It's funny how so many disjointed things I notice that of kind of all seem to come together somewhere in time.

If you're wondering where some of my posts spring from, yeah. The off-the-wall - it's mostly me. But it's also that I tend to follow 'signs,' if you will.

If something catches my interest enough that I take note of it, and then it seems as if there are all these related items but disparate sources, I figure I was meant to ramble on about it. 

Voilà - here we are again.

I found several longish passages in a book I've been reading [The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution by Bernard Bailyn] that rang so current - as if maybe someone like VDH was having a philosophical discussion, and I'd slipped into the room to eavesdrop. The subject was that familiar, as was the framing.

Only the year was circa 1768.

One passage was part of a speech William Pitt gave to Parliament:

...For some years past there has been an influx of wealth into this country which has attended with many fatal consequences because it has not been the regular, natural produce of labor and industry. The riches of Asia have been poured in upon us, and have brought with them not only Asiatic luxury but, I fear, Asiatic principles of government. Without connections, without any natural interest in the soil, the importers of foreign gold have forced their way into Parliament by such a torrent of private corruption as no private hereditary fortune could resist. My Lords, I say nothing but what is within the knowledge of us all; the corruption of the peoples is the great original cause of the discontents of the people themselves, of the enterprise of the crown, and the notorious decay of the internal vigor of the constitution.

Is Pitt talking about tech titans, multinationals, mega-banks, big pharma, or even big ag? He could be.

He was advocating for increasing representation from the parts of England that hadn't yet 'been bought.' 

The tremendous wealth pouring in from Asia was bifurcating British society - creating a super-class that had no real loyalty to 'British' or to their constitution (which was not a document like ours, delineating rights, etc., but their system). The world of the super-wealthy now revolved around them and the time-honored rights of the English people in the social strata below meant nothing.

This decadent elitism was so alarming to the colonists, who were watching it happen from America, that it made them even more anxious for their future as a colony.

...All of this was born to America, and there carried conviction to a far larger part of the population, and bore more dramtic implications than it did in England. "Liberty," John Adams wrote," can no more exist without virtue and independence than the body can live and move without a soul, " and what liberty can be expected to flow from England where "luxury, effeminacy, and venality are arrived at such a shocking pitch" and where "both electors and elected are become one mass of corruption"? It was not hard to see where England stood: it was, Adams declared, precisely at the point "where the Roman Republic was when Jugurtha left it and pronounced it 'a venal city, ripe for the destruction, if it can only find a purchaser.'" ...Like Rome in its decline, England, "from being the nursurey of heroes, became the residence of musicians, pimps, panders, and catamites."

Haven't I been writing about THAT  England for almost two years now? Exponentially so since Labour took over.

When in 1768 John Adams talks about the prevalence of 'luxury, effeminacy, and venality' - that really jumped out at me.

All I could think was, he's talking about the Democratic Party as it stands right this second.

Chuck Schumer is a real ladies man pic.twitter.com/XM4C2QZle6

— Sports and Nonsense (@Samantha_SN1) February 12, 2025

They are wrapped in privilege, money, and have done nothing but groom and elevate effeminate men while demonizing your average guy.

David Hogg is so masculine that if you squeezed all the testosterone out of his body, it wouldn't fill a thimble. https://t.co/gRSQgWqJnV

— Varad Mehta (@varadmehta) February 2, 2025

Clay Travis was on Jesse Watters last night and they played a clip from an interesting and confrontational segment with on a panel he was on. 

The panelists were doing all sorts of rationalizing cartwheels trying to divine how and why young men, especially, had drifted away from the Democratic Party.

Literally almost vapors when Travis came out and called it like it is. When he called Democratic men what they are.

Clay Travis gets audible gasps from University of Chicago audience after he declares that men view Democrats as 'pussies':
Daniel Cox: "Young men have not become much more conservative, at least according to Gallup, but they have become more Republican. They're still well, to the… pic.twitter.com/NDt0ZSDsY0

— Eric Abbenante (@EricAbbenante) February 13, 2025

...Clay Travis gets audible gasps from University of Chicago audience after he declares that men view Democrats as 'p**sies': 

Daniel Cox: "Young men have not become much more conservative, at least according to Gallup, but they have become more Republican. They're still well, to the left of their, dads and grandfathers when it comes to that stuff. There's something about Trump that was attractive and then there's something about the Democratic Party, at least in its current manifestation, that was repellent." 

Magdalene Taylor: "I was really struck by you saying especially that, you know, even even if they are more likely to identify as Republicans, they're still far more liberal than, the men of generations before them." 

Hannah Rosin: "What is it that we're missing?" 

Clay Travis: Who is the most masculine Democrat right now in America? Mayor, Pete." 

Rosin: "But Trump's like a grandpa." 

Travis: "Trump took a bullet in his ear and immediately stood up and said, fight, fight, fight. Every man in America and most of the women out here were impressed by that. Even if the women won't admit it. Democrats for men are p**sies. There are no masculine men in the Democrat Party right now." 

A shocking result after the Democrat party incentivized castration of males.

I saw that and I was like, "I am so writing this post. This is history come to life."

David Brooks didn’t go far enough. Today’s crisis real crisis is boys, men, and fathers. Americans see mothers as essential but treat fathers as optional, justifying our divorce & sperm bank culture. If children need their mothers at home, they need their fathers too. Period. pic.twitter.com/lFVgcL1NWz

— Anthony Bradley (@drantbradley) February 8, 2025

YOU CAN HAVE ONE OR THE OTHER - THE P-WORDS

You can have a volunteer military made up of dudes like the one on the left or the one on the right.

One will repel the other.

You have to choose. https://t.co/bsGYjiZA8r pic.twitter.com/2deus1THt3

— The Deseret Stone (@DeseretStone) February 14, 2025

Or the everyday heroes.

It's as if a majority of the country were colonists all over again on November 5th. 

Americans were looking at 'luxury, effeminacy, and venality' and decided it was going to take a revolution to save the day.

Thank God they - we - did.