"The Day the Police Were No Longer Needed"

 

We have the Modern "Red Guard" running checkpoints in MSP, vetting American citizens if they have affiliation with "ICE" or the Border patrol.  This is dangerous, the local democratic leadership has surrendered leadership to the "Modern Red Guard" and they have hamstrung the police and other authorities.  This has made the local government weak and ineffective, especially when you have elements of the local government leading the low level rebellion against the federal government.  I understand the tightrope that President Trump is walking, if he uses the "Insurrection Act"  against the rioters and assorted marxist, I believe that within a few weeks congress with the donks and squishy Rino's will try to "25th the President" and get him out of office. and especially right before the midterms, it would devastate the GOP and any successor that President Trump would recommend (Most Likely JD Vance).  But this is going into a boiling point by this summer, I can see this spreading to all the other major cities like the Summer Of Love(TM) back in 2020 to celebrate the death the Saint of Fentanyl George Floyd.  I have "Blogged in the Past" about the tearing down of traditional norms and values and trying to impose the "New Way".  The soviets tried it with the belief in the "Modern Soviet Man" where they tried to remove all the traditional things that made Russia..Well Russia.  They had mixed results.  Well anyway  We have this new crop of Bolsheviks trying again because they believe that they can make people "better"  We as Traditional Americans are too independent for them.  Communist don't believe in a higher power, 

   Tried to download the Video clip...But no joy.   Oh well

They believe in the state, the state and big government is their religion.  THe State is Mother, the State is Father, the state will provide what you need....That is the core of their belief and in return, all you have to do is give the state total obedience.    Well to us freedom loving people, that is a nonstarter, so we have a huge divide on the purpose of government in our lives.

Lessons from the past: THE DAY THE POLICE WERE NO LONGER NEEDED

On August 19, 1966 - students launched a fight for social justice to fight for the rights of the oppressed in China. The patriarch system in China had been created by the 1% and held down women, minorities, and the working class. The students cried out for a revolution and change. They launched the Cultural Revolution. Students put a red band around their arm to stand in solidarity with the oppressed and called for a change on old ideas that they called the FOUR OLDS. The Four Olds were: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas.

The movement was supported by the Chinese media

Mass demonstrations and looting by the students ensued.

Statues were torn down

Chinese architecture was destroyed

Classical literature and Chinese paintings were torn apart and burned

Temples were desecrated.

The Cemetery of Confucius was attacked

The corpse of the 76th-generation Duke Yansheng was removed from its grave and hung naked from a tree

Wealthy homes were attacked and destroyed

Many families' long-kept genealogy books were burned to ashes.

Public leaders who were considered to be oppressive were tried by angry mobs and vigilantes

Three days later, August 22, 1966, a central directive was issued to stop police intervention. The police were disbanded in the city and the students formed a community solution called the RED GUARD. The RED GUARDS policed the communities and punished anyone who did not agree with their ideas. Even people that supported the movement, but had bad thoughts could be punished.

Though many Christians supported the movement in the beginning, they quickly became the number one target of the RED GUARDS and public trials were held to condemn them to death.

Many of those that were on board with the cause of the rebellion in the beginning saw that it was not really what they had signed up for, but by then it was too late. The power that the Red Guard wanted had already been given.

More people died during the cultural revolution in China than any war, famine, or natural disaster in the history of man.

"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." (Ecclesiastes 1:9)

On August 8, 1966, the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party adopted the "Decision Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution." Three days earlier, Bian Zhongyun, vice-principal of Beijing Normal University's girls school, had been beaten to death by her students, teenage Red Guards wielding nail-spiked clubs.

Her crime? Teaching traditional values.

By 1976, scholarly estimates suggest between 1.1 and 1.6 million Chinese lay dead, not from famine or foreign invasion, but from their own children, their own neighbors, their own revolution.

---

Mao understood what the Church Fathers knew: to possess a man's future, you must first destroy his past. St. Basil the Great wrote that the demons "wage war against us by means of our own thoughts." The Cultural Revolution weaponized this principle against an entire civilization.

Mao's order was simple, destroy the "Four Olds":

Old Customs

Old Culture

Old Habits

Old Ideas

Between 1966 and 1968, Red Guards burned 2.3 million books in Beijing alone. They smashed 4,922 of the city's 6,843 officially designated cultural sites. They forced Buddhist monks to marry. Nothing was too sacred, too ancient, too fundamental to escape the purge.

---

Now observe modern day America:

Old Customs challenged: The nuclear family faces unprecedented scrutiny in academic and policy circles. In California, legislators attempted to reshape custody law itself. AB 957 sought to make parental "affirmation" of gender identity a factor in determining child welfare, effectively pressuring parents to adopt state-preferred positions on their children's identity or risk custody consequences. Though Governor Newsom vetoed the bill in September 2023, citing concerns about the judicial branch's independence, the attempt reveals the ambition: to legally codify ideological compliance in the most intimate family decisions.

Old Culture contested: In 2020, amid nationwide protests, Native American activists including Nick Tilsen of the NDN Collective publicly labeled Mount Rushmore "a symbol of white supremacy" and called for its removal, comparing it to Confederate monuments. Major media outlets amplified these voices. While no government entity officially declared it such, the fact that America's presidential monument could be seriously discussed in such terms marks a dramatic shift. Meanwhile, curriculum controversies rage across school districts as communities battle over which historical figures and literature merit inclusion...debates that would have seemed unthinkable a generation ago.

Old Habits criminalized: The American Psychological Association's 2019 guidelines labeled elements of "traditional masculinity ideology" including stoicism, competitiveness, and self-reliance, as "psychologically harmful." Though the guidelines sparked fierce backlash from scholars who questioned their scientific basis, they revealed how therapeutic institutions now view traditionally masculine virtues as pathologies requiring treatment.

Old Ideas abolished: In educational and corporate settings, concepts like "objective truth," "colorblindness," and "meritocracy" are increasingly framed as tools of oppression rather than ideals worth pursuing. When the Smithsonian's National Museum of African American History briefly published materials suggesting that "rational thinking" and "hard work" were aspects of "whiteness," the backlash forced its removal, but the fact that such materials were created at all by a major institution speaks volumes.

The objective is nothing new. It's ancient. As St. Athanasius wrote, defending truth against the Arians: "They wish to obscure the truth." A people severed from their past become clay in the tyrant's hands.

---

In 1968, teachers at Peking University were forced to kneel on broken glass while students screamed accusations. The goal was never justice, it was psychological destruction through public humiliation and forced confession.

The ritual has returned, sanitized for Western consumption.

In February 2021, screenshots emerged from what a whistleblower claimed was Coca-Cola's mandatory diversity training, featuring slides titled "try to be less white" with instructions to "be less arrogant, less certain, less defensive, less ignorant."

The course, created by Robin DiAngelo and hosted on LinkedIn Learning, was authentic. Coca-Cola denied it was required training, stating it was merely available through their LinkedIn Learning access.

Whether mandatory or simply available, the existence of such material in corporate diversity curricula, and the company's initial willingness to make it accessible, demonstrates how mainstream these concepts have become.

Similar patterns appear across corporate America. Major companies conduct training sessions asking employees to examine their "privilege," rank themselves by identity categories, and publicly acknowledge their position in "systems of oppression." The mechanism echoes the old Chinese struggle sessions.

Identify the oppressor class, encourage public introspection and confession, frame silence as complicity, and demand demonstration of ideological alignment.

St. John Chrysostom warned: "The devil does not ask for the whole; he is content if he gains a little."

---

Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist, wrote from Mussolini's prison in 1930: "In the West, the State was only an outer ditch... there was a powerful system of fortresses and earthworks behind." He meant our churches, our schools, and our culture. He called for a "Long March through the Institutions."

The march has made stunning progress.

Academia tilts heavily left, surveys show progressive faculty vastly outnumber conservatives, particularly at elite institutions. Media consolidation means a handful of corporations control the vast majority of American news outlets. Even churches split over "progressive Christianity" and "liberation theology"...the same theological framework that armed Communist guerrillas in Latin America.

This is not conspiracy, it's observable reality. Ideas flow from universities to media to policy, and those ideas increasingly frame American life through the lens of power, oppression, and identity. The Communist Party USA's modern platform explicitly champions identity-based activism, not because they control these movements, but because they recognize fertile ground.

They preach equity. Not equality. It's not about equal opportunity but equal outcome enforced by authority.

It's Harrison Bergeron turned into policy.

---

The Red Guards succeeded because millions believed resistance was futile, that history had a direction, that the revolution was inevitable. They stood silent while their society and culture were destroyed, hoping the mob would pass them by.

It never does.

St. Maximus the Confessor had his tongue cut out and his right hand severed for refusing to compromise with imperial heresy. He died in exile. The heretics died too...but their names are forgotten, while Maximus is called "saint." The Church remembers those who stood firm.

We stand firm now.

The Cultural Revolution isn't coming. Elements of it...the attack on tradition, the struggle sessions, the ideological conformity, the severing of past from present...are already here and adapted for Western consumption. They will advance until people of conviction plant their feet and say "No further."

Deus Vult.

"Ending The Blue State Urban Veto"

 This is another one I shamelessly clipped while I was on the cruise, I got it from Michael Smith SubStack.  He makes a lot of good points that the urban areas can pull a state. Oregon has that problem as does Washington.  Both have very blue cities surrounding by red rural areas, but they swing the states partially by the lax voting rules they have by the political machines that run the state(Democrat).   I have commented many times that voting is a safety valve for our society, but it it is made redundant by the gerrymandering and other slight of hands tricks  used by the party in charge to totally wipe out any influence of the opposition party, people will eventually lose the will to participate, and the institutions of the country take a hit.  When people no longer care to participate in the body politic and fade away, the safety valve is gone, eventually a spark will set off a fight. and it will go kinetic. Do I want to see "Spicy Times", no I don't, but eventually I see it coming when the tyranny of the minority will force the issue.

Virginia’s election of alleged “moderate” Democrat, Abigail Spanberger, proves a couple of things. First, given her immediate actions—what Meghan McCain described as an effort to “turn Virginia into Minneapolis”—it confirms there are no such things as “moderate” Democrats anymore. CIAbigail has already moved to unwind many of the reforms of former governor Youngkin, including ending hand-counting ballot safeguards and reinstating discriminatory DEI policies. Second, her victory once again illustrates how concentrated urban populations rule over rural counties in statewide elections, regardless of how divergent their values, needs, or ways of life may be.

In dense urban and suburban environments, daily life is mediated by public systems so thoroughly that their presence becomes invisible. Garbage disappears on schedule, utilities are reliable, grocery stores are minutes away, and commercial centers appear as if by market magic—though many are in fact the result of tax abatements, subsidies, zoning favoritism, and government-directed incentives. When most necessities are delivered through a mix of public provision and state-assisted development, and the most effort required is dragging a wheelie bin to the curb, it is hardly surprising that residents come to see larger government as natural, benevolent, and even indispensable. By contrast, someone living a hundred miles from a major airport or a full-service hospital experiences government very differently and understandably struggles to see why taxes must rise to support services that feel distant, unnecessary, or irrelevant to daily survival.

This divide maps cleanly onto modern electoral geography. As population density increases, so does support for liberal, government-centered policies, a pattern visible in virtually every election heat map. The closer one lives to a dense urban core, the more likely one is to support expansive government programs; the farther away, the more skepticism tends to grow. When people spend their entire lives in environments where government quietly handles problems they never have to think about, independence and private enterprise begin to appear risky, even threatening. They assume that without government, those services might disappear and that they would, for the first time, must pay for them directly, manage them personally, or go without.

The rural counties and the urban areas, meanwhile, have profoundly different philosophies, ideologies, and views of religion—and yet they are regulated, taxed, and governed as if they were interchangeable with the urban cores that dominate statewide elections. This tension is no longer abstract or theoretical. We see it in counties openly discussing secession, state realignment, or outright political separation as a means of escaping governance they no longer recognize as legitimate.

I’ve written before about how Congress actively assisted West Virginia’s break from Virginia over slavery in 1861 and awarded it statehood in 1863. Setting aside how legally questionable and non-reproducible that episode would be today, the fact that people are even contemplating similar ideas tells you something is broken. The current arrangement does not feel particularly fair and it certainly does not feel representative.

The U.S. Constitution reflects a uniquely American insight: democracy without geography becomes domination. The Founders never believed that raw headcounts alone produced legitimacy. They believed legitimacy came from distributed consent across real, distinct communities. That is why they created the Electoral College to elect presidents, split Congress into two chambers, apportioned House seats by population, and granted each state equal representation in the Senate. These were not accidents or compromises born of ignorance; they were deliberate structural restraints on the tyranny of concentrated majorities. Modern states abandoned that insight—not because it was wrong, but because it was inconvenient.

I’ve been thinking about this problem for nearly twenty years. Every presidential cycle, when a handful of urban counties like Fulton County in Georgia or the swamp-infested counties of Northern Virginia, effectively determine who sits behind the Resolute Desk, I revisit it, then drop it again. Since the disastrous election of 2020, however, I’ve been more deliberate, jotting down possible alternatives to the permanent domination of rural counties by cities—domination that exists solely because cities have more headcount. I keep arriving at the same conclusion: the problem is not democracy itself, but the absence of federalism inside the states.

Out of roughly ten mechanisms I examined, three stand out as serious possibilities, all would require amendments to state constitutions. I proposed several frameworks to ChatGPT and Grok, told them to use Virginia as a crash-test dummy, and then compared, synthesized the outputs and ranked by legal survivability.

The most legally durable option would be a dual-majority requirement for statewide offices. Under such a system, a candidate would need to win both the statewide popular vote and a majority of counties or regions. This does not dilute urban votes or give rural areas veto power. It simply requires geographic legitimacy in addition to numerical superiority. Cities could still decide elections—but only if their preferences were shared, at least in part, beyond their own boundaries. Courts have historically been more comfortable with outcome-qualification rules than with systems that directly weight votes, making this approach especially resilient.

A closely related option would replace counties with regions. Virginia is already functionally divided into recognizable geographic blocs—Northern Virginia, Hampton Roads, Central Virginia, the Shenandoah Valley, Southwest Virginia. Requiring a candidate to win the statewide vote and carry a minimum number of regions would prevent a single metro area from imposing its will on the rest of the Commonwealth, while avoiding the legal vulnerability of treating tiny rural counties as coequal to Fairfax or Loudoun. It forces candidates to assemble geographically broad coalitions rather than relying on one dense population center.

The most philosophically honest, though legally ambitious, solution would be a state-level electoral college. Counties or regions would function as political units, each receiving a combination of population-based electors and a small fixed allotment recognizing territorial status. Statewide offices would be decided by electoral votes rather than raw totals. This mirrors the logic of the federal system and acknowledges that states are composed of communities, not just aggregates of individuals. Properly designed, with population remaining the dominant factor, such a system could survive judicial scrutiny, though it would require careful drafting and political courage.

While I personally prefer the last option, none of these reforms would guarantee conservative victories, nor are they meant to. Their purpose is not partisan advantage but political relevance—rural Virginians would not be asking to rule cities; they are asking not to be ruled by them. Federalism was never about efficiency. It was about legitimacy. When fundamentally different ways of life are governed as if they are interchangeable, resentment becomes inevitable and consent erodes.

We see the same dynamic play out at the county level elsewhere. I lived in Park City, Utah, in Summit County, which is still (despite the sprawl) majority farm and ranch land. Yet the county is effectively ruled by Park City rather than the county seat of Coalville. Scale changes, but the problem remains the same.

Virginia is beginning to experience that reality firsthand. The real question is not whether these mechanisms are sufficiently democratic. It is whether a system that permanently subordinates one culture, one economy, and one way of life to another can plausibly claim to be representative at all.

If geography no longer matters, then consent soon won’t either.

"How To Cower Elite Wussies" at Davos

 

Another Snagged off Farcebook while I was on the cruise thingie.

It’s been hilarious watching Trump’s masterclass in “How to Cower Elite Wussies” at Davos.

The WEF elites mistake spreadsheets for courage and panel discussions for strength. Their effete, limp-wristed males wear tailored suits but have the posture and presence of substitute teachers. Their vinegar-faced females clutch lattes and explain - through trembling smiles - why YOU must accept less so that THEY can feel virtuous about “the transition.”

For years, these pompous windbags strutted around like philosopher kings and queens.

So sure of themselves. So brave when speaking to captive audiences and a compliant press. So bold when announcing that other people would need to eat bugs, tighten belts, lower expectations, surrender ownership, abandon tradition, and “adapt.” All delivered in that soft, bloodless Davos tone - condescension masquerading as compassion.

But then Trump, like Gandalf on the Bridge of Khazad-Dum, strides onto the stage and thunders “you shall not pass!”

And suddenly the Davos elites’ courage vanishes.

These feckless wusses are just wannabe tyrants. Real tyrants have nerve. They’re wannabe revolutionaries. Real revolutionaries risk something. The WEF class is managerial to the bone - precious career climbers, pretentious credential collectors, middle aged prefects who rose by never offending anyone stronger than themselves. Their authority exists only in rooms where disagreement is disallowed and consequences are theoretical.

That’s why the shift is so revealing.

The same crowd that wagged its finger at entire nations now speaks in careful hedges. The same mouths that confidently declared the future “inevitable” suddenly sound unsure. The same people who mocked dissent as ignorance are now desperately trying to sound reasonable, moderate, listening. Watch them physically shrink - voices softening, language watering down, principles melting into mush.

Because at heart, they are terrified of conflict they can’t referee.

They are brave when power is abstract; fearless when no one can say no; and ruthless when the costs are paid by strangers.

But faced with force, resolve, or a challenge that doesn’t care about their credentials? They fold. They always have. The Davos elite aren’t evil geniuses. They’re puffed up, evil mediocrities with delusions of adequacy.

Their brittle authority is propped up by prestige and fear of social disapproval. But once that fear dissolves, there’s nothing underneath. No backbone. No conviction. No willingness to stand behind what they so smugly demanded of everyone else.

Trump has exposed them for the feckless, ineffectual, self-congratulatory apparatchiks that they’ve always been.

"Has Donald Trump Ever..."

 

I clipped this off Farcebook during the cruise..

Has Donald Trump ever opened extermination camps for entire groups of people?

No.

Has he used the U.S. military to deliberately target innocent civilians?

No.

Has he targeted hostile forces like ISIS and the IRGC?

Yes.

Has he promoted racial hatred?

No.

Did he call for unity—under one flag, regardless of race or religion—at his 2025 inauguration?

Yes.

Has he repeatedly challenged media manipulation and outright falsehoods?

Yes.

Did he help broker peace deals and ceasefires between long-standing adversaries during his time in office?

Yes.

So why the hatred?

Because it was never about what he did.

They hated him from day one.

Every misrepresentation, every exaggeration, every manufactured scandal is recycled and sold as “truth.” Racist. Misogynist. Rapist. Anything will do—as long as it justifies the hatred. The labels matter less than the outcome.

Why do they hate him?

Because without that hatred, they would be forced to confront something far more uncomfortable: themselves.

The truth is this—many are deeply invested in a system that no longer works. A system he challenged, disrupted, and exposed. And people who have built their identities around a broken system will defend it with everything they have. History is full of those who defended their masters while calling themselves virtuous.

To admit that Trump is a disruptor rather than a tyrant would require them to unravel the beliefs, credentials, and moral hierarchies they’ve spent their lives protecting. That kind of reckoning is unbearable. So denial becomes survival.

They don’t hate him for who he is or what he’s done. That’s just the story they tell themselves. They hate him because their egos recognize him as a threat—to their status, their worldview, and the system that validates them.

He holds up a mirror they refuse to look into.

That mirror reflects an unsettling possibility: that the system they trusted is false, that the narratives they defended were hollow, and that the world they were promised was never real.

And when a system collapses, so do the identities built inside it.

Will they ever understand this?

No. The ego doesn’t work that way.

It sneers instead. Not out of strength—but out of fear.

Because it’s always easier to hate the one holding up the mirror than to face the reflection staring back.

Monday er Tuesday Music "Mr Jaws" by Dickie Goodman

 

I am continuing my soundtrack "Monday Tuesday Music".  I happen to catch this on my 70's on 7 on my Sirius/XM and I totally forgot this song until I heard it and I was chuckling to myself.  So I decided to make it my "Monday Music" song.  I heard it for the first time in 1975 while we were living in Frankfurt Germany and I heard the song on the "Wolfman Jack" show on AFN where I thought he was an AFN DJ, what can I say, I was 10 years old then.


"Mr. Jaws" is a novelty song by Dickie Goodman released on Cash Records in 1975.
This record is a parody of the 1975 summer blockbuster film Jaws, with Goodman interviewing the shark (whom he calls "Mr. Jaws"), as well as the film's main characters, Brody, Hooper, and Quint. Goodman makes full use of his practice of "break-in" music sampling, in which all of the interview answers are lyrics from popular songs from that year.
The single peaked at #4 on the Billboard Hot 100 in October 1975. On the Cash Box Top 100 it fared even better, reaching #1.

Goodman would later make more parodies of Hollywood films, along with his political satire records. The B-side of this single was "Irv's Theme".
The name of the song's label, Cash Records, was another idea from Goodman after he was asked whom the record company should make the check out to.
The recording took place at Sear Sound in New York engineered by Russ Hamm. Originally the songs were sampled, however when the record became a hit, the songs were replaced by sound-alike recordings.