No Reasoning: Crack Is Back

You read it. She said it. Give credit. Let's go:

Facebook canceled me - temporarily, I think - but I'm making it permanent. The whole idea of an unseen cult member, thinking I'm beyond the pale, is enough for me to say that's *maybe* not the best platform. YMMV.

I mostly used Facebook to comment on current events, and I can do that here, so who needs it? All I have to wonder, now, is if anybody else, beyond friends, can handle me - and in long form?

Like, I said "cult member" (in this case) because "Facebook" seems to be home to virtue-signaling wannabe fascists (both behind the scenes and a lot of the users). Sorry, but there it is, in my own words. Is that too much? For Facebook, definitely. But not for The Macho Response. That's plain English.

Started back around 2005 (not 2007 as the archives indicate) this blog has covered a lot of topics that have found resonance in the era we're living through now, cultism being the most obvious. There's even a tag for it. So I say cultists. There's no reasoning with cultists, as evidenced by how Facebook cancels users - without explanation.

As I said, I've been hip to their game, for a long time. I've actually been intimate with every major progressive cult idea long before they became part of the larger culture - #MeToo's cries of "Believe Me!" or the Democrat Party's love for bogus "spiritual" mediums like Marianne Williamson - so my fun, today, is mostly in getting to watch the rest of you endure it, in my experience's wake.

Needless today, "STOP" is still not in the left's vocabulary, as it is the right's (It was William F. Buckley, Jr. who famously said a conservative stands athwart history yelling 'stop') so they will continue on - fired up and ready to go! - towards the political cliff that's inevitably waiting for them, blinded by their own narcissism.

It's fitting, and less regretable by the day, as everything - today - seems to be. And that's all I'm going to say about that.

Arrogance Subdued: Noam Chomsky VS. Bill Buckley

TMR's Racist Republican List: No Pants To Say Nigger

White people DO "all look alike" when it comes to racism - always the nicest folks you can meet

Why white people can't understand they have a racial problem - and it's not just the Democrat's historical legacy - is confusing. I mean, when Republican candidates and leaders, including William F. Buckley, are notorious for it, why do they bother?

In 2007, police went to the Sherbans Diner to investigate a report that several men were acting disorderly -- one of the men had allegedly mooned a woman and her daughter, and used a sexist epithet to describe them. The officer arrived to find [New Jersey Republican borough council candidate Joe] Sorrentino with his pants down, yelling the N-word through the diner window, according to the police report.

...But that wasn't the end of Sorrentino's troubles at the Sherbans Diner. Six years ago, in 2008, a different police officer went out again to the same eatery for a report of disorderly customers.

The officer found Sorrentino and his brother, Anthony, in a confrontation with two women. The women said the Sorrentinos were drunk and had called them an epithet for lesbians. The Sorrentinos also threatened to strike them, one of the women said.

According to the report, Joe and Anthony Sorrentino told police that they weren't using the epithet to refer to the two women in question. Instead, they allegedly told the officers, they were using it in reference to someone else,...

And white supremacy says he'll keep doing it - as a Republican - because that's what white folks (not Democrats) do under white supremacy:

Whatever-the-fuck they want, for as long as whites will let them,...

The National Review: Conservatives Are Wrong On Race

"The central question that emerges—and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal—is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

...The great majority of the Negroes of the South who do not vote do not care to vote and would not know for what to vote if they could.”

- William F. Buckley, showing the "F" stood for Fool, but sounding remarkably like the leader of the current conservative (bowel) movement.

Don't jump - it's just money - and it wasn't yours to begin with.

Today TMR feels like Annie Hall, getting to be all "La-Dee-Dah," while others are freaking-the-fuck-out: 

 "Can it be any surprise that many black voters believe conservatives are deaf to their concerns when 'this cop shot my unarmed son!' is met by so many with 'but there are lots of citizen murders in this city; let’s talk about that instead'? 

…Even if the United States did not boast a history in which blacks were routinely disfavored, beaten, and even murdered by the governments that were ostensibly established to protect them, there would still be something distinct about being killed or hurt by a man in uniform,…Traditionally, conservatives like to ask “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” — who guards the guardians? — and, too, to maintain a clear line of separation between the public and the private spheres. One has to wonder what purpose can be served by blurring that line, as so many have done in reaction to the news from Missouri."

Where's the usually-vocal-white-supported "Uncle Tom" vote since Michael Brown's murder?

Wait - there's "a history in which blacks were routinely disfavored, beaten, and even murdered by the governments that were ostensibly established to protect them"? But TMR is told, mostly by whites, this is a lie. America's a black paradise and, life is so good, blacks should be "happy" whites brought us here to serve them. (TMR faces that insult, somehow, online and off, almost every day - and not by Klansmen, but whites who consider themselves (a very significant distinction) enlightened on race. So enlightened - they know so much, you see - like all concerned citizens, they don't want to hear about it anymore!) How can they be so wrong?

White America's parents, and grandparents, made the costumes they wear today.

It's easy. Because - and this is what whites don't want to admit - just like they know they enjoy having all of America's stolen money (and not only do they enjoy it, but they will tease and harass others who aren't part of the crime, unmercilessly) they also know this how the monsters - known as their racist ancestors - planned it all along:

Whites never ponder what they "get" - or how they got it - but feel cheated anyway

And - as TMR has said - they're "happy" to go along with the racist scheme, as long as you don't call their historical, documented, bloodthirsty, selfishness by it's true name:

AMERICAN RACISM,...

 

History Be Damned: The Problem's Obama & Not Whites

Bringing slavery to America was the beginning of a solid outlook

Blaming the Democrats is more convenient than blaming themselves - but it won't win votes because nobody buys it:

  "Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) said Monday that the Democratic Party's 'war on whites … is part of the strategy that Barack Obama implemented in 2008, continued in 2012, where he divides us all on race, on sex, greed, envy, class warfare, all those kinds of things.'" 

 William F. Buckley never said GOP stood for "sore losers,..."

 

Firing Line Friday: William F. Buckley Speaks To Blacks

Debate: James Baldwin Vs. William F. Buckley On Race

1) It's wild to consider the hypocrisy involved, while watching Buckley lose this engagement, when conservatives call Obama arrogant for sticking his chin out.

2) This was 1965 - I was alive when this debate occurred - and Baldwin is mentioning "slavery" going on as he spoke.

In-Genius (Outsider)

I could be wrong, but I think it was William F. Buckley who said he could pick almost any name out of the phone book and they'd probably do a better job at running things than the average politician. Well, wrong on who first said it or not, here's your proof it's accurate - and I'm just glad (as a cellphone owner) I'm not in the book for Romney to catch up with - because it, clearly, takes those fools forever to get a clue.

What do I mean? Like an old queen, it looks like reality is finally sticking it's head above water, forcing Romney's chief strategist to prove he's smarter than, at least, the campaign so far - and it's flailing army of wickedly brain-dead-stubborn supporters:

Mitt Romney, sensing an opening in the Middle East mess and catching flak from conservatives for giving too little detail about his policy plans, is rolling out a new and broader strategy to make the election a referendum on “status quo versus change,” chief strategist Stuart Stevens told POLITICO. 

The shift, which is to include much more emphasis on Romney’s policy prescriptions, means he is scrapping the most basic precept of his campaign. From the time he began contemplating running again after his loss in the 2008 primaries, Romney’s theory of the case has been a relentless and nearly exclusive focus on the listless economy. 

But with polls showing Obama for the first time moving clearly ahead in important swing states— most notably, Ohio—Romney advisers concluded they had to make a painful course correction. 

Stevens said the economy is likely to remain “the dominant focus” of the campaign. But ads and speeches will focus on a wider array of issues, including foreign policy, the threat from China, debt and the tone in Washington.

So, ho, ho! Our illustrious office of President Of The United States now IS about more than just "the economy" after all - why, imagine that! You'd think, with so many "intelligent people" around conservative circles (sarc) SOMEBODY would've figured that out before now (sarc again).

If - I repeat: IF - they were ever thinking seriously about anything important at all. 

I know, I know:

All those BIG BRAINS were just getting too distracted to focus,…

 

If William F. Buckley Was Alive, Today, He Would've Called It "God And Man At Yell"

"In the wake of losing Teddy Kennedy’s Senate seat, in an electoral rebuke for the ages, liberaldom has a new catechism. These articles of faith may seem strange and implausible to the outsider, but they give comfort to the believer in these times of trial."

-- Rich Lowry, explaining how delusional thinking works (in politics and out) as long as you're willing to believe in anything - except giving up belief itself - and The National Review.

The Macho Response: William F. Buckley, Jr. (November 24th, 1925 - February 27th, 2008)

"It's very hard to stand up carrying the weight of what I know."

- William F. Buckley, Jr., the father of modern Conservatism and the National Review, when asked why he was always seated on television.

The grand old man died on my birthday. Damn. Here's one more from him, which, I think, sums it all up nicely:

"There's something known as American conservatism, though it does not even call itself that. It's been calling itself "voting Republican" or "not liking the New Deal." But it is a very American approach to life, and it has to do with knowing that the government is not your master, that America is good, that freedom is good and must be defended, and communism is very, very bad."

Hear, hear!! WFB is dead. Long live WFB!