Ark. Democratic Party Accused of Excluding Black Female Candidate | National Review Online


Ark. Democratic Party Accused of Excluding Black Female Candidate | National Review Online.

This is an interesting one. A conundrum indeed. How to interpret this, how to interpret this…

The complainant is a black woman in Arkansas’ Democrat Party. She wants to run for Governor of the state but insists that the Party is excluding her from party events and communications.

She’s a Democrat and a woman, therefore she’s likely a feminist. Feminists are, bar none, the whiniest, most pathetically omphaloskepsistic group there is in America; constantly and everywhere fabricating insults, and slights, and offenses, and affronts, and indignities and snubs where there are none.

However, she’s also a black woman in the Democrat Party. That means she’s also almost certainly a card-carrying member of the Race Grievance Industry. The other whiniest group in America (tied with the Gay Grievance Industry) today.

They constantly imagine and fabricate insults, and slights, and offenses, and affronts… well you get the picture …

And, last but not least, she’s a Democrat candidate for high office; the other whiniest group in America today.

No one on earth can fabricate grievances where there are none like a black woman Democrat candidate for high office.

Then again, the Democrat Party, especially in the South, is the most racist organization in America today.

You see, in the Democrat Party, black people need to know their place, and if they’re not doing what the leadership is telling them to do, then they are getting a bit uppity, and need to be put in their place.

So, this kerfuffle about Arkansas’ Democrat Party “excluding the black female candidate?”  Probably nothing. And, yet, they probably were excluding her.  And because she’s black. And, likely, because her timing was a bit off, or something.

However, this woman just needs to wait a bit. She’s obviously pretty good at making her grievances known publicly — she is, after all, a black woman in the Democrat Party. She’ll get her turn. Because she’s black. And a woman. Whether or not she has any qualifications, intelligence or other important qualities is perfectly irrelevant.

Maybe I’m also a bit surprised that she’s surprised.

– xPraetorius

 

 

Flashmob Flash Mob – Ode an die Freude ( Ode to Joy ) Beethoven Symphony No.9 classical music – YouTube


Flashmob Flash Mob – Ode an die Freude ( Ode to Joy ) Beethoven Symphony No.9 classical music – YouTube.

For Good Friday, one of the finest, most fun, exhilarating, thrilling videos I’ve ever, ever, ever seen on YouTube.

Watch it to the end. If you don’t experience chills, you need to revisit basic premises of your life. :)

– xPraetorius

VA Viper: Excellent engineering: the ultimate wine bottle opener and pourer


VA Viper: Excellent engineering: the ultimate wine bottle opener and pourer.

This is actually two minutes and 16 seconds well- and delightfully-spent. An appreciation of human ingenuity.

– xPraetorius

A Bit More on the Speech Police | National Review Online


A Bit More on the Speech Police | National Review Online.

More brilliance from Kevin Williamson. He writes about the masses of troops who recently were apparently more ready and willing to kill Cliven Bundy than to prevent illegal aliens from invading the country.

Always gifted at the art of the trenchant summary, Williamson finishes the above-linked essay thus:

I’ve been treated to several bracing lectures about the rule of law this week in reaction to my views on the miniature insurrection in Nevada. What Cliven Bundy is up to, cinematic though it may be, is small-time. A country of 314 million can endure a little jaywalking on the part of its people from time to time. But when you have a government that refuses to follow its own laws — and uses malicious prosecution for political ends — you don’t really have a government any more. You have gangsters. And when the cops and robbers are the same people, who do you call for help?

Who, indeed?

The rest of the essay covers a lot of ground in a few words, and is every bit as excellent as the conclusion. Very well worth the read.

– xPraetorius

The Left’s Central Delusion | National Review Online


The Left’s Central Delusion | National Review Online.

This essay, and the rest of Thomas Sowell’s plain-spoken, approachable, deeply common-sensical oeuvre, are why Dr. Sowell is and American treasure more important than, say, The Grand Canyon.

For decades, Professor Sowell has been distilling apparently complex issues down to their simple-to-understand essential principles. Sowell is the undisputed master at cutting through the fog of phony debate, irrelevant canards, evasions, deflections, euphemisms and diversions that politicians use to bury the substance of issues.

It was Dr. Sowell who first asked innocently enough, if women are willing to accept 77 cents for every dollar a man demands, why aren’t all businesses composed exclusively of women?

With that simple question, the 77 cent myth was destroyed.

In the above-linked essay, Sowell takes on “central planning,” and gives it the treatment it so richly deserves.

– xPraetorius

Demographics Isn’t Destiny | National Review Online


Demographics Isn’t Destiny | National Review Online.

Williamson is brilliant as usual.

Needless to say, and I blush to admit it, we’ve said the very same things Williamson says in his on-the-mark essay linked above.

To summarize: If Republicans want to win elections, they don’t have to bribe the population, as Democrats do, they need to show how electing Republicans is in the best interest of the voters of America.

The messages of smaller, less intrusive, government, and as Williamson shows, greater local control over vital institutions like education, are compelling and persuasive.

These messages are not race- or demographic- or age- or sexual preference- or sex-specific. They are people-specific. And — surprise, surprise! — it’s people who vote! Talk to them as if they know what’s in their best interest and in that of their children.

Republicans need to make that case over and over and over and over again.

Oh, and when the left race baits, or sex baits or sexual preference baits or indulges in the usual irrelevant and cheap tactics they always do, then call them on it. Do it sneeringly and dismissively — that kind of muck deserves nothing more than sneering dismissal — then get back to the subject: making life actually better for all Americans.

– xPraetorius

Finally! Someone From the RGI Posts Something Worth Reading!


“Brotha Wolf’s” essay — reproduced below — is chock full of errors, and silliness, and out-and-out falsehoods, and its conclusions are decades outdated and no longer remotely applicable, while the personal attacks against me throughout are simply juvenile and irrelevant, but it’s a revealing view into the “thought processes” of the pawns of the Race Grievance Industry.

At long last, when I’m not able to counter it, and as I asked him to do numerous times, “Brotha Wolf” finally has penned something that addresses the issues I surfaced! I must have suggested to him a thousand times that he leave off with the personal attacks because they make him sound stupid, uneducated, classless and ignorant. Every time I’d make a point, BW would respond with “You’re crazy!” Or, “You’re a crazy racist white dude!” Or, “Stop telling me what to think!”(1) and other irrelevant inanities. He never got around to telling me what was wrong in what I actually said.

Here’s a little bit more background: As part of a long-running television and literary project, I’ve been engaging the Race Grievance Industry for the past year. My focus has been on the foot soldiers of the RGI; I call them the “pawns.” My colleagues here at the Praetorian Writers’ Group have been researching the leadership and other elements of the RGI.

As part of my research, I’ve been having an on-again-off-again debate with “Brotha Wolf,” whom I affectionately call “Brotha Cryin’ Wolf,” (BCW) because you need look no further than his blog for a perfect example of crying wolf.

I’m a white man, and an open and honest Conservative; BCW is a black man, an admitted racist, and a closeted extreme leftist, who can’t admit his leftism, but frequently bashes Conservatives, and asserts that they are all hard-core, snarling, sneering racists. Needless to say, BCW has concluded that America is awash in white hostility directed at him and at other “People of Color.” Furthermore, of course, BCW considers me a racist, even though I have always treated him completely respectfully, but firmly — assiduously avoiding calling him names, or questioning his character or honesty in any way.

I have made the point to him that (1) if a black person obtains an education, (2) speaks well, (3) works hard, (4) gets along well with others and (5) presents himself normally, then he can succeed in America. More to the point, white racism will not be a significant obstacle in his path to success. Oh, there will be obstacles in his path — the current President, tax structure, the IRS, the EPA and more, for example — but those obstacles will be in everyone’s path as well.

To repeat: (1) white racism is not a significant problem in America for black people today, and (2) white racism will not be a significant obstacle in the path of any black person’s success in America.

Brotha Cryin’ Wolf, needless to say, along with a whole gaggle of zany friends and commenters, objected strenuously to my assertions. However, their objections nearly universally took the form of personal attacks, gratuitous insults, mind-reading, veiled threats of violence, name-calling, evasions, irrelevant deflections, racist slurs, foul language, deliberate misstatements of my meaning and, finally, banning me from commenting on his blog. You know, just about the entire litany of left-wing tactics in just about any “debate” in which they engage.

In short, rather than engage what I was saying, their tactic was to inundate me in a flood of invective whose intent was to discredit me, and therefore my message.

When BCW and friends did try to address the topic, they were reduced to factual errors, isolated anecdotes, story after story after story of abuses from many decades ago and weird forays into psuedo-scientific flapdoodle. For “proof” of how terrible it is for black people in America, they came up with absolutely nothing from today’s America that was remotely indicative of a hostile climate for black people – due to white racism – nationwide.

Just so nobody misunderstands, in America there is a hostile climate for black people, but that is the fault of the Race Grievance Industry and of supposedly well-meaning liberals, who have long done their level best to keep racial resentment alive and well, and who have spread the poisonous and false message that the white man continues to do his level best to keep the black man down.

Read this well: the default state-of-mind of white people in America today is very much pro-black, and has been so for more than 50 years.

Nobody denies that there is white racism out there, and that white people need to address the remnants of it seriously and decisively. It’s poison, and it needs to be eradicated. Juxtaposed against that, though, is a simple truth: white racism as an obstacle or as a problem for black people in general was utterly defeated long ago. To deny that is to admit that one is not willing to be a serious observer of society today.

BCW and his friends are not serious observers of society today. In other words, they’re typical non-thinking, ideologically-blinkered members of America’s political extreme left wing.  Hence, he and I had a rollicking back-and-forth sometimes on his blog, sometimes on mine.

I’ve reproduced “Brotha Wolf’s” post below, with inline commentary [in square brackets and red font.] Of particular interest are the follow-up comments by BCW’s readers, also included below. Note how they just can’t seem to help themselves. No addressing of any actual topics, but rather personal attack after personal attack after personal attack. These people came out of the woodwork, now that I was “banished,” and couldn’t defend myself. This kind of cowardice is also a hallmark of the left. In the comments section, I’ve highlighted the personal attacks in purple just to indicate the sheer ubiquity of them.

Now, with the stage set, let’s take a look at BCW’s little screed below, shall we?

*** BEGINNING OF BROTHA WOLF’S POST ***

Conservatives & “Free Stuff” (UPDATE)

 

Welfare check

Just as I thought, xPrae is still harping on the Race Grievance Industry (RGI) myth. Abagond and I are still on his mind as the “foot soldiers” of this made-up complex. [That's true.] xPrae is a right winger in the truest sense of the word, believing that all black people should join the conservative side and abandon the Democratic party’s ways, [also true] as if we’re democrats to begin with. [Unintentionally revealing? The small "d" democrat? I've often said in these pages that the state of mind of the RGI is eerily similar to that of the racist white eugenicists of the early 20th Century. Those charlatans were also, it should be noted, a major source of inspiration for the Nazis and other totalitarians of the 20th century.] To him, the left just gives us “free stuff“, and we should stop whining and bitching about white racism which is not a “big problem”, according to him. [a crude summation, but roughly accurate.]

As a side note, I said that he believes it’s a non-issue or insignificant, but it’s whatever. xPrae may say how he didn’t mention the “free stuff” comment, but a commenter did. [That is not true. I did mention the "free stuff." (here -- it's the second bullet(2)) I made the self-evident point that if black people did not want the "free stuff" no one was forcing them to take it. They were perfectly within their rights simply not to take it. Yet, there is no indication that there was ever a widespread movement to reject the white man's largesse. A simple truth: if a group takes trillions of dollars worth of "free stuff "offered to them, it shouldn't be all that controversial to say that the group wanted the free stuff offered to them.] Yet, he did cosign on it. And as for us wanting “revenge“, he needs to show me where I or Abagond ever said that. Otherwise, he is completely out of his mind. [An interesting point. I referred BCW to the post about "Yurugu" (here) in which the commenter, one "diaryofanegress," fantasized quite openly about the violent extermination of all white people. BCW's response was: "...they’ll likely blame it on blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and anyone else. lol " Ignoring the weirdness of BCW's suggestion that after white people are exterminated, they will "blame it on blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and anyone else,it should not be controversial to suggest that this genocidal fantasizing arises from a desire for revenge. "Diaryof" voiced the fantasy; BCW endorsed it. For my part, I never would have allowed someone else's genocidal fantasies to appear uncountered on my pages. Ever. BCW not only allowed it, he seconded it. I should note also that the above is only one example; the desire that all white people suffer a violent death, as redress for past or imagined ongoing depredations, is quite common on the part of the RGI. You might retort, "Oh, it's just the usual heated hyperbole that crops up when the hot-button topic of race is under the microscope." I'd respond to you, "Imagine if a white person were to fantasize openly about the violent elimination of all black people -- regardless of how heated the argument or topic is."]

What the hell is this “free stuff” xPrae is talking about? [All the vast panoply of government service, programs and initiatives whose standard operating procedure is to take from some to give to others. ] I banned him from being a first-class [misogynistic epithet deleted] However, he would probably say that I banned him for being white. [I do say it, and it's true. BCW banned my presence because I'm white and because I disagree with him. The RGI maintains strict ideological conformity; no actual dissent allowed.] I guess his contemptous, self-important, know-more-than-you, typical, white male paternalistic attitude had nothing to do with it. [Another interesting point. The RGI came at me with the vilest vitriol imaginable. According to Brotha Cryin' Wolf, I was supposed to respond only with sweetness and light. I settled for second best: withering condescension. BCW tries here to make the perfectly ridiculous point that if only I had made my dissent sweetly and gently, he wouldn't have banned me. There is no sweet way to say: "What you just wrote is so crashingly idiotic that you should be ashamed for having allowed it out from the swamp to see the light of day." As for the charge of directing withering fire at the content of BCW's posts, I plead guilty. But if your posts are fully buttressed by sparkling logic and irrefutable facts, then you should have no fear of disagreement by anyone.] For some reason, conservatives don’t want to look at themselves in the mirror for their own faults, [Another interesting point -- setting aside BCW's ridiculous mind-reading for a bit, here's another simple truth: Being a Conservative, I'm quite well-versed in how I, and others, became Conservatives. As I've remarked many times in these pages before (here, for example), "society's white noise is liberal." Therefore, read this well, the default state of mind for kids growing up in America today is to be a liberal. And, during my youth I was a good liberal. More than socialized medicine, I believed in truly free healthcare (ie that doctors should just give it away out of a sense common decency), free food, books and housing. Yep. That was me. It's precisely because I was willing to "look in the mirror," and to keep thinking, and observing, and reading and challenging my views, that I was able to recognize the numbskullery of my thoughts, and that I became a Conservative. BCW's accusation here is likely simple projection. As transparently dumb as many of BCW's positions are, they are, indeed, unshakable.  I had to shake my positions in order to get to where I am today. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't easy admitting that I had been wrong! But it was worth it, and, really, all part of growing up.] before accusing others of their own. But I digress. He won’t be telling me what he means directly. [It was surely not for lack of trying! :) BCW and the rest of the RGI are the kid on the playground who calls your mother ugly, then immediately starts yelling "NA-NA-NA-NA-NA-NA...!" at the top of his lungs so as to shout down any response from you.]

I can only assume that this “free stuff” xPrae writes is referring to the welfare system. Right wingers associate welfare with ‘free stuff’ whenever they mention black people. Although they won’t admit it, like xPrae, they latch on to the age old notion that black people are lazy and shiftless. [Nope. Right-wingers do not do this. However, I did mention another simple truth: If you offer a population a wide array of free stuff, a certain percentage of that population will take you up on the offer. As time goes on, the rest of that population will look at the freeloaders and wonder what the point is of their working their backsides off. This would have happened if the race roles had been reversed, and the "free stuff" had been offered to white people by relatively more prosperous black people. People are, still, people.] Plus, they believe that it’s a Democratic plan to give black people “free stuff”. Ergo, welfare and the left keep black folks from pulling up their bootstraps. [I don't simply believe it; it's a matter of record. We showed President Lyndon Johnson saying it (here). Plus, that's exactly how it's played out in the past decades. It's hard to deny that Democrats have this plan when all they do is double down on what has demonstrably kept giving black people "free stuff" and certainly is keeping "black folks from pulling" themselves up by the bootstraps. Again, this should not be controversial.]

On the other hand, Republicans abolished slavery, [Yep. They did. And they were the prime moving force behind the abolition of the Jim Crow Laws and segregation as well.] and “made the case for the removal of obstacles.” [Again, BCW failed to read what I wrote. I made exactly the opposite point. I said that Republicans removed the obstacles, then failed to make the case that that was the more important thing to do, not doling out "free stuff."] So, we should thank massa and become a part of his house. [Nope. I never said this or even remotely hinted at it. More of the same tiresome mind-reading of which BCW and the rest of the RGI are constantly, monotonously, brainlessly guilty.  However, I did suggest that the RGI abandon all their vast array of excuses for failure and take advantage of the opportunity in America -- before, that is, Obama eliminates it all. :) By the way, BCW's "massa" is the leadership of the Race Grievance Industry... the ones making a fortune off BCS's whining.] Some already did, by the way.

A panel of black conservatives

[The above is a picture that sends terror throughout the American left. Holy mackerel!!! Black people who actually think for themselves! We certainly can't have that! I hear you already: "What a racist thing to say! Blacks are not a monolith!" Maybe not, but they are a monolith in the voting booth. At that point, I am perfectly correct to say that all blacks think alike; that all blacks do the same thing; that all blacks march in lock-goose-step to the orders of the Race Grievance Industry and its political wing the Democrat Party. Nor should my assertion be even in the slightest controversial.]

We need to understand what welfare is and what it’s not. xPrae thinks it’s just out to give “free stuff”. First off, “free stuff” can mean anything. Most conservatives, and some liberals think it can means cars, clothes, jewelry, iphones, etc. Welfare was never established as some government genie granting you your wishes. [At least that what the left said. Leftists lie. A lot.] It’s history shows that it was created to assist poor families while training them to work and earn money. [That has always been one of its stated purposes. That the programs never actually instituted any relevant or effective training is part of the problem, and ought to be a major scandal. You can blame the somnolent, or irresponsible -- or complicit -- national media for that little oversight.]

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program started in 1935. It was created by the Social Security Act and administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the New Deal to financially assist low and no income families. Why should there be such a program in the first place? Oh yeah! The Great Depression. [Yes, the Great Depression... aka: a government program to make a permanent Democrat voter constituency. Historians are now largely in agreement: FDR's programs "to assist the needy" prolonged the Great Depression, and had the side-effect of making a certain level of poverty permanent. It's the same principle I mentioned above: If you offer "free stuff" to a population, a certain non-zero percentage of that population will take you up on the offer. Furthermore, of those who take you up on the offer, a certain non-zero percentage will not take the opportunity, during the time of the "free stuff," to improve their skills, shore up their finances, and make themselves more marketable and independent.]

Then came its replacement, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, created under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 under President Bill Clinton. As its name implies, it provides temporary assistance while helping to get them off assistance by helping them gain permanent employment within a two-year period. So, that being the case, it’s objective is not to let people live the lap of luxury forever. It doesn’t give hand outs, but a leg to stand on. And according to data, it helped significantly, especially among single mothers, gain employment and poverty dropped rapidly during the 1990′s. [Here BCW neatly makes our point for us. This was the welfare reform much heralded by Republicans and forced on a reluctant Bill Clinton by the Newt Gingrich-led (R-Georgia) House of Representatives and the Bob Dole-led (R-Kansas) Senate. How exactly did it reform welfare? By cutting it off after a certain period of time! What was the effect of telling millions of welfare-recipients that their money would run out in a few months? They scrambled and found work. This was the most beneficial welfare "program" -- ie, the elimination of the welfare program, if you will -- in the history of the country! That is, of course, precisely why Obama got rid of the "temporary" nature of it, thereby eliminating the most truly pro-black legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964.]

Welfare programs only provide so much according to the family in need. The U.S. Welfare System’s website provides the following info:

  • A basic average guideline for the food stamp program will show that an average family of 4 can expect an amount up to $500 per month for food stamps. This figure will greatly vary based on the age of the family members and medical needs. A single person household will show an expected average of up to $200 per month. Again, these figures are averages and not state specific.
  • Cash allowance benefits for financial assistance will also be state regulated and allowances paid will also vary based on different criteria. However, an average expectation can be placed on a family of 4 receiving up to $900 for their TANF allowance. A single person household can expect an average of up to $300. [Even if we stipulate to this (we don't), that would mean some $1,400 per month of savings for my family of three.  That would cover my family's food entirely and most of my housing. It would mean that I could retire and go work part-time at Home Depot for the remainder of my housing, as well as gas and fun money. ]

So, again, I have to ask, what does xPrae mean when he mentions “free stuff”? Food stamps don’t buy anything BUT FOOD! And how on Earth can you buy cars and iphones with income such as this? Seriously! [This is, of course, more fiction on the part of BCW. Laundering welfare payouts and food stamps for cash -- and from there for the purchase of other than food -- has long been a well-known type of welfare fraud. It's only recently that some safeguards ("Credit card"-style payments, for example) have been put in place to make it a tiny bit more difficult to convert government handouts to cash. Really though, this had the effect only of transferring some complicity for the fraud to the retailer as well as the benefits recipient.]

And while we’re talking about blacks and welfare, maybe xPrae should understand that most people who are on welfare are white. Yet, he seems to link it directly towards blacks whenever he goes on a rant about the imaginary RGI. [It's sad that I'd have to bat back this tiresome canard, but it does show the ignorance of the RGI. Look, it's common knowledge that poor whites consume more welfare than blacks. However, per capita, any black person is more than seven times more likely to be a recipient of government services -- of "free stuff" -- than any white person. While poverty is a problem for white people -- it's a freakin' problem for all poor people, for cryin' out loud! -- it's a massive problem for black people, and most particularly for inner-city black people. Sorry. It's simply true. More to the point, the cities have been under the exclusive control of the Democrat Party, and frequently of black people, for decades. Read this well: It's entirely possible that if you have done only one thing: prevent the Democrats from controlling the cities, you would have eliminated black poverty without spending a dime.]

Pie chart showing welfare stats by race

[This entirely unattributed chart does not in any way show "welfare stats" by race. Since BCW doesn't tell where he obtained this chart -- or even whether he made it himself -- I can't know what is is intended to show. However, it does roughly approximate (very roughly) the ethnic composition of the United States.  If you were to show a meaningful measure of the use of taxpayer-funded goods and services by ethnicity, ie the per capita statistics, you would need to use a bar chart. A pie chart can show only one instance of 100%, divided into smaller pieces. "Per Capita" means "per hundred," so you would need to use bars to show, for example, (1) the percentage of white recipients of welfare, (2) the percentage of black recipients of welfare, (3) the percentage of Hispanic recipients of welfare, etc. Such a bar chart would feature a black bar more than seven times as tall as that for whites.]

xPrae believes black folks should join Republicans because it was Republicans, particularly and presumably Lincoln, a Republican President, who freed the slaves. It’s a soundbite if I ever heard one. But is it true?

Historians pointed out that Lincoln was not too crazy about freeing the slaves. It is evidenced in a letter dated August 22, 1862 to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune:

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.” [This letter indicates only that, to Lincoln, emancipation was certainly very important, just not as important as keeping the Union together. History has proven that state-of-mind to be quite reasonable: slavery was a doomed institution. It would have disappeared well before the arrival of the 20th Century.  It's likely that Lincoln and most others in high office in the country knew this. It's well-known that Lincoln was a firm abolitionist. A more pointed question would be to ask: did more than half a million fine young men have to die to get rid of slavery, when it was going to disappear in the next 30 years anyway? My opinion: nope.]

Many seem to think that the Emancipation Proclamation officially freed the slaves. But many have argued that it was a piece of paper just for show, because it only freed slaves where the federal government was powerless.It didn’t free slaves in loyal slave states or in the Confederacy under Union control. In the end, Lincoln, didn’t free any slave. And there is no record of any Republican besides Lincoln that stepped up. [To the contrary, there is no record of any Democrat having stepped up to do anything to assist black people in America, until the 1960's at which point, they were also the stiffest resistance to pro-black initiatives in America. Furthermore, when they did "step up" it was to institute policies and promulgate laws that were designed to "give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference." It's hard to argue with the results! Ninety to ninety-five percent Democrat voting rates suggest that President Johnson successfully bought blacks' votes for the foreseeable future. What BCW fails to recognize is that since FDR came into office all the way back in 1933, the country has been trending Democrat ever since. The Republicans, and the Republican principle of smaller, less intrusive government, have held a smaller and smaller share of the general perception of what exactly constitutes "The American Dream."

Back to Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation(3). BCW is sort of correct. As with most things in history, the reality is more complex than what is taught in overview classes in high school and college. BCW is correct when he says that the Proclamation had no effect in Confederate-held lands, but that is not the point. The Proclamation did serve notice that the abolition of slavery was now an additional goal of the war effort. The Emancipation Proclamation put the American government on record in official policy as being opposed to the institution of slavery itself. Whether the Proclamation had the immediate effect of freeing the slaves is perfectly irrelevant; it was a fatal wound to the institution of slavery itself.  Even if the Confederacy had won the war, cleaving the United States in two, slavery as an institution in the South would not have survived the next 30 years. In the North, int eh slave states that had remained in the Union, it would not have survived a single year after the end of the war.

And, yes, all that was done by a Republican, by a founding father, in fact, of the Republican Party, the party formed primarily to serve as the political wing of the American abolitionist movement.]

There is no doubt that the Democrats haven’t been too kind to blacks, especially in the South. But Republicans haven’t seen so civil with us either, especially in modern times. xPrae is unsurprisingly selective about this reality about a party he supports. I wonder why? (sarcasm) [Oh, how's that? If BCW is trying to say that Republicans have opposed all the infantilizing and humiliating policies and laws promulgated by the Democrats to keep blacks poor, dependent and voting for Democrats, then how is that being "uncivil" to black people? Liberal Republicans -- you know, the "Country-Club Republicans? -- are indeed guilty of the same racism of which the American left and its political wing, the Democrat Party, are guilty: the very same condescending, look-down-their-noses, Rockefeller Republicans who absolutely are Republicans In Name Only, or RINO's. Yes, these Republicans have, through the years, supported and gone along with all the putrid policies the Democrats have proposed to keep blacks poor and dependent.]

Republicans, believing they’re fighting a losing battle in the South, brought forth a doctrine of black stereotypes  ["doctrine of black stereotypes" means nothing.] and covert anti-black racism [in other, more accurate words, "imaginary racism"] to advance their political agenda in order to sucker white voters over and over again to vote against their self-interests. [Hogwash. This illiterate muck of a sentence is mostly meaningless, but we can interpret that BCW means that we Republicans and Conservatives have "played the race card." That is, manifestly, hogwash. ] (We’ve come to know it as the Southern Strategy. [Here, BCW links to a piece in "The Nation," a hard-left, non-credible publication, long known to twist facts to support preconceived notions. Lee Atwater, legendary Republican operative, did indeed play hardball politics, but was never in any way a racist. He made the case that if Republcans were to win elections, they had to take off the gloves and play in the mud like the legendary race-baiting Democrats. The Nation essay alleges that Atwater counseled Republicans to play on the racial fears of white southerners. However, the piece really concedes completely that Democrats routinely play on the fears of all black people. Atwater, and others, most notably black Republicans, did, indeed propose strategies to counter this slander on the part of the Democrats and the RGI. These strategies were not all about "playing nice" with Democrats and the Race Grievance Industry.]) But as usual, xPrae is doesn’t want to realize that he brought the hype, because the right knows there are a lot of slow-ass [Here, BCW links, again in "The Nation," to a long-debunked 2012 study, the authors of which twisted themselves into knots to come to pre-conceived findings that Conservatives and Republicans are less intelligent, lazier and more racist than non-Conservatives. However, in reading further, one found that the authors of the study concluded that you were stupid or racist only if you were to disagree with their conclusions. Heck, anyone can come up with such a study instantly! And they did. And BCW fell swallowed it like the race addict he is.], angry white people who can’t think for themselves, let alone think rationally. [This is particularly rich, coming from a dude whose only response to disagreement from white people is "You're a racist!" and, "You're a liar!" and "Shut up -- you're banned!" So rational, there, BCW, ever so rational... :) ]

Lee Atwater, the man who spoke on what the Southern Strategy was all about

Currently, Republicans are doing everything they can to set up the obstacles they supposedly tried to lift. In states like North Carolina, they’re trying to undermine voting rights [Suffice it to say, that for BCW if you suggest that we should adhere to the idea of one-person-one-vote, and that dead people shouldn't vote, then you are trying to "undermine voting rights." The counter to BCE's link in the leftist Slate.com, is this link. BCW's idea of "voting rights" is that leftists should be able to vote as often as they want.], social programs (“free stuff”), the Racial Justice Act and public education, under the leadership of its governor Pat McCrory. [I don't know enough about the so-called "Racial Justice Act" to talk about it. Nor, I suspect, does BCW. However, it's practically a patriotic duty of all Americans to undermine "public education" whenever possible! ]

Now, movements, known as Moral Mondays, are devised to fight against the GOP’s push to turn back the clock of progress. And it’s it’s spreading into other Southern states like Georgia and Tennessee. Why? [The so-called "Moral Mondays movement" is not spreading in any significant way. However, in answer to BCW's question as to "why there are such movements," that's easy: because Republicans and Conservatives are challenging the idea of large, intrusive government everywhere. This will irritate leftists of all stripes, and since the left is much better organized than the right, they will get people in the streets. ]

Because Republicans are trying their damnest to make sure certain people, particularly blacks, no longer have a say in programs they fought so hard to obtain for the goal of obtaining power in government, which is strange considering how Republicans believe in small government. [BCW makes no correlation between getting government out of all our lives and potential harm to blacks. He does, however, prove again my "free stuff" point from above. In the statement above, he tells of "programs they fought so hard to obtain for the goal of obtaining power in government." Free stuff.] And yet, they’re trying to take it over from top to bottom. [Whatever that means. I gather BCW's saying that the Democrats are not trying to take power from top to bottom? If he truly believes this then he's more ignorant than I thought.] This is why they employ scare tactics and dog whistle politics to convince the masses to join their cliche [Join our cliche? Whuuh?] even though they will be treated like two-bit pledges instead of actual members. [Again, whuuh?] So, again, why should blacks, or anyone, support such a party only out for the rich and privileged? [Finally! I guess we can expect BCW to leave the Democrats -- you know the party of rich and privileged Wall Street and of Big Business? Saaaaayyyy...How's Wall street doing these days? How about GM, and Microsoft? How're hard-leftists like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet doing in this time (now) when Democrats control nearly 70% of the American Government and have for more than five years? Yep. Under Obama, the very richest are richer than they have ever been. And getting richer. Why? They're big Democrat supporters. While rich Republican supporters actually have the leader of the Senate of the United States of America targeting them regularly.] 

xPrae will no doubt throw a hissy fit over this article. He will question how is any of the above racist. But in the end, he and his non-thinking, so-called “think tank” will simply go by faith that he’s still right. [BCW's out of gas. Now he's just saying things.] This time, I’ve provide sound arguments [He's provided "arguments," -- freakin' finally! -- just not sound ones.] against his RGI and “free stuff” rhetoric. But xPrae is not interested in the links provided. He will likely act moronic and denounce the info, should he lurk around here, copy and paste this whole article and spend his time taking it apart. [hee hee hee] I don’t care. You can’t argue with what is fact. And he will try.

If xPrae was as intelligent as he portrays himself to be, he would know that the right kisses asses so that the wealthy can have “free stuff” while they get some dough in return. [Oh? How's that? Prove it.] But it’s not like he has proven to be down to Earth to begin with, a mental illness many conservatives are afflicted with. [They can't help themselves, the RGI. They have to call those who disagree with them crazy.]

UPDATE: I knew it. I called it. xPrae won’t let him being banned from my blog stop him from trying to comment and start up the usual, predictable talk down:

xPrae2

xPrae, you know good and well you’re banned from here. [So I gather, you coward. :) ] Plus, you know you’re not looking for a conversation, even if you say that’s what you want. [If that's what I said I want, then who are you to presume I don't want it? You've never given me one yet, even to test the premise that I might want one. That's pretty dumb!] And none of us are interested in learning from you. [You could have stopped this last sentence at the word "learning." :) ] You are STILL banned from here, or do you think you’re too important for boundaries set by simple minded negroes like me? [Yuh. I'm "too important for boundaries set by simple minded Negroes like you." Do you even read what you write? Do you ever realize how stupid you sound?] Yes, I used your articles to prove a point or two, and you’re so happy obliging while showcasing your racist, right wing insanity. [You used my essays (<-- the proper word), but you didn't prove anything. More to the point, you used them to buttress arguments that I've made. And I appreciate it.] So, return to your side of the blogosphere, whine about how I’m being unfair while purposely ignoring your futile attempt to demean and insult opposing views, and continue living in your conservative whitewashed fantasy. [You're not being unfair. You're being a moron. I offered you an opportunity for growth, learning and greater maturity; a chance to move beyond your published idiocy and to grow a little. You declined the offer. ]

 

Post navigation

16 THOUGHTS ON “CONSERVATIVES & “FREE STUFF” (UPDATE)”

  1. Hey Brothawolf, good to see you still on the ball and rippin’ these Conserva-turds-excuse me, Republicans a new azzhole! I have been able to fortunately take a breather on spring break and spend time in Canada, and though it always irritates and saddens me to have to come back across the U.S. border (the land of the kray-krays like that Mr. “X” mentioned above)-at least I can take comfort in knowing that Not everyone has drank the “Kool-Aid”, [Editor's note: the level of literacy is rarely elevated in the RGI.] thus your post(s) have once again made my day, kudos!!!  :D

  2. Good article. The rightwing is sick. They are the biggest hypocrites on the planet and always think that they are right. Their mentality is sick

  3. This shows you how f***ed up their thinking is. They complain about ‘agency’, but do not provide the programs and top notch education, medical care to truly aid those in poverty to get out. As for paretoriass, consider the lunatic source. A good article and breakdown of the facts, kudos!

  4. I remember when he was trolling the hell out of Abagond’s blog. he referred to Rush Limbaugh and all those other f***tards at Fox as luminaries. I rolled my eyes at that stupid head up his ass comment. I tell you Wolf, that fool is just a mental case.

  5. Him referring to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk as a luminary is very insightful to what he is all about.

  6. Race Grievance Industry, he needs to get his head out of his a**. And i doubt if this clown is apart of any think tank. I needs to be locked up in a rubber room wearing a gown and paper shoes. He is a complete idiot.

  7. *he needs to be locked up.*

  8. Race Grievance Industry, BS.

    There is a real and pernicious White Grievance Industry which Praetorius proudly extols while living in a bubble of denial. Conservatism is a mental illness due to all of the lying they do to one another to uphold their worldview.

    • Thank you!

       [At this point, BCW's commenters appear to have had enough of their courageous, sneering attacks against someone who can't respond back. :) ]

*** END OF BROTHA WOLF’S POST AND FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS ***

– xPraetorius

*** Notes ***

(1) - This was a common theme with the RGI as well. If you disagreed with a position of theirs, you were “telling them how to think.” If you study their “argumentation” (in quotes, because actual argumentation is difficult to find with them) you soon recognize that the vast majority of it consists of dodges, red herrings, evasions and distractions — like the vast outpouring of personal attacks — meant to allow them to avoid putting actual arguments out there. Of course! After all, if your response to someone’s point is an insult or a personal attack, then that means you’ve avoided having actually to put your views and logic out there where they might not stand up to scrutiny by others. 

(2) - This was another common problem with the RGI during our exchanges at BCW’s blog. They frequently didn’t actually read what they commented on. If this practice is widespread, and not limited to informal debates between ideological adversaries, then it is hard not to conclude that they simply have no idea what they’re talking about. 

(3) – Here’s Wikipedia’s brief summary of the Emancipation Proclamation’s history, purpose and result:

The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States’ forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to “recognize and maintain the freedom of” the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]

Around 20,000 to 50,000 slaves in regions where rebellion had already been subdued were immediately emancipated. It could not be enforced in areas still under rebellion, but as the Union army took control of Confederate regions, the Proclamation provided the legal framework for freeing more than 3 million more slaves in those regions. Prior to the Proclamation, in accordance with theFugitive Slave Act of 1850, escaped slaves were either returned to their masters or held in camps as contraband for later return. The Proclamation only applied to slaves in Confederate-held lands; it did not apply to those in the four slave states that were not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, and Missouri, which were unnamed), nor to Tennessee (also unnamed), and specifically excluded counties of Virginia soon to form the state of West Virginia. Also specifically excluded (by name) were some regions already controlled by the Union army. Emancipation in those places would come after separate state actions and/or the December 1865 ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment, which made slavery and indentured servitude, except for those duly convicted of a crime, illegal everywhere subject to United States jurisdiction.[5]

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln had issued a preliminary proclamation that he would order the emancipation of all slaves in any state (or part of a state) that did not end their rebellion against the Union by January 1, 1863. None of the Confederate states restored themselves to the Union, and Lincoln’s order, signed and issued January 1, 1863, took effect. The Emancipation Proclamation outraged white Southerners who envisioned a race war, angered some Northern Democrats, energized anti-slavery forces, and undermined forces in Europe that wanted to intervene to help the Confederacy.[6] The Proclamation lifted the spirits ofAfrican Americans both free and slave. It led many slaves to escape from their masters and run behind Union lines to obtain their freedom.

The Emancipation Proclamation broadened the goals of the Civil War. While slavery had been a major issue that led to the war, Lincoln’s only mission at the start of the war was to keep the Union together. The Proclamation made freeing the slaves an explicit goal of the Union war effort, and was a step towards outlawing slavery and conferring full citizenship upon ex-slaves.

It’s Worth Repeating – 4/15/14


What Apollo said in response to our blog post of a couple days ago (here The first comment) was right on the nose. I’ve reproduced it nearly in its entirety below, and followed up with some comments. Here’s what Apollo said:

You can summarize it very easily: The GOP has focused on removing obstacles from the path of black people and other minorities; the Dems have focused on giving them “free stuff.”
Republicans have to make the case that the removal of obstacles is vastly more important than giveaways.
Apollo

Wow! Did he hit the nail on the head, or what?!?

It was Republicans who were entirely responsible for the abolition of slavery; without Republicans, none of the major Civil Rights initiatives of the 1960′s would have seen the light of day. All significant opposition to those initiatives came from Southern Democrats. The Jim Crow laws were established by Southern Democrats and Northern Republican opposition was the catalyst for their elimination.

Even worse, Democrats put in place the entirety of the welfare state that has so ravaged black Americans today.

The only political current of thought that has treated black Americans like real people — since the Civil War! –has been the Conservative wing of the Republican Party. It’s also why all the truly important black, Civil Rights leaders (Douglass, King, Jr., Irving and more … not charlatans and frauds like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) have been Republicans. It’s why the truly important black thinkers of today are Conservatives.

Apollo sums it up well. The Republicans approached black people and said, “Here’s your freedom, you are now free to make your own way in the world, to sink or swim on your own.” Democrats approached black people and said, “Here’s a bunch of free stuff — free to you, that is — to make sure that you have just enough to live.”

I admit: the siren song of “free” money and food and other goodies is powerful. It takes serious strength of character to turn that down.

Here’s where I step outside of Conservative orthodoxy now. There might have been a case for the free stuff a long time ago… but only as a bridge to true independence for black people — not, as the Democrats insist, as the only solution for black people in perpetuity.

Soon enough, the freebies became their own obstacles to the success of blacks and others. The longer the freebies are in place, the more addicted the recipients become to them.

Republicans need to make the case that the removal of obstacles was the real boon to black people. That was the real progress.

– xPraetorius

What, Finally, Do The RGI Want?


We’ll have more on this later, but in all my recent direct interactions with the foot soldiers, the pawns, of the Race Grievance Industry, I can summarize at least what they want. First and foremost, they want what they are told to want by the leadership of the RGI — the Al Sharptons, Jesse Jacksons, Tourés, Melissa Harris-Perrys, and, of course the Eric Holders and Barack Obamas of the world, who are getting rich and powerful from keeping the fires of racial animosity burning.

But after that, with all their gnashing of teeth and fulminating, and bloviating, and whining, and fabricating of injustices, what do the pawns like Brotha Wolf and Abagond want to obtain from all this grievance mongering?

Simple — Four things:
Revenge for wrongs against their ancestors, both long ago and more recently (in the form of slavery, past discrimination, segregation, Jim Crow and other grievances)
Free stuff (as a component of their revenge)
Emotional and intellectual validation for all the effort they’ve put into fabricating the complex edifice of imaginary white racism they they’ve built
Built-in excuses for failure

In my last post, I mentioned that the RGI do as they do for at least one reason: Because they can. They have no fear of retribution whatsoever.

If you research Abagond just a tiny bit, you will see that he makes no real secret of who he is. Same with Brotha Wolf. Yet both these bloggers feel completely free to suggest — perfectly openly! — that the overwhelming majority of people in America are just seething with barely concealed hatred for them.

How can one square that obvious contradiction? If I lived in fear of the hatred of an ethnic group that outnumbered mine by a factor of something like five-to-one, I’d be a whole lot more secretive about who I am when criticizing that group in the terms used by the RGI. That these bloggers are perfectly open with their harsh criticisms indicates that they are not really afraid of white people at all.

Furthermore, if you were to check just a bit into the finances and day-to-day life of the RGI’s pawns, you would find, I’m sure, recipients of government services, money and other goodies.

Bottom line: all indications are that the RGI is filled with frauds and mountebanks. They neither fear nor worry in the slightest about white people. And, they understand that they have a good racket going.

We began this series last year at about this time, and are arriving close to capping off our research. As you might have noted, we have been releasing our findings gradually as we are able to compile and analyze them.

We’ll have further to say on the above summary, as well as more conclusions, in upcoming days and weeks.

– xPraetorius

The RGI* Just Keep Proving Our Point — Over and Over and Over and …


… and over and over and over and over again.

They’re awash in contradictions that throw all their premises out the window. Then when you point out the contradictions, usually they simply ignore what you say, or go right back to their usual: Well, you’re a racist so you’re wrong. Either they have no confidence whatsoever in the validity of their viewpoints, or they have a singular lack of self-awareness.

In my latest set-to with them, I had an argument with the now well-known “Brotha Wolf” and he ended up by banning me from his pages. I figured he would. It’s a signature tactic of the American left, to silence any criticism of their positions.

However, after Brotha Wolf  (to whom I sometimes refer as Brotha Cryin’ Wolf, or BCW) banned me from his pages, he had a very instructive exchange with some of those who read and comment on his blog. Like typical leftists in good standing, he and his friends managed to do nearly all the tactics the left does — not to persuade others of the validity of their points, but to bludgeon them into silence.

Here are some of the inherent contradictions that the RGI can’t seem to recognize in what they do and say:

What the RGI say But…
The RGI insist that white America is awash in racism and hostility directed toward them. They say this out in the open; right here with “white America” all around them. They say it with no fear of retribution whatsoever. If you were to research “Brotha Wolf” a tiny bit, you’d discover that he has multiple online personae and that he makes no effort to conceal himself from others. Here in this supposedly racist hellhole, how is it that he fears no consequences for supposedly calling us whites out on our hostility?
In the exchange below, you will see that one commenter suggests that Brotha Cryin’ Wolf bring some kind of legal action against me. Then, the same commenter laments that that pesky “First Amendment” might get in the way. Why would the commenter suggest legal action? That’s simple: Because he can. And because he has confidence that through some weird happenstance, Amerikkka is brimming with white racism, but the courts are friendly to black people. Huh? In any country engaging in oppression of any group, the last place that group could ever turn would be the courts. Yet, there was “Mickey” below suggesting that BCW launch a legal action.
Brotha Cryin’ Wolf calls my part in our exchange “cyberbullying.” You and anyone else can read the exchange. I never used abusive language; I never called him names; I never questioned BCW’s integrity or his intelligence, honesty, truthfulness or anything else about his character. I never threatened him in any way. I simply disagreed with him. I did so forcefully, confidently and, I admit, occasionally condescendingly. However, I never acted disrespectfully toward BCW himself — always toward what he said. I was honest. If BCW said something dumb, as he often did, I called him on it. Furthermore, BCW committed all the infractions listed above — many times.
BCW and his friends have no qualms about calling us “creepy,” and suggesting that we are in the throes of some mental disorder. Again, you and everyone can read the exchange. Below are some examples of the vitriol directed at me in this exchange alone. You will see plenty of creepiness here. If you were actually concerned about someone else’s “creepiness,” would you then allow yourself to commit the very same creepiness you so vociferously condemned?

  • suffers from a horrible case of white male paternalism
  • a typical troll
  • a spoiled brat
  • he can shove that claim right back up his a**
  • Praetorius really sounds like an idiot
  • He’s nothing short of a basket case
  • a drapto troll with a lot of time on his hands
  • that x-prae is a creepy mother f***er
  • Yeah, but he’s small potatoes. He’s a true racist wimp
  • He is obsessed with you and Abagond and it’s crazy
  • he can’t owe (sic) up to his own racism.
  • glad you banned his koo-koo for Coco Puffs a**
  • A loon is a loon is a loon! Praetoria**, if you are reading this, f*** off
  • This t**d Partoria** (or whatever the f*** his moniker is)
  • Pratoria** would be better served partaking of shock treatment and high doses of anti-hallucinogen medications. If those treatments don’t work, a lobotamy (sic) will.
  • Maybe he just needs to have sex and is insanely horny. Unfortunately, he’s secretly wanting me.
  • I call him a liar
  • xPrae is demented
  • To me the x-praetorois and [another dissenting commenter], and that [another dissenting commenter] a**hats are like dogs that just come and urinate and s**t in your house
  • And like a dog that likes you, xPrae won’t stay away. lol

Remember, this was in the exchange below alone! There was much more of the same in all my other exchanges with this crowd.

Yes, these are the people who called me “loony!”

BCW constantly tells us how awful white racism is in America today. All their “proofs” that pertain to actual nationwide scope, are from decades ago. All their current “evidence” consists of isolated incidents and anecdotes, highly ambiguous “gotcha” quotes on the part of prominent whites, and personal feelings. Why do the RGI never produce statistics, or credible studies, or trends and analyses that show racism today? That’s an easy question to answer: there aren’t any.
BCW constantly tells constantly insists that America is overflowing with hostility toward “People of Color,” or “PoC.” This includes Blacks, Hispanics and sometimes Asians — depending on whether it is worthwhile to the RGI include them. Why, then, are there literally millions of “PoC” struggling desperately to get into America? Are there millions desperately seeking to get out? Nope. Not even now, with the wreckage of Obama’s economy strewn all around for all to see.There was, briefly, a “Back to Africa” movement. It never went anywhere. Famously a black journalist did go “back to Africa.” His name is Keith Richburg, and he did go back to Africa. Here’s a snippet from Amazon’s review of the book that resulted:

He found a continent where brutal murder had become routine, where dictators and warlords silenced dissent with machine guns and machetes, and where starvation had become depressingly common. With a great deal of personal anguish, Richburg faced a difficult question: If this is Africa, what does it mean to be an African American?

Richburg is a liberal in good standing, but he came back from Africa, thereby confirming what we have said bluntly in these pages:

The best thing that ever happened to black Americans of today, is that their long ago ancestors were brought to America against their will.

White Americans have launched or established tens of thousands of initiatives of all kinds, and of local, state and nationwide scope. These initiatives have included: laws whose intent was to give minorities recourse in case of discrimination; programs whose intent is to make it easier for minorities to obtain the essentials for day-to-day life; programs imparting skills and education to make minorities more marketable in the job market, as well as programs and government agencies that have transferred more than 10 trillion dollars to poor people, which went disproportionately to black Americans. They never had a substantive answer to this.If they even responded to this at all it was to say that most of the programs that can be loosely grouped into the category of “Welfare” went to white women. That’s true, of course, but everyone knows that, and it was never the point. The point was that the transfer of treasure went overwhelmingly disproportionately to black people.Here, however, is the underlying point: There was never any movement among black Americans to reject the money. Or the food stamps, or the housing, or the Affirmative Action employment, or anything else coming “from the government” and overwhelmingly from white taxpayers.In other words, there was never any movement of any significance in the black community to say, “Look: just leave us alone. We don’t want any favors, we don’t want any special considerations. Just stop discriminating against us in employment, housing, restaurants and food, or anywhere else. Just give us a fair and equal shot.”In retrospect, that’s what we whites should have done. It would have made a heckuva lot more sense than getting black Americans dependent on free stuff.I have a strong feeling that if you were to examine BCW’s financial situation, one would find that he is quite a consumer of government stuff…stuff that comes overwhelmingly from white people.Please note: There were individuals who rejected taxpayer-funded assistance. The great Thomas Sowell comes immediately to mind.
One of the steady accusations leveled against me was that I, and by extension, all white people, view ourselves as superior to black people; that we somehow consider them lesser people. Here’s a sample of the invective from this very exchange alone:Mary Burrell said:

To me the x-praetorois and da-jokah, and that riverside rob a**hats are like dogs that just come and urinate and s**t in your house and especially at Abagonds (sic) he has to keep cleaning up their nasty and stinky mess, instead of just locking the dogs out of the house and not letting them come in stay outside. But i am glad you kick the dogs out when they make a nasty mess. That dog x-praetorious got to stay outside.

BCW’s response, concurring with Mary:

And like a dog that likes you, xPrae won’t stay away. lol

The attempts by the RGI to produce clever or devastating bons mots are usually just cringe-inducing.

More to the point: I guess BCW thinks it’s just okay for the RGI to suggest that white people are less than human. Did he then expect that we all simply would agree?

These are just a few of the jarring contradictions that the RGI have always steadfastly refused to address in any substantive way, whenever I’ve brought them up. One can conclude only that the RGI has no response for dissenting opinions and feels therefore the need to “win” by demonizing and silencing those who might dare to disagree.

I’ve reproduced Brotha Cryin’ Wolf’s post crowing post about how he banned me from his pages, and what a great victory that silencing represents for him and his readers. In that post, I have highlighted in blue the abusive language directed at me. I’ve added in some “Editor’s notes,” in [square brackets and in red font].

– xPraetorius

    • the Race Grievance Industry

 

*** BEGINNING OF BROTHA WOLF’S “Banned: xPraetorius” POST ***

 

Banned: xPraetorius (UPDATE)

Tags

,,

xPraetorius uses a guitar like this one as an avatar.

xPrae, you are no longer welcomed on my blog. You have proven that you have a disrespectful attitude, a detached view of the world and an inflated ego to boot. [Editor's note: Let's stipulate to this just for the fun of it. I was occasionally condescending and dismissive of BW's posts. They, however, were absolutely vicious.]

Let’s break down why xPrae has been kicked out of this den and why everyone else who’s an anti-racist should beware of him:

1. xPrae considers white racism as a non-issue or too insignificant for us people of color to care. [Editor's note: Nope. I never said this. Just that it's not a big problem. Certainly not worthy of the frothing obsessive attention the RGI pay to it.] In particular, he considers both me and Abagond to be part of – or rather ringleaders – of something he calls the Race Grievance Industry (RGI). [Editor's note: I've never said that BCW and Abagond are "ringleaders." I have said many times that they are the "foot soldiers," pawns of the RGI leadership.] Somehow our blogs are part of a huge insane plot against white people, whom he believes are generally not out to get us, but to help us, by merely discussing racism. [Editor's note: This is typical BCW frothing hyperbole. I never alleged anything like a "huge insane plot." I did confirm that white people are most definitely "not out to get them." Why? We're not. I've never personally encountered a single white person ever who wishes black people anything but happiness, good health and prosperity. Yes, they're out there, but if,as BCW insists, they're everywhere, then I should have encountered some of them!] Like a typical conservative, he considers us as race baiters, [Editor's note: They are race baiters. No "considering" at all. I assert it as fact.] focusing on a problem he declares as insufficient to us. And we should simply shut the hell up and leave white people alone. [Editor's note: Of course, I never suggested that anyone shut up. They, on the other hand, frequently tried to silence me, and finished by banning me from the blog.] As far as xPrae is concerned, we and all of our guests who cosign with our articles are the real racists. [Editor's note: They are racists. I think that's nearly objective fact. Their writings are laced with assertions that nothing more than white people's skin colors renders them sub-human racists. The assertion itself is racist. Furthermore, BCW makes no bones about it. I had the temerity to suggest that he stop being a racist. And I did not ever concede to the racist BCW, that I am a racist. Why? Because I'm not.]

2. xPrae’s focus on me and my blog as a proprietor of the RGI, as evidenced in his blog, is disturbing enough. [Editor's note: The explanation for this is simple: BCW allowed me to comment on his blog for a bit. So I did. And, needless to say, BCW's "thoughts" have proven to be a rich vein to mine for RGI "thinking."] He goes out of his way to write lengthy articles, including screenshots of my posts, just to write extensively how ‘stupid’ they are to him. To that end, they are objectively stupid. He would even post screenshots of exchanges to prove his hollow point.

3. xPrae suffers from a horrible case of white male paternalism. He will see you as a child, ignorant of the “real” world. And seeing as how his ego is bigger than his articles, he sees himself as a white savior swooping down from the sky to rescue you from your anti-racism. [Editor's note: Here BCW engages in a common failing of the left: the illusion that they can read minds. That I disagreed with BCW, and stood firm in my convictions, BCW misinterpreted as "paternalism." This is ever so typical of the RGI: If you disagree with them about anything, and you're white, you are being racist, paternalistic, oppressive, lying and crazy. By this specious "reasoning," black people can never simply be wrong about anything. You know, like real people are all the time? It's important to remark on BCW's "anti-racism" thing here. It's kind of a parallel with another thought that came after World War II. The pithy apothegm that sums it up is: "the fascism of the future will come cloaked in the flag of anti-fascism." (provenance unknown, but attributed variously to Winston Churchill and Huey Long, as well as others.) To paraphrase a bit: "Today's racism comes cloaked in the flag of anti-racism."]

xPrae considers your stories of racism as nonsense, especially if you tie it to the system of white racism. [Editor's note: I never said any stories of racism were nonsense. I said they didn't prove that the entire country was filled with racism. That is, of course, true. No anecdote involving a few people can be used to prove anything about more than 300 million people.] Again, he doesn’t believe that white racism is a big problem. [Editor's note: Finally! BCW says something that is true!] And whatever happened to you is isolated. Nevermind the mounds of research to prove him wrong. [Editor's note: "Mounts of research" that BCW steadfastly refused to produce. Just saying that there are mounds of research doesn't mean there are actually mounds of research.] They are not as credible as him and his ‘group’.

4. xPrae says that he is part of a “think tank” of writers. In my opinion, I’ve never heard of a think tank worry so much about bloggers, especially an average one such as myself. [Editor's note: I explained this above. Brotha Cryin' Wolf's blog is a rich vein of the mindlessness of the RGI. I think I've pretty much got all from it that I can get though. ] You would think such a group be more concerned about those with more power and influence, and seeing as how he is an avid racism denier, that would be someone like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson [Editor's note: Sharpton and Jackson are in the leadership of the RGI. We and many, many others, have considered them a great deal, but very few people have studied the foot soldiers, the pawns of the RGI, up close. We did that particular ground-breaking work. Needless to say, I've never denied racism.]. I consider his fascination with me as nothing short of annoying and, at most, creepy. [Editor's note: See our comment on this in the table above.]

5. Conservatives, for the most part, love to argue about personal responsibility for others. Not so much for them. xPrae is one of those people. [Editor's note: try to find where I made that argument in this recent exchange.  I didn't. ] He made a choice to comment on my article about the Paula Deen scandal with his usual she’s-not-racist-and-you-sound-stupid responses. To this day, he claims that it was a member of his group, a black woman, not he, a white man. And to this day, I call him a liar. [Editor's note: it was, indeed, my colleague, a black woman, who originally engaged BCW on his blog. If you reread our exchange, you will notice that I never called BCW a liar. Why? I don't think he was lying anywhere in this exchange. He, of course, would have no way of knowing whether or not I was lying, so the liar accusation is ludicrous on its face. Not that that would ever stop BCW from trotting it out from time-to-time. It's a staple of the RGI's "argument."]

Nevertheless, he refuses to take any responsibility for it. Yet, xPrae is the kind of guy that would slap you in the face and blame you for having cheeks. I should be held accountable for writing the articles, and it’s not his fault that he has the audacity to troll into the comment section and leave piles of insults he sees as criticisms. [Editor's note: as mentioned above, I steadfastly confined my criticism to the content of BCW's blog. If one puts out stupid blog posts, one shouldn't expect glowing comments in return.]

6. xPrae loves to call your opinions on racism ‘crying’ and ‘stupid’ if they point to its existence. In fact, he called me “Brotha Cryin’ Wolf” in one of his posts. So, when he turns on his jerk mode and insults you and your comments, naturally you tell him off. Makes sense. But xPrae would consider that as hostile, abusive and – you guessed it – racist. So, he expects an apology from you, even though it’s like him hitting you, you hit back and he demands that you apologize to him while he avoids any liability. [Editor's note: this is an incoherent mishmash. I directed my negative comments toward content, never toward people. BCW and the rest of his friends directed their vitriol toward me. If they can't figure out the difference, then they're engaging in the same selective stupidity I remarked on in one of these exchanges. ]

7. And speaking of apologies, and this is the kicker folks, xPrae is demented enough to want you to give in, say you’re sorry and accept that his point of view is the correct point of view! [Editor's note: All people who argue consider their point of view to be the correct one. Duh!] I’m not kiddin’. Look at the exchange I had with him in this article, and you will see how far his white male paternalism goes! It’s almost as if he’s trying to brainwash me without any detergent. [Editor's Note: I guess this was supposed to pass for a clever bon mot.]

If you’ve checked out his last blog post dealing with his battle with me, you will see he declared himself a winner. (LOL) But xPrae has shown how well educated in the real world he is – or isn’t. He can enjoy being a legend, or rather an influential think tank of writers, in his own mind, but he’s actually no different than a troll looking for attention. [Editor's note: As bland an insult as this is, I never engaged in any personal attacks at all.] For some reason he wants my attention. But the buck stops here. [Editor's note: BCW to his credit, was the only one who was able to hang in there with me at all.]

xPrae, your borrowed time here is over. Now, stay away from my den! [Editor's note: This is a real courageous declaration, coming from someone who can routinely block my posts anytime he wants. This is the same as taunting the bear outside from the safety of your second floor deck. Don't let that bear in, though! :) ]

(He will likely respond on his blog with a long winded article.)

UPDATE: Just as I thought, xPrae isn’t taking his ban too well, as he still felt the need to lash out as seen here:

xPrae

I’m not sure if you can read this, but if you click on it, it becomes larger and clearer. Obviously, he’s upset that I refuse to allow him any more attention. And he will make it known sooner or later in text. [Editor's note: I'm not upset at anything. I obtained a lot of valuable material from a pawn of the RGI. That was my intent all along. This last was a very successful foray into the fever swamps of the RGI. I have enough content for the upcoming book, as well as the follow-up to the video documentary.]

Also, on xPrae’s blog, one of his recent articles is where he bids me adieu. To me, it seemed like he’s moved on too. But I doubt that. He will continue to show you that I’m still in his crosshairs. But I’m not worried about him. What can he do; spam me to death? [Editor's note: Only the RGI can consider "being in the crosshairs," having to deal with the rather bland posts that I placed on BCW's blog.]

Just so xPrae is reading this, let me say that there IS proof to white racism. [Editor's note: It would have been nice if BCW could have produced some. Goodness knows I asked him numerous times for it. :) ] But you, like a typical troll, would reject it. A lot of info is found in this blog and in the blog links on the left alone. But he sees me as his servant, [Editor's note: at no point, did I ever once imply, say, suggest, or even hint at this. Of course. More mystical, magical mind-reading from the RGI.] ready and willing to look for the material he is too lazy to do himself. I will not do for him what he is more than capable of doing himself, but made the choice not to. And like a spoiled brat, he will throw it away because it hates the taste of it. Besides, it was provided in the post about Paula Deen. And what did he do? Exactly. So he can shove that claim right back up his a**. [Editor's note: Based on pretty scanty evidence, Brotha Wolf concluded that Paula Deen is a racist, and he projected what he thought was Mrs. Deen's guilt on all white people. I demanded more proof than that. None was ever forthcoming.

Bottom line: BCW is just like the schoolyard bully who cries like a baby when his victims turn the tables on him. He sure seems like too much of a coward to allow dissenting points of view on his blog. We did make a good faith effort to change his mind, to turn his thinking in a more open-minded direction -- that, after all, is what a "debate" is all about -- but there are plenty out there who are not willing to have or keep an open mind.]

  1. Verveina said:

    April 12, 2014 at 10:46 am

    That guy Praetorius really sounds like an idiot. Yeah, racism is no problem because he doesn’t experience it himself. [Editor's note: how does "Vervaina" know what I've experienced? Answer: she doesn't. However, that doesn't stop her from telling me what I've experienced. That's supposed, I guess, to pass for sophisticated reasoning, or to be clever argumentation.] The spider on my wall has more empathy than that bloke.
    Good riddance.

  2. Wolf, that x-prae is a creepy mother f***er. The fact that he is always lurking and posting you and Abagond is weird as hell. It’s just creepy.

    • Yeah, but he’s small potatoes. There’s nothing he can do that would so much as leave a mark. He’s a true racist wimp who acts high and mighty behind the screen.

  3. He is obsessed with you and Abagond and it’s crazy. I am glad you banned his koo-koo for Coco Puffs a**.

  4. Trolls like XPraetorius and DaJokah on Abagond really piss me off. I am glad you banned XPraetorius because I read his blog and I was so sicken (sic) by how parochial his worldview was and he thought you and Abagond are racists because he can’t owe up to his own racism. People like him come on here to cause trouble and division in anti racist blogs because they don’t want to owe up to their own racism because breaking down this system would mean they would have to give up their privileges. And we both know that White Americans don’t want to give up the privileges and benefits it comes with being White.

    P.S. I wish that Abagond had as much guts as you have to get rid of XPraetorius from this blog. I wish Abagond could get rid of DaJokah, Riverside Rob and other racists who comment on his site. But he wants White approval so badly………this is one of the reasons why I don’t comment on Abagond as much as I used to.  [Editor's note: it could be that this commenter doesn't post "as much as she used to," because she's barely literate. Further note: Adeen doesn't pay attention very well either. Abagond proved unable to stay with use either. I was banned from his blog long ago. Abagond is a slightly less typical member of the RGI. Just as irrational, he's more educated than BCW, and writes a lot better.]

    • I think Abagond did get rid of xPrae, either that or xPrae left on his own. Jokah hasn’t pushed the right buttons yet. Even though he’s full of it, he’s sly. Riverside_Rob is a fly-by-night troll who comes and goes. He’s a straight up racist, but like Jokah, he hasn’t slipped up yet.

  5. And you know he is lurking right this very moment. Obsession with what black folks are talking about. It’s just sick.

    • You’re right. It’s unnerving.

      • A loon is a loon is a loon! Praetoria**, if you are reading this, f*** off.

        Kissesxxxx

        A dumb negress!

        Seriously, this man appears to be mentally ill in his obsessive behaviour. He was entertaining for a while but, he started going off the rails. Funny, he has never come to my blog because he knows he will be cussed out. You can’t ‘debate’ these nutjobs as they are not on this blog or any similar one to learn or impart knowledge. They want to get their racist points across at whatever cost. Hence, s**t tickets like Da Jokah, will change the goal post when proven wrong, even though the source of the other persons links are impeccable. This t**d Partoria**(or whatever the f**k his moniker is), does the same thing. Pratoria** would be better served partaking of shock treatment and high doses of anti-hallucinogen medications. If those treatments don’t work, a lobotamy will.

      • Maybe he just needs to have sex and is insanely horny. Unfortunately, he’s secretly wanting me.  :-(

  6. Nat Turners’ Revenge said:

    April 13, 2014 at 1:05 am

    I can’t seem to post any comment @abagond but da joke & prae tell seem to have VIP status. Thank you for rejecting his deposit.

  7. Glad he’s banned. He brought absolutely nothing and just refuted anything you brought up to him with no resources or experiences.

    He said “racist” and “white supremacist” are slurs!? [Editor's note: "white supremacist" is, but "racist" is not. However, in the previous exchange that I had with BCW, one of his commenters called me a "caucasoid." That is, indeed, a racial slur.]
    I have heard that white supremacy and racism were “inventions” of socialists and communists, but that was from a white supremacist site! Praetorius needs to check himself, what he thinks he knows and how he handles his business on the internet. He’s a clown.

  8. To me the x-praetorois and da-jokah, and that riverside rob a**hats are like dogs that just come and urinate and s**t in your house and especially at Abagonds (sic) he has to keep cleaning up their nasty and stinky mess, instead of just locking the dogs out of the house and not letting them come in stay outside. But i am glad you kick the dogs out when they make a nasty mess. That dog x-praetorious got to stay outside. [Editor's note: Can you even imagine the whining and the gnashing of teeth if I were to call a black person something other than human?!? Yet, it comes tripping off "Mary Burrell's" tongue as if it were nothing.]

    • And like a dog that likes you, xPrae won’t stay away. lol [Editor's note: And BCW endorses the insinuation that I'm less than human.]

Sultan Knish: Manufacturing Intolerance


Sultan Knish: Manufacturing Intolerance.

We’ve referred to this blog before. This particular entry is absolutely brilliant. Read it over several times; it is dense with meaning and concise summations of the sorry state of race relations in America today, and the leftists who profit both from fabricating racial tensions, and from keeping so-called victimized minorities poor and dependent.

Here are some particularly trenchant excerpts:

The absurdity of people lining up to be victims has led to the proliferation of fake Indians, like Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill in the United States, and white aborigines in Australia. The fake indigenous tribal has little in the way of a genetic or cultural connection to any native people; but chooses to trade in his or her white identity, at least temporarily, to enhance their leftist politics.

And (How long have we been saying the following?!?):

An identity defined in terms of victimhood needs fresh injections of oppression to sustain its existence.  Those African-Americans who define “blackness” not in terms of positive values but in terms of negative values, need white racism, the real thing or the fake one, to remind them of who they are. [emphasis added] And the same holds true for other oppressed minorities who define themselves not by their culture or values; but by their resentments. 

Intolerance has become identity. If you define your minority identity on the left’s terms, then if you aren’t being oppressed, you aren’t real. And if you constantly read accounts about other black people or other gay people being discriminated against and those experiences don’t match yours; you begin to wonder if something isn’t wrong with you. If maybe you aren’t an authentic member of the group.

There are two ways out of this intellectual trap; either recognizing that an identity need not be based on a sense of persecution or becoming “creative” about finding new forms of persecution.

And then:

The left’s need for victimization means that increasing levels of tolerance actually lead to escalating confrontations with these manufacturers of intolerance. The assertion that all white people are innately racist because of their privilege is one such response to increasing tolerance. By claiming that whiteness itself is racist, the left gets back to political identity, rather than actual discrimination, as the source of conflict and redefines even the most tolerant university multicultural spaces as racist.

Here’s still more. Wow! How often have we said the below in our exposés of race addicts and race addiction; of race dealers and their clientele? It’s a particularly powerful indictment of the professional grievance mongers. I’ve added emphasis where we have said what the blogger says in the post linked above:

The manufacturers of intolerance, whether they’re tenured academics like Ward Churchill, professional politicians like Barack Obama or angry waitresses like Dayna Morales, respond to tolerance with provocations. Their goal is to elicit evidence of intolerance to sustain their political identity. The more tolerance they encounter, the more they escalate their provocations. 

Their goal is not a tolerant society. It’s not a multiracial society or a post-racial society. It is a society perpetually at war over identity politics. That conflict is what gives them power.

Tolerance provokes them by challenging their identity as members in good standing of the officially oppressed. Being accepted insults the entire basis of their identity. Schizophrenics experience the discontinuity between the real world and the distorted world in their heads as threatening. Likewise the left, which insists on racism, reacts with paranoia to any talk that the country has become more tolerant. Their political schizophrenia is unable to accept America as it is. Instead they are bent on seeing the bigoted country that they experience inside their own heads.

Paranoid schizophrenics manufacture things to be paranoid about. Identity politics manufactures its own illusory bigotries. The schizophrenic Two Americas of liberals are really the America that exists and the hateful cartoon of it that they draw in their own heads, depict in movies, scrawl into articles and broadcast on television. 

Even more — and just as powerful:

Obama’s victory was an opportunity for healing and unity. Even many Republicans cheered his inauguration, but liberals rejected the gift that Americans were giving and instead doubled down. Racism became their response to everything. Now every week brings another editorial accusing skeptics of government health care of being the new Confederacy. The New York Times even ran an op-ed describing a new Mason-Dixon line composed of states that rejected Medicaid expansion.

As disappointing at this behavior was to many, it was an inevitable as that forged receipt. The left derives its purpose from defending the oppressed and doling out social justice. If racism were gone, it would have to find a new reason to justify its existence. It had to go through that once when class warfare imploded under the pressure of American prosperity. It isn’t about to go searching for a substitute for the racial tensions it manufactures.

The dominant political identity groups have responded to growing tolerance in the United States by defining intolerance down or provoking intolerant responses through aggressive publicity stunts. If the stunts don’t bring out disgust and anger that they can work with, then they will simply invent intolerance wholesale by claiming that bigotry isn’t an act or a word, but an innate attitude that lurks buried deep within the majority group. And that the only healing can come when the majority rejects its own identity and joins a minority group.

Beyond the community organizers, the academics and the political hacks who feed off that hatred are the millions of Americans who have not only unknowingly swallowed their dogma, but who have built entire identities around that sense of insecurity and oppression. These people are driven to organically manufacture intolerance because it defines who they are.

And finally:

The left has dumped millions of Americans into this shadowy world where they have no positive reason for existing, only a negative one of defying some phantom establishment of patriarchy and some nebulous idea of white privilege.

Wearing chips on their shoulders they seek to provoke the confrontations that give them meaning and when their anger is met with tolerance, they manufacture intolerance with forged receipts, with accusations of white privilege, with fake hate crimes and phony accusations of racism.

It’s a short distance from Dayna Morales forging a receipt to get some money and attention to Barack Obama faking accusations of racism to win a political fight and score another term.

This blog entry is an important contribution to our understanding of how it could be that white people have poured trillions of dollars, billions of hours, and many thousands of government programs at all levels, as well as thousands of laws — all trying to make life better for black people, yet the very same beneficiaries of that historically unprecedented largesse are more bitter and resentful then ever.

– xPraetorius

Is the Truth Racist? Are Facts Racist?


They are if you’re part of the Race Grievance Industry. Here are some facts that nobody disputes:

  • All races have different average IQ’s.
  • All races achieve on average more or less than other races.
  • All races have more or less innate intellectual capacity on average than other races.
  • All races are on average more or less violent than other races.
  • All races commit crime on average more or less than other races.
  • All races are socially more or less mature than other races.
  • All races are on average taller or shorter, fatter or slimmer, darker or lighter, more or less family-oriented, more or less civic-oriented, more or less prone to hooliganism, rape, civil disobedience, theft, honesty, pride, greed, generosity, apathy, rage, calm, jaywalking, than other races at any given moment in history.

Or, to sum it up:

  • All races exhibit any given characteristic whatsoever to a greater or lesser extent than other races at any given moment in history.

Yet, if you were to study the races – and to measure the various characteristics that make them up, and then produce  facts and figures from which you draw conclusions of some kind that might differ with those of the Race Grievance Industry (RGI) — you are a “race realist,” which is to say, “you are a racist.” At least, that is, according to the RGI.

You can read here about how you too — if you endeavor to understand white and black relations, and arrive at any conclusions other than those of the blog’s author — are nothing more than a racist. If you read further in the muck produced by the RGI, you begin to understand that the entire panoply of white people’s endeavor comes from racism. Anytime those wascally whites interact with anyone else of a different race, they have no choice, you see but to do so in such a way as to impose dominance over the other person. Including, I guess the tens of thousands of laws local, state and federal, laws, policies and procedures, the trillions of dollars of transfer payments, the thousands of local, state and federal programs all designed to discriminate overtly in favor of minorities, and particularly in favor of blacks.

Between you and me, one could interpret all those trillions of free dollars and billions of hours of effort as racist in that the real white racism out there is the condescension from liberal white Americans. This patronizing attitude on the part of America’s ideological left wing, and it’s political arm, the Democrat Party, is well-documented.

Don’t forget, it was Lyndon Johnson — the same one everyone is all misty-eyed over now because of his “great accomplishments”(1) in the realm of civil rights — who said:

“These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.”

Johnson also said:

“I’ll have those ‘Ni**ers’ voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

I guess we know how Johnson really thought of black people.

So, really, Johnson’s plan all along was simply to take money from white Americans to buy black Americans’ votes for Democrats. Then he and his party did everything possible to keep the flames of black bitterness burning bright, so that those black votes would stay on the Democrats’ side for as long as possible.

– xPraetorius

(1) – It should be noted again, because it is being buried by biased historians, that Congressional Republicans did the heavy lifting of Civil Rights legislation. The main opposition to all post World War II Civil Rights initiatives came from Democrats in the South.  It should be noted that without Republican support, there would have been on Civil Rights Act of 1964. There was simply not enough Democrat support to pass it.

N.C. State Board Finds More than 35,000 Incidents of ‘Double Voting’ in 2012 — Frontiers of Freedom


N.C. State Board Finds More than 35,000 Incidents of ‘Double Voting’ in 2012 — Frontiers of Freedom.

Thirty-five freakin’ thousand!

Let me guess, it turns out that all the dead guys and double voters, oddly enough, voted Democrat, right?

Yep.

You know, the Democrats? The party saying “Ignore that dead man behind the curtain! You’re just trying to deny minorities and dead people the right to vote a bunch of times … errrrr, ummm … I mean, to vote!

– xPraetorius

 

UPDATE: A Kind of Sad Post — In Which I Bid Adieu (Sort of) to Brotha Wolf


Well. It turned out that “Brotha Wolf” and I had considerably more to say to each other after my “farewell” to him of several days ago. I’ve simply re-produced the entire exchange in full below for those of you interested in it.

Background: BW submitted a post (the post that begins our exchange) that pretty much proved what we’ve been saying here all along: White racism is just not a big problem in America today. Some nitwit had decided to throw a “White Man March” and nobody attended, underscoring our point. When I pointed that out to BrothaWolf, he grudgingly invited me back to his blog — whence he had previously banned me because he was afraid to debate me — and we had the exchange that I’ve reproduced below.

 

The White Man March? Pffft…

Tags
,

Poster for the White Man March

I told myself I wasn’t going to bother dealing with this. I saw it as a non-issue. I saw it as a tired-ass joke. And besides, many people have already weighed in on the laughing stock known as the White Man March.
In case you haven’t heard, and no one would blame you, a white guy named Kyle Hunt who started this “movement” on behalf of the white male, presumably a burdened group in today’s world where diversity is threatening their existence. I’m not making this up, ya’ll! Hunt organized a march for all white men to (I guess) fight against the oppression and genocide on March 15.
From what I’ve heard, only tens of people participated. I dunno which is funnier: the fact there are actually white people who believed and marched along with this clown or that it only attracted a mere handful. Either way, people around the world have split their sides hearing about this nonexistent movement. The punchline is more than obvious as illustrated by Twitter’s humorous reactions under the hashtag#whitemanmarchprotestsigns.
White people feeling they are now under the boot of subservience is not news. A recent study reveals they believe they are experiencing racism more than blacks. It makes ya wonder what they consider as “racism”.
Some white people think that if you work as a waiter and a black customer doesn’t leave you a tip, that’s racist. Some whites think that not being accepted into that one college they desperately want to get in is racist. I’ll go even further. You have rich white men equate being criticized about their ever-expanding wealth is the same about getting lynched. Really!

Kyle Hunt, organizer behind the White Man March

As for Kyle Hunt, his 83 followers worldwide and their alternate reality view of the world, nice try. Some obvious racists think that the movement succeeded. Although, they never fully explained how exactly. Then again, white supremacists hate being wrong, even though 99% of the time, they are.
Ladies and gentlemen, I see white racists, race realists and all other white haters crying and whining about being collectively downtrodden as douchebags who are begging to be oppressed, not because they want to know how it feels to be the “other”, but because they are rebels without a legitimate cause or a clue. After all, they think Jews are a race, not those who practice a religion.
They hate anyone who’s not straight, white, male and Christian, and I use the last category loosely. They want people to feel sorry for them, because their lives suck. They believe the rest of the world is after the extinction of white genes. That’s why they’re obsessed with crime stats. They are their so-called “causes”. They give them an excuse to consider themselves and their people as victims.
This dude Kyle Hunt was probably a victim of something in the past. And like so many with the same reasoning, have transformed his victimization into a global calamity against the white race which ended up creating jokes and memes by those who are members of groups who are actually struggling from a little known problem we like to call ‘systematic white racism’.

Just a few tweets in response to the White Man March

Post navigation

87THOUGHTS ON “THE WHITE MAN MARCH? PFFFT…”

  1. Thanks for the laugh brothawolf. I got a huge laugh out of these fools 10 man march. Though I will say I find race realist to be wrong 99% of the time.

  2. Yurugu is feeling, slightly, the sins of his twisted, diseased, diabolical past, present and future with rising alarm. Having zero concept of karma, they are “stunned” and “caught off guard” as to why the entire Colored world harbours feelings of resentment and anger towards them.
    Being deficient of melanin, the God Principle of the planet, they are unable to experience remorse and humility. They know, intrinsically, that they shall reap the benefits of what they have planted but arrogance will never permit them to admit it.
    Their rising fear will manifest into more crimes against us and more laws restricting us but it will be of no avail. Yurugu WILL PERISH off the planet. Either by ways of the sword or by ways of Mother Nature. My wish is for a solar assassination of their nasty, beastiality-loving, pale asses.
    By f***ers.
    Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out!
    On second thought…I hope the door hits them real hard.

  3. These clowns, what a bunch of idiots. I wouldn’t be surprised if that fool on Abagond’s blog “Da Jokah, is one of these fools.

  4. Nat Turners’ Revengesaid:

    March 24, 2014 at 12:51 am

    You ever told a joke and not even hear crickets? white man march. #epicfail #albino/donkeyoftheday

  5. I was laughing so hard when I read this article. White Man March? White men are the privileged ones in society whether they are rich, poor or middle class. Now they are getting scared because President Obama is in office so that make up all types of nonsense like this, reverse racism and s**t like this to get others to sympathize with their ”plight” about ”losing” their rights to non White minorities. They are delusional in their racism and prejudice. In reality, they are scared that minorities are slowly doing better for themselves in society and fear losing their economic, social and political privileges and advantages too.
    They are going crazy.

  6. anonymoussaid:

    March 24, 2014 at 6:42 am

    I for one appreciate #thewhitemanmarch for a number of reasons.
    1. It provided some of the best examples of ignorance and some of the funniest Twitter comments I have over seen.
    2. Misspelled signs, bad fashion, and stunningly ignorant rationale for why they think they are oppressed, and those who participated in the march effectively showed the entire world how clueless they really are.

  7. Courtney H.said:

    March 24, 2014 at 2:58 pm

    I agree with all the comments given. It never ceases to amaze me how whites call us animals, but ignore their own sick own behavior:
    http://whitewatch.info/2014/03/07/man-who-had-sex-with-a-cow-while-pal-filmed-was-covered-in-jelly.aspx

  8. Courtney H.said:

    March 24, 2014 at 6:16 pm

  9. Courtney H.said:

    March 25, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    @ everybody:
    I know that this is OT, but here’s an interesting article:
    http://time.com/27708/my-neighborhood-makes-it-easier-to-get-pregnant-than-to-go-to-college/
    What do you think of this? The comment section is interesting, too.

  10. What a joke!lol

  11. TeddyBearChubssaid:

    March 26, 2014 at 10:46 pm

    When confronted with the fact that the Nazis killed millions non Jewish Whites and many Nazi officers and troops were subordinates of each other due to cult devotion and fear, most “White Nationalists” do not flinch of falter from their most divine beliefs of Neo Nazism. Germany found itself having to rebuild for decades well into the early 90s because of the Third Reich. Remember many German and other European Nationalities had intertwined families that had Jewish and other ancestries considered non-Aryans. SS soldiers were many times forced to slaughter their own kin and disavow any association. When a dictator takes over sure instabilities will ensue. So given the facts, this way of thinking is sociopathic no matter how you look at it.

  12. TeddyBearChubssaid:

    March 26, 2014 at 10:59 pm

    When examining the media’s approach to such matters and what I was taught in school, the whole story is never told. It’s more or less stated in black and white terms when the key approach is to examining things in the grey. You have to remember “hate” is profitable and thus why things are the way they are.

  13. Courtney H.said:

    March 27, 2014 at 6:40 pm

    Speaking of White idiots . . .
    http://newsone.com/2997895/kkk-frank-ancona/

  14. There’s a lot more than 10 of us out there .

  15. Well! This is surely an interesting post by Brotha Wolf!
    I had a comment or two about this piece on my own blog. However, Brotha Wolf has graciously UN-exiled me (I think) from his pages, so here I am!
    If I’m allowed to roam freely here, then while I’m free to roam here, I won’t copy BW’s content on my blog… but I will feel free to comment over there blog about what I find here.
    Let’s face it: I find rich fodder for comment here!
    If, indeed, brotha Wolf is true to his word, and I am allowed to comment freely here, then you will observe — if you are honest — that I never (except on rare occasions when I slip up, at which point I always own up to it and apologize) attack people, but rather I address ideas and thoughts.
    Whoever you are, you might be a very intelligent person, but that doesn’t mean in any way that you are immune from really dumb thoughts. If your thoughts are dumb, I will show you just how they’re dumb… but I won’t attack you as a person.. or your character, your intelligence, knowledge, experience, your feelings, desires, needs or anything else about you.
    I will, however, as mentioned above, be unsparing as to what you write.
    You all might be well-advised to try the same approach!
    Also, to save time, I will not respond to any elements ofCoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE (Search the term on my blog to understand what that means) in any of your posts directed toward me. However, unless it becomes too time-consuming, I will do you the service of showing you where you have committed any CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE so that you will be able to desist in the future.
    So, if, truly, I AM back, then it’s good to “see” you all once again! Let’s see how long this lasts.
    Oh, who am I?
    Several months back, you had the opportunity to meet a colleague of mine, a sweet, older black woman who came here, kicked gluteus maximi and took pseudonyms. This time, I’m the largish white dude who pestered Abagond a bit at his blog, before he proved unequal to the task of debating with me and banned me. I am xPraetorius, and I look forward to “conversing” with you again.
    Best,
    – x

    • FOR NOW, you are free to comment, but only on this post, the one you copied and pasted on your blog. Actually, it’s another one of my posts that you’ve copied, pasted and deconstructed. So, consider this as a free pass.
      Also, I have not made one post about you.
      So, what tell everyone here what’s wrong with this article please.

    • Nat Turners’ Revengesaid:

      March 30, 2014 at 9:10 pm

      You don’t never shut da f**k up or use brevity in anything (convo/comments) do ya’?
      You have the most drawn out answers of any racist, white supremacist sympathizer. No worries. NO ONE reads that BS past the 3rd sentence. As you were caucasoid.

      • Yep. Drawn out answers and no notes on them, just “This is what I say and I’m right based on myself.”

      • Well, that was as moronic a comment as I’ve seen, Nat. Not that I expect anything else from you.
        Nat, if you were to contribute something that either makes sense or is at least semi-literate or has any substance to it, the world would stop spinning from the sheer shock of it.
        Best,
        – x

      • And as always, you never explain why. You just cut down and take that as an intelligent response with no substance.

      • Because Nat’s comment was stupid, and contained racial slurs. I was under no obligation to respond to something so moronic with something wise, so I settled for witty and ironic.
        I’m composing a reply to your longish reply on my blog. It’ll be up soon.
        Best,
        – x

      • How was it stupid to you? What racial slurs? Instead of using names yourself, how about some explanations behind your comments?
        I knew sooner or later you would be writing a reply to my response. And I hope it will have more substance than your last ones.

      • BW, BW, re-read Nat’s poor excuse for a comment.
        Here’s a snippet: “You have the most drawn out answers of any racist, white supremacist sympathizer. No worries. NO ONE reads that BS past the 3rd sentence. As you werecaucasoid.”
        Is it acceptable, for example, for me to call you a “negroid?” No, it’s not. So I don’t, and I won’t.
        That you allow gratuitous racist slurs on your site, doesn’t speak well for you.
        It was stupid, because, obviously, it said nothing, and used gratuitous insults and racial slurs to say it.
        BW, you have a college education… use it to do some critical thinking once in a while.
        Oh, and many, many people read what I write, and are reading it at this moment. Let’s leave it at that.  :)
        Best,
        – x

      • How are any of those words you have in bold print, racist?
        How do you know what I find is acceptable or not. Besides, neither of those “-oid” words were created by us, don’t you know.
        It’s my blog, and I allow whatever I see fit, especially if it annoys you, for some reason.
        Nat Turner’s Revenge’s comment said a lot more than you’re willing to give credit for. The usual problem is that you REFUSE to understand what it is.
        I do have a college education, and I don’t need you to tell me to do some critical thinking. In fact, that’s what I’ve been doing. What’s your excuse?
        Probably in your mind, you have a lot of readers. It doesn’t seem like through comments alone, but then again, that doesn’t prove much. However, if your ego is based on how many clicks you have, you can have it. It doesn’t prove that you’re better than I am, nor does it mean that you’re always right about everything. Sure, my blog gets numerous clicks, but I’m not in it for popularity. I dunno about you, but I have other worries. And not one of them is being so concerned about what an average blogger says that he would almost monitor his articles talking about a subject he has considerable contempt for.

      • That you allow gratuitous racist slurs on your site, doesn’t speak well for you.
        Sure it does asshole. Ever hear of your 1st ammendment, freedom of speech? Here is some free speech for you, f**k off!
        Is it acceptable, for example, for me to call you a “negroid?”
        Yes it is acceptable to call you caucasoid, which is tame. I prefer m****rf***ing *** *** personally.

      • We await your dumb f****ry with bated breath xperious, or is it Bugs Bunny?

      • @BW — in answer to your post. Yes, “caucasoid” is a racial slur. I don’t care who coins an “-oid” word. It wasn’t youor I… if it’s a slur, it’s a slur. Man, BW, you have more irrelevant deflections up your sleeve than anyone except maybe Abagond!
        If you allow it, then you traffic in racist slurs, and you have nothing to say to anyone else who also might traffic in such scummy language.
        And, yes, I do know what you find acceptable and not. It’s not like you keep it hidden. It’s called a “blog” and it’s pretty much available to tanyone in the world with an internet connection.
        For example, you allow racist slurs on your web site. That speaks very ill of you, and I advise you to stop the practice.
        You also allow moronic, semi-literate personal attacks on your web site (eg, Herneith, above) and I advise you to stop that practice as well.
        You also allow and use language that might indicate that your educational attainment is lacking…
        Nat’s comment was illiterate. It said nothing that speakers or readers of English could logically glean from it.
        I truly don’t care how many readers you think I have. I don’t need readers… I need, and have, viewers. More than you probably could imagine.  :) I figure you are one of them, from time-to-time.
        You’ll notice that I never even hinted that I’m better than you in anything I’ve ever said or written. Why? I don’t believe it. I’m much nicer than you; that seems likely. Why? Because I’m not a racist. I don’t insult people. I don’t cuss them out. I don’t allow others to cuss others out on my blog.
        As regards your “critical thinking,” should I give you thereal rundown about some of your conclusions? Things like all white people are racists? Things like that wouldn’t pass for critical thinking in third grade. How about your constantly saying things that are obviously false? Things like telling others what white people think? Are you, indeed, a white person, BW? If not, then you can’tpossibly tell anyone what white people think, unless they tell you. Again, a third-grader would understand that.
        I have no doubt about your ability to produce critical thought, but you haven’t, publicly at least, shown any inclination to do so.
        Best,
        – x

      • I don’t deflect. I face it head on. You’re deflecting by turning the history of those words into an irrelevant matter, but that’s unintelligent to do so in any conversation.
        Like I said, this is my blog, and I don’t need you or anyone else to tell me how to run it or what to blog about. Period. If you have a problem with that, you can stop coming altogether and be done with it. But it seems you can’t or won’t, you being a control freak. Oh! I’m sorry. Is ‘freak’ a slur as well?
        Herneith is allow to comment on my blog if she wishes. She has never – NEVER disrespected me the way you have. (And I know you’ll deny ever saying anything deplorable or condescending giving your implied sociopathic traits.) But you, on the other hand, disrespect other commenters, and you are obsessed with discrediting me with baseless assumptions.
        So far, you have brought nothing of substance to prove me wrong in anything I’ve said. All this is high school namecalling online with you masking it as constructive criticism. Anyone on the outside would see this and shake their heads at the amount on the neverending nonsense you leave behind. You continue to mouth off about how my readers and I are of lower intelligence. And this is due to the fact that you don’t agree with them? You really are showing your immature colors.
        Lastly, I never said that all whites are racists. That’s what YOU said. Again, you’re putting words into my mouth. Instead of constantly telling me how what I’ve written is false, how about back it up with with actual info. You using you as your own source is unacceptable. You are not some great oracle of knowledge as you may think you are. So, until you can come up with something actually substantial, do yourself a favor and quit coming here before you humiliate yourself further.

      • Again, point-by-point:
        You said:

         I don’t deflect. I face it head on. You’re deflecting by turning the history of those words into an irrelevant matter, but that’s unintelligent to do so in any conversation.

        My reply:

         Yes, the history of the words is irrelevant. BW, your mystical, magical thinking is a mess. You ascribe magical powers to mere sounds meant to convey meaning. The meaning of the words changes with the passage of time until, yes, their provenance is absolutely irrelevant. Linguistics 101, BW. I speak three other languages fluently, and several others with a bit less familiarity… believe me, the origin or words, while fascinating, is irrelevant to their actual meaning today.

        And, yes, you deflect constantly… this odd game of “xPrae says white racism doesn’t exist” that you play is pure deflection. you’ve forced me to waste lots of time with that little canard.

        However, I’m patient, BW, very patient.

        You said:

         Like I said, this is my blog, and I don’t need you or anyone else to tell me how to run it or what to blog about. Period. If you have a problem with that, you can stop coming altogether and be done with it. But it seems you can’t or won’t, you being a control freak. Oh! I’m sorry. Is ‘freak’ a slur as well?

        My reply:

         I’m not telling you how to run your blog. Don’t put words in my mouth. However, if you allow racist slurs from your commenters, then it doesn’t speak well of you… please feel free to run your blog any way you wish to. Even if it makes you seem like a hypocritical nitwit.

        Please feel free to call me names whenever you want, if you need that to make yourself feel better. More mature people typically don’t need that kind of silliness.

        You said:

         Herneith is allow to comment on my blog if she wishes. She has never – NEVER disrespected me the way you have. (And I know you’ll deny ever saying anything deplorable or condescending giving your implied sociopathic traits.) But you, on the other hand, disrespect other commenters, and you are obsessed with discrediting me with baseless assumptions.

        My reply:

         To all appearances (<– Note the clause), Herneith is a despicable racist. I could be wrong, but her writing is pretty full of animosity toward me solely because my skin is white. Sorry… that’s a racist. Yes, she can comment on your blog all she wants. It still speaks poorly of you that you allow her reprehensible personal attacks on another commenter who disagrees with her. I’d never allow that on my blog. However, I know where it comes from, since you give yourself permission to attack me personally as well. You do prove pretty comprehensively that I’m just a nicer person than you.  :)

        You do have one thing correct. I have very little respect for Nat, Herneith or “diary” … To all appearances (<– Note the clause), these three people are really ugly racists. None of them has ever posted an even slightly intelligent post that I’ve ever read. There is the occasional nugget in your stuff, BW… it’s what leads me to believe that you’re older than both Nat and Herneith.

        You said:

         So far, you have brought nothing of substance to prove me wrong in anything I’ve said. All this is high school namecalling online with you masking it as constructive criticism. Anyone on the outside would see this and shake their heads at the amount on the neverending nonsense you leave behind. You continue to mouth off about how my readers and I are of lower intelligence. And this is due to the fact that you don’t agree with them? You really are showing your immature colors.

        My reply:

         You’re floundering, BW. You will notice, if you re-read everything I’ve written, that I’ve never even hinted at the thought that I’m somehow smarter than you or anyone else. Read it well, BW: What I’ve written is, pretty obviously, more intelligent than what you’ve written. That’s really not debatable.

        Am I more intelligent than you? I have no idea under the sun. I’m not, as you can surely tell, in the habit of saying anything about things I have no clue about. To the contrary, I’m constantly fending off people– like you — telling me things they couldn’t possibly know.For example: you always telling me about what white people think, and know, and feel, and all that pseudo-intellectual flapdoodle you’re so fond of.

        You said:

         So far, you have brought nothing of substance to prove me wrong in anything I’ve said. All this is high school namecalling online with you masking it as constructive criticism. Anyone on the outside would see this and shake their heads at the amount on the neverending nonsense you leave behind. You continue to mouth off about how my readers and I are of lower intelligence. And this is due to the fact that you don’t agree with them? You really are showing your immature colors.

        My reply:

         This is a throwaway… no response needed. However, if you re-read, you will see that I engaged in no name-calling.

        Best,
        – x

      • Yes, the history of the words is irrelevant. BW, your mystical, magical thinking is a mess. You ascribe magical powers to mere sounds meant to convey meaning. The meaning of the words changes with the passage of time until, yes, their provenance is absolutely irrelevant. Linguistics 101, BW. I speak three other languages fluently, and several others with a bit less familiarity… believe me, the origin or words, while fascinating, is irrelevant to their actual meaning today.
        And, yes, you deflect constantly… this odd game of “xPrae says white racism doesn’t exist” that you play is pure deflection. you’ve forced me to waste lots of time with that little canard.
        However, I’m patient, BW, very patient.
        You really are serious! So, I guess it doesn’t matter if I call you a crazy ass, warped, control obsessed, racist cracker with an overwhelming white paternalistic motif. Don’t get upset though, because the history of those words don’t matter, like you said. And by the way, I can curse on my own blog.
        I’m not the one who’s constantly copying and pasting other articles from other bloggers just to tear them down repeating the “white racism doesn’t exist” crap. You need to face reality and see how full of it you really are.
        I’m not telling you how to run your blog. Don’t put words in my mouth. However, if you allow racist slurs from your commenters, then it doesn’t speak well of you… please feel free to run your blog any way you wish to. Even if it makes you seem like a hypocritical nitwit.
        Please feel free to call me names whenever you want, if you need that to make yourself feel better. More mature people typically don’t need that kind of silliness.
        Then shut the f**k up about me allowing certain words on my blog. It’s that simple. But as usual, you double-talk and show your hypocrisy. And it shows in your responses.
        To all appearances (<– Note the clause), Herneith is a despicable racist. I could be wrong, but her writing is pretty full of animosity toward me solely because my skin is white. Sorry… that’s a racist. Yes, she can comment on your blog all she wants. It still speaks poorly of you that you allow her reprehensible personal attacks on another commenter who disagrees with her. I’d never allow that on my blog. However, I know where it comes from, since you give yourself permission to attack me personally as well. You do prove pretty comprehensively that I’m just a nicer person than you.  :)
        You do have one thing correct. I have very little respect for Nat, Herneith or “diary” … To all appearances (<– Note the clause), these three people are really ugly racists. None of them has ever posted an even slightly intelligent post that I’ve ever read. There is the occasional nugget in your stuff, BW… it’s what leads me to believe that you’re older than both Nat and Herneith.
        First off, you don’t even know what the word “racist” means. Second, she’s not berating you just because you’re white. She’s calling you out because you’re being condescending and proud of it. Not to mention she has most likely encountered other whites like you, and she is understandably sick of it. Too bad you won’t understand where she’s coming from seeing as how you like to talk down to people instead of at them when they disagree, like a spoiled child.
        You’re floundering, BW. You will notice, if you re-read everything I’ve written, that I’ve never even hinted at the thought that I’m somehow smarter than you or anyone else. Read it well, BW: What I’ve written is, pretty obviously, more intelligent than what you’ve written. That’s really not debatable.
        Am I more intelligent than you? I have no idea under the sun. I’m not, as you can surely tell, in the habit of saying anything about things I have no clue about. To the contrary, I’m constantly fending off people– like you — telling me things they couldn’t possibly know. For example: you always telling me about what white people think, and know, and feel, and all that pseudo-intellectual flapdoodle you’re so fond of.
        If you’re not more intelligent than I am, act like it. Why not humble yourself and learn instead of telling others what to think? Why not just consider that what you know, or not know, about racism is grossly incorrect. Why not learn from the people who’ve been through it, instead of telling them what they’ve been through wasn’t racist. That’s a sign of being a first-class prick, and you seem to see no shame in it, just like a sociopath.
        Now, obviously you want to continue this little back and forth because you can’t stand me thinking for myself. You’ll prove it by responding with the same lines. If you plan to do that, you may as well give up. Your racism denial view of the world is insignificant in the face of reality. Deal with it.

      • Again, point-by-point:
        You said:

         You really are serious! So, I guess it doesn’t matter if I call you a crazy ass, warped, control obsessed, racist cracker with an overwhelming white paternalistic motif. Don’t get upset though, because the history of those words don’t matter, like you said. And by the way, I can curse on my own blog.

        My reply:

         No, it doesn’t matter if you call me all those silly things. By all means, feel free to call me all those names if you wish. It doesn’t bother me a bit. You sound like a racist, hick, slack-jawed, drooling, mouth-breathing, IQ-deprived half-wit when you do it, but, that’s certainly your right. As you mentioned, it is your blog. You can certainly appear as much like a jackass as you wish. I, however, counsel against it. Try one time having some class, BW. Try one time not sounding like an uneducated, illiterate blockhead. Just see whether you can do it. You’renot an illiterate blockhead. Why do you write and sound like one?

        You said:

         I’m not the one who’s constantly copying and pasting other articles from other bloggers just to tear them down repeating the “white racism doesn’t exist” crap. You need to face reality and see how full of it you really are.

        My reply:

         You’ll note that since we’ve been having these nice chats I haven’t commented on any of your later sophomoric essays in my own blog. I’m a man of my word. I find it curious that you would exhort me to “face reality,” when you keep hallucinating that I’ve said that white racism doesn’t exist. That little mantra of yours is so delusional, you just have to be smoking something that is distancing your silly self from reality.  :) That distant from reality, you would think that those who disagree with you are far from reality. That’s self-evident.

        You said:

         Then shut the f*** up about me allowing certain words on my blog. It’s that simple. But as usual, you double-talk and show your hypocrisy. And it shows in your responses.

        My reply:

         Again, please feel free to sound as much like an under-educated moron as you wish. Are you an under-educated moron, BW? I don’t think so. Why don’t you demonstrate that you’re not. It’s actually pretty easy. Eliminate the dirty words, the personal attacks, the racial slurs, etc… Give it a try. Are you afraid to try?

        You said:

         First off, you don’t even know what the word “racist” means.

        My reply:

         Yes I do. Furthermore, I’ve heard yourdefinition of racism. It’s wrong. Here’s the correct definition: “A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” (From the dictionary. Friendly hint: you might try to use one from time-to-time.)

        You said:

         Second, she’s not berating you just because you’re white.

        My reply:

         Yes, she is. She’s berating me because I’m white, and because I challenge her addiction to her imaginary victimhood.

        You said:

         She’s calling you out because you’re being condescending and proud of it. Not to mention she has most likely encountered other whites like you, and she is understandably sick of it. Too bad you won’t understand where she’s coming from seeing as how you like to talk down to people instead of at them when they disagree, like a spoiled child.

        My reply:

         Nope. She’s “calling me out” because I’m white, and you know it. Neither you nor she nor I have any idea whether or not she’s encountered “other whites like me.” We’re a vastly diverse group, so there’s no possible way ever to know that. She’s sick of her imagined oppression.Here’s her most likely problem: she’s worried that her insecurities will be found out, and that she won’t have a real excuse for potential future failures. She’s likely young… her writing is very immature and stupid. You and I both know that she’s heard only that white people will hold her back all her life, and she has embraced the excuse prophylactically. She’s probably turned her future failure into an inevitability and she has her excuse all lined up. The white man did it! Her writing seems to make that pretty transparent.

        I am somewhat condescending from time-to-time — it’s a fault, I admit it. However, Herneith is most likely a hate-filled racist. Between you and me, I’d rather have my character flaw than hers, wouldn’t you?

        Furthermore, you — and Herneith — have nothing to say regarding my tone. I’ve been condescending — you’ve been vicious. Should I give you some examples? In this post alone, you said: (1) shut the f*** up, (2) called me a crazy a**, (3) called me warped, control obsessed, a racist cracker, a hypocrite a pr*** and paternalistic, as well as a sociopath. In THIS post alone, BW! In other posts of yours there are many more. There’s no shortage of whackadoodle insults you’ve directed toward me. Furthermore, you’ve frequently endorsed the racial slurs and vicious insults others have pointed at me.

        Face it, BW, you’ve treated me onewhole heckuva lot worse than I’ve ever treated you. I’m not smarter than you, but I am one whole huge bunchnicer than you. Are you man enough to admit it? Are you man enough to grow up, to apologize and to stop?

        I was.

        Not sure whether you remember, but Idid slip up once regarding you and, in a fit of pique, I called you an idiot. As soon as I recognized it, I immediatelyapologized to you — and publicly — on my own blog. So again, BW, are youman enough to recognize your own abuse of someone whose only offense is to disagree with you? Are you man enough to apologize publicly? If you’re not, then internally at least, you should be intelligent enough and self-aware enough to admit that you might be wrong about a whole bunch of other things as well.

        At this point, I’m not the only one asking you: Are you really nothing more than a cheap bully, BW? I believe better of you… why don’t you try to act like it?

        This is kind of a big moment for you, BW… this is an opportunity for real growth for you. Again, as happens so often in life, and especially in America, it’s your choice. Are you going to choose the path of growth? Of learning and greater awareness? Or are you going to continue in your comfortable ignorance?

        You said:

         If you’re not more intelligent than I am, act like it.

        My reply:

         I don’t understand what you mean here… am I supposed to dumb down what I write? That’d certainly be condescending!

        You said:

         Why not humble yourself and learn instead of telling others what to think?

        My reply:

         I’ve humbled myself many, many, many, many times. As I mentioned before, I used to believe as you do. I was wrong. I had to have a sufficiently open mind to be able to allow other views in, and to admit that I was wrong. It’s how I got to my current beliefs. Am I correct now? I think so, but that’s why I seek out others like you who disagree with me. And, if you re-read what I’ve written, you’ll see that I’ve never told you how to think. I would, however, encourage you to think for yourself. Your writing at this point is right in line, point-by-point-by-point-by-point with the slimebags atop the Race Grievance Industry. That would seem to indicate that your thinking is there as well.

        You said:

         Why not just consider that what you know, or not know, about racism is grossly incorrect.

        My reply:

         What I know about racism is most likely correct. That’s why.

        I’ve proven it. Here for example. In that series of exchanges, you will note that I documented thoroughly my premise. You should re-read it.

        You said:

         Why not learn from the people who’ve been through it,

        My reply:

         Why would you presume that I haven’t?

        You said:

         instead of telling them what they’ve been through wasn’t racist.

        My reply:

         I, of course, never said any such thing. I did say that anecdotes simply can not say anything about the greater society. Sorry, it’s just true. And, it’s kind of something we all learn in the third grade, BW.

        You said:

         That’s a sign of being a first-class pr***, and you seem to see no shame in it, just like a sociopath.

        My reply:

         So, since what you describe is exactly how you treat me, are you a first-class pr***, BW, or just a massive hypocrite? Is it really ok for you to abuse me, but not for me to call you on it? I gave youconcrete examples of abuse — in this post alone — of which you are rather obviously guilty, all the while accusing me of being abusive. That’s just weird, and it certainly doesn’t put you in a good light, BW.

        You said:

         Now, obviously you want to continue this little back and forth

        My reply:

         Sure… I’m enjoying our little chat.

        You said:

         because you can’t stand me thinking for myself.

        My reply:

         If only you would think for yourself! Your writing bespeaks thinking that is so unbelievably pedestrian, conventional and, frankly, feeble, that you should be embarrassed to publish it.

        You said:

         You’ll prove it by responding with the same lines. If you plan to do that, you may as well give up. Your racism denial view of the world is insignificant in the face of reality. Deal with it.

        My reply:

         This was incoherent. If reality corresponds with what I say, as it mot likely does, then my “same lines” arestill insignificant. To say the sky is blue corresponds perfectly with reality, but is insignificant… it does have the advantage of being… true.

        Best,
        – x

      • @BW, something’s been bugging me, and I think I might have found the nub of it. You just might be right about something.
        Look, I love you like a brother. You know that, right? But, this thing that’s been nagging me at the back of my mind wouldn’t let me go ’til I found a way to express it. I hope I’ve managed to do it here.
        BW, you show a dogged will to retain one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, and despite mountains of evidence against it. This notion of yours? The impression that somehow I think that, as you say, “there is no white racism in America today.” Despite the well-documented fact that I’ve said many dozens of times>— in your own blog! — that there is white racism out there, but not much, and that it’s not a big problem in America today. Yet, you seem unable to get this idea into your noggin, accusing me over and over and over and over and over and over and over again of insisting that there is no white racism in America.
        This accusation of yours is so crashingly dumb, so completely at odds with the thoroughly documentedcontrary truth (because I’ve repeated my point ad nauseum in your very own blog!  :) ), that it has left me scratching my head. I know you’re not that stupid! Yet, you keep saying that astonishingly stupid thing over and over and over and over again. In your last post, to which I responded in some detail, you repeated this obvious fictionthree times!
        I could conceive of only two possible conclusions: (1) that you are intentionally playing an infantile game. (The RGI is notorious for this. For example, someone might say something perfectly innocent, and all of a sudden, out of the blue, he’s committed some newly-coined, grievous sin, exposing his once-hidden racism in coded language or some such nitwittery) or (2) you are selectively stupid.
        <b
        Not to worry, BW! I’m not name-calling here. We all do it. I’m absolutely selectively stupid about some things: my kids, for example, or the Red Sox. These are areas where I’m not prepared to be objective, and I admit it. In other words, about my kids or the Red Sox, I’m intentionallyselectively stupid. I’ve been embarrassingly selectively stupid about several other things in my life as well, and I’m not afraid, if a bit embarrassed,  :) ) to admit it.
        In the case of my attitude toward my kids, it’s likely the right thing to be selectively stupid…they know they alwayshave someone who unconditionally will do his level best to act in their best interests at all times. That’s a right and proper understanding for them to have…kind of like: “the sun will rise in the morning.” In the case of my selective stupidity concerning the Red Sox, it’s a fun little side interest, and causes harm to no one.
        You were able to construct in your mind a scenario in which the doofus Kyle Hunt, and his weird “White Man’s March” (Btw, that’s a better name for what he did: A “Weird White Man’s March.”  :) ) fits into a lager framework of all these other “racisms” you and the rest of the RGI have fabricated. You know: “institutional racism,” “color-blind racism,” “race realism,” “ghost racism,” (Oops — that one’s mine!  :) ), “under-every-rock-and-behind-every-tree racism” (Oops! Mine again!)…
        That was some pretty complex imagining there, BW! You’reobviously not stupid. So why, then, can’t you sometimes understand the plainest of English? That’s what has bugged me for some time.
        As I said above, either you’re playing a silly game, or you’re selectively stupid.
        I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re an honest man; that you say what you mean and you mean what you say; that what you write here is truly what you mean. Therefore, all that remains is to conclude that you are being selectively stupid.
        This could be understandable. I’m figuring you’ve spent many years wallowing in the bitterness and rancor that you display toward white people. You frequently rage against the fact that white people have ordered the country around their own interests. Well, why wouldn’t they?!? After all, they are the majority ethnicity in the country! When someone else becomes the majorty ethnicity — with a critical mass of numbers — as hispanics are heading toward, then they will order the country around what theyperceive as their best interests.
        I’m guessing (<– key word) that you’ve spent so many years marinating in this hatred for white people, that when I come along and prove your entire world view to be wrong and misguided, your perfectly natural reaction would be one of selective stupidity. Some would call this “defensiveness,” or “hyper-defensiveness” (due to the over-the-top hostile reactions of ugly racists like Nat or Herneith). After all, such vitriol would be perfectly unnecessary if you were confident and sure of your beliefs.
        If, for example, you were so sure of the veracity of your beliefs, then it would be child’s play to pick apart my feeble efforts at gainsaying them, right? So, why do you have so much difficulty, and why the apparent need to be soincredibly defensive? The answer is easy: your fear that you might have been wrong, tempts you powerfully to be selectively stupid. After all, who ever wants to face the fact that they have been wrong for decades?!? This isexactly what the flat-earthers of the past had to deal with when faced with convincing evidence that the earth is round.
        Nowadays we look upon those selfsame flat-earthers as anachronistic throwbacks to a more ignorant time and age. This is the reality that you folks in the Race Grievance Industry face. You’re flat-earthers. Despite mountains of evidence right in front of your face, countering your belief that America is a racist hellhole, with barely concealed hostility behind every white face, you need to cling to your long-antiquated, long-disproven, long-gone beliefs. After all, they’ve animated your thoughts and actions for decades now. No one ever willingly gives up his long-held beliefs, especially, to admit he’s been wrong!
        Think back, again, to the flat-earthers of the long-ago past.They were just as defensive as you are today. So many who understood the earth to be round faced the same vitriolic, hostile hyper-defensiveness that you in the RGI exhibit today. The new, correct thinkers back then were “heretics!” They were “evil!” They had to be stopped! And, for a while, they were. But as back then, the correct thinkers will, one day, win out in America.
        So, back to the top. About what precisely were you right? You’ve long maintained that you were inadequate to the task of debating with me on your blog. You’ve said quite overtly that you’re not prepared to accept serious, countervailing input. Heck! You even have a regular feature called “Vern’s Venting.” Venting hardly constitutes a serious contribution to greater understanding of what’s all around us. And the Vern’s Venting feature is typically sophomoric, simplistic and moronic. In other words, you’re not a serious observer of the country, and I probably should try to find someone else with greater knowledge and a greater desire to understand and to trade knowledge and insights. I probably will. There is very little learning, depth or insight to be found in your blog.
        You are, as always, welcome at my blog … at any time, but I might not treat your “contributions” as seriously as I used to, so you might not get the attention you used to receive.
        One more quick thing, and I offer it as friendly advice. Selective stupidity is voluntary stupidity. You can just as easily rid yourself of this intentional stupidity as you can cling to it. I assume that you’re a bit older, BW, than the deeply ignorant Herneith and Nat and “diary” … their rather obvious stupidity can likely be chalked up to energetic, youthful ignorance and inexperience. However, you’re never too old to grow and progress. This is an opportunity for you, BW, to grow. It’ll be difficult, because you’ll have to make a conscious decision to toss off long-encrusted, misplaced and corrosive acrimony and resentment. However, you’ll be ever so much the better for it. I offer you this counsel as a friend.
        Best,
        – x

      • Prae,
        Frankly, I’ll be honest. I’m too tired to respond to every single point, again. Don’t let it get to your head thinking that you’ve won, but if you do, so be it. I’m not in this to win, and I’m not going to waste anymore of my precious time on someone whose mind is made up. I’ve had enough.
        Say whatever you want. It doesn’t change anything. Unless, you know how it feels to be part of the “other” in this society, you can NEVER truly understand. Judging by your constant urge to consider it the eccentric ramblings of what you refer to as the Race Grievance Industry (RBI), why should I or anyone else try to argue on behalf of us? For that matter, why would anyone as sane as you claim to be try so hard to argue with someone like me?
        If you want to believe so hard that white racism is not as big an issue as I or others have made it out to be, fine. I can not prove to you that it’s a problem no matter how hard to try, because you’ve made up your mind. So, why continue this back-and-forth? It’s like trying to prove that sexism is a problem for women or homophobia is a problem for gays. If you are not willing to listen more and talk less, what’s the point?
        Like I said, I’m done. Go ahead and think that you’ve triumphed. It’s no skin off my nose. I’ll continue to know what I know, and that is I can not discount something that is so obvious. No amount of wishful thinking will cancel that.

      • Brotha, enough with this comedy! xpratoria, you are full of s**t. Brotha thanks for defending me. I generally do not engage white racist a****les except to mock and deride. If this fool cannot see this, then he is dumber than I thought.

      • No problem. I know what you said was not racist in the least. And I know telling him so would be a waste of time, like it’s always been.

      • [@Herneith:] You don’t engage racists because you are one. Why would you engage those with whom you agree?
        Best,
        – x

      • Herneith is not a racist.

      • And you’re a racist. Even if I’m delusional, I’d rather be that than a racist.
        That reads like something a petulant child would write. Carry on, your opinion has no bearing on my reality.
        Kisses, or is it best?
        XXX

      • Nor has his opinion bear any relevance in my reality either.

      • You may be right. “Racist” might be too kind a word for her.  :)
        However, there’s no possibility of debate: she’s a racist; and your having allowed her to abuse an innocent commenter on your blog is reprehensible. You should be ashamed.
        Best,
        – x

      • There you go, passing the blame. It’s funny how you seem to believe in personal responsibility, but doesn’t know what it means. For the record, I’m not ashamed of anything. Someone here should be ashamed and it’s not me nor is it Herneith.
        If you’re going to continue to whining for something you will never get in a million years, I may as well, from now on, send all your replies to the spam folder.

      • Just a quick note concerning this:
        I hate to have to point out the obvious to you, BrothaWolf, but you have no idea under the sun just how “other” I am. You could have no way under the sun of knowing that. If you think that your skin color is the only way to be “other” in this country, or anywhere in the world, then you are very much mistaken. Trust me, I’m plenty “other.”
        I argue with you because I like you — despite the vitriol you direct against me. You might wonder why I should like you then. Fair question: Everyone in the RGI directs the very same hyper-defensive vitriol at me. Since I know that will be your approach, I never expected anything different. However, you have hung in there, and I admire that. Also, you’ve tossed the occasional nice comment out, in stark difference from the Nat’s or the Herneith’s or the “diary’s” on your blog, who want to paint me in the most lurid of terms, as some kind of degenerate, latent serial killer, awash in snarling hatred for all black people. In this way, your discourse was vastly superior to theirs, and I liked that. How couldn’t I like you? You’ve taught me things and given me understandings that I can bring back to my colleagues and that we can work with.
        As you probably know, my only interest is to learn. I have no desire to win. I wasn’t the one who turned it into a “competition.” I was originally here for learning and exchanging ideas and thoughts. That I stuck to my guns was what you and others turned into a competition. You even confessed to trying to trip me up and “expose my racist thinking.” You were unable to do that because I have no racist thinking.
        I think we’ve both covered as much ground as we’re going to be able to cover here in this particular instance. I hope you will allow me to contribute my thoughts to your blog as time goes on.
        Your friend,
        – x

      • @BW, I do want to commend you specifically for something. It’s something important. You showed more courage than Abagond and several of the others whose blogs I have visited in the past few months. There has been not even the slightest hint that they would allow me back to comment on their blogs.
        You, however, had the courage to allow back someone who you knew would posit a robust and tenacious challenge to beliefs you hold dear. That’s no small thing, and you are to be commended for showing that courage.
        Several of my colleagues here at the PWG insisted that you’d never do it. They were wrong and the fact that you did, will make it into several media presentations — again anonymously — in upcoming weeks and months. Keep your eyes and ears open! (I can’t tell you which ones, because that will give away my identity. Trust me, I’m recognizable!  :) )
        Just so you know, you are the only member of the RGIever to show that courage in our project the project that has been going on for more than a year, and that has contacted and debated and interacted with hundreds of RGI members.
        I’m pleased and gratified that I held out and proved them wrong in at least that part of their thinking.
        Best to you, my friend,
        – x

      • I’m pleased and gratified that I held out and proved them wrong in at least that part of their thinking.
        You are delusional! Carry on!

      • And you’re a racist. Even if I’m delusional, I’d rather be that than a racist.
        Best,
        – x

      • There’s no ‘ifs’ about it. You ARE delusional.

      • Maybe you missed the meaning of my post. Even if I weredelusional, that’s a whole heckuva lot better than being a racist like Herneith.
        Look, this little tit-for-tat is silly. You and I know that Herneith and you have both admitted that if you were to encounter me on the street, having no idea who I am, you would dislike me immediately because of the color of my skin.
        Both you and Herneith are racists, and you know it.
        Best,
        – x

      • Oh b******t! Exactly point to me where I even so much as implied that I would hate you because you’re a white guy.
        You simply don’t want to process in your head that your skin color has an insignificant reason to dislike you. You acting pompous, argumentative, condescending and controlling has everything to do why we don’t really like you. As usual, you don’t want to see your own reflection given to you by others. Instead, you blame the whole world for being mean to you. Whether you like it or not, you are completely out of your mind.

      • Continue to think what you want. It changes nothing, no matter how many times you try to tell me. The keyword is ‘tell’, not ‘convince’. All your arguments are based on the old ‘blame the victim’ strategy. This is why I have no respect for them.

      • That’s a weird thing for you to say, BW. Since you’re not a victim, how could I blame you?
        I certainly don’t blame you for being a victim, BW, I blame you for being the aggressor! Your racism makes you, at this point, well and truly on the side of the wrong-doers.You are the one committing the wrong. You are libeling tens of millions of people by calling them racists, when thevast majority of them are not. And, you committed the wrong against me when you called me a racist, when I am not, in any way a racist.
        You owe me a humble apology, BW… I was willing to hold off on demanding one, because you and I appeared to be getting along better — until you let the racist Herneith muck things up again — but now I’m demanding one.
        I think you realize I’m not a racist, but on your very own blog, you allowed one of your “contributors” to libel me by accusing me of racism.
        What kind of a man are you, BW, that you would allow that kind of injustice to pass unanswered?!?
        never would allow that kind of false accusation to pass unanswered on my web site. My web site is a racism-free zone… safe for all people of all races.
        I’m ready to accept your apology.  :)
        Best,
        – x

      • Apology?!? For what? For telling it like it is? For, in some way, offending you? For defending what I think and know?
        Now I know you must be crazy.

      • For calling me, an innocent man, a racist. It’s the most toxic accusation that can be made today (though “homophobe” is catching up) and the accusation shouldnever be made lightly. Yet you toss it around like fallen autumn leaves …. and you should be ashamed of yourself.
        Also, you allowed a commenter on your blog to abuse me with inappropriate language and the same obviously false accusation. By not chastising that commenter you indicated tacit agreement.
        That’s reprehensible, and you ought to be man enough to apologize.
        Whenever I do something inappropriate, I apologize immediately. It’s a sign of intelligence and maturity. You’re old enough to have gathered some of each of those qualities, and you need to man up and make right the wrongs you have done.
        Best,
        – x

      • I will not take back what I saw with my own eyes. And calling you what you are is nothing compared to referring to groups with derogatory names filled with hate and ignorance. Your case for calling ‘racist’ an offensive term in itself is pointless. You can’t convince anyone that it should be derogatory because it in no way, shape or form based on hatred or ignorance. Only when it’s used by nutjobs like you is when it’s, minimally wrong and maximally ridiculous.
        I also get a laugh out of you crying about how you’re the victim. Yet, here you are coming back for more. Why not leave and not take this “abuse” if you feel offended? No one is making you stay here.
        Your problem is that you don’t think you’ve hardly done anything appropriate. Yes, I know you apologized for calling me a name on your blog, but that was the one and only time you ever said you’re sorry for…anything.
        Why should I apologize to you when you won’t apologize to me for all the crap you’ve unloaded? And yes, I told you what was wrong, and you sit there and continue to think you’re innocent. What if you slapped a woman (not saying you would), and she slaps you back, would you want her to apologize to you? No person with common sense would see any sense in that at all. But in your little world, it does.
        Your problem is plain and simple. You think what you said was hurtful. It’s your opinion. But you think what I’ve said was hurtful and you ask me to apologize. When you hurt or offend someone, it doesn’t matter if you thought what you said wasn’t offensive. The fact is that other people found it offensive, and some through another blog, have graciously explained why. Yet, you casted them down. You even call their replies stupid. Yet, when we fight back, as expected, you play the victim.
        So no, I will not apologize for me and I will not apologize on behalf of Herneith. She knows that kind of comments you leave, and to her, those are slaps across the face. Only when you learn to own up to your foolishness and apologize for the stuff you’ve said would there be a small chance of respect earned.
        You can not deny that it was you that started this back-and-forth since day one in that post about Paula Deen. But I know you will still try to paint yourself as innocent.

      • @BW: I didn’t think you were man enough to admit you did wrong publicly. I’m content to know that you know in your heart that you did wrong. Your first paragraph is incoherent. I gather you think I’m mistaken.
        You then said:

         I also get a laugh out of you crying about how you’re the victim. Yet, here you are coming back for more. Why not leave and not take this “abuse” if you feel offended? No one is making you stay here.

        To which I reply:

         @BW: don’t get me wrong. I’m not offended. I’m urging you to apologize foryour own good. Your jibes don’t bother me in the slightest. Again, it’s a bit like calling Shaquille O’Neal short. He’s not, and he’s sure of it, so such an accusation wouldn’t bother him in the least. No, you should apologize to get the stain of your abusiveness out of your life, and offyour conscience. I give you that counsel only because I like you and we’re friends.

        You then said:

         Your problem is that you don’t think you’ve hardly done anything appropriate. Yes, I know you apologized for calling me a name on your blog, but that was the one and only time you ever said you’re sorry for…anything.

        To which I reply:

         This was incoherent. I gather that in your first sentence you meantinappropriate? If I take your paragraph as written, it’s wrong on the face of it. I’ve been completely appropriate here. I’ve never used foul language; I’ve never used racial slurs; I’ve kept my discourse completely civil, dignified and professional. I apologized on my blog because I called you an idiot. You are not an idiot. What you say is perfectly idiotic, but you are not an idiot. Furthermore, idiocy is the luxury of the intelligent, but the prison of the idiot. You choose to say the idiotic things you say. A real idiot has no such choice. In many ways, what you do is worse than the idiot, who never chose to be an idiot.

        You then said:

         Why should I apologize to you when you won’t apologize to me for all the crap you’ve unloaded? And yes, I told you what was wrong, and you sit there and continue to think you’re innocent. What if you slapped a woman (not saying you would), and she slaps you back, would you want her to apologize to you? No person with common sense would see any sense in that at all. But in your little world, it does.

        To which I reply:

         @BW, @BW, @BW… we’ve been through this. I did apologize when I called you an idiot. As to your example, it’s an interesting hypothetical. I’d never slap a woman unprovoked — I’d never slap anyone unprovoked… However, since it’s your hypothetical, I’ll play by your rules. The only reason I’d ever slap a woman is if she did something to me that would merit such an act. The only act that would merit such a response would be some unwarranted physical act of hostility directed toward me. So, in your hypothetical, a woman has committed a physical act of hostility toward me, and I have slapped her. If I then were to discover that I was in the wrong, I would immediately apologize to her, whether or not she slapped me back. If, however, she were in the wrong — ie, she did commit an unprovoked act of physical hostility toward me, then, yes, I’d demand at least an apology from her. I might demand further redress as well, depending on what it was that she did to me.

        BW: I do understand your hypothetical: you’re claiming victim status, when you’re the aggressor. To fill in the roles: you’re the woman who committed the unwarranted act of aggression directed at me — the scurrilous accusation of racism. I’m the dude who didn’t stand for it, and — verbally at least — slapped you right back. You needed that slap. I’m guessing that no one else has ever stood up to your on-line bullying before?

        However, my slap was a slap of assistance to you. Your attack against me didn’t hurt or offend me in any way — you shouldn’t be overly aggrieved at this: the bullying you did was first rate bullying — I’m just nearly impossible to offend. Our online tussles might not be overly fair in that regard, because you seem very thin-skinned.

        You then said:

         Your problem is plain and simple. You think what you said was hurtful. It’s your opinion. But you think what I’ve said was hurtful and you ask me to apologize. When you hurt or offend someone, it doesn’t matter if you thought what you said wasn’t offensive. The fact is that other people found it offensive, and some through another blog, have graciously explained why. Yet, you casted them down. You even call their replies stupid. Yet, when we fight back, as expected, you play the victim.

        To which I reply:

         Again, I have no idea what this means. I do not think that what I said was hurtful. Rather, it was educational. What you said to me harmed you, not me. It didn’t bother me in the least. You have to live with it on your conscience, I don’t. Other people found what I said to you offensive? They need to mind their own business. The opinions of Herneith, Nat and “diary” are those of racists who fantasize openly about the violent deaths of more than a billion people who look like me. I’d never be bothered by their opinions. You shouldn’t either. And you should hang around with a better sort of person. You did have a real funny in there, though, BW. No one on your blogever once came even close to interacting with me in anything evenremotely resembling a “gracious” way.That one gave me a serious chuckle.

        You then said:

         So no, I will not apologize for me and I will not apologize on behalf of Herneith. She knows that kind of comments you leave, and to her, those are slaps across the face. Only when you learn to own up to your foolishness and apologize for the stuff you’ve said would there be a small chance of respect earned.

        To which I reply:

         Just quickly on this one. I expect you to apologize only for yourself. Herneith needs to apologize on her own behalf. She won’t though. If Herneith considers what I wrote here to be “slaps across the face,” then she is overly sensitive. However, I know that to be the case anyway. Her obscenity-laden attempts at bons mots are perfect indicators of this. But she’s young. She might yet grow up, though things are not looking up in that regard.

        You then said:

         You can not deny that it was you that started this back-and-forth since day one in that post about Paula Deen. But I know you will still try to paint yourself as innocent.

        To which I reply:

         Soooooo, let me see: you wrote a bone-headed essay about Paula Deen, published it for all the world to see, apparently expected nobody to disagree with your incandescent wisdom, then when someone did disagree with you, you falsely accused her (my colleague who first interacted with you here) of racism, and you think I started all this? That is funny!

        @BW, I’m thinking of doing this differently. I’m thinking of starting a feature on my blog called “Otha Wolf — Howling With Laughter at the Nitwittery of the Race Grievance Industry.” I know, I know… it’s a bit unwieldy, but I can wordsmith it. (You know I can  :) ) It’d be a whimsical little thing that would poke fun at the sillinesses that you in the RGI publish all the time. I get such great material from so many of your commenters. I’ll attribute the inspiration to you, of course. Then we can debate blog against blog. I’m certain that — if you’re confident of all you say — this would represent a delightful little challenge for you! What do you think?
        Best,
        – x

      • You must really have a lot of time on your hands to write this, all just to get me to say ‘I’m sorry’ to you and rethink my stance on the whole racism thing. Wow.
        Aside from the grammatical and spelling errors of my last response, you should know what I mean. If you really feel the need to point them out, you obviously are obsessed with trying to discount what I’ve said. I digress.
        I already mentioned how you DID apologize for calling me a name. That was it. But since day one, YOU CAME TO MY BLOG.
        How is apologizing to you a good thing for me? What should I apologize for? I didn’t start this sad little war. I didn’t comment on your blog first. You threw the first punch. I defended myself while you kept throwing more blows. It’s nothing short of crazy why you can’t or won’t see that.
        I see you still don’t want to grasp that what you said was offensive. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT. You don’t want to take ownership despite it being an obvious problem. It doesn’t matter what YOU intend it to be. IT MATTERS WHAT WAS SAID AND HOW IT WAS SAID. It was NOT educational. No one can learn from you calling what they’ve said names like an 6 year-old. That is demeaning and insulting in the real world.
        As long as I continue to stand firm and not give in to you, you will never quit, eh? Okay. I see how it is. I know neither Herneith nor Nat Turner’s Revenge will bow down to the likes of you when it’s clear you the one in the wrong and, for some reason psychology can’t explain, see nothing wrong with it. None of us will blow hot air into that incredibly inflated racist ego of yours. And yes, I consider you a racist. Cry me a river.

  16. So, I’m not free to comment on your blog. Ok. I guess I was was wrong to expect more of you.
    Best,
    – x

  17. Well, BW — am I free to comment — unhindered, and uncensored around your blog, as you are free to comment, absolutely unfettered* around mine?
    If not, then I overestimated you, and we will simply return to status quo ante.
    Best,
    – x
    * – Except for some basic rules of decorum that can be summed up in a simple phrase: componse your posts so that my young children can read them.

  18. Do you have a job? You seem to have a lot of time on your hands to post this b*****it!
    I posted the above on his blog. He will probably delete it as it contains a curse word in it. Hence I have posted it here before he does. Xpedia, discuss.

  19. Yep. I never censor anything in anyone’s posts if they keep it dignified and respectful. I have no problem with your questioning anything I say whatsoever, but it’s unacceptable, of course, to commit personal attacks, use dirty language or post racist slurs.
    I do censor those things, and, of course, would never do any of those things myself.
    I have a simple rule for you. Imagine my young son is reading what you are posting. Then go ahead and post.
    Best,
    – x

  20. Oh, and, yes, Herneith — your comment was really stupid. However, I did reply. In my reply, you’ll note that I commented on your posts, not on you.
    Best,
    – x

  21. Just a quick reply…
    You said:

    You must really have a lot of time on your hands to write this, all just to get me to say ‘I’m sorry’ to you and rethink my stance on the whole racism thing. Wow.

    My reply:

    Nope. I type fast. Really fast. Remember: I’m trying to get you to say you’re sorry for your benefit. Not mine. I’ve already forgiven you… you need to be able to purge the evil and bitterness from your racist soul, and liberate yourconscience.

    You said:

    Aside from the grammatical and spelling errors of my last response, you should know what I mean. If you really feel the need to point them out, you obviously are obsessed with trying to discount what I’ve said. I digress.

    My reply:

    did figure what you were saying, but didn’t want to presume, so I took what you said at face value. It’s not my fault your post was littered with grammatical and spelling errors and, I might point out — the opposite freakin’ words from what you meant!  :) You really could stand to do some proof-reading from time-to-time, BW.

    You said:

    I already mentioned how you DID apologize for calling me a name. That was it. But since day one, YOU CAME TO MY BLOG.

    My reply;

    You put it out there for the whole world to see. If you’re too scared of opinions and views that challenge your own, then make your blog private. Of course, thatwould say something unpleasant about your own courage of your convictions.

    You said:

    How is apologizing to you a good thing for me? What should I apologize for? I didn’t start this sad little war. I didn’t comment on your blog first. You threw the first punch. I defended myself while you kept throwing more blows. It’s nothing short of crazy why you can’t or won’t see that.

    My reply:

    A sincere apology would be good for you, because you engaged in unwarranted abuse of first an innocent woman, then an innocent man, both of whom came to your blog and commented on what you put out there for the whole world to see, and invited the whole world to comment upon.

    You said:

    I see you still don’t want to grasp that what you said was offensive. THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT. You don’t want to take ownership despite it being an obvious problem. It doesn’t matter what YOU intend it to be. IT MATTERS WHAT WAS SAID AND HOW IT WAS SAID. It was NOT educational. No one can learn from you calling what they’ve said names like an 6 year-old. That is demeaning and insulting in the real world.

    My reply:

    What my colleague said to you in the beginning of all this was harsh and critical. Your post on Paula Deen was moronic and nonsensical, and she called you on it. There are very few kind words that could have pertained to the nitwittery of your original post. However, my colleague never called you names or impugned your character in any way. She criticized your dumb post. If you were offended, that’s your problem. If you were sure of what you wrote, then you should have had both the courage and the integrity to defend that, and not to attack my colleague personally.

    Then, when I joined the conversation later, you accused me of racism. So, really, that’s two apologies you owe us: one to my colleague and one to me. We’ll settle for just one.

    What my colleague said to you in the Paula Deen post, and what I’ve said to you here should have educated you. If you remain uneducated, that’s your fault.

    If you are offended by how my colleague and I said things, then you need to thicken your skin. You came at her and me a whole lot more viciously than anything we ever did.

    How the truth is expressed to you shouldn’t matter in the least, BW; only that itbe the truth is what’s important. You need desperately to learn at least that, BW.

    You said;

    As long as I continue to stand firm and not give in to you, you will never quit, eh? Okay. I see how it is. I know neither Herneith nor Nat Turner’s Revenge will bow down to the likes of you when it’s clear you the one in the wrong and, for some reason psychology can’t explain, see nothing wrong with it. None of us will blow hot air into that incredibly inflated racist ego of yours. And yes, I consider you a racist. Cry me a river.

    My reply:

    No one is asking anyone to bow down to me, BW. And, of course, I’ve never called you any names whatsoever — except one time on my blog, after which I immediately apologized. Man, BW! You have more red herring dodges and excuses than anyone I’ve ever met!!!

    have called you a racist, to which you have readily admitted yourself. So, I’veonly called you what you called yourself.

    I hope you recognize what you do so casually: (1) you try to explain away differences between you and me as resulting because, you say, I’m crazy. (2) you criticize me for being tenacious, when you have been just as tenacious. (3) You accuse me of calling you names, yet I never have. (4) You used to accuse me of saying that there was no such thing as white racism! Thank goodness you’ve abandoned that canard!

    You’ll note that I have never, ever, not ever, not even once called you stupid (except on my own blog, where I immediately apologized), or crazy, or a liar, or anything but a racist; a disorder to which you readily admit.

    I’ve never even called you an egotist! Yet you indulge in that kind of perfectly irrelevant personal attack as if it were second nature for you. You really need to explore that in your own character, BW.

    If you were forced to eliminate all personal attacks, name-calling and other irrelevant splutterings and dodges, would you have anything to put in a riposte to me?

    I don’t think so.

    Best,
    – x

    • You know what? I’m not going to waste my time rebutting every single sentence like you do. Instead, I’m just going to say for the last and final time that I will NOT apologize to you, and you will NOT make me apologize to you. There is NOTHING you can say or do to make me give into your deluded, online white paternalistic obsession with me. Period. YOU made the choice to come to my blog. And YOU made the choice to comment on my blog. All in all, YOU STARTED THIS. DEAL WITH IT.

@BW… I have simply represented an opportunity for you finally to grow beyond your omphaloskepsistic mewling, and to stop scrabbling for excuses. That you choose to forego that gift is your loss.
For my own part, I couldn’t care less whether you apologize to me or not, but you should do it for the betterment of your own character.
BW, you live today in an era when the overwhelming default state-of-mind of white people toward black people, is a combination of contrition, charity, pity, love, and a deeply, fervently held wish that all black people live in peace, prosperity, brotherhood, good health and happiness. Wow! Some oppressor thatis!
Why, on earth, BW, do you think that “People of Color” are scrabblingdesperately, risking life and limb, leaving family and home behind, to get inhere? There’s no movement anywhere of anyone struggling desperately to getout of America, BW; they’re all trying to get in!
Yet, all that you and your nitwit friends like Abagond, Nat, Herneith and “diary” can see is imaginary snarling, sneering, barely concealed contempt bordering on hatred coming from whites. It’s really a shame.
Look, if America even remotely resembled what you say she does, don’t you think that you could point me to thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands of racial incidents all across the land, all the time?
Again, to put it into some perspective, if there were even one hundred freakin’thousand newsworthy white-on-black racial incidents in this country in a given year (there aren’t — there might be a few dozen), and assuming that they wereeach committed by a different white dude, that would mean that for everyserious white racist out there, there would also be nearly two-freakin’ thousandnon-racist whites.
It’s pretty obvious that whatever white racists remain in America today, they’revastly outnumbered by good, decent, upstanding normal white people, BW. And white racism — at least as imagined by you in the Race Grievance Industry — was utterly defeated decades ago. That you continue to hear echoes of it, means simply that you’re really just … get ready for it: Hearing echoes. You’re imagining it, BW.
All you do is constantly point us all to an incident here, and another incident there, and still another incident over there, hoping against hope that these isolated incidents — all while a bloodbath of black-on-black carnage rages on unabated in the big cities — will somehow distract everyone and prove that white racism is all over the place.
Yeah. Uhhhh… I guess not.
BW, you were so desperate for white violence against blacks that you even turned the Hispanic George Zimmerman into a white dude to support your increasingly far-fetched narrative.
I’m reading between the lines here, BW, but I’m thinking that your bitterness comes from some past failing on your part for which you’d like to have a scapegoat. I’m thinking that you need an excuse for that past failing and that white people have been obligingly providing you with that excuse for a very long time now.
Since, for decades now, white people have been simply rolling over while the RGI has blamed them for every single problem black people have ever had, it’s pretty obvious where you would look first.
I did try, BW, to give you an opportunity to grow and mature. I expect less from Nat and Herneith, and “diary,” but they are likely simply stupid. I don’t, and can’t, know. There are stupid people out there, BW, and there are — sit down for this one — stupid black people out there too. Nat, Herneith and “diary” are likely the racists that they are because there’s just not a lot of activity between their ears.
You, however, have no excuse, except for the selective stupidity I mentioned above.
Why don’t you choose to abandon that selective stupidity and improve your life? It can’t be fun carrying around all that unfounded bitterness all the time. Why can’t you simply recognize what’s obvious to anyone with any gray matter whatsoever between their ears: all races are filled to the brim with every imaginable kind of person. All in all, over the course of time, it’s simply true that no race is smarter, nicer, harder-working, more creative, more artistic, benevolent, more ingenious… better — than any other race. Every race has its saints and its scoundrels, its morons and geniuses, its greats and its awfuls, and, again over the course of history, in roughly equal measure. For every slaughter of the Jews there’s a Rwanda, or a Turkish massacre of Armenians, or the Chinese wholesale liquidation of tens of millions of Chinese that stopped only in 1976! And, yes, BW, for every white slaver who went to Africa, there was a black man selling him his own brother black man. You can try to excuse that away all you want, but it doesn’t make it any less true. Yeah, you want psychosis? You can find it in every race. You want profound, soul-lifting nobility? You can find that in every race. You want incomprehensible cruelty? Or unfathomable selflessness? Yep. Every race has it. Every race does it. And, again, over the course of all history, in roughly equal measure.
Why? Simple. Because they’re not black, or white, or yellow, or red or whatever… they’re human, BW. They’re nothing more — nor one iota less — than that. They’re all filled with the full measure of divinely good and infernally bad, and all points in-between, no matter what the color of their skin is.
The sooner you liberate yourself from all the mental contortions, the tortured intellectualization, the twisted, convoluted reasoning and the phantasmagorical twaddle(*) of the RGI, the healthier and saner you’ll be.
That is the truth, BW, and you know it. You need to learn to deal with it.
Your friend,
– x
(*) – Yes, I’m thinking of “Dr.” Llaila Afrika and his wacky ilk.  :)

Another “Hero” Lost — Hank Aaron Compares Republicans That Oppose Obama To KKK « CBS Atlanta


Hank Aaron Compares Republicans That Oppose Obama To KKK « CBS Atlanta.

Well. All of us who were hoping against hope that Major League Baseball would do the right thing and strike the “records” of steroids-soaked Bobby Bonds, so that the real home run king — Henry Aaron — could retain his crown, took one on the chin today: Aaron is a moron. And, apparently, a member in good standing of the Race Grievance Industry.

Aaron said, and I quote:

“Sure, this country has a black president, but when you look at a black president, President Obama is left with his foot stuck in the mud from all of the Republicans with the way he’s treated,” Aaron told USA Today Sports.
Aaron continued: “The bigger difference is that back then they had hoods. [emphasis added] Now they have neckties and starched shirts.”

Quick question: is there any legitimate opposition whatsoever to Obama, or is he our king, and we all need just to sit down, shut up, and swallow whatever jackassery he does?

I guess Hammerin’ Hank wasn’t paying attention when the opposition to George W. Bush was over-the-top vicious, and non-stop from the moment of Al Gore’s (the “wh” is silent) fraudulent challenge to the 2000 election results, to the day Bush left office, and even well into Barack “It’s-All-Bush’s-Fault” Obama’s term. Everything from “Bushitler” to openly pining — without penalty — for Bush’s assassination!(1) And all points in-between.

Bush, who apparently has more grace and class in his little finger than Henry Aaron and Obama combined, never once sniveled about the abuse, never pointed fingers, as the left and the RGI do constantly at people who disagree with Obama.

I guess that to find a real home run king, we have to go further back. Bonds was a juicer, Aaron’s a jerk — I guess the real home run king is still Babe Ruth. That certainly rankles, ’cause I’m a Red Sox fan! Furthermore, Babe Ruth was a drunk and a high-living wastrel, but he was a nice guy, with a heart of gold. Obviously he was a nicer, and more intelligent, man than the disgraceful race-baiter, Henry Aaron.

– xPraetorius

(1) – It’s against federal law to suggest openly that the President ought to be assassinated.

A Kind of Sad Post — In Which I Bid Adieu (Sort of) to Brotha Wolf


As you all know, I’ve had a longstanding back-and-forth with Brotha Wolf. He and I have locked horns often, and he has always given me a spirited, heartfelt and passionate and, above all, honest effort. I long respected him for his sincere passion — despite his abusive language and hyper-defensiveness(1) — and even came to like him. I was able pretty easily to refute many of his cherished racist beliefs, and that proved deeply disconcerting to him, and he never found the courage to admit the weakness of his arguments — or of his argumentation! Side note: It was always a side goal of mine also to see whether I could get BrothaWolf and the others of the Race Grievance Industry (RGI) to debate and argue respectfully. I failed in that endeavor… except, that is, with BW, who tossed me the occasional polite bone.

I have a character flaw. I tend to view others, at first encounter, much more positively than they usually deserve. Others, such as Brotha Wolf, have the reverse character flaw: they tend to view others — especially white people – negatively on first meeting. More to the point: they tend to fill in many, if not most, of the blanks in their minds about a person using only the color of his skin.

Brotha Wolf is a member in good standing of the RGI. A self-admitted racist, he readily acknowledges that he hates white people for the mere color of their skin. However, please don’t hold that against him. He’s simply regurgitating what he’s heard from the race pushers atop the RGI.

In the back-and-forths I had with BW, I concluded that, while deluded, BW sincerely believes the rubbish that he expresses. With Brotha Wolf, it’s always as if a small child has written a strong essay defending the existence of Santa Claus. One admires the child’s sincerity and her passion… but one understands that she’s wrong.

That … is Brotha Wolf.

I spent lots of time arguing with Brotha Wolf, but he showed an astonishing propensity to let some obvious truths bounce right off his stubborn noggin!

For example: I never once, in hundreds of interactions, ever claimed that there was no white racism in America. Yet, Brotha Wolf claimed dozens and dozens of times that I had made that very claim.

This was profoundly mystifying for me. It was obvious — or at least I thought it was – that BW is not stupid. However, I wonder now whether that was really only my built-in pro-black bias. Let’s face it, “pro-black bias” is the default state-of-mind in white America today. It’s entirely possible that Brotha Wolf simply is  not the brightest bulb in the chandelier… or that the toxins that pour forth constantly from the RGI are just too powerful. Remember, the foot soldiers of the RGI are addicted to their own racism, to their fabricated white racisms(2) and to their imagined victimhood. Without these things, there are no built-in excuses for failure.

However, it is impossible to ignore the fact that I had said dozens of times that white racism does exist in America; and that Brotha Wolf had accused me dozens of times of insisting the opposite. I mean, I tried everything! I expressed it differently; I turned phrases around, switched syntax, used different words, simplified, simplified, simplified, and more. The end result: the same almost robotic accusation: xPraetorius — you think there is no more white racism in America.

It was almost as if for Brotha Wolf, there could be only two possible conditions for all white people: (1) either they are suffused with snarling, sneering, white-hot racism, or (2) they have none at all. No complex mix of white thinking regarding race, no spectrum of viewpoints covering many possible states of mind — among more than 180 million white people! — seemed possible for BW.

I had a recent to-and-fro with Brotha Wolf (shown below — warning, it’s long), in which he did the same infantile thing. After a bunch of obscene splutterings (I’ve tried to edit them), he accused me — again and again and again — of saying the same thing that I’ve never said to anyone.

Finally, it dawned on me, and a new term was born: Brotha Wolf was being selectively stupid. You’ve heard of something like it before. “Selective hearing,” is a well-known concept in America today. The RGI is selectively stupid

It’s hard to accuse Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton of overall stupidity. I mean these are black multi-millionaires in a country they themselves have condemned as a racist hellhole for decades. That’s a pretty neat trick! One would think that someone would kind of notice the contradiction between the fortunes of the people in the leadership of the RGI, and their constant bleating about how racist and horrible America is. But no one brings it up. Recognizing that they were going to get away with it means that people like Jackson and Sharpton are not at all idiots, but rather highly-intelligent, savvy analysts of society.

They correctly identified and thoroughly exploited the intellectual, and more importantly, the pseudo-intellectual trends in society today — and they made millions and millions and millions and millions from those trends. No one denies that the very worst thing that could happen to Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton — and their numerous disciples —  is the elimination — real or even hinted at – of white racism in America today.

These race pushers are, however, selectively stupid. As regards race, their pronouncements wouldn’t pass muster in the third grade. Yet what they say is accepted as gospel truth by the vast majority of the media, or academia, pop culture and, of course, by the rest of the RGI. As a result, truly stupid stuff becomes conventional wisdom in the larger society. Want proof? A simple statement: Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton (and their disciples) are considered valid commentators on, and observers of, America today.

Let’s face it, it is to these race pushers and race dealers that the foot soldiers of the RGI — like Brotha Wolf — look for their marching orders. It is to these race pushers and race dealers that the foot soldiers of the RGI — like Brotha Wolf — look for their very thinking.

I came to realize at the end of my exchange with Brotha Wolf, that I had learned everything he could teach me; that I could learn no more from him. He insisted several times that he had no desire to learn anything from me, and that he was just okay with who, how and what he was… no input from the white dude needed, thank you!

Brotha Wolf said numerous times that there was nothing that he was even willing to consider learning from me. I’ve disagreed with people before, without ever coming to the conclusion that they could never teach me anything. Mine would be, I would think, a fairly elementary, uncontroversial state of mind. Yet, the opposite was BW’s state-of-mind, as it seemed to be with all the members of the RGI with whom I’ve locked horns these past few months.

However, there is learning even within this seemingly closed system of thinking, and I gleaned much from working it.

Recently, though, I’ve been frustrated in my attempts to learn anything from them. There is only so much of the same tiresome, hyper-ventilation that one can observe before one realizes that one has heard it all before — ad nauseum. To borrow a phrase, the RGI becomes a broken record very quickly in your interactions with them.

As mentioned previously, I included below the interaction that I had with Brotha Wolf, that led me to the conclusion that I was unable to learn more from at least this particular cohort of the RGI. It’s a lengthy interaction, but should require no more than 5-10 minutes of reading.

An important final note: all this violent hostility from the RGI comes in the context of vast and unprecedented pro-black bias that dominates white people’s thinking today. Pro-black bias is the default state of mind in white America today, and has been for more than half a century.

This group — white Americans – has given away more than 10 trillion dollars, promulgated thousands of government programs — federal, state and local (My mother and father established one of the most important ones all the way back in the 1960′s), tens of thousands of implicitly or explicitly pro-black laws, established tens of thousands of organizations, clubs and groups, written millions of essays, articles, books, treatises, publications of all stripes and from every political persuasion, established policies and practices that overtly and openly discriminate in favor of black people — all in an effort to do the right thing specifically for black people; after openly admitting to a vast array of past wrongs against them.

Finally, white Americans elected a black man President — precisely because he’s a black man — and gave him more power than any man has ever possessed in the history of the world.

Oppressed hundreds of millions – particularly “People of Color” – outside the U.S. look at our country and pray that they could have an “oppressor” like white Americans.

Because I have a pretty-easy-to-understand and natural bias in favor of my own conclusions, in the exchange below I have highlighted in blue the points I made that I think best buttress my conclusions.

Oh, and I did win one major victory — scattered throughout the exchange below you will notice that I did get BW to admit that not all whites are racists. This despite numerous attempts on his part, and that of his commenters, to assert otherwise… to insist that all whites are racists, because their skin is white. Frankly, it’s  a pretty major victory to have extracted that from the RGI. I just don’t like to gloat.

– xPraetorius

– NOTES –

(1) – Almost all the RGI direct torrents of horrific racial slurs, foul language, constant gratuitous insults and over-the-top, frothing, spittle-flecked, personal attacks and invective toward white people who disagree with them. This is the hyper-defensiveness I speak of. The goal is to delegitimize contrarian — particularly white contrarian — commentary at the start. After all, if one can simply demonize a commentator because of the mere color of his skin, then what good can the rest of that commentator’s thinking be? Furthermore, If you’re black and you disagree, then you’re a house slave, and again, all your thinking is illegitimate. In this way, all differing thought is bundled up and packaged into neat, little illegitimate boxes before the potential dissident even begins to talk or write.

Abagond is particularly good at this. See here, for example, in which he neatly categorizes all forms of disagreement as illegitimate both because “he’s heard it all so many times before,” and because of some external circumstance over which the dissident exercises no control. (Note, even though Abagond’s “heard it all before,” his refutations of these opposing viewpoints are always feeble, and full of unsubstantiated, or questionable or long-debunked or outdated or purely subjective “evidence.” He’s prone to “proving” current racism with 60-year old anecdotes and statistics, a dodge he tried constantly with me.)

This is the ultimate in intellectual laziness. However, when they all do it, it just becomes kind of ho-hum after a while. If one simply refuses to accept the premise — as I have — that anyone’s thinking can be delegitimized merely because of the accident of his birth, then the RGI is lost. They are clueless as to how to deal with you. Typically they then do the next most obvious ploy: banning one from their blogs with a parting shot at how racist one is. I was amazed that no one I encountered in the RGI thought to differentiate himself by controlling his temper or defensiveness, to try a more academic approach. BW, however, did sprinkle his fairly typical invective with occasional, grudging admiration. I couldn’t help myself. I grew to like him.

(2) – Abagond again, here, categorizes any disagreement whatsoever with the RGI as some kind of racism. He’s “identified” seven types of racism. If you disagree with the RGI, according to Abagond, you fall under one of these racism categories, and you are illegitimate from the start, so there’s no point in debating anything with you. I banged into this again and again and again and again. If you read about all of Abagond’s racisms, then you find that he’s covered every possibly current of disagreement from every possible source of every possible race. Again, the point is to delegitimize all disagreement from the start.

Does this quasi-religious devotion to unshakable beliefs remind you of anything? Sure it does. Totalitarians of all stripes, as well as all the left’s intellectual currents of thought extant today. The most glaring current examples today are homosexuality (particularly “gay marriage”) and environmentalism. Don’t think publicly differently from these people or else. Ask Brendan Eich.

I can’t lose sight of the fact that I really like BrothaWolf, and that I wish him the very best. However, in BrothaWolf, one can get a glimpse of the true totalitarian mindset that potentially lurks in all of us. Do you remember the stories of the concentration camp guards during World War II? Fresh from a long day of killing and incinerating innocent prisoners, they’d come home to learn that their dog had died, and cry bitter tears.

This same compartmentalization of thinking and feeling is rampant in the RGI… and describes BrothaWolf’s publicly expressed mindset perfectly. I have no doubt that most of the RGI are loving family members, brothers, sisters, sons, daughters (sadly, not so much husbands and wives at this point), but huge numbers of them then long for violent death and destruction to rain down on white people. All white people.

— BEGINNING OF BROTHAWOLF’S AND MY EXCHANGE ON HIS BLOG —

Nat Turners’ Revenge said:

March 30, 2014 at 9:10 pm

You don’t never shut da f*** up or use brevity in anything (convo/comments) do ya’?
You have the most drawn out answers of any racist, white supremacist sympathizer. No worries. NO ONE reads that BS past the 3rd sentence. As you were caucasoid.

  • Yep. Drawn out answers and no notes on them, just “This is what I say and I’m right based on myself.”

  • Well, that was as moronic a comment as I’ve seen, Nat. Not that I expect anything else from you.
    Nat, if you were to contribute something that either makes sense or is at least semi-literate or has any substance to it, the world would stop spinning from the sheer shock of it.
    Best,
    – x

     Brothawolf said:

  • And as always, you never explain why. You just cut down and take that as an intelligent response with no substance.

  • Because Nat’s comment was stupid, and contained racial slurs. I was under no obligation to respond to something so moronic with something wise, so I settled for witty and ironic.
    I’m composing a reply to your longish reply on my blog. It’ll be up soon.
    Best,
    – x

  • How was it stupid to you? What racial slurs? Instead of using names yourself, how about some explanations behind your comments?
    I knew sooner or later you would be writing a reply to my response. And I hope it will have more substance than your last ones.

  • BW, BW, re-read Nat’s poor excuse for a comment.
    Here’s a snippet: “You have the most drawn out answers of any racist, white supremacist sympathizer. No worries. NO ONE reads that BS past the 3rd sentence. As you were caucasoid.”
    Is it acceptable, for example, for me to call you a “negroid?” No, it’s not. So I don’t, and I won’t.
    That you allow gratuitous racist slurs on your site, doesn’t speak well for you.
    It was stupid, because, obviously, it said nothing, and used gratuitous insults and racial slurs to say it.
    BW, you have a college education… use it to do some critical thinking once in a while.
    Oh, and many, many people read what I write, and are reading it at this moment. Let’s leave it at that.  :)
    Best,
    – x

     Brothawolf said:

  • How are any of those words you have in bold print, racist?
    How do you know what I find is acceptable or not. Besides, neither of those “-oid” words were created by us, don’t you know.
    It’s my blog, and I allow whatever I see fit, especially if it annoys you, for some reason.
    Nat Turner’s Revenge’s comment said a lot more than you’re willing to give credit for. The usual problem is that you REFUSE to understand what it is.
    I do have a college education, and I don’t need you to tell me to do some critical thinking. In fact, that’s what I’ve been doing. What’s your excuse?
    Probably in your mind, you have a lot of readers. It doesn’t seem like through comments alone, but then again, that doesn’t prove much. However, if your ego is based on how many clicks you have, you can have it. It doesn’t prove that you’re better than I am, nor does it mean that you’re always right about everything. Sure, my blog gets numerous clicks, but I’m not in it for popularity. I dunno about you, but I have other worries. And not one of them is being so concerned about what an average blogger says that he would almost monitor his articles talking about a subject he has considerable contempt for.

  • That you allow gratuitous racist slurs on your site, doesn’t speak well for you.
    Sure it does a*****e. Ever hear of your 1st ammendment, freedom of speech? Here is some free speech for you, f*** off!
    Is it acceptable, for example, for me to call you a “negroid?”
    Yes it is acceptable to call you caucasoid, which is tame. I prefer mother****ing *** *** personally.

  • We await your dumb f***ery with bated breath xperious, or is it Bugs Bunny?
    [See note above]

     xPraetorius said:

  • @BW — in answer to your post. Yes, “caucasoid” is a racial slur. I don’t care who coins an “-oid” word. It wasn’t you or I… if it’s a slur, it’s a slur. Man, BW, you have more irrelevant deflections up your sleeve than anyone except maybe Abagond!
    If you allow it, then you traffic in racist slurs, and you have nothing to say to anyone else who also might traffic in such scummy language.
    And, yes, I do know what you find acceptable and not. It’s not like you keep it hidden. It’s called a “blog” and it’s pretty much available to anyone in the world with an internet connection.
    For example, you allow racist slurs on your web site. That speaks very ill of you, and I advise you to stop the practice.
    You also allow moronic, semi-literate personal attacks on your web site (eg, Herneith, above) and I advise you to stop that practice as well.
    You also allow and use language that might indicate that your educational attainment is lacking…
    Nat’s comment was illiterate. It said nothing that speakers or readers of English could logically glean from it.
    I truly don’t care how many readers you think I have. I don’t need readers… I need, and have, viewers. More than you probably could imagine.  :) I figure you are one of them, from time-to-time.
    You’ll notice that I never even hinted that I’m better than you in anything I’ve ever said or written. Why? I don’t believe it. I’m much nicer than you; that seems likely. Why? Because I’m not a racist. I don’t insult people. I don’t cuss them out. I don’t allow others to cuss others out on my blog.
    As regards your “critical thinking,” should I give you the real rundown about some of your conclusions? Things like all white people are racists? Things like that wouldn’t pass for critical thinking in third grade. How about your constantly saying things that are obviously false? Things like telling others what white people think? Are you, indeed, a white person, BW? If not, then you can’t possibly tell anyone what white people think, unless they tell you. Again, a third-grader would understand that.
    I have no doubt about your ability to produce critical thought, but you haven’t, publicly at least, shown any inclination to do so.
    Best,
    – x

  • I don’t deflect. I face it head on. You’re deflecting by turning the history of those words into an irrelevant matter, but that’s unintelligent to do so in any conversation.
    Like I said, this is my blog, and I don’t need you or anyone else to tell me how to run it or what to blog about. Period. If you have a problem with that, you can stop coming altogether and be done with it. But it seems you can’t or won’t, you being a control freak. Oh! I’m sorry. Is ‘freak’ a slur as well?
    Herneith is allow to comment on my blog if she wishes. She has never – NEVER disrespected me the way you have. (And I know you’ll deny ever saying anything deplorable or condescending giving your implied sociopathic traits.) But you, on the other hand, disrespect other commenters, and you are obsessed with discrediting me with baseless assumptions.
    So far, you have brought nothing of substance to prove me wrong in anything I’ve said. All this is high school namecalling online with you masking it as constructive criticism. Anyone on the outside would see this and shake their heads at the amount on the neverending nonsense you leave behind. You continue to mouth off about how my readers and I are of lower intelligence. And this is due to the fact that you don’t agree with them? You really are showing your immature colors.
    Lastly, I never said that all whites are racists. That’s what YOU said. Again, you’re putting words into my mouth. Instead of constantly telling me how what I’ve written is false, how about back it up with with actual info. You using you as your own source is unacceptable. You are not some great oracle of knowledge as you may think you are. So, until you can come up with something actually substantial, do yourself a favor and quit coming here before you humiliate yourself further.

  • Again, point-by-point:
    You said:

     I don’t deflect. I face it head on. You’re deflecting by turning the history of those words into an irrelevant matter, but that’s unintelligent to do so in any conversation.

    My reply:

     Yes, the history of the words is irrelevant. BW, your mystical, magical thinking is a mess. You ascribe magical powers to mere sounds meant to convey meaning. The meaning of the words changes with the passage of time until, yes, their provenance is absolutely irrelevant. Linguistics 101, BW. I speak three other languages fluently, and several others with a bit less familiarity… believe me, the origin of words, while fascinating, is irrelevant to their actual meaning today.
    And, yes, you deflect constantly… this odd game of “xPrae says white racism doesn’t exist” that you play is pure deflection. you’ve forced me to waste lots of time with that little canard.
    However, I’m patient, BW, very patient.

    You said:

     Like I said, this is my blog, and I don’t need you or anyone else to tell me how to run it or what to blog about. Period. If you have a problem with that, you can stop coming altogether and be done with it. But it seems you can’t or won’t, you being a control freak. Oh! I’m sorry. Is ‘freak’ a slur as well?

    My reply:

     I’m not telling you how to run your blog. Don’t put words in my mouth. However, if you allow racist slurs from your commenters, then it doesn’t speak well of you… please feel free to run your blog any way you wish to. Even if it makes you seem like a hypocritical nitwit.
    Please feel free to call me names whenever you want, if you need that to make yourself feel better. More mature people typically don’t need that kind of silliness.

    You said:

     Herneith is allow to comment on my blog if she wishes. She has never – NEVER disrespected me the way you have. (And I know you’ll deny ever saying anything deplorable or condescending giving your implied sociopathic traits.) But you, on the other hand, disrespect other commenters, and you are obsessed with discrediting me with baseless assumptions.

    My reply:

     To all appearances (<– Note the clause), Herneith is a despicable racist. I could be wrong, but her writing is pretty full of animosity toward me solely because my skin is white. Sorry… that’s a racist. Yes, she can comment on your blog all she wants. It still speaks poorly of you that you allow her reprehensible personal attacks on another commenter who disagrees with her. I’d never allow that on my blog. However, I know where it comes from, since you give yourself permission to attack me personally as well. You do prove pretty comprehensively that I’m just a nicer person than you.  :)
    You do have one thing correct. I have very little respect for Nat, Herneith or “diary” … To all appearances (<– Note the clause), these three people are really ugly racists. None of them has ever posted an even slightly intelligent post that I’ve ever read. There is the occasional nugget in your stuff, BW… it’s what leads me to believe that you’re older than both Nat and Herneith.

    You said:

     So far, you have brought nothing of substance to prove me wrong in anything I’ve said. All this is high school namecalling online with you masking it as constructive criticism. Anyone on the outside would see this and shake their heads at the amount on the neverending nonsense you leave behind. You continue to mouth off about how my readers and I are of lower intelligence. And this is due to the fact that you don’t agree with them? You really are showing your immature colors.

    My reply:

     You’re floundering, BW. You will notice, if you re-read everything I’ve written, that I’ve never even hinted at the thought that I’m somehow smarter than you or anyone else. Read it well, BW: What I’ve written is, pretty obviously, more intelligent than what you’ve written. That’s really not debatable.
    Am I more intelligent than you? I have no idea under the sun. I’m not, as you can surely tell, in the habit of saying anything about things I have no clue about. To the contrary, I’m constantly fending off people– like you — telling me things they couldn’t possibly know. For example: you always telling me about what white people think, and know, and feel, and all that pseudo-intellectual flapdoodle you’re so fond of.

    You said:

     So far, you have brought nothing of substance to prove me wrong in anything I’ve said. All this is high school namecalling online with you masking it as constructive criticism. Anyone on the outside would see this and shake their heads at the amount on the neverending nonsense you leave behind. You continue to mouth off about how my readers and I are of lower intelligence. And this is due to the fact that you don’t agree with them? You really are showing your immature colors.

    My reply:

     This is a throwaway… no response needed. However, if you re-read, you will see that I engaged in no name-calling.

    Best,
    – x

  • Yes, the history of the words is irrelevant. BW, your mystical, magical thinking is a mess. You ascribe magical powers to mere sounds meant to convey meaning. The meaning of the words changes with the passage of time until, yes, their provenance is absolutely irrelevant. Linguistics 101, BW. I speak three other languages fluently, and several others with a bit less familiarity… believe me, the origin or words, while fascinating, is irrelevant to their actual meaning today.
    And, yes, you deflect constantly… this odd game of “xPrae says white racism doesn’t exist” that you play is pure deflection. you’ve forced me to waste lots of time with that little canard.
    However, I’m patient, BW, very patient.
    You really are serious! So, I guess it doesn’t matter if I call you a crazy ass, warped, control obsessed, racist cracker with an overwhelming white paternalistic motif. Don’t get upset though, because the history of those words don’t matter, like you said. And by the way, I can curse on my own blog.
    I’m not the one who’s constantly copying and pasting other articles from other bloggers just to tear them down repeating the “white racism doesn’t exist” crap. You need to face reality and see how full of it you really are.
    I’m not telling you how to run your blog. Don’t put words in my mouth. However, if you allow racist slurs from your commenters, then it doesn’t speak well of you… please feel free to run your blog any way you wish to. Even if it makes you seem like a hypocritical nitwit.
    Please feel free to call me names whenever you want, if you need that to make yourself feel better. More mature people typically don’t need that kind of silliness.
    Then shut the fuck up about me allowing certain words on my blog. It’s that simple. But as usual, you double-talk and show your hypocrisy. And it shows in your responses.
    To all appearances (<– Note the clause), Herneith is a despicable racist. I could be wrong, but her writing is pretty full of animosity toward me solely because my skin is white. Sorry… that’s a racist. Yes, she can comment on your blog all she wants. It still speaks poorly of you that you allow her reprehensible personal attacks on another commenter who disagrees with her. I’d never allow that on my blog. However, I know where it comes from, since you give yourself permission to attack me personally as well. You do prove pretty comprehensively that I’m just a nicer person than you.  :)
    You do have one thing correct. I have very little respect for Nat, Herneith or “diary” … To all appearances (<– Note the clause), these three people are really ugly racists. None of them has ever posted an even slightly intelligent post that I’ve ever read. There is the occasional nugget in your stuff, BW… it’s what leads me to believe that you’re older than both Nat and Herneith.
    First off, you don’t even know what the word “racist” means. Second, she’s not berating you just because you’re white. She’s calling you out because you’re being condescending and proud of it. Not to mention she has most likely encountered other whites like you, and she is understandably sick of it. Too bad you won’t understand where she’s coming from seeing as how you like to talk down to people instead of at them when they disagree, like a spoiled child.
    You’re floundering, BW. You will notice, if you re-read everything I’ve written, that I’ve never even hinted at the thought that I’m somehow smarter than you or anyone else. Read it well, BW: What I’ve written is, pretty obviously, more intelligent than what you’ve written. That’s really not debatable.
    Am I more intelligent than you? I have no idea under the sun. I’m not, as you can surely tell, in the habit of saying anything about things I have no clue about. To the contrary, I’m constantly fending off people– like you — telling me things they couldn’t possibly know. For example: you always telling me about what white people think, and know, and feel, and all that pseudo-intellectual flapdoodle you’re so fond of.
    If you’re not more intelligent than I am, act like it. Why not humble yourself and learn instead of telling others what to think? Why not just consider that what you know, or not know, about racism is grossly incorrect. Why not learn from the people who’ve been through it, instead of telling them what they’ve been through wasn’t racist. That’s a sign of being a first-class prick, and you seem to see no shame in it, just like a sociopath.
    Now, obviously you want to continue this little back and forth because you can’t stand me thinking for myself. You’ll prove it by responding with the same lines. If you plan to do that, you may as well give up. Your racism denial view of the world is insignificant in the face of reality. Deal with it.

  • Again, point-by-point:
    You said:

     You really are serious! So, I guess it doesn’t matter if I call you a crazy ass, warped, control obsessed, racist cracker with an overwhelming white paternalistic motif. Don’t get upset though, because the history of those words don’t matter, like you said. And by the way, I can curse on my own blog.

    My reply:

     No, it doesn’t matter if you call me all those silly things. By all means, feel free to call me all those names if you wish. It doesn’t bother me a bit. You sound like a racist, hick, slack-jawed, drooling, mouth-breathing, IQ-deprived half-wit when you do it, but, that’s certainly your right. As you mentioned, it is your blog. You can certainly appear as much like a jackass as you wish. I, however, counsel against it. Try one time having some class, BW. Try one time not sounding like an uneducated, illiterate blockhead. Just see whether you can do it. You’re not an illiterate blockhead. Why do you write and sound like one?

    You said:

     I’m not the one who’s constantly copying and pasting other articles from other bloggers just to tear them down repeating the “white racism doesn’t exist” crap. You need to face reality and see how full of it you really are.

    My reply:

     You’ll note that since we’ve been having these nice chats I haven’t commented on any of your later sophomoric essays in my own blog. I’m a man of my word. I find it curious that you would exhort me to “face reality,” when you keep hallucinating that I’ve said that white racism doesn’t exist. That little mantra of yours is so delusional, you just have to be smoking something that is distancing your silly self from reality.  :) That distant from reality, you would think that those who disagree with you are far from reality. That’s self-evident.

    You said:

     Then shut the f*** up about me allowing certain words on my blog. It’s that simple. But as usual, you double-talk and show your hypocrisy. And it shows in your responses.

    My reply:

     Again, please feel free to sound as much like an under-educated moron as you wish. Are you an under-educated moron, BW? I don’t think so. Why don’t you demonstrate that you’re not. It’s actually pretty easy. Eliminate the dirty words, the personal attacks, the racial slurs, etc… Give it a try. Are you afraid to try?

    You said:

     First off, you don’t even know what the word “racist” means.

    My reply:

     Yes I do. Furthermore, I’ve heard your definition of racism. It’s wrong. Here’s the correct definition: “A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race” (From the dictionary. Friendly hint: you might try to use one from time-to-time.)

    You said:

     Second, she’s not berating you just because you’re white.

    My reply:

     Yes, she is. She’s berating me because I’m white, and because I challenge her addiction to her imaginary victimhood.

    You said:

     She’s calling you out because you’re being condescending and proud of it. Not to mention she has most likely encountered other whites like you, and she is understandably sick of it. Too bad you won’t understand where she’s coming from seeing as how you like to talk down to people instead of at them when they disagree, like a spoiled child.

    My reply:

     Nope. She’s “calling me out” because I’m white, and you know it. Neither you nor she nor I have any idea whether or not she’s encountered “other whites like me.” We’re a vastly diverse group, so there’s no possible way ever to know that. She’s sick of her imagined oppression. Here’s her most likely problem: she’s worried that her insecurities will be found out, and that she won’t have a real excuse for potential future failures. She’s likely young… her writing is very immature and stupid. You and I both know that she’s heard only that white people will hold her back all her life, and she has embraced the excuse prophylactically. She’s probably turned her future failure into an inevitability and she has her excuse all lined up. The white man did it! Her writing seems to make that pretty transparent.
    I am somewhat condescending from time-to-time — it’s a fault, I admit it. However, Herneith is most likely a hate-filled racist. Between you and me, I’d rather have my character flaw than hers, wouldn’t you?
    Furthermore, you — and Herneith — have nothing to say regarding my tone. I’ve been condescending — you’ve been vicious. Should I give you some examples? In this post alone, you said: (1) shut the f*** up, (2) called me a crazy a**, (3) called me warped, control obsessed, a racist cracker, a hypocrite a pr*** and paternalistic, as well as a sociopath. In THIS post alone, BW! In other posts of yours there are many more. There’s no shortage of whackadoodle insults you’ve directed toward me. Furthermore, you’ve frequently endorsed the racial slurs and vicious insults others have pointed at me.
    Face it, BW, you’ve treated me one whole heckuva lot worse than I’ve ever treated you. I’m not smarter than you, but I am one whole huge bunch nicer than you. Are you man enough to admit it? Are you man enough to grow up, to apologize and to stop?
    I was.
    Not sure whether you remember, but I did slip up once regarding you and, in a fit of pique, I called you an idiot. As soon as I recognized it, I immediately apologized to you — and publicly — on my own blog. So again, BW, are you man enough to recognize your own abuse of someone whose only offense is to disagree with you? Are you man enough to apologize publicly? If you’re not, then internally at least, you should be intelligent enough and self-aware enough to admit that you might be wrong about a whole bunch of other things as well.
    At this point, I’m not the only one asking you: Are you really nothing more than a cheap bully, BW? I believe better of you… why don’t you try to act like it?
    This is kind of a big moment for you, BW… this is an opportunity for real growth for you. Again, as happens so often in life, and especially in America, it’s your choice. Are you going to choose the path of growth? Of learning and greater awareness? Or are you going to continue in your comfortable ignorance?

    You said:

     If you’re not more intelligent than I am, act like it.

    My reply:

     I don’t understand what you mean here… am I supposed to dumb down what I write? That’d certainly be condescending!

    You said:

     Why not humble yourself and learn instead of telling others what to think?

    My reply:

     I’ve humbled myself many, many, many, many times. As I mentioned before, I used to believe as you do. I was wrong. I had to have a sufficiently open mind to be able to allow other views in, and to admit that I was wrong. It’s how I got to my current beliefs. Am I correct now? I think so, but that’s why I seek out others like you who disagree with me. And, if you re-read what I’ve written, you’ll see that I’ve never told you how to think. I would, however, encourage you to think for yourself. Your writing at this point is right in line, point-by-point-by-point-by-point with the slimebags atop the Race Grievance Industry. That would seem to indicate that your thinking is there as well.

    You said:

     Why not just consider that what you know, or not know, about racism is grossly incorrect.

    My reply:

     What I know about racism is most likely correct. That’s why.
    I’ve proven it. Here for example. In that series of exchanges, you will note that I documented thoroughly my premise. You should re-read it.

    You said:

     Why not learn from the people who’ve been through it,

    My reply:

     Why would you presume that I haven’t?

    You said:

     instead of telling them what they’ve been through wasn’t racist.

    My reply:

     I, of course, never said any such thing. I did say that anecdotes simply can not say anything about the greater society. Sorry, it’s just true. And, it’s kind of something we all learn in the third grade, BW.

    You said:

     That’s a sign of being a first-class pr***, and you seem to see no shame in it, just like a sociopath.

    My reply:

     So, since what you describe is exactly how you treat me, are you a first-class pr***, BW, or just a massive hypocrite? Is it really ok for you to abuse me, but not for me to call you on it? I gave you concrete examples of abuse — in this post alone — of which you are rather obviously guilty, all the while accusing me of being abusive. That’s just weird, and it certainly doesn’t put you in a good light, BW.

    You said:

     Now, obviously you want to continue this little back and forth

    My reply:

     Sure… I’m enjoying our little chat.

    You said:

     because you can’t stand me thinking for myself.

    My reply:

     If only you would think for yourself! Your writing bespeaks thinking that is so unbelievably pedestrian, conventional and, frankly, feeble, that you should be embarrassed to publish it.

    You said:

     You’ll prove it by responding with the same lines. If you plan to do that, you may as well give up. Your racism denial view of the world is insignificant in the face of reality. Deal with it.

    My reply:

     This was incoherent. If reality corresponds with what I say, as it most likely does, then my “same lines” are still insignificant. To say the sky is blue corresponds perfectly with reality, but is insignificant… it does have the advantage of being… true.

    Best,
    – x

  • @BW, something’s been bugging me, and I think I might have found the nub of it. You just might be right about something.
    Look, I love you like a brother. You know that, right? But, this thing that’s been nagging me at the back of my mind wouldn’t let me go ’til I found a way to express it. I hope I’ve managed to do it here.
    BW, you show a dogged will to retain one conclusion to the exclusion of all others, and despite mountains of evidence against it. This notion of yours? The impression that somehow I think that, as you say, “there is no white racism in America today.” Despite the well-documented fact that I’ve said many dozens of times>— in your own blog! — that there is white racism out there, but not much, and that it’s not a big problem in America today. Yet, you seem unable to get this idea into your noggin, accusing me over and over and over and over and over and over and over again of insisting that there is no white racism in America.
    This accusation of yours is so crashingly dumb, so completely at odds with the thoroughly documentedcontrary truth (because I’ve repeated my point ad nauseum in your very own blog!  :) ), that it has left me scratching my head.know you’re not that stupid! Yet, you keep saying that astonishingly stupid thing over and over and over and over again. In your last post, to which I responded in some detail, you repeated this obvious fiction three times!
    I could conceive of only two possible conclusions: (1) that you are intentionally playing an infantile game. (The RGI is notorious for this. For example, someone might say something perfectly innocent, and all of a sudden, out of the blue, he’s committed some newly-coined, grievous sin, exposing his once-hidden racism in coded language or some such nitwittery) or (2) you are selectively stupid.
    Not to worry, BW! I’m not name-calling here. We all do it. I’m absolutely selectively stupid about some things: my kids, for example, or the Red Sox. These are areas where I’m not prepared to be objective, and I admit it. In other words, about my kids or the Red Sox, I’m intentionallyselectively stupid. I’ve been embarrassingly selectively stupid about several other things in my life as well, and I’m not afraid, if a bit embarrassed,  :) ) to admit it.
    In the case of my attitude toward my kids, it’s likely the right thing to be selectively stupid…they know they always have someone who unconditionally will do his level best to act in their best interests at all times. That’s a right and proper understanding for them to have…kind of like: “the sun will rise in the morning.” In the case of my selective stupidity concerning the Red Sox, it’s a fun little side interest, and causes harm to no one.
    You were able to construct in your mind a scenario in which the doofus Kyle Hunt, and his weird “White Man’s March” (Btw, that’s a better name for what he did: A “Weird White Man’s March.”  :) ) fits into a larger framework of all these other “racisms” you and the rest of the RGI have fabricated. You know: “institutional racism,” “color-blind racism,” “race realism,” “ghost racism,” (Oops — that one’s mine!  :) ), “under-every-rock-and-behind-every-tree racism” (Oops! Mine again!)…
    That was some pretty complex imagining there, BW! You’re obviously not stupid. So why, then, can’t you sometimes understand the plainest of English? That’s what has bugged me for some time.
    As I said above, either you’re playing a silly game, or you’re selectively stupid.
    I’ve come to the conclusion that you’re an honest man; that you say what you mean and you mean what you say; that what you write here is truly what you mean. Therefore, all that remains is to conclude that you are being selectively stupid.
    This could be understandable. I’m figuring you’ve spent many years wallowing in the bitterness and rancor that you display toward white people. You frequently rage against the fact that white people have ordered the country around their own interests. Well, why wouldn’t they?!? After all, they are the majority ethnicity in the country! When someone else becomes the majority ethnicity — with a critical mass of numbers — as hispanics are heading toward, then they will order the country around what they perceive as their best interests.
    I’m guessing (<– key word) that you’ve spent so many years marinating in this hatred for white people, that when I come along and prove your entire world view to be wrong and misguided, your perfectly natural reaction would be one of selective stupidity. Some would call this “defensiveness,” or “hyper-defensiveness” (due to the over-the-top hostile reactions of ugly racists like Nat or Herneith). After all, such vitriol would be perfectly unnecessary if you were confident and sure of your beliefs.
    If, for example, you were so sure of the veracity of your beliefs, then it would be child’s play to pick apart my feeble efforts at gainsaying them, right? So, why do you have so much difficulty, and why the apparent need to be so incredibly defensive? The answer is easy: your fear that you might have been wrong, tempts you powerfully to be selectively stupid. After all, who ever wants to face the fact that they have been wrong for decades?!? This is exactly what the flat-earthers of the past had to deal with when faced with convincing evidence that the earth is round.
    Nowadays we look upon those selfsame flat-earthers as anachronistic throwbacks to a more ignorant time and age. This is the reality that you folks in the Race Grievance Industry face. You’re flat-earthers. Despite mountains of evidence right in front of your face, countering your belief that America is a racist hellhole, with barely concealed hostility behind every white face, you need to cling to your long-antiquated, long-disproven, long-gone beliefs. After all, they’ve animated your thoughts and actions for decades now. No one ever willingly gives up his long-held beliefs, especially, to admit he’s been wrong!
    Think back, again, to the flat-earthers of the long-ago past.They were just as defensive as you are today. So many who understood the earth to be round faced the same vitriolic, hostile hyper-defensiveness that you in the RGI exhibit today. The new, correct thinkers back then were “heretics!” They were “evil!” They had to be stopped! And, for a while, they were. But as back then, the correct thinkers will, one day, win out in America.
    So, back to the top. About what precisely were you right? You’ve long maintained that you were inadequate to the task of debating with me on your blog. You’ve said quite overtly that you’re not prepared to accept serious, countervailing input. Heck! You even have a regular feature called “Vern’s Venting.” Venting hardly constitutes a serious contribution to greater understanding of what’s all around us. And the Vern’s Venting feature is typically sophomoric, simplistic and moronic. In other words, you’re not a serious observer of the country, and I probably should try to find someone else with greater knowledge and a greater desire to understand and to trade knowledge and insights. I probably will. There is very little learning, depth or insight to be found in your pages.
    You are, as always, welcome at my blog … at any time, but I might not treat your “contributions” as seriously as I used to, so you might not get the attention you used to receive.
    One more quick thing, and I offer it as friendly advice. Selective stupidity is voluntary stupidity. You can just as easily rid yourself of this intentional stupidity as you can cling to it. I assume that you’re a bit older, BW, than the deeply ignorant Herneith and Nat and “diary” … their rather obvious stupidity can likely be chalked up to energetic, youthful ignorance and inexperience. However, you’re never too old to grow and progress. This is an opportunity for you, BW, to grow. It’ll be difficult, because you’ll have to make a conscious decision to toss off long-encrusted, misplaced and corrosive acrimony and resentment. However, you’ll be ever so much the better for it. I offer you this counsel as a friend.
    Best,
    – x

  • Prae,
    Frankly, I’ll be honest. I’m too tired to respond to every single point, again. Don’t let it get to your head thinking that you’ve won, but if you do, so be it. I’m not in this to win, and I’m not going to waste anymore of my precious time on someone whose mind is made up. I’ve had enough.
    Say whatever you want. It doesn’t change anything. Unless, you know how it feels to be part of the “other” in this society, you can NEVER truly understand. Judging by your constant urge to consider it the eccentric ramblings of what you refer to as the Race Grievance Industry (RBI), why should I or anyone else try to argue on behalf of us? For that matter, why would anyone as sane as you claim to be try so hard to argue with someone like me?
    If you want to believe so hard that white racism is not as big an issue as I or others have made it out to be, fine. I can not prove to you that it’s a problem no matter how hard to try, because you’ve made up your mind. So, why continue this back-and-forth? It’s like trying to prove that sexism is a problem for women or homophobia is a problem for gays. If you are not willing to listen more and talk less, what’s the point?
    Like I said, I’m done. Go ahead and think that you’ve triumphed. It’s no skin off my nose. I’ll continue to know what I know, and that is I can not discount something that is so obvious. No amount of wishful thinking will cancel that.

    — END OF BROTHAWOLF’S AND MY EXCHANGE ON HIS BLOG —

Marriage Between a Man and a Woman: Just a Religious Ceremony?


What this guy said on his blog, here, is pretty much on the nose, except for his cavalier dismissal of marriage as “just a religious ceremony.”

We covered it satirically here.

Marriage is, of course, a cornerstone of western civilization, and in abolishing real marriage’s legal status, as we have in the western world, we have guaranteed a fundamentally changed version of western civilization in a very short time. Is it the doom of western civilization? I don’t know. However, here is a sobering truth. All the cultures elsewhere — no exceptions —  that don’t value specifically the union between a man and a woman, are either horrific totalitarian hellholes, or in sharp decline. (1)

In his post, the author at “The Daily Plunge” covered another extremely important aspect of the issue: What happens when one runs afoul of the New Thought Police.

Here is an interesting snippet from that piece:

Marriage is really just a religious ceremony, but if the state is involved then let anyone who wants to marry be married, including dogs, cats, fish and fowl.

I disagree, as mentioned above, with the premise that “marriage is really just a religious ceremony.” I recognize that the belief that marriage is just a religious ceremony — in our increasingly militantly secular society — is one of the prime elements of the country’s spiritual infrastructure that permits something as apparently ridiculous as the “gay marriage” movement.(2) The prime mover of “gay marriage” is, and always has been, money.

There’s never been any connection whatsoever with the abstract conceptual underpinnings of a free society. You’ve nearly always been able to marry whomever you please (if you could find the clergyman or woman willing to perform the service, and there have nearly always been plenty of them), cohabitate with whomever you please, leave your assets to whomever you please, be visited in the hospital by whomever you please, etc. It’s simply not always been financially advantageous to be gay. But that’s only like choosing to be a janitor. You should never expect to get rich from it. Read this well: with whom you choose to have sex, or to perform sex-like activities is your choice.

First and foremost, “gay marriage” is all about money. If there were no tax or other monetary advantages to getting hitched then, read it well, there would be no “gay marriage” movement.

All the cases brought before the various supreme courts of the various states, and foundering on the shores of the Supreme Court of the United States, used the high-falutin’, tear-inducin’, heart-strings-pullin’ language of justice and fairness and equality.  But, all were about whether one gay member of a couple could inherit the wealth of another at a lower tax rate, or somehow obtain some other financial benefit.

Remember what started it all? Gays were ticked off that they couldn’t include their “partners” in their work insurance. Money. Gays view marriage not as a religious ceremony, but as a “ceremoney.”

Of course, the flow of that manufactured controversy went in the “How Do We Force Insurance Rules to be Gay-friendly?” direction, rather than in the “How Can We Allow Businesses More Freedom to Insure Whomever They Goshdarned Please?” direction.

Interestingly, all the court decisions handed down in favor of “gay marriage” then used the distracting and irrelevant abstract language of justice, and fairness and equal rights. Oh, and by the way, pay up.

What the author of The Daily Plunge says is correct. If marriage, and sex,  are (forgive the pun) decoupled from the idea of producing and raising children to productive adulthood, then there’s no reason whatsoever to prevent any consenting people (adulthood is an arbitrary construct, after all) from marrying. How about two straight men? Why not a straight man and a gay man? How about a straight man and a gay woman? How about a father and his son? — if, that is,  the inheritance laws are more friendly to married couples than to children. How about a mother and her daughter?(3)

Why the heck not? Let’s face it: we’re simply awaiting the next lawsuit from the next financially savvy person who’s figured out that it’s just better to get hitched to someone or something, ’cause it’ll reduce present or future tax payments. It’ll have nothing to do with producing children or with sex or with anything that we all understand are intrinsic, built-in components of normal human relations (ie: marriage) because we’re freakin’ humans!

No, it’ll be about money.

Really though, if you actually think about it, permitting two people to marry purely for financial reasons, is also an artificial construct. Why permit “marriage” only for financial reasons? Why not for a shared love of baseball? Or stamp collecting? Or organic gardening? Or the Red Sox? Why should society favor money over these other equally inspiring passions? 

The answer to that is easy: Society is a soulless, disinterested entity. It’s “interests” are simple and there’s only one: self-preservation. It’s when societies — or empires , or civilizations –  lose sight of this paramount interest that they collapse and pass away into the dustbin of history.

Gays, blacks, feminists, Hispanics, former Japanese internees and other bleating grievance groups have it pretty good here in America, where the eternal boogeyman — the white dude — has been rolling over and coughing up trillions of his hard-earned bucks for decades now.

We should stop “gay marriage” in its tracks for at least one simple reason: It’s for gays’ own good.

No gravy train lasts forever.

– xPraetorius

(1) – It should be noted that there is not one country on earth that could be said to be “on the rise.” This is not an alarming fact in itself: even consistent upward trendlines have intermittent dips. However, the downward trend has never before been fueled by the simultaneous dismantling of the very institutions everyone knows support progress. Except once: the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. One more thing. All societies in sharp decline head toward the ultimate dénouement of societal decline: totalitarian hellholes. Brief summary: All societies that devalue marriage between a man and a woman are either totalitarian hellholes or future totalitarian hellholes.

(2) - Jonah Goldberg of the indispensable National Review Online may have said it best. He said (here):

Future historians will likely be flummoxed by the moment we’re living in. In what amounts to less than a blink of an eye in the history of Western civilization, homosexuality has gone from a diagnosed mental disorder to something to be celebrated — or else.

(3) – The prohibitions against incest wouldn’t apply here, since they are meant to prevent biological reproduction between family members. Of course, a mother and her daughter, or a father and his son, couldn’t reproduce biologically.

 

 

 

Why Americans Should be Afraid of the Thought Police

Why Americans Should be Afraid of the Thought Police


xPraetorius:

This guy(below) makes some very good points. I find nothing with which to disagree in this post of his. My only quibble is that the author might be just a tad too calm in the face of the plainly fascistic state-of-mind that railroaded Brendan Eich out of his position at the helm of Mozilla.

Update: I spoke a tad too quickly above. I have one basic disagreement with an assertion in this piece. I believe, of course, that marriage is much, much more than “just a religious ceremony.”

Other than that, though, this guy is pretty much on the nose.

Originally posted on Daily Plunge:

mozilla-logo The gay marriage debate is winding down in the United States. An increasing number of Americans are growing comfortable with the idea and at some point it’s very likely it will be legal throughout the United States. This isn’t an issue I feel very strongly about. Is it a human rights issue? Not really. Getting married has never really considered a basic human right. Marriage is really just a religious ceremony, but if the state is involved then let anyone who wants to marry be married, including dogs, cats, fish and fowl.

There are no laws against having children with multiple partners at the same time, but there are laws against being married to multiple people at the same time. It’s a strange world. What really bothers me is how some of these political debates are being handled. This week Brendan Eich of Mozilla was forced to resign as CEO when…

View original 537 more words

Want to Write Better?


It’s simple, though it requires a lot of time, commitment and effort. However, if you truly want to write better, this won’t prove to be a problem. Fortunately, it’s well within the capabilities of nearly everyone.

Some quick hints:

  • Practice, practice, practice.
    • Write a lot. Keep a diary. Write a book (whether for publication or not). Write essays. Write. A lot.
  • Develop a style you like, and hone it with lots of the aforementioned practice. Interestingly, the more you practice one particular style, the easier it will be to write using other styles when the occasion calls for it.
  • Review.
    • You can always say something better, or more forcefully, or more effectively.
  • Proofread.
    • You’ll be shocked at how many embarrassing things you’ll discover in proofreading. Proofread! You’ll be very glad you did!

Last, but never least: I never, ever, not ever write without recourse to dictionary.com and thesaurus.com. I’m a great speller (and modest about it! :) ), but I never write without dictionary.com. I have a very large vocabulary (and I’m modest about that too! :) ), but I never write without thesaurus.com. When you write, you come to appreciate the importance of the right word, at the right time, and spelled correctly.

– xPraetorius

Environmentalists Have Been Lying All Along: Admitting Global Warming “Info Manipulation” | National Review Online


Admitting Global Warming “Info Manipulation” | National Review Online.

Hitler did it too. Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, and so many other mass murderers throughout history have done it.

Yes, they lied…but also, and more importantly, they admitted openly they were lying, in “scholarly” articles, and essays, and books whose purpose was to justify the deceit as a weapon in support of some “greater good.”

In the above-linked essay, Wesley J. Smith shows us environmentalist thinking as it pertains to the truth.

The environmentalists have to lie, you see, because they need to whip us all into a fervor to support their agenda… or else we rubes and hicks in the populace might be tepid in our backing of their efforts, and most crucial, we might not open our wallets. Then, they might be forced to find an honest way to make a living.

An example? Al Gore (the “wh” is silent), for whom histrionically alarmist “environmentalism” has made a massive fortune.

There’s another word for making massive amounts of money from false premises: fraud.

– xPraetorius

More required reading (Part 4): The Downfall of Detroit | National Review Online


The Downfall of Detroit | National Review Online.

The great Mark Steyn writes about what we’ve been saying for some time now: The Democrat Party has owned America’s big cities for six decades, and what do they have to show for it? Vast, stinking hellholes awash in death, despair, crushing poverty, shattered families, lost generations of kids who become lost adults, who produce lost kids.

– xPraetorius

 

More required reading (Part 3): A Phalanx of Lies | National Review Online


A Phalanx of Lies | National Review Online.

Mark Steyn dissects Obamacare, and finds the putrefaction within. As always, Steyn is worth the read, because he’s the finest, wittiest, most laugh-out-loud-cry-out-loud trenchant political commentator on the planet today.

It’s not entirely redundant to say that he’s also the best political writer on the planet today.

– xPraetorius

More required reading (Part 2): Thus Spake Obama | National Review Online


Thus Spake Obama | National Review Online.

 

Why is this required reading? Because everything that Mark Steyn writes is required reading.

This piece, marveling at the imperial Presidency so nonchalantly established by Barack Obama, who himself, along with all lefty Democrats condemned the very idea of an imperial Presidency, directs the withering Steynian analysis at his Royal Highness’s incompetence.

Obama doesn’t come out of this well.

Well worth the read!

– xPraetorius

P.S.: I’ll have a couple of other Steyn recommendations as well.

Required Reading: Republicans and Blacks – Thomas Sowell – Page 1


Republicans and Blacks – Thomas Sowell – Page 1.

If you don’t know these things that the great Thomas Sowell has written here, then you don’t understand why the Democrats, who have owned the black vote for something like 60 years now, have delivered no real assistance to that beleaguered people. They haven’t had to. Worse, the “assistance” and the “solutions” the Democrats have proposed and won have left a swath of destruction, death, poverty, violence, bitterness and despair wherever they have been implemented.

Republicans — the only party to treat black people like real people, the party that ended slavery, segregation, Jim Crow and other evils — haven’t told blacks precisely why the GOP really has earned their votes over the decades.

You owe it to yourself to read the above-linked essay.

– xPraetorius

Paco de Lucia & Ramon de Algéciras play Rumba Improvisada/Entre dos Aguas – YouTube


Paco de Lucia & Ramon de Algéciras play Rumba Improvisada/Entre dos Aguas – YouTube.

And here is Paco in his younger days — full of energy, passion, grace and joie de vivre.

He was a truly great guitarist.

The above-linked song is reminiscent of the now legendary “Mediterranean Sundance” that Paco recorded with Al DiMeola several decades ago, and where I met Paco.

I remember how his and Al’s playing grabbed me by the throat and didn’t let me go. I had to pursue this awakening genre and see whether I could become a guitarist within it.

I did become such a guitarist, and to this day, and forever, am grateful for the greatness of Paco de Lucia.

– xPraetorius

TRIBUTO A PACO DE LUCIA – YouTube


via TRIBUTO A PACO DE LUCIA – YouTube.

One of my favorite guitarists of all time — Paco de Lucia — passed away recently, and the guy linked above did a tribute video for him. It’s pretty good.

Some time back , I posted a kind of back-handed tribute to Paco here.

My “tribute” said that Paco had deteriorated significantly since I had come to know his guitar playing all the way back in the 1970′s.

Sadly, apparently I was prescient.

– xPraetorius

 

Santa Ana Wind – Lawson Rollins, guitar – YouTube


Santa Ana Wind – Lawson Rollins, guitar – YouTube.

Yep… this guy is just fantastic!

This is how an acoustic guitar of this kind should be played! Full, flat-out… expressing “itself” at the the top of “its” lungs.

This piece is fun, roguish, lyrical, energetic, chaotic and tightly-organized all at the same time.

Lawson Rollins is a wonderful guitarist!

 

– xPraetorius

The Fire Cadenza – Lawson Rollins, guitar – YouTube


The Fire Cadenza – Lawson Rollins, guitar – YouTube.

I love this piece!

I’ve been compared favorably to this guitarist, and I’m telling you right here and now that I don’t deserve it. (Yet, that is! :) )

Oh, I’m darned good, alright, but Lawson Rollins is a step above me. And I flat-pick.

– xPraetorius

 

Estas Tonne – Vilnius 2013 – YouTube


via Estas Tonne – Vilnius 2013 – YouTube.

This was a lot of fun. A bit artsy and precious maybe, but there is room for the artsy and precious in life! Not too much, but room all the same.

Sometimes I think that all great artists must pass through an artsy or precious — or both? — stage in their lives. It’s that stage — when they look at, or listen to, what they have done and say to themselves, “Did I really do that?!? I need to show that to other people!”

Picasso, I think, got stuck in such a stage, and never graduated to the place of true artistry.

Of course it didn’t help that the rest of the world kept reinforcing his silliness and telling him he was great.

I wonder how many millions of hours, and how many trillions of FunCrE‘s(1) have been wasted in contemplating various Picassos in the past century.

– xPraetorius

(1) FunCrE’s (pr.: FUN-cree) = FundamentalCreativeErgs: 1 FunCrE = 1 second of intellectual energy expended in the contemplation of the product of creative or pseudo-creative endeavor.

 

“Saying Hello” (Meditative Experience) by Estas Tonne – YouTube


“Saying Hello” (Meditative Experience) by Estas Tonne – YouTube.

This is wonderful. We’ll have more to say — positive and negative, a bit later on.

Ok, ok… let’s not say “negative.” Let’s just say that we’ll comment on the limits of this wonderful means of musical expression…without, I hope, diminishing from its sheer wonderfulness.

– xPraetorius

Estas Tonne – The Song of the Golden Dragon – Stadtspektakel Landshut 2011 – YouTube


Estas Tonne – The Song of the Golden Dragon – Stadtspektakel Landshut 2011 – YouTube.

This is some really nice stuff… this is actually how I play the guitar.

Only I flat-pick.

If you can find a flat-picker who sounds more than a bit like this, then that’s probably me.

Yes, I am all over YouTube, but I can’t tell you who I am, because this here is my other on-line persona. The one fighting for truth, justice and the American way. :)

– xPraetorius

Best magician in the world! (sleight of hand) – YouTube


Best magician in the world! (sleight of hand) – YouTube.

Ok, maybe not the “best magician in the world” — because I’m not competent to make that assessment… but he’s really good!

It’s real, serious, fun with cards. Note how he produces the thousands of cards in rhythm with the accompanying music.

Five stars!

– xPraetorius

Epic Win Compilation – Part 12 – HD – YouTube


Epic Win Compilation – Part 12 – HD – YouTube.

Some of this is just silly, but even the silly parts of it are pretty impressive in terms of recognizing the ability of humans to do astonishing things.

The “living mobiles” starting at about 4 minutes are wonderful! At 8 minutes, you start to think, “This is impossible.” At 10 minutes you’re convinced there’s some kind of trick.

Can you imagine how the earth would be if the scumbags of history had concentrated their efforts and their energies toward this kind of endeavor?

 

– xPraetorius

Which Side Are You On? | National Review Online


Which Side Are You On? | National Review Online.

An essay in which the great Kevin Williamson suggests that the lesser of two evils is, indeed, the lesser of two evils. He suggests that, unless Conservatives are ready to abandon the democratic process entirely, then it makes perfect sense to support and vote for the candidates who will be the least awful for the country in the White House, and in the chambers of Congress.

Yep.

Granted, some Democrats are good people, but their party discipline is ironclad and they always do what their thoroughly corrupt leadership tells them to do. In this way, they are frequently like well-meaning puppets; pod people who once were decent humans, but now are controlled by the forces of darkness.

Heck, you can’t even be a Democrat in good-standing if you’re not pro-death, pro-theft of individual property, anti-American strength worldwide, and convinced that America is the source of all that is bad in the world today.

Conservatives, get off your fences, and your hands, and work — hard – to defeat Democrats all across the land, in every elective office where they present themselves as candidates.

Yet another way to look at this: This country will be cleaning up after the Obama mess for decades – if we’re lucky. Cleaning up after a mediocre, or even a bad, Republican takes only a few short years.

One more way to look at it: If we had elected McCain, or Romney, then there are several disasters that simply never would have happened (see the excerpt from Williamson’s essay, below).

Here’s a key selection from Williamson’s essay, in which he tots up the swath of destruction the Obama Administration has cut across America(1).

The Obama administration has handed conservatives — and, more important, the country — disaster after disaster after disaster. Rather than scaling back the most worrisome aspects of the surveillance state and the so-called War on Terror, President Obama has expanded on them. Taxes are up, health insurance is a chaotic mess subject to ad hoc revision every time Democratic political necessities demand it, our allies are dispirited, our enemies emboldened, our religious liberties under attack by the very government entrusted with defending them, our economy anemic, with too many of our people unemployed and those who are employed earning too little.

I am not naïve enough to believe that having elected Mitt Romney president or consigning the Democrats to the minority in both houses of Congress would change all that. But unless you are ready to give up on electoral politics entirely — and I confess to wavering on that question with a bias toward despair — then it is a matter of deciding whether X is preferable to Y. And sometimes that is a pretty easy call. Contemplating the inevitable shortcomings of elected Republicans, conservatives may consider the situation and think: “The lesser of two evils is still evil.” And it is. But it’s also lesser. And if that’s the choice we have, it may be unpalatable — but it is a choice that we have to make. I liked the Cthulhu 2012 slogan — “Why Vote for a Lesser Evil?” — but that’s a joke, not a program. The reason to vote for a lesser evil is because we’re responsible  adults who don’t want the greater evil to prevail. [Emphasis added]

Do yourself a favor and read Kevin Williamson’s very commonsensical essay, linked above.

– xPraetorius

(1) We called Obama (here) the worst natural disaster ever to hit America. We weren’t kidding. We were right.

RGI: Race Grievance Insanity – A Tale of Two Blog Responses


Maybe “Race Grievance Insanity” is how we should rechristen the Race Grievance Industry. Below is some background concerning the RGI, followed by an in-depth analysis of the responses to two blog posts; one post by BrothaWolf, and the other by Abagond.

First some background:

Whenever I read RGI writings, I’m struck by how — there’s only one word for it — crashingly ignorant those writings are. I’m struck also by the pervasiveness of easy, breezy, lazy psychotic insanity throughout many of them. Chock full of transparently stupid, frequently jaw-droppingly insane conclusions, one would think the writers would be embarrassed to be publishing them. Yet, time and time and time and time and time again, they write the dumbest, craziest things and try to pass them off as deep thinking, or in-depth research, or profound insights, or advanced scholarship.

I’ve come to realize that the state-of-mind of the Race Grievance Industry resembles strikingly that of early 20th Century white people, who themselves were looking for all manner of nonsensical, and pseudo-scientific, and fraudulent and, frankly, racist ways to prove that black people were inferior. All while many of them were trying to find ways to extinguish the black race.

Nowadays, post after post after post after post after post from the RGI tells about how the lack of melanin in white skin, or the shape of their head, or their diets, hair color, eye color or the shape of their lips proves whites’ inferiority, or their evil character. Google and read up, for instance, on a certain “Dr. Llaila Afrika,” a race huckster and charlatan — and much beloved at Abagond’s blog —  who’s a black throwback to the same kind of whackadoodle racial “thinking” of more than 100 years ago!

And, nowadays, of course, we laugh, half-embarrassed and half-astonished, at the nitwittery of those long dead white racists and their obsessions with the kinky black hair, the full lips and the musculature and brow ridges of black people. Nowadays, everyone views those long ago researchers more as clowns than as “scientists.” Certainly their “thinking” has been rejected by all serious scientists for nearly a century(1).

Yet, that’s exactly how the RGI expresses itself today! In the 21st Century! After having struggled for decades to throw off such pseudo-scientific twaddle, the RGI then have embraced its fraudulent, race-based methods and thinking for themselves!

Go to Brotha Wolf’s blog — really the only proper name for him is Brotha Cryin’ Wolf — and see what I mean. Here is a guy for whom white racial animosity is literally everywhere around him. At every moment of every day he truly believes that he is the target of sneering, snarling, barely concealed, white-hot hatred from every (yes, every) Caucasian he encounters.

Brotha Wolf wrote a blog post that inadvertently admitted what we’ve been trying to say for some time here: that white racism is not a big problem in America today.(2) I posted a lengthy commentary on BW’s post here. Needless to say, BW was trying to convey exactly the opposite impression. He didn’t, and we called him on it.

 Below, however,  is one of the comments in reply to BW’s post from one of his fans. This particular reply was meant to pass for deep insight, and is one of the stupidest, most laughably imbecilic snippets of text I’ve ever encountered. It’s laced with the same psychosis I mentioned above. Yet the author, who goes by the strange moniker of “diaryofanegress”  takes it perfectly seriously. I’ve copied the post twice — first without commentary, then afterward with my own commentary, [in square brackets in red font.]

Here’s the first, unedited comment:

diaryofanegress said:

March 23, 2014 at 11:52 pm

Yurugu is feeling, slightly, the sins of his twisted, diseased, diabolical past, present and future with rising alarm. Having zero concept of karma, they are “stunned” and “caught off guard” as to why the entire Colored world harbours feelings of resentment and anger towards them.

Being deficient of melanin, the God Principle of the planet, they are unable to experience remorse and humility. They know, intrinsically, that they shall reap the benefits of what they have planted but arrogance will never permit them to admit it.

Their rising fear will manifest into more crimes against us and more laws restricting us but it will be of no avail. Yurugu WILL PERISH off the planet. Either by ways of the sword or by ways of Mother Nature. My wish is for a solar assassination of their nasty, beastiality-loving, pale asses.

By f***ers. [Offensive content edited]

Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out!

On second thought…I hope the door hits them real hard.

Now, here’s the post with added commentary:

diaryofanegress said:
March 23, 2014 at 11:52 pm

Yurugu ["Yurugu" is the moniker used for white people by one Marimba Ani, an Afro-centric "scholar" who wrote about European states of mind from an African perspective. "Yurugu" is supposedly an incomplete being, missing his feminine, civilizing half, who has taken over the world, and is the cause of all its problems. Get it? All the world's problems are masculine in nature.] is feeling, slightly, the sins of his twisted, diseased, diabolical past, present and future with rising alarm. Having zero concept of karma, they are “stunned” and “caught off guard” as to why the entire Colored world harbours [Side note: See how this barely literate commenter writes "Colored" and "harbours" in the same sentence. If a person is poorly acquainted with words, why should anyone take seriously her transmission of her thoughts via words?] feelings of resentment and anger towards them.

Being deficient of melanin, the God Principle of the planet,  they are unable to experience remorse and humility. They know, intrinsically, that they shall reap the benefits of what they have planted but arrogance will never permit them to admit it. [Just a tiny bit of out there, whackadoodle, thoroughly, howlingly, laughably nutty, pseudo-scientific-metaphysical flapdoodle here. Melanin is the "God Principle" of the planet?!? What the heck does that mean?!? And is that really supposed to pass for something that is not just out-and-out eye-rollingly goofy? It is, however, straight out of white racist, eugenicist nutball playbook of more than a century ago.

Now, can you tell me how anyone would know the capability of anyone else to experience remorse or humility? More mystical, magical mind-reading. This is an extremely common mistake by the RGI. Can you even imagine if a white person were to start telling anyone all about how black people think and feel? Do you think there might be some ridicule directed at such a white person? Ya think?!? So, finally, you see...all the world's problems are masculine (Yurugu) and white (melanin-deficient) in origin. Get it? From where do menanin-deficient men come mainly? Yep. Europe.]

Their rising fear will manifest into more crimes against us and more laws restricting us but it will be of no avail. Yurugu WILL PERISH off the planet. Either by ways of the sword or by ways of Mother Nature. [Here she anthropomorphizes "Mother Nature," suggesting that somehow "Mother Nature" will rid the world of white people in the near or not-so-near future. Oh? And, pray tell, how will "she" do that while sparing all the non-white people sprinkled in and amongst the whites? I always get a chuckle out of those who so sneeringly ridicule Christianity, then tell of their belief that the rocks and trees and wind are all out to get us white dudes!] My wish is for a solar assassination of their nasty, beastiality-loving, pale asses. [Here "diaryofanegress" fantasizes about the violent death of more than a billion people. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and any other mass murderer had nothing on this woman!]

By f***ers. [Offensive content edited.]

Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out!

On second thought…I hope the door hits them real hard. [Ooooohhh... that was a clever closing! :) Sorry -- had to inject some snark here. It's hard to take such dingbattery seriously, even though the author does.]

[Next, below, in BrothaWolf's reply to "diary," we see that, with his endorsement of the "door hitting them real hard," BW actually signs on to "diaryofanegress's"  fantasy of by far the vastest genocide history has ever seen.]

  • Brothawolfsaid:

    March 24, 2014 at 2:53 am
    If it does hit them, they’ll likely blame it on blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and anyone else. lol [Lol! Mass death! Kill all white people! If only the sun would just wipe 'em all out, then they'd be dead! Lol! Lol! Lol!]

This brings to mind an exchange I had with some of these same people at Abagond’s blog. I posed the hypothetical of a genie coming to earth and offering to kill – or not — all whites, depending on a vote of the black and brown people.

It wasn’t really a trick question.

The answer is obvious and simple: Of course no one in his or her right mind would vote to extinguish an entire race! Hello!

You shouldn’t have to think about that for more than a nanosecond. Yet in the entire exchange, comprising several dozens of commenters, most of them black, and hundreds of posted comments, not a single solitary black or brown person defended the decency of his or her race and said they would not engage in wholesale genocide if presented with the opportunity to do so. Not one.

I mentioned that, in one fell swoop, the entire group had admitted they were no better, and in fact were probably demonstrably worse, than the group they held in so much contempt. Needless to say, I was banned from the blog shortly thereafter. :)

Now, visit Abagond’s blog. Same thing. Abagond tried to post a not completely horrible post about white people. Said he, “They’re not born bad, but rather it’s power that makes them bad.” He elaborated that since black people have no power (pace a certain Obama, Barack), then they can’t be evil. Furthermore, ipso facto, because white people have power, they have no choice but to be evil. 

To his credit, Abagond then takes this to its inevitable conclusion: if black people were to obtain power, they would turn evil. It’s a nutball theory that doesn’t allow anyone to make his own decisions, or have his own thoughts and feelings, and to make his own choices… to be his own person. Conveniently, through some magic or other, the white person has no awareness of his own evil, nor of the plight of those he oppresses… while the black or brown person is perfectly clear-eyed in his understanding of the states-of-mind of both the oppressor and the oppressed.

In Abagond’s view, it’s difficult to distinguish people from inanimate objects completely at the mercy of outside forces beyond their control.

However, even this bleak assessment of white people was not enough for one of Abagond’s readers who encouraged him to correct his thinking. White people, you see, are evil, because they are white. Here’s the comment, [with additional notes from me in square brackets and red font]:

From Bey:

Abagond,

Your article is good to read. You obviously do have a good heart, like most blacks that I have met across different continents. It strikes me that because of your good heart, you refrain from holding the whites responsible for their own behavior and you lay the blame on “POWER” instead. [More mystical, magical mind-reading from the Race Grievance Industry. I exaggerate not in the slightest when I say that if you were to remove the unknowable from what the RGI pretend to know, they would lose more than 90% of their argumentation.]

Pls take a moment to think : They did not became evil after they obtained power. They used their evil to take power. They used evil hearts, devious thinking and brutal violence to grab power. [See the above note. Seriously, what magic is it that allows people to make vast, sweeping statements about the thinking of millions of other people? Well, the serious answer is, of course, no magic at all, but rather plain ol' stupidity. A stupid thought is a stupid thought is a stupid thought is a stupid thought. No one is immune from them; everyone needs to be on the lookout for their sneaking their way into what we say or write in public. On a side note, many, many times I've read and heard black people telling others not to think of them all as the same. How there's an incredible range of thought and perspective and emotion and feeling in even small populations of black people. These same black commentators then, with perfectly straight faces, make the very same aforementioned nonsensical vast, sweeping generalizations about white people. ]

Power did not corrupt them. They were corrupt hitherto. [See? Whites were already corrupt, so they seized power -- in corrupt ways, of course.] The whites that came to Africa had no power, they arrived exactly as armed robbers do: with weapons and an intention to kill & steal. [If she's referring to the slave trade, this is untrue. Whites arrived as merchants, and purchased black people from other black people. Gee, do you think that the black Africans doing the selling might have been trying to export their problems and make a tidy profit from it? ]

Some of the serial killers we know, were outcasts who were taunted and rejected as youth, and had never had any form of influence or power, not even as hall monitor. You are wrong in assuming that all whites have power and therefore, evil white people are only evil b/c of power.

I personally have lived in countries on 3 different continents. There is a stark difference btw the behavior of whites and other races. And all the EVIL ones I met HAD NO POWER/ [Get it? White people are evil because they are white. This poor commenter is likely not all that bright. She misunderstood Abagond's meaning entirely. Abagond meant to say that because the power structure is white, then white people benefit from it throughout their lives, usually without even being aware of it. Therefore, according to Abagond, even the lowest of the lowly whites have more power than any black people.]

Consider this: I tool in a black person’s hand could mean one thing and in another person’s twisted, evil mind would be another. Guns and gunpowder in an African’s hands would have been a tool to keep wild animals in their reserves.. and away from inhabited areas. [Yeah. Three words: Rwanda and Burundi. Three more words: Hutus and Tutsis. Want some more words? Look at "Genocide Watch's" map of places at risk for genocide. Interestingly none of them are in North America or Europe. But Africa is covered with genocide hot spots -- in the 21st Century! Here's an interesting link: Genocide Watch: South Africa. And here I am wondering who just took over South Africa to much fanfare ever so recently. Could it be that Abagond has a point about power? Gee, I wonder who said: "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."(3) And that was a white dude! All the way back in 18-freakin'-87!] In the white person’s hand, it was tool with which to travel to another man’s continent, kill him and take his stuff, while calling him all the horrible hateful names he could possibly mouth.

If blacks were running around killing whites as revenge, at least we could justify it as revenge for all the rapes, murders and horrific treatment they or their family have endured all these years. [Yuh. Now, this woman dips into the psychotic.] But you never ever see this.. which to me, is an astounding willingness to forgive! [Wow! Did she really write that? Do you hear the forgiveness coming from black people? How about from this woman? Do you hear the forgiveness in her words? In her excusing the killing of white people "as revenge?" Whether or not, apparently, those white people were themselves guilty of any crimes against black people!]

Do u really think they have the same heart? If white serial killers kill for no reason, do you think they’d hesitate when they have a reason(such as the blacks have right now)?? [Again: she says that black people have a reason to be serial killers? This is, truly, deeply disordered thinking. And it's not uncommon in the RGI.]

You have a good heart. May God shield you from the evil around, but reveal to you the truth. God’s Blessings to you, your wife and your mother (in law), in Jesus Name. [I truly wonder if this woman is trying to find some endorsement of her insanity in the words and works of Jesus Christ. If so, then this is stark confirmation that there are plenty of people out there who call themselves Christians, but who are really psychotics, and who want desperately to find some way to justify their psychosis.]

Finally, looking at the two responses to the two posts — one response to BrothaWolf and the other to Abagond — and both responses calling either for the mass extinction of the white race, and stating a belief that the color of their skin confers evil on white people, and both responses endorsed by the blog owners, either explicitly (BrothaWolf) or by not arguing against (Abagond), it’s hard not to conclude that the Race Grievance Industry is full to overflowing with  Race Grievance Insanity.

– xPraetorius

(1) It’s important to note that one such “thinker” was the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson. He was as virulent a racist as there has ever been, and was one who seriously contemplated ways in which to “weed out” the black race via sterilization and attrition.

(2)  Corollary: if a black person (1) gets an education, (2) speaks well, (3) dresses normally, (4) works hard, and (5) can get along well with others, he can succeed in America today. That is to say that there are no more barriers to such a black person’s success than there are to a white person’s. I documented this extensively in my back-and-forth with Abagond and his crowd.

(3) The real quote (from Wikipedia):

But if we might discuss this point until we found that we nearly agreed, and if we do agree thoroughly about the impropriety of Carlylese denunciations and Pharisaism in history, I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it. That is the point at which the negation of Catholicism and the negation of Liberalism meet and keep high festival, and the end learns to justify the means. You would hang a man of no position like Ravaillac; but if what one hears is true, then Elizabeth asked the gaoler to murder Mary, and William III. ordered his Scots minister to extirpate a clan. Here are the greatest names coupled with the greatest crimes; you would spare those criminals, for some mysterious reason. I would hang them higher than Haman, for reasons of quite obvious justice, still more, still higher for the sake of historical science.

Obama’s Inert Response to Putin’s Aggression


Why has no one seen that it is simply payback for Putin’s having saved Obama’s bacon in Syria. Putin’s simply collecting on a debt.

The deal: Putin dragged Obama’s backside out of the fire in Syria, then called Obama and told him he was taking Crimea as payment. Obama said, “Ok. But, I’m going to make a big, visible stink about it to keep up appearances. I just won’t actually do anything about it.” Putin’s response, “Ok.”

And that was that.

Does anyone really think that Putin’s rescue of Obama was a freebie? That he did it from the goodness of his little heart? That Putin was really concerned with “promoting peace” in the Middle East, and “removing weapons of mass destruction” from Syria?

Vladimir Putin?!? That one?!?

Uhhhhhhhhhh… no. That’s not why he did it.

– xPraetorius

It Dawned On Me In A Conversation I Had With My Daughter


I was conversing, as is my wont with my daughter. She said, and I quote, “Barack Obama seems like a cool guy. A lousy President, but a cool guy.” When I asked her to clarify a bit — I wasn’t sure whether she meant “cool” as in “hip,” “with it,” “down with all the modern stuff,” or “cool” as in “nice,” “pleasant,” “congenial,” or “cool” as in “calm,” “collected,” “poised” — she told me that she meant the “hip” and “with it” variation of the word.

I allowed as how she was probably correct, and that Obama had probably spent a whole heckuva lot of time trying to figure out just what a “cool guy” was, and then trying to be that guy.

With all the leisure time he’s had to figure that out, then, there’s no excuse for his being as horrifically awful a President as he is. No excuse, that is, but certainly there are reasons. 

At this point there is simply too much overwhelming evidence that the statist ideology much favored by the Democrat party harms real people, by the scores. All cultures/countries that ever vested great power in any central authority of any kind — be it an individual or a government — have either started out as tyrannies or degenerated into tyranny.

Anyone with any education at all knows this.

So, as I mentioned above, there’s no excuse for Obama’s being as horrible a President as he is… but there are reasons.

The major reason is — and this is what dawned on me — if you’re in government, and you’re of the leftist/Democrat Party persuasion, then you can be only one or more of the following three things: (1) an ignoramus, (2) an idiot, or (3) a dastard.

But you can still be a cool guy.

– xPraetorius

The RGI Neatly Proves Our Point


I’m pretty sure that “BrothaWolf” — aka BrothaCryin’Wolf or BCW, or BrothaDinosaur or BD — didn’t mean to prove our point, but he did it so effectively one might be tempted to think that he’s defected and become a mole of ours in the Race Grievance Industry. The way you can know that he’s not, is that we’d never expose one of our agents in the camp of the nutball RGI… or would we? :)

Anyway, BrothaCryin’Wolf “penned” a piece that was, I’m sure (or am I? :) ), intended to show the awful, terrible racism of white people. The thing that put a bee into BCW’s bonnet is some white half-wit who conceived of a great “White Man March” which was supposedly going to show how irritated we white people are at the progress that black people have made in America in past decades. The problem: no one showed up.

As a result, BCW’s piece pretty much proves what we’ve been saying all along: white racism — at least as conceived by the Race Grievance Industry — is just not a big problem in America anymore.

Below is BrothaCryin’Wolf’s piece(1). See if you can spot how BrothaCryin’Wolf proves our point for us.

— BEGINNING OF BROTHACRYIN’WOLF’S PIECE —

The White Man March? Pffft…

Tags

,

Poster for the White Man March

I told myself I wasn’t going to bother dealing with this. I saw it as a non-issue. I saw it as a tired-[objectionable content deleted] joke. And besides, many people have already weighed in on the laughing stock known as the White Man March.

In case you haven’t heard, and no one would blame you, a white guy named Kyle Hunt who started this “movement” on behalf of the white male, presumably a burdened group in today’s world where diversity is threatening their existence. I’m not making this up, ya’ll! Hunt organized a march for all white men to (I guess) fight against the oppression and genocide on March 15.

From what I’ve heard, only tens of people participated. I dunno which is funnier: the fact there are actually white people who believed and marched along with this clown or that it only attracted a mere handful. Either way, people around the world have split their sides hearing about this nonexistent movement. The punchline is more than obvious as illustrated by Twitter’s humorous reactions under the hashtag#whitemanmarchprotestsigns.

White people feeling they are now under the boot of subservience is not news. A recent study reveals they are experience racism more than blacks. It makes ya wonder what they consider as “racism”.

Some white people think that if you work as a waiter and a black customer doesn’t leave you a tip, that’s racist. Some whites think that not being accepted into that one college they desperately want to get in is racist. I’ll go even further. You have rich white men equate being criticized about their ever-expanding wealth is the same about getting lynched. Really!

Kyle Hunt, organizer behind the White Man March

As for Kyle Hunt, his 83 followers worldwide and their alternate reality view of the world, nice try. Some obvious racists think that the movement succeeded. Although, they never fully explained how exactly. Then again, white supremacists hate being wrong, even though 99% of the time, they are.

Ladies and gentlemen, I see white racists, race realists and all other white haters crying and whining about being collectively downtrodden as [misogynistic content removed] who are begging to be oppressed, not because they want to know how it feels to be the “other”, but because they are rebels without a legitimate cause or a clue. After all, they think Jews are a race, not those who practice a religion.

They hate anyone who’s not straight, white, male and Christian, and I use the last category loosely. They want people to feel sorry for them, because their lives suck. They believe the rest of the world is after the extinction of white genes. That’s why they’re obsessed with crime stats. They are their so-called “causes”. They give them an excuse to consider themselves and their people as victims.

This dude Kyle Hunt was probably a victim of something in the past. And like so many with the same reasoning, have transformed his victimization into a global calamity against the white race which ended up creating jokes and memes by those who are members of groups who are actually struggling from a little known problem we like to call ‘systematic white racism’.

Just a few tweets in response to the White Man March

— END OF BROTHACRYIN’WOLF’S PIECE –

Did you see what I saw? A certain Kyle Hunt threw a party for racist white people and no one showed up.

Hmmmm… BrothaCryin’Wolf insists that white racism is everywhere. It’s under every rock and around every corner; it lurks behind the polite smile as well as the unsmiling countenance… and all faces in-between. If your skin is white, it’s racism if you favor welfare, and if you oppose it. If your skin is white, it’s racism if you favor Affirmative Action, and if you oppose it. No matter what you do, if your skin is white, your motives are first, foremost and always racist. If you’re white, your racism is in the air you breathe, in the food you eat, in the television, radio, newspaper and internet content you consume. It’s so all-pervasive that you don’t even know it’s there. It’s like, as BCW is fond of saying, “water to a fish.”

So, this weird Hunt bloke threw a racism party and no one showed up? Whuuuuhhh?!? How can that possibly be?!? In this festering racist hellhole that is America?!? Why weren’t there millions and millions of us white, fire-breathing, white superiority-consumed hoodlums there, all brandishing torches and pitchforks so that we could plot our next moves in our constant insidious efforts to oppress black people? Where the heck were we?!? Uhhh…they??!?

What BrothaCryin’Wolf doesn’t understand is that he can’t have it both ways. Sorry. The country simply can’t be a fetid cesspool overflowing with white animosity toward blacks, and have white people throwing racism shindigs that no one attends.

Just between you and me, if BrothaCryin’Wolf hadn’t mentioned it, I never would have heard of this big white lollapalooza. Some “movement.” And that’s the point. There just aren’t very many white people out there at all who are brimming with racial animosity toward black people.

BrothaCryin’Wolf tries to make a point above that is instructive. He says:

“Ladies and gentlemen, I see white racists, race realists and all other white haters crying and whining about being collectively downtrodden as [misogynistic content removed] who are begging to be oppressed”

This is, of course, the primary trait of the race addicts who fill the ranks of the RGI. Their single most important and motivating driving force, their excuse for failure, and their stated reason for success, their be-all and end-all, is their never-ending struggle against what BrothaCryin’Wolf has now effectively demonstrated is imaginary white racism.

Of course BCW would think that all these throngs of white people are “begging to be oppressed!” The imaginary oppression that black people used to own exclusively — but lately has been a great racket for feminists, gays and, really, anyone with a skin that is darker than white, or an incoherent gripe that can be distilled into a few bumper sticker slogans (hint: think “gays and muslims”) — is where intellectual and emotional validation come from… as well as free stuff. Gobs and gobs of free stuff.(1)

Heck, if you once controlled the hose pouring out all that aforementioned free stuff, then you might want to guard it jealously too! Who could blame you, when you have a pretty good racket going?

However, not to worry, BrothaCryin’Wolf, not to worry! There simply are not any white hordes anywhere in the country just waiting to storm Washington, DC and take your free stuff. Heck…to the contrary, we white people keep electing people to high office whose expressed intent is to take more stuff from others and give it to the RGI.

– xPraetorius

(1) – Normally, I’d have some fun with this piece in BrothaCryin’Wolf’s blog, but the dastard has banned me from his blog’s shores. I can’t for the life of me imagine why! You would think that, as sure as he is of the rightness, righteousness and correctness of his positions, he’d positively welcome my paltry, inconsequential cavils! After all, one would think that if I were to show up and posit my itsy-bitsy, wittoo, puny, teentsy-weentsy thoughts, surely the righteous BrothaWolf! (Dunh dunh dunhda-daaaaaa!), with truth, justice and all that is right and cool on his side, could repel my childish sillinesses and make my points look preposterous, right? I mean, wouldn’t banning someone from your pages really kind of give away the game that you’re just not so confident in your reasoning? It surely seems that way to me. That’s why I never ban anyone from my pages. It’s why, if you come here and respectfully disagree with my points, and if you avoid CoMIRSUS(LiMiR)MOMOPE, then not only will you never be banned from these pages, but your content will never be touched in any way.

Please note that we do attribute BCW’s post completely, linking to it numerous times. However, the above is our only way to show you what BCW is posting. :)

(2) - There’s a reason Mexican women pour across the border to give birth in the USA, and maybe it’s at least partially because they want their progeny to become productive, hard-working members of American society, but it’s also because they want these children to be citizens… with all the privileges and appurtenances attached to that citizenship, aka what’s basically considered around the world: “The Golden Ticket.”

— DO NOT READ BEYOND THIS POINT –

— DEFINITELY DO NOT READ BEYOND THIS POINT –

— I’M WARNING YOU — DO NOT READ BEYOND THIS POINT —

— IF YOU READ BEYOND THIS POINT, IT’LL BE CROSSING A RED LINE (A READ LINE? :) ) AND IT WILL CHANGE MY CALCULATIONS! —

— I TOLD YOU NOT TO READ BEYOND THAT POINT BACK THERE! OK. DON’T READ BEYOND THIS POINT! —

— YOU’RE REALLY STARTING TO TICK ME OFF HERE! LAST CHANCE. DON’T READ BEYOND THIS POINT! —

(All these extra dots’ll throw ‘em off and make ‘em think there’s nothing beyond this point. Oops? Did I just write that? Darn! I’ve got to get that BACKSPACE key fixed!)

Pssssttt… BrothaWolf: meet me and the others behind the convenience store on Third Street where we’ll discuss the next essay you’ll post for us… The password is “whitewolf”. :) Love ya, Bro-W! Really nice job with the last post!

Bearers of Bad News | National Review Online


Bearers of Bad News | National Review Online.

One of the reasons why Republicans lose elections. The most important reason is, of course, a thoroughly corrupt media corps. However, in that context, Kevin Williamson gives some more reasons (I’ve emphasized some parts with bold font.).

Key passages:

There is a reason, I think, why successful conservative candidates such as Ted Cruz and Mike Lee always seem to me to be head-and-shoulders more impressive than their Democratic opposite numbers: because they are. The political headwinds being what they are, conservatives have to be twice as good to succeed.

Yep. That’s for sure.

Also, a nice summation of today’s American polity:

Conservatives operate at a permanent political disadvantage, because conservatives are forever in the position of running against handouts, and handouts are popular. For example, Republicans are right to oppose minimum-wage increases, but it is politically costly to do so:  A solid majority of voters, including a majority of Republicans, support the minimum-wage increase. Republicans who are serious about balanced budgets and entitlement reform — and Senator Paul is serious about those — face hostile political realities. There is no way around that. Jude Wanniski’s two-Santa theory is a victim of its own success: With so many voters paying so little in federal income taxes, the political power of tax cuts has been played out. Instead, conservatives have to win either on personality, which is not always in great supply in Republican ranks, or on policy, which is complicated by the fact that the long-term benefits of a more dynamic economic and fiscal rectitude are preceded by necessarily painful adjustments.

And:

“Compromise” is a word that many conservatives are not excited about hearing, and I get why that is. But another word for “compromise” is “negotiate,” and I think it odd that a movement full of market-oriented thinkers has so little regard for negotiation. Sure, we get a lot of bad deals, but not every deal is a bad deal, and the occasional show of hostility toward the idea of negotiation itself is worrisome.

Yep.

The rest is, as always — because it’s Kevin Williamson — a great, informative read.

– xPraetorius

Seriously…What Does Anyone Expect?


The headline in Drudge is: ABORTED BABIES INCINERATED TO HEAT HOSPITALS…

The article, in the London Telegraph, is here.

Here are some key passages:

The bodies of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals, an investigation has found.

Ten NHS trusts have admitted burning foetal remains alongside other rubbish while two others used the bodies in ‘waste-to-energy’ plants which generate power for heat.

However:

Last night the Department of Health issued an instant ban on the practice which health minister Dr Dan Poulter branded ‘totally unacceptable.’

My question: Why? Why is the practice “unacceptable?” You kill them, then you worry about how you dispose of them? Isn’t it a bit late at that point to be developing scruples?

One of the country’s leading hospitals, Addenbrooke’s in Cambridge, incinerated 797 babies below 13 weeks gestation at their own ‘waste to energy’ plant. The mothers were told the remains had been ‘cremated.’

Again, same question: Why on earth does the mother, who just paid to have her baby killed, care in the slightest how they dispose of the baby’s mortal remains?

How about another question: How on earth does the mother, who just paid to have her baby killed, merit even the slightest consideration as to how they dispose of her baby? She just had him or her freakin’ killed, for crying out loud! Isn’t that enough to give kind of an indication that she’s not all that concerned with the baby’s safety or comfort or any-freakin’-thing else about the baby?

Another bit from the article:

At least 15,500 foetal remains were incinerated by 27 NHS trusts over the last two years alone, Channel 4’s Dispatches discovered.
The programme, which will air tonight, found that parents who lose children in early pregnancy were often treated without compassion and were not consulted about what they wanted to happen to the remains.

Again, seriously, what on earth do you expect?!?

Here’s a place where a “doctor” goes from one “procedure” in which she rips a living baby from his mother’s womb and tosses the tiny body into the incinerator to heat the place. Then the same “doctor” goes to see another woman who has miscarried and the woman expects the “doctor” to show some “compassion?” How could such a “doctor” care even one tiny bit more about the unintentionally dead babies than she does about the intentionally dead ones she just turned into “fuel” for the heater?

This kind of callous, cold, monstrous disregard for the most innocent of human life is the inevitable outgrowth of a culture that could even permit the idea that killing a baby is somehow acceptable.

Again, and again, and again, and again, we will see such things that slap our conscience in the face with the unsubtle evidence of how terribly wrong it is to lose our reverence for the life of all people. There is a straight line from Roe v. Wade in the United States (and its analogous legislation in other countries) right straight through George Tiller and Kermit Gosnell and, frankly, Charlie Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Andrea Yates, Susan Smith and the abattoirs known as “hospitals” in Great Britain.

This is not the end of such grisly stories. Far from it. Until, that is, someone restores some sanity — and reverence for the miracle of life — to Western civilization.

– xPraetorius

 

What Would Happen…


… if it were more difficult for countries  to export their problems as countries like Mexico, the countries of Northern Africa, Turkey, and more do. These countries have large swathes of desperate poverty, disease, unrest — restive populations.

Mexico is blessed to have the U.S. as her neighbor to the north, so can simply send her poor here to become Obama food stamp recipients. However, the other countries mentioned send their problems to France, England, Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, the Scandinavian countries.

In France young North African muslims have turned some suburbs of Paris into no-man’s land. Well, it turns out, the French are irritated by that — and by the tailspin in which Socialist President Francois Hollande has put the French economy.

One French political party, Marine Le Pen’s Front National (The National Front), has a political platform that focuses on one major issue: they are anti-immigration. In the recent French elections, Le Front National increased its vote totals by nearly 800%. 

Marine Le Pen

Marine Le Pen

What does that mean in real terms? Well, they went from less than 1% to greater than 7%. If that is a permanent, or at least semi-permanent constituency, that would make them potential king makers in every national or local election in the near or not-so near future.

It would mean that they would have to come up with positions on other issues as well.

France is in serious trouble. They have the European disease: a population in steep demographic decline. Young French people aren’t having kids, and the French are living longer. They are becoming a retirement community. However, they spent all their retirement money on lavish social programs that have allowed people to spend long, long periods unemployed, take long vacations, have “free” medical care, retire early and comfortably and a lot more.

But now the money is gone, and the French are pouring people into retirement age far faster than they are producing workers to pay for the oldsters’ comfortable retirements.

It’s not that this has overly surprised the French government, though. They thought they could solve the problem by importing, as mentioned above, North Africans — Moroccans, Tunisians, and especially Algerians. And, as mentioned above, those North African countries are perfectly happy to send their restless people to France. Along with their problems, pathologies, their Islam and other mental and emotional disorders.

Now, the French electorate have said they disapprove.

But, is it too late?

The French are not producing new French, and the imported immigrants — especially the muslims… you know, the ones turning Parisian suburbs into no-man’s lands? — are re-producing like rabbits.

If misery loves company, then the French have company. What I’ve described above is true for all the countries into which these immigrants have been pouring for years. These countries are finally recognizing a simple, obvious, basic truth: You can’t import millions of immigrants with cultural outlooks wildly different from your own, and keep your own culture intact. This is always true, and always will be true.

In a recent post, we said that if you have a bright idea to “fix things,” then someone somewhere in the world has likely already tried it, and you just might learn something from their experience.

Well, Europe is finding out what it means to import millions of people who are radically different from the natives, into a country, and they’re starting to wake up to the fact that their country is not really completely their own anymore.

Really, is this anything new? How did the peoples in charge of  what is now the United States do when a few dozen Europeans arrived on their shores in the 1600′s?

In that case, the Europeans brought civilization. You can say what you will about European conquest and the various sins of which they’re guilty throughout history, but they are also the most benevolent, enlightened, generous, creative, innovative, dynamic culture in the history of mankind. By far. No other culture has had the philosophical/religious/cultural/intellectual infrastructure necessary to eradicate slavery, diseases, tyrannies, injustice, inequality, social and financial immobility and other societal ills.

In the case of other foreign cultures invading, or being imported into, European cultures, one likely should be less optimistic as to the possibilities for such positive outcomes.

Let’s see what happens now in France. Wonder if they’ll learn any lessons here in the U.S. It’s a sure bet that the Democrat Party won’t. Will the Republicans?

Let’s hope so. Because, otherwise — if someone doesn’t learn the lessons, and implement real solutions – our country, the greatest, most generous, freest, finest, most powerful, magnetic country that has ever been… won’t survive.

– xPraetorius

Ryan’s Critics Are in Denial | National Review Online


Ryan’s Critics Are in Denial | National Review Online.

Want a serious mini-education about poverty and culture…and the break-down of the culture? Read the above-linked essay by George Will.

Six decades of policy that has steadfastly ignored culture has led to our inner-cities’ having become hellholes. The Democrats, and a leftist ethos, have owned those cities for those six decades. Democrats should be deeply, deeply ashamed.

– xPraetorius

Did YOU Know…


These bullet point truths about abortion?

  • The “coat hanger” thing is pure myth. There is one documented incident of a coat hanger used to perform an abortion. It happened after abortion had been made legal.
  • Dr. Mary Steichen Calderone reported that there were very few deaths — and that rate was declining — from illegal abortions pre-Roe. She was an advocate of legal abortion and made this report in 1960.
  • Sociologist Nancy Howell Lee reported the same thing in 1969, just before Roe.
  • The assumption was that the small and rapidly declining rate of maternal death due to self-induced abortions would all but disappear.
  • The incidence of maternal death has increased dramatically after the legalization of abortion.
  • “…the share of abortions performed for any plausible life-saving reason and in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape or incest is vanishingly small”(1)
  • “…the vast majority of late-term abortions as well are purely elective. If we include in the category of “elective” the elimination of children with birth defects, then practically all of those late-term abortions are elective.”(2)
  • “Of earlier-term abortions, practically all are purely elective.”(3)
  • “Most of those classified as being undertaken for medical reasons are not done for the health of the mother but, as with late-term abortions, to eliminate children with birth defects.”(4)
  • “Abortions resulting from rape and incest are extraordinarily rare.”(5)

I knew some of them, but not all of them. I compiled this handy list from Kevin Williamson’s piece in National Review Online. Williamson is a student of language who studies the use, and mis-use, of language to manipulate political and issues-related discourse. From out-and-out lies (“Women will be forced into back-alley abortions with coat hangers if abortion is illegal.”) to lying by euphemism (“Pro-choice” “Woman’s right to choose” … the entire vocabulary of “pro-choice” that recoils from the very word: “abortion.”), to weasel words, half-truths, evasions and deflections, Williamson cuts through the fog and brings clarity to the discussion.

It’s important to note that Williamson documents all the points above. He doesn’t just say them.(6)

Williamson himself is pro-life, and he makes a dazzlingly clear point to finish off his essay:

You can see why the abortionists and their enablers would rather talk about wire hangers. The facts tell a very different story, and one that counsels a different outcome from what they would prefer.

I recently wrote a piece about Senator Rand Paul’s presidential aspirations, and one critic inquired as to why I did not write about his pro-life stance, which he took to be incompatible with the senator’s generally libertarian tendencies. Woman’s body, woman’s choice, right? That is, in my view, one of the all-time great instances of question-begging in our political discourse: If I thought there were one body involved, I’d be pro-choice. But there are two bodies involved — by any meaningful standard that is the case, which is why the pro-choice side of the argument is always forced to retreat into metaphysics, the so-called personhood question. It would be much more reasonable to ask how a person who believes in individual rights and individual liberties could be anything other than pro-life — which is to say, anything other than a full-throated advocate and defender of the first right. [Editor's Note: my emphasis.] And though I believe that there are people who come to the pro-choice position in good faith, I am less sure about the people walking around with sterling silver hangers around their necks. We cannot build a humane society on a foundation of violence, and we cannot build an intelligent political discourse on a foundation of lies.

I strongly encourage you to read the essay itself. It’s here.

Williamson is an intelligent, trenchant, insightful writer, who refuses to accept conventional wisdom on face value. In any issue he takes on, if you tell him something you’d better be ready to back it up with credible documentation, or else he’ll investigate it himself to find out whether it’s credible.

– xPraetorius


(1) – Read the details here. (Kevin Williamson in National Review Online)

(2) –  Williamson again, same essay.

(3) - Williamson again, same essay.

(4) - Williamson again, same essay.

(5) - Williamson again, same essay.

(6)Just saying things – whether true or not; whether documented or not — is stock-in-trade of the American left. They are full-on believers in the Big Lie:  (My restatement) If you say something over and over and over again, whether it’s true or not, pretty soon people will believe it as though they’ve known it all along. A current, and soon to be very hot Big Lie: Women make only 77 cents for ever dollar a man makes. Not to digress too much, but you will hear that particular one — long debunked by people who take the trouble to look into it  — very soon, as the Democrats seek to deflect from the disaster that is Obamacare.

The Headline in the DrudgeReport is: NSA HACKS CHINESE SERVERS


Well, I’d hope so! That’s something the NSA ought to be doing — in spades. Of course, the NSA will turn the information over to the hopelessly corrupt Obama Administration, so nothing good can come of it. However, it’s good to know that some at the NSA are actually doing something they should be doing, instead of spying on honest, hard-working, patriotic Americans in the Tea Party.

At some point we’ll get a real President, and that information might be put to good use.

– xPraetorius

Will Increasing the Minimum Wage Increase Unemployment?


Of course it will! Duh!

The only question is: By how much will unemployment increase as the direct result of an increase in the minimum wage?

Ask yourself a simple question: If something becomes more expensive, do people buy more of it? Or even the same amount of it? Of course not!

I used to work at a mortgage company. I once spoke with a Senior Vice-President who indicated that we were going to raise our rates by a percentage point. I asked him how much our sales volume would decrease, and his answer was: we anticipate about a 15% reduction in volume, with a 20% increase in revenue due to the rate increase, for a net 5% increase in actual revenues to the company.

There you go. If you make something more expensive, people buy less of it. Simple. The population as a whole just may show an increase in revenues, but that population will have shrunk.

For the ones laid off, or not hired, life will become significantly more difficult. They’re a lot less employable, because their labor is a lot more expensive, and all this in the context of businesses being less willing to hire them in general, again because their labor is more expensive.

It’s almost funny that there’s even a debate about this. It’s not actually funny because, again, Obama and his nutjob cronies, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, and the Democrat Party, are playing with people’s lives. They’re willing to ruin some so that a few will get a raise.

– xPraetorius

The Immorality of Progressive Economics | The American Spectator


The Immorality of Progressive Economics | The American Spectator.

In this brilliant post, Ross Kaminsky makes the point that we’ve made many times here (here, for example): Left-wing policies are simply incompatible with basic human decency.

Kaminsky addresses this truth from the perspective of economics and makes some unassailable points. Here are some of them:

As Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, likes to ask: What if a neighbor (with modest income and no real savings) has a sick child who needs $50,000 for surgery, and the neighbor knows that I have cash in my safe at home? Would it be OK for him to rob me at gunpoint, taking my money because it’s to save a child?

Obviously not.

But what if the neighbor takes a vote of the people living on the block and 51% of them say that I have to give him the money? Would it then be acceptable, moral, or anything other than criminal, for the neighbor to come to my house and demand that I hand over the cash?

What if 95 percent of my neighbors say so?

If not, then why is it OK for those very same people to elect a politician to do the very same thing? Is theft more palatable with a middle-man?

If not, then why is it OK for a United States Senator to take my earnings and give them to someone who “needs” the money more than she believes I do, with a similar threat of violence or prison against me if I refuse to comply?

In short, if theft is wrong then why do we elect Democrats?

Because Republicans and conservatives don’t make a compelling moral case when it comes to economics, causing independents and moderates to give less credence to the overall economic message of capitalism and freedom. (Libertarians tend not to make this mistake in messaging; they just make other ones.)

Just because a majority, even a large majority, might vote — out of a combination of ignorance and jealousy and perhaps even good intentions — to “soak the rich” does not make it morally right, even separate from the fact that it cannot possibly succeed as an economic policy.

And:

Far too many Americans behave as if government spending is “free money,” as if there is a free lunch if it’s paid for by Uncle Sam. But few things are more effective arguments with younger and slightly liberal voters than “You and your kids are going to pay for all this. They are bankrupting your future, and your children’s future. Isn’t that wrong no matter how they try to justify it?”

Again, this isn’t a technical point; it’s a moral one: It is simply wrong to burden our children and their children with opportunity-destroying debt incurred in pursuit of buying votes, or even of buying “equality” or “free” birth control.

If your parents created debt that was somehow passed down to you, even if it originated with a good intention of theirs (but not one to benefit your family), how would you feel about it, especially when paying off the debt meant you couldn’t buy a house or couldn’t put your own children through college?

It’s not just unfair or rude; it’s wrong. And it is exactly what every “liberal” economic policy is doing to YOUR future and your children’s future.

THIS is the argument that Republicans and conservatives fail to make in a convincing and repeated way. (Repetition is as important as the argument itself because people almost never take to heart a message they hear only a few times.)

And, finally:

Progressive tax rates to fund redistribution are simply the transfer of one person’s property to another, something that in any other circumstance would result in jail time. Similarly, raising the minimum wage and making it easier to qualify for government-mandated overtime pay are little different from a mugger who says that taking your wallet at knifepoint is OK because he’s going to give half of the money to charity. (Unfortunately, business owners are more despised than muggers by today’s Democrats.)

Although it is understandable when conservatives engage in the debate over the economic merits of what Frédéric Bastiat called “legal plunder,” doing so without a more fundamental moral dismantling of the Progressive vision concedes the premises of the discussion to the left, giving it a substantial political advantage and dooming my children and yours to a lifetime of debt, devaluation, and degraded opportunities. And that’s just wrong.

Wish I’d said that! Oh, yeah… I did. :)

– xPraetorius

A Yank in London Critiques the Parliamentary System | National Review Online


A Yank in London Critiques the Parliamentary System | National Review Online.

Well.

I was going to say: This is so often what happens to the left, when they come face-to-face with the actual results of the realization of their fantasies in other lands. 

However, I think this might just be a cautionary tale both for the left and for the right.

First some background: Ari Shapiro, NPR reporter and leftist in good standing, had long been certain that a parliamentary form of government would be better for the United States. Then he went to Great Britain, where they have had such a thing in effect for several centuries.

What did he conclude, now that he has seen both our representative democracy and Great Britain’s parliamentary system?

“Being here. I’ve realized that the drawback to having a parliamentary system is voters really don’t choose their political leaders, the parties choose their political leaders,” he said. “As a result you have political leaders here who most British people find completely uninspiring — David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Ed Milliband — people are not motivated by those guys in the way people tend to be motivated by American politicians of either party, and I think that’s a direct result of the parliamentary system.”

The great John Fund, once of the Wall Street Journal, now of the great National Review and the equally great American Spectator says of Shapiro’s epiphany:

Kudos to Shapiro for recognizing the constipated nature of many parliamentary systems, by which parties carefully screen out rebels and political entrepreneurs from their approved list of candidates. It’s a process which promotes conformity and hackery. As a result, most such systems never see a Ted Cruz or Sarah Palin on the right or a Bernie Sanders or Al Franken on the left ever reach public office.

Here’s what else to read from this: In the world today, we have examples of just about every fantasy form of government, policy, program, philosophy or ideology you could ever imagine in your wildest dreams. If you’re musing about how to fix the world’s problems and you decide, “Well, the country oughta to do X, Y and Z!”

Well, somewhere in the world, someone almost certainly has done X, Y and Z somewhere, and there have been actual results from that little exercise in X, Y and Z. Go search out those consequences and see for yourself what happens when your idea is implemented.

If you were to observe the trajectory of ideological predilection in the life of the overwhelmingly majority of Americans, you would see that most people tend to migrate from idealist left (books, medicine, food and housing oughta be free!) to the more sensible — and ultimately more idealistic — right (if all these things were free, then there would be no incentive to produce them, and everyone would be deprived of them).

Sure enough, there are some very sensible reasons for this typical ideological migration: (1) as people get older, they tend to become wiser (intellectual capacity directed at an ever greater understanding of reality), and (2) leftists get gobsmacked by reality a whole heckuva lot more than rightists do. Irving Kristol said it well: “A Conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality.”[^1]

The reason for this second phenomenon — leftists gobsmacked by reality — is simple: the facts of life are Conservative. However, as we’ve noted more than once in these pages[^2], the white noise of society (academia, Hollywood, media, pop culture) is leftist.

It’s important to note that white noise is a thing that one “consumes”[^3] passively. It’s like the weather: always there, always all around you, ready to intrude on you and interrupt you, annoy you at any moment and ruin your vacation. And it comes from the left.

You’ll never be forced to detour around a loud and disorderly demonstration by Conservatives or Tea Party enthusiasts. It typically won’t be a member of any Republican Party demographic blaring loud rap next to you at the red light. The one robbing your liquor-convenience-grocery-department store will not be a Republican voter, you can be sure of that.

– xPraetorius

 
[^1]: The real expression is: “a neo-Conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged by reality,” coined by Irving Kristol, but I’m not going to go into the differences between various forms of Conservatism right now.
[^2]: Here for example, and here. Key snippet: “It’s important to know why there are so many people in the odd number stages, where they support and vote for left-wing people and issues: because it’s easy to be there. If the leftist so chooses, he can sail through life never having exposed himself to any external challenges to his ideas. Because, read this well: while the facts of life are Conservative, society’s white noise is liberal.”
[^3]: “Consumes” is a charitable word. White noise — generally — is something imposed on you whether you like it or not.

Push the Keyboard Away | National Review Online


Push the Keyboard Away | National Review Online.

Jonah Goldberg exposes a beloved tactic of America’s political left: (1)  launch a false, fabricated or malicious accusation against a Conservative, (2) respond to the inevitable indignant rebuttal by declaring that the outrage proves the relevance of the initial fraudulent accusation, and (3) an “issue” is born!

Remember the “issue” that arose out of the blue prior to the 2012 Presidential election, of Mitt Romney’s having “failed to pay his taxes”? It wasn’t true. It was fabricated…made up. But Harry Reid said it from the Senate floor, and a damaging, completely fabricated “issue” was born.

You can blame that on the media who accepted the lie uncritically.

– xPraetorius

Kenya legalises polygamy without wife’s consent – Yahoo News


Kenya legalises polygamy without wife’s consent – Yahoo News.

Some key passages from the Yahoo article:

As in many parts of Africa, polygamy is common among traditional communities in Kenya, as well as among the country’s Muslim community, which accounts for up to a fifth of the population.

And:

“Any time a man comes home with a woman, that would be assumed to be a second or third wife,” said Samuel Chepkong’a, chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, the Daily Nation newspaper reported.

“Under customary law, women or wives you have married do not need to be told when you’re coming home with a second or third wife. Any lady you bring home is your wife,” he added.

Still more:

Parliamentary majority leader Aden Duale, a Muslim, said that men marrying more than one woman was part of the Islamic faith, but also highlighted Biblical stories to justify Christians not asking their wife before taking another.

“I want my Christian brothers to read the Old Testament — King David and King Solomon never consulted anybody to marry a second wife,” Duale told the house. [Editor's Note: The New Testament is the definitive guide to how to act in life. The main rules surviving from the Old Testament are the Ten Commandments. Polygamy is not an accepted Christian practice today.]

Women are not allowed to marry more than one man in Kenya.

And finally:

The proposed bill had initially given a wife the right to veto the husband’s choice, but male members of parliament overcame party divisions to push through a text that dropped this clause.

“When you marry an African woman, she must know the second one is on the way, and a third wife… this is Africa,” MP Junet Mohammed told the house, according to Nairobi’s Capital FM.

Yep. That’s Africa.

– xPraetorius

%d bloggers like this: