A Brit looks at American royalty, and finds it distasteful.
A Brit looks at American royalty, and finds it distasteful.
What an idiot this “professor” is.
I’m sad to say that I graduated from this system of “higher education,” being taught sometimes by these airheaded blowhards whose “logic” wouldn’t stand up to the normal questioning of a third-grader.
I, however, managed to find some outstanding professors (including Adeline Abel and Symond Yavner, Hélène Carrère d’Encause, Jean-Baptiste Duroselle and others), who taught me French, Russian, Political Science, and other topics, and who always tolerated my sometimes awkward questions. They even encouraged those questions.
Not, however, “Professor” Brent Terry.
I’m grateful I never encountered such a moron as Brent Terry when I was in this system.
Yep. Brazil’s got talent!
Normally, I’d simply pass this along without comment. The “Daily Plunge” guy comments perfectly well — really well, in fact — all by himself.
However, this is a theme that is near and dear to the various hearts of the Praetorian Writers’ Group.
We have spoken of it in the context of “gay marriage”(1) in these pages before (here, and elsewhere).
The author of “The Daily Plunge” starts out forthrightly enough:
Part of my difficulty in taking politics seriously anymore is that people do not want to engage in real debate. The number one economic issue in the United States is the rise of single-parent family. It’s a real and documented problem. No one can deny it. Then why is no one talking about it?
Very well said!
(1) – There really is no such thing. There are laws that suggest that it’s just wunnerful for people of the same sex to live together, to do sex-like activities together(2) and to raise children together. However, we all know that it’s not just wunnerful, and that if the children on whom we impose these same now-wunnerful same-sex households grow up normally, it’ll be a freakin’ miracle. We all know it, yet we still impose such wacky households on real children all the time. There was a time — not more than ten years ago — when we never would have even considered experimenting with children this way. Now, it’s routine. As if it’s a proven fact that “love makes a family.”
(2) – Because it’s not sex, when it’s between two adults of the same sex; it’s elaborate masturbation.
This guy is simply one of the finest guitarists in the world.
Very few I have ever encountered, or played with, have the same facility, the same fluidity and touch as John Champion.
Some of the background explanation on John Champion. Nice story, with some educational stuff on his guitar.
This is just so good! So melodic and such fun! Great technique and what a feel for the song!
I hope this guy has his recording contract in hand by now — after all, I found him probably five years ago!
Yep. I surely do love this.
Sweet! (Part II) Having Tommy Emmanuel and Joscho Stephan on the same stage is generally too much to hope for in life!
Yet, here they are.
Because Tommy plays with everyone!
Even with one of the finest guitarists. Joscho Stephan, who’ve ever existed.
And why does Tommy play with such guitarists?
Because Tommy is one of the finest guitarists who’ve ever existed.
Ok…this is just sweet!
May thanks to Tom and Karen Quiner at “The Diner” for this post!
I did not know these things, and yet, I have also been tempted to ascribe greater historical accuracy to accounts of the life of Alexander the Great, than to accounts of the life of Jesus.
Let’s start by taking the word “progressive” back. Let’s face it, the ones who call themselves “progressive” are the worst sort of reactionaries, and regressives, and “preservatives” there are.(1)
Since it’s Conservatives who have proposed the programs and solutions that actually would advance society, let’s start calling ourselves “progressives,” and start calling the left and the hard-left (including the current President of the United States) what they truly are: “preservatives.” It’s time to become “Active Conservatives!“
They, the left, are after all “Preservatives.” Let’s face it, left-leaning political philosophy has dominated America since the arrival of Franklin Roosevelt into the White House in 1933. They, the leftists, already were the “Establishment.” And they then have been for many years.
In retrospect, it’s almost comical — all the fevered, impassioned, spittle-flecked, screeds of the 1960′s left, all the way to the whackadoodle “Occupy” movement of recent, unlamented past, were all whining about how to keep power, not how to obtain it.
All leftist-oriented, or -led, or -promulgated efforts, laws, initiatives, programs, policies and thinking dedicated to preserving or extending that Establishment should be labeled “preservative.”
After all, that’s what they are.
(1) – Someone once must have said, “I know! We’ll gussy up what’s been in place all along for <b>freakin’ centuries</b> in complex, convoluted, obscurantist prose, with tortuous ratiocination… we’ll call it ‘socialism’ and ‘progressive,’ and ‘the wave of the future’ — and the freakin’ morons in the general public will swallow it, hook, line and sinker!”
Oh, yeah, that’s right — it was Karl Marx who said that.
In America, he was referring to ‘Obama voters.’
The guy who wrote this, Michael Goodwin, isn’t surprised, but the headline is surprising all the same. After all it appeared in the American Press.
Oops…nope, it appeared in the New York Post, an occasional participant in the progressive new media.
The king of trenchant, to-the-point, as well as insightful, touching and heartfelt commentary, Mark Steyn reviews Mel Gibson’s huge hit movie, “The Passion of The Christ.”
Here’s a key passage:
The headline on the Washington Post review summed it up: “‘Passion‘ Is A Gory Take On A Gentle Teacher’s Violent End”. Somebody’s confusing their Gospel withGodspell. A few days before the “violent end”, the gentle teacher had been hurling tables around in the temple. And, even if you overlook the rough stuff, rhetorically Christ was as forceful as He was gentle.
That’s the real argument over The Passion Of The Christ. It’s not between Christians and Jews, but between believing Christians and the broader post-Christian culture, a term that covers a large swathe from the media to your average Anglican vicar. Some in this post-Christian culture don’t believe anything, some are riddled with doubts, but even the ones with only a vague residual memory of the fluffier Sunday School stories are agreed that there’s little harm in a Jesus figure who’s a “gentle teacher”. In this world, if Jesus came back today he’d most likely be a gay Anglican bishop in a committed relationship driving around in an environmentally-friendly car with an “Arms Are For Hugging” sticker on the way to an interfaith dialogue with a Wiccan and a couple of Wahhabi imams. If that’s your boy, Mel Gibson’s movie is not for you.
Yep. Here’s another important point:
The picture opens in the Garden of Gethsemane with Christ’s arrest, in the midst of which a servant of the high priest gets his ear lopped off and, in the melee, is quietly healed by Jesus. (This is from Luke; the other three gospels have the lopping but not the healing.) For Gibson, this is the point: Christ had power over His captors but didn’t use it, and His sacrifice is our salvation. [emphasis added] To that end, the director’s come up with a structure that folds flashbacks of Jesus’ life into the two hours of scourging and crucifixion, presumably to remind us that it’s through the “violent end” that the “gentle teaching” becomes universal truth.
Mel Gibson was driven by his own passion to make a movie that speaks to millions of people. And, as I always say, if it’s not the Jesus movie you’d have made, then go make your own. Back in 2004, I saw it on a Monday-night full house – a rare event in itself – and the crowd was rapt and eerily hushed, except for the occasional sob. It’s true that, if you don’t believe that Christ’s death on the cross is the central event in His time on earth, then Mel’s telling won’t convince you and the film will look, as it did to Christopher Hitchens, like an S&M flayfest. One can regard this as a criticism of Gibson. On the other hand, all manner of movies – Star Wars, X-Men – leave you cold if you’re not already a devotee. For millions of people, Mel Gibson shows them their Jesus and their salvation. Happy Easter.
Happy Easter, all! He is risen! He is risen indeed! Hallelujah!
The great Mark Steyn sums up his travails with the frauds, charlatans and mountebanks of the CGI — the Climate Grievance Industry.
This is an important free speech case, and is worthy of everyone’s attention.
Plus, Mark Steyn is nothing less than the finest political commentator in the world today. Steyn is the king of the well-turned, pithy phrase, and one would do well to read everything he’s ever written.
Carey is one very pretty but confused girl! She’s young yet, but you can see that she’s well on the way to becoming a sensible Conservative. This even though she admits to having been a brainless bimbo for Barack. She tells of how she was once one of his most ardent supporters, but then decided to “google the news.”
After having “googled the news,” however, she rejects Obama — from the far-left.
Carey really comes across as kind of a libertarian-trotskyite-far-left-rightist anarchist. But, she voted for the most openly leftist candidate of the left-most wing of the most big-government-statist political party that has ever existed in America’s history. Did she really think that such a President was just going to leave Americans alone once in office? (Herein lies the central confusion of Obama voters: They bought the propaganda from the media that the Republicans in their zeal to cut big government were somehow conspiring to increase its heavy-handedness in everyone’s life. So they voted en masse for Barack “I’m-For-The-Little-Guy” Obama. As studies and research have concluded rather convincingly: Obama won the stupid vote handily.)
According to Carey: Obama: bailed out the bankers (correct); is continuing, and in fact increasing, all the same foreign policy initiatives of the hated George W. Bush (kinda correct); extended George Bush’s wars (Definitely incorrect. Obama’s doing his level best to abandon Iraq and Afghanistan to their own); is helping corporate fat cats with Obamacare (correct); broke all his promises (Duh! He’s a liberal…they lie. What the girl failed to recognize is that Obama campaigned as a moderate); extended the Patriot Act (sort of correct), and is the “biggest fraud that has ever been perpetrated on the America people” (that’s self-evidently correct), and much more.
Why do I say she’s well on her way to becoming a sensible Conservative?
Well, some years ago, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn posed the question of Stalin’s Soviet Union: Did the monster make the system, or did the system produce the monster? He responded that the system produced the monster; that, given the system, the monster was inevitable. This former Obama-girl says the same thing of the system and of Obama.
In the harsh glare of reality, that conclusion is a very, very Conservative conclusion. There is no alternative to that conclusion, save one: dramatically reduce the size, scope, reach and power of that very system. Saaaaaaayyyy… wait a minute! Where have I heard that before?!?
She has a very long way to go before coming to that very sensible conclusion, but she’s headed there.
Steven Seagal is viewed in certain quarters as kind of a buffoon. I was never a big fan, but once in a while I used to enjoy some of his movies as kind of simplistic good beats up bad entertainment.
I pretty much left it at that.
However, then I found out that people outside of the entertainment media were doing the sneering thing at Seagal — you know the thing they usually reserve for people like Sarah Palin? That thing. That’s the area — the area outside of entertainment — to which I pay close attention.
All of a sudden, Steven Seagal is coming under fire from that side of the press. Here’s a B-Movie action star, who’s been successful, and now he’s coming under snark fire from the American political media? What gives?
Apparently, the above-linked video is what gives.
Steven Seagal is a Conservative? Holy mackerel! No wonder his career in Hollywood is largely over! Hollywood is, after all, the land of the blacklist.
In the above-linked video, Seagal comes across as anything but a buffoon. He asks the very common-sensical question: why is nobody in jail, why has nobody been called to account, for some of the vilest scandals in American history?
These are only three of the scandals that have come from this corruption-riddled administration. In all of these, either American citizens died, or the government has openly engaged in blatantly criminal activities that are typical of third-world, banana republic hellholes. Don’t forget: Richard Nixon was thrown out of office — for “abuse of power” — for merely talking about what the IRS has admitted to actually doing under Obama.
This guy, Tyrone, is a great read. Intelligent, confident and not at all over-sensitive on race. He’s a black man and I’ve recently been perusing his blog. He’s an independent thinker. His self-introduction indicates that he “was born [and] raised in the liberal experiment gone wrong called Baltimore,” that he’s “a staunch free thinking, analytical conservative” who doesn’t “subscribe to political correctness” because only “sheep do that.”
How could you not love a guy like that?!?
It’s not well-known, but there are many, many more intelligent black men and women like Tyrone out there. Why isn’t that well-known? Easy. Because the old-line, liberal, dinosaur media insist that all black people reside on their plantation, and conform in lockstep to their thinking and their ideology. If a black man steps off the plantation, as far as the media are concerned, he’s dead to them. That won’t be true forever, though.
Needless to say, the old-line dinosaur media won’t cover them and their work, so it’s up to you and me to go out there and find them and support them.
Tyrone’s blog reads as it’s written: a torrent of stream-of-consciousness, conversation-style monologue. It’s as if he is writing his half of a conversation, and at the end expects you to react. It’s really fun to ride along.
Read this well: There are few acts of courage as impressive in America today as that of a black person thinking for himself.
I searched in vain for a “Like” button; he blogs on “Blogspot.com” and his template might not have that feature. It’s a shame. I’d “Like” it immediately! You should too.
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.
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. :)
This is actually two minutes and 16 seconds well- and delightfully-spent. An appreciation of human ingenuity.
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?
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.
This essay, and the rest of Thomas Sowell’s plain-spoken, approachable, deeply common-sensical oeuvre, are why Dr. Sowell is an 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.
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.
“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 ***
*** END OF BROTHA WOLF’S POST AND FOLLOW-UP COMMENTS ***
*** 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 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, 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; 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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
… 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?
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:
Richburg is a liberal in good standing, but he came back from Africa, thereby confirming what we have said bluntly in these pages:
|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:
BCW’s response, concurring with Mary:
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].
*** BEGINNING OF BROTHA WOLF’S “Banned: xPraetorius” POST ***
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:
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.]
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.
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.
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.
They are if you’re part of the Race Grievance Industry. Here are some facts that nobody disputes:
Or, to sum it up:
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.
(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.
Thirty-five freakin’ thousand!
Let me guess, it turns out that all the dead guys and double voters, oddly enough, voted Democrat, right?
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!“
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.
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!
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’.
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.
(1) – It’s against federal law to suggest openly that the President ought to be assassinated.
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.
– 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 —
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.
(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.
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.
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:
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
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
P.S.: I’ll have a couple of other Steyn recommendations as well.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
(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.
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.
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. :)
This is fun. And parts are really weird.