of the book seller, has decided to banish the novels from sale on the platform.  This is not an unprecedented action.  He has recently banished other writers’ books for the same reason, such as Roosh Vörek’s Game, which is a harmless, “sexist”guide to dating.  
Cline has approximately sixty-nine titles on Amazon, published by Create Space and Kindle, including several non-fiction titles that attack Islam and living politicians. These are collections of several of his Rule of Reason columns. Paramount among these titles is his seven-book Sparrowhawk series about the American Revolution – which does not conform to the current revisionist interpretation of the period and is offensive on several levels.
In addition to the historical series, are several dozen detective novels, dominated by the Cyrus Skeen series, set in the 1920s and 1930s. These latter novels, whose stories take place in San Francisco, unrealistically portray a period in which the detective combats and foils Communists, Progressives, all depicted as villains, and also run-of-the- mill criminals, because he is consistently of the conservative, pro-gun, and alt-right suasion. The baddies are irredeemably bad, and Skeen is always the good. The first of this series is China Basin, in which the author derogates gays, modern theatre, and lonely widows, among other offenses.
In An August Interlude he defends his wife’s artist’s model and portrays a convent that pimps out novitiates to a high class bordello next door to the convent. Amazon has received innumerable complaints from Catholic Church spokesmen about this title. It depicts and condones violence against women when Skeen shoots some nuns.
One of the most offensive titles is The Black Stone, in which the detective is at odds with the early agents of the Islamic civic rights organization, The Muslim Brotherhood, closely tied to today’s Council of American Islamic Relations (CAIR).  Skeen not only defeats and kills the agents, but subjects Islam to insensitive, disparaging mockery, as do his wife and a reporter friend. These are not characters one can admire and emulate when the subject is Islam.

Another top selling Skeen novel is A Crimson Overture, in which Skeen works to “avenge” the murder of a British spy. In this number he terminates a few Russian or Soviet spies and exposes a British diplomatic official as another “Red.” One admiring female reader commented, “A Crimson Overture is the latest in a series about the all-American Cyrus Skeen, my new detective hero. Skeen is smart, cultured, honest, brave, confident, handsome, and individualistic (which together, in my eyes, equals sexy). This and other of Cline’s Skeen novels are popular and sell dozens of Kindle and print copies every month. There are very few thumbs-down reviews. You have to question the tastes of the admirers as well as the credibility of the detective hero and the lingering yearning in our society for so-called plotted novels and squeaky-clean heroes as opposed to the struggling but enlightening literature of modern “steam of conscious” novels which tackle the real problems of our day.
The FBI, known then as the BOI, or the Bureau of Investigation, gets high marks from Cline and Skeen. Skeen has friends in the Bureau.  It was not the compromised, corrupted federal organization that it is today.
Cline even takes a swipe at unions in The Gumshoe Guild, when Skeen goes nose-to-nose with San Francisco dockworker leader Harry Bridges, who has “organized” the city’s private investigators. Skeen refuses to join the “union,” but Bridges insists that he merge with the shape up, and sparks, of course, fly and men die.
 Perhaps the most outlandish of the Skeen novels is The Daedâlus Conspiracy, set mostly  in Daedâlus Grove in Monte Rio, California. The Daedâlus Society in San Francisco, like its doppelganger the Bohemian Club, holds an annual summer encampment in the Grove, surrounded by redwoods and attended by high-muck-a-mucks from all quarters of economic and political power. It is an ambitious title. Skeen is hired to determine whether or not a plot to assassinate one of the attending politicians is afoot. Discovering a strange code used by the plotters, he untangles and foils the scheme and inadvertently kills the assassin. This denouement takes him back to the city, and he finishes the job. There are more murders, of course.
Cline’s novels, especially the Skeen novels, are not of our time, demonstrably not of our disposition and spirit, and serve to encourage the individualistic and stand-apart arrogance of a bygone time. Therefore, they should be banished, pushed to the side as pettifogging retorts to what must be said and has been said. His other two series, set in our own sorry time, feature private detective Chess Hanrahan, and Merritt Fury, a James Bond-like a fist-happy entrepreneur, set in New York City, are of the same ilk and laughable mettle.  Skeen, Hanrahan, and Fury are supposed to be super heroes without capes or costumes or super powers, armed with only their “smarts” and their steroid-inflated egos. It’s a wonder they have any powers at all because they smoke and drink to distraction, which should leave modern readers clucking their tongues.
They all pursue what passes in their stories for truth, justice, and the “American” way. His sparse non-fiction titles, which are collections of columns from his blogs, are the author’s way of venting his cerebral spleen, inadequate as it might be, but nevertheless are  dangerous to the happy, content health to the national commonwealth. Readers would be better off not knowing they exist.


No Brainers: Walkers and Graphic Novels

I used to be an occasional viewer of The Walking Dead (TWD), a series which depicted the efforts and determination of a group of people to survive an apocolypse in a newly hostile and dangerous world. It was fascinating chiefly because of the character development of two of the principal characters, Carol Peletier and Daryl Dixon (played by Melissa McBride and Norman Reedus). The conflicts and problems they encountered teased my interest. Although attached to the group, Carol (Peletier) and Daryl (Reedus) were essentially loners who made their own decisions and took their own and often controversial actions, often conflicting with those of the leader, Rick Grimes (Andrew Lincoln), who often wavered between being a man of forceful action and a backsliding, mentally unstable wacko. Grimes swore to kill the super villain, but instead commits him to a jail cell, much to the consternation of some of his friends, who lost friends to Negan’s bat and whimsy.

I gradually lost interest in the series when Carol and Daryl were sidelined by the showrunner and his writers to inconsequential subplots, and when Negan, the glib super villain, debuted with his barbed-wire baseball bat at the end of Season Six and became the series’ plot focal point from there on. The series struggled to “humanize” Negan and make him acceptable as the series went far off the narrative and plot rails, complicating what ought to have been a simple, vertical story flow, introducing new survivor groups, “communities,” and characters, and stirring into the basic story more ingredients than in a bowl of Carol’s casserole (which became a running joke) .  An unhealthy obsession with Negan and the allegedly metaphysical potency of evil has been a leitmotif of the series from almost the very beginning (although Negan did not become the series pièce de résistance for several Seasons; Rick didn’t kill him, as he promised to but bloviated and made an empty threat when Negan was about to bash Carl’s brains out).

Another development that turned me off completely from TWD was that Rick, who, for moral guidance, quotes from the Koran: “Let my mercy prevail over my wrath.” (First spoken by a Muslim in the opener of Season 8.)and later when he’s waking up years later. See my Rule of Reason column, “CAIR : New Showrunner?” from October 2017, and also “CAIR: The Walking Dead’s New Showrunner?

I should mention here that I am not a fan of Stephen King type “scare” or zombie movies (though I did watch iZombie, on Netflix, because a female zombie solved murders in Seattle; this series was occasionally amusing, and also because Rose McGiver, the star, was rather fetching and huggable). But the whole idea of zombies is a legitimate possibility as a theme. But  zombies are metaphysically impossible and ridiculous. They exist only in fiction or literature.
I stopped watching this series when Susan Rice was appointed to the Netflix board, and when the Obamas were contracted to produce “original” shows for the channel.
A few of the inconsistencies in the series are: in a very early episodes, zombies could pick up things and use them as weapons or tools, such in as in Season 1,when one uses  a rock to break the glass of a department store door to attack the living inside. Throughout the rest of the series this kind of behavior does not happen. Also, early in the series a single shot from the gun would stop or kill one. Throughout the rest of the series it was the head that had to be shot or knifed (especially in the temple by the ear) to terminate a zombie; bullets did not stop “the walking dead.”). Obviously, the later writers for the series were not on the same page as the early ones.
In Season 1, episode 6, a pseudo-scientific explanation of how zombies move and act is offered by Dr. Jenner of the CDC (in Atlanta, where the group has found refuge) about how a person  is transformed into a zombie (which is eerily analogous to the Trump Derangement Syndrome in Democrats and Social Justice Warriors; their brains are rendered inoperative by hatred for Trump).  Zombies in TWD also automatically develop an insatiable appetite for living flesh (animal or human) as well as acute senses of smell and hearing to detect the living. Regular fans of the series take all this seriously without question. See my Rule of Reason column “Parallels in Evil II” from October 2016. In the Jenner/CDC YouTube segment, all of the characters, except for Rick, Daryl, and Carol, later die, usually horribly, from walker bites, including Carl and Sophie, the kids.
The roaming “undead” are called “walkers” by Rick’s group.
It’s not so curious that Gale Ann Hurd, one of TWD’s producers, was also an early co-producer of The Terminator, a story that has lent itself to Graphic Novel treatment (there are several knock-offs of the story in four subsequent film versions). Given the simplified dialogue in all the films, except for some semi-moralistic dialogue in TWD, it is also not surprising to learn that the films have spawned dozens of Terminator comic books and graphic novels.
But, then, the series is based on a comic book or what is now called a “graphic novel,” Robert Kirkman’s TWD series.  Graphic novels existed decades ago when classic or popular literature appeared in comic book form (not as books), and were not called “novels.” As a kid, I read a few of these; they introduced me to stories that I would later read in their literary entirety, without the aid of connect-the-dots visual illustrations: War and Peace, The Time Machine, Notre-Dame de Paris, Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking- Glass, The Last of the Mohicans, even the Bible, and many more.
“Classic” comic books – and now graphic novels – save a reader the trouble of reading a story and allows him to skip time- and attention –consuming descriptions of characters, motives, and action. The novels omit the “meat” of a story (provided the story is worth telling) and offers instead a bowl of white rice. Often the original stories were “adapted” to simplify a story line, change the story, or were adulterated to protect young readers from allegedly prurient material (I remember that the Garden of Eden illustrations of Adam and Eve in the Bible comic book I flipped through back then. They were suggestive; they piqued my curiosity, causing me to wonder; Did Eve really look like a fashion model but sans fashion? Was Adam really a “hunk”?)

Peter Strzok, AkA Negan, shaved

The ubiquity and popularity of graphic novels today – there are separate sections of bookstores devoted to them, with cramped shelves occupied by Kirkman’s TWD novels – underscore the prevalence of semi-illiteracy and mental laziness in the culture. Why read about conflicts in The Count of Monte Cristo or The Man who Laughs when one can read dialogue balloons and text beneath cartoons to grasp a story, helped by the illustrations that stand in for one’s own imagination and replace one’s capacity for objectification and discovering one’s own first-hand values? Publishers Weekly, the leading U.S.  book review magazine, has an entire section about graphic novels and comic books. Doubtless, given the state of the study of literature today, there are college courses on graphic novels; why study Shakespeare, Aeschylus, or Mark Twain? If they are studied, they are excoriated from the lens of the post-modern anger of “dead white males” and the so-called patriarchy of minority oppression.
American students, from K-1 to post-graduate studies, are being tutored and “entertained” by Marxist, Progressive, walker-terminators. They mean to darken every brain they can infect.


Laughing at Islam

I am not going to take the bait and spend time trying to ferret out the identity of the New York Times’ “anonymous” letter writer  who claims that he is a member of the Trump administration and that he and several other members of the Trump staff are “resisting” the President.
“I am part of the resistance inside the Trump Administration. I work for the president but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.” For the past few days, the world has been engrossed in an elaborate guessing game to unmask the author of the now infamous anonymous September 5th NY Times Op-Ed.
Enough said. As a kid, I didn’t much like the game, Pin the Tail on the Donkey, either. So, I’ll go directly to the subject, which is the many ways that Islam  can cause laughter.
I opened my last column, “Casper the Unfriendly Ghost” with:
To get to the nub of this column, Allah is a “nothingburger,” a ghost, much like Robert Mueller’s pursuit of a connection between Donald Trump and the Russians.  Allah is as much a creation of man as is Casper the Friendly Ghost, a cartoon character drawn on boards by illustrators who have shot glasses of whisky at hand, for films, comic books, and newspaper panels.
There was no connection between Donald Trump and the Russians for Mueller to uncover (fruitlessly and tediously for over a year now, an investigation that  hovers in cost between  $17 million and $30 million), but there is at least one definite connection between Russians and presidential candidates, between  Hillary Clinton,  Barack Obama, and the Russians worthy of investigation (Uranium One), but which Mueller and his Deep State colleagues refuse to launch. Then FBI Director James Comey spiked any legal actions against Clinton. Mueller and his cohorts would rather chase after ghosts and imaginary specters and protect their contemptible ilk than search for justice.
Just as Muslims prefer to believe in a ghost. Perhaps the most hilarious ritual is the salah,  when Muslims remove their shoes or sandals and “pray,” and then fall to their knees and  bow and flash their derrieres to Allah in “submission.” Aside from raising their hind- ends they also are obligated to bang their foreheads on the ground. The person with the most visible black and blue mark on his forehead is considered to be very devout.  I know that the “submission’ to Allah is the standard explanation for the ritual, but it still strikes me as Muslims offering their butts for Allah to kiss, or they are mooning the deity, or the West.
Of course, Islam is no laughing matter, when one recalls all the jihadi attacks on the West and around the world in the name of Islam.
And then there’s Wuḍū, a ritu – not to be confused with The Twist performed in preparation for prayers, typically done in preparation for formal prayers (salat) and also before handling and reading the Qur’an. Impurifying activities that invalidate Wuḍūinclude urination, defecation, flatulence, deep sleep, light bleeding, and sexual intercourse. Many businesses and schools have had installed special bathrooms where Muslims can wash their feet and other parts of their anatomy without interfering with non-Muslims needing a restroom.
One must ask oneself: “Does it really matter what a Muslim washes if he cleans his derriere with a bare finger, and leaves the filth on a wall as though it were chewing gum left on the bottom of a movie theater seat? Is this cultural enrichment, or is it restroom diversity?”
Lacking water, it is permitted for a Muslim to use stones to wash any part of his body, especially his private parts and armpits.  Allahu Akbar! If you believe in something, do it for Allah! It will please him. Ouch!”
Islam also has the voluntary, slap-happy ritual of female genital mutilation or (FGM), which is practiced to rob women of sexual pleasure with government sanction just about everywhere. Women enjoying sex is verboten; in the Islamic universe, it’s assumed this is a Muslim “man’s world.”
Mass mooning the West, or inviting Allah to kiss their butts?

In addition, Islam is noted for spreading peace and goodwill. Its St. Franicis of Assisi– like record is indisputable, as meticulously detailed in Robert Spencer’s The History of Jihad. The Koran, the Hadith, and Reliance of the Traveler (the latter not to be mistaken for an AAA tour manual) are replete with glad-handing homilies to Muslims to befriend an infidel and join a Jew in the Hebrew hora.
The Islamic doppelganger of that hora is the Sufi version, which is about as joyous as undergoing amputation on a battlefield. Complimenting that is another Islamic, collectivist “ring around the Rosy May poll” version, also of Sufi origin. To participate in this men-only dance one needs to have imbibed at least a spoonful of L-dopa to get one into the dance mood and become “hip.”  Flawless footwork and deodorant are very crucial; shoes optional.  Not exactly the Gym Dance in West Side story (women need to be added in place of the wide skirts worn by the dervishes) but it might do for the time being, although it’s not the Mambo.


Your culture or social milieu

So, you were curious about Intersectionality and how it works? This is Intersectionality 101; we’re here to help you learn how powerful and influential you are. Especially if you’re white. Intersectionality is closely connected to the Catholic doctrine that a newborn baby is automatically stained with a sin even though he is patently blameless. That doctrine is a partner of intersectionality, which may even derive from the notion of Original Sin.
I left this comment at the end of my column on “Whiteness.”
Not discussed here is how “whiteness” is inexorably linked to the bizarre idea of “intersectionality” which is a sticky sump of Marxist thought, in which “whiteness” is a culpable “power broker” in how it contributes to the oppression of minorities, gays, women, and people who wear blue socks. A description of intersectionality resembles instructions on how to assemble a jigsaw puzzle of one of Jackson Pollack’s canvases of smears, streaks, drips, and blobs.
The first thing is that you are probably white and can read this before your mind grows dull and you nod off. But read in full, it will nevertheless cause you to experience an epiphany and ignite excitement in your synapses and urge to tell your friends about it and refer them to this column. That’s you exercising your white privilege. You’re sharing your experience, for good or bad. You cannot predict where or when your experience will affect others. News of it might wind up in Sweden or the Sudan or affect someone in Indianapolis.  And mysteriously oppress a “marginalized” person who is not white.
And if someone sees this and objects to it, he might go on a stabbing or acid-in-the-face attack, but you would be to blame, you and every other white who exuded his vile, white cultural imperialism. So many other colored jigsaw pieces are interlocked with your white one, and with countless other white pieces, that even if you did not intend to influence a colored piece’s mind or actions, it can happen nevertheless, because of the sheer volume of white influences.
As Wikipedia points out:
Intersectionality is an analytic framework which attempts to identify how interlocking systems of power impact those who are most marginalized in society.  Intersectionality considers that various forms of social stratification, such as class, race, sexual orientation, age, disability and gender, do not exist separately from each other but are interwoven together.
Thus, your recommendation can influence the thinking or values of someone who is “pro-gun,”  is an advocate of freedom of speech, is pro-capitalism, against open borders, an opponent of unlimited Mexican and Islamic immigration, and supports a host of other “white” ideas and causes. You never know how your agreement with them will serve to sustain the ubiquity in society of those ideas and causes throughout the culture. The prevalence of such ideas can smother the values and practices adhered to by “marginalized” groups, such as Muslims.
The religious beliefs of Muslims can be unjustly marginalized by the constantly voiced assertion that Sharia, an integral element of Islam that governs Muslim lives, is incompatible with the Constitution. The assertion can come in many forms, all calculated to belittle Muslims and their beliefs: cartoons that mock Mohammad, editorials that criticize certain Islamic rituals, its treatment of women,  books that examine Islam and its history, and vociferous speeches that denigrate Islam and Muslims (intentionally or not)  – a Muslim is surrounded by these things every day. He has Muslim organizations that answer these phenomena (such as the Council of American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR) with the goal of having his beliefs accepted as normal and in some cases even adopted by non-Muslim institutions. But the Muslim is touched by white jigsaw pieces wherever he turns. It is continual vilification and denigration to reduce the stature and esteem of being a Muslim, or to make him think he is backward and a third-class citizen and persuade him to keep his place 
The religion of Scientology is also subjected to the same malign intersectional process in the name of white ”civilization.”  And the Amish. And Kabbalah. There are numerous other kinds of intersectionality—black, Asian, Jewish, Hispanic, Indian, Middle Eastern, and so on – and while they exert  some power, they all default insidiously in little, hard-to-trace ways but often in blatant, imperious, and arrogant condescension, to the white.
Civilization – an arbitrary construct, at best – owes everything we take for granted today, in medicine, science, technology, the arts, politics, to whites, and the white narrative pointedly neglects to mention our heritage in marginalized and vanished societies of color, such as the Black Athena of Egypt and ancient Timbuktu, where surgery, agriculture, and astronomy were first pioneered and developed, among many other fields of endeavor.
It is time for the bias of white intersectionality  to be knocked from its prominence and hubris and reduced to a just relation to the balance that would be fair to the diversified mosaic of modern culture. Our college professors and the MSM are hard at work to imbue the virtue of white humility in the next generation of Americans, if not eradicate whiteness altogether.

The “Sin” of Whiteness

The white is oppressing the brown cone

Let’s start at the beginning about “whiteness” and “white privilege.” Wikipedia seems to be one of the rare venues that discusses the concept with any (relative) intelligibility. As can be seen in the Wikipedia text, the idea of “whiteness” is rooted in Marxist ideology (shall we call it theology?) or “critical race theory,” whiteness is becoming a substitute for “class.”  Race theory was imported from Germany via the Frankfurt School and quickly infested our school system from K1 to academia.
White privilege (or white skin privilege) is the societal privilege that benefits people whom society identifies as white in some countries, beyond what is commonly experienced by non-white people under the same social, political, or economic circumstances. Academic perspectives such as critical race theory and whiteness studies use the concept to analyze how racism and racialized societies affect the lives of white or white-skinned people….
In sociology and political philosophy, the term critical theory describes the neo-Marxist philosophy of the Frankfurt School, which was developed in Germany in the 1930s. This use of the term requires proper noun capitalization, whereas “a critical theory” or “a critical social theory” may have similar elements of thought, but not stress its intellectual lineage specifically to the Frankfurt School. Frankfurt School theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation. Critical theory was established as a school of thought primarily by the Frankfurt School theoreticians Herbert Marcuse, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Walter Benjamin, and Erich Fromm. Modern critical theory has additionally been influenced by György Lukács and Antonio Gramsci, as well as the second generation Frankfurt School scholars, notably Jürgen Habermas. In Habermas’s work, critical theory transcended its theoretical roots in German idealism and progressed closer to American pragmatism. Concern for social “base and superstructure” is one of the remaining Marxist philosophical concepts in much of contemporary critical theory.           
“Critical theory maintains that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation.” “Liberation” from what? The ideology of freedom is not an “obstacle” to human liberation. The ideology of Marxism, on the other hand, has been responsible for all of the mass murders and slavery implemented  by Marxist or Fascist governments.
This version of “critical” theory derives from Kant‘s (18th-century) and Marx‘s (19th-century) uses of the term “critique“, as in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and Marx’s concept that his work Das Kapital (Capital) forms a “critique of political economy”. For Kant’s transcendental idealism, “critique” means examining and establishing the limits of the validity of a faculty, type, or body of knowledge, especially through accounting for the limitations imposed by the fundamental, irreducible concepts in use in that knowledge system.
Wouldn’t you know it? Immanuel Kant inspired Karl Marx. Kant, too, promulgated the philosophy that everything is a matter of interpretation, because our senses – because they are senses and naturally misleading or fraught with deception – give us arbitrary knowledge of what a thing is and what it isn’t (although according to Kant – and to the postmodernists, who’ll  tell you that you can’t say with any certainty what a thing or idea is isn’t; a car key may actually be a kernel of popcorn; but if it works in your ignition and turns over your engine, pragmatists will then say it seems to be a car key).
Critical theory addresses race and one’s race, and has dubbed “whiteness” as an inconvertible and innate cause of “unearned” unfairness,” injustice, and privilege. You have no control over your race or skin color; but you’re still guilty of being “privileged” and will benefit from living in a culture that rewards “whiteness.” The idea harks to the idea of one’s “original position of John Rawls,” an idea that caught on decades ago and which later helped to advance the idea of race theory (A Theory of Justice, 1971).
If you are white, and have had a benign upbringing, and the advantage of a better education than has a black man or a Hispanic, then you have an “original position” that is automatically better than that of a black man or a Hispanic and virtually guarantees success. This is “unfair” and not just. Rawls’s “theory of justice” in the pursuit of “fairness” would punish the most able and intelligent and reward the less competent.
Heritage wrote about Rawls:
Upon awarding him the National Humanities Medal in 1999, President Bill Clinton praised John Rawls as “perhaps the greatest political philosopher of the twentieth century” who “helped a whole generation of learned Americans revive their faith in democracy.”[1] Since the publication of his first book, A Theory of Justice, in 1971, Rawls has indeed been the fashion of the academy, and his influence has increasingly spread beyond the ivory towers of American universities.
Today, Rawls’s theory—which defends the principles of egalitarianism, toleration, consensus politics, and societal fairness—informs much of contemporary liberalism’s aspirations,
These basic institutions include the political constitution, which specifies procedures for legislating and enforcing laws and the system of trials for adjudicating disputes; the bases of the economic system, including the norms of property, its transfer and distribution, contractual relations, etc. which are all necessary for economic production, exchange, and consumption; and finally norms that define and regulate permissible forms of the family, which is needed to perpetuate society….
Today, Rawls’s theory—which defends the principles of egalitarianism, toleration, consensus politics, and societal fairness—informs much of contemporary liberalism’s aspirations, constitutional interpretations, domestic policies, and public rhetoric. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the principles behind such laws as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, are most thoroughly argued by John Rawls. Much the same can be said of the Supreme Court’s reference to the “evolving understanding of the meaning of equality” in the 2013 same-sex marriage case, U.S. v. Windsor. Rawls’s silent influence has been immense…..
Rawls-inspired policies (Obamacare) and Supreme Court decisions (U.S. v. Windsor) are met with passionate responses on both sides of the political aisle. His project takes American constitutionalism as a given, but it is ultimately in opposition to the political thought of the American Founders.
Nell Painter in the New York Times, in November 2016 noted:
Conveniently, for most white Americans, being white has meant not having a racial identity. It means being and living and experiencing the world as an individual and not having to think about your race.
To the left wing, the progressives,  and to the liberals, that is a bad and undesirable thing.
You needn’t  even be conscious of being white and privileged. Until now. Now white people are expected to be painfully aware of their “whiteness,” and to accept guilt for a variety of things.
Just as one does not need to think about how Western civilization was created by white men – with rare, with very rare exceptions – as Painter does not point out, advances in technology and science did not spring from the Congo or even from China (except perhaps for fireworks and explosives, or from India, the source of our number system).
Schools and colleges are moving to remove pictures from their campuses of white men who innovated and advanced the medical profession. The pictures were of white men. They will be relocated from the main auditorium to less auspicious venues.
Some columnists are referring to white privilege as an “original sin.”
Margaret Wente in the Canadian newspaper The Globe and Mail on May 27 2017, wrote, on the occasion of a CBC program on the subject of white privilege:
White privilege is now a part of the Ontario school curriculum. It is taught in teacher training, and is a routine part of anti-bias education. The idea is that white people benefit from unearned advantages based on race. Canada is depicted as a deeply racialized society where people are automatically advantaged, or disadvantaged, by their skin tone, race and (by extension) gender….
 “If you took out the word ‘white’ and used any other race, it would be perceived as racist,” said one of the participants of a CBC program on the subject. “It’s stereotyping in reverse.”
The doctrine of white privilege entered the Ontario school system around 2013,…It is a modern version of original sin, which demands confession and atonement – even from people who are deeply anti-racist. “The term implies that whiteness itself is a problem,” Ms. Walker says. “That’s profoundly hurtful.”
The murder of Iowa student Mollie Tibbetts, although it had sporadic coverage for over a month before her body was found in a cornfield, was largely ignored or down-played by the MSM because she was white; so it didn’t matter to the MSM and wasn’t considered “news worthy.”  The discovery of the body seemed to make the MSM yawn. That she was allegedly murdered by an illegal immigrant, however, was cause for many newscasters to worry that this would fuel the anti-immigrant position. Tibbetts was just another white who was a victim of an “illegal” immigrant, or was shot by a Somali cop – as Justine Damond was – or , or assaulted by an illegal immigrant. Tibbetts was stabbed to death.
In a speech he gave in South Carolina, Daniel Greenfield said:
On January 26, 2018 Daniel Greenfield gave a brilliant speech in South Carolina in which he argued that politics make civil wars – not guns. “Guns are how a civil war ends. Politics is how it begins.” What does that mean?
“Two or more sides disagree on who runs the country. And they can’t settle the question through elections because they don’t even agree that elections are how you decide who’s in charge. That’s the basic issue here. Who decides who runs the country? When you hate each other but accept the election results, you have a country. When you stop accepting election results, you have a countdown to a civil war.”
ESPN says he’s not black
To indirectly second that, Tiger Woods said something that got him a lot of abuse:
As Tiger Woods so concisely pointed out, “He’s the president of the United States and you have to respect the office,” Tiger said. “No matter who’s in the office, you may like, dislike the personality or the politics, but we all must respect the office.”
For making that cogent observation, Woods earned the smear that he wasn’t really black. ESPN in effect, called Tiger Woods, an “Oreo cookie”: “white” on the inside, and black on the outside.
The talking heads on ESPN went on the attack against Tiger, instead, for the crime of not being sufficiently full of hate for the president. ESPN in effect, called Tiger Woods, an “Oreo cookie”: “white” on the inside, black on the outside.
“Well, first of all, we don’t know what Tiger Woods believes. He’s Cablinasian. He’s not black,” Smith said. “When he got arrested, he was black. He was listed black on the report.”
So, you aren’t allowed to be black if you don’t hate Trump?
And if you’re white, you aren’t allowed to speak at all.
ESPN’S full-handed insult of Woods could qualify as “hate speech.” But I don’t believe in “hate speech.” Basically it is hot air expelled by a fool and you can take it or leave it, shaking your head. I don’t think Woods was harmed much by ESPN’S remark. Hate speech never hurt anything but the feelings of someone with “self-esteem” teetering on a precipice, the “hurt” person being held up by the hands of a collective.  Had Woods been white and made the observation, about twenty dozen hateful remarks would have been tossed at him.  Anyone uttering a rational statement about Trump becomes the MSM’s dart board.
On the surface, the whole issue of “whiteness” is absurd. You may as well accuse snow for being white. Only lefties and liberals, with their brains stuck in a tire-spinning rut, take it seriously.  
Julius Malema: There’s a new Stalin in town
But let us not forget about South Africa. Its Parliament, president (Cyril Ramaphosa), and chief thug (Julius Malema) have announced that the government will confiscate the private property of white farmers without compensation after the country’s Parliament has amended the Constitution to allow it. Malema has also advocated that the whites be eradicated. British Prime Minister Theresa May shook hand with president Ramaphosa and said that the confiscation of white property would be okay provided it was “legal.” She had nothing to say about Malema’s proposed, Stalinesque genocide of whites (the current attacks on white farmers by government sanctioned marauders is in the neighborhood of 600 a year). The Times of London reported in April  2018 that:
While the West turns a blind eye, South Africa is embarking on the same path that led to Zimbabwe’s economic and humanitarian catastrophe. On February 27, the South African parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of a motion that will begin the process of amending the country’s Constitution to allow for the confiscation of white-owned land without compensation.
The motion was introduced by Julius Malema, leader of the radical Marxist party Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), who in 2016 stated that he was “not calling for the slaughter of white people — at least for now.”
Economic Freedom Fighters? Which in Marxist terms means that the EFF is committed to fighting against freedom, not for it.  The term “freedom fighters” has always made me laugh because of its contradictory meaning, particularly when it refers to Islamic and ISIS killers.
The confiscation resolution has accelerated attacks on white owned farms throughout South Africa. Over the past 12 months, more than 90 white farmers were killed in 340 attacks, making farming more dangerous than being a police officer. Immediately after the parliamentary vote, EFF thugs occupied white-owned farms across the country, murdering, raping, and beating the occupants (including black workers to “teach them a lesson about cooperating with the criminals who stole our land”).
Stole “our” land? A South African, Bradwyn Sean Petersen, has another explanation of the “theft”:
The Khoi (my ancestors) had a different land policy. What the settlers did was more like claim property that was always something afforded by Mother Nature to a community, and turning it into private property….
Sounds much like the enclosure of “common” land in pre-industrial England.

So the individual farmers who feed South Africa and employ blacks will be dispossessed, if not murdered. They don’t have to be “white”; successful black farmers and farm workers are also victimized. Marxism and collectivization of any kind will guarantee mass starvation and death for those being corralled into collectivization, just as they did in Soviet Russia

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén