The new Boston sculpture “honoring” Dr. Martin Luther King and his wife, Coretta Scott King, looks more like a pair of hands hugging a beefy penis than a special moment shared by the iconic couple.
“Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.”
On 9/11 this year I was filling in for Alan Stock on KXNT’s Morning Source. I usually tell the story of someone who was a victim of the terrorist attacks, but the morning drive format doesn’t permit me such a segment. This year I would have to come up with something new to convey the importance of those events on our society. As always, I was hoping for a teachable moment. But what to say?
I did the first couple of hours of the program with normal morning drive topics and waited for most of my audience to be awake before I addressed the day’s anniversary. I had several ideas about what I was going to say in my head, but none of them seemed to satisfy me. Sometimes in radio, you do your best work when you haven’t prepared at all, and your worst when you have.
For most of my relevant life, I’ve lived by a few different credos. The most important of which is …
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing.
Edmund Burke
It’s served me well over the years, and I knew it wouldn’t fail me now.
As I discussed the events of that day, and how evil succeeded, I had an epiphany. Evil did succeed that day … because good men did nothing. Not because bad men allowed it to happen, or because we were caught off guard. It happened because good men did nothing.
Society teaches us that there is good and bad people, that’s it. A zealous few try to preach that a grey middle ground exists. It doesn’t. Society has been too narrow in its teachings of right and wrong, good and bad. Furthermore, they’ve been too generous with bestowing the title of hero. So what is a hero? What is a villain for that matter?
Time to open my trusty dictionary. I know my president says I shouldn’t, but I just can’t help myself. Before I found the definitions I was looking for I pondered, how could the dictionary possibly define such abstract concepts as hero and villain? You see, heroes and villains are not the same as good and bad. They are their own entities. Good people are rarely heroes, and bad people don’t always rise to the level of villain. I just can’t bring myself to call a petty thief a villain, I’m sorry. Heel maybe, but not villain. When I was in the Army I was called both, frequently. I was no villain, and could easily dismiss such nonsense. When I was called a hero I became very uncomfortable. I believed I was a good person doing an important job, but I’d done nothing that warranted my being called a hero. I didn’t deserve such praise.
Society says I’m a hero for just that reason, that I don’t see myself as such or seek praise. In fact, society has many definitions of what a hero is. It’s not that society has perverted yet another word’s definition as it so frequently does. It’s that hero really is too abstract to properly define for all circumstances. So is its counterpart.
So what is a hero, and what is a villain? Some say a hero is someone who does a dangerous job to help others. Most hero-heaping is bestowed upon the military, police, and firefighters. Can you really be called a hero based on your employment in a dangerous field, and accepting risk? Can it really be that easy? I suppose this could be one of those ‘I’ll know it when I see it’ moments, but doesn’t the word hero deserve more than that?
All arbitrary definitions society may have don’t mean a thing. Only the wisdom contained in my dictionary matters.
Hero:
1 a : a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent endowed with great strength or ability b : an illustrious warrior c : a man admired for his achievements and noble qualities d : one that shows great courage
2 a : the principal male character in a literary or dramatic work b : the central figure in an event, period, or movement
3 plural usually heros : submarine 2
4 : an object of extreme admiration and devotion
Wow … how very vague of you Webster’s.
Really, the two definitions that apply are “one that shows great courage” and “an object of extreme admiration and devotion.”
Do they seem a bit watered down to you too? Great courage is no doubt a trait of the hero, but a person can show courage without it rising to the level of heroism. I do that when I do any electrical work in the house, and I’m afraid I didn’t cut the right breaker. Extreme admiration and devotion seem to fit society’s behavior towards a hero perfectly. Can that mean anyone they admire, or are devoted to is now a hero? Seems weak to me.
The dictionary is just as vague for villain.
Villain:
1 : an uncouth person : boor
2 : a deliberate scoundrel or criminal
3 : a character in a story or play who opposes the hero
4 : one blamed for a particular evil or difficulty
Come on! Work with me here!
Common criminals are not worthy of the title villain, uncouth means strange and clumsy, and what is a “particular evil?” The only thing that fits is that they are the ones who oppose the hero. So to be able to properly define villain, I must properly define hero. A task so tough Webster’s Dictionary can’t do it with any conviction.
Therefore, I submit to you that a hero is defined as a good person who acts. A good person who does something. Most often to prevent the success of evil. That is a hero! A good person who acts, most often to prevent the success of evil.
As I discussed 9/11 that morning this concept of what a hero is was so clear. Only people who spring into action on behalf of good with little regard for themselves are called heroes. That became my message that morning. I asked my audience if they were merely ‘good’ or if they were ‘heroes.’ Were they going to be good people who did something, or were they going to allow evil to succeed?
Speaking of evil. What about defining a villain? That’s the beauty of defining a hero. We now have the definition of the villain as well. A villain is someone who acts, in opposition to the hero, in order to ensure the success of evil.
With that, I leave you with some parting questions. Are you good or bad? Are you a hero or villain? Will you allow evil to succeed, or will you be that good person who does something?
I know, you are sick and tired of everyone flippantly throwing around the word ‘Nazi.’ So am I. The frivolous use of the word as a catch-all slur for anyone liberals disagree with is annoying. However, real neo-Nazis do exist. A lot of them are in Ukraine.
Point of clarification since people are inevitably going to take this out of context.
Ukraine is not a Nazi country. Most of the country is very tolerant. In the east, however, there are Nazis. Not as many as Putin would have you believe, but they are there and they have committed war crimes against the people Putin is claiming to protect.
Interesting that the Russians are alleging the Ukrainians are Nazis and now the Western media is declaring Russian allies as Nazis. Zhoga is called a neo-Nazi in dozens of Western media outlets after he was killed. No one provides any actual evidence of this.
For the record, Zhoga has been accused of and appears to have admitted to war crimes. He’s no peach. But is he a neo-Nazi?
I can’t find anything about Zhoga or the Sparta Battalion (who DM refers to as a ‘mob’) being Nazis. I have found a LOT about them accusing Ukrainians of being Nazis and fighting against those Nazis murdering their people.
In fact, even in the Daily Mail’s article accusing Zhoga of being a neo-Nazi, they printed that the announcement of his death accused the Ukrainians of being Nazis.
Sparta fights for the DPR. Denis Pushilin is the head of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). He announced the death of Zhoga on his Telegram.
He was mortally wounded while ensuring the exit of civilians from this settlement. Scouts “Sparta” covered the evacuation of civilians, mostly women and children. The Nazis opened fire on them…
The Nazis in this announcement are the Ukrainian forces. The head of the DPR said Zhoga was killed protecting civilians from the Nazis who opened fire on the civilians.
The Daily Mail published that nearly halfway down their article after they accused Sparta of being neo-Nazis. Daily Mail either missed it, as did everyone else repeating the claim, or they are intentionally lying to you.
It gets worse …
Look at this screengrab from just a few minutes before I wrote this article.
That’s the Wikipedia page on the Sparta Battalion. There is no reference to them being neo-Nazis in the entire article. Zero results for ‘neo’ for ‘Nazi’ and for ‘white.’ No one has considered Sparta Battalion to be neo-Nazi before now when it suits the Western powers that be to push that narrative.
Now, look at this from the search results for that exact same Wikipedia article:
The search results for that Wikipedia page claim Sparta are neo-Nazis but the actual article doesn’t … yet.
Larry Sanger has warned that the website can no longer be trusted — insisting it is now just “propaganda” for the left-leaning “establishment.”
“If only one version of the facts is allowed then that gives a huge incentive to wealthy and powerful people to seize control of things like Wikipedia in order to shore up their power,” he said.
“There’s a global enforcement of a certain point of view on issues like COVID,” he insisted.
The Ukrainian AZOV Battalion is widely recognized as neo-Nazis. The US government attempted to ban any funding of them with Ukrainian aid packages. A ban that was removed for … reasons.
The Ukrainian AZOV Battalion and the DPR Sparta Battalion are enemies. Are the neo-Nazi groups fighting each other? Why does Sparta constantly refer to their enemies as Nazis in a derogatory way?
It seems that Sparta Battalion and their former leader Vladimir Zhoga are not actually neo-Nazis but are, in fact, in a war against actual neo-Nazi units.
Sidebar: The AZOV Battalion used to be a privately funded gang that was funded by rich oligarchs but was officially absorbed into the Ukrainian National Guard by former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko. Poroshenko praised AZOV as:
“These are our best warriors,” he said at an awards ceremony in 2014. “Our best volunteers.”
Remember that story? The mayor of Konotop appealed to the city and asked if they wanted to fight or surrender. They chose to fight. I even covered it on my show. A harrowing story of bravery, right? What I didn’t know is that the mayor being lionized by the West is a for-real neo-Nazi.
His name is Artem Semenikhin. He’s the mayor of Konotop in the North East of Ukraine.
According to reports, Semenikhin drives around in a car bearing the number 14/88, a numerological reference to the phrases “we must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” and “Heil Hitler”; replaced the picture of President Petro Poroshenko in his office with a portrait of Ukrainian national leader and Nazi collaborator Stepan Bandera; and refused to fly the city’s official flag at the opening meeting of the city council because he objected to the star of David emblazoned on it. The flag also features a Muslim crescent and a cross.
Now, when I covered the story of Konotop’s ‘surrender or die’ predicament, I didn’t know who Semenikhin was. I could forgive PBS for the same except they tipped their hand.
You see, behind Semenikhin in the PBS story is a painting of Stepan Bandera. Bandera was a Ukrainian politician and Nazi sympathizer during WWII. PBS knew that and that’s why they blurred the painting out.
Here’s the picture blurred on the wall of Stepan Bandera:
When Russian troops came into the office of the mayor of Konotop, Ukraine, he escorted them out and made sure they drove away.
I suppose you could say PBS didn’t do this intentionally and it was just a standard blur filter that streamers use all the time, but I’d find that claim dubious, at best.
Just so we are clear … Western media seems to have falsely accused a pro-Russian commander and his whole unit of being neo-Nazis when they are actively engaged in hostilities with a confirmed neo-Nazi unit while PBS knowingly put neo-Nazi on their programming and hid a painting of a well-known Nazi ally hanging on his wall while they did it.
Good thing the West has banned all Russian media outlets so their narrative doesn’t get challenged like with so many fake Ukrainian stories exposed so far in the conflict.