•

by Reid Fitzsimons

My wife and I moved from NY to South Alabama in 2008,primarily for reasons related to operating our small charity project in Honduras.  During our almost four years there (about half in Alabama, half in Honduras) I encountered one true died in the wool racist, a relic of about 80 who happened to be our neighbor.  Chatting with him for the first time by the mailbox about lawnmowers he spontaneously declared, “I don’t care much for Afro-Americans (actually he used another word).”  He continued for a bit, talking about the good times when Afro-Americans (actually he used another word) ‘knew their place,” and so on. To paraphrase Crocodile Dundee: Now That’s a Racist!  My wife, who had never met a real racist,wasn’t there at the time so later I introduced her, forewarned.  The old guy didn’t disappoint- it was like going to some museum of bigotry and watching a real time exhibition.

Of course that was 2008, a quaint time before countless millions were declared to be racists by progressive fiat.  What exactly happened in the past 10 years to make so many millions of previously benign Americans become vile hate-filled bigots?  First we need to understand what it means to be a racist in the progressive, post-modern sense, and we can do this metaphorically.  Say an overtired kid has a tantrum when he’s told it’s bedtime and, as part of his personal resistance movement, yells to his mother that that she is a“poopy.”  Dad also tells him it’s bedtime but, seeing a little humor, asks him exactly what is a poopy.  The kid, crying more vigorously now, yells,“You are a poopy too,” but off to bed he goes off and is quickly asleep.

Obviously in this scenario the little tyke couldn’t be expected to explain himself rationally; he was fully controlled by the emotion of the moment.  A “poopy” was simply the creation of an immature mind directed at someone who didn’t give him immediate gratification.  Fortunately his parents didn’t have to worry that their lives would be damaged by a silly and nonsensical accusation from an upset child. It would be a worrisome world indeed if immature and self-centered beings could hurl insults and accusations they couldn’t actually define and truly injure people with them. 

A couple of ideas here should be self-evident.  First, if words don’t have agreed upon meanings or those meanings are constantly in flux, then language ceases to be a means of communication.  Second, the term “racist” is not particularly difficult to define or understand, at least for a grown-up whose intellect is consistent with their chronological age.  However, for people whose age indicates adulthood but emotional functioning is more like our cranky little guy above,then a “racist” simply means a “poopy,” which doesn’t really mean anything at all.

One might ask how did we devolve into this linguistic and emotional chaos?  The answer to this is multi-faceted but certainly the absurd wealth we possess plays a major part.  Never before have so many people been so totally removed from the requirements of sustenance: kids having to getup and feed the chickens or milk the cows before school, as recent as my generation, is as far away as another universe.  Our wealth is such that an endless abundance of food, technology,entertainment, etc is simply “there,” and when something is redundantly ubiquitous one needn’t consider its source. 

Picture, for example, our socialist antifa hero who, after an evening of smashing car windows, peels off his sweaty but stylish balaclava and takes a well-deserved Starbucks break, enjoying a $5 Serious Strawberry Frappuccino.  With satisfaction of as job well done he uses his I-Phone 10 to log-on to the news and hears kudos from the college president and local progressive mayor for standing up for tolerance-another conservative speaker has been run out of town!  Never once does he contemplate the enormous and complex transportation and logistical chain that brought together the components of his tasty beverage and the innovation, built on the back of decades and centuries of prior innovation, that allows for his phone, let alone the auto glass he bravely destroyed.  If someone suggested it all happened because of capitalism and hard work, he’d simply yell, “you are like Hitler” and storm off.

While excessive wealth and its associated elitism is perhaps a foundational basis for the proliferation outrage, hate, and name calling,there are other significant factors as well. Broken families underlie much of our societal dysfunction but this applies largely to the non-elite, keeping in mind that feminist dogma has long rejected the necessity of fathers; feminism is an elitist phenomenon and those that can afford the nannies and parent substitutes can get by just fine.

 I propose it’s the intact progressive minded families and the supporting institutions (i.e.schools and universities, celebritydom of all stripes) that have shifted the paradigm from setting limits for kids, meaningful discipline, and a sense of respect to child- centered, self-esteem driven self-absorption.  Here is a blatant example- I once witnessed  (for real) a boy of perhaps10 hit another child of 12 or so in the chest with a branch.  The mother’s response was, “What a good boy,you could have hit him in head but you only hit him in the chest.”  The mother’s overriding concern was that her child “like” her and, of course, once a parent abrogates their obligation to be a parent as compared to a friend, the chances of the kid growing up to be a respectful and successful adult greatly diminish. 

When wealth is so great it ceases being primarily a means of reasonable comfort and security and becomes frivolous, and frivolity is inconsistent with a deeper or more meaningful significance to life.  In this void we find guilt and indolence, a sense that there must be something more, but to find this would take actual effort, perhaps at the unacceptable expense of our material comfort.  Hence we have found a work-around: Yes,there unfairness, inequality, and suffering in the world and at some level I would like to help, but doing something actually useful would take me out of my comfort zone, and perhaps cost me money, time and effort.  Therefore I can assuage my own inadequacies by feeling, or at least feigning, outrage, and by projecting it at people who don’t possess the enormous compassion and empathy I know is within me.  I am a wonderful and righteous person, and you are a racist, Nazi, bigot, homophobe, transgenderphobe, Islamophobe, misogynist, or Fascist.  By hating you I am absolved of my guilt, now off to the wine-tasting fund raiser for Planned Parenthood, where I know everyone will be wonderful, just like me!

Calling people “racists” is so common these days that it has become meaningless, which is actually a problem because there are true racists who can cause misery for others, but the reality of their malicious beliefs becomes diluted- putting someone who doesn’t embrace illegal immigration at the same level as a Cross-burning Klan member may be satisfying on a transitory basis but at the same time it diminishes the vileness of the Klan.Whatever the reason(s) progressive leftists cannot control their self-righteous anger and angst, the recipients of their vitriol,which presently includes conservatives, Republicans, believing Christians,white males, and white females who aren’t progressive leftists (and, curiously,sometimes non-white people who reject progressivism), can take solace in the knowledge that the social justice activists, whether college students, “antifa”morons, or wealthy Ivy League professors, are simply calling you a “poopy,”which has no significance beyond the emotions of an overtired child.  Unfortunately, while the four year-old kid will wake up happy and refreshed, the “woke” activist will wake up angry and offended, ready to hurl insults at people who don’t agree with them on all matters of life, politics, culture, and philosophy.


•

by Reid Fitzsimons

Note: The below is an (edited) e-mail I sent to a very accomplished young man (early 30s) who is successful in the higher levels of academia but also in the “real” world, including the military. As I’m writing this the “migrant caravan, largely from Honduras, is a hot topic. I think the e-mail is fairly self-explanatory:

I have a semi-serious question about academics and Dr. XXX, EdD. He and I had a happy and meaningful time together without too much emphasis on politics. While I think it’s bad form to discuss politics in general social settings, I realize leftists especially have a difficult time constraining themselves, and I generally accept this. Hence I’m disinclined to respond to references to “that mad man in the White House” or derogatory references to Trump overall. I see a number of similarities between the most obnoxious of Christians and progressive leftists. Have you ever know someone who constantly says “praise the Lord,” or “thank you Jesus (not including XXX when winning at a casino!)?” If I’m attending the XXX Baptist Church it’s to be expected, but outside such a venue it’s impolite and inappropriate, especially if you don’t know the beliefs of the people you are with or know them to not be Christians.

Anyway, can an uneducated ignoramus such as me have a reasonable expectation that a highly credentialed academic possess the ability to view things dispassionately and objectively? Poor Dr. XXX, EdD, in considering Honduras, seems unable to discuss the topic without mentioning the Standard Fruit Company with great angst. I’m not sure what you know about this but it was an absolutely proto-typical scenario of a capitalist international corporation lining the pockets of willing petty dictators in exchange for favors, sometimes to the detriment of the “masses.” I said to him, “It’s been 120 years, you’ve got to get over it!” So the question is, can a PhD/EdD historian look at the record, however distasteful, and not be overwhelmed with anger and emotion. If not, can the scholarship be trusted?

You probably know some 13 years ago he received a $100,000 grant from the US Dept. of Interior to investigate the feasibility of processing coffee in an environmentally friendly manner in Central America. Ultimately nothing came of it and the money was for naught, but it did finance a two-week trip for him to Honduras and Costa Rica. I think this brief experience profoundly affected him, somehow legitimizing his already established leftist inclinations in his own mind. He said something like, “I did go to a non-tourist village, and they were really welcoming,” as this was of great significance. Despite his being a truly decent and caring person, I see such a strange contrast between him, the academic leftist whose outrage at the injustice of Central America (for example) suffices for action, and the uneducated ignoramus (i.e. conservative) that I am who has spent years, quite a bit of personal effort, and 10s of thousands of dollars down there in hopes of bettering the lives of the impoverished. I fear in the elite worlds of academia and wealth, a sense of righteous indignation offers much greater prestige than actually doing something!

•

     

by Reid Fitzsimons

I’m pretty sure I’m not a “Gun Nut,” unless progressive lexicologists have recently redefined it to include anyone supportive of the second amendment to any degree. I was certainly not a member of the NRA when, in 2004, I heard a speech by Wayne Lapierre, a major player in the NRA. I assumed it would be similar to Arlo Guthrie’s lyrics in Alice’s Restaurant, when he was talking to the draft board psychiatrist and repeatedly declaring “I want to kill!” Disappointingly, however, it was a low-keyed and well-reasoned talk. Several years ago I did join the NRA and, though my membership has lapsed, the motivating reason was more philosophical/sympathetic than practical (no desire for a hat, t shirt, pocket knife, etc).

In June 2013 Christopher Swindell, a journalism professor at Marshall University in Huntington, W.V., posted a somewhat fanciful op-ed in the Charleston Gazette which included an assertion that “The NRA advocates armed rebellion against the duly elected government of the United States of America. That’s treason, and it’s worthy of the firing squad,” and several other similar pearls. Having been fairly confident the NRA didn’t “advocate armed rebellion” I felt it appropriate to join the NRA; what the heck, if the conservative Heritage Foundation suggested summary executions of ACLU members I might be motivated to sign up with the ACLU.

...continue reading →

•

by Reid Fitzsimons

Earlier this summer I heard a Public Service Announcement type radio ad (noted to be paid for with Pennsylvania tax dollars) pertaining to the current concern/issue of addiction. One of the themes was that an addict should not be troubled by a sense of shame. “Shame” is very much a subjective concept and I wonder if this assertion is based upon any science, such as “double-blind studies conclusively demonstrate a 35-40% better recovery rate among addicts who don’t feel shame versus those who do.” More likely I suspect it’s something that is more comfortable and marketable to believe, or perhaps one of those precepts that has become embedded in our social psychology without any known or factual basis, such as one should drink 6-8 glasses of water a day or that Public television is commercial free. I can hear too well a refrain from the 1960s, “Don’t lay a guilt trip on me, man!” underlying the shame-free mind-set

A brief amount of research suggests the following (anti-shame) paradigm: addicts are ashamed of their addictions so they therefore continue or increase their drug intake to attenuate their sense of shame. Perhaps there is a certain amount of emotional logic (somewhat incongruous words) here, but shame (and its sibling guilt) can be an enormously powerful factor to inspire people to do the right thing, and this applies to almost all aspects of human interaction. Noting a person without a conscience cannot, by definition, feel shame, active addiction reeks terrible havoc on families and society at large. Addiction cannot and should not be viewed without compassion, but it is unquestionably selfish and deserving of some degree of shame.

Increasingly our cultural dictums have become based on a self-esteem model- everything you do is good and deserving of a trophy. Of course there are some vivid exceptions so this, for example, no amount of shame is too much in regards to cigarettes, and the paradox that expressing an opinion that shame is justified, especially in matters of sexual behavior, is to be viewed as shameful. Excessive exuberance for shame and guilt are likely counterproductive, but the choice need not be between the Scarlet Letter and “everything you do is wonderful.” In general things done in moderation are more successful than things done in extremes, and a moderate amount of shame experienced by an addict is probably more therapeutically effective than none. Perhaps the officials that decide to spend tax money on PSAs should differentiate between what makes people feel good as compared to what is efficacious.

•

“Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie... if you believe it.”     George Costanza

by Reid Fitzsimons

Sometimes it’s good fun to listen to politicians lying. The idea that, “They all do it,” really does have some basis and certainly isn’t anything new. Does our current President lie? Of course! Anytime he proposes a new program and talks about the many wonderful benefits to be reaped, with never any downside, he’s lying. Did our immediate past President, Obama, lie? Probably even more so than Trump. We know they are lying, of course, and usually they know it too, at least we hope so because if not we’ve elected people who are delusional. Kind of a paradox.

Back in 2008 the voters of California were presented with and approved a proposition for a high-speed rail system between San Diego and San Francisco with an extension to Sacramento- transportation and environmental nirvana for the masses. Promises were made in terms of speed, safety, completion dates, costs, passenger numbers, yada, yada. Of course all he benchmarks have proven elusive- the original 33 billion for the major LA to San Francisco portion has been revised repeatedly and now sits somewhere between 65 billion and 100 billion and completion dates keep slipping, slipping into the future. Did Gov. Jerry Brown and the high-speed rail cheerleaders believe the lies? They are so emotionally and economically vested in this project there is likely no way out, so their only option is to keep consciously lying and perhaps start believing their own BS.

...continue reading →

• 1 Comment

•

   

by Reid Fitzsimons

I have no recollection who spoke at my high school graduation (1976) but I do recall that a former Vice- President, Hubert Humphrey, spoke at my oldest brother’s ceremony (’71) and, if nothing else, I learned that famous and influential people can be exceptionally long-winded and boring.

With that said…have you read Steinbeck’s Of Mice and Men?  It’s meaningful if not great, though it is made better because it’s relatively short.  To me the most poignant scene was not the climactic one, where George shot Lenny in the back of the head so that he would be spared the turmoil he was about to endure, but the scene involving the used-up old guy who had nothing left in his life but his equally old dog.  Some of the young ranch hands, with nothing better to do at the moment, began telling the old guy he should put the dog out of his misery, that the dog was smelly and in pain and they would be doing something merciful, notwithstanding that there was really nothing wrong with the dog except being old.  In reality the young guys were just trying to find a moment of cruel entertainment and, having coerced assent from the old man, they walked the dog out of the bunkhouse and the now grieving old man, in tears, heard the shot ring in the distance.

I suggest there are three characteristics most worth aspiring to in life, though I’m not entirely sure how I came up with these.  The first is kindness, of which one requirement, I suppose, is the absence of cruelty.  Though I’m pretty sure I’ve witnessed more suffering than the vast majority of Americans, most of what I know of horrible cruelty people do to others comes from reading and studying- part of a true education is to learn about things you might never experience but nevertheless are able to interpret correctly.  Hence, a truly educated and enlightened person will not, for example, throw out the accusation of “Nazi” every time they encounter someone who disagrees with them, which seems to be a fad these days.

...continue reading →

• 3 Comments

•

by Reid Fitzsimons

"We saw one of these while joining  XXX's dad at his church, Spring Mount Mennonite. I'm sorry to learn that support for this sentiment is low among American evangelical Christians. To neighbors from East and Central Africa I would add: Bila kujali ninyi mnatoka wapi, tunafurahi ninyi ni majirani yetu."

Hi XXX:

I’m going to make a long commentary in response to the above brief comment you posted on Facebook regarding a sign you saw at a Mennonite church.

Hebrews 1:5 states: For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”? The (unknown) author of Hebrews is referring here to Jesus, and using quotes from the Jewish Bible to establish that the provenance and authenticity of Christ comes from the Jewish fathers and, hence, offers Scriptural reassurance to Jews who had converted to Christianity. Looking at one source of this quote, that being 2 Samuel 7:13-14, we see:  “He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son.” Again, this alone could reasonably be interpreted as referring to Christ. However, if the full passage is read we find: 12 When your days are fulfilled and you lie down with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring after you, who shall come from your body, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. 14 I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son. When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men, with the stripes of the sons of men, 15 but my steadfast love will not depart from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away from before you. 16 And your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me.[c] Your throne shall be established forever.’”

To me this is clearly a reference to David/Solomon, not Jesus, and even if an argument is made that this passage is foretelling the coming of the Kingdom of Christ, it allows for the imperfection of Christ (“When he commits iniquity, I will discipline him with the rod of men…”). In other words Jesus could, potentially at least, be a sinner, which is doctrinally anathema to most Christians. So is the author of Hebrews attempting to pull a bait and switch, or did he or she truly believe 2 Samuel 7:13-14 pertained to Jesus? I suspect literacy rates at the time were universally very low and access to Scripture extremely limited, so who could disagree with the author of Hebrews 2,000 years ago?

...continue reading →

• 
      
Churchill surveying bomb damage during the Blitz, Barack Obama playing golf

by Reid Fitzsimons

"There is no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even rig America’s elections, in part because they’re so decentralized and the numbers of votes involved (Barack Obama, Oct. 2016).”

A lot of people yearn to be viewed as serious and reasonable. Nothing wrong with that, per se, but there is a difference between being perceived or described as reasonable versus actually being so. That’s why it’s a hoot to watch some Republican politicians abandon their deepest held beliefs as they seek out ephemeral accolades of being “moderate,” or “bi-partisan,” from a media outlet. Being described as “he’s willing to cross the isle to get things done” is like a dog getting his tummy rubbed to certain Republicans, who proudly think to themselves, “I’m a reasonable person; they really like me!” Curiously, Republicans never seem to wonder why they have to do all the congressional and ideological aisle crossing.

The reason for this, however, is really quite simple: like morality, “reasonableness” is increasingly a product of relativity, and certainly since the 1960s the leftist progressive culture has been empowered to define the parameters. Hence, someone holding what had been a perfectly understandable position on a issue, say supportive of marriage and family integrity as the best foundation for children, is now a racist and/or misogynist, considering the alarming rate of black kids raised without fathers (lots of white kids as well). Feminism, an influential offspring of progressivism long ago decreed that fathers aren’t necessary, but outside of urban chic and manorial affluence with nannies, tutors, and upscale daycares, kids of single-parent families tend to do poorly where the actual world is found. Americans in general, and some Republican politicians in particular, will readily contort themselves and their moral beliefs to avoid being labeled “racist,” “phobic,” or whatever, even if the accusing person is a talentless celebrity or 19 year-old rich college kid sipping on her $5 cappuccino, smart phone always in hand.

...continue reading →

•

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.

...continue reading →

•

    

by Reid Fitzsimons

Robert Casey, Jr is the senior senator from Pennsylvania. He has a name you might know in that his late father was a former governor of PA and one of the last truly Pro-Life Democrats, a belief and position which is now incompatible with being a Democrat. His son the senator, whose qualifications are pretty much limited to the fact he is the son of a revered figure, lamely claims he is Pro-Life but this is fully contradicted by his actions. Why he feels the need for this pretension is not entirely clear. Certainly he’s aware there is an ethnic/Catholic voter demographic that wants to believe his utterances (Casey is one of those Catholics that rejects much of the church doctrine but enjoys the wafer and wine part), but I wonder if some deeper psychology is involved. Perhaps some Daddy issue- “I'd like to be a good boy, but if I do what is right the celebrities and hip media won’t let me be in their cub” kind of thing.

Hypocrisy is an inevitable frustration we encounter in life; it is especially annoying when it originates with our elected elites and when it is effective in terms of re-election, etc. In Sen. Casey’s case, his undying support of Planned Parenthood combined with his faux Pro-Life position makes one almost appreciate Donald Trump’s “drain the swamp” sloganeering. Below is a letter sent to Casey’s senate e-mail address with three possible outcomes: no response (likely), a meaningless form letter response (likely), or a thoughtful reasoned argument (awaiting the cow to jump over the moon).

...continue reading →