What Would Malcolm Have Done?

I wonder what Al Sharpton would have done if Trayvon had knocked him down with a punch to the nose, then sat on him and threatened to kill him.  What would Jesse Jackson have done in that situation?  Obama?  Assuming none of them are self-destructive idiots, I'll bet they'd have killed him too, if that was the only way out of the situation, after yelling for help for awhile with no results.  When it comes to White liberals, a lot of them would indeed have just lain there and let him beat them, maybe to death, because they are self-destructive idiots.

I know what Malcolm X would have done.  Actually, Trayvon probably wouldn't have laid a knuckle on Malcolm.  Malcolm would have slapped him silly and thrown his hoodie in the trash.  Malcolm is like Jesus, you see.  You see his pictures everywhere, and everybody basically worships him, but nobody ever really thinks about what he said or did.  It was a long time ago, so Malcolm did complain about unfair treatment of Blacks on the part of the authorities and other people, but as far as I can remember, he never once recommended that Blacks respond by behaving like hooligans. On the contrary, he was a separatist because he wanted Blacks to be under the authority of other Blacks like himself and actually work to improve themselves, no matter who was responsible for their condition in the first place. He set himself apart from the mainstream Black movement precisely because he wan't into whining about past injustices and asking for freebies.  And he was right.  Fifty years of whining and begging has produced far too many Black hooligans and con men, fatherless kids and welfare dependency.

And Malcolm might have gone to visit Trayvon's father and slapped him silly for bringing up a hooligan kid.  He was into self-reliance and responsible behavior.  Seems like Spike Lee might have picked some of that up while making the movie, but evidently not.  Whining and begging is the order of the day.

Trayvon - All About Race

Of course it's all about race.  The reason l'affaire Trayvon is dominating the news is that a Black punk was killed by a non-Black.  That's rare.  It's definitely Man Bites Dog.  And it's just what the MAG (media, academia, government) likes to caterwaul about, because it furthers the narrative that Blacks are in constant danger from White racists.  In fact, of course, Blacks are in constant danger from Black thugs like Trayvon, who are murdering merrily away in the ghetto all the time, with teams of White liberal lawyers, politicians, and journalists toiling away to protect them from punishment.  Everybody, Black, White, Hispanic or Asian, is in danger from the Trayvons of this world.  Indirectly, of course, they're all in danger from White liberals, who do their best to protect the absolute worst elements of the Black race, keep them out on the streets, and twist reality to make them into "victims," instead of the predators they are.  Pat Buchanan chimes in on this HERE.

But as delighted as the MAG was that they had the story to run with, it's not a perfect story, because it needs a lot of tweaking.  The fact that Trayvon almost certainly was the aggressor in every sense, and very well might have beaten Zimmerman to death if Zimmerman hadn't shot him — that's easily brushed aside.  All they have to do is keep showing you the photo of the 12- or 13-year-old Trayvon, before his thug phase, and calling this a "murder" over and over again according to the "Big Lie" technique.  That is, tell the same enormously unbelievable lie over and over again till everybody gets tired of arguing about it.  We were warned about that technique many years ago.

The second tweaking is even more outrageous and certainly has worked so far in the mainstream media.  Just say over and over again that Zimmerman is White.  When you have everybody convinced of that absurdity, you can continue with the "White racists murdering innocent Blacks" narrative.  Well, Zimmerman seems to be partly White, just like Obama, but unless you choose to define everybody who isn't Black as White, there's no way Zimmerman can be classified as "White."  He's what is known as a "Mestizo."  That is, a person of part White, part Amerindian, ancestry.  And any picture you might find on the net of Zimmerman bears this out.  And Mestizos are a large part of the "Hispanic" classification as we use it in the United States.  So what we have, really, is a Black killed by a Hispanic. Luckily for the MAG, Zimmerman's name is not Hispanic, so they can continue to blur the distinction and make everybody visualize him as just another Redneck.  Or cracker, as the fellow, maybe another one of Obama's hypothetical sons, in the shirt above asserts.  This has the added advantage of keeping American Hispanics from objecting to one of their own being railroaded, by keeping them as confused as everybody else as to Zimmerman's ethnicity.  La Raza has cooperated in this, excommunicating Zimmerman, so to speak, so they can join with the Trayvon worshippers.

This strategy on the part of the MAG is deconstructed in detail HERE. (You may need to scroll down to "Why the Left-Wing Media Are...")
And Kevin MacDonald has a more scholarly analysis of the same thing HERE.
Finally, Steve Sailer has an interesting look at the newsworthiness of Trayvon and some other incidents HERE.

Another Obama Son?

If Obama had a son, he certainly wouldn't look like these guys:

But he might very well look like this:

Story HERE.  Found at DRUDGE.
And Colin Liddell gives us details of the murder and its setting HERE.

And even more details from Nicholas Stix HERE.

Politics and the Comics

Superheroes and superhero comics have been around for a long time.  I was obsessed with them as a kid, my favorites being Ghost Rider and Plastic Man, before they got very political.  That was in the Eisenhower era, when they didn't have to be political, and the superheroes were mostly boy scouts of one sort or another, and all they had to do was be helpful, heroic, and patriotic.  In those pre-LBJ days, even liberals were more or less patriotic, so it was easy to please all kinds of audiences.

Things have changed, of course, since Vietnam and Watergate and all that.  Now, superheroes, like the rest of us, have to figure out just what patriotism is, and it's a bit harder to distinguish right from wrong. For the most part, the comics have come down on the side of liberalism, civil rights, and most of the politically correct stuff, although given the very nature of superheroes, they have the unmistakable taint of individualism, heroism, and vigilantism that are far more conservative in nature than liberal.  When I was a kid, there was actually a superhero called "Vigilante."  Though I was hoping to do a post free of any Trayvon reference, I have to say here that the superhero ethic is quite a bit like George Zimmerman's.

Recently, Marvel Comics dealt with the dilemma of defining patriotism in Civil War.  I'll let Christopher Pankhurst explain it to you HERE.

¡Lo Siento, Jorge!

I blogged yesterday about the strange silence on the part of La Raza while one of their own, George Zimmerman, is being tried and convicted in the press.  Well, they've made up their Marxist little minds, and decided that throwing Zimmerman under the bus and joining the Trayvon flash mob is the best way to stick it to Whitey.  They're even confused about Zimmerman's ethnicity — maybe he is a redneck after all.  An article on this at the Daily Caller HERE.

Trayvon Protestors Loot a Drugstore

Crying out for justice for the brutal slaying of choirboy/model student Trayvon Martin, a group expresses their righteous anguish by looting a Walgreens.  If Obama had a whole bunch of kids, they'd look like this.

From HERE.

Dailykenn back on line!

If you're a regular reader of the Dailykenn, you've noticed that it hasn't been updated for a few days.  Well, Kenn just had emergency surgery, but he's on the mend and updating again.  And if you're not a regular reader of it, you should be.  Newly updated, it's right HERE.

The Liberal Weltanschauung

Liberals have an odd fantasy view of reality — I suppose I should distinguish between many liberal politicians and regular run of the mill liberal voters.  Many liberal politicians are just like other politicians.  Their ideology is completely in service of their own careers, and they don't believe a word of it themselves.  But this is about the True Believers, who actually accept liberalism as truth.  How do they see the world?  To paraphrase P. J. O'Rourke, they see the world as toddlers do — a big, wonderful, mysterious but delightful place, full of things to put in their mouths or stuff up their noses.  Liberalism is the ideology of toddlers — naive, idealized, and completely protected from reality.  To liberals, the world is all rainbows and unicorns and bunnies (that's why the illustration), a paradise for everybody if only it weren't for the Serpent of Reality.  They don't see the Serpent as Reality, though.  They see the Serpent as White, Male, European and Christian.  You know, the people who built modern civilization.  By and large, anything outside that group is Good.  American Indians lived in harmony with Nature, la dee dah.  Africa was Edenic and peaceful till grubby, whiskery White guys showed up from Europe and invented slavery.  Homosexuals are sensitive and peaceful and those guys in the SA were probably impostors.  Christianity, of course, is pure evil, but any and all other religions are "authentic." I. Q. tests are biased and cannibals in New Guinea are just as smart as everybody else.  Capitalism is evil and exploitative, while communism is noble and idealistic.  Marriage is slavery for women and based on evil male patriarchy.  Gay marriage is a beautiful thing and a human right.  Russians were good guys when they were communists, but not any more.  Now they're  just more nasty old White guys.

So when you're trying to discuss current events with one of those liberal infants, you have to remember that they have their own reality.  When those of us in the real world hear about a forcible rape, we immediately are outraged and want to help the victim and punish the aggressor.  But liberals need more information.  They need to know the race of the victim and the perp before they know whose fault it was, and who ought to be punished.  If the perp is a protected minority, they can almost always find a justification for the rape, be it economic, social, or whatever, and often end up blaming the victim.  Remember the Texas gang rape?  It was originally reported as the rape of a Hispanic girl by rednecks, and of course it was an outrage.  When it turned out that the rapists were Black, liberals had a change of heart and began questioning the girl's character.  Check that out HERE.

Well, I was really hoping to do at least one post today that isn't about Trayvon, but it didn't work out.  Because the Liberal Weltanschauung is central to the event.  Any reasonable person, at this point in time, is well aware that Trayvon was at least a wannabee thug, and probably had pretty much attained his dream, and that the evidence is overwhelming that he attacked Zimmerman (See "¿Dónde está La Raza?").  That's us reasonable people.  Liberals still have this vision of a cherubic little black lad merrily skipping past a gated community of evil White racists, with their monocles and armbands, when he was set upon by just such a racist, in this case a "White Hispanic," whatever that is, and brutally murdered for no reason at all.  They will stick to this fantasy no matter what the facts are, because facts are dull and boring, and they complicate the liberal playpen.  So never mind the facts.  The liberals want Zimmerman to be punished and humiliated and they'll hold their breath and kick their little feet until it happens.  OneSTDV is just as sick of all this as I am, but his sense of duty has led him to analyze l'affaire Trayvon and the liberal mentality HERE.

Trayvon as Stalingrad?

Cartoon by BALOO

Over at Alternative Right, a site I check every day, the blogger known as "Whiskey" has a deliciously long post on the Trayvon Thing and how it fits into the Obama narrative.  Read it HERE.  I'll wait....

Okay, good.  My first reaction is that I endorse this as a whole.  He's dead right about the Sixtiesness of the whole thing, with Black "Leaders" caterwauling about Black kids getting cut down by White racists all over the country, when in fact the situation is Black punks cutting Whites, and each other, down all over the place. Insofar as White racists gave Blacks a hard time, it was long ago, and very exaggerated anyway.

And his point about the intense lack of interest the Media show in Black-on-White crime is also a bull's-eye.  Trayvon's shooting is international news, but Black atrocities committed agains Whites are reported in the local newspapers at most,  and, were it not for the Internet, we'd never hear anything about them. He's also right about the Daily Mail, a UK paper that actually reports on Black crime, in Britain and the US.

And his analysis of the way Whites have been set against one another, neutralizing them, is accurate.  I remember the Sixties very well, and the techniques used then are SOP now.  Protect the White liberals by letting them live as far away from "diversity" as possible, so they can look down with scorn and contempt at Whites who have to survive the mess every day.

But I'm not sure that his conclusion, that these tactics aren't going to work this time, is valid.  Though I certainly hope it is.  Well, if you haven't yet, do go there and read it.

¿Dónde Está La Raza?

A good question, eh?  Now, if you're some kind of Hispanic who is in the country illegally, or if you want some kind of government handouts, or if you want to have a "Chicano Studies" department at your local school so you can avoid hard stuff like math and science, La Raza is there for you.  Like many other left-wing ethnicity-based organizations, La Raza couldn't care less about the fate of the actual ethnic group.  On the contrary, they're into justifying and even glorifying bad behavior on the part of the worst elements of the group, to the detriment of the group as a whole, never mind other groups.  This occurred to me this morning, so I googled "La Raza" "Zimmerman," and found  mostly other people wondering why La Raza didn't seem to give a damn about Zimmerman's plight. You try it. You see, Zimmerman is Hispanic, what with having a Peruvian mother and all, and the media are trying and convicting him before our very eyes.

You know me.  I'm very pro-White, and I don't want massive non-White immigration into this country, but that's not because of some animus I have towards non-Whites.  It's a simple desire to keep this country what it's always been, and not change it irrevocably by changing its ethnic/racial composition.  But I very much applaud responsible behavior by any person, regardless of ethnicity.  And Zimmerman, you see, had a history of trying to make his neighborhood into a better, safer place for everybody in it.  How boring.  And, of course, what used to be responsible behavior is now suspected of being based on racism.  And Zimmerman is getting hit with exactly that.  And La Raza doesn't care.  Just go look at their WEBSITE.  Nothing about Zimmerman there.  Their concerns seem to be low graduation rates for Hispanic kids, which is fine, but they don't seem to have any answers.  Another is that the movie Hunger Games suggests that we need more welfare handouts.  And finally, they're worried that the Supreme Court might realize that Obamacare is unconstitutional.  Nope.  Nothing about Zimmerman there.

So La Raza is out of town on this one.  Any help or support Zimmerman gets, he'll get from cranky old right-wing fanatics like me.

Media Bias? Could be.

I blogged about the pictures used by the media in the Trayvon kerfluffle a few days ago, but now this is circulating around the net.  You can click on it to see it full-size. I found this on Jerry Pournelle's Blog, which you should go to and read about Trayvon and other matter now right HERE.

By the way, there's a "Million Hoodie March" site on facebook.  Some people might be inclined to go to their SITE and counter some of the loonie things they're saying.  Just a thought.

Ding, Dong — Trayvon Calling!

Saint Trayvon of Sanford, pictured here, turns out to be pretty much what Zimmerman thought he was in the first place.  I'm too exhausted by all this to keep my sarcasm going.  I have never heard so much White liberal dysfunctional nonsense in my life.  It's made it all the way to Ireland with super-flaky reactions from super-flake Sinead O'Connor. As I said before, if you want the actual facts about all this, you can't do better than Nicholas Stix.  He has several posts, one after another, on the Trayvon drama, so do go take a look at  his blog HERE.

Cool Commie Killers

There was a long struggle between communism and Western civilization, and some people naively believe that it ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of communism.  Hardly.  Communism won.  Oh, they lost the battle in Russia.  Most Russians, knowing from inside what communism amounts to, want no part of it.  What happened was that as the dysfunctional communist regimes in Eastern Europe fell apart on their own weight, metaphorical helicopters appeared to airlift communist into the West, where it already had a powerful foothold, and it's doing very well, thank you, while Western civilization continues to deteriorate.

They mostly had to abandon the name, of course, and your basic Stalinist communism in the West goes by "liberalism," or "progressivism," or even "anti-labelism."  And they know better than to be as up-front about it as old Joe was.  Now, when they enslave people they do it in the name of human rights.  When they attack the churches, that's also for human rights, and very frequently in the name of "tolerance."  In all this the Stalinists are assisted by their sister Trotskyites, who now call themselves "neoconservatives" as they call for worldwide permanent revolution.  Right now they're playing the game where they're adversaries, like pro wrestlers, and we'll get to choose between the progressive liberalism of the Democrats and the liberal progressivism of the Republicans.

One way you can tell that communism won is that discussion of the mass murders carried out by communist governments is considered crass and "inappropriate," while the crimes of the fascists — the only serious opposition the communists ever had — are constantly featured all over the media.  For every time you hear about communist atrocities, you hear a hundred times about the holocaust.  Indeed, efforts are constantly made to maximize fascist crimes, and to criminalize doubting the statistics, while the murders of Stalin and Mao are minimized, and even justified as necessary evils.

But we have Paul Gottfried, who prefers truth to propaganda, and today he tells us a bit about how communist crimes are being whitewashed before our very eyes.  His essay is HERE.

If Obama had an uncle....

And if Obama had an uncle, he'd look like this:

Story HERE.

Maybe it's just as well Obama doesn't have a son.  I'm just sayin'....

Obama's Imaginary Sons and Their Hoodies

Drudge reports that you can now show your solidarity with Obama and his son he never had, Trayvon, by wearing an official Obama 2012 hoodie!  You can buy them on line to avoid the usual vibrant customer rioting at the mall.  Maybe Obamacare will pay for them for you, if you fill out the right paperwork.

Speaking of that, it's worthwhile to contemplate Obama's remark that if he had a son, he'd look like Trayvon.  Would he also act like Trayvon?  Apparently, we know now, Trayvon had been suspended from school for vandalism, possession of a marijuana baggie, and some unexplained women's jewelry that might lead some people to suspect the lad of burglary, what with his walking around gated communities at night and punching people out like that.

While it's clear that this hypothetical son of Obama would indeed probably look like Trayvon, exactly how did saying so contribute to the situation?  Did it defuse the racial time-bomb any?  Did it serve to calm down the Sharptons and Jacksons of the world?  Was it a helpful thing to say?  Imagine, for a minute, Mitt Romney saying "If I had a daughter, she'd look like Nicole Brown Simpson."  Would everybody nod in sympathy?  What would Chris Matthews say?

Well, my reaction is that Obama was deliberately urging on the potential rioting, leading the chucklehead potential rioters to be even more indignant about the shooting (and it's looking more and more like a righteous shooting) of this young thug because he could have been the Obama's son!  In my opinion, Obama has demonstrated yet again that while not a thug himself, he's definitely a booster of thuggery.  If he was any kind of a President, he'd be denouncing thugs, and if he had any kind of an Attorney General, he'd right now be looking into the New Black Panther Party's offer of a bounty for the "capture" of George Zimmerman, don't you think?

But I'm extreme about this, as usual.  Pat Buchanan reacts with his usual cool-headedness to the latest fine mess Obama has gotten us into HERE.

And before I forget, you can buy your anti-Obama hoodies and other products HERE.

If Obama had TWO sons...

And if Obama had two sons, one of them would have looked like this guy.  Story HERE.  And, oh, if you think this comment is irrelevant, what do you think of Obama's comment?

Einstein a Phony?

Einstein may be the first really famous scientist, qua scientist, in history.  Edison was an inventor, and engineer, not a theoretical guy, and Da Vinci fame, I think, mainly derives from things other than his scientific work.  But Einstein is the science guy.  A smart guy is called an "Einstein," not an "Edison."  He's become the scientist archetype.  But over the years, I've heard a little skepticism about him.  Not that he was stupid, or anything, but that his accomplishments were exaggerated and not always as original as we've been led to believe.  The public reputation built for him certainly contributes to that.  He was cute, with his hair and his sweater, and he had all the politically correct positions that endear any public figure to the elite formers of opinion.  His political stances were much more acceptable than, say, Heisenberg's were.

My knowledge of physics and mathematics is limited to what I've absorbed from reading Asimov's collections, so I'm in no position to judge Einstein's work, but others are.  Now there's a debunking book out about the Einstein myths.  It's called How Einstein Ruined Physics, but Roger Schlafly.  Mark Green reviews it HERE.

Faster and Furiouser

Not really lookalikes, so this isn't a "separated at birth" situation, but I think Holder has captured a certain smug vapidity that is Atkinsonian in its intensity here.   Anyhow, A. X. Perez has been keeping track of the adventures of the Attorney General who can't shoot straight, and I reprint his article from the Libertarian Enterprise below:

Review of the Bidding 
by A.X. Perez 
perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction sale of stolen goods.
—H.L. Mencken

Just a quick review of the bidding:
Under President Obama's watch:
Eric Holder's Justice Department Helped the Sinaloa Cartel launder several billion (that's ten to the ninth in case you use different numbering system than most Yanks do.) dollars. Also they preferentially allowed weapons to be smuggled to this crew under Operation Fast and Furious. Please note that the Mexican drug cartels are beginning to indicate who they would prefer to see winning the July national elections in Mexico.
Under Eric Holder, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives ran Operation Fast and Furious, disregarding the negative results of Operation Gunrunner carried out by the Bush Administration. Please note that in Gunrunner Mexican law enforcement was kept in the loop and an effort was made to keep track of the weapons involved. Gunrunner was stopped when it was demonstrated that the weapons could not be properly tracked. On the other hand the plan in Fast and Furious was to see at what crime scenes the weapons involved turned up (in plain English, where they were dropped after a murder).
Under the most innocent circumstances Holder failed to supervise his subordinates and permitted them to carry out an operation that approaches being the Platonic archetype for dumbfuckery without his bosses knowledge. At the very worst, acting on President Obama's orders the Attorney General ordered the ATFE to permit weapons into the hands of mass murderers destabilizing the government of a friendly nation so as to gin up evidence to trash the American people's right to keep and bear arms.
The Second Amendment is only part of the Bill of Rights (albeit an amazingly important one). With recent restrictions on the right to assemble to petition the redress of grievances and trying to get religious institutions to fund activities they find sinful (sort of like Seleucids trying to turn the Temple in Jerusalem into a temple to Zeus) the Administration has essentially thrown out the First Amendment. Please note that on the first abomination against the Constitution a large number of Republicans were involved.
Republicans were also involved in the passage of NDAA 2012 which includes language authorizing the President to order the detention of anybody anywhere without charges for as long as they please thus throwing out the Fourth through Eighth Amendments plus the right of habeas corpus in the main body of the Constitution.
The Attorney General has also claimed the right of the President to order the execution of anyone anywhere without trial or any respect of rights. While I won't dispute the catch-as-catch-can nature of killing enemy soldiers and leaders in wartime, Mr. Holder is not arguing this point. He is arguing in favor of throwing out the rights of the accused of anyone the President just doesn't particularly like.
Finally, the Secretary of Defense has claimed that the President does not need a declaration of war or any other authorization by Congress to commit American forces to combat. Rather he claims he only needs license from the UN or NATO to send our nation to war. We are not talking about carrying out obligations under treaty (for example, helping South Korea fight off a North Korean invasion if the truce there fails), but the invasion of other nations who are not committing acts of invasion against the US or any of its allies. Please note that this could be interpreted as a surrender of American sovereignty to supernational bodies and the reduction of the US to a vassal state of a world state.
There are many issues that we can and do disagree with the current administration (and its predecessor and likely successor) and to be honest most of these come under the aegis of honest men reasonably disagreeing. However, The above "review of the bidding" outlines a steady discarding of the rights and liberties guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. Please note that the Republicans have been just as eager as the Democrats in this destruction of the American people's freedom.
Just thought it was time to view all these on the same page.

Was that worth reading?
Then why not:

 

Messing with Russia

Well, it seems our neoconservative/liberal elite are peeved at Russia.  They don't have enough human rights, they refuse to cooperate in lockstep with our nutty foreign policy, and they don't cooperate when we send people over there to interfere in their internal affairs.  What do you do with a rogue nation like that?  On the surface, you'd think that since Russia abandoned communism, and is even more threatened than we are by convulsions in the Islamic world, they'd be a natural ally.  You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.  Communism was never the problem.  The mass-murdering Stalin was our good buddy and ally in WW II, and we continued to bail the Soviet Union out with all kinds of economic tricks until it basically fell apart under its own weight.  As Tim Curry would say, communism was just a red herring.

Unfortunately, when it all fell apart, Yeltsin found himself in charge of Russia.  He wasn't all bad, of course, and the place at least avoided civil war and other upheavals in its reorganization from the misery of communism.  However, he did let the oligarchs loot the place, in a sick parody of capitalism, and many of them took their loot abroad to Western Europe and Israel.  When Putin took over, he stopped, or at least slowed down, the looting, and he has a bad rep over here because our own oligarchs resent that, because they have a harder time shaking the place down now.  Putin has a straightforward habit of jailing looters, while we appoint ours to the Treasury Department. Putin would have Corzine breaking glaciers with a sledge hammer in Irkutsk by now.

But we persist with our governmental non-governmental organizations, sent everywhere from Egypt to Russia to destabilize countries enough for Goldman-Sachs to get its snout in the trough.  And guess what?  With your tax dollars, you're financing them!  Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.  This is all the the service of "democracy," in most places just another word for turning the place over to the looters.  Democracy, you see, is just a governmental device that sometimes makes for good government, because it ensures, in theory, that the government has to at least pay attention to what the people want.  It works reasonably well in educated nations, especially in the West, and most especially in small, homogenous countries, where most people are agreed about what they want.  In some places, it's just a joke, and, as I said, a method for destabilizing everything so the looters and/or crazies can take the place over and promptly forget about democracy.  Mark Hackard expands on this phenomenon HERE.

Hunger Games and Battle Royale バトル・ロワイアル

I haven't seen or read Hunger Games, but I've read about it, and what I've read reminded me of a Japanese movie I'd heard about (It also reminds me of a lot of other stuff, like Robert Sheckley's gladiator stories, but never mind.), so I googled around, and lo and behold, somebody at ABC News, Akiko Fujita (appropriately enough), was reminded of the same thing.  The Japanese project is called Battle Royale, and it also started out as a novel. You can read her comparison of the two HERE. Which saves me the trouble of watching either one and blogging about them.  I may get around to it.  But until I do, you can read reviews of the American version HERE and HERE.

Million Hoodie March

This is a picture of Trayvon Martin when he was 13 years old, evidently, looking like one of Theo's pals on the Cosby Show.  The thought of anybody even speaking roughly to, let alone shooting, such a pleasant, inoffensive little lad is appalling.

















And here we have a more recent picture:

Guess which one the media keeps showing, over and over?  One way to tell is to Google "Trayvon," and then click on "Images."  You'll see a zillion of the first, and a handful of the second.  Now, we'd be having our "Million Hoodie March" in any case (what PR genius came up with that name?), because of the rule that White liberals and all Black organizations and "leaders," like Sharpton,  automatically take the side of the Black "victim" in any controversy.  We saw it with O. J., and the Duke case, and in every other event of that sort that has taken place for decades. But the choice of the first picture on the part of the media certainly shows us which side they're on, and what kind of reaction they want to provoke.

Now, I'm neither a White liberal nor a Black "leader," but a boring old rational White guy, so naturally I have a knee-jerk tendency to want to know the facts before I make a judgment.  Not that I'm likely to get any useful ones from the media without vigorous digging.  Everybody in the world knows by now that Zimmerman shot Trayvon, but only a tiny percentage has heard that Trayvon had Zimmerman on the ground, punching him, before the shooting.  Now, neither fact has been proven, but wouldn't it be nice if the media gave us both facts instead of just one of them?  There's another fact, of course — the fact that the cops saw no reason to charge Zimmerman with anything, so it certainly looked like self-defense to them.  (The local city government has already caved in on all this, BTW, and dumped on their own cops.  Read about that HERE.) The left dismisses that as "racism" on the part of the cops, of course, as they dismiss any facts at all that might interfere with their narrative.

One STDV has assembled some other facts that don't interest the media HERE.

My previous post on Trayvon HERE.

And to keep up with further developments in this story, check out Nicholas Stix's Blog every day.

NEW!  A "Million Hoodies" site on Facebook.  They're saying flaky things.  Some people might want to go THERE and chat with them.

Oh, No! — Another Post on Kony 2012!

I was going to let this lie, but it's a gift that keeps on giving.  Like other commentators, I've been focusing on how pointless it is for anybody here to try to do anything to improve conditions in Uganda, and on what a narcissistic phony flake Jason Russell is.  All that is perfectly true, but not being soaked in popular culture, I've missed out on the significance of the reaction to Russell's film, why it works so well, and how it works.  I had no idea how well-organized and pervasive the whole "Invisible Children" movement/cult is, what with its bracelets and websites and tote bags and the whole self-congratulatory White liberal ball of whacks. (Deliberate misspelling)

I've tried to be both snarky and deep in writing about this phenomenon, but Greg Johnson is snarkier and deeper, and I take my hat off to him.  Read his piece on the subject, and be surprised at his shocking comparison of Jason Russell to another famous propagandist HERE.

Bales Vs. Hassan

Sargent Bales is alleged to have killed a lot of Afghans.  Note that "alleged."  On the other hand, he is indisputably guilty of the most damning thing of all — He's clearly a White guy. Just look at him.  He'd look perfectly natural in an SS uniform. (Thought I'd beat the liberals to saying something like that.) Remember My Lai?  If memory serves (feel free to look this up and correct me), there were several accused, but the ones considered the real perps were a Black enlisted man whose name I can't remember offhand, White Lieutenant Calley, and Hispanic Captain Medina.  Guess who got convicted?

Anyhow, I haven't heard anything about any extenuating circumstances for Sargent Bales, other than hints about a "head injury."  All the ink is devoted to finding nasty things in his past to show that he's another typical violent redneck.  They're looking into his parking tickets. Everybody seems to be in a sweat to execute him ASAP.  Al Sharpton is nowhere to be seen.

Then we have Major Hassan, who killed (okay, "allegedly") a bunch of Americans, and most of the energy of the press seems to be devoted to bewilderment about what his motivation might have been, and to thinking up how someone who never saw combat could be said to be suffering from PTSD.  What does "Allahu Akbar" mean, anyway?  Is it a cry for help?

The biggest piece of exculpatory evidence for the Major, of course, is that he's not a White guy.  Oh, he's a Caucasian, but as the lefties are so fond of saying, some aspects of "race" are indeed social constructs.  Those Caucasians from Russia to Iceland who self-identify as European and Christian by heritage and culture are considered by themselves and others to be "White."  Other Caucasians are not White.  And Major Hassan certainly self-identifies as non-White.  So they're putting off punishment for as long as they can, lest they upset Muslims or White liberals, forever, if possible.

Elvisnixon puts it more succinctly than I can.  Read what he has to say HERE.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Candidate

Whatever happens, at the end of all this, a lot more people are going to know who Ron Paul is and are going to be aware that there's a different way of thinking out there outside the false dichotomy of liberalism and neoconservatism.

He's an unlikely charismatic leader, kind of a Jimmy Stewart mixed with a Thomas Paine, but I can think of only one other public figure, Pat Buchanan, who has done as much to restore and even enhance the original idea of America.

And, for all his conservatism and traditionalism, it's clear that Ron Paul is open to new ideas and cultural forms from abroad.  I imagine you've seen this before, but just in case....

The Heart of Dorkness

I don't have a great deal to add to what I've already blogged about the nutcase Jason Russell, but I just had to use this title.  A pun is a terrible thing to waste, especially one as appropriate as this one.  But I've been dismissing Russell as just another dopey White liberal, while John Haw, who also has Conrad in mind, thereby ultimately being responsible for my pun, digs deeper into Russell's psyche, with thought-provoking ideas about the infantile view liberals have of the world.  His essay is HERE.

Whitey Didn't Do It After All, Alas!

Most of you aren't old enough to remember the initial reaction to the JFK assassination, but I am.  For the first few hours, the media theory was that "hate killed Kennedy," and that the shooter just had to be some kind of right-wing White guy — a Nazi or Klansman or some such.  Of course, the shooter turned out to be a communist, darn it, so the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) had to wait for James Earl Ray to come along to prove how violent the right wing was.

That's always the initial reaction from the MAG elite.  Blame Whitey — most especially conservative, or right-wing Whitey.  More recently, the press was delighted when Gabrielle Giffords was shot, because they were certain that the shooter would prove to be some kind of evil redneck.  After all, his first name was "Jared," and Jared Taylor is a right-wing White guy, ergo ipso facto.

And now we have two fresh cases of the blame Whitey syndrome.  The first is the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida.  The press has informed us that Trayvon is a saintly figure who was gunned down by some "White guy," no doubt a peckerwood mouth-breathing toothless redneck.  This Zimmerman fellow, it turns out, doesn't fit the "White guy" image all that well.  You can see him in the picture above.  How he came by the name "Zimmerman" is no doubt a fascinating story, too. For that matter, I'm not all that convinced that Trayvon is the innocent type there in his hoodie.  You can get the full, actual story from Nicholas Stix HERE.  Anyhow, the inimitable Al Sharpton has injected himself into it all, so justice is certain to be served, right?

The second incident is in Toulouse, France, where another peckerwood mouth-breathing toothless redneck seems to have shot up a Jewish school, and, a few days before, some French soldiers.  Can't you just picture that guy?  Since it's in Europe, he probably looks like Colonel Klink or that Anders Behring Breivik guy.  And it's a good opportunity to outlaw conservatism in France again.

But, alas, it turns out that this French right-wing White guy is named Mohamed Merah, and the French soldiers he shot up aren't all that French, for that matter — One was named Imad ibn-Ziaten.  So he's not exactly Anders Breivik, or even Otto Skorzeny.  But fear not, O Liberals.  Whitey is still to blame, because all this was touched off, according the the anointed elite thinkers, by all the evil right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric in France, spewed by, you guessed it, evil White guys!  Steve Sailer keeps us up to date on that meme HERE.  And another take on the subject from VDare HERE.

Liberalism and Brain Slugs

If you've read this blog for very long, you're aware that liberalism, as we know it in 20th Century America, is a completely self-destructive philosophy.  I don't know who said it first, but Jerry Pournelle frequently says this:
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization as it commits suicide." 
And that's hard to argue with, isn't it?  He elaborates on that HERE.

Liberalism, and do remember that I'm not talking about classical liberalism, but the politically correct totalitarianism of the Democrats and most of the Republicans, has variously been described as a mental disease, the legacy of the Trotskyites, and just damn stupidity.  It's all these things, but it can also be looked at as parasitical. Remember the Star Trek Next Gen episode where the Federation was almost taken over by awful little things that crawled into everybody's mouth?  Remember Heinlein's Puppet Masters? Remember Invasion of the Body Snatchers?  It's a common sci-fi theme, mind controlling parasites, and Matt Parrott has just such a short story HERE.  It's funny and persuasive.

The Right to Bear Arms

From BALOO'S BLOG

Just received this in the e-mail.  Do go there and click.

TAKES 7 SECONDS ... PLEASE DO IT AND PASS IT ON

Guess they were not happy with the poll results the first time, so USA today is running another one ... Vote now

Attorney General, Eric Holder, has already said this is one of his major issues. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment gives individuals the right to bear arms. This takes literally 2 clicks to complete. Please vote on this gun issue question with USA Today. It will only take a few seconds of your time. Then pass the link on to all the pro-gun folks you know. Hopefully these results will be published later this month. This upcoming year will become critical for gun owners with the Supreme Court's accepting the District of Columbia case against the right for individuals to bear arms.

Here's what you need to do:

First - vote on this one.

Second - Send it to other folks and have THEM vote - then we will see if the results get published.

USATODAY.com

White Liberal Hypocrisy

Seriously, is there anything more hypocritical than your average White liberal?  I say average, because there are a few White liberals who are honest and not hypocritical, like Robert Lindsay, but they're thin on the ground and pretty much shunned by the White Liberal Hierarchy.  Most White liberals are breathtakingly hypocritical.  How so?  Well, the White liberal position on what everybody ought to do is one thing, but what White liberals actually do is usually the opposite, which is the very definition of hypocrisy. Some examples: White liberals are all for racial integration, and favor coerced integration by the government, but they seem to inevitably end up living in all-White areas, far from the minority groups they're so eager to have all other Whites integrate with.  Connected to this is their staunch support of public schools, while whenever possible, they send their own kids to private schools. They are also very big on gun control for all of us who can't afford to live in gated communities guarded by cops, but for themselves, of course, anything goes for defense of their precious lives.  I'm reminded of the story, maybe apocryphal, that Jane Byrne walked into a Chicago City Council meeting and argued that nobody needs a handgun for personal defense, while she herself was accompanied by armed bodyguards. And of course White liberals are very antiwar, but inevitably strongly support "humanitarian intervention" all over the world, especially when Democratic Presidents are in charge of it.

And now we get to taxes.  As I've said before, Obama isn't a White liberal, but he was brought up by White liberals and is handled by White liberals, so he is with the White liberal program 100%.  Obama doesn't like income inequality, despite his own wealth, which he shows little inclination to redistribute. So he's eager for everybody to pay their "fair share," which means you and me, of course, not his rich pals, or the millions who don't pay any income taxes at all.  In effect, of course, this means taking more money away from the middle class to give to the welfare-dependent tax eaters, both rich and poor.

But Pat Buchanan has a solution.  A way for Obama and the Democrats and all the White liberals to demonstrate that they sincerely want to ameliorate this awful income inequality, unless, of course, they are actually oligarchs in populist clothing.  Read about it HERE.

Where's Obama From Again?

Seriously, if you can't trust a mailman, who can you trust?  Full story HERE.

John Stuart Mill on Diversity

Guest post by John Stuart Mill


Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of representative government, cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another. The same books, newspapers, pamphlets, speeches, do not reach them. One section does not know what opinions, or what instigations, are circulating in another. The same incidents, the same acts, the same system of government, affect them in different ways; and each fears more injury to itself from the other nationalities than from the common arbiter, the state. Their mutual antipathies are generally much stronger than jealousy of the government. That any one of them feels aggrieved by the policy of the common ruler is sufficient to determine another to support that policy. Even if all are aggrieved, none feel that they can rely on the others for fidelity in a joint resistance; the strength of none is sufficient to resist alone, and each may reasonably think that it consults its own advantage most by bidding for the favour of the government against the rest.
(Representative Government, 1861, Chapter 16 ”Of Nationality, as connected with Representative Government”)


This is lifted, with thanks, from Sean Gabb over at The Libertarian Alliance Blog, which I read all the time, and you should, too.

Liberal Masturbation, Figurative and Literal

I've blogged before about the fascinating Kony 2012 phenomenon HERE, but the good times just keep rolling. It has been noted before that White liberal concern for the unwashed masses is much more about the White liberals' self-image and self-preening than it ever is about the actual masses.  "Self" is the operative word here, and the Greek is "auto," yielding "auto-eroticism," so we can conclude that White liberalism is nothing more or less than metaphorical masturbation, or, in the case of Jason Russell, of Kony 2012 fame, both literal and metaphorical masturbation.  As you can see HERE.  This latest manifestation of White liberal narcissistic, exhibitionistic "concern" for the poor unwashed Ugandans reminds Steve Sailer of the Grizzly Man, and it reminds my wife of the Balloon Boy.

If you'll remember, another case of phoniness and exhibitionism that asked for a massive dedication of everybody else's resources in the service of rescuing the Balloon Boy from an imaginary danger, concocted by the Balloon Boy's father, Richard Heene, who, like Jason Russell, also got himself arrested for a somewhat less graphic instance of public exhibitionism, and who was similat to Russell in that he had no problem with exploiting his own son to aggrandize his own reputation. Which scam is the biggest I leave to your decision.

It's hard to keep a straight face about all this, and Jim Goad has given up on it entirely.  Instead, he joins in the fun, and has celebrated the glory of Jason Russell, Kony 2012, and the whole magnificent ball of wax HERE.

The Morning After St. Patrick's Day

I didn't want to spoil your St. Patrick's Day, so I saved this post for the day after.  Did you know that we have a lot of illegal immigration from Ireland?  Unless you live in the Northeast, you probably haven't heard much about it.  Of course, the numbers are dwarfed by the millions of illegals from Mexico and other places in Latin America, and even by the illegals from Asia.  I found a smarmy article about it all in the LA Times, which sarcastically implies that we tolerate illegal Irish and fuss about illegal Latinos and Asians because of racism.  In the first place, as I said, the numbers differ.  There seem to be about fifty thousand illegal Irish, as opposed to ten million (at least) illegals from elsewhere.  In the second place, giving their very broad definition of 'racism,' they're sort of right.  Thing, is, Irish, legal or otherwise, fit right in to basic American culture without a ripple.  The same would apply to any British immigrants, and, assuming a knowledge of English, to any West European immigrants.  As I've said many times before, immigrants don't pass through some kind of filter — they bring their whole culture with them, and many aren't interested in assimilation at all.  The Irish are 90% assimilated already, and seem to be quite willing to go the other 10%.

All of which brings me to this:  It cuts both ways.  We're getting immigration from Ireland, legal and illegal, for all the usual reasons, but there are other reasons.  Ireland itself is receiving immigrants.  Ireland has the same kind of idiot politicians we do, who don't understand or don't care about assimilation. Guess what kind of immigrants Ireland is getting, who are incentivizing the native Irish to get the hell out and come here?  The Irish Savant tells us all about it HERE.

Have a Safe and Sane St. Patrick's Day!

My contribution to St. Patricks' Day:  Hatsune Miku sings

Oíche Shamhna

But if you really want some Irish Music videos, today is the day to visit the Nicholas Stix Blog.  Great stuff there, especially the Colm Meaney clip from Star Trek.  I kid you not.

First Lady Stalked by KKK

Obama Vs. Hayes

It would be an easy choice. I'd vote for Rutherford B. Hayes over Obama any day.  Now, Hayes wasn't perfect, but he did withdraw Federal troops from the South, while Obama seems determined to return them in the form of Eric Holder, and Hayes also believed in Civil Service reform, instead of affirmative action for all of Obama's pals.  And he pledged to serve only one term and not run for reelection. And did just that. Obama, on the other hand, more or less said that if he didn't get unemployment down, he'd be a one-termer, but he's running anyway. Frankly, Obama wouldn't be worthy to shine Hayes' boots.  He had boots, you see, because he was a decorated war veteran, another thing Obama is not. So the choice would indeed be easy.  The point of all this is that Obama's sneering reference to Hayes' dismissal of the telephone was all wrong.  Entirely wrong.  Now, Hayes would probably not advocate algae over oil, which Obama thinks is cutting-edge science, but there is a difference between science and the touchy-feely greenism that Obama thinks is science.  The truth about Hayes and the telephone is HERE.  My thanks to DAILY KENN for this news item.

The Liberal Song and Dance

The civility thing has come up again.  You know, those of us on the right have to be civil, so civil that we have to call a spade an excavation implement.  Limbaugh is absolutely prohibited from calling anybody anything at all, evidently.  Sure, Limbaugh is pretty phony, but still.  There's a point on the spectrum from left to right, you see.  To the left of that point, anybody can say whatever they please about anybody on the other side of the point, but to the right, everybody's speech is severely restricted.  For example, the left, aka the Democrats, can call any and all Republicans racists, nazis, idiots, rednecks, buffoons, or whatever the current nasty word is.  In the other direction, Republicans are reduced to saying over and over what a nice guy Obama is, but maybe he doesn't understand the economy as well as he should.  Instead of saying that he's looting the place for his pals' benefit.

The sex part of all this is especially interesting.  The feminists have shrilly leaped to the defense of Sandra Fluke, insisting that it's completely immoral to call her anything, but they're strangely silent when a scumbag like Bill Maher calls Sarah Palin the filthiest misogynic names he can think of. And he can think of a lot, because he belongs to the school of comedy that thinks dirty words are the basis of humor.

What we have, of course is the real New Morality, which condemns actual morality as uncool and stupid, and substitutes Soviet-style Political Correctness for it all and calls that morality. Pat Buchanan, who has been on the front lines of the Culture War for decades, can explain it better than I can.  His latest is HERE.

Kony 2012

From BALOO'S WEBSITE

White liberals have a paradoxical view of the human race.  In the first place, everybody is equal, as individuals and even more so as groups.  There is no real difference between, say, Swedes and Somalis, in their perception, and when differences are pointed out, they're minimized and/or attributed to environment, usually White racism.  On the other hand, they also see the human race divided into two groups — Whites and non-Whites.  All the non-Whites are virtuous, vibrant, very intelligent, and, of course, oppressed and held down by White racism.  The Whites are divided into White liberals and All Other Whites.  The White liberals, themselves, you see, are the Herrenvolk.  They alone are truly enlightened, while All Other Whites, often referred to as "rednecks," or "nazis," are the absolute worst members of the human species.  Now, the paradox comes in here: non-Whites are unspeakably wonderful and good, in contrast to the White race, but White liberals are superior even to non-Whites, because they're assuming all the guilt that belongs to the White race as a whole, and are the most enlightened people on the planet.

Now we've established that everybody is equal (except for those ignorant rednecks, but never mind), so how to explain all the miserable messes in the Third World?  Well, it certainly can't have anything to do with intrinsic differences, so it must be due to White racism.  Well and good.  But what about a place like Uganda, where Joseph Kony is behaving so badly?  Kony, of Kony 2012, by the way, can be found on a list of "notable Luo people" on Wikipedia, along with Obama's dad. (Thanks to an anonymous commenter on http://isteve.blogspot.com/ for this interesting fact.)

Well, the problem can't be with the glorious people of Uganda, so it must be this guy Kony.  So the White liberal response is to do away with Kony, and then Uganda can continue on its path to utopia. Now, Obama isn't a White liberal himself, but his mom was, so he's already taken the first step towards fixing Africa by invading Uganda.  You hadn't heard?  Well, I guess it's not all that newsworthy when Obama invades somebody, just when he gets awarded Peace Prizes.  You can read about the invasion HERE.  But that doesn't seem to have worked, so the narcissistic White Liberal Jason Russell has made a little film about the situation that will Fix Everything.  White liberalism at its finest.

It reminds me of the scene in Huckleberry Finn where the King takes over a revival meeting, claiming to be a reformed pirate, and announces his intention to go back to the South Seas or wherever and reform all the other pirates.  The good people of the revival meeting react by giving him money.  Which well may be what Kony 2012 is really all about. John Haw attempts to make sense of Russell's cinematic crusade HERE.  And Richard Spencer points out that it's just the latest step in the Orwellian concept of "humanitarian interventionism" HERE.  And Brian Anderson shows us just who we'll have to help in order to hurt Kony HERE.

And here's a last minute UPDATE.

And now one more update — Steve Sailer has just detected another pattern in all this, which leads me to speculate that Jason Russell's ultimate destiny may be to be eaten by Ugandans.

Finally, here's one more take on the situation from Counter-Currents Publishing.

And it's not over yet!  More HERE!