Archive for the ‘ABC’s & Cultural Context’ Category

THE JEWISH QUESTION

Monday, February 9th, 2015

NOTE (09MAR2015): On 03MAR2015, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu addressed both houses of the U.S. Congress. Six Jewish Democrats boycotted the talk in a display of defiance and a show of support for the disparaging Obama. Another example of the suicidal behavior of Jews of The Left or simply a cunning, political move to signal that not all Jews of The Left are agents of Israel? Whatever the case, what will be the consequences if Obama signs “a very bad” treaty with Iran?

NOTE (23FEB2015): Today in The Wall Street Journal, a comment accused those in charge of the Federal Reserve Bank, from Greenspan through Yellen, of being “criminals”. Those named all are Jewish.

NOTE (09FEB2015): In this age of increasing censorship in the United States of America and elsewhere, raising critically even legitimate issues involving race other than Caucasian, religion other than Christian, ethnicity other than European, or sex other than normal male and female is to risk harsh condemnation by many of the powers that have come to be. In some Western nations, raising critically such issues has become a civil, if not a criminal, offense. These issues, nevertheless, deserve candid discussion. Accordingly, the following:

“The Hebrews have done more to civilize men than any other nation. If I were an atheist, and believed blind eternal fate, I should still believe that fate had ordained the Jews to be the most essential instrument for civilizing the nations.” -President John Adams (1725-1836)

PART ONE: PROLOGUE

The following fictional anecdote represents an actual event:

The group of young and middle-aged men numbered half a dozen. Congregating around the bar in a nearly empty, dingy tavern, they solemnly watched the Sun set through the darkened front-window.

All belonged to that which might be called “the dispossessed majority” — that demographic category of Christian Euro-Caucasians who subscribe to traditional American ideals and values and who had allowed their once-foremost position in society to be subverted by minorities including illegal aliens.

The older men once had held well-paying jobs. No longer. They foresaw a bleak future for themselves — a future with little hope to regain that which they had lost.

The younger still were seeking their first well-paying job albeit with limited success. They, too, foresaw an unpromising future for themselves — a future blocked by an increasingly official doctrine of equality of outcome instead of equality of opportunity.

Chris in his twenties, a strikingly handsome man with blue-grey eyes and blond hair trimmed short, began lamenting, “No luck today, guys. Another rejection. I’m thinking of changing my name to Trayvona al-Faqua and marking ‘female’ and ‘black’ when I apply for a job.”

Silence.

“You know, I don’t think my generation gets it. Most of us act like we haven’t a clue what’s happened to America . . . to us. We’ve been brainwashed in school by teachers from The Left . . . indoctrination not education. Then, brainwashed through television and the movies controlled by anti-American fat-cats of the same ilk.”

Silence.

“We’re glued to electronic devices sending meaningless messages to one another . . . devices that their inventor, Steve Jobs, wouldn’t let his own kids use. We’re twits tweeting on Twitter. We aren’t thinking for ourselves. Someone else is thinking for us. Who?”

“Stop complaining! At least, you’ve got a job!” The jibe reflected the late-middle-aged Matt’s bitter sarcasm.

“You’re right! Actually, I’ve got three jobs, all part-time . . . one, bussing tables . . . two, washing cars . . . three, bartending. I pay my parents rent to live in the same room I had as a kid. That’s how I feel  . . . like a kid . . . a brainwashed kid.”

“So?”

“So, I’ve an advanced degree in business-administration. I’m on so many waiting lists if I added up the cumulative time I’ve been waiting then added it to my age, I’d be more than one hundred. I know for a fact that many of those jobs have been filled by one particular minority most of which is less qualified.”

The early middle-aged Fritz interjected, “Hey, it’s the New America, kid. Get used to it.”

Chris shook his head. “How did this happen? Who did this to us?”

“It’s the Jewish!” The angry voice came from an elderly man sitting alone in almost darkness towards the rear of the tavern.

At that moment, a morbidly obese man in his thirties, unknown to the group, entered. His informal dress was slovenly.  Spectacles with thick lenses distorted his eyes. He slowly seated himself at the table nearest to the group, apparently interested in joining this group to which he did not belong.

Matt whispered to Fritz, “Jew!”

“How do you know?”

“He runs a finance-company downtown. I know. After I got laid off from the factory, I had to borrow money from him to meet the mortgage till my wife got her first paycheck. I’m still paying on the loan.”

“Your wife’s working now? I thought she was sick.”

“She was. I finally got her to a good doctor. He got her better. Now, she’s the one who works. I can’t find a decent job; so what do I do? I take care of the kids, clean the house, and cook the meals while she brings home the bacon, lean as it is. I feel like a steer . . . horned but castrated.”

“What work is your wife doing?”

“Hostess in that new coffee-shop. Poor pay. Long hours.”

“I’m sorry, Matt. I know how you feel. So, who’s this good doctor you mentioned?”

“Why?”

“My old one, Dr. Goldstein, retired — got fed up, I guess. My new one just got off the boat from Nigeria or somewhere — knows little English and less medicine. Anyway, I hardly see him. I really see Dr. Nurse instead of Dr. Doctor. With him, maybe I’m better off. Who knows?”

“My doc’s name is Horowitz. I’ll tell you. He spent a lot of time with Irene. Did a great job.”

“Thank God. Anyway, you sound angry about the loan.”

“Angry at the Jew? You bet I am. Shylocks one and all, Fritz, believe me. They think they’re smarter than the rest of us. They’re not. They’re just more cunning.”

“One and all? What’s Dr. Horowitz’s first name?”

“Uh, it’s weird. I think it’s Shmuel. Yeah, Shmuel Horowitz.”

“It sounds Jewish.”

“So?”

“So you owe your wife’s life to a Jewish physician. Maybe, all Jews aren’t Shylocks. Besides, you went to the Shylock. He didn’t come to you.”

“True. All right, some of them may be okay. I’ll admit it, but the majority? No way! You disagree?”

“I’m not sure.”

From the rear, the same, angry voice bellowed, “It’s the Jewish!” Then came a tirade about Jews controlling the economy, the law, education, and the media. “Jews run the country . . . our country!”

When he finished, others began to mutter similar thoughts. The muttering stopped being muttering. The conversation was becoming heated. The group, all but one, seemed to agree that, even where Christians seem to be in control such as the U.S. Congress, Jews really are in control behind the scenes — everyone agreed but Chris, that is.

“It’s the Jewish!” the old man bellowed again.

Finally, the newcomer interjected. Looking at the  customer towards the rear, he almost whispered, “What . . .  what you’re saying sounds anti-Semitic.”

Silence.

Then, from the rear, the old man responded, sounding a bit defensive, “Hey, I’m not anti-Semitic. I’m just saying what I think is.”

“Yes,” said the newcomer, “but what you think is sounds anti-Semitic.”

Silence.

Then, Chris, spoke to the newcomer. “I think you’re being unjust to the fellow in the rear. You’re not addressing his argument, you’re just attacking him.”

“Well, his argument . . . it sounds anti-Semitic.”

“What’s wrong with anti-Semitism?”

Silence.

Everyone awaited the newcomer’s answer. No response.

Silence.

Finally, the obese man with spectacles placed both pudgy hands onto the tabletop. With obvious effort, he lifted himself to his clearly swollen feet, grunted, turned, then waddled out the door.

PART TWO: THE REPUBLIC

Assuming that the Chinese be correct that the United States of America is a “nation in terminal decline”, what will be the fate of Jews therein? Is it not a question that all American Jews should be asking themselves continually?

Consequences follow behavior as thunder follows lightening. How will the past and current actions of American Jews affect their future fate? How will the past and current actions of American Jews affect the future fate of the nation?

According to Scripture, that which is true is that God asked the ancient Hebrews in Egypt to fulfill 613 obligations while the rest of the world need fulfill only ten. A bad bargain for the Hebrews? The Hebrews seemed to think so. They have been trying to renege on the deal from the start. Witness the golden calf.

Good deal or bad, if God chose the Hebrews for anything, it was to suffer under the weight of these hundreds of obligations; all of which together, at any given time are impossible to fulfill. Whatever His reason, it was a justice imposed by God Himself.

Whatever justice God may have chosen for the ancient Hebrews, today many modern Jews of The Left, some self-proclaimed evangelical atheists, have chosen to impose their own brand of “social justice” onto everyone else. The exact nature of that “social justice” remains a bit amorphous and fluid but consistently smacks of quasi-Marxism.

Like it or not, the truth is that the United States of America, was founded by Euro-Caucasians for Euro-Caucasians — founded as a Christian republic under a written constitution derived from English law and custom. Like it or not, the truth is that the United States of America was not founded by Euro-Caucasians for Negroes, Mongolians, and Mohammedans, nor was it founded as a Judaic democracy under laws derived from the Talmud.

An increasingly dispossessed and decreasingly numerical majority has allowed the character of the nation to continue to be altered radically by minorities — loudly by Mexicans and Negroes; softly by Mohammedans; overtly and covertly by Jews of The Left. Whether the change will benefit the nation or even those who led the change remains to be determined.  Thus far, the consequences seem ominous.

PART THREE: TWO JEWISH PERSONALITIES

“Mr. Deasy asked Stephen Dedalus if he knew that Ireland is the only country never to persecute Jews. ‘And do you know why? Because she never let them in.’” -From Ulysses by James Joyce

George Soros

“A few Jews add strength and character to a country. Too many create chaos, and we’re getting too many.” -Charles Lindbergh (1902-1974)

A Hungarian-born Jew, George Soros, has created a $3 billion war-chest for promoting his idiosyncratic view of the “social justice” of The Left. Recently, for example, he supplied $33 million to finance the racial riots in Ferguson, Missouri and derivative protests elsewhere. Previously in his book, this self-invited immigrant compared President George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler, ignoring the obvious fact that President Bush would do little, at most, to impede Mr. Soros from making such an allegation; whereas, Chancellor Hitler would have had him executed.

So, who is George Soros? What of substance did Mr. Soros ever create? What of substance did he ever produce? That which we know he did do was to trade currencies in a zero-sum game and, by doing so, accumulate a fortune. Now, he uses some of that fortune to create dissension, if not outright chaos, amidst the nation that allowed him in. What would Charles Lindbergh say?

To what extent does Mr. Soros confirm the viewpoint expressed by Mr. Lindbergh and of anti-Semites, in general? To what extent do other Jews of The Left confirm that viewpoint? To what extent is Mr. Soros sealing an ominous fate for American Jews of The Right as well as of The Left?

“Not to worry,” an observer might say. “Polls indicate only 20% of Americans hold an anti-Semitic viewpoint.”

Not to worry? In 1933, Hitler and his Nazis came to power wining only 44% of the vote. With Jews such as Mr. Soros provoking attention, might not a little worry be in order?

Jonathan Gruber

“Pride goeth before destruction/And a haughty spirit before a fall.” -Proverbs 16:18

Next, consider the American-born Jew, Jonathan Gruber. Mr. Gruber proudly touted his intentionally having deceived the American people in order to pass into law the controversial “ObamaCare”. In doing so, he referred to his chief weapon as Americans’ alleged “stupidity”.

When his deceitful behavior became public, he apologized. Some doubted his sincerity, believing instead that he was feeling sorry not for that which he did but for being publicized for that which he did.

To what extent did Mr. Gruber’s apology ameliorate the injury that he had inflicted upon all his fellow Jews and, worse, upon the nation, as a whole. The injury to all Jews, including Jews of the Right, is reflected vividly on current anti-Semitic websites, none of which discriminate between Jews of The Left and Jews of The Right. The following is a quote from one such site:

“‘I would never Jew over a silly goyim (sic) – unless it was for the shekels.’ -Jonathan Gruber”

Might not all Jews worldwide do well to visit some of these anti-Semitic websites in order to begin to know their enemies rather than to avoid these sites; excoriating them while wallowing in self-imposed, self-righteous ignorance? How many Jews, for instance, have read Hitler’s still-popular Mein Kampf in order to understand the thinking of the worst enemy ever to persecute Jews? Few. What would Sun Tsu say about self-imposed ignorance of the enemy?

PART FOUR: INTENTIONS VERSUS CONSEQUENCES

The Flame

The United States of America has become a nation on fire. One of the flames is the flame of anti-Semitism. Should it burn out of control, the question is to where will Jews escape?

Jews en mass already have been driven from Mohammedan lands where they had made their homes for centuries. Now, they are being driven from previously Christian lands in Western Europe. Witness the Jews in France. Could Jews in this nation be next?

“Hell is full of good intentions or desires.” -Saint Bernard of Clairvaux (1091-1153)

To what extent are the Jews of The Left, such as Messrs. Soros and Gruber, fueling that hate-filled flame, giving blind bias the imprimatur of righteous indignation? Even be they well intentioned, what will be the consequences of their provocative, if not incendiary, divisive actions?

As have members of every other ethnic group, more than a few American Jews have committed shameful acts adverse to the welfare of the nation as a whole — the nation that has been so good to them. One example? Disproportionate, Jewish participation in the Communist Party USA; after World War II, fully 40-50% of its membership was Jewish.

Conversely, other Jews have engaged in acts too numerous to count that have benefitted this nation and the rest of the world. One example? The Sabin-vaccine for polio. Ironically, were it not for Jews, many of those posting anti-Semitic sentiments today likely would not be alive today to do so.

Science says, “Animals attend preferentially to unfavorable events over favorable ones.” Doing so is adaptive in a state of nature. Miss a prey but survive to eat another day. Miss a predator and become its meal of the day.

Accordingly, people tend to remember the unfavorable more than the favorable. They remember the smearing accusations but not the cleansing exonerations. Should Jews expect this basic fact of Nature to be repealed for them?

One may argue that it is unfair to judge an individual by his group or a group by an individual. Maybe so, but it doesn’t stop people from doing it. So, it may be with Jews.

PART FIVE: THE ECONOMY

“Mavens” of Money

Greenspan. Bernanke. Yellen. Fischer. Lew. Not exactly Nordic names.

Having controlled the American monetary system for the past generation, Jews may have been playing with a fire over which some day they may lose control. While some Jewish-oriented websites today may be crowing about the positions of power occupied by their people, in the future they may be eating crow should the economy implode into a depression, as well it might.

Should such an implosion occur, it will be the consequence more of the fiscal actions of power-hungry politicians in the Capitol and recent occupants of the White House, almost none of whom are Jewish, than of monetary actions of members of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB) and its member-banks. Should someone bother to look, the new Congress contains only a single, Republican member among the twenty-seven Jews. Even so, who is more visible, members of Congress or members of the FRB?

Will it not be the Jewish members of the FRB who will be remembered as the self-promoting “mavens” of money? Recall that, at one point as Chairman of the FRB, Alan Greenspan allowed himself to be billed as “the maestro”.

Should an economic implosion occur, these Jewish ideologues of The Left can proclaim, “We’re innocent! It was the politicians.”. Who among an enraged mob will be listening?

Who will remember that the economist, Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973), was a classical liberal in the mold of President Thomas Jefferson not a neo-liberal in the mold of President Woodrow Wilson and was Jewish? Who will remember that the Nobel Prize-winning economist, Milton Friedman, was a monetarist who advocated the abolishment of the FRB and was Jewish? Will an enraged mob remember these Jewish men and others such as they, or will its members remember only the “mavens” of money?

PART SIX: THE LAW

Left of the Law

Speaking of a disproportionate number of Jews among its membership, the U.S. Supreme Court can claim the same distinction. Today, there is not one male, Protestant, Euro-Caucasian sitting as a Justice on this most powerful court in the land and the world. No “WASP”-males, but three Jews among its nine members — all Jews of The Left with one of them a reputed lesbian.

All three promote the viewpoint that the U.S. Constitution is a “living document” created to be changed at the arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious whims of this tiny group of non-elected lawyers whose predecessors, long ago, awarded to themselves the power of judicial review. Unelected lawyer-judges have usurped the power to remold this nation economically, politically, sociologically, and theologically based upon sociology, the will of the people notwithstanding. Given their disproportionate membership among this questionable crowd of judicial aristocrats, might not Jews of The Left become the focus of an outrage that, despite their propensity for lengthy and intricate if not always elegant verbosity, may leave them speechless?

“95% of lawyers give the other 5% a bad name.” -Traditional Saying

As for training the future practitioners of lawyerism, between 25-50% of the faculties at the most highly regarded law-schools are Jewish. It is estimated that 40% of American lawyers are Jewish. Many Americans justifiably regard most lawyers as parasites upon society, draining its vital fluids while desecrating its once-beautiful body. Will an enraged mob ignore the prominence of Jewish membership in this not-so-learned, self-inflated occupation.

PART SEVEN: ANTIPATHY AND ISRAEL

Hebrews Unwelcome!

Jews worldwide, of whom there are relatively few, should never forget that, for centuries, Hebrews have been widely unwelcome. If Hitler and his Nazis proved nothing else, they proved that Hebrews, by and large, are an unwelcome lot who elicit not sympathy but rejection or worse. Recall the voyage of the damned.

To be unwelcome in hotels, clubs, employment, and residential communities is one thing — not necessarily all bad. To be beaten, robbed, or murdered is another.

Whatever the causes for this age-old antipathy, Jews should not fool themselves that, with Hitler’s defeat and death, they triumphed over their anti-Semitic enemies. Quite the opposite. Again, ask the Jews in France. Ask the Jews in Sweden.

“Put two Jews into a room, and you’ll get three opinions.” -Traditional Saying

Jews’ last, best hope may become little Israel, a supposedly Jewish state that can’t decide whether it should be a Jewish state — a consequence of the behavior of Israeli Jews of The Left. Paradoxically, many Jews of The Left in the USA who, in fits of self-loathing, join anti-Israeli demonstrations with anti-Semites who hate them. Are they not self-destructive traitors to their own kind and to themselves?

For purposes of propaganda, since the end of World War II, Jews endlessly have been kindling and rekindling memories of the atrocities of the Nazis. Is their gambit now beginning to have a counter-productive effect? After all, those events, horrific as they were, occurred two generations ago. Do young people care?

No, the hope of Jews everywhere lies not in playing the getting-tiresome guilt-game but in generating real respect for current and future, real achievements that benefit this nation and the rest of the world as well. There have been many such achievements already, and, should Jews and Israel survive, there will be many more.

PART EIGHT: BEST AND WORST

Consequences

“I the Lord search the heart,
I try the reins,
Even to give every man according to his ways,
According to the fruit of his doings.” -Jeremiah 17:10

Jews are among the very best of the best. Consider behaviors and its consequences of such Jews as Einstein in physics and of Oppenheimer without whom perhaps a million American men and millions of Japanese would have died had the United States invaded Imperial Japan in 1945.  Of Berlin, Gershwin, and Kern from whom melodic tunes have brought joy to generations of Americans and others. Of Wasserman from whom came the first diagnostic test for the scourge of syphilis and of Sabin from whom came the safe and effective vaccine that has saved tens of millions from the morbidity and mortality of polio. No other ethnic group can come close to claiming the disproportionate number of achievements of its members — so many by so few.

Jews are not among the very worst of the worst. Given the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, others can claim that dishonor.

Yet, consider behavior and its consequences of Jews such as Rosa Luxemberg (1871-1919), who fomented revolution in Germany during the Great War and founded the Germanic Communist Party, the consequences of which led to the murder of millions of Jews and others. Of Jews such as Leon Trotsky (aka/Lev Davidovich Bronshtein; 1879-1940), the military genius who won the Bolshevik revolution for Lenin, the consequences of which were the deaths and enslavement of tens of millions.

As always, ultimately, consequences will answer the Jewish Question. Will the burden of ameliorating the consequences inflicted on this nation by the Soroses and the Grubers be relieved by Jews of The Left — those Jews who continue to pursue their own, idiosyncratic, consonant brands of “social justice”? Can only the Jews of The Right — Jews who support the U.S. Constitution as written* and who promote traditional, American ideals and values — hope to accomplish the task? If so, are these Jews of The Right doing enough to promote their cause? What are they doing, for example, to enlist Christian support for their efforts? How does the visibility of organizations representing Jews of The Right compare to that of the more numerous, better-funded, better-organized organizations of Jews of The Left?

Behavior has its consequences. It will be consequences — not apologies nor excuses — that will answer the Jewish Question. Hopefully, the answers will be just and merciful. If history is the guide, they well may be the opposite.

Note

*God did not write the Constitution of the United States of America. Men did.

Unlike God, men are fallible. Consequently, that otherwise-wonderful document as it now exists contains defects — defects that may be proving fatal to the nation the foundation of which it forms. Accordingly, some revisions are required to repair the inevitable and unavoidable defects — repairs in keeping with traditional American ideals and values and based upon empirical science not idiosyncratic ideologies (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

-End-

CENSORSHIP HARD & SOFT

Monday, February 2nd, 2015

“You neglected to mention that, for 20 years, Obama and his wife, both with documented Marxist backgrounds, listen to their Negroid pastor scream, ‘God d*mn America!’”

Should this comment have been censored by a member of Big Media? Should its author forever have been banned?

censor: (noun) an official who examines material that is to be published and suppresses parts considered offensive or a threat to security; (verb) to suppress or remove unacceptable parts of a book, film, etc. –Oxford University Dictionary

“He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.” – George Orwell (1903-1950)

Censorship comes in two, basic forms — hard and soft. Different in form, their consequences are similar.

Hard occurs when it is a government that officially bans free speech and prosecutes those who violate that ban. Such was the case in Nazified Germany and the erstwhile Soviet Union.

Soft occurs when it is public-oriented but private entities, such as Big Media, that explicitly or implicitly conspire to suppress free speech. Such is the case today in many Western countries including the United States of America; witness, for example, the persecuting context characterizing Big Academia.

In 2012, the censors at Reuters banned us for posting a comment that they found disagreeable or offensive even though it contained no profanity, no obscenity, no personal insult, no call to violence, nor any criticism of anyone not in the public light. Reuters furnished no reason. http://nationonfire.com/category/uncategorized/page/3/

Subsequently, the censors at Red State (a conservative, Republican-oriented website) banned us for posting a comment or comments that they found disagreeable or offensive even though none contained profanity, obscenity, personal insult, call to violence, or any criticism of anyone not in the public light. As had Reuters, Red State gave no reason, nor were we able to uncover one from the website.

Then, late last year Financial Times banned us. Below is the admittedly somewhat-jumbled correspondence with FT (personal identities and case number redacted). Judge for yourself the following:

From Financial Times (10/17/2014):
We have removed an offensive comment that you posted on our site.

Such contributions are not welcome on ft.com and breach our commenting rules.

We have banned you from commenting as a result. From now on, only you will be able to see the comments that you post.

Yours,
FT.com

To Financial Times (10/20/2014):
Subject: Banned

I received an e-mail advising me that I have been banned by FT from making comments that can be read by other viewers; however, I may make comments that can be read only by me. I hereby request that you confirm the veracity of said e-mail. If it is valid, I hereby request that you
send me a copy of the comment(s) that were deemed to be offensive and to explain in what way you found them offensive.

From Financial Times (10/20/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…63. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (10/22/2014):
Thank you for contacting Financial Times Customer Service.

We apologise as we do not have the information on our end but we have raised you query to our Editorial Team. We’ll send you feedback as soon as we get updates from the Editorial Department.

In the meantime, should you have any questions or require further assistance, then please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,
Financial Times Customer Service – FT.com

 From Financial Times (10/22/2014):
Thank you for contacting Financial Times Customer Service.

We apologise for the inconvenience that this may have caused you.

Every FT.com subscription is bounded (sic) by our terms and condition. We have received a copy of the deleted comment the (sic) you requested from our Editorial Team. Please see attached file.

[FT Attached File With “Offensive” Verbiage as follows:
@LMB You neglected to mention that, for 20 years, Obama and his wife, both with documented Marxist backgrounds, listen to their Negroid pastor scream, “God d*mn (asterisk used by us as is commonly done in quoting profanity) America!”]

Flagged as strong profanity by SAFE
Moved to trash by … , FT

To Financial Times (10/23/2014):
Subject: Re: Case … Comments Query

Sir,
Firstly, did I write anything that was untrue, profane, obscene, or defaming of a private individual?

Secondly, you misuse the term, discrimination,* as do many. Without the capacity to discriminate, (e.g., food from poison; friend from foe) all animal life on Earth quickly would perish. I believe that you mean “denigrate” or “demean”.

Thirdly, do you regard Negro, the correct noun (Negroid being the correct adjective) biologically/medically, as being denigrating or demeaning? Until recently, the term, black, was regarded by those to whom it refers as an insult, their preferring either Negro or colored  (e.g., The United Negro College Fund and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People). You seem to be tripping over your own editorial policy.

Fourthly, am I still banned from commenting publicly?

(*Note: Term used in “Terms and conditions” published by FT.)

From Financial Times (10/24/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…36. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (10/30/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…25. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (10/31/2014):
Thank you for your response.

We apologise for the delay of our response as we have already forwarded your concern to our Editorial Team and we’re waiting for their response/explanation as to why your comments were deleted. As of the moment we do not have the answer if your username is still banned from commenting publicly in FT.com. We will send you feedback as soon as we get updates from the Editorial team.

We understand that this is important to you and we appreciate your patience on this one.

In the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact us again should you have additional queries.

Kind regards,
Financial Times Customer Service – FT.com

From Financial Times (11/07/2014):
Thank you for contacting the Financial Times Customer Service team.

We acknowledge receipt of your email and have opened a case for you with case number 0…18. Please use this case number when communicating with us.

We will attempt to respond to your query within 24 hours.

For help with common queries, please visit our Help pages at help.ft.com

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

From Financial Times (11/13/2014)*:
Thank you for your time earlier. We will process your cancellation as requested.

We have scheduled cancellation of your subscription upon the end of your current term of 18 December 2014.

You will still be able to use your log in details to access registration-only tools and features but will no longer have unlimited access to FT.com articles.

I trust that we have resolved your query and will now be closing this case.

If you would like to discuss renewal options that may be available to you, then please do let us know and a member of our Customer Service Team will be happy to go through these with you.

Should you require further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,
Financial Times Customer Service – FT

*After telephonic conversation cancelling our subscription.

From Financial Times (11/13/2014):
We would like to invite you to participate in a short survey to tell us about your recent contact with our Customer Service team. Your feedback is important to us.

 To take part in the survey, please click on the link below:
http://www. … .

 Kind regards
FT Customer Service

Discussion
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” -Edmund Burke (1729-1787)

Sadly — nay, frighteningly — an evil fog of soft tyranny is enveloping the United States of America. It is an oppressive mixture of political, economic, and sociological toxins. Censorship by Big Media represents but one example.

As to the particulars, admittedly Red State is a website of opinion — conservatively-oriented if not fully Republican. Its censorship raises questions. Does it banning us without stated reason represent the point of view of conservatives or Republicans as a political party? Are these folks surreptitiously in favor of suppressing speech that they regard as disagreeable or offensive even be it true, correct, and relevant? If so, what does such censorship say to those Americans who regard themselves as conservatives and/or Republicans or to those who merely vote Republican?

Financial Times and Reuters, however, do not present themselves as merely organs of opinion but of facts offered as “news”. FT even posts its banner as “Without Fear Or Favour”.

“Because I make you feel bad doesn’t make you right.” -Current Saying

Of note, after all the correspondence from FT, we never received a reply regarding the status of the ban. We understand that it remains in effect. Moreover, why would anyone want to post a comment that only he could read, pursuant to the offered restriction by FT?

To whom was the single sentence in question so “offensive”? What made it so offensive? Was the posting untrue? Was the posting so “offensive” that its author should be banned from FT for life instead of merely deleting the posted comment?

These two organs of Big Media promote themselves as conduits of “news”. They ban requested comments that they find disagreeable or offensive even be they true, correct, and relevant — comments without profanity, obscenity, personal insult, or calls to violence; comments with criticism of only public figures; comments factually true and correct. How does that censorship reflect upon their reporting? Are they to be trusted to report “news” truthfully and totally without fear or favor?

“Fire!”

In the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Founding Fathers protected freedom of speech — primarily political speech. A question arises therefrom. Is any sort of censorship of any sort of speech by any entity, public or private, ever justified? Should anyone be allowed to say any thing at any time no matter what the consequences; for example, intentionally and falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater? The U.S. Supreme Court rightly has ruled no.

Censorship, however, is to a society similar to that which seasoning is to a stew. In small amount, an asset and legitimate protection. Beyond a small amount, a liability and illegitimate oppression.

Clearly, being private entities, FT and Reuters have the right to ban whomever and censor whatever they wish and appear to be doing so albeit in a manner that appears more than slightly arbitrary, whimsical, and capricious. Conversely, those who avail themselves of their censored offerings have the right to judge for themselves whether these organizations are exceeding the bounds of censorship appropriate and reasonable; and they, too, have a right — perhaps, a duty to humanity, their nation, and themselves — to act accordingly.

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” -Traditional Saying

Let us not forget “B =f(x) under c”. Behavior has its consequences in a given context (www.inescapableconsequences.com). Let us not forget that the consequence of a behavioral deficit in vigilance and acting therefrom is tyranny.

DIVERSITY

Monday, December 8th, 2014

“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” -George Orwell (1903-1950)

Diversity is the enemy of community. Diversity connotes divisiveness. Community denotes commonality.

The consequences of reöpening the floodgates to immigration has been the racial, ethnic, and religious diversity desired by some.* The stated assumption was that such diversity would benefit America. The unstated assumption was that it would benefit the Democratic Party.

It has benefitted the Democratic Party. Has it benefitted America? Today, is America a better nation, all around, with an added tens of millions of non-Euro-Caucasians, many of whom are non-Christians, than it was fifty years ago?

The four, secular cornerstones of any society are government, law, education, and medicine. Beginning in 1963 with the ascendency to the presidency of Lyndon Baines Johnson (1908-1973), the four cornerstones supporting that which once were traditional American ideals and values have been crumbling while the foundation upon which they rest has been liquefied into a cesspool of debt, defeat, and degradation.

To what extent has diversity added or subtracted from the well-being of the Republic? One benefit is certain . . . more choice in cuisine.

“The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” -Traditional Proverb

If the proof of the pudding is in the eating, thus far, the eating has been more than a bit unappetizing. The Chinese, for example, now characterize the USA as “a nation in terminal decline”. In 1965, did any nation view the USA as such? What transpired during the interim?

A dramatic, profound change . . . a change in context, primarily racial and ethnic. The descendants of the Euro-Caucasians who founded the Republic, operating in a context of satiation immediately following World War II, allowed themselves to become dispossessed. Willingly, they allowed themselves to be blinded by the quasi-Marxists in Big Education and Big Media bleating incessantly that any defense by the dispossessed of their biological, economic, political, and sociological birthrights constituted a rejection of “humanitarianism” and “social justice” . . . terms that rightly have become obscenities. The dispossessed, nevertheless, accepted unquestioningly the quasi-Marxists’ false accusations levelled at them and their forebears, accepted the quasi-Marxists’ phony praise of grossly inferior groups as being equal if not superior, and accepted an unjustified guilt that the quasi-Marxists’ demanded they feel and for which they supposedly should atone.

Under the reign of economic and social terror unleashed by the quasi-Marxists, that which might be termed Radical Maternalism has infected the very soul of America. Collectivism has replaced individualism. Victimhood, personal responsibility. Vulnerability, self-improvement. Ethnic guilt, national pride. Entitlement, charity. Indecency, decency. Perversion, propriety. Universal deceit, documented facts and proven truths.

The list could continue. Far-sighted quasi-Marxists, paradoxically in alliance with short-sighted Big Business, convinced many of those whom they planned to dispossess that America should be the one and only, lopsided Big Teat that provides succor to the rest of the world via Big Government. Consequences? Debt, defeat, and degradation . . . ultimately leading to an indescribable, future despair.

For decades, this quasi-Marxist ilk has been leading America down the path to Perdition. Can this nation under attack and now on fire change course and follow the road to Redemption? Possibly.

The Who

“Put not your trust in princes,
Nor is the son of man, in whom there is no help.” -Psalms 146:3

With recent Republican victories at the polls, the Republicans’ particular brand of professional politicians is presenting a slate of “new faces” ready to campaign for the presidency in 2016. Should Americans trust in any of them?

Hasn’t the goal of the Republicans remained the following: to have assumed and maintained for as long as possible full, political power until relinquishing it to their comrades, the Democrats? Hasn’t such relinquishing become merely a charade of power-sharing? Even before taking office for the next term, the Republicans are continuing their old ways . . . ways that have paved the path to Perdition.

Admittedly, the Democrats have been less deceitful in their own goal . . . to have transformed America into a quasi-Marxist state composed of gangs of diverse minorities battling each other to rob the public treasury while becoming progressively dependent upon Big Government. Seemingly, their goal suffered a temporary setback in the last election. Given that setback, the question arises regarding the extent to which Obama will continue seizing power in order to advance the Democrats’ goal.

Clearly, the remedy for American ills lies not in The Who. Would that we Americans would disavow our love-affair with the notion of one man saving us from all our trials. Wishing doesn’t make it so. Action does.

The What

“Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur. The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived.” -Petronius (1st-century A.D.)

The physician and former-Congressman, Ron Paul, recently gave an interview on Russian television. He spoke truths that few Americans want to hear . . . specifically, that we engage in wars around the globe, ostensibly to defend a democracy that is diminishing here in the USA . . . diminishing at the hands of both Democrats and Republicans.

His critics are accusing him of being a traitor. So, why choose a Russian television to further his case? Why not? What American outlet would carry his message? What European?  The time-honored method of the powers-that-be to thwart the purveyor of truth is initially to ignore him, then to attack his message, then to attack him personally.

The policies to which Dr. Paul rightly referred are based upon deceit. It is a deceit that relies upon the documented fact that people tend to choose pleasant lies that they know to be lies rather than unpleasant truths that they know to be truths.**

Accordingly, every election American politicians continue to blast the electorate with a series of hollow promises that few have any intention of keeping. Every election, the American electorate acts as though they believe this deceit despite the repeated revealing of the contempt with which politicians and bureaucrats, especially the so-called Progressives of The Left, view the public.

These political blowhards, many of whom are lawyers trained in deceit by law-schools and many of whom are simply professional politicians given to deceit by nature and experience, speak in generalities about how they will make a difference and how they will repair that which is broken.

Ask a professional politician, especially a lawyer politician, a simple yes-or-no question. How often will he respond with a simple yes-or-no answer?

The How

When lost, what aid might you seek? A map to guide you as to how to arrive at your destination.

Science can furnish such a map for America . . . that is, biobehavioral science in particular . . . with its three guidelines of specificity, objectivity, and accountability. By following that map, we Americans can reverse course from the path to Perdition to the road to Redemption. The map tells us how.

Unlike ideology or mysticism, the Scientific Method affords us the powers of control and prediction. No, we’ll not be always right, but, when wrong, the Scientific Method allows us to know that we’re wrong and to correct our mistakes not add to them. It’s that which is called negative feedback, similar to a thermostat regulating the temperature in our homes.

Can we believe that professional politicians, especially lawyer-politicians, ever will promote using a map based upon the Scientific Method? Are not its three guidelines as sunlight to vampires?

So what’s the message? Mostly, employ The How; less, follow The What; and least, seek The Who. Place principle before expediency. Trust the guidelines of science not opinions of scientists and certainly not the polemic of ideologues nor the bleating of politicians. Doing so is choosing prosperity over poverty, victory over defeat, civilized order over uncivilized anarchy, liberty over tyranny, and survival over extinction . . . survival not merely of America as a great nation but of the human species itself.

“The light of life is insufficiently bright to overcome the darkness of reality.” -Erich Maria Remarque (1898-1970)

Was Remarque right? By choosing The What and especially The Who over The How, shan’t we be proving how right he was? Fortunately, we have a map based upon documented science not mystical ideology nor avaricious power-seeking (www.inescapableconsequences.com). We can use it, or we can perish.

*In 1965, the late-Senator “Teddy” Kennedy (1932-2009) promised that such legislation would not change the complexion of the country, stating, “Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually.” Prior to 1965, the average number of legal immigrants annually was approximately 300,000. Thirty years later, it was more than one million.

**Hayes, SC, Barnes-Holmes, D, and Roche, B: Relational Frame Theory: A Post-Skinnerian Account of Human Language and Cognition.  New York: Kluwer Academic (2001)

TRUTH & CONSEQUENCES

Monday, August 18th, 2014

protest n.: a solemn declaration of opinion and usually of dissent. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

riot n.: a violent public disorder. –Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary

To the funeral of a Negroid thug who just had engaged in a robbery before engaging in a physical altercation with a policeman in which the thug was shot and killed, Obama sends three “members” of his White House. To how many funerals of Euro-Caucasians killed by Negroid policemen has Obama sent even one “member” of his White House, let alone to the funeral of Euro-Caucasoid policemen killed in the line of duty by Negroes?

To the former, the self-loathing Euro-Caucasians of The Left cheer. To the latter, they would jeer. Their behavior reflects the consequences not of education but of indoctrination.

“Just because I make you feel bad doesn’t make you right.”

With regard to ethnic and racial relations in Canada and the UK, the truth has become no defense. Make someone feel bad about his race or ethnicity? Go to prison. The truth has become no defense. Consequence? Tyranny.

In the USA, the Negroid community provides an example of this trend. With support from those of The Left, it has unleashed a tyranny by a minority to the point that its members feel free to riot whenever they claim, even wrongly, that a supposed injustice has been committed against one of them. They demand not only child support for their bastardy and to be given preferences in hiring even when unwarranted but to be given free housing, free food, free clothing, free medical care, and even free telephones. Negroid demands for such license now serve as a model for other minorities to imitate.

Truly, the Negroid community is in shambles, partially a consequence of the welfare-state and partly as a consequence of its members’ refusal to assume responsibility for themselves. Eighty percent of Negroid babies are illegitimate. The intact Negroid family is a mere fragment of its former self. Those are facts. Attacking the messenger won’t change them.

In 1950, only 25% of Negroid babies, still a high figure, were illegitimate. That’s a fact. Attacking the messenger won’t change it.

No thinking, informed person would expect the Democrats to defend a truthful portrayal of the American Negro’s situation or even to defend the right to say it. In the name of “humanitarianism”, they want an American public passive, apathetic, and dependent upon government. It is an economic, political, and social condition that confers upon them power.

Neither would any thinking, informed person expect the Republicans to defend a truthful portrayal, given the Republicans’ hypocritical and feckless performance in recent times. Go along to get elected has become their motto.

Perhaps, Negroid demagogues endlessly rekindling grievances of the past now may be having a counter-productive effect. The truth is that any real hope for Negroes lies not in playing the getting-tiresome guilt-game but in generating real respect for real achievements for themselves as well as the rest of the world. To date, how many have there been?

So, what’s a law-abiding, tax-paying, American citizen who supports the U.S. Constitution and traditional American ideals and values to do? Are we not witnessing a tyranny by a minority in which the opposing truth is becoming no defense? Yes, in the USA unlike Canada and the UK, we still have the First Amendment to protect us . . . or do we? In many contexts, such as academia, no longer.

Is there no way to return to the basic ideals and values upon which America became strong? Is there no way to renounce the values or lack thereof that are making America weak? Can Science and the Scientific Method with its specificity, objectivity, and accountability lead us towards a solution (www.inescapableconsequences.com)?