Counterculture Con HQ

October 15, 2011

Suicide of a Superpower, Decline of a civilization

Somebody out there gets it.  Via Drudge, excerpts from Pat Buchanan’s explosive new book.  My copy is already on order.

“As the faith that gave birth to the West is dying in the West, peoples of European descent from the steppes of Russia to the coast of California have begun to die out, as the Third World treks north to claim the estate.  The last decade provided corroboration if not conclusive proof that we are in the Indian Summer of our civilization.”

“America is disintegrating. The centrifugal forces pulling us apart are growing inexorably. What unites us is dissolving. And this is true of Western Civilization….Meanwhile, the state is failing in its most fundamental duties. It is no longer able to defend our borders, balance our budgets, or win our wars.”

Chapter 1: The Passing of a Superpower

“We have accepted today the existence in perpetuity of a permanent underclass of scores of millions who cannot cope and must be carried by society — fed, clothed, housed, tutored, medicated at taxpayer’s expense their entire lives. We have a dependent nation the size of Spain in our independent America. We have a new division in our country, those who pay a double or triple fare, and those who ride forever free.”

Chapter 2. The End of Christian America

If [Christopher] Dawson is correct, the drive to de-Christianize America, to purge Christianity from the public square, public schools and public life, will prove culturally and socially suicidal for the nation.

“The last consequence of a dying Christianity is a dying people. Not one post-Christian nation has a birth rate sufficient to keep it alive….The death of European Christianity means the disappearance of the European tribe, a prospect visible in the demographic statistics of every Western nation.”

Chapter 3. The Crisis of Catholicism

“Half a century on, the disaster is manifest. The robust and confident Church of 1958 no longer exists. Catholic colleges and universities remain Catholic in name only. Parochial schools and high schools are closing as rapidly as they opened in the 1950s. The numbers of nuns, priests and seminarians have fallen dramatically. Mass attendance is a third of what it was. From the former Speaker of the House to the Vice President, Catholic politicians openly support abortion on demand.”

“How can Notre Dame credibly teach that all innocent life is sacred, and then honor a president committed to ensuring that a woman’s right to end the life of her innocent child remains sacrosanct?”

Chapter 4. The End of White America

“[W]hite America is an endangered species. By 2020, whites over 65 will out-number those 17 and under. Deaths will exceed births. The white population will begin to shrink and, should present birth rates persist, slowly disappear.”

“Mexico is moving north. Ethnically, linguistically and culturally, the verdict of 1848 is being over-turned. Will this Mexican nation within a nation advance the goals of the Constitution — to “insure domestic tranquility” and ‘make us a more perfect union’? Or have we imperiled our union?” (Page 134)

Chapter 5. Demographic Winter

“Peoples of European descent are not only in a relative but a real decline. They are aging, dying, disappearing. This is the existential crisis of the West.” (Page 166)

“Not any Iranian weapon of mass destruction but demography is the existential crisis Israel faces….By mid-century…Palestinians west of the Jordan river will out-number Jews 2-1. Add Palestinians in Jordan, it is 3-1.”

“In a startling development of history, Russia’s population has fallen from 148 million in 1991 to 140 million today and is projected to plunge to 116 million by 2050, a loss of 32 million Russians in six decades.”

Chapter 6. Equality Vs. Freedom

“Those who would change society begin by changing the meaning of words. At Howard University, LBJ changed the meaning of equality from the attainable — an end to segregation and a legislated equality of rights for African-Americans — to the impossible: a socialist utopia.”

“Where equality is enthroned, freedom is extinguished. The rise of the egalitarian society means the death of the free society.”

“A time for truth. As most kids do not have the athletic ability to play high school sports, or the musical ability to play in the band, or the verbal ability to excel in debate, not every child has the academic ability to do high school work. No two children are created equal, not even identical twins. The family is the incubator of inequality and God its author.”

Chapter 7. The Diversity Cult

“The non-Europeanization of America is heartening news of an almost transcendental quality,” Wattenberg trilled.4 Yet, one wonders: What kind of man looks with transcendental joy to a day when the people among whom he was raised have become a minority in a nation where the majority rules?”

“Historians will look back in stupor at 20th and 21st century Americans who believed the magnificent republic they inherited would be enriched by bringing in scores of millions from the failed states of the Third World.”

Chapter 8: The Triumph Of Tribalism

America’s war of revenge against Japan was a race war. Newsreels, movies, magazines, comic books, headlines treated “Japs” as a repulsive race whose extermination would benefit mankind….Only well after the war was over was it re-branded a war to bring the blessings of democracy to…Japan.

We may deny the existence of ethnonationalism, detest it, condemn it. But this creator and destroyer of empires and nations is a force infinitely more powerful than globalism, for it engages the heart. Men will die for it. Religion, race, culture and tribe are the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse.

Chapter 9. ‘The White Party’

“Through its support of mass immigration, its paralysis in power to prevent 12-20 million illegal aliens from entering and staying, its failure to address the “anchor-baby” issue, the Republican Party has birthed a new electorate that will send it the way of the Whigs.”

Chapter 10: The Long Retreat

“We borrow from Europe to defend Europe. We borrow from the Gulf states to defend the Gulf states. We borrow from Japan to defend Japan. Is it not a symptom of senility to be borrowing from the world so we can defend the world?”

“Are vital U.S. interests more imperiled by what happens in Iraq where were have 50,000 troops, or Afghanistan where we have 100,000, or South Korea where we have 28,000 — or by what is happening on our border with Mexico?…What does it profit America if we save Anbar and lose Arizona?”

Chapter 11: The Last Chance

“We are trying to create a nation that has never before existed, of all the races, tribes, cultures and creeds of Earth, where all are equal. In this utopian drive for the perfect society of our dreams we are killing the real country we inherited — the best and greatest country on earth.”


September 26, 2011

Pink Witches, white paper, political correctness run amuck

Sanitized and sterilized for your viewing safety.

Modern Liberals are crazy.  Straight up.  Not bad people mind you, just sick puppies the whole lot of them.  When you read this article, keep in mind that as the further and faster racism recedes from our culture, the more DESPERATELY these Sec Progs try to find it.  They NEED racism to exist because as racism recedes, so does the modern Liberal’s relevance.  They lose a major raison d’etre with racism gone.   Not to mention it makes a fairly useful club against their hated enemies on the Right.  And where a Lib means to find racism, believe you me, he will find it!

Dress witches in pink and avoid white paper to prevent racism in nuseries, expert says

From the Wicked Witch of the West in the Wizard of Oz to Meg, the good witch from the Meg and Mog children’s books, witches have always dressed in black.  But their traditional attire has now come in for criticism from equality experts who claim it could send a negative message to toddlers in nursery and lead to racism.

Instead, teachers should censor the toy box and replace the pointy black hat with a pink one, while dressing fairies, generally resplendent in pale pastels, in darker shades.  Another staple of the classroom – white paper – has also been questioned by Anne O’Connor, an early years consultant who advises local authorities on equality and diversity.

Children should be provided with paper other than white to drawn on and paints and crayons should come in “the full range of flesh tones”, reflecting the diversity of the human race, according to the former teacher.  Finally, staff should be prepared to be economical with the truth when asked by pupils what their favourite colour is and, in the interests of good race relations, answer “black” or “brown”.

The measures, outlined in a series of guides in Nursery World magazine, are aimed at avoiding racial bias in toddlers as young as two.  According to the guides, very young children may begin to express negative and discriminatory views about skin colour and appearance that nursery staff must help them “unlearn”.

If children develop positive associations with dark colours, the greater the likelihood that the attitude will be generalised to people, it says.  The advice is based on an “anti-bias” approach to education which developed in the United States as part of multiculturalism.

Ah, there it is, that scourge of Western civilization– multiculturalism.  Not surprised to see its fingerprints on this one.  Next on the sec prog agenda, outlaw toy witches (might offend the pagans).  More secular progressive madness here.

September 1, 2011

Flash Mobs a Sign O’ the Times

Is a post-Christian society a more civilized one? Are we becoming a more decent and compassionate society as we become more secular progressive? That’s what they promise us, isn’t it?  Welcome to a religion-free, morally relativist world.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

August 3, 2011

Peter Parker sacrificed on Altar of Diversity

Knock off: Miles Morales as the amazing Spiderman.

Spiderman makeover reflects “browning” of America, strikes blow against whitey.

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) – There’s a new web-slinger in town.

New Yorkers take their fictional heroes seriously, so it may come as a shock to some that Peter Parker, the Queens native whose destiny was forever altered by a radioactive/genetically altered spider, has been killed off in the “Ultimates” imprint of Marvel Comics. The Ultimate series is different from Marvel’s standard line, in which Peter Parker is still happily toiling away as everybody’s favorite hard-luck hero.

No, in the Ultimates series, Peter Parker gets killed at the hands of his nemesis the Green Goblin. But, being a comic book series, no hero stays dead for long. While Peter Parker may be gone, a new kid is stepping into the tights: Miles Morales.

Miles Morales is a half-black, half-Hispanic super-powered teen who gets into the hero game after being inspired by Parker’s death.

“He’s younger than Peter Parker, he’s coming from a completely different background, a completely different world view,” writer Brian Michael Bendis told the Associated Press. Bendis, who has been writing Ultimate Spider-Man (and many other) comics for Marvel since 2000, is enthusiastic about the change. “I’m now sitting with a pile of legitimately new Spider-Man stories to tell and that is the best news a writer could have.”

No word on whether the change in ethnicity is going to play a role in casting decisions in upcoming Spider-Man movies or Spider-Man: Turn Off The Dark.


I’m hispanic and this is embarrassing to me.  So I apologize for what these lilly-white Liberals are doing to our beloved comic book characters for the sake of “diversity,” and ostensibly on my behalf, no less.  So embarrassing!

It doesn’t sit well with me that characters that we’ve grown up with our whole lives should be killed off, all for the sake of “diversity.”  These characters, like professional sports teams, are “public” property and not subject to the whims of politically correct writers or greedy team owners.  Or at least they shouldn’t be.  If the Minnesota Vikings move to L.A. just to chase that almighty dollah, for example, I swear on everything that’s holy I’m done with the NFL.  Finished.  Same here: this “Miles Morales” will NEVER be Spiderman.  Got that?

To which you respond, the world is a very different place than the one Peter Parker grew up in, you goddamn racist.  It’s browner now.  Superheroes should therefore reflect this browning of America.

And I totally agree.  Art and entertainment should reflect the culture that consumes it.  But only if it has developed in a way that’s natural and organic.  Not forced on us by these “deciders” with an agenda.  If there’s a market for ethnic superheros, then create them and sell them to us. If you have the pulse of the nation, then we’ll buy in.  If not, it’ll be just another Liberal flop.  So, is there a market for black, latino, and in this case cablanasian superheros?  Is there?  The answer is decidedly NO!  Because we don’t care about their race or their ethnic “experience”, we care about their superhero story, regardless of race.

Ethnic superheros have been around for decades; Mandrake, Blade, Storm, and Spawn, to name just a few.  Aren’t they good enough?  So why murder our beloved Peter Parker just to morph Spiderman into Tiger Woods?

That fact is, ethnic superheros have never really caught on beyond a niche following.  Give me a break, even non-whites don’t give a crap about ethnic superheros.  Certainly we aren’t going to follow someone because of his/her ethnicity.  I’m hispanic, and I’ve always loved Superman.  That’s never going to change.  Supes has the best mythology, bar none.  He’s unique among the pantheon of superheros.  Sure, he’s white, but he’s not even human for crissakes.  It’s about his species (again, story), not his race.

BUT, you respond, that’s only because “whiteness” is so normative and dominant in this culture, and we’ve all been so inculcated in that whiteness from the moment we opened our eyes.  Essentially, our minds have been “colonized” by whitey to view whiteness as “the norm.”  So although I may claim to care only about a hero’s story, it’s really about race; and black, latino, and mulatto superheros don’t really stand a fighting chance out there.  This Whiteness “matrix”, therefore, has to be shattered so that we can free our thinking from its hold and give ethnic superheros an even playing field.  And that way we can restore “self-esteem” to all our brown brothers and sistas!

And with that response you would reveal the ACTUAL reason Peter Parker had to die.  Because no ethnic superhero has ever been able to compete with the greats like Superman, Batman, Spiderman, et al., and because our children grow up loving them above all others, this only perpetuates this white dominance of which you speak.  So you have to hijack one of the Greats and turn him into a ghetto rat the likes of Miles Morales.  That way you will FORCE us to like an ethnic superhero, and thus help “free” our minds and end the tyranny of “whiteness” forever!  Sound about right? lol

And that’s all this is.  A blow by the forces of PC against whitey and “The Man.”  And who a better villain for this new hero of color than say, oh, those greedy, nasty, hateful Republicans and those raaaaaacist Tea Party “terrorists”!  After all, this is about his “experiences”, isn’t it?  lol

Now stay tuned for teh gay Batman.  You do know he’s gay, right?  Why else would he wear those goofy looking tights?  Sign O’ the times!

January 18, 2011

The Bows of Obama: China’s President Hu is in town again

With China’s Hu Jintao: As usual, Barack’s the only one bowing.

Let’s take a look inside Lefty’s mind, shall we?  CCHQ has cracked the code.  Much is made of President Obama’s apologies and compulsion to kowtow before the world.  I personally don’t like it, but I also think perhaps too much is made of it.  I don’t agree, for instance, that Obama is bowing before his Chinese or Saudi “masters” when he kowtows to the likes of Hu Jintao and King Fahd.  In fact, I now believe the opposite is true.

Pull my finger, Whitey: No bows for Canada’s president Harper.

Here, Obama doesn’t kowtow, but instead practically jams his finger in Harper’s face.  I don’t think Obama was intentionally trying to be rude, even though that’s what it looks like.  The image is deceiving.  But neither is Obama trying to be deferential, and that’s a fact.  It’s also key.  With Harper, he doesn’t feel he has to be deferential.  You see, Harper is a white male, and therefore an equal; while Hu Jintao is a squinty-eyed Chinaman, and “inferior.”  Hu belongs to that exalted and romanticized category of lovable fuzzballs known as “the Other.”

Tampa Bay Mayor, Iorio, qualifies as “the Other.”

Asian women too count as lovable little fuzzballs.  White Libs view “the Other” as historical victims of the White Male Global Establishment™ who are in need of special protection and deference.  Thus, when a Lib approaches the Other he doesn’t do it as he would a peer member like President Harper.  He approaches with an added sense of caution, deference, and sensitivity due to one he perceives as injured.  He’s terrified of causing offense to the historically battered and bruised the Other, and he uses every opportunity to reassure the Other that he recognizes and understands his/her special status.

This serves a dual purpose– it both “uplifts” the Other, and, more importantly, the bowing demonstrates to those with the eyes to see just how sensitive and finely tuned is his worldview.  Libs take great pride in their perceived understanding of all things culture, and they want others to know.  But–as you can see from the pictures above–it’s not a mutual understanding between the two parties because the objects of these self-conscious attempts at “deference” are caught just as flatfooted as the rest of us are.  Notice they aren’t bowing to him in return.  Rather, it seems to me they’re slightly puzzled and bemused by Obama’s awkward attempts at ritual humility.

The irony in how Obama’s kowtowing has been covered is that–far from bowing to “his masters”–he’s actually bowing to his inferiors.  It’s an overt sign of “humility” that lowers him to their level, betraying a subconscious belief that he is a superior, and therefore must go out of his way to demonstrate that he isn’t.  It’s a mix of both compassion and condescension.  In a word, it’s White Guilt. And White Guilt compels the Liberal to prove he does not see the Other as inferior, the way all those nasty and racist Republican rightwingers do.  So he bows, literally and figuratively lowering himself to an equal status.  But this only betrays his own sense of superiority, for which he feels guilty.  All this has succeeded in accomplishing, therefore, is to reveal (for those who have the eyes to see it) his own ever-so-soft and subtle racism.

But Barack Obama’s black, you say?  Well, yes and no.  He lives with one foot in each world, not fully a part of either.  Based on his upbringing, it’s more accurate to describe him as “Third Culture.”  Ideologically speaking, however, he’s a Liberal, and White Guilt has more to do with ideology and worldview than it does race.  Also, he’s bowing as the American President, not necessarily as an African-American.  As such he’s on a higher tier than the rest of humanity, which means he’s looking down from above.  Lowering himself before the Other, therefore, is practically an obligation.  It’s an obligation he doesn’t owe to white male presidents like Harper of Canada who he actually does see as an equal.

December 12, 2010

Liberal Wanders into Muslim “No Go” Zone

LOL, multiculturalism.

Here a Libturd in Londonistan wanders into Muslim territory– a “No Go” zone– to chat with the local yoots, Multiculti hilarity ensues!


Indeed.  In twenty years Britain will be Pakistan, and London will be Beirut.

December 5, 2010

Anti-Christian art in government buildings ok, but not Christian art

The "ant Christ."

If you want to make a name for yourself in the modern art scene, take Christ or some other Christian symbol and desecrate it.  Cover it in feces, urine, or in this case ants. Do something vile and offensive to it and glory shall be yours!  Mind you, it has to be a Christian symbol though, because using a Buddha or a Koran would run you afoul of the PC police and that would spell the swift end to your artistic career.  The former is genius, the latter is bigotry.  But desecrate a Christian symbol?  Who needs talent when you can be transgressive instead!  Accolades and fame (if not fortune) will be yours!  Most of this shock art is just that– a desperate and transparent grab at notoriety.  Offensive?  Sure it is.  But shocking?  In this day and age?  Thomas Kinkade is more of a rebel than any of these schlock mongers of the Left who want nothing more than to conform to the demands of their insular set.  And he’s a hell of a lot more talented.  Anti-Christian art today is dime a dozen and old hat.  Honestly, I was hardly even motivated to blog this one.  But Brent Bozell at News Busters raises a fresh question worth asking.  If Christianity is not allowed in government buildings, why then is anti-Christian art permitted, and on the tax payer’s dime to boot!  You see, Leftie wants his constitutional cake and to eat it too, but we’re not going to let him have it.  If religion violates “separation of Church and state” of the Establishment Clause, then so does anti-religion.

Shock Art and ‘Social Dignity’

The curator elites at the Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery were happily abusing the trust of the American taxpayer, with radical gay activists pushing a gay agenda, replete with the religiously bigoted, sadomasochistic and homoerotic fare, all under the auspices of “art.” Then something happened. The public complained. Now these radicals are shocked – shocked! – that the “censors” are out to destroy their “artistic freedom.”

It’s like a bad rendition of “Groundhog Day.” How many times must we relive this foolishness?

The sponsors tell us that “Hide/Seek” is “the first major exhibition to examine the influence of gay and lesbian artists in creating modern American portraiture,” and how these gay and lesbian artists have made “essential contributions to both the art of portraiture and to the creation of modern American culture.”

But that isn’t enough. Theirs is a political message as part of a political agenda. To quote from their program, they want to strike a blow for “the struggle for justice, so that people and groups can claim their full inheritance in America’s promise of equality, inclusion, and social dignity.”

“Social dignity?” I suspect those are not the first words most Americans would use to describe a video that was part of the exhibit that featured images of ants crawling over Jesus Christ on a crucifix.  It is simply imperative that any “art” display by gays insult, in the deepest way possible, the sensibilities of Christians.

It’s mind-boggling that the same people who so quickly screech at the first sign of a religion near a government building don’t get the point that it should be equally wrong to have a sign of anti-religion in a government building. And don’t they see the richest irony of them all? There is that which they find offensive – a creche with the Baby Jesus on government property, and that which they celebrate and defend as “art” – a sacrilegious defamation of Jesus Christ, crucified. If it’s wrong to promote the Christian religion with tax dollars, isn’t it many times worse to trash the Christian religion with tax dollars?Like the public broadcasters, the public gallery operators hunger to rise above the dreary, pedestrian tastes of those rubes in middle America who revere Jesus and aren’t captivated by the “creative resistance” of the gay artistic vanguard. They demand “equality” and “inclusion” for the gay lobby, but there is no inclusion for the rest of us when it comes to what art they will declare advances the cause of “justice.” Curators ought to be wise enough to know there are limits of government-funded art.

So the curator announced finally that he was pulling the video of ants walking over the crucifix. But he offered no apology. In fact, he insisted that contrary to allegations, this “art” was not “meant to offend.” That’s simply dishonest. Anyone with an IQ greater than that of a potato chip knows this was precisely what they intended. This to them is the Christmas spirit.

Read the rest.

November 24, 2010

I pardon you: Lincoln spares Thanksgiving turkey

We are nothing if not our traditions.  President Obama will probably pardon the Thanksgiving turkey tomorrow, just as presidents have done all the way back to Abraham Lincoln.  This charming practice began in 1863 when a living turkey was delivered to the White House, and Lincoln’s son, Tad, begged his dad to spare the bird from the chopping block.

Abraham Lincoln’s 10 year old son, Tad, quickly befriended the bird and named him Jack. Tad fed Jack, and taught the bird to follow him around the White House grounds…

When the time came to prepare the turkey for the holiday meal, Tad convinced the “executioner” to delay slaughtering the bird, so he could bring Jack’s case before the President. Tad ran and burst into one of his father’s Cabinet meetings. Crying loudly, Tad told his father that Jack was about to be killed. “Jack must not be killed; it is wicked,” Tad pleaded. President Lincoln replied, “Jack was sent here to be killed and eaten…I can’t help it.” Tad, sobbing, said, “He’s a good turkey, and I don’t want him killed.” Abraham Lincoln, president of the United States of America, paused in the midst of the Cabinet meeting. He took out a card, and on it he wrote an order of reprieve. Jack’s life was to be spared, and Tad raced out of the Cabinet meeting to present the presidential order to the executioner.*

This began what has become an annual Thanksgiving tradition. Each year the President pardons a turkey before Thanksgiving. After President Barack Obama pardons the Thanksgiving turkey on Wednesday, the fortunate fowl will live out the rest of its life at George Washington’s Mount Vernon Estate in Virginia.


November 23, 2010

Leading UK Lib Warns of Overpopulation and Muslim Takeover, But Mostly Muslim Takeover

Lord Carey: Favors bias towards christian immigrants

More clarion calls from the good Bishop.


Former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey has said immigrants to the UK should have an understanding the country’s Christian heritage.

He is among a group of MPs and peers warning that the population should not be allowed to go beyond 70 million.  Lord Carey said immigration angered many people and could lead to violence, and that the system had to focus more on maintaining “values”.

You must understand, gentle reader, everything is cloaked in euphemism because of the harsh PC speech codes of secular progressive Europe.  Notice the scare quotes the reporter places on “values”– a way of casting doubt, and even aspersion, on the very notion.  But why should immigrants understand our christian heritage, when our own secular progressives are making every effort to extinguish it?  Notice Lord Carey says immigrants should “have an understanding” of christian heritage.  That is euphemism also.  What he is really saying is that we should import our immigrants from other parts of christian Europe, not the Muslim world.

Labour says the system works, but the Tories want caps on incoming workers. All the main parties are sceptical about setting population targets which they believe is unrealistic and counter-productive.

Notice the typical Left/Right sanity divide holds true across the Pond as well.  Leftism is a trans-national movement, so a Lefty here and in Europe are pretty much on the same page about everything.  That does not hold nearly as true of American conservatism vs European conservatism.

Last year the Office for National Statistics said, if current trends continued, the UK population would rise by 10 million to more than 71.6 million by 2033 – the fastest rise in a century.  Two-thirds of that increase would be caused, directly or indirectly, by migration to the UK, it suggested.

“What I think I’m concerned about is not saying we must put a limit on people who are non-Christian populations. That’s not the point. We welcome everybody and that’s always been the generous spirit of the United Kingdom.”

Poor guy.  The insincerity oozing through his every pore.

But, he said, immigrants must “understand” the UK’s culture, including parliamentary democracy “which is built upon Christian heritage”, “our commitment to the English language” and an understanding of the country’s history.

There it is.  In a secular progressive utopia such as the UK, telling the truth is as agonizing as having your teeth pulled.

The system should not “give preference to any particular group”, he said, but added that points-based immigration could take these cultural aspects into consideration.

And again.  In Europe, “cultural aspects” = Islam.

Lord Carey added: “If there’s going to be an implementation of that points system, it must focus much more on values rather than religions…

“If there are competing groups wanting to come in, some groups which may have a greater understanding, an espousal to that, may be given preference under a points system, but that’s not what I’m arguing and certainly not what the cross-party group is arguing.”

Lord Carey told BBC Radio 5 live: “We’ve got to be more outspoken. What I’m calling for is a debate, a debate without any rancour.”

Ask yourself, why would this issue cause rancour?  And rancour from whom?  Answer: It is rancorous to the muslim community who wants to see Europe islamized, and the secular progressives who are enabling this cultural genocide in the name of diversity and multiculturalism.

He added that immigration was an issue that mattered to “ordinary working-class people” and that it was important to tackle “that kind of resentment which could build and is building up already”.

Working class people– unlike the “educated class”– will yet be the salvation of the West.

Lord Carey said too much population growth in the UK could foster “dangerous social conditions”, with some minority ethnic groups, such as young Muslim men, suffering “disproportionate” unemployment.

Here he is saying the UK doesn’t need the massive muslim slums found in every city in France that have become no-go zones for cops because they are so violent.  The French call them “quartiers sensibles” — sensitive neighborhoods. Lord Carey is warning against this.

Labour MP Field and Tory MP Nicholas Soames, the co-chairmen of the migration group, said: “Poll after poll shows the public to be deeply concerned about immigration and its impact on our population.

Meanwhile the “educated class” is obsessed with extinguishing every last vestige of christianity from our society.

Net migration – the number of people who come to live in Britain minus those who leave – fell by more than a third in 2008 but critics say this was driven by eastern Europeans returning home and immigration levels must fall to levels of the early 1990s.

Net migration decreasing, but of eastern Europeans, not Muslims.  The rest here.

November 20, 2010

Elitism: Liberals thinks you’re morons

Never fails. When Republicans lose elections they blame the Democrats.  When Democrats lose elections they blame the American people.  This is a decidedly Leftwing trait.  But remember, they’re all about “helping” you (even though they despise you).

UPDATE: Here Joe Biden says President Obama’s problem is he’s so brilliant (meaning of course, it’s you who are the morons).  And who could forget candidate Obama’s “smart power”.  They really, really do think they’re some kind of genius.

November 7, 2010

Bill Lind on political Correctness and Cultural Marxism

I’ve yet to find a better presentation on cultural Marxism than this one.  Here Bill Lind deconstructs the deconstructionists of the Frankfurt School, explaining their “critical theory” and exposing their efforts to translate economic Marxism into cultural terms.  There is a civil war for the soul of the West.  It is a cold war for our culture.  The Left has defined the rules by which this war will be fought, and it is called political correctness.  I don’t believe we will kindly oblige them.

October 30, 2010

Who’s Afraid of Mohammed

Leftist slip showing: Maher afraid of Islam

Is Bill Maher’s show still called “Politically Incorrect?”  (Or was that his previous one)  Because I can’t say I’ve ever heard him say anything particularly un-PC until now.  Here he pulls a “Juan Williams”  and finally says something that’s, you know, politically incorrect (as opposed to his usual atheism and Christianity-bashing, which couldn’t be more mainstream and socially acceptable in this day and age).

Those who accuse the once libertarian Bill Maher of becoming too much of a liberal apologist might want to clean their ears. Maher made a Juan Williams-esque confession on his program when he apprehensively noted that Mohammed has just become the most popular baby name in Britain. “Am I a racist to feel alarmed by that?” Maher asked his panel. “Because I am. And it’s not because of the race, it’s because of the religion. I don’t have to apologize, do I, for not wanting the Western world to be taken over by Islam in 300 years?”

Notice he makes the distinction between race and religion, giving himself the benefit of the doubt he’d never grant to somebody on the Right.  But poor fellow, he thinks it’ll take Islam 300 years.  lol.  If only…

His normally boisterous crowd fell silent as the panel responded to Maher’s admission.

“If you’re with NPR,” the conservative Margaret Hoover chimed, “You’d be fired.”

“It’s worse,” Lawrence O’Donnell told Maher. “It’s way worse than what Juan Williams said.” Hoover seemed to agree with this sentiment.

Reihan Salam, a conservative analyst with a Muslim name, also seemed irked by Maher’s comments, noting that he “has some uncles named Mohammed” that are “pretty decent guys.”

Of course, it’s not the name that Maher fears, but the religion. (Any of them, in fact — Maher’s qualms with religion of any sort, Islam or not, are long-standing and well-documented.) Hoover further stoked Maher by claiming that the U.K is saddled with a “far bigger problem” than baby names: Sharia Law, which she said is creeping into England.

“Then I’m right,” Maher said, taking her for her word. “I should be alarmed. And I don’t apologize for it.”


Wonderful!  Reihan Salam knows a dude whose sisters-in-law are married to some Muslims who are pretty decent guys.  Well, that settles it!  Islamize away then!  The classic red herring non-sequitor, reducing the argument to individuals instead of culture, and then imputing to the general from the specific.  Who buys this kind of crap?  It’s not about “Muslims”, Mr. Salam, it’s about ISLAM.  And I don’t apologize for it.

September 30, 2010

Postmodernism and Decline: Demographic Winter

Secular progressivism and its role in the decline of Western civilization has been previously discussed here at CCHQ .  Now for the mechanics of how that self-destructive value system works its magic.  Below a truly chilling look at what demographers are calling the Demographic Winter.  The decline of the human family.  This isn’t hyperbole or conspiracy talk.  This is the science of demography, and what you will see here will shock you to your core.  The population pyramid with the young on the bottom and the aging on the top that has been the norm since time immemorial has been turned on its head.

The West, and especially in Russia, is on a path of rapid depopulation.  It is said to be Vladimir Putin’s greatest concern. He is actually paying families to have children, but it’s not working because it isn’t economics which is at the root of this problem, it is our changing values.  The sexual revolution, the divorce revolution, cohabitation, nuclear family breakdown, individualism, gender roles, birth control, abortion, hookups with no plans for marriage, prosperity and a lack of economic incentive to procreate, young men no longer motivated to marry as they once were for the sake of sexual gratification, couples marrying at a late age or not forming families, or delaying their first child, etc.  According to the experts, these are some of the major reasons why the West’s fertility rate has so drastically declined.  This is why we are importing a replacement population from Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa, while our own shrinks–with the resulting Islamization of the West.

Watch the whole thing.  Demographers are pretty much admitting that their data-based claims affirm 100% the moral and cultural claims being made by social conservatives and traditionalists regarding family and the culture at large.  Let me repeat that.  I’m not only saying that demographer’s data affirms social conservatives, I’m saying that the demographers themselves are admitting that their data confirms social conservative views on the culture.  A culture that for 2,000 years has sustained Western civilization, now being undone in mere decades by the secular progressive cult of “progress.”

“As a society, we don’t like to talk about the causes of fertility decline.  We don’t want to possibly offend other people.  The really chilling thing about demographic winter is that none of these causes can be easily fixed.  It’s who we are, who we have become in these post-modern times.”

The final words of one of the social scientists here:  “Maybe the time of greatness for Western civilization has come and gone, and now we’re going into a retreat,” some cheer with your morning coffee, gentle readers? Probably not. I regret to say that the world that we know today is not the world our children will know.

August 7, 2010

Same-Sex Marriage and the Assault on Moral Reasoning

This one adds reason and logic to our feelings of outrage.  Read it till the end.

By Matthew Franck

It is something of a consolation, albeit a small one, that the best arguments advocates for a constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage can muster are so transparently bad. Disconnected from nature, from history, from the canons of legal reasoning, and even from the standards of logic itself, their arguments betray themselves at every turn, as acts of the will and not of reasoned judgment. When the advocate advancing the arguments wears a black robe and sits on the federal bench, of course, even falsehood and fallacy have a decent chance of ultimate victory.

Such an advocate is Judge Vaughn Walker of the U.S. district court in San Francisco. After two and a half weeks of trial in January, and a day of closing arguments in June, he finally delivered his ruling and opinion in Perry v. Schwarzenegger on August 4, overturning California’s Proposition 8, an amendment to the state constitution adopted by the people in November 2008, declaring that “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” The California Supreme Court, in May of that year, had overturned an earlier popular referendum protecting marriage (that had only statutory status) on grounds that it violated the state constitution. And so the people of the state, against the odds and facing elite opposition, amended that constitution just six months later. Judge Walker has shifted the ground of the controversy to the federal constitution, and has flung wide the door of the federal courts to embrace (he hopes) some of the worst sophistical knavery that has been seen in quite some time in the pages of American jurisprudence.

Perhaps the most surprising thing in the judge’s opinion is his declaration that “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage.” This line, quoted everywhere within hours with evident astonishment, appears to be the sheerest ipse dixit-a judicial “because I said so”-and the phrase “no longer” conveys that palpable sense that one is being mugged by a progressive. But Judge Walker’s remark here is actually the conclusion of a fairly complex argument. The problem is that the argument is not only complex but wholly fallacious.

Judges, especially those of the lower courts, know that their innovations in constitutional law are best armored by an appearance of continuity with history and precedent. And so Judge Walker begins by reminding us that the right to marry has long been considered “fundamental” in our jurisprudence. And so it has, for those-namely couples of men and women-considered capable of entering into the relationship of marriage. Are the same-sex plaintiffs in the Perry case asking then for a “new” right, or for admission without unjust barriers of discrimination to the enjoyment of an old one? At first glance it looks like the first of these is the case. But any road that leads to the second conclusion will be smoothest for the judge-advocate’s purposes, since it will provide that much-desired appearance of continuity with the law’s long history.

Yet how to pave that road? By distinguishing between the “core” attributes of the institution of marriage and those that are only incidental, those historical attributes that have been abandoned without harm to what is essential about marriage. Many American states, for instance, once considered race an important attribute, so that racial difference was a barrier to the formation of a marriage. But race is now universally understood not to matter, and the Supreme Court even said in 1965 that the Constitution did not tolerate such a legal rule.

By the same token, says Judge Walker, the doctrine of coverture, in the common law, in which a wife’s legal identity was subsumed by that of her husband as the superior partner in the marriage-that too has been abandoned by a more modern understanding of the sexes as equal partners. Thus, concludes the judge, there has been a “movement of marriage away from a gendered institution and toward an institution free from state-mandated gender roles.” And this has not been an essential change in the “core” of the marriage institution, but merely a shedding of an extraneous characteristic, thanks to “an evolution in the understanding of gender.”

And now watch carefully, for here the fallacious reasoning enters the equation. When “the genders” are no longer “seen as having distinct roles,” it is revealed that at marriage’s “core” there is ample space for same-sex couples too. Since “gender no longer forms an essential part of marriage,” indeed since it never really did, “plaintiffs’ relationships are consistent with the core of the history, tradition and practice of marriage in the United States.” There, you see? There is something eminently conservative about the admission of same-sex couples to the marital bond. What could we have been thinking, denying them this right for all these centuries?

Judge Walker seems to have committed the fallacy of composition-taking something true of a part and concluding that it is also true of the whole of which it is a part. If it is true that “gender” no longer matters as it once did in the relation of husband and wife, he reasons, therefore it no longer matters whether the relation is one of husband and wife; it may as well be a relation of husband and husband or of wife and wife, since we now know that marriage is not, at its “core,” a “gendered institution.” But restated in this way, it is quite plain that the judge’s conclusion doesn’t follow from his premises. To say that the status of men and women in marriage is one of equal partners is not to say that men and women are the same, such that it does not matter what sex their partners are. The equalization of status is not the obliteration of difference, as much as Judge Walker would like to pretend it is.

Once having admitted same-sex couples to the ranks of those holding the “fundamental right” to marry, the judge has easier sport in his sights, manipulating the “levels of scrutiny” that so afflict modern constitutional law, and concluding withal that the voters who approved Proposition 8 acted without any “rational basis” for their decision to preserve marriage in the only form in which our law has ever known it. Now conservatism gets a hiding from Judge Walker: “Tradition alone . . . cannot form a rational basis for a law.”

Well, yes, to be sure. Tradition must give its reasons-though in the common-law legal tradition, it is novelty that usually bears a heavier burden in this respect. And is it really as easy as the judge thinks to dismiss a “tradition” so bound up with commonsense understandings of nature, of human flourishing, of the purposes of marriage and family? Confidently sweeping aside such understandings, Judge Walker declares that “moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples.”

This is a very telling conjunction. Once it would have been thought to strengthen the case for a law, that it rested on the moral views of the lawmakers, if no countervailing right against being governed by such views could be adduced. And it would have been a matter of no legal suspicion whatsoever that the moral views informing a law found confirmation in widely held religious views as well. For such moral principles are not articles of faith, in the sense of being specially revealed to the elect or the faithful. They are the conclusions of trains of reasoning about right and wrong, and about human ends and the fitness of the means to them. In language we might borrow from Plato’s Euthyphro, the moral norms that govern marriage are embraced by the pious not because they are mysterious commands of an inscrutable divine will, but because they are rationally knowable as good in themselves, and for this reason find support in the dictates of faith as well.

But for Judge Walker there is an odor of illegitimacy about merely “moral” views expressed in legislation, especially when morality finds support in religion. Thus he declares that Proposition 8 expresses only a “private moral choice,” not a considered public morality. And thus in his tendentious “findings of fact” (about the purpose of which, see this editorial in National Review), he makes the astonishing claim-purporting to be a fact found at trial, not a judgment of his own-that “religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful . . . harm gays and lesbians.”

Perhaps here, in this nadir of absurdity, we have found the real fundament of the judge’s thinking. Citizens who wish to defend the institution of marriage as they and their families have known it all their lives, and for countless generations, are irrational bigots. Worse still, if they are moved to act because of the union of their faith with their moral opinions, they are crazy religious folk, bent only on harming others whom they merely “dislike” on grounds that cannot possibly be defended before a tribunal of right-thinking people. And those others, the same-sex-couple plaintiffs? They must be rescued from the “harm” to their feelings that results from their exclusion from a historic civil and moral institution that has never hitherto been thought to have been built for them.

That Judge Vaughn Walker evidently cannot grasp what an effrontery his opinion is to the faith, the morals, and yes, the feelings of the vast majority of his fellow Americans is the final irony of his ruling in Perry v. Schwarzenegger. But perhaps he can be taught a lesson about the violence he has done to the rule of law, and to the United States Constitution. His fellow citizens, more accustomed than he to governing themselves by canons of reasoned judgment, may have to teach the lesson, if his superiors on the bench will not do so.


July 12, 2010

Iranian vs Arabs: How to tell the difference

I know they all look the same, but I hear there’s actually a difference.  Here’s something to lighten the serious as cancer mood around here.  lol

Thanks: Ace

The Greatest Trick Hollywood Ever pulled

Via Big Hollywood, it’s quite good.

by John Nolte

It was either Kayser Soze or some French poet with an unpronounceable name who said something to the effect of, ”The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.” Not everyone believes in the Devil but we all know Hollywood exists, and isn’t six of one just a half dozen of the other? After all, the greatest trick Tinseltown (with the help of the MSM) ever pulled was convincing the world that a belief in a moral code is what’s abnormal because all the cool kids are into a collective degeneracy.


Though liberals only make up 20% of the population, they’re still able to pull off this sinister bluff because conservatives took their eye off the ball and allowed the Left to infest the institutions in charge of documenting and portraying who we are as a society. Unfortunately, these socialist engineers aren’t stupid and figured out almost immediately that with a near-monopoly on sound and image they could make a majority of the population feel like the minority; with the goal in mind of using peer pressure to shape our culture into a godless orgy of anything goes hyper-sexuality.

The result is that those of us made nauseous by the idea of loveless sex are intentionally made to feel like the oppressive party-poopers – the weirdos, the prudes, the uncool outsiders lacking in compassion, enlightenment and sophistication. This devil has so perfectly executed this ruse that even those of us on to him can forget what’s happening until a genuine phenomenon like “Twilight” comes along to remind us.

Read the rest.

July 7, 2010

What’s Great About America – Its generosity

When you love something, you find the good in it, and vice versa when you don’t.  That’s true of people, and it’s true of countries.  Thus more from John Stossel’s Fox News special, What’s Great About America.

June 9, 2010

Science! Lesbian Parents raise healthier kids

Science discovers children need fathers like fish need a bicycle.

Ooh, James Dobson is going to hate this: A new study has found that the kids of lesbian parents turn out just as well-adjusted as their peers. What’s more, they have fewer behavioral problems and greater self-confidence. That is to say, lesbian parents not only do just as well as hetero households on the child-rearing front, but they actually manage to do some things better. Who’s “focusing on the family” now, huh?

You might be familiar with the past research frequently cited by marriage equality activists finding that kids raised by gay families do just as well as those reared in straight homes. But this study, published Monday in the journal Pediatrics, is the first of its kind. Over the span of 25 years, researchers Nanette Gartrell of the University of California at San Francisco and Henry Bos of the University of Amsterdam followed 84 families in which mothers identified as lesbian at the time of artificial insemination. That’s key, as it ruled out women who got pregnant while in a heterosexual relationship before transitioning into a lesbian relationship.

Using a standard behavioral checklist, the parents evaluated their kids’ emotional, social and academic behavior five times from birth until age 17, and the young’uns were interviewed at age 10 and age 17. The outcome: Kids raised by lesbians were less likely to have behavioral issues, and exhibited greater confidence and academic performance. So, this is all just wonderful. Surely “pro-family” organizations will take this as a directive to legalize gay marriage in the name of children’s well-being, right?

Of course not, silly goose. Wendy Wright, president of the Concerned Women for America, told CNN: “This study was clearly designed to come out with one outcome — to attempt to sway people that children are not detrimentally affected in a homosexual household.” It is certainly true that the study was partially funded by LGBT advocacy groups; it’s also true that this is a peer-reviewed study. I heartily encourage Concerned Women for America to fund its own study and attempt to get it into a reputable scientific journal.

The truth is, we don’t know why these kids fared better in certain behavioral respects — and it might not have to do with having lesbian parents, per se. One factor that seems awfully important here is that these pregnancies were all planned. Like, really, really planned. There were no forgotten pills, broken condoms or one too many glasses of red wine; these women had to actively seek out sperm donors and then undergo artificial insemination. It’s always possible these results have less to do with gay parenting than with planned parenting — not that ultra-conservatives would find that any less upsetting.


Not only healthier, but already pre-programmed in the Gay Agenda/ lifestyle, all without even having to pay some university to do it for you!  Sigh. And would the journal of Pediatrics have published a study commissioned by Concerned Women for America or James Dobson?  That was purely a rhetorical question.  It’s simply inconceivable that they would.  And this illustrates perfectly how the Progs maintain their dominance in the culture.  With their “peer review” process, they vet the studies, deciding which ones to review and which to reject outright, and then they invoke as “authority” their very own peer reviews.  Case in point the study above, as the journal of Pediatrics and the authors of this study give each other the big reach around.  This “peer review” circle jerk is similarly used by the global warming movement to propagate their narrative while shutting down their detractors.

First we should commend these Lesbian couples for raising happy children.  To the extent this study is accurate, that is an accomplishment unto itself.  We aren’t criticizing these Lesbian families, only what masquerades as science which is then is used to further a political agenda.  CCHQ promotes a judeo-christian standard in the macro, but never at the expense of compassion in the micro. We don’t condemn individuals just because we support a higher ideal or different standard.   This post, therefore, is not about the Lesbian couples, but about the study.

The study is bogus.  Fake.  Ersatz.  And it illustrates perfectly just how thoroughly the Left has politicized every aspect of society, even our science.  Better to have two mommies than to have a mom and dad.  How many of you really believe that?  That is absurd on its face.  Most of us need no further convincing of that, but for those of you that do, consider that the article already admits these Lesbian families are “planned.”  Every attention to detail is given to their family “project.”  That alone throws the study off, and if this were all the evidence we had the study was bogus, it would be enough.  But there’s more.

They have taken 3-4 dozen lesbian couples, presumably stable (“over the span of 25 years…”), all middle to upper middle class, educated and professional (or they couldn’t afford the artificial insemination process); while the hetero families used in the study are presumably taken from the population at large, with no such controls for affluence, planning, or stability.  In other words, they have compared a highly selective, narrow sample of Lesbians to a random and diverse group of heteros.  That too, alone, should be enough to invalidate its conclusions.

Most important of all is the bogus, results-skewing method in which the data is gathered.  The article states, the parents evaluated their own children’s behaviour. Picture this: Scientist shows up with his survey forms and says, “Ladies, we’re conducting a study to see how children raised by progressive, tolerant Lesbian couples stack up against those raised by closed-minded, hetero-centric, homophobic couples in the population at large.  There’s no agenda behind this at all (wink, wink!).  Please feel free to record your own results, we’ll be back to collect them shortly.  Oh, and remember there’s no agenda behind this at all!  Nudge! Nudge!”  Has the study factored this into its results?

The fact is, these highly politicized and incentivized Lesbian couples on an GLBT crusade are probably not entering this study with their eyes closed the way random, oblivious hetero couples probably are.  The latter group isn’t going to be all fired up about scoring points for heteros the way I suspect are GLBT couples.  So naturally the self-reporting by Lesbian couples is going to be skewed.  This too is obvious on its face, and this too alone invalidates the study.

And finally, this Gay Agenda-funded study defines the parameters of what constitutes “healthy”, and then pushes that standard as the norm. Let’s just take their first criteria– Self-esteem– as an example.  In study after study, American high school kids show far higher levels of “self-esteem” than high school kids overseas, yet they score the lowest at every academic level.  So on what precisely is this false sense of “self-esteem” based?  Certainly not on accomplishment!  The American “self-esteem” movement has completely de-linked self-esteem from accomplishment, and now even some social scientists are admitting that “self-esteem” has crossed into over-confidence. And in a godless, secular society where a man’s worth cannot be measured by the transcendental or divine, what exactly is this so-called “self-esteem” based on then?  If not on accomplishment, what’s left?  Nothing!  The sad truth about the self-esteem movement is that they have actually harmed the cause of our children, not benefitted them.  When I hear “self-esteem” from these Sec Prog do-gooders my ears ring with the word NARCISSISM.  This faux “self-esteem” is both the cause and the result of civilizational decline.  Yet, this study cites self-esteem narcissism as a sign of “health”!

What about signs of dysfunction that the study ignores in their survey?  Does a child that grows up EFFEMINATE and probably gay or bisexual himself because he had no father as a role model qualify as “healthy”?  According to this study it does!  What about other studies that suggest girls raised by single moms–  with no male presence in the home– are unable to relate to men in the real world? I’m willing to bet this isn’t counted against Lesbian parenting by our study either!  The fact is, their criteria are purely subjective and agenda-driven.  That’s why this study is bogus.  It relies on the fallacy of misplaced empiricism, which is the assumption that they– the arbiters– can design a survey form that reflects “reality”, when all it really does is capture their bias.  Social scientists with an agenda commit this fallacy all the time.

June 2, 2010

Jesus at Comedy Central … really

In yet another outlandish display of transparency Comedy Central –fresh off of their Mohammed in a Bear suit censorship– has announced they are moving forward with a TV show about Jesus of Nazareth.

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) – It’s not on the air yet. It’s not shot yet. There’s no pilot yet. There might not even be a script yet.

But Comedy Central’s plan to develop an animated project about Jesus Christ has the biggest names in the TV watchdog business forming a protest supergroup to preemptively smite the show.

Brent Bozell (president, Media Research Centre), Tony Perkins (president, Family Research Council), Michael Medved (talk radio host), Bill Donohue (president, Catholic League), Rabbi Daniel Lapin (American Alliance of Jews and Christians) and Tim Winter (president, Parents Television Council) are joining forces to form the Coalition Against Religious Bigotry.

Comedy Central’s “JC” is in development, which means it’s still a couple of steps from getting the green light as a series. The project is about Jesus trying to live as a regular guy in New York City and wanting to escape the shadow of his “powerful but apathetic father.” Because Comedy Central recently censored “South Park” for its portrayals of the Prophet Muhammad, some Christian leaders see the prospect of a Jesus cartoon as proof of an offensive double standard.

‘Some’? ‘Some Christian leaders’? What kind of language gymnastics is this guy performing here? How about: “we should see the prospect of a Jesus cartoon …”

CARB will hold its first press conference on Thursday to urge advertisers not to support the project, should it ever hit the air.

“After we reveal the vile and offensive nature of Comedy Central’s previous characterizations of Jesus Chris and God the Father, we expect these advertisers to agree wholeheartedly to end their advertising on Comedy Central and discontinue their support for unabashed, anti-Christian discrimination,” Bozell said in a statement. “Why should they be supporting a business that makes a habit of attacking Christianity and yet has a formal policy to censor anything considered offensive to followers of Islam? This double standard is pure bigotry, one from which advertisers should quickly shy away.”

Oh, but this is just some ‘crazy’ and oppresive Chrsistian leader … now I get why the writer qualified the source of contempt.

Comedy Central had no comment.

May 24, 2010

Conservative Pushback in Texas

The conservative counterculture pushes back in this MSM piece, which predictably is dripping with Liberal bias.  Note, for example, that Republicans outnumber Democrats 10-5 on the Texas Board of Education, yet here Democrats are quoted over their Republican counterparts by a margin of  7-3.  That’s just a heads up.

AUSTIN, Texas – The Texas State Board of Education adopted a social studies and history curriculum Friday that amends or waters down the teaching of religious freedoms, [because the Sec Progs are so worried about your “religious freedoms” (plenty of sarcasm there)] America’s relationship with the U.N. and hundreds of other items.  The new standards were adopted after a final showdown by two 9-5 votes along party lines, after Democrats’ and moderate Republicans’ efforts to delay a final vote failed.

In one of the most significant curriculum changes, the board dilutes the rationale for the separation of church and state in a high school government class, noting that the words were not in the Constitution and requiring students to compare and contrast the judicial language with the First Amendment’s wording. [In other words, teaching the FACTS.  The Left generally considers any kind of strict constructionism a “watering down” of their agenda.  The Constitution must “live and breath”; which makes the text– any text– virtually meaningless.  It’s how you end up with constitutional abominations like Roe v. Wade, or with biblical abominations like gay priests]

The standards, which one Democrat called a “travesty,” also will be used by textbook publishers who often develop materials for other states based on guidelines approved in Texas, although teachers in the Lone Star state have latitude in deciding how to teach the material.

The board attempted to make more than 200 amendments this week alone, reshaping draft standards that had been prepared over the last year and a half by expert groups of [Leftwing] teachers and professors.  As new amendments were being presented just moments before the vote, Democrats bristled that the changes had not been vetted.

“I think we’re doing an injustice to the children of this state by piecemealing together, cutting and pasting, coming up with new amendments as late as today,” said Mary Helen Berlanga, a Democrat. “What we have done today and what we did yesterday is something that a [Leftwing] classroom teacher would not even have accepted.”

During the monthslong revision process, conservatives strengthened requirements on teaching the Judeo-Christian influences of the nation’s Founding Fathers and required that the U.S. government be referred to as a “constitutional republic,” rather than “democratic.” Students will be required to study the decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, including the abandonment of the gold standard.

They also rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D., and agreed to replace Thomas Jefferson as an example of an influential political philosopher in a world history class. [He was returned to AMERICAN history class, where he belongs, here]They also required students to evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

Former board chairman Don McLeroy, one of the board’s most outspoken conservatives said the Texas history curriculum has been unfairly skewed to the left after years of Democrats controlling the board and he just wants to bring it back into balance.

“I’m proud to have my name on this document,” Republican board member Barbara Cargill said shortly before the vote.  Another Republican board member, David Bradley, said the curriculum revision process has always been political — but this time, the ruling faction had changed since the last time social studies standards were adopted.

“We took our licks, we got outvoted,” he said referring to the debate from 10 years earlier. “Now it’s 10-5 in the other direction … we’re an elected body, this is a political process. Outside that, go find yourself a benevolent dictator.”

GOP board member Geraldine Miller was absent during the votes.  [Leftwing] Educators have blasted the curriculum proposals for politicizing education. Teachers also have said the document is too long and will force students to memorize lists of names rather than thinking critically.  The curriculum dispute contributed to McLeroy’s defeat in the March state Republican primary.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan said school officials “should keep politics out” of curriculum debates [Where were you about 40 years ago when the politicization of our public schools began in earnest?  Too late for that now, I’m afraid].  “We do a disservice to children when we shield them from the truth, just because some people think it is painful or doesn’t fit with their particular views,” Duncan said in a statement. “Parents should be very wary of politicians designing curriculum.”

After the vote, the American Civil Liberties Union [hehe!  Like clockwork] of Texas urged the state Legislature to place more control over the board.  “At the end of three long days, the State Board of Education has amended, re-amended and approved curriculum standards that are more ideological than ever, despite pleas to not politicize what is taught to Texas school children,” said the state ACLU’s executive director, Terri Burke.

“They have ignored [Leftwing] historians and teachers, allowing ideological activists to push the culture war further into our classrooms,” said Rep. Mike Villareal, a San Antonio Democrat. “They fail to understand that we don’t want liberal textbooks or conservative textbooks. We want excellent textbooks, written by [Leftwing] historians instead of activists.”


Texas’ new curriculum isn’t an effort by the “American Taliban” to create some christian theocracy– unless of course you believe America was a theocracy before the 60s counter culture wrecked the place in their zeal to destroy everything and anything even remotely connected to “the Man.”  If so, then yeah, we’re creating a “theocracy.”  Call it whatever you want, you filthy hippies.  The conversation is over.  We aren’t here to talk, we’re here to clean your clocks.

Note the insinuation in the first paragraph of the article that the new curriculum “waters down the teaching of religious freedoms” just because students would be asked to think critically about Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” vs the Constitution’s Establishment Clause.  As if that’s what the Left’s concern is– our religious freedoms.  The fact is, “religious” freedoms is the last thing on their minds.  They are a militantly secular cultural Establishment, and what they are concerned about is that Texas students might start to think critically, just as any Establishments is. Well, I have bad news for the militant secularists, Thomas Jefferson was only one of many voices who shaped our defining document. And his language didn’t make the final cut. It’s not in the Constitution.

Nor are they terribly interested in Jefferson himself. (When have you heard a Liberal invoke Jefferson’s “yeoman farmer”? You won’t).  Their hysterics about him being pulled from the Texas curriculum are not only a lie (because he wasn’t pulled), but also entirely self-serving.  The only thing they’re worried about is that phrase—separation of church and state—which isn’t even in the Constitution, but in a personal letter to friend.  That’s what this is all about.  The Sec Progs hang their entire anti-christian agenda on that extra-constitutional phrase.  That’s what they’re running around with their hair on fire about—kids being asked to compare and contrast that phrase with the actual text of the Establishment clause.  You see, the actual text of the Constitution doesn’t say what they wished it said.  So they raise the extra-constitutional writings of Jefferson to equal status with the Constitution (a de facto amendment to the Constitution without having to bother with all the messy de jure complications) and then push it to secularist limits never envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  Jefferson’s extra-constitutional “separation of church and state” is how the Left justifies hounding Christianity into the closet—and disgustingly, they do it in the name of “religious freedoms”.  So the next time the ACLU drags you into court, remember to thank them for protecting your “religious freedoms.”

These changes to the Texas school curriculum are a small, but long overdue pushback against the cultural marxism of the New Left which for decades has run rampant and unchecked in our culture, seeking not a separation of church and state, but a complete elimination of our judeo-christian heritage from the public sphere, and indeed, even from the historical record (You may have heard from your teachers and professors that the Founding Fathers were “deists”, but careful, teaching students the Founding Fathers were christians could violate “separation of church and state”).  That’s because militant secularism has taken the First Amendment’s constitutional limit on the “establishment” of a state religion, and warped it into a government imperative to stamp out all natural and organic expression of religion, faith, and tradition wherever they can be found (especially if it’s christian), whether it be on “government property”, or at the shopping mall, or the movie theater– all in the name of “separation of church and state”, or “protecting your religious freedoms” (so Orwellian, isn’t it?), and last but not least– diversity!  Always diversity!  And if their Orwellian vision of the future guarantees “religious freedoms”, it only does so if that religion stays locked away in the closet.  As if Christianity were the “new gay” in the very country founded and built by Christians.

This is the bleak vision of an America under the yoke of Secular Progressivism–  a once great judeo-christian culture rendered a sterile, soulless, Hollywood-driven, secularized husk where nobody is “offended” because nobody dares open their mouth lest you be dragged off to court for violating the Left’s “living, breathing” Constitution.  Unless of course the object is to offend christians– then by all means, open your mouth and offend away.

Texas has also watched for decades as American ideal of Epluribus Unum— from the many ONE– was replaced by the Left’s multicultural agenda to keep Americans divided along racial and ethnic lines, and to keep as many of them out of the Mainstream as possible– because once someone joins the Mainstream, the Left loses another “victim” to whom they can offer Salvation.  And what exactly do we mean by “mainstream”, you ask?  Is this rightwing code for fascism, perhaps?  “Mainstream” means simply the “melting pot,” and assimilation.  Multiculturalism is therefore the antithesis of assimilation.  For about three decades now we have witnessed the evolution of the Left’s multicultural agenda, where the traditional American “melting pot” was scrapped in favor of their multicultural “salad bowl” experiment– a cultural salad bowl where your identity as an individual is subsumed into a tribal collective based on race and ethnicity, not an American ethic based on values, ideas, or a philosophy; and thereby dividing racial/ethnic minorities from their fellow Americans in “the mainstream” melting pot because their skin color and cultural ethnicity precludes them from ever being fully American.  Which is ironic, because this type of segregation is obstensibly what MLK and the civil rights movement were fighting to do away with.  Now the Left fights for the multiculti right to be separate and apart. You know, separate but equal.

This is the Left’s infamous “fractured coalition” of disparate and competing racial/ethnic/special interest factions.  It is a far cry from the Enlightenment ideal of men and women who define themselves by their values, beliefs, and ideas, with loyalty to their nation state, not their tribe.  The Left’s fractured coalition is merely the fruits of this primitivism  based on skin color and tribe, and the narrow interests these engender.  This dysfunctional, multiculti coalition is fractured precisely because their interests are tribal and narrow, not genuinely civic-minded and broad.  This makes them nearly impossible to govern, as any successful Democratic president must govern from the center, i.e., the mainstream.  The Left’s multiculti tribalism is the polar opposite of JFK’s call to national selflessness (“…what you can do for your country.”) because the narrow interests of the tribe always trumps nation.  Cultural diversity, you see, is not strength– no matter how loudly the multicultis shout it from the rooftops.  It is weakness.  The Founding Fathers, recall, warned us that united we stand, divided we fall.  So who are you going to believe?  The Founding Fathers, or the multiculti gramciists of the Left?

These cultural marxists aren’t the Liberals of our youth in whom we naively placed our trust.  I doubt MLK or JFK would even recognize them.  Heck, the most staunch Republican I know has more in common with JFK than these Secular Prog body-snatchers do, these shape-shifting golem who invoke Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” in one breath, and vilify him as a white, male, slave-owning rapist in the next, depending on who happens to be in the room listening to them.  The same ideological shape-shifters who mock simple patriotism and love of country behind closed doors, and denounce you for questioning their patriotism when in public.  Well, we are finally onto them, and nothing illustrates this awakening better than what’s going on today in Arizona— and now here in Texas as well.  And this is just the beginning.  In Texas and Arizona, American conservatism begins it’s long march through our institutions to wrest them back from the cultural marxists of the Left who stole them from us.

Older Posts »