My Liberal Fans Just Can't Get Enough

By Selwyn Duke

So I see that the deep thinkers over at Sadly, No! picked up on my piece "All the President's Bigoted Men" and have much to say about me.  That's right, not the piece — me.  Their comments are an interesting read if you'd like some insight into liberal "intellectualism" (yikes, even with the quotation marks it's strikingly oxymoronic).  Among the gems you'll be treated to are posts peppered with profanity and one in which the writer wishes there were a Hell so that conservative commentator Robert Novak, who just passed away today, could go there.  Very, very classy, guys.  I should also point out that such wishing of damnation on political opponents isn't even original, as it echoes the snooty, woefully overestimated anti-theist Christopher Hitchens' remark after Jerry Falwell's death.  To wit, "I wish there was a Hell for Falwell." 

Wow, being atheistic and liberal just seems so . . . so attractive.  They just may win me over.

The little blurb about my article at Sadly, No! was written by someone who didn't want to attach his real name to his musings.  Instead, he used the handle "Tintin."  Hmm, I didn't think dogs could write. 

Oh, yeah, I remember now.  They can write.

They just can't reason. 

However, I will take the inability to address substantively even one point in a 2500-word piece as an admission of defeat.  In debate, I guess you could say that avoidance is the sincerest form of flattery.

Do liberals operate based on emotion?  Are their offerings thus without merit and completely visceral?  Are they the ones ridden with vice who poison public discourse with mindless ad hominem attacks and ugliness of the tongue?

Sadly, Yes.  

                       © 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved 

(Note: some readers have mentioned that the name of the dog I was alluding to in this piece is "Rin-Tin-Tin."  I was aware of this, but the handle in question was close enough so that I decided to indulge some artistic license.  However, I will admit that I didn't know of the European comic strip character "Tintin," who certain readers assumed I had confused with the dog.  I suppose you learn something new every day.)

Comments

[Paul T. Lazaro]

I'm sorry you became a target for the Sadly No "Ugly Tongue:" they are the WORST! By the way, you are confusing "Rin-Tin-Tin," the famous movie dog with "Tintin," a character from the EUROPEAN comic books who used to get up to all sorts of intrigue. Just so you know. Anyway, keep up the good work, and stay true to your convictions! Are you any relation to David Duke?

[Singularity]

I'm going to assume that the research skills you demonstrate by mistaking Tintin with Rin Tin Tin are the same you use for all of your writings and assign them the due amount of weight accorded.

Enjoy life, racist!

[The Raven]

See what happens when you have a racist blog, Selwidge... er, Seldom... um... what the hell kind of weird name do you have, anyway?

[Zuzu]

Any relation to Daisy Duke?

[tjproudamerican]

Dear Mr. Duke

I am certain that your namesake David Duke also encountered opposition to his racism. A true hater like you will not quit. You look perfect in Sadly, No's rendering of you, but I assume you have an Outhouse, so I protest Sadly No placing you in an actual working bathroom.

You are to polity and truth what Daisey Dukes (what a wonderful legacy you Dukes are building!) are to Elegance.

Why are so many racists also physically ugly like you? Does hate corrode?

[John]

I find these comments disgusting. Mr. Duke is perhaps the finest pundit on the scene today. You people should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Kafka]

Good on blacks for hating white people- I hate white people too. I think most people hate white people- what's wrong with that? Oh, I'm not crazy about Eskimos either but at least they don't have pasty pale skin like the belly of a fish..

[Walt]

Now you have done it Selwyn you have drawn the ire of the Jack Nicholson Wing of the New Jersey Mental Institution. This ought to be a real fun discussion; ad hominem and feeeelings versus reason, logic and Truth.

Leftists- the more vile, profane and emotional you get, the more our preconceptions about you are confirmed. If you disagree with Duke, please explain why he is wrong, using an organized argument. Contrary to popular belief yelling louder or using profanity is not a true means of validation. We are privy to your “rules for radicals” and it just won’t work anymore. So bring a brain, or stay on your site where you can all comment amongst each other about how stupid Sarah Pailin is and make vile comments about her kids.

[Shaun]

Wow,

Selwyn you really bring about the best of these lefty bottom feeders. Is it just a coincidence or does it seem like every leftist position is defended with slander and insults. Can any of you responders( Kafka, Zuzu, Raven) even articulate what point your trying to get across without falling back to a kindergarten level diatribe? I won't hold my breath.

Shaun
UCA

[ignatov]

Duke: "Wow, being atheistic and liberal just seems so . . . so attractive. They just may win me over."

We don't care about winning you over. We just enjoy making fun of your racist scribblings.

Walt: "Leftists- the more vile, profane and emotional you get, the more our preconceptions about you are confirmed."

We don't care about your preconceptions. Get off your high horse.

[Walt]

Thanks anyway but I will stay on my high horse.

So you consider Selwyn a racist simply because he is pointing out and exposing racists and racist behavior? By your logic one that exposes a lie is a liar automatically? The light Selwyn is putting on the true racists, Selwyn is simply exposing the truth. The only logical brand you can put on him, based upon the evidence presented, is that he is an exposer of truth. I understand you think truth is relative which is a whole other discussion, but based upon your fluid ethics, he is allowed his own truth and philosophically not damnable by your own Aleinskian model.

So regardless of how his article makes you feeeeel or how uncomfortable you are with his brand of truth, the fact remains the article he presented, although damning others as racists or bigots, does not proclaim or imply he is one. Facts are facts as painful as they may be.

[Shaun]

Couldn't have put any better.

Shaun

[Adrienne]

Shame on you!

[yoyo]

Now, while the phenomenon of black cultural conservatism is certainly exaggerated a bit, we have to ask, why would such a group vote Democrat 95 percent of the time? The answer is race. There is a strong feeling in the black community that the Republicans are the white party, which is no doubt why Screaming Howard Dean played upon this stereotype in 2008.

It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the republican party frequently elevates open rascists to key positions. Eg the newly elected head of the young republicans? or that republican party officials think sending hideous rascist emails is acceptable? or maybe that republicans do not believe in any policy that would help poorer americans get ahead.

hell no it MUST be because the nasty black people dont appreciate the godly largess of the republicans because they are rascist. I see. (thumps head against desk)

[yoyo]

Sorry your system doesnt do HTML, the first para above is of course the words of the "not rascist" selwyn.

[Walt]

Yoyo,

Since you came with an argument rather than the typical ad hominem response, let me say I am impressed; there is hope for you yet (lol).

You said:” It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Republican Party frequently elevates open racists to key positions."

Again your idea of a "racist" is Ingersolian, "If you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it to be true." However, to interject some fact to the matter, I will just drop two names; George Wallace and Robert Bird.

You also said: "or maybe that republicans do not believe in any policy that would help poorer Americans get ahead."

If you think multi-generational welfare is helping the poorer Americans I take fundamental issue with that. The Republican Party was the party that killed slavery. Yes that was a lot of years ago, but the fundamental ideals of conservatism have not changed. In reality neither have the fundamentals of democrats. Theirs is, get and hold power through manipulation of the democratic process. In order to manipulate a democracy you need a base. Unfortunately for the black Americans they have been the base; used by the dems. The dems have kept the pork barrels full. The genesis of the term pork barrel comes from the slave days. Slave owners would keep a barrel of salt pork in the fields as a "perk" to keep the slaves happy; it made it easier to keep order. Although not free they felt privileged. Today it is no different. For six generations the dems have held the black community on their plantation with a pork barrel and promises. They never intend to get these folks of the state dime because once off the plantation they may enjoy the freedom and self worth achievement and industry brings. In addition to the preverbal donkey pork barrel, the leftist philosophy has rendered the entitled black man worthless, by replacing him as the father. With the government as the provider the need for a father is greatly diminished. The left, in many circles still claims the father is not really needed. This social experiment has been devastating to families as well as the men that need that sense of worth and the dignity it brings. This leftist philosophy is pure evil, and I am heart sick that so many people have had to suffer in order to perpetuate the liberal power continuum. After six generations why haven't the dems made it any better? The answer is- it was never in the plans. Many naive liberals fall for the big bad repressive republican argument, but that is just bunk. We judge men by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. I would be happy to have JC Watts or Alan Keys as president. I love to listen to the wisdom of Walter Williams and Bill Cosby. They broke the shackles of the left and achieved, no matter how the leftists told them they couldn't. Now you call them -because of their achievement- Uncle Toms. Slavery never really ended for many black families, they just got a new master. Instead of working in the fields they work in the ballot box, to keep their lords in power. It costs their lords nothing to fund this modern day plantation; they simply extort the money from the people to feed their vote machine. It is a genius plan! Although quite evil.

I do not think the reason this dynamic happened in the black community had anything to do with their color or genetics, they again happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were a prey of convenience for the democrats; it could have been any group. On the contrary I must say that I have the deepest admiration for those that fight their way off the plantation as their masters call them Uncle Toms and try to keep them silent.

Hispanics- You are in the cross hairs of the dems! You are next. You or your family will be given amnesty, health care, welfare. For this earthly respite you will be asked to sell your soul to the devil. Your cultural family structure will be assaulted and within a couple of generations you will be but a group on the dole with a sole purpose of keeping power for the left. Run from this!

yoyo, I am sure by now you are fuming and calling me a racist; I am sorry I am not. However, I am an idealist and realist. I can tell you that I think the black culture, as the democrats have designed it, is failing and destined to misery; it makes me sick. It is not because of their race, but due to the lust for power of their father-god, the democrats. If any black folks read this let me say what you are told is a lie! You are not their property! You can think on your own! True dignity is not given to you by a politician or given because it is demanded, it is earned. If you want it you can have it, but you must not let them tell you can't. You must not let them tell you because your skin is dark you must act or think a certain way. Let no man take claims on your body or soul!

[WestWright]

Bravo Walt, excellent reply, especially the warning to the next group to be plantationed by the left.

[yoyo]

Wow, we are really digging for something here, let's see, you want to talk about the bad old days of the George Wallace and Robert Bird but seem to ignore a much more recent certain republican "southern solution"? Hmmm

I also believe that many people will never forgive the Republicans for their mismanagement of hurricane Katrina

Secondly, I wasn't talking about the provision of direct welfare, I was talking about the priority Republicans give to tax breaks for the extremely wealthy, the hatred of unions and the antipathy towards properly funding public education. If there are two main factors that lift people out of poverty world wide they are provision of and access to, good education (particularly of women) and womens access to work (which means things like affordable childcare, contraception, micro finance etc). All things Republicans dont support. Yes, the lack of intact families is a distressing situation but you support the party that believes in criminalising large numbers of black men for minor drug offecnces which ensures that these men will have serious difficulty finding employment and supporting their families, and you are the party that denies gay people the right to marry and you are the party that doesn't believe in effective sex education to limit family size for those who want to.

Let's talk Hispanics shall we? You shill for a party that just cant speak on immigration whithout raising the spectre of tan criminal hordes streaming over the boarder to spread disease and committ crimes. Whenever a Republican figure tries to propose a moderately compassionate policy for dealing with the children of illegal migrants he/she is drummed out as a Rino. The attitude to a reasonably innocuous comment by Sonia Sotomyer (scuse spelling) was also instructive, do you really think that no judge before her has ever brought their cultural background with them in making them what they are today? If so why do you have Bucchanan calling for more Born Again Christian judges.

Finally do I need to mention Birthers? Southern white republicans almost to a man (or woman).

No I cant see why non-white voters would ever look askanse at the republican party.

[yoyo]

BTW if the "outrage" over Sotomyer was not about her race and really about her bias why was their no outrage from the right when Scalia wrote, in the May 2002 issue of the conservative journal First Things, that if the Constitution compelled him to do something that was absolutely prohibited by mandatory Catholic rules, he would have no choice but to resign from the Supreme Court?

[Walt]

yoyo-Although I disagree with about all you have to say, I like your style. Most liberals that visit here stop by and troll for a while not really saying much, and then when they get their intellectual butt kicked they go off the deep end drop some expletives and leave. Or perhaps I am just loosing my touch. I don't have time to retort right now but I must pass down a little phrase I coined yesterday that I think fits quite well.

"Perception functions as reality, in absence of the Truth."

PS- could you post a link on this Southern Solution thing you mentioned. It is a new one to me and if there is bad guys out there, I wanna take them out.

[Walt]

And that damns him how? That only goes to prove the strength of his convictions. He never said he would hand a ruling down contrary to the big C because of his religion. He would rather loose his job than his soul...sounds like a man of honor to me. Did he say because of his Catholic experience he was wiser than everyone else????

[John]

yoyo, you're a bit confused. About your criticism about Scalia you have things exactly backwards. We criticize Sotomayor because she doesn't believe in sticking to the original intent of the Constitution's framers. We criticize any judge who won't do that. but with Scalia it was just the opposite. If he was willing to violate the Cons, like Sotomayor is willing to, he wouldn't have said that. He would have simply put a "Catholic" spin on the Cons when he thought it wasn't in line with Catholic teaching. But instead he stands on principle. He's saying that since he can't violate Catholic teaching and also can't violate the Cons, he would simply resign. It's not hard to understand.

[Walt]

Boy you spilled a lot out there; another classic Aleinskiian tactic. Bravo grasshopper, Lucifer’s little bro would be proud (sorry for the jab). Although I have a logical retort for all of your concerns with the evil republicans, I will just pick a couple to address tonight (I don’t have a book in me right now). First off I do not call myself a republican . I call myself a Conservative Constitutionalist.

You said, “I also believe that many people will never forgive the Republicans for their mismanagement of hurricane Katrina”
This one is easy- The Hurricane Katrina “fiasco” was a “canned strategy.” Well before the sun’s heat warmed the seas off the coast of Africa that gave energy to Katrina, the strategy to demonize Bush in this regard was in place. The left and its powerful propaganda machine was primed and ready, waiting for the perfect moment to strike. This strategy spent perhaps years waiting to be uncorked; many of its kind still sit in the war room unused. This tactic, is quite effective but pretty dirty. But what the heck, the ends justifies the means (wink wink). The first give away was how quickly and how polished the plan came off, a bit too perfect in execution. Secondly, why did Bush get hammered when the Mayor and Governor of the state should have been the first responders. What did they do besides ignore all of the warnings from the National Weather service and pleas to evacuate by FEMA? The busses remained parked. What were they thinking???? Were they incompetent? If I may interject a conspiracy theory (I hear those are all true wink-wink). Could have mayor Worthless and Governor Tweedle Dee, been in on the plan to exacerbate the impact; heck why let a good hurricane go to waste. Could they have, in the spirit of Herod the Great, sold their people out serving their white masters at the DNC? Why not? history is strewn with such accounts. So what if a few thousand people suffer or perhaps die, as long as the ends justifies the means nothing is holy; history is also strewn with such justification from statists. Why didn’t they act? Are they stupid or evil? Oh yeah but Bush who I am sure had nothing else going on should have dropped every thing and called upon assets that do not exist and single handedly rescue all that did not heed his warning to leave. The Katrina/Bush fiasco is bunk. However, since perception functions as reality in absence of Truth, the leftist media machine got the win. Congrats on that.
You said, “Secondly, I wasn't talking about the provision of direct welfare…”
I will count that as a concession that welfare is an institution designed by the democrats to enslave.

You said, “you support the party that believes in criminalizing large numbers of black men for minor drug offecnces which ensures that these men will have serious difficulty finding employment and supporting their families”
Drug abuse is a symptom of idle hands and lack of purpose, both a function of the welfare state. Would ignoring the drug use make it go away? Perhaps you don’t feel drugs are a vice. Laws without concequences are worthless. I could add another conspiracy theory here but I will pass, as long as you pass me the Soma.
Last for today you said, “If so why do you have Bucchanan calling for more Born Again Christian judges.”

Perhaps that is what Pat thinks is best for our country. Is there something wrong with people with a predetermined and disclosed moral constitution? I am sure I will get the deist flip flap from you but I will say in advance you are wrong, our country was founded and thrived by born again Christians (thank you for capitalizing Born Again in your post, your respect is appreciated!).

Any how TTFN

[yoyo]

Brain freeze moment I appologise, the policy was actually called the southern strategy, (southern solutions sounds much more godwin doesn't it). I'm working too today actually acting boss lady for the next few weeks. Anyway a link is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy. There are more nuanced discussions of this issue but it is fairly well known. If however you want to take the bad guys out as you say you could do worse than looking/campaigning against your young republican leader -Audra Shay not only nasty about blacks, also homophobic and fundie wow she's got the winning ticket! Just one link about her http://gawker.com/5311792/young-republican-leader-audra-shay-is-crazy-illiterate-racist.

On your final comment, yes perception is much or as they say, the medium is the massage LOL. However, this is my point exactly. The PERCEPTION amongst people of colour and gay people and young educated people is that the republicans have become the party of bigots. i hope you can change that. Admittedly, I dont have a dog in your race, but I have a fair degree of direct experience with political campaigns and calling your own thoughtful people Rino's while clasping to your confederate flag wearing breast Birthers is a death sentence for a goodly while.

[yoyo]

Whoops sorry john, I would like to think that the crazy man might take a moral position instead he has come out with a series of judgements that said a) it's ok to kill people even if catholic sometimes “So I have given this new position thoughtful and careful consideration—and I disagree. That is not to say I favor the death penalty (I am judicially and judiciously neutral on that point); it is only to say that I do not find the death penalty immoral. I am happy to have reached that conclusion, because I like my job, and would rather not resign."

and b) it's ok to kill innocent people if there first trial was constitutional. "This court,” Scalia pointed out, “has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

EG the man is a weasel!