Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, October 21, 2019

To This We Have Come?

(hat tip to Infidel Bloggers Alliance)

Video of less than two minutes (Oak Park, Illinois):


According to the YouTube blurb:
Oak Park trustee Susan Buchanan berated fellow trustees for speaking on equity during a recent meeting.

See excerpts of her comments below:

• I don't want to hear what you have to say.

• You shouldn't have an opinion on that. That is the point. Why do you have an opinion on equity.

• You have been white from birth. Why are you arguing what is a system of oppression? You've never experienced one so shut up! I don't want to hear from you! Just stop Dan, just stop Deno. You are not oppressed and people in Oak Park and we are trying to recognize that as a community. This mayor and this board is obviously not willing to face history. We have a chance to make history. It is time for this community to face equity. Enough! And you stop it! You are a white male! You stop it, you are a white male! You skin is light enough. Stop it!
On a larger scale, is America going to throw onto the trash heap every achievement because those achievements were largely accomplished by "old white men"?

78 comments:

  1. Maoism comes to America.

    Notice it was a shrieking, hysterical WHITE woman unleashing the tirade.

    Affluent white people are driving this. Opinion surveys have shown the affluent, older white cohort to be more skewed left on social justice than blacks or Latinos.

    ReplyDelete
  2. These secular Puritans need to hop on a new Mayflower and found their own colony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joe,
      The term secular Puritans is perfect!

      Delete
    2. The I've noted for some time that the Doctrines and Strictures the Left constantly dreams, schemes, lies, manipulates, and often KILLS to impose on the (formerly} not-quite-Free World bear an uncanny resemblance to the horrifying supersitition-based mentality that held sway in the Catholicism of Mediaeval Europe, then in Cromwell's Persecutions in the British Isles, and the sort of morbid cruelty and, anti-human mindset that led to the the hunting and burning of "Witches" and "Heretics" in Europe and the atrocities that occurred in Massachusetts during the Salem Wtch trials in the 1600's.

      What leftists don't seem to realize is that THEIR adamant, zealous, self-righteous worldview is every bit as much a Faith-Based System predicated on a lot of assumptions that arose in a more MODERN style of Superstition as anything that held people down in the ancient world.

      The demand today for rigid adherence to Political correctness with the ever-present threat of severe punishent in the form of ostracism, job loss, and actual persecution (JAIL TERMS) for not falling into line with the current brand of ORTHODOX AUTHORITARIAN Thinking is nothing more than a VARIATION of the same old flaws in Human Nature that have plagued humanity since the Garden of Eden..

      The common denominator in all this is the desire of certain arrogant, conceited, hyper-aggressive members of our species to establish dictatorial, despotic AUTHORITARIAN regimes based on the belief that people must be constantly THREATENED into submission if any sort of dependable Social Order is to be maintained.

      In that regard the Mediaeval Church, its more zealous Protestant offshoots, MARXISM and ISLAM are firghteningly similar to one another.


      Those who "believe" in Marxism are every bit as ignorant and supersitious as any Mediaeval European peasant.

      What I believe we need to learn is that ANARCHY and utter LICENTIOUSNESS are NOT necessarily the result of Failure to establish and enforce a TYRANNICAL fear-based REGIME..

      Our Founding Fathers came as close as any ever have to doing just that, but they –– Adams and Franklin in particular –– had grave doubts that we would be able to "keep" (and hopefully enhance) what they provided for us.

      The theaters change, sets change, the costumes change, the lighting changes, the musical style changes, linguistic styles change, but the DRAMA remains the SAME.

      Sadly we don't seem able to learn much from History.

      Delete
  3. What's the problem with true equity (of opportunity)?

    The women is a bit unhinged. Resulting in her irrational behavior.

    However, her point, presentented professionally, is valid from a historical perspective.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. RN,
      Her point is not valid at all.

      There is no way to "fix" or "make up for" the past. Those who were originally affected are long gone -- as are the perpetrators.

      Victimology, no matter the source, is a dead end and serves to damage all.

      Delete
    2. I agree. You cannot "fix" the past. What us done is done, it cannot be undone.

      The ONLY way to fix anything is through correcting the mistakes of the past going forward. But first there must be agreement something needs to be "fixed". And based on much that I read there are some, actually many, who don't recognize or admit there ever was a problem.

      Delete
    3. RN,
      Here I am in the American South and I don't see there are some, actually many, who don't recognize or admit there ever was a problem. Back in the day? Certainly. NOT NOW!

      You are full of it, you old white male.

      Delete
    4. Sounds like Oak Park has an Expert Problem to me...

      Also, too many cooks spoil the meal. ;)

      Plato, "Gorgias"

      And now I will endeavour to explain to you more clearly what I mean: The soul and body being two, have two arts corresponding to them: there is the art of politics attending on the soul; and another art attending on the body, of which I know no single name, but which may be described as having two divisions, one of them gymnastic, and the other medicine. And in politics there is a legislative part, which answers to gymnastic, as justice does to medicine; and the two parts run into one another, justice having to do with the same subject as legislation, and medicine with the same subject as gymnastic, but with a difference. Now, seeing that there are these four arts, two attending on the body and two on the soul for their highest good; flattery knowing, or rather guessing their natures, has distributed herself into four shams or simulations of them; she puts on the likeness of some one or other of them, and pretends to be that which she simulates, and having no regard for men's highest interests, is ever making pleasure the bait of the unwary, and deceiving them into the belief that she is of the highest value to them. Cookery simulates the disguise of medicine, and pretends to know what food is the best for the body; and if the physician and the cook had to enter into a competition in which children were the judges, or men who had no more sense than children, as to which of them best understands the goodness or badness of food, the physician would be starved to death. A flattery I deem this to be and of an ignoble sort, Polus, for to you I am now addressing myself, because it aims at pleasure without any thought of the best. An art I do not call it, but only an experience, because it is unable to explain or to give a reason of the nature of its own applications. And I do not call any irrational thing an art; but if you dispute my words, I am prepared to argue in defence of them.

      Cookery, then, I maintain to be a flattery which takes the form of medicine; and attiring, in like manner, is a flattery which takes the form of gymnastic, and is knavish, false, ignoble, illiberal, working deceitfully by the help of lines, and colours, and enamels, and garments, and making men affect a spurious beauty to the neglect of the true beauty which is given by gymnastic.

      I would rather not be tedious, and therefore I will only say, after the manner of the geometricians (for I think that by this time you will be able to follow)

      as attiring: gymnastic:: cookery: medicine;

      or rather,

      as attiring: gymnastic:: sophistry: legislation;

      and

      as cookery: medicine:: rhetoric: justice.

      And this, I say, is the natural difference between the rhetorician and the sophist, but by reason of their near connection, they are apt to be jumbled up together; neither do they know what to make of themselves, nor do other men know what to make of them.

      Delete
    5. Les,

      Can you give us some concrete problems that need to be fixed by white people correcting their behavior?

      Delete
    6. Sort of hoping that RN would respond to SF’s query; figure it would be entertaining.

      Delete
    7. CI,
      I, too, would be interested in that.

      Delete
    8. WHY? You'll never get anything but bewhiskered platitudes and virulent anti-Trump, anti-conservative horse puckey from that one –– straight from the Leftist Propaganda Mills. [I was going to say "Straight from the Horse's Ass," but then thought better of it ;-]

      DULL! DULL! DULL! DULL! D_U_L_L_!

      Delete
    9. Some of us find echo chambers devoid of critical thought, and downright......dull.

      Delete
    10. Never expect a leftist to answer a question directly.

      Delete
  4. Chronic naysayers shold be strung up, torture, mutilated then and slaughtered.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Franco,
      There are times that I feel that same way, my friend.

      Delete
    2. Seems a bit suicidal, but sure....

      Delete
    3. It woudn't be I who'd be the first to go –– at least not in THIS crowd.

      HOWEVER, as my mother once said tongue-in-cheek, of course:

      "If thoughts could kill, we'd all be dead in seconds."

      ];^}>

      Delete
    4. PS: Thank you, AOW. I knew YOU would understand.

      Delete
    5. We'd probably disagree on that....

      Delete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The woman is a loon with some deep-seated, racist issues regarding her race and her perception. Nobody should be disbarred from public speaking.....but some people just....shouldn’t.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm all for complete Freedom of Expression –– as long as it's confined to public parks, street corners, and isolated mountaintops and the like.

      No one should be SILENCED, but it's neither necessary nor desirable to give lunatics, seditionists and traitors acess to the "megaphone" supplied by the modern organs of mass communication, unless of course they create –– and fund –– their own networks, themselves.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. It seems that we almost agree, except that “lunatics, seditionists and traitors“ are subjectively defined, and already have their own networks, on both sides of the spectrum.

      But that’s what we get when we endeavor to be ruled by bass emotion - not just a Leftist trait anymore.

      Delete
    4. It may surprise you to learn, CI, that I cannot disagree with what you said there.

      However, virtually "EVERYTHING" is "subjectively defined," because each of us is in effect the prisoner of our own unique persona.

      Delete
  7. There are many naysayers that only recently became naysayers. Many the result of Trump, GWB, and THEIR GOP.

    Cons and Libs alike are guilty of running off the rails.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Representation for minorities seems like a good idea; that's the principle behind the electoral college, after all. Seems like a fairly dull point of procedure to me, surprised anyone manages to get this excited about it. Just goes to show you can fetishize anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where do you get that the electoral college is about representation for minorities? It's purpose is to base the presidential election onto the same footing as all other matter of national governance in a federation of states, which is apportionment of weight of states' voices by population.

      Delete
    2. Hello, Jez,

      It's been my understanding that the Electoral College was designed to protect sparsely populated REGIONS –– many encompassing large amounts of TERRITORY often rich in potential resources –– from being totally dominated by more heavily populated areas.

      You mght say the Electoral College ensures a more equal representation for all the diverse REGIONS of the country, each of which has its own special needs and preferences. In the USA One Size definitely does NOT –– and cannot be MADE to –– fit all.

      Tha'ts why each state, regardless of its geographical size and population has two senators, but the more densely populated a state is the more members of the House of Representatives it's permitted.

      I believe that's why the aliquot dynamics of direct democracy were considered undesirable and thus rejected by our Founders.

      Direct Democracy is an absolute GUARANtEE of bullying INEQUALITY in government once all economic, social and geographical factors are taken into consideration.

      That old business of two wolves and a sheep deciding what's to be eaten for dinner. ;-)

      "Tyranny of the Majoority" is another way of putting it.

      Delete
    3. Not only the electoral college. Our legislative bodies are set up the same way with an added safeguard, the Presidential Veto. The Senate with its 2 votes for each State and the House of Representatives with its numbers representative of the population.
      The Framers were very aware of the dangers of a pure democracy.

      Delete
    4. Yes, I absolutely see the argument that regional minorities should be given representation beyond their proportion of the national population, and obviously that argument is there to be made for extending that to other forms of minority too.

      Of course, you don't need to tell any British remoaner about the tyranny of the majority! ;)

      I think it's worth clearly distinguishing between *direct democracy*, which is where we vote directly on issues, sidestepping delegates altogether; as opposed to *representative democracy*, where we vote for delegates on the understanding that they will apply their judgement to govern on our behalf. Some countries use some form of *proportional representation*, of which there are a few styles but what they all have in common is that some attempt is made to award each Party a number of seats which is proportional to the number of votes it won. In other words, you win half the votes, you get approximately half the seats.

      We're talking about deliberately introducing some anti-proportionality, but it's important to recognise that some voting systems are already much less proportional than we might expect. For example, the UK "first past the post" system is *enormously* anti-proportional: compare the outcome for the Liberal Democrats in 2010 (23% of the votes), with the outcome for the Scottish Nationalist party in 2015 (4.7% of the votes): the SNP one just one seat fewer than the lib dems had! That's pretty extreme IMO.

      Delete
    5. Having a referendum is pure democracy.

      What purpose does a referendum serve? Taking the heat off elected representatives to cast their ballots on the record.

      Delete
    6. It’s a mixed bag overall, but referendums and ballot initiatives do fill a role when elected representatives aren’t reflecting the will of the People. They should be cautiously employed as a last resort, but they’ve had moderate success in protecting gun rights in several states.

      Delete
    7. If you must hold a referendum, learn from our mistakes and insist that each option is specific and costed.

      Delete
    8. Are referendum and plebiscite snnymous, or are there subtle differences between them?

      I haven't enough time now to discuss this properly, but it seems to me tht your parliament and the democrats in OUR congress seem bound and determined to THWART or OVERTURN "The Will of the People" as expressed in a plebiscite.

      in OUR case the Democrats and their henchmen and handmaidens in the ENEMEDIA and the PROFESSORIAT have been trying t NULLIFY the result of a duly held national election for no better reason than their firm belief that the Voice of the People is "uncuth," "unwise," "ill-informed," and should, therefore be effectively stifle.

      That IS what is happening her in the USA. Any other interpretation of our current situation would, perforce, be arrant foolishness.

      I'm not so familiar with the way Britain is governed, but i LOOKS to me, as an utsider, that your parliament is pople largely globalist elitists who believe THEY know beter than the british people what's best for Britain , and therefore, want o belive they have not only a RIGHT –– but a DUTY –– to "CORRECT" the Grievous Error your people made in voting FOR the Brexit.

      If that is, indeed the case, then why bother to hold electins at ALL? Why not just submit to government by Parliamentary EDICT and be done with it?

      Yes, I'm being sarcastic, but it's not directed a YOU, personally, Jez, but more at what-seems-to-me-to-be a empty, confounding exercise devoid of logic.

      Explain, if you will how and why I may be wrong? I'm interested in hearing your views, if you feel like presenting them.

      Delete
    9. I think so. Dumb country boy I am, the first time I learned of the word, plebiscite, I was in a troubled, Central American nation that shall remain nameless, in the late 80's. The dictator there launched a "Plebiscito," which by the spelling you can tell is foreign to the Spanish language.

      Delete
    10. Plebiscites ARE an end-run around legislatures.
      And... that's how we got a pot law in Michigan, and that was the bait to get stoners into the voting booth who then gave us other nonsense: Democrat elected officials.

      Delete
    11. Franco,
      it seems to me tht your parliament and the democrats in OUR congress seem bound and determined to THWART or OVERTURN "The Will of the People"

      Globalists, wherever they are, will not willingly surrender power.

      Delete
    12. Ed, Drugs and Democrat politicians seem to go together...

      Delete
    13. Thank you, AOW for addressing the MOST IMPORTANT POINT I tried to make in my statement above –– a point everyne else blithely ignored, as has so often been the case.

      I wonder if anyone EVER reads past the first sentence they think they can glom onto, and never finis reading the rest?

      Too many of us are SO eager to SPEAK, we rarely-if-ever bother to LISTEN.

      Delete
    14. Having trouble with self validation? Perhaps not everyone else is not as enamored with your posts, as you are.

      Delete
    15. Any difference in literal meaning is very subtle, but there is a tonal aspect: "pleb" is an insulting term used by the establishment for the common people, so it's hard to use that term without casting a judgement on the electorate.

      I think much of what appears at first to be "obstruction" is just Parliament trying to do Her legitimate job, which is to scrutinize and hold the Executive to account. It's important to note that successive Governments have been trying to escape that scrutiny, rather than supporting and respecting Parliament's role. At first, May didn't want to allow Parliament to vote on her deal at all -- the "meaningful votes" were awarded by court order following a legal battle. Even then, she and now Johnson have attempted to give Parliament the minimum possible time for debate (running down the clock) in the hope that the specter of "No Deal" would scare MPs into passing any old rubbish.

      It's because of the Governement's attempts to walk over it that Parliament has needed to assert her powers so forcefully; and thank God she has. It would be a very strange sort of democrat imo who would prefer to dispense with Parliament's scrutiny, especially with such far-reaching legistlation. These are complex, core constitutional documents, which interact subtly with existing acts such as the 2018 Withdrawal act; it's challenging for constitutional experts to understand this stuff, let alone MPs who are not legal scholars.

      It should be unthinkable IMO to pass this bill without due consideration, whatever personality is installed in number 10. But once you factor in Johnson's personal unreliability (he has lied exceptionally oftern even for a politician, and prior to that he was a notably inaccurate journalist); and once you notice all the place-holding clauses -- these are essentially power-grabs, where ministers are given latitude (on trust, which these particular ministers manifestly do not deserve) to implement things at a later date -- it's hard to conjure a more dangerous piece of legislation.

      Johnson originally wanted to ram it thought Parliament before even publishing the full text. At least let MPs read the damn thing.

      As for America: didn't eh founders intend for each branch of government to limit the others' power?

      Delete
  9. The idea that one cannot understand a problem unless one has been a victim of the problem is utter nonsense. It is based on the assumption that the human mind processes entirely by emotion and feeling and does not ever utilize any rational methodology. It reduces the human mind to a purely animal level.

    They accuse men of thinking with their gonads, and then they think entirely with their feelings and emotions.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jayhawk,
      Agree!

      Thank you for that comment. Your points are important.

      Delete
    2. Well said. Skin color [or religion, gender, etc] holds no monopoly of the ability to comprehend and diagnose both problems and solutions.

      Delete
    3. Yes, Jayhawk, absolutely. Those who give no credence to the faculties of IMAGINATION and INSIGHT while dependng solely on dull, plodding LITERALISM are unlikely ever to gain understanding of the Human Condition with any depth.

      If it weren't for Imagnation and Insight no music, books or poems would ever have been written, no plays produced, no pictures would ever have been painted, no sculptures produced, no temples, cathedrals, theaters, palaces or university quadrangles built, no movies made, etc. And it's from these works derived from the vivid Imagination and Insight of specially gifted individuals that we learn most about who we are, what's WRONG with us, and what we OUGHT to be about.

      Endess LISTS and COMPILATIONS of Facts, Figures, Statistical Projections, and the lafnguage of recondite JARGON relevant only only to those well-versed in the innerworkings of highly specialized fields etc. may have their place, but they SPEAK only to a very small segment of the population.

      Delete
  10. Human experience is but one of the inputs utilized in understanding reality. A powerful one at that.

    But you are correct IMO Jayhawk in saying that one can understand a problem without being a victim of the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  11. When we finally stop hating America's history (which has developed largely by leaving all context aside...particularly because context comes from knowing history and our young people don't), perhaps people like this woman will finally shut up. Until then, it seems like mostly liberals are jumping on ANYTHING they can find to despise and rejoicing in it. disgusting, stupid, dishonest and uninformed....Context is everything...the solutions Americans came up with to 'cure' oppression are world shaking in a good way, and we need to stop knocking down historical statues, a metaphor of what we're doing to our past. And, sadly, our future.

    ReplyDelete
  12. UGH!:

    UK Police urge public to report on “white people” who might be hateful, even if they have not committed a crime

    The minute-long animation is part of UK's ‘Zero Tolerance to Hate Crime’ campaign, which pushes the LIE white men continually harass & assault Muslims, blacks, etc.


    See the rest, including the short video, at the link.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds like Mother England has lapsed into becoming the UKSSSL –– i.e. The United Kingdom of Soviet-Style Socialist Lunatics.

      PITIFUL!

      DEPRESSING!

      INFURIATING!

      TERRIFYING!

      Delete
    2. "...pushes the LIE..."
      huh? I mean, it's not commonplace round my neck of the woods, but this definitely happens. Correct me if the animation (which I haven't watched with sound) makes the claim anywhere that hate-crime is rampant; but it's weird that some people want to pretend it doesn't exist.

      Delete
    3. Jez,
      Can you access the video? It's short.

      Delete
    4. Are you sure this wasn't put out by The Onion? Hard to tell. Why didn't they use an example of an Islamist radical slashing at people in public? There are so many incidents to choose from.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TC,
      Language too vulgar -- although I agree that the name applies.

      Delete
  14. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  15. AOW,

    But was my language too old White man? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  16. I dunno. I'm getting rather salty at the half-century mark.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. TC,
      Wow! Time flies! I remember when you turned 40.

      Delete
    2. Wait till you pass the THREE-QUARTER-CENTURY mark.

      That's when it all turns positively BRINY.

      ];^)>

      Patience with imbeciles –– and dliberate troublmakers –– diminishes increasingly with the passage of time.

      Delete
  17. Well 50 is still 10 months away but... I doubt much'll change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Age 64-65, the year 2016, was my watershed year -- to the point that The Merry Widow had to move in here from October 2016 till September 2017, to take care of me.

      Kidney trouble is horrific. I didn't make a full recovery until this year. And I still have bad days. I'm choosing to deliberately ignore all the wrinkles born of the kidney trouble.

      Delete
  18. And now I've WATCHED the video. What a Harridan! Someone needs to have her stand in the corner until she can calm down . :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baysider,
      Really! And she's on the town council. Sheesh.

      Delete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective