Scott Locklin gives us the nasty details HERE.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Lots of analogies spring to mind when it comes to Afghanistan. One is the "domestic dispute" situation that I'm sure any cop could tell you about. That's where cops get called in to a domestic dispute, usually to protect a wife from a husband, and it ends with the couple ganging up on the cop. Another is the "wrong bar" scenario, where some decent citizen is walking past a bad sort of bar, witnesses a brawl inside, and decides to go in and stop the fight, getting his own clock cleaned and improving the situation in the bar not at all. In both cases, the citizen and the cop use their own resources to try to accomplish something unaccomplishable, if I may coin a word.
Of course Afghanistan can be pacified. All you have to do is remove all the Afghans and resettle the place with Norwegians. You just can't pacify Afghans. Lord knows we've tried. As did the Russians, the Brits, and Alexander the Great, and probably some prehistoric do-gooders we don't know anything about.
The accurate analysis of Afghanistan, including the Koran-burning mess, is that we shouldn't be there. It's the wrong bar. It's a domestic dispute. It's impossible for Westerners to be there without offending the local norms and, unless they're brain-dead multiculturalist liberals, being offended by the local norms. Which include, of course, a hideous attitude towards women, and a well-established tradition of pedophilia that grosses other Muslims out. And now we have the Koran thing. Of course Obama shouldn't be apologizing for that. In the first place, he probably has no idea what actually happened, and even if it was a conscious intention to offend, that's what happens when you have foreigners occupying a country. Everywhere and at all times, occupying troops offend the locals. Just look at our own Civil War, fought between two groups that differed culturally hardly at all. If you're going to invade somebody, you're going to piss them off, simple as that. If they want to be offended — and rest assured, they will want to — they'll find something, real or imagined, to be offended by.
So when you're considering invading some other country, you have to take that into account. No matter what your intentions are, the locals are not going to appreciate them. You have to kill some of them, for crying out loud. Nobody appreciates that. I repeat, it doesn't matter what your intentions are. War in general and invasions in particular are a very grim decision. You have to consider whether the outcome of the war is going to justify all the death on both sides, the money you're going to spend, and the creation of a long-time enemy. Another thing to consider, of course, is the people you're invading. Some people are a lot easier to pacify than others. Afghans are among the hardest.
Well, we've been messing around in the Middle East in a big way ever since Old Bush pulled the first screw-up. Now we have half the area totally destabilized and mad as hell at us, and the neocons are champing at the bit for us to outrage the other half. The only dispute between the liberals and neocons is how best to screw it up even more. Ron Paul's "mind your own business" foreign policy sounds better all the time.
Anyhow, I was going to bring Kipling up again, but the inimitable Steve Sailer beat me to it. He points out that Kipling wouldn't be a bit surprised by the situation, and adds an illustrative video HERE.
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Well, here it is Black History Month again, and I've been planning for awhile to write something about George Schuyler. Ex-Army invited me to, because I have a tenuous connection with Schuyler. A few years back, I collaborated with L. Neil Smith and Scott Bieser on the graphic novel, Roswell, Texas. You can read it HERE. Quick summary: it's an alternate-history story about a parallel world where Davy Crockett survived at the Alamo, and Santa Ana didn't, resulting in Crockett becoming President of a Texas that never joined the Union and remains a separate country today. It's a semi-utopia, because this alternate Texas has all of the virtues of our United States magnified, and none of the defects. In its history, Charles Lindbergh was President of Texas during the Roswell incident in 1947, and his son, the one who was kidnapped and killed in our history, was also President of Texas in the 1960's. In between their presidencies, George Schuyler was Texas President. Interestingly, Schuyler's daughter, Philippa Schuyler, married the young Lindbergh. You can see her picture on the President's desk HERE. And it's rumored that a movie about her is in the works. Info in this little video:
I hope it happens, if only to draw attention to her father, who has been dropped down the memory hole, because he just doesn't fit the Liberal Black Agenda these days. He was, you see, long before Tom Sowell or Clarence Thomas or Walter Williams, a conservative. An oddball conservative, to be sure, but he was totally off the liberal reservation. I'll tell you how far off.
Today, Martin Luther King is a hero to everybody. Pseudo-Conservatives and neocons have added him to their pantheon. He is beyond criticism and above reproach. Here's what Schuyler wrote about MLK in 1964:
Neither directly nor indirectly has Dr. King made any contribution to world (or even domestic) peace. Methinks the Lenin Prize would have been more appropriate, since it is no mean feat for one so young to acquire 60 communist front citations…. Dr. King's principle contribution to world peace has been to roam the country like some sable Typhoid Mary, infecting the mentally disturbed with perversions of Christian doctrine, and grabbing fat lecture fees from the shallow-pated.
Now, I'd write some more about this, but a far better scholar, Nicholas Stix (from whose blog I lifted the quote above), has beaten me to it. The near-total suppression of any and all awareness of George Schuyler is a triumph of the liberal/neocon elite who call the cultural and political shots for us all these days. I recommend that you google around and learn all you can about Schuyler. It'll give you a quite different fell for the history of "Civil Rights." And you can start with Nicholas Stix's article HERE.
Friday, February 24, 2012
|From BALOO'S WEBSITE|
And that's just the news. It's just the same in politics. When a halfway decent politician is aware of a certain fact, he knows damn well that he can't actually talk about the fact, or he'll get smashed. So he talks about other things, in the hopes that some people with be made aware thereby that he's actually aware of the taboo fact. Let's say immigration. The fact is that we're getting millions of illegal Latino immigrants who don't fit into our culture at all. They have a quite different set of social values than basic White Americans do. They have little interest in what we call civic pride or the rule of law. They consider drunk driving macho. They've been told before they got here that Whitey oppresses them and show up looking for revenge. They have little interest in education and have an attitude towards women that doesn't fit our paradigm at all. Many of them seem to consider rape and murder no big deal. And they have virtually no interest in assimilation and many actually try to keep their offspring from assimilating. That's the fact. Now, politicians who recognize this fact as a problem are thin on the ground, but even those who do are scared silly to mention that fact, so they say other things instead. At the top of the list, they talk about how we're a "nation of immigrants," which is a really stupid thing to say. What we actually are is a nation of Northwest Europeans who left Europe and organized another Northwest European country here. The only politician who's dared say that lately is Pat Buchanan. No, instead they say how crazy they are about legal immigration, and act like the big problem is that these people came here illegally. It's not. The big problem is that they're here, where they don't fit. Then they talk about "immigration reform," which is usually just a way of saying amnesty. That's like having a big rape problem and talking about "sex reform."
And of course this applies to the whole race/culture problem which affects education, foreign policy, law enforcement, and economics. They have to carefully avoid the facts and talk about some of the effects without ever mentioning the causes. This, of course, means that the fact that the liberals/Democrats/neocons control the dialog, making it virturally impossible for any of the real facts to even be mentioned, let alone be discussed.
Steve Sailer expands on this phenomenon, with a particularly interesting insight on how it's affected the gun control debate over the years, HERE.
And without LBJ's brilliant Affirmative Action system, would Obama have slid through the educational system, seemingly or actually effortlessly, and ended up with the greatest Affirmative Action job of them all? And, finally, without LBJ's relaxed interpretation of immigration laws, and relaxed definition of just what an American is, would Obama have been possible in any sense whatsoever? Hardly.
So give credit where credit is due. Obama is just running a mopping-up operation, removing the last vestiges of prudence, common sense, and responsible behavior from the remnants of that boring old White-dominated United States, and getting us in shape to take our place as the greatest of the Third-World nations. The credit for the opening battle and first victory belongs to Johnson. We didn't go quite all the way with LBJ, but Obama's finishing the job.
Those much younger than I don't remember those exciting years, when LBJ gave us the civil rights and feminism and massive government spending and War on Poverty and interminable literal war that prepared the way for Obamaism, but Pat Buchanan does. He was there. And he tells us what all that has resulted in HERE.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
I have to agree. If your number one priority is the interest of Sheldon Adelson's country, Newt's your man. He's certainly Sheldon's. Steve Sailer describes all this in more detail HERE.
Daily Kenn is the work of Kenn Gividen, the Libertarian candidate for Governor of Indiana in 2004. You can see him debate HERE. He describes himself as a Conservative Libertarian, which sounds a lot like Libertarian Nationalist, and, I'd guess, he belongs in the Green Zone of the famous VENN DIAGRAM, where all good Americans belong if they only realized it. He wrote THIS ARTICLE on religious liberty. And there's a compilation of HIS QUOTES HERE.
Go take a look at http://www.dailykenn.com/ every day. I do.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Hi, Ex-Army folk. Ex came across this book, and got me to read it and do the review because, well, I'm a cartoonist. It's a fun read, and more or less fits into the horror genre, having a little Alfred Hitchcockiness about it. Also, it's set in Atlanta, which helps give it a Southern Gothic creepiness, much as is the case with The Walking Dead. McIntosh is a Brit, but he's a prof in the South so he's acquainted with the area.
But to the plot. One of the biggest gripes cartoonists have is the fact that comic strips are continued after their creators die. Me, now, I don't have a problem with that, because I understand free-market economics, and I know that keeping a good strip going is often a wise decision. I do add the caveat that I want them to keep it good, otherwise I'm disappointed, and I'd prefer that they end it and replace it with something better. But that's just me. Such strips as Blondie, Dick Tracy, Frank and Ernest, Thimble Theatre, Ziggy, and Gasoline Alley have kept on going after the deaths of their creators — sometimes after the deaths of the successors — and still have a large fan base. More often, a strip dies with the creator, either by the wishes of the creator himself, as was the case with Peanuts, or sometimes because no one can be found to continue it well enough.
Hitchers is the story of one such comic strip, Toy Shop. Finn Darby is a young cartoonist who lost his wife in a bizarre accident, and he's spent his personal and professional life in the shadow of his grandfather, Tom Darby, who created the long-lived comic strip, Toy Shop, and who ordered that the strip be discontinued after his death. After a bit of agonizing, for a number of reasons (he really hated the old guy), Finn convinces the syndicate to continue the strip with him drawing it. The strip was never a blockbuster, just a steady source of a decent income, and Finn decides that it needs to be improved. He adds a character or two, and modernizes the humor, and is delighted when the strip suddenly becomes a sensation after being moribund for decades and even gets mentioned on talk shows. But this is a horror story, you know, and old Tom Darby is outraged (in Hell or wherever he is) that Finn has had the effrontery to not only continue the strip but even to change it, and decides to come back....
Don't want any spoilers here. Suffice it to say that many things happen. In the middle of the Revenge of Grandpa, Finn experiences a terrorist attack, roving bands of religious fanatics, and even odder psycho/supernatural phenomena. There's even room for a love story. Good read. I recommend it.
To most of us out here in the hinterland, the "Irish" part of the Kennedys is just colorful, and many Americans who think they themselves are Irish are actually Scotch-Irish, which isn't Irish at all and only slightly Scotch. But it's a real thing there in Boston, and it has informed the destiny of old Joe Kennedy and the hellish brood he spawned. Thing is, old Joe was kind of out to destroy the Wasp establishment. That's understandable. The Wasps can be a pain in the ass, what with their superior attitude towards us rednecks, and they definitely needed to be taken down a peg or two. But old Joe didn't want to straighten them out, he wanted to humilate them, and he didn't care if he took the whole country down with them, including his own family.
The Kennedys and their hangers-on are just in much in favor of wrecking the United States as are Obama, the Clintons, and the neocons. They're most decidedly part of the treason lobby, that wants open borders, unrestricted immigration, and the ultimate marginalization and destruction of White America. It's a hate thing, folks. If you're the normal Ex-Army reader, all those people hate you, and want you to shut up, pay your taxes, welcome any and all immigrants from God knows where, and send your sons off to die fighting other people's wars in defense of other people's nations, and to hell with ours.
So the latest Kennedy whelp is running for Queen Barney's seat in Congress. Big surprise. Mitt Romney should get some kind of award just for living through politics in Kennedychusetts. Matthew Richer tells us more about Joseph Pissant Kennedy III HERE.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
|Cartoon from BALOO WEBSITE|
And what Santorum meant is valid, so that's why the media are piling on. Obama most certainly does not think in traditional American moral terms, but in what Santorum calls "secular" terms. Now, I don't think Obama worships anything but his own precious scrawny ass, but Santorum states that Christianity calls on us to be the Earth's steward, not its worshiper. And though I'm not a Christian, I have to say that his attitude makes perfect sense. You know, we don't clean off the picnic table in the park because we worship picnic tables, but because we have consideration for others who will also want to use it. And that's the way civilized, sane human being should act. Obama doesn't worship the Earth, but he has lots of whacky supporters who do, so of course he toes the radical environmentalist line.
Anyhow, this kerfluffle has caused Pat Buchanan to weigh in on the controversy. I'm always glad to have Pat's evaluation of anything, and this is his evaluation of Santorum HERE.
Monday, February 20, 2012
|From the ATLANTEA THE BEAUTIFUL website|
It's not a zero-sum game, you know. If you love your own people and put their interests first, that doesn't necessarily mean hostility to other peoples. On the contrary, groups who are loyal to themselves and put their own interests first are stable and secure, and as such can maintain cordial relations with other groups who behave the same way. But flaky people who say they're "members of the human race" can't seem to avoid either abjectly surrendering to outside groups, like liberals love to do, or paternalistically interfering with other groups in an attempt to "bring them up to our level," like the neocons do. A group that desires neither to destroy other groups, or improve them through meddling, can easily get along with other groups and have mutually beneficial relations with them. Just as sovereign individuals can do the same — they neither attack nor attempt to reform other sovereign
individuals. And behold, you have a thriving society of cooperative individuals. Nations, races, tribe, ethic groups — they can all get along similarly.
I've never read anything quite like this from Pat, but I expect he'd agree with it. Further analysis of Pat's outrageous firing from MSNBC by Kevin MacDonald HERE.
|From BALOO'S WEBSITE|
When your system ignores reality, as so many do, it comes to the wrong conclusions. Like Baloo's guru, there, you find yourself falling off your mountain into reality. The current established philosophy that goes by various names — liberalism, progressivism, neoconservatism, political correctness — is pretty much based on ignoring unpleasant facts of reality, with predictable results.
One of my favorite manifestations of this is the downgrading of traditional morality, while at the same time using the fundamentals of traditional morality to bolster deviancy from it. Just to give one example:
The traditional White Christian family is completely scorned by the Zeitgeist. The men are sexist, uptight loons, the wives are sneered at as "mothers" who aren't fulfilled by having careers as lawyers in short skirts. The kids are of course oppressed and racist. The whole thing is just awful and has to be replaced by its opposite. On the other hand, the Zeitgeist values homosexuality, Third-World immigration, single motherhood, and the irresponsible "vibrant" behavior of all who don't belong to the traditional White Christian family paradigm.
And how do they defend these new variants? By likening them to the actual conditions produced by the norm. Immigrants are "just like us." They have a mom and a dad and kids, and are described as though they're operated by Ward and June Cleaver. Same goes for homosexuals. The hideous, dysfunctional lifestyle of most homosexuals is ignored, and we're asked to cheer on homosexual "marriage" and adoption because a same-sex marriage is just like us. They mow their lawns and have marital fidelity and go to PTA meetings just like we do, except that their sexual practices are somewhat different. Not better or worse than heterosexuality, just equal with it. Well, maybe a little better.
And despite the fact that gay marriage is a wonderful thing, single motherhood is wonderful, too. Fathers aren't necessary at all. In fact, with their male privilege, they just screw everything up. Thank God the government is taking over their paycheck responsibilities, so these single moms can be "independent," and "feel good about themselves.
And, of course, Christianity is superstitious and oppressive, but nonChristian religions are vibrant and deep, and we must have respect for witch doctors and voodoo practioners and Imams with bombs in their underwear and foaming-at-the-mouth Israeli "settlers." Christians who want to install a nativity scene anywhere but in their own basement are oppressing everybody else, but... Well, you know the drill. I'm raving again. This phenomenon is dealt with in a cooler, less emotional manner bye OneSTDV HERE.
Saturday, February 18, 2012
By today's standards, almost all our Presidents were constitutionalists for the first century or so. Presidents even vetoed legislation because it was unconstitutional. Can you imagine Obama doing that? No, the progressives, who showed up in force around the end of the 19th Century, were basically sick and tired of the Constitution, and wanted to circumvent it, because they had wonderful plans to fix everything, and the Constitution limited their power too much. It's not that those who had gone before were perfect. Far from it. Really bad glitch with Lincoln and the Civil War, but in those days, at least, they really felt that they had to amend the Constitution instead of just ignoring it.
But the progressives really got into the "ignoring" thing. What they wanted to do, of course, was exercise more power than they were legally allotted, because They Knew Better, and if they could just order Americans around, America would be a better place. How's that working out? Well, there were a lot of progressives, but the one everybody thinks of is Teddy Roosevelt, because he wasn't subtle about it at all, but actually ran for President as the nominee of the Progressive Party.
Well, progressivism kind of fell out of favor, so the progressives had to come up with another euphemism to describe themselves, and they picked "liberal," which is a scream, because in those days it meant minimalist government and economic freedom. They took the word over, and now it means the opposite, and that confuses our friends in Europe, because they mostly still use the word with its old meaning. Anyhow, now that everybody knows who the liberals are, and the old word "progressive" has been forgotten, not they're using that as their new euphemism. Their philosophy remains pretty much the same. Lots of power for the ruling elite, and as close to zero power as possible for the individual, because the individual is an idiot, and he needs a lot of social engineering, from careful scrutiny of mothers who pack lunches for their kids to how many guns a person may own, if any.
I don't like either word, myself, because they both sound too good. I think we need to go back to TR for the right word. He was fond of saying "bully" all the time — I know he didn't use it with its current meaning, but it's just too wonderful a coincidence to pass up. So let's call this philosophy of big government, social-engineering, regulate-everybody smug arrogance by a name that really describes them. They are bullies, and their political philosophy is bullyism.
Tom Sowell gives us the history of progressivism, i. e., bullyism, in three parts:
Friday, February 17, 2012
My rule of thumb for judging children's movies is whether adults can endure watching them or not. If not, they're probably not worth having kids watch them either. Too dumb for adults, too dumb for kids in my judgment. And that goes for books, too. If you get hold of some book you read when you were a kid and you can't enjoy reading it, it was probably a waste of you time when you were a kid, too, no matter what you thought of it at the time. But I digress.
Like I say, you can't go wrong with Miyazaki. All of his stuff is beautiful. Here, he's taken a good old children's story and made it into a much bigger thing. Just in case you don't know, Borrowers are little people, human beings except for their size, which seems to be about three to six inches tall in the movie. They've been living alongside us forever, often in our houses, under the floors and inside the walls, and they're called "Borrowers" because they subsist on things they borrow, so to speak. Little bits of this and that, food, thimbles, safety pins, spools of thread, just enough to get by on. And of course they have to remain hidden from human eyes in order to survive.
Now, this was a natural for Miyazaki. He's good at two things especially — pointing out the beauty of both natural and man-made things, which is sort of a Japanese specialty anyway, and creating the most realistic and downright lovable kids you can find in all of literature. If you can watch this without coming to love Arrietty, there's something wrong with you. As for beauty, this movie is worth watching just to see the raindrops running down leaves. I'm not exaggerating.
By the way, if nobody told you, you could almost watch this without realizing that it's supposed to be taking place in Japan. There are only a half-dozen clues to tell you that it is. But outside the obvious clues, it clearly has a Japanese sensibility, most especially in recognizing the universal beauty in everything that I mentioned above.
It's been forever since I've read the books, though I remember enjoying them as a kid, so I can't tell you how much the plot varies from the original story, but the spirit is certainly still there, and is actually expanded into something much more profound than in the original. Frankly, I was overwhelmed by the beauty of the story on the one hand, and the loveliness of the animation on the other. Old Walt Disney realized a long time ago that animation was potentially a form of high art, and Miyazaki has proven him right.
Click on this to see it animated.
Classifying this as a children's animated movie is technically correct, but it's like calling Crime and Punishment a "detective story." It's a little misleading to classify it that way, because it doesn't have the annoying things you've come to expect from such movies. It doesn't have any characters who are comically stupid, no all-powerful villain, no sexual innuendo attenuated to make it acceptable for children, and most important of all.... No Eddie Murphy.
Go see it. You'll love it. Then go get Miyazaki's other stuff and watch it. Here's the trailer:
And maybe the high point in 1992 was Pat's speech at the Republican convention. He overpraises George Bush, of course, but it was in aid of defeating Bill Clinton, so we can certainly give him a pass on that. Elvisnixon has posted it HERE. Go take a look.
Thursday, February 16, 2012
Typical of the left (yes, the neocons are leftists), they call for free and open discussion, while doing everything in their power, from economic and political pressure to downright thuggery, to silence any dissent. They call gentle old Pat every name in the book from racist to nazi to homophobe, while insisting on "civility" from their opponents. The irony is that Pat is excruciatingly civil all the time. Pat himself has deconstructed the witch-hunt perpetrated against him, and, you guessed it, he's civil about it. Read it HERE in the American Conservative.
You can also read Pat's column HERE.
Of course, this is all about sucking up to Black dysfunctionality. The White liberals in charge of just about everything prefer to deify people like Houston and Michael Jackson, and pointedly ignore the Blacks who have accomplished things without being dysfunctional. White liberals, you see, want the gratitude of their pet African-Americans, and guys like Tom Sowell or Bill Cosby or Alan West don't owe them any gratitude, because they did what they did without the cloying paternalism of White liberals.
But junkies/crazies like Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson sure as hell did need the guidance and help of White liberals, and they are therefore worthy of all kinds of sucking up from them. Even if they don't express any gratitude, the White liberals can feel all warm and fuzzy because they know that the poor child-like knuckleheads could never have made it without the wonderful paternalism of earnest, idealistic White liberals protecting them and helping them along through the horrible gauntlet of White racism.
And Christ Christie has polished his credentials. He is, undisputably, a White liberal.
|Cartoon from BALOO'S WEBSITE|
Have I established the principle? All these things — gum wrappers, water, oil, dogs, etc. — aren't intrinsically bad things, and indeed are wonderful and desirable things in the right place, but when they're in the wrong place, we have a problem. So when you don't want a gum wrapper or a dog in a certain place, it's not fair to call you a gumwrapper bigot or an anti-canite.
This applies to people, too. The guy down the street is a good guy, and you like him, and he's fun to talk to or go bowling with, but when you come home and find him unexpectedly in your bathtub, you don't like it. You don't object to him qua him, as Ayn Rand would say, but you do object to his location. You can think of lots of examples yourself, I'm sure. Men are unwelcome in the ladies' room, and vice-versa. Kids under a certain age shouldn't be sitting at the bar. Jehovah's Witnesses can't live in a nunnery.
And, all of us divide the human race into two groups — people we have invited into our home, and people we haven't. That last bunch we really don't want to find in the bathtub. That's why we keep the door locked.
So, finally, I get to illegal aliens. Legal aliens, be they immigrants or temporary residents, are people we have collectively invited into our home. The illegals, by definition, we haven't. And, like the guy down the street, they might be terrific folks, but they haven't been invited. And that trumps everything else. Now, some of them, maybe we should invite. That's up to us to decide, though, as a nation, and while we have a right to change our minds, nobody has the right to ignore our will and behave as though we had invited them. And millions have done just that. It has nothing to do with their intrinsic worth, you see — it has to do with our right as a nation to determine who gets in. And a right you don't claim soon gets lost in the shuffle. It's time to claim that right back. And lock the door.
Other nations seem to take their own rights more seriously than we do. Just try to sneak into, say, South Korea or Mexico illegally. See what happens.
There are a lot of incentives out there for illegals to come in without an invitation, and if we want them to stop, it's time to cut the incentives off. There are all kinds of illegals out there, some nice, some not so nice, but they're all crashing the party, and we have to make it clear that it's our house and not the property of the whole human race.
As for incentives, Fred Reed describes one class of illegals and how powerful the pressure is on them to enter. His essay is HERE.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
It's interesting that birth control, usually including abortion, was once the great weapon in the fight against overpopulation. Back when liberals were semi-sane, they especially wanted nonWhites to use birth control, not because they didn't like nonWhites, but because they were obviously reproducing so fast that they had no hope of raising themselves out of poverty unless they limited their family size. Also, of course Whites had already limited their family size, for the most part, so they didn't need to have birth control urged on them. But now such talk is racism, a species of thoughtcrime. So if you want anybody, White or nonWhite, rich or poor, to use birth control, you have to couch the whole discussion in terms of "Women 's Rights," a new liberal superstition.
So when the neocons who like to make a fuss about this sort of thing want to annoy liberal advocates of birth control/abortion, they needle them with the fact that it means fewer nonWhites, especially fewer Blacks, and that means that, unlike the angelic neocons, liberals are racist! As delightful as it is to have the term backfire on liberals, it makes the neocons look like the morons they are, because they seem to be saying that we don't have enough nonWhites wallowing in poverty, and good conservatives should want more and more of them. Idiots.
Interestingly, some nonWhites, like the Chinese, have realized that reasonable limits on family size is actually good for them, and have taken steps to accomplish it. On the other hand, liberal Whites, who for generations have reproduced at a reasonable rate, have decided to self-destruct, and reproduce below replacement level, and basically wreck their own civilization. Suicide-prone, they think we should dwindle in order to make room for the population explosion from the Third World. To use a word that liberals like to use in other connections, that's not "sustainable," is it?
Well, this connection between birth control/abortion and the unmentioned overpopulation issue, with its added racial dimension, should be obvious, but most of us miss it. Steve Sailer hasn't missed it, though. His essay on the subject is HERE.
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Now, if you're honest about it, you'll admit that there really aren't any nice governments in the Arab world. By Western standards, they're all tyrannical and medieval, okay? Some clearly worse than others, of course. So it's very easy to make a case for overthrowing any of them, because they're all controlled by bad guys. The hell of it is, when overthrown, they're all too likely to be replaced by equally bad, if not worse, guys, after the usual bloodbath. Then it's back to business as usual.
Pat Buchanan has been thinking about this sort of thing longer than I have. His opinion on the matter is HERE.
|From the ATLANEA THE BEAUTIFUL BLOG.|
(click to enlarge)
There are a lot of things wrong with Romney and Santorum, but really, you'd have to pool their flaws to even get close to Newt's amazing collection of defects. The cute thing is that he's pretending to be some kind of conservative. He's not, okay? Even within the expanded definition that the neocons have imposed upon the term. Now, Newt talks about how he has a lot of ideas, and that's certainly true. I actually like and endorse his idea for offering prizes to people for technological advances, like his moon base. He did, however, get these ideas from his obviously broad reading in Science Fiction, and most especially from Jerry Pournelle. And that's okay. Statesmen should read broadly, and get good ideas from other people. The problem with Newt is that, along with his good ideas, he also has some horribly bad ideas. Immigration, for example. When you deconstruct his non-amnesty ideas, you easily conclude that they amount to, well, amnesty. And Newt himself admits that hanging around on a couch with Nancy Pelosi wasn't a great idea. He also has the popular bad idea that cruising around the world righting everybody's wrongs is America's responsibility. That kind of stuff costs trillions and kills a lot of Americans. Sorry Newt. And his Foney and Fraudie association is as bad as anything any Democrat ever came up with.
Newt should do us and himself a favor and drop out and collaborate on some more science-fiction novels. He's pretty good at that. Elvisnixon elaborates HERE.
|Cartoon from BALOO'S WEBSITE.|
But even though we've lived through the Lewinski thing, and the Weiner thing, and the Barney Frank thing, etc. etc., we're still a little off-put by the sheer arrogance and abuse of power revealed by the Alford book. Most of us, anyway. But remember the Obama acolyte, Chris Matthews? Well, Chris is torn between two gods, sort of. Or maybe JFK is just one of Chris's trinity, you know, Obama, Churchill, and Kennedy. Bill and Hillary, in Chris's theology, are sort of sidetracked off to the status of really important saints, instead of actual gods.
Kathy Shaidle explores the catacombs of Chris's brain HERE.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Not like Victoria's Secret. Au contraire. This shocking truth is exposed by the "Irish Savant" HERE.
|Cartoon from BALOO'S WEBSITE.|
Big question: Do you know enough about Syria to agree with the pundits that we (the United States) have to do something about it? Me, now, I know enough about it to know that the wise guys in the Government (and the wise guys who want to be in the Government) can't possibly know any clear way to improve the situation, or, even, if it ought to be improved.
I do know that knocking out a stable government in the Third World almost always results in a bigger mess, with more bloodshed and agony, than the status quo ante. And that when we help with the knocking out, we gain a few hundred thousand new enemies, quite often the same "freedom fighters" that we help put into power. Remember how we used to be pals with Saddam Hussein? And the Taliban?
Well, for those of us who just don't have time to keep up with these things. Taki summarizes the situation.
Sunday, February 12, 2012
And, for that matter, exactly what are the Marines and the rest of our military forces doing in the Middle East? At the very least, shielding Israel from its enemies, and it's fair to say that they're fighting Israel's battles in their place. Really, does our government give a damn about the fate of any other people in the Middle East? Hardly. It's all about Israel. You can tell that from how the Presidential candidates fall all over each other assuring Israel and the Israel-Firsters here of their "staunch support" for Israel.
So not only are our troops required to put their lives on the line for Israel, they're also supposed to be excruciatingly politically correct about it, and bend over backwards to not accidentally offend the professional offense-takers. You can read all about this HERE in the "Daily Mail." Especially note this quote:
‘Heads need to roll and this needs to be fully investigated,’ said Mikey Weinstein, of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation in Washington D.C. ‘This is a complete and total outrage.’
Now, I Googled Mikey and his foundation, and found THIS. A better name would be the Military Anti-Christian Foundation, eh? Note that he blames the Fort Hood shootings not on the psycho who did the shooting, but on Christian Fundamentalists. Muslim craziness is just fine with Mikey. He likes to accuse people of "Islamophobia" and "anti-Semitism."
His website says that he's fighting for our troops' rights. But, evidently, not their right to take such pictures or think forbidden thoughts. For that, they must be punished. And it's not just the regular enlisted guys. He enjoys crushing generals, too.
Thursday, February 9, 2012
Pat understands two principles which I like to call the principles of Libertarian Nationalism. The first is that the United States (or any country) is what it is because of the people who make it up. It's not geography or the Constitution. The geography is largely irrelevant, and the Constitution came from the people, it didn't create the people. And the people of the United States are, basically, derived from the people of North-West Europe, most particularly the British people. That's where we got our culture and our political thinking. Now, I don't mean that we got these things from Europe, I mean that we are a branch of Europe and these things are intrinsic in us. Pat understands this, but sometimes I wonder if Ron Paul does. All too often, I fear that he, like others, thinks that we're a propositional nation instead of a nation that invented a proposition.
The second principle Pat understands is that our foreign policy should be determined by our interests and nothing else. I went into this more fully awhile ago HERE. This thinking is totally out of fashion, of course, and we are fighting all around the world now, in theory, to make the world better for the people of Afghanistan, Kosovo, Israel, etc. etc. etc., and not for the people of America.
You don't find anything remotely resembling these principles in the words of Romney, Santorum, or Gingrich, and certainly not Obama. What Ron Paul says does resemble these principles, and that's why I support him.
And now there's a book out about the Life of Pat Buchanan — The Crusader: The Life and Tumultuous times of Pat Buchanan, by Timothy Stanley. It's reviewed by John Derbyshire HERE.
Wednesday, February 8, 2012
|CARTOON FROM BALOO'S WEBSITE|
But imagine my surprise at learning that explicit multiculturalism in politics goes all the way back to Wendell Wilkie. Woodrow Wilson, for all his flaws, did believe that by and large, ethnic groups should rule themselves, and not be crammed into countries where they don't fit. But within a couple of decades, that reasonable attitude had turned into the opposite. Wendell Wilkie, if you'll remember, was one of those Republicans who are basically Democrats — You know, the kind the Republican Party keeps nominating for President. Anyhow, Willkie enlisted help from good old Joe Stalin to promote multiculturalism in Germany, in order, of course, to destroy and neutralize it. And now, our politicians are doing it to us, having tested the technique in Europe.
Anyhow, I learned about this from the good old "Irish Savant" HERE.
And we all know how Colorado ended up, as well as Missouri and Minnesota. I have mixed feelings. Here's my evaluation so far:
Ron Paul is obviously the only one of the group who should be President, but I wish he'd talk slower and explain himself better. He keeps saying "liberty," and most Americans don't know what that means any more. You have to explain it.
Newt is a lying sack of unmentionable. If some guy on the street tells me that Romney said he "doesn't care about the poor," I dismiss it, because he probably just heard somebody else say it, and didn't hear the original exchange. But when Newt says it, he's a damn liar and he knows it. There are a zillion valid criticisms of Romney, but Newt thought lying would be more effective. To Hell with him. (In case you're that guy on the street, what Romney said is that he's concerned about the middle class, because the rich are just fine, and the poor have a safety net. But the middle class is getting ravaged. He said that and he was perfectly correct.)
Santorum worries me. He's one of those big-government conservatives who does indeed "talk the talk," but ends up walking with the liberals when it comes to the big spending and crusading around the world to tell everybody else what to do. When Newt says dump on Iran, he's probably lying, when Mitt says it, he clearly isn't emotional about it and is saying it because it's what you're supposed to say right now, and Ron Paul doesn't want war with Iran at all.
Now to Romney. He's a likable guy, and has clearly led his life in a responsible, moral way. (You can say the same for Santorum and Paul.) He's actually a damn good role model (as is Ron Paul), and you can be safe to tell your son to be like Romney. Interestingly, that may be his downside, electorally. People are more comfortable with wharf rats like Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich these days. I got this insight from the Master of Insights, Steve Sailer. Read what he has to say on Romney, and his review of the new book, "The Real Romney," HERE.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Okay? The whole column is dead on, as Pat's stuff almost always is — We have no evidence that the Iranians are trying to build a nuclear weapon, and if they are trying, it'll take them a good long time. Also, from their actual behavior, it's pretty clear that the Iranians don't want a war with us or anybody else, despite assurances from Dr. Strangehammer that they're just itchin' for a fight. Moreover, yes, the current Israeli government would dearly love for us to kick hell out of Iran for them, because they find Iran annoying. And also, of course, their US puppets desire the same. Plus the Americans who aren't exactly puppets, but who believe that, in the usual phrase, that Iran is an "existential threat to Israel." When you get right down to it, who isn't an existential threat to Israel? The actual fact is that Israel is the strongest Middle-East nation, and even more so in terms of nuclear weapons — they have hundreds of them.
So what's wrong with Pat's column? Only this — He seems to take Obama's word for it that he, Obama, doesn't want war with Iran. Well, in a sense that's true — What Obama wants is to swagger around and bask in admiration from Stupid White People. He doesn't give a damn about Iran one way or the other, or anything else except his own precious skinny ass. But if the people who make his decisions for him on boring old political matters tell him to get busy on a war with Iran, his feet will do their duty.
So just change one thing in the column. Let's say that Obama and the Democrats are perceived as being peaceful and reluctant to attack Iran. That's true, and keeping that perception up is pretty easy, what with Mitt and Newt and Rick running around all over the country vowing to defend Israel to the very last American farm boy. And since a whole lot of Americans are catching on that our adventuring around in the Middle East is useless at best and counterproductive at worst, that could just get them to vote for Obama yet again.
Remember, though, how so many of use voted for Dubya because he said "no more nation-building." We couldn't trust him, so why the hell would anybody trust Obama?
Nowhere is this more true than in Minnesota, where heaps of Scandinavians came to live during the last two centuries. One of the most liberal places in the country, where the local "right-wingers" are mostly evangelical-type Christians who like to run off to Haiti or someplace to adopt babies.
So if you want to run a tolerance scam, you can't do better than Minnesota. HERE'S what's going on in Duluth.