Recently, Scandinavian Airlines (SAS) produced one of those advertisements typical of woke capital lately. This sort of thing is political propaganda piggybacked onto what should just be commercial propaganda. This one was particularly noxious, a cringe-fest full of cultural Marxism. One jarring aspect was the frequent juxtaposition of real Swedes with incompatible residents who are only there because their government is full of globalist sellouts. That was meant to be in-your-face; they knew exactly what they were doing.
That certainly wasn’t the only problem with the advertisement. It makes the claim that there is nothing uniquely Scandinavian. The way it does so is by cherry-picking facets of their culture that had antecedents originating from abroad and later were adapted to local use, sometimes developed considerably further. It’s rather like saying that the Greek alphabet isn’t Greek because it evolved from the Phoenician writing system.
With that tactic, essentially the commercial makes a fallacy of composition. I could go further into memetic theory and how ideas get around, often internationally. I might add that Western technology has benefited the developing world tremendously. We don’t scream about cultural appropriation when (for example) non-Whites use electrical appliances made possible because of folks like Messieurs Tesla, Westinghouse, Edison, etc. That doesn’t bother us – why would it?
That said, Scandinavia does have a culture of its own. It’s part of my heritage. I’m serious enough about it that I learned Old Norse and some Gothic. Therefore, SAS can kiss my grits. I’d rather row across the Atlantic in a longboat than buy a plane ticket from them.
What is the point of that commercial? This was pretty obvious; it’s demoralization propaganda wrapped up in sugar-coated universalism. It’s for the SAS ad execs to tell their own countrymen that they don’t have a culture. Why, they’re nobody! Moreover, since the Scandinavian people are such a nonentity – according to enlightened leftist opinion – then their homelands are fair game for colonization. Way Of The World explains it below, but don’t miss his original version.
How does this help SAS sell plane tickets? It doesn’t! Remember, that wasn’t the object in the first place. The munchkins at the ad department used this company’s resources to make a political message to promote their views and rub their own countrymen’s noses in it. As it happens, this turned out to be tremendously unpopular. Counter-Currentsdescribed reactions to this turkey and how the company then went into damage control:
When simply ignoring the problem failed to work, SAS and Swedish media then moved on to the next weapon in their arsenal: Deflection. Not just any kind of deflection, mind you, but the most cliched kind possible: SAS and the media claimed that the backlash against their video was made possible by clandestine Russian influence and a coordinated network of Internet Nazis.
They screwed up to begin with by making this cringe-worthy demoralization propaganda. After it proved to be unpopular, they followed up on their error by claiming that the bad reaction was astroturfed via a politically incorrect conspiracy. Way to go! Why can’t these snotty leftists in the ad department simply admit that they made a mistake? A little contrition would do wonders, but they don’t think they did anything wrong by insulting their own people. Did I mention that SAS can kiss my grits?
The biggest event in today’s news is the spread of coronavirus, a new plague that China is desperately trying to contain. This seems to be basically a newer and worse version of SARS. What might have caused it?
There’s been some speculation that it was genetically engineered and managed to break out of the laboratory, something rather similar to the opening of Stephen King’s The Stand. There’s been some other speculation that it was effectively an anti-Asian race bomb which the Chinese unleashed on themselves. If so, it was unintentional and they didn’t know what they were doing. Luckily for them, China doesn’t have cultural Marxism, so their politicians have no reason to behave treasonously or self-destructively like this.
The official and non-conspiratorial explanation is that coronavirus emerged from a bad batch of bat soup at a seafood market.
It’s possible that multiple of the above explanations may apply. That seafood market just so happens to be located very close to a biological warfare research facility. (The Google Maps location has been changed for unspecified reasons. Explanations?) What if one of the workers at the lab was told to destroy samples, but then thought of making a few extra yuan by selling dead bats to this seafood shop? What’s the worst thing that could possibly happen, right?
One question that needs to be asked is, why the hell does anyone eat bat soup over there? Bats are unique and special creatures, of course. Still, they’re flying rodents. If you eat them, then you can catch whatever chupacabras they’re carrying. Some bats even have rabies. (Those who’ve read Cujo, another Stephen King classic, should be aware of that one.) It’s time to cut it out!
On that subject, it’s not just rodents that should be avoided. It’s time for them to stop eating cats and dogs too. They’re our friends. They love us, and we should love them back. They certainly don’t belong on the dinner table. As much as I admire Chinese culture, this is something that leaves me horrified. After five thousand years of civilization, it’s time to do better.
I do have an admiration for certain facets of libertarianism. These days, any ideology that doesn’t favor pointless globalist wars, and doesn’t care for the present Orwellian degree of domestic spying, certainly does have something going for it. However, there are some flawed characteristics about “socially liberal, fiscally conservative” (SLFC) ideologies such as libertarianism, Objectivism, anarcho-capitalism, and neoconservatism. (The latter is worse than the others because it actually does like spit-in-your-eye wars and domestic spying.) Their laissez-faire economic position is one of these problems, a sort of free market absolutism emphasized heavily throughout the SLFC spectrum.
This is going to be a wild ride. I’m afraid that I’m about to piss off some readers royally here.
One problem is the SLFC tendency to use The Market as essentially a barometer of absolute good. One way it comes out is equating what’s good for the economy with what’s good for everyone. In conditions where a rising tide lifts all boats, that much is so. However, it’s kind of worn out now that we’ve experienced half a century of stagnation in real wages while business productivity has been climbing steadily and upper management swims in gravy. Lately, they’ve been introducing the idea that we’ll have to eat bugs and live in pods. How precious. “Let them eat cake” sounded a lot better.
Another way is equating maximum permissiveness (deregulation) for businesses with maximum liberty for the public. This is implied by the political compass test, a popular recruitment tool for libertarians, where they take the square symbolizing freedom on both axes. Freedom sounds great, of course, but there’s always the question of “freedom to do what?” Regulations on businesses are meant to keep them from putting their hands in the cookie jar.
Is what’s good for The Market good for everybody?
First of all, let’s make it clear that The Market is an abstraction. It’s a reification of the effect of lots of people buying and selling inside a marketplace, which is a domain of exchange, or several of them. (Is there anything particularly magical about that?) Still, in SLFC ideologies, The Market is given great emphasis; much like the Word of God is emphasized in theocracies.
The comparison is hardly an exaggeration. As the theory goes, sooner or later, The Market will take care of any sort of problem that might arise. That makes those supply and demand curves on a chart into sort of a universal healer. Not only that, The Market is the force of destiny. Economic trends are the Prime Mover, and the cosmic law that must be obeyed. Objectivists usually are atheists, and so are some other SLFCs, but they end up all but worshiping The Market.
I’m familiar with Adam Smith’s theories. The Market finds its own level, and prices set themselves. I could go into a long explanation of why this is so – the “invisible hand” effect – but any introduction to supply / demand curves can do that much. Artificially interfering with the prices will have consequences of one sort or another. This lends itself to an anarchistic argument for having no limits whatsoever. That means no regulations – again, the thing that keeps businesses from putting their hands in the cookie jar. It’s quite true that too much red tape will lead to inefficiency and unnecessary hassle, but that’s not a good argument to do away with all regulation whatsoever. The critical factor, of course, is a regulatory climate that keeps hands out of cookie jars but isn’t burdensome to legitimate trade. Still, even that is bad according to laissez-faire doctrine.
The theory goes further than that. Any impediment to trade is considered an absolute bad thing. Obviously tariffs are a big no-no, and free trade agreements (in practice, a bipartisan fuckup) were a big priority in globalization. Borders wouldn’t even exist if globalists got their way, and everyone would use one currency. (Everyone would look the same too, but all that’s another matter.) This isn’t so much to do with warm, fuzzy One World internationalism. It’s so that the big players can make more money that way. Also, getting as rich as possible isn’t enough; the NWO types expect to call the shots in any future world government.Imagine there’s no sovereignty, it’s easy if you try, ooh ooh ooh…
SLFCs are usually economites. In this context, this means people whose sole gauge of worth is money. To an economite, anything you can’t put a price tag on has no value. Therefore, a beautiful, primeval forest isn’t worth a nickel more than what you could get if you sent a logging crew to clear-cut it and then sold it to become a big parking lot. The fact that all that natural beauty would be destroyed forever matters nothing. Also, if an endangered species of birds lived there, tough luck for them. Tough luck for all the other forest creatures too. Economism ignores factors like these, among many other externalities. Those are inconvenient details that get in the way of the theory.
If a factory closes so that it can be relocated in a country where the workers are paid peanuts and labor laws are a joke, then this is something considered to be good. If this wipes out a small town’s economy back home, tough luck for them. If globalization becomes a trend and devastates entire regions – such as the USA’s “Rust Belt” or Britain’s northeast – tough luck for them too. (Feel free to imagine greedy management types rubbing their hands together gleefully.) If The Market says that cities, regions, or even entire countries must be blighted, then so be it. The government mustn’t try to do anything to stop it, because that would interfere with CEOs trying to squeeze pennies until they bleed. Moreover, the politicians know which side their bread is buttered on; both parties get payola from the same major donors.
Libertarianism has much to say about individualism. However, when economism prevails, people are merely economic units; atomized and replaceable cogs in the machine. Does that maximize freedom for everyone? I’ll leave that for the reader to decide. On an odd side note, Marxism – quite different from Libertarianism – is another economite ideology, though they have a different context for the term.
It’s rather odd how much neocons, Libertarians, and Objectivists idolize corporations. Haven’t any of them ever worked in a cubicle hell resembling Office Space? Anyone who has experienced kiss up / kick down management culture should understand that not every corporate officer is John Galt. Some of the suits are more like James Taggart, occupying themselves with looking important, claiming credit for other people’s work, and otherwise screwing up everything.
Libertarians and anarcho-capitalists especially have a preconceived bias that governments are bad and always screw up everything. (There’s at least something to that; our present globalist regime certainly has been a mess for a long time.) Meanwhile, they and other SLFCs often believe that corporations are always good, a position which is perfectly silly. These ideologies do have a lot to say against collectivism. Granted, governments are collectives, but what exactly do they think corporations are? Why haven’t the SLFCs figured this out yet?
Corporations can be (and often are) just as capricious as the government of a banana republic. Employees often are expected to kiss ass, just as they would be if they were citizens under a petty tyrant. A company can’t put you in a gulag because they don’t like your opinions. However, they can deprive an employee of his or her livelihood for nearly any reason, except in places protected by unions or strong labor laws. Some others have vast powers over society, which I’ll describe in another article. SLFCs tend to have an odd idea that something bad is wrong only if the government is doing it. They don’t mind if corporations do the very same thing.
Are regulatory agencies like the EPA necessary?
There is a popular anarcho-capitalist YouTube commentator who certainly is quite intelligent, but really needs to take off the ideological blinders. (I won’t say who this is, because he’s come a long way so far. If you guessed who I’m talking about, you’re probably right.) He said that we don’t need the FDA, because if any company sold bad food or bad medicine, then word would get around and it would hurt the company. This is a perfect example of the SLFC notion that The Market will fix everything. In this instance, he was dead wrong.
Once upon a time, hucksters plied a steady trade selling fraudulent snake oil cures and ineffective patent medicines. Standards in the meat packing industry were pretty atrocious around that time; Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle provides the scoop on that. These two things were the very reason why we got the FDA in the first place. When The Market failed to fix these problems, the government had to step in. I can imagine how it went over back then:
“What, I can’t sell my miracle cancer cure salve without actually proving it works? You’re taking away my freedom as a businessman!”
“How dare the government tell me that I can’t sell rotten meat! What a bunch of Fascists!”
Finally, none of the above is to say that all businesses are bad. They do have a legitimate place in society, of course (which doesn’t include calling the shots). The point is that they tend to be flawed to one degree or another. This is not so different from all other human institutions, including governments. A sensible regulatory environment is a check against companies misusing their powers, just as Constitutional protections keep enlightened governments from becoming tyrannical. Finally, we should remember the proverb that money is a good servant but a bad master.
Being a rightist is kind of a downer sometimes. For one thing, society is going to hell in a handbasket, we know it, we understand why this is happening, and we’re not applauding it as some kind of “progress”. On our side, it’s painfully clear that we need to step up our game in certain areas. If we did so, we’d actually be getting somewhere. From the following, you should be able to ascertain some of these areas. Other stuff here is just my usual caustic ventilations.
How are things different for leftists? It must be great for them. For starters, leftists can dispense with inconvenient bourgeois nonsense like logic, consistency, principles, and taking showers. Yes, this was a cheap shot, and get ready for more.
As the Neoreactionary proverb goes, “Cthulhu always swims left.” (I’m not convinced that the Overton Window is some impersonal force that moves all by itself. Neither will it inevitably go in the same direction, even if it’s been doing so for the last 75 years.) Still, as long as the political climate keeps headed the same way down the primrose path, leftists will be on the winning side. Moreover, they get to sneer and gloat immodestly with every advance. Already it seems they would be happy to dance on our graves if they get the chance. It sure seems to be taking a long time for rightists to figure out about gradualism and dialectical strategies, doesn’t it?
They say and do what they want, with no apologies
Leftists don’t have to worry about “optics”. Never, ever, ever. If you want proof of that:
The typical gay pride parade looks like a BDSM convention in motion, right down Main Street, and all that is no big deal. They don’t get called out for being tasteless, told to put on some clothes, or arrested for public indecency.
Minority activists can say that the USA’s founding population deserves to be dispossessed, and they’ll get applauded rather than deported.
Drag Queen Story Time has been going on for years in several major cities, and everyone who isn’t an idiot knows what it’s all about. Sure, there’s been a little controversy here and there, but nobody’s gotten tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail for “trying to groom the next generation” as one of them admitted.
Feminists can say that partial birth abortion is the neatest thing since sliced bread, and they’ll get lauded as women’s rights activists rather than be shunned as bunny boilers. Sweet!
All the above, among other examples I could cite, demonstrates that they know the power of audacity.
As easily “triggered” as leftists are, calling them extremists has absolutely no effect whatsoever. They certainly don’t make themselves look silly by taking pains to deny it. (Meanwhile, calling mainstream rightists “extremists” is the command that causes them to roll over and play dead.) In fact, short of outright calls for violence, leftists can get as extreme as they want without running into trouble, and they’re happy to do so. They certainly don’t go around taking pains not to be perceived as further to the left of mainstream figures like Joe Biden.
Neither do they wring their hands that they must never, ever, ever say anything that might seem anything close to totalitarian ideologies of the left. If someone calls them out for being pinkos or comsymps, they don’t care. Those who actually are Communists can declare their affiliation without moderates falling all over themselves to denounce them. Leftists don’t punch left! Must be nice, huh? Again, they can make whatever political statement they want, and as incendiary as they want, short of inciting riots or the like.
In fact, if they declare that Communism is awesome, they’ll probably have no repercussions whatsoever. If they say that Fidel Castro was great, it’s no problem. They can wear a Che Guevara T-shirt and that’s no big deal either. If they write a book saying that the Viet Cong were the good guys, it won’t get banned. If they want to claim that gulags were posh hotels, instead of forced labor camps with starvation rations, that actually has been done.
But wait! There’s more! Leftists can express their views with no risk of retaliation. No online mobs will write to their employers urging them to be fired. They’re not going to get doxed and have their privacy invaded. They won’t be put on lists by well-funded “watchdog” outfits that have the ear of law enforcement agencies.
Neither do they have to watch what they say or someone might rat them out to their Internet service provider or social media company. Neither do the tech monopolies write programs to detect liberal content and ban their users for it. Their banks or credit card processors won’t shut off their accounts (possibly without returning money that belongs to them) because these businesses dislike their politics. Even while gigantic corporations are doing an end run around the First Amendment, leftists are not the ones on target and still have freedom of speech. Actually, that’s how it used to be for everyone regardless of their beliefs.Who knew?
Leftist ideology is not exactly its strong suit. As Ronald Reagan put it long ago:
The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.
Luckily for them, there are mitigation strategies. If the facts aren’t on their side, then they can make up new “facts”. Another thing to do is to keep people from seeing contradictory information. One huge advantage is that the left has opinion-forming institutions firmly on their side, which allows them to do all that, among some other benefits.
One of these institutions is the mainstream media, an enormous propaganda mill. It’s composed of five toxically leftist conglomerates, and one lame neoconservative conglomerate representing the controlled opposition viewpoint. Together, these are 90% of the media outlets. This kind of monopoly control is an enormous advantage, even better than having an unlimited advertising budget. (Hmm, I wonder what would happen if all the rightists out there quit buying movie tickets, stopped subscribing to MSM magazines and newspapers, and cancelled their cable bills? What if we used the extra dough to support small, independent efforts that don’t lie to us or insult us?) Another top opinion-forming institution is the World Council of Churches, which has converged most Christian denominations. Another is academia, which deserves its own discussion.
Leftist professors and other scientific figures of dubious distinction have been known to stretch the truth, use fuzzy statistics, or outright make up data to support The Narrative. Examples include Franz Boas, Trofim Lysenko, Margaret Mead, Stephen Jay Gould, and so forth. (Happily, there are some honest exceptions who stick to the truth like Robert Putnam and Alan Sokal.) Those in the soft sciences have expended much effort on creating rhetoric like intersectionality, White privilege, The Patriarchy, the “prejudice plus power” line, and other tautological arguments carefully crafted to lead to the conclusions they want.
Granted, these are mediocre minds who have been educated beyond their capacity to understand, but they get paid to spend all day teaching propaganda. Therefore, they get pretty good at delivering it and occasionally come up with new sophistry. Thanks to postmodernism, they even can dispense with evidence and reason altogether, because they think nothing is real.
They’re able to do these things because academia has been a major power base, a long story going back for close to a century. As we can see, the fact that the university system has been converged provides side benefits, beyond merely having access to impressionable youths for four years. It took the right about sixty years to figure out what the left had been up to all this time. Where’s our grand counterstrategy?
Protesting until the cows come home
Finally, demonstrations are important events for leftists. It’s always been that way. I have to wonder if the hippie couples who first met at all those peace rallies and so forth increased the Generation X population by tens of thousands. Lately, demos are more important than ever.
Now that social media has made us all less social, protests are a great way to meet other like-minded folks face-to-face. At least it gets the leftists out of Mom’s basement and into some fresh air and sunshine. Many of them couldn’t be dragged into a church even by a team of wild horses. Therefore, attending a protest might be the best large group enthusiasm experience they get to have. I can say in perfect sincerity that waving cardboard signs and chanting is better than sportsball.
There is, of course, a small risk that a demonstration might turn ugly. (Pro tip:if you’re being bused into another city and paid to raise hell, then you’re an outside agitator.Surprise! By any chance, is the money man at the apex of your chain of command a billionaire who looks like Emperor Palpatine?) Those who riot, loot, or burn the city down might actually get away with it. Nonetheless, I recommend keeping things peaceful.
Fortunately for leftists, incidents where things go seriously off the rails – and they weren’t the ones who immoderately escalated matters – are pretty rare. Luckily for them, the authorities won’t go out of their way to fuck with them. Neither is a rightist counterdemonstrator going to hit them over the head with a bike lock, spray them in the eyes with bear mace, or attack with other improvised weapons. In the rare cases when shit goes down that they didn’t instigate directly, their fellow leftists will not – I repeat not – engage in pointless armchair quarterbacking. As I wrote in Deplorable Diatribes:
After the Kent State shootings, did the antiwar movement put on a big samokritika session? Did they blame their leaders for creating a climate of tension leading up to it with militant rhetoric and disorderly activities? Did the peaceniks decide that holding demonstrations was a failed tactic? Did they resolve that they’d better not appear any further left than George McGovern? No, they raised holy hell about the National Guard’s itchy trigger fingers. It was indeed a godawful mess, and they did their utmost to make the administration look terrible over that. I’ll have to give credit where it’s due – leftists have the sense to point fingers at their enemies rather than their friends.
Unexpectedly the government released a small amount of information about the eminently notable Dr. Rev. MLK Jr. in a report from 3/12/1968 called Martin Luther King, Jr., A Current Analysis. This is merely twenty pages out of probably hundreds that we don’t have access to yet. That’s because some of his associates sued to have the records destroyed, and the judge compromised by sealing the records for fifty years.
What possibly could there have been about this leftist hero that they didn’t want you to know? We got a new tidbit of this ahead of time. Here’s what the brief FBI document contained.
Camping out on the White House lawn?
After a short statement of purpose, it describes the Washington Spring Project (also known as the Poor People’s March on Washington).
He has announced that he will lead a massive civil disobedience campaign that will disrupt the normal course of business and, in fact, close down the Nation’s Capital.
Well, gosh, shutting down Washington DC seems a little drastic. But at least it’s nonviolent, right? We can rest assured that the motives were pure, isn’t that so?
King predicted that this massive civil disobedience will be more effective than riots. Concerning civil disobedience, King declared, “To dislocate the function of a city without destroying it can be more effective than a riot, because it can be longer lasting, costly to society, but not wantonly destructive.”
Uh, that’s interesting. It also paraphrased MLK’s plans to:
…conduct sit-ins, camp-ins, and sleep-ins at every Government facility available including the White House lawn.
Following this in the document was the discussion of the possibility for violence. It doesn’t discuss the following, but I’ll add a couple of my own observations. First, quite a bit of violence often followed in the wake of King’s demonstrations, which is rather odd given his reputation of being a peacemaker. Second, he did indicate at least once that he didn’t mind this, since these incidents worked to his overall favor.
The way this event really happened didn’t go quite so far as camping out on the White House lawn. However, there was indeed a tent city lasting six weeks, which had some of the problems Occupy Wall Street suffered much later. If that public nuisance was anything like the Selma brouhaha, I’m sure it was a sight for the tourists.
MLK in bed with the Reds
There’s been much talk about whether the ol’ Drum Major of Social Justice was a fellow traveler, but the document does add this and quite a bit more to the discussion:
Another complicating factor in the picture is the degree of communist influence on King. One of King’s principal advisors is Stanley David Levison. Ostensibly only a New York City attorney and businessman, Levison is, in fact, a shrewd, dedicated communist. Levison has spent the major part of his life advancing communist interests.
The next two paragraphs explained how Comrade Levison helped MLK with finances, speeches, and public appearances. Moreover, he ghost-wrote some of MLK’s material. However, Comrade Levison didn’t think too much about his figurehead’s overall faculties:
Stanley Levison has told Clarence Jones, another advisor to King, that under no circumstances should King be permitted to say anything without their approving it. Levison also informed Jones that King is such a slow thinker he is usually not prepared to make statements without help from someone.
The document describes numerous other radicalinski connections. Deplorable Diatribes recaps the following commentary about all that:
A previous surveillance effort, codename “SOLO”, discovered that Levison moved Soviet money into the CPUSA’s coffers. (I’ll add that obviously he must’ve been a very trusted apparatchik to handle this illegal money laundering.) The document further names several other Communist connections.
JFK and many others tried to convince MLK to purge the pinkos. The President agreed wholeheartedly with civil rights, but Communist involvement led to strained relations with the Kennedy administration. (It’s understandable; there was a Cold War going on, which almost went nuclear not long before.) After repeated pressure, King reluctantly made some token moves to distance himself, but he duplicitously maintained connections with them. That included characters like his consigliere Comrade Levison, who was King’s top advisor, financial consultant, and ghostwriter for several of his speeches.
I’ll further add that Vasili Mitrokhin’s The Sword and the Shield provides an interesting counterpoint to this dialogue. From the KGB’s perspective, it turns out that Levison’s influence certainly was there, but they considered it inadequate. Other than that, the FBI document later goes in depth on MLK’s shift in position on Vietnam under the influence of a couple of his Red advisors, which was a subject that formerly didn’t interest him much. Maybe the KGB spooks were being entirely too particular.
MLK in bed with capitalist running dogs
Later in the document, his major sources of donations are described, an interesting litany of woke capital. One contributor was the precursor to Merrill-Lynch. Limousine leftists are nothing new, right? Then $6K – which was a nice chunk of change in 1960s dollars – was kicked in by the Edward Lamb Foundation. (Tell me about the lambs, Clarice…) Then this:
It was learned in November, 1967, that the Ford Foundation was about to give SCLC $230,000. This money was to train Negro ministers in 25 cities throughout the Nation to become qualified leaders in the ghetto areas.
That’s about $1.76 million in today’s currency. Looks like the Ford Foundation doesn’t have any problem with mixing religion and politics! How many “community organizers” do you think they trained up with that kind of swag? Moreover, I wonder what Henry Ford would’ve thought about the foundation he created being converged and used to support leftist causes?
Then it says Nelson Rockefeller chipped in $25K. (That’s worth $191K now, but was pocket change to that trust fund kid turned politician.) It names a couple of other celebrities. Rather surprisingly, a couple of government agencies contracted with MLK’s SCLC. Back in the day, this detail might have given a few bureaucrats a case of indigestion if they were called out for it.
MLK in bed with skanks
So what happened with all that moolah? The FBI document states:
With the funds that he had received from the Ford Foundation, King held the first of two workshops in Miami, Florida, in February, 1968, to train Negro ministers in urban leadership. One Negro minister in attendance later expressed his disgust with the behind-the-scene drinking, fornication, and homosexuality that went on at the conference. Several Negro and white prostitutes were brought in from the Miami area. An all-night sex orgy was held with these prostitutes and some of the delegates in attendance.
One room had a large table in it which was filled with whiskey. The two Negro prostitutes were paid $50.00 to put on a sex show for the entertainment of guests. A variety of sex acts deviating from the normal were observed.
Precious, isn’t it? The rest of the document discusses the Moral Giant’s personal conduct. Reading what this phony preacher had been up to makes me a bit nostalgic for Bill Clinton. For example:
This activity is not new to King and his associates. As early as January, 1965, King engaged in another, two-day, drunken sex orgy in Washington, D. C. Many of those present engaged in sexual acts, natural as well as unnatural, for the entertainment of onlookers. When one of the females shied away from engaging in an unnatural act, King and other of the males present discussed how she was to be taught and initiated in this respect.
These days, something like that would get someone #MeTooed to hell and gone, even if all this went down in the 1960s. That shit didn’t fly even back then. However, for people who are high enough up on the food chain, another set of rules applies to them, much more lenient than the rules applying to peasants like us. That’s the same reason why Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein got away with what they did for as long as they did.
There’s more to it, but for all the details, you’ll just have to read the report.
To make way for the MLK holiday, Washington’s and Lincoln’s birthdays got collapsed into Presidents Day, when you also can honor the immortal legacy of Millard Fillmore and Jimmy Carter. Therefore, MLK now remains the only other man individually honored with a federal holiday other than Jesus Christ. Actually, it’s not hard to guess which of the two the average liberal holds in higher esteem.
Therefore, MLK must be pretty important, right? Learn more about the Saint Who Ain’t at:
The Daily Mail has the latest on the Prince Harry – Meghan Markle business. Along with generic paparazzi shots, there’s a picture of the Queen with possibly the sourest expression that’s crossed her face ever recorded on film. For those who haven’t heard thus far, the pair decided to step down from their royal duties and leave the country. As of now, they’re in Canada, and the article states darkly:
The revelation will fuel speculation among palace officials that the Duchess of Sussex, in particular, will never return to Britain to live in a ‘meaningful’ way.
Ouch! They’re supposed to be national figureheads, but they decided to bug out of the country, and maybe semi-permanently? Gosh, I wonder whose idea that was? More to the point, I have to wonder if Meghan watched too many Disney princess movies and decided everything was all about her.
Anyway, I’ve written about these bozos before. In Deplorable Diatribes, the expanded lead-in states:
I was reluctant to cover this because it just seems mean to piss in the punchbowl at a wedding. On second thought, it certainly looks like a very public statement by a very prominent figure. In that case, commentary is fair game. This sort of thing technically doesn’t violate the House of Windsor’s “no expressing opinions” rule, but it’s a huge slap in the face to tradition nonetheless. Unfortunately, it couldn’t have come at a worse time for Britain.
By tradition, the royal family avoids political statements. That’s odd, since they once ruled with absolute power. Their influence might be very helpful, if they have something sensible to say. However, that’s quite uncertain, given today’s epidemic of rich people becoming limousine leftists. Be all that as it may, an SJW princess could generate much controversy and make the whole family look silly.
Perhaps the tradition of refraining from politics will go out the window too. When do leftists ever shut up for propriety’s sake? She’s none too classy, according to her own brother, so anything’s possible. What happens if she starts ranting about “mansplaining“? Will they take away her limo and make her ride in a Yugo?
What happened after all that? She got pregnant, which was what I was afraid would happen. Then there was some discussion – or rumors to that effect – about raising the kid genderfluid. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Then – oh yeah, they decide that being British royals isn’t for them. Either that, or one of them did the deciding and the other one went along with it, and I bet I know who is who in that scenario. Come on, who the hell quits that job? That’s an even cushier gig than being a rock star, since there are no rehearsals or concerts required.
Oh, but it gets even worse than that. Counter-Currents has kept up to date on this with their aptly-titled article “Prince Simp“. What about that much-discussed tradition that the royals are supposed to stay out of politics?
As a royal, Markle dedicated herself to advocating for left-wing causes, such as MeToo and the gender pay gap. One of her chief causes was “decolonizing” the curriculum in British higher education and demanding the nation’s universities hire more non-whites and women. She even shouted “Oh my god!” when presented with the number of white male professors in the UK.
What country does this dimwit believe she was in?
There’s much more than that. The whole article is a lambasting of the cringe-worthy match, good for a read in its entirety. As it begins to wrap up:
Harry’s behavior calls into question the superiority of monarchy. Many within the Dissident Right long for royal rule. They admire the accomplishments of the Habsburgs and Stuarts. They say they’re better than the mob rule we suffer today. They will dismiss the personal flaws of modern monarchs as the fruits of heresy, usurpation or some other sin.
My only quibble – and a very small one – is that I have yet to meet any of these monarchists. Where are they? The Spanish Carlists haven’t been too active lately. I figure a few Neoreactionaries actually believe in monarchy, but that’s all who come to mind. Really, what’s the point of having some flabby king who did nothing to earn the job? Granted, it’s better than being ruled by crooked billionaires and Deep State swamp creatures whose hobbies are social engineering and spirit cooking parties. Still, that doesn’t set the bar too high, now does it?
Then the Counter-Currents article explains that quite a few royals weren’t all that and a bag of chips. I’ll have to concur. Deplorable Diatribes contains some more of my particularly Fascist take on monarchy, a section beginning with this paragraph:
Is monarchy even relevant today? Royalty does have a certain air of awe and mystique about it. Still, kings and princes didn’t do anything to attain their roles. They were just born into the job through luck. That’s no guarantee of ability, talent, or reliability. Sometimes they’re weak, inbred, dissipated, or out of touch. There have been some good monarchs in the past, but as political figures, too often they’re fair-weather friends at the very best. The events propelling their families into power usually happened centuries in the past. Therefore, those guys aren’t really all that special today.
So now these British royals have left Britain, perhaps for the duration. Will Meghan declare “I’m not haaaappy”, file for divorce, and take him to the cleaners? According to some observers, it might be more a matter of “when” than “if”.
It’s no secret that Canada is one of the most liberal and feminist places in the world, and it’s not hard to guess what that means in terms of “family law”. Karen Straughan’s divorce experience there speaks volumes. She wanted to split up with her husband but not screw him over. However, the judge wouldn’t allow a fair divorce even though Karen wanted one, and the experience was enough to turn her into an anti-feminist.
Given that kind of environment, and Harry’s wealth and prominence, it could be the messiest divorce since the Tudor dynasty. That hasn’t happened yet. However, if she does take him to the cleaners, and in a place practically guaranteed to yield the greatest rewards, then this will prove that her critics were right that she was just a gold-digging social climber.
"Engullimos de un sorbo la mentira que nos adula y bebemos gota a gota la verdad que nos amarga" Diderot. / "El que tiene la verdad en el corazón no debe temer jamás que a su lengua le falte fuerza de persuasión" Ruskin – (Bitácora-Biblioteca virtual y PERSONAL, recopilatória de aquellos artículos que despiertan mi interés)