Header Image (book)


Monday, June 7, 2021


Scorched earth (hat tip to 100% Fed Up): 

The above confrontation is not unique the past several weeks. Similar scorched earth is happening all over the United States as school boards prepare to implement Critical Race Theory across the curricula and across all grade levels this coming school term.


  1. I can tell that she's upset, but I would have got more out of it had she focussed more on specific complaints. For example, I'm not sure if she wants schools (and teachers in the private social media) to disregard live political issues entirely.

    I couldn't tell how worthwhile her point about books on the curriculum was, and unfortunately she departed from it almost as soon as she brought it up. Do you know what she was talking about there, Always?

    1. Jez,
      HERE is some information, albeit quite truncated:

      In Carmel, New York, there is a woman named Tatiana Ibrahim. She is a warrior and a heroine. She stood up at a school board meeting and gave the board members what-for because the teachers in her children's school district are bringing Marxism to the classroom in the form of Critical Race Theory (CRT), defund the police lessons, and other leftist concepts.

    2. I'd like to sit in on a "defund the police" lesson myself. I don't know what it would be like, do you?

      "6.95 per child in the middle school to buy a curriculum from readtome.org that wasn't even approved by the board of ed. The administrators took it upon themselves to buy these books with taxpayers dollars while covid is going on. How many families are struggling to pay their mortgages? Listen, by all means, you wanna teach kids these things, don't do it on my dollar. Don't infringe on my religious beliefs. Don't infringe -- do you know who makes up the majority of this district? Children from police officers' families. Blues. Back the blues. Do you know what these children feel like when they come home, have you spoken to them? ..."

      Unforunately there's no content currently at the readtome.org domain.
      Which books are she complaining about? Is it the price of the books that are the issue? Would she be happy if these current affairs were touched upon in class as long as it's in an overtly pro-establishment manner, anti-BLM manner?

      Honestly, if I were on the board and made it my number 1 priority to make her happy, I wouldn't know how to do it. I recognise that people make the same complaints about BLM, but BLM is a broad coalition of people with different ideas, of course there are ambiguities and contradictions; Ibrahim is one individual. What specifics do you take from her appearance here?

  2. The first indication CRT is a crateload of crap is that the charlatans peddling it won't debate and will not submit their half-baked theories to academic scrutiny. They have no data or provable/disprovable points providing the basis for the propaganda they preach (and yes, it is very much like a religion).

    1. Do these criticisms apply more widely to legal scholarship (from which field CRT emerged) as a whole?

    2. CRT is a post-modern "organs without bodies" approach to freedom. As such, it is "anti-LAW". It's pre-Oedipal, pre-Missor stage desire of "other" yearning for the lost "m".

    3. The problem, sf, is that their arguement suffer from too much "academic" scrutiny.

      from Wiki on Julia Kristeva
      The "semiotic" and the "symbolic"[edit]

      One of Kristeva's most important contributions is that signification is composed of two elements, the symbolic and the semiotic, the latter being distinct from the discipline of semiotics founded by Ferdinand de Saussure. As explained by Augustine Perumalil, Kristeva's "semiotic is closely related to the infantile pre-Oedipal referred to in the works of Freud, Otto Rank, Melanie Klein, British Object Relation psychoanalysis, and Lacan's pre-mirror stage. It is an emotional field, tied to the instincts, which dwells in the fissures and prosody of language rather than in the denotative meanings of words."[19] Furthermore, according to Birgit Schippers, the semiotic is a realm associated with the musical, the poetic, the rhythmic, and that which lacks structure and meaning. It is closely tied to the "feminine", and represents the undifferentiated state of the pre-Mirror Stage infant.[20]

      Upon entering the Mirror Stage, the child learns to distinguish between self and other, and enters the realm of shared cultural meaning, known as the symbolic. In Desire in Language (1980), Kristeva describes the symbolic as the space in which the development of language allows the child to become a "speaking subject," and to develop a sense of identity separate from the mother. This process of separation is known as abjection, whereby the child must reject and move away from the mother in order to enter into the world of language, culture, meaning, and the social. This realm of language is called the symbolic and is contrasted with the semiotic in that it is associated with the masculine, the law, and structure. Kristeva departs from Lacan in the idea that even after entering the symbolic, the subject continues to oscillate between the semiotic and the symbolic. Therefore, rather than arriving at a fixed identity, the subject is permanently "in process". Because female children continue to identify to some degree with the mother figure, they are especially likely to retain a close connection to the semiotic. This continued identification with the mother may result in what Kristeva refers to in Black Sun (1989) as melancholia (depression), given that female children simultaneously reject and identify with the mother figure.

    4. It's a post-structuralist schizophrenic/Deleuzian application of THEORY. It's "Identity politics" cut loose from even Marxist principles of class essentialism.

    5. It's a rule for an "organ" and NOT a "body" with different organs. It is an "adaptation" to the evil it seeks to cure (capitalism) in which the State has identified "Black" Identity for them (aka - "the victim"). It is a MOLAR identity, not a MINOR one.

    6. Man is sick because he is badly constructed. We must make up our minds to strip him bare in order to scrape off that animalcule that itches him mortally, god, and with god his organs. For you can tie me up if you wish, but there is nothing more useless than an organ. When you will have made him a body without organs, then you will have delivered him from all his automatic reactions and restored him to his true freedom. Then you will teach him again to dance wrong side out as in the frenzy of dance halls and this wrong side out will be his real place.

      - Antonin Artaud, "Selected Writings" (1976)

    7. The Left needs to throw off the capitalist injunction to "enjoy"... not simply because we "can"... but because we simply "must".

  3. Farmer, thank you for elucidating this. C r t propagandists hide their lack of scientific basis and data with clouds of inflated rhetoric and pseudo-intellectual Balderdash

    1. Yep, Farmer really cut through the jargon this time! lol

    2. CRT is but one a many schizophrenic Deleuzian New Left lines of flight. As Foucault once said, "One day, perhaps, this century will be called Deleuzian."

    3. The point is that the jargon isn't entirely "meaningless". It's a deliberate trial-by-error application of post-modern "theory" to escape into "meaninglessness" in the "hope" of establishing a new Hegelian meaning (thesis:anti-thesis>synthesis). It's a wreckless "experiment" that very well could prove "fatal" to humanity/ civilization

    4. C r t, as I understand it, is postmodern deconstructionist. I think I have heard it said that Main propagandists do not even accept standards of logic, science-based data, Etc

    5. If you can't win on the Playing field, burn the rule book and blow up the playing field.

    6. You are correct when referring to the post-structuralists. They believe that capitalism will mis-"appropriate" and use against them any new ideas/theories that they may come up with, much as capitalism appropriated the '68 New Left and incorporated it through "cultural capitalism"... and so they "won't get fooled again." (Meet the new boss...same as the old boss).

      Obscurantism is their watchword.

    7. "I think I have heard it said that..."

      That's a bit indirect.
      Can you or farmer rustle up any examples of a "Main protagonist" violating "standards of logic, science-based data" insofar as scientific standards are appropriate? I am reluctantly reconciled to the fact that a loy of academic subjects are not science and should not be judged by those standards, yet they are valid nonetheless. I always feel there's a danger that scholars in those fields are rewarded more for being entertaining than for being right, but I wouldn't single out crt for that.

      As I'm sure is obvious, I'm not qualified to defend crt.

    8. Africam ways of knowing, female ways of knowing, the "magical realism" of S. America... But lets look at Deleuze and Guitierra specifically... as anti-capitalist and anti-psychology...against any structured methos of thought and embrace schizophrenia and the thoughts of schizophrenics hrough schizoanalysis as defined here in the search for "Ontological heterogenity". What is ontological heterogenity? As Plato said at the conclusion od his "Cratylus"....

    9. SOCRATES: Then how can that be a real thing which is never in the same state? for obviously things which are the same cannot change while they remain the same; and if they are always the same and in the same state, and never depart from their original form, they can never change or be moved.
      CRATYLUS: Certainly they cannot.
      SOCRATES: Nor yet can they be known by any one; for at the moment that the observer approaches, then they become other and of another nature, so that you cannot get any further in knowing their nature or state, for you cannot know that which has no state.
      CRATYLUS: True.
      SOCRATES: Nor can we reasonably say, Cratylus, that there is knowledge at all, if everything is in a state of transition and there is nothing abiding; for knowledge too cannot continue to be knowledge unless continuing always to abide and exist. But if the very nature of knowledge changes, at the time when the change occurs there will be no knowledge; and if the transition is always going on, there will always be no knowledge, and, according to this view, there will be no one to know and nothing to be known: but if that which knows and that which is known exists ever, and the beautiful and the good and every other thing also exist, then I do not think that they can resemble a process or flux, as we were just now supposing. Whether there is this eternal nature in things, or whether the truth is what Heracleitus and his followers and many others say, is a question hard to determine; and no man of sense will like to put himself or the education of his mind in the power of names: neither will he so far trust names or the givers of names as to be confident in any knowledge which condemns himself and other existences to an unhealthy state of unreality; he will not believe that all things leak like a pot, or imagine that the world is a man who has a running at the nose. This may be true, Cratylus, but is also very likely to be untrue; and therefore I would not have you be too easily persuaded of it. Reflect well and like a man, and do not easily accept such a doctrine; for you are young and of an age to learn. And when you have found the truth, come and tell me.
      CRATYLUS: I will do as you say, though I can assure you, Socrates, that I have been considering the matter already, and the result of a great deal of trouble and consideration is that I incline to Heracleitus.
      SOCRATES: Then, another day, my friend, when you come back, you shall give me a lesson; but at present, go into the country, as you are intending, and Hermogenes shall set you on your way.
      CRATYLUS: Very good, Socrates; I hope, however, that you will continue to think about these things yourself.

    10. For example, I can tell that Farmer is entertaining, but I cannot tell if he is right.

    11. Deleuze and Guitiere's stated goal is to "free the individual's desire". That may be the ultimate goal of a "liberal education", but do you think that it a rational goal for any "group" of individuals the must cooperate civilizationally to pursue?

    12. Is it so wrong to desire that which others also desire? They're against psychoanalysis because desire is currently defined by Lacan as "the desire of the other". It's nature's equivalent of the young "imprinting" and "imitating" others. It's the source of all our empathy (mirror neurons).

    13. @ Jez:
      Farmer is correct, he's just explaining it from a classic liberal angle.
      You have fallen into the trap of believing, CRT's, rehtorical agitprop over its stated and documented goals which call for the destruction and replacement of our present form of governance, traditional western values and the nuclear family -among many other Communistic pipe dreams and lies about the reasons and outcomes-. This so-called CRT is just warmed over Marxist claptrap, replacing "Class Struggle" with race.
      It will not end well!

    14. How do you know Farmer is correct?
      I have not fallen into that trap, I make a point of witholding judgement of material I have not taken the trouble to understand. Likewise for critiques of such material. For 2nd- & 3rd-hand reports of critiques of that material, even more so.

      I'm not accusing anyone here of ignorance, myself excluded, but echoing around the internet there do seem to be a lot of people eager to attack crt who don't have much technical grasp of what it is.

    15. ...and a lot MORE people without any technical grasp of CRT defending it and wanting it universally legislatively implemented.

      Which is the more dangerous position?

    16. I choose neither, they both suck.

    17. activist creed... "Do something". As Bartleby the Scrivener famously once said, "I would prefer NOT to".

    18. Legislatively implementing "answers" to the wrong questions is never a good idea.

    19. They are both ignorant to the same degree. Which is the more dangerous depends on how comfortable you are with the system as it exists now.

      The ignorance could be fixed, though.

    20. Yes, it could be fixed by finally ENDING all this legislated Affirmative Action nonsense.

    21. @ Jez,
      How do I know Farmer is correct?
      Because I understand what he is saying and I understand what CRT is fr the speeches of it's adherents and the curriculum of their course's.
      It is Utopianism used to foment violent revolution.
      There will be pie in the sky by and by.
      Frankly Jez, you seem basically ignorant of societal principles, history and basic economics. CRT, like any, like any modern social "study" that begins with the word Social, is a crock of bullocks and the do called intellectuals and professors are con artists and low rent criminals and malefactors looking for power and money which are interchangable. And of they have a Phd, their doctoral theses are unreadable, nonexstant or hidden under seal.
      I've fallen for no trap. Although I've known Farmer for a number of years, we have came to the same conclusion for different reasons. I'm a blue collar guy, Farmer is well traveled and educated in a STEM field, we are both Veterans. I am self educated and, would what would be known in Europe, as a practical engineer.
      I am mixed race, Jez. Not black but American Indian and Catholic by religion. I am not liked by white supremacists and known as a "mud blood" by them. I find them few and far between and rendered impotent by the Government. Systematic racism is illegal in this country and unless you can point out where it exists specifically, through policy, you are blowing hot air and trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

    22. "How do I know Farmer is correct?
      Because I understand what he is saying..."

      Congratulations, I wish I could make the same boast. But still, how do you know what he is saying is correct? If you ask me how I know something is correct, I can explain the experiment or walk you through the proof. What's the equivalent of that for Farmer's claims?

      "Jez, you seem basically ignorant of societal principles, history and basic economics"
      that could very easily be the case. But aren't these all at least to some extent, social sciences, and therefore...

      "any modern social "study" that begins with the word Social, is a crock of bullocks and the do called intellectuals and professors are con artists..."

      would apply? And don't they apply to Farmer's remarks re sociology/social sciences (I confess, I'm not entirely clear what the difference is). If it doesn't apply, why not?; if it does, in what sense is he correct?

      I'm glad you've found racism to be a non-issue in your life; it would be a mistake for either of us to extrapolate too much from our personal experiences.

    23. @ Jez,
      I was in a hurry posting from my I-phone.
      That should have read "any modern social "study" that begins with the word (Critical) is a crock of bullocks and the so called intellectuals and professors are con artists..."

      Farmer is correct, in that he is using classical liberal references to attempt to point out to you the fallacies of CRT.

      The UCLA School of Public Affairs defines CRT as, “CRT recognizes that racism is ingrained in the fabric and system of the American society. The individual racist need not exist to note that institutional racism is pervasive in the dominant culture. This is the analytical lens that CRT uses in examining existing power structures. CRT identifies that these power structures are based on white privilege and white supremacy, which perpetuates the marginalization of people of color. CRT also rejects the traditions of liberalism and meritocracy.”

      Put bluntly, CRT is an academic justification for holding anti-American and anti-white prejudices. What should be plainly obvious is, CRT uses the guise of “anti-racism” to perpetuate actual racism. CRT serves as cover for undermining the traditional American ethic of fairness via equal opportunity in order to replace it with the fatally flawed Marxist notion of fairness brought by “equality of outcome ” or equity which are not the same thing.

      In America, where carve-outs, thinly disguised quotas and preferential hiring practices are given to "blacks" -even unqualified blacks- in government -on national and local levels- and in education acceptance in so-called Institutions of higher learning. In higher education Asians (ethnic Chinese) are discriminated against far worse than any other group because of the number of them ,proportionately, better qualified academically; which is a indicator of CRT leftist woke-ism and an indicator of racism against Asians in favor of blacks.
      You can't discriminate for one group without discriminating against others.

      Racism is a non-issue in my life because I created my own opportunities through learning and experience. It's easy to blame someone or something else for your personal failures. Modern American ghetto dwellers, for the most part, do not value education, the nuclear family, gainful employment or monogamy. It's much easier to live in poverty in the ghetto, collect Welfare, if you're a single woman with children, or sell drugs and live off a woman's Welfare check, if you're a man. If you wish, you can blame it on systemic racism but don't tell me poor personal choices have nothing to do with it.
      #1 Graduate High School.
      #2 Don't get married until you're 21.
      #3 Don't have children until you're married.
      #4 Get a job and stay with it.
      #5 Stay married and be responsible for your children. In other words, don't have children by multiple partners.

      This is true of any race but you will find that the antitheses of the above factors is higher in the black community although they are steadily creeping up in other races.

    24. Is Plato liberal? Is Lacan classical? I may be misunderstanding those words in this context. Must confess, I don't see how the Plato relates to the psycho-analysis, nor how the psycho-analysis relates to the critical race theory. (I am a simple soul)

      "CRT is an academic justification for holding anti-American and anti-white prejudices"

      If there are pro-white prejudices at the heart of america's legal, political institutions (and it is not controversial that such prejudices were present and politically correct at America's inception and through much of her development), then opposing those prejudices could be perceived as anti-American and anti-white. So-be-it. If you remove my privilege it would feel the same as marginalization, even though from a wider perspective it is not unjust.

      "...serves as cover for undermining the traditional American ethic of fairness via equal opportunity..."

      Is it undermining just to ask how well it is working/implemented? How equal is the opportunity? How fair are American systems? If they're working well they should withstand the questioning.

      "Racism is a non-issue in my life because I created my own opportunities through learning and experience."

      Well done, and me too (so far at least... I believe I am younger than you). Also, we were lucky.

      "you can blame it on systemic racism but don't tell me poor personal choices have nothing to do with it."

      I'm not trying to. But I think you're trying to tell me that systemic racism has nothing to do with it, which I find equally implausible.

      The advice you give is excellent, a really good way to mitigate the structural disadvantages that we face. Also, they're all goods in themselves, regardless of the practical outcomes. But recommending and following them should not put you in oppositin to campaigning for political reform. I'm sure peasants could, with a following wind, have had a perfectly enjoyable time of it in the middle ages following rules like the ones you lay out, but wasn't Liberty a worthwhile fight nonetheless?

    25. @ Jez,
      Short answer now:
      No one can prove a negative. In other words; in is impossible to prove that "structural racism" does not exist just as it is impossible to prove that extraterrestrial alliens do not exist. The concept is so nebulist and the way that CRT adherents phrase their arguments seem to be so nebulis that they are answerable only with statistic analysis which is rejected by CRT and BLM as tools of White Supremacy or another symptom of structural racism, or both.
      To me this seems intentional.
      Classical Liberal, means one that is educated across a wide and varied field of arts and disciplines including foreign language, literature, history etc.
      The term became co-opted by "progressives" during WW2 when progressives favored Socialism, Communism and Racism plus social policy such as ungenics and forced sterilization for "undesirables". Another belief is that people should be governed by professional burearucrats who are unaswerable to the common citizen. They began calling themselves "Liberals". They are anything but liberals.

    26. There are negatives that can be proven, the thing that's impossible is to exhaustively investigate an infinite search space.
      Maybe CRT isn't useful to demonstrate the existence of CRT (this is speculation on my part), just as history is not useful to investigate the metaphysical properties of time.
      OK, I see what you were getting at with "classical liberal references". But I still don't understand how they address, still less refute, CRT. Farmer might be exploring of the psychological motivation driving CRT's practitioners, but I don't think that would "point out ... the fallacies of CRT," rather it's a literate form of ad hominem, right?

    27. @ Jez,
      "There are negatives that can be proven."
      No there are not. Your search may prove that there are but in the realm of infinity, it cannot prove that there are not.
      At this juncture, I find that I must end this conversation.It is pointless of me to continue as you seem to think I am playing "word games".
      As an aside, yes I'm much older than you. Probably old enough to be your grandfather. I'm close to 70. I was raised by my grandparents, they were born in 1885 and 1894. My great grandfather -who was an Abolitionist,- traveled from Indiana to Pennsylvania to join the Union Army at the beginning of the US Civil War. No paltry feat at that time.
      His grave is still honored with an American Flag on our Memorial Day and Veterans Day.

    28. Not trying to be a smart-arse (honest!), but the statement "there are no negatives that can be proven" is itself a negative, so your argument refutes itself. :)

      "...but in the realm of infinity..."
      this was kind of my point, seems to me intuitive that to show that such-and-such exists within a bounded system is not in general intractable. And if the space of rules and customs defined by, say, English Common Law is bounded (not saying it is, but maybe, it is after all based on finite literature), might it be possible to search for qualities like structural racism in finite time? I'm not asserting a yes, but I don't think it's definitely a no.

      "It is pointless of me to continue as you seem to think I am playing "word games"."
      As you wish, but please note that this remark was conditional on a (IMO extraordinary) claim of Farmer's. I'm not assuming you agree with him on it.

      I'm not quite that young, but it is really fascinating that you were raised by people who remembered 19th century clearly. I think the oldest people I knew well were born around 1910 or later. Did your great-grandfather survive the war? I can't imagine making that journey to Pennsylvania, still less participating in that dreadful war. Amazing.

    29. No, a negative can only be proven to the point of a reasonable doubt. What a reasonable doubt consist of is a personal opinion.
      For instance; I might state that all the oxygen in the room could migrate to one end of the room and we would suffocate. You may thing that's silly but you couldn't prove me wrong because there is a very, very, very small statistical possibly that is a chance that it could happen through Brownian motion. Infinity doesn't offer the possibility of everything to happen, it requires it.
      The humanind cannot wrap it's self around the concept.
      Yes, my great-grandfather did survive but, evidently, returned a very changed man, probably what is know known as PTSD.

    30. The american civil war is an incredibly humbling conflict. We don't think about it enough in my country.

  4. The argument of critical race theorists and their enabling storytellers is that US law perpetuates white socio-economic supremacy. There is no empirical evidence to support these arguments, of course, but that doesn’t appear to limit anyone from making such spurious claims. Every PEW study conducted over the past ten years suggests that race is not the problem in American society, but poverty is. From 1959 through 2006, every racial or ethnic group (except Hispanics (see note)) experienced declines in poverty thresholds; Between 2007 and 2016, however, the poverty percentages in every racial/ethnic category increased. So, one then wonders, where is the white privilege?

    Note: increases in poverty among Hispanics result from dramatic increases in Hispanic populations in the United States, attributed to high birth rates and illegal immigration.

    I’m sure “white supremacists” do exist, as evidenced by the Democratic Party’s Klu Klux Klan movement and the so-called Neo-Nazi and “skinhead” movements. Still, the percentage of this population is very close to that of unicorns. It would be difficult to take a walking tour across any major US city and run into a racist of any color. They do exist, of course, but only as a statistical anomaly.

    Critical race theorists are no more than intellectually dishonest, agenda-driven activists who seek a return to racial segregation on their terms. They are the same black power advocates that existed through various movements in the late 1960s — rebranded as academic intellectuals who advocate a return to the bad old days of post-Reconstruction racial segregation. If anything at all, the critical race argument appears to acknowledge the failures of racketeers Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to bring “their people” into the light.

    Still, poverty levels across racial or ethnic lines should concern us. We must acknowledge that the circumstances among the poor are dramatically similar no matter their race or ethnicity. Poor whites encounter the same conditions as poor blacks, poor Hispanics, and poor Native Americans: broken families, abusive parents, lack of physical and emotional nurturing, chronic substance abuse, angry/emotionally confused children, few of whom value education as their one chance for success as an adult, many of whom exhibit no qualms of committing felonious assaults upon another of their kind.

    If ever there was a single heinous impact on society of the Democratic Party Platform, it must be the destruction of the basic unit of American society: our families. Of course, there are two effects: the first is a diminished expectation of ever breaking the cycle of poverty and folly, and the second is a guarantee that people who shouldn’t vote at all will continue to do so as Democratic neo-Marxists.

    1. Welllll, that's what you'd expect a white supremacist to say....

    2. If the point of crt is to study structural racism, ie the theory of how racist outcomes that do not entail individual racists applying conscious prejudice are sustained, why are you trying to refute it by claiming that white supremacists are rare? Seems like that's an answer to a different question.

    3. Because all the "structural" racism is in the small business set-asides, minority scholarships, and affirmative action.

    4. In other words, "all structural racism, like "critical race theory itself" is ANTI-WHITE, and an absence of actual "racist" individuals demonstrates just what a "proxy" NON-PROBLEM this is that the Left is trying to "solve" (the REAL problem being how to elect more "Democrats").

    5. It demonstrated nothing of the sort. The question "can racism exist without malice and/or conscious discrimination?" must be addressed.

    6. Politeness, considerate treatment, and good manners must be addressed? Somehow, I think that using government "hammers" against a "free" society to address them is the wrong approach.

    7. Sounds like a project for "totalitarians".

    8. You're still fixating on individuals, but I know you've seen the word "structural." Shouldn't we be talking about institutions: justice, education, banks etc.?

    9. Are their any racist policies or Jim Crow-like regulations in ANY of these institutions that you can point to? Or is the complaint about how the "individuals" within these institutions behave?

    10. ... (by complying with the policies/regs or NOT)?

    11. Institutions can't be racist unless their laws and policies are. And the only "racist" laws/policies are affirmative actions.

    12. These affirmative action laws, regulations, and policies are the ONLY racist aspects of our institutions.

    13. We could add a million more anti-white affirmative actions policies and regulations, and the Left would still be unhappy and call the institutions "racist"... as the term no longer means a white person who discriminates against a black one, but now means anything about a system or institution that black people don't like.

    14. You want to legislatively fix an institution, fix it by CLASS instead of race with the heaviest legislative thumb placed firmly on advancing the interests of the MIDDLE class.

    15. Mustang said... "It would be difficult to take a walking tour across any major US city and run into a racist of any color. They do exist, of course, but only as a statistical anomaly."

      I am trying to determine if Mustang is kidding, trying to be snarky or is simply uninformed.

      About the only way this demonstrably false statement has any truth would be to call the people who continue to deny folks like me and my wife seats in restaurants non racist people who simply do racist things or label them as only racially insensitive.

    16. Name a single restaurant in America that turned you away. Shouldn't you have sued them and won the racial discrimination lottery?

    17. Liberals don't ever seem to get too concerned when conservatives are discriminated against/censored by "private corporations" like Twitter or Facebook... "They're "private" and can do what they want"... yet if anyone gets served before a black couple at Denny's, they all start screaming "RACISM" and/or "DISCRIMINATION"!

    18. ...but let a restaurant owner get concerned about the dine and dash crowd... and they blame the owner for for discriminating...

    19. Word to the Left... stop pretending that law enforcement is racially motivated and not criminality motivated.

      Note to anti-racists... "Your beliefs don't make you a better person, your BEHAVIOUR does."

    20. Democrats are stuck on identity politics and so on recommending thewrong/unconstitutional way to address what are essentially class-based issues having nothing to do with race.

  5. Replies
    1. I don't think it takes a genius to see that. Denouncing one race as inherently evil can lead nowhere else.

    2. Jayhawk,
      I don't think it takes a genius to see that.

      Agreed! Yet, so many people of high IQ, including several of my former students, are thundering down that road.
      **heavy sigh**

    3. AOW is right....MANY with healthy IQs just don't get it...better to slam anything American and spit out what CNN teaches them than to think and realize they're going to be living in that country for which they're paving a very dangerous road.

  6. For as awesome as she was the 'board' were equally as pathetic.

    -They didn't address a single point she brought up.
    -One said 'they want a peaceful discussion' which really means they don't want to be made uncomfortable.
    -They are being paid to be there. They get a yearly salary and can't decide that some function is on their own dime.

    Unfortunately, this all went on deaf ears. Nothing will change until the rubber hits the road and the parents replace these communist pukes with people willing to be teachers.


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

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.