Era Of The Outsider?

What if, and I acknowledge it's a long shot, but what if the Democrats nominate Marianne Williamson as their candidate for president in 2020?  Of course, nothing is more rigid and uncompromising than the democrat Borg group-think, but during last night's debates she scored pretty big.  And how did she do that?  By espousing a more than traditional concept of love, peace and harmony.  The Greeks, and later the Christians, called the concept of the love of all mankind agape.

Now normally we wouldn't actually be surprised to hear this kind of thought from hard core, right-brain democrat thinkers who always place emotion over logic and experience - but we know those kind folks aren't politicians.  But in last night's debate setting, where nearly two dozen other emotionally charged democrats spewed their anger, frustration, hate and let's-get-even-with-'em-ism, she stood out like a beautiful, inspiring light.  And that could be dangerous to them in this election cycle.  She's an outsider, a healer - assuredly not a politician - and that could be an advantage when voters - alone and privately - mark their ballots in November next year.

As my readers know, I'm a proponent of all things metaphysical, of the power of thought and will over matter as it pertains to how one may choose to live his life.  So I have little criticism of Ms. Williamson's general position on the philosophy itself, but not so much of her application of it.   But no matter.  I've been there, live there, and endorse it.  So it's with some amazement and glee that I see this philosophy coming out of the hate-filled, destructive, corrupt and vile Democrat Party.

Americans yearn for a deeper, richer and more meaningful spirituality than mere adherence to a dogma, whether papal or Islamic or whatever.  They want to be closer to the source, one might say.  So when someone like Ms. Williamson presents Americans with a path to a deeper spirituality, especially in this day and age of identity politics and unbridled hate coming from the left, I thinks it's going to get some serious traction.  But is that enough to be presidential?  Who knows.  But it will attract a lot of interest.

And if and when the DNC finally figures out why Trump won in 2016, which is doubtful, it might just realize that Americans are on to the globalist scam of the two party oligarchy, and are tired of politicians on both sides of the aisle enriching themselves at the public's expense.  Trump won mainly because he wasn't one of them, and that's noteworthy because one of the abject lessons in Trump's runaway success is that he proved we don't need professional politicians to run the government.

Out of touch as usual, and missing the message completely, the DNC just fired senior administrators for not being diverse enough, which means they were white, not black or brown or rainbow, or whatever other color the left imagines.  It was done for the "optics," as DNC Chair Tom Perez defines it.  Oh, I see - for how things look.  Deep.  See my last post for a brief discussion on race.

So watch this gal.  I think she's got something going for her, not just in the fact that she ain't one of them.  Poised, cute, articulate, entrepreneurial and firm in her beliefs, she just may be their candidate.

But she can't beat Trump in 2020.  But in 2024?  That's another matter.

What The Hell Is A Racist?

If one has any awareness of the current and never-ending drumbeat of the left's accusations of anyone and everyone of being racist, one has to stop and define the term in order to fully appreciate the slur.  What exactly constitutes a racist?  What are the definitions?  And why is that necessarily bad?  Before we qualify the severity of the invective of "racist!", don't we need to know why it is meant as a diss?  Let's research that. 

From the Oxford English Dictionary (the definitive last word in all things etymological, IMHO)

(Noun)   A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

(Adjective)   Showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

Okay, that sounds like it's in keeping with the applied definitions used by all the loud and shrill voices that scream the invective at anyone and everyone, on almost an hourly basis.  But what is a race, as opposed to the species, of mankind, Homo Sapiens?  Let's find out.

Uh, oh.  Now it gets a little more complicated.  Even Wikipedia, known neither as the Internet's most unbiased nor authoritative source, acknowledges that one must consider three definitions and uses of the word "race," based on its intended application. 

For the sociological concept, see Race and society. For "the human race" (all of humanity), see Human. For the term "race" in biology, see Race (biology). For belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, see Racialism.

Okay, now we have some conflicting demands on the definition of the word "race."  Race as it applies to culture and society?  Race as it applies to biology?  Race as it applies to humans?   

In the Eighteenth century, and sporadically prior to then, ethnologists generally divided human beings into five distinct classes.  In those days humans were categorized as one of the Ethiopian, American,  Caucasian, Mongolian or Eskimo races.  Later, Pacific Islanders, such as Samoans were added to the list.  Those distinctions were made in part on physical characteristics such as skin color, hair, facial features, bone structure and so on.  

But those definitions didn't sit well with the enlightened egalitarian elites.  It seemed, well, just too confining to the vast human spirit, as we all know that all races (whatever that is) are equal in every way.  So, in 1950, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) issued a statement asserting that all humans belong to the same species and that "race" is not a biological reality but a myth. They didn't actually prove anything to support this, it was just a summary of the findings of an international panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists.  A classic case of "We all say so, so it is so."

Whew.  Thank goodness and just in time.  We must never find ourselves forced to evaluate, qualify or quantify our fellow Homo Sapiens.  That just won't do.  Egalitarianism must prevail.  Some are better than others?  Nonsense.  Damn the evidence to the contrary.

But wait.  Now I'm confused.  If an international panel of anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists has determined that the idea of "race" is a myth, doesn't that necessitate that  "racism" also a myth?  And if that's the case, how can the enlightened egalitarian elites call anyone a "racist," if there's no such thing as "race?"

But no matter the facts, or edicts by self appointed anthropologists, geneticists, sociologists, and psychologists to the contrary, the epithet "racist" is still daily hurled unrelentingly to paint the intended target as bad, or ignorant, or worse, "racist."  So in the lexicon of our times, a racist apparently does in fact have some standard definable characteristics.  

Let's see if any of these non-existent-purely-mythical definitions of racist identify your humble narrator.  White?  Check.  Male?  Check.  Conservative?  Check.  American patriot?  Check.  Trump supporter?  Triple check.  Christian?  Check again.  Gun owner?  Check.  Baby boomer?  Check.  Southern boy?  Double check.

Whoa.  That's  interesting.  The first of these criteria - skin color - is a race qualifier which is used to define me as a racist.  That's circular logic. So I guess by this standard I'm a racist, whether or not I find others different from me as being inferior. 

Well then, it seems  I'm a racist.  And thank God!

Tone Deaf? Or Worse?

What's it gonna take?  A three-year long investigation?  Exposure of a corrupt media?  Maybe a Congressional hearing?  Oh, wait.  We have had all those.  And the result of all that investigatin' goin' on was that the whole thing was an elaborate hoax.  A fable.  A con.  What we did learn - not the story the hoaxers where spewing - but rather that a corrupt DoJ and FBI, staffed with appointees of the despicable Kenyan who are also loyal to our gal Hil, had targeted President Trump and his campaign in order to nullify a duly sanctioned election.   It was their self proclaimed "insurance policy" to be implemented in the case of Trump's election.  It was all an elaborate con, one that deliberately destroyed many people's lives, including retired Lieutenant General Micheal Flynn, a true American patriot.  There was harm done to other undeserving citizens, too, and those who perpetrated  this coup must be persecuted.  All of them, no matter how high it may go.  With extreme prejudice.

Yet in spite of all that, along with Robert Mueller's disastrous performance this week, stammering, stuttering and essentially debunking his own Mueller Report as well as the continuous Russia-Russia-Russia narrative spewed by the lapdog and compliant media, it all unraveled.  In public.  On live television.  But the Dems double down.  Facts don't matter to them; only intended results do.  And that's "Get Trump."

But the seriously deranged left just can't seem to grasp the reality of current events, because as definitively damaging the hearing was, they continue unabashedly with the same old Russia-Russia-Russia-Orange-Man-Bad narrative.  And the Kool-aid drinkers gulp it down.  And ask for more.

Those idiots!  We got away with it!

But what if the radical left is not simply deranged?  What if they're not merely tone deaf?  What if there's a darker, deeper and far more worrisome explanation?  Supported by leftists in congress and in the media?  What if nothing - and by that I mean literally nothing - shall stand in the way of protecting the nefarious and totally criminal and corrupt activities of Hillary Clinton and the despicable Kenyan?

That sounds like an internal hard coup.  A mutiny.  A takeover of a duly elected government.  Planned and executed.  And all against the will of the American people.

And if so, that's treason.

RIP Mr. Wes

Oh my my. The great master of the written word, Wesley Pruden, has passed away.  May he rest in peace.  As the Washington Times put it in his obituary:

 

Wesley Pruden would have wanted to spend his final hours at his keyboard, deftly deflating the pompous, entitled and arrogant of the political establishment, and he came awfully close.

The venerable Washington Times editor, columnist and journalism institution was found dead Wednesday morning at his home, after putting in a full day Tuesday at the newsroom on New York Avenue in Northeast D.C., where he had worked since 1982, four months after the newspaper’s founding.

He was 83.

I've read his work for decades, and I confess that my writing style was greatly influenced by his.  He had a decidedly non-PC, hard hitting, tongue-in-check truth to his commentary.  And he could rip into the pompous elite with acerbic wit like no other.

A true southern gentleman, his soft spoken charm and humility stood out even in his commentary regarding despicable people who probably deserve much less.  And his dipping into familiar Old-South idioms was a delightful dash of bitters on whisky drunk neat.

Rest easy, my old friend.  While it's doubtful anyone can carry your torch, some of us lesser mortals will do our best in keeping it aflame.

Wesley Pruden.  He loved writing. He loved life. He always wore a hat. He was sui generis.

Four Little Drama Queens Dancing On Air

After a weeks-long sabbatical, wherein your erstwhile and humble blogger toured the Maya ruins of Mexico - well, some of them, anyway, and sampled some presumed traditional Maya food - and after returning home to witness the antics and hysteria of the notorious Four Mean Girls (FMGs), it's now crystal clear to me how cultures can implode, self destruct, and just disappear from the planet.

No one really knows how or why the Maya people and their culture - or the Olmec before them -  mysteriously disappeared, but my good friend and professional anthropologist Guillermo and I think they just "left the world."  The Maya had a strong belief in practical metaphysics, and their shaman were expert in manifesting and altering reality.  So it's safe to say that they simply left this world for another.  Our modern western culture doesn't lend much credence to that kind of reality manipulation unfortunately, so many eyes will roll when reading that sentence.  But what is, is, whether one believes it or not.

But back to the FMGs.  These drama queens are set upon destroying the greatest cultural achievement in history - the idea of self governance for and by the people.  They each have a different agenda, but have unified in one distinct goal:  Kill the American idea.  

One of them wants to turn the United States into a Islamic theocracy and instill sharia law.  Another wants to eradicate Israel and all the Jews and make Palestine a world player.  Yet another wants to eradicate the Caucasian race, and make the world a Negro paradise.  And the last, perhaps most vocal and vapid of them all, doesn't really know what the hell she wants.  Maybe like a communist or socialist state kind of, where like, rich people pay for college and stuff.

The combined intelligence quotient of these FMGs is approximately one-quarter that of the president's.  So there's that.  But as we have learned in recent decades, truth and logic often fall victim to loud and shrill.  And these harpies, dumb as they are, are both loud and shrill.  Annoying, yes, but also fun to watch.

But it matters not.  Because unlike the Maya, whose shaman could actually alter reality and who deliberately left little trace of their culture, these idiot FMGs are ideologues who seek the destruction of a successful and fuctioning culture that brought freedom to all, only to replace it with old, failed and dismal freedom sapping tyranny.

But not having any spiritual or metaphysical capabilities, all these FMGs can truly do is dance on the air of their insidious nonsense.