Kneecapping the Progressives

Our longtime commenter wildiris returned this morning to add another layer to our ongoing conversation. Late last night I had watched Bill Whittle’s speech from the Western Conservative Summit on July 29. It was fresh in my mind, and I couldn’t help but notice the similarities between the two men’s arguments.

First, listen to what Mr. Whittle had to say. The most relevant parts are in the final ten minutes of the speech:

And this is wildiris on the same theme:

I long ago got tired of watching Western Society circle the drain. I want to fight back. But before you can fight back… and win, you first have to find your opponent’s weak points.


It has been noted countless times that when dealing with those on the pro-politically correct multicultural (PC/MC) side of the debate, that facts just don’t matter to them. Eric Hoffer in his book The True Believer captured this personality trait perfectly. But how do you break through the true believer’s shell? That’s the question. And what I was trying to suggest to the Baron was that point of vulnerability would be found in a person’s sense of self.

Speaking from the point of view of computing hardware, our sense of self forms the interface between our thoughts and our emotions. It is the “control panel” by which the meme sets that shape our thoughts are able to dictate our actions. (An emotion, for the sake of this discussion, being simply “that which motivates”.)

If part of your sense of self is found in a respect for truth, then arguments based on truth, be it historical, scientific, mathematical or logical, will have the power to influence your thinking and motivate you to action. But if one’s sense of self is grounded elsewhere, the approval of one’s peer group, for example, then fact-based arguments will come across as no more than background noise.

It has been via our sense of self that the PC/MC crowd has been able to control the debate all of these years. Accusations of racism, homophobia, and so on, only work on people because contained deep in their sense of self, are the Judeo-Christian notions of mercy, compassion, forgiveness, and charity. And hearing those words of accusation has the power to shame them into compliance. Like a bit in a horse’s mouth, the forces of PC/MC have been using Western society’s better virtues as tools against it.

So if I could talk to people like Paul Weston, Fjordman, Pat Condell, and all of the other outspoken commenters whose words grace this site, I would remind them that they are dealing with people over whom the truth has no power. So if they want to win on the battlefield of ideas, truth by itself is not enough. They’re going to have to do two things. First, they need to immunize their own side so that the PC/MC crowd can no longer use our better virtues against us. Then second, they need to make the fight personal. Do to them, what they have been doing to us, find that point of vulnerability in their opponent’s sense of self, and kneecap their opponent’s arguments there.

Take note of wildiris’ final sentence, and compare it with what Bill Whittle said at the end of his speech about the need to (figuratively) “kick [your Progressive opponent’s moral superiority] in the knee as hard as you can”.

Bill Whittle and wildiris are definitely on the same page.

Note: This post, like the previous one, is about the need to re-cognize the nature of our current information war with the trans-national Left. It is not about race, IQ, Martin Luther King, or any other topic. Commenters are requested to stay with the primary meme here.

Hat tip for the video: Andrea Shea King.

31 thoughts on “Kneecapping the Progressives

  1. It is especially telling that, when confronted with the concrete implications of Socialism for their personal corporeal existence, everyone is suddenly not so ready to accept them. But we can and must go farther. People need to understand that Socialism doesn’t just mean giving up your smart-phone so that strangers can have some unearned money. It ultimately means effectively outlawing all production of wealth in the first place, so that everyone ends up homeless and starving unless they are clever at breaking the laws without being caught.

    Most people are not going to accept that harsh truth until it is too late. They will look around and see that, according to all the official sources, Socialism means everyone having a smart-phone, not anybody having to give one up. When asked to look at what the long term implications of punishing productive ability and rewarding helpless dependence, they will simply refuse as long as the immediate implication for themselves is getting approval and free goodies from those in power.

    The ability to look ahead and predict future events that haven’t already occurred in one’s personal experience is the defining quality of intelligence. But while humans might have more of it than some animals, most don’t have enough more of it to reject immediate gratification to secure future survival.

    And rejecting immediate gratification can often mean endangering the margin of immediate survival. Anyone who doesn’t realize the dangers of taking a stand against the elite is a fool. They are willing to kill those who challenge them, and they’ve demonstrated that willingness far too often for anyone to be ignorant of it except by choice. It doesn’t just require intelligence to reject the promotion of Socialism and PCMC, it requires real courage as well.

    And that is what the elites will never understand. Real life requires taking real risks, there is no “safe” path, only less suicidal ones. Clinging to a present sense of security only dooms you in the end.

  2. Most leftists I know feel guilty/ashamed about the treatment of minorities and less-favored groups. It is a genuine emotion on their part – tracing back to our Judeo-Christian heritage. However, they are very selective in their guilt – and this can easily be turned against them by a bold opponent.

    I have noticed that leftists start to change their mind when you point out the many cases where they SHOULD feel guilty, but don’t because they have accepted the narrative offered by the mainstream media. As you will see below, the counterarguments are irrelevant and tangential, but they do work because they push the guilt/shame/emotions buttons.

    I am going to repeat the critical point: The counterarguments work BECAUSE they hit the guilt/shame/emotion buttons. They do not work logically – but logic does not matter with the left.

    For example, in a recent interview of Tommy Robinson by the BBC, the interviewer said something to the effect that he was worried about the innocent Asian who would feel discriminated against or who might face reprisals for something that with which he had nothing to do.

    Tommy Robinson could counter to the BBC interviewer, “Why don’t YOU care about the young girls who are being groomed for sex?”

    Note that the rebuttal has to be personal, to trigger the opponent’s shame. It must be “Why don’t YOU care about ….” This will throw the interviewer on the defense immediately. Interviewer: “I do care about the young girls!” Tommy: “Why did you suppress stories about it …” and so on.

    Or, in the U.S., a similar line of thought is that a young black man might live in fear of suffering the same fate as Trayvon Martin.

    A counterargument: “Why don’t YOU care about the white women who are being raped by black men? Why don’t YOU care about the white men who are being raped by blacks in American prisons?” Interviewer: “I think prison rape is terrible!” Our side: “Why have YOU personally done something about it?”

    Or, taking up immigration: the left says it would be cruel to deport DREAMers – kids brought here illegally by their parents, and who are basically American in essence at this point.

    The counterargument: “Why don’t YOU care about the blacks who are being ethnically cleansed by Latinos in Los Angeles? Why don’t YOU care about blacks who are losing their jobs to Latinos.”

    • Question the questioner. Asking the question places the asker in a position of superiority over the asked – or so my old Dad used to say.

    • RJ, it looks like you’re getting it. Like Kaspersky or Norton Antivirus, we need to start making a signature library of known meme attacks; those memetic hook or trigger words/phrases, that Bill W. calls the dog whistle. That way, when we hear them, we can immediately be on guard and hopefully have a practiced response ready. The Baron has had more than his share of such encounters and, no doubt, has accumulated a sizable repertoire of “gotcha” phrases that people have tried to use on him.

      • Actually, their repetoire is remarkably limited. The vast majority of the arguments consist of variations on “You’re a racist!” or “You’re a hater!”

        Runners-up: “You’re ignorant”, “You’re stupid”, “You have evil intentions”, and so on. You all know the drill. They’re just gussied up with a lot of extra verbiage.

        “You’re ignorant”, for example, can include the ad-hominem fallacy, or the appeal to authority. Others might beg the question. All can cite premises as though they were conclusions.

        Winning a logical argument with them is easy. The problem is, they don’t usually understand logic, so they don’t know they’ve been beat. They seem to think that name-calling is enough to carry the day.

        Oh, and I forgot: there’s “Zionist tool.”

        • The left overuses the name calling. Most of the ones above are derivatives of “you don’t care about X!”

          When they say, “you’re a hater …” a good response is “… but YOU don’t care about …”
          “you’re a racist …” “… but YOU don’t care about …”

          Force them to prove that they care equally about two groups with opposed interests (working class blacks and hispanics). Force them to care equally as much about some ‘oppressed’ group and their own children.

          Accusing them of not caring is the best tactic. Make it personal. It is perhaps the single biggest motivating factor in their lives.

    • Forget whites being victims of blacks–as a tactical matter, there’s too much chance of having “racism” thrown back at you. How about, instead, bringing up that “there’s a Trayvon Martin or two killed every day in Chicago, and why don’t YOU care about that???”

  3. In a similar vein, it is easy to demolish cultural relativists. For example:

    Leftist: “We can’t judge other cultures. No culture is better than any other.”
    Counter: “So we should encourage polygamy?”
    Leftist: “Among consenting adults, why not?”
    Counter: “How about cannibalism among consenting adults?”
    Leftist: “Definitely not!”
    Counter: “Why? Are you judging them as worse in some way …?”

    • Your cannibalism argument is already lost in the extended sense, though you are correct there are few who’ll admit they’ve accepted it. Maybe even you.

      No doubt many here know of the rumors that China harvests the organs from its prisoners and makes them available on the world transplant market. How many really investigate where their life-saving organ came from? In fact, why didn’t you think of this already RJ?

      • “Why didn’t you think of it already?” Because our opinion leaders have let the subject drop. It’s an unofficial un-subject, much like top scientist climate change skeptics are quickly becoming Soviet-style unpersons. My guess there is too much money in the practice, and besides, taking parts from the “criminal” and providing them to the paying client is so, so Utilitarian, an early Progressive foundational principle.

        I really should not have singled out RJ with this question. (So please don’t take it personally. I like RJ’s mode of thinking quite a bit.) The few of us who have written on the subject were long ago taken aback by how there has been no moral outrage followup, and expect it.

        Most ALL of us take our leads from the media. If they ignore a subject, we seem to quickly fall in line. Even conservative talkshow hosts will acknowledge a caller’s point is very good, and even significant — and then quickly move on as if it wasn’t.

        Now if you do make a ripple and it disturbs the preferred quiescence, the powers that be will come after you with hammer and tong, eh Fjordman?

        Baron, there are so many good comments that have piqued my interest in this thread, starting with wildiris’ observations, that I hesitate to respond to all of them. I think I may blog my responses over the next week and then come back. I see as a common thing here that I fear is overlooked. It will sound flat, but it really is much deeper. Do not for one moment think that “kneecapping” the Progs is not anticipated. The Progressive movement early on (1880s) labeled us just so its avante garde would be expecting it. Reactionaries. It is really quite amazing it’s taken this long for us to get there. As Whittle says in his first point — as I’ve said time and again — conservatives want most to be left alone. At this point it will take much more than mere words my friends.

  4. Or let’s take potshots at the Democratic coalition. It could be pretty easy to disorient our opponents in these cases:

    a) Why do feminists vote Democrat, when Democrats favor immigration by misogynist muslims? “Why do YOU vote for politicians who favor misogyny?”

    b) Why do environmentalists vote Democrat, when Democrats favor mass immigration with all the pressure it creates on the environment? “Why do YOU support politicians who are destroying the environment?”

    c) Why do blacks vote Democrat, when Democrats encourage Latino immigration that displaces blacks (in terms of neighborhoods and jobs)? “Why do YOU vote for Democrats who are screwing blacks?”

  5. There is one last bit I left out. It is important to respond to an attack with another personal attack. Circling back to the Tommy Robinson hypothetical I wrote:

    “in a recent interview of Tommy Robinson by the BBC, the interviewer said something to the effect that he was worried about the innocent Asian who would feel discriminated against or who might face reprisals for something that with which he had nothing to do.

    Tommy Robinson could counter to the BBC interviewer, ‘Why don’t YOU care about the young girls who are being groomed for sex?'”

    Let’s imagine a clever BBC repost:

    Interviewer: “The grooming is terrible of course, but we are not talking about that right now. We are talking about the innocent Asian …”

    Tommy: “… and YOU are saying how much you care, but YOU don’t care about those girls … why do YOU care about some people, but not others?”

    Interviewer: “I do care about the girls …”

    Tommy: “Then what have YOU done about it …”

    Interviewer: “Well, nothing specifically …”

    Tommy: “Why not? Why don’t YOU care more about girls who actually have been harmed, compared to an Asian who might be harmed?”

  6. Again, we need to go on the offense.

    I’ll give you an example of a dinner I had with some leftists. They were the typical open borders crowd, bring ’em all in and let’s celebrate diversity. I mostly said nothing until I was set up by someone who knew damned well I am conservative and forced me to comment. I said:

    “We have embarked on a breathtaking, bold and exciting venture to create the greatest multicultural civilization in the history of the world.”

    “I also consider myself a very well-read student of history. This has been tried many times in the past, and I have yet to find a single example of where such an experiment worked. If anything, the experiment has destroyed every civilization that has tried it.”

    “And no one has been able to show me a civilization that has succeeded at this experiment.”

    “And, as far as I can tell, we have no plan B.”

    You could have heard a pin drop!

    • Excellent. I often wonder about the legend of the Tower of Babel and whether the tower to God they were building was the multicultural utopia. God’s answer was to make them all mutually unintelligible and scatter them across the globe. This almost sounds like homogeneous to multicultural in reverse and perhaps indicates how God feels i.e. multiculturalism is not God’s plan for the world as so many left wing Christians seem to feel.

      Thank you for telling the truth. Staggered to discover that America’s population has doubled since the 1950s elsewhere but you still have plenty of room, unlike Britain. Also the white population of America has dropped in that time from about 90% to about 70% and less than 50% by 2040 if not before, much like England, except that we started with 99.9% in the 1950s.

    • Wasn’t this the aim of the Frankfurt School? They had I believe ten aims to achieve in order to bring down European Civilisation. The chief amongst these was mass immigration to destroy the national identities of the homogeneous nations of Europe; something now being echoed by the Marxist UN. They, too, had studied history, especially the fall of Rome, in order to work out how to do it.

      • Most people I know (leftists included) highly value Western Civilization. So they reject Frankfurt school goals even as they inadvertently support them.

        Where they become unwitting tools of the Frankfurt school is in thinking that all these people from far away places deep down inside are no different than us: The Somali jihadist refugee is really a bourgeois, upper-middle class New England liberal just waiting to blossom! All we need to do is help them blossom by showering them with out generosity, our love and our compassion …

        Poking holes in the train of thought doesn’t work because they are essentially provincial in their thinking (even though they claim to have a global perspective). Hearing your arguments, they will dismiss you as a bigot.

        The key is to appeal to their compassion. So when they go on about how Mexicans are just like us, they are assimilating just like the Italians did a hundred years ago, etc., respond with:

        “But they are ethnically cleansing the poor blacks, killing innocent young black girls – in our own country!” Now they have to choose who is more deserving of their compassion.

        Or take the feminists, whose compassion is inwardly-directed (i.e., all about themselves, their careers, etc), when they rant against Republicans: “But who is going to protect your daughters against Sharia?”

        Our mistake is that we force them to choose between logic and compassion – for them, compassion wins every time.

        Instead, force them to choose between the objects of their compassion.

        • I am glad you used the word logic. This is the one thing that liberals and the left seem to lack. They think everybody from all over the world should live in England even though it does not create a stable and cohesive nation and even though we are now so crowded that the water is running out.

          I am a very compassionate individual but logic kicks in to prevent my compassionf from becoming nonsensical and illogical.

          At the risk of offending those of the fair sex, it seems that this illogical compassion is a result of the over- feminisation of western society. I remember a lay preacher and farmer talking about a lamb he had who eventually had to go to slaughter. A woman in the congregation said,”How could you?”. He should have replied, “Madam, I have to make a living and you have to eat”.

    • Mecca was a pagan society with multicultural values. They allowed Mohammed to preach his bogus, fake “religion” for 13 years, before finally ousting him for his repeated blasphemies and plotting war against the society in which he lived.

      Medina was a jewish society with multicultural values. They took in the trouble-maker Mohammed, his new religion, and his asylum-seeing cult.

      After he’d destroyed a jewish multicultural society, Mohammed destroyed a pagan multicultural society. Then he set his sights on the christians.

      The lesson of islam and multiculturalism is there for all to see. The two are incompatible.

      • Britain was a homogeneous, non-multicultural, single religion country which was peaceful, cohesive and happy. Now it is the opposite. You cannot argue that multicultural societies are more successful just because of islam. Here, according to the Guardian newspaper, our ethnic minorities are going to sway the next election in favour of Labour. This is exactly as Enoch Powell predicted, the tail wagging the dog and exactly as has happened in the US with the Democrats and Republicans. Here in Britain, anybody who wants to preserve the country’s traditional identity, as elsewhere in Europe, no longer stands a chance. Better to be Chinese or Japanese or Indian. England will be gone in a few decades to be replaced by a country dominated by those from the Sub-continent.

  7. A few years ago, a female relative, late 40s, who works with multicultural immigrants was going on and on about how the immigrants are working so hard to fit in, etc. For every fact that I had about the crappiness and costliness of immigrants in general, she had a precious anecdote about a particular high-achieving immigrant or immigrant family that she had met. Finally, I just told her that I thought that America had been a better country in the 1950s when the population was 150 million, than it was now with 310 million, and that in my opinion, America was now overcrowded. She immediately had nothing further to say — I was surprised.

  8. I guess that has worked with me. Somewhat. I kept after someone who I used to work with on the subject of the minimum wage. I asked, over and over, “G…, why do you hate poor kids?”. I was eventually unfriended. So I guess I got to her.

  9. The problem of how to tackle progressives can be approached with a look at their intellectual roots and how these affect their current behavior. American Progressivism began with the influence of the German University on higher education in the U.S. that started toward the end of the nineteenth century. That meant that those affected by it were under the influence of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. His method of dialectical argument: thesis, antithesis, ending in synthesis, was presented as a way of putting spiritual truths on a scientific basis. However, as Karl Popper pointed out in his book, The Open Society and its Enemies, the method makes it possible to arrive at one’s pre-conceived notions with great ease, but with much apparent difficulty. As to Hegel’s political position, Popper sums it up by calling Hegel “the toady of Prussian autocracy.” To adapt to the modern age, “the people” need to be managed by bureaucratic experts (Intellectuals) for their own good. This certainly was the position of the earlier Progressives, such as Woodrow Wilson.

    When he gets to Marx, Popper was favorably impressed by the former’s “moral indignation”, his concern for the little people who he considered victims of the wicked Capitalist system. The Judeo-Christian worldview certainly tends to sympathize with this position. Popper was a self-styled Humanist and Logical Positivist who was better known for books like The Logic of Scientific Discovery, but these values resonated with him too. However, after having seen how this moral indignation has been used, without regard to the truth of the charges, as a device to attack people who hold different views from the Marxist-Progressive elite, I can’t feel the same admiration.

    The details of the belief system (Hegelian, Progressive, P.C., leftist, Liberal Establishment, whatever you want to call it) have changed over the years; Marx stood Hegel on his head with dialectical materialism. The coerced segregationist system instituted on a Federal level by Wilson has flipped over into coerced affirmative action, etc. However, the two main pillars of belief remain. (1) Fidelity to the belief system is proof of intelligence; those who disagree are “stupid.” (2) Moral standards are relative, and we (the progressives, or whatever) are the ones who decide what is right or wrong, those who disagree with us are by definition evil.

    My first exposure to this mentality was as a college freshman about fifty years ago. When I went to discuss a low grade on my English term paper, the teacher said to me, “I see that you believe in an absolute moral standard”. From her tone, I gathered that she didn’t approve. “Yes,” I replied, “but I can’t defend it intellectually, it is an emotional preference. If you can give me some good reasons for believing in moral relativism, I am quite willing to change my opinion.” “Well, some very intelligent people have decided that it is right.” “Fine, but if they were so intelligent they must have had reasons, what I want to know is, what were their reasons?” “If you haven’t figured that out by now, you never will.”

    One could write that off as an unfortunate encounter between a bigoted teacher and a naïve freshman, except for the fact that in all my attempts to discover answers, I never did get a better one from those people, or from others of their stripe later. The whole English Department, from the head down, was devoted to getting us to “think for ourselves.” This obviously meant that we uncritically accept their indoctrination, and if we did not, we would never be true intellectuals. I could see many of my colleagues uncritically accept the premise that swallowing this stuff made them “true intellectuals” that “understood”. I couldn’t judge others, but to me it came across as intimidation, that I had to believe this stuff or else, without any real reason for it. Thus I refused to express my own opinions, sticking to so and so said this, and another person said that, etc. and followed my inclinations toward the sciences, eventually getting a doctorate in microbiology. For me, the question was not whether I had enough brains to become a “true intellectual”, since it didn’t seem as though one needed much. My big problem was that I didn’t have a strong enough stomach.

    In my view, the above is both the strength, and possible Achilles heel of the Progressive, leftist mind set. The groupthink is essential for an intellectual that has bought into it, because it is so essential to their self-concept. Some are very naïve about the deal that they have made; therefore they are completely unprepared for the backlash when they inadvertently come out with something that doesn’t fit the orthodoxy, just because they have observed it. Since their whole self-concept is threatened, of course they fold.

    • I’m very interested in your experiences and what you observe. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how to address this? You may not. I’m not trying to put you on the spot. Like many of us, I’m trying to find the arguments that will penetrate the chinks in their armor.

      • Easy, triangulate their love abortion against their hatred of “racism”. Hold rallies to legalize abortion in Saudi-Arabia. Remember Cairo 1994, remember the role of Karol Wojtyla, the man who “defeated” Communism.

  10. “I would remind them that they are dealing with people over whom the truth has no power.”

    That’s important to remember, and a point that some of us have been making for years. The concern with ideology was originally a marxist conceit: they saw the truth as ideology. Any “truth” which did not accord with the religion of marxism was ideology. The National Socialists adopted this, and talked about “jewish logic”.

    However, what is even more important to remember is that those who see the truth as ideology are only the gatekeepers. Provided that the rest of society (who do believe in truth, facts and logic) get to hear one trouncing the gatekeepers, the battle is moving on. They have to physically stop people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller coming in to the UK in order to stop the public from hearing the gatekeepers being trounced. In a recent radio interview on the BBC, when an imam conceded that Spencer was the expert on islam rather than him, you could hear how angry and appalled the radio presenter was with the imam for admitting this.

    It is good to give the gatekeepers a kick in their rhetorical balls every once in a while. But that is just for fun and to let them know they’re not in full control. I’m sure an audience likes to hear/see that once in an interview. Don’t underestimate the public’s desire for knowledge and logic.

    Every blow the enemy try to land is not just to be dodged. One has to look for ways of directing the blow back into the face of the enemy. And the fundamental point is that they are hypocrites. They are the ones who are defending islamic fascism, and they are defending it quite simply because they are racists. They see that the (most) muslims have got darker skin than average in a western society, and therefore the gatekeepers defend islamic fascism when they would not defend such fascism from someone with white skin. It is their own racism that leads them to hypocrisy. Post WW2, racists defending fascism are going to lose.

    • As I look over the comments, I would like to add the following observations:

      a) Leftist leaders are a different group than their followers. Most of their followers are driven by emotions and highly value a self-image that they truly care about others. With patience, they can be turned by confronting them with all the suffering that they choose to ignore, by asking the question of why they choose to care about one group at the expense of another? I have had success with this.

      The leftist leaders are a different matter altogether. There is no reasoning with them; however, they can be useful if debated in public using the techniques I suggest above (see the Tommy Robinson/BBC hypothetical dialogue above). It is not hard to tie them up in knots. Such a debate could get leftist followers to reconsider the arbitrariness about whom they choose to care.

      I notice that some of the comments above appear to lump the two leaders and followers together, which is a serious mistake.

      b) We each have a role to play in this, the challenge of our time, even if none of us have a chance to debate David Cameron on TV. I have found that most of the leftist followers accept that it is completely arbitrary who deserves caring. Bringing them to this point take time, rhetorical skill and patience. As the followers accept that there are lots of people who deserve caring, they start to notice the one-sidedness of the main stream media. They then begin to resist the perils of our time – islamification, the camp of the saints, etc.

  11. I like to present the fact that the Native Americans (whom the Progressives idolize) had a multi-cultural society on the New World’s continent and they were rich with many languages and a diversity of societies or cultures.

    These diverse groups were suddenly confronted by newcomers with a unity of purpose (spreading the Christian faith, essentially, and the European civilization which sprang from this [mostly] unifying concept) along with a superior technology (medicine, gunpowder, etc.) and a single Vision.

    And the diverse Native Americans lost their land.

    That being the logical outcome of multiculturalism, which encourages many languages and sees no need for social cohesion.

    “Don’t you think the Natives Americans now wish they had had one language, one culture and one unified spirit to defend their homeland with? Don’t you agree that this would still be their land if that had been true?”

    How can the Progressive diss an Indian?

    • Your case is strong and would have good traction with someone who responds to logic. And you are correct that native Americans are a focus of compassion.

      However, you refer to events that are too remote and are too abstract for the compassion-driven person to grasp. I think you need to push the pain points more aggressively.

      If they have children, then I would pull those strings. For example,

      “We as a people are very generous to the different cultures we invite to share in our way of life. But what will you say to your children when you acquiesce to their becoming minorities in their own country, suffering discrimination only because they are not black or brown?”

      Most compassionate people will NOT sacrifice their children for the sake of their own ego.

  12. Baron, I cannot imagine a more illustrative “worked-example” to highlight our email conversation than Bill Whittle’s speech. Was this just a serendipitous coincidence that you found this video or are there greater forces at work here?

    You and Dymphna make a great blogging tag-team. Together you’ve done an amazing job of presenting this email conversation to your readership. At this point, I don’t see that I have anything more to add. Thanks

    • wildiris —

      The thanks are owed to you.

      Yes, the conjunction of your comment with the Bill Whittle video was simple serendipity. I read your comment, and remembered its remarkable resemblance to what I had heard Bill Whittle say when I watched the video the night before.

Comments are closed.