Saturday, November 22, 2014

A Triple From Glenn Reynolds

Our beloved Instapundit remains one of the Blogosphere’s most valuable jewels. Today he hits a three-bagger (or a natural hat trick, if you prefer hockey) with the following citations, all of which concern male-female relations and the “angry ugly girls:” i.e., the gender-war feminists.


1. War On The Male Genitalia.

Here’s the story. Please read it all. A small taste:

They’re not called the family jewels because they are ordinary. They’re not referred to as stones because they’re impervious to injury. No, they are both extraordinary and surprisingly fragile. So, sorry notsorry if we give them some breathing room when we sit, if we don’t smash them betwixt our legs on public transit. But as the horizon of “male privilege” is constantly expanding, giving the old wedding tackle ample space is now a crime against humanity.
The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) announced on Monday that a new campaign addressing courtesy on public transportation will come into effect by January. One of the targeted behaviors is ‘man-spreading’ — the act of spreading one’s legs so far apart that other passengers are forced to squish their own together.

Or, if you prefer a more nuanced description, one of the most infuriating and outright ridiculous display of male privilege and machismo in existence today. As Mic’s Derrick Clifton succinctly put it, ‘Hey, bro, you’re not that well-endowed.’

What I find most striking about this excellent piece is the following:

...might I direct your attention to Frank T.J. Mackie. Yes, he is an extreme caricature, one meant to mock your enemies.

If you haven’t seen the admittedly weird movie Magnolia, starring Tom Cruise, William H. Macy, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Jason Robards, please do so. Frank Mackie, played by Cruise, is an ultramasculine counterpoint to the gender-war feminists, the leader of a cult who encourages his followers to see women as exploitable bodies only, and purports to be able to teach them how to act on that view. I can’t describe him more compactly than that, so please see the movie.

It’s an open question whom the Mackie character was meant to mock, but entertainment can be like that. What we have before us, however, is a trend in sociology (inter-gender relations subdivision) that will evoke Mackie’s attitude and the consequent behavior in many thousands of men who would, in a more civilized society, have been as deferential and courteous to women as any woman could possibly have wished.

Incentives matter. Eventually, feminists, bless their pointed little heads, will learn that...hopefully before they become extinct, thence to be found only in anthropological textbooks.


2. “Victim-Blaming”

There’s a tremendous amount to be said on this subject, but perhaps one article will suffice for now:

Don’t drink so much. "Stop victim-blaming."
Watch your drink. "Stop victim-blaming."
Walk in well-lit areas at night. "Stop victim-blaming."
If colleges cannot suggest basic common sense measures to protect students — which help guard against crimes that aren’t rape and help men as well — without being accused by the feminist chorus of blaming victims, what can they say?

Indeed. The whole thrust of the “Stop victim-blaming” trend among feminists is to remove the weight of responsibility for their personal behavior from women’s shoulders. This is so plainly idiocy that one must ask, “Are these women stupid as well as ugly and socially graceless?”

The very same advice, given to young men, is utterly ordinary and noncontroversial. But then, we already know what delicate hothouse flowers women are...in the eyes of the very same feminist activists who insist that they’re men’s equals in all things.

(Hey, it’s a special! Two lies for the price of one! Grab ‘em while they’re hot!)


3. “Geeks On Strike”

Dr. Helen Smith, Reynolds’ beloved wife, prompted by an inquiry about “Gamer-Gate” and “ShirtStorm,” cites a relevant passage from her recent book:

The “strike” theory is generally correct, I think. The problem is that games and porn are entertaining, inexpensive, easily accessible, and reliable. Women can be entertaining, but they’re expensive, inaccessible for most men, and from the male perspective, shockingly unreliable. I would say that porn has raised the bar somewhat—it’s bound to be seriously annoying when Little Miss Real Life won’t give head when Jane Pornstar is twice as hot and is cheerfully performing all sorts of acrobatic stunts. And if you think about it, is a real woman who is average and only wants to have missionary-style sex once a week, minus a week for her period, actually any better than a wide variety of gorgeous porn stars catering to every bizarre fetish the Japanese can imagine and available on demand? It’s not quite so clear once you put it in those terms. The biggest communication problem is that most women see “relationship” as a positive thing. Most men see it as an ambiguous thing. So, when the selling point of Little Miss Real Life over Jane Pornstar is “relationship,” you can see where it’s not going to be very appealing. I don’t think there’s much of a “fuck you” element, though. The guys who think that way tend to be the players, particularly the Sigma players. A lot of the guys who opt out aren’t particularly angry at women, they just don’t see much point to pursuing involvement with them.

Every word is gospel truth, but the part I flashed on more or less immediately was:

Women can be entertaining, but they’re expensive, inaccessible for most men, and from the male perspective, shockingly unreliable.

Well, yes, but you could say the same about Lamborghinis, and we certainly don’t stop desiring them for those trifling reasons.

In truth, a lot of wishful thinking takes place in just about any young man’s mind, whether he’s Alpha, Beta, or Omega. As a longtime proponent of the “Shove it up your ass, bitch” school of male-female relations, the hostility of any woman – or women – has never troubled me, which might have something to do with my current choice of mate. But the typical “geek,” a sociological subgroup to which I superficially belong, allows himself to dream of “her:” the attractive, intelligent woman who will value his abilities assets more than she deplores his lack of first-string-quarterback status...hopefully, far more.

Yes: “she” might exist. But it would be best not to delude oneself about how likely one is to encounter her. Life generally proves simpler for those of us who confine our dreaming to the wee small hours.

(Cross-posted at League of Outlaw Bloggers.)

Friday, November 21, 2014

Hear Ye, Hear Ye! Part The Second!

The League is now a functioning concern. Those who have requested admittance are on the membership roll, and will have Members' posting privileges as soon as you send me the email address in your Blogger profile  (and I finalize the template).

Members: Don't forget to put the sigil of the League on your own blogs' pages!


I look forward to your contributions, both there and here.

On Thrillers

Let’s divert from politics for the length of an essay, and consider one of the forms of entertainment oriented toward men’s tastes: the modern military, paramilitary, or political-intrigue-oriented adventure novel, henceforth to be called the thriller.

As an indie writer, I take an interest in other indies, their achievements, and the degree of success they experience. Many indies craft thrillers by preference. That might be because that’s the genre they most enjoy; indeed, I’d say that’s the overwhelmingly most common reason. But sadly, most of those writers haven’t bothered to master fundamental writing skills – and that includes many who have plotting and storytelling gifts that their lack of writerly chops under-serves.

I’m not talking here about stylistic arabesques of the sort identified with “literary” fiction. Anyone who’s been reading my thoughts on fiction for any length of time will already be aware that I regard gratuitous verbal vermiculations as the writer’s equivalent to masturbation – and in public, at that. No, I’m thinking first of the sort of sins for which grammar-school children were once castigated, and second of some egregious sins against the reader’s patience that a really accomplished storyteller would instinctively avoid.

That first category is, of course, about slovenliness in grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Such slovenliness is often made manifest in the writer’s promotional blurb, which once moved me to publish this mini-tract. For there’s no better guide to a writer’s seriousness than the care he puts into a length-limited bit of promotional prose intended to sell his wares. If that fails the grammar-school-kid test, I pass by his novel without a backward glance.

The second category is at a more advanced level, but not so advanced that its principles should be incomprehensible to a reasonably intelligent writer – say, intelligent enough to format a book manuscript for Amazon’s CreateSpace publishing subsidiary using Microsoft Word. Those principles are quite few in number:

  1. Maintain viewpoint consistency. (In other words, don’t “head-hop.”)
  2. Avoid the expository lump.
  3. Use description to tell your reader what he needs to know and nothing more.
  4. Show character; don’t “tell” it.
  5. Your reader is there for an emotional journey; respect him and it.

It’s possible that many of the indie thriller writers who’ve recently perplexed me have never even heard of those principles; there’s no way to tell from their novels. They certainly violate them often enough. The violations can turn an otherwise engaging adventure story, the sort that many men who read specifically seek and enjoy, into a trial of the reader’s endurance.

Gentle Reader, I could give classes on those rules. Many, many indies desperately need to learn them. Sometimes I think it would make for a good retirement career. Yet the typical indie thriller writer seems to think he’s “got it knocked” already. Many of them dribble on, novel after novel, repeating the same sins.

I assure you, the tragedy is more than superficial.


The reason the late Tom Clancy was an important writer has little to do with the overall quality of his novels. It’s far more about how his fiction drew men back into the fiction reading marketplace, which had largely become a women’s preserve. When The Hunt For Red October was first published, the trends in fiction were all feminine, politically correct, and dreary beyond words. Even my own long-time favorite genres (as a reader), science fiction and fantasy, had grown so tiresome that I’d all but abandoned my search for worthy new works in those fields. Nothing could be more distressing to an addict to the printed word.

Clancy’s first book was virtually an instant success. Despite being the offering of a small, virtually unknown press and the target of an ocean of critical contempt – when the critics deigned to notice it at all – it sold hundreds of thousands of copies in hardcover and millions more in paperback. The predominant buyer was one who had long been absent from the fiction marketplace: the adult American male.

The rush by the major publishing houses to “get in on the gravy train” was almost as swift. Thriller writers and their novels multiplied like toadstools after a rain. Most of them, of course, were nowhere near as gifted (and were received nowhere near as enthusiastically) as Clancy, but the sheer number of them was enough to imply that something important had happened...as it had.

It is a testament to the impact of that development that the proliferation of thrillers continues today, with indies pitching in as never before. But that merely sharpens my ultimate point.


I read thrillers. Indeed, these days they seem to constitute the bulk of my fiction reading. However, I don’t write them, which will cause many an indie thriller writer to shrug off this tirade as that of a “non-practitioner” whose opinions are of no value. That is as it may be; I stand by them nonetheless.

The ultimate determinant of success in entertainment is the “bottom line:” how many units one sells. In the indie-fiction world, that can be tough to determine; a single copy of an eBook is often passed around to several readers, yet only counts as one sale. That’s not really a negative thing, despite the near-term impact on the writer’s revenue, for “eyeballs today” engender “revenue tomorrow.” A writer who keeps on writing – hopefully growing more skillful and more confident as he goes – will ultimately benefit from eBook lending, just as writers have always benefited from lending libraries.

Nevertheless, the fundamental skills must be there. Should the thriller market be deluged with eBooks replete with the sins I’ve decried here, the “Clancy trend” will be reversed: male readers will abandon the fiction market once more. The PC crowd and the dreary, too-precious-to-be-borne litterateurs will regain dominance.

This matters more than you might think. What a nation reads with pleasure and enthusiasm is a barometer of its ethics, its convictions, and its overall attitudes...which suggests that this piece is about politics after all.

Thursday, November 20, 2014

The New Segregationists: Eye On Ferguson

Back in 2007, I wrote:

The removal of punishment as a deterrent to crime and antisocial public behavior would be bad enough if it were absolutely uniform. But it is not, and the situation is accordingly far worse.

When a society makes special provisions for a particular class of persons, such that those persons have a good expectation of not suffering for illegal or antisocial behavior, it has committed the worst imaginable injustice against the persons in that class who honor their society's laws and norms: it has equalized the legal, social, and moral positions of good citizens and thugs. Thus, if ninety percent of such a class is law-abiding and decorous while ten percent is violent, dishonest, or disruptive, the latter category will come to overshadow the former in the perceptions of persons outside the class -- not because ten percent is a majority, but because that anti-social subgroup is identified with the class's special set of privileges.

A class is defined by its legal and social privileges. The aristocrats of medieval times were not distinguished by their lineages or their deeds, but by the things they were allowed to do, without penalty, that commoners were not. There is reason to believe that the majority of medieval aristocrats were fairly responsible stewards of their lands and of public order within them. That does not justify the creation of a class of men who could wield high, middle, and low justice over others, but who would normally escape all consequences for deeds for which a commoner would be severely punished.

The American response to the failings of traditional aristocracies was the Rule of Law: the fundamental principle that the law must treat all men impartially, regardless of their identities or station in life. The old shorthand for this principle was "blind justice," meaning that the law must not see one's person, only one's deeds. In a society that respects the Rule of Law, a king would stand in the same dock as a trash-hauler, were the two accused of the same offense. All that would matter would be the evidence for their guilt or innocence.

In the absence of a scrupulously observed Rule of Law, classes with differing degrees of privilege will emerge. The flourishing of the members of each class will be influenced, often heavily, by the class's privileges and how effectively they can be exploited. Men being what we are, we will be moved to use those privileges in our own interest, both against competitors within our class and against other classes.

Success breeds emulation. If there are advantages to be had from the ruthless exploitation of a class privilege, over time more and more members of the class will be drawn into doing so. Thus, the coloration given to the class by its privileges will become stronger and more inclusive over time.

This is not an unbounded progression; as in all other things, a tendency toward equilibrium will ultimately assert itself. However, the mechanisms by which equilibrium is restored are always unpleasant. The deterrents that curb full exploitation of a class privilege, if any exist at all, will be applied by other classes, whether through the law, other social institutions, or "informally." "Informally" usually means lynching: the application of extra-judicial, often unmerited punishment to members of one class by members of another. In the usual case, the lynchers come from a more numerous class than the lynchees, though there are occasional exceptions.

Lynching, if it goes unpunished, is itself a class privilege. There are satisfactions in it that are incomprehensible to moral men who live in ordinary times. As with other activities with innate satisfactions, the popularity of the practice will grow over time. A mob that's tasted the blood of one aristocrat is seldom satisfied with just that one sip.

Lynching writ large is genocide.

That was written long before the troubles in Ferguson, Missouri.


Ponder well the following stories:

Now ponder what hangs on the impending grand jury decision over whether to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for the murder of Michael Brown:

I’m not thinking near-term here; I fear a genuine campaign of genocide by American Caucasians against American Negroes. There’s no way to know in advance how much violence and lawlessness would be required to trigger such a reaction. Nevertheless, I maintain that the train of reasoning in the previous section is sound; there is a threshold which, if crossed, will evoke outright genocide. If that should come to pass, who would be more to blame than Leftist luminaries Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the “unofficial” race-hustlers stoking the fires in Ferguson, Missouri?


The Left is heavily invested in victimism: broadly speaking, the proposition that all of us are either oppressors or oppressed, and that the former owe the latter an unlimited debt. In no case are they more relentlessly strident than in matters of race relations. Thus, it should surprise no one that prominent leftist voices have been egging on the “protestors” in Ferguson, edging asymptotically close to condoning violence and looting, while ceaselessly insisting that the fault for any such occurrences would belong, not to the “protestors,” but to the rest of us for “not doing justice for Michael Brown.”

Exactly two years ago today, I wrote:

The original New Segregationist pieces focused on racial segregation and how the media's suppression of important facts about trends in dissolution, profligacy, and criminality among American Negroes has contributed to it. Yet any collectivity designated for "help" will exhibit a comparable set of trends, more or less dramatically according to context and prior socialization. As always, it's a matter of incentives.

The late Clarence Carson, in his landmark book The American Tradition, made a critical set of points about the "civilizing of groups." Groups, he noted, can overwhelm individual rationality and morality, a point made with equal force by philosopher Eric Hoffer. Therefore, they must be denied legal and political standing; they must never become capable of asserting privileges or immunities that non-members don't possess. This parallels Isabel Paterson's penetrating partition of sociopolitical orders into Societies of Contract, where individuals are the sole recognized actors within the legal and political order, versus Societies of Status, where membership in one or another group dwarfs every other consideration about what an individual can do, or to what he can aspire.

Plainly, Leftist thought and policy departs completely from that insight; the creation of politically privileged and empowered groups is virtually the whole of Leftist politics. But that departure rests upon Leftists' need to see themselves as morally superior to the rest of us, in which effort their politicized "good intentions" are the indispensable element.

Whereas the media merely suppressed news about the sort of incident that might elicit a doubt or two about the unanimous good will of Negroes toward Caucasians and the safety of the latter among the former, the activist Left seeks a multiplication of such incidents, preferably as large and dramatic as possible. More, when such incidents occur, its sympathies and protective efforts are openly with the lawbreakers. Yet according to the Left, we who want only to see the guilty apprehended and punished as prescribed by law – who want nothing but peace with those who’ve remained within the law, regardless of their race – are the villains!

Is it possible to draw any conclusion but one? Given that conclusion, if the tide of violence should reverse and a wholesale slaughter of American Negroes result, who would be properly to blame? Who are the real racists here?

It’s well that the residents of St. Louis are arming themselves. Indeed, I hope the trend is nationwide, and nationally publicized. Consciousness of the potential consequences might be the only effective deterrent of a second Civil War – this one color-coded not by artifice of uniform, but by the flesh of the combatants.

We shall see.

Useful Summaries Dept.

The following is courtesy of new Blogroll entrant (and Outlaw Blogger) Weird and Pissed Off:

Indeed.

On the national disease.

When you just have a slight headache, you don’t imagine that it is the first indication of a much worse ailment. But as with my very sick friend, the symptoms have gotten bad enough that we can no longer ignore them. And now we have the terrible diagnosis: our nation has a late-stage political cancer rotting our republic from the inside out.

* * * *

[Obama's actions] are the symptom, not the disease.

* * * *

. . . [This "belief in executive authority without limits"], like cancer, is an assault on the internal political structures on which our nation’s health rests.

"Political Metastasis." By Ross Kaminsky, The American Spectator, 11/20/14.

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Hear Ye, Hear Ye!

Pursuant to this excellent suggestion from Our Imperial Majesty Emperor Misha, I hereby announce the formation of the:

League Of Outlaw Bloggers

...and do therefore solicit applications for membership.

Requirements:

  • You must write decently.
  • You must have been “born with a six-gun in my hand.”
  • You must pledge never, ever, to kowtow to the Left or the shrieks of the perpetually offended.

Members shall display the following logo at their sites:

...and while in good standing shall have Guest Posting privileges here at Liberty’s Torch.

Who’d like to join?

Update: Just in case anyone misunderstood: The Member's Guest Posting privilege is exactly that: a privilege. It's not mandatory that you actually use it!

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

What Makes A Word Offensive?

Just yesterday, I had an email exchange with another fellow over whether the word Negro is offensive. Because it’s the technical anthropological term for one of the three major races of Man, I maintained (and maintain) that it isn’t. Here’s his reply:
Don't play dumb with me, Francis. "Negro" is an offensive term today and you know damn well, why: because it is an unusual word to hear today that invokes and reminds of an offensive time. The time when all black people in this country were referred to as negroes was a time when they were legally second class citizens in many states. By insisting on calling them negroes today you are implying by your choice of language (and you can deny it all you want) that you wish America was back to the age in which it was fine for them to be second class citizens.

As it was clear from the above that the exchange had turned acrimonious, I decided to cut it off. However, anyone who claims to be intellectually honest is required to entertain the possibility that he might be wrong. So I’d appreciate it if the Gentle Readers of Liberty’s Torch would ring in on the following two questions:

  • What makes a word offensive or insulting?
  • If a word remains in common use, does any opprobrium apply to it because some persons have deemed it offensive?

I’ll add your replies to the bottom of this post.


Here we go:

1. Rick Barcomb suggests:

George Carlin did an x rated rant on words in the 70s. It was called 7 words you can't say on television. If you can get past the vulgarity there is a good message on words there

2. Dan comments thus:

To determine that anyone that uses a word or phrase necessarily means it offensively (even unintentionally) itself as it implies that the listener knows more of the mind of the speaker than the speaker themselves.

It is the height of arrogance and condescension, a level of rudeness that would have rightly been deemed verboten before our culture was feminized to the point that we all must have our minds searching for deeper meanings in the trivial every minute of every day.

There are certain words that are offensive by nature, because they are insults. Negro isn't, broad/dame/chick aren't, and anyone who insists that a word or phrase is offensive because the receiver may take offense is exactly the type of fascist that has no good intentions behind their tantrums.

3. Ron Olson comments thus:

Words aren't offensive by themselves. It's the intent behind the word that is offensive. Time was you could challenge an intent to duel. A proffered insult hidden in innocent language but dripping with sarcasm would not be allowed to stand.

Now terms of grace can be turned to insult with impunity and done often enough by many, use of the word becomes proof of evil intent. Take "lady" as an example.

4. Hans in North Carolina comments thus:

Been thinking about your question in context of an old assertion that our founders never intended our laws to protected men from thought or speech deemed offensive by some.

Perhaps the question for discussion should be: "at what point does a man have legitimate recourse to legal or violent self-defense against the use of language perceived to be offensive or abusive?"

Tentative answer: at the threshold of offense, no; at the threshold of immanent threat, yes.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me.

5. Conan the Cimmerian, King of Aquilonia comments thus:

Jeff Goldstein at the Protein Wisdom blog has written extensively on this subject (intentionalism).

Words should be judged offensive based upoin the intent of the speaker (or writer) not upon what the observer/audience chooses to create (make up/invent) as an objective of the speaker/writer.

People of color = OK
Colored people = Not OK

Negro/Negroid = not OK
Caucasian/Caucasoid = not OK

Orient/Oriental (based upon a location on a map/cartography/geography) = not OK

East Asian (based upon a location on a map/cartography/geography)= OK.

It is all stupid semantic games.

It should simply be, Does the author/speaker wish to or is trying to insult or not?

6. Keith comments thus:

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” -- George Orwell, 1984

“It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.” -- George Orwell, 1984

The Left ceaselessly moves the goalposts when it comes to language, as witness the corruption of many words, e.g., 'gay', 'liberal', 'equality', 'marriage', and, in this example, 'Negro'. Objectively, the word is no more offensive than 'Caucasion' or 'Mongolian'. But the Left seeks to control thought by the process of making certain innocuous words 'politically incorrect', in order to advance their agenda. In my lifetime the words 'Negro', 'colored', 'black', 'people of color', and 'African-American' have all had varying degrees of acceptance. There are probably other words I've missed. It's all about control; one must adhere to the Left's dictates and use whatever term is currently in vogue, or be banished from discourse.

7. Magnus comments thus:

"By insisting on calling them negroes today you are implying by your choice of language (and you can deny it all you want) that you wish America was back to the age in which it was fine for them to be second class citizens."

Simply amazing how he knows your mind better than you do. And you can deny it it all you want! you racist, you.

To answer your questions:

  1. The hearer's insecurity in himself or his group, or the hearers desire to feel or be perceived as morally superior by being offended on behalf of others (whites do this).
  2. No. America has become a nation of whiners and pu**ies, quick to blame their dysfunction on outside influences. My people (white Southerners) are one of the only groups left in America that may be maligned with impunity, but do we hang our heads and whine about not being able to make it in life? No, we were brought up to not play the victim. This constant victim mentality needs to stop. Men don't whine about the word "negro."

8. Walking Horse comments as follows:

Words are just words. Offense is in the complete control of the recipient. There are fighting words, sentences crafted to incite or serve as a precursor to a physical attack. In my book, people are within their rights to respond in kind to fighting words.

9. Adrienne comments as follows:

I think the word offensive is offensive. I was raised with the old saying about sticks and stones.

People need to "man up" and quit all this "I'm offended" crapola.

10. Dystopic comments as follows:

1. There are two answers to this. To the reasonable man, a term which is descriptive is not insulting or offensive. Black, White, Negro, Caucasian are descriptive terms. Insults go beyond the descriptive. Nigger is an insult because it is unnecessary. The unoffensive individual would use a descriptive term, not a shorthand designed to offend.

2. To the unreasonable man, anything that is clear and unambiguous about a protected class is offensive. This is where problems occur. Instead of Black or Negro, they will use African-American. But, eventually, African-America BECOMES unambiguous (i.e. everyone knows what it means). So that term becomes offensive and a new one must be developed. People of Color is the currently favored term. Soon that will be unambiguous and will have to be replaced. The cycle continues.

Clarity of meaning, to unreasonable people, is offensive on its own. Reasonable people, on the other hand, specifically desire clarity of meaning. So conflict is inevitable.

11. Dr. D. Puts it thus:

Count me in with Dan.

The Left is constantly trying to limit our vocabulary, to render us unable to express ourselves. We must resit this; we must fight back.

I insist that any words that were acceptable when I was a child (over 70 years ago) are still acceptable today. I will continue to use any works I would have spoken to my Mother or grandmother, and avoid the rest.

I get called all sorts of names, but that reflects much more on the speaker than it does on me.

12. A fascinating observation from an anonymous commenter:

For whatever light (if any) this sheds on the matter:

The words "Shit", "Piss" and "Fuck" are Germanic Anglo-Saxon words. They were perfectly acceptable for use in the Court of the King. Until that king became William of Normandy, ... from France. Then, the latinate forms "Defecate", "Urinate", and "Fornicate"/"Copulate" were the only polite words for those actions, as they were the words preferred by the Norman nobility. The Germanic-English words were deemed obscene as they were only used by the vulgar Anglo-Saxon lower classes.

The point being that obscenity or offensiveness seems based on two things:

  1. Aversion to or disgust with the actual thing or action that the word refers to, and;
  2. The relative social and political power of those who commonly use the word, versus those who choose to find it offensive or obscene.

In post-Norman-Invasion England, the powerful were the French speaking Norman nobility. In post-America America, the powerful have been in Academia and the Media. Those first shamed into preferring polite "defecate" to vulgar "shit", and into using polite "African-American" as opposed to vulgar "Negro" were, of necessity, those in or aspiring to National Politics, followed by anyone educated by Academia (read everybody who's anybody), and anyone whose opinions were shaped by the media (read everybody).

One thing is different, however. The English language USED TO evolve, with dramatic changes like the Norman Conquest being relatively few and far between. NOW, English no longer evolves. Those in a position to do so breed it, manage it, and forcibly modify it ... for their own purposes.

Those purposes were perfectly explained by Orwell in his novel 1984.

FINALLY: From the comments I've received, the consensus is that a word (or phrase) becomes offensive only if propelled by an intent to insult or wound. That's my own position...but the gentleman with whom I had the exchange I mentioned above -- who deems himself a conservative, by the way -- clearly believes otherwise. Food for thought.

Evidence Trails

First, a video from the very bowels of the controversy:

And from more recently:

“I just heard about this.” “Some advisor.” From the man who met with Jonathan Gruber, both while Obama was a United States Senator and in the Oval Office as President, specifically because Gruber had played the major role in crafting Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts health care bill. Credible? Or not?

As they like to say on C.S.I., people lie; evidence doesn’t. In this case, the evidence seems incontrovertible: Barack Hussein Obama, a known liar whose contempt for ordinary Americans is well documented, has made two statements that contradict one another. What are we to believe?

This doesn’t appear to be a case in which Obama’s statements could be simultaneously true.


Perhaps the only good thing about politicians’ predilection for shoving their mugs at the cameras and microphones is the profusion of evidence they provide us to their intentions thereby. In Barack Hussein Obama we might have the pinnacle of the species of self-indicting liar. The evidence trail of his deceits is likely to be the best-remembered feature of his eight years in the White House.

Quite a lot of Americans have become so terminally weary of self-serving political bloviation that they eschew all news sources and avoid all occasions on which a pol might appear and shoot off his mouth. It’s a special case of the general inclination of the private American citizen: the man who asks nothing of others except to be left alone. Politicians, of course, live to inflict themselves on others, whether through the actions of the media or the actions of the State; their lives have no other significance. The disjunction between those motives is absolute.

Yet as greatly as we yearn for peace from the political elite, it might just be that we can only have it on conditions, and that the requirement is exactly the opposite of what we might think.

Given the evidence trail he’s already created against himself, consider how ardently Obama must wish, in the slightly paraphrased words of Hillary Clinton, that the Internet had a delete button. Doesn’t that suggest a course just a little contrary to our intuitive impulses?


Imagine if, upon entry to public office at any level, a politician were legally compelled to wear:

  • A tracking anklet;
  • A digital video camera;
  • And a cell-phone-like device that continuously broadcasts the data from the above to YouTube.

...with the additional proviso that removing, disabling, or otherwise impeding the operation of any of the above would immediately expel him from office and permanently disqualify him from ever again being a government official. Given the typically low characters of its members, how do you think the political class would respond? Would it strike them as the answer to their prayers, or as the nightmare that quenches their desire for power?

Yes, it would mean that we’d be barraged with even more political talk and events...but only from men who believe their characters to be equal to the challenge, plus those hardy souls who believe themselves capable of “keeping up the act” despite continuous public scrutiny. I’d surmise that the members of that latter group would wear tar and feathers more often than they’d expect.

In our never-ending quest for a countermeasure to political deceit, peculation, and oppression, perhaps this is a path to be considered, as irritating as the short-term consequences might be. Besides, consider how much laugh material the recordings would undoubtedly provide us.


The obvious dynamics of power-seeking, coupled to the total deterioration of the character of the “public man,” can only lead to one conclusion: He who seeks power over you cannot and must not be trusted. If he must be allowed such power, whatever the rationale, he must be watched continuously, for there is never a moment in which a man’s baser impulses are absolutely prevented from expressing themselves.

Indeed, it was ever thus. The second of our Constitutional presidents, John Adams, one of the moving forces of the American Revolution, gave us the Alien and Sedition Acts. The third, Thomas Jefferson, a high genius and possibly the best man ever to occupy the presidency, claimed a power nowhere authorized in the Constitution to execute the Louisiana Purchase. If these men could transgress so easily, what should we assume about the products of two centuries of ethical devolution in the quest for power: the politicians of today?

Isn’t this is the Information Age? Aren’t we likely to fare better and be freer for having more information about our public scoundrels, rather than less? Besides, think of the marketing possibilities, both for the gadgets and for the documentaries they’d make possible. Everybody loves to see a villain brought low, especially when it’s by his own actions.

Normally, I’m repelled by collectivism of any sort. This is an exception. Making visible the sort of fiend who aspires to power in our time by albatrossing all such persons with continuous recording equipment appeals to my baser impulses, specifically my desire to see the thing the power-seeker most desires – publicity – turned into a cross he must bear until he removes himself from public life. Indeed, let’s not wait until he’s elected; let’s equip him the moment he declares himself a candidate.

Think of all the wives, interns, and Congressional pages who’ll thank us from the bottoms of their hearts.

Monday, November 17, 2014

Rants From Runts, Pants That Punt, and Cant From...Oh, Never Mind

If you’ve been waiting for the:

  • Social Justice Warriors
  • Professionally Aggrieved Feminists (i.e., the angry ugly girls)
  • “glittery hoo-hah” owners

(Pick your preferred moniker for them from the list above, or supply your own)...to beclown themselves terminally at long last, your moment has arrived:

...I want to talk about the incident that, somehow, in the realm of the internet, made me into a Lesbian, Thai, Social Justice Warrior....

I’m still wearing my “Wait, WHAT?” face from when Amanda told me about the comment that said this troll – variously identified as Requires Hate and Winterfox and a two-part name I can’t even spell – must be me, because of the “similarity in our rhetoric.” I haven’t read the comment. It might magically suck me through the internet and I might find myself with my fingers clapped around this creature’s neck strangling him while demanding he explain what in heaven’s name he means. (Though I think I know, and I’ll explain later.)

Anyway, after this Requires Hate creature had abused them and called them names and caused them to grovel, and enlisted the cowed cooperation of Alex-no-binary gender and our old friend Damien so-dense-that-I’m-afraid-a-blackhole-will form around me, people started comparing notes and getting mad, because they realized this creature was the same who under the two-name moniker had been sucking up to them. They also claim she had waged whisper campaigns to have them banned from conventions, that she tarnished their reputations with the same whisper campaigns and that she made some people give up writing altogether.

And of course their problem – as explained in this article – is not that she did all those things, but that she used the tactics against the “wrong people” i.e. fellow “social justice warriors”, people who want to eliminate patriarchy and who are sure white privilege is hiding under their bed, ready to pounce out as soon as they relax — People who think that everyone who doesn’t think like them commits thought crime and should be silenced. That is, they are upset because tactics they sanction and use against people like us are being used against them.

That is so delicious that I’m going to let it stand alone...at least long enough for me to get control over the spasm of incapacitating laughter it’s caused me.


“You can’t say that!” is the battle-cry of the contemporary American fascist. (Yes, they’re leftists, but so were Hitler and his followers; that’s why they called themselves the National Socialist German Workers’ Party.) Their inclination toward censorship is so relentless, and so extreme, that they’ve even got a bright fellow like PJ Media’s Charlie Martin saying idiotic stuff like this:

"they" to include the singular has a long and honorable history, and "his or hers" or worse "his/her" are atrocities.

...just to avert the wrath of the SJW / angry ugly girl / “glittery hoo-ha” crowd. Mind you, I have some sympathy for those who’ve quailed beneath the lash:

My friend Dave Freer, over at Mad Genius Club has a blog about Political Correctness in literature. I confess I have agreed with him ever since I was first trying to break into writing and found myself reading manuals on how to be politically correct in my writing.

I’ve learned to use the execrable he/she or worse, they instead of he in the type of sentence that now goes “one shouldn’t do that, lest they” simply because it’s not worth to endure screams of outrage over what’s at worse inelegant and agrammatical. And the type of person who thinks her worth lies in not being referred to under a generic “masculine” pronoun – as dictated by the rules of most indo european languages — inevitably also thinks screaming about it is an act of civic duty if not virtue.

...but only some: enough to wish them a replacement spine for Christmas.

A writer who allows the SJWs to dictate his choice of words has ceded the greater part of the field of battle. Granted that the SJWs constitute a sect not even the IRS is willing to go after, nevertheless their only weapons are screaming and vituperation. -- and if the Internet hasn’t numbed you to that yet, look around you: those vertical thingies are probably the struts on your crib.

But it’s not just writers tugging the forelock, is it?

So how are things going for feminism? Well, last week, some feminists took one of the great achievements of human history — landing a probe from Earth on a comet hundreds of millions of miles away — and made it all about the clothes.

Yes, that's right. After years of effort, the European Space Agency's lander Philaelanded on a comet 300 million miles away. At first, people were excited. Then some women noticed that one of the space scientists, Matt Taylor, was wearing a shirt, made for him by a female "close pal," featuring comic-book depictions of semi-naked women. And suddenly, the triumph of the comet landing was drowned out by shouts of feminist outrage about ... what people were wearing. It was one small shirt for a man, one giant leap backward for womankind.

The Atlantic's Rose Eveleth tweeted, "No no women are toooootally welcome in our community, just ask the dude in this shirt." Astrophysicist Katie Mack commented: "I don't care what scientists wear. But a shirt featuring women in lingerie isn't appropriate for a broadcast if you care about women in STEM." And from there, the online feminist lynch mob took off until Taylor was forced to deliver a tearful apology on camera.

It seems to me that if you care about women in STEM, maybe you shouldn't want to communicate the notion that they're so delicate that they can't handle pictures of comic-book women. Will we stock our Mars spacecraft with fainting couches?

“Forced?” Taylor was forced to apologize weepily on camera? Who forced him? How? By threatening more screaming and vituperation at one of the technological heroes of the age? After his epochal achievement, Taylor should have felt free to smile and say “Go fuck yourselves” to his detractors through that camera, perhaps while grabbing his crotch for emphasis. As matters stand, someone should grab his crotch, just to determine whether he’s missing an important organ or two.

Cowardice of that magnitude shames the entire human race.


It cannot be said too often that to allow your adversary to dictate what you may and may not say – even at the level of supposedly offensive words and phrases – is to surrender before battle is joined. A worthy adversary, in politics or anywhere else, would not do any such thing; he’d say “Choose your weapons,” brandish his own, and charge. But the SJWs / angry ugly girls / glittery hoo-ha types are not worthy adversaries. They deserve nothing but contempt...certainly not an abject apology for one’s sartorial preferences.

Censorship is the fundamental privilege of an aristocracy. It underpins all other privileges allowed to such an elite, for if you can’t make critical note of a phenomenon, you’ll never be able to mobilize a force against it. It’s so important to deny that privilege to anyone who asserts it, regardless of the reasons proffered, that when someone tells me “You can’t say that,” I reply with a hearty “Go fuck yourself” even if my would-be censor is nominally in agreement with me on the substance of the topic under discussion.

And so, to the:

  • Social Justice Warriors,
  • Professionally Aggrieved Feminists,
  • “glittery hoo-hah” owners,
  • ...and any castrati that might think to side with them out of hope for sexual access,

Go fuck yourselves.
Do it now.
Please.

Conversations

After a grumble this morning at our capricious, wholly untrustworthy bathroom scale, I noted to the C.S.O. that, back when I was a physicist, one rule for evaluating a measuring instrument was whether it purports to offer a precision that’s finer than its error bar allows.
CSO: So it’s an evil scale. You already knew that.
FWP: Are you saying our scale is possessed? That we own a demonic scale?

CSO: Sure, why not? Just like the harmonic scale.
FWP: Hey! There’s nothing evil about the harmonic scale.

CSO: Oh? What about the one Philip Glass uses?
FWP:: (unprintable).

Honest to God, Gentle Reader: I married that woman. At least, I think I did.

Sunday, November 16, 2014

For Israel And The Jewish People Worldwide

[I have nothing original to say this morning, but the plight of Israel, now under unprecedented pressure to permit the Palestinian irredentists to have a “state” carved from Israel’s territory, moved me to post the following. It’s a copy of an article written by Spanish writer Sebastian Vilar Rodriguez and published in a Spanish newspaper on Jan. 15, 2008.]


REMEMBER AS YOU READ - THIS WAS IN A SPANISH NEWSPAPER

Date: Tue. 15 January 2008 14:30

ALL EUROPEAN LIFE DIED IN AUSCHWITZ

By Sebastian Vilar Rodrigez

I walked down the street in Barcelona , and suddenly discovered a terrible truth - Europe died in Auschwitz . We killed six million Jews and replaced them with 20 million Muslims. In Auschwitz we burned a culture, thought, creativity, and talent. We destroyed the Chosen People, truly chosen, because they produced great and wonderful people who changed the world.

The contribution of this people is felt in all areas of life: science, art, international trade, and above all, as the conscience of the world.

These are the people we burned.

And under the pretense of tolerance, and because we wanted to prove to ourselves that we were cured of the disease of racism, we opened our gates to 20 million Muslims, who brought us stupidity and ignorance, religious extremism, and lack of tolerance, crime, and poverty, due to an unwillingness to work and support their families with pride.

They have blown up our trains and turned our beautiful Spanish cities into the third world, drowning in filth and crime. Shut up in the apartments they receive free from the government, they plan the murder and destruction of their naive hosts.

And thus, in our misery, we have exchanged culture for fanatical hatred, creative skill for destructive skill, intelligence for backwardness and superstition.

We have exchanged the pursuit of peace of the Jews of Europe and their talent for a better future for their children, their determined clinging to life because life is holy, for those who pursue death, for people consumed by the desire for death for themselves and others, for our children and theirs.

What a terrible mistake was made by miserable Europe.

***

A lot of Americans have become so insulated from reality that they imagine America can suffer defeat without any inconvenience to them.

Absolutely No Profiling! Pause a moment, reflect back, and take the

following multiple choice test.

These events are actual events from history. They really happened! Do you remember?

HERE'S THE TEST

  1. 1968, Bobby Kennedy was shot and killed by:
    1. Superman
    2. Jay Leno
    3. Harry Potter
    4. A Muslim male extremist between the ages of 17 and 40
  2. In 1972 at the Munich Olympics, athletes were kidnapped and massacred by:
    1. Olga Corbett
    2. Sitting Bull
    3. Arnold Schwarzenegger
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  3. In 1979, the U.S. embassy in Iran was taken over by:
    1. Lost Norwegians
    2. Elvis
    3. A tour bus full of 80-year-old women
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  4. During the 1980s a number of Americans were kidnapped in Lebanon by:
    1. John Dillinger
    2. The King of Sweden
    3. The Boy Scouts
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  5. In 1983 the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut was blown up by:
    1. A pizza delivery boy
    2. Pee Wee Herman
    3. Geraldo Rivera
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  6. In 1985 the cruise ship Achille Lauro was hijacked and a 70-year-old American passenger was murdered and thrown overboard in his wheelchair by:
    1. The Smurfs
    2. Davey Jones
    3. The Little Mermaid
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  7. In 1985 TWA flight 847 was hijacked at Athens and a U.S. Navy diver trying to rescue passengers was murdered by:
    1. Captain Kidd
    2. Charles Lindberg
    3. Mother Teresa
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  8. In 1988, Pan Am Flight 103 was bombed by:
    1. Scooby Doo
    2. The Tooth Fairy
    3. The Sundance Kid
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  9. In 1993 the World Trade Center was bombed the first time by:
    1. Richard Simmons
    2. Grandma Moses
    3. Michael Jordan
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  10. In 1998 the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by:
    1. Mr. Rogers
    2. Hillary Clinton, to distract attention from Wild Bill's women problems
    3. The World Wrestling Federation
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  11. On 9/11/01, four airliners were hijacke
  12. Two were used as missiles to take out the World Trade Center . Of the remaining two, one crashed into the U.S. Pentagon and the other was diverted and crashed by the passengers. Thousands of people were killed by:
    1. Bugs Bunny, Wiley E. Coyote, Daffy Duck and Elmer Fudd
    2. The Supreme Court of Florida
    3. Mr Bean
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  13. In 2002 the United States fought a war in Afghanistan against:
    1. Enron
    2. The Lutheran Church
    3. The NFL
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  14. In 2002 reporter Daniel Pearl was kidnapped and murdered by:
    1. Bonnie and Clyde
    2. Captain Kangaroo
    3. Billy Graham
    4. Muslim male extremists mostly between the ages of 17 and 40
  15. And now we can add: In 2009, 31 people wounded and 13 American Soldiers murdered on base at Fort Hood by a Major who was known as...
    1. You guessed it - A Muslim male extremist between the age of 17 and 40.

No, I really don't see a pattern here to justify profiling. Do you? So, to ensure we Americans/Canadians never offend anyone, particularly fanatic’s intent on killing us, airport security screeners will no longer be allowed to profile certain people. They must conduct random searches of 80-year-old women, little kids, airline pilots with proper identification, secret agents who are members of the President's security detail, 85-year old Congressmen with metal hips, and Medal of Honor winner and former Governor Joe Foss, but leave Muslim males between the ages 17 and 40 alone lest they be guilty of profiling.

Let's send this to as many people as we can so that the Nancy Pelosis, Gloria Allreds, and other dunder-headed attorneys, along with Federal Justices who want to thwart common sense, feel ashamed of themselves - if they have any such sense.

We can not allow the socialist transformation being brought on by the current administration to continue. Look at what it has done to Europe.

We all must stand together before it's too late and everything America stands for is lost.

The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000. That is ONE BILLION TWO HUNDRED MILLION, or 20% of the world's population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1988 - Najib Mahfooz

Peace:
1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat
1990 - Elias James Corey
1994 - Yaser Arafat:
1999 - Ahmed Zewai

Economics:
(zero)

Physics:
(zero)

Medicine:
1960 - Peter Brian Medawar
1998 - Ferid Mourad

TOTAL: 7 SEVEN

The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000. That is FOURTEEN MILLION, or about 0.02% of the world's population.

They have received the following Nobel Prizes:

Literature:
1910 - Paul Heyse
1927 - Henri Bergson
1958 - Boris Pasternak
1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon
1966 - Nelly Sachs
1976 - Saul Bellow
1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer
1981 - Elias Canetti
1987 - Joseph Brodsky
1991 - Nadine Gordimer World

Peace:
1911 - Alfred Fried
1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser
1968 - Rene Cassin
1973 - Henry Kissinger
1978 - Menachem Begin
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1994 - Shimon Peres
1994 - Yitzhak Rabin

Physics:
1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer
1906 - Henri Moissan
1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson
1908 - Gabriel Lippmann
1910 - Otto Wallach
1915 - Richard Willstaetter
1918 - Fritz Haber
1921 - Albert Einstein
1922 - Niels Bohr
1925 - James Franck
1925 - Gustav Hertz
1943 - Gustav Stern
1943 - George Charles de Hevesy
1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi
1952 - Felix Bloch
1954 - Max Born
1958 - Igor Tamm
1959 - Emilio Segre
1960 - Donald Glaser
1961 - Robert Hofstadter
1961 - Melvin Calvin
1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau
1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz
1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman
1965 - Julian Schwinger
1969 - Murray Gell-Mann
1971 - Dennis Gabor
1972 - William Howard Stein
1973 - Brian David Josephson
1975 - Benjamin Mottleson
1976 - Burton Richter
1977 - Ilya Prigogine
1978 - Arno Allan Penzias
1978 - Peter L Kapitza
1979 - Stephen Weinberg
1979 - Sheldon Glashow
1979 - Herbert Charles Brown
1980 - Paul Berg
1980 - Walter Gilbert
1981 - Roald Hoffmann
1982 - Aaron Klug
1985 - Albert Hauptman
1985 - Jerome Karle
1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach
1988 - Robert Huber
1988 - Leon Lederman
1988 - Melvin Schwartz
1988 - Jack Steinberger
1989 - Sidney Altman
1990 - Jerome Friedman
1992 - Rudolph Marcus
1995 - Martin Perl
2000 - Alan J. Heeger

Economics:
1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson
1971 - Simon Kuznets
1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow
1975 - Leonid Kantorovich
1976 - Milton Friedman
1978 - Herbert Simon
1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein
1985 - Franco Modigliani
1987 - Robert M. Solow
1990 - Harry Markowitz
1990 - Merton Miller
1992 - Gary Becker
1993 - Robert Fogel

Medicine:
1908 - Elie Metchnikoff
1908 - Paul Erlich
1914 - Robert Barany
1922 - Otto Meyerhof
1930 - Karl Landsteiner
1931 - Otto Warburg
1936 - Otto Loewi
1944 - Joseph Erlanger
1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser
1945 - Ernst Boris Chain
1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller
1950 - Tadeus Reichstein
1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman
1953 - Hans Krebs
1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann
1958 - Joshua Lederberg
1959 - Arthur Kornberg
1964 - Konrad Bloch
1965 - Francois Jacob
1965 - Andre Lwoff
1967 - George Wald
1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg
1969 - Salvador Luria
1970 - Julius Axelrod
1970 - Sir Bernard Katz
1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman
1975 - Howard Martin Temin
1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg
1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow
1978 - Daniel Nathans
1980 - Baruj Benacerraf
1984 - Cesar Milstein
1985 - Michael Stuart Brown
1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein
1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini]
1988 - Gertrude Elion
1989 - Harold Varmus
1991 - Erwin Neher
1991 - Bert Sakmann
1993 - Richard J. Roberts
1993 - Phillip Sharp
1994 - Alfred Gilman
1995 - Edward D. Lewis
1996- Lu RoseIacovino

TOTAL: 129!

The Jews are NOT promoting the brain-washing of children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths of Jews and other non-Muslims. The Jews don't hijack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, or blow themselves up in German restaurants. There is NOT one single Jew who has destroyed a church. There is NOT a single Jew who protests by killing people.

The Jews don't traffic slaves, nor have leaders calling for Jihad and death to all the Infidels.

Perhaps the world's Muslims should consider investing more in standard education and less in blaming the Jews for all their problems.

Muslims must ask what they can do for humankind before they demand that humankind respects them.

Regardless of your feelings about the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians and Arab neighbors, even if you believe there is more culpability on Israel's part, the following two sentences really say it all:

"If the Arabs put down their weapons today, there would be no more violence. If the Jews put down their weapons today, there would be no more Israel." Benjamin Netanyahu


That article reached me as an email, the text of which appears below:

General Eisenhower Warned Us.

It is a matter of history that when the Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, General Dwight Eisenhower, found the victims of the death camps, he ordered all possible photographs to be taken, and for the German people from surrounding villages to be ushered through the camps and even made to bury the dead.

He did this because he said in words to this effect:

"Get it all on record now - get the films - get the witnesses - because somewhere down the road of history some bastard will get up and say that this never happened."

Recently the UK debated whether to remove 'The Holocaust' from its school curriculum because it 'offends' the Muslim population, which claims it never, occurred. It is not removed as yet. However, this is a frightening portent of the fear that is gripping the world and how easily each country is giving into it.

It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended.

This e-mail is being sent as a memorial chain, in memory of the, 6 million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians, and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, raped, burned, starved, beaten, experimented on and humiliated while the German people looked the other way.

Now more than ever, with Iran, among others, claiming the Holocaust to be a myth, it is imperative to make sure the world never forgets.

This e-mail is intended to reach 400 million people. Be a link in the memorial chain and help distribute this around the world.

How many years will it be before the attack on the World Trade Center 'NEVER HAPPENED,' because it offends some Muslim in the United States?

Do not just delete this message. It will take only a minute to pass this along.

All I have seen teaches me to trust the Creator for all I have not seen. -Ralph W. Emerson