Be the Lakota!

America Is Over, But I Won’t See It Go Without An Epic Fight

Barring some unforeseen awakening, America is heading for an eventual socialist abyss. But I’m not letting it go down without a fight.
Jesse Kelly


Close your eyes and imagine holding someone’s scalp in your hands. I don’t mean cradling his skull as you thousand-yard-stare at his lifeless face. I mean a real scalp, Indian-style, of some enemy you just killed on the battlefield; somebody you hated and who hated you back.

You killed him, won the day, carved off the top of his skull, and now you’re standing over him victorious on the now-quiet field of battle, with a quiet breeze blowing through your hair. Your adrenaline is still pumping with that primal feeling of victory and the elation of having survived when others didn’t.

But maybe, for just a moment, would you consider it? No, not a real scalping, but a metaphorical one. We’ll come back to this in a minute.

Look, Guys, America Is Simply Going Down

First, we all have to accept certain realities about where we are as a nation. Rains will come and go. The stock market will rise and fall. The sky is blue. Water is wet. And the government in America will just never stop getting bigger. This is simply a fact of life.

We haven’t seen our government shrink since Calvin Coolidge, and there is little appetite among the American public for shrinking the government. We are now at the point in this country where we call them “cuts” if the government doesn’t increase spending quite as much as they had planned.

So, barring some unforeseen awakening, America is heading for an eventual socialist abyss. It is really only a matter of dates. Will we all die in the inevitable communist purges within ten years? Of course not. Will it happen within the next century or two? Almost certainly.

In a way, it is actually a good thing. God gives each of us a period in history to live through. Why not have one that is memorable? I am thrilled to live in these times. Any man can coast through 80 years of a society at its pinnacle. His life will start and end, and it will be as if he never existed. Wouldn’t you rather live through an era people write stories about? I want to have a smirk on my face as I walk through the pearly gates of heaven, shaking my head, and saying to myself, “What a life.”

We Can Go Quietly, Or Fight to the Death

Do you remember the American Indians? Most likely you at least give them a passing thought whenever you pull a stick of Land O’ Lakes butter out of the fridge or hear some liberal pretend to be outraged over the Washington Redskins. Either way, they were the randomly settled group of nomadic tribes who resided in America before a bunch of Europeans arrived, took all their lands, and conquered them.

The Indians were faced with something that faces all civilizations. It’s something we face now. They were facing the unstoppable force of inevitability. Many of them knew it. The settlers from Europe were about to take over every inch of this country. Some tribes, like the Choctaw, chose to play nice with the government in hopes that their peaceful gesture would be returned. They got a Trail of Tears for their kindness.

But some tribes, like the Lakota, chose a different path. They chose war. Leaders of the Lakota like Sitting Bull knew full well how this war would end. Nevertheless, he gathered thousands of young warriors in the Black Hills and made his enemy feel some pain before he surrendered. He scored a decisive win at the Battle of the Little Bighorn and collected some scalps. Yes, the U.S. government prevailed in the end, but General Custer and his 200 men weren’t there to see it.

That brings us to the continuous internal battle we see on the Right. We have this ever-present acrimony between the factions because some of us will not accept where we are and the enemies we face.

Some on the Right believe that tyranny in this society, as in all societies, is inevitable. The people who will micromanage every aspect of your life are not God-fearing conservatives. They are leftists, and they are vicious.

They are not political opponents in the sense that you have a debate with them. These modern-day leftists want you to lose your job. They want to destroy you. How do you think they’re going to treat you when they finally sit in the seat of power for good? So fight them tooth and nail. Make them long for the day when you’re no longer fighting them. Be the Lakota.

At the End, Which Will You Have Wanted to Be?

Some on the Right will flatly reject this. They think we simply have a few minor policy quibbles with the Left. They think we would be able to settle these minor differences if it weren’t for the brutish Neanderthals who think it’s some kind of fight.

This group really peaked in 2016 after Donald Trump won the GOP primary. They began scolding the dullards who were too stupid to just believe everything printed in The New York Times. They lecture us to this day. They live for compromise with the Left, always ignorant of the fact that just a little more big government is still big government. They are the Choctaws. “Just trust the U.S. government. I’m sure they’ll treat us well in the end if we’re nice.”

So, back to scalping thing. When you make that long trek to the reservation the leftists have set up for you—and make that trek you will—what memories do you want to take with you? When living in the liberal utopian nightmare of 57 genders and government control over everything in your life, you will want to have been a Lakota. You’ll want to know, to remember, even just cherish the knowledge that, one day, you rode out onto the plains and made them feel pain.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

Tips to Avoid Being Killed by Some Asshole with a Gun

Do you want to reduce your risk of death by gun violence? If so, consider these 10 common sense ways to do so. These are things one can implement fully and immediately with no permission or agreement from anyone else but are entirely in the control of any individual. Marching to persuade politicians is a very indirect way of reducing anyone’s risk from gun violence. And considering their track record on so many issues, politicians may end up putting us all at further risk when all is said and done.

  1. Don’t commit suicide. This is the most common gun-related death, being about 63% of all firearm deaths in the US.
  2. Adopt a policy of not escalating any road rage situations. If someone does something offensive on the highways have it pre-settled in your mind to react by de-escalating the situation (refrain from responding in kind) and back off to allow the heat of the moment to cool.
  3. Do not join a gang. Violence is the accepted norm among gang members, resulting in many becoming victims of gun violence.
  4. Do not buy or sell illegal drugs. Yes, I do know that it’s the drug laws more than the drugs themselves that lead to gun violence among drug buyers and sellers. But, people already on the wrong side of the law are more likely to commit gun violence than the law-abiding population.
  5. Do not get involved with abusive people. Someone who previously has physically abused a partner is more likely to do so than are those who have never engaged in such abuse.
  6. Implement a personal curfew. The safest place anyone can be at 2am is at home in bed. Roaming the streets in the middle of the night exposes one to gangs, drug sellers, and other dangerous people.
  7. Stay away from Gun Free Zones. One study showed that 98% of all mass shootings happen in these places. Gun Free Zone signs tell violent people this is a spot where the picking will be easy. As for everywhere else, these predators may be deterred since they have to wonder if there’s already a good guy with a gun on the property.
  8. Do not associate with convicted criminals. Like the abuser, violent criminals out of prison are likely to continue their habits.
  9. Be aware of your surroundings. Make it a habit to look around and assess any situation you are in. Most victims of gun violence have no warning of the impending danger, the old saying “to be forewarned is to be forearmed” is pertinent here. So, no staring at your cell phone!
  10. Avoid people who handle guns in an irresponsible manner. Anyone who casually or even unknowingly points a gun at someone or who do not exercise good gun safety such as carefully checking to see that a gun is unloaded is someone to be avoided.
  11. Bonus Suggestion: Do not be a predator. A significant number (about 700 each year) of gun deaths are justifiable homicide wherein a victim successfully defends themselves from criminal assault.

Thankfully, the odds of anyone in the U.S. dying from gun violence each year is exceedingly low. Implementing the suggestions here will reduce those odds even further.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

F*ck Your Feelings!


I have really had it with the unknowledgeable, ignorant and political opportunists attempts to subvert the Law-of-the-land, i.e., Our Constitution. As one can see by the title of my essay, I don’t give a rats-ass about your “feelings.” What I do care about are my Rights and your Rights. I haven’t heard one single argument from the anti-gunners for solving the problem of mass-shootings in these “Gun-Free Zones” (Thanks Joe Biden you IDIOT).

The “solutions” offered by these liberal/Leftist, and yes, some “conservatives,” seem to center around the Repeal of the Second Amendment. This alone demonstrates the complete ignorance of these uneducated American idiots. Allow me to educate you about the Bill of Rights (NOT the Bill of “needs”).

The “Bill of Rights”, as enshrined in our Constitution, is what is considered to be a “negative” list of Rights. That is, this list of Rights, places Restrictions upon the GOVERNMENT not The People. It, the Bill of Rights “codifies” Our God-given or “Natural Rights.” In other words, while the Constitution can be changed (through a complex and long process), even IF the Second Amendment were repealed, it DOES NOT make that Right go away. We the People would STILL have the Right to self-defense with guns. To argue the opposite would be akin to divesting ourselves of Christianity/Bible then stating that it is now okay to commit murder or steal your neighbor’s property.

I’m tired of these spoiled, entitled little brats with ZERO life experience, much less ANY formal education or adult job experience dictate to me or anyone else, the laws of the land. They’re CHILDREN. I’m sick of the, “If you don’t agree with us, you “HATE” children.” No. I don’t agree with you because, (a) you don’t know what you’re talking about and, (b) Yes, You ARE children and the adults run things, NOT you.

Take, for example, the Idiot known as David Hogg. His recent antics of “die-ins” do nothing more than harm businesses engaged in LEGAL commerce by interfering with said commerce. His minion followers BREAK the LAW. Now, he has a ridiculous “5 point plan” for “ending gun violance.” Hey, Davey, first of all, it’s “violence” not “violance.” Please allow me to answer to each of his five points with reality and the Rule of Law.

Point 1. “CDC funding for research into gun “violance.”

First of all, the CDC’s (Center for Disease Control) mission is:

“CDC works 24/7 to protect America from health, safety and security threats, both foreign and in the U.S. Whether diseases start at home or abroad, are chronic or acute, curable or preventable, human error or deliberate attack, CDC fights disease and supports communities and citizens to do the same.

CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.”

Firearms are NOT bacteria nor viral in nature and as such Do Not cause ANY biological disease process. Therefore, firearms are outside of the bailiwick of the CDC’s responsibility and mission.

Point 2. “Universal Background Checks.”

What does that even mean? You go to a gun shop to purchase a gun, you undergo a Federal background check. You purchase a gun online and the gun is shipped to a Federally LICENSED gun dealer where you are subject to a Federally Mandated criminal background check. You go to a gun show where there are Licensed gun dealers who perform a background check before you can purchase the gun. There is No Such Thing as a “gun show loophole.” What Hogg and all of his ilk demand, is the end of Private sales between adults. This will NEVER end as the end result is that people like me will still trade/sell/pass down Our legally purchased firearms as we see fit. Some people operate “off-grid” as much as possible and don’t think, and rightly so, any government has the right to interfere with private commerce. Again, We the People REFUSE to COMPLY. Criminals do not go to gun shops or gun shows to buy firearms. They buy them from other criminals who stole them from someone else.  -Hey, maybe we can demand “universal car sales” (all private car sales through licensed dealers) to help prevent DUI deaths?

Point 3. “Digitization of ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms) Records.”

So, now they demand that ATF create a National database of ALL firearms manufactured, imported, sold…etc. This is ALREADY being done. What the opposition demands are what is forbidden under Federal law. They want a central gun registration computerized database of ALL citizens gun purchases. They demand a system where YOU and I will be required by law to provide to the government a list of every firearm we possess and when, how and or we dispose of Our property. I’m all for the ATF having modern systems in order for them to do their jobs efficiently as possible since we the taxpayers are paying their salaries. That being said, I and MILLIONS of Americans WILL NEVER register any firearm with any government agency.

Point 4. “High-Capacity” magazine ban.

This is pointless. Exactly, what is the definition of “high capacity?” So-called “high capacity” magazines are referred to as “Standard capacity” in the industry. In fact, with regards to the AR-15, AK-47 or ANY other modern sporting rifle and, some pistols, magazines with lower capacity are more expensive than “standard capacity” magazines. Magazine capacity has absolutely NOTHING to do with crime frequency or lethality. One could make a law to restrict magazine capacity to 7 or 10 rounds (like in a few states like NY and CT). It’s like none of these idiots have never heard of “re-loading.”


As you can see, with just a little practice, one can reload and be back on target very quickly! Smaller capacity magazines make ZERO difference to a trained shooter.

And couple that with non-compliance, and you’re “pissing in the wind.” We the People will continue to REFUSE to COMPLY. As Proven in NJ this past month, after New Jersey implemented a new state law banning all “high-capacity” magazines requiring all citizens (of course, law enforcement IS Exempted), to turn in all now illegal magazines to local law enforcement. Out of the MILLIONS of magazines, ZERO was “turned in.” The law-abiding People have reached their limits and are engaging in their own civil disobedience by Refusing to Comply.

Point 5. “A Total Ban on “Assault Weapons.”

I’m not going to bemoan you with how absurd and uneducated it is to define a “modern sporting rifle” as an “assault rifle” as I have covered this in a previous essay.

Since 1986, it has been ILLEGAL under Federal law to manufacture or sell a firearm that is capable of Fully-Automatic fire for sale in the U.S. except for the military and law enforcement. It is legal for one to purchase ($20,000+) a “pre-ban” (1986) machinegun by a citizen only after a lengthy criminal background check and obtaining a “tax stamp” from the government.

Your average AR-15 style rifle is NOT an “assault rifle.” Semi-automatic guns have been around for over 100 years.

This whole argument is based on “feelings.” Feelings manipulated by the left and other anti-gun grabbers who have no problem using the dead bodies of children to push their political agenda. And, the children left behind are too inexperienced and stupid to be anything other than useful idiots, tools of the left.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Gun control gets cut down by Occam’s Razor

Image result for occam's straight razor


In the current debate concerning guns in America, I am always astounded by the twisting of facts, logic, and reason that the gun control zealots put forth in order to defend their case.  In all sense and logic, gun control cannot be viewed as anything other than a means to oppress a free people and to disarm the law-abiding.

When looking at the pro-rights argument against the pro-control argument one needs to cut through the hyperbole and sensationalism with Occam’s razor.

Occam’s razor, for those of you who don’t know, is a term used in logic and problem-solving.  Plainly put, Occam’s razor is the process in which, when you have two competing theories, the one that makes the least amount of assumptions is most likely the correct one.  By using the “razor” to cut away the most assumptions you are left with the correct answer.

To apply this to the gun debate, I argue that gun control, when cut to ribbons by the razor cannot stand.

The argument for the 2nd Amendment.

  1. An armed people are a free people

That’s pretty much the only assumption that needs to be taken into consideration for the 2nd Amendment.  Freedom does not guarantee safety, nor does it ensure absolute happiness, it only assumes that if people are armed they will be free so long as they remain so.

The argument for gun control requires a lot more assumptions to be made.

  1. The 2nd Amendment is about hunting
  2. The founding fathers didn’t know what weapons would be available in the future and wouldn’t have written the 2nd Amendment if they had
  3. Gun control will stop criminals from getting guns
  4. The government will never turn on its people
  5. The police are enough to keep you safe
  6. Criminals will follow gun laws
  7. Shall not be infringed doesn’t mean that the 2nd Amendment can’t be infringed
  8. Gun control only fails because we don’t have enough of it
  9. Only the government needs guns, law-abiding people don’t
  10. Armed citizenry couldn’t stop tyranny

Those are just 10 assumptions that I have heard the gun control zealots use that come to mind.  I’m sure many of those reading this have heard even more.

The long and short of it is this, you have to make a LOT of assumptions in order to get on board with gun control while the 2nd Amendment only requires you to make 1 assumption.  And that assumption just seems so rational and has been proven in history that it boggles my mind that people still choose to deny it.

So the next time you find yourself in a war of words with some “enlightened” gun control advocate, don’t forget to bring your razor.

*Courtesy of the Gun Owners of America

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Father of the Bill of Rights And the Meaning of the 2nd Amendment

The Supreme Court in the Heller decision explained that the second amendment guarantees an individual right of the people to keep and carry arms for their defense in the event of a confrontation.

The anti-gun crowd, however, refuses to accept this common sense reading of the amendment. The best way to interpret the Constitution begins with actually reading it.  The next best thing is to read what the Constitution’s chief drafter, James Madison, had to say about America’s founding document.  Madison was the chief author of the Federalist Papers, along with John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.  The Federalist Papers offer great insight into the political theories of the day that led to our system of government.

Students of the second amendment should be familiar with both Federalist 29 and 46, which discuss the role of an armed populace in protecting the precious freedom which had so recently been won.  It was that thinking that led to the adoption of the second amendment.

Madison was also the original drafter of the Bill of Rights, including what would become the second amendment. The anti-gun crowd regularly accuse second amendment supporters of only focusing on what Justice Scalia called the operative clause of the second amendment, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  They assert that we ignore the prefatory clause that reads, “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.”  To them, the prefatory clause confirms that the purpose of the amendment was to protect the right of the states to have militias or as they sometimes phrase it, the right to bear arms when in militia service.

However, beyond that, they never exactly explain what is meant by “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The anti-gun crowd clings to the so-called collective rights view of the amendment that held sway with a number of federal circuit courts pre-Heller.  However, beyond denying an individual right to keep and bear arms, those courts said precious little on exactly what the amendment actually protected.

It was commonly stated outside the courtroom that the operative clause meant that the federal government could not disarm the state militias.  But that is not what the amendment says and no federal circuit court actually provided any reasoned discussion supporting such an interpretation.  In any event, if that were what the amendment was meant to accomplish, one would think the amendment would have been written in some way like “A well-regulated militia being necessary for a free state, Congress shall not infringe the right of the states to arm the militia.” However, this interpretation of the amendment would have worked a radical transformation of Congress’s power over the militia.  The Constitution addresses the militia in Article I, Section 8.  It states “The Congress shall have the power … To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”

Thus, it was Congress’s responsibility, not the states, to organize and arm the militia, with the states having only the responsibility to appoint officers and train the militia as Congress mandates.   The militia is not treated by the Constitution as a creature of the several states, but of the nation as a whole to be organized, armed and disciplined by Congress, while being trained by the states as Congress directs.

Congress has in fact exercised this authority.

Title 10 of the United States Code, Section 311 defines the militia of the United States with certain exceptions as “all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and … under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and … female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.”  The National Guard is the organized militia and the unorganized militia consists of those militia members, not in the Guard.  In the Second Militia Act, passed in 1792, Congress specified the arms militia members were to have.  It was incumbent on militia members to report for training and duty with their own arms. The second amendment did not change Congress’s authority over the militia, nor was that the intent of the amendment.  Most notably, the second amendment did not provide that the states would or could arm the militia.  If that were the meaning of the second amendment, then states could be free to arm the militia in any way they saw fit.  States could for instance under the collective rights view of the second amendment, authorize each member of the unorganized militia to own a fully automatic weapon such as the M-16.  That would raise issues with respect to the provisions of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which greatly restricts the ownership and transfer of automatic weapons.  States could also abrogate many other federal firearm restrictions. It is certainly the case that some founders, such as Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, feared that Congress would neglect its responsibility to arm the militia.  And so it is not an unreasonable view that a primary purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the militia would not be disarmed by taking guns away from the people who constituted the militia.

However, that view is perfectly consistent with the wording of the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”  The amendment thus ensured that there could be a body of the people armed and available to serve in the militia.  It had nothing to do, however, with transferring to the states the right to arm, or specify the arming of the militia.  That remains the prerogative of Congress. Review of the legislative history of the second amendment confirms that it was designed to protect an individual right of the people generally to possess and carry arms.

When Madison initially introduced the various proposed amendments that would later become the Bill of Rights, he proposed to insert the bulk of them, including what would later become amendments one through five, part of the sixth amendment, and amendments eight and nine, into Article I, Section 9, between Clauses 3 and 4.

This is the portion of the Constitution which limits Congressional power over individuals.  Clause 3 is the prohibition on Bills of Attainder and ex-post facto laws.

Clause 4 is the limitation on the imposition of taxes directly on individuals as opposed to excise taxes on economic transactions.  This clause has been substantially abrogated by the sixteenth amendment, authorizing the federal government to tax incomes.  In other words, Madison proposed to put these amendments into that part of the Constitution that protected individual rights of the people from the federal government. The context of Madison’s original introduction to Congress of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, is powerful evidence supporting the conclusion that the right to keep and bear arms was intended to confirm an individual right of the people to arms.

Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia.  The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders.  Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment.  States do not have rights.  They have powers.  Individuals have rights.  In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments

NJ Sheriff and Former Chief Show Contempt for Oaths with 2nd Amendment Infringements

Extensive quotes from two New Jersey law enforcement officials leave little doubt that they would gladly support any and all citizen disarmament edicts. Opinions expressed by Bergen County Sheriff Michael Saudino and former Tenafly Police Chief Michael Bruno in Monday’s Pascack Press appear representative of predominant command attitudes in the Garden State. (Note the story is not online so there is no link to offer—I was sent a photo of the April 16 page 3 story “Mental health ‘highest priority’ for public, school safety” written by Michael Olohan. I have not received a response from the paper to an inquiry I sent them yesterday. This post will be updated if a link becomes available. )

Sheriff Saudino says it’s “fortunate” that New Jersey has draconian infringements and hopes to see them become a “model” for the rest of the country. And naturally, he repeats the same lie many prominent gun-grabbers offer while they’re doing the direct opposite of what they say.

“I don’t say it very often, but I do believe in the Second Amendment,” Saudino protests.  “However…”

Who didn’t see that huge, in-your-face “but” coming?

He doesn’t think the “average person” should have the very weaponry the Second Amendment is supposed to guarantee. To underscore his point, Saudino smears those who disagree as “the NRA and some gun nuts.”

First of all, both the military and Saudino’s tactical police teams have access to fully automatic weapons. And note he doesn’t define when his sworn duties will require him to issue the orders to “take out mass amounts of people.”

If taken literally, and I would, the Constitutional Oath-breaking maniac is talking about making war on American citizens. Naturally, he doesn’t want those who would defy tyranny also being able to resist it.

Former Chief Bruno, no longer in a position to actively take anyone’s guns, has his own way of harassing edict-abiding gun owners.  He wants gun-grabber sympathizers to “contact their local police chiefs and ask to see the firearm files of legitimate registered gun owners in town.

“The hot topic today is guns,” Bruno asserts. “Everybody’s talking about guns, restricting guns, eliminating guns, taking guns.”

Wait a minute – for years the anti-gun voices have been calling gun owners paranoid, insisting “No wants to take your guns.” Current events show this to be a LIE.

That was a rhetorical question. And Bruno ignores that some of us are talking about protecting our guns.

“I guarantee you it will be an eye-opener for you, because when you talk about that person who snaps and can go right into their own home, take a weapon go out and do something with it—you have hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands of guns in your communities,” he bemoans, insulting citizen trustworthiness by insinuation while being part of a system that protects and rewards enforcer misdeeds.

Like the problems come from “legitimate registered gun owners” who strive to comply with all prior restraint mandates, no matter how offensively oppressive.

Still, in order to keep their lucrative double-dipping gigs going, New Jersey sheriffs like Saudino need to sell out their countrymen and parrot the narrative expected by their masters. Besides, he and Bruno are taken care of as LEOSA beneficiaries, “eligible to carry a concealed firearm in any jurisdiction in the United States or United States Territories, regardless of state or local laws…”

It’s the “Only Ones” loophole. They have their seat at the table, so why should they care if you’re outside looking in. Still, Mr. Mason’s “except for a few public officers” observation comes to mind.

The sad thing is it hasn’t always been that way, even in New Jersey. Those of us who have been around a while will remember this 1993 quote from the testimony of Trenton Deputy Chief of Police Joseph Constance before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

“Since police started keeping statistics, we now know that ‘assault weapons’ are/were used in an underwhelming 0.026 of 1% of crimes in New Jersey. This means that my officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets.”

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

Progressive Illinois Rep. Declares Constitution Means Nothing

Progressive Illinois Rep. Declares Constitution Means Nothing
Progressive Illinois Rep. Declares Constitution Means Nothing

Arizona -( An Illinois technocrat has demonstrated the Progressive attitude about the Constitution and the Second Amendment. Representative Bill Foster has a Ph.D. in Physics from Harvard. He was raised and earned his Bachelor degree in ultra-liberal Madison, Wisconsin.  In his view, the Constitution is a document that can be re-interpreted to mean different things every few years. That is true in a sense. Amendments to the Constitution can be put forward and passed any time. It is clear a constitutional amendment is not what Representative Foster is talking about. From

Flanked by two area high school students, a pediatrician and the mother of a gun violence victim, U.S. Rep. Bill Foster told a community forum audience Monday the Second Amendment should be up for reinterpretation as new generations come into power.

“It always has been up for reinterpretation,” Foster, D-Naperville, said during an event focused on gun violence. “The technology changes, and the weapons thought to be too dangerous to be in private hands change. A civil war cannon is frankly much less dangerous than weapons we are allowed to carry on the streets in many of the states and cities in our country today. This is something where technology changes and public attitude changes and both are important in each of the generations.”

What does “reinterpretation” mean? It means you take the same words in the Constitution, and apply a different meaning to them. If you can do that, the Constitution only means what you want it to mean, when you want it to mean it. If Representative Foster means that legislators, such as himself, should change the meaning of the Constitution when they wish it, then Constitutional limits on government power mean nothing. Much of the purpose of the Constitution was to limit government power, to provide stability, to prevent rapid, radical change in the laws.

The Representative mentions technology changes and public attitudes. But technology changes apply to the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, and most of the Bill of rights. Should we give the legislature the power to change most of the Bill of Rights at will?

The Constitution is designed as a structure of government to moderate and delay change so as to prevent hurried legislation in response to emotional public reactions.

In short, Representative Foster is talking about scrapping the Constitution and ruling by legislative fiat. That has always been the Progressive way.  From, a quote from Charles Merriam, an early, leading Progressive political scientist:

The individualistic ideas of the “natural right” school of political theory, endorsed in the Revolution, are discredited and repudiated…. The origin of the state is regarded, not as the result of a deliberate agreement among men, but as the result of historical development, instinctive rather than conscious; and rights are considered to have their source not in nature, but in law.

Progressives believe that experts should rule society, that the “average man” is incapable of knowing their own best interest. Progressives believe there is no absolute right and wrong. Right and wrong are defined by Progressives and their experts at any particular time.

Progressives see the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as obstacles to be overcome, not pillars of American society that must be defended.

Progressives generally view the State as god, or at least the manifestation of God on earth. Right is anything that advances Progressivism. Wrong is anything that hinders the Progressive agenda.

President Wilson, one of the political foundational Progressives, is attributed as believing that “limits on government power should be abolished”

Representative Foster is an iconic technocrat. After working as a government scientist for his career, he was able to win a seat in the House of Representatives. He does not believe in natural law. He does not take his oath of office seriously. No Progressive does. To Progressives, oaths, natural law, the Constitution, are all outdated concepts to be placed in the dustbin of history in order to achieve power. Setting aside the Constitutional questions, Foster ignores facts and lies to advance his agenda.

Foster is a scientist. He understands how to lie with statistics. His prowess at doing so is shown below:

“I doubt that’s the most effective way to control gun violence,” Foster said. “The most accurate predictor of the rate of gun homicides, if you look at the statistics, is actually the number of guns per person in the state or in the community.”

That is an irrelevant conclusion. “Gun violence” is a propaganda term. It is not germane to the argument about the effectiveness of the legislation.  It does not matter to a victim if they die from a gunshot, or because they did not have a gun to defend themselves. If they die from a club, or a knife, or a bombing, they are still dead. If a country institutes restrictive gun legislation, and the homicide rate increases, the legislation is a failure for its stated purpose. It is irrelevant if the number deaths inflicted with guns go down. It is the total, unjustified homicide rate that matters. John Lott says that every country that instituted gun bans saw increases in the homicide rate. From

One thing gun control advocates such as Vox would never mention is that every single time that guns are banned — either all guns or all handguns — homicide/murder rates rise. This is a remarkable fact.

It would be unsurprising that if there are more guns, there are more gun homicides. If there are more cars, there are more car accidents. If there are more hospitals, more people die in hospitals.

What is surprising is that as the number of guns has increased in the United States over the last 30 years, the rate of gun homicides and gun accidents has decreased dramatically. Foster may not know this. Progressives are notoriously good at ignoring facts. As a scientist, he should know it. As a Progressive, it is “crimethink” as described in the novel, 1984. That fact contradicts his assertions, even about “gun homicides”.

 That fact contradicts his assertion, even about only "gun homicides".
That fact contradicts his assertion, even about only “gun homicides”.

Anyone can find “experts” to show statistics that agree with their position. That is the foundational weakness of Progressivism. Choose your expert, and you get the policies you want.

Representative Foster does not think you are smart enough to rule yourself. He does not think you will recognize his use of statistics to lie, or he would use other methods.

Improved technological communications allow everyone to contrast competing expert opinions and construct their own. That technology is changing all the Progressive assumptions about their ability to “construct consent” and rule as technological elites.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Sick to Death of The “Words Hurt” Leftists

“Mr. Singer, I have asked you more than once to treat my readers with respect, and you continue to speak disrespectfully. I ask you one last time, to tone it down and make your point using some degree of civility, else I shall block your comments from here on. This is a blog for serious, intelligent, civil discourse, not a mudfight.”



NO! NO! NO! Your “blog” (Propaganda Rag) is NOT about “serious, intelligent, civil discourse…” I express my personal viewpoint(s) without vulgarity or threats of any kind. You and some of your ilk are just CRYBABIES because someone has the balls to disagree with you based on evidence-based opinion. Just as you have the Right to spew your MSNBC, CNN…et. al. “talking points,” I just as your other followers have the Freedom of Speech to rebut your arguments. If you and your followers are such fragile “victims,” maybe a public forum of Free Speech isn’t for you. You and your ilk are free to critically analyze and critique ANY of my blog postings and I will respond appropriately as an adult. Maybe you’ve forgotten that part of being an adult is to suffer the slings-and-arrows from others we don’t agree with. I will NOT allow those of you on the Left to monopolize the bully-pulpit. Funny how the words you don’t agree with are, “obnoxious and aggressive.” I suggest you look at your own words towards Our President and other duly elected politicians with whom you display Zero respect for at any time. Are your words Not “aggressive?”
-Respectfully, James


One of more than a few exchanges between me and Ms. Dennison. Virtually every day she rants on about Our President, other duly elected or appointed government official. Mostly these rants are mirror copies of the garbage regurgitated by the leftist mainstream media.

Her issue with me seems to be the fact that I sometimes, about once a week, take issue with something she posted or respond to one of her followers who decides to lecture me about one of my responses. Apparently, I fail to understand that the “reply” link is only to be used by those sycophants that heap praise upon her and, not from anyone who disagrees with her point of view.

This is the problem with Facebook, Twitter, et. al. One ends up preaching to the choir because if you take on one of these Fragile Snowflakes who refuse to grow-up and Respect Your opinion, they attack you and cry to the media platform (gods) using terms like “obnoxious, Aggressive, threatening, bullying…etc.

So, I would say to any and all of your weak and fragile SJW, snowflakes, Leftists…etc., Grow-up! If you are not willing to hear from the opposite end of the spectrum, then don’t use any social media! Take up a new hobby like knittings or Words for Friends.


Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Attack the Second Amendment and You Will Have A Casus belli Moment!

Whether repeal of the Second Amendment is feasible or not and, it’s not, revisionist history is meant to purposely distort its meaning into irrelevancy. Former Justice Stevens claims that his conception of gun rights is “uniformly understood” yet offers no legal precedent to back up the contention. Stevens claims that the Second Amendment’s explicit mention of the right of “the people” does not create an “individual right,” despite the inconvenient fact that within the Bill of Rights, the term “the people” is mentioned, in the Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments. All of these amendments have been found to protect the Individual Rights of the People (Not to mention the Fact that The U.S. Supreme Court has, in fact, decided the Second Amendment IS an individual Right. Heller v D.C.)

The debate over the Second Amendment centered on a dispute over who should control the militia: the federal government or state governments. Every man understood that he may be called upon not only to defend his family, community and, his country from invaders (And, sometimes defend himself against his own government).

“In the writings and speeches of the American founders, the threat of disarmament was always a casus belli, which makes sense for practical and ideological reasons. None of the God-given or Natural rights codified in the Constitution not freedom of speech, press, or religion, or the ability to vote or demand due process had a longer or deeper history in English Common Law and tradition than the Right to Defend oneself.”

Noah Webster reasoned: “The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops.” How ironic the “whole of the people” has forgotten this legacy, this historical fact.

In another recent essay, “7 Terrible Gun Control Arguments…And How to Beat Them“, there is a “picking apart” of the “arguments” of the Left. Alas, there can be no critical discourse with the Left. There can be no dialog when one side starts off the conversation with misleading statements or lies.

One of my fellow WordPress contributors is…well, insane. She regularly criticizes anything conservative. She craps all over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with impunity and ease. This week, she made the mistake of referring to my writings as obnoxious and “aggressive”. She’s upset that I take her and her followers to task for their coo-coo for cocoa puffs rantings. This was my reply to her:

“Most of your readers are leftist, liberal, socialists…etc. And no, I’m not making threats. I never say anything I’m not willing to back up with actions. That’s what’s called being adult. One cannot have “civil discourse”, as you say when the other side begins everything with a lie. Liberals almost without exception, begin every argument/conversation with a lie. It’s not always intentional, sometimes it’s just ignorance based on believing everything they see and hear from the mainstream media. One cannot engage in civil or critical discourse with a party incapable of critical thought.
Funny how you people on the left name call and use words like “obnoxiously” when confronted with facts that contradict your own belief system. You disregard the Rights of others because of your feelings. One cannot intelligently talk about issues when your feelings run your mouth. You call my speech aggressive. I call you weak-minded and unable to openly discuss issues. I like many Americans, are sick to death of the liberal left. And, we will not compromise Our Rights, hence the election of President Trump. The ballot-box is us playing nice. You keep pushing us towards that corner, and you won’t like what comes next. That’s not a threat. That’s a warning from Americans who have awakened and won’t be pushed any longer.”

And, my “feelings” are reflected in the Latin term casus belli. This term means an event or political occurrence that brings about a declaration of war. Here’s a little gun confiscation history we would all do well to remember.

“In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control. You won’t see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Understand, the Bill of  Rights is a Negative list of Rights. The document lists our God-given or Natural Rights to self-defense. The term “Negative list of Rights”, refers to the Fact that these codified Rights are restrictions placed upon the government and NOT Individuals.

You on the Left, so-called Democratic politicians and others who believe you can and will disarm the American people, you are wrong. To repeal the Second Amendment would have no more effect than if one removes all references to the Ten Commandments from the public venue. The ideas and principles are still present and people are stilling willing to Die for their beliefs. Are YOU, on the left, willing not just to Kill but to Die for your beliefs? Because I can tell you, there are Tens-of-Millions or more of us willing to KILL you in defense of Everyone’s Freedom and Liberties as guaranteed by the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of these United States.

Remember, attempts to disarm the American people will result in a casus belli event that will have lasting effects on Our country’s future. The “right” virtually corners the market when it comes to well-educated, well-trained and, experienced warfighters. Past and present members of the Special Operations Group (Special Forces, Delta Force, Navy SEALS…etc) even sent a letter to then President Obama warning him that civilian disarmament would not be tolerated. In fact, the letter clearly stated their hearts and efforts would go to protect the Rights of the American people in support of the Constitution. Those of you on the Left would do well to take heed of these facts.


Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments

The Lexicon of the Insane

Attempting to understand the meaning of anything these Social Justice Warriors say in conversation, is maddening. So, I’ve decided to post the Official Glossary as defined by these mentally ill groups and their “enablers”. Enjoy…preferably while drinking heavily. This glossary will focus on how such terms are used in practice rather than how social justice warriors might define them in theory. The deranged are Legion.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects people with disabilities, regardless of validity.

(verb): condesplaining by a able-bodied person to a disabled person. See Condesplaining

(abbreviation): assigned female/male at birth. This tends to be a statement of biological reality concerning people whose brains do not conform to said reality.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects young or old people, regardless of validity.

(verb): condesplaining to a person of a different age. See Condesplaining

(adjective): a person who identifies with no gender. Usually (but not always) a denial of biological reality.

(adjective): someone considered to be part of a privileged group who works with social justice warriors to achieve their goals.

(noun): the use of parts of a culture by someone who does not identify as a person from that culture. Although appropriation has been responsible for the spread of new and better ideas and technology throughout the world, social justice warriors view appropriation as problematic.

(adjective): a person who identifies as a mixture of two genders. Usually (but not always) a denial of biological reality. See Intersex

1. (noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects a group which is said to lack privilege, regardless of validity. See Ableism, Ageism, Anti-Semitism, Biphobia, Cissexism, Classism, Condesplaining, Heterosexism, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Racism, Religious oppression, Sexism, Transphobia
2. (noun): a combination of prejudice and power.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects bisexuals, pansexuals, polysexuals, or genderfluid people, regardless of validity.
Birth-assigned sex
(noun): see AFAB/AMAB

(noun): the belief that socialism will result in gender equality. This term is used by social justice warriors to accuse fellow-travelers of sexism.
Body positivity
(noun): acceptance and advocacy of unhealthy body weight.

(abbreviation): coercively assigned female/male at birth. A term used by social justice warriors for an intersex child who is assigned a gender by parents and/or doctors.
Check your privilege
(phrase): an annoying phrase used by social justice warriors to silence someone.

(adjective): a person who identifies with the ability/disability indicated by their externally observable features. This is a sign of a healthy mind.

(adjective): a person who identifies with the ethnicity indicated by their externally observable features. This is a sign of a healthy mind.

(adjective): a person who identifies with the gender indicated by their externally observable features. This is a sign of a healthy mind.

(abbreviation): cisgender heterosexual.

(verb): condesplaining by a cisgendered person to a transgendered person. See Condesplaining

(noun): any system that does not cater to the whims of transgendered people.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects people of lower social standing and/or little wealth, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of classism against wealthy people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(verb): See Econosplaining

1. (verb): to support traditional and/or dominant power structures.
2. (verb): to work against social justice warriors.

(verb): the act of a person said to be privileged explaining something to a person said to be oppressed.

(verb): to agree to participate in an activity, especially activity of a sexual nature. Consent cannot be given when someone is intoxicated, unconscious, or has been threatened or manipulated into compliance, but social justice warriors only recognize this if a female is in such a condition.

Content Warning
(noun): an alternative to trigger warnings which were created because some people complained that a trigger warning is itself triggering. See Trigger Warning and Triggering

Cotton ceiling
(noun): the tendency of transgender women to be excluded from opportunities and privileges available to cisgender women. See TERF

Cultural appropriation
(noun): see Appropriation

Cultural erasure
(noun): the demand that immigrants fit into the cultures of their new countries. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of cultural erasure of the nation hosting the immigrants, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(adjective): See Problematic

(verb): to deny an individual the agency to choose one’s gender identity.

1. (verb): any doubt whatsoever in the truth of social justice.
2. (verb): any doubt whatsoever in the truth of any statement by a member of a victim class. See Victim class

(verb): to divert a discussion from its intended topic. This is frequently done by social justice warriors through a variety of means, including accusations of bigotry, unchecked privilege, etc.

(adjective): scientific findings that disagree with the social justice narrative. This word is typically used as though it were a magic spell to repel uncomfortable truths.

(noun): the expression of any less-than-favorable preference toward a person or group believed to be less privileged or more oppressed than oneself, regardless of validity.

(noun): the idea of hiring employees and accepting students for the purpose of achieving certain quotas of victim class members. This often reduces the quality of student bodies and workforces. See Victim class

(adjective): a derogatory term for a young straight white cishet male who has opinions contrary to social justice dogma.

(verb): condesplaining by a wealthier person to a poorer person. See Condesplaining

(noun): a less extreme version of a shitlord. See Shitlord

(adjective): any person or institution that is insufficiently leftist.

(noun): the idea that people, objects, and ideas can be identified based on externally observable features. Although this is empirically true, social justice warriors consider this idea to be problematic.

1. (noun): the idea that one’s own culture is superior to others. This is viewed negatively by social justice warriors, even if it is factually justified.
2. (verb): to judge other culture by the standards and values of one’s own culture.

(abbreviation): See AFAB

(adjective): See Enemy

Fat acceptance
(noun): See Body positivity

(noun): the idea that women should have the same rights and privileges as men without having the same responsibilities and drawbacks.

(verb): to exclude people from a broader community to which they belong. See Horizontal oppression

(noun): the socially constructed roles for each biological sex.

Gender binary
(noun): the idea that there are only two genders; male and female. This is viewed as problematic by social justice warriors, despite being based on biological facts.

Gender Equality
(noun): the belief that people should receive equal treatment and not be discriminated against on the basis of gender. Frequently accompanied by a denial of inherent biological differences between the genders.

Gender expression
(noun): a person’s external presentation of gender. This may or may not be in alignment with either biological reality or one’s gender identity.

Gender identity
(noun): a person’s internal sense of gender. This may or may not be in alignment with biological reality.

(noun): a gender identity that changes over time. No biological basis for such an identity exists in humans.

(noun): an umbrella term for gender identities other than male and female. See Third gender.

Hate crime
(noun): a crime said to be motivated by bigotry against some aspect of the identity of the victim, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of hate crimes against people who are said to be privileged.

Healthy at any size
(phrase): the belief that being morbidly obese is a life choice with no negative consequences. In reality, obesity leads to heart disease, type 2 diabetes, chronic joint pain, and many other illnesses. See Body positive
(noun): the belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable, natural, or normal sexual orientation. This is important for maintaining and defending traditional societies, so social justice warriors oppose it.

(noun): the individual and collective beliefs and practices that favor heterosexuality. This is said to cause unjust oppression of non-heterosexuals.
(verb): Condesplaining by a heterosexual person to an LGBT person. See Condesplaining
(adjective): see Third gender

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects homosexuals, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of bigotry against heterosexuals, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

Horizontal oppression
(noun): the support of traditional and/or dominant power structures by members of victim classes, especially when it negatively affects other members of victim classes. See Collusion, Internalized oppression, and Victim class

Inclusion theater
(verb): to appear to practice diversity and inclusivity without actually doing so. This is commonly done to avoid the wrath of social justice warriors without actually kowtowing to their demands.

(noun): the goal of removing all barriers to participation in society for members of victim classes. This is a primary goal of social justice. See Diversity and Victim class

(noun): any action that is in disagreement with social justice dogma.
Internalized inferiority
(noun): see Internalized oppression
Internalized oppression
(noun): a term used to denounce a member of a group said to be oppressed who deviates from social justice ideology. Variants include internalized racism, internalized misogyny, internalized homophobia, etc. See Victim class
Internalized superiority
(noun): a term used to denounce a member of a group said to be privileged who deviates from social justice ideology.

(noun): the social justice warrior method for analyzing the various privileges or oppressions that a person may experience. See Progressive stack

(adjective): a person who is born with genitals which are not male or female, but something in between. While a legitimate concern, social justice warriors spend relatively little time addressing it.

1. (noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects Muslims, regardless of validity.
2. (noun): any criticism of Islam, regardless of validity.

It’s (insert current year)!
(interjection): a frustrated declaration that one should agree with social justice warriors. Often used in place of a valid argument.

(noun): see Intersectionality
(abbreviation): refers to the ever-expanding list of non-heterosexual orientations. Using a smaller, less current version can be seen as problematic and non-inclusive.

(abbreviation): See AMAB

(noun): the belief that social anarchism will result in gender equality. This term is used by social justice warriors to accuse fellow-travelers of sexism. See Brocialism

(verb): condesplaining by a man to a woman. See Condesplaining

Men’s rights activist (MRA)
(noun): any man who rejects social justice dogma, especially of the feminist variety. See Enemy

(noun): any activity that makes a social justice warrior uncomfortable. In reality, there is no such thing as a microaggression because the law of excluded middle requires that an act be either aggressive or non-aggressive.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects females, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of sexism against men (misandry), due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(noun): the belief that gender differences in behavior, character, and intelligence are caused by biological differences in brains. Although this is empirically true, social justice warriors consider this idea to be problematic.

(adjective): See Agender

(verb): condesplaining by a neurotypical person to a neurodivergent person. See Condesplaining

Open letter
(phrase): a method by which social justice warriors publicly whine about whatever they find to be problematic at the moment. See Problematic

1. (noun): discrimination at the group or societal level. See Discrimination
2. (noun): see Microaggression
1. (noun): the idea that other people and groups are distinct beings different from oneself, even if they are not believed to be inferior.
2. (adjective): a person or group recognized as distinct from oneself.
3. (verb): to place another person or group into the position of an Other. This is generally a useful way of dealing with social justice warriors, as well as some of the more delusional types of people mentioned in this glossary.

(adjective): a person who self-identifies as a non-human. Otherkin are either one of the most delusional types of people given consideration in social justice ideology or trolls who are faking it to make fun of social justice warriors.

1. (noun): systemically enforced social inequality embedded in individuals and institutions.
2. (noun): material and structural constraints that hinder a person’s opportunities.
3. (noun): any hierarchical relationship, regardless of validity.
4. (noun): any opposition to social justice dogma.

(adjective): a synonym for bisexual used by people who reject the gender binary. See Bisexual and Gender binary

1. (noun): the phenomenon in which a member of a victim class appears to be a member of a privileged class, and can thus access some level of privilege that other members of the victim class cannot. Variants include white-passing, straight-passing, etc.
2. (verb): to appear to be a member of a privileged class when one is not.
3. (verb): to cross over from one community to another without detection.

(noun): a system of male dominance that suppresses non-masculine traits and behaviors. This is considered to be problematic by social justice warriors, even if such a system is formed voluntarily and proves more successful than other forms of social organization.

(verb): to reprimand a person who is not acting in accordance with social justice ideology, regardless of validity.

(adjective): see Pansexual
1. (noun): a person’s perception of one’s ability to influence outcomes to meet one’s needs and wants.
2. (noun): the ability to make decisions that affect another person
3. (noun): control of societal institutions

(noun): a pre-judgment of an individual or group, usually based on stereotypes.

Prejudice plus power
(phrase): the social justice warrior standard for bigotry. This leads them to deny possibilities such as anti-white racism, misandry, heterophobia, cisphobia, and other bigotry against groups said to be privileged.

(noun): the celebration of a non-cisgendered identity or non-heterosexual orientation, despite the fact that having such an identity or orientation is innate and not an accomplishment.

(noun): the sum of the advantages (or lack of disadvantages) that a person or group has, regardless of whether those advantages are innate, legitimately earned, or illegitimately taken. Social justice warriors view privileged people as normative and claim that privileged people view others as unnatural or deviant.

Privilege blindness
(noun): a lack of awareness of one’s privilege.

(verb): See Condesplaining

(adjective): that which is at odds with progressive or social justice ideology, regardless of truth value. This glossary would be considered highly problematic.

Progressive stack
(noun): an arbitrary and capricious method used to decide how privileged a person is relative to others. Often referred to by non-SJWs as the Oppression Olympics. See Intersectionality

(noun): invented words for other genders. Social justice warriors sometimes demand that other people call them by these words and become enraged when their fantasies are not indulged, not unlike a child’s tempertantrum.

(adjective): See Discredited

(noun): an umbrella term for all non-heterosexual, non-binary people.

(adjective): a person who is unsure of one’s gender identity or sexual orientation.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects minority racial groups, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of racism against white people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

Rape culture
(noun): the belief that brutally victimizing women while they scream for help is socially acceptable.

(adjective): See Enemy and Problematic

Religious oppression
(verb): any criticism or negative sentiment based on religious beliefs and/or practices, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of religious oppression against Christians, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

Right side of history
(phrase): a trendy political position in the present that is highly detrimental to future generations.

Safe space
(noun): a location where emotionally unstable and/or immature people who are upset may gather to receive comfort and counseling for the traumatic experience of being exposed to a mere difference of opinion.

(noun): the idea that one can choose one’s identity, regardless of empirical facts.

(noun): see Feminism. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of sexism against men, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(verb): to suggest that degenerate behavior has negative consequences and should therefore be discouraged. Social justice warriors consider this to be problematic.

(noun): a person who engages in problematic speech and/or behavior. See Problematic

(verb): condesplaining by a “normal-sized” person to a person widely perceived to be too small or large. See Condesplaining

Social construct
(noun): an idea created and developed in society. While a valid concept, social justice warriors misuse this concept to reject a priori truths.

Social justice
(noun): the goal of equalizing participation in society, redistributing resources, and providing safety and security for all. In practice, this always results in advocacy of socialism or communism, and social justice warriors tend to be willing to commit injustices in the name of this greater good.

Stay Woke
(phrase): an annoying phrase uttered by both social justice warriors and non-SJWs to advise other people to hold true to their beliefs.

(noun): a fixed image about a person or group that collectivizes them and denies their individuality. Social justice warriors tend to reject these unless they concern people said to be privileged, but they tend to ignore the fact that stereotypes frequently have a basis in reality.

(verb): See Heterosplaining

(abbreviation): sex-worker exclusionary radical feminism. Some social justice warriors meet this description, while others find the concept to be problematic.

(abbreviation): See SWERF and TERF

(abbreviation): trans-exclusionary radical feminism. Some social justice warriors meet this description, while others find the concept to be problematic.

(verb): See Sizesplaining

Third gender
(adjective): a distinct gender that is neither male nor female. No biological basis for such an identity exists in humans.

(adjective): a person who does not identify with the ability/disability indicated by their externally observable features. This is usually a sign of an unhealthy mind and may lead a person to alter one’s externally observable features in an effort to make them resemble that of one’s ability identity. This may include self-harm.

(adjective): a person who does not identify with the ethnicity indicated by their externally observable features. This is usually a sign of an unhealthy mind and may lead a person to alter one’s externally observable features in an effort to make them resemble that of one’s ethnic identity.

(adjective): a person who does not identify with the gender indicated by their externally observable features. This is usually a sign of an unhealthy mind and may lead a person to alter one’s externally observable features in an effort to make them resemble that of one’s gender identity.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects transgender people, regardless of validity. Note: Most social justice warriors deny the possibility of bigotry against cisgendered people, due to their belief that bigotry is a combination of prejudice and power.

(noun): a person who alters one’s presentation to express one’s gender identity. See Gender identity

Trigger Warning
(noun): an advisory that following content may upset emotionally unstable and/or immature people.

1. (adjective): content may upset emotionally unstable and/or immature people.
2. (verb): to engage in communication which may upset emotionally unstable and/or immature people.

1. (verb): to publicly disagree with, criticize, or debate a social justice warrior.
2. (adjective): a person who does the aforementioned.

(noun): people who claim that being transgender requires one to have gender dysphoria.

(noun): people who claim that being transgender does not require one to have gender dysphoria.

(noun): see Genderfluid

Verbal violence
(noun): the nonsensical idea that speaking words can inflict physical harm on someone.

(noun): a member of a victim class. See Victim class

Victim blaming
(verb): to suggest that people have some responsibility for their own well-being and self-defense.

Victim blindness
(verb): a lack of awareness of one’s victim status.

Victim class
(noun): a group of people said to be oppressed by dominant beliefs, practices, and institutions.

White nationalism
(noun): any effort by white people to form a group identity and advocate for the interest of their group.

White privilege
(noun): the belief that white people have inherent advantages due to widespread racism.

(verb): condesplaining by a white person to a person of color. See Condesplaining

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects sex workers, regardless of validity.

(noun): any criticism or negative sentiment that affects people who are different from oneself, regardless of validity.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments