web analytics

On Excrement and ‘Civility’

There is an interesting data set out there which shows that the ‘liberals’ have lurched hard to the left since the 1990’s, whereas ‘conservatives’ have remained about the same.  This information comes from Pew Research and is material they’ve been tracking for a long time.  Here is an article about it, and below is the associated graph which visually tells the story.


Certainly, the median among ‘conservatives’ has moved to the right–but only so slightly.  The ‘liberals’, on the other hand, are moving rapidly to the left so fast and far that they may fall off the chart altogether in another few years.   But to listen to the MSM and your average ‘liberal,’ it is the other way around.    This disconnect from reality is exceedingly dangerous.

The Democrats behave as though there is a wide chasm between them and ‘conservatives,’ which there is.  Except, it isn’t the conservatives that have moved.  (They moved, but not by much.)  It is them. They are the ones that moved.  It is they that have become radicalized.

So follows a story we all know: the ‘right’ are Nazis, white supremacists, racists, bigots, homophobes, misogynists, and of course, fascists.  It is an open question, I think as to whether or not this was actually always their view, even back in 1994, and they’re just now willing to state it openly.  At any rate, it is a bald-faced LIE.  Yet, many believe this objectively false narrative.

And therein lies the danger.  People who are righteous in their own eyes, believing the lie, are convinced that what is arrayed against them are literal Nazis, with Trump a literal Hitler.  And so, literally everything is justified in opposing them and opposing him.  This has consisted in a lot more lying, not a little violence, and even more dramatic lurching to the left:  calls for socialized medicine, socialized education, free everything for illegal immigrants (and naturally, no borders), total gun confiscation (“Hell yea, we’re going to take your guns”), actual infanticide (“The infant would be delivered. […] And then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother.”), reparations, etc., etc., etc., I mean, this is just a short summary, there is much more… and then an attempt by the bureaucracy to reverse the 2016 election based on yet more demonstrable lies, and now an actual impeachment–based on even more lies.

[Just a word of warning to anyone who says that what Northam said does not constitute infanticide, if you try to argue that on this blog, you  will be banned, immediately and forever.   No second chances, and no appeal. You may believe it is not infanticide, but on this blog, you will keep your lies–even if they are just lies to yourself–to yourself]

And then they have the audacity to posture as ‘centrists’ who have no bias, are not partisan in the slightest, ‘evidence based’ of course, etc, etc, etc.

I doubt I am the only one who has struggled to determine what the best response to this is.  But one thing that drives me nuts is how people who are actual extremists are shocked–shocked, I say–when they engage in extreme behavior and are not met with a ‘civil’ response.  Of course, they view the ‘uncivil’ response as just more evidence that they’re dealing with Nazis.  This is why I started with the interesting data set.  Which ‘side’ of the political spectrum is actually becoming radicalized?  It ain’t the ‘right.’

I would like you to consider a scenario.   I’d like you to consider your response if something like this really happened:

You are carrying on in regular society the way you have been for decades, and someone comes up with a handful of shit in their hands.  They take that shit and they rub your face in it.

Admit it, this would make you angry.

Let’s continue the scenario.

Having just rubbed shit in your face, and you respond angrily, they fall backwards in bewildered surprise and have two basic responses.  In one response, they’re like, “Hey, bro, what’s the problem?  What did you expect, man?  If you’re going to behave/believe like a Nazi, you should expect stuff like this. Why can’t you be civil about this?”  In another response, they’re like, “Hey, bro.  That wasn’t shit just now.  I rubbed your face in pudding.  What are you?  A Nazi?  Why can’t we have a civil conversation?”

Imagine this really happened to you.  Imagine it happened numerous times, and experienced both responses.  How would you decide to move forward?

In a moment, we’ll use that scenario to analogize.

Consider another scenario.

You walk into your neighbor’s house only to discover that they are in the process of skinning a three month old child alive.  You recoil in horror and disgust… but do you do more?  Do you violently intervene?  What if they say, “Bro!  Peter Singer thinks it doesn’t even become a person until the age of 2.  A bunch of smart people think ‘after-birth abortion’ is totally cool.  Instead of getting all uptight, why not engage us in a conversation on how many ways there are to skin a baby alive?”

Now, thankfully even the radical left (pardon the redundancy) has not yet reached the point where even they would tolerate such behavior, setting aside the clear trend in favor of Singer’s view on the left (see recent NY state law and of course “Black Face” Northam).  But I ask you:  I know you would be outraged at such a spectacle and would not dream of dignifying such an incident with ‘polite’ conversation, right?  That is to say, you would not think that the appropriate response to such a situation is to say, all serious like, “I disagree with what you are doing, but gee, I want to be civil, so let me just suggest that personally, I think if you start the skinning at the shoulder blades…”

I don’t know about the reader, but I REFUSE to have a dispassionate discussion about skinning babies alive–as though it is a reputable position that good people can differ on.  I may mock it (eg, as in this post where an infant was used as a sex toy whilst the Chinese eat ground up aborted babies) but I’m never going to address it in a tone which suggests that proponents are good and reasonable chaps who merely have a difference of opinion.  Indeed, I believe the appropriate response is to take a tone which serves as a warning:  “If you do that, I’m going to make you pay.”

As I said, I am glad to report that in these two scenarios, even your ‘median’ leftist is not going to engage in these behaviors.  It is presently too extreme even for most of them.  But, to use them as an analogy, this is precisely the situation we are witnessing in contemporary America.

The ‘left’ has been smearing shit on people’s faces and then doing one of two things.  1., justifying it (Nazis deserve it!) or 2., insisting that what is obviously shit, is in fact something sweet.  And 3., Whatever the case, its not something to get upset about–we should have a dispassionate conversation about how best to skin a kid alive.

There are too many examples of this to name, and I have experienced and encountered these reactions numerous times.  Not just since the election of Trump, either.  Before that.

So, if you’ve just had shit rubbed in your face by a radical extremist posturing as a ‘non-partisan centrist’, how should we respond?

I’ll admit it.  I don’t know what the right response is.  I know that responding with ‘civility’ will only get more shit smeared on your face.    It’s the ol’ Alinsky move, “make them play by their own rules.”  People who have no rules LOVE it when they are up against people who do have rules, for obvious reasons.

I also know that responding ‘dispassionately,’ as a strategy and simply because we like to be reasonable people, has emboldened the ‘median’ left to conclude that they have eminently reasonable beliefs and are engaging in totally legitimate behaviors (eg, lying in order to bring down a sitting president, openly declaring your intent to mount a coup and then apparently following through, fantasizing about assassinating him, actually destroying the lives of innocent parties [Carter Page, etc], shouting down conservative speakers, chasing conservative politicians out of restaurants, burning down city blocks, etc, etc, etc).

These behaviors are malevolent and evil.  The rationalizations for them are pure bullshit.  They do not dignify a dispassionate response.  A courteous response actually encourages behaviors which any truly rational individual understands seems likely to turn our present ‘cold’ civil war into one that is ‘hot.’

Having shit smeared on your face doesn’t mean you respond in kind.  Being invited to discourse on 50 ways to skin a child doesn’t mean you take justice into your own hands.  But the response you have to such behavior–the justifiable anger and even outrage–must be communicated.  Communicating this anger sends the signal:  do not for a minute believe that you can continue down this line forever without meeting serious, determined resistance.

I have communicated this anger on this blog in different ways for years.  In this post, I have used profanity, which will make many of my readers, especially the Christians, uncomfortable.  But communication requires using the best language to convey the meaning you wish to convey, and whether we like it or not, such language is the best language available to convey both the assessment of the morality of the actions in question as well as the anger they prompt.

To what degree should language like this be used outside of a format like this?  To what degree should we be transparent about just how wicked we perceive these outright lies and democracy-destroying attitudes and behaviors?  As I said above, I really don’t know what the answer is.

But what I can say is that on this blog–MY BLOG–I’m not going to tolerate ANY bullshit.  You will NOT advocate for infanticide and then deny it is infanticide.  You will NOT advocate for ‘reasonable gun control’ when what you are clearly arguing for is Beto-style full gun confiscation.  You will NOT suggest to me that the efforts to impeach and remove the president is a merely dispassionate and objective application of the law, and not actually just another route for attempting a coup–when they themselves have described it exactly in those terms.  You will NOT advance the view that Trump is a ‘Russian asset’ and certainly not submit, seriously, that Russian attempts to intervene in the election make Trump’s election was illegitimate.  You will NOT call ME a Russian asset.   Bullshit.  Bullshit.  Bullshit.

Now, it is a little silly that I have to spell this out, but it would appear that as the ‘median’ of the left has veered hard to the left, illiteracy has followed it.  I am NOT saying–for example–that you can’t advocate for Beto-style full gun confiscation.  I’m just saying DON’T EFFING LIE and tell me that what you are only advocating for is ‘common sense’ gun control laws.  I am not saying that–for example–that Congress does not have an unequivocal Constitutional right to impeach a president (for being a ham sandwich), but don’t EFFING LIE TO ME about the obviously spurious basis for these attempts and insist that regardless of all of the blatant tweets, etc, exhibiting clear bias and plain intention to use any means necessary to remove the president, the effort is just a solemn, dispassionate attempt to apply the law.  DON’T LIE TO ME.

Not on THIS blog.

I will ban your ass, and I will do it with a smile.

You will NOT characterize conservatives and republicans as racists, fascists, Nazis, bigots, etc, who are becoming even more radicalized.   The evidence, as I led with, is that its the ‘left’ that is becoming radicalized.






Now, as somewhat of an aside, but still relevant, I need to clarify a bit about this whole impeachment business.  While there are many aspects of the three year long mission to subvert and remove the President that legitimately spark anger, the reason why I am angry is not because of any allegiance to Trump or even the nominally ‘typical’ ebb and flow of political combat going nuclear.

I am angry because I can see the future.  On such an openly partisan basis with no substance whatsoever (if it had any substance, you’d be able to at least be able to peel off the RINOs in support), it is an entirely predictable outcome of a successful removal of the president that there would be chaos in our country which has not been seen in decades.  It is not inconceivable that there would be blood in the streets.  THEY KNOW IT,  BUT THEY DON’T CARE.  That is what makes me angry.

In point of fact, the near universal feeling on the ‘right’ is that they can’t wait for the impeachment to persist.  The Senate is going to acquit, and hopefully we get to see a bit of ‘turnabout is fair play’ and finally get the truth behind a number of outstanding issues which Schiff and Nadler have refused to explore.  Unless something else happens after this–as likely to be a contrivance by the deep state as something Trump actually does–Trump is going to win in a landslide and the Dems are probably going to lose the House, and the GOP is going to add to its lead in the Senate.  If you’re a conservative, what’s to be angry about that?

It’s going to be entertaining as hell, in my personal opinion.  [And on the off chance you happen to be a conservative who is angry and thinks violence is appropriate, relax.  Chill, bro.  The ‘end game’ looks just fine for us.]

BUT… and this is important… your ‘median’ leftist, being the utter tool that he is, knows nothing about any of this apart from the headlines.  He persists under the illusion that his viewpoint must obviously be reputable and respectable if he finds it supported by the WAPO, HUFFPO, NYT, or the Guardian.  He is clueless about how factually fraudulent the whole thing has been DEMONSTRATED to be, because that would take independent research, critical thinking, and courage to risk the wrath of fellow leftists (just ask Greenwald).

He’s the same kind of person who smugly and self-righteously lectures conservatives, “We’re only talking about ‘common sense’ gun laws.  Nobody wants to take your guns” in one breath and in the next breath cheers Beto’s “Hell yea, we’re going to take your guns!” and does not see the obvious contradiction in this or recognize their own Machiavellian deceit.  (I call it ‘weaponized’ deceit.)

How will THIS person react when Trump is re-elected in a landslide and the GOP comes back into dominance?  We don’t really have to guess.  We saw how they reacted when Trump was first elected, and I bet Scalise still has the scars where the bullet entered his body.  THAT is the sort of person who increasingly populates the ‘left.’  THAT person is going to believe that the country has gone full Nazi, because, after all, that’s what the media and the left have been saying about the right, and even the country as a whole, for years.  A GOP landslide is going to confirm this in their eyes.  They will conclude that fascism is fully upon them.

And what do we do with fascists?

Anything we want.



The truly angering aspect of it, as I have attempted to communicate, is that many on the ‘left,’ the ‘elites’, as it were, KNOW their accusations regarding conservatives are lies, and KNOW that their base is primed to react violently to the disappointment of losing to the ‘Nazi-in-chief’ again.  And yet they proceed.

I am reminded of something I wrote even before Trump was elected:

But in a Trump presidency, a miracle will happen: the US Congress, led by Republicans, will suddenly grow a backbone and decide to apply the checks and balances that they had legitimate access to all along.

Indeed, this miracle has happened, right before our eyes.   I wasn’t the only one laughing my head off as the ‘constitutional’ experts in the recent impeachment hearing cited the founders and the Constitution, as if they adhered to an ‘originalist’ point of view.  LOL they really think we’re stupid.  But it is astonishing to me how the Dems have adopted such an rabidly partisan and openly strained basis for their basis for ‘applying the checks and balances they have legitimate access to’ that they cannot even get a single Republican to go along with them.   The GOP must really think it is safe to behave as it does.  They aren’t exactly known for being willing to stick their necks out.

Anyway, that’s an aside.

The bottom line of this post is to put my readers on notice that I am no longer tolerating bullshit and its not merely a ‘reactionary’ viewpoint.  It is one that I’ve put some thought into.  Maybe I can’t or won’t extend my reasoning into other spheres (yet), but if there is going to be at least one haven for the truth and no bullshit, its going to be MY BLOG.

gun control

1 comment

    • End Bringer on December 10, 2019 at 11:42 am

    I deeply appreciate your trying to tackle this issue of how conservatives, and Christians especially, need to conduct themselves in the face of growing hostility in this country; as well as admitting that there isn’t a clear answer.

    ‘Turn the other cheek’ is the command for when insults and wrongdoing is done on a personal level, and ‘love thy enemy and pray for those who persecute you’ is a measure of the Christian’s spiritual conduct. But contrary to the Liberal definition, ‘love’ doesn’t mean approve and allow for everything one does under the sun, and no where does the Bible advocate complete passivity in the face of evil (quite the opposite).

    We will need a lot of prayer and study to figure out how to conduct ourselves in the way God wants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

20 − ten =