The Million Normal Human March

Lawrence Auster: The Million Normal Human March -- Hatrz!

I guess people -- even French people -- just don't like going where "liberalism" and socialism dictates they must. Now, if only they would allow themselves to see all the way through the cynical marketing and pious mythology of leftism at its core.

Auster:

... In short, the Great Silent [French] Majority has suddenly shown—which it has never done before—that it opposes the ongoing destruction of Western society in the name of equality, and it has done so in the most decisive manner. What if the Great Silent Majority, in all the Western countries, expressed itself similarly on mass immigration, on Islamization, on mandated diversity, on sexual libertarianism, on feminism, on the unearned elevation of blacks and the unearned demonization of whites, on massive transfers of wealth to aliens, illegal aliens, and professional dependents, on the Soviet-like media, on the transgressive and nihilist mass culture? The suicide of the West could be reversed.

Yes, as a matter of logic and possibilities, even now, the on-going suicide of the West could be halted. But, don't count on that to happen.

The problem has never really been the "liberals" and other leftists, but rather the problem is that those who thnk themselves conservative or traditionalist just don't give a damn (*) about the leftist's gnawing away at all the foundations of society and polity.


(*) I intend to post a bit about a small example of this recently encountered.

When he's right, he's right

Lawrence Auster: a theory explaining Romney’s bizarre emptiness --

I have a theory explaining Romney’s bizarre emptiness. It has to do with his Mormonism. Mormonism consists, at its core, of many ridiculous assertions that no rational person could possibly believe. Why then does Mormonism “work” so well for its adherents? Because the practical core of the religion is not this folderol about a family of sixth century B.C. Jews sailing from Mesopotamia to North America or Joseph Smith discovering a 2,000 year old platinum scripture written by an angel buried behind his farm in upstate New York, but the patriarchal way of life it counsels. This is deeply appealing to people, and it works for them. That’s why they are Mormons. At the same time, in order to be Mormons, they have to turn off their rational faculty when it comes to questions of truth. They disregard questions of truth, and focus on the pragmatic, ethical aspects of Mormonism.

And this describes Romney perfectly. As a Mormon, he has turned off his faculty of the rational search for truth, but at the same time he follows the healthy and solid Mormon maxims on how to live a good life. As a result, he is a man devoid of principles, even while his personal character and behavior are exemplary.

To expand upon Mr Auster's theory -- it's not *merely* that Mormonism requires its adherents to believe empirical assertions "that no rational person could possibly believe", but that it requires them to believe metaphysical assertions (*) "that no rational person could possibly believe".

Mormonism is, in this regard, much like atheism in requiring the holding of irrational metaphysical assertions. And, most 'atheists' get around that problem by generally ignoring their metaphysical commitments ... and living their daily lives, for the most part, in accord with our Judeo-Christian metaphysical commitments. Can you imagine what the world would be like if every 'atheist' tried to live like Lenin, Stalin and Mao?

(*) For instance, that "God" is merely one more entity, amongst the many, in 'the universe'. That is, the Mormon "God" is not different in kind from you and me, or from Zeus. To put it another way, the Mormon "God" is an effect of 'the universe', rather than its cause.

Citizen, are you willing to submit to Islam?

Or, to put the question another way, "Are you a citizen, or are you a subject?"

Lawrence Auster: Obama makes good on his pledge in Cairo: maker of “Innocence of Muslims” video is sentenced to a year in prison

There is another reason

Habitual Idiot, as it happens, there is 'another reason', an actual reason: really, Auster, in some ways, on some topics, you're at least as bad as the leftists.

Blacks in present-day America are "falling behind" academically not because of their biology, but because of cultural permissions and expectations. Blacks in present-day America disproportionately commit violent crime not because of their biology, but because of cultural permissions and expectations.

Blacks are human beings -- just like you whites (*) -- which means that, just like you all, they are 'fallen' (to use Christian terminology): human beings are lazy and perverse. When given permission to short-sightedly self-destruct, that's exactly what most humans will do.

For two or three full generations, now, the "liberals" and other leftists have been teaching black Americans that it is pointless for them to exert themselves, either at learning or at earning their own livings, and that they have every right to expect and demand "free stuff" because whites "owe them", and also, if the mood strikes them, that they have every right to bop that little old lady over there over the head and steal all that she has, or even to murder her. Given human nature, the results we constantly see, and that you're always on about, are exactly what one should expect.

But all this "human biodiversity" bullshit that you and your ilk are always on about doesn't address the issue: the problem is not biology/race, it is culture and sin. And you, claiming the name of Christ, surely ought to understand this.

(*) For rhetorical effect, I'm momentarily ignoring that I'm mostly white myself. And, I gotta tell ya', in my experience, most of you whites aren't any more on the ball, mentally, than you (Auster and ilk) are always going on about blacks.

'Better Dead Than Red'

Back in those ancient days when I was still a tadpole, back when 'red' and 'blue' meant much the opposite of what they mean in current American politics, there was a saying amongst true-blue conservatives, and thus much mocked by "liberals" as a prime example of the the "unreasonableness" and "irrationality" of conservatism (*): "Better Dead Than Red"

But, today, when we speak of "Red States" and "Blue States", when the color historically associated with The Left, that is, the color of blood, in now routinely used to denote what passes in America for The Right, it is the "liberals", those puppets of The Left, who believe "Better Dead Than Red", even if they don't explicitly express the saying (**).

In those now remote days, "Better Dead Than Red" meant "it is better that we all, our entire nation, should die, than that we submit to communism". In contemporary leftist-run America, "Better Dead Than Red" means "it is better that we all, our entire nation, should die, than that we face/acknowledge [the 'conservative' nature of] reality".

Lawrence Auster: Our leaders apply the liberal template to the embassy attacks --

Meaning, these were not intentional acts of violence by people who oppose the United States and want to hurt it, but just the “acting out” of whacked-out individuals, the equivalent of a drunken man firing a gun aimlessly on a street. Meaning, the murders of the American diplomats have no meaning. They must not have meaning, because if they do, their meaning is that at least a significant number of Muslims are our enemies. And if Muslims are our enemies, then we must think in terms of “us” and “them.” We must be for ourselves and against them. We must negatively judge them, discriminate against them, defend ourselves from them, and even fight them. But if we did those horrible things, modern liberalism would be kaput. We’d all be Nazis. And it’s better to let ourselves all be killed by senseless violence than to be Nazis.

(*) as though it even can be reasonable and rational to compromise with he who desires of you only that you should die.

(**) Still, given the pop culture reference to red pills and blue pills, is it not utterly fitting that the "liberals", the puppets of the left, are now the blues and the conservatives the reds?

This is what *real* 'white supremacism' looks like

Lawrence Auster: Pure anti-whiteness-and the racial conservatism that is needed to oppose it -- "... However, on an even deeper though unconscious level, what these quintessentially white-liberal, anti-white videos and billboards are saying is that whites really are superior-inherently superior-to other races, particularly to blacks, in intelligence, in looks, in the fineness of their vibrations, in every way; and since any inequality is unfair, it is unfair to be white. Therefore whites must in perpetuity impose unearned withering moral censure and material disadvantages on themselves, including allowing themselves to be terrorized and murdered by blacks, while bestowing unearned effusive moral approval and material advantages on nonwhites, particularly blacks, in an endless but never successful effort to cancel out the hideous unfairness of being white."

In simpler terms: scratch a "liberal" and you'll generally find a racist; scratch a "liberal" who routinely equates conservatism with racism and you'll nearly always find a virulent racist.

Auster doesn't bring it out here, but these white-"liberal" post-modernist leftists are asserting a set of self-refuting moral claims (never mind, for now, that their morality is really and totally screwed up). Among other things, they assert:
1) There is no real morality; there is no transcendant standard of rightness by which we may recognize wrong and/or injustice when we see it;
1a) All moral claims are but the arbitrary and groundless assertions by which "those with power" exploit "those without power";
2) You, being a white person (unless you are one of them), are ipso facto one of the oppressors; by the very fact of being white, you "have power" and exploit all non-white persons, who definitionally have no power;
3) Therefore, you are inherently immoral (unless you are a leftist);
4) Therefore, the only way you may even remotely become a moral person is to hate all white persons simply for being white, and do all you can to take from whites the unearned "power" they all have and give that power to the leftists (who are also white, but that's different!)

But, their foundational premise -- that there is no morality, that might makes "right" -- refutes their so-called conclusion. But, that's OK from their point of view, for this was never meant to be a rational argument; reasoning is the last thing leftists want people to do.

So, once one understands the core-and-foundational premise of leftism -- that there is no morality, that might makes "right" -- then one understands what they are up to: it is all about getting supreme power over the lives of everyone else, by whatever means they can. If they can use an emotive appeal to throw your rational faculties off balance, and then slip into your thinking an irrational-and-immoral claim tricked out in the clothing of a moral claim, they will do it so long as it seems to get them closer to the target of supreme power over the lives of everyone else.

And another thing about these periodic white-"liberal" crusades against "whiteness" -- their target is *never* their own privileged white asses, but is rather non- privileged white Americans, such as you and me. Their much self-vaunted concern for black Americans is just the cynical stick with which to keep us “po’ white trash” beat down.

Idiotic!

Lawrence Auster: Remembering a white working class neighborhood of the mid twentieth century

How idiotic these "race realist" types are! -- the reason "white working class neighborhood of the mid twentieth century" no longer exist is because no one wants to be a "white working class" person living in a "white working class neighborhood", and certainly not with a "mid twentieth century" lifestyle ... but they do seem to want someone else to be that and live there and at that level of material deprivation. As witness both the item of May 27 and the addition of May 28.

Lamenting the passing of "the old neighborhood" -- that you willingly moved away from, because you could lead an easier and more materially abundant live elsewhere -- makes no more sense than people born in the big, empty rectangular States, living in California, and lamenting the on-going depopulation of said BERSs.

My father's people were Southern sharecroppers (well, following the Civil War and other "reversals," they were) ... and you will *never* catch me waxing nostalgic for the passing of that mode of (just barely) living.

My father, after coming North (essentially abandoning the land that he, even as a sharecropper, had managed to purchase at the age of 16), frequently worked two and even three jobs to support his family -- we were poor, and, contrary to the famous saying, we knew it -- and you will *never* catch me waxing nostalgic for the passing of that mode of (just barely) living.

Though, you might catch me lamenting the abandonment of the land, which, at the time, was nearly worthless, for it had never been logged. Still, he chose to feed us in preference to paying the taxes on the land, and for that I am grateful.


edit:
My hometown, South Bend, had those quaint ethnic "white working class neighborhood of the mid twentieth century" when my mother was growing up in the 1930s and 40s. And just as with black and Mexican neighborhoods today, the emphasis was on the 'ethnic' part of "ethnic neighborhood" ... a Pole wasn't safe in a Hungarian neighborhood, nor again either in an Irish neighborhood, and vice versa. The *reason* that South Bend (and no doubt other industrial cities with multiple non-British ethnic groups) had so many small Catholic parishes is that their ethnicity and old-world hatreds were more important to them than their claimed Christianity and common, if somewhat new, Americanness.

I say, thank God that the grandchildren of all those early 20th century ethnic immigrants abandoned "the old neighborhood" and became just regular old Americans.

Well, D'uh!

Lawrence Auster: "A reader says, not unreasonably, that he was treated somewhat unfairly in the "Gingrich vs. Romney" thread ..."

Dude, the concatenation of human nature, your own personal nature, and your "gatekeeper" approach to blogging makes it inevitable that you are going to treat unfairly at least some who send responses to you.

Even without bothering to looking at 'Reader's' statement and Auster's response, I can state with honest conviction that the only shocker here is that Auster openly says that the reader's claim is "not unreasonable".

On Capital Punishment

In recent days, Victor Reppert has written a number of posts against imposition of capital punishment (see here and here and here and here and here). I have written a number of responses, and intend to post at least one more (which is already mostly composed), and could no doubt write and post much more than I will.

In the meantime …
Serendipitously, I came across this (lengthy) article, which I urge Gentle Reader to read, and which brings out many important points: If the Death Penalty is Constantly Sabotaged, Should We Officially End It?

One of the things touched upon in the above linked article is this: in refusing, on principle (co-called), to execute the murder, one is declaring that the murdered is not a member of one’s society - is not a member of one’s extended family - to whom one has certain natural and inescapable moral obligations by virtue of that social relationship.

When a polity is organized on this anti-moral “principle”, the decision-makers of that polity have destroyed and abrogated its moral legitimacy: no polity which refuses to execute at least the very worst offenders against the persons of the society it rules can long endure - and, it must and will resort to tyranny in attempting to stave off its inevitable collapse. It would be as though the father of a family refused, “on principle”, to justly defend those souls placed in his charge: what sort of family would that be? how long would it last? what sane person would want to be a member of such a family? how can he hold his so-called family together other than by bullying and personal tyranny, seeing that he does not love them?

Of course, the article's conclusion is exactly the result that leftists aim at with their continuous muddying of the waters; and, ultimately, the leftists’ aim is to bring about the collapse of our polity due to moral illegitimacy, as their acts are geared toward making our state unwilling and unable to uphold and deliver justice.

Edit:
And here is yet another relevant post on matters raised; Lawrence Auster: A TERRIBLE INJUSTICE IN TEXAS, AND WHY LIBERALS AREN'T INTERESTED (I do not mean to imply that VR, personally, would be unconcerned with this particular injustice; nor do I think Auster would). The main point here is that “liberals” in general, being mostly puppets of the hard-core leftists (and a tawdry sentimentality), don’t really care about justice and injustice. Oh, sure, “liberals” have “good intentions” … and we all know what excellent pavement those make.

Edit:
And, as chance, or the workings of God, would have it, here is another relevant post by Lawrence Auster: FRENCH GIRL RAPED AND MURDERED BY REPEAT OFFENDER. This one is relevant because it touches upon the “execution is immoral, *because* we can always lock them away for life, instead” objection that “liberals” love to advance.

But, there is no such thing as “throwing away the key”, expect for very special cases, such as a Charles Manson or a Sirhan Sirhan -- that is, for special cases which made special waves in polite “liberal” circles -- and we all know this: the animal who viciously murders you or me may, possibly, perhaps, be sentenced to "life" ... and he will be paroled in twelve or twenty years. This is because, to "liberals", their minds being subsumed by inhuman and inhumane leftism and materialism, a person who has died is no person, doesn't exist, doesn't matter; you know, the same as with persons who are not yet born (and soon, the same as persons who cannot speak for themselves).

If only Victor Reppert could allow himself to understand that knee-jerk opposition to capital punishment is merely another manifestation of the same mind-set and world-view which approves of and pushes for abortion and euthanasia. Knee-jerk opposition to capital punishment, far from being a reflection of one's commitment to life and justice and morality, is an outgrowth of "the culture of death".

It is *because* we value all human lives that we must be willing to execute the murder. In refusing, "on principle", to execute any murderer, we are implicitly asserting that the murderer has the ability and right and moral authority to declare, by his act of murder, who is and is not a member of our society, who is and is not a person, who is and is not real.

The Bible … and The One True Bureaucracy

There is an obnoxious, and absurd, argument - or, perhaps one ought call it merely an assertion - concerning the source, and authority, of the Bible favored by some Catholics and some Orthodox, and (in my experience) especially Catholics of the sort I call “Rah-Rah Catholics” (*), which might as well have come straight from the Dan Brown School of Theology. Essentially, it is the assertion that ‘The Church’ (meaning the hierarchy of The One True Bureaucracy) created the Bible … and, therefore, that the hierarchy of The One True Bureaucracy is the Sole and Dispositive Authority concerning any meaning or teaching of it.

As mentioned, this “argument” (I don’t recall that I’ve ever actually seen an argument, but rather just the mere assertion) is obnoxious and absurd, but I hadn’t yet given any thought to formulating an argument to demonstrate its absurdity. And, now, I don’t need formulate such an argument, as I’ve just read one offered by Alan Roebuck that does the job nicely:

... D. also said what Catholics and Orthodox always say about the Bible: the Church created it, and therefore the Church is a higher authority than the Bible.

If the Bible is solely the work of man, this view would be correct. But if the Bible is God's communication to man then it cannot be correct. A verbal communication from God has a higher authority than a human being or institution simply because God is higher than man.

Also, to say that the Church created the Bible is a serious error. The Church identified the books of the Bible as God's word and rejected other "candidates" as not being God's word, but it did not make the Bible. The church was not analogous to a legislature, it was analogous to a scientist.

What I mean is that a legislature has the authority to make up laws that would not exist otherwise, and the analogy would be the Church making up Scripture that would not exist otherwise. But a scientist only identifies a reality that exists independently of him. The Church did not write the New Testament. The Apostles (or, in the case of Luke, Acts and Mark, their associates) did. The Church only recognized the books of the New Testament to be Scripture. They did not make them Scripture.

Consider: Would it have been possible for the Church to have declared the so-called Gospel of Thomas to be part of Scripture? If the Church is the highest authority, the answer would have to be "yes, if the early Church leaders wanted to." But if the answer is "No, the church could not have declared Thomas to be Scripture, and it could only have declared the actual books of the Bible to be Scripture," then Scripture is higher than the Church. Which it would have to be, if it really is from God.

(*)“Rah-Rah Catholics” are an annoying and obnoxious sub-species of Roman Catholic who quite mirror an equally annoying and obnoxious sub-species of Protestant (for which I haven’t yet a distinctive name). Among other oddities, “Rah-Rah Catholics” believe in their heart of hearts (even if they will not always publicly admit it) that salvation comes via being “in communion” with the Supreme Overseer of the Prime Overseers of the Ruling Overseers of the Overseers of the petty/local bureaucrats of The One True Bureaucracy; whereas the equally annoying and obnoxious sub-species of Protestant which mirrors them believes that that is where damnation comes from.

----
And, by the way, I came up with that (possibly annoying, especially if you're Catholic) 'The One True Bureaucracy' out of annoyance at a "Rah-Rah Catholic" banging on about the RCC being "The One True Church" ... as though the Body of Christ has anything to do with a human bureaucracy.

The primal source of liberalism?

Lawrence Auster: The primal source of liberalism?

Ed H. writes:

Your insights into Gnosticism as the origin of liberalism are stunning. Thank you for sharing these.

I would like to offer an even more primal source for liberalism. This would be the reasoning that Judas Iscariot gives when he decided to betray Christ. This act is the primal sin of the world and the reason Judas commits it is clearly stated and it is the reason behind every secular world view. When the woman with the jar of costly ointment pours it over Jesus' head, the other apostles say, "That ointment could have been sold and the money given to the poor." Jesus replies, "Leave her alone, she does this to commemorate my death. For you will have the poor always but me only a little while." But Judas is incensed and cannot be reconciled. His sense of "social justice" is outraged and he cannot understand the transcendental vision that Christ is unfolding. The two ways of valuing the world are brought into direct opposition, the transcendent and the secular. Judas chooses the secular, "social-justice" value scheme and goes to the chief priest to denounce Christ.

LA replies:

Isn't that amazing? The most famous single sin in the history of the world (other than Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit) was about a man valuing material equality and the sustenance of the poor over God,--was about placing secular liberalism over the transcendent--and this is never pointed out.

Ed H's insight is deep and meaningful, as is Auster's further thought from it, and thus I wish to share them with Gentle Reader.

However, it's not exactly true that this is never pointed by anyone. For example, when I say that "liberalism" is all about posing oneself as being holier and more moral that God Himself (even when said "liberal" is a so-called atheist), I am making the same point that Ed H draws to our attention.

That's the way you do it

Raymond Ibrahim -- Zakaria Botros: Islam's Scourge Returns

A reader of Lawrence Auster's blog comments: "... As much as the problem with Islam is political, social, and religious, it is fundamentally a spiritual problem. As St. Paul said, our struggle is ultimately not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual evil. It is from spiritual evil that political, social, religious, and other worldly evils arise. This is something important for defenders of the remnants of Christendom to remember."

Auster on 'Gates of Vienna'

Auster on the 'Gates of Vienna' blog: Gates of Vienna says we must "spread memes" about Islam, not speak the truth about Islam


I haven't seen the exchange to which Auster refers -- I haven't visited GoV in many, many months, not since deciding that they just are not intellectually honest -- and while Auster has his own set of problems, in this case I am willing to trust his characterization of the exchange and of their position.

The Big Lie and The Big Truth

Recently, Lawrence Auster had a thread in which one of his readers coined the phrase and concept "the Big Truth" on the model of, or as a back-formation of, "the Big Lie." As that reader, Philip M, put it: "... And I think on some level people, particularly conservatives, know this, and it is the enormity of the crime that scares them into remaining silent; otherwise they would be exposing an ongoing left-wing takeover of our entire lives, and then what? Fight? Perhaps you could call it the "Big Truth." A truth so frightening that people dare not admit even the possibility of it?"

Or, as Mr Auster summarized the differences: "What's the difference between the Big Lie and the Big Truth? The Big Lie is a lie so big that it is believed. The Big Truth is a truth so big that it is disbelieved."

Mr Auster has a further post on the matter, in which the reader Bill W gives a Christian perspective on the Big Lie and the Big Truth.

Typing on Autopilot

I'm not a typist; I couldn't legibly type even a short sentence were I not constantly glancing at the keyboard. I spend more time looking at the keys (and at my moving fingers) than not.

And yet (for I do not quite type by the "hunt and peck" method, either), interesting results do constantly come from my fingers-on-autopilot, mostly having to do with substitution of similar morphemes or with the phonetic (in contrast to correct) spelling of a word.

For instance, regarding substitution of similar morphemes, I frequently type (and even more frequently when writing script, write) the letter ‘b’ when I intend ‘p’ and vice-verse. But I never “mix my p’s and q’s”, for ‘p’ and ‘q’ do not represent similar sounds.

An example of phonetic spelling on autopilot, and what prompted this post, is that I just a few minutes ago, once again, caught myself typing ‘ai’ for the word ‘I.’ You see, the written-word ‘I’ represents a diphthong, and the *proper* phonetic spelling for that sound is ‘ai’ -- all that business about long-i and short-i we were taught in grade school is a serious misrepresentation of English-language orthography. Sure, it’s the traditional way of teaching it, but it’s based on ignorance.

=== addendum:
On a note related to the ignorance-based nature of the common teaching of English orthography, many of the "rules" of English grammar we are taught are even more egregiously false, for they do not, in truth, apply to the English language.

For instance, the "rule" against the split infinitive doesn't actually apply to the English language. It's based on ignorance and on trying to force the English language into the grammar rules of the Latin language (damn those French since 1066!).

Lawrence Auster has (yet again) a recent post to express his loathing of the split infinitive: Against the split infinitive: the battle continues -- Mr Auster, you may lay down your arms! The war is over, and it was all a big misunderstanding! I know for a fact that either Auster himself or one of his minions reads my blog (would that make that person our dual minion?), and so I expect him, soon or late, to become or to be made aware of this little post.

English is not a Romance language, it is a Germanic language; as such, its rules are Germanic-based, not Latin-based. Thus the split infinitive is perfectly acceptable in English. It matters not a whit that the majority of our vocabulary is Romance-based; our grammar is Germanic.

Now, for sure, many people split the infinitive in an infelicitous manner; but that’s due to a general carelessness about how they speak (and think!), not about any violation of a non-existing rule of the language.

When He's Right, He's Right

Lawrence Auster: The federal government is waging war on America: do we ignore that fact and continue playing by the rules?

Lawrence Auster ... Just Being Lawrence Auster

Here is Lawrence Auster ... who, it seems to me, is just being Lawrence Auster; that is, Mr Auster seemingly cannot forgo the opportunity to non-constructively criticize conservative writers and magazines or sites ... just because.

Now, IF Mr Jackson were doing as Mr Auster says he is ... IF Mr Auster's criticism of Mr Jackson's piece appeared to be principled -- in contrast to appearing to be just another instance of "this is just what Auster does" -- then I'd not be criticizing Auster at the moment.

That is, we conservatives certainly should not wink at "one of ours" engaging in the sorts of disreputabe behaviors we condemn when the "liberals" do it; such winking would be intellectually dishonest, it would be hypocritical, it would be immoral to do so.


Or, perhaps I ought to cut Auster some slack. Perhaps he's just not flexible enough in his thinking or robust enough in his intelligence to be able to hold more than one or two logical associations in his consciousness at any one time. I mean, Gentle Reader ought to understand by now that I don't believe any of us are generally in a position to make such a judgment about another ... yet, it cannot be discounted as a logical possibility.

And, if *that* is the answer to the perennial question, "What is the problem with Lawrence Auster?" then, obviously, we all should cut him some slack.

And ignore him and all his works: for if he can't help it, then he simply can't help it.

To quote Lawrence Auster's piece: American Thinker falsely accuses Michelle of blaming obesity on racism

On the subject of Michelle Obama's recent speech to the NAACP, Kevin Jackson, another of American Thinker's endless supply of half-baked writers from the heartland, repeatedly accuses her of blaming the obesity of black children on racism. Yet he does not present a single quote from her speech in which she actually makes such an accusation:
...
[snip of Auster quoting Jackson]
...
To ascertain the facts, I read Michelle's speech. It is true that the rhetorical framework of her speech consists of congratulations of the NAACP for its work against racial discrimination. But that is merely to be expected. Everything in the world of organized black America is approached through the lens of racial inequality and its overcoming. It is the only common reference point blacks have for discussing their problems, and thus is obligatory in any speech by or to blacks. However, in the main body of Michelle's speech, which is about obesity and what to do about it, she never once says or hints that obesity is due to racial discrimination. She blames the problem on lifestyle, families, entertainment. Indeed, she places the main burden of responsibility on black families, who she says must start having healthful meals.

Thus Jackson's accusation, for which he supplies not a single supporting fact, which in turn raised my suspicions, is disproved by Michelle's speech.

This is just one example of how the mainstream conservative Web has become in large part an instrument, not for informing and persuading readers, but for whipping up their partisan passions. I am not saying that the mainstream conservative Web as a whole is bad, and I am not saying that American Thinker as a whole is bad. But the badness has become endemic. And no one in the mainstream conservative world mentions it.

Now, it is true that Mr Jackson might have more explicity quoted Mrs Obama's statements to supply the context which supports his thesis. I don't know, perhaps he expects his readers to be able to read for themselves and to be able grasp that 2 + 2 = 4.

Here is the text of Mrs Obama's speech; an excerpt:

...
One hundred and one years ago, the NAACP was established in pursuit of a simple goal, and that was to spur this nation to live up to the founding ideals, to secure those blessings of liberty, to fulfill that promise of equality.
...
But I also know that their legacy isn't an entitlement to be taken for granted. And I know it is not simply a gift to be enjoyed. Instead, it is an obligation to be fulfilled.

And when so many of our children still attend crumbling schools, and a black child is still far more likely to go to prison than a white child, I think the founders of this organization would agree that our work is not yet done. (Applause.)

When African American communities are still hit harder than just about anywhere by this economic downturn, and so many families are just barely scraping by, I think the founders would tell us that now is not the time to rest on our laurels.

When stubborn inequalities still persist -- in education and health, in income and wealth -- I think those founders would urge us to increase our intensity, and to increase our discipline and our focus and keep fighting for a better future for our children and our grandchildren. (Applause.)

And that's why I really wanted to come here today -- because I wanted to talk with you about an issue that I believe cries out for our attention -- one that is of particular concern to me, not just as First Lady, but as a mother who believes that we owe it to our kids to prepare them for the challenges that we know lie ahead. And that issue is the epidemic of childhood obesity in America today.

How is it that Mr Auster cannot grasp that Mrs Obama *is* whinging that so-called racism is the reason that "stubborn inequalities still persist -- in education and health, in income and wealth." How is it that Mr Auster simply cannot grasp that Mrs Obama *is* whinging that so-called racism is the reason that "so many of our children still attend crumbling schools, and a black child is still far more likely to go to prison than a white child."

Sure, ultimately Mrs Obama is pushing leftism, but she's using hyper-concern about (hypothetical and/or mythological) racism as the vehicle.



Mr Jackson blogs here

Mel Gibson and Conservatives-in-Thrall-to-Liberal-Shibboleths ... and Lawrence Auster

I've been meaning to write this little item for a couple of days (and once again not updating and completing the post I'd promised 'Crude').

Originally, the intended post was in no way about Lawrence Auster. Rather, his connection to what I mean to say is that I was going to expand upon his comments/criticisms of something posted by Ed Morrissey on 'Hot Air'. But, in the meantime, Auster has written another post on the matter -- and has fallen into exactly the same "liberal" shibboleth for which I was going to criticize Morressey. This is rather odd, because Auster himself is forever criticizing that particular false mentality.

I suppose -- lest any "liberal" who may encounter these words gets the vapors -- I ought to first say a few words about my relationship, or lack thereof, with Mr Auster: we don't get along, and there are a number of things about him, both personally and philosophically, to which I strongly object. OK, maybe only one thing on the personal side -- he's not much better than "Vox Day" at accepting criticism, especially when it's correct (but, even there, "Vox Day" is worse). Philosophically? Several things, beginning with his near-obsession about race, when the problem is not biological race, but rather culture.

And that's really all I wish to say directly about Mr Auster on that particular account. Should the reader *really* care about a fuller exploration of my opinion on the matter, months ago at the 'What's Wrong With the World' blog, in a thread that was about "The Trouble with Larry," I explained (and documented) my view of what the trouble is. Since I've already done it, even though it's not posted on my blog, I feel no particular urge to revisit the matter. And, indirectly, the reaction of a different member (that is, different from the one who ask the question) of 'What's Wrong With the World' is why I no longer bother with that blog.

Nevertheless, and whatever "The Trouble with Larry" is, when he's right, he's right.

==========
So, I wish first to draw the reader's attention to this post by Auster touching on the most recent self-immolation by Mel Gibson. Specifically, Auster's point is about the absurdity of conservatives reacting like "precious little Victorian ladies, ready to faint dead away at the sound of the "N" word, even when uttered in a private conversation by a man who was obviously drunk."

Auster is criticizing the lamentable fact that very few who consider themselves to be conservative have ever put forth the intellectual effort necessary to de-program themselves from the leftist orthodoxies to which we all have been inculcated in the public indoctrination centers ... er, public schools. The main purpose of public "education," once the Progressive got control of it, was to train up the citizenry as Pavlovian dogs ... and far too many who think themselves conservative automatically react with the "proper" unthinking responses.

Next up is Morrissey's post on 'Hot Air' -- on which Auster was commenting, and to which my comments had originally been solely directed:

... Here’s the transcript:

“You go out in public and it’s a f*cking embarrassment to me. You look like a f*cking bitch in heat. And if you get raped by a pack of ni**ers it will be your fault. Alright? Because you provoked it. You are provocatively dressed all the time with your fake boobs that you feel you have to show off. I don’t like it. I don’t want that woman. I don’t want you. I don’t trust you. I don’t love you.”

In the previous post, commenters debated the use of the N-word in the context of the entertainment industry, but this isn’t a shout out to his peeps. Assuming this is Gibson, the actor uses the term in an extremely derogatory sense, as if rape necessarily follows from skin color. For that matter, says that rape comes from dressing provocatively, as if it’s a rational response to tight clothing, which is hardly true and perpetuates the notion that rape is a woman’s fault.

While the Pavlovian hyperventilation about the infamous "N-word" is absurd enough, what I wish to draw the reader's attention to is the further absurdity of a supposed conservative channeling some whacked-out man-hating bull-dyke feminist.

Gibson didn't say *anything* that can reasonably be construed as even implying that "rape necessarily follows from skin color." Rather, he made a reference to a sad fact of life in contemporary America, of which everyone is supposed to pretend to be wholly ignorant: black rapists rape white women (and men) *because* they are white, and they frequently do it in packs. And they frequently viciously maul and murder their victims.

Nor did Gibson didn't say *anything* that can reasonably be construed as even implying that rape is "a rational response to tight clothing" or that a woman who is raped deserves it (while 'deserve' is not the word Morressey uses, for he echoes Gibson's use of "your fault," that is what he is getting at).

Had Ms Grigorieva, Mr Gibson's erstwhile slut, been in the habit of teetering in her stiletto heels on the railing of a 13th floor balcony, and Gibson had "ranted" at her that "if you fall off there an kill yourself, it will be your own fault!" would any rational man imagine there was any flaw in what he had said, or that he had meant that she would *deserved* the very predictable result of he freely chosen behavior?

Of course not. A rational man understands that in the hypothetical Gibson means that Grigorieva's behavior greatly increases her chance of an unpleasant and untimely death. Likewise with what he did say: a rational man understands that Gibson means that Grigorieva's behavior greatly increases her chance of an unpleasant and unwanted, and possibly fatal, sexual encounter.


Lastly, there is another post by Auster, in which he echoes Moressey's unthinking Pavlovian recitation of "liberal" and feminist cant:

Again, Gibson said any number of extremely offensive things in his surreptitiously recorded private phone conversation with his former girl friend, including telling her that with the way she dressed she deserved to be gang raped. ...

Let me be perfectly clear (to coin a phrase), whatever Gibson may have been thinking, according to the transcripts, he did *not* tell his former slut that she deserves to be gang raped; rather, he told her a simple truth: her freely chosen behavior -- her insistence on living the fantasy of Grrl Power -- increases the odds that she will become a target of some of the predators amongst us.

Really, Mr Auster! This is one of your persistent (and correct!) themes: that leftism requires human sacrifice, in one form or another, and that the contemporary "liberal" edition of leftism gets those sacrifices by training up the people to be Eloi for the Morlocks who walk among us.

========= Update: 2010/07/14
Mr Auster has posted an update: I contradicted myself on Gibson -- which begins with this fully-expected Austerism:

The blogger Ilion--one of an entire sub-population of commenters in the right-wing blogosphere who falsely and obsessively accuse me of not replying to criticisms of myself, when the fact is that I refuse to reply to rude, irrational, and hostile statements about myself ...

That is *so* rich, coming from Lawrence Auster! Anyone who has spent much time reading him knows that he's a veritable one-man cottage industry of "falsely and obsessively accus[ing]" right-wing commentators of all manner of perfidy -- mostly involving their failure to echo him on certain matters.

And, lest anyone's memory of what I actually said be subborned by having read Mr Auster's claim that I accused him of "not replying to criticisms of [him]self" -- what I said (you can look it up!) is: " OK, maybe [I have] only one [strong objection to him] on the personal side -- he's not much better than "Vox Day" at accepting criticism, especially when it's correct (but, even there, "Vox Day" is worse)."


Steve Burton (on the 'What's Wrong With The World' blog) 'The Trouble With Larry' -- among the comments are mine, of which I had spoken above.


Updated: 2010/07/14

What's A President To Do?

Lawrence Auster asks: What is it that everyone expects Obama to do?

In the midst of the entire political universe, Republican and Democrat, dumping on Obama for not doing enough about the Gulf oil spill, this comment at Lucianne.com expresses more or less my own reaction:

Reply 22 - Posted by: Sfacheem, 5/28/2010 7:45:43 AM

I for one, an Obama "hater" and rock-ribbed conservative, cannot figure out exactly what it is everyone wants the president of the United States to do about this. It seems to me that if the private sector company that drilled the well and assembled the rig, and the U.S. federal department that oversees oil rigs can't figure out what to do, how does one expect the president to know what to do? Are we that shallow in 2010 America that we "need" to see that he "cares" by watching him roam around the oil-slicked beaches in a pair of rubber boots with a tear streaming down his cheek?

The infantile mind set of blaming the president of the U.S. for everything gone wrong in the world is for liberals. We should be above the practice.

Who can even rationally speculate as to what is going through the minds of the Obama worshippers?

But, as for me, and I suspect most others who are opposed to the leftist plans to subsume the nation, what I expect Obama to do is to pay the price for his own past demagoguery against Bush in particular (who is not a conservative, in any event) and all conservatives in general. What I expect Obama to do is to live, or as the case may be, die, by the same standard he demanded of Bush. Sure, the standard is illogical and unfair -- but *he* demanded it. Sure, he never expected to himself actually be held to the standard he demanded of Bush. So? I think that the schadenfreude of watching Obama hoist by his own petard is wholly appropriate.

Yes -- in isolation -- this dumping on Obama for "not doing enough" about the oilspill is misplaced; worse, it is wrong, both logically and morally. But, this is *not* in isolation ... the world didn't begin anew when he pushed his silly "Reset" button.


Perhaps, someday, the political expectations and discussions in this country will be conducted at the level of mature adulthood. Perhaps, someday, when someone demands/asserts "caring" from government as the criterion by which to judge the propriety and/or effectiveness of action or proposed action, the rest of us will raise an eyebrow and then quietly ignore the children.

Perhaps, someday, the "liberals" will grow up.

And, just perhaps, someday, pigs will fly.


Update (2010/05/31): Here is 'Ace of Spades' commenting on the question of this post

Auster on Brewer

Lawrence Auster concerning Janice Brewer: "Brewer's rather colorful maiden name was Janice Kay Drinkwine. So, she went from being a wine drinker to a brewer. Whatever she's drinking, as Lincoln said of Grant, let's find out what it is, because I want to send a barrel of it to every elected official in the country."