Some Thoughts on the Past Week

Item: The Supreme Court, contrary to the actual words of the law, upholds Obamacare subsidies in states that didn’t set up “health care exchanges.”

Item: The Supreme Court, contrary to millennia of self-evident commonsense and, oh, biology, dictates that all 57 states(1) have to recognize “gay marriage” as real marriage.

  • Regarding “Gay Marriage”: There are parasites whose existence is dependent on the continued life of their host. Still, relentlessly, they push forward and kill the host, thereby killing themselves. This, it appears to me, is a perfect description of the various branches of the now vast and sprawling American Grievance Industry: The Race Grievance Industry, The Feminist Grievance Industry, the Climate Grievance Industry, the Gender Grievance Industry and its sub-branches the Trans Grievance Industry, and the newest superstar, the Gay Grievance Industry.
  • Regarding Obamacare: Justice Antonin Scalia said it correctly: The plain language of the law indicated that subsidies to the states without exchanges were illegal. Chief Justice John Roberts said that there would be serious  problems if they invalidated the subsidies. The only possible, ethical answer to that is: Then Congress should have written the law so that there wouldn’t be such problems. The Supreme Court absolutely does not have the legitimate power to decide that the law doesn’t really mean what it says it means. The only legitimate responsibility of the Supreme Court is to pronounce on the constitutionality of the actual law. If the actual law, as it’s written, is unconstitutional, then the Supreme Court’s only responsibility is to invalidate the law, and tell Congress to try again. That’s it. Purely and simply: if Congress meant something, they should have written it to say what they meant.
  • Regarding Obamacare: Concerning the previous bullet: Chief Justice Roberts surely knows what the actual responsibility of SCOTUS is — it’s pretty much Supreme Court 101. It’s not out of the question — in light of this decision and the previous crucial decision — that someone knows something deep, and dark, and buried in John Roberts’ past, and hinted to Roberts all the way back in 2010, that he knew it … and might be tempted to reveal it, if he didn’t vote to uphold Obamacare. Roberts’ tortured logic in both decisions hints at this.
  • Regarding “Gay Marriage”: There are gays — more than just a few — who, very quietly of course, have long been suggesting that this wacky whole movement never should have existed. The problem, they say, is that marriage itself really is a crucial pillar of human civilization, one that has allowed the world to progress beyond caves. They have said that mandating acceptance of gay marriage is only the first step on the path to eliminating marriage entirely as an institution. They argue: what is to stop the polygamists now? Is that really to be the next “civil rights issue of our time?” Apparently. Furthermore, what’s to stop two brothers, or two sisters from getting married? The qualms about “incest” are purely from concerns that biological reproduction resulting from incest tends to result in serious birth defects. That’s not an issue between two brothers, or a father and son, or two sisters, or a mother and daughter. Furthermore, and most importantly, say these gays, if you pull a pillar of civilization out from under it, and the civilization collapses, then it’s likely that the society that emerges from the ashes won’t have nearly the solicitude for homosexuality as today’s western world does. These gays make no bones about the fact that homosexuality is not normal. They know it, and no amount of tolerance, acceptance, celebration or other glossing over will change it. We pointed that out here and elsewhere. However, these gays are reluctant to seek out a cure for their particular abnormality. They recognize, in addition, that if the western world were to embrace homosexuality in a widespread way, it would spell the end of the western world, whose numbers would decrease because of a decrease in biological reproduction. This would be, and is, happening, at the same time as the islamic world — which has very few gays because it kills them — is accelerating reproduction. I don’t see a good ending when those two currents arrive at critical mass.
  • Regarding “Gay Marriage”: It’s interesting how operatically the left is now in love with the institution of marriage. An institution they have been shredding for many decades. Turns out they love it only when gays are lobbying for it.
  • Regarding “Gay Marriage”: Some, even on the right, have argued that this is good “for the children.” Now, they say, the children of two gay parents will have parents whose union is recognized as valid by the law. Well. Where to begin with this one? Now that “gay marriage” is recognized as real marriage, gay divorce will be the same as real divorce. As happens today, that will then leave children with only one parent. That parent will have nothing that will be able to teach the children about normal intimate relations with members of the other sex. Now that gays are admitting that homosexuality has nothing of the genetic to it, and that the whole “gay gene” thing was fabricated, that means that the remaining gay parent will likely indoctrinate the child into homosexuality.(2)
  • Regarding Obamacare: If you have it, you are not necessarily covered. In these pages (here and here), we covered that fact. Here are a couple of meaningful quotes from those posts (not all mine):
    • The hardest-hit: the middle-class. Americans with an annual household income of between $30,000 and $75,000 began delaying medical care over costs more in 2014, up to 38 percent in 2014 from 33 percent last year; among households that earn above $75,000, 28 percent delayed care this year, compared to just 17 percent last year.


Before Obamacare, people might not have been insured, but they actually obtained health care. Now, they’ll have insurance, but won’t be able to obtain medical care. And it’s not just because he can’t afford to pay the deductible and the premiums, but also because doctors have recognized that they can’t continue to be doctors under Obamacare, so they’re leaving practice.


We’ve said it here, and on other pages many times: “Free” healthcare, no matter the quality, is perfectly worthless if no one can get it. You can paraphrase that a bit to tell the tale of Obamacare: “Healthcare insurance — no matter how ‘affordable’ — is perfectly worthless if you can’t get healthcare with it.”

And, finally:

Or, as we have said: All the insurance in the world, no matter how “affordable,” is perfectly worthless, if you can’t use it to obtain medical care.

This may fall in the broken record department, but you can read about the real-life, concrete results of so-called “free healthcare” in action, here: Obamacare in the Very Near Future — This is Deeply Frightening!

  • Regarding Obamacare: This decision is just possibly a favor to the opponents of Obamacare. If words mean only what you can convince the Supreme Court they mean at a given moment, then that opens the door to lawsuit after lawsuit on any language in the law whatsoever, no matter how ambiguous. The law is, what, 1900 pages long? And each page was written by morons. Believe me, the questionable language is in there. Go in and find it… and sue, sue, sue!

We’ll have more thoughts on the topic of both Supreme Court decisions in upcoming days.

— xPraetorius


(1)  – Obama once said that he had visited “all 57 states,” or some such. Since words no longer have any meaning, or, rather they mean whatever the Supreme Court’s whim that day is, who am I to deny that there are really 57 states? Let’s hope that we can all fit in those extra seven states when the accelerating dismantling of western culture has sunk the original 50 into anarchy and dystopia.

(2) – Look, everyone knows that sex is hugely “mental” as much as physical. And, yes, there’s an “indoctrination” component to parents teaching kids that they should strive to grow up and meet someone of the other sex, get married and set about to producing grandchildren. However, there is no debate that such “indoctrination” results in children learning to act in accord with actual biological reality. As such, while it’s indoctrination — as is training in other subjective realms, like disapproval of racism, or being nice to others — it’s plainly good indoctrination.

In light of this, the reason for homosexuality is likely very simple: A person is able at some point — through personal effort or indoctrination — to suppress the “eeeewwww” reaction to what gays do with their sex organs. It’s at that point that he or she “becomes gay.” Sometimes we tend to way overthink things.

An important point about this: just because you’re doing something with your sexual organs, doesn’t mean it’s sex. If I bring my tennis racket to the river and start trying to scoop fish out with it, I’m not playing tennis. Even if I start trying to hit the fish with tennis balls, I’m still not playing tennis. I’m fishing. Poorly, but fishing all the same. If I bring my sex organs out to the local fence post and get all romantic with it, I’m not having sex. Even if I buy it dinner and tell it I’ll call it in the morning, I’m still not having sex. I’m masturbating. Same as if I were to buy my same sex “partner” dinner and start getting all romantic with him (I don’t have such a relationship, I’m straight, and it’s a hypothetical :) ), no matter what we each do with our respective intimate parts, it’s not sex. It’s elaborate masturbation.


Sometimes When You Just Need to Laugh…

We who are Conservative public policy geeks are seen as a humorless lot.


We love to laugh more than anyone. It’s the massive, vast, panoramic, sweeping, galactic stupidity of the left that provides us our daily dose of desperately demanded drollery.

I share that characteristic with the great Mark Steyn. It’s why I enjoy visiting his archives whenever I desire a delightful dig at the dim-witted doofuses (doofi?) of the dominant directorate in the District of uhhh … Columbia.(1)

Here’s Steyn a tad more than a year and a half ago, at his hilarious heights. No one in the local super cluster can make stupid seem funnier than Mark Steyn.(2)

This passage alone makes it worth the read (about the fake “sign-language interpreter” at Nelson Mandela’s funeral):

But the star of the show was undoubtedly Thamsanqa Jantjie, the sign-language interpreter who stood alongside the world’s leaders and translated their eulogies for the deaf. Unfortunately, he translated them into total gibberish, reduced by the time of President Obama’s appearance to making random hand gestures, as who has not felt the urge to do during the great man’s speeches. Mr. Jantjie has now pleaded in mitigation that he was having a sudden hallucination because he is a violent schizophrenic. It has not been established whether he is, in fact, a violent schizophrenic, or, as with his claim to be a sign-language interpreter, merely purporting to be one. Asked how often he has been violent, he replied, somewhat cryptically, “A lot.”

Still, South African officials are furiously pointing fingers (appropriately enough) to account for how he wound up onstage. “I do not think he was just picked up off the street. He was from a school for the deaf,” Hendrietta Bogopane-Zulu, the Deputy Minister for Persons with Disability, assured the press. But the Deaf Federation of South Africa said it had previously complained about his nonsensical signing after an event last year. Mr. Jantjie was paid a grand total of $85 for his simultaneous translation of the speeches of the U.N. secretary-general, six presidents, the head of the African Union, and a dozen other dignitaries. Ms. Bogopane-Zulu notes that the going rate for signing in South Africa is $125 to $165. So she thinks a junior official may simply have awarded the contract to the lowest bid.

That would never happen in Washington, of course. But how heartening, as one watches the viral video of Obama droning on while a mere foot and a half away Mr. Jantjie rubs his belly and tickles his ear, to think that the White House’s usual money-no-object security operation went to the trouble of flying in Air Force One, plus the “decoy” Air Force One, plus support aircraft, plus the 120-vehicle motorcade or whatever it’s up to by now, plus a bazillion Secret Service agents with reflector shades and telephone wire dangling from their ears, to shepherd POTUS into the secured venue and then stand him onstage next to an $85-a-day violent schizophrenic. In the movie version—In the Sign of Fire—grizzled maverick Clint Eastwood will be the only guy to figure it out at the last minute and hurl himself at John Malkovich, as they roll into the orchestra pit with Malkovich furiously signing “Ow!” and “Eek!” But in real life I expect they’ll just double the motorcade to 240 vehicles and order up even more expensive reflector shades.

And this one from the same column absolutely made me chuckle, guffaw, belly-laugh out loud (ChuGuBLoL? Much better, I think, than mere “LOL.”):

Speaking of enjoying themselves, back in the VIP seats President Obama, Danish prime minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, and British prime minister David Cameron carried on like Harry, Hermione, and Ron snogging in the back row during the Hogwarts Quidditch Cup presentation. As the three leaders demonstrated their hands-on approach, Michelle Obama glowered straight ahead, as stony and merciless as the 15-foot statue of apartheid architect Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd that once stood guard outside the government offices of the Orange Free State. Eventually, weary of the trilateral smooching, the first lady switched seats and inserted herself between Barack and the vivacious Helle. How poignant that, on a day to celebrate the post-racial South Africa, the handsome young black man should have to be forcibly segregated from the cool Aryan blonde. For all the progress, as Obama himself pointed out, “our work is not yet done.”

And, finally:

Amidst all the jollity, one man was taking things awfully seriously. Ted Cruz ducked out of the service when Raúl Castro rose to speak. I confess I’m not quite sure about the etiquette of walking out during a funeral. Unlike Senator Cruz, whom I doubt Mandela had even heard of, the Castros were old friends. It seems a little churlish to show up at the funeral of a longtime Communist and complain that they’ve booked the president of Cuba. It would be like attending Obama’s funeral and complaining that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is officiating and Bill Ayers is singing “How Great Thou Art.” Surely Cruz could have done what Obama and Cameron did during the longueurs and found a Scandinavian prime minister to make out with.

You should understand that both Steyn and I are fans of Senator Cruz. One of us more than the other. We both, however, agree that replacing Barack Obama in the Oval Office with Ted Cruz would be like replacing a thick, plodding, dim-witted triceratops with a really bright guy.

Sit back, grab a glass of a good red, and savor a great read.

— xPraetorius



(1) – I know, I know, I know: “Codumbia” to keep the alliteration going. I thought it would seem as if I were trying too hard … which I was.

(2) – Yes, yes, yes, I know… the fact that the crashingly stupid ideas of the left are the ones that seem to carry the day, every freakin’ time is really sad! But still, one needs to laugh. It’s good for the soul(3), the health, the libido, the IQ, the heart, the waistline — it freakin’ makes you taller, and slimmer, and better-looking (if that’s even possible)(4) —  It’s good for everything!(5)

(3) – This statement has not been endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration, or by my parish priest.

(4) – This statement has not been endorsed by the Food and Drug Administration. Yet!

(5) – Alright, already! This statement also has not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Yet! (Man!)

NPR Watch – 6/22/15

I was listening to National Public Radio this late afternoon on my way home from work. Just ‘tween you ‘n me, they seem to be gettin’ just a tad desperate. This is an aside…not the topic of this NPR Watch feature, but I’ve been so struck lately by it, that I had to mention it as well.

Their feature was on “Climate Change,” and they pulled out all the stops. Melissa Block, one of the afternoon anchorettes, seemed genuinely puzzled as she asked some “reporter,” what was wrong with the “Climate Change deniers,” and might they be able to persuade the “deniers” by doing this or that, and what is motivating the “deniers,” and all that.

My aside: NPR considers “denier” to be a slur. “Denier” is not a label for them, it’s an accusation. To come out with “denier” — repeatedly — in the same “news” feature flushes out their agenda. In the piece, they made no bones about who were the good guys — people calling for “action against climate change” — and who were the bad: the “deniers.”

Now, I love a good propaganda piece as much as anyone else, but it’s downright funny how glaringly obvious it was that this particular feature was rather artless propaganda, and not anything resembling news.

Now, with the aside done, here’s the other thing the piece wasn’t: informative in any way.

In the feature, the “reporter” (I forget her name, and I was unable to locate the printed copy at said, rough quote, “Climate change will kill 57,000 people and cost 100 billion dollars before the century is over.”

Ooooookay. Sounds pretty bad, eh? Well, let’s run those numbers, shall we? We’re in 2015 now. That means there are about 84.5 years left in the century. 84.5 * 365 = 30,842.5. Let’s call it 30,000, to use round numbers… that’s approximately the number of days left in the century. Okay. 57,000 divided by 30,000 equals 1.9 people dying each day for the rest of the century.

Let’s follow the money now: 100 billion divided by 30,000 is the amount of money “lost to climate change” for the rest of the century. That represents every day about a third of Rhode Island’s daily budget.


Let’s think about that a bit. That means that automobile accidents are a vastly greater problem in America. Heart disease is a greater problem than climate change.

Guess what: at, on average, 1.9 deaths per day, jaywalking is a more serious problem than climate change.

Oh, and gum chewing. Yes, more people die from choking on chewing gun than are projected to die from climate change.

Know what else is worse than climate  change? Sleeping in such a way that you cut off blood flow to an extremity, causing yourself a fatal stroke. Also: bee stings, falls from rooftops, allergies of any kind, drowning, workplace accidents, and falls. And sneezing. Yes, more people die from sneezing each day than would die from your government’s projection of the deaths caused by climate change.

I hear you, I hear you… the 57,000 and 100 billion figures are annual figures. Well, are they? I don’t know. And you wouldn’t know either from NPR’s piece. The point is that NPR didn’t tell us over what time the death statistics and the dollar figure span.  They said, rough quote, “Climate change will kill 57,000 people and cost 100 billion dollars before the century is over.”

You tell me. What does that mean?

Which meant that the alarmist, no-doubt-about-who-the-bad-guys-are NPR piece told us … absolutely nothing.

Your tax dollars and mine pay for these schlocks.

— xPraetorius

All Due Respect, Mr. President, You’re an Idiot.

“We’re not cured of racism,” said President Obama, “it’s in our DNA.”

Nope. Wrong.

It’s not in my DNA, and your dirty, rotten, disgusting accusations have nothing to do with my family, or with my friends or any of my friends’ families…or with any of the vast majority of white families in America. Read this well, Mr. President, you bozo: we did defeat racism. Utterly and completely.

Is it gone completely from this country? No. But to defeat something completely, you don’t have to eradicate it from existence. It’s a state of mind. You can’t kill a state of mind, but you can make it so utterly outside the pale that no one dares to show it. In so doing, you defeat it. Completely. That’s what we did, Mr. President.(1)

Racism is not “in our DNA,” you blithering nitwit. It is, or it is not… taught. And in vast, overwhelming tsunamis of numbers, racism has not been taught to kids, by parents, by teachers, by friends’ and neighbors’ parents… by anyone. For generations. Why would I have to tell this to someone who pretends to be qualified to be the President of the United States? Are you that ignorant that you didn’t know this? This is not rocket science.

Or is there something much worse at work here? Did you really know it all along, but realize that you could flog the dead horse of white racism some more, and fool enough people to obtain power?

Frankly, I suspect as much.

Contrary to my headline, I’m not certain that you’re an idiot, Mr. President. You show that you’re an idiot, and the things you say are transparently moronic (remember how you said that the waters would stop rising if you became President?), but I think you regularly bank on the premise that you can say the most jaw-droppingly stupid things and people will simply let them pass because of the color of your skin.

Ironically, thereby proving my point. Maybe you’re not an idiot, Mr. President, but at best you’re a fraud.

We white Americans defeated racism in our ranks, Mr. President. Not only that, we defeated it in a tad more than a generation. Decades ago, we looked back at our behavior toward black Americans, and found it wanting, and we stopped it, and we defeated the state of mind that caused it.

Are there outliers? Of course there are. Are there still racists? Of course there are. But, the proof of what I say is in the shock and dismay with which everyone in the country greeted the terrible news from South Carolina. There were no exceptions.

The proof of what I say is in the ostracism that greets everyone and anyone, no exceptions, who shows himself to possess any animus whatsoever, no matter how mild, against black people. Go ahead, test my hypothesis.  I dare you, but you won’t, because you race addicts are cowards too.

Mr. President, it’s racialist hucksters and fraudsters like you, who keep the fires of racial hatred burning, and that’s simply despicable behavior on your part. You should be deeply ashamed. More than that, you owe me, and millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of good, decent Americans an apology for your loathsome accusation.

We’re sick and tired of being falsely accused of this — again and again and again and again and again — by clueless cretins like you. How would you feel if someone were to accuse all black people of being murderers or thieves or rapists or muggers based on the acts of one psychotic, or of a few psychotics?

I happen to know it would tick you off, since it’s a major faked complaint of today’s Race Grievance Industry.

It’s racialist frauds like you, Mr.President, and the rest of the Race Grievance Industry — who pretend that the acts of a lone psychotic can be extended to indict 190 million other white Americans — who keep racial hatred alive.

For your repugnant accusations, you owe the vast majority of 190 million white Americans, who are grieving as sincerely as anyone in the world for South Carolina, a sincere and humble apology. You owe the rest of America an apology for contributing to the continuation of racial hatred, based on the myth of widespread white racism in America.

I won’t count on it, though. You’re a Democrat, after all. The leadership of the Democrat Party is hopelessly corrupt — has been for decades. The moment you learned of this shooting, the first thought in your head, and in the head of every Democrat politician in America  was: “How can I use this to advance [fill in political agenda here]?”(2)

— xPraetorius


(1) – Don’t forget, there are constitutional considerations here. Racism may be a disreputable thing, but it is legal. I think that most Americans would prefer that it remain legal too.

(2) – Don’t laugh: this was how all prominent Democrats greeted the news of 9/11. The documentary proof is coming out slowly but surely. The scariest thing Democrats ever heard was: “The NSA has everyone’s e-mails since 1990.”

Despite Being a Woman (Part III)

Pursuant again to the Tim Hunt kerfuffle, which we covered here and here, this is the last post on the matter, I promise. Well, maybe. There might be some further fallout, in which case I’ll feel honor-bound to say something!

Here’s the background: Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt said the following at a conference in South Korea:

Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry.

Sir Tim was then cashiered from any and all positions of authority or influence he might have, and his distinguished career as a tip-top scientist came to a screeching halt.

My simple question in reaction: What if what Hunt said is largely true?

— xPraetorius

Despite Being a Woman (Part II)

Pursuant to the whole Tim Hunt kerfuffle — which we covered here — needless to say, Mark Steyn said it best, and in two short, devastating paragraphs.

By way of background, Nobel Prize winning scientist Tim Hunt said the following at a conference in South Korea:

Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab. You fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them, they cry.

Here’s Mark Steyn’s first reaction to it:

Not the funniest joke in the world, but the genius of a scientist is often inversely proportional to his social ease. So he did not anticipate that a throwaway line about how girls are so emotional about these things would result in the girls getting so emotional about these things.

Lol! Yep.

Here’s the second paragraph Steyn throws at this:

The Royal Society, the oldest learned society in the world but these days as modish as any social-justice Tweeter, is said to be irked that Sir Tim did not offer a more fulsome apology. Personally, I can’t see why he should apologize at all. If you don’t like his remarks, have at it. But, if you ask me which is worse – a society where old men make harmless démodé semi-jokes that no-one laughs at; or a society that utterly destroys a man for one such irrelevant aside – I know which I prefer: the latter is a profoundly evil place. [red highlight added] University College and the Royal Society should be ashamed.

Both paragraphs are on the nose, and cover the incident, and society’s current state, perfectly.

— xPraetorius

Despite Being a Woman

This is the place to which feminism has brought us all.

In India, the Prime Minister said something that caused anathema to rain down on his head. The upshot was that he was trying to praise the Bangladeshi Prime Minister, one Sheikh Hasina, who “despite being a woman,” he said, was admirably tough on terrorism.

Needless to say the response from woman all over the world was one of spittle-flecked outrage, scorn, sarcastic derision. Any feminist worth her salt immediately pronounced herself deeply offended.

Then somewhere in Europe one Tim Hunt, scientist and Nobel Laureate, said of women: “Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticize them, they cry.”

Wow! Needless to say, anathema had to be pronounced against this neanderthal, whose work and life, by the way, have never exhibited the slightest animus or prejudice against anyone. I know this because it’s common knowledge.

Same with the Prime Minister of India, whose work has never given the slightest hint of bias, or even mild disdain, toward women.

Women: get a grip! I’m a man, and I love you, more than I can ever say. It’s time, though, for you to hear some difficult truths.

Those of you who bought the past more than half-century of feminist flapdoodle have been acting like little spoiled brats; babies, lacking the maturity or character necessary to be contributing members of society.

You blanche at the slightest slight, the merest hint of a possibly misinterpretable word or phrase. You get all outraged — outraged! — at the thought that some man somewhere might exhibit even the teentsiest-weentsiest suggestion of a sign that his opinion toward women in general is anything less than jaw-agape awe and wonderment, anything less than sheer astonishment at your strength, at your wisdom, at your incredible abilities, your stupendous, unbelievable, powerful, sheer womanness.

News flash, women: we know that we have to act in public as if all women are titans of power and character and sturdy, unflagging steadfastness, simply being held back by us bumbling fools who, without you, wouldn’t be able to get out of our own ways. (That last isn’t too far from the truth, by the way. So’s the reverse.) But, behind the scenes, behind closed doors, conversing among ourselves, we men speak honestly, and we have nothing but eye-rolling disdain for the whining and the fragile, special needs, feebleness of feminism. That’s not sexism, it’s an accurate assessment of what feminism has done to society, to women and to men.

Neither sex could get along successfully without the other. Simple as that. We know that, you know that.

So we men act in work and in public as if women are all strong, and wise, and the only ones keeping the company, and the country, and the world from plunging into snarling anarchy, but every time women loudly and publicly get the vapors at these trivial things, we lose respect for those of you who do. Worse, we tend to worry that there are a whole lot more brainless bimbos like that around! At this point, in the view of most men, feminism has turned all too many women into whining, fragile, massively needy, sniveling wretches. Strength? Wisdom? In the minds of most men, things like the inability to poke fun at yourselves shows nothing more than feeble, self-absorbed, infantile nitwittery.

And that’s a real shame. Because women are not all whiny little half-wits. Some are, and it’s probably only the famous, the loud, the five-percent. But we have to act as if all are fragile little flowers in order to be sure to avoid offending the one self-obsessed, omphaloskepsistic nitwit among them.

The Indian Prime Minister said, “Despite being a woman … yada, yada, yada?” And that offended you?!? Seriously? If every woman were fired because she said something disparaging about men, there wouldn’t be a woman left in corporate America! I hear, “Well, he’s only a man.” Or, “What can you expect? He’s a man!” Or, “How would you/he know? He’s only a man!” Or, yep, “He did that despite being a man…” at least  three times a day!

Guess what: I laugh at it! Why? Because it’s funny! It reflects a simple reality in inter-sex relations. See, I know about man-woman relationships. There is a simple law, probably the First Lawboth sexes have a kind of general feeling that their own sex is a bit smarter, saner, stronger, more sensible, more reality-based, nicer, more civilized, wiser. Only, nowadays in western civilization has it become actual public policy that women are all those things more so than men. Despite the fact that men don’t believe it for a moment.

Another news flash: men went along with all this wackiness because they didn’t want to hurt or offend the fragile little women. That’s the only reason for the success of feminism’s whackadoodle ideology. Enough women fell for the whiny victimology, and the media pushed the Big Lie, but the only reason it all succeeded is because men rolled over for it.

It’s that idea chez men, that feminism will never be able to squash: that women need men’s protection, even now that we’ve tamed all the wildernesses and caged all the lions and bears that might threaten the family. So, when women seemed all to be whining about how horrible we men were, all we did was launch a massive effort at introspection and self-examination. Guess what: absent a few silly biases, with we quickly dispensed, we men came of that self-examination pretty darned good! At least western men did.

But, the feminists — those five-percent, whining, squeaky wheels — came along and pretended to speak for all women, and we men just said, “Uhhhh… okay. Whatever.” and went back to work, as we’d been doing for millennia. That was our mistake. With women’s cooperation, we should have simply reduced any silly barriers (only the silly ones, by the way) to employment or to elective office — most such barriers were imaginary anyway — and that was it.

But, here’s another news flash, women: Yes, you need our protection, and we’ve unstintingly provided it, but we’ve always needed your protection too. Not physically, but in the way that only women can provide for men: emotionally. It’s that protection that you’ve always provided that allowed us to be complete. To your everlasting discredit and shame, many of you allowed feminism to convince you to withdraw much of that protection, that support and vital sustenance. Should it be any surprise to you that while nodding their heads at all the women-are-strong this and women-are-wise that, and hear-us-roar the other thing, many men are really thinking, “Uhhh, yeah…not so much…“? Nod, nod, nod.

Why do we do this? Simple: a man can lose his job, his reputation, his entire livelihood, for demonstrating anything less than complete devotion to the idea that women are super-creatures, and definitely, absolutely, obviously superior to men.

But feminism is really nothing more  than just propaganda and politics. It can be defeated bv real men and real women pushing back and saying little more than, “That’s absurd.”

Men and women have always needed each other and always will. It’s long, long past time we all took a deep breath, told feminism to go back under the rock from which it crawled, leave us alone and let us get on with being people. And feminists: despite being women, I suspect you can grow up and take the proverbial chill pill. :)

All the way back to the top. What’s happened since the little kerfuffle about Modi and Hunt? Modi is still the Prime Minister of India, and indications are that his career will not be ovary damaged. Tim Hunt, however, was cashiered from all meaningful positions he held. In the Notes section, I’ve reproduced a portion of the Wikipedia entry for Hunt(1).

Oh, and about Hunt’s assertion? It’s not too far off from the truth in many workplaces. Yes, I have many, many personal, first- and second-hand observations supporting that assertion. Note that Hunt specified that he was talking about what happens in the lab. I’m guessing he just might know a little bit about that.

— xPraetorius


(1) Wikipedia on Tim Hunt:  Hunt was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society (FRS) in 1991 and a foreign associate of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 1999. In 2001, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine with Leland Hartwell and Sir Paul Nurse for their discoveries regarding cell cycle regulation by cyclin and cyclin-dependent kinases.[26] In 2006, he was awarded the Royal Medal for “discovering a key aspect of cell cycle control, the protein cyclin which is a component of cyclin dependent kinases, demonstrating his ability to grasp the significance of the result outside his immediate sphere of interest”.[27] He was also knighted in the 2006 Birthday Honours, and has said that he rarely uses the title ‘Sir’ and that it should not affect his scientific standing.[28] His nomination for the Royal Society reads:

Distinguished for his studies of the control of protein synthesis in animal cells and for the discovery of cyclin, a protein which regulates the eukaryotic cell cycle. Together with Jackson and their students, he defined steps in formation of the initiation complex in protein synthesis, showing that the 40S ribosomal subunit binds initiator tRNA before it binds mRNA, and that this step was the target of inhibitors such as double-stranded RNA or haem deficiency. They showed that inhibition of protein synthesis is mediated by reversible phosphorylation of initiation factoreIF-2 by two distinct protein kinases and they elucidated the unexpected roles of thioredoxin and thioredoxin reductase in protein synthesis. With Ruderman and Rosenthal, he demonstrated selective translational control of mRNA in early clam embryos. This led to Hunt’s discovery of cyclin as a protein which is selectively destroyed in mitosis. He subsequently cloned and sequenced cyclin cDNA from sea urchins and frogs and showed by elegant mRNA ablation experiments that cyclin translation is necessary for mitosis in frog embryos. He has also shown that cyclin is a subunit of the mitosis-promoting factor which regulates entry into mitosis. His discovery and characterization of cyclin are major contributions to our knowledge of cell cycle regulation in eukaryotic cells.[29]


Hunt is married to Mary Collins, who was also educated at the University of Cambridge. As of 2015, Collins is a professor of immunology at University College London.[30][31] They have two daughters.[1][30]

Doesn’t sound like a man who has any contempt for women. But that does sound like a dude who still has a lot to contribute to society. I mean, when was the last time you demonstrated selective translational control of mRNA in early clam embryos, or that you showed that inhibition of protein synthesis is mediated by reversible phosphorylation of initiation factoreIF-2 by two distinct protein kinases, or that you elucidated the unexpected roles of thioredoxin and thioredoxin reductase in protein synthesis? For Tim Hunt, that was: not all that long ago.

I’m Dead

Have you ever come home from work “more dead than alive?”

Have you ever answered “I’m dead” to the question, “How are you?” Indicating, of course, that you’re dog tired.

Have you ever been “dead tired?” Well, I certainly have.

However, recent events have made me re-think this. I never knew, until very recently, that if you simply  so “identified,” any man could be a woman and vice versa. From her mannish, lumpy cocoon, Caitlyn Jenner has emerged a beautiful woman butterfly. But, that’s not all. You can do this every day if you want! Switching from one to the other — or to still others! — as your awareness of your identity deems necessary. Facebook has indicated that you can be any of some 50+ “genders” whenever the awareness strikes you!

But wait, there’s more!

If you’re whiter than white, as I am, it turns out that you too can be black! Ask the redoubtable Rachel Dolezal who parlayed the lily whiteness underneath her pharmacy-bought tan into a position of great power in the Race Grievance Industry. When she was white-outed, she continued to insist that she’s black. Many black people have supported her! They, too, have insisted that one’s race is nothing more than an arbitrary social construct, based on nothing more substantial than the color of one’s skin.

You and I, they insist, should be able to be black, despite appearing white. Furthermore, call “Caitlyn” Jenner “he,” and you risk real vein-popping, spittle-flinging rage directed at you. How dare you question the sexual identification of someone?!? And, all this outrage is supported by nothing more than Bruce Jenner’s assertion that he’s not really Bruce Jenner, and never has been.


Why stop there?

All those times I thought I was engaging in quaint hyperbole when I answered “I’m dead,” to the question, “How are you?” Maybe I was right and I’m simply awakening now to a deeper understanding of my real self. I think I am dead! Or, post-living.

If, literally, black is white and white is black, and female is male and male is female, based on nothing more than the word of the one claiming it, when he/she/it/zhe is claiming it, then who are you to deny me my true post-living self? To deny me my very identity?

After all, if my color has nothing to do with my color, and if my sex is merely what I say it is, then my “animation status” is what I say it is too, and if you disagree, then you’re nothing more than a bigot  and a retrograde, neanderthal reactionary, patriarchal oppressor. I might look like a 6’4″ tall living white dude, but if I tell you I’m really a 5’2″ dead, black woman, just who the h*ll are you to tell me I’m not?!?

Furthermore, since my real color isn’t related to my actual color, and my real sex is what I say it is — despite all outward appearances, and the presence of two fine children — then “alive” and “dead,” obviously, are nothing more than arbitrarily-defined social constructs too! Go ahead, prove me wrong.

People oppress us using the disgusting, vile slur, “inanimate.” Think about it. How would you like to be called “inanimate,” as if you were nothing more than a mineral or an … object? We’re not the “i” word, we’re “Trans-animate.” We need to look upon the “i” word the same way we look upon the “n” word: as a vile, ugly slur.

If a man can know what it is to have been a woman all along, and a white person can know what it is to have been a black person in the wrong color body — things that on the surface seem ludicrous, laughable — then we, the once living can plainly know when we’re actually dead.

That I should even have to explain all this to you is unbelievable to me, and a real sign of how we must get rid of the oppressive male patriarchy that has dominated and squashed our thinking about the pre-dead, and us dead folks for so long. We need to get rid of it now!

It’s as plain as the fact that Caitlyn Jenner is a woman, that associating breathing, and eating, and moving around, and interacting and reacting only with the living, and not with us Trans-animate Americans too, is nothing more than bigoted discrimination born of hate.

I know, I know, if I’m dead, why should I care? Well, thank you very much, the discrimination against other Trans-animate Americans is beyond unbearable. I care! Okay? First of all, you assume, because I’m post-living, that I don’t care! Are you really trying to say that only the pre-Trans-animate can have feelings? Bigot! Unenlightened troglodyte! Transaniphobe!

Despite being dead, I happen to be quite able, and willing, I might add, to speak out against such narrow-minded discrimination, to stand up for my rights, as an oppressed minority. I will not be placed in a box in the ground. I will not be burned and turned into nothing more than ashes on my children’s respective mantel pieces. I will not be starved of food and air just because I’m dead. We Dead-Americans have taken this lying down for far too long!

As it turns out, my company has signed me up for a very generous life insurance policy — in excess of a million dollars! — and being dead, I think it only fair and just that I be able to collect that money. Yes, yes, yes, I know… it’s supposed to go to my kids, but that’s just because when I signed up, in the “Beneficiary” box, there was no option to write, “self.” That’s workplace discrimination.

I think that if other Americans with large insurance policies really were to think about it, they might realize that they’re dead too, and they just might want to join our movement. Then we Trans-animate Americans could go down to Washington and make our elected representatives see.

There’s lots and lots of evidence to support my claim. We Trans-animate Americans have established a strong tradition of civic involvement. In Chicago we made the difference in the Presidential election of 1960! And we’re sure to fulfill our civic responsibility whenever Election Day rolls around and the Democrat candidate is worried about a close race.

Let’s be clear about one thing, though: we are not zombies. Zombies are an unkempt, slovenly bunch, with disgusting dietary and sanitation habits. Associating such folks with real Trans-animate Americans is racist and we won’t stand for it.

People will ask me, is Trans-animation a disability? No. It’s a different ability. We Trans-animates have a different, deeper perspective on life, because we’ve viewed it from both the inside and the outside.

Already I hear you intolerant, right-wing nut, dogmatic, zealots: “But,” you’ll say, “if we were to open up the coffins in the ground, there’d be nothing but bones in there!”

Oh? How do you know? Who are you to decide? Why, up until only a few years ago, we didn’t even know that a man could be a woman and vice versa, and that a white person could be black merely because they said so! Today all that is as plain as the nose on your face, and we learned it only very recently.

Who are you to suggest that those Trans-animates you buried in possibly the worst human rights violation in history — are not simply in a deep meditative state? Maybe they’re just figuring things out. We Trans-animates who haven’t yet entered into the Great Meditation (as I like to call it) need food, air, rest, relaxation, money, leisure time to prepare to do the vital work of the Trans-animate on Election Day.

It’s nothing less than the Civil Rights issue of our time, to bring justice, money, fairness  and equal rights to all Trans-animates in America and around the world. Our demands are reasonable:

  1. Give us all the money from all our life insurance policies. It’s our money after all!
  2. No taxation on that money. We’ve been victimized enough. Do you really want to tax the dead? What kind of prejudiced, greedy, cruel dastard are you?
  3. We want our Social Security paid to us as a lump sum. After all, we didn’t live long enough to collect it. It’s only fair that we get it all after we identify as Trans-animate.

Not to give us our very reasonable demands, and begin to erase millennia of discrimination against us Trans-animates, is nothing more nor less than transaniphobic bigotry.

Once we’ve achieved those objectives, I plan to launch a Trans-animate Marriage Equality (TAME) movement. True marriage equality can be achieved only when we oppressed Trans-animates can marry and have families of our own.

And, here’s what’s the most amazing thing: Those of us who identify as Trans-animate before beginning the Great Meditation, can produce children! Even if our partner identifies as Trans-animate too! This is a vital piece of information, because we can now find out whether Trans-Animation is genetic or learned. By all appearances, the children born to Trans-animates are actually living children, who identify as pre-dead.

So, what do you think? Are you dead too? Go check your insurance policies to find out.

— xPraetorius

Mark Steyn Does It Again!

He is nothing less than the finest contemporary commentator in the world.

In one succinct paragraph in this post, he says a number of things we’ve been saying for some time. As usual, however, he says it better. He is the absolute unparalleled king of the bon mot.

Here’s the paragraph:

And, while Asghar sounds nutty to us, are we entirely confident we sound all that sane to him and his ilk? Imagine if you’re some upcountry imam in Waziristan taking time out from your child bride to catch up with current events via the BBC World Service: The most glamorous woman in America has a penis in her bustier, for which she gets the Arthur Ashe Courage Award. A white lady blacks her face every morning and goes off to her job as president of the local African-American grievance-mongering society. The most lucrative public-speaking engagements on the planet are 20-minute million-dollar talks on African diarrhea, and the wife of the man who pockets the check is running for president on her opposition to income inequality and the rapacious one per cent.

Do yourself a favor and read the entire post. Steyn doesn’t do fluff; it’s all spectacularly readable and a generally hilarious take on the really serious issues of the day.

I pointed out the above paragraph, because in it Steyn does what we consider it our mission to do here at our small but increasingly influential think tank: Distill the complex out of issues and present them in ways that bring greater comprehension. In this way, for example, we addressed the “Caitlyn Jenner” flap by suggesting that we muse on what a long-in-the-future archaeologist might conclude about Jenner’s sex upon discovering the mortal remains of “Caitlyn.”

In the above excerpt, Steyn mentioned one Asghar Bukhari who, upon waking one day, and being unable to find one shoe, immediately concluded that some anonymous intruder had entered his residence the previous evening, and stolen just the one shoe in order to strike fear into his heart.

However, in the same paragraph Steyn manages to cover the peregrinations of one Bruce Jenner, as we did. Only better.

In the same paragraph, he covered Rachel Dolezal as well, and while we characterized her organization as part of the “Race Grievance Industry,” Steyn says: “the local African-American grievance-mongering society.” See? No one can say it like Steyn! And we said it pretty well!

Needless to say, we’ve been less than kind to her Hillariness, but Steyn manages to sum the entire ridiculous ridiculosity and the absurd absurdity of all that she stands for in a few perfectly-placed words. Top, I dare you, this: “The most lucrative public-speaking engagements on the planet are 20-minute million-dollar talks on African diarrhea, and the wife of the man who pockets the check is running for president on her opposition to income inequality and the rapacious one per cent.”

Mark Steyn is a national treasure — even if he’s Canada’s national treasure. Really, he’s a world treasure. If you view his speech here, you’ll understand why. It’s down at the bottom of the post, and about 25 minutes into the video. It’s at once hilarious, completely Steynian, and highly revealing.

— xPraetorius

Some Thoughts on the Murders in South Carolina

  • Christians covered the ugliness of murder with the healing balm of forgiveness. That was an act of indescribable beauty.

Now to the seamier side of the reactions to this terrible thing.

  • Black lives matter. For good or ill, they matter more than other lives in America. Condemnation of this terrible incident and of its perpetrator were unanimous. However, if this terrible incident had been racially reversed, if a black man had murdered nine white people in a church, the left would have fallen all over themselves to search for “root causes,” to place blame on Conservatives for the depraved acts of a deranged madman. How do I know this? They do it all the time now. When the media forget about this horrible incident, as they will in a week or so, we’ll still be left with the depressing fact that black Americans continue to kill each other at a far greater rate than the South Carolina psychotic could even dream of. They’ve been doing it for years, and the left-wing media have ignored it for just as long. Black lives matter. All lives matter. Just not to the American left.
  • The left rushed to blame Conservatives for the ugliness in South Carolina, but if any political tendency contributed to Roof’s acts, it is the American left, whose efforts and words goaded Roof to his act. How’s that you say? Well, all accounts say that the shooter said something about how “you rape our women and are taking over our country.” But, who is it who infantilizes black Americans? Who excuses anything and everything that black criminals do when they do it, insisting that we look to causes other than a real person acting badly? Whose policies have annihilated the black family inevitably producing crushing dependence on state services? Whose rhetoric has told black Americans that they are not responsible for their own failures, or their own acts, but rather it is white people’s racism holding them back? Whose rhetoric and policies have thereby relentlessly stoked racial hatred for decades? Whose doctrines have owned American cities for decades and transformed them into hellholes and war zones? Read this well: there is not a single Conservative commentator, or FOX news personality who has ever advocated the racist policies of the left, who has ever suggested anything that could possibly be construed as supporting the idea that black Americans are “raping our women and taking over our country.” Ever. Know how I know that? Simple. Think about it. If such a personality had ever even come close to saying such a thing, it would instantly become headlines in all the left-wing media. There have never been such headlines, only constant innuendo and unsubstantiated slanders. Therefore, you can know perfectly well that the American right has never advanced these messages. Therefore these messages are coming from the left. Read this well too: If Dylann Roof somehow “got” messages that black people are “raping our women and taking our country” he got them from the left. You and I both know this.
  • In that light, someone tried to advance the idea that young Roof is a Republican. Really? When was the last time you ever got the impression that the Republican Party was the party of American white trash like Roof? The party of the low-lifes and the low-functioning, of the uneducated and the undereducated, of the whiners and the snivelers, of the failures and the losers-looking-for-an-excuse-for-their-failure is, obviously, not the Republican Party. The losers can become Republicans when they grow up, and recognize that America is the land of opportunity, and that there’s no reason for anyone of any background whatsoever to fail in America except if he simply doesn’t try. It is the American left doing its level best to convince black Americans that they just can’t make it so there’s no point in even trying, and all that remains for them is to seethe in resentment and to demand free stuff and, oh yes … vote Democrat.
  • There is only one message one can derive from this: The American left do not mind it when black people die. After all, why let a good tragedy go to waste, right? It’s worth repeating: The American left do not mind it when black people die.
  • The only people sticking up for black people — in poverty, in the cities, in distress, in despair — are Conservatives. We Conservatives have always treated black Americans like real people, like people-in-full. Like people fully endowed with all the characteristics, the good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly, the rights and responsibilties, of real human beings.
  • Needless to say, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton leaped to make it all political. It reminded me of this. This is a characteristic of the American left: they view everything through one lens: “How can this thing, whatever it is, contribute to my/our taking/keeping power?”

— xPraetorius

Victims’ Families Forgive the Accused Murderer

Yesterday, as accused mass murderer Dylann Roof stood isolated behind television cameras, the victims of his psychotic spree, through their tears, forgave the depraved monster who took the lives of their loved ones.

Let no one ever say again that in Christianity there is anything but goodness and decency, mercy, kindness, compassion and true love.

We hear these stories all the time, and at the same time we hear people, like the President, trying to say that, well, really, islam and Christianity are essentially just the same thing.

Tell me, when was the last time you heard of any muslims offering forgiveness for the acts of another?

Me either.

In South Carolina yesterday, beautiful people showed the real beauty at the heart of Christianity: the pure, forgiving, redeeming heart of Jesus, whose love for all us very much fallen sinners is unconditional and complete.

A murderer took the lives of nine beautiful people, and the heartbroken families of those beautiful people took that awful act and produced poignant sweetness from it.

We hear stories all the time of people who look into the yawning abyss of what seems to be insurmountable grief and despair, then step back from bitterness to embrace life with a deepened understanding of the preciousness of life, and with a real, deep joy. There is only one way to do that, and that is using the example of the unconditional love of Christ, which gives us all the sure faith that we we’ll see our loved ones again in Heaven.

We can’t bring them back, but they are in a better place, and we will see them again, along with all the rest of our mothers and fathers, our brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, our friends and loved ones, who have gone before us.

Only Christians know and understand the bigger picture, what I call the “ten-thousand year picture,” the understanding that no matter our thrashings here on earth, in ten thousand years, we’ll all be gone and, yes, it does matter how we live our lives, and end our days, but with the redemption of Jesus, we know how we’ll live eternally: in joy and love, and with the peace that passeth all understanding.

Only Christians can take what seems like overwhelming ugliness, and with that deeper understanding of life, produce from it splendor, grace, love … simple, deep, transcendent beauty.

Christians looked at the face of a monster and defeated it. One is left to understand that, no matter the legal fate of Dylann Roof, no one could impose a harsher penalty on him than will the inevitable understanding of the depravity of his act, contrasted with the beauty of the families’ forgiveness offered without condition to him.

— xPraetorius

A Modest Question

Quick question about “Caitlyn” Jenner: Do we have anything at all, other than Jenner’s assertion, to indicate that he’s a woman?

Anything at all? Anything scientific? Anything serious? Anything that’s more than just opinion? Or wishful thinking?

I’m not aware of any such evidence, but I could be wrong.

Heck, I don’t even need proof! But, could someone please point me to something at least vaguely convincing? Something? Anything?

Absent such input to the whole story, it’s embarrassing to call Bruce Jenner a woman. If I were to do so, I can’t shake the skin-crawling impression that I’d be buying into being hoodwinked.

Occam’s Razor is not going to be kind to the whole “Bruce Jenner is a woman” idea.

So, again, absent such substantive input to the Bruce Jenner story, I’m going to refer to him as he is: a man.

— xPraetorius

The Breathtaking Dishonesty of the RGI (Part II)

In this post, I pointed out the fundamental dishonesty of the Race Grievance Industry. In that column, I had this passage:

“My prob w/ #Transracial: Black folk cant decide to be white when the cops raid their pool party. But a white woman can be NAACP president.” [This is glib, but irrelevant, and a false analogy. This is Abagond’s lie. Or, the lie that he passes along, that, presumably, he knows is a lie. The “pool party” was really a brawl that resulted when a bunch of kids invaded a private pool where they were not allowed. When asked to leave, the youngsters refused and a brawl broke out, resulting in the infamous video of now ex-Corporal Casebolt restraining the black girl.]

The initial part, in black font, was from a piece in Abagond’s blog that I was critiquing. The part in red font was the beginning of my response to the quote. It was the part that dealt with ex-Corporal Casebolt and the alleged “pool party.”

I left out a really important point: If the girl in whose back Casebolt rested his knee had been white, we’d never have heard a single thing about the incident, and Casebolt would still be gainfully employed as a Law Enforcement Officer.

Think what you will about the incident, and whether or not Casebolt used excessive force, but his real “crime” was in using any force at all against a black girl.

It’s worth repeating: had the girl been white, we never would have heard a thing about the incident, even with the existence of the video.

Interpret that as you will, but one thing ought to be quite clear: the country has no general hostility toward black people at all, but rather is hyper-sensitive to be sure to treat all black Americans with fairness and solicitude. In other words, the “Black Lives Matter” movement got it wrong. America has long felt that black lives matter more than others.

— xPraetorius

The Left Argue Against Themselves

In one’s blogging life, one tries to learn — and learn, and learn and learn. It’s what keeps the blog posts coming. One thing, though, has stuck with me from nearly the very beginning of my conscious life.

It’s something that I’ve wondered about since I was very young. It stood out to me like the proverbial sore thumb when I was growing up. And no one seemed to notice it. It was such a sore thumb-like thing that for years I figured simply that I was wrong, or missing something.


I wasn’t missing anything.

Here’s what stuck out like a sore thumb for my much younger self: In the 1960’s, we were treated to the spectacle of thousands and thousands of demonstrators screaming at the top of their lungs about how horrible and oppressive America was.

I wondered at that. Surely, I thought, an oppressive country wouldn’t allow anyone to yell so loudly and publicly about how oppressive the country was. The shrieks about American oppression stood out in really stark contrast to how the most innocuous of protesters were treated elsewhere in the world.

In the Soviet Union, for example, the mildest reaction by the government was to throw any dissenters into an insane asylum.

In the then Soviet Union and Red China, protest usually meant death or disappearance into a people-munching gulag. In countries throughout the world, protesters could count on severe consequences if arrested. But not in America.

Protesters in America, in the 1960’s, could count on sleeping safely and securely in their own beds after a busy day of protesting against American “oppression.”

I’ve come up with several reasons for this really strange contradiction:

  • The protesters were really ignorant and stupid.
  • The protesters counted on the ignorance or indifference of the American people.
  • The protesters counted on the ignorance or indifference of the American media.
  • The protesters counted on the active, knowing assistance of the American media.
  • The protesters counted on states-of-mind like my own – recognizing the contradiction, but figuring that we were simply missing something.
  • Variations of the “Big Lie” theory.

And finally, my conclusion:

  • All of the above.

Well, if I’m right, then there should be a lot of Big Lies floating around out there. We should be able to spot them pretty easily if they’re as obvious as the one I discerned in my childhood days.

It turns out that there are such Big Lies floating around out there. Each of these Big Lies should be debunkable pretty simply, by an assertion similar to the one I proposed above: “An oppressive country would never allow people to proclaim publicly how oppressive the country is.”

An important note about these convincing debunking arguments: They do not involve statistics and studies and articles, and books. They involve what I call thought exercises. Each assertion by someone automatically spawns other conclusions: So, for example, in an oppressive country, you should not be able to hear of people protesting against oppression. Simple as that.

We Conservatives should be able to arm ourselves with these debunking thoughts, and challenge the left to answer to them. Something like: “Go ahead, you tell me how it is that in this so-called oppressive country, you’re allowed to holler at the top of your lungs about just how oppressive it is, without the slightest fear of negative repercussions!”

There is no answer to that, which doesn’t involve wild conspiracy theories like, “Well, they do that to placate the masses and vent off steam.” The answer to that is simple as well: “We call a country that placates the masses and allows them to blow off steam a ‘free country’.” You could follow that up with something like: “Go ahead, just try to ‘vent some steam’ in North Korea, or China, or Cuba, or Venezuela, or Vietnam or Saudi Arabia, or Iran…etc.” but it would be almost unfair.

Each of the Big Lies out there has such devastating counter-arguments for which, generally, there is not a response. Some Big Lies have many such counters. Here are some possible examples:

Big Lie

Counter Argument

America is an oppressive country Debunking thought: No oppressive country allows anyone to claim publicly that it is an oppressive country
America is a racist country Debunking thought: No racist country allows anyone to claim publicly that it is a racist country
America is a racist country Debunking thought: No one from the races complaining about “racism” is trying to leave the country. To the contrary, people of the same race are trying desperately to get into America.
Capitalism is unfair! It leaves people behind. Debunking thought: There are no mass movements trying to get into any socialist countries. There never have been any such movements. Supporting fact: The only countries ever to enjoy long periods of prosperity and to take care of the poor are capitalist countries.
Capitalism is unfair! It leaves people behind. Debunking thought: Shouldn’t a fair country foster the economic dynamism that allows all the people, in whose names socialists always claim to speak, to prosper? Yet, how would such a country do that, without allowing the people real economic freedom? Supporting facts: No socialist country has ever had a successful economy. China is not an exception. It was the introduction of capitalism that launched their rise to the status of world economic leader. Before that, as a communist country, China was an economic basket case groaning under a murderous, bloody, truly oppressive régime.Even more to the point, those capitalist countries that have introduced progressive, creeping socialism have all begun to decline at precisely the same time as they have made the reforms.
Abortion: it’s my body, it’s my choice. Debunking thought: What if “it” is a baby? Supporting fact: Science is fast turning the very idea of abortion into a stomach-churning thought.

Those are just a few off the top of my head. They need some vigorous wordsmithing but you get the idea. There are more; many, many more.

Like the “oppressive America” fabrication, the other tenets of the American left are almost always debunkable at a very basic level, as demonstrated above. Yet, we  Conservatives tend to try to argue against them with complexity; with statistics, studies, graphs and charts and all that. While these things all have their place, they represent an effort to overthink things, and that springs the trap that the left sets: No one can beat them in a war of words, because they’re the ultimate demagogues. They have no real arguments, but no one can beat the left for the ability to produce a veritable blizzard of weasel words and high-sounding, noble-seeming blather in support of mountains of substanceless flapdoodle and hogwash.

— xPraetorius


We Were Really Prescient!

In this post: Boy, did we call it!!!

That’s where we said things like:

Obama has declared that a decade’s worth of wars is coming to an end. He’s referring, of course, to American involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, where George W. Bush gave more than sixty-million people the opportunity to lead significantly better lives…and Obama is considering turning those countries back over to the previous owners.

That was nearly two and a half years ago, and what has happened since then? How’s Iraq doing?

Obama has said a simple truth, but he used it either stupidly or dishonestly. He’d said that, at some point, the Iraqis have to take care of themselves. That’s the truth. A companion truth, however, is that a people can do that only when they’re ready to.

After World War II, the same assertion was also true: The Germans and Japanese, after being devastated by the war, needed to be able to take care of themselves too. And so they did.

But how? Simple: after the war, Japan benefited from one crucial thing: a period of time during which General Douglas MacArthur served as a benevolent governor giving the Japanese the experience of democracy, as well as one other crucial element: a fine Constitution.(1) MacArthur is revered to this day in Japan.

All these elements made it possible for the Japanese to learn to live under democracy.

Likewise in Germany after the war. A benevolent occupation, as well as conspicuous assistance from one-time enemy America resulted in the German people’s embrace of democracy.

American follow-through after the war caused Germany and Japan to become two of the most stable, prosperous, free, dynamic countries in the history of the world!(2)

We did one more thing for Germany and Japan that we failed to do in Iraq: we established a protective umbrella over both countries that allowed them to have real confidence that they could re-build in security. We did this with solid alliances as well as a strong military/administrative presence in the country. Looking back at the geopolitical map of the day, it was plainly in America’s vital national interests to do so.

Looking today at the map of the Middle East, how on earth did anyone in Washington fail to recognize how vital a stable, friendly, democratic, prosperous Iraq is? That was a blunder of such massive proportions that its repercussions will smash through day-to-day America for decades.

Because Obama — against the advice of just about everyone — abandoned Iraq to savages like ISIS, the entire region risks becoming a massive base for psychotic lunatics screaming “Allahu Akbar!” as they murder as many millions as they can.

It makes the question: “Has Obama doomed millions of New Yorkers?” particularly urgent. It’s even more vital that people as short-sighted, as naive, ill-informed, dogmatic, dishonest, narrow-minded and, simply, unintelligent, as Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, not have real input to determining the answer to the question.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Here’s the Wikipedia entry on the Japanese Constitution:

In 1946, MacArthur’s staff drafted a new constitution that renounced war and stripped the Emperor of his military authority. The constitution—which became effective on 3 May 1947—instituted a parliamentary system of government, under which the Emperor acted only on the advice of his ministers. It included the famous Article 9, which outlawed belligerency as an instrument of state policy and the maintenance of a standing army. The constitution also enfranchised women, guaranteed fundamental human rights, outlawed racial discrimination, strengthened the powers of Parliament and the Cabinet, and decentralized the police and local government.[230]

(2) – A funny book and movie — The Mouse That Roared — came out after World War II. In the book, the leadership of the tiny country of Grand Fenwick decides that the best way to obtain prosperity is to declare war on the United States, surrender quickly, then bask in the vast American aid that would come their way.


The Breathtaking Dishonesty of the RGI

As you know, a pet project of mine is to study the Race Grievance Industry. This is the group that whines operatically about white racism, and imagines vast, horrific oppression of black people in America. If you read their output, you’d swear that you live in a hellish, blighted land, not far removed form Nazi Germany, rather than the freest, most prosperous, most-opportunity-laden country in the history of the world.

The oppression and abuse, once real, are now however, relegated to the distant past, long replaced by an aggressive and comprehensive effort by white Americans to atone for their past wrongs and make things right. The problem: the myth that somehow vast, thoroughgoing white racism survived right alongside the transparent, open repentance by white Americans. Not only, says the myth, did white racism survive, but it thrived, and continues to grow.

Part of the reason for this disconnect is a vast propaganda complex including the media who largely buy in to the myth, Hollywood who constantly flog the myth, academia who teach the myth, and pop culture whose drones constantly warble and chirp about it in songs and raps and videos and television shows and preachy commercials.

As we’ve mentioned in these pages more than once, the facts of life are Conservative, but society’s white noise is overwhelmingly leftist.(1)

One other aspect of the vast propaganda machine that allows the Race Grievance Industry to exist is the internet. On the internet, there are countless blogs and web sites devoted to keeping the myth alive and flourishing. We’ve interacted with several of them in the past couple of years and found a closed, narrow-minded, petty, deeply racist crowd, completely unable to mount a coherent argument in support of the myth.

Here’s (BrothaWolf) one of those racist blogs. Here’s (Abagond) another. We’ve interacted with both, and been banned from both.

Our debate opponents in these interactions had one strategy in the face of arguments against the myth: at all costs avoid responding substantively to the dissent. Rather, in support of that strategy, they liberally used the following tactics: Shout down and censor the skeptic, dissemble, evade, insult, accuse, question the character, knowledge, honesty, education, motives and sanity of the dissenter.

Oh, and one more tactic: bald-faced lies. Below, I’ve reproduced a post from the above-mentioned Abagond. It’s chock full of a steaming mess of paranoia, racism, unsubstantiated conclusions and … lies.

Using the technique we pioneered in these pages, we have reproduced Abagond’s post, and included our own comments in-line, in square brackets and in red font.

* * * BEGINNING of Abagond’s Blog Post * * *

Rachel Dolezal


Rachel Doležal (1977- ) is the head of the NAACP in Spokane, Washington and a professor of Africana and African American studies at Eastern Washington University. [There’s a path to success and prosperity in America: a degree in Africana or African American Studies! I don’t want to denigrate completely a fluff degree like “African American Studies.” A college degree does indicate that the diploma holder is trainable. Not an insignificant trait in America today. I have a liberal arts degree (summa cum laude) and have had a long career in Information Technology. The truth must, however, be told: I lucked into the work by demonstrating an aptitude for computers while unsuccessfully searching for work related to my college education.] Most people thought she was Black – until her estranged parents in Montana outed her as White on Thursday June 11th 2015.

When a reporter asked her about it, she fled. The video went viral. As Twitter went nuts, the NAACP met to discuss.

Plenty of Black people pass as White, either full-time or part-time. But Whites passing as Black is rare. In the 1990s, Joshua Solomon tried it and could not even last a month – not because he was outed but because the loss of White privilege was unbearable. [The first unsubstantiated conclusion: Joshua Solomon’s experience proved only one thing: that Joshua Solomon “could not even last a month.” It says nothing of anyone else. Obviously, Rachel Dolezal’s experience — white girl pretending to be black, thrives and prospers — entirely disproves Abagond’s conclusion. As we’ve said many times now in these pages: you can use the words of the left against them. They automatically prove themselves wrong. Just by talking. You can spot it, if you’re alert.]


Her motive is unclear, so the whole thing is strange. [Her motives may not be all that unclear. Apparently by claiming falsely to be black, she was able to obtain a free education,  a full-boat scholarship to Howard University! Not bad! My daughter had to join the Army to cover her tuition at college, when all along, all she needed to do was pretend to be black! ] You do not have to be Black to join the NAACP. Just ask Joe Biden. [So, let me get this straight. Right here in the racist hellhole that is America, the two most powerful men in the world are a black man, and his Vice-President, a member of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People? Some oppression! Some racism! As I’ve often said: you don’t have to read too much to see that the left cannot make its case here, without completely disproving its case over there. You just have to be ready to spot it.] There is even someone the same rank as her in Louisiana who is White. Likewise, there are plenty of professors who teach African American studies who are White. If anything, passing as Black greatly limited the effect she could have on the broader society. Just ask Tim Wise. [Second unsubstantiated conclusion. Abagond just says that “passing as Black greatly limited the effect she could have had on the broader society.” Yet, Rachel Dolezal’s story contradicts that conclusion completely. She’s the President of a chapter of the most powerful organization in the vastly powerful Race Grievance Industry. Dolezal and Tim Wise have prospered in America. Needless to say, there are millions of other black Americans who have prospered in America as well. Do the names Barack, Lebron, Denzel mean anything to you? There’s no indication that these black Americans had to work harder than anyone else to attain the vast power and wealth they have now. Check out the names of mayors of major cities in America for the past 60 or so years.]


rachel3_t620-1Her parents showed pictures of her as a girl: straight blonde hair, blue eyes and freckles. They say she is Czech, German and Swedish with a touch of Native American, but that she has somehow been passing for Black or biracial since about 2006 or 2007. They say she is lying about way more than just her race. There is some kind of family fight going on, something about abuse. [Oops! Look out! It’s daddy’s fault! It always is. Remember, as a woman, this leftist is also a member in good standing of the Gender Grievance Industry. She’s a two-fer!]

She says she considers herself Black (she does not like the term African American) and is willing to take a DNA test to prove it. She says that the question of her race is a matter between her and the NAACP and Black people. She does not care what White people think and, in any case, she doubts they would understand any answer she would give. [Well, in response to the only question publicly posed to her so far — “Are you an African-American?” — she said: “I don’t understand your question.” Can anyone blame anyone else for not “understanding” that answer?]

The NAACP, as of Friday afternoon, is standing behind her. The head of the NAACP for Oregon, Washington and Alaska  says that she is a good leader, the best Spokane has had in years, that her race is not what matters.

She is also on a city commission that oversees the trigger-happy Spokane police. [“Trigger-happy” Spokane police? Really? What evidence permits that incendiary accusation? What indication have you ever had that the Spokane PD are “trigger-happy?” Nothing I’ve ever heard of. Yet, Abagond just tosses this off as if it were a given. It is, though, nothing more than his third unsubstantiated conclusion.] When she applied for that position she marked her race as White, Black and Native.

All this takes place in the age of Caitlyn Jenner and Raven-Symone.

Raven-Symone, a “New Black”, distances herself from Black people. That is the opposite of what Dolezal does.

Caitlyn Jenner is a woman who was once a man: Bruce Jenner, the Olympic gold medal winner. Some argue that if Jenner can choose her gender, then why can’t Dolezal choose her race? If there are transgender people, then why not transracial ones?

The huge hole in that was pointed out on Twitter by @lizzo:

“My prob w/ #Transracial: Black folk cant decide to be white when the cops raid their pool party. But a white woman can be NAACP president.” [This is glib, but irrelevant, and a false analogy. This is Abagond’s lie. Or, the lie that he passes along, that, presumably, he knows is a lie. The “pool party” was really a brawl that resulted when a bunch of kids invaded a private pool where they were not allowed. When asked to leave, the youngsters refused and a brawl broke out, resulting in the infamous video of now ex-Corporal Casebolt restraining the black girl.

About the “transracial” thing: if there are transgender people, then of course there can — easily — be transracial people. Let’s face it, it’s a whole heckuva lot tougher to pass the wackiness that a man is a woman or vice versa merely because of how he feels at the time.  

Think about it: How tough could it be to change just the color of your skin, compared with going against the physical makeup of every cell in your body, and denying that your genitals are what they are, and either adding or somehow subtracting large glands on your chest, and artificially changing the chemical/hormonal composition of your body every day for the rest of your life?

If we can believe all that, changes a man into a woman and vice versa — as Abagond does(3) — then it’d be child’s play — and seven bucks or so for this stuff — to switch races, whenever the whim — or the opportunity — presents itself.

“Opportunity,” you say? Yes, “opportunity.” A free education at a prestigious education is quite a perk. 

Having trouble getting hired, or getting approved for a loan, or getting into college because of your race? No problem! Simply “identify” as black and allow your potential employer or the bank, or the university, to get its “Affirmative Action” numbers up! Heck if it really were to become inconvenient later, just switch back! Remember, all that counts is how you feel. ]

– Abagond, 2015.

* * * END of Abagond’s Blog Post * * *

Look, Rachel Dolezal plainly has serious issues, but so does the entire Race Grievance Industry. We bear no ill will toward her, but simply make the observation that if she’s lying about a pretty fundamental part of who she is, then she’s certainly lied elsewhere. However, she’s in good company. The RGI itself is overloaded with race-mongering fraudsters, scamsters, hoaxsters, propagandists and liars, all out to make a buck by spreading racial hatred and division in America. As the NAACP clearly demonstrated by leaping to Dolezal’s defense, she fits in just fine with them.

— xPraetorius


(1) – We also demonstrated how the Conservative message is the better thought-out message. Why? Because every Conservative has to take into account both his own thinking and the vast, daily tsunami of warm leftist spittle washing over them 24/7/365. No leftist is ever forced to challenge his own ideas and beliefs in America today. The result is that the left has become intellectually lazy, and their ideas, unchallenged and unworked, have become fat, flaccid and flabby.

(2) – As mentioned before several times, we would not have resorted to this tactic if the blog owners had not  banned us from their pages. Can you imagine it? Someone puts out a blog for the whole world to see then is thoroughly nonplussed when someone disagrees with him! So, what does he do? Why, in grand leftist fashion, he censors the dissenter of course! Needless to say, if the ban were not present, we would not resort to this technique.

(3) – He asserts — as fact — that “Caitlyn Jenner is [emphasis added] a woman who was once a man.”

NPR Watch (6/10/15) (Part II)

Leave it to the great Mark Steyn to say what we said, only better. Mark Steyn could write about paint drying and it would be the best thing you could read that day; possibly that entire month, with the only thing topping it being the next thing he writes.

Here, Steyn writes about what we covered here. The entire column is worth reading, but Steyn begins his discourse on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) books cooking about half-way down with this delicious intro paragraph:

But no, just in time for the conference, Big Climate has announced it’s business as usual: The warm-mongers have declared that there is, in fact, no warming “pause”, no “hiatus”. Sure, the thermometers said the whole planet-broiling thing from the mid Nineties has ground to a halt – but that was before NOAA “adjusted” its figures. And, as I said on Rush, NOAA’s are the most dramatically adjusted figures since, well, Caitlyn Jenner’s(1) three days earlier. Be that as it may, Judith Curry is not impressed.

He then goes on to say that even the media, already long-time water-carriers for the global warming hoaxsters, were less than impressed by NOAA’s rather transparent attempt to change history.

Just a bit later, Steyn quotes another global warming skeptic, Anthony Watts of  the owner of, who says:

“In the business and trading world, people go to jail for such manipulations of data.”


Every billion dollars taken out of your pockets and mine to “fight climate change” is a billion dollars stolen from us, then wasted not on a worthy cause, but on making a bunch of lying, dirtbag, fraudster leftists(1) rich.



(1) – Only Mark Steyn could make a reference to Caitlyn Jenner in the context of a global warming piece. And it’s perfect! Steyn could tie the Three Stooges with global warming and it would work. Oh, wait…too late.

(2) -The qualifiers are probably unnecessary. They’re a bit like saying “some rich, wealthy, affluent billionaires.” I left ’em in for the cathartic effect they have on me. I hope you’ll pardon the indulgence.

NPR Watch (6/10/15)

* * * In Which NPR Proves the Exact Opposite of What They Try to Prove! * * *

This could also be a follow-up to this piece here.

National Public Radio (NPR) is a bit frustrating for me.

Imagine, if you will, the text of a Hannah Montana episode being read to you in hyper-serious, articulate, earnest tones by friendly-seeming radio voices. Where there are moments of tension or drama, the voices quicken and lower. Where there are light moments, it’s obvious that the owners of the voices are smiling, or you hear them chuckling or laughing.

It’s the nature of NPR’s presentation that, even while listening to their reading of the script of a Hannah Montana episode, you’d swear you were hearing something of great moment. They’ve parlayed this relentless style-over-substance presentation into a reputation for being serious, in-depth analysts and presenters of the day’s news.

They’re not. It’s all an act.

Generally (not always, but generally) what they present has all the seriousness and importance of the aforementioned Hanna Montana episode. Most of the time, NPR “news” is pure fluff.

The only way it’s possible for a thinking man or woman to enjoy NPR is to view them as comedy. After all, a Hannah Montana episode, read by someone taking it really seriously, would be really funny.

We’ve covered NPR as comedy quite a bit. Here, for example.

So why, now that I know how to handle them, are they frustrating to me? Simple: they’re a never-ending cornucopia of material for mockery and derision. I can’t get to it all!

If you’ve ever engaged in the really fun sport of media-bashing, then you know how ripe, and juicy, and succulent a low-hanging fruit NPR is. I listen to them on the 60-minute ride in to work in the morning, and the 90-minute (I pick up my son on the way home.) ride home each evening.

That makes this hard-left-wing medium, the medium I consume the most as far as my diet of current affairs-centered media goes.(1) By the time I’ve driven home from work in the evening, I’ve heard upwards of four to six laughably ridiculous “news” stories about which I’d love to do an “NPR Watch” feature.

Yet, here I am, only one man. Yes, I type ferociously quickly, but I can’t (yet, heh heh) make my son’s dinner cook more quickly.

By the time my son is in bed at about 9:30, I’m pretty tuckered myself.

Which leaves the weekends. By that time, I’ve heard anywhere — doing the math — from 20 to 30 laughably ridiculous NPR features that are supposed to pass for serious news, and about which I’d love to do a post! They’re an embarrassment of riches for a Conservative blogger, but I can’t cover all their ridiculousness (“Ridiculosity?” Like “curious-curiosity?” I have to admit, I like that better. ) myself, and my other writers tend to write on other subjects.

I generally write these pieces from memory. Thank goodness, NPR’s features are as simplistic as they are, else I might have trouble recalling them. But, I always remember the gist well enough to comment on them. Still it’s frustrating not to have all the details when I’m writing.

I’ve decided to try something else. In these pages, I pioneered the technique of pulling the content from another blog site, reproducing it here, and commenting in-depth, in-line, on it. I was really making a virtue out of necessity, because lefty bloggers tend to  ban me, after they get miffed when I mop up the floor with their lame-o ideas.

Please don’t take that as bragging. It’s not really a great accomplishment to defeat in debate someone using the aforementioned arguments that would make the below-mentioned (in the Notes section) third-grade civics class roll their collective eyes in scorn.

I’m going to try to grab a transcript from the NPR website and do the same analysis as I’ve done with the content of other leftists. ‘Sides, I’ve long been convinced that you can almost always use the words of the left against them. You’ll see below, where the “scientist” trying to make the case that global warming hasn’t really stopped, admits without even knowing it, that the entire environmental movement is fraudulent. (If you can’t wait, it’s here)

Here’s the first such “NPR Watch“: Headline: “Scientists Cast Doubt On An Apparent ‘Hiatus’ In Global Warming”

By way of some background, as you know, we here, at the increasingly influential Praetorian Writers’ Group, are of the opinion that the “environmental movement” is basically one big fraud, wrapped around a lot of genuine, naive, but well-meaning sentiment to keep the place clean. Remember when it used to be all “Global Warming this” and “Global Warming that?” Then, inconveniently, the globe stopped warming. For almost twenty years now.

Well, we couldn’t have that! There were lefties making billions off Global Warming, and if the globe stopped warming, that cash would dry up. So, presto-change-o! Climate Change was born!(2) Go ahead, they thought, prove that isn’t happening!

Well, since change is pretty much all the climate does, it was only a matter of time before someone cottoned to the fact that the enviro-fanatics still hadn’t demonstrated that anything bad was going on. And there had been an awful lot of sturm und drang, alarm, angst, Oscars, hand-wringing, the odd Nobel Prize, drama — and money — tossed about for a very long time.

As it turns out, there really is only so much the-sky-is-falling, panicked shrieking you can do before the hoi polloi pronounce you a fraud, or worse, a bore, and suggest you find some other locale in which to do your grubbing for cash.

The earth turns, the sun rises and sets, the winds blow, birds gotta fly, the climate’s gotta change. Lefties realized that, soon enough, “Climate Change” would stop being the cash cow it was. So, what to do, what to do?


Cook the books, and bring back Global Warming! Great news for those of you who mourned its disappearance! Turns out it was never gone in the first place! A little bit of those buoys were defective! here, and all we have to do is adjust these numbers a tad there, and presto-change-o, you’ve been sweating it out for the past 20 years, but you just never realized it.

Below is the text of the NPR feature, complete with inline comments [in square brackets and red font] from yours truly:

Beginning of the NPR feature on the “return” of Global Warming:

A team of government scientists has revised its estimate for how much the planet has been warming. [Read: Oops! We haven’t been measuring any warming in freakin’ years! We gotta cook up something to make the taxpayers think that we’ve just done it wrong, and we can “revise” up those temperatures,` just like that!]

The new results, published in the journal Science, may dispel the idea that Earth has been in the midst of a “global warming hiatus” — a period over the past 20 years where the planet’s temperature appears to have risen very little. [Did you catch that? It’s a “hiatus!” What’s a hiatus? Why, just a pause before whatever was all hiatus-ing just starts right back up again. Environmental “scientists” will never allow any real science to intrude on their little hoax. and the headline, really, says it: what’s even better than a “hiatus” that’s fer sher gonna start right back up again real soon, but if it had never stopped in the first place!]

“We think the data no longer supports the notion of having a hiatus,” says Tom Karl, a scientist with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration and coauthor of the new study. [Except, of course, for all those thousands of data points that show that the earth wasn’t getting any warmer.]

During the 20th century, that number shot up. But then something happened. [Yep. Those numbers stopped going up. And, more to the point, when real scientists examined those numbers that were supposedly “shooting up,” they found a whole bunch of fraud in those numbers.]

“Since about 1998, through to about 2013, the rate of increase was a lot less,” says Kevin Trenberth, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. [Yes, temperatures not going up at all is quite a bit less than temperatures allegedly “shooting up!”] 

The slowdown was so dramatic that it appeared that global warming might have stopped altogether. Scientists called it the global warming hiatus. [So, something that was getting billions of dollars for “scientists” flogging it, stops altogether, and those “scientists” label it a “hiatus.” Gee, I wonder whether there just might be some self-interest in calling it that, and not saying that, as is true, it had stopped altogether.

More importantly, the altogether stoppage threw into doubt whether planetary warming had ever been happening in the first place. Rational, non-hysterical voices — ie, real scientists — have long been saying that even if you agreed with those temperature readings that were “shooting up,” there was nothing whatsoever indicating that the warming was anything more than a momentary upward blip among millions of such upward and downward blips throughout the earth’s climate history.]

Skeptics of climate change have seized on the idea of the hiatus. “They’re using this as a ploy to say, ‘Oh, there is no global warming; we don’t have to worry about climate change,’ ” Trenberth says. [Did you notice the clever turn-of-phrase? Global warming has stopped altogether, so Trenberth alleges that we climate change deniers are insisting that we “don’t have to worry about climate change anymore.” No. We deniers (we should embrace the term enthusiastically. There’s no dishonor in denying something that never existed.) have said that we don’t have to fear global warming. The planet does nothing but warm and cool in cycle inside of cycle inside of cycle. We all know that the climate does nothing but change. That there are hurricane and monsoon cycles, and solar cycles and snow cycles, that there are all sorts of cycles in ocean and atmospheric currents and on and on and on and on. And, guess what, everything that ever happens affects all those cycles! Raise your eyebrow at that, did you? You just affected the global climate.]

But few scientists have believed a hiatus meant climate change had stopped. [There it is again! No one is denying that there is climate change! Climate change never stops!  The climate does nothing but change! Ever! NPR is nothing if not dumb as a stump! Look at the first sentence of this paragraph. Never let it be said that “scientists” will allow their beliefs to be swayed by evidence.] Trenberth says the slower warming is, in part, caused by unusual currents in the Pacific Ocean. Others have cited volcanic activity. [Ah, that’s it! It’s those dadblasted “unusual currents!” Or was it that confounded “volcanic activity?”

Either way, that last sentence is an admission that the entire environmental movement is a fraud. You see, all those forecasts and projections and predictions and computer models out there are just an “unusual ocean current,” or a bit of “volcanic activity” away from being just plain wrong. How do we know that? The enviro-dude just admitted it! So, apparently, did a bunch of other enviro-dudes who “cited volcanic activity.”]

Now Karl’s team, which is directly responsible for taking the Earth’s temperature, says a technological shift in the way the measurements are taken has also obscured the temperature’s climb. [A technological shift? I don’t know about you, but every time I’ve been involved in “technological shifts” — and I’ve been involved in hundreds of ’em — it involved an “upgrade.” A way of using better technology to do things better, to get better, more accurate answers, and produce better work and work, you know…better. Oops. Apparently scientists don’t do that. Who knew? Here we all were thinking that scientists did “technological shifts” to try to do their work, you know … better!]

Here’s why: The single number — average global temperature — comes from tens of thousands of independent temperature readings. And, in recent decades, the technology for getting those readings has gradually shifted. [There’s that consarned “shifting” technology again! I love the expression here. “The technology has gradually shifted.” As if all that great technology were just sitting there happily humming along, and reading all those temperatures “shooting up,” when, gradually, it just started “shifting.”

This next passage is just beautiful!]

On land those measurements are made by weather stations; on the sea, the job has generally been done by commercial and military ships for decades. But starting in the 1980s, governments also began dropping buoys into the ocean to do independent measurements.

Karl and his colleagues decided to look at stretches of water where ships pass very near buoys, to compare the two temperatures. And they made a surprising discovery.

“The buoys actually read colder than the ships,” Karl says.

Even though the two thermometers were in the same place, they gave different readings. And it was happening all over the world. As more buoys were dropped into the sea — all delivering measurements that were consistently cooler than a ship would show in that same spot — the warming trend in the average global temperature seemed to slow dramatically. [Ah! How’s that for a pregnant passage?!? If that didn’t give birth to a thousand new and plausible doubts about the environment movement, nothing will! Here’s a small sample: What if the buoy temperatures are just more accurate? If so, then the ships’ measurements have been wrong all along and there never was any global warming. Here’s another one: If temperatures have been rising all along, then cooler or not cooler, the buoys’ readings should have been rising right along as well! ]

But Karl and his colleagues believe what looked like a flattening of the warming trend actually just reflected a change in the way the temperature was taken. When the team factored in a correction to the historical data that reconciled the buoys with the ships, they found that what had seemed to be a hiatus in warming disappeared. [“When the team factored in a correction?” Hah! What they’re really saying is: “When the team cooked up a story that wouldn’t stand up to routine scrutiny to manipulate numbers they didn’t like, they used this fraud to say they’ve proved that “global warming” which probably didn’t even exist in the first place, didn’t actually stop, when the thermometers stopped going up.” It’s a mouthful, but it’s hard to imagine any other possible conclusion from this NPR feature.]

Earth’s average temperature has, indeed, maintained a steady climb through the past decades. [Even though there’s not a blessed thing in this piece that would lead to that conclusion.]

Trenberth, who wasn’t involved in this analysis, says critics may be skeptical of these revisions, but they shouldn’t be.

“You see this kind of thing also with the stock market and various other economic indicators: ‘Oh they’ve revised the estimates of what the unemployment rate was in the last quarter,’ or something like that, and that’s exactly what’s going on here,” Trenberth says. [Yuh. The climate is just exactly the same thing as the Stock Market or economic indicators! Not! For one thing, the climate’s been around for a few billion years more than either the Stock Masrket or any economic indicators. For another, the Stock Market and all the economic indicators are completely dependent on human activity for their cycles. More to the point, Janet Yellen, or Barack Obama can come out and say a few poorly-placed words, and the Stock Market and economic indicators will plummet or skyrocket in minutes. The climate, on the other hand, scoffs at our puny attempts to “control” it. After all, if the odd “unusual ocean current,” or a spot of “volcanic activity” pops up, it takes all those alarming forecasts and tosses them out the window. Can you imagine what the occasional “unusual sunspot spell” could do? Or the odd “asteroid activity?”]

And the warming trend may be accelerating even more. [Or, it may not! This particular feature should leave you shaking your head at the idea that you ever took the environmental nutjobs seriously in the first place! Their “scientists” can’t even lie convincingly!] The calendar year 2014 was the warmest on record, and Trenberth says the past 12 months — midyear to midyear — have been even warmer than that. [Really? You’d never know it from this bunch of brainless, contradictory fluff from NPR! The actual meaning of the words in this feature lead the thinking man to the exact opposite conclusion from the one NPR was trying to get to.]

END of the NPR feature on the “return” of Global Warming

— xPraetorius


(1) – When I argue with left-wingers, I never have a problem with their arguments, because I already know their talking points: NPR’s “news” shows. Where I have a problem is that the lefties pretty quickly know that I can take their arguments down, so they, true to time-honored lefty form, do whatever they can to shut me up. Lefties do not tend to want to hear disagreement with their ideas! Why? Simple: media outlets like NPR constantly tell them how smart and serious they are for having these thoughts that wouldn’t pass the serious scrutiny of a well-taught third-grade civics class. Challenge these simplistic and poorly-thought out ideas, and you challenge the very foundation of a lefty’s ego.

(2) – To show you how “progressive” and “with it” and “cutting edge,” and “up to date” NPR is, they’re still flogging the old, bleached bones of Global Warming.

19 Years of Age – Already a Hero, And With A GREAT Future

(if, that is, he stays the course!)


Very much worth the read: Millions in Brazil Follow a Teen Leader to Freedom

There are good things happening around the world. Some of the worst hellholes in the world produce some of the greatest stories of nobility, of greatness and sweetness, of generosity and holiness.

I recommend the entire web site as well.

— xPraetorius


Climate Change Hogwash

Today’s hysterics concerning “Climate Change” are just that hysterics. Hysterics being bandied about by ignorant climate ignoramuses. (Ignorami?)

Did you know, for example (Some inline comments in [red] as well):

  • Ice ages last for tens of millions of years. We don’t know how many there have been. Our planet is 4½ billion years old; we only have clear evidence of ice ages for the last billion years, in which time there have been four ice ages, covering a total of one-third of a billion years. In its “normal” condition—the other two-thirds—the Earth is ice-free all the way up to the poles. [Our note: That’s worth repeating: “In its ‘normal’ condition … the Earth is ice-free all the way up to the poles.”]
  • The present ice age started around 2½ million years ago. Our best guess is that it’ll continue for several million years more.
  • Wait, the “present Ice Age?” [Yep. The present Ice Age. We are currently in an Ice Age. The source (each link goes to the same piece) goes on to say:]

(When people say “ice age” they are generally referring to the last glaciation, which peaked around 20,000 B.C. and ended about 10,000 B.C.  Hearing “ice age” thus misused when the speaker means “glaciation” is so common it’s not worth correcting, like hearing concert music called “classical music.” It does, though, tell you that the speaker’s grip on climatology is less than firm.)

How about this:

Wow! I didn’t know that last tidbit! I did know that where I live, in Connecticut, it’s said (though , in honesty, I’m not sure how they know this) that the area was covered with an ice sheet a mile thick!

Then there’s this:

  • If we did do anything the effect would likely be puny compared to, say, a single major volcanic eruption. Mother Nature laughs at our climate change fretting(1).

Do yourself a favor and read the column at this link. It gives you the rest that I left out.

Bottom line: the current “science” pertaining to “Climate Change” is junk, and our puny thrashings about are like unto the agitations of a flea on the hide of a rhinoceros. As regards “the Climate” or “the Environment,” there’s only one rational conclusion to draw: Clean up after yourself, and the rest — at least as far as our technological capabilities are concerned — is up to God.

If we were to take that tack, then there is no doubt that we’d re-focus our efforts to the single greatest possible contribution we could make to keeping the planet as clean as possible: the elimination of Socialism and Islam.

— xPraetorius


(1) – We have mentioned this in the past. Here: Climate Change? That’s ALL It Does! for example. We published that almost four years ago, in November of 2011. Here’s our quote:

“I still have memories of the breathtaking sunsets that resulted for months after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines halfway around the world in 1991. As we marveled at the splashy beauty in those dust- and ash-fueled crepsucular hours, we understood how tiny is our effect on the world when compared with the insouciant might of Mother Nature.”

Kinda makes you wonder whether powerful, influential people read this blog, eh?


Bruce Jenner

Some thoughts.

  • I didn’t come out with anything in the beginning of the Jenner mess, because as you all know I prefer to come at things from an angle typically not covered by the rest of the punditocracy. I wanted to see whether the uniqueness of my perspective would survive as time went by. It has.
  • Here, I covered the “transgender” silliness — and colossal silliness it is! — in a commonsensical way.
  • I suggested that after all the frenzied hand-wringing of these times has passed, and some long-in-the-future scientist stumbles across the mortal remains of Mr. Jenner, no matter how Mr. Jenner “identifies,” the scientist will identify his bones as those of a man.
  • If, by some odd chance, those same scientists were able to get their hands on a bit of Bruce Jenner’s DNA, and if they’re unaware of all the current kerfuffle, the first thing they’d notice is the proper number and alignment of chromosomes for … a dude. If, as he goes on in his strange new life, Jenner gets all sorts of chemical manipulations, then those long-in-the-future scientists will also decry the horrible experimentation that was done to him, or the terrible disease that afflicted him.
  • If these selfsame scientists were to stumble upon Jenner’s remains in a coffin labeled “Caitlyn Jenner,” the headlines would proclaim: “Mystery! Man’s Remains Found in Woman’s Coffin!” And a cottage industry would spring up trying to figure out why the switcheroo, and whodunit.
  • However, there will be no doubt, and none will question — not even for a moment — the self-evident fact that they would be examining the bones and DNA of a man.
  • My brother is a psychologist. Several of his clients “identify” — to use the new term — as things they self-evidently are not: One says he’s from Saturn, and the other says he’s the President of the United States, and while I have no doubt that the latter client would do a better job than the current occupant of the Oval Office (so would an opossum), they’re both crazy. Yet, Bruce Jenner is not crazy?
  • So, do try to answer this question: Why is it that a man who says he’s from Saturn, and another who says he’s the President are crazy, while a man who says he’s a woman is not only normal, but some kind of paragon of revolutionary courage?
  • I “identify” as a billionaire (I said it here: NPR Watch – 7/17/14 (relevant passage in the Notes section)) and demand that all Americans respect who I really am, and that they pay tribute to my courage. I was born ummmm… un-wealthy, but I’m not un-wealthy — because, you see, I identify as not un-wealthy! — and until the government sees to it that my bank account is filled to the brim with at least a billion dollars, it will be a terrible injustice! This is nothing less than the Civil Rights issue of our time!
  • I demand also that all Americans show me the respect I deserve by using the correct pronouns for me. From now on, you all should refer to me using the “hismagnificence” pronoun. Yes, “hismagnificence.” I’m a dude billionaire.
  • I still wonder whether this happened: Two vastly wealthy friends are on the golf course one day, and the first golfer zillionaire says to the second golfer zillionaire, “I’ll bet you ten bucks(1) that, using just the media and pop culture, I can make it so that the country accepts, even applauds, two dudes getting married.” The other golfer laughs and says, “No way! Two dudes getting married? That’s absolutely ridiculous. A man can no more marry another man than he can marry a duck! You’re on!” The second zillionaire lost.
  • Then: Same golf course, same two zillionaire friends and the first one says to the second one: “Double of nothing, using just the media and pop culture, I can make it so that people will not only call a man a woman and vice versa, but if you don’t do it, they’ll call you a bigot and a Neanderthal jerk.” Second friend replies, “Double or nothing? On that? You’re kidding, right? A man who thinks he’s a woman isn’t a woman — he’s crazy! You’re on!” Second dude lost again.
  • Was I the only one to be more than a bit skeeved out by the massive self-absorption? I mean, there are what, eight children involved? From his various marriages? Bruce, is what you’re doing really in their best interest? Really?
  • How about the women? They’ve helped set up this climate of: “Celebrate The Gender-Confused … Or Else,” so they have to grin through clenched teeth and bear it. The ex-Mrs. Jenners have to be wondering, though, what it is about them that attracted this deeply confused man to them in the first place.
  • I wonder whether this hasn’t already happened: Two vastly wealthy friends are on the golf course one day, and the first golfer zillionaire says to the second golfer zillionaire, “I’ll bet you ten bucks I can make it so that the country accepts a dude marrying a duck…”
  • Look, I bear no ill will against Bruce Jenner, and I’m grateful for the moments of patriotic satisfaction he gave me as I watched his athletic achievements so many years ago. However, what is true is true is true is still true, and a man can no more be a woman than he can be a duck. That’s not bias, or bigotry, or prejudice, it’s science.
  • Has the following already happened? Two zillionaires on the golf course … bet … one says: Using just the media and pop culture, I’ll make it so that people will call a man a duck, and if you don’t call him a duck …
  • What the left forgot: Just saying something doesn’t make it so. Or, maybe, what the left knows full well. Hence, the billions spent to convince Americans to believe patent flapdoodle… or else.
  • Now for full disclosure: Bruce Jenner is a friend of a very dear friend of mine, though I don’t know Jenner personally. I’d no more hurt either my friend or Bruce Jenner for anything. Again, however, what’s true is true is true, and my friendships, and the friendships of others, can’t change one iota of that.
  • Once, my daughter said to me, “Daddy, I think I want illegal immigration to be okay, and that we should find a way for them to become citizens.” Now, well before that little announcement, we had long discussed this issue, and had both come to the conclusion that in no way should we grant to illegal aliens any privileges that would give them a legal status superior to those who come here legally and followed the rules. I asked her what had changed her mind? She replied, “Well, Julio is my friend, and I want him to be able to stay.” All I said was that, as with  Bruce Jenner, our personal circumstances don’t have a lot of bearing on what is good public policy, and that she should examine the issue in that context and let me know how she leans after that. She came back later and said, “You know, Daddy, I guess I really think that we should not let illegal aliens have a legal status superior to that of legal immigrants.”
  • I wish Bruce Jenner only the best. I believe him when he says that he’s been living in a state of turmoil due to his confusion about whether he was a man or a woman, and I feel awful for him. I wish suffering on no man under the sun, and I mean that. However, the ruthless truth is: my personal circumstances don’t have a lot of bearing on what is good public policy, or in this case, what is good human interaction. So, my personal feelings don’t change the likely fact that this one-time American hero is simply crazy.
  • We do crazy people no favors pretending they’re normal, or worse, pretending they’re superior, as we’ve done to Bruce Jenner. Worse, we do no one any favors pretending that a particular kind of craziness is not only good, but noble and courageous. There’s a reason my brother’s Saturnian client and his friend the “President” are under treatment, and it’s not because of their overwhelming courage in revealing their particular “identities.” It is, though, because of delusions. They’re crazy.
  • It took no real courage to do what Mr. Jenner had to know would win him applause, massive public support, and the occasional Arthur Ashe Courage Award.
  • Let me modify that a bit: to go out there and do something that Bruce Jenner knew, deep down, would make him appear crazy does take some courage. It would have taken a lot more courage, however, to do the right thing and get treatment. It is to the deep, deep shame of the political left in America today, that they’re doing whatever they can to make it illegal even to offer such treatment. And, let’s face it, Bruce Jenner himself wonders whether he’s crazy. He’s probably right.
  • If I were Bruce Jenner, and I knew there was a good chance I was crazy, but that if I were to make that particular craziness public, the result would be widespread outcry insisting that I was normal, then I might be tempted to go public also. Furthermore, I’d likely be tempted to do it now rather than waiting. Who knows how long the public’s schoolgirl crush on Jenner’s particular craziness will last.
  • It takes a particular kind of exhibitionism to pose as Bruce Jenner did on the cover of Vanity Fair. He knew that all eyes would go first to his crotch, then to his chest to determine the state and condition of the two most obvious female-specific physical characteristics.
  • Why aren’t the feminists really ticked off that a man would claim to know enough about what it is to be a woman in order to claim to be a woman? Seriously. Where did he come up with this impressive inside knowledge that, feminists will insist, no normal man could possibly know? I know the answer to this question, by the way: The LGBTQIAAP movement is even more vicious than the feminists. All Americans cower before the wrath of the pink-ribbon-rainbow-light-loafers crowd, especially feminists.
  • Feminists are always telling others what men think, how they feel, what they want and all about them. Things that, if a man were to do it, they would screech to the high heavens in protest! “How dare he?!?” they’d yell. “How could he know?!?” Women don’t even let men suggest that they know about men! No, the deep, deep knowledge of men, of their minds, their thoughts, their feelings and emotions, is reserved exclusively to women, and feminist women at that.
  • Well, if the women can magically know all about men’s innermost thoughts and feelings (trust me they can’t but that doesn’t deter feminists from claiming they can), then when a man claims to know what it is to be a woman, the only way not to incur the wrath of the Gay and Transgender Grievance Goons is if he’s been a woman all along. Yep. A woman fathered all those kids in those marriages. We’re supposed to accept that without question. Or else.

All-in-all, it’s just a very sad thing. Nothing can detract from Bruce Jenner’s past really impressive accomplishments. That neither these great deeds, nor the other trappings of his life, ever brought him real fulfillment or happiness is tragic. None can feel anything but sorrow for that. All people should be happy. However, a dispassionate analysis of this whole sordid public spectacle leaves the rational observer thinking that even this latest chapter won’t lead to any kind of real fulfillment either.

After the cameras go away, and the country moves on to the next “important,” “ground-breaking,” “heroic,” “courageous,” “first-of-all-time!!!” oddball thing, Bruce Jenner will be left with the wreckage of his life: failed marriages, daughters and sons struggling to put brave faces on life with “daddy,” decades of misery and confusion, and finally a strange body that stubbornly refuses, absent massive chemical infusions, to look or act like a woman’s.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Vastly wealthy people are notoriously chintzy bettors. It’s not about the money, it’s about winning the bet.


I Learned This Song Yesterday

I Learned This Song Yesterday

Wayfaring Stranger.

It’s a beautiful old song, and not all that difficult on the guitar, which makes the vocals all the more important.

I’m a deep baritone, nearly a bass. I played and sang it for my son last night. He’s 14 years old, and is 6’4″ tall, and has a glorious, smooth, velvety baritone voice — even at 14-years of age! — that, if he were to allow it to bring him where it might lead, could turn him into the next Thomas Allen or Bryn Terfyl.

When I had finished, he said, “Dad, that was just beautiful.” He melts my heart like that often. I can’t say enough sweet, complimentary, positive, upbeat things about my son, but I’ll keep trying, and they’re all true.

The above-linked version is by the absolutely delightful Quebe Sisters (pr.: “Kway-bee”).

If that isn’t something to give you hope — three beautiful young girls with beautiful voices and beautiful harmonies, singing beautifully — then there is nothing that will give you hope in the world today.

Look around you — there’s just so much that’s just drop-you-to-your-knees-in-awe beautiful, that not to recognize and acknowledge it, is an act of criminality at an existential level!

— xPraetorius


Bill & Gloria Gaither – Halleluyah [Live] ft. The Isaacs – YouTube

Bill & Gloria Gaither – Halleluyah [Live] ft. The Isaacs – YouTube.

I just love this song! I wish I were in the crowd belting it out with the rest of them!

I’m a very good singer, but this goes beyond singing into just being joyous, and laughing and living and loving all that God has given us!

We need a lot more of this kind of just sweet fun!

Turn it up loud. Real loud!

— xPraetorius

D-Day — Take a Moment


Sweet, true story for today, D-Day, 2015.

When we think of all that we have to put up with in Obama’s America today — and it’s not small — we sometimes forget that there were those who invaded the beaches of Normandy, France 71 years ago today.

These great men threw themselves into the very jaws of death in order that you and I might grumble and grouse on the internet today. Only, they didn’t even know it. But they did it, and it is meet and right that we should never ever, ever lose a moment to thank them, if only in our hearts and minds (don’t worry — God knows!) and in our prayers.

Originally posted on The Praetorian Writers Group:

Take a moment for a brief story.

Twelve years ago or so.

My then six-year old daughter hurt her arm in a fall while I was teaching her to ride her bike. I brought her to the emergency room where we ended up waiting quite a while before anyone could examine her.

During that wait time, we sat in a small side  room with an elderly man. I struck up a conversation with Mr. Callahan, as it turns out his name was.

I asked him why he was there. He said that the Veteran’s Administration had his records, and they needed to send them over to the hospital where we were, in order for them to address his problem, whatever it was.

I asked him in what branch of the service he had served. Mr. Callahan answered that he had been in the army.

I asked him when he had been…

View original 578 more words

Even MORE Fireworks Over at the RGI!

Note: if you read the entirety of this very long post, you will end up quite amused. There are some very interesting twists and turns in it! (including cameo appearances by the banned xPraetorius! :) There are even poignant moments!)

Things are heating up at the ol’ Race Grievance Industry corral! As most of you know, there are a couple of web sites that I follow — here and here — that are owned and operated by stooges of the RGI. I like to keep up with them because it lets me know what others are thinking, and I’m always on the lookout for new insights into the problems facing this, the greatest country that has ever existed.

As you also probably know, I’ve been “banned” from those sites, because the proprietors were unable to counter my disagreements with counter arguments, so rather than do the work of actually researching whether I was right or wrong, they simply dodged the point and banned me.

Important Note: This was not laziness, but worse: cowardice. The RGI is nothing if not deeply insecure in its beliefs! They realize that the tide of history is leaving them farther and farther behind.

Well, in recent weeks and months, “BrothaWolf” (BW) has faced some powerful disagreements, and I have a feeling that we, at our small but increasingly influential think tank, are the ones who have encouraged similar-minded people to go to his “den” —  as he styles it — and debate with him and his acolytes.

There have been two more extremely interesting dust-ups at BW’s place, and they’re notable because they underscore what we’ve been saying for some time now: the RGI has no actual evidence for their claims that America is a racist country; they have only abstract, ephemeral, unprovable — and, importantly, undisprovable — ghostly things like “institutional racism” and “structural racism,” both of which are whatever you want them to be if you’re in the RGI.

Was that a furtive glance, a seemingly insincere smile? Structural racism!  Did a white guy get promoted before a black woman? Institutional Racism! Sexism! Are there more blacks incarcerated than the percentage of the population that blacks represent? Structural Racism! Regardless of the merits or contexts involved in any of the aforementioned cases.

In the past few weeks, BW has posted several posts that have attracted the attention of some apparently Conservative commenters. These commenters have demolished BW’s premises; they’ve come in, kicked glutei maximi, and taken names.

It has distressed Brotha Wolf no end. To the point where I’ve been experiencing sympathy for this guy — really a sheep in wolf’s clothing. This, despite the fact that BW has abused me personally quite a bit. I’ve even taken to posting sympathetic posts to BW’s web site because I hate to see another person suffering. At the same time, I will not ever compromise on what is true and what is not(1).

So far, what seems true is that BW is very wrong. And, the fact that he frequently libels an entire race, means that he needs to be called on it.

From a distance — remember: I’ve been “banned” from BW’s and Abagond’s sites — I’ve called the RGI on their slanders. Others appear to have picked up the ball to run with it, and have proven worthy successors to my colleagues and me.

Without further ado, here are the posts in question(2) (Note: I’ve added a few comments, [in square brackets and red font] as well ) :

Beginning of Brotha Wolf’s First Post

Being a Problem

“How does it feel to be a problem?”

This is a question asked in W.E.B. Dubois’ treatise The Souls of Black Folk. The question doesn’t ask how does it feel to have problems or have the kinds of problems that some people can’t or won’t understand. The question directly asks how does it feel like to actually be a problem. This question is also the title of a book by Moustafa Bayoumi who gives an indepth look as to what it’s like to live in a time where being a young Arab or Muslim American is often judged as being the enemy. A threat. A terrorist.

Being a member of the “other”, especially if you’re black, you are not granted the privilege of being individuals, especially if a crime occurs. When a black person is so much as suspected of any crime, the whole race is suspect. If a black person was the suspect and there are white victims, the whole race is looked upon with disdain and mistrust, seen as the potential enemy of white folks who will seek another innocent white person to get back at them for slavery. It seems like it’s always slavery that’s the underlying reason white people believe is the reason for any black-on-white crime. But I digress.

I remember a few years ago back in 2008. A UNC Student named Eve Carson who had a potentially bright future ahead of her was robbed and murdered by two young black males. It was a major news story. A white woman was killed by not one, but two black men. I also remembered two words in one article I read. Racial tension. I hear and see those words often whenever there’s a story about an interracial crime. Usually when it’s black-on-white, that’s when a feeling of dread hits me, because I fear of repercussions for that area against the black community. When a black person commits a crime against white people, black people, not just those responsible, must be held accountable.

Most people still can’t, or won’t, grasp the racism that reeks whenever black people are seen as a collective problem that must always pay whenever a few of their own fuck up. A lot of people avoid being called the r-word by excusing it with statistics, so-called “facts” that they’ve found most likely at a racist conservative website that exaggerates numbers to prove their point.

On the other hand, white people are granted the privilege of individuality no matter how often or how heinous a crime is. Whether it’s a school shooting, a bombing, serial rape or even mass shootings, white people are given the third degree and had their culture questioned, nor are they given stern lectures to “do better” by those who unofficially appoint themselves as guidance counselors for the whole race.

It has been a few days since the Biker shootout in Waco Texas that claimed nine lives, injured over a dozen more and led to the arrest of over a hundred bikers. The media treated the bloodbath with kid gloves, turning it into a singular incident where it was an isolated tragedy and not part of a string of white-on-white crime where more than a few lives are usually taken.

However, the same media treated the protests in Baltimore and Ferguson as if it was a warzone. [They kind of were war zones! The last thing BW should do is criticize the media over those rare occasions where they actually get something right!] Pretests [sic: “Protests”] themselves became riots. Protestors became looters. Animals. Thugs. [They were thugs. Presumably many still are.] The peaceful anger and uprising vanished within the news media’s sensationalism and racism and became an outbreak of black pathology unfolding before America’s eyes. [Peaceful? Tell that to the shop owners whose establishments were “peacefully” looted and burned.]

No matter what, black people are constantly seen as the problem in America. [All people who riot over nothing, or who commit reprehensible crimes are “problems.” That black Americans commit crime in numbers vastly disproportionate to their numbers in the population isvery serious problem.] It’s safe to say that no matter what we do, our faults end up overshadowing our accomplishments as well as overall humanity and individuality though the eyes of the white racist mindframe that continuously sees itself as innocent and normal while it sees blackness as criminal, pathologic and something to be feared and taken care of mostly by imprisonment or brute force.


  1. “How does it feel to be a problem?”

    I pondered this a while back:

  2. DaShawn said:

    May 25, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    ARE you a problem? [This is the début of “DaShawn” whom I suspect of being “Rational Observer” as well.]

  3. Rational Observers said: [The début of “Rational Observer” whom I suspect of being the same guy as “Dashawn.”]

    May 27, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    This is all a bunch of paranoid raving. Where do you get these ideas? There are no “repercussions against the black community” whenever there is a black-on-white crime. To the contrary, everyone makes excuses! Well, they’re poor, or they’re unemployed, the cities need more money, or a million other fake reasons for committing a crime — ANY crime.

    If you are going to throw out wild accusations like that you have to offer evidence or some examples that you can say happen many thousands of times over the whole country.

    And the Waco bloodbath was treated exactly as it should have been treated. A bunch of trash got together and had a gun battle. No one treated anyone with “kid gloves.” No one got any pass from the media. And, just as no one blames all BLACK people for the actions of a few, no one, except pure racists, blames all WHITE people for the actions of a few.

    And for crying out loud, no one EVER blames all black people for the acts of a few. You have to be completely paranoid to believe that.

    DaShawn above asks a good question. ARE you a problem? You sure sound like one! And it’s a sure thing that your ignorance and paranoia are problems that are going to prevent you from prospering in life.

    How do I know this? I’m a rational observer.

    • I’m going to respond in one sentence. Unless you can fully understand what it’s like to be black in America or at least make an effort to do so, you will never get where I or others who speak similarly are trying to tell folks like you so quick to make asinine judgments.  [Rational Observer (he typoes it below)/DaShawn  knocks this out of the park below]

      • Rational Obsrver said: [“Rational Observer” typoes his name here. Is there a meaning?]

        May 28, 2015 at 3:48 am

        Wrong. Being able to “fully understand what it’s like to be black in America” has literally nothing whatsoever to do with understanding that your top post was a bunch of paranoid baloney. What a dumb thing to say! And how do you know what I fully understand and don’t? Cuz here’s something that’s obviously true: no one fully understands what it’s like to be black in America. That’s not even possible. I’m guessing Lebron has a different life from Denzel who has a different life from Prince who has a different life from any other black person in America! Fully understand! Ha! What an ignorant thing to say!

        You said, “No matter what, black people are constantly seen as the problem in America. It’s safe to say that no matter what we do, our faults end up overshadowing our accomplishments” Ya know, maybe if you stopped all the paranoid whining and making excuses for failure, you’d do a lot better. Time for YOU to be a rational observer, instead of just me.

      • If you weren’t being so condescending, maybe you would read my response. So, I’ll reiterate. If you don’t or won’t know what it’s like to be black in America, especially during these times, you will never truly comprehend what I’m saying. If that is so hard for you to understand, maybe you need to find another blog and quit talking to others like they’re beneath you. Just a suggestion. Or maybe you would prefer I ban you instead?

      • Maybe you ought to just listen and open your hearts and minds instead of putting down others like a hot-headed prick.

      • Rational Observer said: [Aaaand. . . no typo here. Looks as if it was just a typo above.]

        May 28, 2015 at 4:58 pm

        I should repeat what I said, because you apparently don’t read what others write. There’s no such thing as “fully understanding what it is to be black in America.” And you have no idea what I understand and don’t understand, so why don’t you stop pretending you do. It’s entirely possible that (1) what you said was silly and wrong, or (2) that you expressed it poorly, or (3) both. The point is, your post is a bunch of paranoid raving about problems that are not big in America. And as “Sorry ’bout…” said, everything you wrote was opinion and feelings. Nothing wrong with writing opinions and feelings, but if you don’t back them up with facts, then you open yourself up to the charge of writing baloney. Anyone can write down feelings, but they’re meaningless without support from facts, and as a result they just might be wrong. Look, if your post at the top is correct, then there have to be hundreds of thousands of racial incidents every year. There are a few dozen that anyone ever hears of. In a country of more than 300 million people? A few dozen means exactly nothing.

      • There are facts. You are just too blind or ignorant to see them. And you’re right. You can never fully understand what it’s like to be black in America, but you seem too lazy or too proud to even try to understand just a sliver of the black experience. Sure, we are all different, but most, if not all, have experienced racism at one point or another just the same, because even though we are not a monolith, this society treats many of us similarly. If you can’t understand that bit of reasoning, I think we’re done here. Goodbye.

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 28, 2015 at 4:59 pm

        Maybe you should listen and open your heart and mind to the FACT that you just might be wrong. All the EVIDENCE points that way

      • You have not provided any evidence.

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 28, 2015 at 11:54 pm

        When are you going to stop pretending you could possibly know what I do or do not understand?

        You have to make up your mind. In one breath you say that black people are not a monolith, and in the next, you imply that it’s possible to “fully understand” the black experience in America.

        No one can fully understand the black experience in America. And YOU have NO idea under the sun what I understand or don’t understand. Please get that through your concrete head. Why don’t you get off me and talk about what I’ve said?

        You keep talking about facts, and you refuse to produce any. I think you’re not aware of any of these so-called facts. But, I’ve been reading your blog for a while, and there HAVE been facts produced. And they all argue AGAINST your point of view. At which point you banish the ones who give you those facts.

        Ready for something I “fully understand” about the black experience in America? Here goes: no black people are trying to leave America. But there’s sure millions and millions of brown people trying to get into this supposedly racist country! [Good point here! Needless to say, we’ve made this point in the past.]

        I forget who it was that said that, but it was someone on this same blog and you banished them, of course. And what was your argument again? Oh, yeah, you supposedly had “lots and lots of facts,” but you just refused to produce them. What are you waiting for? Surely if this is such a racist country, you can point me to AT LEAST 200,000 racist incidents in the past year. [Good point!] Let’s do the math. There are about 190 million white people in America. If there were 200,000 white racist incidents in the past year, that would mean that about one white person in 1,000 would do something racist, right? If whites are so racist, then you should be able to point me to AT LEAST that many incidents. And even if you could, one racist in 1,000? Sorry, NOT a racist country. [Wow! Really good point!] I’ve read your blog, you point to a racist incident here and another one there. At the end of a given year you talk about a few dozen such incidents, and you bluster and rant and rave a lot.

      • Why should I bend over backwards to prove something to someone who’s already closed his mind off to differing thoughts, opinions and truths? Why should I waste precious time doing what an obvious troll says? Anyway, I don’t speak for all black people. I speak based on my and other people’s experiences and truths. We all have different experiences, but at some point, we all experienced racism. That is the truth. There are mountains of evidence out there that supports that racism is still going on. Even more so is that there’s proof that it’s systematic and institutionalized. That is a fact. There are articles and books, among other things, that point out that truth, and you CHOOSE to ignore them because for some reason or another, they are wrong according to you and your ilk that seems to constantly deny that racism exists.

        Here’s the bottom line, sure there are singular racist incidents, but at the end of the day, racism is systematic and institutional, like I said earlier. We see it in prisons, police actions, the media, education, even in the workforce. And if you’re still hellbent in saying that it doesn’t exist, you are purposely living in a fantasy land where ignorance is bliss. So why not stop rambling and start listening to those who may know more about racism than you, and you might learn something. Then again, you and the rest of the likeminded thinkers hate to do that. You can’t see yourself as listening and seeing what you can do to help solve the problem. Instead you condemn others for acknowledging the problem in the first place. You must really feel proud of yourself being so condescending.

        Anyway, this conversation is over. You have nothing to say that is constructive, observant or rational lol. Seriously, your comments contradict your screen name severely. How can you be a “rational observer” and yet, you conclude that racism is nothing more than a few incidents a year and not an institutional problem. That’s sad. And if you insist at going on about a subject you apparently know very little about, be my guest. But don’t be surprised when I get tired and consider your responses are nothing more than spam or trash.

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 31, 2015 at 12:00 am

        Let’s examine your nonsensical post bit-by-bit. [At this point, Rational Observer/DaShawn (at this point, I’m assuming that the two are the same person) unburdens himself of a lengthy rebuttal to BW’s post. His post is right on the mark, but I’m troubled by the idea that he is actually two people trying to make this point. What would be the point behind such subterfuge?]

        You said:
        Why should I bend over backwards to prove something to someone who’s already closed his mind off to differing thoughts, opinions and truths? Why should I waste precious time doing what an obvious troll says? Anyway, I don’t speak for all black people. I speak based on my and other people’s experiences and truths. We all have different experiences, but at some point, we all experienced racism. That is the truth. There are mountains of evidence out there that supports that racism is still going on. Even more so is that there’s proof that it’s systematic and institutionalized. That is a fact. There are articles and books, among other things, that point out that truth, and you CHOOSE to ignore them because for some reason or another, they are wrong according to you and your ilk that seems to constantly deny that racism exists.

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        No one’s asking you to “bend over backward,” but I’m suggesting that you do at least the minimum. You’re not bending over backward, you’re just lounging around doing NOTHING. You just say things with no hint of possibility of tying what you say to the general condition of the country.

        You accuse me of being a troll, but as usual, all you’re doing is focusing on me rather than on what I said. That’s a very bad habit you have. You ALWAYS accuse those who disagree with you of character flaws. That by itself is a SERIOUS character flaw of yours. You should stop it. If you were to pull out of your response to me all that’s perfectly irrelevant, you’d have nearly nothing left.

        And, it seems sad that I’d have to point this out, but you couldn’t possibly have the slightest clue as to whether I’ve closed my mind or not. You seem to reject out of hand what I say, which indicates that YOU have the closed mind. And stop the petty name-calling. It’s stupid, undignified and unbecoming an adult.

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        You said:
        we all experienced racism. That is the truth. There are mountains of evidence out there that supports that racism is still going on. Even more so is that there’s proof that it’s systematic and institutionalized. That is a fact.

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        No, “systematic and institutionalized racism” are opinions. Any rational observer knows that the idea of “institutionalized” or “systematic” racism are completely abstract concepts, so can’t be proven or disproven. That’s why the complainers hang their hats on them. Because they have no ACTUAL facts to go on. That everyone has experienced racism means nothing. Everyone has experienced a whole, wide variety of abuse; from cruelty, to insults, to pettiness, to slights, to arrogance, to condescension, to unjust firings, to layoffs, to unjust poor reviews, to temper tantrums, to cruel tricks. Life is messy, and so are personal interactions. But there’s no one rushing to leave America, so you should just face REAL facts. That fact that I just gave you, tha tno one is rushing to leave America, is a FACT that you refuse to address. Why is that, I wonder? No, I don’t really wonder about it. It’s because you have no answer to it. Oh, I can already tell you what you’ll say: “I wouldn’t bother addressing someone whose mind is closed.” Or some other attempt to dodge it. But, really, just another cheap excuse that I’ve already addressed above.

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        You said:
        There are articles and books, among other things, that point out that truth, and you CHOOSE to ignore them because for some reason or another, they are wrong according to you and your ilk that seems to constantly deny that racism exists.

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        Where did you get the positively weird idea that anyone said that racism doesn’t exist? It’s not a big problem in America, that seems obvious. Though there is black racism all over. Including here. The FACT that no one here addresses what I say, but stops ion only to accuse me of things they couldn’t possibly know, and accuses me of things they couldn’t possibly know, shows that every here (1) thinks I’m white (and they couldn’t possibly know what my color is), and (2) that they already have all sorts of preconceived notions about who and what I am BECAUSE they assume I’m white, and that’s just racist. Plain ol’ fashioned racism that you should be deeply ashamed of.

        As for all the articles and books? For every article or book you find about how racist America is, I can find just as many that prove conclusively that America is NOT racist. Should I, who have no idea what you have ever read or not read, accuse you of things I couldn’t possibly know? Like you do? Why don’t YOU get off that stupid habit too?

        However, you said you wanted facts. Okay: (1) FACT: The President of the United States is a black man, elected by white people who are, by far, the majority of voters in America. (2) FACT: there is nobody trying to get OUT of America. To the contrary, there are all sorts of people whom you call by the condescending term: “People of Color trying to get IN. By the millions. (3) FACT: White people abolished slavery, enacted Civil Rights legislation, have transferred trillions of dollars of wealth to the poor and disproportionately to brown and black people (yes, mostly to single wite woman).

        Look, no one is saying that white people are perfect, but if you have to be oppressed by a group, it sure might as well be by a group that’s doing its level best to give everything away to you. Some oppressor! So, here’s fact #4: FACT: no black people on earth have it better than here in America. If black people had it better elsewhere, then AMERICAN blacks would be doing their best to join them. Want one more? Okay, here’s #5: One of America’s 35,000 black millionaires said this: “Average folks make excuses while the wealthy make money.” That’s right here: Here’s FACT #6. Same web page, where Dennis Kimbro said: “Remember each year $1.2 trillion runs through our hands without a thing to show for it. No other ethnic group tolerates such nonsense”. Dr. Kimbro, a black man, says that black people need only to CHOOSE to be wealthy, and there won’t be anything in their way. Certainly not racism.

        Go ahead, disprove ONE, just one, of those facts. [Rational Observer/DaShawn lays down the gauntlet! Will BrothaWolf pick it up?]

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        You said:
        Here’s the bottom line, sure there are singular racist incidents, but at the end of the day, racism is systematic and institutional, like I said earlier.

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        This is, again, just an opinion that you refuse to back up with facts. That PROBABLY means you have no facts to back them up, and you’re just blindly following something. Again, all you do is say things. Back something up. I dare you. After all, I backed up what I’ve been saying. With FACTS.

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        You said:
        We see it in prisons, police actions, the media, education, even in the workforce.

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        Okay. Show it to me then. FACTS. You know: Statistics, evidence, proof. But, look out for what you write that actually proves MY points. For example: black incarceration. Yeah? What about it? It’s ABOUT at the same rate as the level of black crime in America. The media? Every time there are indications that black America is in trouble, the media fall all over themselves to find or invent excuses for riots, black crime, black murders, black violence, etc. It’s always, oh, we must find out the root causes of black criminality! No one ever makes any excuses for white criminals. Because there ARE no good excuses. Simple as that. Education? If you’re black, and you want one, education is free in America. Even if you want to study something as useless as “African-American Studies” or the like. In the workforce? Blacks are represented in the workforce and in management at about the same levels as their educational attainment. Simple fact. If you are black and you get a good education, and you present yourself pretty normally, then you will find a job in America. In fact there are LOTS of companies begging you to go work for them so they can attain their affirmative action goals and not be extorted by the likes of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        You said:
        So why not stop rambling and start listening to those who may know more about racism than you?

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        Just another dodge, BrothaWolf. It’s apparently you who can’t stay on-topic, and have to spend all your time insulting me and pretending that it’s possible to know how much I know about racism. I gave you REAL FACTS. Stop wasting my time and yours, and address THOSE.

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        You said:
        Then again, you and the rest of the likeminded thinkers hate to do that.

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        Again, you couldn’t POSSIBLY know what I hate or don’t hate, like or don’t like, love or don’t love. And you couldn’t possibly know that about anyone else either. Again, get off the irrelevant and set about to trying to prove wrong the FACTS that I gave you.

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        You said:
        Instead you condemn others for acknowledging the problem in the first place. You must really feel proud of yourself being so condescending.

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        Never have I condemned anyone, but rather what they’ve said. If what someone says is stupid, then it’s stupid. If it’s unsubstantiated, then it’s unsubstantiated. To say otherwise would be to lie. And lying to you, as your heroes on the left do, would be one whole heck of a lot MORE condescending than being honest to you. Furthermore, how are YOUR insults of my person not condescending? And YOUR ridiculous pretense that you could possibly know what I know, or like, or think, how is that anything but condescending? [Rational Observer can be merciless! Well, if you’re a member of the RGI, or a leftist, then the truth does hurt. No wonder they resist it as ferociously and irrationally as they do!]

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        You said:
        Anyway, this conversation is over. You have nothing to say that is constructive, observant or rational lol.

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        Oh? Then it should be easy to knock my FACTS out of the park. Go ahead, give me (1) some definition of “institutional racism,” and (2) some FACTS that indicate that it’s everywhere, and (3) some indication that it’s a big problem, and not an imaginary one, for black people. I’m still waiting. So are any other rational observers. [Rational Observer just keeps coming! Even though I’m pretty sure he’s really DaShawn and Rational Observer, I like the way he thinks!]

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        You said:
        And if you insist at going on about a subject you apparently know very little about, be my guest.

        What’s wrong with what you said:
        Oh? YOU were apparently unaware of the FACTS I presented above. What does that say about YOUR level of knowledge. You seem to know NOTHING about ANYTHING that didn’t happen to YOU. [See the preceding comment about Rational Observer/DaShawn not relenting.] Your writing shows you to be profoundly ignorant of the world around you. Are you as ignorant as your writing suggests? If not, why don’t you demonstrate it? I gave you six FACTS above. Want one more? Dr. Kimbro’s figure of 1.2 trillion dollars PER YEAR works out to about $30,000 PER black person in America. If that were a family of four, they would get an annual gift of the equivalent of $120,000. Every year. That’s DAMN good money to get for free every year! All I do is give you facts. All you do is call names, and suggest that you know things that you couldn’t possibly know. So, now, how is it that I’M not a rational observer? [Again, see the preceding comment about Rational Observer/DaShawn not relenting.]

        * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

        Why do I bother with you? Because I’m a rational observer. Your invective and immature name-calling and evasions and off-topic dodges don’t bother me at all. But they do reflect very poorly on you.

      • You must have a lot of time on your hands to worry so much about what I blog about. But it matters not. Racism exists, and if you were such a “rational observer”, you would see that. It’s obvious that you’re not. So, this conversation is nonproductive.

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 31, 2015 at 3:46 am

        Don’t you get tired of fabricating strawmen? [Very good point! BW is the king of fabricating strawmen!] Of course no one ever said that racism doesn’t exist. However, I’ve pretty much proven that it’s not a big problem, and your failure to address that fact says that you agree with that conclusion. [Pow!]

    • “How do I know this? I’m a rational observer.”

      No, you’re a biased observer with delusions of rationality.

      • It seems there are a lot of mentally unstable people out there who love coming to blogs like this one and spewing their lunacy. Nice try. They do provide comic relief though, if you can get past some of their long rantings. I usually get cross eyed after the first paragraph. [Yet another moronic post by Herneith. She’s perfectly dependable: If you never read anything she writes, you can be perfectly assured that you will miss absolutely nothing.]

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 31, 2015 at 12:03 am

        Everyone’s biased. Against a whole array of things. Just a question of what his or her biases are. Bias doesn’t have anything to do with being rational. I’d HOPE you were biased against child molestation, for example. Why would you post such a stupid post, Mack?

      • That comment makes no sense. And Mack made a very rational observation.

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 31, 2015 at 12:11 am

        Wow, Herneith! You allowed a mentally unstable person to come in here and logically clean your clock? What does that make you? Oof! Better take your “happy pills” again, you’re playing out of your intellectual league. [Oof! As much as I might disapprove of RO and DaShawn being the same guy, RO pummeled Herneith here!]

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 31, 2015 at 3:53 am

        What was difficult to understand, BW? Mack called me biased. I simply pointed out the obvious: EVERYBODY’s biased. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with being biased. In fact, it’s IMPORTANT to be biased.

        Bias has no bearing on whether one is rational or not. I then pointed out something against which everyone ought to be biased.

        When Mack said I was biased, he was implying that bias and rationality are mutually exclusive. They’re not. Therefore Mack’s post was stupid. It was clearly and succinctly stated, and wrong.

      • You conservatives can’t stand being called out, can ya?

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 31, 2015 at 5:08 pm

        How do you come to THAT silly conclusion? Mack said something patently stupid. It would have been dishonest of me not to point it out to him. If someone successfully “calls me out,” I will be the first to admit it, and to acknowledge his or her superior argument. I have no desire to win, only to learn. You should try that sometime. [Bam!]

  4. @ ‘Wolf, “It’s safe to say that no matter what we do, our faults end up overshadowing our accomplishments as well as overall humanity and individuality though the eyes of the white racist mindframe that continuously sees itself as innocent and normal while it sees blackness as criminal, pathologic and something to be feared and taken care of mostly by imprisonment or brute force.” THIS!!!

    Sidenote: Is anyone reallY buying into this obvious troll’s name being “DaShawn”? Nice try, but you lose-thanks for playin’ though.. lbvs

    • DaShawn said:

      May 28, 2015 at 3:55 am

      Is anyone buying into MzNikita’s pretending she’s a black woman? She’s obviously a white spy trying to make black people look stupid by posting her brainless fluff. Nice try, BUFFY!

      BrothaWolf, I respectfully request that you ban “Mz.Nikita.” If she’s REALLY black, which I doubt, then that’s just really embarrassing. Otherwise, it seems obvious she’s just a white spy. [Now, there’s a twist I didn’t see coming. Really clever, though, and a really good point! Don’t forget: I think that DaShawn and Rational Observer are the same dude. Wow! This is getting complicated!]

      • Request denied.

      • DaShawn said:

        May 28, 2015 at 5:01 pm

        I figured as much. She’s an embarrassment, but she a racist embarrassment, so she’s okay on your site.

        I still think she’s a white racist man who’s writing the stupid tripe she does to try to make it seem like black people are stupid. [Lol! This is too funny! DaShawn makes an ingenious point here.]

      • I’ve known this woman for quite some time, and she would never, ever do such a thing.

      • DaShawn said:

        May 28, 2015 at 11:58 pm

        I don’t think you’re telling the truth. Maybe YOU’RE a white guy too. I think she’s white lady named Buffy, and you’re a white guy named Stan, and you’re both trying to make black people look stupid by posting the crap you post. I dare you to prove you’re black. [Lololololol!!! Here, DaShawn/Rational Observer accuses BW of being a white guy! And, ya know what? There’s no real proof that he’s not! This does demonstrate upside and the downside of blogs like this one and BrothaWolf’s: the futility of addressing anything but the ideas expressed. ]

      • You can’t prove anything to one who’s mind is already closed. Anyway, if you don’t like what I post, why bother visiting? That makes no sense, but then again, neither are your accusations. [Here, BW does it again. Draws conclusions about someone else rather than simply getting down to addressing what he’s said. Of course the real reason for this is that the RGI long since ran out of gas, so all they have is personal attacks. Remember also: If you want to know what the left is guilty of, examine the accusations they make of those who disagree with them. Our growing band of writers all scrupulously adhere to one very important rule: we never engage in personal attacks on those with whom we’re debating. as mentioned above, it’s the very first sign of being out of argument gas. In my long experience with debating the left, the personal attack is their first resort. The reason is simple: insecurity in their ideas. They act as though they believe that they need to “soften up” the opposition before ever locking horns with them in debate. In so doing, they must think, they leave the field open to the casual: “Well everyone knows that the group my opponent belongs to is overflowing with racists.”

        Think back to how the left — and their accomplices in the media — greeted the Tea Party. There was never a single shred of evidence that there was any racism whatsoever in the Tea Party. To the contrary, in fact, there was overwhelming evidence that the Tea Party was nothing if not extremely inclusive, encompassing social Conservatives, as well as economic Conservatives, Libertarians and social liberals. The one unifying principle of the Tea Party — having nothing whatsoever to do with race — was an agreement that the government should be smaller, and its scope and reach significantly diminished. But the left, and the media, repeated the racism accusation so many times, that the fabrication made its way into Americans’ general understanding of the Tea Party.

        For the history-minded among you, the “father” of this technique, and one-time darling of the left was none other than Adolf Hitler, and the technique is a variation of what is known as the “The Big Lie” Theory. That is:  the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. Then keep up the lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous. (<– Note: paraphrased from the linked WikiPedia entry.)]

  5. @ Mack Lyons, I read that great article o’ yours awhile back too-and it’s just as poignant then as it is now!

  6. Sorry ’bout that said:

    May 28, 2015 at 4:06 am

    While I highly doubt Brothawolf nor anyone on Brothawolf’s site has ever been a problem in any way, I would ask anyone if the following constitutes a problem:

    Contrast that with “feelings” that some, not all but some, black families claim to receive from white neighbors when they are alone in the neighborhood. Compare “feelings,” which are relative and unique to each individual, and “bad looks” to the above. Are the individuals involved in the harassment and violence mentioned in the piece worried about being perceived as “problems?”

    Would they perhaps rather fit well into this shirt:

    The “Don’t Tread On Me” coiled snakes are a nice touch.

    Just a question and some food for thought. [“Sorry ’bout that” jumps in with a post that supports, anecdotally, what I’ve been saying. Interestingly, no one responds to him! It appears that Rational Observer/DaShawn have/has sucked the air out of the room.]

  7. ..Thanks for settin’ the Projectionist Troll, dear ‘Wolf! 3 things I have Never been accused of in my life: #)1 Being perceived as “white” (though having a Cali “accent” has caused people to jokingly say that I “speak white”, as though POC are only capable of grunting and not being able to talk English properly-snarf!), #2) Being called a man (it doesn’t get any curvier than yours truly), and #3) Being called an “embarrassment” to myself, family, friends and/or anyone who knows me personally-quite the opposite actually as even my own teachers throughout my school years up to University have are and quite proud of being affiliated with moi as student and helpful classroom participant. So, take that in your pipe and smoke it along with those “rocks” you’re obviously puffin’ on as well! lolol

    Sidenote: For the record, I’ve never listed my full Multi-ethnic background on this site so You Lose again!!! [Watch how Rational Observer/Dashawn deals with this. Note: its here that Rational Observer and DaShawn seem to indicate that they’re the same person.]

    • DaShawn said:

      May 31, 2015 at 12:08 am

      Nor have I listed my background, yet you presumed to tell me what my background is. Mz.Nikita, or should I call you Mr.Nikita, you’re definitely a racist white man, trying to make black people look stupid with your idiotic posts. And your clever, but fake, biography, isn’t fooling anyone. You’re obviously a racist white troll and BrothaWolf should ban you. [Lol! I almost fell off my chair reading this! Talk about dishing out their own medicine to the RGI!]

      • Deshawn, again, I’ve known Mz. Nikita longer than you. I know she’s genuine. I don’t know what your beef is with her, but you need to chill out.

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 31, 2015 at 4:00 am

        BW: knowing nothing about me whatsoever, she accused me of not being who I say I am. Here’s her quote: “Sidenote: Is anyone reallY buying into this obvious troll’s name being “DaShawn”? Nice try, but you lose-thanks for playin’ though.. lbvs”

        Well, by definition, that means that it’s okay for me to accuse Nikita of not being who he says he is. He’s obviously a white spy trying to make black folks, and particularly black women, look stupid by posting really stupid posts. After all, “Nikita” IS a man’s name. [This is the post that seems to reveal that Rational Observer and DaShawn are the same person. It appears that Rational Observer responded when DaShawn should have.]

  8. “Thanks for settin’ the Projectionist Troll straight”..typo


    1. ..Yawn, get off my bra strap, Mrs. “Duh-Shawn”-why are trolls always sO fascinated with pestering me(?) *Shrugs* I’ve always liked my mom’s cool thinkin’ outside o’ the box by giving me such an Androgynous name (a Russian boys And girl’s name) and I’m not even a Soviet! lol Hippy parents are cool like that..



 – * –

At this point, BrothaWolf unburdens himself of yet another plaintive cri de coeur.  Exasperated by the drubbing that DaShawn/Rational Observer administered to him, he decides to post this next rather bedraggled attempt to provide “proof” of just how racist America is. He ends up quoting only other members of the Race Grievance Industry, and even pulls in someone who crowed that Clint Eastwood  admitted to having voted for John McCain in ’08 because McCain is white. Except for one small thing. Eastwood never did that, and it apparently took DaShawn/Rational Observer very little time to find that out.

Again, BW breaks out strawman after strawman, arguing vociferously and passionately, or plaintively and whiningly, depending on the moment, against arguments and statements that no one ever made. I have to give them credit, though: they stick to it! You can tell them what you’re thinking all you want, they’ll call you a liar and tell you they know what you’re thinking better than you do! When you point out the preposterousness of that, they just do it again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again… and one more time. You’ll see that below, as BW and his acolytes break out that tired, bedraggled canard: “You’re denying the existence of racism!

Don Quixote lives on in the Race Grievance Industry; still tilting away at terrifying windmills that sure look to him like white racism.

Below is Brotha Wolf’s second post, with accompanying comments in [square brackets and red font].


You Can’t Handle the Proof

I sit here rubbing my temples at the influx of commenters out to refute any single article written about racism. [This is a bit of hyperbole. BW doesn’t write “articles about racism,” he writes propaganda tracts, whining about imaginary white racism. Oh, white racism out there, but in BW’s fertile imagination, he’s transformed the arthritic, tottering, wheezing, old rat that is the dying remnant of white racism, into a snarling, ravening, massive, muscular bear.] The overall theme of these hive-minded drones [<– That’s particularly ironic, coming from this sheep in wolf’s clothing!] is that racism is either not a big problem or that it’s comprised of singular incidents that only occur a few times per year. Whatever the case, they not only want to tell me that racism is not as big a thing as I claim it to be, but they rant about me showing them some proof. [Goodness gracious! Can’t have that! Of course unsupported generalities, and unsubstantiated invective are sufficient from which to draw conclusions! Why would anyone need proof for horrific accusations?!? The fact that the accusation is made ought to be sufficient, right?] Don’t laugh. They want me to prove that racism is a major issue.

I take issue with that favor, or command rather, for a few reasons. One, they expect me to go out of my way to prove something when they can just do some of the research themselves. [If you read DaShawn/Rational Observer’s argument, you will see that he’d done quite a bit of research, and quite a bit of thinking about the subject.] Two, they have a hint of this master-slave mentality that they bring where if I don’t comply, they go off the deep end and lash out as if I was lower than scum. [Never forget to bring in “slavery,” though, how that would pertain to a quite reasonable request for evidence pertaining to serious accusations is likely to remain a mystery.] And three, and the most obvious reason, they wouldn’t except [sic] it anyway. We’ve seen it happen all the time, every time with these commenters. So, even if you do produce some evidence, they’re [sic] refute it and scream for something that’s not, as they consider it, leftist because anything that’s not right is obviously left, and that’s plain wrong to them. (There is no middle ground for them. It’s either right or left) [Uhhhhhhhhhhhh… wh-wh-whuh?]

Racism is an institutionalized business that permeates virtually every facet of society from education to the media and even the workforce. There are mountains of evidence that prove that racism exists. [Interestingly, BW refuses to provide any. If there were such mountains, needless to say, it would be child’s play to produce some.] Yet, this seemingly never-ending parade of naysayers want me, and perhaps everyone else, to believe otherwise. What’s worse is that they portray themselves as intellectuals who know more about racism than those who actually experienced it. [How does one’s experience with racism prevent anyone from understanding racism? And, how does BW know the extent to which anyone else has experienced racism? Answer: He doesn’t.] And they get pissed to the point of telling you how wrong you supposed to be when you make it known that racism is a significant problem in America. [That’s the one thing BW hasn’t done, is provide some indication somewhere that white racism (When BW refers to “racism,” he means “white racism.”) is a significant problem in America. Surprisingly I believe that racism is a significant problem in America. Black racism in the Race Grievance Industry. It’s holding black Americans back, and it poisons race relations in America. When blacks are racist, it’s easy, breezy and they display it openly, and without hesitation. And it’s deadly for America.]

These people operate passing themselves as almost scholarly with a knack for conducting and winning arguments. They tell you how wrong every single point you made is after they copy and paste them. In the mix they may even condemn them by calling your comments names as if they’re four-year olds fighting with other four-year olds. And when you can’t take their mess anymore, then they make you feel low. They may even get so crazy enough to think they’ve won the argument, patting themselves on the back for being “right”.

But the irony is that there is no argument when something is true. Racism is here. It’s part of this country’s culture. Arguing whether or not it exists is like trying to prove that water is wet.

Besides, what kind of proof are these loons looking for? [BW is big on accusing others of name-calling, but he never holds back himself. Interestingly, I scrupulously avoided insulting or calling names when I was locking horns with them. However, that didn’t prevent them from accusing me of it.] What kind of proof will they accept? [How about: Credible proof? Mebbe he could try some of that. Apparently there are mountains of it just lying around everywhere! As mentioned above, it should be child’s play to produce some.] What evidence would sway them to see the point of view of others? [As BW and his friends have been so goshdarned flexible and reasonable in seeing the point of view of others? :) Sheesh! Do these people even read what they write?] Judging by these people who apparently have the same mind, I doubt any kind of evidence, empirical or otherwise, would convince them of anything other than show how they are either too ignorant or too much in denial about the existence of racism.

These people would scoff at the following for whatever reason: [How about (1) they’re non-credible, not even close, and (2) the first three argue against points no one is trying to make, and (3) some of them contain out-and-out falsehoods, and (4) one is a college assignement! ]

If This Doesn’t Prove That Racism Still Exists, We Don’t Know What Will  [See above: no one is trying to suggest that racism doesn’t exist.]

Top 10 Reasons Why Racism Exists  [As many say: smh]

Racism Still Exists: The Worst Tweets From The #WhyDoBlackPeople Twitter Trend [A few dozen tweets prove that nearly all 200 million white people are racists! Some of the tweeters are black too! ]

15 Charts That Prove We’re Far From Post-Racial [Duh! Who really believes we’re “Post-racial?” The Race Grievance Industry is awash in racism.]

STUDENT GROUP RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ABOUT RACISM [Ooooooohhhh… yep. college students’ opinions prove that all 190 million white Americans are racists. smh again!]

Shocking New Studies Show Racism Exists, Affects People’s Actions [In a related news flash: All people’s states of mind affect their actions!]

Fox New’s Megyn Kelly can’t handle the truth about race and the justice system.  [Just an out-and-out falsehood.]

These are online articles. Sure. But they have links to actual studies that show that racism is a major problem in this country. But as we’ve all witnessed, crazy commenters will do what they can to refute that fact. They may as well argue in favor of the belief that Earth is flat while they’re at it. [Lol! One of my favorite images for the Race Grievance Industry is “flat earthers.” I’m glad to see that I’ve had such an effect on BW!]


  1. There’s nothing anyone can do to convince people of something they don’t want to believe. You can only hope they get educated for their own benefit. there’s a negative correlation between racism and education. The broader your understanding of the world, the less likely you are to be a racist, in other words. [If you read this kind of blog, you quickly come to realize that they are very, very long on what I call “just saying things.” This is an example. If you break down his post, you can see what I mean.

    Let’s do the exercise:

    • Sentence #1: “There’s nothing anyone can do to convince people of something they don’t want to believe.” Okay. That’s fine as far as it goes, but so what? It hasn’t said anything about anyone or anything that we didn’t already know. The implication, of course, is that those who disagree with the author of this post are unpersuadable. This is something that ericjbaker could not possibly know. 

    • Sentence #2: “You can only hope they get educated for their own benefit.” Again, a nice thought. And, again, the implication is that those who disagree need more education. But the level of education that anyone has is, again, perfectly unknown, and most importantly, unknowable to ericjbaker.

    • Then he says, Sentence #3: “there’s a negative correlation between racism and education,” which is simply not either knowable, or … likely even true. The most educated people in the world, the faculties of American universities, are the most racist people in America outside of the aggressively racist Race Grievance Industry, for whom imaginary white racism is a lucrative business.

    • Okay, next sentence, Sentence #4: “The broader your understanding of the world, the less likely you are to be a racist, in other words.” Another meaningless platitude that ericjbaker hopes is true, but (1) for which he offers no substantiation, and (2) is likely false, given the overt racism of the American professoriate.

    • This is the kind of meaningless fluff that’s supposed to pass for convincing argumentation in the RGI.]

    • Exactly. [Aaaaaand BrothaWolf endorses it!]

      • They are a waste of space. Don’t even bother trying to convince them. They only wish to make themselves feel better by denigrating others. It is like this; if someone is not in my trajectory, [Huh?] why bother about them? The fact that they need to pontificate ad nausea on black blogs, puts paid to the notion of their indifference. [Really? Isn’t this rather convincing evidence of the exact opposite of indifference?]  I’ll repeat my refrain; Ignore them or mock them!

  2. Rational Observer said:

    May 31, 2015 at 3:41 pm

    Okay, finally you made an effort to do a bit more than just saying something. Let’s see what you said, bit-by-bit again: [Here, Rational Observer/DaShawn unleashes a blistering, and long! dissertation, chock full of actual evidence for his points. I’ll let the long response speak for itself, with minimal commentary, mostly because I agree with it.]

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *
    You said:

    I sit here rubbing my temples at the influx of commenters out to refute any single article written about racism. The overall theme of these hive-minded drones is that racism is either not a big problem or that it’s comprised of singular incidents that only occur a few times per year. Whatever the case, they not only want to tell me that racism is not as big a thing as I claim it to be, but they rant about me showing them some proof. Don’t laugh. They want me to prove that racism is a major issue.

    My response:

    Well, yeah. If you say something about something being a “major issue,” you NEED to put forward some kind of compelling evidence that quantifies and qualifies the so-called issue. Vague claims that “everyone knows it” or “it’s everywhere if only you look for it,” or even worse, “you have to be black to understand it” mean nothing. Worse, they’re designed to prevent actual understanding by pretending that you have to have special powers that only certain people can have, or that you have to be clued into the secret club. If you have to be black to understand the black experience, or if you have to have experienced racism to understand racism, then you have to be white to understand what whites mean or their intent or their motivations. [Great point!  Gee, I wonder who’s been trying to make this point for some time?]

    If the races can’t communicate because of the color of their skin, then there is no hope. Yet, the races HAVE got along just fine, and DO get along just fine in certain places, so this notion that some are clued in due to the color of their skin is nonsense.

    An oncologist doesn’t need to experience cancer to understand what it is to be sick. Racism is nothing unique, but rather just another flavor of human cruelty. [Good point!] There’s nothing difficult, or mystical and magical about it that requires any special understanding. It’s wrong and bad. Like cruelty, or pettiness, or arrogance, or condescension, or vindictiveness, or narrow-mindedness. In fact, ALL human faults are all of those things. No, racism’s nothing special, and requires no special qualifications for the knowing of it, just the understanding of human cruelty. Any human can understand it perfectly well.

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    You said:

    I take issue with that favor, or command rather, for a few reasons. One, they expect me to go out of my way to prove something when they can just do some of the research themselves. Two, they have a hint of this master-slave mentality that they bring where if I don’t comply, they go off the deep end and lash out as if I was lower than scum. And three, and the most obvious reason, they wouldn’t except it anyway. We’ve seen it happen all the time, everytime with these commenters. So, even if you do produce some evidence, they’re refute it and scream for something that’s not, as they consider it, leftist because anything that’s not right is obviously left, and that’s plain wrong to them. (There is no middle ground for them. It’s either right or left)

    My response:

    First, no one “commanded” you to do anything. I simply stated the obvious: if you’re going to say something inflammatory about an entire race, as you do all the time, then it is YOUR responsibility to back that up. You haven’t done that, so your claims are looking more and more like libel. I can do, and have done, all sorts of research. YOU need to back up your OWN claims. I’m not responsible for supporting your positions. That’s not my job, it’s yours. YOU bear that responsibility.

    This “master-slave” nonsense is just that: nonsense. Paranoid nonsense at that. Do you think that you’re somehow exempt from the rules that ALL people have to follow, to make a case for something? Just because you’re black? No. YOU have to do the work to prove you’re not just blowing smoke. You are telling an untruth about the “lashing out as if you were lower than scum.” That’s shameful. I’ve never attacked YOU, but rather what you’ve written. Your paranoia about my state of mind suggests that you might simply be paranoid about racism as well. If you can’t address what’s ACTUALLY being said, how can you have any credibility in your posts about racism?

    About your leftism. On your very own site, you have an “I voted” button. I assume you didn’t vote for any Republican candidates. I’ve been reading your blog posts. No, I’m guessing you voted for either the Democrat, or someone to the left of the Democrat. Furthermore, your ARGUMENTS are word-for-word the arguments of the left.

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    You said:

    Racism is an institutionalized business that permeates virtually every facet of society from education to the media and even the workforce. There are mountains of evidence that prove that racism exists. Yet, this seemingly never-ending parade of naysayers want me, and perhaps everyone else, to believe otherwise. What’s worse is that they portray themselves as intellectuals who know more about racism than those who actually experienced it. And they get pissed to the point of telling you how wrong you supposed to be when you make it known that racism is a significant problem in America.

    My response:

    “Racism is an institutionalized business that permeates virtually every facet of society from education to the media and even the workforce.” What does that even mean? You need to DEFINE “institutionalized racism,” then give compelling evidence that it’s more than just imaginary. This is obvious.
    “There are mountains of evidence that prove that racism exists.” Again, without PRODUCING a SHRED of such evidence, this is meaningless. More to the point, though, no one is arguing that racism doesn’t exist. When are you going to abandon this strawman, BW? You CONSTANTLY argue against a point that NOBODY is trying to make.
    “What’s worse is that they portray themselves as intellectuals who know more about racism than those who actually experienced it.” Having the experience of racism is not needed in order to understand racism. This is so glaringly obvious that it shouldn’t need to be said. As for portraying myself as an intellectual, what’s the problem with that? I AM an intellectual. Should I portray myself as an ignoramus? What would be the point of that? Should I portray myself as uneducated? I’m NOT uneducated. I prefer to be honest with you. You need to understand this: a victim of racism doesn’t necessarily have a greater understanding of racism than someone who’s studied it for a long time. The victim might understand the EFFECTS better, but that’s it. The student of racism can understand perfectly well that the EFFECTS are bad, and resolve to find the CAUSES and ways to eradicate it. And, yes, the student of racism, no matter his race, would understand racism better than an actual victim. In fact, it could be argued that the VICTIM understands racism WORSE than the unbiased, student of the phenomenon, because the victim’s point-of-view might be tainted by a desire for revenge.
    “And they get pissed to the point of telling you how wrong you supposed to be when you make it known that racism is a significant problem in America.” This is meaningless. If racism is NOT a significant problem in America, then it would be morally wrong NOT to point it out to you. Especially when you make a point of tarring an ENTIRE race with your accusations of racism. If you make those accusations, then you have a moral obligation to back up your incendiary claims.

    One last thing: It’s obvious that the cancer doctor understands cancer better than the cancer patient. Please get rid of the silly idea that if one is a victim of racism, then he AUTOMATICALLY has a better understanding of racism than anyone else. He just doesn’t.

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    You said:

    These people operate passing themselves as almost scholarly with a knack for conducting and winning arguments. They tell you how wrong every single point you made is after they copy and paste them. In the mix they may even condemn them by calling your comments names as if they’re four-year olds fighting with other four-year olds. And when you can’t take their mess anymore, then they make you feel low. They may even get so crazy enough to think they’ve won the argument, patting themselves on the back for being “right”.

    My response:

    Look, BW, there’s just nothing wrong with arguing against points. You should try it sometime, instead of engaging in the constant personal attacks. That’s the point of an argument. It’s YOU who go off calling people names, and accusing them of all sorts of irrelevant nonsense. Then YOU get ticked off because they defend themselves against your scurrilous accusations. You can’t “call a comment a name.” If a comment is stupid, then calling it such is simply attaching an adjective to it. Name-calling can be done only to people, and it’s you who indulge in it, by calling people racists, or “hive-minded drones,” (as YOU did above) or “loons” (as YOU did above), or liars, or ignorant (as you have insinuated NUMEROUS times). YOU’RE the name-caller, BW, and you seem to want to be free to continue to insult people while insulating yourself from criticism. That indicates great immaturity. [Wow! Rational Observer apparently agrees with us here: If you want to know what the left is guilty of, just examine what they’re accusing their opponents of!]

    An important point: NOBODY on earth can “make you feel low” except you. If you ARE a rational observer, then it would be impossible to offend or insult you. You need to stop whining about what people say about you, because it can’t hurt you. Only YOU can hurt you. [And, that’s a good point too!]

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    You said:

    But the irony is that there is no argument when something is true. Racism is here. It’s part of this country’s culture. Arguing whether or not it exists is like trying to prove that water is wet.

    My response:

    Wrong: EVERYTHING is ALWAYS subject to examination and RE-examination. If everyone had simply accepted Newtonian physics, then there’d be no theory of relativity or quantum physics. If everyone had accepted as true the notion that the earth is flat, then THAT would be the accepted belief today. Each of these things was either fixed or modified by deeper and deeper and still deeper examination of things that had long been accepted. [This guy’s good!]

    Racism is NOT part of the country’s culture in any meaningful way. At least among white people. And, I shouldn’t have to say this, but I will anyway. If you’re going to assert that water is wet, as part of a larger argument, then you DO have to be sure that you can prove it, AND that you understand, and can demonstrate, your understanding of the definition of “wet,” AND that you AND your interlocutor AGREE on that definition. All that is self-evident. The point: Water IS wet. We can all be confident that we all agree on that, and on the definition of wet. However, In the realm of something as subjective as states of mind, like racism, you’re even MORE obligated to be sure that you don’t just toss accusations and slanders and libels around.

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    You said:

    Besides, what kind of proof are these loons looking for? What kind of proof will they accept? What evidence would sway them to see the point of view of others? Judging by these people who apparently have the same mind, I doubt any kind of evidence, empirical or otherwise, would convince them of anything other than show how they are either too ignorant or too much in denial about the existence of racism.

    My response:

    “Loons?” Who’s the REAL name caller here, BW? So, what kind of proof would ANYONE accept? REAL proof. FACTS, from credible sources. I gave you such FACTS (see below), yet YOU seem unswayed by those genuine facts that no one seems to dispute.

    And, of course, no one denies the existence of racism, so that is just another strawman, another example of BW trying to argue against a point no one’s trying to make.

    Now, on to your “evidence.”

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    Link 1: “If This Doesn’t Prove That Racism Still Exists, We Don’t Know What Will” (

    My response:

    Well. A link with a video arguing against a point nobody’s ever tried to make.Everyone knows that racism exists. No one addresses the apparent fact that it’s just not a big problem in America anymore.

    This video DOES bring up the various studies that point to the idea that “black names” on résumés don’t generate as many calls back for employment opportunities as do white names. This COULD indeed be troubling, if there were not greater context. There are ALSO studies showing that there is a built-in bias in FAVOR of black job applicants (aka Affirmative Action). The question: which phenomenon is of greater magnitude? Absent the answer to THAT question, things like this video are interesting data points, but don’t allow anyone to make any conclusions.

    One more point: the above link is to an opinion blog that is loaded with left-wing fluff. It’s NOT a news organization. There’s nothing wrong with opinion blogs, but opinion bloggers are obligated to use FACTS to bolster their opinions. This blogger chooses a “study” that is not given context. And there is a lot of potential counter-balancing cntext that could come out of the answer to my aboive-posed question: WHICH bias is greater that AGAINST black job applicants, or that FOR black job applicants. My argument is that there should be no bias whatsoever in the realm of skin color. Abolish Affirmative Action AND prosecute skin color discrimination, against ANY color, vigorously. Period. [This is the major problem of the Race Grievance Industry. No one is trying to argue that racism doesn’t exist. There’s literally not a single person whom anyone takes seriously, trying to make the argument that white racism doesn’t exist. But the RGI come back over and over and over and over and over again to trying to argue  that (1) people are trying to make that argument, and (2) that they, the RGI, have proof, proof I tell you! that it exists. Ooooookay. No one says it doesn’t. In the months and months and months that others and I have been locking horns with the RGI,  literally no one — not a single person — has tried to make the argument that “white racism doesn’t exist.” However, there are plenty who have offered convincing evidence that it’s simply not a big problem in America anymore. <– Nearly a direct quote.]

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    Link 2: Top 10 Reasons Why Racism Exists (

    My response:

    Again, from the headline: arguing against a point that nobody’s ever tried to make. However, BW, this is just simply bad. [Lol! Here it is again!]

    Item #5 contains a complete falsehood, suggesting that Clint Eastwood said: “I voted for McCain because he was white. ‘Cuz that’s why other folks vote for other people – because they look like them. … That’s American politics, pure and simple.” Eastwood never said that, and here’s the debunking, with full explanation: [Yep. I verified independently that Eastwood never said anything close to that.]

    The rest of the ENTIRE page is either opinion, or the page owner’s repeating someone else’s unsubstantiated opinion.

    You implied that I’d argue against your “evidence” for whatever reason. How about THIS reason: It’s wrong, full of inaccuracies and unsubstantiated opinions and conjecture. Item #5 alone condemns the page as not credible. Come on, BW, ANYONE can find fringe kooks out there to support ANY idea. All indications are that this guy is a fringe kook.

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    Link 3: Racism Still Exists: The Worst Tweets From The #WhyDoBlackPeople Twitter Trend (

    My response:

    Yet ANOTHER post arguing against a point that no one’s ever tried to make! This one, though, purports to “prove” the point by pulling out a couple of dozen tweets from a “twitterverse” of BILLIONS of daily tweets. And several of the tweeters are REPEAT tweeters. One tweeter was black! I’ll repeat what I said elsewhere. There are 190 millon white people in America. Unless you can show convincing evidence that there are MILLIONS of racists among them, then you haven’t shown anything. More to the point, whoever it was who suggests that a couple dozen tweets “proves” anything just made MY case for me: racism among blacks is MUCH more prevalent than among whites. I suspect you will be able to find MILLIONS of tweets suggesting that whites are evil, and scum, and lousy, no-good, rotten dirtbags all OVER the twitterverse. The point: You shouldn’t try to make a point that only ends up making the point of the dude you’re arguing against! [Pow!]

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    Link 4: 15 Charts That Prove We’re Far From Post-Racial (

    My response:

    Chart #1: Okay, if you believe the first chart, then there are WAY more “middle income” and “affluent” blacks than whites. It’s right there in the first chart. Presumably, the chart is NOT trying to make us believe that there is “poverty” among Middle-income and Affluent households, so the first chart is just meaningless, as it implies that black people are a lot wealthier than white people in America. I’m guessing that is not what YOU are trying to argue, BW.

    Chart #2: Chart #2 says, “There’s a big disparity in wealth between white Americans and non-white Americans,” and proceeds to show the disparity. Okay. I agree. That’s a problem. But it’s not a RACISM problem. Nor does it indicate that there is not equal opportunity in America. Finally, though, BW, you’ve identified an ACTUAL problem. The CAUSE of the problem, though, is NOT racism, at least not as YOU’VE understood it, but a whole host of other things.

    Chart #3: Chart #3 says, ” The racial wealth gap kept widening well after the Civil Rights era.” Yep. I agree with this too. And the direct reason is the vast collection of social welfare legislation that Lyndon Johnson, a Southern segregationist, by the way, promulgated and called: “The Great Society.” The headline is misleading, though. Before the Civil Right era, the fastest-growing economic demographic in the United States was: black people. The Democrats stopped that economic growth and killed the economic dynamism of black Americans in its tracks. It’s jaw-droppingly unbelievable that blacks CONTINUE to vote for Democrats who stabbed them in the back, and to shun Republicans, who were responsible for Civil Rights legislation, while opposing the Great Society programs.

    Chart #4: Chart #4 says, “The Great Recession didn’t hit everyone equally.” Duh! ALL recessions hurt the poor more than the less poor. More black people are poor, therefore the Great Recession hit them harder. This is not in dispute, but has no bearing on whether America is racist or not.

    Chart #5 is interesting: It says: “In the years before the financial crisis, people of color were much more likely to be targeted for subprime loans than their white counterparts, even when they had similar credit scores.” Yes, that’s absolutely true. By law! It was called the CRA (The Community Reinvestment Act), and it ordered mortgage companies to relax lending standards for blacks and hispanics in order to get them into home ownership in greater numbers. The theory was that they would then have a greater opportunity to build wealth, as at the time, a home was considered the single most important investment anyone could make. Far from being a proof of racism, this was a very ill-advised multi-trillion dollar gift to black Americans that almost sank the American economy and brought about the Great Recession. The point: if, BW, you are going to try to define white racism as “white people giving black Americans heaps of money,” then maybe you should stop complaining about it. Between you and me, I don’t think that the relaxation of credit standards did ANYONE any favors, but it was at least, obviously, NOT a racist act.

    The rest of the charts are the same, in that they either fail to give the necessary context, or are full of the same conjecture as in BW’s first three links (some talk about the same topics as well. For example: Chart #15: “Employers are more likely to turn away job seekers if they have African-American-sounding names.”) Some of the charts deal with the disproportionate incarceration rates for black people. However, absent the understanding of black crime rates in the same discussion, then there is, again, necessary context missing. Same with the chart about black kids being punished more frequently and more harshly in schools. Well, do they misbehave more frequently? And more seriously? Without that answer, again, the chart is meaningless.

    Now, however, I’m going to shock you. I agree with the premise of the link. We are NOT post-racial. We just got rid of the most racist Attorney General in the history of the United States, Eric Holder, and we have a race-obsessed President. Of COURSE we’re not post-racial. But, the race story is a LOT more complex than BW would have you believe, and contains a huge element, the 900-pound gorilla in the room, of unaddressed BLACK racism.

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *


    My response:

    This is just a bunch of college students responding to a question about racism and whether it exists or not. No one is trying to pretend that racism DOESN’T exist, so this is just another example of the same tired strawman. I remember when my daughter took a college class with a similar question, and the students had to post a blog post with their answers. My daughter made sure to say that sure, racism is a HUGE problem in the America, because everyone knew that if you suggested otherwise, the professor would flunk you. She had already flunked other students who had dared to disagree with her. There WAS a nugget, however, in this otherwise substanceless page. The very opening disclaimer, an idea that BW would be well served to take to heart. It says: “PLEASE READ WITH AN OPEN MIND. REMEMBER THAT ONE’S VIEW OF RACISM GENERALLY REFLECTS THE EXPERIENCE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL AND HIS/HER SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT. THUS, NOT EVERYONE WILL VIEW OR EXPERIENCE RACISM IN THE SAME WAY.” Bingo! This at least ONE of the things we’ve been trying to say for a LONG time!

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    Link 6: Shocking New Studies Show Racism Exists, Affects People’s Actions (

    My response:

    This comes from: “NewsOne for Black America.” Ah, THERE’s an impartial source! Could this be an opinion site as well? Yep. Just another race grievance opinion web site. Still, it’s just another web post arguing against a point that no one is trying to make. Everyone knows that racism exists, and no one is trying to pretend it doesn’t. But, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that racism is a big problem in America.

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *

    Link 7: Fox New’s Megyn Kelly can’t handle the truth about race and the justice system. (

    My response:

    This is from yet another opinion web site! Surf around on it and you see that it’s not a serious web site. I DO remember the incident referred to above, and Kelly, a lawyer as well as a broadcaster, accurately portrayed the situation in Baltimore that was badly botched by Baltimore’s District Attorney, Marilyn Mosby. Kelly, and others, accurately reported on the disgraceful things that Mosby said in her explanations of why she indicted the three black and three white cops involved in the arrest and subsequent death of Freddie Gray. However, anyone can disagree on all that, but no matter what, even if one were to ADMIT that Kelly doesn’t understand race and incarceration and all that, she’s ONE person. ONE person! There are 300 million people in the United States! 300 million!

    The piece then goes on to show all the aforementioned incarceration charts without, again, providing any context that is absolutely necessary in understanding that issue.

    * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – *


    BW: You’ll notice that I addressed ALL YOUR points, as you requested. I even agreed with some of them! You STILL haven’t addressed MY points. By way of review, here they are:
    (1) FACT: The President of the United States is a black man, elected by white people who are, by far, the majority of voters in America.
    (2) FACT: There is nobody trying to get OUT of America. To the contrary, there are all sorts of people whom you call by the condescending term: “People of Color trying to get IN. By the millions.
    (3) FACT: White people abolished slavery, enacted Civil Rights legislation, have transferred trillions of dollars of wealth to the poor, and disproportionately to brown and black people (yes, mostly to single white woman).
    (4) FACT: No black people on earth have it better than here in America. If black people had it better elsewhere, then AMERICAN blacks would be doing their best to join them.
    (5) FACT: One of America’s 35,000 black millionaires said this: “Average folks make excuses while the wealthy make money.” That’s right here:
    (6) FACT: On the same web page, where Dennis Kimbro said: “Remember each year $1.2 trillion runs through our hands without a thing to show for it. No other ethnic group tolerates such nonsense”. Dr. Kimbro, a black man, says that black people need only to CHOOSE to be wealthy, and there won’t be anything in their way. Certainly not racism.

    I’m STILL waiting for you to address them, as I REQUESTED (NOT “commanded.”).

    • This clown illustrates my point beautifully! Thanks loon!

      • Rational Observer said:

        May 31, 2015 at 4:45 pm

        @Herneith, referring to your post previous to the above, you’ll note, of course, that (1) at no time in my detailed response to BW did I denigrate anyone else, and (2) how is it that calling ME a “loon” is NOT denigrating? [Rational Observer is a man after my own heart! He doesn’t let the brainless accusations go by without a withering rebuttal that crushes the accusation.]

        So, it’s just fine for YOU to denigrate others?

        I don’t expect you ACTUALLY to read the above, it’s written above your apparent ability to understand. You should probably go play elsewhere, where the fare is less challenging.

        Or, maybe like Mz.Nikita, you’re really just a white spy trying to make black folk seem stupid by posting the REALLY brainless stuff that you do. [Wow! Bang! This is getting even more fun!]

  3. xPraetorius said: [A cameo by your humble correspondent!!! BW, who had long banned me, apparently allows supporting posts through. This is to his credit! It means that there is some flexibility to his thinking.]

    May 31, 2015 at 6:00 pm

    Hey, Rational Observer and DaShawn! First and foremost, I think you’re the same person. See BW’s post before this one — called : “Being a Problem” — where RO appears to have responded as DaShawn.

    Look, I’m very sympathetic to your points of view, and agree with you nearly completely, but you need to consider a couple of things. (1) You need to fight fair. If you are the same person, then it’s not fair that you would pretend to be otherwise. (2) Brotha Wolf has just had a death in the family and is going through a difficult time. I can’t believe you’re not aware of that, and you need to give it a rest.

    I’m a huge believer in fair play, and you guys are catching Brotha Wolf at a weak moment, and you should stop. [Yep. BW mentioned n the middle of all this back-and-forth, that he had just experienced a death in the family (the reason for the delay in publishing this, by the way).  It’s important that others observe the general rules of common courtesy that should always be in place.]

    Just my two cents…


    — x

  4. You know what? I have a feeling if I try to respond, this will be a merry-go-round where you and I will end up repeating ourselves. I never thought I’d say this, but I think xPrae is right about you and Deshawn. I also think you’re the same person that continues to comment in the same exact manner but comes back using different names. I don’t know know about my theory, but your comments appear as similar as those who came before you.

    So, I’m just going to ban you from my den because frankly, I’m tired of you and others like you with the same mentality. Goodbye forever. [Still, this is too bad. The practice of “banning” someone is pure and simple proof of cowardice and all blog moderators/owners should be encouraged to avoid it. “Banning” is just another word for “censoring,” and we’ve had way, way, way more than enough of that in recent history, in Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Red China, and elsewhere. Other than this tawdry, and vaguely totalitarian practice, BW runs an occasionally interesting blog. ]

  5. DaShawn said:

    June 1, 2015 at 12:21 pm

    @xPraetorius, you are correct DaShawn and Rational Observer are the same person. Or, I should say, we’re both DaShawn. I apologize to you and to BrothaWolf. I did it because I figured that sooner or later BrothaWolf was going to ban one of us, and I wanted to keep commenting. He doesn’t take kindly to people disagreeing with him, so I figured that maybe he’d let one of us stay around. When you used to hang around here, this was one of the best blogs around, but since you left, it’s been nothing but the usual “look how bad whitey is” crap, except for a couple of people who came around to challenge the race whiners here. I won’t do it again. In my defense I DO use both ID’s in various online conversations and debates that I have, but I’ll retire Rational Observer at this blog. It’s a shame because that’s my favorite ID. When I use my real name, people know that I’m a black man and they draw conclusions too quickly. [Caught! Rational Observer admits he’s really DaShawn. I knew it! In retrospect, I’m not sure I should have outed Rational Observer/DaShawn. However, BW was in the middle of a weak moment, and I thought that he deserved a break. He was getting pummeled by the vastly superior argumentation of Rational Observer — who really is a rational observer. I can’t help it, I’m an inveterate softie for the underdog! ]

  6. DaShawn said:

    June 1, 2015 at 12:29 pm

    By the way, xPraetorius or Brothawolf, how do you get your text to be bolded or italicized like that? I don’t want to have to rely on CAPS all the time to provide emphasis.

    • xPraetorius said: [Another cameo from yours truly! And, as you’ll see, I was still suspicious of DaShawn/Rational Observer.]

      June 2, 2015 at 11:04 pm

      Hey, Dashawn! I don’t get it. You asked me how to do the bolding thing, but in the post where you responded to BW’s links, above, you did a bunch of bolding. What gives? All you have to do is whatever you did in that post.


      — x

  7. DaShawn said:

    June 1, 2015 at 12:33 pm

    Also, I was not aware that BrothaWolf had had a death in the family. I see now from his home page that he has, and I’m sorry to hear it. At times like this, we should ALL band together and support those who are sorrowful, so I will to. I’m so sorry to hear of your hurtful news, BrothaWolf, and I join with the others in praying for you and your family, and in wishing you peace and healing. [This was a graceful post to BW. Was BW man enough to accept it?]

    • Thank you for your condolences, but I still don’t allow sock puppetry in my den. You are banned. [Nope. BW was not man enough!]

  8. DaShawn said:

    June 1, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    Oh, c’mon, BrothaWolf, you don’t say anything about sock puppets anywhere in your welcome page. [True! Apparently BW’s criteria for banning someone are ummmmmm … “flexible.”] How was I supposed to know? And is “sock puppetry” the same thing as using two ID’s to comment? [I confess, I’m not particularly clear on what “sock puppetry” is either. Apparently it’s something like: adopting two or more on-line personae on a single blog. I figured that was just “adopting two or more personae on a single blog,” and I admit I don’t see what’s wrong with that, as long as all you’re doing is expressing your opinions.] And if so, I don’t get what’s wrong with it. I do it all the time, and I know that lots of others do it too. My real name says “black man” too much, so I like to use another one when I want people to just consider what I write and not have to worry about their preconceived notions.

    • It’s a dishonest way of trying to convince that there is more than one person who share the same views as you commenting in someone else’s forum. And what’s wrong with your name ‘DaShawn’? That was the name you chose to use as your username. Anyway, like I said, you are banned from this blog because of your nonsense. I don’t mind those who disagree with me, [Lol! Yes he does! If they persist in their dissent, BW bans them!] but you condemned my opinions with insults like a little child. [Ah! Sensitive a bit? If someone disagrees, should he say that he agrees? What’s he supposed to do? Launch a personal attack against him, as BW does?!? Apparently Hitler lives on in the heart of BW! :) ] Why not learn how to respect other people’s opinions as I respect yours, or at least I used to. [There is no indication anywhere that BW ever respected the opinion of Rational Observer/DaShawn, unless, inveterate racist that he is, he “respected” DaShawn’s name.]

  9. xPraetorius said: [I’ve got a pretty good handle on formatting posts in replies in others’ blogs.]

    June 1, 2015 at 5:29 pm

    @DaShawn: to bold text, you surround the text you want to bold with <b> and </b>.

    To italicize, do the same thing, only use the letter “i”.

    Like this: <b>bolded text</b> and not bolded text. And this: <i>italicized text></i> and not italicized text


    — x

  10. Sorry — I got an extra “>” in the “Italics” version. :)


    — x

  11. Thank you for this, I can relate to the temple rubbing I was raised under two roofs and two cultures, one being the superior only white culture the other being indigenous (not indian because that is a white definition and I do not allow white people to define me, even if they are brown! Sadly the definitions that white culture has applied is believed by too many minority people who should stop paying attention to those idiots.) and it is undeniable. One example, the last rememberance day I went to was segregated, my uncles who fought in WWII’s memorials and photos are not permitted to be hung alongside the photos and memorials of the settlers and the two segregated groups sit and lie to themselves about the freedom that those people fought and obtained for us.

    The segregation was there when I was a kid too, both sides of my family lied about our racial backgrounds when I was young, we pretended to be white, I was suppose to stay with the white’s but decided instead to venture into the no go native section because no one was ever going to convince me that it was my place to hide my race in public, to ignore and disrespect my own relatives in order to be accepted by assholes, fuck that! Best decision I ever made, walk away from white thinking and experience humanity instead.

    This is something I hang onto to keep me sane, just be happy that that you are not a white person. The reason you are not is just pure luck, you could just as well be born in their place to their parents and be just like them. I now look at them just as I would a person who is mentally ill, or addicted, like an alcoholic or junkie, I have learned to pity them. I am glad I am not so unfortunate to have had bought into and experienced their reality. Being raised white is being raised as an idiot basically, you are taught that as a white person it is my responsibility to be an idiot for the greater idiot collective which functions as a parasite and is destroying the earth which is nothing anyone should want to participate in and just be happy that you are not white. [Wow! What a racist dirtbag! He says, “This is something I hang onto to keep me sane, just be happy that that you are not a white person.” Read the entire post, and you realize that this dude and sanity parted company a long, long time ago!] 

  12. It’s amazing how “Rational Observer” devotes so much time towards refuting the fact that racism indeed exists. But that’s the nature of the beast. It wants to silence your voice by burying you so deep in “fact” and “objectivity” that you never come out of it.

    He wanted you to get stuck in a merry-go-round of point-by-point refutations and you wouldn’t go for it. And now he and his sockpuppets are banned.

    Good. [Other leftists are always okay with the censoring of dissent. After all, the entirety  of the left are insecure in their beliefs. The less they have to challenge their ideas, the less they’ll have to deal with the fact that most of their thinking is really dumb.]

    • I don’t expect you ACTUALLY to read the above, it’s written above your apparent ability to understand.

      Oh I understand that is why I don’t read your posts. It’s the same shit, different toilet bowl. It’s a waste of time. It’s as Mack said and I’ll reiterate; He wanted you to get stuck in a merry-go-round of point-by-point refutations and you wouldn’t go for it. And now he and his sockpuppets are banned.

      If anything Brotha and Mack were to kind in their response to you. I do not suffer fools lightly and do not respond as such. If others wish to, then have at em! [Yet another academic post from Herneith! You can be sure that if you read a post from Herneith, you are reading a really stupid post.]

  13. @IRRATIONALobserver,

    You need to look no further than the mass incarceration of black and brown people for proof that racism still exists. All of the laws of facts listed below was to implement and subsequently target people of color as a control mechanisms. Where have you been living all of your life, … on Mars?

    1971 Pres. Nixon initiated the so-called “war on drugs.”
    1986 – Pres. Reagan increased mandatory sentencing for drug violation offenses.
    1994 – Pres. Clinton signs federal “three strikes” bill into law.
    Blacks are no more likely to commit drug crimes than whites, but 10 times more likely to be incarcerated for them.
    The United States of Amerika has over 2.2 million people incarcerated, this country has the largest percentage of its citizens in prisons and jails than any other country on the planet.
    African Americans account for only 5 percent of this country’s population but yet, make up 40 percent of its prison population.

    Further more, are you aware of the fact that 117 nations the U.N. criticized Amerikkka for police brutality and its racist police forces? Go right ahead IrrationalObserver, and continue pretending as if racism doesn’t exist and you’ll always be a character that other bloggers attribute to being an unwilling COMEDIAN!

    blankenshipsaid: June 6, 2015 at 3:50 pm  [Enter “blankenship!” I have no idea who this is, but I like him!]

    Finally, someone tries to make a case! Except, of course, that bs is arguing against something no one else is saying, so it’s still, kind of stupid. However, let’s take a look bs’s evidence:

     – 1971 war on drugs? How is that proof of any kind of white hostility toward black Americans? It’s seems to be pretty obvious proof of hostility toward drug use.

    – 1986 increased mandatory sentencing for drug offenses? Again, seems like pretty obvious proof only of hostility toward drug abuse.

    – 1994 – The first white trash President, Clinton, sings “three strikes” law? Yeah, so? Again, no evidence whatsoever of any white hostility toward black Americans.

    – The U.S has more people incarcerated than any other country is proof only of the fact that the U.S. has more people incarcerated than any other country. That’s all. Nothing else. However, I agree, something should be done about that. It IS a problem. However, there’s no evidence that it’s a RACIAL problem.

    – Black Americans account for (actually) about 13 percent of the population (not 5%) and they make up 40% of the prison population. Black Americans commit about 40% of all crime. It appears that this statistic ACTUALLY represents the CORRECT proportion of incarcerated black Americans.

    – The UN accused the U.S of racism? That’s nearly conclusive proof that the U.S. ISN’T racist.The U.S. is the LEAST racist country in the world. I’ve lived in other countries. Throughout the world, they accept racism as a natural part of life. EVERYONE worldwide believes that HIS particular ethnicity is better, smarter, nicer, more humane than any other ethnicity.If you’re going to try to use that phrase against me, consider this: yes, there IS a group that IS the least racist in the world: It’s white European/Americans, and I can prove it. If the racist nations of the UN are accusing the U.S. of racism, it’s DEFINITELY to deflect from THEIR OWN human rights abuses.That was a common ploy of the Soviet Union when that hellish nation existed: to deflect from the fact that they were one of the most murderous, bloodthirsty regimes in human history, they always said things like, “Look what the Americans did to the Indians!” And, “Look what the Americans do to black people!”People like you, bs, simply fell for THEIR bs.

  14. The thing with guys like “Rational Observer” it’s almost like fighting Zombies, no matter how many you smack down, another one pops up.

    Jesus Christ – I’ll give him A for effort though.

    He tries SO HARD to come across as serious, neutral and forthright but then contradicts himself all the time. He says

    “Racism is NOT part of the country’s culture in any meaningful way.”

    but then says

    “Racism is nothing unique, but rather just another flavor of human cruelty.”

    I mean, if he can’t see the irony embedded in those remarks, then he’s probably not prepared to enter a dialogue about much of anything.

    And to make it even worse he’ll then demand evidence for the existence of racism even though he’s admitted that racism exists ?

    You want proof Rational Observer ?

    Well quite frankly – I’m proof and so are the millions of black people worldwide, if you still can’t get your head around that and that’s still too much of a mind blowing concept, then just leave it.

    I think he’s just one of those pseudo intellectual types that we’ve all met, fancies himself as a great debater, where everything must be proved ….but only to his random standards.


    June 6, 2015 at 3:32 pm


    @HipHop: What you wrote is REALLY dumb. YOU admitted that, and I quote, “he admitted that racism exists” THEN, though, you tried to “prove” that racism exists! Even after YOU said HE admits it exists! THEN YOU called HIM stupid! THEN your “proof” was “you!”If you haven’t figured it out by now, you’re arguing, just like BrothaWolf, and everyone else on this post, AGAINST SOMETHING THAT NO ONE ELSE HAS EVER SAID HERE. Everyone admits that racism exists! If it weren’t sad and kind of pathetic to watch, it would be almost funnySomeone: “Yes, white racism exists, but it’s just not a big problem anymore in America.”Answer: “Oh, yeah? Well, racism DOES exist, and I’m living proof! So there!”And YOU accuse Rational Observer of being stupid?By the way, yes, in ANY debate, you DO have to make your case. You can’t just say things. That is so obvious that I shouldn’t have to say it. So, Rational Observer made his case, why don’t you try to prove him wrong?



Rational Observer/DaShawn,  and then the late arrival, blankenship, dismantled, razed, took apart, took down, annihilated, disemboweled, eviscerated, dismembered, beheaded, ripped apart, shredded, stomped upon, wrecked, demolished, devastated, pulverized, fragmented, smashed, crushed, chewed up, made mincemeat of, destroyed, squashed, exterminated, extinguished, pounded, stomped upon Brotha Wolf’s arguments.

Your guess: Will Brotha Wolf learn from this?

I don’t think so either.

— xPraetorius


(1)  – And I challenge others to prove me wrong. I have a little secret. I don’t mind being proven wrong. If you have compelling evidence that what I say is wrong, then I want to discard completely what I believe that is wrong. Simple as that.

(2) – Note: I’d simply link to the posts but, as mentioned above, I’ve been banned from the sites. As a result, I have no idea whether or not the site owners will keep the posts up. After all, these posts represent rather embarrassing repudiations of the RGI’s so-called “arguments.” Between you and me, if I were Brotha Wolf, or Abagond, I’d delete the posts altogether. They do not show them in good light.


Explaining Socialism – in Less Than Five Minutes

In explaining socialism, by extension you explain the entire body of economic thinking coming from the worldwide left.

What, you might ask, brought about this idea that one needs to explain socialism? Well, I drive my son Alex to work each weekday — ’bout a 20-minute trip. I use those 20 minutes also to have a brief moment of easy togetherness with him. Sometimes it turns into a Q & A session, or an opportunity to teach.

Alex is a typical 14-year old, filled with curiosity about the world around him, and fearless in asking me about it. So, with about 5 minutes to go in our trip to his school, he asked me, “So, How’s Greece?” It was germane to the general gist of the conversation at that time.

At that point I had about five minutes to explain “Greece” to Alex. Well, I gave him some background. Ancient country with lots of history; very few natural resources; one main industry: tourism; principal language: Greek; member of the EU. that kind of stuff. And… plagued by decades of socialism that have left much of the population — more even than the hot Greek sun could — lazy, indolent, feeling entitled and ready to sponge off the rest of Europe for the rest of their lives.

But, just to say that socialism brings about all this stuff is only the first part of the story. It’s imperative also to say why socialism inevitably brings about societal deterioration, decline and eventual destruction with it. Here’s how I did it (at this point, I had only about a minute to get it all in):

“Imagine,” I began, “you have an island country with 100 people in it. As in all groups of people, you have the rich, the not so rich, the poor and all points in between. If you also have someone who comes along and says, “Hey, you know what? The top 10% of this country have way more money than they’ll ever need, and that’s not fair! They need to come down a peg or two. If you make me your leader, we’ll have equality! If you make me your leader, I’ll make laws and rules and regulations so that those rich guys can’t take advantage of you, and we’ll put limits on how much they can have, and we’ll take the extra stuff they have, and we’ll give it to … you all.”

“How much support,” I asked Alex, “do you think that guy would get?”

My son instantly answered, “Well, 90 people would support him.”(1)

“Yep,” I said, “and he’d win and they’d get equality, and there’d be no such thing as that inequality that everyone seems to dislike so much these days.”

Alex then asked me, “ButSocialistFineDining, the people who get the money from the rich people can never get rich now either! Because the guy they chose to lead them would take all the ‘extra’ and put limits on how much they get. What good is that, if  nobody can ever get rich. That means that everyone’s poor with socialism.”

And, in one fell swoop, my son proved that you can explain how socialism works in less than five minutes!

Socialism does bring about equality of a sort. As long, that is, as you don’t mind a society of poverty, of deprivation, of despair and constant internal tension, as those who work hard, and struggle to achieve are slapped down by  heavy-handed government intrusion ensuring “equality.”

And that is the principal reason why there has never been a successful socialist society.

Ironically, one important measure of a healthy society is the extent to which it’s generating rich people, in other words, the extent to which it’s allowing income inequality. Income inequality means one thing: a society of opportunity.(2)

In a socialist society, the people’s opportunity is managed, doled out, to people as the government sees fit. People being people, the socialist leadership will tend to horde the opportunity for itself(3). It’s for that reason that the real inequality in socialist societies has always been between the leadership — who lead extravagant lives of luxury — like the fattest billionaire fat cat ever — while the people scrabble to get from day to day.

Needless to say, socialist thinking is a characteristic that the entire world left shares. Whenever some idiot says something like “We must make the rich pay their fair share,” you know you’re listening to someone who wants to squash your success.

I get a kick out of all those people saying just how fair it would be to take from those who have earned more, not even realizing the true meaning of that: If they were to succeed, the government would take it and give it to someone else. Then they go out and buy a lottery ticket.

I’m not pretending that I’m a great teacher or anything, only that socialism is largely viewed as some complex system of government programs interacting with the hard-working citizenry to manage resources and people’s work, when it’s really nothing more than a tiny minority deciding that it wants power for itself, and needs some long-winded justification to hide the power grab. If you study socialism, you’ll find thousands of thick tomes like “The Communist(4) Manifesto.”

People trying to implement Socialism always lard their speeches heavily with thousands and thousands of words, and nonsense terms and phrases like “social justice,” fairness,” “income inequality,” investment.” Pretty words masking meaningless, or even sinister concepts. Who, after all, is really against “justice,” or “fairness” or “equality?” Really, though, it’s just a naked plan to take from those who have, and bribe those who don’t have with the stolen loot.

However, even the have-nots, the recipients of this false generosity, know that it’s simply wrong to take stuff from someone else. The pretty words let them feel better about receiving stolen goods. Socialist leaders ride that envy and the pretty-sounding tommyrot to lives of vast power and wealth, while putting in place a system that guarantees that the little people can’t have any.

— xPraetorius


(1) – One hopes that there would be at least a few civic-minded people who wouldn’t fall for the garbage!

(2) – As long as the opportunity does not consist mostly of opportunities to prosper via “government service.”

(3) – In every socialist society — no exceptions — Socialism has generated a two-tier society with the immeasurably wealthy on top, holding all the power and nearly all the wealth, and the rest of the people way, way, way below. The “Occupy” twits were all upset about “the 1%.” The socialist fantasy that most of the “Occupiers” hold inevitably brings about a society in which it’s really the 1% of the 1% of the 1% who hold the power and wealth.

(4) – Socialism is an umbrella term that encompasses the following: Democratic Socialism, Communism, Nazism, Fascism, and — as greater study reveals — Islam and feudalism.

Hillary Emphatically Claims, “There’s No Election Fraud!”

Hillary Emphatically Claims, “There’s No Election Fraud!”

What does that mean?

Simple: Hillary — the “Hill” part of “Hill-Billy” — has determined that she needs the long, grand tradition of Democrat election/voter fraud — stretching back to the legendary Chicago Daley machine that stole the 1960 Presidential election, through the breathtaking election thefts of LBJ, and the easy, breezy theft of thousands of votes by Obama — to be a  major part of how she’ll obtain power in 2016.

— xPraetorius

A Brief Moment of Sympathy for Hillary

The question is why has Hillary Clinton — the “Hill” part of Hill-Billy — been avoiding people/reporters/questions/folks/public appearances/”ordinary Americans”/folks/cameras/the citizenry/the hoi polloi/the rank/the file/the commoners and patricians alike/the common ruck/the mob/the rabble/the peeps/the residents/the flock/the dudes and dudettes … you ‘n me?

The answer is simple, and it’s the cause for my small sliver of sympathy for her: She’s aged.


This happens to lots of women. And it’s their own fault.  For some reason, the vast majority of them don’t seem ever to want their hair to have its real color after the age of, oh, 32. So, if you see them from a distance, it’s as if they haven’t changed over the years. But, they have, as we all do.

Look, no one is more merciless to women than other women. This eternal ravenous pursuit of eternal youth, or at least of not aging too quickly, is the fault of women. Oh, they’ll say that we men are demanding younger and younger women, but that is just as likely because women are constantly trying to display themselves as “young,” regardless of their age.

Do a little thought exercise with me. If, all of a sudden, all the hair dye, and makeup in the world were to disappear, and women were forced to allow their appearance to age as they age, does anyone really think that we men would just kind of stop being interested in them?

If you believe that, then you truly do have a low opinion of men and of women.  And you’ve bought into the feminist hogwash that all men are nothing more than ravening, hormone-driven, irrational, sex-crazed brutes. And you’ve bought into the other feminist flapdoodle that women can be attractive only in the flower of their youth. And you’ve bought into the other feminist twaddle that the above-mentioned shallow, superficial women, are all pining for the above-mentioned beastly, snarling, brutish men, and doing their level best to change what and who they are aging women — in a desperate, pathetic, obsessive, 24/7/365 effort to please the Neanderthals. Do you really believe any of that?

Apparently, though, that is Hillary Clinton’s state of mind; the state of mind of one of the most prominent “feminists” in the world.

Whenever you get the rare moment of closeness, where a camera has a chance to show her up close, she looks just … old. Just old.

And, yes, it’s a young person’s world. But, only because the older folks have ceded it to them. Age should, and sure enough it does, accompany greater wisdom. And, the youngsters should — and good golly they do, when so taught — respect that additional wisdom.

I feel sorry for Hillary. She’s becoming an aged, cranky, bellowing, harridan, faking great, youthful energy, then going home at night and painfully lowering her old, creaking, inflamed joints into the glorious, eiderdown comfort of her nine-star hotel bed, wondering why it hurts so much, and why she still wants it so bad.

I feel sorry for her. She’s a long over-the-hill old battle-axe, whose glory days are long behind her. Worse, if she’s honest with herself, she knows deep, deep down inside, that after all the lights, and all the adultation, after all the “Most Admired Woman” this and “Most Respected Woman” that, she never really accomplished anything, that wasn’t handed to her either by her ridiculous, yuck-yucking, horn-dog cad of a husband, or some other man.

On second thought, I guess I understand why she still wants it. The Presidency, that is. Without it, she can only look back at a whole life of … hollowness and fabricated accomplishments.

— xPraetorius



A Point of Language

Back in ’92 when Bill Clinton won the presidential election, Bill and Hillary were known as “Billary.” The combination was obvious. Swap the “H” in Hillary’s name for a “B” and make the “ill” do double-duty, and you have the perfect nickname for the so-called “two-for-the-price-of-one” couple.

The reason for “Billary,” though was that Bill was the senior partner of the team. While, everyone was calling it “Two for the price of one,” it was plain who was the top hound dog of the duo and that was Bill. Hence: “Billary.”

However, the roles are reversed now. Hillary is the one the Democrats are clamoring to put into the White House as the most powerful person (no longer man) in the world. Hillary’s the pre-eminent pooch(1) of this power two-pack, so the only proper nickname for the duo is: “Hill-Billy.”

Anything else would be just plain sexist, and we can’t have that, now can we?

— xPraretorius


(1) – No, there’ll be no use of the “B” word here.


What Will They Say in the Future?

Mark Steyn, commenting on the burgeoning Gender Fluidity movement (for lack of a better term), said (here) that even he was surprised at how fast the movement has gone from ridiculous fringe to if-you-don’t-agree-that-I’m-whatever-gender-I-say-I-am-whenever-I-say-it-then-you’re-a-bigoted-unenlightened-cretin. Here’s a taste of Steyn’s column:

. . . barely pausing to celebrate their victory on gay marriage, the identity-group enforcers have gone full steam ahead on transgender issues. Once upon a time there were but two sexes. Now Facebook offers its 1.2 billion patrons the opportunity to select their preference from dozens of “genders”: “male” and “female” are still on the drop-down menu, just about, but lost amid 50 shades of gay – “androgynous”, “bi-gender”, “intersex”, “cisfemale”, “trans*man”, “gender fluid”…

Oh, you can laugh. But none of the people who matter in American culture are laughing. They take it all perfectly seriously. Supreme Intergalactic Arbiter Anthony Kennedy wields more power over Americans than George III did, but in a year or three he’ll be playing catch-up and striking down laws because of their “improper animus” and wish to “demean” and “humiliate” persons of gender fluidity.

Fifty shades of gay…” Steyn’s piece was worth the read for that alone. Steyn is the king of the bon mot!

Play a little thought exercise with me.

A thousand years from now, archaeologists come across the bones of one of today’s “transsexuals.” Say, a man who “becomes a woman.” Excitedly, they analyze the bones and they describe the person who once owned the bones. What do you think they’ll determine? Do you think they’ll look at the narrow hips and pelvis, the wide shoulders and the six-foot tall frame and say, “This is a dude.” Or, will they somehow be able to discern the mutilation the ex-dude had to undergo in order to “become a woman,” and say, “Hey, this sure looks like a dude, but it’s really a woman!” Or some other of the now numerous genders.

Seriously, what do you think? It’s not a trick question.

Hint: it was a dude.

— xPraetorius

NPR Watch (5/29/15)

I was listening to National Public Radio while driving home from work yesterday late afternoon. They did a feature, following up on one of that same morning, about Texas refusing to extend Medicare, and in so doing, foregoing about 100 billion Obamacare dollars “from the federal government.”

If the number 100 billion didn’t make you pause, then you haven’t been paying attention. However, later in the feature, we learn that it’s $100 billion over ten years.

Well, that’s a tad different.

The Texas budget is about $100 billion annually, so the original premise of the story would lead anyone to believe that Texans were being forced to go without the value of every penny of every dollar they were paying in taxes!


Still, ten cents of every tax dollar is a lot too.

But that’s not the whole of it. In the piece the NPR “reporter,” one Wade Goodwyn, kept telling about how it was only Texas Republicans paying close attention to political considerations that kept Texans from getting what should be their money.

Now, presumably these 100 billion dollars, or 10 billion dollars, whichever way you wish to think of  it, were dollars that Texas is sending to Washington in the first place.

Nowhere in the piece did NPR even hint at questioning the legitimacy of that. In other words, NPR accepted as perfectly okay the idea that Texans would send $10 billion every year to the central government, and not get one thin dime back.

And all because of Obamacare. How does that scenario not indict Obamacare as a catastrophe?

Nowhere in the piece either did NPR mention the possibility that Texas Republicans might actually have been acting on dearly held principles. Obamacare, after all, is not viewed favorably by all Americans. In point of fact, more than half of all Americans view Obamacare quite unfavorably. It’s perfectly reasonable that Texas Republicans might actually oppose Obamacare, and all the monies associated with it, simply because it’s the right thing to do.

Imagine someone comes up to you and says, “I just stole $100 billion from the rest of Texas. Here, you take it!”

A hundred billion dollars? Enough for you and your kids and your entire large immediate family, and all their descendants for the next 10 generations to have a dream life without ever doing a lick of work.

One would hope that you’d still say, “No thanks. You can keep your dirty money, and in fact I’m calling the cops.”

Obamacare is the theft; Texas Republicans told Washington to keep its dirty money. NPR sided openly with the thief.

— xPraetorius

I Did This Several Times

Though, I should be clear, that is not I in the video.

Some of the most fun moments of my life: each of my kids sitting on “Santa’s” lap, not knowing that Santa is really Daddy. I still have a priceless picture on my refrigerator of my daughter sitting on my lap telling “Santa” what she wants for Christmas.

When I was “Santa,” there was no “great reveal,” as in the video linked above, until some years later, when each of my kids was older, and that made the pictures, and the memories, even sweeter.

Aside from all the stürm und drang in life, there can be such beauty! If only we’re receptive to the possibility of it.

— xPraetorius


The Drudge Sampler (Edition VIII – 5/26/15)

Drudge headlines:

Oh, goody! Yet another crisis for our lead-from-behind, soft-power, apologizing-for-America President to muck up.

What else has our Mediocrity-in-Chief mucked up? Oh: Egypt, nuclear North Korea, nuclear Iran, Libya, Syria, ISIS, Russia, Ukraine, Crimea, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia…

Okay, okay…enough of this negativity!  Let’s list off his foreign policy successes!

Osama bin Laden

So, you’re telling me that Obama allowed two bloodthirsty lunatics to get nukes, caved in to Putin — a lot! —  unliberated tens of millions of people in Iraq, allowed Libya, Egypt and much of the rest of the Middle East to destabilize, lost Yemen and an entire air base, jeopardized all our gains in Afghanistan, ruined our relationship with Israel, green-lighted ISIS, and his only success was getting one measly, old, senile, porn-watching, decrepit, feeble, no longer relevant terrorist, who spent his days trembling under his bed?!?

Wait! Wait! We got that guy who did that video that wasn’t responsible for anything! He’s in prison! That has to count for something!

** chirp ** chirp **

Oh, and I forgot one other thing Obama mucked-up: The United States.

Tell me again, why was it so all-fired important to elect a black President instead of a good one?

— xPraetorius

Christian Martyrs and Muslim “Martyrs”

Many say, “we shouldn’t kill them (ISIS, and other scum), we’ll just make them into martyrs.”


Well, in the Christian world, we have martyrs too. Many, many faithful Christians went to their deaths proclaiming their devotion to the Messiah.

So, what’s the difference?

Simple really: if you’re a Christian martyr, you go to your reward singing the praises of Jesus Christ, and, important detail: you go alone. You don’t bring anyone else with you. In fact, many times, you go in the place of others. Here’s one: Maximilian Kolbe, for example. There are many, many more.

World War II seemed to bring out the very selfless, noblest, most self-sacrificing best in Polish Catholics!

There are countless others, and they all share two characteristics: (1) their deep veneration of Jesus the Christ, and (2) the fact that they all took great care not to harm anyone else by their death. To the contrary, in most cases, they gladly accepted their fate in order to spare others death.

How about Muslim “martyrs, though?”

Well, you and I both know that so-called Muslim “martyrs” do their level best to take as many others as possible along with them when they go. These people presume to speak for God, with whom resides all responsibility for deciding everyone’s beginning, and earthly end.

Now, I do know one thing — kind of “Theology 101″ — when you presume to speak for God, you commit a grave sin, and you put yourself in the company of that other one who presumes to speak for God: Satan.

Christian martyrs are martyrs. Muslim “martyrs” are nothing more than deluded murderers, inspired by evil to commit grave crimes against humanity, and against God.

— xPraetorius

Memorial Day – 5/25/15 (Part II)

A man who is a better writer than I, bent his thoughts and efforts to giving us all a greater understanding of the great, the timeless “Battle Hymn of the Republic.”

It’s here: The Battle Hymn of the Republic – A Song for the Season.

Like everything that Mark Steyn writes, it’s worth reading, if only for the outstanding writing. The man is a master of the English language, and a wonderful thinker. The combination makes this Canadian an American treasure. Sometimes, I guess, it requires someone from somewhere else to tell those of us from here, just how historically, stupendously, spectacularly, astonishingly, against-all-odds, unprecedentedly great here is.

Here are some snippets:

Memorial Day in America – or, if you’re a real old-timer, Decoration Day, a day for decorating the graves of the Civil War dead. The songs many of those soldiers marched to are still known today – “The Yellow Rose Of Texas”, “When Johnny Comes Marching Home”, “Dixie”. But this one belongs in a category all its own:

Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored…

It’s really good to have some of this gloriously beautiful song’s back story, and the context in which it was composed!

Want more? Read on:

At the time, Dr Samuel Howe was working with the Sanitary Commission of the Department of War, and one fall day he and Mrs Howe were taken to a camp a few miles from Washington for a review of General McClellan’s Army of the Potomac. That day, for the first time in her life, Julia Ward Howe heard soldiers singing:

John Brown’s body lies a-mould’ring in the grave
John Brown’s body lies a-mould’ring in the grave…

Ah, yes. The famous song about the famous abolitionist hanged in 1859 in Charlestown, Virginia before a crowd including Robert E Lee, Stonewall Jackson and John Wilkes Booth.

Well, no, not exactly. “By a strange quirk of history,” wrote Irwin Silber, the great musicologist of Civil War folk songs, “‘John Brown’s Body’ was not composed originally about the fiery Abolitionist at all. The namesake for the song, it turns out, was Sergeant John Brown, a Scotsman, a member of the Second Battalion, Boston Light Infantry Volunteer Militia.” This group enlisted with the Twelfth Massachusetts Regiment and formed a glee club at Fort Warren in Boston. Brown was second tenor, and the subject of a lot of good-natured joshing, including a song about him mould’ring in his grave, which at that time had just one verse, plus chorus:

Glory, glory, hallelujah
Glory, glory, hallelujah…

I had no idea! You learn something new just about every time you read Steyn.

Here’s a bit more:

When the lads from the Boston Light Infantry cooked up their John Brown song, they used an old Methodist camp-meeting tune, “Brothers, Will You Meet Us?” So where did that come from? Well, back in the 1850s, a Sunday school composer, William Steffe of Richmond, Virginia, was asked to go and lead the singing at a Georgia camp meeting. When he got there, he found there were no song books and so improvised some words to one of those tunes that – like most of the others in those pre-copyright days – was just sorta floating in the ether. Steffe’s lyric, like the original John Brown song, had one verse – “Say, brothers, will you meet us?” – and one chorus: “Glory, glory, hallelujah…”

And somehow this combination – an improvised camp-meeting chorus with an in-joke verse about a Boston Scotsman – became the most popular marching song of the Union forces, the one bellowed out as Sherman’s men marched through Georgia in 1864. According to William Hubbard’s History Of American Music:

Lieutenant Chandler, in writing of Sherman’s March to the Sea, tells that when the troops were halted at Shady Dale, Georgia, the regimental band played ‘John Brown’s Body’, whereupon a number of Negro girls coming from houses supposed to have been deserted, formed a circle around the band, and in a solemn and dignified manner danced to the tune. The Negro girls, with faces grave and demeanor characteristic of having performed a ceremony of religious tenor, retired to their cabins. It was learned from the older Negroes that this air, without any particular words to it, had long been known among them as the ‘wedding tune’. They considered it a sort of voodoo air, which held within its strains a mysterious hold upon the young colored women, who had been taught that unless they danced when they heard it played they would be doomed to a life of spinsterhood.

There’s a lot more about this gloriously gorgeous, and history-drenched song, and I heartily recommend the reading.

As a bit of a teaser: Steyn resolves the “live-die” conundrum. That is: the brilliant phrase: “As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free.”

Wellllll…that’s not how it was really written. However, this is the 21st Century, and while we celebrate death — abortion, euthanasia etc. all around us — our own death, in a cause larger than we, in an endeavor ennobled by our “last full measure of devotion,” is just not acceptable. Hence, we changed the lyrics from “let us die to make men free,” to “let us live to make men free.”

Steyn, to his everlasting credit, ignores the perversion of the original and gives us only the authentic.

After you read the Mark Steyn column, I heartily recommend listening.

Here, for example: The Battle Hymn of the Republic. Go ahead, listen. I dare you not to get a lump in your throat. At about 2:40 or so, I dare you to pretend that you didn’t have shivers up and down your spine. If you’re not stirred, then you’re not stirrable.

Want something a tad more traditional? Here’s a great rendition too. Best Version of “Battle Hymn of the Republic” EVER! Mormon Tabernacle Choir + Lyrics. Yep. It’s pretty darned good!

After all that wonderful listening, do be sure to re-read Mark Steyn’s post. Trust me, you won’t regret it.

— xPraetorius

Memorial Day – 5/25/15

On Memorial Day, what can we say? What can we do?

There are those who went to war, to close-by Cuba, to the blood-drenched beaches of Guam, Corregidor, Midway, Okinawa, Iwo Jima, to the green and crimson fields of France, to the cloying, dripping jungles of Vietnam and the abattoir that was Korea, to the treacherous crags of Afghanistan, and the blistering deserts of Iraq, to the death-shrouded fields of Antietam, Gettysburg, Bentonville, Bull Run, and to places we’ve never even heard of. There to do and die, that we might wake up today and wonder, lost, what we could possibly say or do, that would be worthy of their sacrifice.

They, the Armed Forces of America, who gave the last full measure of devotion, did it best, and this man said it best:

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.(1)

What can we do? Well, during all the barbecues, and back-yard parties and picnics, the parades and the fly-overs, and amidst the fellowship of friends and families, bought for us with such precious capital, at such an awful price, we might take some time to offer a prayer to the Most High that He might bless and protect those who serve today; that He might bestow, strength, courage and wisdom on those who direct our soldiers’ actions; that He might strengthen the resolve of those of our brethren who face ruthless, bloodthirsty adversaries, so that those very foemen might quail before the power and the glory of the greatest nation ever to exist, and thereupon abandon their hopeless task to return to hearth and home.

We might offer such a prayer publicly, out loud, so that this, the greatest nation that has ever existed, might hear our devotion, and therefrom draw increased strength, resolve and purpose.

It’s important that we have that fellowship — that we have those parties and picnics, those outings and gatherings — with friends, neighbors and family; our soldiers bought them for us with their blood, and it would be deeply disrespectful not to have such times.

Also, we might spend some time talking with our children and reminding them that there are billions around the world who do not breathe free(2), who do not have the right to complain about their country. While in America, there is a vast throng of those who do have that right; the right, the ability, the energy and the willingness to snarl about all that is just so wrong with this country, blissfully, safely, unaware of the granite foundation, built upon all that is just so right with this country, on the blood of the fallen, that allows them so to sneer.

We might make that granite foundation well-known to our children and their friends.

And we might watch this tender, touching moment: 11-Year-Old Boy Held Salute For One Hour On This Beach. This is one young boy who understands.

We might also watch this “moment.” Every Year, A Lone Marine Holds Salute For Fallen Soldiers.

There are people who understand what it takes to “secure the blessings of liberty” in America, as no such blessings have ever been secured before, in the history of the world.

It would be good if today we were to remember all that, and if we were also to resolve to spend some time each day in which to remember all that, and if then we were to kiss our children, and our parents, our brothers, sisters, wives and husbands, our nieces and nephews and cousins, and tell them we love them, and smile and laugh with them. That tenderness is precious, and the simple ease with which we can bestow it or withhold it is a gift dearly bought.

Rest in peace, all you brave ones, you courageous, hearty and strong ones, you heroic, gallant and valorous ones, who threw yourselves with reckless abandon at those who threaten to destroy all that freedom-lovers hold near and dear. May the Creator of us all, bless you all and take you gently into His hands into Paradise, cradled in His infinite love forever.  And may He bless and sanctify the efforts of us who are left behind, as we try to pay homage to you and to live up to your outstanding example.

— xPraetorius


(1) – The full text of Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, possibly the finest speech ever delivered in the English language:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

(2) – The words on the Statue of Liberty:

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”



It’s Worth Repeating (and WE didn’t say it!)

No, the ultimate coiner of “It’s Worth Repeating” turns of phrase is Mark Steyn, and in this post on his web site, he unburdened himself of one of those phrases that just ever so neatly sum up media dishonesty. Not media hypocrisy — hypocrisy’s what the media live and breathe, eat for breakfast and leave in the toilet after a big meal — no, this is corrupt, dirty, easy, sleazy, tawdry, filthy, disreputable, craven, nasty, repugnant, wretched, fraudulent, crooked media deceitfulness.

It’s: lying-through-their-teeth media dishonesty. It’s an example of faux media indignation directed at someone who, the indignant one suggests, kinda, sorta, maybe, might have, done a little something that could throw his credibility into question, while the indignant one did a pile of monumental, massive, gargantuan, elephantine, whopping, mondo-hyper-giga-terra-jigga-gigundo things that absolutely, without-a-shadow-of-a-doubt throw the indignant one’s credibility into question.

It’s that kind of media dishonesty.

Here’s Mark Steyn’s quote:

And that’s before you consider the ludicrous thrust of Stephanopoulos’ interview: We can’t trust Peter Schweizer on the Clintons because he worked for Bush for four months, says a man who’s worked for the Clintons since he was in Third Grade.

Yep, the topic at hand is the aggressively hostile interview, by George Stephanopoulos, of Peter Schweizer, author of the book, “Clinton Cash.”

Steyn continued a bit:

So the entire Schweizer/Stephanopoulos interview was a fraud perpetrated on ABC’s audience. Picture it the other way around:

Karl Rove is hired as an anchorman by ABC News. Whoa, you can stop right there. We’re already in the realm of the fantastical, even though it is, objectively, exactly the same as hiring Stephanopoulos.

But Rove says not to worry, my partisan days are behind me. I’m strictly Mister Even-Handed Newsman now.

And then he spends ten years as a high-profile pitchman for the George W and Jeb Bush Foundation.

And, when he interviews some guy who’s written a book on all the dodgy donations to the Jeb Bush Foundation, he doesn’t mention that he’s a member of it.

The only interesting question is whether ABC knew about all this, and colluded with Stephanopoulos in perpetrating a fraud on their audience.

As for Stephanopoulos’ regret that he didn’t go “the extra mile” in disclosure, the loyal Clinton flunkey didn’t go the initial inch-and-a-half. At the very least, he should be dropped from all election coverage between now and November 2016. There’s plenty of other stuff he could do – Kim’n’ Kanye, Bruce transitioning – where his faithful service to his longtime benefactors is of less obvious advantage.

As usual, once Mark Steyn’s said it, or written it, the only point of someone else’s saying it or writing it, including us, is to assist in hammering home Steyn’s point.

— xPraetorius

In a Weird Way, I Appreciate Bernie Sanders (Part III) — Featuring Mark Steyn

Here and here, I mentioned that in a weird way I appreciate Bernie Sanders. My rationale: Sanders is openly a socialist. He honestly adheres to an ideology that murdered more than 150 million people in the last century. He might kill you — that’s what socialists do — but he makes no bones about it, and you can’t say you weren’t warned.

Apparently the indispensable Mark Steyn arrived at a similar conclusion as well. In this post on his web site, Steyn says:

Steyn decried Clinton’s pass from the media and suggested the candidacy of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) would be a refreshing change of pace.

“[Y]ou know, this [Editor’s note: The Clinton campaign] is a joke and it is unbecoming,” Steyn said. “I’m happy to see — I would love Elizabeth Warren to run, not because she’s a socialist lunatic to my tastes, but she comes by her socialism honestly.”(1)

You know, leftists tell the truth so rarely that when one does, you need to seize that truth and learn from it.

Then, Steyn walks back is assertion about Senator Warren just a bit, just as we did in the second linked post in the first sentence of this column. Here’s Steyn’s priceless walk-back:

Well, reasonably honestly. As I put it a few weeks back:

Yes, Senator Fauxcahontas Crockagewea Warren’s got her own scandal – in that she got hired as Harvard Law School’s “first woman of color” on the basis of a dubious claim to be one thirty-second Cherokee and having contributed Cole Porter and the Duchess of Windsor’s favorite crab dish from an upscale Manhattan restaurant to a cookbook of authentic tribal recipes.

Yet, with the benefit of hindsight, isn’t that kind of a charmingly amateur, sweetly naive racket? It’s a small-town home-cooked mom’n’pop racket compared to the 24/7 industrial-scale multinational Saud-kissing pedophile-jetting rackets of Clinton Global Mega-Racket Inc,

I’m sorry, but “Fauxcahontas Crockagewea” had me in tears of snorting laughter on the floor. Sometimes I wonder if Steyn’s supernatural ability to produce a bon mot and a pun might sometimes get in the way of the understanding of his point, which resides rather in this snippet:

It’s [Senator Warren’s fiction about being an American Indian] a small-town home-cooked mom’n’pop racket compared to the 24/7 industrial-scale multinational Saud-kissing pedophile-jetting rackets of Clinton Global Mega-Racket Inc,

Then, Steyn provides probably the best summation yet written of Hillary Clinton, her work, and what a Clinton Presidency would look like:

As I’ve said before, the overriding issue for me this electoral season is the corruption. Hillary has a contempt for the rules, a contempt for the law, a contempt for public accountability, transparency and open government, a contempt for the basic seemliness of official conduct in civilized societies – and a boundless appetite for cronyism, special favors, backroom deals, and protection of her associates when it comes to money, sex and everything else. The government she runs will be a sewer.

It’s worth repeating: Any government run by Hillary Clinton would be a sewer. Going from the Obama sewer to the Clinton sewer could spell the doom of America.

— xPraetorius


(1) — Well, he sort of said it. In the above-linked column, Steyn  reported on his own web site, what someone else had written on his web site, about Steyn’s having said it. Got it? But Steyn did say it.


NPR Watch (5/23/15)

I was listening to National Public Radio yesterday on the way home from work, and they did a feature on some dude who had collected some 800 “protest songs” from over the years.

Audie “Eeyore” Cornish, NPR’s afternoon anchorette was interviewing the collector dude. “Eeyore” is a black woman, and NPR’s real name ought to be “National All Race All The Time Radio.”

Needless to say, in the interview the collector dude played snippets from some of his faves in the collection. See if you can guess the theme of the half-dozen or so “protest songs” this guy chose as emblematic of his collection.

Yep. You guessed it: Race, The Civil Rights Movement, Racism, Racists, etc. That’s it. And, of course, all the “protest songs” were from the left.

Have we on the right written any protest songs? And, if so, why on earth not?(1)

So, what’s the point of this? I mean, everyone knows that the left whines and whines, and only in countries where there is the right to whine. In other words, they whine about how horrible things are in countries where they are free to whine about how horrible things are. And they’re too stupid, or ignorant — or both — to recognize that they’re walking contradictions.

Remember “Four dead in Ohio?” Remember how shocked we all were at the news that four students had died in riots at Kent State College in Kent, Ohio? I do.

We were shocked because of just how rare it was. These things just don’t happen in America.

What we weren’t all thinking was just how rare was, and is, the freedom we enjoyed then in America to riot with a near rock-solid certainty that we would be physically unharmed afterward. At the time of the ’60’s riots, that freedom existed nearly exclusively in the European-based western world. That fact remains the same today, nearly a half-century later.

If you did anything even resembling protest — of any kind —  in the then Soviet Union, you disappeared in the dead of night, often never to appear again. If you did anything resembling protest in Communist China — to this day! — you were either “disappeared” or murdered. Or both. This is still true of a depressingly long list of countries: China, Vietnam, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, many countries of South America and Africa.

What do all these countries have in common? Socialism(2).

It’s like those GEICO commercials. You know, the “It’s what you do…” commercials? “If you’re a socialist, you kill people in horrifying numbers, generally for no reason whatsoever. It’s what you do.”

So, NPR, and Audie “Eeyore” Cornish(3) did their little feature, with “Eeyore” all wide-eyed and thrilled at just the sheer coolness of what the “protest song” collector had done, in collecting his songs, all of which called for … socialism in America. You and I might not remember it, but back in the ’60’s and into the ’70’s. ’80’s, ’90’s and even up to today, all protest songs are about making America ever more leftist.

And freedom. The protest songs were about freedom. To this day the warblers of those same songs were either too stupid, or too ignorant, to realize that the very freedom they were calling for was what allowed them to croon their insipid ditties(5) in the first place! And that the systems and institutions that the “protest song” balladeers were, and are, hoping to help bring about, will abolish their freedom to continue to warble!(6)

Needless to say, no one anywhere at NPR is able to recognize that rather glaringly obvious fact.

— xPraetorius


(1) – We’ve mentioned this a bunch of times. The left own Academia, Hollywood, Pop Culture, the arts, most of the media, the unions… Look at that collection: what do they all share? Vast, overarching, overweening, self-obsession. Omphaloskepsistic self-absorption, greed and selfishness. The principal characteristics of America’s political left wing.

It’s obvious how the above-mentioned institutions were overrun by the left: they have very little to do with real life. University professors? They get tenure! — the ability not to lose your job unless you rob a bank! Do you have that? Hollywood? Nothing resembling real life there! It’s the propaganda wing of the government. Pop Culture? Ditto. The media? Basically the fourth branch of government! Another branch of the propaganda wing of the government. The unions? When was the last time you negotiated with your employer for things like “job security,” greater benefits?

Margaret Thatcher famously said, “The facts of life are Conservative.” We heartily agree, but we added the qualifier: “but society’s white noise is left-wing.”  It’s likely that Lady Thatcher’s apothegm should be amended to read, “The facts of real life are Conservative.”

(2) – Yes, the islamic states that won’t allow you to protest are run by socialists. Islamists are socialists. Islam — muslims admit it themselves! — is absolutely incompatible with the freedoms you and I take for granted. Another important note: If you add up all the violent, premature deaths you can assign to socialism in the 20th Century alone, you arrive at a figure north of 150 million. Not counting “natural causes,” Socialism is the single greatest cause of death in history.

(3) – Back here, I did a piece on how the voices of NPR bug me. They’re so artificial and affected. NPR is all style over substance. Their “news” is often late, untimely, shallow and meaningless. However, their delivery of this pabulum is grave, urbane, serious, earnest… relentlessly earnest …so many people take them seriously. And, sometimes they toss off the occasional 12th grade word instead of the 9th grade words the majority of the media use.

Now, I have some homework for you: Listen to Audie Cornish (many weekdays from 4:00pm to 6:30pm ET on NPR’s show called “All Things Considered.(4)“) and tell me if you don’t agree with this: her voice is perfect — for one of those “900 numbers” commercials. “Talk to real women from the comfort of your home. Real women are waiting to take your call. Just dial 900-…

My ride home from work is a bit more than 45 minutes on a good day. To listen to Audie Cornish trying to seduce me for the better portion of that time is excruciating! And she’s not the only one! Melissa Block is just as bad. It’s horrible when they’re doing the afternoon “news” show together! Block doesn’t read the news, she murmurs it, as if she’s trying to get you to roll over in bed and make love to her. Again, I can take that for a minute or two on one of those commercials, but it’s intolerably awful for nearly an hour. Unless, that is, you’ve learned to do this. And unless you can write the occasional cathartic blog post about them!

(4) – The radio show whose real name ought to be: “Only a Very Limited Range of Leftist Things Only Very Selectively Considered.”

(5) – Yes, most of them were insipid ditties. Not all, but most. If you were to apply just a bit of deeper analysis — and genuine perspective — to the themes, meanings and concepts behind the vast majority of them, they turn out to be moronic screeds chirruped, howled, barked, squawked, bawled, growled, brayed and grunted out by egomaniacal, self-infatuated ignoramuses. Of course NPR would find them delightful!

(6) – This is another thing we have noticed about the left: they are absolutely uninterested in solving the problems about which they so operatically wail. Why would they be? As we have mentioned in these pages many times (and it’s worth repeating :) ) : There is great money, power and prestige to be had in whining about how horrible it is in America. Just ask those gallant, courageous songbirds of the ’60’s — if, that is, you can get through the gate of their community and knock on the door of their mansion.

We Said This a Long Time Ago

First: Here’s the DrudgeReport headline:  VIDEO: VOTERS LOVE HER, NO MATTER WHAT… It’s kind of a funny video. Did anyone seriously doubt this about Hillary’s voters, though?

You know how people talk about “the black vote,” or “the white vote,” or “the womens’ vote,” etc.?

So, what did we say a long time ago?

Here, we said that the Democrats own the stupid vote. Our quote:

Everyone knows that the Democrats absolutely own the stupid vote, [emphasis added] the ignorant vote, the uneducated vote. You know the ones: the people who think that they’re getting something for nothing, that they’re somehow sticking it to “the man,” that they’re able to get away with something. These are nearly automatic Dem voters. Not to forget the merely low performers…also automatic Dem votes.

It’s worth repeating: The Democrats own the stupid vote.

— xPraetorius


Serious Question: Why Hasn’t Hillary Been Laughed Out of the Race?

If you or I were out there as Secretary of State, using our own e-mail servers to correspond with people like Putin, and the leaders of China, South Korea, North Korea, Egypt, Syria, France, England, and more, and then we had the unmitigated gall to look the authorities in the eyes and say, “Well, I deleted what I figured I should delete — including personal e-mails — and I turned in what I figured I should turn in” — heck, we’d probably be arrested and indicted in a heartbeat!

We’d certainly never be a viable Presidential candidate.

Think of it. Hillary thinks she’s in the clear because, as she says, she deleted all her e-mails, and we should just trust her that she deleted the right e-mails.(1) However, the recipients of her e-mails all still have those e-mails. Rush Limbaugh made that point this afternoon.

Okay, that’s fine, but here’s the indisputable fact: whether or not the bad actors of the world have e-mails from Hillary, they can all — every last one of ’em — claim they have e-mails from her. They can then claim, through back channels, that the contents of the e-mails are very, very damaging — impeachment-level damaging — and that if President Hillary doesn’t do certain things, they will divulge the contents of said e-mails. Guess what: Hillary has already said that she has no proof whatsoever that the claims are false. Remember? She deleted them all! It would be her word against whoever is the extortionist. Sorry, she loses that scenario.

At that point, she’d be completely boxed in. She’d have either to admit that she lied when she said that she’d deleted all the e-mail evidence and produce the exculpatory e-mails, or simply give in to the extortion. She could, I guess, just deny that the e-mails that someone might claim to possess were fake but, again, she has no proof. And the Clintons lie like they breathe or eat.

Does anyone in the world think that Hillary has the character to stand up to such extortion? I doubt it. If she becomes President, then her behavior with the private e-mail server will expose her, and therefore the country, to the risk of very high-stakes extortion.

Seriously: Why haven’t the media laughed Hillary right out of the Presidential campaign? You or I would be. Any Republican candidate would be.

— xPraetorius


(1) – It goes without saying that any Republican who ever even thought of trying to do something this sleazy would have laughed out of the race by the media long ago.

The Value of the Guitar

Here it is: Whispering

If you give yourself the gift of viewing and listening to this video you’ll see and hear Tommy Emmanuel, Frank Vignola, Vinnie Raniolo and … Bucky Pizzarelli playing “Whispering.”

The unusual thing about this is that Bucky is 86 years-old at the time of this recording (2012), and that is the great difference between the guitar and most other instruments. You can pick up the guitar at the age of five, as Frank did, and become great, and remain great, for decades afterward.

This is not true of any other instrument, because of one simple reason: the incredible portability of the guitar. You can bring it anywhere, and play it, with minimal inconvenience. The only other instruments that are more portable are the small woodwinds, but they don’t have the other benefit: you can play the guitar in just about any circumstance.

Go ahead, try to play the flute or the piccolo right next to a sleeping friend without waking him up.

— xPraetorius

Ridiculously Good (Part V)

Yep. This is just wrong.

There should not be people on the planet with this much talent, because it can cause mere mortal musicians like me to be awash in jealousy.

ThreeGuitaristsHere are Tommy Emmanuel (center), Frank Vignola (right ) and Vinnie Raniolo all on the same stage at the same time.

What is it they say about the President, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House never being in the same room at the same time, because there could be some terrible thing that might take them all out at the same time?

This is the same thing here. Tommy, Frank and Vinnie are three of the greatest guitarists who have ever lived, and this recording demonstrates that amply.

As much as I love it, I deplore the three of them being on the same stage at the same time. What if there were an earthquake, or a fire, or a volcano, or a this or a that?

Here’s the link: Enjoy! :)

— xPraetorius

ISIS Dude Tells the Truth!

Some ISIS dude said, rough quote, “Islam is not a religion of peace, it’s a religion of war.”

Finally! Thank you!

People: Usually, if you are willing to listen, and read, and study, and understand, you’ll find that the scum of the earth are perfectly willing to tell you what they’re up to!

Who, I wonder, has been saying that for some time now?

Yep. You guessed it! We have.

Remember when Hitler said, in Mein Kampf, that he and his “master race” were going to take over the world? I don’t, but my grandfather does. And he remembers also when Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister of England, thought to himself,

“I can change this rapscallion’s mind! I can make him come to the negotiating table and sign an agreement not to start a war.”

Sure enough, Chamberlain dragged Hitler to the negotiating table, and sure enough, Hitler signed an agreement not to start a war.

Do you remember when World War II didn’t start, because Hitler viewed his name on the agreement as his sacred bond? I don’t either.

Bringing barbarians, cutthroats and savages to the negotiating table, where they might sign agreements they have no intention of honoring is accomplishing nothing at all.

America: listen to the scum of ISIS…they’re trying to tell you what they’re planning to do. Listen to them and heed them. They are trying to do exactly what they say they’re trying to do.

— xPraetorius

Credit Where Credit is Due!

President Obama authorized a raid by Delta Force on an ISIS stronghold in Syria. The raid resulted in the untimely (because long overdue) trip by one Abu Sayyaf on the express elevator down to join Osama bin Laden and many others in his own pool of burning lava. For that long overdue show of American muscle and competence, to Obama I say, “Good job!”

However, it’s an odd news phenomenon. Google “Abu Sayyaf” and you find all sorts of entries for the scumbag who got his ticket punched, as well as for one “Abu Sayyaf” group in the Philippines.

However, there is not one entry on the DrudgeReport for the icing of the ISIS dirtbag with the name. It’s a big story! It’s not “bin-Laden-Jumps-Into-Specially-Reserved-Pool-of-Lava” big, but it’s really big.

That’s just strange. Drudge is preternaturally fast in getting to stories.

Update: The story just got to Drudge, some three hours after I wrote the above. That’s still strange. Drudge links here.

Here’s the big deal. Ever since the bin Laden raid sent bin Laden down, down, down, tens of millions of Americans have been saying, “Why the heck can’t we do more of that?!?”

Well, now we have done it again, and by all accounts it was a smashing success, killing one of the world’s worst scumbags, without any Delta Force casualties. Hooray!!!

Now, I don’t revel in the death of anyone, but there are two — count ’em, two — tendencies in the history of the world that threaten to destroy the entire world: Those two tendencies are Islam and Socialism. Other than the religious component to Islam, there isn’t a lick of difference between them. They’re both obsessed with power and have one response to opposition: kill it.

Well, if they’re both trying to hasten our departure from this mortal coil, then I say: Send in Delta Force and let ’em know that there will be a price, and it won’t be cheap. The only reluctance I have with that is the fact that we might lose Delta Force personnel and that’s just an ineffably sad thought. Each Delta Force man is worth well more than a thousand ISIS ghouls.

Neither of the two belief systems mentioned above, Socialism or Islam, is concerned one jot with their stated goals; pretty words like equality and brotherhood and peace and paradise and helping the little guy. However, they both realize that they have to use the pretty words to sell their really stupid belief systems to people who generally don’t have the time to pay close enough attention.

Hence, we have things like the Qu’ran and the Communist Manifesto. If you read both of them, as I have, you realize that there’s essentially no difference, really, between them. More to the point: if you watch the behavior, of Islamists and Socialists, then you realize that they’re the same thing. I call Islam: Socialislam, or Fascislam, for that reason.

Furthermore, here’s a simple truth: if you help the little guy — really help the little guy — then he’s not little anymore, and he just might end up wanting to play in the big guys’ sandbox. The big guys — Islam and Socialism — can’t have that, so all the while they’re talking about lifting up the little guy, their efforts are really focused like a laser beam on keeping the little guy … little.

Islam and Socialism are not interested in “helping” anyone, except themselves — into the seat of power. That’s it.

The guy whose time came today — Abu Sayyaf — was the scummiest of the scummy. A man, and his wife (she’s alive and in custody), both of whom had their hands in financing the ISIS ghouls, and who were at the top of a human-crunching machine that continues to produce  stories and images of horrifyingly psychotic savagery. Good riddance. Enjoy the lava. Say, “Hi!” to bin Laden for me. Tell him, it’s nice up here, and that I wish he were here, so that I could kick his scrawny backside right back down there.

— xPraetorius

Stephanopoulos Does What Is UTTERLY Unethical, and People are Surprised


George Stephanopoulos, “news” anchor for ABC, donated $75,000 to “The Clinton Global Initiative,” ie to Hillary and Bill’s greater enrichment, and then grilled the guy who wrote a book — “Clinton Cash” — critical of the Clintons.

Think it might have been a good idea for Stephanopoulos to have disclosed that he was already extremely favorably disposed toward The Hill-Billies?


Ready for the obvious? Any FOX anchor caught doing the equivalent would have been fired immediately.

Seriously, though, what did people really expect? Stephanopulos worked for the Bill Clinton for President campaign, worked for several years in the White House for Bill, and then left for a great deal more money as a “news” reporter at ABC. Did anyone really expect that he’d be an honest reporter of news?

Seriously? Who’s really that naïve?

Nor will Stephanopoulos be fired for it. Frankly, I don’t think he should. I mean, what difference at this point does it make?

The media are hopelessly corrupt, hopelessly dishonest, hopelessly in the tank for Hillary. Any replacement of Stephanopoulos would be a corrupt replacement of Stephanopoulos, in the tank for Hillary. At least with Stephanopoulos, we already know he’s in the tank for Hillary.

This is a thing I’ve advocated for decades: honest disclosure by the media. No reporter anywhere should ever be allowed to report on anything without first indicating where he or she stands on the topic. Period.

Want an example? Some news anchor introduces a story on an upcoming case before the Supreme Court. The reporter should be obliged to indicate how he or she thinks the High Court should rule. Simple as that. A more precise example: Andrea Mitchell announces a story about the potential repercussions that would happen as a result of the Obamacare case currently being considered by the court. She should also indicate that she supports a ruling in favor of Obamacare from the court. Simple as that.(1)

As for this thing about allowing liberal media personalities to moderate Republican debates? Heck no! That should never happen! As for allowing liberal medial personalities to moderate even Presidential debates, that should never happen either. Period.

Time after time after time after time, the left proves itself unwilling or unable to be honest moderators of anything. Why would Republicans ever allow themselves to stand in front of a group of corrupt liberals to be target practice?

— xPraetorius


(1) – Why? Simple: in 1974, the press demonstrated that they are every bit as powerful, if not more powerful, than the President (Nixon) of the United States. Remember Woodward and Bernstein? Everyone to this day praises them as courageous “defenders of the Constitution.”

Between you and me, Woodward and Bernstein were little more than partisan hacks — they’ve been mostly silent about Obama’s corruption and his transparent assaults on the Constitution — but they did do the country the service of exposing the vast power of the media. It should go without saying that a “courageous defender of the Constitution” can be a “courageous defender of the Constitution,” if and only if he has real, very serious, power.

That power, without transparency into the views of those who wield it, is unchecked and dangerous to democracy. We don’t allow our elected representatives to arrive in office without publicly presenting their views on the issues of the day; why would we excuse the even more powerful press from that responsibility?

Furthermore, the press should be made to express themselves on the elections on which they report, both Presidential and Congressional. Same reason. Our elected representatives have to pronounce themselves on whom they’re supporting each election cycle; why would we excuse the even more powerful press from that same responsibility? In these pages, we proposed that here, all the way back in December of 2012!

George W. Bush’s REAL Mistake in Invading Iraq


President Bush made a serious mistake in ’03, when he invaded Iraq. But it’s not the mistake most people think it was.

All the Republican candidates are falling all over themselves to show how they would have done it better back in ’01, or how they wouldn’t have done it at all, or how they would have done only the Afghanistan thing, but I happen to think Bush did okay.

Oh, in retrospect, he did it all wrong, but with what he knew at the time, with what everyone knew at the time, he did just fine.


Except for one very big thing: He should have known that he might — in fact likely would be followed by a Democrat. A Democrat who, through the normal bone-headed stupidity of America’s left, would unravel any and all  progress made in the Middle East during Bush’s term.

He should have known that. That means that if he couldn’t be certain to complete the objectives he was aiming for, then he shouldn’t have taken them on in the first place. 

That means also that History would have judged him very harshly indeed for leaving a bloodthirsty lunatic like Saddam Hussein in power.

– * –

However, let’s not forget that we had won that war. It was as good as over and done … and won. With great difficulty, but decisively. Until, that is, the current President gratuitously threw away the victory, and simultaneously wasted the blood, toil, tears and sweat of all those who lost their lives in Iraq.

TheRealMistakeIf Obama had not thoroughly blown it, by pretending that withdrawing American military forces somehow might “end the war,” people would be talking about what a brilliant President George W. Bush had been(1).

This is part of the Democrats’ Big Lie; the same Big Lie that they foisted on an America public that, let’s face it, was not paying enough attention, and was not really thinking about it. That Big Lie: Withdrawing American military ends wars. It doesn’t, of course, it simply ends American involvement. You can bet your bottom dollar that when Democrats are pulling American forces out of conflict areas, that will only cause the conflict to heat up rapidly. (See, for example: Vietnam War, The.)

The “Anti-Iraq War” movement was by no means an “anti-war” movement. To the contrary, it was an “utterly-indifferent-to-war” movement whose only aim was to end American involvement in Iraq.

However, to do that, movement leaders had to call themselves an anti-war movement, because, after all, who in the world is not anti-war?  The “Anti-Iraq War” movement was really an “Anti-American Involvement in Iraq” movement that didn’t have a good rationale for its own existence except for The Big Lie.

Let’s not forget that in the beginning, the Iraq War was actually quite popular. However, relentless lies from the Left and in their lapdog press, about Bush’s intent, about the reasons for going in (there were many more than just “WMD’s”), about how the effort would prove to be a huge recruiting tool for islamic lunatics(2) and much more dishonest fog, relentlessly sapped support for American involvement until the voters were ready for a smooth-tongued, but substanceless, lying demagogue, the same one whom, as of this writing, we call “Mr. President.”

The only real mistake that Bush made in Iraq was in not calculating that he might be followed by a Democrat.

— xPraetorius


(1) – Yes, one is tempted to wonder whether Obama lost Iraq solely to make Bush look bad. That sounds paranoid, but understanding the Left’s callous indifference toward anything and anyone who doesn’t directly or indirectly contribute to their acquisition of power, and their deep hatred for anyone whom they perceive as an obstacle to their power, makes this suspicion nearly reasonable. Don’t forget, as Iraq tortuously degenerated into the hellhole it’s become, the press were still praising Obama for his great “genius.” They’re still doing it today.

(2) – Now a comparison can be made, between Bush’s muscular approach to islamic jihadis, and Obama’s timorousness. It’s painfully clear that Obama’s transparent weakness has proven to be the ultimate recruiting tool, as we pointed out would be the case. Neither ISIS, nor home-grown terrorist scumbags were even imagined during the Bush Presidency. These phenomena are all Obama’s

We Were Never Quite This Blunt…

…but we’ve been saying pretty much these same things for some time.

This time, though, it’s a Facebook post from the fiery, super-intelligent, high-energy Vanessa Anderson.

Anderson is a black woman who has a very clear-eyed view of America and of race relations in America. Even better, she pulls no punches while unburdening herself of her opinions using some very colorful language. It’s so colorful, for that matter, that I have to give you a seriously edited view, below, while encouraging you to view the link — though don’t show it to your young children.

A couple of quick comments, before I reveal Vanessa’s post. If you click on the link above, you will find yourself in the land of Black Conservatives. It’s a bracing, refreshing land, filled with intelligent, articulate people. I spend a lot of time in Black Conservative America, because it’s bright, sunny, smart, intelligent, deeply reality-based, optimistic and full of great, good humor and fun. It’s the place we white Conservative Americans go to restore our hope for our beleaguered country.

Black Conservative America is nothing less than the real extension of the Abraham Lincoln-to-Martin Luther King, Jr. trajectory. Black Conservatives are the authentic inheritors of the ideas and ideals of Martin Luther King, Jr. King was a man of many flaws, and of surpassing greateness too. However, one thing is absolutely certain: it was never, ever his vision to turn Black Americans into African-Americans, or into the wards of the state that so many have become.

With King’s assassination the Civil Rights movement took a sharp left turn, having been hijacked by charlatans like Jesse Jackson, who transformed the movement into a money-making machine whose goal was not to achieve equality of opportunity, but rather to keep racial animosity alive and burning in order to enrich the movement’s leaders, who have profited mightily from King’s death.

Now I’ll be as blunt as Vanessa Anderson: each night before he drops off to sleep, Jesse Jackson breathes a short, simple prayer that says only, “Thank you, James Earl Ray.”

Without further ado, here’s Vanessa Anderson’s Facebook post; with salty language strategically edited:

Why the f**k would any black American… born and raised in the US for generation after generation, have any love for Africa. LOL… all this embracing my african heritage bull***t really makes you look stupid.
If your parents were immigrants ….. I can somewhat understand, .. if you are a few generations in, I can get it….. you may have been raised with some of the culture because of your parents or grandparents connection. But if you are calling yourself African anything because of ancestors brought here by slavery….. you’re a joke. If you love it so much… planes are flying all over the world… hitch a ride.
But MOST of you stupid mo*os calling yourselves African American must not have a clue that your ancestors were shipped here BECAUSE many countries in Africa were PARTNERS in the slave trade. They sold their own folks. EFF Africa. I don’t see your black a**es trying to get back there.
most of you have no clue which country you would have stemmed from. Yet, you run around talking about African pride. If you have pride for the country that sold your ancestors, then you should have pride for the country that bought your ancestors. [Editor’s Note: Pow! Well! I told you she pulls no punches!]
I am really getting sick and tired of ignorant black folk. So fu***n gullible and you’re get made a fool of left and right. smh.


— xPraetorius

Quick ISIS Note — Hint: Not the Sharpest Knives in the Chandelier(*)

After the Texas “shootout”(1) ISIS made a statement which, if it weren’t on a serious topic, would have been really funny. They said something to the effect of:

“We knew they were guarded, but our guys are so freakin’ devoted to our cause that they were willing to die for it, and so bow down before our fury, filthy infidel, before you meet the same fate as … ummmmm… our two intrepid brethren who were really kinda schlubs, and absolutely not the best we could have thrown at you, but if they had been, you sure would have known about it, and there’re lots more where they came from! Ummmm… okay?”

Or: they were so stupid that (1) they fell for your transparently runny feculence, or (2) you told them, “C’mon, it’s Texas, no one’ll ever know you’re coming!”(2) Either way, two — two! — intrepid jihad-brained “warriors,” armed with AK-freakin’-47’s, went up to the “Draw the Doofus Muhammed” contest party, and got dropped by a traffic cop dude with a service revolver.

These “warriors” had enough firepower to take out a freakin’ school, and leave some for an additional school bus or two, and a flatfoot with a pistol sent them to tell Allah personally of their magnificent exploits.(3)

This is the secret of ISIS: they’re really stupid. Go ahead… you tell me something intelligent about their ideology, their beliefs, their strategies (Hint: it involves them dying whether or not they succeed in their mission), their … anything.

Yes, yes, yes… I know, they use technology, and social media, and the Western media, and all that… So, that means that there are roughly a dozen members of ISIS who are intelligent enough to tell you where Florida is in on a map of Florida. Their foot soldiers, though, those legendary thousands of recruits who are all flocking to their side to wage holy war… those lot are a bunch of people too stupid to die for the Darwin Awards. I mean anyone can figure out a way to die for the Darwin Awards! No, these lot have to tie a bomb to themselves and set it off to do their bit for the gene pool.

And saying that someone is “able to use the western media” says nothing more than that the person can somehow figure out how to dupe people whose collective IQ you could put in a coffee mug, and still leave room for cream, sugar and a spoon to stir it.

Don’t worry about ISIS so much; rather worry about the sniveling wretches riddled like trichina worms throughout our government, falling all over themselves to surrender to these half-wits.

— xPraetorius


(*) For the Hillary voters reading this, I know that the expression is “Not the brightest bulb in the chandelier,” or “Not the sharpest knife in the drawer,” but I was trying to emphasize the sheer lack of intellectual capacity in the noggins of ISIS followers. I recognize that for you Hillary voters, this particular mixing of metaphors in the headline might be a tad over your heads, so you can read it instead as: “ISIS: Kinda Stoopid”

(1) – Read: ISIS went to Texas to try to kill someone at a free speech event, and a real Texan killed them right back. (h/t: Ron White for the quip)

(2) – In other words, you told them what the nightly news would tell them if they were stupid enough to watch it.

(3) – Wouldn’t you like to have been a fly on the wall for that meeting?

Allah: So, what have you two done in your lives for my greater glory?

Intrepid Jihadis: Well, we studied your thoughts and your way, and we acted like good muslims and we never fornicated — well , not much — or drank alcohol — well, not much — or hung around with loose women, or…

A: (impatient) Yes, yes, yes, I know all that… what did you do that would make Me proud? What did you do to make sure that the whole world keeps my name holy?

IJ: Well, we went out to shoot up a gallery showing profane drawings of your holy prophet Muhammed…

A: Oh, and how did that turn out?

IJ: (hesitant) Well, you see, there were some things we didn’t really count on…

A: What “things?” I watch the network news, I know that Texans are nothing but dumb hick rubes… Surely you were able to take out quite a number of infidels who were besmirching My prophet’s holy name… Right? Right?

IJ: Well… you see, Sir, there was this one guy… I mean, we couldn’t possibly have known how good he was with a pistol! No one told us he would be there. And, he really must have practiced… and practiced and practiced… a lot!

A: Yes…? Come on… how many infidels did you dispatch to their  well-deserved reward?

IJ: W-w-w-ell, you see, Sir, we got, I mean, we went there to take out a hundred, or more… all for your holy name, of course… and to give these infidel Americans a lesson they’d  never forget in a thousand years; to show those devils the Americans what we followers, no, we admirers, of Allah… errrr, of you can do! To give them something that they’d …

A: Yes, yes, yes, yes … so how many infidel scum did you shoot? How many of these $*##%^& did you send to meet their maker… Err, ummm… to meet Me? How many did you get?

IJ: (downcast) Well, you see, Sir, that’s what we were getting to. We didn’t really, so to speak… get any. That guy must have had a really powerful pistol, and all his practicing and and all, and he must have cheated or something!… But we released a statement saying that we knew they would be there, so it’s really okay…

A: (interrupting) Wait, wait, wait… wait just a minute… a guy — one lousy guy — with a lousy, stinkin’ little pistol stopped you?!? You had AK-freakin’-47’s!!!

IJ: (interrupting) But, but, but… he was really good with that pistol. (lamely) And that’s why we’re here to tell you in person instead of you reading it in the New York Times  tomorrow morning.

NPR Watch (5/5/15)


Listening to National Public Radio (NPR) on the ride home from work to pick up my son from volleyball practice. They were promoting a show about the terrorist attack in Garland, Texas the other night.

That was the incident where the two clodpoles who fancied themselves big, bad jihadists, brought a pair of AK-freakin’-47’s to a gallery featuring caricatures of the so-called “Prophet” Muhammed. As big and bad as they were, a traffic cop with a service revolver dropped ’em both.

Back to the above-mentioned NPR. See if you can guess how the promo that I heard went.


You guessed it.

Some ultra-serious announcer-chick came on and intoned that they were going to broadcast something on the shooting that would ask the burning question: “Free speech or hate speech…where is the line?”


Do you remember all the outrage from the media when Andres Serrano immersed a crucifix in a jar of urine? Or when someone smeared a portrait of the Virgin Mary with elephant dung?

Nope. I don’t either.

Surely if caricatures of Muhammed are “hate speech,” those two works represent “hate speech!” Right? Nope. Wrong-o.

The media at the time were outraged — outraged! — when some suggested that maybe, just maybe, things like the urine jar and the elephant dung shouldn’t be displayed in government-funded institutions.

Oooooohhhh… pretty hateful stuff, that!

But, that was the real hate speech, according to the media — and of course the left — while the immersed crucifix and the dung painting were nothing less than absolutely sacred free speech, and free expression.

If NPR concludes that the caricatures of Muhammed are “hate speech,” and not free speech, then they’re saying that the urine jar and the elephant poo “works” are “hate speech” as well. You can’t avoid the conclusion.

NPR will try, though, to avoid that inescapable conclusion, and they’ll maintain that it’s a-okay with them if you and I are forced to fund the pee and poo nitwittery with our tax dollars.

But, really though, why wouldn’t they? After all, NPR is itself a left-wing nutjob organization, that you and I are forced to fund with our own tax dollars. Why wouldn’t they advocate for funding other left-wing nutjobs, and nutjob groups, with our tax dollars?

— xPraetorius

%d bloggers like this: