Blacks and Asians

Here’s the reality behind the Democrat lie that Trump has caused black-on-Asian violence.

You probably know that there’s been an uptick in random, clearly race-related attacks against Asians. I’m under the impression that all, or most, of the attackers are black. Here’s a representative story:

The claim is that this is all Trump’s fault because he insisted on saying that the Wuhan flu originated in Wuhan, China. He also made it clear that he thought that the Chinese government, even if it didn’t create the virus in a lab or lose control of it, nevertheless deliberately lied about it and sent its citizens abroad to spread COVID. By saying such things, assert leftists, Trump turned Asian people into targets.

Let me restate that fine argument: The black people who presumably hate Trump (because of the media’s and Biden’s Fine People Hoax), nevertheless believed Trump implicitly about China’s responsibility for the virus. Then, despite Trump never having said a word about Asian people in America or in any way encouraging violence against them, these Trump-hating blacks took it upon themselves to get revenge against China by pushing over elderly Chinese people.

The media clearly think black people are idiots. Or they think Americans generally are idiots to believe that story. The fact is that it’s the leftist Americans (Democrats, progressives, socialists, etc.) who are that stupid if they believe this kind of media crap.

Allow me to tell you what’s really going on here: Blacks dislike Asians because they resent them. Incidentally, Asian immigrants, being incredibly racist in their home countries, despise blacks, whom they view as an inferior race. This Chinese commercial is Exhibit 1:

You can find Exhibits 2 through infinity across all of Asia if you spend just a few minutes looking. When I was growing up, the Chinese-born parents of my friends, all of whom liked me, nevertheless made it clear that their child’s friendship with a white kid was permissible only because, with the girls, these were obviously mere friendships while, with the boys, they were obviously nothing more than friendships. Nothing would have enraged them more than if I’d been dating one of their sons.

But this post isn’t about Asian immigrants looking down on blacks or whites. It’s about why blacks dislike Asians: It’s because Asians show that the black problem isn’t slavery; it’s culture.

Starting in the 1970s, Chinese immigrants began to pour into America. Coming from a communist country they had nothing. They didn’t speak the language (or anything related to the language) and they had no real marketable Western skills. They squeezed multiple families into cramped slum apartments and took whatever hard, dirty work came their way.

Oh, and they demanded that their children do well in school. That was the Number 1 thing: Do well in school. And the Chinese kids did exactly that.

After doing well in K-12, they went to state colleges and universities or, if they were super smart and very lucky, got scholarships to prestigious colleges and universities. They worked hard in higher education, aced their classes, got great jobs, and bought houses in the suburbs where they moved their hardworking parents and grandparents. They were model minorities: Minimal crime, incredible academic performances, good jobs, increased affluence.

Things are different among blacks. Ever since the Civil Rights Movement, blacks have sneered at academia. If you want the details, read John McWhorter’s Losing the Race: Self-Sabotage in Black America. In it, he details a culture in which doing well in school and staying out of trouble is “acting white” and a bad thing.

This is the mindset BLM advances: doing math, being ambitious and punctual, working hard, being respectful — those are all signs of white, cultural imperialism being used against blacks. The fact that blacks could do those very things themselves and succeed is irrelevant. What matters is that across the activist black world, in the schools among the kids, and in the streets among the gangs, the message is relentless: Hard work and other behaviors that lead to academic and professional success are the internalized self-loathing that comes from systemic white racism.

Put another way, the message that is now writ large across America thanks to BLM is that black failure is white people’s fault because white people put unreasonable demands on blacks. We’re told that, because of the dislocation of the slavery that ended 160 years ago, and because of the genuinely systemic racism of the Jim Crow era (which only a small proportion of people still experienced) , blacks can’t be expected to perform up to white standards. Only a racist would expect that.

But then you have these Asian people, tiny, speaking a foreign language, navigating a completely alien culture, often living in the same slums as the black people — and damn their hides, they’re mastering the system. Their kids do great in school and the families amass wealth. It proves that, no matter the grim circumstances in people’s backgrounds, through those despicable “white” attributes (hard work in school and out), they can succeed.

In the last 30 years or so, the successful Far Eastern Asians (mostly Chinese and Korean) have been joined by the South Eastern Asians from the Indian subcontinent, who are, on average, the highest-earning people in America. Their culture also puts enormous stress on academic achievement and it pays off.

I’ll share a little racist secret with you: I think blacks are every bit as capable as whites or Asians, or pinks or greens, for that matter. There is nothing inherently wrong with blacks. Genetically, they’re people who live on a bell curve like everyone else, with a broad spread of physical and mental talents.

What’s wrong with blacks is that, since the 1960s, they’ve allowed white Democrats to impose upon them a culture of failure and to convince them that this is their natural, inherent black culture. When they see Asians arrive without even the advantage of speaking English and then do well, it infuriates them. Rather than confronting their Democrat puppet masters about the racist lie being used against them, they take out their rage on the nearest convenient objects. These “objects” happen to be fragile, elderly Asian people, whom they smash to the curb as the only way they can think of to lash out at an unjust system.

These frustrated blacks, trapped in a cycle of poverty and crime, are right that the system is unjust but that injustice isn’t because of those innocent Asian victims. It’s unjust because white elites in the Democrat party and their black kapo enforcers in BLM and the race hustlers in the media are running an ugly, obscene con job on blacks to keep them in a perpetual state of servitude. The goal is to ensure that Democrats can rely on black’s loyal votes in perpetuity.

And the really big Democrat joke on the blacks is that, having attained total federal power, the first thing the Dems are doing is opening the border and giving citizenship to 30 million illegal Latin Americans. These are the people who compete with poor blacks for jobs and housing, and who will make black votes irrelevant. The Democrats will have all the votes they need from the new Hispanic population.

Democrat efforts to use and abuse blacks ended with slavery and Jim Crow. However, they eventually figured out that they could control blacks completely with a vicious, destructive simulacrum of kindness that would destroy them, turning generations of young blacks into mindless people committed to violence and dependent on the government. And once these grievously manipulated people had fulfilled their Helter Skelter purpose of destroying America’s successful economic, social, and political culture, the ruling class could abandon them in favor of the easier-to-manage Latin Americans, who haven’t yet learned to bridle at doing menial labor for the Nancy Pelosis and Joe Bidens of this world.

But back to the Asians, there is something that might console these blacks who are brainwashed enough to think that it’s the Asians, not the Democrats, who are their enemies. Asians invariably send their kids to college. In the last 20 years, colleges have become so wacked-out with Wokeness and identity-politics, that their children are getting deeply propagandized, just as surely as blacks have been.

Asian children, instead of feeling superior and accomplished, are being taught that they’re victims. And once they learn that, they’ll fail too, just like all the other identity groups the Democrats demean and exploit.

And that’s why there’s an uptick in black violence against elderly Asian people.

Naomi Wolf nails it on lockdowns and totalitarianism

Naomi Wolf discovered the Bill of Rights during the Bush years and believes in it regardless of which party controls Washington, D.C.

Longtime blog readers know that I attended high school with Naomi Wolf. She was a year behind me, but a lot of her friends were in my year and, if my memory serves me correctly, she was in my English class with the brilliant Flossie Lewis (a teacher known to generations of Lowell students).

I was not a Naomi fan because, in honest retrospect, I wasn’t in her league. She was brilliant and beautiful, an airy-fairy hippie chick who managed to make it look easy to get good grades. She was never arrogant about her looks but she was arrogant about her brains and, quite sweetly, she put me in my place more than once.

Because I’d known her personally, I paid attention to Naomi’s career trajectory in the 1990s. (Note: I’ve never seen or spoken to her since high school.) I read The Beauty Myth and, for a brief while, became a bristling third-wave feminist. I got too busy with life to hang onto that notion, though, and then had children. Because I was then a Clinton supporter, I was envious of the fact that Naomi was in the Clintons’ inner political circle. Still, I was able to laugh when I learned that she had given Gore advice in 1999 about his color choices to make him more appealing to voters.

As I hewed right and Naomi remained on the left, I became less impressed with her, as I am with all leftists. She spoke out in support of burqas and vaginas, acknowledged that abortion is homicide but still supported it, constantly attacked George Bush, was anti-war and anti-Israel, and worried about chemtrails. In other words, a leftist crackpot, albeit a brilliant one. She really fell apart when she wrote a book about all the people executed in Victorian England for being gay, without understanding that none were executed. She’d misunderstood the historic records, which is apparently a fairly common problem for Naomi and is her greatest weakness. She’s brilliant but careless. It makes it easy to undermine all her positions, whether or not they’re good.

And it turns out that some of Naomi’s positions are good — at least her position about a free, constitutional society that honors the Bill of Rights. Beginning under the Bush presidency, because of the various anti-terrorism acts that went into effect then, Naomi suddenly became an ardent civil libertarian. Where Naomi gets huge points is that she has continued to be an ardent civil libertarian regardless of which political party holds sway in Washington, D.C.

Because of that intellectual honesty, Naomi has been horrified by the lockdowns and the whole package of power grabs in which both the state and federal governments have engaged, using the excuse of the Wuhan virus to do so. For that reason, Tucker had her on his Monday night show.

Frankly, Naomi didn’t say anything you and I haven’t been saying for a long time. What made it unique was that it was coming from a leftist. Suddenly she’s another Glenn Greenwald — an honest leftist fighting back against the totalitarianism coming from leftist governments. Also, because she’s really bright, Naomi said all these things well. I urge you to watch this video and take it very seriously, especially Naomi’s point about the very small window of time we have left to push back before losing our rights forever. I do what I can with my writing because that’s my one and only strength. What can you do?

Leftist celebrities and their money

The innocuous celebrity endorsement behind an ad for Tunnel to Towers, a truly laudatory charity, always irritates me.

Often when I watch Tucker, I see advertisements for a truly worthy charity called the Tunnel to Towers Foundation. According to the commercials, it builds smart homes for horribly wounded military personal. In the commercials, a vet tells his story, then we see his grievous injuries, and then we watch his wonderment as he moves into a smart house that gives him comfort and independence. The advertisement asks that viewers give $11 a month, which is a remarkably reasonable sum for an eminently good cause.

Mark Wahlberg is the celebrity spokesman for Tunnel to Towers. I don’t have a beef with Wahlberg. He’s a devout Catholic who makes pro-American moves but otherwise keeps his mouth shut about politics, which is always a virtue in a celebrity. Moreover, he’s allied himself with a clearly laudatory organization. In each commercial, there’s a moment when he makes the pitch for that $11/month donation.

But did you know that Wahlberg is worth $150,000,000 or, according to another site, $300,000,000? He could cut a check for $75,000,000 tomorrow and still be one of the richest men in America. Why is he begging me for $132 per year? Just write the check, Mark!

(Just FYI, my principles aren’t always in sync with my actions. Since Wahlberg clearly hasn’t cut that $75,000,000 check to Tunnel to Towers, I have donated my mite to the organization.)

So that irks me. But the ones who really stick in my craw are the super-rich celebrity leftists. In no particular order:

  • Loud-mouth climate change leftist Leonardo DiCaprio is worth $260,000,000.
  • Madonna is worth $850,000,000.
  • Pro-Biden leftie Robert Downey, Jr. is worth $300,000,000.
  • Seth Rogen is a loud, proud, obscene leftist. He’s worth $55,000,000.
  • George Clooney is a leftie from way back. He’s worth $500,000,000.
  • Sean Penn is another long-time leftie who’s never met a dictator he doesn’t like. He’s worth $70,000,000.
  • Barbra Streisand has been an obnoxious leftist since the year zero. She’s worth $400,000,000.
  • Tom Hanks & Rita Wilson are reliable leftists. They’re worth $500,000,000.
  • Jay-Z and Beyonce, who are Obama leftists, are worth a combined $1,500,000,000.
  • Leftie Edward Norton is worth $300,000,000.
  • Barack and Michelle Obama are worth $70,000,000.
  • The world’s shortest and most pugnacious leftist, Robert De Niro, is worth $500,000,000.
  • Reliable leftist Oprah Winfrey is worth about $3,500,000,000.

These people earned their wealth honestly by turning themselves into products that people will pay for. And they’re entitled to their politics (no matter how stupid) because, for the time being at least, America is a free country.

But as a matter of personal decency, I think it’s wrong for any leftist to possess so much money. A leftist who believes that poverty is the root cause of all evil, shouldn’t be hanging onto his or her money. A large proportion of that money should be going to poor people. The climate change-istas should be pooling their wealth so that every person can have a climate efficient home. Instead, they want to tax me. The “crime is a problem of poverty” people need to hand out their money to poor people, instead of taxing me. The open-borders crowd needs to take illegal aliens into their homes or sponsor their every need, instead of taxing me. And so on. You understand what I’m saying.

And please don’t tell me that these celebrities give massive sums of money to charity. I’m sure they do. The problem is that, with their principles, they shouldn’t have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars left over.

At a moral level, these posing leftist celebrities should be merely rich not obscenely rich. And the reason I will acknowledge that they can still keep some wealth without too much hypocrisy is that I know that fame brings legitimate security needs. These anti-gun celebrities need to pay for the armed guards who protect them. Likewise, these anti-border wall celebrities need to pay for the fences and other security systems that keep the hoi polloi away from them.

I would never suggest that the government take money from these celebrities. They earned the money and they’re entitled to do with it as they will, provided it’s legal. But as long as they’re allied with leftism while sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars, I’m sensing some heavy-duty hypocrisy. If they believe in those leftist causes, they need to dig really, really, really deep into their pockets instead of demanding that I pay more taxes or lose my constitutional rights.

Image: The crabbed millionaire’s puzzle by J.S. Pughe. Library of Congress.

The Democrats’ Helter Skelter approach to racial politics

The Democrats seem determined to foment a race war in America. Are they intentionally trying to replicate Manson’s Helter Skelter theory?

Across America, the current Democrat policy is focused with laser-like intensity on fomenting racial discord. This is true within federal and state governments and within large corporations that are staffed with woke college graduates. Here are just a few examples from recent days. I could easily find, not dozens, but hundreds of more examples, maybe even thousands:

1. Coca-Cola has confirmed that it was training its employees to “try to be less white,” a racist notion if there ever was one.

2. Washington state illegally funneled COVID relief money to radical political groups based upon racial criteria.

3. Jodi Shaw, an incredibly brave former Smith employee, wrote a public resignation letter in which she detailed the demeaning racist harassment she suffered because she is white.

4. An experienced administrator in the Bronx is suing her school district based on her allegations that the district harassed her relentlessly and then demoted her because she shared a Holocaust story about her family and refused to give a “Wakanda salute.”

5. Although it’s a “north of the border” story, this report out of Canada fits in perfectly with the Democrat approach: a school district is hunting down anonymous students who dared to set up an Instagram account claiming that all people are created equal and should be judged by the actions, not by the color of their skin.

6. Oregon’s official policy now is that math as it is currently taught in schools is racist because it requires students to give the right answers — and that requirement is a dangerous example of inherent white malevolence and a determination to destroy other races.

7. The Oregon story leads me generally to what’s going on in American schools. On Friday, Tucker Carlson devoted his entire hour-long show to reports of the way in which America’s public schools are intentionally demeaning whites on solely racial grounds:

Watch the video while you can for I’m sure it will be pulled soon.

8. Kristen Clarke, who is Biden’s nominee to the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, has claimed that whites are genetically inferior and that race must factor into every decision in America.

And of course, there’s the official White House and Democrat party line that events on January 6 were the actions of armed white insurrectionists attempting a coup. The various federal Democrat people and entities make this claim even though the only ones armed were law enforcement officers, one of whom killed a woman; it’s apparent that leftists were heavily involved in fomenting and then acting in the events of January 6; and neither Trump nor his supporters have ever done anything other than to claim that Trump’s policies will benefit everyone and that we should all be treated equally. That last notion, of course, is a sure sign of white supremacy in the year 2021.

We are not witnessing the random actions of a few racial crackpots. Instead, across America, at every level — education, corporations, and government — the Democrat message is clear: Whites are inherently inferior and their “genetic traits,” which shamefully include punctuality, ambition, loyalty, reliability, and good math, are dangerously racist.

Before 1860, the message in large parts of America was that blacks were inherently inferior, a policy that propped up slavery. That led to a Civil War resulting in 650,000 Americans dead out of a population of only 31.5 million.

Between 1865 and the 1960s, the message in large parts of America was that blacks were inherently inferior, a policy that propped up Jim Crow and true systemic racism. That is, across America, various governments and many institutions (i.e., large corporations, especially banks) had policies that openly discriminated against black people. This destroyed lives, blighted talent and hard work, and led to the vast social dislocation of the 1960s, something that provided an opening to communists and that still affects America today.

Now, in 2021, the message the Democrats are sending across America, one being hammered home with increasing ferocity and with the power of the state to enforce it, is that whites are inherently inferior and, on top of that, evil. Whites therefore need to be abused, demeaned, diluted (via illegal immigration), and systematically shut out of America’s civil society.

Here’s the irony behind this un-American, dangerous sentiment: This anti-white policy comes down via white people (Biden, Pelosi, Schumer, and other whites in D.C.; and Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, Jeff Bezos, and other whites who amassed power through technology). When I look at the problem through that filter, all I can think of is Charles Manson and “Helter Skelter.”

Older readers will remember what Helter Skelter means. At bottom, it was simply a song from the Beatles’ edgy White Album. Charles Manson, though, was sure that the phrase, the song, and the album itself had a deeper meaning.

Wikipedia does an adequate job of summing up the Helter Skelter philosophy that Manson created and that inspired his followers to brutally slaughter seven people in the Los Angeles hills (hyperlinks and footnotes omitted):

Charles Manson had been predicting racial war for some time before he used the term Helter Skelter. His first use of the term was at a gathering of the Family on New Year’s Eve 1968 at Myers Ranch near California’s Death Valley. The scenario had Manson as the war’s ultimate beneficiary and its musical cause. He and the Family would create an album with songs whose messages would be as subtle as those he had heard in songs of the Beatles. This would not merely foretell the conflict but would trigger it by instructing “the young love”, meaning white American youth, to join the Family, and it would draw the young, white female hippies out of San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury.

Black men would thus be deprived of the white women whom the political changes of the 1960s had made sexually available to them and would lash out in violent crimes against whites. Frightened whites would retaliate with a murderous rampage, and militant blacks would exploit it to provoke a war of near-extermination between racist whites and non-racist whites over the treatment of blacks. Then the militant blacks would arise to finish off the few whites who survived; in fact, they would kill off all non-blacks.

In this holocaust, the members of the enlarged Family would have little to fear; they would wait out the war in a secret city that was underneath Death Valley which they would reach through a hole in the ground. They would be the only remaining whites upon the race war’s conclusion, and they would emerge from underground to rule the blacks who, as the vision went, would be incapable of running the world. At that point, Manson “would scratch [the black man’s] fuzzy head and kick him in the butt and tell him to go pick the cotton and go be a good nigger”.

Incidentally, regarding the sexual element in Manson’s theory, it’s noteworthy that, to celebrate Black History Month, Northwestern University created an interactive “BDSM FUNdamentals” workshop:

And here’s a bonus: The class on how bondage and polygamy can be employed to score said liberation will be taught by a “two spirit Black and Indigenous facilitator and healer.”

That’s right — participants will learn from “Vee AKA: Electr0papi (They/She),” who’s reportedly “an electro play and fire play enthusiast as well as a rope suspension top.”

A lot of really bad 1960s ideas are flowering now, thanks to the seeds planted and nurtured in academia (which especially affect Silicon Valley), as well as the 1960s/1970s generation holding power in D.C. (see the aforementioned Biden, Pelosi, Gates, etc.). I’m beginning to fear that one of these really bad ideas is an updated version of Charles Manson’s Helter Skelter theory of a race war followed by total white control over black people. Steeped in this highly racist, anti-white ideology, it doesn’t matter to these people that blacks make up only 13% of the population. They don’t care that this racial balance means that it’s unlikely blacks will prevail in such a war and more likely that, after some unspeakable brutality on both sides, they’ll lose the war.

What matters is that they badly want a war. And if it’s a war they want, I’m terrified that it’s a war they’ll get.

Rush Limbaugh, RIP

Rush Limbaugh, the man whose reasoned thinking and incredible communication skills terrified leftists for decades, passed away today.

Rush Limbaugh passed away today. His death was not a surprise, for he spent more than a year fighting hard against the lung cancer that finally claimed him.

Rush was a great man, one who had an extraordinary understanding of life, values, political systems, and both the evil and the goodness that lives within people. He had the even more extraordinary knack of being able to articulate his knowledge — day in and day out, three hours a day, for decades — in a way that was never condescending but was always clear and interesting. We shall not look upon his like again.

In 2010, I wrote about Rush Limbaugh’s extraordinary powers. To my great surprise and everlasting honor, he read that post on the air. It seems worth reprinting it today for my sentiments about the man have never changed:


If you’d been around in 1894, you would instantly have recognized the name “Svengali.”  He was the chief villain in George du Maurier’s blockbuster novel Trilby. The Svengali plot-line was a simple one:  Trilby was an innocent (and tone-deaf) laundress and model living in fin de siecle Paris.  Svengali hypnotized her into bec0ming a great singer and the toast of the music world.  When he suffered a heart attack during one of her performances, his spell over her broke, and she was left standing on stage, bewildered and humiliated.  Since then, we use the word “svengali” to describe a person who steals the will of another with evil intent.

It’s become increasingly clear to me that liberals view Rush Limbaugh in precisely that light.  And no, I’m not making the obvious point that the Obami coterie and the Democratic party fear Rush’s bully pulpit and consistently demonize him.  I’m talking about the rank-and-file’s fear that even listening to Rush for a moment or two causes a person to lose the will to be a liberal.  Those liberals to whom I speak shy away from him, not because they disagree with what he has to say, but because they fear he will convince them that he’s right.

The following is a talk I had just the other day while driving in the car with a liberal friend who, having voted for Obama, is now deeply regretting that decision:

Me:  How would you like to do something completely different?  Let me put Rush on the radio.

Her:  No, no.  I don’t want to do that.

Me:  Come on, you’ll like him.  He’s not at all the way you’ve heard him described in the other media.  He’s very well-informed, quite funny, and amazingly prescient.

Her:  No, no.  He’s too arrogant.

Me:  Nah.  That’s just an act.  Give it a try, for just a few minutes.

Her:  No.  I can’t listen to him.  [Then, as a sop:]  I watch Fox sometimes.

So here we have a woman who realizes that she made a mistake voting Democrat this election, who is open to conservative news (I believe her when she says she watches Fox), yet who assiduously avoids any contact with Rush.  Incidentally, this was not a one time-0nly conversation.  I had virtually the same conversation with two other regret-filled liberals.

The belligerently liberal ones are equally averse to exposing themselves to Rush.

Me:  I challenge you to listen to Rush for a half hour.

Him:  No.  He’s an idiot.

Me:  Have you ever listened to him?

Him:  No.

Me:  Then how do you know he’s an idiot?

Him:  He is.  He’s a wacko.  He doesn’t know anything.

Me:  How do you know that?

Him:  Are you trying to make me mad?

Me:  No.  But I do think that you should listen to him.  At least then you’d have first hand knowledge of what he says and whether you agree or disagree with it.

Him:  I’m not going to waste my time.

And so on, ad infinitum and definitely ad nauseum.

During the 1990s, when I was an unthinking liberal, I knew Rush was out there, but he existed on the periphery of my existence.  I read Al Franken’s Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and laughed at how “stupid” Rush was, but I actually didn’t care about any of the core issues at stake.  I had no interest whatsoever in finding out what Rush was like because nothing he said really mattered.  I was working hard at my career, getting married, starting a family, and was therefore disinterested in things political.  The world seemed to be rolling along just right, with a Democratic president and a booming economy.

To give myself some retroactive credit, though, if a conservative had challenged me back then to listen to Rush, I would have done so — because I would have been certain that Rush was a big joke, and that I could have laughed at him just as Franken did.  I might have expected to be bored or offended, but I wouldn’t have been worried about being mesmerized and brainwashed.

And then came September 11, 2001, and I started paying attention.  I began to be concerned about what was going on around me.  This concern led me to start reading anything I could get my hands on about all sorts of subjects.  I read blogs, both liberal and conservative.  I opened my mind to the possibility that my attachment to the Democratic party was wrong — a possibility helped by the fact that I found myself agreeing with the major political decisions George Bush was making, both regarding national security and the economy.  In other words, once I realized that my old political staples were failing, I started looking for new information.  I wasn’t scared of the new information but, rather, was curious.

Both my old attitude (“Sure, bring silly Rush on, ’cause he’ll be good for a laugh”) and my new attitude (“There’s something out there I need to learn about”) make it impossible for me to understand the resistance, shading into fear, that my friends and family show when confronted with the possibility that they might hear a minute or two of Rush’s mellifluous tones over the airways.  They don’t seem to recognize either the possibility that they might laugh at a fool or learn from a wise man.  Instead, they seem genuinely afraid that any exposure to Rush will corrupt them irreparably.  Like poor Trilby, they’ll be seduced into an unsustainable way of being, only to find themselves suddenly abandoned and exposed.  To them, Rush is no mere conservative; he is Satan incarnate, a tempter who will destroy their liberal souls and leave them in an endless conservative Hell.

It’s quite a high compliment to Rush that ordinary liberals believe he has extraordinary powers.  It isn’t every conservative radio or talk show host who is perceived as so compelling and seductive that he can destroy people’s worldview in an instant.

It’s also very frustrating to me because, in a funny way, I agree with my liberal friends that Rush can rejigger their worldview very quickly.  The only thing is that I don’t believe Rush works his magic through hypnotism and trickery.  Instead, I think Rush’s real magic lies in his ability to view the political world as a vast chessboard, one on which he can see multiple future moves; his prodigious memory; his well-informed mind; his logical analyses; and his funny persona.  He convinces by appealing to our rational mind, our sense of humor, and our knowledge of the world as it is, and not as some Ivory Tower liberal tells us it should be.

So, whether by cajolery or challenge, I’m still trying to get my liberals to listen to Rush.  For all the wrong reasons, they’re right about one thing:  he will change their minds.

Image: The image at the top of this post is the graphic that Rush Limbaugh’s website created when Rush read my post on air.

Coming to the Table: Tazikis Food Review

Happy New Year 2021!!! This is my first contribution to Virginia Right since the New Year!!!!!! (Corey throwing confetti in the air).
Since “the” new Administration is calling for “unity”, I took some time deciding what my first contribution of the New Year would be. Regardless of what side of the isle you may sit on, you have to eat. So the best way I can promote “unity” as advised by President Joe Biden (still is to talk about food. Because face it folks, we all gotta eat!!!!

Following a recent visit to the eye doctor Mandy and I were shopping and we were in the Wegmans shopping center off Midlothian Turnpike. We decided to check out Taziki’s located at 12643 Stone Village Way Midlothian, Virginia 23113. I had not had a good Gyro since I left New York City in 2001. On the menu was Gyro’s!!!! Super excited, I placed my order Lamb Gyro with chips and a tomato cucumber salad.

First, the customer service at the counter was outstanding!!! You know in this post Covid-19 world we are living in good customer service is hard to come by. Our cashier was friendly, respectful and asked us if we had visited the establishment before. After we advised that this was our first visit, he allowed us to check the menu after making his suggestions for the best selling dishes.

By this time, I could only think Gyro, so that is what I stuck with. Many other local take out restaurants have attempted the Gyro. The last one I tried was America’s Best Wings on Iron Bridge Road in Chesterfield, Virginia. As my father used to say, “that was a wash”.

I gave that poor excuse for a Gyro to the dog. But THIS Tazikis Gyro was tender, flavorful and down right delicious. I felt like I was home in New York. I look forward to returning again and selecting something else on the menu. If your out and about in Midlothian, Virginia check it out for yourself.


12643 Stone Village Way

Midlothian, Virginia 23113

804 245 8113

The totemic power of the “N-word”

If you’re interested in how the “N-word” has come to have the destructive power of a nuclear bomb, I’ve got the answer.

I’ve gotten used to the leftist excesses at the New York Times, but even I was impressed at how overboard the editors went when they fired Donald G. McNeil Jr. The reason for firing this 45-year Times veteran was because, while accompanying a pricey student trip to Peru some years ago, some students were offended that McNeil used what is now referred to as the “N-word” and tattled on him.

It’s important to understand that McNeil didn’t say the word as part of his own conversation and he certainly didn’t use it in an insulting way. Instead, one of the students asked a question about a friend who, when she was 12, used that racial pejorative in a video and ended up suspended. (It’s noteworthy, by the way, that in leftist-run school districts, it’s normal for students to physically assault teachers. But use that word….)

When McNeil answered the question posed to him, he dared to use the forbidden word. When word got back to the Times — where he’d worked for 45 years — the paper gave him a reprimand. However, this offended the now-ubiquitous “BIPOCs,” who demanded McNeil’s head…and got it.

I don’t have a single tear to shed for McNeil. Up until last week, he was part of that system. Also, he was dumb enough to issue the usual groveling apology for being politically incorrect. Note, please, that what he did was neither illegal nor something that could reasonably be the subject of costly civil litigation. Instead, what he said offended the sensibilities of the gatekeepers in cancel culture.

Somehow, McNeil missed the part in the story where only BIPOCs, such as the anti-Semitic Nick Cannon, are granted absolution for their sins. If you’re white, you’re consigned forever to the outer reaches, far away from the fancy latte machine in the Times’ coffee room.

What got to Bret Stephens, the Trump-hating RINO who left the Wall Street Journal for the New York Times, was the fact that the Times didn’t care about context. It didn’t care that McNeil used the word without malice. Merely speaking the word is now a sin (emphasis mine):

In an initial note to staff, editor-in-chief Dean Baquet noted that, after conducting an investigation, he was satisfied that McNeil had not used the slur maliciously and that it was not a firing offense. In response, more than 150 Times staffers signed a protest letter. A few days later, Baquet and managing editor Joe Kahn reached a different decision.

“We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent,” they wrote on Friday afternoon. They added to this unambiguous judgment that the paper would “work with urgency to create clearer guidelines and enforcement about conduct in the workplace, including red-line issues on racist language.”

As I’ve pointed out before, the virtue of events in 2020 and, now, in 2021, is that we’re getting clarity. Ordinary Americans (rather than political obsessives like me) are seeing that the “Democrats” or “progressives” really are as red of tooth and claw as conservatives have been saying. Like all other totalitarian groups, they have rigid language requirements, purges, and mortal sins that leave no room for remorse, repentance, and reform.

When it comes to the “N-word,” how did we get to the point at which it is a word the mere utterance of which can destroy lives? I’m glad you asked.

Up until 1994, there were only two known totemic words in the Western world, words so powerful that they could not be spoken — one occurs in the Bible, while the other is a pure fiction.

The Bible refers to God as יהוה. The English cognate for those letters is YHWH. Beginning in the 6th century B.C., speaking this name of extraordinary power became taboo. Instead, Jews began to refer to יהוה in the third person as אֲדֹנָי‬ (Adonai or “the Lord”). That appellation is still the word used in all Jewish prayers (e.g., “Barukh ata Adonai;” “Blessed are You, Lord our God”).

Those who no longer believe in the word’s totemic significance willingly say the Lord’s name. Or at least, they willingly say what they think is the Lord’s name. No one really knows how it was pronounced back before the Second Temple period. The agreed-upon pronunciation, based upon roughly contemporaneous Greek renditions, is “Yahweh.” However, pronunciations change when filtered through a foreign language. For all we know, the word was really pronounced “Yohwuh” or something equally unfamiliar.

My point is that, for observant Jews, the Lord’s name is so sacred that it cannot be spoken. No one is worthy of speaking it. For centuries, observant Christians attached that same significance to both God’s and Jesus’s names. They would utter the names in a religious context but it was blasphemous to “take the Lord’s name in vain.” To avoid blasphemy, the British ended up with such exclamations as “Zounds!” (from “God’s wounds”), “Strewth” (from “God’s truth”) and, the most obscene, “bloody” (from “Christ’s blood”).

And what’s the other totemic word, one of such power that no one can utter it? That would be Voldemort, from the Harry Potter universe. In that fictional world, it was fear and superstition that gave that name its power. That is, I don’t recall anything in the books indicating that merely uttering Voldemort’s name would make bad things happen. The stricture against uttering it was simply that it offended people. It was Hermione who sensibly pointed out that “fear of a name only increases fear of the thing itself.” No one listened.

Which gets me to the “N-word.” I happen not to like that phrase because I don’t agree with the totemic significance given to the word. I’ll write it as I write any vulgar, offensive, or obscene word because I don’t like using those words — with asterisks. “N****r.”

Do any of you remember the origin of the shibboleth against any mention of n****r outside of the ghetto or rap context? Up until 1995, it was just another impolite, hurtful, and vulgar expression. I’ve never uttered the word in my life for that reason. When publications mentioned it before 1995, they did what I’m doing here; that is, they used asterisks.

The big change was the OJ Simpson trial. OJ lived his entire adult life as a white guy, one who had little time for or interest in the black community. However, when he was being tried for Nicole Simpson’s murder, his “dream team” of attorneys came up with the perfect defense: Make the case about race.

They were able to embark on this strategy because they learned that one of the detectives who originally investigated the case, Mark Fuhrman, had made a series of tape recordings in which he spoke badly about blacks and referred to them as n****rs. They relayed their strategy to Jeffrey Toobin, the leftist who later tried to force his adulterous lover to abort their child and refused to pay child support and, just last year, masturbated during a Zoom call.

Toobin wrote an article for The New Yorker describing Fuhrman’s alleged racism (something that had never been an issue in his work and, to the extent there was a recording, seemed to be something of a tryout for a novel). OJ’s dream team, he said, was going to “play the race card.”

And play it they did. The trial, instead of being about evidence related to a brutal crime, became about “the N-word.” That still leaves unanswered how that particular expression — the “N-word” –worked its way into American English and become so powerful.

It started with the prosecution. The team was made up of two whites (Marcia Clark and William Hodgman) and, when it was clear that race was going to be central to the trial, a black man (Christopher Darden). Unfortunately, the prosecution, instead of defusing the word, thought that attacking the word was the best way to show that they were in sync with the majority-black jury.

Here’s a tip for both trial attorneys and for conservatives fighting back against leftists: Never accept your opponents’ definitions. You’ll note, for example, that I never refer to Democrats as “liberals.” They’re not. They’re completely illiberal, which is why I usually call them “leftists,” although I’ll mix it up with “Democrats” or “progressives.”

By the way, they’re not progressive either because their politics hark back to a lot of bad old days, such as Jim Crow, fascism, communism, etc., but the word is still fairly neutral unless, like me, you despise the original, early 20th century progressives, who were racist eugenicists who gave ideas to Hitler. But I digress.

Let me get back to Christopher Darden. It was Darden who thought that the best way to handle the word was to strike it so that it could not be associated with Mark Fuhrman:

“It is the dirtiest, filthiest, nastiest word in the English language,” Darden said in a speech that started quietly and built to such a crescendo that he apologized for his own emotion. “It’ll upset the black jurors. It’ll issue a test, and the test will be: ‘Whose side are you on, the side of the white prosecutors and the white policemen, or are you on the side of the black defendant and his very prominent and capable black lawyer?’ That’s what it’s going to do. Either you’re with the man, or you’re with the brothers.”

Jonnie Cochran instantly made the opposite argument, one that we would all do well to heed today:

“I want . . . to apologize to African Americans across this country,” Cochran said to a silent, spellbound courtroom. “It’s demeaning to our jurors to say that African Americans, who have lived under oppression for 200-plus years in this country, cannot work within the mainstream, cannot hear these offensive words. African Americans live with offensive words, offensive looks, offensive treatment every day of their lives. But yet they still believe in this country. . . . To say they can’t be fair is absolutely outrageous.”

Incidentally, at least as to the year 2021, I disagree with the contention that American blacks “live with offensive words, offensive looks, offensive treatment every day of their lives.” That is not how America operates except in “progressive” minds. That’s why they’ve fallen back on microaggressions, which are imaginary slights in the minds of hypersensitive people who have been trained to be paranoid. But, again, I digress.

Darden may have lost the trial, but his side won the word war. When it comes to words that are so powerful merely uttering them destroys people, we have the ancient religious taboo against יהוה; the fictional taboo against “Voldemort;” and the very real, leftist taboo against “n****r.”

As for me, I’m not playing the leftist word games. To me, n****r is a nasty word, but neither more nor less nasty than k**e for Jews, c***k for Asians, s**c for Hispanics, or any of the other words people of one race use to insult another. In my old-fashioned world (my mother raised me to be a “lady”), polite, decent people don’t use any of those words. However, honest, sane people, when using them in a non-pejorative context — as I did here with my asterisked spellings and as McNeil did in Peru — don’t assign to them a unique power that allows leftist institutions to destroy a person’s life merely for allowing those syllables to pass his lips.

Is a conservative counter-revolution possible?

I have no faith in a coming conservative counter-culture among today’s youth because they’ve never been taught that such a thing is possible.

Long-time readers know that, for many years, I’ve been commenting about how sheeple-like the young people in my children’s generation are. I was a little girl in San Francisco in the 1960s, but I certainly remember the rebellious spirit that animated the youth of the 1960s and early 1970s. They were pushing back against the traditional values of their parents and teachers.

In leftist Marin, though, in the first decades of the 20th century, the young people were entirely in sync with the leftist values of their parents and teachers. That appears to be true in liberal enclaves across America. It’s also the case that young people in changing communities (traditional homes, leftist teachers’ unions), will hew to their teachers’ values. My generation sneered at the teachers. (I still do because, with few exceptions, I found my children’s teachers to be singular ill-informed and not very bright.)

I assumed that, eventually, conservativism would intrigue these young people because it was the opposite of the stifling conformity imposed on them in their communities and their homes. After all, the media, the entertainment world, and the history books constantly tell us that the youth movement in the 1960s was a rebellion against the stifling conformity of 1950s America.

There hasn’t been a counter-revolution, though. Today’s young people are more sheeple-like even than my now-grown kids were.

I’ve finally realized what’s going on. In the 1950s, there was cultural conformity that aligned behavior with traditional American values. However, one of the values that Americans still honored was to teach young people actual American history and civics.

Students learned about the Bill of Rights. Their teachers emphasized the tremendous virtue of the First Amendment’s freedoms: speech, religion, assembly, protest, and the press. In other words, what I thought was youth’s natural rebellion was, instead, the fact that American young people had been inculcated with their inherent rights.

What’s different nowadays is that schools do not teach those values anymore. There is no institution that teaches our children that they have these inherent freedoms. Instead, their schools don’t just limit themselves to teach kids what to think (as opposed to how to think, using reason, not emotion). Instead, they teach the kids that independent thinking is dangerous and that speech that deviates from leftist conformity must be stifled.

The way I see it, if you raise kids in a generally conformist society but let them know that they have the right not to conform, you might end up with a counter-culture revolution. However, if you raise kids in a conformist society and hide the fact that they have inherent liberty to think, write, speak, protest, and assemble in ways counter to that conformity, young people aren’t naturally rebellious. Instead, they’re herd animals without inspiration.

In other words, we conservatives will never be the cool kids and rebels because, for the past 20 years, America’s youth, haven’t been taught that they have an inherent right to rebel. Instead, they’ve been indoctrinated to believe that free thought and free speech are dangerous.

Incidentally, that mindset explains how Democrats can sell what happened on January 6 — a protest that got out of hand but that did nothing to touch our governing institutions, and was never intended to do so — was an illegal “insurrection” or “coup.” With the Bill of Rights a dead letter to multiple generations of students, they believe that anything that challenges leftist ideas is an “insurrection” and must be quashed.

Image: 1950s family is in the public domain. The Woodstock concert attendees photo is by Derek Redmond and Paul Campbell and is used under a CC BY-SA 3.0 license.