Wednesday, October 19, 2016

The Suppression of Ideas and Free Thought in the Service of Hate

I mentioned in my previous post that Kevin Levin's blog entry about the SCV's proposed museum advocates the suppression of ideas and beliefs he disagrees with. Of course, it isn't just him. Progressives have held that position, and made that effort, for generations. This is particularly true in education, especially higher education.

Perfect example: One of his commenters says,
"I may have to write a ‘letter to the editor’ about this one. I do think there are a lot of people who simply don’t understand that, as my grad school advisor once titled an op-ed “confederate history is about race.” Yet it may be for some, they are reachable and their opinions could be changed."
Heaven forbid somebody does "wrong-think" -- i.e., hold wrong beliefs that needs changing, in this person's opinion.

In fact, this commenter, who happens to be a college teacher of the progressive, all-slavery, only-slavery persuasion, did indeed write a letter to the editor of the Columbia (TN) Daily Herald blatantly advocating that people be indoctrinated into HER views, and not be allowed to hold their own.

Sez she,
".... the proposed museum would offer a highly skewed version of local and regional history, one which, crucially and intentionally, diminishes the significance of slavery. If this 'museum' is to be built, local people should insist that it raises (sic) critical questions about the role of slavery within the Confederacy, and that it includes (sic) the input of trained historians and/or of groups which specialize in African American history. Short of this, we cannot support local officials or schools associating with this institution, nor can we allow this version of history to seep into students’ curriculum."
This totalitarian attitude would do a Soviet dictator proud.

What lies beneath this mental tyranny, I believe, is not genuine respect for true history, or even for the African-American/slavery experience, but hatred of white Southerners, past and present, and the dedication to evilizing them in every way possible. For some, it is accomplished by lurid novels and movies, for others it is "history" and civil war "scholarship."

If you asked this "visiting instructor of history" whether she hates white Southerners, she would probably be appalled and babble denials -- I believe she identified Columbia as her home town, but of course, being a white Southerner is no guarantee that you will escape the indoctrination of self-hatred, because said indoctrination  runs the gamut from mushroom-cloud obvious to barely detectable subtlety.

Hatred of Southern whites is a subset of the progressive effort to foment hatred for whiteness overall, and we will look at the pheonomena more in future posts.

Monday, October 17, 2016

The SCV's Gonna Build a Museum, and Kevin Levin is Pissed

Levin has a post about the SCV's project of building a museum near its headquarters in Tennessee. He sez the SCV's "decision to call it a museum, however, needs serious qualification."

No, it doesn't. A museum is "a building or place where works of art, scientific specimens, or other objects of permanent value are kept and displayed" (Random House via ... and ... "a place or building where objects of historical, artistic, or scientific interest are exhibited, preserved, or studied" (Collins English Dictionary via  

Levin further sez, "Let’s be clear that the epistemological foundation of this endeavor has much more in common with the Creation Museum, Noah’s Ark Encounter or even the Museum of the Confederacy in its earliest incarnation than anything that we normally designate as a history museum."

Than WHO "normally designate as a history museum?" YOU, Levin?

For the folks in Rio Linda, "epistemology" is a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge ( If Levin is concerned about that with regard to civil war museums, he needs to understand that a great many of them existing today are not about knowledge of the civil war at all. They are about indoctrinating visitors into the progressive view of the South (evil), Southerners past and present (bad), the Confederacy (really, really evil), slavery (the greatest sin of mankind) and Abe Lincoln  (saint) and the union (sinless).

This is also the purpose of adding "interpretative plaques" to Confederate monuments that have been standing, quite well understood without them, for decades -- to indoctrinate visitors in the progressive mindset of the items named in the above paragraph. If you thought it was about "knowledge" and "truth," boy, are you wrong.

Levin concludes, "Ultimately, what we are seeing here is the further acknowledgment that the Lost Cause continues to lose credibility as a legitimate interpretation of the past and as something worthy of honoring or celebrating. ...It is another acknowledgment (at a cost of $5 million) that the Lost Cause has surely lost."

Well, Levin, obviously, the "Lost Cause" is not lost enough for you. You're obsessed with it.

But here's what's most instructive about your blog entry. I note that your post and many comments following it advocate the suppression of ideas and beliefs you disagree with. (That is standard fare on your blog, btw.) It's not enough for you to disagree with it -- it has to be figuratively strong-armed to force compliance, or else the public has to be verbally strong-armed to avoid it. Since the SCV isn't likely to knuckle under to progressive haranguing, you folks will have to go to Plan B.

The post and comments are a stark, clear example of the leftist mentality and the leftist approach. Progressives bill themselves as "tolerant" and welcoming of the free exchange of ideas. In fact, if they cannot suppress that which they disagree with, they will lie about it and strive to influence others against it (Plan B).

I don't think it will work, as it has in the past. Many recent events demonstrate that Americans are are sick and tired of the decades-long progressive strong-arming (i.e., political correctness) and they are pushing back. That's why Target is losing money hand-over-fist (and why it changed its "bathroom policy" yet again, and is spending $20 million to accommodate its customers and undo its earlier arrogance toward their beliefs). That's why the Washington Post speculates that the "NFL ratings plunge could spell doom for traditional TV" (although the article doesn't even touch on the reason for the ratings plunge; many commenters get it, though). That's why "Birth of a Nation" and "Free State of Jones" bombed at the box office.  That's why a brash New York billionaire who knows nothing of the verbal diplomacy needed in political exchanges is running neck and neck with his lying, dirty-trickster progressive opponent in the presidential race.  That is why, according to a Gallup poll and other indicators, Americans' trust of the media is at an all-time low.

But y'all sharpen your pencils, or get comfortable at your keyboard, and start churning out them efforts at the suppression of ideas. Write those blog posts. Comments.  Letters to the editor.... Show the world what you really are.

And to the SCV -- can't wait to visit your museum!

(Stay tuned -- I'll be addressing some of the more bizarre "progressive" ideas found in the comments in my next post).

Tuesday, October 11, 2016

Mt. Shoshana Bee Erupts

Simpson has posted at XRoads a funny hit piece on me, complete with graphic memes I've made -- I'm sure he didn't mean for it to be funny; it's supposed to reverberate with righteous indignation over my "war on women" -- and it caused an awesome eruption of Mount Shoshana Bee. She seemed particularly fixated on this meme:

Since she gets just about everything about it wrong, I figured she'd appreciate clarification.

She started: We have gone from a presidential candidate gloating about his sexual predation...

Ah, no. He wasn't a presidential candidate when he did the gloating -- see how dishonest they are, folks? The presidential candidate said he wasn't proud of it, and he apologized for it. One wonders how somebody as (apparently) politically savvy as the SBee missed that ... or whether the "missing it" was deliberate.

Is this okay with you as it is with Connie? she asks of another commenter, whose comment indicates nothing of the kind, and of course my meme doesn't indicate that.

One wonders how much firewater was served up at the latest powwow to conjure up such an extraordinary hallucination. Okay with me?  I've made no statement to that effect. Haven't implied it, haven't suggested it, haven't hinted at it.

What the Bee is doing, folks, is using her hatred to color her conceptualization of my words. Read on, we'll see more of this, because it's about all she does.

Take this, for example, "According to Connie, women 'wanted to abandon the kitchen….' so they deserved to be punished by predatory behaviour for the audacity of going to work?"

Well, the terminology was "home and children," not "kitchen," (that was a reference to "heat" and "getting out of..."). And I wasn't talking about "going to work." How many of you can read the meme and NOT see that I was talking about the world of politics?????. Is there anything in my meme that suggests women should be "punished by predatory behavior" for either pursuit?  I think it is extremely clear from my meme what I'm talking about. I mean, how can you miss "...MEN HAVE BEEN INSULTING MEN IN POLITICS...." and the point is, if you want to enter that world on the basis of your fitness to be there, don't go around citing your WORDS.

 So, who thinks the Bee somehow...
1. missed that
2. didn't understand it
3. is ignoring it in order to make an illegitimate point?

One would have thought she would at least have caught that I'm talking about politics because of my use of the phrase "get out of the kitchen," since it was used by Harry S Truman, POTUS. He didn't coin it, but popularized it. (As an aside, it's ironic that he took a domestic household reference and gave it political application.)

Any clearer for you, pumpkin?

I have a hot flash for folks like Connie: There are ladies — yes, LADIES — whose husbands died, and they were left to carry the workload. (Yep. See my note at the end of this blog post: then there is the single mother, who kept her baby which was a result of an assault, who had to go off to work.

Work yourself up into a pleasurable rage for nothing, puddin'. These aren't the women I'm talking about. I'm talking about women who get their mugs on national TV commentatin' on politics, as if they're the be-all and end-all of knowledge re: "wimmin's issues" but then put forth the notion that wimmins is delicate creatures who can't take being insulted.

These women are real, and they exist in my family. Even if the choice is their own to enter the workplace, no one, NO ONE deserves to be preyed upon at any time for any reason.

No joke. If words are predatory, ask Susan Hathaway how it has felt to have Brooks Simpson, his fellow floggers and comment thread haters such as yourself harassing, bullying and cyberstalking her for about half a decade....

Yep. These women probably exist in everybody's family, including mine, as referenced above. My mother entered the workplace before and after she married. So did one of my grandmothers. So did my aunts. So did my sister. So did I. What is there in my meme that suggests I think we/they deserve to be preyed upon? Absolutely nothing.

Feminist leaders don't care about women like us, anyway.

How many women in your family were on Fox News telling the world what they should think of Donald Trump, Bee? As if women can't make up their own minds about him. (That's the way leftists feminists are, and this is their message to ordinary women -- "You are smart, you are strong, equal and free to do as you will -- but you'd better THINK what we tell you to THINK, schweethaht. Got it?")

The discussion is not about “whining” or “screeching” or “sexism”. This about the revelation that Donald Trump is a sexual predator, and not only is it okay with Connie, rather, she demeans and belittles those find this behaviour repugnant.

Well, no, that's not what it's about. It is not okay with  me and nothing I said suggests it is, and I haven't belittled those who find the WORDS repugnant.  (Perhaps you should check with the refreshment committee before the next powwow and suggest they substitute Pepsi or Snapple for the firewater). Read on.

Let's get the least point out of the way first. He said it was all talk; he didn't actually DO what he was talking about. He said this at the debate when he flippin' APOLOGIZED AGAIN for the incident.

Second, if he's a sexual predator for talking, we need to change our laws. And if he's not a sexual predator but the things he says are just as bad,  maybe we need to repeal the First Amendment and criminalize speech. Make the punishment for talking about sex the same as it is for sexual assault. Right now, offensive speech is protected. I'm not defending Trump's words, the Constitution is. Maybe it's time to rethink that, huh, lefties?

Third, it's not okay with me, but what's  not okay with me even MORE -- and this has been my point when I've discussed this on Facebook and elsewhere -- is that I vehemently disagree with the lamestream media's elevating the reprehensibility of Trump's WORDS above the monstrousness of Bill Clinton's ACTIONS and DEEDS. Bubba really did commit sexual assault, rape and violence, and neither Bee nor Simpson nor the Fox News guest hens even mentioned that.

Not relevant because Bill's not running for office now, you say? Well, Trump wasn't running for office when he engaged in that locker-room man-banter, either, but that doesn't seem to matter to some people, especially leftists clinging to their beloved double standards. What makes it relevant to this election is that Hillary Clinton, who IS running for the highest office in the land now, enabled Bill's sexual predation and viciously attacked verbally (and some say violently) some of the women he had already preyed upon sexually.

Did the hens cackling on Fox News even CONSIDER that? Does Simpson, SBee or any Trump hater or Hillary devotee even CONSIDER THAT?

So let's recap, to make sure Shoshana Bee gets it.

Trump's words were repugnant. They were spoken long before he was a candidate for office. When they came to light (probably through Democratic dirty-trickery) he apologized. He apologized three times -- on video, in writing (in a tweet) and on live television.

Bill Clinton's deeds were worse than repugnant, they were injurious and  criminal and they ruined lives. Some of them occurred while he occupied the Oval Office, and some specific acts occurred while he was conducting the business of the nation. Hillary Clinton further victimized some of these women. Neither of the Clintons publicly apologized.

The four guest hens cackling on Fox News  need to get a clue...If Trump's insulting one of us insults us all, then Bill Clinton's raping one of us rapes us all, and Hillary Clinton's "bimbo eruption" attacks on one of us is an attack on all of us.