• 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

Who Cares About Marx WHEN DEMS HAVE BIDEN?

December 9, 2022

Newest congressional communist takes after Marx in more ways than one

By Olivia Murray at American Thinker:

There’s a reason that disciples of Marxism earned a reputation of being basement dwellers: they’re losers. From Marx himself to his modern protégés, they always have excuses for why they can’t work, why the real world isn’t fair, and why everything is always someone else’s fault.

Marxism, and its logical conclusion in a communist form of government, is a scourge to humanity’s prosperity for many reasons — about 100 million over the last 100 years to be quite accurate. On a less murderous note though, the philosophy fosters an environment of avoiding personal responsibility, and debilitating laziness (back to the ‘loser’ stereotype) — traits which completely undermine the productivity and welfare of an entire society.

Is it any surprise that communists love big government? An ever-growing bureaucracy is their perfect cover — no accountability and no demand to actually produce anything.

Enter: Maxwell Alejandro Frost.

He’s the first Generation Z person to make it to Congress, and what will be his first order of business? Well, he’s aiming to rack up more debt in our names, and stiff-arm private property owners into compliance with communism — achieving Utopia justifies “despotic inroads”.

Yet, NPR’s Newspeak says it differently:

Some of the things he’s hoping to tackle include pushing the federal government to invest in affordable housing in areas of opportunity and to end rental application fees.

Funny enough though, Frost has more things in common with Marx than an envious and greedy ideology — both men lack(ed) the capability to run even their own finances, Frost is, and Marx was, a fiscal idiot.

From a piece published yesterday:

Frost went on to explain that he had bad credit as a result of the expenses he incurred while running for Congress.

‘Didn’t make enough from Uber itself to pay for my living,’ he tweeted. ‘For that primary, I quit my full time job cause [sic] I knew that to win at 25 yrs [sic] old, I’d need to be a full time candidate. 7 days a week, 10-12 hours a day. It’s not sustainable or right but it’s what we had to do.’

Okay, so let’s unpack this: Frost spent money he didn’t have, and racked up debt, or just stopped paying his creditors, because he only worked as an Uber driver. He knew it wasn’t “right”, but did it anyway. But the left would have us believe we can count on him to make good choices in our best interests? Give me a break.

How does this compare to Marx? Well, according to FEE:

From the time he [Marx] moved to England in early 1849 until the time of his death, Marx and his family lived in abject poverty. Within a year of arriving in London, he was kicked [out] of his two-room apartment for failing to pay rent. For decades after he was forced to use a fake name to hide from creditors. On some days, Marx could not even leave his house because his wife Jenny had to pawn his pants to buy food. His friend and collaborator, Friedrich Engels, frequently sent Marx money (between 1865 and 1869 alone Engels gave Marx the equivalent of $36,000). In a letter written on his fiftieth birthday to Engels, Marx recalled his mother’s words: ‘if only Karl made capital instead of just writing about it.’

Frost’s story exhibits an all too frequent sequence of events which sees a deadbeat’s meteoric rise…from the figurative (or literal) basement to the halls of Congress.

“This chart tells the story:”



Everyone knows that covid is dangerous mostly to old people who are already sick. Thus, there has been a particular emphasis on vaccinating and boosting the elderly. Our public health establishment has now abandoned the claim that vaccination will prevent a person from catching covid, but says that it will greatly reduce the risk of hospitalization or death.

Assessing the relative risks of the vaccinated and unvaccinated requires accurate knowledge of the numbers in each category. We have records of the people who have been vaccinated, so the “unvaccinated” in government figures merely represents the difference between the total population cohort and the number known to have been vaccinated or boosted. So the size of the total population cohort is obviously critical.

Kevin Roche, proprietor of Healthy Skeptic, realized that in Minnesota, the Department of Health was basing its vaxed/unvaxed comparisons on different time periods: it looked, for example, at case etc. rates for people who were vaccinated in 2021, but in order to determine the rates for the unvaccinated, it used population numbers averaged between 2015 and 2019. The over-65 population in Minnesota grew significantly between 2015 and 2021. In a cohort where vaccination rates are high, that turns out to make a huge difference.

This chart tells the story:

Kevin explains:

Here is what the relative event rates would look like if the 2021 one-year Census population estimates were used for Minnesota instead of the five-year 2019 estimate that DOH uses. As we anticipated, the change for the 65 and over group is dramatic. In the October event data week, for example, (and which should be using 2022 data, which we will extrapolate to in a future post) the move from what is really a 2017 age 65 and over population estimate to a 2021 one takes the number of unvaccinated persons from about 62,000 to over 162,000. It takes the cases per 100,000 people from 396 to 151, the hospitalizations from 71 to 27 and the deaths from 4.9 to 1.8. The case rate is now lower than that for vaxed population and equal to that for the boosted. The hospitalization rate is far lower than that for the vaxed and almost equal to that of the boosted population. And the death rate goes from 4.9 to 1.8, equal to that for the vaxed group and below that of the boosted population.

So the alleged benefit of vaccination in people over 65 turns out to be the artifact of a statistical blunder. Or, perhaps, a statistical trick.

There is much more at the link, including charts that show the impact of vaccination and boosters in younger age groups, using the correct years. They indicate that in those age groups, there is a positive impact from vaccination and boosters, although in some cases the numbers are so low as to be of doubtful significance.

Do national figures, and data from other states, incorporate similar errors? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t be surprised.

It is easy to manipulate statistics, either intentionally or accidentally, by committing errors that are really rather simple but that never will be revealed by the government media. It is left to smart observers like Kevin Roche to do the work that neither our public health establishment nor our journalists have the ability, or perhaps the desire, to do.

National Dems Have Been Fascistic For Nearly A Generation!

Dem Attacks on Musk Prove Their Support for Free Speech Is Dead


By Adam Brandon – RCP Contributor

December 09, 2022

When Elon Musk reached an agreement to acquire Twitter for $44 billion in October, the deal was met with a wave of outrage from the left. Democrats spanning the nation condemned the acquisition, claiming that it was “dangerous” for America. Now, we’re starting to figure out why.

After the release of the “Twitter Files” last week, which documented the censorship of the accurate New York Post report about Hunter Biden’s laptop before the 2020 election, the left is panicking. From bringing former president Donald Trump back to the platform, to shining a light on the corruption that plagued Twitter prior to his takeover of the company, Elon Musk’s commitment to the core American value of free speech is quickly turning into a nightmare for Democrats.

Such reverence for free speech calls to mind the ACLU of old, an organization that would defend any American’s right to free speech, no matter how offensive or distasteful. Free speech is messy, and a public exchange of opinions is often upsetting. But that is OK. Groupthink needs to be challenged. It’s a core tenant of reason.

That’s why the Democrats are doing everything they can to stop Musk in their attempt to sanitize speech. And their efforts are becoming even more desperate. On Dec. 6, it was reported that the city of San Francisco has opened an investigation into Musk for allegedly converting some of the rooms formerly used as office space into bedrooms for employees at Twitter’s headquarters.

The fact that San Francisco is openly targeting Musk shows how far the city’s government is willing to go to quash their political opposition under Democrat Mayor London Breed. This is obviously not a legitimate investigation. It’s an effort to generate bad press for Musk because he’s restoring free speech to Twitter, and uncovering corrupt behavior by the leftist buddies of San Francisco’s top politicians.

It’s also stunning that a government which allows thousands of homeless people to camp on the streets every night has prioritized investigating makeshift bedrooms, rather than attempting to address this crisis currently faced by the city of San Francisco. No wonder residents of the Bay Area are fleeing in record numbers.

But it isn’t only San Francisco’s government threatening Musk. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre recently told reporters that the Biden administration is “keeping a close eye” on Twitter after the Musk acquisition, sparking a wave of backlash. This veiled threat was yet another effort by Democrats in power to intimidate Musk.

The left used to pride itself on supporting free speech throughout American history. But those days are long gone. Rather than allowing ideas to be heard and letting the best of these win out, Democrats have become dependent on selective censorship to silence opposing viewpoints.

Some of the most obvious examples of this occurred during the last few years. Aside from the censorship of the Hunter Biden laptop story just before the 2020 election, countless Americans were banned from Twitter and other social media platforms for daring to raise the possibility that the COVID-19 virus leaked from a lab in Wuhan.

Thankfully, these restrictions were dropped by Musk in November. But rather than celebrating the fact that Twitter users will now be able to speak freely on this important topic, the left is condemning the move. That’s because they have become totally dependent on maintaining a censorious regime in order to stay in power.

What Elon Musk is doing at Twitter will undoubtedly go down in history as an important step toward restoring free speech on social media. However, it’s impossible to change the status quo without making enemies in Washington, and in Silicon Valley.

What we have seen from the city of San Francisco and Biden’s White House, among others, is a blatant attempt to intimidate Musk into silencing the left’s political opposition. Thankfully, he’s not backing down.


Steve Hilton: Hey, Trump haters (on both sides) could you just admit that this is a successful presidency?

 By Steve Hilton at | Fox News

Hilton: Trump’s record is head and shoulders above the rest

Something caught my eye this past week. It was an official meeting in Europe of the Paris Climate Accord process, which, of course, President Trump pulled America out of. When a U.S. representative took the stage to explain our position, he was jeered and laughed at – loudly.

How very strange. You know how climate change activists never stop going on about believing in the science and how facts matter. Then why aren’t they cheering the United States, instead of jeering?

In the evil populist “Trump’s America,” here’s what happened to energy-related carbon emissions: In 2017, they fell by 0.5 percent. But in the saintly globalist European Union, they went up by 1.5 percent in the same period. In fact, per-capita carbon emissions in Trump’s America are nearly at a 70-year low.

It turns out energy deregulation does more to fight climate change than going to conferences. I guess you might call that an “inconvenient truth.” This one’s pretty inconvenient if you’re the kind of person that goes around saying Trump is a fake populist, that he’s not doing anything to help the forgotten men and women in this country.

“All he had time for was celebrities, and now suddenly he’s acting like he’s a populist out there,” former President Obama once said. “‘Man, I’m going to fight for working people.’ … Come on, man!”

And former Vice President Joe Biden said the following at the Democartic National Convention in 2016: “He’s trying to tell us he cares about the middle class. Give me a break! That’s a bunch of malarkey!”
“Malarkey?” I want Joe Biden run in 2020 just so we can hear more of that word.

Look, America’s poverty rate was lower in President Trump’s first year than at any point in the Obama administration.

Okay. Whatever, you Trump haters are probably saying. But of course the middle class was screwed by the Trump tax cuts that only helped the rich, right?

Oh wait. The Trump tax cuts doubled the standard deduction to $12,000 for individuals and $24,000 for families. That’s a huge change that takes millions of Americans out of federal income tax altogether and has effectively increased incomes for middle class families across the country.

What else helps the middle class? Jobs. But of course that “idiot” Trump couldn’t create them.

“When somebody says – like the person you just mentioned that I’m not going to advertise for – that he’s going to bring all these jobs back. Well, how exactly are you going to do that?” Obama once said. “He just says, ‘Well, I’m going to negotiate a better deal.’ Well, what – how – exactly are you going to negotiate that? What magic wand do you have?”
Yeah, Trump, what magic wand do you have? I don’t know, maybe just better economic policy. The kind that results in the lowest unemployment rate since 1969. And the lowest African-American unemployment ever.

Also, wasn’t Trump going to crash the economy? Hillary Clinton thought so, telling an audience, “Economists – left, right, and center – all agree: Donald Trump will drive America back into recession.”
Left, right and center, inconvenient truth, Hillary. Even the New York times just gave Trump credit for the fact that the U.S. economy is on track for its “best annual performance since 2005.”

Alright, whatever. Jobs and growth … but Trump still isn’t delivering his promises to working people. I mean, after decades of stagnation, incomes are still flat, aren’t they?

“A key thing we’ve been looking at for quite a while that doesn’t seem to be moving much are wages,” CBS correspondent Anthony Mason said on-air.
Oh dear. That turns out not be true any more. Wages have risen all the way through the last two years and were up 3.1 percent in the last quarter – the highest level in a decade.

Fine. But it’s all going to be ruined, isn’t it, by Trump’s crazy trade war with China? In fact, the elitists seem to hate Trump so much, they even took China’s side. Remember how they thrilled to the brutal autocrat Xi Jinping at Davos last year? They just lapped up his speech on the virtues of globalization. The president of the EU-owned European Investment Bank said, “In these times of a lack of leadership, particularly in Europe, it was quite impressive.”

Oooh President Xi! You’re quite impressive!

What’s actually happening is that President Trump’s pressure is working. China is on the back foot, making trade concessions, and now pledging to drop its “Made in China 2025” program, which was Xi Jinping’s grand plan to achieve world domination in the industries of the future.

We’ll see if they mean it. But even the fact that they’re saying it is a major victory for that “idiot” Trump, who obviously doesn’t know what he’s doing. Just like with North Korea, remember?

It was outgoing President Obama who told President-elect Donald Trump that North Korea would be his number one problem. Trump actually listened to him, did something about it, and turned our relationship around in a way that has made the world incomparably safer.

We’ll never persuade the Trump haters on the left and the right to change their feelings about the president. They just can’t stand him.

And then, just this past week, we saw incredibly important substantive progress from this administration. Major criminal justice reform, led by Jared Kushner, is now looking good for passage in the Senate. A major new effort to revitalize urban America and rebuild low-income neighborhoods is being led by Ben Carson. And there’s a highly significant new strategy from John Bolton to fight China’s attempted colonization of Africa.

On top of that, America last week became a net oil exporter for the first time in 75 years, enabling us to reduce the global influence of dodgy regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere.

Yeah, but he’s still an idiot, though. isn’t he? He’s still Trump.

Look, the point here is this: We’ll never persuade the Trump haters on the left and the right to change their feelings about the president. They just can’t stand him. And more than anything, it’s aesthetic. They find him vulgar … not to their taste.

Fine. But could you just focus on the facts? Could you just acknowledge – even for a day or so over Christmas – that on the facts, on policy, on the substance, that this is, so far, a pretty successful presidency?

“….how the Big Tech company was secretly “blacklisting” conservative tweets and users by keeping “disfavored” tweets from trending and secretly hiding whole accounts or topics without users’ knowledge”.

All The Times Twitter Execs Lied To Our Faces About Their Insidious Shadowbanning

BY: EVITA DUFFY at the Federalist:

DECEMBER 09, 2022

Jack Dorsey giving shadowbanning testimony

The idea that Twitter granted users the ability to ‘share ideas’ ‘without barriers’ was a bald-faced lie.

Author Evita Duffy profile


Remember all the times Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and top Twitter lawyer Vijaya Gadde assured us that Twitter neither shadowbans nor targets conservatives? Well, they lied. 

In the second installment of Elon Musk’s “Twitter Files,” independent journalist Bari Weiss exposed how the Big Tech company was secretly “blacklisting” conservative tweets and users by keeping “disfavored” tweets from trending and secretly hiding whole accounts or topics without users’ knowledge.

One Twitter team, the “Strategic Response Team – Global Escalation Team” (SRT-GET), was reportedly committed to censoring “up to 200 ‘cases’” per day. Victims included prominent conservatives Dan Bongino and Charlie Kirk, as well as Stanford University professor and co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration Dr. Jay Bhattacharya.

Another secret censorship group, the “Site Integrity Policy, Policy Escalation Support team” (SIP-PES), was responsible for the most “politically sensitive decisions.” The group included Gadde, Dorsey, trust and safety head Yoel Roth, former CEO Parag Agrawal, and others, and it was personally responsible for suppressing the viral Libs of TikTok Twitter account, among other high-profile censorship calls.

But remember when Twitter execs repeatedly insisted they didn’t engage in shadowbanning?

‘We Do Not Shadow Ban’

On July 25, 2018, Vice News reported that several prominent Republican politicians, such as Mark Meadows, Jim Jordan, and Matt Gaetz, did not show up in a drop-down menu of automatically suggested searches, even when typing in the politicians’ names.


A day after the outcry over the apparent shadowbanning, Gadde and Twitter’s product head Kayvon Beykpour attempted to couch concerns by co-authoring a blog post titled “Setting the record straight on shadow banning.” “We do not shadow ban,” Gadde and Beykpour insisted. “You are always able to see the tweets from accounts you follow (although you may have to do more work to find them, like go directly to their profile). And we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints or ideology.”

The Algorithm ‘Doesn’t Make Judgements Based on Political Views’ 

The day before publishing that blog post, Beykpour posted a Twitter thread blaming the discrimination against Republican members of Congress on the company’s use of “behavioral signals and machine learning,” which they were working to “improve.” However, Beykpour assured users that “our behavioral ranking doesn’t make judgments based on political views or the substance of tweets.” 

‘We Certainly Don’t Shadow Ban Based on Political Viewpoints’

Dorsey then shared Gadde and Beykpour’s blog post, writing, “We don’t shadow ban, and we certainly don’t shadow ban based on political viewpoints.”

“We want a vibrant and healthy public conversation inclusive of all perspectives, and one that’s immediately relevant and valuable,” added Dorsey.

‘We Do Not Shadow Ban. Period’

In August 2018, Dorsey phoned into Sean Hannity’s radio show, telling listeners, “We do not shadow ban according to political ideology or viewpoint or content. Period.” Dorsey added that there is “a lot of nuance to this” and it “is definitely not easy but we’re trying to approach this with a very simple goal which is how do we earn more trust.” He also said the company is “getting better and better, step by step.”

‘Our Policies and Algorithms’ Do Not Discriminate Against Conservatives   

In a September 2018 congressional hearing in response to the Vice story, Texas Republican Rep. Joe Barton asked Dorsey if Twitter discriminated against conservatives. “No, our policies and our algorithms don’t take into consideration any affiliation, philosophy, or viewpoint,” said Dorsey, who then spent the rest of the hearing blaming the censorship on a mistake in Twitter’s algorithm. 

‘No,’ Twitter Is Not ‘Rigged to Censor Conservatives’

In the same congressional hearing, Rep. Mike Doyle asked Dorsey if Twitter is “rigged to censor conservatives.”

“No,” Dorsey responded.

“Are you censoring people?” Doyle asked.

“No,” Dorsey answered again.

“Twitter’s shadow-banning prominent Republicans … is that true?” Doyle pressed.


‘No,’ Twitter Does Not Shadowban Based on Politics

In October 2020, Dorsey admitted that the suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story was “not great,” to which conservative commentator Dave Rubin said, “Do you shadowban based on political beliefs? Simple yes or no will do.” Dorsey emphatically answered, “No.” 

Naturally, the corporate media accepted Twitter execs’ shadowbanning denial at face value. A 2018 Vox article called the idea that prominent Republicans were being shadowbanned a “persistent conspiracy theory.” In 2018, a Washington Post article about Twitter “myths” said the “[claim] that Twitter is systemically banning conservatives from the platform because of their ideology” is “a conspiracy theory from the fringes of the Internet [that] has crept into the mainstream.” And in March 2019, MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt said the idea that Twitter “shadow bans” conservatives “has been widely debunked.” 

The Shadowbanning Is Real

The idea that Twitter allowed users to “share ideas” “without barriers” (as its mission says) was a bald-faced lie. Twitter’s political discrimination was not exclusively algorithmic. The deliberate silencing of conservative voices was carried out by regular employees and the tippy top of Twitter’s corporate ladder. 

As Weiss reported, Twitter referred to its shadowbanning under the moniker “Visibility Filtering,” under which it was able to “block searches of individual users; to limit the scope of a particular tweet’s discoverability; to block select users’ posts from ever appearing on the ‘trending’ page, and from inclusion in hashtag searches.” 

Charlie Kirk’s account contained an internal warning label that read “Do Not Amplify.” Twitter secretly condemned Bhattacharya to a “Trends Blacklist” and put Bongino on a “search blacklist.” Libs of TikTok was suspended numerous times for allegedly violating the company’s “hateful conduct” policy, but insider communications revealed that “after her seventh suspension, the [SIP-PES] committee acknowledged that ‘LTT has not directly engaged in behavior violative of the Hateful Conduct policy.’” 

Twitter, however, “justified her suspensions internally by claiming her posts encouraged online harassment of ‘hospitals and medical providers’ by insinuating ‘that gender-affirming healthcare is equivalent to child abuse or grooming,’” reported Weiss.  

Shadowbanning doesn’t appear to be leaving Twitter anytime soon. Many thought criminals, like The Federalist’s CEO and co-founder Sean Davis, are still shadowbanned, with Musk writing in November that he would keep some form of shadowbanning on the app because, according to him, “freedom of speech” does not include “freedom of reach.” Thursday night, Musk reiterated that Twitter would continue to secretly censor, and instead of currently censored users being freed, Musk said they would have to “appeal” their shadowbans. 

Freedom of speech without freedom of reach is not freedom. No matter if it’s Musk or his predecessors doing the censoring, the toxic practice is slowly dismantling the digital exchange of ideas one shadowbanned tweet at a time.

Who Are Our Children? They Used To Have MOTHERS AND CIVILIZED TEACHERS!

December 9, 2022

Seared Souls: How We Abuse Our Children

By Selwyn Duke at American Thinker:

Since I’m going to be criticizing a now widely accepted phenomenon, this piece may evoke eyerolls from some supporters. So be it, because certain things need to be said.

I must confess that with the way many of my fellow adults behave today, it can make me ashamed to be one. I almost sometimes feel as if I want to apologize to the children for the example the contemporary grown-up world now sets. We often lament, and rightly so, how disrespectful many modern youths are, yet a prerequisite for commanding respect is being respectable. There is little respectable about modern American culture.

Whether or not communist activist Willi Münzenberg (1889-1940) actually said: “We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks,” he might as well have. It’s not just that adults now show children indecent images in sex education’s name, rubber stamp elementary school Satan clubs in deference to “religious freedom” and tell kids they can switch sexes just by willing it. It’s also what the “good” people fighting these abominations often do.

On November 14, the Keller Independent School District (KISD), in Texas, prohibited its school libraries from carrying books containing references to “gender fluidity”; of course, they never should’ve been there in the first place because people don’t have “gender” (words do) and sex isn’t fluid. But here’s what is permitted, among other things, under the KISD’s “more virtuous” revised policy:

“Minimal profanity is allowed in elementary and intermediate schools, middle schools are allowed some, while high schools are allowed…[common] profanity in its library material,” as the Daily Dot puts it.

Seriously? “Minimal profanity” for grade-school kids? How about minimal teacher groping, minimal dispensing of heroin needles, and minimal intra-school fight-club bouts with minimal eye gouging?

When I inveighed against profanity years ago, a reader complained, saying, “We’re not all Little Lord Fauntleroys out here.” Cute. (Actually, Little Lord Fauntleroy was a darn good role model). Well, let me say that growing up in the Bronx, I heard it all and used some of it, on occasion, back in my before-time. But more significant than my own appeals is something written by the quintessential American man’s man and Father of our Nation, George Washington. On August 3, 1776 he issued the following order to his troops: 

The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion; he hopes the officers will, by example, as well as influence, endeavour to check it, and that both they, and the men will reflect, that we can have little hopes of the blessing of Heaven on our Arms, if we insult it by our impiety, and folly; added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it.

Studying Washington’s life, as I have, can make apparent that he was the closest thing we’ve had to a true American superhero; he was a giant of a man, in stature and character. Note, too, that he expected this virtue from his men even during war, the most horrible situation a fellow could find himself in.

Speaking of which, my father was a prisoner of war in Germany, captured in battle, during WWII and the toughest man I ever knew. I never, ever heard him curse except on one or two occasions when he lost his temper (one involved a prank caller who rang incessantly in the wee hours and who cursed at my dad). It was recognized when he was raised — young people take note — that being vulgar was contrary to virtue. As the late Professor Walter E. Williams once put it (I’m paraphrasing), in the 1940s, “the worst lowlife wouldn’t use the kind of language around women and children that’s regularly used today.”

Yet peppering statements with the f-word is now common even among conservatives, who ought to ask themselves what they’re actually conserving and who normalized it. The latter’s answer should give pause:

Profanity was mainstreamed by Hollywood degenerates, the worst people among us. It started off “minimal,” of course, but became an increasingly prominent feature of entertainment. In other words, conservatives today embrace a cultural habit encouraged and legitimized by the Left. Ironic? Actually, it’s typical. As G.K. Chesterton noted in 1924, “The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected.”

And with profanity, many today are now so inured that they think it appropriate to have a minimal amount of it in children’s books and for it to be common for high-schoolers. Some will now say, “They’re just words,” ironic coming from many of the same people who want widespread suppression of so-called “hate speech,” which also is “just words.” These critics may say that youths have already heard profanity, which wholly misses the point. To wit: Teens and even sixth-graders know about sex, too — but that doesn’t mean it’s okay exposing them to porn. For there’s a difference between something being “known” and it being normalized in tender eyes. Repeated casual use and display of profanity accomplishes the latter.

Much more on this topic is in my 2017 magazine essay “Cussing & Cultural Decay,” which you’ll likely find unique. But what, really, is the good case for using profanity? If you’re a theist (and even if you’re not), note that the Bible itself warns against it. Examples:

  • “Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place….”
  • “Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths….”
  • “But now you must rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips.”

Then, if you’re at least middle age, ask yourself what your grandparents would’ve thought of today’s casual vulgarity use. Or imagine it disgorged from a child’s mouth (and, sadly, we don’t have to imagine). Sound nice?

Profanity matters because it coarsens society, acting as a gateway vice that paves the way for greater corruption. Moreover, “Manners are of more importance than laws,” observed Anglo-Irish philosopher Edmund Burke. “Manners are what vex or soothe, corrupt or purify, exalt or debase, barbarize or refine us, by a constant, steady, uniform, insensible operation, like that of the air we breathe.”

Today, the cultural air we breathe is toxic. And since culture shapes politics and morality shapes culture (Washington warned, “Human rights can only be assured among a virtuous people”), we should consider whether we’re surfeiting the substrate of tyranny with our tongues.

As for me, I know where I stand: with Washington and not Willi.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on MeWeGettr or Parler, or log on to SelwynDuke.com




Amidst the latest Trumpstorm (“Trumpenkampf“?), let’s revisit one of John Marini’s sage observations from way back in 2016 that is especially useful to keep in mind just now:

It is possible that the Trump phenomenon cannot be understood merely by trying to make sense of Trump himself. Rather, it is the seriousness of the need for Trump that must be understood in order to make sense of his candidacy. Those most likely to be receptive of Trump are those who believe America is in the midst of a great crisis in terms of its economy, its chaotic civil society, its political corruption, and its inability to defend any kind of tradition—or a way of life derived from any kind of tradition—because of the transformation of its culture by the intellectual elites. This sweeping cultural transformation occurred almost completely outside the political process of mobilizing public opinion and political majorities. The American people themselves did not participate or consent to the wholesale undermining of their way of life, which government and the bureaucracy helped to facilitate by undermining those institutions of civil society that were dependent upon a public defense of the old morality. This great crisis has created the need for a Trump, or someone like Trump, and only those who recognize it as a crisis can be receptive to his candidacy.

How many people are “someone like Trump” on the scene just now? Gov. DeSantis, the nation turns its eyes to you.