The ever-shifting Narrative

Hillary’s health narrative changes direction faster and more smoothly than a school of fish.

  1. Hillary is in EXCELLENT health
  2. Except for the allergies.
  3. And the cough, which is, of course, allergies. To what? Does it matter? 
  4. The point is her allergies have nothing to do with why she stumbled.
  5. Stumbled, fainted, collapsed unconscious… is there really a difference?
  6. She was just overheated. Her feet were hot, that’s why she took off her shoes. Shoe.
  7. Actually, we meant to say she was dehydrated.
  8. And by dehydrated, we meant to say pneumonia.
Still to come:
  1. Turns out it’s aspiration pneumonia, to be precise.
  2. Well, yes, that is a symptom of Parkinson’s Disease.
  3. Which, um, she has. But it’s not that-
  4. All right, it’s pretty bad. But that doesn’t mean she can’t-
  5. So, anyone have Bernie’s number?
Now, how on Earth did Mike Cernovich know that it would be announced that Hillary has pneumonia? This is how: “Aspiration pneumonia is an important cause of morbidity and mortality in Parkinson’s disease (PD).”

Where it all started

This was my first political column, written in response to the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago. It led to a regular op/ed column on WorldNetDaily, national syndication by Universal Press Syndicate, and eventually, this blog. 


Unfortunately, in the intervening time, events within the USA have gone largely as I feared they would, with the federal government using the attacks to rationalize more government violations of the unalienable rights of Americans. Even worse, the immigration crisis and the subsequent demographic corruption have combined with the expansion of central state power with the global economic depression to imperil the stability of the US as a unitary state entity. I also think it is interesting to note that even then, before I had become familiar with the concepts of 4GW and non-Trinitarian war, it was readily apparent to that conventional war would not suffice to subdue the latest wave of Islamic expansion.

Yield No More Freedom

In response to a number of questions inspired by last week’s column, we were working on a piece related to PC security, specifically the sort offered to one’s e-mail communications by various encryption technologies, when we were interrupted by the horrifying events of Tuesday. The fatal hijackings and subsequent media response has been difficult to dismiss from our mind, so we have tabled the usual technology review for a week in favor of some reflections on these recent events.

One of the many troubling aspects of the hijackings is the brutal demonstration that we, as a people, have received very little of the security we were promised in return for the many violations of personal freedom and civil liberties that have been enacted over the past decade. We would go so far as to raise the question if this had not been a fool’s bargain, wherein we have given up something of precious value in return for … arguably, nothing. It is bad enough that we allow the FBI to filter our e-mails and record our keystrokes, that we permit the National Security Agency to intercept every electronic communication floating through the aether, but it is even worse that we have done so without realizing that which we hoped to gain.

Just as the drug war has not reduced the amount of illegal drugs used in this country, the sacrifice of our civil liberties on the altar of national security has not brought us security. Keep this in mind, as the inevitable drumbeat begins for more sacrifices, as the calls begin for Americans to give up even more of their hard-won freedoms. National security cannot seriously be cited any longer in the attempts to ban personal encryption technology, not when, as WorldNetDaily reported yesterday, far better forms of communications encryption have already been delivered to terrorist-sponsoring states like Syria with the full approval of the previous administration.

It is said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, but that vigilance must be applied within as well as without. A thousand suicide bombers could not destroy America, but America is quite capable of destroying itself in the pursuit of any number of false idols, among them wrongheaded and illusory notions of security at any price. Individual privacy, like private property, is one of the foundations of our freedom, and it must not be thrown away out of fear. Anonymous cell phones or encrypted e-mail missives could be used by a terrorist, true, but the same is also true of a razor blade or a flight simulator.

What our leaders must realize is that personal technology is not a foe, but a powerful ally. The enemy we face can be subdued and contained by soldiers, bombs and a strong national will, but it cannot be ultimately defeated through conventional war. But satellite transmissions and the Internet know no borders, nor does the concept of freedom. Our enemies recognize this, which is why they fearfully denounce every sign of American influence as decadence, because they well know that they cannot raise another generation of suicide warriors if that generation is allowed to partake of the dangerous and forbidden fruit of freedom.

Some have protested that America must not strike back, that doing so will only perpetuate the “cycle of violence,” that others will only rise up to replace those we strike down. But this is demonstrably untrue, as no German ever rose up to replace Hitler, nor does a Japanese war party trouble us today. It is appropriate for a nation to fight a war in its own defense, especially when war has been openly declared upon it. But in doing so, we must resolutely resist the call to sacrifice that which makes the United States of America a country worth defending – our inalienable rights and our individual freedom.

Hillary collapses at 9/11 event

It is no secret that she is sick. But it now appears increasingly unlikely that Hillary Clinton is even going to make it to November as a viable candidate:

Hillary Clinton had a “medical episode” that required her to leave a 9/11 commemoration ceremony early, a law enforcement source who witnessed the event told Fox News. The Democratic presidential nominee appeared to faint on her way into her van and had to be helped by her security, the source said. She was “clearly having some type of medical episode.”

Clinton’s stumbled off the curb, her “knees buckled” and she lost a shoe as she was helped into a van during her “unexpected early departure,” a witness told Fox News.

A separate law enforcement source told Fox News that Clinton left the event because she wasn’t feeling well.

I won’t be surprised if Team Clinton starts trying to ban video of her public appearances. But was her collapse due to illness, exhaustion, or something darker and more sinister….

Consider the following sequence:

  1. Hillary attacks Alt-Right
  2. Hillary deplores Americans.
  3. Hillary apologizes, but attacks Alt-Right again.
  4. Hillary collapses.
I think the conclusion is clear. Kek will not be mocked!

Bingo: “We are told by the campaign that we are no longer allowed to shoot anything from the ceremony.”
– NBC Pool Report

UPDATE: The video of her trying to get into the van. It’s funny to see all the mainstream journalists trying to see if they can get permission to use the video. Why not just FILM THE CANDIDATE WITH YOUR OWN CAMERAS?

UPDATE: the Daily Mail now has the story and the video. The US media is trying to bury it, but the UK media doesn’t care.

The theft of identity

As SJWs continue to double-down, again and again, we have now officially reached the point where being an X who is writing about a Y protagonist, or dabbling in Y culture, is now committing cultural appropriation, identity theft, and white supremacy.

It’s not always OK if a white guy writes the story of a Nigerian woman because the actual Nigerian woman can’t get published or reviewed to begin with. It’s not always OK if a straight white woman writes the story of a queer Indigenous man, because when was the last time you heard a queer Indigenous man tell his own story? How is it that said straight white woman will profit from an experience that is not hers, and those with the actual experience never be provided the opportunity? It’s not always OK for a person with the privilege of education and wealth to write the story of a young Indigenous man, filtering the experience of the latter through their own skewed and biased lens, telling a story that likely reinforces an existing narrative which only serves to entrench a disadvantage they need never experience.

I can’t speak for the LGBTQI community, those who are neuro-different or people with disabilities, but that’s also the point. I don’t speak for them, and should allow for their voices and experiences to be heard and legitimised.

So access – or lack thereof – is one piece.

But there is a bigger and broader issue, one that, for me, is more emotive. Cultural appropriation is a “thing”, because of our histories. The history of colonisation, where everything was taken from a people, the world over. Land, wealth, dignity … and now identity is to be taken as well?

In making light of the need to hold onto any vestige of identity, Shriver completely disregards not only history, but current reality. The reality is that those from marginalised groups, even today, do not get the luxury of defining their own place in a norm that is profoundly white, straight and, often, patriarchal. And in demanding that the right to identity should be given up, Shriver epitomised the kind of attitude that led to the normalisation of imperialist, colonial rule: “I want this, and therefore I shall take it.”

The attitude drips of racial supremacy, and the implication is clear: “I don’t care what you deem is important or sacred. I want to do with it what I will. Your experience is simply a tool for me to use, because you are less human than me. You are less than human…”

That was the message I received loud and clear.

You all know what this means, don’t you? In light of all their demands for more stories about People of Color, SF-SJWs ARE THE REAL RACISTS!

Hillary apologizes

You KNOW it’s really bad when Hillary Clinton, of all people, tries to climb down from a scripted rhetorical attack.

I cannot, cannot, CANNOT believe that the woman is actually going to try to keep running on the Alt-Right theme. And as for “so-called ‘alt-right’ movement”, someone needs to remind her that SHE is the one who called us that.

I don’t think either Cerno or Scott Adams has analyzed it yet, but when you’re already losing two-thirds of whites, constantly reminding them that you’re one of the evil people who has turned them into a near-minority in their own country can’t be a sound persuasion tactic.

Once the brick wall is actually in place, “it’s just one little brick” is no longer a convincing strategy. Everyone can see the wall right there in front of them.

A basket of deplorables

“You could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables. Racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic, you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people, now have 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive, hateful, mean-spirited rhetoric. Now some of those folks, they are irredeemable, but thankfully, they are not America.”
– Hillary Clinton, September 9, 2016

In fairness, we’re really on pace for 3 million this month. But if she keeps this up, we might be to 11 million by the time Trump is inaugurated as God-Emperor of America in January.

“Judeo-Christian” is antisemitic

“Judeo-Christian is not merely anti-Christian propaganda, but as one rabbi points out, it is also antisemitic:

The Constitution entitles you to your opinions and religious beliefs and even affords you the right to express those convictions in your pursuit of public office. But as a Jew and a rabbi, I am writing to ask you to please leave me, Judaism and my people out of your rhetoric. Don’t use “Judeo-Christian” to try to appropriate my religion and my people’s history to advance your agenda.

I can appreciate that Jews and Christians share many similar values and beliefs, just as I recognize that many of the values I learn from my tradition are also shared by many other religions. But while our respective religions have many things in common, we also diverge in significant ways. You and I read the same Bible very differently and draw sometimes contradictory conclusions from it. I honor those differences and I affirm that Jews and Christians (as well as Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists and many others) can come together to exchange ideas and live at peace with one another. But your particular brand of Christianity bears little resemblance to the Judaism I practice, and when you use the term “Judeo-Christian” to really mean “Christian,” you erase the distinctions between our faiths — and you essentially erase Jews….

When you use the term “Judeo-Christian,” you give your particular brand of Christian ideology a veneer of universalism it does not merit. It is misleading to suggest that your ideas are part of a “Judeo-Christian tradition.” The term “Judeo-Christian” was originally coined in the 1930s by liberal Christians and Jews who sought to encourage ecumenical relations between those two faiths for the purpose of fighting the growing racism, xenophobia and nativism of that time. But in the 1950s the term was adopted by political conservatives who used the phrase “Judeo-Christian values” as a cudgel in the fight against fellow Americans they accused of being “Godless communists.” And since the 1970s the call for a return to so-called “Judeo-Christian values” has been used by the Christian right as code language to their base for a particular brand of conservative policies that are anything but inclusive.

Perhaps those Christians who are not even remotely concerned about endorsing an anti-Christian term will think twice about it now that they understand it is also antisemitic and deplored by Jews.

This is not an isolated example. The Jewish Press is even more straightforward in correctly rejecting the legitimacy of the term:

Let’s be clear: Far from “sharing” one tradition, Orthodox Jews are prohibited from marrying Christians, setting foot inside a Christian church—and we can’t even drink from an open bottle of kosher wine that has been used by a Christian. We reject the Christian idea of salvation, we abhor Christian divine teachings on every subject, and we are repulsed and outraged by incessant attempts by Christian missionaries to bring us into their fold.

It is particularly disturbing when Klinghoffer makes statements which reveal his complete assumption of elements of New Testament Pauline ideology, for instance, the requirement that wives submit to their husband’s authority. There is no mandate on precisely how a woman should behave with her husband—Jews expect the happy couple to work it out for themselves. Also, while divorce may be a tragedy, and God cries, it is in no way banned—in Judaism, that is. The story in Christianity, and Klinghoffer’s “Judeo-Christian Biblical America,” is different.

Incidentally, we have more in common with Muslims than we do with Christians; Jewish law permits Jews to enter a mosque… but not a church….

Jews and Christians differ on every single fundamental principle—even on the meaning of core Scriptural texts. More crucially, Christians rely on the Old Testament for legal delineation; whereas Jews rely solely upon our rabbinic tradition. We never, ever turn to our Bible for legal guidance, only to our rabbinic literature. To suggest that our Sages had anything at all in common with the likes of Jerry Falwell, Jimmy Carter or Pat Robertson is a slap in the face of 2500 years of scholarship.

“Judeo-Christian” is as valid a concept as happy-joylessness, or tall dwarves. Klinghoffer’s yearnings for this repugnant “ideal” is a deviant phenomenon without a trace of commonality in traditional Jewish thought, ancient or modern.

Considering that it is almost solely Christian Zionists in the US who proudly utilize the term, I tend to doubt there are many rhetorical ploys more powerful than accusing anyone who uses the term “Judeo-Christian values” of antisemitism.

I also think the term “Judeo-Christian values” is obviously racist, as if we are to apply the idiotic logic used to defend it, the more accurate term to describe the values upon which the United States was founded is “African-Christian values”, since everyone who is a United States citizen was, until very recently, believed to have been descended from an African ancestor and it is terribly racist to suggest otherwise, regardless of what the latest science might say.