“Under My Thumb” – The Rolling Stones 

This bluesy Rock n’ Roll tune by one of the leading groups of the British Invasion of the mid-1960s is sure to make a blue-haired man-hater’s head explode.

In this song, Mick Jagger tells a story from the perspective of a man who has been in an emotionally abusive relationship. It’s a classic case of the old saying, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too.” After having fun running around, she realizes how good she had it with her previous lover and comes back begging for his affection and will do whatever he says. As he says, 

 “It’s down to me
Yes it is
The way she does just what she’s told down to me
The change has come
She’s under my thumb
Ah, ah, say it’s alright.”

 Payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?

“Stand By Your Man” – Tammy Wynette 

Tammy Wynette’s classic country ballad, which she co-wrote with her record producer Billy Sherrill became a #1 hit on the country charts in 1968 and a top 20 pop hit. The song was written as a love song by a woman who ironically was preparing for her second divorce. It was marketed as Wynette’s response to the women’s liberation movement of the late 1960s.

The ballad will make all the femininazis cringe as it discusses a woman being loyal to her man even when he does things that aren’t right. The song faced just as much criticism by the women’s liberation when it was released as it has in more modern times.

“A Newsweek article called it a song, quote, “for the beleaguered housewife who grits her teeth as destiny dumps its slop on her head.” And fellow singer Jeannie C. Riley of “Harper Valley PTA” fame said, quote, “It sounds like you should take anything he dishes out.” Ironically, Wynette, while recording the song, was preparing to divorce her second husband for George Jones, another turbulent marriage she would eventually leave. Evelyn Shriver says Wynette defended the song, calling it a reflection of her background.”, according to NPR.

 The ballad was even mocked by former First Lady Hillary Clinton, according to The Wallstreet Journal.

 “Hard Headed Woman” – Elvis Presley 

Elvis the Pelvis was known for his ability to make women faint with his high energy shows, soulful southern voice, and legendary leg shakes. Feminists would be throwing something harder than themselves at the King of Rock ‘n Roll for this track.

In this song, Elvis takes us all the way back to creation in which he states that all the world’s problems have been caused by a “hard head woman and a soft-hearted man who have been causing trouble ever since the world began.”

The track highlights three biblical stories, including “Adam and Eve”, “Samson and Delilah”, and Jezebel and King Ahab. The lyrics light-heartedly poke fun of the female characters in each story, claiming that they were the source of each man’s downfall. Presley then relays his own frustrations with his own love interest in the last verse.

The song is great because it will throw the same logic feminists use by asserting that the patriarchy is the source of the world’s problems right back in their faces in a joking way.

 “A Woman’s Place is in the Home” – Gilbert O’ Sullivan

 1970’s Irish Pop Star Gilbert O’ Sullivan bangs out a ballad on his piano that will wreck every bra-burning broad’s mind. Sullivan’s song defends traditional western values, which he boldly states is that a woman belongs at home. In the mid-1970s, when the song was released, popular culture had already started to reject the idea of a woman staying home to raise her children and began pushing the idea that women should be in the workplace. Sullivan notes that he admires a woman “who can make it on her own,” but he believes a woman’s place in the home. If you want to destroy a loud-mouthed man-hater’s day, cranking this up on your nearest sound system should do the trick.

 “Bitches Ain’t Shit” – Dr. Dre

 To round out the list, Dr. Dre’s 1992 West Coast Rap classic is guaranteed to trigger any feminist tramp! Dr. Dre’s bumping beat talks about screwing women and using them for sex and kicking them to the curb. I should note that in no way do I think this is acceptable behavior, but if third-wave feminists are going to degrade good men, why not throw it back at them and have a little fun with it?  

There you have it, guys—five more fantastic tunes to trigger those self-loathing, man-haters who deep down are in desperate need of getting laid but too consumed with hate to admit it.

Image: Alec Perkins, Flickr

The post 5 More Fantastic Tunes to Trigger Feminists appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

As far back as Ben Shapiro’s famous book Primetime Propaganda, it can be observed that the industry has long been complicit in extensive political favoritism (and ostracism). Although it can be said that the media has had a bias for many decades, without a doubt it’s come to a head in recent years as rampant activity to confirm and conform to these prejudices has become commonplace.

In recent years, there are countless examples of this extending to social media platforms. A digital revolution, comrade! Sarcasm aside, these kinds of biases are near impossible to directly prove, making it extremely viable for personal interests (or even a collective group interests) to change the system for their political benefit. Countless examples exist of partisan deplatforming conservatives , and it can even be extended to blatant favoritism of certain types of content creators simply on policy, such as the two-way street of Twitch’s ban policy of the regular streamer versus that of, say, Alinity.

But it can even go beyond that, to fixing algorithms in favor of certain content, and especially suppressing the more “controversial” media or posts on their platform.

Even as far back as 2017, the phenomenon can be observed, with YouTube creator RazorFist especially bringing it to light (and was further discussed between us in this podcast from The Heartland Institute). It really can be seen that although some content will outperform the media’s status quo, suppression is real in spite of what ought to be a relevance-based search metric.

The trend that he found hasn’t changed. In fact, in a previously written article on Joe Biden’s goofs and gaffes, sourcing became incredibly difficult as clips that normally would be found by simply searching the quote returned nothing of the sort. Chiefly, the “North South Carolina” segment from one of Mr. Biden’s earlier campaign speeches was impossible to find by the aforementioned quote.

The underhandedness of such behavior is nearly impossible to prove sans the intervention of whistleblowers, the rare few taking notes from their predecessors like James Damore or Tim Pool. Media is a broad and nebulous concept, which by nature has a consumer base with likewise broad and nebulous opinions. Not that consumer revolt isn’t without its druthers, but generally it comes down to public notions as to whether or not something is “acceptable” if it meets these conditions, and only if it happens to be publicly revealed beyond any hushing attempts.

These digital media companies will seldom openly admit to these kinds of actions, especially since it often goes against their stated code of conduct or user guidelines. As with any social issue, the solution is a hardy level of due diligence, which is the only real way to enact change. Not only must consumers be vigilant in observing the practices of companies and those few on the inside speak out against deceptive bias, but there must also be some level of accounting for the problem whenever any of us read the news. Doing our best to detect these subtle changes is paramount to keeping our electoral actions safe, and not letting ourselves be duped by the whims of others.

The post Digital Electioneering: Shifty Media Practices During the 2020 Races appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Why? Because she dared defend a woman who was fired simply for expressing a defense of biological reality.

Rowling’s level-headed take on this topic may come as a surprise to some, given her history of supporting liberal politicians. But just as surprising are the facts that led to Maya Forstater’s firing.

Forstater, 45, was employed as a tax expert at the Center for Global Development, a British think tank. In 2018, her organization fired her after she posted comments on Twitter that criticized the U.K. government’s plans to let people self-identify according to the gender they choose.

She tweeted her agreement with Fair Play for Women, a feminist group that opposes allowing biological men into women’s sports. She said, “I share the concerns of @fairplaywomen that radically expanding the legal definition of ‘women’ so that it can include both males and females makes it a meaningless concept, and will undermine women’s rights & protections for vulnerable women & girls.”

After being fired, she filed a complaint with an employment tribunal and alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of her beliefs.

She reiterated those beliefs in her witness statement to the tribunal. She said she is “gender critical,” meaning that she believes “‘sex’ is a material reality which should not be conflated with ‘gender’ or ‘gender identity’ and that “being female (or male) is an immutable biological fact, not a feeling or an identity.”

The tribunal rejected her claim. In a lengthy judgment issued on Dec. 18, Judge James Tayler ruled that her view is “not worthy of respect in a democratic society,” calling it “absolutist” and “incompatible with human dignity and fundamental rights of others.”

What’s more, Tayler said Forstater’s views are not protected as a “philosophical belief” under the Equality Act 2010, even though “religion or belief” is one of the nine categories protected in the law. The Equality Act is the basis of anti-discrimination law in Great Britain.

Forstater reacted to the ruling with shock. She said, “I struggle to express the shock and disbelief I feel at reading this judgment, which I think will be shared by the vast majority of people who are familiar with my case.”

She also reiterated her view on Twitter: “There are two sexes. Men are male. Women are female. It is impossible to change sex. These were until very recently understood as basic facts of life.”

While employment tribunals in the U.K. do not carry binding legal precedent, this case is clearly an alarming development, particularly because it shows that U.K. law now supports the firing of people whose speech fails to conform to the latest development in LGBT orthodoxy.

Louise Rea, a senior associate at British law firm Bates Wells who advised the company that fired Forstater, defended the ruling in a rather ominous statement to CNN. She ignored Forstater’s free speech claim because her words supposedly attacked the “dignity” of others:

A number of commentators have viewed this case as being about the claimant’s freedom of speech. Employment Judge Tayler acknowledged that there is nothing to stop the claimant campaigning against the proposed revisions to the Gender Recognition Act or, expressing her opinion that there should be some spaces that are restricted to women assigned female at birth. However, she can do so without insisting on calling transwomen men. It is the fact that her belief necessarily involves violating the dignity of others which means it is not protected under the Equality Act 2010.

This case makes clear what had previously been more ambiguous: British law no longer protects speech that goes against progressive sexual orthodoxy, because said speech now violates a person’s “dignity.”

By that standard, virtually any traditional belief system could be labeled as discriminatory if it can be argued that it offends someone’s dignity.

Rowling is to be applauded for sticking her neck out and speaking her mind in an age when doing so is increasingly costly. She is getting heat from fans as well as elite voices in the media, such as Jackson Bird, who wrote in The New York Times that he was “disappointed” in her.

Thankfully in the U.S., the First Amendment remains strong enough to protect the kind of speech Forstater has been penalized for in the U.K. But if “gender identity” is added as a protected class to federal civil rights law—as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the left have pushed for, and passed in the House—our system would move in the same grim direction as the U.K.

Protecting marginalized groups from blatant discrimination is not at issue here. We all agree that is wrong. But penalizing people who believe in only two sexes—as we all did until a few short years ago—is an affront to the most rights of human beings: to have free thoughts, and to be able to speak them.

COMMENTARY BY

The post J.K. Rowling Is Taking Heat From the LGBT Left. The Reason Should Concern Us All. appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Chick -fil-A told Bisnow that the company would be restructuring its charitable efforts to include both faith and non-faith organizations at the end of the year with a focus on “hunger, education, and the homeless.” Many patrons of the chain have been quick to voice their dissatisfaction with the decision as they see it as Chick-fil-A betraying the Christian values on which the company was founded.

Many conservatives have even gone as far as encouraging a boycott of the restaurant for this decision, in spite of the company’s insistence that it has betrayed its core values. Members of the LGBTQ are equally triggered, insisting that Chick-fil-A’s decision to restructure its charitable giving is not enough.

“If Chick-Fil-A is serious about their pledge to stop holding hands with divisive anti-LGBTQ activists, then further transparency is needed regarding their deep ties to organizations like Focus on the Family, which exist purely to harm LGBTQ people and families,” Drew Anderson a spokesperson for GLADD, tweeted Monday.

It seems the executives at Chick-fil-A are in a “damned if they do, damned if they don’t situation.” I don’t feel their decision to reorganize their giving is a betrayal of their values by simply choosing to refocus efforts on taking care of the homeless and needy. What could possibly be more Christian than that? As Christ, Himself said in Luke 6:29-30 (TPT), “To those who despise you, continue to serve them and minister to them.[a] If someone takes away your coat, give him as a gift your shirt as well. 30 When someone comes to beg from you, give to that person what you have. When things are wrongly taken from you, do not demand they be given back.”

This recent crusade by Conservative Christians proves to me what I have thought for many years; Conservatives behave like a bunch of children if something upsets their sensitivities just as much as the social justice warriors of the Left. As a Christian myself, I understand not wanting to financially support a company that doesn’t line up with Biblical values, but where does it end?

If those who are in the faith community were to be so extreme and hardline as what is being suggested by many Christians, people of faith wouldn’t shop or eat anywhere. It puzzles me why a Christian would be so quick to drop an organization such as Chick-fil-A, which does much to better America and now the world through private charity. It is commanded for Christians to help the poor, the widow, and the orphan, and that is precisely what this Christian-owned company is doing.

A friend of mine who is a pastor in my local community summed up the absurdities well in a series of recent posts to his Facebook. He said, “For the record, I couldn’t care less who Chick Fil A or any other organization does or doesn’t donate to. Giving or not giving to the Salvation Army and FCA is not a big deal. They actually stopped giving to anything even remotely tied to traditional marriage back in 2012. The only thing I care about where my money goes is if it’s a good deal or tastes good. Sorry, not sorry. To be absolutely consistent I’d have to produce my own gasoline and grow everything I eat. This back and forth stuff is silly and sadly we started it. Just my two cents.”

“ By the way some are bullying and calling for boycotts online, you’d think ChickfilA decided to roast chickens to Satan on Sunday. Boycotting or bullying for the purpose of policy change is akin to extortion. In what world does a corporation have to continue giving to the same charity? I stopped giving clothes to the Salvation Army in 2018 because I ran out of clothes to give. Did I cave? For those on the right bothered about ChickfilA no longer giving 100k to the Salvation Army because their contract was expired, I hope you donate clothes to keep them afloat. For those on the left, why have you picked on CFA for giving to the SA but never picketed the SA itself? The double standard hysteria on both sides is exhausting. Leave companies alone. We live in a free capitalistic society not a socialist state or theocracy directing profits. Until you’d allow a SA General or pseudo ranked SA local leader in your pulpit to represent your biblical beliefs go ahead and leave CFA alone. Carry on.” he continued.

I would also say give a similar word to so-called gay activists. Very few people, Christians included, couldn’t care less what you do in the privacy of your own home. The worst a homosexual will ever receive from the overwhelming majority of Christians if the subject of their sexual preference were to come up in conversation is that their lifestyle is sinful, according to the Bible. If a Christian actually were to hate a gay person (or anyone for that matter), he or she is not living in line with the teachings of Jesus who taught to love our neighbor. That being said, no one has to accept anything they do not agree with on a moral basis – just to tolerate it provided it doesn’t harm anyone else.

In today’s world, it would seem that everyone is always angry about something; much of which is not worth giving the time of day. May I suggest that we all be a little kinder to those who don’t think or live as we do, it won’t kill you, but trust me the alternative will lead us all to slaughter.

To those on either side triggered by Chick-fil-A, may I suggest sticking a chicken sandwich in your cakehole. Or don’t. But the former will make you feel better.

Image: Flickr

The post Triggered America: Conservative Christians Outraged Over Chick-fil-A ‘Caving’ to LGBT appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

I have always been an avid student of American History since my earliest days and a big fan of war movies. Knowing Hollywood’s significant bias to the left when it comes to politics, I always approach historical films with great caution knowing full well that the story is often butchered. With this in mind, I approached this movie with excitement, but also a great deal of apprehension as my family and I saw the film on Sunday evening.

My issue is not with the storytelling in the movie itself, which seems to be pretty accurate for a Hollywood film, but rather with the dedication at the end of the movie. The movie closes with a dedication to both the Americans and the Imperial Japanese soldiers who died during the Battle of Midway.

The first thing that entered my mind was that this was the Hollywood’s politically correct attempt to cover their ass so as not to offend anyone. But then I asked myself, why?

The soldiers of Imperial Japan do not deserve any place of honor near the 300 American servicemen who gave their lives during that battle. In case Hollywood needs to be reminded, the Empire of Japan was the aggressor during the Second World War. The Japanese Navy made the decision to bomb Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

Pearl Harbor alone resulted in the loss of 2,403 (that were found) American lives, according to PearlHarbor.us By the time the war in the Pacific ended almost four years after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, America had a total casualty list of 111,606 killed or missing in action, 253,142 wounded, and 21,580 servicemen taken as prisoners of war.

There is great value in seeing the battle from both sides as it helps to create a more accurate picture of what actually happened. But honoring the dead of a sadistic imperial empire which committed many war crimes against Allied troops and civilians alike spits in the face of every Allied serviceman who put on a uniform to defeat the tyranny of the Axis powers.

We are talking about an Asian empire that committed many war crimes and, arguably, many crimes against humanity during the war. This is the same empire that raped, tortured, and shot Chinese civilians during “The Nanjing Massacre” and forced Korean women to be sex slaves for the military. The same imperialist military that used POW’s for target practice, carried diabolical chemical warfare testing on people similar to that of their Nazi allies, and lead the “Bataan Death March”, a brutal 63 mile march which resulted in between 7,000 to 10,000 Allied deaths, according to thoughtco.com.

It’s appalling to put the forces of an imperial nation which carried out atrocities comparable to ISIS next to the American sailors who paid the ultimate price to deal a blow to the Japanese Navy, effectively helping to turn the tide of the war.

As the great-grandson of World War II veterans, I can only imagine what my grandfathers would think if they were alive to see Hollywood dedicate a movie about a critical battle in a war they fought to their enemy.

The film itself was done well and is reasonably accurate to the best of my knowledge. It has a great cast of characters, but the dedication was in poor taste and exceedingly disrespectful to the servicemen who fought in the war and their families.

I would still say “Midway” is worth seeing, but I would remind Hollywood that it is not a good idea to honor an army comparable to barbarians who unleashed tyranny on their part of the world.

I am grateful for the sacrifice of the men and women of “The Greatest Generation” and the role they played in making sure the threat of “The Empire of the Rising Sun” was blotted out. May we always honor their memories.

Below is actual footage from  the U.S. Naval Department:

The post “Midway” Movie Dedication Disrespects the Sacrifice of American WWII Vets appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Danielle Young, a reporter for Essence Magazine, asked RuPaul if he felt that it was important to represent diversity behind the scenes of his show as a representative of LGBT community, referring to the fact that the reality TV Star’s team was all white. RuPaul responded to the question with a joke that he represented the “BLT community” making reference to Black people within the gay community. “I love me some bacon, lettuce, and tomato”, he continued jokingly.

“What bothered me about RuPaul’s response.
1. When I said he reps the LGBT community, he said also the BLT community. ????
2. He thinks bc he is Black, gay & a drag queen, that somehow is diversity quota is met.
3. He couldn’t quote The Color Purple.
4. Look at the “diversity”, Young said vocalizing her disgust at RuPaul’s sense of humor on Twitter.

The T in LGBTQ must stand for “triggered” because many Twitter users echoed Young’s outrage at RuPaul’s response to her question.

The outrage at the lack of melanin in RuPaul’s team goes to prove that you can never be left enough for left.

In fact, if you don’t fall in line with their ever-changing standards of diversity, you will be sacrificed at the altar of PC culture. It’s not enough that a black drag queen won his sixth Emmy for a show that centers around the LGBTQ community. No, his behind-the-scenes crew must meet the proper racial quota or everything else will be thrown in the trash and the transgressor must be destroyed.

The Left claim to be champions of diversity, but the fact of the matter is that Progressives only care about diversity when it suits their political agenda. They may declare they love minorities of all shades and walks of life, but the truth of the matter is the left couldn’t care less about diversity in the area where it matters most – diversity of thought.

The purity standards that the social justice faction of the political left has created will never stop until everyone in modern society has been utterly crushed for not measuring up to their impossible standards. It’s absolutely insane that RuPaul is being crucified for the color of his coworkers’ skin.

None of this surprises me, however, as it appears that the people in the LGBT community are too busy obsessing with superficial things such as skin color to realize RuPaul’s show has arguably helped make being gay socially acceptable in America today.

Maybe it’s just me, but I long for the day when we will see people for who they are and what they have done instead of judging people over things like the color of their skin.  Didn’t Marin Luther King, Jr. say, “he had a dream that one day people would be judged not by the color of their skin, but the content of their character?” How is it not racist to insist that someone not hire as many white people before they are accepted?

I can’t speak for RuPaul, but I would think there’s a reason he hired everyone in his crew. Perhaps he hired them because he was more concerned with whether they could perform the job they were applying for rather than the level of pigment in their skin.

If we can learn anything from the Left’s outrage over this incident, it’s that Progressives only care about minorities when they can exploit them for political gain. There seems to be no end to what will trigger people in modern-day America.

People in this country have an addiction to outrage that’s so bad they have lost all human dignity in search of the next fix. With no end in sight, it seems the only question left to ask is –  what will be the next incident to flip America’s trigger?

Image: DVSROSS

The post LGBTriggered America: RuPaul Dragged for Lack of Diversity appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Shelby Talcott 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wore brownface makeup at a 2001 party when he was a teacher, TIME reported Wednesday.

The incident occurred while Trudeau, then 29, was attending an “Arabian Nights” themed private school party. He was a teacher at West Point Grey Academy, and the photo appears in the school’s 2000-2001 yearbook, according to TIME.

The yearbook shows a photo of Trudeau dressed up with a face covered in brown makeup. It was made public after Vancouver businessman Michael Adamson, who did not attend the party, saw the photo and decided people should know about it. Zita Astravas, media relations head for the Liberal Party of Canada, confirmed the photo shows the prime minister.

“It was a photo taken while he was teaching in Vancouver, at the school’s annual dinner which had a costume theme of ‘Arabian Nights,’” Astravas said according to TIME. “He attended with friends and colleagues dressed as a character from Aladdin.”

Trudeau is expected to speak about the incident Wednesday evening. This revelation comes as he seeks reelection and also follows a scandal over allegations that he pressured his attorney general to drop charges of corruption against Quebec contractor SNC-Lavalin, a contracting firm charged with bribery and fraud. Authorities are investigating the case.

The yearbook TIME viewed doesn’t show anyone besides Trudeau dressed in brownface makeup, according to the outlet.

The prime minister has spoken more about his time teaching at a public school, downplaying his time at West Point Grey Academy, one of the most expensive schools in Vancouver, British Columbia. He taught various classes while employed there, including French.

This article is republished with permission from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The post Justin Trudeau Wore Brownface At 2001 Party appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Perhaps the most victimized word in the common lexicon of the media is “Community”. Whether or not this is the case, it represents the most sterling example of linguistic politicization I am aware of and thus is the first example I will draw upon and the focus for my current endeavor.

What Does “Community” Mean?

Community is defined as follows in Webster’s Dictionary:  A group of people living in the same area.

According to the “Reader’s Digest Family Word Finder”, some synonyms are:  Neighborhood, district, locale, area, and environs.

One alternative interpretation of these that has legitimacy based on the framework of these sources can be found in “An Ye Harm None” by Shelley Tsivia Rabinovich and Meredith Macdonald:  “What do we mean when we talk about community? Community is living with, interacting, and sharing space with all things: plants, animals, the natural world, and the human world,” (Ch 6, p 198).

While this was written largely in the context of a book for pagan/neopagan activism and ethics, it still presents an understanding that conforms with the base definition of the word. It simply adapted it for the context of the subject, which in no way conflicts with the original meaning.

Compare this with such language as: LGBT Community.

This is what some of us wordsmiths consider a word crime, or linguistic nonsense. To prove the point, I’ll break it down to the best of my ability.

LGBT: Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender – the first four categories of an ever growing acronym originally intended to refer to people sexually inclined in a nontraditional manner. In other words, homosexual or bisexual in the increasingly archaic parlance. This alone reveals a can of worms, to borrow another phrase.

Are transgender people necessarily any of the previous? If a man is gay and transitions medically to being a woman, is he still gay or did he become heterosexual? This question is actually very important in lesbian activist circles, and this particular circumstance is not at all unusual in the Middle East and Asia.

In fact, going by this logic, you could make an argument that the “LGBT Community” is a media/political fabrication. There may be a gay community, a lesbian community, and a trans community, but an actual “LGBT Community” is a dubious concept as framed in mainstream circles.

Consider the recent Mario Lopez debacle where one of the reasons cited for him being hurtful was conflating gender identity with sexuality. Is this not precisely what happens every time the acronym “LGBT” is invoked?

This is not meant to imply that there cannot be communities made up of such people (lesbians, gays, transgendered individuals, etc.); only that there is not a single overarching one as the media’s abuse of the word suggests.

A Miscarriage of Meaning

The next point with my choice of this particular example is the fact that it divorces the term from geography. Community, on its own, implies a particular area. This usage, on the other hand, can mean a global subset of the human species. Perhaps this is deliberate?

Consider the use of the word “Community” when used in reference to a race.

The British Community, depending on context, can either mean a population of people living in the British Isles or descended therefrom. There is a geographical connotation, in other words.

But what about a broader category, such as Black Community? This is less simple.

There are numerous ethnicities within this category. After all, Africa is a large continent and not merely a country. Amharic blacks are a smooth-featured people descended primarily from the Ethiopian and Somali region, for example. Meanwhile, the Bantu are descended from Central and Sub Saharan regions, and the Nilotic are a remarkably tall people prominent in Egypt and Sudan, to name a few. All of these groups are quite physically and culturally distinct from one another, which drastically undermines the notion of a “Black Community” in any broad sense. Even in America, urban people generally will be culturally distinct from rural regardless of race or ethnicity

Here is the definition of “Population” according to “Webster’s Dictionary”:  The total number of people in a given area, country, or city.

Some synonyms according to “The Reader’s Digest Family Word Finder”:  Inhabitants, public, commonality, folk, body politic, or populace.

We can infer from this that, unlike “Community”, there is not a strong tie to geography. The very word implies people, or collected individuals of a like sort. So why do we not usually say “LGBT Population”?

Perhaps this is because “Community” implies organization and agreement, unlike “Population,” which implies individuals and individuality. It is therefore highly doubtful that men like Al Sharpton or Louis Farrakhan speak for black people at large, or that Gloria Steinem or the late Andrea Dworkin actually speak for lesbians at large as mainstream media pundits continually suggest.

With all of this said, can there be a global community?

Of course there can. This word was defined in a time before telecommunication. With the advent of social media, our culture has advanced faster than our formal adaptation of words. Indeed, it has long been said that we are a human community, as asserted by Rabinovich and Macdonald at the beginning of my discussion, and there has never been a reason to deny this. Certain truths must be adhered to lest we cheapen our language and dilute our understanding, however. It is fair to argue that in our digital era, Culture has taken the place of Geography in the definition of Community (ie, a group of people sharing the same culture).

What It Used To Mean Elsewhere

Community hasn’t always meant precisely what it means now, though the spirit has very much always been consistent prior to modern times.

In old European cultures for example, Community was very much tied in with faith and was therefore a serious matter. In old times, after all, community was a matter of survival. An old saying goes that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

This makes sense, after all for societies to function and prosperity to occur there must be a healthy respect for boundaries. One of the biggest reasons for a breakdown of peace and the failure of truces is a lack of respect for boundaries, personal and otherwise.

According to one interpretation of Anglo Saxon and Norse theology, these boundaries can perhaps best be illustrated in the old Norse phrases Ingard, Midgard, and Utgard. The home was referred to as the keep, and this is perhaps the origin of the phrase “A man’s home is his castle.”

Ingard is your personal space, and equates to Asgard for philosophical purposes. This is the realm that you have full control over. It is the space within which you have expectation for everything to be as you have ordered it, and nothing may enter without your permission.

Midgard can be equated to your yard. Things pass through it and are tolerated so long as they aren’t overly disruptive, but if reason is exceeded, you are well within your rights to expel these.

Utgard is the forest beyond this, and it is here that wilderness and chaos reigns. It is the space beyond your personal control.

One can hardly discuss Norse culture without discussing runes, and three to take special note of in this subject are Gifu, Nauthiz, and Mannaz.

Gifu is also referred to as Gebo, and commonly means “gift”. In the context of this subject however, it has a great deal more to offer.

In old Norse and Anglo-Saxon culture, a gift is a very serious thing and not to be taken lightly. One never gave a gift without the expectation of reprisal in some meaningful form. Consider the crossed stavs, or staves, that this symbol is comprised of. Two coming together in Truce to achieve Peace, which was a thing commonly achieved with an exchange of gifts.

This is described in an old Anglo-Saxon rune poem as follows, according to Runes: Theory and Practice by Galina Krasskova:

“Generosity brings credit and honor,
which supports one’s dignity;
it furnishes help and subsistence
to all broken men who are devoid of aught else.”

Nauthiz is also referred to as Nyd, and commonly means “need”. It looks similar to the previous rune, and indeed is related as it symbolizes necessity. The arrangement of the stavs reflects the starting of a fire in the old method of rubbing sticks – a survival skill in places where the cold was an ever present danger.

In the context of a community, it describes the way people come together to overcome adversity. You can’t start a fire with just one stick. This is described in the Anglo-Saxon rune poem presented from the aforementioned text:

“Trouble is oppressive to the heart,
Yet often it proves a source of help and salvation
to the children of men,
to everyone who heeds it betimes.”

Mannaz simply means “Man”, and much like the common usage of the latter word, it invokes much where it comes to the general understanding of society.

This rune evokes shared partnerships and cheerful labor. This is the quid-pro-quo rune, speaking to social interactions and healthy boundaries. Unlike the previous two runes, this one is perhaps best described by the longer modern rune poem by Elizabeth Vongvisith in the previously referenced text:

“I am in your house,
I am in your village,
I am in your country.
I am your family,
I am your tribe,
I am your nation.
Blood does not link you.
Genes do not link you.
I am the bonds of frith.
I am friendship and fellowship.
Blood alone does not bind you.
Ancestry alone does not bind you.
Only your heart forges the tie.
Only your hands cement the tie.
I am the oath spoken and unspoken.”

In short, in old times, ‘community’ had far more meaning than in modern society. A society was more than just a people and a geographical locale. It was also where one came from. It was understood that a person was a product of their family as well as their community. That was what it took to create a thriving people in such times.

The bonds spoken of in these rune poems transcend ethnic and national boundaries as this concept of community is rooted in cultural understanding. There is much more to this subject. We have merely brushed the surface for purposes of exploration.

Semantics Sometimes Matter

This is why semantics matters in politics and, more broadly, why specificity in language is of such import.

If such words as “community” instead of “population” were used off the cuff, it would not be such a big deal – but they aren’t. The only reason to use such a specific word as this is if you are easing the population into a globalist frame of mind; as in the notion of a global community invoked by the idea of a borderless world-spanning superstate, as opposed to the abolition of government and the achievement of human enlightenment.

At the very least, this usage reinforces a favorite saying of mine: Generalizations Are Generally Wrong.

You cannot group people into uniform categories based on cosmetic descriptors or lifestyles and believe they will simply conform to expectation. This is a genuine form of bigotry. This is the very sort of thinking that led to Japanese-Americans being interned in concentration camps wholesale as suspected spies during WW2 by Democrat President Franklin Roosevelt.

Does anyone, today, seriously believe that Mako and Pat Morita deserved to be detained at Manzanar simply for being members of a “racial community” that looks different from the majority? The melanin content of your skin is no more a basis for an assumption of community than a bedroom activity or a medical condition. Communities are based on mutual understanding, respect, and voluntary association. These are concepts which transcend race, sexuality, or gender.

People are free to associate as they will. No one has the right to change this, nor the ability to deny it. This is not the meaning or purpose of this observation of parlance.

George Carlin is perhaps the most famous critic of the last couple generations where political language is concerned, having pointed out the absurdity inherent in such phrases as “Near Miss”. You’ve either hit something or you’ve missed it; in aviation there are no gradients of concern.

The adoption and perversion of words like “Community” is merely among the latest in the ridiculous politicization of language.

The post What’s In a Word: Community appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The perpetual war on history now has the father of our country in its sights as the San Francisco Board of Education considers removing a mural of Washington from a local school.

If the board succeeds in politicizing Washington, whose legacy was once so secured and uniting that his home at Mount Vernon was considered neutral ground during the Civil War, then we have clearly crossed the Rubicon of social division.

Critics of the mural point out that, in addition to Washington, it also depicts slaves and Native Americans—and one of the Native Americans appears to be dead.

They have called the artwork offensive, and the school board says it “traumatizes students” and “glorifies slavery, genocide, colonization, manifest destiny, white supremacy, oppression, etc.,” according to The Wall Street Journal.

But the original intent of the mural was actually the exact opposite.

It was painted in 1936 by artist Victor Arnautoff, a man of the left in his own time who, according to historian Fergus M. Bordewich, wanted to depict Washington in a less glamorized way by including images of disturbing realities. Bordewich explained:

[Arnautoff] included those images not to glorify Washington, but rather to provoke a nuanced evaluation of his legacy. The scene with the dead Native American, for instance, calls attention to the price of ‘manifest destiny.’ Arnautoff’s murals also portray the slaves with humanity and the several live Indians as vigorous and manly.

Those who condemn the murals have misunderstood it, seeing only what they sought to find. They’ve also got their history seriously wrong. Washington did own slaves—124 men, women and children—and oversaw many more who belonged to his wife’s family. But by his later years he had evolved into a proto-abolitionist, a remarkable ethical journey for a man of his time, place, and class.

No matter to the modern iconoclasts. It’s too much to expect one to think about what one is rushing to destroy. Obliterate now and ask questions, well, never.

This is just the latest example of attempts to purge American history of its historical figures. Not only is this trend wildly misguided—how destroying statues and paintings bring an end to racism and prejudice is never fully explained—but it also cheapens the debate over America’s past by ignoring nuance.

From the beginning, it was clear that this movement had far less to do with genuinely criticizing past historical figures, but instead reflected the need of modern radicals to feel good about themselves and think they are “doing something” to stop oppression, be it real or imaginary.

Reflection and thoughtfulness are uncomfortable impediments to those who never dare question whether they are on the “right side of history.”

It makes sense that the same people who seek to de-platform individuals for wrongthink on social media and shut down controversial speakers at universities are the same people who want to erase artwork and monuments. The common thread is for their views to be constantly reinforced and never challenged from without.

The unthinking maxims of intersectionality and identity politics must be recited over and over again from all sectors of society. No alternate views can be tolerated. Such teachings soothe the minds of radicals who can easily ignore the moral complications of life from the safe comforts of their college campuses and public buildings. (Those, of course, are made possible by the wicked people they seek to extinguish.)

Doubt, skepticism, and the use of reason are uncomfortable and problematic.

It didn’t take long for the iconoclasts to move from Jefferson Davis to Thomas Jefferson, and then from Jefferson to the most revered of our Founding Fathers, George Washington.

What’s truly revealing about the empty, surface-level nature of these efforts is how little cost is involved for those doing the erasing.

Criticizing slavery and racism in 2019 can get one tenure, public office, and a six-figure salary as a corporate consultant. So brave.

It’s easy to cover up or take down a painting, not so easy to sacrifice the immense benefits of living in the prosperous constitutional republic that problematic men like Washington created.

As David Marcus wrote for The Federalist, it was easy to get rid of Kate Smith’s “God Bless America” recording at Yankee games due to her singing what are now considered offensive songs in the 1930s—but are Yankee fans willing to abolish the Yankees themselves because of their team’s historical role in segregation?

For that matter, are Harvard University administrators and professors willing to give up their jobs at an institution founded in part by a man who owned slaves because its origin was problematic?

Not likely.

It’s far more satisfying to take the less costly step of tearing down a painting or a statue. And it’s much easier to avoid the complicated fact that so many of these supposedly ignorant and prejudiced people built the very institutions they enjoy today.

In their simplistic thinking, surely those who founded a free republic based on consent, and truly “broke the wheel” of tyranny that had been the norm for virtually all of human history, couldn’t be great if slavery was still a part of their heritage.

They failed to live up to their own ideals, so they best be erased.

But to follow this logic forward, we can’t stop with the Founders.

The over half-million Americans who lost their lives and countless others who risked them to end slavery, the “original sin” of this country, also weren’t so great, you see.

Their skin was generally too fair, their motivations insufficiently pure, and most were undoubtedly homophobes who couldn’t have conceived of modern concepts like gay marriage or a man literally becoming a woman.

How can men like President William McKinley, who could simply be attacked for other reasons, be celebrated?

They can’t. They too must be obliterated.

Greatness, according to the history erasers, truly belongs to the wokescoldswho wage hashtag campaigns to raise awareness about offensive art and ensure society conforms to their ever-evolving whims.

But the truth is, those who wage war on America’s history are tacitly acknowledging the benefits of living in America, a free country that allows them to pursue their radical activism, even though it is antithetical to the founding ideals that enable free speech.

These movements are forcing politics to infect every corner of our existence, and that weakens this country. It makes us more hateful toward one another and trains us in the un-American notion that to win arguments, we must quash, liquidate, and erase from all memory those we disagree with.

The Washington mural may come down in San Francisco, but the real damage is not being done to the art. It’s being done to the legacy of Washington, to ourselves.

The past is an easy target for iconoclast bullies, but if Americans don’t want them to keep winning, they will have to begin standing up and speaking out against them.

If not, the destruction of our statues and artwork will merely be symbolic of the destruction done to our country at large.

COMMENTARY BY

The post The War on History Comes for George Washington appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Neetu Chandak

School board members voted Tuesday to change the name of a 150-year-old California school district because of a Confederacy reference.

Dixie School District’s (DSD) name change cost is around $40,000, according to The Associated Press Wednesday. The name change would go into effect Aug. 22. Dixie was a nickname for southern U.S. states in the Confederacy.

Name change advocates believe the district was named over a dare by Confederate sympathizers, The AP reported. Those against the change say it was named after American Indian Mary Dixie, who the district’s founder James Miller knew.

“You know Dixie is a racist name, so change it,” Dixie Elementary School fifth grader Bali Simon said at Tuesday’s meeting, according to The AP. “I’m hoping I can go back to school next fall proud of our new district name.”

“The community is so far removed from the Confederacy that it’s a ridiculous assertion,” Mette Nygard, who opposed the change, said, The AP reported.

Demonstrators interrupted Nygard by yelling “Dixie must go!” according to The AP.

The elementary school will also undergo a name change, The AP reported.

Public charity Marin Community Foundation vowed to cover name change costs, according to The AP. A new name has yet to be decided.

The California district is not the first educational institute to decide to undergo a name change in recent time over Confederate and slavery ties. Washington-Lee High School in northern Virginia dropped Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s name following objections from community members.

DSD did not immediately respond to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

Follow Neetu on Twitter

Send tips to: neetu@dailycallernewsfoundation.org

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2019 Daily Caller News Foundation

The post 150-Year-Old School District To Change Its Name Because Of Confederacy Reference appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.