NOTE: My statements are not necessarily my opinions. I often post point-counterpoint essays in which I strongly take one side of an issue and later counter that with antithetical views. This intellectual exercise helps me see the merit in opposing opinions and augments my creativity.

Can you pass this acid test of racism and generosity?

Would you give someone you never met more than you earned in the past few years simply because you thought they deserved it? Would you do that if you had no legal obligation to be so generous? I did.

Years ago, I developed a way to allow people to connect via the Internet and communicate even if neither knew the other's e-mail address. My site enabled anyone to contact anybody on any site, even those (like dating sites) that require people to pay to contact others. My site could do that even if the sender did not have an account with the site hosting the recipient, and it was all legal and ethical because communication was done via my site, not by hacking into the site where the sender found the recipient.

How in the world did I do that?

You're probably wondering, “Hmmm, how could that be possible? How could I contact someone without knowing his or her name, e-mail address, or other contact info? How could I contact them via another site?” I'll give you a hint: think information and probability. Probability may seem too tenuous to be of value, but it is not. In fact, probability is one of the most rock-solid things to rely on.

Probability and a closely related term, entropy, influence the laws of physics, making them effectively immutable. I applied this informational theory to a website that, for example, permitted John to contact Jane after noticing her on a personals site, any other Internet page, or even seemingly unrelated things in the real world. I erased communication barriers for legitimate users while blocking spammers (incidentally, the site I'm discussing is not the same as one of my other sites, MySpamSponge, which I later created).

I couldn't program computers at that time, so I hired a programmer in India to turn my ideas into code. I described the site's functionality and basically how it would achieve it, and we agreed upon a price.

The project turned out to be more involved than I anticipated, so part way through it, I told him that I'd pay more than the contract fee. He said I wasn't obliged to do that, but he would accept any payment I offered. I paid him twice the fee we agreed upon. That additional fee was more money than I made in the last few years—lean years in which I chased my dream of living by writing. I was living off savings and just scraping by, so it would have been easy to justify paying the programmer only the fee we agreed upon, but I doubled it, giving him extra money I desperately needed because it was the right thing to do. He did more work, so I paid him for it, and told him that I wanted to give him even more in the future. I like intelligent people who are conscientious, good workers, and he was exactly that. He didn't whine, complain, or give excuses, he just worked … and worked.

My generosity to someone I never met in a foreign country might come as a surprise to folks gullible enough to believe the Media Matters smear alleging I am racist. (Then why would I jump for joy if Dr. Ben Carson were President and Louisiana State Senator Elbert Guillory were Vice President? Because they are black? No, because I agree with them on most topics, and even when I don't, I know their good hearts and minds led them to conclusions I don't share because reasonable minds can differ.) Media Matters went on the warpath when I wrote an article giving evidence that one of their darlings was somewhat racist (although less than she once was) and was brazenly partisan in promoting class warfare. Her husband, brimming with hatred, said even more outrageous things.

Even the über-liberal New York Times called Media Matters “highly partisan.” That's a nice way of saying they aren't fair. Their lack of fairness is so well-known that everyone who knows anything about American politics knows they twist the truth to fit their agenda. I am not fully conservative (far from it), and I wholeheartedly agree with some things Media Matters says (such as pointing out the unfairness of Fox News, which I proved elsewhere), but if Media Matters said the sky was blue, I'd look up and see for myself. They don't always lie, but they do lie through their teeth, misleading people eager to swallow their distortions hook, line, and sinker.

If Media Matters were completely honest, they'd say that I detest war criminals who butcher people and rape young children before sexually mutilating them (see my articles on Japanese war crimes and Hirohito: the war criminal who got off scot-free). I referred to those barbaric war criminals using a word you can hear on TV military documentaries and in an über-liberal town even in politically correct 2011 (see A real-world test of acceptable speech/Political partisans playing the race card).

If Media Matters were completely honest, they'd say that I detest businessmen who put profits over people; businessmen who intentionally poison their customers and their pets. I don't dislike anyone because of racial reasons; race is never a good (or even flimsy) reason to dislike someone, but behavior is, when that behavior is heinous and cruel, such as raping kids and poisoning customers. I loathe evil people who do evil things. The ones I criticized did things that even Hitler didn't do, so by criticizing me for lambasting monsters, Media Matters proved that they will figuratively side with any evil slime if it fits their agenda.

Intelligent, educated people appreciate my war on evil. For example, Dr. Michael Brett-Crowther, Editor of the International Journal of Environmental Studies, wrote to me, “I think your remarks on Japan's unadmitted, unrepented guilt are very sound and far better expressed than many on US Veterans' sites.” He requested that I write and submit a paper on the “cultural environment for Jap atrocities” because “the Japanese must confront their responsibilities.”

The Germans have done a superb job in denouncing Hitler as a whack-job, but some Japanese still revere Hirohito even though he killed more people than Hitler and his men committed shockingly brutal and outrageously inhumane war crimes that surpassed the depravity of Nazi gas chambers. I have nothing against Japanese people in general (in fact, I have Japanese friends), just their war criminals and Hirohito, who promulgated the notion that he was a God; specifically, he claimed to descend from a Sun Goddess. As such an exalted deity, he didn't lose any sleep over the crushing of innocent men, women, and children in other Asian nations; they were just peons (in his twisted mind) to be harvested to feed his monumental ego and countrymen who felt entitled to be as savage as they wanted in their pursuit of their dreams of conquest.

Some people think that is ancient history and that we should instead focus on more important matters, such as who won Dancing With The Stars. I disagree. The world has far to go before it stamps out most manifestations of evil, which triggers wars, terrorism, and many crimes. I am convinced that this war is winnable so that evil is much rarer than it is now. To achieve that goal, one of the worst things we can do is forget about evil and give its perpetrators a pass. We could effectively immunize people from their susceptibility to evil leaders and evil impulses, but most people think they have better things to do. If not Dancing With The Stars, then something equally frivolous.

If Media Matters were fair, they would praise me for becoming socially involved and caring more about others—such as the programmer from India—than I do about myself.

If Media Matters were fair, they would admit that even Barack Obama, their Ivy League-educated paragon of perfection, can say politically incorrect things. Appearing on The Tonight Show with Jay Leno, President Obama said, “It's like, it was like the Special Olympics or something” in referring to his low bowling score.

Had President George W. Bush similarly insulted the disabled, liberal activists would have tarred and feathered him, excoriating him for years afterward. However, the liberal outrage over Obama's blunder was surprisingly mild. ABC News wasn't happy about it, nor was Tim Shriver, chairman of the Special Olympics. Rahm Emanuel, then White House chief of staff, also apologized to the Special Olympics head after he called a group of liberal activists “fucking retarded.” Media Matters defended him, saying “it's worth noting that Emanuel has apologized for the comment at least twice now.

It isn't easy keeping up with all non-PC words and phrases; virtually everyone makes such blunders. If you make one and you march in lockstep with everything Media Matters believes, they'll give you a pass and even defend you. However, if you don't agree with them on everything, and if you are a sufficiently talented writer that they fear your ability to influence others, they will attack you. If they can't find enough to criticize, they will make up outrageous lies, as they did in my case.

If Media Matters were fair, they would have told their readers that I had thought of and presented an instant cure for racism years ago on some of my websites (I am now expanding that into a book: Rapidly Overcoming Racism, Bigotry, and Homophobia).

If Media Matters were fair, they would have said that I exposed racist healthcare workers who intentionally murder black patients.

If Media Matters were fair, they would not have claimed that I thought Native Americans “should have been grateful for their subjugation by whites.” That's absurd and a good example of their carelessness. I am part Native American, so to suggest that I or my ancestors should be grateful for their subjugation is pure lunacy. Every ethical historian acknowledges that subjugation was one of the most abominable acts in history, and I strongly condemned it in writing (in one of my books and websites) long before I learned of my Native American ancestry.

Me, happy about the subjugation of Native Americans? Hardly! You could spend the rest of your life searching but not finding someone who is more irate about that issue than me. In my humble opinion, I did a better job than anyone of illustrating the unfairness of that subjugation, which really irks me. I'm an ardent fan of fairness (something that should be obvious to people who read everything I wrote), and that subjugation was not fair, period. It was inexcusable, and sweeping it under the rug (as most people do, with their minds attending to more important matters, such as who won Dancing With The Stars) is also inexcusable, so I don't. I stuck my neck out and addressed a historical injustice that most people prefer to forget about. Frankly, on this issue, I am further left than most folks in the far Left, yet the sages at Media Matters painted a picture of me as being further Right than Attila the Hun. Thus if you don't believe Bill O'Reilly when he complains of outrageous smears by Media Matters, believe me. Or judge for yourself. Read my opinion of Native American subjugation and ask yourself if you think I am happy about it, or support it in any way. Absolutely not!

Of course, Media Matters isn't the only organization that distorts the truth. Fox News does it, but in such clever ways that it took me years to realize that they are not as fair and balanced as they claim. The foxes at Fox are so foxy that it isn't easy to see how they cleverly make their side seem better than it really is, while the lies and distortions of Media Matters are so utterly transparent than even children can spot them.

All of these lies from the Left and Right are just symptoms of a desperate, dying country in which neither side has yet figured out what I did: how to give more to those who need help while lessening the burden on taxpayers. This seems too good to be true, but years ago I demonstrated how to do it. My plan doesn't favor the Left, the Right, or anyone in between: it helps everyone, and thus is feared by partisans who are still in the infantile stage of demonizing their opponents—partisans who think they can win only by slitting the throats of their opponents.

Wrong. Cooperation is clearly better. I can win while helping you win, too. Find out how, and demand that politicians implement my ideas that could make the difference between your grandchildren living in a nice home or a dilapidated shack. Without my idea or something comparable, the United States is bound to collapse economically. Our standard of living is being eroded so that people who once made good livings now are unemployed or working for a fraction of what they once earned. Washington isn't sufficiently troubled when people take a step or two down the ladder of prosperity, but if you aren't there already, you could be next. Politicians are doing less than they could to fix our economy, so we must demand they do more than rehash freeze-dried ideas from bygone American politicians.

Homeless woman sleeping on the ground, using newspaper as a mattress
Like homelessness? Keep voting for politicians who can
help one group of Americans only by hurting others.

If you read the other articles on my blog, you will see how Media Matters mischaracterized me. It's not a question of if they lied, but why they are so full of hatred. Why? Because they are bigots:

bigot (noun): (1) a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing opinion, belief, or creed; (2) a person who is obstinately intolerant of any ideas other than his or her own, especially on politics or religion, and has animosity toward those of differing beliefs.

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who describes himself as a liberal Democrat, declared war on Media Matters, saying they have “crossed the line” and use Hitler-like tactics. Professor Dershowitz said he “can't tolerate bigotry on any side of the political spectrum.”

Dershowitz said the Media Matters smear merchant used “virulent hate speech” and an odious, “wildly inaccurate” canard:

canard (noun): a fabricated sensational statement or report, especially one set afloat in the media to hoax the public; an absurd, unfounded, false, baseless, or extravagant report, rumor, hoax, or story that is deliberately misleading and usually derogatory; a false report motivated by maliciousness that is intended to deceive people; a fable, fiction, or falsehood; a lie.

Dana Loesch wrote that Media Matters “has been an embarrassment with pettiness and hyperbole permeating every post. Their baseless attacks on political enemies they wish to blacklist has earned them the reputation as modern-day book burners. Their mission of correcting "conservative misinformation" has been refuted countless times by numerous outlets.”

While there is indeed “conservative misinformation,” the best way to combat it is not with more misinformation, but that's what Media Matters sometimes uses. Largely conservative news organizations such as Fox News usually stick to the truth in what they report; their big lies are generally what they don't say. Don't think so? Try this pop quiz: What recent White House inhabitant is a killer? Don't know? If you read my article giving the surprising answer, you'll see examples of how Americans are deceived by a news organization that claims to be “fair and balanced.” With lies from the Left and lies from the Right, it's no wonder why so many people are so deluded by media that sweep inconvenient facts under the rug and use misinformation to help them achieve their political objectives.

Related topics

Dr. Lazar Greenfield versus the PC police

The views expressed on this page may or may not reflect my current opinions, nor do they necessarily represent my past ones. After reading a slice of what I wrote in my various websites and books, you may conclude that I am a liberal Democrat or a conservative Republican. Wrong; there is a better alternative. Just as the primary benefit from debate classes results when students present and defend opinions contrary to their own, I use a similar strategy as a creative writing tool to expand my brainpower—and yours. Mystified? Stay tuned for an explanation. PS: The wheels in your head are already turning a bit faster, aren't they?

“The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.”
F. Scott Fitzgerald

Reference: Imagining dialogue can boost critical thinking: Excerpt: “Examining an issue as a debate or dialogue between two sides helps people apply deeper, more sophisticated reasoning …”

Comments (0)

post commentPost a comment or subscribe to my blog