The Consequences of Obsessive Category Disorder

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

In the name of diversity, America’s racial classifiers obliterate diversity.

Long ago, long before the diversity movement and the sprouting of departments of diversity and inclusion in academia, government, media, and industry, I lived in a San Antonio barrio, where my friends and neighbors who were Mexican nationals and Mexican Americans, referred to themselves as “Mexican,” and where I referred to myself as “Italian.”

Since then, I’ve lived in Phoenix for 30 years and am now living in Tucson, where Mexicans still refer to themselves as Mexicans, unless they’ve had the misfortune of being miseducated in college and/or working as a programmable automaton in Big Media, Big Academia, Big Business or Big Government. 

In these big institutions of conformity and appalling ignorance of history and anthropology, Mexicans are agglomerated with other distinctly different nationalities and ethnocultural groups and plastered with the labels of “Hispanic,” “Latino,” or the latest linguistic monstrosity of “Latinx.”

This labeling is done by people who see themselves as educated, enlightened, and open-minded, but prove otherwise in their thoughtless parroting of utterly ridiculous “racial” concoctions. (The penultimate word in the preceding sentence is in quotes because today’s racial categorization is mostly anti-science, in that it has little basis in evolutionary science, genetics, or anthropology.)

Inanity, and possible insanity, also can be seen in the other “racial” labels that have become the lingua franca of those with a pathological need to reduce the rich diversity of the nation and the world to six categories that are an incongruous mix of skin color and geographic origin. In addition to the official and specious category of Hispanic are the official and specious categories of White, African American, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander.

Given current trends, it may come to pass someday that people will be required to wear their assigned label on their backside, like a bumper sticker for humans.  

I’ll return to the other catch-all categories momentarily but will first finish the discussion on Hispanics (aka Latinos, Latin Americans, or Latinx).

The word “Latinx” was masterfully ridiculed in a December 19, 2021, op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. I can’t do a better job than the op-ed and letters in exposing the silliness of such nouveau terms as “Latinx,” so I won’t try; but I will mention some facts about Latin America apparently not known by those inflicted with Obsessive Category Disorder, or OCD.

One fact is that an estimated 30 million people of Italian descent live in Brazil, which is the largest country by population in Latin America. To that point, here are questions for those with OCD:  How should these Italian Brazilians be classified—as Hispanic, White, Latino, Latinx, or Latin American? And for the millions of Italians who have intermarried with black, Spanish, and indigenous Brazilians, are their offspring considered to be people of color, and if so, what color? (If you’re not sure what color is produced from mixing the colors of olive, black, brown, beige, and white, you can call a color expert at Sherwin-Williams or your local hardware store.)

Even miseducated college graduates might know enough to understand that the Romance languages spoken in Latin America have their etymological roots in the Latin language, which is how Latin America got its name. (Given that I studied Latin for four years in high school, I’m an honorary Latin American.)

Another explanation for how Latin America got its name can be found in the wonderful work of history, The Last Emperor of Mexico, by Edward Shawcross. Unfortunately, directors of diversity and inclusion won’t read the book, because it’s three standard deviations above the average IQ for the “profession.”

Anyway, Shawcross explains that in the 1850s, under the reign of Napoleon III, French thinkers invented the term “Latin America” to rally southern Catholic peoples against a feared onslaught from northern Protestant peoples. He goes on to write, “Soon after a French journalist used it in print in 1856, a Columbian living in Paris wrote a poem warning that the Anglo-Saxons, as he referred to the United States, were the mortal enemies of Latin Americans.”

This dovetailed with a belief of Catholic monarchs that due to cultural and historical differences between Catholicism and Protestantism, Anglo-Saxon nations were better suited to democracy and liberalism while Latin nations were better suited to monarchies. In turn, this became a pretext for French, Spanish, and Habsburg monarchs, who, fearing republicanism and American hegemony in the New World, to attempt to recreate their own hegemony, by taking the side of Mexican rebels who wanted to overthrow the fledgling Mexican republic and restore the monarchy.

On a personal note, although I am not an Anglo-Saxon Protestant or an apologist for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and colonialism, I’ve long held that the parts of the Americas where Latin-Catholic culture is more dominant than Anglo-Saxon-Protestant culture are less free, less prosperous, and less liberal, in the classical sense. This also applies to certain parts of the United States, which I won’t identify here, because it’s too easy to be misunderstood without writing a long dissertation on the subject.

Having covered the official category of Hispanic, let’s turn now to the other official categories of White, African American, Asian, Native American, and Pacific Islander. As with the Hispanic category, those inflicted with OCD have reduced a large number of distinct nationalities and ethno-cultural groups to this handful of categories. Then, in violation of equal rights and equal opportunity laws, they discriminate against those in the concocted White category, and more recently, against those in the concocted Asian category, in college admissions and in hiring and promotions, in the name of diversity and inclusion.

Note the incongruous and inconsistent way that the categories are organized. Only one of the categories, the White category, refers to skin color. The rest refer to the geography of origin: Africa for African Americans, Asia for Asians, the Americas for Native Americans, the Pacific Islands for Pacific Islanders, and Europe’s Hispanic Peninsula, or the Iberian Peninsula, for Hispanics. The only exception is when African-American category is called the Black category.

Whoever coined these categories should be arrested for committing a crime against the field of anthropology. The crime has resulted in absurdities, in people having their heritage overlooked or insulted, and in much political mischief.

Take the Asian category, where scores of unique nationalities and ethnocultural groups are lumped together as if they are homogenous. 

To see firsthand how absurd this is, try convincing Filipinos and Koreans that they are the same as the Japanese. Or, following the lead of corporations, appoint a Han Chinese or East Indian Hindu to a board of directors or senior management position to represent all peoples who hail from Asia, including Uyghurs, Mongolians, Eastern Russians, Malaysians, Pakistanis, and many others.

This is as ridiculous and insulting as believing that Boston Brahmins or the Pilgrims or the Chesapeake Bay colonists were no different from my poor Italian ancestors or the ancestors of Albanian Americans, Iranian Americans, Jewish Americans, Walloon Americans, and so on for hundreds of other groups force-fitted into the White category and stereotyped as privileged, bourgeois, racist, and oppressive.  Yes indeed, that certainly describes my immigrant grandfather, who worked as a coal miner in southern Illinois; or my wife’s grandfather, who worked as a field hand in the oil fields of western Pennsylvania.

To circle back to the subject of diversity on corporate boards, a board would need thousands of directors to represent all of the world’s peoples. To get an idea of how many peoples there are, go to the following link, scroll through the list of ethnic groups that come up, and click on the names of the various ethnic groups to get the names of the sub-groups within each one.

Only those with Obsessive Category Disorder can believe that they are furthering racial enlightenment and diversity by obliterating this rich diversity and by using such fatuous words as “Latinx”.

 

 

 

 

 

Gun Control Comes from a Place of Privilege

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editors’ Note: We think the observations made by the author are very perceptive and largely overlooked. However, we would also add that even those in nice neighborhoods depend on police who are often suffering from funding deficiencies and local prosecutors who ignore the law. But even aside from these issues, the average response time for a 911 call in urban America averages around eleven minutes. In rural areas, it can even be longer. In a life-threatening situation, this is far too long to be helpful. The police response is largely to fill out reports, not stop the carnage. They simply can’t get there fast enough in many circumstances. Therefore, when silly, well-meaning people want to take your guns away, they are really taking your protection away and leaving your fate in the hands of your attacker. In reality, you must be the “first responder”, and if you think otherwise, you are hopelessly naive.

 

Assuming we know what’s best for others is rarely a good idea.

The concept of privilege gets a bad rap in many circles, and understandably so. Many have taken it way too far, using it as a means of bullying their political opponents into submission. But while the excesses of this rhetoric are certainly problematic, I don’t think we should do away with the concept entirely. Behind all the moral grandstanding lies a kernel of truth, one that can provide some valuable insights if applied correctly.

The principle, essentially, is that certain people have unearned advantages, and those advantages can shape how they see the world. Affluence, for instance, can make someone blind to the needs of the poor. Likewise, those with an above-average aptitude, intelligence, or physical appearance might find it difficult to relate to those who were not equally endowed with those gifts.

The problem with this blindness is that it can easily lead to hubris, that is, unwarranted self-confidence. Indeed, one of the hallmarks of privilege is thinking we know the best course of action for a given situation when we really don’t.

The classic example of this is the story of a famous French princess who, upon hearing that the peasants had no bread, simply replied, “then let them eat cake.” She was so unfamiliar with their circumstances that the solution she dismissively prescribed was positively laughable. Another example of privilege was when the lockdown elite told us to “just stay home,” seemingly oblivious to the fact that staying home is simply unfeasible for many working-class people.

Now, progressives are typically pretty good at pointing out places where privilege is leading to blindness and hubris (indeed, they often see privilege even where it doesn’t exist). But there’s one occurrence of privilege that always seems to get a pass, and that is the privilege associated with gun control.

Out of Touch

Consider, for example, someone who’s from a wealthy, safe neighborhood. They know very little about what it’s like to live in a high-crime area. They have probably never been robbed or threatened with violence from a total stranger. And if they do face threats, they have no qualms with calling the (armed) police who are usually responsive and happy to help.

Now compare that to the experience of someone from a rougher part of town. First, the cops there are probably not as responsive. What’s more, the cops can often become antagonistic, poking their nose where it doesn’t belong (see below) and sometimes arresting the very people they arrived to help.

Unsurprisingly, confidence in the police is noticeably lower in these communities.

So what do you do if you live in a high-crime area where you can’t trust the police to help you? For many, the answer is to buy a gun. Indeed, 88 percent of gun owners cite crime protection as one of the main reasons they own a gun, and people who have been recent crime victims report higher rates of gun ownership than those who have not been recent victims.

This brings us to the point about privilege. To many people who grew up in these rough neighborhoods, saying “just call the cops” is like saying “let them eat cake.” It isn’t actually helpful advice. It just demonstrates how little we know about their circumstances and how unqualified we are to speak to their issues.

To be sure, the people in these communities are often divided over the issue of gun control themselves. Even so, if someone is buying a gun, there’s a good chance it’s because they don’t feel safe without it. So before we tell them they are better off disarmed, perhaps we should take stock of how privileged we are to not need guns ourselves.

A Decades-Old Problem

The connection between gun control and privilege may sound new to many, but it’s actually an issue that goes back decades. In 1978, for instance, the economist and libertarian philosopher Murray Rothbard drew attention to this problem in his book For a New Liberty. To make his point, he quotes an article written by Don Kates for the Cato Institute’s Inquiry Magazine. Kates, for his part, pulls no punches.

“Gun prohibition is the brainchild of white middle-class liberals who are oblivious to the situation of poor and minority people living in areas where the police have given up on crime control,” Kates writes. “Such liberals weren’t upset about marijuana laws, either, in the fifties when the busts were confined to the ghettos. Secure in well-policed suburbs or high-security apartments guarded by Pinkertons (whom no one proposes to disarm), the oblivious liberal derides gun ownership as ‘an anachronism from the Old West.’”

Kates goes on to highlight exactly what kind of people are being impacted by gun control policies. Citing a 1975 national survey, he notes that the leading subgroups who owned a gun only for self-defense were blacks, the lowest income groups, and senior citizens. “These are the people,” Kates eloquently warns, “it is proposed we jail because they insist on keeping the only protection available for their families in areas in which the police have given up.”

Four decades later, FBI data showed African Americans were still disproportionately impacted by anti-carry laws, accounting for 42 percent of all possession charges even though they accounted for just 13 percent of the overall population.

Of course, none of this will make gun control any less contentious. There is no silver bullet here. But perhaps this paradigm can at least give us a lesson in humility. Namely, don’t assume you know what’s best for someone if you haven’t walked a mile in their shoes.

*****

This article was first published by FEE, Foundation for Economic Education, and is reproduced with permission.

Military Documents About Gain of Function Contradict Fauci Testimony Under Oath

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes
  • Military documents state that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018 seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the gain of function research moratorium.
  • The main report regarding the EcoHealth Alliance proposal leaked on the internet a couple of months ago, it has remained unverified until now. Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense, written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.
  • “The proposal does not mention or assess potential risks of Gain of Function (GoF) research,” a direct quote from the DARPA rejection letter.
  • Project Veritas reached out to DARPA for comment regarding the hidden documents and spoke with the Chief of Communications, Jared Adams, who said, “It doesn’t sound normal to me,” when asked about the way the documents were buried.

[WASHINGTON, D.C. – Jan. 10, 2022] Project Veritas has obtained startling never-before-seen documents regarding the origins of COVID-19, gain of function research, vaccines, potential treatments which have been suppressed, and the government’s effort to conceal all of this.

The documents in question stem from a report at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, better known as DARPA, which were hidden in a top-secret shared drive.

DARPA is an agency under the U.S. Department of Defense in charge of facilitating research in technology with potential military applications.

Project Veritas has obtained a separate report to the Inspector General of the Department of Defense written by U.S. Marine Corp Major, Joseph Murphy, a former DARPA Fellow.

The report states that EcoHealth Alliance approached DARPA in March 2018, seeking funding to conduct gain of function research of bat-borne coronaviruses. The proposal, named Project Defuse, was rejected by DARPA over safety concerns and the notion that it violates the basis gain of function research moratorium.

According to the documents, NIAID, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, went ahead with the research in Wuhan, China and at several sites across the U.S.

Dr. Fauci has repeatedly maintained, under oath, that the NIH and NAIAD have not been involved in gain of function research with the EcoHealth Alliance program. But according to the documents obtained by Project Veritas which outline why EcoHealth Alliance’s proposal was rejected, DARPA certainly classified the research as gain of function.

*****

Continue reading this article at Project Veritas.

Some Timely Satire: No Left-Wing Extremists in the US

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Judging by media coverage, there are only right-wing extremists.

Groucho Marx said that he didn’t want to be a member of any club that would have him. To paraphrase the comedian, I don’t want to be a member of any political tribe that would have me, especially not the control freaks who want to remake America into their extreme image and subjugate me and my loved ones and take our stuff and constitutional rights.

Thankfully, there are no longer any extremists on the left for me to guard against—at least according to the mediaExtremists only exist on the right.

That explains why the pejorative “right-wing” is used in the media ten times more or so than “left-wing.” It also explains why there has been an avalanche of stories about the threat of right-wing extremists and white supremacists and no stories about left-wing extremists and white Marxists.

One can only conclude that there is no one on the left like the Arizonan who, along with other numbskulls, stormed the Capitol wearing an animal skin and Viking horns—a freak who made me ashamed to be an Arizonan.

The unbathed, scraggly rioters in Portland, Seattle, Kenosha, and other cities must’ve been on the right, despite their claim that they were Antifa, or anti-fascists, because extremists are only on the right. 

Being learned people with an exceptional knowledge of history, the Antifa no doubt knows that the right is often the left, and vice versa. Journalists certainly know this, considering that they are even brighter and more versed in history than the Antifa, due to having a degree in the toughest major in college next to an education major.

Here’s a quick history lesson for the unlearned who don’t have the intellect of Antifa or journalists: The word “fascism” got its name in Italy from the bundle of sticks called “fasci,” a symbol of the collective nature of Benito Mussolini’s fascism. As with Hitler’s National Socialists, fascism was a combination of nationalism and socialism. The fascists may not have owned the means of production, but they didn’t have to, because they controlled the capitalists, which is the dream of control freaks like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Elizabeth Warren.

Are AOC and EW right-wingers?

More history: Starting with the Progressive Era in the early twentieth century and continuing for a few decades, white eugenicists led the powerful eugenics movement, which had the mission of stopping undesirables from reproducing, through forced sterilization and other measures. They called themselves progressives but must’ve been right-wingers in disguise, because progressives would never have resorted to such an abuse of government power.

Likewise, President Woodrow Wilson, a former Ivy League academic, called himself a progressive but must’ve been a right-winger. After all, no one on the left would’ve passed the Sedition Act and arrested reporters for speaking out against American soldiers being slaughtered in the First World War. Similarly, no one on today’s left would cancel people or get them fired for exercising their First Amendment right of free speech.

Senator Joe McCarthy was indeed a right-winger (and a drunk). He was so extreme that he went after lovey-dovey Kumbaya Americans who wanted to turn America into a Communist paradise like the Soviet Union and Red China, which, combined, starved and executed tens of millions of people. He is so vilified for what he did that the word “McCarthyism” is synonymous with “right-wing extremism.” Funny thing, though, the word “Wilsonism” or “eugenicism” did not enter the political lexicon as being synonymous with “left-wing extremism.”

All of this shows that the left is smarter than the right. Progressives and their fellow cadres in the copycat media have commandeered the language to their advantage and convinced America’s youth that the only threat to their freedom and well-being comes from the right.  

Speaking of right, Groucho Marx was indeed right. Americans should not want to be a member of a political tribe on either the right or left that harbors extremists, even if the tribe would have them.

David Takes on Goliath

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

When growing up, “Polack” jokes were all the rage for a while. People would ask me if I were of Polish descent given my last name. I would answer no — that is for names ending in “ski” and not “sky.” I am Lithuanian. That was a made-up fable. Flash forward 40 years when a cousin located me after listening to the Dennis Prager radio show where I was a guest. We met up and he provided me with a complete family history showing my ancestors had come to America from a small town in Lithuania. My heritage was indeed validated after all. I currently could not be prouder to be from the great country of Lithuania.

That is because little Lithuania (with its three million residents) told China to take a long walk off a short pier. China has decided to try to crush Lithuania economically because it allowed Taiwan a representative office in their capital, Vilnius.

Because of their refusal to kowtow to China, the fascists who run China have blocked all imports from Lithuania. It gets worse. China is trying to crush Lithuania. Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mantas Adomenas, stated, “China has been sending messages to multinationals that if they use parts and supplies from Lithuania, the companies will no longer be allowed to sell to the Chinese market or get supplies from China. We have seen some companies cancel contracts with Lithuanian suppliers.” 

One might think such an action is against the World Trade Organization (WTO) rules. The WTO, where President Clinton supported China becoming a member, has once again proved their worthlessness by not stepping in to stop this obviously unacceptable act by the Chinese. 

If you are not aware, China is preying on smaller countries by using their economic might to crush any opposition to their plans and to assure non-recognition that Taiwan even exists on the planet. They have really dug themselves into the Western Hemisphere unlike any country has since the Monroe Doctrine was issued in 1823. 

The Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Panama stopped their recognition of Taiwan in favor of China. These three countries, which would have a greater affinity to Taiwan because of their size and desire to stay independent, have been bought off by China. These countries are just a few of the Western Hemisphere countries playing footsie with China. Other countries in Latin America like Brazil, Argentina, Peru, and Chile, have close economic ties with China and would be pressured by the Chinese bullies to comply with their policy wishes.

This is what makes Lithuania’s stand more unique. The bigger question is what will the EU do? The EU did state they are launching an investigation into whether the WTO rules have been violated by China’s actions against a member state. It is yet to be seen whether Lithuania’s actions will cause a real rift between the EU and China. It will be a test of whether the EU leadership has a commitment to its member states or whether the larger EU members (France and Germany) are the unprincipled money-grubbing lackeys I have always thought them to be. At a recent meeting of the 27 members, the issue was not even brought up as France — which holds the rotating six-month presidency of the EU — vetoed it. 

A recent EU statement: “The EU remains committed to its One China Policy and recognizes the government of the People’s Republic of China as the sole government of China.” That is all well and good if we were still living in the 1970s when there was still some question as to whether the government of Taiwan had any interest in going back to the mainland. Fifty years later Taiwan is an independent democracy of 24 million people who want to maintain their independence from the Bullies of Beijing. 

The Free World must back Lithuania here and tell China to stop its unreasonable demands that the world comply with all its actions. If we do not draw a line here, they know we will do nothing to stop them from taking over Taiwan. The first country that needs to step up and back the Lithuanians is you guessed it – the United States. This is a good test of the backbone of Joe Biden and Antony Blinken.

 

Sinema Stands Up to Biden, Dem Leadership on Axing Filibuster

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The same week that President Joe Biden called for “getting rid of” the filibuster to push through Democrats’ agenda on federalizing elections, U.S. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., doubled down on her opposition to ousting the long-established Senate rule.

Despite Democratic leadership’s push to alter the filibuster to pass legislation for a federal takeover of state elections, a bipartisan majority has remained in opposition. Sinema doubled down in that opposition Thursday, casting serious doubts on any changes to Senate rules.

“There’s no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation,” Sinema said from the Senate floor Thursday. “There’s no need for me to restate its role in protecting our country from wild reversals of federal policy. This week’s harried discussions about Senate rules are but a poor substitute for what I believe could have and should have been a thoughtful public debate at any time over the past year.”

Sinema went on to argue that removing the filibuster would only add to the nation’s division, not unity.

“But what is the legislative filibuster, other than a tool that requires new federal policy to be broadly supported by senators, representing the broader cross-section of Americans,” Sinema said. “Demands to eliminate this threshold from whichever party holds the fleeting majority amount to a group of people separated on two sides of a canyon, shouting that solution to their colleagues.”

U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.V., has also expressed reservations about nixing the filibuster. Politico reports that multiple other Democratic senators, including Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., are on the fence as well. Their opposition makes changing the Senate rules or passing Democrats’ federal voting bill, unlikely.

“We need some good rules changes to make the place work better,” Manchin told reporters this week. “But getting rid of the filibuster doesn’t make it work better.”

Sinema quietly pushed back against Biden’s “Build Back Better” legislation last year, but Thursday’s floor speech was a public rebuttal of Biden’s call to action earlier this week.

Biden delivered a blistering speech in Atlanta Tuesday where he accused opponents of Democrats’ voting legislation of racism, opposing Democracy, and wanting “chaos to reign.” He advocated for “getting rid of” the filibuster to push through federal voting laws that would give the federal government sweeping control of state elections.

Biden argued that Republican state legislatures’ legislative efforts in recent years to shore up election integrity were actually attempts at voter suppression. Democratic Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer has made similar comments and called for changing the filibuster rules.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell responded to those comments, calling them “profoundly unpresidential.”

“The President repeatedly invoked the January 6th riot while himself using irresponsible, delegitimizing rhetoric that undermines our democracy,” McConnell said. “The sitting President of the United States of America compared American states to ‘totalitarian states.’”

A key line of attack against the Democratic effort to end the filibuster has been their previous positions on the issue. Both Biden and Schumer have publicly supported the filibuster in the past.

U.S. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., lambasted Schumer for just that in a speech from the Senate floor, repeating Schumer’s previous comments that removing the filibuster would make the Senate “the rubber stamp of dictatorship.”

“The bottom line is very simple: the ideologues in the Senate want to turn what the Founding Fathers called the cooling saucer of democracy into the rubber stamp of dictatorship,” Cotton said, reiterating Schumer’s past comments. “They want to make this country into a banana republic where if you don’t get your way, you change the rules! Are we going to let them? It will be a doomsday for democracy if we do.”

Near the end of his speech, Cotton pointed out his words had all been taken from Schumer himself.

“Every word of my speech today was originally spoken by my esteemed colleague, the senior senator from New York, Chuck Schumer,” Cotton said. “Senator Schumer spoke so eloquently in defense of the Senate’s rules, customs, and traditions when the fortunes of his party looked a little different. My, how times have changed.”

*****

This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

They Are Neither Socialists nor Communists

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

A wise man during a recent lunch pointed out to me that Republicans and Conservatives often banter about terms, calling Leftists either Socialists or Communists. Mark Levin has an excellent, well-researched, bestselling book out on the subject called American Marxism. But are they really?

This very thoughtful and insightful person stated that they really are not Marxists, etc. He suggested I write a piece on the topic. Here we are.

Most Leftists have abandoned the name Communists because it became tattered — not because of the failed policies or the millions of people murdered. The reason is because of the collapse of the Soviet Union. With the collapse, Leftists have abandoned the term much like they stopped calling themselves Liberals and have since ruined the word progressive.

The preferred term these days is “Socialist.” They have even become more inventive with many calling themselves “Democratic Socialists.” The Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) has sold itself a bill of goods that they are not totalitarians. They just want all decisions made through the government.

If they are neither Socialists nor Communists, what are they? They are something you cannot call someone without casting a negative aspersion on them or you or both. What they are and what my enlightened friend pointed out is that they are Fascists. Now that your ears are burning, hear me out on this because my friend is correct.

Fascism used to compete with Communism. The reality is both are a form of totalitarian government that oppresses and murders people, but they are distinctly different. That is why in the late 1920s and early 1930s, the two groups were fighting on the streets of Germany to contest the ruling government. As you know, the Fascists won that battle and the Nazis became the symbol of evil for all mankind.

So why was my friend correct that they are Fascists? Communism is a manner of government where all the means of production is controlled centrally. There is no division between the government and the economy.

Fascism is central control through a capitalist system. Socialism nationalized property explicitly, while fascism coopts the means of production by requiring owners to use their property in the “national interest”—that is, as the totalitarian authority wants it used. That is why after WWII Germany was able to again become a productive society so quickly despite the complete devastation of the country. Their industrial leaders (capitalists) were still in place after the war. Think Volkswagen.

If you think of post-war China which is often called Communist China, it has not been Communist the entire time. Certainly, it started out as Communist under Mao Tse-Tung. They even had the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s so Mao could cleanse the country of capitalism. Then Deng Xiaoping came to power acknowledging that Communism does not work as an economic system and the country was a mess. He instituted changes that allowed capitalism to flourish in the country. Currently, Xi Jinping is cracking down on capitalists and their companies, thinking he can go back to the days of Mao without killing their economy. Notice all the capitalists he is either harassing or arresting. We will see how that works out. But for over 30 years China was fascist and still is. It just has not acknowledged it.

We are experiencing a lot of fascism in America. Interestingly, it radiates mostly from those who state they are anti-fascists. For example, look at how free speech is being suppressed. Anybody who is not a lying politician knows the Left has been suppressing free speech through private companies, the most prominent of which are Facebook, Google, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, and others. These companies function as news services while stating they are exempt from normal press rules allowing them to block speech the Left does not like.

The entire pandemic has operated in a fascistic manner through private industry. Face mask mandates, vaccine mandates, proof of vaccination mandates, mask mandates on airplanes. Companies are forced to use resources to control their customers while the companies’ non-compliance would result in significant financial penalties.

When President Biden announced private industry vaccine mandates, he had no authority. He stated the rules would be issued through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Every company fell in line except to my knowledge one — The Daily Wire. For over two months there were no rules, but companies were complying. As soon as the regulations were issued multiple lawsuits were filed and many courts ruled against the mandate. Yet so many companies were used to our government operating in a fascistic manner they just complied based on a speech by the President.

States, particularly ones run by Leftists, have gotten into the act. They have forced their policies down the throats of capitalist companies. We who live in California have a multitude of these diktats forced on capitalist companies who once again are subject to severe penalties for non-compliance. For example, you cannot get a straw for a drink in California unless you beg for it. Now you cannot get plastic silverware with take-out food unless you beg for it. Neither of these rules will solve any kind of pollution problems, but legislators are fascists and keep issuing these diktats.

Recently, they required stores to have gender-neutral toy shelves if they are selling toys. There are hundreds of these kinds of top-down fascistic rules where legislators who have never run a business control businesses that are just trying to operate and produce a profit.

If you think that these fascist directives for business just affect major businesses – think again. Gardeners are typically entrepreneurial immigrants who are working their way up the economic ladder for themselves and their families. There is not a high level of education needed nor are the businesses capital intensive. California has outlawed a mainstay of these hardworking people’s tools – gasoline leaf blowers and lawnmowers. Not only will these people need to buy new battery-operated equipment, but it is estimated a three-person crew will need to carry with them 30 or more fully charged batteries to complete their daily workload. Another fascistic order telling small businesses how to operate.

Fascism is attractive to these totalitarians. They do not have to control the means of production; they just control the laws under which the method of production works. Use the wrong material in a building and you are fined. Do not enforce the Fascists’ laundry list of incomprehensible rules and you are fined. The Fascists line their coffers while getting their societal plans enforced. They use the fines to force more diktats down the throats of people just trying to make a living. And as opposed to Communism, in a Fascist government the companies are capable of producing a product like an automobile or a washing machine.

Whether Communist, Socialist, or Fascist, they are all totalitarians. They are all run by people who think they know better than the average person, so they try to tell people how to run their lives. The name “Fascist” was ruined forever by Hitler and his gang of thugs. The Left likes to tell you that Fascism is right-wing which is the big lie. It is akin to Communism but just differs in the means of production. Communism’s means of production has failed everywhere it has been tried. So, what is a totalitarian to do other than become a Fascist but call themselves Socialists?

The Legalized Sexualization Of America’s Young Children

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Let’s peek in on a typical classroom scenario approved by the National Sex Education Standards (NSES). Mr. Smith’s 7 and 8-year-olds are answering true-false questions: 1) “Sexual intercourse should be ONLY between a cisgender male and cisgender female.” 2) “There are only two genders.” 3) “Cisgender boys who identify as girls must go only into restrooms labeled ‘BOYS.’”

The correct answers are all FALSE according to NSES.

The class discussions necessary for small kids to understand the test terms should drop the jaws of sane parents. Second graders still play hide-and-seek and may take stuffed animals to bed. Now public-school teachers are destroying their innocence in explaining the widely (and wildly) differing sexual behaviors of adults in bed.

Too many public-school leaders have entered the morass of mental derangement and opened little innocent minds to concepts rated “R” because they are labeled “sex education.”

Dr. Judith A. Reisman, professor and former consultant to the Department of Education explains: “Little brains are not designed to process sexual stimuli of any kind.” Sexualized behavior is learned by what children see, hear, or experience — yes, even in school.

Down the hall from Mr. Smith, the 10- and 11-year-olds review their lessons using NSES core expectations for elementary grades including the joys of masturbation and how hormone blockers help transgender children.

Their vocabulary test includes gender identity, gender nonbinary and expansive, and lesbian, to name a few. The test covers differing behaviors of sexual intimacy and how same-sex couples can acquire children, such as in-vitro fertilization and surrogacy.

Virginia middle-school children 13 and 14 will soon reveal their “sex lives” in the Fairfax Youth Survey including these questions:

  • How old were you when you had sexual intercourse for the first time?
  • During your life, with how many people have you had sexual intercourse?
  • Have you ever had oral sex?

Youth barely into puberty will assume, then, that the norm for kids their age is to be sexually active.

The Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), established by Dr. Mary Calderone, previous medical director for Planned Parenthood, was partially funded by Hugh Hefner’s Playboy organization. These are the opening words on the SIECUS website: “[T]he ability of the federal government to enact sweeping sex education requirements continues to be a focal point of advocacy efforts.”

NEA resolution B-53 Sex Education instructs that “…programs should include information on… diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity…homophobia…lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and questioning (LGBTQ) issues.”

Parents who disagree with any of the above are called bigots, meaning almost 30% of Americans are so-labeled by far-left extremists who seek to cancel their rights. These tax-paying parents deserve to remove their children from the required “health” (sex ed) courses, yet 29 states have no opt-out provision.

Nobody disagrees that young children need sex-abuse education. Kids should also understand that Miguel, who has two daddies, can be a friend and so can Harriet, who was born as Harry. But youngsters should be spared details of Harry’s puberty-blocking medication and what daddies and mommies do in their bedrooms.

And when children do receive such information, it should be from parents — who know their own values and children. The late Dr. Melvin Anchell, American physician, psychoanalyst, and educator, writes that indoctrinating young children sexually causes “irreparable harm” that can last throughout their lives.

Lori Porter, of Parent Rights in Education explains: “…it [is] now okay to show what can only be described as ‘sexually obscene’ material to minor children in the classroom, but it [is] still quite illegal to show that same material to children in any other venue.”

Independent Women’s Voice recently designed a TV spot showing illustrations in a Virginia school library book. Stations deemed it too explicit for late-night audiences.

How do the schools get by with making pornography available to minors, while 49 states and federal laws prohibit it? It’s simple: “Sex education” (called health) is exempt. 

Today’s parental outrage is not aimed against what “woke” parents do sexually or teach their own children. Parents are demanding their rights to control how they educate their children about sex beyond the basics of human anatomy, awareness of sexual diseases, and pregnancy prevention, the former boundaries for sex education in schools.

Today, however, public educators feel free to tell little Sophie and Sammy that although each was born with a vagina or a penis, those organs can be changed. And if the kids ever feel they need to discuss details, they should talk to the school counselor, not their parents.

Heads up, “educators” — you are not co-parents of America’s children.

Heads up, politicians — you must amend laws to prohibit pornography in public schools. The recent Virginia gubernatorial elections revealed politicians ignore that fact at their political peril.

*****

This article first appeared in The Independent Women’s Forum and is reproduced with permission.

Most Reckless Fed Ever: “Real” Federal Funds Rate Now the Most Negative Ever

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

After a year of brushing off inflation as temporary, while inflation spread deeper and further into the economy, and got worse month after month, the Fed is finally talking about tightening. But so far, it’s just talking about it. It’s still repressing short-term interest rates to near 0% – with the effective federal funds rate, which the Fed targets with its interest rate policy, at 0.08%. And the Fed is still printing money hand-over-fist, though at a slightly slower rate than two months ago.

Meanwhile, the broadest measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) jumped by 7.04%, the highest and worst since June 1982, according to data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics today. But we cannot compare today to 1982:

  • In June 1982, inflation was coming down; now inflation is spiking.
  • In June 1982, the effective federal funds rate (EFFR) was 14.2%. Today it’s 0.08%.
  • In June 1982, the Fed did not engage in QE; today it’s still massively buying assets.

So now we have the bizarre situation where the EFFR is 0.08% and CPI-U inflation is 7.04%, and the inflation-adjusted EFFR, or “real” EFFR, is a negative 6.96%, the most negative real EFFR in the data going back to 1954:

The “real” interest rate on savings accounts and CDs is similarly negative in the -7.0% range. The real yield of short-term Treasury bills is similarly negative in the -7.0% range.  Even the 10-year Treasury yield, now at 1.7%, is -5.3% in real terms.

Even most junk bonds are traded with yields below the rate of inflation. The average BB-rated “real” junk bond yield is -3.3%. Taking more risk, the average B-rated “real” yield is -2.0%…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Wolf Street.

Sinema Deals Death Blow to Biden’s Final Push to Suspend Filibuster

Estimated Reading Time: < 1 minute

Democratic Senator Kyrsten Sinema declared Thursday that she will not vote to suspend the filibuster in order to pass two voting bills championed by her party, all but guaranteeing that President Biden’s top legislative priority will fail.

Speaking on the Senate floor, Sinema reiterated her well-established commitment to preserving filibuster and rejected the argument — made by her party leaders and Biden himself — that the rule represents an unacceptable obstacle to passing the Freedom to Vote Act and For the People Act.

“There’s no need for me to restate my longstanding support for the 60-vote threshold to pass legislation. There’s no need for me to restate its role in protecting our country from wild reversals of federal policy,” she said before the chamber Thursday. “This week’s harried discussions about senate rules are but a poor substitute for what I believe could have and should have been a thoughtful public debate at any time over the past year.”

“But what is the legislative filibuster, other than a tool that requires new federal policy to be broadly supported by Senators, representing the broader cross-section of Americans?” the senator asked. “Demands to eliminate this threshold from whichever party holds the fleeting majority amount to a group of people separated on two sides of a canyon, shouting that solution to their colleagues.”

She said that she is dedicated to making her public service in Congress reflect the diversity of her constituency in Arizona and the nation at large, urging her Democratic colleagues to stop viewing them as ideological monoliths that automatically get on board with every radically progressive proposal.

The House of Representatives passed legislation Thursday that merged both bills, but it will not advance in the evenly-divided 50-50 Senate given Sinema’s opposition……

*****

Continue reading this article at National Review.