Post by Michael Ejercito
Why do niggers carry a monkey on their back? For spare parts.
Why do niggers have flat noses? The doctor had to stand on the back of
their heads to pull off the tails.
Why do niggers have big nostrils? God held then up with two fingers to
spray paint them.
What did God say when He made the first nigger? Shit.
Why are the soles of a nigger’s feet and his palms white? God had them
assume the position when he spray painted their backs.
Why can’t you shoot a nigger in a watermelon patch? Because it is
illegal to hunt a baited field.
Why did so many niggers get shot in Vietnam? Every time the Sergeant
said “Get down!”, they started dancing.
What do you call a nigger in an inner tube? A top water jig.
What do you call a row of nigger houses? Coon-dominiums.
What do you call a nigger in a $100,000 house? A burglar.
Forger, you are so ashamed of your beliefs, you forge me.
View web version
The Boston Globe
Arguable - with Jeff Jacoby
Monday, February 12, 2018
For as long as there have been brutal totalitarian Communists, there have
been Western journalists to sing their praises.
A fresh example of this sickening pathology comes from CNN, which ran a
gushing weekend story about Kim Yo Jong, the sister and accomplice of North
Korea’s megalomaniacal tyrant. “Kim Jong Un's sister is stealing the show at
the Winter Olympics,” proclaimed the headline:
If “diplomatic dance” were an event at the Winter Olympics, Kim Jong Un's
younger sister would be favored to win gold.
With a smile, a handshake, and a warm message in South Korea's presidential
guest book, Kim Yo Jong has struck a chord with the public just one day into
the Pyeongchang Games.
“I hope Pyongyang and Seoul get closer in our people's hearts and move
forward the future of prosperous unification,” she said in her guest book
message, referring to the capitals of North and South Korea.
Seen by some as her brother's answer to American first daughter Ivanka
Trump, Kim, 30, is not only a powerful member of Kim Jong Un's kitchen
cabinet but also a foil to the perception of North Korea as antiquated and
Perhaps CNN’s reporters didn’t know that the woman they were describing is a
key figure in a hateful regime responsible for the deaths of millions of
innocent human beings? Um, no — they knew:
[A]s North Korea's brutal dictator, Kim's brother has ruled with an iron
fist since coming to power, operating Nazi-style prison camps, repressing
political opposition and even executing senior officers and his own family
members in an effort to consolidate power.
In Pyeongchang, her presence is a major story line for reporters and the
buzz on the street, with some in South Korea curious and accepting.
The story went on to describe the “wine-colored jacket and black pants” that
Kim wore to a dinner hosted by a South Korean official, to compare her again
to Donald Trump’s daughter, and to quote a Georgetown University visiting
professor’s bizarre explanation for Kim’s presence at the Olympics. She’s
there, said Balbina Hwang, formerly of the State Department and National
Defense University, as “a signal that North Korea is not this crazy, weird
former Cold War state — but it too has young women that are capable and are
the future leadership.”
Not to be outdone in the let’s-kowtow-to-the-Communists competition, Reuters
yesterday ran a sycophantic story of its own.
“North Korea judged winner of diplomatic gold at Olympics ,” the piece
announced, contrasting Kim’s charming manner and “elegant smiles” with the
way Vice President Mike Pence “cast one of the loneliest figures” at the
opening ceremony by not rising when the North Koreans entered the stadium.
Reuters even found an academic at a Tokyo university to make the
preposterous claim that “North Korea is skillfully driving a wedge between
the U.S., Japan, and South Korea.”
Tyrant and sister: accomplices in the family business
Such sucking-up to Marxist monsters by Western news organizations is a very
old, very shameful practice. In a 1995 column, I asked: “What makes Commies
so cuddly?” An excerpt:
Fidel Castro, for instance. For 36 years, “progressive” Yanquis have tingled
with esteem for the Bearded One, never mind that he has turned Cuba into an
impoverished rat hole where freedom is nonexistent and dissidents are
tortured in psychiatric wards. . . . Time and again, journalists have flown
to Havana, interviewed the bloody maniac, then swooned about how charismatic
he is and what wonders he has done for Cuba.
“Welcome to Fidel Castro's playground, Cuba's Caribbean paradise . . . a
Cuba the comandante is now inviting the world to enjoy,” bubbled CBS's
Giselle Fernandez not long ago. “Cuba and its sultry beaches have become a
major vacation hot spot.” Fernandez never rhapsodized about “Pinochet's
playground.” But then, [Chile’s right-wing dictator Augusto] Pinochet wasn't
a Communist, so maybe his beaches weren't sultry.
This has been going on for a long, long time.
As early as 1919, when Lenin’s new Communist dictatorship was in its first
terrorist throes, the prominent American journalist Lincoln Steffens couldn’t
stop raving about how wonderful the new Soviet order was. “I have seen the
future, and it works,” he repeatedly exulted after returning from a visit to
Russia. In 1932, The New York Times’s Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize
for literally recycling Kremlin propaganda as news, assuring his readers
that Stalin was not engaged in the mass murder of millions of Ukrainian
landowners. Western reporters insisted that the Khmer Rouge conquest of
Cambodia would prove an unmistakable blessing, that Yuri Andropov must be a
reformer because he supposedly liked jazz and abstract art, and that China’s
ghastly one-child policy was a success, notwithstanding the immense loss of
life it caused.
The cooing over Kim Jong Un’s sister is more of the same. More than any
other country in the world, North Korea is governed like a Nazi death camp.
In a just world, the central members of the Kim regime, including Kim Yo
Jong with her wine-colored jacket and “elegant smiles,” would be arrested,
prosecuted for crimes against humanity, and put to death. Instead they bask
in the fawning coverage of the West’s useful idiots, as public faith in
journalism sinks ever lower.
No great literature, please, we’re snowflakes
Duluth, Minn., is the latest community to decide that banning a great piece
of literature is preferable to teaching it. The city’s public school system
announced on Thursday that To Kill a Mockingbird and Huckleberry Finn will
be expunged from high school required-reading lists, because they “contain
racial slurs.” The Star Tribune of Minneapolis has details:
“The feedback that we’ve received is that it makes many students feel
uncomfortable,” said Michael Cary, director of curriculum and instruction
for the district. “Conversations about race are an important topic, and we
want to make sure we address those conversations in a way that works well
for all of our students.”
There was no specific complaint that led to the ban, according to the Duluth
News Tribune, but there had been objections to Huckleberry Finn and To Kill
a Mockingbird for some years. Stephan Witherspoon, head of the Duluth
chapter of the NAACP, applauded the decision to censor the books:
Some people think the novels are educational literature for students, he
said, but the novels are “just hurtful” and use “hurtful language that has
oppressed the people for over 200 years.” The district's use of the books as
required reading has been an ongoing discussion between elders in the local
NAACP and district leaders for years, Witherspoon said.
“It's wrong. There are a lot more authors out there with better literature
that can do the same thing that does not degrade our people. I'm glad that
they're making the decision and it's long overdue, like 20 years overdue,”
Witherspoon said. “Let's move forward and work together to make school work
for all of our kids, not just some, all of them.”
Duluth isn’t the first community to spike these books, which happen to be
among the very greatest explorations of race, equality, and the color line
in all of American fiction. Biloxi, Miss., banned Mockingbird last year, and
Accomack County, Va., banned both books in 2016.
Harper Lee won the 1961 Pulitzer Prize for To Kill a Mockingbird. It
recounts the story of Atticus Finch, a white lawyer in Macomb, Ala., a small
Depression-era Southern town, who defends Tom Robinson, a black man falsely
accused of raping a white woman. Though the evidence makes it clear that the
defendant is innocent, the white jury, steeped in racism, convicts him.
Later, when Tom in his desperation tries to escape from prison, guards shoot
If Lee’s book justified the conviction or embraced the jury’s bigotry, there
might be a good argument to keep it out of high school classrooms.
But Mockingbird does exactly the opposite. It humanizes those who are
victimized by the ignorance and fear of others, and it provides a beautiful
portrait of courage in the face of popular bigotry. It teaches lessons in
moral complexity, tolerance, the indispensability of empathy, and the
contemptibility of racism. In one memorable passage, Atticus tries to help
his young son make sense of the unjust verdict :
“If you had been on that jury, son, and eleven other boys like you, Tom
would be a free man,” said Atticus. “So far nothing in your life has
interfered with your reasoning process. Those are twelve reasonable men in
everyday life, Tom’s jury, but you saw something come between them and
reason. . . . There’s something in our world that makes men lose their
heads — they couldn’t be fair if they tried. In our courts, when it’s a
white man’s word against a black man’s, the white man always wins. They’re
ugly, but those are the facts of life.”
“Doesn’t make it right,” said Jem stolidly. He beat his fist softly on his
knee. “You just can’t convict a man on evidence like that — you can’t.”
“You couldn’t, but they could and did. The older you grow the more of it you’ll
see. The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom,
be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their
resentments right into a jury box. As you grow older, you’ll see white men
cheat black men every day of your life, but let me tell you something and
don’t you forget it—whenever a white man does that to a black man, no matter
who he is, how rich he is, or how fine a family he comes from, that white
man is trash.”
Atticus was speaking so quietly his last word crashed on our ears. I looked
up, and his face was vehement. “There’s nothing more sickening to me than a
low-grade white man who’ll take advantage of a Negro’s ignorance. Don’t fool
yourselves — it’s all adding up and one of these days we’re going to pay the
bill for it. I hope it’s not in you children’s time.”
To use a contemporary phrase, To Kill a Mockingbird teaches, with deep
sensitivity and compassion, that black lives matter. So does Huckleberry
Finn, Mark Twain’s magnificent account of two runaways, the young white
title character and Jim, the escaped slave he befriends and protects.
I find it inconceivable that anyone in 2018, let alone any educator, could
regard Twain’s book as anything but a masterpiece of racial decency. Few
American works of art more powerfully combine the novel’s moral lessons —
that slavery is always evil, that society is often blind, that law can be
unjust, that nobility can be found in the lowest castes, and — as in
Mockingbird — that empathy is indispensable.
Azar Nafisi, the author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, has described how much
Huckleberry Finn meant to her as a dissident in Iran after the Islamic
“Whenever I think of the word ‘empathy,’ I think of a small boy named
Huckleberry Finn contemplating his friend and runaway slave, Jim. Huck asks
himself whether he should give Jim up or not. Huck was told in Sunday school
that people who let slaves go free go to ‘everlasting fire.’ But then, Huck
says he imagines he and Jim in ‘the day and nighttime, sometimes moonlight,
sometimes storms, and we a-floating along, talking and singing and laughing.’
Huck remembers Jim and their friendship and warmth. He imagines Jim not as a
slave but as a human being — and he decides that, ‘all right, then, I'll go
Well taught by good teachers, novels like To Kill a Mockingbird and
Huckleberry Finn enlarge the heart and inspire the mind. They have the power
to uplift readers — whether those readers are in Duluth or Biloxi or
Tehran — and to enrich them, to give them tools with which to strengthen
their own humanity and perceive the humanity in others.
“You shall not oppress a stranger,” God commands in Exodus, “since you
yourselves know the feelings of a stranger, for you also were strangers in
the land of Egypt.” Mark Twain and Harper Lee turned that injunction into
two of America’s most important pieces of literature. In stripping its high
school curriculum of these books, Duluth is depriving its students, white
and black, of treasures from their patrimony. The NAACP shouldn’t be
applauding; it should be weeping with frustration and rage.
The world gets better and better
If you’re blue and you don’t know where to go to, why don’t you go to Steven
Pinker’s heartening essay in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal? Writing under
the title “The Enlightenment Is Working,” Pinker, the well-known Harvard
professor, submits a spirited argument against those who are convinced that
the world is growing steadily worse.
The declinists are wrong, Pinker declares, ladling out batch after batch of
encouraging statistics to prove the point.
In 1988, 23 wars raged, killing people at a rate of 3.4 per 100,000; today
it’s 12 wars killing 1.2 per 100,000. The number of nuclear weapons has
fallen from 60,780 to 10,325. In 1988, the world had just 45 democracies,
embracing two billion people; today it has 103, embracing 4.1 billion. That
year saw 46 oil spills; 2016, just five. And 37% of the population lived in
extreme poverty, barely able to feed themselves, compared with 9.6% today.
True, 2016 was a bad year for terrorism in Western Europe, with 238 deaths.
But 1988 was even worse, with 440.
The headway made around the turn of the millennium is not a fluke. . . .
Start with the most precious resource, life. Through most of human history,
continuing into the 19th century, a newborn was expected to live around 30
years. In the two centuries since, life expectancy across the world has
risen to 71, and in the developed world to 81.
When the Enlightenment began, a third of the children born in the richest
parts of the world died before their fifth birthday; today, that fate
befalls 6% of the children in the poorest parts. In those countries,
infectious diseases are in steady decline, and many will soon follow
smallpox into extinction.
The poor may not always be with us. The world is about a hundred times
wealthier today than it was two centuries ago, and the prosperity is
becoming more evenly distributed across countries and people. Within the
lifetimes of most readers, the rate of extreme poverty could approach zero.
Catastrophic famine, never far away in the past, has vanished from all but
the most remote and war-ravaged regions, and undernourishment is in steady
Everywhere Pinker sees glasses that are at least half-full.
“As people are getting healthier, richer, safer, and freer,” he writes,
“they are also becoming more knowledgeable and smarter.” Humans are well on
their way to universal literacy and education. Their IQs are measurably
higher than those of their ancestors. They spend less time on housework and
more on travel and enjoying culture. With more wealth, they devote far more
effort to environmental repair than earlier generations could have ever
dreamed of doing.
Whence this cornucopia of good tidings? Pinker credits the power of human
reason unleashed by the European intellectual revolution of the 17th
century. “Our ancestors replaced dogma, tradition, and authority with
reason, debate, and institutions of truth-seeking,” he says in his essay.
“They replaced superstition and magic with science. And they shifted their
values from the glory of the tribe, nation, race, class, or faith toward
universal human flourishing.” (The Wall Street Journal essay is adapted from
Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress,
Pinker’s newest book, which I haven’t yet seen).
I’m not sure that I buy his explanation in its entirety — Pinker is an
atheist, and he shortchanges the contributions made to the human condition
by the spread of Judeo-Christian ethics and virtue. Nevertheless, it is a
pleasure to watch as he revels in joyful optimism.
He’s not the first to do so, but it isn’t a common occupation among
left-leaning Ivy League academics. Usually the ones marshalling the many
reasons to be cheerful about the prospects for life on earth are
market-oriented libertarians — writers and researchers like Matt Ridley (The
Rational Optimist), Julian Simon (The Ultimate Resource), Indur Goklany (
The Improving State of the World), and Johann Norberg (Progress: Ten Reasons
to Look Forward to the Future ). Much more typical on the left are the
gloom-and-doomers — the pessimists who lament that the world is being
dragged down by racism and inequality; the ones who bewail militarism and
arms races, while fretting that anthropogenic carbon dioxide dooms us all.
Pinker’s refusal to join in the keening is refreshing, all the more so
because of his impeccable liberal credentials. That said, his essay does
bend a knee to the conventional wisdom on climate change (“the policies of
President Donald Trump — denial of climate change, planned withdrawal from
the Paris accord . . . are alarming”). But I wouldn’t be surprised if, given
his deep respect for the data, Pinker comes to regard the rise of
fossil-fuel use worldwide as yet another engine of the cascading good news
For in truth, the soaring reliance on oil, coal, and natural gas over the
past two centuries has fueled an almost inconceivable amount of good. In a
column a few years back, I wrote that “the rise of fossil fuels has led to
dramatic gains in human progress — whether that progress is measured in
terms of life expectancy, income, education, health, sanitation,
transportation, or leisure. Nearly everything that is comfortable and
convenient about modern civilization depends on the ready availability of
energy, and nearly 90% of our energy comes from oil, gas, and coal.”
In fact, notwithstanding all the alarums raised about impending climate
disasters, the rise of CO2 has correlated strongly with much lower rates of
climate-related loss of life.
Alex Epstein of the Center for Industrial Progress has documented this
trend, showing that global deaths from droughts, floods, wildfires, storms,
and extreme temperatures have plunged by more than 80% since the 1930s. That’s
despite much more complete reporting and enormous increases in population.
“Climate is no longer a major cause of death, thanks in large part to fossil
fuels,” Epstein has written. Surely that, too, belongs in Pinker’s brief.
The human race is thriving as it never has before. It is an exhilarating
story, and it isn’t being told nearly often enough.
Site to See
Amid the internet’s vast ocean of tripe, some websites are extraordinary
islands of knowledge and discovery. Each week, in “Site to See,” I share
with one of these online treasures.
This week’s site is “Spy Letters of the American Revolution” [URL:
http://clements.umich.edu/exhibits/online/spies/index-main2.html ]. Created
by scholars at the University of Michigan, it illuminates the world of
espionage and counterintelligence as it played out during the Revolutionary
War. In addition to telling the stories of some of the remarkable men and
women who were recruited as spies by the British and the Americans, the
website describes the techniques they used to convey information — from
invisible ink to writing in secret code — and portrays a dozen of the actual
communications they sent.
In one coded letter, the American traitor Benedict Arnold — one of George
Washington’s most trusted field commanders — supplied the British
commander-in-chief, Sir Henry Clinton, with confidential details of American
and French troop movements. Conveying the information via Clinton’s
aide-de-camp John André, Arnold also stressed that he expected to be
handsomely rewarded by London for his betrayal:
“As Life and fortune are risked by serving His Majesty, it is Necessary that
the latter shall be secured as well as the emoluments I give up, and a
compensation for Services agreed on and a Sum advanced for that purpose —
which I have mentioned in a letter which accompanies this, which Sir Henry
will not, I believe, think unreasonable.”
Want to recommend a Site to See? Send a note to ***@globe.com, and
put “Site to See” in the subject line.
My column last Wednesday was about the emotional diplomatic crisis that has
erupted between Poland and Israel. The uproar was set off by a new Polish
law that makes it a crime for anyone to claim that Poles were complicit in
the crimes of the Nazis during the Holocaust. But some Poles were complicit
in those crimes, and Poland must not think it can evade painful historical
questions by passing laws to punish those who raise them.
The last line
“But I reckon I got to light out for the Territory ahead of the rest,
because Aunt Sally she’s going to adopt me and sivilize me and I can’t stand
it. I been there before.” — Mark Twain, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn
Thank you for reading Arguable! If you liked this newsletter, please forward
it to a friend. If you're not a subscriber, that's easily fixed: Sign up
here (it’s free).
I invite you to follow me on Twitter (@jeff_jacoby) and on Facebook , and
always welcome your feedback: If you have an idea, insight, or inspiration,
let me hear from you: My e-mail address is ***@globe.com (or just
reply to this newsletter).
Arguable will be off next week in commemoration of Presidents Day. Look for
a new one in your inbox the following Monday. Have a great fortnight!
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.