On the left, John Fetterman, Democrat/hipster candidate for Senate from Pennsylvania; on the right, other white guys wearing the attire Fetterman emulates
If you encounter a young person- specifically a white male in the uniform and adornments of a radical hipster- do you stereotype? A shaved head, a roguish beard, tattoos, and a hoodie: is this some kind of tough guy? Maybe, but more likely he’s simply an insecure byproduct of the self-esteem generation where accomplishments are rare but accolades plentiful, a middle-class guy of some privilege who has yet to grow up, there being no need to do so. A befuddled young man whose very appearance is crying, “Look at me, pay attention, please fill the emptiness of my life!” To be fair and a little compassionate, it’s not his fault he attended lavish graduation ceremonies from day care to pre-school to kindergarten and so on, and was given trophies merely for being there.
Nevertheless, this fashion stereotype is also applicable to the political activist who, with or without a balaclava obscuring his face, is in the street protesting vigorously, perhaps violently, against the many things that outrage him. This especially applies to the “antifa” “social justice” warrior, but can just as well apply to the “pro-fa(scist),’’ neo-Nazi activist; they’re pretty much the same, except the latter exist mostly in the mind and fantasies of Joe Biden.
The office of a Wisconsin pro-life organization firebombedand vandalized
We respond to bad things, especially the suffering of others, in different ways, ways often meant to shield us from uncomfortable realities about ourselves. Ignorance, either woeful or willful, is effective, and denial and avoidance also work pretty well. There are those who thrive on the suffering of others, and indeed create it. Sometimes these people are referred to as evil. I guess there are degrees of evil, where at the extreme evil people view not just their victims as a hated enemy, but also those who stand up for those they prey upon.
One of the most profound and widely read books of the 19th century was an antebellum novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin. The author was abolitionist Harriet Beecher Stowe, and the legend is that when she met Abraham Lincoln during the American Civil War, Lincoln said, “So you are the little woman who wrote the book that started this great war." I contend that people who consider themselves well educated and informed should read this book (though I was over 60 when I finally did, so I’m not sure how that reflects on me). The story is, of course, about slavery, but it’s not some monolithic sermon against slavery, but rather includes all the pitfalls of human nature mentioned above when people confront, or more correctly ignore, evil. The ultimate antagonist is the brutal slave owner Simon Legree, at whose hands Tom is ultimately beaten to death because he was protecting slaves who had run away from the plantation.
Slavery, regardless of where it existed is one of too many examples in history where life was devalued so as to allow malevolence to be tolerated, and where those who refused to accept the inhumanity of it were marginalized and essentially became the enemy of the institutional powers: slavery is evil in its own right, but to justify hatred of those opposed to it took evil to higher level.
Imagine yourself living perhaps 400 years ago in a culture controlled by a Puritanical church, where the established powers had a very personal interest in determining the rules, language, behavior, and even thoughts of the citizens. You were that rare person who observed not only contradictions in the church doctrine and hypocrisy in the actions of the leadership, but actually expressed your concerns. You put yourself in a precarious position, subjecting yourself to accusations of blasphemy, heresy, and witchcraft, often leading to social ruin, banishment, and even death. Certainly you were the exception, as most people would conform to the demands of the powerful to avoid being called such things: look straight ahead, mindlessly repeat the catechism, and hope to be left alone.
The Employee Who Thought Management Was Out To Get Him
Centuries later…For many years I was a NY State civil service employee, and for much of that era had the good fortune to be pretty much left alone to do my job, one I felt was truly meaningful. During that time I worked with and came to know a fellow employee who seemed like a decent guy, competent in his job, reliable, caring, mature. Nevertheless, there was always suggestion of taint about him, as if he had done something really bad in the past; the implication that if you want to get ahead, get those promotions, don’t get too friendly with him.
Sometimes there is little diversity among diversity-equity-inclusion activists
Note: The previous posting discussed the Salvation Army jumping on the “woke” train, so to speak. I sent the link to the heads of the Salvation Army administrative office closest to us, that being in Scranton, PA. I quickly received a friendly and brief reply (below at bottom) from Major Bob Schmig (they use military ranks in the Salvation Army hierarchy. Maj. Schmig offered no comment regarding the topic at hand, and I composed and sent him a follow-up e-mail/letter, which is the main text of this posting. Note that the term Pharisees is used, which defies simple definition but were basically a group of learned Jews around the time of Jesus that formed somewhat of a social/political class and emphasized adherence to the Laws of Moses and oral tradition. They tended to be privileged and numbered perhaps in the 1,000s. They received the animosity of Jesus because he perceived then as hypocrites in the “do as I say, not as I do” realm. In today’s terms, they might be referred in the political world as the Establishment, or more invectively, “the Swamp.”
Greetings Major Schmig:
Thank you for your prompt reply to my e-mail from several days ago, and I appreciate your taking the time to read my article, “The Salvation Army: Let’s Talk About Elitism.” You might have noted I mentioned a time as a volunteer medical director at a remote clinic in Kenya- this was in the early 2000’s and at the peak of the African AIDS crisis. It was a rare day in which a tragedy did not present itself, and I want to describe one so that you might better understand my perspective.
One horrible day we received word that 3 or 4 children were ill because they had eaten rotten fish that had been laced with insecticide and laid about in hopes of poisoning rabid dogs. I dispatched a vehicle but by the time it arrived all but one of the children had died. The one girl that returned, perhaps 7-years-old, was terrified, having witnessed truly miserable deaths of her younger siblings, and we couldn’t determine if she too had consumed the poisoned rotten fish. Nevertheless, though there was no protocol on how to treat such a thing, I empirically induced vomiting (if I recall) and had her drink slurry of charcoal through her tears and sobbing. Ultimately I assumed she hadn’t consumed the insecticide because I don’t think she would have survived regardless of treatment, and thankfully she was okay. Maybe you’ve witnessed and experienced similar events, but having seen so many children die during my time there, I developed a particular revulsion to children dying, perhaps especially black kids.
The current Salvation Army leadership, with the heads of their "International Social Justice" commission on the right
by Reid Fitzsimons
An interesting thing happened to the venerable and widely respected Salvation Army (SA): they were caught, so to speak, in the ether of political “wokeness,” and a lot of disappointment followed. Specifically, they posted on their website a “guide” entitled “Let’s Talk About Racism,” sometime in the Spring of 2021. This was outed, so to speak, by non-traditional media, specifically a group called Color Us United, in October 2021; the resulting publicity led the SA to delete the document in November. As part of their defense, they referred to it as a “study guide…for internal use,” and issued a rather acerbic and juvenile preamble on Nov. 25th: “This statement is in response to a politically motivated group that is trying to force The Salvation Army to conform to the group’s ideology of choice.” Here is a link to the full SA statement: https://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/story/the-salvation-armys-response-to-false-claims-on-the-topic-of-racism/
It’s never a good idea to take grandiloquent positions based on snippets from others so, after some difficulty, I did track down the deleted “Let’s Talk About Racism” document, and an associated study guide; it can be found at an internet archiving site called Wayback Machine (https://web.archive.org/). After reviewing the materials I, as a heretofore enthusiastic supporter of the SA, concluded the critics were correct, and that the apologetics issued by the SA were misleading and even self-righteous, and one of the terribly frustrating things about this controversy is that it was entirely unnecessary. So... Let’s Talk About Racism Elitism.
To be a bit acerbic myself, Let’s Talk About Racism is less a thoughtful and serious paper than one written for extra credit by a sophomore college student in a sociology class (minus the Biblical references), a class where the professor is an ageing hippie who yearns to be pertinent while dreaming of the halcyon days from the 60’s of “free love,” i.e. easy sex without responsibility or consequence, days long before “#MeToo.” It is rife with the vocabulary of the progressive word salad, and indeed begins with a specious argument, presented as established fact, that “Race is a social construct.” For anyone unfamiliar with the phrase “social construct,” it a means to diminish or deny what until now has been generally accepted, and is often used in a pejorative, disdainful manner; it is most commonly seen in the world of “transgender” polemics: gender is merely a social construct, and to believe there is a factual or biologic basis for male and female means you are an ignorant moron.
Note: The following is a letter sent by a friend (and supporter of this website), Carole Milljour, to the rather duplicitous and moral reprobate Chuck Schumer, Senator from NY. She had originally signed on to a group letter opposing the use of Federal government money to pay for abortions (i.e. repeal the long-standing Hyde amendment), and in this letter she is responding to his reply, which, of course, is both despicable and predictable (his response is below Carole’s letter).
There are many parallels between slavery and abortion, the most obvious being there are those who create a culture which allows for sub-humans, and this entitles them to use their Untermensch as chattel: if it’s not human you can treat it like an inanimate machine, and if it proves to be troublesome, simply sell it or kill it. Curiously, there were many slave owners and supporters of slavery who did in fact have moral qualms about the horror they propagated, but were essentially addicts to the convenience and power that apparently comes with owning people. This raises the great moral question- which is more depraved, to know it is evil ad do it anyway, or to be so reprehensibly inhumane as to not even recognize evil. Chuck Schumer is somewhat atypical because he fits in both of these categories.
Dear Honorable Charles Schumer:
It may be a woman's body, but it is not her life she is sacrificing, but a child of God. Our government should not be funding abortion services or services in which body parts of an unborn baby are sold for profit. As a taxpayer, and voting resident of NY, I do not like the attitude of anyone who thinks they have any power at all to vote for taking a human life, especially when that individual is in office to work for the citizens of this state. It may be your opinion, but not the opinion of everyone you were chosen to represent.
I am shocked and angry that you can have such little concern for an unborn child with the feeble excuse that it is okay to terminate it under the guise of “it's a woman's right since it is her body.” No one should have that right. That unborn child suffers when it is torn apart in the womb. Abortion is a moneymaker and people who are for it don't care one way or the other for the child or the mother. It's a disgrace. A woman has the right to use the various types of birth control, because that is her body; but the body she plans to remove from her womb is not hers: that child is a separate entity unto it's own. I was my mother's child, not my mother! It may have been her body, but I was her child!
This is an article published in a small local newspaper on April 29, 2020 by Reid Fitzsimons with the intent of suggesting people who could afford it to donate their virus relief money to charity. It was run unedited except for the headline- the original title was "Retired Pennsylvania Couple Donates Virus Relief Money To Orphanage"
In 2007 Patricia Huenemoerder and her husband, Reid Fitzsimons, of Thompson, PA, opened a small charity project in a rural village in Honduras, which they described as a center for children with a mix of nutritional, recreational and educational programs; overall a safe place where kids were free to act like kids. A variety of reasons, including increasing violence in Honduras and Fitzsimons' son being deployed to Afghanistan, led to the closing of the children's program in 2012, but in 2013 they began a less involved program focusing on vocational training for young adults and small community development projects. It was for this reason Fitzsimons went to Honduras on the 12th of March, just days before the global corona virus restrictions were put in place.
Carpentry class with the 2 oldest kids 2019
"I was able to get everything up and running pretty fast; the carpentry shop, English classes, the sewing co-op" he mentioned, "but soon thereafter Honduras essentially shut down, leaving people largely confined to their villages and being jailed simply for being found outside." He eventually was no longer able to accomplish anything and finally, heeding dire US Embassy warnings returned on an emergency evacuation flight on April 6th.
Hillary Clinton displays physical affection for her dear friend and benefactor Harvey Weinstein
by Reid Fitzsimons
“Hey everyone, I just wanted to say thanks. Thanks for your feminism, for your activism, and all I can hope is you keep up the really important, good work,” said Clinton. (She was then prompted off-camera) and added, “And let me just say, this is directed to the activist bitches supporting bitches, so let’s go.” Hillary Clinton, Jan. 2018
What a strange and perverse thing is modern feminism, full of contradictions and inconsistencies, in ways almost incomprehensible to a logical and thoughtful mind. Why would they demand girls and women not be viewed sexual objects then endlessly sexualize girls and women through their vanguard publications such as Cosmo and Vogue? Why would feminists proclaim goals of empowerment and equality on one hand then foster a mindset of helplessness and dependency upon bureaucracy and regulation? There is an explanation but it requires an understanding that what the feminist elite want is opposite their stated objectives.
To fully comprehend this it has to be realized that modern feminism is an entity Of, By, and For elite white women. Nancy Pelosi, Cecil Richards (outgoing president of Planned Parenthood), Lena Dunham, Elizabeth Warren, Miley Cyrus, Barbara Streisand, Kirsten Gillibrand, Barbara Mikulski and, of course, the Holy of Holies, Hillary Clinton. That’s a lot of rich white ladies in a sampling of the well-known and well-coiffed. Sure there are non-white females who are permitted to be guests in the club, who make for great optics, but the heart and soul is white.
The sad thing about the high cost of the appetite of American lawyers for their made-in-the-USA multi-million dollar "liability" lawsuit settlements, is that the true cost of that addiction, to Americans and to the world, lasts for decades after the fact.
The short list of "made in the USA" products that can be found now in Africa includes most of the airplanes that I fly, which were built by Cessna in Wichita, Kansas. But most of those, like most airplanes worldwide, are more than 30 years old.
This year we reach the 30th anniversary of the year (1986) when greedy lawyers and unions, and their political allies in the USA, accomplished what the Germans and Japanese could not do in WW2, and the Russians could not do in the cold war. The American left's raid against Americans managed to shut down light aircraft production in the USA, and to keep it shut down for the 12-year period 1986-1998. That's how long it took to get the barely-adequate reforms into place.
Crazy about "rights" in the USA: OK, so you find certain rights (real rights, without scare quotes) occasionally inconvenient, even though they are established in the text of our founding documents. Such as: the rights to life, to bear arms, to free speech, and to religious liberty. I get that. They are inherently controversial, always were, still are. That's why the list is so short and why it was so carefully considered, and is in the Constitution and Declaration, rather than in easily changeable law. (At least until the SCOTUS gets started on indefinitely expanding it according to modern preferences and fads.)
But I don't get this: what makes a long and growing list of individual preferences worthy to be called "rights", worth fabricated outrage, petitions, boycotts, blacklisting, cancellations, and protests? What are the motivators for that? Are you bored, self-indulgent, lost in Maslow's hierarchy, or nostalgic for the era of real civil rights issues?
What are you going to do when the guy who demands his "right" to use the girls' shower according to his preference, meets the girl who demands her "right" not to have her stress triggers pushed by meeting a guy in her shower, because that is her preference? Are you going to boycott / blacklist / fire both of them? Are you going to call for opposing groups of protesters to face off against each other in the streets? That's not a recipe for "diversity" or peace or civility, it's just a recipe for a pointless civil war.
