Unethical Quote Of The Week: Rosaine Santos, MAGA-Hater

“I had a little bit to drink maybe that’s the reason that I couldn’t walk away but being discriminated for so many times in my life, I just had to stand up for myself. He’s not a victim. I am the victim. I have been bullied, OK?”

—-Brazilian immigrant Rosaine Santos, upon her arrest for assaulting  a male customer patron at a Casa Vallarta, a Mexican restaurant in Cape Cod who was wearing a “Make America Great Again” cap.

Santos attacked a man for wearing a MAGA hat, and was charged with disorderly conduct, assault and battery. She was upset that 23-year-old Bryton Turner was wearing the Trump campaign hat at a Mexican eatery.

Turner was just eating quietly when Santos started yelling at him. He pulled out his phone and started recording her. The video shows Santos is  hitting his hat off his head. As police escorted Santos out of the restaurant, she took another swipe at Turner.  She told police that Turner should not be allowed to eat at a Mexican restaurant because of his support for President Donald Trump.

What an asshole.

Observations:

  • “The resistance,” the news media and the purveyors of the vile”Big Lie” that Donald Trump and his supporters, and by extension Republicans, are racists and xenophobes are 100% responsible for these increasingly frequent attacks, as well as such episodes as the Jussie Smollett hoax.

In a more general sense, Barack Obama and Democrats are responsible, for laying the foundation for the Big Lie from 2008-2016., with their divisive and destructive tactic of demonizing all political opponents and critics as motivated by bigotry.

  • I have said before that the MAGA cap slur, repeated by mindless and gullible Trump-haters as well as by Machiavellian partisans and journalists, will eventually get someone killed. Every statement comparing the cap to a KKK hood or Nazi emblem will  bring that tragedy  closer to reality.

Bet on it.

  • These attacks, and the Smollett hoax, are hate crimes if anything is. Because they are motivated by hate for about one half of the population, they aren’t charged as hate crimes.

This is one more example of how the whole hate crime concept is an effort to create a hierarchy of victims, and has nothing whatsoever to do with justice.

  • How do we categorize the logic that someone who regards herself as a victim is justified in attacking a complete stranger? What kind of warped upbringing, education and peer group influence produces such an anti-ethical delusion?

Her logic is exactly the logic of the Final Solution as practiced by Nazi Germany. How ironic, then that it is  people like this deranged woman who call Trump supporters Nazis.

  • If it were not so late at night, if I were not so disgusted and depressed with these stories, and if I was in a whimsical mood, which I am not, I might amuse myself by listing arguments similar in battiness to “people who don’t support illegal immigration from Mexico shouldn’t be allowed to eat in Mexican restaurants.” I guess this principle would also extend to Taco Bell.

Feel free to submit your own. OK, I’ll get you started: “No one who supports the Green New Deal should be allowed to watch “Airplane!”

55 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Week: Rosaine Santos, MAGA-Hater

  1. I’ll see you and raise you for a bat shit to the point of being unethical quote which a news reporter allowed to be published without comment (or ridicule):

    From the Yemini/Alabama ISIS multi-bride/Madonna who wants the U.S. State Department to get her out of a Syria:

    Asked what she would expect as a reasonable form of punishment for joining ISIS, she said: ‘Maybe therapy lessons, maybe a process that will ensure us that we’ll never do this again.

    ‘Jail time, I don’t know if that has an effect on people. I need help mentally as well, I don’t have the ideology any more but I am just traumatized by my experience.’

    From The Daily Mail. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6740215/Shes-noncitizen-terrorist-Mike-Pompeo-rejects-citizenship-claim-ISIS-wife-Hoda-Muthana.html

    By the way, the NY Post has a nice piece arguing she should be brought back and tried for treason. She’s certainly a modern day Ezra Pound at a minimum. https://nypost.com/2019/02/23/isis-bride-should-return-and-teach-trump-a-lesson-on-treason/

  2. Well, she was probably “triggered” by this cap which is obviously a symbol of hate and intolerance. (sarcasm intended) It’s ironic that following WW2, Brazil gave entry to many real Nazis thru an SS ratline because they wanted their technical skills.

    • It is telling that she thinks someone wearing a hat for a political candidate she doesn’t support constitutes ‘discrimination’. I can tell she has had a hard life.

  3. In a more general sense, Barack Obama and Democrats are responsible, for laying the foundation for the Big Lie from 2008-20016., with their divisive and destructive tactic of demonizing all political opponents and critics as motivated by bigotry.
    Can you list examples from that time of them doing so?

  4. Okay.. though I do and will retain my EA handle Arthur in Maine (which is a place I long for and which remains my spiritual home) I herewith confess that I moved from Maine to Cape Cod several years ago for family reasons.

    I now live in the town where this happened, and in fact I have eaten at this particular restaurant numerous times. It’s one of my go-tos. It’s one of four restaurants in a small family-owned chain, all of which are in eastern Massachusetts. The food isn’t brilliant, but it’s quite good (in fact, it’s about as good as it gets for Mexican food in New England); the prices are reasonable, and the value-for-money is solid. The staff is hospitable and kind, the service is prompt; I’ve never had to wait for a seat, though there’s usually a fair crowd there.

    I think very well of it and will continue to patronize the place. My hope is that the undesired publicity from this appalling story does them well. It’s an earnest business; these folks work their asses off and they do it well.

    Meantime, I’d point out that this is the same town in which a recent winter storm produced another incident in which a contract plow truck driver for the town (contract since cancelled) was credibly accused of deliberately sending a shower of snow and slush onto a group of anti-Trump protesters. As the crow flies, that incident happened just over a mile to the southwest. It’s a very liberal town, and those people are out there every weekend. Story link: https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/430795-plow-driver-faces-charges-after-allegedly-spraying-anti-trump

    Conclusion: unethical assholes exist on both sides of the political divide.

    • No doubt about it. But only Trump-hatimg elected officials have encouraged crazies to harass Republicans, and there is no organized group punching the Leftist Nazis in their faces. Nobody attacks people who wear Hope and Change T-shirts, or accosts citizens wearing Hillary campaign slogans. This is a false equivalency.

      • I’m not drawing an equivalency, and I agree that left-on-right incidents at least appear to outnumber right-on-left ones. It’s unethical behavior either way, even if one is an order of magnitude greater than the other. Merely noting that he anti-Trump left doesn’t have a lock on bad behavior.

        • But Arthur on the Cape, the anti-Trump left thinks and acts as if their bad behavior is totally justified and warranted, to the extent that it is, in fact, admirable behavior. After all, the snow plow guy was shamed and fired, right?

          There’s also a townie vs. rich movers-in dynamic in almost all of New England, and certainly on the Cape. The guy in the MAGA had and hoodie is doubtless a townie. Probably drives his own snow plow and plows the investment bankers’ driveways.

          • Actually, he’s from the next town over (Mashpee). And yes, a fair number of folks around here – including my next-door neighbor – own trucks and plows and clear side streets under contract from the town, which limits itself to plowing the main roads to the extent that it can.

            Which is entirely irrelevant. Nor is the townies v. transplants dynamic relevant here. What IS relevant is the behavior, and in both cases the miscreants targeted others based purely upon their (openly-displayed) political allegiances, and it doesn’t matter one bit where they’re from or how deep their pockets are.

            What’s also relevant is that in both cases the dumb bastards weren’t satisfied with one assault. Both went back for a second attempt. Pathetic.

            • Actually, I think the current state of politics in the U.S. is the townie/rich person tension writ large. The guys who plow the back streets and driveways so their betters can drive to the local restaurant are tired of being told what to think and to learn how to program by the guys making money buying and selling companies and yachting on the weekends.

              • And then while this guy is trying to have a beer at the bar, some tipsy, chubby Brazilian chick (who isn’t even just of Portuguese descent and visiting from Providence, she’s actually from a foreign country and probably isn’t entitled to vote here) messes with his hat. I admire him for chuckling and getting a kick out of it. Good for him

              • Okay, now I see where you’re coming from. Townies v. transplants writ large… there may be some truth to that. Doesn’t change the inappropriateness, or unethical qualities, of the behavior, though.

                • I think Ann Althouse calls this “civility bullshit.” When people are treated poorly and are driven to erupt, the superior provokers, who usually use words to provoke the inferiors, invoke and hide behind an alleged “lack of civility” as distracter to their provocation. It’s a very common tactic. See, eg. Kavanaugh hearing where Kavanaugh gets verbally savaged, gets angry, is then smarmingly criticized for getting angry. It’s a common catch-22 tactic, very much favored by the left, particularly lefty women in politics and media.

                  • I call it grade school behavior. When we were 8 we needled each other into overreacting, then blamed the person who overreacted for not being able to take a joke or some other nonsense like that.

                    • I love this concept.

                      “Your tell-lies-about-me-behind-my-back-like-a-craven-dilettante humor fell a little flat, but my direct, honest confrontation made a bloody, whimpering joke out of you. Maybe you don’t have a sense of humor.”

                      Actively training me to treat just retaliation against unfair treatment as a wrong more punishable than said unfair treatment unintentionally taught me that honor codes have a very real and undeniably firm foundation in both justice and human nature. Public education is actually pretty instructive if you look at it as a lesson in how not to construct a society.

  5. About a year ago I was riding the exercise bike at the local “Y” and had on FOX News. A woman stopped and got in my face over it. I told her I have my freaking Kindel and am reading that since I could care less about the TV. And my town went to Trump by almost 60%.

    • Hmmm. I don’t want to switch dentists. But my long-time driller-of-teeth used to have Fox News on the little screen that swiveled in front of me. (What a way to take one’s mind off of that increasing numbness in the mouth and face, and that sense of impending trauma – by watching TV, I mean. And no, Jack, I wasn’t ogling the Fox blondes – although I will do that when possible, no apologies. Shep Smith isn’t my type.) The good Dr. and I would even share our views after various Fox blurbs and, although at least 20 years apart in age (he the younger of course!), it was pleasing and reassuring to find that we thought so similarly about so many things.

      The last couple of visits, though, that little screen has shown vastly different programming. “That 70s Show” I can stand – even laugh, sometimes. But “The View” hurts more than the root canals. I am betting that one or more of the Dr.’s aides – all women – made that change to turn off FNC, on threat of mass resignation. A pity.

  6. “The resistance,” the news media and the purveyors of the vile ”Big Lie” that Donald Trump and his supporters, and by extension Republicans, are racists and xenophobes are 100% responsible for these increasingly frequent attacks, as well as such episodes as the Jussie Smollett hoax.

    “In a more general sense, Barack Obama and Democrats are responsible, for laying the foundation for the Big Lie from 2008-2016, with their divisive and destructive tactic of demonizing all political opponents and critics as motivated by bigotry.”

    However, the present situation — a political and social crisis of tremendous dimension — was not created by either of these figures. And neither one of them is responsible for the developing and monumental rejection of hyper-liberal extremism and a liberal political culture of manipulation and social engineering which is now taking shape in our present, even though present-day Conservatives, heads in the sand, and deeply under the sway of liberal extremism which best defines their own political positions, do not fully understand what is going on, why it is going on, and what its ramifications will be.

    The roots of the turn to the Right — to a principled Right, which is to say in contradistinction to an American Right which is largely without a principled foundation in ideas — are to be found farther back in time. While Obama is little more than a highly politicized organizer-operative with essentially Marxian leanings (though he says he was also influenced by Reinhold Niebuhr and one cannot discount the Black Liberation theology of the founder of the church he once attended), Donald Trump is a weird fish insofar as he does not seem to have been influenced by any particular school of political thought, or philosophy, or of theological position.

    It is through his nondescript, non-intellectual, non-defined, even perhaps non-located *position* on things that he resonates with his base (as the papers call it). They are in many ways like him. Now, why is that? Why are these people people who do not have political ideas, or social ideas, or strong and defined views about the world they live in, and the political, social and economic regime they live under? I will refer you to the notion of ‘the dumbing down of America’ as a political and social necessity. This is an achieved outcome of people and factions that gained power in the education establishment. As a desired outcome it is part-and-parcel of processes of social engineering the purpose of which is to reduce people to malleable units without will and defining power.

    This is what your fine America is, this is what it has become. But let me now say that the least advantaged recipient of this evil scheme to nullify intellect and to weaken a people, has been the white demographic of America: the founders and the upholders of it, in fact and in possibility. Donald Trump is a bizarre manifestation of this *wounded demographic* that has to fight, in crude terms and with crude means, to assert itself within a general intellectual environment that is turning — directly and openly — against the very foundations of the Occident. That is to say that the present Regime is anti-Occidental and anti-Western Civilization (that is, if we might speak in terms of *essences*).

    Donald Trump came on the scene from a direction that was likely impossible to predict. He is totally *unlikely*. One has to stop and examine the fact that he ‘gave voice’ to a particular demographic that is different and unlike most who write on this forum (the educated, university class, with a modest right-leaning orientation so vague, so undefined, as to be nearly meaningless and certainly impotent) This sector of the American population has no explainers and it has no defenders. Even saying ‘white demographic’ is a statement verging on the criminal. And there can be no doubt about it, and there should be no doubt about it, that this *demographic* if and when it becomes politically active in senses that have meaning, will likely turn against this particular species of corrupt intrusive manipulative political machination that now define America in its worst sense. To be able to define that *worst* sense means to be able to think and to reason freely and without the constraints of guilt and blame. It means to be able to develop a perspective that accurately describes what has happened to and in American culture in the intellectual sense; to see and understand the degree to which radical Leftist doctrines have invaded the intellectual world and occupy it and also people’s minds and perceptual structures.

    It cannot be stated in any other terms: Donald Trump does resonate with certain factions within the developing counter-revolution against insane liberal excesses: those which are destroying the fine achievements of Occidental civilization. Put another way, or seen from a different POV, those who are a vanguard in the realm of ideas and who do hold and carry counter-revolutionary ideas (I don’t know how else to put it), and who will not sit by as the West is undermined and remodeled according to Marxian designs, saw in Trump, but now see less in Trump, a social and political tool that they could use to bring their ideas — and their will — more out into the present. To become more visible, more talk-about-able. It cannot be stated, nor seen, in other terms: a radical Right faction in America, with defining and powerful ideas, has now come onto the scene, and this is causing all sorts of different people to s&*t their pants.

    The reason is because — and I have said this before — these ideas are the same ideas that circulated in the Interwar period, and they circulated because of their necessity in countering the radical Marxian ideas that had gained power, and continue to have power. In fact these perspectives ‘dominate in the institutions’. They are now part-and-parcel of the governmental systems, the education citizens receive, and they are part of a *regime of thought* that is Maoist-like.

    OK, so if one is interested in *understanding* what is going on, that is, without necessarily coming to a point of defining a specific political platform as a response or a resolution, one must understand *Donald Trump* and also his strangely potent and oddly meaningful (but quite stupid really!) MAGA cap.

    That hat is a laden and potent symbol and in it are many different things: the white hoods of KKK riders; the Southern resistance to the Northern military invasion and conquest; the awareness of the scam that has been perpetrated on the white demographic of this nation (and also on other groups and peoples who have been duped in different ways, for different purposes); it contains the raw anger of abused veterans who have been tricked into fighting wars that did not have and do not have any sort of adequate (nor legal) justification: a visceral, unintelligent, raw anger such as that expressed by Louis Beam; the viewpoints of those who have not been turned out of the ideological factories of American university …

    One can go on . . .

    In the end, what is going on now will overturn many different structures, if that is taken in the sense of perceptual viewpoints. I will include a video by a thoughtful man who has come out of the Canadian university system who articulates what I think is a good representation of a counter-revolutionary movement in ideas. If you cannot see why this perspective terrifies, for example, the NY Intellectual Class, then your eyes are simply not open.

    Here

    Make of it what you will. I only suggest that *you* better understand it.

    • I asked for an alternative, and you delivered. The takeover of education was definitely a deliberate conspiratorial act. I’d even been aware of it (a guy with a blog called “Yardsale of the Mind” has a formidable library of his thoughts on listed primary sources dealing with the intentional and deliberate introduction of Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s Prussian model education in the United States at the turn of the 20th century – I’m glad to have a topical source of forbidden thoughts to offer you), but, having only previously had a passing interest in the subject, I’d allowed myself to view it as a symptom. I think I’ll look at this a second time with more interest.

      Education should aim at destroying free will so that after pupils are thus schooled they will be incapable throughout the rest of their lives of thinking or acting otherwise than as their school masters would have wished.
      –Johann Gottlieb Fichte

      I suspect this is another symptom resulting from the forces in my gloriously simplistic anti-Whig historical narrative. Still, it’s not merely a product of the dimming of wits but a positive force to that end which could potentially be eliminated. The reintroduction of conspiratorial actors brings the problem back into the sphere of things which could eventually be solved in the proper atmosphere with an overdue crusade or inquisition, or, if we’re being lame (and, this being the honor-devalued modern world, we are), gradual, nonviolent, Fabian-style steps which accrue over years.

      I will include a video by a thoughtful man who has come out of the Canadian university system who articulates what I think is a good representation of a counter-revolutionary movement in ideas.

      This was interesting and heartening. I’d expected my own university experience was more of an outlier than this video suggests (I guess I was a curmudgeon beyond my years going in, so there’s still that). I do have reservations about fascism and communism being opposite poles of a single-pole political spectrum. I think any meaningful political graphing would require two more poles. I can imagine a front/back pole representing control and freedom and a vertical pole representing truth/goodness and evil/falsehood.

      Naturally, the latter is the only one I’d put any value into. I appreciate that it would be called begging the question, but I think that’s begging the question. It’s not a mystery to anyone where The Final Solution or Dekulakization would fall on that pole, irrespective of their right/left distinction. Treating this as a serious concept would undermine the constant successful attempts to equate ideas sold as means to a good end with the end itself – the unbeating, desiccated, black heart of all unthinking tribalisms.

      I suppose this is just a way of looking the good news gift horse in the Heidegger-rather-than-Aquinas mouth, though. I’d appreciate full-scale outrage at the modern university from nearly any ideological position. Even Evergreen having to shut down due to outrage generated from the same ideology they forwarded filled me with a girlish glee. This could be an effective but ultimately dangerous and [*shudder*] revolutionary unifying ideal. “Effective” is still better than the alternative. Rewards require certain risks. Mealy-mouthed mitigating language aside, I like this. Politics takes place in the realm of the possible, and no better move is presenting itself. I’d fight on the side of Heideggerians if the cause is just.

      • Benjamin writes: “I do have reservations about fascism and communism being opposite poles of a single-pole political spectrum. I think any meaningful political graphing would require two more poles. I can imagine a front/back pole representing control and freedom and a vertical pole representing truth/goodness and evil/falsehood.”

        I think I understand what you mean though I also hope that you fill out your idea a bit more. Personally, I admit to a great deal of basic confusion as I try to sort through things. On another thread I had been trying to *explain* Chomsky, but this is not to say that I agree with him or am a disciple of his thought. In fact, in many senses my understanding of Chomsky’s political thought is the platform from which I define my contrary views.

        “I suppose this is just a way of looking the good news gift horse in the Heidegger-rather-than-Aquinas mouth, though. I’d appreciate full-scale outrage at the modern university from nearly any ideological position.”

        I don’t know much about Heidegger, but sometimes one hears just a small idea from a thinker and it pulls one into thinking about the idea presented. I came across an interesting lecture about Heidegger’s view: that a great deal of the history of thought, and certainly of religious thought, has to do with developing metaphysics. That is, developing means to view reality from metaphysical stances, which is a way of saying from outside it or beyond it. This does imply separation and dualism.

        But, Heidegger in this sense confronts, shall I say, excessive metaphysics by confronting it with Being. I take this to mean that we are obligated to come back to Being as the primary concern, which is to say *our existence here*. I think I came to this notion from another angle: that our age is vitally concerned with *living life in the body* since the possibility of living life in the body is, substantially, a recent phenomenon. For a long loooonnngggg time life in the body meant a life in pain and trouble, given all the health issues. The ‘metaphysical thought-option’ was thus attractive, if also escapist (however real it might be).

        We are *turning back into the body* in so many differnet ways. In fact, religious idealism is significantly attacked because it has difficulty defining a *full existence* since so many of its metaphors are based in life-as-pain.

        Back to Heidegger:

        His questions are profound indeed (and not incommensurate with Thomist concerns, at least in my admitted limited perspective):

        Today we decide about metaphysics and about even more elevated things at philosophy conferences. For everything that is to be done these days we must first have a meeting, and here is how it works: people come together, constantly come together, and they all wait for one another to turn up so that the others will tell them how it is, and if it doesn’t get said, never mind, everyone has had their say. It may very well be that all the talkers who are having their say have understood little of the matter in question, but still we believe that if we accumulate all that misunderstanding something like understanding will leap forth at the end of the day. Thus there are people today who travel from one meeting to the next and who are sustained by the confidence that something is really happening, that they’ve actually done something; whereas, at bottom, they’ve merely ducked out of work, seeking in chatter a place to build a nest for their helplessness—a helplessness, it is true, that they will never understand.

        Why are there beings at all, and why not rather nothing? That is the question.

        The human being is not the lord of beings, but the shepherd of Being.

        The most thought-provoking thing in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking.

        Here is an odd one:

        Philosophy will not be able to effect an immediate transformation of the present condition of the world. This is not only true of philosophy, but of all merely human thought and endeavor. Only a god can save us. The sole possibility that is left for us is to prepare a sort of readiness, through thinking and poeticizing, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god in the time of foundering [Untergang] for in the face of the god who is absent, we founder. Only a God Can Save Us.

        I find each of these quotes laden with layers of meaning & sense. I especially tend to think — reflecting on my own (odd, problematic, difficult & even painful) *faith* — that in some sense I try to fit myself into the form of Catholicism, while sometimes/often failing to really see and understand that I am really obligated to be willing to *have an encounter with god* in my *time of foundering* (I will use the smaller case, as he does).

        Strangely, I suppose that I have to see my own *inexorable* encounter with the profound problems and conflicts of our time — freedom, slavery, truth, lie, power freedom servitude et cetera — as a symptom of *genuine confrontation & engagement*.

        I think that you might appreciate this video [a critique of Jordan Peterson: Jordan Peterson Dismantled]. I assume that you have heard of Peterson and are aware of his work and influence. Someone who used to post here frequently referred to him as *my spirit-animal*. I offer it not because I condone the message in it — I only have the right to try to understand things, not to recommend a platform for activism! — but because it illustrates an aspect of the struggle that is being defined in our present.

        • I think I understand what you mean though I also hope that you fill out your idea a bit more.

          In part, I mean that I see political structures as tools and levers which largely have no moral weight in themselves. It’s a bit simplistic; some things probably do naturally belong outside political control per se. With such caveats though, one would have use that lever in order to generate a morally-relevant outcome. The bulk of people seem to unconsciously treat particular organizational structures as inherently evil without regard to the failings of the bad actors themselves who pulled the levers. A recently-deceased blogger Zippy Catholic called this raging against Hitler’s org chart (requiescat in pacem; I think you would’ve liked him — lots of deep analysis of the inherent weaknesses in liberalism’s foundations and rigorous skepticism for every other political stripe as well). Even in my own workplace, to call a particular safety regulation wrong is to be seen as “against ‘safety'”. Means and ends are regularly conflated into a single concept so that we can overlook an evil end if it was procured through the right means or an evil means if it is toward the right end. It’s a shell game to hide moral judgements under a large roundabout framework so as not to offend people who have been trained to object to open particular judgements of good and evil or true and untrue (another of Zippy’s regular concepts). No doubt you know this, though. Your fight for Chomsky is against a great deal of the same thing.

          His questions are profound indeed (and not incommensurate with Thomist concerns, at least in my admitted limited perspective):

          I know very little about Heidegger beyond a general association with Nietzsche and Nihilism. Whether or not he was a Nazi doesn’t concern me too much, but I vaguely understand him to be part of that sequence of radical targeted doubt. The radical targeted doubt itself (the anti-idea) is my enemy, but Heidegger himself and the extent to which he holds it are still mysterious. I’ve actually only just recently become aware of his “only a god can save us” discourse a day or two ago (it’s funny how many instances of “coincidence” there are, but I guess from a certain point of view every incidence is a coincidence). I’m more than willing to concede that he approached these questions honestly, the foundational Thomistic questions to be sure, or that he produced a great deal of penetrating, insightful intellectual fruit because I currently have no way of knowing one way or the other beyond the sporadic things I’ve heard before and what you offer here. If I did have an opposition to Heidegger himself, it would have to be weighed down almost to meaninglessness with a litany of conditionals. This is a boorishly long way of saying that I don’t want you to misunderstand my initial reluctance to embrace him with a positive opposition.

          I assume that you have heard of Peterson and are aware of his work and influence.

          Yes, of course. My brother is fairly enamored with him. I had my own fascination with how he arrived at certain aspects of the Natural Law by observing the psychology of primates, myself. Before then, I had been suspicious of the idea that psychology was a tool that could be used for good (no offense!). I’ll watch that video later as time allows.

          I guess it would’ve made more sense to have watched it in the time it took to compose this, and then reply later. All things in their proper sequence!

          I find each of these quotes laden with layers of meaning & sense. I especially tend to think — reflecting on my own (odd, problematic, difficult & even painful) *faith* — that in some sense I try to fit myself into the form of Catholicism, while sometimes/often failing to really see and understand that I am really obligated to be willing to *have an encounter with god* in my *time of foundering* (I will use the smaller case, as he does).

          This is something I can relate to. Every Saint was in some way or another a mystic — even the Sainted intellectuals, their intellectualism being an expression of that mysticism. I find it difficult at times, not having one mystical bone in my body, to aspire to that, sensing that I often look even to the holy fools like a raging bull charging toward the red cape expecting that this time it won’t be pulled away. If their intellectualism was founded on their mysticism, then my attempt to reach the mystical through intellect may be like the tail that wags the dog.

          If the love of Truth and an equal and opposite, correlative hatred of lies is my only mystical foundation, I suppose I’m tasked with building a preposterous inverted pyramid. Complexity borne out of an infinite Simplicity is more or less the nature of the created world, so it’s no less preposterous than that, I suppose.

          I have a knack for grasping complex ideas, but unimaginably simple ones are often vexing when abstracted from the whole (e.g. the writings of St. John of the Cross). It may be a personal weakness that I have to see the Simple as That which informs dependent complexities. Graduation from Aristotelian to Platonic, in this particular regard, may be an important spiritual step.

          I think I’ve wandered far from the subject…

          Who writes with a destination in mind, anyway?

        • No, I mean that you actually do not think. You show that when confronted by the thought of another person that you can only reduce it, or perform a hack-job on it, or repeat some tropes that someone else repeated. That is as far as you go.

          And for you, a reasoned response (what I gave) is a ‘symptom of complicity’. That is the only *idea* you have engaged with. You can do nothing better because you have nothing more to work with, apparently.

          And don’t thank me. I am the one that owes you thanks! In my view your approach and your tactics are destructive to necessary intellectualism. I can prove it and I can demonstrate it. You help to illustrate this.

          All you can do is to try to save face by strategic retreat . . .

          I used to style myself as a trollslayer. Professional courtesy demands that I recognize this as the artisan-grade work it is. Most people can’t turn the Kafka trap against its user so effectively. I put this here so as not to muddy the piece with my boot-prints.

        • Okay, now I’m just piling on, but I ran across a pithy Heidegger quote that runs counter to my assertion of morally neutral political structures.

          “Technology is never neutral”

  7. Jack wrote, “How ironic, then that it is people like this deranged woman who call Trump supporters Nazis.”

    It’s psychological projection and it’s delusion.

    It’s been my observation that it’s a wide spread epidemic within the progressive and social justice warrior cults. These people are deluded into thinking that whatever emotional crap that comes out of their mouths is absolute fact. I think they’ve been systematically brainwashed using emotional propaganda and irrational social pressures, it’s a social disease.

  8. I’ve posted this crazy rant by uber-lefty Jim Wright of stonekettle station in the aftermath of Charlottesville at least twice, but it’s lost none of its illustrative power or potency:

    “I keep trying to get to a point in this insanity where I can write a piece, but it’s all going sideways

    So, instead, some observations:

    – Fuck racist terrorists. This isn’t free speech. You don’t bring guns, clubs, torches, and shields to peaceful demonstration. This is terrorism. These people are terrorists. A car just plowed into a crowd of anti-racist protesters. I’ve watched the video. It was deliberate. It was attempted murder. This is terrorism and should be called such. So far as a I know, the terrorists have not been caught yet. Fuck those cowards.

    – Fuck the Confederacy. Every symbol of the Confederacy, every monument, every flag, every statue, should be pulled down, uprooted, smashed into rubble, and burned. Fuck Robert E. Lee, he was a traitor, pull down his statue, melt it down, recast it into urinals. Piss on the Confederacy.

    – Fuck Nazis. I don’t want to hear any social justice warrior bullshit about not confronting these racist shitbags with violence if necessary. They get punched in the head, they take a lead pipe over the skull, well it just plain sucks to be a Nazi. I’m not going to sugar coat that for you. Nazis are Nazis, they deserve nothing but a boot in their yellow teeth and punch in the throat. They’re getting off easy. Our grandfathers hunted Nazis down and EXTERMINATED them and it’s to our everlasting shame that we let this cancer regrow in our midst. Fuck Nazis.

    – Fuck Trump. Trump owns this. Republicans own this. This isn’t the Alt-Right, this IS the right. These sons of bitches are literally shouting “Sieg Trump” in the streets of Charlottesville right now. Fuck Trump.
    These people are the vile residue, the foul distillation, of every failed hateful rotten-tooth inbred ideology in history. Don’t let them hide. Don’t make excuses for them. Get them out in the open. Make them own it. They have jobs — some of them. They have parents and kids and neighbors. They have churches. The Constitution gives them a right to their hate, but not a right to be free of the consequences. Publish their pictures. Publish their license plates. Get them out in the open. Pull their hoods off. They’re standing out there shouting hate, flying the flag of treason, their arms upraised in the Hitler salute. Make them own it. Make them infamous. Don’t let them hide. ”

    OK, I’m back.

    As long as the other side thinks like this, stuff like this is going to happen. To this writer, anyone who supports Trump or opposes the rising violent left is the equivalent of the black-clad ghouls who herded the Jews to their doom and were justly shot out of hand by American soldiers in WW2. As such, it’s perfectly ok to beat them up or kill them, in fact it’s less than they deserved. Besides, they’re all either scrawny or overweight, rotten-toothed, cowardly thugs and bullies, not like the perfectly in-shape, good-looking lefties who’ll keep having beautiful children to make this nation a better place.

    Now let’s switch things around. Suppose I wrote:

    Fuck antifa thugs. This isn’t free speech. You don’t bring guns, clubs, fireworks, shields, or masks to a peaceful demonstration. This is terrorism. These people are terrorists. This is terrorism and should be called such. So far as a I know, the terrorists have not been caught yet. Fuck those cowards.

    Fuck Islam. Every symbol of that political and religious pestilence, every monument, every flag, every statue, every mosque, should be pulled down, uprooted, smashed into rubble, and burned. Fuck Mohammed, he was a pedophile bandit who put the biggest hoax over on one third the human race, pull his book of the shelf, tear it apart, use it for toilet paper. A giant shit on Islam and its xenophobia, gender apartheid, and hate.

    Fuck terrorists and their supporters. I don’t want to hear any social justice warrior bullshit about not confronting these bigoted shitbags with violence if necessary. They get punched in the head, they take a lead pipe over the skull, well it just plain sucks to be a terrorist or one of their supporters. I’m not going to sugar coat that for you. Terrorists are terrorists, they deserve nothing but a boot in their yellow teeth and punch in the throat. They’re getting off easy. Two decades ago we hunted terrorists down and EXTERMINATED them and it’s to our everlasting shame that we let this cancer regrow in our midst. Fuck terrorists.

    Fuck Obama. Fuck Hillary. They own this. Democrats own this. This isn’t the Alt-Left, this IS the left. These sons of bitches are literally shouting “Kill Trump” in the streets of the big cities right now. These people are murdering police officers right now who haven’t done a thing. Fuck Obama. Fuck Hilary.
    These people are the vile residue, the foul distillation, of every failed hateful goatee-wearing, wild-haired, black banner, red banner, rotten-tooth inbred, pedophilic thug ideology in history. Don’t let them hide. Don’t make excuses for them. Get them out in the open. Make them own it. They have jobs — some of them. They have parents and kids and neighbors. They have churches. The Constitution gives them a right to their hate, but not a right to be free of the consequences. Publish their pictures. Publish their license plates. Get them out in the open. Pull their masks off. They’re standing out there shouting hate, flying the flags of treason, shouting death to this country and its guardians. Make them own it. Make them infamous. Don’t let them hide.

    Well, what’s the difference? Why shouldn’t I clobber the next bearded guy in a keffiyeh I see with a baseball bat? Why shouldn’t I put a bullet in the next thug in a black mask I see? Why shouldn’t I throw a bucket of pig blood through the window of the mosque or torch Democratic headquarters?

    Maybe because we’re better than that? Maybe so, but if only one side is shooting the other will soon be dead. I see no reason for the right not to start hitting the left where they live. If they’re going to hit us, harass us, and feel like they did a good deed by doing it, why shouldn’t we do the same?

    • The real reason it hasn’t happen is that really isn’t who the right is. Chase Bank is closing the accounts of notable Conservatives. You won’t find a conservative-run institution doing the same. It just isn’t in our nature. The conservatives of the US are LIBERALS. We believe in individual freedoms and liberty. It is against our nature to go after people just because they disagree with us. Unfortunately, the left is not like that, but it will take a lot to get the majority of the US to decide to turn against our nature.

      These attacks against the right again suggest that there is no organized, mainstream discrimination against minorities in the US. People are having their bank accounts shut down, they are being evicted (lease not renewed), they are being banned by social media, they are having their bank transactions blocked because they are Republicans (or considered conservative). Everyone states this is perfectly legal because political affiliation is not a protected class. Well, why haven’t the conservative racists figured this out? Blacks are overwhelmingly Democrat. Why haven’t the racists figured out they could discriminate in housing and pretty much everything else just by claiming it is against Democrats? You could do the same thing against Hispanics as well. Have you ever heard of that happening? Well, you would have heard it from the MSM if it had happened, so the silence indicates no. This indicates no significant racist groups on the right, for they would have done it by now if they existed.

        • Without retaliation, this shit will continue.

          The real reason it hasn’t happen is that really isn’t who the right is. Chase Bank is closing the accounts of notable Conservatives. You won’t find a conservative-run institution doing the same. It just isn’t in our nature. The conservatives of the US are LIBERALS. We believe in individual freedoms and liberty. It is against our nature to go after people just because they disagree with us. Unfortunately, the left is not like that, but it will take a lot to get the majority of the US to decide to turn against our nature.

          These attacks against the right again suggest that there is no organized, mainstream discrimination against minorities in the US. People are having their bank accounts shut down, they are being evicted (lease not renewed), they are being banned by social media, they are having their bank transactions blocked because they are Republicans (or considered conservative). Everyone states this is perfectly legal because political affiliation is not a protected class. Well, why haven’t the conservative racists figured this out? Blacks are overwhelmingly Democrat. Why haven’t the racists figured out they could discriminate in housing and pretty much everything else just by claiming it is against Democrats? You could do the same thing against Hispanics as well. Have you ever heard of that happening? Well, you would have heard it from the MSM if it had happened, so the silence indicates no. This indicates no significant racist groups on the right, for they would have done it by now if they existed.

          You know, I never heard of anyone on within the religious right leadership or spokeholes calling on banks to close the accounts of gay rights supporters. Or evicting them?

          I wonder if gay rights would have been popular if such things happened.

          • This is all just a matter of time. The Right has a great many who are all for retaliation in kind… the trope ‘then let me be evil’ comes to mind.

            Not a good thing at all. We are truly ‘sitting on a powder keg and giving off sparks.’

            • I don’t remember if it was here that I saw this or not. I’ve seen it suggested that the left can use violence in an analog fashion. Even Antifa doesn’t barge into people’s homes and murder them, they go so far as vandalism and low-grade assault but no further. The right is only digital in this regard. When they finally shoot, they shoot to kill.

              I sometimes wonder if this is generally known, and the very slow upward trend in leftwing disorderliness is an attempt to push the right over that edge with the minimum necessary force so it can resort to a they’re-clearly-overreacting-and-need-to-have-their-ideas-policed argument. They often speak like that’s already happened though, tipping their hand. I wonder if that’s why the inevitable cataclysm has been deferred this long. The right isn’t as stupid as they assert.

            • My favored watering hole is peopled by a number of such denizens. They are mostly South Texas farmers and ranchers. To get more conservative than these guys, you gotta head West. Same with slapping people down who get in their faces.

              • Slapping the cap off someone’s head is assault and battery. Some of the good souls you describe would beat the ever luvin crap out of the offender, and get away with it… in small towns.

                Funny how this does not happen in Rural America.

  9. People who oppose cultural appropriation shouldn’t have recourse to German philosophy!

    A bit heavy; I might not be good at this kind of humor…

    Where’s Paul W. Schlecht?

    • ”Where’s Paul W. Schlecht?”

      With some underworld spy, or the wife of a close friend, wife of a close friend…?

      Or perhaps you’re referring to this Paul Schlecht, (or Paul BAD [translated to English from German]) from 1920’s Germany.

      With cruel adherence to a suffocating ignominy, Bad was one of the originating founders of the Lenin League, and was kicked out of the Commie Party for being too far left.

  10. This story keeps getting better. Turns out the miscreant was an illegal immigrant – she came on a tourist visa in 1994 and never left.

    Story: https://howiecarrshow.com/2019/02/26/woman-who-assaulted-maga-hat-kid-illegal-alien-ice/?fbclid=IwAR26fSJsHeMeXjGfCJ7aEaEX9mLNTRqi_bgD6WFnZa9dUnQ9xeaStXWlPjs

    FYI, the author of this column is a syndicated talk radio host in New England, in addition to being a columnist for the Boston Herald. It was he who coined the term “Fauxcahontas” for Elizabeth Warren.

    • So this illegal alien, who was a criminal drunk driver, was stupid enough to attract attention this way and think ICE would not look into deportation?

      This is how arrogant illegals have become.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.