The Brutal, Naked Hypocrisy Of Academia


About Those Federal Judges Blocking Trump

Think they're doing it out of principles?

Think again.

Most are just activist Democrats.

I thought activism in the judiciary was supposed to be, like, you know...bad.

Here's a great article at Lawfareblog covering this behaviour by the judges challenging a democratically elected official:

"...But there’s also another meta-legal discussion to be had here. And it’s a discussion that connects directly back to a piece we wrote recently on what happens when people—including judges—don’t take the President’s oath of office seriously.
To put the matter bluntly: why are so many judges being so aggressive here?"
"...The legal disputes are both interesting and important. But this meta-legal question strikes us, at least, as far more important and far-reaching. And we think the answer lies in judicial suspicion of Trump’s oath. The question goes to the manner in which we can expect the judiciary to interact with President Trump on this and other issues throughout his presidency. It goes, not to put too fine a point on it, to the question of whether the judiciary means to actually treat Trump as a real president or, conversely, as some kind of accident—a person who somehow ended up in the office but is not quite the President of the United States in the sense that we would previously have recognized."
"...We don’t mean here to do an exhaustive legal analysis of either court’s work. But suffice it to say that you don’t have to be a Trumpist to have questions. The Maryland opinion seems significantly stronger than the Hawaii opinion, but both have substantial holes.
"...For one thing, at least some of the standing analysis seems off. Judge Watson, for example, found standing for a man on grounds that his mother-in-law might not be able to visit him and his wife because of the ban, though she had not yet even sought a waiver of the ban’s applicability to her; in other words, it’s totally unclear that she will even be meaningfully impacted by the new version of the policy. In fact, the EO specifically lists visitation of a close family member who is also a U.S. citizen or resident as possible grounds for a waiver. Similarly, a standing analysis that made sense the first time around by a state—that its university would be adversely affected—seems at least a little premature without knowing anything about how many people associated with that university will actually be kept out of the country. This time around, after all, student study is listed explicitly as possible basis for a waiver. There may well be standing here, but the opinions are hasty on the points.  
"...Our point here is not that the district judges are clearly wrong. It’s merely that they are not clearly right—on a whole lot of points. And in the face of real legal uncertainty as to the propriety of their actions, they are being astonishingly aggressive. It is not, after all, a normal thing for a single district judge to enjoin the President of the United States nationally from enforcing an action that the President contends is a national security necessity, much less an action taken pursuant to a broad grant of power by the legislature in an area where strong deference to the political branches is a powerful norm. And it really isn’t a normal thing for multiple district judges to do so in quick succession—and, moreover, to do so in the face of substantial uncertainty as to the actual parameters of the constitutional and statutory law they are invoking and powerful arguments that they are exceeding their own authority.
So what’s going on here? "
It goes into fascinating details about how the judges arrived at their (clumsy I argue) rulings. It raises more eyebrows than anything. Prior to this article I observed that this was likely part of the overall belief that a certain segment of Americans believe 'Trump must be stopped at all costs because crazy and not my President'. 
This article revealed once you get past the legal reasoning of it - which is clumsy to say the least - my initial hunch of this being more a case of challenging the 'man' in the office and less about the office itself. All the more so given that some of these judges are known to be activist Democrat judges; which the article seems to overlook for some reason. I would think this kinda plays a part in one of the conclusions presented. 
Not good because now you've opened the door for the other side to do the same even though there's nothing wrong with the person in power. At that point, why have elections if you're not going to respect the wishes of the people?

The actions are so severely short-sighted that they'd rather make an emotional stink over a temporary ban because  of someone they don't like at the expense of the long-term health of the Republic. 
In other words, to be blunt,  if you accept this, then don't be fucken surprised when it's done to your guy.  At which point, the same people cheering this on will be the first to cry when it happens to them.

Not good.

Not good at all.


What's Going To Happen?

If we go by what is generally the accepted version of our history in the West, here's how things will likely unfold moving forward.

That the West is experiencing a process of 'darkening' is pretty clear to anyone who admits it. For instance, activist judges politicizing their rulings, racial hucksterism, silencing of voices, anttifa violence, arresting of people for 'hate speech' on social media, setting 'official' opinions and doctrines on issues like abortion, transgender and climate change, hyperbolic reactions to elections, defense of illegal immigration, the immorality of accepting migrants/refugees for its own sake without proper vetting, post-modern intellectualism, welfare as a means to an end to 'protecting' citizens and the subsequent removal of dignity, the hysteria around cutting or defunding programs of negligible use to the advancement of a civilization, excessive permits demands, white privilege, safe spaces, trigger warnings, obsession over slavery that lead to inane demands for reparations, cultural appropriation, abnormal amounts of rules and regulations that have become oppressive, and so on. All of these are finding support within the halls of academia and even legitimized within our legal framework.

All it adds up to is less the progress of civilization and more a simple assault on liberty.

The closing and slow eradication of classical liberalism began a long time ago; roughly around the time of the rise of the progressives in the early 20th century. It further evolved into a frightful collective Jacobin force guided by Marxism in the 1960s led by loathsome radical individuals like Jacques Derrida and all the moral and intellectual relativist virus that came with it.

Oh, the minds it has poisoned and continue to destroy!

That we experienced two Great Wars that led to the colossal loss of tens of millions of people is the single greatest tragedy faced by the West. With it generations and centuries of inherent Western knowledge was gone. Weak and lost, it permitted for a lower rung of people to take over.

And the result is plain to see.

Pay little or no attention to their screams of everyone being a Nazi, Fascist, racist, thug, ignorant, anti-science and all that. That's just projection on their part. 

Know the players.


What's happening is the true rational and reasoned minds are being pushed aside and forced out of the realm of the mainstream public discourse. Most of the people hogging the mains spaces are the reactionaries. The Robespierre's of our times.

They feed you with all sorts of junk about 'settled science' while claiming to 'fucking love science' when in fact they know little of the subject. Most of the biggest players pushing the agenda aren't climate scientists at all but are opportunists earning a healthy income off it.

It's not just in the sciences we see a 'shuttering'. It's in the humanities, engineering and other fields and industries. Just follow FIRE and Campusreform and Reason magazine to keep informed and be aware of what's transpiring and unfolding before your eyes.

The government will increasingly crack down on free peoples (just like the Church did once upon a time) and what this will do is spark - or at least reignite - our genius much like we saw in the Renaissance. Most of the great moments in history came in times of chaos and often when people were suppressed.

It just taps into our inner desire to excel. When pushed, great minds will eventually push back and regain control. At what cost I do not know but there will be casualties. People will go to jail at the hands of tyrants, some unfortunately may lose their lives if the trajectory of the rhetoric from the left continues.

Alas, if history is our guide, it will hopefully not be in vain and their voice will be heard for generations to come. I'm confident eventually there will be a natural purging and the moss and pond scum will eventually recede never to be heard from again. There will be a return to normalcy and our sense of perspective and proper contextualization will be put back in order.

As the sidelines swell more and more with such great people, they will eventually get back in the game and will overwhelm the pretenders and shysters.

*They* often say 'you will be on the wrong side of history!" They usually being the ones who will end up on the very side.

Don't be played. Be astute. READ YOUR HISTORY*. Don't interpret it through corroded lenses. Be vigilant and intelligent about it.

*If you think Trump is a Nazi - metaphorically or otherwise - you have not read your history. If so, you failed. Now go back and READ THE FUCKEN THING. Arm yourself properly and don't be a useful idiot for idiots.

Trampling On Freedom Of Speech Is Now A Problem And A Scourge Infecting The West

Courtesy of Spain this time.
"When she posted jokes on Twitter about a 1973 assassination committed by Spain's Basque separatist group ETA, Cassandra Vera never for one moment thought they would land her a one-year jail sentence.

But last month, one of Spain's top criminal courts found the 21-year-old guilty of "justifying terrorism" and humiliating its victims - the latest in a series of such convictions for social media pranks that has the country divided, and partisans of free speech worried.

"They ruined my life," Vera tweeted about the 13 posts about the 1973 murder of Luis Carrero Blanco, the prime minister and heir-apparent of dictator Francisco Franco who was killed in an ETA bomb attack that sent his car hurtling into the air.

"ETA combined a policy against the use of official vehicles with a space programme," read one of her posts.

Another said: "Did Carrero Blanco also go back to the future with his car?" Vera is unlikely to spend time behind bars, as offenders of non-violent crimes with a sentence of under two years do not serve time in jail.

But she now has a criminal record that will prevent her from getting a scholarship for her studies."

Everytime I read something like this I realize just how close my blog can come to being hauled before a bunch of dumbass judges like this. It's enough to send a chill down my spine. They say 'when' 1984 sets in.

Kiddos, it's not a matter of 'when' anymore. It has arrived.

The last part in the last paragraph in the quote is critical. Does the comment rise to ruining a person's life? You've effectively removed from society a productive person who can contribute to your country. Instead, you created ill-will and probably a sense of inner-anger that is not helpful.

This is the unenlightened and plain old stupid position of censurers.

If you're a person who thinks along the lines of 'I believe in free speech but' you need to knock some sense into yourself and recalibrate your thinking. You don't believe in it and you tacitly accept such grotesque rulings by thinking this way.

Canada is on par with other Western countries when it comes to this barbarism. That is, it's not advanced but backward. For me, Canada is on the wrong side of the issue. You're pretty much a useless country if you can't defend the rights of man.

Make no mistake, the United States stands alone fighting for liberty. This is why the First Amendment must be guarded with the vigilant equivalence of one million people and soldiers protecting a kingdom.


I completely agree with Jordan Peterson. A man who is literally alone fighting the anti-free speech virus spreading in academia. Freedom of expression and speech is the bedrock of our classical liberal heritage in the West. It's what made the West what it is. Fight for it.

Think you're protected in Canada? I suggest you pay closer attention. You're not and Ontario is leading the way in this travesty of a situation.


Bill Nye Is Not The Face Of Science

Bill Nye doing his best to make sure people fucking love science; in his own reactionary way.

How backwards and upside is the situation? Engineers like Nye challenge physicists like Happer.

Stew on that, Stu.

In other words, he's so full of shit, the gasses coming out of his ass probably contribute to the climate change hysteria.

Bill Nye is no scientist. He just played a zealot version of one on TV.


The United Nations Is A Joke And Immoral Organization Reason #944959596

Saudi Arabia.

Get this.

I can hardly contain my anger, shock and laughter.

Hang on.

Saudi Arabia. That noted peaceful kingdom has been voted and appointed to the women's rights commission.

No. You read that right.

Out with it. Name the countries in Europe who voted for this and let them be ostracized mercilessly for their insidious stupidity. Apparently at least five of them did.

Then again none of this is surprising given Iraq and Libya once led the human rights commission.

Sometimes I just feel humans are plain fucken evil.

French Socialists Battered

Three and counting.

That is, three countries the progressive movement has been routed. First in the United States, then in Holland and now France.

Good. They were doing too much damage.

Once the left is gone, we can (hopefully) rekindle our common classical liberal heritage.

As for Le Pen being described as 'extreme right' it's best to understand - or reframe it as 'right' on the socialist scale. Le Pen is basically a socialist and all the extreme reactionary elements in Europe are just derivatives of the socialist ideology.

Calling it 'right-wing' was devised to confuse people into thinking it's conservative but it isn't.

Just like they played that trick with Nazis and Fascists. Both are just offshoots of socialism. And as such, are to the right of that while communism and Marxism is to the left.

So in essence, these murderous ideologies have been fighting between themselves through out the 20th century while conservatives and liberals were pushed off to the side. 

Sunday Afternoon Music

Party And People Of Science

Some quotes from the science protest:

"Protests get in the news and raise awareness. Planting a tree doesn't"

"A bit of trash on the sidewalk is not a big issue when you've got trump as president funding the fucking coal industry."

Brilliant. These people love science so much it's ushering in a second Scientific Revolution.

When's the engineering protest?

Let's go over a couple of spokespersons for the progressive left.

First, there's Rachel Maddow who claimed a Venezuela protest was because of some Trump donations. Totally not about people starving and socialism raping yet another nation. Nah. Steve Bannon something, something. How in the world does this Rhodes Scholar (snicker) still have an audience? 

Then there's Neil de Grasse Tyrson who thinks Trump's science deniers "threaten" democracy.

Hey, Neil I wonder how many people - mostly fans of yours I'm sure - at the science march believe there are no differences between genders, gender is fluid and social constructs. 

The comments are just as absurd.


Party of reason folks.


Celebrate Earf Day Because You Fucken Love Science

National Academies release sweeping review of research misconduct.

And make sure to make a sign against climate deniers that reads "Officer, arrest this man!' 


Ah yes, those accurish climate predictions.



I see that engineer turned climate shyster Al Gore has made another inconvenient movie.

Gee, one would think shame would enter the picture with these folks but I guess the money is too good.

THIS TIME it'll happen.

Sorta like how socialism will eventually click and work, amirite? 


Quote Of The Day

"Ted Turner (Atlanta Journal Constitution, Wed. Dec. 2, 1998) in an address to the Society of Environmental Journalists in Chattanooga – blamed Christianity for overpopulation and environmental degradation, and argued that the people who disagree with him are “dummies.” He stated in part, “The Judeo-Christian religion says man was given dominion over everything, and his salvation was that he was to go out and increase and multiply. Well, we have done that … to the point where in Calcutta, it’s a hellhole. So it’s not an environmentally friendly religion.”

If I were to ever cull all the quotes I've culled over the years, this one would probably rank high.

It's delicious in its projection, arrogance and stupidity.

It also reminds us that being wealthy and successful in one thing doesn't translate or transfer into being smart and understanding history.

It does show how climate system change hysteria turns critical thinking into mush. 

The one gaping problem in his comment, of course, is that Christianity is not the dominant religion in India.

The other major flaw is of all the major religions, Christianity has among the lowest birth rates with Islam being the most prolific.

But you wouldn't hear Ted declare this fact (just like Jews face much more hate crimes than Muslims do and likely ever will), right?


The anti-Western sentiment among progressive elites is insufferable as it is troubling.

The Liberal Party Of Canada Puts Ideology Above Your Rights To Free Speech

As you know, I'm not a supporter of the Liberal party (or the NDP for that matter). Heck, since Trudeau and seeing what he has done, I downright despise them. Can a group of politicians be anymore insufferable at the alter of political correctness?

Never mind all the quibbles about budgets and foreign policy.

The singular issue that should concern us all as Canadians is the one about freedom of expression and speech.

Increasingly, slowly and surely, the government is moving to squash your rights to whatever 'official' position on the books.

An official position that is imposed on an individual is the eradication of free thought.

And when free thought is eliminated what do we have?


The thing people don't understand about what's happening is A) they don't want to believe it's true (it is. Bill C-16 and Motion 103 are clear red flags) and B) that if they don't say anything wrong they're safe.

But they're not. The very fact we don't come to the defense of someone who holds a differing view (however maddening, eccentric, offensive etc.) means we've left ourselves vulnerable to those very same attacks and aggressions from the government to prosecute opinions.

Canada is not on a good track at all. And since the arrival of the Joy-Joy Feelings of the Liberal party it has regressed to a point I consider threatening to civil liberties.

And if you think you're rights are guaranteed you're wrong. The Charter doesn't, at the end of the day, protect your rights at all. Basically, the way it's written is the government has final say.

Remind me how this is not totalitarian again?

The mere existence of it should leave us a tad concerned.

Contrast this to the United States, a truly unique people among nations, they at least have the First Amendment to protect them. At the end of the line, the sovereignty of the people will inevitably prevail. Unless the left begins its assault on the 1A (and they already have because they know in order to control people the best way to do it is through language) like they're doing with the 2A.

Yes, the common, clear enemy is the progressive left. These are not friends to you or our civil liberties.

I can't see how anyone would conclude otherwise. Every single major piece of legislation in the West that curbs freedom comes from the left side of the spectrum.

It's what they excel at.

I've joked that it's a matter of time even a tiny, shitty blog like this one will eventually come into the cross hairs of some piece of shit, remedial, shit-stained faux-righteous, pseudo-intellectual SJW and be reported to an unelected body of beastly bureaucrats determining if I'm a danger.

I think people at the moment aren't thinking hard enough about this issue. They're not pondering the consequences of these actions as it relates to their fellow humans. It can and usually does ruin the lives of everyday people.

The criminalization of speech and opinions is not a normal development in the West. It's not a natural ideal that has any basis in our collective heritage and conceptualization as liberal beings.

It's in fact a malignant virus stemming from critical theory and other left-wing ideologies seeking to hijack what we've achieved as an enlightened civilization.

The day pop culture pseudo-scientists and politicians started to agitate for the 'arrest' of who they term to be 'climate deniers' was the day I turned my back on that movement. A movement that is less rooted in reason and more in emotions with cult-like fanaticism.

The second you need to resort to violence (I will be tackling the pathetic antifa idiots in another post) or calling for the arrest of people you disagree with mean you lost the plot. You're incapable of moving forward your argument through facts and reason. Saying people are not *listening* is a cop out for if your argument truly was valid and had merit, people will come around.

Fight for your rights people. Don't let special interest and politicians set the tone and laws controlling speech. If they do, ask yourself: Are you sovereign? Are you not your own moral and intellectual agent?

What good is the collective and 'diversity' if the individual is weak and without thought? Or possesses  ideas but is too afraid to speak?

It isn't.

And it all ends up like Soviet Russia, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.



I do find progressives smugly relishing the fall of O'Reilly interesting for one reason. I think they believe that part of the reason why no one listens to them (as revealed by ratings) is because people are stupid and have been roped in by the likes of O'Reilly and Limbaugh.

With O'Reilly gone, they somehow think that magically things will 'set straight' and be less 'confrontational'.

Instead, what's going to happen is they will still suck (because mocking people is not a way to sell your ideas) and others will step in and take their place.