The lynching of Steve King

King is a Republican congressman from Iowa long known for his conservative views on immigration and strenuous opposition to any form of amnesty for illegal aliens. The last few days he has been pilloried by the media, by Democrat politicians, and by his own fellow Republican members of Congress.

What is the charge? “Racist remarks.”

Here is what he said in an interview with the New York Times:

White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization – how did that language become offensive? Why did I sit in classes teaching me about the merits of our history and our civilization?”

May we postulate that there is zero evidence in his background that he is a white supremacist or a white nationalist? And if he were, would he spill the beans to a gotcha, bloody-minded reporter? Please note that the media only quote the first sentence, leaving out the second. His defense, which the media have ignored, was that the phrase “that language” referred only to Western civilization, not to white nationalists and supremacists or those ideologies. The words ‘our history and our civilization’ in the missing second sentence make perfectly clear that he is puzzled that Western civilization should be offensive to left-wing ears.

Analyzing his remarks

Clearly they are not remotely racist, nor do they imply support for racism. Liberals and radicals themselves hurl with abandon the terms ‘white nationalist’ and ‘white supremacist’ at people like Steve King whose views they disagree with. These insulting terms obviously do not offend them. The people they accuse of white nationalism and white supremacy do. During the interview King was talking about our language-constricting PC environment, mentioning white nationalists and supremacists and then in midsentence pivoted to another thought: the condemnation of Western civilization by the PC crowd.

Lefty guilt by association

Ignoring his explanation and suppressing the full quotation, his critics jumped at the opportunity to claim ‘without evidence’ that he was really defending white supremacy and so is proven to be the racist they have claimed all along on the basis of his views on illegal migration. In today’s upside-down PC world, if a white man says anything remotely about white privilege except to confess his guilt and seek absolution, despite logic, grammar, and commonsense, the mob will come after him. And mobs do not much care about real guilt.

Republicans quake with fear at unfounded accusations of racism

That Democrats and the media set upon King is not surprising. But that no one on the other side stood up to ask the mob to cool down and consider the evidence carefully is shameful. No one had the courage to suggest giving him the benefit of the doubt. Even if what he said could be contorted to imply approval of some aspect of white nationalism, is there no one brave enough to believe his explanation and confront the mob? Or even to report it fully and accurately? The take-no-prisoners PC mob is implacably intolerant and will accept nothing less than capital punishment for malefactors, their Stalinist total elimination from public life and expunction from history. All this is beyond shameful.

The whisper campaign against Republicans

Democrats keep winning elections they should lose through reliance on the whispers that Republicans all suffer from racial bias, concealed to win elections. Democrats, this narrative goes, are exempt from this racist leprosy. Logic and verisimilitude are routinely ignored without challenge. We desperately need forceful pushback and leadership from prominent conservatives against this racial juggernaut. Without it  our culture will be more and more ensnared in loss of freedom of expression, enforced with Red-Guardlike intensity built on delusions like diversity.

Troglo (L. H. Kevil)      Troglo

Commentary from Canada, where PC speech suppression is more engrained than here: https://tinyurl.com/ycqfzdtg

In the US there is very little protest against the PC mob. One example is here: https://tinyurl.com/y7ccuqxa

 

Advertisements

The Appeal of Donald J. Trump: perception and reality

For much of the twentieth century the Left has placed a linguistic noose around the neck of the Right. Certain words having gained totemic power are never uttered. Other words, like ‘discrimination’ or ‘phobia ’ are distorted beyond their true meaning to support accusations of bigotry or racism. To be so accused is to be judged, convicted, and sentenced on the spot. Recently the noose has tightened so that many conservative points of view dare not be uttered else debate on the merits be forcibly shut down. In parallel there has been a marked increase in totalitarian government power: same-sex marriage mandated by the Supreme Court; the persecution of photographers for declining to participate in homosexual nuptials; women in combat roles; forcing schools to permit ‘trans’ boys to shower with girls athletic teams; possible Federal prosecution of the ‘deniers’ of climate-change orthodoxy.

In short the space in which ordinary Americans can speak and act has so shrunk that a powerful reaction has arisen. Conservative voices have self-censored; there has been no significant fighting back. Into this space Trump has stepped. His tough talk is needed to puncture lefty illusions. Regarding the Mexican border or trade treaties, his promises are seen as preserving the integrity of our traditional American culture and economy. His revolt is against all elites, not just the Republican party establishment. Trump is seen by his supporters as a positive, conservative force for restoring health to our sick, confused, feminized society. The more Big Media seeks to brand him as a brown-shirted neoNazi and inspires violent protests, the more his supporters see the need for a thorough cleansing of our Augean stables.    Continue reading

High-school boy has “right” to shower with girls

Updated 4th November here.

The madness of creating ‘rights’ to satisfy the whims and claims of privilege of every self-proclaimed aggrieved minority group or psychologically disordered individual has led, per the New York Times, to an attack on sex-specific showers in our high schools.

Thus a high-school boy claiming transgender status has been accorded the pronoun ‘she’ and the right to play on the girls athletic teams. The suburban Chicago school district, mindful of Federal might, has given him a separate section in the locker room in which to shower. The Feds, however, find this discriminatory because he does not have the choice to shower naked with the girls. Clearly government bureaucracy crushes any sense of humor as this position – the dream of every high-school boy – does not pass any normal kind of test, smell or otherwise. In the Alice-in-Wonderland upside-down world of government, where the common-sense meaning of words is changed at will and we are expected to follow, most of us have no rights, except the right to surrender to the latest outrageous demand of radicals encouraged by their recent legal victories over traditional values and our American sense of decency. The diseased tail will continue to wag the still healthy dog until our governments at all levels are thoroughly disinfected and reformed.   Troglo

Troglo

Linguistic fascism: the pronoun ‘he’

George Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language” is probably the best known of many essays and books showing how language is manipulated for political purposes. One might be tempted to think that the terms we use are of little importance, just a question of semantics. But the forces for political change know that they cannot rely just on politics. They need to attack the social norms and institutions that bind our society and culture together, for it is they that impede radical political change. Our culture reflects our concepts and our concepts reflect our language. Subversion of language is thus an easy way to begin the process of deforming our culture in preparation for political change. Since the family is the most important glue holding together our culture, the linguistic fascists attack it, starting with our notions of what is feminine and what masculine. For example, the traditional use of the pronoun ‘he’ to refer to a person of unknown sex was the first to go, supplanted by the ugly ‘he or she’ and more recently the uglier ‘they’ to refer to a singular antecedent. The use of ‘he’ in this context was considered a ‘sexist’ and offensive relic of ‘patriarchy.’ Or consider the sudden and imperceptible slide away from the term ‘homosexual’ to the term ‘gay,’ which projects a more positive image.

This weekend’s Wall Street Journal ran an article by Ben Zimmer, Can We Take ‘They’ as a Singular Pronoun? Mr. Zimmer, seeming to answer in the affirmative, ventures to say this:

Lately, transgender issues have been driving the call for a more inclusive pronoun. The singular ‘they’ avoids having to assign a static role to someone transitioning from one gender to another. And many who identify as transgender or ‘gender-fluid’ would prefer the use of the pronoun ‘they’ rather than ‘he’ or ‘she.’

The willful confusion between sex (biological) and gender (grammatical) has been a potent progressive tool. It is not a secret that marriage is between a man and a woman and there are manly and feminine roles. Is to say this bigotry? Consider the present social disintegration. Much of it is fueled by the number of never married single mothers, whose sons have no father figure and statistically can look forward a life of poverty and probability of incarceration, generating the next generation of fatherless children. If for fear of giving ‘offense’ our families and schools do not teach the values followed by real men with respect to women, along with citizenship and patriotism, this depressing cycle will repeat itself, worsening with each new generation. Our society’s values are too important to be scuttled by rampant individualism and its antinomian celebration of made-up virtues. Proscribing sex-based pronouns is an important step in the radical agenda. Let’s refuse to be cowed; our singular personal pronoun of choice should be ’he,’ not ‘they.’ And let’s reclaim the term ‘gay’ by not confusing it with ‘homosexual.’  Troglo

Troglo