“Bully”: the New “Nazi”- All the Rant and Half the Content


The use of the term bullying” has increased in the USA by over 3-fold since 1990 (Google nGram to 2008 the last year listed). No doubt this is due to a real uncovering of previously concealed activity.

No doubt.

But, come on, folks!

Bullying has now become degraded to mean just about anything.

Like Nazi, fascist, racist, misogynist, conservative, alt-anything, fake-whatever, and ‘low-down-mean,’ the word has become to mean merely: “I don’t like you.”

The last ten years, a time hallmarked in America by the triumph of political correctness, safe-places, adult coloring books, micro-aggressions, shrieking professors calling for death in the name of life, and blocking political speech in the name of the freedom of political speech, have seen people embrace “bullying” as an iron-clad way of castigating those of whom it disapproves.

It used to have a meaning: “Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance.” https://www.stopbullying.gov

That definition specified two things: 1) youth and/or powerlessness, 2) abuse of power.

How has the term been morphed?

Bullying used to be abuse of the weak (physically) by the strong (physically) specifically in an educational situation. The strong were usually the stupid, socially inept, and frustrated. The weak were anyone who could be made a victim.

Now, it may mean mere words: people being physically assaulted by others because their words were labelled “verbal assaults.” No, no hypocrisy there! Heaven forbid. Even, virtual words, arrangements of electrons, as evanescent as the wind, are blamed for a child committing suicide, salving, no doubt, the realization of failure by a parent and society which has shoveled isolation, alienation, and lack of consolation upon the child; distant sentiments of mere acquaintances becoming more real to the victim than immediate love and acceptance.

It does not hold together. Our new concept of bullying is incorrect.

We have all been littler, weaker, smaller, slower, more alone, and less aware of consequences than some other. All of us, even bullies, have been potential, if not actual, victims.

It is how we respond to that threat, real or imagined, which is a central part of our path from childhood to adulthood.

We may, seeing the immediate success of our own humiliation, embrace bullying when we can do so to our own benefit. It is reported that 90% of schoolyard bullies have been victims themselves. (https://www.theguardian.com/education/2008/aug/29/bullying.schools)

We may, seeing the injustice of it, step-in to prevent it. (I have a few stories about that, some remembered bruises and a broken tooth, but that at another time.)

We may, seeing that weakness and righteousness inevitably coincide at times, attempt to change the dynamic: might does not always make right. We call that attempt “government.” It has been a dubious experiment.

We may, in our selfishness, merely build up our defenses, stand behind the bulwarks of strength, age, prestige, education, and success, to throw bon mots at the little schoolyard tyrants of our youth and remembered powerlessness. This, I think, the most popular. The schoolyard bully is a favorite object for disdain in literature. In my own experience, I have to admit, I have found it so. The sixteen-year-old boy, cursed with early puberty, a dull wit, and intemperance, who attacked me on the last day of 9th grade (his last day of academic endeavor, as it turned out) after sucker-punching me from behind was himself seized from behind and dragged off, summarily. Very Satisfactory. I have forgotten his name, which is a pity.

So we have, all of us, been the victim or potential victim of bullying. We have all had the chance to bully; some of us, some of the time, have embraced that.

Let’s explore the other aspect of bullying: the abuse of power. This is more difficult. Particularly difficult because in life, we are not equal.

Please don’t. It is tiresome.

But, the truth is just that. We are not equal.

Some of us are employees. Some of us are bosses. Some are wiser. Some are defective in body, spirit, soul or intellect. Some have been elevated to levels of authority.

Get over it.

The fool who rants that their tenth-grade teacher doesn’t like him may have a point, but he has no standing. He can learn or not learn from the teacher and the experience. Ranting will improve neither his education nor the teacher’s affection for him. The boss that alienates the underling will get what he wants: grudging compliance and no more. The great dictator, whether bombastic and amorphous, or short, fat, xenophobic, and a super-annuated adolescent, will both fail in the long run with a greater or lesser body count.

Lastly, what are we to do with the disembodied use of the term for, bullying for situations where neither of the two conditions exist. If anyone is neither a weak victim, and is, in fact, possessed of all the weapons of the other, and is not at the mercy of the other’s authority, can bullying occur? When it is all reduced to words, facts, and ideas, can anything be said to be bullying?

Words, facts, and ideas are not equal. Words have meanings, qualities, and can be related to each other by sentiments and logic.

A family member, currently suffering from Post-Trump-Progressive-Psychosis (PTPP) made a statement: “Conservatives are selfish.” Turns out that is kind of a lie. Self-identified (doncha love that non-useful term?) liberals GIVE THEIR OWN MONEY AWAY far, far, LESS than those terribly selfish conservatives (based on IRS data, which with Lois Lerner still on the loose should tell you something). And the CONSERVATIVES give away money voluntarily. Just to put it into perspective, the great philanthropist, ex-VPUSA Joseph Biden (D-DE) and his wife (a childhood schoolmate, as it happens) donated to charity $627, for the BOTH of them for TWO years total (2008), working out to less than $15/month (or two venti lattes on the Starbuck Coffee Standard).

In contrast, progressives are touted as generous for using the absolute, and potentially brutal, power of the state to coerce payment from OTHER PEOPLE to fund their charity.

When did blackmail become synonymous with charity?

Socialism, as my fam-mem finally admitted to embracing, was preferable to capitalism, also because “capitalists are selfish.” I asked her who was more selfish: Man A, who risked his own money with no possible chance of recovery, hired people, and paid those people his money, on the chance, that he would make a profit OR the Man B, who demanded that Man A pay (on threat of imprisonment or worse) Man B to make him appear to give the unemployed what they had never earned and thus allow Man B to remain in power? If A has his way, his workers will make money; he might make money. If B has his way, A will lose money and his workers may become unemployed. Non-workers make no money beyond that stripped from the bones of A’s business. B is confirmed in his folly and to his political subpremacy.

As Margaret Thatcher observed, “Socialism works wonderfully until you run out of other people’s money.”

My fam-mem would not answer with anything other than insults and shortly accused me of bullying her.

By most standards, the woman in her eighth decade, is, intelligent, accomplished, and self-sufficient. While she is older, and for many years was larger, faster, more clever, and rather more diabolical than I, she has never been, and certainly is not now, in my power (where is a D-minor organ chord when you need one?) In her advanced years, she has taken to waving the red flag of socialism and shouting obscenities at public meetings and on Facebook.

I have not seen her in a number of years so any putative bullying on my part, had I wanted to attempt it, must have been accomplished trans-continentally, using mere words, ideas, and logic, one must presume.

Words and ideas are not equal.

Some words, ideas are indeed stupider than others.

Some logic is flawed.

Some ardently held opinions are wrong morally, politically, and rationally.

Those ideas should be ridiculed and those who hold them should be righteously embarrassed for having done so.

No bullying necessary.

[A word of disclaimer: Currently, I am a private contractor, sole proprietor of my own services, and an author. Prior to that, I was an employee. Other than some teenagers I have hired to do yard-work; I have never been an employer. I have been under authority and have had people under authority to me. I, like Will Rogers, belong to no organized political party.

In 2016, for the first time in almost fifty years, I could not hold my nose hard enough to vote for either the Crook, or the Creep. Just so’s you know]

The Fourth Estate in Death Throes?

llpofElectronic news was supposed to liberate us: everyone a journalist, the news at our fingertips 1440 minutes a day. Instead it has enslaved us to falsehoods and biased news.
The traditional media have been vitiated, newpapers out of business, traditionally trained (with ethics) reporters fired, quit, dead, retired, more news outlets owned by fewer people.
Contrary to what may be claimed, it is impossible to parse fake from real electronic news. It takes a brain, ethics and industry, all rather lacking in the news today.
CNN for example, was my one source of real news in the dark days of the summer of 1990 when I was stranded in Saudi Arabia, a shooting war a few hours drive from my door.
Since then a high-ranking employee of theirs has been found to be part of a plot to cheat at a debate. She is still employed by them. CNN has been part of fake narratives like “Hands up don’t shoot.” It has created pandering programs lauding the failed presidency of BHO. Instead of integrity, we have the blatant partisanship of Don Lemon.
Presidents have always sought to control the press, no greater a critic than BHO exists with his campaign against Fox. In the past presidents had better tools to do that and a much easier target. They failed.
The supposed success of this president is not due so much to his animus but to the media’s own disengenuity, partisanship, dishonesty, and sloth.


I saw on the news today at a hearing where a Florida city revoked its “sanctuary” status.
Noting one’s error and correcting the problem is one of the few reasonable and mature things I have seen on the political landscape in the last ten years. The idea that a transient political ideology  of the several states, municipalities or even commercial concerns can supersede the Federal government on national policy was decided some 150 years ago. Six hundred thousand American dead established the supremacy of the Federal government in national policy.
One of the witnesses against the move was a well-spoken girl of about 10 who read from a prepared script.
A part of what she said was “I am citizen. I am an orphan. My father was deported.”
Her parents chose to violate our laws to enter the USA illegally. She was born in this country and by our historic (not legal) benevolence now count her among our citizens.
Her presumptions are several:
1) To be deported is equivalent to death. America is the only place in the world where life is possible.
2) Residence in America is more important than family. As a citizen, she could come and go at will. As a child of a legal resident alien, I have done so.
3) The poor decisions of every individual whether USA citizen or not, must be corrected by American society. From the highest to the lowest level of society, non-citizens command alteration in this one country to accommodate the results of their poor judgments.
It is sad that the child should be used in this way. She may even be sincere. She may even believe that her inability to see her father means he is now dead.
But it shows that we are living now in a country where injustice is the most telling argument against justice.
Do not censure a senator for breaking the rules if I can find a senator who I think should also be censured and wasn’t.
Do not legally deport a man for violating our laws because he might choose to leave his daughter in America.
 Rather, I submit, in substantial amazement, that justice ought to be the goal of the justice system. We should become a country of laws and not one of men, transient political whims, or self-flagellatory posturings.
The argument for justice should not have to be waged.
It is a sad commentary of the liberal spasming of the last ten years when it is necessary.

“And Barack Hussein labored and brought forth Trump”

Let me say at the top, before the haters start in: I dislike Donald John Trump and have so since I became aware of him some time in the mid-eighties. I find him arrogant and thus dangerous, grandiose and thus ill-informed, and self-absorbed and thus sociopathic.trump-grinch-701x431

However, it must be said that the primary, overarching and most significant cause of the Trump phenomenon is Barack Hussein Obama. Were it not for him, Trump would be relegated to staking out his turf each four years and bowing out after Iowa.

What has changed? Instead of Trump’s usual performances in 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, the electorate has surged, doubled down and surged again behind a man with demonstrably no talent in government, dubious business practices, failed marriages due to adultery and a persona that is both irritating and offensive.

Presidential elections are different.

Everyone admits this. The founding fathers imagined that the quality people of the country would get together in sober congress and select the best among them as chief executive. That lasted exactly two elections. Democracies all go the same way, or so thought Herodotus: collapsing into conspiracies of self-interest. Thus political parties were born with the election of 1796. The president is the one elected national office. It remains the one place where all voters have a say in the national government, unfiltered by the personalities and issues of representational elections.

It has not been pretty.

Andrew Jackson, about as rough an old hickory switch as one is likely to find, was arguably a murderer, bigamist and military adventurer. He won a landslide election casting himself as a bulwark against the moneyed classes. He cannot be argued to be a good president but he certainly was a popular one: defeating the continuation of central banking, firing from his cabinet the great men of the era, misdirected energy into petticoat politics and illegally removed native Americans from their ancestral homelands in the Trail of Tears.

The people loved him.

Thanks mostly to external events rather than canny government, he was able to leave office without a major war or disaster to his credit. Timing is everything.

Another “change” election was Harding’s, who, like Jackson, was elected as a reaction to the fascist-like policies of Wilson (before, during and after the war) on a platform of a return to “normalcy.” The best thing he did for his presidency was die in office.

Nixon’s change election could be seen as a visceral reaction of the “silent majority” to the chaos of the times by those who saw themselves as the real soul of the nation. Like today, the rancorous “protests” in the street mobilize the large majority of Americans to repudiate those who refuse to work within the bounds of at least nominally civil discourse.

Finally, Barack Hussein Obama is the most recent of the “change” presidents. “Hope and Change,” as ironic as it seems now to say it, elected him, most voters crossing their fingers and whispering prayers (atheists in foxholes, after all) that the callow senator from the corrupt state of Illinois would be different.

He certainly has been different. Rather than making any attempt to find consensus, BHO’s presidential career is one of unremitting conflict with the elected representatives of the people, currying favor with those who will never love America, toadying to special interests, actively picking winners and losers in the culture that prides itself on a level playing field, and failing to support those who have every right to expect America’s unqualified support.

There is one more historical simile to make: Hindenburg was Hitler’s godfather. Without the progressively more repressive and shortsighted actions of Brüning, Franz von Papen and Kurt von Schleicher, supported by Hindenburg, the inclusion of the national socialists in the government would have been ludicrous. Hindenburg’s undeserved stature was the proximate cause of Hitler’s rise.

Likewise, today we have an emperor (and assuming more and more imperial trappings daily) who has no clothes. He has singlehandedly prolonged a recession, diminished us in the world’s opinion, encouraged our enemies, betrayed our long-time allies, wasted our resources and made a determined effort to divest America of those things that make it great, all the while telling us that “we did not make” what we have made and that our beliefs are due to unthinking “clinging” rather than conviction.Wicked-Witch-Obama-600x417

Who gives hope for a change now?

The disgust and disenchantment most Americans feel for the president now may be buyer’s remorse. That does not mean it is any the less ardent.

Disdain for Obama and all that he has touched in his failed attempt to make over America in his own image is the driving force behind Trump. As is the past, it may well work.

May God have mercy on our country.





Elderly to the Ovens

I saw a blog today. I searched “Old People.” The very first hit on Google: “Old People You can Probably Punch.”


Ms. Majaski, who by the way had a stunning page which at the top urges us all to “Live for Each Other,” has numerous other posts recommending throat punches to a variety of other humans including ex-boyfriends.

To save you the anguish joy of having to read her deathless prose, let me just say that she creates a bestiary of the “old” whom she thinks can be assaulted to the general rejoicing of her audience. Her photo suggests she will never see seventeen again, thus she this might be  proposing a self-fulfilling prophecy. Doubling down, most of her commentators unbare their own pain with having to deal with the super-annuated. I am sure it is all so trying for them.

It reminds me of nothing more than a poor attempt at “Der Ewige Jew,” produced after the Nazi invasion of Poland at the insistence of Joseph Goebbels.

EwigerJudeFilm (1)The film shows grotesque examples of refugee Polish Jews being humiliated by the well-fed, fit, Aryan jackbooters of Adolf Hitler. That is but a step away.

It seems Ms. Majaski, in her unripe opinion is well in the van of the second holocaust. The steps are easy to find:

  1. Remove the dignity of your victim. In a world that worries about the emotional content of wealthy empowered adults to demand services and concessions of whomever they wish, the only minorities which are permitted to be demeaned with no legal recourse are BY LAW: European-Americans, practicing Christians and the old. As the critics can do nothing about the first, and are unwilling to do anything about the second, it is surprising that they will become a part of the third group.
  2. Remove the resources of your victim. Social Security, a program whereby the productive workers of the nation subsidize the non-workers (due to disability, disease or age), broke. This is occurring despite the fact that the largest group oif workers the country has ever seen has been laboring for up to 55 years in some cases to fill their coffers. Their contribution have been rifled to fund other federal programs. Robert Samuelson, unusual for the politically correct times, declares that it is these same workers who are “THE CAUSE” of the national debt (ignoring perhaps the huge burgeoning Obama Disability boondoggle).” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-are-we-in-this-debt-fix-its-the-elderly-stupid/2011/07/28/gIQA08LtfI_story.html. The Wizard of Obama has always held that the elderly should undergo “means” tests to get those benefits that the young, foreign, illegal, criminal and deviant, get as a matter of course.
  3. Encourage violence to down-regulate sympathies. Nothing makes it easier to kill something than bullying it: Old jokes, casual cruelty, intimidation, removal of social conventions and courtesies. Ms. Majaski’s treatise is in the sweet spot here. She criticizes the old (undefined) for being testy (as opposed to the surly young), defensive (as opposed to the violent among the young. Strong arm theft is seldom done by the octogenarian. He is either smarter, more civilized, or has been eliminated by natural selection), unknowledgeable, (Test: Select any car you wish, open the hood, and point to the carburetor. Extra points: adjust same), or incompetent (one wonders in what? He has already succeeded where the writer has yet to succeed: survival).
  4. Remove civil rights. Elderly will need to surrender their votes, guns and free speech to obtain the increasingly inadequate support.
  5. Segregate from the general population. “Give them a place out of sight where they can manage their own affairs … like senior communities.” No, like ghettos.
  6. Eliminate. Make a big deal about how good the result is.

I have a character in my book observe: “If you have no past, how long does it take before you have no future.” Why should the young sacrifice for a future of dishonor and disrespect? Beats me.