RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://gatesofvienna.net/2025/05/tarnishing-the-haloes-of-the-saints/?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

NB: This following essay by Baron Boddisey first appeared at the Gates of Vienna website. It recounts events that began one dozen years ago, but whose repercussions only continue to intensify in the communist endgame.

The death of David Horowitz last month stirred up all the old traumas from the fall of 2013 prompted by the controversy over Diana West’s book American Betrayal.

Mr. Horowitz was canonized immediately after his passing, but I couldn’t bear to read all the encomia to the saint — which were legion — that appeared on almost every conservative website.

At the risk of speaking ill of the dead, I feel obliged to note that Saint David behaved in a less than saintly fashion towards my friend Diana West, beginning in the late summer of 2013. He led an unseemly charge against her, one that descended into the gutter from the git-go. He and his fellow polemicists mounted ad-hominem attacks, calling her vile names and disparaging her alleged mental state. On those rare occasions when they attempted to engage the content of her writing, they invariably set up straw men to knock down, in an attempt to refute arguments that she never made.

Diana was blacklisted that fall by all the mainstream outlets of Conservatism Inc., with only the smaller blogs and forums coming to her defense and allowing her a voice. Gates of Vienna was the largest platform among those that supported her, which — given the diminutive stature of this blog — indicates how far into the Outer Darkness she had been cast.

So what was all the fuss about?

http://www.swtotd.blogspot.com

Creative destruction is a school in economics, popularized by Joseph Schumpeter[2], that explains the process by which innovation obsoletes older processes, equipment and products. While disruptive in the short term, it is the driving force for long term economic growth and progress. In Scenes from American Life: Contemporary Short Fiction (1973), Joyce Carol Oates wrote: “It is only through disruption and confusion that we grow, jarred by the collision of someone else’s private world with our own.” On November 5, 2011 in an op-ed in London’s The Guardian, Naomi Wolf noted: “Democracy is disruptive…there is no right in a democratic civil society to be free of disruption.”

Disruption is the antidote to complacency, the enemy of innovation, and it is challenging to those of the status quo – those whom we call the “establishment.” However, disruption is not always good. We can think of dozens of instances – a child throwing food at the table; protestors shutting down university classes; strikers blocking the entrance to a grocery store. But throughout history, progress has thrived on disruption. We see the beginnings of such positive disruption in Washington today: addressing the border crisis, eliminating fraud and waste embedded in federal bureaucracies and confronting anti-Semitism on college campuses. On the other hand, we are also witness to negative disruption: the, seemingly random, use of tariffs by President Trump and belittling comments about allies by Vice President Vance.

That President Trump is a disruptive force is a fact universally accepted. The question we and the world face: Is President Trump a disruptive force for good or bad? “There are times,” Karl Zinsmeister, White House chief domestic policy director 2006-2009, wrote recently in The Wall Street Journal, “when some messy political demolition and noisy rebuilding are necessary.” Is this such a time? I believe it is.

https://www.city-journal.org/multimedia/us-china-tariff-agreement-will-it-stick

Charles Fain Lehman, Ilya Shapiro, Daniel Di Martino, and Tal Fortgang discuss the deal between the U.S. and China to temporarily lower tariffs, Trump’s executive order on prescription drug prices, and Chicago-isms Pope Leo XIV should bring to the Vatican.

Charles Fain Lehman: Welcome back to the City Journal Podcast. I’m your host, Charles Fain Lehman, a fellow at the Manhattan Institute and senior editor of City Journal. Joining me on the panel today, Ilya Shapiro, constitutional law guy at the Manhattan Institute, Daniel Di Martino, Argentinian policy expert, politics expert at the Manhattan Institute apparently, and Tal Fortgang, legal policy guy at the Manhattan Institute. Tal works for Ilya, so Tal, don’t mess this up. Otherwise, it’ll come back in your review.

Ilya Shapiro: But by works for me, that means he writes a bunch of stuff. I read a third of it and enjoy it. That’s our professional relationship.

Charles Fain Lehman: It’s a good review. Tal, quote that. We have this on record. I want to take us into the big news of the day. Earlier this morning, I think, I was asleep, but China and United States announced a 90-day temporary reduction in the mutual tariffs. So they’re down on the US side from 145 percent to 30 percent. It’s a major de-escalation as we’re recording this, the markets are up like a thousand points, although God knows what will be happening by the time it comes out. So don’t get mad at me listeners if it’s changed. Daniel, where are we on this front? You’re the econ guy on the panel. Is this a good development? Is this a bad development? What do you think?

Daniel Di Martino:  I think the Chinese negotiation team probably knows more about what the U.S. wants than we do. At this point, I don’t know what’s the goal of U.S. policy with the tariffs on China. If the goal was decoupling from China, then you should have wanted to keep the tariffs, not lift them. And if the goal was to get them to lower the tariffs, well, now we have a higher tariffs than we did before. So it seems like, at least by those two very different goals that are exclusionary from each other, we aren’t achieving anything.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm-plus/murder-ballads/

It didn’t start with Che Guevara, but Che, surely, is one of the major milestones along the way. By all accounts, he was a psychopath, delighting in the summary executions of purported ideological enemies, including children. But that one famous photograph of him wiped all the blood away. A picture cannot only speak a thousand words; it can erase a million crimes. For young people all over the West in the 1960s and thereafter, Che was a hero, period. In 2008, the top Hollywood director Stephen Soderbergh made a hagiographic movie about Che that ran just under four and a half hours (it was ultimately released in two parts); the title role was played by Benicio Del Toro, whose research for the part included a trip to Cuba, where, he later said, he met “tons of people who loved this man.” To be sure, it’s one thing to encounter Che fans in Castro’s Cuba, where the people have been propagandized to a fare-thee-well and where dissenting views are punished severely; it’s another thing to see free people strolling down the streets of Western cities in Che t-shirts – presumably ignorant of the true heroes who won them their freedom but enthralled by a man who fought to destroy it.

Six years after Che’s death, an infant was born in a manger – no, not really – in Fayetteville, North Carolina. He later lived in Houston, where he served nine jail terms for crimes involving drugs, trespass, theft, and aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon. Still later he moved to Minneapolis, where he was detained for drug possession and suffered a drug overdose. On May 25, 2020, he was stopped by police on suspicion of passing counterfeit money at a grocery store, and died while resisting arrest by a police officer named Derek Chauvin. News of the death of George Floyd spread around the world like wildfire. Mass protests were held everywhere. Countless Floyd murals were created. Riots caused billions of dollars in damage. Leftists used Floyd’s death to spread the lie that hundreds if not thousands of innocent blacks die each year  at the hands of white American cops (the real number is in the double digits). As a result of this lie, the movement to defund the police won widespread support, and in many cities the police actually were defunded. The fact that Floyd had died not because of Chauvin’s actions but because of the drugs in his system didn’t matter to Chauvin’s judge, prosecutor, and jury, who knew that if they didn’t throw the book at Chauvin – who ended up being sentenced to twenty-two and a half years in prison – they’d be torn to bits by the mob. By the end of the summer, like Che, his fellow perpetrator of violence, Floyd had been canonized by the left, venerated as a martyr. Last May it was announced that, inevitably, Floyd would be the subject of a movie. Daddy Changed the World was being developed by Radar Pictures, with Floyd’s daughter as executive producer. I can’t wait.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/05/13/epic-narrative-fail-irs-revenue-surges-9-despite-predictions-of-decline/

Back in March, unnamed “senior tax officials” told the Washington Post that the “rapid demolition of parts of the IRS” was going to result in a 10% plunge in revenues this spring.  

Actual result: Revenues are up 9% compared with the first four months of last year.

We heard repeated horror stories about DOGE’s devastating spending cuts, too.

Actual result: Spending is up 7% over last year.

Are you noticing a trend here?

According to the Washington Post, “Senior tax officials are bracing for a sharp drop in revenue collected this spring, as an increasing number of individuals and businesses spurn filing their taxes or attempt to skip paying balances owed to the Internal Revenue Service, according to three people with knowledge of tax projections.”

That story was published on March 22 and was widely covered by the rest of the corporate media.

So … just how accurate were these “three people with knowledge of tax projections”?

https://amgreatness.com/2025/05/12/332875/

Secure borders and stationary populations were considered the mark of emerging civilization by classical historians. In contrast to nomadism and constant strife over disputed territory, peoples who had clearly defined and protected borders ascended to statehood, maintained a distinct culture, and achieved greater prosperity and security.

In contrast, what we suffered from 2021 to 2025 was unprecedented. It was an intentional administration effort to de-civilize the nation by destroying its borders—as if to return to the premodern era, when there were no clearly defined or secure borders, and nomadic peoples migrated as they pleased.

Stranger still, illegal aliens were at times given precedence over citizens—as immigration law was simply discarded.

Without IDs, illegal aliens boarded U.S. flights, while the government ordered citizens to obtain more secure “real” IDs.

Some 8,500 veteran soldiers were drummed out of the military for refusing the experimental mRNA vaccinations. Yet 10 million simply walked across the southern border into America, without a care from the Biden administration whether they were vaccinated, ill, or had criminal records.

Any American citizen pulled over for speeding with an invalid driver’s license, while trafficking eight illegal aliens without identification, would be jailed and charged with felony counts. Not Abrego Garcia—the violent spousal abuser, M-13 gang-member, and previously deported illegal alien. He was neither arrested nor even cited by the officers who pulled him over.

One of the great hallmarks of Roman civilization and subsequent Western civilization was its ability to create large cities by importing clean water, removing waste through sewers, and collecting garbage from the streets. Even in the age before microbiology, ancient and premodern city planners knew the connection between cleanliness and epidemics and how to lessen disease through sanitation.

But in the last two decades, our major cities have been de-civilizing. Citizens are told not to flush non-biodegradable plastics down their toilets, both to preserve the environment and to ensure municipal septic systems work properly. They are reminded to pick up their pets’ excrement on sidewalks and in parks. For purposes of collective health, they are taught not to urinate, spit, or defecate in public areas.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/05/dei-still-lurks-in-local-government/

Progress at the federal level in rolling back DEI will be slow to affect common citizens if we don’t realize what’s still in place locally, in cities like South Bend.

The right believes that it has won the war on DEI. The Trump administration is purging it from the federal government. Several states have followed suit. Corporations are pulling back their long-feigned support of diversity initiatives, and universities are retreating as well — if only out of fear of losing federal dollars. But the cancer of DEI has had a long time to metastasize at the local level before this recent charge against it at the highest echelons of government, the market, and the academy. DEI still needs to be eliminated from local government, where it receives less scrutiny but has an enduring pernicious effect.

Take South Bend, Ind., for example. It’s a small, post-industrial Midwestern city. It’s also one of the smallest cities in the country with a race- and gender-based public spending program.

I worked for South Bend as an engineer for seven months. One of the first tasks I was given was to calculate the race and gender quotas for an electric vehicle charger project. Wanting to conduct the task properly and legally, I decided to research the basis of the city’s race-based spending program. In doing so, however, I discovered that the program has an incredibly weak legal basis and a shrouded origin story.

Former Mayor Pete Buttigieg founded the city government’s Office of Diversity and Inclusion by executive order in 2016. Around that time, he ordered the director of public works to begin applying racial and gender quotas to public works contracts. The city’s legal team rightly indicated to the mayor that such quotas could not be assigned at a whim, and that a series of Supreme Court decisions clearly delineates the strict constitutional requirements for government actions involving suspect classifications such as race and gender.

https://issuesinsights.com/2025/05/12/whos-to-blame-for-the-lefts-assassination-culture/

A university report published last month shows that more than half of those who identify as being left of center on the political spectrum believe assassinating President Donald Trump would be justified. This didn’t come about organically. It’s the product of a vicious campaign waged by the Democratic Party-mainstream media axis.

According to a Rutgers Social Perception Lab-Network Contagion Research Institute brief, 55.2% of American on the left “reported that if someone murdered Donald Trump, they would be at least somewhat justified.” Overall, 38.5% hold the same belief.

Trump, who has survived a pair of assassination attempts (one of which was celebrated), is not the only legitimate target, say many Americans. The data show that nearly half, 48.6%, say murdering Elon Musk would be justified.

It turns out that there has also been a shocking show of support for Luigi Mangione, who has been charged with murdering UnitedHealth Chief Executive Officer Brian Thompson. In addition, Mangione has a health care ballot initiative named after him in the California.

The report’s authors say “support for political violence – including property destruction and
assassination – is not expressed in isolation, but as part of a tightly interconnected belief system.”

It’s not hard to imagine who makes up that “tightly interconnected belief system.” Reading further we learn that there exists a pattern that “suggests a broader worldview in which violence is seen as a legitimate political response — not just a reaction to individual figures. Central to this belief system is Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA), characterized by moral absolutism, punitive attitudes toward ideological opponents, and a willingness to use coercion for progressive aims.”

This “broader worldview” has been crafted by Democrats and a leftist media that have whipped roughly half the country into a raging frenzy. The former, from party leaders down, have encouraged uprisings and unrest, while the latter have been telling Americans for a decade that Trump is a racist, an authoritarian, a dictator and the direct offspring of Hitler if not his reincarnation.

https://dianawest.substack.com/p/un-happy-birthday-karl-marx?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=2175125&post_

What follows is an essay I wrote to mark Marx’s 200th birthday. There may be less hoopla for the 207th, but that doesn’t mean the Marxists don’t have more to celebrate.

On this bicentennial birthday of Karl Marx, the figleafs are off but the full-frontal horror remains pixilated. What are we looking at? We don’t know, we can’t know. After generations of foreign, domestic, communist and pro-communist conditioning, including mass media agit prop and “higher education”; after generations of penetration, subversion, de-moralization, corruption and beguilement, the mainstreaming of Marxism continues on autopilot. That means freedom is “converging” with tyranny, which means freedom is disappearing in tyranny, which must make this the best birthday for Karl Marx ever.

It was FDR who quite enthusiastically set our national course on such “convergence” with the socialist revolution known as the New Deal; we put him on a pedestal. FDR’s Soviet-penetrated White House and policy shops then helped turned Allied armies into weapons of Communist expansion in Europe and Asia; we honor him and his hapless successor Truman as great war presidents. Never mind that they ushered in more, and more insidious “cold” war, which included preventable war in Korea and Vietnam, and misery and death for tens of millions of people, and a continuing assault on our core national character.

Thoroughly deceived, self-deceived or deceiving, Americans eventually called “victory” in the Cold War at the “end” of the Soviet Union. Never mind that this deceptively transitional phase seems to have operated as a giant smoke-screen for some much-needed regrouping and re-branding for Kremlin Inc., even as America and the wider West took that 1990s-opportunity to transfer billions to our “former” enemies, with Bill Clinton swapping US military secrets for campaign contributions from Red China on the side. Eventually returning to the “formerly” red well, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton initiated another more sophisticated tech-for-cash scheme known as Skolkovo, which netted “contributions” for the Clinton Foundation from many of the tech companies who were also getting Russian contracts. In other words, nearly a century later, something much much like Lenin’s NEP was going strong in updated ventures into state-controlled foreign “investment.” Communism was really “dead” this time, so it was all okay.

Lately, however, something does seem to different. As recently as 2008 and 2012, it was verboten to hint that Barack Obama was a socialist — and that went for his signature socialist program, Obamacare (Hillarycare). In 2016, however, a socialist relic named Bernie Sanders was probably the rightful presidential nominee of the Democratic Party. Now, in 2018, the New York Times reports, numerous Democrats are running for office quite openly as socialists.

No wonder on turning 200 this month, Karl Marx appears all bright and shiny new. Across the media, from Left to Left, we are seeing red-hot hosannas to Marx, would-be destroyer of God and morality, of property and liberty.