Sunday, July 31, 2011

Anders Behring Breivik — A Crazy Monster, or What?

The reaction on the net to Anders Behring Breivik and his crimes is instructive.  There's a large body of opinion that he was just crazy and evil, and no more need be said about it.  And then there's the left-wing reaction that he's just the expected result of conservative thinking, especially that part of it that is skeptical about the benefits of mass immigration into the West.  Then, among those of us on the right, there's an unfortunate attempt to type him as some kind of Neo-Nazi, the absurdity of which I pointed out in yesterday's post.  Very few people are looking at the situation rationally — he's obviously a crazy monster, but that's not all that need be said about it.
     There are indeed just plain crazy monsters, like the Tuscon killer, or Harris and Klebold, who have no thinking behind their actions, other than their simple desire to kill people and/or attract attention.  But there are other crazy monsters who have reasons.  The most obvious one in history is John Brown, a vicious killer, who, nevertheless, had coherent reasons for his crimes.  Indeed, the end of slavery, which was his object, did in fact come to pass, and he was considered then and now to be a martyr to that cause.  Will Breivik come to be counted as a martyr to the cause of ending Muslim immigration?   One blogger says no, his actions will give the cause a bad name.  Maybe that's true.  It certainly will do so in the eyes of many people, but the attention attracted to the controversy might offset that.  It's too early to tell.  For that matter, it's too early to tell what the net effect of Oklahoma City is going to be in history.
     Another strange reaction on the net, on the part of people who should know better, is that Breivik was really nuts because he killed White Norwegians instead of Muslim immigrants.  Well, he certainly wasn't killing White Norwegians at random.  He deliberately targeted members of the Labor Party, the political group most responsible for the policy of mass immigration of Muslims to Norway, as he sees it.  That may be evil, but it's not crazy.  It would have been less rational to kill Muslims, as, in many ways, they're  pawns in the game played by elite Norwegian politicians and social engineers.  At least, I imagine that's how Breivik sees it.
     Bad Eagle sees Breivik's reasoning, and explains it with a clever analogy HERE.
     Those of us who want more rational, non-suicidal immigration policies for the Nations of the West have nothing to apologize for.  Breivik's actions, if they were caused by anybody but himself, were caused by the class of people he attacked — those determined to wipe out Western Culture by swamping it with outsiders.  They are the villains, they are the ones who gave Breivik his incentives, and they will do everything they can to shift the blame to everybody but themselves.

Saturday, July 30, 2011

Rush Limbaugh, Anders Behring Breivik, Neo-Nazis, and Zionism

Rush Limbaugh isn't stupid.  He knows a lot of stuff, but either he isn't a systematic thinker or he just decides to ignore the truth when it doesn't fit his cosy neocon paradigm.  I remember years back when somebody called him to talk about Randy Weaver.  Limbaugh got all sarcastic and superior-sounding and told the guy that there were plenty of radio shows that like to talk about 'nutty' stuff like that, and he should call them.  Limbaugh was handling the important stuff, like how Bob Dole was so wonderful in comparison to Bill Clinton.  Now Limbaugh is calling himself a "Teapartier," and if he is, the entrance exam has really lowered the bar.  I heard him call himself that during his discussion of  Anders Behring Breivik, who he rather breathtakingly dismissed as "just a neo-nazi."  Of course, as a loyal neocon, everybody to Limbaugh's right is either a "nut," or a "neo-nazi" or usually both.   This is a phenomenon found on the right that I've blogged about before.  It causes every rightist to splinter the movement as much as possible by making enemies out of anybody to his right.  Republicans denounce the Birch Society, the Birch Society denounces the next guy, and so on.  The catchphrase is "pas d'ennemi a gauche," with everybody to the right some kind of nut.

So, is Limbaugh right?  Is Breivik just another Neo-Nazi?  Breivik wrote:

Whenever someone asks if I am a national socialist I am deeply offended. If there is one historical figure and past Germanic leader I hate it is Adolf Hitler. If I could travel in a time-machine to Berlin in 1933, I would be the first person to go – with the purpose of killing him... 
So let us fight together with Israel, with our Zionist brothers against all anti-Zionists, against all cultural Marxists/multiculturalists.

Not quite orthodox Nazi stuff, is it?  Breivik's thinking is sometimes profound, sometimes naive, but if you decide to classify him as a Neo-Nazi, you have to include a lot of other people under the term.  Breivik sort of fits into the neocon mold with Limbaugh and European leaders like Geert Wilders or Le Pen,  Sort of.  But it's a lot more complicated than that.  Breivik wants Muslims out of Europe, but considering that practically everybody in Europe wants the same thing, though they rightly fear to say so in public, that hardly makes him any kind of a Nazi.  But to the MAG* mouthpieces, anybody to the right of the established order is some kind of Nazi.

The man to go to with a scholarly analysis of Breivik's writing is Professor Kevin MacDonald.  His latest is HERE.

*Media, Academia, Government

Friday, July 29, 2011

Cowboys & Aliens

Just got back from seeing this and it's a hoot.  Not to give anything away here, but it actually would make a pretty good Western if aliens weren't involved — if they were replaced with invading Brits or Japanese or something — with the same plot all around.  It calls Wild Wild West (the TV show, not the gawdawful movie) to mind, and reminds me of the graphic novel done by my pal Baloo with L. Neil Smith and Scott Bieser called Roswell, Texas — read it here — in that it combines Western themes with science fiction in a very plausible, acceptable manner. It shades toward the Western in the same way that Firefly shades towards SF.

Didn't it use to be the case that American actors strived to acquire British accents?  Well, now it's the other way around.  No longer can British actors pretend to be Americans without cleaning up their accents.  Cary Grant could, and Sean Connery sort of could, but now you have to do a Hugh Laurie/Bob Hoskins and learn to talk enough like a Yank to fool Yanks.  And Daniel Craig seems to have done so flawlessly.  Harrison Ford is the good-hearted Grumpy Old Man — if this had been made years ago, he could've done the Craig role, and Craig is, of course, the super tough guy, kinda bad but good down deep. Olivia Wilde is the love interest, and she's not the new schoolmarm, either.  At any rate, her character is infinitely more appealing in this than her House character.

There's nothing really profound here, but it's great fun, and there are nice, well realized characters.  It makes me wonder how Marshall Dillon would have handled the same situation, and I try to imagine the comments from Festus and Doc.  It's worth seeing on the big screen, something I seldom say.  BTW, the illustration is from the graphic novel, which I read some time ago and found okay. It's more excruciatingly politically correct than the movie.  You can read the prologue HERE.  In this case the movie is better than its source.

Anthropomorphism and Politics and Disney

Basic to the thinking of liberals and neocons and far too many libertarians is the concept that everybody is pretty much alike, and all you have to do is bring out their essential White Americanness that is latent in all human beings.  Liberals do it with sentimentality, usually, neocons do it with sentimentality plus bombing their home countries, and libertarians do it with arrogance and sarcasm and giving them Atlas Shrugged to read.  News flash:  Everybody is not alike, and isn't likely to become so without a few centuries to let acculturation and natural selection working together to do the job.  Human beings aren't all that malleable. Centuries of Christianity hasn't eliminated all the pre-Christian superstitions and customs that our ancestors lived by.  In like manner, 70 years of communism didn't wipe Christianity out in Russia. And when there is a big effort to change people, over many years, sometimes it does change people, but almost never does it change them in the way intended.  The road to Hell, etc.

Half jokingly, I've often blamed Disney (not the man so much as the whole Disney body of work) for breeding this "everybody is alike" mentality.  It goes far beyond the human race, and has led us to think, subliminally if not consciously, that all brains are wired the same way.  All the animals in Bambi had human values and reactions.  Nothing new about this.  Aesop did the same thing, but for a long time, I believe people understood that stories about talking animals were just metaphors for human beings, but I think that realization has worn away.  One manifestation of this is the notion that our close relatives, the other great apes, are pretty much just like us, and can be taught to talk (they can't) and with some effort, be brought into human culture and do fine.  This has been a disaster, of course, with chimps going berserk and maiming people.  Look, we've been living side by side with our closest nonhuman associates, dogs, for millenia, and they don't think like us, despite hundreds of generations of natural selection bringing our two species to what almost amounts to a symbiotic relationship.  So why would anybody expect chimps, who we have not had any kind of relationship to till very recently, to be able to 'assimilate' with us?  Clearly, it's because they physically resemble us so much, and are indeed our closest nonhuman relatives, and also because we've seen them on film thousands of times, eating with spoons and wearing clothes and seeming to be able to do all the simple things humans do.  Fact is, you probably know, all those chimps we see from Bedtime for Bonzo to J. Fred Muggs to Lancelot Link are immature chimps who are comparatively manageable, much like lion cubs or wolf pups.  Everybody knows about dogs who "think they're people," which is a cute joke, not a fact

Even Jane Goodall, who has been accused of an anthropomorphism bias, knows better than the idiots who try to bring chimps up like kids.  Her institute issues this warning.  Thing is, different living creatures are wired differently, and are most certainly not "blank slates."  Dogs make good companion/pets for people, because they're pack animals, and can regard their owners as Alpha Dogs, and behave towards them as they would towards a canine pack leader — deferring, obeying, and all the stuff that makes a "good dog."  Chimps are different.  Paradoxically, they're more like people, always tending to challenge authority and not good at all at that deferring and obeying.  I'm running out of space here, but soon I'll take this to the next level, and show how our anthropomorphizing fallacy applies to the  many fallacies in popular sociopolitical thinking.

To give credit where it's due, this post was touched off by a review of Project Nim, which you should take a look at.  And elsewhere, Steve Sailer quotes from Hunter Thompson on the subject.

Thursday, July 28, 2011

"Gunwalker," AKA "Fast and Furious"

A guest post from A. X. Perez, who knows far more about the subject than I do:

Before I go any further I would like to recognize and thank David Codrea and Sharyl Atkinson among others for breaking the story on Operation Fast and Furious which has been nicknamed operation Gunwalker. The majority of the information about this case comes from their reporting or that of people who were put wise to the situation by these reporters. It is becoming an elephant in the room for the Obama administration on a scale to match Watergate and Irancontragate. It makes one wish for the days of Bill and Monica, at least no one got killed over that. 

8,000 people have died to date in Juarez Mexico since 2006 making it one of the deadliest cities in the world ( actually deadlier than some actual war zones), 45,000 people more or less in all of Mexico. These are people killed in the three cornered Mexican drug wars between various narcotraficantes to control the drug trade and Mexican law enforcement to try to suppress the drug trade. This does not include people killed as part of protection rackets, kidnappings and random murderousness by the drug gangs and their siccarios(from Latin siccarii dagger men) as well as Mexican cops and military abusing their authority.  

Since the beginning Mexican officials have complained and anti-gun activists in the United States have complained that the ease of acquiring firearms, including semi auto AR -15's, AKS's, Barrett .50 BMG and others, were a major factor in the reduction of Mexico to an abattoir. They have also condemned yanqui willingness to finance the cartels by purchasing their product. As to the first accusation, the cartels can and have bought bought full auto AR's and AK's as well as other military class weapons on the international black market or diverted from sales to the Mexican army and police. They don't need American semiautos. As for the other, well enjoy the smell of Mexican blood in your cocaine.

For years people (including yours truly) have compared murder rates in Juarez to those in El Paso to show that gun control doesn't work. Briefly, it takes about twenty minutes to buy a gun in El Paso, whose murder rate for 2010 was 5 and to date 14 murders for 2011. The preferred murder weapons are knives and blunt instruments, there is even one case of a man pistol whipped to death rather than shot. I made a wise ass remark that a person was more likely to die of being run over than being shot in a drive by shooting in El Paso and that actually happened the next week. In Juarez, in all of Mexico, it is all but impossible to legally buy a gun. More people have been murdered with guns in Juarez this year than were murdered in El Paso with all weapons over the last decade by about an order of magnitude. Trust me that the cartels would have run up a similar score wld be ith more personal weapons. The point is that guns aren't the problem, human murderousness is.

Now let me be clear. I am pro gun. I think the current laws against the manufacture and importation of fully automatic weapons for sale to civilians are unconscionable. I think that all states and the feds should adopt Constitutional carry. I think that unless you are imprisoned for crime or being forcible restrained for medical treatment you have the right to acquire and carry firearms. I would rather vote for a pro gun Socialist than an anti gun Capitalist. 

That said, I have issues with the idea of selling guns to people I know for a fact are buying them for the specific purpose of murdering competitors and police, intimidating civilians, kidnapping and extorting protection money (including from elementary schools). Call me prudish that way. 

In 2006 the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives started Operation Gunrunner. According to Wikipedia this resulted in several hundred prosecutions of gun smugglers.
This brings us to 2009, when Eric Holder morphed Gunrunner into Operation Fast and Furious. In the new program "strawman buyers" (someone buying a gun for someone who is not legally eligible) were allowed to purchase guns and actually carry them into Mexico, where ATFE promptly lost track of them until they turned up  at crime scenes in the US and Mexico. This did not happen with one or two or even a couple of dozen guns. This happened with about 2,500 guns, most probably more. It was obvious things were getting out of hand Kenneth Melson (acting Director of BATFE) and Attorney General Holder were regularly apprised of how the operation was going, including viewing videos of its progress. In other words they knew things were going south, and I don't mean guns were going into Mexico.

Gun dealers who called ATFE to report suspicious buyers when these strawmen attempted to make purchases were told by ATFE to complete the sale. ATFE actually facilitated the passage of the weapons into Mexico. It turns out that one of the persons in Mexico involved in this gun smuggling was a paid FBI informant in the War of Drugs, and guess how he used the money the FBI was paying him?

Eventually whistleblowers in the Phoenix ATFE office exposed Gunwalker and it was ended.  The last straw was the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry with a Gunwalker weapon.The Program was end in December of 2010, however people were concerned over the problems Gunwalker would continue to create. This was exacerbated by fears that the gun used a month later in the attempted assassination of Representative Gabrielle Giffords was a Gunwalker gun (it wasn't). Illegal punitive action has been taken against against the whistleblowers.  

At the very least Attorney General Eric Holder, Acting Director of BATFE Kenneth Melson and others were criminally negligent in the performance of their duties and should be fired for incompetence. At the very worse they committed acts of private war against Mexico with the knowledge and connivance of the President (the White House was aware of Gunwalker no later than January 2010, so they knew what was going on for twelve months before the program ended) for the purpose of falsifying evidence of the need for stricter gun control laws in the US. Congress has begun to investigate and has faced stonewalling by the Justice Department, for example subpoenaed documents have been delivered so heavily redacted that some were completely blacked out. More and more newspaper, web and even tv attention is being given to this investigation in spite of liberal bias.

The fact is that on August Third Mr. Obama is going to wish he was still trying to set up a budget deal instead of having to worry about whether or not Congress is going to impeach him over Operation Fast and Furious. At the very least Melson and Holder should be facing jail time in both the US and Mexico. 

Crimes against the laws of two nations. The subornation of at least two law enforcement agencies. Massive stupidity. Stonewalling against Congressional investigations. Punishment of whistleblowers. Illegal wars. Arming of foreign criminals. Falsifying evidence to try to destroy the American people's rights. Illegally waging private wars. Who knew that Obama was Luo for Nixon?
                                                                                                                                                                                            A.X. Perez 

Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Jame Retief and Keith Laumer

Trying to get away from the dead seriousness of recent posts about the egregious Anders Behring Breivik, let's talk about Jame Retief.  Retief is the protagonist of many, many stories by the neglected Keith Laumer, a science-fiction writer who doesn't get nearly enough attention these days.  He wrote in various subgenres of science fiction, and did some of the best alternate history stuff ever, before Harry Turtledove and L. Neil Smith took the subgenre to the heights it's at today, in his Worlds of the Imperium.  Laumer also was a pioneer in the military science-fiction subgenre with his Bolo stories, still carried on by such top writers as David Weber and S. M. Stirling. But my favorite of all his stuff is the Retief stories. Laumer was an Air Force officer and a Foreign Service diplomat, not some nerd living in the basement, and that explains the intense realism of his Retief stories. Realism might not occur to you as the salient feature of these tales, because they're as funny a P. G. Wodehouse's stuff.  
Let's see... imagine Graham Greene's spy stories punched up by Wodehouse, and you'll have a glimmering of Laumer's Retief.  Basically, Jame Retief is a junior diplomat sometime in the far future, working for the Corps Diplomatique Terrestrienne (CDT), which, if memory serves, acts as a diplomatic go-between and arbiter for human-settled worlds, and much like the U. S. Foreign Service, as human diplomatic contact with non-human worlds.  And hilarity ensues.  The basic source of the humor is that the CDT is run by hidebound cookie-pushers, with ambassadors and diplomats with wonderful names like Pouncetrifle, Smallfrog, and Biteworse, who blindly follow rules and protocols, with of course their own careers being their primary focus, and Retief constantly makes end-runs around their limitations and saves the day, narrowly averting disaster time and again, dealing with the funniest collection of aliens any one writer has ever come up with.  Think of a CDT full of Bertie Woosters with Retief as the lone Jeeves.

You know me well enough by now to expect me to make a political connection.  I really don't have to, because the politics is right under the surface in these books.  We have the human universe, which is pretty much like a great big US or maybe the Western World as a whole, trying to cope with alien adversaries, mostly analogous to Third World countries, with an occasioonal duel with the Groaci, who are basically a version of the Soviet Union, only funnier, (those fellows on the first cover seem to be Groaci) and Retief is the man in the know, who always works out solutions based on basic decency and pragmatism, with little reference to ideology, clearly valuing human culture, but respecting, where appropriate, the qualities of aliens.  Pretty much the way Laumer thought we ought to run our own foreign policy, with a realistic grasp of our limitations and responsibilities towards others.

If you're like me, when you read a book, and the characters aren't explicitly described physically, you creat their appearance in your mind's eye without conscious effort.  When I started reading these, years back, I sort of pictured Retief as a David Niven with Roger Moore's build, or maybe a dark-haired Errol Flynn.  Laumer himself later said he visualized Retief as sort of resembling Cary Grant, and it's interesting to note that Iam Fleming's first choice to portray James Bond was Cary Grant. No cover artist has ever done him the way I see him, but the cover above with him lighting his cigar does capture his cool cum swashbucking nature. And he certainly doesn't look like the guy on the last cover, but that's the cover of the book I recommend you start with if you haven't read any of these.  For one thing, it's a fairly recent publication, so you can likely find it at a used book store.  For another thing, it starts out with the anomalous first Retief story, which of course I recommend you read, but I caution you that it's not funny, so don't stop with it, but read the whole thing.  And get hold of the others.  Start with Amazon's Keith Laumer page, and hunt around libraries and used book stores.  Read a little Retief, and you'll understand diplomacy and international relations like you never have before.

Tuesday, July 26, 2011

Anders Behring Breivik — Crusader?

Anders Behring Breivik considers himself a Crusader, committing his atrocities to call attention to the danger to Europe from the Muslim onslaught.  To evaluate that danger, you really have to separate it from your horror at the deed itself.  You didn't have to think the sociopath John Brown was a hero to oppose the idea of slavery.  Contrariwise, if you opposed slavery, you didn't have to make excuses for John Brown in order to be a credible abolitionist.  And you don't have to justify Breivik's behavior if you find yourself in agreement with his anti-Muslim sentiments.  I have a lot of political opinions, but I don't advocate publicizing them with violence, and I despise what Breivik did, whether his political opinions make sense or not.  As in my last post, this is how the real right is different from the left.  The left really has no problems with violence, and when the right people perform it, they find justification for it, as in the Jena Six.  Sometimes they'll go so far as to deplore Stalin's purges, but almost always go on to say that he really had no choice, as he had to defend socialism.  Well, nobody is a better symbol of the real right than Pat Buchanan ‚ here's what he has to say about the Norway disaster.

A Different look at — you guessed it — Anders Behring Breivik

One of the major differences between the left and the real right is that whatever Anders Behring Breivik was (the left has decided he's basically Tim McVeigh with Sarah Palin's good looks), those of us on the right want him executed, and in no way consider him a victim, nor do we thrash around trying to justify his actions.  But on the left, mass murderers, if they can be determined to have nice, politically correct motive, are either victims or heros or both.  Remember Omar Thornton?  The left immediately wanted to look into the behavior of all his murder victims, and scout any scintilla of 'racism,' so they could rehabilitate Thornton into the real victim.

And with really efficient leftist mass murderers, the left puts their face on posters and T-shirts and make them into true heroes of the working class, no matter how many members of the working class they liquidated.  It's true, we on the real right don't glory in blood and gore like the left does.  We think of war as a last resort, always entered into with regret, while the left glories in wars of liberation, from Cuba to Iraq, when they're not being pacifists, advising people to put up with being brutalized.  One 'real right' website is Alternative Right, and there, Andy Nowicki gives us his thoughts on how the right should think about Breivik and what he did.

Left and Right and Immigration

Cartoon by BALOO
Everybody's always saying that the left-right paradigm doesn't make sense any more, if it ever did, Libertarians have their Nolan Chart, and I have my own Venomous Venn Diagram.  But the enormous big divide that may be more fundamental than anything else these days is nationalism vs. globalism.  Yes, they're polar opposites.  In the United States, both the left and right, as they're commonly perceived, are completely on board with globalism.  Completely, no matter the rhetoric.  This means free trade, of course, open borders and heaps of immigration, and, logically, plenty of big, powerful government to enforce these enlightened ideas.  Now, those on the left are fond of saying that they're for the American working people. Maybe they were, back in 1896, but are they now?  Here's what they're doing for the American working people:
1.  Bringing in lots of immigrants, legally and illegally, to perform as scabs, and drive down wages.  Just Google meatpacking wages and you'll see what's happened to that working man's job.
2.  Insisting that the same immigrants, legal and illegal, flood the public schools, thereby wrecking education for the working Americans' kids.  A new twist is giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens so that the American working people can pay more to send their kids to college.
3.  Hiking taxes on the American working people to provide freebies for not only foreign immigrants, but for favored foreigners all over the world.
4.  Pushing gun control whenever possible, to disarm the American working people, while the criminals retain excellent access to weapons of all kinds.
5.  Regulating start-up businesses so harshly, both financially and in terms of civil rights or whatever they're calling social engineering these days, to make it impossible for the American working people to start their own small businesses.

And what is the right (so-called) doing for the American working people?  The Republicans always say that the Democrats have abandoned working people, and they're right, of course.  But what to the Republicans do for the working people? Pretty much all the same stuff.

Anyhow, this is about the left.  Whenever anybody on the left catches on that mass immigration is bad for the working class, and has the temerity to suggest a discussion of the problem, he's cast into the memory hole.  It just happened in the UK.  Steve Sailer writes about it HERE.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Captain America, Shmaptain America

I may not get around to seeing the Captain America movie.  Thing is, to be honest, Cap has always been a little too politically correct.  He was created, after all, to fight for Britain and France and the Soviet Union, not for the United States.  When it comes to the United States, he's always been kind of apologetic about our terrible sins.  I vaguely remember, from back when I regularly read the comics, that the character was originally revived in the 50's, and was terribly anti-communist and indifferent to civil rights, you know, a Nazi.  So in later years, the komintern at Marvel created a story to explain that that Captain America was an impostor, some kind of awful Joe McCarthy/Strom Thurmond type, who eventually got the crap beat out of him by the real Captain America, who had the usual touchy-feely social-engineering neocon sensibility — I don't recall him ever actually apologizing for being blonde and blue-eyed (you know, like Anders Behring Breivik — I had to stick him in again.) but you just know it must make him feel guilty.  Well, the movie is all about how neat illegal immigration is, and how Martin Luther King was a far better man than those icky Founding Fathers.  Paul Kersey gives us his thoughts about all this HERE.

Anders Behring Breivik— Neocon on Steroids

I'm running out of pictures of Anders Behring Breivik, so I lifted this one from Wikipedia. Having thought about this for awhile, I've decided that "neocon on steroids" as Steve Sailer puts it, is the best concise description of the guy I've heard so far.  Now, if you're new to this blog, neocons, or neoconservatives, are a little bit neo, but not conservative at all.  They're essentially a branch of Trotskyism, believing in all the stuff you constantly hear from the likes of Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck, and others who have usurped the term 'conservative',  that used to mean mind your own business, pull your own weight, and don't fix it if it ain't broke.  The neocons, on the contrary, are supporters of big, intrusive government, lots of socialism and 'safety nets,' and meddling not only in our own citizens' affairs, but the affairs of everybody in the world, and replacing traditional morality with new, cooler morality, to include gay marriage and anti-racism at all levels.  In this, they are very much like liberals, their sisters under the skin.  One thing we know about Breivik is that he was anti-racist, despite the 'blonde blue-eyed' phrase the media feels it has to include in every story about him.  Another thing we know is that he was a profound Zionist, which is now considered a very good thing by the so-called 'conservatives' who strangely consider a bunch of East European socialists to be somehow kindred to the Founding Fathers.  Now, this anti-racist Zionist is being exhibited to the world as some kind of neo-Nazi.  To get a balanced picture, I recommend these blog posts:

Steve Sailer
Gates of Vienna
Brussels Journal
Taki's Magazine

PS.  One misleading thing in most of the media reports is the description of the "Youth Camp" victims,  Apparently, though it sounds like a camp for a bunch of kids, it's actually a political group of "young" party members in the sense that they're in their twenties, mostly, much like "Young Democrats."

More on Breivik HERE.

Sunday, July 24, 2011

Off the Grid

I don't know about you, but I'm a little tired of Anders Behring Breivic and all the speculation about him.  If you're still curious, read my last three posts.  But for a change of pace, let's read Fred.  Fred talks about what patriotism should be, and how that keeps getting harder.  He recommends disengagement rather than revolt, and gives some ideas on how best to attain it HERE.

Saturday, July 23, 2011

Still Even More on Anders Behring Breivik

Now we have a translation of Breivik's political thinking and an analysis of it from Occidental Observer.  In summary, Breivik seems to fit in with the notion that Europe can somehow save itself from multiculturalism — and he clearly understands how suicidal a concept multiculturalism is — while at the same time opposing ethnocentrism and racism.  He argues that the enemy is racist and ethnocentric and we can't win by being like them.  Baloney.  Ethnocentrism and racism can't be opposed by abandoning all loyalty to your own people and trading it for vague 'cultural' ideas, all of which reside in ethnic and racial groups anyway, and can be spread to outsiders only partially and slowly, if at all.  It's worth reading through to understand how he thinks.  Actually, he thinks a lot like phony American 'conservatives' do.  They, too, abandon all loyalty to their own people in favor of 'American Exceptionalism,' which seems to be the notion that there is no American people, just a bundle of 'values' about democracy and freedom and tolerance (much of which is a brand-new idea imported from Europe by Marxists) that we're somehow going to spread to millions of illegal aliens real quick, no matter that our civilization took centuries to develop to its present high level.  The only improvement Breivik has made over this daffiness is that he does realize that Islam is incompatible with Western culture.  That means he's at least that much smarter than Amerian neocons.  However, the rot it in the West, and our permitting millions of Muslims to immigrate is a symptom of that rot before it's a cause.  Breivik doesn't quite understand that inviting Muslim immigration is just part of the program to wipe out Western culture, and other non-Muslims immigrants, which seem to be all right with him, are part of the same program.  Immigrants come to Europe and America because they want to leave their crummy countries, and said countries are crummy largely because of the kind of people who live there, and who will bring the same rot to the West. And, as I said before, the Talking Heads will decide that he's some kind of White Supremacist, which he explicitly is not.  And do note that he's extremely pro-Zionist.   It's time for us in the West to worry about our own countries, not spend trillions and waste blood defending others.  Read the Occidental Observer article HERE.

More on Anders Behring Breivik

Note: this is a copy of a post from
Below, he requests that this be copied to other sites because he keeps getting shut down.
Some comments about the ideological background of the Oslo bomber and Utoya shooter
If you have a website; please copy this post to your site, before my webhost again shuts me down for too much traffic.
Anders Behring Breivik - Freemason
Norwegian sources have identified the man who dressed up as a policeman shot perhaps as many as 80 or more innocent young people on the island of Utoya [Utøya]as the 32 years old Anders Behring Breivik. He is also alleged to stand behind the bomb in Oslo, which so far killed seven people,
The perpetrator was a regular poster on several Norwegian Internet media, notably the blog, which is run by Hans Rustad1), a former left wing journalist. Hans Rustad is Jewish, and extremely pro-Zionist, and warns against islamization, violence and other problems connected with Muslim immigration. Many regular contributors on his blog naturally more or less share his views.
They represent an ideology where the importance of ethnicity is played down or dismissed completely, and the need for the preservation of Western cultural and democratic values is commonly used as the substitute key argument against immigration. Their rhetorics and activities are almost completely focused on Islam and Muslims; other immigrant groups such as Vietnamese, Chinese, non Muslim Africans and other groups are routinely painted as 'harmless', or even as 'positive contributors to society'.
This is the currently most popular strain of the anti-immigration movements in Europe, as represented by Geert Wilders' Freedom Party, the Danish People's Party, the Sweden Democrats, and in Germany the so called 'Pro-movement', of which Pro-Cologne (Pro-Köln) is one of the most active, as well as several recently new established parties with a similar ideology . In England the EDL is connected to this ideology, together with groups such as SIOE and its local chapters, The Danish Free Press Society and their magazine Sappho, and some others. Note that the SIOE uses the slogan: 'Racism is the lowest form of stupidity! Islamophobia is the height of common sense'.
This picture was taken on the island of Utøya the previous day
Their American allies are people such as Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer, Daniel Pipes, etc. The dedication to the Zionist cause, and their rejection of classical nationalist ideas such as the importance of ethnicity, sets them apart from the sincere nationalist parties such ad the British National Party, Front National (France), Jobbik (Hungary), and NPD (Germany - and the only clearly National Socialist inspired movement of those mentioned).
Their heroes are mainly Jews such as German Henryk Broder, the French ZionistBernard Henry Levy, British Melanie Philips, Bernard Lewis, to mention just a few, and many more. The Flemish Nationalists fall somewhere in between, and are mainly traditional Nationalists with no love for the US, Zionism or Israel, who are trying to adapt to a new pro-Zionist image, inspired by the success of Geert Wilders' Freedom Party in Holland, and the Danish People's Party in Denmark.
Terror victims in Oslo
Members of the pro-Zionist groups and parties often paint their non philosemitic fellow nationalists as Nazis, anti-Semites and racists, copying the rhetorics the left wing PC-brigade uses against themselves, and try to present a more polished image towards the mainstream. They are also much better connected to mainstream politicians than the traditional nationalists, and at times are supported by mainstream newspapers, such as Jyllands-Posten in Denmark, as well as by right wing Jewish groups and individuals. The mainstream press usually judges these groups more favorably then traditional nationalists, who are invariably accused of being 'Nazis'.
Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian bomber and gunman also pursued this line of thought:
Posted on 2009-09-14 10:57:20 as a reaction to post by 'Caper'
I didn't see that the EDL as it is today is what we would have wanted. But it is essential that the intellectual conservative forces (unofficially) offer political and ideological schooling to our youth between 15 and 25. Who else is to do that?
We cannot despise the young in society and refuse to come closer to them only because they lack ideological training, since it is exactly OUR (culturally conservative intellectuals) responsibility to do so.
Bawer [referring to homosexual anti-islamist Bruce Bawer] is probably not the right person to work as a bridge builder. He is a liberal anti-Jihadist, and in many ways not a culturally conservative. I have my suspicions about him being TOO paranoid [with reference to his homosexuality). It could seem as though he fears that 'cultural conservatives' will become a threat against homosexuals in the future. Therefore he refuses to take his chance to influence them into a positive direction? That seems completely irrational.
It has to be said that many organizations such as VB [probably referring to the Flemish nationalist party Vlaams Belang] needs to go through many 'reforms', before they reach our level.
Anyway, we are not in a position where we can pick and choose our partners. That's why we have to ensure that we influence other culturally conservatives to take our anti-racist pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought. When this direction has been taken we can take it to the next level.
The consolidation MUST continue, and people must contribute by influencing (in stead of isolating).
The above was translated from this page, where has collected all posts by Anders Behring Breivik. So far it is not possible to read the seperate comments in the original thread; according to an announcement on the website, they changed IT-systems a few days ago, and are working on bringing the comments and the full posts back online. The URL to the article to which this comment belongs is here; maybe it will work later on.
1 I dislike Mr. Hans Rustad for at least one reason: He does not support freedom of speech when it comes to WWII history and the holocaust.
Total deathtoll at this moment 9:00 local Norwegian time: 91
Ps. Rumors
There are rumors on the internet that Anders Behring Breivik is identical with the well known conservative blogger Fjordman. This is denied by people who know him personally, and it is alleged that Anders Behring Breivik during some period has presented himself as Fjordman. More on the Swedish blog

Anders Behring Breivik

At this point, all I know is what everybody else knows, that Anders Behring Breivik seems to be responsible for blowing up and shooting a considerable number of people in Norway.  The lickspittle media were delighted to be able to announce that he's a White Christian, and the comparisons to Tim McVeigh began immediately.  Soon everybody will be calling for White Christians to be rigorously profiled by law enforcement worldwide.   Janet Napolitano is probably wriggling like a puppy with pleasure.  Now she can hold everybody with a Ron Paul sticker on suspicion  Well, let's not be too quick to judge.  Of course, Breivik will be called a White supremacist, the worst since they tracked Eichmann down, and we'll all be told again and again that the true terrorist threat is Whitey!  Looking a little closer at some of Breivik's writings, though, and we see that he's a big admirer of Winston Churchill, not exactly a kukluxer, not to mention Max Manus, a hero of the anti-Hitler resistance.  And to top it off, he's a big supporter of Israel, like Hillary and Obama and Palin and Huckabee and Biden and Bachmann.  This latter point will bring a big ho-hum from the media, who will just classify him as a White supremacist like McVeigh, much as they tried to brand that crazy bastard in Tucson.  The fact that Breivik looks like an SS recruiting poster will make it easier for them.  Oh, and Breivik is pro-gay rights, too.  Check out his writings here, if you can read Norwegian, or if you have a dictionary handy.

Friday, July 22, 2011

Cry the Beloved Canada

I just got done blogging about Canada, and now look.  They really need an actual Bill of Rights up there, and not that so-called "constitution" that they begged from the idiots in the British Parliament.  That's right — they asked permission to be a country from the same people who have been screwing the UK up for the last few generations.  If they'd asked me, I'd have turned them down, and made them a US. Territory, or maybe a Protectorate of Japan or some other country that halfway has its ducks in a row.  Anyhow, here's the latest diversity story from our chilly neighbors to the North.

Oh, No, Canada

Suppose the United States got rid of all its rednecks — I can say that with respect, because I am a redneck, and not in a funny way like Foxworthy, but in a prideful way. Rednecks started off being Scotch-Irish, or Border Scots, or whatever you want to call that group, and brought their suspicion of authority and willingness to fight for their honor here from Britain.  They've always been overrepresented in the armed forces, and basically handled most of the Civil War on both sides.  Anyhow, the Rednecks willingly absorbed other White ethnic groups, and their ornery culture permeated other such groups without absorbing them.  Well, if we got rid of all our Rednecks, what would we have left?  I'd say we'd basically be another Canada with more nice resort areas.  The Canadians are a maddening lot — terribly polite, but so are our Southerners, hard-workers, but that describes most of us as well.  The differences is that our PC idiots are totally triumphant only in academia and certain political parties that begin with a D, and sometimes R and L, and yeah, the media, too.  But in Canada they run everything, it seems.  Not only are they politically idiotic, they're smug about it. There are reasons for that.  They never had a Civil War, and the participants in both sides of ours learned a lot about the untrustworthiness of government, and took their guns home with them, and many did a Josie Wales.  That sort of person didn't have a chance to develop in Canada, as they only got into wars when the British Parliament told them to.  Result is that the PC idiots you know who fumble around and cluster in universities or koffeeklatches, congratulating one another on their sensitivity have counterparts in Canada who are extremely influential, passing legislation and outlawing self-defense and freedom of speech.

Well, Canada is going to PC hell, but not nearly fast enough for some of its politicians.  One of them has a swell idea to triple its population by inviting the dregs of the Third World to come in and go on welfare.  Maybe it's those Public Broadcast shows leaking over the border, and they only hear about how wonderfully well Third World immigrants to the US do, and how much better their lives would be with a few million Muslims, Somalis, and Hmong enriching their economy and culture.  Steve Sailer quotes this modern Pericles and comments about him HERE.

Thursday, July 21, 2011

jews and Free Speech

This is a tough one, sure to annoy just about everybody.  Jews in America, at least, are prone to regard themselves as guardians of Free Speech, through their organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center.  Whenever anybody says anything denouncing or defaming the US Government, traditional morality, common decency, Christianity, the White race, or any of the underpinnings of American culture specifically, or Western culture generally, Jewish organizations such as the above, and most especially the ACLU, leap to their defense, and if somebody throws a bottle of blood at a Catholic bishop, that, too, is defended as free speech.  Indeed, as a "light unto nations," Jews as a group have always been quick to defend anybody out to destroy Western civilization.  On the other hand, when it comes to Western civilization defending itself by speech, that speech is now branded as 'hate speech' or some other trendy pejorative,  You'd think that the ACLU would spend a lot of its energy combatting campus speech laws and such, but, on the contrary, it defends that sort of free-speech restrictions.  
If you wonder aloud if the constant Israeli tendency to shoot pre-pubescent Palestinian boys and girls, and their willingness to run over American critics with bulldozers, you're branded an antiSemite and measures are taken to deny you tenure, get you fired from your job, or destroy your political career.  As a middle-American redneck, of course, I have no standing to criticize anybody but fellow White Christians, so this whole blog post is without merit and probably illegal, or should be made illegal and investigated by Eric Holder.  So I'll say no more, and send you instead to the rigorously honest and courageous Paul Gottfried, who writes about Jews and free speech HERE.

More and Better Diversity!

Cartoon by BALOO
Just when you think diversity has topped out, like a Sci-Fi movie special effect, it shimmers and grows even bigger and more threatening. "Diverse" and "Diversity" have become sociopolitical buzz words like "fascist" or "progressive," and really have little to do with their real-world original meanings.  Diversity is, in the current jargon, indisputably a good thing. The anointed create tortured analogies to support that idea.  I've heard that we must have diversity in our diet.  You know, a little meat, a little grain, a little vegetable, etc. Valid as far as it goes, but the "diverse" elements are pre-selected based one whether they're actually good things to eat.  An even more diverse diet would include a little wood, some sand, some plastic, and a pinch of arsenic.

Making the analogy apply to human beings, then, you also have to pre-select the diverse elements.  Before the Worst President in History (that's LBJ, not Obama — Obama tries, but he still doesn't hold a candle to "Guns & Butter & Freebies for Everybody" Lyndon.) we had an immigration rather like a balanced diet.  We had big quotas for European nations, and smaller ones for Third Worlders, and that kept our ethnic balance stable and maintained the American culture that was comparatively constant for a century.  But LBJ didn't like that.  He wanted oceans of immigrants who didn't have a hope of assimilating, and a great many who didn't have any intention of assimilating.  Some say that it was all a part of an alliance between the Kennedys and the Rednecks to take down the power of the old Eastern Wasp Establishment.  If it was, it was a suicidal gesture on their part, culturally, because they poisoned the well and traded temporary advantage for long-term cultural disaster.  That is, they decided a balanced diet should include a little ground glass, a couple of rocks, some gasoline, and a soupçon of thallium sulfate.  Stuffy old-timers like John Stuart Mill didn't understand such deep thinking.

And of course the Great Unwashed White People of America can't seem to grasp it, either.  All they see is the increased crime, chaos in schools, and an increased tax burden to provide freebies for all the huddled masses from everywhere from Haiti to Somalia to the Hmong highlands.  They don't detect the magnificent benefits of all this wonderful diversity.  Can't see the forest for the trees.  Of course, our elite leaders, with all their gated lilly-white communities and private schools, are far away enough that they can't see the trees, so they can make all kinds of progressive plans for the forest, replacing the boring old pines and oaks with nice Baobobs and Banyans.

And all this also relates to the great Obama Stimulus.  It's a short step, politically and typographically, from Obama to Omaha, where a nice healthy chunk of the "stimulus" has been spent on — wait for it — that's right, DIVERSITY!   OneSTDV gives us the details HERE.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Anybody feel stimulated out there?

Now, this stimulus of Obama's.  Quite a bit like other Presidents' stimulae, except for its staggering hugeness.  But where exactly did it go?  It seems to have vanished, right?  Have you seen a bunch of new guys with shovels?  I haven't.  Maybe it was used for a space program... Oh, right.  I forgot.  Well, money was spewed out in many directions, I guess, and the banks swallowed a lot, as they always do, and the States got to keep from laying off some useless bureaucrats, so it was just the usual gummint waste, only more so.  Over at Alternative Right, Hunter Wallace did a little research and came up with this.  And the Irish Savant read the same piece and came up with a personal anecdote.

Idiot Educators

Remember school?  Depends on how old you are, of course, but surely you remember the 'disruptive' students.  How were they dealt with?  Well, in my day, they were punished.  Sometimes all they needed was a chewing out and they straightened up.  Sometimes they needed a suspension or some kind of embarrassing thing like standing in a corner.  The idea was, you see, to get them to stop being disruptive.  The punishments were supposed to benefit them, by teaching them how to behave.  You know, just like teaching them other stuff, like arithmetic, was also supposed to benefit them.  Well, that's all in the past.  Punishments today are seemingly considered to be a bad thing, so if you punish one group more than another —never mind if their behavior calls for it — you're in lawsuit/political correctness territory, and instead of teaching students, particularly minority students, that misbehavior is a bad idea, we now teach them that they can whine and complain their way out of any punishment for it, and continue with the misbehavior, which, after all, is fun.  Otherwise, they wouldn't be doing it.  Fact is, folks, all students tend to misbehave till they learn otherwise.  Minority kids — Black and Hispanic — tend to misbehave more than do White and Asian kids.
There's a whole industry out there, from Sharpton down to some of the actual teachers, dedicated to making sure that, despite their bad behavior, these minority types must not be punished in proportion to their behavior, but in proportion to the punishments handed out to White students.  If your school is fifty-fifty minority and non-minority, whenever you suspend a Black kid, you have to suspend a White kid, too, and so on.  Never mind the fact that suspending a given Black kid might be the best thing for him, teaching him that bad behavior has bad results.  No, to keep egalitarianism the top priority, we're instead going to teach the Black kid that his Blackness means he doesn't have to behave as well as the White kids have to.  So he grows up to be nice and dysfunctional, while his misbehaving White counterpart, who did get suspended, has more incentive to straighten up and fly right.  You see, all of this phony evenhandedness harms Black kids.  Harms them.  And of course totally screws up discipline for the whole school, when the other kids catch on that there's a double standard at work.

Like Joel (or Mike) and the Bots watching a cheesy movie, the inimitable Steve Sailer reads the New York Times every day and deconstructs and makes fun of its dopier articles.  Today he deals with an article about deep-thinking educators who can't figure out, just can't figure out why minority students get punished more often than others, but identify it as another "problem" to be "solved." Read it all Here.

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Muslims vs. Homosexuals

Can everybody get it through his thick head that Islam in general is very hostile to homosexuality and homosexuals?   And that massive Muslim immigration to the West is going to cause a problem for homosexuals.  Generally, the West is tolerant of homosexuals — not necessarily approving, or accepting, but tolerant, and homosexuals are fairly safe from government persecution and pogroms in the West.  Organized homosexuals, like most all minorities, like to shriek at the top of their lungs that they're not allowed to express themselves, but that's just the usual rhetoric, and the reality is that they're as free as it's possible to be, unless they actually were in charge of everybody else, in which case they'd probably persecute heterosexuals.  Anyhow, given a choice between letting Muslims in so they can give homosexuals a hard time, and deciding maybe we're diverse enough, and maybe we could do without Muslim orneryness, having enough of our own already, what should we do?

To help us decide, Gregory Smith, over at "Libertarians 4 Freedom," gives us a list of pros and cons.

Left and/or Right

There's a lot of confusion about the left-right paradigm in politics.  Libertarians point out that it's too one-dimensional, and say that the two-dimensional Nolan Chart is far more useful.  And there's a trope among neocons that the fascist movements in Europe last century were left-wing, not right-wing.  The egregious Jonah Goldberg is responsible for popularizing this tempting but ultimately misleading idea in his Liberal Fascism.  I attempted to come up with a better classification system in my Attempt at a Venn Diagram.  And an old saying is that when you move further and further right, and further and further left, eventually you meet.  There is a shred

of truth in this, inasmuch as the great Moderate Morass, including conventional Democrats and Republicans, liberals and neocons, scrupulously avoid noticing things that many people on the political fringes are glad to notice, and yell about.  That buttresses my assertion that you should listen to what everybody has to say, because everybody leaves something out that might undermine their own position, and somebody else will mention it.  It's funny that many on the further left will understand that a lot of big shot banking types benefited enormously from the housing bubble, while the further right points out that it constituted a big giveaway from the White middle class to minorities who were conned into borrowing money they couldn't afford to pay back.  Both, of course, are correct.  And both might agree, if you rub their noses into it, that the whole thing was orchestrated by politicians who have nothing but contempt for the White middle class and are in business to serve the big shots and coddle minorities.  Minorities are to be coddled because they offset the power of the White middle class, also known as the productive class — the people who actually create wealth — and thereby increase the relative power of the Big Shots, political and economic.  The left makes the mistake of considering the minorities some kind of helpless pawns with no free will, who just couldn't help getting all those freebie loans, and who therefore bear absolutely no responsibility for the mess.  Nonsense. They vote for people who constantly promise them freebies and line up to get them afterwards.  And the right (so-called right, anyway, I consider them just a wing of the left, but that's another story) make the mistake of putting all the blame on minorities and liberals, and consider the banks and other big shots to be the helpless pawns with no free will, etc.  The whole mess, of course, was in effect a conspiracy of the parasites at the top and the bottom bleeding dry the productive class in the middle.  If you don't believe me, just ask Justin Raimondo.

Afterthought:  L. Neil Smith commented on this by E-mail.  His book is THE AMERICAN ZONE.