Rejecting The Diversity Con Game (But Not Diversity Itself)

The White Negro
Mailer christens the hipster as a psychopath. Disillusioned by the systematic violence of the two world wars, the hipster nihilistically seeks meaning in his life through immediate gratification, especially in the realm of sex. In the rejection of the conformism wrought by industrial society, the hipster valorizes individual acts of violence as infinitely preferable to systematic violence.
By Michael Filozof: The Origins of Leftist Racial Orthodoxy

IF "diversity" is good, why do liberals congregate in lily-white enclaves like Vermont (the whitest state in the Union, according to the Census) and Marin County, California? White liberals hector others incessantly about the need for "diversity," but most have no interest in living in neighborhoods with large numbers of blacks. The ideal society in the liberal mind always seems to be a Scandinavian socialist one (which is to say that liberals strive to make the U.S. more like some of the most uniformly white nations in the world).

The liberal enforcers of racial correctness are quick to decry the evils of racism, yet they are quite willing to practice it themselves in the form of affirmative action—and they are strangely silent when blacks engage in "hate crimes" against whites. Conservatives have been increasingly willing to point out these and other hypocrisies of our racial orthodoxy, but they invariably fail to understand its true origins.

What drives our contemporary racial orthodoxy? Many conservatives mistakenly believe that liberals obsessed by race are afflicted with "white guilt." Not so. The truth about racial matters in the U.S. is this: racial issues are not actually about race. In the hands of the progressive left, race is a tool used by powerful whites against other whites; specifically, race is a weapon used by liberals to bludgeon conservatives and delegitimize conservative, patriotic values.

But it has not always been so.

Prior to World War II, progressives and leftists—like Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger—viewed blacks as inferior human scum who should be eliminated through eugenic hygiene. But after World War II, "progressive" thinking about race underwent an astonishing metamorphosis. The American left forged a strategic alliance with blacks, using race to attack the core values of an American society they had now come to despise as the ultimate evil.

The dominant theme of the literature of the postwar era—which 76 million Baby Boomers absorbed as the first generation to attend college en masse—was the moral equivalence between the United States and the totalitarian regimes it had just fought.

In The Feminine Mystique, Betty Friedan, the founder of the modern American feminist movement, wrote that the American suburb was a "comfortable concentration camp" for women. (Friedan, a Jew, wrote this in 1963, less than 20 years after the liberation of Auschwitz.)

In The Catcher in the Rye, J.D. Salinger's protagonist Holden Caulfield (narrating the story from an asylum after having been driven insane by the "phoniness" of American life) says of his brother D.B., a World War II veteran, "I really think he hated the Army worse than the war ... [h]e said the Army was practically as full of bastards as the Nazis were."

In Kurt Vonnegut's semi-autobiographical novel Slaughterhouse-Five, the real enemy is not Adolf Hitler or the Nazis, but the American military, the American officer corps, and American society. Vonnegut's character Billy Pilgrim is a WWII vet who survives the bombing of Dresden as a POW; after the war, he becomes a respected citizen and a financial success. Pilgrim absorbs conservative American values right down to the "Impeach Earl Warren" bumper sticker on his car—and goes insane, just as his fictionalized son patriotically heads off to Vietnam.

In the early 1960s at Edinburgh, Mailer along with Mary McCarthy began the process of legitimizing Burroughs. Mailer opened the back door and let Burroughs in. Literally. One of Burroughs’ most ardent supporters for admission to the Academy of Arts and Letters was Mailer. This recognition was very important to Burroughs, and he wore his Academy pin proudly. From what I can gather, Burroughs was grateful for Mailer’s support. —Jed Birmingham
But the author who provided the direct link between left-wing America-hatred and race was Norman Mailer, also a disillusioned WWII veteran. In his 1957 essay "The White Negro," Mailer equated the atomic bomb with the concentration camp and urged whites to identify with black social outcasts as a means to escape the "totalitarian tissues of American society." The "hipster" should encourage the "psychopath" within himself and "absorb the existentialist synapses of the Negro." The white "hipster" would follow psychopathology-as-liberation "along the road of the homosexual, the orgiast, the drug-addict, the rapist, the robber and the murderer..."

"[W]hat makes [the "hip" ethic] radically different from Socratic moderation with its stern conservative respect for the experience of the past[,]" Mailer wrote, "is immoderation[.] ... [T]he nihilism of Hip proposes ... that every social restraint and category be removed[.]" (Emphasis mine.)

The White Negro is perhaps the most important work of literature in postwar America. It provided a blueprint for the cultural revolution of the 1960s, and in hindsight, it explains nearly all left-wing, anti-conservative behavior since. If blacks were social outcasts in American life, then the white enemies of traditional American values would align with them. An immoderate drunk like the late Sen. Edward Kennedy—who was kicked out of Harvard for cheating, then killed a young girl he was presumably cheating on his wife with, and got away with it—could not possibly point the finger at blacks and tell them to be honest, chaste, and sober. He could, however, falsely accuse Judge Robert Bork of wanting blacks to "sit at segregated lunch counters" to deflect attention from his own behavior. And it worked. (Today, following the same "enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategy, leftists align themselves with Islamic terrorists and radicals, under whose rule they would never actually want to live.)

When white Americans finally began to see the justice of Martin Luther King's cause and the injustice of Jim Crow, leftists pushed harder and harder to include items under the rubric of "civil rights" that King, a preacher of the Gospel of Jesus, would never have approved of. "Civil rights" became a foot-in-the-door that leftists used to attack and destroy all "social restraints and categories" in American society.

Left-wing racial rhetoric about "fairness" and "equality" and "non-discrimination" has been used to conceal a subterranean leftist agenda of anti-Americanism and anti-conservatism for over fifty years. Conservatives persist in stupidly taking this rhetoric at face value; hence, they always find themselves on the racial defensive.
Want to kill your unborn baby? That's a "civil right." Marry another man? "Civil right." Dress in drag and use a woman's bathroom? Another "civil right." (It is hardly a surprise that while King remains a revered figure on the left, his Christianity has been airbrushed from his legacy. He is almost always referred to as "Dr." King today—rather than "Rev." King, a Man of God.)

The anti-conservative alliance between the left and blacks as described by Mailer neatly explains why Tea Party whites who admire the likes of Herman Cain and Allen West are nonetheless tagged as "racists" by the left. It explains why Democratic Party leftists welcomed former KKK member Sen. Robert Byrd into their fold while slandering former Sen. Trent Lott as a "racist." It explains why the Republican Party, founded in 1854 as an anti-slavery party, routinely loses 95% or more of the black vote; it explains why the conservative Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas is the most hated man in black America—hated more than the reprehensible O.J. Simpson.

It explains the virulent left-wing racial demagoguery surrounding the Trayvon Martin shooting. Everyone knows that blacks are not being profiled and victimized by white "vigilantes," as the politically charged indictment against George Zimmerman alleged. But the shooting provided a perfect platform for white liberals like Michael Bloomberg and Charles Schumer to attack the traditional, conservative American institutions of gun ownership, the National Rifle Association, and the right of self-defense by smearing these things as "racist."

Read it all.

We accept the proposition that human relationships are simultaneously strong but fragile, that human notions of familiarity are natural but confining, that competitive divisions existing due to culture, class, and individuality are not insurmountable when the push and pull properties of each axis is properly cherished and protected according to natural forms. We insist that deep friendship and brotherly love exist among and across all the races and peoples, made possible most notably in the context of free men and free women behaving towards each other in a spirit of compassion and respect whenever the measurement and surety of common goals and individual interests is put to the test.

Diversity is a beautiful concept, one found in nature itself, but diversity cannot, or should not be coerced, or engulfed in political struggles for which its players are ill-equipped and ill-advised to condone, even though the eco-political whip and needle is often indeed the primary social thrust governments prepare to inject diversity—of every kind and unkind—into the populations at large. Even then, every vector of cultural inertia should be allowed to insinuate its own organic passage into the social soup without the centralized authority of governmental quotas handicapping the game, a tactic which both complicates and falsifies the vaguely apotheosized experiment of diversity for its own sake.

—GT

There Is A Promise Coming Down That Dusty Road

Womens_with_guns
Fighting The Future
By Paul Stanner

ON SHAMIAN ISLAND IN Guangzhou there is a hotel called The White Swan Hotel. This hotel is easily one of the best if not the best hotel in Guangzhou and is famous in Guangzhou and Guandong for it's opulence and so rightly so. The decadent consumerism would make any capitalist proud. It would also probably make Chairman Mao spin in his grave. lol As with most things in life however there are two sides to this coin. The White Swan Hotel is also famous for a far more important reason.This is the hotel adoptive parents of Chinese children stay at while waiting for the finalization of their children's adoptions. The hotel rolls out the red carpet for these parents and indulges them with the Royal treatment. The vast majority of these parents are Americans although not all there are some other Westerners.

From my admittedly unscientific research into this adoption phenomenon I've been able to conclude a few things that I'm confident would be borne out in a more scientific investigation and I know for a fact are true of the three families I will be speaking about momentarily. The vast majority are committed Christians and I do NOT mean Kumbaya Christians, these folks actually talk the talk AND walk the walk, home schoolers, Conservative, Caucasian and probably TEA Party supporters. The vast majority also have more than one adopted child and quite often of varying races. They are also truck drivers, Doctors, Nurses, teachers , mechanics, factory workers and clerks. In short they come from all strata of American society.

Wouldn’t it be nice to see the N.A.A.C.P. honor one of these families in their “Image” award shows? Wouldn’t it be nice to hear the radical FemiNazis condemn China’s policies regarding female babies? Wouldn’t it have been nice to see one of these families honored at the recent state dinner for Chinese President Hu Jin Tao? Wouldn’t it have been nice and brilliant P.R. by the way for Chinese President Hu Jin Tao to have had an audience with these families and honored them?
This past week I've had the opportunity to speak with three American families that are in the process of adopting Chinese children. The families were from Oregon , Mississippi and Kentucky. The families from Kentucky and Oregon adopted baby girls. Their new daughters were abandoned because they were female and had health problems. One of the girls was left on a street corner in a big city in Shandong all by herself at THREE years old. Her parents didn't want her because she was female and because she had a hole in her heart. The other little girl was abandoned also. I didn't get a chance to ask of the specifics of her abandonment but it's always the same in China with these cases . The children are either female or have health problems or both. The family from Mississippi adopted a little boy that was abandoned because he had spinal health problems. Although these situations are nothing new to me and the parents reactions were all the same and not a surprise to me when I expressed my shock to them I think you all may be surprised.

"Life is cheap in China," they all said.

After being in China for ten years I can certainly attest to the validity of that fact. Well thankfully life isn't so cheap to these committed Christians. They opened their hearts and not insignificantly their wallets to give these kids a home and a chance in life.

Why is it that all we ever hear about from The N.A.A.C.P., the "Rev. Jessie "Hymie Town" Jackson, the Rev. Al "Tawana" Sharpton, The " Reverend "Calypso" Louis Farrakhan and the rest of the Poverty Pimps and political hucksters regarding these folks is that they are ignorant, racist, hayseeds from Podunk? Wouldn't it be nice to see the N.A.A.C.P. honor one of these families in their "Image" award shows? Wouldn't it be nice to hear the radical FemiNazis condemn China's policies regarding female babies? Wouldn't it have been nice to see one of these families honored at the recent state dinner for Chinese President Hu Jin Tao? Wouldn't it have been nice and brilliant P.R. by the way for Chinese President Hu Jin Tao to have had an audience with these families and honored them? Wouldn't it be nice if just once our Usurper In Chief could mention these Americans on his World Apology Tour?

Well I think we all know when that will happen. These folks you see do not answer to The Chief Community Organizer they answer to a higher authority. There are no votes to be gotten by honoring or emulating these folks. There is no cheap labor to be gained by honoring and emulating these folks. There is no cheap political victory to be won by honoring and emulating these folks. There is good news to be told however.

Long after the Hope and Change of the current political system has passed into the outhouse of history these folks will still be doing what they do because their boss, The King Of Hope tells them to. When their children grow up they will most likely do the same as their parents and also most likely spread The King's Message Of Hope. Won't it be a glorious day when America is ruled by The King again instead of The One?

There is a promise coming down that dusty road. We ought not be building toll booths.

God bless Americans. I've never been more proud to be American.

We salute you Paul Stanner for a well-versed reminder that little is what it seems, but most is what it is. You put your finger on the pulse of good folks working for good and seek not the glory that the world parcels out as long as it gets a bilker's share, and again, we applaud you for giving us this peek at a more aptly tuned reality...

Disturbing Physician-Patient Communications Study

nurse
Healthcare professionals...
An interesting and pertinent article describing my own expectations and problems with communicating jointly with my quite friendly and congenial primary care physicians of the past decade or so. Like the case made below, I too, have not been convinced of the joint decision-making process which the medical profession has been advocating. So, what is the problem?

For over a generation now, efforts to make health care more patient-friendly have focused on getting patients and doctors to work together to make decisions about care and treatment. Numerous research papers, conferences and advocacy organizations have been devoted to this topic of “shared decision-making,” and even politicians have clambered aboard the train, devoting several provisions in the Affordable Care Act to “preference-sensitive care.”

But one thing has been missing in nearly all of these earnest efforts to encourage doctors to share the decision-making process. That is, ironically, the patient’s perspective.

Now a study published in the most recent issue of Health Affairs has begun to uncover some of that perspective, and the news is not good. In our enthusiasm for all things patient-centered, we seem to have, as the saying goes, taken the thought of including patient preferences for the deed.

Systemic changes to increase shared decision-making must be addressed as well. Care organizations and doctors’ practices must be restructured to allow more in-depth conversations; clinicians need to be reimbursed for the time required for more meaningful conversations; and health care systems must adopt rigorous quality standards that measure and value real patient engagement in decisions.
The researchers conducted several focus groups with 48 patients from five primary care physicians in the San Francisco Bay area. First, they showed the patient participants a short video on several equally effective but very different treatment approaches for a heart ailment. Then, they asked them questions about what they did with their own doctors when faced with a choice among several treatment options that might be equally effective but could differ in lifestyle effects, cost or range of complications. Finally, the researchers asked the participants if they were comfortable asking doctors about different treatments, discussing their values and preferences or disagreeing with their doctors’ recommendations.

The participants responded that they felt limited, almost trapped into certain ways of speaking with their doctors. They said they wanted to collaborate in decisions about their care but felt they couldn’t because doctors often acted authoritarian, rather than authoritative. A large number worried about upsetting or angering their doctors and believed that they were best served by acting as “supplicants” toward the doctor “who knows best.” Many also believed that they could depend only on themselves for getting more information about treatments or diseases. Some even said they feared retribution by doctors who could ultimately affect their care and how they did.

The findings fly in the face of previous optimistic assumptions about shared decision-making that were based mostly on studies that examined physicians’ intent, but not patient perceptions. “Many physicians say they are already doing shared decision-making,” said Dominick L. Frosch, lead author of the new study and an associate investigator in the Department of Health Services Research at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation Research Institute in California. “But patients still aren’t perceiving the relationship as a partnership.”

Interestingly, most participants in this study were over 50, lived in affluent areas and had either attended or completed graduate school. “It’s hard to think that people from more disadvantaged backgrounds would find it any easier to question doctors,” Dr. Frosch said.

Read it all.

Bob Dylan Among Honorees of 2012 Presidential Medal Of Freedom

PRESIDENT BARACK H. OBAMA awarded Presidential Medals of Freedom today at the White House to Jan Karski, Dolores Huerta, John Glenn, John Paul Stevens, Madeleine Albright, Shimon Peres, John Doar, William Foege, Juliette Gordon Low, Pat Summitt, Gordon Hirabayashi, and wait for it, can you believe it, the one and only Bob Dylan. The medal is the highest honor a president can bestow upon a civilian.

When delivering his brief remarks about each honoree, President Obama thanked musician Bob Dylan for opening up his world. "I remember in college listening to Bob Dylan and my world opening up because he captured something that—about this country that was so vital," Obama said. The president also noted that he's "a really big fan."

Bob Dylan started out singing other people’s songs. But, as he says, “There came a point where I had to write what I wanted to say, because what I wanted to say, nobody else was writing.” So born in Hibbing, Minnesota—a town, he says, where “you couldn’t be a rebel—it was too cold”—(laughter)—Bob moved to New York at age 19. By the time he was 23, Bob’s voice, with its weight, its unique, gravelly power was redefining not just what music sounded like, but the message it carried and how it made people feel. Today, everybody from Bruce Springsteen to U2 owes Bob a debt of gratitude. There is not a bigger giant in the history of American music. All these years later, he’s still chasing that sound, still searching for a little bit of truth. And I have to say that I am a really big fan.

Oddities of 2012, where beast and fowl and fish behave in strange events, severe weather, uncertain noises heard locally around the globe, the sun controlling earth...

Not A Religion Of Peace But Of War

No Democracy
Gentlemen dressing up and acting out. No biggie. Nothing to see here folks...
IT IS AN ERROR FOR ANYONE to call Islam a religion, but for those who insist, it's best referred to as a "Religion of War" that has arrived on our shore as an enemy invader for the sole purpose of conquering our nation even unto ruin. This point cannot be overemphasized.

The Qur'an vows to vanquish all religions and nations worldwide. Allah himself is the protagonist who relishes the role of a "hit man" vowing to knock off every person who rejects Islam—sending them to burn in everlasting hell.

For Allah, there is nothing more heinous and loathsome than those infidels (non-believers) who refuse to convert, and there is nothing he will not do to eradicate them.

"I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore, smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off their fingers and toes." (Qur'an 8:12)

"Allah wished to confirm the truth by his words: Wipe the infidels out to the last." (Qur'an: 8:7)

Read more here.

[Not A Religion Of Peace But Of War]

Kansas Votes To Stifle Sharia

“In this great country of ours and in the state of Kansas, women have equal rights,” Wagle said during the Senate’s debate. “They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law.”
A BILL DESIGNED TO PREVENT Kansas courts or government agencies from making decisions based on Islamic or other foreign legal codes has cleared the state Legislature after a contentious debate about whether the measure upholds American values or appeals to prejudice against Muslims. The Senate approved the bill Friday on a 33-3 vote. The House had approved it, 120-0, earlier in the week. The measure goes next to Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, who hasn’t said whether he’ll sign or veto the measure.

The measure doesn’t specifically mention Shariah law, which broadly refers to codes within the Islamic legal system. Instead, it says that courts, administrative agencies or state tribunals can’t base rulings on any foreign law or legal system that would not grant the parties the same rights guaranteed by state and U.S. constitutions.

But several supporters specifically cited the potential use of Shariah law in Kansas as their concern. Though there are no known cases in which a Kansas judge has based a ruling on Islamic law, supporters of the bill cited a pending case in Sedgwick County in which a man seeking to divorce his wife has asked for property to be divided under a marriage contract in line with Shariah law. The bill’s supporters said it simply ensures that legal decisions will protect long-cherished liberties, such as freedom of speech and religion and the right to equal treatment under the law. Sen. Susan Wagle, a Wichita Republican, said a vote for the legislation is a vote to protect women.

Baby Islam
Baby Islam
“We don’t have any intolerance in this bill. Nobody’s stripped of their freedom of religion,” stipulated Sen. Ty Masterson, (Andover-R) adding, “This is talking about the law—American law, American courts.”

“In this great country of ours and in the state of Kansas, women have equal rights,” Wagle was quoted to have said during the Senate’s debate. She also noted that “They stone women to death in countries that have Shariah law.”

The bill passed both chambers by wide margins because even some legislators who were skeptical of it believed it was broad and bland enough that it didn’t represent a specific political attack on Muslims. Several senators noted that supporters of the bill have singled out Shariah law in talking about it, but we at the Project must ask what particularly is the fault in that? Wagle's comments point precisely to the inducements of foreign invasion, and if it were not an issue of concern, Americans would not foster this concern. So we must applaud agle's remarks.

“This bill will put Kansas in a light that says we are intolerant of any other faith,” said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Tim Owens, an Overland Park Republican who voted against the bill. “I would not be able to look at myself in the mirror in the morning if I didn’t stand up and say I don’t want to be that kind of person and I don’t want to be in a community or a state that is that way.”

Both the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the National Conference of State Legislatures say anti-Shariah proposals have been considered in 20 states, including Kansas. Oklahoma voters approved a ballot initiative in 2010 that specifically mentioned Shariah law, but both a federal judge and a federal appeals court blocked it.

“It is an effort to demonize Islam,” said Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Washington-based council. “As Muslims are seen participating in a positive way in society, that really irritates some people.” No. It is the Muslims who push for favoritism and brutality in society that really irritate some people. What we can't figure out is why it doesn't irritate ALL people. We are shocked that at this late date, only 20 states have moved to protect its sovereignty from this danger of creeping sharia.

Last year, 45 Kansas House members, led by Rep. Peggy Mast, an Emporia Republican sponsored a bill aimed at Shariah law. The House approved it overwhelmingly, but it stalled in the Senate; this year, the House pushed another version, and pressure built on senators.

Mast had a news conference Thursday to highlight the Sedgwick County case, in which Hussein Hamdeh, a Wichita State University physics professor, filed for a divorce in November 2010 from his wife, Hala. Their Islamic marriage contract, made in Lebanon, promised her a $5,000 payment should they split. He argued that the contract settled property issues, while Islamic law limited spousal maintenance payments to her to three months. Her attorney said in a court document that following Islamic law would leave her “destitute.”

Hussein Hamdeh’s attorney declined to comment on the case which is pending, and did not return a telephone message seeking comment.

Sen. Garrett Love, a Montezuma Republican, said even if no Kansas court has yet based a decision on foreign legal codes, “That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still protect Kansans from those foreign laws being used in the future—a future that really may not be that far away.” But several senators questioned whether the legislation is necessary, arguing Kansas judges and officials already must adhere to the U.S. and state constitutions. Hooper derided it as “an anti-unicorn” bill.

“All it does is increase hostility toward Islam and suspicion of Muslims,” Hooper said.

And you know something Ibrahim? Should you and your Muslims friends actually begin to fit into American society, drop your allegiance to sharia, honor killings, and street takeovers for prayer displays, begin showing your love for your new country and her citizenry, I'll grant you can count on this "hostility" and "suspicicion" simply melting away here in America. Give it a shot. You might be surprised...

Of course, given your doctrinal penchant for taqiyya, it will take some time, maybe a hundred years.

Dodging Islamic Apologistics Of Classic Bait And Switch

HUGH FITZGERALD, THE MYSTERY SCHOLAR OF ISLAM, has written about this tactic of da'wa apologists quite well, and we again strive to honor Hugh in a snippet from a comment we clipped from Jihad Watch. Hat tip goes to Proud Kafir:

Diwan-i-Khas
Diwan-i-Khas at Fatehpur Sikri, a town built by Akbar
The one who really gave himself away was the odious and stupid and remarkably ill-informed William Dalrymple. He went on and on about how, near to where "I live in Delhi" there is some spot connected to the reign of Akbar. And then he proceeded to tell everyone—thank god it has been preserved on tape, for all time—how Akbar, the "Muslim emperor," had called together Shi'a Muslims, and Sunni Muslims, and Jains, and Christians, and even Jews from Cochin, for a colloquy. And he went on and on about how splendid Akbar was. Of course, Akbar was splendid, when he became syncretistic, when he ended the Jizyah, when he essentially stopped being a Muslim in every important way. The British historian V. A. West, in his "History of India," notes that Akbar demanded that those in his inner circle had to abjure the Qur'an -- not exactly the sign of a Muslim.

So his entire speech was all about Akbar, and he apparently did not know that Akbar, the Akbar he praised, is remembered today fondly by Hindus and despised by Muslims. And at one point he even described "Ashoka and Akbar" as Muslim leaders. Ashoka was no Muslim. Could I really have heard him say that? Not possible. No, I suppose anything is possible, especially if Dalrymple shows he has missed entirely the main point about syncretistic Akbar, has not understood the whole point of his later rule, and why he is revered by Hindus and despised by Muslims, though some may now invoke his name to show that “Muslims are tolerant.”

No, Dalrymple’s idiocy about Akbar will live on forever, on the tape made of the other evening, forever made available online with a single click, to haunt him, to mock him, to serve as proof that Dalrymple the historian of Mughal India, “internationally-acclaimed,” is unsteady when it comes to possibly the most important figure in Indian history during the entire Mughal period.

Ibn Warraq, in one of later replies, noted—too quickly, alas—that Akbar was no Muslim, and it was clear, according to observers, that Dalrymple was nervous, that he knew he was out of his depth.

[Dodging Islamic Apologistics Of Classic Bait And Switch]