Keynote speaker at Harvard diversity conference says Christians should be locked up. ’
Christians ‘deserve to be mocked viciously and run out of the public square.’

Quote of the Day: “They’re preparing the ground for violence with this sort of eliminationist rhetoric. Sell your cloak and buy a sword. Or an AR-15.” 

To celebrate a “Decade of Dialogue” in its annual diversity conference, Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts & Sciences invited a straight white man to give the keynote lecture.

But not just any straight white man.

Tim Wise, an “anti-racism writer, educator and activist,” has denigrated Christians as “Jeezoids” and fascists and called Pope Francis evil. He has tweeted that “people who believe in a God of hell/damnation deserve to be mocked viciously and run out of the public square.”

Those who base their morality on the Hebrew Scriptures “deserve to be locked up,” he said in 2015, claiming to be “sorta kidding but not by much.”

The Diversity Dialogue Series provides a “retrospective look at diversity and inclusion, a discussion of current issues, and practical guidance on how we can move toward greater inclusion and belonging at Harvard,” according to the event description.

The event also featured a panel discussion on moving from diversity to “inclusion and belonging.” Panelists broke down the obligations of what it means to be an ally, as well as the role of privilege and gender in the workplace.

Milan Kundera Warned Us About Historical Amnesia. Now It’s Happening Again

Milan Kundera is 90-years old on April 1, 2019 and his central subject—The Power of Forgetting, or historical amnesia—could not be more relevant. Kundera’s great theme emerged from his experience of the annexation of his former homeland Czechoslovakia by the Soviets in 1948 and the process of deliberate historical erasure imposed by the communist regime on the Czechs.

As Kundera said: (QUOTE OF THE DAY)

The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its culture, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history. Before long that nation will begin to forget what it is and what it was. The world around it will forget even faster.

I first read Kundera’s Book of Laughter and Forgetting (1979) back in 1987, when I was a member of the British Communist Party. The book shook my beliefs and Kundera’s writing became a part of a process of truth-speaking that shook the USSR to the ground in 1989……

For a brief period, the consensus was that the communist experiment had failed. Never again, said the postmodernists and historians. Never again, said the economists and political parties. Never again said the people of former communist countries. Never again.

Fast forward 20 years and never again has been forgotten. The Wall Street Journal in 2016 asked: “Is Communism Cool? Ask a Millennial.” Last year MIT Press published Communism for Kids and Teen Vogue ran an excited apologia for Communism. Tablet announced, with some concern, a Cool Kid Communist Comeback.” On Twitter, there is new trend of people giving themselves communist-themed names: “Gothicommunist,” “Trans-Communist,” “Commie-Bitch,” “Eco-Communist.” The hammer and sickle flag has been re-appearing on campuses, at protests and on social media.

How could we have forgotten?

A poll in the UK by The New Culture Forum from 2015 showed that 70 percent of British people under the age of 24 had never heard of Chinese communist leader Mao Tse-Tung, while out of the 30 percent who had heard of him, 10 percent did not associate him with crimes against humanity. Chairman Mao’s communist regime was responsible for the deaths of between 30 to 70 million Chinese, making him the biggest genocidal killer of the 20th century, above Stalin and Hitler.

One of the reasons Mao’s genocides are not widely known about is because they are complex and covered two periods over a total of seven years. Information on the internet tends to be reduced into fast-read simplified narratives. If any facts are under dispute we have a tendency to shrug and dismiss the entire issue. So it is precisely the ambiguity over whether Mao’s Communist Party was responsible for 30, 50 or 70 million deaths that leads to internet users giving up on the subject………….

To get rid of an enemy now, you don’t have to prove anything against them. Instead, you use the internet to generate conflicting accusations and contradictory data. You use confusion to elevate hatred and fear until that enemy is either banned from the net, their history re-written or erased from the minds of millions through conflict-induced apathy.

If the struggle of man is the struggle of memory against forgetting, as Kundera said, then we have in the cacophony of the internet a vast machine for forgetting. One that is building a new society upon the shallow, shifting sands of Historical Amnesia.

 

Gusher: Feds ID largest energy find ‘ever,’ worth 7 years of fuel.

“We can’t just drill our way out of the problem. If we’re serious about addressing our energy problems, we’re going to have to do more than drill.”
Barack Hussein Obatard May 6 2011.

The Interior Department has identified a massive basin of oil and natural gas in Texas and New Mexico, enough to cover nearly seven years of all U.S. needs.

“Christmas came a few weeks early this year,” said Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke in announcing the discovery, which his department described as the “largest continuous oil and gas resource potential ever assessed.”

How much: 46.3 billion barrels of oil, 281 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 20 billion barrels of natural gas liquids. The U.S. consumes about 7 billion barrels of oil a year.

“Now, I know for a fact that American energy dominance is within our grasp as a nation,” said Zinke, who has bullishly been promoting the tapping of energy on federal lands.

Sean D Sorrentino:

Apparently Orrin Hatch said the following in WSJ (behind a paywall):

“You’ve got to be kidding me. Do the people making this argument really expect a man who until five seconds ago had an unblemished reputation to sit passively while his reputation is viciously and permanently destroyed? While he is accused of the most horrific and obscene acts imaginable? Judge Kavanaugh’s critics seem to be aghast that he is a human being who is unwilling to take slander lying down.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/brett-kavanaughs-righteous-anger-1538519713

I’d like to expand on something in there.

“…accused of the most horrific and obscene acts imaginable”

I’m seeing apparently serious people saying “so what if a privileged white man doesn’t get a promotion, he’s still going to be a lifetime justice on the Court of Appeals for DC.”

Apparently in their world being accused of trying to rape someone is simultaneously

1) So awful that he deserves to be Borked out of a Supreme Court seat.

2) No big deal, so he should just get over it and get back to work on the DC Circuit.

A few years ago, I had to explain this to a nice liberal female friend of mine. Rape is a big – deal in Conservative land. It is literally “the most horrific and obscene act imaginable.”

I’d rather you thought me a murderer than believed me a rapist. Ordinary people can imagine circumstances where they’d kill someone, and might have some sympathy for me if they thought I murdered someone…..

There are literally zero circumstances where raping someone is a good idea. There’s just no justification for it. Even attempted rape puts you outside the tribe. It makes you a non-person. It makes you fair game for anyone to kill on sight.

“Why’d you shoot that guy 27 times in the face and pelvis?”

“Because he raped my sister and that was all the ammo I brought.”

“Oh, ok.”

That’s how rapists are viewed in Conservative land.

So when the Left starts shooting their mouths off about “Rape Culture,” we get bent out of shape. When they conflate ordinary boorish behavior with rape, we lose our minds. Because branding a man a rapist is literally telling the rest of the world that he needs killing.

Yet they feel totally ok about deploying the “he’s a rapist!” charge with nothing in the way of evidence, and can’t understand why a decent man, who is married to a woman, who has daughters, who coaches a girls basketball team, might find it incredibly upsetting. They painted a target on his back. They told the world that there is no crime he wouldn’t stoop to. They invited the world to kill him. They encouraged him to kill himself.

That’s where this ends. With a 12 gauge mouthwash. Because when you’ve convinced a significant portion of the world that Brett Kavanaugh is a rapist or even an attempted rapist, he has nothing left to live for.

I’ve repeatedly compared this high tech lynching to the real thing. And the usual Leftist whiners have whined about comparing the “privileged white man losing a job opportunity” (near direct quote) to a mob stringing up a black man. I’ll tell you directly, if I have to choose, send me the mob. I have a rifle and I’ll take a few with me if I can. But I’d rather be strung up from a tree than have the nation think I was a rapist. Getting lynched at least means I get to die all at once.

Posted on Facebook October 3, 2018

Stanislav Mishin:

“Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns.
Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology.
They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question.
They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.
So, Americans listen up, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.”

Charles Krauthammer, Conservative Icon, Dies at Age 68.

Mr Krauthammer may have been a ‘Conservativr Icon’, but he was no friend of the U.S. gun owner:

Charles Krauthammer “Disarm the Citizenry. But not yet. ” Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996

In an election year you expect Washington to be full of phony arguments. But even a cynic must marvel at the all-round phoniness of the debate over repeal of the assault weapons ban. Both sides are blowing smoke.

The claim of the advocates that banning these 19 types of “assault weapons” will reduce the crime rate is laughable. (The term itself is priceless: What are all the other guns in America’s home arsenal? Encounter weapons? Crime-en\abling devices?) Dozens of other weapons, the functional equivalent of these “assault weapons,” were left off the list and are perfect substitutes for anyone bent on mayhem.

On the other side you have Rep. Gerald Solomon (R-N.Y.) demanding in trembling fury that the ban be repealed because his wife, alone in upstate New York, needs protection. Well, okay. But must it be an AK-47? Does, say, a .44 magnum — easier to carry, by the way — not suffice for issuing a credible, “Go ahead, make my day”?

In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea, though for reasons its proponents dare not enunciate. I am not up for reelection. So let me elaborate the real logic of the ban:

It is simply crazy for a country as modern, industrial, advanced and now crowded as the United States to carry on its frontier infatuation with guns. Yes, we are a young country, but the frontier has been closed for 100 years. In 1992, there were 13,220 handgun murders in the United States. Canada (an equally young country, one might note) had 128; Britain, 33.

Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed in sister democracies like Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily. It certainly cannot be done radically. It will probably take one, maybe two generations. It might be 50 years before the United States gets to where Britain is today.

Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic — purely symbolic — move in that direction. Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. Its purpose is to spark debate, highlight the issue, make the case that the arms race between criminals and citizens is as dangerous as it is pointless.

De-escalation begins with a change in mentality. And that change in mentality starts with the symbolic yielding of certain types of weapons. The real steps, like the banning of handguns, will never occur unless this one is taken first, and even then not for decades.

What needs to happen before this change in mentality can occur? What must occur first — and this is where liberals are fighting the gun control issue from the wrong end — is a decrease in crime. So long as crime is ubiquitous, so long as Americans cannot entrust their personal safety to the authorities, they will never agree to disarm. There will be no gun control before there is real crime control.

True, part of the reason for the high crime rate is the ubiquity of guns — which makes the argument circular and a solution seem impossible. But gun control advocates ignore other, egregious encouragements to crime at their peril. The lack of swift and certain retribution, for example. Judges like Harold Baer in New York, for whom four men loading $4 million worth of drugs into the trunk of a car at 5 in the morning, then running away from police, is insufficient cause for a search. Judg\es who need the president himself to yell and scream and threaten before reversing a decision to let serious criminality go unprosecuted.

In the United States, 4 (!) percent of all robberies result in time served. Tell your stickup man, “You can go to jail for this,” and he can correctly respond, “25 to 1 says I don’t.” So long as both the law-abiding population and the criminal classes doubt that serious crime leads to serious punishment, attempts at serious gun control will prove futile.

Yes, Sarah Brady is doing God’s work. Yes, in the end America must follow the way of other democracies and disarm. But there is not the slightest chance that it will occur until liberals join in the other fights to reduce the incidence of and increase the penalties for crime. Only then will there be a public receptive to the idea of real gun control. The passionate resistance to even the phony gun control of the assault weapons ban shows how far we have to go.

Drowning Doesn’t Look Like Drowning.

Now that the summer vacation season is close upon us.

“When someone is drowning there is very little splashing, and no waving or yelling or calling for help of any kind. To get an idea of just how quiet and undramatic drowning can be, consider this: It is the number two cause of accidental death in children age 15 and under (just behind vehicle accidents). Of the approximately 750 children who will drown next year, about 375 of them will do so within 25 yards of a parent or other adult. In 10 percent of those drownings, the adult will actually watch them do it, having no idea it is happening.”