While we here at Bloody Nib Manor live in a land far, far away and in a time that is long ago and yet future, we occasionally pay attention to current events and find ourselves gobsmacked by the latest fads and fancies of the "intellectual" class.
The latest, at least it started a few years ago and has become more popular as the years have ground on, is the idea, indeed charge, if not blatant insult, of White Privilege. To put is short and crude, White Privilege means that caucasians are privileged by their race in both societal and governmental matters in the United States. Never mind what "white" means. The description is as amorphous as cigaret smoke. Example: until the 1930 U.S. census Mexicans were considered white. Are ethnic Jews white? Are Arabs white? Are Iranians white? Are Turks white? Some members of these cohorts say that they are white. Other deny it. For social justice warriors (probably the physically weakest group of self described warriors that the world has seen) a white, for what it's worth, is a person who's ancestry originated in someplace in Europe between Iceland and the western coast of the Bosphorus, and the northern Mediterranian and the North Sea. In other words, a paddy, a whitey-bird, a honky, a gap-tooth hillbilly whose second cousin is a Wall Street stockbroker.
Now, those who are in the know, only white of the inhabitants of Bloody Nib Manor are whitey-birds. The ever-lovely Lady Nib is a Japanese woman, but to be crude and taking liberties, the Japanese are the most whitey-birds of Asians. This writer has often contended that Japan is to Asia what Great Britain is to Europe; part of and yet not quite of. And we here at the Manor feel that the whole White Privilege thing to be silly and stupid and the product of students who don't spend enough time studying their calculus, Beowulf, American history and philosophy. And they don't drink too much, which makes for a frustrated and bored student. If a student isn't studying or drinking there is bound to be trouble and boredom in the student that will break out once the student comes across a teacher/ professor/ teaching assistant who is angry because he/she is frustrated in his/her job dealing with a bunch of dull eyed and uninterested 18-22 year olds and who wants to excite them to "something". And why not teach them to be self-hating. It's the easiest thing to do with young people who think themselves intellectual. Young people are as mallable as Silly-Putty. Or should this writer say as wet plaster of Paris because plaster of Paris hardens and becomes no more mallable. And said students, once they have their diplomas in hand and getting jobs will take the idiocy that their instructors crammed into their tender noggins and try to infect their places of employment with that nonsense. And an employer, who wants to make money for himself, and perhaps the stockholders, will soon detect the infestation and ask our little pink Spartan (pink not meaning gay, but meaning something like a sunshine patriot) to take his or her talents to another place because the workplace is a place to make money and not do "justice" unless one is working for the ACLU. And then, once our little Spartan finds him or her self without a job and threatened with the fact that he/she may have to move back in with Mom and Dad or among those homeless people he/she idolized and excused at one time, will once again shout "White Privilege!" even if our Spartan is as white as Bjork after Bjork has been living at the bottom of a salt mine for a year.
But to get back to the point (the trouble with the Internet is that it makes it all too easy to write: a good Imperial typewriter would solve all this gabbiness), the charge of White Privilege is predicated on the idea that there is an almost Elders of Zion conspiracy among white people (see the half baked definition of white above) to force their culture, their ethos, their religion onto the United States and will inflict their "disease" on any person of "color" through education can color to make that poor benighted third or fourth or tenth generation person of color that the "white" definition of culture in the United States is actually the majority culture of the United States and that English literature, while being studied the world over, is worth more attention and is more complex than say tales told inside a hogan by Navahos or inside a yurt by Mongolians.
And because the United States is based on an ethos that is European and the establishment, whether in business or government, acts on that ethos instead of consulting Lao-Tzu or Shaka Zulu in governance and business, the white person is evil because that person, while not in actuality not holding other people down, encourages "white privilege." To our Spartan ignoring or disparaging equals hate. And thus whites, in their very blood, unless enlightened by an angry professor, teacher or teaching assistant, hate all others, will keep down all others, will even kill all others.
Because of this nonsense the white person, especially the white man, is the most hated person among the chattering classes. A white man or woman will beat his or her chest giving a mea culpa trying to convince the average honky that he or she is guilty of being a bad person simply because of his or her skin color and heritage because of the "sins" of his or her ancestors his cohorts. The result is a lot o frustrated and somewhat angry white men and women who feel that they have been unfairly put upon to atone for things that they have had no part in. And they are starting to bitch about it.
We here at the Manor can only tell those people to suck it up. You're the bad guy now. You're badder than a Muslim shooting up a nightclub or a train station. You are bad. This writer is bad. The world would have been a lot better off if there had been no Europeans. Or at least this is true this week, this month, this year. But there will come a day when our Spartan calls the cops to prevent a murder and a couple of pale-faced Irish-American cops show up. And then our Spartan will praise the Micks who saved him/her (and this writer is fully aware that the police rarely prevent crimes). But don't look for that day soon.
The job, by heritage, of the white person who has been accused of "white privilege" is to carry on. He/she is to set his/her face like a flint to promote his/her values and live by them. To set an example. And, of course, for the society as a whole, the example will be denigrated or ignored. But as Homer teaches us in The Iliad through the character of Achilles, it is better to face one's fate, as bad as that may be, than to sit in one's tent crying the blues. It's better for one's self and better for the society.
**** Note: The use of the he/she, him/her nonsense are only used in this post because, while is is unlikely that a young pink Spartan will read this post, this writer is loathe to offend that young Leonidas needlessly. He/she may throw a poppy at this writer in anger and that will make this writer very sad.
Sunday, June 19, 2016
Sunday, June 12, 2016
Mum's the Word. In Other Words, Shut the Hell Up!
Occasionally, while lazing around Bloody Nib Manor watching the lovely French maids wearing short black dresses and petticoats reaching up to dust the upper shelves of the library or tramping through the extensive grounds looking for signs of fox for the next foxhunt, you're faithful correspondent occasionally considers the matter of free speech. To be short, this writer is for it. In fact, the freer the better.
We have come into an age when one's speech or expression of an opinion that is opposed to that of another (especially a young college student, a minority of some sort, a thin-skinned politician or entertainer) is considered "hate speech." And all one has said is something like, "You're an idiot", or "You're wrong and I'm right." Considering a person an idiot does not mean that one hates them, let alone considering that person wrong. It just means that one thinks that the person being addressed or discussed is mistaken, mislead, wrong, uninformed or just plain dumb. And the fact of the matter is that all of us, even this writer, fall into one of these catagories once in a while. But yours, as are you, gentle reader, is rarely grossly wrong. But there are people who have ideas and position that seem to be based on the ideas of an pimpled adolescent angry at the fact that he isn't dating the "hot" cheerleader or the high school quarterback.
But to get back to the point (this writer apologizes for the straying), even if a person is so uneducated, so racist, so bigoted as to really engage in real "hate" speech such as "Jews are the spawn of the Devil" or the Asian version of the same, "Chinese are the Jews of Asia" or White-Europeans are oppressors and wreckers of the world" or "Mexicans are lazy gang-bangers" or "Blacks dance good while picking your pocket through welfare", that doesn't mean that that form of speech, while as prejudiced as it may be, has no right to be expressed. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. It is the foundation of the Republic. And once the government and politicians, never mind the media, which is run by a bunch of lily-livered Ivy Leaguers who have no more sense of the Constitution than a foxhound does of calculus, starts regulating speech on the premise of a subjective idea of "hate" we're all in trouble. One finds one's self wondering if Animal Farm were to be published today if PETA would have protested the book because it finds the portrayal of pigs and hogs offensive.
And we come to the question about the value of "hate." Today hate is considered bad because liberals and atheists take a wishy-washy reading of the Bible. They forget that God, in the Old Testament hated i.e., " Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" or that Our Lord Jesus Christ said that we should hate evil (which brings up the whole modern idea that there is no such thing as "evil", just differences of opinion). We should not, as a matter of course, hate people or a particular person outside of special circumstances such as hating Hitler, the Nazis, Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not worth hating. They are worth disdain). But it right, in fact, for a mature thinking person, to hate bad ideas or bad behaviours. Such ideas would be, according to your faithful correspondent, such ideas like Nazism (an old favorite), Communism, Fascism, Racism (whether black or white), serial polygomy (the behaviour and not the person), homosexuality (the behaviour and not the person), and Islam (the religion and not the individual), among many other things that may raise one's ire. Hate is something that one holds within one's self. And whether changable or not (and it seems that it is), the expression of that hate is, at least for now in the United States and by law allowed. One has the right to make one's point in print, on screen, or by voice. And once that right is taken away by law in some way or another the next step will be legally mandated love.
Not only will the citizen be required not to hate, or even tolerate, but will be required to express in some form love for those who stand for everything against one stands. In other words one will be required to give a big and enthusiastic "God bless you. brother!" to the guy who is taking money from your wallet whether he is doing it by legal means i.e., taxes and fees, or if the guy is thug on the street pointing a gun at one. And one will be expected to love the person who hates one. And the result will be the destruction of one's self.
Now, there is a bit of debate about "radical" Islam and the rights of Americans to criticize the religion and the products of the religion, as well as the willing ignorance of some people in positions of leadership to ignore the products of Islam.
Recently David Petraus, the man who was the Army general in Iraq for a few years, has said that Islam should not be criticized because it will anger the Mohammedans. But at the same time his former service has no problem criticizing conservative Christians and limiting their speech. General Petraus has no problem pitching a bitch against a Holy Roller, but when it comes to the local Imam it's all hands off. The question is why? The reason is simply that the Holy Roller may hired a lawyer to file a losing lawsuit, but the Imam may send or encourage a young man with more hormones than sense to blow up somebody. In other words, Gen. Petraus wants us to limit our speech to prevent being physically attacked by the benighted. And he states, in effect, that the United States is not able to protect its citizens practicing a fundamental right as written in the Constitution. It is almost like people who do not have cancer and who are afraid of getting cancer not using the word "cancer." It's like referring to cancer as the "C" word If one doesn't talk about it it will go away instead of facing the threat and fighting it. It's childish thinking. But childish thinking has become all too often the norm.
Pope Francis (note that this writer is not a Roman Catholic; he's the Protestant of Protestant, Baptist of Baptists) has been playing the same game with the Mohammedans. He's met with several Mohammedan religious leaders while singing Kumbaya. In other words, he's basically said that all religions are true religions, which asks the question, why doesn't he just resign and get a job as a shoe-maker? Pope Francis is as reluctant to piss of the Mohammdans as this writer is to stick his hand into a pit of vipers. The difference is that the behaviour of Mohammedans such as Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Queda and the Taliban (all groups who make it a habit to kill or persecute Christians) are groups that the Pope has not condemned or publicly hated. He apparently sees those groups as victims of Western oppression while the faithful of the church he leads are slaughtered. He's too busy hating capitalism. And should probably be prosecuted for hate speech.
Hate is not the best of emotions. In fact, it's pretty rotten. But it's not useless. It has its places. Love is good. But love is not all. Any young man or young woman will be able to tell the reader that love, occasionally like the old J. Geils song, stinks. And love, misplaced love, is as destructive, perhaps even more destructive, than is a good healthy hate. And once that expression of hate is legally restricted that hate will manifest itself in ways that the society will rue.
We have come into an age when one's speech or expression of an opinion that is opposed to that of another (especially a young college student, a minority of some sort, a thin-skinned politician or entertainer) is considered "hate speech." And all one has said is something like, "You're an idiot", or "You're wrong and I'm right." Considering a person an idiot does not mean that one hates them, let alone considering that person wrong. It just means that one thinks that the person being addressed or discussed is mistaken, mislead, wrong, uninformed or just plain dumb. And the fact of the matter is that all of us, even this writer, fall into one of these catagories once in a while. But yours, as are you, gentle reader, is rarely grossly wrong. But there are people who have ideas and position that seem to be based on the ideas of an pimpled adolescent angry at the fact that he isn't dating the "hot" cheerleader or the high school quarterback.
But to get back to the point (this writer apologizes for the straying), even if a person is so uneducated, so racist, so bigoted as to really engage in real "hate" speech such as "Jews are the spawn of the Devil" or the Asian version of the same, "Chinese are the Jews of Asia" or White-Europeans are oppressors and wreckers of the world" or "Mexicans are lazy gang-bangers" or "Blacks dance good while picking your pocket through welfare", that doesn't mean that that form of speech, while as prejudiced as it may be, has no right to be expressed. Freedom of speech is guaranteed by the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is sacrosanct. It is the foundation of the Republic. And once the government and politicians, never mind the media, which is run by a bunch of lily-livered Ivy Leaguers who have no more sense of the Constitution than a foxhound does of calculus, starts regulating speech on the premise of a subjective idea of "hate" we're all in trouble. One finds one's self wondering if Animal Farm were to be published today if PETA would have protested the book because it finds the portrayal of pigs and hogs offensive.
And we come to the question about the value of "hate." Today hate is considered bad because liberals and atheists take a wishy-washy reading of the Bible. They forget that God, in the Old Testament hated i.e., " Jacob have I loved and Esau have I hated" or that Our Lord Jesus Christ said that we should hate evil (which brings up the whole modern idea that there is no such thing as "evil", just differences of opinion). We should not, as a matter of course, hate people or a particular person outside of special circumstances such as hating Hitler, the Nazis, Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are not worth hating. They are worth disdain). But it right, in fact, for a mature thinking person, to hate bad ideas or bad behaviours. Such ideas would be, according to your faithful correspondent, such ideas like Nazism (an old favorite), Communism, Fascism, Racism (whether black or white), serial polygomy (the behaviour and not the person), homosexuality (the behaviour and not the person), and Islam (the religion and not the individual), among many other things that may raise one's ire. Hate is something that one holds within one's self. And whether changable or not (and it seems that it is), the expression of that hate is, at least for now in the United States and by law allowed. One has the right to make one's point in print, on screen, or by voice. And once that right is taken away by law in some way or another the next step will be legally mandated love.
Not only will the citizen be required not to hate, or even tolerate, but will be required to express in some form love for those who stand for everything against one stands. In other words one will be required to give a big and enthusiastic "God bless you. brother!" to the guy who is taking money from your wallet whether he is doing it by legal means i.e., taxes and fees, or if the guy is thug on the street pointing a gun at one. And one will be expected to love the person who hates one. And the result will be the destruction of one's self.
Now, there is a bit of debate about "radical" Islam and the rights of Americans to criticize the religion and the products of the religion, as well as the willing ignorance of some people in positions of leadership to ignore the products of Islam.
Recently David Petraus, the man who was the Army general in Iraq for a few years, has said that Islam should not be criticized because it will anger the Mohammedans. But at the same time his former service has no problem criticizing conservative Christians and limiting their speech. General Petraus has no problem pitching a bitch against a Holy Roller, but when it comes to the local Imam it's all hands off. The question is why? The reason is simply that the Holy Roller may hired a lawyer to file a losing lawsuit, but the Imam may send or encourage a young man with more hormones than sense to blow up somebody. In other words, Gen. Petraus wants us to limit our speech to prevent being physically attacked by the benighted. And he states, in effect, that the United States is not able to protect its citizens practicing a fundamental right as written in the Constitution. It is almost like people who do not have cancer and who are afraid of getting cancer not using the word "cancer." It's like referring to cancer as the "C" word If one doesn't talk about it it will go away instead of facing the threat and fighting it. It's childish thinking. But childish thinking has become all too often the norm.
Pope Francis (note that this writer is not a Roman Catholic; he's the Protestant of Protestant, Baptist of Baptists) has been playing the same game with the Mohammedans. He's met with several Mohammedan religious leaders while singing Kumbaya. In other words, he's basically said that all religions are true religions, which asks the question, why doesn't he just resign and get a job as a shoe-maker? Pope Francis is as reluctant to piss of the Mohammdans as this writer is to stick his hand into a pit of vipers. The difference is that the behaviour of Mohammedans such as Boko Haram, ISIS, Al-Queda and the Taliban (all groups who make it a habit to kill or persecute Christians) are groups that the Pope has not condemned or publicly hated. He apparently sees those groups as victims of Western oppression while the faithful of the church he leads are slaughtered. He's too busy hating capitalism. And should probably be prosecuted for hate speech.
Hate is not the best of emotions. In fact, it's pretty rotten. But it's not useless. It has its places. Love is good. But love is not all. Any young man or young woman will be able to tell the reader that love, occasionally like the old J. Geils song, stinks. And love, misplaced love, is as destructive, perhaps even more destructive, than is a good healthy hate. And once that expression of hate is legally restricted that hate will manifest itself in ways that the society will rue.
Saturday, June 11, 2016
We, As A Nation, Have Gone Insane!
The proof of the title of this post is contained in four words: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump.
Let's begin with Mrs. Clinton (this writer will not refer to her as Ms. because she has done nothing but ride her husband's coat tails to power; she, herself has done nothing). Mrs. Clinton is a liar. And not only a liar, but a public and enthusiastic liar. She has lied about herself, about her husband, about her service in the State Department and Senate. She's lied about her daughter and son-in-law. She's lied to coal miners. She will lie at the drop of a hat. Hell! She'll lie at the drop of a leaf. Lying comes to her as easily as does the playing of a power chord does to a metal rocker. The woman stands for nothing except herself and her will to power. She would kick a newborn infant in the head if she thought it would get her votes. Bill Clinton was often called, at least here in the county where Bloody Nib Manor is the seat, the used car salesman. Hillary Clinton is the aluminum siding salesman. And how anyone in their right mind and with the sense of a possum can consider her an "outsider" just proves that the word "outsider" means to the media and Washington that the person has taken a vacation to New York City for a week. To use a word from Raispel's novel, The Camp of the Saints, the woman is a hag. Not because of her appearance, but because like the classical hag of mythology, once she grabs onto something she will not let go and expects the victim to bear her on his back until the day he dies. Then she'll find another sucker.
Regarding Donald Trump. Much like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump is a liar, but on a perhaps a smaller scale. He's as shifty as a six speed automatic transmission. He's crude, and not in a good way. He appeals to the lowest instincts of the population. He, like Mrs. Clinton, has no respect for the Constitution. He likes to play the tough guy despite the fact that her was a terrible draft dodger. He was been, and still may be, an enthusiastic sybarite with no loyalty to any wife or respect for any friends. Think this, dear reader; if a man cannot be faithful to his wife, the heart of his heart and flesh of his flesh, before divorcing her, why do you expect the man to remain loyal and faithful to such a concept as a nation?
Both of these Nietzschian characters, driven more by the will to power instead of the welfare of the Republic, are the choices for President of the United States unless God intervenes and strikes them both speechless. This writer would have added "blind" but for the fact that they both exhibit blind ambition.
And the populace have bought their nonsense, lies and crap. They both pretend to be "outsiders", but that's nonsense of the Great Wall of China scale. Sure, Mrs. Clinton is a woman and has given birth to a child. But her being a woman makes her no more an outsider than Joseph Stalin was an outsider in Russia (for the history challenged, Stalin was a Georgian and eventually managed to kill more Russians while ruling Russia than did the German during World War II). To be crude and vulgar, a vagina is not a special qualification to lead the nation in the same way that it is not a disqualification. And as regards Mr. Trump, no big business man is an outsider. He, like many business men, depends on the government teat to make his millions and he has and will do whatever he can to get that milk.
Neither one of them cares about the populace. They care about themselves and their cronies. To them governmental power is a way to naked power and they'll say whatever they can to get it. They don't care that most Americans are much like Hobbits. They just want to be left alone from the Samaugs and Saurons and Sarumons. They just want to be left alone to tend their gardens or practice their trade, drink their beer and smoke their pipes, have parties and watch fireworks. All they ask is to be protected from the Smaugs, the Saurons and the Sarumons.
And the government, and Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump won't even promise or do that. One wopnders if they are Orcs.
Let's begin with Mrs. Clinton (this writer will not refer to her as Ms. because she has done nothing but ride her husband's coat tails to power; she, herself has done nothing). Mrs. Clinton is a liar. And not only a liar, but a public and enthusiastic liar. She has lied about herself, about her husband, about her service in the State Department and Senate. She's lied about her daughter and son-in-law. She's lied to coal miners. She will lie at the drop of a hat. Hell! She'll lie at the drop of a leaf. Lying comes to her as easily as does the playing of a power chord does to a metal rocker. The woman stands for nothing except herself and her will to power. She would kick a newborn infant in the head if she thought it would get her votes. Bill Clinton was often called, at least here in the county where Bloody Nib Manor is the seat, the used car salesman. Hillary Clinton is the aluminum siding salesman. And how anyone in their right mind and with the sense of a possum can consider her an "outsider" just proves that the word "outsider" means to the media and Washington that the person has taken a vacation to New York City for a week. To use a word from Raispel's novel, The Camp of the Saints, the woman is a hag. Not because of her appearance, but because like the classical hag of mythology, once she grabs onto something she will not let go and expects the victim to bear her on his back until the day he dies. Then she'll find another sucker.
Regarding Donald Trump. Much like Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump is a liar, but on a perhaps a smaller scale. He's as shifty as a six speed automatic transmission. He's crude, and not in a good way. He appeals to the lowest instincts of the population. He, like Mrs. Clinton, has no respect for the Constitution. He likes to play the tough guy despite the fact that her was a terrible draft dodger. He was been, and still may be, an enthusiastic sybarite with no loyalty to any wife or respect for any friends. Think this, dear reader; if a man cannot be faithful to his wife, the heart of his heart and flesh of his flesh, before divorcing her, why do you expect the man to remain loyal and faithful to such a concept as a nation?
Both of these Nietzschian characters, driven more by the will to power instead of the welfare of the Republic, are the choices for President of the United States unless God intervenes and strikes them both speechless. This writer would have added "blind" but for the fact that they both exhibit blind ambition.
And the populace have bought their nonsense, lies and crap. They both pretend to be "outsiders", but that's nonsense of the Great Wall of China scale. Sure, Mrs. Clinton is a woman and has given birth to a child. But her being a woman makes her no more an outsider than Joseph Stalin was an outsider in Russia (for the history challenged, Stalin was a Georgian and eventually managed to kill more Russians while ruling Russia than did the German during World War II). To be crude and vulgar, a vagina is not a special qualification to lead the nation in the same way that it is not a disqualification. And as regards Mr. Trump, no big business man is an outsider. He, like many business men, depends on the government teat to make his millions and he has and will do whatever he can to get that milk.
Neither one of them cares about the populace. They care about themselves and their cronies. To them governmental power is a way to naked power and they'll say whatever they can to get it. They don't care that most Americans are much like Hobbits. They just want to be left alone from the Samaugs and Saurons and Sarumons. They just want to be left alone to tend their gardens or practice their trade, drink their beer and smoke their pipes, have parties and watch fireworks. All they ask is to be protected from the Smaugs, the Saurons and the Sarumons.
And the government, and Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump won't even promise or do that. One wopnders if they are Orcs.
Saturday, June 04, 2016
Why I Will Not Mourn the Death of Muhammed Ali
While the rest of the world seems intent on mourning the death of and praising the life of Muhammed Ali, and insistent on portraying him as some sort of teddy bear with a wicked punch, we here at Bloody Nib Manor refuse to do so. Of course, we feel for his family. But not for him. And the reason is this:
Muhammed Ali, more than any one person in sports and in popular culture, made "trash talking" in public acceptable and even accepted. For better or worse, previous to his arrival on the scene sportsmen pretended to be men of gentlemanly qualities in public. They may have slightly disparaged their opponents, but they did not denigrate them as if they were Greeks and Trojans meeting on the Illian plains aiming spears at one another. Ali started the coarsening of the sports world. He contributed to the coarsening of the culture of the society as a whole. The bragging, the posing the loud mouth antics have become a staple of contemporary life. And it's no damn good. It's a celebration of the lower instincts while, in fact, as hypocritical as it may sound, the sports world, the entertainment world and the wealthy world, should, for their own survival and well-being, and for society as a whole, promote civility instead of celebrating the lower class values and behaviour. Because the Barbarians are at the gates of civilization. Ali was their scout and termite. When it all collapses in a jumble of trash talk and bragging blame Ali.
Muhammed Ali, more than any one person in sports and in popular culture, made "trash talking" in public acceptable and even accepted. For better or worse, previous to his arrival on the scene sportsmen pretended to be men of gentlemanly qualities in public. They may have slightly disparaged their opponents, but they did not denigrate them as if they were Greeks and Trojans meeting on the Illian plains aiming spears at one another. Ali started the coarsening of the sports world. He contributed to the coarsening of the culture of the society as a whole. The bragging, the posing the loud mouth antics have become a staple of contemporary life. And it's no damn good. It's a celebration of the lower instincts while, in fact, as hypocritical as it may sound, the sports world, the entertainment world and the wealthy world, should, for their own survival and well-being, and for society as a whole, promote civility instead of celebrating the lower class values and behaviour. Because the Barbarians are at the gates of civilization. Ali was their scout and termite. When it all collapses in a jumble of trash talk and bragging blame Ali.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)