The Pretty Face of Anti-Semitism Today

On Candace Owens and Contemporary Anti-Semitism

I am not sure what happened to Candace.  But since October 7th, she has been slowly losing her mind.  She likes to talk about her Christianity.  But for the life of me, I do not understand how you can be a true Christian and not fully support Israel.  What does she think will happen to Israel, and yes, to the holy land it occupies, without Christian support?  She's smart; she knows.  Watching her today, and I do, is like watching Howard Beale.

First, why watch Candace Owens at all?  To my knowledge, she is the only person on the planet investigating Kamala Harris' background.  That is, Kamala's family history and genealogy.  Owens' contention is that while the Harris family comes from Jamaica, there is not one drop of African blood in her.  So why the pretense?  Why does Kamala Harris sell herself as the first African American vice president?  Going so far as to insert fake black ancestors into her family tree.  Since she is clearly a person of color, why is this necessary?  What is she hiding?  Owens suggests that instead of being African American, Harris comes from a family of high-caste Indian slave traders.

Yeah, one might want to hide that.

Now, as for Owens (and many others) holding Israel responsible for the deaths of innocent, non-combatants in Gaza:  Given the cowardly manner that Hamas and Hezbollah engage in fighting, using women, children, hospitals, schools, mosques, etc. as shields, of course you will see a high rate of collateral death.  But if you then turn around and hold Israel responsible for that death, as Owens does, there can only be one reason for your logic.  You are a raging anti-semite.

To argue that Israel can simply stop the war is to allow an untold number of combatants, proven killers, to live to kill Israelis another day.  And not just Israelis, but additional Palestinian women and children.  I mean does anyone really believe that the combatants will change their tactics, put on uniforms, and fight honorably?  Everyone who argues this position certainly knows the future result.  They just don't care.  What they want is for the Israelis to simply not fight back.  Or if possible, to be prevented from fighting back.  No, Palestinian fighters need to be exterminated like the burrowing cockroaches they are.

Finally, the argument that Israel is simply creating the next generation of young Palestinians who will hate them all the more.  Well it is those same innocent non-combatants who teach their children to hate Jews.  These people are manufacturing the gleeful killers that we saw on October 7th.  And it should be added, they elected Hamas and then helped them hide the Israeli hostages.  They may be innocent of murder, but that does not make them innocent.

You cannot and should not kill innocents.  Short of stopping the war, Israel does everything it can to limit the deaths of non-combatants.  But long term, they will have to find a way to contain the hate.  If for no other reason, so that Candace Owens can safely pilgrimage to her own Christian holy land.

𓐵

Dawkins versus Peterson

Richard Dawkins and Jordan Peterson in conversation

I heard an earlier conversation between these two, and this one seems to have gone the same way.  Dawkins is clear about what he believes and what he does not believe.  He speaks in a simple and straightforward manner.  But when I hear Peterson speak about Christianity, he sounds like he is not clear on what he believes.  And even if he is, he is unable to put his ideas forward in a similarly straightforward manner.

For example, Dawkins asks Peterson, do you believe in the virgin birth?  It is a simple question.  But Peterson just cannot give a simple yes or no answer.  And we could argue that Peterson has a tendency to over-intellectualize any discussion.  It just seems to me that on questions of faith, sure after much internal thought and debate, soul-searching, there is value in planting your flag.  Dawkins does this; Peterson cannot.

Now to be fair, Peterson's position seems to be:  The values of the Bible are good, perhaps providential, therefore Christianity is true in the most important sense.  But for me, and Dawkins failed to point this out, the values of Aesop's Fables are also good, but no one argues that the stories are true.  Perhaps valuable, but not true.  That is certainly my own view of the New Testament.

It seems to me that Peterson wants the values of Christianity while sidestepping the relevance of the question of whether or not the Bible is true.  My question for him would be:  What's wrong with appreciating the values and at the same time questioning the veracity of the Biblical text?  The answer, I think, is that Peterson and billions of Christians, need the Bible to stand above myths and fables.  If we equate the Christian story to Greek mythology then they, the Christians, lose their conception of the divine.

And most people seem to need something greater than themselves to believe in.  Including, by the way, atheists, who almost universally replace the divine with government as the something greater than themselves.  Sadly, Dawkins himself is firmly in that camp.

While there are any number of ways of categorizing Christians, one certain bifurcation is between those in the evangelical camp who believe that every word in the Bible is the literal and unalterable word of God.  And those who believe that the Bible is a collection of ancient stories, largely allegorical, collected to serve as the foundational text of the Christian faith.

So can we then ask:  What is a Christian?  Can both of these competing groups be the Christians they claim to be?  I have two thoughts on this question.  First, if these two groups both want to claim the Christian mantle that is their prerogative.  Based on this conversation, Jordan Peterson clearly falls into the allegorical camp.

Second, regardless of the literal/allegorical dichotomy, it seems to me that, at a minimum, Christians simply must believe in the Apostle's Creed.  Here's the version I grew up with.  If you do not believe something along these lines, you are at best a secular Christian.  Like Professor Dawkins himself.  Which is perfectly fine.  But I think it is important to understand, for yourself, that you are something short of a Christian.  No matter what else one might say about Christianity, it does require faith.  Absolutely.

Clearly Jordan Peterson wants to be a Christian.  He just cannot quite believe the tenets of the Christian faith.  He'll get no help from Richard Dawkins.

Which brings us to the final aspect of this conversation worth noting.  I never get the impression that Dawkins cares if his interlocutors agree with him.  Sure I think he wants to convince his readers and viewers that his ideas are based on science and reason, and therefore are ultimately, correct.  But I don't think he cares too much about what Jordan Peterson believes.  On the other hand, I get the impression that Peterson cares a great deal about what Richard Dawkins believes.

The only time I have ever seen an exception to Dawkins' indifference was during his conversation with former atheist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali.  Here Dawkins really seemed disconcerted that his friend now says that she no longer shares his unbelief.  I think it would be an interesting question to ask:  In retrospect does Dawkins actually believe Hirsi Ali?  In other words, does Dawkins believe that Hirsi Ali is now truly a Christian, or does he believe that she is only now claiming Christianity in order to provide a method and the manpower to counter Islam?  If you read her essay on her conversion, her's is a Christianity devoid of faith.  So at most, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a secular Christian, like Richard Dawkins, and yes, like...

Jordan Peterson.

𓐵

The Entitled

A Culture of Entitlement

I wrote last week about how in the Philippines there is little consideration and little appreciation.  But if these qualities are missing from a culture, what replaces them?

Entitlement.

If you are entitled to something, there is no need to feel appreciation for it.  For example, ordinarily, if someone gives you money, you would be grateful and appreciative.  But if you feel entitled to that money, then you also feel as if you need not be grateful for it.  Or more bluntly, if they owe you the money, then of course, no need to be appreciative.

So, if you have a family member, working overseas for slave wages, and they send you money...are you grateful for it or entitled to it?  What if it is an adult child sending money to his or her parents?  Does the child owe his parents?  In Asia, the answer is usually yes.  Okay, we are not in Kansas anymore.

So the parents may very well feel entitled to that money.  What about other family members?  Well in the Philippines there is actually a law that you must help immediate family with their financial necessities.  You may not have to buy them a car, but they might expect you to help pay for their children's schooling.  So they are also entitled.

Yes, entitlement is such a large aspect of Filipino culture that they have enshrined it in the law.  Your family is entitled to the benefits of your labor.  Question in passing:  What does that make you?

Well in the Philippines, they have a name for that.  The breadwinner.

And this labor need not be overseas.  If you work in any capacity, in the Philippines or overseas, and especially if you have a "good job," then yes, your family feels entitled to the benefits of your labor.  And God help you if you start a successful business.  It's worth noting that, regardless of the reality, many businesses appear successful from the outside.  So you will pay.

We in the West would call this charity.  And the receivers of such charity might feel shame for taking it.  But entitlement wipes away all shame.  It is forced charity and there is no shame.  It is breadwinner culture and there seems to be no incentive to join you as such.  And if you are "providing" why should they provide for themselves?  If there is any shame involved, it can only be the breadwinner's shame for not providing.

Now misguided family dynamics are one thing.  But this family entitlement then permeates through the entire culture.  Entitlement becomes part of every aspect of Filipino life.  It is this pervasive sense of entitlement that leads to the lack of consideration.

People are entitled to misbehave.  They use their smartphones, without earbuds, in public.  They drive without a license, breaking traffic laws, without fear of any repercussions.  They happily skip ahead of you in line.  If the clown next door is loudly playing karaoke late on a school night, well he's entitled.  They'll join you for lunch or dinner, but stay on their smartphone the whole time.  Why are they so rude?  It's entitlement.

Filipino time, though widely accepted as a cultural idiosyncrasy, is a clear lack of consideration.  Entitlement.  I've written about chronic lateness before.  The Filipino skin tax?  They are not grateful for my business; rather they are entitled to overcharge me.  With no shame.

I would argue that it is the entitlement mentality that is the genesis for the lack of appreciation and consideration.  They don't appreciate, they are owed and thus entitled.  They have little consideration, they are entitled to do as they please.

𓐵

Rose-Colored Philippines

Beware of expat YouTubers in the Philippines

Evidently, for American expats in the Philippines, YouTube provides a great way to make some extra money.  I know that before coming to the Philippines, I watched a great deal of YouTube content of this variety.  You know, an American expat living in the Philippines can provide a ton of insight for other Americans considering a move.  The good, the bad, and the how.

But we should always remember that the goal of these YouTubers is to make money.  And providing accurate and complete information does not always contribute to that goal.

I rarely see flat-out inaccurate videos.  But I do see many videos which leave out a lot.  Little details which will trip you up in the Philippines.  And sometimes these details are not so little.  And if you comment and point out their errors, more often than not, your comment will be deleted or shadow-banned.  That's fine; they have a right to run their channels as they see fit.  And to include only comments that align with their narratives and goals.

But the problem is, there are very few channels which give Americans a full and complete picture of what it's like to live here.  Precious few.  In fact, I constantly ask YouTube to Don't recommend channel for this very reason.

I do watch PhillyinthePhilippines and The Filipina Pea.  Philly keeps sort of a video journal of his life in the Philippines; straightforward enough.  And Pea is a Filipina YouTuber whose audience is largely foreign men.  But she is pretty honest about Philippine culture.  Let me give you an example.  The Philippines is supposedly over 85% Christian.  So she walked around asking her fellow Filipinos simple Bible questions:  Who built a big boat and loaded animals onto it?  What were the names of Adam and Eve's children?  How many of the Ten Commandments can you list?  Let's just say that the answers belied their supposed Christian beliefs.

Yes, there is an argument to be made that only a Filipino can legitimately criticize the culture this way.  But my point is, if you are an American Christian thinking of moving to the overwhelmingly Christian Philippines, this is good information to know.

I will try out new expat channels as they pop up.  And for a while my attitude was:  Well take them for what they are worth, and leave the rest.  But the longer I live here, the less patience and tolerance I have for their dishonesty.  Or worse, their feigned honesty.

Which brings me to Calvin Roach.  When I was still in the US, this must have been in 2019 or 2020, don't remember exactly, Calvin made a comment in one of his videos that I found outrageous.  He said:  In the Philippines, there is no appreciation and no consideration.  My then girlfriend, now my wife, was Filipina and we had lots of Filipino friends in the US.  And Calvin's comment did not ring true to me.  It certainly did not comport with the Filipinos I knew.  And the more I thought about it, the more I found his comment to be unfriendly and untrue, and even ugly.  In short, it made me mad enough, that I quit watching him.  Washed my hands of the guy.

Then in 2021, we moved to the Philippines.  It was not immediate, but I'd say over the next couple of years, I came to realize that Calvin was largely correct.  As unfriendly sounding as his comment was, it was in fact largely true.  I would only temper it a bit; my personal opinion is that, in the Philippines, there is little appreciation and little consideration.  And the fact that this does not hold true for the Filipino diaspora is testament to the type of people who leave the Philippines and the type of people who stay.  The Philippines largest export is Filipinos.

Needless to say, I started watching Calvin again.

The point is, I find him to be a pretty straight shooter.  I know nothing of his reported conflicts with anyone else.  I do know that there seems to be something about Youtube which brings out the inner teenage girl with all her drama, in the content creators.  Maybe it is just about clicks.  But getting true and complete information about living in the Philippines is rare.  Calvin does a better job than most.

In fact, I would submit that this lack of appreciation/consideration aspect of Filipino culture is a dead giveaway for the channels that are less than fully honest.  This is such an obvious part of Filipino culture that if a YouTuber does not address it, ask yourself:  What else are they leaving out?  I remember one YouTuber, from California, who I've long dismissed from my feed, making the argument that Filipinos are more respectful than Americans (as I recall, it was because they are polite and call him Sir).  My comment was something along the lines of:  Only on the most shallow level, but if you dig a bit deeper you will find little appreciation and little consideration.  And how do you find any respect in that?

A couple of other topics to watch for:  The Philippines complete disregard for the environment and its use of the Pacific Ocean as its national landfill.  I know this sounds harsh, but there is very little effort here to deal with waste, particularly plastic.

Also the very popular trend among Filipinas to whiten or otherwise lighten their skin in order to look like Korean, Japanese, and/or Chinese women.  And their methods can be quite effective.  Today, the Philippines is a tropical paradise inhabited by raven-haired apparitions of tropical beauty.

If anyone brings this up at all, the bien-pensants will blame it on the Spanish occupation (which ended in 1898).  This only means that they have not actually spoken with any of these women on the topic.  You want to be white like the Spanish?  They could not care less about the Spanish.  No, they want to be white like the Koreans, who they believe set the Asian beauty standard.  It is sad, and never discussed by expat YouTubers. But what Americans need to understand is just how widespread this is.

Now I do understand why YouTubers leave these issues out. They fear, perhaps correctly, that negative information will lead to less viewership. And perhaps even displease the Philippine government. But whatever the reasons, it's a grave disservice to unsuspecting viewers.

So beware of the expats' rose-colored Philippines.

𓐵

Covid Testing Conspiracy Theory

Would the government pass up an opportunity to collect your DNA?

I will not venture into:  The government caused Covid in order to achieve X.  I will leave that to other more accomplished conspiracy theorists than myself.  But I would like to lay out a possibility that has crossed my mind.

Let's say you work for the FBI in the Federal DNA Database Unit, which runs the CODIS (Combined DNA Index System) and the NDIS (National DNA Index System).  While it may not be legally possible, would you not want everyone's DNA entered into the system?  Would that not be your dream?  I mean, if you could, you would collect DNA samples from every infant born in the US and from every border crosser of any description.

The more records you have in your database, the more likely you are to find matches.  I'm not suggesting that anyone involved would go to such lengths, but clearly there is an incentive to increase the size of the database.

So Covid comes along in late 2019 followed rather quickly by Covid testing.  Most often a nasal swab, which contains the individual's DNA.  If you worked for the FBI, would you not see an opportunity here?  Never let a crisis go to waste and all that.

Now sure, the FBI cannot be seen to be collecting DNA samples from broad swaths of the American public.  But maybe they could ask the CDC or NIH (or some other supposedly benign "public health" organization) to start collecting previously Covid-tested samples so that they could be "disposed of properly" or for "statistical purposes."  These could be collected, turned over to the FBI, and warehoused until such a time that they could be added to the database.

If done discreetly, this might take years, but they could slowly grow the database.  The goal need not be DNA records for everyone, but simply to grow the database by an order of magnitude or two.  Maybe the goal would be to grow the database to allow familial matches for everyone?  Familial matches for ninety percent?  Fifty percent?  My God, we could eliminate rape altogether!  Just think of the possibilities.

And Covid may not have been the first opportunity to collect DNA samples.  Any patient's blood work, from any laboratory, may have been available to the FBI for years.  Certainly since DNA sequencing became widely available.  Same is true for many forms of medical waste.  Finally, is it really inconceivable that the FBI has backdoors into 23andMe and Ancestry.com and other DNA ancestral testing firms?

It really comes down to this.  How much can we trust the government, particularly the intelligence agencies?  Note, I no longer refer to our government or our intelligence agencies.  I'm not sure when it changed, but they are definitely no longer ours.  In any case, how nefarious do we think they could be?

Nothing would surprise me.

𓐵

Paradise Lost

Smartphones have ruined the Philippines

The Philippines suffers from a serious lack of seriousness.  I am really not sure why this is.  But I suspect that, if pressed, Filipinos will likely blame the Spanish occupation.  But no one does press the issue; it is part of their culture.  I would say lack of seriousness is their culture.

Just to give some examples.  Driving is a mess in the Philippines.  Why?  Many drivers are not licensed and there is little serious traffic enforcement.  They are predominantly Christian, but have few serious (actual practicing) Christians.  They are a nominal democracy, but vote buying is common and openly public.  Many people own dogs and cats, but serious (responsible) pet ownership is rare.  We are surrounded by rice farmers, yet the Philippines still must import about half of its rice needs.  It's a topic for another post, but a little seriousness applied to farming would go a long way.

Pick any topic or cultural dynamic, and you'll find something Filipinos are not serious about.  In fact, I challenge you to find anything they are actually serious about.  Well there is Jollibee.  Filipinos are quite serious about Jollibee; and rightfully so.

Enter the smartphone.  First introduced by Apple in 2007, and followed by numerous competitors, today these devices are ubiquitous.

For what?  I mean, for what purpose is everyone using these devices nonstop?  Have you noticed?  It is all nonsense.  While they have any number of possible productive uses, for most people, smartphones are sophisticated toys.  This is certainly true for the people who use them the most.  In fact, I would argue that there is an inverse relationship between device usage (time) and device productivity.  This is simply the world we live in; clearly true for both the United States and the Philippines.

So problem number one is this:  The introduction of smartphones has been devastating for the Philippines.  A less-than-serious society inundated with relatively cheap sophisticated toys.  Can you imagine?  These toys are a national distraction.

Which brings us to problem number two.  The Philippines has a unique smartphone usage habit:  They use the bloody things everywhere, but no one uses headphones or earbuds.

Okay "no one" is too strong.  But earbud usage is maybe one in a hundred.  Everyone else inflicts their smartphone noise on their surroundings.  And of course, it is the kind of noise that reflects the nonsense they are using their smartphone for.  Utter stupidity.

And they do not even try to do this quietly.  I mean hey, if you are going to forgo earbuds and inflict this on others, you clearly don't care enough to try to keep the sound down.

In fact, noise in the Philippines, any kind of noise, comes in two, and only two, variations.  Off and full blast.  In passing, it is worth pointing out, that noise, mostly but not exclusively, outrageously loud music, is just another sign of the cultural lack of seriousness.  I read recently that "culture is what a society tolerates."  Filipinos tolerate inane noise everywhere which is a primary contributor to the lack of seriousness.

And smartphone noise is omnipresent:  Public transportation, elevators, doctors' waiting rooms, restaurants.  Yes, fancy restaurants.  In fact, it has become impossible to have a nice quiet dinner with your spouse.  Some clown, or group of clowns, will be seated near you, and immediately pull out their noisy toys.  And it will not stop until they leave.  We mostly get takeout for this very reason.

But it is not just others.  If you go to dinner with a group of people, there will be multiple people in your group who will blast their smartphone throughout the meal.  Don't bother asking why they are there?  My advice:  Don't go.  And for God's sake, don't pay.

If you are walking around, do not be surprised if the clown in front of you just stops because he or she has been so captivated by their phone that they cannot move.  Happens all the time; particularly at doors and the top of escalators, which require some minimal level of their attention.  But it is too much for the smartphone zombie.

And all lines.  If the grocery line is not moving and the clerk is just waiting for the next customer, it is because the customer is buried in her smartphone.  It seems that her smartphone nonsense is more important to her that getting through the line and on with her day.

So this brings me to the final point.  A question:  Do Filipinos know that this is rude?  My personal opinion is they do know.  It is simply that in the Philippines there is another cultural dynamic at play:  Little consideration; little appreciation.  They know; they just do not care.

So is it still paradise?  Only if and when you can avoid the culture.

𓐵

It's Just Lunch

Yesterday my wife and I visited a sandwich shop that we quite like, a cheap little hole-in-the-wall with a great chicken sandwich.  It is very close to one of the local high schools, and yesterday when we arrived, there was a group of around eight students finishing up their lunch.

They were giggling and cutting up as kids have done since my time.  With one noticeable difference.  Yes, they were interacting with each other to some extent, but they were all primarily interacting with their smartphones.  And while I think this is harmful for a whole host of reasons, there was one aspect of their behavior that really stood out to me.

When they stopped their respective texting or game-playing or whatever other nonsense (it is never anything serious) they were doing on their devices, what do you think they did?  Do you think they discussed their homework or the overbearing math teacher?  No, no, they stopped the nonsense only to take selfies.  In the fifteen minutes that we shared the space, I cannot count how many selfies they took.

Now like I said, this place is a dive.  It's not like going to fancy restaurant and taking a photo to remember the meal and/or the company.  No, they were decidedly not taking photos of the place.  And something else I noticed, in contrast to my day, they were not taking photos of each other.  Hey you guys, let me take a photo of you.  No, it was always a selfie, with or without the others in it.

Now clearly they were having fun.  What's the harm?  Well, what do you think they did for lunch a day earlier?  Clearly the where does not matter.  So wherever it was, in all likelihood, they were doing pretty much the same thing.  Taking selfies.

Just imagine, taking selfies all day long, everyday.  I mean, when I have a camera in my hands, I struggle to find an interesting enough subject.  But young people today have a never-ending supply of the most fascinating thing they can imagine:  Themselves.

I find this terrifying.

𓐵

Jordan Peterson Interviews Tommy Robinson

Youtube really does not want you to see this interview (recorded 30 June 2024).  So they do not allow it to be shared or embedded.  But that is okay because X/Twitter behaves so much better:

.@YouTube has censored my conversation with @TRobinsonNewEra. You can't comment. You can't like or share it. You can barely find it.

So here it is. @Tammy1Peterson and I just spoke to Tommy again. More on that soon. pic.twitter.com/17Kf8QxpuE

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) August 16, 2024

Now here is a followup interview from 16 August 2024 (posted just hours ago on Youtube).  Still shareable at this hour, but just to be safe, I'll embed the X/Twitter post below.

Crime and Punishment | Tommy Robinson pic.twitter.com/IFNZ1ZhpRC

— The Jordan B. Peterson Podcast (@JBPpod) August 29, 2024

Watch these videos on Youtube while you can because I believe, sooner or later, they will take them down completely.  Moving forward, I will embed the X/Twitter videos whenever I have a choice.  Youtube has proven time and again that they are not to be trusted.

Finally, you can see Robinson's documentary, Silenced, which they refer to in both of these videos, here.

Watching these videos and Silenced it is clear that Britain has become a theocracy with Dhimmi-servants running the government, the police, and the judiciary.  And frankly, short of widespread violence, it is going to stay that way.  The government seems completely immune to public outcry.  I am pessimistic that the British people will be able to muster the necessary will and strength to dislodge the theocratic government.

I am sorry, but if you jail citizens for making comments on Facebook, do not be surprised if you get protests, riots, and violence.  At this point the British government seems to believe that they can jail enough citizen dissidents to bring Facebook commentators to heel, and to quell the riots.  And I fear they may be correct.

But at some point we have to fight for our countries.  Yes, actually fight.  And if we do not, we will lose them.  That is where Britain is now.  That is the choice that the British people now face.

𓐵

Give It Back!

The Scam of Land Acknowledgments

Land Acknowledgments seem to be all the rage on the left.  Here is an example from my own alma mater:

Let's start with the passive voice.  This land was stolen from them.  Why do you not want to address who exactly stole the land?  Is it that if you also acknowledge who stole the land, it would make it more clear who has the ability to return it?

Well we know who stole it, right?  Our ancestors, most often through the workings of our government.

So here's my next question:  If you believe that this land was stolen (like this acknowledgment plainly states) and you are a good person, why not give it back?  Surely we could give some of it back?  I mean, Nevada is over eighty percent owned by the federal government.  Utah, Idaho, and Alaska all have over sixty percent federal ownership.  California?  Over forty-five percent.  Oregon?  Over fifty percent.  And how much land do state governments control?

So if you really meant it, at least some land could be returned.

Or maybe you are not a good person?  Because you have no intention of giving the land back to its rightful owners.  This is simply a performance to make you feel better about yourself and how virtuous you are.  Or how virtuous your intentions are anyway.

But even your intentions are not virtuous.  You have no intention of returning anything.  You just want, somehow, for Native Americans to believe that you have these intentions.  And to believe that, the Indians would have to be as dumb as you think they are.

Well, they're not.

Even if you do claim to recognize and respect their brilliance, gifts, and contributions past, present, and future.  They are a living legacy because as you acknowledge, their actual legacy was stolen.  You really believe that they are too stupid to recognize your condescension?

Unless you truly intend to return the land to its rightful inheritors, do not patronize our Native American brothers and sisters with this absurd and meaningless statement.

So what should be said instead?  Well I am not at all sure that anything can be said or even should be said.  Certainly nothing said is going to make the situation any better.

Don't say, do.  That is, give the land back.  Seriously?  Well, not really.  The above acknowledgment is from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.  Are the good people of North Carolina going to give the land that that campus occupies back to the above listed Native American tribes?

There is just no chance of that.

So I am not sure anything should be said whatsoever.

And given the long history and the long chain of promises made and promises broken, is there anything short of a large-scale land return that would suffice?  Short of land return, what are you going to do?  Promise better education and jobs on the reservations?  Tax credits?

Stop talking about stolen land.  Move on to something, anything, more realistic.

Or, pray be silent.

𓐵

What to Make of Vocal Fry

Self-indulgent insolence

Let's start with:  What is vocal fry?

The above clip, from Loudermilk, is five years old.  And it got a lot of discussion at the time.  I completely agree with the Loudermilk character (Ron Livingston) that people do not talk this way.  It is an affectation.

I never watched the Loudermilk show, but since seeing this clip on Youtube, I have noticed vocal fry everywhere.  And it is grating.  But worse than that, it is so obviously fake.

And this discussion predates Loudermilk.  Naomi Wolf was talking about this issue nine years ago.

So why bring this up now?  Here is today's Megyn Kelly Show:

My question for Eliana Johnson is:  Why would anyone pretend to talk this way?  And why would Kelly, or anyone else, take someone who does speak in this manner seriously?  No matter what one may say about the substance of Johnson's comments, it is extremely difficult to take her seriously.  Just listen to the two guests, and decide which of the two sounds more serious and believable.  Who sounds authentic?  And which of the three women might you trust?

No, Johnson is not as bad as the gal in Loudermilk's coffee shop.  She is smart enough to tone it down a bit.  But like Elizabeth Holmes, if we cannot trust her voice, how can we trust anything she says?

One final point on The Megyn Kelly Show; as I most often do, I listened to the podcast while out walking.  So I was not watching the three women on a screen.  I am sure this makes the vocal fry all the more pronounced and noticeable.  To find a good television host, Roger Ailes used to recommend that producers turn the sound off and just watch.  To really notice vocal fry, my recommendation is to turn the video off and just listen.  It hits you like a brick.

I once thought that these women are trying to sound like Katharine Hepburn.  And of course, failing miserably.  But if there's any truth in this, perhaps they are trying to sound smart and refined and sophisticated like Hepburn.  But it sounds so fake that the result is the opposite.

But I no longer believe this is the reason for vocal fry.

Listen to this particularly egregious example from Fashionably Divorced.  Just watch (listen) to ANY of her videos.  I'm sorry, but it's disgusting.  Or, just listen to NPR.  On this Youtube NPR compilation (without video), one recent comment is that vocal fry communicates condescension.  Now this sounds completely true to me.  Maybe it's not an attempt to sound refined and sophisticated, but rather an attempt to convey genuine contempt for your listeners.  Without doubt the Loudermilk barista has contempt for her customers.  Fashionably Divorced conveys condescension and smugness with every syllable.

And Lord, nothing shouts smug like vocal fry on NPR.

Upspeak is another irritating habit that women sometimes glom onto.  Also annoying; but I personally do not find it anywhere as annoying as fry.  Upspeak seems to come from a lack of confidence rather than the self-indulgent insolence of vocal fry.

Whether she is on the radio or standing right in front of you, how should one deal with this self-indulgent insolence?  How should we deal with that level of smugness and condescension?  My advice is don't deal with it.  Find a new coffee ship, turn the radio off, swipe left on the video, and if she is standing right in front of you, walk away.

Do not tolerate the insolence.

Update, Tuesday, 13 August 2024

From the very next Megyn Kelly Show:

Once you hear it, it's hard to un-hear it.

𓐵

Narcissism as a Mass Psychosis

Will tattoo madness ever end?

Nigel Jones writing in The Spectator:

The sheer uglification of public spaces by tattoos is reaching intolerable levels.  Those who prowl the streets with hideous inky splodges crawling up their thick necks are not a pretty sight.  These are not the picturesquely decorated heroes of Moby Dick or jolly Jack Tars with tales of Tangiers and Trafalgar:  They are making a visual statement of their own crass stupidity.  Modern mass tattoos do have one useful purpose, however:  They silently tell us that the wearer is a moron without putting us to the trouble of speaking to them to verify that fact.

I have made the very same point on this website.  As for women with tattoos, when I encounter one, which these days is quite frequent, I am overwhelmed with a sense of loss.  It's like watching the burning of a beautiful painting or the desecration of some sacred place.  Tattoos are not merely ugly, they are heartbreaking.

Filipinas further undermine their own natural beauty

The cancer of women's tattoos has also come to the Philippines.  What I have noticed here is that women who lighten their skin are much more likely to acquire tattoos than women with the lovely and natural morena (brown) skin.  Of course the correlation is that women who want to fit in with the porcelain-skin-crowd are also much more likely to follow any trend.  The result is the double eyesore of artificially whitened skin emblazoned with indelible ink.  It's tragic.

Now the Filipina perspective seems to be:  Because of the expense involved, white skin is the reserve of those who can afford it.  Likewise tattoos.  But other than celebrities, upper class women here (as everywhere) are not running out to get some ink.  Decidedly not.  So sure, Filipinas may want white skin to emulate the upper class.  But they get tattooed to fit in with their peers.

Raging Narcissism

As I have written previously:  Acquiring a tattoo is a fundamentally narcissistic pursuit.  It might be argued that one or two tattoos are a personal artistic indulgence or remembrance.  But to get a sleeve or more, that has the look at me quality of the true narcissist.  Tattoos have become a manifestation of narcissism:  Look at me, look at me!

The self-esteem movement, followed by social media proliferation have turned a whole generation into raging narcissists.

Tattoos were sure to follow.

To go back to Nigel Jones' point, what I find so very sad about the acquisition of tattoos is that people willingly mutilate themselves, make themselves ugly, sacrifice their own beauty, and desecrate their bodies...for attention.  Even if at least half of the attention is disapproving.  Such is the strong pull of narcissism.  It is like an addictive drug.

Clearly we are doing something wrong when raising our children.

𓐵

Individual Accountability Warfare, Part Two

How to deal with a dangerous world

Back in May, I wrote about Individual Accountability Warfare.  This is what it looks like.  And the results.  Here's my question:  Would ANY Democrat act this way?  Name one, just one.  But is this story about Trump true?  I certainly hope so.

THIS is how President Trump handled terrorists. It’s why in his last 18 months we didn’t lose a single American soldier in Afghanistan.

President Trump kept America safe because he made our enemies FEAR us.

FULL Interview LINK in BIO. pic.twitter.com/WM5C7MPjZh

— Wesley Hunt (@WesleyHuntTX) July 3, 2024

𓐵