Friday, September 27, 2019


   Some good news going into the weekend: a courageous Federal Judge in Michigan smashed an attempt by the State's Attorney-General to force adoption agencies to traffic orphans to homes managed by homosexuals. 

   The backstory to the case is that Michigan enacted a law in 2015 protecting right-of-conscience from agencies with State contracts. But last year, Dana Nessel---a Lesbian and homosexual activist---was elected Attorney-General. Nessel had vowed during the campaign not to enforce the law; and entered into an illegal agreement with the ACLU to suspend contracts with faith-based institutions. As an interesting side-note, Nessel was part of that same cabal of activist attorneys who were a few years ago locking up officials who wouldn't enforce the homosexual 'marriage' law.

  St. Vincent Catholic Charities of Lansing sued the State. St Vincent's holds a contract with the State to maintain foster-care and adoption services, but refuses to farm out children and teens to homosexual households. Yesterday, Judge Robert Jonker handed down a decision in favor of St. Vincent's, issued an injunction against State interference with such contracts, and gave a severe dressing-down in public to the arrogant Nessel.

  In a 32-page Jonker concluded by stating: "Nessel’s 2018 campaign and her statements as attorney general create a strong inference that the State’s real target is the religious beliefs and confessions of St. Vincent, and not discriminatory conduct. Moreover, she sought to terminate the state’s contract simply because St. Vincent adheres to its sincerely held religious belief that marriage is an institution created by God to join a single man to a single woman. Furthermore, this strongly suggests that the State’s real goal is not to promote non-discriminatory child placements, but to stamp out St. Vincent’s religious belief and replace it with a State-orthodoxy test that prevents Catholic believers from participating. All of this supports a strong inference that St. Vincent was targeted based on its religious belief, and that it was Defendant Nessel who targeted it.”

  Who would ever have imagined just a few years ago that we'd hear such words coming from a Federal Judge again? Actually a judge more concerned with law than with Political Correctness? Yes and yes: "Nessel’s policy," Judge Jonker concluded,"would flout the letter and stated intention of the Michigan legislature; and actually undermines the state’s stated goals of preventing discriminatory conduct and maximizing available placements for children.”

   Judge Robert Jonker is a life-long native of Michigan with a distinguished legal background. After graduating the University of Michigan Law School in 1985, he ran a successful legal firm for 20 years until being appointed to the Federal Bench by former President Bush in 2007. In 2015, he became Chief Justice of Michigan's Western District Federal Court. 

  Let's give up a round of applause for Judge Robert Jonker:

Thursday, September 26, 2019


   Hollywood is experiencing yet another disgraceful incident involving one of its members. This story---of all places---comes from Instagram where a video of the whole episode has spread like a California wildfire. 

   So, a Black woman named Adrene Ashford stopped by a Los Angeles pharmacy, when out of nowhere a hysterical female burst in and began screaming at her.

  The harridan was unknown to anybody there at the time, but Miss Adrene had the presence of mind to videotape the verbal barrage as the pharmacists called the police. The woman was heard screaming---actually chanting at points---about niggers and how much she hated them, and would kill all of them, if given the opportunity. The loony fled the scene before police arrived, driving on the wrong side of the street and nearly causing several wrecks;  but as since been identified as one Heather Lynn Patton---a well-known production assistant in Hollywood.

   Well, that explains why the police response was so slow. Trying to get the LAPD---or even worse, the LA County Prosecutor---to take action against anybody collected with Hollywood is a major undertaking. And I have a suspicion that the fact that this outburst took place inside a drug store is no coincidence either. 

  As it turns out, Heather Patton has done things like this before. KTLA News discovered that she has had two Restraining Orders against her filed by her neighbors. Not surprisingly, she's never spent a day in jail over any of this, despite KTLA's report that: "The neighbor told KTLA that he installed security cameras after incidents with her. He showed the news station video of Patton threatening to slit someone’s throat. Another video shows her and a man in a physical struggle and arguing in the street. The neighbor also accused Patton of vandalizing his father’s truck."

   We did some investigating of our own through public records, and---oh lookie here---

  And naturally, there's virtue-signalling:

  "Patton, who has also volunteered at the Museum of Contemporary Art-Los Angeles, The Midnight Mission and the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank, lives in Los Angeles with her husband, according to public records." {source:}

  Now, being a good Liberal, she doesn't share the same surname with her husband (or, domestic partner, as California now refers to spouses). His name is Lloyd Andrew Sigler, another rather dubious character. His sociopolitical leanings (like his behavior) are in line with his wife's:

  Well, what else can we say? It's just the Hollywood Elite being themselves. 



Wednesday, September 25, 2019


   Anyone in the Anglosphere who's been paying much attention to current events has quite a bit of anxiety about the future direction of our culture---and with good reason. Dumbed-down schools; dysfunctional families; relentless proselytizing by the Gay Mafia and other perverts; and a horrid media climate haven't left children and young adults with much material upon which to build positive directions in life. Some of this has been changing in the Era of Trump, albeit slowly. 


   The American Left has a natural affinity for disaffected youth and vice-verse. Many---if not most---of the Leftist leadership in the US is made up of persons with unresolved psychological issues from their own teenage and preteen years. Impotent male punks who'd do anything for attention like David Hogg and mentally-unstable females like Greta Thunberg are the embryonic forms of people like Stephan Colbert and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. 


   While these two nitwits aren't normal in the psychological sense of the word, they aren't that uncommon among the world's youth. I'm sure that we all remember characters just like them in our own Middle/High School years; except the ones that we knew weren't raised to celebrity status by corrupt media machines and crooked political interest groups. The ones whom we remember couldn't get along with anybody and usually ended up in youth homes or jails for their antisocial behaviors. There's nothing particularly special about them; except that their aimless vitriol has a certain appeal to NPCs when channeled through skillful propagandists.

   The thing to bear in mind is that neither of these clowns are representative of the mainstream as a whole. There is a tendency among people in their early adulthood and late childhood to confuse phony media promotion with actual success and popularity. Even a lot of people over about the age of 25 or so mistake these media/political puppets as typical of young people as a whole.

   The young are really not much different than the rest of us in that the ones who really keep things going are the ones who are doing their best to succeed and make positive contributions to society are either ignored by the mainstream press or actually defamed by them.  Granted, Generation Snowflake has its problems; but we don't hear about the everyday youth who aren't out rioting with Antifa or committing mass-shootings. There are teenagers working jobs, are active in their communities and supporting families just like most of the rest of us.

   Consider some stories you probably didn't read in the MSM. Did you hear of the five teen guys from Vancouver whose ingenuity saved a boy who'd fallen off a ski lift? Or of the young man from Aberdeen, Washington who sustained severe burns rescuing an 8 year-old from a fire?  And there are numerous, less-dramatic events that fly well beneath the Corporate Media's filters. 

   What we older Conservatives need to do is not to give up on our youth, but to engage in more outreach. We have to counter the stiff propaganda the young are facing with more positive influences.



Tuesday, September 24, 2019


   Ugh---take a week's vacation from blogging and the enemies of freedom and civilization start running wild. The Whacko Left Wing in Congress is showboating a publicity stunt supposedly to impeach the President. The Deep State Swamp RINOs in the State Department and the Pentagon are finger-pointing at Iran after their multi-billion-dollar Patriot Missile System failed to stop a home-made Yemeni missile from wiping out Saudi Arabia's largest petrochemical complex. George Soros, the Vulture, has found a Swedish female version of David Hogg to pose as a celebrity/actvist representing the 'New Generation'. And, over on the Far Right, another based Red Pill was thrown in the slammer for plotting all sorts of terrorist mayhem. 

   One of the more interesting stories---which barely got a peep from the Corporate Media for obvious reasons---was that the whole New York Times crusade against Judge Brett Kavanaugh was admitted to have been built upon nothing but a tissue of lies. Now, it's not necessarily a great surprise that the Great Grey Lady stirs up fake news and that interest groups subsequently engineer fake protests based on their lies. 

   Tucker Carlson of Fox News did a short segment recently on the NYT retraction. Most of Carlson's exposes are probably familiar to those who followed the Kavanaugh Case although viewers can still get a good laugh at listening to the 'journalists' excuses for their misconduct. 

   Something that Carlson brought up at the end of the clip needs to be noted and---hopefully---followed up upon. Here is what he said:

   "They {the reporters involved} also downplayed another fact pattern: which was just how far the Left was willing to go to destroy Kavanaugh last year. Molly Hemingway and Carrie Severino also wrote a book on the subject late last year and they reported that Leland Keyser was pressured by the Left to change her story and to support Blaisley Ford's account. Kelly and Pogrevin {the NYT 'journalists'} found out just what that pressure was. They obtained text messages in which they discussed defaming Leland Keyser as a drug addict. Keyser confirmed that this happened as she told the two reporters that 'I was told behind the scenes that certain things could happen to me if I didn't comply.' Now that's an interesting story...the truth of this story makes the activist Left look like ruthless Fascists."

   I would rejoin to Mr. Carlson that he is understating the matter quite a bit. It's not a matter of the Left tarnishing its image; it is a violation of Federal Law. The United States Criminal Code (xviii:875) reads as follows:

Whoever, with intent to extort from any person, firm, association, or corporation, any money or other thing of value, transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to injure the property or reputation of the addressee or of another or the reputation of a deceased person or any threat to accuse the addressee or any other person of a crime, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

    And what about the reporters' and the NYT's actions? See Paragraph 1519 of the same Code:

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.

   Maybe instead of ridiculous Kangaroo Courts threatening to impeach Trump or Kavanaugh, Congress should be holding hearings on the conduct of the Media and so-called 'activists' affiliated with them. After all, if any of us little people in flyover country did to Judge Kavanaugh what the NYT did, we'd be facing stiff fines and a potential maximum of 22 years in the Federal Penitentiary. 

   And we're on the subject of media and activism: when was the last time we heard a story about the murder suicide of Jeffery Epstein? 

    Since Epstein's rather conveniently timed demise on August 10th, we checked via Google's Search Engine on the most recent MSM coverage of Epstein's death:

New Yorker Magazine: August 26th
Vox: September 4th
New York Times: August 10th
Washington Post: August 15th
CNBC: August 27th
Reuters: August 28th
ABC News: August 10th
Business Insider: August 29th
Time: September 5th
USA Today: August 10th
CNN: August 29th
CBS News: August 11th
The Nation: August 20th
Huffington Post: August 10th
Los Angeles Times: August 13th
The Daily Beast: August 10th
Mother Jones: August 20th
The Atlantic: August 13th
Wall Street Journal: August 23rd
New Republic: August 11th
GQ: August 15th
Bloomberg: August 10th
PBS: August 10th
Buzzfeed: August 10th

   In the Corporate Media, the death of a man in a federal prison who allegedly had incriminating evidence on several Deep-State officials---a death under highly suspicious circumstances---barely survived as a news story one week after it occurred! Where are all the activists who protest everything else at the drop of a hat? Some illegal immigrant with a long-standing medical condition dies in an ICE Detention Center Hospital and the rent-a-mobs are storming the gates. Why no outrage over this? 

   What both the Kavanaugh and Epstein incidents reveal is that the American Corporate Media is not only useless, it's worse than useless and a bunch of crooks besides.  


Friday, September 20, 2019


   We apologize again for delayed postings; having to deal with a few personal things. Just to show we're still around, we'll share a PSA which you can share with our MAGA friends!😊


Sunday, September 15, 2019


   Since our last article was published, one of the participants in the debate, 'Scarecrow' at the blog Men-Factor wrote an interesting post highlighting some of the revolting behavior of our postmodern Western female population. To which he added the following rhetorical question:

   "Don't take my word for it - try googling things like this. It really shows how degenerate women have become. I guess that if men stop fapping, this would not be happening? I don't know."

   Well, the literal answer is that deranged women will do things like he describes regardless of anything men collectively do or don't do. But the real question being posed here is: Given the current shortage of quality women, why deprive men of artificial means of sexual gratification? 

   The answer to that question is that men shouldn't behave in counterproductive and self-destructive ways just because women do. And men today also need to take into account that our ancestors faced many of the same issues, and solved them. Contrary to popular belief, this not time in history that men have had. 

   Most recently in America, there was the Old West. After the Civil War when the West was opened up, the shortage of women became apparent and led to social problems. It wasn't uncommon for men working outside of towns to go for months without seeing a woman; let alone being with one. A couple of centuries earlier the shortage of women in the then-French colony of Quebec was so severe that King Louis XIV actually subsidized and gave Royal Pardons to low-level female criminals in French jails on the condition that they'd settle in Canada. In the time of Augustus Caesar, the ratio of single men to eligible women was six times higher than anywhere in America today. 

   These were pre-Feminist days; and despite Feminist propaganda and Manosphere Golden-Age idealization, what women got away with doing was comparable to anything they do nowadays. The Roman man, the French voyaguer, and the American cowboy were about as 'Alpha' as one could get, yet contemporary accounts showed that they were compelled to tolerate a lot from the fair sex. And the laws protected women then, too, much more so than men. 

   The point here is, as Eivind Berge pointed out again, that wholesale male retreating into pornography and autoeroticism is essentially a defeatist and sex-negative position. Effectively, all it is amounts to a denial of man's basic need for women---and what accomplishment is that? The homosexuals can say as much. And BTW, it's also not a widely-known fact that homosexual activists are deeply involved in the porn industry. 

   In our last post, we mentioned going into some more specifics about the impacts of these behaviors, that will be discussed in an upcoming article. 

Friday, September 13, 2019


    There have been a series of posts throughout the Internet lately, including an interesting debate in the Manosphere about whether or not activities involving pornography and, its concomitant, autoeroticism are forms of male sexual liberation; or whether they are in fact harmful activities. So far we haven't written on this topic because it is a complex issue but one that needs to be addressed and debated openly. 

    Postmodernism has given the West a society which is simultaneously sex-negative and sex-obsessed. Some writers like Dr. Rookh Kshatriya are absolutely correct that sexual jealousy which has been inculcated in the public by various interest groups have led to this paradoxical condition. Sexual power is both a goal to accomplish at all hazards in our society while at the same time those who actually achieve it are envied, resented, and despised. This phenomenon is based in Cultural Marxism; and as proof that envy is at the root of our sexual chaos, just observe other social phenomenon attacked by the Left. Our culture, for example, both hates the wealthy while it worships money. The inherent envy built into Neo-Marxism is at work there as well. 

  Norwegian blogger Eivind Berge got the debate really going again in a recent article titled Anosognosia. He made this very interesting observation:

  "It is true that the ability to "find sexual release" by means of visual stimuli and masturbation is a "feature" of male sexuality, but this is a great tragedy rather than anything to be celebrated. If you think this is a good thing, then you are suffering not only from anosognosia, but also a fetishization of disability, because a disability or maladaptation is precisely what it is in the current world. Our sex-hostile mainstream culture is all too happy to tell you that masturbation is fine. And then it institutes a (to the feminists) bonus level of oppression on top of that -- criminalizing a good bit of masturbation as well, usually by making at least some kinds of pornography illegal -- which is reliant on men being deluded into thinking these asexual pursuits provide some sexual value."

   Whether Mr. Berge realizes it or not, this was essentially the reasoning behind most Anti-Pornography laws which existed in the United States up until recent times. Granted, our politicians often embellished their laws with moral and religious overtones; but most doctors, social scientists, and some of the more educated clergy understood that Society had an obligation to at least discourage such behaviors. 

  Now, probably because of the differences between 20th and 21st Century technologies, we've seen certain trends emerge in society that are troubling. Berge points out that"when something is a major feature of their environment for long enough, species will tend to adapt to it. That has obviously not happened with Internet porn yet because it has only been around for one generation. Two generations if you include DVDs and VHS tapes, and before that there was no seriously compelling pornography."

   I wouldn't even argue that DVD/VHS technology was especially deep proliferation; but before that, it either required studio tapes or literature---mostly the latter. But even when our laws prohibited pornography, the lawmakers generally took the position that consumption of pornography was going to happen just given human nature: and while people caught with such material were subject to a great deal of judicial scolding and public shaming; they rarely went to jail over it. The law, however, was not so lenient with producers and distributors of it. 

  The changes in technology, have effectively made any discussion of bringing back the old laws a moot point; but that doesn't change the underlying science. But one important point that everyone seems to have missed in the whole recent debate is why our laws used to differentiate so sharply in terms of enforcement. This is because the consumer-end of the spectrum has no constant motive and, consequentially differing degrees of personal harm done. It runs the gamut from guys and girls who are just bored and having some naughty fun to hard-core porn/autoerotic addicts who can actually be quite dangerous.  Porn traffickers, in contrast, rarely have lofty social goals in mind while engaging in their trade. 

  And this, to my thinking, is an essential difference when assessing the actual harm that pornographic consumption and autoeroticism actually do. To some men, it does little or no harm: but no one cognizant of the facts could argue that should ever become socially normative---let alone superior to---natural sexual relationships. We will discuss the reasons why in Part II. Meanwhile, men struggling with the issue can check out some of the interesting links that Mr. Berge has provided. It's clear that the issue is becoming more widely examined among men. 

Monday, September 9, 2019


   For the second time in six months, there has been a mass-shooting in The Netherlands. Details are still coming in as we write; but according to a social media post by Dordrecht Mayor Wouter Kolff, the situation is "very serious." Deutsche Welle reported that three people have been killed and at least one wounded; and that the shooting took place inside a residence.

   An earlier shooting took place in March of this year, when a gunman opened fire on a commuter train. Four were killed and six were injured in that attack. 

   There will be more details as the news develops. But what ought to be noted for us Americans that these shootings occurred in a country that has the strictest gun control laws in the European Union. According to the Dutch Ministry of Information:

   "In the Netherlands, the possession of all firearms and other weapons is prohibited. Non-firearms include various types of knives, fake weapons, realistic-looking toys and air weapons, electroshock weapons and self-defence weapons. If you want to own or trade in weapons and ammunition, you need a weapons permit. There are 4 types of permits: recognition, consent, authorisation and dispensation."

   The first of these two permits pertain to commercial uses of firearms. The latter two are two separate licenses a Dutch gun owner needs. The 'Authorization Permit' is a license to transport a weapon. The 'Dispensation Permit' is required to own one in the first place. As one might imagine, getting a permit of any kind isn't especially easy. The Ministry states:

 "The application procedure for weapons permits is subject to strict rules:
  • You must submit your application in person;
  • You must also be present in person when the storage facilities in your business or house are checked;
  • You must also comply with an examination of your mental health;
  • You must provide 3 references.
The police chief will decide on the basis of this information whether you will be granted a permit or not."
   Among the criterion for obtaining a permit, one must explain to the Police Chief his reasons for wanting to own a firearm. Self-defense is not considered a valid reason in Holland. The only reasons acceptable to the Dutch bureaucracy are for hunting and target-shooting. For hunting purposes, one must pass a government-approved safety course and be granted a hunting license first. This has to be done annually. The Ministry of Information notes that even "People who have one or more permits issued before 1 September 2017, and only from before that date, must go through the new procedure once."
   For target-shooting purposes, the Dutch require that one be a member of a government-approved shooting club for one year before a permit to own a .22 rifle is allowed. One can own larger calibers based upon how many years of membership they have. BB and Pellet guns are illegal unless one is over 18 and a member of an organization approved by the National Dutch Airsoft Association. 

  Dutch law restricts the maximum number of firearms one can own at five. They must be stored in a gun safe, and a condition of the Gun Permit is that the police come to your home once a year for a mandatory inspection. 

   We mention Dutch policy here for two reasons: one, to show that gun laws don't really work. The second is because, after every mass-shooting in America, the Internet chat rooms and message boards are flooded with Europeans lecturing us on how we need tougher gun laws like they have. In fact, American pundits were bragging (shortly before the March shooting in Holland) that gun ownership in The Netherlands was at its lowest level in 12 years. That news must have put psychos on notice that Holland is safe place to go on a rampage. 

   Gun laws in general are simply a knee-jerk reaction; politicians doing something for the sake of doing something. The American Gun Control Act of 1968, one of our strictest gun laws, was enacted for no other reason than Lee Harvey Oswald had purchased a rifle through the mail. Of course this law hasn't stopped a politician---or anybody else for that matter---from being shot since. Only six years after the law designed to prevent future Oswalds was enacted, President Ford was nearly shot twice; and six years after that, President Reagan was wounded in an attack. 

   But don't expect the Corporate Media to mention any of this in the wake of the Dutch shooting. Just like they routinely ignore gang violence in Liberal dominated cities, they won't report this either. 


Friday, September 6, 2019


   Earlier this week, the news broke that entertainment-media figure Kylie Rae Harris was killed in a car crash near Taos, New Mexico. She was a Country Music singer; also a heroic single mother, a wino, and given to weird emotional outbursts and other narcissistic behaviors. All of this is fairly standard for American celebrities these days, but what was surprising was the statement issued by Taos County Sheriff Jerry Hogrefe: “At this time I will say with most certainty Miss Cruz was an innocent victim of this senseless crash caused by Ms. Harris.”

   The 'Miss Cruz' to whom the Sheriff refers was Maria Elena Cruz---a young woman of 16 who was killed in the collision. But since she wasn't a celebrity and just a normal American girl, the Media didn't give her death much thought. The surprising thing in the Sheriff's statement was that he actually held a media figure responsible. As we all know, in today's America, celebrities get a free pass from law enforcement even when they cause somebody else's death. 

   And this is true of the Media, too. In researching this article, we went through the first 12 pages of a Google Search and so far haven't found one news story where Maria Elena Cruz was mentioned in the headlines. Kylie Rae Harris, in contrast, has several stories paying her tribute and engaging in national mourning; and showing photos of her fans slobbering in front of the cameras. There's even a GoFundMe link to support her now-orphaned daughter on page 4 of the search results even though she's inheriting an estate worth nearly 1 million dollars. Those of us little people in flyover country are expendable anyway; according to the thinking of the Elites who populate the fringes of our country (both the geographical and the psychological fringes). 

   We're going to tell a side of the story here that isn't told: that is, about the real people involved in these circumstances. 

   Maria Elena Cruz was 16 years old when she died. She was about to start her Junior year at Taos High School and was working during the Summer as a waitress at the Guadalajara Grill. She was evidently quite popular at her school and generally well-liked. Her former 5th-Grade teacher posted this on Facebook earlier today:

“I sent the following message earlier this evening to my former EGES 5th grade DL students who are now Taos High School Juniors, in the wake of the tragic loss of their beloved classmate, and my student, Maria Elena Cruz! I had purposely sent it to them as a PM in hopes that they would feel free to express themselves in private, which they did and are. I have since decided to share my message to my former DL students, on my FB wall to bring light to the fact that even though the tragic loss of this beautiful, intelligent, kind, hard working, and inspirational Teen won’t make the FOX and CNN syndicated news, Maria was also treasured, loved, and admired by all who met her. Her tragic death has impacted many young lives, former teachers, her beloved parents and little sister. A life with a future only a few can begin to dream of was cut short through not fault of her own! How many innocents have to die at the hands of someone who chooses to drink and drive before we open our eyes to this cruel and senseless act.”

    Maria Elena's father, Pedro Cruz, is the Deputy Fire Marshal in San Cristobal. He was one of the team of first responders who arrived at the scene of the fatal crash. I can't imagine what he must have felt: he had no idea that his daughter was involved in the wreck until he arrived there. A Funeral Mass is scheduled for Tuesday Afternoon.


      It's unknown whether Maria Elena was dating or not; but I'm confident that she had some male admirers. On the larger sociological scale, though, this is why the loss of someone like her impacts our culture as a whole. Our girls and young women are the future mothers, teachers, and caregivers of our next generation. They are of much greater value to society than the phony 'role-models' held up by Hollywood Trash Culture. 

   Though not publicized in the press, Maria Elena has a GoFundMe page to help her family during this time. The town of San Cristobal announced that the fundraising dinner planned for the Community Center earlier today had been changed to raise funds for the Cruz Family. For those living in New Mexico, donations can also be dropped off in person at the Taos County Fire and EMS Office, located near the Holy Cross Hospital at 1397 Weimer Road.