Powerful, Influential People Read This Blog (Part 18)

I’ve been saying this very thing for a very long time: There is no over-population on the planet.

Here’s the quote from Jonah Goldberg in this piece here:

Anyway, I could go on about this stuff because I find it so interesting (and who among us doesn’t get a thrill up their leg when given the chance to bash Malthusians?), but really it’s just a cool excuse to link to this, which shows that you could put the entire population of the planet in Texas, with the population density of New York City, fed with just the food produced by the U.S. and with half the daily output of the Columbia River.

Yes, one can offer quibbles. For starters, traffic would suck!

But it’s still pretty illuminating.

I said it somewhere in this blog too, but I can’t find it right now. However, you’ll have to take the word of my daughter who’s heard it many times in the past few years.


– xPraetorius


NPR Watch – 7/28/14 – Did NPR Flat-out Lie?

I was listening to an NPR  feature on the drive home from work yesterday. Ari Shapiro, the openly gay reporter who usually covers overseas things for NPR, was sitting in as an anchor for NPR’s afternoon/evening “News” show poorly named “All Things Considered.”

Shapiro decided to do an interview with Michel Martin, hostette of another show on NPR called “Tell Me More.” Well, that show — “Tell Me More” — is about to end for good, and Shapiro was talking with Martin about the end of her show.

Martin is black, so Shapiro had to interrogate her about the black thing. Of course! She wasn’t just a hostette of an NPR show, you see, she was the black hostette of an NPR show.  This was why I introduced Shapiro as the “openly gay reporter” above. Both Shapiro and Martin are  members of grievance groups much beloved at NPR.

This is how NPR is: you are gay, or African-American, or transgendered, or Latino, or some other grievance “thing” before you are human. Furthermore, you’re of interest to NPR if, and only if, you’re a member of a grievance group of which they approve.

Shapiro asked Martin something like, “Is it tough being an African American woman blah blah blah blah?” I forget the rest of the question, but like all such questions, it wasn’t important.

Uh, let’s see if we can all guess what this black woman, on the leftmost media outlet in America, except for MSNBC, said. Yep. She said it was tough.

Martin then illustrated with the story that prompted my question above in the headline. She told of how she was interviewing young ladies for the position of nanny at her house.

<aside>Hmmm… Why no young men? Hmmmmm? Surely she wouldn’t discriminate on the basis of sex! Surely she wouldn’t profile young men! Surely not! Needless to say, Shapiro didn’t question this, and to be fair, she may have said that she was interviewing young woman. However, we all know that no one interviews young men for jobs as nannies. No one. Just sayin’</aside>

Martin told a bit about the interview and then told how, after the interview, the interviewee sent her an e-mail in which she asked Martin what race she is. Martin said she was taken aback, but answered the question. Then Martin asked the interviewee “why it was important to her.” Her response, Martin said, was (direct quote) “Oh, I’d never work for a person who’s not white.” (Here’s the corresponding on-line piece, with a summary of the conversation).

The broadcast feature sounded a tad different from the on-line one, but that is an accurate rendering of the meaning of the exchange.

The vignette sounded odd to me. First, I’ve been living for more than half-a-century, and I’ve paid attention. I’ve heard stories of terrible things that white people have said and done to black people, and I’ve been saddened by every one of them. But, nowadays I’m hearing stories that simply don’t ring true. And I’ve never heard anything happen like what the teller recounts. I’ve never even heard of anyone having said that.

Here’s another one I covered several months ago. The story just didn’t ring true to me, so I challenged the storyteller about it. Her silence was even more telling than her story. I think that the storyteller wanted the story to be true, and even for it to be true about her, so that she would be able to enjoy her Noble Victim status some more.  You can just hear her saying to herself, “Well, I’m sure it happens all the time, so I don’t believe that I lied in telling it.”

Back to the nanny story. In this hyper-charged, hyper-sensitive time, do you think that some (presumably) white girl would send an e-mail to someone asking her race, then another e-mail saying, “Oh, I’d never work for a person who’s not white.”?

Nope. Not even the most racist white person in the world would do that. Americans know what to avoid in talking and e-mailing and talking on the phone and tweeting and facebooking and instagramming and all that. Furthermore, let’s face it, Michel Martin is a rich liberal in a gated community — Oh, I don’t know this for sure, but she has the NPR sound, the sound of the Barack Obama, smooth-talking, I’m-so-smart-and-knowledgeable, air-headed liberal. They live in gated, hyper-exclusive communities, with white husbands and one kid. The girl she was interviewing lives in the same gated community and — I guarantee it — knows about facebooking, tweeting, instagramming, e-mailing, and most especially about not sending the words, “Oh, I’d never work for a person who’s not white” over e-mail.

Sorry, I’m skeptical this even happened.

I think, though, that this Michel Martin really wanted the story to be true so much that she figured that even if it wasn’t true, it really was. Because, you see, she’s sure that kind of thing happens to black Americans all the time. If it doesn’t, well that would get in the way of a good story, now wouldn’t it, and NPR can’t let that happen.

At the very end, Shapiro said to Martin, something to the effect that Martin would be a regular contributor to NPR after her “Tell Me More” show ends. NPR is all about race, race, race, race and more race. And all with the same false narrative woven throughout: great and courageous black people somehow surviving despite the constant oppression of white racism. Anyone willing to make any bets on what topic Martin will be tackling?

But did NPR lie in introducing her to their larger news audience? I think so. They’re leftists. Leftists lie to advance their goals.

– xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 7/28/14

I was listening to NPR on the way in to work today. They did a feature on “coffee rust,” a fungus that is threatening South America’s coffee crop.

They found a farmer whose crop was badly damaged and he said what? Why, that it was “climate change” that had caused it, of course!

“Temperatures are getting warmer and warmer, and that allows the fungus to grow and flourish,” he said… or words to that effect.

Only one problem. Scientists have been quietly, sheepishly admitting that there has been no warming on the planet now for almost 20 years.

Oh, certain areas undergo cyclical warming and cooling due to fluctuations in air and water currents and the like. As they have been doing for eons. But “global warming” is dead. It quietly, magically became “climate change” as it grew increasingly embarrassing to say “global warming.”

NPR has been flogging the long-dead “climate change/global warming” horse/hoax for a very long time, demonstrating once again that they are the most behind-the-times, reactionary “news” organization of the major American media organizations.

Listening to them is like stepping into a time capsule. Their view on race relations is that conditions are as they were in the early 1960’s, where blacks were squashed under an oppressive white thumb, as opposed to the favored, fawned upon, almost revered group of “Noble Victims” blacks became long ago.

Women? Same thing. NPR thinks they are simply more Noble Victims, moaning under the lash of snarling male supremacist savagery, and not the coddled, omphaloskepsistic whiners feminists have turned so many of them into.

How about the sexually confused? Yep. You guessed it. This bunch, whose sex-like activities were always and are still, cringe-inducing, have been transformed by media outlets like NPR into near angelic creatures, filled with the towering moral authority of the Noble Victim. Yet, NPR would like to pretend that they are daily trampled in the streets, and not the pampered, coddled bunch they really are.

NPR’s latest is making sure that boys who think they’re girls and girls who think they’re boys — the latest Noble Victims: the “transgendered” — are supported in their craziness, and not helped to stop being crazy.

As with “Climate Change,” NPR can never observe and acknowledge that times actually have changed and that, maybe, just maybe, they should be able to see that change — what with being reporters and all.

– xPraetorius

Abortion: A Thought Exercise

A little thought exercise:

Put a staunch pro-death person, a staunch pro-life person, and a staunch pro-death pregnant woman in the same room. Tell them they have to resolve the abortion argument so that they are unanimous, in agreement, before they can come out. You’ll send in food, clothing and other necessities, but they can’t come out until they are — all three — in unanimous agreement.

I really don’t think I have to finish the exercise, because in setting it up — and it’s a perfectly reasonable setup — our side, the pro-life side, the side of all that is good and decent :) , has already won. Even though I set it up to the apparent disadvantage of the pro-life side.

Most people realize that the following things would happen:

1.) The three would debate/argue/discuss. The “debate” takes the usual form: developing human life vs. choice and “reproductive rights.” Neither side would sway the other.

2.) The developing baby would continue to develop.

3.) As the months pass, and the developing baby grows bigger, the pregnant woman begins to lose some of her enthusiasm for abortion. After all, it’s starting to be just a bit unseemly talking about killing “it” while “it’s” busy obviously growing and being all baby-like inside her.

4.) At the end of nine months, as the argument continues, there is some business to attend to: “It” wants to come out and join in. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that the newborn baby joins on the pro-life side. :)

5.) Out he or she comes — let’s call him “Michael” — and the argument continues.

Note: If a truth is true, then it’s always true. And it’s still true as the newborn baby joins in on the argument, though not using a whole lot of words. Still, just the very presence of a baby — trust me, I know — is a powerful thing.

6.) Now, the woman is torn. She knows what she once believed, but that belief is profoundly shaken with the arrival of little Mikey, who’s just mondo cute! She has serious difficulty arguing that her previous “truth” is now true. The pro-death position that before grew increasingly unseemly, as Mikey developed inside her, now seems grotesque, repugnant. But, how can that be? The truth is the truth is the truth. It’s not sometimes true. What kind of a truth would that be if it were only sometimes true? If it’s true, as Mikey was developing, then it’s still true as he looks up at Mommy and giggles at her silly faces and nonsense words. The pro-life dude gently makes the point that no one in the world can know perfectly, if at all, just when it’s okay to kill Mikey and when it’s not. More to the point. If after that point, the pro-death dude is still pro-death, then he has to admit that he’s saying it’s still okay to “abort” Mikey — even as he looks up at Mommy and gurgles and laughs. This is the ineluctable “logic” of the pro-abortion crowd. They’ll never admit it, though, because they haven’t thought through it completely. And, yes, there are people in Europe who propose that a woman should be able to have a post-natal “abortion” if she so chooses… only in cases of birth defects and the like, of course. (Yeah, right!) Before the 1940’s such people were actually quite fashionable. They were called “eugenicists” and “Nazis.” Later, we came to look down on the once fashionable idea of killing the “defective” for the convenience of others. Now, they’re coming back into vogue in Europe.

7.) Now, there are three pro-life people in the room, and one pro-death one. The pro-death one, if he has any conscience whatsoever, recognizes that life itself just gave him a demonstration of the feebleness and decrepitude of his previous position.

8.) Four pro-life people then emerge from the room.

It’s difficult to imagine any other dénouement to that perfectly reasonable thought exercise. You may say that I stacked the deck against the pro-death dude, to which I’d respond, “You can’t beat a baby in an argument? Furthermore, if your point-of-view is so evidently true, it shouldn’t take more than a week or two to convince the pro-life dude of the error of his ways. What are you worried about?!?”

This little thought exercise is just the “re-enactment,” if you will, of a very pointed thing I read once. It said: “You can argue about abortion all you want, just don’t do it for more than nine months.”

Oh, that’s right, I said it. (here)

– xPraetorius


The Very Definition of the Useful Idiot

I’m referring to the woman who wrote this post here.

A “useful idiot” was how the Soviets used to refer to leftists in America during the Cold War. These useful idiots had no clue they were simply stooges doing much of  the work of the Soviet Unions propaganda machine for them, when they argued and demonstrated and advocated for “peace.” Of course, the Soviet Union was perfectly uninterested in peace. They were interested in their quest to spread Marxism around the world.

Anyone who’s studied Marxism even a little knows that a central tenet of its belief system is that “communism” is inevitable. Karl Marx further predicted that the spread of communism would happen through violent paroxysms of revolution or war.

Therefore, if you’re a real Marixst, then you’re a believer in spreading communism around the world, via war or violent revolution.

The useful idiots in the West, thoroughly ignorant as most of them were about Marxism, were all about disarming the West unilaterally, in order to show the Soviets our “good faith” and our “belief in peace.” This, thought the useful idiots, would bring about peace, as the Soviets — and the rest of the communist world — recognized that we in the West were no longer a threat to them.

Now that the Soviet Union is gone, the useful idiots in the West remain plentiful. Today’s useful idiots spend their time doing the heavy lifting here in America for the propaganda machines of terrorist groups around the world.

The woman in the above-linked post is one such useful idiot. She has written a “more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger” post about how, despite being of Jewish heritage, she no longer feels that Israel represents her “birthright.”

She goes on at some length to tell about all the Palestinians Israel has killed and finished with this little golden nugget:

I am naïve, I suppose. I know that I am heartbroken. I just want everyone to live.

Shin. Lamed. Mem. I trace the letters and teach my daughter the word for peace.

What could possibly be wrong with that? Well, for one thing, the dead Palestinians are dead precisely because the Palestinian leadership — Hamas — wants them dead. As much as we might wish them to, Hamas doesn’t “just want everybody to live.” As far as Hamas is concerned, the cuter, the younger, the more telegenic, and the more dead there are, the better.

This is why Hamas sites its missile launchers in populated neighborhoods. Why also Israel gives warning to a target area before launching strikes against it.

This pre-strike warning is itself absolutely unprecedented in the annals of warfare! No one has ever given advanced warning of when and where they are going to attack. Yet, Israel — and the United States (Desert Wars I and II), it should be said — have done so, in the expressed interest of doing everything possible to minimize civilian casualties.

Hamas has done everything in its power to maximize civilian casualties on its own side, in order to “win” the propaganda war. However, you can’t win the propaganda war without useful idiots to spread your propaganda.

Hamas, you see, is not interested in peace. They’re interested in wiping Israel off the map.

Play a little thought exercise with me: Pretend that a genie appears to every Hamas fighter, presents him with a little red button, and says to him:

“Push the button once, and every Israeli will die a horrible death right now, and you will be able to claim the land now called Israel for your own people. Push the button twice, and you will still be able to claim the land now called Israel, but I will give every Israeli enough time to flee to safety, say a year. Press the button three times, and I will simply wink every Israeli out of existence, and you will be able to claim the land now called Israel. Do nothing and I will leave everything as it is now.”

I probably don’t have to tell you the results of that little “poll,” now do I? Ok, I will: Near 100% of Hamas would push the button one time. You and I know it.

For all everyone’s talk about Israeli “genocide,” Hamas has actually stated that genocide is a goal of theirs. And, they would prove it if such a hypothetical genie as I described above were to appear to them.

The woman, one Shira Lipkin does say some interesting things. Here’s one, for example:

My daughter went to Israel two years ago. Not on a Birthright trip, the very name of which raises the hairs on the back of my neck, that entitlement to land that others have lived on for generations.

Several observations: (1) Wow! If only, others could give up their claim to things owed their ancestors from many decades or centuries ago! America’s Race Grievance Industry would wink out of existence overnight! (2) American Indians would just say, “Oh, well…they’ve lived on it for generations now, let’s go find somewhere else.” (3) Somehow I think this woman didn’t really mean to say this. She seems like a good little leftist, so that means that her favored claimants can hang onto grudges, land claims and the like, for as long as they want, but not groups she doesn’t like. (5) The web site I linked to that reproduced this moron’s pathetic screed is the infamous “Brotha Wolf,” longtime member in good standing of the parasitical Race Grievance Industry here in America. These are the very people doing their level best to keep the fires of racial resentment raging. These are the most entitled-feeling people in the country, and possibly the world, today.

As regards the lady’s claim to be naïve — uhhhh, yeah! Ya freakin’ think?!?

Yes, she is naïve — also, stupid, idiotic, shallow, ignorant, ill-informed, uneducated — a useful idiot.

– xPraetorius


Yes You Can!

You can link great guitarists with execrable Presidents, as we did here.

However, I’m not sure there’s really a good reason to.

I mean, why taint a great guitarist like Lee Ritenour by associating him, in the same “Short,” with a doofus like Barack Obama?

I’m not sure I have the answer to that question.

– xPraetorius

Lee Ritenour and Barack Obama

Forgotten sometimes is just how frightfully, astonishingly good Lee Ritenour is as a guitarist. And how jaw-droppingly awful, how almost impossibly execrable Barack Obama is as a President.

Barack Obama is the living, breathing, staring-you-in-your-face-at-the-unemployment-line, grinning-at-you-as-you-pick-up-your-welfare-check, mocking-you-as-you-contemplate-what-could-have-been-in-race-relations reminder of the importance of remembering that it’s vastly more important to elect a good President than it is to elect a black President.

– xPraetorius

Lee Ritenour & Dave Grusin Live at Java Jazz Festival 2013 – YouTube

Lee Ritenour & Dave Grusin Live at Java Jazz Festival 2013 – YouTube.

Forgotten sometimes is just how frightfully, astonishingly good Lee Ritenour is as a guitarist.


– xPraetorius

Paco de Lucia & John Mclaughlin & Al Di Meola – A Special Guitar Summernight – YouTube

Paco de Lucia & John Mclaughlin & Al Di Meola – A Special Guitar Summernight – YouTube.

Here’s some more serious guitar fun.

So much more poignant now that Paco’s gone. Paco was so good! Now he’s so missed!

– xPraetorius

John McLaughlin, Jonas Hellborg – Pacific Express – YouTube

John McLaughlin, Jonas Hellborg – Pacific Express – YouTube.

This is some serious bass and guitar fun —  and funk!

– xPraetorius

Bireli Lagrene & John McLaughlin Blue Train – YouTube

Bireli Lagrene & John McLaughlin Blue Train – YouTube.

A rare video of mine…

I wish! 

However, I can do a little boast, and I will. Why? Because I can. :)

The above linked video is actually one of a couple of my guitar heroes: John McLaughlin (website) and Biréli Lagrène (website).

A short story:

I have a number of videos on YouTube and I ventured to play one for a (very) casual acquaintance. As she listened, she got a quizzical look on her face. “Who does that remind me of?” she said. I remained silent. Then she brightened: “I know,” she said, “I was listening to some Mahavishnu the other day, and this sounds just like John McLaughlin.”

Well, let me tell you, that made me some kinda happy! And, yes, John McLaughlin is one of my all-time guitar influences. Though, I suspect, he and I would be on different sides of the fence politically. :) Oh, well… you can’t have everything!

The above-linked recording is of John McLaughlin and Biréli Lagrène just foolin’ around, but it’s also something I might do with friends of mine as well. Kind of a go-ahead-just-start-playing-something-I’ll-jump-in-when-I-figure-it-out kinda thing. It’s nice, and I remind this casual acquaintance of John Mclaughlin [insert image of me patting self on back]. :)

– xPraetorius

Bireli Lagrene & Stochelo Rosenberg play Spain – YouTube

Bireli Lagrene & Stochelo Rosenberg play Spain – YouTube.

Biréli sits in with Stochelo, Nous’che and Nonni Rosenberg, and they play Chick Corea’s Spain? That’s got to be a lot of fun!

And, it turns out, so it is. There is some serious guitar fun on this song.


– xPraetorius

My Favorite Version of this GREAT song – Rosenberg Trio – For Sephora – YouTube

Rosenberg Trio – For Sephora – YouTube.

I’m a really good guitar player, so I recognize greatness when I hear (and see) it. Stochelo Rosenberg is a truly great guitarist. So is his cousin Nous’che as a rhythm guitarist. And Nonnie is the perfect bassist for this trio.

This song is so compelling and mesmerizing and riveting and .. magnetic that I don’t have words for it.

It’s the style I play sometimes, and I can’t say enough for how good these guys are at it, and for how riotously, fun and laugh-out-loud wonderful this song — a tribute to Stochelo’s little sister — is.

There are miracles of sweetness and beauty and love and laughter — lots of them — and sometimes they’re as close to us as YouTube.

If you’re a guitar-playin’ man, as I am, this is just over four minutes of sheer delight!


– xPraetorius

For Sephora BEST VERSION EVER !! Rosenberg Trio and Bireli – YouTube

For Sephora BEST VERSION EVER !! Rosenberg Trio and Bireli – YouTube.

Just delightful… good for the soul.

– xPraetorius

Obama’s Approval at 39% (Part II)

Not a single, solitary thing in the world is better off as a result of Obama’s having been President for more than five years.

  • The economy? Nope. Obama came in when it was just beginning to rebound and immediately put the brakes on it. Remember all the “Summers of Recovery?” Yuh. Me too. I was busy losing financial ground, earning power, buying power, income, savings and hope for the future.
  • Race relations? Remember: “the first post-racial President?” Yep. Me too. Race relations are in the toilet, and it’s largely because of Obama. He could have been constructive here, and he was as destructive as he could possibly have been. His pathetically stupid reactions to the Henry Louis Gates and Trayvon Martin incidents were perfectly designed to keep racial resentments high for a very long time to come. This was an opportunity squandered, where he actually could have done — and might actually have had the inclination to do — something not jaw-droppingly stupid. Nope. Never let it be said that Obama ever let an opportunity pass him by to muck things up.  Then, of course, to take credit for “fixing it” at important events like “beer summits.”
  • International situation? Nope. Consider:
    • Nuclear North Korea
    • Nuclear Iran
    • Middle East in flames
    • Syria
    • Iraq is all but lost
    • Losing Afghanistan
    • And boy how effective that hashtag campaign was at getting the Nigerian girls back!
    • Crimea lost
    • Ukraine swirling around the drain
    • Relations with Russia trashed — but Obama was saved from the Syria “red line” embarrassment  by Putin – at the cost of thousands of lives in Ukraine and Crimea.
    • Eastern European NATO allies thoroughly disgusted at abandonment by Obama.
    • Obama and his Secretaries of State — Tweedle Dee Clinton and Tweedle Dum Kerry have achieved not one of the goals they have set. Not one. On January 20th, 2017, the world will look vastly more hostile than it did 8 years previous. If these last three personages are not the very definition of vainglorious mediocrities, then no one is.
  • But, healthcare! Oh? It’s in a shambles. Everything the Obamacare opponents said would happen has happened… and then some. Obama took the finest healthcare system in the world, placed it in the toilet and flushed. Remember “You can keep your healthcare plan! Period.”? Yep. I remember it too. Remember “You can keep your doctor! Period.”? Yep. I remember it too. Know why I remember those things? ‘Cause my doctor and my healthcare plan are nothing but freakin’ memories! Now, I wave to my doctor when I pass him on the street. Sometimes we’ll get together and reminisce about when I could keep my healthcare plan and my doctor.
  • Obama’s policies haven’t improved anything anywhere. Not domestically, not internationally, not in any area on which he’s focused…not freakin’ galactically! Scientists recently made a startling discovery: it was a big sign on Mars that said: “Please, Please, Please Vote Republican in 2014 and 2016″.
  • How’s Ukraine doing now? Uhhh… next topic.
  • How’re Israel and Palestine doing? We have the Botoxicated buffoon over there — you know, John Kerry? — surely he’ll smooth things over. Errr, ummm…no.

What’s worse is that, secretly, Democrats admit all of the above too. They’re just too corrupt to admit it publicly, where it might actually do some good.

Oh, there is one good thing that has come out of the Obama Administration: Michelle, Barack and the kids are all doing really well. They’ll be just fine in their gated community somewhere in Hawaii.

Obama’s approval rate is at 39%?!? How on earth is it even remotely that high?!?

– xPraetorius

Obama’s Approval at 39%

Only one reaction is appropriate: How in the world is it even remotely that high?!?

– xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 7/25/14

In some occasionally fast-paced online debates I have used the following phrase: “Do you even read what you write?”

I use that phrase when someone has written something so stupid that a simple three- to six-word rebuttal is often all that’s necessary to knock it down. Here’s an example:

First you accuse me of pathological self-centeredness and inflated self regard, THEN you accuse me of having a meager ego! Do you even READ what you write? Worse, did that little gem ACTUALLY pass your editing?!?

That kind of thing.

Frequently NPR is guilty of such nitwittery. They certainly were the other day, in a feature that I listened to as I drove home. The feature was on their afternoon “news” program entitled “All Things Considered.” It really should be called “A Really Limited Range of Leftist Things Only Very Selectively Considered.”

The first thing is, you have to realize that NPR is always, unfailingly, hyper-politically correctIf you’re a member of an NPR-approved leftist grievance group then they accept — in toto — everything you say, your vocabulary, everything you do, all your claims. The principal NPR-approved grievance groups are: the Race Grievance Industry, and the Feminist, Environmentalist and Gay and Gender-Identity Grievance Industries.

You should not, however, lose sight of: American Indians — or indigenous peoples — single women, government employees and unions, WWII Japanese internees, girls, crazy people, convicts, Democrat candidates for all elective offices, the IRS, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder and numerous other aggrieved groups. There’s a lot of overlap in these grievance groups too. Many people use membership in several of these groups as an excuse to fail in America, the greatest opportunity society history has ever seen.

If anyone from any of those parasitical groups says that something is a problem, NPR reports this problem as “news,” and does a feature on what they think can be done to resolve the problem — never questioning whether or not it’s actually a problem.

Under our scrutiny today is a feature NPR did on women’s lot in the the Arab world. Their story ended up talking about — in the finest NPR-patented, alarmed and deeply earnest tones — something that is not a problem in any sense of the word, while going to great pains to leave out completely something that is a very serious problem.(1)

NPR’s topic: Women’s rights in the Arab world. Note the word “Arab.” It’s important because of the word NPR didn’t use.

The correspondent — an earnest-sounding chippy with a resolute, focused sound to her voice — a certain Nadine Marroushi — in an interview with Audie Cornish, the robotic, affect-deprived hostette of the afternoon show, reported that the five worst countries for women’s rights were, Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Syria and Yemen. Marroushi then “reported” that the worst of these was Egypt. NPR’s accompanying online “article” used the graphic below to illustrate their story:



It’s an interesting graphic, and the typo on the rightmost woman’s full-body covering shows the extent to which foreigners try to communicate to the west in their media-oriented activities.

Just a couple of quick observations: Iran never made the list? Seriously?


That’s because Iran isn’t an Arab state. I guess those who did the survey had to formulate it cleverly like that, so as to be able to leave out actual countries that have embraced islam as a governing philosophy. In other words, the ones doing the survey figured they needed somehow to give islam a pass as far as women’s rights are concerned.

Can you imagine doing a story about the Arab countries, and leaving out Islam? Does that make any sense? To NPR it does.

Look again at the picture above. Do you think those women are all covered from head to toe in black body coverings because they wish to maintain their anonymity? Or is it because of the “i” word?

Also, what are those women doing? Right. They’re protesting… likely in favor of women’s rights. In Iran if they were to take to the streets like that they’d be killed or imprisoned or disappeared. Or all three, though not necessarily in that order.

Then, why did Iraq make the list of the five worst? Simple: because most of the country is now ruled by the muslim goons of the so-called “Islamic State,” the former “ISIS.” You know, those strict islamicists? The ones crucifying and beheading people in Iraq? The ones who issued an edict to all Christians in the territories they control: Convert, leave or die? Yep, those very same people. There’s that “i” word again. The word that was left completely out of the interview and the online feature (here).

Do a search in the online “article” — really a transcript of the interview — for the word “islam.” Nope. It’s not there. Yet, there, in that very graphic above are three women dressed head-to-toe in black, showing only their eyes. I wonder what makes them do that in that hot, hot land.

The interview continued, and Cornish, said:

We should note, sexual harassment is not just a problem in Tahrir Square. In 2008, a survey by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Right found that 83 percent of Egyptian women had experienced sexual harassment. How widespread would you say this problem is in Egypt?

Well! That’s pretty depressing — that 83% number! Or is it?

Let’s see.

In the very next paragraph of the online piece, we learn the following from Nadine Marroushi:

I mean, even more recently than the 2008 survey, Thomson Reuters issued a survey(2), in which it was found that Egypt was the worst place in the Arab world to be a woman. So it’s a problem that happens across the country, not just in Tahrir Square. It happens on university campuses. It happens in rural areas and sexual harassment – you know, where women are stared at, where comments are made – is a day-to-day occurrence. You know, it’s very hard to feel safe as a woman in Egypt.

Oooooooooohhhhhh… women are — wait for it — stared at. But, even worse: there are comments being made! Sounds like a hellish place of torment and despair!

Much worse to be ** shudder **  stared at than, say, stoned to death if you were to, say, appear in Iran as Nadine Marroushi does, here (and below), on her website:


Being stared at is certainly worse than having someone come up to you on a street in Iran and slashing your legs to ribbons because maybe you exposed a bit of ankle. Absolutely being “stared at” is far worse than such inconsequential leg lacerations.

Much more horrible to be the subject of comments being made than to be thrown into prison indefinitely in Iran for doing as those women are doing above in Egypt.

Much better to tailor the “survey” to cover the “Arab World,” to leave out Iran.

Based on the description of “being stared at” and being the subject of “comments being made,” 100% of all men I know have been the “victims” of sexual harassment.

If that’s a definition of sexual harassment, then I’ve been “sexually harassed” many thousands of times in my life.

There is a simple truth: At some point in everyone’s life — man or woman — they will be “the victim” of something that fits the current broad, vastly expansive definition of “sexual harassment.”

By way of further detail to my assertion that I was sexually harassed, I used to be an underwear model — it’s happened to me literally (Not Joe Biden “literally,” but actually, in truth, in fact — literally) thousands of times. I used to be tall, blonde, well-built and movie-star handsome. I got stared at overtly, covertly, all the time. Comments were made, believe me. By the way, I’m still tall. :)

It — “sexual harassment” as defined by nutty feminism — happens a lot to those — men or women — who fit the current definition for “physically attractive.” It’s just biology. It has nothing to do with respect or disrespect; it has to do with biology, and attraction, and primordial urges in place long before feminism came along to ruin men-women relations. There’s nothing that anyone can do about biology, ever.

The left and morons like NPR and Nadine Marroushi are doing their level best to abolish biology, but they can’t and they won’t. Simply re-defining biologically-influenced behavior as bad, does nothing to squelch the biologically-induced urge to do the behavior. Good luck accomplishing that! And, really, would any sane person want to?

So, again, I have to pose the question: “Do they even read what they write?” Does someone, somewhere actually read the copy for NPR’s anchors and their correspondents, and then approve it?!? Does anyone actually think about any of this jackassery?

The answer is probably pretty simple: No.

It’s worth repeating: If you’re a member of an approved leftist grievance group then NPR accepts — in toto — everything you say, your vocabulary, everything you do, all your claims. That makes for some real howlers — like today’s feature — and reinforces what we’ve been saying right along: if you listen to NPR as comedy, then it all makes sense.

If you simply assume that they’re trying to be as funny as they actually are, then you can listen to them, and appreciate their broadcast content, while laughing right along with the rest of us who’ve figured out the secret.


On the other hand, women’s lot in the Middle East is bad, and it’s simply because of that persnickety “i” word. If you could fix that — because it is a problem — you would get rid of all those inconvenient and irrelevant  stonings, beatings, imprisonments, lacerations and the like that NPR struggled so valiantly to keep out of their feature. I mean — women are being stared at, and comments are being made, you people!

I need to go sit in a corner, and rock wordlessly back-and-forth for the sheer trauma of it!

– xPraetorius


(1)  Note: that is NPR’s principal modus operandi. If you understand only that, you will understand NPR better than all their devoted, ovine, left-wing listeners, who actually take them seriously as a source of information.

(2) Here’s how NPR describes the Thomson Reuters survey: 

To conduct the study of 22 Arab countries, 336 gender experts were asked questions based on the U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women at the end of this summer. The questions dealt with topics ranging from the role of women in politics and business to reproductive rights and violence against women.

Hmmmm… How does one become a “gender expert” eligible to participate in a survey that NPR would consider airing? Oh, yes… you need to come to conclusions in Thomson Reuters surveys that NPR considers the proper conclusions.

Also, how does one become a “gender expert” in Arab countries? Or are these “gender experts” in outside countries looking in? What is a “gender expert?” Seems like the folks filling that particular job description have done a pretty bad job up ’til now. Aren’t there something like 19 total genders now? How did all those “gender experts” miss all those other genders running around for all those centuries? Seems like quite a large oversight. Or, is today’s “gender expert,” just another crazy doofus trying to pretend that boys aren’t boys and girls aren’t girls?

I looked into this shadowy U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and couldn’t find much to read that wasn’t like swallowing thumbtacks. You can guess that the proper title for this would really be “U.N. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Whether Real, Fabricated or Imagined,” and that the United States — where a woman can go from nothing to being a billionaire (cf.: “Winfrey, Oprah”) without any great talent or intelligence — fares poorly in the assessment. That would be a “survey” that NPR would like, and that NPR’s  “A Really Limited Range of Leftist Things Only Very Selectively Considered” would air.

The Man Who Never Calls :: SteynOnline

The Man Who Never Calls :: SteynOnline.

Wow! Mark Steyn says it, as only he can say it, again.

Perfectly, on the nose, on-target, skewering buffoons and morons as they go about their business of turning the entire world into a third-world hellhole.

Read the above-linked Steyn essay and be prepared, as always, to laugh and cry. Steyn is the unparalleled, unrivaled king of the well-turned phrase.

For example: here Steyn sums up Obama’s “efforts” (if golfing every day can be called “efforts”) in the Middle East:

To define American “allies” as broadly as possible, name one who has any reason to trust Obama or his emissaries. In Cairo, General Sisi regards Obama as a Muslim Brotherhood sympathizer; in Riyadh, King Abdullah regards him as the enabler of the Shia Persian nuclear program; and in Amman, the other King Abdullah regards him as the feckless bungler who’s left the Jordanians with the world’s wealthiest terrorist group on their eastern border.

On why the “Palestinians” will never change in order for there to be peace:

As I said, this is all the stuff that never changes, and the likelihood that it will change lessens with every passing half-decade. I wrote the above column at the time Jenin and the other Palestinian “refugee camps” were celebrating their Golden Jubilee. That’s to say, the “UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees” is older than most African, Caribbean or Pacific states. What sort of human capital do you wind up with after four generations have been born as “refugees”? If you’ve ever met a charming, urbane Palestinian doctor or lawyer in London or Paris, you’ll know that anyone who isn’t a total idiot – ie, the kind of people you need to build a nation – got out long ago. The nominal control of the land has passed from Jordan and Egypt to Israel to Arafat to Abbas to Hamas, but the UNRWA is forever, running its Mister Magoo ground operation and, during the periodic flare-ups, issuing its usual befuddled statements professing complete shock at discovering that Hamas is operating rocket launchers from the local kindergarten.

And this:

But, like I said, that’s all the stuff that never changes, decade in, decade out. The problem this time round is that everything else in the region is changing. Jordan’s population has swollen by 25 per cent, refugees from the Syrian civil war. Does anyone seriously think the UN has plans to set up a refugee agency to minister to them until the year 2090 and beyond? ISIS have destroyed the Christian churches in Mosul and chased the entire Christian community out of town. Does anyone seriously think the Europeans will be championing Iraqi Christians’ “right of return” for the next three-quarters of a century?

ISIS is doing what winners do in war: It’s shaping the facts on the ground. It wants no Christians in Iraq, and it’s getting on with it. General Sisi wants to kill the Muslim Brotherhood: He’s getting on with it. The wilier Brothers have slipped over into a collapsing Libya to make common cause with various al-Qaeda affiliates, as the Libyan state implodes: Its would-be successors are getting on with it. In the new Middle East, everyone and his uncle has an Obama-Clinton “Reset” button and they’ve pressed it.

And finally:

But they’re not Jews. So nobody minds, and no preening Botoxicated buffoon of an American emissary comes to lecture them.

Kerry, as Obama’s plenipotentiary, is a paradox – the physical presence of a geopolitical absence:

Yesterday, upon the stair,

I met a man who wasn’t there.

He wasn’t there again today,

I wish, I wish he’d go away…

Thus John Kerry, in Jerusalem and Cairo and beyond.

John Kerry: “Botoxicated buffoon.” If that doesn’t sum up John Kerry perfectly, nothing does.

You always do a good thing for yourself when you read Mark Steyn.

– xPraetorius

“Progressives?” Hah! Leftists are NOT “Progressives” — They’re “Preservatives”

Why? Because they’re dead set against progress.

Progress means change; out with the old, in with the new.

You can see how this kind of change absolutely terrifies “Progressives” in nearly everything they do.

In the environment? Vast areas of land are under the control of the United States government so that they will never change, and so that you and I will never set foot on them, except in extremely limited places, in extremely limited ways. The federal government “owns” something like two-thirds of all the land in the United States. Think the “progressive” environmentalists will allow anyone to make a lot of changes to that land? You know — to do some “progress” on it?

Nope. Me neither.

How ’bout the American Democrat Party — the so-called “Progressive Party” — the so-called party of science and “progress,” the one that believes so passionately and wholeheartedly in evolution? How ’bout them?

Well, evolution is the continual changing of living things — into other living things — via a constant process of the struggle to survive. The theory says that the “fittest” survive, thereby baking into a species’ genetic code the characteristics most suited for that species’ survival. And the not-quite-so-fittest? What happens to them? Well, they go extinct. It’s all science, all stuff the “Progressives” claim loudly to love so much.

Well, then how come the “Progressives” can’t allow even the most insignificant of species to go extinct — the snail darter, for example — without shutting down whole industries to try to save it.

Remember the snail darter? A tiny fish that had “evolved,” or so the environmental left said, so that it could live only in some lake in Nevada or thereabouts (the locale is not important). The point being that apparently, that is a species that evolved itself into a corner that was going to lead to extinction, no matter what mankind could do.

Never mind that millions and millions and millions and millions of species popped up and went extinct long before man ever set foot on the planet. And they’d continue to do so if mankind were to disappear today. However, heaven forfend that the perfectly natural process of extinction continue as it has for untold millennia while the left is around! No, no, no… we must preserve every species, despite what nature would do. “Progressives” don’t hate only progress, they’re against nature itself!

How about economics? Well, capitalism is the process of “creative destruction.” Businesspeople find newer, better ways and equipment to do things, and as a result, those who stay with the old ways and tools risk losing opportunities for employment.

The correct lesson for life is: It’s dynamic; you have to be on a constant quest to learn new things and remake your skills every day if you wish to prosper. However, the lesson the left — the “Progressives” — take from that glaring truth is that we have to stop the introduction of these new things, we have to stop the progress. They use the antiquated tool of unions — known for corruption and thuggery — to put a stop to things like automation, outsourcing and innovation.

More about economics? The “Progressives'” big thing is regulation. However, regulation adds a stifling burden to the ability of entrepreneurs to start new businesses, invent and market new products, hire people and invest in capital.

When a potential entrepreneur sets out to start a new enterprise, he often sees the daunting gauntlet of paperwork, approvals, signatures, committees, fees, compliance boards, bureaucracy — regulation — through which he has to pass just to start it up never mind to keep it going. Some percentage of entrepreneurs simply say, “The heck with it,” and don’t do it at all.

The more regulation, the more discouraged entrepreneurs there are, who just go work for someone else. How many new ideas, innovations, inventions — how much progress — have “Progressives” stopped dead in its tracks due to regulation?

All this is why I don’t call the left “Progressives.” But, they’re not “Conservatives” either, even though they would claim the mantle of “Conservation.” No, we’re Conservatives.

Nowadays, “Conservatism” has less to do with “conserving,” and more to do with dismantling the leftist barnacles and shipworms rotting the timbers and working to stop the great ship of state in its tracks. No, American leftists are “Preservatives.”

“Progressives” want to preserve all the old, obsolete, ossified government bureaucracy — and add more! — to preserve all the old, sclerotic regulation that so cripples forward progress — and add more! — to preserve all the obsolete, corrupt unions that are balls-and-chains around the ankles of commerce and education, to preserve the heavy-handed, ham-fisted, long failed, outdated and discredited ideas and dogmas of the past, while doing everything in their considerable power to block real progress. “Progressives” want to preserve as much as possible the “environment,” as it is now unchanged, untouched. Are you discerning a pattern here? “Progressives” absolutely are not for change or progress or forward movement, they’re for preserving everything just as it is now. Except with more regulation to lock it further in stasis.

Search up the “Tennessee Valley Authority” sometime to see an example of this at work.

The American left’s — “Progressives'” — every action and initiative serve to lock still more of American life into its present condition, until there’ll be nothing left to lock down, and they will have eliminated progress altogether.

Publicly, we should stop calling them “Progressives” and start calling them “Preservatives.”

– xPraetorius

Big Chief Forked-Tongue Elizabeth Warren’s Unintentional Confession (Part IV)

The last couple of days, we’ve been examining a speech that extreme-leftist Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts gave to a crowd of low-information voters known as “Democrats.”

We’ve focused on one particular part of her speech that gave a particularly clear picture of just how crashingly ignorant Senator Warren is about economics and real life. Oh, Elizabeth Warren is highly educated, but she’s also jaw-droppingly ignorant.

Remember back in the 1400’s when it was “educated” to answer “flat” when your teacher posed to you the question: “The Earth is (a) round, (b) flat, (c) trapezoidal, or (d) all of the above.”

If, indeed, you answered “(b) flat” then you got 100% on the quiz, you were educated, and you were … wrong. That’s Elizabeth Warren. A Democrat, and one of today’s Flat-Earthers.

Here’s the part we’ve homed in on in Warren’s speech:

“Conservatives are guided by an internal motto: ‘’I got mine; the rest of you are on your own.'”

Recently, I bemoaned the fact (here) that, far from embracing the accusation as we should, we Conservatives steer as far away from it as we can so that we won’t appear cruel, and greedy and evil. We explained, however, that the only way for us to get ours, without inheriting it,  is if there is enough freedom to allow the economic mobility that permits us to get it.

And — read this well — that means you can get yours too.

Here’s how else Warren proves her ignorance with that moronic statement above: we greedy capitalists not only want “the rest of you” to succeed, we need it. Without your prosperity, you won’t have the wherewithal to buy our goods and services.

After all, if you’re down and out, then you reduce your spending habits to cover food, shelter, clothing and little else. You’re certainly not buying my company’s toys, or motorbikes, or cars, or skis, or television sets, or computers. And you’re not coming to stay in my nice resort hotel or motel, and you’re not traveling to my historic area to spend your “tourist dollars,” ’cause you don’t have any tourist dollars.

No, you’re not doing any of that. You’re hunkering down, trying not to spend your dwindling savings on anything you don’t absolutely need. This is why business people — all business people — absolutely dread economic downturns, and why they pray for a strong economy where everyone prospers.

It’s simple: The more people prosper, the greater the total number of people able to purchase what I’m producing. The more people have good jobs, the more they’re confident enough to open their wallets, and that’s music to the business man’s ears. To every business man’s ears.

The converse is true too. In a shrinking economy, when people are not opening their wallets, the first businesses to go under are the marginal ones. If your business is having a hard time, then a recession will send it over the cliff. If the recession continues, then more and more and more and more businesses go over the cliff to join yours in shards at the bottom.

In hard times, the strong businesses lose out too. Their revenues fall, they cut costs, do layoffs, offshore their production lines, they struggle and flail and thrash about to try to stay successful, but if the recession continues, they go under too, victims of the hard times that force people to cut out all but the absolutely necessary expenditures.

Elizabeth Warren’s so far off base, it isn’t even funny.  There isn’t a Conservative in the world who ever thought “I got mine; the rest of you are on your own.” Every last Conservative who ever got his — to a man —  thinks: “I got mine; I hope to heck you get yours too, because that means the good times will keep on keepin’ on.”

These principals are not rocket economics. They’re simple common sense. Elizabeth Warren is either woefully backward, as well as unable to think her way out of a wet paper bag, or she’s criminally dishonest. Either way, she’s a sad excuse for an economist. What’s even sadder is that nobody in the press had the education level necessary to laugh Warren’s assertion out of the room, for the blockheaded nitwittery that it is.

Always, always, always be on your guard when a super-rich, gated-community, limousine liberal like the blockheaded Elizabeth Warren pretends she knows what Conservatives are thinking. Coupled with her ignorance of economics and capitalism, Elizabeth Warren is an Ignorance Triple Threat.

– xPraetorius

Big Chief Forked-Tongue Elizabeth Warren’s Unintentional Confession (Part III)

Radical-leftist Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts gave a speech a few days back. She was trying desperately to suck up to low-information voters out there — you know, low-information voters? The ones who couldn’t find Florida on a map of Miami? The reason Barack Obama is known today as “Mr. President? Those voters.

Warren needs the low-information voters to turn out in force on election day in order for her to prosper in her political career and one day become the President. As Kevin Williamson of National Review so aptly put it — the Democrats own the Stupid Vote. But they still need the Stupid Vote to turn out on Election Day.

Low-information voters are looking for two things from a scoundrel like Warren: (1) What free stuff are you going to give us? And (2) How are you going to stop those who are trying to stop giving us free stuff?

Snake-oil salesmen like Warren must then convince the low-information voters of two things: (1) She will deliver the free stuff, and (2) those mean, greedy, nasty, old other guys — Conservatives and Republicans — are breathing right down her neck as she tries to go to Washington to pick up the free stuff to deliver it to them personally.

The extent to which power-hungry blackguards like Warren are able to persuade the low-information voters of these last two things is the extent to which she will persuade them to turn off “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills” and the like, and go pull the “D” lever on election day.

So, as part of Warren’s assignment #1 — convince the low-information voters that she will bring on the free stuff — in her speech she said of Conservatives (whom she incorrectly equates with the Republican Party):

“Conservatives are guided by an internal motto: ‘I got mine; the rest of you are on your own.'”

We explored this seemingly damning accusation a bit here and here.

My response: “If only!” If only Conservatives — and Republicans — would come out gleefully, loudly and unambiguously in … full agreement!

The problem is that Conservatives and Republicans have never even so much has hinted at what she says we’re secretly dreaming about. So first off, at the very best, Warren is lying. For her to pretend that she knows what Conservatives are thinking is like me — a 6’5″ tall dude — pretending that I know what women are thinking.

There is no more foreign creature to Elizabeth Warren than a Conservative. Trust me, Elizabeth Warren, is the last person who should ever try to pretend she knows what Conservatives are thinking.

Be that as it may, I wish Conservatives were standing up full-throatedly defending a system in which you can get yours.

People may have lost track of the fact that the simple concept, so familiar to all Americans, of “getting yours,” was completely foreign to most people who ever lived on the earth.

We Conservatives should take Warren’s “accusation” and turn it right back on her. We should say something like:

Elizabeth Warren says that our “secret motto” is, “We got ours; now you’re on your own.” Well, she left out a few parts. She missed this: If we got ours, it’s because there’s a system in place, in this historically unprecedented country that permits someone to “get his.” If we got ours, it’s because we were free to get ours, and we were less encumbered by overbearing government regulators and busybodies like Senator Warren than any people in the history of the world. If we got ours, it was because in America, as nowhere else in the world in history, it’s possible to get ours. It’s never been that way – until the United States came along, that is.

However, when Elizabeth Warren says “we got ours,” she’s accusing us. For Elizabeth Warren if “we got ours,” that’s a really bad thing. For Elizabeth Warren, if “we got ours,” then we need to be punished, or we need to give “ours” to the government so they can give it to someone else who didn’t go out and do what was necessary to “get his” or hers, in this the land of more opportunity than any other in the history of the world.

If Elizabeth Warren has her way, she’ll punish you when “you get yours” too. You see, if “you get yours,” then Elizabeth Warren will think you’re a bad person, and that you need to give it to the government so they can “distribute your stuff ‘fairly.'” Elizabeth Warren is trying to steal your prospects for success from you.  Those dreams of yours of makin’ it big? Those are nightmares for Elizabeth Warren. That ambition of yours to start your own business? Those are evil ideas in your head. Evil, greedy ideas. The idea of taking that second job to save up for your future and your family’s future? I’ll bet you thought that was responsible, didn’t you? You’re wrong. It’s a bad idea. It’s a selfish, greedy idea. That would mean that you might have more than someone else.

Elizabeth Warren doesn’t want you to dream of success. She wants to steal your chances for success. Then, if you succeed despite her best efforts, she wants to steal your success. She wants to steal your dreams for prosperity. She wants to steal your future. You can stop her. Get the ultimate revenge on this thief of the American Dream. Go get yours in America too.

– xPraetorius



Big Chief Forked-Tongue Elizabeth Warren’s Unintentional Confession (Part II)

A couple of days ago, we called out Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. She asserted that “Conservatives are guided by an internal motto: ‘I got mine; the rest of you are on your own.'”

We pointed out that she said this as if that were a bad thing. Yet, throughout history, and before the United States came along, governments have had only one common characteristic: making sure we, the people, did not — under any circumstances — “get ours.” Whatever “ours” might be: land, money, power… all was concentrated in the hands of the government — generally a monarch and a few hereditary nobles.

By the way, nowadays we call that “socialism,” and “equality.”

Before the United States, the phrase “I got mine” was impossible for us the people ever to say. The fact that Elizabeth Warren concedes that in the United States you can get yours is her very much unintentional tribute to capitalism, the only thing that allows anyone ever to “get theirs,” if they didn’t previously inherit it.

In the past, they — the government, the monarch, the oligarchies, the nobility, the tyrants, martinets, princes and potentates — all “got theirs,” their power and fortune, and then put in place whatever systems they could so that we, the people, could not “get ours.”

And we didn’t.

Until, that is, the United States came along. Along with its system that first introduced the very concept of someone getting his who was not part of the reigning nobility. All of a sudden there were people not in the government — you and me — “getting ours!” It was revolutionary and the world had not ever seen its like.

Oh, it wasn’t perfect. There were still too many people locked out of “getting theirs.” But the system that the founders put in place was such that it guaranteed that those restrictions would eventually disappear. And they did.

You cannot introduce economic mobility into a society — as China will find out if its demographic problems don’t overwhelm it — without that mobility taking over your entire society.

Economic mobility is a potent, corrosive force against tyranny.

Elizabeth Warren likes “equality.” Mobility — the ability to improve your situation — goes completely, 180 degrees against equality. As soon as you improve your lot you are no longer equal. If you invent a product that makes you rich, you are now part of the “problem,” so she says, of “income inequality.”

So, if you have that great idea that would raise your income considerably, you can advance that idea, but if Elizabeth Warren has her way, don’t expect any compensation for it, because then you would be making more of that yucky-poo “income inequality.”

If that’s the case then, why bother with the idea?

Income equality means nothing more nor less than universal impoverishment.

Oh, Elizabeth Warren, who wants to bring us back to the Stone Age when everyone was equal — except for the monarch and the nobles at the top — won’t say that’s her goal. She’ll say:

“We just want things to be more fair. Why should a corporate CEO make all that money? Why should there be such a difference between the CEO’s salary and that of the workers below him?”

The answer to that is simple: (1) It’s none of Elizabeth Warren’s bleepin’ business, or of anyone else’s for that matter. It’s the business of the company. Believe me, if the directors of the company thought that the company would do better by paying the CEO less, they would. Ben and Jerry found that out to their royal chagrin. And (2) If Elizabeth Warren can limit a CEO’s pay, she can limit — really decideyour pay, and mine.

Who in the world is this petty tyrant Elizabeth Warren to tell you or me how much we should make? I thought we got rid of kings and queens in America.

As mentioned in my previous post, (here) in a healthy country, “I got mine; you’re on your own,” would be sweet music to the people’s ears.

The people would realize that another way to say that is: “I got mine, and that means nothing less than: it’s finally possible for you to get yours too. As it never was before in history.”

Elizabeth Warren is trying to take away your ability to “get yours.” Don’t let her do that.

– xPraetorius

A Response to Elizabeth Warren | makeaneffort

A Response to Elizabeth Warren | makeaneffort.

This is outstanding! A clear rebuttal of Elizabeth Warren’s Suck-Up-To-The-Takers speech of a few days ago.

A genuine Must Read.

– xPraetorius

Big Chief Forked-Tongue Elizabeth Warren’s Unintentional Confession

Elizabeth Warren is the rookie Senator from Massachusetts. We refer to her affectionately as Big Chief Forked-Tongue Warren, because she lied about her ethnicity — tried to embellish it a bit by adding some non-existent American Indian blood when she was running for her current Senate seat.

Lately Warren’s been running around the country pretending that the Republicans run the country, even though Democrats have the Presidency, the Senate, the media, academia and Hollywood.

Despite all that, Big CF-T Warren has been in a fightin’ mood lately. Apparently, Democrats don’t yet control enough for her tastes. Big CF-T Warren and her Democrats will not be content until they control every aspect of your life.

“Well!” I hear you say, “That’s a pretty bold thing to say, what proof do you have of that?”

I have Big CF-T Warren’s own words. In one of her speeches before a well-filtered crowd of those sure to applaud her every burp, she said, and I quote:

“Conservatives are guided by an internal motto: ‘I got mine; the rest of you are on your own.’ “

Well, regardless of whether “we got ours,” the second phrase: “you are on your own,” in a healthy country would be sweet music to the ears of all the people. 

Let’s review what used to be a typical country. Through most of history, the vast majority of countries have been some kind of monarchy, that had exactly two social strata: the leisured nobility and the struggling, gasping, toiling and dying masses.

What overcame that antiquated, millennia-old, oppressive system? One thing and one thing only: Capitalism. Capitalism is a very recent innovation. Sadly, though, we’ve never had anything resembling the “unfettered capitalism” the left whines so piteously about.

Capitalism has as its central tenet: the idea that a properly-constituted government should cede to the people free reign to invent, innovate, start businesses of their own and, most importantly, the government should leave the people largely alone — “on their own,” if you will — to keep most of the fruits of their own labor and of their own ingenuity.

Capitalism brought about a true revolution in people’s lives: social strata. And that implied something that had never existed in the history of mankind: economic mobility… and inequality. Absent capitalism, you had, and have, the antiquated, backward, oppressive societies described above. And you have one other thing the left loves so much: income equality. Incomes are all equally low, and there’s no economic mobility, so there’s always equality. This is the hallmark of the left: their equality leaves everyone equally impoverished, locked into their poverty, equally miserable, and, well… equal.

I should note that capitalism does have a downside. It’s: risk. You can lose it all in capitalism. Of course, you can also then regain it all, if you do the right things. However, the downside for non-capitalistic societies is pretty serious too: you cannot prosper. Capitalism’s worst case is non-capitalism’s norm.

So, CF-T Warren is telling us, flat-out, to our faces, that she doesn’t want us to be “on our own,” to be free to keep most of what we earn, to be able to make new things, start businesses without the burden of ham-fisted, ridiculous regulations, to be free to invent and innovate. No, she doesn’t want us to be able to do all that. Because that would mean that we — contrary to her and her President’s bizarre assertions — are building that ourselves. Without the government. Big CF-T Warren’s above-expressed goal is to reduce you to poverty, whence you can never extricate yourself, but that’ll be okay, because everyone else will be there too.

Remember when Barack Obama said that people who built businesses themselves, didn’t really do it themselves? That without the government’s kind benevolence those businesses never would have got off the ground? That was most definitely not a statement of reality, but a statement of purpose. A statement of actual reality would have been: “You know that business you got going? You did that despite all the brainless, stupid, pointless regulatory obstacles, paperwork and bureaucracy the government threw down in your path.” What Obama was really saying was: “You know that business you want to build? We don’t want you to do it yourself, we don’t want you to do it without the government being closely involved in every aspect of the effort. Whether you want us there or not.”

That’s Big Chief Forked-Tongue Elizabeth Warren’s goal too. She said so herself. That’s her unintentional confession to you and me. Let’s hope you are intelligent enough to see it, :)  and to tell Warren and her corrupt, reactionary, flat-earther ilk to go take a hike, get a real job, learn something about life and leave us, the people, the heck alone.

– xPraetorius


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

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


It’s funny… I really like this dude and his guitar playing. I’ve linked to this recording before too.

However, he portrays himself as a penniless guitar minstrel who travels around the world and plays, all in the interest of world harmony and peace.

Hmmmmm… Ok.

Why, then, does he have the extraordinary cameraman and sound technician that he does? These YouTube videos are wonderfully filmed, and wonderfully well-produced. The sound quality is excellent. If he were simply vagabonding about the world, playing his guitar, one would think that the resulting YouTube videos would be of less than stellar quality.

Now, I’m a fan of marketing as much as the next dude, but I’m not a fan of dishonesty, so I guess I’d like an explanation for the top-quality YouTube recordings that this nomad seems to produce.

However, lacking that, I recognize that that his guitar-playing is excellent, and this comes from an excellent guitarist.

I’ll be paying attention to Estas Tonne. For several reasons.

– xPraetorius

Estas Tonne – Between Fire and Water – Stadtspektakel Landshut 2012 – YouTube

Estas Tonne – Between Fire and Water – Stadtspektakel Landshut 2012 – YouTube.

This is really very nice.

I could do this.

If, that is, I weren’t busy being a daddy and trying to save the world from such as Chief Forked-Tongue Elizabeth Warren. (click here to learn more)


– xPraetorius

Elizabeth Warren’s Eleven Commandments of Progressivism

Just like a leftist — always trying to one-up God.

Elizabeth Warren wants to be the President of the United States. The rookie Senator from Massachusetts is she to whom we refer as Chief Forked-Tongue (CF-T) Warren(1).

CF-T Warren has all the qualifications of another candidate for the Presidency, one Senator Barack Hussein Obama, who managed to become President in 2008, despite the path’s being exhaustively greased, massive pro-Obama media corruption and adulation, and a ready-made economic crisis, all of which meant he could have sleepwalked into the office(2).

Typically Democrats are so drearily dull and IQ-deprived that even they could muck that up. As it was, however, Obama insipidated(3) himself over the line into pay-dirt by slogging through a dreary succession of hyperbole-stuffed, outlandish-whacked-out-claims-laden speeches that the media swallowed as though it was all the finest caviar.

Without further ado, here’s Elizabeth Warren’s list of what, in her Massachusetts-leftism-enfeebled brain, “progressivism” ought to stand for.  We’ll explore the items in the list a bit.

- “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

- “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”

- “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”

- “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”

- “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”

- “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”

- “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”

- “We believe—I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”

- “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”

- “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”

- “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”

As expected from the American left, it’s pabulum baked in a covering of stale, bleached bread crumbs that she’ll toss to the poor while pretending to be doing them a favor.

Let’s look at the first one:

- “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

First a quick note: The left is always willing to “fight for it,” no matter what it is. We on the right fight a lot less, and it’s mainly because we work for a living. The American left is chock-a-block with “activists,” and “community organizers,” and “advocates,” and others who don’t actually have a job that gets something productive done on behalf of America.

When the left “fights,” it uses all its tools: slander, libel, back-stabbing, character assassination, personal destruction, savaging and ruination of innocents, lying, shameless fabrications, rampant corruption and the most important one of all: accusing others of what they themselves are copiously, riotously and promiscuously guilty of. Without this projection and the media’s complicity in it, the left would actually have to fight fairly, as the Republicans have to, and we’d actually have real debates on actual issues.

So, let’s look at CF-T Warren’s first commandment:

- “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”

Let’s re-state it so that it reads according to Warren’s real meaning:

“We believe that the American Left ought to control the flow of big money in America’s stock exchanges and securities firms, such that the government — and the Democrat Party — are able to siphon off and keep as much as possible of it.”

There, that’s better.

There is a simple rule: the more regulation the government puts on something, the more they retard its ability to grow. By extension: the extent to which the government — and therefore Wall Street — acts according to CF-T Warren’s wishes, is the extent to which your ability to make more money, to be more prosperous, will be blocked.

What is the impetus for this desire on CF-T Warren’s part to regulate big money? I mean, Democrats get the most of it now anyway. What’s Warren’s problem? Well, it’s simple. If Wall Street is making money, then that means that ordinary Americans are making money — if not directly from stock investments, then it’s working for the companies whose securities are prospering on the exchange.

Democrats — like CF-T Warren — can’t have that. That means there are more Americans who don’t need them, and who might vote according to how they actually think about issues, and not according to whether the Democrats are able to give them free stuff.

The stated impetus for all this regulation is so that no one will be hurt by the downside of the stock markets. You know, those 500-point drops that bring some companies down and ruin some number of small investors. But that downside, the idea that the little people might lose everything, or a good chunk of everything, in some Wall Street crash, is not something that bothers Democrats like CF-T Warren, because newly-impoverished investors are also newly-minted Democrat voters.

The problem is that you can’t tell people that. So you have to call for “Wall Street regulation!” And you have to wag your finger angrily at the rich, even though you owe your political fortunes to them. Then you have to call these selfsame rich into your office and tell them you were just kidding, and that you have to say what you said, so that the people will re-elect you so that you can continue to do the right thing for Wall Street … all while condemning Wall Street. You have to understand that “the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer” is sweet music to Democrats’ ears. As long as that is going on, the Democrats are registering more voters who think they’ll get free stuff for it.

Perversely, if you’re a Democrat, that kind of dishonesty and corruption doesn’t bother you at all, because that’s how you were elected to your high office in the first place. If you’re a Democrat and you hold high office, it’s because you made that corrupt bargain up-front, at the very beginning of your political career.

That is, indeed, how the high command of the Democrat Party became the high command of the Democrat Party. Before Wall Street, it was union thuggery that Democrats counted on to deliver “elective” office to them. However, as the unions saw their sun setting, Democrats needed new marks from whom to extort the necessary funds for their “elections.” Wall Street had the money — time to get them to finance Democrat “elections.”

Willy Sutton was the quintessential Democrat. It’s said that someone asked Sutton why he robbed banks. He replied, or so legend has it(4), “Because that’s where the money is.” Democrats like CF-T Warren understood this simple lesson.

So, when CF-T Elizabeth Warren says that she wants to “regulate Wall Street,” she’s hoping desperately that you and I won’t investigate that promise too closely, because if we do, then we’d realize that CF-T Warren is suggesting that she would like to limit your ability and mine to progress to a situation better than the one we currently occupy.

Fortunately for CF-T Warren, she can probably rest easy. If you and I want to investigate her promise in greater depth, we have to depend on sources that are not part of the following group: The American media.

You see, “Wall Street” figured out also what the media figured out long ago: while the Republican vision is more congenial to freedom, to liberty, individual rights, as well as to business and making money, the Democrats are ruthless, merciless scum, so will probably take power in the long run.

“Wall Street” long ago set out to make the Democrats their friends by funneling massive amounts of money to them. The point: if you can’t beat the corruption, you might as well buy it. Now, “Wall Street” gives more money to Democrats than to Republicans. Along with all the money and free help that the unions, academia, the media and Hollywood give to the Democrats, they have, for a very long time, been the party of big money.

In having read all of CF-T Warren’s “commandments,” this was one of the toughest to debunk, because it says so little. What on earth does “Wall Street regulation” mean? It could mean anything under the sun. We all know what we think it means, but when was the last time that a Democrat said she intended to do “X” , did something exactly the opposite of what she said — let’s say, “Y” — then claimed to have completely fulfilled her intent to do “X,” as the media fall all over themselves to praise her for having done “X?”

I know, I know… that’s the very definition of the Obama Administration.

– xPraetorius


(1) During her campaign for the U.S. Senate, Warren was caught lying about her own ethnicity, fabricating American Indian origins in her ancestry.

(2) This is unrelated to his having sleep-walked thus far through the actual execution of his functions in the White House.

(3) “Insipidated” – Rendered insipid. My own coinage.

(4) Wikipedia says it ain’t so, but doesn’t seem to indicate who, if anyone, actually did say it, so it has stuck to Sutton.




It’s Worth Repeating – 7/19/14 (Part II)

Read this well: When the IRS does the kind of garbage it has been doing — and getting away scot-free with — you can be absolutely sure they will do it on behalf of the Democrat Party.

It is not in the interest of the IRS to be corrupt on behalf of a party — the Republican Party — whose global statement of purpose is to reduce the size, scope and reach of the United States government. 

As a result, if Republicans don’t find some way to rein in this now rogue agency, then democracy in America is doomed.

– xPraetorius

It’s Worth Repeating – 7/19/14

When this country collapses into the third-world hellhole the left is working to transform it into, it will have happened because the American media will have held Republicans mercilessly, relentlessly accountable for the merest whiff of a hint of a rumor of misbehavior, while having completely turned their backs on blatant, rampant, thuggish corruption on the part of the American left and their political wing, the Democrat Party.

– xPraetorius

The Left is NOT the Friend of the Poor

Why? Simple. Because of the Willing Poor whose poverty they purchase.

It’s a simple rule, and there are never any exceptions: if a society pays people to be poor, more and more of them will choose to be poor. These are the ones who are okay with living at a very low level of subsistence, in exchange for a guarantee that they will not go any lower. These are the Willing Poor. If you offer the bargain: If you stop working, and vote for us, we will guarantee that you will not fall below a certain level of lifestyle, a certain, non-zero percentage of your society will take you up on that bargain.

That these people are disproportionately black is simply because of the parasitical Race Grievance Industry — the RGI — whose leaders have long been busy whispering in black Americans’ ears that, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary, white racism is rampant, and gives them absolutely no chance to succeed in America.

Needless to say, the ranks of the Willing Poor swell every year, as people increasingly realize that good, honest, hard work simply results in more and more payments to the Willing Poor, who live parasitically off the efforts of the working man.

The left is happy with the bargain — in fact they discovered the formula — and with the soul-sapping efforts of the RGI, because the Willing Poor and the RGI are all rock-solid voters for the political wing of the American left: the Democrat Party. Not coincidentally, the Democrat Party is also the second most corrupt political organization in America today, having surpassed the unions as they decline in stature.

What is the most corrupt political organization in America today? The media. These are the ones who have allowed the Obama Administration to get away with vast and deeply damaging corruption.

Obama came to office as if he knew that he would get the free pass that he’s received from the get-go.

The things that Obama and his cronies have got away with would have resulted in the impeachment of any President with an “(R)” next to his name. Long ago.

The IRS scandal alone is the severest existential threat this republic has ever faced. No Republican ever could have survived it. There’s plenty of precedent for that assertion. Then President Richard Nixon was impeached for merely mentioning what Obama and his administration actually did to millions of Americans.

Do you remember who the young lawyer was, who insisted that Nixon’s musing about using the IRS against his political opponents was an impeachable offense, and needed to be included in the bill of particulars against Nixon? Yep. Hillary Clinton.

Obama actually did use the IRS against his political opponents, and then had the unmitigated brass to call it a “phony scandal.” Who allowed that to happen?!?

The media, of course.

When this country collapses into the third-world hellhole the left is working to transform it into, it will have happened because the media will have held Republicans mercilessly, relentlessly accountable for the merest whiff of a hint of a rumor of misbehavior, while having completely turned their backs on blatant, rampant, thuggish corruption on the part of the American left and their political wing, the Democrat Party.

The left is not the friend of the poor. When the Democrat party no longer needs the votes of the Willing Poor or black Americans to maintain a stranglehold on power in America, they will abandon the devil’s bargain that has kept the poor and blacks, poor and pliant all along. Heaven help the poor then.

– xPraetorius

And finally – balalaika amok Aleksei Arkhipovsky – YouTube

balalaika amok Aleksei Arkhipovsky – YouTube.

And, finally, this is just spectacular.

– xPraetorius

Архиповский – лучший исполнитель русской музыки – YouTube

Архиповский – лучший исполнитель русской музыки – YouTube.

Here is almost an hour of Arkhipovsky! This is just a little bit of heaven on earth.

– xPraetorius

“Колыбельная ” Алексей Архиповский / Alexey Arkhipovskiy – YouTube

via “Колыбельная ” Алексей Архиповский / Alexey Arkhipovskiy – YouTube.


Some more delightful Arkhipovsky.

Do yourself a favor. Listen to it. :)

– xPraetorius

Alexei Arkhipovskiy – Sharmanka – YouTube

Alexei Arkhipovskiy – Sharmanka – YouTube.

A master at work. I’ve loved what this guy does with a balalaika for some years now.

– xPraetorius

Wish I’D Said That!

But I didn’t.

The great Jonah Goldberg did. Here.

Here’s the quote in question, that I wish I’d said:

Conservatives argue as conservatives. Liberals tend to argue not so much as liberals, but in a variety of disguises, each of which tries to draw on authority unearned by liberalism itself. Indeed, the history of American liberalism can be understood as a series of costume changes. A new nominally non-ideological discipline emerges — political science, engineering, public health, psychology, environmentalism, neuroscience and, these days, various forms of data prestidigitation — and liberals flock to it. They don the latest fashionable version of the white smock and say — à la Bill Murray in Ghostbusters — “back off man, we’re scientists.” Or to be more fair, they claim to be speaking for the scientists, engineers, psychologists, and other experts. “We’re not ideologues, we go with the facts.”  This game was old when Walter Lippmann came out with his Drift and Mastery. After all, Karl Marx, the Babe Ruth of this sport, had long before insisted that his shtick wasn’t opinion or even mere analysis, but a new science.

Yep. Liberals are fad-followers, and want to be loved by the public at large who will then call them great, and good, and wise, and will throw money and adoration at their feet. If liberals find a truth, but it’s not fashionable, they will reject that truth and embrace the opposite and the lie.

Actually, we did say something like this, here. Our quote was:

Wow! Here’s a dude who is definitely adrift! He has no moral compass, so his natural understandings and instincts give way to the politically correct fad of the day (“Gay” or “Other-Than-Normal-Sexed” = “Noble Victims,” just like black people.). When he can’t reconcile his true feelings (“do you know what gays do with their sexual equipment?!?”) with his need for validation from the Grievance Industry, his conflict manifests itself in the contrition he displays in his post here. He really needs validation, so he goes where he knows he can find it: the Race Grievance Industry.

We were castigating a guy who was taken aback when it turned out that the “woman” he was flirting with on-line was a transsexual, aka: a dude.

Conservatives are on a relentless pursuit of what is true, whether or not it’s fashionable.

Here’s more from Goldberg that I wish I’d said.

Today, the political landscape is littered with earnest, well-intentioned, and often, incredibly sanctimonious liberals who insist that they are simply pursuing truth and fact regardless of ideology. This, of course, remains Obama’s favorite pose. It runs through the “scientific consensus” argle-bargle on global warming. When Chris Hughes took over what has long been considered the flagship magazine of American liberalism, he ridiculously vowed that, “the journalism in these pages will strive to be free of party ideology or partisan bias.” The same conceit is behind Vox.com and “explanatory journalism,” which everyday sinks further and further into liberal Ronburgundyism. (Coming soon at Vox: “Fifteen Reasons Why San Diego Really Does Mean ‘Whale’s Vagina’ in German — And Why That Has To Change.”)

This is just a Jonah Goldberg haymaker. And no one can toss haymakers like Goldberg!

Then there’s this:

So much of elite liberalism these days is little more than bluster and self-satisfied blather.

For instance, I am so disappointed in John Oliver’s HBO show, Last Week Tonight. I like Oliver’s stand-up and his stints on Community. But his approach is simply Bidenism refined. The show begins from the premise that liberal conventional wisdom is not only right but obviously so and then simply works backward to “prove it.” In Britain, populist tabloids are condemned by people of Oliver’s persuasion for simply confirming the prejudices of the working class. Last Week Tonight is a similar effort for the more upscale — and often more prejudiced — HBO demographic. He doesn’t tell his audience anything it doesn’t want to hear, he just gives them new and occasionally funny reasons to feel good about themselves. The only difference between his show and the typical MSNBC host’s is that Oliver is funny on purpose.

I love the dig at MSNBC. They are funny, with their hyper-earnest, pseudo-intellectual, taking-themselves-waaaaaay-over-the-top-too-seriously, pomposity and their condescending just-look-how-good-and-caring-we-are sanctimony. If viewed as comedy, MSNBC and their clones at National Public Radio are funnier than anything Saturday Night Live ever did. And SNL used to be really funny!

One more selection:

Anyway, I kind of wandered off from where I planned on going with all of this. For the record, I’m not saying that politicians, pundits, and other partisans should not consult the opinions of scientists and other experts. Of course they — we — should. We learn new and interesting things all of the time. What I am saying is that liberalism is constantly rebranding itself as solely an explanation of reality and it constantly needs to rebrand itself because reality keeps revealing that it isn’t.

Yep. On the nose.

Here’s some sobering reflection from Goldberg, for those of us who rail against Political Correctness:

What is commonly called “political correctness” doesn’t get the respect it deserves on the right. Sure, in the herstory of political correctness there have been womyn and cis-men who have taken their seminalovulal ideas too far, but we should not render ourselves visually challenged to the fact that something more fundawomyntal is at work here.

Political correctness can actually be seen as an example of Hayekian spontaneous order. Society has changed, because society always changes. But modern American society has changed a lot. In a relatively short period of time, legal and cultural equality has expanded — albeit not uniformly or perfectly — to blacks, women, and gays. We are a more heterodox society in almost every way. As a result, many of our customs, norms, and terms no longer line up neatly with lived-reality. Remember customs emerge as intangible tools to solve real needs. When the real needs change, the customs must either adapt or die.

I wish more conservatives recognized that at least some of what passes for political correctness is an attempt to create new manners and mores for the places in life where the old ones no longer work too well. You can call it “political correctness” that Americans stopped calling black people “negroes.” But that wouldn’t make the change wrong or even objectionable. You might think it’s regrettable that homosexuality has become mainstreamed and largely de-stigmatized. But your regret doesn’t change the fact that it has happened. And well-mannered people still need to know how to show respect to people.

Identity politics is only part of the story, and not even the most important part. Medical, technological, and economic changes are almost surely far more important than changing demographics alone. A society where individuals are vastly more autonomous than they were a century ago is simply going to have different codes of conduct and manners. The telephone, television, and the car did more to liberate young people from the moral cocoon of their families and communities than any libertine intellectual fad (you can be sure that driverless cars, for instance, will change society in unimaginable ways). Democrats recognize this, which is why they’ve cynically exploited changes in family structure, female labor participation, and reproductive technology and declared that Republicans have declared war on women. It’s not remotely true, but it is effective.

Actually, we did say something to the effect that at least a portion of “Political Correctness” is just being polite. And in that sense we were politically correct long before it was cool to be. “Politeness” is simply adaptation to the current morés for human interactions.

Here’s more from Goldberg:

My concern here is more about mainstream conservatism. I think much of what the Left offers in terms of culture creation is utter crap. But they are at least in the business of culture creation.

Pow! Man! I wish I’d said that!

Still more brilliance from Jonah Goldberg:

What I would like to see from conservatives is recognition that some of the cathedrals are outdated. But instead of arguing that they should be razed and replaced with Jacobin Temples of Reason with rites and rituals grounded in abstraction, why not argue for some long overdue updating and retrofitting? I guarantee you more women prefer a modified version of the traditional process of wooing, courting, and dating before sex than the “modern” schizophrenic system of getting drunk enough for a same-day hook up but not so inebriated to forget to get a signature on the consent form. Traditional notions of romance and respect are far better tools than the mumbo-jumbo campus feminists have to offer. The problem is that the mumbo-jumbo feminists are fighting largely uncontested.

The last line is the clincher.

There is a bottom-line in all this, and Jonah Goldberg is the master at ferreting it out and exposing it. The bottom line is: the left is not all wrong. They do have some good points, and we on the right ignore those points at the peril of losing the argument entirely. The good news is that we on the right do have the stronger arguments, and we do have the smarter, deeper, more comprehensive thinkers, so we’re hardly unarmed. Furthermore the left’s idea of us on the right is a cardboard-cutout caricature. We can exploit all those things. We simply need to be clear-eyed in our dealings with them.

In this week’s “G-File,” (“G” for “Goldberg”) Jonah Goldberg does a masterful job of diagnosis and explanation of what’s wrong with a lot of how we Conservatives do things. And in these pages, we have offered some prescriptive thoughts (here, and here, for example). However, the last line of Goldberg’s piece says it all: “The problem is that the mumbo-jumbo feminists are fighting largely uncontested.”

Really, you could put “[insert leftist group here]” in place of “mumbo-jumbo feminists” and that would be largely accurate.

We Conservatives won’t win anything if we don’t (1) concede that times do change and that we need to be aware of and able to assimilate the changes, and (2) engage the fight.

Read any edition of Jonah Goldberg’s (roughly) weekly “G-File,” and you will find yourself saying “Man, I wish I’d said that!” something like a hundred times!

– xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 7/18/14

As you might know, we’ve been following National Public Radio — NPR — as they do a series they call “Men in America.” I predicted that they would, “treat men as if they were defective women.” (The post is here.)

Here’s the way I introduced NPR’s series back on the 12th of this month:

Please, please, please don’t let NPR be the ones who define how we look at men in America. NPR’s effete, pantywaist, thoroughly feminized, effeminate series will certainly emasculate men as thoroughly as feminism has done. I mean, let’s fact it, it’s freakin’ NPR! Listened to a couple of editions. No surprises. It is NPR, after all. Example: the latest installment was about “boy bands.” Welllll…there’s a rich source of insight into American manhood!

My prediction is coming true in spades.

In today’s edition, they interviewed Zach Braff, former star of “Scrubs,” and a writer and producer, or something of the sort, now.

I swear to you this is a quote from Braff:

I’ve always had a fantasy of being rescued by a strong woman.

Well… maybe that is American manhood today. If so, it looks a lot like American womanhood of just a few short years ago.

NPR played a clip from Braff’s upcoming movie — I forget the name. Here a rough summary. Braff’s character’s wife (played by Kate Hudson) comes home from work. She’s the sole breadwinner (of course) and she’s frustrated. Apparently in the movie, her husband (Braff) is not supporting her sufficiently in her work. She’s not really sure that what she does is necessary at work, and she’s pretty sure she doesn’t like it at all, but she has to do it because, “it’s all on her shoulders. If she can’t work, the kids don’t eat!”  End of clip.

The NPR hostette — Audie Cornish — and Braff laugh about it, and Braff tells about how he loves strong women and how the character he’s dreamed up — Hudson’s role — is a really strong woman.


That’s a strong woman?!? She sounds like a complete whiner! Can you imagine any man of just, say, twenty years ago coming home and whining about his job like that? It’s all on her shoulders? It’s been on men’s shoulders for freakin’ millennia! And we were expected to shut up, suck it up, and go out and do it all again the next day.


‘Cause you couldn’t send the woman out to get the bear away from the door. Not, that is, if you actually wanted to get rid of the bear.  Oh, you could send an armed woman out against the bear at the door, and maybe she’d kill it. The difference is that the man would kill the bear, and then also drag it  into the barn, skin it, carve it up and make bear steaks for the next few month’s eatin’.

Back to NPR and Zach Braff. After the wife’s tirade, Braff’s character learns that he needs to be more engaged with the kids and needs to be better at supporting his wife in her endeavors… in other words, he learns that he needs to stop being a defective woman and figure out how to be a proper one!

This is NPR, after all. You could have predicted all of this when NPR decided to do a series called “Men in America.” And we did.

I’ve listened to about four episodes so far. NPR appears ready, willing and able to do an entire series, ostensibly about men in America, without ever actually involving a man in America.

– xPraetorius




10000 singing Beethoven – Ode an die Freude _ Ode to Joy – YouTube

via 10000 singing Beethoven – Ode an die Freude _ Ode to Joy – YouTube.

Treat yourself to almost 19 minutes of wonderfulness…

10,000 people singing the finale to Beethoven’s 9th Symphony? What’s not to love?

It’s a bit slow-paced due, I guess, to having to coordinate all the multitudes, but it’s still just wonderful!

What fun it must have been to pull it all together!

– xPraetorius

Update (7/18/14):

The singing’s kind of ragged in places, which sometimes made it difficult to listen to. The climactic part — roughly 6:45 into it — was quite well done. I’m not sure how one could go about coordinating the efforts of 10,000 or more people — even well-trained people, as these certainly are — and pull this off properly. I mean, the delay in the sound reaching the conductor’s ears from the far reaches alone. I’m sure that was the reason for the less than sprightly pace of the performance, and the muddy vocals sound. It was still, nonetheless, a worthy effort, and worth listening to.

NPR Watch – 7/17/14

The local affiliate of NPR — WNPR in Connecticut — did another in their series on “Jane Doe,” the 16-year old “trans-gender girl” currently in state custody. “Her” story is a sad one, or so it seems. “Her” family abused “her,” or so “she” reported. “She,” however, is violent, apparently has a hair-trigger temper, and has beaten many girls up when “she” has been housed with them.

Why all the quotes around “she,” and “her,” you might ask?

Simple: she’s a he. She’s a dude.

We know nothing more about “Jane Doe,” because of his age, so some of this is of necessity speculation. However it comes from the perspective of someone who was, himself, once a 16-year old dude.

“Jane Doe” was born a dude and at some point in his life just decided that he had always really been a girl.

Of course, at that point, there was already a full-blown grievance industry ready to support “her” and to label “her” family abusive and evil. In other words, it’s not really a sure thing that “Jane’s” family was abusive. All we know is that “Jane” reported that they were.

Just out of curiosity, why is “she” automatically right in “her” assertion that “she’s” a girl, and not just, you know — crazy? The reporting says that Jane “identifies”(1) as a girl, therefore she’s a girl. Oh? Really? Seriously?

If I decided one day to “identify” as a billionaire, or as an airline pilot, or as the President of the United States, no one would have any problem whatsoever labeling me crazy. No one would be rushing to give me the billion dollars I’d demand to satisfy my self-identification. No one would go tell the current resident of the White House to vacate and make room for me. (2)

Yet if I — a 6’4″ 280 lb. dude — were all of a sudden to declare that I’m a babe, then for some bizarre reason, I’m not crazy.

You could have listened to the entire WNPR piece, and if you weren’t paying attention, you would have concluded that a poor girl was being woefully mistreated by the state authorities. Not that such a thing would have been all that unusual — the state authorities are legendary for their brutish incompetence. However, if you hadn’t heard this series of WNPR’s from the beginning, you wouldn’t know that “she’s” really a dude, for cryin’ out loud! 

So, where is the young boy now? He’s apparently in a facility for boys somewhere. His — Jane’s, that is — lawyers are very upset about that, and are demanding that he be housed in a facility with girls like himself.

What WNPR’s crashingly dumb reporterette — Lucy Nalpathanchil — left out, is the very real fact that the people who work with this violent 16-year old boy have to deal with reality: the kid is likely a lot stronger than the girls who would be with him in any girls’ facility. He could probably cause great harm to any girls he lives with, if not kill one of them.

When I was a 16-year old boy, I was strong as an ox. I could have grievously injured or killed every one of the girls in my high school class if I had so chosen.

My 13-year old son is nearly six-feet tall, and weighs almost 160 pounds. He also could grievously injure or kill every girl in his middle-school class.

Sixteen-year old boys — like “Jane Doe” — are almost always massively stronger than the girls of their same age around them.

Stupid, irresponsible WNPR, so anxious to be politically correct, tripping all over themselves to bow and scrape to the Gay-Trans-Queer Grievance parasites, all about being “progressive” and “edgy” and “avant-garde,” are really risking the safety and lives of innocent girls. Great job, WNPR.


– xPraetorius


(1) “Identifies” is the new buzz word that the various grievance groups use. You “identify” as one “gender” or another, or another, or another, or another, and apparently that makes you whatever you’re “identifying” as… You can “identify” as black or brown or white or asian or some combination of a bunch of things. Apparently that automatically makes you that race, whatever it may be. Hence my efforts to “identify” as a billionaire and to demand that the state respect my identification, and give me the money. I’ll gladly give a bunch of it back in the form of taxes, but I want to end up as at least a billionaire. :)

(2) Even though I’d easily do a better job than the current occupant of the White House. But, so would a brick.


How Stupid Happens | National Review Online

How Stupid Happens | National Review Online.

Kevin Williamson does it again. He is one of the finest commentators in the world today. He’s in the same league with Mark Steyn, Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, Victor Davis Hanson.

Politifact got caught engaging in confirmation bias, and Williamson called them on it but good.

The only thing that he missed is a fundamental thing. FOX News has a bunch of opinion personalities on it. To the extent that those personalities are sincere in the beliefs they espouse, that is the extent to which they are telling “the truth.”

No sincerely held opinion can ever be a lie. A lie is a falsehood told intentionally, with the goal of misleading the hearer. 

If the person espousing an opinion sincerely believes the things he is espousing then he is absolutely telling the truth. He can still be wrong, but he’s not lying. More to the point, you can never ascertain another person’s intent.

Back in 1491, when the Flat-Earthers told you the Earth was flat, they were telling you the truth. Or: they were telling you what they absolutely believed was true. But they definitely were not lying.

This is why, when I argue with people, I never — or I should say, very rarely — call them liars. I’ll tell them they’re wrong, and then prove it. :) But I don’t question whether they’re telling the truth.

Here’s the key, knockout passage in Williamson’s excellent piece:

True, much as I like yelling at people on television, it is pretty hard to feel too bad for Fox News and MSNBC over an exercise in confirmation bias, but this sort of sloppy thinking [Editor's Note: On the part of Politifact] and malicious manipulation does have the effect of leaving the polity a little dumber than it absolutely has to be. And that is an unforgivable sin.

Amen to those last two sentences!

– xPraetorius

The Palestinian ‘Genocide’ Lie | National Review Online

The Palestinian ‘Genocide’ Lie | National Review Online.

Jonah Goldberg with another great column.

You can disapprove or not of how Israel does what it does surrounded by screaming fanatics who have vowed to wipe Israel off the map, but to say they are guilty of (1) attempted genocide, and (2) even attempted genocide is ludicrous. Here are some key passages:

It’s a moral scandal that it’s even necessary to debunk equating Israel with the Nazis.


“Here’s the difference between us,” Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained on Fox News Sunday. “We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.”

It’s a classic talking point. It’s also objectively true, and that truth is very frustrating for Israel’s critics.

A good one:

If the Israelis are, or have ever been, interested in genocide, they are utterly incompetent at it. As slanders go, it’s almost funny, like the old paranoid delusion that George W. Bush was simultaneously an idiot and a criminal mastermind.

On the one hand, the Israeli military is supposed to be ruthlessly competent and determined to wipe out the Palestinians. On the other, the Palestinian population has grown more than 100 percent since 1970. The population in the Gaza Strip has grown nearly threefold since 1990. The Palestinians themselves expect the population to double over the next two decades. “Genocide” is a loaded political term, but under any remotely reasonable definition, shouldn’t those numbers be going the other way?

Another haymaker:

It’s just a hunch, but if the Israelis wanted to wipe out as many Palestinians as possible, never mind commit genocide, they probably wouldn’t issue warnings to Gazans (by phone and leaflet) to get out of harm’s way. Nor would Israel continue to allow hundreds of trucks of food and medical aid to enter Gaza even as hundreds of rockets leave Gaza.

One perverse complaint, often subtly echoed in the mainstream media, is that it is somehow unfair that Israelis are not dying, so far, from Gaza rocket strikes. The Israelis have the Iron Dome defense system, which intercepts the rockets aimed at civilians. They also have bomb shelters; the Palestinians do not. They have these things because, as Netanyahu said, Israelis are interested in protecting their citizens.


It’s a moral scandal that it’s even necessary to bring up this inconvenient truth. But it is necessary because even many of the people who would never say “Hitler was right” have nonetheless internalized another lesson from the Nazis. It was Joseph Goebbels who said, “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

You will serve yourself well by reading Goldberg’s excellent essay.

– xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 7/14/14

Remember when I lamented the fact that National Public Radio (NPR) was doing a series on men? I suggested that they might take their highly feminized, pantywaist perspective and try to impose it on men, and I was right. Our piece is here.

Our relevant quote was:

• Back to the “Men in America” thing. I’d bet you a million bucks that they (NPR) treat men like defective women.

Soooo… who’s gonna pay me my million clams, eh?  :)

Today’s edition featured a former NFL’er, and you could just smell where it was going to go. You know, the rough and tough guy, taught never to cry or show emotion, sees the light and tells the world via his interview by Audie Cornish (the NPR anchorette) that men need to feel, and care, and share, and cry, and support, and nurture… in other words, men need to be like women. And that’s exactly how it went. You see, the father (of course) of  former NFL’er Joe Ehrmann, taught young Joe to be tough, and not to cry, and to be strong and insensitive, and that men have to control things, and dominate them and all that.

NPR makes it seem as though being  a man is a choice between the macho, violent, brutish, stereotype that feminism calls “manhood,” and the effete, soft, balding, granny glasses-wearing, oh-so-intellectual, cultured sophisticate they think listens to NPR.

Wrong on both counts. It’s simple: when the bear is at the door, you want the enraged, testosterone-drenched, berserker who will take the bear right down. But, when the daughter falls off the tricycle and barks her knee, you want the tender, kind, supporting, yet vastly strong and reassuring sensitive man.

And all points in-between.

There is still vast room for all the stereotypical traits of the man. Powerful, muscular, stubborn, rugged, mono-syllabic, Grizzly Adams-type men. The bears aren’t all under control, ya know, they just come in different shapes now. And, we always send the men after them, not the women.

There’s plenty of room for the sensitive man who runs to scoop up his little daughter when she falls from her trike. Just don’t forget, when the neighbor’s pipes burst in the winter, we still send the man down every time to help the neighbor mop up, and pump and wrestle furniture and appliances back into place.

You and I both know, when the pipes burst, that’s the point at which the granny glasses-wearing, NPR-listening man … comes up with a bad back.

At the end of the piece, Audie Cornish asked the former NFL’er what manhood means to him. His reply was completely couched in they-should-stop-being-defective-women-and-learn-to-be-real-women terms.

And he’s right. Sometimes. However, that’s only a small part of the manhood picture.

At other times, though, when the bear is at the door, it’s really good to have the 6′ 4″ tall, 250 pound, fire-in-his-eyes, adrenaline-fueled and testosterone-overloaded, savage man to throw at him.

The real problem is that if NPR and feminists had their way, men would never learn the real manly aspects of life — those times when the bear is at the door — or the house is on fire, or the tree has come down on the roof, or the car has overturned, or the flood has swept the dog away, or the tide has carried the child out to sea, or the hurricane is pummeling the house, or the earth is quaking, or even when we only hear about these things on television — the men won’t be there to bring their massive comforting strength into the room, either to turn the bear away, or to give the message that no bear — or anything or anyone else, for that matter — will get past him to hurt them.

Men have a unique place in humanity. They can be like women. Men have no problem being sensitive and tender and gentle and loving and emotional and sharing and feeling and caring and all that.

It’s kind of nice when we do get the opportunity to show a softer side. But, when a woman tries to be like a man, she just looks silly. Imagine when you hear all those high-pitched voices at the feminist convention telling you how “fierce” they are.


Until the pipes burst, the cesspool overflows, or there’s a noise downstairs during the night. Then, let’s face it, it’s time to send the dude.

A quick memory.

I was 21-years old. My younger brother was 19. He was in the Old Guard Fyfe and Drum Corps — the Presidential Honor Guard.

One day, after an evening of being a 21-year old out on the town, I learned that my younger brother had died in a car accident.

As my world crashed around me, as my mother sobbed uncontrollably, as my sister and other brothers, like me, utterly lost control of ourselves and sobbed, or sat there numbly, or hugged our knees and rocked…I was aware that my father was silent and calm.

Dad remained that way over the next few days and weeks. Calmly making arrangements, handling phone calls, greeting guests, cleaning up, and working with the church and funeral home. Mom retreated to their bedroom, coming out only occasionally, eyes red-rimmed and swollen.

My older brothers got drunk and went out and did things that seemed desperate. I played my guitar. My sister retreated within herself.

We all went more or less quietly crazy for a couple of weeks. Dad was calm, grave, placid, controlled. To the point where I got angry.

Didn’t he even care?!? Didn’t this affect him?!? This was his son! This was my brother! But I didn’t say anything.

I think you know where this is going.

After a couple of weeks, the funeral was done, my brother was buried, the numbness was starting to wear off to be replaced by a breath-stealing pain, life was resuming, I was back at work.

My mom took me aside one day and told me that she’d gone upstairs when she’d heard a strange noise. There on their bed was my father sobbing uncontrollably. Great, anguished, racking sobs that he tried unsuccessfully to stifle in his pillow. Mom stole back down so as not to disturb him.

All along, he had been in every bit as much shock and pain as we, but he gave us the freedom to grieve as fully and as long as we needed to, before he permitted himself to.

In looking back at it all, I remember dimly that as I was wallowing in my grief, all along things were getting done, the house was being cleaned up after guests, the arrangements were happening, all very quietly, and all fairly smoothly. It was this smoothness that I was resenting, as I mentioned above, not stopping to think then that he was simply making sure that everyone else had complete freedom to react as they needed to. Then, and only then, did he allow himself to break down from the heartbreak that tormented him.

That was manliness in all its quiet, astonishingly strong, graceful, understated, awe-inspiring, mountain-like grandeur. All the things that NPR would tsk tsk sternly. No, you’re not supposed to hold it in; you’re supposed to show your feelings, to let it out for all to see! You’re supposed, you see, to be more like a woman.

Please note: I mean no disrespect whatsoever to women. To the contrary, in fact. I have a deep and abiding respect and love for women. Awe, even.

This vignette that I just recounted from my younger days is a simple example of how men and women have, for millennia, spread out the impact of tragedies so that they’re more manageable for the whole family unit. Both my father’s and my mother’s responses were perfectly appropriate to the occasion. Both needed to grieve, but life out there didn’t stop, just because we thought it should.

So Dad just kept things going as we sank into the depths, and gradually climbed back out.

We never talked about how he handled my brother’s death, my father and me, but if we had, he would have shrugged it off with a simple, “I did what I thought was needed, that’s all.” Then my father would have said what men have said through millennia of doing pretty much what I just described: “Any man would have done the same.”

Those last two phrases could be the motto of men all around the world, and all through history. “I did what I thought was needed. Any man would have done the same.” To the point that such nobility and greatness of spirit is so common that we’re no longer aware that it’s there, and sometimes, we’re even irritated by it, as I had been.

Feminists certainly have nothing but scorn and derision for this “macho,” this “insensitive,” this “unfeeling”-seeming man, completely ignorant of the fact that all along, guys have simply been allowing them to be sensitive and feeling and … protected.

Once, not too long afterward, my father and I did talk about my brother’s death, and he said something that also might express what men have felt forever, that women might have some trouble understanding: “When he died, I felt as though I had failed utterly. Failed to protect him.” He said it quietly and matter-of-factly, but there was such deep sadness in the words, as if he no longer even had a concept of what happiness was.

“Dad,” I said, “it was a car accident. It happened six states away in Washington, D.C. There was nothing you could have done to protect him.” “I know,” he said, ” I just can’t help it.”

That’s a man.

Heaven help the country, and the world, if we’re not raising such men anymore; if we’re raising granny glasses-wearing, NPR-listening men who develop a bad back when the pipes burst… or the bear is at the door.

– xPraetorius

POLITICALLY INCORRECT: Hooray for Western, Hetero, White Dudes! (Part III)

I’ve been singing the praises of the Western, hetero, white dude in a few of my latest posts. I’ve been saying that we’re really the most generous, benificent, benign identifiable group in the history of the world.

I can just hear the various grievance groups and their professional whiners out there. “But: Hitler!”

Fair enough.

First, Hitler was an aberration. There were almost no Americans, and other Western Europeans (most white Americans are of Western European origin) — except Germans — who approved of Hitler. Before he started World War II, Jews from Germany were migrating here en masse, knowing there was a safe haven in Western, hetero, white dude-ruled America. People like Einstein and many of his colleagues. In fact that was one of the more significant brain drains in recent history, and it made Hitler’s defeat inevitable.

Furthermore, Hitler was only dubiously heterosexual. He was most likely either homosexual or asexual. So, Hitler wasn’t actually one of us. However, it doesn’t change the fact that the accusation is a valid one and can’t be simply dismissed. There were many Western, hetero, white dudes in Germany who followed Hitler, and helped to make his depredations possible.

It’s the reaction after the war to Hitler’s crimes by Western, hetero, white dudes that was most remarkable. It was universally one of horror, shock and revulsion. There was no one of any significance whatsoever who (1) approved of what Hitler did, or (2) approved of that kind of activity in any context whatsoever, be it wartime, peacetime or any other time.

It’s important to note that such atrocities have happened in the past, and even in the recent past. There was the Armenian genocide by the Turks, the Muslim genocide of Hindus, the slaughter of Tutsis by Hutus in Rwanda only 20 short years ago, and more.

The difference? Western white people are the only ones to look upon the genocide touching their past, and to reject it utterly. There is no more reviled figure in Western Europe and America today than Adolf Hitler, and it’s because, arguably, he was “one of us,” though, as mentioned above, the connection is more than slightly tenuous.

The Turks have shown no remorse for their slaughter of Armenians in the 20th Century. Nor have the Hutus of Rwanda. Yet, not only did Western white dudes reject Hitler, and everything he stood for, they were the primary force in defeating his armies.

Here’s the real scoop: Western white people — including Germans — viewed Hitler correctly after the war. They recognized his evil, and rejected it, but they also recognized that he hit very close to home, conscience-wise, and they made a conscious, if unspoken and unwritten, decision that they would never let that kind of thing come from them ever again. Hence, Hitler had not only to be defeated, but also utterly anathematized.

There were Western white dudes helping Hitler to do his evil deeds. That fact had to be admitted and stated openly, and it was. The “collaborators” in the various countries that Hitler conquered temporarily were viewed, and treated, nearly the same as Hitler’s high officers. After the war, the fact of Western white dudes’ collaboration with Hitler utterly horrified — nearly to a man — Western, white dudes.

In a perverse way, it’s entirely possible that Hitler hastened the arrival of Civil Rights, Feminism, extra Gay Rights, and the explosion of the welfare state with its concomitant transfer of trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars to populations seen as disadvantaged or as having experienced prejudice.

How’s that? Well, after World War II, Western, hetero, white dudes showed a distinct distaste for any prejudice whatsoever — even for groups who legitimately could be viewed with suspicion: muslims, for example.

Still, why did this happen? Western, white men didn’t have to engage in this intense introspection. They could simply have said something like, “Well, that was pretty horrible, but definitely an aberration. Nothing to cause a race-wide crisis of conscience.” But Western, white men did have that race-wide crisis of conscience.

As a result they turned resolutely away from anything Hitler and Nazism stood for. Racism, expansionism, colonialism, nationalism, cultural confidence … all went into the dustbin with the Nazi régime.

Within three years of the war’s end, the Philippines had their independence, and the U.S. was either overtly or tacitly supporting independence movements around the world. In Algeria, India and Vietnam for example. The only reason the U.S. became involved in Vietnam was to prevent the Communist North from taking over the entire country. However, America very much supported Vietnamese independence from France.

But, why?

Easy. This introspection had already been going on, really, for centuries. Abolitionism, for example, and its intellectual, philosophical and spiritual energy sprang from Western, white men. Anti-colonialism was baked into the American state of mind from its own war for independence. American “conquest” of the Philippines was simply a by-product of the Spanish-American War, absent which there never would have been an American colony there.

After World War II, Western, white dudes were already well-primed to remove prejudice of just about any kind from their worldview. And they did. World War II simply put the process into high gear. It’s just about the only explanation possible for the near total overhaul, in the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye, of western thinking as expressed in popular culture, the media, academia and elsewhere.

It has been a powerful transformation, reaching into every corner of society and affecting how people work, speak, interact with others and live. Fueled by instant communication, today’s America would be unrecognizable to someone who went to sleep just twenty years ago and woke up today. He would find an America where many of its most prominent citizens, even and especially those who used her financial and cultural institutions and systems to become vastly wealthy and powerful, speak with open contempt of her. An America where, manifestly, voters elected a black President only because he was black. An America in headlong retreat from leadership in the world, in space, in economics and everywhere else.

There has been one primary cause — for good or ill — for all this: Western, hetero, white dudes and their state of mind. At each instance where a definable grievance group said, “Gimme,” Western, hetero, white dudes said only, “Uhhhh…Ok.” and they didn’t have to.

Western, hetero, white dudes, if they so chose, could seize total power in America tomorrow if the spirit moved them. But everyone knows they won’t. Further, everyone knows that there simply is no will to empire, dominance, oppression or ascendancy on the part of us Western, hetero, white dudes. Everyone knows that the safest thing in the world to do is to criticize, excoriate or make demands of white people… especially, Western, hetero, white men.

Again, this is “for good or ill,” because with the jettisoning of just about any prejudice whatsoever, out went a lot of babies with that bath water. White dudes became reluctant to criticize any member or any aspect of any grievance group or culture whatsoever. Even those people or cultural aspects richly deserving of criticism.

In this way the most racist black people have been immune for decades from criticism, as they have espoused deeply racist, violent or nihilistic ideas. Ideas extremely similar to those of the defeated Nazi régime. But they got away with it, and continue to get away with it, because of their skin color. We Western, hetero, white men saw all this and were disconcerted, but we’ve been doing everything we possibly can for decades to avoid criticizing them.

The same was true for feminism, whose cartoonish, plainly fabricated, obviously false caricatures of men — especially Western, hetero white men — rapidly became conventional wisdom. Suffice it to say, if men were even close to what the feminists said they were, then there would have been no feminism. The brutish men would have squashed it. Instead, there was no real resistance at all to feminism’s re-making of the relationship between men and women in terms deeply detrimental to men. Feminism’s easy, breezy success was proof that its founding principals were lies and fabrications.

In becoming this tolerant, gentle, benign group, we Western, hetero, white dudes did the country few favors. Racism is now rampant in black Ameircans. Just as racism was corrosive to white people, it’s corrosive to black Americans as well.

Also, feminists’ hatred of, and scorn for men is silly and buffoonish, but the refusal by us men to heap the derision on those states of mind that they so richly deserve, allows feminists — and, more importantly, the many women who follow, but don’t analyze feminism critically — to wallow in their corrosive delusions.

It’s really way, way long past time for us Western hetero, white dudes to regain our cultural confidence. After all, virtually all the ideas, and initiatives, and inventions, and breakthroughs that have vastly  improved the lot of billions around the globe in the realms of nutrition, medicine, general health, peace, and prosperity have come from — you guessed it — Western, hetero, white dudes.

So, it’s a muted “Hooray!” this time, for us Western, hetero, white dudes. While we’re, demonstrably, the nicest, most polite, least offensive, or insulting, or racist, or prejudiced major group in the history of the world, we’ve gone to the milquetoastian side of gentle. We need to wake up and stop withdrawing from the world and from history. We need to have the confidence to state the facts of our rather spectacular accomplishments, and to regain the swagger and the drive that conquered outer and inner space, disease after disease after disease, as well as the major totalitarianisms of the 20th Century, all while abolishing slavery, and constructing the greatest opportunity society the world has ever seen. That’s not too shabby.

– xPraetorius

Impeach! Impeach?

People are talking about impeaching Obama, and I go back and forth on the idea. Here’s some stream-of-consciousness thinking about the idea.

  • Let’s face it, it’s hard to imagine even more corruption and dishonesty coming from this administration.
  • And, we haven’t seen authoritarianism like this since Woodrow Wilson, the first demonstrably fascist President.
  • Obama’s demonstrably a socialist. We showed it here. And “Socialist” is another name for a “Fascist.”
  • The IRS crimes represent the most dire threat this nation has ever faced. These are Obama’s crimes too, because they happened on his watch, at the behest of his administration. There is no escaping at least one of two things: (1) either Obama and his entire administration are criminally corrupt, or (2) Obama is so incompetent, so inept, that he was unaware that serious crimes were being committed by the most powerful enforcement agency in the United States. Either of these would result in the impeachment of any hypothetical Republican President.
  • They talked about impeaching George W. Bush when it was discovered that the NSA was listening in on phone calls from foreigners to Americans, and Obama’s NSA has been listening in to all phone calls by Americans.
  • Everything that George W. Bush did that made the left apoplectic — and call for impeachment — Obama’s done; times ten.
  • Remember: impeachment proceedings began for Richard Nixon simply because he mused about using the IRS against his political opponents. Obama’s IRS did it. On a massive scale.
  • Benghazi, Fast & Furious, IRS, NSA, Solyndra, New Black Panthers, Drone killings of American citizens, Obamacare’s corrupt beginnings, re-writing laws unilaterally and extra-constitutionally, “you can keep your healthcare and doctor” lies, Pigford, Bergdahl, Veterans’ Administration scandal, Obama’s assurances to Dmitri Medvedev, and more. Any one of these would have resulted in the beginning of impeachment proceedings against any hypothetical Republican President.
  • Impeachment wouldn’t work. The left, the press and Harry Reid would all be screaming, “Racists!” at the top of their lungs.(1)
  • The Democrats and the media would begin the long, steady, unceasing drumbeat of, “Racists! Fascists! Tyrants! O, my!” until that became the accepted narrative. Remember: “The facts of life are Conservative (Margaret Thatcher), but society’s white noise is leftist (xPraetorius).” Until you can counter the white noise, you can’t defeat the left. The media are like the seagulls in “Finding Nemo.” You can’t beat that kind of mindless, herdlike, ovine stupidity, you have to nullify it by showing it for the nitwittery it is. You have to hold it up to the ridicule and scorn it so richly deserves, and you have to make it so that the message reaches as many parts of the country as they do. We’re not there yet.
  • Reagan had a way of doing this. Example: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” He distilled four years of Jimmy Carter-era angst, anxiety and malaise into one pithy question. We can do that to Obama and the left. But, we won’t overcome the anti-impeachment deflections in time.
  • Unmistakably, Obama is guilty of impeachable offenses. The IRS crimes alone should send him to jail. Yes, it is his scandal. Yes, it is the most egregious abuse of power since Woodrow Wilson. Yes it is ten times worse than anything Richard Nixon even thought of doing. And Nixon was no angel. However, impeachment is a political remedy for political offenses. There is not the political will in Washington, D.C. now, because the Democrat Party as a whole is corrupt. Therefore, they can’t be counted on to convict one of their own. They control the Senate.
  • Even if the Democrats don’t control the Senate after November, 2014, the Republicans are too namby-pamby and too afraid to impeach. They fear the accusations of “Racist!” more than anything else. ‘Nuff said, I guess.

– xPraetorius


(1) – Note: we had some suggestions as to how to handle this here and here.

A Lesson

You might have any handicap under the sun, but you can overcome it. It takes only two things (1) practice, and (2) the will to defeat it.

Here’s an indication that it’s true.

The performance wasn’t all that big a deal, but Howie Mandel told everyone about his own struggle with some kind of designer disorder or other.

Don’t forget that, these days, as soon as some “expert” says that that you “have something,” then for many, that’s the end. No point in trying anymore.

Might just as well learn the system for finding state services.

Then, however, let’s recognize that there are people out there who have convinced themselves that they can do it no matter what the circumstances.

Let’s recognize and applaud those people.

See the link, above.

– xPraetorius


Why Feminism Is Only A Passing Fad

Until you can imagine a woman doing what this dude — Kenichi Ebina — does, then you realize that feminism happens, purely and simply, only with the permission — explicit or implicit — of men.

Feminism is only a passing fad. However, that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have the capacity to harm millions of others as it has already harmed millions.

– xPraetorius

Ten Things Never to Say to a Western, Hetero, White Dude

Recently, I’ve been reading posts by various people from various ethnicities, genders, sexes, nationalities, sizes, shapes and colors. These posts have been of the “[Fill in number here] Things Never to Say to a [Fill In Grievance Group Here] Person” type.

I figured, “Hey!” I belong to a group! I should come up with such a list. I’m a Western, hetero, white dude. But, above all, I’m a person. I mean, if we’re not supposed to hurt the feelings of all those other persons, then it shouldn’t be ok to hurt my feelings either, right?


So, I figured I’d come up with my list of things you should never say to me if you ever encounter me on the street, or at work, or at the grocery store, or the laundromat, or the pharmacy, or anywhere in the world.

So, I thought, and thought, and thought, and thought, and thought, and thought, and I came up with a pretty impressive list of things that — if you were to say them to me — my first reaction would be to have hurt feelings, and to pout, and to get ticked off and to be mad and sad and ready to sulk for months on end.

Then, I realized that of all those things, not a one of them was true. Or, if it was true, then … ummmm… it was true. For example:

  • You’re short!   — Not true; I’m very tall. Relatively speaking, of course.
  • You’re stupid! — Subjective — could be true of some things, not true of others. My IQ is very high, so unless there is greater definition, it’s impossible to know if this is true or not.
  • You’re ugly! — Entirely subjective. My father, mother, daughter, son and several ex-girlfriends consider me quite handsome.
  • You’re a lousy daddy! — Hmmmm… this one could hurt, but it shouldn’t. My kids consider me an excellent daddy, and I consider them excellent kids. No matter what, I try really hard to be the best daddy I can possibly be. If I fall short, then there was no more that I could do. My feelings shouldn’t be hurt. And, after having thought about it a bit, they aren’t. (After all, it’s usually my ex-wife telling me I’m a lousy daddy, and she is a lousy mommy. :) )
  • You’re a racist! That’s easy — I’m not.
  • You’re [one of those other things]! That’s also easy. I’m almost always not. If I am, then I accept your criticism, and if I consider that it’s a bad thing to be the thing you accuse me of being, I’ll stop it. Otherwise, I’ll keep on keepin’ on.

Come to think of it — as you should — there shouldn’t be anything that anyone can tell you anywhere at any time that would actually hurt your feelings.

So, I take it all back; there’s nothing you can say about me — a Western, hetero, white dude — that will irritate me. You simply don’t have the necessary status in my life to be able to hurt me.

I mean, people have been calling me racist, and sexist, and cruel, and cold, and homophobic, and imperialistic, and oppressive, and mean, and nasty, and lousy, and a bastard, and a dastard, and scummy — for-freakin’-ever —  just because I’m a white dude. I knew that none of those things was true, so why should I be worried about what a bunch of brain-dead, leftist, IQ-deprived morons (but, I repeat myself) who don’t know me from Adam say?

I shouldn’t.

So I don’t.

So, about this essay’s headline … never mind.


– xPraetorius


POLITICALLY INCORRECT: Hooray for Western, Hetero, White Dudes! (Part II)

Hooray (sort of) for us Western, hetero, white dudes!

Take a look at this video: http://conservativevideos.com/2014/07/woman-caught-video-unleashing-violent-tirade-pro-life-activists/

I don’t know about you, but this was a frustrating encounter for me. The pro-life guys maintained the moral high-ground throughout, and that’s good, but we’ve had the moral high-ground since Roe v. Wade, more than 40 years ago.

I think this was an opportunity for the pro-life guy to give it right back, in her face, to the hysterical woman. In fact, she gave him permission for that when she started her unhinged tirade.

At the first opportunity, the dude being abused should have laughed at her and shot right back, loud and clear, “And you’re a cold, cruel, self-obsessed, perverted, IQ-deprived, child-molesting brainless baby killer! I don’t have a uterus, but you don’t have a brain. Looks like you slipped through the eugenecists’ abortion net!

Then, if she starts back in, retort with things like, “Yeah, well you’re a child molester!” And, “Yeah, well you abuse small farm animals.” Keep ‘em coming. Have a stock of ‘em. Be creative, but make sure you match her insult for insult. Nothing is off limits in the way of insults, except (1) profanity (let her sound like the illiterate, uneducated one), and (2) violence.  Say, “Wait a sec., I hear something rattling between your ears. Oops. Nope. It was nothing.” Ask her when she started killing babies. Ask her when she started molesting puppies. Ask her if she has plans to finish Middle School. Ask her if she has plans to move out of her parents’ house. Again, be creative. Ask her if she plans ever to have that wart removed from atop her shoulders. Have fun with her! Ask her, “Did that fall on your head hurt?”

Insult her looks — heck, she called you a racist! Nothing is off limits!  Call her fat. Ask her what kind of an idiot (spit out the word “idiot” with as much contempt as you can. You know “i-i-i-i-diot…“) allows herself to get that fat. If she tells you she has some kind of disorder and — how dare you — then call her a liar and tell her you don’t believe her. Show. No. Mercy. Whatsoever.

Get into it! Engage! Is this or is it not The Ideas War?!? The left treats it as if it is. What do you think happens to people in wars who don’t bother actually to fight? Yep. They lose the war.

I mean, let’s face it, it’s not as if the woman in the video is really going to offer an intellectual challenge to anyone. So, have at it. Let her be practice for when you have to face someone more intelligent. Like a cinder block.

I’m past tired of watching us congratulate ourselves on what good people we are simply because “we never stoop to their level.” Well, in taking my above suggestion, we wouldn’t be stooping to their level, we’d simply be telling it like it is. Yes, we’d be doing what they do, but better, faster, smarter and … right. Again, we shouldn’t use profanity or violence of any kind. Just smoothly, calmly tell her about herself. We covered this topic a while ago, here. (1)

Oh, and film it. Let the whole world witness the leftists’ humiliation. We’re smarter than they are, let’s show it to everyone!

“But, but, but,” I hear you say… “we can’t call her names and tell her things about herself that we can’t possibly know, that would be mind-reading; something we insist that the left should stop doing to us!

Well, yes and no. If they’re in your face, berating you, abusing you, reading your mind, telling you all about yourself, about how racist and sexist and homophobic and misogynistic you are, then all bets are off — for that encounter. We should never start that kind of silliness, but if forced into it, we should do it in the best, most devastating, leftist-crushing way possible.

I’m figuring this particular nutcase/woman in the above-linked video, would come so unhinged that she’d launch some violent assault. She’s big, but in a fat, doughy kind of way. I doubt she’d be a real physical menace. Nothing against fat people or women, but they are not, typically, a physical threat to others. Equally possible is that she’d be so poleaxed that someone actually stood up to her, that she’d just slink away, find her cauldron and broom, and leave.

That’s why we, ourselves must engage in no violence of any kind. Let them do that. We can beat them with words, and humiliate them on videos like the one linked above.

It can’t be denied, and this video demonstrates it: we white, pro-life dudes are by far the nicest and the most polite of the participants in the Idea Wars. The problem is that the left shouts down, bullies and steamrolls right over nice, polite guys.

– xPraetorius


(1) Remember, the left doesn’t argue. They view dissent as a potentially dangerous wound and they cauterize it. They’ve given up trying to win arguments, because their views generally don’t hold up under any real scrutiny, or in a fair debate. So they’re left with no choice but to pummel you into submission, so that you won’t dare to raise your disagreements anywhere else.


POLITICALLY INCORRECT: Hooray for Western, Hetero, White Dudes!

After all, we’re, overall, really good people!

Think about it.

• If we were really racists, as some suggest, there’d have been no Civil Rights. We’d have squashed it, and that would have been the end of it.

Heck, if you listen to what the hardcore in the Race Grievance Industry (RGI) say, you’ll hear them call us white dudes “genocidal maniacs,” and “psychopaths,” and the “bloodiest group in history.” Really? How did this evil bunch respond to the Civil Rights Movement? If we were genocidal maniacs, and a huge majority in the country, how did we even allow that to happen?!? And a black President?!? You have to be kidding! Some genocidal maniacs! Some oppressors!

It’s no wonder that non-white people the world over are flinging themselves into the ocean, crossing miles of merciless deserts, and leaving everything behind just to come here and be “oppressed” by us Western, hetero, white dudes!

• If we were really sexists, there’d have been no feminism. The Muslims have shown us that if we really want to keep women down, we dudes could do it. We didn’t and we don’t.

• If we really disrespected, or hated women, or thought of them only as “sex objects,” as feminism has alleged, then all the labor-saving devices invented by men would have been for men. There’d be no washing machines, dryers or microwaves. And if women were to invent them, we’d quash the inventions. We could do it. The muslims do. Just look at all those educated women in muslim lands. Oh … oops. I forgot: muslims don’t let women obtain an education.

• If we were really all that hostile to people who engage in sex-like activities with members of their own sex, there’d be no “gay marriage” anywhere today. There’d be no Affirmative Action for gays, no stern, finger-wagging speech codes designed to protect gays’ tender sensibilities. Nothing like that. I mean they represent a tad less than 1% of the population. It wouldn’t be all that difficult for us to keep them down and in the closet.

Oh, and try to imagine a “Gay Rights Movement” in muslim-controlled lands. Nope. Can’t. Imagine it, that is. I think Islam’s penalty for homosexuality is death by stoning. But we Western, hetero white dudes … we’re one really tough bunch of hombres! Because, you see, disapproving of “gay marriage” is so much worse than stoning gays to death.

• If we were really the racists that the Race Grievance Industry insists we are, there’d be no immigration problem because there’d be no immigration. Except from Western European countries, that is.

• If we were really the racists that the RGI insists we are, Japanese-Americans could have expected a whole lot worse treatment than temporary internment during World War II, and an apology some decades later.

Want to know why all the various whining grievance groups  have attacked Western, heterosexual, white men? Simple. Because they can. Imagine anything at all resembling feminism, or gay rights movements, or civil rights movements or the like in, say, Saudi Arabia, or North Korea, or China, or Cuba, or Vietnam… Can’t really imagine it, can you? They’d all be dead… or disappeared. We Western, hetero, white dudes don’t fight back.

Contrary to what the various grievance groups allege, we’re just too nice to fight back. These groups knew we wouldn’t, so they had no fear in coming at us. How can I say this with the confidence that I do? Simple: If we had wanted to fight back, we would have, and we would have squashed all these movements before they even got out of the starting blocks. That much is pretty obvious.

This is supported by a simple observation: Some of the worst women’s rights abusers in the world today are muslims, yet no one except the political right in America has the courage to criticize them. Why? Because muslins have demonstrated that they will fight back — in the most lunatic ways possible — if you so much as look at them funny.

We white dudes were an easy target for the whiners because we’re just too darned easy-going.

Black Americans said, “We want Civil Rights!” We said, “Ummmmmmm… Ok.” They said, “And we want money and a head start in hiring and education and we want free food and we want apologies and we want a whole host of other things costing trillions of dollars.” Again, we said, “Ummmm… Ok. Here ya go.”

Women, now with a lot of free time on their hands because of the aforementioned labor-saving devices, said, “Heyyyyy!!! We want power now, and money and preferences in hiring and education and all sorts of apologies and other things. Again, we hetero, white dudes said pretty much, “Uhhhhhh… Ok fine.”

No shots fired. No revolutions. Even the so-called “turbulent” 1960’s saw only scattered, highly isolated incidents of violence, and almost none of that from the American government. After the ’60’s, however, no riots, no muss, no fuss — just a whole bunch of hetero, white dudes handing over power, money, social status, fame, prestige, you name it to just about anyone who demanded it.

Sure, some people argued against it, but it happened. And it happened in the historical equivalent of the blink of an eye. It happened everywhere, in every city, county and state in the land.

Now, mind you, we Western hetero white dudes’ easy-going nature is not an unalloyed good thing.

Civil Rights? Of course you allow that to happen. It was just the right thing to do.

But, extra rights for people who choose to do sex-like activities with members of their own sex? That’s just silly. They just don’t want to be considered weird, when what they do is — sorry about this — weird. I don’t blame gays, but we should not have allowed their nonsensical “cause” to become “the Civil Rights issue of our time.” That was just nutty.

How about feminism?

Feminism, was mostly unnecessary. Again, we Western, hetero, white men’s laid-back, easy-going attitude toward this kooky movement, propelled by some severely neurotic “thinkers,” was wrong. We should have pushed back against the lunatic nutballs like the Andrea Dworkin’s and Betty Friedan’s of the movement.

We allowed the nutcase feminists to paint a cardboard-cutout picture of men that was caricaturish, hyper-negative, mono-dimensionally buffoonish, and not even remotely inaccurate. The result was mountains of man-hostile legislation that baked the negative caricature into the American legal system, causing families, men and women, and especially children, incalculable harm.

Put it this way: if men really were anything resembling what feminists said they were, there would have been no feminism at all. Instead, however, feminism sailed smoothly through the American intellectual infrastructure like a hot knife through butter, with nothing at all impeding its destructive trajectory. Feminism was and remains its own built-in contradiction.

But, but, but, I hear you say — Western European (hetero) white men spent the 16th, 17th, 18th and 19th Centuries, engaging in conquest, colonization and imperialism.

Look, I’m not saying that we’re perfect by any means. However, it has to be admitted that wherever Western Europeans colonized, they introduced a system that ultimately proved superior to the one already in place in the conquered territory. This goes for everywhere they went. Be it in Africa, Asia, the Pacific islands, South America or North America.

Furthermore, every place Western Europeans didn’t colonize has had the same backward, oppressive political/social structure it has had for centuries. Current day explorers aren’t finding long lost advanced civilizations out there, but we do stumble upon the occasional extremely primitive society from time to time.

So, how can I say that bold statement so confidently. Simple: it is self-evidently true that if all countries had the same democratic systems as those in place in the United States and Western Europe, all countries, and the world, would be vastly better off. 

That’s worth repeating: it is self-evidently true that if all countries had the same democratic systems as those in place in the United States and Western Europe, all countries, and the world, would be vastly better off. 

The world would have HUGELY more of the following: prosperity, wealth, freedom, food, health, leisure, long life, peace, harmony amongst peoples … happiness

So, an enthusiastic “HOORAY!” for us Western, heterosexual, white males, the nicest, kindest, most benign majority group in the history of the world!

– xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 7/12/14


Haven’t had one of these for a while. It’s not for lack of any fatuousness on the part of NPR, I assure you.

Just some quick thoughts:

• National Public Radio — NPR — is launching one of their endless series of “series” called something like “Men in America.”

– My Comment: Please, please, please don’t let NPR be the ones who define how we look at men in America. NPR’s effete, pantywaist, thoroughly feminized, effeminate series will certainly emasculate men as thoroughly as feminism has done. I mean, let’s fact it, it’s freakin’ NPR! Listened to a couple of editions. No surprises. It is NPR, after all. Example: the latest installment was about “boy bands.” Welllll…there’s a rich source of insight into American manhood!

• Another NPR series is something like: “Stress in America.” They called out for “stories” on their Facebook page and got several thousand responses from, guess who: NPR-type people. Probably not a lot of real people in their response pool. One was a blue-collar single mother (Single mother dependent on state services); one was an “environmental specialist” (Government worker) for the government, and one was a would-be teacher with a laid-off husband. Listened to another installment. In no episode did they cover the one, major, 900-pound-gorilla-in-the-room stressor: Obama’s flaccid, flimsy, enervated, directionless economy. Wow! Great series on stress, guys!

One thing I’ve noticed about NPR over many years of listening: they are the absolute masters of telling you nothing, at great length.

• Back to the “Men in America” thing. I’d bet you a million bucks that they treat men like defective women. How can men better avail themselves of government services? What to do when men go bad? How can they get free counseling? How can they navigate Obamacare better? How can we help them ’cause they’re just not too bright? What’s the matter with men, anyway, and can they be fixed?!? That kind of thing.

• Again, à propos of the same thing. Father’s Day rolled around, and, as per tradition, the thing I heard on NPR was a feature on the lousy fathers they had found.

• Needless to say, on the occasion of Mother’s Day, it was wall-to-wall paeans to those unrecognized super-creatures toiling heroically in obscurity: mothers.

• NPR did a feature on the Export-Import Bank — the “Ex-Im Bank” — It wasn’t even vaguely concealed that they thought the Ex-Im was a great idea and that it should stay around.

• They did a feature on where the “Barack Obama Library” might be built. Either Hawaii, Columbia University or Chicago (so far). I thought, “Hmmmm… Hawaii, where the élite of the élite of the élite left go to play and live. Nothing but gated communities as far as the eye can see? Heck, it’s a gated state! Even more snootily élitist than Hollywood or Beverly Hills. Perfect!”

But wait! How ’bout Columbia University, where Obama allegedly got (we think, there’s no actual proof of it) his undergrad degree? Perfect, right! Well… we’re not even sure that he attended Columbia! He says he did, but who really knows? Columbia won’t release any transcripts or some kind of documentation that indicates he went there. So, yes, it is perfect. Columbia is the ideal symbol for the opacity of the Obama Administration. The dissimulating, dissembling dishonesty, the corrupt back-room, behind-the-scenes deals, the refusal to answer even simple questions that every other President has had to answer to Congress and the American people. Big, Ivy League, hyper-élitist, snobby, better than you and I, haughty, screw-you-America-and-your-right-to-know-about-your-President Columbia would be just perfect!

But wait! How ’bout Obama’s other hometown of Chicago? Sure! Big, bustling metropolis Chicago! Murder capital of the nation. Corruption capital of the world. Everyone acknowledges today that the Chicago Daley machine delivered the Presidency to John F. Kennedy in 1960, and Chicago’s been producing and exporting corruption ever since. Obama is simply its latest, most corrupt export. Chicago would be perfect!

Well, I guess it really is a conundrum, after all!

• Fitting… The organization that would do the site determination for the above-mentioned “Barack Hussein Obama Library” is the “Barack Obama Foundation” — the “BOF.” Add an “f” a the end and it’s a quaint slang word for what Obama’s been doing to the country his entire public life.

• Yesterday, or the day before, they did a biiiiiiig puff piece on Bernie Sanders, the self-admitted socialist senator from Vermont. He might run for President. Can you imagine if NPR did a puff piece on a potential presidential candidate from the Nazi Party? It’s the same thing after all. Socialism in all its flavors is responsible for more death than any other cause in the past 100 years, including war. Sanders calls himself a “Democratic Socialist,” which is the same thing as a “Democratic Nazi,” or a “Democratic Communist.” Socialism is a disease. If Sanders presents himself as a viable candidate for the American Presidency, he’s saying, “Don’t worry, I’m not those other guys. I’m only pneumonia, while they’re lung cancer, or tuberculosis. Vote for me!’ It’s worth noting that Hitler was the pretty much fairly and squarely elected chancellor of Germany before taking on dictatorial powers.

– xPraetorius

About Feminism — REALLY Wish I’d SaidThis!

Some extremely well-stated views from Karen Straughan as excerpted by Joseph Dooley.

Straughan’s material begins about a fifth of the way down this post (I’ve highlighted some particularly trenchant observations in red font. These are things that we have said in these pages, but maybe not as well as Straughan.):

By the 1960s, when the western world’s love affair with communism had begun to fizzle, communism’s red-headed stepdaughter, feminism, was only growing in popularity. The sexier, less threatening, more benign-seeming Trojan Mare ["Editor's Note: "Trojan Mare" -- Love it!] upon which Marxists had relied to sneak their ideology past the gates of the western world had outgrown its helpmeet role, and taken on a life of its own.

By this era, a discrete and quintessentially Marxist theoretical model of gender had become entrenched in the intellectual sphere, a model based on class conflict theory and postmodern discourse. While communist thought was confined to a small pocket of what the mainstream mostly thought of as misguided weirdos, feminist thought, slapped together from the exact same bricks and mortar, became not only fashionable, but had spawned its own branch of academia, sponsored and enabled by unwitting democratic governments across the west.

While historical views on the sexes had maintained that men and women were distinctly different but complementary partners—role mates, as Dr. Warren Farrell has described it—this new feminist model cast all aspects of society as oppressive and exploitive systems wherein men embodied the Bourgeoisie, and women the Proletariat.

Most of this model—The Patriarchy—and its sub-theories are little more than post hoc rationalizations based on emotional reasoning, easily swallowed by the well-meaning public because of the evidence that stands out most starkly to us given our natural, evolved views of gender. Humans have always been more emotionally reactive to the harms, injuries, injustices, complaints and perils affecting women, and more likely to see women as nurturing, benign, kind, well-meaning and deserving of protection. We have always been more likely to see men as strong, sturdy, capable of self-sufficiency, potent and potentially threatening, and these perceptions inform our reactions when men suffer harms, injuries, injustices and dangers, and when they dare to complain about them.

Because of these innate perceptions, when feminists pointed up toward the top of society and showed us mostly men, we didn’t bother to direct our attention down to the bottom of society so we could see the mostly men there, as well. We all saw a glass ceiling, but not a glass cellar, and allowed feminists to convince us that all aspects of society, the formalized and the informal, were male-dominated and male-controlled, and that women, as a class, were utterly powerless and subjugated under this system.

Marriage was redefined under this model, from a partnership where both parties contributed and benefitted, to a form of sexual slavery and unpaid drudgery for women where wives were subjugated and exploited for their husbands’ express benefit. Under second wave feminism, family was reinterpreted as an institution based on exploitation—instead of all members working together for the benefit and shared success of all members, women were recast as powerless subordinates, providing unreciprocated labor toward the raising of HIS children, and the keeping of HIS house, labor that freed husbands to pursue economic and social power outside the home.

It didn’t matter that most men had little more access to economic and social power than most women, or that what power men achieved they were expected to share equitably with their families. Feminists were too busy pointing upward at the congressmen, bank managers and CEOs and crying injustice, to show us the taxi drivers, garbage men, plumbers, loggers, fishermen, miners, construction workers, factory laborers, field workers, roughnecks and janitors. They envied the power of generals and statesmen, but spared no thought for the thousands of young foot soldiers dead in the trenches. They were jealous of the self-determination that made an industrialist rich beyond dreaming, but when that self-determination produced a different outcome for the mostly male population of tramps, beggars and hobos it was invisible to them. [Editor's Note: This last is an extremely powerful indictment of feminism and the grotesquery it has become.]

They focus solely on the men above and don’t even notice the men below.

The 23 cent average, apples to oranges, annual wage gap is STILL, in their minds, the height of sexist injustice, but the greater than 90% workplace death gap is…well, who cares?

The traditional obligation of a woman to defer to her husband’s authority was defined as “oppression”, but her husband’s obligation to die in a trench to protect his country and family…that became “male privilege” and when enough people protested the hubris of that assertion, it became “Patriarchy hurts men too.”

Under The Patriarchy, all men are privileged by their maleness, and all women oppressed by their femaleness. And if men are, as a class, the privileged Bourgeoisie, if men hold collective power over society, then all men are culpable for the oppression and exploitation of all members of the female Proletariat, and any discrimination a man might face in society is just his own privilege backfiring on him.

One need only watch the Life of Julia, Obama’s most naked and blatant appeal to the natures of women—especially young, single women. Julia has no father, and no husband—she needs neither of those things. The state will take care of her needs from birth to death, and will support her when she decides to have a child of her own—a child that, in Obama’s narrative, is also fatherless. The man in Julia’s life, the one who will perform the roles—provision, protection, support—historically performed by husbands, brothers and fathers, is more powerful than any man she’ll ever meet, more able to provide for her, and one she need make no compromises with.

Julia will never have to pick up this man’s dirty socks, or put up with him snoring or farting in bed, or consider his needs, or provide him with respect, love or affection. He is the ultimate provider and the ultimate protector, and he will ask nothing of her in return but her vote.

And he’ll give her all those benefits through a system that coerces net taxpayers and net tax-generators, of whom a disproportionate number are men, to surrender their productivity while offering them neither mutual benefit nor voluntary association. This feels right and just to feminists, because the state is merely assisting Julia in stealing back what was wrongfully taken from women, as a class, by men, as a class. This feels like a great deal to Julia, since all she has done is replace a man with whom she would be required to bargain freely, with a state that provides her all the same benefits without the messy business of having to trade anything valuable for them.

Well… we did say it, but not altogether in a nice neat package as did Karen Straughan, the real authoress of the above-linked quoted passage. Her blog is here (Note: possibly NSFW).

I’m not overly dejected at having been “scooped” both by Straughan and Dooley, though. Straughan is a long-time anti-feminist, and Dooley is, I gather, a fan of hers.

Both are outstanding writers and commentators on today’s society.

Well worth the read.

– xPraetorius