Total Pageviews

Popular Posts

Tuesday, August 16, 2016


Yesterday, Greg Gutfeld (or 'Badfield' as I prefer to call him) asked, 'When did riots become a legitimate response to real or imagined injustice?' I suggest he's asking the wrong question. He, and others among us, should be asking, when did we delegitimize riots?
We have used riots or the threat of them as a political weapon at least since Parliament passed the Stamp Act if not before then! I invite you, dear readers, to have a look at groups who have done so!
'Whiskey rebels' (hic) 1794
Anti-Catholic rioters in Boston---that's right, BOSTON--burning down an Ursuline nunnery in 1834
Same reason for rioting in Philadelphia in 1844 and the burning of three Catholic churches
Then, of course, it didn't take long at all for the newly arrived Taigs to copy their Ulsterite adversaries (and quite possibly the #1 pros at riots!) and actually seize control of New York City for four horrific days in the sweltering July of 1863 and murdering every person of color they could grab! Memphis in 1866, Chicago and Detroit in 1919, the complete destruction of the 'Black Wall Street' in Tulsa in 1921 and the same crime committed on Rosewood, FL,two years later. Not to mention innumerable lynchings, most between 1890 and about 1940, such as the one photographed at Marion, Indiana! And in NONE of those cases EXCEPT the NYC Draft Riots was there any use of police or military to quell those riots or prevent any lynchings! What was the 'law's' response? "Waal, I guess these yere good ole boys need to kill n***ers now an' ag'in." That's what!
But, lo and behold, the complexion of the rioters started to change about the time of WWII--and THAT'S when rioting started to be something done by Other People as opposed to an appallingly legitimate response to 'n***ers' becoming more prosperous than white trash!!
There was a reversion to the old way in Boston in 1975. Anyone remember that, or even care to remember?
MLK once said, riots are the language of the unheard. I wonder what he'd have to say about the razing of Greenwood and Rosewood and so on? Perhaps I'll find out on the Other Side. No, rioting was delegitimized when, and almost exclusively when (Draft Riots again being the sole exception!) the skin tone of the rioters darkened!
And now, before I skedaddle and hear the large sigh of relief behind me, allow me to turn about 90 degrees as I take Trumpty Dumpty to task about 'EXTREME vetting'. In order to know who to exclude (and, if anyone asks me, who to also exile among many current citizens who call themselves 'Christians') we need ask only one question, because a truthful answer should not be possible to fake. The question is, "What does it mean to have a 'wall of separation' between religion and state, and why is this indispensable for civilized life today?" If anyone knows a credible way to fake an honest answer to that question, please share it with the rest of us. In the meantime, mull over 1) how difficult it is to lie a credible answer to my question and 2) our abiding hypocrisy about riots!
Oh yeah--and if y'all like this post, please share it!


I, Brian Spenser Meadows, a white, middle-aged, straight, Anglo-Saxon Protestant male, do by this post accuse Herr Donald Drumpf, aka 'Trump', and ALL his cheerers, myrmidons and indeed the whole Republican party of TREASON!! Not necessarily as the Constitution spells it out (although I believe one can make a case for that!) but to our civic fabric and, indeed, to the best thing we of ENGLISH (not necessarily British) background may well have given the world to date: the idea and the mechanics of non-violent governmental change and all the civic fabric layers to keep that in place!
For the past thirty-six years we have been witness to ongoing treason to our civic fabric instigated and perpetrated by the top of the 'Republican' party! The Paxton Boy Gingrich is one of those especially guilty of rending that precious fabric as are the Taigs Billo the Clown, Sean the vain, Paddy Buchanan and above all the great traitorous lecher Roger Ailes and his master, Rupert Murdoch the Evil Gnome!! With true Gaelic folly, blindness and rage, they have refused to see that our civic fabric is not properly based on blood or DNA, but on language, culture and upbringing! Some of us who have been deceived believe that blacks and other people of color are prone to rioting--well, from whom did they learn it? It's not innate to them any more than to anyone else except maybe those from whom they DID learn it--the Scots-Irish, the Ulsterites! Which whites did the blacks know best in slavery and freedom? Why, it'd be either the (ex-)planters or the trash--not, for the most part, the class of solid, non-slave-owning farmers whence I for one come!
And let's take a good, l-o-n-g look at all the bad behavior surmised to be part of 'black' culture! How many of those behaviors have also been said, rightly or wrongly, of the 'white trash'?! And from who else could the Africans in exile here learn? Think about it!
For the last thirty-six years this crop of weeds have been slowly choking and wantonly defiling our civic fabric (especially public education, that worthy institution SO feared and loathed by actual and wannabe tyrants!) I call upon all worthy citizens of all shades of skin to RISE UP, get involved, vote for Hillary and ALL the Democrats from her on down to town councils this November 8, and afterward form a new Progressive party and treat Herr Drumpf and ALL so-called Republicans as the TRAITORS they have shown themselves to be!! NOW IS THE TIME!!!!

Friday, July 8, 2016


Let me start by saying I am no expert in this field, nor do I claim to be. I have a B.A. and some postgrad credits, but that's all. Aside from that, all I have is a (probably) larger-than-average determination not to lie to myself about my own feelings and a sharp memory about my own sexual encounters.
The first time I had sex there were neither mind-altering substances used nor any strong-arming. All I did was to answer her questions honestly about whether I'd be disappointed if we didn't do the wild thing. (I said I would be, but no more than that.) So we spent the night together sleeping and fucking and my ego spiked when I told her it was my first time and she reacted with real or feigned disbelief. We shared breakfast in the morning and she went her way. Later that morning and into the afternoon, my stomach felt like it was coated with some metallic substance. It was a rather cold and unhappy feeling.
I didn't feel that way with the next two women I bedded, and I think it was because neither one was at all unwilling. That feeling, however, recurred twice with later partners, each of whom seemed only semi-willing. The worst was when I entered a woman and it was if my body asked, "What are we doing here?" I think I remember feeling worse than just cold liquid metal in my stomach.
Thankfully, I've never felt that way since but I also have had few sexual partners, including two marriages, one of which is happily current and the other which ended seven years ago when my first wife passed on. But now, I ask myself, Have other men besides myself felt this way and could the reason be picking up the feelings of a partner who is semi-willing at best and completely unwilling, or unconscious, at worst?
I've touched on the confusion there can be between father-hunger and 'gay' sexual feeling on the part of some men; now I wonder, could the unacknowledged (by either sex and/or both; probably both) unwillingness of their sexual partners, and the men unconsciously 'picking up' on it, be an aggravating factor in all this?
And before I go any further, let me post that I don't mean to Blame Women for this particular matter. If anything, I'm in favor of both parties to a sexual liaison be as sure as possible that this is what their partner wants as well as themselves before they peel the clothes off and get horizontal. And I will call out anyone and everyone who dares to try and use this article in such an evil way!
I'm also noticing that those cultures, be they national, regional, tribal or whatever, that have traditions of what used to be politely called 'rough wooing' also seem to be the most homophobic as well. The Arab/Muslim world, at least parts of Latin America and indeed Romance language countries overall--and our own Southland as well, to use three examples. In each region, men will often share more genuine friendship and tenderness with each other than they ever will with their women. There are those like Camille Paglia who will say that's probably a better setup then in the Nordic countries where, according to herself, men offer their women too little difference between what they give their women and what the women give each other and, consequentially, the women are miserable--or so she claimeth. I make no judgment either way. As I said before, I'm no expert and all I'm doing is suggesting questions to ask. I certainly concur that all intimate relationships, be they same-or opposite-sex, need a balance of likeness and complementarity which suits both parties in order to stay healthy and helpful to both individuals.
I guess I wonder how much downright misery, individual and societal, might stem from what D.H. Lawrence called, through his character Mellors in Lady Chatterley's Lover, 'cold-hearted fucking, which is death and idiocy'. That is, sex when at least one partner really isn't sure about doing this or has had her (and it usually is 'her') consent robbed by either force or drugs, including alcohol. Let me tell all the males who have had, or may have had, such encounters this much: you may not like women much right now, but the way your hormones run won't change as a result. You are NOT latently gay. And let me ask all of you this question: which takes more REAL manhood: just following your gonads around or learning how to control them yourself? Those hormones are strong, ain't they? Then doesn't it take a real man to control his hormones? Not to suppress, but to control--that is, to regulate them and know when to keep them to yourself and when to let 'em go
And we men need to be better friends to each other in this 21st century world which seems to atomize us pretty mercilessly. Our hormones go their respective ways, person by person, and that almost never changes. I suggest to all my readers that real manhood's 'stool' has three legs: integrity, responsibility and courtesy. Whoever observes these three is a real man with no need to 'prove' it to, or with, anyone. So let's start from there.

Monday, April 25, 2016


If anyone is still my friend when I've finished this, God bless you. You are truly a special person. I have some hard things to say to many people, including many of my fellow liberals and progressives. One thing I need to say to my brethren is, can we develop a different approach when sharing our information with those who, at least, haven't heard it as often as they need to? I mean, right now too many of us, male and female, approach those who, f'r instance, cling to the racial superiority myths (and as I come from the same stock as they on dad's side, I've REALLY hard words for them coming up!) as if they're--well, suffice it to say we ARE the Judge, the Shrink, the Social Worker the Jets lampoon in 'Gee, Officer Krupke'. Our overall attitude towards those who Aren't Getting The Message seems to be that of an irritated schoolmarm Still Determined To Be Enlightened--one who'd like to use the stick but refuses to, but the kids can feel that desire seeping out of us on all sides and try to get us to be honest about it. So far, kids of color have caught a lot more of the explicit verbal stick than whites have, at least to my knowledge. You know the kind of nastiness that says none of you will do anything but clean toilets anyhow.
And I wonder: does Bernie project some of that? Could that be why he really hasn't gained much traction among lower-income people of any color? Hillary's shown flashes of that but flashes are just that, as opposed to something more consistent.
I'll say this right now: I support Bernie because I see him as abler to get the serious and far-reaching changes we need to make rolling. I also think he expects more of us to participate in the nuts and bolts of that change, which is at least part of the reason why he himself is sketchy on them. If you respond better to someone with a not-so-irritated style and who is more articulate about the nuts and bolts, I can see why you'd support Hillary. In any case, both Bernie and Hillary have said that each is an infinitely better choice than ANY Republican. So let's keep that in mind.
Which brings me to those of my people who, rather than make common cause with those darker people who have LONG been ground down the way you now also are, would rather DIE with their cherished lying myths of racial superiority. Y'all are in BIIIIG trouble both with me and in reality!
Let me say right off that I do understand your irritation with the schoolmarmishness of too many liberals: it gets under my skin too. But, GodDAMMIT, are you all so FUCKING immature you can't get past that and hear the truth in their message?! If some of you bothered to either ask questions or even share your feeling about that manner with blacks and Latinos, you might be pleasantly surprised by the response! And what would that be? Well, they might have slightly different words for it, such as, "We don't want no 'help', but if they realize they needs to git free too, that's different" you might catch onto that you are both saying much the same thing. A Native American woman put it thus to her white liberal allies: "If you are here to help me, you're wasting your time. But if you're here because you realize your liberation is bound up with mine, then let's march together."
See, that's the big lie from the super-rich who have long ground others down and who now grind you: that freedom is a zero-sum deal, THAT'S A LIE--the more freedom others have, the more YOU will also have! NOW is the time to THROW AWAY the remnant rags of Jim Crow which never did anything real for you anyhow and start the honest dialogue with blacks and Latinos which can and, if you persist, will bring forth a better life for all of you, your children and grandchildren.
The end to growth is always death. So there you have it: choosing to grow is to choose life. You stick with Jim or Jane Crow, you and yours will die. Throw them away, so that you and your children may live, as Scripture says!

Monday, March 7, 2016


I'm sharing this particular post for more than one reason. Not only is this post's subject pivotal to the campaign this year; I believe it's also at the bottom of the Arab/Israeli conflict.
It looks to me as if the Arab fellahin have been, and still are, in a situation very like those of our 'poor whites'. And lately they, too, have been coming down hard on their 'n***ers'--that is, their 'dhimmis', in this case Christians and Yazidis for the most part. And without Israel, Jews would be on that list too as almost the lowest of them--rather like 'common n***ers', to use an old phrase. But if anyone thinks that, in such a situation, the persecuted would be getting more help and attention, I have two words: DREAM ON! All we need do is remember the world's non-response to the Shoah to put that idea into smithereens. But in any case, imagine how poor whites would feel if Southern blacks had put together, through purchases and sweat equity, a contiguous stretch of land where they lived, worked and governed themselves and even had some whites living peaceably among them. Imagine refugees resorting thither after an annihilation attempt on them elsewhere. (Michigan, anyone?) Imagine further that the blacks took them in and declared their own state shortly after, to have the poor whites swarm in to put this 'abomination' DOWN! And to top it all off, let's say the blacks successfully defended their new state and even received recognition of it from the Feds! Is the shape of a common 'trauma' clear?
I have no idea whether the election of a black president is comparable to this as a 'trauma' to poor whites; perhaps it is.
Another, related, question occurs to me, brought forward by, of all things, reading some 'Mein Kampf' quotes in another post. I wrote above that Jewish involvement in universalist and pacifist movements are no guarantee of their success; at least I implied that. One of these quotes mentions the 'Jewish element' as a 'universalistic and pacifistic element' and, in Adolf's viewpoint, a strength-sapper to any nation. (Recent science has shown that cooperation is better than success at killing, but except to say that the difficulty arises here when YOU'RE willing to cooperate and THEY are not, I'll leave more on that for another time)
And since the resurrection of Israel, even the 'Jewish element' is no longer reliably 'universalistic and pacifistic' and I can already hear some Leftist voices grumbling or moaning how Israel's resurrection is Hitler's greatest victory and why did they give up on the Far Nobler Dream of Universal Peace as rhapsodized over by John Lennon? Well, pal, how 'bout YOU see a third of your people annihilated and the world just whistling and observing its fingernails while it happens?! You won't say, "FUCK Universal Peace; I want a place where we can defend ourselves!!"?
Israel has not, and never will, give up entirely on making peace; the Israeli left runs on more than the fumes of pre-1945 universalism. The Tanakh is full of urgings to make peace, never mind the New Testament. But they don't 'live' there anymore since it became untenable and I think quite a few on the doctrinaire, or semi-doctrinaire, Left are still hurting over that. If anyone thinks I'm off-base, feel free to say so--but not without saying why and how! So here we have, imho, a nearly common trauma and another related to it. Let all read this and then let it simmer awhile, then tell me if you think I got something here or not, but if not, don't forget why and how not.
America incentivizes racism in working class white people, and if we fail to understand this, we will fail to fix it.|By Emma Lindsay

Monday, January 25, 2016


I think a BIG part of making Zionism a positive word needs to be the active 'deblanching' of it. Look at the contrast between how liberal Israel has been in welcoming the return of the Russian Jews, many of whom are non-observant and/or married to non-Jews (also welcomed with open arms) and the magnifying glass under which the Ethiopians, nearly all of whom are observant and have remained so under sporadic persecution, have been put.
Israel needs to stop behaving like a transplanted Anatevka (Btw, is there a Mizrahi version of Anatevka?) and give more credit to the claims of Jews or, to use the broader term, Hebrews or Israelites of color such as the Lemba and the Igbo. Already the Bnei Menashe are returning from Assam in India; let the Israeli government seek out and encourage other hidden Hebrews to return!
And here's something for both all of African and/or Hebrew heritage in the Americas to mull over: let's suppose the Igbo, who number 32 million strong in Nigeria with God knows (literally) how many cousins from Toronto to Buenos Aires, are indeed Israelites. Doth not the mind boggle at how many of Am Yisrael the world might now have?! I'm willing to bet a hefty percentage of the 11 million of human cargo brought to the Americas were Igbo and that their descendants in the Americas might well number more than those still in Nigeria!
And Israel is the first resurrected indigenous nation of the world, but it needs to work on being the herald for the resurrection of other indigenous nations, both in its home area and around the world! And part of this needs to be a turning away from a hypocritical Europe still caked with Israel's blood and towards other Asian countries such as India, China and Japan.
Leave that internal Anatevka behind, O Israel! Acquaint yourself with your offshoots of 'color' now grown numerous and powerful and form bonds of brotherhood with them and actively hold out the hope of resurrection to nations long suppressed and repressed, for whom your God has appointed you the herald!

Thursday, December 31, 2015


As this year endeth, I think of what sort of people many of us are. Despite the crazies and reprobates who grab the headlines, there are still a very large number of Good Citizens out there. At least, so I believe. What do I mean by Good Citizens?
For starters, I mean those people who are actually repelled by injustice and cruelty across the board, regardless of the race or religious labelling of both victim and perp. I mean those people who are careful to stay inside the law not only because it's less troublesome; they may actually have an understanding of the law as a common benefit to all, whether consciously articulated or not.
This is a time when the Good Citizens need to articulate, to themselves and others, the benefits of law, reasoning and other ways of thinking with one's head as opposed to the heart or, worse, the gonads. They need a good deal less of Going With The Flow and other excuses for not examining things and thinking them out and a good deal more of asking questions and following the money trails!
Another worthy trait which marks Good Citizens is their general detestation of any kind of bullies. Indeed, I think it safe to say that bullies' toadies and Good Citizens are pretty much mutually exclusive. The problems arise when bullies cringe and whimper and do all they can to look and sound like their own victims. This confuses many Good Citizens--as do all the bright and shiny objects which the Corpo Media, at the bidding of their masters who are so wealthy as to make sultans look beggarly, toss in the Good Citizens' general direction. This is done, at least in part, to distract the more venturesome among the Good Citizens (I hope I'm one) from following the money trails. I hardly need say that those masters know those trails lead right to them!
What Good Citizens need to do more of is 1) create longer information strings which lead further back into history and 2) observe less of one's complexion or religious label and watch the patterns of behavior. Some might find a remarkable similarity between the behavior of Southern whites fighting against integration and Arabs repeatedly refusing to make real peace with Israel, for example. They also might gain more understanding of how our society has a 'default' setting for POCs marked 'Guilty for Being Other'.
Of course, once this happens then the REAL fun will begin. Then the benign masks may well come off of 'authority' and the SWAT teams may be on constant duty as it becomes clearer how much of an occupied country we now are. Then Good Citizens will have a serious decision to make: how much does the second word in the designation I give these people mean to them? Because this will be a moment of decision such as sung by Enjolras at the barricades in 'Les Miz'. This will be the time to decide, will you put your lives on the line to stay free citizens and renew that citizenship? Or will you decline into increasingly abject subjecthood? This may be a necessary component of a renaissance of Western civilization and values. Wasn't it we of the West who gave the world the very idea of citizenship as opposed to being simply obedient subjects? Good Citizens need to use their natural anger against bullies and cheats so as to make things difficult if not utterly impossible for such anti-democratic characters!
And when we do, that will be the time to decide: are we ready to put our bodies on the line? Despite the fact that I'm quite capable of writing like Marat, I hope it won't come to bloodshed although the chances of that happening are actually alarmingly good.
Because I know history to some extent, I cannot but agree with the words of Frederick Douglass: "Power never concedes anything without a demand. It never has and it never will."
God bless you all, brothers and sisters, in this coming year of decision.