Saturday, July 28, 2012


HOW and WHY 
did WE get SADDLED 
with OBAMA?

A beaten slave c. 1860


Kid asked his own version of that question today in a post called
I want My Universe Back at his blog Diary of a Right Wing Pussycat.


I'll try to answer the question and not be too ponderous in the process, but what I'm about to say I imagine you may already know.

Once upon a time and not so very long ago, white people of European and British ancestry really did commit atrocities on "people of color" all over the world.

White people assumed they were far superior to others for two reasons primarily.

1. THEY had Christianity and were, therefore, the proud practitioners of the one and only "true" religion.

2. THEY were by NATURE more creative, inventive, bold, daring and assertive than the other groups, so it was only natural that a Might Makes Right mentality would arise and take firm hold. "Manifest Destiny" is a primary example of this ethos.
 




WELL, to make a long, hideously complex story short,
eventually those misguided policies, despite all the tremendous good they produced, came around and bit the self-conceived, self-promoted Master Race on its collective ass.

People, whether inferior or "less advanced" or not, don't LIKE to be dominated, exploited, and treated worse than dogs. White people of conscience realized what was being done, saw the error in it, and strove to correct the situation.


The result is that we now have this insolent half-man, half-savage and his greedy, emotionally immature wife with the tastes and inclinations of a spoiled teenager manipulated by demonic do-gooders into the White House, and MOST of our "educated" class thinks –– with some
justification, I have to admit! –– that whatever ill befalls us as a result of these self-righteous reformers forcing punitive –– even ruinous –– reforms on White Christian Capitalists and the brilliant society they produced is not only totally JUSTIFIED, but absolutely NECESSARY.

That's as succinct an explanation as I could muster.

I can only add hoping to mollify the indignation of our conservative friends somewhat that
TWO WRONGS HAVE NEVER HAVE –– and NEVER WILL –– MAKE A RIGHT

Which means in plain English that supplanting one form of racism, institutionalized injustice and despotism with another does nothing to advance the cause of Civilization.

Nevertheless, i order to promote better understanding a perusal of this horrifying, admittedly biased website chronicling stories of slaves who had been severely abused and tortured by their masters and mistresses is sadly revealing. While it seems obvious these stories were not written by former slaves in their own words, I believe the sum and substance of these accounts to be as true as any of the stories we’ve received from survivors of The Holocaust.

A random sample of what may be found at this site does much to explain why Barack Obama sits with impunity as our criminally abusive overseer today:

Testimony of Elizabeth Keckley quoted in Thirty Years a Slave (1868)

When I was about fourteen years old I went to live with my master's eldest son, a Presbyterian minister. His salary was small, and he was burdened with a helpless wife, a girl that he had married in the humble walks of life. She was morbidly sensitive, and imagined that I regarded her with contemptuous feelings because she was of poor parentage. I was their only servant, and a gracious loan at that. They were not able to buy me, so my old master sought render them assistance by allowing them the benefit of my services. From the very first I did the work of three servants, and yet I was scolded and regarded with distrust.



The years passed slowly, and I continued to serve them, and at the same time grew into strong, healthy womanhood. I was nearly eighteen when we removed from Virginia to Hillsboro', North Carolina, where young Mr. Burwell took charge of a church. The salary was small, and we still had to practise the closest economy. Mr. Bingham, a hard, cruel man, the village schoolmaster, was a member of my young master's church, and he was a frequent visitor to the parsonage. She whom I called mistress seemed to be desirous to wreak vengeance on me for something, and Bingham became her ready tool.



During this time my master was unusually kind to me; he was naturally a good-hearted man, but was influenced by his wife. It was Saturday evening, and while I was bending over the bed, watching the baby that I had just hushed into slumber, Mr. Bingham came to the door and asked me to go with him to his study. Wondering what he meant by his strange request, I followed him, and when we had entered the study he closed the door, and in his blunt way remarked: "Lizzie, I am going to flog you." I was thunderstruck, and tried to think if I had been remiss in anything. I could not recollect of doing anything to deserve punishment, and with surprise exclaimed: "Whip me, Mr. Bingham! what for?"



"No matter," he replied, "I am going to whip you, so take down your dress this instant."



Recollect, I was eighteen years of age, was a woman fully developed, and yet this man coolly bade me take down my dress. I drew myself up proudly, firmly, and said: "No, Mr. Bingham, I shall not take down my dress before you. Moreover, you shall not whip me unless you prove the stronger. Nobody has a right to whip me but my own master, and nobody shall do so if I can prevent it."



My words seemed to exasperate him. He seized a rope, caught me roughly, and tried to tie me. I resisted with all my strength, but he was the stronger of the two, and after a hard struggle succeeded in binding my hands and tearing my dress from my back. Then he picked up a rawhide, and began to ply it freely over my shoulders. With steady hand and practiced eye he would raise the instrument of torture, nerve himself for a blow, and with fearful force the rawhide descended upon the quivering flesh. It cut the skin, raised great welts, and the warm blood trickled down my back. Oh God! I can feel the torture now--the terrible, excruciating agony of those moments. I did not scream; I was too proud to let my tormentor know what I was suffering. I closed my lips firmly, that not even a groan might escape from them, and I stood like a statue while the keen lash cut deep into my flesh.



As soon as I was released, stunned with pain, bruised and bleeding, I went home and rushed into the presence of the pastor and his wife, wildly exclaiming: "Master Robert, why did you let Mr. Bingham flog me? What have I done that I should be so punished?"
"Go away," he gruffly answered, "do not bother me."



I would not be put off thus. "What have I done? I will know why I have been flogged."



I saw his cheeks flush with anger, but I did not move. He rose to his feet, and on my refusing to go without an explanation, seized a chair, struck me, and felled me to the floor. I rose, bewildered, almost dead with pain, crept to my room, dressed my bruised arms and back as best I could, and then lay down, but not to sleep. No, I could not sleep, for I was suffering mental as well as bodily torture. My spirit rebelled against the unjustness that had been inflicted upon me, and though I tried to smother my anger and to forgive those who had been so cruel to me, it was impossible. It seems that Mr. Bingham had pledged himself to Mrs. Burwell to subdue what he called my "stubborn pride."


Please draw your own conclusions as to what effect this part of our history has had on present day political realities.

~ FreeThinke

118 comments:

  1. And for those really interested in seeking to answer the question posed I suggest a reading of Frederick Douglass. A slave self educated who was the first black man on a national ticket.

    Anyone reading Douglas that don't come away with a better understanding is either intellectually challenged, a bigot (racist) or both.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I have more to say on this topic, but I'm working against the clock a t'storms are approaching. I refuse to be online when storms move in!

    Anyway, HERE is the link I want to leave. You can go from there, FT.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The film The Gods Must Be Crazy well illustrates the different talents and interests of the white man and the black man, the latter of the Bushman tribe.

    Like it or not, different races and even different sub-races typically have different skills and talents.

    What has led our nation over the cliff with race relations is the constant promotion of white guilt. I have to ask this question: Why shouldn't there also be black guilt? Asian guilt? Irish guilt? And so on and so on.

    Furthermore, I categorically refuse to be drawn into Hatfields-and-McCoys feud based on race and past wrongs.

    I evaluate individuals on a basis other than race per se.

    There is no doubt in my mind that Obama's attitude is one of "It's our turn now." "Our" applies to both race and his Leftist ideology.

    And, yes, a lot of white people voted for Obama just to prove to themselves that they are not racists. Thus is the impact of the constant drum beat of "white guilt."

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Twas mercy brought me from my Pagan land,
    Taught my benighted soul to understand
    That there's a God, that there's a Saviour too:
    Once I redemption neither sought nor knew.
    Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
    "Their colour is a diabolic dye."
    Remember, Christians, Negroes, black as Cain,
    May be refin'd, and join th' angelic train."


    These lines written in polished iambic pentameter by Phyllis Wheatley (1753-1784), the first "African-American" poet, who was bought by a Boston family who taught her to read and write and encouraged her to develop her talents are very touching.

    I can't help but notice she gives grateful credit to her captors and "owners" for "refining" her, bringing her to meet The Lord, and for making it possible for her to "join th' angelic train" by which presumably she means find "Salvation."

    I can't help but wonder if the sentiments she expresses in terms so characteristically "English" could be completely sincere, but then -- unlike the hideous fate of so many other African Negroes sold into slavery by rival Negro tribesmen and Muslim slave traders -- she was treated kindly -- even altruistically -- by the, apparently enlightened, family who "bought" her.

    Thank you for bringing Miss Wheatley to our attention, AOW.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  5. Les,

    Where do you keep your "older posts" at Rational Nation? I responded to remarks made about Frederick Douglass the other day, and wanted to retrieve and share them here (doubtless with some modification or amplification!), but couldn't find them at your place.


    Sorry to appear so dense. You don't jettison your posts after they appear, do you?


    Unlike others, who deplore the practice, I find reusing remarks carefully phrased to address particular subjects to be a great saver of time and wear and tear on the nerves and fingertips.


    Anyway, thanks for coming here.


    Douglass was certainly singular -- possibly unique -- figure, and yes definitely worth studying.


    AOW is right, however, in discouraging "White Guilt" which is, of course, the central reason why we have now been force-fed and subsequently gobbled down the poison pill called Barack Hussein Obama.


    Marxism and characters like Lenin, Trotsky Stalin, Antonio Gramsci, The Fabians, The Frankfurters, Emma Goldman, Samuel Gompers, Saul Alinsky, “The New York Intellectuals,” Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, our own precious Ducky et al. have provided a FALSE and PERNICIOUS SOLUTION to the very real problems of Abuse and Injustice that have given rise to so much agony and destructive passion.


    Poet Matthew Arnold describes the futility of human conflict thusly in the last stanza of his famous poem Dover Beach:


    Ah, love, let us be true

    To one another! for the world, which seems

    To lie before us like a land of dreams,

    So various, so beautiful, so new,

    Hath really neither joy, nor love, nor light,

    Nor certitude, nor peace, nor help for pain;

    And we are here as on a darkling plain

    Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,

    Where ignorant armies clash by night.



    I sympathize intensely, but disagree with his exquisitely-phrased pessimism. The teachings of Jesus Christ -- when and if rightly understood -- have the power to save us from despair -- but only as individuals.


    The world will never change, but it is possible for us to change the way we choose to respond to it.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  6. Count up the votes from the "Gimmie, Gimme" crowd, the bleeding heart Progressives, along with the Blacks and you have your answer.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't think the agenda-driven left's motives go this deep.

    I think they perceive the right as racist and thereby driven crazy at the thought of a black man running the country.

    It is a constant thread running through their commentary.

    ReplyDelete
  8. And they said "it couln't happen here"

    ReplyDelete
  9. Slavery is bad, very bad. But for all the hype about enslaving people of color, have we forgotten, or do we simply choose to ignore the fact that enslaved whites far out-number enslaved blacks over the past 2,000 years. Are the lives of one group more precious than any other simply because of the color of their skin?

    And since we’re pondering uncomfortable questions, why do we ignore the fact that slavery continues to exist to this very day? Where do you think all those people went whose faces appear on milk cartons? Why is there no outrage about the numbers of women sold as slaves into sex businesses? Why do we ignore the fact that the Democratic Party continues to champion the enslavement of American blacks to government largesse? And why do blacks “go willingly” into the dark recesses of political enslavement?

    ~Louie

    ReplyDelete
  10. Both you and Debonair Dude are correct, SilverFiddle, on the surface level, but even if the "thinking" prevalent today does not take this detailed a look at our historical background into consideration, that background has CERTAINLY provided the foundation for virtually all the hand-wronging, fist-shaking, finger-pointing, axe-grinding and vicious undermining perversion of ideals we've suffered with leftist power-grabbing initiatives all my conscious life and long before.

    The Civil War was NOT the right way to correct admittedly grievous injustices. To state the all-too-true cliché one again: TWO WRONGS NEVER HAVE MADE A RIGHT.

    ALSO, it's important to note one of the few things in the Old Testament I DO believe in:

    "The SINS of the FATHERS SHALL BE VISITED on the SONS" ... for many succeeding generations.

    It may not be fair, but that's the way it is. Tell me when life has ever been "fair?"

    I's not fair that I happen to have beauty, brains, talent and money in abundance, when others don't, [That was intended to be funny, for all you humor-challenged types out there] but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

    Should I be expected to hide my light under a bushel to spare the feelings of others less wonderfully well endowed -- or splash acid on my face to ruin my peaches-and-cream complexion and distort my classically-chiseled features so the ill-favored might feel better about their pock marks, beetle brows, weak chins, crooked teeth, and oversized noses? [Keep laughing, you Rio Lindans. It's FUNNY. ;-] Don't be SILLY.

    It should be obvious that I am making an effort to be fair by providing historical examples that explain -- and appear to justify -- the abuses heaped on us by the left.

    It does us no good at all to proceed on long-held unreasoning assumptions without at least trying understand where they came from.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  11. You're trying to compare broomsticks with gear shifts, Louie. What you say is largely correct, but it doesn't relate specifically to the topic at hand.

    We're not trying to right all the wrongs in the world here, merely trying to understand why OUR country is where it is TODAY.

    And I wouldn't call reminding us of unpleasant truths about our past as "hype."

    AOW helped a great deal by providing an eloquent example of ANOTHER side to slavery -- not to try to justify it I'm sure, but to show that ALL of it was not as horrifying as the examples cited.

    If ALL the slaves had been treated as abominably as poor Elizabeth Keckley and the others whose stories appear at the website we linked, no work could ever have been accomplished with any degree of expertise or efficiency.

    That's the trouble, f course, with using only the most horrible examples you can find to try to carry a point. The Truth is never well served by any sort of polemicizing.
    ]
    Ay any rate, thanks for visiting, Louie. Please come as often as you like. We value a variety of opinions.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  12. You're dealing with two issues here.

    1. That group that can't deal with a nigra being commander in chief. Absolutely freaks them out.

    2. Those that can't believe that Obama didn't start to shuffle once he was made a house darkie.

    The stuff about him being a Muslim socialist who was born in Kenya is just noise to mask it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. ... and along comes Ducky to prove my point...

    "That group that can't deal with a nigra being commander in chief. Absolutely freaks them out."

    ReplyDelete
  14. I brought this up the other day, with some of my friends and got no response…. glad to see that everyone is on board now. We need to support like minded people instead of just talking and complaining about what is going on.
    I'm not afraid to say it. An extremely large amount of people voted for him because he's black. It's a sad truth. The bad part is that there are plenty of qualified black men/women that could have done the job but he's gonna have this country so screwed up when he's done that no matter if Romney wins or not, it's going to take at least 2 or 3 terms to get it back on the right track.
    But we have to start sometime and the faster the better.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Are you sure Ducky isn't on your payroll, SilverFiddle?

    :-) :-) :-) :-)

    (;-o

    ReplyDelete
  16. If you believe the buttburgers you drop have even so much as a scintilla of value and validity, Canardo, I have a ten-pound gold brick I'll give you made of genuine lead to add to your collection preposterous fabrications.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  17. No rational person can justify the treatment of slaves as depicted in this account, however fictional it may have been. Let us not assume that slavery stopped in 1863; Negroes suffered mightily under the Democratic Party from 1865 to 1965. I still remember “whites only” drinking fountains, restrooms, and food counters. Nowhere was racial discrimination worse than in places like Detroit, Boston, New York City, and Chicago —all of which continue to be stronghold of the Democratic Party.

    Nevertheless, I have to admit that Louie made an excellent point. Why do we sense deep anger from blacks who never experienced slavery —beyond the political slavery they endorse? I don’t hear the same whining from whites whose ancestors were enslaved or indentured.

    Now, I would ask for some perspective to the scenario presented. Were the men who beat slaves less stringent with their own families? We are aware of a peculiar type of man who simply likes to beat people over whom he exercises control or power. We find these kinds of people getting some perverse pleasure from the beatings they meted out to their slaves; we find the same kinds of men beating their wives, mistresses, their children, lesser men, and the ladies from the local social club. We find these same kinds of men beating their wives and abusing their children today.

    Now FT … I only mention this because there were benevolent slave owners; we just never hear about them. When finally “white people” understood the absurdity of slavery in a free society, we find a substantial increase in the number of children —harshly treated by their father who was trying to make his agri-business work.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Come on Freethinker. Obama is nothing more than the same shill we've seen since Reagan.

    Anyone willing to look can see it but the really violent hatred this guy inspires on the right (more than Bush received until he invaded Iraq) begs the question why.

    Just what is it that makes the fringe right absolutely apoplectic at the thought of this guy who is absolutely no different than Clinton or Bush?

    We do have to consider the obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Finally getting back here! But at least I had a pleasant afternoon at the swimming pool.

    Anyway, I didn't cite Wheatley as any kind of justification of slavery but rather to point out something that had surprised me when I first learned about this individual.

    I do find Sam's comment very insightful on several levels.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ducky said, “Anyone willing to look can see it but the really violent hatred this guy inspires on the right (more than Bush received until he invaded Iraq) begs the question why.”

    Ducky, have you forgotten how liberal media and the dead heads on the left went ape shit when they learned that Bush had a DUI while in college? Did you conveniently forget Dan Rather’s ambush? Did you forget, or are you simply ignoring rabid leftist radio’s personal attacks?

    Ducky, have you simply misplaced your integrity, or have you given it up?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "We do have to consider the obvious." --Ducky

    And what could be more obvious than FT's digusting labeling of our first bi-racial president as "half-savage?"

    This was and still is a way for people to dehumanize anyone with dark skin. Label them "savages" because that's how you imply that they are less than human--animals even, and not "one of us."

    sav·age/ˈsavij/

    Adjective:
    (of an animal or force of nature) Fierce, violent, and uncontrolled: "a savage beast".
    Noun:

    chiefly in historical or literary contexts) A member of a people regarded as primitive and uncivilized.

    Verb:
    (esp. of a dog or wild animal) Attack ferociously and maul: "ewes savaged by marauding dogs".

    Synonyms:

    adjective. wild - ferocious - fierce - brutal - barbarous
    noun. barbarian

    No one here had a problem with that characterization of President Obama. And yet you all bristle with indignation when you hear "racist" thrown in your faces.

    That says more about all of you than it does President Obama.

    The shoes does fit, and you're all wearing it.

    ReplyDelete
  22. FT, Thanks for the mention. Some of your stuff is a little deep for me.

    At this point, I'm going to go with a lot of influence in the 08 election from the White Guilt angle. After the media pounded Bush, for things obama has done in Spades, the country was ready to vote for the black man. Beside all the folks who are always in the tank for the democrats - blacks, unions, etc.

    Similarly, the elevation of "PC" and the "Victim" concept all contributed greatly.

    But man, there are so many wonderful intelligent, qualified black people out there. I'll vote for one if they run. Not as a democrat though. The dems have an agenda. I wouldn't vote for Mother Teresa as a dem.

    ReplyDelete
  23. People who provide thoughtful commentary reveal to us so much about themselves. I believe writing is the most difficult art because writers subject themselves to so much criticism. Some of the criticism is a genuine divergence of opinion. All too frequently, however, critics intend to demean a writer for daring to have a diverse opinion —to shut them down, so to speak. This is the work of small minds and blinding political agenda. It does not confine itself to one extreme, or the other. Yet, it seems to me that we know far more about the people who comment at blogs such as this one than we do our President, who sequestered his writings, opinions, and academic achievements from “we the people.”

    ReplyDelete
  24. @ Free Thinker - All of my posts (articles) , some 1,980 of them to date are archived for your perusal.

    However, I must admit to not have heretofore dedicated a post to Mr. Douglass or his writing and superior intellect.

    References I have made to Mr. Douglass have been in comment sections as I deemed appropriate based on content of the sites original post.

    Not having given Mr. Douglass' intellect exposure at RN USA is my bad as he is certainly worthy of such exposure in this modern era of political absurdity and philosophical atrophy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. FT, I read this the other day but couldn't comment because "half savage" didn't sit well with me at all, I must say here and now. It kind of dummied me up because I found it so wrong.

    I guess lefties have guilt because they were on the wrong side of race for so long with the Civil Rights Act, etc.

    History is rewritten where only liberals marched in Selma, only liberals care about Blacks, only liberals want to help blacks.

    The only truly different thing between libs and conservatives is that conservatives think Blacks have the same opportunities we do...we don't believe in insulting with Affirmative Action, etc. It worked for a while and now Blacks are embarrassed to think they didn't get their job because of their smarts but because of government handout (again). Ridiculous and defeatist.

    The testimony that you printed bugged me, too...we all know that people suffered and we ALL HATE IT, but I don't feel a smidgen of guilt. My ancestors came from overseas within the last hundred years, never had a slave (trust me) and I have a soon-to-be black nephew who's a PRINCE among ANY COLOR men. SO........

    sorry...going on and on here, just had to get it off my chest. thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One more thing:

    The very idea that Republicans who'd vote for Alan West YESTERDAY if we could are racist because they don't fawn over Obama is so stupid at its core that it almost went without saying. But, we have a dope on your thread who still insists on idiotic sentiments such as that, so...

    I'm done now :-)

    ReplyDelete
  27. I have spoken up on liberal blogs about Republicans, or conservatives, or right leaning voters being called a racist when they disagree with parts of Obama's policy.

    Being called a racist is a hurtful and/or a bigoted accusation -- if it is untrue. Specifically, in my case, I have to assume I am dealing with a bigot if I am called a racist. Why? Because it is untrue. I don't think I have personally ever been called a racist. If I am, it will be frustrating but I won't take it personally. I would only take it personally if there was truth to it.

    There are only two things I can do when called a racist:

    (1) deny it (2) let my actions over time speak for me

    I'm not saying people can't change over time. They can. They can change their stance on abortion, politics, race relations, who they love and even God.

    I find it helpful to recall that when the alcoholic or drug addict (insert other character flaw) who has wrecked havoc on a family and friends for fifteen years and suddenly claims to be a new man or woman because he stopped drinking thirty days ago; and he wants the respect and admiration of those he has injured; he is going to meet some resistance and skepticism.

    In other words, show me. Show me long term sobriety. I want to see _long term_. Build a library of good deeds.

    I am fully aware there are people who are content to be a drunk or a racist. As well, there is no shortage of bigots pointing fingers at others for their own misfortune. Those are the people I quietly move out of my life; typically with compassion.

    ReplyDelete
  28. KP, you make excellent points.

    Re blogs, the hurtful and crazy thing is when we're called racists on blogs, you are clearly not racist (from our blog writings and, as I said above, we'd vote for ANY BLACK PERSON who we agreed with!!!) and no amount of what we say or do "a library of good deeds" as you put it, helps.

    That we are not at all racist is nothing we need to prove because we just aren't...period..We know that! Our conservative friends know that from our writings! We all know what we are....and maybe that's what makes it all the more frustrating. The LIberals know that, too!

    It stops then being a liberal calling a conservative racist for what we've said/done and a liberal calling us racists because it's part of their agenda.

    When our actions (writings, etc.) will never be seen clearly and understood, that's hurtful and I think some know it's hurtful. That's the microcosm.

    On the macro, the leftwing media knows full and well that whatever they say is heard by the public......oftentimes with no true standing at all.

    For example: I'm still reeling from something I heard today...a Christian Congressman, Dan Webster, was called DAN THE TALIBAN in ads during a campaign....over a comment he made about his wife that was "she will submit to me"...that was in the Democrat's ad who was running against him, making him sound like an islamic fundamentalist like the Taliban....when one sees the video of him talking, it actually shows that he said something very close to "I asked my wife to pick a bible verse for our lives but nothing that would ever even infer that SHE WILL SUBMIT TO ME.."

    This is the kind of thing that's used now, and it is often applied to race, too. Total misinformation, but effective.

    As I said above "imagine people who know full and well conservatives would vote for Alan West but insist they're racists anyway?" It's tough times out there!

    I don't mean to go on and on here, but there's also the problem that if Conservatives say they feel Blacks are every bit equal with us and have every ability to succeed and don't need the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world to succeed as a group, and that affirmative action has, for example, outlived its usefulness when Black friends say they feel guilty over having a good job they deserve because some think they didn't EARN it but got it from their color, that's a BIG PROBLEM... and the Left calls us racist for those things, too.
    Or how about Robt Byrd who was a KKK recruiter but is lionized by the Left yet they pick on Strom Thurmond who didn't come close to anything like that...I could say more, we all could....I think you get my point.

    I don't know people who are "content to be a racist" as you said......I know plenty who don't have a racist bone in their body but if they don't shore up Affirmative Action, Jesse Jackson, and don't like Obama, they're considered racist. man

    ReplyDelete
  29. PART ONE

    Glad to see everyone who came here. The post was entirely sympathetic to the plight of Negroes who were brought here in chains and their children who were born in captivity. Many of these people were shamefully abused. Many may have been treated far better than they likely would have had they remained in Africa.

    I am completely unsympathetic to the leftists who have cynically USED these and other legitimate grievances as a PLOY to gain political leverage and ultimately dictatorial power.

    I have been engaged in a one man war against Political Correctness ever since I first observed the phenomenon and realized what it was doing to our culture.

    I am very disappointed in Ms. Shaw, whom I had thought to have a great deal more depth and breadth of vision -- and ore highly developed sense of humor -- for doing the typical leftist thing which is to seize upon a few words that may be taken out of context and used to distort the meaning of an article while discrediting its author.

    I laid a trap, Ms. Shaw, and sadly you fell right into it. Calling Obama "half-savage" is not what this post was about, but you -- and other leftists too no doubt -- just HAD to seize on it -- could NOT get past it -- and let it blind you to the true significance of these remarks. That you permitted yourself to get angry with me, and chose to make an attempt to impugn my character, because I refuse to respect and work within the confines of stilted, overly-predictable, formulaic discourse by which you have been conditioned to feel everyone should be bound does not speak well for you.

    ~ FT

    (CONTINUED)

    ReplyDelete
  30. PART TWO

    I choose my words very deliberately -- sometimes for their shock effect I admit -- but always to expose what-I-believe-to-be the hidden truth behind all the partisan rhetorical posturing we indulge in so freely -- and so tediously.

    When I was still a child, the Mau-Mau -- i.e. African savages -- were running wild in Kenya (which was pronounced KEEN-ya then) murdering white people in wholesale lots. A man named Robert Ruark wrote a book about it, which was quite a sensation in the early 1950's.

    Mr. Obama's sperm donor (he was never in any sense a proper "father" to baby Barack) was not an American Negro. He was a native-born Kenyan, and thus -- to me -- a savage. The Muslims are savages. Most of the Asians are savages, especially when they are at war. We had family and friends held on Japanese POW camps, and believe me the Japs were, indeed, SAVAGES.

    The carryings on of Idi Amin Dada, Robert Mugabe, and other sub-Saharan African "leaders" who took over after the British and European colonialist powers were forced out are the acts of SAVAGES. The events in Rwanda are the acts of SAVAGES.

    Sub-Saharan Africa is today -- and always has been a SAVAGE place.

    I understand that Z is making every attempt to be a bridge-builder, and may think I am in the business of blowing bridges up, but she and I are on essentially the same side. The difference between us is that I steadfastly refuse to bound by the chains of Political Correctness.

    PC is not "politeness"or "consideration" or 'sensitivity." It is -- to my way of thinking -- a form of institutionalized hypocrisy that has removed most of the oxygen from public discourse and turned what-should-be holds-barred debate into a form of stilted PAGEANTRY.

    It isn't that I seek to hurt anyone's feelings or deprive anyone of his or her rights. If anything it is to show the truth of the adage:

    Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones, but Names Will Never Harm Me.

    We adhere to no rules here other than the fond hope that actual thought will be applied when posting here. Mindless insults, Party-Headquarters' Talking Points reiterated without probing questions and personal analysis and Redundancy are likely to be removed without warning-- and without a trace left behind.

    The point is you are perfectly free to love me, admire me, question me, hate me, revile me, disapprove of me, reject me, ignore me, boycott, me badmouth me, but NONE of that is EVER going to stop me from expressing myself as I see fit at this particular location in cyberspace.

    I do not believe in TABOOS.

    I will, however, make every effort to respect the standards you set for your blogs when I visit you there.

    If we aren't free to risk offending others through the process of questioning, criticizing, analyzing and sometimes rejecting their motives, we are not free at all.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  31. But, FT, why did you say HALF SAVAGE? That's the kind of word that fires people up! Yes, I'm mostly on your 'side' about this, I suppose.......but HALF SAVAGE?

    And liberals take that to the bank! You're now branded as some kind of hateful nut and, by virtue of your conservatism, WE ARE TOO. Do you see that? You know very well that this happens in the leftwing media (all networks, CNN, MSNBC, Piers Morgan, Letterman, etc etc)...one conservative says ONE THING, and BLAST OFF! The libs are half way to the moon with criticism and righteous indignation! It's going to happen on blogs, too.

    You know very well I despise PC....but 'half savage'?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Hi, KP,

    Glad you stopped by. I've been hoping to see you here since the day we opened for business.

    The term "bigot" does not really mean what we usually think it does. It has far broader implications.

    Bigotry works from any and all directions and can emerge in virtually any topic you can imagine.

    A bigot is simply a person who is so convinced of the correctness of his own particular views he refuses to respect or take seriously any opinion or belief or body of knowledge that differs from his own or might cause him to question his assumptions.

    Bigotry is NOT simply a synonym for white prejudice held against Negroes, Jews and Hispanics.

    [Here I want to point out that it is bigoted for certain forces in society to demand that we stop using the term "Negro" to denote black or colored people. It may be a small point but such demands are a from of bullying just as Ms. Shaw's scathing denunciation of me for daring to call our president a "half savage" is an attempt to shame, cow, insult or otherwise intimidate me into adhering to arbitrary standards of discourse of which she approves. Sorry. That's tyranny and I refuse to submit to it.]

    The hour is late, and I must retire for the night in hopes of rising to greet another day.

    Cheerio!

    FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  33. Z,

    I just saw your last post while correcting the one above. I hope I may have answered your question a little better there. I do understand you concern, but since I understand Critical Theory the primary modus operandi of the left pretty well, I also understand that attempting to meet leftists half way will do no good at all. They believe their role in life is to use endless criticism, complaints, and demands as a battering ram to wear down our resistance.

    Intimidating us into using parlance designed by THEM to suit THEIR objectives -- i.e. to humiliate "us," and put "us" in our place -- is part of their plan of attack. I REFUSE to succumb to it. Cooperating with them is like cooperating with the Devil -- it just won't get "us" anything but grief.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  34. FT, your use of the word savage appears racist to some of us. From your last post it sounds like that was your intention -- to be provocative. Even if it wasn't what the article was about, you were purposely inciting a response.

    Parts of my family are half black and half white and more will be. I can do without that type of stimulation. It's your blog and you will add and subtract readers who agree or disagree with that type of provocative statement. But you can't expect us to read your mind. Most of us have enough trouble reading each others words that are in black let alone inserting ideas into the white parts betwwen lines; especially when it comes to hot buttons in politics and race relations; let alone religion, love and sex.

    Things get lost in translation. Nobody wants to have Spock messing with our minds like a Star Trek episode only to hear you were inciting a reaction.

    ReplyDelete
  35. I purposely used bigot with the definition you cite. The more broad definition; not confined to race relations.

    ReplyDelete
  36. re RACE, I was just watching some CNN coverage of the Olympics tonight and race came up. They did a segment on DIVERSITY. They bemoaned that there are only a few Black swimmers on our American teams...one white guy actually said "I guess we'll always be talking race...maybe not the same discussion as 10 years ago, but it'll be a subject.."

    I thought "What, it just can't be DONE? We'll need another aspect of race that wasn't covered 10 years ago?" REALLY?

    How can RACE come into it when Olympics teams are based on TALENT? TIMES? RELIABILITY?
    this is absolutely stunning, and leave it to leftwing CNN to make this a big issue.
    You can bet they're the ones who asked the swimmers about this...otherwise, we've got that fabulous black relay swimmer Cullen Jones.. we've got others...a few Black gymnasts...so why would the team members make a stink? The percentage of blacks in proportion to the general population is JUST about right, actually.

    but, no.........are we going to have Affirmative Action teams? Or are we going to go strictly on TALENT and still be the great AMerica which wins so many golds? Who'd care if ALL OF OUR TEAMS were BLACK as long as they placed well and WIN!? !!

    ReplyDelete
  37. About this insolent half-man, half-savage...

    Remember "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling?

    Take up the White Man's burden--
    Send forth the best ye breed--
    Go, bind your sons to exile
    To serve your captives' need;
    To wait, in heavy harness,
    On fluttered folk and wild--
    Your new-caught sullen peoples,
    Half devil and half child.

    Take up the White Man's burden--
    In patience to abide,
    To veil the threat of terror
    And check the show of pride;
    By open speech and simple,
    An hundred times made plain,
    To seek another's profit
    And work another's gain.

    Take up the White Man's burden--
    The savage wars of peace--
    Fill full the mouth of Famine,
    And bid the sickness cease;
    And when your goal is nearest
    (The end for others sought)
    Watch sloth and heathen folly
    Bring all your hope to nought.

    Take up the White Man's burden--
    No iron rule of kings,
    But toil of serf and sweeper--
    The tale of common things.
    The ports ye shall not enter,
    The roads ye shall not tread,
    Go, make them with your living
    And mark them with your dead.

    Take up the White Man's burden,
    And reap his old reward--
    The blame of those ye better
    The hate of those ye guard--
    The cry of hosts ye humour
    (Ah, slowly!) toward the light:--
    "Why brought ye us from bondage,
    Our loved Egyptian night?"

    Take up the White Man's burden--
    Ye dare not stoop to less--
    Nor call too loud on Freedom
    To cloak your weariness.
    By all ye will or whisper,
    By all ye leave or do,
    The silent sullen peoples
    Shall weigh your God and you.

    Take up the White Man's burden!
    Have done with childish days--
    The lightly-proffered laurel,
    The easy ungrudged praise:
    Comes now, to search your manhood
    Through all the thankless years,
    Cold, edged with dear-bought wisdom,
    The judgment of your peers.


    The phrase "the white man's burden" has been interpreted a euphemism for imperialism.

    There are other interpretations as well. See THIS.

    ReplyDelete
  38. What does "savage" mean?

    Parsing of the noun:

    an uncivilized human being; a fierce, brutal, or cruel person; a rude, boorish person; a member of a preliterate society

    But the larger question is this: Why does the term "half-savage" touch such a nerve?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Savage.

    There used to be a nightclub in D.C. called De Zulu Cave. I kid you not! The business was operated by blacks and quite popular, I think. "Hood related 'music'" was one term used to refer to De Zulu Cave.

    See THIS.

    Video, as opposed to soundtrack.

    Traditional Zulu dance, but I'm not sure how authentic it is.

    Anyway, savage or not? Your call.

    ReplyDelete
  40. History lesson:

    ...Of course, the Zulu might never have vanquished the British at Isandlwana without the help of traditional Zulu medicines. Some scholars have suggested that Zulu pharmacopoeia provided more of a psychological boost than any real physiological effect. But recent scientific studies show that the medicines contained some very potent drugs. For example, warriors were given a cannabis (marijuana)-based snuff to take during battle. Analysis of the snuff has revealed that it contained extremely high levels of THC, a powerful hallucinogen, and yet no detectable levels of the chemicals that cause the sedative effects of marijuana.

    Also in the Zulu war medicine chest: the bulb of a flower in the Amaryllis family, called Boophane disticha, or the Bushman Poison Bulb. Studies have shown that the bulb -- which was also used by southern Africans to help mummify bodies -- contains buphanidrine, an alkaloid, like codeine and morphine (although it is not related to them) with hallucinogenic and pain-killing properties. According to botanist Ben-Erik van Wyk of Rand Afrikaans University in Johannesburg, South Africa, the dosage of buphanidrine necessary to reduce pain is very close to the toxic dose, "but in a very experienced traditional healer's hands it should be safe. They usually assess the strength of a bulb by testing it on themselves."

    In addition, warriors sometimes ingested a hallucinogenic mushroom containing a toxin called muscimol. The chemical, present in fly agaric -- a mushroom that can attract and kill flies -- is said to induce a state of expanded perception in those who ingest it. Warriors who consumed those mushrooms, researchers speculate, might have been utterly without fear, believing themselves impervious to British bullets.

    ReplyDelete
  41. "PC is not "politeness"or "consideration" or 'sensitivity." It is -- to my way of thinking -- a form of institutionalized hypocrisy that has removed most of the oxygen from public discourse and turned what-should-be holds-barred debate into a form of stilted PAGEANTRY."


    Yeah, it probably is. PC certainly has its flaws. But is it better or worse than what we had before, ie casual racism in mainstream discourse and entertainment? How much oxygen did that suck from public discourse back in the 70s?

    Your claim that "words will never hurt me" doesn't bare scrutiny. If you won't take my word for it, an old adage will surely settle it: "The pen is mightier than the sword," -- although Cardinal Richelieu, for whom's portrayal the line was written, was renowned for having a particularly shitty sword.

    Just as language can reinforce negative stereotypes, so can it starve them out. Arguably what starts as an exercise in hypocritically circumspect language choices has had a purifying effect on habitual attitudes towards minorities and women etc. I consider a large portion of these developments to be positive, and while there is some cost to it -- silly sounding phrases such as creatively limbed or differently sighted, worrying about using the wrong words etc. -- it's pretty trivial stuff.

    PC aside, what's the alternative, anyway? Not caring about using upsetting words? How is a person who doesn't care about upsetting people distinguishable from an asshole?

    I'm aware I'm kind of calling you an asshole here. Sorry. The trouble is, you really might be one. I hope you aren't, but if you are, I wish you wouldn't be.

    ReplyDelete
  42. My family's roots are in The South.

    However, my father's family would not hold slaves (religious objections), and my mother's family was too poor to own land that would sprout even black-eyed peas. No cotton in those hills of East Tennessee.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Up the crag in the screaming wind
    Naked and bleeding I fought blind.
    Then I moved toward the Eye of the Sun.
    Past the Cromlech I found a gun.
    Then I strayed in the cities of men.
    In the home of my love I found a pen.


    ~ Anonymous

    ReplyDelete
  44. "I laid a trap, Ms. Shaw, and sadly you fell right into it. Calling Obama "half-savage" is not what this post was about, but you -- and other leftists too no doubt -- just HAD to seize on it -- could NOT get past it.."

    FT, you would be wise to re-read what KP said. He has more humanity and understanding of what you wrote than anyone else here, IMO.

    What is the point of your little trap-laying game except to attract more comments and controversy.

    Another wise man once said:

    "You are what you pretend to be. So be careful what you pretend to be."

    ReplyDelete
  45. As i said very clearly above. I do not believe in taboos.

    If you want to take offense at what you believe I may be saying that's your privilege. I'm sorry, but that will not stop me from saying what I want to say in the manner in which I want to say it.

    Jez, apparently, is young enough to be my child, so naturally we are not going to get along very well. The Generation Gap is very real. He has -- like most people today -- been "acculturated" to accept, embrace and indignantly defend ideas and practices I will continue to find abhorrent to the end of my days.

    The New Puritanism and New Conventionalism is every bit as stifling and deterring to human progress as the old.

    My primary purpose never has been to win friends and influence people, but only to tell the truth -- insofar as I am able to understand it. I despise the notion that achieving popularity and acclaim is the most desirable goal imaginable as much as I despise hypocrisy.

    It never ceases to interest and trouble me that benign, good-humored, bright, witty, exceptionally beautiful offerings are largely ignored, dismissed, ridiculed or otherwise unappreciated -- but give a person "a good excuse" to feel annoyed, affronted, shocked, angry, and a chance to express scorn, contempt, disapproval, condemnation -- and we're off to the races.

    There's a running theme we're trying to establish here -- an attempt to guide others towards becoming sensitive to the great difference between genuine cruelty and genuinely offensive practices we embrace as opposed to the artificial variety conjured up by leftists and self-righteous do-gooders designed to stifle the free expression of genuine human feelings and perceptions by establishing Speech Codes and initiating what-amounts to the Official Policing of Thought.

    Like Jefferson, "I am unalterably opposed to any form of tyranny over the mind of man."

    When it becomes ILLEGAL -- or acceptable grounds for OSTRACISM to DISLIKE or DISAPPROVE of something that strikes us wrong or distasteful as individuals, we are no longer free. It's as simple as that.

    AOW has asked THE most significant question in regard to this post:

    WHY has my using the term "half-savage" to describe Barack Obama touched such a nerve?

    When I was growing up the term "savage" was freely used as a noun to describe the indigenous peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, American Indians, Australian Aborigines and indeed, all people deemed "primitive."

    Like "Negro" it was a perfectly respectable usage.

    As far as I'm concerned, it still is. I'm sorry if you don't agree.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  46. Shaw Kenawe had provided a catchy little proverb..
    "Another wise man once said:
    You are what you pretend to be. So be careful what you pretend to be."



    I also have one that should be considered, and this applies to the current President::

    Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and all for the same reason

    ReplyDelete
  47. Much Madness is divinest Sense ––
    To a discerning Eye ––
    Much Sense - the starkest Madness ––
    ’Tis the Majority
    In this, as all, prevail ––
    Assent –– and you are sane ––
    Demur –– you’re straightway dangerous ––
    And handled with a Chain ––


    ~ Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

    This speaks so well for itself -- if one bothers to study it with care -- that no "interpretation" on my part should be necessary.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  48. << WHY has my using the term "half-savage" to describe Barack Obama touched such a nerve? When I was growing up the term "savage" was freely used as a noun to describe the indigenous peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, American Indians, Australian Aborigines and indeed, all people deemed "primitive." >>

    Because it is no longer "when you grew up". That was decades ago. If you go over to Jack Camwell's blog you will read JMJ and I talking about what is happening to the generation in their twenties. Those of us in our 50s, 60s and 70s have a responsibility to them. Not only to show them examples of growing old responsibly but understanding change.

    No matter how wonderful it was when I was a kid, those days are gone. So is any hope of calling a mixed race man or woman a savage and sounding reasonable.

    When I was in my twenties and thirties one of the common comedic skits was the dirty old man on "Laugh In" or other shows who got away with feeling up a gal or saying provocative things and we would laugh at him. Then there was the movie in '93 called "Grumpy Old Men" with Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon.

    Then I noticed my grandma's actions. She was living chronic pain and became one nasty old lady. She lost what we could call a 'governor'. Anything and everything came out of her mouth and a lot of it was impolite.

    Resist, FT! People, young and old need your wisdom. If you don't use some type of filter your audience will be wittled down to like minded readers. At that point you don't have discussion; you just have a bunch of grumps patting eachother on the back.

    ReplyDelete
  49. So vote for Obama and you will become smarter, taller, better looking, richer, and he will remove the crabgrass on your lawn, get you a new TV, a new car, a college education, healthcare, but I'm not sure he will be able to run the country.

    ReplyDelete
  50. How long must we white folks pay for the sins of our fathers?

    Note the following from the Ten Commandments (KJV):

    Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

    Aren't we at least 4 generations from codified slavery here in America?

    Besides, Jesus said to the thief (murderer?) on the cross:

    And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.

    But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

    And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.

    And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.

    And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.


    Of course, other examples of the forgiveness of our Lord can be offered.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Please let me suggest to any who are truly interested in gaining a better understanding of who I am and what I stand for a reexamination of these earlier posts at FreeThinke's Blog:

    ENEMETICS

    It's the BELLIGERENCE, Stupid!


    There is "something" in us [Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians want to call it Original Sin] that is wantonly -- savagely -- eager to find fault, condemn and punish those who are deemed "transgressors" by the cultural norms of any given society.

    This propensity has appeared in all cultures in every historical period.

    We LOVE to HATE. And we LOVE to find "good excuses" to DEPRIVE, PERSECUTE, HUNT, TORTURE and KILL other people.

    The OBJECTS of our penchant for cruelty and murder change with the geographical conditions and the ethnic, cultural and religious norms each Culture or Civilization has established.

    What most have failed to see -- probably due to a inadequate skill in communications on my part -- is that our CURRENT set of TABOOS (namely Political Correctness, but it goes much deeper than that) is just an ORTHODOXY we've established to give us yet-another "good excuse" to vent our collective spleen and find NEW reasons to despise, reject, mock, scorn, deride, punish, ostracize and even kill.

    Jez gets evident satisfaction from feeling justified in calling me an "asshole."

    I'm sorry to have troubled KP, because I respect him a great deal. I had no idea his family was bi-racial. Here's what I think is important about it, however:

    It would never occur to me to try to prevent any member of his family from marrying a person of color, or to punish or attempt to deprive them in any way because of it.

    Nevertheless, I reserve MY right to feel that it would be undesirable -- to ME -- if I had a child and he or she wanted to marry a Negro.

    I realize the world has changed and will forever continue change even more. I may not LIKE it, but I have no choice but to ACCEPT it.

    Not liking or feeling a natural affinity for something is NOT the same as engaging in active PERSECUTION, and I refuse to accept CHASTISEMENT for having feelings others may not like. Moreover, I will continue to reserve the right to express myself however I choose.

    Once upon a time thoughtful, questioning, unconventional people were brutally TORTURED in myriad ways and BURNED at the STAKE for what?

    For NOT CONFORMING to the prevailing ETHOS of their Time and Culture.

    Marxism, Political Correctness and all the rest of this Strangulating Modern Thought is nothing more than REINVENTION of the SAME MENTALITY that led to the Crusades, the Rack, the Catherine Wheel, the Pear of Anguish, the Judas Cradle, the Red Hot Poker, the Breast Ripper, the Thumbscrews, the Oubliette, the Stake, the abuses of Slavery, and the Holocaust.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  52. FT: "When I was growing up the term "savage" was freely used as a noun to describe the indigenous peoples of sub-Saharan Africa, American Indians, Australian Aborigines and indeed, all people deemed "primitive."


    You destroy your argument yourself, FT, in your own words.

    No matter what you think of Mr. Obama's policies, no one here--at least I hope no one here--can say the president is "primitive."

    There is no reason to call anyone, but especially a person of color, "savage" or even "half savage," except to dehumanize and present him or her as an untamed animal.

    You seem not to be able to grasp that idea, and you seem not to be able to extend the most

    ReplyDelete
  53. [Blogger error!]

    You seem not to be able to grasp that idea, and you seem not to be able to extend to those who see this as a slur on the president's race the courtesy of understanding their pov.

    ReplyDelete
  54. "Jez gets evident satisfaction"

    no I don't.

    Remember I posed it as a question

    "How is a person who doesn't care about upsetting people distinguishable from an asshole?"

    Feel free to answer it.

    "it would be undesirable -- to ME -- if I had a child and he or she wanted to marry a Negro."

    For what reason?

    Political correctness frees us from the strangulating assumptions of the recent past. Like anything, it's less effective when handled clumsily.

    ReplyDelete
  55. An attempt to share feelings or bits of wisdom is different from chastisement. If I didn't see the goodness in you I never would have commented.

    It's never too late to change. "To be out of place in the wrong place is to have your heart in the right place."

    I am not be a marker on a straight road when it comes to racism. I am a fork and people I associate with will turn one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  56. We LOVE to HATE. And we LOVE to find "good excuses" to DEPRIVE, PERSECUTE, HUNT, TORTURE and KILL other people.

    I don’t agree with this statement at all. The American people are the most caring, most giving people in the entire world; this is not the behavior we associate with people who love to hate or find excuses for making others suffer. America’s warriors do not serve at sea and on foreign shore for the sake of hating others; you err by confusing a will to defend one’s nation/family/self with the kinds of behaviors best associated with third and fourth world cesspools.

    ReplyDelete
  57. "If there is hope", wrote Winston, "it lies in the proles".


    But Winston's belief was fragile. Unfortunately the belief that hope should be invested in the likes of Romney is held with much conviction.

    We are a sorry people.

    ReplyDelete
  58. "We are a sorry people."

    Right, Ducky...but it's those who voted for a man with very little experience, who bought into the Greek columns and engaging smile, who champion a punk who admits plenty of drug use, who didn't look into what made him who he is...
    that's the sorry bunch.
    We're just sorry to have to suffer for it now.

    You might want to stop listening to the lies about Romney, the stupidest being that he insulted the Brits. He said "Disconcerting"...which was far tamer than what the Brit press said about their own planners before the ceremonies when the problems emerged ...CBS had that interview with ROmney and saw nothing wrong with the comment until the Brit press got sensitive......
    and you buy it. sad

    ReplyDelete
  59. @ KP: July 30, 2012 9:26 AM

    Wise words. We could all learn something by rereading them.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Ms. Shaw asks:

    "What is the point of your little trap-laying game except to attract more comments and [generate] controversy[?]"

    Well, Ma'am, as an attention-getting ploy, it certainly seems to have worked, hasn't it? ;-)

    If I posted DIetrich Fischer-Dieskau's magnificent performance of Gustave Mahler's Lieder eines farhrendes Gesellen, or his even more superb performance of Schubert's Die Winterreise with Gerald Moore at the piano -- or a video of Mary Martin and Ethel Merman's incomparable 1952 live performance before the TV cameras -- or one of the great "Mystery Guest" segments from What's My Line? -- I would have been lucky to get one or two responses.

    This thread proves my contention that in general people are far more eager to be given "a good excuse" to get thoroughly pissed off than they are to to be given a chance to enjoy the wonder, beauty and great joy to be found in witnessing superlative artistic achievements.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  61. Mustang,

    I see you thought I was referring particularly to Americans in the remark you singled out. I was not. I was referring to humanity in general.

    Chronic fault finding and an eagerness to find "good reasons" to condemn, punish and deprive others are, indeed, indigenous to the human race. History bears me out on that. So, most certainly, does traffic on the internet.

    The Old Testament is almost completely filled with examples -- each more hideous than the next -- of man's inhumanity to man billed as "justified" because they've been commanded by "God."

    I would agree with you, however, that up until recently Americans as a whole, have been a pretty good lot -- as human beings go.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  62. There are so many lessons to be learned in the Old Testament that I highly recommend a class on it.
    Not justified because they were commanded by God, but justified for the lessons billions have learned from the stories....and are still learning about how much God loves us, how badly He wants us with Him, and the ways He knows are best for us in order to get there; The Old Testament says "Stop trying to trip God up, it will NEVER work" :-)
    he's a righteous and loving God...a very comforting thought...in spite of the massacres man caused to man in their fallen nature all throughout the O.T....which are pretty nasty, no doubt about it!
    (end of sermon!...I happen to love much of the OT for the incredible lessons..can you tell!?)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Z: "...who didn't look into what made him who he is...
    that's the sorry bunch."

    Yeah, right Z. You obviously didn't read his book. So easy to cast aspersions without anything to back it up.

    Did you think the same about George W. Bush's alcohol abuse as you do Mr. Obama's admitted drug use?

    Or are you choosey about which drug use you detest? Alcohol: OK.

    Other use: Not so much.

    Mr. Obama abandoned his drug experimentation when he matured. Mr. Bush unfortunately didn't conquer his demon until he was a 40 year old man.

    Mr. Obama was never an addict; Mr. Bush was.

    In any event, I give Mr. Bush credit for overcoming his demons--no matter at what age.

    You, apparently, can't forgive someone who engaged in abuse while a kid. Your contempt for Mr. Obama is quite evident. I hope you're not in counseling for people who have alcohol and drug abuse issues.

    ReplyDelete
  64. WHOOPS! Sorry! That should have been Lieder eines fahrenden Gesellen (Songs of a Wayfarer) by Gustave Mahler.

    A splendid version of these songs by SIr Thomas Allen is also available on YouTube.

    People as devoted to serious music as I am find great pleasure in comparing and contrasting the approaches different artists take in interpreting the same work.

    There is such an incredible abundance and variety of great stuff readily available I have to admit it irritates me that we choose to dwell on so much that is petty, mean-spirited and trivial at root.

    If you look at the comments under classical music selections at YouTube, however, you will find the exact same syndrome of offenses taken where none were intended, and the same nearly violent assertions of conflicting opinion.

    So it isn't POLITICS per se but rather the Human Condition, itself, that must be at fault.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  65. Dear Z … do try to remember that progressive prigs enjoy arguing on the basis of moral relevancy, proving that they are godless creatures undeserving of our time or effort. In Shaw’s case, she isn’t that bright, but she is doing the best she can operating on only two cylinders. Here’s an interesting tidbit I found:

    Shaw (noun) [shrū] — 1. Any of various small, chiefly insectivorous mammals of the family Soricidae, resembling a mouse but having a long pointed snout and small eyes and ears. Also called shrewmouse. — 2. A woman with a violent, scolding, or nagging temperament; a scold.

    ~ Louie

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oh, please, Shaw. I'm quite sure Mr. Bush nor the Republican party touted his drinking. And isn't it amazing that you say he was addicted but he needed no programs to stop drinking?
    Are we really arguing this when Obama's use as cocaine and pot and who knows what else? How do YOU know he wasn't addicted? My gosh.
    And he had a girlfriend, too! Remember VANITY FAIR's article? FINALLY, someone emerges.
    Except she denied having been that girl. darn.
    Do I care who he dated? No. Do I care greatly at the things we don't know?
    YOU BET I DO.

    Yes, I read his books....makes me even more sure about my feelings toward him. Absolutely did. With wide eyes.

    ReplyDelete
  67. z, if I remember, you admitted to smoking a little dope.

    In fact, I only smoked dope like about three or four times so maybe I should be prez.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Z, many alcoholics stop drinking without being in a program. Mr. Bush admits to "drinking too much," which is a euphemism for alcoholism, until he was 40. He stopped on his own. Good for him.

    I don't understand why you're so obsessed with one man's substance abuse, but not another. You seem to be choosing your contempt on the basis of party affiliation. Bush's abuse of alcohol until he was a mature 40 year old man, not so bad, but Obama's pot? Bad!

    BTW, Bush was connected with cocain use as well, but when your Poppy was the head of the CIA, all such embarrassing records can miraculously disappear.

    You appear to be selective on the basis of party affiliation on your disapproval of substance abuse.

    Louie! Did anyone ever tell you how exceptionally brilliant you are?

    No? Think about it for a minute. There may be a reason for that.

    ReplyDelete
  69. If I posted DIetrich Fischer-Dieskau's magnificent performance of Gustave Mahler's Lieder eines farhrendes Gesellen, or his even more superb performance of Schubert's Die Winterreise with Gerald Moore at the piano -- or a video of Mary Martin and Ethel Merman's incomparable 1952 live performance before the TV cameras -- or one of the great "Mystery Guest" segments from What's My Line? -- I would have been lucky to get one or two responses.

    --------

    Can't check it out right now. I'm listening to Ornette.

    Post some Billie Holiday and I guarantee I'll respond.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Louie, thanks for the smile.
    I shouldn't bother arguing with some people, but it's too tempting.

    Shaw, I said "Greek columns and engaging smile, who champion a punk who admits plenty of drug use, who didn't look into what made him who he is..."

    That's "obsessed"???> REALLY?
    Don't even start me on how obsessed I am with the negatives of president Obama.

    Whether he admitted doing drugs at all, or Bush did heroin, the point is that the mindset these days is celebrating someone like Obama.."Cool" "hip"..."Oh, and he stopped!" And THAT is what I said "Imagine people CHAMPIONING someone who admitted to drugs"
    It's really the same with a lot of liberals. Bob Beckel (on FOX, by the way, another of their myriad liberal talkers) can't wait to remind everybody what a boozer and drug abuser he was. EVERY chance he gets. We Conservatives still frown on that kind of thing...we don't champion it.
    Ya, you're all over Bush now, good for him that he stopped drinking on his own...but where were you THEN?

    For goodness sake, I just read your last comment again...my comment is OBSESSED? :-) Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  71. Who do you celebrate, z, The Andrew Breitbart Jump the Shark Project?

    Give me a break and can the self righteousness. We're all bozos on this bus.

    ReplyDelete
  72. by the way, if some think this country's done better these last 3 1/2 years, vote for Obama.
    That's all we've got; those who think YES and those who think NO and want to change things.

    This fighting is silly...and gets meaner than I enjoy. 'nuff for me.

    FT...thanks for not responding to my OT comment; it's just a pet peeve of mine to hear the O.T. talked about a tad bit disparagingly and so I got started. Not appropriate here. And, really, what's the point?

    ReplyDelete
  73. "And THAT is what I said 'Imagine people CHAMPIONING someone who admitted to drugs ' "

    Mr. Obama was up front and honest about having used pot and cocain in his youth. He didn't hide it.

    And the important thing is that he turned away from drugs.

    But you can't forgive what he did as a young man. You can't see the good in the fact that he turned away from that and made something good of his life. You want to punish him for the rest of his life because of something he no longer does?

    I truly hope no young person ever comes to you for help if he or she were to admit to drug use. I can imagine you calling them "punks" and being repulsed by their behavior, never able to see what they could become once some caring adult showed them a better path to take in life.

    From what you've stated here, you'll always be there to shame them and never let them forget something they stopped doing a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Oh, my dear friends!

    What is there left to say?

    The truth is those of us who are against the president are not against him because he's part-black, half-white, had an African savage for a father, and a lunatic, anti-American bitch for a mother, that he once-used drugs and quit, hasn't revealed his school transcripts, hasn't explained why he has had several social security numbers, was buddy buddy with domestic terrorists and a virulent anti-American, anti-Semitic faux-Christian preacher of hatred and sedition, that he has bowed down to foreign potentates, that he's a self-absorbed grandstander pandering shamelessly -- and hypocritically -- to the peanut gallery -- or any of that stuff.

    Really we aren't.

    I am against him, because he has continued and augmented the disastrous economic policies and stupid, self-defeating foreign intrigues of George W. Bush, and because he is doing his level best to establish crypto-Marxist policies as the basis for American governance.

    I also believe he is working -- along with all three of his predecessors -- to fulfill the long-held dream of "progressives" to dissolve our sovereignty in favor of the establishment of a One World (Socialist) Dictatorship.

    There are any number of Negroes I'd be more than happy to vote for if I had the opportunity, but all the leftists I know would say, "Yeah, but THEY don't COUNT, because they aren't REALLY black, they're just intellectually-challenged Uncle Toms and Aunt Thomasinas."

    Isn't it time we all stopped hurling little grenades from behind he barricades, stopped playing rhetorical Russian Roulette and admitted that left and right don't get along, because leftists embrace Marxism and conservatives hate it with a bloody purple passion?

    We on the right also hate the left's unwillingness to admit that they are in fact Marxists. What else could any honest person call them?

    BOTANISTS?

    I DON'T THINK SO!

    Cheer up! It will all soon be over, and if Romney wins if won't change things very much.

    THE POLITICIANS , the MONEY MEN, and the CAPTAINS of INDUSTRY are ALL IN IT TOGETHER.

    They have it fixed so THEY can never lose.

    They just LOVE it when we fight among ourselves over petty trifles.

    The only thing I feel sure about is this: THEY DON'T CARE A RAT'S RUMP for ANY of US.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  75. We on the right also hate the left's unwillingness to admit that they are in fact Marxists.

    -----
    Rule number one. You don't let your enemies define you, especially if they are white supremacists who wouldn't know a Marxist if one bit him.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Ducky, what project do you still insist Breitbart didn't succeed on? I wish I could tell you some of the Sherrod flack! I can't..sadly.
    You still insisting ACORN still exists? :)
    What's the matter? You wanted him in a body bag, to quote YOU, and he ended up in one. That doesn't make you happy enough? #$(*&@#$*(&

    Shaw, REALLY? Still on that, huh? Scary. And then you go from there to suggesting I wouldn't help young people on drugs?
    Well, you're right...just hate, hate hate...darn, you got me now, Shaw.

    man

    ReplyDelete
  77. Freethinke, I really don't know why you say these things about race and then fail to respond to questions about them. You must be aware that most of your readers will disagree and want to get into it with you. If you don't want to indulge them, why mention it at all?

    I attempted to clarify some of my attitude to Marxism (if it is right to call any public ownership Marxist) here. I suppose you would interpret this as an embrace? I would call it pragmatic indifference -- I have an almost entirely symmetrical attitude towards market capitalism, after all.
    Anyway I am certainly not a revolutionary, nor am I interested in social class struggle, except to note that social mobility is usually an indicator of a healthy society. Entrenched advantage or disadvantage are disappointing.

    I am at a disadvantage since I don't know clearly what Marxism really is. I've never read him, don't really intend to, but I distrust the things that have been written about him; having been misled before by popular interpretations of eg. Nietzsche & Machiavelli, I now make a point of claiming ignorance of anyone whose work I have not myself read.

    ReplyDelete
  78. FT,
    This thread proves my contention that in general people are far more eager to be given "a good excuse" to get thoroughly pissed off than they are to to be given a chance to enjoy the wonder, beauty and great joy to be found in witnessing superlative artistic achievements.

    True enough.

    A sign of the times, IMO.

    ReplyDelete
  79. On our deathbeds, I wonder how many of us will say something like the following: "I should have spent more time enjoying the good things in life than in bitching so much about the bad things."

    ReplyDelete
  80. Jez,
    FT's blog, FT's rules apply here.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Good morning, AOW!

    Thank you for trying to be helpful, but there's no need to intervene on my behalf.

    There aren't any rules here other than the right I reserve to remove moronic, insults and inordinately redundant commentary,

    The loosely defined purpose here is to allow people to say whatever they want to say as long as it appears sincere and involved.

    As an amateur student of human nature, I find the way people reveal themselves in responding to stimuli as fascinating as it is (too often) depressing.

    So many have great hunger and thirst for "getting into it," as Jez put it.

    I'm not sure that serves any useful purpose. I see little point in belaboring a subject to the point where, as my father would say, "it gets driven into the ground."

    We've all seen examples of individuals who cannot politely agree to disagree and let go after stating their views. The obsessive-compulsive drive to keep battering away -- presumably in hopes of wearing opponents down so they capitulate and "admit" they are wrong -- is pathological.

    I don't happen to share that passion for trying to make those in disagreement with me say, "Uncle!"

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  82. AOW: FT can do what he like, and does; I was only wondering why.

    FT claims to choose his words very deliberately, that would imply that there is some purpose to it.

    Certain views are worth taking the trouble to argue against, for it is better to win the argument before it escalates into a war, wouldn't you say?

    ReplyDelete
  83. NOTICE:

    For the purpose of discussion at this blog "MARXISM" is used as a term of convenience to anything that favors

    1. increased CENTRAL COMMAND and CONTROL,

    2. inhibits PRIVATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP

    3. discourages the ACCUMULATION of PERSONAL WEALTH

    4. deters the and FREE TRANSFER of PERSONAL WEALTH

    5. that fosters DISCONTENT and encourages REBELLION against CAPITALISM

    6. makes a career of DENIGRATING CHRISTIANITY

    7. suggests that the PROMOTION and DEFENSE of our ECONOMIC INTERESTS and ADVANTAGES at home and abroad is INEQUITABLE or INHUMANE

    8. favors FOREIGN INTERESTS to OUR DISADVANTAGE

    9. attempts to MICRO-MANAGE the PERSONAL LIVES of citizens "FOR THEIR OWN GOOD."

    10. anything that debars SELF-DETERMINATION and inhibits FREEDOM of CHOICE

    A better word than "MARXISM" might be TOTALITARIANISM, because systems other than MARXISM are in fact TOTALITARIAN and TYRANNICAL.

    In former times The CHURCH was the fearsome tyrant and enemy of human freedom. today it is COLLECTIVISM, MARXISM, SOCIALISM, LIBERALISM, PROGRESSIVISM ------- and CRONY CAPITALISM which is not Capitalism at all but de facto OLIGARCHY.

    "The ENEMY" is ALWAYS found in those who desire to seize the ability to exercise POWER and CONTROL over the lives of others. It doesn't matter what you call it or what banner it parades under.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  84. "Shaw, REALLY? Still on that, huh? Scary. And then you go from there to suggesting I wouldn't help young people on drugs?
    Well, you're right...just hate, hate hate...darn, you got me now, Shaw." --Z

    Z, I don't know you, I can only take you at your word, and what you write here.

    And here you sneered at President Obama and called him a "punk" because of something he no longer does, and, in fact, stopped doing as a young man. And you also sneered at people who admire him, assuming they did because he once used drugs.

    Again, I wondered why you held such a negative view of someone who turned away from drug use and made something of himself.

    You wrote that stuff about PBO being a "punk," I didn't. Your words reveal your attitude toward certain Americans who once used drugs and then stopped. "Imagine CHAMPIONING someone who admitted to drugs."

    You feel contempt even though they changed their lives, and I wondered why.

    It's a curious attitude.

    ReplyDelete
  85. As far as studying the works of Marx and his followers "in depth" is concerned, I have read The Communist Manifesto and the Constitution of the Soviet Union written or approved by Lenin and Stalin.

    Some of it sounds very appealing, but despite my aversion to the most of the Old Testament, I am a Christian who fervently believes "the proof of the pudding is in the eating."

    The Bible puts it this way: "By their fruits ye shall know them."

    And as my old friend Bitch Cassidy famously posted many years ago at FrontPage Magazine when asked to explain her objection to Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist ideals and practices,

    HONEY! YOU DON'T HAVE TO EAT A POUND OF SHIT TO KNOW IT DON'T TASTE GOOD.


    Bitch, darlin,' God love you! You always have been -- and always will be -- a woman after my own heart. ;-)

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  86. Shaw,
    ...a negative view of someone who turned away from drug use...

    As far as we know.

    I wonder....Has he ever worked a job that required random testing?

    I live in the D.C. area. Let me tell you this: drug use, particularly powder cocaine in the highest levels is rampant -- crack cocaine to a lesser degree, but still there.

    And I'm not referring only to Marion Barry, either.

    I'm not accusing, just wondering. I DO have an opinion about the matter, but I have no validation.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Glad to see we've had a record number of participants, and some worthwhile, morally focused commentary, but if we are to continue the thread, please try to remember our initial purpose was to try to answer Kid's question as to how and why a curious, highly controversial figure with a dubious background and little or no legislative experience like Barack Hussein Obama could get to be our president?

    It's a far more important -- and interesting -- concern than quibbling about peccadillos on either side of the aisle.

    I don't feel the topic has yet been adequately addressed -- despite the large number of responses for which we are -- needless to say -- very grateful.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  88. AOW: "Shaw,
    ...a negative view of someone who turned away from drug use...

    AOW: "As far as we know."

    This is EXACTLY what the birthers say. He has shown his birth certificate, as far as we know. It's a way of inserting doubt, when there isn't any. And it's insidious.



    AOW "I wonder....Has he ever worked a job that required random testing?"

    Again, you're planting an idea that because he once admitted to drug use, that he's probably still using, since we have no tests to prove he hasn't, so therefore, maybe he still IS! Insidious and very telling about your attitude toward this particular president.

    AOW: "I live in the D.C. area. Let me tell you this: drug use, particularly powder cocaine in the highest levels is rampant -- crack cocaine to a lesser degree, but still there."

    So there may be a chance that President Obama is still using cocaine? Cause you never know, especially in the DC area, and especially powder cocaine.

    Are you that blind that you can't see what you're implying here?


    AOW: "And I'm not referring only to Marion Barry, either."

    No, AOW, of course not. There may be other African American politicians who MAY be doing coke, because, well, they haven't been drug tested, and, well, they ARE black...

    AOW: "I'm not accusing,

    Oh goodness NO!

    AOW: "...just wondering."

    And who wouldn't. Especially about certain groups of people..."

    AOW: "I DO have an opinion about the matter, but I have no validation."

    Well, we all have opinions. And sometimes those opinions turn into sneaking suspicions about bi-racial presidents and cocaine usage in the White House.

    Even if you have no validation.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Shaw,
    I am aware that I am implying something -- and zero of what I said has anything to do with Obama's ethnicity.

    In my own extended family -- white, BTW -- I have seen the disaster that drug use brings. Only ONE of the several in my family has ever kicked drugs (cocaine, heroin).

    Only ONE of our former business associates (a coin dealer) and only ONE our former friends ever kicked the habit either. Several died -- after some 20+ years of usage. Took a while, obviously.

    These people were mostly three-piece-suit people, too. They were not blue collar -- not by a long shot.

    All on certain drugs are megalomaniacs while using. In fact, one of the signs that they had quit using was the disappearance of their outrageous egotism and lack of understanding of "the reality on the ground."

    And one more thing....While still using, EVERY SINGLE ONE of them joked about drugs, many using past tense-- much like Obama did on that late night talk show. Clearly, they were using even though they said they were not.

    So, yes, I have my opinions. But what we're discussing here is a topic that I've made observations about for -- Lo! -- some 32 years.

    You may judge me as blind, and that's your prerogative.

    You might read Stephen King's statements about his addiction(s). Two such statements: HERE and HERE.

    PS: Not a birther here -- although I admit that, for a while, I did investigate the matter. David Horowitz and I vehemently argued about where or not Constitutional requirements should apply once a POTUS is elected.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Shaw,
    As for my attitude toward this particular president, it is no secret that I believe that he is the linchpin for destroying America. His ethnicity has zero to do with my opinion in that regard. I did vote for Douglas Wilder for governor of Virginia -- a black Democrat, BTW.

    ReplyDelete
  91. I am PAINFULLY AWARE of the way in which leftists use CRITICAL THEORY -- i.e. persistent, relentless, often pointedly rude hectoring, badgering and heckling designed to inflame passion, distract others from featured issues, and derail honest,civil debate till it degenerates into the moral equivalent of a barroom brawl.

    I'm a fervent champion of LEGITIMATE Freedom of Expression, but DEPLORE the bullying, frankly abusive Alinskyesque tactics described above.

    Even when a skillful practitioner of Critical Theory is clever enough -- and subtle enough -- to avoid shouting, cursing and indulging in outright name-calling -- the sheer PERSISTENCE of pressing what is usually an inconsequential sidebar issue to the point where it TAKES OVER the conversation is frankly DEPLORABLE.

    In short we do not favor anyone's taking on the role of a PROSECUTOR engaged in CROSS EXAMINATION of a WITNESS.

    We all need to learn when it's time to BACK OFF.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  92. AOW: "Shaw,
    As for my attitude toward this particular president, it is no secret that I believe that he is the linchpin for destroying America.

    His ethnicity has zero to do with my opinion in that regard."

    I perhaps was in error because the blog host here calls Mr. Obama a "half man, half savage," his biological father "an African savage," and his mother "a lunatic, anti-American bitch."

    And no one took offense.

    I took that to indicate agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  93. The Supreme Court has ruled that speech is protected, even and especially that speech we find most disturbing. This means that FT is entitled to his point of view, even if most of us do not agree with it. So it would seem that “most of us” understand that FT has a constitutional right to be obnoxious. Shaw, on the other hand, takes offense at everything. If she would take less offense at the opinions of others (her attempt at silencing views she doesn't agree with), and spend an equal amount of time trying to understand why we have the right of free speech, then possibly she would come off as being less than a hateful, ignorant bitch. You know, like Pelosi.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Shaw, you may want to review comments and then amend "no one took offense".
    And re drug use of anyone, Obama or the poor high schooler who's been sold a bill of goods that drugs are cool... I have absolutely no reason to explain myself to you and don't really much care what you think. You go right ahead.

    I also don't buy into the "he admitted drug use and stopped, isn't that wonderful?" attitude Americans are suddenly embracing. "Let it ALL hang out..the worse the better..how human! how REAL!".

    It never seems like a good idea for people like presidents, who are read and heard by so many, to talk about drug abuse. Our society today is doing enough harm without our kids hearing "he did drugs, and HE's okay now!..cool"

    I believe that revealing questionable pasts isn't usually instructive or admirable but a chance to work out therapy in public. We're suffering enough for that right now with a man whose books display his confusion and sadness at being mixed race and having mentors like Frank Marshall Davis and Jeremiah Wright...how's that for good examples?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Z: "It never seems like a good idea for people like presidents, who are read and heard by so many, to talk about drug abuse. Our society today is doing enough harm without our kids hearing "he did drugs, and HE's okay now!..cool"

    George W. Bush admitted to being a drunk. It's true that alcohol is a legal drug, but nevertheless, he admitted to his weakness.

    Jack Whyte,

    Sweetie. The more you call me names, the weaker your silly comments and proof that what I write royally pisses you off.

    I must be doing a lot right if I'm doing that, honeychunks.

    ReplyDelete
  96. ooooh.. Shaw, you're quite a girl.
    I'm out. I can't fight quite so cunningly. (and don't really want to)
    All the best!

    ReplyDelete
  97. Shaw, I can assure you that childish name-calling is the last thing I want to engage in. I don’t think I’m doing that. At least, it isn’t my intention. I simply wonder at your adolescent, asinine behavior. I wonder if there are tragedies in your life that made you into such a miserable creature, such a pathetic human being —or if this is your true nature. Either way, I don’t loathe you; I pity you.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Jack Whyte wrote:

    "I can assure you that childish name-calling is the last thing I want to engage in."


    And then he goes on to engage in what you say is the last thing you want to do, calling me a bitch, a miserable creature, and a pathetic human being.

    You pity me?

    And think I have psycological problems?

    Are you a comedy writer?

    That's the funniest piece of self-parody I've read in a very long time.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Thank you, Jack. My intention has not been to be "obnoxious" but to be provocative. There is a difference.

    If Stanley Ann Dunham should not be considered as an anti-American lunatic bitch, how should she be described?

    Look at her behavior, her values, her stated aims. If she was not insane, she was at the very least criminally subversive. And any woman who hates OUR country THAT much most certainly deserves to be called a bitch, which is a perfectly legitimate term for any nettlesome, disagreeable female. Dunham was worse than that, but I'm too polite to say what she was.

    Also, to clear up another semantical issue, native sub-Saharan Africans have been -- and remain -- primitive savages for the most part. A cursory look at the way they behave -- towards EACH OTHER -- gives more-than-ample proof of that.

    This is not "insulting" or "demeaning," it is the simple truth.

    The Political-Correctness with which I am at war would FORBID discussion of unpleasant, unflattering truths about favored, protected minorities.

    In most of Europe today you can be put in JAIL simply for asking questions about the Holocaust that do not conform to the prevailing orthodoxy put in place in the wake of World War Two.

    Do you really want anything like that HERE in the United States of America?

    I may be cut down in a hailstorm of government-mandated machine gun bullets someday, but I shall go to my death DEFIANT and completely UNWILLING to SUBMIT to TYRANNY of ANY kind.

    As far as I am concerned, President Obama, himself, is certainly not a savage, but his FATHER most certainly was –– literally –– by any definition I learned in school. That's why I categorized the president, albeit with tongue-in-cheek, as a "half-savage."

    A "savage" is any person born into a primitive, backward, predominantly illiterate society governed by more by ignorance and superstition than by reason –– a description that accurately describes sub-Saharan Africa –– and most other cultures outside of Christendom –– especially at the time Barack Obama, Sr. came into the world.

    Being a "savage" does not necessarily mean the same thing as a being a barbarian, though the two words are often freely interchanged.

    Have you never heard of the concept of the "The Noble Savage?"

    Yes, I am incorrigible –– and DELIBERATELY so –– because the things most of you have been systematically CONDITIONED to see as "outrageous," "indecent," "pernicious," "vile," "abusive," and grounds for OSTRACISM, DISMISSAL from a JOB, and possibly even FELONIOUS are a series of chimeras conjured up by leftist operatives, who have been busily finding more and more ways to try to shame, humiliate, hamstring, silence, castrate, and punish white people –– white men in particular –– for even daring to IMAGINE that they TOO have "rights."

    I for one am sick to death of it, and no longer care if anyone finds me "offensive" or not.

    Ducky practically had me in stitches when he said "Never let the opposition define you," –– and then proceeded to categorize me a White Supremacist.

    I may never stop giggling over that one.

    Liberals may not realize it, but they have positioned themselves to function as the latter-day equivalent of The Spanish Inquisition and Britain's Star Chamber.

    Their Arrogant Presumption and Haughty Belligerence offends ME.


    Sorry, but I am not impressed with the captious, judgmental, condescending approach –– the assumption of moral superiority -- that leads to subsequent attacks as is from “on high.”

    We’re all human beings, and we’re all long past the age of consent, so –– even when we disagree vehemently --, we still should try to be kind-if-not-indulgent to one another.

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  100. July 2012

    "Obama's favorability is 54%, according to a recent USA Today-Gallup poll. Respondents were essentially divided on Romney, who had a 46% favorability rating. When asked about likability, respondents favored Obama, 60% to 30%.

    Included in that barometer is a group of personal traits more consequential than just being nice. Obama gets high marks on honesty and trustworthiness. And most voters say he shares their values and cares about people like them.

    And, by some accounts, voters really like the president. Two-thirds of voters surveyed recently by the Wall Street Journal and NBC said they liked Obama personally."

    ReplyDelete
  101. "Also, to clear up another semantical issue, native sub-Saharan Africans have been -- and remain -- primitive savages for the most part. A cursory look at the way they behave -- towards EACH OTHER -- gives more-than-ample proof of that."

    Free Thinke, you apparently have forgotten the Jim Crow laws in the south where white southerners murdered American citizens with impunity. Behaving like beasts toward fellow Christian American citizens.

    So by your logic, those white southern Christians who tortured and hanged African Americans were savages.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Barack's father was no angel, but he was a university educated economist, which is at odds with what I understand by the term "savage". Maybe they piss in the corridors at Harvard, I don't know.

    But even if he were one, to call BHO a half-savage betrays the cockeyed notion that savagery is inherited genetically, which is nonsense. Savagery is purely cultural, and since BHO grew up in America, no fraction of him is a savage.
    It's the idea that savagery is in part genetic which your readers find insulting and demeaning. But more importantly, it's wrong. Factually incorrect. Contrary to reality. This isn't moral superiority I'm assuming here, nothing so grand: my only boast is a decent layman's command of biology.

    ReplyDelete
  103. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

    Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

    in Politics

    RELATED ARTICLES

    New Low: Just 14% Think Today’s Children Will Be Better Off Than Their Parents

    Most Voters Have Not Felt Personal Impact of Health Care Law

    Final Veepstakes Ratings: Pawlenty, Portman Continue To Top List By Kyle Kondik and Larry J. Sabato

    52% Say Violence in Video Games, Movies Leads to More Violence in Society

    Generic Congressional Ballot: Republicans 43%, Democrats 40%

    49% Say Syrian Government Likely to Use Chemical Weapons Against Opponents

    44% of TV Viewers Say There Are More Negative Campaign Ads This Year



    Tuesday, July 31, 2012

    The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Tuesday shows Mitt Romney attracting 47% of the vote, while President Obama earns support from 44%. Five percent (5%) prefer some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

    Romney has a 20-point advantage among white voters.  Obama is supported by 91% of black voters and 57% of other minority voters.

    ReplyDelete
  104. FT...Off topic, but I've always wanted to ask you ....why FREE THINKE and not FREE THINKER?

    I always read FREE THINKE and think it's like rap, where they don't quite finish their words, but I know you hate rap "brothe", so I'm sure you're not trying to be hip :-)

    ReplyDelete
  105. "Maybe they piss in the corridors at Harvard, I don't know."

    I've seen one or two, but on the whole, they use the latrines.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Good morning, Z and all,

    I tried to answer your question last night, Z, but the comment got chewed up and disappeared into the bowels of Blogger. Then I was unable to get back into my own blog -- or anyone else's -- until this morning.

    Apparently, Blogger software throws you out every once in a while, and forces you to re-register to get back in. Bother!

    Anyway, the FreeThinke name goes all the way back to the bad old days at FPM. I'm sure you remember when David Horowitz FINALLY took action against the Super Troll "Socrates," who held FPM hostage for well over a year, and virtually destroyed all chances at meaningful conversation there?

    Well, at that time most of us "old-timers" were forced to change our screen names. I chose FreeThinker, BUT the new software at FPM arbitrarily decided no one could take a name with more than NINE letters, so the "r" got cut off, and I got stuck with FreeThinke.

    It would have been kind and considerate if FPM had warned us of what was coming, but they always were a rude, peremptory, callously exploitative bunch over there and treated all contributors with no sign of appreciation for anything worthwhile that came out of the comments section. I learned a lot about life -- and the rough and tumble dynamics of communication in cyberspace -- over there. None of what I learned was pretty or reassuring about human nature.

    At first I was annoyed by the new name, but after a while I grew to like it, because it drew so much curiosity -- and frankly it looks kind of classy -- like spelling Clarke with the "e" on the end, instead of leaving it plain. Years and years have gone by, and I've continued to use the tag. I doubt if I would ever change it at this late date.

    Funny how things happen, isn't it? A new identity -- and now a blog -- was created by a fluke. It was not my choice at all.

    May this day be happier and more productive for all of us than the last.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  107. I'm sorry I forgot my manners in the tidal wave of Righteous Indignation -- both sincere and disingenuous -- that swept over the atmosphere, and forgot to acknowledge and give thanks for two helpful and insightful contributors.

    Sam made a very important point with this statement:

    "Were the men who beat slaves less stringent with their own families? We are aware of a peculiar type of man who simply likes to beat people over whom he exercises control or power. We find these kinds of people getting some perverse pleasure from the beatings they meted out to their slaves; we find the same kinds of men beating their wives, mistresses, their children, lesser men, and the ladies from the local social club. We find these same kinds of men beating their wives and abusing their children today."

    That is certainly true. I'm afraid we all have a capacity for cruelty, but some have a more pronounced sadistic streak than others. In earlier times people treated each other far more harshly than most of us do today. Corporal punishment was freely administered by parents, teachers and most in positions of authority in my parents' generation and before. We went soft on the 1940's -- probably thanks to the dubious influences of Sigmund Freud, Benjamin Spock, Bruno Bettleheim and others of their ilk.

    I have mixed feelings about it. I've never been convinced that at times one must be cruel in order to be kind. However, we've gone much too far in redefining "cruelty" and "abuse" as any attempt whatsoever to point out and try to correct errors made by others -- even in the classroom.

    AOW, for whose thoughtful, supportive contributions I am most grateful, gave us the positive example of Phyllis Wheatley -- an African native (we could quite properly call her a savage, but why stir the pot yet again?) -- who was, apparently, tamed, educated and civilized by her kindly, far-sighted owners. From the small example given of Miss Wheatley's exemplary metric verse we learn that she wound up being GRATEFUL to her captors.

    The Other Side of the Coin -- or just a fluke?

    We may never know so heavily invested are we in promoting AGENDAS instead of Searching honestly for TRUTH.


    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  108. "My intention has not been to be "obnoxious" but to be provocative. There is a difference."

    I agree there is a difference, but there if you're going to be provocative without also being obnoxious, there needs to be a good strong point to your provocation. And I can't see any serious point that you're making with your provocative remarks. Until you deliver a serious point, your intention has failed.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Jez,



    With all due respect all you have shown in your last comment is your own remarkable opacity, moral blindness and a capacity for understated insolence.

    

I was happy to see, however, that you have finally settled the longstanding Nature-Nurture controversy once and for all –– to your satisfaction, and that of the modish orthodoxies to which you subscribe.

    

What a comfort it must be to feel so certain of your own convictions!

    

I wish it could be that cut and dried for me.



    Of COURSE the Hottentots, the Pygmies, the Ubangi, the Watusi, the Senegalese, the Hutu, the Kenyans et al. have always been in every way the equal of the ancient Egyptians, the Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Phoenicians, the ancient Greeks, the Romans, and the post-Renaissance Europeans, the British and us Americans. 



    Their absolute parity with the advanced civilizations of ancient times and with the modern West is patently obvious. How stupid of me never to have noticed before!

    

Consider me humbled.

    

~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete
  110. "you have shown ... your own remarkable opacity, moral blindness and a capacity for understated insolence."

    Nonsense, I only disagreed with you, that's not insolence.

    Of course you (playfully rather than stupidly, I hope) miss-state my position when you say "in every way the equal". -- despite what it says in the preamble to your sacred DoI, we both know it isn't true.

    My actual position is that since the differences have very little to do with genes, the differences must instead arise mostly from our cultures, which are radically different.

    To put it another way, if you were swapped with a Kenyan at birth, you would have grown up to be a savage (your usage), and your Kenyan twin would have grown up civilised.

    Neither of you would have been half-way, the transfer would have been complete.

    The basis of my opinion (not much genetic difference between races) is not opinion, but based on observation. We live in such exciting times: we can sequence a human's DNA these days and examine his genes directly. It has almost become (and soon it will be) a quite routine matter. The genetic differences that make one race distinct from another is tiny compared to the differences between two unrelated individuals from the same race.

    If you're really interested in why civilisation happens in some places but not in others, read Guns, Germs and Steel by Jared Diamond.

    ReplyDelete
  111. You've heard all this before a thousand times, I'm sure, but while it's perfectly true that a dog is a dog is a dog, it is NOT true that a Spaniel is a Dachshund is a Collie, is a Bulldog, is a Pekingese, is a Boxer is a toy Poodle is a Great Pyrenees is a Bloodhound is a Mastiff, is a Chihuahua, etc.

    All are dogs, and all may interbreed (at least theoretically), but when breeds are crossed you get mutts, Mutts may be lovable, darling, affectionate, appealing -- even useful -- but they are still MUTTS.

    And yes, I know that most "breeds" have been essentially manmade, and that from what i understand all dogs are direct descendants and genetically modified versions of the wolf.

    So, I suppose, since "eugenics" has been long deemed abhorrent, and official recognition of any differences among the races is now considered more taboo than saying "fuck you, bitch" at your Aunt Tilly's tea party, we will simply have to DEVOLVE and return to the UR-HUMAN forms from which we ever-so-gradually sprang over countless millennia.

    I'm sorry, but it is impossible for me to believe that "culture" is merely the accidental by-product of climate and geography.

    I might have been shipped to Japan as an infant and raised by Japanese, but that would never have made me one of them, anymore than being raised in Zimbabwe would have made me an African Negro.

    There's a great deal more that goes into making us who and what we are than DNA.

    If that were not so, we wouldn't be as manifestly different from -- and hostile to -- one another as we are.

    By the way, I hasten to say that my remarks are not intended as an indictment of "mutts." Some of the best dogs in the world have been of mixed breeds, but the I think the world would be much the poorer if Cocker Spaniels, German Shepherds, Beagles, Schnauzers, Weimaraners, Dalmatians, Irish Setters, Border Collies, French Poodles, and all the rest of the distinctive breeds were to disappear into one amorphous, featureless medium-sized animal called DOG.

    ~ FT

    PS: Why do you suppose we are not hearing of Beijingese dogs -- or seeing Beijing Duck featured n Chinese restaurants -- now that that clumsy, politically-motivated transliteration has been foisted on the West? - FT

    ReplyDelete
  112. This thread is still active? Wow!

    This time, I'll check email notification for this blog post so that I'm still somewhat in the loop.

    ReplyDelete
  113. AOW, you presence has been missed here lately. We would never want you to be outside "the loop," believe me.

    I guess the only way to attract a lot of activity to an item is to lard it with a phrase or two that people can take rabid exception to. Apparently, many just love to get enraged so they can foam at the mouth with a show of rabid indignation.

    It says more about human nature than it does about whatever topic may be at hand.

    "OFFENDISM" is the new religion -- a kid of neo-Puritan approach to shaming, embarrassing, humiliating, excoriating and otherwise bullying, abusing, depriving and ostracizing people into SUBMITTING to a certain ethos conjured up by the OFFENDISTS (i.e, "liberals") as The One True and Only Way to Think Feel and Act.

    Funny how a goal may be worthy -- even laudable -- while the method employed to attain it may be morally corrupt and spiritually bankrupt.

    As The Stage Manager says, "Wherever you find human beings you find nonsense -- layers and layers of nonsense."

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  114. A wild schedule in this household right now.

    Offendism is the perfect term.

    You know, a lot of people visit blogs to vent. They actually look for opportunities to vent.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Dog breeds are created deliberately by human breeders aggressively selecting for certain traits. The natural analog is the near-extinction event, where difficult environmental circumstances kills almost every member of a species. The only ones to survive are those who happened to have characteristics suitable to survive this crisis: so this is nature aggressively selecting individuals, a bit like breeders with their dogs.

    For a given species, these events must be rare, otherwise they get upgraded to full extinctions. On the other hand, dogs may be bred indefinitely, with no danger of extinction. So what has happened to breeds of dog has never happened naturally to any species.

    Nevertheless, every pair of breeds can produce viable offspring. In fact, the result would likely turn out to be a great deal more healthy than certain full-breeds, which can suffer from the extreme nature of their selected-for traits, and from genetic illness caused by their restricted gene-pool.

    Humans survived a near-extinction event fairly recently in pre-history, but that happened before we'd migrated from Africa and become the different races of today. So human races didn't arise from aggressive selections, but developed gradually as we gently drifted into our new niches on our new continents.

    "recognition of any differences among the races is now considered ... taboo"

    It's not exactly a taboo in my book, however it is a sensitive area because many of the people who most want to talk about it are ignorant bigots. As long as the participants are neither of those things, I'm fine with it. But no-one relishes listening to bigotry, so I can see how this reputation for taboo developed.

    "we will simply have to DEVOLVE and return to the UR-HUMAN forms from which we ever-so-gradually sprang"

    This, if I understand you right, is biologically ignorance. Evolution does not have direction so never happens "backwards".

    "I'm sorry, but it is impossible for me to believe that "culture" is merely the accidental by-product of climate and geography."

    I didn't ask you to believe that, did I? Culture is obviously driven by human invention, although successful cultures necessarily respect (and take advantage of) the realities of the local environment. Inuit culture is constrained differently from Mediterranean culture.

    "There's a great deal more that goes into making us who and what we are than DNA."

    Are you positing some mechanism for inheritance which is neither genetics nor upbringing? What do you have in mind?

    "If that were not so, we wouldn't be as manifestly different from -- and hostile to -- one another as we are."

    Humans are capable of hostility to people they're basically identical to. Tribal identity does not depend on ethnic variation.

    What differences have you in mind? Are they measurable (important for comparing differences between races to differences within races)? How are you sure that they are not explainable by culture (assuming you don't just mean the physical differences eg. height, hair etc.)?

    "the world would be much the poorer if ... all ... the distinctive breeds were to disappear into one amorphous, featureless medium-sized animal called DOG."

    I disagree with that for two reasons.
    1) that's not what would happen. When you mix genes, you don't end up with an average, you end up with more variety across the population. For example, consider the population of Brazil, the most ethnically mixed nation in the world. The result is anything but uniformity.
    2) Some full-breeds do suffer for their genes. It's just like royal families, lots of madness and defects.

    Breeds are useful because you want to predict the temperament of a dog as a puppy so that you can train it appropriately, especially for working dogs. We don't treat humans that way, we educate them according to their interests and aptitudes as they develop.

    ReplyDelete
  116. " We ... educate [human beings] according to their interests and aptitudes as they develop."

    If only that were true, Jez.

    Most people are never educated at all -- Alas! they just grow wild like so many weeds in Nature's garden -- and act accordingly.

    ~ FT

    ReplyDelete
  117. Funny! No one ever answered my question about Beijingese dogs and Beijing Duck.

    Have the British ever cut up rough about the French calling England Angleterre?

    Do the French get all bent out of shake because we foreigners say Pa-riss, instead of Pa-ree?

    Do the Italians really care that the English-speaking peoples refer to their country as Italy instead of Italia?

    Etc. etc. etc.

    The implication in asking such questions, of course, is why should WE -- at this late date -- SUDDENLY have to start calling foreign countries and cities by names OTHER than the ones we learned in school?

    Bombay will always be Bombay as far as I'm concerned and Burma will always be Burma. Have they thought up new "traditional" names for India and China, yet?

    And come to think of it what was so wrong about Siam that we had to change and call it Thailand?

    Don't visit Germany anymore. Either you call it Deutschland or your passport will be revoked, see?

    How utterly absurd our species is -- when its geniuses are not producing miracles!

    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete

IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING, YOU DON'T BELONG HERE, SO KINDLY GET OUT AND STAY OUT.

We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––
We WILL use COMMENT ERADICATION.


IN ADDITION

Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.