Thursday, May 31, 2012

Prejudice and Discrimination

Put prejudice and discrimination together, and you get profiling.  As I've said before, profiling is a good thing.  Not only a good thing, but an absolute necessity for survival. Without it, you have no clue how to behave in any situation. And now, DailyKenn sets us straight on prejudice and discrimination in this guest post:


Why prejudice and discrimination are positive traits


by DailyKenn.com

You're on vacation and a special occasion calls for dining out at a fine restaurant.



Do you choose:


a) McDonalds
b) Country Buffet
c) Some high-priced restaurant with a snooty maître d’


The correct answer is: You go with the snooty maître d’.


Your prejudice against McDonalds and Country Buffet is based on past experience.


Prejudice means to 'pre-judge.' Even though you're a tourist and have never dined at the local Country Buffet or munched down at the corner McDonalds, you discriminate against those options in favor of the higher-priced venue.


Prejudice and discrimination are not evil. They are necessary traits of human behavior. We apply both every day of our lives from choosing restaurants to pulling up to the pump with the lowest price.


Applying prejudice and discrimination is also essential in human relations. When you hire a handyman or a dentist for the first time, you make discriminatory and prejudicial decisions. Insurance companies are discriminatory and prejudicial when they choose who they will and will not insure. Were it not for government mandates, their bias would be more pronounced.


Social engineers have gone to great lengths to convince us that prejudice is wrong when applied to humans, particularly race-based prejudice.


While I agree that hating someone based on ethnicity is immoral (if not down-right idiotic), prejudging others based on their appearance (including skin tone and hair texture) is not foolish. Rather, it is wise behavior that should be commonly practiced out of common sense; particularly when the context of the encounter also demands discriminatory judgement.

What's on the outside (dark skin or golden arches) advertises what to expect on the inside. Acknowledging that reality is not evil, it's an awareness based on past experience. My guess is you will seldom find a maître d’ in a McDonalds; but occasionally you do find an employee with advanced human characteristics that would do Darwin proud. Be pleasantly surprised; not unpleasantly disappointed.


When I encounter a group of Chinese students chattering Mandarin in the park, I prejudge them to be from China. I prejudge them to speak Chinese more fluently than English. I sometimes practice my Mandarin skills and prejudge them to respond with polite laughter.


When I encounter a group of black teens chattering Ebonics in the city, I prejudge them to be from the 'hood. I prejudge them to speak Ebonics more fluently that real English. I never, ever practice my Ebonics skills anticipating they will respond with polite laughter.


Why do I prejudge Chinese students and black teens differently? Why am I prejudiced?


I offer no answer to the above questions. Honest people already know the answer.

Kings, Dragons, and Princesses

Once upon a time there was a king who fought dragons.  He didn't try to destroy them all, but he drove them into little enclaves in his kingdom (other kingdoms didn't want to take them) where they wouldn't hurt anybody but each other.  Being a compassionate king, he allowed well-behaved, trained dragons to live outside the enclaves, and a few of the more admirable and trustworthy ones even lived in or near his own castle. In the fullness of time, the King married and had some daughters.  The daughters grew up happy and safe in the castle, and some of them even played with the tame dragons there, and came to like them.  One day, one of the princesses asked why most of the dragons lived in the enclaves (She'd watched a PBS special).

"I sent them there before you were born, my dear," said the king.  "It was best for everybody."

"How can you say that?" Princess Prissy replied. "Old Uncle Firetooth lives with us, and he's a wonderful person."

"Yes," said the king.  "But that's just him.  Uncle Firetooth is a very nice dragon, but most dragons are very fierce and dangerous, and if they lived near people, there would be big trouble."

"You're just an old bigot," snapped Prissy's sister, Princess Vapidia. "Dragons are just like other people.  If they're violent sometimes, it's just because of prejudice and discrimination by evil old humanists like you!"

The king sighed.  "I really should have told you girls about this before.  Dragons used to make a lot of trouble when they lived among people, so I had to separate them so nobody would get hurt, people or dragons.  It's much more peaceful now for everybody."

"You admit it!" shrieked yet another daughter, Princess Sanspensia. "You're a separationist!"

The king tried and tried to explain reality to his daughters, but they remained stubborn.  When they went to college, they all took "dragon studies," and became even more convinced that their father was a hopelessly narrow-minded human supremacist. At college, Princess Prissy met Prince Moderato, who came from a kingdom that had no dragons at all, and they were married.  When the old right-wing king died, Prince Moderato became the new king and his wife became Queen Prissy.  She persuaded him to let all of the dragons out of the enclaves and give them reparations for the bad treatment they had received from the old king.  She arranged for them to go to college and get preferences in employment, education, and business.  One of her younger sisters, Princess Masochistia, even married a dragon.

Surprisingly, the dragons weren't grateful at all for these things, and ate the king, the queen, and all the princesses, and then they ate all the other people in the kingdom.  Oh, and they ate Old Uncle Firetooth, too, because he was actin' human.
_____

And for a look at much the same phenomenon in the real world, HERE'S John Derbyshire's latest.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

The Juggling of the Genders

I never use "gender" to mean "sex," but I did this time for the sake of alliteration, a fine old Anglo-Saxon tradition. And I use "juggling" as a metaphor for the total confusion these days about what the two sexes are and ought to be. The Zeitgeist, an insistent fellow about so many things, insists that the differences between human males and females is at most trivial, and probably actually nonexistent.  When pressed, our shapers of opinion will concede that there are significant differences between male and female cattle, black widow spiders, hyenas, and hoptoads, though it's probably Whitey's fault, but of course human beings are exempt from biology and the rules don't apply to them, because alone in the Universe, the human species doesn't have heredity.  Well, homosexuality is hereditary, of course, but no other human mental oR emotional attribute is.  Just to make things clear, I'm having a sarcastic ramble there.

Anyhow, men and women are different, very profoundly different, emotionally, mentally, intellectually, and, as you may have noticed, physically.  We have evolved, just like kangaroos, field mice, and mosquitoes, to fit our environment, and in all of human history that we know anything about, men and women have differed pretty much like they do now, because Darwin required these differences for survival.  Some differences:

L. Neil Smith puts it this way — Women are detail-oriented, men are big picture-oriented. Other ways to say the same thing is that women are good at multitasking, men are good at sustained, single-minded concentration, or that women are good at internal, small-scale management, as within a family, while men are good at large-scale management, as in the relationship between families.  Yes, all this is a generalization.  If you don't know what a generalization is, go HERE.  I didn't say all women are anything, I said what they generally are.

An aside.  Politics.  There's a lot of talk right now about whether it's "fair" for Republicans to bring up Reverend Wright, or if it's "fair" for Obama to talk about how much money Romney has.  What the hell has fair got to do with it?  That's kindergarten, or kindergarten teacher talk.  We should ask if it's valid for either to bring these things up. Does all this public talk of "fairness" stem from the feminization of politics?  I think it does, in part. Women aren't into justice as much as they're into fairness.  That's how you bring little kids up, trying to be fair to them.  Justice is for later, when Daddy comes home.  Justice is a male concept, and while the wiser sort of woman can grasp it, the average one can't and doesn't want to.  Sorry, but that's how it is.  So when women started voting, they started leaning towards politicians because they were nice, or good-looking, or something irrelevant like that, when males, on the average, don't care too much about that sort of thing.  Men didn't vote for Bill Clinton because they felt maternal towards the cuddly old bear, but a lot of women did. That's not to say men can't be fooled by politicians, but it is to say that it's harder to do so.

Anyhow, the Zeitgeist says that little boys should be made more like girls, and vice-versa.  Being male myself, my knee-jerk reaction is to deplore this attempt to destroy masculine virtues and strengths, but, of course, it's also destroying feminine virtues and strengths.  It all goes together. So, it's not all male-bashing, as in the charming illustration, but also female-bashing. Metrosexual men like Obama are praised, of course, and homosexuals are practically deified, while normal, traditional men are denounced  as the source of all the evil in the world.  In like manner, traditional women with female virtues, like Ann Romney or Sarah Palin, are sneered at, while butchy bitches like Hillary and Hollywood sluts are held up as role models.

Speaking of bitches, Matt Forney has pointed out that both men and women can be called bitches, but for quite different reasons, though, in a way, for the same reason.  You have to read his explanation, in what may be the best rant I've ever read on this particular subject, HERE.

P. S.  Update.  Commenter "Quartermain" has alerted me to further incisive words on the same subject by Bob Wallace.  I recommend that you go HERE and read it.

Dialectic Vs. Rhetoric

The Ancient Greeks had a Goddess of Wisdom, Athena. We have Oprah. The Ancient Greeks had Aristotle, Socrates, and Plato.  We have Paul Krugman, Jonah Goldberg, and Tom Friedman.  Not a good trend.  Actually, I'm exaggerating. We have some good thinkers today — Tom Sowell, Pat Buchanan, Sean Gabb, etc. — but we don't pay much attention to them, and would rather listen to the touchy-feely nonsense of the former ilk.

I don't know much about Ancient Greece and her philosophers, but I was just inspired to look into the difference between dialectic and rhetoric.  Now, "dialectic" has a faintly Marxist feel to most of us, because we've only heard it in the context of "dialectic materialism," but it has a much more benign meaning than that.  It's a method of dialog, wherein two people with differing opinions on a subject discuss the subject logically, using reason, to try to arrive at the actual truth.  Read more at Wikipedia. This is contrasted with rhetoric, which is a method of persuasion not necessarily based on much logic, but on what the persuader reckons to be the best way to persuade his audience. It can include appeal to emotion, prejudice, precedent, just about anything.  Read about that HERE.

Nowadays there's a lot of rhetoric and damn little dialectic, wouldn't you say?  Now, if you're reading this blog, you probably are aware of the difference, even if you, like me, didn't use the rhetoric/dialectic terminology.  But a problem with the public awareness, in education, politics, and media, is that not only are people unable to make the distinction, but are unaware that there is a distinction. As I've put it on several occasions, students today believe that thinking consists of memorizing slogans. And now we get to the crux of this — Education.  Now, I suppose that there are little hidden corners of the educational establishment where logical thinking is taught, but they're lonely little corners.  Usually, when educators talk about "teaching students to think," they mean not teaching them anything concrete, like math or science or history, but teaching them to use rhetoric in its worst sense, to express trendy opinions without any logical structure at all.

Anyhow, I was inspired to look into this by an essay on just this, the educational situation, wherein students are not only not taught about dialectics, but are deliberately taught, somehow, that there's no such thing and everything is rhetoric, thereby rendering them unteachable.  The essay, by Vox Day, is HERE.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

The Diamond Jubilee

CARTOON FROM BALOO'S WEBSITE
You've all heard the story of King Log and King Stork.  The critters in the pond had a King Log, but he never did anything good for them, so they picked King Stork instead, and King Stork started eating all the critters.  Moral:  A do-nothing monarch is best.  Well, that's not true in every instance.  Sometimes, just by occupying the throne, a monarch can give legitimacy, by inaction, to the crummy things that the rest of the Government does.  Nobody wants to object, because it seems okay with the monarch, so it must be okay.

I've read a lot of what Sean Gabb has to say, and he is known as the libertarian in the UK.  Unlike some of our US libertarians, he has a feeling for history and human nature, which leads me to think of him as a fellow libertarian nationalist.  Be that as it may, he's reflected on Elizabeth II's sixty years on the throne, and concludes, as I do, that mostly just sat there, and missed a multitude of opportunities to use the power she has in the interest of the British people.  In doing so, he explains a lot to us Americans about what Britain and the monarchy are, and what they ought to be. Sean writes:


Thoughts on the Diamond Jubilee:
Sixty Years a Rubber Stamp
By Sean Gabb




Those of us who pay attention to such things will have noticed a difference between the BBC coverage of the Golden Jubilee in 2002 and of the present Diamond Jubilee. Ten years ago, the coverage was adequate, though reluctant and even a little stiff. This time, it has been gushing and completely uncritical. There are various possible reasons for my observation. The first is that I was mistaken then and am mistaken now. I do not think this is the case, but feel obliged to mention it. The second is that Golden Jubilees are rare events, and Diamond Jubilees very rare events, and that extreme rarity justifies a setting aside of republican scruples. The third is that the BBC was taken by surprise in 2002 by the scale of public enthusiasm, and does not wish to be caught out again. The fourth is that, while not particularly conservative on main issues, we do now have a Conservative Government, and this is headed by a cousin of Her Majesty. There may be many other reasons.

Read the rest HERE.

The Tyranny of the Dot

I haven't read the book this is advertising, but it's a pretty wonderful ad.  Enjoy.

Kristol-Nacht

The Father of the Father of Neoconservatism
Many years ago, there was a young communist named Irving Kristol who later came to be called the Father of the Neoconservatives. If you don't believe that the founder of neoconservatism was a communist, just check the Wikipedia Article. At one Trotskyite event, he met Gertrude Himmelfarb, who is inexplicably often referred to as a "conservative" historian, they married in 1942. This from the UK Guardian:


Irving Kristol was born on January 22 1920 into a poor Orthodox Jewish family in Brooklyn, where his father worked in the rag trade. He studied History at the City College of New York, then a hotbed of Left-wing radicalism. The various warring factions occupied different alcoves off the main university dining hall, and Kristol chose the Trotskyist alcove. He was a member of the 4th International in 1940 and it was at a Trotskyist meeting that he met Gertrude Himmelfarb. They married in 1942.

Note that the two sources differ in their description of his parents as non-observant and Orthodox. Anyway, these two reds had a son, William Kristol, who has spent his life as a neoconservative leader, heading up the purges of all authentic conservatives from the Republican Party.

(Aside: This is why I never call myself a conservative unless I have time to explain all these differences. We authentic conservatives frequently call ourselves "the old right," "paleoconservatives," or, my favorite, "libertarian nationalists."  The communist neoconservatives have just about everybody confused about the meaning of "conservative.'")

Essentially, the so-called neoconservatives aren't conservative in any sense whatsoever.  The accept every single element of the New Deal, for example, are staunch supporters of all the excesses perpetrated under the category of "civil rights," and use almost all their energy purging or otherwise marginalizing actual conservatives.  Their "conservative" foreign policy calls for massive Third World immigration, constant foreign intervention, military and otherwise, and the transformation of the United States from a republic to an oligarchic empire.  And they are, of couse, fanatical Zionists, and consider the security of Israel far more important than the security of the United States.

One of the authentic conservatives that have been effectively purged is Ron Paul.  Another is Pat Buchanan.  Pat can tell you all about the purges.  He recently had an encounter with William Kristol, and has THIS to say about him and his career.

(It's especially interesting to think about how Bush I's feeble resistance to the neoconservative domination was replaced by his son's complete capitulation to them. If you want to find out more about these people, enter "neoconservative" in "Search this blog" in the sidebar.)

PS:  Vox Day comments on the Kristol situation HERE.

Monday, May 28, 2012

Memorial Day, War, and Immigration

Well, it's Memorial Day, and you know me, I'm no pacifist.  No, I'm a 'peace through strength' guy. A nation is like an individual.  If it looks like it can't or won't fight, it's an invitation to be attacked. Those of us in the Old Right, or paleoconservatives, or libertarian nationalists, none of us are pacifists, but then again, none of us are warmongers, either. The more 'peace' talk you hear from people, the more likely they are to get us involved in a war, deliberately or inadvertently. If we had a foreign policy run by the likes of me, we'd have much less war and a lot more victory and security.

So I'm a big supporter of the military, but not a big supporter of politicians.  The first group is dedicated to protecting the country, while the latter seems bent on destroying it.  They do so, first of all, by misusing the first group, wasting their efforts and lies in wars that aren't in the national interest, like in Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Somalia and Uganda.  Yes, we have troops in Uganda.  Another way the politicians are destroying the country is by neglecting our own borders.  We could protect the borders, of course, with our rather huge military, but they're busy in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., protecting other people's borders.

And coupled with not guarding the borders, our politicians have the "open boders" disaster cooking on the back burner, whereby anybody in the world, just about, can walk in and just live here, sign up for welfare and register to vote for Obama.  I've had a lot to say about immigration — Just go to the sidebar and enter 'immigration' at 'Search this Blog' — and I don't need to repeat it here.

See how it all fits together?  Keep the troops busy interfering in some other country, ignore our own borders, and invite the whole world in to live here.  And then, when the troops get home, finally, they can look around for jobs that are filled already by immigrants, legal and illegal. What could go wrong? James Fulford describes the whole mess in detail HERE.

Mamas, Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Japanese Animators!

Guest post by BALOO:

I've heard for years that, despite their obvious talent, Japanese cartoonists don't make much money, but I had no idea how bad it seems to be in the animation business.  This is bad news for me, and for Ex-Army, because we're big fans of the medium and we don't want it to go away.

According to reports, these poor sons-of-guns can make less than three bucks an hour.  And some of them have gone to court over it. Read about it HERE.

What Really Happened to the Neanderthals

CARTOON FROM BALOO'S WEBSITE
Where did the Neanderthals go?  There have been lots of theories out there. They were too stupid to compete with us, the Cro-Magnons.  They were too stupid to come up with technology sufficient to keep their numbers up.  They encountered us and we ate them. They interbred with us and disappeared into our gene pool.  There is evidence for all of these things, and the last, in particular, seems to have been confirmed by DNA studies. Anyhow, I've been vaguely paying attention to the question all my life, but I seem to have missed an important observation, and I don't know when it became the standard theory, but it seems that while we Cro-Magnons are very much omnivorous, our Neanderthal cousins were more exclusively carnivorous, and this has some powerful implications for the Procrustean bed of Darwinism. Never mind the luxuries of clothing and shelter.  If a species can't get enough food, i. e., calories, to survive to reproductive age, it dies out.  And one big advantage humans have is our lack of specialization. We can, and will, eat almost anything. When we learned to cook, we opened up a lot of possibilities for getting nourishment from plants, like grain, that we can't digest uncooked.  But Neanderthals didn't have that advantage, devoted as they were to almost exclusively eating meat, so where a Cro-Magon tribe could survive on X amount of acreage, a Neanderthal tribe needed more.  Ipso facto.  And it's also safer to eat nuts and berries than to try to club a wooly rhinoceros to death. Greg Cochran explains all this in detail HERE.

Sunday, May 27, 2012

Black on Everybody Crime

DailyKenn has more to say about Black crime and Jim Crow:


Jim Crow: Armed and dangerous


by DailyKenn.com

If Jim Crow is defined as an effective means of controlling black crime and violence, then the Second Amendment may be one of the most effective Jim Crow strategies.

Unfortunately, black criminals are often killed or injured as white shop keepers and homeowners use deadly force for defense.



• FLORIDA -- An off-duty security guard used his gun last month to stop a would-be bank hold up.


Ruben Torres, 61, used his fire arm to hold Floyd Francis, 23, until police arrived.


Some have suggested that since the Trayvon Martin episode emerged earlier this year, black thugs are taking white people with guns more seriously.


Torres spotted Francis in the lobby of a bank. The suspect "put a Wal-Mart bag on his head, walked to the counter and gave the teller a note . . . He even took the bag off his head and gave it to the teller to put the cash in." according to news reports.


Torres slipped out of the bank to retrieve his fire arm from his car. [Source]


• ALABAMA -- A barber shop owner plugged a would be robber in the thigh after the black intruder pulled a semi-automatic handgun and demanded cash and jewelry.


Police named the suspect as Caleb Allen Pogue, 22, who got away. Pogue is described as a black male, 6 feet tall and weighs approximately 230 pounds. And, we would add, has bullet hole in his left thigh. A second suspect is a black male with dreadlock-type hair in his early twenties, 6 feet to 6 feet 1inch tall, and weighs approximately 190 to 200 pounds. [Source]


• NORTH CAROLINA -- A shop owner told police he shot two males who were attempting to rob him at gun point. The owner of Gate's County store manged to get off two shots at the intruders after which they fled. Both died. One news report identified the robbery victim as a clerk and said he was recovering from assault injuries in a hospital. [Source]


• NORTH CAROLINA -- Dashawn William Smith, 18, took a bullet to the chest while attempting to break into a Fayetteville woman's home.


The woman says the Smith and his companion were undeterred when she shouted at them. The gun blast, however, convinced them to flee. Smith was arrested at the hospital. Isaiah Whitty, 16, was also charged. Castle laws, such as those in North Carolina, allow homeowners the right to defend their homes from intrusions. Some black activists oppose castle laws as racist. [Source]


• MISSOURI -- Jerome Burse lost his life last month when he and a companion broke into a St. Louis home. Burse fled after being shot by a 23-year-old and collapsed about a block away. [Source]


Traditional Jim Crow laws were effective in keeping violent black criminals out of harms way by denying them access to would-be victims.


Alternate Jim Crow strategies of controlling black crime and violence are often less effective. Many municipalities, for example, prohibit discharging firearms. A shop owner could defend himself and his property, then face criminal charges for firing a gun.


The greatest obstacle to controlling black crime and violence is denial. The Bureau of Justice Statistics, however, demonstrates that black crime has consistently remained a significant security problem in the United States. [Source] Those statistics, provided by the Department of Justice, reveal that 52.2 percent of homicides in the United States are committed by blacks; most by black males aged 18 to 49 who comprise about three percent of the nation's population.

More: Who was Jim Crow? . . .

Friday, May 25, 2012

The Avengers

I've been planning to see Avengers, so I could write a nice review of it. But then I found out that Diana Rigg isn't in it and the plot has been changed so much that they have Samuel L. Jackson portraying "Mother," believe it or not.  Anyhow, I still wanted to see it, but my wife wanted to see something about old Brits at the Marigold Hotel instead, so I haven't gotten around to it.  But that's a blessing, because Gregory Hood did see it, and wrote a much more insightful review than I could have done.  I recommend it to you HERE.

Awake Series Finale

Awake has been a nice offbeat show, and I've enjoyed it.  Unfortunately, it got cancelled, probably because people found it too hard to follow and it made them think too hard.  It made me think of Kafka and Dostoevsky and even Gogol.  Something East European about its sensibility.  But I certainly wish Jason Isaacs well, and hope he finds another series that good to be in.

SPOILER!

The ending was sort of satisfying, and my prediction was wrong.  I thought he'd wake up from a coma following the accident and find out that only he survived.  That would have been a downer.  Actually, my prediction wasn't all that wrong.  I just made it about the wrong show.

Guns and Spoons


Thanks to L. Neil Smith for this one.

Thursday, May 24, 2012

Indian Degradation

"Ira Hayes, His Dream - His Reality" by Joe Ruiz Grandee
Lots of blogging about American Indians lately, what with wannabe Indian Elizabeth Warren and the somewhat misleading scholarship of Niall Ferguson, but it's time to say something about a new way the liberal establishment has found to degrade American Indians a little further.  Restricting it to the American Indians of the United States, it's fair to say that they lost.  They lost against the overwhelming power of European colonists. Weakened initially by the spread of European diseases, they had no chance, ultimately, against the superior technology and organization that were brought against them. They lost utterly, but honorably. The vast majority of them, after a generation or two, accepted the inevitable, and assimilated into the dominant European culture. Yeah, they did, just as the ancestors of most American Whites had assimilated into dominant cultures in Europe, starting with Roman culture. Today, most American Indians, despite their racial difference, are simply part of American culture, especially in the South, and don't think of themselves as Indians, any more than Whites think of themselves as Gauls or Jutes or Picts.  The ones who still maintain their Indian identity are the exception, and more power to them.

Ira Hayes thought of himself as an Indian, and carried on the the tradition of the Indian Warrior. You ever seen the Iwo Jima memorial?  He's one of those guys putting the flag up. But the idea of the Indian as warrior is taboo.  The politically correct concept of American Indians is that of victims, part of the inchoate mass of helpless, feeble losers who must be ruled and managed and eternally helped by the wise liberal establishment because they just can't stand on their own against the oppression of Straight White Males.  The bad guys.  So American Indians, once a proud, admirable people, are now just another client of the totalitarian nanny state, along with homosexuals, Blacks, illegal aliens, women, LGBTPDQ's, and whatever other category the anointed can come up with to help tear the country apart.

To keep Indians on the liberal reservation, you certainly have to do away with what remains of their pride.  They can't be allowed to have pride any more, because that would interfere with their victimology.  And one way to eliminate that pride, is to convince them that all the symbolism of Indians as warriors, braves, and noble, self-sufficient people is somehow degrading.  To call your high school football team "Braves," or any other name that evokes the virtues of American Indians is somehow to oppress them.  Phony Indians, like Ward Churchill or Elizabeth Warren are with the program, helping to reduce a proud, admirable people to a community of whiners happily dependent on handouts and coddling. Can't think of a better way to destroy a people.

Jack Donovan, no stranger to the systematic degradation of a group by liberalism, has given this a lot of thought, and concludes that being called "brave" isn't a bad thing at all.  Read his essay HERE.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Niall Ferguson Yet Again

DailyKenn saw the same documentary I did, and has a different, but compatible take on it, with particular regard to US history:


Why social engineers hate truth


by DailyKenn.com

Truth has always been the enemy of social engineers who wish to destroy Western culture. They rewrite history to suit their objectives. Most of us 'copy' their revisions. We pass on their flaws as if they were accurate and, in our minds, those distortions replace reality.

Just last night I watched portions of a PBS documentary that explained why North America prospered while South America failed. The conclusion was that redistribution of wealth (property) was cause for our success while domineering landlords on the southern continent prohibited prosperity. The documentary further concluded that the influx of Hispanics into North America was a positive.

It was analogous to watching a hard drive being swiped and overwritten by a virus.


In essence, social engineers are effectively changing the past by altering our cultural memory.


Here's a simple example: America has the so-called 'Trail of Tears' embedded in its memory.

Our memories have been purged of the Pequot atrocities and the perennial Indian wars that predated colonial America by centuries and were ultimately ended by the Trail of Tears. We are not reminded that Indian existence included centuries of warfare, hacking and scalping; bloodshed and murder. Nor are we told that the white colonists were viewed by savage Indians as just one more tribe to be hacked, scalped, bloodied and murdered. We are not allowed to acknowledge that English colonists protected peaceful Indian tribes by winning (with their help) the Pequot War.


Our national memory does not include the Seminole Indian Wars that claimed thousands of lives and produced far more suffering than the Trail of Tears. Rather, white Americans are portrayed as antagonists who egged on the wars.

We are not aware that Abraham Lincoln, grandfather of the president by the same name, was murdered by an Indian hunting party for sport as he farmed fresh land in Kentucky.

We never consider that white Americans embarked upon their own Trail of Tears (called the Oregon Trail) in which they faced the same hardships as did the Indians with the added danger of being attacked by savage Indians along their journey.


Our memories do not include the fact the Cherokee Chief Stand Watie actually encouraged the so-called Trail of Tears. Nor are we informed that many Indians who adopted Western culture were exempted from the excursion.


Our memories are purged of the fact that, among those suffering the Trail of Tears, was Indian chief Billy Bolek (aka, Billy Bowlegs) who made the trek with $100,000 cash ($2.5 million today), along with his two wives and fifty slaves. Tears indeed.

The Trail of Tears marked the end of millenia of bloodshed, murder, suffering and oceans of tears on the North American continent. And that's the truth.

Make truth your friend.

Niall Ferguson Disappoints

An outpost of Western Civilization?
I watched part one of Niall Ferguson's presentation on Western Civilization, evidently an adaptation of this book. Most everything he said, explaining the ascendency of the West, made sense, especially his theories of why China declined while we expanded and developed. I recommend it to you, and I intend to get hold of the book soon and see if it holds up.

But it disappoints.  For all the good stuff in it, towards the end, he felt that he had to make obeisance to political correctness in two connections.  First, he suddenly abandoned what seemed to be an objective evaluation of history to all be declare himself a Zionist partisan.  He talked about how vulnerable little Israel must feel, which is kind of odd, considering that the world is full of vulnerable little countries.  He also made the odd statement that Israel is a country founded by Jews but not exclusively for Jews.  Really? Their immigration laws and their attempt to drive all non-Jews out of the place would seem to belie that. And then he called Israel "an outpost of Western civilization," a common neoconservative platitude.  Well, no.  That's stretching "Western Civilization" too far.  Yes, Israel is a high-tech country, and high-tech is a characteristic of Western Civilization, but there are other high-tech countries — China springs to mind — that we don't consider including in the Western category.  And, he said, it's democratic.  Well, plenty of non-Western countries are, or try to be, democratic.  No, Israel may be a good thing or an admirable thing, and it might even be an ally of Western Civilization, but it's not an outpost of Western Civilization.

And then Ferguson moved to the Americas and stated that the ascendency of US power was entirely due to the fact that immigrants were allowed to own land here.  And that led to democracy (landowner franchise) and to the way we are now.  And that, and that alone, explains why the US progressed, and  Latin America didn't.  This is tricky.  Of course the landowning and initial political structure helped make us what we are, but those elements existed because of the kind of people our ancestors were. It's getting the cart before the horse.  And then he segued into the tiresome cliché that slavery was America's "original sin," that we're finally getting over, and  he expressed delight that we've elected an African President.  First off, slavery was nearly universal, though he implies that it it was something Europeans thought up (as a historian, he knows better, and didn't say so explicitly, but anybody watching would get that impression), and at the time, hardly anybody on Earth thought of slavery as an evil.  And those who did were, of course, all Westerners.

Ferguson is like a lot of scholar/thinkers these days — He has a lot of worthwhile stuff, and you can learn a lot from him, but you have to know to stop listening when he begins paying homage to the dogma of the Zeitgeist.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Crazy North Carolina Teacher

We've all heard by now about Tanya Dixon-Neely, the outrageously incompetent, venomous, and toxic "teacher" in North Carolina who thinks her job as a "teacher" is to make sure all her students show respect for Obama in every way, and follow her example on beating up on Romney, who is the Whitey flavor of the week in her nasty little world.  I couldn't find a picture of this abominable harridan (Who Greg Gutfeld says should be putting in her résumé at Harvard), so I found a nice picture of Hatsune Miku pretending to be a teacher.  She's more convincing, isn't she?

You can find out more about such delightful incidents by googling around the net, but sometimes it's easier just to go to Nicholas Stix's blog, who specializes in compiling all the information available about  such psycho-leftist performance art.  He tells us all about it, and includes the revealing video, HERE.

L. Neil Smith on Frontiers

Moving on from John Scalzi to a science-fiction writer who does make sense, L. Neil Smith talks about some of his books (all of which you should read), frontiers, ancient Rome, wars, ethnic strife, and asteroid engineering.  This first appeared in the Libertarian Enterprise.

(Note: I first came across Neil's Probability Broach when it was first published, way back, and was immediately captivated.  He has all of Heinlein's rigor and none of his silliness.)







A Frontier Without Fighting?
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com







Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

A long time ago, toward the beginning of my career, I actually learned something, from a book reviewer, that I hadn't realized about myself.

The review covered both The Probability Broach and The Venus Belt, and the reviewer was describing my popular character Lucille Gallegos Kropotkin, whom she said "hates government and loves politics". All at once, I knew that I had created an autobiographical character without intending to, and that Lucy was me, with the brakes off.

Much more recently, I've noticed that many of my books are about a frontier. Having a frontier is very good for a country—for an entire civilization—in many ways. The fact that America once had a frontier is one of the things that made her great, The fact that she no longer has a frontier is one of the things that are destroying her now.

But what I suddenly noticed about my work—last Thursday if I recall correctly—is that in none of them are the frontiers I described being wrenched from the hands of somebody who was there first.

Interesting.

To me, anyway.

For as long as there have been Homo sapiens—and, for all we know, long before that—there have been frontiers and fighting. It seems the grass is always greener on the other guy's side of the fence. (My wife points out that the idea of a fence presumes another guy.)

In Europe, the word "frontier" means something different than it does in the United States. Here, it means the edge of civilization, the beginning of the untrodden and unknown. There, it simply means "border".

There is probably a reason for this.

Among primitive people, their name for themselves usually means "the people", implying that outsiders are something less. To the Sumerians, the Greeks, the Persians, and so on, who were usually not much better armed than the others they were trying to conquer, the frontier was simply synonymous with the front lines of the ongoing battle.

That meaning began to shift a little with the Romans, especially in northern Europe and Britain, where there were significant gaps in technology and organization between the would-be conquerors and their intended victims. But the real change occurred when Europeans came to America, bringing horses, guns, and steel—and the experience of centuries of continental warfare—to bear against wooden and stone weapons.

With a possible exception of the Aztecs and Peruvians, who worked wonders with the materials at hand, knew how to organize themselves efficiently, and were accustomed to fighting continuous large-scale wars with their neighbors or among themselves, the peoples that the Spanish, French, Dutch, and British discovered here, for the most part, weren't seen as rival human beings to be conquered, but ethical nonentities, dangerous, inedible wildlife, which, like all the trees standing in the way of progress, should be swept aside and disposed of.

This situation, and the outlook that came with it, was exacerbated by the dominant religious opinion that entities who not only weren't Christians, but actually had the temerity to worship in whatever way they wished, deserved no humane consideration. This was exactly the same mindset that had made the Crusades possible. Those who hadn't yet been washed in the blood of the Lamb were to be washed in their own, instead.

In fairness, it needs to be pointed out here that Europeans were far from monolithic in their views concerning Indians. (Understand that there are no "native Americans"; increasingly it appears that the first humans to settle on this continent were French cavemen, almost 25,000 years ago; the ancestors of Sequoia, Crazy Horse, Osceola, Sitting Bull, and Jay Silverheels came here from northeast Asia 10,000 years later.) The first anti-slavery organization was created by Queen Isabella of Spain (not a nice person in any other respect), when she was shown the miserable, dying creatures Columbus had brought home as slaves.

Americans inherited their ideas about Indians from their European ancestors, and redefined the concept of the frontier, themselves. It was a five-step process: (1) lay claim to a newly-discovered piece of land; (2) run the Indians off or kill them; (3) cut down all the trees; (4) build a house out of some of them; and (5) put a plow in the ground. When the Westward Movement collided with the Grand Prairie, (3) got easier, and (4) meant building your house out of sod, while (2) became much harder, especially once the Indians had acquired horses.

Thus, from the late 15th century into the early 20th, "frontier" gradually came to mean the boundary between the white and Indian territories. My question is, had there been no Indians living in North America, would there have been a frontier or any motivation to conquer it? Do people need somebody to fight them for something before it acquires sufficient value to them, be it the Holy Grail or Black Hills gold?

Today, whenever individuals try to imagine future frontiers, there are usually surogate Indians to fight, be they Klingons, Ewoks, or those blue people from Avatar so very popular in online porn. The days are gone when such a struggle, between primitive and advanced cultures, can be made to seem virtuous. But that's a good thing for Hollywood writers, who can drag us into the theaters with promises of glorious blood and guts, and then make the winners feel guilty about it.

I confess that I haven't seen Avatar. Knowing the work of Steven Spielberg as I do, I'm not about to spend ten or twelve dollars to sit and be lectured by a liberal hypocrite and liar for the crime of being human and enjoying high-tech capitalism. Besides, the trailers looked way too much like that other repulsive exercise in self-loathing, Pocahontas.

But I have digressed.

While the question remains open just a tiny crack, it appears that with the exception of the planet we're standing on, there is no other sapient life the in Solar System. There is almost certainly life, possibly in abundance, under the ice of Europa, or in the clouds of the gas giants, but nothing that could play checkers with you, or tell a dirty joke.

No checkers, no dirty jokes, no Indians. Will people be interested in a frontier like that, or will they find it boring and not worth the effort?

As I've said on more than one occasion, if you're interested in landing on, colonizing, settling, and especially terraforming Mars, you'd better hope there isn't any life there, not even bacteria. The nanosecond word gets out about that, all the tree-huggers will become bug-huggers, and do everything they can to prevent their own species from possessing (and in their demented view, destroying) a second planet.

It seems the left has exactly the same ethical problem as the right: neither side is willing to investigate the differences between non-sapience and sapience. So we get the "Right to Life" movement, and PETA.

In my novel The Venus Belt, I described a project in which an asteroid was to be accelerated in its orbit around the sun, to a respectable fraction of the speed of light, so it could be deflected into the path of Venus, converting that otherwise useless planet into a new asteroid belt, full of easily-extracted minerals and other materials, and new dwelling places for the more adventurous minds from Earth.

Notice that not a single Indian was injured or killed in the production of this novel, although I received a ration of excrement for blowing up a whole (gasp!) world! Maybe the elevation of Gaia to goddesshood was contagious. Maybe there are too damn many C.S, Lewis fans out there. (Don't see it, myself.) I don't know about my critics, but I belong to a species who will repair their sun when it goes bad, so I don't care very much about one little ball of rock and poison gas.

I also described the first fully terraformed Old Belt asteroid, Ceres, complete with all the features of my later asteroid novels, and a city in its core with architecture based on the artwork of M.C. Escher.

I seem to write a lot about asteroids. I've been fascinated by them since I first read Antoine de Saint-Exupery's The Little Prince and I love islands for many of the same reasons. Good things happen in such places. In Bretta Martyn I have Robretta Islay nail a thinly- disguised Charles Schumer to the wall through his eye-socket, using a crossbow.

My first serious encounter with asteroids was my novel Pallas, which is about people living on the asteroid of that name, the second largest in the Belt. The reader gets to see in some detail the several arduous steps by which a planetoid is terraformed (apparently it's practical; I'm often asked—by engineers—if I'm an engineer), what that engineering achievement—and the individual freedom that flowed from it—mean to them, and how threats to it, mostly natural, are dealt with. While there is a nasty villain and a power struggle, Pallas was a barren rock before people got there and there are no Indians.

Ceres centers around the terraformation of the largest of the asteroids—it has the same surface area as India—again nothing more than a barren rock before human beings came to "despoil" it, and again, a frontier with no Indians to fight, although there are some pretty nasty environmentalists that have to be dealt with the hard way.

So, at least in the universes I've created, you can indeed have a frontier without fighting—Indians or their surrogates, at least. The prospect excites me more than fighting Indians would. My question is, what do you think about that, and what do you believe others think?


L. Neil Smith is the Publisher and Senior Columnist of L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE, as well as the author of 33 freedom-oriented books, the most recent of which is DOWN WITH POWER: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis:
[Amazon.com dead tree]
[Amazon.com Kindle]
[BarnesAndNoble.com dead tree and Nook]



Scalzi's Scurrilous Silliness

I read a lot, fiction and non-fiction, and ever since I was a kid, when I first came across Pebble in the Sky, I've been reading Science Fiction. That was followed by Heinlein, Leinster, Clarke, etc., all the classics, and I've been keeping up ever since.  But I got more discriminating in my tastes after awhile, and I soon came to judge books before reading them, not by their covers, but by the authors.  So nowadays, I begin by looking at the dust jacket or back cover, for a picture of the author.  If the author is clearly non-White or female, of course I discard the book immediately.  But if he looks like a White male, I look further into the biographical material to see if he's married.  If he isn't, I fear that he might be a homosexual, so at that point, I eliminate that book.  But if he's married, White, and male, I give the book a try.  That's my contribution to maintaining Straight White Male privilege, which I assume most of us adhere to, because that's what John Scalzi says is the case.

Everything I've written so far is gross sarcasm, in case you hadn't noticed. I've never met anybody who cares anything at all about who the author of a book is, or how to classify such authors. Readership is pretty much merit-based. I've read all the books Scalzi has written, except for his latest, Fuzzy Nation, which looks like fun, and enjoyed them all.  He's sort of like Heinlein, only funnier, and I recommend him to any SF fans.  Now.  He's clearly a liberal, but I've learned not to let that keep me from enjoying good writing, since damn near everybody writing books these days is a liberal or worse, and I like to kid myself that they're not really that dopey, but have to have liberal themes in their books to get them past the Zeitgeist censors.  Actually, that's true of TV and movies, too.  Everybody feels that they have to cram some liberal nonsense into everything they write to satisfy the quota, so I just ignore that part and enjoy the good parts.

But Scalzi goes further than that with his foolish blog post upholding the myth of Straight White Male privilege.  It's obvious to everybody who's been paying attention that what straight White males have these days is the opposite of privilege, because they don't fit into any of the privileged classifications. In employment, education, business, and just about every field, straight White males have to outperform everybody else, because they don't have any whining/victimology/affirmative action goodies to fall back on. And sometimes that's not good enough. I'd give you some examples but both Vox Day and Jim Goad have already dealt with it.

Vox Day desconstructs Scalzi's nonsense HERE, and Jim Goad does the same HERE.

Late-breaking news: Commenter Quartermain just gave the this link to another take on Scalzi's post at "Spearhead," HERE.

Monday, May 21, 2012

"House" Series Finale Again

The House series finale was actually rather satisfying, but I still like MY VERSION better.

More on Faux Squaw Elizabeth Warren

I've blogged about this ditz before, a lily-White Harvard Professor of Ditziness who thinks she belongs in the Senate. It's one of those family legends, common to just about any White American family that's been here for a few generations, that some great-great-somebody or other was a Sioux or Seminole or something.  Though it's usually Cherokee, because everybody's heard of them.  It's a cheap claim, usually impossible to prove, because even if you could demonstrate that your great-great-grandmother was a Cherokee, chances are she was known as a Cherokee because her great-great-grandmother was said to be a Cherokee.  Usually, it's just a harmless notion because most of us think it's kind of romantic to have an Amerindian ancestor, but in the case of Warren, she used it to attain the rarified status of oppressed minority at Harvard, and would use it to get into the Senate if she wasn't already a laughing stock because of it. This reminds me of Oprah Winfrey's fantasy that she was descended from Zulus

Anyhow, a video about all this has been prepared, using some wonderful old footage.  I swiped this from Nicholas Stix's website, which you should VISIT NOW.


What is a "Libertarian Nationalist"?

Buy "Libbie" products HERE.
When I use the term "libertarian nationalist," the most common argumentative reaction I get is that the term is an oxymoron, that a libertarian can't be a nationalist.  In the pure, anarchist version of libertarianism, I suppose that's true in a sense.  A nation kind of needs some kind of government, however mild, to maintain its existence, so if you're an anarchist, you sort of can't be a nationalist in any meaningful sense.  But a great number of libertarians are of the more moderate sort, and call themselves "minarchists," or believers in minimal government. And a minarchist can certainly be a nationalist.  Indeed, I'd argue that he has to be a nationalist if he hopes to further his minarchist ideal. And the term "minarchist" pretty much fits the Founding Fathers, if you think about it, and I think just about all of them, from Jefferson to Hamilton, would accept the "libertarian nationalist" term as well. Anyhow, the term "libertarian nationalist" has been coined independently here and there by me and others, and most of those that I've encountered are pretty much on the same page.  Check out the VENN DIAGRAM to see where you stand on this. Here's a definition of the term in the form of a mini-manifesto by Jeff Odgis. You can find his libertarian nationalist page on Facebook HERE.

"For the Rights of Nations"

Libertarian-Nationalism may be described as a philosophy that advocates "A nation for a every people," and "All people for their nation."

The impetus for this movement is to encourage the political development of a party, or coalition within the two major parties (the preferable solution) in the U.S. that strictly adheres to a program to attend to the National Interest, with respect to the libertarian origins of the basis for this National Interest to be expressed.

Clarity comes in understanding that the Libertarian-Nationalist is both libertarian and nationalist; we believe in the sovereignty of individuals from which the sovereignty of nations stems, and by which the individual character of nations is formed.

A proper celebration of Individualism according to the libertarian ideal recognizes of persons only; a Libertarian-Nationalist recognizes it according to persons, and their respective states, in that order, with preference to dealing with the state as a body coherently expressing the will of the people.

"Nations are Individuals"

We look to the state to coherently organize the will of the people, and believe distinct peoples ought to be represented by distinct states.

"Equality in hierarchy"

Libertarian-Nationalists are opposed to the chaotic, interference-principle oriented philosophies of Multiculturalism and Internationalism. These may be described variously as national suicide or Balkanization, and these are undesirable as they oppress the will of all but a few who would pretend to manage a disaster too ill-understood to be an intentional scheme. Balkanization is a policy failure from which the World must be rescued, and our nations secured from the ambiguities, lack of representation and waste attendant to World-government schemes in all their incarnations.

"For a society that is orderly for all, and ordered"

This movement is not about Executive worship. We've seen quite enough of that, thank you. Nor at all do we invite or welcome "Masses Rhetoric," the emphasis on elevating a formless mob, majority or otherwise to a pinnacle of (alleged) political power. This movement is about something transcendent that tears down this artificial distinction and encompasses Individualism as a national policy as well as a social model. The system-cum-phenomenon described may be characterized as a policy of Social Individualism merged with Nationalism, as they both go together and cannot be effectively separated. Only as a combined model are the policies of Social Individualism and Nationalism effective; hence Libertarian-Nationalism.

Sunday, May 20, 2012

Extinction and People

Cartoon from Baloo's SCIENCE CARTOONS
There's a strange paradox in the conventional wisdom about extinction.  On the one hand, we nasty humans are supposedly responsible whenever any bug or weed goes extinct, but there's a strange reluctance on the part of the scientific wing of the establishment to accept that our remote ancestors were directly responsible for the demise of a lot of great big animals, like mastodons.  Partly, I think, this is due to the liberal delight with primitivism of any sort, with their "noble savage" meme, and their luddite aversion for modernity, i. e., Western Civilization.  For example, we're constantly treated to the legend of Iron Eyes Cody and the notion that Amerindians were a bunch of granola-munching hippie environmentalists.  They weren't.

Well, when we humans, probably in the form of proto-Amerindians, first showed up in the New World, we started gobbling down the mastodons and a multitude of other tasty big animals, until they wer all gone. That wing of humanity hadn't thought of domesticating tasty things and breeding them so they'd always have plenty.  Some of them came up with the notion later, but it was too late for the big fluffy elephantoids.

But I'm no scientist, just a layman, so when I want to find out scientific truth, I go to scientists, read them, and see if the make sense to me.  One such who always makes sense is Greg Cochran.  HERE'S what he has to say about humanity and extinction.

Our Awful Ancestors

Our ancestors were just awful.  All of them. Jefferson, Goethe, Charlemagne, Da Vinci, Columbus.  All a bunch of sexists, fascists, and homophobes (Well, maybe not Da Vinci).  And most important of all, they were racists.  They had the insane idea that different racial groups might not be compatible with one another and it might be better if they were kept separate.  Utterly mad, of course. Forced integration has worked out just splendidly.  Just ask George Zimmerman.


Anyhow, a certain set of our Awful Ancestors had what we call "Jim Crow" laws, which all the brilliant intellectuals of today, from Jon Stewart to Barbra Streisand, denounce as horribly barbaric.  But DailyKenn has a different view of that.  A guest post from him:


Who was Jim Crow?

by DailyKenn.com

Jim Crow laws existed to protect white people from black crime and violence.

Jim Crow was a fictional black character created by Thomas Dartmouth "Daddy" Rice, a popular and successful nineteenth century actor and minstrel.



Cover of music score for
"Jim Crow Jubilee",
Boston, 1847
Black-face minstrels
portrayed blacks as talented
and jovial, hiding the "crime
and wretchedness" that
prevailed in black
neighborhoods.
Rice, a white actor, portrayed Jim Crow in black face. He introduced the routine in 1828, traveling to major cities throughout the United States as well as Dublin and London. The phrase 'Jump Jim Crow' meant to imitate a black person. Black face became an art form in its own right until the 1960s whenrevisionists determined it to be racist. White actors appearing in black face were not considered disrespectful or derogatory before then.

• Misrepresentation

Rather, black face actors often characterized blacks as fun-loving and talented, obscuring the crime and violence that prevailed in black communities.

The editor of the Valley Spirit, Franklin County, Virginia lamented in 1859 that whites were not familiar with the depravity of black culture and supposed whites needed to be forced to encounter black neighborhoods. "Come, reader, let me take you by the collar and drag you into this abode of crime and wretchedness of destitute and degraded humanity," he wrote. "We know you will not come willing, so come nolens volens. Observe their actions and listen to their conversation. What disgusting obscenity! What horrid implications! Their licentious and blasphemous orgies would put to the blush the imps of pandemonium."

Nonetheless, Rice's routine became so popular that the term Jim Crow became synonymous with 'black.' Jim Crow laws, then, could be understood to mean 'black laws.'



Black face was not considered
disrespectful or derogatory.
• Protecting whites from black crime and violence

Ironically, Jim Crow laws were enacted to protect white people from black crime and violence through mandated racial segregation. They first appeared in 1881 and became dominant throughout the states that once comprised the Confederacy. The first Jim Crow law is frequently considered to have been enacted by the Tennessee legislature when it required railroads to provide passenger cars for exclusive use by blacks.

The actual term 'Jim Crow Laws' first appeared in 1904 according to the American Dictionary of American English.

• Separate but equal

Contemporary historical revisionists portray Jim Crow laws as racist and, to some degree, they were. The laws allowed white business owners to refuse service to law-abiding blacks and visa versa. Whites were discouraged from using facilities designated for black-use only.

Jim Crow laws still exist where black juveniles present a threat to law and order and safety. While shopping malls may no longer ban blacks from entering their property, they often ban groups of teenagers without proper adult supervision on their properties. Old Jim Crow laws dealt with black crime by banning all blacks; current Jim Crow laws deal with black crime by banning all teenagers.

Not all black crime is committed by juveniles, however.

• Walk by stabbing

On Thursday, May 17, 2012, a black male casually walked through a Dallas area Target store and plunged a kitchen knife into the back of 29-year-old lawyer.

Arrested was a black male, 30-year-old Antowann Davis.

The victim, Martha Jones, said from her hospital bed that “He stabbed me in the back and kept walking.”

Had Jim Crow provisions been lawful and enforced, Davis would not have been permitted in the store and the crime would not have happened.

Discussions of Jim Crow laws frequently focus on segregated public transportation.



• Kick Rosa off the bus



Rosa Parks never complained of
black-on-white violence
that forced segregated buses.
Rosa Parks should have been given a seat on the bus; not because she is black, but because she is a woman.



On the other hand, Rosa should have been booted off the bus and refused permission to board any public transport for the rest of her life; not because she is black, but because her silence effectively endorsed black-on-white violence on public transportation.


Segregated buses existed -- not because whites held unwarranted animosity towards people with dark skin tone and kinky hair -- but because white passengers are routinely assaulted by blacks.


Authorities in the Jim Crow era were left with four options:


1. They could ban blacks from boarding city buses.
2. They could offer two buses, one for blacks and another for everyone else.
3. They could enforce assigned seating areas for blacks.
4. They could integrate the buses and allow whites to be assaulted.


Parks was uniquely positioned to demand the end of black-on-white violence on city buses. Her voice would have been heard. Proper protection could have been instigated. Today, few white people use public transport due to the danger posed by violent black thugs.


Rosa said nothing. She obviously didn't care if white passengers were beaten by blacks. Her silence was an endorsement; an encouragement. She was an enabler of black-on-white violence through her silence. She should have been kicked off the bus and banned forever.


On Thursday of last week nineteen black thugs forced open the door of a Baltimore bus to viciously assault a teenage pedestrian in broad daylight. Would you want to ride a bus with those thugs?


YouTube is chuck full of videos depicting blacks attacking whites on public transportation. I know of no instances in which white passengers assaulted blacks without provocation.


Jim Crow laws were too tolerant of Rosa Parks and other blacks who steadfastly refused to acknowledge the reality of black-on-white violence on public transportation. Such enablers should not be allowed to share the ride.


In 2010 a pregnant white teenager was attacked by four black females while attempted to exit a city bus.


Neither Rosa Parks nor other
black passengers suffered
violent attacks as are common for
whites, such as Sarah Kreager
who ride public transportation.


In 2011 a young white student was attacked by a mob of black students aboard a school bus. After the video went viral, the school board refused to release recordings of other black-on-white attacks to police, indicating that such violence is common in the St. Louis area.

In January, 2012 a white 13-year-old girl was beatenunconscious on a school bus by seven black female students. In the aftermath of the assault, the mother of one of the assailants claimed the lone white girl had uttered racist remarks. The attack was video recorded.

Atlanta's MARTA public transit system is known for it racial violence. In April, 2011 two white Delta employees were viciously beaten by a mob of young black thugs who terrorized other passengers. When the train arrived at the West End stop, the operator did not open the doors to allow the passengers to escape the violence.


The beating of a white woman by a group of black teens on Baltimore bus in 2007 was initially treated as a hate crime. "Sarah Kreager, 26, suffered broken facial bones and other injuries after she was punched, kicked and dragged off the bus Tuesday afternoon."


A security camera captured the
image of a black male (right) who
beat a disabled white woman (left)
to a bloody mass as
black passengers laughed.

Black-on-white bus violence isn't unique to America.


In late 2010 a black male beat a disabled mother unconscious, slamming her head repeatedly on the bus floor as her terrified three-year-old daughter watched in horror. None of the passengers on the crowded bus offered to help or even call the police. Instead, some of the black passengers laughed as the woman face was beaten to a bloody mass.


Such brutal black-on-white attacks are common on public transportation. To my knowledge there are no instances of similar white-on-black assaults other than fictional accounts presented by Hollywood.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

Communism — A Bad Idea that Won't Go Away

There are a lot of science-fiction/horror stories about possession, from the Body Snatchers to various episodes of Star Trek.  They usually involve some kind of spirit or disembodied life-form that takes an individual over, uses him, then moves out to take over a more powerful person, and so on, till he ends up ruling all of mankind.  And there's the variation where the spirit being doesn't have to leave one individual, as in the Puppet Masters or the Borg, but just keeps taking over more and more people till it is everybody.  These stories are very often unsubtle metaphors about real human memes that take over whole groups of people.  Proselytizing religions work that way, sort of like viruses.  Mohammed started one, and he brought in some other people, and intrinsic in Islam is that an individual Muslim is required to bring other people in, and so it spreads.  It's still spreading, here and there.  I use it as the first example because it's one of the most overt religions that operate that way, but others do, too — most forms of Christianity, Buddhism, etc.

But this extends to non-religious belief systems, too, good ones and bad ones.  The scientific method was created and perfected in Europe, but now is part of the fabric of culture in most of the world.  And one of the bad ones is communism.  It took centuries to develop into its current form, but for a while there, it was the basic ideology of maybe a third of the world, what with China, the USSR, and their satellites. Due to its essential disconnect with reality and some other factors, it died out in the Soviet Union a few years back, but before it died, it sent out spores.  Like the body-possessing evil spirit of the stories, it wore one host out and looked around for another, stronger one to exploit.  But it had gotten more sophisticated by then, and knew it could spread more effectively by stealth — i. e., by changing its name and appearance. Sometimes it can dress itself up pretty cute, as in the illustration.  Oh, where did it go?  It came here, of course, and uses a lot of names. "Political correctness" is one, and "anti-racism" is another.  And it also calls itself "social justice" and "fairness" and "99%."  To recognize it in all its forms, it helps if you learn about its original, classical form, Marxism. John Keller has gone right to the source, The Communist Manifesto, and finds it strangely familiar.  His essay is HERE.

Friday, May 18, 2012

The Liberal Disconnect

A lot of disparaging things have been said about liberals, most of it true. They're idealists in the worst sense of the term, meaning that they're guided by their ideal version of the Universe instead of the reality of the Universe, and live in constant frustration that what they believe ought to be happening just won't happen. P. J. O'Rourke once described them as toddler-like, because child-like doesn't quite cut it, as even children know, or suspect, that there might be objective reality out there somewhere. With toddlers it's all about what they want and they want it now or they'll hold their breath. A lot of evaluations of liberals and liberalism have to do with maturity and the general liberal lack of it.  They think that all people are equal, for example, much like a toddler thinks that teddy bears are real and can talk.  Eventually the toddler learns that he just has a stuffed animal there, i. e., he matures, but liberals never do, or if they do, they have to stop being liberals.  You've heard the old saw that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. There's some truth to that, except that some liberals require a lot of mugging. Indeed, any liberal of any age has mastered the art of doublethink, and, since part of him knows that some of those equal people out there might mug him, he semi-consciously avoids those particular equal people and moves to Portland or someplace like that. Liberalism always works better at a distance.  Right now, with the revelation that Trayvon was probably high, and that eyewitnesses and cops corroborate Zimmerman's assertion that Trayvon attacked him rather than the other way around, a lot of liberals have put their hands over their ears and are singing "La-la-la-la-la."  The more sophisticated liberal just ignore the new information, and search around for some new social problem to exacerbate.

Gavin McInnes has had it up to here with liberals and their nonsense, and he analyzes their dopey positions on homosexual marriage, feminism, obesity, and other liberal enthusiasms HERE.

If Isaac Asimov had been a Hindu.

Taking a break for a minute from the Neverending Story of Trayvon....You all know by now that I like Japanese cartoons, but they pale in comparison to the glories of Bollywood!  In comparison, Japanese anime is timid and unimaginative and dull. And never mind Casablanca and Birth of a Nation and The Third Man.  They all suffer from a pathetic dearth of robots. What we have here is a clip from what is obviously the Greatest Movie Ever Made.  Arnold Schwarzenegger, eat your heart out! And I have no idea why there's a Russian voiceover, but upon reflection, that seems just fine, too. It's called Endhiran (Robot), sometimes spelled "Enthiran," which is evidently Tamil for "Robot." (It's a Tamil movie, not the usual Hindi/Punjabi thing we usually get, so while it's Indian, maybe it's not technically Bollywood.) My thanks to the unique Robert Lindsay for putting it on HIS BLOG where I could find it.

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Trayvon Full of THC!

Illustration from http://www.somethingawful.com/d/news/drug-crazy-trayvon.php
You really have to read the papers in the UK to know what's going on here.  Nice story in the Daily Mail about choirboy Trayvon HERE.
And Steve Sailer's commentary on all this HERE.