Mainstream media protects alleged pedophile while rebuking athlete for racist gestures

The evening of Sunday, October 29, 2017 was one of the most bizarre in this writer’s life. Not only did I observe the Los Angeles Dodgers suffer an agonizing defeat in the 10th inning of game 5 of the World Series (even though it was one of the best baseball games I have ever seen), I also witnessed an incredible story develop on Twitter over Anthony Rapp’s accusation that Kevin Spacey sexually assaulted him when he was 14 years old.

On the surface, neither story should relate to one another. However, if one compares how the media addressed Rapp’s accusation against Spacey with how it covered an earlier incident in the World Series, their actions speak volumes about their priorities.

Before comparing how the media reacted to these stories, let us briefly review the facts about each of them.

Rapp accuses Spacey of sexual assault

BuzzFeed summarizes Rapp’s accusation against Spacey this way:

In an interview with BuzzFeed News, Rapp is publicly alleging for the first time that in 1986, Spacey befriended Rapp while they both performed on Broadway shows, invited Rapp over to his apartment for a party, and, at the end of the night, picked Rapp up, placed him on his bed, and climbed on top of him, making a sexual advance. According to public records, Spacey was 26. Rapp was 14.

Hours after BuzzFeed published the story, Spacey posted the following response on Twitter:

As an aside, Seth MacFarlane, who appears to have been Hollywood’s human version of the Advanced Warning System, included this snippet in an episode of “Family Guy”:

Now that the basic facts of Rapp’s allegations against Spacey have been established, let us now turn to the World Series incident.

Yuli Gurriel makes racist gestures towards Yu Darvish

During game 3 of the World Series, Houston Astros catcher Yuli Gurriel hit a home run against Dodgers pitcher Yu Darvish. After returning to the Astros’ bench, Gurriel made two insulting gestures towards Darvish, who is part Japanese.

In the article Yuli Gurriel’s offensive gesture provokes outrage among Asian Americans, the Los Angeles Times reports:

After hitting a home run off the Dodgers’ Yu Darvish, Gurriel put his fingers to the sides of his face, lifted the corners of his eyes and mouthed the word “chinito,” Spanish for “Chinese boy.” Darvish, who was born in Japan, is of Japanese and Iranian descent.

In response to his actions, Major League Baseball suspended Gurriel for five games. However, his suspension will occur at the beginning of the next regular season; Gurriel has been able to continue playing in the World Series.

How the mainstream media covered these stories

Now let us compare how the mainstream media portrayed these two stories. To the extent possible, I want to focus on two things: 1) media outlets that published articles on both stories, and 2) the original articles the media published in response to the Spacey story.

ABC News

Reuters

New York Daily News

What is the media really worried about?

Not only is the mainstream media far more upset about Gurriel’s gesture to Darvish than they are about Spacey’s possible sexual assault against Rapp, they are helping Spacey by focusing on his sexual orientation rather than the far more serious nature of the accusation against him.

Spacey made the same move Harvey Weinstein made when he responded to a New York Times’s exposé that documented Weinstein’s payouts to sexual harassment accusers for decades. In his statement, Weinstein vowed to go after the National Rifle Association and Donald Trump, and give millions of dollars to help women directors. Fortunately, Weinstein’s shameless attempt to signal the right virtues did not gather any significant liberal support for him.

However, as can be seen above, Spacey’s disingenuous move was far more successful than Weinstein’s, at least with the media.

The mainstream media is actually more upset with a baseball player making racist gestures than with a Hollywood star allegedly sexually assaulting a teenager.

Or is it that the media is far more concerned about the implications that a Hollywood star sexually assaulted a teenager than a baseball player making racist gestures?

No wonder no one trusts them anymore.

 

Catalonia declares independence from Spain

Well, la mierda ha golpeado oficialmente al fan:

The Catalan Parliament voted to declare independence from Spain on Friday afternoon, with 70 votes in favour, 10 against and 2 blank, in a 135-member chamber.

The Speaker, Carme Forcadell, read out part of the resolution from the Speaker’s chair before separatists voted.

Opposition parties abandoned the chamber. Xavier García Albiol (PP) said separatists were cowards who were afraid of Spanish criminal law and that is why they wanted to vote in secret.

Junts Pel Sí asked for the vote to be secret, and the Speaker agreed, despite opposition protests. Those MPs who had remained behind placed their ballots in a box placed on the Speaker’s table.

After the vote, the members remaining in the chamber sang Els Segadors.

The Spanish government’s response was swift. Within minutes of the Catalan Parliament’s declaration, the Spanish Senate overwhelmingly voted to activate Article 155 of Spain’s 1978 constitution. Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy used this law to dissolve the Catalan government, and announce provincial elections to take place on December 21st.

On the foreign relations front, while the United States State Department issued a statement supporting Spain’s efforts to keep Catalonia within the country, Russia is playing a different game. El País reports that a Russian envoy has opened an office in Catalonia:

A politician from South Ossetia known for his political affinities with Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Barcelona this week, with the goal of establishing ties between Kremlin circles and a hypothetical independent Catalonia, according to Spanish intelligence sources.

Dimitri Medoyev, the de facto foreign minister for the partially recognized republic of South Ossetia, was on an official visit in Catalonia on Monday and Tuesday. During this time he met with business leaders and opened an office “to promote bilateral relations on humanitarian and cultural issues,” according to reports in Russian public news organizations such as Sputnik.

Before visiting Catalonia, Medoyev stopped in the Italian regions of Lombardy and Veneto just as they were holding referendums to ask Rome for greater autonomy. While he was there, Medoyev met with local and regional leaders.

Neither the Catalan government nor separatist authorities in South Ossetia would comment on whether Medoyev met with high-ranking Catalan officials or lawmakers during his Barcelona stay.

While it may be easy to reflexively dismiss such moves by Russia, it may not be wise to do so. Russia is clearly interested in, at the very least, understanding the secessionist movements that are on the rise across Europe. These movements, along with the populist movements, are clearly on the rise. And they’re paying very close attention to what happens to Catalonia.

Take, for example, the statement Scotland’s External Secretary made, even though it has not recognized Catalonia:

“We understand and respect the position of the Catalan Government. While Spain has the right to oppose independence, the people of Catalonia must have the ability to determine their own future. Today’s Declaration of Independence came about only after repeated calls for dialogue were refused.

“Now, more than ever, the priority of all those who consider themselves friends and allies of Spain should be to encourage a process of dialogue to find a way forward that respects democracy and the rule of law. The imposition of direct rule cannot be the solution and should be of concern to democrats everywhere.

“The European Union has a political and moral responsibility to support dialogue to identify how the situation can be resolved peacefully and democratically.”

Basically, Scotland is telling the European Union that it better work to peacefully address the tensions between Spain and Catalonia. Otherwise, it will seek out partners who indicate that they will listen to secessionist movements.

Such as Russia.

Meanwhile, libertarians, while encouraged by the possible breakup of a larger political entity, do not exactly see Catalonia becoming a free market paradise anytime soon. As Robert Wenzel notes:

Catalonian secessionists are mostly hardcore leftists, who would push for an oppressive leftist government in a separate Catalonia. On the other hand, Spain is putting on display its iron fist and its desire to rule.

While this is certainly the case, if Catalonia were to actually break free from Spain, there would be knock-on effects that could be positive for freedom that we haven’t contemplated at this point.

For example, as smaller regions breakaway from larger political units, it will become that much more challenging for larger countries to service debts incurred to maintain their welfare states. If welfare states actually buckle under, while there could be intermittent turmoil, there would also be opportunities to dismantle welfare programs, thereby allowing for greater freedom.

However, that is getting ahead of the current situation. What matters now is that Spain and Catalonia are at an impasse. Whatever happens going forward, let us hope that, at the very least, there is very little if any violence.

 

Vox Day: Mark Shea is a shameless liar

Day makes the strong accusation against Shea in response to a blog post that included the following passages:

Alt Right worshippers of blood and race have made an idol of whiteness. As though your skin is a culture and, worse, as though your skin is a god. They subordinate the God of the universe to a mere prop authorizing the skin idolator to fall down in worship of his race and, accordingly, to excuse the oppression and destruction of those he deems inferior to his Master Race.

The contempt of the Alt Right for “Cuck Christianity” relies on a narrative that confirms what I have come to call “Herreid’s Law”. My friend John Herreid observed some time ago that when people bedeck their Facebook page with pictures of knights, crusaders, or paladins, they tend to be kooks. The Alt Right Christian invariably does this, and their race kookiness is manifest. They only value the Christian tradition for giving them an iconography of white people killing brown ones. But of course, the Faith (and especially the Catholic faith) is chockablock with brown people–and brown saints.

Not surprising really since her Lord was brown–a standard Middle Eastern Jew of the first century. Somebody who would have been on one of Steve Bannon’s travel bans and deemed a danger by the Race Theorist of the Alt Right. Happily for us northern European stock, he put no stock in Alt Right racist crap and declared membership in his Body, the Church, open to anybody–even white supremacists idiots if they would only repent their white supremacist idiocy and confess that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, black nor white. That’s a tall order for some of these idiots. But repentance and salvation is open to anyone, even members of the Alt Right.

While Day makes strong rhetorical punches at Shea in response, I would like to summarize the substance of his claims:

  1. The Alt-Right argues that “DNA exists, race exists, and that difference in DNA and race have a profound effect on culture and society alike”.
  2. The Alt-Right values Western civilization. In fact, Alt-Righters who are not Christian “value the Christian tradition as one of the foundational pillars of the West, without which it cannot survive.”
  3. Day refers to Matthew 15:24-26 when arguing that “Jesus Christ did put at least some stock in ‘Alt Right racist crap'”. In this passage, Jesus informs his disciples that he “was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel”, notwithstanding a gentile woman’s plea that He heal her daughter. (Which He does.)
  4. Day calls out Shea for deceitfully adding the words “black nor white” to Paul’s famous passage in Galatians 3:28 that in Christ Jesus there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave and free, male and female. Day argues that Shea’s move gave the false impression that those various differences do not exist. After all, Paul “told slaves that they remain slaves” and “condemned men having sex with men”.

Day concludes his argument thusly:

I submit that this is conclusive evidence proving that Mark Shea is a liar, a deceiver, an accuser, and a false follower of the Truth. There is no truth in him. No man who considers himself to be a Christian should pay this wormtongue any heed or respect, and he should be confronted by his church authorities and called upon to publicly repent of his lies and false accusations.

One can certainly debate the merits of Day’s arguments. (Personally, I believe the third reason is his weakest; the passage in Matthew should be read in a far more nuanced manner than he does.) Nevertheless, his points are consistent with the sixteen points he articulated about the Alt Right in August 2016.

While point 14 does state that “the Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children”, point 15 states:

The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers.

Further, point 16 states:

The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation.

However, rather than address these points directly, Shea uses moronic stereotypes of the Alt Right to thrust “drop-the-mike” criticisms against it. The thought that the Alt Right “only value the Christian tradition for giving them an iconography of white people killing brown ones” is not only without basis, but repulsive. The laughable “insight” that Christianity “is chockablock with brown people–and brown saints” is such a No-Shit-Sherlock statement, it should almost pass without comment.

This is not the first time Shea has hurled vile diatribes against his opponents. In April, I lambasted him for accusing libertarians of holding their political views solely to rationalize their selfishness. I called his criticisms of libertarians “inaccurate, uncharitable, and, frankly, grotesque”. I’m afraid Shea’s treatment of his opponents hasn’t changed one whit since then.

In the post that led to Day’s strong condemnation, Shea writes that “repentance and salvation is open to anyone”.

I couldn’t agree more.

 

The Narrative must die so that civilization may live.

Civilization without The Narrative

For those of us who yearn to live in civilized society, there is this gnawing feeling that society is not well-ordered because the framework in which it functions is not well-ordered. In fact, there is a clear sense that the framework is based on nothing but a basket of lies. That is because the framework upon which contemporary society rests is The Narrative.

Vox Day describes the Narrative in his book SJWs Always Lie in this way:

The Narrative is the story that the SJWs want to tell. It is the fiction they want you to believe; it is the reality that they want to create through the denial of the problematic reality that happens to exist at the moment. And there is no one definitive Narrative. Instead, there are many Narratives, all of them subject to change at any time, thereby requiring the SJW who subscribes to them to be able to change his own professed beliefs on demand as well.

My issue with Day’s description of the Narrative isn’t that it is too broad; if anything, it is not broad enough. SJWs are merely foot soldiers for the ruling elite. Politicians, crony capitalists, lazy academics, mainstream journalists, and the like ultimately benefit from the many Narratives, because they justify their continuing control over society. However, these Narratives are based on the flimsiest of reasons, and in far too many cases, lies.

Narratives may be helpful to those in power, but they ain’t no way to run a civilization. If falsehood is the basis of power and authority, the simple result is continuous conflict and violence across society. Stefan Molyneux, in his book The Art of the Argument, summarizes the challenge well:

In the hurly-burly of human interactions, we will always have disagreements, which is nothing to be upset about, as these productive conflicts produce the very sparks of progress. The fundamental question is: how will we resolve these disagreements? Historically, two “answers” have been implemented – fundamentalist religiosity, and government power. The third alternative – far more civilized – is The Argument, the reasoned debate, the honest willingness to submit to the higher standards of reason and evidence.

In the absence of this mutual surrender to a higher standard, we end up surrendering to lower standards – superstition, government force, bullying, intimidation, sophistry, you name it. In human society, it is literally The Argument – or else.

We all possess an animalistic side that seeks power over others, over resources. Curbing this side is the essential task of civilization, and the only tools it has at its disposal are philosophy, reason, evidence, and empiricism – the anti-madness magic of clear and critical thinking. We either surrender to facts, or we must be forced to surrender to each other. We are either dominated by reality, or by force and lies. As the old song says, you have to serve somebody.

In the current conflict between The Argument or The Narrative, The Narrative is the prevailing force throughout society.

And what havoc has it wrought.

The Narrative’s primary strength is it is impervious to The Argument. It could care less about reason and evidence. Rather, it seeks the highest rhetorical ground from which to destroy its intellectual opponents, otherwise known as enemies. To those who convey The Narrative, what matters isn’t finding the truth, but holding power.

Such Narrators see interactions with intellectual opponents in martial terms because to them, engagement with such opponents is not a dialogue but a battle to win. Vox Day observed that the Narrator’s primary tool is to play upon the emotions of their audience to get them to agree with The Narrative in question. Arguments per se don’t work with them; narratives, stories, and fairy tales do.

Does that mean that all is lost to stories and fairy tales based on nothing but lies? By no means! Rhetoric needs to be met with rhetoric as fire needs to be met with fire. In a conflict set in the world of ideas, bad ideas communicated through Narratives need to be mocked, scolded, jeered, and just plain old rejected.

However, rhetoric that confronts The Narrative must be based on truth. The Argument needs to support any narrative that attacks The Narrative. Otherwise, there is the risk that, just as in The Who’s We Won’t Be Fooled Again, the new boss is the same as the old boss, and society operates on just another set of lies.

That does not mean Narrative-crushing rhetoric can’t evolve over time, or be supported by arguments from other perspectives that, while complementary to one’s world view, is not wholly consistent with the author. On the contrary. Honest conversations between such voices can only help strengthen their respective positions while sharpening the attacks against those lies that they commonly abhor.

For far too long, the ruling elite have been able to maintain power while the purchasing power of money continues to decline, foreign wars continue unabated, migration patterns suffocate already-suffering welfare states, poverty and homelessness increase in both town and country, and high taxes and bloated administrative states throttle the entrepreneurial spirit. These antisocial forces have been justified by many Narratives. However, the value these Narratives provide to the elite decline with each successive statement. The Age of the American Empire is nearing its end. What matters now is what will replace it. Will it be a society based on The Narrative, or The Argument?

To anyone who values the truth in any meaningful way, and is concerned about the future for their children and their progeny, there is only one side to take.

Civilization itself depends on it.

An anxious Europe awaits

the presumably eventual announcement by the president of Catalonia, Carles Puigdemont, of the region’s secession from Spain.

Puigdemont has vowed to press ahead with his independence drive and is due to address the regional Parliament Tuesday. Rajoy, who will address the Spanish parliament on Wednesday, pledged that “national unity will be maintained” by using all instruments available to him. That includes suspending the regional administration and sending in security forces.

While Rajoy’s opening position is not surprising, what has raised the eyebrows of many is the not terribly-veiled threat made by a Popular Party spokesman:

Popular Party spokesman Pablo Casado, the party’s deputy secretary for communications, said during a press conference on Monday that Carles Puigdemont, the current First Minister of Catalonia, could “end up” like former First Minister Lluis Companys, who also declared the independence of the region on October 6, 1934.

Mr. Casado was referring to the 83rd anniversary, which was last Friday.

“Let’s hope that nothing is declared tomorrow because perhaps the person who makes the declaration will end up like the person who made the declaration 83 years ago.”

Casado did not specify if he was referring to what happened in the months following October 6, 1934—when Companys was arrested, tried and sentenced to 30 years in prison for rebellion—or what ultimately happened to the former Catalan leader.

After leaving Spain for exile in France during the Spanish Civil War, Companys was handed over by the Nazis to the Francoist regime, tried before a war council and executed at Montjuic (Barcelona) on October 15, 1940.

Casado’s idiotic remark naturally led to swift condemnation, and indicates that chances for a peaceful resolution remain low.

However, that does not mean that such a resolution should not be sought out. Gerry Adams, president of Sein Féin, provided a refresher on what a framework for a peaceful agreement would look like:

While no two disputes are the same, the broad principles to address and resolve differences are very similar and can be adapted to suit specific needs. These principles have at their heart the centrality of dialogue and mediation: the process must tackle the causes that lie at the core of the dispute. The process must be inclusive, with all parties treated as equals and mandates respected. All issues must be on the agenda, with nothing agreed until everything is agreed. There can be no preconditions and no vetoes. There can be no attempt to predetermine the outcome or preclude any outcome, and there should be a timeframe. This will provide a dynamic. Participants must stay focused and be prepared to take risks and engage in initiatives to advance the process.

The problem with Spain’s Catalonian problem is that Catalonians, in many ways, are very Spanish, particularly in their temperament. As Eric Margolis writes:

The national government in Madrid now threatens to block any further votes, dissolve the Catalan government, the Generalitat, and lock up many independence leaders.  Doing so would be very dangerous.  Spaniards are a courageous, hot-headed people who are not to be bullied.  No one wants to even think again about the awful 1930’s civil war whose echoes still reverberate today.

Margolis also observed that King Felipe IV, who should have stayed above the fray, did not do anyone any favors by “denouncing the Catalan independence-seekers, thus bringing the wrath of the Catalans on his head.”

And while a debate could be had over whether Catalonia’s secession from Spain furthers the cause of liberty, in the end, it is up to the Spanish people to determine how best to resolve this conflict.

I simply pray that, regardless of what happens this week, Spaniards keep their wits about them, and figure out a way to resolve this without violence and bloodshed.

If the Spanish (and American) civil wars have taught us anything, “victory” through violence not only does not resolve any conflicts. Further, they also create new ones, and make previous grudges that much more intractable.

May the Spanish people always act to further peace among themselves and their neighbors.

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for Spain!

Our Lady of Fatima, pray for Catalonia!

 

Spain (and Europe) are losing control of the narrative

FILE PHOTO: Northern League party leader Matteo Salvini (C) poses with the Lion of Saint Mark flag, with politicians Luca Zaia (L) and Roberto Maroni, during a rally downtown Rome, February 28, 2015. REUTERS/Max Rossi/File Photo

As Catalonia appears to be preparing to declare independence from Spain early next week, central governments across Europe are feeling increasingly anxious about their ability to control their respective secessionist movements.

Catalonia

The primary argument made by the Spanish government and its alles against Catalonian secession is that the region’s process to secede has been inconsistent with established law.

Thomas Harrington, professor of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College, calls that argument hogwash:

Do you remember all the procedurally pristine processes that led to the independence (and, in numerous cases, subsequent rapid entry into the EU) of countries like Kosovo, Croatia, Slovenia and a long list of others? I don’t either because they didn’t take place. And I certainly don’t remember any of today’s legion of newborn “proceduralists” raising any objections about it then.

What took place was that EU leadership class led by Germany saw in these countries as a new set of relatively virgin markets that were also filled with low wage labor that would allow them serve, in Emannuel Todd’s words, as Germany’s “Near China”.

Arguably more important that [t]his was NATO’s – which is to say the US’s – desire to surround the former Soviet Union with countries loyal to its geopolitical aims. They knew that by pressuring the Europeans to swiftly acquiesce to the independence of the newly declared independent countries of the east, they could quickly corral those countries into serving as part of the US’s emerging anti-Russian coalition, an absolutely essential element of the American’s long-term geopolitical plans.

In addition to avoiding these realities, the new army [of] oh-so-concerned proceduralists obviate the fact that from the very beginning of the current drive for independence in 2010 it has been precisely the Catalanists who have talked constantly about the need to carry the referendum off in the most transparent way possible, only to be told again and again by the Spanish state that there was nothing to talk about.

To hold up the lack of pristine procedure as a fatal strike against the Catalan cause when their natural interlocutor will not allow talks about proper procedure to even begin, is tantamount to severely penalizing a woman who finally walks out the door of her house after having had her perennial requests for a peaceful, no-contest divorce dismissed out of hand by the man she no longer loves.

Finally, if there is one thing that established states can always do, as we saw on Sunday in a particularly crude way, it is to sabotage the “procedures” of the the incipient states within its borders. To appoint the potential sabotager of democratic procedures, in this case Spain, as the judge of whether proper procedures were followed in the region seeking independence is, in addition to being patently absurd, to hand the established state an effective veto power sine die in the clash of political interests

I don’t remember anyone granting the Serbs or the Russians this absurd privilege in earlier times. Why then are supposedly liberal and democratic people bending over backwards to provide the Spaniards with it now?

Lombardia and Venezia

Meanwhile, Catalonia’s relatively successful attempt at holding a secession vote has given northern Italians an additional impetus to seek further autonomy from the central Italian government:

This month the Lombardy region and the city of Venice will both vote on new powers of autonomy at referendums which are now taking on increasing levels of controversy.

Previously seen as a low-scale vote on local powers, the referendums are now experiencing symbolic overtones following last Sunday’s Catalonian chaos.

Last weekend more than 800 people were injured by police as a referendum on independence for Catalonia was held – against the express wishes of leaders in Madrid and Brussels.

And now  is facing similar chaos with two referendums set to be held on October 22, although in these instances the votes are state-approved and will not face violent opposition.

The autonomy referendums for Lombardy, a region which includes Italy’s second-largest city of Milan, and the travel hotspot of Venice will also differ from Catalonia in that they are not binding.

The referendums will ask voters if they want their regional council to invoke the third paragraph of Article 116 of the Italian Constitution.

This allows regions with a balanced budget to ask the Italian government to entrust them with new powers and a greater degree of autonomy.

(h/t Vox Day)

Just the beginning?

Additionally, the Express correctly observed that “the consequences of two yes votes could be shattering for Italy, sparking other separatists movements across the European Union nation.” (By the way, isn’t it interesting that the article calls the EU a “nation”?) For example, in addition to Catalonia, many Basques want to be independence from Spain. Scotland is considering seceding from Britain. Furthermore, Belgium, France, and Denmark have to contend with secession movements of their own.

While EU bureaucrats had been dreaming about creating a European superstate, for now it appears that they’ll have to turn their attention to helping their member states remain in current form.

Whether they will be successful remains to be seen.

 

Black-ish: the latest host infected by the social justice virus

One of the few shows I have enjoyed watching over the past few years has been Black-ish. The show hinges around how ad executive Dre Johnson, who is played by Anthony Anderson, attempts to maintain his cultural identity while living in an affluent neighborhood. In many ways, Dre represented the successful American who struggled to maintain a sense of identity (and, for that matter, dignity) in an world that, notwithstanding the increasing identity politics, discourages people from attaching themselves to a broader culture. While the show has touched on several sensitive issues, particularly race, it had done so in a good-naturedly way that treated its diverse audience with respect.

Not anymore.

The premiere episode of this season, “Juneteenth”, was a thirty minute scold-fest. The show usually takes advantage of Dre’s inclination to take a superficial matter as an indication of a larger injustice. However, in this episode, his indignation never lets up and hangs over it throughout.

It began with the Johnson family watching a school Columbus Day pageant in which Dre’s elementary school-aged children, Jack and (previously pathological) Diane, are participating. Dre imagines a rap his children would perform if the play was performed according to the truth:

Everything you know about Columbus is a joke

He didn’t discover America prepare to get woke

I’m Christopher Columbus, and I’m pretty much evil

On Hispaniola, my men killed the indigenous people

You’re so brave, Columbus more than words can convey

And it’s cool how your men killed 3,000 people in one day

So let’s make one thing perfectly clear

Celebrating Columbus is celebrating a slavery pioneer

But at least you can get a great deal on a mattress

Hilarious.

Dre then uses the “fake history” (gee, I wonder if this is meant to sound like “fake news”? Bueller? Bueller?) of the play as the pretense to ask (once again, indignantly) if black people have to celebrate white holidays, why can’t white people celebrate Juneteenth, a “black holiday”?

The rest of the episode – otherwise known as the longest twenty five minutes of my life – is then dedicated to “educating” the audience on what Juneteenth is. (Spoiler alert: it’s the day that celebrates the abolition of slavery in Texas, which occurred on June 19, 1865.)

The dialogues were horrible. Dre and Bow (and Daphne Lido, who works in the same ad agency as Dre) were woke, indignant, and condescending to every white person to whom they spoke. The white people were subservient, inarticulate, and stupid.

Meanwhile, the middle of the episode included musical numbers about how black people used to be slaves in America, how slavery is bad, and how slaves became really happy when they were emancipated. Yes, there was the mildly amusing ditty that played tribute to Schoolhouse Rock’s “I Am a Bill” (can you guess which word they replaced with bill?), but that did very little to compensate for the fact that someone thought it was a good idea for Black-ish to teach lessons that 99.867936% of Americans learned when they were five.

I don’t know how the rest of Black-ish‘s season is going to play out, and I don’t care. It has joined the NFL, ESPN, and awards shows as those entities that have succumbed to the social justice virus. Given that they have taken severe ratings and popularity hits, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out what will happen to Black-ish if they continue this course.

In fact, signs of the show’s deteriorating popularity can already be observed. According to tvbythenumbers.com, ABC had only 4.61 million viewers of Tuesday night primetime shows, behind CBS (11.03 million) and NBC (8.73 million). At the 9pm slot, 4.69 million watched Black-ish, well behind behind Bull (10.72 million) and This is Us (10.92 million). While Black-ish had a relatively similar portion of the 18-49 year-old audience as Bull, the youth have also been watching less traditional TV over time.

However, that will not stop the social justice virus from clinging to whatever host that will accept it. Unfortunately for TV audiences who merely look to be entertained, a previously successful sitcom is the latest victim.

 

Catalonia votes for independence from Spain

From the Daily Mail:

Catalan officials claimed 90% of 2.2million voters had called for independence in an ‘illegal’ referendum blighted by violent scenes which left at least 888 people injured.

World leaders condemned the brutal scenes after officials revealed that hundreds of protesters have been injured so far.

Officers were seen kicking and stamping on protesters as they stormed buildings and seized ballot boxes.

Footage captured in the village of Sarria de Ter in the province of Girona showed authorities using an axe to smash down the doors of a polling station where Catalan president Carles Puigdemont was due to cast his vote.

He said the region had won the right to become an independent state with the referendum results due in a few days.

And in Barcelona, the region’s capital, officers fired rubber bullets at thousands of protesters demonstrating against their votes being denied.

While one can argue over whether the referendum truly reflects the general sense of Catalonians, one thing is clear: Spain has lost the moral high ground. As Vox Day writes:

Spain is losing the moral level of war in Catalonia. Badly. The Spanish can cry “the vote is illegal” all they like, but the Spanish government can no longer pretend to have democratic legitimacy in Catalonia or to be anything but an imperialist state governing an unwilling people by force. The vote is no longer even necessary at this point; world opinion is actively turning against Spain. Had Spain encouraged the vote and offered incentives for a No vote, it might well have won. But by fighting against it and resorting to violence – even well-restrained violence of the sort it has utilized thus far – it has significantly increased the likelihood that Catalans will vote for independence.

I also agree with Vox when he argues that while the Catalonian elite may well be a collection of economically ignorant fools, and rule by the will of the people may well be an illusion, Catalonians have the right to decide for themselves how they wish to be governed. Or put another way, regardless of what Spanish law may say, Spain does not have the right to prevent Catalonians from seceding.

Of course, this devolution from the center could lead to the further splintering of Spain. And Catalonia, for that matter. After all, the principle of self-determination naturally flows down to the individual.

In any event, Spain and the European Union have their hands full. Central governments have been plying their socialist trade for far too long. They have clearly failed their subjects (as if the elite cared about them in the first place), and the subjects are fighting back. Time will tell how Spain’s Catalonian problem will resolved.

Hopefully it will be done so peacefully.

Pray for Las Vegas

By now, practically everyone has heard of the massacre, presumably by Stephen Paddock, at a country music festival in Las Vegas. As of this writing, at least 58 people have been killed, and 515 people injured. This makes this the biggest mass shooting in American history.

While ISIS has claimed responsibility for the shooting, the FBI said that Paddock had no ties to the organization. If anything, the whole shooting seems bizarre. Based on what little I’ve learned, Paddock could very well have attended, and enjoyed, the festival he attacked.

Nevertheless, this horrible attack has directly harmed hundreds, if not thousands, of families. While we, the living, try to sort out what an earth happened last night, may I ask that you keep those who have been killed and wounded, and their loved ones, in your prayers?

Loving God,
Welcome into your arms the victims of violence and terrorism.
Comfort their families and all who grieve for them.
Help us in our fear and uncertainty,
And bless us with the knowledge that we are secure in your love.
Strengthen all those who work for peace,
And may the peace the world cannot give reign in our hearts.

Amen.