Candace Owens rose to fame via being a black woman on the right: certainly a rare bird. But it appears that she did so to become famous: that is, her views weren’t informed by knowledge and thought, but by what needed to be said to get Conservatives slobbering all over her. It did help that she’s a very pretty young lady. But now she’s going full bore into the very worst parts of the swamp of anti-Semitism. She is rightly being condemned for this but I think that the condemnations are going about it wrong – they mostly accuse her of being stupid or venal or some such. She may well be all sorts of things, but the primary thing she’s being is evil.
Given her youth, my expectation is that her education is lacking. It has been a long time since any Western system of education provided an actual education. Some private schools do, but the general run (even in most private schools) is pretty deplorable. Even the smartest kids don’t really know all that much. And one of the subjects where things are worst is in history – it is either not taught at all, or it is a sort of kindergarten-Marxist view of history which leaves out much fact and all context while pushing some pretty transparent lies. And that, I think, is why so many youngsters are feeling the pull of anti-Semitism…when you’re told in school a pack of lies and then discover this, you start to doubt everything…and latching on to those doubts are the anti-Semites. Mostly Muslim in origin these days, but the more traditional Nazi types are also active here. This is why Owens not too long ago rather breathlessly reported to us that the Germans were treated harshly in the aftermath of WWII. The over 50 were all, “of course they were: they deserved it. And more”, but the younger were shocked about it. This has led Owens, and many others, into the fever swamps.
But that still doesn’t excuse. No matter how ignorant Owens is. No matter how many lies have been fed to her, she still knows that her views about the Jews are wrong. She knows it because she knows that she, as a black woman, would reject with fury any attempt to paint all black people as malevolent. The human heart can be corrupted and, per the Bible, it is sometimes permitted to become hardened at the choice of the person…but that still doesn’t excuse:
Therefore, you are without excuse, every one of you who passes judgment. or by the standard by which you judge another you condemn yourself, since you, the judge, do the very same things. We know that the judgment of God on those who do such things is true. Do you suppose, then, you who judge those who engage in such things and yet do them yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God? – Romans 2:1-3
Owens and those like her are now judged – if they don’t repent, then what they have meted out in judgement against the Jews will be repaid to them. They have falsely accused the Jews of a conspiracy to destroy, can they escape judgement for this? They know they shouldn’t. They know all Jews are not bad and cannot be judged as a group. But they do it anyway…for a bit of fame or money or power. They accuse the Jews of trying to destroy and thus reveal themselves as people trying to destroy. It is a very dangerous ground to go on…and God does permit hearts to be hardened. None of us know precisely what happened to Hitler after that bullet passed through his head – but given how hardened his heart had become, we have a strong belief about where he likely is today. The people like Owens are risking everything they have…for nothing.
It is very important for us to resume calling evil what it is – and calling out those who practice it. We do have to be careful: there is a line where a person is mistaken rather than evil. Like the person who wishes abortion to be legal for fear that banning it is worse than keeping it. That isn’t an evil view. It gets into evil when we start having people “shouting their abortion”, as if killing at kid, even if incidental to saving a mother’s life, can in any way be something to be proud of. It is a tragedy at best…murder at worst. And everyone knows this because everyone knows they don’t want to be killed at the convenience of another. The judgement they meted out will come back to them. That we leave to God, but what we have to do is close it off. We can’t end evil, but we must place it aside, condemned and controlled…as far as practical in a pluralist, human society.
It is my view that once we stopped calling evil what it is, we essentially gave permission for it to flourish. We were told that calling birth out of wedlock disgraceful was wrong…and so we stopped, and now 40% of all births in the USA are out of wedlock. There was a reason we called out of wedlock births bad…not to be mean, but to discourage people from doing it – instinctively knowing that the best chance a child has is with two parents committed to each other and to the child. Any other arrangement would be bad and could prove fatal. But we were told to stop. Too mean.
Tell that to the 100 or so kids under 18 who will OD on drugs next month because they come from not broken homes, but homes that were never built to begin with…some pathetic, ill-educated woman cohabitated with an equally pathetic, ill-educated man…for a night, or a week, or a month…and a child emerged 9 months later lacking family and structure and the sense of belonging this creates…and so he dies at 16 on a dare after taking some drugs because he had no ambition or hope. That is what happens when we stop calling evil what it is. That and all the other monstrous social pathologies we see every day in our sad, dying society.
Time to stand up and start calling evil what it is. Tell the wicked. Tell them again. When everyone shouts at you, tell them again. They aren’t wrong. You can call the wrong, wrong. You can educate the mistaken. The only thing you can do with evil is stop it. And we’d better get doing that fast before we’re overwhelmed.
Blogs For Victory 
On a number of occasions over the years on this blog I’ve been kind of rough on Jews. I imagine some have taken it as antisemitism. It’s not. I have wonderful friends who are Jewish. One of my best friends in college was Jewish. Just like with any religion and among those with no religion, there are good people and bad people. My biggest problem with many Jews, particularly American Jews (since that’s all I know) is that they’re Liberals first and Jews second. I’m the opposite. I’m a Christian first and a Conservative second. I would never vote for someone who would use their position to harm Christians (or Jews), but the majority of American Jews vote routinely against their own self interests. It’s almost as if they have a death wish, and I’ve never understood that. I would NEVER place politics above God. My recollection is that a guy who used to post here, first under the name Bane of Liberals Existence, and later under the name Count de Haricots was Jewish. If he still monitors this blog, perhaps he could comment on that.
I miss the Count and wish he would still post here. I think he dropped in a year or so ago for a post or two.
The thing about being a Christian is that there is no ethnicity associated with it, while Jews are Jews whether this is based on religious belief or heritage or some combination of the two. I think that complicates the issue.
I just have a difficult time understanding why anyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof, would act against their own self interests in the name of politics. I guess maybe the word devout comes into play, because I know people who profess to be Christians who are Progressives and believe in all sorts of anti-Christian policies, but none of them would consider themselves “devout” Christians. I suppose the same thing could apply to Jews. I know absolutely nothing about how Jews in Israel think or vote, but about 80% of American Jews have historically identified as Democrats. I doubt the percentage of Christians is half of that. Now Muslims are a whole different animal, but then, as Cluster noted the other day, Islam isn’t really a religion, at least not in the sense that the rest of us view religion.
I always come back to my theory that few “Progressives” are Progressive in the wholly political sense, but merely in their attraction to ISSUES. Offhand I can’t think of any domestic ISSUE that can’t be addressed from the conservative, Constitutional, side of the aisle, but because we fail in explaining that we create either/or paradigms in which people who are strongly emotionally attached to an issue believe that the only way to support it is to vote for the party that emphasizes it rather than discussing the process, which is (in the case of Democrats) eroding and eventually abandoning the Constitution in favor of creating a massively powerful Central Authority which consolidates power in the hands of a few elites at the top of the power structure.
A general, rather vague, assumption has taken over much of the country in which the purpose of the government is to “take care” of the people. Once that is your reality, you will vote for the people who promise more of this caretaking, more of this “problem solving” by the federal government. As long as this perception is pervasive, we won’t be able to overcome it, as the people slowly vote themselves into tyranny.
So we have one side of the political aisle saying “We need more money so we want the government to force businesses to give us more money” and the other side saying “We want more money so we want the government to stop its overregulating and control so we have the freedom to make more money”.
The Left very effectively uses the carrot and stick approach to gaining and keeping power. The carrot is the paternalistic “bring me your problems, children, and I will take care of you” and the stick is “that evil Other will take away your freedom and all that matters to you and must be vanquished at all costs”.
From Zero Hedge: They Truly See Their Corruption As Heroism
…delusion can also grip us on a mass scale – it is the great danger of ideology and fuels the madness of crowds.
We are seeing this unfold with terrible consequence as the dominant media betrays the very foundations of journalism – starting with demanding that only certain leaders answer questions – to transfigure Kamala Harris into a combination of Rosa Parks, Franklin Roosevelt, and Beyoncé.
Their partisanship is so manifold and manifest that it has created a cottage industry in conservative media, which creates terabytes of content each day exposing the false narratives and double standards advanced by Democrats and their laptop lackeys. Such debunking is necessary and important. But there’s a bit of delusion at work here, too: Despite all evidence to the contrary the critics somehow believe their fact-checking and truth-telling will pressure the propagandists into changing their ways.
It won’t. They are impervious to challenge. They are beyond shame.
How come? To figure out why they persist in this untoward conduct, daily compromising the values of skepticism, fairness, and bringing truth to power that they say they hold dear, we need to ask: What higher value do they believe they are serving? What do they tell themselves so they can see their corruption as heroic?
The answer is obvious: They sincerely believe that Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy, an American Hitler. If that’s the case, why would you give him a fair shake or hold his opponents’ feet to the fire?
I know this explanation is not revelatory; the Hitler analogy has been critiqued for years. But I’m not so sure that we have fully reckoned with how deeply a large percentage of the nation is in the grip of this delusion.
Displaying textbook symptoms of the addled, they insist that falsehoods are truths. Despite unimpeachable evidence to the contrary, they continue to maintain that Trump conspired with Vladimir Putin to steal the 2016 election, that he called all Mexicans rapists, praised neo-Nazi marchers at Charlottesville, advised Americans to inject bleach to combat COVID, and promised a “bloodbath” if he loses in November.
They are not lying when they make these claims – they sincerely believe they are expressing truths the rest of us just can’t see. This makes them immune to reason.
Echoing multiple conversations I’ve had with educated and engaged Democrats, a respected plastic surgeon recently told me, “If Trump wins, we will not have any more elections.”
He saw Jan. 6, 2021, as a dress rehearsal for the coming coup – never mind that Trump left office peaceably two weeks later. When I asked him how Trump might pull this off, he said the former president would declare a national emergency and GOP leaders would rally to his call for martial law, rounding up and jailing those who oppose him.
I pushed him again, to explain how all this might work. “Let’s say Trump and his Republican allies truly want to cross that Rubicon,” I said. “They couldn’t do it alone, right? They would probably need the Supreme Court, many state leaders, and the military to come on board. Do you really think the armed forces would support the overthrow of the Constitution?”
He didn’t respond. “Most important,” I said, “he would need the backing of his voters. Do you really believe that half the American people think ending elections and jailing untold numbers of people is fine and dandy?”
“Yes,” he said.
“Okey, dokey,” I said, switching the conversation to my concerns about the New York Yankees’ starting pitching.
His last comment suggested the dangerous depth of the delusion so many Democrats take for reality. They don’t just see Trump, but the other half of America as an existential threat to our Republic.
Do you really believe that half the American people think ending elections and jailing untold numbers of people is fine and dandy?”
“Yes,” he said.
I think this might be projection, as many on the Left have suggested this, evidently in all seriousness, and this is a mentality that simply cannot be allowed to gain more power.
I am learning that I just can’t process the kind of deep delusion that can make people have these beliefs. They are so obviously outside the realm of reason that they just do not compute. I can understand how some people might believe that Trump said to inject bleach, because I know there is a lot of stupidity out there, and lazy people who get their “news” from a single source and never question it.
But what I simply cannot wrap my head around is the number of people who presumably have a decent level of intelligence, like someone who has graduated from medical school for example, who can blithely ignore the evidence of four years of Trump administration, without a single hint of tyranny in anything done during that time, and then make the wild leap forward to a conviction that if given another chance he would govern in a totally, completely, different way. And the only thing I can think of to explain this is a decision to willingly turn over the authority to curate information to a single source and then blindly accept everything from that source, without question, to the extent of accepting a version of history that is completely at odds with what really happened.
The media play an essential role in this, even media which are not usually associated with the hair-on-fire hysteria of the NYT or some television hucksters like Scarborough. Newsweek, for example, in an otherwise rational article, referred to January 6 as “an effort to overturn the election”. Feed enough of this crap to enough people over enough time and it will inevitably result in a deep-seated, though probably unexamined, conviction that J6 was actually “an effort to overturn the election”. And that would be scary, if it were true. That one fragment of a sentence, inserted over and over again into countless accounts of the day, will have the result of shaping beliefs. It HAS had the effect of shaping beliefs, large beliefs that will probably control the whole election.
I think we on the Right need to stop fretting about addressing the firehose level of lies hurled daily and do a little triage, figure out the parts that are the most damaging, and let the rest go. And I would put this canard at the top of the list, because as time goes by I am seeing it as a major shaping of Trump fear, and the connecting of the dots in the minds of the unskeptical—–he tried to overturn the election and elections are the core of our democracy so he is a threat to our democracy and if he tried to overturn one election that means he would do the same thing again.
So I would make this one belief fragment an element of every single public statement from here to the election. Forget the tag line “fake news”. It’s tired, it’s worn out, it’s useless. But work into every opportunity in public speaking the fact that the original premise of the January 6 rally was specifically to show support to Congress for the request to temporarily postpone the certification of the vote tallies for the specific period of ten days, and only to allow time to look into allegations of possible fraud. There was no effort to overturn the election. There was merely an exercise of the 1st Amendment guarantee of being able to petition government. Did it turn into a riot? Obviously, it did. But we have to understand why those people were there in the first place, and it was to express their belief in the right to ask the government to address a problem, not to attack the electoral process. Trump should do it, Vance should do it, every surrogate should do it.
If that is the splinter that is festering and poisoning the entire discourse, it should be removed. And we need to shift the focus from what eventually happened on January 6 to the reason those people were there in the first place. That should be a doable lateral shift, if enough energy is applied to it.
My analysis is that it is not dislike of Trump that is our biggest danger, but fear of Trump, and the more I think about it the more I believe it goes back to the belief, instilled by our lying Agenda Media guided by the Left, that on January 6 Trump TRIED TO OVERTURN THE ELECTION.
“He didn’t respond. “Most important,” I said, “he would need the backing of his voters. Do you really believe that half the American people think ending elections and jailing untold numbers of people is fine and dandy?”
“Yes,” he said.”
He missed the obvious follow-up questions: (1) what actions did Trump take during his first term that led you to your conclusion; and (2) what would be your reaction if the situation were reversed and your side did the same thing? Because I think most people who are paying even a modicum of attention would say that the reverse is much more likely given the histories of the two parties, ESPECIALLY given the actions of the Democrat Party in the last 8 years. They’ve already given us a preview.
I just addressed this question in my lengthy comment, just posted.
Candace Owens has always been kind of joke in my opinion. She reminds me a bit of Howard Stern, just there for shock value.
With all the talk of joy and unity amongst Democrats, they actually do hate each other. They first give the sitting President the worst speaking time of the convention, who then proceeds to fly off to California not wanting to stick around. Kamala is even a no show for the Obama’s. The only thing that animates Democrats is their unhinged hatred of Trump. That’s the only thing keeping that party together right now.
What do y’all think of RFK endorsing Trump? I would love to see it. And how about Elon Musk being part of the Trump administration? Something else I would love to see. Think about this, America right now has the two most arguably successful entrepreneurs in American history teaming up to turn around the American economy at a time when it is most needed. And yet, some people will still not vote for them … who the fuck does that???
And why would any American administration oppose proof of citizenship to vote?? There is only ONE REASON.
http://The Biden-Harris Department of Justice (DOJ) on Friday requested the U.S. Supreme Court “deny” Republicans’ bid to enforce an Arizona law requiring individuals to prove they’re U.S. citizens when registering and voting in elections.
I thought Judge Jeanine had an excellent observation of the two parties yesterday when she said that Trump has been impeached, investigated, indicted, prosecuted, convicted, maligned and even shot at, and yet MAGA remains by his side. Biden’s poll numbers dropped and the Democrats cast him aside. So with that in mind … who is the decent party?
You forgot “spied on.”
It’s amazing how many people are not concerned with the spying. I think the water has heated up so slowly that we little froggies are accustomed to the heat—-everything in our lives spies on us, from security cameras to our phones to our cars, so that the Big Brother that freaked us out when we read 1984 is just normal these days. So the president had federal agencies spying on American citizens, ho-hum, so what?
Speaking of evil, the Devil has a meeting….
That’s hilarious! (and so true, which is what makes it hilarious)
My only thought on this subject has to do with wording and maybe mistranslation. It has to do with the word “judgement”
We all make several judgement calls everyday. Do I let my three year old light up a smoke? Of course not! Well, I hope not but you never know.
Judgment should be replaced with “condemn or condemnation” Owens is condemning Jews on the basis (insert reason here) and she should not do this unless she wishes to face G-d’s own condemnation.
YMMV
D’oh! Hit post too soon.
Barring my quibble, you are spot on.
🙂
Some are seeing the light
Excellent, concise summation.
Here’s another summation that is pretty scary. A couple of years ago it might have fallen into tinfoil-hat territory, but like so many other “conspiracy theories” it is starting to feel very real.
From “Bob Livingston Alerts” (emphasis mine)
The laws on the books support the public’s majority position on immigration: Come here legally or don’t come here at all. Yet, governments brazenly ignore these laws. Why?
The common suggestion within the Liberty Movement is that this is part of the “Cloward-Piven Strategy”: A social engineering method that uses large-scale relocation of migrants into a society to destabilize that culture. The goal is to import people with an incompatible or hostile ideology and, eventually, the target culture will break down and be forced to accept the new system that the engineers prefer (i.e. from free markets and liberty to communism and slavery).
If Western populations are unified in opposing the globalist agenda then the task of deconstruction becomes impossible. So, they simply destroy the West from within by introducing millions of people who will never assimilate or unify.
My theory goes beyond the Cloward-Piven explanation, though. I think there is a deeper and even more sinister purpose to the introduction of Third World migrants to the U.S. and Europe. I summarized my position in January:
I have mentioned this in previous articles and I continue to believe that one of the main purposes for the establishment to leave borders open and entice illegals to enter is to create a migrant army; a situation in which millions of illegals will be offered easy citizenship in exchange for service. I also believe that this migrant army will be used against the American public (the real citizenry) to impose martial law measures in the wake of a national disaster…
In other words, my argument was that migrants from the third world are not merely being used as an unwitting tool for cultural saturation and destabilization. They aren’t being shipped in by the millions to simply live off the fruits of our ancestors’ labors. I believe they are being brought into the U.S. and Europe as enforcers for the establishment.
Think about it, they are essentially bought and paid for. They are mercenaries recruited with offers of easy citizenship, government handouts, and the opportunity to brutalize Western populations while hiding behind government law enforcement agencies for protection. With a two-tier policing system in place, the migrants can do whatever they want without much fear of repercussions.
They are hired muscle for the political elites. They can terrorize the populace, and if the native population takes action to defend itself the government can step in, call them hateful racists, and declare martial law. It’s a win-win.
The migrants then help with the enforcement of that martial law as the government doubles down on two-tier policing.
I received some resistance to this prediction from a certain subset of people who claimed that I was “perpetuating division.” They say we need to stop focusing on illegal immigrants and start going after the globalists. These people don’t get it.
The notion of “false paradigms” applies in some cases but not all or even most. It really has become a plague among liberty movement thinkers that needs to be abandoned. The reality is that we are not just fighting the globalists, we also have to fight the people wittingly or unwittingly aiding the globalists.
They help instigate conflicts, but many of these conflicts already exist without their influence.
For example, third-world cultures are intrinsically violent and authoritarian. The top 20 most violent nations and most oppressive nations in the world are the same nations that the West is opening its borders to. Progressives will claim that’s a good thing and that we need to help these people. It’s not a good thing and most of them can’t be helped because they aren’t coming here to be free, they are coming here to take whatever they can take.
The majority of people from these places will never be able to coexist peacefully with people raised in the West. They don’t understand freedom, they don’t understand diplomacy, they don’t understand compromise. For them, tolerance is a weakness that can be exploited to their advantage. Tolerance is not seen as a valuable trait in much of the world, only in the West.
This is a fact proven time and time again as mass migrations increase, and I think my theory was recently proven correct in the UK. Specifically in Britain where indigenous British citizens have been victimized for years by migrant criminals and gangs. The two-tier policing system in the UK continues to protect these migrants from retribution, the government hides the stats that show how much crime is being committed by migrants and they have no intention of ever stopping the invasion.
The British riots last week were a rare moment when patriots finally spoke out on open borders and took to the streets, only to be declared “Nazis” and “racists”. The use of riot police to quell property damage and fighting would be understandable to a point, except that aggressive migrant protests had been ongoing for months with very little police interference. Again, it’s obvious two-tier policing.
Then, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer made a statement admonishing patriot protests and defending migrants. No referendum on immigration has been offered. He has not once acknowledged the problem of rising migrant crime and has essentially declared war on patriots.
Muslim migrant gangs, calling themselves the “Muslim Defense League” (MDL) saw this speech as an invitation to stalk the streets of British towns armed with knives and machetes, moving from street to street attacking white Brits at random. The migrants made it clear that their purpose was to “assert dominance” over Brits and frighten them into submission. So far UK officials deny that the Muslim gangs exist. The media has refused to cover the activities of migrant gangs and has placed all blame on native patriots. One of the only places you can see any videos exposing migrant gangs is on Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter). Musk has also been attacked by UK officials for “fomenting unrest”, merely because he doesn’t censor footage that is inconvenient to the government narrative.
Meanwhile, Keir Starmer and other government officials have been meeting with Muslim groups to reassure them that the government is on their side. The migrants are now emboldened to do as they please while the Brits face the reality that if they fight back, the government will put them in prison. The migrants are, in the most basic sense, a mercenary wing of the UK government.
This dynamic is even more obvious when we examine the trend of the UK to remove Christian events from the British military while encouraging Muslim recruits. Keep in mind, last week the UK government threatened the possibility of the military being used on British streets.
Isn’t it convenient that such a large percentage of the people coming from the third world (around 80 percent) are military-age men?
……………………….
I believe Harris will most definitely offer citizenship to every illegal already in the country (many of them in exchange for military service), buying a mercenary force and a progressive voting block at the same time, ending any chance of conservatives ever participating in government again.
In the case of a second Trump administration, the situation changes. The removal of illegal migrants will be the top issue and leftists in the U.S. will try to prevent it. They view the migrants as the key to their kingdom; the way to “destroy capitalism” and bring in woke socialism. Removal of illegals would set them back decades. Leftists will riot rather than lose. It’s a certainty.
Just an hour or so ago I heard on the radio that Harris is promoting a “path to citizenship” for illegals. Surprise, surprise.
That’s a great post by that guy. “When you’re taught to be an emotional thinker” – that’s spot on.
Score one for J. D. Vance.
Democrats are only fooling themselves with this “joy” narrative. Americans are suffering, and Americans don’t like people who never accept responsibility.
When I look at these polls I can’t help but wonder what they would look like if we had just sat back, archived all the stuff about Biden we kept hollering about, stopped pressuring the Dems to get rid of him, and let things just glide along till today, when Biden would have gotten the final formal nomination and the Dems would have been stuck with him.
It’s certainly possible that they would have pushed him out anyway, but I never understood the strategy of forcing their hands. Did we really think Harris would be an easier target?
I was part of the commentary here on Biden’s faults and defects, but I kept thinking to myself “Shut up! Just shut up! Let them think they are fooling us, let them think they can pull off another Biden campaign!” I would see the howls to impeach him and wonder—why? Why not just wait, let things roll on, and then mount our big attack after their convention? We knew everything there was to know about Biden, we had stuff we hadn’t even brought out yet about his corruption and dirty deals, but we chose to roll the dice and take the chance that Harris would come up with a strong VP candidate, or even that the Dems would dump her too and get their own strong candidate, like Shapiro. It never made sense to me.
If—and I know this is a big IF—-we had not pushed the Left into a corner and left them with no alternative, and they had left Biden on the ticket, right now we would be in the catbird seat (a phrase I never understood but like) because the Dems would be stuck with him. Legally, the entire war chest would be his and could not be handed off, and there are all kinds of rules about substituting candidates. Once we pulled out all the archived stuff we had been sitting on and started flooding the country with the Real Joe Biden, starting the day after their convention closed, the Dems would have been in real trouble, tangled up in legal difficulties and tangled up in campaign finance laws.
They might have kicked him to the curb anyway, because they had to know what a hot mess he is, but they might not have.
I may very well be proved to be wrong, and that the fifty-pound heads in the RNC calculated correctly that Harris would be easier to beat and the strategy of forcing Biden out was a good one. I just wonder, as this goes on.
Well, a bit of good news for a change.
The bad news: Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the Libs. What a disappointment she’s turned out to be.
I wonder what her reasoning was. When I read some of her rulings she seems to have the basic idea right but then has an odd quirky personal take on it that bumps her off to one side.