Archive for December, 2023

Bart Maverick:Well it still smells of a con game but there’s too much money in the come-on.

Madame De Chauvrier: So?

Bart Maverick: Madame there isn’t a grifter alive who puts real gold in his “goldbrick” not over a million dollars worth.

Maverick Diamond in the Rough 1958

Now that the Civil war is suddenly in vogue thanks to Nikki Haley’s gaffe it’s worth noting a few things that are basic facts.

The south was fighting to preserve slavery, all you have to do is read the newspapers of the time to know this is true but if you really want to understand this, don’t take my word for it, take the word of the Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens:

The new [confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. 

Alexander Stephens: Crossroads speech

Keep an eye on that link we’ll be going back to that speech a lot in this post.

What would have been more accurate to say was that the North was not fighting to end slavery, although there were many in the union ranks who believed in its abolition. As Lincoln himself put it in his letter to Horace Greeley:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less  whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

This believe it or not is something that even Nikole Hannah-Jones of the phony narrative of the 1619 project understands and states publicly showing that every now and again when a person is trying to sell a salted mine or a fake narrative it’s necessary for a person to make sure there is enough gold in their gold brick or a bit of truth in the come-on to be able to make the sale.

Of course Hanna-Jones likely had little use for the final sentence of Lincoln’s letter

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.

And I suspect that she thought even less of Alexander Stephens words concerning what the founding fathers thought of Slavery and the black race in that same Crossroads speech:

But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

All emphasis mine

This completely contradicts the narrative of the left on what the founders thought. Furthermore unlike Hanna-Jones, Stephens was in a real position to know what the founders thought not only because the founding of the country was still in living memory at the time of this speech but because he was one of the most educated men of his time:

Take a note of what he says here. He not only states that Jefferson and most of the leading statesmen were opposed to slavery and considered wrong on every count and that said idea was the prevailing idea of the time, but that those founding fathers held that idea based on an assumption of the equality of the races.

It’s important to note here that his was not mere rhetoric. Stephens despite poor beginnings was not only well read in an age were illiteracy was common, but well educated (Top of his college class) a successful lawyer, married to the daughter of a Revolutionary war colonel but at the time of this speech had been an elected representative in the state of Georgia and congress for over a quarter of a century. Few men in the entire nation were in a better position to know the history and the sentiment of the Founders than he.

The real irony is that Hanna-Jones argues for advantages and reparations and special privileges for Blacks in education, and the workplace and by law because they can’t make it in the biased “white” world. Stevens would and did agree completely with this argument:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.

And he not only stated this but he noted that their opponents in the North arguments against slavery would be correct if they did not subscribe to what he considered a false premises of racial equality.

One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. 

emphasis mine

Is this not the same argument that the Nichole-smith and folks from DEI are making? Blacks must have separate graduations, gays must have separate graduations, they must have separate spaces, all of this is pretty much the argument that Stephens made that Blacks can’t complete on a level playing fields.

George W. Bush called it the: Soft bigotry of low expectation.

I call it “racism”, racism for fun and profit. Well fun and profit for those who make a living off the DEI grift, but for the vast majority of actual students of color who are going to have to make it in a world that doesn’t give a damn about DEI but skills and results It’s a sentence to failure, that ironically will be blamed on racism.


Note: Our days of Christmas fundraiser is in progress $2900 & 10 subscribers to go. Read more here or donate below:

The title I came up with for this article sounds like the title of either a Babylon Bee article or a Dystopian Science Fiction novel.   Sadly it is an honest appraisal of the mental state of the modern environmental movement, especially in the aftermath of this deeply flawed and scientifically challenged study: Humans may be fueling global warming by breathing: new study (nypost.com)

Humans may be fueling global warming by breathing, a new study suggests.

“Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming,” according to research released last week in the UK  journal PLOS.

The methane and nitrous oxide exhaled by humans make up about 0.1 of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, the writeup said.

The gases are in addition to the carbon dioxide that humans exhale.

To call this nonsense a scientific study would do grave injustice to real scientific inquiry.  Simple common sense is all that is needed to discredit this pseudo scientific gibberish.  Are methane and nitrous oxide lighter than the nitrogen that makes up 79% of the Earth’s atmosphere, or the oxygen that makes up the majority of the rest?  Wouldn’t these gasses remain close to the earth’s surface where they would not affect the climate in the least?  Aren’t the quantities released by humans awfully minuscule?

Logic and true science have absolutely no value to the political left, where propaganda and belief reign supreme.  Worship of nature has replaced traditional religious beliefs.  Devotion to Mother Gaia is almost universal while humans, especially individual humans, are reviled: The Globalist ‘Final Solution’ – American Thinker

As horrific as the Nazis were, today there is another group who seek a “final solution” even more terrifying: they want to eliminate over 7 billion people from the face of the Earth.  In a 2017 interview, Dennis Meadows, co-author of the Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth, said the Earth’s population needs to be “brought back down to one billion.”  The current global population is over 8 billion. 

This sentiment among Progressives is not new at all.

In 1968, the Club of Rome was founded, proclaiming that to be “sustainable,” the Earth’s human population needed to be no more than one billion people.  To distance themselves from the eugenics associated with the Nazis, they re-framed their idea as “population control.”  Aware that their idea would face resistance, they called for global government to enable them to achieve their aims.

Other elites share the Club of Rome’s goals, and many of them trace back to David Rockefeller, head of Chase Manhattan Bank, who was a longtime advocate of global government.  He funded the Club of Rome and was mentor to Canadian Maurice Strong, who ran the U.N.’s Environment Program for over thirty years.  It was through Strong — a Club of Rome member and board member of the World Economic Forum (WEF) — that Rockefeller influenced the U.N., and also Klaus Schwab, head of the WEF.  Longtime Rockefeller friend Henry Kissinger was Schwab’s tutor at the Harvard International Business Seminar for two years, and Schwab credits both Strong and Kissinger as mentors. 

The United Nations has been at the forefront of the depopulation movement for decades and will redouble its efforts thanks to that UK study.

In 1992, Strong introduced the U.N.’s Agenda 21/Sustainable Development, which in 2015 was rebranded Agenda 2030, and Chapter 4 blames population growth for “placing severe [environmental] stress on the planet.”  In 2019, the WEF’s Schwab signed an agreement with the U.N. secretary general to cooperate in accelerating implementation of Agenda 2030’s goals.  So the major international players pushing the “climate change” scheme are ideological descendants of globalist and de-population advocate Rockefeller.

Globalist elites also quietly support the Earth’s de-population in other ways.  For example, the Bill Gates Foundation has pledged $280 million a year from 2021 to 2030 to develop and improve contraceptive technologies, support family planning, etc. (i.e., prevent births).  Gates is infamous for his funding of vaccine testing in Africa, and he (along with UNICEF and the World Health Organization) has been accused of intentionally sterilizing Kenyan children through the use of a hidden HCG antigen in tetanus vaccines.  

But birth control and abortion are a long, slow process for eliminating what is now a 7-billion-people “excess” in the eyes of the de-population globalists.  Mass starvation is faster and more effective, and Agenda 2030 will achieve that.  Read it here, but look beyond the rhetoric to recognize what banning fossil fuels and fertilizers, restricting agricultural emissions, eliminating cattle, etc. will mean in practical terms. 

Does it take monsters to deliberately starve over 7 billion people?  Or just “terrifyingly normal” men like Aurelio Peccei, an Italian industrialist, or Alexander King, a Scots chemist, the co-founders of the Club of Rome?  Or like Bill Gates or Ted Turner, who’ve been buying up productive U.S. farmland to prevent the growing of food?  Or like the “environmentalists” willing to destroy Western civilization through Net Zero to “save the planet”?  Or like Klaus Schwab, the stereotypical middle manager, who would rather this free and unpredictable world be more organized and tidy?  These are the “men in suits” Lewis warned about, who have anointed themselves worthy of deciding the fate of the world.

The Final Christmas Retail Verdict: Uh Oh!

Posted: December 28, 2023 by datechguy in Uncategorized
Tags:

Well the Christmas Shopping season is done and now the “unload product before I have to declare it as inventory on taxes” season is with us.

I’ve now had the full season to judge who is telling you the truth on the economy and surprise, surprise, it ain’t Joe Biden folks.

During the Trump years the Christmas volume was insane. 10 hour days, 6 to 7 day (optional) work weeks and the need for so many people that no matter how many people were crossing en masse south of the border it wasn’t enough to fill our needs. You actually had temp agencies with offices inside our warehouses in order to manage the flow of people we needed.

This Christmas, all of that was a memory. We had three or four really busy days and one client had a big last minute sale that kept us busy enough to not send home folks but the season overall was pretty dead. On the plus side this meant everything got out on time and on schedule so those who could still afford to buy Christmas gifts had no worry getting them before the days of Christmas began.

And a slow Christmas season means a slow returns season. Most people returning gifts usually don’t get them sent till yesterday or today so we might start seeing them sometime next week. But odds are the return volume will be as anemic as the shipping volume was.

That’s going to mean layoffs even with the lower staff volumes, and if it’s happening here it’s happening everywhere else in the country.

I submit and suggest this is why we are seeing the level of um… interesting… tactics and rhetoric coming from the left, the media and the courts and states they control. I have stated publicly that I think the Trump haters can’t be won over but we’re reaching the “even a flatworm knows to turn away from pain” levels generating fear that we might see a margin beyond the credible level of theft. 

Of course given what the media has considered “credible” these days there might not be such a phrase.

I think we have been cursed to live in interesting times, but if that’s the case it’s been a curse we’ve brought onto ourselves as a society.


Note: Our days of Christmas fundraiser is in progress $2900 & 10 subscribers to go. Read more here or donate below:

Update: $2345 & 10 subscribers to go

I’ve hinted at this a few times since our 15th anniversary but today I am officially launching a fundraiser for the site.

(more…)