I am voting racist. Get over it.

Black? Brown? Mocha? Racist!

In the early hours of Thursday morning following the Democrat debate, a Race-obsessed MSNBC panel complained racism wasn’t brought up enough during the debate. In a mind-boggling discussion, the analysts urged Democrats to call out white “privilege” while insisting that whites who voted for Trump were racist, and needed to vote against Trump because he’s a white supremacist. The panel clearly couldn’t decide whether they wanted to attack white Trump voters as racists or get them to vote Democrat. So they decided, let’s do both. The Root contributor Jason Johnson and The Beat DC’s Tiffany Cross started off by complimenting Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand for calling out white women’s “privilege,” and insisting the rest of the 2020 candidates needed to follow suit because that would “animate voters.” From there, the panel broadened to attack all whites who voted for Trump as racists, who needed to be convinced Trump was a racist, to vote against him in 2020. “We can start from the perspective that everybody understands that Donald Trump is a racist and a white supremacist. We’re not trying to convince anybody of that point,Cross insisted. That’s good, you jerkoff, because you can’t see his heart nor read his mind nor that of anyone else. You are suffering from racism inflation.

Then there’s Charles Barkley, a former NBA star and now an NBA analyst on TNT. Sir Chuck is his own man, and usually says some interesting things. He said after the Democratic presidential candidate debate on July 30 that political parties have been neglecting economic opportunities for black Americans. He also added that most black people he knows who have always voted Democratic are “still poor.” In 2017, Barkley remarked that Democrats have “taken the black vote and the poor vote for granted for a long time,” and that “this is a wakeup call for Democrats to do better for black people and poor white people.” When Barkley was asked on July 30 whether he felt that “it’s different this time around,” he replied, “I do not.”

Interesting, true, but his own vote, according to him, would be between Julian Castro and Pete Buttigieg, “if they could get some traction.” Chuck, the only traction they are getting would be to lose the Vaseline during what passes for sex. Chuck is loud and amusing, but not exactly a policy wonk. Admittedly, I have been drifting towards voting for President Trump for a second term due to the complete idiocy and insanity of alternative choices, but reading shit like the first paragraph, I have put away the paddles and replaced them with a 500 HP Mercury outboard motor. I will vote for him. If that makes me “racist”, I would tell you where to stick your opinion if this weren’t a family blog.

I just read a “comment” post in Spokane’s own leftwing rag, the INLANDER. It was called “Won’t You Be My Neighbor”, by Aileen Keown Vaux. She started out praising Fred Rogers, for inviting police officer Francois Clemens to his neighborhood, making him the first recurring black character on a children’s TV show. The wonderful image was Mr. Rogers and officer Clemens sitting side by side soaking their feet in a small pool together. Absolutely precious, the image it brings to my mind is something I saw on a church racial reconciliation video, of a white man washing the feet of a black man, heeding Jesus’ admonition about washing His feet. Indeed, a person who is willing to wash the feet of another, especially a different race, is washing the feet of Jesus Christ himself. So far so good, given that Fred Rogers was an ordained Presbyterian minister.

But then she points out how Mr. Rogers failed the modern test of inclusiveness. How? Officer Clemens was homosexual, and “would spend time at a well-known gay bar in downtown New York City.” Rogers “quietly asked him to stop.” Her theory is that he didn’t think the show could afford to lose sponsors and that Rogers said, “his actions may give many of the wrong people the worst idea.” Who are the wrong people? What is the worst idea? Did she ask him? Did he say? How did inclusiveness become god? Inclusiveness has become the golden mean of our age. Whether it’s immigration—everyone has the right to be included in our country—sexuality—everyone’s sexual practices are equally acceptable—religions—you can’t say Islamic terrorists without being islamophobic—we have forgotten the immortal words of Groucho Marx: “I wouldn’t join a club that would accept me as a member.”

Jesus was all about inclusion, but not for its own sake, come one come all. Jesus was about inclusion in the family of God, which includes everyone who admits they are a lost sinner, and incapable of pleasing God, and who claims the cleansing of sin that only the blood of Jesus can effect. When I humbly and brokenly beg Jesus Christ to become my sacrifice, so that my Heavenly Father sees Jesus instead of my sin, I become included in the family of God. Not before, nor by any other route.

Look at the picture above of the inclusive club of Democrats that started running for President. Of those 24 faces, two claim to be black, but I don’t see it, and I don’t care anyway. Inclusiveness is not a measure of anything valuable. All it is, is a lame adult version of everyone gets a medal. Grow up folks, only the winners—those who by definition have trained to win—deserve a medal. Do you want to be included in something worthwhile? Earn it. If you want to be on a children’s show that is sponsored by companies who want parents to buy their products, and you know that those sponsors won’t be excited by your prominence in a gay bar, stop going or find another show. Mr. Rogers doesn’t have to accommodate you. I don’t have to vote Democrat, nor will I. Call me whatever, as long as it isn’t inclusive.

The deception of the vested interest.

Are you disappointed that someone you believed in, that the doctrine s/he espoused, the stand taken, all crumbled before their new understanding? The most recent crumbling of the edifice, at least for us Christians, is Josh Harris, he of l Kissed Dating Goodbye fame. I have nothing to say about Josh, nor to him, nor about him specifically. I will leave that to my betters. He’s apparently changed his mind about some vital things, maybe has some new understandings. We have known people like that, he’s hardly unique, every democrat politician, at least those running for any kind of office, can proudly debate their new understandings. I don’t know about Josh, but politicians, especially Democrats, seem to get new understandings whenever their wet fingers sense a change in the wind.

Few things blind and deceive us more than the vested interest. That’s the crux of the problem of trusting in your own understanding. I think of the case of a conservative pastor who led a church in San Francisco. His message was so uncompromising, “truth is not a matter of what the majority wants to be true, but what scripture says is true,” that many people were attracted to it by that idea. His vested interest was building a congregation. Did he promote the gospel? Yes. Could that have been his primary goal? It could have, if his message survived a change in vested interest. One day, his eldest son confessed to his homosexuality. It wasn’t long before the truth message of the church changed. It became, “what the majority wants to be true is the truth, regardless of what scripture says.” What happened? His new vested interest was protecting his son from having to repent.

What if the vested interest deception were responsible for race hating? What if White Christians who were slave “owners” (though no one can own anyone else), or worse, slave traders, really knew that the melanin content of a person’s skin couldn’t possibly be related to intelligence, or industriousness, or morality, but took up their stupid and ignorant beliefs about negroes because slavery was in their vested interest, and they could not continue in it if they believed otherwise? Or if they believed the Bible. Or if they believed, “all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator….” Obviously all men are not created equal, but since their rights are endowed by their Creator, their rights are created equal. Could any decent and intelligent person justify “owning” another human being, or trading in their lives, unless they deceived themselves about the humanity of their captives?

When protecting yourself and your family from the tyranny of the Nazis was your vested interest, could you stand against Hitler and his minions? When protecting your privilege and perks is your vested interest, could you stand against the communist party? When avoiding the gulag, the labor camp, the re-education camps, could you stand against Stalin, Castro, Pol Pot, Mao Tse-tung? It might be argued persuasively that the vested interest deception is responsible for more evil, and going along with evil, than any specific person or philosophy in history. Maybe it’s the root of evil, along with pride. Maybe it’s another name for pride.

So beware these “new understandings.” The Old understandings were either true or the product of the vested interest deception. The new understandings are the same. Only something that doesn’t change, the Lord himself, is true understanding.

The consumer, not the court, is the ultimate judge of wokeness.

The “smirk” and the jerk (with the drum)

Last week, U.S. District Court Judge William O. Bertelsman dismissed Nick Sandmann’s $250 million defamation suit against The Washington Postfor its stories about a mythical racist hate-crime allegedly committed by Sandmann, a Catholic schoolboy, against fake war hero and “Indigenous Person” Nathan Phillips. Ann Coulter. 8/1/2019. This is a brilliant piece by Coulter, a must read. Here’s the link. https://www.takimag.com/article/court-to-the-washington-post-dont-try-too-hard-to-get-it-right/

“However, P&G reported a net loss of about $5.24 billion, or $2.12 per share, for the quarter ended June 30, due to an $8 billion non-cash writedown of Gillette. For the same period last year, P&G’s net income was $1.89 billion, or 72 cents per share.” Reuters news. A net loss of that much money must mean that those who do shave have abandoned Gillette en masse, even though Reuters interprets as “P&G chalked the billions in dollars lost up to foreign exchange fluctuations, increased competition and a contracting market for blades and razors as consumers in developed markets shave less frequently.” How does Reuters know that consumers shave less frequently?

Gillette’s commercial that blanketed the male gender with the accusation of “toxic masculinity” while using feminist buzzwords and clips of hard-left news organizations was one of the most hated commercials of the past decade. As P&G continued to see profits go up for all of their brands, Gillette began suffering profit drops that were revealed last April. Perhaps P&G isn’t willing to come forward yet with the fact that they made a monumental error in assuming men would take the “toxic masculinity” commercial well, but they should soon. The brand is damaged enough to lose billions, and men aren’t coming back, especially with cheaper alternatives embracing men for who they are and not assuming the worst about them. I personally go out of my way to not buy Gillette products. I switched to Harry’s razors, which are infinitely better than Gillette’s, though I still use Gillette Edge, most of my shaving is with an electric. I avoid all Gillette grooming products.

The lesson for me here is that corporations need feedback to help them make good decisions. Feedback from consumers is way more effective than feedback from courts, and less hypocritical, especially when a biased judge, rather than a jury, gets to decide who was being dishonest.