• Pragerisms

    For a more comprehensive list of Pragerisms visit
    Dennis Prager Wisdom.

    • "The left is far more interested in gaining power than in creating wealth."
    • "Without wisdom, goodness is worthless."
    • "I prefer clarity to agreement."
    • "First tell the truth, then state your opinion."
    • "Being on the Left means never having to say you're sorry."
    • "If you don't fight evil, you fight gobal warming."
    • "There are things that are so dumb, you have to learn them."
  • Liberalism’s Seven Deadly Sins

    • Sexism
    • Intolerance
    • Xenophobia
    • Racism
    • Islamophobia
    • Bigotry
    • Homophobia

    A liberal need only accuse you of one of the above in order to end all discussion and excuse himself from further elucidation of his position.

  • Glenn’s Reading List for Die-Hard Pragerites

    • Bolton, John - Surrender is not an Option
    • Bruce, Tammy - The Thought Police; The New American Revolution; The Death of Right and Wrong
    • Charen, Mona - DoGooders:How Liberals Hurt Those They Claim to Help
    • Coulter, Ann - If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans; Slander
    • Dalrymple, Theodore - In Praise of Prejudice; Our Culture, What's Left of It
    • Doyle, William - Inside the Oval Office
    • Elder, Larry - Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose
    • Frankl, Victor - Man's Search for Meaning
    • Flynn, Daniel - Intellectual Morons
    • Fund, John - Stealing Elections
    • Friedman, George - America's Secret War
    • Goldberg, Bernard - Bias; Arrogance
    • Goldberg, Jonah - Liberal Fascism
    • Herson, James - Tales from the Left Coast
    • Horowitz, David - Left Illusions; The Professors
    • Klein, Edward - The Truth about Hillary
    • Mnookin, Seth - Hard News: Twenty-one Brutal Months at The New York Times and How They Changed the American Media
    • Morris, Dick - Because He Could; Rewriting History
    • O'Beirne, Kate - Women Who Make the World Worse
    • Olson, Barbara - The Final Days: The Last, Desperate Abuses of Power by the Clinton White House
    • O'Neill, John - Unfit For Command
    • Piereson, James - Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism
    • Prager, Dennis - Think A Second Time
    • Sharansky, Natan - The Case for Democracy
    • Stein, Ben - Can America Survive? The Rage of the Left, the Truth, and What to Do About It
    • Steyn, Mark - America Alone
    • Stephanopolous, George - All Too Human
    • Thomas, Clarence - My Grandfather's Son
    • Timmerman, Kenneth - Shadow Warriors
    • Williams, Juan - Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America--and What We Can Do About It
    • Wright, Lawrence - The Looming Tower

Do Any Americans under Age 65 Know Anything “Shakespeare”?

Shakespeare and our House of Cards

by S. J. Masson                (Article sent by Mark Waldeland.)

“The other day in my class on Hamlet I drew attention to a point I have needed to make consistently about the importance of consistency and integrity.

It related to the integrity of Shakespeare as a dramatist. Shakespeare’s integrity has allowed his reputation to endure the flights of fashion for over four hundred years.  He was not simply ‘true to himself’, as Polonius would instruct Hamlet.  He was true to an unchanging reality.

Shakespeare’s plays continue to teach and to please because human nature is unchanging.  For, as Dr. Johnson put it in his Preface, ‘Nothing can please many, and please long, but just representations of general nature.’

Shakespeare is not merely a great technician of language, or a keen analyst of human psychology.  He did not ‘invent’ humanity, as Harold Bloom would have it, and would find no praise in the suggestion he had.  He would summarily reject Scottish philosopher David Hume’s ‘fact-value distinction’ – that we cannot derive statements about what ought to be from what is – as a variety of sophistry.

Shakespeare was a moral realist.

When his Hamlet declares ‘there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so’, he is not assenting to Hume’s skepticism, or to the nihilism of power politics.  Hamlet is condemning the moral and cultural relativism that has corrupted the judgment of his disloyal friends Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern.

Arising from the morality play tradition of medieval theatre, Shakespeare recognized it as his duty not only to delight his audience, but to inculcate moral truth.  This moral truth was woven into the entire cosmos, the ‘general nature’ Johnson justly notes Shakespeare justly represents.

If the idea strikes us as old-fashioned today, it is only because Shakespeare acknowledges what we have perversely been schooled to ignore.  It is what all the great books teach and common sense has ever observed.

He also recognized what some would have us now reject.  We do not self-identify our nature or construct our morality.  It is in fact human nature to imitate.  Were that not so, no one would go to a teacher, since teaching itself would be impossible.

The artist’s capacity to dramatize truth for others therefore burdens him with special responsibility.  What is rewarded and what is punished on stage must comport with fundamental justice.

For ‘all the world’s a stage’. Life imitates art, and art imitates life.

Nowhere is this standard of justice more important to uphold than in depicting humanity’s perverse predilection towards self-contraction, self-abasement, and ruin.  It seems that it is human nature to be ‘unnatural’ to itself.  Sin makes it possible to deceive, mislead, and even break all bonds of due obligation to God and man.

Shakespeare’s great villains are object lessons

Machiavellian politics of the sort exemplified in House of Cards – virtue-signalling in order to achieve power – is condemned by Shakespeare in the rise and fall of his tragic villains.  In this, he differs from the TV series, because for all their superficial similarity to Shakespeare’s villains, Frank and Claire Underwood’s perfidity continues.  But in Shakespeare’s plays, those who practice such moral relativism do not flourish long, and often fall to the very vices they condemn.

Observing this aspect of Shakespeare’s work doesn’t only afford us a clear commentary on the conduct of today’s politicians, or the acting community.

It also has a corollary in education. When teachers refuse to fail students who clearly fail to make the grade, or reward them for being activists for the ‘right causes’, they do them no kindness.  It isn’t only because they aren’t insisting they master the basics.  They are punishing them by revealing that their own authority – and thus society’s – is unrelated to their moral integrity.  And in their rewards they are thus taught to believe in belief, not in the truth.

There is a reckoning to be had for this subjectivism.  As G.K. Chesterton put it, ‘The terrible danger at the heart of our society is that the tests are giving way. We are altering, not the evils, but the standards of good by which alone evils can be detected and defined.’

Should we wonder then when we read that student ‘social justice warriors’ are now turning upon the postmodern educators that have led them to imbibe in cultural relativism?

They have learned their lesson.  If there is no morality, there is only unjust authority.

They needn’t believe in that.  In the name of the equality, they want power.

The better way is the way of integrity.  But that depends on our moral realism.  As Charles Colson once put it, ‘leaders do not lead through their own example of virtue and character cannot inspire sacrifice for the common good.’

Fascism Alive and Well in Canada


by Steven Hayward  at PowerLine:

“I’m late coming to the story about the graduate student instructor, Ms. Lindsay Shepherd, at Wilfred Laurier University in Canada, who ran afoul of the university’s political correctness police for the thoughtcrime of showing in class a short video of Prof. Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto, who objects to legislation requiring the use of the whole visible spectrum of self-generated gender pronouns.

A student (or students—the university won’t say if it was more than one) filed a complaint, which was all the tyrannical educrats at Laurier needed to dragoon Shepherd through a full-on 1984-style Orwellian inquisition by the—get this title—“manager of Gendered Violence Prevention and Support.” We might not have heard much more about this story, except that the resourceful Ms. Shepherd has the presence of mind to bring along a recorder and tape the hour-long inquisition. All hell has broken loose, and the university has “apologized.”

I put “apologized” in square quotes on purpose, because this only happened because the university’s intellectual corruption has been fully exposed for all to see. I’ve long had a hypothesis that universities want to conceal their craziness, and when an example of their intellectual corruption is exposed publicly (Ward Churchill at Boulder, Melissa Click at Missouri, etc), they run for the hills.

Below is the full 42 minutes of the inquisition of Ms. Shepherd. That’s more than you might want to listen to, but try the first 8 to 10 minutes. And if you don’t have time even for that, here are some key excerpts and delightful commentary from Raffi Grinburg at Heterodox Academy:

In the meeting, Shepherd asserted that she was neutrally presenting a topic (the legally mandated use of new gender pronouns) that is in the current public discourse.

Shepherd: [C]an you shield people from those ideas? Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they are insulated away from this? Like, is that what the point of this is? Because to me, that is so against what a university is about. So against it. I was not taking sides. I was presenting both arguments.

But her supervising professor, Nathan Rambukkana, didn’t want her to remain neutral.

Shepherd: Like I said, it was in the spirit of debate.

Rambukkana: Okay, “in the spirit of the debate” is slightly different than “this is a problematic idea that we might want to unpack.”

Shepherd: But that’s taking sides.

Rambukkana: Yes.

One side of this debate has seemingly become academic orthodoxy, which precludes the possibility that students might question it and think critically about it. In the words of Orwell from 1984:

Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness.

Shepherd’s supervisors did not disclose any information about the complaint.

Shepherd: I have no concept of how many people complained, what their complaint was, you haven’t shown me the complaint.

Rambukkana: I understand that this is upsetting, but also confidentiality matters.

Shepherd: The number of people is confidential?

Rambukkana: Yes.

Even the policy violation was unclear.

Rambukkana: Do you understand how what happened was contrary to, sorry Adria, what was the policy?

Joel: Gendered and Sexual Violence.

Rambukkana: — Gendered and Sexual Violence Policy. Do you understand how —

Shepherd: Sorry, what did I violate in that policy.

Joel: Um, so, gender-based violence, transphobia, in that policy. Causing harm, um, to trans students by, uh, bringing their identity as invalid. Their pronouns as invalid — potentially invalid.

Shepherd: So I caused harm?

Joel: — which is, under the Ontario Human Rights Code a protected thing so something that Laurier holds as a value.

Shepherd: Ok, so by proxy me showing a YouTube video I’m transphobic and I caused harm and violence? So be it. I can’t do anything to control that.

These amorphous accusations are reminiscent of Kafka’s opening lines from The Trial:

Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything truly wrong, he was arrested.

At Laurier—and other universities—can teachers be disciplined for being anonymously accused of violating an undefinable policy? If so, this has chilling implications for teaching and learning. Teachers will have to guess at what policies might protect students’ sensibilities, and eye their classrooms with fear. Each student is a potential accuser, so teachers must plan their lectures with the most easily-offended student in mind, taking account of all topics that could cause offense. In fact, since 2015 we have been hearing many reports of teachers self-censoring, “teaching on tenterhooks,” and cutting potentially controversial materials from their syllabi.

Throughout the conversation, Shepherd continued to articulate the value of showing students conflicting ideas.

Shepherd: But when they leave the university they’re going to be exposed to these ideas, so I don’t see how I’m doing a disservice to the class by exposing them to ideas that are really out there.

The ideas are “really out there:” the clip Shepherd showed had recently aired on TV. But Rambukkana later explained that there are some perspectives for which a stance must be taken by the teacher. For example:

Rambukkana: This is like neutrally playing a speech by Hitler.

In a just world, this Nathan Rambukkana fellow would be fired, and forevermore employed only at Starbucks. I suspect you’ll find people just like him at most universities today…….”  AMEN!

Comment from ghr…..Today’s fascism in soul-less, feminized Canada is many laps ahead of our United States’ Obama thought and speech controls  regarding  Leftist devotions to feed its population with dictatorship chips.    I wonder if Royal Canada has come to ban the East German movie,  “THE LIVES OF OTHERS” to keep its population ignorant of its educational and political habits.

Get to know your fascist Canada better by following the reporting commentary of our American 2016 election night Presidential contest at CBC  below:


America Before Obama

Fellow conservative, Mark Waldeland, sent the following remembrances when our America was still Godfearing, independent, civilized  and  freedom loving, before the foreigner white “black racist” president, Barack Hussein Obama’s initiated the invasion of millions of foreigners and  fostered the rebellions of lunatic feminists and fatherless black savages to riot and destroy the America of Ronald Reagan.

Morning in America…..