Quick Thoughts on the Shooting in New Zealand(1)


(Note: our policy is not to give these goons the notoriety they seek, so this is the last time you’ll see his face in these pages.)

Today, it’s alleged, a young Australian man shot up more than one mosque in New Zealand. The last casualty count I saw was 49.

  • The very first thing that people did in America after this shooting was to dispatch armed policemen to mosques across the country to prevent such a thing from happening here.
  • Wait… whuh? You mean that armed personnel at so-called soft targets prevent such things from happening? And even the government not only admits it, but sends the armed personnel itself?!?!
  • The shooter was, apparently, an Australian.
  • So, this Australian goes out and shoots up a bunch of unarmed and defenseless people, and the first thought from the Prime Minister of Australia is to disarm more people. Great idea that! Let’s make even more soft targets for the next crazed psycho who doesn’t give a crap about your stupid gun laws. What an idiot! Again, we don’t need gun control, we need leftist control.
  • A muslim goes out and shoots up a church, a gay bar, a synagogue, a Christmas party, an army base — you name it — and the first thing the loudest voices in America say is, “We must protect the muslims from anti-muslim sentiment!” Then: some psycho goes out and shoots up a mosque and the first reaction in America is: “We must protect the muslims from anti-muslim sentiment!
  • I’ll state the obvious now: The condemnation coming down on this shooter will be universal. No exceptions. All people whom anyone takes seriously around the world will condemn the shooter and his act in New Zealand. However, when a muslim goes out and massacres dozens, we’re immediately inundated with, “But, we must try to understand where this is coming from!
  • The predictable American idiots were out in full force. Here’s the DrudgeReport headline: Ocasio-Cortez hits NRA…Never mind the indisputable fact that if a trained and armed member of the NRA had been present at the time, the massacre never even would have happened! (See the first and second of these bullets) But, idiots gotta be idiots. And Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an idiot among idiots.
  • It’s worth repeating it: If a trained and armed member of the NRA had been present at any of the recent high-profile massacres, none of these massacres even would have happened.
  • One strange thought that hit me: How odd to hear and read of a massacre, and it’s not a muslim who did it!
  • When I first heard the news reports, I heard only that someone had committed a shooting at a mosque… still my first reaction was that it would turn out to be a muslim. You know, a shi’ite shooting up a Sunni mosque, or vice versa. That kind of carnage happens in the Middle East all the time.
  • The Unspeakable, Undeniable TruthThere is something in the teachings of Islam that allows for an interpretation that permits, encourages, rewards, whatever… the horrors that we’ve seen from ISIS and other goons. Like it or not, it’s simply true.
  • As long as muslims do not overtly condemn the passages in their Koran that exhort believers to deadly violence, there will continue to be psychos on both sides committing atrocities. Furthermore, if this means that there are 1,000 muslim-perpetrated atrocities — committed by believers doing what they believe the Koran tells them to do — and one atrocity (like today’s) perpetrated against muslims, then my simple truth is not … “blaming the victim.” Sorry. It’s just not.
  • Yes, let’s be plainspoken about this: the root of the evil done today… lies in the Koran.

— xPraetorius

Notes:


(1) No tiresome disclaimers. we have no need to prove our anti-massacre bona fides, so we won’t.

110 thoughts on “Quick Thoughts on the Shooting in New Zealand(1)

  1. The Second Amendment does NOT guarantee the existence of the NRA. No.. a trained member of the NRA is NOT who I would want protecting me. A trained American would perform much better. If they happen to be a member of the NRA or not.. doesn’t matter to me.

    I’m also a member, but the NRA does not rule any aspect of my Constitution or the freedoms therein. I can think for myself.

    1. Interesting comment, Doug! And thank you for it.

      I’m a bit mystified, however. I think the Constitution DOES say that the existence of the NRA is a constitutional right. However, as you indicate, not in the Second Amendment.

      I’m not sure where I suggested that the Second Amendment confers such a right.

      I think, rather, what I tried to do was to point out the ridiculousness of AOC’s contention that the horror in New Zealand somehow indicts the NRA. It does not, and AOC is, indeed, a buffoonish half-wit.

      I think I also tried to point out that as soon as some horror like in New Zealand occurs, Americans send armed people out to try to prevent another such incident.

      My point was simply: why not have the armed personnel on site before the atrocity, rather than after? I think it’s a sensible question.

      I mentioned the NRA both because the doltish AOC did, and because, if I’ve understood correctly, the NRA requires some gun training if you are to join? Yes?

      The point: if the shooter had tried to start his killing rampage, and then promptly been met with return fire, then, well, a lot fewer people would have perished this day.

      None of this strikes me as particularly controversial. Furthermore, I suspect that a trained, armed member of the NRA likely would, have been a potent way to prevent more innocent deaths in New Zealand.

      I have no doubt that your other assertion is true as well — that “a trained American” would perform admirably in the terrible circumstances. Better? I don’t know. Your hypothetical replacement for my hypothetical NRA member doesn’t permit us to know.

      I think we agree here, though: a trained, armed person on site would have been able to prevent a lot of killing today. The key word was neither “American,” nor “NRA,” but — armed.

      I’m mystified also as to where I might have implied that you can’t think for yourself. Your membership in the NRA — in today’s America — suggests rather persuasively that you can think for yourself. Can you clarify what I might have missed?

      Best,

      — x

      1. Perhaps I am more incensed with this right wing propensity to hail the NRA as the end all to everything gun owners are looking for to protect their rights. Believe me or not when I say this.. the NRA is doing more to threaten the Second than any Dem could possible threaten. In what way, you ask? I was a member back in the 70’s following my military service and began gun collecting. It was was your average hobby organization with it’s AMERICAN RIFLEMAN mag, which I enjoyed. By the end of the 70’s the organization, being influenced by the ever increasing gun manufacturers, and inspired to action by the recent SCOTUS decision on the wording of the Second, and other political interests, started selling fear into its members regarding threats to set various levels of gun controls by the left and some on the right, suggesting the Second Amendment was being attacked on all sides and that somehow this “battle” meant calling up images of “patriotism”. The fact is… it literally takes an act of Congress.. and the States themselves.. to change or remove an amendment. The Second is going nowhere no matter how many Cortez’s are blathering on about gun control. I’m a member of the NRA but I am sick as what it’s turned into… essentially a right wing patriotic organization that has managed to set itself up as an enemy rather than contribute to the national discourse in promoting positive alternative solutions to current gun issues. The organization, propelled by the gun manufacturers, is managing to spread fear and some kind of “alt-patriotism”… you’re not a patriot unless you love the NRA.. and your gun. So.. yes… the NRA is not helping anything and is promoting the national divide.

        To answer your question… all it takes is $35 bucks to join.. and be breathing. No training required.

        1. Thanks, Doug, for your response. I have to admit, I’ve long had a positive opinion of the NRA, but I’m certainly happy to be disabused of any inaccurate notions I might hold!

          You called it a “right-wing patriotic organization that’s managed to set itself up as an enemy.”

          Well, I’m a right-wing patriotic dude, and I’m certainly not an enemy, so I’m interested to see what about the NRA makes it “an enemy.” That’s a harsh word, especially if the organization truly is patriotic.

          I know about the amendment process for the Constitution, thank you, and I think that the way things are now, you’re right. It’d be hard to make any kind of amendment these days.

          I’m interested in what you would consider “positive alternative solutions to current gun issues” that you would hope the NRA would promote.

          In these pages, for example, we advanced a proposal for lock-boxes in soft targets. Each lock-box would contain a firearm, and could be opened only by authorized personnel, and only in the event of an emergency where it would be useful to have a a firearm present, and someone trained to use it.

          We developed the notion a bit: the lock-boxes could be opened remotely, by some remote control device, and a select group of people at the soft target (school, hospital, church, synagogue, mosque, etc.) would be trained to use the firearms and the remote controls.

          Our thinking was: even if you implemented it only partially, but you made a big, public point of saying that you had implemented it, crazed wackos would steer clear of any place where they thought they might encounter return fire.

          No homicidal maniac wants to be shot before he’s even had a chance to start his mission! And, of course, no homicidal maniac ever wants to face return fire at all. It was a creative idea with, we thought, real possibilities, and it struck me as a no-lose proposition. But no political person took it up and ran with it.

          Heck, I could even write the software that would keep the firearms locked down unless the lock-box was opened by an authorized person. Furthermore, the firearms could be biometrically controlled, so that they’d fire only for authorized persons whose fingerprints had been registered to the gun itself. What’s more, all the technology necessary for this already exists!

          So, that was our idea… what were you thinking would be “positive alternative solutions to current gun issues“?

          Best,

          — x

          1. I’m actually quite impressed with your tolerance in dialog. I spend most my blogging wanderings not looking for people who think the way I do nor am I one bit interested in debating for the sake of proving someone wrong.. or name-calling. An easy half of the Conservative blogs I visit where I might endeavor opening a dialog have absolutely no patience in reading alternative opinion. Some are pretty radical and give cause for worry.

            Regarding the NRA being an “enemy”.. it’s an enemy to the moral responsibility I feel they should have to not only their paying membership but in also promoting the interest and establishing a positive image in a social and political way; to promote a universal acceptability to the general public as a real and moral contributor toward advancing the hobby within the society as being a part of society.. and not present itself as being some policeman of the Second. The NRA exists BECAUSE of the Second, but it should never be the icon FOR the Second. Sure.. it can be the lobby to assure gun regulation and manufacturing falls in line with pursuit of the hobby… but it should not be the self-proclaimed “enforcer” organization when some elected officials want to insert gun controls. But the true concern I have is that to maintain their prominence as THE representative organization to protect the Second.. when it doesn’t need true protecting any more or less than the other amendments.. by instilling on its members fear and anxiety that somehow the Second will vanish… and more threatening, people will loose their guns. THAT feeds the national divide by creating sides when trying to solve problems like nutcase mass shooters. Patriotism? I don’t even know how THAT fits into promoting the gun hobby. You are no more or less patriotic than me. You and I are no more or less patriotic than Trump. Patriotism is not defined by the caliber of your gun… it’s how you feel in standing up for the ideals of being an American. But.. the NRA tosses that around as if there’s some relationship to gun ownership and patriotism… and the members get that shoved to them with every mass mailing.. and some buy into it as a necessary fight against.. “them, who want to take away your guns.” No one can do that.

            Your gun case idea is in fact a fair idea.. and those things do lend a positive impression if promoted by the NRA. Safety should be a mandatory thing. In fact, what’s wrong with the NRA promoting a mandatory safety class when purchasing one’s first weapon? But to my greater point… on the moral side… I have been pushing the need for a national mental health program. What’s wrong with the NRA leading an initiative in mental health reform? Use some of that lobbying strength not to foment more “take sides” discourse against gun control, but trying to help society to reduce violent use of firearms. That’s just one idea.

          2. Your gun case idea is in fact a fair idea.. and those things do lend a positive impression if promoted by the NRA. Safety should be a mandatory thing. In fact, what’s wrong with the NRA promoting a mandatory safety class when purchasing one’s first weapon? But to my greater point… on the moral side… I have been pushing the need for a national mental health program. What’s wrong with the NRA leading an initiative in mental health reform? Use some of that lobbying strength not to foment more “take sides” discourse against gun control, but trying to help society to reduce violent use of firearms. That’s just one idea.

          3. Well! I thought I produced a comprehensive reply! I’ll poke around and see whether I can find it! My apologies for posting what I did!

            Best,

            — x

          4. No reason to apologize at all. I applied just a dinky bit of common sense and dared to presume an error.. which I often do myself. 🙂

  2. “A muslim goes out and shoots up a church, a gay bar, a synagogue, a Christmas party, an army base — you name it — and the first thing the loudest voices in America say is, “We must protect the muslims from anti-muslim sentiment!” Then: some psycho goes out and shoots up a mosque and the first reaction in America is: “We must protect the muslims from anti-muslim sentiment!“

    And you seriously don’t see the problem in your thinking and how you’re basically excusing anti-Muslim sentiment either way?

    First, how often has there been attacks by Muslims in America compared to non-Muslims?

    “I’ll state the obvious now: The condemnation coming down on this shooter will be universal. No exceptions. All people whom anyone takes seriously around the world will condemn the shooter and his act in New Zealand. However, when a muslim goes out and massacres dozens, we’re immediately inundated with, “But, we must try to understand where this is coming from!“

    I have NEVER heard ANYONE say how we must understand Muslims. Tell me who said this, and please don’t tell me that it’s “common knowledge”.

    “It’s worth repeating it: If a trained and armed member of the NRA had been present at any of the recent high-profile massacres, none of these massacres even would have happened.”

    Huh???

    Not only does it not make sense, but you’re seriously saying that a card-carrying member of the NRA, an organization literally about guns, would not carry out a mass shooting???

    “One strange thought that hit me: How odd to hear and read of a massacre, and it’s not a muslim who did it!

    When I first heard the news reports, I heard only that someone had committed a shooting at a mosque… still my first reaction was that it would turn out to be a muslim. You know, a shi’ite shooting up a Sunni mosque, or vice versa. That kind of carnage happens in the Middle East all the time.”

    Okay. So, Muslims are all the same. But somehow, it’s wrong to criticize conservatives and straight white men for issues of racism and sexism.

    And no, I’m NOT excusing acts of terror and I’m NOT saying all conservatives and straight white men are the same, but I AM pointing out a blatant double standard and an apparent sign of Islamophobia.

    “The Unspeakable, Undeniable Truth: There is something in the teachings of Islam that allows for an interpretation that permits, encourages, rewards, whatever… the horrors that we’ve seen from ISIS and other goons. Like it or not, it’s simply true.”

    Okay. Where is it? Show some passages to illustrate your point better.

    “As long as muslims do not overtly condemn the passages in their Koran that exhort believers to deadly violence, there will continue to be psychos on both sides committing atrocities. Furthermore, if this means that there are 1,000 muslim-perpetrated atrocities — committed by believers doing what they believe the Koran tells them to do — and one atrocity (like today’s) perpetrated against muslims, then my simple truth is not … “blaming the victim.” Sorry. It’s just not.”

    Again, where are these passages?

    Also, maybe you haven’t heard, but the suspect is a white nationalist with anti-Muslim views.

    “Yes, let’s be plainspoken about this: the root of the evil done today… lies in the Koran.”

    Be careful. This kind of thinking is what influenced this and other crimes against Muslims.

    Also, I thank you not to delete any of my responses as I’ve stayed on topic and asked questions and made comments related to the topic.

    1. You Said:
      “A muslim goes out and shoots up a church, a gay bar, a synagogue, a Christmas party, an army base — you name it — and the first thing the loudest voices in America say is, “We must protect the muslims from anti-muslim sentiment!” Then: some psycho goes out and shoots up a mosque and the first reaction in America is: “We must protect the muslims from anti-muslim sentiment!“

      And you seriously don’t see the problem in your thinking and how you’re basically excusing anti-Muslim sentiment either way?

      First, how often has there been attacks by Muslims in America compared to non-Muslims?
      My Reply:
      No, I don’t see the problem with my thinking. Tell me: do you have “anti-Nazi sentiment?” I do. If someone comes up to me and says he’s a Nazi, immediately in my mind I think, “This guy’s an idiot.” There’s enough history, enough common knowledge, enough known about what the Nazi’s did to make it so that there’s no excuse for being a Nazi today. Incidentally, that’s why there’s no excuse for you to exhibit the fascistic behavior that you do, but back to the topic. Equally, there’s enough known about Islam today, enough known about the suras in the Koran today, enough known about what those who call themselves “muslims” do in the name of Islam, so that “anti-muslim sentiment“, in the form of suspicion, fear, wariness, anger, revulsion is perfectly rational. Is it right? Some of it is, yes. Fear and suspicion, for example. Did you know that more than 40% of muslims around the world have approving or high opinions of the main international terrorist groups? A higher percentage say they agree with the suras that call for the murder of “infidels.” (Incidentally, this is a contributing factor in why I continue to demand that you openly condemn “diary’s” genocidal fantasy — on your blog.) However, anti-muslim sentiment is certainly not right in the form it took in New Zealand. But it’s rational, and therefore this kind of thing among fringe elements is inevitable. No one should have a problem with “anti-Nazi sentiment,” and no one should have a problem with “anti-muslim sentiment.” They’re the same thing: a fear or suspicion of those who’ve proven far more than adequately that they will try to kill you for no good reason. Read that last well: No one should have a problem with “anti-Nazi sentiment,” and no one should have a problem with “anti-muslim sentiment.” They’re the same thing: a fear or suspicion of those who’ve proven far more than adequately that they will try to kill you for no good reason. However, that all can change. There is a movement afoot within Islam to reject the passages in the Koran that call for murdering “infidels.” If that movement gains traction, and even triumphs, then there will be no reason to have “anti-muslim sentiments.” However, at this point, there’s that pesky 40-45% of muslims around the world who are just fine with goons like ISIS, and the passages in the Koran that call for murdering innocent people.

      As far as your last question goes: Let’s see… there’s 9/11, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, the gay nightclub, and many, many, many one-offs. Around the world — the context of this particular discussion — Paris (many), Brussels (many), London (many), Madrid (many). In the Middle East, there’re the ghouls of ISIS and al Qaeda, Hamas and more. In Africa, there are the zombies of Al-Shababb and Al-Nusrah. Further east there’re the soulless scumbags of Abu Sayyaf. All of these groups are populated with goons who are dedicated to killing those who don’t believe as they do. Really, though? They’re just dedicated to killing. However, to have organized killing groups, you have to organize them around some overarching guiding principle. In this case, it’s Islam. Continuing: there are the continuing abominations of Rotherham, and other “grooming” cities. There are the “no-go” zones scattered all-round Europe. There are entire cities in Germany — Berlin and Munich for example — where the authorities tell women to stay indoors at night so as to avoid being assaulted by muslims. Right here at home we have Louis Farrakhan, Ilhan Omar, Rashidas Tlaib, Linda Sarsour and other goons, attacking non-muslims every day and, verbally at least, being quite open about it. A limitied list, of course. I left out a bunch of other muslim goons and groups of goons, because there are too many. I didn’t even mention groups like Boko Haram in Africa, because they’re poorly understood here in America. For example: when they kidnapped those 200+ young girls in Nigeria, we started a #BringOurGirlsBack hashtag campaign here in America, unaware that Boko Haram had already kidnapped and/or murdered thousands upon thousands of young boys, their principal target. But, in America, we don’t care about young boys around the world.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “I’ll state the obvious now: The condemnation coming down on this shooter will be universal. No exceptions. All people whom anyone takes seriously around the world will condemn the shooter and his act in New Zealand. However, when a muslim goes out and massacres dozens, we’re immediately inundated with, “But, we must try to understand where this is coming from!“

      I have NEVER heard ANYONE say how we must understand Muslims. Tell me who said this, and please don’t tell me that it’s “common knowledge”.

      My Reply:
      Dude: I can’t help you if you don’t pay attention to current events. You’ve done a long post here, and asked me to reply to a lot. I can’t spend my time educating you on what actually is common knowledge in America. Therefore, if something actually is common knowledge, your telling me not to call it that is just silly. I will answer your question with a small thought exercise. Didn’t you ever wonder why there’s a term “Islamophobia,” in very common use, while virtually no one ever says the corresponding term, “Christophobia?” Yet, Christians are being slaughtered by the tens of thousands in the Middle East. Again, someone who’s aware of current events would know this. There are no attacks by Christians against anyone anywhere in the world, yet Christians are the most persecuted single group in the world today. When was the last time you heard the term “Christophobia” used in public. I know of it only because I pay attention. You won’t hear it ever, first because you don’t pay attention, and second because the media don’t report on the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East and elsewhere.

      So, in single answer to your silly question: Every time a muslim, or muslims, commits an atrocity anywhere in the world, immediately groups like CAIR are out with statements demanding that we understand where it came from, and that we protect muslims from some “backlash” that has never once materialized. Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East by muslims, and the baboons of CAIR demand that we guard against an imaginary backlash against… muslims. If you didn’t know that, then you haven’t been paying attention for the last nearly 20 years, and I can’t spend my day educating you.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “It’s worth repeating it: If a trained and armed member of the NRA had been present at any of the recent high-profile massacres, none of these massacres even would have happened.”

      Huh???

      Not only does it not make sense, but you’re seriously saying that a card-carrying member of the NRA, an organization literally about guns, would not carry out a mass shooting???

      My Reply:
      Thank you for that question. You are correct: No member of the NRA has ever committed a mass shooting.

      NRA members have prevented violence many thousands of times, but an attack that doesn’t happen because some NRA member prevented it… doesn’t make the news. Here’s a link from a publication that disagrees with me. America is a safer place when 80,000 NRA members are taken off the street, but that proves my point. They catalog 119 mass shootings from 1998-2016. Surely if even one of those mass shootings had been perpetrated by an NRA member, they’d have mentioned it! Also, as is so often the case, the authors of the piece have written something that proves them wrong! The frequency of mass shootings in America has been declining steadily for a long time. The authors of the piece point out that after each such incident, gun purchases increase for a period of about five months. Hmmmm… decreasing mass shootings going hand-in-hand with increasing gun ownership? Well! I guess the authors of the article didn’t want to point that out. Can’t blame ’em, really.

      And, you will note, of course, that the undisputed fact that NRA members have prevented tens of thousands of vioilent crimes over the years goes… unmentioned in the piece. I’m not surprised, I guess.

      There, BW! I gave you a link! As you’ve so often asked for! And it’s even to a web page that disagrees with me! I don’t think your opinion is going to fare well, if even those who support it are arguing against it! Even if they don’t know it.

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

      You Said:
      “One strange thought that hit me: How odd to hear and read of a massacre, and it’s not a muslim who did it!

      When I first heard the news reports, I heard only that someone had committed a shooting at a mosque… still my first reaction was that it would turn out to be a muslim. You know, a shi’ite shooting up a Sunni mosque, or vice versa. That kind of carnage happens in the Middle East all the time.”

      Okay. So, Muslims are all the same. But somehow, it’s wrong to criticize conservatives and straight white men for issues of racism and sexism.

      My Reply:
      Ummmmm… this is odd. My passage says that, obviously, muslims are not all the same. That’s why Shi’ite kills Sunni and vice versa.

      And, yes, it’s “wrong to criticize conservatives and straight white men for issues of racism and sexism” because in the vast majority they’re not any of those things. You’re constantly criticizing imaginary racism.

      As for sexism, the most coddled, pampered, spoiled person in the world is the western woman. No one in the world has more or greater opportunities open to her in the realms of business, leisure, socially, politically, economically, than the western woman. No one has more recourse in case of failure. No one has more recourse in case of bad behavior by others. No one has more recourse period than the western woman. The non-white man is a distant second. The white man is a far, far distant third, and the Asian or Jewish man is last.

      There’s no sexism in America, unless you count the overt and obvious discrimination against men in family courts and in academia. By the way, no one disputes these last two things now.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      And no, I’m NOT excusing acts of terror and I’m NOT saying all conservatives and straight white men are the same, but I AM pointing out a blatant double standard and an apparent sign of Islamophobia.
      My Reply:
      Yes, you do say that all Conservatives are the same. Because to some extent they are! Doofus! By being Conservatives, they indicate that they hold a certain set of core principles to be true. Principles with which you either agree or disagree. Within the Conservative movement, there’s vast diversity of opinion on how to achieve Conservative goals, for example, but the goals are largely the same, or at least very similar. By the same token, “straight, white men” are all… straight and white. That makes them, to that small extent, “the same.” You tend to make the racist statement that they’re all racists and sexists because of their white skin, and because of the fact that they’re not perverts. Within the group of “straight, white men,” there’s vast diversity of belief in all manner of arenas. So much diversity that it’s impossible to say anything like: “Straight, white men are all…” anything at all! (except, of course, straight and white)

      If by “Islamophobia,” you mean a fear of muslims, then the word is incorrect. A phobia refers to an irrational fear of something. A fear of muslims — because they kill tens of thousands of people every year — is perfectly rational. Another word is needed, obviously. I have a disgust for Islam, because I’m normal, I’m intelligent, I’m a decent, caring person, and I pay attention. It’s the same reason I have a disgust for Naziism, or for Socialism. Islam, Naziism and Socialism are all the same thing. If you look it up you can see where, in these very pages, we coined the phrase “Socialislam” and “Fascislam,” in referring to the economic theory of Islam.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “The Unspeakable, Undeniable Truth: There is something in the teachings of Islam that allows for an interpretation that permits, encourages, rewards, whatever… the horrors that we’ve seen from ISIS and other goons. Like it or not, it’s simply true.”

      Okay. Where is it? Show some passages to illustrate your point better.
      My Reply:
      Lol! I’ll find the suras, but you can look them up as well. Look, this would be a far better argument if you’d do some work yourself! Don’t be lazy, Dude! A much, much question would have been something like: “I found this in the Koran, and it says be nice to infidels, what do you say about that?” (btw: there are such passages in the Koran, but they’re rejected by the terrorists who believe in something called: “Naskh” or “abrogation,” which means that a later verse prevails if there are two contradictory verses. The “be nice to infidels” passages are followed by the “kill the infidels” passages. These are the passages that the terrorists use to justify killing innocent people.)

      One more point: It is common knowledge that the islamist terrorists who do homicide bombings, beheadings, burn and bury women and children alive, and fly airplanes into buildings justify their acts through Islam and the Koran… please don’t pretend you don’t know this. If you truly don’t know this, there’s no point in continuing to interact with you, because your level of knowledge is far too inadequate to be writing anything online at all. Anyway, since these terrorists justify their acts through Islam and the Koran, then it’s plain — as my statement in the original piece states — “there’s something in Islam that these baboons think justifies their actions.” This is called “stating the obvious.” I shouldn’t have to educate you on what it is, because you can look up the passages yourself. Anyway, here’s one sucb passage:

      The Qur’an tells us: “not to make friendship with Jews and Christians” (5:51), “kill the disbelievers wherever we find them” (2:191), “murder them and treat them harshly” (9:123), “fight and slay the Pagans, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem” Interesting side note: This appears to be a justification for the horrific methods of the thuggee cult of India.

      There are many more on this page here. (that’s the source of the above passage as well, but obviously it’s a quote from the Koran. Please note: the web site itself appears to be run by crackpots, but the quote is a genuine quote.)
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “As long as muslims do not overtly condemn the passages in their Koran that exhort believers to deadly violence, there will continue to be psychos on both sides committing atrocities. Furthermore, if this means that there are 1,000 muslim-perpetrated atrocities — committed by believers doing what they believe the Koran tells them to do — and one atrocity (like today’s) perpetrated against muslims, then my simple truth is not … “blaming the victim.” Sorry. It’s just not.”

      Again, where are these passages?
      My Reply:
      I gave you a quote and a reference. There are millions of references on the internet. Here’s another one. And again, at first reading, it appears to be a source in disagreement with what I’m saying. However, the author of the piece then goes on to prove my point by saying the following: “The passage most often quoted is the fifth verse of the ninth sura, long known to Muslims as the “Sword verse.” It was cited by Osama bin Laden in a famous manifesto issued in 1996, and on first reading it does seem to say that bin Laden would be justified in hunting down any non-Muslim on the planet. The author then goes on to say that bin Laden was wrong to cite that verse as a justification for his acts, and then goes on to explain why bin Laden was wrong.

      My point: Regardless of whether or not bin Laden was correct in his reading of the Koran, that’s what he used as his justification. It’s right there in the Koran, and no one pretends that it’s therefore not a part of Islam. And if muslims don’t come to grips with the indisputable fact that there are passages in the Koran that others can inerpret, and have interpreted — whether rightly or wrongly — as justification for murdering innocent people, then there will continue to be violence by muslim goons and by others in response. This should not be controversial in any way. (that last right there is a good distillation of the entire controversy. Might have to turn it into a blog post!)
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Also, maybe you haven’t heard, but the suspect is a white nationalist with anti-Muslim views.
      My Reply:
      My essay made it clear that I knew that the guy was not a muslim. I didn’t say that the guy was a white nationalist. It’s common knowledge. I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but we tend to make the assumption that our readers and contributors know at least the basics of the issues we discuss. It’s why we spend as little time on background as possible, and try to jump quickly into the deep end, where the most educated swim.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “Yes, let’s be plainspoken about this: the root of the evil done today… lies in the Koran.”

      Be careful. This kind of thinking is what influenced this and other crimes against Muslims.
      My Reply:
      Hogwash! Dude: In a generation in which there have been tens of thousands of crimes committed by muslims against non-muslims, you’re worried about this, what, second? high-profile crime against muslims in recent memory? If you’d read what I wrote, you’d see that I said plainly that this kind of thing is inevitable — as inevitable as the fact that there would be some response to Pearl Harbor, or 9/11.

      Muslims around the world are engaged in atrocities against completely innocent non-muslims. It’s absolutely inevitable that the occasional non-muslim would do the same in reverse. It’s like what Ron White said of Texas in a recent stand-up routine: “In Texas we have the death penalty, and we… use it! That means if you come to Texas and kill one of us, we will kill you right back.” Kind of morbid, but descriptive. So, to paraphrase a bit… since muslims around the world are killing innocent non-muslims by the thousands each year, eventually a non-muslim is going to kill some innocent muslims right back. It sure ain’t right, but it’s inevitable.

      In my humble opinion, it sure would behoove international muslims #1: to reject the suras that call for the the violent deaths of non-muslims, and #2: to ex-communicate the goons who are not persuaded by that rejection.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Also, I thank you not to delete any of my responses as I’ve stayed on topic and asked questions and made comments related to the topic.
      My Reply:
      You did, and I didn’t change a thing. You’re welcome. Now, you have a choice. I’ve responded. You can argue, but if I’ve already given a complete answer, or if you start calling us names, or if you start filibustering, I’ll allow the content to stand for a bit, then delete it, with a notation as to why. Remember: you’ve already confessed to trying to hijack our bandwidth by trolling and filling our pages with irrelevant, bandwidth-stealing filler. You’re welcome here — we don’t censor anyone — but you’ve been warned.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      One last quick note: We reserve the right to refer to something as “common knowledge” if we determine that a reasonably aware and educated person ought to know it. Yes, that’s subjective, but we don’t have time to educate you, BW.

      Best,

      — x

  3. I can see this will be long. But anyway…

    Yes I am against Nazism and neo-Nazism. But I know not all neo-Nazis engage in violence, because a lot of them don’t have the guts to commit any. But I know they all share the same thinking of white supremacy and/or white nationalism.

    This anti-Muslim sentiment is nowhere near rational, because it paints all Muslims under a dangerous banner for what a few engage in. That’s no different than being afraid of black people, because of some irrational reason like they commit the most crimes or most black people are criminals. Doing either robs them of their individuality which I thought that something that conservatism values.

    Okay, you say that more than 40% of Muslims around the world approve or have high opinions of international terrorist groups. First off, I want to see the source where you got this from. And second, even if that’s true, that still leaves 60%. So, you mean to tell me that those 40% mean more than the 60%? If so, that makes my point stronger that it makes no sense to see all Muslims as a terrorist threat.

    Anti-Muslim sentiment WAS the force behind that shooting. The shooter Branton Tarrant made it clear. It’s stunning how you can reject a clear fact when it comes to perpetrators of hate who happen to be white, and yet, you’re obsessed with a anti-white comment made on my blog a long time ago so much that you brought it into this conversation to somehow show that it was worse or more important. Regardless of what you may think, all that does is defend white nationalism and those who live and breathe it. You can’t say how you’re against it, and yet, try to defend an obvious white nationalist for committing an atrocity by saying how it’s not about Islamophobia.

    Anti-Nazism is NOT the same as Anti-Muslim or Anti-Islam. Those who practice Nazism or neo-Nazism are invested in some form of white supremacy, believing that white people are the superior race and/or that superior race deserve a nation of their own for, of and by white people. Muslims are those who practice a religion that’s similar to Christianity and Judism. There are extremists, but they are a minority in the entire Muslim population which sees Islam as a religion of peace. And I have no doubt that most of them condemn terrorism in the name of Islam. How do I know? Because I know not all of them are the same and I don’t fear them just because of what they are.

    Okay, I’m aware of the 9/11 attacks, the incidents in part of Europe, Africa and the Middle East. And I would really like to see where you got this information from. Saying that it’s common knowledge is a non-answer, because it’s NOT common. Making such claims without any reference is open for skepticism in any argument or debate and without any sort of reference, what you say is taken with a grain of salt.

    Bottom line, it’s illogical to paint all Muslims under one brush. How would you like it if and when people paint all Jews under one brush that dehumanizes them? (That happens) That is more of a better analogy than comparing Muslims to Nazis, and there’s plenty of Islamophobia and Antisemitism to go around from those mostly found in the right.

    Dude: I can’t help you if you don’t pay attention to current events. You’ve done a long post here, and asked me to reply to a lot. I can’t spend my time educating you on what actually is common knowledge in America. Therefore, if something actually is common knowledge, your telling me not to call it that is just silly. I will answer your question with a small thought exercise. Didn’t you ever wonder why there’s a term “Islamophobia,” in very common use, while virtually no one ever says the corresponding term, “Christophobia?” Yet, Christians are being slaughtered by the tens of thousands in the Middle East. Again, someone who’s aware of current events would know this. There are no attacks by Christians against anyone anywhere in the world, yet Christians are the most persecuted single group in the world today. When was the last time you heard the term “Christophobia” used in public. I know of it only because I pay attention. You won’t hear it ever, first because you don’t pay attention, and second because the media don’t report on the ongoing slaughter in the Middle East and elsewhere.

    You know what I think is silly? You thinking you can “educate” me. To be honest, I see it as more like brainwashing.

    For instance, I’d like to see where you got this claim that Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East. Again, I can’t simply believe what you’re saying as honestly, much of what you say contradicts itself and you provide little to no reference to your rantings. I can’t consider if what you say has any merit without any thing to back it up. Your word is only as strong as the truth behind it.

    So, in single answer to your silly question: Every time a muslim, or muslims, commits an atrocity anywhere in the world, immediately groups like CAIR are out with statements demanding that we understand where it came from, and that we protect muslims from some “backlash” that has never once materialized. Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East by muslims, and the baboons of CAIR demand that we guard against an imaginary backlash against… muslims. If you didn’t know that, then you haven’t been paying attention for the last nearly 20 years, and I can’t spend my day educating you.

    Okay. What is CAIR? What are these examples of them speaking on behalf of Muslims?

    How can you say that you observe the world around you and think that backlash against Muslims are imaginary, especially after this recent tragedy in New Zealand. This drives my point further. A man from Australia had anti-Muslim views so strong that he carried out a terrorist attack against them, and this guy was NOT a Muslim himself. To sit there and argue against the fear of a backlash in light of what happened halfway around the world shows a contradiction in your argument, not to mention how you willingly ignored the obvious to make a point that fell flat on its face.

    Again, you can’t educate me when you keep cancelling out your own statements in one paragraph.

    Well, I’m glad you finally posted a link to an article that backs up your point, and I must say that it is very interesting. But I still need to see a reference behind your other claim that tens of thousands of violent crimes have been prevented by NRA members.

    Keep in mind that I didn’t disagree with you yet. In fact, I thank you for providing me a link to an article that explains it further. All I’m saying is that I need another bit of reference for your other point.

    Okay, you seem to think that the work of proof is all on me who openly disagrees. You demanded me to prove my case even though it’s a futile effort as you shoot them down with weak counter arguments as to why its invalid, and when I ask you to prove your points, you still expect me to look them up myself.

    One, even I know this is irrelevant to the issue. Two, this only further questions your validity in what you say and believe. And three, it shows how little you know about how a debate or argument works of how people expect those who make points and claims expect something to follow up on to learn more about those points and claims. This is not laziness. This is fairness.

    In any case, you continue to justify your case for being afraid of Muslims. I looked up those verses from the Koran. Fair enough, and on the surface they seem troubling to say the least.

    But here are a few disturbing verses from the Bible as well:

    Genesis 19:8
    “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”

    Exodus 21:20-21
    “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

    Leviticus 25:44-45
    And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.

    1 Peter 2:18
    Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.

    Deuteronomy 22:20-21
    But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.

    Deuteronomy 23:1
    “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.

    Deuteronomy 25:11-12
    If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.

    Leviticus 21:18-19
    For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch.

    Leviticus 20:9
    For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.

    2 Kings 2:23-24
    Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.

    Psalm 137:9
    Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock!

    And here’s my link: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2016/04/11-bible-verses-that-turn-christians-into-atheists/

    The lesson here is that no religion is perfect or superior to others. Islam is not some cult of murderers out for blood just as how Christianity is not a cult of slavemasters, bullies, misogynists and whatever else. And just like there are terrorists who supposedly practice the Islamic faith, there are hate groups and fanatics who supposedly believe in the Christian faith. But neither occupy most or the entire population of either religion.

    You say, it’s “wrong to criticize conservatives and straight white men for issues of racism and sexism” because in the vast majority they’re not any of those things. You’re constantly criticizing imaginary racism.

    Is that true or is what what you think?

    Once again, you leave me to believe that you either don’t know what racism and sexism is in their entirety or you’re just in severe denial again. And your adulation for the West is strong, strong enough to disbelieve that there’s any form of oppression or discrimination on a grand scale against women and people of color and reject ANY sliver of evidence right off the bat. To be honest, it’s a striking form of cognitive dissonance I ever seen.

    You also say, “There’s no sexism in America, unless you count the overt and obvious discrimination against men in family courts and in academia. By the way, no one disputes these last two things now.”

    Again, you contradicted yourself. You say there’s no sexism in America, but claims sexism against men. You also sound like a men’s rights activist where you think men have it tougher than women.

    I tell ya. This is nuts.

    I NEVER said conservatives are all the same, and you just agreed to the assumption you made against me. Another contradiction with name-calling on the side. To be honest, no reasonable person would learn anything from this kind of conversation except that some people on the internet are not all there and are delicate enough to think that the term “straight white men” is racist and include the liberal argument of diversity that makes no lick of sense.

    My God!

    It IS an irrational fear of Muslims. That’s why it’s considered a phobia. If you were to meet someone and they tell you he or she is a Muslim during a friendly conversation, you mean to tell me you’d be scared?

    If the answer is yes, that’s incredibly pathetic, so pathetic that it’s nothing to be proud of.

    In conclusion, you’re basing your thinking on stereotypes and a bunch of claims with little complexity. You’re concluding that all Muslims are to be feared and that Islam is a violent religion despite that there has been violent atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. Do I think Christianity is a violent religion? No. Do I think Christians are to be feared? No. Why? BECAUSE I DON’T SEE THEM ALL AS ONE MONOLITH.

    I also conclude that your excessive responses show a hint of avoiding the reality of what happened in New Zealand and, at its worst, defend the actions of one violent white nationalist fanatic with an obvious hatred of Muslims. What you said about Muslims is no different than what white nationalists, white supremacists and most conservatives and Republicans have said. And it’s not unlike the false statistics about black-on-white crime that they love to hold dear and pass along to their peers as a meager way to justify their fear and hatred of black people or false propaganda about Jews that influenced that synagogue shooting last year. There really is no difference. And I’m not saying this to make you feel guilty despite your constant baseless, morally bankrupt and downright insane accusations against me. I’m saying this to let you know that someone who reads what you wrote might take it as the gospel to commit a crime against Muslims whether you have links to further your judgments or not.

    Bottom line: you can’t say how you condemn the actions of the shooter who has anti-Muslim sentiments while showing that you too are anti-Muslim. That’s not how it works, and no one with a reasonable and critical mindset would buy it in the least.

    I do thank you for the link to drive your points about the NRA, but honestly, that was the only thing strong within these responses.

    And from now on, forgive me in advance of any grammar and spelling errors.

    1. You Said:
      I can see this will be long. But anyway…
      My Reply:
      Fine… as long as it’s not a waste of time. If any of your passages are a waste of time and bandwidth, I’ll get rid of them.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Yes I am against Nazism and neo-Nazism. But I know not all neo-Nazis engage in violence, because a lot of them don’t have the guts to commit any. But I know they all share the same thinking of white supremacy and/or white nationalism.
      My Reply:
      Not really. The BLM’ers are Nazis too, and they’re obviously not white supremacists. You should have left it at “Yes I am against Naziism and neo-Naziism.” However, you’re not against Naziism or ne-Naziism, because you’re pro-BLM, who are just today’s socially acceptable Nazis.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      This anti-Muslim sentiment is nowhere near rational, because it paints all Muslims under a dangerous banner for what a few engage in. That’s no different than being afraid of black people, because of some irrational reason like they commit the most crimes or most black people are criminals. Doing either robs them of their individuality which I thought that something that conservatism values.
      My Reply:
      Dude: There are way more than “a few” muslims committing murder and mayhem around the world. Way, way, way more than a few. And, there are places in America where white people cannot go. Go ahead and call me a racist all you want, it was my black friend, a very dear friend, who told me (1) don’t go to various places near where I live, and (2) told me I couldn’t go to church with her because it’s a black church and I wouldn’t be welcome. I was incredulous, but she insisted.

      No, fear of muslims is perfectly rational. We don’t allow professed Nazis into this country, we should have no qualms about restricting the entry of muslims. At this point they’re far more dangerous than Nazis. And it’s not because they’re non-white people, but because they’re muslims. We have no qualms about “robbing Nazis of their individuality” and forbidding them entry into this country. It’s because they hold a set of beliefs we find abhorrent. Islam is the same thing: a set of beliefs we all ought to find abhorrent.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Okay, you say that more than 40% of Muslims around the world approve or have high opinions of international terrorist groups. First off, I want to see the source where you got this from. And second, even if that’s true, that still leaves 60%. So, you mean to tell me that those 40% mean more than the 60%? If so, that makes my point stronger that it makes no sense to see all Muslims as a terrorist threat.
      My Reply:
      Again, I don’t have the time to educate you. Look it up. It’s easy to find. Dude, stop with the dumb stuff! There are more than a billion adherents to Islam. You do recognize that 40% of a billion is 400 million, or more people than live in America by 80 million! This is your last warning about stupid stuff. Do a little thought exercise with me: If you encounter a group of 10 people on the street, and you know that “only” 40 percent of them want to kill you, do you still feel all safe because 60 percent don’t? Okay. Don’t say really dumb things like this again, because I will delete them.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Anti-Muslim sentiment WAS the force behind that shooting. The shooter Branton Tarrant made it clear. It’s stunning how you can reject a clear fact when it comes to perpetrators of hate who happen to be white, and yet, you’re obsessed with a anti-white comment made on my blog a long time ago so much that you brought it into this conversation to somehow show that it was worse or more important. Regardless of what you may think, all that does is defend white nationalism and those who live and breathe it. You can’t say how you’re against it, and yet, try to defend an obvious white nationalist for committing an atrocity by saying how it’s not about Islamophobia.
      My Reply:
      Where did you get the idea that I suggested that anti-muslim sentiment wasn’t behind the shooting? I just don’t use the nonsense word: “Islamophobia.” Call it something else, because whatever Tarrant motives were, it’s clear that any fear of muslims was not irrational. However, his act absolutely was irrational. Duh! Dude: what do you have against clear speech? And don’t give me the crap about “defending white nationalism.” The next time you do this, it’s getting deleted, as nonsensical and covered many, many times before.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Anti-Nazism is NOT the same as Anti-Muslim or Anti-Islam. Those who practice Nazism or neo-Nazism are invested in some form of white supremacy, believing that white people are the superior race and/or that superior race deserve a nation of their own for, of and by white people. Muslims are those who practice a religion that’s similar to Christianity and Judism. There are extremists, but they are a minority in the entire Muslim population which sees Islam as a religion of peace. And I have no doubt that most of them condemn terrorism in the name of Islam. How do I know? Because I know not all of them are the same and I don’t fear them just because of what they are.
      My Reply:
      Anti-Naziism is the same as Anti-Islam, since Islam is merely today’s interntional fascism. The rest of this was just meaningless rambling. I’ll let it stay for a bit, then I’ll delete it because it said nothing of any value. I’ll strike out what is subject to deletion.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Okay, I’m aware of the 9/11 attacks, the incidents in part of Europe, Africa and the Middle East. And I would really like to see where you got this information from. Saying that it’s common knowledge is a non-answer, because it’s NOT common. Making such claims without any reference is open for skepticism in any argument or debate and without any sort of reference, what you say is taken with a grain of salt.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion. First you say you’re aware of what I said, then you told me to give you my sources. Dude: proofread what you write.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Bottom line, it’s illogical to paint all Muslims under one brush. How would you like it if and when people paint all Jews under one brush that dehumanizes them? (That happens) That is more of a better analogy than comparing Muslims to Nazis, and there’s plenty of Islamophobia and Antisemitism to go around from those mostly found in the right.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: strawmen, and ignorance. For example: anyone paying any attention knows that anti-semitism’s home is on the Left. And, of course, there’s no such thing as “Islamophobia.”
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      You know what I think is silly? You thinking you can “educate” me. To be honest, I see it as more like brainwashing.
      My Reply:
      Again, I don’t have the time to educate you. Subject to deletion.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      For instance, I’d like to see where you got this claim that Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East. Again, I can’t simply believe what you’re saying as honestly, much of what you say contradicts itself and you provide little to no reference to your rantings. I can’t consider if what you say has any merit without any thing to back it up. Your word is only as strong as the truth behind it.
      My Reply:
      Again, I don’t have the time to educate you. There are almost no Christians left in the arab countries of the Middle East. They’re all either dead, slaughtered, or have fled. Do you ever read anything? You’re plainly not ready to discuss anything related to Islam, muslims, international events or the Middle East. And I don’t have time to bring you up to speed.

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

      You Said:
      Okay. What is CAIR? What are these examples of them speaking on behalf of Muslims?

      My Reply:
      Really? What is CAIR? Really? You have an internet connection. Look it up. The Council on American-Islamic Relations. Bunch of terrorist-supporting dirtbags too. I really don’t have the time to educate you if you don’t know what CAIR is. If this is how this is going to go, then I’m going to have to put a stop to it soon. Look it up.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      How can you say that you observe the world around you and think that backlash against Muslims are imaginary, especially after this recent tragedy in New Zealand. This drives my point further. A man from Australia had anti-Muslim views so strong that he carried out a terrorist attack against them, and this guy was NOT a Muslim himself. To sit there and argue against the fear of a backlash in light of what happened halfway around the world shows a contradiction in your argument, not to mention how you willingly ignored the obvious to make a point that fell flat on its face.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion. Too dumb. No backlash in America was what I said. Obviously. When I delete them, I’ll delete them from your post too, since you’ve confessed that you are trying to steal our bandwidth.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Again, you can’t educate me when you keep cancelling out your own statements in one paragraph.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion. Stupid.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Well, I’m glad you finally posted a link to an article that backs up your point, and I must say that it is very interesting. But I still need to see a reference behind your other claim that tens of thousands of violent crimes have been prevented by NRA members.
      My Reply:
      Read John Lott.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Keep in mind that I didn’t disagree with you yet. In fact, I thank you for providing me a link to an article that explains it further. All I’m saying is that I need another bit of reference for your other point.
      My Reply:
      Dude: I know a lot of things… I’ve learned them from reading far and wide. Again, I make the assumption that those who read this blog will have a higher level of education and knowledge. I don’t have time either to educate you, or to look up all the sources for all the thngs I know. You have to take some initiative yourself. In fact, I doubt that you really do want to learn about these things, because you showed that you have no desire to learn anything about race relations in America. So, in the future — starting now — if I say something that I know just because I know a lot of things, and you ask for a source, I’m going to tell you to look it up. The fact that NRA members have prevented thousands of violent crimes is well-known. Look it up.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Okay, you seem to think that the work of proof is all on me who openly disagrees. You demanded me to prove my case even though it’s a futile effort as you shoot them down with weak counter arguments as to why its invalid, and when I ask you to prove your points, you still expect me to look them up myself.

      My Reply:
      No, the work of at least learning basic things is, indeed, on you. You keep asking me things that you already should know. And, again, I don’t have the time to educate you. So, I’m going to delete this too.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      One, even I know this is irrelevant to the issue. Two, this only further questions your validity in what you say and believe. And three, it shows how little you know about how a debate or argument works of how people expect those who make points and claims expect something to follow up on to learn more about those points and claims. This is not laziness. This is fairness.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: gibberish. Oh, and the truth is not fair.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      In any case, you continue to justify your case for being afraid of Muslims. I looked up those verses from the Koran. Fair enough, and on the surface they seem troubling to say the least.
      My Reply:
      Dude: Osama bin Laden said they were the justification for his psychotic acts. I guess you could say they’re “troubling.” How about: “psychotic?”
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      But here are a few disturbing verses from the Bible as well:
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Genesis 19:8

      “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant. This is a discussion of Islam, not of Old Testament Bible verses. You long ago demonstrated that you’re ignorant of Christianity. I don’t have time to educate you on Christianity either.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Exodus 21:20-21

      “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant. This is a discussion of Islam.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Leviticus 25:44-45
      And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.

      My Reply:
      Irrelevant. This is a discussion of Islam.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      1 Peter 2:18
      Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.

      My Reply:
      Close, but still: irrelevant. Again, I don’t have time to educate you on Christianity. Old Testament or New.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Deuteronomy 22:20-21

      But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Deuteronomy 23:1

      “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Deuteronomy 25:11-12

      If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant. This is a discussion of Islam.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Leviticus 21:18-19

      For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch.
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Leviticus 20:9

      For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      2 Kings 2:23-24

      Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Psalm 137:9

      Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock!
      My Reply:
      Irrelevant.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      And here’s my link: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2016/04/11-bible-verses-that-turn-christians-into-atheists/

      The lesson here is that no religion is perfect or superior to others. Islam is not some cult of murderers out for blood just as how Christianity is not a cult of slavemasters, bullies, misogynists and whatever else. And just like there are terrorists who supposedly practice the Islamic faith, there are hate groups and fanatics who supposedly believe in the Christian faith. But neither occupy most or the entire population of either religion.

      My Reply:
      Whatever: the “lesson,” while wrong, is irrelevant, so subject to deletion. Even if you were correct in your conclusion, it would be irrelevant. This is not a comparative religion discussion. Islam is a cult of murderers out for blood. There are indeed terrorist groups — very, very few — that call themselves Christian. The difference is that the Islamic terrorist groups are aided, abetted and supported by more than 400 million muslims around the world. There are no Christian churches that embrace any terrorists who call themselves Christians.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      You say, it’s “wrong to criticize conservatives and straight white men for issues of racism and sexism” because in the vast majority they’re not any of those things. You’re constantly criticizing imaginary racism.

      Is that true or is what what you think?
      My Reply:
      Obviously, it’s an opinion, but an opinion based on facts, reasoning, observations and logic.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Once again, you leave me to believe that you either don’t know what racism and sexism is in their entirety or you’re just in severe denial again. And your adulation for the West is strong, strong enough to disbelieve that there’s any form of oppression or discrimination on a grand scale against women and people of color and reject ANY sliver of evidence right off the bat. To be honest, it’s a striking form of cognitive dissonance I ever seen.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: Covered many, many times before.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      You also say, “There’s no sexism in America, unless you count the overt and obvious discrimination against men in family courts and in academia. By the way, no one disputes these last two things now.”

      Again, you contradicted yourself. You say there’s no sexism in America, but claims sexism against men. You also sound like a men’s rights activist where you think men have it tougher than women.

      I tell ya. This is nuts.
      My Reply:
      Re-read the sentence.

      I am, indeed, a men’s rights activist. Men obviously have it far tougher in America than women. This is not even debatable.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I NEVER said conservatives are all the same, and you just agreed to the assumption you made against me. Another contradiction with name-calling on the side. To be honest, no reasonable person would learn anything from this kind of conversation except that some people on the internet are not all there and are delicate enough to think that the term “straight white men” is racist and include the liberal argument of diversity that makes no lick of sense.

      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: gibberish.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      It IS an irrational fear of Muslims. That’s why it’s considered a phobia. If you were to meet someone and they tell you he or she is a Muslim during a friendly conversation, you mean to tell me you’d be scared?

      If the answer is yes, that’s incredibly pathetic, so pathetic that it’s nothing to be proud of.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: filibustering. And covered many times before.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      In conclusion, you’re basing your thinking on stereotypes and a bunch of claims with little complexity. You’re concluding that all Muslims are to be feared and that Islam is a violent religion despite that there has been violent atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. Do I think Christianity is a violent religion? No. Do I think Christians are to be feared? No. Why? BECAUSE I DON’T SEE THEM ALL AS ONE MONOLITH.
      My Reply:
      Dude: 9/11 was not a “stereotype.” Madrid, London, Brussels, Paris, Mumbai, The Phillipines, Boko Haram, ISIS, Al qaeda, Hamas, Al Nusra… etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum are not stereotypes. They’re tens of thousands of bloodthirsty, murderous, gibbering baboons, supported by 400 million muslims worldwide. Stop being an idiot. Of course you don’t “think Christians are to be feared,” you moron, because there is no reason to fear them. Go ahead, name for me today’s Christian equivalent of — Boko Haram, ISIS, Al qaeda, Hamas, Al Nusra… Go ahead… I’ll wait. (drumming fingers… drumming fingers… drumming fingers). Because your conclusion is so stupid, it’s also subject to deletion later. I’ll not have our bandwidth wasted on that sludge!
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I also conclude that your excessive responses show a hint of avoiding the reality of what happened in New Zealand and, at its worst, defend the actions of one violent white nationalist fanatic with an obvious hatred of Muslims. What you said about Muslims is no different than what white nationalists, white supremacists and most conservatives and Republicans have said. And it’s not unlike the false statistics about black-on-white crime that they love to hold dear and pass along to their peers as a meager way to justify their fear and hatred of black people or false propaganda about Jews that influenced that synagogue shooting last year. There really is no difference. And I’m not saying this to make you feel guilty despite your constant baseless, morally bankrupt and downright insane accusations against me. I’m saying this to let you know that someone who reads what you wrote might take it as the gospel to commit a crime against Muslims whether you have links to further your judgments or not.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: Way too idiotic, and covered many, many times before.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Bottom line: you can’t say how you condemn the actions of the shooter who has anti-Muslim sentiments while showing that you too are anti-Muslim. That’s not how it works, and no one with a reasonable and critical mindset would buy it in the least.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: Stupid.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I do thank you for the link to drive your points about the NRA, but honestly, that was the only thing strong within these responses.

      And from now on, forgive me in advance of any grammar and spelling errors.
      My Reply:
      Whatever.

      I always forgive you your spelling and grammatical errors. I tell you to proofread when what you say is so poorly written as to be incomprehensible or gibberish.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –
      Best,

      — x

  4. Okay. I can tell from a quick read of this that it appears that I’ve struck a few nerves as I’ve seen you crossing out a lot of my responses even though they didn’t stray from the topic or your replies and how I didn’t call you any names, left important points and advised you of how what you’re saying helps to fuel hate. And I know this will be crossed out as well despite it being a spot-on assessment of this argument alone.

    Anyway…

    Not really. The BLM’ers are Nazis too, and they’re obviously not white supremacists. You should have left it at “Yes I am against Naziism and neo-Naziism.” However, you’re not against Naziism or ne-Naziism, because you’re pro-BLM, who are just today’s socially acceptable Nazis.

    Honestly, that comment is devoid of intelligence and loaded with craziness. Yes, I support BLM and am proud of it. I don’t see how a movement about valuing the lives of black people are the same as a set of deals that supports white supremacy, white nationalism and Antisemitism.

    Come to think of it, I don’t see how this is even relevant to the topic or this debate! And yet, you cross out my responses that were and didn’t deviate from the points you made.

    Dude: There are way more than “a few” muslims committing murder and mayhem around the world. Way, way, way more than a few. And, there are places in America where white people cannot go. Go ahead and call me a racist all you want, it was my black friend, a very dear friend, who told me (1) don’t go to various places near where I live, and (2) told me I couldn’t go to church with her because it’s a black church and I wouldn’t be welcome. I was incredulous, but she insisted.

    More than a few is still not the whole or even most of the Muslim population, and it still doesn’t give you or anyone else to fear and/or hate them.

    I can’t call you a racist on that, because Muslims aren’t a race. I can call you Islamophic, insane, irate and ignorant, and your “black friend” testimony is incredibly lame, and a piss poor, racist (That’s right. I said it.) attempt to justify your fear and hatred on nonwhite and non-Christians. You really lost it here.

    Again, I don’t have the time to educate you. Look it up. It’s easy to find. Dude, stop with the dumb stuff! There are more than a billion adherents to Islam. You do recognize that 40% of a billion is 400 million, or more people than live in America by 80 million! This is your last warning about stupid stuff. Do a little thought exercise with me: If you encounter a group of 10 people on the street, and you know that “only” 40 percent of them want to kill you, do you still feel all safe because 60 percent don’t? Okay. Don’t say really dumb things like this again, because I will delete them.

    You know what. I’m just going to say it. The only one saying dumb things here is YOU.

    This isn’t even remotely what I’m trying to say, and that math example is just plain ridiculous. The simple fact is that 40% of a population DOES NOT represent the entire population. And your stats here are suspect. Again, provide a link or a reference of where you got your statistics. You said it.So, it’s YOUR responsibility to provide a reference, NOT the person questioning it. If you wrote any research papers, you would know this obvious fact, but whatever. If you don’t approve of dumb things said here, lead by example and STOP SAYING THEM.

    Where did you get the idea that I suggested that anti-muslim sentiment wasn’t behind the shooting? I just don’t use the nonsense word: “Islamophobia.” Call it something else, because whatever Tarrant motives were, it’s clear that any fear of muslims was not irrational. However, his act absolutely was irrational. Duh! Dude: what do you have against clear speech? And don’t give me the crap about “defending white nationalism.” The next time you do this, it’s getting deleted, as nonsensical and covered many, many times before..

    You don’t use the word, maybe because you suffer from it and hate to admit it. I can’t and won’t call it something else when it is what it is. And in case you don’t know, fear is irrational. You say what the shooter did was irrational, but his fear was not. Regardless of how you twist this, you made it clear that you want to justify your fears against certain people, and you also made it clear that you’re DEFENDING A KILLER. If you didn’t, you won’t be writing so much about your fear against Muslims. But you keep at it over and over. So, don’t say argue against this claim, because all you’ll end up doing is prove my point.

    In the end, you don’t care about the lives lost at those Mosques, and you’re showing it everytime you argue for your case of why you’re afraid of Muslims. Case closed.

    Anti-Naziism is the same as Anti-Islam, since Islam is merely today’s interntional fascism. The rest of this was just meaningless rambling. I’ll let it stay for a bit, then I’ll delete it because it said nothing of any value. I’ll strike out what is subject to deletion.

    Okay. Again, you’ve made a comment devoid of sense and sanity, and you continue to defend your fear of Muslims.

    “Read John Lott.”

    Sighs! Anyway…

    Dude: I know a lot of things… I’ve learned them from reading far and wide. Again, I make the assumption that those who read this blog will have a higher level of education and knowledge. I don’t have time either to educate you, or to look up all the sources for all the thngs I know. You have to take some initiative yourself. In fact, I doubt that you really do want to learn about these things, because you showed that you have no desire to learn anything about race relations in America. So, in the future — starting now — if I say something that I know just because I know a lot of things, and you ask for a source, I’m going to tell you to look it up. The fact that NRA members have prevented thousands of violent crimes is well-known. Look it up.

    You speak WAAAAAAAAY too highly of yourself.

    Again, I’m not here to be educated. I’m here to tell you how wrong you are. But I see your ego is way to big to be humbled in that way.

    Okay, I see that this is where you start making off my replies.So, I’ll just copy and paste the rest and respond.

    Okay, I’m aware of the 9/11 attacks, the incidents in part of Europe, Africa and the Middle East. And I would really like to see where you got this information from. Saying that it’s common knowledge is a non-answer, because it’s NOT common. Making such claims without any reference is open for skepticism in any argument or debate and without any sort of reference, what you say is taken with a grain of salt.
    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion. First you say you’re aware of what I said, then you told me to give you my sources. Dude: proofread what you write.

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

    I made a request, but you obviously have a problem with fulfilling something you should’ve done. Again, if you had any inkling as to research papers, or in this case arguments and debates work, you would know that it’s COMMON KNOWLEDGE that YOU provide solid references.

    You Said:
    Bottom line, it’s illogical to paint all Muslims under one brush. How would you like it if and when people paint all Jews under one brush that dehumanizes them? (That happens) That is more of a better analogy than comparing Muslims to Nazis, and there’s plenty of Islamophobia and Antisemitism to go around from those mostly found in the right.
    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion: strawmen, and ignorance. For example: anyone paying any attention knows that anti-semitism’s home is on the Left. And, of course, there’s no such thing as “Islamophobia.”

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

    Here’s a more accurate assessment. Your reply is loaded with deflection, weak and empty blaming, denial and filled with falsehoods.

    You Said:
    You know what I think is silly? You thinking you can “educate” me. To be honest, I see it as more like brainwashing.
    My Reply:
    Again, I don’t have the time to educate you. Subject to deletion.

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

    I SAID I WASN’T HERE TO BE EDUCATED. I MADE THAT PERFECTLY CLEAR. And I said that in caps so there’s no way you could read that wrong.

    You Said:
    For instance, I’d like to see where you got this claim that Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East. Again, I can’t simply believe what you’re saying as honestly, much of what you say contradicts itself and you provide little to no reference to your rantings. I can’t consider if what you say has any merit without any thing to back it up. Your word is only as strong as the truth behind it.
    My Reply:
    Again, I don’t have the time to educate you. There are almost no Christians left in the arab countries of the Middle East. They’re all either dead, slaughtered, or have fled. Do you ever read anything? You’re plainly not ready to discuss anything related to Islam, muslims, international events or the Middle East. And I don’t have time to bring you up to speed.

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

    I’ll consider this as you not having any sources and that you made it up.

    You Said:
    Okay. What is CAIR? What are these examples of them speaking on behalf of Muslims?

    My Reply:
    Really? What is CAIR? Really? You have an internet connection. Look it up. The Council on American-Islamic Relations. Bunch of terrorist-supporting dirtbags too. I really don’t have the time to educate you if you don’t know what CAIR is. If this is how this is going to go, then I’m going to have to put a stop to it soon. Look it up.

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

    You really don’t know how debates or arguments work do you? Where is the reference you support this claim?

    You Said:
    How can you say that you observe the world around you and think that backlash against Muslims are imaginary, especially after this recent tragedy in New Zealand. This drives my point further. A man from Australia had anti-Muslim views so strong that he carried out a terrorist attack against them, and this guy was NOT a Muslim himself. To sit there and argue against the fear of a backlash in light of what happened halfway around the world shows a contradiction in your argument, not to mention how you willingly ignored the obvious to make a point that fell flat on its face.
    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion. Too dumb. No backlash in America was what I said. Obviously. When I delete them, I’ll delete them from your post too, since you’ve confessed that you are trying to steal our bandwidth.

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

    I wasn’t limiting this to America. Besides, this tragedy didn’t happen in America.

    You Said:
    Again, you can’t educate me when you keep cancelling out your own statements in one paragraph.
    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion. Stupid.

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

    No. It’s true.

    You Said:
    Okay, you seem to think that the work of proof is all on me who openly disagrees. You demanded me to prove my case even though it’s a futile effort as you shoot them down with weak counter arguments as to why its invalid, and when I ask you to prove your points, you still expect me to look them up myself.

    My Reply:
    No, the work of at least learning basic things is, indeed, on you. You keep asking me things that you already should know. And, again, I don’t have the time to educate you. So, I’m going to delete this too.

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

    You seem to have a funny definition of what constitutes as basic. And for the millionth time, I. AM. NOT. HERE. TO. BE. ED-U-CATED. BY. YOU.

    DO. YOU. UN-DER-STAND?

    You Said:
    One, even I know this is irrelevant to the issue. Two, this only further questions your validity in what you say and believe. And three, it shows how little you know about how a debate or argument works of how people expect those who make points and claims expect something to follow up on to learn more about those points and claims. This is not laziness. This is fairness.
    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion: gibberish. Oh, and the truth is not fair.

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

    I guess this explains why you’re not interested in truth.

    You Said:
    In any case, you continue to justify your case for being afraid of Muslims. I looked up those verses from the Koran. Fair enough, and on the surface they seem troubling to say the least.
    My Reply:
    Dude: Osama bin Laden said they were the justification for his psychotic acts. I guess you could say they’re “troubling.” How about: “psychotic?”

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

    What??? I was talking about the verses, not Osama bin Laden, and he was no more a representative of Islam than I am. (And I’m not.)

    You Said:
    But here are a few disturbing verses from the Bible as well:
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    Genesis 19:8

    “See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please, let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.”
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant. This is a discussion of Islam, not of Old Testament Bible verses. You long ago demonstrated that you’re ignorant of Christianity. I don’t have time to educate you on Christianity either.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    Exodus 21:20-21

    “And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant. This is a discussion of Islam.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    Leviticus 25:44-45
    And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have — from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property.
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant. This is a discussion of Islam.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    1 Peter 2:18
    Servants, be submissive to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the harsh.
    My Reply:
    Close, but still: irrelevant. Again, I don’t have time to educate you on Christianity. Old Testament or New.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    Deuteronomy 22:20-21

    But if the thing is true, and evidences of virginity are not found for the young woman, then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done a disgraceful thing in Israel, to play the harlot in her father’s house. So you shall put away the evil from among you.
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    Deuteronomy 23:1

    “He who is emasculated by crushing or mutilation shall not enter the assembly of the LORD.
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    Deuteronomy 25:11-12

    If two men fight together, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the hand of the one attacking him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; your eye shall not pity her.
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant. This is a discussion of Islam.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    Leviticus 21:18-19

    For any man who has a defect shall not approach: a man blind or lame, who has a marred face or any limb too long, a man who has a broken foot or broken hand, or is a hunchback or a dwarf, or a man who has a defect in his eye, or eczema or scab, or is a eunuch.
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    Leviticus 20:9

    For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him.
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    2 Kings 2:23-24

    Then he went up from there to Bethel; and as he was going up the road, some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the LORD. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths.
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    Psalm 137:9

    Happy the one who takes and dashes Your little ones against the rock!
    My Reply:
    Irrelevant.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    You Said:
    And here’s my link: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unfundamentalistchristians/2016/04/11-bible-verses-that-turn-christians-into-atheists/

    The lesson here is that no religion is perfect or superior to others. Islam is not some cult of murderers out for blood just as how Christianity is not a cult of slavemasters, bullies, misogynists and whatever else. And just like there are terrorists who supposedly practice the Islamic faith, there are hate groups and fanatics who supposedly believe in the Christian faith. But neither occupy most or the entire population of either religion.

    My Reply:
    Whatever: the “lesson,” while wrong, is irrelevant, so subject to deletion. Even if you were correct in your conclusion, it would be irrelevant. This is not a comparative religion discussion. Islam is a cult of murderers out for blood. There are indeed terrorist groups — very, very few — that call themselves Christian. The difference is that the Islamic terrorist groups are aided, abetted and supported by more than 400 million muslims around the world. There are no Christian churches that embrace any terrorists who call themselves Christians.

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

    Ummm, YOU brought up the subject of Christianity, and I responded accordingly. This is my reply to this whole shallow “cancellation” of my points.

    You Said:
    You say, it’s “wrong to criticize conservatives and straight white men for issues of racism and sexism” because in the vast majority they’re not any of those things. You’re constantly criticizing imaginary racism.

    Is that true or is what what you think?
    My Reply:
    Obviously, it’s an opinion, but an opinion based on facts, reasoning, observations and logic.

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

    But opinions can still be wrong if proven wrong, and you’ve shown that you’re massively wrong and refuse to be corrected.

    You Said:
    Once again, you leave me to believe that you either don’t know what racism and sexism is in their entirety or you’re just in severe denial again. And your adulation for the West is strong, strong enough to disbelieve that there’s any form of oppression or discrimination on a grand scale against women and people of color and reject ANY sliver of evidence right off the bat. To be honest, it’s a striking form of cognitive dissonance I ever seen.
    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion: Covered many, many times before.

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

    And many, many times before, you’ve been WROOOOOOOOONG!

    You Said:
    You also say, “There’s no sexism in America, unless you count the overt and obvious discrimination against men in family courts and in academia. By the way, no one disputes these last two things now.”

    Again, you contradicted yourself. You say there’s no sexism in America, but claims sexism against men. You also sound like a men’s rights activist where you think men have it tougher than women.

    I tell ya. This is nuts.
    My Reply:
    Re-read the sentence.

    I am, indeed, a men’s rights activist. Men obviously have it far tougher in America than women. This is not even debatable.
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    So, I’m guessing that the person on the other side of this computer is not black or a female as you constantly and conveniently claim. And to do you a favor, I won’t engage with you on your MRA claim.

    You Said:
    I NEVER said conservatives are all the same, and you just agreed to the assumption you made against me. Another contradiction with name-calling on the side. To be honest, no reasonable person would learn anything from this kind of conversation except that some people on the internet are not all there and are delicate enough to think that the term “straight white men” is racist and include the liberal argument of diversity that makes no lick of sense.

    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion: gibberish.

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

    Anyway…

    You Said:
    It IS an irrational fear of Muslims. That’s why it’s considered a phobia. If you were to meet someone and they tell you he or she is a Muslim during a friendly conversation, you mean to tell me you’d be scared?

    If the answer is yes, that’s incredibly pathetic, so pathetic that it’s nothing to be proud of.
    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion: filibustering. And covered many times before.

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

    Because you bring it up many times before. You have a habit of repetition, you know.

    You Said:
    In conclusion, you’re basing your thinking on stereotypes and a bunch of claims with little complexity. You’re concluding that all Muslims are to be feared and that Islam is a violent religion despite that there has been violent atrocities committed in the name of Christianity. Do I think Christianity is a violent religion? No. Do I think Christians are to be feared? No. Why? BECAUSE I DON’T SEE THEM ALL AS ONE MONOLITH.
    My Reply:
    Dude: 9/11 was not a “stereotype.” Madrid, London, Brussels, Paris, Mumbai, The Phillipines, Boko Haram, ISIS, Al qaeda, Hamas, Al Nusra… etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum are not stereotypes. They’re tens of thousands of bloodthirsty, murderous, gibbering baboons, supported by 400 million muslims worldwide. Stop being an idiot. Of course you don’t “think Christians are to be feared,” you moron, because there is no reason to fear them. Go ahead, name for me today’s Christian equivalent of — Boko Haram, ISIS, Al qaeda, Hamas, Al Nusra… Go ahead… I’ll wait. (drumming fingers… drumming fingers… drumming fingers). Because your conclusion is so stupid, it’s also subject to deletion later. I’ll not have our bandwidth wasted on that sludge!

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

    Do you even know what a stereotype is?

    For the trillionth time, you’re just defending your fear and – at worst – defending a mass killer’s mentality by saying hateful things against one group. You seriously don’t see how this is what fuels violence against certain people? Whether you think so or not, WORDS ARE POWERFUL, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK PEOPLE GIVE WORDS POWER, THAT STILL MAKES THEM POWERFUL.

    All I can say is that you’re defending not only your hate and fear but the hate and fear of those who see people they conclude are “different”. You can bring up all the Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic terrorism events, BUT if these people are as destructive as you think, this world would’ve already been destroyed.

    You Said:
    I also conclude that your excessive responses show a hint of avoiding the reality of what happened in New Zealand and, at its worst, defend the actions of one violent white nationalist fanatic with an obvious hatred of Muslims. What you said about Muslims is no different than what white nationalists, white supremacists and most conservatives and Republicans have said. And it’s not unlike the false statistics about black-on-white crime that they love to hold dear and pass along to their peers as a meager way to justify their fear and hatred of black people or false propaganda about Jews that influenced that synagogue shooting last year. There really is no difference. And I’m not saying this to make you feel guilty despite your constant baseless, morally bankrupt and downright insane accusations against me. I’m saying this to let you know that someone who reads what you wrote might take it as the gospel to commit a crime against Muslims whether you have links to further your judgments or not.
    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion: Way too idiotic, and covered many, many times before.

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

    I’ll consider your reply as evidence that what I said held more weight and you don’t want to acknowledge that fact.

    You Said:
    Bottom line: you can’t say how you condemn the actions of the shooter who has anti-Muslim sentiments while showing that you too are anti-Muslim. That’s not how it works, and no one with a reasonable and critical mindset would buy it in the least.
    My Reply:
    Subject to deletion: Stupid.

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

    I’ll consider your reply as evidence that what I said held more weight and you don’t want to acknowledge that fact.

    You Said:
    I do thank you for the link to drive your points about the NRA, but honestly, that was the only thing strong within these responses.

    And from now on, forgive me in advance of any grammar and spelling errors.
    My Reply:
    Whatever.

    I always forgive you your spelling and grammatical errors. I tell you to proofread when what you say is so poorly written as to be incomprehensible or gibberish.

    All you’ve done was made each of my points much stronger.

    1. You Said:
      Okay. I can tell from a quick read of this that it appears that I’ve struck a few nerves as I’ve seen you crossing out a lot of my responses even though they didn’t stray from the topic or your replies and how I didn’t call you any names, left important points and advised you of how what you’re saying helps to fuel hate. And I know this will be crossed out as well despite it being a spot-on assessment of this argument alone.
      My Reply:
      MNope. You struck no nerves. If you’d struck a nerve, I’d have replied. Again, you can be on-topic, but if you’re merely repeating something that I’ve already gone over adequately, I’m going to delete it. Remember: you confessed that you’re just trying to hijack our bandwidth. There are several reasons that I’ll use to delete content that you post: Irrelevant, Too Dumb to remain, Already covered, Name calling, Filibustering, and a general catch-all reason: Not productive to the conversation. I’d delete your posts if you spent them praising me too, so don’t think this has anything to do with my being overly sensitive. It really is impossible to hurt my feelings. You can exasperate me from time to time. Your “stereotypes” section was exasperating, and that’s where, ever so slightly, you touched a nerve. The now tens of thousands of dead victims of Islam around the woeld, and their families, would not think that “Anti-muslim sentiment” is “stereotyping.” Muslims adhere to a real doctrine that does real harm to real people. Really. Scores of millions of real people are harmed each year living under the rule of neanderthal, primitive whackjobs like the mullahs of Iran, or the Taliban in Afghanistan, and elsewhere. That’s not stereotyping, that’s stating fact.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Not really. The BLM’ers are Nazis too, and they’re obviously not white supremacists. You should have left it at “Yes I am against Naziism and neo-Naziism.” However, you’re not against Naziism or ne-Naziism, because you’re pro-BLM, who are just today’s socially acceptable Nazis.

      Honestly, that comment is devoid of intelligence and loaded with craziness. Yes, I support BLM and am proud of it. I don’t see how a movement about valuing the lives of black people are the same as a set of deals that supports white supremacy, white nationalism and Antisemitism.

      Come to think of it, I don’t see how this is even relevant to the topic or this debate! And yet, you cross out my responses that were and didn’t deviate from the points you made.
      My Reply:
      You mentioned Nazis. I mentioned today’s socially acceptable Nazis: BLM. You support BLM and are proud of it. You’re one of today’s socially acceptable Nazis. Two things: #1: Our pithy phrase: “The new fascists (Nazis) will come waving the banner of anti-Fascism.” and #2: Don’t forget, the Nazis and Fascists were the darlings of the Left for along time before World War II… as BLM is the darling of today’s Left. You’re just today’s Nazi. You’re a racist. Check. You have your scapegoat on whom you pin America’s troubles, the “straight white male” over whom you obsess. Check. You’re heavily of the Left like the Nazis. Check. And so forth. You’re just in search of your Hitler, sommeone who can rouse the crowds with soaring rhetoric, ringing oratory, and clear, unambiguous, simple messages. You thought it was Obama, but he proved too accommodationist. Just a question of whom you’ll pin your hopes on. I don’t see it being any of the current crowd of dwarves and misshapen half-wits scrambling to run for the Presidency on the Democrat side.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      More than a few is still not the whole or even most of the Muslim population, and it still doesn’t give you or anyone else to fear and/or hate them.

      I can’t call you a racist on that, because Muslims aren’t a race. I can call you Islamophic, insane, irate and ignorant, and your “black friend” testimony is incredibly lame, and a p##s poor, racist (That’s right. I said it.) attempt to justify your fear and hatred on nonwhite and non-Christians. You really lost it here.
      My Reply:
      The deletion is because that’s just stupid. And you’re flailing. Your second critique is dumb, except for the second part. I recognize how dumb the part about my bleck friend sounds. However, in my defense, you’re really ignorant about black-white relations, so you might not be aware that there are many “no-go” zones for white people in America. They used to be called “bad neighborhoods,” and people knew to steer clear of them, becuase, quite simply, they were dangerous. There are no such no-go zones for black people. As for not calling me racist due to the Islam thing, that never stopped you before, primarily because most muslims are non-white. Your last phrase is incoherent. I have no hatred for any people or peoples. I have a perfectly rational fear of some… those whose professed will is that I be murdered because I’m not a muslim, for example. It’s a rational fear based on a deep understanding of current events.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “Again, I don’t have the time to educate you. Look it up. It’s easy to find. Dude, stop with the dumb stuff! There are more than a billion adherents to Islam. You do recognize that 40% of a billion is 400 million, or more people than live in America by 80 million! This is your last warning about stupid stuff. Do a little thought exercise with me: If you encounter a group of 10 people on the street, and you know that “only” 40 percent of them want to kill you, do you still feel all safe because 60 percent don’t? Okay. Don’t say really dumb things like this again, because I will delete them.”

      You know what. I’m just going to say it. The only one saying dumb things here is YOU.

      This isn’t even remotely what I’m trying to say, and that math example is just plain ridiculous. The simple fact is that 40% of a population DOES NOT represent the entire population. And your stats here are suspect. Again, provide a link or a reference of where you got your statistics. You said it. So, it’s YOUR responsibility to provide a reference, NOT the person questioning it. If you wrote any research papers, you would know this obvious fact, but whatever. If you don’t approve of dumb things said here, lead by example and STOP SAYING THEM.
      My Reply:
      Deleted. Following a line of reasoning that’s just too stupid. And filibustering.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “Where did you get the idea that I suggested that anti-muslim sentiment wasn’t behind the shooting? I just don’t use the nonsense word: “Islamophobia.” Call it something else, because whatever Tarrant motives were, it’s clear that any fear of muslims was not irrational. However, his act absolutely was irrational. Duh! Dude: what do you have against clear speech? And don’t give me the crap about “defending white nationalism.” The next time you do this, it’s getting deleted, as nonsensical and covered many, many times before.”

      You don’t use the word, maybe because you suffer from it and hate to admit it. I can’t and won’t call it something else when it is what it is. And in case you don’t know, fear is irrational. You say what the shooter did was irrational, but his fear was not. Regardless of how you twist this, you made it clear that you want to justify your fears against certain people, and you also made it clear that you’re DEFENDING A KILLER. If you didn’t, you won’t be writing so much about your fear against Muslims. But you keep at it over and over. So, don’t say argue against this claim, because all you’ll end up doing is prove my point.
      My Reply:
      Deleted. Too stupid. And filibustering. BW tried to pretend that “fear is irrational.” The man standing in front of the hungry tiger, or the suicide bomber, or the firing squad, is experiencing an “irrational” sense of fear? Lol! Fear can be, and often is, of course, perfectly rational. Also, the first phrase of the paragraph is mind-reading, and the entire paragraph is irrelevant speculation.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      In the end, you don’t care about the lives lost at those Mosques, and you’re showing it everytime you argue for your case of why you’re afraid of Muslims. Case closed.
      My Reply:
      Subject to Deletion: mind-reading, filibustering, half-witted accusations. BW has a terrible habit of pretending that he knows the minds and thoughts of others better than they themselves do.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “Anti-Naziism is the same as Anti-Islam, since Islam is merely today’s interntional fascism. The rest of this was just meaningless rambling. I’ll let it stay for a bit, then I’ll delete it because it said nothing of any value. I’ll strike out what is subject to deletion.”

      Okay. Again, you’ve made a comment devoid of sense and sanity, and you continue to defend your fear of Muslims.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: Covered many times before.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “Read John Lott.”

      Sighs! Anyway…
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: non-answer. I should point out that, again, I offer to BW a source of information, and he rejected it out of hand. I see that I need not point to sources as BW insists that I do… he’ll simply dismiss them.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “Dude: I know a lot of things… I’ve learned them from reading far and wide. Again, I make the assumption that those who read this blog will have a higher level of education and knowledge. I don’t have time either to educate you, or to look up all the sources for all the thngs I know. You have to take some initiative yourself. In fact, I doubt that you really do want to learn about these things, because you showed that you have no desire to learn anything about race relations in America. So, in the future — starting now — if I say something that I know just because I know a lot of things, and you ask for a source, I’m going to tell you to look it up. The fact that NRA members have prevented thousands of violent crimes is well-known. Look it up.”

      You speak WAAAAAAAAY too highly of yourself.
      My Reply:
      It ain’t braggin’ if it’s true.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Again, I’m not here to be educated. I’m here to tell you how wrong you are. But I see your ego is way to big to be humbled in that way.
      My Reply:
      The problem is that you’re uneducated. Therefore you’re not qualified to assess the rightness or wrongness of what I say. You’re like a third-grader playing Zion Williamson one-on-one. You can try it, but you’re not going to be able to do it well. Yes, I enjoy being able to make a comparison between Zion Williamson and me.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I made a request, but you obviously have a problem with fulfilling something you should’ve done. Again, if you had any inkling as to research papers, or in this case arguments and debates work, you would know that it’s COMMON KNOWLEDGE that YOU provide solid references.
      My Reply:
      Nope. I told you why I don’t do references. If I were to get caught up in that, I’d simply be posting things that you wouldn’t bother to research. Again, I expect at least a modicum of knowledge of the topic from interlocutors who would attempt to rebut things I post. You don’t have the modicum of knnowledge, and you try to make up for it with filibustering and patent nonsense about how fear is irrational and other such hogwash.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Here’s a more accurate assessment. Your reply is loaded with deflection, weak and empty blaming, denial and filled with falsehoods.
      My Reply:
      Subject to deletion: filibustering.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I SAID I WASN’T HERE TO BE EDUCATED. I MADE THAT PERFECTLY CLEAR. And I said that in caps so there’s no way you could read that wrong.
      My Reply:
      The problem is that you’re in need of education, and I don’t have time to do it. so, I’m treating you as if you have some knowledge of the topic. When you indicate that you don’t I’m going to delete your reply, so as not to have the debris in our pages.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      For instance, I’d like to see where you got this claim that Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East. Again, I can’t simply believe what you’re saying as honestly, much of what you say contradicts itself and you provide little to no reference to your rantings. I can’t consider if what you say has any merit without any thing to back it up. Your word is only as strong as the truth behind it.

      I’ll consider this as you not having any sources and that you made it up.
      My Reply:
      An informed person would have that basic knowledge of the Middle East. You can pretend that I made it up all you want, but that’s how the ignorant person acts. You have an internet connection, look it up. Stop being a lazy bum.

      For example: if I tell you that the capital of Syria is Damascus, are you going to tell me to cite my sources? Of course not. The fact that Christians are being systematically purged from the Middle East is a bit of insider knowledge, but not much. It’s ceartainly public knowledge, and it ought to be common knowledge. It’s absolutely common knowledge in educated circles. And, as mentioned, I don’t have time to educate you. You’re like the kindergartener telling the college professor to cite his sources every time he says something that every college professor already knows… but that kindergarteners don’t know, because they’re, well, kindergarteners. There just isn’t the time. The indisputable fact that Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East is such a thing. Look it up. Do some work. You’re intellectually lazy, and you filibuster in an attempt to cover for your lack of basic knnowledge.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      You really don’t know how debates or arguments work do you? Where is the reference you support this claim?
      My Reply:
      This was in response to your not knowing what CAIR is. The point I just made in the last paragraph is made.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I wasn’t limiting this to America. Besides, this tragedy didn’t happen in America.
      My Reply:
      You’ll note that the original post was about America. And, as I mentioned, there has been no anti-muslim backlash in America… not even after 9/11.

      What happened in New Zealand was not a “tragedy,” it was an “atrocity.” An earthquake or an accidental fire resulting in casualties is a “tragedy.” A purposeful act of violence is an atrocity. You really need to start learning better English. Your language is obviously the product of consumption of the dominant media, whose use of language is abysmal. Up your game here, BW.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      You seem to have a funny definition of what constitutes as basic. And for the millionth time, I. AM. NOT. HERE. TO. BE. ED-U-CATED. BY. YOU.

      DO. YOU. UN-DER-STAND?
      My Reply:
      Fine. However, you need to be educated by someone, because your ignorance is pretty glaring. And I certainly don’t have the time to educate you, so we’re in agreement on that.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      BW: In any case, you continue to justify your case for being afraid of Muslims. I looked up those verses from the Koran. Fair enough, and on the surface they seem troubling to say the least.

      I replied: Dude: Osama bin Laden said they were the justification for his psychotic acts. I guess you could say they’re “troubling.” How about: “psychotic?”

      BW: What??? I was talking about the verses, not Osama bin Laden, and he was no more a representative of Islam than I am. (And I’m not.)

      My Reply:
      Lol! You fell right into the same trap as all the rest of the Left! They all started telling muslims who represents their faith and who doesn’t. I’m just imagining bin Laden reading stories of ignorant rubes in America trying to educate him all about Islam… a topic in which he’d steeped himself for many years. Then, out of the woodwork come a bunch of Americans, whose first exposure to Islam was watching the Twin Towers come down, trying to tell bin Laden about Islam! It was hilarious to watch it. And it was embarrassing, because it was so transparently stupid.

      To be kind to you: How would you know whether bin Laden’s representative of Islam or not?!?! You didn’t even know which suras called for the killing of non-muslims. You didn’t even know about the principal of abrogation! And you presume to tell people what is and what is not representative of Islam?!?!?! Lololololololllllll!!!

      Again, being as kind to you as I can be: bin Laden used the kill-the-non-muslim suras and the principle of abrogation as his justification for 9/11, thereby confirming dwhat I’d said earlier: there is something in Islam that terrorist psychotics are using to justify their atrocities.

      Still being kind to you: you’re just parroting what the know-nothing non-muslim idiots in the media were intoning when they were making such fools of themselves. However, to be educated is to go way, way beyond the iintellectual and informational wasteland that is the dominant media.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      So, I’m guessing that the person on the other side of this computer is not black or a female as you constantly and conveniently claim. And to do you a favor, I won’t engage with you on your MRA claim.

      My Reply:
      Your guessing as to my race and sex are irrelevant. You are wise not to engage me as it pertains to the MRA claim. If you disagree with me, you’d have some tough sledding. Like everything I address, I do it in depth. I educate and inform myself in great depth. One quick point: the most prominent Men’s Rights Advocates are women. Some of the most prominent Men’s Right Advocates are black women, so your irrelevant speculation about my skin color and sex are based on ignorance.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Because you bring it up many times before. You have a habit of repetition, you know.
      My Reply:
      Lol! coming from you, this is funny.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      For the trillionth time, you’re just defending your fear and – at worst – defending a mass killer’s mentality by saying hateful things against one group. You seriously don’t see how this is what fuels violence against certain people? Whether you think so or not, WORDS ARE POWERFUL, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK PEOPLE GIVE WORDS POWER, THAT STILL MAKES THEM POWERFUL.

      All I can say is that you’re defending not only your hate and fear but the hate and fear of those who see people they conclude are “different”. You can bring up all the Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic terrorism events, BUT if these people are as destructive as you think, this world would’ve already been destroyed.
      My Reply:
      In bullet points:
          • “For the trillionth time, you’re just defending your fear and – at worst – defending a mass killer’s mentality by saying hateful things against one group.Response: Just as I’d say negative things about Nazis. It’s justified. They believe things that ouught to be abhorrent to any decent human being. And, of course, nowhere in anything I’ve said is even one single defense of the killer or of his act.
          • “ou seriously don’t see how this is what fuels violence against certain people?” Correct. The truth never “fuels violence.” People take whatever justification they want to perpetrate violence. It’s a person’s bad character, or his psychosis that fuels his violence. Nothing more.
          • “Whether you think so or not, WORDS ARE POWERFUL, AND EVEN THOUGH YOU THINK PEOPLE GIVE WORDS POWER, THAT STILL MAKES THEM POWERFUL.Response: Words are exactly as powerful as you allow them to be. No more, no less. For example: Once I listened to an untranslated speech by Adolf Hitler. It was about 45 minutes long, and I didn’t understand a thing he was saying. However, as the speech wore on, I was able to feel the power of the presentation. I could feel deep inside how powerful the delivery and presentation were, and I could feel the adrenaline mounting. I knew that I’d find the words abhorrent, but if you were to combine the delivery with words directed at a receptive audience, as they were in Germany at the time, you could see what a potent mix it all was. Still and all though, even those words possessed only the power that the listeners granted to them. And they possessed no power for me, because I didn’t understand them. Still, I remember being shocked, because I understood how Hitler’s potent delivery could take people on the fence, and swing them to his side. It was instructive watching evil in action like that. It was also an important lesson in the power that words have: ie.: none at all, or a whole lot… depending entirely on the listener.
          • “All I can say is that you’re defending not only your hate and fear but the hate and fear of those who see people they conclude are “different”.Response: Nope. Re-read. You’ll note that I absolutely defended fear as a natural, logical reaction to a very real threat. At no point did I defend hatred (the proper word, btw). Stop making things up. And, yes, people who will murder you based on your religious convictions, or lack thereof, are… different. Thank goodness!
          • “You can bring up all the Islamic terrorists, Islamic terrorist groups and Islamic terrorism events, BUT if these people are as destructive as you think, this world would’ve already been destroyed.Response: How did you come to this wacky conclusion?!?!?!? The Islamic terrorists aren’t trying to “destroy the world,” they’re trying to kill people who don’t believe as they do. And they are, indeed, every bit as destructive as I’ve described. Again, common knowledge at the level of study that I’ve done.

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

      You Said:
      All you’ve done was made each of my points much stronger.
      My Reply:
      Lol! Well, your points really did have nowhere to go but up, so, I guess that could be seen as inevitable. Your points went from silly, nonsensical, ignorant codswallop to slightly less silly, nonsensical, ignorant codswallop. Well done.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      Best,

      — x

  5. [Editor’s Note: Since Brothawolf has confessed to trying to clog up our bandwidth with irrelevancies, I’ll delete what is superfluous or unneeded in this post before answering it.]

    [Editor’s Note Update: I’ve now deleted the passages marked for deletion. I allowed them to stay for a few days, but now we don’t need them anymore, and they’re gone. We censor no one, but there’s no point in leaving mere filibustering, lies, inanities, and substanceless nonsense.]

    Invoking more repeated statements in a reply that has nothing to do with it alone in a needlessly long paragraph with typos gives me an assumption that I indeed provoked emotion.

    1. You brought up BLM in this topic.
    2. Your attempt to link the movement to your hatred of the left is erroneous to say the least.
    3. None of this has anything to do with your topic.
    4. You never even addressed my point about what the movement is about and instead try to make it out to be something that it isn’t.

    You’re still doing nothing but frustratingly justify your fear of Muslims in another long-winded paragraph repeating the same things ad nauseum with typos.

    Do you even know what filibustering means? You’re the only one here making incredibly long responses filled with the same things you’ve said at least twice so far. If not that, you’re just “deleting” and calling my responses stupid for no other explanation other than you say it’s stupid.

    Again, do you even know what filibustering means? You’re the only one here making incredibly long responses filled with the same things you’ve said at least twice so far. If not that, you’re just “deleting” and calling my responses stupid for no other explanation other than you say it’s stupid.

    And your examples as to what rationalizes fear doesn’t constitute why one should fear a population for a the actions of a minority segment. It’s wrong to compare them to wild animal, a suicidal killer and something you have an extremely low chance of facing in your lifetime.

    And yet, you don’t really argue what I said. Just more repeating and no context.

    As you’ve brought it up many times before. You seem to won’t take responsibility for the things that you’ve said.

    I never rejected it. You assumed that I did. And all you’re doing is projecting and being a hypocrite as always.

    “The wisest man has something yet to learn.”

    -George Santayana

    I think you’re confusing education with indoctrination. I love to learn, but I also love to be critical.

    1. I proved you wrong with one point you made about the NRA as I went and read the article you linked to.
    2. You misspelled ‘knowledge’…LOL!
    3. Maybe I misspoke. I meant to say specifically that your fear of Muslims is irrational. So, I apologize in that regard and only that regard.

    Again, education or indoctrination?

    You Said:
    For instance, I’d like to see where you got this claim that Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East. Again, I can’t simply believe what you’re saying as honestly, much of what you say contradicts itself and you provide little to no reference to your rantings. I can’t consider if what you say has any merit without any thing to back it up. Your word is only as strong as the truth behind it.

    I’ll consider this as you not having any sources and that you made it up.
    My Reply:
    An informed person would have that basic knowledge of the Middle East. You can pretend that I made it up all you want, but that’s how the ignorant person acts. You have an internet connection, look it up. Stop being a lazy bum.

    Having basic knowledge would indicate that everyone knows it and that its objective. And when it’s not, people expect sources to look up more information right or wrong. You’re unwillingness to do that leaves you open for scrutiny, and to not expect it is to delude yourself and to expect people to just take it without question is, again, trying to indoctrinate others incapable or unwilling to think critically or ask questions.

    No. This is why you called the group what you called them. Speaking freely, your reading comprehension skills need a lot of work.

    Didn’t you say once that you weren’t trying to turn me into a conservative, and yet you gripe about not having time to “educate” me? Once again, what you’re trying to do is not education. It’s indoctrination. You’re trying to get me to “think” like you and agree with everything you say no questions asked. You’ve made that clear a thousand and one times and you’re still repeating it.

    And who are these black women advocates you mentioned?

    In the end, you can’t indoctrinate me. You’re clearly heavily indoctrinated by right wing thinking that’s borderline extreme and saturated with lies, denial, hate and low-level thinking. I cannot and will not submit to your kind of mentality. Deal with it.

    [Editor’s note: The original post was heavily larded with the unnecessary, the irrelevant, the dumb and filler. I’ve cleared all that bandwidth-clogging sludge out, and will reply to this when I can.]

    1. You Said:
      Invoking more repeated statements in a reply that has nothing to do with it alone in a needlessly long paragraph with typos gives me an assumption that I indeed provoked emotion.
      My Reply:
      Nope. Since I’ve demoted you to a secondary status among commenters, I no longer care whether I provide an example of fine writing for you. You’re not interested in learning, therefore I’m not interested in teaching you. And I don’t have time to educate those who are unwilling or unable to be educated.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      1. You brought up BLM in this topic.
      My Reply:
      You brought up Nazis, etc. I simply mentioned today’s Nazis. What I said was perfectly germane to the topic.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      2. Your attempt to link the [BLM] movement to your hatred of the left is erroneous to say the least.
      My Reply:
      My linkage of the two is accurate.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      3. None of this has anything to do with your topic.
      My Reply:
      I’m more lenient than most with off-topic commentary. Generally I allow it if it permits the addressing of another impoortant point. I’m not overly reginmented as far as policing on-topic/off-topic. Everything is, after all, related to everything else… if you go off-topic, but you get there by presenting at least a tangentially-related bridge points, I’ll allow such things.

      I’ve been way, way, way too lenient with you, because in the mistaken notion that you were a good, but misguided person, I liked you. Since I’ve since learned that my affections and respect were directed toward someone who existed only in my imagination, I’m no longer going to allow your forays into inanity, filibustering, cheap insults and substancelessness.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      4. You never even addressed my point about what the movement is about and instead try to make it out to be something that it isn’t.
      My Reply:
      I’ve addressed all your points that were worth addressing. the “movement” — the BLM movement — consists of a bunch of fascistic, bigoted, Black Supremacist bastards, and it was formed on the basis of a lie — the propaganda about the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, MO. They are today’s Nazis in America.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      You’re still doing nothing but frustratingly justify your fear of Muslims in another long-winded paragraph repeating the same things ad nauseum with typos.
      My Reply:
      This is just stupid. My “fear” of muslims is based on a rational, real understanding of Islam in the world today. It’s responsible for tens of thousands of violent deaths, torture and mind-numbing atrocities in the world in recent decades alone. The only thing responsible for more premature or violent deaths is: Socialism. Anyone who openly calls him or herself a muslim, a Socialist, e Feminist, a BLM’er, a Communist, a Nazi or a Democrat voter should inspire fear in the hearts of anyone he or she meets. (there was some humor in there. I’ll let you try to figure out what it was.)
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Do you even know what filibustering means? You’re the only one here making incredibly long responses filled with the same things you’ve said at least twice so far. If not that, you’re just “deleting” and calling my responses stupid for no other explanation other than you say it’s stupid.
      My Reply:
      I know what filibustering is.

      And when I delete a passage of yours and indicate that I deleted it because it’s stupid, that’s because the passage was stupid.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Again, do you even know what filibustering means? You’re the only one here making incredibly long responses filled with the same things you’ve said at least twice so far. If not that, you’re just “deleting” and calling my responses stupid for no other explanation other than you say it’s stupid.
      My Reply:
      Not sure how this one slipped through. Plainly a repeat of the previous. And my response would be a repeat of my response to the previous.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      And your examples as to what rationalizes fear doesn’t constitute why one should fear a population for a the actions of a minority segment. It’s wrong to compare them to wild animal, a suicidal killer and something you have an extremely low chance of facing in your lifetime.
      My Reply:
      When the “minority segment” is something like 40%, then there’s no reason for you to feel comfortable in a group from that population. Ever.

      I’m quit comfortable with comparing “suicide bombers” to animals — specifically baboons — with apologies to the baboons, who are, obviously, superior creatures to suicide bombers. And I can tell you that if I ever were to face such a suicide bomber in my lifetime, it would be only once. (get it?)
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      And yet, you don’t really argue what I said. Just more repeating and no context.
      My Reply:
      Not sure how this got through. Anyway, I’ve argued against what you’ve said, provided convincing evidence against your manifold sillinesses numerous times, at which point you’ve ignored the argument, and gone on and on about how I haven’t answered you. That’s, at least in a loose sense, a filibuster. Meaning: your confessed goal of clogging up our bnadwidth with irrelevancies and flapdoodle… all because you can’t make a coherent point, and back it up with convincing evidence.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      As you’ve brought it up many times before. You seem to won’t take responsibility for the things that you’ve said.
      My Reply:
      That’s because I haven’t said anything that requires that I take responsibility. Dude: if you go to your mommy and say, “Little Johnny made me do it!” did she let you off the hook? Even if little Johnny exhorted you to do the thing you’re about to be punished for? No. your mother told you that she didn’t care about little Johnny, you were (ane are) responsible for your own actions, your own thoughts, your own everything. If you act wrong it’s your fault, 100%. If, as you’ve done, you’ve farmed out your thinking to your bigoted, leftist puppet masters, that’s still your fault. Because, in America, you don’t have to do that. You have complete freedom to think for yourself. That you don’t think for yourself means only (1) you’re too stupid to think for yourself, or (2) worse, you allow others to do your thinking for you, or (3) both. None of those bleak alternatives speaks well for you.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      “The wisest man has something yet to learn.”

      -George Santayana
      My Reply:
      “Duh!”

      -xPraetorius
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I think you’re confusing education with indoctrination. I love to learn, but I also love to be critical.
      My Reply:
      Not sure how this got through. It should have been deleted as: Irrelevant speculation. And the “I also love to be critical” part is meaningless and irrelevant.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      1. I proved you wrong with one point you made about the NRA as I went and read the article you linked to.
      My Reply:
      You proved nothing.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      2. You misspelled ‘knowledge’…LOL!
      My Reply:
      I typoed a word that you recognized correctly as “knowledge.” Again, now that you’re demoted, I don’t care as much as I did before to be sure that I type correctly in my reponses to you.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      3. Maybe I misspoke. I meant to say specifically that your fear of Muslims is irrational. So, I apologize in that regard and only that regard.
      My Reply:
      And, my example — a fear of a hungry tiger — was related to a fear of muslims, a significant portion of whom are murderous, bloodthirsty baboons who adhere to a doctrine that makes the baboons superior creatures. Remember: 40% of muslims worldwide support these gibbering, bloodthirsty baboons.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Again, education or indoctrination?
      My Reply:
      Not sure how this one slipped through the editor.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [BW wrote in a previous post:] For instance, I’d like to see where you got this claim that Christians are being slaughtered in the Middle East. Again, I can’t simply believe what you’re saying as honestly, much of what you say contradicts itself and you provide little to no reference to your rantings. I can’t consider if what you say has any merit without any thing to back it up. Your word is only as strong as the truth behind it. I’ll consider this as you not having any sources and that you made it up.

      [I replied to that post:]An informed person would have that basic knowledge of the Middle East. You can pretend that I made it up all you want, but that’s how the ignorant person acts. You have an internet connection, look it up. Stop being a lazy bum.

      [BW then replied to my reply:] Having basic knowledge would indicate that everyone knows it and that its objective. And when it’s not, people expect sources to look up more information right or wrong. You’re unwillingness to do that leaves you open for scrutiny, and to not expect it is to delude yourself and to expect people to just take it without question is, again, trying to indoctrinate others incapable or unwilling to think critically or ask questions.
      My Reply:
      Incorrect. Again: all you would do is, in another attempt to filibuster, tell me that my source was illegitimate. You’ve done it before. Many news and opinion outlets have covered it. And, again, that’s why I don’t do dueling sources, and why I do demand that my interlocutors not be ignorant of the topic if they’re going to argue with me.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Didn’t you say once that you weren’t trying to turn me into a conservative, and yet you gripe about not having time to “educate” me? Once again, what you’re trying to do is not education. It’s indoctrination. You’re trying to get me to “think” like you and agree with everything you say no questions asked. You’ve made that clear a thousand and one times and you’re still repeating it.
      My Reply:
      I couldn’t possibly turn you into a Conservative, only intelligence can do that, and you obviously lack it. I never worry about your asking questions. I demand, however, that you ask intelligent questions… and that you not waste my time with the really stupid ones that you do ask. The abysmal questions that you ask, and thte irrational, stupid things you say, show that you have no understanding of the things we’re talking about, and as I’ve mentioned before, I (we) write for an educated audience. I don’t have time to educate you.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      And who are these black women advocates you mentioned?
      My Reply:
      Dude: Google or YouTube: “Men’s Rights Advocates.” Before they get censored from those platforms.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      In the end, you can’t indoctrinate me. You’re clearly heavily indoctrinated by right wing thinking that’s borderline extreme and saturated with lies, denial, hate and low-level thinking. I cannot and will not submit to your kind of mentality. Deal with it.
      My Reply:
      I did deal with your lack of intelligence: I adjusted my thinking and recognized that you’re not the man I thought you were, and I distanced myself from you. It was easy.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      Best

      — x

  6. [Editor’s note: Again Brothawolf has lived up to his threat to try to hijack our bandwidth, so I have edited his comment, below. I’ve excised comments that are invalid for some reason. The principle reasons are: the comment (1) is just dumb, (2) has been covered before, (3) is irrelevant, (4) is merely an insult (5) consists of speculation about our character, etc. Now, I’ll merely replace the offending comment with a “Deleted” notification.]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    Second, what does BLM being “Nazis, your recall of what a “black friend” supposedly told you about how bad black neighborhoods are, claiming that western women are “spoiled”, you being an MRA and also claiming how their most prominent members are black women have to do with the massacre halfway around the world that didn’t have anything to with it???

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    I’ve addressed all your points that were worth addressing. the “movement” — the BLM movement — consists of a bunch of fascistic, bigoted, Black Supremacist bastards, and it was formed on the basis of a lie — the propaganda about the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, MO. They are today’s Nazis in America.

    Only someone with deep-seated racist views on black activism would come up with a statement so deranged, detached from reality and devoid of logic. Calling BLM “fascistic, bigoted, Black Supremacist bastards” shows how little you know about the movement, what it’s about and how racist you really are inside. Further stating how it’s based on a lie shows how much you don’t want to see that racism is not so little a problem as you think it is. All you’re doing is showing your racist mentality and are heading down the path of right wing extremism.

    This is just stupid. My “fear” of muslims is based on a rational, real understanding of Islam in the world today. It’s responsible for tens of thousands of violent deaths, torture and mind-numbing atrocities in the world in recent decades alone. The only thing responsible for more premature or violent deaths is: Socialism. Anyone who openly calls him or herself a muslim, a Socialist, e Feminist, a BLM’er, a Communist, a Nazi or a Democrat voter should inspire fear in the hearts of anyone he or she meets. (there was some humor in there. I’ll let you try to figure out what it was.)

    You’re now starting to sound like a right wing extremist and lunatic. I honestly fear that you’re going down a path that the likes of Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, Robert Barnes and recently Branton Tarrant have taken. And no, this isn’t trying to read your “mind” or figure out who you are. This is a sincere advisory that the mindset you have is dangerous.

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    You must’ve failed math, because you’re definitely showing signs that you may be a failure at life, and you’re probably the type that refuses to examine himself, you take it out on the world. If you were a true conservative, you would take responsibility, but clearly you don’t think that applies to you, because you’re seeing yourself as a victim of racism, sexism and anything else you deem as a threat to society.

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    Your definition of “evidence” only amounts to mostly right wing news sources, youtube videos that do nothing but parrot your prejudices and what one can consider as “I say so” rantings. None of which is a sign of intellectualism let alone being a “free thinker”.

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    I typoed a word that you recognized correctly as “knowledge.” Again, now that you’re demoted, I don’t care as much as I did before to be sure that I type correctly in my reponses to you.

    You’re just proving that you’re insecure. And if I shouldn’t care if you misspell your words, why the hell should you care about me misspelling mine??

    And, my example — a fear of a hungry tiger — was related to a fear of muslims, a significant portion of whom are murderous, bloodthirsty baboons who adhere to a doctrine that makes the baboons superior creatures. Remember: 40% of muslims worldwide support these gibbering, bloodthirsty baboons.

    And it shows your hate-based ignorance when you compare human beings to animals. Who’s next: women, blacks, Latinos, Asians. Jews, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, etc?

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    Incorrect. Again: all you would do is, in another attempt to filibuster, tell me that my source was illegitimate. You’ve done it before. Many news and opinion outlets have covered it. And, again, that’s why I don’t do dueling sources, and why I do demand that my interlocutors not be ignorant of the topic if they’re going to argue with me.

    Okay. Here’s the reality. If you don’t provide sources, people are going to assume that you’re making crap up. And anyone would tell you that if you made a point during a debate or argument, you need to provide there you got it from. If you don’t, people are going to assume that you’re wrong, and if and when they found out that it is, your credibility is questioned.

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    Dude: Google or YouTube: “Men’s Rights Advocates.” Before they get censored from those platforms.

    I did. I SAW NO BLACK WOMEN! And why on Earth would black women by MRAs???

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    [Deleted: Invalid comment]

    Look, I’m going to tell you something you need to know whether you like it or not. There’s a chance that someone with the same mindset and fragility as Branton Tarrant will read this and other blog posts and take it to heart and then to extremes. I REALLY hope that DOESN’T happen. But if it does, that person will likely reference YOUR BLOG and it will probably be reported in the news. And YOU’RE going to have to explain yourself.

    I hope and pray it won’t come to this, but the way you’re heading right now, you’re going down a destructive path and other people may follow your lead. You can reject what I’ve said, but this is how it happens.

    1. You Said:
      Second, what does BLM being “Nazis, your recall of what a “black friend” supposedly told you about how bad black neighborhoods are, claiming that western women are “spoiled”, you being an MRA and also claiming how their most prominent members are black women have to do with the massacre halfway around the world that didn’t have anything to with it???
      My Reply:
      Again, I try to be lenient with those who wander off-topic. If you bring something up that’s off-topic, I’ll generally be polite and respond to your post. If I bring something up that’s off-topic, it’s because I deem it to be somehow relevant. You’ll note that the original post, of whose topical integrity you seem so solicitous, was about America in the context of the atrocity in New Zealand. I won’t respond to this kind of silly question again from you. You get to write what you want, and within certain parameters, I’ll respond to it. You’re welcome.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting me] I’ve addressed all your points that were worth addressing. the “movement” — the BLM movement — consists of a bunch of fascistic, bigoted, Black Supremacist bastards, and it was formed on the basis of a lie — the propaganda about the Michael Brown incident in Ferguson, MO. They are today’s Nazis in America. [End quote]

      BW’s reponse: Only someone with deep-seated racist views on black activism would come up with a statement so deranged, detached from reality and devoid of logic. Calling BLM “fascistic, bigoted, Black Supremacist bastards” shows how little you know about the movement, what it’s about and how racist you really are inside. Further stating how it’s based on a lie shows how much you don’t want to see that racism is not so little a problem as you think it is. All you’re doing is showing your racist mentality and are heading down the path of right wing extremism.
      My Reply:
      Wrong. I provided convincing evidence that white hostility directed toward black Americans on the basis of race is no longer a big problem in America.

      About BLM, you do know that the narrative that resulted in the founding of the fascistic BLM movement was a lie, don’t you? You do know that the Michael Brown shooting, while tragic, was proven to be self-defense on the part of Darren Wilson, don’t you? You do know, don’t you, that George Zimmerman also was shown to have acted in self-defense, don’t you? The reason I ask is that you seem to be caught in some weird pattern wherein you believe only the initial reports about an incident, and when those reports are debunked as more information becomes available, you say you’ve never heard it! It’s extraordinary! You probably still think that the Duke LaCrosse team committed rape, and that the Rolling Stone rape fraud was real! Do you still believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny?
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      This is just stupid. My “fear” of muslims is based on a rational, real understanding of Islam in the world today. It’s responsible for tens of thousands of violent deaths, torture and mind-numbing atrocities in the world in recent decades alone. The only thing responsible for more premature or violent deaths is: Socialism. Anyone who openly calls him or herself a muslim, a Socialist, e Feminist, a BLM’er, a Communist, a Nazi or a Democrat voter should inspire fear in the hearts of anyone he or she meets. (there was some humor in there. I’ll let you try to figure out what it was.)

      You’re now starting to sound like a right wing extremist and lunatic. I honestly fear that you’re going down a path that the likes of Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, Robert Barnes and recently Branton Tarrant have taken. And no, this isn’t trying to read your “mind” or figure out who you are. This is a sincere advisory that the mindset you have is dangerous.
      My Reply:
      Lol! You do love to try to turn me into a mass-murderer, don’t you? This kind of thinking is just typical leftist crap, and the sad thing is that you don’t know it. If I sound like Elliot Rodger, Dylann Roof, Robert and Branton Tarrant, then I guess you sound like John Muammed, Wayne Williams, Colin Ferguson, Omar Thornton, Maurice Clemmons, Nathan Dunlap, Christopher Dorner, Nidal Hasan, Samuel Little and, all other racist, black supremacists. And no, this isn’t trying to read your “mind” or figure out who you are. This is a sincere advisory that the mindset you have is dangerous.

      See how ridiculous it sounds? Yet, the Left is the source of the vast majority of the violence in this country, and the Left is where by far and away the most hatred-filled, violent rhetoric comes from. Again, Dude: the ranks of violent criminals are not overloaded with Republican or Trump voters.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      You must’ve failed math, because you’re definitely showing signs that you may be a failure at life, and you’re probably the type that refuses to examine himself, you take it out on the world. If you were a true conservative, you would take responsibility, but clearly you don’t think that applies to you, because you’re seeing yourself as a victim of racism, sexism and anything else you deem as a threat to society.
      My Reply:
      I left this silliness in only to point out that you’re not a total loss; you do recognize that Conservatism is about, among many other things, taking responsibility for oneself. You should try it sometime. But, again, I won’t convert you to Conservatism, only intelligence can do that, and you appear to be lacking in it.

      The phrase: “you’re seeing yourself as a victim of racism, sexism and anything else you deem as a threat to society” is just self-evident poppycock.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Your definition of “evidence” only amounts to mostly right wing news sources, Youtube videos that do nothing but parrot your prejudices and what one can consider as “I say so” rantings. None of which is a sign of intellectualism let alone being a “free thinker”.
      My Reply:
      Lol! This is funny! I guess, I’m supposed to find sources that disagree with me as my sources. You got this very wrong. My sources are a wide variety of repositories of data. If I use a YouTube video, it’s because the presenter is of unimpeachable stature. Like the Thomas Sowell video to which I pointed you. Or the Larry Elder video. For black men like Larry Elder and Thomas Sowell to stand up to the hatred and violence they received from the Race Grievance does, indeed, prove that they are free thinkers. If they’re free thinkers, then I guess I must be as well.

      You on the other hand are a sheep. The path you chose is the easy one. Anyone can whine about how horrible the straight white man is; you’ll get support and validation from academia, Hollywood, the dominant media and all of pop culture. You took the lazy man’s way out, the way out of the one who lets others do his thinking for him. You took the simple way out, the way that you knew would catch you the least flak, and in which you knew you wouldn’t have to think for yourself to get people patting you on the back. You took the way out of the one who’s desperate for approval and popularity, and wants to get it by parroting what all the cool kids are saying. Problem is that the cool kids are all lazy too, because they’re more concerned with seeming cool, than with understanding the truth and reality. You have it easy, you on the racist left, because all these famous people are telling you that you’re “woke,” when you’re really just ignorant. And you’re stupid, because you never do anything to challenge your own ignorance. Stupid and ignorant: that’s precisely how the Left wants to keep you, me and all other black people. Stupid, ignorant, lazy and swallowing each shiny, new thing that comes from the media. What’s almost funny is that you don’t even recognize how you only accuse yourself when you try to accuse me of “parroting right-wing sources.” That implies right there that you’ve not read any right-wing sources… that you’ve never read any sources that disagree with you.

      When you accuse me of watching FOX News (which I haven’t for years) you state openly that you don’t watch FOX News. When you sneer at me that I read National Review, you state openly that you don’t.

      Well, yes, I do read National Review. And I listen to the ultra-left-wing National Public Radio, and I read all manner of left-wing sources (the DrudgeReport conveniently aggregates leftist sources too) and I read and listen to what the Left is thinking all the time. I challenge myself and my ideas… all the time It’s why you can’t ever beat me in debate, even though you think you hold your own. You have several problems: (1) You don’t know things, and you’re apparently too lazy to look them up, (2) you don’t inform yourself, so you can’t challenge yourself. (3) You resort to insult and impugning someone’s character almost immediately. Because (4) you run out of arguments almost immediately. And (5) the arguments you do have are old, tired, long debunked, and… wrong. As a result, you have no choice but to stagnate, and you have.

      You have your nice, easy path, your nice easy life, your nice easy state-of-mind that you never challenge, and that all around you approve, and that all the major institutions of this country validate for you, and you’re still… wrong. You’re like the ones so many years ago who said, “The earth is flat! And I’m not listening to anything you say! NA NA NA NA NA NA NAAAAAAAAAA!!! Mommy, make the bad man go away! He’s telling me that the Earth is round, like a ball!

      Your new name should be: BrothaFlatEarth.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I typoed a word that you recognized correctly as “knowledge.” Again, now that you’re demoted, I don’t care as much as I did before to be sure that I type correctly in my responses to you.

      You’re just proving that you’re insecure. And if I shouldn’t care if you misspell your words, why the hell should you care about me misspelling mine??
      My Reply:
      I don’t care about your misspelling words. I told you to proofread when what you wrote was incoherent gibberish, which was all too often.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      And, my example — a fear of a hungry tiger — was related to a fear of muslims, a significant portion of whom are murderous, bloodthirsty baboons who adhere to a doctrine that makes the baboons superior creatures. Remember: 40% of muslims worldwide support these gibbering, bloodthirsty baboons.

      And it shows your hate-based ignorance when you compare human beings to animals. Who’s next: women, blacks, Latinos, Asians. Jews, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transgenders, etc?
      My Reply:
      Nope. I simply compared deranged scumbags to animals. And, again, the animals are superior to the deranged scumbags. If someone is a woman, a black person, a Hispanic, Jewish, gay, a lesbian or a bisexual, and not a scumbag, then he or she need have no fear whatsoever that I’ll compare him or her to an animal.

      You know, your granting of status to terrorists makes you sound like those mass murderers I mentioned above. Why don’t you take responsibility for what you say? The fact that you are able to elevate in your own mind terrorists who burn and bury women and children alive, beasts who crucify women and small children, goons who chop the heads off men, women and children, is deeply disturbing. I wish i could say that “I hope your words don;t bring about violence in the world,” but they already have. Tens of thousands are dead, many tens of thousands more have been tortured, imprisoned and oppressed because idiots like you are soft on muslim terrorists. Because idiots like you are constantly making excuses for these baboons. (again, apologies to the baboons) Because idiots like you have lonng demanded that America go soft on msuslim terrorists. They’re not humans. They’re sub-humans. Animals are superior to muslim terrorists because the terrorists have chosen to be sub-humans. And you’re reproaching me for insulting those who rape, torture and kill women and children! Awwwww… the poor, little, tender, muslim terrorist babies! They will rot in Hell, and we can only hope that we get them before they get too many more. You should be ashamed of yourself! Your words are the words of the extreme left, the words of the culture of death, the words of the ones whose policy prescriptions always leave someone, or someones dead.

      Finally, not all muslims are terrorists. However, most terrorists are muslims. If you don’t do anything about that — and muslims around the world realize this — then you will have people saying to themselves, well I guess I’d better take matters into my own hands! And they go our and do what Tarrant did in New Zealand. And people like you are responsible for that.

      You may ask, “How can that be?” Easy: Everyone now understands that the primary reason for ISIS’s rise in the Middle East was Barack Obama’s decision to withdraw from Iraq. The direct result: the rise of ISIS and tens of thousands gruesomely murdered, who would not have been murdered, if Obama had not been such a feckless moron. The blood of tens of thousands of innocent victims of Islam is on Obama’s hands. But, a leftist is, by definition, a feckless moron, whose policy prescriptions always leave someone, or tens of thousands of someones, dead. You, BW are in good measure, responsible for the massacre in New Zealand. The blood of those now fifty murder victims is on your hands. You should be ashamed of yourself.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Dude: Google or YouTube: “Men’s Rights Advocates.” Before they get censored from those platforms.

      I did. I SAW NO BLACK WOMEN! And why on Earth would black women by MRAs???
      My Reply:
      You didn’t look hard enough.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Look, I’m going to tell you something you need to know whether you like it or not. There’s a chance that someone with the same mindset and fragility as Branton Tarrant will read this and other blog posts and take it to heart and then to extremes. I REALLY hope that DOESN’T happen. But if it does, that person will likely reference YOUR BLOG and it will probably be reported in the news. And YOU’RE going to have to explain yourself.

      I hope and pray it won’t come to this, but the way you’re heading right now, you’re going down a destructive path and other people may follow your lead. You can reject what I’ve said, but this is how it happens.
      My Reply:
      Look, I’m going to tell you something you need to know whether you like it or not. There’s a chance that someone with the same mindset and fragility as Nidal Hasan will read your words and take them to heart and then to extremes. I REALLY hope that DOESN’T happen. Oops. Too late. Leftist and islamic violence has been going on for years. But if it does, that person will likely reference YOUR BLOG and it will probably be reported in the news. And YOU’RE going to have to explain yourself.

      I hope and pray it won’t come to this — Oops! Darn! too late! — but the way you’re heading right now, you’re going down a destructive path and other people may follow your lead. You can reject what I’ve said, but this is how it happens.

      Actually, no, that’s not how it happens. Psychos are psychos are psychos… they choose what they want to choose to try to excuse their depredations. Ghe psycho Nazis chose the philosophy of Alfred Rosenberg. The psycho communists chose the writings of Marx, the psycho Red Chinese chose the writings of Marx… The psycho in New Zealand was a hard-core leftist, and, let’s face it, that’s what psycho, hard-core leftists do: they shoot up soft targets.
      – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

      Best,

      — x

        1. Lol! There’s some history here… Some years back, I went to BW’s blog and critiqued something that he wrote.

          He instantly shot back: “Racist!” in a lot more words than that, and didn’t really address what I said.

          I’ve tried a bunch of styles of addressing him in the intervening years (yep: years) and the only one that seems to work is this much more blunt, abrasive style.

          I hate to be that way, because it’s not who I am. However, as mentioned, it seems the only way that gets him to interact. Honestly, I think it’s the way he understands best, because it’s kind of his default style.

          In the beginning of our interactions, he nearly immediately did the insulting and questioning of our character and honesty and sanity and all the rest, and we (two of us) spent some years trying to get him into a more productive means of communication.

          Nothing worked until we, so to speak, decided to fight fire with fire.

          I do like the guy, and if he would be polite with me, and stay on topic, and not filibuster, as he loves to do, then we’d respond in kind.

          Best,

          — x

          1. No argument by me.. as bloggers we adjust and adapt to those that many times “scream” the loudest. Squeaky wheel, yada, yada. If it lasts over time.. then the relationship can get a bit symbiotic. But this is the Internet.. the new Wild West.. we do what we do until someone else tells us we can’t. 🙂

      1. I just thought of more questions for you to answer.

        You practically are saying that it’s hard being a straight white men in how everyone is making out how horrible they are when you said, “Anyone can whine about how horrible the straight white man is; you’ll get support and validation from academia, Hollywood, the dominant media and all of pop culture.”

        My questions are simple. If it’s true, why would they do this? What do straight white men have that those aforementioned and other institutions, movements and groups want or hate? And what have they done to YOU to make you fear and loathe them?

        1. You Said:
          I just thought of more questions for you to answer.
          My Reply:
          Okay.
          – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          You practically are saying that it’s hard being a straight white men in how everyone is making out how horrible they are when you said, “Anyone can whine about how horrible the straight white man is; you’ll get support and validation from academia, Hollywood, the dominant media and all of pop culture.”
          My Reply:
          My observation is correct and accurate. Your interpretation of it is lacking in the necessary nuance, but it is largely accurate, in the sense that the major institutions of this country discriminate actively against people who are “straight, white males.” I don’t think there’s any read debate about this fact. Now, is it “hard being a straight white man” in America? Not in particular. It is difficult to be lied about, slandered, maligned, generalized about, mocked, derided, jeered and sneered at for things that are simply not true, but overall, it’s not particularly hard to be a “straight, white male” in America. However… (see below, the answer to your second question)
          – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          Question #1: If it’s true, why would they do this?
          My Reply:
          I presume you mean: if my observation about the derision that the “straight, white male” undergoes in America is true, why would those who deride them do it? Easy: Everyone with an agenda to change things insists that he is trying to improve things. Therefore he needs to identify and articulate things that he says are wrong in the place where he’s trying to overthrow the current state of affairs. Once he’s identified — whether correctly or incorrectly — such a wrong, or series of wrongs, every demagogue understands that it’s handy to have a scapegoat to blame the current state of affairs on! We’ve seen where this can lead. Hitler had his Jews, Stalin had his kulaks, wreckers, enemies of the people, and the Jews. Mao had his intellectuals, Pol Pot had his Hmong, and so forth. And in America, the Left and the vast American Grievance Industry have the “straight, white male.”
          – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          What do straight white men have that those aforementioned and other institutions, movements and groups want or hate?
          My Reply:
          That’s easy: it started with men and white men in particular. What did they have? Power, wealth, influence. And, yes, they unfairly hoarded it for themselves. Then when people said they needed to cut that out, they… did. Let’s not forget that the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism came to prominence in America at about the same time. The Civil Rights Movement didn’t need a scapegoat… it was obvious that white Americans were oppressing black Americans. However, when the Civil Rights Movement won its fight, its leaders needed a reason to remain relevant, and people like Jesse Jackson, et al, settled on a bunch of invisible, garbage terms (institutional racism, structural racism, White Supremacy, White Privilege etc.) for things that had long been defeated. For that they needed a scapegoat, and that’s when positively idiotic ideas came about like: “All whites are racists,” and “black people can’t be racists,” all manner of patently nonsensical hooey. Absent that irrational hoohah, shysters like Jesse Jackson would have had to get real jobs. But people like him were really happy to get rich without having to work. This very same thing happened to all the great grievance movements, by the way. Feminism was irrelevant after 1920, when women were allowed to vote. And the Gay Grievance Industry had nowhere to go after being told they could get married to each other. So, rather than getting real jobs, and actually contributing to America, they morphed into the Sexual Weirdism Grievance Industry. Now, all they do is whine about “pronouns.” Look, if your biggest problem is either a “micro-aggression,” or “pronouns,” I’d submit that the major problems in your life are all long gone, and now you’re just looking for an excuse to whine, or you’re scrabbling desperately to remain relevant.

          Your question: What do “straight, white males” have that the grievance groups hate? Simple: the “straight, white male” is today’s scapegoat. He has nothing that the grievance groups hate, but they imagine that he has power and influence that they don’t have. It’s hogwash, but it’s difficult to cure delusions. The deluded cling tightly to those delusions. Don’t forget, Hitler was railing against the Jews long after he’d chased most of them out of the country, or killed them. Jews had long since had no more power in Germany, but he was still on about them. “Straight, white males” — at least Conservative straight, white males — in America have no power or influence in any of the powerful influence-peddling institutions of America today: the media, academia, Hollywood, pop culture. And, let’s face it, it’s not the “straight, white male” that has the Left’s panties in a twist, but the “Conservative straight, white male.”
          – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

          You Said:
          And what have they done to YOU to make you fear and loathe them?
          My Reply:
          Well, first off, I fear and loathe no one. I observe and I study, and I try to tell the truth about my observations and studies. Second, presumably your trying to ask: “What has the Left done to me?

          You do know, BW, don’t you, that I’ve answered this question for you many times? I’m tempted to tell you to look it up in our pages and stop wastinng our bandwidth, but I know you won’t. So, I’ll keep the answer short and sweet:
          (1) They’ve overtaxed you and me.
          (2) They’ve abused my son and daughter.
          (3) They threaten the peace and stability of this the greatest, freest, most generous, kindest, least racist country that’s ever existed.
          (4) They lie, cheat, steal, swindle, defraud.
          (5) They’re thoroughly corrupt.
          (6) They’ve destroyed the family structure of my black brothers and sisters.
          (7) They’re hell-bent on destroying the family structure of the rest of America.
          (8) They’ve adopted Socialism, the deadliest ideology in the history of the world.
          (9) They’ve murdered more than 30 million babies since 1972 in America alone.
          (10) They’ve embraced the murder of old, depressed, crippled, and even healthy people under the disgraceful euphemism of “death with dignity.”
          (11) They’re the driving force behind the movement to squash free speech, one of the greatest, most spectacular gifts that Western Civilization gave to mankind.
          (12) Every time they embrace an issue, and it carries the day, someone, or many, many, many someones ends up dead.
          (13) They actively advocate discrimination on the basis of race.
          (14) They actively advocate discrimination on the basis of sex.
          (15) They actively advocate discrimination on the basis of sexual preference.
          (16) They engage in Lysenkoism, demanding that science serve their ideology.
          (17) They killed journalism in America.
          (18) They’re killing universities in America.
          (19) They’ve instituted Political Correctness across the land, making it difficult to counter their depredations.
          (20) They’ve completely debased political discourse in America.
          (21) They’ve debased the language.

          That’s a good list for now. For each of these things, there are, of course, numerous harmful spin-off effects as well.

          – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

          Best,

          — x

          1. Hmm.. I’m a late comer to this blog.. and after reading that amazing list I gotta ask… between you two.. who is white, black, straight, gay? Honestly I don’t care one way or the other… but if I know I can be sensitive to your human experiences and recognize a measure of respect for differences in opinions.

            Honestly.. that list tends to illustrate a person with a lot of hate.

          2. Lol! I don’t hate anyone… I am, however, after some decades as a writer and analyst of things around me, much more plainspoken than I was when I was just starting out.

            Mind you, the accusations are the things that the Left says about Conservatives of my stripe all the time. For decades now! We’re Nazis, Fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, islamophobes… and all the rest. We hate women, minorities, etc., etc. You know the litany.

            On our side, we were always arguing the merits of policy proposals, and were being hit with allegations that we’re horrible people. After a few decades of that, it became the default form political discourse took.

            I finally, several years back, decided that I wasn’t going to stand idly by anymore as people like me were slandered as horrible people. We’re not.

            We have, and I have, only one overriding desire for the country, and the world: that every man woman and child, no exceptions, have a long, healthy, happy life, filled with love, laughter, fascination, reward and fulfillment beyond their wildest dreams. That this day, this week, this month, this year, and all subsequent, might be better than the previous for every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, no exceptions. I’ve never met a Conservative who believed any differently.

            It started in the ’60’s though… the Left started calling people who think like me racists, sexists, etc… the whole litany. I guess people just started to get used to it, so that when people of my stripe reflect it right back, all of a sudden people are shocked.

            This kind of discourse is what the Left has produced. Remember: there is not the name-calling going in the Right-to-Left direction. When you hear someone being called a “Nazi,” or a “Fascist,” or a “Racist,” you know automatically that it’s a leftist insulting a right-winger, and not the other way ’round.

            In my exchanges with “Brothawolf,” he started right out with the name-calling. Yep. I was a racist, and all the rest. Immediately upon commenting on his blog. I tried literally for years (I estimate 4-5) to get him to argue seriously, without the vitriol. To no avail. So, I warned him, and I warned him again, then again… then I took off the gloves.

            I truly do believe that the Left has a lot to answer for in America. Does the Right? Yep. However, the cities are hellholes, and they have been owned, lock, stock and barrel by the Left for more than three generations. The programs of the Left are failing right and left (hee hee), or going bankrupt, or never even came close to accomplishing their stated intent. And, I mean things like: Welfare, Affirmative Action, Social Security, Centralized Education (Richard Nixon’s disaster), the EPA, Medicare, Medicaid… all are mismanaged, corrupt, failing, going bankrupt… take your pick.

            And this nation does nothing but spend, spend, spend, spend (Right and Left). Honestly, I think the leaders of this country are trying to turn it into Venezuela. Then you have people in the Democrat Party actively advocating policies that would mimic those of Venezuela!

            And so on… My bill of particulars above is hardly a “hate-filled list,” but a fair accounting of what Conservatives believe happens in the wake of the widespread implementation of left-wing policies. The cities stand as potent evidence of the accuracy of that belief.

            The black family has been nearly destroyed. Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore are killing grounds for young black men. And they’ve been in the hands of the Left for generations! When are we going to say that it’s time to throw the bums out?!? One can’t possibly make the argument that the cities are doing well, and that the current leaders, or the Democrat Party, deserve to remain in power there! Yet, election after election after election after election, what do we see?

            I don’t hate people, but I am sick and tired of the death, despair, the poverty, the violence… all while the ones who caused it all look you and me right in the eyes and tell us to re-elect them.

            Oh, don’t get me wrong… the Republicans are partially to blame here as well. We don’t go in there with microphones and bullhorns and trumpet a freakin’ alternative!

            And there’s a lot more. I hate no one… am I passionate? You betcha! Always will be. This is the greatest country history has ever seen, by far and away, and the Left is doing its level best to destroy it. The Right is a bunch of pantywaist hand-wringers, afraid to incur the wrath of the corrupt press, so we just keep on allowing it to happen. It’s a disgrace.

            Anyway, that was fun… I feel much better now. 🙂

            Best,

            — x

          3. All of the above. We are a group… it’s just a question of who’s responding to whom.

            We write under one name, because some of us are very prominent citizens, whose employment, and/or social standing, and/or safety would be seriously jeopardized if it were known who we are.

            We use a series of high-tech and very, very low-tech measures to ensure that no one will find out our individual identities.

            In this way, we can be more open than we can in our “day jobs.”

            We do share some characteristics: All of us are heterosexual, all of us are Conservatives, half (or so — we have an odd number of “members”) are registered Republicans; half (or so) are registered independent. One of us is a a very famous sports personality, former world champion athlete, and current media personality (that might be me… 🙂 ). One of us is a prominent musician. Several others are prominent media personalities — writers, broadcasters of all stripes, etc. One of us is very high up in the military. A couple of us are very high up in government. And there are more, with lower profiles. Most of us have families; several of us are divorced, one is widowed.

            It can cause confusion in those with whom we correspond, but it does allow us to remain true to our belief that what others should address are our thoughts and ideas.

            BW, for example, is relentless in his attempts to psychoanalyze us, and imagines that we are just one person. We are under the iron fist of one editor who, let’s say, genericizes our output, that’s true, but we are indeed several people.

            Best,

            — x

          4. Lol! Let’s see: Good writer. Something to say. A compelling need to remain anonymous. The readiness and willingness to engage in a bit of low-tech stealth in order to protect everyone’s anonymity. Also, since we’re all around the world, we tend not to meet frequently. Oh, and we’re all pretty strong Conservatives.

            Best,

            — x

          5. Lol! I don’t hate anyone… I am, however, after some decades as a writer and analyst of things around me, much more plainspoken than I was when I was just starting out.

            Mind you, the accusations are the things that the Left says about Conservatives of my stripe all the time. For decades now! We’re Nazis, Fascists, racists, sexists, homophobes, islamophobes… and all the rest. We hate women, minorities, etc., etc. You know the litany.

            On our side, we were always arguing the merits of policy proposals, and were being hit with allegations that we’re horrible people. After a few decades of that, it became the default form political discourse took.

            I finally, several years back, decided that I wasn’t going to stand idly by anymore as people like me were slandered as horrible people. We’re not.

            We have, and I have, only one overriding desire for the country, and the world: that every man woman and child, no exceptions, have a long, healthy, happy life, filled with love, laughter, fascination, reward and fulfillment beyond their wildest dreams. That this day, this week, this month, this year, and all subsequent, might be better than the previous for every man, woman and child on the face of the earth, no exceptions. I’ve never met a Conservative who believed any differently.

            It started in the ’60’s though… the Left started calling people who think like me racists, sexists, etc… the whole litany. I guess people just started to get used to it, so that when people of my stripe reflect it right back, all of a sudden people are shocked.

            This kind of discourse is what the Left has produced. Remember: there is not the name-calling going in the Right-to-Left direction. When you hear someone being called a “Nazi,” or a “Fascist,” or a “Racist,” you know automatically that it’s a leftist insulting a right-winger, and not the other way ’round.

            In my exchanges with “Brothawolf,” he started right out with the name-calling. Yep. I was a racist, and all the rest. Immediately upon commenting on his blog. I tried literally for years (I estimate 4-5) to get him to argue seriously, without the vitriol. To no avail. So, I warned him, and I warned him again, then again… then I took off the gloves.

            I truly do believe that the Left has a lot to answer for in America. Does the Right? Yep. However, the cities are hellholes, and they have been owned, lock, stock and barrel by the Left for more than three generations. The programs of the Left are failing right and left (hee hee), or going bankrupt, or never even came close to accomplishing their stated intent. And, I mean things like: Welfare, Affirmative Action, Social Security, Centralized Education (Richard Nixon’s disaster), the EPA, Medicare, Medicaid… all are mismanaged, corrupt, failing, going bankrupt… take your pick.

            And this nation does nothing but spend, spend, spend, spend (Right and Left). Honestly, I think the leaders of this country are trying to turn it into Venezuela. Then you have people in the Democrat Party actively advocating policies that would mimic those of Venezuela!

            And so on… My bill of particulars above is hardly a “hate-filled list,” but a fair accounting of what Conservatives believe happens in the wake of the widespread implementation of left-wing policies. The cities stand as potent evidence of the accuracy of that belief.

            The black family has been nearly destroyed. Cities like Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore are killing grounds for young black men. And they’ve been in the hands of the Left for generations! When are we going to say that it’s time to throw the bums out?!? One ,i>can’t possibly make the argument that the cities are doing well, and that the current leaders, or the Democrat Party, deserve to remain in power there! Yet, election after election after election after election, what do we see?

            I don’t hate people, but I am sick and tired of the death, despair, the poverty, the violence… all while the ones who caused it all look you and me right in the eyes and tell us to re-elect them.

            Oh, don’t get me wrong… the Republicans are partially to blame here as well. We don’t go in there with microphones and bullhorns and trumpet a freakin’ alternative!

            And there’s a lot more. I hate no one… am I passionate? You betcha! Always will be. This is the greatest country history has ever seen, by far and away, and the Left is doing its level best to destroy it. The Right is a bunch of pantywaist hand-wringers, afraid to incur the wrath of the corrupt press, so we just keep on allowing it to happen. It’s a disgrace.

            Anyway, that was fun… I feel much better now. 🙂

            Best,

            — x

    1. I deleted only those replies that were taking up bandwidth, and had already been amply answered, or were stupid, irrelevant, insulting or otherwise lacking in merit.

      As to your question, I’ll be happy to answer it. However, I’ll make you a deal: I’ll answer your question if you’ll answer one of mine, that you’re previously refused to answer.

      Second: I won’t give you a “Yes” or “No” answer, because there are larger questions inside your question. So, I’ll answer comprehensively.

      Deal?

      Best,

      — x

        1. First: promise that you’ll answer it. It’s an easy one… a thought exercise, really. One that I’ve already posed to you.

          Oh, and I just gave you several answers.

          Best,

          — x

  7. My observation is correct and accurate. Your interpretation of it is lacking in the necessary nuance, but it is largely accurate, in the sense that the major institutions of this country discriminate actively against people who are “straight, white males.” I don’t think there’s any read debate about this fact. Now, is it “hard being a straight white man” in America? Not in particular. It is difficult to be lied about, slandered, maligned, generalized about, mocked, derided, jeered and sneered at for things that are simply not true, but overall, it’s not particularly hard to be a “straight, white male” in America.

    How? How do they discriminate against straight white males?

    Also, you say that, “it is difficult to be lied about, slandered, maligned, generalized about, mocked, derided, jeered and sneered at for things that are simply not true…”

    Here’s the thing, I agree that it is difficult. It’s painful in some aspects. However, you’re saying or – at least implying – that ONLY straight white men suffer from this. You’ll disagree as I know you will, but you’re also implying that it’s just as cruel – or worse – than anything that anyone outside of that demographic has gone through and are going through. You’re pretty much setting being slandered, maligned, etc. etc. is just as bad as having groups of people slaughtered, enslaved, bombed, segregated, brutally policed, imprisoned by the millions, etc. And what’s worse is that you’re implying that what happened to those people are not as significant or impactful as what straight white men go through. As proof, you will say how wrong this is, call it and/or me “stupid”, type something you’ve already said multiple times, and give no context or sound reason why I should feel for straight white men as well as my own people. You’ve NEVER made an effort to try to see things from a perspective of a black man who’s not a conservative without passing judgment and drawing conclusions that do nothing but hurt race relations. And for some reason, you REFUSE to take that into account just to constantly repeat that racism isn’t a major problem in America anymore as if it was a mantra. It’s as if you want it to be true, you want me and black people to believe it and you will find black people who will parrot the same or like-statements to solidify a faulty opinion.

    Instead of telling black people who say otherwise that they’re wrong and delusional, you should understand that what you say white men go through, THEY WENT THROUGH AND STILL DEAL WITH IT. Like you say, it shouldn’t have to be explained as it’s common knowledge. It should help empathize the trials that black people struggle with, but instead, you seem to prefer to minimize it’s impacts and effects for the sake of putting the grievances of the conservative white male on center stage and leaving the grievances of everyone else out of the spotlight rendering them as unimportant, nonexistent or wholly irrelevant. You call them “grievance industries” to make that point.

    I presume you mean: if my observation about the derision that the “straight, white male” undergoes in America is true, why would those who deride them do it? Easy: Everyone with an agenda to change things insists that he is trying to improve things. Therefore he needs to identify and articulate things that he says are wrong in the place where he’s trying to overthrow the current state of affairs. Once he’s identified — whether correctly or incorrectly — such a wrong, or series of wrongs, every demagogue understands that it’s handy to have a scapegoat to blame the current state of affairs on! We’ve seen where this can lead. Hitler had his Jews, Stalin had his kulaks, wreckers, enemies of the people, and the Jews. Mao had his intellectuals, Pol Pot had his Hmong, and so forth. And in America, the Left and the vast American Grievance Industry have the “straight, white male.”

    Okay. Here’s the thing though. Why would the left target straight white males if it is mostly governed by straight white males?

    It started with men and white men in particular. What did they have? Power, wealth, influence. And, yes, they unfairly hoarded it for themselves. Then when people said they needed to cut that out, they… did. Let’s not forget that the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism came to prominence in America at about the same time. The Civil Rights Movement didn’t need a scapegoat… it was obvious that white Americans were oppressing black Americans. However, when the Civil Rights Movement won its fight, its leaders needed a reason to remain relevant, and people like Jesse Jackson, et al, settled on a bunch of invisible, garbage terms (institutional racism, structural racism, White Supremacy, White Privilege etc.) for things that had long been defeated. For that they needed a scapegoat, and that’s when positively idiotic ideas came about like: “All whites are racists,” and “black people can’t be racists,” all manner of patently nonsensical hooey. Absent that irrational hoohah, shysters like Jesse Jackson would have had to get real jobs. But people like him were really happy to get rich without having to work. This very same thing happened to all the great grievance movements, by the way. Feminism was irrelevant after 1920, when women were allowed to vote. And the Gay Grievance Industry had nowhere to go after being told they could get married to each other. So, rather than getting real jobs, and actually contributing to America, they morphed into the Sexual Weirdism Grievance Industry. Now, all they do is whine about “pronouns.” Look, if your biggest problem is either a “micro-aggression,” or “pronouns,” I’d submit that the major problems in your life are all long gone, and now you’re just looking for an excuse to whine, or you’re scrabbling desperately to remain relevant.

    Okay. How did white men obtain their wealth and power?

    Also, telling me what my major problems are when you REFUSED to know me beyond your prejudices that I’m a black leftist/racist is just based on preconceived assumptions you have about black people with differing opinions.

    Of course, you might to pull the old “I’m a black woman” trick, but I honestly don’t care. And besides, it STILL shows how uninterested you are in having an honest debate let alone a grounded conversation.

    I know you’ll ignore this and respond in your usual fashion, but the Civil Rights Movement and the passage of the Civil Rights Act DID NOT magically make racism disappear. It just opened up the realities of discrimination and segregation and made it illegal. But the prejudices against black people didn’t end in 1968 as if it was a switch.

    You made it clear that with movements and laws passed that no one today should be griping about injustices their people faced in the past that was instantly stopped when acts were passed and those who complain today are doing so as part of an agenda for some industrial complex.

    I used to think that way, until I realize that it’s more to these problems than just making laws that make it illegal for people to make them. But somewhere along with way, I know that it’s not that simple. It’s obvious that no matter what I say will be valid or strong enough to convince you otherwise, but the reality is that although there has been significant and noteworthy progress for certain groups, many of them believe there’s still a lot to do. Even if they seem minor to you or has nothing to do with prejudices, that STILL doesn’t mean that they are based on what you think, and to believe otherwise is dismiss the histories and realities of those groups for the purpose of rendering their problems minor or nonexistent.

    If you say that straight white men are being “bad mouthed”, for lack of a better word, than you’ll say how everyone else is not having it as bad as they claim they are, and it’s based on this “either-or” kind of thinking in which you placed straight white male grievances above the grievances of non-straight white males. It seems you don’t even consider that perhaps other groups are still struggling with injustices as well as straight white men. Instead, you made the problems that straight white men supposedly face as a major issue above everyone else. And seeing as how most institutions i.e. government, media, education, justice, etc. are governed mostly by straight white males, it’s hard to sympathize with such a belief let alone take is seriously, especially when dealing with someone who repeatedly says that what you and your people go through isn’t as striking. Straight white men have power and privileges skewed in their favor, and all straight white men benefit from it in one way or another. So, to believe that it’s hard to be one is laughable. This is NOT to say that they don’t have problems, nonetheless, but being discriminated or maligned based on sexual orientation, skin color or gender are not problems they would have to largely worry about no matter if they’re conservatives or liberals.

    This is all I’m going to respond to. I made my points clear and concise, and out of respect, I won’t say anymore out of bandwidth concerns. And as usual, I will expect the usual Praetorian responses.

    1. You Said:
      [Quoting me] My observation is correct and accurate. Your interpretation of it is lacking in the necessary nuance, but it is largely accurate, in the sense that the major institutions of this country discriminate actively against people who are “straight, white males.” I don’t think there’s any real debate about this fact. Now, is it “hard being a straight white man” in America? Not in particular. It is difficult to be lied about, slandered, maligned, generalized about, mocked, derided, jeered and sneered at for things that are simply not true, but overall, it’s not particularly hard to be a “straight, white male” in America. [End of quote]

      How? How do they discriminate against straight white males?
      My Reply:
      Dude: Either you know the answer to that question, or you really don’t keep informed, do you?
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Also, you say that, “it is difficult to be lied about, slandered, maligned, generalized about, mocked, derided, jeered and sneered at for things that are simply not true…”

      Here’s the thing, I agree that it is difficult. It’s painful in some aspects. However, you’re saying or – at least implying – that ONLY straight white men suffer from this. You’ll disagree as I know you will, but you’re also implying that it’s just as cruel – or worse – than anything that anyone outside of that demographic has gone through and are going through. You’re pretty much setting being slandered, maligned, etc. etc. is just as bad as having groups of people slaughtered, enslaved, bombed, segregated, brutally policed, imprisoned by the millions, etc. And what’s worse is that you’re implying that what happened to those people are not as significant or impactful as what straight white men go through. As proof, you will say how wrong this is, call it and/or me “stupid”, type something you’ve already said multiple times, and give no context or sound reason why I should feel for straight white men as well as my own people. You’ve NEVER made an effort to try to see things from a perspective of a black man who’s not a conservative without passing judgment and drawing conclusions that do nothing but hurt race relations. And for some reason, you REFUSE to take that into account just to constantly repeat that racism isn’t a major problem in America anymore as if it was a mantra. It’s as if you want it to be true, you want me and black people to believe it and you will find black people who will parrot the same or like-statements to solidify a faulty opinion.

      My Reply:
      This is just a whole crap-pile of stupid, so I’m going to have to dissect it a bit.

         • [You said] However, you’re saying or – at least implying – that ONLY straight white men suffer from this.
         • [My Reply] Never said it; never implied it; never even hinted at it. You do nothing more than trot out your bigoted and prejudiced preconceived notions and regurgitate them despte the fact that I’ve (we’ve) never given you one shred of evidence in support of them. More than 20,000 pages in our blog and you’ll never find the slightest thing to support the crap that you spout.
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
         • [You said] “you’re also implying that it’s just as cruel – or worse – than anything that anyone outside of that demographic has gone through and are going through.”
         • [My Reply] More codswallop. Nothing I’ve (we’ve) ever said or written could lead anyone to conclude that any of us believes that. Moron.
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
         • [You said]
      You’re pretty much setting being slandered, maligned, etc. etc. is just as bad as having groups of people slaughtered, enslaved, bombed, segregated, brutally policed, imprisoned by the millions, etc.
         • [My Reply] Again, nothing I’ve (we’ve) ever said could lead anyone to such a stupid conclusion. You idiotic preconceived notion is that I believe that, and despite a complete lack of any evidence, you just toss it out. You’re an idiot.
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
         • [You said]
      You’re pretty much setting being slandered, maligned, etc. etc. is just as bad as having groups of people slaughtered, enslaved, bombed, segregated, brutally policed, imprisoned by the millions, etc.
         • [My Reply] Again, nothing I’ve (we’ve) ever said could lead anyone to such a stupid conclusion. You idiotic preconceived notion is that I believe that, and despite a complete lack of any evidence, you just toss it out. You’re an idiot. Worse, you’re leaching off the suffering that others experienced in the past. You didn’t experience any of it yourself, and you want to play the victim with me? That’s pathetic. All those things you rattled off happened more than a century and a half ago, you moron! It’s not that they didn’t happen, it;s just that they didn’t happen to you, and your attempts to use thir suffering to make it seem as if you’re more noble? Pathetic. And kind of disgusting. You ought to be deeply ashamed of yourself.
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
         • [You said]
      And what’s worse is that you’re implying that what happened to those people are not as significant or impactful as what straight white men go through.
         • [My Reply] Nowhere in more than 20,000 pages in this blog or elsewhere will you find one shred of evidence that what you said is true. Furthermore, to pretend that what happened in the long, long ago past to a people is a valid reason to perpetrate injustices against another people nearly 200 years later is obscene. Dude: you’re a bad person. How did I not see this before?!? Oh, that’s right… I did see it; I just chose to ignore it, and pretend you weren’t.
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
         • [You said]
      give no context or sound reason why I should feel for straight white men as well as my own people.
         • [My Reply] This is pathetic. A real person, a decent person feels for all people. You really are a bigoted bastard.
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
         • [You said]
      You’ve NEVER made an effort to try to see things from a perspective of a black man who’s not a conservative without passing judgment and drawing conclusions that do nothing but hurt race relations.
         • [My Reply] First of all, you have no idea whatsoever what perspectives I’ve seen, so that’s just as stupid as it can be. And, here you are — yourself — having said on your blog, and having allowed people to say on your blog that all white people are racists, and you allowed someone on your blog to say publicly that she wished that all white people would die a violent death, and you never condemned that sentiment. And you dare lecture me about
      “hurting race relations?!?” You do make me laugh!
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
         • [You said] And for some reason, you REFUSE to take that into account just to constantly repeat that racism isn’t a major problem in America anymore as if it was a mantra.
         • [My Reply] I repeat the obvious fact that white racism is not a big problem in America anymore, because it isn’t. You have taught me, though, that black racism directed against white people is, indeed, a much bigger problem than I thought. For that I’m grateful, even if you are a bigoted bastard who’s a big part of a big problem.
      – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
         • [You said]
      It’s as if you want it to be true, you want me and black people to believe it and you will find black people who will parrot the same or like-statements to solidify a faulty opinion.
         • [My Reply] This was nonsensical. After having wasted your breath and effort on the previous pile of cow crap, you finish off with this incoherent slop?
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Instead of telling black people who say otherwise that they’re wrong and delusional, you should understand that what you say white men go through, THEY WENT THROUGH AND STILL DEAL WITH IT. Like you say, it shouldn’t have to be explained as it’s common knowledge. It should help empathize the trials that black people struggle with, but instead, you seem to prefer to minimize it’s impacts and effects for the sake of putting the grievances of the conservative white male on center stage and leaving the grievances of everyone else out of the spotlight rendering them as unimportant, nonexistent or wholly irrelevant. You call them “grievance industries” to make that point.
      My Reply:
      If you say that racism directed by white people at black people is a big problem in America, then you are delusional. Or at best, ignorant. It would be wrong of me not to call people who are delusional and ignorant what they are. I call all delusional, ignorant people what they are, regardless of their skin color. The rest of what you said — this “
      putting the grievances of the conservative white male on center stage and leaving the grievances of everyone else out of the spotlight“, is, indeed, nonsense. We’ve published more than 20,000 pages in this blog, and you won’t find one teeny, tiny scintilla of evidence to support this assertion. Know why? Because we don’t do that, because we’re not part of any grievance group. You do love to spout nonsense that you can’t back up with evidence!
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting me] I presume you mean: if my observation about the derision that the “straight, white male” undergoes in America is true, why would those who deride them do it? Easy: Everyone with an agenda to change things insists that he is trying to improve things. Therefore he needs to identify and articulate things that he says are wrong in the place where he’s trying to overthrow the current state of affairs. Once he’s identified — whether correctly or incorrectly — such a wrong, or series of wrongs, every demagogue understands that it’s handy to have a scapegoat to blame the current state of affairs on! We’ve seen where this can lead. Hitler had his Jews, Stalin had his kulaks, wreckers, enemies of the people, and the Jews. Mao had his intellectuals, Pol Pot had his Hmong, and so forth. And in America, the Left and the vast American Grievance Industry have the “straight, white male.” [End of quote]

      Okay. Here’s the thing though. Why would the left target straight white males if it is mostly governed by straight white males?
      My Reply:
      Because they add a fourth category: Conservative. Just like you. Though your irrational paranoia seems to center on the “straight, white male.”
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting me] It started with men and white men in particular. What did they have? Power, wealth, influence. And, yes, they unfairly hoarded it for themselves. Then when people said they needed to cut that out, they… did. [End of quote]

      Okay. How did white men obtain their wealth and power?
      My Reply:
      By participating in the economic systems and structures of their countries, like all other people. Look, I know where you’re going with that, and it’s stupid. More to the point, I’ve covered that many times for you. I’m not going to allow too many more of these irrelevancies and stuff that I’ve covered many times before.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Also, telling me what my major problems are when you REFUSED to know me beyond your prejudices that I’m a black leftist/racist is just based on preconceived assumptions you have about black people with differing opinions.
      My Reply:
      I don’t care about you anymore… I was wrong about you. I wasted a whole lot of time deluding myself that you’re basically a good man. I was wrong. You’re not. So, I don’t care about getting to know you beyond the distasteful picture of you that I already have. You are a leftist/racist. You admitted it many times over. I have no preconceived notions about black people beyond the fact that they’re black. I take all people individually. Unlike you, the racist, who prejudge others based on the color of their skin.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I know you’ll ignore this and respond in your usual fashion, but the Civil Rights Movement and the passage of the Civil Rights Act DID NOT magically make racism disappear. It just opened up the realities of discrimination and segregation and made it illegal. But the prejudices against black people didn’t end in 1968 as if it was a switch.
      My Reply:
      No, the Civil Rights Act, and mountains of other legislation, made discrimination largely disappear. Racism? No. It’s still alive and well in the RGI, and it’s alive and well in you. However, the vast majority of white people have largely abandoned it. No, it’s not 100% gone, but the least racist, the most accepting, the most tolerant demographic on the face of the earth is: the straight, white male. That’s indisputable.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      You made it clear that with movements and laws passed that no one today should be griping about injustices their people faced in the past that was instantly stopped when acts were passed and those who complain today are doing so as part of an agenda for some industrial complex.
      My Reply:
      Hogwash. You gripe about things that are not injustices (Wilson, Zimmerman, Covington), and use those non-injustices to make broad, sweeping, racist, false statements like, “All white people are racists.” You’re unaware of the RGI, because you’re uninformed and not too bright.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I used to think that way, until I realize that it’s more to these problems than just making laws that make it illegal for people to make them. But somewhere along with way, I know that it’s not that simple. It’s obvious that no matter what I say will be valid or strong enough to convince you otherwise, but the reality is that although there has been significant and noteworthy progress for certain groups, many of them believe there’s still a lot to do. Even if they seem minor to you or has nothing to do with prejudices, that STILL doesn’t mean that they are based on what you think, and to believe otherwise is dismiss the histories and realities of those groups for the purpose of rendering their problems minor or nonexistent.
      My Reply:
      That was incoherent. Proofread.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      If you say that straight white men are being “bad mouthed”, for lack of a better word, than you’ll say how everyone else is not having it as bad as they claim they are, and it’s based on this “either-or” kind of thinking in which you placed straight white male grievances above the grievances of non-straight white males. It seems you don’t even consider that perhaps other groups are still struggling with injustices as well as straight white men. Instead, you made the problems that straight white men supposedly face as a major issue above everyone else. And seeing as how most institutions i.e. government, media, education, justice, etc. are governed mostly by straight white males, it’s hard to sympathize with such a belief let alone take is seriously, especially when dealing with someone who repeatedly says that what you and your people go through isn’t as striking. Straight white men have power and privileges skewed in their favor, and all straight white men benefit from it in one way or another. So, to believe that it’s hard to be one is laughable. This is NOT to say that they don’t have problems, nonetheless, but being discriminated or maligned based on sexual orientation, skin color or gender are not problems they would have to largely worry about no matter if they’re conservatives or liberals.
      My Reply:
      This was also incoherrent. However, some of the slop was comprehensible. And, of course, wrong. Where you got wrong was where you said that we place “straight, white male’s” problems above everyone else’s. Nope. Never have, never even suggested or hinted at that. What we did say was a simple truth: the problems of non-white people in America are not due to white racism in any meaningful way anymore. We then developed on ideas and policy prescriptions to address that reality. You then went off on all these wild, ridiculous, irrelevant tangents.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      This is all I’m going to respond to. I made my points clear and concise, and out of respect, I won’t say anymore out of bandwidth concerns. And as usual, I will expect the usual Praetorian responses.
      My Reply:
      Okay.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      Best,

      — x

      1. This is all I’m going to respond to. I made my points clear and concise, and out of respect, I won’t say anymore out of bandwidth concerns. And as usual, I will expect the usual Praetorian responses.

        Just as I expected…

        1. Remember: you confessed to be happy to clog up our bandwidth with your sillinesses.

          Your “concern” for our bandwidth is to try to monopolize it. It’s why we now edit your comments to remove the repetitious, the filibustering, and the obviously stupid.

          Best,

          — x

  8. [Deleted: Irrelevant speculation]

    [Deleted: Irrelevant]

    [Deleted: Irrelevant speculation]

    Truth be told, I don’t see how me believing and supporting groups and people dedicated for fair and equal justice and treatment are repugnant to you. And I don’t see how calling out such problems and the people responsible are acts of hate. If anything, it’s tough love. So far, your responses since I’ve known you sound like the ramblings of a spoiled child who thinks being scolded for something he or she did wrong is an sign of hate.

    [Deleted: Irrelevant speculation]

    [Deleted: Irrelevant speculation]

    [Deleted: Incoherent silliness]

    [Deleted: Irrelevant speculation]

    [Deleted: Irrelevant]

    1. This post is really stupid, but your other post has some merit. I’ll get rid of the parts in this one that are ridiculous, and address the other post when I have a chance.

      Best,

      — x

    2. There was very little of substance in your post, so I’m replying to what was there.

      You said:Truth be told, I don’t see how me believing and supporting groups and people dedicated for fair and equal justice and treatment are repugnant to you.

      My Reply: The problem is that you don’t support groups that are “dedicated for fair and equal justice and treatment“. You support racists and bigots. And your friends are black supremacists. That means you’re a black supremacist too. I gave you ample opportunity to denounce the bigotry coming from your corner. I pointed it out, and allowed you to denounce it. I gave you repeated opportunities, and you failed each time.

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

      You said:And I don’t see how calling out such problems and the people responsible are acts of hate.

      My Reply: Again, you don’t “call out such problems and the people responsible.” You “call out” innocent people, and libel them in print. Want three examples? Okay:
      • Darren Wilson — innocent
      • George Zimmerman — innocent
      • Covington High School kids — innocent

      Each time, long after the rest of the world had discovered that the initial reports of the incidents were lies, fabrications and fiction, you continued to allege that those innocent people were guilty of terrible acts. You’ve proven amply that you consume only the product of the bigoted leftist media sources that are perfectly willing to lie in order to keep willing sheep like you in line.

      You absolutely committed a racist act of hate against the Covington High School kids, and you should be deeply ashamed. You need to face up to your own bigotry, and the fact that you’ve been completely blinded by it, and that you live in an echo chamber of your own making, and that as a result you’re ignorant, and that what you think you know is a bunch of snake oil that you swallowed because you’re too chicken, or brainwashed, to go out and find out the truth.

      The best name I ever coined for you was “Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing.”

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

      Best,

      — x

        1. Again, your weakness with language is a real pain!

          Are you trying to ask me whether I believe that white people have committed genocide?

          Or are you trying to ask me whether I believe that white people are, or are going to be, the victims of genocide?

          Again, why don’t you just proofread what you write?

          Best,

          — x

          1. Man, you never take a break from [juvenile insult deleted] huh? lol

            I’m asking if you believe that white people are or are going to be victims of genocide. After all, you say they face hatred because of their race. Now that I think of it, what is it about their race that nonwhites hate according to you?

          2. Lol! Kind of a silly question. However, I’ll answer it.

            No, I don’t believe that white people are going to be victims of genocide. White people are, however, going to disappear, and I have no problem with that.

            Black people will disappear too, as the world gradually “browns” for lack of a better term. The smaller and smaller this world gets, the more the world will head toward a generalized brown color.Nothing wrong with that at all.

            What racist non-white people hate about white people are several things:

               (1) The most successful civilization in the history of the world is, obviously, Western European Civilization. Western Civilization was, obviously, produced overwhelmingly by white people. This is an oversimplification, I know, but the people who hate iy are guilty of oversimplification as well.

               (2) Many non-white people are believing the lies and propaganda bout white people — you among them — because they want excuses for their own relative lack of success.

               (3) It’s easier on the ego, and easier in general, to blame others for one’s own lack of success. This can happen at the race level as well as at the individual level, and all points in-between. Don’t get your panties in a twist here, if the situations were reversed, there would be strong pressure on white people to seek out scapegoats among non-white people as well! People are people are people are people.

               (4) As I mentioned to you before, many non-white people want #1: revenge, #2, validation for their feelings, #3 free stuff, and #4 excuses for failure.

            The more successful (on average) white population stands as an easy target, for the ones who would harness envy and greed to put together a constituency. This is exactly what the Left has done, and you’re one of the sheep who fell for it.

          3. Again, you have 20,000 pages of public record, and nowhere will you find even the tiniest scintilla of evidence of this.

            So, no, obviously, none of us here believes that white people are superior to anyone else.

            Are you ever going to post something that’s not crashingly stupid?

            Best,

            — x

          4. I don’t care about your “public record”. I’m talking about you. And maybe you need to listen to your own advice and stop sounding like you haven’t hit puberty hit.

          5. Yet our public record is right there! Right out in the open. Nothing is hidden in the slightest.

            Your saying that “you don’t care” about our public record proves you have nothing.

            Otherwise you’d point to something that at least suggests that at least some of the crap you’ve been saying about us is true.

            You’ve always had… nothing. No logic. No reasoning. No evidence. Nothing.

            Best,

            — x

          6. [Deleted: Irrelevant speculation and juvenile insults]

            [Deleted: Covered many times already]

            [Deleted: Stupid]

            [Deleted: Juvenile insults]

            [Deleted: Juvenile insults]

            RACISM IS A BIG [Deleted: Swearing] PROBLEM FOR BLACKS AND PEOPLE OF COLOR!

          7. Hogwash, and you know it.

            Worse, it’s malicious hogwash. Again, you will never find anything in anything that I (or we) have ever written that would suggest that we have such sympathies. Because we don’t. And now that you know that we don’t harbor such sympathies, you can stop with your delusional codswallop.

            You should be deeply ashamed that you would suggest the crap that you suggest, but you aren’t because your racism is what makes you do it. And racism is the state-of-mind of the irrational and of idiots. Which are you? Or are you both?

          8. Would you rather prefer white nationalist?

            But seriously,..

            Are you kidding me??? You just praised white people for the creation of Western civilization and admonished nonwhites for supposedly being jealous of white people for that.

            You don’t want to call it white supremacy or white nationalism rhetoric, but that’s what it is, because it obviously places white people as role of the dominant race while placing nonwhites as anything but. What the hell else do you call such thinking?

            I know. I know. Knowing you, you’d call it “fact”, but a rose by any other name.

          9. Will you please stop being a moron? Just because I don’t join the other racists like you you and call all white people evil devils, I’m a “white nationalist?!?”

            You really can’t get past your racism, can you? That’s pathetic.

            Are you going to tell me that non-white people made Western Civilization? Okay. I’ll bite. Where are the non-white, non-European people who developed Western Civilization?

            And, you got it wrong again. I didn’t “admonish nonwhites for supposedly being jealous of white people for that,“, I admonished nonwhite people who hate white people for that — as you asked. In other words, I admonished racists who hate white people.

            This post of yours is deliberately dishonest. You deliberately left out the fact that I didn’t criticize non-white people at all. You deliberately left out the fact that I criticized only racist non-white people. You should be ashamed of yourself.

            You are the complete racist. Unable even to envision the possibility that I “don’t want to call it white supremacy or white nationalism rhetoric” simply because it… isn’t.

            No, I don’t call facts roses… I call facts “facts.” Because that’s what they are.

            And you can’t deal with them.

          10. Seriously, is being respectable that hard to you?

            [Editor’s Note: the word BW is searching for is “respectful.” This is part of BW’s problem as an analyst of current events. He’s barely literate. Since he didn’t bother to educate himself in the simple tools of communication, how could he be expected to have done the work necessary to observe and understand things around him? He doesn’t. Interestingly, I tried being respectful with BW. It didn’t work. His lone tactic was, and remains, insults. I simply, finally, got down in the gutter with him.]

            I never called white people devils, but I AM saying that you sound like a white nationalist/supremacist.

            [Editor’s Note: It’s possible that BW never called white people “devils.” It was a figure of speech I used. Interestingly, however, commenters on BW’s blog call all white people “devils” quite frequently. A sentiment that BW then endorses with approving replies. Same thing as making the statement in the first place. For example: on his blog one time, a commenter, a racist friend of BW’s, fantasized about the violent death of all white people. BW’s reply was something on the order of “Lol! And they’ll probably blame it [their own violent deaths] on black people and Hispanics” Incoherent, but a definite endorsement of the bloodthirsty sentiment. And it meant that BW shared the same fantasy.]

            Again, you’re simply saying that just because I write about white racism that makes me a racist, and you won’t even admit to something that even you are trying to say! And you’re doubling down on what you said about white people and Western Civilization by wanting me to tell you how nonwhites contributed to its construction.

            [Editor’s Note: Here BW constructs strawmen by trying to twist my words. I never asked him to tell me how “nonwhites contributed to Western Civilization’s construction,” but how non-white people developed Western Civilization. Western Civilization is, overwhelmingly, the product of white, European thinkers. Simple historical fact. BW and others in the RGI are constantly saying how Western Civilization is a product of “the white man” and how America is all infused with his imaginary “whiteness.” He can’t then turn around and say that non-white people developed Western Civilization when it’s convenient for him to try to make that point. If that were the case, then the historical fact that there were more white slaves in Africa during the time of slavery, than there were black slaves in America means that white people “constructed” ( <– BW's word) Africa.]

            Are you kidding me???

            If you learned American history beyond what anything after a high school textbook told you, you would learn about ALL the contributors to West that weren’t white.

            [Editor’s note: See the above note.]

            [Passage deleted: Covered many times before and juvenile insults.]

            [Passage deleted: Covered many times before and juvenile insults.]

            [Passage deleted: Covered many times before and juvenile insults.]

            [Passage deleted: Covered many times before and juvenile insults.]

            [Passage deleted: Covered many times before.]

  9. The problem is that you don’t support groups that are “dedicated for fair and equal justice and treatment“. You support racists and bigots. And your friends are black supremacists. That means you’re a black supremacist too. I gave you ample opportunity to denounce the bigotry coming from your corner. I pointed it out, and allowed you to denounce it. I gave you repeated opportunities, and you failed each time.

    So, that’s what you call people who call out against racism and bigotry, racists and bigots? Okay. In other words, you’re a racist if you talk about racism or call someone racist. I get it.

    And let’s get something straight, you don’t know who or what my friends are, and you didn’t even bother to try to get to know them let alone listen to them without preemptive insults and usual condemnation based on what I can only assume is fear-based racial paranoia. And just to make it clear, I denounce bigotry as much as I can on my blog. But YOUR problem is that YOUR definition of bigotry only applies when white people are being accused of being racist or called out for their racism. You make it clear that THAT’S the only kind of bigotry that matters to you while the rest are just ramblings from people who YOU believe are delusional just because you say so.

    Again, you don’t “calling out such problems and the people responsible are acts of hate.” You “call out” innocent people, and libel them in print. Want three examples? Okay:
    • Darren Wilson — innocent
    • George Zimmerman — innocent
    • Covington High School kids — innocent

    Of course, they would be innocent to you. You constantly make it clear that white people are inherently innocent of practically ANYTHING, and if and when white people are called out for something they did, you blame the people who called them out even if and when white people ARE responsible. You will stick up for white people no matter what they do to whoever they do it to. That’s why there are NO posts on YOUR OWN BLOG condemning anything that a white person has done that was harmful to nonwhites.

    You did one post about the Charleston Church Shooting, and you were more interested in the victims families FORGIVING the mass murderer than condemning his actions.

    The next post about the tragedy, you used it to blame the left and victimize and cheering for conservatism.

    Just days before the shooting, you went on another anti-RGI rant against Abagond in a way similar to how white supremacists and white nationalists.

    So, why should I take your words into account when you’ve proven time and time again that you’re staunchly supportive of white racism one way or another?

    Each time, long after the rest of the world had discovered that the initial reports of the incidents were lies, fabrications and fiction, you continued to allege that those innocent people were guilty of terrible acts. you’ve proven amply that you consume only the product of the bigoted leftist media sources that are perfectly willing to lie in order to keep willing sheep like you in line.

    The rest of the world, to you, would be conservative news sites like the National Review, the Drudge Report, Breitbart, the Washington Times, The Daily Wire, etc. ?

    Once again, you’re cheering for existential white innocence, including Zimmerman, and have alleged that you think EVERY black person killed by a cop or vigilante DESERVED IT.

    You absolutely committed a racist act of hate against the Covington High School kids, and you should be deeply ashamed. You need to face up to your own bigotry, and the fact that you’ve been completely blinded by it, and that you live in an echo chamber of your own making, and that as a result you’re ignorant, and that what you think you know is a bunch of snake oil that you swallowed because you’re too chicken, or brainwashed, to go out and find out the truth.

    You clearly are against truth, along with being against decency, intelligence and civility, at least online.

    I already own up to my prejudices. YOU REFUSE TO. And despite what voices tell you in your head, YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO BIGOTRY AND RACISM! And I just think you’re way too scared to admit it.

    The best name I ever coined for you was “Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing.”

    Sooooo…is that supposed to hurt me or something?

    1. You Said:
      [Quoting me] The problem is that you don’t support groups that are “dedicated for fair and equal justice and treatment“. You support racists and bigots. And your friends are black supremacists. That means you’re a black supremacist too. I gave you ample opportunity to denounce the bigotry coming from your corner. I pointed it out, and allowed you to denounce it. I gave you repeated opportunities, and you failed each time.[End quote]

      So, that’s what you call people who call out against racism and bigotry, racists and bigots? Okay. In other words, you’re a racist if you talk about racism or call someone racist. I get it.
      My Reply:
      The problem is that you don’t call out racism and bigotry, you traffick in it. You’re a racist because you’re a racist. You’re the new racist. As we have said here: The new racists will come waving the banner of anti-racism. That’s you.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      And let’s get something straight, you don’t know who or what my friends are, and you didn’t even bother to try to get to know them let alone listen to them without preemptive insults and usual condemnation based on what I can only assume is fear-based racial paranoia. And just to make it clear, I denounce bigotry as much as I can on my blog. But YOUR problem is that YOUR definition of bigotry only applies when white people are being accused of being racist or called out for their racism. You make it clear that THAT’S the only kind of bigotry that matters to you while the rest are just ramblings from people who YOU believe are delusional just because you say so.

      My Reply:
      The people who comment in your blog are virulent, bigoted racists. If they’re your friends, then I do, indeed, know who and what your friends are.

      The rest of your paragraph is ridiculously stupid. Again, you don’t denounce bigotry, you traffick in it. You’re a racism and bigotry pusher, and you’re a racism addict yourself.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting me] Again, you don’t “calling out such problems and the people responsible are acts of hate.” You “call out” innocent people, and libel them in print. Want three examples? Okay:

      • Darren Wilson — innocent
      • George Zimmerman — innocent
      • Covington High School kids — innocent
      [End of quote]

      Of course, they would be innocent to you. You constantly make it clear that white people are inherently innocent of practically ANYTHING, and if and when white people are called out for something they did, you blame the people who called them out even if and when white people ARE responsible. You will stick up for white people no matter what they do to whoever they do it to. That’s why there are NO posts on YOUR OWN BLOG condemning anything that a white person has done that was harmful to nonwhites.

      My Reply:
      Wilson, Zimmerman and the Covington kids are innocent because they’re, well… innocent, and for no other reason. I struck out the really stupid stuff for you. I don’t stick up for white people, I stick up for good, or innocent, or falsely-accused people.

      There are few posts on our blog “condemning anything that a white person has done that was harmful to nonwhites” for a couple of very simple reasons: (1) As I’ve amply demonstrated, white hostility to non-white people is just not a big problem in America today, and (2) such things are amply covered elsewhere. We don’t write about things that are more than adequately covered in numerous other outlets and publications. If I were to write only on what you want me to cover, I’d never write about the big story of racism in America today: hatred of white people because of their race.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      You did one post about the Charleston Church Shooting, and you were more interested in the victims families FORGIVING the mass murderer than condemning his actions.
      My Reply:
      I did quite a few posts about the Charleston Church atrocity. Do you really think this is the only place where I, or my stable of writers, write? The forgiveness by the victims was the ususual twist in the story. The whole “Dylann Roof psychotic racist story” was way more than adequately covered in the rest of the country’s media. By the way, the best coverage of that horror appeared in the right-wing media; the left-wing media had only the most predictable of pap. And the RGI — the race addicts who were actually happy that the atrocity happened — said only the most perfectly predictable crap.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      The next post about the tragedy, you used it to blame the left and victimize and cheering for conservatism.
      My Reply:
      It was not a tragedy, it was an atrocity. There’s a difference. A tragedy is when a hurricane or tornado or earthquake rolls through. An atrocity is when horror happens that is perpetrated by a human being. Your carelessness with language, and your lack of command of vocabulary indicate sloppiness in thinking as well. No wonder you’re a leftist and a racist!
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Just days before the shooting, you went on another anti-RGI rant against Abagond in a way similar to how white supremacists and white nationalists.
      My Reply:
      Lol! Wow! days before? I guess I can predict the future? Do you know how ridiculous you sound? I write against the RGI, because they’re a bunch of bigoted bastards, like you. On the other hand, we’ve written more than 20,000 pages of posts and commentary in this blog, and you won’t be able to find even one teentsy-weentsy, tiny scintilla of evidence that we support “white supremacists and white nationalists.” You know why? Because we don’t and never did. Stop being a moron. You, on the other hand, are, obviously, a black supremacist.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      So, why should I take your words into account when you’ve proven time and time again that you’re staunchly supportive of white racism one way or another?
      My Reply:
      I’ll repeat: we’ve written more than 20,000 pages of posts and commentary in this blog, and you won’t be able to find even one teentsy-weentsy, tiny scintilla of evidence that we support “white racism, or any other kind of racism.” You know why you won’t be able to find that? Because we don’t support racism of any kind. We condemn it all. Go ahead… find me one teeny, tiny piece of evidence that we support white racism here. And don’t be making more crap up.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting me] Each time, long after the rest of the world had discovered that the initial reports of the incidents were lies, fabrications and fiction, you continued to allege that those innocent people were guilty of terrible acts. you’ve proven amply that you consume only the product of the bigoted leftist media sources that are perfectly willing to lie in order to keep willing sheep like you in line. [End of quote]

      The rest of the world, to you, would be conservative news sites like the National Review, the Drudge Report, Breitbart, the Washington Times, The Daily Wire, etc. ?
      My Reply:
      Moron: the “rest of the world” is… the rest of the world, including even the left-wing media. All that we on the Right did was say, “We told you so… you should have waited until we had more information!” Which was true.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      Once again, you’re cheering for existential white innocence, including Zimmerman, and have alleged that you think EVERY black person killed by a cop or vigilante DESERVED IT.
      My Reply:
      Again: “we’ve written more than 20,000 pages of posts and commentary in this blog, and you won’t be able to find even one teentsy-weentsy, tiny scintilla of evidence that we believe that “EVERY black person killed by a cop or vigilante DESERVED IT.”

      Two other quick notes: (1) “existential white innocence” doesn’t mean anything. You’re big with meaningless phrases. And (2) Zimmerman isn’t white. Moron. He’s Hispanic.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting me] You absolutely committed a racist act of hate against the Covington High School kids, and you should be deeply ashamed. You need to face up to your own bigotry, and the fact that you’ve been completely blinded by it, and that you live in an echo chamber of your own making, and that as a result you’re ignorant, and that what you think you know is a bunch of snake oil that you swallowed because you’re too chicken, or brainwashed, to go out and find out the truth. [End of quote]

      You clearly are against truth, along with being against decency, intelligence and civility, at least online.
      My Reply:
      Meaningless, irrelevant speculation. Funny, though, coming from you, the racism trafficker.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      I already own up to my prejudices. YOU REFUSE TO. And despite what voices tell you in your head, YOU ARE NOT IMMUNE TO BIGOTRY AND RACISM! And I just think you’re way too scared to admit it.
      My Reply:
      I don’t have prejudices to own up to as you do. Of course no one’s immune to bigotry and racism. Duh! And, I am prejudiced against certain people: If, for example, you were to tell me you were a Nazi, or that you fancy ISIS, or that you think Al Qaeda’s all cool, I’d be prejudiced against you, because you’d be signalling that you’re a bad person. I’ve never been prejudiced against anyone because of the color of his skin. Ever. Or for any other superficial reason either.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting me] The best name I ever coined for you was “Sheep in Wolf’s Clothing.” [End of quote]

      Sooooo…is that supposed to hurt me or something?
      My Reply:
      Nope. I never try to hurt anyone. You do have to admit it’s clever, though. Especially after all the cloddish things you’ve called us!
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      Best,

      — x

  10. The problem is that you don’t call out racism and bigotry, you traffick in it. You’re a racist because you’re a racist. You’re the new racist. As we have said here: Te new racists will come waving the banner of anti-racism. That’s you.

    -Repetition: “You’re a racist! You’re a racist! You’re a racist!” vitriol.
    – “It is, because I say so” blather.

    The people who comment in your blog are virulent, bigoted racists. If they’re your friends, then I do, indeed, know who and what your friends are.

    The rest of your paragraph is ridiculously stupid. Again, you don’t denounce bigotry, you traffick in it. You’re a racism and bigotry pusher, and you’re a racism addict yourself.

    -Baseless accusations about people you never tried to converse with but talked down based on a subject you clearly chose to emotionally personalize.
    -Calling something stupid just because you say so.
    -More repetition.

    Wilson, Zimmerman and the Covington kids are innocent because they’re, well… innocent, and for no other reason. I struck out the really stupid stuff for you. I don’t stick up for white people, I stick up for good, or innocent, or falsely-accused people.

    There are few posts on our blog “condemning anything that a white person has done that was harmful to nonwhites” for a couple of very simple reasons: (1) As I’ve amply demonstrated, white hostility to non-white people is just not a big problem in America today, and (2) such things are amply covered elsewhere. We don’t write about things that are more than adequately covered in numerous other outlets and publications. If I were to write only on what you want me to cover, I’d never write about the big story of racism in America today: hatred of white people because of their race.

    -More, “It is, because I say so” blather.
    -Calling something stupid just because you say so.
    -Inadvertently associating white people with “goodness” and “innocence”.
    -No proof provided to claim condemnation of whites for harmful actions against nonwhites.
    -More repetition. (White hostility to non-white people…not a big problem in America…)
    -The reverse racism ploy.

    I did quite a few posts about the Charleston Church atrocity. Do you really think this is the only place where I, or my stable of writers, write? The forgiveness by the victims was the ususual twist in the story. The whole “Dylann Roof psychotic racist story” was way more than adequately covered in the rest of the country’s media. By the way, the best coverage of that horror appeared in the right-wing media; the left-wing media had only the most predictable of pap. And the RGI — the race addicts who were actually happy that the atrocity happened — said only the most perfectly predictable crap.

    -No proof to claims mentioned but expects reader to believe they’re true.
    -Cheerleading for the right.
    -Venomous blaming of a nonexistent entity with, again, no proof to claims.

    It was not a tragedy, it was an atrocity. There’s a difference. A tragedy is when a hurricane or tornado or earthquake rolls through. An atrocity is when horror happens that is perpetrated by a human being. Your carelessness with language, and your lack of command of vocabulary indicate sloppiness in thinking as well. No wonder you’re a leftist and a racist!

    -Pointless and pompous word and definition clarification in a petty attempt to correct the commenter.
    -Classless condescension of the commenter following the clarification.

    Lol! Wow! days before? I guess I can predict the future? Do you know how ridiculous you sound? I write against the RGI, because they’re a bunch of bigoted bastards, like you. On the other hand, we’ve written more than 20,000 pages of posts and commentary in this blog, and you won’t be able to find even one teentsy-weentsy, tiny scintilla of evidence that we support “white supremacists and white nationalists.” You know why? Because we don’t and never did. Stop being a moron. You, on the other hand, are, obviously, a black supremacist.

    -More repetition (The use of the words “bigoted bastard”)
    -Denial.
    -Name-calling and more condescension.

    I’ll repeat: we’ve written more than 20,000 pages of posts and commentary in this blog, and you won’t be able to find even one teentsy-weentsy, tiny scintilla of evidence that we support “white racism, or any other kind of racism.” You know why you won’t be able to find that? Because we don’t support racism of any kind. We condemn it all. Go ahead… find me one teeny, tiny piece of evidence that we support white racism here. And don’t be making more crap up.

    -More repetition as expected with the same points as mentioned.

    Moron: the “rest of the world” is… the rest of the world, including even the left-wing media. All that we on the Right did was say, “We told you so… you should have waited until we had more information!” Which was true.

    -Name-calling.
    -Denial.

    Again: “we’ve written more than 20,000 pages of posts and commentary in this blog, and you won’t be able to find even one teentsy-weentsy, tiny scintilla of evidence that we believe that “EVERY black person killed by a cop or vigilante DESERVED IT.”

    Two other quick notes: (1) “existential white innocence” doesn’t mean anything. You’re big with meaningless phrases. And (2) Zimmerman isn’t white. Moron. He’s Hispanic.

    -Stuck on more repetition.
    -Anti-intellectual and childish clapbacks.
    -Details, details.

    Meaningless, irrelevant speculation. Funny, though, coming from you, the racism trafficker.

    -Undeserved smugness and arrogance.
    -Name-calling.

    I don’t have prejudices to own up to as you do. Of course no one’s immune to bigotry and racism. Duh! And, I am prejudiced against certain people: If, for example, you were to tell me you were a Nazi, or that you fancy ISIS, or that you think Al Qaeda’s all cool, I’d be prejudiced against you, because you’d be signalling that you’re a bad person. I’ve never been prejudiced against anyone because of the color of his skin. Ever. Or for any other superficial reason either.

    -Denial.
    -Unwittingly cancelling out his own dismissal of having prejudices by saying that no one’s immune to bigotry and racism not knowing that that includes himself, and proceeds to cancelling it out by admitting his prejudices against hate and terrorist groups.
    -Juvenile use of the word “duh”.

    Nope. I never try to hurt anyone. You do have to admit it’s clever, though. Especially after all the cloddish things you’ve called us!

    -Denial.
    -Believing saying “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is clever even though it hasn’t been original for ages.
    -Undeserved victimization.

    1. You Said:
      [Quoting Me]The problem is that you don’t call out racism and bigotry, you traffick in it. You’re a racist because you’re a racist. You’re the new racist. As we have said here: Te new racists will come waving the banner of anti-racism. That’s you.
      [End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-Repetition: “You’re a racist! You’re a racist! You’re a racist!” vitriol.
      “It is, because I say so” blather. “

      My Reply:
      Seriously? You’re going to tst tsk at someone because of repetition?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]The people who comment in your blog are virulent, bigoted racists. If they’re your friends, then I do, indeed, know who and what your friends are.
      The rest of your paragraph is ridiculously stupid. Again, you don’t denounce bigotry, you traffick in it. You’re a racism and bigotry pusher, and you’re a racism addict yourself.
      [End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]:
      -More repetition.
      -Baseless accusations about people you never tried to converse with but talked down based on a subject you clearly chose to emotionally personalize.
      -Calling something stupid just because you say so.”

      My Reply:
      Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out for repetition?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.
      Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out on baseless accusations?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.
      Seriously? You, the race addict and racism pusher, are going to call anyone out for emotionally personalizing an issue?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –
      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]Wilson, Zimmerman and the Covington kids are innocent because they’re, well… innocent, and for no other reason. I struck out the really stupid stuff for you. I don’t stick up for white people, I stick up for good, or innocent, or falsely-accused people.

      There are few posts on our blog “condemning anything that a white person has done that was harmful to nonwhites” for a couple of very simple reasons: (1) As I’ve amply demonstrated, white hostility to non-white people is just not a big problem in America today, and (2) such things are amply covered elsewhere. We don’t write about things that are more than adequately covered in numerous other outlets and publications. If I were to write only on what you want me to cover, I’d never write about the big story of racism in America today: hatred of white people because of their race. [End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-More, “It is, because I say so” blather.
      -Calling something stupid just because you say so.
      -Inadvertently associating white people with “goodness” and “innocence”.
      -No proof provided to claim condemnation of whites for harmful actions against nonwhites.
      -More repetition. (White hostility to non-white people…not a big problem in America…)
      -The reverse racism ploy.”

      My Reply:
      This was just flailing. If you believe any of the nonsense you just wrote, then there’s no point in my wasting any more time with you, because you’re plainly ignorant and uninformed. the only other possible conclusion is you following through on your stated goal of sucking up our bandwidth.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]I did quite a few posts about the Charleston Church atrocity. Do you really think this is the only place where I, or my stable of writers, write? The forgiveness by the victims was the ususual twist in the story. The whole “Dylann Roof psychotic racist story” was way more than adequately covered in the rest of the country’s media. By the way, the best coverage of that horror appeared in the right-wing media; the left-wing media had only the most predictable of pap. And the RGI — the race addicts who were actually happy that the atrocity happened — said only the most perfectly predictable crap. [End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-No proof to claims mentioned but expects reader to believe they’re true.
      -Cheerleading for the right.
      -Venomous blaming of a nonexistent entity with, again, no proof to claims.”

      My Reply:
      Yes, we cheerlead for the Right. Because we on the Right are, well… right. There is, obviously, no such thing as “Venomous blaming of a nonexistent entity“. If an entity doesn’t esixt, then no harm can come of “blaming” it. As for proof of my claims, how can one prove higher math to a second-grader? The second-grader has to become much more educated before he can understand higher reasoning. I don’t have time to educate you, BW.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –
      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]It was not a tragedy, it was an atrocity. There’s a difference. A tragedy is when a hurricane or tornado or earthquake rolls through. An atrocity is when horror happens that is perpetrated by a human being. Your carelessness with language, and your lack of command of vocabulary indicate sloppiness in thinking as well. No wonder you’re a leftist and a racist![End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-Pointless and pompous word and definition clarification in a petty attempt to correct the commenter.
      -Classless condescension of the commenter following the clarification. “

      My Reply:
      I never said I’m not pompous. As for classless? I’m in the middle class, so this is wrong on the face of it. Okay, okay… it’s just another time when BW uses a word that can be ambiguous, and in the context of our argument, is… wrong. You should have said something like “graceless” or “malicious.” The first would have been accurate — it was graceless — the second would have been wrong — we write nothing in malice — but being way out-in-left-field wrong has never stopped you from saying things before!

      Furthermore, your sloppy use of language does make many of your posts either ambiguous or incoherent. That can’t possibly be what you intend, so why don’t you take (1) a writing course, and (2) a vocabulary-building course. I mean, it’s obvious what you want to do: use the hip, cool words of the Left. The problem is that the Left coins terms deliberately to be vague. “Institutional Racism” means… nothing. Yet, the Left and its sheep-like followers, use the term all the time. “White Supremacy” might have meant something 60 years ago, but it’s gone. “White Privilege” means exactly nothing except for what the racist leftist wants it to mean at any given moment. The Left does this to make for unfalsifiable things. You can’t disprove something if it has no meaning. Disprove what you think is it, and the leftist will say only that it means something else. You do that all the time.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]Lol! Wow! days before? I guess I can predict the future? Do you know how ridiculous you sound? I write against the RGI, because they’re a bunch of bigoted bastards, like you. On the other hand, we’ve written more than 20,000 pages of posts and commentary in this blog, and you won’t be able to find even one teentsy-weentsy, tiny scintilla of evidence that we support “white supremacists and white nationalists.” You know why? Because we don’t and never did. Stop being a moron. You, on the other hand, are, obviously, a black supremacist. [End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-More repetition (The use of the words “bigoted bastard”)
      -Denial.
      -Name-calling and more condescension.”

      My Reply:
      Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out on Denial?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.
      Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out on name-calling?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.
      Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out on condescension?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.

      Lolololololllll! I remember you — who don;t know me from Adam — telling me all about myself, my education, my character, my integrity, what I know and don’t know, assuming you know more about black Americans than I do, and more. Now, you accuse me of condescension?!?!?! You’re funny.

      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –
      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]I’ll repeat: we’ve written more than 20,000 pages of posts and commentary in this blog, and you won’t be able to find even one teentsy-weentsy, tiny scintilla of evidence that we support “white racism, or any other kind of racism.” You know why you won’t be able to find that? Because we don’t support racism of any kind. We condemn it all. Go ahead… find me one teeny, tiny piece of evidence that we support white racism here. And don’t be making more crap up. [End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-More repetition as expected with the same points as mentioned.”
      My Reply:
      And yet, there they are, 20,000 pages of completely public record. They’re taunting you. They’re looking you right in the eye and saying, “You’re a liar and a scounderl and a racist and a phony, and worse. You’re a race addict, and a racism pusher.” And there we are, defying you. Go ahead… find something that you think shows that we “support white racism“. I’ll wait. No, I won’t I’ll have a very long wait, (1) because you won’t do it, and (2) because even if you were to do it, you wouldn’t find anything, because we are unanimous here in condemning all racism. Always have been, always will be. You’re a fraud, BW, and you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]Moron: the “rest of the world” is… the rest of the world, including even the left-wing media. All that we on the Right did was say, “We told you so… you should have waited until we had more information!” Which was true. [End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-Name-calling.
      -Denial.”

      My Reply:
      Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out on name-calling?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.
      Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out on denial?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –
      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]Again: “we’ve written more than 20,000 pages of posts and commentary in this blog, and you won’t be able to find even one teentsy-weentsy, tiny scintilla of evidence that we believe that “EVERY black person killed by a cop or vigilante DESERVED IT.”

      Two other quick notes: (1) “existential white innocence” doesn’t mean anything. You’re big with meaningless phrases. And (2) Zimmerman isn’t white. Moron. He’s Hispanic. [End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-Stuck on more repetition.
      -Anti-intellectual and childish clapbacks.
      -Details, details.”

      My Reply:
      Yep. In this case I repeated: There are 20,000 pages of public record out there, mocking your scurrilous libels and accusations. They’re still out there, and they’re still mocking you. Go ahead, find something in them that even hints at the notion that your accusations about us might be true.

      Oh, and the fact that George Zimmerman is Hispanic is not a “detail.” I don’t expect you to know this, but as soon as it came out that Zimmerman was Hispanic, after all the leftist media had reported that he was white, those same leftist media had to scrabble desperately to save the narrative they’d fabricated. So they invented the “white Hispanic,” and presto-changeo, Zimmerman was back to being white! Just like that! Except, the problem was that Zimmerman was non-white. Hispanic, actually.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]I don’t have prejudices to own up to as you do. Of course no one’s immune to bigotry and racism. Duh! And, I am prejudiced against certain people: If, for example, you were to tell me you were a Nazi, or that you fancy ISIS, or that you think Al Qaeda’s all cool, I’d be prejudiced against you, because you’d be signalling that you’re a bad person. I’ve never been prejudiced against anyone because of the color of his skin. Ever. Or for any other superficial reason either.[End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-Denial.
      -Unwittingly cancelling out his own dismissal of having prejudices by saying that no one’s immune to bigotry and racism not knowing that that includes himself, and proceeds to cancelling it out by admitting his prejudices against hate and terrorist groups.
      -Juvenile use of the word “duh”. “

      My Reply:
      Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out on denial?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.

      The “canceling” thing is just funny. I said that “no one’s immune to prejudices.” I’m (we’re) simply not possessed of the prejudice against anyone’s skinn color. We are, indeed, prejudiced against bad people and racists. You’re, obviously, not prejudiced against bad people, being one yourself, and having some really bad friends, but you are, as you demonstrate constantly, prejudiced against people merely based on the color of their skin. You’re a racist. Duh!
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –
      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]Meaningless, irrelevant speculation. Funny, though, coming from you, the racism trafficker. [End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-Undeserved smugness and arrogance.
      -Name-calling.”

      My Reply:
      I resent that! My smugness and arrogance are well-deserved! I wallopped you (rhetorically) around the block, down the street into the next county!

      And: Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out for name-calling?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.

      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      You Said:
      [Quoting Me]Nope. I never try to hurt anyone. You do have to admit it’s clever, though. Especially after all the cloddish things you’ve called us![End of Quote]
      [BW then replied]: “-Denial.
      -Believing saying “wolf in sheep’s clothing” is clever even though it hasn’t been original for ages.
      -Undeserved victimization. “

      My Reply:
      Seriously? You’re going to call anyone out for denial?!?!?!? That’s like Shaquille O’Neal trying to shame someone for being tall.

      And: if you’re going to try to shame me, at least quote me correctly. I said: “sheep in wolf’s clothing!That’s what I claimed to be original. And it is. I’d never seen it before I coined it. I’m sure that someone else thought of it too, but it was original to me in the context in which I used it, and it was, indeed, clever.

      “Undeserved victimization” doesn’t mean anything. And this would be rich coming from you, who try all the time to appropriate for yourself the suffering of people who are long dead. In so doing, you commit an egregious act of theft that you should be deeply ashamed of. A real man would be deeply ashamed of it. You never had to put up with slavery. You were not kidnapped, or dragged frm your country against your will. You were never chained, or whipped by a white person. You were never sold to someone else. You never belonged to someone else. for you to try to claim victimization for yourself from that long ago past is disgraceful and shameful.

      The only reason I’d offer you a pass on that is because you, sheep-like and unthinking, have swallowed the propaganda of the Left and of the Race Grievance Industry, telling you that you are a victim because of the sufferings of people more than a century and a half ago. Sufferings you never had to endure. You ought to be deeply ashamed of yourself.
      – * – * – * – * – * – *- * – * – * – * – * –

      Best,

      — x

        1. Lol!

          Never a dull Sunday! Not where I am!

          I hope you’re having a very fine one! I also hope that BW’s having a very fine one.

          In case you’re wondering, and in case I haven’t mentioned it. I’m simply addressing BW as he addressed me (us) for years, in what I hope is a tactic that will shake him from his default way of addressing those who differ from him. That default way is, by the way: to call the dissenter, “Racist!!!

          Best,

          — x

          1. Not a problem for me.. your blog to be sure. Makes following a bit of a test.. but we do what we do. Hope your Sunday is going well, also.

        1. ‘Bout time.

          To a brainwashed toddler, everyone else sounds like a brainwashed toddler. It’s not surprising that you’d confess that you have no argument in this manner. The Left is rarely man enough to own up to their own shortcomings.

          Good riddance. You had nothing to say, and you constantly said it at great length.

          Best,

          — x

          1. [Editor’s note: I’m doing something a little different here. What follows is BW’s plagiarized piles of text from web sites of leftists, Race Grievance Industry personnel, Marxists and other assorted cranks. Including one dude who admits outright that he’s a leftist! (He says he’s a: “Dad, partner, engaged citizen, opinionated writer, leftist, PhD student..” Wow! There’s a credible source!]

            [I’ve edited it down — it was immense — to remove the fluff, and to address the arguments, such as there are, contained herein. So, the result is my reply within Brothawolf’s (BW’s) post. My contributions are in square brackets and italicized, while BW’s are not.]

            [Editor’s note: Deleted: Covered many times before]

            [Editor’s note: Deleted: Covered many times before]

            Here it is. Now kindly, shut the hell up about not giving you proof:

            [Editor’s Note: Here’s where BW makes yet another of his ubiquitous strawmen arguments. Needless to say, we’ve never asked for proof, but rather for convincing evidence. Or, we’ve asked for persuasive arguments. In this post, BW offers a bunch of evidence for his points… none of it very convincing. Whereas, we’ve offered reams and reams and reams and reams of real evidence, real arguments, that BW simply… ignored.]

            [Editor’s Note: Deleted: It was a long passage that was plagiarized — without attribution — from… Ben and Jerry’s Ben and Jerry’s makes… ice cream. Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield are Marxists, and known to be, well, crazy. Interestingly, somewhere in this or the next selection that BW plagiarized, one of the “sources” said that he was “proving that racism exists.” Ooooohhh… how insightful, since we never suggested that it doesn’t. Duh!]

            Here’s more:

            [Editor’s Note: Deleted: It was a long passage that was plagiarized — without attribution — from… The Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project. The legitimacy of this advocacy group is unknown Many times, we’ve told BW that if he’s going to cite sources, then they need to be sources that we can all agree are strong, without having to dig deeply. I, for example have often cited writers in National Review Online, a well-known partisan magazine, but one that is highly respected throughout the world for its scrupulous adherence to best polemical practices. If a writer in National Review states a fact, you can be sure that it is widely accepted to be a true fact. I read through the original that BW plagiarized, and it was long and shot through with assertions that didn’t lead to BW’s conclusion.]

            Still not enough? Well…

            [Editor’s Note: Deleted: It was a long passage that was plagiarized — without attribution — from… some guy named Isaac Saul at aplus.com, whatever the heck that is. I looked a bit at the blog, and saw that he appears to be a conventional leftist. In other words: a racist decrying racism. As we have often said: The new racists will come waving the banner of anti-racism. This guy appears to be one of them. He says in his tagline that he’s “Taking on the idea that racism no longer exists.“. And, of course, no Conservative ever tried to argue that racism doesn’t exist, so this brave soul is out there battling against a non-existent notion. Shouldn’t be all that difficult to beat an argument that no one’s making, eh Mr. Saul? 🙂 ]

            See if this sounds familiar. It should, you LOVE to repeat it.

            [Editor’s Note: BW next plagiarizes the guy who proclaims himself to be a leftist, among other things. It’s published in the HuffPost. Well, this one’s easy: if National Review Online is illegitimate, because it’s a partisan Conservative publication, then, well, HuffPost is, obviously, illegitimate too. So are the previous sources that BW plagiarized.]

            Some more info…

            [Editor’s Note: Deleted. This was plagiarized — without attribution — from, ready for this? Bustle.com. That’s apparently a blog that concerns itself with news, entertainment, beauty, fashion, lifestyle, books, tech, food, features, video.” Bustle’com’s writer, from whom BW plagiarized, a certain Mia Mercado, describes herself thusly: “I’m a human woman living in Kansas City, working on freelance writing and self-control while eating chips. If I had to describe myself in three words, I probably wouldn’t.. Well! I surely want to get my education on race-related issues from someone working on her self-control while eating chips! That’s a source!]

            Still not viable to you?

            [Editor’s Note: Deleted. This was plagiarized — without attribution — from, ready for this? Project Race. Okay! Well! I’m sure That’s a source we can all trust! No evidence that it’s just a Race Grievance Industry offshoot at all! The essay that BW plagiarized was written by one “Susan G.” Now, there’s a source you can trust! Susan G linked us to a page that… didn’t exist. Credible stuff this! BW then found more in the same vein — and he plagiarized it — at “youthlaw.org.” I don’t know who they are. Interestingly there’s an outfit in my home state of Connecticut that calls itself “Connecticut Voices for Children.”‘ Awwww, right? They’re really a fraud organization that uses the way too cute name to get in the door of your head and heart, at which they do nothing but lobby for hard-left positions at the state capital. Is “youthlaw.org” such a fraud organization? I don’t know. But that’s the point. I never heard of ’em, so I’m not going to accept them as a source until I know whether they’re legitimate. Hence, their content is… illegitimate. Anyone can quote anyone. Doesn’t mean it means anything. Finally: the author of the “youthlaw.org” piece is: Thera Naiman was a 2012 Communications Intern at NCYL. She is a junior at Swarthmore College, majoring in History. Well, there ya go! Let’s all let a junior History major at Swarthmore tell us all about race relations in the U.S!!!]

            Here’s the last bit of info:

            [Editor’s Note: Deleted. This was plagiarized — without attribution — from The Huffington Post/i>. Wait, wait, wait… I thought that National Review Online wasn’t legit because it was a “right-wing publication!” So, how can HuffPo be okay? It can’t. After this blizzard of plagiarism and pathetically unconvincing pap, BW finishes with the plaintive thing below.]

            If you won’t accept this, then simply don’t demand proof, because you’re just going to reject it anyway.

            [That was almost funny coming from you, who rejected every offer of sources that I ever posted! And, since we’ve never demanded proof, but rather convincing or persuasive evidence, then you have no need to worry… we’ll never demand proof from you. However, could you at least try to come up with some convincing evidence? Or even some mildly persuasive evidence? If, as you say, there’s so much of it out there, you’ ve got to be able to do better than the leftist, racist, marxist-junior-history-major-at-Swarthmore-trying-to-learn-self-control-while-eating-chips rank amateurs you compiled here.]

            Best,

            — x

  11. Brothawolf’s Reply:

    [Editor’s Note: Again we’re including my reply in BW’s comment, to consolidate things. BW wrote the below in response to my last post which pilloried his post because, well, because it was ridiculous. BW posted commentary from, among others, bustle.com, as well as a “Junior history major at Swarthmore,” or the like. Needless to say, I was less than impressed by his sources, and I informed BW of that. He used my justifiable skepticism to pretend that I’d accept no sources. No. I accept legitimate sources! However, when I’ve cited sources — such as National Review Online — BW has rejected them outright as partisan or “right-wing.” Hence, I refuse, quite reasonably I think, to accept anything less than at least National Review Online-level sources. The problem is that the Left is unable to produce anything of the quality of National Review Online.]
    – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * – * –

    BW Wrote (with some commentary in brackets):
    Um. I DID say that none of the information I posted was mine. [Editor’s Note: Nope. You posted without attribution. I had to find out who wrote the snorg you posted for myself.]

    Also, this PROVES that no amount of information about racism no matter where it comes from will be enough or valid enough for you to consider. [Editor’s Note: BW pretends that since I don’t accept laughably ludicrous sources, then I don’t accept any sources. This is, of course, untrue.] As such, you also show that you don’t care about the subject of racism unless white people are victims in your mind. And you have made it clear. [Editor’s Note: Again, BW makes a conclusion that (1) ignores any other possibilities, (2) is not supported by his arguments, (3) is a fabricated strawman, (4) ignores all the evidence I’ve presented that support the exact opposite of BW’s conclusion.]

    Therefore, you are NOT someone to discuss race issues with as it’s obvious that you’re a racist, white nationalist apologist and all-around right wing troll with a blog. [Editor’s Note: Obviously, BW never “discussed race issues,” he called us names, then got all whiny and upset when we adopted his very tactics. Also, BW adopts the usual tactics of the Left: We do nothing but condemn white nationalism (a tiny movement in America), so what does BW do? Of course: accuses us of being “white nationalist apologists!” The Left is full of idiots.]

    1. Oh, and Dude, you can’t post a bunch of laughably ludicrous crap which, obviously, anyone with more than half-a-brain would reject, and pretend that I won’t accept anything by way of evidence.

      I have cited people like National Review Online, yes, but also, the FBI, the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, the New York Times, well-known right-wing intellectuals, well-known left-wing intellectuals… people and publications respected by most serious people. People and publications with a long history and with well-known reputations.

      Go back and look at the sources you quoted. Look, they might be brilliant! They might be great! But no one can know that without their having some history behind them. And your sources sure looked cheesy and sketchy. Honestly they looked embarrassingly pathetic.

      That’s why I don’t allow people to use this blog as a source. Oh, we have a lot of history — but in other endeavors and areas and media. We get cited as sources all the time — just not in the context of this blog, and that’s exactly how we like it.

      So, again, go back and look at whom you cited as sources in your previous rant that I edited way down, and you tell me why I should accept them as sources, when you won’t accept National Review Online, which is probably the most respected commentary publication in the world…. by the Right and the Left.

      Best,

      — x

          1. Look, I’m being serious here. Im not calling you names or belittling you in anyway. I genuinely want to know from your perspective as to why the subject of racism sets you off whenever we’re talking about racism against black people or non-whites in general.

            Don’t say that it’s not a big deal. You say that hundreds of times. I want to know why you think it’s emotionally wrong for me to talk about and reject white racism.

          2. The subject of racism doesn’t set me, or anyone else here, off. Incorrect or libelous or harmful things said about race and racism set me (us) off, because… well, because they’re incorrect, libelous and harmful.

            You’ve frequently said incorrect, libelous, harmful things about white people and about race and about racism. I’ve called you on it. That’s all.

            It’s not wrong for you to talk about and reject white racism… we talk about and reject white racism as well. We talk about and reject all racism. You’re racist. You shouldn’t be surprised that we might have some less than charitable words for you.

            It is wrong of you to say wrong things about white racism. You pretend that it’s a big problem in America. It’s not, and we’ve shown that convincingly.

            You and your commenters have made generalization after generalization about white people — generalizations that if a white person were to make them about black people, would be called by their correct name: racist crap.

            We pointed all that out to you, and you responded by going on a multi-year binge of calling us names, pretending to read our minds, questioning our integrity, our honesty, our intelligence, our sanity and our education level.

            That was wrong and indecent of you. And I (we) called you on it.

            And we pointed out where you were wrong with what you were saying when you weren’t calling us names or insulting us.

            Best,

            — x

          3. You are clearly agitated by by question. You may deny it, but it shows in your response that you were touched emotionally by my question. Even though you never said how it bothered you as a person, it still shows that you were still bothered one way or another.

            And I just want to know why it bothers you in particular.

            And xpraetorious, I’ve checkout your entries regarding race, race relations, black people, white people, etc. and I’ve never seen one post where you’ve objected white racism. In contrast, you’ve objected those whom have objected white racism and lumped them all into boxes to be rejected.

            I’ve seen them and read them. So, there’s no use in telling me that I’m wrong or lying, because I know what you wrote. And calling me names just further proves that you are indeed emotionally charged by the subject.

            Denial won’t help. And saying that usual statement you love to say won’t help. As I told you that saying it until infinity won’t make it objectively true. It’s still your opinion.

            Notice how I never called you names or became hostile to you in anyway in this current conversation. Yes, I did in the past, far and recent, but not now. I hoped you would do the same and leave it alone for once in order to get a straight answer from you, and not the same “racism isn’t a major problem anymore” mantra you keep chanting. All it shows is that racism isn’t a major problem to you and you only.

            So, I’ll ask again, what is it about me and other people denouncing white racism that you’re afraid of or that sets you off as you keep doing?

          4. Dude: I told you what “sets me off” — it’s wrong, libelous or harmful things said about racism. The thing about you that “sets me off” is that you write a lot of wrong, libelous and harmful things on the topic of race. (Btw, none of that really “sets me off,” it’s merely something that needs to be addressed so I (we) do it.)

            If you don’t want to believe me, that’s your privilege… but you’re wrong. I don’t need to say it again.

            However, your attempts at mind-reading are, again, nothing more than attempts at mind-reading. It never works, it’s never right, and it’s always ridiculously presumptuous. Besides, you don’t have to try to read my mind; I’ll tell you what I think.

            As for why we don’t write a lot about white racism, I already told you that too. It’s not a big problem in America. We write about big problems.

            If you want to pretend that it’s only to me that it’s not a big problem, that’s also your prerogative. You’re wrong, though, and I provided mountains of evidence to that effect.

            Furthermore, the idea that white racism is bad has been way more than adequately covered in the recent and not so recent past. I (we) have nothing to add to it. As a result, we focus more on the largely uncovered field of non-white hostility directed at white people, which is, indeed, a huge problem in America, and one that’s largely unrecognized. There’s very little coverage of that topic at all, though we’re noticing more and more of it as more and more black people especially recognize that white hostility directed toward non-white people is just not a big problem in America anymore.

            “That statement that I like so much…” is that the “If you get an education, learn to speak well, etc” statement? If so, I’ve never denied that it’s my opinion. This is an opinion blog. We post think pieces about issues that are under discussion today.

            Best,

            — x

          5. Okay. I’ll ask again.

            How is talking about and being against white racism wrong and highly upsetting to you aside from the number of times I talked about it?

          6. Okay, I’ll say it again: your saying wrong things about white racism is what I address.

            Nothing that you’ve ever said has ever upset me.

            Best,

            — x

          7. Two things are wrong with what you wrote: (1) You can never know whether anyone’s lying, and (2) nothing you’ve ever written has ever upset me.

            How do you know that my recent change of tone with you isn’t simply a change of rhetorical tactics?

            Serious question.

            ‘Cause, if it was, then it appears to have worked. 🙂

            And a serious answer from you will finally include some indication that you’ll never use the word “lie,” or any of its variants online again.

            Let’s be more plainspoken: Since you can never know an online interlocutor’s intent, you should never, ever use the word “lie” or any of its variants online.

            I grant you that same consideration. You’ll note that I extremely rarely, if ever, call you a liar. Don’t do it yourself.

            Best,

            — x

          8. [Deleted: Covered numerous times before.]

            I never called you a liar. I said how you were lying about how you are feeling based on your responses. And as an American, I have every right to question your thoughts and beliefs as you do with me or anything else.

          9. Dude: when you say that I’m lying, you imply that I’m a liar. Do you really not get that?

            And, yes, you have every right to question my thoughts and beliefs, but you should try to make at least a teentsy effort not to ask idiotic questions.

            Best,

            — x

          10. Forget my last question. I’ll rephrase it.

            What happened to you that makes you get upset when people, including myself, discuss and denounce racism by whites?

          11. Nothing happened to me that makes me get upset when people, including you, discuss and denounce racism by whites. I’ve never been upset by anyone discussing or denouncing racism by anyone.

            When you say wrong, libelous and harmful things about race, I address that.

            Nothing that you’ve ever said has ever upset me.

            Best,

            — x

          12. Again, you should never use the word “lie,” or any of its variants in any online interaction. You can never know whether your interlocutor truly believes what he’s saying, in which case he’s not lying.

            The less meaningless speculation you include in your writing and analysis, the better at all times.

            Best,

            — x

          13. Okay “dude”, this is the internet. I don’t take it as seriously as apparently you do, and you’re just going to have to accept that. Also, again, this is the internet and I can say whatever.

          14. Let’s bounce that back to you: Why do you assume that there has to have been an incident in my life that caused me to believe as I do, as opposed simply to a general, life-long interest in current events, American history and world events and history?

            I’ve had those interests for decades, since I was a young child.

            Best,

            — x

          15. So, ilI’ ask again. What happened that made you upset whenever the subject of racism by whites comes up that you will constantly and repeatedly claim that it’s not a big deal or major problem anymore in this country to where no amount of proof to the contrary will convince you otherwise?

          16. Nothing happened, except that white racism went from being a big deal in this country to not being a big deal in this country anymore.

            I observed that, and when you said that it was still a big deal, I pointed out that you’re wrong.

            Then I pretty persuasively demonstrated that I was right.

            So, that’s what happened.

            Oh, and nothing you’ve ever written has ever upset me.

            Best,

            — x

Leave a Reply to Brothawolf Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s