Translate

Thursday, April 16, 2015

The Culture War is over

We lost, says venerable Christian journal First Things.

The Orthosphere comments:
From its founding, First Things has been the premier journal of high Christian engagement with the public sphere in the West. The basic proposition of the journal has been that American liberal democracy could be domesticated to Christ by a concerted ecumenical effort of philosophical evangelism. Much good has come of this project. But with the recent spate of stunning reversals on sexual policy, and with Christianity ever more clearly in the crosshairs of our secular overlords, the writers of First Things seem to be recoiling from the secular culture of the West, and its liberal cult of Moloch. More and more, they seem to realize that rapprochement with liberalism is a bargain with the devil.

It’s not just that the editors saw fit to publish an article by our own Jim Kalb back in December. In the February issue, First Things took a decided turn toward orthogony to secular political discourse, as if they all with one mind awoke to a realization that dawned on most traditionalists several years ago: America is too far gone to be saved. As Lawrence Auster then began to say, “It’s their country now.” Likewise also for the West in general.

First Things seems now to have reached the same conclusion.
And so the long retreat begins, as Christendom withdraws from the public square in the face of increased ridicule and overt hostility from secular society.

In retrospect, we really should have seen this coming. What support is there for liberal democracy, much less the universal franchise, in classical Eastern or Western Christian theology? What sort of Christian society can let matters like abortion, sodomy and other ontological issues be resolved by democratic vote? Another thing we didn’t realize at the time: we weren’t actually supporting democracy, we were supporting our status as the demographic majority. Now that that status has been destroyed by public welfare and mass immigration (with the active participation of numerous Christian sects), it is simply too late. Orthodox and orthodox Christians will be a shrinking minority for the foreseeable future.

Of course, I've been sounding the alarm on this since February 2013, and more urgently since April 2014. Fr. Stephen Freeman has now noticed, as has Rod Dreher. In sum, there are no longer any safe spaces in the American polity to raise your children in the Faith. Most Christians will embrace with enthusiasm the State's egalitarian, tabula rasa worldview.

A correspondent writes:
You have often noted in your blog the hostility that your talk of "community" has evoked in conversations with other Christians, and though I have believed you, I had not experienced it for myself so I had no idea what that looked like.

I did not realize that Rod Dreher has been speaking of the Benedict Option for some time, so I was happy to find many of his articles on The American Conservative. I have been reading many of his articles over the last hour as well as the comments that follow, and I am amazed at the hostility that pours forth from the comments section towards this idea and towards him for putting this idea forth. I finally see that to which you were referring earlier. It baffles me. I can comprehend that some people would not agree with him. I do not, however, comprehend why they would become so hostile to something that will not affect them a great deal. Do you have any ideas as to why this is so?
A robust Christianity--indeed, a robust religion of any stripe--is the ultimate affront to the secular State. There can be no right-to-be-let-alone in secular society. Deviant lifestyles must be validated, above all. Any movement which denies this is to be regarded as treasonous. As Rod himself notes, at the invitation of First Things,
Put bluntly, given the dynamics of our rapidly changing culture, I believe it will be increasingly difficult to be a good Christian and a good American. It is far more important to me to preserve the faith than to preserve liberal democracy and the American order. Ideally, there should not be a contradiction, but again, the realities of post-Christian America challenge our outdated ideals...

There are no safe places to raise Christian kids in America other than the countercultural places we make for ourselves, together. If we do not form our consciences and the consciences of our children to be distinctly Christian and distinctly countercultural, even if that means some degree of intentional separation from the mainstream, we are not going to survive.

Christianity in America still lives in places and among people who have not yet sold out to moralistic therapeutic deism. Those Christians who have a vocation to politics should exercise it, and they need our support. But Christians who believe that politics will save us should discard those illusions now. The primary focus of orthodox Christians in America should be cultural—or rather, countercultural—building the institutions and habits that will carry the faith and the faithful forward through the next Dark Age.

Rod has his detractors in this corner of the Internet but he really does get this one. And so does classic secular leftist James Howard Kunstler.

Christendom has been a Colossus astride the West. And now, for the first time in 1,702 years, we are to become a post-Christian society, with little thought given as to what comes next.

35 comments:

August said...

I cast them out of my feed reader for some reason or other. Probably related to someone's desire to be seen as reasonable. I suspect reasonable Christians are really just consumers- they want their Christian branded stuff, but they also want the unbranded stuff the secular world controls them with.

Bert said...

Come on Anti-Gnostic, you're way better than shit postings like this.

"Rod has his detractors in this corner of the Internet but he really does get this one."

No he doesn't. He doesn't get shit. He just repeats watered-down "controversial" ideas to rile up his fanbase of old faggots and whiny metrosexual twats. He is always shedding tears and spreading blame. When it comes to groups that actually defend Christian values, like Hungary's Jobbik party or Golden Dawn in Greece, he can't condemn them quickly enough. Then it's off to another tax-deductable Louisiana crawfish banquet with all the rest of those shitheads who still write for the worthless TAC.

He's not your friend.

Corvinus said...

“We are now already a post-Christian culture…”

There ALWAYS have been accusations in American history of “post-Christian culture”. It is NOT a recent phenomenon. For example, in the time period of Puritan rule in Massachusetts (1620-1690), increasing numbers of families 1) did not strictly believe in its tenets, 2) migrated here and embraced a different faith, or 3) became secularized by the pursuit of knowledge and mammon. As a result, in 1662 Puritan ministers developed the Half-Way Covenant, a form of partial church membership much to their dismay. The expression of less religious piety due to a more desire for material goods was indeed at the forefront of the minds of these religious leaders. Regardless, people here simultaneously practiced their faith and built up the colony to an economic powerhouse.

Now, the Founding Fathers were in general heavily influenced by Christianity and Enlightenment concepts. However, they were not foolish to put forth a national religion such as Catholicism or Protestantism as being “the faith”. Christian culture has a place in American society, it just is not THE overarching or guiding force in the daily lives of people. Nor should it be. There is a reason why the Founding Fathers were adamant about the separation of church and state in certain aspects of our society, most notably the political realm. Of course, it does not mean that a person running for office cannot or should not ignore their religious duty and attempt to craft legislation that reflects their faith. He/she is aware, however, that as a political leader, they may be voted out if their constituents disagree with their religious philosophy that guides their political agenda.


“What support is there for liberal democracy, much less the universal franchise, in classical Eastern or Western Christian theology?”

Irrelevant since our founding fathers ensured that a particular religion would not dominate the political landscape. Liberal democracy inherently supports theology. Thankfully, American citizenship is NOT dependent on adherence to an official religion; Thus, U.S. citizens from a wide range of faiths are able to create individual communities which may reflect their expressed religious principles, but the larger community—our nation—is necessarily immune from those creations dominating from a legal and jurisprudence perspective.

In your utopian society, there is Christianity and only Christianity, and it is of a particular brand of Christianity considered “true”. Anything that fails to meet that prescribed criteria is labeled “cathedral”. All I can say is "Wow, just wow". There are a myriad of faiths. Believe in what you believe in, just don’t expect me to kow-tow to YOUR version because you think you know better than me. God will judge!


“What sort of Christian society can let matters like abortion, sodomy and religious dogma be decided by democratic vote?”

Religious dogmas IS decided by democratic vote. The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church constitute a special college which provides for papal election and for assisting the pontiff when confronted with religious matters of significant importance.

Abortion? Morally deplorable. But should it be illegal? Personally, yes.

Sodomy? Meh. Butt sex. Big deal. Sooner or later we all take it in the ass, anyways.

Corvinus said...

“Orthodox, and orthodox, Christians will be a shrinking minority for the foreseeable future.”

What makes them so special that they dictate for non-Orthodox adherents the political, economic, and social rules of a society? Exactly why the Founding Fathers put in place measures designed for these generally religious minority groups NOT to impose their will on the majority.


“And so it begins, as Christendom withdraws from the public square in the face of increased ridicule and overt hostility from secular society.”

Christianity remains decidedly in the public square. It may not be as visible or pronounced as some people would like it to be, but this sentiment of persecution is not something that is a recent phenomenon.** Moreover, religion, like any institution, is not immune to change. Recall that abbesses in the early stages of Roman Catholicism had garnered significant political and economic power. As a result of the activism in challenging the dominant male hierarchy, the papacy put forth rules that eventually nipped in the bud any opportunity to expand their roles.


“Nobody seems prepared for the probability that the secular neo-State itself is headed for collapse, like Rome and Constantinople before it.”


A host of factors, one being the lack of faith in God by citizens of an area and the subsequent decomposition of its tenets in that area’s institutions, cause empires to fall. It is not THE factor. Moreover, one need only be reminded regarding societies that thrived WITHOUT the Christian faith—the Aztecs and the Bantus for starters. It was only when SOME Christian white men, with their cannon balls and Bibles in tow, spread the faith of God that helped to facilitate the collapse of said societies. Unfortunately, those Christians who opposed the forcible conversion efforts of their fellow Christians "—for starters, Antonio de Montesinos in the early 1500’s openly rebuking Spanish authorities governing Hispaniola for their mistreatment of natives, telling them "... you are in mortal sin...for the cruelty and tyranny you use in dealing with these innocent people…”—fell on deaf ears.


“Put bluntly, given the dynamics of our rapidly changing culture, I believe it will be increasingly difficult to be a good Christian and a good American.”

That dissonance has been going on since the inception of our nation. Puritan ship captains lined their pocketbooks as the result of their financial dealings with southern slave owners. Protestant financial tycoons gained tremendous wealth at the expense of their fellow Christian workers. Why Rod Dreher thinks this struggle is something new, I have no idea.


“Most Christians will embrace with enthusiasm the State's egalitarian, tabula rosa worldview.”

Yep, Christian faith in action. What a wonderful endeavor that family took on!

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Corvinus:

This is what separate countries are for.

The Great American novus ordo seclorum was nice while it lasted, but it is becoming apparent the differing worldviews are too diametric to allow for peaceful co-existence. The atheistic state cannot allow people simply to be let alone: sodomy must be de-criminalized, celebrated, and finally raised to equal dignity with heterosexual marriage. This is not a custom which is safe to have around adolescents. We are actually endangering people's souls (Matthew 18:6).

Whether you believe that or not is beside the point. Eventually, we are going to get tired of paying taxes to support each other.

patrick kelly said...

" Believe in what you believe in, just don’t expect me to kow-tow to YOUR version because you think you know better than me. God will judge!"

You read the post and concluded this is what he's calling for?

Wow...just...wow....

It is the surrounding Merka' cultural powers and principalities which are increasingly encroaching upon and attempting to force Christians in its midst to "kow-tow".

The call is to separate and resist, not wield power over anyone else.

America is not inherently Christian, never has been, never will be, and as Christians realize this we will be free from any obligation to engage with or treat it otherwise.

Merkianity is another matter....

patrick kelly said...

"Religious dogmas IS decided by democratic vote. The cardinals of the Holy Roman Church ... "

AG, Rod and I are Orthodox, the intended audience for the most part, and no, what we consider dogma (if we could even come to agreement as to what dogma is) is not decided by anything commonly referred to as "democratic"

My opinion and understanding of such....

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Patrick - I'll try and clarify that part, and this may need a separate post.

The problem is government now legislates on dogmatic matters. If you're a nation with Christian rulers and an official Church, this just doesn't become an issue. Nobody on the entire planet ever gave a single thought that there would be such a thing as a gay marriage. I don't think we are too far away from an Orthodox or Catholic priest being told they cannot refuse a marriage ceremony to somebody on the basis of their homosexuality. After all, is not the parish building a 'public accommodation?'

Trifon Kupanoff said...

This may necessitate some editing of the Orthodox Service of Crowning.

See here http://www.goarch.org/chapel/liturgical_texts/wedding

What will happen to the heteronormative patriarchal epistle reading?

"As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives be also subject in everything to their husbands."

And

"For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one."

A frozen embryo shall leave its cryopreservation chamber and be implanted into a surrogate mother, and the (husbands/wives), being equally co-subject to one another, neither one exerting dominance over the other--unless such an arrangement has been previously consented to by both parties--shall await the birth of the child...

Corvinus said...

“This is what separate countries are for.”

[Laughs] The beauty of America is that our nation is simultaneously separated and diverse. The whities live in their communities, the niggers and spics (I have to use words you can understand) live in their parts of town. Then, amazingly, there are people from different backgrounds that live and work together in peace…even da Joos! Sure, there are the cases involving Trayvon Martin and the situation in Ferguson, but those events are ginned up by the liberal and conservative media equally to suit their narrative.


“The Great American novus ordo seclorum was nice while it lasted, but it is becoming apparent
the differing worldviews are too diametric to allow for peaceful co-existence.”

That’s the talk of liberal racialists and conservative race baiters (or vice versa, I can never get it straight). Basically, Steve Sailer and Al Sharpen are cut from the same cloth. See, Europeans that helped to found America remained within their own ethnic enclave. The English, the Germans, the Dutch, the French, Swedes…they ALL remained separated. They ALL believed in marrying within their own group. Then something remarkable happened. In a few generations, the Dutch married Germans, the French married Native Americans, southrons fucked their slaves and had mixed babies—some of which passed as white!—etc., etc. So, what had been considered taboo became the norm. Later on, Italians, da Joos, Russians, and Greeks came to our shores. They also remained initially steadfast in marrying within their group. Then, whallah, a few generations later, they are marrying and having children outside their ethnic group. Some [gasp] even married niggers and spics [code for vibrants, wink, wink]. How dare they make that personal decision! Race traitors!


Listen, I actually agree that immigration should be significantly curbed. Undocumented illegals should NOT gain citizenship. Should they be deported by force? That is not an option for our government—conservative or liberal. So, why don’t you get your boyzzz and make that happen. You’ve got guns. Use them. Naaah, that would take too much work on your part. You would rather bitch about illegals.

“Whether you believe that or not is beside the point. Eventually, we are going to get tired of paying taxes to support each other.”



Blah, blah, blah.


“You read the post and concluded this is what he's calling for? Wow…just…wow...."

You took part of my response to AG and assume that is my overall conclusion? Wow, just wow, indeed.

“It is the surrounding Merka' cultural powers and principalities which are increasingly encroaching upon and attempting to force Christians in its midst to “kow-tow”."

Play the victim much? I already explained that Christian culture has a place in American society, it just is not THE overarching or guiding force in the daily lives of people. Try to keep up, ok?


“The call is to separate and resist, not wield power over anyone else.”

Assuming there is a call to separate and resist and that call is actually heeded, power will be wielded by groups demanding that other groups leave. You’re not fooling anyone.

“I don't think we are too far away from an Orthodox or Catholic priest being told they cannot refuse a marriage ceremony to somebody on the basis of their homosexuality.”

By all means, share with us what efforts have been taken in this regard that you makes this assertion. Is there current legislation being considered on this matter? By whom?

“After all, is not the parish building a 'public accommodation?’”

No. The Supreme Court made it clear in 1940 that actual places of worship and the organizations they operate are exempt from public accommodation laws under the Free Exercise Clause.

patrick kelly said...

" Should they be deported by force? That is not an option for our government—"

This has been done by the US gov't before, and is required again to prevent the nation/empire from fading into some balkanized oblivion.

"The beauty of America is that our nation is simultaneously separated and diverse...."

What cannot continue will eventually end.

"The Supreme Court made it clear in 1940 ..."

There have been many rulings and overturning of rulings since then, and more to come. Stasis is an illusion.

" power will be wielded by groups demanding that other groups leave.."

When it's too late for that groups will self segregate or leave out of their own self interest. See the results of Alabama's recent laws regarding undocumented migrants.





Bert said...

Man, we've got another troll on our hands. Methinks some of the Unz.com faggots are bleeding over.

Corvinus said...

"This has been done by the US gov't before, and is required again to prevent the nation/empire from fading into some balkanized oblivion."

First, you are operating under the false pretense that our nation will ultimately be relegated to that fate, when there is no large-scale, systematic efforts to move in that direction.

Second, I am aware of the federal government's barbaric act of forcibly removing the Cherokee in the infamous Trail of Tears. Fortunately, as a nation we are tad bit more civilized.

"There have been many rulings and overturning of rulings since then, and more to come."

Any efforts made to change this ruling, since it would significantly impact EVERY single religion, would be met with stiff resistance. This ruling will undoubtedly stand. Unless, of course, if there is current legislation being considered on this matter, or even a movement dedicated to this cause. By whom? Support AG's assertion.

"When it's too late for that groups will self segregate or leave out of their own self interest."

We already have in our nation self-segregation. Now, you are free to attempt to leave out of your self-interest. I heard the oil boom towns in Wyoming are great. Certainly, you can form your own community in a place you claim is exclusively for "your own kind", except that people living there who disagree with that philosophy also have the liberty to stay. Good luck finding enough support within your ranks to force those folks to leave their homes and businesses.

"Methinks some of the Unz.com faggots are bleeding over."

Your ass-hattery is duly noted, Bert. Again, anything to substantially add to the conversation?

Bert said...

Oh, you're Kakistocrazy. Of course, I should have known.

You certainly have some dedication to make such long unreadable responses on an obscure blog known to few people. You're dick must be pretty small.

Corvinus said...

[Laughs] You are queen of rhetoric, Bert. My responses are only unreadable to you. Anything to substantially add to the conversation?

Bert said...

Yes, typing out emotions in brackets is teenage behavior. Again, you really are compensating for something.

Corvinus said...

[Shakes head] Bert, for the love of God, stop embarrassing yourself with your gamma behavior. Do you have anything to substantially add to the conversation?

Anonymous said...

Just to pile on, but Rod Dreher is a curious case. I agree with you, he 'gets' it. But I also agree with his detractors: he doesn't get the solution. His answers are all from the idealistic hippiedippie '60s.

In other words, he is accurately chronicalling the problem, but his solutions are utterly backwards. In a post about the fascist progressives, he'll make a point of critiquing the Right (whether to curry favor with the Left, or some kind of odd self-loathing, I don't know). He notices the decline of healthy society, then recommends we give in to the Progs more.

Take his observations: reject his answers. That's the best you can do with him.

anonymousse

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Rod is effete. He wants Tradition without the enforcement mechanisms of traditional society (some of which were fairly brutal, btw).

Most American Catholics and Orthodox are like that, actually.

Bernard Brandt said...

Oh my, America has only eighty-three percent of its population which is Christian. We are doomed! Let's retreat to the Catacombs forthwith!

Yes, the elites compose much of the remaining 17%. And yes, the 83% is woefully divided.

But I believe that it is better to light one small stick of dynamite than to curse the silence. Or something like that.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

That 83% figure is (I am guessing) arrived at by including Episcopalians, mainline Protestants and the merely self-reporting.

Cultural conservatives are not going to win a single other issue in the legislature. Is there a single issue where they have actually managed to hold the line, anywhere on anything?

Not least, there is the craven collapse on mass immigration across all Christian sects. You are not going to build a traditional or, for that matter, a Traditional society with a hodgepodge of languages, ethnicities, cultures and histories.

Corvinus said...

“He wants Tradition without the enforcement mechanisms of traditional society (some of which were fairly brutal, btw). “

Regarding those enforcement mechanisms, what are you referring to? Moreover, please offer evidence to support this statement or retract your assertion—I don't think we are too far away from an Orthodox or Catholic priest being told they cannot refuse a marriage ceremony to somebody on the basis of their homosexuality.

“You are not going to build a traditional or, for that matter, a Traditional society with a hodgepodge of languages, ethnicities, cultures and histories.”

Patently false. Western Civilization is an amalgamation of Roman, Greek, Celtic, and Germanic heritage, along with various ethnic and linguistic groups. In a similar fashion, American society is a mix of European, African, and Native American languages and customs.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

America is a market, not a nation. It generates an anti-culture.

Barnabas said...

Aztecs and Bantus. Lolz

Corvinus said...

"America is a market, not a nation. It generates an anti-culture."

You are historically illiterate, AG.

James Madison--"This freedom arises from that multiplicity of sects which pervades America for where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest."

Thomas Paine--"If there is a country in the world where concord...would be least expected, it is America. Made up as it is of people from different nations, accustomed to different forms and habits of government, speaking different languages, and more different in their modes of worship, it would appear that the union of such a people was impracticable. [But] there is nothing to engender riots and tumults, and all the parts are brought into cordial unison [through the reason of law]."

Thomas Jefferson--"a right which nature has given to all men, of departing from the country in which chance, not choice, has placed them."


Now, onto more important matters--please offer evidence to support this statement or retract your assertion—I don't think we are too far away from an Orthodox or Catholic priest being told they cannot refuse a marriage ceremony to somebody on the basis of their homosexuality.

The Anti-Gnostic said...

Caterers and florists being fined over refusing to service gay weddings on the basis that as a 'public accommodation' they cannot discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

Also, http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9364

Bert said...

Stop feeding the troll Gnostic.

Corvinus said...

“Caterers and florists being fined over refusing to service gay weddings on the basis that as a 'public accommodation' they cannot discriminate on the basis of sexuality.”

I did not realize that caterers and florists are actually Orthodox or Catholic priests in disguise, being told by the state how to run their CONGREGATION, not business. Epic fail on your part. These businesses receive a charter from the state to operate. If the store owners choose not to follow laws created by citizens, they are subject to consequences. I thought conservatives preach individual accountability.

Regarding the Idaho case, the two ministers CORRECTLY received an exemption from their town/state, so long as their business primarily performs religious ceremonies. See, the difference here compared to the caterers and florists case is that the people—the ministers—are in an official religious capacity. Exactly why the town/state made the right decision in light of the Free Exercise Clause.

So much for your thesis.


“Aztecs and Bantus. Lolz”

Indeed, Barnaby Jones, these two civilizations were destroyed Europeans. Because progress. Except it’s not a laughing matter.


“Stop feeding the troll Gnostic.”

[Yum, yum, yum] Ironic, isn’t it, when you make this statement?

The Anti-Gnostic said...

These businesses receive a charter from the state to operate. If the store owners choose not to follow laws created by citizens, they are subject to consequences. I thought conservatives preach individual accountability.

The State defines morality? When the State starts telling Jews to keep the authorities advised of their address and starts buying cattle cars and Zyklon-B, you're down with this, right?

Corvinus said...

“The State defines morality? When the State starts telling Jews to keep the authorities advised of their address and starts buying cattle cars and Zyklon-B, you're down with this, right?”

You, white knighting da Joos? Wow, just wow.

Anyways, when the state starts deporting legal citizens who are niggers or spics because they are a scourge against white society, you’re down with this, right? Right back at you with your rhetoric.


First, the State is represented by citizens of a defined area. The State is NOT an entity in and of itself, it is created by the people, of the people, and for the people.


Second, per usual, you need a history lesson. Under federal and state law, a corporation is an artificial person; its personhood status is a legal fiction we employ as a convenience to facilitate commerce. Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward: “A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.” The Founding Fathers clearly understood the power that corporations possessed, and they decided that businesses ought to be comprehensively regulated in the service of the public welfare by the government, that their ECONOMIC rights would be conferred through charters and acts of Congress. Only natural persons, according to the founding fathers, are afforded POLITICAL rights. A person or a group of people that form an association with the exclusive purpose to sell goods is ARTIFICIAL in nature and subject to state intervention in their ECONOMIC transactions.

Therefore, the citizens of Colorado defined ECONOMIC CONDUCT, NOT PERSONAL CONDUCT, deemed illegal through legislation. Economic conduct may certainly be immoral—forming a monopoly, price fixing, selling defective goods—from an economic perspective. An extension of that immorality is that the citizens of Colorado have prohibited discrimination of services based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. The company, by their agreement with Colorado, must abide by specific rules upon receiving their charter. The owners INDIVIDUAL religious practices are separate from their ECONOMIC responsibilities as business people.

Marissa said...

Corvinus is black, not an "Unz faggot". Hence why he doesn't like Sailer. Apparently mass sacrifice is "civilization" to him, which isn't surprising.

Corvinus said...

Marissa, heed the advice of those conservative Christian males...men are talking here and take your meds.

Marissa said...

I'm not the one hysterically screeching "niggers and spics!" Keep your projection to yourself.

Bert said...

Negroes know in their hearts that they're inferior to just about everyone else on the planet. It's one of the reasons they're so full of anger and hate. We should pity them, for they will never truly be alive.

Corvinus said...

"I'm not the one hysterically screeching "niggers and spics!" Keep your projection to yourself."

Dear, make my sammich with less mustard. First, I wasn't screeching, I was making a point to our dear blog host by using the appropriate terms rather than "vibrants". That's so passe.

Second, unless you are able to definitively prove that my race is Negroid, then you are the one projecting.

Third, do you have anything to say regarding the matter at hand, rather than get all emotional like Bert?