WOOF! Watchdogs of Our Freedom

Debunking “DEBUNKED,” exposing CONSPIRACY THEORIES, and dissing other IMPACTFUL Trends!

In Hardcore lexicography forum on January 30, 2021 at 10:06 pm

In which WOOF’s editor in chief, Old Bugler, expresses his up-to-the-minute-if-frustratingly-excursive views on nothing but 100% guaranteed genuine news, mostly in the annoyingly officious third-person, as befits his station!   

Your humble editor has long held that English matters—a theory decreasingly popular even among English teachers, and evidently deplored by readers who deem your editor’s opinion pieces (and almost everything else WOOF has to offer) unacceptably magniloquent. Your humble editor, just to make the case plain at the outset, feels differently.  It was the estimable William F. Buckley Jr. who once reproved such critics by remarking that he loved English and never apologized for using it. As an analogous defense, Buckley recalled attending a performance by the avant-garde jazz pianist, Thelonious Monk, writing, “He struck some really, sure-enough bizarre chords, but you know, it never occurred to me to walk over and say, Thelonious, I am not familiar with that chord you just played. So cut it out please.”

The analogous Thelonius Monk

Rudolf Clausius, obviously steeling himself as he prepares to invent entropy.

That said, this screed is not directed against your editor’s lexicographic critics, nor even those countless purveyors of junk English (aka descriptivists) with whom we occasionally contend. True, descriptivists (here defined as subscribers to the popular theory that English should consist of whatever is meant by whichever Philistines are currently debauching it, provided enough of them are debauching it the same way at the same time) are always on the march. And while it remains our view that descriptivism represents a menace, and one that conservatives do well to oppose in the name of lingual and cultural preservation, it requires a level of paranoia greater than even we possess to suppose its proponents premeditatively subversive. Promoting junk words like “irregardless,” “snuck,” or the ever-popular “impactful,” or, for that matter, struggling to mollify the grammatically clueless by substituting inapposite mush like “their” for the singular pronoun “his,” simply because its antecedent may or may not be male, hardly rates a charge of sedition.  Rather, such botherments amount to that mundane combination of intellectual sloth and rampant nitwittedness that is nowadays widely shrugged off as “entropy,” even around office water-coolers where not one of the assembled discoursers could pick Rudolf Clausius out of a line-up.

Ominous paralogisms….

The Liberal Establishment (FILE PHOTO)

None of this would especially perturb your editor, at least in the moment, were it not for what Leonard Piekoff might call ominous parallels. In the lexical realm, distinctions should be drawn between trends that are merely pestiferous (i.e., descriptivism), and those that conservatives, at least, should deem authentically ominous. Authentic ominousness, in this case, radiates from the establishment’s relentless campaign of verbal sabotage meant to bludgeon our native tongue into unnuanced puerility, while at the same time–and always with that snobbish hauteur endemic to meddling liberals–demanding our acquiescence to the bludgeonings.

The Origin of Speciousness…

The origin of these assaults is not mysterious–they spring mainly from the brows of alembicated Ivy League faculty who, for want of any less vexatious avocations, preoccupy themselves with the coinage of abject drivel, pronouncing its acceptance vital to social awareness, promoting it with a militancy befitting so lofty an objective, and leaving it to their sycophants in media to goad public-spirited Americans into walking around babbling it.  Adding insult to injury, no sooner are we browbeaten into adopting one of these imperiously decreed neologisms, and no sooner habituated to scrupulously applying it as prescribed, than it is superseded by some newer and ostensibly more correct neology, whereupon anyone so laggardly as to employ the previously mandated usage invites denunciation as hopelessly, perhaps even obstructively, unwoke.  This practice is dastardly, and demands opposition. To submit means living life consigned to a kind of sociocultural treadmill upon which participants scramble ceaselessly to maintain both balance and pace while attempting to snag and assimilate an endless flurry of alien terminologies–terminologies rendered even more alien by a shared lack of vocabular lineage.

Transability, and other breakthroughs…..

Actually, Alexandre is what we would describe as male, although he evinces a certain Gender Non-Binary ethos.

Indeed, one might reasonably infer that the rules for minting such gibberish mandate the disallowance of any phrase bearing any sort of etymological pedigree. In this spirit we are bombarded with rubbish like the imaginary pronoun “Ze/Hir,” which we are solemnly instructed to substitute for such embarrassingly gender-specific artifacts as “he” and “she;” as well as TERF, (the currently approved condensation of “trans-exclusionary radical feminism”).  In other cases, distinguishable prefixes and suffixes are mashed into such bizarre combinations as “transabled,” which appears to be the adjectival form of “transability.” For guidance, we turn to Quebec-born academic, Alexandre Baril, an expert on Intersectionality (don’t ask) who recently lectured the University of Ottawa’s Congress of Social Sciences and Humanities on the subject of “transabilism”–so his views must be reliable. Transability, according to Dr. Baril, is “…the desire or the need for a person identified as able-bodied by other people to transform his or her body to obtain a physical impairment,” or, in other words, the masochistic impulse formerly known as self-mutilation, the practice of which seems to be trending amelioratively nowadays, at least in Ottawa.

Transability offers a socially enlightened view of rendering oneself disabled, thus self-injurious behavior is no longer judged or stigmatized by open-minded progressives–although, presumably, transabled people may occasionally go too far.

Buffy Saint-Marie–one good looking Native Canadian, unless she’s  Canadian American, or perhaps a Canadian Native American?

O, Buffy, what art thou?

In some cases, creating suitably confounding phrases with which to replace longstanding and readily comprehended ones makes the use of recognizable English  unavoidable. When this problem crops up, the rule seems to be that any resultant phrase must subvert whatever meanings were formerly ascribed to its components. For example, “native American” for generations denoted anyone born and raised in the United States, but is nowadays repurposed to supplant “American Indian.” An earnest attempt to extrapolate logically from this phrasing leaves your editor perplexed as to whether the pulchritudinous Piapot folk-songstress, Buffy Saint-Marie (who hails from Saskatchewan), should be considered a “Native Canadian,” which would clearly necessitate reclassifying all native-born Canadians who do not claim Indian ancestry as something else entirely, perhaps yet to be determined. Your editor warmly solicits Miss Saint-Marie’s views on the matter, should she care to express them. Views expressed by Justin Trudeau, Suzanne Cowan, or other non-Native Canadian native Canadians will be disregarded as inauthentic.

Third wave babel…

We don’t know what magic words Houdini spoke when he made elephants vanish, but they didn’t catch on.

Recently, however, a third method of lexical nullification has emerged. Your editor admits overlooking its advent, a dereliction he attributes to the tactic’s sneaky dissimilarity to previous anti-communicative salients. This third-wave assault on meaningful discourse  bypasses the invention of new words, as well as the dismemberment of old ones. Instead, its purveyors are satisfied to slyly tweak certain common words or phrases discoverable in most dictionaries. This is accomplished first by blurring and then craftily distorting the term’s established denotation, most often redefining it as an apodicticity. An apodicticity is a semantic absolute denoting an unarguable, incontestable truth.  Put in more accessible terms, the third-wave’s technique is like injecting previously unimpassioned locutions with anabolic steroids. Suddenly imbued with dispositive powers, these words become the “last word” on any matter under dispute. When spoken or written by ordained functionaries of the liberal establishment, they acquire a nearly talismanic power. They become secular incantations–magical mantras by which all competing views are rendered as invisible to the public as, say, Houdini’s elephant. 

A peculiar form of genius…

Cable-network ninnyhammer (FILE PHOTO)

Once refitted and empowered as a talisman, the mutated phrase is sure to gain popularity among left-wing news babblers (excuse the redundancy), the vast majority of whom are certain to find its magical powers irresistible. What cable-network ninnyhammer could resist the allure of a word or phrase so powerful, he need only blurt it robotically whenever evidence or arguments adversarial to the liberal cause emerge, and in so doing appear to have confounded, confuted, and decisively repulsed his deluded adversaries?

The Devil (FILE PHOTO)

Mainstreamed in its new, apodictic form, the term is soon comprehended by viewers (and readers) to deliver an editorial deathblow, instantly destructive of all countervailing arguments. The phrase issues so often in its corrupted context from the mouths of trusted celebrities like Oprah, Shep, Christiana, Mika and Joe, and whichever cluster of termagants currently haunts The View–that its jiggered acceptation is soon established as authentic.  Say what you will of progressivism’s dunderheadedness, it requires a peculiar form of genius to engineer such a stratagem, or perhaps merely the luck of the Devil, who is, after all, the original progressive.  

Debunked! 

An example is overdue. Your editor proposes “debunked” as the word most representative of the third-wave’s modus operandi, at least for the time being. This past simple tense and past participle of the verb “debunk,” was originated by William Woodward in his 1923 novel, Bunk. Woodward defined it as a verb meaning “taking the bunk out of things.” It found a broader audience when the mischievous Harold U. Faulkner published “Colonial History Debunked” in Harper’s Magazine of December, 1925–following which, Faulkner’s revelations were themselves largely debunked.

H.L. Mencken–journalist, essayist, satirist, cultural critic, lexicographer, rascal.

H. L. Mencken was not amused. In his useful tome, The American Language, he approvingly cited a letter to the editors of the London Daily Telegraph, dated March 2, 1935, in which the writer opined: “The origin of ‘debunk’ is doubtless the same as that of American jargon in general — the inability of an ill-educated and unintelligent democracy to assimilate long words. Its intrusion in our own tongue is due partly to the odious novelty of the word itself, and partly to the prevailing fear that to write exact English nowadays is to be put down as a pedant and a prig.” Even today, this lends understanding to the word’s popularity among liberals, not to mention numerous complaints directed at our website.

Look! On ABC! It’s an ice box–no! It’s a record! No, it’s a journalist!

Naturally, descriptivists have fixated on debunked with fetishistic intensity, but the most ardent abusers of this frumpy locution are those unblushing agents of deception whom we persist in calling “journalists,” excusably misnomered by that same power of habituation that impels pop stars to call their latest releases “records,” or a large number of Americans to call refrigerators “ice boxes,” or aluminum foil “tin foil.” But by any name, the DNC operatives currently monopolizing our news media cannot say “debunked!” often enough, and quite naturally their liberal viewers (and a distressing number of non-liberals) have taken to blurting the word as though its very enunciation mandates the immediate abandonment of whatever argument, hypothesis, study, or point of view, occasioned its utterance.

The magical whammy…

And therein lies your editor’s concern. After all, quarreling with debunked because it was excogitated by a novelist during the roaring ’20s, or because more concise synonyms are available if sought, would seem an arbitrary, even mean-spirited endeavor. Until recently, debunked ambled along as a relatively inoffensive usage, but as distorted by today’s mainstream media it functions as a kind of magical whammy.  In this capacity, it is a prime example of a term uprooted from its original acceptation, disrated into a makeshift verbal truncheon, and now widely understood to constitute a verbal coup de grâce, certain to quash any contention inconvenient to the mainstream template.  Its newfound utility is that–like all bumper-sticker indictments– “debunked” now drubs the ear (or eye) with a sort of goonish thud–like a kick to the crotch, dissuasive mainly because the shock deprives the recipient of his wits.

POW! You’re debunked!

Maybe they should try not being sinistral?

Pick any current political dispute and scrutinize whichever sources are given primacy by Google’s calculatedly sinistral algorithms and you will find yourself awash in debunkings. One might assume that exposing the falsehoods in a multitude of topical disputes would benefit everyone, but closer examination reveals a startling unilateralism at odds with the law of averages. An alert Googler, regardless of his politics, will soon perceive that nearly every source debunking anything even marginally political, debunks arguments, data, or news stories that conflict with the progressive narrative.

                  (READ MORE)

How to Survive the Coming ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE!

In "The horror...the horror!" forum on December 10, 2020 at 1:46 pm

We feel obliged to begin this screed with a disclaimer, lest anyone mistake our motives. It remains theoretically possible, and by any rational estimation preferable, that Donald Trump may yet prevail in his efforts to prove the Democrat presidential victory invalid and retake the White House in defiance of the odds. We are no less convinced than the most avid Trumpers that chicanery played a decisive role in the perceived victory of Joseph Robinette Biden; and we are enraged by the grotesque amalgam of blatantly fraudulent practices adding up to the creative balloting practiced by the Democrat party.  We are no less infuriated by the realization that so despicable an assault on America’s elective process has been abetted by a duplicitous establishment eager to sweep the details from the spotlight, preserving such nefarious technics for future assaults on our Republic.

Otherwise, how account for the election of a doddering buffoon so divorced from reality as to persistently remind voters he was running for the senate, or alternatively, the vice presidency? How account for the appeal of a petulant crank who reacted to critics by shouting nonsense such as “if you don’t like it, you can vote for the other Biden!” and famously, to a 21-year-old female economics student attending one of his town rallies, “you’re a lying dog-face pony soldier!” –a yet-to-be explicated epithet the crotchety zombie blamed on John Wayne, who never uttered anything even remotely similar.  A crotchety zombie barely able to  to simulate English syntax who fondly recalled being sworn in as vice president by “Justice Stewart,” who never existed, a patriot who showed solidarity with America’s fighting men and women by yelling, “Clap for that, you stupid bastards!” when his remarks fell flat at Al-Dhafra Air Base…and a man so estranged from reality as to insist that gun violence claimed the lives of  “150 million Americans… since 2007,” whereupon he resolved to save the remaining two thirds of us by banning “AR-14s,” which is impossible, because they don’t exist.

Building the Zombie Consensus…

In fairness, it must be acknowledged that the pro-zombie vote may not have been effectively gauged, given how few deceased citizens respond to polls. Nevertheless, records show that endless processions of zombified voters became undead long enough to stumble numbly to their polling places this November, blindly determined to elect the first zombie president in American History.  And, mirabile dictu, the overwhelming majority, of dead people vote Democrat–perhaps because they have nothing to lose, being dead–or possibly in solidarity with America’s first undead presidential candidate.

Many deceased voters showed a penchant for voting early.

True, every three or four presidential elections, American voters of their own volition and quite apart from any confounding manipulations, attempt national suicide by electing liberal candidates–the proverbial triumph, one supposes, of hope over experience. Was it Biden’s pledge to “make sure we rejoin the Paris Peace Accord on day one”? (The Paris Peace Accord ended the Vietnam war.)  Or his promise to put 720 million women to work–about four million more women than there are Americans of either sex? Perhaps it was his heartfelt declaration that in the Democrat Party “we choose truth over facts!” Or his Town Hall pledge to support gender reassignment for 8-year olds?

“You’re full of sh*t!” (At least he completed a sentence!)

And in the heartland? Perhaps substantial numbers of gun owners drew sufficient assurance from Biden’s promises of support for the Second-Amendment at campaign stops. In Detroit, for example, Biden was fielding questions from auto workers when one expressed his concern that, if elected, Biden might take people’s guns away. Biden, in an apparent effort to emphasize his contrariant view of the matter, told the autoworker, “You’re full of sh*t!” Many gun owners, initially uncertain of Biden’s true intentions when it came to their right to bear arms, may have felt their concerns allayed by Biden’s frequent efforts to simply and plainly state his support. Such voters may have set their doubts aside upon hearing Biden speak decisively on the issue, as on one occasion when he plainly stated, “I support the Second Amendment–the Second Amendment, just like right now if you yell ‘fire’ that’s not free speech!” And in case that didn’t suffice to make plain his position on the matter, Biden ended by saying, “Guess what? You’re not allowed to own any weapons! I’m not taking your gun away at all!” On other occasions, the zombie candidate insisted he was only interested in banning “assault weapons”–an amorphous weaponological category referenced only by liberals, and precisely defined, so far as we’re aware, by no one ever.

An assault Weapon

Among the many arguments against masks, a relatively small number of critics have complained that they make wearers’ ears stick out, but obviously it remains a concern.

On the other hand, perhaps voters were attracted to Biden’s totalitarian approach to the pandemic–or at least those sufficiently naive to accept Biden’s word that 200 million Americans had already died from COVID-19.  Such voters may have voted Democrat in hopes that Biden’s proposed national lock down and mandatory mask policy might be enacted in time to save the remaining third of our citizenry.

On an encouraging note, and much to his credit, on the subject of Russian meddling in the election of Donald Trump, Biden settled the issue decisively, asking an interviewer, “You think that would have happened under my watch or Barack’s watch? You can’t answer that, but I promise you it wouldn’t have and it didn’t.” (Funny, that’s what we always said!)  But despite such occasional flashes of lucidity, it seems imponderable that a zombie won the popular vote–and by crushing numbers, albeit late in accumulating. (Zombies, understandably, seem to prefer voting after midnight.)  But no–viewed reaistically, the circumstances of the 2020 election are so glaringly stamped with the intaglio of deceit as to ring almost uniquely hollow.

“Wild and baseless allegations” (that are also false)!

Kellyanne may express realistic qualms about Trump’s chances, but from her demeanor, she clearly remains hopeful!

Be all that as it may, beloved readers, our bitter devotion to editorial realism requires that we devote tactical consideration to the possibility–indeed, the probability–of a zombie apocalypse in our nation’s immediate future. To ignore this fact out of loyalty to Donald Trump is tantamount to neglect of duty. Think of this as the Kellyanne Conway default. Kellyanne recently took a lambasting from more sanguine elements of the political Right by observing that ,”If you look at the vote totals in the Electoral College tally, it looks like Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will prevail,” Adding her own view that “the president is continuing to exhaust all of his legal avenues to challenge the results, as is his right to do.” Even this sensibly defended bow to current conditions so triggered the journalists at MSN News that they sandbagged it by instructively adding, “Trump has repeated wild and baseless allegations about widespread voter fraud in the election and falsely claimed that he won states that he lost to Biden.” Now that’s hard-hitting journalism! But let’s be objective. The devil is in the catbird seat–the co-conspiratorial media are monolithically engaged in perpetuating the cover-up, and barring some miracle, the prospect looms that packs of brain-slurping, undead oddballs may soon be traipsing through the West Wing as advisers and staffers to America’s First Zombie.  We realize the immediate instinct is to panic.  We realize the natural tendency is to lapse into immobilizing depression…but hey, nobody ever won a war with zombies that way!

What is to be done?

Now that we’ve reviewed the apparent strengths that swept Biden into office–and concluded there weren’t any–we are left to give credit for his victory to those who deserve it: The academy, the entertainment industry, the news media, the silicon-valley set, the communist Venezuelan gnomes who designed the voting machines, and what the candidate himself accurately described as “the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” (Adding in the next breath that it was designed to “overwhelm the system,” thereby handicapping media efforts to dismiss the remark as the mere omission of a prefix.)

So what, now, to borrow Lenin’s famous interrogative, is to be done? First and foremost, fellow patriots, don’t lose hope, and don’t shrink from the fray! Remember, we are Americans–and they are only zombies! For four years all too many conservatives and independents emulated the citizens of Metropolis, gaping in awe while Superman fought all the monsters and evil geniuses. But Superman, while hardly dead or banished to the phantom zone, may soon be forced to surrender the oval office. This means the job of continuing the fight now falls to us. John Millius’s “Red Dawn” is upon us, citizens of Metropolis–so let us take up the fight with tenacity and resolve.

Stuff we can’t do much about…

“Enormously consequential” Wordsmith and Vox contributor Dylan Matthews–the new face of responsible journalism.

Your editors wish to thank the ever-assistful apparatchiks at VOX, and in particular author Dylan Matthews, for supplying a to-do list for the Biden presidency, helpful from their perspective, of course, because zombies cannot think unassisted–and from ours because it serves warning on a variety of areas in which liberalism can inflict almost immediate damage. The list, which Mr. Matthews entitled “10 enormously consequential things Biden can do without the Senate,” is helpful first because it provides insight into Leftist priorities, and second, because probably nobody wants a list of only-somewhat consequential things Biden can do; and Mr. Mathews has, we presume, weeded those items out.

Many items are, of course, predictably nitwitted. These include fighting climate change by investing 2 trillion dollars in clean energy, because that worked so well for Obama; forgiving student debt, because it’s only money; easing “the ban on marijuana” (which we didn’t know any longer existed); and cutting back on factory farming. We freely confess having no idea what this last item meant until Mr. Matthews was kind enough supply details. Apparently the good of the country exigently requires decreasing speed limits at slaughterhouses and pig plants, and resurrecting Barrack Obama’s “animal welfare rule,” which somehow slid under our radar originally–but we suppose animals have as much right to welfare as anyone.  It seems equally important that Mr. Biden direct the Postal System “to allow all Americans to create checking accounts at the Federal Reserve,” apparently because Bernie Sanders recommends doing so. “Cracking down on Wall Street,” (essential to any left-wing desideratum worth it salt), is dutifully recommended replete with lengthy descriptions of ways in which government can more assertively hobble free enterprise.

Just as predictably, “expanding access to health care” remains an urgent necessity, health care having been severely constricted by Obama Care, the supposed benefits of which were advertised as “free,”and cost a fortune. (Whatever additional tinkerings and centrally-planned brainstorms may ultimately constitute “Biden Care” will undoubtedly straighten all of this out.) One major health problem, American industry, will be combated with more and better air pollution restrictions. because, as author Matthews points out, “particulate matter pollution,” among sundry other devastating effects, contributes to “increased dementia/Alzheimer’s, faster aging, [and] mental impairment,” which should certainly motivate Joe Biden to seek revenge.

Dreamers committing acts of love, will once again be ushered into our country without documentation. until they are registered to vote Democrat.

Obviously, all of the above measures will kneecap the economy, drive prices higher, and insinuate government further into various areas of our lives–but that’s what liberal presidents always do, and somehow we always claw our way back from the abyss. A more disturbing reform urged by the VOX article is expanded immigration, which would hardly merit a raised eyebrow if the author wished merely to expand legal immigration under the law, but that–of course–is not the idea. The proposed “reform” calls for ever-larger swarms of undocumented foreigners illegally transgressing our borders, unhindered by ICE (whose abolition is not demanded by Mr. Matthews, probably because rendering it useless will make it a budgetary item best eliminated in the interest of debt reduction.)

This must be opposed, and is best opposed in congress. When Biden opens the floodgates, as he certainly will, the congress can be militantly lobbied to close the floodgates with legislation; for instance, a law prohibiting people who have entered the United States illegally from applying for citizenship. Another blow to immigration could come as a law barring illegal entrants from applying for work permits. A law prohibiting illegal entrants from receiving welfare, even if limited to entrants arriving subsequent to the law’s passage, would be icing on the cake. Biden can invite the entire population of Latin and Central America to vault our borders, but once the candy store closes, no one will come, illegally, that is. A hot enough fire lit under congress’s collective posterior can motivate even the most indolent legislator to respond.  If congress matches Biden’s calculated lawlessness by passing countervailing laws that in effect bolster existing laws, the tide can be turned, or at least reduced to a trickle.

Now, let’s look at the greater threats we face–the powerfully destructive changes Biden will attempt to impose on the country, and the damage he may inflict if not zealously opposed!

(READ MORE)                 

WHEN STATUES ATTACK! (Monuments Revealed as “Powerful, Hurtful, and Racist!”)

In Monumental stupidity forum on September 20, 2020 at 5:42 pm

Suddenly, statues all over America revealed themselves to be dangerous in the extreme!

Certain offenses against tradition are bound to offend social conservatives—and some are so brilliantly contrived as to offend, one might suppose, nearly any variety of conservative. In a time when conservatism is defined so variously, it seems ever more difficult to certify common ground. Surely, however, the destruction of national monuments rates as something of a unifier.

The worldwide totalitarian socialist conspiracy that governs us (file photo).

Even so, in an era so unblinkingly obeisant to the socialist totalitarian conspiracy that governs us, conservatives are wise to pick their battles. One needn’t keep Sun Tzu under one’s pillow to realize that in a society reduced to infantile tantrums emanating from pseudo-righteous miscreants bent on wanton feats of pillage and aggression, it makes sense to reserve one’s energies for the most exigent battles, and even then to resist engagements wherein one cannot press the advantage. Sam Houston got it—so, in Tolstoy’s view at least, did Kutuzov, although come to think of it, the decade is likely to end with more statues of the Russian Field Marshal left standing than of Houston.

As Janet Granholm says….

Governor Granholm, shown here lost in thought.

But as Michigan’s leftist governor Janet Granholm recently stated in dramatically distinct circumstances (as she would want us to emphasize), “There’s only so far you can go before you say enough is enough!” We at WOOF have no interest in prescribing what “enough” should amount to for the Governor, or for fellow conservatives, for that matter—but for us, “enough” was that point at which the self-professed Communist mayor of New York City announced that he was ordering a statue of Teddy Roosevelt removed from the American Museum of Natural History. Frankly, WOOF sought to steer clear of the controversies embedded in the vandalistic pathologies of the current wave of statue destroyers, but as Janet Granholm would say, enough is enough!

Exactly!

We at WOOF are not oblivious of the case against Teddy Roosevelt made by certain conservatives, let alone liberals, but the progressivism of a man who railed against “hyphenated Americans” is surely worth contrasting to our own era’s version, which praises multiculturalism as a virtual antidote to Americanism, which it views as a jingoistic pathology worthy of eradication. We, in other words, maintain a reverence for the 26th president, and while we chose to hang fire while certain statues of Southern notables were toppled by ravening nitwits in the throes of self-righteous delirium, we draw the line at T.R..

Lessons from The Smithsonian….

Nora McGreevy, gimlet identifier of Teddy Roosevelt and  all other treacherous sons of the Confederacy.

Why, readers may ask, was Teddy’s statue targeted by the current swarm of historic bowdlerizers in the first place? Fortunately, we are here favored with the learned insights of Nora McGreevy who explained the matter in no less authoritative a venue than The Smithsonian Magazine.  McGreevy wrote that Teddy’s removal from the Museum of Natural History “comes amid a nationwide push to remove public works honoring Confederate leaders.” Of course, she might as well have written that the statue’s removal came in the wake of an increased national awareness of the harmful effects of Styrofoam, especially if her purpose was to execute a perfect non-sequitur. But McGreevy has no cause to suppose her explanation will perplex her readership, the majority of whom were educated since the NEA conspired with Common Core to erase American History –except as an instrument by which various victims of racist imperialism may be identified and bemoaned.  That Teddy Roosevelt had no more association with the secession of the Confederate states than, say, Oprah Winfrey, needn’t be rehearsed for our famously illuminated readers. We mention it in passing because, as we occasionally point out, we have at least six or seven liberal readers, not to mention those who blunder upon our site from time to time, only to flee unnerved.

“Profoundly moved by…the movement”

Futter, adjudicate of historical wokeness, bids Teddy Roosevelt adieu! 

But one needn’t be a communist elected Mayor by the usual hordes of preternaturally obtuse New Yorkers, to come up with ideas this screwy. The proposal evidently originated with the museum itself, where museum president Ellen V. Futter told the New York Times, “Over the last few weeks, our museum community has been profoundly moved by the ever-widening movement for racial justice that has emerged after the killing of George Floyd.” Fair enough, but when did it become Futter’s job to show solidarity with aggrieved African Americans (and predominantly White Antifa nincompoops), by arbitrarily specifying items of historic significance to be dragged from the public arena in accordance with her whims, or those of the “museum community,” which seems a rather sketchy collective of amorphous proportions and dubious authority.

The Museum Community (file photo).

Patriots rally in support of Teddy’s museum statue, as reported almost nowhere by anybody–except by us,  and we’re probably fascists!

Nora McGreevy’s explanation of the event notwithstanding, Teddy Roosevelt was not, in fact, hauled off by the PC Gestapo for his putative role in the rebellion of the South. Rather, he was a victim of guilt by association, or put another way, he was judged by the company he kept. The statue in question features Theodore Roosevelt astride a horse–accompanied by an Indian [progressive readers will wish to substitute “Native American”] standing on one side, and an African on the other…or perhaps we should say, an African African–especially inasmuch as Native is now forbidden in this context, even though mandated in the former. Regardless, Teddy might well have continued his 80-year ride were it not for the furor aroused by these two “minority” figures, which is richly ironic–though liberalism, as we often point out, is institutionally oblivious of irony, mainly because liberalism’s basal emotion is sanctimony, which renders irony incomprehensible on contact.  

She likes to move it, move it!

End of the trail, Teedy! And take your friends with you!

So, why did Mayor de Blasio’s office, Ellen V. Futter, the “museum community,”and an endless array of woke establishmentarians, rule that Teddy’s statue had to go? To pursue Futter’s bizarre rationale, “We have watched as the attention of the world and the country has increasingly turned to statues as powerful and hurtful symbols of systemic racism! Simply put, the time has come to move it.” Now, seriously, even if we are willing to suppose that the attention of the world has suddenly found no better object upon which to fixate than the purported harmfulness of America’s historic statuary, and that this fixation automatically obliges Futter’s accordance, how did she arrive at the accompanying awareness that Teddy’s statue “explicitly depicts black and Indigenous people as subjugated and racially inferior”? 

Radical sociologist and author James Loewen on national tour: Like we always say, irony is lost on Leftists!

We contend that Miss Futter’s inclusion of the adverb explicitly rings hollow. Surely, that is at best a subjective inference, suggesting more about Futter than Teddy. The African African and American Indian are simply marching at Teddy’s side–and rather dignifiedly so, we might add.  They don’t look remotely inferior. In fact, they look  proud to be there. The sculptor intended the figures to symbolize North America and Africa, both continents associated with Roosevelt’s adventures. True, TR is astride a horse whereas his minority companions are afoot, but it’s Teddy’s statue. It wasn’t, in fact, until 1999 that the accusation of racism was applied to the statue by far-left sociologist James Loewen. whose inelegantly titled opus, Lies Across America:, originated the notion that TR’s statue was intended to connote–wait for it– white supremacy.

Condi’s quandary…

Amid the dithering, someone remembered to ask Condoleezza Rice’s opinion. “I actually don’t know why anybody wants to defend the Confederacy and Confederate monuments,” said the first Black (as well as the first female) Secretary of State, as well as the first Black (as well as the first female) National Security Advisor, who served in both capacities during the Republican administration of George W. Bush. But, Condi observed, “I also don’t know why anybody wants to tear down a statue of Abraham Lincoln…which was actually funded by freed slaves,” (recently carted off for scrap in Massachusetts) “So this has gotten a little out of control, frankly. I don’t want to be the Soviet Union where we’re trying to erase history.”

This has gotten out of control, people! Don’t be the Soviet Union!

Erasing history more sensibly….

In July, the House of Representatives passed a $740 billion national defense bill despite progressives’ long-standing abhorrence of such expenditures, but added a rider mandating the removal of the names of Confederate soldiers and their leaders from all military properties in the country. In the Senate, the Republican majority responded with its customary courage and vision, declaring their more sober and responsible version of the legislation would do exactly the same thing, but over three years. Once more proving himself an unregenerate bigot, at least according to every establishment news network and daily, Donald Trump vowed to veto the bill, notwithstanding its newly acquired sobriety and vision.  Of course, doing so would mean depriving the military of funding, which could result in considerably more devastation to the homeland than Antifa is capable of inflicting.

In other words, our version will do all the same stupid stuff–but it will do it a lot slower!

Blows against the Confederacy!

Philadelphia abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, positively red in the face at becoming an Antifa target.

Besides Teddy Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, other statues desecrated, toppled, or demolished by felons, (sorry, we meant to say social justice activists) as repayment for southern racism include such notorious Confederate sympathizers as Ulysses S. Grant, the famous Black abolitionist Frederick Douglass, a Seattle statue commemorating the grunge band Soundgarden’s front man, Chris Cornell, a statue honoring abolitionist Matthias Baldwin, and one of Mahatma Gandhi, desecrated outside the Indian embassy in D.C.. Thomas Jefferson’s statue outside Jefferson High School in Portland was sent sprawling, and, of course, statues of Christopher Columbus were scattered like bowling pins wherever encountered. Also targeted were Polish Revolutionary War hero Thaddeus Kosciuszko, and statues commemorating the landing of Ponce de Leon at Melbourne Beach and Bayfront Park, Florida. For good measure, a statue of Viking explorer Thorfinn Karlsefni was dumped into Pennsylvania’s Schuylkill River by indignant Antifa members whose precise rationale–as so often–remains elusive. 

Black Lives Matter protesters visit long-overdue social justice on the infamous Confederate partisan, Mahatma Gandhi.

Shaun King, BLM’s erstwhile person of color may have turned White, but his status as an idiot remains unassailed.

Man who demanded all-Black Jesuses turns White!

Elsewhere, that irredeemable son of the Confederacy, Democrat Mayor Frank Rizzo of Philadelphia, was smashed. Franciscan priest Junipero Serra, and Francis Scott Key–author of our national anthem, both felt the wrath of social justice. The George Washington statue in Chicago’s Washington Park was vandalized, and a white hood placed on Washington’s head. Shortly afterward, Jesus Christ transpired to be a symbol of white supremacy. Far-left BLM strategist, and famous idiot, Shaun King, tweeted that statues of Jesus Christ should be torn down to protest the Savior’s depiction as White. King also demanded the destruction of all “murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends.” Like we said, Mr. King is an idiot, and now seemingly a “cancelled” idiot, being recently relieved of his leadership in Black Lives Matter not because he’s an idiot, but because accusations recently surfaced that he is actually Caucasian, posing as Black. These accusations won him the mistrust of BLM’s founders despite their also being White, as well as boastfully Red. (Hint to readers intellectually crippled by the NEA and/or Common Core: “Red” means communist. We’ll explain later.)

Down with the National Anthem? Maybe BLM is Team Kate Smith?

Jesus beheaded in Miami for acting White..

In Minnesota, Duluth’s hopelessly un-woke NAACP chapter expressed outrage when civil rights crusaders vandalized the Clayton Jackson McGhie Memorial, which commemorates three black men lynched after being falsely accused of rape. In Denver, Colorado, a sculpture commemorating the victims of the Armenian genocide was vandalized and inexplicably splattered with anti-cop graffiti.  In Cleveland, the Soldiers & Sailors monument in the city’s downtown was judged intolerably racist by “demonstrators” who not only vandalized it, but took the time to remove and desecrate the monument’s American flag during a May riot described as a peaceful protest by the media. 

In Birmingham, Alabama, a 97-year-old memorial honoring those who lost their lives in World War I was defaced by demonstrators who tried to pull the statue off its base, but failed. The statue was removed anyway, after the rioters dispersed, by woke city officials. Meanwhile, a monument honoring the 54th Regiment of African-American soldiers who fought the Confederacy in the Civil War was reduced to rubble.  Not to be outdone, the fascist wing of the radical Left, (nowadays called the “Alt Right” by hopelessly discombobulated progressives), managed some risible non-sequiturs of its own.  In June, for instance, a Confederate cemetery in North Carolina was vandalized by cretins who emphasized their distaste for racial inequality by spraying swastikas all over the graveyard.

READ MORE!

%d bloggers like this: