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.

How a New England City Became Mogadishu On the Connecticut River

Just caught a summer repeat of this 60 Minutes feature on a Massachusetts state cop and Iraq war veteran's "brilliant" idea to police the city of Springfield just as his military unit policed hostile cities in occupied Iraq:

Our intrepid CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl breathlessly reported this wonderful new police enforcement concept in a manner that unflinchingly portrayed the police as white knights coming to the rescue. There is brief mention made of concerns about using military tactics in domestic policing but the oversized elephant in the room is never mentioned: We have gotten to the point now where an American city is being treated in the same way that our military treats foreign-occupied territory. The gangs and other associated criminals in the story were compared to Iraqi insurgents but the sad reality of what causes police officers to go into the third-largest city in the state of Massachusetts with the same wariness and tactical concerns that an army unit has when entering a war-torn foreign village was never touched upon.

The state cop who came up with the Counterinsurgency-in-Mayberry plan openly compares Springfield to Mogadishu and Kandahar City, yet of course there will never be a real effort by CBS to explain just how an American city that is located over 2,000 miles from the Mexican border had become so overrun by hostiles forces.

This did not just happen overnight. It was the result of a deliberate attempt to destabilize and balkanize a cohesive nation of citizens bound by a common culture through neighborhood breaking and massive non-European immigration.

I personally witnessed a key moment in the destruction of Springfield, Massachusetts. You see, I lived there for a time as a small child, from 1972-75, and have vivid memories of the takeover of the working-class Irish neighborhood where we resided.

It all started with a wave of Puerto Rican immigrants into the city in the late '60s and early '70s who arrived in the immediate wake of Ted Kennedy's disastrous Immigration Act of 1965, which specifically mandated a national preference for Third World immigrants instead of the more assimilable Europeans in our immigration policy. This undoubtedly created an encouraging environment for the massive and nonstop influx of Puerto Ricans, whose rights to move to continental America were of course not dependent on the 1965 law, into cities such as Springfield:

Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts have both a large Puerto Rican population and an extremely high proportion of Puerto Rican among the Hispanics, making these metro areas valuable for study of the distinctive impact of Puerto Rican presence. Between 1990 and 2000, non-Hispanic Whites in these metropolitan areas were moving away from towns and cities where Hispanics were concentrated and growing. Such population separation may in part be attributable to the relatively high-poverty level among Hispanics. Multivariate analysis applied to data for 38 metro areas with varying levels of Puerto Rican predominance among Hispanics shows, however, that ethnic group segregation was influenced by Puerto Rican presence even when controlling for the economic status of Hispanics. The “Puerto Rican effect” may stem from the greater racialization of Puerto Ricans. By contrast other Hispanic groups may have benefitted from an immigrant identity that has now become more of a liability.

Even as a 6-year-old, I could see the effect this had on one neighborhood in Springfield. The Hungry Hill section was a longstanding Irish enclave. We lived on the bottom of the hill on our street, with old Mrs. Shea next door and a childhood friend whose last name was Murphy all the way at the top. Every day my brother, sister and I would run up the hill to play with our pal, whose dad was a Springfield cop.

Like so many white families in the face of the Puerto Rican invasion, we moved out to the suburbs as soon as we could. Our parents saw which way the wind was blowing. But we came back to visit our friend only a year or two later and I recall him pointing out the houses on the street that we had run past so many times on our way up and down the hill. "Oh, that one's a drug dealer. Oh, the cops raided that place the other day." Etc. etc. Our childhood friend was all of 8 years old as he gave us this rundown. My memory of my reaction to that experience was hoping the Murphy family would be able to escape too before it was too late.

That it was all an intentional effort to destroy white city neighborhoods surely escaped our young minds at the time. But the evidence is out there today for those who care to look back, and massive immigration was not the only weapon used.

"The Six-District Plan - Integration of The Springfield, Mass. Elementary Schools," an official 1976 report from the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, spotlights the use of busing as one way to destroy the old neighborhoods. This whole paper reads like a Soviet plan to transfer native Ukrainians to Siberia and replace them with some bizarre minority from the steppes of Asia.

The strong-arm tactics and eager desire to use force are not even disguised. Homogenous neighborhoods are seen as a threat. All local concerns are dismissed out of hand.

This quote on the top of page 24 from Dr. John E. Deady, Springfield's superintendent of schools, is downright Orwellian:

"I sympathize with the man who wants his neighborhood school. However, I believe that the majority must sacrifice that neighborhood school in order to create the integrated society which in the long run will benefit us all. In Springfield, busing became unavoidable."

Also note how the churches, with the Catholic archdiocese squarely at the fore, enthusiastically volunteered to help force The Plan down residents' throats (page 34):

At the request of the council of churches and the Catholic Diocese, many ministers of all denominations and priests talked about the Six-District Plan and the importance of integration from the pulpit the Sunday before the opening of school and urged their parishioners to obey the law.

People see the pedophilia scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church in recent decades and think that is the only damage these treacherous shepherds were inflicting on their naive flocks at the time. Little mentioned is how these same corrupt clerics were actively conspiring in the destruction of their very own parishes.

I vividly recall the Catholic education I received in the 1970s and '80s, first in the suburbs and then back in Springfield itself for high school. The Catholic duty to support open and widespread Third World immigration was constantly pushed on us from an early age, along with the usual wooden and overblown Civil Rights movement badgerings that portrayed white males as the great evil of the 20th century.

Even as kids and early teens, one could sense that we were being manipulated. I remember our class being forced to watch a pro-Sanctuary Movement PBS propaganda film that featured a memorable scene where two brown-skinned kids trying to sneak into America are attacked in a sewage tunnel by a pack of rats:

101:45 mark:

We were supposed to be horrified by this and confused and angry at our government for making poor unfortunates like this have to undergo such trauma when they were only trying to improve their lives. But kids know better. Kids have an inherent sense of right and wrong that they don't need to learn from their elders. When a group of kids is playing with the ball you brought along and somebody runs off with your ball and won't give it back, you don't need an adult to tell you you've been wronged. And that is how I remember feeling watching that scene. Remembering that Irish neighborhood that had literally gone to Hell, the instinctive response I had to this scene was that these people were trying to take something that was mine. I didn't need to have a political orientation to instinctively see the rats as a last line of defense and cheer them on as they attempted to thwart the intruders who were trying to take something away from me. Sounds cruel, and as an adult I wouldn't be as immature and callous, but it was a basic honesty that comes with childhood that told me that I was being played here by those who were trying to use my own emotions against me. They were trying to brainwash me against my own home and hearth, and I wasn't buying it. Go Rats!

Six-district plans, bald-faced propaganda at parochial school and at Sunday Mass, what did it all lead to? The conclusion could not be more pronounced yet nobody seems to want to tot up the score and mark accounts. It is an unavoidable fact that the result of all that pious preening and white guilt trips is a smaller Detroit on the Connecticut River... an uninhabitable, crumbling ghetto of a city marked by violence, racial strife and squalor to such an extent that the police openly regard it as another Mogadishu or Kandahar City.

The non-assimilable immigration, the forced "integration" of the neighborhood schools... the whole effort is a total and complete failure if you accept the notion that these 1970s multicultural progressives were really attempting to do good. Of course, that is not what they were attempting to do at all.

The common threads have been broken. Neighborhoods have been destroyed. The once-dominant citizenry is rootless and isolated. And the era of progressive collectivism on a total scale is one giant step closer.

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.

If You Think the Name of This Blog is Ridiculous...

... You obviously haven't read this inflammatory piece at Salon.com titled "Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American":

“White privilege is knowing that even if the bomber turns out to be white, no one will call for your group to be profiled as terrorists as a result, subjected to special screening or threatened with deportation,” writes author Tim Wise. “White privilege is knowing that if this bomber turns out to be white, the United States government will not bomb whatever corn field or mountain town or stale suburb from which said bomber came, just to ensure that others like him or her don’t get any ideas. And if he turns out to be a member of the Irish Republican Army we won’t bomb Dublin. And if he’s an Italian-American Catholic we won’t bomb the Vatican.”

Because of these undeniable and pervasive double standards, the specific identity of the Boston Marathon bomber (or bombers) is not some minor detail — it will almost certainly dictate what kind of governmental, political and societal response we see in the coming weeks. That means regardless of your particular party affiliation, if you care about everything from stopping war to reducing the defense budget to protecting civil liberties to passing immigration reform, you should hope the bomber was a white domestic terrorist. Why? Because only in that case will privilege work to prevent the Boston attack from potentially undermining progress on those other issues.

Let us count the ways in which this shows, yet again, that you can say things about white males in the Amerika of today that you simply cannot say about any other identifiable group of people:

1. Imagine a headline to a local crime story, "Let's hope the rapist was a black man"

2. Or how about this on the latest Wall Street scandal, "Let's hope the embezzler was a Jew"?

3. Or how about, "Let's hope the man who murdered his daughter was a Muslim committing an honor killing"?

To deliberately seek out a group of individuals after a hideous crime is committed and dearly wish that they be the perpetrators just because it would endorse your personal beliefs/biases used to be the very essence of bigotry in this nation. Today it is clever liberal nuance used to spotlight the higher intellectual point: White males are the cause of all problems in the world.

Have no illusions, my fellow white male Americans: You ARE a target.

Get used to it, because things are only going to get worse.

The Mental Laziness of the Massachusetts Liberal

Gotta LOVE the stereotypical white Boston liberal, still alive and kicking after all these years:

For the students of color in the group, the selection of the first Latin American Pope was cause for optimism that the church is getting its act together, reaching out to ethnic groups who may have felt disenfranchised in the past. And all the kids we spoke with expressed hope that new leadership might find ways to bridge the generation gap.

Forget for a moment that "the first Latin American Pope" is of Italian heritage.

It's a commonly-known fact that the Church is experiencing its biggest growth in Africa and yet here is our fearless New Frontier pioneer whining about perceived slights he likely stumbled upon in some scarcely-attended aging hippie parish in Waltham. For in his mind, ostracized angelic little black Catholic kids in neat, spotless, wrinkle-free school uniforms are still being forced to drink from the segregated bubbler at Our Lady of Judgmental Severity Elementary.

Being hopelessly out of date deters him not. Reality, after all, was never the Massachusetts Liberal's strength.