The most disastrous statement in recent memory

I know the country has erupted over the Lindsay Clancy trial.  I seldom comment on things like trials since I'm not a lawyer, and I'd probably just make myself look stupid for discussing the legal ins and outs.  If anything I'll mention what is happening around such a trial.  Which brings me here. 

For the record, from my observations, the outrage erupting over this, the outrage that the MSM is desperately trying to contain, isn't driven by people wanting to discuss postpartum issues.  It isn't even from the women who insist the man must always be guilty, so there is a vast conspiracy to cover up the fact that the father murdered the children.  As my oldest pointed out, as batty as that is, at least they hold a higher moral grounding.  After all, they're saying they support her because the believe she is innocent.  Fair enough.

No, the flamethrower that has created the firestorm of outrage, and the group the MSM has done its level best to downplay or sweep under the carpet, is that segment of women (mostly) who have rallied around Clancy, declared their allegiance to Clancy, who have raised a million dollars for Clancy, and have proudly declared that it matters not one whit if she killed three or thirty kids or none at all.  Because it's the Ya-Ya Sisterhood that matters full stop, end of statement, that's it.  Women first, and everything else 5th at best.  And they have continued saying it when there has been pushback. That has caused the outrage.  That has caused the most people - including women - I've ever seen in my lifetime come out and say it might be time to rethink feminism all the way back to women's suffrage.  

Which brings us to the interview with three of the jurors.  Never have I seen an interview with people do more to damage to everything those interviewed clearly yearn for than this.  It's a hoot.  Find it on the internet and shake your head.  Or be ashamed.  Much of it was them trashing and belittling the holdout juror.  Nothing in their interview suggests they were jurors merely seeking justice and wanting to do whatever was right.  Not a single damn thing. But then then this juror said this:

I saw the broadcast and knew in a split second that this statement would explode across everywhere. And it has. Rightly so. Because not only was it delivered with all the soulless disregard of a Cyberdyne Systems Series 800 Model 101 terminator, but it was framed as a major character flaw on the part of the holdout juror.  The Male holdout juror BTW (that point being constantly made in the MSM - see the Oppressed v Oppressor template I mention below).   It was said unironically as if being unable to get over the children's vicious murders was yet one more character flaw of his.  These are murdered children, yet apparently it's a defect in your character to get hung up on the fact. As my son pointed out, she even used the connotative 'vicious'.  That's what the prosecution should say.  Make it sound really bad.  But she, who clearly said she wanted Lindsay to beat the wrap, says it was a vicious murder, accepts that it was a vicious murder, and agrees Clancy did it.  But the only problem is the juror, the Male juror, who got hung up on it.  And she said it as emotionally as one might say he just couldn't get over us having toast with our sardines. 

If you support women's rights, this is your hour to get to the rooftops and scream out against this Daughters of the Handmaid's Tale brand of feminism. That outgrowth of the women's movement that says women should rule, they can destroy and murder and women should still rule, end of argument.  If this keeps up, I wouldn't be surprised to see the last century and a half of women's rights unravel over the next decade or so.  If women don't call it out, however, then I admit I have a hard time believing that's a bad thing if this is where women's rights must go. 

Oh, and if you ever wondered what the late Rush Limbaugh meant with his controversial term Feminazis - wonder no more.  This is group intersectionality through the oppressed versus oppressors template writ horrible, but increasingly common among leftwing activism.  The question is, how far are we willing to let it go? 

UPDATE: So it came out that the lone holdout juror is black.  Which shouldn't matter, yet we all darn well know it would.  If this was a black holdout juror who resisted an all white jury trying to convict a black man, it would make all the difference in the world.  Not to mention the overwhelmingly contemptuous and disparaging way in which the interviewed jurors spoke about him.  Can you imagine if the holdout who was black was doing what the Left/Press wanted?  Whew.  We'd have George Floyd level international outrage.  Plus, it looks like the press is now switching to secret police mode, and digging into the black holdout juror's past to find anything with which it can destroy him or at least his credibility and reputation.  As it does anyone or anything that gets in the way of the Left's agendas.  The fact that he's black?  It matters no more than women harmed by transgender men or people defending the slaughter of Israeli Jews on October 7th.  That is, not at all.  

The liberalism of my youth versus the Left of my sons' youth

 This was liberalism when I was young: 

America was still great, we were still an inspiration to the world.  Yes, we had our sins, but liberalism was all about making sure everyone was free, equal and could enjoy their rights with everyone else.  That was the gist of liberalism when I was young.  Or the gist as it was popularly presented. 

Contrast that to this:

This is the modern Left.  A sampling.  Many, especially among the young, think of the Swastika and the Stars and Stripes as one and the same.  Life, like truth and reality, is anyone's guess.  Radicalism, violence, hate, rage, and sexing up our kids is only the latest frontier.  And all will conform or face the consequences - in the name of diversity, equity and inclusion. 

I won't apologize for the graphic nature of the photo with the child.  That is going on even as we sit here.  Just as the gay movement was only coming out of the shadows when I was young, and abortion was still a limited affair discussed in the back room of the family gatherings, so we're seeing the beginning of the next stage. .  

If liberalism has taught us anything, it's that the Slippery Slope might be a logical facility, but it's also a historical fact.  What was a fringe outlier promoted by fringe liberals yesterday will be endorsed and mandated in about two generations.  So take a long look at that photo with the child if you want to know what America will be by the time my children are grandparents. 

This is the difference between old liberalism and the modern Left.  How many liberals haven't seen the difference?  How many former conservatives attempt to convince themselves that the liberalism they're joining is form the top image, even as they must ignore, pander to, or even condone more and more from the bottom image?   They will only be able to ignore such things so long before they are given the choice of the prophets of Baal.  

It's true, it's true!

Or to quote the temptress Lili von Shtupp, it's twue! In a bid to regain some level of political relevance, Senator Elizabeth Warren has called for a crack down on Crisis Pregnancy Centers because they dare attempt to dissuade women from having an abortion.  Really.  I saw images of her Twitter post, but still found it hard to believe.  So I went hunting for some news stories.  And there they were (in mostly local outlets). 

The reason for her proposal?  Apparently it's bad when women are dissuaded from aborting their pregnancies.  Because, you know, nobody is actually pro-abortion:

Because per the American Medical Association Journal of "Ethics": 

The centers, also referred to as pregnancy resource centers, claim to provide comprehensive women's heath care - while their true, and often religiously-inspired, mission is to halt women from going through with an abortion. 

Once again, we are reminded that while some doctors, intellectuals and scientists fled from, or bravely resisted, the Nazi Party in Germany, most happily stayed and did the Party's bidding.  After all, we know Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers never encourage women to have abortions.  That's why they aren't unethical.  Thus says the ethics of the AMA.    

I especially like the subtle assumption that the real deal breaker and scary quote should be the 'religious' part of the centers' missions.  Yep.  When did we used to think that scholars and scientists and doctors are perforce objective seekers of truth and goodness and good will discourse?  Are we past that yet? 

Anyhoo, Ms. Warren puts the lie to the old 'pro-abortion activists care about women and babies' talking point.  Like most things liberal, they care - when convenient.  The moral grounding of post-war liberalism is that it's true only if convenient, and people matter only if convenient.  Hence the MSM attempts to assure Americans that hope is around the corner and things could always be worse where the economy is concerned - because a liberal Democrat is in the White House.  Or the monthly ignoring of the horrible rates of murder within the American black community.  Again, doesn't help the narrative. 

The funny part is that this also shows the lie of the pro-abortion activists who insist abortion opponents don't care about women or babies. By calling these centers out, it shows the world that someone may actually care about and work for the well being of women and children, even if they oppose abortion. They just don't do so in accordance with the Left's dogmas.  

Yet for the Left, that last part is enough and all that matters.  If you saved a million babies from starving, it would be as filthy rags if your charity failed to align with secular liberal dogma.  I'm shocked at how many Christians appear to have warmed up to this little sleight of hand.  And yet, a brief survey of Church history should make me wonder why I'm shocked. 

Our very Catholic president continues to fight the fight for national abortion rights

This time by wanting to temporarily drop the filibuster rules in order to ram through federal legislation to guarantee the right to abortion keeps chugging along.  

By now the old euphemism 'pro-choice' or 'reproductive health' no longer apply.  This is 100% pro-abortion plain and simple.  It's a good thing the modern Catholic leadership no longer puts much stock in the first 2000 years version of Catholicism, or we'd have some big troubles right about now. 

My first Facebook block and the trends of our age

 

That is the first person I ever blocked on Facebook, and one of only two I've ever blocked/banned since I began on Social Media.  He was a fellow who seems to be a somewhat moderate Catholic and who trolls Mark Brumley's FB page.  He had trolled others and me before on a host of issues.  The final straw was dealing with this article by Deacon Greydanus I posted on some time back.  

It being FB, I gave just one example of why Deacon Greydanus was wrong, and many objections to the Left's approach to racism have substance and are not semantic quibbling.  I picked the Kaepernick protests since I'm versed on those, and remember why so many made clear they were bothered - chief reason being the naked hypocrisy of those lifting up Kaepernick who only recently trashed Tebow for daring to breach the hallowed halls of sports with vile politics. 

Mr. Chasuk did what he always does, and that's troll.  This was done largely by repeating bilge, a few insults and personal digs, and the not too subtle suggestion that my problem is black people. I initially thought I could spell it out that charging 'semantic quibbling' doesn't apply when people explain exactly why they have a problem with something, and that explanation involves matters of substance.  And furthermore, the reason - duplicity, denial, hypocrisy used to advance and agenda with which they reject on factual grounds - is more than any definition of quibbling.  That went nowhere, and resulted in more trolling, name calling, accusations, dismissal of basic Church teaching 101 and the works.  So I blocked him.  Only one of two times I have ever blocked or banned someone from anything, and here is why him and not other trolls I've run into over the years. 

Mr. Chasuk appears about millennial age, and demonstrates many of the more baleful aspects of that particular generation.  Beyond being a troll, he exhibits the characteristic disdain for history, ir not reality in general.  Like those millennial trolls at Patheos, he was fond of invoking the old 'that's a right fine narrative about liberals being against censorship back in the day, but can we ever really know they were against censorship?  Maybe they rejoiced in censorship?  Maybe CAT spells Dog?  Can anyone know anything of the past' trick.  That's just your version of reality after all.'  

Worse, however, is something that I wanted to touch base on when I broke my ban on linking to Mark Shea's website a few weeks back.  I got waylaid from my point when Mark lamented to his readers my unwillingness to speak to him directly.  After multiple attempts at speaking to him directly that were cleverly foiled by Mark, I gave up.  But that sort of sidelined the greater point.

The point I was going to bring up was looking beyond Mark's partisan call for all people who would consider themselves good to vote Democrat while calling for the destruction of the GOP.  Yeah, that's political zealotry of the first order.  Nonetheless, for all its lockstep devotion to the Party, I'm sure Mark would be appalled if you suggested he was calling for Republicans to be killed.  Like calling for the NRA, or Gun Cult, or the GOP to be wiped out by the State or by God, Mark doesn't mean actually killing those in such groups.  He means the groups must go.  I can imagine his rage at anyone suggesting otherwise.

But you know what?  I've noticed such distinctions are generational on the Left, not universal.  Remember the Parkland shooting heroes?  That is, those students and youth celebrated by the press who rose up to become the March of Heroism against the plague of gun violence in our nation?  Where did they go?  Long before Covid, they had fallen off the radar. 

True, the media is like that.  Journalism is like a kid with a toy at Christmas.  At first it's all the rage, but most of the time by the end of the year it's old news. But the speed with which most of the youth were shuffled away versus the degree to which they were initially lifted up by the press was interesting.  

It's been my hunch that a growing number of those youth began making troubling statements about gun owners and gun rights advocates that the press just couldn't downplay.  Like Mark, those young activists had no problem saying the NRA should be destroyed.  Unlike Mark, however, some had no problem saying how the NRA should be destroyed  - namely with their own guns.  Same with gun owners.  I remember a particular tweet that caused a stir when one said he wished gun owners would kill themselves with their own guns..  Likewise, a few months later another Parkland advocate caused a stir by tweeting that he wished a congresswoman who opposed their agenda would be the next victim - along with her family - of the next mass shooting.  

This is not Jim Brady's gun control movement.  This is not a movement founded on the idea that peace is ever good and violence is ever bad, therefore guns have to go.  Too many of those young radicals were fine saying violence and killing are acceptable, as long as it's those evil people who are in their way. 

That same fanaticism has found its way in other leftwing advocacy circles.  We all remember the good Ms. Thunberg (whose name is accepted by spellcheck), Climate Warrior extraordinaire, and her 'we're here to save the world, so get out of our way or else' rantings  The same with the BLM riots last year.  No level of destruction, carnage or death was unacceptable to the sacred cause of the BLM gospel. 

While older, seasoned Boomer era leftists tried to twist and torture the English language to assure us that the BLM burnings and destruction were just peaceful protests, I noticed many younger activists would have none of it.  And that's where Mr. Chasuk comes in. 

I realized he was trouble after the Jan 6 terrorist attacks, as they are described by the Left.  He was on Mark Brumley's page, going with both barrels against the unprecedented horrors of January 6th and how that was an indictment on, well, everything right of center. 

I caught something though.  Most trying to explain how we rejoiced in the BLM protests while decrying January 6 were stumbling about trying every trick in the trade to avoid the obvious.  Some said there was a magical distinction between attacking government and even federal buildings versus the actual US Capital.  Others said the violence was coincidental and unrelated to the pure protests that were peaceful, as opposed to January 6.  Heck, I saw a couple try to insist the BLM violence was part of a vast rightwing conspiracy, that the BLM protesters were all about pace, love and John Lennon songs, but evil MAGA types snuck in to make them look violent.

Not Mr. Chasuk.  Nope.  He and others his age and  younger had a very simple message to distinguish between support for BLM protests and riots and everything that went with them as opposed to the January 6th ritos.  That distinction?  Easy.  BLM was right and just.  Sure we weep, we mourn, we lament the loss of innocent life during those weeks of riots and protests.  But the cause was just, and verily didst the slaughter of the innocent glorify the just cause.  Lucas Beaumanoir couldn't have said it better. 

And that is something more and more younger and younger leftists are embracing, if the Internet suggests anything about it.  As they've already embraced bigotry and racism against the correct race, the glory of censoring and banning offensive material that's truly offensive, and judging and condemning endless swaths of reprehensive sinners for not being as righteous as they are, so they are warming up to the age old idea that sometimes violence is not just an answer, but a damn good one at that. 

In fact, that was one benefit in seeing Mr. Chasuk, as opposed to other old codger progressives who flitted around Mark Brumley's FB page.  Many would try to excuse this or that, such as banning books because of racist messaging or judging people of the past without mercy by appealing to some trivial jot or tittle or parsing an obscure justification.  

Not Mr. Chasuk.  He was fine saying censorship is good when it's against bad stuff.  And judging, duh, of course it's right.  Condemning entire groups of people based on this or that identity?  Is there a problem?  And violence and even the killing of the innocent?  Again, for the glory of the just cause we may weep, but we also endorse. 

Now he is about two generations removed from Mark Shea, who would never say actual Republicans, much less innocent people, must die for the cause.  Nor would he ever come out and excuse the killing of innocent people under the auspices of it being a just cause.  Or at least I haven't seen him do so.  Mr. Chasuk and other people his age?  Oh yeah.  I've seen more than one explain why no end of violence against America is completely justified, even if the innocent must die - if there can be innocent in such a vile and racist nation as ours. 

Mr. Chasuk, for his part, never said that we must kill the guilty and the innocent.  He simply made clear that when it does happen, as long as it is for the just cause (that is the leftist cause), it's an acceptable loss.  Collateral damage we might say. 

The big question is this.  Since there is nothing stopping the Left at this point, and with each day we see it descend deeper and deeper into the Pit, what well the next generation or two after Mr. Chasuk be saying?  Will they leave it as 'we don't seek to kill, but those killed for a just cause - that is our cause - are acceptable losses'?  Or will they take it to the next step, as he has from the tired old Boomer leftists like Shea, and say it's time to go to the boxcars and lynch mobs, now hand us the guns?  Only time will tell. But I'm not optimistic. 

If Helen Keller was alive today

She might be euthanized.   At least in cool and hip Belgium.  Of course Belgium, like most secular European countries, is enlightened   We know this because nobody in Belgium cares if you take drugs or have sex, and they stopped believing in that dumb religion stuff years ago.  So in case you're worried, we no longer live in an age where we will be burdened by the likes of Helen Kellers ever again.