Rushing Out The Door Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 6/11/2019!

Hello, I Must Be Going…

This will be quick…

1. Hoping it was a mistake, fearing it was not. When I wrote about how David Ortiz’s post-baseball life before his near-fatal shooting was full of nothing but promising options, I was not including “having an extra-marital affair with a Dominican crime boss’s wife” among them. Yet that’s the story coming out of Santo Domingo: Big Papi was the target of a hit. Ugh. Maybe it was all a big misunderstanding….

2. I could have written two separate posts about these ridiculous and ethicallyiaddled New York Times op-eds, but I’ll leave it to you:  first up is this thing, as an illegal immigration advocate uses the tit-for-tat and Sicilian ethics rationalizations to argue that letting foreign nationals cross our borders illegally is just reparations for what the United States owes “to other countries for their colonial adventures, for the wars they imposed on them, for the inequality they have built into the world order, for the excess carbon they have dumped into the atmosphere.” By all means, take your best shot at explaining why this theory is nuts, and then explain to me why any respectable newspaper would think it is worth publishing. Then Jamele Bouie, the former Slate race-baiting specialists whose extreme rants were so absurd, the Times decided to make him a regular columnist, issued this, in which he argues for sinking Marbury vs Madison and stopping the Supreme Court from blocking unconstitutional laws, because, you know, the people know best, even though most of them couldn’t name three entries in the Bill of Rights. It would make it easier to Leftist totalitarian regime to take over, though. Or, you moron, a conservative one.

Let’s have a poll!

3. I see fat people...As I’m sure you have noticed, more and more ads and TV commercials are featuring actors who range from chunky to obese. This is in response to the long-standing complaints that the media causes eating disorders and poor self-esteem by promoting unrealistic standards for female bodies. Now, we have a deadly obesity epidemic, and ads are sending the message that it’s normal to be fat. Is this really an improvement?

Ugh..late. Gotta run..back soon!

15 thoughts on “Rushing Out The Door Morning Ethics Warm-Up, 6/11/2019!

  1. #3 Isn’t there an argument, that Marbuy v. Madison is power usurpation by the court. The benevolent view is that judges will make judgments based on the law and how it aligns with the constitution. Bad case scenario, they make policy proscriptions based on their own politics and then reverse engineer a justification, saying it’s the way the evolving constitution and the times would have it.

  2. It never ceases to amaze me that the Left repeatedly promotes concepts that they would hate being turned against them. Can you imagine any of the abortion laws currently vilified in the press being allowed to stand because the SCOTUS couldn’t declare them unconstitutional? Why would the Left want that? Why would the Left want to lose the popular vote to a Republican once they’ve eliminated the Electoral College?

    They clearly don’t understand that great old maxim of power: What you do to others can be done to you.

    I think they’ve lost their minds.

  3. 1. Ouch. I mean, mess with the bull, get the horns. What was he thinking?

    2a. The best answer is ‘Bite Me.’
    2b. Jamele Bouie can ‘Bite Me’ as well. Both of these positions will have to be adjudicated with blood and bullets, should the insane progressives continue down this path.

    3. This is just another way to divide society and let the lefties act like they care.

  4. 1. Stupid. Too many big guys think they’re untouchable. Leroy Brown got the tobacco juice beaten out of him, Big Jim Walker got stabbed in about a hundred places and shot in a few more, and now Big Papi’s possibly going toes up. It’s a rule out of time immemorial among men that, though we may pretty much ignore a woman’s thoughts on any subject, the one thing we must never do is trespass in one another’s domains. That domain includes the other guy’s woman.

    2a. That’s the most ridiculous interpretation of history I’ve ever heard. Yes, the “white man’s burden” was never a good idea, but the idea of a “colonial nations’ debt” to the rest of the world is no different than the idea that a black life outranks a white one because of the past.

    2b. Did the left learn nothing with the Reid rule being turned against them?

    3. Just another way to gripe about something.

  5. Why Should Immigrants ‘Respect Our Borders’? The West Never Respected Theirs / Immigration quotas should be based on how much the host country has ruined other countries.

    Suketu Mehta’s article, in a strong sense, exemplifies the perverseness of a group of tenets that understructure America as Americanopolis. That is a term used by Pierre Krebs in Fighting for the Essence: Western Ethnosuicide or European Renaissance?

    A review of this book by Tomislav Sunić.

    The ideas that Mehta is working with are intimately bound up with ‘the tenets of Americanism’ and that is why Mehta and people like him have such power in the present. In order to ‘defeat’ Mehta, one must do a great deal of deconstructive work on the very ‘tenets of Americanism’. This will prove very difficult because of the fierce ideological notions that have become prevalent everywhere and which are fused with our perception and understanding.

    This is how Sunić puts it:

    “Krebs’ book actually urges the reader to decolonize his mindset, purging from it the images and concepts that have been contaminating White European brains over the last two millennia, and which resulted in a distorted perception of objective reality and a perverse form of White identity. In a word, this book can be described as an epistemological primer for those looking not just for the reasons behind the ongoing decadence in Europe and America, but also for those interested in the root causes of that decadence. Before combating the vileness of the present system, a modern man or woman of European extraction must make an effort to critically examine the origins of the founding myths of that system. Why waste time on futile talk about the ‘dying White race’, ‘the troubles of Europe’, ‘the dictatorship of the ideology of comfort’, or the ‘immigration disaster’ if the heart of the problem is willfully ignored? In doing so, one only cures the symptoms of the disease while failing to address its causes.

    This book represents an acid-like critique of Judeo-Christianity, and it shows how Christian universalism and also ressentiment significantly understructure how all of us view Reality and how we are complicit in this present Régime.

    This book is important because it advises the reader about how to decipher the causes and consequences of our decadent age. Being himself a disciple of European heavyweights such as Homer, Nietzsche, and Heidegger – to name only a few – Krebs correctly traces the root of the problem of White racial decay and cultural decadence not to liberalism and multiculturalism, but to the Judaeo-Christian tradition. Above all, Krebs focuses on the destructive forms of the monotheistic Judaeo-Christian mindset which prevails among both the so-called Leftist and Right-wing intellectuals and their respective disciples. In fact, by using quotes from and commentaries concerning many important, albeit deliberately ignored European scholars, Krebs demonstrates that all political concepts that we take for granted today are basically modified ideas, myths, legends and impostures that originated in the Middle East and that are now making headway into our secular, godless society.

    Suketu Mehta offers a living, walking & talking example of how this ‘idea understructure’ functions. He employs in a very basic sense the ‘universalist’ ideas of the Occident itself to attack the solidity and sovereignty of the Occident. This means that he sees himself as part of a class — a world-movement really — that has every right to occupy, critique, invade, divide up, benefit from, modify, restructure, et cetera, the Occident as a physical and even spiritual body that is fed on as revenge. But this can only happen, and is now happening, because it takes advantage of a tremendously weak spot within Occidentals. They essentially ‘agree’ with what is happening to them and they can summon no coherent counter-argument to it! They are complicit. The ideas that are required to restructure a defense involve thinking that is radical and, to many, scary, and because scary, impossible. It is the stuff of unthinkable thought. The stuff that gets repressed and pushed away.

    My assertion has been and is that American Conservatism is no part of a solution in any sense of the word, and is deeply complicit in this ‘internal weakness’ I describe. The American Conservative serves at every important point the general designs of postmodern progressives and progressivism as a perverse idea-set that is dominant in our present.

    To confront the perverse ideas that dominate in our present requires a radical intellectual decision: to put everything out on the table for examination, and to allow the examination of a wide range of ideas that are vilified. The *University* must be opened up and new streams of idea and intellect must enter.

        • Mehta. Obviously he’s Indian. There’s a joke here about “what’s the difference between the Indian who wears the turban (a Sikh) and the Indian who wears the dot (a Hindu)?” “One’s a pull-start, the other’s a push-start!” Mehta is usually a Hindu name, so if I call him professor push-start I’m mocking his heritage.

  6. The last one is badly formatted. Here is the corrected one. Sorry.

    This is an interesting article about Suketu Mehta.

    Excerpts:

    The second part of the title of Mehta’s new work says it all — This Land is Our Land: An Immigrant’s Manifesto. It is a powerful defense of people’s right to migrate, a song of praise for multiculturalism, and a strong critique of Washington’s policies toward immigrants and refugees under President Donald Trump.

    That was Woody Guthrie, wasn’t it? And there was a time when America was really a literal extension of Europe and the nation was 90% European descended. The entire idea of ‘this land belongs to you and me’ was hijacked into perverse multinationalism. Madison Grant and a large group of thoughtful men saw, and opposed, what was being made of America. It was all clearly pointed out in The Passing of the Great Race. But here is the thing: you cannot think in those terms anymore. An elite class has established, through amazing tactics and techniques, that when these thoughts enter your consciousness they are jettisoned. Unthinkable thought. This show the depth and strength of the social programming.

    It is this entire construct — the whole supporting structure of multicultural hallucination — that needs to be confronted in the most raw and the most direct terms. If not, then it will really be best for you to get on board as Suketu Mehta et al commandeer both the nation . . . and Europe as well.

    He also reminds us of the link – historical and moral – between migration and colonialism. Mehta’s grandfather was once asked by a British man what he was he doing in the United Kingdom, to which the Indian man replied: “We are the creditors. You took all our wealth [in the colonial period]… Now we have come to collect.” This is also Mehta’s standpoint. Not only does he believe that the West has a moral obligation to accept people from countries it had once ruled or influenced, but he thinks this responsibility comes also from the West’s (mainly the United States’) current military engagements in countries like Iraq. “Before you ask other people to respect the borders of the West, ask yourself if the West has ever respected anybody else’s border,” he remarks. And then there are the practical arguments: Developed countries need migrants for demographic and economic reasons.

    Colonialism definitely had its ‘blow-back’ I think it is called. Yet, it is colonialism that made the world. Rome for example colonized Europe. With direct and absolute force. And we live within those structures.

    When Mehta’s grandfather said: “We are the creditors. You took all our wealth [in the colonial period]… Now we have come to collect” he should have immediately been deported. The immigration crisis in England was pre-visualized right at the end of WW2. Just as with Madison Grant it was clearly seen and spelled out in huge letters. And other factions — factions that can be located — opted to go in a very different direction because of perverse idealism or the weakness I referred to earlier.

    The Americanopolis — and the immoral and destructive elites that are the planners of the Americanopolist’s empire — continue their absolutely indefensible invasions. These are part-and-parcel of trends that resound against the culture of the US. Those that Mehta speaks of in his books. This is part of the processes that comprise Hyper-Liberalism and the distortion of Republicanism which is present like disfiguring leprosy in our present.

    Before you ask other people to respect the borders of the West, ask yourself if the West has ever respected anybody else’s border.

    He says something so true here! Just recently, with all the absolutely absurdist machinations against Venezuela (which I assume even the MSM brainwashed hypocrite American recognizes, at least I hope so) reveal exactly an important truth: you can inflict any level of harm against any other becuase you give yourselves a special permission! You in this exact sense allow yourselves the role of gods, and this is possible for you because you have internalized ‘the tenets of Americanism’ which is, I suggest, a non-metaphysical perversion of distorted protestantism (Puritanism). These ‘ideas’ have become part of the ‘soma’ of America, on both the Right and Left.

    What is happening in our present is a ‘construction’ in which all participate. Now, being rehearsed everywhere, is American Conservatism’s Two Minutes Hate against the ‘the progressive left’ but without the face of Emmanuel Goldstein . . .

    These are structural issues.

    But it needs to be pointed out that the United States has for a long time been a land of opportunity that selectively chooses whom it give that opportunity to (even if not always that precisely and sometimes even randomly). The United States has been, as Mehta himself points out, picking out the cream of the crop of other societies, draining the brains of other countries to its own benefit. Nations like India invest in their own education and support their own companies, only to see their best graduates and professionals in fields like IT move out to the United States. While this has nothing to do with morality – and here Mehta and I would agree – the trouble is that whether we like it or not, this cherry-picking attitude is arguably one of the reasons the United States is now so strong and so attractive to its own citizens.

    Right, and this is why they should have been excluded, for ethical and moral reasons, not because they are ‘hated’. Now, the task stands before us to reestablish the definitions that allow these processes to be reversed. It is not an argument based in ‘hate’ nor even ‘dislike’.

    To put it brutally: The United States is not a refugee camp, but a multinational company that decides whom to hire. It is both moral and idealistic to believe that the state could behave otherwise. Its government could certainly behave better, to a certain degree, for example by reforming some of its unfair migration policies, and here This Land is Our Land makes a strong point that needs to be heard.

    Yes, this is true. America is an empire and has an empire. It was once republic with very unique forms and clearly defined regions (states). It became something else by design, for reasons of imperium. And the foundation of republicanism was thereby undermined. Now, it has an empire and administers and empire, and government’s purpose (let’s be frank) is to establish the control-mechanisms and the administrative structures to manage, and to extend, this ’empire’.

    This all has to be confronted. First seen, then confronted. And it is possible they will kill you en masse before they allow this restructuring of view. One must understand that this is how power functions. This is why I think that ‘real power’ is handled through paramilitary machinations.

    Excerpts:

    The second part of the title of Mehta’s new work says it all — This Land is Our Land: An Immigrant’s Manifesto. It is a powerful defense of people’s right to migrate, a song of praise for multiculturalism, and a strong critique of Washington’s policies toward immigrants and refugees under President Donald Trump.

    That was Woody Guthrie, wasn’t it? And there was a time when America was really a literal extension of Europe and the nation was 90% European descended. The entire idea of ‘this land belongs to you and me’ was hijacked into perverse multinationalism. Madison Grant and a large group of thoughtful men saw, and opposed, what was being made of America. It was all clearly pointed out in The Passing of the Great Race. But here is the thing: you cannot think in those terms anymore. An elite class has established, through amazing tactics and techniques, that when these thoughts enter your consciousness they are jettisoned. Unthinkable thought. This show the depth and strength of the social programming.

    It is this entire construct — the whole supporting structure of multicultural hallucination — that needs to be confronted in the most raw and the most direct terms. If not, then it will really be best for you to get on board as Suketu Mehta et al commandeer both the nation . . . and Europe as well.

    He also reminds us of the link – historical and moral – between migration and colonialism. Mehta’s grandfather was once asked by a British man what he was he doing in the United Kingdom, to which the Indian man replied: “We are the creditors. You took all our wealth [in the colonial period]… Now we have come to collect.” This is also Mehta’s standpoint. Not only does he believe that the West has a moral obligation to accept people from countries it had once ruled or influenced, but he thinks this responsibility comes also from the West’s (mainly the United States’) current military engagements in countries like Iraq. “Before you ask other people to respect the borders of the West, ask yourself if the West has ever respected anybody else’s border,” he remarks. And then there are the practical arguments: Developed countries need migrants for demographic and economic reasons.

    Colonialism definitely had its ‘blow-back’ I think it is called. Yet, it is colonialism that made the world. Rome for example colonized Europe. With direct and absolute force. And we live within those structures.

    When Mehta’s grandfather said: “We are the creditors. You took all our wealth [in the colonial period]… Now we have come to collect” he should have immediately been deported. The immigration crisis in England was pre-visualized right at the end of WW2. Just as with Madison Grant it was clearly seen and spelled out in huge letters. And other factions — factions that can be located — opted to go in a very different direction because of perverse idealism or the weakness I referred to earlier.

    The Americanopolis — and the immoral and destructive elites that are the planners of the Americanopolist’s empire — continue their absolutely indefensible invasions. These are part-and-parcel of trends that resound against the culture of the US. Those that Mehta speaks of in his books. This is part of the processes that comprise Hyper-Liberalism and the distortion of Republicanism which is present like disfiguring leprosy in our present.

    Before you ask other people to respect the borders of the West, ask yourself if the West has ever respected anybody else’s border.

    He says something so true here! Just recently, with all the absolutely absurdist machinations against Venezuela (which I assume even the MSM brainwashed hypocrite American recognizes, at least I hope so) reveal exactly an important truth: you can inflict any level of harm against any other becuase you give yourselves a special permission! You in this exact sense allow yourselves the role of gods, and this is possible for you because you have internalized ‘the tenets of Americanism’ which is, I suggest, a non-metaphysical perversion of distorted protestantism (Puritanism). These ‘ideas’ have become part of the ‘soma’ of America, on both the Right and Left.

    What is happening in our present is a ‘construction’ in which all participate. Now, being rehearsed everywhere, in American Conservatism’s Two Minutes Hate against the ‘the progressive left’ but without the face of Emmanuel Goldstein . . .

    But it needs to be pointed out that the United States has for a long time been a land of opportunity that selectively chooses whom it give that opportunity to (even if not always that precisely and sometimes even randomly). The United States has been, as Mehta himself points out, picking out the cream of the crop of other societies, draining the brains of other countries to its own benefit. Nations like India invest in their own education and support their own companies, only to see their best graduates and professionals in fields like IT move out to the United States. While this has nothing to do with morality – and here Mehta and I would agree – the trouble is that whether we like it or not, this cherry-picking attitude is arguably one of the reasons the United States is now so strong and so attractive to its own citizens.

    Right, and this is why they should have been excluded, for ethical and moral reasons, not because they are ‘hated’. Now, the task stands before us to reestablish the definitions that allow these processes to be reversed. It is not an argument based in ‘hate’ nor even ‘dislike’.

    To put it brutally: The United States is not a refugee camp, but a multinational company that decides whom to hire. It is both moral and idealistic to believe that the state could behave otherwise. Its government could certainly behave better, to a certain degree, for example by reforming some of its unfair migration policies, and here This Land is Our Land makes a strong point that needs to be heard.

    Yes, this is true. America is an empire and has an empire. It was once republic with very unique forms and clearly defined regions (states). It became something else by design, for reasons of imperium. And the foundation of republicanism was thereby undermined. Now, it has an empire and administers and empire, and government’s purpose (let’s be frank) is to establish the control-mechanisms and the administrative structures to manage, and to extend, this ’empire’.

    This all has to be confronted. First seen, then confronted. And it is possible they will kill you en masse before they allow this restructuring of view. One must understand that this is how power functions. This is why I think that ‘real power’ is handled through paramilitary machinations.

  7. 1: If you just HAVE to have an affair, I would suggest that you ensure the words “Dominican crime boss” can’t figure into the equation in any way.

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.