In The Mailbox: 06.04.18

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | Comments Off on In The Mailbox: 06.04.18

A few changes to the lineup this week.

OVER THE TRANSOM
EBL: SCOTUS Rules – Have A Slice Of Freedom Cake!
Twitchy: Rose McGowan Drops Unapologetic Predator Bill Clinton
Louder With Crowder: CA Governor Jerry Brown Goes Full Nazi With Oppressive Water Restrictions

RIPPED FROM THE HEADLINES
Adam Piggott: A Short Story For Matt Forney
American Power: New Populist, Anti-Establishment Party Takes Over In Italy, also, Ryan Anderson, Truth Overruled
American Thinker: Opening The White House To The Muslim Brotherhood, also, Life With Father – A Dying Breed
Animal Magnetism: Goodbye, Blue Monday
BattleSwarm: Daniel Ortega Is Still A Brutal Communist Scumbag, also, NY Gov Andrew Cuomo Brings His Magic Touch To Film
CDR Salamander: Another Uniform Failure, also, American Strategic Myths Through The Lens Of Star Wars, On Midrats
Da Tech Guy: Perhaps Chicago Public Schools Should Start Over Again, also, Voting Choice Pays Off
Don Surber: Left Comes To Grips With Obama’s Failure, also, Never Trumper Laments That Calling Us Racists Failed
Dustbury: Strange Search Engine Queries, also, Not One Helium Reference
First Street Journal: A Victory For Freedom Of Religion – Sort Of, also, Is the “C” Word The Equivalent Of The “N” Word?
The Geller Report: UK Home Office Says Over 23,000 A Terrorist Threat, also, Estate Of Muslim Who Plotted To Assassinate Pam Geller Sues Government Over Shooting
Hogewash: Yours Truly, Johnny Atsign, also, Team Kimberlin Post Of The Day
JustOneMinute: Can Mueller Subpoena Trump? also, More On A Trump Subpoena
Legal Insurrection: SCOTUS Rules Colorado Baker Doesn’t Have To Bake The Cake, also, Bill Clinton Has Meltdown When Asked If He Ever Apologized To Monica Lewinsky
Power Line: The Spy Who Came In To Be Told, also, When The Arc Of History Refuses To Bend
Shark Tank: Chris King Proposes Bullet Tax
Shot In The Dark: Anniversary, also, My Weekend In Duluth, Watching The Weekend In Rochester
STUMP: Mornings With Meep, also, Memory Monday
The Political Hat: California To Ration Healthcare (For The Plebeians)
This Ain’t Hell: Mack Miller – Deserter For NV Assembly, also, Confirmed Valor Thief Randy Voepel In Hiding As CA-71 Assembly Primary Looms
Victory Girls: Broward County Sheriff Denied Paramedics Entry Six Times During Parkland Shooting
Volokh Conspiracy: The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Leaves All The Big Questions Unanswered, also, GDPR And The Typhoid Marys Of The Internet
Weasel Zippers: $BUX Chair Howard Schultz Steps Down Amid Presidential Run Hints, also, TX Governor Abbott Unveils Plan For Armed Veterans In Schools
Mark Steyn: The Gripes Of Roth, also, As I Was Saying…

Featured Digital Deals
Amazon Warehouse Deals
Father’s Day Gifts

Category: Linkagery

‘Gender,’ Nature and Sexual Economics

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | Comments Off on ‘Gender,’ Nature and Sexual Economics

Cynthia Yockey has repeatedly urged me to write a book of advice to young men which, in the imaginary alternative universe where I’d actually write that book, I would call The Pleasure of Her Company. This title reflects my criticism of the self-defeating attitude one sometimes encounters in the so-called “Manosphere,” where scoring is given more value than winning. In my reckless youth, I confess that the quantitative assessment approach (euphemisms are sometimes necessary) prevailed in a tactical sense, but I never entirely forgot that the ultimate goal of the game was marriage, “Happily Ever After” and so forth. Having been married nearly 30 years, having seen our oldest three children already married with children of their own, while our youngest three (still teenagers) would seem also to have good future prospects, I yet hesitate to assert my expertise in this matter. Nevertheless . . .

The Pleasure of Her Company is a title that captures the nature of this goal, and the source of male pleasure in the pursuit. When I was still quite young, about 15 and a total loser with the ladies, I sought advice from a guy a couple years older who had his act together and had no shortage of notches on his belt. “You know,” he said, “after a while, it’s not really about the sex. It’s the thrill of the hunt.”

Mind-blowing. Desperate as any teenager loser who ever lived, I couldn’t believe this, and it took more than a decade for me to realize how right he was. No point going into details, but anticipation of the trophy inspires the hunter more than his appetite for venison. And this attitude is nearly as harmful to the hunter as to his prey. (Go ahead, feminists — denounce my youthful self, I won’t defend him.) Why was I so reckless and impatient, so driven to “score”? Why was no amount of success ever enough? One evening, after I’d been married a few years and had three kids, I heard some young bachelors in the office talking about their romantic exploits, and shared with them a bit of strategic thought on the subject, which they seemed not to find credible. My pride was somewhat wounded, as if my extraordinary success was being cast in doubt, and decided to sit down to add up The List. Oh, my goodness . . .

How could I have ever imagined I was losing all those years? A skinny homely guy like me had no reason to hope for so much success, as I calculated the total number divided by the years in the game, and realized I had been competing with an illusion of an ideal, The Playboy.

Every lonely teenage boy suffers from the thought that other guys are racking up the home runs, while he can’t even get to second base. So when he finally connects and watches the ball go sailing over the fence in center field (to extend the metaphor), he’s not satisfied to relax in the clubhouse after the victory. No, he starts planning to become the Major League champ, the slugger, the MVP, the all-time winner.

A bad attitude, which I condemn in hindsight, denouncing my youthful self. To quote an old Willie Nelson song, “The night life ain’t no good life, but it’s my life” — or it once was. No need for me to do an update of The Confessions of Saint Augustine. Although I’m pretty sure I never succumbed to the Manichean heresy (because I didn’t even know what that was), my sins were both numerous and various. At the final judgment, I can only hope for mercy, as I have deserved only wrath. But this is not a sermon or a theology lecture, it’s just a blog post.

My point in elaborating so extensively on my wicked past is to establish the authority of my experience in speaking of human nature.

Why is the loser losing? The rampage in Toronto by “The Unf–kable Canadian Menace” sparked a resurrection of feminist denunciations of “toxic masculinity,” “male entitlement,” etc., because the homicidal loser called himself an “incel” and referenced Elliot Rodger, the Creepy Little Weirdo who perpetrated the Isla Vista massacre. Is it true, as feminists insist, that so-called “Red Pill” discourse is an expression of misogyny that inspires violence against women? Or is it rather the case, as I suspect, that much of the advice shared in these discussions is just not helpful in solving the problems of losers? Waking up early Saturday morning, I spent about three hours doing a Twitter thread on this topic:

The sexual marketplace is governed by forces that mirror the economics of supply and demand. Humans respond to incentives, but not all responses are rational or advantageous. Many of those in the so-called “manosphere” speak the language of sociobiology, although it’s not clear that they actually understand the fundamental concepts pioneered by E.O. Wilson, Lionel Tiger, et al.
For example, any intelligent person reading the “manosphere” soon gets weary of the dumbed-down and stereotypical “Alpha”/“Beta” discourse. Much of this rhetoric is badly misguided or erroneous.
In nature, the “Alpha male” describes social dominance or leadership within a group. In human life, many non-natural factors influence social dynamics. We are not wolves or orangutangs.
Dumbed-down talk about “Alpha” and “Beta” males in the “manosphere,” particularly in PUA (pickup artist) forums, ignores or misrepresents much of what is useful and valid in the theory of sociobiology. First, the advantageous traits of the “Alpha” male are natural. Some men just naturally have traits associated with dominance — taller, more athletic, more extroverted, etc. — which can’t be taught or learned.
It is foolish to imagine that a short, awkward, introverted male can, by reading a bunch of vulgar pseudo-scientific discourse on Red Pill blogs, become a studly “Alpha male.” Not. Gonna. Happen. . . .

You can click here to read the whole thing in a single page.

Cynthia Yockey says I should write a book, a task I dread, but please remember the Five Most Important Words in the English Language:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!

Category: The Pleasure of Her Company

Not Exactly News: Democrats Are Lying

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | Comments Off on Not Exactly News: Democrats Are Lying

Honestly, I can’t be bothered to notice every time a Democrat tells a lie. Every single word they say is false. You’ll catch an Orthodox rabbi eating bacon before you’ll ever hear a Democrat telling the truth. Sometimes, however, I feel the need to remind you how dishonest they are:

A Democratic senator is accusing the Trump administration of being part of a “cruel” effort against unauthorized immigrant children after he was denied entry to a Texas immigration center for unaccompanied minors when he showed up asking for a tour of the facility.
Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley — who acknowledged that he had been told in advance he wouldn’t be admitted to the facility — told CNN’s “New Day” Monday morning that he believes President Donald Trump, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Homeland Security “do not want members of Congress or the public to know what’s going on” in the center.
“It’s damaging to children, putting them through a horrific experience in a land where they know no one and they don’t know where they’re being sent and don’t understand why they’re being sent just as a way to be, if you will, cruel as a strategy of deterrence, not deterrence from people crossing the border, deterrence from people seeking asylum,” Merkley said.

The White House just emailed me the following statement from Deputy Press Secretary Hogan Gidley:

“Senator Merkley is irresponsibly spreading blatant lies about routine immigration enforcement while smearing hardworking, dedicated law enforcement officials at ICE and CBP. He voted against closing the ‘catch-and-release’ loopholes used by child smugglers, and his reckless open borders policies are responsible for the permanent separation of thousands of American families who have been forced to bury their loved ones. No one is taking a public safety lecture from Sen. Merkley, whose own policies endanger children, empower human smugglers and drug cartels, and allow violent criminal aliens to flood into American communities.”

In other words, Jeff Merkley is a liar. He is dishonestly complaining about a problem created by policies that Democrats support, and he opposes good-faith efforts by Republicans to solve this problem.

Category: Democrats, Immigration

A Narrow Victory for Liberty

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | 1 Comment

First, the news:

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Colorado Christian baker who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a major precedent allowing people to claim exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.
The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. The state law bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips’ religious rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. . . .
Two of the court’s four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also was the author of the landmark 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

Before getting to the commentary, let me interrupt to say that (a) the “landmark 2015 decision” was wrong — see Justice Scalia’s dissent in Obergefell — and also (b) the description of the decision as “legalizing gay marriage” is misleading. What the court majority did was, in essence, to abolish the political existence, in contravention of the 10th Amendment, of the 31 states that had passed constitutional amendments defining marriage in those states. Under the doctrine of Obergefell, the states are reduced to mere administrative jurisdictions of a centralized national authority. But I digress . . .

Paula Bolyard at PJMedia:

While the decision is a victory for Phillips, it didn’t settle the question of whether others similarly situated would have the right to refuse to bake a wedding cake or participate in other expressive arts in violation of their conscience. The court merely said that Phillips was treated unfairly by the Commission. . . .
In other words, not a lot has changed with this decision, except to get Jack Phillips out from under the thumb of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which received a sharp knuckle-rapping from the justices. Far from being a monumental religious liberty decision, the narrow scope of the case means that larger issues will perhaps be left for a future Supreme Court to decide.

(Hat-tip: Stephen Green at Instapundit.)

My friend and podcasting partner John Hoge offers commentary on this “narrow” victory, which we may liken to the Battle of Antietam. The bloodiest single day in American military history was a stalemate. McClellan’s Union army lost more than 2,000 men killed and nearly 10,000 wounded, but failed to “destroy the Rebel army,” as Lincoln had urged in his telegram before the battle. The Confederates had more than 1,500 men killed and nearly 8,000 wounded, but still held their position when the battle was over, and remained in line the whole next day, welcoming McClellan to renew the assault, which he declined to do. General Lee’s army retreated south of the Potomac without further injury. While the Confederate invasion of the North was turned back, the South was still unbeaten and, if anything, the invincible reputation of Lee’s army was enhanced. The war went on another two-and-half years.

Of course, this analogy is relevant to the issue of state’s rights, which is central to the Colorado dispute and “gay rights” generally. If states do not have the right to self-governance, so that the people through their state legislatures cannot write laws about marriage, how is it that states can empower a Civil Rights Commission which could trample the religious liberty of a Christian bakery owner like Jack Phillips?

It is the centralization of authority in Washington, and especially the Supreme Court’s effort to arrogate to itself the power to dictate law to the states in clear contradiction of the Constitution, that produced this conflict, as it has produced so many others in our history. Our nation’s Founding Fathers never intended the federal government to have the kind of power it now claims, nor could they have imagined that anyone would ever interpret the Constitution this way. More than 150 years after that bloodbath at Antietam, we are still fighting over the same issues, and this “narrow victory” for liberty portends a long struggle ahead.

UPDATE: David French writes:

Since the rise of the gay-marriage movement, it has become fashionable to decry dissenters as haters and bigots, to attempt to write them out of polite society. . . . Politicians thunder against Christian bigots. Media organizations put the words “religious liberty” in scare quotes, as if the expression of deeply held religious beliefs is a mere pretext, used to conceal darker motivations. And ideologues in state agencies give full vent to their rage, mocking faithful Christians as if they stand in the shoes of slavers and murderers.
Today, the Supreme Court said, “enough.” Today the Court breathed a bit of life back into religous-liberty jurisprudence.

French says this ruling is less “narrow” than some have claimed. And I know that some of my readers despise French as a #NeverTrump type, but on the subject of First Amendment rights, he is perfectly sound.

Category: Gays, Marriage, Religion, Supreme Court

Florida Child Pornography Suspect Resists Arrest, Which Proves to Be a Bad Decision

Posted on | June 4, 2018 | Comments Off on Florida Child Pornography Suspect Resists Arrest, Which Proves to Be a Bad Decision

The sheriff’s department in Polk County, Florida, was investigating a child pornography case, which brought deputies Christine Smith and Trent Medley to a residence in Dundee, where Andres Estrada, 21, lived with his family, according to Sheriff Grady Judd:

During an undercover child porn investigation, the Sheriff’s Office received information that porn had been downloaded to a device at the Eighth Street address. The officers went to the home about 10:30 a.m. and found Estrada there with his brother, Claudio Estrada, 18.
Both brothers were cooperative with the deputies, voluntarily surrendering a laptop and cellphones. Andres Estrada voluntarily unlocked his phone.
When one deputy found a child porn image on Andres Estrada’s phone, he dropped his head as if to acknowledge it. Medley told Smith to “read him his rights” and walked outside.
“The investigation was going very well at this point,” Judd said.
But Estrada turned violent as Smith was making the arrest, yelling, “You’re not going to do this to me.” He lunged at the deputy, and they landed on the floor with Estrada on top, beating Smith about the head.
“He outweighed her by 100 pounds, and he was viciously beating her,” the sheriff said. “It was a violent, vicious fight.”
When Medley heard his partner screaming for help, he rushed back inside the home. He saw Claudio Estrada trying to break up the fight.
Medley fired at least three shots when he observed Andres Estrada reaching for Smith’s gun and ignoring his commands to get off her. Judd could not say where the bullets struck Estrada. . . .
Andres Estrada had no criminal record, but there were three incidents in which he was detained under Florida’s Baker Act, which allows for the involuntarily detention of persons for mental health problems, particularly if they appear to pose a danger to themselves or others.

The deceased suspect was crazy, and Crazy People Are Dangerous.

Category: Crime

Rule 5 Sunday: Overall Beauty

Posted on | June 3, 2018 | 3 Comments

— compiled by Wombat-socho

The appetizer for this week was going to be blue jeans, but it turned out to be difficult to find a pic of attractive young women in jeans that wasn’t NSFW (as in, exposed boobs) or that didn’t overemphasize the woman’s butt. So, in accordance with the notion that one should go large or go home, I looked for women in overalls, and lo – today’s appetizer.

Not outstanding in her field, but pretty fine regardless.

Ninety Miles From Tyranny leads off with Hot Pick Of The Late Night, The 90 Miles Mystery Box #272, Morning Mistress, and Girls With Guns; Animal Magnetism follows up with Rule Five Progressive Utopia Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon.

A View From The Beach may complain about lack of inspiration, but nonetheless delivers: Burn Notice’s Gabrielle Anwar, Red Sonja, Once More Into the Breach, Another Wet T-Shirt Thursday, Lesbian Wife Beater Free After Testosterone Defense, “I Wanna Get Me A Gun”, A Ragout of Russiagate, Post-Memorial Day Swimsuit Post, Swimming into Monday Morning and “Call on Me”.

EBL brings in the 5:17 To Paris, Cultural Appropriation, Brownie Husband, Jessica Alba, Shakira, Gum Shower, and Lollipop.

Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Lori Loughlin, his Vintage Babe is Patricia Morison, and Sex in Advertising this week is all about vintage swimsuits. At Dustbury, it’s Riley Keough and Tatum O’Neal.

Thanks to everyone for the luscious linkagery!

Visit Amazon’s Intimate Apparel Shop
Amazon Fashion – Jewelry For Women

Category: Rule 5

NY Times: ‘Motherhood Is Hitler’

Posted on | June 3, 2018 | 1 Comment

The New York Times has a distinctly weird article, written by a British graduate student, smearing traditional stay-at-home mothers with the taint of “white supremacy.” The writer is able to find actual examples of neo-Nazi racialism in the online “tradwives” community, but it is always possible to find examples of anything on the Internet, e.g., Catholic schoolgirls who grow up to be blue-haired “nonbinary queers.”

Why this article? Why now? The author of the NY Times piece, Annie Kelly, published an article last year exploiting fears of the “alt-right”:

Alt-right extremism is a consequence of mainstream neo-conservative discourse on liberalism, manhood and national security post-9/11. Its success is measured by its ability to project an updated rhetoric of anti-left antagonism into the window of acceptable political discourse.
After the 2016 presidential election, as the US media scrambled for ways to understand the sources of Trump’s support, there was a dramatic proliferation on news sites of profiles of figures from the alt-right such as Milo Yiannopolous and Richard Spencer – many of them alarmingly deferential in tone. Almost immediately, however, there was an understandable backlash from liberal commentators and activists, urging journalists to stop using the euphemistic ‘alt-right’ moniker and to instead refer to the loosely defined digital subculture to which the label was attached as ‘neo-Nazi’.

So, we may conclude, it is the election of Trump that inspired this paranoid witch-hunt for “white supremacy” among mommy bloggers.

Like I keep saying, people need to wake the hell up.

The problem is not just that liberals are smearing their opponents as Nazis; that’s been going on for decades. The larger problem is that, as the “progressive” Left becomes more extreme and less tolerant of opposition, it provides opportunities for actual neo-Nazis. After all, if mainstream conservatives are being smeared as racists, if Christians are being sued for refusing to participate in same-sex weddings, if James Damore can be fired for criticizing Google’s “diversity” policies — in sum, if any expression of opposition to the Left is punished and silenced — why not just say, “F–k it” and go full-on Nazi? This is not a hypothetical danger, because I’ve personally witnessed intelligent people go down that road.

The first time I met Richard Spencer in 2007, we were both panelists at a forum discussing the Duke lacrosse rape hoax. Spencer was at that time a graduate student at Duke, and spoke about the climate on campus, whereas I was there to address the biased media coverage of the case. Spencer did not strike me as an “extremist” of any kind, although he was quite serious in his dismay at the attitudes exhibited by Duke faculty and students and, like a lot of other thoughtful young conservatives at the time, he was disgusted by the Bush administration’s failures.

Was it inevitable that Spencer would become a “Fourteen Words” type? I don’t know, but I would hope that his example might alert mainstream conservatives to a real danger in the 21st century.

If the Republican Party (and mainstream conservatives in other countries) cannot make effective arguments and enact effective policies to address the kind of social problems that give rise to neo-Nazism, many young people may give up on traditional politics and drift off into that shadowy fringe where voices whisper: “Blame the Jews!”

Say what you will about Richard Spencer, he is not stupid.

Duke graduate student Richard Bertrand Spencer has penned perhaps the single most perceptive commentary on the Group of 88’s intellectual origins. Spencer, a Ph.D. candidate in European intellectual history, explores “the ‘foundational myths’ that underlie the Group’s response and give meaning to its claims,” and in the process helps explain why the lacrosse case “has left serious people with a sense that something has gone terribly wrong with Duke’s academic culture.”

That was Professor K.C. Johnson writing in March 2007. If Spencer was capable of writing “the single most perceptive commentary” on the Duke lacrosse rape hoax, what should we deduce about his drift into disreputable extremism? Doesn’t this reflect badly on mainstream conservatives of the GOP, who have failed to do anything to remedy the increasingly intolerant hegemony of the Left in academia? If the Republican Party is willing to remain silent while our nation’s universities are surrendered to what Professor Johnson called “Intellectual Thuggery,” isn’t it likely that many more thoughtful young people will follow Richard Spencer’s lead, abandoning mainstream politics and drifting into the shadowy fringe?

We have reached the crisis years of the Trump era because soi-disant “mainstream” Republicans considered it disreputable to involve themselves with the kind of Culture War issues raised by the Duke lacrosse case. Why did working-class white voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan respond to Trump’s appeal? Isn’t it in large part because Trump was willing to call out the “fake news” media that has ignored or misreported the problems affecting the lives of those people? Isn’t it obvious that the establishment media has become part of the same degenerate intelligentsia as the faculty of Duke University? And don’t you think that, if conservatives fail to take this seriously, their failure will cause more and more people to heed those whispers from the fringe?

“Blame the Jews!”

In all seriousness, this is beginning to frighten me. Not long ago, I clicked onto a YouTube livestream hosted by a blogger I’ve been following since the 2014 #GamerGate controversy, and was disturbed to hear the participants mention “the JQ” — shorthand for “the Jewish question.”

Were they serious about this? Was this just “bad boy” posturing? Were they merely signifying their contempt for political correctness? I’m not sure, because I stopped listening to that livestream and didn’t bother to investigate the participants. What does it mean, however, when young men think it’s harmless to play games with anti-Semitism?

What’s perhaps most remarkable about this is that Jewish conservatives have been among those who have fought hardest and longest to address the very issues that concern the alt-right. If “tradwives” are concerned about demographic trends that threaten “the existence of our people,” they might be surprised to discover, for example, that the first notable author to examine these issues was Ben Watternberg, in his 1987 book The Birth Dearth: What Happens When People in Free Countries Don’t Have Enough Babies? Wattenberg, who is perhaps the textbook definition of a “neoconservative” (i.e., a former Scoop Jackson Democrat), followed up that landmark book in 2004 with Fewer: How the New Demography of Depopulation Will Shape Our Future. Even if you go drifting towards “Fourteen Words” extremism, you see, there are Jews who share your concerns, and this is true in every aspect of the Culture War. Some of the most vocal and most persuasive early critics of modern feminism, for example, were Midge Decter (The New Chastity and Other Arguments Against Women’s Liberation, 1972) and Steven Goldberg (The Inevitability of Patriarchy, 1973).

The German socialist August Bebel once said that anti-Semitism is the socialism of fools, but it’s also the conservatism of fools.

So here comes the New York Times with “Motherhood is Hitler” — using a handful of Internet extremists to smear all defenders of the traditional family as Nazis — but what else are we to expect? This should be interpreted as evidence of desperation and despair on the Left.

The defeat of Hillary Clinton in 2016, and the subsequent policy successes of the Trump administration, have caused a panic in the degenerate intelligentsia. Leftists in academia and the media have taken off the mask, revealing themselves as totalitarians, who do not recognize the legitimacy of any opposition to the “progressive” agenda.

What the Left would like to do is to delegitimize every possible source of opposition to their cultural hegemony. One way to do this, of course, is to attach a stigma of Nazism or “white supremacy” to anyone who rejects what Thomas Sowell has called The Vision of the Anointed. Conservatives must resist this effort, by refusing to play by the rules that the Left wants to impose on political discourse. If the Left is able to dictate the rules, they guarantee that they will win the game. They know that there actually are neo-Nazis over there in the shadows, but we know this, too. Knowing that the Left will always use this kind of guilt-by-association smear against us, conservatives should prepare in advance to deal with these attacks. Don’t let yourself get caught in a situation where you panic, become defensive, and discredit yourself with absurd apologies.

It’s 2018. Everybody is now “literally Hitler.” And if everybody is Hitler, then nobody is Hitler. Therefore, relax. You haven’t lost your mind. The world has gone crazy, and sanity is now a hate crime.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers! A good time as any to remind you that the Five Most Important Words in the English Language are:

HIT THE FREAKING TIP JAR!