As a recovering Leftist, I have an insight on how the Left thinks (which is usually not at all). Even then, there are times when I shake my head in “what the absolute fuck are you thinking” mode.
This is one of those times.
I present to you a new Leftist group called Unpull the Trigger out of Portland, Oregon. Although they haven’t reached the sheer dumbfuckery of Everytown for Gun Safety or, well, being Hunter Biden, they are quickly rising up the charts with a bullet, or more accurately, with an AR-15. See, Unpull the Trigger has the brilliant idea of buying every black man an AR-15 as a means to make Republicans back gun control.
And it was at this point my head started shaking like a Jello mold on the San Andreas Fault during an 8.9 on the Richter Scale.
Unpull the Trigger
What the Left thinks it means – a Progressive group trying to get Republicans to finally get on board with sensible gun control
What it really means – another idiotic Leftist group based on an erroneous assumption about the Right
So far, not much is known about Unpull the Trigger, mainly because people are too busy laughing at them to do any actual digging. But, from what I’ve been able to find, they are a non-profit anti-gun grift…I mean group, and run by fucking idiots. Their big-brained idea I referenced above is called, and I swear I’m not making this up, “Scare the Racists Straight.”
See what I mean by “what the absolute fuck are you thinking”?
As you might expect, all Leftist anti-gun groups lack one essential piece of information: knowing any actual gun owners who aren’t one of them. Oh, sure, you’ll find a Leftist gun owner who thinks there needs to be stricter laws on the books because fee-fees, but that’s not the same thing as Bubba McMAGAHat, who is a proud gun owner and wouldn’t be caught dead voting for anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan.
Okay, bad example. Let’s go with Ronald Reagan.
This lack of actual knowledge leads to blind spots that lead to dumb decisions like assuming Republicans would be against arming blacks or naming an organization Unpull the Trigger. Once you start digging a bit, the blind spots become so obvious Stevie Wonder can see them.
Although whites make up a significant percentage of gun owners in America, there are still a number of blacks who are according to the Pew Research Center. I’m sure the NRA would appreciate the expected increased membership, but it doesn’t work if your goal is to prevent people from having guns in the first place. But only a complete dipshit would want…oh, the President of Unpull the Trigger wants that.
I have to give them credit, though, for thinking outside the box. Of course, their initiative will wind up the same way the other gun control efforts have: failing worse than Michael Bay doing a “Heidi” remake.
But here’s where shit gets really weird. If we look at the stats (and I do because my social life makes Boo Radley look like a TikTok “star”), there is a significant number of young black men who are in gangs, with a majority of them being over 18. Granted, these numbers are over a decade old, so the percentages may be different, but it’s immaterial to the larger point I’m going to make here. Unpull the Trigger wants to give these gang members AR-15s, which will undoubtedly change the dynamic of gang culture, i.e. allowing people with zero problems offing another person to have access to a weapon Leftists say are only made for killing people.
But not every black man belongs to a gang, so we can’t use that broad brush. However, we can look at how giving every black man a gun might affect Leftist groups like…oh, I don’t know…Black Lives Matter. Surely an organization that wants to defund the police wouldn’t use guns in a violent matter, right?
David Dorn could not be reached for comment.
What about ANTIFA? Although primarily dominated by whites, there are blacks who are either members or sympathetic to the cause. And ANTIFA isn’t above violent methods to achieve their goals or to make a statement.
And Unpull the Trigger wants to arm these assholes.
Oh, but it gets better! Notice Unpull the Trigger wants to arm black men…but not black women. Isn’t that sexist? Are these Leftists assuming black women a) don’t want to be armed, or b) are incapable of using a gun properly? And what about black trans people (as opposed to Shawn King and Rachel Dolezal, who claim to be trans-black)? If gender is a spectrum or a social construct, why are black men the only ones who get the guns? That’s patriarchy, motherfuckers! Not to mention, it’s trans erasure! And, I’m sorry kids, but that means Unpull the Trigger has to be shamed and run out of the public square.
Hey, I didn’t write the rules, but I can’t abide by your obvious hatred, so off you go!
Now, remember when I said earlier this whole concept was based on an erroneous assumption about the Right? Well, hold onto your hats because we’re finally getting to the good part.
The Left assumes the Right is full of racist bigots because the Right tends to oppose Leftist measures to “fight” racism and bigotry. And by extension, Leftists believe gun owners are racists. So, Unpull the Trigger wants to make more black men gun owners and, thus…make them racists?
Remember, kids, I am a trained professional. Do not try to make sense of Leftist logic at home.
And this is where the Leftist blind spot kicks them in the dick. There are racists who are gun owners if only due to the law of averages, but the Venn Diagram of racists and gun owners really doesn’t have a lot of overlap because gun owners care more about their guns than they do about the color of who owns them. I’ve been to a couple of gun shows and have known many gun owners in my 53 years of life. I even have had a gun owner or two in my family. You know what I found in interacting with actual gun owners?
They’re regular people. Well-armed people, I grant you, but regular people. Sure, they have differences as people often do, but when it comes to gun ownership, the only colors that matter to them are those of the guns themselves. Granted, this is anecdotal evidence, but it’s a damn sight better than the pulling ideas out of their asses that Unpull the Trigger is using.
Ultimately, Unpull the Trigger will become a laughingstock like David Hogg, and much for the same reason: they know jack shit about guns and gun owners. Assuming anyone on the Right would freak out about blacks getting AR-15s is not the sign of an intellectual giant, no matter how much the press writes glowing puff pieces about them. At some point, they will fade into the background like all the other gun control groups and struggle to remain relevant.
The only hope for their salvation would be if it came out they were trolling the Left just to see how much support they would get from them. If not, I have a much better solution for Unpull the Trigger. If you really want to stop gun violence, don’t ban guns; ban Leftists from having guns.
Tag: black lives matter
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
With everything going on in the world today, it’s a good bet someone is going to get upset about something. And if that person is motivated enough, he or she may decide to whip up support by protesting that thing.
For Leftists, it happens on a day ending in, well, “day.”
Yet, for all of the protesting the Left does, they don’t always support protesting, as we’ll see in a bit. But first, a little housekeeping in the form of a definition.
protest
What the Left thinks it means – exercising a First Amendment right to express an opinion
What it really means – exercising a First Amendment right to express a Leftist-approved opinion
Among the myriad rights outlined in the aforementioned Amendment are freedom of speech and the right to redress grievances with the government. (Although, I’m not sure I want to know how the grievances got naked in the first place.) These combine like Zords into a Megazord we call protesting, and it’s a right many Americans exercise more than they exercise, literally.
Protesting is one of the rights the Left hold dear because otherwise they might have to get jobs and be productive. However, they have a two-tiered approach to it, and as the definition I provided shows, it’s based on ideology.
I’m going to call this next section “A Tale of Two Protests.” And hopefully the estate of Charles Dickens doesn’t sue me into oblivion. Our first protest is one that has made the rounds in conservative media circles because of its sheer intensity and literal volume. Jeff Younger is running for the Texas State House in large part because of the way the courts treated him. You see, Younger is the father of a young boy who has been convinced by his mother he’s a girl. After a lengthy court battle, he won a small victory by a judge’s decision barring his now ex-wife from giving his son drugs that would restrict puberty and essentially transition him from male to female.
Well, Younger appeared on the campus of the University of North Texas and the Left showed up in droves to disrupt his speech because…transphobe? Actually, I can’t quite make out the logical arguments they made because a) I don’t speak Shrill Leftist Harpy, and b) they didn’t make any. They were simply there to cause chaos, go viral, and take a stand against trans hate. As a fan of the First Amendment, I can’t begrudge their protest, no matter how asinine it was, and the Left agreed. The students protesting were in the right.
Now, we move on to a different protest, the American version of the Freedom Convoy. If it’s anything like the Canadian version, be prepared for the utter chaos of…honking horns, music, and a sense of community. A worse hellscape than anything Clive Barker could come up with, I assure you.
Seriously, though, the Freedom Convoy by and large was and is a peaceful event with generally good fellowship mixed with a good helping of traffic disruption. Sure, there were some asshats who went overboard, but you’ll get that and they were the exception instead of the rule. And as you might expect, the Left has gone out of their way to denigrate this protest, insinuating it’s backed by Russians, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, conservative media, the Koch Brothers, and a few other groups. As of this writing, I’m not sure if the Freemasons (or even the Reasonably Priced Masons) have been invoked, but it’s still early in the year. And now that the impending war over Ukraine is looming like Michael Moore’s shadow over an all-you-can-eat buffet, Leftists are dismissing the Freedom Convoy protest because “there’s more important things to worry about right now.”
Like…allowing young boys to transition to young girls, apparently?
The thing to remember is both the UNT students and the Freedom Convoy should be allowed to protest, even if we don’t agree with them. The thing the Left doesn’t get about the First Amendment is it goes both ways, not just the way they want it to go. Kinda like Dennis Rodman, but with better fashion sense in wedding dresses. If the Left values the right to protest, they have to allow for the right to protest against them, but they don’t. Otherwise, I would have to be boring you with a different Lexicon topic.
The reason for the Left’s two-faced approach to protesting involves their desire to control the narrative. Once you control how events are presented, you control how they’re perceived and what the audience sees, hears, and feels. That’s creepy enough as it is, but it gets worse when an event is 180 degrees out of phase from reality. Then, the outcome gets messy and even expensive if legal recourse is initiated.
Just ask CNN or its new owner, Nick Sandmann.
Controlling the narrative is essential in protesting as well as in the media/court of public opinion. The chaos and destruction left by Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA protests is hard to ignore, but surprisingly many people only focus on the narrative presented by those groups. Instead of garnering scorn for trying to turn city streets into Beirut on a good day, they garnered sympathy because of the cause. But here’s the thing: no matter how righteous your cause, it loses its righteousness when the resulting protest turns destructive. Blocking the street with a march protesting police brutality and the unnecessary killing of citizens is inconvenient, but doesn’t cross that line. When the protest includes destruction of public property, assault, and arson…well, let’s just say you’ve missed your turn and are zooming down the highway to the Destruction Zone.
The right to protest can be a tightrope walk because of the implications of letting different sides speak their minds. If you allow, say, a Nazi rally in your town, does that mean the town is totally pro-Nazi? Not at all, but with the advent of incredibly fast social media posting and incredibly slow thinkers using them, it can become one faster than you can type OMG. That’s where we need to be a lot more libertarian in our approach to protests, meaning we support what we support and ignore what we don’t. Trust me, it makes life a lot simpler and stops you from having to continually apologize to people who wouldn’t accept your apology under any circumstances.
As with the right to free speech, the right to protest comes with some responsibilities. Just because you can carry a rifle in public doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to do so while voicing displeasure over a public official’s actions. If you feel the need to protest, put your best foot forward (and not to trip someone else, by the way). Be willing to discuss your position in a calm, rational manner. Even if those protesting your protest are screaming like banshees listening to a Yoko Ono CD on repeat, you’ll come off better by keeping cool. Plus, it drives Leftists nuts when they can’t rile you into emotional outbursts, so there’s that.
In the end, though, it cannot be overstated how the right to protest has lead to positive change in this country. It’s one I wholeheartedly endorse and support because of that fact. Even if the Left puts ideological conditions on its valid usage, we don’t need to follow their lead. We just need to allow them to march along to the beat of their own drummers so they can enjoy the fruits of their labor.
And we can enjoy mocking them. Thanks, First Amendment!
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If you listen to the Left for any amount of time (and, to be honest, why would you?), eventually the conversation will come to race. And by “eventually” I mean within microseconds. Recently, there’s been a new term that, surprise surprise, directly connects to race: white rage. Whether it’s CNN’s Brian “Mr. Potato Head” Stetler claiming Fox News’ Tucker Carlson stokes white rage or current Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark “Not Vanilli” Milley testifying the military should take training to avoid white rage, it seems the Left wants to make it a thing, and a racial thing at that.
But, just like with Critical Race Theory, it’s not exactly clear what white rage is. Good thing there’s someone who can cut through the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter. But since that person is off, you’ll have to let me do it.
white rage
What the Left thinks it means – white people’s reaction when their power and influence in the world is threatened, the most important problem in America today
What it really means – an accusation with little actual proof, but a lot of actual racism
As a white man, I get labeled with a lot of shit from the Left based solely on the color of my skin and what they believe what I believe. The Left sees me as a Bible-thumping, flyover country bumpkin who hates gays, blacks, women, albino midget Eskimos who walk with a limp, and so on. Now, to be fair, they are right about the albino midget Eskimo bit, but the rest of it is based off a serious of assumptions the Left has deemed to be true without affirmative proof.
And that’s the same basic principle behind white rage. As Leftists can’t leave a PR crisis untouched, they point to the 1/6 “insurrection” as evidence and bludgeon anyone who supports Donald Trump as someone who is one bad day away from being a mass shooter or insurgent against America. And if we’re not careful, white rage is going to create chaos (and that’s the Left’s job, darn it)!
Now, where have I heard that kind of verbiage before? Wasn’t there a movement in, say, the mid-to-late 90s that were considered to be dangerous crackpots not unlike the people the Left claim are out there waiting to strike? Why, yes. Yes, there was! It was the militia movement, and the rhetoric started to kick into high gear not long after the Oklahoma City bombing. The Left did their best to paint Timothy McVeigh as the typical militia member, even though he was kicked out of his local militia and had a record voting for Democrats, but why let the facts get in the way of a good narrative, right?
Last time I checked, the militia movement of the 90s didn’t cause any of the things the Left said would definitely happen if we didn’t do something right now. If anything, they just wanted to be by themselves to LARP as the National Guard, which is perfectly fine in my book. Just leave me be and don’t ask me to pay for your reindeer games.
Now, the Left is trying to resurrect the fear of militias and spin it into white rage. Within the Leftist hivemind, it works, mainly because a) it reaffirms their preconceived ideas about non-Leftists, and b) most Leftists today may not have even been born in the 90s or were too young to remember Militia Mania. That makes it easier to be successful than a coke dealer working on the Hunter Biden account. But here’s the thing: the fact it’s easy doesn’t make it right. Just like with the militia movement rhetoric, there isn’t anything concrete that suggests white rage is even a thing.
Except if you look at the Left.
Last year showcased a lot of violence and destruction from members of Antifa and Black Lives Matter. Although the Left swears up and down they weren’t responsible, the mugshots after the arrests show a different story. It seems most of the people arrested were…white. And the majority of BLM members? Also white. Hmmm…destroying property, attacking cops…that sounds a lot like the way the Left characterized 1/6, doesn’t it? And if 1/6 is an example of white rage, logic might lead us to conclude Antifa and BLM are examples of white rage, too.
Of course, this isn’t about logic. This is about pushing a racist narrative because the Left needs to make us believe white people are evil racist bastards. Call me conspiratorial, but I find it interesting the whole white rage concept didn’t get traction until fairly recently during a time when the Left wants to push Critical Race Theory that teaches…white people are evil racist bastards. With the pushback against CRT coming from mostly white parents, the Left appears to have scrambled to find a reason people might be against it and landed on white rage. On a side note, I swear the Left has a giant wheel with derogatory phrases they spin whenever they want to blame whites for something.
There’s a rule of thumb I’ve seen online that applies here. If you replace the racial word with a different race and think it’s racist, then it’s racist. This concept certainly applies to white rage, but there’s a twist. By assigning rage to whites only, the Left suggests no other race can get angry, which diminishes the other races’ agency. Under the Left’s constantly-changing definition of racism, that would be racism.
But in a Rod Serling-esque twist, I have to point out the ones who claim there is white rage…are white Leftists. They seem to have forgotten in their rush to make white rage all the rage who they are.
Normally this is the part where I give you advice on how to deal with the latest Leftist controversy-du-joir. This time there isn’t any advice to give because white rage is going to fall in on itself without us having to lift a finger. There is simply too much implausibility and illogic to adopt at once for it to survive much outside of the Leftist bubble. But should you run into a Leftist bound and determined to talk about white rage, ask them how they felt about the Antifa folks arrested in Portland and how they were predominantly white.
Then ask them to repeat what they said about white rage.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
If 2020 has taught me anything, it’s that inevitably everything bad can and will be pinned on race. Just within the past year or so, everything from chess to Dr. Seuss has been deemed racist by some member of the Left, and not ironically I might add. The reasons for this are simple: 1) it’s identity politics, and 2) they’re morons.
Yet, if someone like me were to try to push back, the Left would accuse me of “white fragility.” Personally, I’m more into blues, but I wasn’t aware fragility was color based these days. I did, however, know it may be Italian.
To keep everyone in the loop on this, let’s explore white fragility in all of its…I would say glory, but there’s nothing glorious about it.
white fragility
What the Left thinks it means – a negative reaction from whites in reaction to people of color pushing back against white-controlled entities
What it really means – racism against whites
The Left will disagree with my definition of white fragility because of their own definition of racism. To them, whites can’t be victims of racism because whites have power, while people of color don’t. I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say the cities where Black Lives Matter members/supporters have burned and looted might have a different opinion of how powerless people of color are. Regardless, this notion is at the core of white fragility because it implies whites are scared of people who don’t look like them exercising the rights whites have been able to exercise themselves.
Which, of course, is crap fostered by the Left in their attempts to be the Great White Hope to people of color.
The Left truly believes they are the only ones who can speak for people of color, and too many people believe it even within the POC community. (Apparently a lack of irony is not just a Leftist phenomenon.) Yet, when it comes to white people like me who openly question why race is such a factor in these types of discussions, the strong white Leftists and their POC counterparts all assume it’s because we’re scared of the change they say is inevitable. Yes, whites will no longer control anything and will have to pay for the sins of systemic racism because…reasons.
And really that’s what it comes down to: reasons devoid of reason.
Any pushback against this sort of thinking is deemed as “white fragility,” but it’s not. In today’s society, taking a stand against racism is pretty much the current societal default setting. The issue is being against all racism, not just the acceptable racism against whites that is so pervasive on the Left. Although the Left has watered down racism to the point of Rep. Eric Swalwell’s Presidential aspirations this year, there is still a definition of racism that works pretty well: the idea that one race is superior or inferior to others. The entire concept of white fragility has its foundations in the notion whites are weak and incapable of adjusting to a situation where whites aren’t the majority.
Guess what, Leftists. You’re racists! Congratulations, and don’t forget to grab your racism starter kit before you leave. And since you believe only whites can be racist, you have no defense.
Once you get beyond the delicious irony of white Leftists being the actual racists in this situation, there is another level of delicious irony when you consider Leftists are the ones who say words are violence. Let that sink in for a moment. The people who love to use “white fragility” think words are violence. If that isn’t fragility, I don’t know what is, but it’s good to know I can use my vocabulary to bludgeon a Leftist figuratively and quite possibly literally.
At the end of the day, it’s night, but it’s also the height of white Leftist snobbery to use white fragility as a response to anyone who isn’t down with their imaginary struggle. If anything, it takes a strong person to stand up against the Left’s bullying these days, so fragility isn’t even in the equation. What is in the equation is the lengths the Left and their POC allies will go to protect the Leftist narrative at the expense of the very POCs white Leftists claim to support. Using racist terminology while proclaiming utterly unrelated things as racist weakens the concept of racism, thus making it harder for actual racism to be confronted. And using “white fragility” to dismiss concerns, legitimate or otherwise, doesn’t help. All it does is create divisions where there don’t need to be.
Granted, there are entitled white folks (Karens, Chads, etc.) who can be used as examples of white fragility, and rightly so. As a white (or if you prefer Honkey-American) man, I can tell you most of us are sick of these idiots, too. Not all of us are like that, though. And shouldn’t we avoid condemning an entire group of people because of the actions of a few?
Or does that standard only apply to Black Lives Matter? Asking for a friend.
Leftist Lexicon Word of the Week
After the recent killing of George Floyd, a forgotten figure of the Black Lives Matter movement came back into the limelight: Colin Kaepernick. The former starting quarterback of the San Francisco 49ers became a darling of the BLM crowd by taking a knee during the playing of the National Anthem (and for wearing socks depicting police officers as pigs) to protest the killing of black people by police. At the time, he was praised and criticized and now it seems he was ahead of the curve, even though he was riding the pine at his former job for sucking.
With Kaepernick’s reemergence, Leftists are coming out and saying we owe him an apology, a starting quarterback position, and back pay. There are people making as much on two knees as Kaepernick could make on one, and what he’s doing won’t get you arrested! But is he worth the accolades? Let’s take a look.
Colin Kaepernick
What the Left thinks it means – an early hero of Black Lives Matter who was blackballed by the NFL for his stance on police brutality
What it really means – a quarterback whose skills have been overshadowed by his advocacy
When he started, Colin Kaepernick was a one-of-a-kind quarterback. He was able to lead the 49ers to a handful of NFC championship games and an appearance in the Super Bowl, where he lead the team to a disheartening loss to the Baltimore Ravens (which just happens to be your humble correspondent’s favorite football team). After that, he experienced either a decline in his skills, defenses started figuring out his tendencies and exploited them to their benefit, or his offense wasn’t as potent as it was when he was successful. As a result, he wasn’t as effective as he once was and lost his starting quarterback position, even though he felt he had the skills to play as a starter.
This is where things get a little controversial. Kaepernick started dating a woman in the off season who turned him from a mediocre-starting-quarterback to a mediocre-former-starting-quarterback-with-a-cause. And out of that cause came a lot of trouble for him and headaches for the NFL. After he tried to test the free agency market and came up empty, allegations of his being blackballed flew around like errant passes from Kaepernick.
Was he blackballed? Not really. He insisted he was a top-tier talent without the numbers to back it up, and he refused to accept a back-up quarterback position. Oh, and there was the attitude problems and controversial statements supporting Fidel Castro…while he was trying to get a job with the Miami Dolphins. I will say this. What Kaepernick lacked in reading the room, he more than made up in positive press coverage. To say he became more beloved by people who would normally consider football barbaric (and, to be fair, anything short of checkers is too barbaric for the Left) would be an understatement.
And that’s how he’s made his money since deciding not to play football (i.e. when no NFL team would sign him because, well, he’s a PR nightmare in crappy socks). He’s become a professional victim, even though his ego/stupidity made him a victim in the first place. Since he’s involved in a Leftist cause, however, his defenders will overlook the obvious flaws in his story of victimhood. After all, there are black people being shot by police all the time, right? Wellll…that’s not strictly true. Crime statistics show police most often shoot…white criminals. And it’s not always white cops doing the killing, either. Thanks to diversity (something the Left claims to embrace), police departments have officers of various races. In fact, only 2 of the police officers involved in the George Floyd matter were white.
None of this diminishes the fact far too many people are getting killed by police officers, regardless of race. Nor does it excuse the racism evident in some police departments. These are real issues that fuel the division in this country and acts as justification for all sides to distrust each other. If we are make any headway, we have to call out the bad faith actors and praise those who are upholding the best in people.
And that’s why I’m calling out Colin Kaepernick and his Leftist enablers. I know the perfect is the enemy of the good, but Kaepernick is neither. He took advantage of a bad situation to create a new job opportunity for himself when his job at the time wasn’t working out the best and his options were as limited as his ability to evolve as a quarterback. And I’m guessing he hasn’t improved on his existing skill set during his extended off-season. Even though his cause has gained traction, it wasn’t because of him. If anything, it occurred without his presence being necessary. Although the Left can remember the glory days of him taking a knee, the truth remains he was merely a replaceable cog in an already existing machine.
As far as his Leftist enablers go, he doesn’t deserve back pay, a starting quarterback job, or an apology because he hasn’t earned any of it. He hasn’t played for a few years because no team would sign him. That’s not the NFL’s fault, but it is Kaepernick’s fault for not realizing his limitations. If he could play like he did prior to the Super Bowl he lost and shown he has a more level head than he did before taking a knee, there are teams right now who could use a good quarterback or at least someone who could do a good job mentoring the next generation of quarterbacks. And if football was no longer an option, he has a degree in business management that he could use…or is he using it right now to leverage his self-imposed victimhood into a lucrative, albeit somewhat dishonest, career?
In other words, Colin Kaepernick is playing Leftists for fools so he can enrich himself, and if Leftists have their way, he will succeed. But, hey, at least they’re “woke”.