The Real Point of the Redskins Name Controversy

The completely contrived "conversation" over the supposedly offensive Washington Redskins name is yet another lesson for the American citizenry and the white males who, awkwardly, still for the moment make up a great proportion of the population. That the lesson is being misrepresented by a complicit media is no surprise yet deep down the average (read: white) male sports fan knows what is really going on. For he has experienced this lesson in countless ways since childhood.

Though 79 percent of Americans have no problem whatsoever with the Redskins name, President Obama has seen fit to wade into this "issue",  lapdog media "critics" who make a comfortable living playing their role in the corrupt Washington charade present their ridiculous "solutions" and assorted fringe characters chime in on either side.

All the while the white male sports viewer grits his teeth and tries to focus on what he really cares about - the game itself. And he is well aware that this is getting harder and harder to do with each passing year.

Whether sports media behemoth ESPN is endlessly championing fringe NBA players as homosexual heroes or professional sports leagues are constantly beating the drum of Hispanic Heritage Month, Black History Month and Disabled Chipmunk Month (I may have made that last one up; then again, the NHL may indeed have celebrated that -- it's all such a blur), the white male viewer knows that these are not authentic celebrations of any individual group. He knows that the real purpose of these exercises is aimed at him.

It's the old captive audience weapon that the cultural liberal bludgeons Americans with. Liberals know they cannot win people over to their side by the merits of their arguments, for their divisive, unnatural and illogical arguments are comprehensively without merit. Thus they seek to impose their will. And since we are a supposedly free society, they must find ways to force themselves on people who have no way to simply walk away from them, i.e., the captive audience.

No American has been as beat down by this ugly stick as the white male. From an early age, he was forced to attend his parents' church and was exposed to an endless prattle of effeminate pap that he could only sit and endure, knowing he would quickly drop it all once he was old enough to make his own decisions. He was forced to attend schools where he was exposed like a lab rat to all the fashionable feminist theories of his day and told that the history of people like himself was permeated with evil. He stuck it out in pursuit of the diploma and then the degree, knowing that one day he could walk away from what he was now trapped into enduring.

Of course I know all this because I experienced it personally. One example of many: I will never forget the resentment I felt at my college freshman World Geography class that I only took to fulfill a requirement for my major curriculum. I wouldn't have even taken the class if I had my druthers, and yet, though it was a geography class, I was taught as fact (on the final exam, give the answer they want or your grade suffers) loaded lunacies such as "abortion is the oldest form of birth control in world history" and "Malthusian population control is essential for world survival." The tired bias made not a dent on me. The feeling of total exasperation at being forced to put up with this hollow propaganda - at my own rather costly expense - when all I was trying to do was satisfy a small requirement on the way to my degree sticks with me to this day. Not as something unique but as yet another of those moments that was forced on me against my will. I guess I just didn't see it coming in an introductory geography class. I guess I should have.

And then we white males became adults and saw that there were new ways designed to always keep us stuck in the captive audience. At work, we are subjected to mindless Human Resources campaigns  on diversity, workplace sensitivity and the like. That it is all so unconvincing is not the point at all. The real lesson is loud and clear: You will not be able to break away. From cradle to grave, we are going to invade your personal space and impose our worldview upon you.

Which takes us to the one diversion many white males love most: sports. All we want to do is watch the games we have loved for as long as we can remember and enjoy them. It's true that nobody is making us watch, yet as men we're hardwired to do so.

And here as well those same feelings of having something forced on us against our will resurface again and again in countless ways. Liberals really don't understand the anger white male sports fans feel at having mediocre black quarterbacks forced down our throats by the media hype machine. We want sports to be a meritocracy. We see how our modern society champions incompetence in the name of diversity and we would like to be free of this boring tyranny on the playing field, if nowhere else. It should be cut and dry: Either you can play or you can't.

Yet an endless number of "athletic" (read: black) pro quarterbacks have been foisted upon us. They have up to this point without exception been heralded as elite game changers. They have also up to this point without exception been nothing but mediocre. It's not like we're not going to notice these two things, you know. It's simply a fact of the position that pro quarterbacks who stay in the pocket and look off a DB before hitting a receiver or check off to their second or third receiving option are more successful than "athletic" (read: black) quarterbacks who run when their first receiving option is not open, even when a wide-open receiver is streaking towards the goal line. It is also more entertaining to watch a QB find the third receiver and thread a pass to him to move the team down the field than it is to watch an "athlete" take the snap, dart around end and run, run, run.

The notion that wanting to see the pro quarterback position played at its highest level is a sign of racism is beyond ludicrous. We are talking about the same fans here who accept and rabidly cheer on an NFL that is 70 percent black on the field and an NBA that is 80 percent black on the hardcourt. We don't want Vince Young quarterbacking a team for the same reason that we don't want Adam Morrison in an NBA starting lineup.

The disgruntlement with the nonstop media hype of black quarterbacks is really a sign of white male fans resenting the feeling that they are being played again, just as they have been played over and over again in all other aspects of their lives.

And that is what this fake Redskins name controversy is really all about. The fact that we are a captive audience is being driven home one more time. The liberal is imposing his perspective yet again. He's bought the games - he televises them, he owns the teams, he runs the leagues. If you want to watch, sit in your seat, absorb the propaganda and acquiesce as they take something else away from you.

Just like you once did in church. Just like you once did in school. Just like you do now at work.

The liberal is spelling it out: There is no private space for you, white American male. We will come into the things you love and turn them on you.

It comes with losing a cultural war.

Two Faces of Conditioning

They proved that this could be turned into that in the minds of millions of Americans in the blink of an eye merely to sell more of a product that kills its consumers. Doesn't matter. Content simply does not matter. Image is everything.

If they could so deftly shape masculine and feminine expression in the name of a duplicitous and deadly commerce why couldn't they also have the ability to reshape these things to suit a revolutionary aim to destroy a cohesive society?

If we could stop seeing these issues as liberal vs. conservative and red state vs. blue state and instead see the manipulation as the blatant and cheap marketing scam that it is, perhaps we can save this culture.

A century of oversized capitalism's fraudulent social programming has made a mass-cultivated populace so pliable that it passively accepts the Cultural Marxist assault on traditional human norms.

Predatory capitalism and Marxist collectivism: Two sides of the same tyrannical materialist coin.

Our demise as a free people has literally been sold to us like Coca-Cola.

Honesty Simply Does Not Matter to the Emotional Cultural Liberal

I've been patiently waiting for an update on the infamous Boy With the Pink Headband at Walmart story, which went viral way, way back in August, knowing full well that of course it would be completely and universally ignored by the full-hype, short-attention-span media in a quite impressive way. And so we all just move on to the next outrageous lie.

The mother involved has now returned to the Internet after a two-month hiatus. The ramblings in her post on this affair are not interesting at all, but the comments are really something. By now most people realize this woman is clearly disturbed, yet the full logic of emotional modern American females (and effeminate men) is on vibrant display here.

This has always been the thing about cultural liberalism that has terrified me the most. Emotion trumps veracity. Hope and pray that you never get caught up in a showdown between these two things with a cultural liberal. Because he WILL put you in prison if it comes to it rather than have to come to terms with the fact that his "feelings" aren't real. 

It's a grave danger to personal freedom and to the basic decency that comes with a genuine and honest society.

So, without further ado, here are a few choice nuggets of emotional tyranny gleaned from the reader comments to this unfortunate woman's latest self-justifying post:

1. If we only knew YOU, we would mindlessly accept your ridiculous story.

It sucks to know that people think you’re a liar, but those people don’t know YOU. However, there are many who do, and they would never believe that of you. Those are the people who are truly important. Focus on them. Hugs and healing energy to all of you!

2. If we use terms like "ignorant fool" we get to claim the moral and intellectual high ground despite the total irrationality of our position.

Oh Katie, I am so very sorry that you and your family have had to be subjected to such a disgusting side of the human race! I am afraid that as the proud mother of an openly homosexual child, I would have gone completely ballistic on that ignorant fool. 

3. We don't have logic, reason or basic facts on our side yet we don't even owe an explanation because everybody else is stupid:

I didn’t know about your blog until I saw your story on Huff post, but as a new father myself who puts his only son before all else and adoring my son’s uniqueness, I want to protect him from all the miserable souls out there whom can even fathom ill will. I will do my best of course, but I highly doubt I will be able to protect him from what seems to be a growing faction in America, stupidity… I guess all I really want to say is…I am a new fan of our blog and will be reading regularly….your A-Ok in my book and again, you have nothing to be ashamed of or even need to explain….

4. It doesn't matter that you intentionally made up a bunch of BS and went public with it on a very prominent website in an attempt to garner as much attention as possible... you are the victim here:

I think it is disgusting the way that people, who do not even know you, have treated you – and for what reason do they really give? Even if you were lying (which I don’t think you were) it is still no excuse. Things have to change – people have to stop being able to troll like this and not be prosecuted.

5. It's our unfair society's fault that you were criticized more heavily for being such a blatant liar than the fictitious character you made up was for his reprehensible fictitious deed:

You know, I find myself rather disliking society as it is. I’ve pointed to you several times indicating that you were stoned, made an outcast from society, for “lying on the internet” (common consensus only).

Regardless of the veracity of the incident, there have been a plethora of people who “lie on the internet,” why do they feel they need to single you out for that innocuous crime and issue a stronger punishment than we would for the man in the incident?

6. Default terminology yet again: Everybody who doesn't live in the imaginary cultural liberal world is STUPID:

Wow, my mind is simply blown. I knew that people were disgusting, but this is an ultimate low. I can’t even comprehend what all you have experienced through this and I am so sorry!It breaks my heart that people are so nasty and cruel, and to be frank, STUPID. 

On the Passing of Jean Stapleton

The death of Jean Stapleton, who played lovable dingbat housewife Edith Bunker in hardcore leftist Norman Lear's groundbreaking 1970s television stitcom "All in the Family", has led to an outpouring of doe-eyed, feel-good nostalgic mourning. Even posters on conservative-leaning websites like Free Republic express sadness and fond feelings for this seminal character in American television.

Once again, I hate to trash the recently departed, but this woman was a key part of a cast of committed liberal ideologues whose very goal was to destroy the America they lived in, a goal they have largely accomplished. Creator Norman Lear never hid from the fact that his very purpose was to use his television shows to advance an agenda:

Entertainment matters. When Edith Bunker, on Norman Lear's All in the Family, was nearly raped, and when Bea Arthur's character, on Norman's show Maude, had an abortion, Americans across the country felt enabled by fictional characters to grapple with taboo topics, in their own ways, at their own kitchen tables. In the weeks after cool bad boy Fonzie, on Garry Marshall's series Happy Days, got a library card, the number of Americans getting library cards increased by 500 percent.

Today, the makers of some movies and television shows deny that entertainment can function as the country's agenda-setter and unofficial curriculum; they see no connection between what they put on screen and plagues like smoking, body dysmorphic disorder, addiction and gun violence. They don't buy the notion that audiences significantly absorb values and attitudes from entertainment, or that people believe that the "facts" depicted in fiction are actually facts. But other writers and producers do step up to the responsibilities that come with their storytelling power. Many of them have taken advantage of a free Lear Center resource - a program called Hollywood, Health & Society - to learn what's accurate from some of the country's top medical experts, and they've been using that knowledge to make their stories realistic without compromising entertainment value.

So much for the notion that conservatives are paranoid about the propaganda they see everywhere on television. And just what did our dear Edith help popularize to the American people in the 1970s?


a. Atheism and the outright mocking of religious faith:

b. Homosexuality:

c. Transvestism:

d. Mutilation as birth control:

e. And, of course, via the "All in the Family" spinoff "Maude", child murder:

Other episodes routinely painted white men as idiots and racists and highlighted every form of racial and feminist grievance under the sun in a blatant attempt to foment discord and difference. All with the goal of destroying any semblance of a unified culture. But it is the episodes above that really show the ugliness of this "beloved" sitcom and its loathing for the traditional values of its viewing audience.

Just as the number of Americans getting library cards surged after that episode of "Happy Days", the number of Americans turning to the Culture of Sexual Death after watching a wildly popular and hence influential show like "All in the Family" was bound to increase. Jean Stapleton in the role of Edith Bunker helped make this happen. She helped shape the dismal and depressed culture we have today. Please excuse me if I don't cry along with all the other mourners because this very destructive woman has passed.

Long-dead Celebrities Make Great Pro-Homosexual Advocates

ESPN.com is running a typically long-winded "news article" filled with nothing but pure speculation and total conjecture in an effort to make devout Catholic and NFL coaching legend Vince Lombardi a patron saint of the homosexual movement:

Actually, Vincent Thomas Lombardi treated his Green Bay Packers and Washington Redskins as anything but [dogs]. No, winning wasn't everything, or the only thing. In Lombardi's playbook, winning placed a distant second to simple human decency.

In 1969, the year before his death, the only year he coached the Redskins, Lombardi worked with at least five gay men -- three players and two front-office executives, including David Slattery, who would come out in 1993. In his defining biography, "When Pride Still Mattered," author David Maraniss described the scene of Lombardi charging an assistant to work with one of the gay players, a struggling back named Ray McDonald. "And if I hear one of you people make reference to his manhood," Lombardi is quoted as saying, "you'll be out of here before your ass hits the ground."

Of course the homosexuals have a rich history of "outing" long-dead celebrities and historical figures, including Joan of Arc, Abraham Lincoln and James Dean. So this is standard operating procedure. It's much easier to assert the "fact" that somebody is just like you or unequivocally agrees with your personal views when that person is no long around to correct you on the matter.

I suppose the fact that Lombardi famously emphasized a man's sense of responsibility to his God, his family and his football team, in that order, does nothing to dissuade these molders of our new cultural reality.

I recall reading a book about Lombardi's Packers and the notoriously tough coach is running a practice or a training camp exercise or something and he walks up to a glassy-eyed Marv Fleming, the starting tight end, gets right in his face and accusingly asks, "Have you been masturbating mister?"

It's a comical anecdote that highlights Lombardi's ultra-serious approach to football. I took it to mean he thought something was off about poor Marv. Turns out ole Vince was extremely supportive of his lifestyle choice and wanted to give him a hug. Who knew?

So Jason Collins is a Homosexual

The corporate sports world, fueled by its PR mouthpiece ESPN, is in a lather over NBA scrub Jason Collins' revelation that he is homosexual.

It's really not going too far to suggest that the Total Sports Leader is giving Kennedy Assassination coverage to this "event".

So let me get this, ahem, straight:

Big-time athletes today are tatted-up, steroidal thugs who commit rapes, robberies, murders and smear excrement on hotel walls yet I am supposed to be shaken to the core in my belief that sexual perversion is wrong because one of these modern-day gladiators has "bravely" revealed himself to be this form of degenerate as opposed to one of the more common forms predominant in professional sports today?

Let's take this logic to its natural conclusion:

Hmmmm... that Pac Man Jones sure has some cover skills. Maybe I was wrong all along to believe that making it rain in a strip club and then attacking the people who scamper after the money until one of your posse ends up shooting and paralyzing for life a bouncer is evil?

I gotta reconsider all this. And maybe become more.... TOLERANT... of reckless gunplay in strip clubs.

Thank you Pac Man. You have opened this former bigot's eyes. And helped me grow.

Utterly ridiculous, yet this is exactly the effect that a pro athlete "coming out" is supposed to have on me.

Jason Collins is a homosexual and I am sad for him. But sadder still is the fact that we live in a culture that has lionized professional athletes to such a degree that their poor personal choices are assumed to promote social change. This is the far more significant lesson to be learned from this otherwise meaningless affair.

Of course you won't hear anyone saying that on ESPN.

Supporting Homosexual Marriage Will Give You Diabetes

As someone who tries to live a healthy, organic lifestyle, I have noticed more and more that in our culture today one is allowed to say things about people's eating and fitness habits that you would never get away with saying when it comes to people's sexual habits.

Take diabetes, for example. Diabetes is a too-common affliction in America today. But even if you disagree with what the following people say, what is interesting is that they are saying these things with no scolding from the usual suspects: mainstream media powers, grandstanding politicians and airheaded celebrities, et al. Nobody is calling these people bigots or haters or anything of the sort. And, in fact, there is a lot of truth in what they have to say.

To start off, there are people who say they are born with a genetic predisposition to diabetes but that is being rejected as a main cause by the burgeoning natural health movement in this country today:

The incidence of diabetes has skyrocketed in the past couple of decades, but is takes centuries for genetic drift to occur in a population. This means that the increase of diabetes in Americans is not due to changes in the genes. Instead genes are being turned on and off all the time by the environment around them. The food we eat has the greatest impact on what is turned on and off and research is showing that exercise, toxins, and stress also have strong influence.

How amazing!  We are no longer doomed to have the same diseases as our families!  But here is the catch… many families pass down their lifestyle which will in turn impact susceptible genes. So if you parents are overweight, sugar-loving, couch potatoes who have ripe gene environments for diabetes and you also love sitting around eating doughnuts and Coke, then those genes will be turned on in you too. The nurture is more important than the nature.

In other words, your genes may make you more susceptible to fall prey to diabetes but your own actions are far more meaningful.

Even trendy organic grocer Whole Foods agrees that it is human behavior that is the culprit here:

Instead of combating plagues, we are combating a mindset of complacency about health. Many people haven’t been properly educated about their health, while others still chalk up their diabetes to: “it runs in the family.” However, research shows that while people may inherit a susceptibility to diabetes, they do not inherit the disease itself—making healthy choices and prevention more important than ever.

Thus we have a large and growing group of citizens issuing dire warnings about a serious health condition that may or may not have a genetic predisposition but is mostly caused by correctable human behavior that a leading natural health doctor says is known to increase one's chances for an early death:

Not only does type 2 diabetes increase your overall risk of heart disease, the condition can also bring on fatal and non-fatal heart attacks, strokes and other cardiovascular events an average of 15 years earlier than in those without diabetes.

From the above we can conclude that making poor choices with one's food appetite has dire consequences. Changes in behavior are strongly encouraged.

Imagine if there was a growing natural health movement that applied this same mode of thought to those who make poor choices with their sexual appetites.

These three details that we have shown are considered to be unacceptable when it comes to diabetics are never seen as a problem when it comes to homosexuals today:

1. Homosexuals claim they are indeed "born this way" and thus powerless to change "who they are."

2. Homosexuals choose to ignore the health consequences of their actions.

3. Homosexuals are statistically more likely to die earlier than those who engage in natural sexual behavior.

Fact: Unnatural eating habits cause disease and death.

Fact: Unnatural sexual habits cause disease and death.

Is anyone out there going to seriously attempt to argue that the sexual urge is stronger than the urge to eat?

No?

Then it is a matter of overcoming distorted appetites.

Compulsion is not "orientation". 

It is weakness that needs to be overcome.

God did not intend for us to engage in homosexual acts any more than he intended us to eat absurd amounts of toxin-laced, heavily-processed artificial "food".

You can do both. You can have a powerful urge to do both. But that does not make it natural or right.

I have a friend who had what can only be called an addiction to Diet Coke. His compulsion was so strong he was drinking a 12-pack a day. Does that mean he was born to drink Diet Coke and any attempt to overcome this unhealthy habit kept him from "being himself"?

Of course not. That's ridiculous.

His appetite was distorted.

My friend struggled with his compulsion, made many changes in personal behavior and eventually managed to stop drinking Diet Coke (it wasn't easy). He is a healthier person for it today. I congratulate him.

In a similar albeit admittedly more difficult vein, encouraging homosexuals to overcome unnatural compulsions that only warp and enslave them in a world of misery does not keep them from "being themselves". Quite the opposite.

Their sexual appetites are distorted.

We are created by God to overcome obstacles, not to give into them and embrace them.

Our modern culture rejects this. It not only embraces obstacles but self-identifies with them in a truly sick way.

Homosexuality, which is a form of unnatural sexual behavior, is celebrated as a lifestyle.

So it should be no surprise that diabetes, which is caused by unnatural eating behavior, is also being pushed as a lifestyle. It has its own magazine and you can even go to the American Diabetes Association website for "Dating with Diabetes" tips.

That last bit is eerily reminiscent of those "Dating with HIV" campaigns in the early days of AIDS.

Our culture today gives more attention to managing the negative consequences of unnatural behavior than we do to encouraging people to avoid the actions that led to the negative consequences in the first place.

This is a mindset that is corrosive to the health and well-being of all Americans and it has been brought about in a substantial way by the logic that accepts and promotes homosexuality.

Self-improvement is the hallmark of a healthy society. Working to become a stronger and better person mentally, physically and spiritually is the essence of what makes a productive citizen. 

Our culture has chosen the weaker way. It puts a priority on Empathy because it is easy and totally disavows Self-Improvement because it is hard.

It is a recipe for our destruction.