IN SEARCH OF WHAT TRUMP ACTUALLY SAID: Did Donald J. Trump really say those things?

FRIDAY, MARCH 15, 2019

It's all anthropology now:
Did Donald J. Trump really say those things? Did he say the things they say he said in the wake of the Charlottesville mayhem?

Was he "talking about neo-Nazis" when referred to good people on both sides, as Anderson Cooper said last Friday night?

What did he say about the demented Charlottesville marchers who were chanting "Jews will not replace us?" Did Trump really "praise [them] as 'some very fine people,' " as Max Boot told Cooper that night?

Did Trump "call the Charlottesville white supremacists 'fine people,' " as Joan Walsh told Erin Burnett? And while we're at it, was Mark Shields' statement on the PBS NewsHour basically accurate, or was it basically wrong or misleading?
SHIELDS (3/8/19): I mean, we're talking about a president, Judy—let's be very blunt about it—who, when the white supremacists marched through the streets of Charlotte with torches, saying, "Jews will not replace us," said there's good people on both sides.
We'd say that statement was grossly misleading, pretty much to the point where it's just basically false. We'd say the other three statements—and many others like them—were just basically wrong.

Before we go into more detail, let's recall what we are, and what we aren't, talking about today:

We aren't asking if Donald J. Trump offered appropriate leadership in the wake of the mayhem in Charlottesville. We aren't asking if the various things he said rose to the occasion.

We aren't asking if his remarks rose to the level of the remarks which emerged from our own flawless tribe. We aren't asking what he secretly thought, or if he was sending dog whistles.

In fact, we aren't attempting to evaluate Donald J. Trump at all! Instead, we're asking a basic question today about Shields, and Cooper and Walsh and Boot, and about a host of others.

We're assessing our upper-end journalists! We aren't assessing Trump.

In the past week or so, these journalists have paraded about, offering accounts of what Trump said concerning the chaos in Charlottesville. We're trying to assess their conduct today, not that of Donald J. Trump.

Anthropologically speaking, this presents a major problem. Let's get clear on what that problem is:

Anthropologically speak, man [sic] is the tribal animal. We humans are strongly inclined to assembles ourselves into tribal groups, and to start creating and disseminating narrative "fictions" from there.

We use the word "fictions" to recall the portrait painted by Professor Harari in his best-selling book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind.

Delivering body blows to Aristotle's famous "rational animal" framework, Harari says our species drove other human groups into extinction because our ancestors developed the capacity for "gossip" and "fiction," with another instinct thrown in. Let's recall what that third attribute was:
HARARI (page 18): Tolerance is not a Sapiens trademark. In modern times, a small difference in skin color, dialect or religion has been enough to prompt one group of Sapiens to set about exterminating another group. Would ancient Sapiens have been more tolerant towards an entirely different human species? It may well be that when Sapiens encountered Neanderthals, the result was the first and most significant ethnic-cleansing campaign in history.
According to Professor Harari, Homo sapiens is not the "tolerant" animal! We'll complete his jaundiced portrait in the following way:

Anthropologically speaking, we humans are plainly the tribal animal. And once we identify a tribal enemy, we're strongly inclined to start inventing potent group "fictions" about them.

Our mainstream "press corps" rather strongly tends to behave this way. Once they've identified a tribal/guild foe, regard for fairness and accuracy may tend to slip away.

They'll invent crazy tales about the things the tribal foe said. They'll repeat these tales again and again. They seem to love this pleasing practice. Example:

Did Al Gore say he invented the Internet? In all honesty, no—he did not.

Nor did he say that he inspired Love Story, or so said the only two journalists who were present to hear what he said. But our journalists, as a group, chose to fashion the contrary tale, and they repeated a raft of such stories for years.

Children are dead all over Iraq because these "rational animals" did this. We'd have to say that people like Cooper, Shields, Boot and Burnett were engaged in a similar activity in the past week or so as they recited embellished tales about The Vile Thing Trump Said.

As we've noted, our favorite performer in this group attack was April Ryan, a CNN contributor. We single her out because of what she implicitly acknowledged that she hadn't done:
RYAN (3/11/19): Since the president did say that in Charlottesville, some "very fine people on both sides," has he, in your opinion, or has he or us [sic], because I don't remember it, condemned the neo-Nazis in Charlottesville for their actions against the Jewish Americans there?

HUCKABEE SANDERS: The president has condemned neo-Nazis and called them by name...
That was Ryan on Monday afternoon. By then, she'd had the entire weekend to go back and take a look at what Trump actually said.

Being a journalist, she didn't do that. Instead, our journalists tend to work from the scripts that are lodged in their heads.

Trump made his statement about "very fine people on both sides" as part of a press availability on Tuesday, August 15, 2017. Ryan could have reviewed the full transcript. She could have watched the whole tape.

Instead, she did what members of our species tend to do. She decided to rely on her memory—on that, and on the pleasing script her rock-headed guild had devised.

Huckabee Sanders told Ryan that Trump had "condemned neo-Nazis by name." We're sorry to be the killjoy here, but we'd have to say that Trump actually did that during that August 15 presser.

He also condemned "white supremacists" and "white nationalists" by name. In our view, it's hard to say that those were the people he was talking about when he said that there had been "very fine people on both sides."

Humanoids like Cooper once took delight in inventing wild statements by Candidate Gore. In December 1999, they even created one of their most destructive tales—Al Gore said he discovered Love Canal!—out of a flat misquotation of Gore by the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The misquotation was corrected by a group of New Hampshire high school students who had tape of Gore's remarks. But so what? The Times and the Post, and the rest of these apes, decided to stick with their tale.

Children are dead all over Iraq because people like Shields behaved in these ways at that time. At one point, Shields' defense of Governor Bush was so inane and so absurd that it rocketed off the charts—but that's the way this gang of Sapiens was "fictionalizing" events of the world at that terrible time.

Children are dead all over Iraq because Shields and the others did that. Last Friday night, he was engaged in similar conduct—though this time, he was advancing a pleasing group fiction against a dangerous, disordered man.

We regard President Trump as disordered and therefore dangerous. People like Cooper and Shields have refused to discuss the possibility that this president, who holds the nuclear codes, is some form of "mentally ill."

We regard Trump as disordered; so do Cooper and Shields. Here's where the problem comes in:

Anthropologically speaking, once we humans form such a judgment, we're strongly inclined to start inventing powerful "fictions" about the person or group we oppose.

Accuracy tends to give way to the joys of tribal loathing. "Tolerance is not a Sapiens trademark," but neither is adherence to Enlightenment values. Anyone who follows the work of our mainstream press corps has seen this anthropological principle acted out many times.

There are perfectly reasonable ways to criticize Trump's statements about Charlottesville. Simply put, that isn't the game our journalists tend to play.

Instead, they tend to invent compelling group "fictions" and repeat them as a group. This led to Cooper's statement last Friday, then on to Ryan's question.

Was Trump "talking about the neo-Nazis," as Cooper pleasingly said? Had he ever condemned neo-Nazis, as Ryan asked?

Concerning Ryan's question, we'll say this:

The march by the chanting neo-Nazis took place on Friday evening, August 11, 2017.

On Sunday, August 13, the White House released a statement in Trump's name: "The President said very strongly in his statement yesterday that he condemns all forms of violence, bigotry, and hatred. Of course that includes white supremacists, the KKK, Neo-Nazis and all extremist groups."

On Monday, August 14, the White House issued another statement: "To anyone who acted criminally in this weekend's racist violence, you will be held fully accountable. Justice will be delivered...Racism is evil. And those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the K.K.K., neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans."

On Tuesday, August 15, Trump held his aforementioned presser. He made his statement about "both sides," but he also said this:

"I've condemned neo-Nazis. I've condemned many different groups." As he continued that statement, he seemed to name "white supremacists" as one such group.

Later, he specifically said that he wasn't praising "the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally." Thus spake Donald J. Trump, on that very occasion.

Two years later, Cooper and Boot and a cast of thousands said Trump had been saying there were "very fine people" among the neo-Nazis. Boot said he had praised the chanting neo-Nazis. Working solely from memory, Ryan had no idea.

You can review the tape and transcript yourself to see what Trump may have meant by his statement about "very fine people on both sides."

We think he spells it out somewhat clearly, but he specifically says that he doesn't mean neo-Nazis.

Having said this, we'll offer one last anthropological point:

Your lizard brain won't like what we've said. "Tolerance is not a Sapiens trademark!" Amazingly, that even holds true within our own self-impressed, highly incompetent tribe.

Within our tribe, as in all human tribes, we're strongly inclined to invent compelling "fictions" concerning those we oppose. It's amazing to think that you'd have to embellish facts to invent a critique of Donald J. Trump, but that's the way we "rational animals" are strongly inclined to work.

Your lizard will tell you that Shields and Cooper and all the others just basically have to be right. To that, we'll add this point:

Children are dead all over Iraq because of the conduct of these rational animals during Campaign 2000. But Shields is still featured on PBS as the network's official "nice guy," and we liberals were very pleased by what he told Judy last Friday.

There's no apparent way out of this mess. Next week, we'll return to the remarkably unimpressive work of the most exalted "rational animals" of them all.

This is the way our species works. There's no way out of this ballgame.

Next week: Mathematicians gone wild


  1. “Your lizard brain won't like what we've said.”

    Gotta love that Somerby attempts to forestall any criticism of his work by ascribing said criticism to pre-rational ignorance.

    Also gotta love how he never reads his comments, so he never has to see said criticism.

    1. Bob! I’m shocked at your language.

      But not really surprised.

      I knew you didn’t like criticism, but I had no idea what a snowflake you were.

    2. LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
      Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever

      LOTTO, lottery,jackpot.
      Hello all my viewers, I am very happy for sharing this great testimonies,The best thing that has ever happened in my life is how I win the lottery euro million mega jackpot. I am a Woman who believe that one day I will win the lottery. finally my dreams came through when I email and tell him I need the lottery numbers. I have spend so much money on ticket just to make sure I win. But I never know that winning was so easy until the day I meant the spell caster online which so many people has talked about that he is very great in casting lottery spell, . so I decide to give it a try.I contacted this great Dr Believe and he did a spell and he gave me the winning lottery numbers. But believe me when the draws were out I was among winners. I win 30,000 million Dollar. Dr Believe truly you are the best, all thanks to you forever

  2. Yeah, Bob, every living human being is "some form of "mentally ill.""

    Only robotic zombie cult leaders, making meaningless lawyers-vetted focus-groups-tested sounds, are "mentally healthy".

    Yeah, that's the ticket.

    1. "making meaningless lawyers-vetted focus-groups-tested sounds"

      Orwell couldn't have put it better than that.

  3. Trump waited four days until he made his statement AGAINST those neo-Nazis, one of whom committed murder of a counter-protester. Meanwhile he gave his wink and nod of approval to the Nazis without expressing any dismay at what had occurred.

    Yesterday, 49 people were shot in New Zealand while Trump was busy promoting violence against immigrants by linking Breitbart's hate filled articles. He was so busy with this that he tweeted a link to Breitbart immediately after the shooting (then took it down again). Now he has issued a statement that does not condemn the violence but instead offers a tone-deaf "best wishes" and "warm sympathy" as if someone has told him to avoid saying anything about thoughts and prayers. He has said nothing about the fact that one of the shooters live streaming the atrocity dedicated it to him, to Trump, their inspiration for white supremacy and cleansing the world.

    But Trump didn't say EXACTLY what was attributed to him on one single occasion, so Trump must not be a white supremacist at all, and Bannon and Miller never worked for his administration and he never put babies in cages and he doesn't hate anyone except mass shooters -- oh, wait, Trump never said he deplores what his deplorables do, has he.

    Why is Somerby giving Trump cover? Why isn't Somerby joining the chorus of decent people who wonder why their president doesn't have the instincts of a turtle, who would know that killing people because of their race or religion is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, and say so?

    Hillary was right. Somerby is deplorable too and she was right to point it out, something Somerby and Trump are both afraid to do. Trump won't condemn his deplorables because he is one. What is Somerby's damage?

    1. Just wont give it up wi you...the statement good people on either side came from a non-cable MSM REPORT that showed some onlookers who were not part of the white supremacists group...they were there to voice their opinion on why the statues should not be taken down...these on lookers were regular folk, aged 50 to 60...sitting in lawmchairs on the sidewalk away from the white supremacist who surrounded the statue and were using the event to spread racist vitriol...the Reporter described the onlookers as " locals, who appeared to be good people, just their to voice their opinion when the white supremacists showeD up and took over what was a peaceful protest" CBS NEWS...

    2. If there weren't so much evidence that (1) Trump is a White Supremacist, (2) he never wants to say anything negative about them, (3) he hires them as advisers and staff, (4) he won't acknowledge White supremacist terrorism, (5) he mistreats people who are members of minority groups with brown/black skin color, your suggestion might be plausible. Because these other things are true, your suggestion cannot explain Trump's behavior and the speculations of the journalists are correct. Statements occur in a context. You cannot pull them out of that context and interpret the in a way that contradicts everything else we know about Trump and his relationship to the alt-Right.

    3. I think Josh Marshall said it as well as anyone:

      "Whether it's "small group of people" or "very fine people", the standard is always, how do I respond to a horrific situation while giving as little offense as possible to white nationalist supporters? How do I signal I'm not against them?"

      TDH can't be this naïve.

  4. Sure. Trump “condemned "white supremacists" and "white nationalists" by name.” After initially not doing so. And in the midst of an “August 15 presser” where he said a lot of other bullshit that called that condemnation into question.

    Perhaps it’s my lizard talking, but Somerby has his head up his ass about this. It’s one thing to claim the media creates narratives (they do), but it’s another to claim it in every instance. Trump has surrounded himself with people like Stephen Miller and Bannon, who is specifically out there encouraging all this right-wing nationalist resurgence going on here and around the world. These are not “ludicrous”, “pathetic” movements. They are powerful and dangerous. And Trump plays to that group. One person died in Charlottesville!

    Again, it’s one thing to criticize liberals for overusing the “r” word (racism) or pushing “identity politics” above all else, as Somerby has (I feel it’s debatable, but there is a legitimate critique there), but it’s another to ignore the evidence staring you in the face of real and dangerous racism.

    And concerning this stupid “Trump is mentally ill” idea of Somerby’s: we know that Trump lies (er, um, “makes false statements” to use Politically Correct Somerbyspeak) constantly, so why should anyone believe anything he says, including his so-called denunciation of supremacists and Nazis? His neo-Nazi fan base heard that, but felt he had his fingers crossed behind his back when he said it. And “the White House” saying something doesn’t mean Trump has anything to do with that statement. Given the full context of Trump, the press is right to be skeptical of Trump’s utterances and to press him to explain himself.

    And Trump is “disordered and therefore dangerous?” O.K. Part of the reason he is dangerous is precisely because of his appeals to fear and violence, which find a fertile ground amongst his neo-Nazi/hate group followers here and abroad.

    1. This is getting to be downright offensive, especially in light of the massacre in NZ yesterday where the terrorist literally invokes Trump's name.

      We've all (presumably TDH also) have watched Donald J Chickenshit do his little okey-doke 2-step wink-wink, say one thing then try to mumble the opposite of what he originally signaled to his White Nationalist neo-Nazi fan boyZ, to understand how this bastard works.

      Once, you might want to given the fucking coward the benefit of the doubt, but not after watching this walking shit-stain for 3 years and going. We know his act Bob, I ain't buying the bullshit today.

      God Bless America.

    2. No one except you cares what a terrorist murderer invokes, MM.

    3. Are you a "tough" guy, princess?

  5. "My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured," Trump wrote.

    See, not one word condemning the white supremacists who did this in his name. Instead, the victims are blamed for "senselessly" dying. Where is the condemnation that a person who abhors such violence would express?

    This is what was wrong with Trump's reaction to Charlottesville too. And it went on for days in the face of an outcry asking him to repudiate the neo-Nazis. He waited long enough so that those neo-Nazis would know he didn't mean it before saying those words, obviously written for him by someone else.

    But it satisfies Somerby. Why?

    1. I suspect that Trump would like to make stronger statements of support for the White Supremacists and neo-Nazis but he has been convinced that he really would be impeached if he were to do that. So he has settled for his cowardly compromise of wink-wink nudge-nudge. No one would tolerate Stephen Miller, much less give him real power, otherwise.

    2. Sometimes it's impossible to believe the level of stupidity that comes off leftist keyboards is not either parody or the product of mental derangement. "Blamed for senselessly dying."

      Leftists hope racism makes a comeback that's actually worth commenting on so they can kill more babies and invent more gender pronouns.

    3. Trump does prefer war heroes who weren’t captured, so he most likely prefers people who manage not to die in mass shootings.

    4. Sometimes it's impossible to believe the level of stupidity that comes off leftist keyboards....

      Leftists hope racism makes a comeback that's actually worth commenting on....

      Remember: every right-wing accusation is a confession.

    5. @deadrat Every left-wing comment is another form of Leftist Conspiracy Theory Ala: Russia, Hacking, No Border Emergency, Majority White Terrorism, Global Warming and all of the Democratic 2020 Candidates talking points.......Conspiracy Theory's.

    6. @11:22P, Thanks for making my point for me. (Get back to me when you figure out the plural of theory.

    7. Except that the shooter wasn't really a white supremacist. His coconspirator and fellow attacker was MAORI... definitely not a white guy. So despite all the bullshit in the "manifesto", he wasn't really a white supremacist.

      HOWEVER... if we are to take the manifesto seriously, then you should note the fact that the shooter specifically said he was NOT a supporter of Donald Trump. But he feels a special kinship with China and considers himself an eco-fascist. He said he was a liberal, a socialist, a libertarian and an eco-fascist... which puts him on the LEFT side of the political spectrum.

      The entire "manifesto" was a giant "troll"... and the media and the entire left are falling for it.

    8. @deadrat Common Leftist tactic when getting dominated in debate....deflect deflect. This is one of the reason's why liberalism is a dieing and failed ideology all over the world.

  6. "In modern times, a small difference in skin color, dialect or religion has been enough to prompt one group of Sapiens to set about exterminating another group."

    Somerby quotes Harari as saying that. It is not true. In every case where one group attacks another, there are reasons that go far beyond these trivialities. Those who study Global Peace and Conflict have found that what dictates ongoing rivalries and feuds between people is a culture that encourages hanging on and retelling long-standing grievances against the others. That is not small differences in skin color or accent. It is about deeds, usually in conflict over resources needed for survival.

    Harari has an axe to grind. Somerby never asks what it is. But someone with half a brain should be questioning paragraphs like this one. Within group differences are bigger than across-group differences when it comes to this stuff, so this cannot be the basis for identifying "The Other" because there just isn't enough homogeneity within each group for this to be any kind of basis for identifying the other group. Use your reason, Somerby.

    1. Excluding religion which is not based on small differences of appearance but on cultural practices.

    2. "It is not true"

      Quite often it is, dembot. Check out
      the narcissism of small differences...

    3. I have no doubt that someone else said this besides Harari, but that doesn't make it true. You cite Freud and an anthropologist from the 1920s. There is an entire field of study called Peace and Global Conflict Studies that has done empirical work on problems of coexistence and they have better ideas about what causes and sustains such disputes.

      First, why do some countries live side by side with others without any such disputes while others engage in lasting feuds with neighbors? Rather than cherrypicking examples that support a thesis, as 1920s anthropologists tended to do, systematically studying this has led to very different answers. It isn't the differences that matter, it is the way a culture deals with conflict. There are better and worse ways and these days the people who work for the UN and diplomats are taught the better ways, so that conflict can be resolved without violence. That's why it is so dismaying that Trump is stocking his embassies and the UN mission with untrained cronies who will have no clue how to respond to the many problems that arise naturally as people interact around the world.

      Somerby could use his time to read things that would educate him on the topics that seem to interest him. Instead he wastes his life posting here for trolls like Mao, David, Leroy and deadrat, folks who are ready to agree that people are naturally violent over small differences because we are self-impressed, instead of learning something about what and who people actually are.

    4. Could you try to be less wordy, please? It's really hard to follow.

      I get the general thrust, but it's more like you're describing your mere attitude, with no logical structure.

    5. "It isn't the differences that matter, it is the way a culture deals with conflict."

      Thank you for your comments, which are thought-provoking.

      But one of the ways a culture might deal with a substantive conflict is to invest small differences with enormous, absurd symbolic force. These differences can be skin color, church rituals, or even AL Gore's attire. TDH mostly covers the disastrous power these symbols can exercise over our capacity to reason, even when our survival appears to be at stake.

    6. Well, yeah. And this is what 'identity politics' is all about.

      People divided into tribes defined by liberal 'identities' are supposed to identify with their group and regard Others with suspicion. And often with outright hostility, accusing them of innate 'privilege', disrespect, and what-not.

    7. Whoa, there, @12:51P. I’ll cop to being rude, snide, boorish, and contemptuous, but I’m not a troll. And I don’t think Leroy is either.

      Mao is a self-confessed troll.

      David in Cal is this commentariat’s village idiot. It’s possible that he’s a troll but then again, he may actually be as big an idiot as he presents himself.

      And you can stop telling me what I believe. I have no idea whether people are “naturally violent over small differences.” Certainly, there are plenty of examples of inter-group killing based on perceived group differences, differences apparently clear to the warring parties but indiscernible to outsiders. That’s not TDH’s claim (via Harari), however. That claim is that we make unreasonable judgments about those outside our own tribe based on our fictionalized stories about our own tribe.

    8. I go back to my original question. It is not enough to say that people kill each other over small differences. You need to explain why some people do this and others do not. Somerby wants to ascribe this tendency to all people everywhere, but when you look at global communities, some live with diversity in peace and others with greater homogeneity nevertheless fight over small stuff. Why is there acceptance some places and not others?

      As I said, there are people who study this stuff as a profession. Instead of arguing about Somerby's quotes of Harari's nonsense, it makes more sense to track down what those in Global Peace and Conflict Studies say about this. I tried to tell you that it is how people deal with their differences that matters, not some innate intolerance that is part of the human race.

      The USA used to be one of the places where we proudly lived side by side with others who were differenty, sometimes very different, as a matter of national pride and culture. Lately we've been allowing dissident voices to abuse those who are different and destroy our national policies toward immigrants and religious minorities. Our heritage has been to work hard to make this a place that is comfortable and welcoming to all. It used to be considered un-American to argue against this. Now it seems to be un-American to be different than some WASP ideal that includes mistreatment of women (whose job is to breed white heirs) and hatred toward anyone who might dilute that good old Aryan bloodstream (such as Swedes who will dilute the Norse dna, I assume). These voices of Nationalism used to be that tiny minority Trump refers to, but they have become way too mainstream and Trump is echoing them and amplifying them until it appears that our nation itself will go down his path.

      I am thinking about moving to Mexico. People there are very welcoming, unlike their neighbors to the north.

    9. The USA used to be one of the places where we proudly lived side by side with others who were differenty [sic], sometimes very different, as a matter of national pride and culture.

      Are you fucking kidding me with this, Pollyanna?

      The USA has never been one of the places — and please tell where the others are — where “we proudly lived side by side with others who were different.” Consider the following list:

      Jim Crow
      Sundown towns
      The Golden Age of American Lynching (ca 1870 - ca 1940)
      INNA (Irish Need Not Apply)
      MS Saint Louis, Jewish quotas
      Trail of Tears
      Indian reservation system
      Mendocino and Round Valley Wars
      Chinese Exclusion Act
      Japanese internment
      Operation Wetback
      Bowers v. Hardwick, 478US186 (1986), Colorado Amendment 2

      This list can be expanded effortlessly and at length. For instance, if you’re 50 years old or older, you lived in country where some states banned interracial marriage. And remember that for most of this country’s history, about half its voting-age citizens could vote and the other half couldn’t.

      This doesn’t mean that the USA is some unique dystopic hellhole. Quite the contrary; I think we’re in numerous (if not good) company, and at least we have a system that allows for redress and correction.

      But don’t hand me that gag-inducing Shining-City-Upon-a-Hill crapola.

    10. All those things would still be happening if America weren't the place I think it is. But we think of them as atrocities because they are not normative. Crawl back under your rock please.

    11. I’ll make you a deal. I’ll crawl back under my rock if you pull your head out of your ass.

      My list spans the whole of the history of the US, and if that doesn’t make it “normative,” I don’t know what does.

      You apparently think that America is the place where unicorns fart rainbows. It’s not, and it’s never been. That doesn’t mean we don’t get credit for holding on to a system that allows for correction. But there’s no reason for starry-eyed blindness.

      Read a little history.

      Or not. Ignorance is always your option.

    12. "The USA used to be one of the places where we proudly lived side by side with others who were differenty, sometimes very different, as a matter of national pride and culture."

      Say whaaaaaaaaatttttt?????? Nigga please!!

    13. We need to be humane, anon. Poor liberals, they had their heads explode in the morning of Nov. 9 2016.

      And now, living dead, they walk the Earth, emitting weird groaning sounds.

      Sad but true.

    14. America-haters like Deadrat choose to seek out things to hate about everything. When that tendency is compounded by an unexpected defeat of power they thought they were entitled to, it gets even uglier and produces a kind of reality distorting derangement.

    15. 12;06,
      Nice job defining White Supremacy.
      That, not Hillary calling deplorables "deplorables", is why Trump won the Presidency.

    16. America-haters like Deadrat….

      Is there an emoji to express my utter contempt for you and your bullshit, @12:06?

      Never mind. If there were, then I’d have to learn how to use emojis, and I’m far too old for that.

      C’mon, Sparky, instead of trying to guess what I hate and what I seek, why don’t you try an actual argument? You’ve got my list. Is it wrong? Anonymous @9:25P at least tried (@12:21A the next day) by claiming that the items on the list had been fixed. This misses the point, of course, and it’s weak: I can do better:

      Jim Crow? EO 9981 (7/26/48)
      Plessy v Ferguson? Brown v Board
      Bowers v Hardwick? Lawrence v Texas
      Miscegenation laws? Loving v Virginia
      George Wallace? Frank Johnson
      Dred Scott v Sandford? 14th Amendment
      and so on

      My point isn’t that the US is a hopeless dystopia. My point is that neither has it been a wonderful utopia of brotherhood and tolerance. To get the proper feeling you should listen to the Assistant Attorney General of Wisconsin make his 2014 oral argument before the 7th Circuit for his state’s ban on same-sex marriage. Where he ran into the nasal buzzsaw of Judge Richard Posner, summing up Wisconsin’s “tradition” argument thusly:

      We’ve been doing this stupid thing for 100 years, 1000 years, we’ll keep doing it, because it’s tradition.

      On the one hand, the homophobic legislatures of Wisconsin and Indiana. On the other, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upholding the 14th Amendment.

  7. Bob,
    Sure. Trump may not be a bigot. Perhaps, his birtherism was caused by his cavities telling him that Obama really was born in Kenya. But here's the thing, Trump's cavities telling him that Obama was born in Kenya is not why he's a Right-wing hero. The bigotry is.

  8. So, our Great President expresses warmest sympathy and best wishes to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre.

    And the pre-programmed soros dembots keep regurgitating the usual ORANGE MAN BAD.

    Good. Situation normal, as they say.

    1. Donald J Chickenshit, Acting President, Lord of the Cowards, decided to pick today to start a religious jihad by invoking "Jexodus". Nothing like picking today to use religion to divide and inflame. What a malignant abomination we have in the WH, wouldn't you agree, Boris?

    2. "Accuracy tends to give way to the joys of tribal loathing."

    3. So Trump is bad because he wants Jews on his side? I thought he was bad because he supposedly hates them?

    4. Yeah, that's what it is, Pepi, he wants "Jews" on his side. That's what America is all about. Go back to your fucking sewer.

    5. Calm down Hillary. Or, god forbid, you'll faint again.

    6. Identity politics for me, not for thee, right General Lee?

  9. No one should massacre innocent people of any faith but America-hating leftists are mistaken if they think they can use incidents like NZ to intimidate into silence those who dare to "notice" that immigration patterns affect cultures and societies negatively.

    Leftism's main objective is to prevent people from "noticing" the truth of anything and everything.

    1. “immigration patterns affect cultures and societies negatively.“

      Leave out that last word.

      Unless you think that English, Irish, Scots, German, Italian, etc, immigration has had a negative impact on our “culture.” Not to mention the cheap labor provided by those darker immigrants who were forced to come here. Or the Asians who outperform whites on standardized testing.

      Depends of course on how you define “culture.”

    2. Mass immigration often creates social and economic problems. Economic effects (like wage suppression, stress on the welfare system, etc.) are obvious. But also, new immigrants, when arriving en masse, don't assimilate and tend to form ethnic ghettos, ethnic mafias, and so on. Some of the natives get resentful, and some might get violent.

      For the worst case scenario, just ask American Indians how 17th c. immigration from Europe affected them. But that's history.

      Anyhow, this is all quite obvious. And if it doesn't fit the liberal dogma, well, too bad for the dogma.

    3. The positive impact of immigration on American history is an established fact and does not need to be reargued.

    4. For the reading comprehension challenged here, "immigration patterns affect cultures and societies negatively" doesn't mean the same thing as "immigration patterns always affect cultures and societies negatively."

      The correct interpretation is "can" not "must."

      As to the point itself, yes, everyone knows migration CAN and DO affect societies negatively. It happens in ours, and it also happens that other patterns affect it positively.

      Migration of unvetted and unassimilated Islamists into European societies has had a negative effect. Here it killed 3000 people one day in 2011 and hundreds since.

    5. 9/11 is a joke.

    6. None of the people involved in 2001 was an immigrant to the USA.

  10. Bob was right. The lizards are out in full force today.

  11. Hi Bob,
    I get the point you are making--as an isolated instance, I agree with you--however, when you have the President using similar language to those on the right, regurgitating the metaphor of invasion that the shooter uses--well, it not only does not look good, but lends credence to the belief that the President is a racist, and one who plays to the far right, by telling them things they want to hear. Do you really think it is just an accident that the gunmen considers DT to be a symbol of white identity?

    1. Why wouldn't he think that DT is a symbol of white identity? It's a tribal fiction the left has been peddling since the escalator ride in 2015.

      You're basically saying an evil person believing a hoax is proof the hoax is real.

    2. every right-wing accusation is a confession

      I'll use the handy abbreviation ERAIAC 'cause I think I'm gonna need it.

      Confronted with the truth about Trump, you scream, "Hoax!" That's an accusation of lying that's really a confession that you're the one lying.

      See how that works?

    3. Sure, I see how it works when my 9-year-old son says it too, but that doesn't make it any less stupid.

    4. hahahaha. Deadrat isn't the sharpest tool in tbe chandelier drawer

      White identity and racism are two different things.

      But regrettably, the race is THE only card liberals have and know how to play

    5. 1;17 is correct. Trump voters aren't racists. They're "economically anxious' and voted in protest of a rigged economy.
      That's why they burned Trump Tower to the ground and vowed to make Trump a one-term President, after Trump put Wall street in charge of the economy.
      Nothing could be more obvious.

    6. Well, let’s see —

      You: You ate those cookies before dinner, didn’t you?
      Your 9-hear-old son: No, I didn’t. You did.

      Clinton: Putin would rather have a puppet as President of the US.
      Trump: You’re the puppet!

      You’re right. It does sound stupid. Now, in your son’s case, I suspect that’s just deflection, but if you say he’s stupid, then what can I say? You know him better than anyone else. In Trump’s case, it’s deflection plus a heaping dose of projection.

      ERAIAC is everywhere: the Democratic Party hates Jews! The Democrats want to cut Medicare! Ad infinitum et nauseam.

    7. White identity and racism are two different things.

      Are you a white identitarian? If so, please, please tell me how your whiteness produces your identity. For extra credit, don’t say anything racist.

    8. ... the race is THE only card liberals have and know how to play


    9. "the race is THE only card liberals have and know how to play"

      Meh. They certainly have more than one: 'sexism', 'homophobia', etc.

      I'd say, the game is virtue signaling, sanctimony. Plus permanent outrage.

      It's a good comedy.

    10. I'm not a white identitarian.

    11. OK, but you claim to know something about white identity, at least what it isn't. So please tell me how whiteness produces an identity. I'll still give you the extra credit

    12. I don't understand the question. "How does whiteness produce an identity?"

      What does that mean?

      Some white Americans who are not racist feel their white identity is important to them. Do you dispute that?

      You are saying there isn't such a thing as white identity?

      I don't get it. It's boring.

      Go on believing what you want. What you think doesn't matter.

    13. "I don't get it."

      Why, these poor bastards are conditioned to feel that humans with pale skin must be ashamed of it.

      And if in addition to pale skin one has male genitalia and attracted to females of the species - that should generate such a gigantic amount of shame that it's positively unbearable.

    14. Look, Sparky, you’re the one claiming that you know there’s a difference between white identity and racism. I figured that to know that, you’d know what it means for whiteness to make up an important part of one’s identity as a person, a citizen, or whatever.

      If you don’t know, then fine. We can add that to the list of things you don’t know, and I can dismiss your comment as meaningless.

      If all you know is that some white Americans feel their white “identity” is important to them, but you don’t know what they mean when they say that, then I can also dismiss your claim that these people are not racist. Maybe they are and maybe they aren’t, but first we’d need to know what they mean by “white identity.”

      I’m not saying there isn’t such a thing as white identity. You’re claiming there is such a thing and you know enough about it to distinguish it from racism. All I’m asking is how you know that. If you don’t know what “white identity” means, I don’t see how you do.

      You say, “I don’t get it.” I believe that. And I’ll bet you say that frequently.

      You say, “It’s boring.” OK, but you brought it up. I’m not forcing you to read or respond to my comments.

      Now that I have your permission, I feel better about believing what I want. Thank you.

      You think that what I think doesn’t matter? You’re writing comments on a little-read blog, Sparky. What was your first clue that anything written here doesn’t matter?

    15. "I figured ... you’d know what it means for whiteness to make up an important part of one’s identity as a person."

      That's not what you said. Originally you asked:

      "How does whiteness produce an identity?"

      But yes, I don't understand what you mean by either of those statements.

      "What does it mean for whiteness to make up an important part of one’s identity as a person?"

      Yes, I'm afraid you've lost me there.

      Think about someone who identifies as black. Their black identity is important to them. Or Latino. Their racial identity is something with which they identify and concern themselves. Does that make them racist? It's the same for whites. Some Americans who are not racist identify and concern themselves with their whiteness. One's attachment to their particular racial group doesn't make them racist.

      Or maybe in your world it does! Who cares? You're fucked either way.

    16. So you don’t understand what it means for whiteness to be important to someone’s identity, but you do understand what it means for someone who “identifies as black”?

      Are you fucking kidding me with this, Sparky? Or are you just trolling?

      For most of this country’s history, black identity was thrust on people who were identified as black. From their carefully-calculated percentage of black blood as recorded on their birth certificates in Louisiana to their exclusion from whites-only primaries in Texas to voter literacy tests that no black person could pass, neither lawyers nor farmhands, black identity was crafted by white people to disenfranchise and diminish black people.

      So blackness seems something that black people had to concern themselves with. And many embraced it to declare that identity co-equal with any other.

      “It’s the same for whites”

      Oh, wait. You’re my favorite troll, aren’t you?

      You may declare that I’m “fucked either way,” but if you follow my every comment, bitch, you’re not my fiercest critic; you’re my biggest fan.

    17. I don't understand the question "How does whiteness produce an identity?" What does that mean?

      I don't understand what you mean by "What it means for whiteness to make up an important part of one’s identity as a person". I don't get it. "What it means for whiteness to make up an important part of one’s identity as a person". Do you know what it means for whiteness to make up an important part of one’s identity as a person? I'm totally lost as to what don't that sentence means or at what it is getting.

      I understand that some blacks and whites and latinos etc identify with their race. That's evident. So I'm not sure where your trying to go, and you're not doing a super great job of it I'm afraid.

      I think maybe you should take a warm bath and maybe get some of those life changing Norway socks and relax a little. Take some time to think about all the mistakes you've made and are making. It's time for you to start plotting your recovery. Intellectually and spirituality, you're a bit of a disaster. Your sadness and feelings of inferiority, while justified, cascade from almost all of your poorly phrased, often incomprehensible sentences. You're an embarrassment. Try to be more of a man, more intrepid and self possessed. Stop playing the fool. Try a little harder.

      "How does whiteness produce an identity?" Good God.

    18. Dead rat - actually look for Norwegian slipper socks.

      With a hard bottom like these.

      But don't get that particular pair, too low-quality. search around and buy the highest quality care you can find.

      They're much easier to find here in Europe. I'll provide a link if I can find one to the best quality.

      Stick with me buddy. I'll pull you out of your hole. God didn't put you on Earth to be an inarticulate, uninteresting loser.

    19. It is so cool to have my own troll.

      I mean Mao trolls everybody; he's just in it for the outraged responses.

      David in Cal might be here to troll mm, but he also just might be as big an idiot as he presents himself.

      But I have my own troll.

      OK, so you're not a particularly clever troll, but one takes what one can get. "Intellectually and spirituality" you think I'm a disaster. That's close. Actually I'm intellectuality and spiritually a disaster.

      Stick with you? Buddy, you are stuck on me. You can't help yourself.

      I think I'll forgo the warm bath for a hot shower, but the Norwegian slipper socks look good. When you "find one to the best quality," why don't you buy me a pair? You know you want to because, bitch, you may think you're my fiercest critic, but you're actually my biggest fan.

      I wear a (US) size 12 shoe, so get a L/XL. But new, not used.

      Whaddya say? You know you want to; you know you can't resist.

    20. You're gonna need an ACE bandage when I'm done with you.

    21. Oh dear. No, socks ain't gonna help.

      I'm afraid the only way to treat a dembot is a good ole re-education camp.

      Two months of intense indoctrination alternated with spells of hard labor, and the dembot is reprogrammed into, for example, an hbd-bot, heartily explaining how all 'white' people are like the extended family, remote cousins.

      ...and with exactly the same pattern of behavior: comical manifestations of moral superiority, denouncing infidels as trolls and moral midgets, all that...

    22. I'm gonna knock ya down.

    23. What does it mean for a troll to make up an important part of one’s identity as a person?

    24. I'm in agreement with deadrat on this one. All people who identify with their whiteness are racists. After all, black blood was recorded on birth certificates in Louisiana. So it's just makes logical sense.

    25. It's axiomatic.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. Hey everyone!
    Today I come to you with so much excitement!
    I have been married & barren for 5years i had no child. i have never been pregnant i was a subject of laughter from my Friends & neighbors, i almost lost my marriage because of this issue . i was so confused that i did not know what to do until i came across this great Dr online and i contacted him at once i was scared weather it was going to work because i never believed things like this before, so i decided to give it a try and i did all what Dr Ahmed asked of me and today to my greatest surprise i took in the first time and i gave birth to a bouncing baby boy and now my marriage that was about crashing before is now restored. my husband now love and want me better, Am so happy for everything that have been happening my life since i met this Dr Ahmed. I want to tell all the women out there who have a similar situation like that the world is not over YET they should dry up their tears and contact this great man and their problem will be gone or are you also having other problems you can also contact Dr Ahmed, here is how you can contact him or Contact him via his whats-app number +2348160153829.
    Alexa Planter