Skin May be in the Game, but are Brains?

I’ve had a lot of commentary written about me lately. 

I’ve decided not to respond to most of it, but Greg Lacour’s article in Charlotte Magazine caught my eye (even though it sounds like Lacour gets his inspiration from the dried up hacks who write Jon Stewart’s material).

His article “Skin in the Game” is a hard-hitting attempt at humorous though serious (in the way all dogmatists are serious when their cherished doctrines are stomped on) criticism of my outlook on slavery.

With typical metro-sexual pomp, he calls me a “schmuck” who brings to mind Opie after a long Oxycontin addiction, and after a casual flick of his effeminate wrist, writes me off as “thoroughly ridiculous.”  (All joking aside, what’s wrong with feeling good while strolling down a dirt path, whistling a tune)?

I’d be more offended, but after brushing up on Charlotte’s demographics I’m not sure how many of them can actually read his magazine.  ~sigh~ … thus the hard work of my Southern ancestors is thwarted by government education… but moving on:

Despite being snarky, Lacour’s article was fun to read and presents surprisingly accurate criticism of the farcical GOP.   Everyone’s jumping on the radically egalitarian band-wagon, the GOP included;  they’re trying to pass themselves off as the new “Rainbow” coalition of liberals, who want nothing more than to blend all Americans into a mocha-colored utopia, complete with fuzzy bunnies, rainbows, and unicorns (but not white unicorns, that’d be racist).  Thus, Lacour ponders:

…we’ll soon be quoting from the Malcolm X Heritage Foundation and the John Locke-Harriet Tubman Foundation for Sweet Liberty…

Yes, Martin Luther King Jr, Frederick Douglass, and Abraham Lincoln, are lauded and exploited as the new face of Republicanism. Who knows how far this rebranding will go?

And, despite the hundreds of metro-sexual hippies writing about me, not a single one, yet, has denied this is bad news for us good-ol boy Southerners, who respect Jefferson Davis, states rights, and traditional, hierarchical social orders.

Given the GOP’s egalitarian face-lift, my concerns about being “systematically disenfranchised” are all the more serious – bye-bye Mayberry.  Maybe getting addicted to Oxycontin isn’t such a bad idea after all?  Who’d want to live in the hell of a fully reconstructed South, without a little something to take the edge off?

Lacour opines that my position is so outrageous as to be self-defeating; well, putting aside the fact that, despite a cursory reading of my material, he remains clueless as to my actual defense of slavery (as echoed in the writings of Fitzhugh, Calhoun and other notables), and putting aside the fact that “states rights” in the context of the War Between the States cannot be divorced from the slavery issue (de-fanging his entire point), and putting aside all the other relevant complexities involved in these discussions: is it really true that positions can be so offensive as to defeat themselves?

In the magic land of liberaldom, apparently so. 

Radical egalitarians like my friend Lacour, own the field – they own the media infrastructure.  It’s not in their best interest to give guys like me a voice.  It’s not in their best interest to respond at all. 

And I guaran-damn-tee you, the last thing effeminate hipsters like Mr. Lacour want to do, is get into the ring with me intellectually.

Best you keep laughing and walking the other way, sir.

This entry was posted in General and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to Skin May be in the Game, but are Brains?

  1. TGC says:

    “If the convention had intended to deny the right of a state to secede, it would have so declared, and provided such remedy as it thought proper; but with the knowledge of the views of Madison and Mason, heretofore quoted, it not only failed to deny the right, but refused to confer the power to coerce a state; and it is shameful to impute to it the disreputable trick and cheat which the advocates of a force bill now impute to it. When a state goes out of this Union, no law of it can affect her — she will be free, sovereign and independent — and if assailed by the myrmidons of federal power, not only her sister states will rush to her aid, as Mason predicted, but the whole christian world will rally to her rescue, and scatter the carcasses of her assailants to the crows and buzzards.” – VIRGINIUS

    “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

    But when a long train of abuses and usurpations evince a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their duty to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.” – Declaration of Independence

    “What is an ‘overt act?’ I presume, of course, they mean overt act of hostility to the south; overt then means simply ‘open, apparent, public.’ Has not this been committed again and again? In the resolutions of Virginia, instructing her delegates to declare the colonies independent, one of the acts cited and relied upon, was the ‘enticing our slaves, by every artifice, to leave us, and then turning them against us.’ Has not this been done again, and again, and again — nay, have not our citizens been beaten, imprisoned and slain, in the effort to recover their property which has thus been enticed away from their owners? And have they not done more than ‘turn them against us,’ by hiring men to invade our soil, slay our people, incite our slaves to insurrection, burn our houses, and (in Texas) poison our springs. Could the devil and his legions if let loose upon us, commit more overt acts of deadly hate and war than these? Has it not been declared, by ever non-slaveholding state, that we have no just title to our slaves; that the holding of them is a sin which it is the duty of the holy thieves to purge us of? Have we not been denied our equal rights in the common property of the nation? And, finally, has not a man been chosen to wield the power of the government, because he approves of these sentiments and this warfare upon us, and has proclaimed that ‘the conflict is irrepressible;’ that the nation cannot stand half slave and half free, and the mission of his party is to make the whole free? If these be not overt acts — open, apparent, public acts of hostility — what are or can be? Do our opponents mean to say, that we shall wait until our enemy has commenced the actual war upon us, before we take any steps for self-preservation and defence? If they were in court, defending a traitor under the definition of treason in the constitution, they would be compelled to admit that the raising of troops, with the avowal that they were to be used against the United States, would be ‘levying war’ against the United States, and an overt act of treason, before a gun was fired.” — VIRGINIUS

    You simply cannot have a meaningful discussion with people who have no understanding of basic history and law. This Lacour character clearly has matzoh balls for brains. You can’t even make it past his lead line. No sense in arguing with fanatics whose precarious ideals are held in place by insidious dogma.

  2. scott says:

    I am a new daily visitor to this website. I am with you all the way.

  3. He’s either a jew or working for the jews. The only thing to do with idioits such as these who should be hung for their treason to this once great nation, is to piss them off, then laugh afterwards when they try to get by with some egalitarian response. This article ‘Skin in the Game’ is a perfect example of that.

  4. shotgunwildatheart says:

    I doubt Lacour’s jewish or self-consciously working for jews.

    More likely than not, he, like so many other good writers, is besotted with modernism and the contemporary, politically-correct worldview.

    There are lots of good writers, lots of good thinkers, lots of mentally strong people, but not many willing, or emotionally able, to swim against the main-stream.

    Far easier to sacrifice their talents on Moloch’s alter…

  5. TGC says:

    The guy who penned such a filthy sentence as “So this got a lot of attention over the weekend, a 30-year-old white guy from North Carolina who said during a panel discussion at CPAC that Frederick Douglass needn’t have forgiven his former owner ‘for giving him shelter and food all those years'” is a “good writer”?

    What in the **** gives here?

    How do you determine what is “good” writing, thinking, “mentally strong”? If these pundits were “mentally strong” a lot of these issues could be avoided. They succeed within the framework of our given kosher system precisely because of the contrary.

  6. shotgunwildatheart says:

    If I rejected everything good in the world, even though it’s tainted by evil, I’d be one miserable guy indeed.

  7. Matt. 7:6 says:

    Hello, I noticed that K. Carl Smith seemed inaccurate as to the famous open letter from Frederick Douglass “To [His] Old Master, Thomas Auld.” (I think Smith is probably referring to this letter, but only because nothing else turned up on a cursory Google search; I got no response e-mailing Mr. Smith.)

    In the famous open letter, as I read it, Douglass was not offering, not his forgiveness, but rather his warning that he was going to continue to use Auld’s name in telling his story of bondage, justifying this acknowledged and willful embarrassment of another man’s privacy on the grounds that criminals should be known to the community at large.

    To me, Mr. Smith’s tone at CPAC implied that the document was a private act of humble, great-souled forgiveness. I found it to be intelligent, philosophical, and proud, but forgiving, not so much. The word is never mentioned or implied. When you review it, note Douglass’ sarcasm at “…whom you MAY have heard of…” with reference to William Lloyd Garrison. Note also the spurious offer of charity, as a mere means to demonstrate how a real gentleman should behave.

  8. Jocelyn says:

    You’re amazing


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s