On homosexuality

As a person with a probably smaller than normal sum of empathy, and as a person who tends to look at the world with an INTJ clinical detachment and often a lack of patience with the emotional hang-ups of others that prevent them from seeing the world clearly the way that I (believe that I) do, John C. Wright's comments here are a very good lesson to me.  

I've been watching the hit/smear job on Milo, as has anyone who reads most of his news at Breitbart and sees more hope in the alt-right than the failed traditional conservative posture.  Stefan Molyneaux, who approaches things from a similar standpoint as I do, released a video on it.  And Mr. Wright's comments about the video were perfect.  I immediately, of course, caught on the the fact that it was obvious that Milo's flippancy about it was a strategy—a strategy for dealing with the fact that he himself was sexually molested at a young age.  Almost everything about his lifestyle is a reaction to that molestation, including his rationalization in his own mind that he wasn't a victim after all.

In fact, although I'm not intimately associated with the data that suggests this, I've talked to people who are and who's judgement I trust on the issue, when they say that there is a very high correlation between homosexuality and childhood sexual molestation.  A very high percentage of gay men were molested, and their behavior since, including their gayness, is a response to the trauma of having been raped as a child.  Not all, of course, but enough that there's something that that needs to really be heavily investigated.  Rather than swept under the rug and ignored, as liberals are wont to do whenever any of their special interest groups have their Narrative challenged.

Anyway, without further ado, Mr. Wright:

If I may, I think Mr.Molyneux is a smart man, but this is one time where his smarts betray him. He scrutinizes Milo's comments with a word by word analysis as if each word had been selected and weighed, and he comes to the conclusion that a man who says he opposes pedophiles is supporting them. 

If you listen carefully, Mr. Molyneux's whole argument turns on one point: that when Milo says 'boy' he means a pre-adolescent of 13 or so and not a 17 year old. But Milo says precisely the opposite, that he was using this word to mean a youth. Molyneux says this is merely his opinion, and he gives no argument to back it up. Milo apologized for being unclear, which he was, and his clarification should be taken at face value. 

Without that, the rest of the argument falls apart. Molyneux interprets as a positive affirmation of pederasty certain bitter and sarcastic jokes about oral sex techniques Milo was 'lucky' enough to learn from the priest who molested him. To me, this looks like a psychological defense mechanism, not support for the practice, and in his apology, Milo says so, indeed, that is the meaning of the sentence Molyneux dismisses by saying ' I don't know what that even means.' 

I submit he does not know what it means because he is parsing the words like a lawyer, not listening to what the man actually said, not hearing the pain in his voice. 

If you wish to condemn someone because he did not go to the police when he witnessed a crime, condemn him for cowardice, but not for supporting the crime nor speaking positively of it.  

Finally, Molyneux's argument fails because he misses the elephant in the room. Molyneux does not say one word about the fact that Milo is gay, which, up until recently, up until 1970 or so, was identified by professional psychiatrists as a psychological condition, a neurosis.  

If, as I do, you regard sodomy as a sign of psychological damage, you would not expect any homosexual to speak with clinical accuracy and detachment about matter touching the psychological wound which still bleeds in him.  

Molyneux is calling Milo to task for not being brutally honest with himself, and I am not sure a psychologically damaged man can be.  

It is like slapping an amputee and telling him to shake it off. 

When you approve of homosexuality, you are not doing the homosexual any favors. It is a category error, for it identifies a neurosis as a free choice. This in turn requires one to judge and condemn a man's words and action as if they were free when in fact you are seeing a neurosis the man cannot control play itself out. 

Molyneux comes very close to this conclusion when he noticed how self destructive Milo's behavior is, but he does not draw the correct conclusion, because he does not look with eyes of charity, and so he sees a choice, but does not see a sin. 

Until he converts, Mr Molyneux is not going to be seeing reality in a realistic light.

Also, "dc.sunsets" gives us the following, not directly related, but a tangential aside from the Milo issue.  Quite interesting.  Although not of our faith, he is (I believe) a Christian, but he's purposefully attempting to provide a non-Christian, purely clinical and secular justification for Christian doctrine and behavior.  In the process, he echoes the language and style of many of the most assertive of the prophets of old.

Vice: An act undertaken with the expectation of happiness, that instead yields unhappiness. Often, vices are directed by the impulsive mind, whose addiction to immediate gratification and the dopamine rush of indulgence crowds out the rational mind whose grasp of consequences leaves it screaming in impotent frustration.

Homosexuality is a vice, no less than is drug, alcohol, gambling, porn, casual sex or even social media addiction, along with chronic indulgence in toxic personal relationships. All are acts that yield short term highs and long term destruction.

A culture that celebrates casual sex and abortion-on-demand is fertile ground for sexual hedonism that doesn't even mimic biologically-dictated behavior.

That said, my wife and I watched our sons like hawks while they were in their formative years. No one was given the slightest opportunity to manipulate them, and anyone who attempted a forceful assault would have died within minutes. Not hours. Not days. There's nothing about my demeanor that could be misinterpreted. 

Sociopaths hide in plain sight. Victims grow up to be victimizers (although not always, just as most but not all kids whose parents smoked grow up to smoke cigarettes.) Saddest is when parents don't realize their own kid (biological or adopted) is a sociopath and poisoning their family right under their noses.

My word of the day is Devotion. Like Honor, it is now AWOL from our lexicon. Husbands and wives should be devoted to each other. Nuclear families should enjoy that devotion. People should be be devoted to their communities and their people (tribe.) Devotion to God is a whole separate discussion.

In an environment of honor (at the individual level) and devotion (within the social pyramid), children are protected as best is possible and vice is suppressed as best is possible.

Our current world is all but devoid of honor and devotion. As I see it, the task falls to each of us to hew to these traditional ideals, walk the talk, be an example and await what will eventually be the cyclical renewal of a society based on such ideals.

What no one ever seems to notice is that there's a direct link between approval (tacit or open) of teens having sex, young (unmarried) adults having sex and the sexual gratification of adults using people who lack full adult agency. It's one continuum, folks. I don't care that 1/3rd of girls probably initiate sex by 15. If everyone else jumps off a cliff, should we join them?

There are a number of open, plain, obvious and irrefutable reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with religious teaching why people should eschew physical intimacy prior to forming what is reasonably expected to be a permanent pair-bond.

Just because our modern times seem to dictate that pair-bonding not occur until a decade or more after sexual maturation does not change the hardwired effects of breaking the link between physical and emotional intimacy. And don't give me that crap/rationalization from sociobiology about how males are driven to spread their seeds while females are driven to nurture their eggs. I have an MS in biology so I'm not stupid; human social behavior is full of conflicting drives, and the balancing of them is utterly essential to living life on Happiness Path. [editor's note, i.e. me: The natural man is an enemy to God, right?]

All of us are protected from poor choices (or allowing ourselves to be manipulated by others) by having wide buffer zones between what is accepted and what is not. This eliminates entreaties that might be interpreted as ambiguous in a "benefit of the doubt" environment. 

There are two kinds of abuse: Rape (characterized by irresistible physical force) and "social engineering," AKA a manipulative sociopath hacking the mind of another person. The latter always starts small with the goal of getting, in small steps, to a point where the target is too deeply hooked to reverse course. Then the abuser reels them in like a hooked mackerel. 

As an aide, this behavior has many parallels to how men sometimes try to socially-engineer their way into a girl's pants. I've seen guys land a roll in the hay by claiming they were gay, and I've heard stories of guys self-describing as impotent or somehow shortchanged in the genital-size lottery in a clear attempt to get the girl to "save" or "fix" them in the sack.

It's long past time to place the same index of suspicion on anything sex-related in social commerce as we do when we get emails with strange attachments or unsolicited requests for password resets & redirects to weird URL's. 

Instead, now it's perfectly normal for sitcoms to discuss masturbation in mixed company and the commercial interruptions wax eloquent on Viagra and using a pill to get an erection. No wonder our kids are vulnerable.How many people can confront that they were victims of manipulation? Even if said manipulation occurred long before that person was old enough to separate vice from not-vice?  

This is a serious defect in the Human OS. Our minds recoil from confronting the consequences of our past, even when said consequences are obvious, and even when we were too young and dependent to say "NO!" had we wanted to. 

I used to look at teen aged boys who got laid by decent-looking adult women as "lucky bastards." I now see such "relationships" as significantly more toxic, abusive and manipulative than if it's a teen aged girl and an adult man. In the latter it actually might be the girl who is the manipulator; in the former it never is, and a decent-looking adult woman chooses a teen over widely-available adult men for one and only one reason.  

Modernity has amplified this evil astronomically by normalizing homosexuality and sexualizing our culture to the point of parody. Instead of victims of sexual abuse as kids knowing that they were victimized, the perverted rewards of sexual pleasure get mixed with social approval of hedonism and the result is that the victim of manipulation decides to celebrate being victimized. 

What a feedback loop of vicious evil! 

Until the Left Cult's sacrament of hedonism and cognitive dissonance of treating pre-adults as both adults and not-adults is resolved, it will fall entirely on parents to protect their kids while nurturing them in an environment that recognizes both the adventure of life and the Serengeti plain level of dangers surrounding us all. 

As long as the Left Cult holds sway in any institution, all persons with power must be viewed as potential threats because from priests to coaches to Scout leaders, such positions now attract sadistic predators like blood in the water attracts great white sharks. Our society is still in the process of promoting such parasitic predation.  

The swamp is nowhere near being drained, a process that won't be complete until people who abuse children are routinely given cranial lead injections. 

Awaken to your Awful Situation

As Ezra Taft Benson said, referring to D&C 63:58: "The Lord has declared this a day of warning, and not a day of many words."  Also, "The Lord had promised, 'I will fortify this land against all other nations' (2 Ne. 10:12). President Joseph Fielding Smith said that 'the greatest and most powerful fortification in America is the ‘Monroe Doctrine. … It was the inspiration of the Almighty which rested upon John Quincy Adams, Thomas Jefferson and other statesmen, and which finally found authoritative expression in the message of James Monroe to Congress in the year 1823'."

In 1936, the First Presidency issued the following warning about Leftism, which was then under the dominant label of Communism—but keep in mind that Leftism will change its label, and a few superficial details frequently so as to hide from the righteous.  Elder Neal Maxwell specifically urged us to be wary of changing labels and not to be fooled by them.  Ezra Taft Benson liked to use the term socialist-communist to ensure that it was clear he was referring to the whole spectrum of related ideologies.  And President Heber J. Grant stridently called out then President Franklin Roosevelt for his overtly socialist policies, and was deeply disappointed in particular to see Utah go strongly for FDR in most of the elections in which he ran.  "Communism is not a political party nor a political plan under the Constitution; it is a system of government that is the opposite of our Constitutional government. …

"Since Communism, established, would destroy our American Constitutional government, to support Communism is treasonable to our free institutions, and no patriotic American citizen may become either a Communist or supporter of Communism. …

"We call upon all Church members completely to eschew Communism. The safety of our divinely inspired Constitutional government and the welfare of our Church imperatively demand that Communism shall have no place in America" (signed: Heber J. Grant, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., David O. McKay, The First Presidency, in Deseret News, 3 July 1936.

Marion G. Romney said the same many decades later: "Communism is Satan’s counterfeit for the gospel plan, and … it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. Communism is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land."

As it says in Ether 8:24 "Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up."

And as it says in 2 Nephi 28: "21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell. ...  24 Therefore, wo be unto him that is at ease in Zion!   25 Wo be unto him that crieth: All is well!"

I greatly fear that the majority of the Church's membership does indeed believe that all is well in Zion; or that they believe that this scripture only applies to the personal situation of those who are unrepentant of their sins.  I've given a lot of thought to this concept, the concepts elucidated in this string of quotes from the prophets and scriptures, given that we just passed an election year in which our nation, unbeknownst to most, stood at an existential crisis which we escaped by the skin of our teeth.  All the world is in commotion (D&C 88:91) and men's hearts are failing them.  And it is not enough to have narrowly avoided electing one of the worst, most obvious members of a secret combination—the secret combination has not gone away, and it is exerting every effort to recover from what is, to it, a so far very minor setback.

Peter Grant, an author that I sometimes read, who has himself had a very interesting life, serving in the South African military during a time of considerable difficulty said something eerily similar to the scripture in 2 Nephi.  I don't believe that he is of our faith—but truth is truth, regardless of the source.  "I'm worried that many people, on both the left and right wings of US politics and society, are sleep-walking through our present troubles, either ignoring or refusing to face up to the realities of our situation.  Things are ratcheting up, not down. ... Here are a few articles that express real truths, the kind many of us are simply not prepared or willing to consider right now.  I most strongly urge you to read them all."

I echo his recommendation.  Awaken to your awful situation!  Gain a little situational awareness of what's going on in our country!  Stop sleep-walking and believing that because things haven't changed (much) in the last few decades that they won't change very dramatically and drastically very rapidly in the near future (the stage has been more than set for this with the Leftist prompted invasion of our country by tens of millions of Third World socialists and others who have no appreciation for—and often even viscerally hate—our ideals and our culture.  You don't have an invasion by tens of millions of culturally incompatible people without bloody conflicts.  Just ask the American Indians.  If you can find any left to ask.)  All is not well in Zion and Zion doth not prosper currently; Zion is actually in relatively serious straits and the righteous should carefully and prayerfully prepare, and support any action that mitigates the coming storm.

Anyway, without further ado; please read the following articles.  This is serious business folks.  There's some language on some of these sources; these are not nice, Mormon mommy blogs or other feel-good vacuousness.  But they are expressing ideas that everyone should be aware of, crudely or not.  I've also cut and pasted a sample of the text to be found at each.

Here a Nazi, There a Nazi, Everywhere a Nazi-Nazi by Jim Goad

There is a peculiar sadism at the very root of the leftist mindset, one made all the more foul because it's buried underneath a fraudulent veneer of compassion and tolerance. There has been next to zero violence coming from the right, but leftists are justifying all their mob violence by saying Nazis want to exterminate everyone, so they're just preemptively preventing another genocide. That's a transparently false excuse, and they'd be hard-pressed to point to a single person they've attacked who advocates violence, but I realized only a few years ago that truth and facts simply do not matter to these cultists. But when it comes to violence, they should be very careful what they ask for.

Skull Stomping Sacred Cows

While not technically accurate, Fort Sumter was the first "official" battle of the War of Northern Aggression. It was the real opening of hostilities between the uniformed services of two distinct, autonomous governments. In the current conflict, the legitimate government of the United States is, at most, a bit player, thus far. The War of Northern Aggression, while labeled a civil war, was not. It was a conflict of conquest by a sovereign state, against a sovereign state, that had declared its independence, and been recognized as a sovereign state, in accordance with international law. None of that mattered of course, but the difference with the current conflict should be obvious. 

This is an actual civil war, as in a conflict between ideologically-opposed factions within the civilian and political population of a country. Like real civil wars, it is not going to be pretty. It's not going to be armies, in pretty uniforms, fighting pitched, conventional battles. It's going to be a matter of assassination, sabotage, hit-and-run raids, targeting ideological leadership figures, enemy families, etc. 

As Matt Bracken pointed out in a recent Facebook post himself, we're looking at more of a Balkans and/or Argentine "Dirty War" conflict. People just haven't accepted that, because it doesn't fit their mental images of what "war," even "guerrilla war" looks like. ... Dirty civil wars are 'tribal' guerrilla wars. This was discussed in-depth in The Reluctant Partisan, Volume One: The Guerrilla. This is not about dudes in cute camouflage coveralls, running through the woods with Kalashnikovs. This is about people burning down their neighbors' houses and businesses, to run them out of town, over ideological differences. Look at the Balkans in the early 1990s.  This is about a group from one side, murdering the entire family—Dad, Mom, Brother, and baby Sister—of their neighbors, over political differences.  There's nothing pretty or heroic about it. It's about pragmatism. It's not about dying for anybody or anything. It's about changing the dynamic of the battlespace, so none of your people die…or at least, as few as possible.

Riot Control

Taking the recent anti-Milo riots, at Berkeley, as an example; one suspects, given the size, that at least the cadres leading and organizing the riots—oh, yes, they're led and organized—were semi-professional. I would be terribly unsurprised to discover that they were even paid. Some of these may not be from the local area, but brought in from wherever, specifically for the purpose of organizing, leading, and exacerbating the rioting. I mean…you know…people don't show up with pepper spray (not useful against protective mask-equipped riot control forces but good for stopping free speech from mere civilians), bats (for breaking windows and perhaps heads), dressed in black (probably both for intimidation and mutual identification and support), and with face masks, just spontaneously. They don't come with flares in their pockets, either, unless they're at least contemplating arson. 

Arson; I mentioned last week that riots can be quite deadly. They not only kill people, they kill civilization. Anyone who doubts this I advise to take a drive through Detroit, sometime, a city which has never fully recovered from the riots that took place fifty years ago. 

So why do people riot? Why do people riot to that city-wrecking and life-ending extent? I would suggest there are three significant reasons: Outrage, fun, and profit. It's not necessary, by the way, for everyone to feel a great deal of outrage. It’s sufficient if only a small cadre do, provided that cadre can provide fun and profit for a larger group.
Fun? Fun comes in with wrecking things, with rape, with arson, and in exercising power against the helpless. One can see this in the assault on "Katrina," as shown on Stefan Molyneux’s podcast of 3 February, 2017. One could see it, too, in the attack on Reginald Denny, twenty-five years ago, during the Los Angeles riots or 1992. It's fun to go wild. It's fun to be out of control. It's fun to hurt people. I'm sure that for some it's fun to rape.  Those things, however, are not fun for everybody. You'll have a hard time, ordinarily, getting a really big crowd for a gang rape in the streets. And it was, after all, only five men involved in the Reginald Denny beating out of tens of thousands rioting in Los Angeles.  But everyone likes a free TV set, or a nice piece of jewelry for the missus or the girlfriend, or a free (and unregistered) rifle or pistol, or a new Rolex. Cash is nice, too. 

And that's how these kinds of riots can typically get out of hand. First a small group of hardcore, dedicated rioters either show up on their own or infiltrate a peaceful protest. If they're not stopped there, they create the anarchy of which all the most intense fun is made. That is also intended to attract a crowd sufficient to provide cover for the next steps, which include breaking safeguards—windows and doors, plus alarm systems—to desirable, lootable property. I say that windows and doors are safeguards, but what they also are are "moral" safeguards. Nobody wants to do the time for breaking and entering, and few of us are willing or eager to break windows and doors, but if it's already been done by someone else then that becomes a different matter. That brings out the larger numbers of more normal, profit-minded folks, ever fearful that someone may get the color TV that—by rights, they're pretty sure—really belongs to them. Once that happens, there is no controlling the riot without massive bloodletting. There's also no accounting for the innocent blood that's going to be shed, or the lives ruined, if that out of control riot is not suppressed.

I Have Seen First-Hand the Abuse and Fraud in the US Refugee Program

As a recently retired 25-year veteran of the U.S. Department of State who served almost eight years as a refugee coordinator throughout the Middle East, Africa, Russia and Cuba, I have seen first-hand the abuses and fraud that permeate the refugee program and know about the entrenched interests that fight every effort to implement much-needed reform. Despite claims of enhanced vetting, the reality is that it is virtually impossible to vet an individual who has no type of an official record, particularly in countries compromised by terrorism. U.S. immigration officials simply rely on the person's often rehearsed and fabricated "testimony." I have personally seen this on hundreds of occasions. 

As a refugee coordinator, I saw the exploitations, inconsistencies and security lapses in the program, and I advocated strongly for change. Nonetheless, during the past decade and specifically under the Obama administration, the Refugee Admissions Program continued to expand blindly, seemingly without concern for security or whether it served the best interests of its own citizens. For instance, the legally questionable resettlement of refugees from Malta to the United States grew substantially, despite the fact that as a European country with a functioning asylum system, "refugees" should have remained there under the internationally accepted concept of "the country of first asylum." Similarly, the "special" in-country refugee programs in Cuba and Russia continue, although they are laden with fraud and far too often simply admit economic migrants rather than actual refugees.

Diversity Is Our Strength

I have noted before that many if not most of the so-called Syrian refugees, the current progressive plat d'jour, are neither Syrian nor refugees. They are not particularly persecuted any more than anybody else unfortunate enough to live in a Muslim majority country. Let us not forget that the bulk of Islam's victims consists of Muslims, the same ones who come to our countries to instill the same sort of barbaric Islamic regime and practices they supposedly "flee." I tire of comparisons of these "refugees" with Anne Frank and the millions of other Jews who fell to the Nazis. Prior to and during WWII, we did not take in Nazi "refugees." We did not take in the people vowing to destroy us. The US also didn't take many Jewish refugees either because, if you remember, the Democrats held power, and the Democratic party is the historic repository of racism and anti-Semitism in American politics. The Nazis of today are the Muslims pouring into Europe. The Anne Franks of today are the Christian, Baha'i, and Yazidi minorities living in the hell created by Islam. That same Islam, by the way, long ago eliminated the Jews from the Muslim world. I also would note that Islam drove the Hindus, the Buddhists, and the Sikhs out of Pakistan, but we have no UN programs or refugee camps for them. We have no Hollywood celebrity calling for justice for them. 

The progressives seek to destroy our culture, and replace it with ... what exactly? The progs can't or won't say, but we can certainly get a glimpse of what's to come if they succeed. Has "diversity" of the progressive kind made Europe a stronger and a better place to live? I think that hundreds of victims of Islam in Paris, Nice, Brussels, London, etc., might have an interesting answer to that. I note that thanks to the strength derived from diversity, Swedish police now advise Swedish women not to go out alone after dark and to dress modestly so as not offend the "refugees" who might just have to rape and murder these women for cultural reasons. If "diversity" is so good, why not encourage it in the Muslim world? Let's build churches in Mecca! How about that? Why not more diversity in Nigeria? Perhaps Mexico should diversify its demographics by taking in hundreds of thousands of "refugees" from the Middle East and Africa, and not funneling them northward? The same progs who worry about cultural contamination by missionaries of an isolated tribe in the Amazonian forest have no problem turning vast swathes of our cities into "no go" zones ruled by the practitioners of Sharia and the other blessings of the Religion of Peace.

The Spiritual Deadness of the Left

There is no logic. There are no facts. You can say blue, and they will hear white. One plus one equals cat. Calling the left mentally ill is truly a disservice to those who are mentally ill. At least with mental illness there’s a reason for the madness and a hope for a cure. There is no hope for the left. They are suffering from a deep-rooted spiritual sickness, one for which, I’m afraid, there is no cure. ... Plain and simple, their goals are to bite and infect all those who come into contact with them. It is they who have unfriended. It is they who have labeled and ostracized others. It is they who have called for your prosecution, if you question their science. It is they who have shunned and mocked those who don’t conform. It is they, who will not hire or fire, if they find out you are a Yuden (Trump Supporter). By the way, why is it always Hitler? Are Assad, Idi Amin, and Pol Pot not hip enough? The definition of indoctrination is the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. Hey lefties, does that sound familiar? 

There is no secret potion, prayer, or exorcism to cure this. We will be forced to listen and watch, for the foreseeable future. We will watch those we care for get bitten and sick also. Yet we will continue to try and reason with the irrational. The left is diseased, and America voted for the cure. No, not the perfect cure, but the cure that was perfect for them. When logic, fact, and conversation cease to exist, was there anyone ever more logical than President Trump?

Dispatches From the Front: Today in Mexico

>>WARNING - GRAPHIC VIOLENCE<< 

Some of you who follow this blog have expressed an interest in what is going on with the cartel wars in Mexico. The situation is such that they often become explosive, triggered by this or that event. Cartel A meets Cartel B and you have a kinetic situation. In this case today, the Mexican Marines became involved and suffered six casualties with more wounded. There were a number of head-shots today as the Marines took on two cartels who were going at each other in Sinaloa State.   

It gets worse as you scroll down.
Only do this if you are not squeamish.  

The images represent the reality of an engagement today, February 8. There are a few videos as well. The camera doesn't blink. These are actual photos and have not been edited or photoshopped. They are not for your amusement, but are perhaps for your education. THIS sort of thing is one reason to support a border wall. I'm not suggesting that the US doesn't have violence on the streets, but it's rare that we see it rise to this level. It's not unusual to see it in Mexico on any given day.

The Left Hates You.  Act Accordingly

Leftists don't merely disagree with you. They don't merely feel you are misguided. They don't think you are merely wrong. They hate you. They want you enslaved and obedient, if not dead. Once you get that, everything that is happening now will make sense. And you will understand what you need to be ready to do. ...  

Understand that when they call Donald Trump "illegitimate," what they are really saying is that our desire to govern ourselves is illegitimate. Their beef isn't with him—it's with us, the normal people who dared rise up and demand their right to participate in the rule of this country and this culture. 

They hate you, because by defying them you have prevented them from living up to the dictates of their false religion. Our rebelliousness has denied them the state of grace they seek, exercising their divine right to dictate every aspect of our puny lives. Their sick faith gives meaning to these secular weirdos, giving them something that fills their empty lives with a messianic fervor to go out and conquer and convert the heathens. ... 

They are fanatics, and by not surrendering, by not kneeling, and by not obeying, you have committed an unpardonable sin. You have defied the Left, and you must be broken. They will take your job, slander your name, even beat or kill you—whatever it takes to break you and terrify others by making you an example. Your defiance cannot stand; they cannot allow this whole Trump/GOP majority thing to get out of control. They must crush this rebellion of the normal, and absolutely nothing is off the table. 

We've seen them burn UC Berkeley and how the police controlled by the leftist state government of California stood by and watched as Americans were beaten by the mob. Why? Because the government of the State of California approves of the violence. Do you think it's a coincidence that California is doing everything it can to disarm its normals? 

The Left won't say it out loud—at least not yet—but make no mistake. If violence is what it takes for the Left to prevail, then violence we will have. You saw it, and you were meant to. Berkeley was a message about the price of dissent where leftist hold sway. And they seek to hold sway everywhere.