Sunday, February 27, 2022

A Movement That Must Invent Its Enemies To Exist

If there is going to be a new dark age, it will likely be the result of the antifascist state collapsing under its own contradictions.


It is safe to say that Paul Gottfried, the current editor-in-chief of Chronicles magazine, is one the world’s experts on historical fascism. He has written extensively on the subject over his long career as an academic and polemicist. Therefore, it stands to reason that he would also have a deep understanding of antifascism. He puts that to good use in his latest book, Antifascism: The Course of a Crusade.

The point of the book is not to score points against the people who currently wave the antifascist flag, but to explain the concept as a historical phenomenon. In fact, the book is intended to be a partner to an earlier work on fascism titled Fascism: The Career of a Concept, which he wrote in 2016. This new book covers some of the same ground, with a focus on the movements that arose in reaction to fascism.

Those looking for a scalding critique of Antifa and its fellow travelers will be disappointed, as Gottfried is a serious academic and he treats the topic as a serious intellectual movement. The book is just 150 pages but it has 30 pages of endnotes and five pages of titles for suggested reading. In other words, this is a serious study of the topic by a scholar deeply familiar with the material.

The primary takeaway from the book is that antifascism has a long history that dates back to the very beginning of the fascist movement. Like that which it claims to oppose, antifascism has evolved over the last century, adapting to changes in society as it seeks to maintain itself as a movement. In fact, antifascism curates fascism now, maintaining it in the public consciousness, despite the fact that fascism no longer exists.

The old joke about the demand for Nazis exceeding supply is both funny and true, as Gottfried demonstrates with regard to the Left in general and antifascism in particular. As negative identity movements, they have become dependent upon their enemies. The Left, for example, is obsessed with the “far-Right.” For antifascism, this means maintaining an increasingly fictionalized version of their primary bogeyman.

Gottfried notes in the first chapter that modern antifascist movements have come to resemble the old interwar fascism in strategy and tactics. He observes that “Except for its efforts to identify itself with other forms of the Left that operated at other times, Antifa through violence and its ability to create extensive support systems looks very much like early National Socialism.”

This becomes increasingly clear as Gottfried chronicles the evolution of intellectual antifascism. The modern incarnation is not a creature of the old American Left, but a weird offshoot of anarchism and post-Marxism. The “anti’s” organize and dress like the fascist street gangs of the interwar years but decorate themselves with symbols and logic borrowed from communism and anarchism.

Of course, Antifa is a vapid and juvenile activity rather than a serious political movement, which is probably why Gottfried addresses it in the first chapter then moves onto the more intellectually serious strains of antifascism. This is the primary focus of the book and the material of greatest interest to those trying to understand what is happening with modern Western elites.

Gottfried helpfully explains what happened with antifascism in Europe. The desire immediately after the war to remove lingering Nazi sympathies quickly morphed into what should be called cultural genocide. Antifascists came to believe that the only way to permanently remove fascism from the German psyche was to erase what it meant to be German, which meant anathematizing German history and culture.

If this sounds familiar, it should. The current antiracism mania in America has become a crusade against whiteness. Just as Nazism has been used to shame Germans into going along with erasure of their identify, slavery and segregation are being used to shame white Americans into embracing the great replacement. Antifascism and antiracism are sister movements sharing the same worldview.

It is this worldview that is responsible for the current crisis. Gottfried points out in the chapter on populism that antifascists have come to believe that the evil of fascism, racism, and so on are the products of white Christian men and the oppressive civilization that this group produced. It logically follows that the path to a world free of these “isms” is to obliterate all traces of whiteness, which means the razing of society itself.

This is why the post-Marxist Left across the West has gone berserk in response to traditional populist movements. Antifascism and its traveling partners have become the religion of the ruling elites. Resistance to elite policy is therefore seen as a direct personal threat to the agenda of transformation. The spastic lashing out at critics, declaring them fascists or white supremacists, is very personal and, interestingly, very feminine.

This is something Eastern European critics of liberal democracy have noted and something Gottfried touches on as well. Communist antifascism after WWII was physically coercive and direct. Contemporary antifascism is more insidious and indirect, a form of psychological terror, rather than physical coercion. Instead of fearing the secret police, ordinary people now fear using the wrong pronoun.

The one weakness in Gottfried’s presentation is in his discussion of the nature of the antifascist state. He spends a lot of time talking about the fine differences in style and the major differences in philosophical origin, but he does not go past the superficial to examine the animating spirit of antifascism in the United States as the secular religion of the ruling class.

This is a bizarre arrangement, given that America has never had a fascist movement, beyond the parodic. European fascism was a creature of a unique set of conditions that have not existed for generations. Despite this reality, the managerial elite is reorganizing the administrative state to not only oppose a menu of “isms” but to search for any hint of them in the population.

Since fascism does not exist, antifascism must conjure it. We see this with the absurdly broad and hysterical discovery of hateful “isms” in a wide variety of harmless words, symbols, gestures, and practices.. Punctuality has been declared white supremacy. Black conservatives are labeled as racists and Jewish intellectuals are often called Nazis. Broadly speaking, fascism has become anything that vexes the antifascist. Even inanimate objects can be fascist now.

Organizing a state around opposing a nonexistent threat is a novel approach to governing. Thus,  antifascism has no positive agenda. It exists only in reaction to something and as a project to negate that thing—a thing that does not exist in the real world.

This is why the managerial state is becoming increasingly paranoid and coercive as it reorganizes around this imaginary threat. The lack of actual fascists is not treated as disconfirmation of the core belief, but rather it is manipulated into new conspiracy theories about the invisible dangers. In other words, the lack of proof is confirmation that they must redouble their efforts to thwart the threat.

Overall, Antifascism: The Course of a Crusade is an excellent standalone study of this evolving ethos of the managerial state. Read alongside Gottfried’s earlier book on fascism, it makes for a comprehensive review of a phenomenon that is casting a darkening shadow over civilization. If there is going to be a new dark age, it will likely be the result of the antifascist state collapsing under its own contradictions.


X22, On the Fringe, and more-Feb 27

 



Evening. Here's tonight's news:


The Fantasy of Anti-Democratic Threats

The elite rhetoric about “democracy” is just a ploy to dupe middle Americans into accepting permanent leftist rule.


Democracy is under attack—or so we’re constantly told if we turn on CNN or glance at any major newspaper. The mainstream media claims Russia wants to conquer Ukraine solely because its neighbor is a democracy. The Freedom Convoy in Canada allegedly threatens democracy (don’t ask how). And, of course, the gravest threat to democracy is American states passing voter ID laws. 

Americans may think they could wake up one day in a dictatorship based on this hysterical coverage. The reality is different. There are obviously threats to people’s basic liberties in the West—but you won’t hear CNN worrying about them. Peaceful January 6 demonstrators face several years in jail for their political beliefs. Canada freezes the bank accounts of those who donate to non-violent protests. Australia made it a crime to leave your home under its COVID regulations. Many Western governments criminalize politically incorrect opinions on immigration under the dubious standard of “hate speech.”

All of these things are treated as “pro-democracy” measures, however, by respected opinion makers. What really threatens democracy is, well, whatever these opinion-makers don’t like.

Two recent articles from the Los Angeles Times illustrate the absurdity of the media’s standard of democracy. One is an opinion piece, the other is a straight news story.

The opinion piece, written by columnist Jean Guerrero, discusses how Hispanics could save Democrats from a brutal midterm election in California.The article casually concludes: “With the future of the next Congress riding on California’s new districts, Latinas might play a central role in protecting democracy in the long run, too.” A threat to democracy is never explained in the column. It’s just assumed that the reader would know that democracy is under attack by racist white Republicans, and Hispanics voting for Democrats protects our form of government. 

The straight news story lamented the current state of India, the world’s largest democracy. Hindu nationalists are gaining greater power in India, which has led to violence and persecution against the Muslim minority. International observers have downgraded India’s democracy “ranking” (a very subjective measure) as a result. The writer is upset about this because America needs India “as a democratic counterweight to China.” The implication is that America only allies itself with democracies and its chief goal is to spread democracy everywhere. American ally Saudi Arabia—the furthest thing from a democracy—would be surprised by this.

The problem with the American media’s hysteria over democracy being threatened by everything they dislike is that it gives ample ammunition to those wanting to defend their “undemocratic” records. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar, India’s foreign minister, scoffs at claims about his nation’s declining democracy by pointing to America’s problems. Specifically, he cites the media’s own claims about Trump nearly overthrowing American democracy as a reason to not worry about India. “You use the dichotomy of democracy and autocracy,” Jaishankar declared last year. “You want the truthful answer? It is hypocrisy.”

China and its defenders are very happy to use this line of defense. The Chinese government issued a condemnation of American democracy last December. It focused on many of the favorite themes of American liberals who fret over our democracy. The alleged January 6 “coup,” “entrenched racism,” voting laws, and many other complaints that easily could have been taken from a Washington Post op-ed. The only difference is that it was China, and the communist government wanted to deflect from its own abuses.

Most American commentators will not go as far as to equivocate between America’s alleged misdeeds and Chinese atrocities. But some will. Frequent ESPN guest J.A. Adande made that leap earlier this month. “Who are we to criticize China’s human rights records when we have ongoing attacks by the agents of the state against unarmed citizens and we’ve got assaults on the voting rights of our people of color in various states in this country?” he said in response to those who protested China hosting the Winter Olympics.

Who’s to say he’s wrong? Certainly not our own leaders. Secretary of State Antony Blinken welcomed a United Nations investigation into America’s racism last year. This of course creates the impression that our misdeeds (often overblown or fake) are equal to those of China. When our own UN ambassadorsays America was founded on white supremacy and our president says voter ID laws are the new Jim Crow, who could blame China for simply repeating these messages?

The constant fearmongering about democracy is nothing more than shallow propaganda. There is no standard of democracy articulated in any of these complaints. We can see this in Ukraine, where we’re told a democracy is threatened by an “autocracy.” Ukrainian democracy isn’t much to write home about. The government suppresses the Russian language and its speakers who live within its borders. The current president wages a punitive legal campaign against the last president. Corruption is rife within the country. Its democracy score is only 60. Russia may not be a perfect democracy either, but it’s hardly the fascist government of liberal nightmares. At least its ethnic minorities do not face pogroms—a fact that cannot be said of “democratic” India.

For the liberal elites, democracy is whatever they say it is. The trucker convoy isn’t democratic, but freezing the truckers’ bank accounts is. Requiring an ID to vote isn’t democratic, but allowing non-citizens to vote is. Invading a country isn’t democratic unless America does it to spread freedom (hello, Iraq!). Respecting the popular vote is democratic, unless the people vote the wrong way. Then it’s anti-democratic (see Hungary). 

The elite rhetoric about “democracy” shouldn’t be taken seriously. It’s all a ploy to dupe middle Americans into accepting permanent leftist rule. 






Is Biden Colluding with Putin?

Democrats are using this conflict to escape blame for their policies, which are ruining the American economy.


During a January 19 press conference, Joe Biden gave Putin what many perceived to be the “green light” to invade Ukraine. Biden said, “I think what you’re going to see is that Russia will be held accountable if it invades. And it depends on what it does. It’s one thing if it’s a minor incursion. . . .”

Ukrainian President Zelensky immediately fired back, reminding Biden on Twitter that there was no such thing as “minor incursions.” 

The White House quickly tried to walk back Biden’s claims. Jen Psaki, Biden’s chief propagandist, issued this statement: “If any Russian military forces move across the Ukrainian border, that’s a renewed invasion, and it will be met with a swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our allies.”

But that isn’t what Biden said. Biden suggested that a “minor incursion” would be permissible. Biden didn’t condemn a Russian invasion absolutely; instead, he seemed to condone some unknown and highly subjective set of circumstances that he viewed as qualifying as a “minor incursion.”

In the days and weeks that followed Biden’s infamous “minor incursion” remark, Ukrainian President Zelensky urged for calm, while Biden insisted on creating panic. After Biden ordered the evacuation of U.S. embassy personnel from Ukraine, a Ukrainian official responded by saying “Americans are safer in Kiev than they are in Los Angeles.”

Biden’s insistence that a Russian invasion was imminent began to sound more like a wish than a warning. His reluctance to implement sanctions to prevent an invasion he was certain would occur is bizarre, if not outright suspicious. 

If Biden was so sure Putin intended to invade, why wait until after an invasion to implement sanctions? Why not implement sanctions to prevent the invasion in the first place?

Now that Putin has invaded Eastern Ukraine and declared two regions independent, where is the “swift, severe, and united response from the United States and our allies,” that Psaki and Biden assured would follow?

Biden has announced what he describes as “the first tranche of sanctions.” Biden is warning that “if Russia goes further with an invasion, we stand to go further with sanctions.” This in itself is an admission that the present sanctions are not “severe.” Biden promised severe sanctions if  Putin invaded. Now that Putin has invaded, Biden is promising severe sanctions if Russia goes further. Further than what?

Is Putin’s invasion of Eastern Ukraine the “minor incursion” that Biden announced in January? 

Perhaps Biden’s “minor incursion” comment wasn’t a poor choice of words, but instead a slip of the tongue. It seems that Biden was being honest, Psaki was lying, and that Biden never had any intention of stopping Putin. Is it possible that Biden knew this would happen and wanted it to?

The Biden Administration certainly has wasted no time using this invasion as a scapegoat for their harmful and disastrous energy and economic policies. On Tuesday, Jen Psaki said that Americans should expect higher energy prices as a result of the invasion.

CBS ran an article with the headline: “How the Ukraine crisis is hitting Americans’ wallets.” The propaganda piece explains how the Russia-Ukraine conflict will result in inflation, supply shortages, and soaring energy costs right here at home. You know, those things that we’ve been experiencing for the past year under Biden; those things, which are guaranteed to worsen under Biden, with or without a conflict more than 5,000 miles away.

According to the Democrats and their propagandist media, the rise in gas prices that began on January 20, 2021 is due to a Russian invasion of Ukraine that took place in February of 2022. 

We know that the Democrats are using this conflict to escape blame for their policies, which are ruining the American economy. We know Biden has failed to prevent a Russian invasion. But the question remains: is Biden simply taking advantage of a crisis or did Biden have a role in creating the crisis?

I believe we could find answers in the transcript of Biden’s February 12, supposed hour-long phone conversation with Putin. The readout claims that “President Biden was clear that, if Russia undertakes a further invasion of Ukraine, the United States together with our Allies and partners will respond decisively and impose swift and severe costs on Russia.”

Coincidentally, this invasion is taking place just a week before Biden’s State of the Union speech. Is Biden colluding with Putin? The American people deserve to know. And if Biden has nothing to hide, the transcript will prove just how tough Biden is. It’s a win-win for Biden, unless he’s lying.

If this plays out like 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, Putin will walk away with additional Ukrainian territory and the Democrats will claim that Biden heroically and masterfully prevented Putin from taking all of Ukraine. It will be spun by propagandists as a Biden victory. We’re already seeing indications of that now.


The Ruling Class Is A Far Greater Threat To Americans Than Russia Is

There’s no gentle way to say it, but the truth is that a lot of us hate our elites far more than we hate some foreign dictator.



Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine Thursday. He’d been fixing on it for a while. Most of the world knew it was coming.

By nightfall, their advanced forces had reached the capital city of Kyiv, and the situation looked dire. In the ensuing bloodshed, the internet was awash in hot takes. Not insignificant among them: That treason is amiss on the right, where our elites detect an insufficient support for the White House — and an insufficient hatred of Putin.

They’re shocked their bugles ring hollow in the ears of so many conservative and Christian Americans. Our lack of enthusiasm infuriates them to their core; they’re shaking with indignation.

So what’s the cause of this apparent treason? Why aren’t we charging? Why aren’t we all impressed with a government that’s afraid of racially profiling Chinese spies, or the carbon footprint of war in Europe? Why didn’t the Russians fear the diversity tweets of our NATO alliance, or our maternity flight suits and trans soldiers?

Why, they wonder, haven’t American conservatives flocked to their “racist” flag singing our “racist” National Anthem?

There’s no gentle way to say it, but the truth is that a lot of us hate our elites far more than we hate some foreign dictator. It’s a tough truth for the tough place our civilization is in — and surely, it’s a difficult truth for our ruling class to see amid the glare of their self-righteousness.

The Right To Rule

From Western Europe to West L.A., we know we’re governed by leaders in business, entertainment, and politics who hold scorn for our country, its history, its heroes, its people, and their religion.

They have the money and the power, too. They can freeze truckers’ bank accounts and mask children as young as three. They can order Australians into internment camps and host drag queen story hours. They can force vaccinations, close churches, arrest priests, bankrupt businesses, prosecute bakers, empty prisons, defund police, and sometimes even win votes.

One thing they can’t have, however, is the moral authority to rule a civilization they despise. They are the very thugs they claim to stand against; they have no legitimacy.

“But now is not the time for this squabbling,” we’re told. “Putin’s assault is an assault on the West!” But how can we take their call seriously, when they are the same leaders who ask if we can have schools named after Thomas Jefferson; the same who pine over what primitive tribes our land was “stolen” from?

Putin has no such qualms about his own civilization (and it’s one of the core reasons our elites hate him so). This week, he said Ukraine is Russia’s land, steeped in its religion, culture, and history, so Russia is taking it. Another hard truth is that amid a Western elite who has forgotten who we are, it’s easy to look abroad at our enemies and envy the confidence they have in their own civilizations. Why don’t our leaders have the same?

The very question infuriates them even further. How, they ask, can we not follow when they are the experts? The experts who told us “America was never that great,” or who questioned the American exceptionalism they now call on to defend the West?

Really: Who can follow a political left or establishment GOP calling us to defend Western civilization when just last week our culture’s triumphs were submitted as proof of our awful patriarchy? When they were apologized for?

Can we really take Ukraine’s inviolable border seriously, while defending our own is called racist?

Are we actually expected to ignore Putin’s claims of ancestral land rights in Ukraine, while we teach our school children to feel ashamed for living on land we say was stolen?

Of course not. These would be absurd.

“But how did this happen,” they ask. “How did conservatives turn on our rhetoric? On our wars?”

The only answer so many come to is, predictably, “Trump,” but the real culprits are in the mirror.

So Republicans and liberals can step up their podiums and their microphones and dismiss Putin as a mad dog and an enemy; after all, part of membership in our elite class is never having to think deeply.

But maybe — just maybe — in a moment of rare reflection, they might wonder why so many patriotic Americans aren’t following them. If they listen, a few might learn why so many are more interested in our enemies within, than their enemies abroad.



The Federal Government Finally Makes It Official: 'I Am Colorblind' Is Racist


Alex Parker reporting for RedState 

Morgan Freeman once famously replied to a question on how we eradicate racism. His answer: “Stop talking about it.”

Clearly, institutions aren’t currently of the Morgan mindset.

The nation’s new enlightenment is all about what makes us different — not only in appearance, but power and victimhood. And that last distinction is determined, not by personal circumstance, but shade of skin.

Not long ago, America was a melting pot, and we were all Americans.

But now we’re categorized according to “identity” groups, as our leaders pack us into separately-stored bins.

Apropos of our re-organization, the federal government is taking a bold “antiracist” stand.

Per Uncle Sam, an expression of racism is none other than “I am colorblind.”

Judicial Watch reports it obtained nearly 50 pages of records from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Among them: an employee-training PowerPoint presentation titled “Race and Gender-Based Microaggressions.”

The lesson’s stated goals:

  • To help you identify race- and gender-based microaggressions
  • To help you understand how microaggressions can turn into discrimination and/or unlawful harassment
  • To help you understand YOUR role in preventing discrimination and harassment in the workplace
  • To help you know how to respond to these situations

Why would an organization advise people to be offended?

I can’t imagine any purpose other than to ensure weakness and low morale.

Whatever the case, the training describes microaggressions as “verbal and nonverbal behavior” which “communicate negative, hostile, and derogatory messages to people rooted in their marginalized group membership (based on gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, etc.).”

To be clear, a “more subtle” nonverbal indication of something negative related to an identity group can absolutely be “unintentional.”

Still, know your proper response: You are to feel harmed.

One section — “Common Race-Based Microaggressions in the Workplace” — addresses the difference between what someone says and what is perceived.

To illustrate the point, a white man and black woman are shown separated by a wall.

He announces, “When it comes to race, I am colorblind.”

What more could you want than for someone to see past your looks? The answer, evidently, is for them to not be racist.

While the man radiates racism, the woman has three thoughts:

  • Denying a person’s racial/ethnic experience
  • Assimilate to the dominant culture
  • Denying the individual as a racial/cultural being

There was a time when people didn’t want to be racial beings; rather, they wished to be human ones.

Will that time ever come again? If so, it won’t likely be soon.

Meanwhile, if not viewing people by race is racist, we’ve got a lot of history to revise.

Consider the case of America’s most revolutionary racial offender:

 

Back to the training, before showcasing a gallery of appearance-based perniciousness, the instruction issues a Trigger Warning:

The next slide contains images of offensive stereotypes.

Depicted, per Judicial Watch:

People of color being offered various items such as: someone wearing a hoody and gold chain being offered sports balls; a hijab-wearing girl being offered a lit bomb and a picture of Osama bin Laden; a girl being offered a maid’s apron and a sombrero; a male being offered a guitar and a construction hat; a girl being handed a bottle of Aunt Jemimah syrup; and a girl being handed a spear, a teepee, and a Cleveland Indians baseball pennant.

There was once the concept of national pride, based not only on unity but strength.

The more “diverse” we become, it seems, the more the Powers That Be want us fragmented and subsequently weak.

I hope for a day when the nation is again strong.

Until our return to vintage vigor, remember the government’s guidance: Whatever you do, don’t deeply injure a white person by giving him a guitar.



9 Most Important Things To Look For When Shopping For A New Church



We get it. Sometimes church can be offputting, especially when people ask you to do things or suggest you should stop sinning. What a bunch of jerks!

When the time comes for you to separate from your brethren over a petty dispute we recommend keeping your eye open for these nine important things when shopping around for your new worship home.

1) No judgment at all even if you're a big fat jerk: Jesus said not to judge and then He probably didn't say anything else after that to qualify the statement. NO JUDGING!

2) Comfortable pews: Ever tried sleeping in a wooden pew? Your back will hurt for days! Might want to make sure they recline and have built-in massagers too.

3) A sermon series based around the latest Marvel movie: How can you understand the Bible without comparisons between Captain America and Jesus?

4) Top-of-the-line lighting and sound design: Aw yeah! The Holy Spirit can't comfort you if you're not rocking to some sweet jams. Bonus points for a high-quality fog machine.

5) A second, secret entrance without greeters: It's best if we're allowed to worship God in our own way without being friendly.

6) Diversity quotas: You want a pastor who's just absolutely obsessed with race, like Jesus was.

7) At least 30 casserole varieties: What's the point in getting to know people if there isn't way too much free food?

8) Organic, certified, fair-trade coffee options: The big, old, 60-cup chrome percolator of coffee just doesn't cut it anymore.

9) An airtight promise to never challenge your sin or ask you to change your lifestyle in any way: Jesus may have instituted the last supper but a church with gluten-free bread has perfected it.

And there you have it! Keeping these details in mind should help you find a church that's accepting of you and doesn't have any requirements or concerns for you at all. Just like God intended!


Biden Says He's Made Everything Awesome, but Americans Have a 'Psychological' Issue With Being Happy


Mike Miller reporting for RedState 

Just when you think Joe Biden can’t possibly say anything more ridiculous than the last time, he proves you wrong. Lesson: Never underestimate our intrepid president and his ability to stoop to new lows of silliness, causing you to spit your liquid refreshment all over your computer screen. Or wherever. No, really.

The latest hysterical case in point, which was posted to Twitter on Saturday by our friends at the Republican National Committee, speaks for itself, but I can’t stop myself from transcribing the damn thing.

Ready? This — with a Barney Fife-like straight face, mind you:

There’s a phenomenal negative psychological impact that COVID has had [COVID! Of course!] on the public psyche. And so you have an awful lot of people who are, notwithstanding the fact that things have gotten so better for them economically, uh, that they are thinking, but, how do you get up in the morning feeling happy? Happy that everything’s alright.

Here’s Joe, America.

Did you read that a second time? What the hell is that? Look, I know Biden is and has always been a consummate liar, “stretcher of truth,” plagiarizer, and everything else required of a Democrat politician, but that? I mean, the dude even went through that ridiculous nonsense with a straight face. He looked as if he was in deep contemplation. OK, fine. Corn Pop’s pal is incapable of deep contemplation, I get it — but you know what I mean. Again, what the hell?

This, the hell.

COVID Joe™ has been singularly-obsessed with all things COVID from the beginning of his pathetic presidency. From worthless cloth masks to so-called “vaccinations” and “boosters” (neither are either, by the CDC’s own definitions), to public displays of hypocritical mask foolishness that will long live in the annals of ridiculous COVID history.

So, being the consummate, dishonest politician he is, Biden now minimizes every one of his self-made crises and irrationally blames some made-up psychological impact caused by COVID for making people unable to wake up happy.

That is insane. More correctly, anyone who actually believes that silly crap is insane.

Incidentally, this was not Biden’s first ride on the crazy train to Psychological La-La Land. As my colleague Nick Arama reported in November 2021, Joe blamed his in-the-toilet polling numbers on “psychological scars” caused by COVID, which apparently made Americans incapable of stopping themselves from trashing him in approval polls. Again, unadulterated silliness.

Anyway, as the saying goes, you gotta love Joe— wait. Who says? I don’t gotta love Joe at all. And I certainly ain’t psychologically incapable of being happy. On the contrary, I’m happy as can be, most of the time. Happy about life. Happy about friends and loved ones. Happy about what I do for a living.

What I am not happy about, Joe, is the havoc and hardship you have purposely wreaked on America. From the Biden Border Crisis to the Biden Energy Crisis to the Biden Afghanistan Debacle — including the intentional abandonment of untold numbers of American citizens behind Taliban lines — to Bidenomics, Bidenflation, and now the Biden Ukraine Crisis.

And Joe? If you believe Putin would have launched an invasion of Ukraine if Donald Trump were still in the White House, you’re even more delusional than most of us already think you are.