Over this past weekend, I finally bit the bullet and went back to a movie theater for the first time in a long while. My wife and I went out to see Top Gun: Maverick. Fully expecting a new “woke” military’s version of the 1980s classic, I was hesitant. After all, when Sebastian Gorka tweeted that the film was great and “totally not woke,” I knew it would be. Anyway, the short answer about the movie is that it was a fun escape. For about two-and-a-half hours, the film reminded me of everything that was great about 1980s films: action, male-female romance, distinct bad guys and good guys, and, of course, Americana. But there is more to unpack about this movie regarding messaging and the movie’s success that is worth exploring.
The three points that come to mind watching this movie are the following: (1) it attempts to depict a multicultural/multiracial/gender neutral aviation fighting force – which is laughable; (2) the success of the film highlights a deep craving within the global entertainment market that has gone unmet; (3) we are getting ready for a big war and the U.S. DOD needs everyone on board. Let’s explore each point.
[NOTE: some spoilers imbedded in the article]
A Post-White American Military
To begin, the film is somewhat woke, but in a way that a normiecon or constitutional conservative would never truly understand. After all, in normie-land, the Constitution is a magical document that immediately imparts White Western values upon brown skinned peoples who touch upon the magic dirt of the United States. In the case of the latest Top Gun, the multicultural cast of naval aviators, includes a few black guys, a few Hispanic guys, an Asian, and a feisty female ace. The female fighter pilot, whom I mistakenly thought was Hispanic (she is an Italian-American), effectively “wins” a coveted position as Tom Cruise’s wingman. Ignoring for a moment that the ability to endure higher G-Force for women is constrained and the mental acuity required to be a naval aviator limits blacks in fighter jet aviation, this was clearly a movie about a “new multicultural America.” That which will appeal to Baby Boomer normiecons is the obvious message that a diverse America is still a strong America, i.e., American identity trumps black/White/brown identity.
Another theme of the movie’s clear “Diversity is Our Strength” messaging is the role of evil White men and good black men. In fact, the movie begins with this messaging out of the gate. It opens with a sequence by which Maverick (Cruise) is relegated to a test pilot role. He is in a Chuck Yeager-type scenario, ostracized from the rest of the fleet because of his lack of political finesse. An overweight, black warrant officer, Bernie “Hondo” Coleman, is Maverick’s right-hand man. Maverick is trying to hit Mach-10 in an experimental aircraft with Coleman supporting him from a nearby monitoring station. White actor, Ed Harris, plays a mean admiral who wants to shut down wasteful experimentation. Of course, he is “bad,” while Coleman is “good.” Later on, John Hamm’s role as a three-star Navy vice admiral does not appreciate Maverick – he is seen as bad – whereas Hamm’s executive officer, black two-star Admiral Solomon “Warlock” Bates, is the good guy.
Even the names of the officers denote “good” and “evil.” Ed Harris is “Hammer” Cain – like Cain in the bible, there is no fraternal loyalty; black Solomon “Warlock” is wise – as his Biblical name would indicate. Hamm’s “Cyclone” is destructive in his decision making. One of the key pilots, a cocky White aviator with confirmed kills, is named “Hangman” – because he supposedly leaves his wingmen out to dry. “Thankfully,” selfish White Hangman is offset by a black aviator, “Payback,” who is noble, loyal, reasonable and a team player.
Of course, the most ridiculous part of the movie’s attempts to promote a multicultural fighter pilot program was the female pilot, Natasha “Phoenix” Trace (Monica Barbaro), who looks Hispanic. Only 8% of military pilots are women and less than 4% of those women are in combat aircraft. In other words, less than one third of one percent (.0032) of combat pilots are female. Since the military buries its numbers deep regarding demographics that do not comport with woke narratives, it is hard to discern which amount of those females fly F-18 Hornets (the Navy’s current primary fighter jet) versus other “combat” aircraft, such as radar jammers. I suspect the number is something like “one,” and this movie makes her out to be the best pilot in the fleet. If you have not yet gotten the clear movie messaging that White men are being replaced, the movie actually tells White men to give up.
At one point we get to meet the only genuinely good White commander, Admiral Tom “Iceman” Kazanksy. He is Maverick’s chief benefactor throughout the film. The true Alpha-White Male of the original Top Gun is now a shadow of his former self, suffering from throat cancer (a tragic real issue in Val Kilmer’s life). In the movie he uses a computer to communicate. In one scene, discussing a dangerous mission to attack what appears to be Iran, and the lack of the team’s abilities to complete the mission, Iceman uses his computer to tell his fellow, White naval aviator “IT’S TIME TO LET GO” (caps from the movie). It seemed like an odd thing to say to an instructor preparing a naval aviator team for combat. My first thought was, “Time to let go of what – the men and women in his care?” It was obvious, however, what the real intention of the message was: one older White male was telling another older White male it was time to “let go” of their position and responsibilities, surrendering it to the newest generation which is multicultural, multiracial, and gender inclusive. You are being replaced, it is time to just accept it.
The Global Success of the Film is Hopeful
The best part of the movie, however, is not the movie itself, but its success. Top Gun: Maverick did not have any overt homosexual image that I caught. I guess the shirtless football game on the beach would be construed as “homoerotic” by degenerates, but back when I was a buff Marine, we always played shirtless ball on the beach. Only fat kids wear tee-shirts on the beach hoping to hide their grotesque bellies, but I digress. The simple fact that there were no gratuitous gay characters, sexual interaction, transgender flight crew team, or amplified gay flags, was refreshing.
Additionally, the film had several action scenes that made it an escape. The political messaging, as I mentioned in the preceding section, would likely go unnoticed by anyone outside of the Dissident Right. That means it was likely more effective (sadly) but did not stoop to a political diatribe about some latest globohomo cause making the film a bore. It was a mix of dramatic narratives coupled with cool fighter jet sequences. Given that Hollywood only seems capable of making superhero movies these days, it was nice to watch a movie that was neither a superhero picture nor a film from which I am being lectured about some cause.
Like many – perhaps most of the world – I have grown tired of watching a film that must have gay sex, black good guys, White bad guys, and some political/cultural/social objective. Yes, it is clear there is a political/cultural/social objective behind the Gap commercial that defines the fighter pilots. But it is not in your face and in the end, the White guys are all heroes – even the “bad” White guy, Hangman (who saves the day and ups his number of confirmed kills). In other words, it appears that someone figured out that the world wants to relax in a theater and just enjoy the content.
Of course, in the 1980s, that was the movie experience. Political and social messaging was subtle, but likely more effective. If you went into a movie theater and watched Rocky IV, you emerged determined to train and beat Russians in the ring. If you watched Say Anything, you wanted to hold a boom box outside of a girlfriend’s home. It was about action or love or comedy or maybe all three. No one went to the movies to watch the “heartwarming story” of a transgender five-year-old who struggled to earn enough money to surgically remove his penis and the heartless Southern governor attempting to stop him. In other words, Top Gun: Maverick was a throwback to a time when entertainment was entertaining. America was the good guy and heterosexuals were the majority. Clearly, the world wants that, and this movie delivered – which is being rewarded.
Now Get Ready for a Big War
All that said, there is no question that the makers of the film, or at least its supporters (i.e., the U.S. Department of Defense) want you to come away from the film with a deep sense of pro-American pride in our military. After the debacle of two recently lost wars, a collapsing interest in patriotic zeal, and a military that has fully embraced anti-White rhetoric from the top-down, the U.S. government desperately hopes you will forget all of that and join the service. Assuming you can get young Southern White boys to look past the erasure of their iconic heroes and take the vaccine, you still need to talk them into joining a service whereby they are statistically most likely to go to the battle front while people of color safely stay in the rear with the gear. Get past all of that, and you need to ensure White boys know that they will not be promoted in the modern military. Top Gun: Maverick attempts to say, in the end, we are neither black nor White… neither male nor female… we are all Americans that win or lose together. The reality of current leadership completely dismantles that notion.
However, it was not just the movie that gave me the overall sense of big war propaganda. To begin, it seems Japan is back in style. Two previews, Bullet Train and the children’s animated film Paws of Fury: The Legend of Hank, both highlight Japan and Japanese traditions. After years of pro-Chinese content, it appears Japan is cool again. This tells me that something has changed. I suspect there is a growing sense that we will be at war with China soon, and the U.S. is rallying its regional allies with movies that highlight them. If I am right, watch for films that focus on some kind of reconciliation with Vietnam, some pro-Korean films, and perhaps some Indian content.
Additionally, the movie previews in the location within which I was seated began with an Air Force commercial. The commercial stated that earth was 30% ground and 70% water, but air covers 100% of the world – “And we (U.S. Air Force) own it!” It was a militaristic commercial – one of the Air Force’s best – and it harkened to a time when movies began with Marines fighting dragons, etc.
Of course, you cannot fight a big war without White men and Hollywood is desperately selling White males on a post-White military that will be led by People of Color, to whom you – White man – will report, honor, and serve. It was not a mistake that the executive officer of Top Gun: Maverick was a wise black male. Visually, you get the message: he will eventually replace John Hamm. In some of the previews, however, there were films that highlighted this dynamic, as well. For example, in the new Buzz Lightyear film, which will be released this summer, his commander is a black female, to whom he dutifully pays homage. The totality of the war footing was obvious in more than a few other film previews. Of course, the commercials – which seemingly went on forever – did not feature a single White actor in a country that is 63% non-Hispanic White. But even some of the commercials had militaristic themes.
In summary, Top Gun: Maverick is a movie with subtle but obvious political and cultural messaging. It is “woke,” but not gay. The fighting scenes were cool. The love interest was plausible. There was a patriotic vibe throughout the film. Maverick kept the Taiwan flag on his jacket (likely the reason that it is not shown in China). The music was a throwback to the 80s, when I saw the original Top Gun. The nostalgia was nice for a brief moment. If you want to watch it, it is not bad – it is what it is – 2.5 hours of largely mindless action. Just remember: they are still working overtime to replace you.
The son of a recent Irish immigrant and another with roots to Virginia since 1670. I love both my Irish and Southern Nations with a passion. Florida will always be my country. Dissident support here: Padraig Martin is Dixie on the Rocks (buymeacoffee.com)
Glad you gave a donation to the South-hating Hollywood, Mr Martin. Being a former ‘buff Marine’ in the Yankee Empire military, I’m not surprised. At least you can’t blame this movie on us ‘boomers.’
Shut up idiot. His $15 didn’t make a damn bit of diff to HollyWeird
I took my boys to it and we all had fun. It’s ok to have fun in life
I actually agree with this, believe it or not; I’ve said, many many times in the past, that “Hollyweird” (in your iteration) gets it right in spite of itself many times. And of course there is the issue of spending/contributing fifteen or twenty bucks at the movie theater vs. on the dvd as an alternative later on. Several of my (grown and married) kids will tell you that I for one have not, and do not, condemn them for plans to go to see the movie at the local theater as a group. They’ve invited me to attend with them and at their expense, but I have, as gently as I could, rejected their invitations. I’ll eventually watch it on dvd, and the wait between now and then is of literally no consequence to me at this point in my life. …
Thanks for the excellent review. The last movie I saw in a theater was Rocky Balboa when it was first released – seems ages ago. You’re right (in my opinion) to suspect the war propaganda angle; that has been my suspicion since we first got word they were going to make a sequel to the original Top Gun. I watched a preview the other day and LOL’d at the female “ace’s” remarks placing herself amongst “the best there is.” World we live in and all that, God help us all!
Thank you, Mr. Morris.
Yes, the ridiculous female pilot plot was absurd and part of the overall anti-male messaging we see today.
God Bless,
Padraig Martin
You might just be the best contributor to this site Mr. Martin. Satan has ( somewhat ) limited resources and surely focuses his worst and brightest on, “those who reach the masses.” Media is likely his most powerful tool. Talk to anyone around or under 40 these days and you’ll understand they’ve been thoroughly brainwashed. One of the main components of creating an awesome CSA II will be overhauling academia AND MEDIA.
For decades I travelled the country – especially the south – and often would hear the same stories from different middle aged to older guys from different parts of the south who of course didn’t know each other … that would match 99 %. One of my favorites was how blacks were forced into police jobs. The feds made them hire. They wouldn’t qualify. The feds made them lower the standards. They couldn’t even spell right or fill out a report right. The feds made them promote blacks over whites who’d been there longer and were way more qualified. ( Sound like reconstruction? ) The atrocities continued … and today young’ns watch some black like Will Smith ( who said he hates whites ), who seems smart cool and confident ( only because he’s following a script written by a white and has done 37 takes with more whites coaching him in each take ), so they ‘subconsciously’ believe that’s how all darkies are. Equal.
These days about 80 + % of new movies are basically “a politically correct AGENDA with a plot and some special effects tossed in.”
Creating CSA II is an emergency. We really need to hurry. Someone(s) in the batch of founders, needs to create a series of educational videos explaining how the sheeple have been tricked … what “really is so,” and how to move forward into a safe southern super state before it’s too late.
PS : Attention parents family and friends of white boys : Talk them out of joining the woke poison vaccinating deep state hijacked military. Form small militias and start your own businesses instead.
Thank you for your kind compliment, Josey Wales.
I also want to thank you for your consistent readership and contributions to the discussions on the blog. We greatly appreciate readers such as yourself.
God Bless,
Padraig Martin
When Iceman typed “it’s time to let go” he was telling Maverick to let go of his guilt over Gooses’s death.
Thank you for your comment and reading the article, Lauren.
Obviously, we disagree. Yes, it is true, part of the movie’s arc involves a reconciliation with Goose and by extension, his son, Rooster. But it begins with a conversation that “they” (all of his students) are not ready. I see the context of the entirety of their dialog differently.
God Bless,
Padraig Martin
Excellent review! It is imperative that we keep our sons and daughters out of anything but state guards, for our countries ( states) may need defenders one day.
To the detractors that bemoan giving to South hating entities( which they are), go make your own South loving entity, start a movie studio, get skin in the game. I’ll support you!
Again, great analysis.
Father Dabney:
I’ve literally argued this so many times in the past, oh, twenty years or so, that I tire of it. Which is why I’m mostly quiet about it otherwise. But, here’s the deal: If the South secedes from the “union,” there is no doubt to my mind that we will need defenders,… not “one day,” but, instantly!
While I certainly appreciate his enthusiasm for immediate secession, I personally do not buy into frequent commenter, outlaw Josey W.’s, oft-repeated poll numbers stating that upwards of 70% of all “Americans” want to split the continental U.S. into several parts. First of all, “polls” are notoriously flawed in the same way that “eye-witness testimony” in American courts of law are notoriously flawed. Secondly, and relatedly, people in general are fickle in their opinions (today they say they want one thing, tomorrow, quite another), and Yankees are particularly so. Thirdly, have we not learned anything at all from our first attempt at secession in this vein? Namely, that Yankees were “all for” letting us “go in peace” right up to the WBTS, then, all of a sudden, they … changed their minds. Go figure. Fourthly, and finally (I considered writing an article about this, and probably should have), just read Federalist no.s 2-9, and 16 (I think) and consider all the points and historical examples made in those papers regarding this very issue, then come away from it all with the enthusiasm for immediate secession displayed on a continual basis by the commenter in question.
Don’t take me wrong: I’m definitely as much FOR secession and a Free Dixie as anyone else; what I’m against is the idea that all of this can or will ‘go off without a hitch,’ so to speak, when I know that can NEVER be the case. As I wrote in a post script to a correspondent on this very topic some few weeks back:
Not secession father … “restructuring.” 70 % of everyone is FOR restructuring. A new Republic for each side / group … and even most of the deep state wants this, so, publicly they may give lip service against it while supporting it behind the scenes. We GET our “secession” without drawing attention to ourselves … in fact, ironically we can get a lot of woketards “demanding that all the racists, sexists, homophobes, this ist that phobe all be ‘forced’ into the south!” 🙂 Again, like the rabbit in the briar patch tale, we get what we want … and so do they. Win win win win.
If we DON’T restructure FAST … it’s over. I don’t know if you really understand how bad “over” will be.
Thanks for the reply, Josey. You wrote:
Okay, restructuring. Point is, you’re advocating for a break up of the U.S. into several smaller (hostile and competing) entities, which is what you mean when you say “a new Republic for each side/group,” no?
You wrote:
So you keep saying. And I’ll just keep pointing out in reply that people say they’re “FOR” a lot of sh…stuff they don’t really mean when it comes down to the proverbial “nut-cuttin” (this is simply “human nature”: as others before me have pointed out, “human beings are walking, talking contradictions,” and we’re wise to always take that fact into consideration when contemplating these sorts of things); that poll numbers are notoriously skewered or flawed; that Yankees are notorious liars and the fathers (and mothers) of it, and so on and so forth. However, and purely for the sake of argument, let us make asses of ourselves and assume those numbers are true and correct and righteous altogether – what in God’s Holy Name makes you think or believe for a micro-second that at least a couple of the several “New Republics” of which you speak won’t be at each other’s throats and inventing “just” causes for war against one another literally as soon as “the new wears off” of their “independence”; because “70% of everyone wants this?” C’mon, man, I know you’re smarter than that. To say nothing of the fact that the people who make up that number aren’t the people who run things in any case.
You wrote:
Why would you want to further pollute the South with more Yankee rejects who ostensibly share our “phobias?” That sounds to me more like White Nationalism than Southern Nationalism. You understand that we reject White Nationalism around here, right?
You wrote:
Yeah. Well, I personally do not put a whole lot of emphasis on, nor stock in, fairy tales. This is real life, serious shit we’re talking about, not a fairy tale.
There was a time not so long ago at this very site in which the talk and emphasis on these points was that we need to form a long-term plan and strategy for separation. I.e., building “parallel institutions,” thereby putting ourselves in a position of strength when the time comes. …
Thanks for the reply, Josey. You wrote:
Okay, restructuring. That terminology doesn’t change my point, which is, you’re advocating for a break up of the U.S. into at least two and probably several smaller (hostile and competing) entities, which is what you mean when you say “a New Republic for each side/group,” no?
You wrote:
So you keep saying. And I’ll just keep pointing out in reply that people say they’re “FOR” a lot of sh…stuff they don’t really mean when it comes down to the proverbial “n*t-cuttin” (this is simply “human nature”: as others before me have pointed out over the ages, “human beings are walking, talking contradictions,” and we’re wise to always take that fact into consideration when contemplating these sorts of things); that poll numbers are notoriously skewered or flawed; that Yankees are notorious liars and the fathers (and mothers) of it, and so on and so forth. However, and purely for the sake of argument, let us make *sses of ourselves and assume that number you keep citing is true and correct and righteous altogether – what in God’s Holy Name makes you think or believe for a microsecond that at least a couple of the several “New Republics” of which you speak won’t be at each other’s throats and finding or otherwise inventing “just” causes for war against one another literally as soon as “the new wears off” of their “independence” – because “70% of everyone wants this?” C’mon, man, I know you’re smarter than that. To say nothing of the fact that the people who make up that number aren’t the people who run things in any case. By the way, how do you propose to equally, or, rather, equitably, divide the common properties of “The People” when they separate into several “New Republics,” without causing yet one more among many “just” causes for war between the competing factions?
You wrote:
Why would you want to further pollute the South with more Yankee rejects who ostensibly share our “phobias?” That sounds to me more like White Nationalism than Southern Nationalism. You understand that in embracing Southern Nationalism we reject White Nationalism around here, right?
You wrote:
Yeah. Well, call me crazy, but I personally do not put a whole lot of emphasis on, nor stock in, fairy tales. This is real life, serious sh*t we’re talking about, not a fairy tale.
There was a time not so long ago at this very site in which the talk and emphasis on these points was that we need to form a long-term plan and strategy for separation. I.e., begin work on building “parallel institutions,” thereby putting ourselves in a position of strength when the time comes. …
Mr. T 🙂 I can’t put ‘everything’ in a comment box nor am I stupid enough to think “I” have “all” the answers. I have a LOT of answers and together we have all the answers. I’m merely getting a ( waaaayyy over due ), conversation going before we waste the last of our 1st Amendment on “tea and talk,” ( aka useless banter ), as the filth running things attempts to flat out take the 1st and 2nd Amendments!
Plan … while the planning’s good.
Obviously this very necessary “restructuring” wouldn’t happen over night or be pushed too fast. It should be done in “steps and phases.” Phase I is get the national conversation going. ( There are many “steps” in each “phase.” ) Phase II might be Creating a map of a restructured America and asking for peoples input? Phase III might be encouraging folks to “see the writing on the wall” and not wait till the last minute to “move to where their ideal republic is planned?” Also in Phase III could be a “moving concierge hotline” people could call for advice and help with their “move?” See? Little by little the transition takes place with very little “conflict,” until of course 7 or so years into the official change there might be a few stubborn ( black / brown / gay / libtard ), hold outs that try to stay in the south. They’d have to be physically removed but even then it could be done in phases and with financial incentive for them to move … until finally the number of holdouts is so low … the army easily escorts them out?
Finally, later, we’d need Cuba and The Virgin Islands and maybe a couple more for strategic reasons. We’d need to buy them!!! If that didn’t work we’d need to take them!
Two important FACTS to remember though –
1. If we do nothing ( but tea & talk ), we’re doomed VERY SOON!
2. The little ‘acceptable skirmishes’ that would occur here and there are nothing compared to Civil War I …. or ( what will happen if we do nothing ), Civil War II.
“WE” really are a bunch of pansies. The founders would’ve already completed something exactly like or VERY similar to, this restructuring concept.
I await the next excuse to continue “tea and talk as usual” as our inheritance collapses …
No, you can’t, and no, you’re not. Not unlike any of the rest of us. I promise to address your points more fully when I have more “quiet time” later tonight – got several grandkids traipsing about through the house at this moment; they’re a joy to have around, but also a distraction, if you know what I mean. Thank you, btw, for not taking my rebuttals to your comments as hostility. They’re not hostile, I assure you; just … cautionary.
I think all of us on this site want to separate ourselves from these perverts and have our own country in which righteousness dwells, but I’m glad you recognize the problem. It’s precisely what these globalist control freaks will not countenance. It’s not just the Yankees or the union of Northern States standing in the way. The tentacles of today’s Leviathan are global in reach and probe into the depths of each individual’s very person-hood with an aim to assimilate and remake it to serve the collective. They’re Borg!
Amen, Father Dabney!
If we want to win – long term – our states need to be the focus and our children need to know service to country means Florida, Virginia, Tennessee… the location within which they reside. When Lee served his country, it was Virginia. When Patrick Cleburne haoled from Ireland, Arkansas was his country. It has to be that way.
God Bless,
Padraig Martin
Padraig : You should contact Vdare and Abbeville Institute to contribute articles and interviews. The south needs you.
Thank you, Sir.
We read each other’s contributions, but each site has a lane.
God Bless,
Padraig Martin
Remember … while we sip tea and babble the enemies are very busy
https://www.infowars.com/posts/senate-reaches-gun-control-deal-after-10-rino-republicans-join-democrats/
and regarding “gun control,” ( aka taking our guns ), (((they))) will come up with a ‘psyche test’ to supposedly evaluate who shouldn’t have a gun. It’ll make sense on the surface, even to us! THEN … they’ll put a lot of BS in the bill AND have far left bought and paid for doctors create the test … which will be rigged to evaluate that 99 % of people aren’t mentally stable enough to have access to a fire arm!!!!!!!!!!!!
Here will be the 2 most ridiculous questions :
1. Have you ever been depressed before?
2. Have you ever been so mad at someone that you imagined shooting them … even though you wouldn’t of course … but the thought popped in your mind just for a brief second?
The “gun control” babble is, as I’ve said umpteen times before, like what I imagine a new outbreak of herpes is – seems like (I don’t know for sure since I’ve never had herpes, but anyway) you never know when a new outbreak will occur, and whether or not you know when a new outbreak will occur, you’re still infectious if you have it. Wearing “protection” doesn’t necessarily “protect” you either, so, best avoid the whole thing altogether.
2nd Amendment stuff is mostly nonsense in any case; if you think the “founders” meant, by the 2nd Amendment, to secure unlimited/unrestrained gun rights to individual citizens extraneous of their individual states and state constitutions, you’re totally out of your gord! …
Sounds like a well paid troll trying to infect patriots with leftingitis.
The founders obviously meant for the right of citizens ( that would be normal whites ), to keep and bear arms, uninfringed. Furthermore God guns n guts MADE America. You know … the place every flunky and his mama wants to come to.
I remember a cool movie where Yankees convinced some easily brainwashable former patriots to ‘give up their guns.’ Soon as they handed them over the gatling guns came out and only one barely survived the slaughter … and him only because of “1” unreconstructed southern patriot.
The moral of that story was : Don’t listen to paid trolls. Listen to history and common sense. History tells us what happened to every nation that gave up their guns.
Ha, ha. I don’t know what “leftingitis” is, by the way; sounds like a term you made up on the fly and while half drunk; but who knows, maybe it’ll catch on and you’ll be immortalized a hundred years from now for coining a new term that changed the course of history. In any case, if your libel against me has any merit whatever, then the admins here ought to remove me from the contributor list forthwith. I don’t worry much about that happening, though, since they know I know what I’m talking about when it comes to constitutional and Bill of Rights stuff, and you apparently don’t. To wit:
Extraneous of the States and State authority within their own jurisdictions? No, sir! That might be their “obvious” intentions to you, but it isn’t obvious to anyone whose knowledge of the subject and subject matter is deeper than a puddle, including the founders themselves. The Bill of Rights, of which the 2nd Amendment is of course a part, was never intended by the founders, or, rather, by Madison (and Jefferson, indirectly) and his colleagues in the 1st Congress, to apply to the States or local governments – that is what is called “incorporation,” and it is an illicit and dangerous and unconstitutional doctrine. The Bill of Rights was intended by them as additional securities and prohibitions against the National government, not the State and Local authorities. To point this out doesn’t make me a “well paid troll trying to infect patriots with left[w]ingitis.” You’d do well to stop yapping so much and trying to be cute with your oddball terminology, and start paying attention more. Need authoritative proof of what I’m saying? Here ya go:
This principle applies to the adoption of the Bill of Rights (and every other amendment) as well. So, get into Madison’s introduction of the Bill of Rights to the HoR and the debates which ensued, and get back to me with your findings when you’re done.
Also:
And,
All of the above quotations were extracted from Jefferson’s 1823 letter to Justice William Johnson. You should read it sometime. In fact, you should read the entirety of Jefferson’s “works” sometime, which includes his autobiography, Notes on Virginia, and roughly 300 of his letters to the preeminent founding fathers and mothers. The best way to get these silly notions about what the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to do and not to do is to study the foregoing, Madison’s stuff, Washington’s stuff, The Federalist (which I’ve recommended a thousand times before), etc., etc.
Before I say it sounds like something right out of the mouth of Joe Scarborough and someone trying to use freshman psychology to shut someone up by implying they don’t understand such a complicated concept since they didn’t read 2 or 3 certain books 🙂 … so they therefore should leave such subjects to the more “learned” of society … let me just say sir, I’ve surely read more than you, for growing up in my house was like growing up in a library. My father read more than 99.9999999 % of not just anyone but of the entire white race and with no internet or “devices” back then I read a LOT of those books I was stumbling over to the point that I’ve forgotten most of what I’ve read including one of the books you mentioned.
I got 4.0 in college not because I’m so smart but because I studied so hard I was sick of the answers ( many of which I’ve also forgotten by now ), at test time.
With this in mind … and the fact that no one ( not even my dad ), is a human data base … to remember such detail from some old obscure book(s) is highly unlikely. What’s more likely is someone … did an “advanced search,” of constitutional arguments FOR gun control ( or some such query ), just as one would do prior to a debate!?
Now … that’s not the odd part. The odd part is “why?” WHY … would a ‘regular’ on a site like this argue FOR gun control???? Surely this person MUST KNOW what happens to nations that give up their guns?
Furthermore, the citizens were the militia and everyone counted on them for security. We all know when the crown tried to even take our ‘ammo’ what happened.
Then there’s the old saying, “the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots from time to time.” The 2nd Amendment was not created for hunting or target practice. Even the “unlearned” amongst the unwashed masses know that.
And yes … the page is a canvas and the English language my brush and paint. I do in fact come up with some clever phrases quite frequently don’t I.
Dare I insult my own intelligence by asking … where do you stand on the 2nd Amendment?
Josey, why are you telling me all of this? You think I care how many books you’ve read or what your GPA was in college? You think that impresses me? If so, you’re dead wrong, sir. I’ll explain why none of that matters to me in brief:
Because one of the Basic Laws of Human Stupidity states that stupid people are stupid independently of … how many books they’ve read, what kind of grades they got in school and/or college, what their profession is and so on and so forth.
Now, I’m not accusing you of being stupid by citing that law; I’m simply saying that book reading and good grades, et al, aren’t necessarily an indication of intelligence, and that is why none of that stuff impresses me. Don’t bother telling me what your “I.Q.” is – I could literally care less because there are literally millions of stupid people who have high I.Q.s.
BTW, I’m not arguing for gun control, you … outlaw. Under the original Constitution and Bill of Rights, the so called “federal government” had no authority whatever to tell people what kinds of guns or how many they could own. The other side of that coin, however, is that it (the “federal government”) neither had authority to tell individual States or local authorities that they couldn’t regulate guns within their own jurisdictions if that is what they decided to do. Personally, I don’t give two hoots whether the idiot Yankees decide to ban guns of every sort in their own states. The problem comes when they try to impose that crap on the rest of us. Anyway, all you’re doing in assuming that I’m advocating for gun control when I’m not is succumbing to the temptation to improper reduction. Don’t feel like the Lone Ranger – we’ve all done it to one extent or the other. Here is an item at another site that might help you to cure that tendency of yours:
https://orthosphere.wordpress.com/2015/07/08/the-temptation-to-improper-reduction/
Remember this was originally supposed to release summer of 2019, smack in the middle of the Trump days
Btw “Let it go” was a reference to Goose’s death haunting Cruise.
Good evening sir … and thank you for the mild amusement. Maybe I’ll finally be able to impress you at another “tea & talk” encounter. Until then …