Legalize Pot as Reparation to Blacks.

Cannabis Industry Could Be 'A Form Of Reparations,' Says Cynthia Nixon

“It’s a racial justice issue because we’re incarcerating people of color in such staggering numbers,” she said.

So it's racist to expect blacks to obey the Law. Certainly that is the message that came out of Baltimore, when the city let the blacks run with no policing. Laws are merely racist controls on black behavior, and that behavior is their culture. Following their own culture is supposed to be part of the multi-culti, non-assimilation, Leftist narrative. If so it would be natural to have a separate set of laws for blacks - legalizing all aspects of their culture.

But their ghetto culture is racist, tribal, violent, anarchic, blame-shifting and government supported by the US Federal and state government. That makes them parasitic, without limits or controls. It's the Democrat Plantation, where votes are bought with the passivity of the black community. Legal grass ought to pacify them, right? And call it reparation.

It's just another path to inevitable war and destruction wrought by Leftism.

Well, They're Just OK With That

After all, killing the opposition is what they're all about: Assassination Chic. Blow up the White House? check. Kill Trump and Pence to keep Obama as Pres? Check. Movie about assassinating a sitting president? check. Shooting the president? check. Nightly play with Trump assassinated? check. Chanting KILLBUSH? Check. Hashtag "Assassinate Trump"? href="https://nypost.com/2016/11/11/assassination-threats-against-trump-flood-twitter-after-election-shocker/">Check. And Check.

It's just who they are. Violent fascists.

Uh Huh. Shuuuuuure.

Don' Need No Steenking Laws

America's Constitution is terrible. Let's throw it out and start over.

Let's see.
1. No more filibusters (even though Democrats used them prolifically before ObamaCare and the Harry Reid Nuclear Option, used by the Democrats).

2. Dump the entire US Constitution, because it gets in our way and it's evil. Plus, "...highly vulnerable to an extreme right-wing fringe that protects itself with gerrymandering and other cheating tactics."

Democrats are the historical extreme artists of gerrymandery, drawing jagged lines around black communities so that white votes wouldn't have any effect on that (tiny) district. They've done it for a dozen decades.

As Pelosi said, "Constitution? Hahahahahahahah!

And change House member's term from 2 years to four. This would undoubtedly put votes for House seats in the same year as presidential elections, which are the only years when most blacks vote.

3. "Neuter the Senate." Take away all of Senate's power. That way big city populations get total control.

4. Elect the president from the House. "The separate executive branch is a major factor behind the rise of the lawless imperial presidency in the United States." Especially under Democrats (Obama's pen and phone). Gotta get rid of the Electoral College: it sometimes works against the Democrats, even when electors are threatened and bribed.

****************

I have a better idea: The Democrat Party is obviously lawless and seditious. Ban it altogether, and hang any who refuse to re-assimilate to US Constitutional Law. (Buy stock in rope manufacturers). Leftists are easily identified: they are the ones still on twitter and all of Google/Youtube/Twitter etc, management and most employees.

Federal Crime and Cover-up

Rep. Gowdy told FOX that Strzok and Page texted about deleting texts.

The Federalist reported:

Gowdy said the explanation for the missing text messages may be fishier than the official explanation, saying he saw Strzok and Page discuss getting rid of texts in a printout of the messages he and other members of Congress received last week.

Post-Modern Deconstruction Replaces Critical Thinking in Humanities

Why College Graduates Still Can’t Think

...I found that puzzling, until one helpful reader clued me in: “I share your view of what critical thinking should mean,” he wrote. “But a quite different operative definition has a strong hold in academia. In this view, the key characteristic of critical thinking is opposition to the existing ‘system,’ encompassing political, economic, and social orders, deemed to privilege some and penalize others. In essence, critical thinking is equated with political, economic, and social critique.”

Suddenly, it occurred to me that the disconnect between the way most people (including employers) define critical thinking and the way many of today’s academics define it can be traced back to the post-structuralist critical theories that invaded our English departments about the time I was leaving grad school, in the late 1980s. I’m referring to deconstruction and its poorer cousin, reader response criticism.

Both theories hold that texts have no inherent meaning; rather, meaning, to the extent it exists at all, is entirely subjective, based on the experiences and mindset of the reader.

Thomas Harrison of UCLA, in his essay “Deconstruction and Reader Response,” refers to this as “the rather simple idea that the significance of the text is governed by reading.”

That idea has been profoundly influential, not only on English faculty but also on their colleagues in the other humanities and even the social sciences. (Consider, for example, the current popularity of ethnography, a form of social science “research” that combines fieldwork with subjective story-telling.)

Unfortunately, those disciplines are also where most critical thinking instruction supposedly occurs in our universities. (Actually, other fields, such as the hard sciences and engineering, probably do a better job of teaching true thinking skills—compiling and evaluating evidence, formulating hypotheses based on that evidence, testing those hypotheses for accuracy before arriving at firm conclusions. They just don’t brag about it as much.)

The result is that, although faculty in the humanities and social sciences claim to be teaching critical thinking, often they’re not. Instead, they’re teaching students to “deconstruct”—to privilege their own subjective emotions or experiences over empirical evidence in the false belief that objective truth is relative, or at least unknowable.

That view runs contrary to the purposes of a “liberal arts” education, which undertakes the search for truth as the academy’s highest aim. Indeed, the urge to deconstruct everything is fundamentally illiberal. Heritage Foundation’s Bruce Edwards calls it “liberal education’s suicide note” in that it suggests the only valid response to any idea or situation is the individual’s own—how he or she “feels” about it.

Unfortunately, such internalization of meaning does not culminate in open-mindedness and willingness to examine the facts and logic of differing views. Rather, it leads to the narrow-minded, self-centered assumption that there is a “right” way to feel, which automatically delegitimizes the responses of any and all who may feel differently.

All of this has a profound impact on students and explains a great deal of what is happening on colleges campuses today, from the dis-invitation (and sometimes violent disruption) of certain speakers to the creation of “safe spaces” complete with Play-Doh and “adult coloring books” (whatever those are—I shudder to think). Today’s students are increasingly incapable of processing conflicting viewpoints intellectually; they can only respond to them emotionally.

More to the point, that explains why employers keep complaining that college graduates can’t think. They’re not being taught to think. They’re being taught, in too many of their courses, to “oppose existing systems”—without regard for any objective appraisal of those systems’ efficacy—and to demonstrate their opposition by emoting.

That may go over just fine on the quad, but it does not translate well to the workplace.

When feminism gets its fingers into STEM, civilization will collapse on rubble of civil systems designed by privileged emotions... if it doesn't collapse into tribal wars based on privileged emotions first.

This is Definitely NEW News

Finally, A College Cracks Down On The Left’s Snowflake Fascists

Presumably this will impact their registration at other colleges as well.

It's about time the adults took back their institutions.

Antifa's TransDyke Battalion: Fighting Fascist Feminists

Feminists won't allow transwomen into their vaunted circles, because "transwomen aren't real women". This discrimination has generated a backlash: a transwomen faction of Antifa, dedicated - you guessed it - to bashing feminists. Declaring war on feminists, real war at that, the highly piqued transwomen now refer to themselves as TransDykes and join up with Antifa to bash... well whoever, but certainly feminists.

Now, I had presumed that Antifa was already Dyke-laden with cis-Dykes. It is best, I suppose, to keep the black tarps covering all of them so that the transDykes and cis-Dykes don't identify and bloody each other. It still could happen, black-on-black. If so, I hope there is video.

BTW, here's a definition of TERF:

TERF. Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist: a radical feminist who believes transsexual and transgender people do not have the right to consider themselves female.

From GenderTrender:

TransDykes: The Anti-Lesbian Antifa

What is a “TransDyke”?

TransDykes are an offshoot of Antifa whose focus is on suppressing the speech of women, mainly lesbians. They participate in regular Antifa flashmobs, sometimes in pastel uniform (“Pastel Bloc”) but also target Women’s Rights events, and Lesbian spaces.

TransDykes are heterosexual men who identify as transwomen. They consider Lesbianism a form of fascism because female homosexuality excludes male-bodied persons. But any woman who publicly acknowledges the existence of biologically female human beings is their enemy, especially Feminists, who want to abolish, not celebrate, the sex stereotypes that transwomen identify with.

Mya Byrne:

Tran-Caffee:

More Tran-Caffee burning generator at Milo riot:

In my mind, I imagine these folks as First Grade Teachers...

Politics, Morality, and the Left

Leftists will be the first to argue that there is no objective morality. (Their Atheism is thus axiomatic) If there were such an objective and obvious set of behavioral principles, it would mean that the Left would not be the arbiter, and their behaviors would be somewhere between amoral and objectively evil. The Left cannot be wrong - such is the lot of the narcissistic - and thus there can be no objective morality. The Leftist construct of Morality, then is binary: strict yet evanescent rules apply to the herd (all of the non-Left), rules which are discerned by the Left and applied joyfully by the Left to the Other. The Other must be controlled now in preparation for elimination as Deplorables later. Utopia cannot handle Deplorables.

No rules apply to the Moralizing Left. This is easily understood by both observation and deducing what could possibly be the source of moral authority for a class superior to all other classes: only themselves would be considered to have such capability. And besides, it is a precursor to and feature of the wonderful utopia they will create.

So the Left has determined that they, and they alone, have the capacity to declare actions to be moral or immoral, and those actions would necessarily not be their own. They are tautologically moral by both their self-classification as superiors, and by their ability (and necessity) for defining their own morality separately from the morality which they define for the Othered Class. When one defines his own morality, he becomes a moral paragon because he cannot violate a code which he can change instantaneously (Think Muhammad, and the instantaneous increase in his allowable number of wives whenever he viewed a comely woman, married or not). Consequentialism is defined by the ability to define any conceivable objective as moral, which automatically confers morality upon all conceivable means and paths to obtaining that objective.

The Left comes historically from the specific Class which broke apart the Union of the United States in order to defend SLAVERY, resulting in the slaughter of half a million of America's young men in the pursuit of the objective of suppression of black slaves.

The Left comes historically from the Class which racially discriminated against free blacks by using Jim Crow laws and unequal segregation, dogs and fire hoses, along with terrorism via the Ku Kux Klan (hooded and masked arsonists and violent thugs). All in pursuit of their objective of maintaining their racial dominance over blacks.

The Left comes historically from the specific Class which for 100 years opposed all civil rights legislation designed to equalize opportunities for minorities, maintaining their position of white superiority.

The Left comes historically from the Class which created the Democrat Plantation Theory of suppression of blacks via ghetto support using welfare to suppress incentive and destroy families as well as to marginalize black males. All in the pursuit of maintaining white superiority.

It is no wonder then that the Left attacks actual history, because truthful history clearly condemns the actions of the Left, when any standards at all are applied to Leftist history since the beginning of the USA. So in conjunction with redefining terminology to cover for their own evil actions, the Left wishes to eradicate their history by eliminating names on halls, statues reminding us of their history, historical flags such as Confederate, and any other indicators of their own history.

Blame is deflected to the Othered Class, which contains the elements which in reality fought to eradicate slavery, to eradicate racial discrimination, to reduce the impact of the Democrat Plantation for suppression of blacks, to suppress KKK violence and membership, to stop the eugenic, genocidal killing of preborn humans, a practice focused on blacks. This class is now called "racist", "sexist", "homophobic", in the inverted, overheated minds of young Leftists. It is projected as Truth in a universe which contains no Truth.

And yet, they pursue the same policies as they ever have: When they shout "racist", they are blatantly exercising racism as they always have. When they cover their heads, faces and identities and attack the Other, they exercise the same violent terrorism as they always have. When they declare their own superiority and moral authority to condemn anyone who is not them, they foment class war as they always have. Their path is as objectively evil as it always has been.

The Left is materially the same as it always has been: self-declared superior, with moral authority to create the morals for the Other, and the moral authority for themselves to force their secondary morals onto the Other using violence and hatred in whatever quantities they deem necessary and sufficient. The Left is characterized by their hate, their self-elevation to moral authority, and their violence. Violence upon language, upon civil systems such as government bureaucracies, university and education complexes, voting processes, upon speakers for the Othered, upon entire classes of people, from blacks and unborn, to whites, Asians, males, and any perceived non-Leftist, which now are defined as attackable "fascists", completely subverting the meaning of fascism.

For these reasons the Left is the Class War insurgency against all civilized societies. They have for themselves only the morality of the invading barbarian horde and an internal culture of matching barbarism in anti-intellectual concepts and inverted definitions for use in hate speech. When that is coupled with determined anti-rationalism, the resulting Marxist, Leninist, Nietzschean, Comtean, Frankfortian, Cloward/Piven revolutionary fervor is fully expected.

With enough momentum, the Leftist revolution will proceed as is necessary for ultimate hegemonic seizure of humanity. It has succeeded in genocidic siezures before. Stopping that momentum is... problematic.

Democrats and the Value of Life

Democrats showed absolutely no concern for the thousand people (including at least on American peace officer) who were killed with the weapons given to the Mexican drug cartels.

Democrats showed no concern over the killing-by-negligence of those trapped in Benghazi, including an American ambassador.

Democrats showed no concern over the assassination of one of their own, Seth Rich.

Now Democrats might be just a little concerned, about their own skins.

Suicide Pact?

The Left wholly owns the MSM, Hollywood, and the bi-coastal and Blue model cities. And they lost to Trump. By increasing their rancor and hatred, they seem to think that will return the votes of the masses to re-enable the tricameral power they previously enjoyed. But will it?

They have removed their masks and revealed their core values. Instead of occupying the left end of a bell curve, they are on a completely removed bell curve outside and beyond rational discussion. No longer even attempting to argue rationally, they have moved into the violence of absurd rhetoric designed to infuriate the weak minded. That part has succeeded. But how many weak minded, irrational utopians can a western society produce at one time?

Their call to violence now is "the Summer of Resistance", which will garner a few more Antifa kids, and a few to acquire guns they can't handle safely. Summer is nearly here. Stay away from crowds.

The Media-Democratic Party Suicide Pact

Never the party of goodwill, tolerance, Free Speech, the Democrats started as the Party of Slavery. Then they were the Party of War to keep slavery. Then they were the Party of Discrimination and Segregation and the KKK. They became the Party of Big Government and Government Oppression Via Welfare-Victimhood-Class Marxist Culture War. they have always been the Party of Flexible Morals a la Alinsky. Their intent to destroy the republic has always been posted on their selective utopian sleeves and on their hearts and minds. They are the Big Tent of hive think. And they hate everyone outside the tent with a visceral severity found only amongst the violently insane.

They will be on the streets and on every screen this summer. They will be hailed as the resistance and anti-fascist. Everything about them will be evil.

Charles Manson, Call the Left: You're Home Free!

But First You Need a Mind...

Middlebury Analysis: When the Administration Hands the Reins to the Juveniles

An excerpt:

Students No Longer Believe In Intellectual Discussion

The student protesters have taken to heart an idea that has floated around in radical left circles for decades and that has recently gained traction on American campuses: the idea that some ideas are so illegitimate, it is right and proper to prevent their expression.

It is useful to see such views spelled out since they are, in effect, a no-trespassing sign erected on the border of simple-minded ignorance.

According to this conceit, permitting the expression of such pernicious ideas lends them credibility, and even mounting arguments against the validity of such ideas elevates them to a status they do not deserve. The sustainability movement began to use this tactic to bar the expression of dissent from its favored postulates, and the tactic has spread to others on the radical left.

A Middlebury student named Nic Valenti provided a near-perfect example of this twisted logic in a letter published in the Middlebury student newspaper, “Why I’m Declining AEI’s ‘Invitation to Argue.’” Murray’s ideas, in Valenti’s judgment, are “dangerous.” Debating those ideas suggests “false equivalence” with better ideas. Allowing those ideas to be expressed on campus is “grossly disrespectful,” “a waste of time,” and an insult to “young people with the perceptiveness of realizing that this whole situation is fucking bullshit and the integrity to be enraged by it.”

Valenti’s words are our best glimpse into the heads of college students who reject the principles of academic and intellectual freedom. It is useful to see such views spelled out since they are, in effect, a no-trespassing sign erected on the border of simple-minded ignorance. No ideas contrary to those approved by leftist groupthink are permitted beyond that border.

How Students Are Trying To Excuse Their Actions

Similar views are on display in a statement posted anonymously by some Middlebury students after the protest and assault. They manage to blame the attack on unnamed outsiders, as well as on Vice President Burger and security personnel who “without warning began pushing and pulling protesters out of the way.” They also explain:

A student reports that Professor Stanger’s hair was not intentionally pulled but was inadvertently caught in the chaos that Public Safety incited. It is irresponsible to imply that a protester aggressively and intentionally pulled her hair.

The statement also fixes the blame for the whole affair on the Middlebury administration: These students “condemn the administration and Public Safety’s actions on Thursday night and since then — especially their attempts to discredit the protesters inside and outside McCullough.”

This actually sounds as if the protesters, having disgraced themselves in the public eye, now would like some kind of debate over what happened. Not really, of course. But they are eager to escape any responsibility for their actions.

The administration fully signaled its leftist virtue credentials in advance, meaning "go for it" to the latent intellectual closure in the juvenile undeveloped brains and minds of the students. Students who know everything already are not really students, are they?

KKK False Flaggers

Reflections on American Education

...At Middlebury College:

These last protestors were masked. If they, and those like them, prevail, they will, one day, be wearing uniforms.

I encourage that. Uniforms make for good targets.

Particularly Talk of Impeachment and Sedition

Reverse PTSD: Flashes of Grandeur Interrupted By Reality

The Longest Nooooo!

Read it ALL THERE.

Freedom to Burn, Break, and Batter

Debates With the Left