Thursday, November 27, 2014

Feminism: Silly or Just Wrongheaded?

Both, actually. Most feminists are just silly, especially feminist leaders, who mix their silliness with a generous portion of evil. But some feminists, especially the ones who don't seem automatically flaky about everything, are just wrongheaded. And that means that they have good instincts and decent reasoning power but lack the facts to apply them to in order to come to sensible conclusions. This is actually true of a lot of liberals. They've had lies fed to them as facts, and actual facts hidden from them, so of course they're going to come to erroneous ideas about things. The lies include the whole human equality/blank slate concept, which states that all human beings have the potential to be equal in intellect and temperament, an idea so breathtakingly unscientific as to appeal to only those who have been protected from facts and logic for their whole lives. And a special case of the "equality" lie is that there are no intrinsic differences in the thinking and behavior of the human sexes, and that all such differences are caused by environment.  But these are the lies that we all breathe in daily, courtesy of the MAG (Media, Academia, Government), so why should we be surprised that liberals in general and feminists in particular, believe them?

Anyhow, simply dismissing all feminists as silly/evil might be a mistake and is certainly not productive. Lysander Swooner, over at The Right Stuff, expands on this notion:

Feminism Exists. . .


But only in Western nations and due to their inherent egalitarian natures. Is it not the epitome of irony that the only societies where feminism can persist are the very ones that do not need it? Perhaps, but I believe that we can go deeper and find an even more biting irony.

In order to make progress in an honest discussion about this issue, I’m going to ask readers to ease back into their office chairs and read with an open mind. I’m sure that some will accuse me of “iron knighting” but I really don’t care. I’m going to speak the truth as I see it. I’m looking to speak directly to other men on the right, not to troll feminists, but to actually explore the phenomenon that is feminism.
So take off your manly Rightist coxcomb and put away your snappy repertoire of kitchen jokes for a moment. Only for a moment though, I’m not asking you to lose focus on rhetoric, goal, or intention. I only ask that you lower your guard enough to get in touch with your Occidental vag.

Comparisons

In other cultures, women are seen purely as brood mares. We are all aware of how rape is treated in Islamist law. Women are not allowed to drive, all decisions are made by men, their genitals are mutilated in youth, and “honor killings” are common. Rape in Africa is a de facto rule and women there are just as often butchered in the streets. Many of these states will make pretenses toward justice but that is all it is. Northeast Asia, as is usual, proves an exception and has a native homeostasis as the women care as little about gender relations as the men do. In most countries, women maintain a status as property of men. Any group of women attempting to change the status quo are met with harsh retaliation in most nonwhite countries.

Fairness to the fairer sex will intensify with proximity to Western nations and increased white admixture or demographics. So it is the whiter a country, moderated in part by culture, the more tolerant of absurdist and detrimental feminist arguments. Interestingly, and for the wrong reasons, better balances between gender egalitarianism and traditional gender roles will be found in these medial nations.
Before you slip that coxcomb back on in pride of being ein Westlichen Menschen, reflect for a moment of all that we have accomplished. Just think about the character and strength, intelligence and ability allowing Western men to dominate in all true civilized pursuits. Swell triumphant with the philosophical and metaphysical accomplishments possessed of minds not too dissimilar to your own. Traditions that continue to confound and bedazzle the minds of those in far off lands millennia hence. Turn through the pages of history and witness tyrants fall where they might have succeeded in other domains. Political movement, revolution, crusade, break through, war, masses of men carefully organized, and carnage in a perpetual struggle for balance and control.
Now, how the hell is it that we allow our women to run amok in our societies? Brought to our knees after all these years and after all we’ve accomplished? If you say it’s purely on account of Western man’s magnanimity, you’re fooling yourself and you’d better hope it’s not true as it would mean we are past largesse in the deep waters of abysmal weakness. It is not weakness though, at least not wholly.

The Problem

It is not only the Sons of Western man that have inherited strength and persistence but the Daughters as well. Western women have become prisoners of misdirected transcendence to male roles and, admittedly, they do it better than men of other societies. Regardless of your opinion of religion, our societies have left a vacuum of power in the dispossession of tradition. We are living in a time where man has been befuddled by liberal altruism, ran afoul of original intent and directed toward strangers. Foolishly replacing guarded kindness with foolish generosity. Western man, in this spiritually deprived age, has left a vacuum himself as a result and Western woman has taken up the mantle of power and revolution in his stead.
They are locked in a state of fear, just as Western men had been before taking up arms against tyrants in bygone ages. They have chosen as their enemy white men because, in their struggle for balance, they cannot find their rightful place. They see something is wrong yet they know not what. The narrative, the explanation for what went wrong, has been set by others and it is not favorable to us. Men had revolted with a solid understanding of duty and clearly defined functions for the particles of nation. Women can only emulate the functions of men and cannot, in their fervor, envision a place for men in the new order they struggle to create. A woman without a conscientious man, to give direction and purpose, is a miserable wretch just as a man without a dutiful woman, to give solace and comfort, is a sorrowful beast.
White women are of a higher value, attested by their strength and persistence despite being misguided. Men, do not hate your women for what they had no agency in creating, reserve your bile for the traitorous men amongst you. This state of affairs did not take place overnight. It has been a slow, progressive ebb and flow. Every small step back by men has been taken in turn by them. They press more for the same reasons men have always pressed the boundaries where they have smelled weakness. Being of strong constitution, we cannot blame our women for instinctively grasping for any semblance of control that may manifest as we slide evermore into decline.

With liberalist theoretical reduction of all values down to “rights,” we can begin to see the appeal and how the misunderstanding happened. You become aware of how one could grow confused and conflate “rights” with fulfillment. Many of you reading this are neoreactionaries and familiar enough with this conflation to understand the dynamic in action. You will never convince feminists to abjure without real world action and change. Arguing with them on their own terms or mocking them is only mental masturbation.

A Solution

The inappropriate reaction to feminism is attempting to enact complete servitude upon women. The beauty of Western civilization is in the harmony and symmetry of life promised to its inheritors. Our women want fulfillment and they deserve it.
In light of all this, taking identical stances toward our superior women that barbaric societies do to their inferior and incapable women is not the proper reaction to feminism. It is not even in our nature, which is why we are losing. As fun as you might think it is, we cannot win by simply mocking them with images of female serfdom. This only legitimizes their delusion of white males as tyrants to be destroyed. Above and beyond anything else, such a model is dysgenic.
Would you trade strong mothers for weak consorts? Would you wish a heritage of subservience upon your children?
When a wise king looks upon his kingdom and sees strife and anger, he will not recklessly attack them for their rebellion. That would be imprudent, selfish, and unproductive. Neither would he immediately submit to their demands without considering his options because that would be a cowardly action unfitting of a ruler.
He would recognize the confusion early on and attempt to understand their plight. Once the problem is identified, he takes corrective measures in the least destructive manner possible. This is the primary distinction between a benevolent leader and a tyrant. He cannot govern his own people the way he might attack his enemies.
We must concentrate our energies on other men, not to teach them to be misogynists but real conscientious shepherds and stewards. This is no easy task, as few worthy efforts are, but it is the only way to reverse the damage that has been done to our society. When we have enough leverage, we can then begin to create the institutions by which we might reeducate our women on the desirable status of the consummate nurturer and caretaker. In our fight for restoring Western traditions, we must not lose sight of what made it beautiful and what we know is Right.
-------
Go here for the original, and to see some appropriate illustrations:
http://therightstuff.biz/2014/11/27/feminism-exists/
---------
Quibcag: The illustration is a couple from Denkigai no Hon'ya-san (デンキ街の本屋さん?, lit. "The Electric Town's Bookstore"), who could go either way.


Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Lily W. Liberal #2

Based on a joke from
http://nicholasstixuncensored.blogspot.com/

Click
to
Enlarge.

Buchanan on Hagel

I've always thought of Chuck Hagel as a bit of a doofus, because why did he take the job in the first place? He couldn't possibly be so naive as to think Obama planned anything good in the military sphere, or that he wouldn't toss him overboard ASAP if he ever became critical.

But I like to take the long view of these things — long in comparison to the TV talking heads, at least, whose memories seldom go back further than a decade, if that.

So I'll give you my opinion quick, and then pass you on to Pat Buchanan, who knows a lot more about it than I do.

Ronald Reagan, for all his flaws, had enough street smarts to know that just about anything we might try to do in the Middle East would turn around and bite us sooner or later. At least he realized that after Lebanon. Bush First had a similar understanding of the Middle East, at least, and had realist advisors who didn't think we could bomb the whole area into a representative democracy any time soon.

But the Clinton-Bush-Obama years have been different. The world is a board game to those three idiots. They're all convinced that constant diddling with the people of the Middle East can somehow improve the situation. They are, of course, dead wrong. One of the reasons I understand things like that is that I've been reading Buchanan for years. And this week, he writes:

Hagel Didn’t Start the Fire


Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, a Vietnam war veteran and the lone Republican on Obama’s national security team, has been fired.

And John McCain’s assessment is dead on.

Hagel, he said, “was never really brought into that real tight circle inside the White House that makes all the decisions which has put us into the incredible debacle that we’re in today throughout the world.”

Undeniably, U.S. foreign policy is in a shambles. But what were the “decisions” that produced the “incredible debacle”?

Who made them? Who supported them?

The first would be George W. Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, a war for which Sens. John McCain, Joe Biden, John Kerry and Hillary Clinton all voted. At least Sen. Hagel admitted he made a mistake on that vote.

With our invasion, we dethroned Saddam and destroyed his Sunni Baathist regime. And today the Islamic State, a barbaric offshoot of al-Qaida, controls Mosul, Anbar and the Sunni third of Iraq.

Kurdistan is breaking away. And a Shia government in Baghdad, closely tied to Tehran and backed by murderous anti-American Shia militias, controls the rest. Terrorism is a daily occurrence.

Such is the condition of the nation which we were promised would become a model of democracy for the Middle East after a “cake-walk war.” The war lasted eight years for us, and now we are going back—to prevent a catastrophe.

A second decision came in 2011, when a rebellion arose against Bashar Assad in Syria, and we supported and aided the uprising. Assad must go, said Obama. McCain and the neocons agreed.

Now ISIS and al-Qaida are dominant from Aleppo to the Iraqi border with Assad barely holding the rest, while the rebels we urged to rise and overthrow the regime are routed or in retreat.

Had Assad fallen, had we bombed his army last year, as Obama, Kerry and McCain wanted to do, and brought down his regime, ISIS and al-Qaida might be in Damascus today. And America might be facing a decision either to invade or tolerate a terrorist regime in the heart of the Middle East.

Lest we forget, Vladimir Putin pulled our chestnuts out of the fire a year ago, with a brokered deal to rid Syria of chemical weapons.

The Turks, Saudis and Gulf Arabs who aided ISIS’ rise are having second thoughts, but sending no Saudi or Turkish troops to dislodge it.

So the clamor arises anew for U.S. “boots on the ground” to reunite the nations that the wars and revolutions we supported tore apart.

A third decision was the U.S.-NATO war on Col. Gadhafi’s Libya.

After deceiving the Russians by assuring them we wanted Security Council support for the use of air power simply to prevent a massacre in Benghazi, we bombed for half a year, and brought down Gadhafi.

Now we have on the south shore of the Mediterranean a huge failed state and strategic base camp for Islamists and terrorists who are spreading their poison into sub-Sahara Africa.

The great triumphs of Reagan and Bush 41 were converting Russia into a partner, and presiding over the liberation of Eastern Europe and the dissolution of the old Soviet Union into 15 independent nations.

Read the rest here:
----------
Quibcag: I think the illustration is meant to be personifications of a few of the successor states to the USSR. At any rate, I found it here:

Monday, November 24, 2014

Enough is Enough, Dare We Hope?

For someone like me, who likes to think of himself as a funny writer, Fred Reed is both an inspiration and a depressant. An inspiration because he shows just how well it can be done, but a depressant because you think that no matter how you try, you can't ever get that funny.  On the other hand, you can be pretty funny anyway even if you don't reach Fred's level.

Fred's subject here is revolution, and my liberal (and neocon) friends all assure me that while revolution was an option a couple of centuries ago, once we got ourselves a "democratic" government, revolution of any kind became both unnecessary and evil. On the liberal side, the same ones who say that always seem to be heavily in favor of Black rioting and civil disobedience, hippies and neo-hippies defecating on cars, stuff like that. But I guess that isn't really revolutionary behavior, but just good clean fun or something.

True revolutionaries, the kind of scoundrels who would re-establish constitutional government and adopt a mind-your-own business, are the real problem to my liberal/neocon friends, and so as not to upset them, I warn them not to read the following from:
http://www.fredoneverything.net/Rebellion.shtml

The Second American Revolution

An Utterly Objective Analysis

November 23, 2014

 The Revolution of 2019 began, curiously enough, in fall of 2019 when Mary Lou Johnson, the nine-year-old daughter of a ranching family outside of Casper, Wyoming, came home from her sex-ed class at Martin Luther King Elementary with a banana, a packet of condoms, and a book called Sally Has Two Mommies. Her mother Janey Lou, a political reactionary, took one look and began screaming. “Goddamit! Goddamit! I’m not going to take it anymore!”

 She grabbed the shotgun, a nice Remington 870 loaded with double-ought buck, and headed for the school.

Historians would debate just what led the surrounding population spontaneously to join her. Much of it seemed to have something to do with the schools. One father reported that he snapped when his daughter came home during Harriet Tubman Week, and he asked her about Robert E. Lee.

“Who?”

Another father, objecting to students who wore low-hanging pants, said, “It’s supposed to be a school, not a frigging proctology workshop.” A common concern was that in a fifth-grade class on Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, and Transgendered Rights, the teacher had criticized Primate Privilege, saying that animals had rights too. She then gave the class a pamphlet called Mommy Says Moo. Wyoming was cattle country. Local wives were wroth. They thought it an invitation to infidelity.
There then followed the now-infamous Near Death March, in which the entire faculty of the school was run across the Montana line by infuriated citizens wielding cattle prods. These, dubbed the Poor Man’s Taser, were then turned against anyone associated with the federal government. “The bastards won’t leave us alone. I’m gonna tase’m where the sun don’t shine. They’ll sail back to Washington in one hop like a damn electrified bull frog.”

The uprising, which had started locally with Janey Lou’s shotgun, began to spread both geographically and in its content. Apparently people were fed up with a lot of things. Nobody in government had noticed.

It is now agreed that the catastrophic events which followed occurred in part because Washington, which was celebrating American-African History Week, simply did not recognize the depth of resentment in the country. The city traditionally was inward-looking. Few knew exactly where Wyoming was. Their sources of information were chiefly talking heads talking to each other about each other.

By unfortunate happenstance, the Supreme Court had just issued its landmark decision that public display of the Bible contravened the constitutional prohibition of the establishment of religion. Mere possession, the justices said, would not be sufficient to trip the prohibition and lead to prosecution, but “a reasonable reticence in display” should be practiced. It was agreed that the Holy Book could be carried in a sealed bag with a child-proof lock. That this happened during Moslem Heritage Week further fueled ire among the intolerant.

The Court’s ruling had ripple effects unforeseen in the capital, as most things were. When the rebellion metastasized to Rosa Parks County (formerly Jackson County), Virginia, forty miles outside of Richmond, they were shocked. The provoking incident occurred in Sojourner Truth High School in a rural and not very Reconstructed county.

Specificallly, Johnny Loggins, in the tenth grade, had been issued a condom and, in the back of his African Civilization class, was discovered to be praying for a chance to use it. This also constituted an establishment of religion. He was arrested by several of the thirty-five police patrolling the corridors and remanded for psychiatric evaluation.

Runors flew, fanning the flames. The Democrats, having elected the first black president and then Hillary, the first woman, were said to be looking for a transvestite for 2024. In respect to 2032, the ominous word "trans-phylum" floated about. The people of Casper feared they might have a President who said "Arf," or perhaps had tentacles.

The insurrection went viral thanks to the internet. Incident followed incident. In Brooklyn on Sixth Avenue, seven teens between the ages of 21 and 28 beat to death a 95-year old white veteran in a wheel chair, shouting “Kill Whitey!” and “That’s for Travon!” and “White dude bleed a lot.” The chief of police undertook a thorough investigation. He reported that there was no evidence of racial motivation. Jesse Jackson said it was unfortunate, but white men in wheel chairs needed to learn not to attack black teenagers.

After an enraged mob of R-Cubed—the movement was now calling itself Rural, Retrograde, and Right, the Three Rs—had surrounded Columbia Teachers College and burned it, Washington recognized that things were getting out of hand. Reporters asked why the arsonists had, well, arsoned Columbia. An irate woman screamed:

“My kid is fifteen, can’t read, and doesn’t know who Thomas Jefferson was but he’s had three different classes on safe anal sex. I didn’t raise him to be an analphabetic butt-plug. Excuse me. I need to find a professor.” She left, brandishing her ball-bat.

Her assertion was not entirely implausible. A recent poll by the New York Times had showed that 87% of college freshmen, or freshpersons, couldn’t find the Pacific Ocean on a map of California, and fully 54% didn’t know what “Ocean” meant. (“Didn’t she sing with Grody Kate and the G-Spots?” asked one female junior.) Others couldn’t identify Jesus Christ, Mother Theresa, or George Washington, but were “sure or almost sure” that they were racists.

Washington was soon surrounded by R-Cubed insurgents, many of whom proved to be well-armed and with military experience. They soon revealed their true colors as homophobes. Rampaging, they burned gay bars such as Moby Dick and The White Swallow, shouting, “We don’t care where you stick it, but we don’t want to hear about it.” Much squealing and a mass exodus followed.

Surprisingly, it was Maxwell Birnbaum, inevitably know as "Ol’ Burn and Bomb,” who led the hous- to-house fighting. He was not a soldier, or ex-soldier, but a classics professor from the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. As the Three R’s fought their way through Arlington in the Virginia suburbs of Washington and reached Key Bridge, key to the city itself, Birnbaum told a reporter, “Twenty-five hundred years of European civilization, and we’re going to give it up to people whose Mothers Say Moo? Like hell we are. Did trilobites scuttle the Cambrian seas to bring us Clitler? Hillary, I mean. If they had known, they would have stopped reproducing. I won’t stand for it.”
The rest is well known. Congress in its entirely was slaughtered, and hung upside-down from lamp posts though, unlike Mussolini, they were not emasculated. It was pretty much agreed that they had taken care of this themselves long ago.

Peace returned. Janey Lou put away the shotgun, and made lunch.

Philip Francis Stanley and Grotesque Ophthalmological Malpractice

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Sfentonaphobia

The popular term these days for people with an irrational fear of, or aversion for, guns and other firearms is "hoplophobe," and the word for the condition is "hoplophobia." This is all on the pattern of other phobe/phobia terms, like the established acrophobia or ailurophobia, or the recently coined Islamophobia or homophobia.  It serves, but the problem with it is that the first part comes from the Greek ὅπλον (hóplon, “arms, armor, weapon”), which seems a little too vague and all-inclusive. So I have an alternative suggestion: sfentonaphobia/sfentonaphobe, from the Greek σφεντόνα  (sfentóna), meaning "sling," as in the illustration, and as a thrower of bullet-like stones or pellets, a sling is the closest equivalent to a gun in ancient Greek usage. My reasoning is that those who fear and hate guns mostly don't have a generalized fear/hatred of weaponry in general. I could be wrong. Thoughts?
----------
Kel-Tec PF9 commented:

Those who fear guns in civilian hands also fear knives and blunt objects. Look at Great Britain or NYC-- carrying a pocket knife can get you in almost as much trouble as carrying a pistol.
And, you know, I think that with few exceptions, he's right. So although it's fun to mess around with Greek roots this, way, I think hoplophobe and hoplophobia are fine.

America: State Versus Nation

A state is an area ruled by a government, while a nation is a group of people united by blood, history, and culture, which may or may not be coterminous with a state. The Soviet Union was a state, certainly not a nation, while modern Russia is both a state and a nation.

So what is the United States? We resemble the Soviets in some ways, in that while there is a core American nation — the descendants of our British founders, plus other European immigrants who have assimilated — we also include other nations within the state, most notably American Blacks, who, are a separate people with their own culture and history. I'll leave it to you to figure out what other nations we include.

Liberals, neocons, and too many brainwashed libertarians reject this whole concept, and think that we're a propositional nation. There's no such thing, of course. Countries who declare themselves propositional nations (the Soviet Union was a propostional nation, the proposition being communism) always end up being totalitarian, because a country that is not a natural nation has no natural cohesiveness, and has to be held together by force. Sam Francis explains that HERE.

And if you had any doubts about the direction we're going, Obama just simplified it for you. The American nation is obsolete, and the American state is doing everything it can to destroy it and replace it with third-world immigrants who will not be assimilating, thank you very much. This is from http://www.counter-currents.com/2014/11/can-we-stop-pretending-yet/

Can We Stop Pretending Yet?
The Obama Amnesty

Can we stop pretending yet? Can we please just stop with this sick farce of Constitutions, and Dreams, and Exceptionalisms and all the rest of it?
It’s over. It’s done. The Experiment failed.
At this point, what is the point of all this?
Barack Obama just abolished immigration law by granting amnesty to an estimated five million illegal immigrants. All of the children of these illegal immigrants will be citizens. He did this unilaterally and illegally. We know it was illegal because he told us so on multiple occasions over the last few years.
If the rule of law, the principle of sovereignty, and even the distinction between foreigner and citizen is to be abolished, why do we have this government to begin with? It seems incredible that this massive apparatus commanding vast intelligence agencies, terrifying military and paramilitary forces, and nightmarish weapons capable of destroying the world ten times over is simply giving up.
History tells us that revolutions occur when the ruling class loses faith in its right to lead. To the more conservative among us, it might seem like this is precisely what is happening. An exhausted white ruling class is simply giving in to demographic reality. As Bill O’Reilly noted after Barack Obama’s re-election, the “white establishment is now the minority.”
Yet there’s something deeper underneath all this. Contra the predictions of imminent collapse, the federal government is now reporting record tax revenues and the our expanding federal deficit means little as long as the dollar is secure as the world’s reserve currency. Some believe that other powers are rising to counter American influence, particularly Russia. Yet the entire Russian stock market is worth less than Apple (as are Singapore and Italy.) And the United States has overtaken Saudi Arabia and is now the biggest oil producer in the world. Put simply, the pax Americanacontinues and Bismarck is proven correct – “There is a special providence for drunkards, fools, and the United States of America.”
The terrible truth is that the decision to essentially hand over the country to a foreign population is being done from a position of strength. The ruling powers of the country have made the conscious decision that they can tighten their control by electing a new people. The new Third World “American” population will be willing to accept lower living standards and the transfer or resources from labor to capital. At the same time, the multicultural Left is far more concerned about attacking European-Americans and transferring their wealth to nonwhites than seriously confronting structural inequality. Socialism has been replaced by racial socialism and both “Right” and “Left” are aligned against the remnants of Middle America.
Dana Milbank (a man, evidently) in a column giggling about the “tired blood” of white Americans, wrote that the United States is undergoing a “rapid decoupling of race and nationality.” Such racial mysticism is quite acceptable when it is used as a weapon against whites. But Milbank is slightly off — the United States is actually undergoing a rapid decoupling of nation and state.
As Carl Schmitt taught, the “friend-enemy” distinction is critical to understanding the structure of politics and the purpose of the state. After the age of nationalism, a state was held to be the political expression of a particular people, with citizens who belonged to both the state and the nation (the ethnic community) being the pillar of each state.
This is usually compromised, as there are usually many citizens of the state who aren’t members of the ethnic community. Nonetheless, each state has a “core” population that gives its character to the state. For the United States, it is the White Anglo Saxon Protestant founding population that answered Samuel Huntington’s question, Who Are We?, with the larger European population assimilating into this basic type.
Obama’s amnesty represents something rarely seen – a formal acknowledgement that the “state” is turning against the “nation.” The core European-American population – what Peter Brimelow of VDARE calls the “historic American nation” – is disposable. Indeed, in the eyes of our rulers, both Republican and Democrat, it is a liability. And as Jack Donovan has said, it makes sense, from their perspective.
Therefore, any critique premised upon this being American leaders being “stupid” is misguided. Even the eventual loss of American territory – a real possibility someday, if not anytime soon – doesn’t really represent a “loss” to our leaders. Indeed, it is actually a benefit, a development that paves away for the eventual European Union style economic and political integration of the North American continent. As Sam Francis spent his career explaining, the current leadership of the United States has no real stake in the continued existence of the American national community.
So why bother waving a flag or being loyal to a “nation?” It seems self-evident that European-Americans should turn on those who have betrayed them, renounce the failed American experiment, and secure their own destroy by any means necessary – secession, rebellion, and the eventual goal of the White Republic. Unfortunately, it’s not that simple.
The very beneficiaries of the government’s largesse are those who are most eager to destroy the symbols of the state. We are in an ironic position where the government subsidizes and rewards those who burn its flag and attack its law enforcement officers.
Meanwhile, European-Americans who are consistently betrayed and sabotaged by own government are still eager to leap to the defense of the symbols of the Old Republic and lay down their lives to fight her perceived enemies.
Nor is this simply European-Americans being foolish or stupid. One is reminded ofCommander George Lincoln Rockwell, a man who openly paraded under the swastika of German National Socialism, saving an American flag from being destroyed at the hands of a Vietnam War protester. Even those who should know better (including me) find themselves moved by the symbols and songs of national institutions that we know full well are being used against our people.
This takes the form of a curious doublethink. If a right-minded friend wears an upside down American flag or even burns the federal banner, I’ll approve it as a form of outraged protest and response to betrayal. If I see pro-immigration protesters burning the flag and cursing out the United States, I’m probably getting in a fight and going to jail to try to save that bit of cloth. I fully recognize the absurdity of this. It changes nothing.
It’s all very well to write a critique snarking about some “Tea Party patriot” in Murietta, CA waving the flag of the United States Army to protest the decisions of the government those soldiers are defending. But even though it makes no logical sense, the actions of misguided paleo-Americans still somehow rings true.
The United States of America still belongs to European-Americans in some primal way that can never be transferred via a piece of paper. The flag is still ours in some way that can’t be touched by anyone else. And this remains true even though the rot was present at the beginning of the American experiment and it’s hard to see how America could have ended up any other way.
If European-Americans can’t break away from this totemic fixation on the United States, they will not long survive. White survival on this continent depends upon the historic American nation recognizing that it is a European population and but a branch of a greater Western family. The pathetic fear of American conservatives that “we will end up like a European nation” and must remain a New Jerusalem is what has led us to this point.
But this will be far easier said than done. The psychic hold of the American Dream on our people will not be easily sundered. What is required is an ingathering, a conscious attempt by activists and thinkers to form the core of a self-aware people. Political activity framed explicitly as in the interests of European-Americans will further this ingathering. We have to give our enemies what they want and let their hatred and rage at our collective activity forge our people together in spite of ourselves.
Yet it’s equally true any mass movement of European-Americans will borrow heavily from the iconography and rhetoric of the very regime it is rebelling against. Even the Confederate States of America took as its seal the image of the Father of Our Country, George Washington, the federal government’s first President and an advocate of strong central authority.
Moreover, the breakdown of the United States, which is already unlikely in the short-term, won’t necessarily lead to some glorious new dawn for European-American populations. After all, what “ethno-nationalism” could conceivably emerge ex nihilo out of the North American Empire? It seems far more likely that if the United States collapsed tomorrow with whites in their current deracinated state, we would simply end up with miniature versions of the same system that we have today. It might even be worse, as we could simply be citizens of “independent states” that function as colonies of international finance.
Regardless of what metapolitics or theoretical construct is created, European-Americans are now a common people with a common destiny on this continent by virtue of nothing else than that is how they are regarded by their enemies. These enemies now include the very people who govern “their” country. We are but one among the various stakeholders on this continent. We are divided amongst ourselves by region, religion, and political orientation, but such differences do not change our common fate.
No progress will be made unless European-Americans become conscious of themselves as Europeans abroad, as a people in their own right, and as possessing a destiny separate from that of the larger Washington, D.C. regime. The actions of the Obama Administration and the accelerating hysteria of the media against European-Americans is actually simplifying our task. Now that it is clear that the Washington regime is willing to do without us, we must be willing to do without it, at least within our own minds.
---------
Quibcag: The illustration is, appropriately enough, Europa

Friday, November 21, 2014

A Rant for Adano, by Neale Osborn

A leftist friend of mine on the net just assured me that all stories about citizens using guns to protect themselves or others

are lies spoonfed to a targeted audience to get those folks to buy more guns.

Boggles the mind, all those lies.  The same guy also believes that Zimmerman stalked and murdered Trayvon, so you certainly can't count that as a righteous kill. Clever of Zimmerman to pull Trayvon over on top of himself and beat his own head against the sidewalk that way.

Well, this week Neale points out that warning shots are a bad idea, something I'd never thought about before, and a strange story about choppers hovering.  Some good news from California, and some crazy news about John Kerry and the United Nations. Then some nutty news from California. Then some more lies designed to get a targeted audience to buy more guns, finishing up with similar lies from the likes of Dead White Males (or, as Steve Sailer puts it, "Stale Pale Males"). Whew!  So many lies! Oh, the illustration is Captain Barkhorn of Strike Witches (ストライクウィッチーズ Sutoraiku Witchīzu). getting ready for battle. No time to explain the ears right now.

Neale's Gun Rant for 11-16-2014
by Neale Osborn
nealebooks@hotmail.com


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

By now, only the idiots, morons, and those who are reading this for the first time don't know how these start. Mama Liberty, that saint of self reliance, that paragon of self-ownership, starts these off. And today is no different. [Link] Today, she discusses ways to practice when "Baby it's COLD outside!".

And what do I always say at this point in the game? Damn Straight—Go ye forth and read Mama's article!!

Pay close attention to this one—I happen to totally agree. [Link] NEVER fire a warning shot—EVER!!
A Wheeling, West Virginia Sunday School teacher was walking after church when he and his fiancée were surrounded by a group of nine men who began making threats. Chris Harris and CC Roxby said they were frightened for their lives. "It was one of the most scariest experiences I have ever been through," Roxby told WTOV Television. Harris added, "They surrounded me saying... they were going to rape my wife in front of me, cut me." Even after Roxby called 911, the aggression continued.
Finally, Harris pulled his gun and fired a warning shot, prompting the men to flee. Police arrived and handcuffed Harris and charged him with wanton endangerment for firing a gun in a public place.
Christopher Burg explains why firing a warning shot is never a good idea...
Warning shots are a bad idea both defensively and legally. Defensively a warming shot is a loose round, which means where it lands is anybody's guess. That's a major risk to innocent bystanders.
Legally speaking warning shots take away your claim of being in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm. By firing warning shots you legally admit that you believed the situation could be resolves with something less than lethal force in that moment so employing a lethal weapon was not warranted. In other words, legally speaking, if you use a firearm you damn well better believe that lethal force is the only option left to you to preserve your life.
Nope, NEVER!!!

One wonders whether the chopper would have fired back if an "AD" happened to hit the airframe. After all, the Chopper WAS trespassing on a legitimate business's property by hovering that damn low. [Link]
A family visiting co-workers in Salt Lake City was taken out to a gun range in the Utah desert to shoot pistols and shotguns but their day was interrupted on two separate occasions by the chopper.
According to the wife of the man who uploaded the video to YouTube, "you could see the gun under the nose waving at us."
The video shows the Apache swooping across barely 30 feet above the heads of the family, while a subsequent clip shot later in the day shows the chopper hovering nearby as it appears to be keeping tabs on the gun owners.
Taxpayer dollars being used to intimidate taxpayers. Hmmmmm.
Kahleefourneeyah, against it's will, may become Shall Issue instead of "We might give you a CCW if we feel like it, but probably not." [Link] Funny thing is, the ruling of the appeals court doesn't actually say CCW's are even legal.........
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals voted 2-1 today to deny a bid by California Attorney General Kamala Harris, a gun control organization and two police lobbying groups to challenge the court's February ruling that any responsible, law-abiding citizen is entitled under the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment to possess a concealed firearm in public for self-defense.
I don't see anywhere in that that "entitled" means a license must be issued—entitled means entitled—you don't need a license for an entitlement. Or do all those welfare entitlements require a license?
Now, don't get me wrong—I'm super glad the daughter was recovered before the scumbag left the property. But the parents SHOULD have been armed, so that the kidnapper had NO choice in the whole thing. [Link] Who the hell wants to rely on a lazy kidnapper who just hands over his victim when confronted?
Troy Morley, 48, was arrested before dawn on Friday just blocks from the child's house in Sandy, a suburb of Salt Lake City, after being challenged on the front lawn by the child's stepfather and relinquishing the girl, police said.
As I said, glad they got her back.

Merry Christmas from Spray-Tan John Kerry (who served in Viet Nam) and the Dectators' Club (the United Nations). [Link]December 24th, the UN Arms Trade Treaty goes into effect across the world. Of course, Jackass Kerry signed it, even though the Congress refused to ratify it. IF they did ratify, arguably it would become the law of the land—but the Constitution DOES happen to over-rule treaties—for this to actually be enforceable, the 2nd would have to be repealed. Now, as many many anti-Constitutionalists love to claim "no one is out to take your guns!", I have to wonder what they think it means to have a world-wide treaty that requires countries to disarm ALL civilians. That sure sounds to ME like they want to take our guns.

I've become quite fond of a man named Rob Morse. He writes blogs on "Slow Facts" his blog. He's a pretty smart guy (despite still living in Kahleefourneeyah........), and he has been keeping me informed about the gun laws on the left coast. In fact, he's invited me to do a Pod Cast (??) next week with him. I'm thinking about it....... Ennyhoo, he tells us about the latest crap from Ca. and elsewhere designed to make gun owners less able to keep their arms safe (and then, they will prosecute the owners for failing to secure them). [Link]
I am a responsible firearms owner. Say I have contractors working at my home, or my home is damaged in some way and is no longer secure. In some states, I can't move my guns to my neighbor's house for safe keeping. You heard that right. It is against the law to move the firearms to a safe place off my property. Another good reason to store my guns with a friend for safe keeping is if I'm going to be away from home for several days. Some states outlaw that simple practice. I suppose I could sell my firearms each time I go on vacation, but it is illegal for me to store them in someone else s gun safe on a temporarily basis. To do so would be a misdemeanor. In some states it is a felony for my neighbor to return my guns back to me. Those are a few of the ways crazy firearms restrictions put all of us at greater risk.
Some states restrict firearms education. In those states, temporary possession of a firearm is against the law. That means I could neither bring a firearm to your house for non-shooting educational purposes, nor could you come to my house or business to learn basic firearms safety about your new gun. Instruction is only allowed at approved shooting ranges. This is as ridiculous as requiring that student drivers must own their own car before they can take driving lessons. Oppressive firearms regulations have made it illegal for an instructor to take someone out on private property and teach the student to shoot. These overly restrictive laws certainly restrict firearms education. The anti-rights bigots forgot that ignorance about firearms is dangerous! Maybe they never cared in the first place.
You should start reading his work. He's good.
This week's "Well Armed American" segment starts with "A tale of Two Idiots". Two armed entrepreneurs learned a pair of hard lessons the best way—well, the best way for society. [Link]
A Phoenix businessman squashed two serial bank robbers' latest heist when he took the keys out of their getaway car and fatally shot one of the would-be raiders, police said.
Lyndell Cherry, 29, died at the scene Wednesday while his partner in crime, 21-year-old Vincent Jones, fled. He was arrested shortly after his escape and told police the duo were involved in a slew of previous bank robberies, the Arizona Republic reported.
As the article mentions, they learned two lessons—don't leave the keys in the ignition of the getaway car, and make sure surrounding businesses do not have armed employees or owners who might take exception to a robbery in their neighborhood. Sucks to be these guys!
I'll call this next "Well Armed American" link "9 Safe Citizens" and let Y'all do the reading and watching. [Link] Here's a little taste to wet your whistle-
December Long, a clerk at the Stop & Go in Toledo, Ohio, learned from a past robbery and decided to keep a gun behind the counter to protect herself and her customers.
In November 2013, a second robber tested Long while she was on duty. After being shot in the abdomen, Long returned fire and killed her assailant.
I guarantee that at least one asshole reading this will claim she would have been fine if she had just caved in to the creep. There are 8 other tales there, not all of the result in deaths, or even shootings. But they ALL end in a crime stopping at the hands of a good guy (or gal) ((or girl child)) with a gun. And when you get to the child, at least one asswipe will whine about children with guns, preferring she be abducted, raped, beaten, or even killed rather than soil her hands with an eeeevil nasty killy-bang-bang! Thanks for the link, Gunny. Semper Fi!
Zeig Heil! A Saratgoga, NY cop shows two scumbags (otherwise known as common citizens) who's boss. At least, that's what he THOUGHT he was doing! [Link]
Saratoga County Deputy Shawn Glans had no idea he was being recorded as he tried to intimidate a man into allowing him to search his car, which is why he slapped him on the back of his head while yanking the keys out of his hand, tossing them to another deputy who searched the man's car and found nothing illegal.
But he does know now after Adam Roberts uploaded the video to Facebook where it began going viral Friday.
In a Facebook message interview with Photography is Not a Crime, Roberts explained that he and his buddy, Colin Fitch, who owns the car, had parked it at a business that was closed and walked to a nearby party Thursday night. They didn't spend much time at the party but when they walked back to the car, they were confronted by deputies who had spotted a rifle in the back seat and wanted to search the car.
One wonders what would have happened if the piggly-wiggly had noticed the camera.

And we finish up, as usual, with our quotes of the week, provided by The Right to Bear ([Link])

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."—Richard Henry Lee

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth."—George Washington

"A woman who demands further gun control legislation is like a chicken who roots for Colonel Sanders."—Larry Elder

"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them."—Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."—Alexander Hamilton

"The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."—James Earl Jones

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."—Benjamin Franklin

"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."—Unknown

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."—Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto

"I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it."—Clint Eastwood

Thus endeth another lesson........