Douchebag of the Week (Week Ending 12/2/2017) Betty Lyons.

One of the things that confuses the White Male of Privilege in me is the constant barrage of accusations of "genocide" allegedly committed by my forebears. It appears as if the White Man was actually rather inept when it came to genocide, considering there appears to be so many of you "victims" still left to complain. Amazing how that part of the historical record is never given over to the Revisionists to ponder.

Among the things that are considered quintessentially American are Baseball, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet. I vote that we add another bust to the Pantheon with a plaque identifying it as "self-absorbed douchebag with no talent for a real job demanding money on account of her feelz".

I suggest this addition on the basis of this editorial in my local newspaper, the Staten Island Advance, suitable for wrapping fish or training puppies.

It would have to be a "her".

In this teacup tempest we have the confluence of all that's wrong with this country:

1. A Big-City communist mayor disguised as a democrat who decries the "evils" of capitalism and his own culture, but who apparently has no trouble living very easily off other people's extracted or extorted money (allegedly), or cleaving to that "evil" culture in order to be Grand Marshal at various White-ethnic parades that elevate his public image and perhaps garner him a few extra votes.

2. A permanent Grievance Industry that has been allowed to flourish and prosper despite the fact that what many of the grievance-mongers advocate for is a transfer of wealth and the erection of an extra-constitutional set of rights and privileges for their aggrieved group based upon faulty, emotionally-rather-than-reasonably constructed notions of "Historical Grievance" and trans-generational guilt.

3. A fucking lawyer.

4. A society in which people are deliberately raised to be experts on what to do with their genitals, or creative in abuse of same, but which is otherwise culturally and historically ignorant, to the point where it can proclaim to be pursuing a policy of "Diversity" which is, oddly enough, extraordinarily and hypocritically exclusive. On purpose.

In bestowing this week's DOW Award, it must be noted that Ms. Lyons, herself, may be a perfectly lovely person in all respects -- excepting her politics and how she "earns" her living, which could be construed as "criminal" -- and that she has been selected as a representative symbol of all the others who engage in similar divisive and extractive activities.

After all, we can only produce so many statues and there are oh-so-many worthy recipients.

Ms. Lyons, an activist for American Indian Rights (excuse me, Indigenous People's Rights), has thrown her warbonnet into the ring regarding Commissar DeBlasio's attempt to erase European Culture from America by attacking it's monuments.

The strange thing about liberals (small 'l' intentional) is that they only attack people and inanimate objects that are unlikely to fight back.

On a deeper level, this attempt to erase the past by the multi-pronged strategy of the destruction of cultural heritage , the deliberate re-writing/falsification of history, and the considered program of what Fred Reed likes to call "enstupidation", ties in nicely with the modus operandi of the typical liberal ("small 'l' intentional). I shall explain:

Being cowardly and considering physical courage to be anachronistic, the liberal (small 'l' intentional) instead resorts to passive-aggressive and underhanded methods of erosion of society's confidence and it's cultural values, and expression of same. Mostly this is because protests are often met with bad press, riots are often met with policemen, and lone individuals or small groups who attempt to undertake physical activity on behalf of The Cause might find themselves confronted by others who might hit back, if provoked beyond a certain point. The liberal (not this time: I'm saving bandwidth) has but one weapon in his arsenal, which is emotion, and primarily these emotions are, themselves, limited to the following: fear, guilt, shame, envy, greed, and obnoxiousness.

If you had to go into physical combat armed with such puny weapons, and lacking the physical co-ordination necessary to get your vagina caps off quickly enough to accept or launch an attack, you'd be afraid to put your body forward, too. Then again, your Cause is most likely that of people who labor under the psychological handicap of feeling powerless, as well as the physical handicap of same. Most (bowel) movements which consist largely of suburban females, drunken frat boys, men who wear dresses, Ivory Tower academics, and aging Hippies, with a smattering of angry minorities, welfare queens, and mental patients at it's front, based upon shallow and raw emotions, is liable to be physically weak and have it's collective will tested early and often by anyone willing to present it with a physical challenge.

The liberal, therefore, cannot hope to accomplish physical victories, and so settles for symbolic ones which she does not have to risk life-and-limb for, which are emotionally satisfying, and which can be used to sap the morale of "the enemy" over a period of time. Getting a statue removed, therefore, is an accomplishment on par with a moon landing.

But let's get back to Ms. Lyons and her opinion on Christopher Columbus.

One thing that amazes me about the historical revisionist type is that they usually only wish to revise history in one way, which is to say, in the direction which supports their otherwise-unsupportable cause. To people like Ms. Lyons, Columbus has to be Satan, Godzilla, Hitler, Jeffrey Dahlmer, Charles Manson, and Typhoid Mary all rolled into one, because that view is the foundation of all of her claims to grievance. Should an alternate view be allowed to prevail (or even exist) of, say, Columbus being an intrepid mariner, trader and explorer who undertook a voyage to prove a theory who was unable to foresee, or control, the eventual outcome of his discovery, then the world no longer needs Betty Lyons, and she'd be just one more fat-ass, pig-ignorant squaw living in abject squalor on a government check, turning out children she couldn't feed, and subsisting largely on inhaled gasoline fumes and crystal meth.

For someone who (tacitly) claims to be an expert on history -- after all, if Ms. Lyons cannot claim this expertise, the rest of her life, and the intellectual foundation of her cause, is relatively meaningless -- she seems to be missing a whole lot of the historical picture, filling in those gaps with conjecture, and then inventing shit out of whole cloth.

How? (And I don't mean that as a Traditional Tonto-like greeting, Ms. Lyons, but as a rhetorical question).

To begin with, Betty Lyons belongs to the Onondaga Nation, one of the six tribes which make up the Iroquois Confederation that I studied in 7th Grade New York State History class, and later as a student of American History. As such, she believes this entitles her to speak and "activist" on behalf of "indigenous" people all over 'merica. Both 'mericas.

This is rather laughable for two reasons, vis-a-vis Columbus:

1. Columbus never set foot in what was to become New York, so the Iroquois have no dog in this fight, so to speak, as they are not/were not directly affected by the immediate results of Columbus' contact with the savages of the Caribbean Basin.

2. Columbus didn't lead to the diminution and destruction of the Iroquois. They did that themselves when they chose the wrong side in The American Revolution, and became, for all intents and purposes, the British Army's colonial version of ISIS. The wave of terror attacks unleashed by the Iroquois upon Western and Northern New York, which included scalping-for-bounties, rape, scorched earth, was to be defeated by George Washington in a mirror-image program of reprisals. Not to be too blunt about it, but the Iroquois are NOT wide-eyed innocents unjustly persecuted; they were enemies defeated on the battlefield, and treated as such.

So, really, shut the fuck up about Columbus. Columbus doesn't concern you.

The second thing that constantly befuddles me is the intense and visceral reaction the Aggrieved Class has towards anything they consider "White", and yet the willingness to eagerly adopt anything stemming from the same White culture that tends to bolster their weak case (like the fawning, virtue-signalling "support" of liberals), or those things which White Culture has invented that makes their lives somewhat easier or better (like someone else's money).

For example: Ms. Lyons is an attorney. Obviously, she has attended Law School, an invention of the Paleface. She writes newspaper articles (invented by whites), presumably on a word processor (invented by whites), and sends them to whoever pays her for them via the internet (invented by whites). I wouldn't doubt that at some point in her life, Ms. Lyons has received medical treatment of a sort that didn't originate with a shaman shaking a dead ferret, dancing around a campfire imploring the spirits for their intercession, and blowing smoke up her ass.

Naturally, the best example -- and the one that always shuts these fucktards up when you rub their noses in it-- is the concept of the Noble Savage, an image and an ideal invented by a French-speaking, white dude from what is now Switzerland, who never stepped foot in the New World, nor ever met a savage, noble or otherwise.

For those of you unfamiliar with this notion, it was an idealistic elevation of the Primitive Man, assumed to be living in harmony with his neighbors and Nature, which was considered a goal worthy of emulation. Of course, the truth of the matter is the reverse: the Primitive Indian lived in a constant state of conflict with his neighbors over resources, land, mates, etc. (one reason Cortez conquered Mexico with like 12 guys is because the Aztecs had made themselves very unpopular with their "allies" throughout Mexico, demanding tribute, slaves and sacrificial victims in the thousands), and lived very much at the mercy of Nature. A bad harvest, an especially cold winter, a missed buffalo herd, drought, spelled disaster for these people.

The Noble Savage is simultaneously rejected as "racist" by some, and adopted wholesale by others who seek to lay claim to some higher moral ground. It cannot be both, and the cynical use to which it has been put by people very much like Ms. Lyons is both hysterically funny and vomit-inducing.

In fact, going back somewhat to the whole "genocide" issue, the biggest killer of American Indians was not the White Man's bullets, but germs, viruses, bacteria, introduced genetic factors, that spelled the destruction of the "great" Indian Empires of old (many of them extraordinarily more-violent, more rapacious,more, shall we say it? imperialistic and greedy, than the Europeans).

Considering the Europeans of Columbus' time had as little knowledge of epidemiology and immunology as the peoples they came into contact with, it's not surprising that vast numbers of Indians died of diseases Europeans had been shrugging off for centuries. In return, however, they gave us syphilis and lung cancer via tobacco.

Be fair.

I'd also like to take issue with Ms. Lyons' use of the word "indigenous" for a variety of reasons. To start, the best scientific data we have to date indicates that Native Americans are not, in fact, native to America. Therefore, they cannot be "indigenous" in a literal sense. Depending on which scientific theory or theories you choose to put stock in, "Native" Americans are really migrating Asians, or they may be an amalgam of several racial stocks, including Polynesian, Chinese and European influences, that pre-date the arrival of Columbus, often by tens of thousands of years.

If one were to give the "Out-of-Africa" theory any credence, at all, then specifically, there is no "indigenous" anyones on at least five continents.

Again, the word is being used with a deliberate change of definition in order to lay a moral claim of having "been here first" in a sort of schoolyard "finders-keepers" dialectic which is pathetic. It does not matter who was here first; all that ultimately matters is who is left standing, the cruel logic of cause and effect being what it is. Apparently, Sioux, Mandan, Iroquois, Aztec, Apache, Arapaho, Mohawk, and Lenape are all words in various Amerindian dialects which roughly translate to "really bad at defending his land".

You lost because, in many ways, your's was an inferior culture that lacked the cohesiveness, technical skills, organizational acumen, financing, and a mental imperative to go beyond the boundaries of The Known to survive when faced with a culture that had all of those things in spades.

Before I conclude, I'm going to instruct Ms. Lyons, and others like her, why Columbus is such a celebrated figure:

His achievements are remembered and celebrated because he returned. Because his mission resulted in feedback which indicated to Europeans that there was a wider world out there that they were largely ignorant of. It excited them intellectually, economically, religiously. The knowledge of a wider world led to other explorations, the invention of new tools to aid navigation and communications, new ways of thinking, new ways of recording experience, a new vision of the World and Creation, and most ironically, a European-led consensus that history needed a bit of revision.

A consequence of that awakening of the inquisitive European spirit was a concerted effort to discover the origins and history of "the indigenous peoples" who apparently gave little thought to the idea, themselves, and if they had, did not have effective means of passing them down through the ages. Most of what we know of life in America, Africa and Asia comes, not from "indigenous" peoples (who were often illiterate) but from Europeans who recorded what they encountered for posterity.

Even today, literate peoples like the Arabs and Chinese are more likely to read histories of themselves written, produced, and distributed by WHITE people.

Ms. Lyons would be largely ignorant of her own culture, had some French and English dudes not bothered to write down in exacting detail the creation myths, systems of government, histories, lineages, economic and social practices, of her people.

Put that in your peacepipe and smoke it, Ms. Lyons.

Many peoples were greater explorers, it's true. The Amerindians who made the great trek from Asia to a couple of empty continents were, indeed, intrepid people. The Chinese seafarers of antiquity would routinely make longer voyages with vast fleets that put Columbus to shame. The Polynesians, perhaps the greatest seafarers of all, had skills that might have left a European of Columbus' time in awe.

But they left no records of their achievements. They produced no feedback, and in failing to do so, they also failed to ignite the spark of human imagination that has created the world we all live in, including Ms. Lyons, and take largely for granted.

The Chinese destroyed the records of their great voyages, having discovered that, no, China was NOT the center of the universe, their cultural chauvinism causing them to discard in shame what they might otherwise have embraced in adventure and expansion of the human mind. The Polynesians used their considerable skills and knowledge merely to maintain a way of life that consisted of eating and screwing their way from one island to another, like a fat plague of locusts. They produced no feedback; they failed in this critical aspect of culture. The Hindus never set sail for a religious prohibition about crossing over salt water. The Arabs, great seafarers in their own right , saw no need to go beyond the coastal waters of Africa, the Middle East and Mediterranean, since the economic impetus that drove the Europeans to do so was lacking; being at the center of virtually all the lucrative trade routes between East and West, they got fat, dumb and happy, until Europeans learned how to use the Atlantic in order to circumvent them.

So too the Amerindian; having achieved laudable milestones, the impetus for expanding the mind, of improving the society, petered out in long periods of cultural inertia, until all that is left is some dirt mounds, some stone ruins in the jungles where thousands had their hearts ripped out for no good reason, a few wonders in the mountains of Peru or the Deserts of the American Southwest, and little more than professional beggars shooting spitballs at the people who keep them alive, despite the "genocide".

And if you're searching for the excuse as to why those cultures have been destroyed, displaced, dismissed, then honesty compels you to consider the possibility that the cause of your "open wound" isn't really an Italian flying the Spanish flag, but a lack of something innate.

But then, if you did that, you couldn't beg for money and special status and claim a moral right to do so.