Harsh Reality

Monday, April 25, 2016

Is There Anything That Can Make Western Men Fight Back?

A recent news item about the rape and murder of the pregnant wife of an Indianapolis minister in the couple’s home struck me as sadly representative of current Western culture.

On November 10th, 2015, Amanda Blackburn, a pretty 28 year old wife and mother of a toddler was found in a pool of her own blood on the living room floor of her family’s home. She was partially nude, her underpants were near her body and her shirt was pulled up. She had been shot in the head while her 1 year old was in his crib nearby. She was pregnant. Both she and her unborn child died. Her debit cards were stolen and used.

DNA evidence was collected, three men were arrested, confessions were given and charges were filed. The confessed shooter told police that, after shooting her in the head, he leaned in close to look at her face and watched her bleed.

Amanda’s husband Davey was quickly reported to have forgiven the animals that did this to his wife and child in their own home. On Sunday, he sat in a South Carolina church and explained his forgiveness to thousands of congregants. Media reports there “was not a dry eye in the room”. An 18 year old young man in attendance shared that he hopes to respond to pain the way Davey Blackburn did. The response from a room full of people to the shocking, violent deaths of innocents – instead of anger - is to cry and aspire to greater levels of forgiveness?

It comes across as insensitive to question the response of any man who has endured such a personal tragedy. And the additional factor of his being a man of the cloth requires further pause since he is held to a different, higher standard in matters of personal relationships. So his unique position is acknowledged. But what of the others in Amanda's life? What of the community? It is fair to ask if this doesn’t justify anger and a call for justice then what does? The response is reflective of modern Western culture.

Speaking to the larger reality in America and Western Europe, Christians and non-Christians alike should be forgiven for struggling to understand the passive, almost inhuman, lack of emotion in response to violence committed against those we are entrusted with loving and protecting. Christianity has always sought to balance grace & justice. Forgiveness versus payment in full. Idealism versus truth, if you will. Always pushing for what we hope for while dealing honestly with the reality in front of us. Too much of one without the other is disastrous. In the end, being badly out of balance either way leads to brutality and death.

For an outstanding movie showing this struggle, watch the Academy Award winning 1986 film "The Mission" starring Robert DeNiro & Jeremy Irons. The friction between Godly meekness and submission versus fighting back with the tools and skills God has provided is played out in the jungles of 18th century South America. The conflict among Christians as to the correct way to deal with violent injustice might look familiar.

America and Western Europe are badly out of balance.

Many (not all) Christian leaders are reflecting the weakness and apathy of Western masculinity, and our women and children are paying the heaviest price. They are the easiest prey. Europe is now overrun with a violent foreign culture responsible for the epidemic of rapes of European women, child sex slavery and a level of street violence not seen since World War Two. The U.S. has seen the fall and destruction of major cities into chaos, corruption, bankruptcy, filth and an orgy of blood.

Meanwhile, the Pope and other Western church leaders preach tolerance and condemn any effort to protect our homes, communities and families. They preach grace, forgiveness and mercy while ignoring justice. All this serves to excuse and encourage more violence. More murder. More rape. More destruction.

Christians are being purged from the middle east. Their history, artifacts and property destroyed. Christian people are openly killed in YouTube videos or driven into exile. In response, the American President lectures Americans about tolerance while accepting an ocean of Muslim "refugees" who are not being persecuted, but simply don’t like living in nations they control. Even the Pope this week left Christians to languish in a refugee camp – the people that he is supposed to be leading – while taking Muslims from the same camp to enjoy a new life in Europe.

One must wonder what Amanda Blackburn’s killers think of her husband’s public forgiveness of them? What message does it send to those who would commit the same crimes against others? Do terrorists wonder what they have to do, whom they have to kill, to provoke the West to defend itself? What can possibly make these victims get angry, much less fight back? American and Western men and Christianity have been softened and neutered into such utter pacifist submission that it seems nothing will make them fight for their own lives or protect their own families, communities or nations. Nothing.

In 1941 the Japanese Navy killed 2,400 U.S. troops in a military strike on an American Naval base in Hawaii. The response of American men was violent and overwhelming, ending in the complete devastation of Germany and nuclear incineration of portions of Japan. And peace for Americans.

By 2001, even attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C., and the violent death of 3,000 American civilians by Saudis and other Muslim terrorists was not enough to provoke America to meaningfully defend its own people and nation. The primary government response to every terror attack is to protect Muslims from "backlash". Any truthful reaction to Muslim aggression is condemned as racist intolerance. And the violence escalates.

Likewise, the rape and murder of a man's wife in his own home isn't even enough to provoke righteous anger or any response but forgiveness and love of the men who did it?

If these things, from a single private home to the experience of entire nations, aren't enough to justify the protective instincts of Western men to finally fight back then what will?

The brainwashing and feminization of American and Western men is so thorough and so profound that one must question whether Western civilization can survive.

America and all of the West appear irredeemable.

Thursday, April 21, 2016

It's Time For A Reset On Exactly Who Is The Victim

Did you know that any business owner may permit anyone to use any bathroom they choose in their place of business? Were you aware that any bakery may bake cakes for any homosexual event they choose? There are no legal restrictions on the freedom of any business to extend their services or operate their premises in the way that they believe serves their customers best and will help their business thrive.

You would never know these simple facts from public discussions surrounding leftist victim politics.

As social media has devolved into a never-ending political cycle and every conceivable nook and cranny of all our daily activities has been infected with liberal politics, this is a good time to stop for a moment and reset the table as to the now-common method of attack of leftists and how we got to be where we are in the current version of sociopolitical America.

The left has discovered a remarkably effective weaponized process by which they are able to cut off at the knees anyone who disagrees with any of their positions. They have perfected a method of using the law to bully anyone who disagrees with them while simultaneously portraying themselves as victims of hateful legal persecution.

The fact that it keeps working has to be surprising, even to its practitioners.

What prompted this examination was Donald Trump on Good Morning America this morning. He was asked a question about the LGBT community and a portion of his response jumped out from the rest. He raised the "North Carolina bathroom law". He told the hosts and viewers that North Carolina should not have passed 'HB2', and that "everyone should leave the laws the way they are".

His response indicates that he sides with those who favor local governments forcing women to use toilet and shower facilities with sexually-confused men. In reality, Trump seems to have accepted the false premise of liberals that the state of North Carolina is punishing a victimized minority.

With that, let us examine the pattern to this political shell game of the left.
1. A liberal constituency group desires to have some activity or conduct accepted as normal by the rest of society; 
2. They demand that others participate in and accommodate their conduct and begin referring to it as a "right"; 
3. From there, it's a small step from their expression being a "right" to anyone - especially private individuals - "discriminating" against them by not participating in the conduct with them; 
4. At this point, they begin using the legal process. A friendly local judge or a few members of the City Council. The group then makes an example of a resistant local business or individual for "violating their rights". This is done in a local court or by means of a local ordinance; 
5. Businesses or private individuals are left with only two choices: Participate in the activity or conduct against their will or seek redress from a higher authority; 
6. The state legislature passes a law prohibiting such legal bullying and protects the rights of businesses to operate however they choose. Put another way, freedom is restored to those who are the targets of the leftists seeking to force their way on others; 
7. The group enforcing their agenda through local ordinances and local courts finds themselves blocked from forcing their way on others and begins screaming at the top of their lungs that they are being victimized by the law that's putting a stop to their incursion on others' freedoms; 
8. Protests are arranged, social media campaigns flood cyberspace and the usual cast of celebrities are trotted out to lash out at the hateful "attack" on the "rights" of the group who's actually using other laws and legal processes to force their agenda on others.

This was the pattern of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act debacle in Indiana and other states. And the same plan of attack is being executed in North Carolina, Mississippi and everywhere that states are taking on leftist special interests that are using local laws to force private citizens to participate in activities against their will.

Somehow, the bullies manage to repeatedly portray themselves as victims of those defending themselves from legal attacks by the bullies. It is a truly Orwellian masterpiece of transforming facts and reality into completely false talking points and self-righteous outrage and victimization.

This plan of attack has been so successful that liberals are now using variations of it everywhere.

Black Lives Matter shows up to Donald Trump events to protest and disrupt proceedings with outrageous conduct, and then splashes themselves across media as innocent victims of attacks by Trump's violent supporters. Black Lives Matter has also used this effectively in blocking highway traffic and throwing tantrums when drivers push through their barricades.

Major media outlets act as willing accomplices in this sleight-of-hand. They join the left and their celebrity supporters in pushing the narrative that these laws defending the freedom of businesses from legal attacks by liberals are actually attacks on the liberals that are taking away their freedoms. For the past several days news sources have written about Target stores "defying the North Carolina transphobic bathroom ban".

Target, or any business, can do whatever they like. That has always been the case. There are no laws preventing businesses from allowing patrons to use whatever toilets they want or prohibiting bakeries from making homosexual event cakes. But everyone is also free to not shop at Target or not patronize businesses that cater to these fringes. It's freedom. But Target and other sympathetic businesses don't want to suffer the loss of business that comes with caving to liberal demands, so they support these local laws that force the same conditions on every business. At the end of the day, it's the use of local government as a gun to the head of private businesses to force their compliance with an agenda that the public is not buying.

The whole matter is like an argument with a child who changes the subject so often that it becomes difficult to recall what their original tantrum was about, and they've switched their arguments and protests through so many layers of accusations and screaming outrages that they actually manage to portray themselves as the victim, when in fact, they were the initiators of the entire conflict.

Do not fall for the trick. Governments removing freedom is a bad thing. But it's the new favorite weapon of the fascist left. Forced compliance while portraying the attackers as victims of those simply defending themselves and wanting to be left alone.

Wednesday, April 13, 2016

There's Only Free Speech On Campus For One Point Of View

Every time one thinks American campus culture can't get any more ridiculous, a new standard in absurdity is set.

Just this week we have three separate examples from different universities in different parts of America. The common theme through all of them, though, is that campus leftists claim to be offended by some speech or activity they don't like and demand that others be banned from saying or doing whatever they don't want them to say or do.

It almost always follows this basic formula:
1. Someone on campus does or says something that leftist students claim is "offensive" to them; 
2. Some sort of protest breaks out by said leftists, which may or may not include violence or property damage; 
3. The protesters take their hurt feelings to campus administrators and demand the speech or activity be silenced or banned; 
4. Administrators either cave to the demands of the leftists in an attempt to appease them or join forces with them in feigned outrage and twist logic and torture words trying to justify their banning of the speech or activity the leftists are protesting.
It's quite pitiful.

Our first example is from the Ivy League. The Dartmouth College chapter of Kappa Delta Epsilon sorority has traditionally spent the first Saturday in May the way many Americans do: Watching the annual running of the Kentucky Derby and enjoying mint juleps with friends. Somehow, this is now considered racist.

At last year's party Black Lives Matter showed up to protest, interrupting the festivities and accusing the girls of "racism", "genocide", "police killing of blacks" & "elitism" (Being an Ivy League school, this one is probably true. But most of the BLM protesters were also students there, so there’s a reasonable chance they're all elitist.) The sorority has relented and canceled their race party for 2016 because they don't want black students to be uncomfortable. The girls are now going to dress as hippies and have a Woodstock party. No word on whether the Afro-American Student Union approves of that idea, or if they are finally happy now.

Our next example of higher education high-mindedness comes to us from the deep South. Clemson University in South Carolina has had a tremendous problem lately with liberal students "protesting" by damaging things on campus while claiming to be victims.

In the way of background, the founder of Clemson University was a man named Benjamin Tillman. Like many Southerners with the considerable wealth to found a university, he had owned slaves at one time. And, like most people who establish a university, there is at least a building on campus named after them, if not the entire university.

Liberals will have none of it, however, and demand that Tillman Hall be renamed because, well...because they demand it. To demonstrate how offended they are, they've taken to spray painting graffiti onto the building accusing Mr. Tillman of "violence" and "racism". They've also destroyed a display belonging to a pro-life student organization. The pro-life organization is not obviously related to the charges of racism, but it’s another point of view that liberals find disagreeable, so their property gets destroyed, also.

The university administration's response to these acts of violence and property damage? Nothing. Presumably, they believe it to fall under the umbrella of free speech. And the precious snowflakes cannot be expected to control themselves when they're so angry.

So, what did set the administration off? What caused the university to distribute mass emails, denounce something in the strongest possible terms and generally completely freak out?


Someone hung a small bunch of bananas on a banner celebrating African-American history. The irony of the fact that there is an official celebration of a specific race at all was sadly lost on the administrators. Instead, their fury was directed at the single instance of a non-violent, non-destructive (if not tasteless) gesture. The political statement made by the banana, whether calculated commentary or, more likely, drunken hijinks, was the speech of a private individual. The celebration of a specific race is an official, university sanctioned event. But the one to elicit howls of racism and cause convulsions of hysteria is the one simple gesture by an anonymous person that was not paid for by taxpayers or through the tuition and fees of other students.

Our final example of campus tolerance this week comes to us from Ohio University, where Greek Week activities were cancelled in response to a pro-Donald Trump artwork featuring the phrase "build the wall". The university has a designated surface for students to leave graffiti. The offending words were so upsetting to some students that an emergency meeting had to be held by a multicultural politburo and denunciations poured out from university leaders and national fraternity and sorority representatives.

The artwork, which the school acknowledged is free speech, was nevertheless branded as hurtful, divisive and non-inclusive.

These adjectives are never applied to liberal students who engage in actual violence, destruction and protests and who demand that opposing viewpoints be silenced.

Tuesday, April 12, 2016

As Party Elites Cling To Power, Colorado GOP Portrays Candidates As "Hero" & "Villain"

During the first two years of the Obama presidency the Democrat Party had a total lock on every part of the federal leviathan. With super-majorities in both the House & Senate, there was nothing the Republican party or citizens could do to stop the freight train of socialism that was being rammed up America's collective ass in Washington. Americans were rudely slapped in the face with the reality that Barack Hussein Obama's version of "hope & change" was dramatically different from what voters thought he meant. The misinterpretation of this vague promise was by design, no doubt. But voters had no recourse for two long years.
GOP leaders seized on the opportunity. They had a villain. A Super Villain! And villains are great for fundraising and motivating voters to install Republicans into positions of power. To fight the Super Villain, of course.

"Give us control of the House, and we will stop Obama and his agenda!" the Republican Party said. Americans, having nowhere else to turn, elected Republicans in a landslide. The House of Representatives changed from a Democrat super-majority to a Republican majority overnight. An electoral tsunami, a loud & clear repudiation of the Obama agenda and total buy-in from voters who bought the Republican promises that they would stop that agenda.

It didn't happen.

On taking control of the House, Republicans acquiesced to every demand from Obama and Democrats. It appeared to us regular citizens that Republican leaders were actually working with the Democrats to continue the agenda that they swore they would stop if only the voters would give them control of the House. "You don't understand how Washington works!" we were told. "Washington is all about compromise!" They explained and excused and waffled and flip-flopped. They sanctimoniously lectured about how we just didn't understand the process. They even wrapped themselves in the memories of Ronald Reagan and compared their compromises on policy and friendships with Democrats to The Gipper's. Ultimately, they claimed to be impotent to do anything they had promised because they didn't have control of the Senate. That's it! Another Super Villain! "We can't do what we promised because Harry Reid is foiling our plan to stop Obama! Give us control of the U.S. Senate (more power) and we can finally stop Obama!" In 2014, the American public, with nowhere else to turn, gave the GOP another landslide electoral victory and firm control of the U.S. Senate.

Now with solid majorities and control of both houses of Congress, Republican leaders claim that they can't keep their promise to stop Obama's agenda because, well...because he's the President.

Americans were hoodwinked again. First by Obama with his promise of "hope and change". Then by Republicans who promised they would stop Obama with control of the House. Then again by Republicans who made the same promise, if only they would be put in control of the Senate.

The freight train of socialism continues pushing down the tracks as fast as ever.

It is against this backdrop that America entered the 2016 presidential election cycle.

The Republican establishment dusted off their same ol' trick bag to whip the voters into line. "Stop Hillary!" was the preferred line of BS and another member of the Bush family was trotted out as the "hero" who could deliver us from the "villain". But the voters aren't buying anymore what the GOP is selling.

Republican elites, donors, lobbyists and talking heads all tried to sell the establishment line of what's best for us. The voters didn't  buy it. They tried spending enormous amounts of money. Still nothing. They tried demonizing candidates who weren't under their control, hyperbole about electoral doom if they didn't get their way and threatening to vote for the other party.

The voters weren't moved.

The GOP establishment tried the novel approach of latching on to a weak "outsider" candidate that the voters seemed to like and compromising him to attack the interlopers and get voters to see the light. Marco Rubio's candidacy went down in flames within days of his willingness to become a stooge for the party elite that the voters were roundly rejecting.

The establishment, having burned off all good will with their own voters, has resorted to fleeing behind their last firewalls. They have no candidate in the race save for the token John Kasich, who is a distant trailer and cannot win the nomination outright. So party elites are left with the sole option of throwing their support to the 2nd place candidate as a way to siphon delegates away from the frontrunner in an effort to deny them both the nomination and allow the elites, donors, lobbyists and party insiders to appoint a member of their own club to be the nominee. A member who the voters would never elect. A member appointed for our own good.

And that brings us to what happened at the Colorado Republican Convention on Saturday. Party elites had earlier changed the rules, moving away from a straightforward caucus to a series of meetings among party insiders and a state convention where party officials would elect delegates who would ostensibly be who Colorado voters would vote for in the caucus. The voters weren't needed, though. Party leaders made sure that only one candidate would be represented, thus negating any need for voter input. The party simply gave the state's delegates to Ted Cruz, canceled the caucuses then celebrated on Twitter that they had screwed Donald Trump out of the contest.

Delegate ballot with Trump delegate "#379"
omitted and Cruz delegate "#378" listed twice.
The most notable thing about this disgusting affair in Colorado is the success of party elites in portraying their stealing of the vote from citizens into a soap opera between Ted Cruz & Donald Trump. Their latest "hero" & "villain". As though the party had nothing to do with it. As though party insiders didn't write the rules, schedule the district meetings with themselves, set up the convention, (mis)print the ballots, preside over every aspect of the process and then cancel the caucuses and eliminate the input of ordinary voters.

The Colorado Republican Party did all that. To the voters of Colorado.

By all accounts, Ted Cruz's state organization did a fine job in Colorado. But there was no way that party insiders were going to let him lose. Which is why the voters had to be eliminated. The party could not chance out-of-control voters interfering with the outcome they had arranged.

It also appears that Trump's campaign was lacking in the state. Again, it didn't matter. Nothing that either candidate did or didn't do in Colorado was going to change the result from how the party elites had the game rigged.

The Colorado GOP has successfully deflected the narrative to one of Trump vs. Cruz when the real issue, as always, is The Party vs. the voters.

Outrage at what happened on Saturday has nothing to do with Donald Trump or Ted Cruz. It's about party elites denying voters a chance to cast their votes. The donors, lobbyists & party elites all decided that the voters could not be trusted to vote the way the elites wanted them to. So they just gave the delegates to their preferred candidate, cited the rules (written by them) and blamed Trump for not complying with the rules (that they made up and enforced). Party elites are throwing Ted Cruz and Donald Trump out there as "hero" & "villian", but it really has nothing to do with either of them.

Just like in other states, this is between the Republican Party and their own voters. Voters who party elites and donors have decided will get no say in the election.

Friday, April 1, 2016

The Disconnect Between Liberal Claims & Liberal Demands Is The Source Of Their Anger

A friend recently posted a conservative meme on social media pointing out the silliness of feminist demands and got the predictable reaction from certain angry women.

Just to put in my two cents, I asked if anyone else thought it was ironic that the only reason women are allowed to vote is because men got together and agreed to let them? I got the expected lecture from said angry women.

I was just poking the bear, of course. But, in all seriousness, there's a pattern to all this feminist anger. And it's not just in feminism. There's an underlying theme across all leftist culture. The claim of wanting empowerment and independence while simultaneously demanding others be responsible for providing the things they want. Their claims and their demands are completely divergent.

Take Western feminist culture, for example. There's a very clear disconnect between what self-identified feminists claim is their ultimate goal and what they constantly demand. Which is, I believe, the reason I've never seen a happy feminist. They always seem to be miserable. I have a wife and 3 daughters. They are all independent, educated, successful and...happy. They all take responsibility for their own success. They all take responsibility for their own safety. They all take responsibility for their own career choices, education choices and personal lives. And none of them wants anything to do with "feminism". Because the common theme in feminist nagging is to hold everyone else responsible for their happiness, safety, wellness, success, etc.

At one time, feminism demands a paternalistic sort of arrangement where men are responsible for giving some pissed off girls whatever they're demanding this time in order for them to be happy or successful or whatever, and the CLAIMED feminist end goal of being independent.

And this absurd contradictory position runs throughout other leftist causes. Such as the demand that someone else be responsible for paying an unskilled or unmotivated employee $15/hr. instead of that person being responsible for getting themselves into a position to be able to command $15/hr.

You see? The actual demand is one of dependence and weakness, while at the exact, same time CLAIMING to want independence and self-empowerment.

I think this is the reason I don't recall ever hearing about a happy feminist. Because there's a basic disconnect between their own demands and claimed goals. And this is the common thread that runs throughout every other liberal cause. They're never happy. And they can't ever be happy. No matter how much the government forces people to do what they want, no matter how much they get, no matter what changes they force. They just get angrier. Because there is a disconnect that they will neither acknowledge nor address.

Our daughters are independent. Their tremendous success in everything they do has absolutely nothing to do with any man giving it to them. They take ownership of themselves and their decisions. Sometimes things don't work out. Sometimes they are disappointed. But we've always stressed to them to view setbacks as lessons learned and go after their next goal. And they're happy young women. You'll notice that all of this is the opposite of feminism.