Follow Dr. Waddy

Tragically, Google has suspended the service that allows blog readers to subscribe by email to the blogs of their choice. This means that, in order to keep up with all the WaddyIsRight excitement, you might want to add "WaddyIsRight.com" to your favorites and visit this site OBSESSIVELY! I can't think of any better use of your time, can you? Alternatively, send me an email at nlwaddy@yahoo.com and I will try to get you subscribed from my end.

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

Be Fruitful and Musk-iply

 


Friends, this week's Newsmaker Show focuses on several of the hot-button issues that people are chattering about, including a perennial favorite, gun rights/gun control, the exoneration of Clinton lawyer Michael Sussman, and Elon Musk's surprising advocacy of pro-natalism.


When we get to "This Day in History", Brian and I talk about the Battle of Gettysburg, America's involvement in the "liberation" of Cuba circa 1898, and the persistence of yellow journalism throughout U.S. history.

 

Check it out!

 

https://wlea.net/newsmaker-june-1-2022-dr-nick-waddy/ 


And here is an article about Musk's views on demography and procreation:


https://thefederalist.com/2022/05/24/elon-musk-is-right-have-more-kids/

30 comments:

  1. Dr. Waddy from Jack: Semi last things first: Gettysburg: One of the big thrills I've had as a reenactor was to march in Union uniform and in Union army marching formation across the very ground of the Bloody Angle, where Longstreet's assault crested and where, just maybe, the history of the 20th century was decided! Meade's victory MIGHT have done for the Confederacy and a united America was key to the defeat of the terrible 20th century dictatorships. I've hiked it many times and reenacted on adjacent fields and all aways in the thrall of imagination of the nobility of those who fought there, yes, on both sides. They were all Americans!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Many thoughts on recently urged gun control: You are right in stating we are an irredemably ,(given present multitudinous gun possession) nation and that that we pay a considerable price for our freedom.Let me preface all my opinion on gun control by this: the most devoted of these who obviously seek the complete suppression of the American gun culture do not care about public safety any more than in a secondary, ancillary way. Their purpose is to politically discredit and disable gun owners and our fearsomely effective NRA! That is because we wisely support office holders, law makers and opinion makers who are conservative on a wide range of issues well beyond gun rights!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dr. Waddy from Jack : I know there are many of good will who sincerely believe that increased gun control means increased public safety. I think they have been regrettably betrayed by present and proposed gun control laws. Present insane violence in the US , by various means, originates in the following: "Tolerance" :a well meaning but way overgeneralized term mistaken by the evil and criminally insane as LICENSE, not only for incredibly sociopathic THOUGHTS but also therefore affirmative BEHAVIOR! Heretofore in frontier influenced America, such behavior was met by savage physical reprisal! Such fear no longer restrains present day monsters.They reasonably expect personally sought, sometimes immediately redeemed death, with benefitOR muchnotoriety, the certainty that they HAVE made a difference in this world
    r notoriety,










    ReplyDelete
  4. Dr.Waddy from Jack: You rightly assert that we pay a price for our freedoms.OK politically determined gun culture destroyers: would you trade your apology for savage criminals, your criminal empowering unrelenting attack on our police, your insistence on ridiculously extended technical rights for even those obviously, even insolently admissive of crimes even unto treason, your defense of the continuing murder of now some 30 million unborn humans: would you trade that for our gun Constitutional gunowning rights, ehhh!? Oh yeah, I thought so!


    ReplyDelete
  5. Jack, I'm curious: do you agree with me that, by the time of Gettysburg, a Southern victory in the Civil War was extremely unlikely...but that a masterful battlefield triumph deep in Union territory was perhaps the only way it could have been brought about?

    I agree: the gun-grabbers are more passionate about the erasure of personal liberty than they are about the abolition of guns, per se. I mean, they must know that many countries that have eliminated all gun rights still have masses of violent crime. There's just more to these issues than legislation anyway. I bet murder is still illegal in Donbas. How's that working out?

    Your mention of notoriety intrigues me. That clearly is a key motivator for many mass killers. In that sense, might our (leftist) MSM bear significant responsibility for this carnage? Could they be sued or held liable, just as gun manufacturers are beginning to be? That would be an amusing twist!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nick, population growth in the U.S. varies by racial/ethnic group. White fertility is about 1.94 (2.0 is replacement), Asian-Americans are about 2.25, Blacks are about 2.30 and Latinos are around 5. So, maybe if whites would refocus their attention on trying to suppress the voting rights and economic opportunities of people of color to "getting it on" with their partners, maybe the fertility problem would ease.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rod

      You make a lot of statements in your posts, and as usual, present NO evidence to back up your claims. You premise is: "I believe it, so it must be true." How are Whites suppressing the "voting rights and economic opportunities of people of color"? I''m not talking about the past, but right now. How are Whites doing that? If you were an attorney and attempted to defend or prosecute a case in a court of law based on your "logic", you would fail. And by the way, who exactly are "people of color"? How do you define that. You need to s*** or get off the pot. Have a nice day, fool.

      Delete
    2. Seriously? I have to defend the term "people of color." People who are not Caucasian. OK.

      Suppressing voting rights? Have you not paid attention? The first thing that Red states did when SCOTUS gutted the Voting Rights Act was to cut back on polling places in areas highly populated with people of color, limit voting machines in those areas, and cut back on hours when individuals could get voter ID. Those actions are voter suppression.

      As far as economic opportunities, conservatives for years have been lying that affirmative action equals quotas. It doesn't. It just means making a better effort to reach applicants of color. Yet conservatives scream that such efforts are "reverse discrimination," thus keep in place patterns of disparate economic impact affecting people of color, particularly blacks and Hispanics.

      Delete
    3. By the way, you engage in a number of ad hominem attacks, which is pretty typical among people who have nothing to contribute to the argument.

      Delete
    4. Hey Rod,

      Go F yourself! And when you get done doing that, report back to me for further instructions. You are living proof that there is NO compromise or negotiation whatsoever with those of your ilk on The Left. Stick my remarks up your ad hominem. You can also call 1-800 EAT DUNG. By the way A**hole, I am White, but my ancestors do not come from the Caucasus Mountains area. In any event, you still have NOT proved (with evidence) that Red states suppressed "people of color" voting rights. Again F You!

      Delete
    5. The data on poll closures came from the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. After the Shelby decision that gutted the Voting Rights Act, the 7 states (TX, AZ, GA, LA, MS, AL and NC) most affected closed 1688 polling places, most in area with large populations of people of color. That is more evidence than your responses have yielded.

      Now, I have no intention of being told to fuck myself or that I am a fool or an asshole. So, I am just going to ignore you like I ignore all the other folks whose only argumentation strategy is to engage in ad hominem attacks.

      Delete
    6. By all means, please do ignore me. Forget the go fuck yourself, and just kill yourself. I recommend ancient Japanese ritual suicide. Then I will be able to mark your file DSAF-Did Society A Favor.

      Delete
  7. Dr. Waddy from Jack:I would suggest the following: As of the first day of Gettysburg, July 1, 1863, the South still had a longshot chance but: Vicksburg was clearly doomed and that would close the Mississippi. Lee could have won at Gettysburg if he had personally supervised "Pickett's Charge" and committed far more of his available force. He depended too much on his Corps, Division and Brigade Commanders and they fluffed! Had he won he wouldhave had to follow up with the complete destructin of the Army of thePotomac.The two defeats were a body blow ; the Army of N. Virginia never again went on offense and Lee was a superlative offensive commander. But I think the South had a chance until fall of 1864 when it lost the Shenandoah Valley at the Battle ofCedar Creek. Lee was causing unimaginable casualties though by then Grant had him beseiged. Would a PresidentMcClellan have called him off in March of 1865? A defeated Lincoln might have ordered Grant into a perhaps premature attempt to defeat Lee before McClellan took office, withhorrific casualties and possible repulse. MightPresident McClellan have cried "enough blood!" Yes, I think theSouth had some chance before and even after Gettysburg.

    ReplyDelete
  8. The fact remains that people on both sides kept the American Civil War going regardless of the horrible casualties. Certainly after Gettysburg, Lee might have considered making some sort of peace proposals (did he?). But the slaughter went on for another two years. Why? For what? Apparently, generals on both sides didn't give a damn about how many men they lost. What other conclusions can one come to. And yet today, this war is still glorified, or at least was until recently.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually, Rod Carveth is correct about ignoring me in the future. I'm sure I would if someone told me to go F myself. Nevertheless, at least I was able to pry the evidence about suppression of voting rights for "people of color" out of him. He finally provided it, although there are still some wide gaps in that evidence, such as when exactly did the closing of polling places occur? What specific incident was this? In any event, those "people of color" Carveth yaps about probably have more rights these days than Whites do. The scales are certainly in favor of "people of color" these days. Wonder if some White man who died because of some Black policeman's poor decision would become a national icon, or be awarded millions in reparation? I doubt it. But hey, Leftists love race wars when it serves their purposes, does it not? So, since Rod will be ignoring me in the future, I will continue to challenge his comments anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dr.Waddyfrom Jack: To answer your question at long last: A Confederate Gettysburg victory, if it had been followed closely by the complete destruction of the Army of the Potomac, would have somewhat mitigated the loss of Vicksburg and Lee would have taken quick advantage. Some historians think he might have ranged to Philadelphia or even NYC. But that might have extended his supply lines too far. Some think he would have besieged or even attacked DC.But Washington was reputed the best fortified city in North America and it contained the iron will of President Lincoln. Lee could have besieged it at length with part of his Army because its defense troops were incapable after long garrison duty, of vexing him. He might perhaps have sent part of of his army to redeem perhaps even Vicksburg. The Rebs had been grievously often bested in the "Western " theatre already. But in the event he did that anyway after Gettysburg ,sending part of his Army to Chickamauga and eventually to the Shenandoah where their success was but fleeting.So would a Confederate victory at Gettysburg have enhanced their slight chances? For awhile I think. But: had the alliance of ,yes, brilliant Grant (Lee's tactical and gutsy equal , oh yes, he proved it at Shiloh ,Vicksburg and Chattanooga and in his realistic resolve to necessarily and finally beat the wily Lee into the ground) AND the indomitable President Lincoln have eventually prevailed in the east? It could have taken a long time to rebuild (yes, McClellan's creation the Army of the Potomac) and employ it against Lee in any setting! Meanwhile, what!!?? Defeatist ,arrogant and personally vindictive President McClellan?Again I think the Rebs had chance until at least the 1864 election .

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Well, Grant ,after murderous Cold Harbor, wept, and Burnside meant, until restraint, to suicidally charge Marye's Heights at Fredericksburg after the homicidal advance he ordered. Lee was in close and effective contact with Davis after his brilliant Chancellorsville victory in May, 1863, two months before Gettysburg. After that, aside from his Presidentially rejected offer of resignation after Gettysburg I do not know of any suggestion on his part of other than continued resistance, perhaps in hope of Lincoln's removal from office. I think Lee continued to advise Davis on overall strategy until the end.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dr.Waddy from Jack: Ray, you are right. Particularly we reenactors celebrate that war with our ,well, very partial reenactments! Most of us, if projected into a very Civil War fight, would scurry for the exits! Still: we cannot resist the opportunity to (FULLY RESPECTFULLY, we hope) "represent" their resolve! Perhaps it may lend some renewed reverence for their sacrifice and its favorable 20th century consequences?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Rod, I don't know where you get your figures, but they are way off. ALL racial/ethnic groups in the U.S. have fertility rates below the replacement level. There is a racial/ethnic dimension to the fertility problem, yes, but not surprisingly your understanding of it is heavily warped by the CRT filtering that governs which information/misinformation reaches your addled brain.

    https://www.prb.org/resources/why-is-the-u-s-birth-rate-declining/

    And, Rod, all your carping about "voter suppression" would be a lot more credible if somewhere, somehow, "people of color" started voting less often. Unfortunately for you, the opposite is the case, and has been the case for decades now. But, since counterfactual reasoning is the centerpiece of your worldview, I won't belabor the point.

    Ray makes a good point: so "people of color" are those who aren't "Caucasian"? And what on earth is a Caucasian? It's a category every bit as invented as "people of color". Hey, white is a color, no? POC is just a paradigm created to allow lefties to valorize some and demonize others. How about treating everyone equally? There's a novel idea!

    And, okay, a bunch of polling places were closed. So, let me get this straight: you lefties want everyone to vote by mail, BUT if a single polling place closes, you'll scream "RACISM!" at the top of your lungs. Very compelling logic, Rod.

    Excellent point, Jack: whether the South could have won the Civil War hinges in large measure on the results of the election of 1864. If the Dems could have won it, all bets would have been off. After all, that's the formula by which anyone wins an asymmetrical fight: you stymie the occupier long enough that he tires and withdraws. Surely that WAS a possibility in the Civil War.

    Ray, you're right: the Left is wedded to its anti-white narrative and, therefore, the less racist that America becomes, the more fanatical and obsessive they must be in their search for racism. Ergo, their detachment from reality grows more and more acute. Insults probably won't jolt them into rationality, though. What Rod really needs is a hug!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick
      The only way this is going to be resolved is for Rod to challenge you to a duel. I will be your second, and the duel will be held at the Waddy mansion on your plantation near Ne w Orleans. The witnesses will be "the people of color" you employ on your estate. This should settle matters once and for all. If Rod does not challenge you to a duel in 48 hours, then you have to challenge him. If the duel is held, and Rod wins, he gets your entire plantation, and you will be lucky to become a share cropper working for Rod.

      Delete
  14. Nick, I already told one person today I am not taking any personal attacks from them and I am damn sure not taking them from you! It is particularly galling given that of all the people throwing CRT around on this blog, I am the only who actually understands what it is all about and researches it.

    And, if you are going to describe MY views, then cite MY views. I haven't ever advocated that everyone vote by mail. I just don't happen to see it as the problem as you do. In fact, five states do all their voting by mail and have not had any issues.

    People of color were not the ones who made distinctions among people based on skin color. It was whites. Remember, if there was one drop of "Negro blood" in a person, then they were a Negro. Even in New Orleans, which in the early 1800s had a reasonably egalitarian attitude regarding race, still made distinctions such as "mulatto," "quadroon," "octoroon" and "hexadecaroon." Whites came up with the Chinese Exclusion Act. Native Americans -- who actually lived here before white Europeans -- were not granted citizenship in their own country until 1924 and many couldn't vote in states until 1957.

    So, please, continue to tell me how "POC is just a paradigm created to allow lefties to valorize some and demonize others."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Rod
    This is not an attack, but are you a mulatto, quadroon, octoroon, or hexadecaroon? You must be one of these, I do hope, and especially since you will be dueling with Nick, who is by the way a White Macaroon. You didn't know that did you? Well, he is. Good luck on the duel. I will be arriving in New Orleans at the end of the month. God Bless you Rod. And three cheers for Old Dixie.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Ray, your plan has merit, but what do I get if I win? Since everyone knows the Democratic plantation is still going strong, I wouldn't mind a share of its yearly crop of crack cocaine, anti-depressants, and marijuana gummies. I'm seeing dollar signs already!!!

    Rod, we can parse terminology all day long about "CRT", but the bottom line is that you see America in the same racism-explains-everything terms as those who DO believe in CRT. If there's any problem in America that you don't blame on racism, we have yet to come across it. And you can cite America's racist past all you like, but the wider truth is that no country has striven more valiantly to OVERCOME its legacy of racism and oppression, and you lefties are bound and determined to ignore this rather important mitigating factor.

    And did you really just imply that white people invented racism, Rod? Gimme a break. "People of color" have been discriminating against and oppressing each other for as long as they've been...people. That's called human nature, Rod. Your assumption that racism is a "white" problem is, in itself, racism.

    Ray, Rod may well be a hexadecaroon. He shows all the hallmarks! I would need to feel the bumps on his skull to be sure, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Nick, your statement "the bottom line is that you see America in the same racism-explains-everything terms as those who DO believe in CRT" reveals two things 1) you don't know a damn thing about what Critical Race Theory is (start with Derrick Bell) and 2) you don't know I damn thing about what I believe in.

    Further, the "If there's any problem in America that you don't blame on racism, we have yet to come across it" means you haven't been paying attention. You want to criticize my positions, then criticize what I ACTUALLY SAY, rather than conflating me with other people's positions.

    I also never said that white people invented racism. What I did was to provide examples of how your statement "POC is just a paradigm created to allow lefties to valorize some and demonize others" did not hold up in history.

    Finally, if "no country has striven more valiantly to OVERCOME its legacy of racism and oppression," then you have really established a very low bar for achievement.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dr. Waddy from Jack : Rod, please provide an example of a multiracial country which has striven as has the US, to mitigate and compensate for historic injustices!?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Easy. South Africa. They've achieved as much progress in 30 years as the U.S. did from 1865 to 1964, and will match us by 2030.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Rod, quite honestly I don't WANT to know anything about critical race theory, academically speaking. What interests me is the political and social uses that is made of it to buttress an agenda that indoctrinates white people to believe they are oppressors, and always will be, and people of color to believe that they are victims, and always will be. Racism is real, and some people are genuinely harmed by it, but no one is victimized simply by being an American. In fact, we are all lucky to be Americans, and to live in a country that tries so hard to treat everyone fairly. You say our efforts to do so constitute "a very low bar for achievement". All the "people of color" flowing across our southern border -- towards America, not away from it -- seem to feel otherwise.

    Jack, your question is a great one, but we both know how Rod will respond. He'll say Canada and Sweden and the Netherlands are all progressive wonderlands, and we ought to strive to be just like them. On the other hand, if he actually lived in any of these places, he'd be consuming left-wing news day in and day out explaining to him why Canada, or Sweden, or the Netherlands, was a racist hellscape. It's all a matter of perspective, and Rod's, I fear, is set in stone.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I stand corrected. Hmm. Interesting choice, Rod. South Africa is a country that has darn near destroyed itself with anti-racist racism, not to mention corruption and violence. Hey, if that's your model of success, we should all thank our lucky stars that no one on the Left or in the Democratic Party cares what you think (which is a given -- not a slight against you, I hasten to add, but against your movement and your party, which is an elitist enterprise if there ever was one).

    ReplyDelete
  22. The people who are coming across our border are not doing so because the U.S. is a racial paradise. They are doing so for 1) economic opportunity and 2) personal safety from crime cartels.

    I used to live right outside of Niagara Falls, and go there often as my brother still live in that area (one in the Falls, the other two in Lewiston). I have seen plenty of Canadian TV. The country is not portrayed as a racist hellscape.

    What Canada has done, unlike the U.S. is devote nearly $2 billion as reparations for the horrific attempt at racial genocide committed against indigenous children.

    As for Sweden, the country had an exemplary record in terms of racial relations until it started taking in refugees in the last decade. Since then, right-wing racist extremists have started to emerge in the country. So far, their political influence has been limited, but it is a disturbing development.

    The Dutch have a long history of racism that still exists.

    Rod

    ReplyDelete