Contained in the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention and the namesake of Fort McHenry, there is a report of a famous anecdotal conversation between a "Mrs. Powel" of Philadelphia and Benjamin Franklin. In response to Mrs. Powel's question as to the nature of the government produced by the Convention, Franklin is alleged to have replied, "A Republic - if you can keep it."
Based on the anecdotal reporting of friends and family regarding yesterday's "Tea parties", that republic is lost. I have not seen or heard of another situation in my lifetime in which so many two-digit IQs were running amok without adult supervision.
It isn't like we didn't have ample warning that the republic was in danger; it's just that many of the sources of alarm are in themselves suspect. The NRA, for example, has been crying "urban unrest threatens" for fifty years. Another such weak source is Lyndon LaRouche, whose October 10, 2008 issue of Executive Intelligence Review included a dire assessment of the decline of the American condition even before the presidential election did the unthinkable to the MIWASPs - put them under the political rule of a non-white.
I'm sure that you recognize at least part of the acronym I here present, and it means what you think it does. But the "MI" part is new to you. It stands for "Male Ignorant", and I am deliberate in being gender-specific in my definition.
Much of the unrest in this land has been caused by the displacement, mostly in their own minds, of the American White Male as the dominant wolf of the pack. Life was so much easier for them when stereotypes would pass for fact, and no brain power had to be wasted assessing every situation for correctness. It was already absolutely defined. Women, kids, and minorities all "knew their places" and didn't challenge the loudly-professed and violently-protected superiority of the Male White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.
So how does ignorance enter into the mix? Let's begin with "They let those dominated escape their control". How could any dominant group holding the kind of power that men in our society did up to about 1965 allow this? Simple. They were too ignorant to avoid getting into that situation of trying to control everything for their sole benefit in the first place.
It's my personal opinion that the assassination of John Kennedy cracked that entitled invincibility myth in the minds of the American WASP, and Lyndon Johnson's unchaining of the feared and despised non-white portion of our nation completed its destruction. Because LBJ was a Southern male WASP himself, he was deemed a traitor by his former peers.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doug Hunter
Another childish name calling hate filled racist rant by a leftist. It's sad that this is all you got.
2 - roger nowosielski
I don't know what's going on, Doug. It's the second article within a couple of days when a white male is under attack. A trend of some kind or just a sign of the times.
Political correctness is having a field day.
3 - Doug Hunter
Ah well, better to spend my time on other things. This line of propaganda won't go away because it works. This nation is far and away a majority of minorities and if you can bind them all together with hatred against a common enemy that is power.
In the last election these guys got 90+% of the black vote and made good inroads in other poor oppressed victim groups. That's not a sign of diversity or freedom, that's a sign of fear and groupthink which this tool is trying (successfully) to engender.
It'll run it's course in due time. Then we'll be, much like Ruvy and Jonathan, arguing wich victim group has the most cred.
My poor victim minority group got beat up by your poor victim minority group?.... is this really what we've sunk to.
4 - roger nowosielski
What happened to the good old American spirit, we're all in this together? You're right in that this whole idea of "victimization" has gone too far. We're no longer a nation but much like spoiled brats fighting for the toy.
5 - roger nowosielski
I think you're making some good points, there, Realist. I'm not certain to what extent you want to go with this "MI" acronym. Kind of broad, I'd say. Perhaps an oversimplification. Certainly not a sufficient cause of our present condition.
But I'll have to give it a closer read. We'll talk later.
6 - Joanne Huspek
Makes me wonder about all the other races and genders who showed up at the tea parties. These are interesting theories, but grassroots unrest transcends the so called "white" male.
Coming into work today, I heard two local black news commentators on WDTK dressing down Obama like you wouldn't believe. If those words had come out of a "white" male's mouth, liberals would be all over it calling them racists.
7 - roger nowosielski
grassroots unrest transcends the so called "white" male.
This is stereotyping, Joanne, just like any other.
8 - Clavos
grassroots unrest transcends the so called "white" male.
This is stereotyping, Joanne, just like any other.
WTF???
9 - roger nowosielski
WTF. Is that a code for what I think it is? Well, let me explain then. It cuts a certain picture of "white male," doesn't it? Joe Six-Pack, Football Joe, Joe the Plumber, whatever. I take all those as stereotypes, don't you?
10 - Clavos
"White male" also includes Bill Clinton, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Bill Ayers, Ward Churchill, the Pope, Nicolas Sarkozy, Vladimir Putin, Clavos, Dave, etc., so what's your point?
It wasn't Joanne who first used the term in this thread; in fact, among others, you used it before she did (#2).
11 - roger nowosielski
Right, and I was being facetious - trying to see, perhaps, how far some people are willing to take it. But Joanne does seem to use it with a straight face when she suggests that so-called "grass movement" (or political involvement) are above the comprehension or the interest of "white males." And this I view as stereotyping.
12 - roger nowosielski
Well, perhaps there's another meaning there as well, as I look it at it now - to transcend, meaning "to be bigger than," "to include and go beyond," etc.
It's still a rather unclear statement TO ME, as it stands, so perhaps she'll be kind enough to clarify it later.
13 - M a rk
But Joanne does seem to use it with a straight face when she suggests that so-called "grass movement" (or political involvement) are above the comprehension or the interest of "white males." And this I view as stereotyping.
That's not how I read her comment, Rog. What I got out of it was that more than just white males participate in grassroots movements.
14 - M a rk
(note to self: update comments before posting.)
15 - roger nowosielski
Read my #12 where I make that concession, unless you just have a vested interest in being contrary. Still, I have questions, if that's OK with you.
16 - roger nowosielski
Besides, if you're a good Marxist as you present yourself to be, you should be familiar with Heidegger and Sartre as well: I have a right to question what may possibly be "inauthentic speech."
17 - Irene Wagner
Why don't someone just ask Joanne Huspek to clarify #6?
Sorry, I'd do it myself, but I'm too busy right now--taking care of a MIWASP's :
Masculine Intelligent White and Sensitive Protestant.
18 - Irene Wagner
A MIWASP's what, you may ask.
It was a typo.
19 - Baronius
transcends the white male: "transcend" in the sense of extending beyond the white male, into other race/sex combinations. Not "transcend" in the sense of existing beyond the capacity of the white male to understand.
20 - M ark
(I fear that bourgeois ideology has rendered me a hopeless individualist - hardly a good Marxist.)
Joanne's comment seemed pretty clear to me given its context.
21 - Arch Conservative
"Another childish name calling hate filled racist rant by a leftist. It's sad that this is all you got."
Did you catch Jeneanne Garofalo's little rant on Keith Olbermann Doug? She claimed the tea parties were attended by racist rednecks who can't stand to see a black man in the white house.
I guess the 67 people watching Olbermann's show must have loved hearing that but every else would be appalled if they even took [her] seriously [Gratuitous vulgarity deleted by Comments Editor]!
22 - Clavos
A MIWASP's what, you may ask.
It was a typo.
Hmm.
Not a Freudian slip?
:>)
23 - roger nowosielski
Well, there are those two meanings, Baronius; and I do thank you for having been the only one thus far (except for you, thank goodness) to have pointed this out. Hence, my the intent of my original comment to hold Joanne's comment "in suspense."
I am kind of surprised, however, why so many commenters here seem this intent on shoving their preferred meanings down my throat. I didn't know that we were all aiming to establish on this here BC side any kind of dictatorship as regards to thinking. Tell me it ain't so.
PS: Joanne's comment may well be perfectly harmless and innocuous. I still have a right to dig deeper if I so choose. So I think it would be more prudent not to evaluate my remarks in the most simplistic way possible and then fault them for my lack of understanding (especially when the commenter is not exactly aware of my intention(s). I should say, and this is on the record, that one-on-one, person-to-person dialogue is more important to me than the absolute truth or untruth of any given statement. The latter issue may eventually be resolved, but not before a certain level of communication between the participants is established. But of course, if one doesn't subscribe to this policy and is intent instead on the truth value itself, irrespective of the value of the dialogue itself, that I'm afraid I can't help. To each his own, I guess.
24 - Clavos
Joanne's comment seemed pretty clear to me given its context.
Moi aussi.
Which was the reason for my #8.
25 - roger nowosielski
Then you're a simpleton for thinking I must subscribe to your preferred meanings and sense of clarity.
Right, now you're going to shove the argument(everybody except you, Roger) down my arse.