“We must hate our lower nature with its vices and sins; by living a worldly life, it would deprive us of the love of our Lord Jesus Christ and of eternal life.”
–St. Francis of Assisi.
I have arrived in Chatmoss, after a long day in Northern Virginia. It is nice to be here, but gosh I am tired.
Today I am sharing a couple of articles on passing events of the day. The first one is from a personal favorite, the irreplaceable Victor Davis Hanson. Mr. Hanson breaks down the trade rift between Canada and the United States. Unsurprisingly, he demonstrates that the fault does not lie with Donald Trump, but rather with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.
The other articles relate to the gradual, yet steady decline of the United States due to the forces of socialism since President Lyndon Johnson. I will state unequivocally that the problems we face today are the direct result of our leaders ignoring the Constitutional restraints upon the federal government, and our population’s willingness to overlook these failures. As so eloquently stated by Walt Kelly’s immortal character Pogo, “We have met the enemy, and he is us.” Please enjoy.
____________________________________________________________________
The Fantasy House of Mark Carney
BY: Victor Davis Hanson (September 17, 2026).
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney now believes he is more than just the Western foil to President Donald Trump and his MAGA movement — he is the global one.
Accordingly, he seems determined to demonstrate to the world how to stand up to Trump, to force Trump to lose the midterms, and to hurt the U.S. economy to such a degree that Trump will never again bully other nations.
So, at the 11th hour, Carney stormed out of an apparently completed tariff deal with the United States that would have privileged Canada over almost all of America’s other trading partners. Canada, we recall, has enjoyed a $50 billion goods trade surplus with the U.S. for years in a supposedly free and equitable North American trade zone.
Carney claimed that American proposals stripped away Canadian sovereignty and quashed Canadian culture, particularly French-Canadian culture. Yet he has not released the documents detailing the bilateral offers he rejected. Nor has he allowed his representatives to explain to the media why Canada blew up the negotiations at the last minute. Carney’s ever-changing excuses, explanations, and invectives about what happened are incoherent and contradictory.
That said, analysts on both sides of the border now concede that American digital-media companies do not customarily pay special taxes, as Carney demands, to promote local, regional, and ethnic culture while operating in Canada — any more than Canadian companies would be taxed for those purposes in the U.S.
Canada and the U.S. both agree that China dumps cheap steel and aluminum into Canada, allowing Canadian manufacturers to use that cost advantage to export assembled vehicles to the vast U.S. market at prices below those of American vehicles. In that way, Canada’s new partnership with China circumvents America’s tariffs on Beijing. China will also send nearly 50,000 electric cars and trucks into Canada under a meager tariff, ensuring that the Canadian EV market is increasingly dominated by Chinese vehicles.
But Carney’s ploy goes beyond helping the communist Chinese dictatorship gain trade leverage over his own NATO neighbor. He has eagerly concluded a comprehensive Chinese-Canadian pact involving travel, visas, food safety, energy, and public security. Carney has grandly described these new agreements with Beijing as part of a new paradigm in which “middle powers” like Canada play China against the U.S. (Canada’s annual nominal GDP is roughly the size of New York State’s).
How ironic that Carney attacks his neighbor, the U.S., for trade unfairness while warming to the communist dictatorship in China. Communist China, after all, is history’s greatest violator of trade protocols — guilty of manipulating its currency, dumping products to secure market share, violating copyright and patent laws, and imprisoning a million Uyghurs.
Has Carney learned anything from Panama’s misadventures after naively inviting in a Chinese omnipresence at the American-built Panama Canal? Does Carney recall that the American Monroe Doctrine originally was aimed at foreign intrusion into the North American West?
Canada’s new partner is a totalitarian police state that infected the world with its manufactured gain-of-function COVID-19 virus, which killed more than 1.5 million North Americans. China stonewalled inquiries and never offered details about the pandemic’s origins in its Wuhan lab. It has promised to conquer Taiwan and so terrified its democratic neighbors — Australia, Japan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and South Korea — that they have joined a defensive alliance with the U.S.
So what drives Carney’s hubristic fantasies? Has Canada’s natural wealth in oil, gas, timber, and minerals made it a military and economic dynamo, as it once was?
Hardly.
Canada’s population is 11.8 percent of America’s. Its economy is barely one-thirteenth the size of America’s. Canadian GDP per capita is only 60 percent of America’s.
Canada quietly relies on the U.S. military to deter foreign powers from North America, whether by fending off challenges to Canada’s extensive Arctic claims — including its dubious claim of absolute sovereignty over the Northwest Passage — or by keeping Canadian skies free of foreign combat aircraft and missiles.
Canada’s navy — once one of the world’s preeminent surface fleets — has been reduced to fewer than 30 ships. Its 89 American-made jets are more than 40 years old.
Paradoxically, Carney’s dreams derive not from confidence and strength but from insecurity and defensiveness. Carney and former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau nearly ruined the Canadian economy despite the country’s treasure trove of natural resources. Canada has only half the GDP of California — a state currently decaying under neo-socialist governance — despite having roughly the same population.
Nearly 45 percent of Canadians are either foreign-born or the children of foreign-born parents. These often-impoverished immigrants impose gargantuan social-welfare costs that Canada’s European-style socialist economy simply cannot support. While Carney lectures on “Canadian values,” Canada’s fertility rate of 1.25 is among the lowest in the Western world, while euthanasia accounts for 5 percent of all deaths, the highest rate in the West.
Nevertheless, Carney now claims, in passive-aggressive fashion, that the U.S. bullies Canada — even as Canada runs trade surpluses with America, relies on the American economy for 72 percent of its exports, and depends on the American military for its safety. That asymmetry indirectly subsidizes Canada’s disastrous energy, immigration, defense, regulatory, and tax policies.
The Canadian energy industry depends on U.S. purchases of much of its tar sands oil, specialized U.S. refineries, and American pipelines. For over a decade, globalist Canada refused to meet its NATO commitment to invest 2 percent of GDP in defense, relying instead on American magnanimity to protect North America from foreign aggression.
No matter. Carney has melodramatically characterized his tiff with the U.S. as a “fight” and even a “war.” Yet, oddly for such an anti-American Canadian hyper-nationalist, Carney is a globalist banker who, until he became prime minister, held citizenship in three nations.
Yet the Canadian prime minister who urges Canada’s vulnerable working classes to decouple from America is himself — like thousands of Canadian grandees — deeply entwined with the United States. Some 91 percent of Carney’s investments are in U.S.-based companies, and two of his four children, like their father, attended college in the United States. Both now reside in America, along with nearly one million other Canadians.
Apparently, Carney is so eager for a veritable economic, cultural, and political war with the United States that 91 percent of his holdings remain invested in the homeland of his enemy.
But why, from a position of such hypocrisy and vulnerability, has Carney blown up the trade agreement, ginned up anti-American Canadian nationalism — and done so now?
Only in this way, Carney believes, can he stop autonomy referenda in Alberta and Quebec. And only in this way can he openly interfere in the U.S. midterm elections by targeting new tariffs at red and purple border states while working directly with left-wing Democratic politicians to help Democrats regain control of Congress and restore the prior status quo.
His anti-American screeds have certainly worked at home. Canadians now boo at the mere sound of “The Star-Spangled Banner.” They brag of a new “elbows up” policy to stop U.S. “aggression.” Their social media is flooded with braggadocio about new ways to hurt Americans. Some three-quarters of the country has bought into Carney’s fantasies. Hating America is the new Canadian pastime.
But, sadly, this will not end well for Canada, for at least five reasons.
First, America certainly is not the cause of Canada’s maladies, other than by subsidizing its suicidal domestic choices for years. Canada’s self-destructive socialist and globalist policies are its government’s doing alone.
The United States did not force Canada to adopt European-style socialist policies of mass unvetted immigration, subsidized green energy, near-disarmament, and unsustainable social-welfare spending. America did not urge Canadians to stop having children or enlist their government to help them kill themselves.
In truth, America prefers a militarily and economically strong Canadian partner, not a weak one lashing out from insecurity.
Second, the American public has so far been mostly indifferent to the spat. But now that the North American media has begun revealing the extent of Canada’s anti-American venom, along with Carney’s brinkmanship and disingenuous rhetoric, anger is rising at his cheap politicking and the animus he has fanned.
In sum, Carney has no idea that he is reframing the dispute not as a conflict with Trump but as an affront to the American people themselves — who have long memories.
Third, for all his globalist background and internationalist performance-art stunts, Carney is alone on the world stage. Europe may applaud his defiance, but it has no desire to join his anti-American campaign. When the United States finally insisted on symmetrical trade, only communist China and Canada — the latter enjoying the most generous entree into the American economy of any country in the world — slapped counter-tariffs on the United States. Apparently, other nations did not agree that Carney’s perennial $50 billion surplus was his birthright.
Fourth, Canada is far more vulnerable than the United States if Carney’s “war” continues. Canada relies on the United States for 72 percent of its exports, while America relies on Canada for only 15 percent of its own exports. Last month, even before the full effect of the new tariffs was felt, Canada lost 42,000 jobs while the United States gained 160,000. The damage will only grow, ever more asymmetrically, as tariffs mount on Canadian businesses.
Nearly a million Canadians reside in the United States, but only 350,000 Americans live in Canada. And it is easier for a Canadian to obtain an expedited U.S. work visa than for an American to do the same in Canada. Indeed, Canadians do not appreciate that they are nearly the only visitors in the world granted six months of residence in the United States without a visa.
Fifth, since Carney walked out at the last minute, it will be incumbent upon him to resume talks — especially as the damage he has done to Canadian workers and small businesses worsens. But should Carney seek to renew negotiations immediately after the Canadian provincial elections and the U.S. midterms, he will be exposed as a disingenuous politico who ginned up the fight to manipulate both Canadian and American balloting to benefit himself and his party.
If that happens, he may learn that the American friendship train has left the station. He will also discover that China treats obsequious outreach from Western “middle powers” as weakness to exploit, not magnanimity to reciprocate.
Carney’s political disingenuousness will eventually earn the animus of Canadians and Americans alike — who may ironically unite in their distaste for Carney and his fantasy house.
____________________________________________________________________
LBJ: 60 Years Of The Not-So Great Society
Lyndon Johnson was not a ‘tragic’ president. He was a bungler and a megalomaniac.
BY: Jeffrey Folks, The American Thinker (September 18, 2026).
Many people believe that Lyndon Johnson was a tragic figure: an essentially good man and potentially great president who was misled by his advisers (“the wise men,” as they were called at the time) into escalating a war he could not win but who was otherwise well-meaning and effective.
That view is totally wrong. Johnson was not a good man who made one serious mistake.
Those who speak of the “tragedy” of LBJ have no conception of the meaning of the word: a tragic figure, in the Greek sense, is a great man who is brought down by a fatal flaw of character, not an accidental event. Johnson was neither a great man nor one who suffered from one fatal flaw. He was a man of average intelligence who suffered from megalomania and a host of other forms of confusion leading to the belief that he might be the greatest president. His “failing” included a pathological need to be admired and loved, but he did not just have one fatal flaw: his entire life was a fanatical pursuit of the impossible without reflecting on the costs or consequences, and as a result, nearly everything Johnson did as president was destructive.
Johnson was obsessed with “doing more” during his first years in office because he knew that presidencies tend to get bogged down near the end. He was obsessed with the quantity of legislation he could get passed, not the quality. And most of this legislation was designed to bring him adoration from those who were essentially made dependent on government, which is to say on himself.
He signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964 and the Voting Right Act in 1965 and expected that blacks (whom he regularly called “Negroes” and occasionally something worse) would worship him. He was deeply wounded when more youthful and militant groups took over from Martin Luther King and American cities began burning in 1965. He thought he had done more for black equality than any president since Lincoln, and now he was rewarded with betrayal. His initial response to the Black Power movement was disgust, but then he shifted his own position in response to the demands of black radicals. Like today’s progressives, he was willing to bend to any position to gain votes.
It was Johnson who was the origin of “woke” policies, not more recent presidents like Carter or Obama. Johnson believed in an equality of outcomes, and since that equality did not exist, he was going to force it to exist with massive government spending. He started everything from the War on Poverty to Head Start to the Jobs Program, each prone to inefficiency and corruption. Johnson was deferential to Black Power and radical Hispanic movements even when their leaders sought more than equality under the law — when they sought superiority over whites and what amounted to reparations. Johnson was the source of much of the mistaken thinking today about the meaning of equality because of his one-dimensional emphasis on equal outcomes.
Everywhere he looked, he thought that he could win by spending more, especially so in Vietnam, which became the most costly war in nominal terms in American history. He personally oversaw the targeting of bombing that took most of the two million lives lost in the war, and for a time he considered using nuclear weapons against North Vietnam. His “plan” for winning the war was simply “more,” without reflecting on the consequences. And that was the nature of LBJ: a large and thoughtless man.
The overhang of LBJ’s enormous spending on the Vietnam War and on social problems was the lost decade of the 1970s, when America suffered an unprecedented period of persistent stagflation, and when inflation rose to nearly 15 percent in 1974 and continued high until Fed chair Paul Volcker drove inflation down with what was known as the Volcker Shock of high Fed interest rates peaking under President Reagan.
The overhang was not merely economic. One can argue that America “lost its innocence” the day JFK was assassinated and that it has not been the same since. The 1960s was the time of the Sexual Revolution, which caused untold harm by upsetting traditional values of marriage and sex roles. It was also the time when pornography became rampant and social relations overall began to deteriorate into more crude and blatant forms of behavior and when religious faith, nearly universal in the 1950s, came into question. Although LBJ was not personally responsible for any of these, he conveyed a deeply cynical and materialistic attitude that influenced public affairs.
Birth control pills — often called simply “the pill” — became commercially available in mid-1960 but was not widely used until the Johnson presidency. What accompanied the pill was widespread promiscuity, especially among young people on college campuses. By the end of LBJ’s term in office, sexual mores in America had been transformed, and not for the better.
The 1960s was also the beginning of radical environmentalism and a broader rejection of American optimism. Following the publication of Silent Spring in 1962, a series of doomsday books and films was released including Paul Ehrlich’s The Population Bomb, Ralph Nader’s Unsafe at Any Speed, Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut, One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest by Ken Kesey, Catch-22 by Joseph Heller, The Bell Jar by Sylvia Plath, and In Cold Blood by Truman Capote. Each of these books, and the films made from them, contributed to a generalized sense of alienation and disenchantment.
Again, it was LBJ who presided over this cultural shift with no idea of where the country was going. LBJ and his mentor FDR were willing to abase themselves to any interest group or form of behavior in return for political support, and in this way, they were not very different from today’s progressives and Democratic Socialists, who refuse to speak forcefully about transgender issues and antisemitism for fear of losing votes.
LBJ was not a “good man” who was the “victim” of the War in Vietnam. The escalation of the war was a perfect reflection of Johnson’s personality and political values, as were the expensive War on Poverty and other social initiatives. Johnson’s presidency and the era over which he presided are the origin of most of the problems with government spending and moral decline we have experienced since. LBJ offered the electorate a compact with the devil, and they took it, but at immense long-range cost. It has taken Presidents Reagan and Trump almost fifty years to begin to reverse the damage that LBJ wrought on America, and that reversal is still in doubt, what with socialism gaining strength in the midterm elections.
Americans need to understand the harm that LBJ did to our country and work to reverse it by returning to traditional values, small government, and fiscal balance. That is a tall order, but just as progressives transformed our nation in the 1960s into their vision of leftist utopia, it is possible within a decade or two to restore America to the conservative vision of the Founding Fathers. President Trump is playing a crucial role in this restoration, and we can elect a successor to continue the struggle.
____________________________________________________________________
Civilizational Decline is a Choice
We have so much worth defending.
BY: J.B. Shurk, The American Thinker (September 10, 2026).
When pundits say that the United States — or the West, more generally — is “in decline,” what do they mean?
Are they talking about Western nations’ rising and unsustainable sovereign debts, including a U.S. national debt of over forty trillion dollars? Are they acknowledging that forty-plus years of “free trade deals” have hollowed out once-bustling manufacturing and industrial towns and left tens of millions of blue-collar workers unemployed and dependent upon government welfare? Are they admitting that a century-long public policy campaign designed to arrest population growth by discouraging marriage and families and encouraging promiscuity and abortions has created a highly sexualized, self-indulgent, and lonely world? Are they recognizing that open borders and Western governments’ traitorous betrayals of their own citizens have transformed relatively peaceful countries united by common cultures into battlegrounds where warring tribes from around the world attack Western nations’ histories, churches, traditions, tranquility, security, identities, and beliefs?
These are all symptoms of decline. There are many more. But none of these sizable problems is a death sentence for Western civilization.
After all, we live in a world where fifty million people live as slaves today. Nearly twenty million of those slaves toil in India and China. However, when political pundits describe the U.S. and the West as “in decline,” they usually describe the future as belonging to the planet’s two largest slaveholding nations. From the point of view of Christians and other enslaved minorities, India and China are Hell, while the West is the Promised Land.
Similarly, communist China runs the most sophisticated domestic surveillance system of any nation in the world. News flows are strictly regulated. Social media accounts are monitored. Purchases are tracked. Citizens’ “social credit scores” are adjusted to reward “correct” behavior and punish “incorrect” thoughts. While Western governments are shamelessly copying these forms of soft oppression and constructing their own surveillance states, the degree of totalitarianism that already defines life in communist China is not yet prevalent in the West.
Even more importantly, Western citizens have not yet yielded to totalitarianism as an inevitability. The United Kingdom uses as many surveillance cameras to spy on its citizens as communist China, but rebellious Brits vandalize these cameras much more frequently than their Chinese counterparts. Likewise, Americans have begun to target and destroy Flock Safety cameras that record license plates and track citizens’ movements. As Western governments scheme to construct surveillance infrastructure that is repressive in nature, Western citizens in growing numbers are fighting back against totalitarianism and in defense of personal freedom.
The governments of Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand censor online communication and criminalize public dissent; there is no question that free speech is under attack throughout the West. But Western citizens are constantly finding workarounds to communicate with each other and to spread their messages far and wide. While the European Commission and the British and Canadian governments are working to build digital “Iron Curtains” to keep “unwanted” thoughts and expressions from reaching their citizens’ minds, freedom-lovers are waging quiet wars against State propaganda and other systems of public control. Western governments are finding it difficult to erect modern “Berlin Walls” that separate free-speaking Westerners from thought-policed Westerners because Westerners on both sides of these social media walls are exchanging government-labeled “disinformation” in defiance of their regimes’ authoritarian mandates.
Furthermore, the fastest growing political parties across most of the West are so-called “populist” movements demanding an end to mass immigration and a return to secure borders. There is a belated recognition that Western civilization has been under attack for quite some time and that Western governments have been the primary villains doing the attacking. There is increasing public awareness that Western governments have been replacing Western citizens with foreigners as part of a long-term, malevolent effort to repudiate Western values and traditions and to instigate sufficient domestic strife to distract citizens from the economy-killing effects of “green energy” delusions that have no effect on the weather but do transfer wealth from the poorest to the richest members of society.
For too many years, government-sponsored paramilitary forces such as Antifa have been the only shock troops causing mayhem on the streets and terrorizing Western citizens. Now Western citizens are mobilizing huge public movements of their own in an effort to demonstrate to Western governments that they will no longer be silenced. For days, large numbers of citizens have been fanning out across Great Britain and Spain to protest their governments’ open borders policies that have flooded both countries with dangerous foreign nationals. They fight for free speech, secure borders, and the preservation of their way of life. Western governments continue to demonstrate how afraid they are of their own citizens by expanding online speech controls, criminalizing public opinion as “hate speech,” undermining the electoral will of voters, outright canceling elections, and designating popular political parties as “domestic terror” groups.
These protests, opposition movements, and forms of civil disobedience may appear chaotic or even scare people, but they are hardly signs of “decline.” On the contrary, they are unmistakable indications of life coming from Western societies that have appeared comatose for entirely too long. Energizing long-inert electorates takes time, but once the event horizon for political change is crossed, there is no going back. A mere decade before the American War for Independence, colonials were overwhelmingly loyal to the British Crown. The threshold separating status quo from revolution is often thin.
That is why the German political Establishment is losing its collective mind right now after the “Alternative for Deutschland” party won a historic victory in Germany’s Saxony-Anhalt state elections on Sunday. Despite the German Deep State’s attempts to criminalize AfD as a domestic terror group because of its opposition to open borders and the European Union and support for German culture and cheap energy, German citizens (including young voters) rallied behind the rebellious party. There hasn’t been this much raw energy and excitement in Germany since the wall came down.
This political effervescence popping up in different parts of the West is intoxicating. There is electricity in the air. It’s as if volatile elements are being shaken together, and Western citizens are waiting for the explosive chemical reaction. These are not signs of “decline.” These are the winds of change.
If decline is not inevitable, then, why have so many political prognosticators already written obituaries for the United States and the West? Perhaps pessimistic political pundits are a big part of the problem. They view Western “decline” as predetermined because they lack the sense of civilizational pride necessary to accomplish audacious things.
Our American ancestors embraced the spirit of “Manifest Destiny,” the belief that settlers would tame the frontier and expand the American way of life across the continent. They were not deterred by the lack of roads or the multitudinous dangers. They did not expect government agents to “save” them; they knew that they were on their own. Yet they did the hard things anyway. They crossed rivers and mountains. They carved new trails through the wilderness. With callused hands, they plowed the fields and farmed the land. They built the country one settlement at a time until America’s destiny lay manifest from coast to coast.
Our problems — no matter how gargantuan they seem — are not evidence of American or Western decline. Decline comes when people refuse to confront what threatens them. It spreads like poison gas slowly suffocating a nation. It disorients entire countries, one lost soul at a time. But decline is a choice. Every day, you either give in or fight. In America and across the West, we have so much worth defending. Our enemies wish for us to submit and die. We shall rebel and live.
____________________________________________________________________
WARNING! Democratic Socialism is communism
No “Democratic Socialist” is being completely honest about what they will do if actually elected.
BY: M.B. Mathews, The American Thinker (September 7, 2026).
“Democratic socialists” running for office are quick to deny any connections between themselves and “real” socialism and communism. But in America, classic distinction lines among these ideologies vanish. No “Democratic Socialist” is being completely honest about what they will do if actually elected.
Picture this: You have a house and a family. Your kids go to private school so they don’t get brainwashed about sex, trans, atheism, and OrangeManBad. Or you homeschool. One day, a “democratic socialist” gets elected to be your governor (or congressman). Suddenly, you have to send your kids to public school. No more homeschooling. It’s disallowed. Your kids now come home singing songs about how the governor gives you everything: food, clothing, electricity, water, shelter, etc. Remember, “Barack Hussein Obama, Mmm Mmm Mmm!”?
Then, your bank tells you that you have too much money, so they allot you only a pittance every day to feed your family even though the money is yours. Suddenly your house starts to warm up on summer days, and you discover that your electric company has instituted mandatory limits on how long you can run your AC and at what temperature. In winter, it’s the reverse — break out the blankets because you’re not permitted to set your thermostat higher than 50 degrees F.
Next, your supermarket runs out of fish and meat, potatoes, veggies and most frozen foods. You discover that farms, meat processing, fishing and food transport trucks have now been regulated under new limits; some limits are to save gasoline because of “climate change”, others are simply arbitrarily set to limit your food intake. You now must buy ration tickets for most foods.
If that were not enough, your doctor has to shut his/her doors so that a government medical team can take “care” of you and your family once every six months, if that. Emergencies will have to wait to get to the hospital because ambulance drivers are now under the federal umbrella, and your emergency has to wait its turn, preferably until you die.
You won’t be able to worship in church or synagogue anymore. The state religion is atheism. Any violations will be subject to fines, jail, and the destruction of your house of worship.
Social media, podcasts, and news, except programming that comes from your new “democratic socialist”/commie guv will be outlawed. Free speech will be a thing of the past. An NBA announcer was just fired for saying, “All lives matter” on air.
The media will be totally under communist control, so what you see is only that which they want you to see and all of what they want you to see is theater — made up, using actors to tell everyone the joys of “democratic socialism,” which is really communism.
If you like your freedom, your private property, your guns, food, AC, vacations, your life, kiss it all goodbye because, under “democratic socialism,” it all belongs to the government.
Think this is far-fetched? Think again.
____________________________________________________________________
Feminism is rot, even when it’s ‘conservative’ feminism
If we want to restore American greatness, it has to be done with a radically anti-feminist approach, and we’re going to have to upset not just the leftist women, but the “conservative” ones too.
BY: Olivia Murray, The American Thinker (September 7, 2026).
It’s been a season of being reminded that even conservatives are very feminist—which doesn’t bode well for restoring American greatness.
Last week, when I wrote on “Miserable Judy,” I acknowledged I’ve been on a bit of an “anti-woman” kick, which is continuing today—and the broken record keeps on looping!
Now, I often describe myself as a “slow processor,” but as an AT friend refuted a few months back, maybe it’s not so much being “slow” but “deliberate,” “deliberative,” and intentionally thoughtful, all of which require me to remove myself from my personal emotions on a subject so I can analyze as objectively as possible. (I seem to be distinct from too many women in this regard—as you’ll see.) I conceded that point to him, though that “deliberative” thought process still often manifests in a “slow” response when I’m confronted with new information.
In the same vein, maybe anti-woman isn’t exactly an accurate description either; perhaps I should be clearer and say it’s an anti-feminism bent in my character, even when those feminists are political “conservatives.”
First off, consider the Lindsay Clancy proceedings. It’s just been reported that the judge has finally declared a mistrial, after seven days of deliberations. Sure, we don’t “know” who the heroic holdout is, but we know. I’m calling it now: one brave man… against two simps and nine feminist women. This presumed man was the dam, the only person holding on to justice for little Cora, Dawson, and Callan.
We all know the leftard nutjobs love Clancy, because they love what is evil and hate what is good. That’s old news. But I’ve seen countless politically conservative women also jump to her defense and make the most asinine feminist cases for why she’s not actually guilty of murder—before they then meander off into leftist socialist B.S. for future policy. Example?
One woman recently lectured me about how we’ve got a mental health crisis in this country, and told a heartbreaking story of her own friend who committed suicide as she struggled with postpartum mental illness. She then told me she had another friend who had some postpartum issues, but was able to afford a $10,000 treatment that worked for her. She said this needs to be made available to all mothers. Well-meaning, but completely idiotic; an emotional and unreasoned position. Who’s going to pay for that? Is postpartum mental health treatment now a “human right” too, one to be funded by “government”? God help us. This person of whom I speak would say she’s a conservative, she’d say she’s pro-life, she’d say she’s for fiscal responsibility, low taxes, and self-reliance, but then, without even recognizing it, she’s stumping for socialism. And she votes. God help us again
“I’m not saying she didn’t do it, but….”
But nothing. Clancy did it, by her own admission. “Empathy is the Christian response, Olivia…” Yes, but what a twisting of what is true. Oddly, her empathy is directed first and foremost to a mother who walked her three little trusting babies down to the basement and wrapped exercise bands around their necks until she choked the life out of them. I can pity Lindsay and hate her sin, but to pity her more than the children? I just can’t relate—but feminists can, even the “conservative” ones!
Let’s just be honest, everything we love about our great nation is a product of uncompromising masculinity. This isn’t to say whatsoever that women didn’t have a role in our history—quite the contrary. As I was talking with someone the other day, he noted that men build and innovate… for women. He admitted that if it were all just a bunch of men sitting around, they’d make do with the bare minimum, noting that women inspire men to get creative and do great things. Men bring function, but women, by virtue of their femininity, compel that function to be made beautiful.
But… women’s opinions and ideas aren’t what made this country the greatest one that’s ever existed in human history.
George Washington didn’t ask Martha for her “Christian” opinions on empathy, then make decisions based on female rationales; he went out and got really violent on the battlefield and won us a war and a new nation.
Thomas Jefferson didn’t ask the local ladies what they thought about guns before he drafted the language of the Second Amendment; he understood the God-given right to self-defense, and enshrined it into government law.
These men didn’t even give women the privilege of voting, because they knew women shouldn’t have any serious influence in matters of great civic importance.
If we want to restore any of that, it has to be done with a radically anti-feminist approach, and we’re going to have to upset not just the leftist women, but the “conservative” ones too.
GFK
Some good takes this morning!
LikeLike