Category: The Violence Inherent in The Left

Allahu Akbar: It couldn’t happen here…

Admittedly, I grew up in the golden age for Jews in America. Anti-Semitism was muted; Jews were respected for their family values and love of education. In fact in past presidential elections, candidates delved deep into their genetic inheritances to divine a Jewish gene or two.

The existence of the modern state of Israel, a Jewish state but unequivocally also a democracy, gave Jews existential pride, a psychological homeland to which they could move if so desired, and a sense of protection and invincibility.

Globally, Jews stood taller. For those stuck in Jewish-unfriendly geographic locations, rescue if things turned really ugly, was a reality.

Israel’s creation – by necessity a warrior state – also morphed from a small agrarian economy to a leader in start-ups, high tech, and constant innovation. Moreover, its commitment to rule of law provides more legal rights for Arab citizens than those given in Arab states. Specifically, Israel gives property rights to Muslim second wives – a right unheard of on the Arab street where so many women are still viewed as chattel.

As Arab money and Arab propaganda gained traction in Democrat-run inner cities, in the prisons, and the mainstream (legacy) media, Israel’s truth of a progressive society, democracy, and an inherent military ideology of not harming civilian non-combatants, was muted and ultimately destroyed.

So, how did it come to pass that Israel is falsely compared to Apartheid South Africa or a “colonizer” and a false moral equivalency between Israelis and Palestinians is bruited about from American universities – especially the ivies?

The distortion of historic truth has been fueled by superior marketing by the United Nations, which is anti-Semitic and anti-American and by some African-Americans, who were assisted in their civil rights struggle by American Jews, but now feel their oppression is synonymous with that of the Palestinians. It also came from the university woke administrations and professors, along with the stark ignorance of our youth, and the larger population of Muslim converts and immigrants whose mantra is “Kill the Jews.”

All of the above have either not been educated about history in the area, or deliberately distort it. Some hate the Jews because Israel uncomfortably reminds them of their own failures, as George Gilder noted in his best-seller, The Israel Test.

Continue reading “”

Assault victim sues Loudoun County Public Schools for $30 million.

The daughter of Scott Smith who was 15 at the time she was sexually assaulted by a boy in the girl’s bathroom has filed a lawsuit against the school system for $30 million.

A teenage girl who was sexually assaulted in a Virginia high school bathroom has sued Loudoun County Public Schools, alleging that school officials failed to heed warning signs about her attacker and responded to her May 2021 assault by trying to cover it up.

The teenager, who filed the lawsuit under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” along with her parents, was 15 years old when a younger, male student in a skirt assaulted her in a girls’ bathroom at Stone Bridge High School in Ashburn on May 28, 2021.

The incident garnered national attention. Conservatives protested a policy in Loudoun County schools — put in place after the assault — that allowed transgender students to use bathrooms matching their gender identity. Meanwhile, outraged parents in Loudoun County questioned why the perpetrator was moved to a different school, where he assaulted a second female student months later.

The story is a lot more complicated than this simple summary can convey. The girl had previously had some kind of sexual encounter with the boy in question in a school bathroom. This rendezvous was also planned but the incident became aggressive and the girl wanted it to stop.

Also, while it’s true the trans bathroom policy wasn’t in place at the time, it’s also true that the day of the incident the first report back to the school board was that the assault might be connected to the forthcoming bathroom policy. In other words, the very things “conservatives” protested was also the first thing school officials were worried about.

The boy’s mother has since claimed he was not trans or non-binary but no one denies he was wearing a skirt to school that day. Former school superintendent Scott Ziegler told the NY Times in August that at a meeting on the day of the assault the school’s principal told him, “He runs with the drama crowd, and you know how the drama crowd can be. They’re attention-seeking. And he’s been experimenting with different looks.” So, yes, he wore skirts but “he has never come out to the school as either nonbinary or transgender.” More on the lawsuit.

Continue reading “”

Lies, Narratives, and Selling Your Children’s Graves

Transgenderism is an incredibly violent phenomenon.

Genital mutilation is labeled “gender-affirming care,” while the mainstream media constantly reminds attempts to frame anti-trans legislation as a matter of “survival.” From self-harm to self-deception, the transgender community is plagued by depravity and violence. Yet every step of the way, the Biden administration has sought to hamper any laws that would curb this violence.1 For the federal government, downplaying the violence of transgenderism is just as crucial as skewing statistics on firearm deaths. Creating the illusion that transgenderism and violence are separate issues is a task that never ends, resulting in confusion and false impressions. After all, without mountains of rhetoric and manufactured evidence, the average person would be inclined to assume transgenderism is a “red flag” for gun ownership.

As it is, sifting through these statistics on transgenderism is a bit of a challenge. Selective data collection has plagued transgender crime statistics for quite some time.2 Some studies believe that transgender people are being misgendered at death and that they are actually four times more likely to be a victim of violence.3 Further complicating the matter, the FBI crime statistics currently list almost 10% of murder offenders as “unknown gender.”

Statistic: Number of murder offenders in the United States in 2021, by gender | Statista

Despite our limited studies, the information we do have indicates the transgender community has an intense predisposition to violence.

  • Transgender individuals consider and attempt suicide at extremely high rates.4
  • Sexual minorities are 3x more likely to be incarcerated5
  • Transgender individuals experience a “dramatically higher” prevalence of intimate partner violence.6
  • Gay and Transgender Youth are 2x more likely to be in the juvenile justice system7

Even though the studies are scarce, the association between transgenderism and violent offenses is inescapable. To those who have already made this connection, the shooting at Covenant School was a tragedy, not a surprise.

Continue reading “”

Age of Rage: UChicago Report Finds 30 Million American View Violence as Justified to Keep Trump From Power

The chilling answer is found in a new report out of the University of Chicago showing that almost 12 percent of the population, representing 30 million people, believe that violence is warranted to prevent Trump from assuming the presidency. That is almost double the number who believe that violence is warranted to ensure that Trump does become president.

As discussed in The Guardian, the Chicago Project on Security & Threats survey found many Americans are embracing violence as an option for political change.

We have watched as rage has risen in the country. It is often celebrated by one side or the other. I previously discussed how a scene like the recent confrontation on the floor of the Tennessee House perfectly captured our “age of rage.” Protesters filled the capitol building to protest the failure to pass gun-control legislation. Three Democratic state representatives — Justin Jones from Nashville, Justin Pearson from Memphis, and Gloria Johnson of Knoxville — were unwilling to yield to the majority. They disrupted the floor proceedings with a bullhorn and screaming at their colleagues.

It is a scene familiar to many of us in academia, where events are regularly canceled by those who shout down others.

The three members yelled “No action, no peace” and “Power to the people” as their colleagues objected to their stopping the legislative process. Undeterred, the three refused to allow “business as usual” to continue.

Nobel Laureate Albert Camus once said, “Insurrection is certainly not the sum total of human experience but … it is our historic reality.” Those words came to mind when Tennessee’s House of Representatives expelled two members accused of disrupting legislative proceedings in what some called an “insurrection” or a “mutiny.”

Only a few days before the Tennessee House floor fight, a confrontation occurred off the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington which captured perfectly this new political reality.

Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.) was shown on videotape screaming about gun control in the Capitol as his colleagues left the floor following a vote. Various Democratic members, including former House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), tried to calm Bowman. However, when Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) asked Bowman to stop yelling, Bowman shouted back: “I was screaming before you interrupted me” — which could go down as the epitaph for our age.

The problem is that political figures on both sides are attempting to harness this rage.  They are playing a dangerous game. Trump’s inflammatory tweets are an example. Likewise, former Democratic National Committee deputy chair Keith Ellison, now the Minnesota attorney general, once said Antifa would “strike fear in the heart” of Trump. This was after Antifa had been involved in numerous acts of violence and its website was banned in Germany. His son, Minneapolis City Council member Jeremiah Ellison, declared his allegiance to Antifa as riots raged in his city last summer.

Unleashing such rage is difficult to control and often those leading the mob find themselves later pursued by it. This is why, during the French Revolution, the journalist Jacques Mallet Pan warned, “Like Saturn, the revolution devours its children.”

Cause of fire at Rand Paul’s office remains unknown as senator looks for answers

The cause of a fire at a building housing a Kentucky office of Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., remains unknown as investigators continue to search for answers as to what started the blaze that impacted a handful of buildings in downtown Bowling Green.

A Saturday Facebook post from the Bowling Green Fire Department provides a detailed account of a fire that engulfed the building located at 1029 State Street and nearby buildings early Friday morning. The office building houses Paul’s local office and a local law firm.

A picture of the aftermath posted to the department’s Facebook page Friday shows an upper story of the building, with the numbers “1029” visible at the front entrance, partially collapsed. The department elaborated on the extent of the damage in the Saturday Facebook post.

“Yesterday at 01:45, BGFD responded to multiple reports of smoke and fire coming from the Presbyterian Church on State Street. Soon after these calls, more units were dispatched for a fire alarm at 1025 State Street,” the Saturday Facebook post stated.

Continue reading “”

The Left’s Culture of Death V: What Can We Do?

This series I have been writing on, “The Left’s Culture of Death” could go on, well, almost endlessly.  I have quoted a very, very small part of one book (Frank Dikötter’s The Tragedy of Liberation); he has three in his series, and they are about only one brutal Leftist, mass-murdering, totalitarian thug, Mao Zedong.  There are books on Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Castro, Che, Pol Pot, Ho Chi Minh, Robespierre, etc.  This is my fifth article.  I doubt Townhall will let me write an entire encyclopedia—which is what it would take to list all the horrors of the application of Leftist philosophy in the last 200+ years, the dominant philosophy of today’s elite, including the Democratic Party of America.

But then, what I have recorded in these articles is sufficient, or at least should be, to spur the interest of decent, intelligent people who truly care about their families and others.  If you are still skeptical, read Dikötter yourself, and follow it up with other studies on Stalin et al.  The cure for ignorance is knowledge; sadly, there is no cure for stupidity and a closed, bigoted mind.  Hate can be overcome by love, but one must be willing, and too many Leftists have demonstrated they aren’t.  Barbarity is cured by civilization, and Leftists don’t want that, either.  Civilization isn’t the road to totalitarian power.  Many naïve believers always exist, and they are forever swept up in the torrent of true Leftism.  They don’t open their eyes until it is too late.  “I’m a proud liberal!” One Leftist recently emailed me.  He’s going to be a dead one if his side wins.

But the history I have recorded in these articles is accurate and fairly portrays what the Left did in the 20th century in China, is still doing there and in many places in the world, and will continue to do wherever they have power and opportunity.  It is simply intrinsic to the Leftist worldview.  We know that because it is always the result of their philosophy wherever it gains ascendancy.  A tree is known for its fruit.  And they are doing it—so far, in moderation in America—but they will follow the Stalinist and Maoist mass murdering model if they ever feel they need to and can get away with it.  Keep buying guns and ammo, Americans; it is your best line of defense and might be the only salvation for the country.

But the problem is…what can we do?  Leftism has infiltrated deeply into America and is making every effort to spread its tentacles as far and wide as possible.  Decent, God-fearing people are at a disadvantage.  We have morals; they don’t.  We believe in the sanctity of human life; they don’t.  We want to practice “love thy neighbor” and “mind your own business;” they don’t.  Leftists practice hate and want to tell you how you MUST live, or you will be shot.  Conservatives try to teach people the best choices in life, too, but we don’t kill people when they don’t do what we suggest.  We CAN’T kill people.  It isn’t in the true philosophy of God-fearing people to do things like that.  Unlike Leftists, we aren’t the kind of people who will line our enemies up against a wall and shoot them.  Leftists do that.  We can’t, at least not to innocent people, six-year-olds, women, and poor farmers.  The Left has no qualms about it.  You and I do.

So, again, what can we do?  We can fight, of course; we have every right to defend ourselves to the death if necessary.  But we can’t commit mass murder like communists do.  We can’t throw people into gulags and labor camps and work them to death.  We can’t steal people’s land and businesses and terrorize them if we don’t like how they look (“white supremacists”).  That’s what Leftists do.  That’s what they have done, and that is what they will continue to do—even in America.  And we aren’t Leftists.

I’m not saying we always must “fight fair” (all is fair in love and war?).  But mass murder is totally, well, it’s simply beyond the capability of people like you and me.  We would never think of doing something like that or of stealing somebody’s property and goods; honor simply forbids it, and most conservatives are honorable people.  So, again, that puts us at a disadvantage because we cannot use many of the weapons—terror, mass murder, rape, theft, gulags—that Leftists use.  A decided disadvantage, indeed.

We can only win by the word, by persuasion, by faith in God; the gun is our last resort, and even then, only in self-defense.  But, as history is our witness, our hope is not great.  Decency, persuasion, and self-restraint can’t stop bullets.  Our nation rose in decency and civility.  It will end in decadence and barbarity—in other words, the path the Democratic Party is leading the country down right now.  The American people, from our Founding, have been some of the best people the world has ever produced.  Not perfect by any means, but by comparison, far superior to almost any other people’s history has ever witnessed.  And I have absolutely no hesitation in saying that.  And that sort of person, by the millions, still exists in the United States today.  I suspect the people reading this article are among them.  The problem is…are we outnumbered now?  That is a question I don’t know the answer to.  Decadence and barbarity are rampant in America, including in the highest echelons of power.  Indeed, Joe Biden is the number one trash cheerleader.  Are good words and persuasive arguments enough to gain victory?  They never have been before.

America produced great people, but there is nothing special about us as human beings.  That is what the Democratic Party is demonstrating to us today.  So, it may already be too late.

God’s Children Are Not for Sale: Why the Left Hates Sound of Freedom

I recently went to see the movie Sound of Freedom. It was the first time I had gone to a movie theater since before Covid and it was well worth the wait for such a superb and important film. I was curious about a number of things including whether, in the midst of a heatwave (and rumors that AMC Theaters were sabotaging the air-conditioning in theaters showing the film), the theater would be air-conditioned and why the left has been so distraught over a movie about child sex trafficking – a seemingly nonpartisan issue about which all people of good conscience should be concerned.

I am happy to report that the theater, in West Nyack, NY, was air-conditioned and comfortable. I’m also happy to report that other than the first two rows, every seat was occupied. In fact, when I went to purchase the ticket, the 6:30pm and 7:30pm showings were completely sold out other than the first two rows, so I attended a 9:15pm showing.

And leftists won’t be pleased to hear that the composition of the audience was “representative” of the country’s demographics, i.e., it was quite diverse. In fact, the vast majority of the audience was Hispanic (my guess with the amount of Spanish I heard is first generation), Black, and much of the audience was likely 30 and under, although there were definitely people a bit older as well (I spotted only one white man who appeared to be older than 50). These are people the left thinks they own.

Continue reading “”

What They Mean by ‘Civility’
The New York Times raises no objection to murderous, racist rhetoric at a Common Cause rally.

The New York Times editorial page, a division of the New York Times Co., on Saturday endorsed Common Cause’s personal attack on Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. As we explained Friday, Common Cause, a Washington-based corporation, is complaining about Scalia and Thomas’s having joined Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the 2010 decision that overturned a law criminalizing certain political speech by corporations.
As the Times explains, Common Cause implies that Scalia and Thomas had a conflict of interest:

The framers of our Constitution envisioned law gaining authority apart from politics. They wanted justices to exercise their judgment independently–to be free from worrying about upsetting the powerful and certainly not to be cultivating powerful political interests.

A petition by Common Cause to the Justice Department questioned whether Justices Scalia and Thomas are doing the latter. It asked whether the court’s ruling a year ago in the Citizens United case, unleashing corporate money into politics, should be set aside because the justices took part in a political gathering of the conservative corporate money-raiser Charles Koch while the case was before the court.

If the answer turns out to be yes, it would be yet more evidence that the court must change its policy–or rather its nonpolicy–about recusal.

The answer will not turn out to be yes, for Common Cause’s complaint is not only meritless but frivolous. Koch was not a party to the lawsuit. Citizens United, which brought the case to the court, is a 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, just like Common Cause.
Further, both Justices Scalia and Thomas, in joining the majority opinion, merely reaffirmed the legal positions that they, along with Justice Kennedy, had previously taken in dissenting from the precedents that Citizens United overturned: McConnell v. FEC (2003) and, in Justice Scalia’s case, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990, the year before Thomas joined the court). Thus it is preposterous to suggest that their purported association, years later, with “powerful political interests” influenced their decision in Citizens United.
Common Cause’s complaint does not even allege any actual impropriety on the justices’ part. In its letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, the corporation asserts that “it appears” the justices “have participated in political strategy sessions.” This is based on promotional material for a conference called “Understanding and Addressing Threats to American Free Enterprise and Prosperity,” which says that “past meetings have featured such notable leaders as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.”
What exactly did Justices Scalia and Thomas do at the conferences “it appears” they attended? Neither Common Cause nor the Times offers any evidence bearing on the question. But the Times makes another accusation against Justice Scalia that may provide a clue:

Continue reading “”

Prof: ‘Nothing wrong with’ murder of Trump supporter from a ‘moral perspective.’

University of Rhode Island Professor Erik Loomis appeared to defend the murder of Aaron “Jay” Danielson, the member of the right-wing group Patriot Prayer, during recent social unrest in Portland, Oregon.

In 2012, Loomis came under scrutiny after he called for NRA executive Wayne LaPierre’s “head on a stick” following the shooting massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Just weeks later, in January 2013, Loomis said, “I know the central mission of the Republican Party is to have a membership made up entirely of old rural white people.”

Now, Loomis is once again under fire after publishing a blog post titled “Why was Michael Reinoehl killed?” Reinoehl is the man suspected of fatally shooting Danielson. Reinoehl was killed as federal authorities tried to arrest him.

“Michael Reinoehl is the guy who killed the fascist in Portland last week. He admitted it and said he was scared the cops would kill him. Well, now the cops have killed him,” Loomis wrote in the September 4 blog post.

 

“I am extremely anti-conspiracy theory. But it’s not a conspiracy theory at this point in time to wonder if the cops simply murdered him. The police is [sic] shot through with fascists from stem to stern. They were openly working with the fascists in Portland, as they were in Kenosha which led to dead protestors,” Loomis continued.

In the comment section of the blog post, one reader challenged Loomis by writing, “Erik, he shot and killed a guy,” referring to Reinoehl.

Loomis responded by saying, “He killed a fascist. I see nothing wrong with it, at least from a moral perspective.” He further added that “tactically, that’s a different story. But you could say the same thing about John Brown.”

Loomis furthered compared Reinoehl to Brown who in the 1800s used violence as a means of fighting slavery.

One reader then asked, “What’s so great about assassinating a rando fascist? And in the absence of a sound affirmative justification, it should be easy to envision the drawbacks.”

Loomis was quick to reply with, “What’s so great about assassinating random slaveholders, said liberals to John Brown.”

In a separate comment, Loomis wrote, “the problem with violence is that it usually, though not always, is a bad idea. That I agree with.”

Loomis said in another comment, “Yes, sometimes violence is necessary, say to avoid greater physical harm, i.e. self-defense, or to defeat a literal army of fascists who are trying to kill people. But, ideologically, I think the idea that violence is good if it’s against our political enemies is a core part of fascism, and so the ideological opposition to that idea should be its opposite – that violence as a general rule is bad, unless the specific context of that situation requires a violent response.”

Loomis made headlines Tuesday for another comment he made on Twitter. In response to MSNBC host Chris Hayes tweeting, “Trump is objectively pro-Covid,” Loomis tweeted “yeah, I mean, once Republicans figured out COVID was going to affect people of color and the poor disproportionately, they stopped caring about doing anything about it.”

We Have to Talk About the Texas Shooter’s Deeply Weird Origins.

There’s a lot about the Texas shooter that doesn’t add up and that the mainstream media doesn’t want to talk about.

Was the Texas Shooter Some Kind of Fed?

Texas Shooter
(Via social media.)

I have to admit I hesitated for a couple of days before tackling this story. Texas has barely even begun to mourn after Saturday’s terror, and here’s some new media columnist going all conspiracy nut over the Texas shooter’s weird origins.

But every time I look, the story just gets weirder — and, of course, the mainstream media won’t touch it.

So here we are.

The Texas shooter “posted pro-white supremacist and neo-Nazi materials,” according to an FBI bulletin, and by now everyone is aware that the man who murdered eight people and wounded several more had various Nazi tattoos. By the looks of the swelling (see above), the SS lightning slashes ink might be new, depending on the age of the photograph. He also showed off a bulletproof vest with “Punisher” patches and another patch with “RWDS” on it. That stands for Right Wing Death Squad.

(That National Socialism is a leftwing ideology is a subject previously discussed ad infinitum.)

In some ways, it’s all a little too convenient. In others, it’s all too weird.

As inevitably happens after one of these deadly attacks, some took to social media to question whether the alleged neo-Nazi was actually a neo-Nazi. The BBC on Tuesday attempted to dispel such notions… but, after reading the Beeb’s article, I came away for the first time suspicious:

The BBC has examined the material and we can be confident the suspect was the person behind the posts.

Garcia appeared to use the account, on a social network popular in Russia, as an online diary. He posted multiple documents including his name, date of birth and other identifying details, including a plane ticket, a speeding ticket and an ID card.

Zero followers on a Russian social media site? Personal documents including his I.D.? As Longtime Sharp VodkaPundit Readers™ know, I’m usually the first to dismiss a conspiracy theory. But if the feds wanted to put something incriminating on social media where no one would find it — until it was convenient to do so — that’s not such a bad way to do it.

Then there’s this from Andy Ngo, whose honest reporting has landed him in hot water more than once:

An anonymous Twitter account (with a paid-for blue check) with the handle Insurrection Barbie put all the mysteries together in bullet points:

  • Hispanic man
  • praised the trans shooter who shot up the christian school
  • has a social media account on a Russian website (wtf)
  • loves Hitler but also a fan and follower of Libs of Tik Tok, who btw is Jewish
  • hates LGBTQIA but he shot up an outlet mall, which is a place that typically has housewives and families
  • he was not targeting anyone he just shot at whoever was in range
  • obtained his weapon illegally if he was in fact dishonorably discharged
  • Neo Nazi white supremacist who is not white

We’re left with lots of questions but few answers, despite all the information that’s been made available so quickly.

I’d just add that we were told an awful lot about the Texas shooter’s motivations within 48 hours of his crimes but we still aren’t allowed to see the Tennessee trans shooter’s manifesto nearly two months after she murdered six.

If you need me, I’ll be watching YouTube videos on how to fashion a functioning tinfoil hat.

Louisville shooter Connor Sturgeon reportedly detailed reasons for rampage in manifesto

The 25-year-old commercial developer wrote a 13-page missive that detailed his motives for gunning down his colleagues during their morning conference at the Old National Bank last week, a massacre he captured on a deranged Instagram live stream, the DailyMail reported.

Sturgeon reportedly hoped to showcase how easy it was to buy a gun in Kentucky and wanted to highlight the mental health crisis in America.

He also planned to end the slaughter by suicide — a wish that was granted when he was shot to death by police officers he brandished his firearm.

Sturgeon’s manifesto is now reportedly in the hands of the Louisville Police Department.

The department would not confirm or deny any details of the alleged missive.

The mass shooter legally purchased his AR-15 assault rifle from a local gun dealership just six days before the rampage.

That gun is now slated to be auctioned off thanks to state law allowing guns seized by the police to go to auction, including those used in violent crimes.

Sturgeon’s family has also spoken about his “mental health challenges,” though did not specify what illnesses he was battling.

Specialists are testing the killer’s brain for chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), or brain deterioration caused by repeated head trauma after it was revealed he suffered numerous sports-related concussions.

A neighbor of Sturgeon’s told The Post that the manifesto was found by Sturgeon’s roommate Dallas Whelan — the same friend who left a voicemail from the killer saying he felt “suicidal” and planned to “kill everyone at the bank.”

A still from surveillance video released by Louisville Police shows Connor Sturgeon in the vestibule of Old National Bank .
Connor Sturgeon reportedly left behind a manifesto outlining his goals for the mass shooting.
LMPD

“He seemed like he was tripping, like he couldn’t believe any of this,” Michael McCoy, 45, said of Whelan reporting the missive to the cops.

“He said something about my neighbor and a manifesto. They called and reported it to the cops.”

“I was over here up on the porch sweeping and there were detectives and him talking, and something about a manifesto and something about a letter he left … He specifically said a manifesto.”

A motive for the mass shooting has not yet been revealed, but Sturgeon had been told he was going to be fired from the bank shortly before the massacre.

Killed in the rampage were Tommy Elliott, 63, a senior vice president; Jim Tutt, 64, a market executive; Joshua Barrick, 40, another senior vice president; Juliana Farmer, 45, a commercial loan specialist; and Deana Eckert, 57, an executive administrative officer.

Rookie police officer Nickolas Wilt, 26, was listed in critical condition after undergoing surgery for a brain injury.

Fellow cop Cory Galloway was grazed in the shoulder in the fatal shootout.

The Parable of the Drowning Man: Communist Version.

We were having an interesting discussion on my FB wall about free will because I made the observation that even God left Man free will, whereas Man would definitely not and it segued into some comments about Christianity. If you read my previous Pretending to Sleep posts about coming to America, I wrote a little bit about my relationship with religion, particularly organized religion (i.e. I am not a fan or a practitioner). Nevertheless, I do have an appreciation for the Great Clockmaker (as my friend Justin dubbed it) and my religious friends with whom I apparently have more in common than not (weird, I admit).

There is a Christian story involving a flood, called the “Parable of the Drowning Man.”

The parable of the drowning man, also known as Two Boats and a Helicopter, is a short story, often told as a joke, most often about a devoutly Christian man, frequently a minister, who refuses several rescue attempts in the face of approaching floodwaters, each time telling the would-be rescuers that God will save him. After turning down the last, he drowns in the flood. After his death, the man meets God and asks why he did not intervene. God responds that he sent all the would-be rescuers to the man’s aid on the expectation he would accept the help.—Wikipedia

The version I was taught is a little different. Now, do keep in mind that I’m paraphrasing, not quoting, and that there are probably variations of this, as there often are (Ivan and the Goat comes to mind for example):

A boyar (large landowner) and a peasant escape a sudden flood and somehow end up in a tree. The flood sweeps everything away, so it’s just the two of them. The boyar filled his pockets with gold; the peasant with bread.

Time passes and the boyar offers the peasant some of his gold in exchange for the bread, at which point the peasant speaks truth-to-power and lectures the boyar on his choices (something which happens only in parables and revisionist fantasies).

Weak with hunger, the boyar falls out of the tree and drowns. Sustained by the bread, the peasant survives and when the flood waters recede, he gets down, pilfers the drowned boyar’s pockets for the gold and takes it with him to give to his village to rebuild a new, fairer, equal society or some such BS.

Like all parables, it has a message: in this case, death to the boyars. Or perhaps, “don’t worry, in the end, fate (clears throat: some undefinable power in the Universe) will take care of evildoers.”

The message is not “wealth is bad” because it is wealth that is used to build the new communist society. Now, we could argue ad infinitum about whom the gold actually belonged to (yawn; I’m not gonna convince you and you’re not gonna convince me so let’s just skip ahead to “let’s agree to disagree”) in the first place.

The ethics of what people would do in a life-or-death situation like this aside (hint: you don’t know what you’ll actually do until you have to, no matter how much you’d like to think of yourself as virtuous), what’s really interesting about this parable is how clearly it announces the intentions of communism—only when the bad people are dead will the downtrodden be able to build paradise.

So don’t say that you’ve not been warned, especially if the 100 million deaths in the 20th century alone are just not proof enough for you. “It’ll be different this time. We (the ones we’ve been waiting for, the right people) will be in charge.” Sure, sure.

And please don’t miss the irony of the actual economics that are implied here which is to say that the assumption is that that gold would actually end up doing good in the hands of people who ended up with it, especially the modern version of those people. There’s a reason that the Pareto Principle (power law distribution) is an actual thing that manifests again and again. Just like there’s a reason that collective farms lead to shortages, starvation, and slave labor (the actual result of communism). Somehow (shocker!) it’s always that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” who are in charge when these things “happen.”

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”—Margaret Thatcher

Thatcher was absolutely right and I don’t see her being disproven now or ever. The only error in that statement was the use of the word “socialism.”

Remember, it’s not like they’re not telling you what their intent is.

The goal of socialism is communism—Vladimir Lenin

You’re just not willing to listen.