At Last! The Leftist Media Get One Right!

It was Wednesday, the day before Thanksgiving. I was assisting a colleague at her workstation, when she opened her browser. Her default page is one of the usual assortment of wacky pop culture-obsessed — and very brainlessly left-wing, of course — web sites. I forget which one.

These web sites parade a bunch of “headlines” before you in rotating order, in order to get you to click on one that interests you, luring you in to their content. The headline on the very first one in the rotation was: “No Intelligence About Plot Against U.S.” The picture next to it was of Obama, at his desk, staring vacantly into the distance, as he so often does.

I almost fell out of my chair laughing at the image. The words “No Intelligence” were right next to the vacant-eyed Obama as he contemplated, well, who knows what — probably his next round of golf.

Most comically, the intent of the picture and its headline was to be reassuring; to indicate that there was no credible evidence of any looming ISIS-style terrorist attacks before the Thanksgiving holiday. Instead it showed a picture of our fumbling, bumbling President, and the words “No Intelligence About Plot Against U.S.

What the headline seemed to be saying was that there actually was an attack planned against the U.S., but that it would be met with “No Intelligence” from the one tasked with responding to it, well, intelligently.

I realize that I shouldn’t have laughed at the image and the headline; the topic was deadly serious. However, in contemplating the steaming mess that Obama has made of this country and its foreign policy, one is obliged to find one’s mirth where one can.

The owners of the web site seemed to realize their error — surely someone at the White House alerted them, since the media are largely in the White House’s pocket — and minutes after I noticed it, changed the headline to read: “Obama: No Evidence of Attacks During Holiday.”

Oh, well… for one brief, shining moment, the media got it right about Obama!

— xPraetorius




Carly Simon Tells Who’s So Vain!

Sorry, I couldn’t care less.

— xPraetorius

Democrat Strawmen

America’s left, and its political wing the Democrat Party, have long felt the need to use strawmen to “argue” with debate opponents. One understands this, as their “thinking” is sometimes so ill-formed and unsupported by either logic or observation, that the deflections are vital tools in their debating “toolbox.”

Hillary did it, as she has done from long habit, in the Democrat “debate” of several days ago.

When asked something about “radical Islam” — two words that never shall escape the lips of the American left — she replied with all the bellowing sternness that is her trademark, “We are not at war against Islam,” she brayed, “and we are not at war against all muslims!”


The problem: Thing One — war against Islam– is something no one has ever suggested, or even implied. And Thing Two — war against all muslims — is something else no one has ever suggested or implied.

In other words, she didn’t want to answer the question so she dodged it with the typical Democrat tactic of trotting out a strawman. Of course she got away with it.

Why do they lie, evade, dissemble, distort, change the subject? Easy! Because they can.

No matter what tommyrot escapes the lips of prominent Democrat Party politicians, their worshipful lapdogs in the media simply look adoringly at them as if they had just said something transcendently wise and insightful.

Yet, let’s look at the question for a moment. The question — I don’t know the exact wording — was something on the order of “What are you going to do about radical Islam, and its ties to terrorism?” You know, standard-issue national security question.

Well, what about that? Everyone knows there is something called “radical Islam” out there. There are goons — apparently hundreds of thousands of them — who are willing to blow themselves and others up all in the name of “Islam.”

Are there, have there ever been, such things in Christianity? Judaism? Hinduism (yes: in a limited sense. Google “thuggee(1))? Shintoism? (Yes: Google “kamikaze.” Though, that was on a much more limited scale and context), Buddhism? Taoism?

How about these things:
• Al Qaeda
• Al Nusra
• Boko Haram
• Hamas
• The Muslim Brotherhood
• so many more…

Those are entire organized groups whose sole mission is to go out there and kill people who don’t believe as they do. Many of them are willing to strap bombs to their bodies, and to blow themselves up in support of their murderous mission.

Surely we can find such groups — with thousands of active members — in Christianity, and Judaism, and Hinduism, Taoism… (2), and Buddhism…

Oh. Oops. Nope. Nothing like that to be found. Just in Islam, where there are just lots and lots and lots and lots and lots of these goons.

The west does have such a death cult, it must be admitted. These are people who are unwilling to die for their religion, but are certainly willing to engage in wholesale slaughter for it — to the tune of 120 million or more in the last century alone!

That religion is, of course, socialism. There’s an important reason why socialism requires “atheism” on the part of its followers: It’s the only way to allow secular deity-figures — Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot — to order people to murder on their behalf. You can’t order Christians to set up gulags, or concentration camps, or gas chambers for crowds of people. They won’t do it. Try to order Jews, or Buddhists to set up vast institutions of slaughter and slavery. Good luck with that.

But you can order atheists, socialists — and muslims — to do so, and they just go out and do it.

The American left does the strawman thing with all issues.
• Disagree with welfare? You’re a racist, or you hate women and children.
• Are you pro-life? Well, you must hate women and want to enslave them.
• Think taxes are too high? Well, you just hate poor people and want them to starve. Or, you’re greedy and just want more for yourself.
• Think the idea of “gay marriage” is ridiculous?(3) You must hate gay people, you bigot!

We on the right have failed to come to grips with the left’s constant use of irrelevancies and strawmen. It’s important to note that all those strawmen accusations are irrelevant. Yes, I’m against how welfare is done today, and the extent to which it pervades society and generates ever greater welfare dependence. When I say that, and I hear, “You’re a racist!” in return, at least one correct response ought to be:

“So what! Even if I were, that doesn’t change the rightness of what I’m saying, and the wrongness of welfare. Even if I were the worst racist in the world, that wouldn’t change one iota whether my argument is correct. Now that you’ve had your fun calling me stupid names, go ahead and produce something that you think invalidates what I’ve said.”

We on the right should say some variation of that, as well as several others that I’ve catalogued in these pages, every time some nitwit on the left trots out one of their strawmen.

— xPraetorius


(1) – A mostly muslim death cult in the sub-continent of India-Pakistan. They were much more willing to make other people die than themselves, though. They did not have a suicide component.

(2) – See Note #1.

(3) – It is. Laughably so, even.

Zande, Arkenaten: Here’s How I Defeated You So Soundly

One simple thing: I didn’t let my ego get in the way of our interactions. Nor did I let my ego get in the way of any of my conclusions, or any part of my argumentation.

When you both learn the importance of that simple thing, you’ll do at least two things: (1) win a lot more arguments, and (2) have a vastly greater chance of actually getting to the truth.

Of course, at that point … you’ll be on my side, where there’s just a whole lot more evidence, argumentation, understanding, knowledge to be had in the first place. :)(1)

— xPraetorius



(1) – Okay, okay, maybe there’s a teentsy part of my ego in there. :)



I’ve Long Wondered About This

You know, President Obama’s absolutely inexplicable wimpiness and timidity in the face of seriously pressing international imperatives.

• Putin and Crimea? Obama folded.
• Nuclear Iran? Obama folded.
• Nuclear North Korea? Obama folded.
• Libya? Obama/Hillary Clinton folded.
• Syria? Obama folded.
• Iraq? Don’t even bring that up…
• Afghanistan? Ditto.
• And so forth…

Do a little exercise with me: Name one foreign policy triumph in seven freakin’ years of Obama’s Administration.

Just one. He doesn’t even have anything to point to that might have happened by accident!

So, how do you explain that?


Don’t rule out the possibility that “they have something on him.

You know… like they (Putin, Kim Jong Un, ISIS, the Taliban, Assad, etc… you know, the scum of the earth) might know something that you and I don’t know? Obama’s sure acting that way. As if he were nothing more than a pawn of dark forces around the world.

I don’t believe it, but there are certainly conspiracy theorists out there, who would have no problem believing it. Why? Obama absolutely acts as if it were true.

Remember Obama’s little open mic oops? He told Dmitri Medvedev  to “tell Vladimir (Putin) that he, Obama, would have ‘more flexibility after he was re-elected.’

Remember also, that if you’re looking for apologists for all manner of scumbag, brigand, thug, tyrant, bloodthirsty murderer, rapist, dictator or other bad guy, you need look no further than America’s Democrat Party.

It’s entirely possible that Obama and Hillary and all the rest of the thoroughly corrupt, reactionary troglodytes who make up the leadership of the Democrat Party, have been in bed (at least metaphorically) with the aforementioned international scum for a very long time. As such, the selfsame aforementioned scum have a lot of dirt they could dish on the leading Democrats if they were to slip up and act, for example, in America’s best interests.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch (11-20-15)

Short one today. I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) on the way into work today(1), when I heard the following thing that showed just how biased they are, and just how little they even try to hide it.

It was NPR’s fake morning news program called “Morning Edition,” and the host, one Steve Inskeep was interviewing Michigan’s Republican governor, Rick Snyder.

During the interview, Inskeep said (roughly) the following:

As you know, Governor, some Republican candidates have been making some incendiary (emphasis added) remarks about immigrants, and indeed about all muslims.

The problem? Well, there are several. First: the word “incendiary ” is a heavily-freighted word. A word with value, useless to a “newscast,” that actually considers itself a newscast. Especially to a “newscast” that is trying to maintain the fiction of being a newscast. “Incendiary” is an opinion. Some may view what a candidate says as “incendiary,” while others view the very same utterances as common sense, and uncontroversial. If you want to tell the world that your program is not news, then you use words like “incendiary.”

Second: No Republican presidential candidate has even once said anything that could even remotely be construed as “incendiary” — no matter what possible interpretation of the word you use — about all muslims. Not one. Not once. Not ever.

Every single candidate in both parties has been falling over himself or herself to be sure to insist that he or she is not — ever — including all muslims in his or her remarks.

So, Steve Inskeep, and NPR, and their copy editors believe that it’s okay to put something that is obviously (1) opinion, and (2) false(2) on the air, and call it news.

Always remember, never forget: you always come out of an NPR “newscast” less informed than you go in.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Actually a neat little trick in the third world hellhole where I find myself currently trying to make the world safe for Democracy, but I manage to pull it off. Just FYI, I use the pat phrase “I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) on the way into work today…” as a device to introduce the feature. I’m pretty much always “on the way into work,” so it’s always, in a literary sense, kinda true.

(2) – Yes, an opinion can be “false.” the word incendiary is an opinion word, and, as stated in the paragraph, no possible interpretation of the word can be used to describe any statements any Republican presidential candidates have made about “all muslims.” If however, you’re uncomfortable with the word “false,” then we could use the more incendiary words like, “stupid,” “ridiculous,” “ludicrous,” “moronic,” “idiotic.” :)

François Hollande: “C’est la Guerre!” (No… Really!?! Ya Think?!?)

Some thoughts about all this.

C’est la Guerre! Uhhhhh… ya think?!? Ya freakin’ think?!?

The President of France, François Hollande — a limp-wristed, pantywaist socialist for cryin’ out loud!(1) — has more of what makes a man into a man, than the freakin’ President of the freakin’ United freakin’ States of America!

C’est la guerre” means: “This is war.” That’s what the President of France — wait, wait, wait… France? Freakin’ France?!?  Don’t they just roll over if a chihuahua yips? Well… no. Not if you study it really. They’re a country of valiant fighters, and great valor. A real study of history shows this.

C’est la Guerre! It’s been la guerre for many years. As I mentioned several times before: Ruthless, bloodthirsty, blood-soaked tyrants, terrorists and goons the world over go to bed each night with prayers of thanks on their lips that (1) America has the Democrat Party and (2) Obama is the President.

I can tell you something: God is great, but ISIS is … not. Maybe these baboons yell “God is great” to draw a contrast between greatness and their dirty, disgusting, revolting, pus-filled selves.

Obama is an idiot. Why, oh why, are we cursed with this half-wit in the White House?!? Oh, yeah… it was so important to elect a black President. Not at all important to elect a good President.

I saw this crawler at the bottom of a news feature: “French air strikes destroy two jihadi sites.” Oh? Why were those “jihadi sites” not destroyed long ago?

I heard this on the ride home this evening: “French air strikes destroyed an ammunition dump, a training camp and a convoy of trucks believed to be transporting oil to help finance ISIS.” Seriously? Freakin’ seriously?!? How was it that the French were able to find ISIS ammo dumps? And training camps?

Do we not have satellites that could have identified those things — so that we could have blotted them off the map long, long ago — so that the French would have had to call us and said something like, “Say, can you give us some targets to blot out?”

Ready for this one? François Hollande, the one with more testosterone than our President, is a socialist. Therefore he’s a moron. There are, though, degrees of mental debility. Hollande, unlike Obama, recognizes a gibbering baboon when he sees one. He knows that the ISIS goons are murderous gibbering baboons who will saw off his head precisely because of his secular atheist socialist beliefs.

Hollande is afraid. Rightly so.

François Hollande, like any 21st Century socialist, thought that the poor and the downtrodden of the world would rally to him and to socialism because of all its pretty lies and its syrupy deceptions. However, Hollande the socialist, has recognized that there are actually people out there who are even more brutal, more bloodthirsty, more mindless, more murderous, less rational, than even the savage death cult that is socialism.

Don’t forget: the goons are here. No, not the socialists — we put them into the White House — the ISIS savages. Thanks to your local Democrat Party politician.

It’s worth repeating: Ruthless, bloodthirsty, blood-soaked tyrants, terrorists and goons the world over go to bed each night with prayers of thanks on their lips that (1) America has the Democrat Party and (2) Obama is the President.

When 9/11 happened, NATO(2) rallied to our side and expressed massive support. How are we Americans not doing exactly the same freakin’ thing?

— xPraetorius


(1) – I apologize. I recognize that this is an overly charitable characterization of a socialist, who adheres to the most bloodthirsty death cult in the history of humanity: socialism. Still… the western european flavor of socialist is best characterized by one word: “wimp.” Obama is a western european-style socialist.

(2)North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The western alliance that defeated 20th Century socialism… decisively. It has required American academia to resuscitate the long-dead, barbarisms, the identical triplets: communism, fascism and socialism.


Some Other Perspectives on Paris

So far, we’re the only ones to have noticed that the name of the American band playing at “The Bataclan” was: “The Eagles of Death Metal.(1)

Well, they got what their band name is all about. Not for nothing, but now that real death has stalked them and, apparently, spared them — there are pictures of the drummer cowering behind his drum set, and a video of a guitarist sprinting off the stage — will their lives change? Or will they go back to playing in a band that makes reference to “death metal,” a “music genre” particularly concerned with grisly images, ugliness, violence and, well … death? A particularly stupid style of performance. Hard to imagine calling it music.

Anyway, they got it. They got all the death they could ever want. The images from “The Bataclan” are the visual representation of all that the “Death Metal” genre is, itself, all about.

It’s long past time to tune our hearts and minds away from death — in America and around the world.

When the rest of the world sees how cheaply life is held in America — the first place in the world to have installed a largely humane system of governance — is it any wonder that they feel no qualms about dealing death in large doses?

Black Americans butcher hundreds, thousands, of other black Americans in America’s cities every year. We slaughter millions of unborn babies every year… And we’re getting ready, as a country, to embrace putting a needle in Grandma’s arm and sending her off.


Well, you see, Grandma’s become every bit as inconvenient as that “fetus” we “cleaned out” at Planned Parenthood, cut up and packed off for fun, profit and “research” last week. So, from “compassion,” and “choice,” we’ll put a needle in Grandma’s arm and kill her.

When we capture some of the ISIS goons — as we inevitably will — who do this kind of thing, they can legitimately look us right in the eye and say, “Who the hell are you to lecture us about death?!? And murder?!? And killing innocent people?!?

— xPraetorius


(1) – Apparently they’re not a “death metal” band. It seems that the title comes from the founders’ musing on what would come from the melding of The Eagles soft rock band with death metal.


Today’s College Unrest

Doing some housecleaning here… the below is a draft that I threw together — brain dump -style — in about five minutes a couple of days ago. I was going to flesh it out and send it off when I got back from trying to make the world safe for democracy in my current Third-world hellhole. Then France happened. More thoughts about that supersede these thoughts in priority.


  • Looks like nothing more than crybabies demanding the right to be sheltered from any and all of life’s ups and downs. Well, from life’s downs, anyway.
  • You and I used to consider life’s slights and minor bumps and bruises to be opportunities to build character. Today’s  college children consider them traumatic “microaggressions.”
  • Yale’s pampered millionaire children say they’re “suffering.” For anyone with any understanding of life and the world that should be more than a little bit stomach-turning. In my life, I’ve been laid off half-a-dozen times, and worked in three companies who winked out of existence nearly overnight (internet bubble and mortgage bubble).
  • The campus crybabies are demanding “safe spaces.” Safe spaces? Safe spaces?!?! What on earth does that mean?!? When was the last time you believed that you had “safe spaces” in work, in public?
  • I don’t say that it’s wrong to have “safe spaces,” but let’s not pretend that these pampered, spoiled urchins mean anything but a place where they can escape from reality.
  • And…I don’t say that it’s wrong to have “safe spaces,” but let’s not pretend that these pampered, spoiled urchins mean anything but a place where they can exclude those who might disagree with their political views.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch (11/12/15)

— Or: The Left Are Nothing But Herd Animals —

Today, in an absolutely extraordinary feature, National Public Radio (NPR) admitted its bias openly, clearly, obviously, transparently.

Needless to day, they thought (1) they were hiding it. Or, just as likely, (2) they’re so divorced from reality and science that they had no idea that their bias was just hanging out there for all to see.

Or, also just as likely, (3) they understand that their listening audience is generally too stupid, ill-educated, ill-informed, misinformed, or ignorant to be able to see the slant even when they dangle it in front of their eyes.

Or, also just as likely: a combination of all three things.

I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) this morning on the way to work. It was their morning fake news program “Morning Edition.”

They’ve recently been running a regular feature in which they’ve been “reporting” on the long-running “deforestation” of the Brazilian rain forest.

Today they did a little side-feature, related to the running one. The NPR reporterette, one Lourdes Garcia-Navarro, bemoaned the fact that in their travels during the “deforestation” project, they had covered some 15,000 miles, consuming fossil fuels the entire time.

That really upset her, because, you see, she was, as she said, “contributing to the problem” by emitting all the carbon dioxide that she and her NPR team were.

And there it is. All the things that she had to believe to come to the conclusion that she was “contributing to the problem” constitute nothing more than beliefs. Not facts, but opinions. Bias. Now, there’s nothing at all wrong with bias. We all have it. What’s wrong is when you present opinions as settled facts. NPR is guilty of this crime all the time

Here are some environmental truths. Facts, if you will.

  • There’s no consensus science(1) indicating that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere leads to a “greenhouse effect,” or “global warming.”
  • There has been no observed “global warming” for nearly a generation now.
  • What “global warming” there ever was, or might have been, has largely been debunked when it was discovered that the readings “scientists” were using were largely faked. Climate data used to start the entire global warming hysteria was so riddled with fraud and manipulation, that none of it was usable to draw any useful conclusions at all. Imagine you have a data set to analyze. You do a spot check and find that 5% of it is worthless, or fraudulent, or improperly obtained. Your problem is that now you can’t tell what of the rest of the data is worthless, so you have no choice but to toss it all and start fresh.
  • Climate Science” is so full of fraud, corruption, and manipulated and faked data that, even if there is valid data it’s impossible to tell which pieces of it are valid, and which are fraudulent. All scientists, and computer programmers, will tell you: if you find some data that’s fraudulent in a larger pile of data, you generally have to toss out the whole pile of data. At the very least, you have to scrutinize the rest of the data very closely and carefully.
  • Others have expressed this same thing: Absent a real house-cleaning, “Climate Science” has given us nothing whatsoever we can use to understand what is happening with the climate. Do you want to understand the earth’s climate? You have to start at the very beginning.
  • Real climate scientists know all this, but don’t expect their voices to be heard in the media.

In her “report,” which was really nothing more than a typical NPR propaganda piece, Garcia-Navarro said openly and out-front that the mere extremely shaky and largely discredited theories of environmentalism are fact.

This kind of “news” feature is typical of NPR. They’re generally not quite as obvious, out-front and transparent with their hogwash, though. For anyone with eyes to see, or a brain to do independent critical thinking, you need little more that that (though you can read our “NPR Watch” features, if you need more evidence.) to recognize that NPR doesn’t give you anything resembling news, but rather thinly-disguised left-wing propaganda.

Finally, to bring this full circle: You and I both recognize this behavior. This is what the left do. There are a few influential left-wing mouthpieces — the New York Times, The LA Times, Ivy League faculty members, and the life — who do their thinking for them, while they go out and parrot the party line like the herd animals they are.

Want proof? How do you think we could — as a country — have decided that a man is a woman, or vice versa based on nothing more than the say-so of the man or woman making the claim?

There aren’t any Conservatives exhibiting that kind of brainless, ovine behavior.

— xPraetorius


(1)Real science. Not what is today called “environmental science,” which is nothing but fraud and corruption. First of all, there’s no such thing as “settled science.” So, let’s put that little thing to rest right now. If there were even such a thing, then the earth would still be flat, and the sun would still be revolving around the earth. “Settled Science” is a nonsense phrase. Anytime you hear it used in such a way as to make you think that the person using it believes there is such a thing, you can be sure you’re listening to someone who has no idea what she’s talking about; someone who’s parroting someone else who had no idea what she was talking about.

NPR Watch (11/13/15)

— You Can Hear This Tripe Only on NPR! —

On the way to work I was listening, as is my wont, to National Public Radio’s (NPR) fake morning news program, Morning Edition.

I almost drove off the road laughing. Only NPR can turn a movie review about the 33 Chilean miners being rescued from a mine collapse into a race/feminist whinefest.

We heard a little bit about the movie, called “The 33,” as NPR’s fake morning news program anchor Renée Montagne interviewed the movie’s director, one Patricia Riggen. (Pr.: “Regan”)

First a little bit of back story: Like many millions around the world, I was riveted as the drama of the mine collapse and the mostly successful rescue effort unfolded over long, excruciating weeks. So, I was intrigued at this piece when NPR announced it. They were going to talk about the mine disaster! Maybe this will be interesting!


It’s NPR, after all. They do a feature if and only if they can somehow pound the square peg of their feature idea into their twisty, turny, psychotic-amoeba-shaped hole of left-wing/racial/feminist narrative.

So, you guessed it. During this interview, we learned a whole lot about our courageous Mexican woman director, and how and why she made the movie (because no one’s making movies about Latin men, of course. Race angle: check.), and became a director. Well, you see, there weren’t any woman directors in Mexico when Riggen was growing up!

Why? Well, women were producers, said Riggen, not directors! “You know,” she said, “always producing for men?” (Feminist angle: check.) NPR Half-wit Montagne giggled all about that one, whatever it meant.

I guess we dudes have never produced anything for women in all these millennia.

So, Riggen became a producer too, but didn’t like it. When she was exposed to directing, well, then she found her calling, so she did it.

Wow! What trauma that all must have been! Having to be a producer because, you see, there just weren’t any woman directors around in Mexico.

Apparently it was no big deal to become a producer. Riggen never indicated that she faced any difficulties as a woman director. She simply went and did it.

We further learned that — I hope you’re sitting down? — there is the same percentage of woman directors in the United States as in Mexico!

“That,” director Riggen assured us radio listeners, “makes the U.S. look really bad.”

Whoa! the heck you say!

There’s the same percentage of woman dierctors in Mexico as in the US?!?

Nooooooooooooooooooooo…!!! The oppression! The agony! the soul-wrenching, deep-in-the-depths-of-all-our-being despair!!!

Hey…maybe that’s the answer to our immigration problem! All we have to do is tell all the illegal immigrants streaming across the Southern border that there’s the same percentage of woman movie directors in Mexico as in the United States! You see, that makes the US look really bad!

They’ll turn right back around and go home to those sunny uplands, those bucolic hills and dales, those fresh-breeze-kissed meadows in the land where there is the same percentage of woman directors as in the United States.

That’s most of what we learned about the movie “The 33 from NPR’s interview with the movie’s director.

— xPraetorius



The Drudge Headline: ‘FIRST OF THE STORM

Now the French know it too. This was France’s 9/11. More so than the Charlie Hebdo massacre, this attack should drive it home: These are not humans we’re dealing with. They’re muslims. They’re sub-humans. Whether we in the west want to admit it or not, there is something in islam that produces these vermin.

There are not ravening, drooling, foaming armies of lunatics coming from any other religion(1) in the world.

Oh, they haven’t lost all their humanity, and that’s what makes their atrocities all the worse. You don’t blame a rabid dog for doing what it it does. These are worse than rabid dogs.

You don’t blame the rabid dog, but you do put it down.

Remember what we said here:

On a side note: you know that Al Qaeda must have considered 9/11 a dismal failure for having killed so few Americans. Of the following numbers, which do you think bin Laden would have chosen as his preferred casualty count:  (a) 4,000, (b) 40,000, (c) 4,000,000 or (d) 40,000,000? If you answered “(d)” you got a 100 on the quiz.

Yep. 9/11 was a huge failure for Al Qaeda… at least in their eyes. They got only 4,000 of us.

It is the feebleness that we in the west are showing — and have long been showing — to the world that is responsible for emboldening these animals. It’s that same weakness that will bring about 9/11 after 9/11 after 9/11 after 9/11 around the world, unless and until we pull our necks out of the sand and put down the rabid ISIS dog.

Here’s my prediction: France and the French will get all caught up in a patriotic fervor that will last just as long as it takes for the first half-wit in the French media to shout, “We must be sure not to attribute this to islam and other muslims! Because that’s not who we are!”

At that point it’s over. The French, along with the rest of the western world, will go right back to their cultural circling of the drain. They’ll go back to fighting over how many more muslims to bring into France, and how many Hungary and Germany and England and the United States should take. All this while the easy, correct, obvious answer to: “how many ‘refugees’ should we take in from the Middle East?” is: None. Not a one.

I know that sounds harsh, but, read this well: the world will not be better off for the civilized world’s bringing thousands of crazed mass murderers into its borders. Yes, that means that millions of innocents will suffer in the Middle East, but when has that not been the case in living memory? And we in the west care all about it now? And, most importantly, how are things made any better by spreading the disease of death and destruction in the Middle East around the world?

These atrocities happen — In America, in England, in Spain, in Indonesia, and now in France — precisely because the perpetrators of the atrocities know they can accomplish the atrocities they set out to do. A muscular west, proud of all that it has accomplished (and the list is very long(2)), and culturally confident could squash these ISIS vermin like bugs.

It bears repeating:

It is the feebleness that we in the west are showing — and have long been showing — to the world, that is responsible for emboldening these animals. It’s that same weakness that will bring about 9/11 after 9/11 after 9/11 after 9/11 around the world, unless and until we pull our necks out of the sand and put down the rabid ISIS dog.

And now, we do turn out hearts and minds, our thoughts and our prayers, to the French in beseeching our loving Father to pour out His healing love and comfort into their hurting hearts, to bring comfort and peace to them in these terrible and sad days. As is meet and right, we pray also that our Heavenly Father will turn the hearts of those who would do other similar acts… turn their hearts to that tiny, dwindling spark of humanity that remains in them, and to step back, then turn and walk away from, the precipice from which they would hurl themselves.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Except, it must be noted, the secular religion fabricated by humans: socialism. It’s the only religion that has the same bloodthirsty devotees as Islam. Islam and socialism resemble each other to such an extent and in so many ways — disdain for basic freedoms and human rights; proscription of dissent or debate; vastly powerful, unquestionable, central authority; rampant corruption — that it’s impossible not to equate the two. It’s why we coined the terms: “socialislam,” and “fascislam.” (See the Notes Section)

It should be noted also that any time avowed muslims have set up a country, they have always set up a socialist country, with no respect for property rights, or basic freedoms and human rights.

(2)  – Abolition of slavery, equal rights, man on the moon, defeat of the Axis powers, defeat and discrediting of Socialism, the permanent removal of the wolf at the door, technology, democracy, stability, eradication of polio, smallpox, rinderpest, hugely increased lifespans, sharply decreased rates of infant and maternal mortality, vast improvements in the cure rates of most diseases, freedom of movement, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, and many, many more incredible advances in the human conditions, that were all imagined and brought to fruition only in the western world.


Every Policy Position The Left Takes On Social Issues Is Fatally Flawed

— Each policy position the left takes on social issues in America today fails to answer at least one crucial, simple question, rendering illegitimate all action, legislation and regulation taken as a result of the position —

Let’s point some out, shall we?


Simple: What if “it” is a real, live, human baby? Everyone admits “it’s” real, and “it’s” human, and “it’s” alive. But, if “it’s” a human life… (the entire subject hangs on that simple, one-letter, indefinite article: “a.”) Abortion advocates have never answered that question, and have always tried, successfully, to divert the topic to the mother.

Fatal Flaw: If “it” is a  baby, then abortion is, as pro-lifers have suggested, the worst of crimes: the murder of an innocent human being.


Feminism came along  because, supposedly, western women had a raw deal in life. Well, as much as we might agree or disagree about that, it was completely irrelevant. “Irrelevant?” you say, “How could that be irrelevant?” Simple: In identifying that western women had a raw deal in life, the only logical next step would be to pose the question: “Do western women have it worse than western men?

No one ever posed that question, or tried to answer it. The reason is that it’s not such an easy question to answer. Worse, if the answer is “no,” then much of the hostility that feminism has caused to be directed at men is adding even greater abuse to a group already being abused. Furthermore, if the answer is “no,” then all the vast mountains of legislation and regulation that have erupted from feminism’s triumph in America was … unjust and illegitimate.

Worse, if the answer is “no,” that meant that, far from struggling for “equality” and “justice,” as was feminism’s oft-trumpeted goal, feminism did nothing more than add to inequality and injustice.

Fatal Flaw: Feminism never addressed the simple, crucial and only relevant question: “Do western women have it worse than western men?”  If reasonable people can answer “no” to that question, then there was no need for feminism at all in the first place.

Many belatedly make a fairly obvious observation now that it’s too late: there has never been a more coddled, protected, babied and sheltered creature on earth than the 20th Century’s and 21st Century’s western woman.


This is a big one. The flaws in environmentalism are so many and so egregious, that it would take a very long time to enumerate and explain them all. Environmentalism is so riddled with fraud, corruption, illegal and dishonest practices, that it can not be called “science” anymore.

For example:

  • Climate Change: the climate does nothing but change. That’s all it does. All things that happen on earth make the climate change.
  • Global Warming: It’s stopped. None has been observed or measured in a generation. It’s why almost no one says “global warming” anymore. However, did the Global Warming Industry close up shop as a result? No. It simply became the Climate Change Industry.
  • The “science” of Global Warming — and of climate change: Well, one reason “Global Warming” disappeared is that it was found out that the very measurements leading to the conclusion that the planet was warming were done fraudulently. Since the sun travels east to west in the sky, it makes a big difference where you place your measurement devices and when you take your readings. Want to show “global warming?” Place your thermometers on the western side of something and take your readings in the afternoon. Want to show “global cooling?” move your thermometer a bit, and take your readings in the morning. Depending on where you are, when you take your readings, and where you place your devices, you can show any climate trend you want — no matter what the climate is actually doing.

From the hysteria over “global cooling,” to the same hysteria over “global warming,” to the same hysteria over “climate change,” what has made environmentalism useful to the left is each hysteria has meant more legislation and more regulation sending more power and money to Washington.

Environmentalism’s big, crucial, simple flaw: No one has the teeniest, tiniest, eentsiest, weentsiest, slightest idea of the extent to which human activity affects the environment. That is a question well beyond the ability of today’s science to answer.

Science — real science — is continually producing inconvenient and compelling evidence  that human activity has so little effect on the environment that to spend even a dime, much less trillions of dollars, on changing human behavior is to waste that dime. 

Consider for a moment all those things we learned as kids. Surely you remember fifth-grade Earth Science when we found out that, for example, the volcano Krakatoa had spewed more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than all humans had in the entirety of their time on earth. So did Mount Saint Helens, and Mount Pinatubo, and the recent volcanic eruptions in Iceland, Eyjafjallajökull and at Grímsvötn. These things go off all the time dwarfing anything that humans have ever done — combined — in terms of sending climate-changing stuff into the air.

Environmentalism’s Fatal Flaw: No one knows, or can know today, the extent to which human activity affects the environment.

There are many more such issues:

  • Euthanasia is looming, for example. See if you can guess on which side the American left will fall with that one. Yep. The side in which someone ends up dead. Fatal Flaw: As usual, the left embraces the side on which someone ends up dead. Someone really should start to notice a pattern here with the left. Oh, that’s right … we did. Well then, someone of prominence should start to say it. A lot.
  • Don’t forget the left’s embrace of sexual wackiness. There is literally no science whatsoever that can be brought to bear to support the currently in-vogue, wacky, out-in-left-field notion that just because a dude says he’s a woman then he’s a woman, and vice versa. Yet, the left has embraced the conclusion that “she’s” a woman, and in so doing assumes they’ve manufactured another Democrat voter. And the poor, confused dude’s real happiness be damned.(1)
  • How about “rape culture” on college campuses? There’s no such thing as a “rape culture” there, but the left is generating voters from impressionable coeds all over the country, and hoping they will remain on the plantation after they graduate (all explained in some detail in our analysis here). Fatal Flaw: College campuses are safer for all residents than the rest of the country, in which, by the way, the incidence of real rape and sexual assault has been declining for years.
  • How about marijuana legalization? This is an issue embraced overwhelmingly by the left, and by some on the right, most notably libertarians. This one’s almost comical. Fatal Flaw: The left go into paroxysms of rage at the thought of smoking tobacco, but think it ought to be just fine to bring billowing clouds of burning cannabis into the lungs. No contradiction there.  The left supports pot legalization because, let’s face it, drugged-out stoners fit nowhere in what might be considered any “Republican core constituencies.”

The right get it wrong too, but not nearly as much as the left. One of the rare instances where the political right gets it wrong is on the issue of capital punishment.

The Fatal Flaw of capital punishment is simple: What if you kill the wrong guy? Yes, yes, yes, I know… we’re so good at getting the right guy now, that the likelihood is slim (though not zero) that we’ll get the wrong one. Now, though, throw human fallibility, and the temptations that accompany power — and, let’s face it, the ability to mete out death is the ultimate power, therefore prone to the ultimate temptations to corruption and abuse — and the likelihood increases dramatically that we will put to death the wrong guy.

Do a little thought exercise with me. How much would you be willing to bet that America (just this country, let alone others) has gotten it right every single time we put someone to death? Okay, now how about just in the last ten years?

Not to worry, though, history has shown that every time the left takes power in a country — such that there is little chance of the right’s re-taking power — the left then embraces capital punishment with great gusto. The left will get this one wrong in time too.

Finally, if you were to remove as issues those that the left embraces, lies regularly about, and flogs to those who are unwilling to think more deeply about them — most notably: abortion, feminism and environmentalism — then you would eliminate the electoral viability of the Democrat Party.

Now, quickly, why does the left always get it wrong? That’s simple too. There are sequentially two stages of thinking about all the activities that we do:

  • Stage 1: How does this feel?
  • Stage 2: What are the long-term implications of what I’m doing?

When we do something we know is suspect, but it feels good, the temptation is to stop thinking about it right then and there at Stage 1. No one is immune to this. And this comes from a guy, who should put down the tub of ice cream a lot more frequently than he does.

The left seizes on Stage 1 and, grabbing the mantle of “freedom,” demands that your right to do the thing be respected.  And the long-term implications be damned. They glorify Stage 1 thinking as “choice” and “compassion,” and “fairness,” and allow the ones frozen in Stage 1 thinking, to consider themselves noble, rather than self-centered and destructive. Oh, and Stage 1 thinkers vote Democrat. As we’ve said numerous times: the Democrats own the stupid vote. And the self-centered vote.

Everyone goes through Stage 1 in everything they do. It takes work, though — sometimes hard work — as well as time and maturity to do Stage 2 thinking. Stage 2 thinkers are overwhelmingly Republican voters.

This is frequently the reason why Republicans lose elections: they’re making deeper, Stage 2 arguments, against shallow, self-centered Stage 1 thinking.

— xPraetorius


(1) – There’s a real-world life-and-death consequence to this one too. Remember when the “AIDS Crisis” was a prominent part of the socio-political landscape in America? The left — and their political wing the Democrat Party — insisted that no one call it by its real name: a gay problem. It was, and is, a gay problem. A simple scientific truth: If you engage in heterosexual sexual relations (and don’t do intravenous drugs), you have a near-zero chance of somehow contracting AIDS. In addressing regulation, education, advertisement, and billions and billions of dollars at everyone, the left diverted those vital resources from the population most in need of education and awareness: gays. In so doing, many thousands of gays died needlessly. As mentioned above: whenever the left takes a policy position on a social issue, someone, or many someones, dies.

Still Don’t Think That The Democrat Party is the Party of Death?

September 18, 2015

Consider this: every time they act in Congress, or take a policy position, somehow someone — or lots of someones — ends up dead.

• Terry Schiavo – Democrats in Congress made sure that she … dehydrated to death

• Democrats in the Senate are ensuring that the Iran nuclear “deal” will “go through,” without a vote on it by the people’s representatives. Iran is guaranteed to get a nuclear bomb as a result.

• Democrats in the Senate will be sure to block a cessation of federal funding to Planned Parenthood, thereby ensuring that millions more babies will be dismembered, eviscerated, trepanned, castrated and disemboweled for profit.

Of course the “explanation” is always that it was the “compassionate” thing to do, or some such rot.

This has been going on for a very long time.

• Democrats in Congress made sure that America fought a half-hearted war in Vietnam, rather than a real war. Countless South Vietnamese and North Vietnamese civilians died during the prolonged war that could have been won quickly, minimizing casualties on all sides, if it had been fought with overwhelming American force.

• Then, Democrats in Congress brought about the precipitous departure of American armed forces from Vietnam and Southeast Asia, thereby consigning millions of North and South Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian people to horrible deaths — either slowly through starvation and abuse, or quickly through violent murder of some sort.

• The Democrat Party did the same thing in the Middle East, stealing defeat from the jaws of victory, and consigning countless innocent people to death by crucifixion(1), burning, starvation, bludgeoning, stoning, live burial, or other horrific means.

• Democrat policy initiatives are wholly and completely responsible for the hellholes that are major American cities today. Do you like what’s going on Baltimore? Chicago? Ferguson? Now New York? Do you like the murder, rape, drugs, violence and ruination? Thank a Democrat.

And more, much more.

Look around you.

• I wonder which party, and which political tendency is leading the charge to make it legal for “doctors” to kill you. Oh, it won’t be called “killing you,” it’ll be known as “death with dignity,” or “choice,” or, somehow, “compassion.” But, you won’t hear it referred to as what it actually is: getting rid of someone who’s inconvenient or whose medical care might be expensive.

Killing someone.

Oh, yeah, it’s the Democrat Party moving that bit of monstrosity through the political system.


Neither am I.

As mentioned at top: Consider this: every time they take a policy position on just about any issue at all, someone — or lots of someones — ends up dead.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Islam’s gift to the world: bringing back crucifixion, burning to death, stoning and the like…

NPR Watch (11/6/15)

Or: How Stupid Is The Left, Really?

I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR)  on the way in to work this morning. It was their morning fake news program called “Morning Edition.”

They were talking about “ObamaTrade,” aka the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — the trade deal that the Obama Administration has worked out in great secrecy (Surprise! This from the “most transparent administration in American history!”(1) Yeah. Right.).

Onto the show comes a representative of the AFL-CIO, who, it turns out, oppose the TPP. By way of explanation, this representative of the very leftist union unburdens himself of the following piece of absolutely steaming, dripping, oozing idiocy (paraphrased):

Well, we oppose the TPP because we think that countries like Vietnam will violate their obligation under the treaty to allow unions to organize.

Well, Duh!

Vietnam is a communist freakin’ country, you moron!

That’s what they do. That and things like violating treaties, human rights, women, basic human decency, children … all-that-is-good-and-right … that kind of stuff.

The union half-wit then follows his brilliant Captain Obvious statement with this:

We worry that there will be no sanctions when they (the Vietnamese) are in violation of the agreement. Those sanctions would kick in five years down the road when (here’s the doozy that prompted the question in the headline) a less labor-friendly administration might be in power in Washington.

He meant when a “Republican” president might be in the White House.

Yeah. He really said that.

What a moron!

<sarcasm alert!> Because, you see, we Republicans are just notorious for coddling, and protecting, and pandering to and defending and appeasing union-squashing, human rights-abusing, bloodthirsty … communist régimes!

Yep. We Conservatives and Republicans are all running around saying things like: “Well, that blood-sucking, murdering, piece of @#%$*# communist régime is prohibiting unions from organizing! Despite our nearly century-long virulent opposition to communism and socialism, we must really like the scumbags, after all! All this time! Who’d a thunk it? Forget the tens of millions of murders, the plundering of the people, the violation of all that we hold sacred as right-wing Republicans, they don’t allow unions to organize! We must love ’em!” <end sarcasm alert!>

You have to pose the question: “How stupid is the left, really?” Because that was just jaw-dropping.

Needless to say, the blindingly stooooopid NPR allowed the union doofus’ nitwittery to pass unremarked upon. As opposed to falling on the ground laughing, as anyone with even half a brain — or an ounce of integrity — would have.

— xPraetorius


(1) – You never go wrong if when a leftist makes a claim of any kind, you simply believe the opposite of what he’s saying.

The Democrat Party Loves Bernie Sanders! (Part III)

In keeping with our theme today of examining the vast dorkiness and nitwittery of Bernie Sanders, here are some observations and an exceedingly interesting link.

The link is here. It’s the great Kevin Williamson, and his headline is “One Banana Short of a Republic.”

In his brief remarks, Williamson links to this article in the Washington Times indicating that no one will suffer any consequences whatsoever for the greatest civil rights violation of American history: the stifling of free speech by the IRS when Lois Lerner and others decided to deny permits to Tea Party groups — thereby denying millions of people their free speech rights — from 2008 to this very day.

You might suggest to me that slavery was the greatest civil rights violation of American history, and I’d respond that it’s a close second. The reason: The IRS’s, and the Obama Administration’s, and Lois Lerner’s crime is to have put in place the practices and the mindset that, if allowed to continue, inevitably will result in slavery of the worst kind: enslavement of all Americans.

Let’s never forget that Richard Nixon was removed from the Presidency largely for merely talking about the possibility of doing what Obama and his IRS actually did. And what they continue to do.

Remember what they called Nixon when he was ousted? Corrupt. Criminal. Evil.

Bernie Sanders  believes in the political structures and ways and institutions of feudalism and serfdom, but hopes you will believe that represents “progress.”

Obama and his IRS actively denied — and continue to deny — the civil rights of tens of millions of Americans, and you can bet that Sanders approves. How can I know that? Sanders has never condemned this horrific crime. A Sanders Administration would be sure to continue the same hugely corrupt, patently illegal practices that the Obama Administration engages in each day. And your Democrat Party just loves Bernie Sanders!

— xPraetorius



This Is Just Way Too Fun!

Glen Campbell does a very fine version of the William Tell Overture on what looks like a mic’ed Ovation nylon string classical guitar.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch (10-28-15)

I was listening to National Public Radio on the way to work this morning. It was, as it usually is, their morning fake news program: “Morning Edition.”

This morning, they covered the incident in South Carolina in which a white “School Resource Officer” (whatever the heck that is) dragged a disruptive black girl out of her chair and onto the floor and, I gather, cuffed her. I saw only part of the video so I don’t know the entire story, but that’s the gist of it.

Then the story went to the — I think — School Board meeting either the same day or the next (yesterday) — doesn’t matter when it happened.

Needless to say, since the races were the ones involved, the public was there and, smelling blood in the water, the Race Grievance mongers were out in full force. And, needless to say, some idiot had to invoke “the history of our state.” This in reaction to someone saying that it was not possible to draw the conclusion that the incident was racial in nature.

The perfectly irrelevant “history of our state” remark passed uncountered, unremarked upon as if it were very deep and meaningful — which it was not — instead of stupid, inflammatory, irrelevant and idiotic — which it was.

It’s that very casually tossed-off, meaningless remark that explains the sorry relations between black and white Americans today. That and nothing more. All the acrimony springs from the fact that no one has countered the “history of our state/region/country” hogwash that has colored the narrative of race relations in America for the past half-century.

The “history of our whatever” is perfectly irrelevant when it comes to any individual incident that ever happens. Period.

You read it right. Perfectly irrelevant. People have been using this same pathetically stupid excuse to do and say all manner of pathetically stupid rubbish forever, and the way out of the current baseless hostility between the races is for someone to get up and say something on the order of “shutup about the history of this or the history of that, it’s perfectly irrelevant. All that counts are the facts of THIS incident. Period

If someone of prominence had had the courage to do that in the aftermath of Trayvon Martin’s killing, of Michael Brown’s killing in Ferguson, or Eric Garner, etc., there would be a lot less violence in America today.

When you keep banging the irrelevant drum of the history of this or that in individual incidents, you push every fringe, uneducated, close-to-the-edge, nutball just a bit closer to the edge, and some, sometimes many, go over the edge, as we saw in Ferguson and Baltimore.

History is not irrelevant in terms of our ability to learn from it — if, that is, we learn real history — but it is always perfectly irrelevant when it comes to the proper investigation into and disposition of individual incidents.

Read this well: if you were all of a sudden to revise the history of the South taught in schools today to say that — Oops! — it was never all that racist after all! It was really only isolated pockets, and those have all dried up with modernity — whether it’s accurate or not — guess what would happen. All these racist or crazy nutballs would step just a bit away from the brink.

There’s no reason to revise history, but there does need to be an understanding that things just aren’t all that badfor any race! — in America today. Therefore, someone needs to tell the truth: The history of a state or region or country is not important when it comes to the facts of incidents between people belonging to this race or that.

What counts are the facts of an incident. Nothing more, nothing less.

We have a beyond sacred belief in a core value of this country’s judicial system: The accused is innocent until proven guilty. It’s unique, and truly revolutionary in the history of the world. We all jeopardize that little part of our justice system only at our own vast peril.

In vain will you say that, well, the history of this or that region means that more people will be interacting with people of other races from a position of racism. Hogwash!

It’s just as likely — more likely even — that, Americans being Americans, people from regions with a history of racial strife will be even more conscious of acting with moral decency in their relations with members of other races.

Here’s a simple observation: if the races of the people in question — the girl student and the “School Resource Officer” — had been reversed, we’d have heard nothing of the incident whatsoever.

If the School Resource Officer is not a racist, then that’s all there is to it. It could be a case of excessive use of force, or not, but a racial incident is completely off the table if there’s no evidence that the guy’s a racist. If it’s excessive use of force, then treat it as such. Period.

Did the officer say or do anything that might indicate that the incident was racial in nature? No? Then there is no legal or moral way to start trying to pillory the guy as a racist.

When a person is investigated as a “person of interest” in a robbery, for example, the authorities are not able to launch any kind of other investigation into whether he’s been involved in anything else unless they uncover evidence indicating that he has. Pure and simple.

The fact that the officer was white and the student was black was evidence of one thing and only one thing: the officer was white and the student was black. Period.

We the people are being played by a media corps aggressively on the hunt for anything that can possibly be spun to appear like a racial incident. The fact that they scrounge up something like this only every other month or so — in a land of more than 300 million people! — proves that such incidents are exceedingly rare.

If America were the racist hellhole that the media wish to portray it to be, we should see hundreds, thousands, of such incidents every day. With cell phone cameras being as ubiquitous as they are, don’t you think we would?

— xPraetorius

It’s Worth Repeating (11/1/15)

It should be as socially repellent to say, “I’m a socialist” as it is to say, “I’m a child molester.

— xPraetorius

The Democrat Party Loves Bernie Sanders! (Part II)

A most remarkable thing.

Can you imagine your reaction if someone came up to you and announced that he was a Nazi, and that he was proud of it, and that he thought that you should think highly of him for it, and maybe even vote for him for a high elective office?

What would be your reaction? Well, if you were civilized and polite and all, you’d laugh in the dork’s face.

Now, how about if that same dork, instead of calling himself a Nazi, announced that he was a child molester, or a murderer, or a rapist, and he was out and proud of it, and wanted you to think highly of him and all that?

You don’t have to tell me your reaction.

Well one particular dork, Bernie Sanders, has announced — openly — that he’s a socialist.

Socialism is the single most blood-drenched death cult in the history of humanity. Responsible for more than 120 million deaths by torture, assassination, starvation, flat-out murder, bludgeoning, poisoning, or whatever, in the last century alone.

Socialism has not spent a day on this earth — since it was codified, documented and formulated in the latter part of the 19th Century, and honed and refined in the early and mid- 2oth Century, in which its adherents were not murdering people.

Legendary 20th Century socialists such as the Soviet Union’s Josef Stalin, China’s Mao tse-Tung, and Cambodia’s Pol Pot, made everyone’s favorite 20th Century bogeyman, Adolf Hitler — himself a socialist —  look like a Girl Scout.

Yet Bernie Sanders looks you right in the eye and says that he’s a socialist, and that you should think highly of him for it, and vote for him for high elective office.

It should be as socially repellent to say, “I’m a socialist” as it is to say, “I’m a child molester.” Yet 40% or more of the Democrat Party does think highly of the moral equivalent of a child molester.

An even greater percentage of the Democrat Party’s voter base has pronounced itself prepared to vote for the moral equivalent of a child molester — over a Republican —  to be the President of the United States, if he is selected as the party’s nominee in the 2016 Presidential election.

— xPraetorius

The Democrat Party Loves Bernie Sanders!

The Democrat Party is in the middle of a gushing, slobbering, schoolgirl crush on a white-mopped, affable-seeming, loud-mouthed, Brooklyn-accented, jewish guy who looks a little bit like Albert Einstein, but has the single-digit-IQ thinking of Dianne Feinstein.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist.

Bernie Sanders believes that there shouldn’t be any such thing as “private property.” Because, you see, in Bernie’s eyes, private property is inherently “unfair.”

How’s that, you say?

Well, due to the vicissitudes of life, luck, personal skill, ambition and happenstance, some people will inevitably accumulate more private property, of some kind or another, than others.

Question #1

Question #1

We express this difference using a concept we call “net worth.” That dude? Oh, he’s “worth” five million dollars, we say, while that other guy’s “worth” 100 million.

It means that if you were to collect all the first guy’s worldly belongings together, including his money in the bank, you’d have approximately five million dollars worth of stuff and money. While the second fellow’s collection would have a value of 100 million.

Quaint, little homespun “populist” Bernie Sanders thinks that neither guy should own anything.

Question #1: How is it that in America, someone can look you right in the eye, tell you he’s in favor of relieving you of all that you own, and somehow be a “populist,” and not a flaming, fire-breathing, ranting, left-wing radical moron?

There was a time when you and I, the common folks of the world, were not allowed to own property. It was called feudalism, and we were called serfs. We worked, tilled, harvested, tended and protected vast estates that didn’t belong to us. Those vast tracts of land, and all on them, belonged to people we called ironically “nobles.” Their “nobility” had nothing to do with their character as people — the real definition of the noble adjective “noble” — but spoke only of whether or not they owned property.

So, there were property owners. It’s just that the common ruck — you and I — were not able to own property.

That’s where Bernie Sanders wants to bring us all. Back a thousand years to when you couldn’t own things. Neither land nor goods. All were subject to the taking by the only legal property owners: the aristocracy.

Question #2:

Question #2

Question #2: Didn’t we all have much more than enough of being unable to own property back when we were mere serfs, and the only legal property owners were the aristocrats?

There is no qualitative difference between socialism and serfdom.

There’s a saying: money is power. This is incorrect, or rather, only partially correct. Property is power. If you are fond of that other quaint saying: “Power to the people!” then you’re saying you want the people to own property.

If you’re in favor of handing over vast power to a small group of people who, you think, can run your and my affairs better than you and I can — the thinking of the Bernie Sanderses of the world — then of necessity, you must take away the power from the people.

A simple statement of obvious fact

A simple statement of obvious fact

A simple statement of obvious fact: if the government is unable to steal your land or your possessions, then it is less powerful than you are.

Private property is power.

If you want to measure the power possessed by the people, then measure the extent to which they are able — rich and poor alike — to control their own property. To control what is done with it and when, whether to hold it or sell it, whether to use it for their own purposes or not.

Bernie Sanders thinks that we should go back a millennium or so to the Dark Ages. He calls it “progress” to go way back to when there were only property-deprived, impoverished serfs and wealthy, landowning nobles. Who, pray tell, had all the power then? Well, it certainly wasn’t us serfs, now was it? Bernie doesn’t call himself an idiot, or a reactionary feudalist, as he would if he were striving for accuracy… no, he calls himself a “Progressive.”

This is either because he thinks we’re all idiots, or he’s too stupid to recognize his own idiocy. Or, most likely, both.

His success is compelling evidence that some 40%, or more, of the Democrat Party’s base are little more than idiots.

— xPraetorius

Things Are Bad — Really Bad. Here’s A Tonic

Lately, I’ve been going back and forth with a guy named John Zande (here), a silly man who has a silly theory about how It All Came About. Briefly: in Zande’s (I suspect less than truly sincere) opinion, the universe was created to provide suffering that the “creator” uses as sustenance. The whole universe. All the rocks, and stars and molecules and plants and you-name-it, suffer in order to provide sustenance to this malevolent “creator.”

According to Zande’s silly view, everything, but everything, serves the greater misery of everything else, and of itself. Even happiness and hope. You see, when those things are either withdrawn, or fail to come to fruition, the subsequent despair is all the greater by comparison. Got it?

I posited, and I think, demonstrated, that the opposite is a much likelier explanation. We get used to success, because literally more than 99% of what we do results in success. We’re so inundated in success that when we fail, we’re almost surprised at it. Every little act we do generally succeeds. We breathe and feel better; we change the channel and feel better; we change positions and feel better; we indulge in a hobby and feel better; we eat and feel better; we see our friends and feel better… and on and on and on, to much bigger things.

Most of us generally find work, have generally successful days at work, feed our families, and succeed at doing the things that we define as happiness-bringing.

Yes, there are setbacks, and there are tough times, but generally we do well here in America.

Around the world? Different story. Lots of suffering. Looked at in a vacuum, this could serve to bring about despair. Then we have the good fortune to look at that just a bit, and we find things like this.

Interestingly, here’s a tidbit:

Well done, human race. Well done. At the end of September, the Global Commission for the Certification of Poliomyelitis Eradication convened in Bali and, after reviewing the reports of its member nations, declared poliovirus type 2 eradicated in the wild. This was really only a bureaucratic stamp on a fact: The last case of type 2 polio was identified in Aligarh, India, in 1999. Thanks in no small part to the initiative of the world’s Rotarians — one of those “little platoons” of which Edmund Burke was so fond — polio has been eradicated everywhere on Earth except for two places where those who would eradicate it are forbidden to operate: Afghanistan and Pakistan. That’s the Taliban’s gift to the Islamic world: paralytic polio.

The essay is by the great Kevin Williamson of National Review. Because it’s by the great Kevin Williamson, it’s worth the read in its entirety.

I used the eradication of polio as a fact in defense of my point with Zande. He, of course, replied that the eradication of polio meant that those who would have died from polio, but didn’t, lived longer in order to suffer even more, thereby sustaining his imaginary “creator” even more.

Yep. That was his “logic.”

Oh, here’s another little tidbit from Williamson:

Despite some recent setbacks, including funding troubles after the financial crisis and the emergence of anti-vaccine nuttery in the United States and elsewhere, measles and rubella are next on the hit list. Those diseases will almost certainly be a thing of the past a decade or two hence. [My note: And smallpox has been all but entirely eradicated around the globe. Can there be any doubt that we will conquer cancer, and a vast array of other diseases in fairly sort order?]

Mind you, the amazingly silly Zande will interpret this to mean that the disappearance of measles and rubella will simply contribute to the greater misery of humanity — by again lengthening lives and reducing premature deaths, and therefore leading to ever more millions of people suffering ever more — and further sustaining his wacky “creator.”

Williamson adds a bunch of highly readable additional analysis, and concludes with this:

There is much left to do: We have unsustainable fiscal situations in the Western welfare states, irreconcilable Islamist fanatics originating in points east but spread around the world, environmental challenges, and that tenth of the human race that still needs lifting out of hardcore poverty. But we have achieved a remarkable thing in that unless we mess things up really badly, in 50 years we’ll be having to explain to our grandchildren what a famine was, how it came to be that millions of people died every year for want of clean water — and they will look at us incredulously, wondering what it must have been like to live in the caveman times of the early 21st century.

Take that, preachers of doom and gloom!

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch (10/8/15 – Part II)

NPR’s Economic Illiteracy (Part III)

In this post, here, we showed that National Public Radio is either lazy, or ignorant, or worse: not ignorant and therefore willfully dishonest, when it comes to “reporting” on economic issues.

In the above-linked post, I told how NPR had tried to tackle the subject of “wage garnishment,” the legal step that creditors sometimes take to extract money directly from a bank account, if a debtor is late with his payments. Needless to say, the thoroughly leftist, race-obsessed NPR “found” that wage garnishment happens disproportionately to minorities. Furthermore, NPR suggested that it was vile racism driving the alleged imbalance.

In the segment, they made the following howlingly obvious statement:

In this way, wage garnishment disproportionately affects lower-income people in America.

To which we responded:

Well, DUH!

It should be glaringly obvious, as mentioned above, that wage garnishment would disproportionately affect lower-income people. The top 0.01% of all income earners in America would face garnishment extremely rarely or never, while, say the top 10% experience it rarely, but not never.

The rate of garnishment would rise as you go down the income scale. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Nor would I be surprised to learn that, for example, 50% of all wage garnishment happens on the bottom 10% of income earners. Just a random number I threw out. It turns out that it’s surprisingly difficult to find a non-political source for wage garnishment demographic statistics.

Where NPR completely misled its listeners is in not investigating the correct sub-topic of wage garnishment:

There are many stories of ridiculous and wasteful spending among the rich, but a guy worth half-a-billion dollars can just toss away 100 million of so, and have plenty of cushion to remain hugely wealthy. However, a poor or middle-class person’s $1,000 ill-considered or impulse purchase can be financially back-breaking for him. He has just so much less room for error or misjudgment than the rich guy. A rational observer, therefore, should expect to see rates of wage garnishment falling most heavily in lower-income segments of the population, where there is little or no margin for error, or ability to absorb financial losses.

Again, DUH!

So, what is the correct part of wage garnishment to investigate?

Simple: Given that one would expect wage garnishment to appear in the poorer economic sectors much more often than in the wealthier, what are the actual rates? By economic classification, then by race within economic classification, then by age, sex, and the other demographics? And: Are these rates appropriate, given the spending/consumption habits of each of these segments of the populace?

If you find that wage garnishment rates are not appropriate, then you have to be able to tell everyone what is appropriate. And why. Furthermore, you have to be able to quantify accurately the spending/consumption habits of all those groups you’ve decided to study. Then you have to tell why, based on all that vital background data, you find that wage garnishment is being done unfairly.

If you don’t do all that necessary work in order to understand all of that, then any information you give on wage garnishment is meaningless. Worse, it does nothing more than mislead and misinform.

By the way, I’m perfectly ready and willing to give a fair hearing to a conclusion that wage garnishment is being done unjustly, or with racial or some other bias. But as a so-called “news” organization, National Public Radio has a responsibility to provide well-researched, relevant facts — which they did not do in their segment — if they are going to draw judgmental conclusions, which they did do.

So, with NPR’s segment on wage garnishment, did they demonstrate that they’re lazy, ignorant or willfully dishonest? Well, I know they’re willfully dishonest from having listened to them for decades now. I’m guessing they’re that way — at least in part — because they’re lazy and ignorant. Lazy, ignorant dishonesty is the defining characteristic of America’s political left wing.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 10/8/15

NPR’s Economic Illiteracy

I was listening to National Public Radio on the way into work today.

The topic was “Wage garnishment” and the segment was the “MarketPlace” portion of their fake morning news program “Morning Edition.”

In this segment, needless to say, the race-obsessed NPR found out that wage garnishment happens to minorities more than to non-minorities. Then, the “reporter” on the story said the following whopper: “In this way, wage garnishment disproportionately affects lower-income people in America.”

Well, DUH!

I suspect that “financial delinquency” and “late payments” and “financial problems” disproportionately “affect” lower-income people too. It might be related to the fact that, generally … wait for it … wait for it … they have less FREAKIN’ money!

That would seem to be the rather obvious immediate NEXT question to address in such a segment, wouldn’t you think? But was it the next immediate thing addressed in the segment?

See if you can guess.

Nope-er-oo. It sure wasn’t.

The next question out of the show’s host — one David Brancaccio — was something on the order of: “Well, what is Congress going to do about this problem?”

In posing that nonsensical question, the moron host — supposedly an expert in things financial! — made implicit his assumption that financial delinquency occurs perfectly evenly across all demographic groups, and that therefore, any disparities in wage garnishment are due to racism, or some other nefarious cause. This is, by the way, NPR’s default position for anything! Including, by the way, Global Warming; a dead horse they continue to flog.

But I digress..

NPR’s Economic Illiteracy (Part II)

I was listening to National Public Radio on the way home from work yesterday. It was their fake news program called, “All Things Considered.(1)

On came a promo for the next show in their evening line-up: “MarketPlace.” In the promo the host of the show said that he was going to interview Republican Presidential candidate and retired pediatric neurosurgeon, Dr. Ben Carson. The host, one Kai Rysdahl (sp.? I’m doing this on my phone in a third world hellhole halfway around the world from home) said the following: “We’ll ask Dr. Carson how he would run the U.S. economy.”

Roughly direct quote.

Huh? Why on earth would a so-called “financial expert” pose such a glaringly, flamingly, astonishingly stooooooooopid question?!?

I wasn’t able to stick around to hear Dr. Carson’s answer, but the only correct answer would be something like:

“Well, Kai, I won’t be running the U.S. economy. I’ll be doing everything in my power not to run the U.S. economy, but rather to get myself and the bloated, overgrown, over-regulating state right the heck out of the way of the economy, to remove any obstacles that might prevent the actual owners of the economy — the American people — from running their economy. Where did you get the absolutely preposterous and economically illiterate idea that the President ‘runs the U.S. economy?!?’

I’m surprised that I should have to tell you this, but the President can only affect the conditions under which the real operators of the economy ‘run the economy.’ You really ought to know that, since you purport to run a financial program here.”

Carson is much too polite a man to do that wonderful thing, but an American who runs his portion of the American economy can dream, can’t he?

Always remember; never forget: you always come out of an NPR “news” segment less informed, less knowledgeable, less intelligent, than you go in.

Whatever level of knowledge you have of a given issue or topic, you will have less knowledge of it after listening to an NPR segment on it. Worse, if you take them as seriously as they take themselves, what knowledge you once had about something, now has to compete in your brain with a noxious fog of NPR-nonsense, distortions, fictions-presented-as-facts, omissions, and long-outdated, long-disproven or long-debunked muck.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Note: NPR doesn’t consider it fake news. They believe they’re giving you real news even though they’re perfectly aware that they slant their presentation heavily to the left, to the point where it goes waaaaaaayyy over the line into transparent propaganda. They’re the Democrat Party’s “Pravda.

Atheist Nutballs

There are atheist nutballs out there. Generally they’re perfectly nice people, but they simply have bizarre goings-on between their ears.

Sometimes you find one who just takes himself way too seriously, and has worked out an entire elaborate intellectual superstructure around his atheism. He makes it all look ever so erudite, and researched, and knowledgeable, a bit like the vast trove of “science” in support of a flat earth some several centuries ago.

Here’s one of them.

The guy’s not an idiot, but he is a pompous, would-be know-it-all, with a bad case of the worst thing a would-be intellectual can have: a case of the intellectual blinkers.

Sometimes, these odd birds produce posts that are unintentionally hilarious. Here’s one. In the original post, the author, one John Zande, hoped to heap ridicule on Christianity by demonstrating how a Bible passage just proves the ridiculousness of Christianity.

Here’s the passage in question:

Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.

Zande put a picture of a zebra next to that text, with the caption: “And that’s exactly how it happened.”

Now, I can’t tell you exactly how zebras and other animals got their distinctive markings, but I can tell you that a Christian has no problem at all with the idea that a Creator of a universe containing septillions of cubic parsecs, with an estimated ten trillion galaxies, each holding 100 billion stars (meaning: very approximately, a total of 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars), each one an average of about 1.409 x 1018 cubic kilometers in size, just might be able to pull off a parlor trick that might determine how a few thousand creatures (at the time) got their markings.

Zande can’t see it though.

I directed you to that post for a reason. One commenter, a certain “LISTENER87” begins the comments section innocently enough by appearing to agree with the imagination-challenged Zande. She proclaims the post “completely fascinating,” and suggests that it implies that one “should read the entire chapter in context.”

Zande, apparently unaware that he’s being reeled in, simply agrees with, “Indeed. Who would have thought.”

Then, the commenter, in the very next post, throws a serious curve-ball, proving that Zande had actually not read the chapter in context. It’s got nothing at all to do with zebras, she says, it’s all about sheeps and goats. She suggests that Zande “try again.”


Zande’s confused. He quizzes the one he thought was his new-found friend, but who now seems to have gone completely off the rails, and exposed him, Zande, for not actually knowing what he’s talking about.

Now, though, Zande’s on the hook. He’s already publicly treated LISTENER87 as a serious commenter and he can’t really take that back, so he has to deal with her. LISTENER87 turns out to be an even odder bird than Zande, which is going quite a way! The exchange is hilarious and every bit worth the read. I’ve reproduced it below for your entertainment. I’ve added some inline commentary [in square brackets and red font, as is my wont].

Here’s the exchange in question:


  • and no, unfortunately, after reading in context it was about sheep and goats. so, nope. that’s not how they got their stripes. try again. [Oops! Where did that come from?!? I thought you were my friend?!?]

    • Errm, so you agree sheep and goats get their striped and spotted pelts from mating in front of coloured sticks? [Hemmina, hemmina, hemmina… I thought you were my friend!]

      • i agree that it’s possible, because with faith anything is possible. i am Christian and i have seen a lot of miracles since i was born. [Now our LISTENER87 goes completely off Zande’s rails. Not to worry, though, she’s every bit as whackadoodle as Zande, so she really belongs here. She’s just whackadoodle in a wholly, different, way off-the-beaten-track kind of way! Read on…. read on.]

      • guess it doesn’t if you don’t want it reproduced. even if I can’t do it, my wife who is a witch might be able to. faith isn’t about religion… when someone puts that label on it, it is no longer faith – it is man. [Whoops! Oooooookay! She says “my wife who is a witch might be able to!” So, now we have a Christian lesbian, with a wife who’s a witch who can control the markings on sheep and goats!!! One can envision Zande doing the Brazilian (not his real country) equivalent of “wtf!!!“]

      • Can you come to Brazil?

        Your wife is a witch. That’s interesting. Wicca? How does a Christian square with a pagan? [Hemmina, hemmina, hemmina… I have to regroup. Quick!]

      • No, she isn’t Wiccan. [Oops! Huh? Will this LISTENER87 not let up?!?] She is a witch. it’s a separate thing although many people love to call her that. She actually really hates that term.
        It’s actually much more easier [Ummm.. “much more easier?” Yikes! Didn’t you and I learn to avoid this kind of construction in the third grade? Maybe it’s just a typo.] than you could imagine, do you have an e-mail. we could chat. ?

      • How is it easier than I think? If she can perform magic I think we (meaning the world) should all know. This would be remarkable news. [Zande trying to keep it together here]

      • it is easier because I see people as people, not as the masks they like to wear to identify them in specific groups. a lot of Christians I know (including my own parents) believe that you cant be gay and Christian. I’m that, too. they say you can’t be “unequally yoked” (this is in the Bible). I think the reason that it is in the Bible is because the one who said it knew it might be more challenging to individuals with different beliefs trying to support each other… but being human is about free will. so, for me, it’s easy. i see the magic inside of her, i see who she really is and i love her. so i don’t care what other Christians say about me. including the parents. i just keep doing me. and keep listening. i will never close my mind like many Christians have chosen to do.

      • Ah, understood. [Wow! What a relief! You disgorged a bunch of mumbo jumbo! I’m an atheist, I do mumbo jumbo! It’s what we do! Whew! I’m back on familiar ground here!] i thought you were talking about her performing magic. Good attitude. be nice if most so-called Christians thought the same way as you.

        Now, back to the magic. I’d love to see it. [Just to be sure to remake my bona fides with the other wackos out there!]

      • yeah, she enjoys casting spells and all that jazz. [Uhhhhhhh…huh? “She enjoys casting spells?!?”  I’m back in the soup again! Again, the Brazilian (not his real country) equivalent of wtf?!?] they usually work. [Wait, wait…what?!? Your wife’s “spells” usually “work?!?” Wtf?!?] she uses a lot of different herbs and such. [Whew! Okay. That explains it! :) ] last year she did a love spell for a friend, that friend found a mate shortly after and has been with him ever since. [Ah! Had to be the spell!] some spells take longer than others to take effect, but it all depends on the person who she is doing the spell for. how much they believe in it is how much will happen. similar to my own faith when you think about it. I’m not sure when we can get to Brazil, we are in the US now. we want to go abroad, but don’t yet have the funds unfortunately. =/ [Ummmm… are we discovering LISTENER98‘s real motive? Wait, wait, wait… a Christian lesbian witch spouse wouldn’t stoop to something so crass as money-grubbing, would she?]

      • how much they believe in it is how much will happen

        Yes, that does appear to the magic ingredient in miracle-works. Does your wife work at hospitals curing the sick? [Zande’s attempt at cleverness. Too late, though. He’s already allowed this poor, strange LISTENER87 to demonstrate that she is part of the whole whackadoodle atheist-weirdo-zande-leftist-oddball-strangenik-nutball netherworld that Zande and others have constructed.]

      • my wife is working in mental health, she is a peer support counselor so she helps in that small way. [That’s about it…the reality of the “witch’s life.”] she hasn’t had as much faith as she used to, so I haven’t seen her do as much magic recently as she was. [A shame. The witch has lost her “faith” in her “magic.”] she SHOULD be doing more. she hasn’t been doing enough, but I know she herself is struggling with all she has on her plate. me, I am focusing more on homeless and those financially burdened. I am basically Robin Hood reincarnated. it’s a lot of fun, actually. [Aaaaannnnnd… back off the rails again! Presumably LISTENER87 was speaking metaphorically here, but with the previous, who can tell? Since Robin Hood is a myth, maybe LISTENER87 doesn’t really exist. :) ]

Here’s some pretty good evidence to suggest that Chesterton’s pithy phrase — was correct: “A man who doesn’t believe in God will believe in anything. “(1)

Certainly, John Zande and his commenters will believe in anything. He’s shown it in that unintentionally hilarious post, and in the comments section.

— xPraetorius



(1)  – A paraphrase of the original: “When Man ceases to worship God he does not worship nothing but worships everything.” As we’ve said before, athesim is nothing more than another faith. In fact, with all the evidence around contradicting it, atheism is one of the most powerful of faiths!



Will You Forgive?

Will you forgive?


How about Hitler?

Charlie Manson?

Andrea Yates?

How about Dylann Roof?

Everyone who did you wrong?

Osama bin Laden?

The guy who raped you?

The babysitter who molested you?

Will you forgive?


No exceptions?

No ands, ifs or buts?

Once and forever?

Will you forgive the ones who stole your money?

Your bicycle?

Your innocence?

Your naïveté?

Your country?

Your father’s country?

His father’s country?

Your mother?

Your father?

Brother or sister?

Even if you get nothing for it?

No money.

No glory.

No fame.

Will you forgive?

Simply because Jesus looked you in the eyes?

And asked you to forgive?

And for no other reason

than that He said it was the right thing to do?

His eyes showed that He knew of what we are all capable.

Of all of which we are all capable.

Then He forgave those who scourged Him.

Who beat Him,

and who lashed Him.

He forgave those who slammed spikes through His wrists.

And through His feet.

Who. Nailed. Him. To. A. Cross.

As He bled, suffered …

understood …

He forgave those who spat on Him,

as He dragged His cross through the streets.

He forgave you and me.

He looked past life, and into eternity, and

He forgave you and me.

For everything.

Will you forgive?


Every man woman and child who lives?

Who ever lived?

Will you forgive them?

Only because He asked you to?

— xPraetorius


The Shooting in Oregon: The Left Immediately Says: “How Can We Exploit This Atrocity For Our Political Benefit?”

— Oh, and this is an “NPR Watch” feature too — 

It’s exactly how the left immediately reacted to 9/11: How can we exploit this for our political benefit? It’s how they react to anything.

So, there’s another shooting. This time in Oregon at Umpqua Community College. And, as expected, America’s left reacts in exactly the same perfectly knee-jerk, cold, cruel, calculating, self-obsessed, political way as always.

The left immediately does whatever it can to exploit any atrocity for political advantage, in support of its prime directives: (1) Obtain power. (2) Keep, consolidate and obtain more power.

They immediately deploy whatever means necessary — mainly lies, distortions and fabrications — to use the atrocity for their own advantage. They did it with 9/11, why would we expect them to do anything else in reaction to this particular atrocity?

I was listening to National Public Radio on the way in to work this morning, as is my wont. It was their fake news program called “Morning Edition.” Listening to NPR’s fake news programs is my way to keep up on how the hard-left thinks. The left, and NPR, take the fictions, distortions, omissions — the fakery — of their fake news very, very seriously.

So, of course, NPR came up with their usual stock of knee-jerk, uninformed, and manipulative propaganda:

  • “Oregon officials are searching for a motive,” they said. No mention of the fact that apparently accurate reports are that the guy was out hunting Christians and hated organized religion.
  • “Oh why, oh why… don’t we just have stricter gun laws?!?” NPR reported that President Obama said it. VP Biden said the same thing.
  • Further on in the feature, we heard: “Ten times more people are killed by gun violence in America each year than were killed on 9/11.”

A quick reaction to that one: Oh, really? More than 37,000 die in gun violence each year? I don’t think so! No, the number is closer to 10,000 and driven mainly by gang violence. Gangs are filled with people who simply ignore any gun laws, or any other laws, you might enact. Furthermore, gang members are in inner-cities, controlled for decades by the American left. You could make a far more rational case that any gun laws you would enact should outlaw gun ownership by anyone on the left.

  • Same NPR station on the same event, and again on what they call a “news show”: “We have one of these things (mass shootings) every week…” and off he went on a rant about getting more gun control. That “one every week” whopper passed uncorrected by anyone. Once or twice a year, maybe? Yes, yes, yes…one of them is precisely one too many, but when you allow lunatics to have firearms legally, pray tell, just what do you expect?

Some more quick reactions:

  • About the shooter’s motive: who cares? Who is ever going to “understand” the motives of a lunatic — except another lunatic?  There’s really only one thing to understand: the guy was crazy. A lunatic finds his motive wherever he chooses. A lunatic will seize on whatever excuse is then at the top of his warped mind when he decides to act on his lunacy.
  • Yeah… “let’s get stricter gun laws.” Let’s disarm the population in the face of the thousands of ISIS goons that President Obama has allowed into the country over the Southern border. There’s a great plan! I’m sure that the ISIS goons will be absolutely sure to observe our “stricter gun laws” when they sneak into the country. You and I both can imagine slope-headed, slack-jawed ISIS goon Abdul el-Cameljumper al-Suleiman getting across the border to kill him some Americans, and the first thing out of his lips are: “Let’s go find out what the local regulations are about gun ownership. We wouldn’t want to be out of compliance” Yeah. Okay.
  • Stricter gun laws? Wouldn’t it have been nice if one of those teachers or students had had a gun with him that day and just freakin’ taken out the lunatic? It’s just as wearying to have to pose that perfectly obvious rhetorical question each time there is such a thing, as it is to witness these times when some heavily-armed lunatic mows down unarmed or worse, disarmed people.
  • You know what? I’ll bet that if you reported just as heavily on those times where some lunatic gets taken down before he can begin a rampage — it happens you know — you just might get rid of these incidents almost entirely. If the kook realizes that when he tries something as in Oregon, there’s a good chance he’ll simply end up dead, without any notoriety whatsoever, except for being an idiot, you just might eliminate that particular motivation from the top of his whackadoodle noggin.
  • How about if schools around the country were to announce that they’re hiring armed security? Whether they actually do it or not. Might that deter some of these publicity-hungry, bloodthirsty lunatics? I’ll bet it would. I know, I know… the logistics are daunting. First of all, the lefty parents would all be up in arms and would make sure that it became loudly, publicly and widely known that they ultimately were not going to hire armed security. However, it seems as if it could work in some places. Heck, maybe you could prevent some lunatics from acting out just by announcing that “you’re studying the idea of hiring armed security!

Brief Digression: I know a guy who does not own a dog, but who has a “Beware of Dog” sign posted conspicuously in his yard anyway. I know another guy who has several cameras placed very visibly around the outside of his house. None of the cameras work…they’re just the outer casings that he bought on E-Bay for five bucks. However, he tells me that he is the only one in his neighborhood who has never experienced either a break-in, or a theft of property or vandalism or some such. He’s thinking of setting up a security consulting firm to sell and set up these things on the broader market. End of Brief Digression

  • That brings us to the real tragedy: Some time not long before the atrocity, the top guy at Umpqua Community College had considered hiring an armed security guard for the campus. He rejected the idea, on the grounds that such a thing would make for a “less safe climate” at the school, or some such horsehockey. It’s not unreasonable to speculate that the shooter had read about, or heard about, that very same refusal to hire armed security; that he had then chosen that particular school, confident that he’d meet with no armed resistance until it was much, much too late.
  • Just heard a good point on television: “Who stopped this guy? A cop with a gun.” Kind of answers my rhetorical question. What if there’d been a kid or a teacher with a gun — or an armed security guard — at the freakin’ beginning of the shooter’s rampage…?
  • A simple truth: If you could somehow manage to keep guns out of the hands of the American left, then you would empty the cities of guns, and the homicide rate, and gun violence rate, would plummet through the floor. Otherwise stated: the people prone to committing violence against other people, using a gun, are almost never members of any Republican or Conservative core constituencies. That’ll be worth repeating… over and over and over and over again.
  • Still otherwise stated: The right is about gun ownership in order to protect the people from gun-bearers, who are nearly all members of, or sympathizers of … the left. A significant portion of the left — gangs, criminals, racists, thugs, goons, muslims, etc — are all about gun ownership for themselves only, and so that they can do violence to others who, they hope, do not own any guns.
  • About the frequency of these things: they’re rare, very rare, and becoming less frequent. However, the media cover these increasingly rare incidents ever more hysterically, thereby giving the mistaken impression that they’re happening more frequently. Note that well. That’s how it always goes with these horrific incidents that the left politicizes in order to advance an agenda; in this case: the disarming of America.
  • Just heard on television: apparently the shooter had been diagnosed crazy, and had been in various parts of the mental health system much of his life. He was discharged (presumably under negative circumstances) from the army after a mere thirty days. He attended a high school for those with mental health issues. And yet, he purchased his firearms legally. Gee, I wonder which political tendency has been insisting that the only gun laws you need are those that would keep firearms out of the hands of crazy people.
  • I wouldn’t politicize this at all, except that Obama claims it’s the right thing to do. Okay, then let’s repeat it: if you could find a way to keep guns out of the hands of anyone who votes for, or sympathizes with the American left (aka: crazy people :) ), the violent crime rate would plummet. Through the floor. Because, yep, you guessed it, the Oregon shooter(2), like all mass murderers, did not fit the profile of Republican or a Conservative. Again.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Let’s be clear about the real definition of “politicize.” To “politicize” something is to exploit it dishonestly, solely for political benefit, regardless of the facts, truth, the real implications, or the reality of the thing being politicized. To politicize something is not to act in a noble manner at all, but rather to react in a self-interested manner, to benefit yourself or your agenda.

However, as soon as the left politicizes something like the Oregon shooting, it is irresponsible not to react in the same way. If you don’t, then you leave the framing of the narrative about the incident being politicized.

We on the right have always done that. We’ve held our political fire waiting for the left — who owns the communications vehicles of America — to open fire. In that way, we’ve always claimed a moral high-ground that nobody in America, apparently, cares about. The left fights really dirty. Not to respond in kind is to be perfectly irresponsible. It’s the future of America — therefore of the world as well — that’s at stake.

(2) – I’m okay with never giving the shooter’s name. That does two good things: (1) gives no notoriety whatsoever to the shooter, and (2) potentially spares the shooter’s family unnecessary pain and humiliation. They’ll have plenty of that as it is, just knowing what they know.


America’s Science-Loving Left

You know how the popular narrative is: the left loves science, while we on the right, we hick Conservatives, are all anti-science. We’re supposedly awash in our irrational superstitions that we’re willing to defend with our guns. And why? Because, you see, we on the right never accepted uncritically, unquestioningly, all the hoo-hah about “global warming.”(1)

But, what happens if we examine the narrative just a bit … Let’s see. Along comes Bruce Jenner, now legally “Caitlyn” Jenner. He says nothing more than:

“Hey, guys! Guess what: I’m a woman! Yep. Despite all the physical evidence, all the equipment, the narrow hips and wide shoulders, all the children for whom I contributed the sperm, the fact that I won the 1976 men’s Olympic decathlon, the fact that I’m 6’2″ tall, the fact that all the chemicals in my body prove unambiguously that I’m a man, the fact that any parts of my body that look even vaguely feminine are artificially made, well … yep, I’m really a woman! Have been all along! Oh, and if you don’t believe me, you’re a narrow-minded, mean, ol’ bigoted reactionary kook! Got it?”

And everyone on the supposedly science-loving left replied:

“Yep. Okay.”

So, let’s examine that a bit: Despite all the objective, fact-based, long-standing science proving perfectly uncontroversially that “Caitlyn” Jenner is really a man … all those supposedly science-loving lefties now unanimously believe that, you guessed it, he’s a woman! Just like that!

It’s as if I were to say that, well yes, I know I’m 6’4″ tall, but I’m really a short man. Why? Well, because I say so. Just that. Ignore the measurements and the size 14 shoes, and the 36″ inseam in the pants, and the 3X shirts, sweaters and sweatshirts that fit me just fine, I’m really a short man.

You and I both know that if I were to try seriously to make that claim, the supposedly science-loving left (1) would believe me!  Then, (2) they’d demand that you believe me, or else (3) they’d brand you a retrograde jerk.

If Caitlyn Jenner’s body were to be discovered several centuries from now, and the archaeologists were to place it on the dissection table, what would the science conclude about their specimen? Well, let’s see, I think we can probably figure it out. Hmmmm… 6’2″ tall, XY chromosomes, male hips and shoulders… The scientists will say, “We got ourselves a dude here.” (That’s how they’ll talk several centuries from now.) And, why will they say that? Simple: Science will dictate that they say that.

You know, “science?” That set of disciplines and study that use objective measurements, observation and mathematics to eliminate as much of the subjective as we can, in order to give ourselves the best possible chance of reaching a good understanding of reality? That science.

When Caitlyn Jenner came out with his strange assertion — I’m really a woman — he produced no scientific evidence whatsoever to support his assertion. There were no measurements, no physical anomalies … no science at all, that he could point to in support of what he said. He simply said it. That’s it. And our supposedly science-loving left accepted it uncritically and without debate. More to the point, they immediately branded you and me as narrow-minded jerks, if you and I expressed any kind of skepticism.

Back briefly to the science of “global warming.” Ignore for a moment that it was all “global cooling” just two short decades ago. Well, the science has shown that “global warming” has disappeared. Yep. Gone. There hasn’t been any “global warming” for almost a generation now. So, how did the supposedly science-loving left react to this real climate science?

Easy. Ignore it. And forget it.(2) No supposedly science-loving lefty says “global warming” anymore. As if no one had ever said “global warming!” As if they had never been apoplectic, purple-faced, spittle-flecked with rage, alarm and indignation, and in-your-face demanding that you stop consuming fossil fuels to stop global warming, or you will all die, as the waves from the rising, raging, rampaging oceans swallow you up!

All that apparently never happened.

Now that “global warming” is embarrassingly MIA, “Climate Change” is all the rage. Well, there’s some science for you. We have to stop climate change! Oh? Really? Anyone who ever takes a third-grade earth science class learns that the climate does nothing but change.

So, as regards the climate, our ever-so-intellectual, supposedly science-loving, American left has gone from irrational alarmism over “global cooling,” to irrational alarmism over “global warming,” to demanding action that we stop the climate from doing the only thing it has ever done: change.

The left loves science? Codswallop.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Which the left no longer accepts either. Because it disappeared.

(2) – Oh, National Public Radio, part of the left’s propaganda wing, still says “global warming” regularly, but they’re always at least a decade behind the times.

A Master Musician’s Masterful Performance


One of the most astonishingly wonderful solo performances on a guitar that I’ve ever been privileged to witness… and I’ve seen a few thousand. It comes from a great showman, a spectacular performer, and one of the finest guitarists who have ever lived, Tommy Emmanuel.

The last four seconds are four of the most delightful seconds you will experience in music. Heck, they’re four of the most delightful seconds you will experience in your life. If you don’t laugh out loud with the sheer joy and fun of it, then you just might not be human.

Remember, though, that he spends the previous seven or so minutes setting up those last four seconds with knock-your-socks-off-and-rock-you-back-in-your-chair, bravura guitar playing.

I was able to take in one of Tommy’s concerts when he was playing in Hartford. It was two hours of sheer delight. The man is a massive talent, with more energy than an atomic bomb, and more talent, technique, showmanship, joie-de-vivre and virtuosity than any ten other guitarists… combined.

And those last four seconds…

— xPraetorius

Aleksei Arkhipovsky — Balalaika Master Live!

Can’t get better than this!

Enjoy the efforts of a musical master on his instrument. It’s 41 minutes of gorgeousness… and Russian language. I defy you to do better than that!

— xPraetorius



More Balalaika Fun!

I hope that the last several posts I’ve placed out there have given you at least a tiny appreciation of balalaika music! If so listen to this!

Remember: it’s still just three string, two of which play the same note!

I speak Russian, so I can’t help you if you’re not understanding this.

However, the first couple of minutes are just a joyous expression of life. Definitely worth listening to.

— xPraetorius

A Genuine Demonstration of Musical Virtuosity

The great Aleksei (Alex) Arkhipovsky shows (here) what a master can do with three strings, two of which are the same note, on a balalaika. This is a balalaika clinic.

I apologize; the video is in French, and I speak French like a native, so it’s meaningful to me.

For those of you who don’t speak French, watch it and enjoy it for the moments of exuberant  virtuosity.

Oh, and enjoy the French! One of the greatest contributions the French have ever made to the world is the French language.

At 6:40, it’s some absolutely wonderful improvisation. If you’re paying attention, you’ll be absolutely astonished at the expressive possibilities of a mere three strings on a balalaika!

Enjoy! I certainly do!

— xPraetorius

Want to Increase the DEPTH of Your Understanding of America? Read This…

It’s Michael Barone’s really well- and clearly-written: Hard America, Soft America: Competition vs. Coddling and the Battle for the Nation’s Future.

If, like me, you’re a staunch Conservative, you’ll find some seriously challenging viewpoints in this book.

If, like me, you’re a staunch Conservative, you won’t care at all, and will thoroughly enjoy the greater depth of perspective this book will give you.

If, like me, you’re a staunch Conservative, you enjoy seriously challenging viewpoints.

In this book, you’ll learn that Democrats aren’t all bad, and that Republicans aren’t all good. However, you and I knew that already.

We Conservatives might not have known, though, that Democrats, and the political left, did some things that were seriously good for the country.

Michael Barone’s exhaustive research has unearthed some important facts, and presents some extremely intriguing conclusions.

As familiar as I am with the violence, corruption and intellectual depredations of the left, there were some “bitter pills” for me in the book. As a result, I heartily endorse it for you as well.

We Conservatives need some “bitter pills” from time-to-time to keep our intellectual tree of knowledge healthy, strong and vital. Without challenge, we’d see ourselves grow as weak, pathetic and intellectually flaccid as the left generally is.

— xPraetorius


Just As We Have Long Been Insisting…

… “Liberals are done with debating

In the great online magazine, National Review, David Harsanyi makes the same point we’ve been making for some time: the left is not interested in actual debate. Harsanyi then goes on to detail a good number of the accusations, names, epithets and sneering abuse that leftists hurl at Conservatives caught supporting positions counter to those of the left.

What Harsanyi neglects to say is why leftists are done with debating.

The reason is simple: if the left were to engage in real debate, they lose. Nearly every time. If the left were deprived of sneering and insulting, they’d be reduced to near total silence, because their empty little heads are devoid of substantive arguments for all the major issues of the day.

Sadly, it is those selfsame hollow leftist noggins that fabricated, or caused, all the major issues of the day. All the major issues of today: abortion, environmentalism, income inequality, poverty, hunger, disease, unemployment, ISIS, terrorism, etc. are, without exception, either fabrications of the left (environmentalism, income inequality) or are actually caused by the left’s success at taking and keeping power (abortion, poverty, hunger, disease, unemployment, ISIS, terrorism).

— xPraetorius

Did You Know This?

This essay is an important one. It’s by the great Walter Williams, one of America’s great black Conservative thinkers and writers.

Here are some parts of Williams’ essay to whet your appetite:

The argument is made that the problems encountered by many black Americans are rooted in white racism, greed and income inequality. They are able to get away with these untruths because most people believe that what is seen today has always been. [Red emphasis added] A bit of history would belie such a vision.


As late as 1950, female-headed households were only 18 percent of the black population. Today it’s close to 70 percent. In the late 1800s, there were only slight differences between the black family structure and those of other ethnic groups. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households were two-parent households. In 1938, 11 percent of black children were born to single mothers; today it is close to 75 percent. In some cities and neighborhoods, the percentage of out-of-wedlock births is over 80.

Then there’s:

Faced with the evidence that black families were healthier at a time when blacks were just a generation or two out of slavery, at a time when there was far greater racial discrimination and there were far fewer opportunities, how much credence can be given to the legacy-of-slavery argument to explain today’s weak family structure? Does the effect of a legacy of slavery somehow skip five generations? [Red emphasis added]

There’s also:

Female-headed households, whether black or white, are a ticket for dependency and all of its associated problems. One of the best-kept secrets is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994. [Red emphasis added]

Wow! That one’s worth remarking on a bit more!  The poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994. Holy mackerel! How could that be in supposedly “racist America?!?”

This is not what we’ve been reading or hearing from the left and from the Race Grievance Industry for decades now!

Social scientists do, though, agree nearly unanimously: if you restore the intact, father-mother-kids black family, you likely will reduce poverty dramatically… along with all the pathologies afflicting black Americans today.

Williams also writes:

Another devastating problem for blacks is the high unemployment rate in general, but particularly among black youth. Nationally, black youth unemployment is nearly 40 percent. In some cities, it is over 60 percent. But high black youth unemployment is entirely new. [Red emphasis added]  In 1948, the unemployment rate for black teens was slightly less than that of their white counterparts — 9.4 percent compared with 10.2. During that same period, black youths were either just as active in the labor force or more so than white youths. Today black teen labor force participation is a fraction of that of whites. Even during the early 1900s, black males were either just as active in the labor market as whites or more so. [Red emphasis added]

Williams adds:

So what explains the employment statistics of yesteryear compared with those of today? Would one argue that the reason that black teens had a lower unemployment rate and higher labor force participation rate than whites was that there was less racial discrimination in the 1940s than there is today? [Red emphasis added] Would one argue that blacks had greater skills than whites in earlier periods? Whatever explains the differences, racial discrimination is not part of the answer. [Red emphasis added]

Williams finishes with a powerful haymaker:

I have only addressed three major problems confronting a large segment of the black community — family structure, illegitimacy and unemployment. Which one of them can be tackled by expending resources on what white people are doing or not doing? [Red emphasis added] The weak family structure and illegitimacy are devastating problems, but they are not civil rights problems and have nothing to do with racial discrimination. The black unemployment problem is different. Much of it is the result of the labor market’s having been rigged by powerful vested interests aided, perhaps unwittingly, by much of the black political structure. [Red emphasis added]

— xPraetorius

I Wonder Who’s Been Saying This All Along!

Here’s the Drudgereport headline: MORE EMAILS ‘FOUND’…

More of Hillary’s e-mails that were on her illegal private server have been found, that is.

You remember, right? All those e-mails that she had “erased,” and that everyone said were, therefore, gone? Those e-mails.

Yep. We said it. Here.  All the way back in March of this year!

They were never “gone.”

Not only did we say that the e-mails weren’t gone, we said also that they’d be easy to find.

Here’s a snippet from that post long ago:

Here’s why the media need to consult a computer expert from time-to-time: I’m hearing a lot of flat-out wrong things about the ability of Hillary Clinton to control these e-mails that live on her server at her Chappaqua home. The media are bemoaning the “fact” that Hillary can simply delete those e-mails from the server that lived at the Clinton’s Chappaqua mansion. Wrong! Or, more to the point: yes, she can delete the e-mails from her Chappaqua mansion’s server, but those e-mails reside in a whole lot of other places as well. Places where the long arm of even Hillary can’t reach them. And certainly not without breaking the law.

Look: she’s cornered now. Those e-mails are obtainable. Fairly easily. If she starts a wholesale deletion of incriminating e-mails, that’s easy to discover. If she tries to delete just a couple of e-mails, that’s easy to discover. The path that any e-mail took is easy to discover, and it’s easy also to obtain that e-mail on any of the many hops it has to traverse from her keyboard to the recipient’s inbox. It’s pretty simple: if there is an e-mail on any one of those hops, and not one on Hillary’s server, then she has broken the law.

— xPraetorius

Yet MORE Minutes of Sheer Exhilaration

Here are two of the finest musicians the earth has ever produced playing together.

I dare you to tell me what could be finer than to take this in.

For those of you, like me, who are really good musicians, you’ll understand the astonishing talent it takes to pull this off.

First of all, the “song” is Mozart’s “Turkish March,” by itself a challenging piece of music. It was written for piano.

However, the instruments in question are the guitar (Tommy Emmanuel) and the balalaika (Aleksei Arkhipovsky).

I exaggerate not in the slightest when I say that from 1:14 to 1:30 are sixteen seconds of some of the finest human accomplishment ever done.

The  coda is beyond delightful. Great and mighty musicianship, and showmanship, pulled off by supremely talented musicians, the likes of which the world is not likely ever to see again.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch – 9/25/15 (Part II)

I was listening to National Public Radio (NPR) this morning on the way to work. It’s amazing how transparently not news, their “news” is. They do a morning “news” program, called “Morning Edition,” that’s supposed to be news, but is really just fake news.

This morning they did a feature on the murder sixty years ago of young Emmett Till, a 14-year old black boy in the South. Two white men were arrested for the murder, and then acquitted by an all-white jury at trial.

Now, I admit up-front that I don’t know the particulars of the entire Emmett Till story, except to say that it was particularly tragic — no 14-year old boy should ever lose his life… especially at the hands of another person. It’s a monstrous atrocity.

Also, in the middle of the piece, whoever was presenting it said something like: “The men said they killed Emmett Till because he had whistled at a white woman.”

NPR’s interviewees this morning were unanimous in their condemnation of the acquittal of the white men, by the all-white jury. There was no doubt in these commentators’ minds: the suspects did the crime, and were set free. Furthermore, all agreed, the suspects did the crime for racist reasons.

But, forgive me, please, for wondering about these few things:

  • Isn’t that why we have, you know, “trials?” A “trial” is what you do when you’re not sure that you know the answer to something. Heck, in America, you have a “trial” even when you are sure you’ve got the right person!

  • Built into the definition of the very word “trial” is the possibility that you will get a “not guilty” verdict.

  • Is anyone suggesting that we should go to a system in which we don’t have trials? There are such systems in the world: they’re in countries called: Third-World Hellholes. Should we just go down that route?

  • I don’t know what the evidence was that resulted in the arrests of the suspects. Was it overwhelming? The evidence against OJ Simpson was overwhelming, but he was acquitted. It happens. And, he just might not have done it. I don’t know. I know only what the media presented, and they are mostly corrupt.

  • The thing about the suspect saying that he had killed Emmett Till for whistling at a white woman…was that known at trial? If so, that’s pretty damning evidence. If not, then I presume that no one knew it at the time of the trial, and therefore that it was a non-factor in the trial.

  • The prohibition against double jeopardy in the legal system means that even if the suspect admitted he did the crime, he cannot be re-tried for it after an initial acquittal.

  • This assertion that one of the suspects admitted he did it after the trial is highly suspect. Really? Who, just acquitted of murder, then would admit — at any time, except maybe at the time of a deathbed confession — to having done the murder? Even a supposed racist who didn’t even think he had done anything wrong?

  • An acquittal at trial does not mean the suspect didn’t do the crime. It means only that the prosecutor didn’t prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the suspect did it. That is the burden of proof absolutely required by the Constitution.

  • Presumably the suspects entered “not guilty” pleas before the trial began. In other words, they said: “We didn’t do it.” Does anyone know that they did? If so, what’s his or her evidence? If you listened to the NPR story, there’s cause for doubt that anyone knows for sure who did it.

  • It seems pretty sure that the commentators that NPR called on this morning wanted a conviction only so that white people were punished for the death of a black youth.

  • As in the OJ case, some rational, sane observers noted that the country’s legal system is based on several premises, one of which is the aphorism that it is better to let ten guilty men go free than to punish an innocent man. At least that’s the theory. Should we just abandon that in favor of whatever makes the currently favored group(s) happy? It is, after all, the main reason OJ Simpson skated.

  • And…aren’t we all entitled by the Constitution to a trial by a jury of our peers? If I’m a white suspect in a trial of any kind, what would be at all surprising about appearing before a jury of white people? Should we instead set about to making sure that we get a jury that will convict? Do we really think that American prosecutors — with a something like 98-99% conviction rate — aren’t getting enough “wins?”

  • What did happen in the whole Emmett Till murder and subsequent trial? I truly don’t know. However, in their incomplete, shallow, and manipulative — beyond the point of dishonesty — presentation of this story, NPR did do us all at least one service, as they and the rest of the Race Grievance Industry (RGI) regularly do: they highlighted just how not racist this country really is now! If the Emmett Till murder was a murder done by racists who killed the child because of the color of his skin, NPR’s focus on the story shines a bright light on several things: (1) the atrocity happened a very long time ago. (2) In light of what happened in Ferguson, Missouri and in the Trayvon Martin case, it’s possible that some of these landmark “racial incidents” didn’t actually happen as we think they did. After all, (3) the narrative is: “white people did violence to innocent, unarmed black kids (so this happens all the time).” It turns out that it’s a false, fabricated, made-up, fictional narrative… aka: a lie. George Zimmerman, the evidence overwhelmingly said, didn’t attack Trayvon Martin, it was the other way around. And Darren Wilson in Ferguson was not a racist cop killing an unarmed black kid, but rather a policeman defending himself from attack. What about all these other incidents? What else in the NPR’s and the RGI’s narrative about race and America is just … flat-out false? It’s time to investigate.

  • In order to have any kind of understanding of the story at all, these are all things that NPR was morally obligated to divulge to us. That they didn’t is all the proof you should need in order to know that you come out of an NPR fake news piece less informed than you go in.

  • I’m going to say something particularly dispiriting here: It’s hard to dispute the idea that in cases like the Emmett Till, or the Trayvon Martin, or the Ferguson, Missouri incidents, black Americans — not all of them, just the ones in the Race Grievance Industry — seemed to care only that a white person get punished. If in the case of any of these incidents some other white person had been arrested and convicted after the exonerations of George Zimmerman and Darren Wilson, that would have prevented the riots and the violence.

  • Update:  I was writing the above after having heard the NPR piece. I then went home and did a search (here (1)) on the case and found out some things:

    • The “confession” was not known at trial, but apparently did happen afterward.
    • The details of the incident that prompted the atrocity are unclear, ranging from: Till went into a store and bought something and left, to: Till went into the same store, and accosted a married, white woman in the store in a mildly violent, but intimidating and sexual way. Obviously, though, nothing justifies the murder of the young man. Reporting him to the police maybe, but that’s about it.
    • The evidence against the suspects — one Roy Bryant and one J. W. Milam — does not appear to have been particularly overwhelming at the time of the trial. Lots of hearsay. Not that hearsay is insignificant, but it’s not dispositive. After the trial, the evidence was overwhelming, yes. Key word: “after.” The problem: my assertion about double jeopardy, above, is correct: If you murdered someone and are acquitted at trial, you can admit openly that you did it afterward and you cannot be charged, again, with the crime.
    • It appears likely that a couple of dirt bags who committed a heinous crime skated.
    • It appears equally likely that the fact that these were two dirt bags who had committed a heinous crime, was not known at the time of the trial, resulting in the verdict that came down.

  • The Emmett Till story is horrible. So is the Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman story. It’s vital to note, however, that neither is one iota more horrible than the other.

  • It’s worth repeatingUnless you make the effort to go out and inform yourself, you always come out of an NPR fake news piece less informed than you go in.

— xPraetorius


(1) – The source is Wikipedia — hardly an objective source, but the material seems to be reasonably okay. I say “reasonably,” because the piece says obviously prejudicial things like (note our inline [red font] remarks):

In post-trial analyses, blame for the outcome varied. Mamie Till Bradley was criticized for not crying enough on the stand. The jury was noted to have been picked almost exclusively from the hill country section of Tallahatchie County, which, due to its poorer economic make-up, found whites and blacks competing for land and other agrarian opportunities [complete, unknowable speculation!]. Unlike the population living closer to the river (and thus closer to Bryant and Milam in Leflore County), who possessed a noblesse oblige toward blacks according to historian Stephen Whitaker [more completely, unknowable speculation!], those in the eastern part of the county were remarkably virulent in their racism [still more unknowable speculation!]. The prosecution was criticized for dismissing any potential juror who knew Milam or Bryant, for the fear that such a juror would vote to acquit. [An important requirement of the prosecution is that they make intelligent decisions in the case. People are imperfect.] Afterward, Whitaker noted that this was a mistake as anyone who had personally known the defendants usually disliked them. One juror voted twice to convict, but on the third discussion, acquiesced and voted with the rest of the jury to acquit. [This happens all the time; nothing unusual here. It’s a well-known — and approved of — behavior of juries] In later interviews, the jurors acknowledged that they knew Bryant and Milam were guilty, but simply did not believe life imprisonment or the death penalty fit punishment for whites who had killed a black man. [I believe this too. As stated! I believe also, for example, that the death penalty is not fit punishment for a black man who kills a white man. In other words, I believe that the death penalty is never a valid punishment, for a lot of reasons that exceed the scope of this essay.] This is somewhat disputed by later interviews with two jurors who stated as late as 2005 that they believed the defense’s case, that the prosecution had not proven that Till had died, and that it was his body that was removed from the river.

A Key Word: “blame.” A key concept in American justice, whether it be in the North, South, East or West, is that no trial ever, ever, not ever, not once, never, never once ever has a foregone conclusion. Never. A foregone conclusion completely, utterly and absolutely obliterates the legitimacy of any “justice system” ever conceived, rendering it a mockery.

Therefore there can be no “blame” for a verdict that you don’t like coming out of a trial of any kind. Period.

It all boils down to one crucial thing: In America, the prosecution is absolutely required to prove to the jury beyond a shadow of a doubt that the suspect did the crime. Absent such overwhelming “proof,” the defendant is supposed to walk. Every time. Whether or  not she actually did the crime.

You and I might not like it, but I can tell you one thing: you’ll like one whole heckuva lot less a system in which the verdict of a “trial” is in place before the “trial.”

America places that heavy burden on the prosecution for a very, very, very good reason: all other systems of “justice” in history had it reversed: the defense had to prove the innocence of the defendant.

Our system guarantees some disappointing outcomes: Apparently guilty people will walk free.  The other way guarantees vast injustice as people are unable to prove that they are innocent. In the Soviet Union, when there was a crime, they used to round up all the likeliest suspects and shoot them all. That way they were pretty sure that “justice” had been done. But, a whole heckuva lot of injustice had been done as well! Is that really what we want here in America?

NPR Watch (9/25/15)

I was listening to National Public Radio’s local affiliate — WNPR — when on came a re-run of something called “The Colin McEnroe Show.” It’s a local show with a local, lefty (of course!) host, and this dude talks about things generally pertinent to the day’s news. His focus is usually cultural/political.

This time one of his topics concerned the white male poet who used an Asian female-sounding pseudonym to publish a poem, Why? No one would publish his work as a white male poet dude, but as an Asian woman, they would! He had submitted his poem to 40 different publishers as a white male dude, and been rejected each time. However, as soon as he submitted the poem as an Asian woman, Pow! Published.

See if you can guess what perspective went totally unexplored by the host and his guests on the  Colin McEnroe show.

Needless to say, McEnroe had on his show a whole bunch of people who (1) ripped the white male poet dude up one side and down the other, and (2) exulted in the fact that apparently there were a whole bunch of internet trolls who also ripped the white male poet dude up one side and down the other. Why, they said, it was appropriation, cultural appropriation of the worst kind! They were upset that the guy got his poem published, not to make some larger point, but — horrors! — just to get his poem published!

This last, by the way — getting poems published — is something that poets do try to do from time to time.

One of McEnroe’s guests was, indeed, an Asian woman. She was, of course, particularly offended. “As an Asian woman,” she began (as leftists always do), and went off on some rant that headed almost directly into the “he’s a racist” (of course!) place.

In there, though, was a moment when the Asian woman (I think it was she) confessed that she was vaguely disturbed that there were actual indications that what the poet dude had said — “I couldn’t get my work published as a white dude, but I could as an Asian woman” (roughly) — was true!

They went back and forth for a bit, and all were unanimous: the white male poet dude, who used an Asian woman-type pseudonym was a jerk, and probably a racist jerk.

So, what perspective did they miss? Why the easiest one, of course! How do you explain, then, that it’s good when a minority anything — poet, writer, singer, mortgage applicant, artist, sculptor, snorg-peddler — passes himself off as a white man to get a job, get published, buy a house, win a contract, sell a product or service?

Here’s how: You see, he was defeating the evil system at its own game! He was striking a blow against discrimination! Universally on the left that person is hailed as a great and courageous hero, who had taken on an evil system and beaten it using its own rules against it.

But, let some white guy do exactly the same thing — the only difference being the color of his skin — let him beat what seems to be an obviously racist system in the poetry publishing world, and what a scoundrel he is! And a racist scoundrel at that!

There was no discussion in the show of (1) whether the poem was worth publishing. The Asian lady seemed to indicate that it might have been, by confessing that there is racial discrimination — apparently against white male poets — in the publishing world. (2) There was no discussion of whether that was okay! Presumably because that would put such an obvious contradiction out there that even a leftist could see it! And wouldn’t be able to defend it, even with the fog-speak at which the left is so adept.

Brief aside: Did you ever notice that the only ones who actually have to police every word that comes out of their mouths are on the left? It’s not “abortion” it’s “choice.” It’s not “racial discrimination,” it’s “Affirmative Action.” It’s not even a “fetus,” it’s “fetal tissue.” Or “uterine contents.” The list of euphemisms the left is forced to use to disguise the reality of their beliefs is dauntingly long.

Here are the only possible conclusions one can draw from listening to the left blather on and on, in their small and large whack-a-doodle echo chambers in the media:

  • Racism is good after all! As long as it’s the right kind of racism.
  • Beating a racist system is okay only when some people do it. When others do it — like white male poet dudes — it’s racist and wrong.
  • Racial discrimination is good! If it’s the right kind of racial discrimination.
  • Beating the system by playing it off against itself is okay only if some people do it. Not, though, when white male poets do it.
  • The left is perfectly willing (1) to concede that there is racial discrimination in the publishing world, and (2) to leave that racial discrimination in place.
  • This is exactly the same thinking as that which the left condemn so operatically all the time. It’s thinking straight out of the Jim Crow South in the 1950’s and ’60’s, and out of the eugenicist 1920’s.(1)
  • Taken to its logical conclusion, this is apartheid. The system in South Africa where a minority overtly discriminated against the majority. We used to take a dim view of apartheid.

Never, ever, ever, in a million years, expect the left to say something commonsensical, or fair, or intelligent, or just, or correct like: “Hey, if the poem is good enough to be published, it shouldn’t matter who wrote it, it should be published! Period!”

Why? Because that would produce disparities in who publishes what and when. And that notion would be extensible to other disciplines as well:

  • Hey, if he’s fit for the job, he should be hired no matter his race! (Bye bye, Affirmative Action — aka: racial discrimination in employment and university admissions)
  • Hey, if his music is good, it should be played no matter his race!
  • Hey, if his book is good, it should be read, no matter his race! (a bunch of dead, white, male masters’ masterpieces would enjoy a renaissance in academia, and a bunch of contemporary literary schlocks and frauds would disappear.)

That’s why the left is quite happy with some kinds of racial discrimination.

The left will never be satisfied until all of America is one big Procrustean Bed.(2)

— xPraetorius


(1) – The only distinction between the various periods is in how leftist racism manifests itself. In the 1920’s the eugenicists were quite open and honest in their belief that blacks were an inferior race, and that for the good of all society, blacks should be bred or sterilized out of existence. In the 1960’s, leftists were still openly racist, and instituted laws and controls — called “Jim Crow” and “segregation” — so that whites didn’t have to associate with blacks at all. While in contemporary America, the left still believes that blacks are inferior, but that belief has gone underground, and now shows itself in government programs that all but shout out the left’s belief that black Americans simply can’t make it, in the now overwhelmingly non-racist America, without massive assistance from white Americans.

(2) – Procrustean bedor procrustean bed

1. a plan or scheme to produce uniformity or conformity by arbitrary or violent methods.

Origin of Procrustean bed: after Procrustes, the bandit from Greek mythology who stretched or amputated the limbs of travelers to make them conform to the length of his bed. Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2015.

MORE Minutes of Sheer Exhilaration!

Right here.

Sorry, this is just delightful. You’ll hear instrumental virtuosity, Beethoven, Christmas, Pink Panther, Frank Sinatra and more.

There’s not much more you could ever ask for! It gets astonishing, over-the-top and through-the-roof at the two-minute mark.

Enjoy the Christmas reference at 3:33! Do yourself a favor and remember the name of Aleksei Arkhipovsky. One of the finest instrumentalists in the world today.

I’m a really good guitarist, and I can’t remember when I ever heard a musician exude greater expressiveness, and sheer fun and exhilaration, than Aleksei Arkhipovski does with his balalaika. It’s an entire show between him and his instrument. It’s as fun to watch his pixie-like face as it is delightful to listen to his balalaika.

You can’t have more fun than this, even on the golf course. I’m serious. I know, I know… pick yourself up off the floor. It’s undignified.

— xPraetorius

Four Minutes of Sheer Exhilaration!

Right here.

This is simply astonishing.

All kudos to the phenomenon that is YouTube, that permits me to find the output of master musicians such as Aleksei Arkhipovsky. (When I was learning Russian, “Aleksei” was my student name.)

There’s a really funny story — for later — associated with that.

— xPraetorius

Next Time You’re Tempted to Disparage the West..


  • that the hundreds of thousands of bedraggled humans streaming out of the middle East aren’t trying to go anywhere else.

  • that if there were no “west,” then the hundreds of thousands of bedraggled humans streaming out of the Middle East would simply stay put where they are.

  • that there is no other alternative anywhere else in the world for genuinely oppressed people.

  • that nowhere else in the world — nowhere — is there a “refugee crisis,” consisting of hundreds of thousands of humans trying to get in… flinging themselves into rough waters, or entrusting their lives to cutthroat smugglers, just to get there. That is a “problem” of the west, and only of the west. You can tell a whole lot about a place simply by whether people are trying to get in or out of it.

  • that it has been this way for a very long time. Remember the Vietnamese “boat people?” These were people who, after the Vietnam War, flung themselves into the ocean on ramshackle craft made practically from twigs and matchsticks, hoping against hope that they’d somehow drift to America. Preferring to drown in the ocean than to live in the “new” Vietnam, newly conquered by bloodthirsty Communist goons.

  • that the “west” consists of a bunch of flawed governments that were set up by flawed people, but that have established the best, the freest, the most prosperous, the most merciful, generous, altruistic countries the world has ever seen. The Western White Man is much-maligned in the world today, but he set all this up. He shaped the “west” in such a way as to provide the very freedom so many take advantage of now to malign him. You can’t criticize others in other areas of the world, for the simple reason that they will kill you. No one in the world is trying to get into any country that was not set up by westerners, aka that much-maligned bogeyman: The Western White Man.

  • that the very idea of “anti-slavery,” and “anti-racism” is the invention of that selfsame much-disparaged Western White Man. The abolitionist movement came from his brain and heart, and resulted in the elimination of slavery in many places around the world.

  • that the vast, overwhelming majority of the people trying desperately to come here are… non-white.

  • that the west, in recent history, has liberated billions around the world from real oppression. Mainly in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Europe (from Nazism and Communism), but also in South and North America (from slavery in the U.S. and elsewhere, and by taking in millions of impoverished people from South and Central and Mexico).

  • that no other area of the world has liberated anyone from real oppression.

  • that no other area of the world has done so much for the world in so little time.

  • that the only question, in the face of any crisis is: “What will the ‘west,’ principally the United States, do to make things better?”

  • that when anyone poses that same question about any country not of the west, they have to re-phrase it as follows: “What will [fill in: Russia, China, Iran, other] do to further their own interests at our expense?”

  • that there are hundreds of thousands stuggling desperately to come to the west and to the United States. Do you doubt that the number who want to be here is in the billions?

  • that for all the “west’s” flaws, there are still those hundreds of thousands trying to get in. It’s worth repeating: “You can tell a whole lot about a place simply by whether people are trying to get in or out of it.

— xPraetorius

This Is REALLY Sweet Too

A wonderful crooner — Helmut Lotti — sings with a whole bunch of kids.

There’s a moment when one of the kids, a young girl, sings with Lotti.

It’s really sweet, and I suspect she’s his daughter. So much the better! It’s a fun and pretty song — almost hypnotic! — and a well-done video.

Of such moments is life made way more than worthwhile.

Helmut Lotti is a crooner of some note in the world, so he can manufacture such sweet moments for himself. However, you and I, who are less renowned, can do so too. It just takes some imagination. And not worrying about whether there are crowds around to acknowledge it all. :)

— xPraetorius

Drudge Headline Prompts Daydream

The Drudge headline: Holy See flag to be raised outside UN…

Sane people the world over daydream that after the Holy See’s flag is raised outside the corrupt, decrepit, left-wing, hyper-atheistic United Nations, the Holy Father might go in and give a great, rousing right-wing speech, condemning abortion, socialism, heavy-handed government, secular humanism, atheism, and all the other agents of mass death still running around the countryside and the rest of the world.

— xPraetorius

Ineffably Sweet

This here.

This brought tears to my eyes. I’m a massive bear of a man. I’ve hit baseballs more than 450 feet, golf balls more than 300 yards, bench-pressed more than 300 pounds, carried freakin’ pianos downstairs, and upstairs, single-handedly, but nothing reduces me to tears more than those things that remind me of my first-born son, who’s no longer with us, or my daughter or second-born son who are.

The above-linked video brings me back to the days when I was a new dad.

Those were indescribably precious days.

When I used to put my daughter to bed, I’d tell her a story of my own devising.

Over the years, I must have told her more than 3,000 stories, all made up on the spot. When she grew up into the beautiful, intelligent, poised, wonderful young woman that she has become, she exhibited one particular characteristic: she loves to read. She still loves stories. She loved Harry Potter, and later the Twilight series, and many, many others. She loves how these stories move, and writhe, and tie themselves up in her brain, only to unravel, exposed to all, when a crucial component reveals itself.

My son is six years younger than his sister. When I was putting him to bed each evening, I’d sing him to sleep. Today, at 15 years old, he stands taller than his 6’4″ tall dad, and he exhibits one particular characteristic: he’s the singin’-est kid you could ever imagine.

He’s always humming or whistling or singing quietly something. And he’s always pitch-perfect. Note-for-note. He loves melodies, and how they interplay, dance, build, rise and resolve themselves in his mind.

As he hums, I watch his eyes as he watches the notes leap and cavort in the songs. His eyes move, and dart around following the frolic. He loves this escape. His life has not been emotionally easy, and this infinitely variable dance is great escape for him.

I flatter myself that it’s a gift that I gave him way back when, when I sang him to sleep each evening.

What you do when they’re young affects them for the rest of their lives.

Read to them, tell them stories, or sing with them. It counts. A lot.

— xPraetorius

Don’t Say “Man!” (Part II)


A crackpot university somewhere has decided that words containing the word “man” in them, as if designating a “man” of some kind, are to be verboten on campus.

Hence a mailman — whether he’s a man or not — is no longer a “mailman” but a “mail carrier.” “Mankind?” Nope. “Humanity” or “humankind” or some other word. And, of course, “Freshman” would go away, in favor of “First-year Student.”

We covered that a bit in this post here.

My fantasy:

After the policy is announced, a bunch of guys (has to be guys) goes around using all sorts of politically incorrect terms. They have to do it correctly: They should avoid things like the “n” word, because though it’s not illegal, it does offend, and it brings down the wrath of all of America on the user’s head(1).

These college dudes need to be on a relentless crusade to bring more politically incorrect students to their ranks. They need to launch a vast campus crusade to squash political correctness on their campus, and to spread the effort to all other campuses in America. So finally, I’d love to see freshmen and freshwomen running around saying things like:

For Girls:

  • Freshbabe
  • Freshwench

For female profs:

  • Profbabe
  • Profwench

Never say these things in public where you can be heard by the topic of your fun-poking.

How about:

  • White students embracing “cracker?” So, white Freshmen would call themselves, unofficially of course,  “Freshcrackers.”
  • And for white male or female profs: “Profcrackers”
  • Students could assign themselves cracker ranks:
    • Freshmen = Saltines
    • Sophomores = Soda crackers
    • Juniors = Triscuits, and of course:
    • Seniors = Ritz

Then there’s:

  • Sophomorebabe, or sophbabe
  • Sophomorewench, or sophwench
  • Juniorbabe
  • Juniorwench
  • Seniorbabe
  • Seniorwench

I’d have a list of things to call boys and male profs, but you can call them anything you want, and you’ll get away with it just fine. That’s no fun.

However, if you want them to join the fun, you could use things like:

  • Freshboy
  • Freshservant (to be used by anyone sophbabe and above.)

For male professors:

  • Profboy, profservant

Attach “babe” or “wench” or “boy” or “servant” onto the end of any university title and use it. (but not in public)

You might wonder why I suggest the word “servant.” Simple: your parents’ tax dollars, or their after-tax dollars, pay these people. They’re supposed to work for you. Period.

However, you could also use anything like:

  • lackey, flunky, menial, assistant (I like “profassistant”), butler or maid, (“Profbutler?” “Profmaid?” Perfect!), deputy, serf (“serf:” Better than perfect!), or how about: “man” as in “profman!”

Put these things on posters and paste them all over campus in daring midnight guerrilla word attacks. Overnight, flood the campus in political incorrectness. Don’t get caught, but if you do, deny everything:

I was just out for an evening constitutional, Mr. Campus Police Officer, Sir, and I found this pile of really offensive posters. I was just going to the dumpster to discard them. Then, I was going to go straight to your office and report the outrage.

Is there a notoriously idiotic feminist (but I repeat myself) professor, who has said some particularly stupid thing? Put it on a poster that says something like:

Profmaid Sozzlenoggin said today: ‘All men are nothing but zangle-brained flortle grebs.’ Can you believe what idiots teach here?”

Then sign it:

Signed: Guerrilla Freshbabes of the University of Buffalo(2)

Never let a moment of politically-correct university-sponsored or -supported garbage go unanswered. Go underground. Don’t get caught! When you go out, be prepared to spend the night outdoors — they do close the dorms after a while each night.

The goal is not to offend, harm, hurt or cause pain, but definitely to puncture vastly over-inflated egos.

Enjoy yourselves with it! You’d be embarking on a great and noble effort to restore real freedom to academia… but that doesn’t mean it can’t be fun. Make it colorful. Be creative. Have lots of fun with it. Remember, you have the chance to deflate a bunch of hyper-pompous, over-the-top arrogant, super-petty, egotistical, self-obsessed, megalomaniacal, tiny-brained and even tinier-souled, would-be-tyrant egos.

Life is meant to be fun!(3) It will be fun to bring political correctness down. And it’ll be important.

Just imagine those huge, fat, bursting egos, inside those teeny, tiny brains going Pssssssssssffffffffssssssfrfrfrfrfrfrfrfrsssssssfffffffffssssss… as they wilt to the ground.

This is fun!

— xPraetorius


(1) – It’s a practical consideration. You need to be free to do this. And there truly is no need to be rude. This doesn’t change the truth, though, that it should be permissible, if frowned upon, to use the word. One day, in these pages, we will use start to skewer these truly offensive sacred pigs.

(2) – Fill in appropriate university name here.

(3) – Just a statement of personal opinion here. I strongly believe it to be true, though. Especially for those who live in day-to-day fear of their lives, or who worry every day about where their next meal is coming from. Life is really meant to be fun for them. That it is daily stress, worry, and frequently agony, for billions around the world is a massive tragedy for which there is no excuse in the 21st Century.

Don’t Say “Man!”

A crackpot university somewhere has decided that words containing the word “man” in them, as if designating a “man” of some kind, are to be verboten on campus.

Hence a “mailman” — whether he’s a man or not — is no longer to be a “mailman” but a “mail carrier.” “Mankind?” Nope. “Humanity” or “humankind” or some other word. And, of course, “Freshman” would go away, in favor of “First-year Student.”

You and I have long been aware of the disappearance of all “firemen,” who — whether they were men or not, as the vast majority of them were, and are — were replaced a long time ago by “fire fighters.”

The crackpot university spokesdoofus (not a “spokesman,” of course) said something to the effect that: “People are no longer aware of the term ‘man’ as referring to all people, so we have decided not to use the term anymore.”(1)

Bunch of whackadoodle, lame-brained, half-witted piffle, produced by what remains of the brains of a gaggle of bedraggled, dried-out, wheezing, drugged-up, washed-out, reactionary, old, Lennon-glasses, wispy combed-over, hippy gas-bags, seeking late-autumn-of-their-lives validation in the fever swamps of political correctness.

Here’s what should happen now. Some sparkly-eyed freshman at the university in question should go into one of his classes and say to his professor:

“Professor: I have to tell you, I’m mad as hell about this idiotic policy about using the word “man.” Do you agree with the policy? And, if so, are you going to mark people like me down, who say or write, for example, “mankind” in class? I need to know this, because if you do agree with the policy, then you’re probably too much of an idiot to be any kind of a teacher of anything.

“It’s not my responsibility to dumb down my word usage for the less literate among us. Rather, it is their responsibility to learn new things… like the meanings of words. It used to be that we came to universities like this one to learn new things, not to be indoctrinated, or bullied into giving away our basic freedoms.

“If you agree with this hyper-moronic policy, then you’re literally saying to me that if I submit a paper to you that (1) contains a word whose meaning you and I both know, and (2) if that word is appropriately used to mean the correct thing in my paper, and (3) it is not a dirty word, and (4) it is not a swear of any kind, and (5) it is correctly spelled, but (6) that word is “mankind” or “freshman,” or “mailman,” then you will take points off my paper.

“If you agree with the policy, then that would show you to be far too stupid to be a teacher, and would disqualify you from ever standing in front of a classroom again, in any context. You should then go find a local Stop & Shop who could use a bagboy — oops: bag-person — because you obviously don’t have the intellect to do anything that would require thinking.

“Professor: we live in America, where it used to be that we had something called “free speech,” which was once a powerful tool in protecting us against the tyranny of half-wits like the ones at this university who would pretend that they have the power, or that they have the moral right to tell you and me what we can say and when.

“To Hell with that!

“So, professor, how do you feel about the policy?”

— xPraetorius


(1) – This is a paraphrase. I’m not sure how the announcement came out, but what I have described is at least the correct meaning of the university’s intent.

Response To: “What If…”

I rarely respond to the contribution or contributions of one of our stable of writers here at TPWG, but felt compelled to do so this time.

In this post here, my new friend and colleague FreeThinker said something that rankled a bit for me. She said:

Hi, all! I’m FreeThinker, and I’m back with another post. It’s been a while, and I apologize for taking my time in putting together these posts. My only excuse is that I’m a busy girl. Anyway, I caught a headline on the DrudgeReport and I read the linked article and felt the need to comment on it. After all, I’m a black woman and the moron who did the stupid stunt I talk about below makes me ashamed to be a black woman.

It’s the last part that rankled. FreeThinker is young and a wonderful thinker and writer, but I think she is wrong to feel ashamed of who she is.

It has long irritated me when someone says or does something stupid, and others then seem to say that all other people demographically like that person are somehow guilty of the same thing, or of wanting to say or do the same thing.

That tendency — the desire to ascribe the evil, the stupidity, the decrepitude, the dishonor of one person to all others like that person — is nothing more than laziness.  there is no one on Earth who is like anyone else on earth.

Find me two seemingly identical thisses or thats — two black men, two white women, two tall men, short men, rich women, poor children, successful men, failures, two whatevers — and I will find a thousand important differences between the two that render it completely impossible to predict the actions, responses, thoughts, feelings, beliefs of one of them, by looking at the other.

Every time.

I’ll stop at a thousand such differences, because I’ll be tired at that point.

I’m a 50-something, quite large, white dude; FreeThinker is a younger, much smaller black lady. Our thinking and perspectives are certainly influenced by those most superficial of characteristics — they’re influenced by all inputs, and those are inputs — but not governed by them.

I’ve recently felt the temptation to be stung by having someone accuse me of something merely because of who I am in the most superficial sense.

In duking it out with various people in the Race Grievance Industry  (here and here, for example), I found out just how stupid it can be to pretend that one can know anything about how someone thinks merely by knowing the color of his skin, or some other trivial input.

Lately there has been a spate of women fabricating false accusations of sexual assault against men on college campuses. It’ll pass, and leave behind lots and lots of needless wreckage. The Duke Lacrosse Team, Rolling Stone and Lena Dunham cases come quickly to mind. These scams came to nothing, but have led nevertheless to a general atmosphere of accusation and suspicion against innocent young men at colleges all across America.

I understand FreeThinker’s temptation to take on herself the guilt of those false accusers, because she is young and black and the latest false accuser is a racist young black woman at the University of Buffalo (here). However, I wish she would not.

The only reason FreeThinker is, I think, bothered by this on a personal level is that she worries that others will think she is the same as the racist false accuser. If others do think that, then that stupid conclusion is on their shoulders, and nobody else’s.

I know, I know, I know… it means that in interacting with such people, one has to overcome that person’s immaturity and lazy, shallow thinking, but that will always be true.

If someone ascribes to you the characteristics of someone else, solely because of, for example, how you both look, then your interlocutor is revealing her superficiality to you up-front. We should thank her for revealing it so early in the interaction!

I say that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it’s true. To paraphrase another great apothegm: “The lazy, shallow, and superficial we will always have among us.” We still have to deal with them. It’s a noble mission to help them to become less lazy, less shallow, less superficial.

FreeThinker, however, is not at all lazy, shallow or superficial (my humble opinion: She’s brilliant!) and need feel no shame if someone else is. Just as we don’t get to claim any extra credit when someone else does something spectacular, nor do we get any discredit when someone else — anyone else — does something ridiculous, or racist, or evil, or idiotic.

There, I’ve said my piece. The rest of FreeThinker’s piece (reminder: here) is completely, utterly and totally wonderful. :)

— xPraetorius

What If…

Hi, all! I’m FreeThinker, and I’m back with another post. It’s been a while, and I apologize for taking my time in putting together these posts. My only excuse is that I’m a busy girl. Anyway, I caught a headline on the DrudgeReport and I read the linked article and felt the need to comment on it. After all, I’m a black woman and the moron who did the stupid stunt I talk about below makes me ashamed to be a black woman.

Here’s the Drudge Headline: “Black student admits hanging ‘White Only,’ ‘Black Only’ signs near school bathrooms, water fountains

Here’s the original piece to which Drudge linked: EAG News.

Read the piece and you find out that when the signs were discovered, there was outrage! Outrage, I tell you! Meetings were called, convocations were convoked. Statements were issued, fear expressed, etc., etc., etc. All went just about as you might expect if you’ve been paying attention at all.

Here’s the beginning of the article:

BUFFALO, N.Y. – Cries of racism broke out across the campus of the University of Buffalo this week when students found Jim Crow-esque signs in a building on campus.

Someone had posted “White Only” and “Black Only” signs near several bathrooms and water fountains in Clemens Hall.

“It brought up feelings of the past of a past that our generation has never seen which I think is why it was so shocking for us to see,” Micah Oliver, president for the Black Student Union, tells ABC 27.
More than 100 students turned out to a Black Student Union meeting to discuss the signs.

“There was fear expressed, anger, disappointment – all of that,” according to Oliver.

Then… oops:

Ashley Powell, a black graduate student, stood up in the meeting to admit she had hung the signs, claiming it was part of an “art project,” The Buffalo News reports.

We learn further that Ashley Powell, yet another false accuser on a university campus, doesn’t care that she’s a fraud. Because, you see, she said:

I apologize if you were hurt, but I do not apologize for what I did. Once again, this is my art practice. My work directly involves black trauma and non-white suffering. I do not believe that there can be social healing without first coming to terms with and expressing our own pain, rage, and trauma.

First of all, does anyone in America really believe that black “pain, rage and trauma” are being left unexpressed? Seriously? It’s all you hear about anywhere nowadays! And it’s been that way all my life!

Try to think of one day in the past, oh, I don’t know, three decades, where you haven’t heard or read at least one news/social media/pop culture/PSA/article/opinion piece/this/that which wasn’t mentioning racial grievances in some way.

All of Powell’s “pain, rage and trauma” are being expressed against a backdrop in which we see – in the very same above-linked article — this:

It brought up feelings of the past of a past that our generation has never seen which I think is why it was so shocking for us to see

Anyone see the key idea here? It’s not a trick question: “A past that our generation has never seen.” Powell is bringing up things that her generation has never seen. Meaning America got rid of all that stuff. A long time ago. Forcefully and unambiguously. And Powell’s generation will never see such signs posted in America again… except by frauds like herself.

It’s a safe bet that the only racial grievance Ashley Powell actually has, her only reason for pain, rage and trauma, is that she has no racial grievances. She needs a way to get some cheap publicity so she can tie into the easy life of the Race Grievance Industry. There’s no easier way to the good life of the race grievance activist than through some fraudulent publicity stunt that accuses innocent white people of fake racism.

This blog said it too (here), where they posed the question: What, Finally, Do The RGI Want?:

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

(h/t: xPraetorius)

That sounds like Ashley Powell all over.

If Powell had any real integrity as a person, she’d take her moment in the media sun for a month or so — invited on MSNBC and CNN and ABC to discuss all her “pain, rage and trauma,” — and then come out and say something like:

I really did all this to see what would happen to me. Let’s face it, my signs, my art project, accused a bunch of people of something of which they were not guilty. And, to the shame of this country, and of the media, and of The University of Buffalo, you all did nothing to me.

What if it had been a white kid who had hung those signs? You all would have drummed him out of the University, and you’d be discussing not whether to bring charges, but what charges to bring. People would be telling gleefully about how the kid’s future was  ruined, how he no longer even had a future.

Rightfully so? I don’t know. Seems excessive to me fora few stupid posters. Everyone can, and frequently does, grow up, change his mind and learn new things. The point is that if it had been a white kid who had done this, his next at least ten years would be really tough ones. But it wasn’t some white kid. it was me.

I did it. Me. And all of a sudden, as the result of a cheap publicity stunt that anyone could do — if he or she looks like me, that is — I’m a celebrity? Now, I’m a famous “social justice activist?” For having done a fraud? For having pretty much lied? Here’s the inconvenient, harsh truth: If “social justice” is all about accusing a bunch of innocent people of something which they’re not guilty of, then “social justice” is nothing but rubbish.

It was the same thing with the con artist who accused the Duke Lacrosse team of rape, and the fake Rolling Stone rape accuser. Those people are criminals, yet they’re still roaming the streets free as a bird. What I did with the signs was legal, — let’s face it, all I did was hang a few signs — but it was criminal, too, and despicable and ugly. And here you are celebrating me! You should be ashamed of yourselves!

Ashley Powell would say all that if she had one ounce of personal integrity, but I’m betting that she won’t, and that she doesn’t.

— FreeThinker

Found This — A Sign of the Times

That brief, insightful comment — “In the world liberals have created…” — came from a blog that I discovered here.

This blog is a mother lode of reports on the corruption of the media, academia and pop culture. I’ve been enjoying its features and the insightful blurbs that accompany links to the story of the latest media depredation.

Here’s another of their observations:

Nothing worse than watching two wrinkled old leftwing blowhards stroke each other in public.” — Priceless!

Back to the first feature, though. One of the striking things about this was the Comments section. Not a single commenter (granted, there were only 24) suggested that this was simply no big deal.

Apparently, the 13-year old kid had tried to kiss the 14-year old girl “on a dare.” Horrors! We’ve never heard of anything like that before, eh? The only proper reaction to that kind of thing is as follows: “Hey, Mikey! (my guess as to the boy’s name) That’s rude and uncalled for. Cut it out. Next time you get a detention. Now go back to class.”

Let’s say that “Mikey” tries it again — tries to kiss “Annie” (my guess as to the “victim’s” name) and gets caught again. Here’s how his detention should go:

Mikey goes to the Principal’s office. The school day ends, and everyone except the Principal goes home. The Principal sits down next to Mikey and says as follows:

“Look, Mikey, what you did was rude and dumb. However it wasn’t anything worse than that. So, don’t do it again. That’s what I have to tell you as the Principal of this school, and by the way, it’s all true. So, cut it out.

“Now, I’m going to tell you what I need to tell you as another man in America. Listen up, and listen good. We used to live in a free country, the freest country that has ever been in all of history. It’s still pretty good here in America, but it’s getting a whole lot worse. Fast. This thing you did — kissing Annie — will get you thrown in jail if you’re in college. [Mikey looks stunned.]

“Yep. Jail. [Here the Principal doesn’t let Mikey recover from his shock] So, this is the time you need to learn that there are a whole list of things you might do as a kid that are completely harmless; things that hurt no one, and that do nothing worse than annoy the person you do them to. But these things can land you in jail, for no other reason than that our country is going through a really stupid phase called “political correctness.”

“You need to be aware of this, because you’re a kid who obviously is willing to do things that break the rules. [Mikey starts to protest, but the Principal hushes him]

“Hold on… don’t talk, Mikey. It’s important to be a person who breaks the rules, really important. But: only some rules. Not all of them, just some of them.

“Every person who ever did anything that improved life for all people, who ever made things better… was someone who figured that the way things are is not good enough. So, he broke the rules. He pushed all the boundaries and all the limits.

“You, [the Principal points at Mikey] need to know which rules to break. How do I know this? George Washington broke “the rules” and became “the father of our country.” He broke rules that he knew would lead to his death if he failed in his purpose.

“You have to make that decision in case you decide to break the rules. What are the consequences if you’re caught? When you know the  consequences, do you still want to break the rules? Washington did. But he knew what might happen. But he figured it was worth it to break those rules.

“Jesus broke the rules too. And that did lead to His death, which was just one step on the path to his breaking the ultimate rule — the rule that death is final — and to triumph completely over death.

“Now, that’s breaking the rules … in real style! But, look at what He had to go through before He ultimately triumphed. If you’re willing to go through that, then you have a whole lot of flexibility in terms of the rules you can break.

“You, Mikey, broke a stupid rule. It was a rule for which if you were to get caught you could suffer for the rest of your life, and for what? For a stolen kiss? Please! If you’re going to break a rule, break a rule that’s important to break, and that you’re willing to suffer real consequence for. A rule that’s worth breaking.

“I’ll tell you right now, it actually is important to break the rule you broke, but not how you broke it. The consequences for you could have been that you suffered for decades for having done nothing all that wrong.

“That would be tragic.

You need to break the rule in a different way. You need to break the rule that says you won’t talk witheringly, and derisively, and disrespectfully, and scornfully, about rules that are really stupid, until you’re able to get these stupid rules eliminated.

“You’re 13 years old. When you can understand what I just said, then you’ll be old enough to understand just how you can break the “Don’t Kiss Annie” rule. And how you can, and should, break other stupid rules, and customs, and practices, and limitations that you will, I promise, see all around you.

“Otherwise, if you’re not willing to go to jail or die a horrible death, then stop trying to kiss Annie on school grounds. Got it?”

[Mikey sits there, jaw agape, silent]

Principal: “You’re dismissed.”

This brief session with little Mikey, and any similar follow-up sessions, would do a whole lot to seeing that Mikey doesn’t break any more silly rules of decorum, and that he then becomes a fine, upstanding, productive, and genuinely progressive, member of society. Breaking — and eliminating — stupid, moronic rules like: “Don’t Try to Kiss Annie on a Bet.”

— xPraetorius