“The Wilding of Sarah Palin”: Platitudinous Piffle, Censorship and Liberalism, at The Republican Thinker

By Nicholas Stix

(First published on Friday at 5:57 a.m., under a slightly different title, which failed to show up on Google, except under my name. Let’s see how this title does.)

What do you think, when you see a writer provide an essay with a climax, in the form of a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.? Say, the following:

Hatred paralyzes life; love releases it. Hatred confuses life; love harmonizes it. Hatred darkens life; love illuminates it.

And then the writer adds her own powerful conclusion:

In these dark times, with spiritually bankrupt people at the helm, thank God we have bright lights like Sarah Palin to illuminate the darkness.

In these dark times, upon reading the foregoing passages, rational people reach for the nearest vessel, and spew their guts into it.

The essay is entitled, “The Wilding of Sarah Palin,” and the Web site is called “The American Thinker,” but the writer hides behind the anonymity of the moniker, “Robin of Berkeley.” That’s right, she anonymously quotes MLK! Excuse me, she anonymously calls him, “Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.” Never mind that he’s been dead over 41 years, his doctorate was obtained via fraud, and that no one, outside of a student or employee, is obligated to call a living Ph.D. (or in this case, a D.D.) “Doctor,” anyway.

The writer describes herself as “a psychotherapist and a recovering liberal in Berkeley.”

She may or may not be a psychotherapist, live in Berkeley, or be named “Robin,” but this much I can tell you: “A recovering liberal,” she ain’t. She’s a liberal Republican! (This type is also known as a "neocon.")

How did I even encounter this dangerous individual? Glad you asked. The truth of the matter is, it was all Larry Auster’s fault. Larry Auster is linked to liberal Republicans! To Auster, I say this: You did it, you did it!

I decided to post a comment on the liberal Republican's essay, which entailed writing and re-writing it a few times. After all, if you’re not going to put any care into a comment, why write it, in the first place?

This essay was pretty good, if overwrought, until the Martin Luther King Jr. quote at the end. What a let-down.

The quote itself is a load of platitudinous piffle, which we are supposed to bow down to, because it comes from St. Martin. Well, I don’t worship Martin. I used to, but then I learned what a monster he was. (Particularly towards women, thus making him an especially bad choice for a closing quote for such an essay.) Not worshiping any man is also part of reaching one’s mental majority.

I read the first 30-40 comments, and they sound as mindless as the sort of stuff one gets from the Obamatons. Sarah Palin is not the second coming of Ronald Reagan, and she is not headed for the White House. She is personable, physically attractive, I sympathize with what she has been put through, and I appreciate her symbolic function for those who hate her. With that said, someone who quits halfway through her first term as governor of Alaska is not presidential timber, and when so many right-of-center voters focus their hopes and energies on her, it can only help the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” maintain power.

As for those who praise “her” book, she did not write it, and may not even have read it.

I fail to see how the Republic can be saved from Obamatons by GOPbots.

At the time I posted it, a couple of days ago, the essay had 187 comments. In the meantime, it carries 295, but it doesn’t carry mine. Comment 291, by an Andrew Evanko, argues:

The single greatest threat to Our Democracy is Political Correctness. It has ebbed into all areas of our life….

Amen, Brother! And so Brother Evanko goes on for 287 words. I enjoy nothing so much as a politically correct Republican excoriating leftists for “Political Correctness,” don't you?

I wonder how many other critical comments the editors censored.

Nothing gets my Irish up quicker than someone trying to shut me up, whether it’s a socialist/communist/whatever (aka “liberal”), or a “to the right of Attila the Hun conservative” (i.e., liberal Republican/neocon).

I took a closer look at MLK’s anonymous follower. Her Palin essay contained this passage:

As time went on, I had many experiences that should have made me rethink my certainty. But I remained nestled in cognitive dissonance -- therapy jargon for not wanting to see what I didn't want to see.

One clue: the miscreants who were brutalizing me didn't exactly look Reagan-esque. In middle and high schools, they were minority kids enraged about forced busing. On the streets of New York City and Berkeley, they were derelicts and hoodlums.

What sort of “derelicts and hoodlums” might these raceless miscreants have been? As for “minority kids enraged about forced busing,” is “Robin from Berkeley” perhaps a pseudonym for Jonathan Kozol?

The “forced busing” line linked to another essay from the anonymous MLKer, “Why White America Chose Obama.”

In the 60's, liberal policy makers conceived of forced busing so that deprived kids could enjoy tonier surroundings. The utopians envisioned the dazzling spectacle of ethnic bonding. [NS: Not “deprived kids,” but black, or as they were then known, Negro kids! None of this was designed for deprived white kids, whom the white socialists and communists despised.]

At my elementary school, the black kids arrived each day by bus while whites walked or rode bikes. When the kids exited the bus, they looked scared to death, dazed into silence. Walking into school together must have felt like a walk of shame.

Notwithstanding the Kumbaya vision of the races mixing and matching, we each stayed in our racial groups. The only girl I remember is Sheila Smith, the lone black girl in my class. She wore crisply ironed dresses, her wavy hair adorned with pretty bows and clips.

I was a sensitive and observant child. [Thanks for telling us, in case we failed to get the point.] I recall gazing into Sheila's eyes and witnessing a fright I'd never witnessed before. Sitting in the back of the class, Sheila was mute the entire year.

Several elementary schools converged together in middle school. That's when all hell broke loose. Reunited, hordes of black kids charged defiantly down the hallways, mowing down anyone who got in their way.

They had suffered horribly through those lonely, humiliating, seven years. And now it was time for revenge.

[“Revenge” against whom, and for what? How had they “suffered horribly”? Had they been “assaulted, knifed, robbed, molested on a regular basis”? (See her later paragraph.) The writer provides not a single example of black suffering. And what of white kids who were bused into black schools? I know of no stories of them later exacting “revenge” on black kids in junior high or high school, of white kids “assault[ing], knif[ing], robb[ing], molest[ing]” black kids “on a regular basis.”]

Sheila Smith let her hair thicken into a wild afro and became one of the meanest girls. I averted my eyes when I saw her because her furious visage frightened me.

[In other words, when Sheila Smith was the only black kid in class, she had felt that she had to behave herself. That was her “fright.” She was scared straight.]

Middle school was like living in a war zone. The white kids were called every name in the book. There were few of us who weren't assaulted, knifed, robbed, molested on a regular basis. I developed physical problems for fear of using the bathroom, where many of the attacks happened….”

[I believe that “molested” is an all-purpose euphemism for “raped,” “sodomized,” and “fondled.”]

Many liberals voted for Obama in the hopes that all would be forgiven. That if whites handed over some power, finally we can move on and get along. We'll be safe.

Had someone like General Colin Powell or former Congressman Harold Ford Jr. been elected, we probably would not have a foreboding, fearful atmosphere. Though they lean left, both men are patriotic, experienced leaders who may have facilitated racial healing.

[Racial healing? Did she just use the phrase, “racial healing”?!]

Ironically, White America envisioned forgiveness, a letting go of old wounds. Instead we have emboldened people obsessed with evil deeds carried out by citizens long dead.
And not only whites are affected by the hostile environment. The vast majority of Blacks are law abiding citizens, and they are preyed upon in disproportionate numbers.”

There is nothing at all ironic about what the writer described. Blacks aren’t obsessed “with evil deeds carried out by citizens long dead,” and it is not the case that “The vast majority of Blacks are law abiding citizens, and they are preyed upon in disproportionate numbers.” The vast majority of blacks are bone-chillingly racist (also here; their talk of white racism of yore is just a cover story for their racism. Most blacks who obsess over the imaginary past also obsess over the imaginary present of “racial profiling,” and promote the black race hoax du jour.

It’s the racism, stupid!

“White America” didn’t vote for the John Doe calling himself “Barack Obama” for the reasons Dr. Fraud/Miss MLK-GOP cited. Half or more of the 43 percent of whites who voted for “Obama” were variously socialists and communists. Of the young white voters, mostly college kids, who voted for him who weren’t socialists or communists, most were idiots who thought it would make them look cool, i.e., for social status. The same was true of the Republican, libertarian, and independent suburban, middle and upper-middle-class soccer moms and their husbands who voted for “Obama.” They wanted to simultaneously appear morally superior to, and stick it to whites with less money. And I would guess that 10-20 percent of the whites who voted for “Obama” did so, thanks to being duped by the MSM’s propaganda campaign on his behalf, which consisted of refusing to vet his and his monstrous wife’s background; their genocidal, black supremacist views; and black supremacist and communist associates; lying, in calling him a “moderate”; condemning all of his critics, even the Clintons, as “racists”; and presenting the “Obamas” in warm, soft focus as cuddly and warm.

Conversely, the “forgiveness” trope was nonsense 40 years ago, and has not improved with age. During the 1960s, blacks rioted, and white leaders of both parties bled the white middle and working classes dry, in order to pay them off. Blacks responded by demanding ever more, preying ever more on whites, and embracing genocidally racist beliefs that differ little from one black social class to another.

In countless urban black neighborhoods today, the majority of black men 20-29 are convicted felons. I once lived in a black neighborhood—Far Rockaway, Queens—where you hardly ever SAW a black man that age, because most of them were in jail. And the ones you did encounter were invariably parolees, had completed their sentences, or active felons who had yet to go to jail (e.g., in some cases, it was their 20th birthday).

But it wasn’t just the professional felons who were criminals; the so-called “law-abiding,” “respectable” blacks not only rabidly encouraged the thugs, but routinely committed crimes on their behalf—accessory after the fact, conspiracy to obstruct justice, filing false police reports, etc.—in order to help them escape arrest for assaulting whites: School principals, postal managers, subway motormen, even black policemen.

And blacks are not “preyed upon in disproportionate numbers” by black thugs, law-abiding whites are. Despite the fact that most blacks live in black neighborhoods, despite crime stats that are falsified, in order to make black crime appear less pervasive than it is, and despite police and prosecutors doing everything possible to discourage whites from reporting black-on-white crime, including threatening, arresting, and imprisoning white crime victims simply for defending themselves from racist black attackers, every year since 1987, blacks have committed more crimes against whites than they have against other blacks.

Consider some more pearls of wisdom from Dr. Fraud/Miss MLK-GOP:

It wasn't the black or the white kids' fault. High minded liberals were culpable for hatching up grand plans without an iota of thought about how it would play out in real time: that if you create a nightmare situation for black children by removing them from their neighborhood and their friends, you traumatize them. And if you then turn them loose and give them carte blanche, some will be out for blood.

There’s the ultimate smoking gun: The liberal Republican always blames black racism on white “liberals.” Wrong, lady: It was the black kids’ fault. They were the vicious, racist hoodlums. The black kids weren’t “traumatized,” their white victims were. This headshrinker, Dr. Fraud, is a nihilist.

Is liberal Republican psychobabble in place of socialist/communist/whatever psychobabble supposed to represent progress?

People like Dr. Fraud/Miss MLK-GOP and her standard-bearer, John McCain, are the reason I made my undervote count in the 2008 election. If it had been 1968, instead of 2008, lesser-evilism might have made sense. But like John McCain, Dr. Fraud/Miss MLK-GOP is 40 years late, and $10 trillion short. White americans must not be fooled out of facing up to contemporary racial reality by politically correct, liberal Republicans, because not only will we pay, but so too will our children and our children’s children—possibly with their lives.