Feeding candy

     An interesting thing has taken place in the past year in television advertising.

    A lot of commercials have featured black actors and white women as married or living together couples. This combination is is of a much higher percentage than the previous year or years. In fact, this particular combination of married or "hooked up" couples has become almost the norm in television commercials.

    But one has to ask one's self, is this combination a reflection of the real world?

    Apparently, according to statistics and census date, it is not. 

    The fact of the matter is that the most common combination in an "inter-racial" marriage is between whites and Hispanics. 42% of "inter-racial marriages are between a white and a Hispanic. 15% of "inter-racial marriages are between whites and Asians. 11% of "inter-racial" marriages are between whites and blacks.

    But, in most of the commercials the coupling is between blacks and white, and almost overwhelmingly, between black men and white women. One very rarely sees a commercial featuring a white/Asian couple, and almost a white/Hispanic couple.

    Why is this? Could it be that the advertisers base their advertising on only popular culture in which rap stars and black athletes seem to prefer marrying whites? Is it because of the BLM movement in which blacks are preferred and must be portrayed despite the 13% of the population because some black will pitch a bitch if they are not "represented?" Is it because blacks are more influenced by television commercials than any other race?

    These are questions that are better addressed by honest sociologists than this uneducated writer. But it is a question that deserves to be addressed simply because the advertisement industry is portraying something that just not exist to the point that it insists that it portrays.

    Black men, according to the commercials, are the desired love interest of white women almost over white men. In other words, suddenly black men are the desired demographic for some reason.

    Writing as an uneducated boob, this writer can only assume that the reason is because, despite being the third down the frequency of "inter-racial" marriage, black men will scream because they are not represented as number one.

Stay in your own lane, cracker!

     Well, dear reader, it's been a while since yours has polluted the Internet with his thoughts. This is not because of any form of censorship or because this writer has died. The reason is that the world has become so bizarre in the past months that choosing a topic to rant upon has been a bit like letting a kid loose at the Hersey candy plant and telling him to only pick one candy bar. One becomes frozen with indecision.

    Well, a bit of time has passed, and while the idiocy has not passed like a tropical storm, your faithful writer has become accustomed to the heaving of the seas and has finally gotten past the point of sea-sickness.

    During the inauguration of of President Joseph Biden (otherwise known as Lunch-box Joe, Creepy Joe, or Grandpa Gropes) a young African-American woman (to use the current patois) read what was purported to be a poem that got the intellectual class clapping like seals begging for a sardine. Now your faithful writer admits that he has been unable to appreciate any poetry since the passing of Ogden Nash, so he is no judge of poetry but he knows when words are put together that make a bit of sense and make a statement instead of words strung together like the diary entry of the typical self-important thirteen year old girl who fancies herself the 21st century Emily Dickinson. The chattering classes thought the thing stunning and brave and forward looking. Your friend thought it banal and trite.

    Be this as it may, the young woman, Amanda Gorman by name, is now the poetic toast of the town. A book of her poetry has been published to high acclaim by the chattering class. Not only has the book been published, but it is being translated into other language. Even Dutch.

    And here's the grit in the gears. The originally designated Dutch translator has, after a bit of a dust up, has removed herself from translating the book of poetry. Why? you may ask. Is her English not up to snuff? Is her mastery of the Dutch language that of an uneducated potato farmer or barge pilot? Has she no experience in translating English poetry into Dutch? The answer to all these questions is no. The Dutch translator has a perfect command of the English language, as well as her native language, and she's translated English poetry to Dutch successfully in the past. The reason that she earned the ire of the politically correct/woke brigade is simply because she is a white woman translating the work of a black woman.

    Apparently, among the more enlightened among us, a white woman is unable to translate the "experience" of a young black woman in the same way that a black woman living in the Netherlands is able to. The words and the plain sense of the words mean nothing. What is important in the translation is that a black woman living in the Netherlands, who has never lived the African-American experience can somehow read and interpret the writings of an African-American than a white Dutch woman can.

    It's all about skin color, you see because skin color is the datum from which everything is measured. And so that contention changes everything. A translation of the New Testament, for example, into Gujarati or Swahili, Chinese or Inuit, could only be done by a Middle Easterner who speaks Aramaic. Want to see a Shakespeare play in Tokyo? It had better have been translated into Japanese by an Englishman or Englishwoman. In fact, one could argue that no white person has any business reading the works of a black person, or vice-versa, because the reader does not have the life experience of the writer. One could even go as far as to say that no person of color should listen to Bach or that any whitey-bird should listen to Scott Joplin because Bach came out of white Europe with a white European sensibility and Joplin came out of black America with a black American sensibility. In other words, there is no crossing of the cultural color barrier. It's all silly and stupid, as much of contemporary popular and intellectual culture is, and it's enough to gag a maggot.

It's Not All About You.

      An open letter to wokesters, the BLM crowd, and self hating Whites:

      Dear Black racists, Leftwaffe, and the ignorant "educators" at colleges and universities,

     This post may result in this writer getting "cancelled', but, in truth, there is nothing to cancel. This opinionist is neither a person of fame nor the employee of any company. In fact, he does not own his own business that can be boycotted and "shamed", nor any sort of half famous personality who can be brought to his knees by your silly, stupid, and in fact, evil Jacobinism, illiberality, and ignorance. This writer is a free man holding independent thoughts and opinions and beliefs, and he really doesn't much care what you think of him.

     Having stated the above, please, if you have any sense of self respect and self worth, stop making English literature about you. And by "you" it is meant specifically Blacks who look for Blackness in works ranging from the time of Beowulf to the 1950s in England. Almost overwhelmingly none of that literature has to do with you or Black people despite what you have seen in moving picture portrayals of such films as the awful Robin Hood Prince of Thieves in which one of the Merry Men was a Blackamoor. The Robin Hood legend started before there were, or at least, very few Blacks in England. And those few Blacks were either ambassadors or servants. No Robin Hood legend, and there are many of them, feature, or even mention a Black or a Blackamoor member of the Merry Men.

     But, of course, the Robin Hood legend is a "folk" legend, so, therefore, is not "literature" in the proper sense. But to inject a sense of race into the legend (other than Norman versus Saxon) is just plain stupid. It would be like claiming Ulysses S. Grant's chief strategist was a Japanese samurai because Japanese-Americans feel that they were left out of the history of the Civil War.

     English literature was not written with Black people in mind, despite Shakespeare's Othello. The character of Othello was a type loosely based on perhaps a historical character. And in the play Othello was not the victim of racism in any way. He was the man in power and the man able to punish. The only, and this may appear to be a racist statement, Black thing about him was that like many Black men who have married, or have relations with White women, he is jealous of his privilege and sees every White man as a threat. And he is willing to do away with her once he believes that he has "dissed" her. But that is a more universal psychopathic behaviour than it is Black behaviour.

     Traditional English literature has nothing to do with Black people. In fact, it hardly mentions Black people at all. Austen's Mansfield Park mentions the slave trade in passing, but that is all it does. From Beowulf to Look Back In Anger, with the exception of Othello, do not mention Black people except, at the best, in a passing manner. 

     And why is this? The answer is so simple that even an idiot child can "get" it. That literature was written by and for an English readership living in an England or Great Britain the opening of the gates of colonial immigration in the late 1950s. Those novels, plays and poems were written by and for Anglo-Saxons, Anglo-Normans, Anglo-Celts. They were not written for Black people or by Black people. To pretend otherwise is to pretend that a purchase from Wal-Mart equals a purchase from Nordstrom (as far as it has fallen) or Rolex. You can pretend that your Timex watch looks like a Rolex, or pretend that your Rolex is a Timex, but you're fooling yourself.

     So please, Black people, the Leftwaffe, and the woke, please don't read English literature and try to make it something that it is not.  Enjoy it, if you can, for what it was and is; story telling and eloquence from the British Isle about the people of the British Isles (and by extension, America pre 1940). Those works were not written for, or about you. Don't try to make Tolkien's Orcs into Black people and bitch about it when , in fact much of the Lord of the Rings saga was based on Nordic mythology. You make yourselves look silly, egotistical, and stupid like a person trying to sneak a tamale into a Cornish pastie competition.

     Look at your own literature, whether African or Black-American and champion that instead of trying to termite literary traditions of the British and other Europeans. Quit riding on the backs of the people you purport to hate. It does nothing but shows your weakness.

    

Be Careful

     It's been another noisy week here at Bloody Nib Manor. A cohort of the local yokels continue, in fact, have increased, their nightly celebration of nothing at all by lighting fireworks of various types that are illegal in the county; quarter sticks of dynamite, half sticks of dynamite, aerial mortars, and sky rockets. It has become tiresome. One, in a cooling evening, is reading the works of Montaigne, John Owen, or John Locke, only to be interrupted by an explosion of some sort caused by a person who is barely able to speak or read the King's English or appreciate what Independence Day is all about. But that's modern America: the disruptive are listened to while the maintaining are ignored.
      Speaking of which, dear reader and friend, have you noticed that during the current racial strife that caucasians, specifically those of European heritage, (and even some Asians, for some reason) are expected apologize to those of African heritage for the sins of not their fathers and not their grandfathers, and perhaps not even their great-grandfathers regarding slavery and racism?
     Now, consider this dear reader. The majority of those of European heritage arrived in the United States after the Civil War (this writer is outside that group since his forebearers arrived in the Americas in the 1600s-- all of them) and none of those people owned or even had the opportunity to involve themselves in the practice of chattel slavery (regarding which this some of this writer's ancestors were indentured servants and some of them may have owned African slaves in the 18th century, but all, as far is as known, fought for the Union during the Civil War). In other words, most of those of European heritage, whether Irish, Swedish, Italian, German, etc. never had an ancestor who owned a slave simply because when their ancestors came to these blessed shores there was no such thing as slavery in the United States. And even for those who are descended from slave owners, their family has not owned a slave since 1865. That is 155 years. Think about it.; 155 years. Outside of people who read old books like Dickens, Austen, and Irving, very few people know anything about life 155 years ago. Ask yourself, dear friend, can you name a song that was popular in the United States 155 years ago? In fact, can you call to mind the old motto for Camel cigarettes or Bon Ami scouring powder?
     It is an undisputed fact that African-Americans were discriminated against up until the 1960s by some people of European heritage, as were Asian people from the 1840s until the 1950s and perhaps later. But that discrimination was not institutional after the late 1950s. That discrimination was based on personal prejudice, not law. A nation cannot make a law that applies on the persona;l level against personal prejudice as much as it would like to do. People have their oddities, whether it be that Jews are cheap and grasping, Japanese are sneaky bastards, Mexicans are lazy, Poles and Swedes are blockheads, or that the English are as cold and cruel as ice. Those are things that come down from families and don't matter in the larger world. Even the most anti-Black person, in public, will give an African-American a job simply because of law if that person can do the job. That person may keep a closer eye on the African-American to make sure that he or she is not doing something that the employer assumes that the person will do that is an infraction of the company policy than he will for a white trash snuff dipping Confederate flag waving cracker and be quicker to fire the Black person fro an infraction than the Redneck. To be short, haters gonna hate. But in modern America, there may be a lot of haters of various races, when it comes down to cases it's all about making a nut to store into the business. A Ku Kluxer will sell Slim JIms or Cherry Coke or a house to a Black person if it means a bit of money into the bank account.
      Now, let's get down to cases.
     During the current unrest the Black Lives Matter and their allies and tools have demanded that white people people apologize for the sins of what the BLM crowed assumes are their fathers. And too many people have done so. They've bent the knee to BLM as did many of the Hebrews did during the Babylonian captivity. They have bent their knee to the modern Baal. They have denied themselves in the hope that they will not be considered "racist" by a group of people who see everything through a racial lens as do the few remaining Ku Klux Klan members or neo-Nazis. They have apologized for things that they, in reality, have no need, in fact, no right, to apologize for. They are apologizing for people who are long dead and who may have had reasons for their prejudice. Can one really apologize for one's great grandfather to one's cousin when it is found out that the great grandfather was a rounder and perhaps wife beater? One might as well apologize for the local feral pigeon crapping on the neighbor's car because the bird usually sits on one's phone line.
     And apologizes are all too often dangerous to one's self when meant in the best of intention. To apologize without any expectation of forgiveness, as is the modern thing, is to really leave one open to a form of never ending extortion. One admits one was wrong and apologizes. The other person, instead of granting a form of forgiveness, holds that apology as a brick-bat to be used again, again, and again. The apology that was intended to make a sort of peace all to often becomes a weapon against one.
     Perhaps that's the reason that, despite the insistence of the U.S. in past years that Japan apologize for the attack on Pearl Harbor Japan never did so. And despite the fact that Japan has called for an apology for the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the U.S. never did so.
     To apologize for things that one is not responsible, or things seen as required, is to put one's neck on the block with the constant threat of the ax coming down. It makes a man a into a mouse.

Listen to Your Betters!!!

     Well, it's been a quiet week here at Bloody Nib Manor. That is if one discounts the fact that the local gun shop has been plywooded over for fear of it being invaded by hordes of kiddie revolutionaries wanting to live in real life the musical Les Miserables while forgetting the song Empty Chairs at Empty Tables. Ah, youth! It's somewhat like the romantization of the wilderness; one goes into the forest believing that every bear is Gentle Ben or Yogi only to find one's self another Timothy Treadwell. In other words, a nice meal. And the local entrepreneurs have been displaying their offering of illegal fireworks for sale for Independence Day by firing them off repeatedly and enthusiastically every night. There's nothing quite like watching a drama on the television only to have the dialogue drowned out by an aerial motor exploding. Of course, the local constabulary does nothing and has never done anything about this, as they have never enforced the laws about loud music from automobiles, or loud parties that go on until four o'clock in the morning. But the parties are usually for mihos and mijas from one to five years old, so who can complain. What three year old lad would love to see his parents and family drunk and fighting with no other kids his or her age are no where in sight.
     But, let's get down to matters of a greater sort: Actors and actresses.
     You friend, admittedly, lost his taste for motion pictures and much of television years ago. This is probably due to the fact that he is an old git and really doesn't appreciate moving pictures about comic book super heroes or cop shows in which the policemen/women are constantly undergoing a sort of existential angst the even the most Sartetian film maker in France abandoned forty years ago. This writer likes movies and television programs with heroes/heroines, who, while they may be flawed, do not sit and ponder if it is the right thing morally, or because of their personal "ghosts", before they arrest or even kill a person who is trying to kill them or save a child from a pedophile, a woman from being raped, or a store owner from being killed for $200 in his till. In other words and to put it simply, your friend likes stories of heroes and the heroes journey. In this way he is a simple man. And perhaps a simple-minded man. But he would rather read about the journey of Odysseus, flawed man and liar and rogue that he was, but who returned home and saved Penelope from the suitors and his son from poverty without a second thought about his past sins, than your friend would watch a deconstructionalist modern detective television series or a pondering Batman. It all really comes down to the Chandler formula: Down these mean streets must a man go who is not mean....
     All the boring above is a too long introduction to the me of the matter. And it's just a way of saying that contemporary films, television and actors/actresses are just silly and stupid and adolescent in their outlook and opinions. Screenwriters and directors are really, nowadays, awful people. They seem to think that they are really artists of some sort, when, in fact, they are not much more, perhaps, much less, than the pulp writers of the 1920s to the 1950s. The modern writer and director are just pushing out stuff no better than the old Republic Studios cowboy movies but without the ethos of the Republic pictures. The modern stuff, even with it's CGI, really amounts to, in it's high points, a horse and rider jumping off a 100 foot cliff into a river from an old horse opera.
     The actors/actresses, are really, in a way, worse than the screen writer/directors.
     Let us face the facts: An actor/actress is really nothing but a dancing monkey on the end of a golden chain. They do what they are told to do be the screenwriter or the director. They create no more than does a three year old kid claiming that he's a tyrannosaurus rex or a homeless man with his dirty paw stuck out saying that if you give him a dollar he'll put it in his daughter's college fund. In fact, those two examples show more creativity than does the average actor.
     Imagine to yourself, dear reader, that you have gone to college or university for four years and received a degree in engineering or English, and when you go out to find a job you can only find a job at Tinker Toy figuring ot new ways to make Tinker Toy structures (not even Lego structures) or you get a job correcting the English usage of people who are applying for visa to the U.S. You've spend four years of study reading, studying and hoping that you will get a job as an engineer on a dam project or in aerospace; four years studying English literature hoping to be a writer or a translator of great works. And you end up not even designing kid's toys or the bad English of Chinese students wanting to get into UCLA  instead of writing a novel. Do you think you would be a bit disappointed and, in fact experiencing an existential crisis of the worst French type?
     Consider the actor/actress who has studied acting at a college or university. That person has spent four years learning how to lie and not perform on stage. That person has usually studied the works of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Jonson, Odet and O'Neil and how to perform the roles in the context in which they were written if they are lucky, which is not often. And when they come out of the acting schools they find that the work that they have done is useless in the modern world. Shakespeare is always a go to if the actor/actress can find a gig, but there are damn few Shakespeare plays being performed on television and the movies, which is where said actor/actress wants to be. Instead said actor/actress finds him'her self auditioning for what are really B-movies with big budgets, or television programs that are stupid funny or stupid dramatic. They don't even rise to the 1950s movie Panic in the Streets or the 1950s television show Peter Gunn. They hardly rise to the level of soap operas. In effect, they've spent four years studying engineering only to end up playing with Tinker Toys. Or to put it in musical terms, they've graduated from Julliard and they are playing in the subway, though well paid, instead of the orchestra. It's akin to spending years in the Royal Shakespeare Company only to find one's self working music halls and vaudeville.
     Of course, a lot of actors/actresses never went to  college for acting. They may have attended acting workshops while working at the local Von's or Ralph's, or maybe, because they were/are pretty or handsome, they caught the eye of some director/producer. Perhaps the actor/actress was the son/daughter of a friend of a producer/director.
     To put it short, actors/actresses depend as much on luck as does the average race track tout. They may act/lie better than the clerk at the local 7-11, and even better than the local beggar saying that he wants a handout for the cos of his mother's cancer treatment, but they are actors/liars and are not to be trusted or even honored. They are, in fact, dancing monkeys who will tip their cap to anyone who gives them a penny. They will dance a waltz if the organ grinder says that they should dance a waltz. They will dance a can-can when the organ grinder demands that they do so. They'll play the sad clown when they are happy and the angry clown when they are content.
     It s important to remember that up until the 1920 actors and actresses were considered "not quite right." The actors threatened one's daughters with shame and bastard children, and actresses were considered "loose" women. In fact, this writer's grandfather,m who was not a particularly religious man, considered all actors and actresses as "whores' of some sort or performing simians.
     But times have changed and we are supposed, for some reason, to regard and appreciate, in fact follow, the words and thoughts of a person who is a paid liar. They are better than we are because they are on television or on the silver screen. They live lives of luxury that could not be imagined in the Regency or Edwardian era, but they know better than the shop keeper or the clerk or the craftsman because they are on television. They know better than we do because they are dancing at the end of a golden chain at the command of an organ grinder, whether it be Instagram, Twitter or Facebook. They'll lie to keep that golden chain and that organ grinder while you live and think free. They don't even promise a golden chain for you. All they can promise is an iron collar and rags and a mouth that is sewn shut.

Note to the reader

     Not many people read this blog, and whenever there is a comment submitted to this blog your writer is much appreciative, whether the comment be positive, negative or neutral.
     This past week your friend received a submission for the comment section of the blog. The problem was that the sender wrote his or her name in Arabic/Iranian and the comment was in Arabic/Iranian.
     This writer reads neither Arabic nor Iranian. He reads neither Arabic or Iranian.
     This writer speaks and readers only one language. That language is the King's English.
     All comments, if they are to be published on this blog, should be in the English language, whether it be King's English, American, Canadian, etc.
     If a comment is submitted in any language other than a form of English it will be rejected.

Apologize and mean it!

     It's been an interesting week here at Bloody Nib Manor. Not only have we, for the past several months, been forced to raise the drawbridge because of some plague that escaped from the Celestial Kingdom, but because of the idiocy or cruelty of one man against another there have been demonstrations, rioting, and looting in the shire and the nation. It brings the Luddite revolt to mind, at best, and the overthrow of Louis XVI at worst. One could consider the Russian Revolution, but the Frenchies, for their time, were much more efficient at killing their own considering the technology.
     This writer does not think i necessary to go deeply into the reasons for the present unrest. Simply put, a white policeman in Minnesota, probably because he was just, to put it sort, a thug and hot head, killed a black man by holding the black man to the ground by putting his weight on the neck of the black man (George Floyd) resulting in the suffocation or strangulation of Mr. Floyd.
     It was an act of cruelty and, perhaps, racism. It may have been an act of over-enthusiasm. Who knows what was going through the thick head of the cop? Only he does. And he won't say. At trial he'll lie and say something like, "I feared for my life" or some such nonsense.
     While the death (killing) of Mr. Floyd was a bad thing (this writer will not say that it's a tragedy because it wasn't in the classical sense like Macbeth or Achilles) and a crime, it was a rarity in American life. White law enforcement officers do not go out and hunt black people in the way that Belgian colonists hunted Congolese natives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The overwhelming number of cops start their shifts praying for no trouble and do not go out of their way to look for trouble. In fact, a certain percentage will turn a blind eye to trouble just to avoid the paperwork involved.
     But, for some reason, this particular instance took the fancy of the Internet (and the Internet these days means the public). Probably because it was so gruesome. Adding to the mix is that a week before a white woman was shown on many platforms telling a black man who is a birdwatcher that she would call the police and tell them that she had been assaulted by an African-American man because she felt threatened because he told her to leash her dog in an area that was a leashed dog area (it was the perfect match of the clash of two Karens, but the woman ended up losing her job). The latter, because people assumed that the woman was a racist because she described the man as an Africa-American, in a sense, while not striking the match, took the match out of the box.
     We have all seen the result of the death of Mr Floyd: demonstrations against "systemic racism" by law enforcement agencies and the nation in general.
     And those people who claim to represent black Americans, the Black Lives Matter movement in particular, have demanded that whites, no matter if their ancestors came to America in 1620 or 2019, apologize for what the BLM and their cohort call systemic racism. To be white, and in some cases, to be Asian or Hispanic, is, to the BLM crowd, is to be racist against African-Americans.
     All too many times this writer has seen videos of people kneeling (it's always kneeling; the position of least power and self-direction) repeating like they were reading out of a Roman Catholic Missal apologies read out by BLM leaders. Mass Mea Culpas that Catholic Churches in the U.S. haven't seen in decades. Old white guys who in their youth had Huey Newton posters on their walls when they were in college, old white women who had had one or two black lovers, young Asian women who never saw a black person in the flesh before they came to the U.S. to go to college, young white men and women who think Beyonce' is (to pardon the expression) the "tits." It's like the Lindy Hop back in the 1930s. Everyone's doing it.
     But what they do not realize, besides not being guilty of anything besides being human, they will get no absolution or forgiveness from BLM or any other leftist black group. What they have done is made fools of themselves and given BLM and such a weapon. That apology will always hang over their heads like the sword of Damocles ready to fall at the whim of BLM. They have said, whether they are or not, that they are/were racist and apologize for it and the BLM crowd will always remember it and use it as a weapon against one. One, when it is convenient for BLM, is, was, and always be a racist, and that group and their ilk, will use it like a topping maul on the skull of a hog to get what they want. At least the renegade Christian during the times of the Roman persecution, once they put a pinch of incense on the altar of Caesar, were sent away and forgotten.
      It was a sickening sight for us here at the Manor to see police officers and National Guardsmen kneel before the demonstrators. By doing so they were saying that they were guilty of something they had never done. They did not kill Mr. Floyd. The overwhelming number of them never killed, or even hurt, a black person in any way. Were they trying to be Christ and take what is sometimes called the "original sin" of the nation upon themselves? That's doubtful. They were either afraid or wanted to be friends with people who don't want to be friends. They bent the knee. They bowed their heads. Much like the victims who were beheaded by ISIS.
     It's cheap talk and easy to say, but there was a saying that was popular in this writer's callow youth: It's better to die standing and fighting than to live one's life on one's knees. The knees of too many of those in our various forms of government have been bent in our name, and too many apologies have been made to the undeserving by the clueless lick spittles. And it bodes not well.

Facebook, be like, dumb

     Your faithful corespondent has always had a difficult relationship with Facebook simply because trying to get what is and is not allowed is trying to pick up a blob of mercury.
     So, since Facebook is playing a game of some sort this writer, and your friend, has decided to limit his links to this blog. If nothing else, your friend has control over what he writes and does not grant his purported creativity to a bunch of bots and tools in Silicon Valley.
     So here goes:
     Today was the annual Women's March in the United States during which a bunch of middle and upper class women express how oppressed they are and always have been despite what DeToqueville wrote 200 years ago. One hopes that the said slaves marching while wearing their pink knit caps (sometimes called Pussy Hats despite the fact that they are caps and not hats -- people are so stupid these days) they will remember this woman who does not want to have anything on her head:
   
Iran chess ref Shohreh Bayat fears returning home over hijab row - BBC News

     Not all actors are nuts:
   
Question Time: Laurence Fox on Meghan Markle racism debate | Daily Mail Online

     And finally, the United Methodist aren't so united any more:

     Liberal Methodists Toss Out the Africans | The American Conservative

     Let's get through the weekend with this:

     George Harrison's -- "The Pirate Song" - YouTube

   
   

What A Friend We Have In Jesus

     Those readers of a certain age may remember as joke from back it was assumed that a lot of Jewish people owned local stores. This was before shopping malls, on-line shopping and Wal-Mart. The joke went something like this:
      Question: What is the happiest of Jewish holidays?
      Answer: It's Christmas. Just walk by a Jewish home on Christmas Eve and you can hear the people singing, "What A Friend We Have In Jesus" as they count their income from Christmas shopping at their stores.
     It's a rather mild anti-Jewish joke. In fact, one could argue that it isn't even anti-Jewish since at the time the joke became popular a lot of small Southern American towns and Maritime Canadian towns had stores that were called "Jew stores." These were small department stores that sold things that the general stores didn't sell, and they were owned by Jewish people, and the heaviest selling that the stores had were during the Christmas season and the owner appreciated the custom.
     It's a joke that wouldn't fly today because people don't have a sense of humor and they are as ready to find an insult as a white-trash tobacco chewing hillbilly is when one tells him that his plow horse looks broken down. White-trash (meaning the old Scots-Irish) were always known for being touchy and quick to take offense, and one of the things that that bunch (of which this writer is one) managed to do was to make the larger society as thin-skinned as they are. The whole SJW nonsense and cancel culture grew from somewhere, and it probably came from when white-trash got into the positions of university professors and infested their students with their ancestral urge to duel or fight instead of argue and reason.
     But to get back to Jews and Christmas.
     Have you noticed, dear reader, that nowadays (what an awful word! It should be "now days") Jewish people are not loath to make fun of Christmas? They'll make jokes about about how Christians (actually "kind of Christians") spending lots and lots of money to celebrate the birth of Christ at the best and the expectation of Santa Claus at the worst. They'll make jokes about the Paternity of Christ and pretty much call Mary a victim of a centurion lover or rapist, or that God the Father had raped her through the Holy Ghost. They'll joke about many Christians eating a baked ham on Christmas day while Jesus was a Jew. The jokes are endless and public, and are, for some reason, not expected to be offensive to believing Christians; never mind the "kind of Christians."
      But, is it not a strange thing that Christians, even Christian comedians or secular "Christian" comedians, never joke about about Passover, Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur or Hanukkah. To do so, in today's world, would be perceived as some sort of "hate speech."
     And so we have a one way street which involves not only Jewish people, but also Muslims, as regards to Christianity. The Christian is the boxing bag which he or she is not allowed, in the popular culture in the West, to fight back against. And to even make a joke is considered violence.
   

The World is a Rotten Place When the Rotters are in Charge

     There are occasions when we here at Bloody Nib Manor find ourselves wondering if about twenty-five percent of the local populace have fallen into some sort of madness or mentally and morally reverted back to the era of when looked at an eclipse and feared that the Sun was being eaten by an invisible dragon. This group should not only not be allowed to drive cars, because they find automobiles to be mysterious things that make them commit stupid and foolish acts like parking on a railroad track somehow not expecting a locomotive to come by and destroy the car, they should not even be allowed to use hiking staffs to use on long walks because they do not see such staffs as an aid to walking, but see them as tools to swing at those who they accuse of "dissing" them and impugning their Third World "honor" because a passerby does not raise his hat or tug the forelock to acknowledge that the idiot peasant is an aristocrat in mufti.
     It's interesting how the Muslims in the West operate. Let us take the case of the organization known as CAIR. CAIR is an acronym for the Council of American Islamic Relations. The group portrays itself as a civil rights group interested in the rights of Mohammedans. In reality, it is a grievance group not unlike an arm of Scientology or certain gay rights groups that want to use the law as best they can to force the nation to , not tolerate, but to embrace and approve Mohammedism. CAIR throws a bitch when Halal food is not served at public schools for lunch (this despite the fact that according to old Mohammedan scholars the expectation of Halal food can only be made when the population of a nation or country is 51%), calls complaints about the call to prayer over loudspeakers that can be heard five blocks away Islamophobia while CAIR complains about church bells coming from Catholic churches once a week. If a person gives a side eye to a woman wearing a hijab CAIR claims that the person is a hater. CAIR claims a plethora of "hate" crimes against Mohammedans and is not loath to file lawsuits, while, in fact, there are very few "hate" crimes against Mohammedans. Most people, in fact, really want to be away from them. There are Mohammedans who are bearable. In fact, many of them are bearable and even friendly, and they just want to enjoy the freedoms of the nation and get along. But, as usual, it is the loudmouthed minority that sees the long green in grievance who pee in the punch bowl.
     Let us look at the name of the organization. It is called the Council of American Islamic Relations. What, exactly, does this mean?  At first and second glance it seems to mean that America and Islam are two different things that are of of two different nations or political philosophies. If the name of the organization were, for example, the Council of American Italian Relations or the Council of American Chinese Relations one could only presume that the organizations political organizations promoting the interests of Italy or China over those of the U.S. In fact, both organizations would probably be considered governmental arms of Italy and China. For CAIR to use the name the Council of American Islamic Relations actually, whether the leaders of the organization realize it or not, separate Mohammedans from the U.S. The organization makes their supporters and members the "other" by defining their religion as something that is not part of the American experience. Is there a Council of American Jewish Relations? A Council of American Catholic Relations? A Council of American Protestant Relations? Or Buddhists or Hindus or Wiccans, or even Satanists. There aren't. And the reason is, to put it short, that these groups see themselves as the fabric of the greater nation and not apart from it.
       Having said that, have you dear reader, noticed that the Mohammedans spend a lot of time bitching and moaning about the perceived crimes of the West against their cohorts living in the West (Europe and the Americas)? A drunk staggering down the street farts in front of a mosque and it becomes a "hate" crime, Or a kid eats a deviled ham sandwich at school in front of a little Abdul and Abdul feels the "hate" and complains to CAIR. But, when the Peoples Republic of China under the reign of Winnie the Pooh decides that it might be a pretty good idea to lock up about a million Uighur Mohammedans for re-education and forced labor there's not a peep from the professional Mohammedans. CAIR says nothing. The Saudis say nothing. The Pakistanis say nothing. The Iranians say nothing. None of that bunch says a damn thing while the secular and Christian press condemn China's actions. One wonders why the Mohammedan big hitters keep their traps shut. And the only reason that this writer can figure out is that China is putting out the long green for the Belt and Road projects that run through many Mohammedan nations. And that the Chinese government really does give much of a damn what the Mohammedans think. The Mohammedans aren't going to get up an army like ISIS or Al-Queda to march into northern China to save their Uighur brothers because they know that the Chinese, unlike the Americans and Europeans, are, as an army, savages not loath to kill women and children in order to attain their goals. They've proven so time after time for over two millennia.
     And speaking of China. The current Pope has decided to align himself with the PRC instead of with Hong Kong and Taiwan.  Not only has he allowed the PRC to appoint Catholic bishops inside the PRC (n other words, allowed the PRC to appoint political lickspittles instead of theologically sound priests) in his current visit to the Far East he referred to the PRC as a nation while referring to Taiwan and Hong Kong as a people instead of a nation (in the case of Taiwan) or an autonomous entity (in the case of Hong Kong). The Pope has, in reality, abandoned those Catholics in Taiwan and Hong Kong be they simple fact that in his words we made the Taiwanese and the Hong Kongers effectively as regards the Vatican, part of the PRC.
      And during this Far East trip the Pope has gone to Hiroshima and Nagasaki to mourn the droppings of the atomic bombs during World War Two. But he will not bring up the fact that the practice of Christianity, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, was effectively banned under the threat of death and/or torture in the seventeenth century in Japan. What Christianity that survived in Japan until the late nineteenth century was underground Christianity. And he does not admit that there were more people killed in the conventional bombing of Dresden Germany on one day during WW II more were killed at Hiroshima. He has no plans to visit the Philippines, which has a very large Catholic population, or Vietnam, which has a threatened Catholic population because he is, to be truthful, pretty much a Social Justice Warrior with Red leanings. One finds oneself wondering what Pope John Paul II would make of this idiot.

This, that, and the other

     It's been a rather quiet week here at Bloody Nib Manor. There was only one instance of the local constabulary being called out, not by the residents of the Manor, to deal with a yokel who, as many of his ilk, has no sense of the consequences of his actions before acting and not quite realizing that waving a pistol about and screaming at the top of his lungs may result in him being put into the nick for a while. But such is the shire.
     Your faithful writer has not paid much attention to the impeachment investigation of Pres. Trump now taking place in Washington, D.C. It is not so much that he does not care about the future of the nation as it is that there is nothing that he can do about it. To pay close attention to this circus is like paying close attention to a rain storm. The thing exists and talking about it will do nothing to stop it.
     But, in the opinion of your friend, the almost Howdy Doodyish Adam Schiff really has no intention of actually impeaching and convicting Mr. Trump. His intention is to throw as much mud and muck as he can at Mr. Trump before the 2020 presidential election. He wants to make Mr. Trump a Richard III complete with crooked back and charges of murdering poor innocent princes.
     Here's the deal: What Mr. Trump is basically accused of is being a President who has a foreign policy that does not go along with the established bureaucratic line. For whatever "evil" reasons that he may have Mr. Trump took a different line with Ukrainia (or as it's now known, Ukraine) that did not line up with that of the "big brains" in the State Department. Mr. Trump is an inelegant and a ham fisted man who does not own the talent for dissimulation that the professional "diplomat" does. He is, despite being a Queens, New York born and bred fellow, is more of a cowboy than Ronald Reagan ever was. He says what he thinks and says what he wants. In a sense, he is a throwback to an American style that ended with the awful Woodrow Wilson; in other words, often rude and crude, but honest.
     Mr. Trump's real sin among the yakking class is that he has been taking on the established bureaucracy. Mr. Trump calls that crowd "the Deep State." Make no mistake, there is a "Deep State" in foreign policy that sees itself as the real and wisest source of proper American foreign policy. This crowd includes the State Department, the CIA, the NSA, and even the FBI. That crowd doesn't care about the dictates of an elected president. They know "better." This is the same crowd that was surprised by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of the Soviet Union. This is the same crowd that claimed that trading with Communist China would result in the actual democratization of China instead of China gaining a trade advantage with the U.S. Monetarily the U.S. owes China more money than does China owe the U.S. And because of this imbalance the U.S. has reduced its support of Taiwan because the Red Army is big because Americans have unknowing paid for it, and Taiwan is little and is worthless despite the fact that it's a democracy of sorts. The Deep State sees money as the important thing to get, and not the encouragement of free nations in East Asia.
     Those who are old enough may remember the movie Dr. Zhivago. In the movie one of the characters during pre-Revolutionary Russia, mentions bureaucrats with contempt. Later, after the Revolution, the same character becomes a bureaucrat of the worst sort. That's what bureaucracy does. It makes a little man or woman into a person with power who really has no more business having power than the average Beagle.
     The fact of the matter is that the elect President makes foreign policy and those who have been lucky enough to worm their way into the State Department or CIA do not and should not. They serve at the pleasure of the President. And your writer means every and any elected President whether it be an awful Wilson or Obama, or a Trump or Reagan.
     In truth, for better or worse, every bureaucrat, no matter their level, should be required to tender their resignation upon the election of a new President in the same way that federal attorney-generals are required to do. A new President is a new broom who sweeps clean. But because of the laws in place the bureaucrat who supported Kissinger's policy toward China is still embedded in his pigeon hole and tries as much as he can to make the U.S. the bitch of Peking (now known as Beijing).
      Don Cherry, a former hockey player and a long time hockey commentator, was fired from his long-time position with the Canadian Broadcasting Company was fired from his long time job as a commentator on Hockey Night in Canada for expressing his opinion that immigrants to Canada are lacking in patriotism by not wearing the Red Poppy on Armistice Day, and that they really had no loyalty to the Canada that he knew. The CBC pretty much considered this a form of "hate speech" and was offensive towards immigrants. The CBC gave the usual "little brown babies" excuse that liberals do for people who do not want to become a part of the countries to which they have immigrated from hell-holes that any civilized person would hardly want to evacuate their bowels into. In other words, the "little brown babies" are just so damn dumb and so damn clueless that they cannot become a part of the nation to which they have infected themselves. And this, in its self, shows that the CBC is more racist than the average Alberta farmer who was suspicious of the Doukobors or Molokans. In other words, the recent immigrant from some God forsaken nation that holds to the Koran (now known as the Quaran for some strange reason) above the Bible, is given an excuse to be protected from verbal offense by a hockey commentator because he realizes that many Mohammedans really have no interest in Canada or its history or war time sacrifices. The "little brown babies" are just too dumb to know their good fortune by being in Canada instead of Damascus.
     Have you, dear reader, ever noticed that the current professional political class seem to have no interest outside of politics? Think about this. There was a time when the study of economics was called the "dismal science." Well, anyone with a lick of sense thinks that economics beyond balancing one's bank account and trying to prepare for retirement will know that economics is as about as interesting as counting the number of fleas on a stray cat. But contemporary politics have made economics look almost as exciting as women's Gaelic football. And that's saying something. The current politician, no matter what his or her party is and no matter the political philosophy, is one of those kids in high school who had no aspiration other than getting elected to the student council. That kid was not interested in sports, cars, music, movies. That kid was a freak and a one dimensional freak. And that kid is probably your city councilman, assemblyman, congressman or senator.
     When one looks at the awful pols of the past you find that the old pols were a bit more rounded. Truman and Nixon were amateur piano players and were (perhaps unjustly) proud of their talent. FDR was an amateur sailor, Jackson was a bit of a duellist, TR was a hunter and conservationist, Lincoln, reputedly, was a harmonica player, Jefferson was an amateur architect and a bibliophile. Even Mike Huckabee is an amateur rock bass player. These men were, in a sense, more rounded than the current crop of politicians. They had interests outside of wanting to rule other people and "make the world a better place." In other words, the current crop of "statesmen" are just awful nerds who seem to know what is best for you more than you do. And, admit it, you wouldn't want to have any of this bunch at your barbeque. They'd just throw a wet blanket on the thing like an insurance salesman trying to sell you life insurance while you're spooning out potato salad.
     You, dear reader, have a life experience that is greater than the average politician. You see the world from the ground up. The average politician is akin to some guy who has read and believes the writing of Derrida or Foucault without ever having read Socrates or even John Bunyan.
      But that's enough from this idiot. He has to make sure that his blunderbuss is loaded for when one of the local yokels decides that he wants the copper pot on the hob.

This. that, and the other.

     It's been a normal and yet unusual week here at Bloody Nib Manor. But considering the location and the shire in which the Manor is located the unusual is normal. One of the local yokels decided to shoot at another yokel and actually hit the target of his aim. Of course, the local constabulary were called and the enforcers of law and order showed up about twenty minutes later despite the fact that the local cop shop is a ten minute walk away. But one supposes that it takes about ten minutes to figure out what the dispatcher is calling out on the police radio, and another five minutes for the officers of the law to decide to bother with  dealing with a Hatfield/McCoy, or in this case, a Lopez/Garcia feud.
     The result of the shooting was just this: a bunch of deputies running around the neighborhood shining bright lights, knocking on doors and pretending to do something while they accomplished nothing except to assure the inhabitants of the neighborhood that the shooting victim would live despite the fact the no law-abiding person in the area really cared much if the victim was going to be pushing up daisies. To most of the neighborhood it was like a fight between two mad dogs -- one finds one's self half hoping for the worst between the two currs.
     But on to better things:
     Deadspin is a website that has specialized in sports news and sports opinion pieces. As many Internet based "news/opinion" websites, many of the writers working for Deadspin decided that it was their purview to start coloring outside the lines of the original model of Deadspin. Remember, it was founded to be a sports website. The writers for Deadspin, for some reason or another, decided that they should venture into politics (both in reportage and opinion). The reason is probably that they are young and they know that sports is the toy store of life. Sports, in the big picture, really mean nothing despite the fact that sports are important parts of many peoples lives. But many people find unimportant things to be important as a hobby or topic of conversation. The Game of Thrones is an example. It's a silly and stupid program, but if the series does not proceed in the way that they want they act as if the Nazis had invaded Poland. Some Astros fans believe that the Nationals winning the World Series is a second Dien Bien Phu. And some people get into fisticuffs of the Oxford comma. Every person has their line that they will not be allowed to be crossed.
     The new owners of Deadspin, G/O Media, recently put out the word to the writers who have been employed by Deadspin to stick to sports and give the politics and opinion pieces a pass. The result was that the "staff" writers decided that they were being denied their "rights" to write what they wanted despite the fact that they were being paid to write about sports. Let us be clear about this. The writers were being to write about sports. Not politics and not culture. They were hired to write about sports.
     But as many writers who whore themselves out to organs as staff writers instead of being writers who write because they have to write while having real jobs, they thought that they could make their employer into their image instead of honoring the conditions of their contracts. In other words, because of their time in journalism school or in university they believed that they were exempt from the conditions of their employment because they were, to use the popular word, "woke", and beyond criticism and restriction.
     G/O Media stood it's ground and informed the writers that the Deadspin website is a sports only website and not a "woke" website. The writers employed by Deadspin quit to a man and woman because they felt that they knew what was best. And G/O Media replies with, "See ya, wouldn't want to be ya." And the former Deadspin writers started crying "unfair!"
     Let us face the fact that writers are pretty much a dime a dozen these days. And there is no shortage of free-lance writers who are interested in sports. There are a lot of blog writers who are paid nothing at all who are better writers and better thinkers (this writer being excluded) than Internet writers who have been to J-School or university. And let's us keep in mind that most of us have, or have had. jobs/careers that demand a certain narrowness of attention at our places of employment. A machinist in the defense/aerospace industry cannot except to spend part of his or her working life developing super-chargers for double A fuel altered dragsters, and a sales person in the liquor industry cannot expect to be paid for writing article for the Woman's Temperance Union.
     When you get a job you are expected to do the job for which you have been hired to do. And that's makes sense. But among the self-declared "elite" there is no sense except a sense of one's self importance.
     This writer has complained about this before, but he is old enough to remember when the BBC was consider one of the most objective news organizations in the world. It had, of course, a bit of a British establishment tilt, but whenever a world even took place people would tune their short wave receivers to the BBC to get the best news reported by a reporter, and news reader, using the old Received British Pronunciation. To hear, at the beginning of an hour the words, "This is London" meant that one would get the straightest story at the time. Nowadays (how your friend hates that world -- it sounds like  something say by a snuff dipping hillbilly) the reporters and the news readers sound like Cockney thugs pronouncing the word "the" as "fee", and spend half their time in interviews arguing with the interviewee instead of letting the interviewee state their position. It used to be the golden rule of the interviewer that the interviewer be the invisible person -- the interviewer let the interviewee speak state his or her case and let them self make a fool of him or her self or show him or her self to be a modern Solon. Instead the contemporary BBC interviewer is trying to lay traps for the conservative and give a boost to the liberal. Apparently the BBC is in the business of trapping foxes and raising rabbits.
     This past summer there was a new filmed version of Stephen King's novel "It." the novel is about some sort of supernatural killer clown. Which reminds one of the old movie "The Killer Clowns From Outer Space" and John Wayne Gacy, aka the Killer Clown.
     But it known that this writer has not for a very long time been a fan of clowns. But this man=y be because the role of clowns has changed over the years   
     As a child this writer grew up with such clowns as Lou Jacobs of Ringling Brothers, Red Skelton, Chucko the Clown (not Chuckles as referred to on several episodes of the Rockford Files), the awful Bozo the Clown, Hobo Kelly and Emmet Kelly. And at no time did he think that these clowns were evil or creepy. At the worst, as he grew from adolescence he thought that some of them silly i.e. Bozo. Chucko and Jacobs, but Jacobs could always be a funny when given the chance outside of the circus. Red Skelton and Emmet Kelly were, on the other hand, always funny and/or touching in their acts. Hobo Kelly ( a woman who played an Irish hobo on a kid's show) was always sweet.
     And note that this writer's favored clowns are of the hobo/tramp type and not the Auguste or white-face type. The hobo/tramp/bum type of clown is a particularly American type. But this is not to say that the European Auguste or white-face clown is not of value. It's just a matter of "sophistication." If one is a Europhile one sees the Auguste or white-face clown as the plus non ultra, but if one is an awful Yankee or hillbilly the hobo type clown is pretty funny because the bum clown shows what one is or what one can become.
     And in the U.S. the Auguste or white face clown is pretty foreign despite two hundred years of there being being Auguste or white face clowns starting with Joseph Grimaldi in the 18th century. But that type of clown has been popular despite, according to the American preference for the hobo/tramp clown.
     In the past the clown was a distorted mirror of society. The clown showed the best and worst of society in a funny way. And a real clown, not just some idiot painting his or her face with white paint and putting on a wig and big shoes, worked to reflect the silliness of the world. All one has to do is look at old videos of Red Skelton.
     To quote Red Skelton:
     "A clown goes out and fits people right on. A clown uses pathos. He can be funny, then turn right around and reach people and touch them with what life is like."
     The modern party clown doesn't do those things. He or she, almost always is wearing an Auguste or white-face make up, shows up at a kid's party to blow up balloons and laugh a lot and expect to be funny without any work except putting on white face make-up. That's what Gacy was and that's what It is. Both are pretenders. They both pretended to be clowns of a type -- the Auguste - white face type,
     A lot of kids have found clowns creepy from day one, but few of them thought clowns dangerous before It and Gacy. And that's a pretty damn sad thing. It would be better if they thought of their school teachers as dangerous simply because more school teachers ruin them in one way or another than do clowns.
     Clowning is an art. It's an old art. And we really don't appreciate the art as much as we should. The American society has ditched the art, and, if things goes as they are now going, we'll be ditching a lot more things that make us a unified nation.
   

The Last Royal

     As readers of this wretched writer are well aware, while being a U.S. American from a family that has been in America since the 1600s (not Puritan, mind you, but Scotch-Irish and Welsh), we here at Bloody Nib Manor (Lady Nib is Japanese) are rather Anglophile. We like and appreciate English history, literature and English culture (of the pre 1960 variety). One of our favorite British authors is Jane Austen, and we feel that the King James Bible the plus non ultra translation of the Scriptures, as well as being a model for the writing of the English language despite the fact that this writer has not lived up to that style or clarity of writing.
     And we both like Queen Elizabeth II. She has had, so far, a long reign and has shown herself to be an almost perfect monarch in a parliamentary/royal system of government. In reality, the queen is a figurehead and symbol more than she is a person with power. She opens sessions of Parliament, approves the new Prime Minister, gives a Christmas and New Year's Day address. Other than those things she supports charities, encourages businesses, and acts as a living symbol of what Great Britain is, was and should be. Born to wealth and privilege she worked as an Army mechanic while a princess during World War II. And while, during the dark days after the War when Britain was going through an economic rough spot, instead of swanning as a Royal, she did what she could, considering her position, to identify with the normal working class Limey while not becoming Bolshie or silly. She knew, and knows her role.
     Her sons, on the other hand, have been a disappointment as symbolic heads of state. Prince Charles has shown himself to be a rather dim and silly man with not very good ideas and a mouth that he cannot control. His best pronouncements have been against modern architecture. But most of his public ideas are rather silly and not based on reality. Probably, despite popular opinion, was marrying Diana Spenser simply because she was not royal material. The world loved that silly woman because she was rather attractive and wore a gown well, but she was not of the type to hold back her vanity for the benefit of the nation. But Diana was cool and with it and made friends with people one would not want one's children to make friends with, so that made her the People's Princess. What many people do not realize, or will not admit to, is that the people -- themselves -- can be awfully silly and stupid. The people would have thought it great if Prince Charles had married Barbara Windsor because she was pretty and had a nice figure. Charles has not shown himself to be a great thinker or a serene highness. He comes across as a tweet clad twit who Bertie Wooster would have looked askance at.
     And, of course, his brothers are no bargains. Andrew seems, if one is to believe the gutter press, a bit of a sex monkey of the Edward VII type, and who has been linked up, for better or worse, with J. Epstein. And Prince Edward is a bit of a dud who nobody really knows what is up to besides his trying to live a "green" life.
     So we come to Elizabeth II's grandsons; William and Harry. William seems o be, despite his father and mother, seems to be a responsible and sensible young man with a sense of duty to the nation. He married a woman who seems to hold the values of Britain and the U.K. He and she, whether they are happy about it, do their duty as they see it for their nation. They seem to want to hold Great Britain together no matter what the religious or ethnic make up of the nation presently is. They seem to hold to traditional British values, and to be ridiculous, would much rather see West Indian immigrants take up Morris dancing instead of Welshmen take up twerking on St. David's Day, or Muslim read Dickens instead of al-Bagdadhi. They try their best despite their youth.
     Prince Harry, on the other hand, is not so much a wild card as he is a bit of a termite. He probably cannot help himself. Despite his service in one war or another he seems to have gotten the silly gene. This is evinced by the fact that he married Meghan Markel. The problem is no that she is bi-racial or that she is an American. The problem is that she seems to have the whip hand over him. In other words, it's the old story of a warrior brought to his knees by a bit of fluff.
     When Elizabeth II dies Charles will become king, and when happens the British monarchy will in fact, though not in name, end. When Charles ascends the throne he will not be declared as the defender of the Faith, but by his own wish, be declared the defender of faiths.
     Since Henry VIII the British monarchs have been the heads of the Church of England, a Christian and Protestant church. The Church of Rome may have condemned the Church of England as an apostolic movement, but considering the current state of the Roman church under Francis there is no room for criticism on Rome's part. The modern Church of England, as silly and foolish as it is, is no less Christian than the nonsense spewed out by the Vatican and Frannie. But the point is that the monarch of Great Britain is supposed to be the defender of the Christian faith, whether it be Protestant or Catholic in Great Britain. This is not to say that he is to oppress Mohammedans, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists or pagans. What he is supposed to do, by his traditional title, is defend the Christian faith against attacks. It's a defensive stance protecting the gates of the nation.
     But Charles is a dopey guy and once he becomes monarch he will destroy the monarchy because he really doesn't believe in it and really doesn't believe in Christianity. He will prove himself to e a man who stands for, well nothing except his own privilege and wealth while playing a "go along to get along" game.
     And whether his reign is two years or twenty years, he will destroy the monarchy for himself and his descendants because he does not hold his present position and his future role as nothing but a mouthpiece for his whimsies instead of being a rock or tradition in a nation that hates tradition until it' gone and destroyed.

Language is all we have

     It's been an exciting week here at the Manor. Well, to be truthful, in the village.
     A couple of louts, wanting to mark there territory like a dog urinating on a post decided that it was a good idea to spray paint their gang nickname on the wall of a garage that they did not own, live, or live near. A man came out of his house and found the yobs spray painting their tag on his garage. When the man protested the poor minority youth thought is a good ideas to pull out a pistol and pop off a few shots at the home owner before running away. Fortunately the home owner was not injured, but a car and a wall were hit by the bullets. The result? The local constabulary, instead of investigating an attempted murder, makes the excuse of, "Ah! Youth! Ain't they just a silly bunch!"
     Now let us get down to cases.
     This week President Trump used the word "lynching" in reference to the impeachment investigation that the Democrats in Congress are conducting in regards to his position as President.
    And it was then, when the word "lynching" was used, that the poop hit the air conditioner. It was claimed that the word "lynch" could only be properly used by black people in referring to the lynching of black people. In their world only black people have ever been lynched despite the fact that teh word comes from an early American judge  (1700s) was the person from whom the word comes from, and at the time most people lynched were white pro-British Americans during the Revolution. And also forget that it was not uncommon for white cowboys in the old west to by lynched for robbery or horse theft. And, once again, down the memory hole goes the fact that in the late 1800s 13 Sicilians were lynched in New Orleans as a bunch in New Orleans or that Leo Frank was lynched on a false charge.
     The liberals and SJWs and the black lobby have decided that the word lynch is only properly used when it is used regarding black people. You, if not of European, Asian, Australian or South American cannot use the word. Only people who consider themselves of African heritage can use the word in reference to themselves.
     Now think of this: There is a group of people with a very large microphone who have decided that there is a word that originally had not racial connotation that you cannot use without without a racial connotation. These people want to limit your ability to express yourself in your way because they think you are using a word in a way that they don't like.
     They are babies who want a lollipop, but if the lollipop is not cherry instead of grape that means that you're a bad parent or uncle or auntie and should be reported to the Department of Family Services.
     They want to take away the words you use to express yourself and penalize you for using those words. They want to limit your freedom to say an unpopular thing. The words "Nigger", "Jap", "Beaner", "Flip", "Kraut", "Squarehead", "Limey" or "Frog" may be offensive to some. But guess what? Nobody ever died by being called by those words. At the same time the words "Honky", "Cracker", "Gaijin", "Gringo", "Wop", and "Banana", "Coconut" and "Oreo" are okay.
     There are two levels in the modern world. One is good, meaning the SJW world. The other is bad because the old is bad.
     Language is really all we have. It is a thing that is more powerful than guns or laws. And now we find ourselves in an age where our words are being policed by people who don't know the difference between "they're" and "their."

A Mixed Grill

     Have you, gentle reader, ever awoken from some sweet dream in which you live in some sort of Paradise only to fall out of bed and find that the world has become more silly and ridiculous, and because of the silliness and ridiculousness, has become a more dangerous place?
     Of course you have. Anyone with more sense than a goose has. It's a daily occurrence.
     So let's run down a few of the most silly, stupid and foolish matters that have become "serious" news by the "news" media.
     In Great Britain a British subsidiary of Protector and Gamble has, until recently sold a brand of sanitary napkin for women on which the packaging features the astronomical symbol for Venus. The symbol is a circle with a cross at the bottom of the circle. It is a symbol that is used by many feminists on their silly marches. It is recognized as not only a symbol for the planet Venus, but is also used as a symbol, both medically, scientifically and popularly, as a symbol for a woman.
     Well, a group of transexuals (this writer refuses to use the word "transgender" and would much rather use the word "tranny") and their allies have decided to pitch a bitch as many of the entitled often do because the Proctor and Gamble sanitary product for women to be used during their periods excludes men who claim to be women. Now think about this for about half a second. Women, natural born and real women, whether straight, lesbian, "transitioning" into men have periods unless they're anorexic or have spent too much time becoming "elite" athletes. But the fact of the matter that it is only people who have been born biological female who menstruate. To do so requires a uterus at the minimum.
     No person who was born biologically male can menstruate. It doesn't matter if said born male has been taking female hormones for many years, had cosmetic surgery to make his private look like those of a woman, or had breast implants to make give him a bust that would shame Jayne Mansfield. That person may look like Jennifer Aniston or Monica Belluci or Audrey Hepburn. That person will never have a period and has no more need of a sanitary napkin than an iguana.
     But because that crowd is as loud as a dozen roosters at dawn when one is trying to sleep off a night of drinking too much brandy, that bunch of screamers gets attention because they are, well, weird. No one in the media will admit that they are weird are weird and not normal. but they, themselves, really do think that that trannies are weird and not normal. If the televised news organizations thought that trannies were not weird they would have put a born man pretending to be a Barbie on television as a news reader. And the media push forward the transexual gag because it is good for those in the media to be accepting. It makes them feel good and accepting. But, in real life, they want to have no more to have to do with a bunch of men who demand that sanitary napkins be sold and marketed to them than you do. And that's because the media are "enlightened" and you are just some dumb rube walking around a local carnival looking at the freaks and trying to knock over the milk bottles with a ball. It's all a fixed game for that bunch of fraudsters.
     If you, dear reader, has spent any time at all looking at the "news" over the past few days you'll know that Hillary Clinton accused Tulsi Gabbard of being a Russian agent of some sort and a woman who was going to set up a third party candidacy for a Presidential campaign, and thus dilute the votes for the Democrats, resulting the the re-election of Donald Trump. It was, really and in fact, a silly and stupid accusation by Mrs. Clinton. And it was also an indication that she, in her madness, thinks that she can, without going through the debate process among that bunch of hydrocephalics who are attempting to become the Democratic candidate for President, slide into the role in the same way that a rat or a termite can infest a house. Rep. Gabbard, unlike most of the Democratic aspirants for the position, pulled out her Purdy shotgun and let Mrs. Clinton have it with both barrels. Let us hope that she, while being  a Democrat who is the best of a bad bunch, keeps her powder dry and is not loath to use her ammunition against just plain idiocy.
     In the past this writer has been accused of writing things that some people find Islamophobic. Or course, like racism, the word Islamophobic has never been properly defined. And by properly defined this writer means not only defined by a dictionary or some sort, but also defined in the legal sense.
     Your friend rejects the accusation of Islamophobia for the simple reason that the end of the word "phobia" in Latin means fear. Your writer has no fear of Islam, whether in physical fact or in theology . We here at Bloody Nib Manor consider Islam as foolish as Scientology or Mormonism.
    No. This writer is not Islamophobic. But this writer does suffer from Islamonausea. He is sick of the demands and excuses of a bunch of people who adhere to an Arabian bandit who had visions.

Just nattering

     As usual, it's been a rather peaceful week here at Bloody Nib Manor. There were a couple of shooting incidents in the shire which did not make the news. But you know what they say about the news --- the unusual get reported and the normal is ignored.
     Have you wondered why the Democrats and the liberal Republicans are so upset that President Trump has decided to pull American troops out of northern Syria? The popular argument is that by doing so President Trump is abandoning the Kurds while the awful Turk Erdogen sends his forces into Syria, and breaking his promise (if said promise was made it was sub rosa and not public, and sub rosa promises are worth a 99 Cent Store drill motor) to the Kurds. The Middle Eastern mind is a very strange thing and it often sees things that are not there i.e., Mohammed's magical trip to Jerusalem while he was still in Arabia.
     But the question that must be addressed in this whole mess is what exactly do the Democrats and liberal Republicans want? Do they want a greater investment of blood, money and honor into the Syria with no return? Do they want a factual and actual geographic Kurdistan? How much blood, money and honor are they willing to invest in such a project? You can be pretty damn sure that their kids won't be doing the fighting, bleeding and dying. Their kids will be getting drunk at Harvard and Stanford while taking classes in gender studies and poli-sci. Waging useless wars is good for them. Such wars give them the support of the unthinking voter (follow the flag, boys!), and makes them a good deal of the long green slid to them by the base of the defense industry (firearms, uniforms, rations, etc.) The upper reaches of the defense industry can always sell their stuff to foreign governments for a lot of jack unless the product is super great and super expensive (paid for by the working class Yank) like the awful F-35, or super great and pretty cheap like the old Northrop F-20.
     The Kurds in Syria are a mixed bag. According to the mainstream media the Kurds are just a bunch of guys, who if they lived in the U.S., would come to your great barbecue of a whole pig and down a bunch of Miller High Life beers with you. But they aren't that. Many Kurds believe in a sharia governmental system. They don't believe in religious tolerance. They are as bothersome, in a modern Western sense, as a second generation Mohammedan living in London who demands that the local Oinkster BBQ restaurant stop serving shredding pork sandwiches because pork is not haram.
     And a lot of the hand wringing class spend their time bitching and moaning about the future of Christians in Syria without knowing or realizing that before the Arab Spring the Christians in Syria were doing well and prospering under the awful Assad. It was only during and after the onset of the Arab Spring (which really was a Fundamentalist Muslim Spring) that the Christians in Syria were under threat by ISIS. They have only themselves to blame. The Obama administration support the release of savages who had no more interest in republican and democratic forms of governance than did Lenin or Tamerlane.
     The crocodile tears concerning Christians in Syria are either fake or ignorant. If they were really concerned about the fate of Christians in Third World nations they would be demanding that the U.S. invade China where Christians are persecuted, jailed and murdered for no other reason that they are Christians, the African nations infested with Boko Haram where Christian villages and the inhabitants are destroyed, North Korea, Vietnam and so forth. There seems to be a hierarchy based on a nostalgic sense of the Holy Land. It's all stuff and nonsense in that the Dems and liberal Republicans are willing to invest blood and honor for one group of Christians and not another. If they were honest they would encourage refugee status for Christians from Syria, China, Africa and Vietnam. But they won't because, to them, Christians are bad within the boundries of the nation unless they are Latino, and thus, huggable and cheaply hired.
    But that's enough of that nonsense.
     Tulsi Gabbard, a U.S. representative from Hawaii, went after Hillary Clinton after Mrs. Clinton accused Rep. Gabbard of pretty much being a tool of the Russians in Ms. Gabbard's run for the presidential candidate.. Ms. Gabbard unleashed in a mighty way calling Mrs. Clinton a "warmonger" and a "rot in the Democratic party" and many Democrats got pretty upset because, to tell the truth, Ms. Gabbard revealed many of them for what they are and what Mrs. Clinton is. That bunch likes to cut back on defense spending while waging useless wars to "spread democracy". In other words, they want to invest the blood and lives of your kids and grandkids to spread democracy to people who have no interest in Western democracy. They talk about being inclusive and "we are the world", but they don't believe in inclusion or "we are the world." They want them to become us. And considering what "us" has become one cannot blame them for not wanting to becoming "us."
     As far as the "rot" bit goes. The Clintons, all three of them, are a rot in the nation is much the way that Muslims are a rot in the Western world. Everything they touch becomes poisonous because they are civil poison. They are akin to Hughey Long on a large scale. Ol' Bill has been on the quite lately. Perhaps because of the Jeffery Epstein thing. Or because his had of a wife told him to shut the Hell up and she'll give him a parade of young things to serve him. But she has gotten the upper hand over that lecher, and she's not been loath t use the whip. And because he wasn't man enough to rein her in, in fact because he was not strong enough to be a real husband to this hag, we have to put up with her nonsense, her delusions and her just sheer stupidity.
     ONe find oneself worrying for the future of the Republic when one thinks of such nonsense.


   
   
   

Shotgunning

     It's been a relatively quiet week here at Bloody Nib Manor and the environs. There were a couple of ineffective shooting attempts by various yokel cohorts. But, as usual, they were half-hearted, not unlike the marriage vows they often make while standing before the altar next to their eight month pregnant paramour. An old time chivaree exhibits more enthusiasm among the participants than the armed settling of a territorial dispute. How the mighty have fallen.
     This week President Trump announced that, acting as president, he has ordered the withdrawal of American troops from Syria. This particular action seems to have thrown the professional political crowd and ink stained wretches who call themselves journalists or opinion writers into a state of confusion among themselves. It's almost comical to watch, not unlike watching a rat being thrown into a group of dogs of different breeds; half want to tear the thing to pieces and the other hand want to make friends with it because they know that there's a YouTube video to be made. Some of the Never Trumpers find themselves p[raising the withdrawal and some of the Always Trumpers find themselves condemning the idea. And all are mightily confused because Pres. Trump is actually working toward keeping his campaign promise to get the U.S. out of foreign military entanglements.
     One of the reasons that those who are opposed to the American pull-out from Syria is that it is a betrayal of the Kurds and will result in the Kurds being at the mercy of the Turkish military. And that is not good, in their lights, because they say that the U.S., sub rosa, promised to always protect the Kurds in exchange for the Kurds fighting against ISIS (or Daesh), and, in fact, help the Kurds set up a nation of Kurdistan.
     This is, of course, all stuff and nonsense.
     First of all, in the U.S., and for the populace of the U.S., there should be no sub rosa agreements with any government. Sub rosa agreements are the purview of the Medicis and the Tudors and Hapsburgs. The U.S., in theory at least, is supposed to be a nation with an open and above board governmental and civil servant (and note the second word, "servant" which has somehow now become to be defined as "master") class answerable to the U.S. citizen. A sub rosa agreement with any foreign entity, whether a governmental, ethnic, or religious group, should be taken no more seriously than one fourteen year old girl telling another fourteen year old girl a "secret" with the promise that it will never be told to anyone else. Of course, within five hours everyone in the school knows that Debbie has a crush on Jason.
     Secondly, those who oppose the withdrawal of American troops from Northern Syria seem to be under the mistaken idea that there are thousands and thousands of Americans in the area who are all locked and load to take on Turkish bear to protect our Kurdish "friends." In fact, there are not many more than 1,000 (if that many) Americans in Northern Syria providing military aid and training to the Kurds. 1,000 men and women in the U.S. military. There are many times more Kurds and "democratic" (whatever that word means in the Arab world), and yet there seems to be an idea among some of the nattering class that 1,000 G.I. Joes can hold off an invasion into the area by Turkey as if the whole operation were a second battle of Thermopylae, or perhaps, a battle of the Alamo. In other words, American blood, treasure and honor are supposed to be sacrificed for a group of people who seem to be unable to fight for themselves, or co-operate among themselves to the extent that they can defend themselves. The problem that there are no Yanks to defend them, the problem is with themselves. Their intercine in-fighting among themselves is more a problem than the absence of U.S.Special Forces. In fact, one can argue that the most effective thing that the U.S. did to increase the effectiveness of the various Kurdish and "democratic" factions was somewhat like that of a kindergarten teacher; telling them to make up and play nice so they can get something done.
     Thirdly, people opposed to the withdrawal of American troops say that the action is a "cut and run" and betrayal of our allies, and is unprecedented in American history. This is false. Those who are of an age will remember when the U.S. abandoned the War in Vietnam. Whether it was for better or worse, it was something that happened and resulted in the establishment of a Communist government in Vietnam, as well as the establishment of a lot of nail salons, pho restaurants, and funky liquor stores in the U.S. It could be argued that the U.S., with the active involvement of the South Vietnamese government at the time, could have defeated the North Vietnamese; in fact, old North Vietnamese leaders have stated that when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam the North Vietnamese and the Viet Cong were about to throw in the towel. When the last helicopter took off from Saigon and landed on an aircraft carrier only to be pushed off the vessel because there were too many helicopters much of the populace cheered because they finally saw the U.S. out of a morass that seemed never-ending.
     But unlike Northern Syria, there was an established government in South Vietnam; a government recognized by the world except for the Soviets, the ChiComs, the North Koreans, and the French (then the problem child of Europe). There is no proper Kurdish government. There are Kurdish governments. Each self-declared as legitimate and each not recognizing the other. One ends up not having to work with an ethnic group. One finds oneself dealing with tribes and factions within the ethnic group. In other words, and once again, playing the kindergarten teacher for a bunch of brats with rocket launchers and AK-47s or M-16s.
     Fourth, the Kurds, in U.S. media, are portrayed as cuddly Mohammedans i.e., as religiously tolerant as the average American United Methodist. According to the media, some of them drink booze and don't whip themselves afterwards as penance, they don't beat their wives or hate Jews. The fact of the matter is that they are really not all that. Saudis, once they get out of Saudi Arabia and to Spanish resorts or Beverly Hills that crowd of devout Muslims are swilling down vodka and whiskey like sixteen year old kids who managed to steal the key to the liquor cabinet, and surround themselves with large breasted Russian and European (note: this writer does not consider Russians European -- they are something else culturally) harlots while the Saudi men laze around the pool wearing Speedos over which their fat guts spill over. The only difference is that the Kurds pretend, in their public image, portray themselves as a form of the "All-American Boy" who happens to be a Muslim while installing Sharia Law in their cantons, and the Saudis pretend Sharia Law in their homeland while behaving like a bunch of Spring Break Ivy Leaguers in Fort Lauderdale. They are really both the same thing in that they both present a false face to the world for their own benefit.
     Is the Turkish government bad? Of course it is. It has been so since the establishment of the Ottoman Empire. It's grasping, racist, religiously intolerant. It always has been, even under the rule of Ataturk. The serial Armenian genocides are proof of this. But, while the Turkish governments from the Ottoman Empire to Ataturk to Erdogan have been racist, religiously intolerant and grasping. And if the majority of Turks had wanted it any other way there would have been a democratic change or a popular uprising that was effective. To paraphrase a Hong Kong protester who was protesting against China, "Turkey is a**hole!" Turkey is a rotten country in the same way that China is a rotten country. Turkey wants to take over and control the Kurds, and China wants to effectively take over and control Hong Kong and Taiwan. But as much as the "stay in Syria to fight the Turks to protect the Kurds with our 1,000 troops" crowd bitch and moan, they have made no good argument about American interests in investing American blood in the region. On the other hand, they'll give lip service to the protesters on Hong Kong or the independence of Taiwan without ever saying that the U.S. should invest troops into either place despite the fact that both places are much more valuable in strategy and economics than are the Kurds. We are expected to shed our blood and spend our money for a people who do not hold our values, respect basic human rights and have no economic benefit for the U.S., while at the same time trying to ignore, or in fact, playing the "coat holder" friend ( example: "Sean! Hold my coat while I fight this bloke!") with Hong Kong and Taiwan.
     On another topic: This writer has gotten pretty tried of the whole Global Warming/Climate Change panic. Those who have managed to grab a microphone and scream out their Jeremiads have attempted their best to make every person who has had the misfortune to be within earshot of them feel guilty because the unfortunate recipient of such sound waves is a person of the 20th or 21st century Western world. In other words, a person who has electrical power to his or her house or apartment, perhaps drives an automobile, cooks with natural gas, and maybe flies from one place to another via commercial airplane. Said Cassandras seem to have no problem talking into an electrically powered microphone, appearing on electrically powered television, driving or flying to an event to continue their "prophetic" mutterings. Not only to mention that said "prophets" seem to have the latest in "smart phones" and they consult the silly things constantly. They are not writing their missives with quill and ink by candle light. They are using the very things that they protest against to get their "message" out. And their excuse is that their message is more important than their sin. It's rather Pharisaical. But, we'll have Pharisees with us all and always until, well, you know.
     No this bunch of of well-meaning idiots have decided to follow the panicky ravings of a 16 year old Swedish girl. For anyone with a lick of the sense that Our Lord gave him or her would ignore a 16 year old kid's advice concerning moral or deep concerns. Dear reader, be honest in asking yourself if you would trust a sixteen year old kid with your bank account, your liquor cabinet, or you Amazon account? If you came home from work and found that your sixteen year old son had gotten hold of your credit card and bought a new manifold and injector for your Lexis, a Rickenbacker guitar and Orange Crate amp, and a $2,000 donation to Greenpeace, would you be pretty happy and proud of your brat? Of course not. You might not bend said awful child over your knee and give him or her a good, and well deserved spanking with a hairbrush, belt, or your Dad's old blackjack, but if you had any sense and sense of self-preservation at all kid would have been given a mighty "time out". And by "time out" this writer means, "Forget going to USC. You're going to welding school or joining the Navy. If you don't like that, get used to living in a tent on 5th Street."
     But the world had gotten silly and stupid, so a 16 year old brat is considered "wise." So wise, in fact, that the often morally confused Jane Fonda has hitched her wagon to that kid.
     For Pete's sake. One finds oneself occasionally wishing for the old days of the empire, whether American or British.

Javert Was Not an African Black Man

     Well, unfortunately, it was not a quiet week here at Bloody Nib Manor. As happens too frequently the local hoi polloi got frisky and decided to fire their pistols at one another on Thursday night. Fortunately there were no deaths, nor even injuries. The actual result of said shooting was frightened children and barking dogs. The local constabulary spent a lot of time making fools of themselves with their dark lanterns looking for shell casing that mean nothing at all. But that's  live in the shire.
     Having said the foregoing, this writer asks you, dear reader, what exactly is "cultural appropriation?"
     You may remember a couple of incidences within the past eighteen months in which a person, usually a person of European heritage, was accused of "cultural appropriation." Said examples would be a a southern American blonde teen-age girl wearing a cheong-sam dress to her prom, women who are not of Latin American heritage wearing hoop earrings, or whitey-birds wearing their hair in some sort of dreadlock style. There are many more examples.
     It is, of course, silly and stupid and the purview of the perpetually aggrieved. A person of European or English (and they are really two different things historically despite the claims of the modern European Unionist) heritage could just as well and justifiably claim that the wearing of trousers by men or women, the wearing of neckties, the playing of the valve trumpet or pipe, or the Hammond, organ, the musical chromatic scale, or even the usage of an Indo-European language by people who are not English, European or Indo-European are forms of cultural appropriation.
     If a person of European heritage comes up with a new form of balut or ramen, jerk chicken or hummus, that person is called a "cultural appropriator." But if a person of African, Asian or Latin American origin comes up with a new twist on the hot dog, biscuits and gravy, or meat loaf that is considered an addition to the European culture. It's a one way street.
     The same goes for television programs and moving pictures.
     The BBC has recently run a a dramatization of Victor Hugo's novel Le Miserables. In the BBC version the detective Javert is played by a black man. The BBC has also produced a series in which the Greek hero Achilles is a black man, as well as an animated series about Roman Britain in which there are black African centurions and prefects, as well as black African Anglo-Saxon warriors and priests in 100 A.D.
      These things are all silly and stupid and just plain not historical. Hugo did not see Javert as a black man. Hugo portrayed Javert as a European Frenchman. Achilles was not a black African man and any black actor who portrayed Achilles as a black African man should be ashamed of himself, as should any Chinese or Vietnamese man should have been so ashamed. Achilles was a Greek sporting blonde hair. The likelihood of a Sub-Saharan African being a Roman soldier on Britain is about as likely as a Mayan being involved in the American Revolutionary War. There were more Chinese involved in the Revolution than there were sons of Aztlan, and there were no Africans, Asians or Latinos at the Battle of Hastings. The legend of Robin Hood had no Moors (even wise ones) and was, in fact, an anti-Norman legend because those Frenchies are really a pretty awful bunch. But all these things have been portrayed in popular media; Robin Hood has an all-wise Moor adviser, Mexicans fought against the British in 1776, Achilles was the son of an African demi-goddess, and Javert somehow became a French policeman despite escaping from Haiti or the Congo.
      But if a writer decides to write a story or moving picture, perhaps a fantasy story, based on the stories of Shaka Zulu, Ching Shih or Antapualpah  (sp?) with a third or quarter or the cast, and perhaps even the stars or main characters, as whitey-birds the politically correct crowd would pitch a bitch that would throw the earth off it's axis with claims of cultural appropriation while the Anglo-European crowd would, except for film critics (and that bunch is really pretty awful because they realize that film criticism is not a real job but a gag), would pretty much shrug its shoulders and say, "Who cares? This isn't my story. I have my story ans know my story. That's another culture's story and I really don't give a damn about their story."
      And that's the thing that the elites don't really realize.