Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Tuesday, June 29, 2021

Forget About Making Peace with the Islamic World

June 29, 2021  By Victor Sharpe

The great humorist, Jerome K. Jerome, suggested many years ago that, “… we all love peace, but not peace at any price.”  Peace is only a reality between states that are rational and can in time become friendly towards each other. Today leftists and all those who shout out the vacuous phrase, “peace and justice,” have turned those once noble words into soiled and tarnished rags.

They have become the very folk who, through one of life’s supreme ironies, shout down dissenting voices and thus become guilty of the very violent behavior they claim to oppose. The universities and colleges have become hotbeds of radicalized students who chant slogans of peace and justice yet howl down invited speakers with whom they disagree. Free speech withers on today’s university campus while tenured professors, smiling indulgently, espouse the monolithic message of the Left, which tolerates no disagreement.

That word, “peace” has permeated the democracies for decades and flowed from numerous pulpits. But despite untold forests cut down in order to produce posters, books, banners, placards, and learned tomes calling for peace, there is less peace in the world today and more hypocrites selling it like snake oil peddlers.............

If a nation desires peace with its neighbor, but that neighbor implacably rejects peace, then any imposed peace process from outside is nothing more than a handmaiden to futility or worse. The peacemaker often creates a catastrophic erosion of security for the peace-loving nation, which because of its peaceful intentions is the only party that is then leaned upon to make endless and one-sided concessions to a belligerent enemy. Such has been the curse of the peace process for Israel in its attempts to survive relentless Arab and Muslim aggression...................To Read More.....


Attempting To Silence Your Opponents Is A Sign You Are Losing The Debate


Over the past few months I have had several posts on the subject of audacious big tech deplatformings of mainstream conservative opinions, for example here on February 22 and here on March 4. But the big tech social media enterprises like Twitter, Facebook and Google are only one front of the progressive program to suppress any speech that does not toe the official orthodox line. I thought it might be time for a small roundup of recent instances.

Center of the American Experiment, Raise Our Standards Tour.

Center of the American Experiment (CAE) is a Minnesota-based think tank headed by a guy named John Hinderaker. Hinderaker was a contemporary of mine back at Harvard Law School in the early 1970s, and had a similar career as a major firm trial lawyer; now he contributes to the PowerLine blog while also running this very mainstream conservative think tank.

In recent months CAE has taken on the issue of leftist indoctrination of young children in public schools, and in that effort has been conducting something called the Raise Our Standards tour that is holding meetings with parents around the state of Minnesota. The subject of the tour is a new set of “standards” for K-12 social studies curricula in Minnesota promulgated by the state education bureaucracy. Here is a web page promoting the CAE events. Excerpt:

The “woke” political movement has invaded Minnesota’s public schools, turning them into ideological battlegrounds and threatening the quality of our children’s education. Our students deserve better. Join us to learn more about how Critical Race Theory advances a leftist, anti-American agenda that radically changes how our children learn about their country. Most important, learn how parents can push back against the politicizing of our schools.

The tour was scheduled to come to the city of Duluth on June 17. At that point a group of progressives decided to shut it down. Duluth NAACP chapter president Classie Dudley put up a Facebook post in which she asserted that the CAE event would be “hate speech” and “overt racism,” and that CAE is “a racist organization coming down and preaching white supremacy.” According to this post from CAE staff member Bill Walsh, the local school superintendent, by the name of John Magas, then orchestrated a telephone campaign to bully two different venues into refusing to host the event. The event had to be canceled, although CAE is promising to reschedule as soon as an alternative venue can be found.

Meanwhile, Duluth — the hub of the Minnesota “iron range” — is in one of those heavily blue-collar areas that is rapidly trending Republican after decades of Democratic dominance. Its congressional district flipped to Republican in 2018 after being solidly in Democratic hands (with one two-year exception) since the 1940s. Is the strategy for a Democratic comeback really to try to keep the people from finding out about the critical race theory indoctrination of their children?

The Epoch Times

I previously reported on the “demonetization” of the Epoch Times by YouTube in my March 4 post. The demonetization apparently took place some time during January 2021, according to the Epoch Times itself on February 1. Remarkably, neither YouTube nor Google has ever given any specific justification for the demonetization, nor any specific example of something that has appeared in the Epoch Times that supposedly violates the Google or YouTube terms of service. An inquiry from Breitbart News as to the reason for the demonetization received only this generic response from YouTube: “All channels on YouTube need to comply with our Community Guidelines and in order to monetize, channels must comply with the YouTube Partner Program policies, which include our Advertiser-Friendly Guidelines. Channels that repeatedly violate these policies are suspended from our partner program.”

I raise the subject again today because I received an email from the ET on June 24 indicating that the YouTube suspension continues to remain in effect after five months.

For readers unfamiliar with the Epoch Times, it was founded by a group of refugees from China, many of whom are members of the Falun Gong movement and experienced severe repression under the Chinese Communist regime. The ET is highly critical of the Chinese Communist Party, as might be expected. In the absence of any other plausible explanation of why the ET has been demonetized by YouTube, pressure from the CCP would certainly be the leading hypothesis. Frankly, that’s more than a little frightening.

But the ET appears to have some very substantial financial backing. In their June 24 email, they announce the launching of their own video channel. Good luck to them.

Abigail Shrier, Irreversible Damage.

You have probably heard of this book, which deals with the subject of the rapidly increasing number of teenage girls who have recently sought gender-reassignment surgery. Unlike another book on a related subject — When Harry Became Sally, by Ryan Anderson — Ms. Shrier’s book has not (yet) been banned from Amazon. However, activists have been conducting a guerrilla war in one place after another in efforts to ban and/or suppress the book. Ms. Shrier gives details in a lengthy post at Bari Weiss’s Substack on June 21.

I’ll cover just a couple of many examples. First, at a respected blog called “Science-Based Medicine,” one of the editors of the site, Harriet Hall, posted a favorable review of Ms. Shrier’s book. Here’s what happened next:

Within a day, Dr. Hall’s article was flooded with nearly 1,000 comments, mostly, she says, from activists demanding the article be stripped from the site, but also from some readers expressing their appreciation. Angry emails from activists swamped the blog’s editors. Within two days, those editors had given Dr. Hall an ultimatum: retract, rewrite, or allow them to add a disclaimer.

When Dr. Hall declined to add a disclaimer, her co-editors retracted the review without so much as notifying her that they were doing it. As Shrier puts it, the review had been “bullied out of existence.”

And then there is the story of the Halifax (Canada) public library. An organization called “Halifax Pride,” which puts on a big annual LGBTQ event in the city, announced that it would cut ties with the library unless the library dropped the book. Halifax Pride called the book “transphobic,” and claimed that it “jeopardizes the safety of trans youth” and “debates the existence of trans people.” So far the library has stood by Ms. Shrier, although she reports that neither the Nova Scotia Library Association nor the Canadian Library Association would stand with the Halifax library.

Meanwhile, there is a waiting list of almost 150 people in line to read the library’s two available copies of the book.

My comment in all these cases is, if you really think you have the winning position, then you should have no problem with your opponents saying their piece, after which you are confident that you will demolish them with your superior argument. At the moment the progressive left may seem to have superior bullying power, but that is not a strategy for long term success.


By Mychal Massie June 28, 2021 @ Daily Rant  Pro Life & Family     Racial Policy Center   Skin Color

Whenever someone thought themselves clever by exhibiting boorish shameful behavior in public or around a group of people, my late grandmother would say: “Give a monkey a show.” 


The translation being put a monkey in a crowd of people and you can count on its behaving like a monkey.  Which brings me to Gwen Berry’s podium behavior as she competed at the U.S. Olympic Team Trials in the hammer throw.  Berry disrespected the United States Flag and our country, when she refused to face the Flag during the medal ceremonies; choosing instead to turn her back on the Flag. 


The flag, I might add, of the country, which whether she likes it or not, she’s representing at the Olympics.  She claimed as justification for her detestable behavior that she was “pissed” because she felt “like it was a setup, and they did it on purpose.”  Imagine that, her excuse for boorish anti-American behavior was the National Anthem was played on purpose. But her simian behavior didn’t stop there, she pulled out a tee-shirt with the words “Activist Athlete” printed on it and draped it over her head.


One could be excused for thinking she was sparing the viewing public having cameras broadcast her face smeared with circus like makeup.  But I digress. As indefensible as Berry’s behavior was to those of sound mind, for me her pathetic attempt at self-promotion raised a more pressing question.   Blacks disrespecting America, our Flag and our National Anthem, certainly predates the Obama woman and the “Benghazi traitor” she calls a husband refusing to salute the Flag as the world watched. 


The primary supposed reasoning behind the complaint and said behavior is always based upon the alleged injustice endured by so-called black people.

But, what goes unaddressed is: What if these people who base their entire value system upon being a crayon color really had it bad?  To wit: white people are considered racist because they walk past blacks without saying hello and/or not stepping off the sidewalk to allow blacks to walk past. But what if blacks were not permitted to walk on the sidewalks with whites at all?

What if blacks were not allowed to attend any public schools that were attended by even one white student? What if blacks were actually held accountable for their violent sociopathic behavior?  What if blacks were not allowed treatment by white doctors and denied all access to white operated medical facilities?

What if blacks were not permitted live within a 50-mile radius of any neighborhood with even one white family living in said area?  What if blacks weren’t permitted to make purchases of any kind, from buying a house to shopping at a five and dime discount store to shopping online if white owned financial services including pensions?

What if blacks weren’t permitted to be given bank loans or to have access to financial services in any white owned institutions?  What if no blacks weren’t allowed to appear on television or radio for any purpose, apart from doing perp-walks?

What if blacks weren’t permitted to work in any white owned company in any capacity whatsoever?  What if blacks weren’t permitted to play on any team or compete in any sport that had white players?  What if blacks were strictly forbidden from even attending the Olympics, much less being permitted to make spectacles of themselves and their sport on the world stage?

What if blacks were denied all forms of welfare?  What if black women were forbidden to have white doctors murder their children by abortion?  What if blacks were denied access to all law enforcement services and protection?  What if blacks weren’t permitted to obtain services from any white owned business including gas, electric, cable, etc.?

What if blacks were immediately taken into custody and confined in special container structures specifically created to confine a black person who was observed in a “white area”?

In the absence of even one of these instances being the case and the reality being the exact opposite in every example herein sited, explain to me what this contumacious harridan has to complain about.  Just how disenfranchised is this ungrateful and malevolent certified skin-color baiter who some sources set her net worth at as much as $8 million.

I’m beyond sick of hearing how bad blacks have it in America.  I’m sick of hearing how unfair America is to blacks.  I’m sick of ungrateful, hatemongers, who prostitute being a crayon color the way the Obama woman engaged in usufruct while the objectionable creature she calls a mate was defiling the office he held.

If life for so-called crayon colors people like the Gwen Berry’s, Oprah Winfrey’s, the Obama woman, ‘Low-brain’ James, and the huge numbers of self-identified crayon colors worth tens and hundreds of millions of dollars from being athletes, entertainers, politicians, inciters of unrest, ad nauseum is so bad; If their lifestyles and bank accounts define America as bad, I demand they show me a place that’s better, if America is what they identify as bad.

Take action and share this!

About the Author

Mychal Massie

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of a conservative Capitol Hill think tank; and a former member of the think tank National Center for Public Policy Research. Read entire bio here


Illegal dirt bikes and ATVs are turning Philadelphia streets into scenes from a Mad Max movie.

Thom Nickels June 28, 2021 @ City Journal. Published with permission. 

Five years ago while on assignment, I was riding with a police officer in Philadelphia’s Kensington section when we saw a large all-terrain vehicle (ATV) drive onto the sidewalk. A crowd watched as the rider performed a series of wheelies and tricks. The carnival atmosphere of the scene attracted an additional ATV rider intent on outperforming the first performer. The officer stepped out of the squad car and quietly told the drivers not to block the sidewalk. As the officer left the scene, I saw both ATVs merge with traffic, presumably to restart their wheelies and tricks.

The scene prompted more questions than answers: ATVs are illegal for street use, so why did the officer chide them only for driving onto the sidewalk? The officer told me that the Philadelphia Police Department had instructed its officers to go easy on ATV and dirt-bike riders because it was “a culturally sensitive issue.” The underlying message: officers should not take direct action because that might be deemed “racist.”

This incident occurred when the ATV/dirt-bike problem in Philadelphia was just beginning to mount, and members of the “street-riding community” were beginning to feel their strength in numbers. In those early years, riders in the city generally stuck to back roads or isolated bike paths along the Delaware River. The few renegade vehicles that made their way onto congested city streets were regarded as anomalous.

As the years passed, the numbers of riders slowly increased. After all, these were easy-to-get recreational vehicles that can be purchased online or at Walmart. You can order a TaoTao dirt bike, for instance, online for $779.95 (free shipping); a kids' ATV goes for $1,555, while the bigger Strokeshaft ATV goes for $2,939.95.

The pandemic and the June 2020 George Floyd riots seemed to quadruple the number of riders in Philadelphia. The riots set a tone of freewheeling anarchy. Riders traveled in larger and larger contingents and became much bolder in their disruptions of local traffic flows in neighborhoods and throughout Center City. Pedestrians had to contend with the sudden appearance of invading bikers, 30 or more at a time, blazing through crosswalks or taking sudden detours onto sidewalks.

In March 2021, a viral video captured a violent confrontation between an armed ATV driver and a driver of an SUV on Broad Street in South Philadelphia. A number of illegal vehicles driving in front of the SUV driver had stopped suddenly, causing the driver to hit the back of a bike. When the driver left his vehicle to see if the dirt-bike rider was okay, an altercation occurred that ended with the driver sustaining minor injuries. The 27-year-old dirt-bike rider was arrested and found to have a long record of assaults.

Last month, a community meeting of the Queen Village Neighbors Association drew more than 1,100 people to complain to city council members and the Philadelphia Police Department about illegal racing along pedestrian sidewalks, commercial corridors, and residential streets. Residents of luxury high-rise condos complained of the noise from dirt bikes rising from the street and imploding midair in a kind of “Sensurround.”

Metro Philadelphia reported last fall that the Philadelphia Police Department had deployed a detail dedicated to confiscating ATVs and dirt bikes. “Since May, they have taken 263 off the streets; however, the program can’t be utilized on a daily basis and may not be able to continue indefinitely due to budget constraints,” Metro reported.

On June 10, as a result of citywide protests against these vehicles, the city council unanimously passed a bill aimed at cracking down on them. The bill altered the city code so that dirt-bike riders face the same consequences as ATV riders: a $2,000 fine and police confiscation. At-large councilmember Allan Domb, one of the bill’s sponsors, said, “There is a safety issue here. We’ve seen people ride on the sidewalks. The safety is not just for the residents, it’s also for the people actually operating these vehicles.”

Two days after the bill’s passage, more than 1,000 bikers congregated at 3800 Aramingo Avenue in a spectacle of noise, fireworks, drag racing, and “civil disobedience.” During the event, biker Angel Rodriquez, 21, was fatally shot by an anonymous rider who left the scene and remains at large. The incident, happening as it did just days after the city council’s crackdown, was further proof that the illegal bike problem isn’t going away anytime soon. Skeptics now wonder if police will continue to look the other way or find excuses not to fine or confiscate the bikes of lawbreakers. What’s the use of a new law if it’s not enforced?

As if to underscore the skeptics’ concerns, district attorney Larry Krasner has called for a more nuanced understanding of how dirt bikes and ATVs are used in Philadelphia. “It is very (important) for us not to lump everyone together and for us not to stereotype,” Krasner said. “There is a big difference between driving a vehicle down the street and endangering people by driving up and down a sidewalk. There’s a difference between traveling at a normal speed and going at an extremely high speed, or going against traffic, or blowing through traffic lights. We have to be willing to see those distinctions if we’re not going to fall into some of our old traps.”

Local media outlets report that bikers say they are riding because they are “trying to get out of neighborhoods riddled with violent crime.” They said that police crackdowns won’t stop them. One rider told NBC10 News: “I’ve been doing this for years. This is my stress reliever. I’m not going to stop. I’m never going to stop.” Another rider said that if his ATV were confiscated, he would just go out and buy another one.

The city council, in an attempt to appease the bikers, is considering creating an ATV and dirt-bike park somewhere in the city. A park of this sort would have to be built from scratch, and many questions linger, like how bikers would transport their vehicles to and from the location. “I think realistically that could take some time. We want to find a location that’s not going to be in a residential or commercial setting,” Domb said.

But for many riders, performing in a public environment for an “unwilling” audience seems like the whole point. If that’s the case, then any effort to contain riders in an enclosed, theme-park setting, where they are expected to obey the rules of containment, is bound to fail. As the rider said, street biking is a “stress reliever.”

City Journal is a publication of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research (MI), a leading free-market think tank. Are you interested in supporting the magazine? As a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, donations in support of MI and City Journal are fully tax-deductible as provided by law (EIN #13-2912529).


Take the City of Tahlequah Case

The Supreme Court should settle a confusion over how police tactics preceding an officer-involved shooting may affect constitutional rights. 

Robert VerBruggen June 28, 2021 @ City Journal. Published with permission.

Five summers ago, a woman in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, called 911. “Hey, can I get somebody to come over to my house?” she asked. “My ex-husband is in the garage, he will not leave, he’s drunk, and it’s going to get ugly real quick.” In the brief conversation that followed, she added that her ex was a registered sex offender, that he did not live there, and that he still had some tools in the garage. Perhaps unsurprisingly, tragedy ensued—and the subsequent legal battle has produced a confusion that the Supreme Court ought to resolve.

After the woman’s 911 call, three officers came out, and they ended up speaking to Dominic Rollice, the ex-husband, near the side door to the garage. The police told Rollice that they wanted to get him a ride elsewhere; he said that he already had one coming. An officer asked to pat Rollice down for weapons, finding the man “fidgety,” but he refused.

What happened next was captured on an officer’s bodycam video (though the audio doesn’t kick in for about half a minute). An officer stepped toward Rollice, who moved into the garage. When he reached the back of the garage, Rollice grabbed a claw hammer and turned around, wielding it in both hands. The officers have claimed that Rollice said “one of us is going to fucking die tonight” at this point, but the recording’s audio is still missing.

The cops backed up and drew their guns. Rollice walked to the side with the hammer held high in one hand behind him and the other hand outstretched in front, stepping out from behind a chair so that there was a clear path between him and the officers—who stood within about ten feet of him. They repeatedly told Rollice to drop the hammer, but he refused. One officer replaced his handgun with a Taser.

Then, the fateful motion: Rollice pulled the hammer back as if, perhaps, to throw it or charge the officers. The officers opened fire, with the Taser missing but several handgun rounds striking him. Rollice crouched to the ground and lifted the hammer yet again, and an officer fired one last round. Rollice died from the wounds.

A Cherokee County prosecutor declined to charge the officers, given that Rollice was on video menacing them at close range with a deadly weapon. But Rollice’s estate sued the two officers who shot him, as well as the city, in federal court, alleging that the police had violated the deceased man’s Fourth Amendment right to be free of unreasonable search and seizure (including apprehension by force). The estate argues that the officers were wrong to open fire, because Rollice’s movement with the hammer was defensive rather than aggressive; that the final shot was unjustified even if the initial barrage wasn’t, as Rollice no longer posed a threat; and that even if all the shots were justified at the moment they were fired, the officers should still be liable for the death, because the officers created the dangerous situation to begin with.

After several rounds of legal back-and-forth, the matter sits on the Supreme Court’s doorstep. That last argument advanced by Rollice’s estate could lead to a major ruling if the Court accepts a “cert” petition to hear the case.

City of Tahlequah v. Bond originated in the Tenth Circuit, where an appeals panel ruled that the case against the cops could go to trial. In the panel’s view, a reasonable jury could conclude that the officers’ actions before the shooting—including walking toward Rollice after he refused to be patted down and “cornering” him in the back of the garage near his tools—“recklessly” created the situation that led to lethal force, thus making the lethal force a violation of the Fourth Amendment. In some other circuits, the issue would simply be whether lethal force was constitutional at the moment the officers opened fire. That’s a question the Tenth Circuit panel pointedly declined to answer, saying it would be a “close call” and that the proper analysis involved looking at the bigger picture.

For its part, the Supreme Court has offered rather confusing guidance. In the seminal 1989 case Graham v. Connor, for instance, it said that courts must consider the “totality of the circumstances,” but it also spoke of reasonableness “at the moment” and cautioned that courts should make “allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments—in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving—about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.” In 2017’s County of Los Angeles v. Mendez, the Court held that even a clear Fourth Amendment violation at one point in time “cannot transform a later, reasonable use of force into an unreasonable seizure”—yet explicitly declined to rule on the similar issue of whether courts could consider “unreasonable police conduct prior to the use of force that foreseeably created the need to use it” when deciding whether the force itself was reasonable.

Nonetheless, the logic of the appeals panel is breathtaking. The officers had been called to remove an inebriated ex-husband from the home of his ex-wife, and up until the point Rollice grabbed the hammer, the police stand accused of little beyond talking to him and walking toward him. Nothing in the Constitution guarantees a right to trespass on your ex-wife’s property without being aggressively pestered by the cops, and yet in the Tenth Circuit’s view, such pestering can turn a subsequent shooting that would otherwise be allowable into a constitutional-rights violation. If such reasoning became standard, the natural reaction of police officers would simply be to give wider berth to criminals, so as to avoid “recklessly” provoking them and ending up in court.

None of this is to say that all courts should entirely ignore everything that happens before a shooting. There is room to hold officers and departments accountable for needlessly antagonizing, or otherwise severely mishandling, a situation that didn’t have to turn deadly—if not by labeling their actions a violation of the federal Constitution, then perhaps by tailoring state laws to cover such cases. But the boundaries need to be drawn far more carefully than the Tenth Circuit has drawn them.

The Tahlequah case, though brought under federal law, would be handled very differently in different parts of the country. The Supreme Court should take the case—and lay out, in a precise and fair way, exactly how police tactics leading up to a shooting may affect a court’s analysis of whether the shooting itself violated the Constitution.


Obama and the Broken Nation He Made Come Of Age

June 28, 2021 @ Sultan Knish Blog

Barack Obama turns 60 over the summer. The AARP cover with Barry posing next to a basketball and a shelf of bestselling non-fiction books he hasn’t read can’t be too far away.

Once the symbol of youthful hipness, the former boss of Hope and Change now lectures “young people” on what they should be doing. His legacy is being carried forward by 78-year-old Biden and the 81-year-old Pelosi. That’s above the average age of 80 of the House Dem leadership.

The average age of the Biden cabinet is two years older than President Trump’s cabinet.

The gerontocratic technocracy uses AOC as its younger foil, but she’s been a stalking horse for Bernie Sanders who will hit the big 80 in the fall. The big donors behind the American Left are even older with George Soros due to hit 90 the same month Obama gets to 60. The even bigger reservoirs of cash flowing into the leftist machine are coming from the foundations of men who were born in the 19th century like Henry Ford, John D. MacArthur, and John D. Rockefeller.

That’s about right for a 19th century ideology whose followers keep trying to make it look young.

Youthful leftism is anarchic. It’s CHAZ, BLM, and Antifa. It’s open air heroin markets, smashed store windows, and political assassinations. Turning that anarchy into collectivism requires hysterical propaganda and rallies that appear anarchic, but are actually tightly controlled, ideas that seem edgy, but are actually the work of men who were born during the age of the steam.

If you think Bernie’s old, Karl Marx celebrated his 203rd birthday in May.

Obama’s policies have aged as badly as Marx, Biden, or their front man. But instead of moderating as they grow older, they only grow more radical. Obama equivocated on gay marriage, while Biden entirely erases the existence of women by calling them “birthing people”. Obama covertly weaponized the government against conservatives, while Biden is doing it openly. Everything from election rigging through H.R.1 to indoctrinating every government employee with critical race theory is happening more openly and blatantly under Biden.

Youthful leftist revolutions break the system while leftist gerentocrats impose the tyranny.

Making tyranny look like freedom requires hefty doses of chaos and outrage that make it appear that the system is being broken when it’s actually being built up. Or as George Orwell wrote in 1984, “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.” The revolution is the thing it’s revolting against.

The end of history keeps arriving only to vanish like a mirage when the youth reach for it.

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal," Obama told his followers. Two years later, he privately snapped, "What does he think I'm supposed to do? Put on my f------ Aquaman gear and swim down there myself with a wrench?"

Thirteen years have passed and if the planet has begun to heal, Democrats won’t admit it.

The moment of epochal change can never be allowed to arrive because it would interrupt the permanent crisis. Salvation is always here and also always out of reach. But there’s always a new generation available to be fooled again because they know the past doesn’t matter.

History is radically revised every generation not just for what it teaches, but for what it doesn’t.

A revisionist history work like the 1619 Project doesn’t just impose a radical new racist history, it displaces the past. Another revisionist history will come along to displace the 1619 Project because manufacturing history churn is vital to destroying any continuity with the past. All the academic lenses being swapped one for the other like a mad ophthalmologist leaves a new generation with a lot of theories, but no clue that they’re being indoctrinated into a lost cause.

The Left has no new ideas. Like Hollywood, it makes old ideas seem new by rebooting them, by making them appear hip and trendy, and by destroying a meaningful connection with the past. And that way audiences don’t realize they’re just seeing the same movie remade over again. What might be creative bankruptcy in a movie theater is a more seriously sisyphean problem described by Churchill as, “Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.”

But how does a new generation learn from a past that isn’t allowed to exist on its own terms?

Demonizing the past is a convenient way of obscuring it. The only thing students are taught about the past is that it was a horrible time, its people backward, its customs savage, its learning wicked, its institutions racist, and its ideas horrifying. In postmodern history, the past exists only as a cautionary tale gleaned for historical struggles that fit into the new narrative.

History is an incomplete present whose revolutions were never fully fulfilled. It’s a revolutionary story of a world ruled by villains until they were overthrown by the forces of good. And this revolution against history must continue until all of the past is negated by the present.

The destruction of statues and burning of books forces ‘presentism’ for the past to conform to the dogmas of the moment. The biggest problem with the past isn’t that it’s politically incorrect, but that it’s repeating itself. The Black Lives Matter movement transparently harkens back to the 70s. So do most of the radical social impulses in which the Left cloaks its real power agenda.

The revolutionary chaos is doomed to fail again, but each oscillation breaks the country more.

The social activism is window dressing. A proper Marxist regime has little use for militant minorities, feminism, gay rights, police defunding, transgender bathrooms, pipeline protests, abortion, or any of the other issues the radicals have been using to waste our time. If you doubt that, go look at how many of any of the above you can find in China, Cuba, or North Korea.

The Russian Futurists vowed to throw the art and literature of the past overboard from the “steamship of modernity”. But the Bolsheviks were not looking for disruptive art and when the revolution arrived, modern art was tossed overboard and the former revolutionaries settled down to producing socialist realism and recreating the art of the past for the Soviet Union.

After a brief permissive period, the Soviet Union criminalized homosexuality and insisted on traditional marriages and roles for women. Those feminists who resisted were soon shown their place with one of the more notorious free love figures being forcibly married off by Lenin.

The dictatorship had eclipsed the revolution and the past was quickly rewritten all over again.

As Obama approaches his sixtieth birthday, the age at which Khrushchev struggled for control of the USSR and Mao launched his Great Leap Forward, two events that would require a good deal of historical editing, our American past is already being rewritten. Only those who are at least in their thirties will remember that there wasn’t a racial crisis before Barack Obama.

And there hadn’t been such a crisis for a generation before he took power.

Our racial crisis is not a legacy of 1619, but of 2008. Obama’s victory was not a revolution against a crisis, but the revolution that created the crisis. To a new generation, the racial crisis is a permanent feature of life. They have always lived under the crisis and expect to always live under it. That is why critical race theory and white privilege rants have become so pervasive.

Without a generation coming of age in a world shaped by the toxic idea that all white people are evil and all minorities are victims, no one outside academic circles would have willingly accepted them. And if that generation seems all too easy to radicalize into supporting the most insane policies, that’s because it grew up in a world defined by the hysteria of manufactured crises.

The world as they know it is doomed by melting ice caps, the rich getting richer, and the genocide of black people at the hands of the police. Every radical program is backed by a sense of urgent crisis which is killing people and destroying the future. They can’t imagine a present without the crisis and don’t remember ever living in a world not defined by crisis.

As Obama gets closer to his AARP cover, a generation lives in the world that he made.

Like Obama, his radical political movement speaks endlessly about the past, but has no actual past. Its past is always being reinvented and retold through new narratives, but with no facts.

The Obama revolution has come and gone. We have skipped past it to the Soviet Union of Chernenko and Andropov, of gerontocrats building the tyranny with the beams of revolution. The decline is everywhere as the theories fail, the factories close, and the stores stand empty.

The youth are being rallied to cheer for the revolutionary tyranny of Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, and Chuck Schumer who are promising a new era in history no one believes in anymore. Since the election their cause is no longer free college, it’s federalizing elections through H.R.1.

Federalizing elections, eliminating the filibuster, and packing the Supreme Court are compelling issues in Washington D.C., but the regime plotting new coups has little to say to the ordinary people facing high prices for gas and bread. Land, Bread, and Peace has given way to a race for total power over the country as the revolution of Hope, Crisis and Change comes of age.

There’s no change without crisis, and without hope, there’s only hate.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles.  Thank you for reading.

Tags: , ,
Author Image

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center


Media Balance Newsletter

June 28, 2021 by John Droz, Jr.

Welcome to the latest issue of our Media Balance Newsletter,  which covers a wide range of national interest topics: from COVID to Climate. For all 2020 Newsletters, go here. For all 2021 Newsletters, go here.  Our ten Election Integrity Reports are now at: Please pass that link onto your social media contacts.

COVID-19: Therapy —

COVID-19: Vaccines 

COVID-19: Misc —

Greed Energy Economics —

Wind Turbines: Health and Ecosystem Impacts —

Wind Energy: Other —

Solar Energy —

Nuclear Energy —

Fossil Fuel Energy —

Manmade Global Warming: Some Deceptions 

Manmade Global Warming: Misc —

US Elections: General —

US Election: January 6th, 2021 —

US Election Laws, HR.1/S.1 —

US Election Laws, HR.4 —

US Elections, Arizona Issues —

US Elections, Georgia Issues —

US Elections, Other State Issues —

US Politics and Socialism —

Other US Politics and Related —

Religion Related —

Education Related —

Science and Misc Matters —

Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…

John Droz, jr.

physicist & citizen’s rights advocate

Note 1: It’s recommended to read the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g. PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen…  Common fonts, etc. have been used to minimize display issues.

Note 2: To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles, we’ve put together detailed archives — where you can search by year, or over the ten+ years of the Newsletter. For a detailed background about the Newsletter, please read this.

Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change that complements the Newsletter. As a parallel effort, there is also a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on our website.

Note 4: If you'd like to join the 10,000+ worldwide readers and get your own free copy of this periodic Newsletter, simply send John an email saying that.

Note 5: John is not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or the website) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. His recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical issues.

Copyright © 2021; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see