Friday, November 20, 2015

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Muslims are Peaceful and Tolerant....

If I hadn't heard her say this with my own ears, I'd have thought this was a hoax or at least an exaggerated misquote, because even Hillary couldn't be this ditzy, could she? She could. And is. This isn't some nuanced analysis of the situation, pointing out that Muslims aren't a monolithic group and therefore include people who actually are peaceful and tolerant, which I or anybody might agree with. No, this is a blanket statement that Muslims are peaceful and tolerant. My first reaction is the same that I have with a lot of such leftist pronouncements, which is to ask "Compared with who?" The trick would be to come up with a religion less peaceful and tolerant than Islam, at least one, so that the statement, however wrong, can be said to have some slight grain of truth in it. But, outside of maybe some hellish things lost in history, like the religion of the Aztecs, I frankly can't think of any. Can you?

Vox Day thinks this statement will put the skids under her. I hope so. This is from his blog at

Peaceful and tolerant people

So much for the idea that Donald Trump can't beat Hillary Clinton:
An acid-tongued Hillary Clinton ripped into conservatives on Thursday for what she said was an 'obsession in some quarters' with the notion that the global spread of terrorism is a byproduct of the Muslim faith, denying that the two are connected in any way.

'Islam itself is not our adversary,' the former secretary of state said during a campaign speech outlining her foreign policy objectives.

'Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.'
If Trump wins the Republican nomination, I would expect we're going to be seeing those words frequently over the next 12 months.

Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people and have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.'
- Hillary Clinton

It's rather astonishing. Hillary Clinton may actually be a worse presidential candidate than Bob Dole and John McCain. It must be the Democrats' turn to throw the election.

Meanwhile, back on Planet Earth, ten or so peaceful and tolerant people who have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism have attacked a Radisson hotel in Mali and hold 170 hostages there.

UPDATE: Le Monde reports that the Malian security ministry has confirmed three deaths so far in the siege.

Thursday, November 19, 2015

Close your mind and open your borders

There are two things that Obama says it's offensive to worry about — Muslim terrorists and Israeli spies. The first he's welcoming to cross our border, and the second he's planning to turn loose so he can cross our border the other way [link]. So it would be bigoted and offensive to oppose either one of these two great ideas. Or so say an incredible number of flaky liberals all over the media, including the internet, using all sorts of twisted logic and irrelevant emotional outbursts. The best part is countless shots of harmless-looking Syrian women toting babies sucking on pacifiers around. Footage of violent young male thugs are somehow less popular with the media, despite the fact that they represent a pretty large percentage of these vibrant refugees.

Over at,
Seventh Son elaborates on this strange tendency of nonWhite refugees to want to live in a country full of White bigots like this one:

Open Borders as an Admission of White Supremacy

Steve Jobs looked pretty White to me. I'm not embarrassed to admit my ignorance of his lineage, as it has only just become (ironically) relevant at this point in the current year. As far as I was concerned up until this week, the graying entrepreneur from Silicon Valley in the goofy black turtleneck & skinny jeans was a White dude. A captain of industry and a life lived that most likely is worthy of a melodramatic biopic starring Young Magneto (who did nothing wrong, PBUH). Meanwhile the best Steve Wozniak can muster up is a cameo on The Big Bang Theory and a Cadillac commercial showing off his sweet turntable and vinyl collection.
But let us not digress into Apple counter-signalling (my Samsung Galaxy buzzes in my pocket as I type this); let us look at What Liberals Actually Believe, and what they want us to believe. For the sake of argument here, we'll have to put aside our objections to the laughably faulty premise that the Syrian migrants are refugees from civil war rather than incoming healthy male combatants carrying out a clandestine invasion of the West. We can take them at their word that the infamous bowl of M&M's is only 1% poisoned, rather than an actual bowl of poison, and still blow them out.
Outspoken Facebook liber(al)tarian Jeffrey Tucker thinks that by refusing the poisoned bowl of M&M's, we as a country (as a civilization if we allow Europe into the conversation) would be passing up potential future Steve Jobses. This no doubt would be a great loss, had Jobs' father been refused entry into the US. Nothing other than weak speculation could inform us on what would have happened to the world of computing and mobile devices should that have occurred. We could comfort ourselves with the notion that space-time cannot be disrupted and the iPhone 6 was an inevitable Force of Nature that could not be stopped with or without Jobs. Checkmate, open borders cucks! Or we could sit here and pretend that technology would have stood still in the mid-80s, and we'd all still be using those clunky modems Matthew Broderick used to dial up the WOPR and start a nuclear war in War Games. (The only winning move is to pretend there is no conflict and not engage!)
Dilemma: Without migrants, we'd have no suicide bombings, but we'd have to do all our dank meming with this device.
Falling back to the idea that the migration of low-class, unskilled, illiterate victims of regional violence is actually a mob of superstar business visionaries trying to gain entry to the West for the purpose of using her economic climate to carry out their no doubt profitable and innovative plans is what the open borders lib does when challenged on the notion that a nation's borders are imaginary lines that anyone should be allowed to cross just because. If they're so damned imaginary, what is so important on the other side of them that people take such great risks to cross them? What is it here that is so taken for granted, yet deemed so indispensable to existence by these liberals that they see no risk in sharing it with these unfortunates? Here, were we dealing with honest humans and not the sheep followers of reptilian volcano worshippers, the lib would have to force himself to admit that the people on the other side of these regrettable lines have erected institutions, infrastructures, and avenues to success that the migrants wish to take advantage of.
Why haven't the interlopers built their own back home? The Crusades? Racism? Capitalism? (Wait, that can't be it...they're coming to the West to become bourgeois middle class liberals...which narrative are we doing again?)
The real dirty trick here is that liberals do recognize what we have on this side of our precious lines on the map. They acknowledge it as "White Privilege" because referring to it as "White Supremacy" or "White Authority" is problematic, exclusionary and something something intersectional stereotype threat ablist whatever. But they do understand White Supremacy; they just for (((whatever reason))) only understand it in the context of something to be fought.
But not always. They trip themselves up and in the fight against White Supremacy, they actually spread it and in the process annihilate the cultural identities of those they are trying to protect from it. Think about it. What do liberals want out of "diversity?" A population consisting of people with different levels of melanin who all share the same opinions as they do, and all can do a passing impersonation of mid- to upper-middle-class White liberals when visible. To the liberal, race is a social construct, ethnicity is meaningless and all culture is learned. Therefore, the foreigners can be molded into a facsimile of what the White West has painted onto our Civilizational canvas over the centuries; the nuclear family, light consumerism, suburban homes, sports and schools, television, and I guess transgenderism, ubiquitous pornography and cheeseburgers. We're all human, therefore we can all be SWPLs. (Except toothless Appalachian White Christians. They're not human at all!)
What else does the liberal want out of diversity? Food. Tacos. Kebab. Kimchi. Shawarma. They want to see an international cast of characters accompanying them on their sidewalks. Scenery. Window Dressing. A hijab on a woman's head is a quaint oddity, rather than a chilling symbol of submission to the animalistic, uncontrollable sexual urges of the men in her culture. They see the human race as a petting zoo created for their amusement. They can just give these strange creatures some funky feed pellets in exchange for being entertained by their walk-on role in their progressive life story before going back home to the White enclave from which they judge everyone who doesn't get it.
What else? Economics. These people "will do jobs Americans don't want." Which can only be read as "will do work for low pay for which Americans won't settle." The warriors against White Supremacy want the migrant hordes here for slave labor. Note that if you press a liberal on cheap immigrant labor that doesn't contribute to the Treasury, he is quick to inform you that these people tend to pay more in taxes because they can't legally file for their refunds.
The warriors against White Supremacy want the foreigners not only for Slave Labor, but as an illicit source of tax revenue. Doubly slaves.
In the end, what do we end up with? A bunch of actual violent death at an Eagles of Death Metal concert in Paris. Sweden overrun with brown rapists. Jihadi Imams telling us to our faces what their plan is, only to have the targets blame themselves for the violence instead. And here, stateside, the first reports of a migrant family landing in Cincinnati. How quaint. Middle class sensibilities and casual dress, and oh, what's that? Seven children?
Jeffrey Tucker has told us that humanity is more important than politics. I wonder if he ever figured demographics into that equation. When the Standard Care/Harm Party is over, what will we have? The SWPLs annihilating their brown pets' identity, or the death of the West? How many turtleneck-clad tech-gurus are worth the cost?
 Quibcag: The grenade girl is, I believe, from Puella Magi Madoka Magica (魔法少女まどか☆マギカMahō Shōjo Madoka Magika, "Magical Girl Madoka Magica")

Wednesday, November 18, 2015

Leftist Logic Exhibit #9723828

And the bleat goes on.

Saturday, November 14, 2015

Fred on Mizzou

Elsewhere on the net a leftie friend of mine was just caterwauling about how the poor Blacks at the University of Missouri are treated. You know, everybody keeps calling them the N-word and burning crosses in their laps. They're so intimidated that they're afraid to do anything, except that they just basically overthrew the University administration. He's a decent guy, that friend, so he disagrees with me courteously. Other lefties on the board, however, started screeching 'racist,' which is their way.

My point was much the same as Fred's below — the Black football players, of course are almost certainly coddled, violent morons. And the Black students, we can be confident, are mostly in way over their heads academically. Do the math. Let's say that you need an IQ of 100 or more to function in a college. Whites average 100, so about half of Whites can usefully go to college. But Blacks average 85. So look at what percentage fall over 100 on this diagram. So how many Blacks at college are out of their depth and looks to blame Whitey for it? Again, think about the math. Colleges have quota systems, official or otherwise, that required them to admit a percentage of Blacks, usually proportional to the percentage of Blacks in the country.

Therefore the most prestigious universities are going to grab all the Blacks that qualify, and a bunch more who don't, but who might make it in second-tier schools. That group is therefor not available to the second-tier schools, who grab the next-lowest Black scorers. And so on, therefor guaranteeing that Blacks in college are virtually all out of their depth. Tom Sowell pointed all this out years ago. Such young Blacks are frustrated at not fitting in, and of course blame Whitey for their situation.

This is from Taki Mag [link]

Missouri: Taking the National Temperature
It warms the heart of a curmudgeon: As I suppose we all have heard by now, black semi-pro football players at the University (sic) of Missouri have forced white officials to resign because of “White Privilege.” This Privilege is a great upsettance to them.
White Privilege is real, of course. It is a combination of high genetic intelligence, studiousness, a tendency toward intellectual exploration, the capacity to organize, sustained hard work, and conscientiousness. There is a reason why whites design Mars landers and black athletes do not.
To make this point clearly (See? It is my tendency toward intellectual exploration), let us consider the following questions:
How many of the black athletes, or black radicals at Missouri, or anywhere, have any business being at a university? How many have IQs below ninety? How many are way below? How many are studying real subjects, such as chemistry, languages, philosophy, literature, or history—as distinct from subjects for the enfeebled, Black Studies, Sociology, Education, and Breathing for Credit?
How many of the jocks can read? In many universities the black athletes are kept in special dorms and get high grades for courses they never attend and can’t spell. Is that happening in Missouri? Can we see their SATs? No one, I promise, will want to check.
Stray thought: If universities accepted only those with intelligence and interest, the noise level would drop appreciably. I am for it.
But the antics at Missouri are only one instance of a far larger disease. Daily the country ties itself in knots to keep blacks happy, which is impossible—to placate them, to soothe their disturbances, give them everything they want but can’t or won’t earn. Nothing satisfies them. They shut down political meetings, loot shoe stores, burn cities. We back away. Always we back away.
We give and give and give—Head Start, Section Eight housing, AFDC, Obamaphones, medical care, free rides at university. If they can’t pass a test, we abolish the test and apologize, apologize, apologize. Do they want to burn Baltimore? We back away, give them space, for they are troubled youth. And we apologize. It never stops.
Nobody ever, ever, tells them “No.” Might this be called Black Privilege?
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Technically, Rika Shiguma isn't White, being Japanese and all, but she is a scientist and definitely is not a Black athlete. 

A View of Paris from Old Blighty

The UK, that is. This may be slightly behind the curve, newswise, because new news items are showing up constantly this morning, but the reasoning is robust and long-lasting. Do keep in mind that this is written by a Brit. I'll have an afterword. It was first printed here [link[.

Paris: A Few Political Points to Make

I disagree that it is crude to make a political point out of atrocities such as that in Paris yesterday. Bad politics causes these attacks and better politics can prevent them. Here are a few political points I’d like to make.
In the first place, most of us have imperfect information about the events of last night. I was flicking back and forth from Sky to BBC, who, in turn, were getting their most reliable information from BFM. Even as I write, the death toll is disputed as is the question of whether the terrorists definitely were Muslims.
Terrorism scares people in this country. It scares them to the point that they will lie back and think of the State as the anti-terror legislation is rammed through Parliament.
I imagine attitudes are similar in France. I don’t know the specifics of the anti-terror legislation in France, but I don’t think it would be unreasonable to assume that powers of the state have increased since January, though I understand they may presently have rather more rights to privacy and so forth than we have. Last night, I predicted that President Hollande would respond one of two ways: either he would argue that without the existing surveillance and police powers there would have been more deaths, and leave it at that; or he would demand more such powers. From his statement today, it seems he has opted for the latter.
The “international community” has responded. Obama says this is an attack on “humanity”. Cameron has pledged his support. In France, 15000 military men are in Paris. The French border is closed. There is a “state of emergency.” With such a response, I think, rather like after 9/11, we can kiss goodbye to any open debates on the collection of metadata. All the usual “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” legislation will be passed. Furthermore, Britain’s intervention in Syria will once again be on the cards. If the Commons rejects it again, Cameron will use the royal prerogative powers this time. All-in-all, this is not good for freedom.
For the avoidance of doubt, I am, as many of you will know, vehemently opposed to mass-immigration. It is tantamount to subsidised trespass. As for the latest wave of immigration, it is appalling and must be stopped, and indeed reversed. Closing the borders temporarily, followed by voluntary but encouraged repatriation of recent immigrants would also help to abate racial and religious tensions.
But it strikes me as absurd to blame “the immigrants” or even “immigration” for this. For one thing, if the reports that ISIS committed last night’s atrocities are correct, then these are the very same US-backed lunatics that have helped to wreck Syria and Iraq in the first place. In other words, if you blame the recent wave of immigrants in their entirety for last night’s attacks, you are barking up the wrong tree. These terrorists are the people that many of the immigrants have come to Europe to avoid. I am not arguing that the immigrants had a right to come here. I am merely pointing out that many did not want to.
So we should have a think about how to help them go home. One thing we need to do is to stop bombing their countries. At the moment, there is a five-way civil war in Syria. It seems to me that of all the bombing, only Russia is seriously bombing ISIS. As for the intention of the British State, it seems to be simple regime change, since the plan is for “no fly zones” which would impact Assad and not ISIS. The situation in Syria alone is mind-bogglingly complex. Step one in resolving it is for the western states at the very least to let well alone where bombing is concerned.
The US is supporting the “moderate rebels” in Syria who will no doubt become the ISIS of 2016. ISIS is already kitted out with $1bn worth of US armoured vehicles, and more besides. I heard from someone recently that the ISIS fighters are being supplied with drugs by the Americans that make them think they are invincible – this may or may not be true. Step two in helping the immigrants go home, then, has to be to stop funding the men on the ground who are destroying their countries.
These two steps would not only help sort out Syria and the rest of the Middle East, but they would also make us a damn sight safer. Formerly US mercenaries, ISIS has now got out of control to the point that the western powers are trying, but failing to contain them. ISIS has allegedly claimed responsibility for last night’s attacks. Their reason was clear: France is meddling in Syria and meddling with ISIS. If we get out of the Middle East, neither funding nor bombing, I think we’ll find that the terrorists are less interested in bombing our countries.
I shall recommend one further measure to make us safer. No, not ID cards. Not internet censorship. Not arming the police. What we need to do is remove all gun control legislation. Guns are excellent equalisers. The saying goes that God made man, but Sam Colt made him equal. If you are an honest person in this country, or any of the western countries except to some extent America, and you want to get a gun for self-defence, you can’t. If you are a criminal and you want to get a gun, that’s easy. So what we have is a situation where the criminals are armed and the victims are not. What we have is a situation where, if a terrorist lunatic with an automatic rifle decides that he wants to kill a few innocent civilians, he can do so with no effectual resistance against him. Arm the people instead and then see how many effective the terrorists are.
What I am saying is this: while it may be true that the recent, unprecedented wave of immigrants is undesirable, it was caused by our own states. This is not a time for moaning about immigration. This is instead a time to caution against hawkish foreign policy abroad and Big Brother police state measures at home. As Dr Gabb said last month at his talk to the Traditional Britain Conference, these people are not attacking us because they hate our freedom; if they hated our freedom, they would just sit at home and wait for it to disappear. Instead, they hate us because we are bombing their countries, funding and arming almost every side in the civil war, and asking them to be grateful for it. The solution to both the problems of the Middle East and the West is simple: more libertarianism, not less. No more interventionism and no police state, thank you very much.
I have no disagreements with Keir, not even quibbles. So, just a clarification or two and maybe an amplification: Again, you have to remember that this is written by a British libertarian, which is a somewhat different animal than the American variety. For example, the preponderance of Britlibertarian opinion is against open borders, and the dogma of open borders seems to be fundamental to orthodox libertarian thinking in the US, at least among the more loudmouthed American libertarians. But there are plenty, like me, who are very much against open borders. We consider the Founding Fathers a far better guide to libertarian principles than a bunch of neckbeards typing in their mothers' basements. So when he calls for "more libertarianism," I'm pretty sure he's not talking about the left-libertarianism of the US, which differs only slightly from liberalism. To put it another way, he's calling for more liberty for the British people, not more political correctness and mass immigration.

And I don't really disagree with Keir when he says that this is not a time for moaning about immigration, because, again, he's writing about the UK. In the US, it very much is a time for moaning about immigration, because, with the sole exception of Trump, all our leading politicians are determined to swamp us with millions of third world immigrants.

And, of course, he's right that we don't need a police state. What we need is a state with police who do what they're supposed to be doing. Deterring and catching criminals., including illegal aliens. If the police are relieved of their duties to harass law-abiding people about things that are none of the government's business, they'll have plenty of time to do their real jobs.
Quibcag: Don't know who did the illustration, but it's from here:

Friday, November 13, 2015

The Scoop on Missouri

I was talking to a casual acquaintance yesterday about the mess in Missouri, and she said something to the effect that the Black students might have a point. Now, she's clearly an intelligent person, and if she had the facts, she'd of course not think they have a point, so the only reason she could think that is the fact that the media have done their usual horrible job of reporting on anything at all that involves Blacks.

The truth of the matter is summed up in the quibcag here by Chateau Heariste [link[. I know, not really a quibcag because I couldn't find an anime illustration that fit as well as a burning American flag. We do forget that the vast majority of Black students at any college really aren't qualified to be there, but have been forced in by the courts, Affirmative Action, quota systems, etc., so of course they're going to be frustrated to be there, and will blame Whitey for their feelings.

So, if you've been relying on the media to keep you informed about Missouri, here's a helpful summary from Gavin McInnes: [link]

Wednesday, November 11, 2015

Google PC (Prioritizes Correctly) Veterans' Day

From Ari Khazar:

I want to thank Google for the Veterans Day doodle, which shows White men in the background. With as little as we White men have done militarily for this country, I'm grateful they included us in it at all.