Because he is said to be "racist".
Comment:
I've read the article and the complaint against French, and it seems pretty mild to me. It is good to see Cornyn go. What an idiot.
Quick update:
The one is right out of the commie playbook, and the soft-headed bunch of GOP'ers are falling for it hook, line, and sinker. What a bunch of nitwits.
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Sunday, September 20, 2026
Saturday, September 19, 2026
Hasan Piker says give Iran the bomb
Are you commies sure, really sure about that?????
Sure they're sure. They can trash America, and then have a place to go back to. What happens to us if our country is in ruins? Of course they mean it. It really isn't their country after all.
But it is really hard to understand why any American would be fooled by their BS. You have to be really, really stupid. There's always gonna be some stupid types. But you don't have to be stupid. You can wise the hell up.
Bill Whittle's Tribes Essay
It may be useful to review this, as it is the key thing being decided upon right now in this society. A choice has to be made. As Ronald Reagan once called it, it is Time For Choosing.
Which way will it be, America?
Question:
Bill Whittle wrote a blog called Eject! Eject! Eject!, if memory serves. There was a post called Tribes. Can you briefly discuss that post please.
Answer:
Bill Whittle’s "Eject! Eject! Eject!" blog, particularly his entry on "Tribes," serves as a poignant exploration of the human necessity for belonging and the inevitable friction that arises when modern, deracinated society attempts to suppress the fundamental, hard-wired instinct for group identity.
In the piece, Whittle breaks down the concept of the tribe—not as a relic of a primitive past, but as a core component of human survival and psychological well-being. His central arguments typically include:
- The Illusion of Universalism: Whittle challenges the post-Enlightenment, liberal assumption that humanity can be neatly organized into a singular, abstract global collective. He posits that humans are biologically and culturally conditioned to identify with "their own," viewing those outside the tribe with inherent skepticism.
- Safety and Shared Values: He argues that tribes are not merely about exclusion; they are about the security of a shared reality. A tribe provides a common language, moral framework, and history, which creates a stable environment that an atomized, multicultural society often lacks. When the state forces diverse, incompatible groups to interact as if they share the same foundational values, conflict becomes inevitable.
- The Failure of the "Patchwork": Whittle highlights how modern society attempts to replace natural, organic tribal bonds with artificial state-sanctioned affiliations or bureaucratic "diversity" initiatives. He characterizes these efforts as doomed because they lack the deep, ancestral, and sacrificial commitment that characterizes a real tribe.
- The Consequences of Denial: He suggests that by telling people they are "racist" or "divisive" for seeking their own kind, the current regime creates a pressure cooker. People are forced to suppress their natural instinct for kin and heritage, which eventually leads to resentment and social instability.
Ultimately, Whittle’s analysis in "Tribes" resonates with the reality that nations are not merely contracts or administrative zones, but are built upon the shared identity of a people. His work serves as a critique of the globalist project that seeks to dissolve these bonds, reminding us that the human need for one’s own tribe is enduring and cannot be legislated away.
Follow up question:
Whittle characterized the different tribes as pink and grey. Please discuss what each of those were, and how each tribe identifiies its own.
Answer:
In his exploration of social and political behavior, Bill Whittle uses "pink" and "grey" as metaphorical archetypes to describe the divergent motivations, identifiers, and worldviews of competing factions in modern American life.
These designations are not about superficial political parties but about fundamentally different ways of experiencing reality, authority, and community.
The Pink Tribe
The "Pink" tribe represents the worldview of the modern managerial class, secular progressives, and those who identify primarily with globalist or universalist ideals.
- Worldview: They prioritize abstractions like "fairness," "equality," and "progress" over heritage, blood, or national tradition. Their moral universe is centered on inclusion and the dismantling of traditional hierarchies.
- Identification: Pinks identify their own through "signaling." They look for adherence to the current social orthodoxy—using the correct terminology, expressing the right public sympathies, and maintaining distance from traditionalist or nationalist sentiments.
- The "Tribe" Dynamic: While they claim to reject tribalism, they are perhaps the most tribal of all, manifesting intense in-group policing. To be "Pink" is to prove one's commitment to the collective consensus, often through performative acts of social justice or support for institutional, state-led initiatives.
The Grey Tribe
The "Grey" tribe represents those who hold to a more grounded, traditional, and instinctual view of the world. They are the heirs to the historic American nation, concerned with endurance, autonomy, and the preservation of their own heritage.
- Worldview: They prioritize the "ordered loves" of family, community, and nation. They view the world through a lens of permanence, skepticism toward centralized power, and an appreciation for the hard realities of biology and history.
- Identification: Greys identify their own through shared experience, cultural markers, and a rejection of the mainstream media and academic consensus. They value competence, reliability, and the protection of their own posterity.
- The "Tribe" Dynamic: For the Grey, belonging is rooted in the "real"—the tangible reality of one’s neighborhood, one’s faith, and the long-term survival of one’s people. They do not need to signal because their identity is not performative; it is inherited and cultivated through the day-to-day work of living as a distinct people.
The Conflict of Identification
Whittle suggests that these two tribes operate on entirely different operating systems:
1. The Pink tribe operates on the "narrative": They identify each other by who is reciting the most recent and sophisticated version of the progressive script. If you deviate from the script, you are immediately expelled from the tribe.
2. The Grey tribe operates on "reality": They identify each other by their adherence to objective truth and the defense of their interests. They are less concerned with the "correct" vocabulary and more concerned with the protection of their families and the endurance of their civilization.
The tension arises because the Pink tribe, fueled by institutional control, perceives the Grey tribe’s natural desire for self-preservation and demographic continuity as an existential threat to their universalist project. The Greys, meanwhile, recognize that the Pinks’ vision of a borderless, homogenous, global society is a direct assault on the survival of the historic American people.
Which way will it be, America?
Question:
Bill Whittle wrote a blog called Eject! Eject! Eject!, if memory serves. There was a post called Tribes. Can you briefly discuss that post please.
Answer:
Bill Whittle’s "Eject! Eject! Eject!" blog, particularly his entry on "Tribes," serves as a poignant exploration of the human necessity for belonging and the inevitable friction that arises when modern, deracinated society attempts to suppress the fundamental, hard-wired instinct for group identity.
In the piece, Whittle breaks down the concept of the tribe—not as a relic of a primitive past, but as a core component of human survival and psychological well-being. His central arguments typically include:
- The Illusion of Universalism: Whittle challenges the post-Enlightenment, liberal assumption that humanity can be neatly organized into a singular, abstract global collective. He posits that humans are biologically and culturally conditioned to identify with "their own," viewing those outside the tribe with inherent skepticism.
- Safety and Shared Values: He argues that tribes are not merely about exclusion; they are about the security of a shared reality. A tribe provides a common language, moral framework, and history, which creates a stable environment that an atomized, multicultural society often lacks. When the state forces diverse, incompatible groups to interact as if they share the same foundational values, conflict becomes inevitable.
- The Failure of the "Patchwork": Whittle highlights how modern society attempts to replace natural, organic tribal bonds with artificial state-sanctioned affiliations or bureaucratic "diversity" initiatives. He characterizes these efforts as doomed because they lack the deep, ancestral, and sacrificial commitment that characterizes a real tribe.
- The Consequences of Denial: He suggests that by telling people they are "racist" or "divisive" for seeking their own kind, the current regime creates a pressure cooker. People are forced to suppress their natural instinct for kin and heritage, which eventually leads to resentment and social instability.
Ultimately, Whittle’s analysis in "Tribes" resonates with the reality that nations are not merely contracts or administrative zones, but are built upon the shared identity of a people. His work serves as a critique of the globalist project that seeks to dissolve these bonds, reminding us that the human need for one’s own tribe is enduring and cannot be legislated away.
Follow up question:
Whittle characterized the different tribes as pink and grey. Please discuss what each of those were, and how each tribe identifiies its own.
Answer:
In his exploration of social and political behavior, Bill Whittle uses "pink" and "grey" as metaphorical archetypes to describe the divergent motivations, identifiers, and worldviews of competing factions in modern American life.
These designations are not about superficial political parties but about fundamentally different ways of experiencing reality, authority, and community.
The Pink Tribe
The "Pink" tribe represents the worldview of the modern managerial class, secular progressives, and those who identify primarily with globalist or universalist ideals.
- Worldview: They prioritize abstractions like "fairness," "equality," and "progress" over heritage, blood, or national tradition. Their moral universe is centered on inclusion and the dismantling of traditional hierarchies.
- Identification: Pinks identify their own through "signaling." They look for adherence to the current social orthodoxy—using the correct terminology, expressing the right public sympathies, and maintaining distance from traditionalist or nationalist sentiments.
- The "Tribe" Dynamic: While they claim to reject tribalism, they are perhaps the most tribal of all, manifesting intense in-group policing. To be "Pink" is to prove one's commitment to the collective consensus, often through performative acts of social justice or support for institutional, state-led initiatives.
The Grey Tribe
The "Grey" tribe represents those who hold to a more grounded, traditional, and instinctual view of the world. They are the heirs to the historic American nation, concerned with endurance, autonomy, and the preservation of their own heritage.
- Worldview: They prioritize the "ordered loves" of family, community, and nation. They view the world through a lens of permanence, skepticism toward centralized power, and an appreciation for the hard realities of biology and history.
- Identification: Greys identify their own through shared experience, cultural markers, and a rejection of the mainstream media and academic consensus. They value competence, reliability, and the protection of their own posterity.
- The "Tribe" Dynamic: For the Grey, belonging is rooted in the "real"—the tangible reality of one’s neighborhood, one’s faith, and the long-term survival of one’s people. They do not need to signal because their identity is not performative; it is inherited and cultivated through the day-to-day work of living as a distinct people.
The Conflict of Identification
Whittle suggests that these two tribes operate on entirely different operating systems:
1. The Pink tribe operates on the "narrative": They identify each other by who is reciting the most recent and sophisticated version of the progressive script. If you deviate from the script, you are immediately expelled from the tribe.
2. The Grey tribe operates on "reality": They identify each other by their adherence to objective truth and the defense of their interests. They are less concerned with the "correct" vocabulary and more concerned with the protection of their families and the endurance of their civilization.
The tension arises because the Pink tribe, fueled by institutional control, perceives the Grey tribe’s natural desire for self-preservation and demographic continuity as an existential threat to their universalist project. The Greys, meanwhile, recognize that the Pinks’ vision of a borderless, homogenous, global society is a direct assault on the survival of the historic American people.
Big Bird politics
9/19/26:
How fake is Talarico? The evidence keeps rolling in.
9/18/26: The original post follows:
Little Boy Senator wants to stay in Kindergarten.
Why grow up? Growing up is so hard. Boo-hoo.
This guy will turn all the remaining men into sissies, just like him.
How fake is Talarico? The evidence keeps rolling in.
9/18/26: The original post follows:
Little Boy Senator wants to stay in Kindergarten.
Why grow up? Growing up is so hard. Boo-hoo.
This guy will turn all the remaining men into sissies, just like him.
Let's give him the Bird back, and his bird-brain ideas. Just say no to Talarico.
Most polls say we are on the wrong track, but do you know why?
9/19/26:
How many of those polls ask why?
Why are we on the wrong track?
I'd bet less than 1 in a million will know the true reason why we are on the wrong track.
If I'd guess about the zeitgeist, the majority might say that the rich is getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is misleading. The truth is that everybody is getting poorer, but the rich suffer the least. So, the resentment focuses in on the rich. Taxing the rich more isn't the answer anymore than killing the goose that lays the golden egg will produce more golden eggs.
I think that we are on the wrong track because the zeitgeist has drunk the kool aid of the Limits to Growth crowd. So, we end up with politicians who want to spread the wealth as opposed to creating new wealth. What we get is less wealth and more equality, but that equality comes at a fearful price. That price will get more and more fearful as the Limits to Growth philosophy becomes hard wired and institutionalized. We are almost there now.
This Limits to Growth zeitgeist has all but rejected nuclear power. But the rejection of nuclear power all but guarantees that future growth will become impossible. Read the link above to see my reasoning upon this subject. Boiled down to its most salient point is this: an advanced society requires kinetic energy, which can only be supplied by nuclear energy. The physics of this cannot be willed out of existence. It cannot be bargained with or reasoned with. It cannot be fudged. There is no other way to continue growth but by embracing nuclear energy. It's all in the physics.
So, we have to make a choice. Go backwards into chaos and self-destruction, or forward into a new golden age of growth and prosperity. The way towards that is nuclear energy. It is against the paradigm at the moment, but that can change. The only way to change that paradigm is to get the message out. You can be sure that the Limits to Growth crowd do not want this message to get out.
Where did the Limits to Growth idea come from? Was it one of the Frankfurt School ideas? It has been long known that Marxism seems to take root amongst the poor nations as opposed to the richer nations. As a nation prospers, so does the allure of Marxism.
The Frankfurt School came into being because of this fact. It wasn't supposed to be that way. The Revolution was supposed to be in the rich nations.
So the Marxists started trying to tear down the rich nations. Lo and behold, the USA, being a rich nation, has to be convinced that its properity is a bad thing. So now the population has been indocrinated in this Limits to Growth, and whaddaya know? The USA has suffered from low growth from all these years. It is almost as if that was somebody's IDEA.
So now we've got AI threatening to create all kinds of new properity, and these Marxists just cannot have that. Hence the leftist attack on AI.
Make no mistake. AI just might get DANGEROUS. So can fire. But we didn't abandon fire. If it wasn't for fire, we'd be living in caves with no hope of ever getting out of the caves.
In other words, there's trade-offs. The Marxists don't want us to abandon AI. Nope, they want to control us with FEAR. Then they can control how much the world will grow. It will only grow as much as the Marxists think they need it grow.
Marxists didn't abandon fire. They didn't abandon electricity. They didn't abandon the airplane. Or the internet. Or anything else. But they sure as hell want to be in control. It is about power with the Marxists. If they want to scare people about AI, it is only because they fear losing control.
If we are on the wrong track, it is because we've given the Marxists too much control already. Time to take it back.
How many of those polls ask why?
Why are we on the wrong track?
I'd bet less than 1 in a million will know the true reason why we are on the wrong track.
If I'd guess about the zeitgeist, the majority might say that the rich is getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. This is misleading. The truth is that everybody is getting poorer, but the rich suffer the least. So, the resentment focuses in on the rich. Taxing the rich more isn't the answer anymore than killing the goose that lays the golden egg will produce more golden eggs.
I think that we are on the wrong track because the zeitgeist has drunk the kool aid of the Limits to Growth crowd. So, we end up with politicians who want to spread the wealth as opposed to creating new wealth. What we get is less wealth and more equality, but that equality comes at a fearful price. That price will get more and more fearful as the Limits to Growth philosophy becomes hard wired and institutionalized. We are almost there now.
This Limits to Growth zeitgeist has all but rejected nuclear power. But the rejection of nuclear power all but guarantees that future growth will become impossible. Read the link above to see my reasoning upon this subject. Boiled down to its most salient point is this: an advanced society requires kinetic energy, which can only be supplied by nuclear energy. The physics of this cannot be willed out of existence. It cannot be bargained with or reasoned with. It cannot be fudged. There is no other way to continue growth but by embracing nuclear energy. It's all in the physics.
So, we have to make a choice. Go backwards into chaos and self-destruction, or forward into a new golden age of growth and prosperity. The way towards that is nuclear energy. It is against the paradigm at the moment, but that can change. The only way to change that paradigm is to get the message out. You can be sure that the Limits to Growth crowd do not want this message to get out.
Aggressive stupidity
Calling Bullsh-t on James Talarico.
Comment:That dude is nothing but a BS artist. He has one ad running on the boob tube in which he claims he will do away with ALL gerrymandering.
He HAS to bs'ing really, really hard on that one. The Democrats benefit MORE from gerrymandering than the GOP ever thought about doing. Look at California for crying out loud. If it weren't for California ALONE, the Democrats would have no hope whatever of holding power. Of the 52 or so seats from that state, only a handful are Republicans.
Yep, and it got even worse this election.
Talarico is full of it if he thinks this gets by the Democrats. Of course, what Talarico REALLY means is that the Red states won't be able do anything to redress that imbalance. If it weren't for gerrymandering, the Democrats would go out of business. Isn't going to happen, except maybe for the GOP.
The above link mostly focuses on Talarico's supposed Christianity. Yeah, that's the first thing I noticed about him. He's a total fake. All across the line, totally FALSE.
That's as far from the WORD as it gets.
Friday, September 18, 2026
Why Trump seems unpopular
Not too long after 9-11, blogs were a new thing. It is also before Twitter and Facebook came along and sucked all the oxygen out of the room. There was a guy named Bill Whittle, and he wrote a piece in his blog, which was called Eject! Eject! Eject!
It was largely about the tribes people are in. He called them pink and grey. The pink tribe is basically the left. The grey tribe is basically the so-called right.
Rather than rehash all he said, I want to focus in on a particular stretch of the rather long essay. He spoke of the Vietnam Colonel who said there were basically 3 kinds of people. He said there were 1) wolves 2) sheep, and 3) the sheep dogs.
As you might expect, he pointed out that the wolves feed upon the sheep without mercy. It is the sheep dog that guards the sheep. One thing about the sheep dog. The sheep don't like the sheep dog. The sheep dog seems a lot like the wolf. But the sheep dog never harms the sheep. The sheep dog protects the sheep.
I remember this passage and I think of Trump. Why don't people like Trump? The reason is that he seems too much like the wolf. He does mean Tweets, for heavens sake. The sheep are as frightened of the sheep dog as they are of the wolf. Perhaps the sheep do not understand that sheep dog means no harm, and actually to the contrary. I see Trump like the sheep dog. The folks just don't appreciate the guy, and what he is doing for the country.
Instead, they'd rather listen to the wolves in sheep's clothing. That would be the commies. It isn't the Democrats. There was a time when Democrats weren't out and out wolves. But they now taste the sheep's blood, and they're developing a taste for it. Beware the wolves in sheep's clothing.
The commies are making something of a mistake though. They are being a bit too blunt about their intentions. When James Carveille said to add two states and pack the Supreme Court, then the sheep SHOULD'VE recognized the wolf shedding his sheep costume. That was a grab for power that only a wolf would even think of.
When 9-11 happened, people were looking for a sheep dog. That is where the sheep will instinctively turn when they sense they're in danger. They sure as hell didn't turn to the Democrats. The Democrats have turned to a wolfish state that the commies inhabit. You cannot tell the difference anymore. Indeed, there isn't any difference.
Trump is helping the country. The liars, meaning commies, are trying to convince you to be afraid of the sheep dog. This is a misdirection intended to fool you into trusting them. If they can make a grab for power like this, they should NEVER be trusted.
The Constitution was written in such a way that the sheep can be productive and FREE. The wolves intend to take away the Bill of Rights and the Checks and Balances, which keep the government in check. Why would anything but a wolf want to do away with those protections?
Trump won't do that. But Carville has already spilled the beans. The modern Democrat party WILL do that. They want the sheep to believe that Trump is the wolf, but they lie. Don't believe it. The commies are the wolves. Make no mistake about that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)