Smarter Than Thou!

...LIKE GRADUALLY BEING PREGNANT

   THERE was a recent change in the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.  The former policy was this.  Homosexuals could serve in the armed services, if they did not tell anyone that they were homos.  And no officials would ask if they were.  It was an official sustained state of ignorance.  If such a “preference” became known, then the pervert could be dealt with, by being discharged.    

    Congress passed a law, or repealed a law, and now these people may serve while openly admitting their inclinations.  However, the new policy is to take a time---I believe that it is 60 days---to be implemented, gradually.  “Gradually?”  Imagine this for a moment. 

    Private Tom is a homo.  He wants to admit it, but knows that the policy is only gradually being relaxed.  So he can “expose” himself only gradually.  So the first week, he combs his hair in a more becoming way, and changes his underwear to something more exciting.  The next week he stops drinking beer and drinks whiskey-sours.  When he shakes hands with another man, he holds it for a bit longer than is necessary.  The next week he puts up a revealing poster of Brad Pitt.  Then he openly looks at shoe catalogues, and clips sales coupons.  Then he buys earrings in pairs.  Then he redecorates his bunk, by putting stuffed animals upon it.  And so on.  Ultimately, no one has to ask, as it has become obvious, gradually. 

    Of course this is meant to be humorous.  However I ask this:  how can a policy of this kind be gradually implemented?  Are we moving first to a “Don’t ask, but imply” policy?  Or is it to be: “Don’t ask, but you can guess, and I shall tell you if you are right, dear”?  How about:  “Don’t ask, but allude”?  Or “Don’t ask, but draw your own conclusions”?

    I still wonder how the gradual nature of implementation is possible.  But now it is a “don’t ask, for no one can tell how” policy. 

If you wish to tell others, then read "Analysis and Explanations."   

 

EMASCULATING HILLARY

   RECENTLY Bam-Bam “allowed” Bill Clinton to handle a press conference for him.  This was shortly after he (in the opinion of some Liberals) “sold out” by agreeing to the Bush “tax cuts.”  That is, it was seen by some as a surrender to the Party of Rich White Oppressors (i.e. the GOP).  And some held that Bam-bam was showing his weakness by not, personally, defending his actions.  Instead he needed “big brother” Bill Clinton to fight the big bad reporters. 

    Keep this theory in mind, while I undermine it.  Back in the old days, a good deal of Asia, Europe and Africa was part of the Empire of the Ottoman Turks.  According to one historian the Turks, along with the British and Romans, were the only peoples who knew how to run an empire.  The Turks realized that one requirement was that there be no challenges to the authority of the Sultan.  Once chosen, he had complete and absolute authority.  In theory, and often in fact, all residents of the empire were his slaves. 

    The Sultan often had many sons, who were potential successors.  And a prince who was not chosen as sultan might lead a revolution.  So to increase stability, a form of royal serial murder was practiced (with the approval of the Mohammedan clergy).  When a sultan died, and a successor was chosen, the grand vizier kept the news secret.  Assassins were sent to kill the sons who were not chosen.  They were strangled with the “silken bowstring,” so that royal blood not be shed. 

    Back in the early days of his administration Bill Clinton used the silken bowstring on his potential replacement, Senator Sam Nunn.  I have explained how he did this in other pages.  He understood the lesson of the Ottomans.  Bam-bam seems to have learned also, although perhaps from Bill and not Mohammed.  He had Bill Clinton, who can not be separated from Hillary, publicly and irreparably, defend (and thus endorse) his least “popular” (with fellow Liberals) policy. 

    When 2012AD comes it will be very difficult for Hillary then to challenge Bam-bam.  She has been serving him as a member of his political harem for two years, and now she (via) Bill has taken his side in an issue that she could have used to attack him.  Her weapons are being taken from her. 

    There are not many lessons to be learned from history, but it seems as if Bam-bam has learned one. 

    And you can learn many other lessons, by subscribing to “Analysis and Explanations.”  Contact us.  

 

THE NEW HOUSE NIGGER

   RECENTLY the current president appointed a former president (Clinton) to answer questions for him at a press conference.  Bam-bam showed up, pointed to Clinton, and left to be with his wife.  This is the first time this happened since Rutherford Johnson was asked to pitch run for Calvin Hoover during a softball game at a Freemason picnic. 

    Many pundits felt that this was a sign of weakness.  Clinton was pretty good at answering questions, and Bam-bam is not.  So, they concluded, this was like asking your big brother to stand up to the bully, rather than stand up to him yourself.  Thus, as most people would see it in this way, they also concluded, this was a stupid move.  Naturally, or unnaturally, I see it in a totally different way. 

    Back in the days of slavery the best position was that of “House Nigger.”  These were the slaves who worked in the plantation house as servants.  They did no heavy work, wore better clothes, and ate better.  They were almost part of the family.  The other slaves considered them to be traitors, as they had to act nice to the White slave owning class.  Thus the term became a negative one.  It is still used, these days, to identify Blacks who “betray” the race, by accepting decent White values, such as having stable families, and avoiding crime.

    In the movies and books, when the “master” does not wish to receive a visitor, he tells his butler or his House Nigger to say: “The Master is not at home.”  In other words, the butler/servant communicates when the Master does not wish to bother.  In other the words, this kind of servant is on the level of a slave, doing what is “below” the status of the really important people.    

    Now, please, reconsider the press conference.  Bam-bam, in essence, said the following.  “Come over here, White man.  I don’t want to talk to these fools.  I got more important things.  You do it!”  He ordered around a White man, who had once been America’s most powerful.  And that man obeyed. 

    It is highly likely that few, if any, White people saw it this way.  However, I feel that some Blacks probably did.  I refer to those same ones who danced with joy when the murderer OJ Simpson was freed.  Their racial hatred is deep.  And Bam-bam needs their votes next time, and, Lord knows, he has not done anything to help them economically.  So that is what this “message” was for.  That is, it was to inspire part of his base.  

    (I hope to add an additional comment on this action in the next installment.  There is even more to it.)  

 

A SLAVE TO FREEDOM

   DAVID Horowitz is a former extreme leftist radical.  He re-formed and became a traditional Conservative.  These days he writes books, gives talks, and appears on news shows.  I like his style, but he is often unable to make arguments in a convincing way, and he is a terrible debater.  In recent years he has attempted to concentrate on the problems of the academic world.  

   This means that the majority of the universities (at least the major ones) are very much Liberal in their viewpoints.  And this value system infects almost every academic discipline.  The instructors attempt to brainwash the students.  For example, they are taught that “global warming” is a fact, as opposed to simply an unproven, and unproveable, theory.  David objects and wants the freedom for both sides of issues to be heard.  

   This is related to the issue of academic freedom.  This means that teachers are permitted to “pursue truth, no matter where it leads.”  Each teacher is free to teach what he chooses as he chooses.  David argues that the current one=sided presentation of almost every social, political and economic issue is, in fact, a rigid dictatorship.  Teachers are forced, by fashion and peer pressure (among other forces), to parrot the Liberal line.  This is NOT freedom, of any kind, David argues. 

    What David is saying, in essence is this.  People should be forced to act in a free way.  To have the liberty to present X, Y must be suppressed, at least to a degree.  In other words, David is in favor of denying freedom to others.  He is advocating exactly what he is objecting to. 

    I also am against freedom.  I do not pretend that I find freedom to be any great value.  Formal freedom gives the same status to evil as it does to good.  Academic Freedom should no more be allowed in colleges than personal freedom from the traffic laws should be allowed on public highways.  

    I am reminded of the late Paul Harvey, and the movie “1776,” which is a pleasant musical about the acceptance of the Declaration of Independence.  Paul quoted a woman who said:  “This great movie shows so clearly how valuable our freedoms are that every American should be forced to see it.”

   Maybe that woman was David.