Beyond the Pale
The Tavern Pale is the large hedge that surrounds the property, keeping the riff-raff out. That is what a ‘Pale’ does. Pale is also the hue of white folk, especially old white folk, and specifically men, old white folk who constitute at least half of our customers. The riff-raff think that we are beyond the Pale, being as we are happily on the opposite side of the hedge, drinking our pints.
Where does the term come from, someone asked. The phrase “beyond the pale” dates back to the 14th century, when the part of Ireland that was under English rule was delineated by a boundary made of such stakes or fences, and known as the English Pale. To travel outside of that boundary, beyond the pale, was to leave behind all the rules and institutions of English society, which the English modestly considered synonymous with civilization itself.
Actually it goes back further. Beyond the Pale is a phrase derived from the Latin ‘palus’ or stake, a series of which were used to demarcate a boundary, usually for defense. The phrase means “beyond the boundary”, or “outside the limits of acceptable behaviour”
But we were reminded of the other pale: we white folk seem to be getting very short shrift these days and from all quarters. Well, maybe not all: the lefty, nonebrity quarters and all other hues. And even some of the same hue. !
It has not been this bad since we were called ‘white devils’ an era ago.
The Demonizing of White Men
Rush Limbaugh’s December 2018 “Limbaugh Letter” has an article titled “Demonizing White Men.” It highlights—with actual quotations from people in the media, academia, and the political and entertainment arenas—the attack on white men as a class.
You can decide whether these statements are decent, moral, or even sensible. Should we support their visions? Don Lemon, a CNN anchorman, said, “We have to stop demonizing people and realize the biggest terror threat in this country is white men, most of them radicalized to the right, and we have to start doing something about them.”
Steven Clifford, former King Broadcasting CEO, said, “I will be leading a great movement to prohibit straight white males, who I believe supported Donald Trump by about 85 percent, from exercising the franchise [to vote], and I think that will save our democracy.”
Teen Vogue, a magazine targeting teenage girls, wrote, “Not only is white male terrorism as dangerous as Islamic extremism, but our collective safety rests in rooting out the source of their radicalization.”
Not that one has seen quite as many white Pentacostals blowing themselves up in shopping centres. It ain’t vogue. I shall pull some pints while we wait.
Economist Paul Krugman, a New York Times columnist, wrote a column titled “The Angry White Male Caucus,” in which he explained, “Trumpism is all about the fear of losing traditional privilege.”
There have been similar despicable statements made by academics.
James Livingston, a Rutgers history professor: “OK, officially, I now hate white people. … I hereby resign from my race. F— these people.”
Stacey Patton, a Morgan State University professor: “There is nothing more dangerous in the United States than a white man who has expected to succeed and finds himself falling behind.”
I would hope he takes a hike in the Yellowstone Park and see how he fares with the wolves.
Stony Brook University sociology professor Michael Kimmel explained, “White men’s anger comes from the potent fusion of two sentiments: entitlement and a sense of victimization.”
Then there’s the political arena.
Sen. Bernie Sanders: “There’s no question that in Georgia and in Florida racism has reared its ugly head. And you have candidates who ran against [Andrew] Gillum and ran against Stacey Abrams who were racist. … And that is an outrage.”
Michael Avenatti, criticizing the GOP senators during the Brett Kavanaugh hearings: “These old white men still don’t understand that assault victims and women deserve respect and to be heard.”
“What troubles me is … they’re all white men,” commented former Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm regarding GOP senators questioning Christine Blasey Ford at the Kavanaugh hearings.
William Falk, editor-in-chief of The Week, said, “There’s something odd about the overwhelming white maleness of Washington’s current leadership.”
Not to be outdone, entertainers have hopped on the demonizing-white-men bandwagon.
Joy Behar, talking on ABC’s “The View” about senators supporting Kavanaugh, said: “These white men—old, by the way—are not protecting women. They’re protecting a man who is probably guilty.”
Actress Gabourey Sidibe, also on “The View,” said: “Older white men are a problem, y’all, for everyone. We’re all at risk.”
Does she sing?
Will it all be over soon?
Moira Donegan wrote an article for The Guardian titled “Half of White Women Continue to Vote Republican. What’s Wrong With Them?”
Renee Graham wrote a column in The Boston Globe that counseled, “Memo to black men: Stop voting Republican.”
Comedian Chelsea Handler tweeted, “Just a friendly reminder for the weekend: No white after Labor Day, and no old, white racist men after the midterms. Get out and vote.”
That is just a partial list of statements that would be viewed and condemned as racist simply by replacing “white men” with “black men,” “Mexican men,” or “Asian men.” You can bet the rent money that university presidents and media executives would sanction any of their employees for making similar broad, sweeping statements about non-white men.
It is also a partial list of nonebrities. Who are these people? Some appear to be white, yet demeaning being white. Are they mentally ‘challenged’. I read their comments and laugh.
Suppose a white anchorman said, “Black people are the greatest murder threat in this country.” I guarantee you that he’d be shown the door.
There are only two ways to explain the silence by people who should know better. Either they agree with the sentiments expressed or they are out-and-out cowards.
Decent American people ought to soundly reject and condemn this brazen attack on white men.
I think that the attack is on masculinity itself and that white men are a convenient scapegoat —for now.
Indeed. The new ‘virtues’ that we are supposed to signal are ‘diversity’ and ‘tolerance’. Oh and ‘inclusivity’. These folk just don’t get it. They don’t even practice them themselves.
Derision and the wallet are the ways to tackle them. Laugh at them and drive them out of business the easy way. No boycotts of buildings, just don’t buy what they sell.
It seems that some commercial enterprises have to feel the pain and the heat. Ben Shapiro pointed to an example.
Marvel VP: ‘Diversity’ In Our Characters Is KILLING Our Sales
On Monday, Marvel Comics admitted what those who actually read comics have known all along: the emphasis on leftist messaging in comic books is killing the appeal.
David Gabriel, the vice president of sales at Marvel, said that comic book retailers were reporting a drop-off in interest in the new, diversity-oriented comics:
“What we heard was that people didn’t want any more diversity. They didn’t want female characters out there. That’s what we heard, whether we believe that or not. I don’t know that that’s really true, but that’s what we saw in sales…Any character that was diverse, any character that was new, our female characters, anything that was not a core Marvel character, people were turning their nose up.”
It’s not racism driving people away from Marvel, though. It’s a feeling of irritation that classic characters are being redrawn and recast in order to assuage the feelings of social justice warriors.
Iron Man is Tony Stark, not Riri Williams. Captain America is Steve Rogers, not Sam Wilson. Thor is Thor, not female Thor. Spider Man is Peter Parker, not Miles Morales.
This isn’t to say that the comics with Miles Morales aren’t good (they’re actually really good, although the Iron Man series with Riri Williams isn’t any good at all). It’s to say that nobody wants to see iconic superheroes recast as completely different people to appease quotas on race and sex. Superheroes are brands. You can’t twist those brands without hurting them.
When it comes to new superheroes, people are always skeptical, so this poses something of a challenge: how do you better reflect diversity in comics without tanking sales?
The answer: make new characters terrific, then worry about whether they’re diverse – or use a historic diverse character to infuse new life. Marvel did the latter with Black Panther, hiring Ta-Nehisi Coates to write the comic, which immediately became a bestseller (the comic is actually unreadably bad, but at least Marvel tried doing diversity the right way here).
In the DC universe, Harley Quinn, who was a marginal character twenty years ago, is now a major bestseller because she’s interesting, not because Batman had to become a woman.
But the comic book industry keeps attempting to slam its constituents over the head with social justice messaging –
and that’s killing the quality of comics (see Batman, advocate for Trayvon Martin, or Captain America, illegal immigration defender).
Turning iconic characters into avatars of social justice kills sales, too. It’s throwback comics doing most of the heavy lifting at this point – and Marvel and DC should take note that it’s not American racism driving that choice.
It’s Americans’ discontent with the left’s willingness to sacrifice quality and legacy for politics.
And discontent is growing with the sacrificing of white men who have already sacrificed far too much for an ungrateful nonebrity’sville.
I shall keep ’em outside the hedge while you construct a few pales for yourselves.
I have lately taken a comparative shine to that awful marxist lesbian creature who dominated the feminists a while back, who claimed “All men are Rapists”. And of course our very own Oz-babe Clammy Ford who demands that we “Kill all men”. At least they weren’t Wayyyyyycists !
I shall pull some pints.
Click here to learn more about Amfortas: