More proof that white middle-class males are evil!
Back when I was young, in the 1970s, the cool thing was to wear long hair, sidewhiskers, and platform heels. I had an Yves St. Laurent suit that was nipped in at the waist, with gigantic lapels, false shoulders, and flared hiphuggers. It was worn with shirts with high and long collars and ties that were about as thick as coat sleeves. When I wore it I KNEW I was cool.
And the casual wear was just as bad. Or worse:
There are few photos of me during that time, and access to them is tightly restricted to family and close friends. That’s because, with today’s eyes, I looked ridiculous. We all did; the ’70s were a time of some of the worst fashion taste ever. The great thing, then, is that I didn’t have to keep wearing those hideous clothes and that stupid hair.
Which brings us to this little darling:
Sure, he’s an extreme example. Few people go to the trouble of mutilating themselves by stretching their earlobes like members of some savage Amazon tribe. But tattoos have become ubiquitous. I see otherwise beautiful women all the time who have disfigured themselves with tattoos, many of them where they can’t be covered with clothes. And the worst thing is that even those that are skilfully applied are not esthetically pleasing, but in the worst of taste: dragons, flags, gothic-style script, etc. They’re usually comparable in elegance to a “velvet Elvis”.
So here’s the thing, sweethearts. In twenty years, your tattoos are going to be as lame and embarrassing as my blue plaid bellbottoms and wide white belt. But you’ll still be wearing them. You’ll be just as pathetic as those old guys you see still wearing pony tails, trying to hang on to the glory of their long-vanished youth. Don’t say you weren’t warned.
In Ferguson, the cops have stood by and watched while savages burned and looted. Emperor Obama and other eminent frauds feebly protested that burning and looting weren’t appropriate expressions of no-doubt righteous anger, but it was obvious that their hearts weren’t really in it.
And, as if to emphasize the Establishment’s indifference to the suffering of ordinary people who saw their livelihoods go up in smoke, the News Media, our informal Ministry of Truth, refuses to call the riots riots. Instead, they refer to the mayhem as “protests,” whitewashing the actions of gleeful criminals who destroy the lives and property of others.
Meanwhile, the cops make a point of preventing business owners from using private guards to protect their property.
The overall impression on weak minds must inevitably be that, while officially frowned upon, the violence in Ferguson is justified, and that really it’s okay with the powers that be. That’s because it is being carried out by black people, who are special and who have a right to be angry and violent when they’re
upset about something.
Now the St. Louis police and Minitrue are dealing with the inevitable fallout of such an approach with more mendacity. It seems a bunch of “teens,” code for young people of a certain ethnicity, attacked and beat a white man to death with hammers in that city.
One might think it reasonable to consider the possibility, under the circumstances, that he was murdered because he was white. But we’re supposed to believe that didn’t even enter the mind of the chief of police in St. Louis:
St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson addressed protesters Sunday and pledged to crack down on crime in the area, but denied that Begic was killed because of his ethnicity.
Dotson refused to believe 32 year-old Zemir Begic’s death was a “hate” crime because there was no way the “teens” of a certain ethnicity could know he was … Bosnian. I’m not making that up.
“There is no indication that the gentleman last night was targeted because he was Bosnian,” Dotson said, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. “There’s no indication that they knew each other.”
The fact that the victim might have been targeted because he was simply white is something that the chief would have us believe he never even considered. Only in Bizarro World could he show such open contempt for ordinary people and not be pelted with rotten fruit or worse.
You can imagine the headlines, and the chief’s reaction, if the races had been switched. If a black man had been bludgeoned by whites, it would have led every newscast. There would be protest marches, outraged speeches, finger-wagging essays by bien-pensants in the New York Times. But as it is, only “right-wing” Fox News paid attention, and even it fudges the issue with its headline:
Pack of teens beats man to death near Ferguson, but protests sparse
Protests were sparse. So no worries, then.
Meanwhile, the Washington Post informs us that white people should acknowledge that they have an unfair advantage because of “white privilege.” Sally Cohn, a commentator for CNN, sets us straight about black rage:
Black communities are ultimately protesting systems of injustice and inequality that structurally help white people while systematically harming black people.
Mizz Cohn magnanimously lets us know that, “It is not your personal fault that Michael Brown was shot and killed.” Whew! That’s a relief! But then she goes on to tell us:
Too many white people refuse to own up to — let alone confront — racial bias in America. We check out of conversations on race that communities of color are desperately trying to include us in. The truth is that some white people can hear this only from another white person.
And she’s the enlightened, caring white person who can tell us.
The manifest maladaptations of black “culture:” its horrifying violence; its lack of two-parent households; its insistence on conformity, or “keeping it real;” its hostility to “acting white,” or behaving responsibly; its embracing of dependency on state handouts; its degrading “music” that promotes violence and sexual exploitation of women; its blind allegiance to obvious charlatans such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson; its toleration of open hatred against whites; and so on, apparently have little to do with the current sorry state of black society, if Mizz Cohn is to be believed. So it appears that a real conversation, in which difficult facts and opinions are freely expressed, is not actually on her agenda.
No, the “conversation” she and her cohorts are pushing is limited to a monologue about the way we whites carry an invisible shield of “privilege” that causes black misery.
Not surprisingly, some brainwashed whites have embraced this self-defeating attitude, to the ridiculous point of justifying criminal acts by blacks against themselves.
In truth, all this talk about “white privilege” is a cover for the real motivation of the Establishment liberals: hatred of the white middle and lower classes, with their vestigial (and rapidly declining) beliefs in God and basic virtues. It’s not that the elites actually like most blacks, either. But black misery and self-degradation provide a guilt stick that they can use to beat ordinary white people, whom they despise more than anyone else.
And if blacks respond to their relentless propaganda, and black violence against whites gets out of hand, people like Mizz Cohn and the rest of her truly privileged group will no doubt be protected from it by their money and power.
They will shake their heads sorrowfully, but with some satisfaction, as you and I get what they know we deserve.
With dozens of businesses damaged, looted, or burned to the ground in Ferguson, Missouri, turning that town’s business district into a smoking crater, what do the Ferguson police do?
“When we hear information that someone, or a group, is providing security without a license, our department has to investigate the issue,” police spokesman, Shawn McGuire, told the New York Times in an email.
What this obviously means is that the job of the police is not to protect regular people like you or me, or our property. And they’re hostile to people who try to do that.
So what is their job, then?
This little sweetie is Erica Swallow, a privileged graduate of MIT’s Sloan School of Business, who was lucky enough to get an internship at a Boston venture capital firm called General Catalyst. That’s actually her real name — I’m not making it up.
Unfortunately, Erica felt “left out” at the male-dominated firm — apparently forgetting that she was an intern — and decided to complain in a blog about “gender bias” there. Note that there’s no indication that she was abused: there’s no mention of bottom-pinching, come-ons, leers, or other sexual abuses from the evil men.
No, her complaint is that she was “consistently reminded of my place as a woman in a man’s world.” Horrors. She doesn’t seem to consider the possibility that she may have been experiencing what any intern might experience in a high-powered, competitive business environment.
“What message do you think I heard when I was the only woman, at a lowly intern position, sitting in on founder pitches and investment meetings? In short: VC is no place for a woman,” she wrote.
Despite being offended by being the only Ivy-League princess present, she can’t resist a little bragging: She got to “sit in on founder pitches and investment meetings.”
Alas, when her narcissistic blithering got popular attention, her superiors at the firm became upset at the bad publicity and hurt her feelings:
“The fact that all of the meetings they set up about my post that last week and beyond were with men, and that the majority of our conversations revolved around bringing this topic back to a positive perspective of what the firm and its peers are doing to solve the problem, made me feel as if the core of my post, my feelings and less-than-welcoming experience, were not valued,” Miss Swallow wrote in a first-person piece for the Wall Street Journal.
“They didn’t see that I felt left out; they saw that their firm was under attack,” she added
Gosh. Imagine that. Those insensitive cads insisted on thinking about their business’s reputation and bottom line, instead of concentrating on her feelings as they should have. And when she refused to back down, one of the male beasts actually yelled at her. It made her cry, but the brave little darling stuck to her guns:
“I stood up, tears falling from my eyes and my breath becoming uncontrollable, and said I wasn’t going to take this treatment. I hadn’t done anything wrong for speaking up about something I felt was an issue, but I was being treated like a perpetrator. I had broken their trust, they told me. And maybe I had, but I would not be silenced and belittled,” she wrote.
Maybe she did betray their trust, but she wasn’t going to listen to any criticism. So there!
Now, it’s true that self-absorbed, spoiled-rotten little princesses have been around since the dawn of civilization. But her ludicrous attitude is not what prompted me to write this post. Neither is her dewy-eyed Harlequin Romance writing style.
No, the problem is that her behavior, instead of being laughed off as it would in a rational universe, is embraced by the people who tell us what to think. Little Miss Swallow was given the opportunity to write about her tantrum in the Wall Street Journal. She’s been on television. I’d like to think that’s because hers is such a bizarre story, but apparently not. Apparently, a lot of people actually think she has a complaint.
And instead of her ridiculous antics inhibiting success in the adult world, she may very well go on to build a successful career from them. After all, look at Sandra Fluke, who came to national attention by actually complaining to the Congress that Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, wouldn’t subsidize her sexual cavorting by paying for free condoms or birth control pills. Now she’s running for Congress herself!
And people ask me why I use the term “Bizarro World.”
Any illusions reasonable people may have that Israel’s regime is somehow “defending” itself by shelling, bombing, and rocketing Gaza civilians should be put to rest by the above photo. It shows the bodies of two little boys killed by shells fired by an Israeli gunboat while they were playing soccer on a beach. There were apparently no targets that could be interpreted as military nearby, and the area was peaceful before the attack began. Witnesses said that after the first shell hit, the boys ran for their lives, but the shelling followed them, killing four and wounding another three.
This is not the first time this has happened. As with other Israeli atrocities, such as shooting little kids in the head or shelling ambulances, the Israelis tend to do the same thing over and over. Here’s an account of Israeli helicopters destroying ambulances during the attack on Lebanon on 2006. Wouldn’t you know it, they’re doing the same thing to the Gazans today.
And, like their individual atrocities, the current murderous Israeli rampage in the the giant concentration camp called the Gaza Strip also follows a familiar pattern, with a slight twist.
The way things usually work is this: after a period of relative peace, with no violence on either side, and the hated Hamas regime ruling Gaza behaving relatively reasonably, the Israeli regime provokes an incident, and uses the ensuing violent reaction on the part of Gazans to justify a vicious attack on innocent civilians.
Back in 2006, Gaza suffered under a starvation blockade engineered by the Israeli regime to collectively punish Gazans for freely electing a government the Israelis didn’t like. But apparently subjecting a million and a half civilians to penury, disease, and malnutrition wasn’t cruel enough, so the Israelis shelled an apartment building in Gaza, killing 15 and wounding 45. The shelling happened just hours after Hamas and its allies had unilaterally initiated a truce.
When that didn’t get the kettle boiling, an Israeli gunboat shelled a beach on which Gazan families were peacefully picnicking. Eight civilians — mostly children — were blown to bloody bits.
The resulting outraged but totally ineffective attacks by Gazans on Israel were used to justify an invasion with tanks and bombing and shelling that made what came before look like a tea party. The Israelis smugly called it “Operation Summer Rains.” Hundreds of trapped, helpless Gazans died, and their water, sewer, and other utilities so necessary for life and health were pounded to bits, making the survivors’ lives even more miserable than they already were.
The latest murderous rampage follows that familiar pattern. The Israelis took advantage of the kidnapping and murder, by persons unknown, of three Israeli teenage illegal settlers on the occupied West Bank, which is not the Gaza Strip, and not ruled by Hamas at all, but by the Palestinian Authority. It seems clear that the Israeli regime had planned the current operation beforehand, and were simply waiting for an excuse.
What makes these atrocities worse is the pompous excuses we have come to expect from the Israeli regime’s defenders in the Ministry of Truth, otherwise known as the mainstream press. We get the tired canard that “terrorists” are hiding behind “human shields,” never with any proof, and which, in any case, conveniently ignores the fact that this means that the Israelis know they will be killing innocent civilians when they attack so-called “militants.” And then there’s the egregious cowardice of our politicians when it comes to confronting Israel about its atrocities.
And now the chief Israeli mass murderer Benjamin Netanyahu is complaining that the Palestinians are using “telegenically dead” civilians for propaganda. I think that’s a bit rich coming from a regime that energetically publicizes whenever an Israeli civilian gets his hair mussed by Palestinian attacks, and constantly harps on the 70-year-old Holocaust as justification for its crimes.
As I’ve pointed out before, the Israelis are today’s Nazis. As the Gazans, who have nowhere to run, are massacred by the overwhelming might of Israeli air power and armor, Israeli civilians sit out on lawn chairs and enjoy the spectacle. This is America’s ally. These are the people to whom our rulers give billions of our tax dollars.
It makes me proud to be an American.
I remember a conversation I had at lunch with some colleagues about twenty years ago. My friend Bureaucrat X and I were discussing the homosexual “rights” movement, and another asked why we were wasting our time bothering with such nonsense.
Bureaucrat X turned to him and said, “Because they’re the next entitled victim group, like the blacks.”
My colleague couldn’t believe his ears. “That’s ridiculous!” he sputtered. No way, he told us, would “gay rights” advocates attain the power of the race hustlers. My friend and I were obviously not getting out enough.
Which brings us to this:
Gay couples in Denmark will be permitted to wed in any church they want, although almost one third of priests in the country have said they will not perform the ceremonies.
The Scandinavian country’s parliament voted on homosexual marriage and, by a large majority, were in favour of it, meaning churches across Denmark are not permitted to refuse gay marriages. The country’s church minister, Manu Sareen, described the result as “historic”, explaining that he felt it was very important all church members were given the right to marry.
If you don’t think this kind of nonsense is coming to America, think again. The Catholic Church in this country is already under attack: look at the Obama regime’s attempt to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for abortions — something that would have been unthinkable only ten years ago.
Before we go any further, let me point out that my attitude toward state licensing of marriage is one of implacable hostility in any case. What right does the state have to demand its permission of free people to engage in holy matrimony? So in one sense, the whole “gay marriage” controversy here in the U.S. — which is about state-licensed civil “marriages” — is irrelevant.
The problem is, after homosexual civil unions are finally enshrined in “law,” the next step will be to force churches to perform such “marriages,” as in Denmark. Not to submit will make one guilty of “discrimination” and “hate.”
In just a few short years, “gay marriage” has gone from being a joke to something that one can lose one’s job for opposing. The “gay” power movement is on a roll, and they aren’t going to stop, because each victory means even more power and influence for them.
What’s coming later? The way things are going, Christianity itself will soon be under open attack. Christians are increasingly portrayed in the popular media as intolerant, narrow-minded, bigoted, and stupid. Christian symbols are no longer respectable. Soon, being a Christian will mean being disreputable, an outsider, even un-American. Eventually one’s Christianity will be grounds for being refused employment, or for suspicion of “extremism.” It’s already beginning to happen now.
Think that’s a stretch? So was “gay” power twenty years ago.
CNN, which pushed the invasion of Iraq for all it was worth, has finally come around to the notion that maybe it wasn’t such a hot thing to do, after all.
The story is called “Bush’s Toxic Legacy in Iraq.” But let’s not forget that that “toxic legacy” — and it is toxic, indeed — also belongs to CNN itself, which, along with the New York Times and the rest of the Ministry of Truth, pushed the Bush regime’s lies about Weapons of Mass Destruction, Niger uranium, and the rest, with unholy zeal and no skepticism whatsoever.
So now that the results of their folly are obvious to everyone, will they hang their heads in shame and admit their roles in stampeding the country to war?
Don’t bet on it.
Because “all that we’ve fought for” in Iraq is about to vanish.
But Jim Wright (no relation) is a little upset himself. He says he fought in Iraq, and he’s angry at people like Mitt (not to mention such lovelies as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle) and Clueless George who sent him and others over there on the basis of lies: that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, and then the Weapons of Mass Destruction which didn’t exist, and then the great project to bring peace and prosperity to Iraq by killing people and blowing things up. He also points out that people like Mitt and Wolfowitz etc. didn’t actually do any fighting, and neither did any of their family members. So “we” isn’t exactly the correct term.
Wright’s an angry man, and his rant is a bit intemperate, but he’s got a serious point. It’s too bad he wasn’t wise to the lies of politicians before he joined up.
Another serious point is one made by Iraq’s ruling Shiite al Maliki regime, which helped bring on the burgeoning disaster by enthusiastically persecuting Iraq’s Sunni minority. Al Maliki is being urged by the Empire to “reach out” to the Sunnis now that they’re apparently about to overthrow him.
However, al Maliki has, probably correctly, decided that such an effort would be a waste of time at this point, and is doubling down on his disgusting treatment of the Sunnis. At the same time he’s accusing the Saudi Arabian regime of subsidizing terrorism, which it almost certainly does.
In fact, the Saudis have been behind the growth of modern Islamic militarism from the start. They have subsidized schools all over the Muslim world that teach their militant fundamentalist Islamic creed, Wahhabism, and given money and training to all sorts of crazy Sunni insurgent groups. The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudis.
And yet, the United State has never threatened the Saudis with invasion or bombing. It’s never even publicly denouced the Saudi regime for fomenting violence and terrorism. No, the Saudi regime, surely one of the most corrupt and depraved on earth is, in fact, a valued friend of the Empire.
Which is a little odd, if you accept the notion that all the U.S. invasions, bombings, economic blockades that kill thousands of little children, occupations, drone strikes, etc., are about stopping terrorism and spreading democracy. Could it be there’s another reason?
Remember the “Surge?” That was in 2007, when then-Emperor Bush committed 20,000 additional troops to Iraq to quell rising violence. That violence was the result of the Empire’s invasion, which had destroyed the uneasy peace Saddam Hussein’s regime had imposed on the various mutually hostile ethnic factions: Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites, etc. Saddam had quelled disputes through a combination of networking allies, balancing factions against each other, and good old surveillance and terror. When he went, the old hatreds and grudges sprang forth again full-blown.
At home we were told by the Ministry of Truth, otherwise known as the Mainstream Media, that the Surge, in combination with the so-called “Sunni Awakening,” had cleaned out the bad guys, paving the way for peace and harmony. In fact, the Sunni Awakening was built on bribing Sunni warlords with U.S. dollars to leave Imperial Storm Troopers alone and fight the warlords who wouldn’t take bribes. When the Storm Troopers and their dollars went away, the warlords started acting up again. Meanwhile, the Shia-controlled al Maliki regime was going out of its way to make life difficult for the Sunni minority. This led to bad feelings and more support for warlords and terrorists among the Sunni population.
All this was disastrous for what was once the most prosperous and advanced Arab country in the world. A country that once had decent health care by Third World standards, good water supplies and sanitation, and a rising standard of living, saw them all all shattered by U.S. economic sanctions, bombs, and bullets, and then the civil unrest that inevitably followed. Iraq is effectively destroyed as a country. Its subjects live in squalor, disease, and violence; their relative prosperity now but a bitter memory.
Meanwhile, because the War on the Iraqis was such a success, the Empire has moved on to helping other benighted peoples. It sponsored the overthrow of the disgusting Muammar Gaddaffi, which also, surprisingly enough, resulted in the breakdown of civil society in Libya, destruction of the standard of living, rising violence, and other benefits. Like the Iraqi regime, the new Libyan regime is not really very friendly to the U.S. And the unrest has liberated many of Gaddaffi’s weapons and put out of work the mercenaries who worked for him. Many of those were from Mali, one of the most backward, dirt-poor countries on the face of the Earth. With nothing to do in Libya, they returned home and started a civil war there.
The Libyan repercussions apparently reached as far as Nigeria, where the terrorist group Boko Haram has provided comfortable upper-middle-class feminists with a welcome excuse for self-righteous indignation by kidnapping a bunch of schoolgirls. That kidnapping is just one among many atrocities, some of which are much worse but somehow don’t seem to get as much publicity. What also doesn’t get much publicity is the fact that Boko Haram’s weapons seem to have come from Libya.
All of which brings us to our Emperor’s latest little adventure, the ongoing disaster in Syria. Just as the U.S. provoked the overthrow of Gaddaffi, so it is interfering in Syria, working to overthrow the regime there, which is controlled by adherents of a quasi-Shiite sect called the Alawites. The result is the usual violence, destruction, death, and misery inflicted mostly on innocent civilian non-combatants. But, interestingly enough, the violence and destruction has spilled into Iraq, bringing us full circle. The vicious Sunni killers the U.S. is aiding in Syria are apparently big pals with the vicious Sunni killers now throwing Iraq into chaos. It would seem that some of the weapons and other aid the U.S. is giving the Syrian rebels are now being used to fight the Iraqi regime that the U.S. installed. The result seems to be shaping up to an all-out civil war, as the rebels are growing stronger and now have access to heavy weapons, including tanks. Increasingly, the al Maliki regime is starting to look like the South Vietnamese regime in the 1970s. And it stands as much chance of getting any real help from the U.S.
As I’ve said before, the only thing that’s as dangerous as being an enemy of the United State is being its friend.