The opposite of political correctness?

At TakiMag, Theodore Dalrymple — I mean (((Theodore Dalrymple))) offers some good points and clever turns of phrase in discussing political correctness. He describes it as a form of mass hysteria — which it does seem to be.  Then there’s this: “…the politically correct speak power to truth.

However, I felt as one of the commenters on the article said: this piece is an example of ‘bait-and-switch.’ It goes from being a scathing piece about PC to bemoaning and lambasting the responses to PC. The examples of rightist ‘hate speech’ which he cites,  are pretty over-the-top.

Did he cherry-pick those extreme examples, or are they more common than I realize?

I wouldn’t deny that some of the comments, ostensibly by ‘right-wing’ commenters online, can be callous, ugly, and sometimes objectionable even to many of us on the right. For example, I’ve seen comments over the years recommending that certain people be ‘incinerated’. I’ve seen comments from those ostensibly on the right  expressing approval over the rape or murder of certain people. I found this appalling. But these comments about ‘incineration’, rape, and murder were not directed at the traditional protected groups according to the PC hierarchy: they were directed at White people — but White people who are among the ‘out-groups’ for some on the right. The ‘incineration’ comment, for example, was directed at fat people  — and it was posted on that hotbed of ‘extremism’, Free Republic, of all places. Now, it may be that the comment or comments were later deleted by mods there, after all, the mods used to ban even mild posts perceived as ‘anti-Hispanic’ in the days before most people were so incensed about illegal immigration. The comments approving of rape and/or murder — by immigrants, actually, were in reference to baby boomers — who, according to many on the young right, deserve such a fate. However it appears that Dalrymple’s outrage about the ‘vile’ comments he cites was an outrage on behalf of minority groups/nonwhites. So who’s being politically correct?

Dalrymple should know that the left engages in worse rhetoric, or at least rhetoric equally bad, in reference to Whites/Christians/heterosexuals. One example of anti-White hatred on another blog was a social media post — Facebook, I think — calling for White women to be caught and killed before they produced more White babies. What’s that law about ‘equal and opposite reactions?’

All that aside, no one on the comment thread seems to question the authenticity of some of the over-the-top bloodthirsty comments Dalrymple gives. Considering what we know of the left, of their duplicity and dirty tactics — and the fact that they are known to employ online operatives to provoke, to derail and disrupt, and to deceive and slander, could it not be that the worst of those comments were written by lefties in order to direct anger at the right? The comments seemed almost to border on parody or caricature.

Whether or not some of the extremist sentiments are justifiable or understandable, it does seem that it’s counterproductive, at the least, to indulge in that kind of rhetoric. I don’t recommend being mealy-mouthed or so genteel as to be feeble in our self-expression, I think there’s a way to express strong sentiments without going beyond certain limits. Adopting the tactics of the left only escalates this trend of abandoning all discretion.

Who’s culpable?

It’s become wearisome to even post on a terror attack when they predictably happen. Don’t misunderstand me; I am not expressing indifference to the victims, or to the country, whichever European or White country, where the latest attack occurs.

If anything, I care too much about the victims, thinking of the waste of human life and potential, especially among our besieged folk, and about their families and all those who loved the victims. Lives will be forever changed. I heard from an acquaintance in New York, after 9/11, of a little girl, a classmate of my friend’s twins, who lost both parents on 9/11. That little girl would now be 22 or so. Surely her life was changed irrevocably.

No doubt what happens in Britain, where the bones of many generations of my ancestors are buried, troubles me especially. I understand that many Americans feel no particular kinship to people in Britain, and considering that so many Americans now lack any genetic connection to Britain, I suppose they can’t be blamed for that.

Kinship, blood ties matter, even in a country which conditions us all to ‘civic nationalism’, telling us that birth on American soil makes brothers of us all. Not true, and even less true in today’s Britain, as illustrated by this now-viral photo from London yesterday.aliennation

As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words. There’s a reason why that photo, of all those available, went viral.

Meanwhile, the smarmy heads-of-state, after an event like yesterday’s, mouth their usual platitudes about ‘unity’, ‘coming together’ ‘reaffirming our nation’s values’, (meaning openness to outsiders, however hostile they are, and coerced diversity). Theresa May and as the Moslem mayor of London both recited such statements, though the London mayor was brazen enough to tell the British people that they had better get used to this kind of thing; after all, it’s “part and parcel” of life in a big city now. As I recall some official in France said roughly the same thing after an attack there. Will the passive and docile citizens of Western countries continue to accept this phony, condescending rhetoric about ”our values” or about “diversity and unity” — which, by the way, are opposites, and contradictory? Or is the passivity and docility merely an outward show, hiding inner misgivings and resentments?

The most disgusting bit of rhetoric, which is even used by many on the nationalist right, is the now-hackneyed statement that ”immigrants/Moslems are not the problem, only symptoms; they are just pawns in a game being controlled by the real powers, so it’s useless to direct anger at these pawns. They aren’t our real enemy.” The more liberal variation on this ‘argument’ is employed by the churchian types, who think ‘hatred’ or even honest anger, is wrong; if we give in to it, we are just reacting and playing into the hands of the enemy. If we do that, then ‘They will have won.’ Supposedly by refusing to show fear or act defensively, we are winning. Right.

Trouble is, who are the architects of all this? The shadowy ‘elites’, the globalist overlords? We know a few names; everyone’s heard of Soros. For some people, Jews are the ultimate cause behind the scenes, and the people who hold this view are often those who claim that immigrants are not the real problem. For others, the powers-that-be are simply the global corporate movers and shakers, the mega-rich, who are transnationalists and cosmopolitans, with no allegiance to any nation or people, faithful only to their own greedy interests.

Many Christians say only ‘spiritual forces of wickedness’ are truly to blame; everyone else is a pawn.

But without knowing who, exactly, is behind all this, and who is calling the shots — as they keep themselves mostly concealed — how can we act at all? Do we need to know the ultimate cause in order to save ourselves? Is it not more important to take steps against the visible agents of evil? It seems to me that that’s the only thing we can do: to focus on the proximate cause, the obvious and immediate actors in all this.

And who are the known actors? Elected politicians, hand-picked by corrupt political machines, who seem to be puppets acting for the shadowy elites. Then there are the traitorous and malice-driven ‘progressives’, antifa types. The media,  who seem to be nothing but lie merchants and ideologues, hostile to the real people of the countries they inhabit. And the Others, the colonizers, interlopers (whether legally or illegally), people with generational grudges against us and our countries.

The problem is not the Others alone, but at the moment it’s they who are killing us and our kinsmen in other countries.

The picture above illustrates that they are not of us; not us, can never be part of us.

The London attacker was born in the UK, showing that being ‘native’ to Britain no longer means much, if one is of foreign blood and origin, and especially if Islam is factored in.

Celebrities and ‘change agents’

The recent death of another rock ‘legend’ is still being lamented on social media sites like Tumblr, even though most of the people there are not old enough to remember the latest deceased rocker.

He had something in common with other such rock celebrities who died during the last year or so: he was a rebel against conventional sexual morality. His criminal record, however,  is mostly swept under the rug in recent years, even before his death. And articles like that linked just above, from the ‘History’ channel, seem to downplay the seriousness of the allegations and to minimize Berry’s culpability. The racial aspect of it is highlighted by mentioning that an ”all-White jury” convicted him (of course Whitey is prejudiced and willing to convict a black man at every possible occasion) and the article defends him by saying his intentions were strictly honest and honorable. He ‘offered legitimate employment in his St. Louis nightclub‘ — but to a 14-year-old girl? Maybe she was ‘precocious’ as some euphemistically put it, but in what state can a 14-year-old legally work in a night club? And the laws were more strictly enforced in 1959.

This article from NPR’s website unabashedly blames the Mann Act itself, stating that it was expressly written to be used against people like black boxer Jack Johnson with his White (white?) mistress. The article also implies that the Mann Act was a response to what the biased writers call ‘hysteria’ over what was called ‘white slavery’, or the abduction of young women into prostitution in the early 20th century. The writers imply that many such women were not forced into that life, but were simply ‘sexually active young women’ whom society wished to punish for their ‘sexual freedom.’

The NPR writers attempt to revise history, implying that the attempt to curb prostitution was based on “hysteria.” In the last couple of years, I’ve read a great many books from older eras, books actually written then, not written by (post)modern writers and their tainted point of view, and yes, there was an ‘industry’ if you can call it that involving trapping young women, many of whom were rather sheltered and naive in those days, into a life of prostitution. ‘Inexperienced’ girls were most in demand and drew high prices. There were interstate rings of what would now be called ‘human trafficking’.  Hence the need for the Mann Act. Most of the reports indicated Jewish domination of these rings. Transporting of these girls extended across national borders too, with many girls and women sent across the Pacific to China and elsewhere, where Christian workers found many of them being held literally in cages or cells, disease-ridden and sometimes dying, after having been sold into that life. It is not fantasy or ‘hysteria.’

Now our jaded age thinks that such things are just a matter of personal choice; I’ve had many younger people tell me that prostitution is ‘just another job, a way to make good money’, and as Madonna famously said back in the 80s, ”It’s not exploitation if I’m in charge of it myself.” So prostitution can be ’empowering’ for feminists.

Madonna is another prime example of a celebrity who is serving the function of a ‘change agent’ by altering people’s ideas of what is acceptable, and by helping to subvert traditional morality. Some people, maybe most people, today say that sexual morality is up to the individual; whatever people choose, and/or do in private, has nothing to do with anyone else. But it does. We are social beings. Nobody exists in a vacuum. The consequences of people’s private behavior often affect society, not just the invididual(s) involved.

Celebrities of course have a much-amplified power to affect others’ choices, especially young and gullible people.

People like Madonna, and the recently-deceased David Bowie and Prince — and in his time, Chuck Berry, have had more influence than many like to think.

Michael Jackson, too, with his ‘androgynous’ persona desensitized us to certain behaviors. And celebrity alone enables such people to get away with much, as his story illustrated. People tend, these days, to have almost limitless capacity to overlook aberrant or downright immoral behavior from those that are called ‘talented’ or ‘geniuses’. Society theoretically condemns pedophilia but oddly it can be overlooked if the acccused is a popular public figure. Please notice, at the first link on this page, from a blog which is not at all PC, that the commenters, can only praise Berry.

In 1959, people were not so flexible in their morality and not so forgiving.

In time, though, it seems that Berry has been forgiven. If one wants to be forgiven of anything, it appears, the answer is to be ‘talented and famous.’

Meanwhile society suffers the consequences.

‘Hinduphobia’

A Free Republic poster links to an article from a news source in India, reporting that Hindu activists in America are demanding an apology from CNN. CNN’s crime? Hinduphobia.

To thinking Americans, CNN is synonymous with left-wing, anti-White and pro-multicultural content, at which it outdoes just about all the other purveyors of ‘news’ and commentary. So it’s hard to imagine that they would be anti-Hindu.

And just what did CNN do that was ‘Hinduphobic’? They had a series called ‘Believer’, in which correspondent Reza Aslan focused on Hindu religious figures and practices. The article does not seem to mention this specifically, but I would guess that the Hindu activists objected to a depiction of a guru and his followers who were shown eating human brains. Reza Aslan, the CNN reporter, apparently also consumed some of this unappealing meal, under coercion, some said.

So is it ‘xenophobic’, or more specifically ‘Hinduphobic’ to be shocked or repelled by a spectacle like that? We will have become a jaded people for sure if we can no longer be horrified at the thought of cannibalism, much less by the sight of it.

CNN displayed very bad judgement in showing that clip, even if they had displayed a warning before any such ‘graphic’ scene. What could have been their purpose in showing it? I doubt very much that they wanted to stir up antipathy towards Hindus, as dedicated as they are to the ‘all cultures/races are equal’ dogma. So what motive was there in showing it?

CNN’s faithful audience are no doubt mostly of a like mind. So I doubt that they would react to these scenes with disgust or shock or ‘phobias’ toward Hindus. Many leftists are very familiar with the various manifestations of the Hindu religion and culture. There are pictures online of some sort of Hindu cult members eating charred human bodies they pulled out of the Ganges. So this kind of thing is not completely unknown.

Are the Hindu activists defending cannibalism in an oblique way, here, or do they just object to having anyone shine a spotlight on it? That is, are they blaming the messenger?

I doubt, though, that most Americans, hearing of this controversy, would respond by hating Hindus; in fact we have become a very jaded and tolerant people for the most part, hardly blinking at this kind of thing, whereas once upon a time, cannibalism and other such gruesome things evoked real shock and horror among civilized Westerners. But we are a post-Christian people, unfortunately, and Hollywood has helped to desensitize us to all sorts of once-unthinkable things.

And we do seem to have become, overall, very accepting of this diversity which has been thrust on us, as you can see from some of the Freepers’ comments about how they prefer Hindus to some varieties of ‘diversity.’ The usual line is that ‘at least they’re not Muslims’ or some variation of that. Every ethnicity, Hindus included, has its defenders and advocates among White Americans. But how many White Americans are willing to defend their own?

 

 

 

Female supremacism

After seeing so many ‘International Women’s Day’ stories and memes, I’ve decided that I will refer to ‘feminists’ as female supremacists from now on. For decades, ever since this ‘Women’s Day’ thing has been happening, feminists have becoming ever more strident about their attitude of ‘female superiority.’ So if people who are pro-White, or who believe in nations for White people, are ‘White supremacists’ as the anti-Whites say, then surely the ‘supremacist’ label applies to feminists. They constantly crow about how women are superior to men in various ways, and they openly say that women should rule. There’s a meme going around showing a little girl wearing a t-shirt saying ‘The Future Is Female.’ Imagine if the word ‘Female’ were changed to ‘White.’ What a howl there would be about that, but women get away with that kind of rhetoric, as do non-whites.

Feminists have always railed against the idea that God is male, and we’ve seen this ‘witty saying’: ”When God made man, She was only joking.” So asserting that ‘God’ is female is just fine, while saying God is male is shockingly misogynist.

Feminists don’t see — or do they just not care? — that they are inspiring hatred from many men because of the shrillness of their rhetoric and because of their increasingly obnoxious behavior. The sad thing is that women who are not feminists have to reap what the feminist fanatics have sown.

The other sad thing is that many women on the right have been infected with the loathsome attitudes of feminists. I’ve noticed that online on ‘right-wing’ blogs or forums, where supposedly right-wing women take offense at some comment and go into feminist warrior mode, just like lefties. There are even ‘conservative’ men who defend feminist ideas and who, just like SJWs, take offense on behalf of women if somebody says something anti-feminist or anti-egalitarian.

Feminism has invaded the ‘right’ in various ways, and much of it is unconscious I’m afraid. Because feminism, like the rest of the left’s causes, has gone so far off the rails, people on the right have to be more vigilant, being careful not to let it insinuate itself into our way of thinking.  Egalitarianism is so taken-for-granted that we have to be on our guard against it. It may ‘sound good’ but the devil’s whispers sounded good back in Genesis 3, apparently, and we are forever paying the price.

 

No sympathy

Only the most brain-dead of the lefties could still genuinely feel sympathy for the ‘refugees’ after hearing of behavior like this.

“A riot broke out at a refugee centre in Germany after a group of migrants smashed up their accommodations with iron bars over the lack of phone signal.”

And this isn’t the first time such a thing has happened over the most trivial causes.Supposedly these ‘refugees’ fled their countries, fearing for their lives. If that were true, they would be grateful for safety and a roof over their heads. They would not be wreaking havoc over the lack of Nutella or the lack of a phone signal.

It’s impossible for any sane person to sympathize with anyone who has such an attitude of entitlement and such lack of impulse control when frustrated. They are worse than spoiled children and the coddling they receive from do-gooders and the rogue governments of Europe has incited them to be even more violent and demanding.

 

The ‘preppy’ totalitarians

The story about Charles Murray and his speech at Middlebury College in Vermont is being discussed around the Internet. The fact that a (typically leftist) professor at that college was also assaulted by the ‘student’ thugs adds a twist to it. Surely she is ‘one of their own’, having the correct politics and the kinds of views which are the only kind these apostles of ‘tolerance’ will tolerate.

One thing I’ve noted in the various online comments on the incidents: many are referring to the ‘preppy’ character of the school and the student body, as if it adds to the shocking nature to imagine WASP-y, wealthy students behaving this way. No doubt some of the worst of the ‘social justice’ brownshirts are White students from wealthy homes in the supposedly very White Northeast. But just look at the photo in the linked article; that audience does not look ‘hideously White’ nor very ‘preppy.’ It does not look all that different from the mixed crowd at the community college in the college town near me. So I looked up the demographics of the student body. For a start,  the student body contains only 4% Vermonters. Students come from 42 states, plus the District of Corruption Columbia. They come from no less than 40 countries.

So the student body does not reflect the demographics of the setting, of rural Vermont or New England, or even much of America, come to that.

One other factor: not all the students at that college need be wealthy, considering the prevalence of financial aid. And if diversity is mandatory and of the utmost importance (as these colleges all say it is), then by all means be generous to students without the money to pay the high tuition, but with the requisite amount of ‘vibrancy’, to entice them to come and enrich the diversity-deficient Whites.

If the students of that University are overwhelmingly indoctrinated leftists, as it appears they are, is this because it is in liberal New England, or is that just the nature of college campuses all over America now? I have acquaintances who sent their child to Christian schools (in a non-diverse community) K-12, at considerable expense, and then to one of the most conservative (supposedly) Christian colleges. That college turned their child into a raving SJW in very short order. So it’s everywhere now.

The people who put much stock in Colin Woodward’s conjectures about the ‘nations’ of America place the blame on the old Puritans for the liberalism of New England. In this case, it seems as though the diversity that has been visited on New England since at least the mid-19th century is still having its effect, and the presence of all the ‘diversity’ at Middlebury in 2017 has its effect too. When you introduce outsiders into what has been a homogeneous culture, you make people more self-conscious about the opinions of those ‘Others’ and soon free speech is not so free; we can’t offend anyone or hurt anyone’s feelings. Diversity=death to free discourse and honesty.

Whose agenda is being served

The controversy around Milo continues to grow, and it looks as though the ‘right’, whoever that term includes at any given moment, is becoming more polarized around it. Some are saying that ‘the left’ is causing the division, and maybe the leftists are exacerbating it, as that serves their interest. So is the answer to just dig in our heels and defend Milo et al , in knee-jerk fashion, just because the left attacks him? Maybe they are trying to use simple reverse psychology to get the younger right-wing to rush to Milo’s defense, and in so doing ultimately legitimize the presence of flagrant homosexuality and even (through association) with alleged pedophilia. I mean, how can anyone on the right credibly reject pedophilia and pretend that Milo is not in any way associated with it? It destroys all credibility on this issue on the right. The left would like the right to shut up about ‘Pizzagate’ and yes, they would also like to lower the age of consent and decriminalize certain taboo behaviors. It would suit them fine if the right began to go soft on all these issues — which it seems is the direction the younger ‘right’ is heading.

Whose agenda is being helped by this defense of Milo? What is also happening is that anyone on the right, whether through religious/moral scruples or other concerns, criticizing Milo is being branded a ‘concern troll’ or a Bible-thumping fogey. Either way these defenders are sounding more and more like lefties every day, both in their socially libertarian mores and in their tendency to call names and hurl ad hominems at those who differ with them. There will either be no place for Biblically-faithful Christians on the new right, or the Christians who are not driven away will succumb to peer pressure and go along with this new-found ‘right-wing’ tolerance. Either way, this is not a ‘win’ for our side; the left will win ultimately, as they’ve done so far, with their insidious tactics.

And does the presence of Milo, even as an ‘outside ally’ benefit ethnonationalism or the pro-White cause? Championing a half-Jewish and pro-miscegenist personality helps the racially-aware right how, again? If anything it undermines the side.

‘Desensitize, jam, and convert’

The phrase above describes the strategy outlined by a pair of ‘gay’ activists back in 1988. These two activists, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, co-wrote a book, After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the ’90s.

As of the 1990s, I think we could safely say their goal was pretty much realized. Think back to the late 1980s, those of you whose memories extend back that far: America’s ”fear and hatred”, or at least suspicion or disdain, of homosexuals was mostly neutralized by the 90s, with more and more people saying that ‘whatever people do in the privacy of their bedrooms, between consenting adults, is nobody else’s business.’ Or they became sympathetic to gays because of AIDS. Or else they believed the media propaganda that homosexuals were persecuted, bashed, even killed, just because of their (supposedly) inborn sexual orientation.

Just as the activist/writers Hunter and Madsen suggested, the media played a huge part in the growing acceptance of the homosexual ‘lifestyle’; TV series and movies featured more and more sympathetic gay and lesbian characters, and portrayed anyone who objected to this change as a narrow-minded, hateful fanatic.

According to marketing expert Paul E. Rondeau of Regent University, the plan was to “force acceptance of homosexual culture into the mainstream, to silence opposition, and ultimately to convert American society.” In Rondeau’s words, from his book Selling Homosexuality to America:

The extensive three-stage strategy to Desensitize, Jam and Convert the American public is reminiscent of George Orwell’s premise of goodthink and badthink in “1984.”

I’d say they mostly succeeded. Up until quite recently, though, there has been a core of resistance to gay acceptance, and that core was made up of the few remaining conservative Christians, along with a few others on the ‘old right’. There is also a considerable generational divide, with each new generation becoming more accepting of homosexuality. The millennials are the most pro-homosexual of all the generations.

This seems to account in some part for the lionizing of Milo Yiannopoulos, and the bizarre decision by the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to make him the keynote speaker at their upcoming conference. [Note: I now see that Milo has been ‘disinvited’, following the release of some Milo tapes in which pedophilia is spoken of favorably. But the substance of my comments are still relevant, re: Milo’s role.]

Twenty, or even ten years ago, it would have been unthinkable to present as keynote speaker at a conservative conference a flamboyantly homosexual figure, notorious for his outrageous persona and the lewd content of his videos and self-publicity. He makes it known that he is pro-miscegenation, (his preference for black male ‘company’) which makes it doubly baffling why supposedly pro-White ethnonationalists are among his most ardent defenders. In addition, Milo is half-Jewish (his Greek surname confuses the issue) while those who are part of his following are supposedly ‘Jew-wise.’ Makes no sense.

Oh, I’ve heard the usual arguments: his ‘gayness’ supposedly insulates him from the usual insults from the left; how can they attack someone of a victim group, especially since he actually prefers men ‘of color’? The fact is, though, that he is being attacked just as fiercely from the left, so he is not insulated or immune to the usual assaults.

The fact that the younger dissident right loves Milo is understandable when one considers that this is the ‘South Park’ generation, a generation which is, after all, just as post-modern and libertine in their ‘thinking’ as are the predominant lefties in the same age group. They are of one mind, left and right, on social and cultural issues except for race and nation, perhaps. And granted, those things are of paramount importance now, as they are being used to destroy the West, and Whites in particular.

So is Milo an ally with whom we should make common cause because he is an effective weapon against the left? Or is he being used, whether he knows it or not, as a battering ram with which to allow the gay cause to get a foothold within the right?

We can look at the FReepers as an example: many on the dissident right would call FReepers either ‘cuckservatives’ or ‘normies’, yet look at how they defend Milo here, and welcome his ‘joining’ our side. This post, for example:

So glad to see so much support for an ally on this thread.Beware though, the “Milo is a sodomite!” crowd will show up soon and start trolling.’

So, traditional rightists and Christians will now be considered’trolls’ and ultimately, if this trend continues, will be unwelcome, while the Milos and whoever follows him as the next ‘conservative gay’ are embraced wholeheartedly. Voila, both major parties will be gay-friendly, and pursue pro-gay policies as the ‘homophobic’ old guard will be shown the door.

This is a case in point as to how the left has succeeded in pulling both parties to the left, and how they have met with only feeble and dwindling opposition to their cultural Marxist agenda over the years. It illustrates the ‘long march through the institutions.’

It also calls to mind the familiar list of Communist goals, as outlined in the book The Naked Communist by Cleon Skousen. Just to jog your memory, goals # 25 and #26:

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”

The right may think they are just being pragmatic and ‘using’ people like Milo to slap the left in the face, but the right should beware lest they end up being used and manipulated.

Before political correctness…

Speaking of popular music, noted opera singer, Clarence Whitehill of the Metropolitan Opera Company, said in 1931:

clarence-whitehill-vocal-atrocities_radio-digest1931

Imagine: he said that, and he was not pilloried, called a ‘bigot’, made to apologize, or driven from public life.

The comments appeared in an article in Radio Digest, titled ‘Why Not Prohibit Vocal Atrocities?’ Maybe his opinions were extreme by today’s PC standards but they were probably representative of the ‘highbrow’ section of the American public, which was larger then than now…