Smarter Than Thou!

ON BEING AN OREO

   HERMAN Cain is, as of this writing, still running for the Republican candidacy for president.  He is Black, or, as I prefer, Afro-American.  It is “unusual” for Blacks openly to support Republicans.  Because of this he has received some particular criticism.  Another public Black called him an “Oreo.”  She explained that this meant that he was “Black on the outside, but white on the inside.”  When asked about this, Herman replied (with wit) that he was “black on the outside, but red, white and blue on the inside.” 

    The comment should have induced a lot of commentary, but, as almost always happens, almost everyone (but I) missed its real meaning.   Let me infer that the comment was critical.  It meant that Black people should NOT be “white on the inside.”  That is, necessarily, they should be different than White Americans.  In what way?  Well, “inside” means, necessarily, core values, standards, culture, behavior, etc.  And what this means is that this other Black (some woman Congress human, I think) was saying the following.  Blacks are superior to (i.e. better than) Whites.  There is---must be---some racial characteristic that makes them better than other races. 

    It has to be, does it not?  The criticism against Herman was that he was not good enough because he was not Black enough.  Thus a more (fully) Black person is superior to a White.  This is EXACTLY like the old segregationist theories that any Black blood made a person inherently inferior to a pure Caucasian.  So, in case you have not noticed, the common Black man (assuming that this view is common among “these people”) is claiming to be racially superior.  In other words, he is THE official bigot.  America is racist only so much as the Blacks are.  Apparently they are quite racist.   

    Let me add a potential defense and/or explanation.  The Black person is not superior by nature or race.  However, the unique Black experience (slavery and/or severe discrimination) has produced a superior human because of what he has endured.  The trip from Africa, in horrible conditions, must have caused the weakest to die.  Thus the survivors (i.e. “the fittest”) were healthier than the average.  The same can apply sociologically and psychologically. 

    Maybe this did happen.  However this would then mean that the institutions of slavery and suppression were ultimately beneficial.  And this means, as the old defenders of slavery argued, slavery was good for the Black man as it civilized him.  Apparently it made him a superior species. 

    Now, let me suggest the following.  Rather than asking for “reparations” for slavery, they should be paying the rest of us for the benefit.  And may I say, “you’re welcome” in response to their anticipated gratitude.  And I accept checks, with proper identification. 

 

 

ESTABLISHMENT REVOLUTIONARIES

   I have a tendency to feel that these entries should be of a certain length.  This may be due to an inherited predisposition.  A great uncle of mine was a successful sculptor.  He was popular from the 1940’s onward.  His style was… well, massive.  His women looked like heavy weight wrestlers.  I once asked him if this was because he was influenced by “Socialist Realism.”  This was the official style approved of by the Soviet Union, and it was HEAVY.  As some of his works were in public parks, I thought that, perhaps, the liberal governments of the time approved of these Communists styles.  He told me that style had nothing to do with his works.  As he put it, the bigger it is the more you can charge for it. 

    Although I am not charging for this, I do charge for other writings.  And so I am inclined to make certain that things are “big” enough to justify the cost.  And I have added these two paragraphs to this effort because I could devise no other way to make it an acceptable length.  You may choose not to read these first two paragraphs if you wish. 

    As of this writing a new movement continues.  These are the “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrations.  Based upon the always suspect Mass Media these people seem to be nihilistic in their psychological ideology.  As Groucho Marx sang, in “Horse Feathers,” whatever it is, I’m against it.  These people are against something, and for, apparently, nothing.  The something that they are against is, vaguely, “Wall Street.”

    This term represents the powerful, filthy rich, greedy and evil “bankers” and other dealers in finance.  “They” are responsible for unemployment, the housing crisis, global (non)warming, cold pizza, high gas prices, and bad TV situation comedies.  And, of course, in the conventional view, all of them are Republicans.  This is true even though the same view holds that most of them are Jews, who are hardly ever Republicans.  The movement people seem to be stupid, dirty, spoiled, nasty, and stupid again.  And Bam-bam will soon embrace them. 

    This may seem odd.  I explain.  The Republican candidates, primarily because they will fail to have any of their own ideas, will simply oppose what Bam-bam does.  Thus they will oppose the movement, and, de facto, defend Wall Street.  This position will cost them votes (as Wall Street is both unpopular and evil), and maybe the election.  The really stupid thing is that these Wall Street people do not support Republicans but Liberal Democrats.   The Republicans gain nothing by supporting them. 

    This acceptance of the movement depends on it surviving for the next year or so.  This means that they have to continue to camp out for the winter.  I expect Bam-bam to tell the common folk to give them food and blankets.   If Bam-bam is going to be reelected, and I believe that he will be, at least we can have some fun watching him dismantle the nation. 

 

 

THE PUBLIC VERSUS THE PEOPLE

   AS I write this there are “popular” demonstrations going on in the Wall Street section of NYC.  There are similar actions in other cities.  The demonstrators are against “corporations,” and in favor of people (and/or “the people”).  From what I can gather from the few news reports that I have seen---suspect because they are from the Mass Media---these people have no real “program.”  They are simply angry with, or jealous of, those who have done well, namely the rich.  Of course, they also may simply also be stupid and/or evil. 

    These people seem to be the spiritual, and perhaps even the physical, descendants of the anti-war hippies of the 1960’s.  Both groups seemed to be against something, and/or in favor of nothing.  Maybe this is too harsh.  They all seem to be in favor of “the people,” as in power to them.  The BIG corporations have too much money, they say.  I suppose that they would want this given to “the people.”  Of course, maybe they do not know that a corporation is a collection of people who own something collectively, and profit from it.  It is a means by which the rich work for the benefit of the poor(er).  It is a type of socialism in action.  In other words, it seems to be what they already want.  But they seem to have problems dealing with reality.  Maybe they simply want the fun of being against things. 

    One problem with them may be due to the confusion between people and “the people,” and/or the public.  In fact governments can do nothing directly to serve the people (in any of those three meanings).  All governments MUST restrict freedoms and oppress their people.  All must become dictatorial.  I use the current situation to illustrate.  I heard one leader comment on the temporary and official permission the group had received to “occupy” a public park in Washington DC.  She said that they were not going to leave when the agreement ended.  After all, she reasoned, this is a “public” park and this is what (or who) “we” are.

    As long as the occupiers are present the park can not be used by the rest of the “public.”  It becomes use-less to the vast majority of people who might want to enter it.  So, at some point, the park becomes the “conquered property” of this movement.  And we all know that it really belongs to the Indians.   It is no longer controlled by the government (representing, of course, “the people”), and this will prove that the park is not really for use by “the people” (or the public).  Or, alternatively, the government will eventually take action and physically remove the demonstrators.   This action will prove, of course, that the government park is not really for the public (or “the people” either).  No, wait a moment.  It is the first action, which is the exact opposite of the second, which will prove that the park is not for the use by people.  No, wait, a moment…  gee, I have become quite confused.  How did two completely exclusive actions become the very same thing? 

    I am not really confused.  Accepting contradictory premises routinely leads to lunacy.  We use delusional and inconsistent language to describe what governments do.  Actually it is not I who do this.  It is “the people;” and it is the public too. 

 

 

ADMINISTRATIVE MESSAGE

I shall be away for approximately one week.  God bless all.  

I SHALL BE AWAY FOR APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK.