Dear Demagogues: Leave the Redskins Alone

Certain idiots strike up controversy by clamoring for an end to the Redskins name because it is "racist" or insensitive or whatever. But the reality is that the name is more a token of respect than ridicule.

The names and logos may seem a little garish or "culturally insensitive", but these are sports mascots, which are sort of supposed to be that way. Mascots aren't held in high esteem like legal names for individual human beings. If the people who named these teams in the first half of the 20th century really hated indians, they wouldn't name their sports teams after them. It was only because of their respect for the bravery and fighting spirit of the indians that these sports names came about. You don't see sports teams named "The drunks" or "The dope heads" because these groups are not respected in any sense. Those who named these teams viewed indians from afar, so the only way they had of showing respect was in this sort of tacky manner. They didn't feign a more intimate knowledge of them by trying to seem sensitive with PC terms like "Native American".

If I were a Pawnee or Cherokee, I'd be no more upset at the Redskins than a cowboy living out in the range of Montana would be at the Dallas Cowboys for "trivializing the cowboy way of life", no more upset than a person of Scandanavian descent would be at the Minnesota Vikings for "trivializing their ancestors with a stereotyping mascot of a blond-haired man with a beard." You don't see indignant Irish people protesting Notre Dame's Fighting Irish mascot, or complaining that the team name enforces negative stereotypes about Irish tempers. The reality is that most cowboys, indians, Irish people, and descendants of vikings have no problem with the team names. In fact, a poll showed that most native americans don't mind them. It's only the Marxist ones and those angry about unrelated problems with their lives who take it out on the sports teams. White liberals join with them, attempting to be heroic demagogues.

Admittedly, "Redskin" is probably more offensive than a name like Cowboys or Fighting Irish. It may be equivalent to a team being called the "Pale Faces", but it's important to consider that although a child may be primarily concerned with team names and logos, when most adult sports fans think of the Redskins, they picture Quarterback Robert Griffin III, or the uniform colors. They may think of team's record, or whether their runningback Alfred Morris will put up big fantasy football numbers, etc. The team name is really a placeholder, and most people don't think of indians sitting around a tepee floor or living on a reservation when they think of the team, and they are smart enough to distinguish between the team and real American Indians. Thus any insensitivity implied through the team names doesn't transfer over to the actual indian tribes in people's minds. It is doubtful that Redskins fans would be any more likely to mistreat an indian than would any other person.

Moreover, as a side note, indians don't even refer to themselves by the so-called respectful term "native americans", because both words are of European origin. They call themselves Pawnee, Lakota, etc. They didn't identify as belonging to an entire hemispherical continent with "American", and they didn't view themselves primarily as "native" but rather as members of the tribe they belonged to, because in their world, everyone was native, except maybe for the white settlers. Those who feign sensitivity by using the term "Native American" are really not being any more culturally sensitive than people who call them indians.

Sports aren't the only realm where revolutionary morons attack benign things. Turkey Hill Minit Markets used to have a cool indian as its logo (top photo). In response to a ridiculous court case, they changed it to the most androgynous symbol imaginable; one that is so remote from anything real that the only people who might sue Turkey Hill over it would be the manufacturers of those triangle marker things (middle, bottom). The problem is that we lost a memorable symbol and had it replaced with a forgettable one.

The banning of benign symbols is not a question of political correctness at work per se, but rather of a bunch of sanctimonious demagogues who want to behave self-righteously but in a way that accords to modern culture, ie, a way that is within the cultural Marxist paradigm. This impulse to badger people for no reason precedes the development of Cultural Marxism. For example, Catholic nuns retained a similar self-righteous fervor in transitioning from unjustly scolding children for being unholy and "a disgrace to the Virgin", to wrongfully scolding them for being bigoted against blacks.

Anyway, it seems that onlookers should be able to use native peoples as an inspiration for mascots. I have a feeling that if there were no indian mascots, the same revolutionaries would complain of a lack of representation in sports team mascots.

The Hagelian Dilemma

Pat Buchanan, an ardent opponent of the neocons, has endorsed Obama's pick Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense. But Ron Paul will not go so far, and seems to imply that the enemy of the neocons--Chuck Hagel--is not necessarily Dr. Paul's friend.

from RonPaul.com:

Hagel has shown some admirable willingness to advise caution overseas. He is seen as unenthusiastic over the prospects of a US war on Iran, which is certainly to be welcomed. But let us not forget that he did vote for the war against Iraq, he has expressed support for multi-lateral sanctions on Iran, and last year he wrote in the Washington Post that, on Iran, he supports “keeping all options on the table, including the use of military force.” Nevertheless because he does represent a more moderate voice in foreign policy than the neo-conservatives can tolerate, they are dragging his name through the mud. In choosing Hagel, then, we can hope the president is signaling that he will pursue a less aggressive foreign policy in his second term. But we cannot count on it.

This is a confusing issue because although Hagel may not be a Paul Wolfowitz-like neocon, he certainly is not on board with an ideal Paulesque/Buchananite noninterventionist foreign policy. Should someone vote against Hagel for being too pro-war? or vote for him to stick it to the neocons? Is Hagel as good as it gets in terms of aversion to war with Iran? It seems Ron Paul doesn't trust Hagel to avoid war but Buchanan does.
Paul gained his nickname "Dr. No" by holding every vote to a strict standard. This standard includes an opposition to militarism abroad. But holding to this standard may force Obama to nominate someone more pro-war than Hagel. This dilemma gets to the heart of politics as to whether compromise is ever justified.

Finally, the sad fact is that neocons and Ron Paul alike oppose Hagel for opposite reasons. Politics makes strange vote coalitions.

The Zionist Story

Normally, we don't post videos, but we felt this one was important enough to warrant exception. It refutes the idea that Palestinians are "rocks, obstacles to be moved out of the way."

In Defense of Alex Jones

Disclaimer: The Nothington Post staff does not subscribe to any of Alex Jones's conspiracy theories, nor his sensationalism, celebrity worship, and other errors.

Jones was uncomposed and overly boistrous in his debate with Piers Morgan on gun rights. People say that he made liberty people look bad. Indeed, maybe he did. Many conspiracy theorists theorize that he is a double agent who is trying to make liberty people look bad. But it seems Jones's conduct during the debate was a manifestation of his spark plug personality and not deliberate sabotage. That same fiery temperment has made him famous and has also drawn many people to liberty philosophy. Even if he isn't a calm debater, people need to remember the good that he has done.

It's a fact that many Ron Paul supporters found the liberty movement through Alex Jones. Moreover, Jones always supports honest, anti-establishment, pro-freedom candidates like Debra Medina and Kurt Haskell. Despite his conspiracy stigma, Jones has the largest following in the liberty movement, with many fans not totally on board with liberty as well. The worst side effect of his conspiracies may be an overexuberant distrust of government among his followers, but consequently, no Alex Jones supporter could be found to be the chump of a cynical politician.

It's funny because even conspiracy people are developing conspiracies against Jones, saying that because he doesn't tout their worldview enough, he is an agent for the Illuminati or something. But even if this is somehow true, which it isn't, Jones has brought so many people to be "awake", as they call it, that the Illuminati or whoever would have to be totally stupid for sponsoring him.

Jones has a lot of legitimate information on his show that the rest of the media ignores. For example, Jones covers the Bilderberg meeting, an important meeting of world elites that the cowardly mainstream media ignores for fear of being called conspiracy theorists. Like the G20 or any gathering of world leaders, Bilderberg deserves attention, and Jones has nothing to lose in covering it.

In sum, Jones makes valuable contributions to journalism and the liberty movement despite his regrettable conspiracies.
_______________
Correction
We initally gave as an example of the mainstream media ignoring Michigan's law that oppresses small hog farmers at the behest of big agra, and related that Jones had covered it. But we subsequently found an ABC News article about it, so we were wrong that the media ignored it. However, one could say that major media outlets did not cover it enough. If they had publicized it like they did the Trayvon Martin case, then Michigan probably wouldn't have any problems now with oppressive farm laws.

Alan Dershowtiz Caught in a Catch 22

Alan Dershowitz is the biggest intellectual moron in the world. He condemned Mearsheimer and Walt's book, The Israel Lobby, because he disagreed that the lobby has hegemony over US Foreign policy. Yet, Dershowitz is now attempting to prove them right by assembling his Zionist troops to thwart the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, a man who has stated that "the the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here," and who does not kowtow to the hawkish lobby. 

Dershowitz is so stupid! He's caught in a catch 22. He either proves the book right and demonstrates the hegemony of the Israel Lobby, or has to suffer a defeat for the Lobby with the nomination of Hagel.

If we had a real media in America, nobody would take Dershowitz seriously, and his inconsistencies would be torn to shreds. Dershowitz has a super high verbal IQ, but because 1+1=2 and he says it equals 3, he is stupid no matter the power of his vocabulary.

Another hypocritical assertion of Dershowitz is that he cited Europe as a model for gun laws, as if Europe is a model for the US in general. But besides the Czech Republic, European nations voted unanimously to recognize Palestine as a nonvoting member of the United Nations. I'm sure the Dershy's Euro-phillia was suspended regarding that decision.

Gun Grabbers Use Propaganda Not Reason

Gun grabbers such as the ponytail man waste no time in using recent news of mass shootings as propaganda to fit their preconceived agenda of taking people's guns. They justify using news of murders for political gain by saying that "if this particular gun control law were in place, fewer or no people would have died," and then they act as though those people who would oppose such laws somehow endorse the murders. So, if gun grabbers are going to throw the first punch, pro-gun people have a right to respond.

First of all, the gun grabbers are selling snake oil. They do not know for sure that the laws they propose would prevent murders. If clip sizes are reduced, then a killer could bring additional clips. If quotas are put on clips, a killer could bring an additional weapon. Economics tells us that there are substitute goods that can be used in place of goods to fulfill the same purpose, so even if all guns are successfully banned, alternative weapons and methods of killing would be sought by killers. If a killer wants to kill a certain number of people, he can find ways to circumvent bans.

It'd be one thing if a gun grabber introduced statistics on gun deaths in the US and estimated how many lives a proposed law might save. But in that case, the law would be somewhat testable, and if it failed to reduce deaths, then the gun grabber would look bad. To escape potential statistical scrutiny, gun grabbers opt to play on people's emotions by using news events of mass shootings or shootings involving famous people such as the Kansas City Chiefs player Jovan Belcher. You get the idea from these media propagandists that ordinary people who are shot individually elicit no need for anti-gun laws, as if their deaths are less important. Indeed, they are less important to the gun grabber, because they are not as useful in drumming up support for anti-gun legislation.

To answer the question as to whether people "need" to own high powered guns, I quote Sidney Painter in his book on French Chivalry: "Until the non-noble class obtained wealth, leisure, or a cheap, easily used, and effective weapon, the position of the feudal aristocracy was perfectly secure" (page 3). Notice that maintaining feudal aristocracy is partly reliant on the rulers (or government) possessing far superior weaponry to the commoners. The founding fathers wanted to make sure common people could defend themselves against indian raids, etc, not being helplessly reliant on the government to protect them. Thus, the power structure would be unlike a feudal system in which only rulers could offer sufficient protection. In a land of liberty, commoners deserve to have effective weapons. These weapons should be as potentially effective as the most effective weapon possessed by government agents who deal with civilians. But because gun grabbers promote government coercion and not liberty, they see no need to support the right to own high powered firearms for people without government-granted status.