There is a philosophic battle royal, or even a metaphoric civil war, raging in this country.  On one side are those who embrace free market capitalism, the economic system that built the United States into the freest and most prosperous nation.  The other side is steadfastly trying to transform this nation into a Democratic Socialist nation, which will only result in economic ruin and an oppressive centralized government, which will become totalitarian over time.

Here is how our great national struggle is described in this American Thinker article

With Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez coming out of the shadows and being described as the future of the Democratic Party, the fight card has been set: socialism versus free-market capitalism.  Socialism versus constitutional republicanism.  Socialism (authoritarianism) versus self-rule.  In short, bondage versus freedom.

All of the defenders of free market capitalism have a much more difficult message to sell.  In order for the free market to work properly all of us have to produce something worth buying, either a service or a good.  No one gets a free ride.  It is much easier to seduce the uninformed with cries of free stuff for everyone.  It has gotten to the point where almost our entire educational system, our news broadcasters, and our entertainment industry are bashing the free market with negative distortions and erroneously praising socialism.  We need to work extra hard to get our facts and arguments right and to transmit them to everyone as effectively as possible.  Here are some of the more impactful facts and arguments I have encountered.

Here is a quote by Milton Friedman from chapter 1 of The Relation Between Economic Freedom and Political Freedom.

Because we live in a largely free society, we tend to forget how limited is the span of time and the part of the globe for which there has ever been anything like political freedom: the typical state of mankind is tyranny, servitude, and misery. The nineteenth century and early twentieth century in the Western world stand out as striking exceptions to the general trend of historical development. Political freedom in this instance clearly came along with the free market and the development of capitalist institutions. So also did political freedom in the golden age of Greece and in the early days of the Roman era. History suggests only that capitalism is a necessary condition for political freedom.

Here is another quote from the same chapter.

Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion—the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary co-operation of individuals—the technique of the market place.

It is an effective message to highlight the fact that the free market is all about voluntary cooperation and Socialism is all force and coercion.

Here is part of a transcript from an interview with Milton Freidman on Phil Donahue from 1979.  The entire interview is a must watch.

The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way. In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear that there is no alternative way, so far discovered, of improving the lot of the ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free-enterprise system.

There was no greater champion of the free market and no harsher critic of Socialism than Ayn Rand.  Here is one of my favorite quotes by her from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal written in 1966.

America’s abundance was created not by public sacrifices to the common good, but by the productive genius of free men who pursued their own personal interests and the making of their own private fortunes. They did not starve the people to pay for America’s industrialization. They gave the people better jobs, higher wages, and cheaper goods with every new machine they invented, with every scientific discovery or technological advance- and thus the whole country was moving forward and profiting, not suffering, every step of the way.

Capitalism has created the highest standard of living ever known on earth. The evidence is incontrovertible. The contrast between West and East Berlin is the latest demonstration, like a laboratory experiment for all to see. Yet those who are loudest in proclaiming their desire to eliminate poverty are loudest in denouncing capitalism. Man’s well-being is not their goal.

It appears that the free market has been steadily failing us for the past 100 years.  It is not the free market that has been failing us, it is government intrusion into the free market that has been causing the slow motion collapse.  Ayn Rand discusses this in The Voice of Reason = Essays on Objective Thought,

One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists in establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.

Critics of the free market complain that that system runs on greed.  Here is how to answer that concern with a quote by Adam Smith from Chapter 2 page 19 of Wealth of Nations.

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

I tried to choose just one quote from this article by Thomas Sowell but I could not because it is such a fantastic article.

If you have more quotes that could help in this battle of ideas please share them in the comments section.

The right to protest is one of our most important God-given natural rights.   It is enshrined in the right to assemble and the right to petition clauses of the First Amendment.  We have the right to protest for whatever reasons or causes we wish to.  There is only limitation placed on anyone who wishes to protest.  Just as it is stated in the First Amendment, all protesting must be peaceable.   Violence, destruction of property, shutting down roads, mobs using their voices to silence others, and harassing individuals are not peaceable, therefore, they are not valid forms of protest.

So many on the political left have become unhinged, they have abandoned civil discourse and peaceful protesting and replaced it with mob violence and harassment of anyone that either works for or supports President Trump.  This is not just my opinion.  I see articles chronicling this despicable behavior on a daily basis.  Here is how Breitbart News described the current state of progressive political behavior in the article: Left-Wing Hate ‘Rap Sheet’ Reaches 300 Incidents of Violence, Harassment.

Ever since Donald Trump announced his intention to run for president, the American left has responded with unhinged vitriol, violent fantasies, and mob attacks — targeting Trump and anyone associated with him. The worst part of this climate of hate is that establishment media — the professionals, the respectable guardians of truth — are purposely fanning the flames.

Like all of our rights, we are free to exercise our right to protest, as we wish, as long as we do not hurt others, or interfere with the rights of others.  Violence against people or their property most definitely is not a valid form of protest, for very obvious reasons.  I know all of us clearly remember the riots that occurred the day of President Trump’s inauguration and the riots that occurred at Berkley in response to Milo speaking there.  Did the mainstream media ever condemn their actions or did they celebrate them as noble protesters?

Everyone has a right to be out in public and enjoy eating at restaurants, free of people getting in their faces and harassing them, no matter who they are, or who they work for.  Individuals harassing others are not protesters, they are thugs.

It was all the rage to shut down roads and block interstates as a form of “protest.”  Blocking roads interferes with the right of everyone to come and go as they please.  It also created very unsafe conditions, especially when highways were blocked.  At least one death was reported when an ambulance was prevented from reaching a hospital in a timely fashion.  The media still insists on labeling these occurrences as protests.  What do they accomplish other than pissing off a lot of people?

A large group of people surrounding an event where individuals are speaking, for the purpose of shutting down the event, and prevent those individuals from speaking, is in no way a protest.  That form of behavior violates the free speech of the speakers and it violates the right of the audience to listen to who, or what, they want to listen to.

There was not one single instance of a tea party rally turning into a riot, tea partiers committing violence, members of the tea party harassing others, or tea partiers silencing others; yet the media absolutely vilified the entire tea party movement.  The media labeled the entire tea party movement racist even though there was no valid evidence supporting those baseless accusations. The media now looks the other way when it comes to left wing violence committed by so called protesters, and praises their bad behavior.

The phrase I borrowed for the title of this article is featured in the libertarian science fiction masterpiece, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” by Robert Heinlein.  It represents one of the fundamental truths of the universe, one that socialists and big government types routinely ignore, often with disastrous results.  We the people have been conditioned to ignore this fundamental truth by the news media, our educational institutions, and our elected officials for the past many decades.

“Nothing is free” is a less colorful way of stating this fundamental truth.  Someone somewhere has to pay for everything.  Our politicians have become so very adept at hiding how we are paying for everything that they promise us is free.  So many people blindly accept these phony assurances that what they are getting from the government is free.  For far too many, this is their primary reason for voting for Democrats.

Would candidates for office be anywhere as successful if they told the truth?  “Go to college and force your neighbors to pay for it through higher taxes” just doesn’t have the same mass appeal but it is far more truthful.  Unfortunately few Republicans have the ability to counter false Democrat claims in such a clever manner.  That’s something they need to work on.  Too many in the Republican establishment think the only way to beat their opponents is to join them in this political bribery.

Far too many operate under the delusion that forcing those “evil rich” people to pay for everything has no overall costs to society.  If most of the profits of a corporation are confiscated, what is left to hire more workers, or build new factories, or even keep existing factories running?   How many would want to go through all of the pain suffering and misery it takes to start a business if they knew most of the profits they would earn are going to be confiscated and given to others?  Soaking the rich will only result in far fewer rich people, and far more people dependent on the government handouts, that the rich are supposed to pay for.  Republicans need to do a better job communicating how a free market benefits everyone, resulting in a greatly reduced need for government handouts, if not eliminating them entirely.

Printing money to pay for everything the federal government wants to do and all of the entitlements seems like it generates no costs to the citizens of this country.  That is far from the case.  Printing more money only decreases the purchasing power of the existing money.  More money is needed to buy everything.  The money people earn is worth less.  Printing money only causes inflation.  Do you think this practice would cause outrage if everyone knew that the dollar of today is worth only three percent of what the dollar was worth in 1913, when the Federal Reserve came into existence and began printing money?

Voters need to be informed that out of control debt have enormous costs associated with it.  Most are unaware that our 21 trillion dollar debt has a staggering cost just to finance it.  All of that borrowing result in higher interests rates for individuals and inflation.  We are approaching a debt to GDP ratio that always results in disaster, yet few in the Republican party are sounding the alarm, and too many in the party have joined forces with the Democrats to keep up the out of control spending..

The Republican Party needs to once again become the party of the free market, a constitutionally limited government, and fiscal responsibility.  They desperately need to learn how to effectively communicate the benefits of those ideals to everyone in a creative manner.

At Yesterday’s Pintastic NE Jersey Jack of Jersey Jack Pinball held a seminar about his business that produces some of the best pinball machines on the market. These games are constantly in demand both on the market and at the show:

During the seminar one of the attendees asked him an obvious question, why has he made it when others have failed? Here was his answer.

This is not a light thing to say because it must be remembered he started this business in the Obama years before the Trump boom AND because when it comes down to it a Pinball machine is not a necessity.

I think thanking God and a bunch of others is important as was his decision to market to individuals, but for my money the real secret is the fact that in terms of subject matter, video, artwork and display, all of his games are PG rated or lower. I asked him why he made that decision and his answer was telling

Note that he didn’t say: “I don’t think anyone should make an R rated game”, he just decided that as a Grand Knight of the Knights of Columbus, and a Catholic Eucharistic Minister involved in his church, he decided that he wasn’t going to making anything that wasn’t family friendly.

In an era when kindergartens are having very inappropriate stuff pushed at them and Disney has apparently decided that being “woke” is more important that being family friendly that’s an incredibly radical decision.

My interview with Jack is here

And you can buy his games here

Abraham Lincoln: One matter further, gentlemen. We fight on their level. With trickery, brutality, finality. We match their evil. I know, James. I was reputed to be a gentle man. But I was commander in chief during the four bloodiest years of my country’s history. I gave orders that sent a hundred thousand men to their death at the hands of their brothers. There is no honorable way to kill, no gentle way to destroy. There is nothing good in war except its ending. And you are fighting for the lives of your crew. 
Captain Kirk: Your campaign, Mister President.

Star Trek:  The Savage Curtain 1969

One of the most amusing things about the Trump years has been the shock of the left at not only the success of the Trump years but of the President’s success in turning their control of the culture, media and press against them.

It was not always so, for a very long time the powers that be in the GOP eschewed the tactics of their enemies on the left, considering such tactics beneath them and coincidentally were regulated to a permanent minority. The left was free to push America in their direction confident that the tools of the press and the culture would always be theirs to control and even when a Rush Limbaugh a Fox News or even social media came up they were secure in their superiority to keep them safe, in effect taking to heart the famous quote by Belloc from his poem the modern traveler concerning 19th century Europeans encountering natives in various parts of the world:

Whatever happens, we have got The Maxim gun, and they have not

Or in short it didn’t matter if the right gained some temporary victory as long as the left controlled the narrative via culture and media they could essentially do what they wanted.

With the advent of Barack Obama, a corrupt Chicago pol, this was extended to government which was weaponized against their opponents from the IRS on down and even when things went wrong such as the running of guns to Mexican drug cartels to enable gun control legislation or the disaster at Benghazi the administration felt secure because to paraphrase Belloc: Whatever happens we have got, Hollywood & Media and they have not.

This is the reason why the FBI felt secure in crossing every line imaginable in going after Trump prior to the election and why Barack Obama had no problem governing by “a pen and a phone” because they were sure that their superiority would be maintained forever and shortly extend to government and the courts. They believed once Hillary was elected government and the legal system would be added to that line right after Hollywood and media.

Alas for them they had not read enough of Belloc because if they had they might have seen this rather prophetic piece concerning the west superiority over Islam from 1936:

There is nothing in the Mohammedan civilization itself which is hostile to the development of scientific knowledge or of mechanical aptitude. I have seen some good artillery work in the hands of Mohammedan students of that arm; I have seen some of the best driving and maintenance of mechanical road transport conducted by Mohammedans. There is nothing inherent to Mohammedanism to make it incapable of modern science and modern war. Indeed the matter is not worth discussing. It should be self-evident to anyone who has seen the Mohammedan culture at work. That culture happens to have fallen back in material applications; there is no reason whatever why it should not learn its new lesson and become our equal in all those temporal things which now give us our superiority
over it_whereas in we have fallen inferior to it.

The point concerning Islam and science and mechanics was just as equally true concerning conservatives and media. There was nothing inherent in conservative philosophy that prevents us from countering the other than our unwillingness to make the fight.

But once Donald Trump surprised everyone with his victory that changed. Trump is a Jacksonian and as a Jacksonian fights by the same rules that his foes do as the late great Steven Den Bestie once put it at the turn of the century:

to Jacksonians, trust is foolhardy. There are a lot of good people out there, but there are also a lot of bastards, and if you turn your back someone will stab you in it. “Trust, but verify” is a purely Jacksonian watchword. Those who act honorably will be treated honorably, but those who cheat will be crushed.

And as Walter Russell Mead put it once a Jacksonian like Trump gets into a fight, even one he doesn’t want he fights to win

During this year’s war in Kosovo, Jacksonian opinion was resolutely against it to begin with. However, once U.S. honor was engaged, Jacksonians began to urge a stronger warfighting strategy including the use of ground troops. It is a bad thing to fight an unnecessary war, but it is inexcusable and dishonorable to lose one once it has begun.

America’s enemies oversees have rediscovered this truth over the last 18 months but it is Trump foes in both media and Hollywood who have been completely shocked by it, but they shouldn’t be.

Donald Trump has been operating in the enclaves of the left all his life, his empire has had to deal with blue state bureaucracy and both liberal media and pols coming to him hat in hand for decades. He’s attended their parties, laughed with them, schmoozed with them and seen and heard all they have said for half a century and most importantly did so while completely sober when they were not.

Put simply there has never been a President better equipped to turn the Maxim gun of the media back on them and having never had to defend against said gun they are indignant that their tactics are being used against them:

“We spent the day wrestling with the repercussions of one bad word, when we all should have spent the day incensed that as a nation we are wrenching children from their parents and treating people legally seeking asylum as criminals,” she added. “If we are OK with that then really, who are we?”

Bee continued by standing by the mission of her show: “I can tell you, as long as we have breath in our bodies and 21 minutes of airtime once a week, repeats on Saturdays, that we as a show will never stop shouting [about] the inhumanities of this world from the rooftops and striving to make it a better place. But in a comedy way.”

This is Samantha Bee a card carrying member of the Harvey Weinstein left while being honored for it’s coverage of the #metoo movement.

“Our staff poured everything we have into these #MeToo pieces,” Bee said while accepting the award. “They wrote jokes through tears and panic attacks, they pushed each other to be honest and more fearless. I can only imagine what it takes to say these powerful famous, admired men abused me and I won’t be silent. No matter the consequences, Me Too. Leaders of the #MeToo movement are changing the world. And we are honored to stand with you and support you as best we can. There is power in saying what you feel without apology… OK, and sometimes you also have to apologize.”

Bee got plenty of laughter and applause for that line, as well as when she opened by declaring, “it actually means so much to accept this with everyone here behind me, these incredible writers and producers.”

Of course the irony that none of these #metoo pieces were written or broadcast while the knowledge of what Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey, Matt Lauer et/all had done was still confined to the Hollywood/Media left because they were still of use to the said Hollywood/Media.

The Samantha Bee’s, Joy Reid’s et/all of the world are meeting a brave new world when their media monopoly is threatened by a President and new media willing and able to challenge it and a population willing to use that Maxim guy that their betters had held back from them.

No wonder they are so upset.  As Curt Schlichter has said:  The won’t like the new rules, but the reality is these aren’t really new rules it’s the left’s own rules applying to them for the very first time.

[The two priests arrive at the scene of the fight between Sean Thornton & Red Will Danaher]

Father Paul: Father, shouldn’t we put a stop to it now?

Father Lonergan: [Smiling, making fighting movements] Ah, we should lad, yes we should, it’s our duty. Yes, it’s our duty... [Smiles as a punch is heard]

The Quiet Man 1952

4th Doctor: The very powerful and the very stupid have one thing in common. Instead of altering their views to fit the facts, they alter the facts to fit their views…which can be very uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that needs altering.

Doctor Who: The Face of Evil Pt 4 1977

A long time ago on my radio show I did an hour on the redefinition of marriage and the deficit.  This was back in ancient times when Barack Obama had for political reasons not “come out” for gay marriage and thus one could still publicly argue against it the entire media / left defining you as a racist, sexist bigot homophobe for stating facts that had been true for millennia.  (For the record I stand by my arguments against gay marriage that I made 10 years ago here)

Now you might think these two topics are as unrelated as you can get but I pointed out on my show that the insistence that there was nothing wrong with redefining marriage opened up huge possibilities for solving the deficit.

All we had to do is redefine what a “deficit” or a “balanced budget” or even “debt” was and viola suddenly deficits would be a thing of the past and we would be able to look forward to balanced budgets for the rest of our days.

The possibilities were endless and the best part of it was people wouldn’t have to vary their spending or borrowing habits one bit and if any person holding a debt objected why they were just not as enlightened as the rest of us.

The entire point of that monologue was to not only point out the insanity of redefining marriage but to also point out that once you decide you can redefine one word for the sake of one’s personal advantage you can redefine another.  Or as Kurt Schlichter prophetically  put it a few years later 

Liberals May Regret Their New Rules

I thought of that when I saw This piece by Stacy McCain about the conflict between lesbians and the Transgender community:

Lesbian feminists are being attacked as “TERFs” (trans exclusive radical feminists) because they don’t want to date men in dresses, nor do they want to cede control of the feminist movement to men in dresses. Transgender activists are insulting lesbians as “vagina fetishists.”

and they just can’t understand why this is happening to them.

The answer is in fact very simple.  The people who had no problem redefining the word “marriage” to satisfy their own narcissism and then tried to drive those who fought them from the public square (ask yourself why the Catholic Church is no longer allowed to deal with adoptions in Massachusetts)  are now shocked Shocked that other narcissists would choose to redefine word “woman” and by extension “lesbian” and bring the same public social and legal opprobrium upon them that they gleefully and self righteously applied to others who dared suggest that words actually mean things.

You see,  once one realizes that in one fell swoop by the act of redefining words one can:

satisfy one’s narcissism

turn one’s proclivities into virtue to be celebrated

turn mental illness into courage

and silence one’s enemies by both cultural and legal censure 

you’re not like to let simple things like biology or objective reality stop you.

Now Stacy McCain who has been the target of radical feminists and Christophobic folk for daring to take his protestant faith seriously is right when he stand up for those radical feminists, who despise his very existence,  on constitutional grounds

By the way, a conservative need not endorse homosexuality to believe that lesbians should not be insulted as “TERFs,” etc. What is at issue here is a matter of basic liberty. The First Amendment, which guarantees both freedom of speech and freedom of religion, likewise safeguards the principle of freedom of association. In guaranteeing “the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” our Constitution expresses this principle. A woman who chooses to avoid intimacy with men is exercising her basic liberty and, while we might lament her choice, the friends of liberty cannot in good conscience compel her to do otherwise. Forcing citizens to associate with others against their will is not “social justice.”

The Christian is as free to eschew association with non-believers as the homosexual is free to eschew the companionship of the opposite sex. For decades now, the Left has accused Christian conservatives of seeking to “impose their morality” on others. But what is it that transgender activists are attempting to do now? Aren’t they attempting to compel others to do their bidding, and to silence their critics?

And my friend Cynthia Yockey, the conservative lesbian is doing yeoman’s work in shedding light on this insanity, you really should be reading her blog and financially supporting her efforts to fight back.

But while I agree with Stacy McCain’s first amendment arguments defending the radical feminists targeted in this effort, applaud Cynthia Yockey’s efforts to make this fight on behalf of her fellow lesbians who refuse to redefine what a lesbian, man or woman is and , as a faithful Catholic have sympathy for folks like Julia Diana Robertson for the abuse she and other feminists, both straight and gay are getting for these actions, I can’t help but think that the shock that radical feminists and lesbians have as they suddenly find themselves victims of the terror they helped unleash must be the same that Maximilien de Robespierre felt just before blade of the guillotine that he had used to eliminate so many “enemies of the revolution” beheaded him.

This is one of the disadvantages of thinking that the lessons of history are all just the ravings of a patriarchal past that have no application for the present, you don’t realize that revolutions always eat their own.

I’m sure there will be a few in the Christian right who will join the fight like Stacy McCain who closes his piece saying;

 It is truly astounding to find myself defending lesbian feminists against transgender totalitarians.

Like I keep saying, people need to wake the hell up.

and will will speak up for the like of Ms Robertson and company, but I suspect that the vast majority of Conservative Catholics and Protestants who have spent the last decade being told they are beyond the pale from the likes of them and their allies and have had the full force of both culture and government brought against them will watch their oppressors with Schadenfreude for a while more as this verse from Proverbs comes to pass

Those who trouble their household inherit the wind,

Personally I think that the same rule from the Catechism of the Catholic Church on homosexuality applies to our transgender friends who like gays and lesbians are children of God whose sins Jesus Christ died for.

 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

And remember the same people “triggered” by this blunt statement of the teaching of the Catholic Church  “hate speech” would be triggered by this movie clip too:

Aren’t we so lucky to be ruled by the values of the most narcissistic generation vs the values of the greatest one?

The whole Roseanne kerfuffle brought to mind something I wrote when I announced that after 41 years my love affair with Doctor Who had ended:

Now I know that since the series came back there has been a bit of a sjw agenda that has been pushed since the 2nd half of the 1st season. As the years have gone by it’s become more and more open but I let it go, first because I was so pleased to see the series back, then because I thought David Tennant was great, then because I thought Matt Smith was the best thing to happen to the series since Tom Baker, then because Peter Capaldi had given the character depth and then because Michelle Gomez was just so good as Missy and she and Capaldi worked so well that you wanted to see what happened next.

The actual reality is that I loved this show and even as it tried to nudge me away or suggest that I and my values were unwelcome I clung to it because of what it meant to me and mine. In a world becoming increasingly hostile it was my last my childhood escape that decades later was still intact.

The ability to sell a particular worldview where the British Empire, Capitalism, the Military and Christianity and the values they espoused was the source of the world or in this case the universes was helped by the fact said message was sold to the British public in general and British youth in particular by two of the best TV writers of the 21st century Stephen Moffat and Russell Davies and by suburb acting by not only all of the doctors from Eccleston to Capaldi but by an incredible ensemble including Arthur Darvill, Jenna Coleman, Alex Kingston, Catherine Tate, Matt Lucas (who really surprised me) and especially Michelle Gomez whose performances rank as some of the finest in the entire 55 year history of the show.

And the sales pitch was so subtle that by the time we saw Moffatt use the 1st Doctor as a stand in punching bag standing in for the values of the generation that saved the world from Nazism as something to be mocked that the generation that was saved from subjugation by those folks were laughing at those who saved them without realizing what they were doing.

That’s what skilled propaganda does and it’s particularly effective on members of a “fandom”.  It’s the nature of fandom that you remain a fan.  You might decide a particular show or actor wasn’t up to snuff but because you have built a relationship with a show or character or universe it’s hard to let go, even if it’s hostile to you and your believes,  you let it go because of that relationship, particularly if it one that you had for years (or in my case decades).  Without being well grounded in actual reality it’s very easy to surrender.

And that brings us to Roseanne.

For all the fuss about Roseanne being “right wing” she is and always has been a creature of the left, albeit one who likes Trump which I suspect comes from still remembering the life of a stand up comic.  Other than her ability to recognize the danger of radical Islam and the Muslim Brotherhood her values are Hollywood values.

Moreover those Hollywood values were shared by her cast, her writers and the network that carried them and while they were careful in season 1 not paint supporters of the current administration as villains the groundwork was being laid for the seasons to come.

Those season were going to be all about teaching the “Connor” family to accept things that conservative in general and social conservatives in particular reject.  Oh to be sure it was going to be subtle and the comedy was going to be there and there would be real care not to portray the Connors in a negative light but don’t doubt for one minute that if the series continued this was going to be the plan.

It would have been pulled off brilliantly by their group of 1st class writers and a strong cast headlined by Roseanne herself, Sarah Gilbert and the spectacular John Goodman who is in my opinion on of the best all around actors/comics in the industry.

The irony of course is the conservative audience would have gone along considering their viewing a rebellion against a media culture that hates them not knowing that they were going to be played and within a season or two the critics would have been hailing the series for progressing and becoming more “inclusive” as the years went on.

That was the long game, all of that was what was coming and the left might have pulled it off, if they had been capable of accepting Roseanne’s apology over her tweets over the years.

But fortunately for us on the right there were not and now not only has the left’s best chance to sell their values to the right without them even realizing gone up in smoke but it’s done so in such a way and at such a time designed to cause maximum damage to that same left in a critical midterm election we couldn’t have planned it better if we tried.

That’s why after acting rashly out of anger they are trying to figure out how to the plan back on track

There is some cautious optimism that Roseannecancelled by ABC on Monday, could continue without co-creator and star Roseanne Barr. I hear the show’s producers will be meeting with Disney-ABC executives on Monday to pitch a revamped Roseannewithout the title star (and likely the original title too).

Details about the concept that will be pitched are unclear but the show is expected to stay true to the praised first season of the revival — the series’ 11th overall — featuring the other cast members except Barr. There could be stronger emphasis on Sara Gilbert’s character Darlene, which can be expected since the revival was centered mainly on three characters, Roseanne (Barr), Dan (John Goodman) and their daughter Darlene (Gilbert) who moved back home with her kids.

, Allahpundit however is most likely right about what it would mean if anything:

Darlene is the fourth-most compelling character on the show, tops. I like the idea of keeping “Roseanne” going but only if it’s fundamentally a show about Dan and Jackie moving on from Roseanne’s death. If they go the Darlene route, they’re going to get one season out of it. Although maybe that’s the point: All they’re doing here, perhaps, is giving the cast, crew, and writers the second year of employment they were counting on before Roseanne ripped it out from under them. They’ll do 10 episodes of semi-respectable ratings and then pack it in.

In one sense that would be justice as none of those people had anything to do with the cancellation but “the Darline show” is unlikely to draw the conservatives who were upset with the cancellation and any attempt to subtly dose any who do hang around is now likely to be spotted a mile away.

So in the end conservative Roseanne fans without knowing it, have gotten lucky break

Would that Doctor Who fans had been as lucky.

This weekend I talked briefly about the crisis in England with Tommy Robinson’s arrest and the unwillingness of Englishmen to stand up and fight for the basic rights of Englishmen that back when I was born would have been an automatic reaction.

The question here is why and I think I have the answer.

In 1963 every single Englishman had either fought in the war (WW 2), had a family member serve in the military or personally knew someone who had fought and died in military service.

In 2018 how many Englishmen actually personally know another who served who is under the age of ninety?

Why would you fight for rights when you’ve never learned the virtue of doing so?

Today is Memorial Day in the US.

On Memorial day 1963 I was twelve days old and it would have been nearly impossible to find a person didn’t either serve in the armed services, had a family member who had served, or personally knew someone who had either served or fought and died.

On Memorial day 2018 I’m 55 years and ten days old and the opposite is now true. It takes no effort to find people who have never served, nor had a family member they know serve or don’t know a person personally who serves or has served.

I’m not saying where going to end up where England is, but I am saying that if we do end up there, this will be one of the primary reasons for it.

When Milton Friedman famously wrote “I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse” in his work An Economist’s Protest, back in 1975, that statement was a fundamental truth.  Today there is no doubt that the government solution to any problem is always far worse than the original problem.  Fake news and censorship of conservatives on social media platforms are both very serious problems.  Different federal government branches are investigating ways of solving these two problems.  You may me wondering, what could possibly go wrong.  Based on the track record of the federal government, the possibilities are too horrific to speculate on, but speculate I will.

Thanks to an overwhelmingly liberal media, fake news has turned into a major problem.  The liberal bias of their reporting is meant to sway elections.  Ever since President Trump announced he was running, he railed against fake news, and has continued railing after winning the presidency.  The liberal media labeled these verbal jibes as a direct violation of the Freedom of the Free Press clause of the First Amendment and labeled President as one of the worst practitioners of press suppression.  Neither of these characterizations of his fake news statements claims is true.  He is merely exercising his freedom speech.  Even if President Trump’s accusations were incorrect, his verbal attacks are perfectly fine.

An article with the title “Homeland Security to compile database of journalists and ‘media influencers’” appeared in the Chicago Sun Times.  According to this article:

The Department of Homeland Security wants to track the comings and going of journalists, bloggers and other “media influencers” through a database.

The DHS’s “Media Monitoring” plan, which was first reported by FedBizOpps.gov, would give the contracting company “24/7 access to a password protected, media influencer database, including journalists, editors, correspondents, social media influencers, bloggers etc.” in order to “identify any and all media coverage related to the Department of Homeland Security or a particular event.”

The database would be designed to monitor the public activities of media members and influencers by “location, beat and influencers,” the document says.

This monitoring plan would be a direct attack on the Freedom of the Press clause because it would be an attempt to intimidate the media into reporting only what the Trump administration approves of.  It would also be a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s privacy protections.  Is this article accurate or is it fake news?  If is up to every one of us to decide for ourselves and ignore it if we believe it is fake.  That is the only solution to the fake news plague.  Any government solution would lead to the type of tyranny exhibited by this proposal, or even worse tyranny.

Censorship of conservatives and other individuals on the political right by Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube is an issue I constantly rage against on Facebook and Twitter.  Censorship of any individual or group is the issue I most passionately fight against.  I appose censorship of anyone even if I vehemently oppose what they have to say.  Even the most vile and disgusting individuals and groups have a right to say whatever they want to say.

Different congressional committees called the head of Facebook into hearings in order to answer questions about Facebook’s censorship and data mishandling issues.  Facebook is a private company.  The federal government has no business questioning anyone at the company about how they do anything.  The same holds true for any company.  The Constitution never granted the federal government the power to regulate any private company.  It wasn’t until 1943 and the FDR Supreme Court stacking crisis that the federal government granted itself this extra constitutional power.  Regulations placed on business only waste billions of dollars every year, stifle competition, and generate far worse problems then they were meant to solve. Would regulating Facebook to stop the censorship be any different?  According to this article, the elected officials doing the questioning proved they know nothing about how internet businesses, or any businesses, work. Facebook, Twitter, and You Tube would be destroyed the regulations placed on them to solve this problem and no one would try and rebuild them.

There are two solutions to this problem.  The first is for individuals to stop using these platforms and tell them why.  The second is for individuals to create alternatives.  Freedom and competition are the only solutions to problems caused by private companies.

radical feminists protested against pornography for many years until — with stealth funding from the pornography industry, including Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation — there emerged in the 1980s what is now known as “pro-sex feminism,” sometimes called liberal feminism to distinguish from (the original) radical feminism. That the women’s movement was co-opted by the porn industry is a fact that Women’s Studies majors usually don’t learn until their sophomore or junior year, if they learn it at all, because this is one of the shameful secrets that the feminist cult doesn’t like to mention, and radical (anti-pornography) feminists have been marginalized within their own movement.

Robert Stacy McCain Special Snowflake™ @Belle_Knox and Make-Believe Feminist ‘Empowerment’ 2-27-14

Very shortly I will be old enough to qualify for senior citizen discounts all over the nation and I’ve been thinking about my life as I hit its seventh inning stretch when I saw this tweet (via instapundit) by Ben Shapirio

This brought to mind an old post on the Sexual revolution:

In days past a man who wanted a women was expected to be a good provider, to be able to support not only a wife but an entire family through the sweat of his brow. He was expected to call on a woman, likely with a chaperone to keep an eye on him to offer self-control and to slowly but surely win approval of both the woman and the family to some degree before advancing to the next step.

And if he advanced prematurely or attempted to attain a conquest otherwise he was subject to the disapproval of culture or a shotgun to the back to make sure he did the right thing. The right thing being marriage, and if you finally secured a wife after meeting all these requirements divorce was not considered proper or acceptable culturally.

The reason why this combination of restraints and incentives was effective is due to a simple truth that has never changed:

Men want sex and want it badly and as much as men want sex teenage boys & men want it obsessively to the point where they were willing to allow themselves to be pushed toward responsibility, hard work and respectability for the chance to get it.

Thanks however to the sexual revolution, none of this is necessary anymore.

When I was a kid you had to hide a “dirty magazine” (a friend of mine kept a stash in a trash bag in the woods near his house) today you would be hard pressed to find a boy who had not seen hard core porn online by the age of 12 and thanks to the sexual revolution girls are not only taught at a young age that virtues like modesty or chastity are not only prehistoric but a form of oppression but we have a society that actually teaches that one who critiques having sex on camera for the masturbatory pleasure of men to pay for college is worthy of contempt.

In short men all the sexual desires that once motivated men  from nudity, to sex without commitment are now available without the effort of self improvement and the idea of women and girls engaging in this conduct that provides this to men in high school, college and even before is not only considered “empowering” but the failure of a young women to do so makes one odd.

All of this has happened in the space of two generations and by a not odd coincidence in my opinion, coincides with the growth of “woman’s studies” programs in universities all over the nation.

So as I near the date of my senior citizen discount and look back at this change I have a question for all the woman’s studies programs out there and the women in them:

How has the normalization and mainstreaming of promiscuity among young women and the removing of the sexual incentive system restraining men over the last 40 years empowered women and brought them better, more fulfilling lives?

I submit and suggest that it has not.

Update: If I had emailed Ed Driscoll of Instapundit and asked him to put up a post to prove my point today I couldn’t have done better than this:

DISPATCHES FROM THE EDUCATION APOCALYPSE: Male Student Accuses Female Student of Sexual Assault. She Says He Wanted Revenge.

Doe woke up, realized they had engaged in sexual activity while they were both drunk, and feared that she would file a complaint against him, as she had done to his friend. Panic-stricken, he felt he had no choice but to beat her to the punch.

How’s all that empowerment working out for ya?