The Rational Bible Series (Highly Recommended): Dennis Prager Examines Each Moral and Every Story in the Bible with an Open Mind

The third book in Dennis Prager's Rational Bible series won't be due until September. The subtitle of Prager's Deuteronomy is either God, War, and Peace or God, Blessings, and Curses.

Is the Bible, the most influential book in world history, still relevant?

Why do people dismiss it as being irrelevant, irrational, immoral, or all of these things?

This explanation of the Book of Deuteronomy, the fifth book of the Bible, will demonstrate how it remains profoundly relevant—both to the great issues of our day and to each individual life.

Do you doubt the existence of God because you think believing in God is irrational? This book will cause you to reexamine your doubts.

The title of this commentary is The Rational Bible because its approach is entirely reason-based. The reader is never asked to accept anything on faith alone. In Dennis Prager’s words, “If something I write is not rational, I have not done my job.”

The Rational Bible is the fruit of Prager’s forty years of teaching to people of every faith and no faith at all. On virtually every page, you will discover how the text relates to the contemporary world in general and to you on a personal level.

His goal: to change your mind—and, as a result, to change your life.

Deuteronomy will be the third book in the Rational Bible series by the founder of Prager University, in the wake of Genesis and Exodus. In the meantime (i.e., while waiting for September), you can purchase a copy of Dennis's The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code. Alternatively, or in addition, you can head over to Prager University's free video commentaries on each of the Ten Commandments — 1 to 5 and 6 to 10 — with six minutes or less per Commandment.

Entirely Reason-Based: The reader of Dennis Prager's Rational Bible Series is never asked to accept anything on faith alone (Highly Recommended)

As someone who was never particularly religious — although I was a big New Age fan in my teens and twenties (so much that I eventually minored in Religious Studies of comparative religions) — I have started reading the first book in Dennis Prager's Rational Bible series. To say the very least, Dennis Prager's Genesis — subtitled God, Creation, and Destruction — is eye-opening.

Why do so many people think the Bible, the most influential book in world history, is outdated? Why do our friends and neighbors – and sometimes we ourselves – dismiss the Bible as irrelevant, irrational, immoral, or all of these things? This explanation of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, will demonstrate that the Bible is not only powerfully relevant to today’s issues, but completely consistent with rational thought.

 … The title of this commentary is “The Rational Bible” because its approach is entirely reason-based. The reader is never asked to accept anything on faith alone. In Dennis Prager’s words, “If something I write is not rational, I have not done my job.”

I am awestruck especially by the explanations of the founder of Prager University on the subject of ingratitude — the most overrated trend in modern thought. To the detriment of Wisdom — perhaps the Bible's central tenet. You can download a free sample from Amazon.

Many people today think the Bible, the most influential book in world history, is not only outdated but irrelevant, irrational, and even immoral.

This explanation of the Book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, demonstrates clearly and powerfully that the opposite is true. The Bible remains profoundly relevant—both to the great issues of our day and to each individual life. It is the greatest moral guide and source of wisdom ever written.

Do you doubt the existence of God because you think believing in God is irrational? This book will give you many reasons to rethink your doubts. Do you think faith and science are in conflict? You won’t after reading this commentary on Genesis. Do you come from a dysfunctional family? It may comfort you to know that every family discussed in Genesis was highly dysfunctional!

The title of this commentary is “The Rational Bible” because its approach is entirely reason-based. The reader is never asked to accept anything on faith alone. In Dennis Prager’s words, “If something I write is not rational, I have not done my job.”

The Rational Bible is the fruit of Dennis Prager’s forty years of teaching the Bible—whose Hebrew grammar and vocabulary he has mastered—to people of every faith and no faith at all. On virtually every page, you will discover how the text relates to the contemporary world in general and to you personally. His goal: to change your mind—and, as a result, to change your life.

By September, the first three books of Dennis Prager's Rational Bible series will have been published: Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy…

God, Slavery, and Freedom: Is the Bible—powerfully—relevant to today’s issues? (Highly Recommended)

As someone who was never particularly religious, I have been amazed to discover the first books in Dennis Prager's Rational Bible series. The subtitle of Prager's Exodus is God, Slavery, and Freedom.

Why do so many people think the Bible, the most influential book in world history, is outdated? Why do our friends and neighbors – and sometimes we ourselves – dismiss the Bible as irrelevant, irrational, immoral, or all of these things? This explanation of the Book of Exodus, the second book of the Bible, will demonstrate that the Bible is not only powerfully relevant to today’s issues, but completely consistent with rational thought.

Do you think the Bible permitted the trans-Atlantic slave trade? You won’t after reading this book.

Do you struggle to love your parents? If you do, you need this book.

Do you doubt the existence of God because belief in God is “irrational?” This book will give you reason after reason to rethink your doubts.

The title of this commentary is, “The Rational Bible” because its approach is entirely reason-based. The reader is never asked to accept anything on faith alone. As Prager says, “If something I write does not make rational sense, I have not done my job.”

The Rational Bible is the fruit of Dennis Prager’s forty years of teaching the Bible to people of every faith, and no faith. On virtually every page, you will discover how the text relates to the contemporary world and to your life.

His goal: to change your mind – and then change your life.

Besides a free sample from Amazon, you can purchase a copy of Dennis's The Ten Commandments: Still the Best Moral Code. Alternatively, or in addition, you can head over to Prager University's free video commentaries on each of the Ten Commandments — 1 to 5 and 6 to 10 — with six minutes or less per Commandment.

By September, the first three books of Dennis Prager's Rational Bible series will have been published: Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy… 

With regards to the significance of the Hebrews' exodus from Egypt, Bookworm treats us to his or her annual Passover post:

For roughly 3,500 years, Jews have been telling and retelling the story of Passover — which is also the story of the world’s first revolt against a totalitarian dictatorship … 

 … the thing to remember is that those atop the tyranny pyramid care about only one thing, which is that their tyranny remains stable and protected

 … I was re-reading Dennis Prager’s superb The Rational Bible: Exodus and was reminded that each one of the plagues essentially attacked one of the Egyptian’s many gods. Only in this way could God demonstrate that they were false idols and that he had the power to control the symbols with which they were associated. 

 … There is … a much more profound purpose behind the ten plagues, and that is to remind us of the tyrant’s capacity for tolerating others’ suffering, as long as his power remains in place.

What Pharaoh discovered with the first nine plagues is that life can go on, at least for the ruler, no matter the burdens he places upon his people. A blood-filled Nile River may, at first, seem appalling, but the red recedes and life goes on. Pharaoh still holds power. The same is true for each subsequent plague, whether lice, boils, frogs, darkness, or anything else. As long as Pharaoh realizes, after the first panic, that he is still powerful, he will always reconcile himself to his people’s incremental destruction.

Sheltered in his lavish palace, Pharaoh might have a theoretical concern that a starving and frightened populace could turn on him. However, provided that he is assured that his people will continue to fear and worship him, their suffering is irrelevant. It is only when the price becomes too high — when the plague struck Pharaoh in his own palace, killing his firstborn — that Pharaoh is convinced, even temporarily, to alter his evil ways.

Human nature hasn’t changed in 3,500 years. Think, for example, of both the Nazis and the Japanese at the end of WWII. … Hitler and his commanders were Pharaoh. Only when they, personally, faced a humiliating death would they stop fighting.

The same held true for the Japanese. … The Japanese high command was Pharaoh. No amount of smaller plagues could stop the command from its chosen path. Only a large plague would swiftly lead to the inevitable conclusion.

The only way to destroy an evil institution is to decapitate it. That’s what God did with the 10th plague. That’s what Truman did when he dropped atom bombs on Japan. That’s what the Allies did when they engaged in total war against the Nazis. In each case, the only way to end a tyrant’s rampage of murder, torture, and enslavement was directly hurting the tyrant’s person.

Those who prefer the stability of tyranny to the risks of freedom are the same people who refuse to accept that, under tyranny, the innocents are always going to die, with the only question being whether they will die quickly or slowly. That’s the problem with an evil regime. If you’re unlucky enough to live under that regime, you’re going to end as cannon fodder. 

Pharaoh will let you die of plagues, and the Nazi and Japanese leadership will let you be bombed and burned, and Biden will open America’s southern border while ramping up the welfare system and pushing Critical Race Theory, a pernicious racial theory every bit as bad as the Nazi’s racial theories. Ensconced in the White House, and surrounded by unelected fanatics, nothing will stop them. The American economy can collapse and whites can become the subjects of actual purges and the Biden administration will continue on its path — as long as the tyrants in charge can retain their power.

People of goodwill must sometimes recognize that the generation raised under tyranny is a lost generation that cannot be saved, whether because it will die under the tyrant’s lash, in the tyrant’s war, or in a war against the tyrant. Sometimes, when slaves finally taste freedom, they fear it. The Bible recognizes this problem, banning the Promised Land to those who were slaves in Egypt. They were a lost generation.

For this reason, when one sees a people groaning under tyranny the most humane thing to do is to destroy the tyranny quickly and decisively even if that process causes people to suffer. Most of them were always going to be lost. Our actions are for the benefit of subsequent generations and, if we are lucky, for those who survived both the tyranny and the liberation.

Protecting freedom for the greatest number of people sometimes demands proactive behavior. And there is nothing more proactive than an overwhelming response when a tyrant starts putting out feelers to see how far he can go. …

 … The only way to stop tyranny is to fight tyranny. For liberty-loving people in America, that’s a challenge, because, for the first time in my lifetime, the tyrant is their unfettered government. Still, we have weapons. For one thing, every last one of us needs to stop bowing down before cancel culture. Even non-conservatives need to realize that there is no end to cancel culture. Its practitioners must constantly strive to prove their purity and they can do this only by attacking others.

 … We have to stop playing this fear game. When they call us racists, when they subject us to the appalling racist Critical Race Theory, when they use race to justify overthrowing our southern border, we need to speak out even more loudly. We need to fight their ideology at every turn. We need to boycott the woke companies. We need to fund organizations that will handle lawfare for people fired because they exercised their constitutional rights.

Do anything and everything you can think of to push back against this administration. That does not mean violating the laws; it does not mean impoverishing yourself; it does not mean violence. However, it does mean speaking up constantly, withholding what money you can from complicit organizations, and backing down only when your safety is at risk …

The al-Durah affair is the greatest media manipulation of modern times: "There is nothing more dangerous for the Jewish people and Israel than left-wing Jews"

To a question by Valeurs Actuelles magazine's Pauline Darrieus, Philippe Karsenty answers why the al-Durah affair is so important. Valeurs Actuelles:

The al-Durah affair is the greatest media manipulation of modern times; it had a global impact and acquired historical significance. Since the broadcast of the France 2 report on September 30, 2000, a worldwide jihad has been launched against the Judeo-Christian West. 

The Second Intifada was ignited by these images; Bin Laden used Muhammad al-Durah to incite hatred before 9/11; Wall Street Journal journalist Daniel Pearl was murdered in Pakistan in 2002 in front of a screenshot of the France 2 report. The entire Arab and Muslim world commemorates the "martyrdom of little Muhammad" with streets, schools, monuments, and stamps bearing his image. 

Until France 2 admits to having staged the broadcast on September 30, 2000, this affair will have to be revisited to uncover the truth. This must be done for history, in the same way that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion were demystified or the innocence of Captain Dreyfus was established; this is what Pierre-André Taguieff explains in the dossier of the magazine Causeur of February 2026. 

When asked by the Epoch Times newspaper's Etienne Fauchaire why so many famous Jews in France rallied to the defense of the state government television's hoaxers (merci à Sarah pour l'Instalien), Philippe Karsenty gives an answer that Dennis Prager has mentioned in the past about Jewish non-believers through the centuries and through the millennia: 

As for these Jewish figures, they are first and foremost left-wing before they are Jewish. And there is nothing more dangerous for the Jewish people and Israel than left-wing Jews. They are the ones who have led Israel to its worst defeats, to its worst compromises. They are the ones who got one of the worst American presidents toward Israel elected: Barack Obama. They are the ones who got the Islamist Zohran Mamdani elected mayor of New York… Left-wing Jews are narcissistic masochists, corrupt financially or intellectually.

 … This affair illustrates the profound bad faith of the left and its conspiracy-minded cronies who claim that the French press is serving "Zionist propaganda." In reality, from France Télévisions to Le Monde, including Libération and L'Humanité, the overwhelming majority of the media landscape adopts, on the contrary, an obsessively hateful stance towards Israel, as everyone could see after the massacre of October 7th. … Leftism is a mental illness!

Indeed, Pierre-André Taguieff goes on to say, in Il était une fois Pallywood in a special issue of Causeur, that the misleading images of "little Mohamed," with their antisemitic undertones, are akin to "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and the Dreyfus Affair.  For the inventor of the concept of "Islamo-leftism," "the al-Dura lie has become a mythical banner of the media war against Israel and the Jews." As for the numerous journalists who chose to disseminate them without critical distance, they reveal the devastating corporatism of their profession.

In any case, Israel itself is lucky — as is the world — that over the decades, the country's inhabitants turned away from the leftist direction, and rediscovered its religious roots. See Dennis Prager's notes for Deuteronomy 4:28 (pages 57-58), where he mentions Jewish non-believers through the centuries and through the millennia in his Rational Bible books, Jews who were lured by other, secular, religions (among them Karl Marx): the founder of Prager University explains "What Happens When Jews Abandon God."

(This post ends here and now: the rest below is the original French version)

Reportage sur la mort supposée d’al-Durah : « C’est la plus grande manipulation médiatique des temps modernes », analyse Philippe Karsenty par Pauline Darrieus :

L’affaire al-Durah est la plus grande manipulation médiatique des temps modernes, elle a eu un impact planétaire et a acquis une dimension historique. Depuis la diffusion du reportage de France 2 le 30 septembre 2000, un djihad mondial a été lancé contre l’Occident judéo-chrétien.

La seconde intifada a été embrasée par ces images, Ben Laden a utilisé Mohamed al-Durah pour inciter à la haine avant le 11 septembre, le journaliste du Wall Street Journal Daniel Pearl a été égorgé au Pakistan en 2002 devant une capture d’écran du reportage de France 2. Tout le monde arabo-musulman commémore le « martyr du petit Mohamed » avec des rues, des écoles, des monuments et des timbres à son effigie.

Tant que France 2 n’aura pas admis avoir diffusé une mise en scène le 30 septembre 2000, il faudra revenir sur cette affaire pour obtenir la vérité. Cela doit être fait pour l’Histoire, de la même façon que les Protocoles des Sages de Sion ont été démystifiés ou l’innocence du capitaine Dreyfus a été établie ; c’est ce qu’explique Pierre-André Taguieff dans le dossier du magazine Causeur de février 2026.

« Le faux reportage de France 2 sur l’affaire d’Al-Durah témoigne de l’hostilité des médias contre Israël » : Philippe Karsenty interview de Etienne Fauchaire :

Quant à ces personnalités juives, elles sont avant tout de gauche avant d’être juives. Et il n’y a pas plus dangereux pour le peuple juif et Israël que les Juifs de gauche. Ce sont eux qui ont conduit Israël aux pires défaites, aux pires compromissions. Ce sont eux qui ont fait élire un des pires présidents américains vis-à-vis d’Israël aux Etats-Unis : Barack Obama. Ce sont eux qui ont fait élire l’islamiste Zohran Mamdani à la mairie de New York… Les Juifs de gauche sont des narcissiques masochistes, corrompus financièrement ou intellectuellement.

 … Cette affaire illustre la profonde mauvaise foi de la gauche et de ses affidés complotistes qui affirment que la presse française serait au service d’une « propagande sioniste ». Dans les faits, de France Télévisions à Le Monde, en passant par Libération et L’Humanité, l’écrasante majorité du paysage médiatique adopte au contraire une ligne obsessionnellement haineuse envers Israël, comme chacun a pu le constater après le massacre du 7 octobre. … Le gauchisme est une maladie mentale !

Homophobia? What Nobody Tells You About the "Hate Crime" of Leaving Skid Marks on Rainbow Crosswalks

When you think about it — and hardly more than for 15 seconds or so, if that long — then the charge that kids and adults alike leaving skid marks on rainbow crosswalks represents some kind of anti-gay homophobic hate crime turns out to be little more than nonsense.

Last Saturday (as mentioned a couple of days ago), Instapundit's Ed Driscoll linked to Powerline's memes in the Week in Pictures — while Sarah Hoyt did something similar by linking to… Sarah Hoyt's personal website.

With regards to Powerline, among this week's cartoons was the one at the very top of this page. The main message of the joke is quite serious: that the woke PC leftist drama queens go berserk over one type of "crime" — is it even a misdemeanor?! — while, conversely, being open to and understanding — certainly if the person belongs to the correct oppressed minority — to far worse types of crime, not excluding (attempted) murder.

But another, perhaps lesser, issue is that — again, when you think about it — the skid mark-leaving on rainbow crosswalks has nothing to do about homophobia or transphobia (or whatever other phobias you want to talk about) in the first place.

It is about kids, or teens, or tweens — and even adults (young or otherwise) — having fun. Who knows? Maybe a number of the skid mark-leavers have been gay themselves?

Leaving grayish skid marks upon gray asphalt is simply not as noticeable as upon parts of roads which are painted in vivid and brillant colors (is it okay we say flamboyant colors or is that also homophobic?) — and even, with the rainbow motif, in multi-colored stripes.

There are only bike riders and car drivers "ruining" the rainbow display and that, in dramatic fashion with their wheels; there don't seem to be many "far-right" pedestrians coming with paint or tar or anything to pour something over the display…

Whatever the colors' symbolism is supposed to represent is simply not of much interest — if any interest whatsoever — to these people and what matters to them, the excitement of leaving one's mark. 

If I am wrong, then by all means make your case in the comments…

But if Dennis Prager is to be believed, on the other hand, LGBTQ+ 'Pride' Is Totalitarian:

The vast majority of Americans believe in tolerance of LGBTQ+ individuals but not in organizations expressing pride in them.

Why is this?

Because "Pride" is not about tolerance. "Pride" is totalitarian.

Tolerance is about behavior. "Pride" is about thought.

If the founder of Prager University is likewise wrong, feel free, again, to tell him/us so in the comments section…

Related: • The "Racism" Invective: How the Left's Mindset Works  

• Double Standards: How Can One Insist That Illegals and/or Anchor Babies Are U.S. Citizens If Indeed "We Live on Stolen Land"?!) 

 

In the Beginning, America's Democrats and the Europeans Alike Strongly Supported Israel; What Happened? The Jews Had the Gall to Stop Acting Like Communists

What the heck has happened to the Democratic Party? 

Over at PJ Media, Rick Moran asks one heck of a question in his article about Graham Platner (i.e., The Man With the Nazi Tattoo [Who] Is Blowing up the Democratic Party). The question could also be applied to (West) Europeans, whose countries were steadfast allies of Israel immediately after its creation and for two to three decades after that. (Remember the Suez Crisis of 1956, with Brits and Frenchmen allied with the Israelis against the Egyptians?)

What has happened to the Democratic Party? The strong support for the creation of the state of Israel in the immediate aftermath of World War II by Democrats convinced Harry Truman to support the motion at the UN for Israel's creation (among other factors). About 70% of American Jews either identify as Democrats or vote Democratic in elections.

The answer may be surprising to some, but the fact of the matter is that shows the entire planet's affection for social democracy, democratic socialism, or socialism pure and simple, or whatever you want to call it, and to have each country's citizens treated as welfare beneficiaries. And for the first decades of its life, the Jewish state acted more as a communist nation. (Toda to Sister Sarah for the Instalink.)

Remember the kibbutzes? These were collective communities, many of whose leaders stood in awe of Comrade Stalin, as they did around the world — the degree of far leftism in the Wikipedia article on kibbutzes will make your eyes roll — and I know of Danish friends, including a former girlfriend, who went over to Israel for several months to live the Kibbutz experience, meeting volunteers from around the world. Indeed, Denmark was full of Maoists in the 1960s, which formed collectives — groups of (mostly but not only) young people dedicated to turning an apartment building or a mansion into a communistic mini-paradise where the many inhabitants share meals and chores — some of which survive to this day. 

The general assumption is that leftists worldwide started turning on Israel after — and because of — 1967's six-day war, but what is unmentioned is that (although the modern state of Israel was founded largely by secular Jews — war hero Moshe Dayan, for instance, was apparently unconcerned about the symbolism of liberating the Wailing Wall and it was only under pressure that, in full uniform, he left a note among its cracks) by this time Israelis were largely in the process of turning away from the kibbutz experience, i.e., what appeared to many left-wingers around the world as betraying the Marxist principles leading to a bright new future around the world. 

As Philippe Karsenty pointed out a few weeks ago (when the spokesman of le Comité Trump France was asked why so many Jewish VIPs in France rallied to the defense of the government television's anti-semites), 

 … these Jewish figures … are first and foremost left-wing before they are Jewish. And there is nothing more dangerous for the Jewish people and Israel than left-wing Jews. They are the ones who have led Israel to its worst defeats, to its worst compromises. They are the ones who got one of the worst American presidents toward Israel elected: Barack Obama. They are the ones who got the Islamist Zohran Mamdani elected mayor of New York… Left-wing Jews are narcissistic masochists, corrupt financially or intellectually.

 … [The al-Durah] affair illustrates the profound bad faith of the left and its conspiracy-minded cronies who claim that the French press is serving "Zionist propaganda." In reality, from France Télévisions to Le Monde, including Libération and L'Humanité, the overwhelming majority of the media landscape adopts, on the contrary, an obsessively hateful stance towards Israel, as everyone could see after the massacre of October 7th. … Leftism is a mental illness!

Indeed, Israel itself is lucky — as is the world — that over the decades, the country's inhabitants turned away from the leftist direction, and, to a certain extent, rediscovered its religious roots. See Dennis Prager's notes in his Rational Bible books for Deuteronomy 4:28 (pages 57-58, see below), where he mentions Jewish non-believers through the centuries and through the millennia, Jews (among them Karl Marx) who were lured by other, secular, religions: the founder of Prager University explains "What Happens When Jews Abandon God."

Update: Check the comments section to see the prediction that Da Tech Guy made as far back as 10 years ago…

Har Donald Trump ikke ret om socialismen?

    I sin tale om nationens tilstand (the State of the Union) sagde Donald Trump, manden som er beskrevet i hele Europa som en værre – og farlig – tåbe, at »Vi må … beslutte os for, at Amerika aldrig bliver et socialistisk land«

    Den generale holdning i Vesteuropa, samt blandt USAs demokrater, er det kan kun være en dyd at oprette et velfærdssystem.

    Men er Venezuela ikke blot et eksempel (og kun, desværre, det allerseneste) på at det – tydeligt – er forkert?

    Efter 20 år af Hugo Chávez og Nicolás Maduros socialistiske Revolution, kan borgerne i hvad var engang Sydamerikas rigeste land nu nyde manglen på mad, medicin og toiletpapir, samt strømafbrydelser, hyperinflation, og generelt en økonomi i frit fald, mens millioner af folk søger at flygte til nabolandene (google BBC's "How Venezuela's crisis developed and drove out millions of people").

    Som så mange andre, både i USA og andetsteds i verden (ikke mindst Danmark), var Michael Moore fuld af begejstring og beundring over den Bolvarianske revolution da Hugo Chávez kom til magten for 20 år siden.  Så sent som i 2013 skrev filminstruktøren f.eks. at "Chavez har erklæret at olien tilhører folket.  Han brugte olie dollars til at eliminere 75% af ondartet fattigdom, og til at forsyne alle med et gratis sundhedssystem og uddannelse."

    Hvad er det, at en Michael Moore, en Oliver Stone, en Bernie Sanders, en Michael Tackett og en Dan Jørgensen, samt millioner af danskere, ikke forstår, at i Venezuela er socialismen ikke blot mislykket, det har bragt borgerne i Latinamerikas allerrigeste land til fattigdommens rand?

    I deres iver efter at vise hvor overlegen resten af verden – eller i hvert fald Europa – er i forhold til USA glemmer de at omtale de (mange) lande hvor det har vist sig at "tåberne" (udtrykket – som de fleste danskere er givetvis enige med – stammer fra Niels Jespersen i Berlingske vedrørende sådanne folk som Ronald Reagan, Sarah Palin, og Donald Trump) som er skeptiske overfor indførelsen af et nationalt velfærdssamfund har utvivlsomt haft ret.

     Fordi det ikke har et sundhedssystem som "alle andre lande" bliver Kapitalismens hjemland regelmæssigt beskrevet som et "mareridt".  Skulle ordet ikke hellere anvendes om Venezuela, en nation med tomme supermarkedhylder der lider en 85% mangel på medicin og hvor millioner prøver at udvandre?

    Donald Trumps udtryk for sådan nogle lande skulle være "shitholes" (hvis det virkeligt passer at præsidenten har brugt det ord), et udtryk der er blevet ganske vist kritiseret over hele kloden.

    Nu taler vi om lande med tomme supermarkedhylder hvor man skal bruge flere timer hver dag til at købe et stykke brød eller en rulle toiletpapir (hvadenten det er i Leningrad – for en generation siden var det Sovjetunionen – eller Caracas) – hvis sådanne varer overhovedet kan findes.

    Er det virkelig taktløs at kalde sådan nogle lande for "shitholes"?

    Hvad ellers skal man kalde et land hvor en væsentlig del af befolkningen – hvadenten der er fra Latinamerika (i Venezuela er det en sjettedel) eller Syrien – er udvandret til udlandet i de sidste ti år?!

    Betyder det så ikke at emigranterne selv siger —  i så mange ord – at deres egne lande kan de facto beskrives som et shithole? 

"THE BLIND SPOT" I FOX NEWS KONTROVERSET

    I dette sammenhæng har der været meget humor over at en Fox News journalist har sammenlignet Venezuela med Danmark.  Der har utvivlsomt været overdrivelse i Trish Regans reportage, men kan det ikke virke lidt indskrænkende at den eneste lektie, som danskerne synes at have taget fra kontroverset er (igen) at de konservative amerikanere er ikke andet end nogle uvidende tumper som burde kende mere til verdenen?  (Samt selvfølgelig den stedsegrønne drøm om at USA burde efterligne Skandinavien og – endelig – få et socialistisk samfund.)

    Sig mig:  Passer det virkelig at danskerne bare kan lay back and relax?  Har danskerne ikke egentlig også en lektie at lære?  Som måske er vigtigere…  At når "tosserne" er betænkelige om lande (eller rettere om revolutionernes ledere) der har valgt socialismen, har de ofte haft… god grund til det?  Er Chavez's Venezuela (efter bl.a. Lenins USSR, Ceausescus Rumænien, og Maos Kina) ikke et godt bevis på det?

    Har alle lande (eller rettere, alle revolutionernes ledere) ikke lovet samme fremtid i skandinavisk stil?

    Hvem kan forudse med sikkerhed, om en venstreorienteret regime vil følge Denmarks eksempel eller Venezuelas?  Er der nogen (Michael Moore?  Bernie Sanders?  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez?  Dan Jørgensen?), der har svar på det spørgsmål?

    Da Donald Trump gav sin første tale i FN i 2017, fokuserede medierne (det, som han kalder for "fake news") på det kontroversielle – hans kommentarer om Nordkorea og "Rocketman"; både i USA og i udlandet undlod de for det meste at berette om, hvad præsidenten havde at sige om socialismen.

    “The problem in Venezuela, is not that socialism has been poorly implemented, but that socialism has been faithfully implemented.  From the Soviet Union to Cuba to Venezuela, wherever true socialism or communism has been adopted, it has delivered anguish and devastation and failure.”  Følgende år sagde Trump at “Today, socialism has bankrupted the oil-rich nation and driven its people into abject poverty.”

    Vedrørende Trumps State of the Union: i Information griner en George Blecher af "talens gammeldags præg – og selv dens 1950'er-agtige udfald imod socialismens røde fare", men sandheden er, at socialismen synes at være den eneste ideologi som man skal bedømme på alene deres (sjældne) "succeser." Aldrig skal følgende lande nævnes: Albanien, Algeriet, Angola, Burma, Congo, Cuba, Ethiopien, Laos, Somalien, Vietnam, Yemen, osv osv osv…

    Næh, kun de skandinaviske lande og/eller Vesteuropa skal nævnes – selv om vi her i Skandinvien protesterer (med rette) at udtrykket Socialisme er langtfra en tilpassende beskrivelse om vore lande.

    I The Daily Signal forklarer David Harsanyi at "nutidens socialister [amerikanske såvel som udenlandske] klukker højt ved at lade som om kollektivistiske politik ikke fører til andet end uskadelige resultater som lokale biblioteker. Men i mange år priste de også diktatorerne i Cuba, Nicaragua og Venezuela" (for ikke at nævne Sovjetunionen og Kina).

    Det er ikke kun det danske system som danskernes yndlingspolitiker i USA, Bernie Sanders, har hyldet. "For ikke særlig længe siden," fortsætter David Harsanyi, roste Vermont Senatoren "Hugo Chavez som arkitekten af the American Dream, endnu mere end selveste USA." (!)

    Socialister i udlandet og i USA, som Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), "kan lide at bebrejde enhver ulighed, enhver glubsk forbryders handling, enhver nedtur og enhver social sygdom på kapitalismens uretfærdighed. Men ingen af dem indrømmer, at kapitalismen har været den mest effektive måde i historien til at afskaffe fattigdom."  Samt den mest effektive måde i historien til at financiere… det enkelte lands hele velfærdssystem.

NOGLE PINLIGE SPØRGSMÅL OM DET DANSKE VELFÆRDSSYSTEM

     Det siges at hvis socialismen har været en katastrofe i visse lande der fører til elendighed og fattigdom, så kan det ikke nægtes at det været en succes i en del andre lande.

    Det bringer os til adskillige pinlige spørgsmål:

    Passer det ikke, at de fleste lande hvor velfærdssamfundet blev oprettet nogenlunde godt efter Anden Verdenskrig – hovedsageligt Japan og Vesteuropa – er netop de lande som fik kæmpe injectioner af penge fra udlandet efter krigen; dvs milliarder af dollars fra – who else? – Amerika (i Europa, via Marshall-planen)?

    Udover det, har man lov til at sige at danskernes stolthed over deres sociale system nogengange undlader nogle betydningsfulde detaljer?

    To af de ting, man mest beskylder USA for er dels, at amerikanerne ikke bruger nok på det sociale og dels, at deres "krigsgale" generaler bruger (alt) for meget på militæret – mens de peger på deres egne landes fredelige, og gavmilde, brug af deres BNP (dvs af deres skatteyderes skattepenge).

    Men hov! passer det ikke, at hvis lande i Vesteuropa bruger lidet på deres egen militær medens de har penge til råde til at bruge penge på det sociale, er det ikke fordi – et det ikke netop fordi – Uncle Sam bruger så meget på Amerikas forsvar; som også fungerer som forsvar for hele Vesten?

    Forklarer det ikke samtidig amerikanske presidenters regelmæssige bønfald til Europa at bidrage mere til forsvaret, senest Donald Trumps vrede i Brussel over NATO i 2018?

    Det korte af det lange er følgende:  Europæerne kan gå rundt og prale over deres status som alhellige fredsstiftere i kontrast til de afskyelige amerikanske tumper præcis fordi deres regninger bliver betalt af og deres forsvar bliver garanteret af samme afskyelige amerikanske tumper.

    Hvorom alting er, så gentager vi danskere, hvor stolte vi er, at vi har dette sundhedssystem som vi allesammen har gavn af.

    Må nogle flere spørgsmål blive stillet?

    Var vi ikke lige så stolte af vores sundhedssystem for 10 år siden?  For 20 år siden?  For 40 år siden?  For dem som var i live dengang kan svaret næppe være andet end et helt sikkert ja.

    Ligeledes med andre emner, som vore kørefartøjer, eller vore telefoner.  Er vi ikke tilfredse med vore telefoner nu?  Var vi, eller vore forældre, ikke lige så tilfredse med vore telefoner for ti àr siden?  For 40 år siden?  Var vore forfædre ikke lige så tilfredse med vore telefoner for 100 år siden?  Med vore kommunikationsmidler i det 16. århundrede?  I det 11.?

    Men I dag ville vi ikke være tilfredse med vore kommunikationsmidler for 1000, eller 500, år siden.  Vi ville ikke være tilfredse med telefonerne fra 1930erne, eller fra 1970erne, eller fra 1990erne.  Faktisk ville vi den dag idag næppe være tilfredse med vore telefoner for blot 3-4 år siden.

    I mellemtiden er der nemlig kommet fremskridt.  Og hvor kommer den fremgang fra?  Kommer det ikke primært fra Nordamerika?

    Det er der ikke mange der tror på (fordi der ikke er mange der tænker over emnet?).  Find en liste på nobelpriserne i medecin (samt andre videnskabelige emner): Det er ikke altid amerikanere der vinder.  Men det er det oftest.  Og mange af de englændere og andre udlænginge der vinder har ofte arbejdet på… amerikanske instituter.

    For eksempel blev den franske presse stolt, da en franskmand var blandt Nobel vinderne i medecin i 2008 for forskninger om AIDS. Men dengang var Luc Montagnier ikke længere til at findes på l'Institut Pasteur; han var blevet tvunget ud af sit arbejde på grund af hans pensionsalder (social retfærdighed, forstås) og arbejdede i… USA.  (Den dag idag findes han forresten i Kina.)

    De seneste udviklinger der hjælper medicinens fremgang er personal computers og smartphones, opfindelser der var helt utænkelige da jeg blev født, og som ikke engang fandtes i science fiction historier.

    For et par år siden sad jeg ganske fredeligt på en café i Paris og nød en drink da jeg pludselig begyndte at se uhyggelige brune pletter der dansede foran det ene øje.  Jeg ringede til en venindes far som var pensioneret øjenlæge, og han sagde at jeg måtte øjeblikkeligt (hvis jeg må have lov til at bruge udtrykket) tage til l'Hôpital des Quinze-Vingts.  Det viste sig at være begyndelsen af en retinal løsrivelse.

    Næste gang vi mødtes, spurgte jeg ham hvordan det ville være gået da han var øjenlæge for 30 år siden.  Jo, jeg ville have fået en aftale med en specialist, og efter en tretimers operation ville jeg have overnattet i en hospitalsseng.  Men i 2016?  Der fik jeg laserbehandling fra en medicinsk pratikant, en pige 23 eller 24 år gammel, og efter 20 minutter var det slut og jeg fik lov til at gå hjem (givet, efter to-tre timer i ventesalen).

    Igen:  Ville danskerne (eller franskmændende) være tilfredse den dag idag for den velfærdssystem Danmark (eller Frankrig) havde for 50 år, eller 20 år, eller blot 5 år, siden?

    Nu ønsker man inderligt, at amerikanerne efterligner Europa — gid de der yankees kunne, ligesom os, bare ingen bekymringer have og fokusere på at have det sjovt og more sig — uden at det påvirker landets "can do" spirit.

    Da langt de fleste opfindelser der i de sidste 200 år – hvadenten det er i Nordamerika eller andetsteds i verden, hvadenten det er dampskibe eller jernbaner, hvadenten det er personal computers eller smartphones – er kommet fra eller er blevet forbedret i USA, burde alle forsøg på at ødelægge eller hæmme fornyelser (også kaldet: killing the goose that lays the golden eggs) ikke afværges?

    Som Stanford "policy expert" Lanhee Chen fortæller i en Prager University video (What's Wrong with Government-Run Healthcare?), "systemer hvor regeringen kontrollerer sundhedsvæsenet, nedtrykker på søgen efter nye botemidler og innovation … [og] medicinske gennembrud kommer sjældent fra sådanne lande. De kommer fra USA, hvor regeringen holder sig fra. … Biomedicinske forskningsudgifter i USA overstiger langt fra ethvert land med nationaliseret sundhedspleje … Løvens andel af de biomedicinske forsknings- og udviklingsudgifter i USA – over 70 milliarder dollar i 2012 – kommer fra den private sektor."  Dermed får amerikanerne innovation, som alle andre folkeslag eventuelt får nytte fra.

    (Men i det hele taget må det siges at danskerne burde holde sig bort fra de circa 200 korte Prager University videoer på internettet; det ville jo være forfærdeligt hvis den almindelige dansker ikke længere kunne overbevises om, hvor tumpet den almindelige yankee var.)

DEN SANDE GRUND HVORFOR USAs DEMOKRATER HYLDER SKANDINAVIEN
(OG HVORFOR EUROPÆERNE HYLDER USAs DEMOKRATER)

    Men lad os droppe Danmark som eksempel, så den almindelige læser ikke bliver forarget.  Lad os tale i stedet for om et af nabolandene.

    I sin bog om de nordiske lande (“The Almost Nearly Perfect People: Behind the Myth of the Scandinavian Utopia”, på dansk “Det er et lykkeligt land”), skriver Michael Booth at i "størstedelen af det 20. århundrede har Sverige de facto været en etpartistat, og partiet hed Socialdemokraterna.  De regulerede alle aspekter af deres pligtopfyldende, føjelige borgeres liv og gjorde deres yderste for at sørge for, at alle overholdt deres moderne, progressive samfundsnormer."

    Når forfatteren (som iøvrigt er venstreorienteret) beskriver Sverige som "en totalitær stat", er det selvfølgelig ikke i samme grad som f.eks. Sovjetunionen, men fordi der "var ikke ret mange aspekter af svenskernes liv, som staten ikke bestræbte sig at kontrollere – fra lønninger til børneopdragelse, drikkevaner, tv-vaner, længden af deres ferier og deres syn på Vietnam-krigen" (cf. Uncle Sams påståede forfærdelige undenrigspolitik).

    Men danskerne, og resten af de nordiske lande (hvis ikke hele verdenen), er overbevist om at intet kunne blive bedre for USA, og for verden selv, end hvis USA blev "fundamentally transformed" (Barack Obamas ord) og endelig fik lige så ekstensiv en administrativ formynderstat (på engelsk: a nanny state) som de europeiske lande har.

    Hvis det er rigtigt at Barack Obama var den vidunderligste amerikanske præsident i verdenshistorien (ligesom, i deres tid, Lenin og Che Guevara, for ikke at glemme Mao og Chávez, etc etc etc…), bliver den eneste logiske konklusion så ikke at det ville være vidunderligt for landet hvis sådan et pragtfuld Übermensch blev livsvarig Leder?

    Hvis det er rigtigt at demokraternes modstandere er så væmmelige som de beskyldes for ("deplorables", kalder Hillary Clinton republikanerne jo), er den logiske konklusion så ikke at disse umenneskelige barbarer burde miste flere rettigeheder, deriblandt deres free speech (ytringsfrihed) samt deres valgrettigeheder?

    Og er den logiske konklusion så ikke at republikanerne faktisk er folkefjender, som burde straffes — hvadenten det er med tab af valgrettigheder, høje(re) skatter og beslaglæggelse af adskillige egendomme?

    Eller måske burde Republikanerne faktisk sættes i genopdragelseslejre, for at blive omskolet?  Så kunne de endelig anerkende hvor vidunderligt det er for et folk at have venstreorienterede politikere, professionnelle funktionærer, og utallige love til dannelse af en nanny state der regerer ethvert aspekt af deres daglige liv?

    Det er jo ganske ufatteligt at amerikanerne ikke kan indse, hvor heldige de ville være, hvis blot Hillary eller Bernie eller AOC (eller Barack, stadig) var i det Hvide Hus.  Det er også ubegribeligt at amerikanerne ikke kan forstå hvor lykkelige de ville være hvis blot de havde lige så høje skatter som i Danmark, hvis blot de havde lige så mange funktionærer som i Danmark, og hvis blot de havde lige så meget bureaukrati som i Danmark.  (Og hermed lukker vi for sarkasmehanen.)

    Husk Booths beskrivelser om Sveriges etpartistat:  er den logiske konklusion ikke at drømmen om USA under demokraterne (hvadenten det er i selveste USA eller i udlandet) bliver et spejlbillede af Sverige under Socialdemokraterna?

    Bliver den logiske konklusion så ikke af den almindelige kritik af USA lyder temmelig meget som et spejlbillede af socialismens/kommunismens drømme?

    (Og forresten, forstår vi nu ikke lidt bedre hvorfor amerikanerne ønsker at skulle holde fast til deres våben og til deres Second Amendment?)

Do You Know What Abraham Lincoln Called the Democrats, President Trump? The Locofocos

Did you know that in the 1850s, members of the Democrat party were referred to regularly as fire eaters or as locofocos?

It kind of sounds like my calling them drama queens, with BDS and TDS being replaced by LDS (Lincoln Derangement Syndrome), does it not?

Just as one of this blog's most prominent posts over the past 20 years explained how we are (now) living in The Era of the Drama Queens.

As talk over the past four or five years has warned of a second civil war, doesn't it sound like the Democrats have not changed an iota since the 1850s and perhaps even since the party's foundation by Andrew Jackson?

That, after all, was the thesis of Dinesh D'Souza's book and film on The Secret History of the Democratic Party (in which King Andrew the First plays a prominent role).

Moreover, as I have written before, prior to his becoming the Republican Party's 1860 candidate, Abraham Lincoln held a speech in February 1860 (indeed, his Cooper Union speech galvanized the Republicans to eventually choose him as their candidate) in which he told his audience how he would address himself to them as if they were composed of Southerners and Democrats:

  … when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to [Republicans]. In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism] as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license, so to speak — among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

How many democrats amd MSM outlets in this day and age are willing to be "patient … to hear [Republicans] deny or justify"? Don't CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times deem "an unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism or Trumpism] as the first thing to be attended to"? "Reptiles, outlaws, pirates, murderers"… How often have Republicans been called (domestic) terrorists in the past years?  (And in the years, in the decades, before that?).

Doesn't Lincoln's Cooper Union speech sound like something a Donald Trump or a George Bush could legitimately say (obviously, in different words) in the 21st century?

Locofocos. Fire eaters. Drama Queens.

As their name implies, the leftists' raison d'être is to constantly search for melodrama, to find offense in everything, and to lie, or at least to exaggerate, to the very limits of reason (the first example in more recent times that comes to mind being Ed Driscoll's observation that every Republican candidate since the 1940s has been likened to none other than Adolf Hitler).

(This led to another of my posts on — present-day — leftists: The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A world of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables.)

The hysterics of such locofocos is what leads to the Democrats' creation of the Ku Klux Klan, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter, along with opening fire on Fort Sumter. And by the way, before you mention racism, don't forget: the Southern slave states of the 19th century were all solidly Democrat, just as later, the (same) Jim Crow states of the 20th century were all solidly Democrat.

In that perspective, another lie, as we have seen, is that, contrary to modern leftists' contention that the two parties have switched since the Civil War era, such people as Dinesh D'Souza and Prager University's Carol Swain have demonstrated that during the so-called Big Switch, only one single solitary Dixiecrat in fact joined the Republicans while in the very first election after the Nixon/Ford administrations, and their alleged winning "Southern Strategy," the South was swept by the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter.

Again, as I have written before, we have all heard that the debate about what caused secession and ergo the Civil War: Was It Slavery and/or States' Rights? Wasn't It Rather Something Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House? The victory of such a despicable being made the Democrats' locofocos go bat-shit crazy and proceed to tear the country for the next four years apart… That wouldn't sound like the 2016 election (or the 2020 election, or the 2024 election) now, would it?

Related: • What Caused Secession and Ergo the Civil War? Was It Slavery and/or States' Rights? Or Wasn't It Rather Something Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House? 
• During the Winter of 1860-1861, Did the South's Democrats Obtain Their Aim — the Secession of 7 Slave States — Thanks to Elections Filled with Stealth, Lies, Voter Fraud, Intimidation, Violence, and Murder? 
• Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech" 
• The Greatest Myth in U.S. History: Yes, the Civil War Era Did Feature Champions of States' Rights, But No, They Were Not in the South (Au Contraire) 
• A Century and Half of Apartheid Policies: From Its 1828 Foundation, the Democrat Party Has Never Shed Its Racist Past 
• Harry Jaffa on the Civil War Era: For Democrats of the 21st Century as of the 19th, "the emancipation from morality was/is itself seen as moral progress" 
• Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Dreadful — 19th-C Slavery Conditions? 
• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History 
• How to Prevent America from Becoming a Totalitarian State 
• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party
• Why They Don't Tell You the Whole Truth:  The 1619 Project Summarized in One Single Sentence

Do You Know What Words Abraham Lincoln Used to Refer to the Democrats, President Trump? The Locofocos

Did you know that in the 1850s, members of the Democrat party were referred to regularly as fire eaters or as locofocos? 

It kind of sounds like my calling them drama queens, with BDS and TDS being replaced by LDS (Lincoln Derangement Syndrome), does it not? 

Just as one of this blog's most prominent posts over the past 20 years explained how we are (now) living in The Era of the Drama Queens.

As talk over the past four or five years has warned of a second civil war, doesn't it sound like the Democrats have not changed an iota since the 1850s and perhaps even since the party's foundation by Andrew Jackson?

That, after all, was the thesis of Dinesh D'Souza's book and film on The Secret History of the Democratic Party (in which King Andrew the First plays a prominent role). 

Moreover, as I have written before, prior to his becoming the Republican Party's 1860 candidate, Abraham Lincoln held a speech in February 1860 (indeed, his Cooper Union speech galvanized the Republicans to eventually choose him as their candidate) in which he told his audience how he would address himself to them as if they were composed of Southerners and Democrats:

  … when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to [Republicans]. In all your contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism] as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite — license, so to speak — among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.

How many democrats amd MSM outlets in this day and age are willing to be "patient … to hear [Republicans] deny or justify"? Don't CNN, MSNBC, and the New York Times deem "an unconditional condemnation of [Republicanism or Trumpism] as the first thing to be attended to"? "Reptiles, outlaws, pirates, murderers"… How often have Republicans been called (domestic) terrorists in the past years?  (And in the years, in the decades, before that?).

Doesn't Lincoln's Cooper Union speech sound like something a Donald Trump or a George Bush could legitimately say (obviously, in different words) in the 21st century? (Thanks for the Instalink, Sarah.)

Locofocos. Fire eaters. Drama Queens. 

As their name implies, the leftists' raison d'être is to constantly search for melodrama, to find offense in everything, and to lie, or at least to exaggerate, to the very limits of reason (the first example in more recent times that comes to mind being Ed Driscoll's observation that every Republican candidate since the 1940s has been likened to none other than Adolf Hitler).

(This led to another of my posts on — present-day — leftists: The Leftist Worldview in a Nutshell: A world of Deserving Dreamers Vs. Despicable Deplorables.)

The hysterics of such locofocos is what leads to the Democrats' creation of the Ku Klux Klan, Antifa, and Black Lives Matter, along with opening fire on Fort Sumter. And by the way, before you mention racism, don't forget: the Southern slave states of the 19th century were all solidly Democrat, just as later, the (same) Jim Crow states of the 20th century were all solidly Democrat.

In that perspective, another lie, as we have seen, is that, contrary to modern leftists' contention that the two parties have switched since the Civil War era, such people as Dinesh D'Souza and Prager University's Carol Swain have demonstrated that during the so-called Big Switch, only one single solitary Dixiecrat in fact joined the Republicans while in the very first election after the Nixon/Ford administrations, and their alleged winning "Southern Strategy," the South was swept by the Democratic nominee, Jimmy Carter.

Again, as I have written before, we have all heard that the debate about what caused secession and ergo the Civil War: Was It Slavery and/or States' Rights? Wasn't It Rather Something Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House? The victory of such a despicable being made the Democrats' locofocos go bat-shit crazy and proceed to tear the country for the next four years apart… That wouldn't sound like the 2016 election (or the 2020 election, or the 2024 election) now, would it?

Related: • What Caused Secession and Ergo the Civil War? Was It Slavery and/or States' Rights? Or Wasn't It Rather Something Else — the Election of a Ghastly Republican to the White House? 
• During the Winter of 1860-1861, Did the South's Democrats Obtain Their Aim — the Secession of 7 Slave States — Thanks to Elections Filled with Stealth, Lies, Voter Fraud, Intimidation, Violence, and Murder? 
• Wondering Why Slavery Persisted for Almost 75 Years After the Founding of the USA? According to Lincoln, the Democrat Party's "Principled" Opposition to "Hate Speech" 
• The Greatest Myth in U.S. History: Yes, the Civil War Era Did Feature Champions of States' Rights, But No, They Were Not in the South (Au Contraire) 
• A Century and Half of Apartheid Policies: From Its 1828 Foundation, the Democrat Party Has Never Shed Its Racist Past 
• Harry Jaffa on the Civil War Era: For Democrats of the 21st Century as of the 19th, "the emancipation from morality was/is itself seen as moral progress" 
• Why Does Nobody Ever Fret About Scandinavia's — Dreadful — 19th-C Slavery Conditions? 
• The Confederate Flag: Another Brick in the Leftwing Activists' (Self-Serving) Demonization of America and Rewriting of History 
• How to Prevent America from Becoming a Totalitarian State 
• Inside of a month, Democrats have redefined riots and election challenges from the highest form of patriotism to an attack on democracy — And by “democracy”, they mean the Democrat Party
• Why They Don't Tell You the Whole Truth:  The 1619 Project Summarized in One Single Sentence

Dear 16-Year-Olds, Dear High School Pupils, Dear University Students: Do You Have Any Brains?!

 
"If you don't support the Left when you are 20, you have no heart", Winston Churchill has been quoted as saying; "If you don't support the Right when you are 40, you have no brains."

Why — why on Earth — should high school students (and for that matter, university students as well) join in deciding the future of the country, if they… have no brains?! 

Sorry if you (or your parents) feel offended, but the question is an honest one. Most young people are more interested in girls or boys than in how a government works. In fact, most boys' political choices are more about impressing girls (and, in the best case — in their point of view — ending up in bed with one of them). 

One of the Danish high school students who was interviewed when lowering the age limit was discussed in Denmark a few years ago admits as much when she confesses upfront that "the political views of my friends are quite limited."

Last summer, Instapundit's Ed Driscoll reported that in the UK, 16-Year-Olds Can Vote in the Next British General Election. When the idea was floated in Denmark in 2022, I responded with the current text (slightly shortened, for space reasons, when sent to the local newspaper). When a feminist wrote that democracy should be inclusive (meaning voting for 16- and 17-year-olds as well as for foreigners — not distinguishing between legal and illegal aliens), I shot back that democracy should not be inclusive, but rational. Why should foreigners have the right to vote, I asked? I lived in Paris for more than 20 years and never received (or even asked for) French citizenship. 

As a young Dennis Prager reacted, when 18(!)-year-olds got the vote in 1971: "Why are they giving me the vote? I don't know anything!"

In America, the 26th Amendment dates back to the Vietnam War: "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote." But notice what is (very) wrong with this — simplistic — quote (see Alexis de Tocqueville quote below). The message is this: You cannot — no one can — trust your families to defend, or even care for, you: Our fathers and mothers are so indifferent to our well-being that they would vote for war and not care that we would fall on the battlefield; in fact, the only angels wise enough to defend us (as well as our aforementioned fathers and mothers) are those in government — as long as it is run by (left-wing) politicians and bureaucrats. 

In other words: the 26th Amendment is based on typical anti-family Marxism. 

Related: Isn't It Time to Gut the 26th Amendment? (The Marxist Undertones of "Old Enough to Fight, Old Enough to Vote" Exposed)

"We must help the poor"; "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote"; "we stand for tolerance"; "no person is illegal"; "we must fix the climate." As Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, as far back as the 1830s, "It is easier for the world to accept a simple lie than a complex truth."

The Left loves teenagers because children — like the Leftists themselves — are drama queens (not to mention emotionally unbalanced) who fall for simple platitudes and who love the idea of joining in the Left's next hysterical Crusade. That is why socialists constantly want to lower the voting age — to 18, to 17, to 16, to — what'll be the next thing? 11?!

But if Greta Thunberg is right (that we are "at the beginning of a mass extinction"), shouldn't the only logical conclusion be that "young people" like her alone should be allowed to vote, while we pathetic adult twits who, after all, "have stolen [their] childhood" should be denied that right? 

"Ignorant, officious, self-important students shouldn’t have that much influence," opines law professor Glenn Reynolds, while Ed Driscoll adds that "the young are always ready to give to those who are older than themselves the full benefits of their inexperience."

"The problem isn’t that I don’t get what you’re saying or that I’m old" laughs Bill Maher. "The problem is that your ideas are stupid." 

It's even worse than it looks, says P.J. O'Rourke: "The grim truth is, kids are born communists." 

Again: Why — why on Earth — should brainless Maoists with stupid ideas vote? 

As for the green transition, do children — and let's be honest, many adults — have any idea that the miserable times (with price hikes, fuel shortages, etc.) we have been living through are largely due to the green movement's ludicrously absurd "climate-friendly" energy decisions that have been failing across Europe and North America (in the USA's case, until January 2025)? 

"You become an adult when you decide to act like one," thunders Dennis Prager. "You don't become an adult because you turn a certain age." 

Here is a new and better proposal: Change the law, so people don't get the vote until they reach about 25; unless they get a job at a younger age (including, naturally, serving in the military) and until they have paid their first tax bill.  

• "Demokratiet skal ikke være inkluderende men rationelt"
Villabyerne Vol 117 # 47, 24. november 2022, s 8