Calling Out Racists

So, Candace Owens was on Laura Ingraham last week with some racist Democrat. 🙂 Yeah, in a sense, I’m kidding, but in a pretty serious way, I’m not. Let’s take a look, via CNS News.

Owens debated Democrat strategist Monique Pressley about whether President Donald Trump is a racist. Owens said Trump wasn’t considered a racist until he ran for president.

PRESSLEY: I’m not here to defend anyone who takes the side of a racist, so when the president retweets or comments about Nazi enthusiasts or people in Britain who are saying things that are hateful or —

LAURA INGRAHAM: So you don’t think he was a white supremacist in the ’80s but you do today? You didn’t think he was a white supremacist in the ’80s or the 90s?

PRESSLEY: I said I didn’t disagree that he received those awards. I think when he was taking out the article on the Central Park Five who was then the exonerated Park Five, I think that he was a racist then.

INGRAHAM: That’s fine. No one’s gonna follow Central Park Five but I’m just asking you because I really do want to understand. Do you believe in the ’80s and ’90s that Donald trump was not a white supremacist or he’s been a white supremacist his whole life but hid it from everybody?

PRESSLEY: I can’t speak about what he hid or what I believe. All I can go with is what is factual. So what we know — if I can just answer, what I’m basing my belief on is the fact that he 1) took out an article for people who were ultimately exonerated – a full-page ad for those young men who were citizens — …

So Obama was someone who, according to him, was not born in the United States – I guess Hawaii is not part of the United States. The immigrants from the first time he came down the escalator were coming.

INGRAHAM: He didn’t say immigrants. He said illegal.

PRESSLEY: The Mexicans. I’m sorry. The Mexicans – not just the illegals, and I’m not here to defend —

OWENS: So basically, your argument is that he went from being so not racist that Al Sharpton was hugging him to suddenly one day he decided to run for president and boom, just like that he became an avowed racist and all of a sudden we’re digging back into Central Park Five, which by the way in his ad said that if anybody is found guilty, any person of killing somebody in the park, then they should be put to death.

Guess what? Nobody got killed in a park that day, so that’s completely irrelevant. All the points just made about Central Park Five were completely irrelevant, because the woman did not die. She actually survived. We can debate that another day. What we’re talking about today is nobody suddenly becomes racist, okay, as time goes on. You decide that one day he goes, oh, you know what? Never mind. Forget me hugging and doing so much for black America that I was receiving awards. Suddenly today, I’m a racist.

You want to know why he’s a racist suddenly? Because he ran for the presidency and this is how the Democrats try to score points in order to enslave black Americans ideologically.

PRESSLEY: When his entire family was running slum landlord tenements and then refusing..

OWENS: Actually that’s wrong. In Mar-A-Lago, he launched a lawsuit against the state because he felt that they were discriminated against Spanish people and black people. In 1995, Trump did that. You can look it up. So much for being a racist.

See what I mean? Not only do they lie, they tell stupid, obvious lies, and then they have the hubris to demand that we accord their every lie the status of given, unchallengeable truth. Yeah, well, no. It ain’t happening, not anymore. If you want to be taken seriously, your story must at least make superficial sense.

It is one of those obvious lies that President Trump was one of the leaders of the black community in the 80s. No that’s mot the lie, he was trying hard to help them then, as now. The lie is that suddenly when he became President he became a racist.

What he became is a truthful man, and the liars and yes, the racists, who work every day to keep the black people down on the plantation, are both horrific racists and liars. How many black people have had their lives ruined by this bigotry in our lifetimes? That doesn’t even cover their support for the Klan, for Jim Crow laws, and yes, for slavery itself.

Thank God, some of the blacks are finally awakening to what has been done to them.

Sunday Funnies: Horsemen and Debates

 

Did you watch the Democrat Debate?  Nope, I didn’t, were what 16 months out, and I already know every single one of them wants to hurt the country. There are better ways to waste time. But the highlights are funny, I’ll admit.

This should cover most of it…

You know when I was growing up around Chicago, there was lots of corruption, but minor things usually got fixed, garbage picked up, rats sort of under control (except in the projects, of course). Something has changed.

And, of course

The Mythbuster

Rabbi Aryeh Spero made an excellent point in American Thinker yesterday.

President Trump is boldly providing much-needed relief to the American people. He is untying us from the bonds of political correctness that have, in un-American fashion, forced Americans to accept liberal myths and farces. He is telling it like it is, showing Americans that their freedom of speech cannot be muzzled by liberal censors or taken away by the left-wing speech and thought police.

It’s about time someone, as the President did, stopped all this baloney and labeled Al Sharpton the con-man he has been for decades. In the name of being a “civil rights leader”, Sharpton has gotten away with not paying millions of dollars in owed taxes; fomented rioting against Brooklyn’s religious Jews; led — with self-proclaimed racist Sonny Carson — a boycott of a Korean grocery store, where protesters called the owners “yellow monkeys”; held anti-Semitic, racially-charged rallies that led to the Freddy’s Department Store massacre; and knowingly and purposely destroyed the lives of two white police officers in the Tawana Brawley hoax. Sharpton has been shoved down our throats as “reverend” while threatening “no justice, no peace.”

Finally, someone has demonstrated a compelling inner sense of truth to portray Sharpton as what he is: a creator of hoaxes and shakedowns, and a serial inciter of violence and racial strife for his own power and self-enrichment.

He’s correct, of course. I and many of you have been saying this for years, indeed decades. But we are small voices, easily ignored, but now the one and original ‘bully pulpit’ is saying the same thing and loudly.

It’s overdue by at least 20 years in my view but better late than never. And let us take the proper lesson – that we will never be silenced when we are right, just because our antagonist is black, or a woman, or simply confused for profit, even if it is detrimental to his/her health.

Reality is real. Baltimore, Chicago, Portland, LA, Frisco, New York, and other cities the Dems rule are shitholes best avoided. Ever notice how they have draconian gun control laws, but far higher gun crime rates? They do. There are only two sexes, anyone who says differently is simply a grifter. And so on.

Hey Democrats, Dr. Peterson was right, “Clean your Rooms”. Then and only then is there any point to a conversation.

Hell in a Handcart: The European Report

The British continue their fall from being a free country. Tommy Robinson, their most famous political prisoner, is back in jail, with the establishment no doubt hoping their moslem allies kill him in prison, as has happened to other people railroaded by the government. Bruce Bawer in FrontPage Magazine tells us about it.

Trial by trial, imprisonment by imprisonment, dishonest news report by dishonest news report, the miserable bastards who make up the British establishment are steadily transforming Tommy Robinson, a working-class husband and father from Leeds, into an imperishable symbol of the quiet determination, indomitable courage, and love of liberty for which Britain used to be known but which that selfsame establishment has labored effortfully to stamp out during these opening chapters of the Islamization of that once-great nation.

Even those of us who have been closely following Tommy’s treatment by the British courts during the past couple of years – and who, perusing the charges against him, have recognized just how outrageously he has been treated by a judiciary committed not to justice but to the silencing, and if possible personal destruction, of this latter-day Jeremiah – were stunned by the verdict handed down on Friday after a two-day trial.

This was a rehearing of the same case that last year landed Tommy in prison (more specifically, in what amounted, in violation of the Geneva Convention, to solitary confinement), an ordeal from which he emerged, after two months, looking physically and psychologically all but broken. The charges themselves were absurd to begin with: he was taken into custody near the courthouse in Leeds, where he was doing a live report on Facebook video about an “Asian grooming-gang” (i.e. Muslim child-rape) prosecution that was underway inside. He didn’t do or say anything that any BBC or Guardian journalist in similar circumstances might do; but he was arrested anyway – on the grounds that his reporting from out on the street had somehow threatened to prejudice the trial going on inside the building – and was charged with contempt of court.

The speed with which he was tried, convicted, and incarcerated after his arrest in Leeds – the whole process took just a few hours – shocked observers who still thought of British justice as something serious and worthy of respect. His release from prison two months later came after the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, in an unusually blistering ruling, declared that the court proceedings against him had been illegitimate in a number of ways, and ordered his immediate release.

Keep reading at the link above. This travesty will probably stand long enough to kill a brave man, which is the judge’s intention.

In news from Scotland, a student has been expelled for stating that there are only two genders, which as anybody with any sense at all knows, is plain fact. Here is Sofia Carbone in Human Events to explain.

According to the 17-year-old student known only as Murray, the events unfolded after the teacher pulled up a website in front of the whole class that only gave two gender options.

“If I am [entitled to my own opinion], then why did you kick me out of class? It’s not very inclusive.” – Murray, 17

“[The teacher] basically started going off on a tangent about how bad that was, and how old fashioned it was,” Murray told a YouTube account known as ‘I, Hypocrite’.

This is when the student stated the scientific fact there are only two genders. In turn, he was removed from class, later given the reason his ‘opinion’ was ‘not inclusive’. However the teacher stated his own opinion, that there are more than two genders, is “acceptable” in contrast.

After sitting outside the classroom for thirty minutes, the teacher finally came out to speak with Murray, who recorded the entire encounter.

“You’re entitled to your opinion,” the teacher told Murray.

“If I am, then why did you kick me out of class? It’s not very inclusive,” Murray inquired.

Meanwhile, in the UK…. pic.twitter.com/9ATvHuUQ1P

— Paul Joseph Watson (@PrisonPlanet) June 14, 2019

Within a day of the video being posted, it had gone viral.

The school came across the video and called Murray and his mother in for a meeting.

According to Murray, during the meeting the school officials made clear he was not getting in trouble for his comment. Rather because he recorded the teacher which is a direct violation of one of the school’s rules.

The lesson to take from that, I think is that do not ever, tell the British schools the truth, tell them what they want to hear. This is, of course, the country that indoctrinates 5-year-olds with LGBTQWERTY nonsense, after all. And above all, don’t tell the world what these twits are doing. Family? what’s that? The State will raise you so that you too can be a confused twit.

No place left in (formerly great) Britain for honest people.

Noted in passing that the British Ambassador to the United States has been doing a very good job of smearing the President to his government. I thought that was the BBC’s job, but I guess he wanted to help out.

And in Europe, the EU keeps digging. David Wojick writing in PAPundits International tells us about that.

A month ago I predicted political turmoil in EU HQ and here it is. The strong (American like) showings by both the left and right in the parliamentary elections have destabilized the old, comfortable, left wing center.

The issue is who gets the top political positions? It is sort of like who will now be president? Except under the EU’s Byzantine structure there are several presidents, or sort of, I think.

As I understand it there is the President of the EU Commission, the President of the European Parliament, the President of the European Council (whose members are the EU countries), plus some other bigwig posts.

Britain having its own internal turmoil, with May on her way out, has left Germany (with Merkel probably also on her way out) and Macron’s France to defend the liberal center and that defense is decidedly weak, to say the least. Amusingly, Spain is now being cited as a power.

What is happening is actually pretty simple, but the liberal media simply does not want to report it. Trump-like populism is advancing. The old rules gave these top posts to the parties with the most votes but these are not centrist liberal parties so the liberals do not want to give up power.

And so that’s the salient reports from Europe lately. Hell, Handcarts, some easy travel required. After all, it’s downhill from here.

Why Are the Western Middle Classes So Angry?

On American Greatness, Victor Davis Hanson asks this question. It’s a good one, I think. Because almost all of us of the middling sort are pretty angry about things. So let’s have a look.

What is going on with the unending Brexit drama, the aftershocks of Donald Trump’s election and the “yellow vests” protests in France? What drives the growing estrangement of southern and eastern Europe from the European Union establishment? What fuels the anti-EU themes of recent European elections and the stunning recent Australian re-election of conservatives?

Put simply, the middle classes are revolting against Western managerial elites. The latter group includes professional politicians, entrenched bureaucrats, condescending academics, corporate phonies and propagandistic journalists.

What are the popular gripes against them?

One, illegal immigration and open borders have led to chaos. Lax immigration policies have taxed social services and fueled multicultural identity politics, often to the benefit of boutique leftist political agendas.

Two, globalization enriched the cosmopolitan elites who found worldwide markets for their various services. […]

He gives us six, in all. All are, as one would expect, cogent and accurate. So go and read them.

One common gripe framed all these diverse issues: The wealthy had the means and influence not to be bothered by higher taxes and fees or to avoid them altogether. Not so much the middle classes, who lacked the clout of the virtue-signaling rich and the romance of the distant poor.

In other words, elites never suffered the firsthand consequences of their own ideological fiats.

That’s a huge part of it in my estimation. It’s one thing if all these things are good for us, or necessary for the world to survive, or something. It’s an entirely different kettle of fish if you’re telling me how important this trash is, but it doesn’t apply to you and your friends. “Do as I say not as I do” doesn’t work any better leading a company, group, country, civilization, or anything else than it does trying to raise a kid. Never has, never will.

What it does is bring rebels. It did when my high school said we couldn’t wear blue jeans. Suddenly my entire class showed up in them. What are you going to do now, Mr. Principal? Give a quarter of the school detention? Makes you look sort of bad, doesn’t it, that your leadership is so bad?

The same principle applies when you and a few hundred of your closest friends fly their private jets into Davos for a party disguised (badly) as a conference.

Elites masked their hypocrisy by virtue-signaling their disdain for the supposedly xenophobic, racist or nativist middle classes. Yet the non-elite have experienced firsthand the impact on social programs, schools and safety from sudden, massive and often illegal immigration from Latin America, the Middle East, Africa and Asia into their communities.

As for trade, few still believe in “free” trade when it remains so unfair. Why didn’t elites extend to China their same tough-love lectures about global warming, or about breaking the rules of trade, copyrights and patents?

Do you know anybody who believes any of this tosh, unless, perhaps, their livelihood depends on it, or the indoctrination they received in school hasn’t been rubbed off yet? I can’t think of one that I do. I know a few trolls who say they do, but I’d bet they’re paid to say that. I do know one person who believes in Global Warming, but he also believes it is beyond the tipping point, so we may as well ‘Rock on’.

If Western nations were really so bad, and so flawed at their founding, why were millions of non-Westerners risking their lives to reach Western soil?

How was it that elites themselves had made so much money, had gained so much influence, and had enjoyed such material bounty and leisure from such a supposedly toxic system—benefits that they were unwilling to give up despite their tired moralizing about selfishness and privilege?

So where does it end?

Because elites have no answers to popular furor, the anger directed at them will only increase until they give up—or finally succeed in their grand agenda of a non-democratic, all-powerful Orwellian state.

Or in an armed revolt, which I discount less each month. The people are not going to go quietly into the night.

 

Debunking Education

Over at Chicago Boyz, the Assistant Village Idiot (How I admire that nom de Internet!) Has some thoughts about education, and they do not involve much handwringing at all. I approve.

I don’t think we argue quite enough around here. Perhaps there have been good arguments in the posts I don’t read the comments of, but it seems too much of “Yeah, and let me tell you another thing about that!” lately. So I will go after a conservative favorite, of how much better education was in the Good Old Days, which I think is bosh. I don’t defend much of what I read about education today, but neither do I think it was any better then. Since 2011, I have increasngly concluded that schools don’t matter quite as much anyway. The worst 20%, where it is dangerous to even go and hard to concentrate – that’s bad. The rest, it doesn’t make much difference. Never did. It’s all right to disagree with me about that, it won’t hurt me. I have seen lots of schools, old days and new; I know lots of teachers, old and new. I have read some of the real research, not the media-driven crap where they still can’t tell causation from correlation, and I have discussed this widely for decades. I know what the disagreements are (though I do get an occasional surprise). Have fun with it.

I am leading with this as a teaser, for its entertainment value, and because it introduces some concepts I’ll be bringing in later. I have edited it only a little from 2011. With the recent elite school admission scandals, parts of this are wryly humorous now.

THAT 1869 HARVARD ENTRANCE EXAM

An anonymous commenter linked to the 1869 Harvard entrance exam that was dug up by a NYTimes writer and made the rounds last year.  It looks pretty intimidating at first glance, and the commenter used it as evidence that Billy Sidis’s entrance into Harvard in 1909 was a pretty solid accomplishment in itself.  Interestingly, the boy’s getting in was probably even better than the exam would indicate.  Harvard was no great shakes in 1869, but had improved considerably by 1909, and was one of the world’s best by then.  I will note that it was still not what we think of today.  Competitive university admission is mostly a post WWII, or even post 1960 phenomenon.  Many of the brightest did indeed go to the Ivies, the Little Ivies, or the Seven Sisters,* but you simply couldn’t count on it.  The rich and the alums got their kids in, and nationally, people stayed closer to home and many of the brightest went to other schools, far more than, say, in 1990.

The gap exactly covers the period of Charles William Eliot’s presidency of Harvard, if you want more background than I will give here.

Read the headings over each section. See how few questions were required.

Also – it doesn’t say what a passing score was, does it?

185 out of 215 applicants got into Harvard that year.

But the test.  That Latin and Greek look awfully impressive right out of the gate. If you are older, and/or a reader of history, and/or a traditionalist, you may still have Latin Envy, believing that a “proper” education must include it, and Greek!  Why, that just seals it.  A different alphabet and everything.  Weren’t they smart, then?

No, not especially. They had had six years of Latin and four of Greek by then, whether by tutor or at academy.  If you took any languages at all in late 20th C, and make the mental comparison of what, exactly, they were being asked to do after six years, it looks much less impressive.  Note also, there was a standard set of works studied in those languages, which these questions are drawn from. There was frequent drill in grammar. Even if you had Latin yourself, you should note that the primary authors studied now are not quite the same as studied then, nor in quite the same way. These exam questions are essentially “Did you have proper teachers, are you reasonably bright, and did you make a moderate effort these last few years?” Nothing more.

Before I get into the math, let me note a major difference, then and now, in the test as a whole.  Look at what is missing in this exam.  There is no biology, no chemistry, no physics, and certainly no other sciences such as geology or economics.  There are no questions on English Literature – no Shakespeare, Chaucer, Milton – and certainly no American literature (Horrors!  To even imagine such a thing!).

A lot of what is being said here is, in my opinion, is that teaching to the test is what happened then and happens now, and will happen in 2230. Teachers’, and schools’. reputation is based on how students do on tests, so not teaching to the test is professional suicide, and that ain’t gonna happen.

Could schools be better? Of course, they could. That’s true now, that was true in the ’60s when I went, a hundred years ago when my parents went, a hundred years before that when Abe Lincoln did his semester, and when Socrates taught Plato, who taught Aristotle, who taught Alexander the Great. It just is. Schools run on a logarithmic curve like anything else. Some few are amazingly good, some few are terribly bad. Most cluster around average (because that is what defines average). School improvement is based on raising the average infinitesimally.

Always remember half of the kids in school, like half of the teachers, and half of the schools themselves, are below average.

You know what makes the most difference in education? The kid’s parents’ attitude. If a kid is taught to be curious, to attempt to learn, instead of to shut up and do what he’s told, he’ll learn, in school, or not. Vice versa is true too.

Almost all the rest, the theories, the books, the lecturers, the bureaucrats, are a scam, to make a living, often a good living, off of the fact that half of everything is below average. Some may help, many will probably hurt, all will cost you (or you as the taxpayer) money. Caveat emptor.

Long ago it was declared that education was the parents’ responsibility. It still is. Schools are a tool, but only a tool, whether it is Oxbridge, or an Ivy, or Podunk Central Junior High. You get out what you put in.

Nothing more and nothing less.

%d bloggers like this: