The American Conservative

Are you familiar with The American Conservative?  If not, you should take a look.  You see, it actually is conservative, not neoconservative, so it's actually opposed to wasting our money and blood in attempts to improve the lives of non-Americans everywhere.  Conservative in the Pat Buchanan sense, which is appropriate enough, because he was one of the founders.  Another founder is less well known, Taki Theodoracopulos (Τάκης Θεοδωρακόπουλος), usually known as "Taki."  Actually, he was a founder in two senses, because he put up the money for it.  He also founded the web magazine, Takimag.  Right now he's kind of frustrated, because all the money and effort he's put into the enterprise hasn't stopped the neocons from their reign of silliness and terror.  He tells us of his history with the magazine:

NEW YORK—Ten years ago this week I put my money down and The American Conservative magazine was born. They say that owning a yacht is like sitting under a shower tearing up hundred-dollar bills. Owning an opinion magazine based in Washington, DC is like sitting in a dull hotel room throwing thousand-dollar bills to the fire. A boat will at least get you some attention from the fairer sex—if it’s large and vulgar enough, that is—whereas a political fortnightly might attract some bores with lotsa dandruff on their collars, but that’s about it. (Read the rest HERE.)

Too Funny Not To Post

Found on Facebook

Cry the Beloved Mother Country

If you think we're screwed up immigrationwise, we are, but Airstrip One is somewhat further along the road to damnation than we are.  Or so it would seem.  Partly, I think, it's because of the historical fact that they feel that people from the former Empire have some sort of intrinsic right to immigrate into the UK.  But mostly it's because of traitorous scumbag politicians — you know, like ours.  The last prominent politician who took notice of the immigration problem was Enoch Powell.

But now there's the British Freedom Party, and its chairman, Paul Weston.  His own blog is HERE.

The Rape of a Nation

Have the English become Eloi?

By Paul Weston

Britain is a very odd place these days. We are being subjected to what amounts to a racial and cultural war against us, yet our politicians refuse to talk about it, and the overwhelming majority of the indigenous population seem too cowed and fearful to force the politicians to not just recognise the problem, but to actually do something about it.
Consider the recent story regarding the rapist Mawawe Ibraham Karam and what it tells you about the cultural and social fabric of England in 2012. Karam is an illegal immigrant from Sudan who attacked and raped a drunken indigenous English girl in Nottingham earlier this year. Despite the clear distress of the girl, any number of passers-by ignored her predicament, as did local taxi drivers.

Viewed in isolation, this is just a drearily predictable end of a night out in the modern Britain built around liberal/ left values. “Empowered” girls too drunk to control their own lives; predatory third-world immigrants taking advantage of them and a mass of timid, cowardly Brits too scared to confront a rapist — and so lacking in basic decency they would not help the victim even after the rapist had fled the scene.

In 2011, nearly a fifth of all suspected rapists and murderers arrested were immigrants. Ninety-one were accused of murder while four-hundred-and-six were charged with rape in England and Wales. All too typical is the case of the murderer Younas Beraki, a failed asylum seeker from Eritrea who had been deported three times before Britain’s criminally negligent UK Border Agency (UKBA) allowed him back again in order to commit murder.

Out of half-a-million asylum and illegal immigrant cases, only ten percent were ever deported. Perhaps Mr Beraki was one of them, but if having been deported they can simply cruise straight back again we might just as well save money by closing down the “border controls” and declaring Britain open to all — which we effectively have. (Read the rest HERE.)

One More Reason To Toss Obama Out

When criticizing Obama, it's hard to know where to start.  "Fast and Furious" would be the dominating scandal of most presidential administrations, but with Obama, it's comparatively minor, what with the Libya catastrophe followed by immediate and profound lying about it. Not to mention the Superdeficit increasing daily by leaps and bounds. Not to mention that his propensity for interfering in other nations' internal affairs makes George Bush seem like he actually DID have a "humble foreign policy." If those still aren't enough reasons to vote against Obama (just kidding), A. X. Perez gives you one more — Sheer, breath-taking arrogance. This originally appeared in The Libertarian Enterprise.

They Have to Go (Because They're Arrogant) 

by A.X. Perez 

perez180ehs@hotmail.com

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

From time to time defenders of Eric Holder and Operation Fast and Furious argue that Gunwalker was a legitimate law enforcement operation that somehow spun out of control. The Inspector General's report indicates that the whole thing was a rogue operation out of Phoenix by the local BATFE office. So I'm going to put on my best wide eyed innocent trusting look and act like I accept this.

Then let us ask one question. All reports indicate from sources as diverse as Diana Wahington Valdez of the El Paso Times and the conservative Katie Pavlich indicate that by March 2010 there was enough evidence to convict anyone subject to American law of gun smuggling. According to Pavlich and apologists for the ATFE the Phoenix Federal Prosecutors refused to prosecute the cases and the fiasco continued. So were ATFE agents rogues or were the Phoenix federal prosecutors the rogues?

It keeps coming up, why? Why didn't the Federal prosecutors do their job in March of 2010? Why didn't Holder admit he knew what was going on in February and promise to clean up the mess then? Why didn't he call Rep. Issa and Sen. Grassley in and show them the documents they were asking for in private if he needed to keep secrets from the cartels and gun smugglers? Why did he need to hide this information from Congress?

I try to give Eric Holder and his boss the benefit of the doubt, if only to avoid looking foolish in case they are innocent of any wrongdoing here.Yet they insist on going out of their way to look guilty. It's almost as if they are so arrogant in their power, so sure of their hold on it, that Holder and Obama are boasting that they don't have to answer for how they use and abuse it.

We've had venal politicians and will again. Believe it or not some of them have actually done some good. But when political leaders boast they are above the law, they have to go.

(Go HERE to contribute to the author.)

Mike Ramirez Nails It!

America is in an abusive relationship. See Mike's cartoons regularly HERE.

He's a BA-A-A-AD President!

Through Jim Garrow from HERE:


COSTELLO: I want to talk about the unemployment rate in America.

ABBOTT: Good Subject. Terrible Times. It's 9%.

COSTELLO: That many people are out of work?

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: You just said 9%.

ABBOTT: 9% Unemployed.

COSTELLO: Right 9% out of work.

ABBOTT: No, that's 16%.

COSTELLO: Okay, so it's 16% unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, that's 9%.

COSTELLO: WAIT A MINUTE. Is it 9% or16%?

ABBOTT: 9% are unemployed. 16% are out of work.

COSTELLO: IF you are out of work you are unemployed.

ABBOTT: No, Obama said you can't count the "Out of Work" as the unemployed. You have to look for work to be unemployed.

COSTELLO: BUT THEY ARE OUT OF WORK!!!

ABBOTT: No, you miss his point.

COSTELLO: What point?

ABBOTT: Someone who doesn't look for work can't be counted with those who look for work. It wouldn't be fair.

COSTELLO: To whom?

ABBOTT: The unemployed.

COSTELLO: But they are ALL out of work.

ABBOTT: No, the unemployed are actively looking for work. Those who are out of work gave up looking and if you give up, you are no longer in the ranks of the unemployed.

COSTELLO: So if you're off the unemployment roles that would count as less unemployment?

ABBOTT: Unemployment would go down. Absolutely!

COSTELLO: The unemployment just goes down because you don't look for work?

ABBOTT: Absolutely it goes down. That's how Obama gets it to 9%. Otherwise it would be 16%. He doesn't want you to read about 16% unemployment.

COSTELLO: That would be tough on his reelection.

ABBOTT: Absolutely.

COSTELLO: Wait, I got a question for you. That means there are two ways to bring down the unemployment number?

ABBOTT: Two ways is correct.

COSTELLO: Unemployment can go down if someone gets a job?

ABBOTT: Correct.

COSTELLO: And unemployment can also go down if you stop looking for a job?

ABBOTT: Bingo.

COSTELLO: So there are two ways to bring unemployment down, and the easier of the two is to have Obama's supporters stop looking for work.

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like the Obama Economy Czar.

COSTELLO: I don't even know what the hell I just said!

ABBOTT: Now you're thinking like Obama.

Eye Candy or "I" Candy?

Surely we've all heard that Obama's been blowing off his actual responsibilities to talk to pirates, go to fund raisers, and meet with the ditzes on The View.  He's been doing this for years, of course, but what with sacked embassies and murdered ambassadors and lies about the same, it seems a little extra-tacky for him to do so much of that sort of thing just now.  The press thinks it's cool, of course, and wouldn't dream of criticizing Prince Bumpo.  One wonders how the press would react if Romney had referred to himself as "eye candy."  Fade to Justnotsaid....

President "Eye Candy"

As has been amply documented, President Obama passed on meetings with other world leaders at the recent UN summit so that he could appear on The View, where he said, "I've been told I'm just eye candy."

The mainstream media, of course, let that pass without comment.

But can you imagine the outcry had Mitt Romney said that? It would have been labeled as another "gaffe," and the poison pouring forth from the media would have been nonstop:

"The man's vanity knowns no bounds."

"As if we needed any more proof that the man is a complete lightweight!"

(Read the rest HERE.)

Literary Left and the Rigorous Right

I happened to catch The Day Carl Sandburg Died on PBS a few days ago.  I have a dusty old master's degree in English, but all I knew about Carl Sandburg was hog butcher to the world, fog coming on little cat feet, Lincolnolatry, and that Sandburg was a bit of a lefty.  I had no idea how left.  You should see it for yourself if you haven't, but when you do you have to remember that his consciousness was formed before the Russian Revolution, so all that feel-good Marxism he wallowed in hadn't been disproved in blood yet. But evidently he stuck with his thinking for 89 years and got fairly wealthy fighting capitalism.  When he came back from Europe bearing a letter and a check from Lenin, he was detained and questioned by the cops, and that's the extent of the persecution of Carl Sandburg.  All through the terrible tyranny of HUAC and Joe McCarthy, Carl Sandburg just kept on collecting money and plaudits.  What I'm engaging in here is sarcasm.  All the hand-wringing and breast-beating about the persecution of the left in America is extremely overblown.  True, there was a blacklist in Hollywood, but that, I believe, was because the studios were afraid they'd lose business if Americans realized they were employing communists.  And nobody got tortured or imprisoned.  

But I'm veering off topic.  The point is that most of our revered literary figures are revered more for their politics than for their talent.  Oh, Sandburg was an effective poet and writer.  But Ezra Pound was light-years ahead of him, and not nearly so beloved.  Ezra Pound was not a leftie, you see.  Actually, there are a lot of literary figures on the right, but the academic world and PBS don't find them as attractive, somehow, and prefer to concentrate on leftist writers, preferably Marxist ones.

But there's a book coming out about those right-wing guys, writers like Pound and Lovecraft, and others you've probably not heard of, called Artists of the Right.  You can find out more about it HERE.

Obama Supporters

Cartoon from BALOO'S WEBSITE.

Some wisdom from Obama supporters found over at Western Voices World News:

Arabs and Muslims, etc.

First, a quick summary, because a lot of people seem to need it.  Most Arabs are Muslims, but most Muslims are not Arabs.  The Muslim religion, Islam, began with Arabs, in Arabia, but it spread around well beyond the Arab people and other groups are now partially or overwhelmingly Muslim — Turks, Pakistanis, Indonesians, Filipinos, Albanians, Iranians, etc.  Now, I'm counting those groups which speak Arabic as their first language as Arabs, though some will argue that only the people of Arabia and nearby places are real Arabs.  Indeed, by ancestry, if you check the DNA out, you'll find that the Palestinian people, despite their language and religion, are not Arabs, but Jews.  (If that's confusing, think of Star Trek - Insurrection.)  Unless you want to count Jews as Arabs.  See how tangled it gets?  In fact, Arabs are a clear minority in the Islamic world, when you consider the population of Turkey, Pakistan, Iran, and Indonesia.  And, as I said, some Arabs aren't Muslim at all, but Christian.  And some are more exotic things like Druze (Casey Kasem was an example) or  Alawi, who are Muslims in the sense that Mormons are Christians — that is, they think they are, but other Muslims don't.

Well, having said all that, this post is about basic Muslim Arabs (and a few non-Arabs) who are mad at us.  President Urkel and Secretary of State Lisa Simpson think they're mad about that video that disses Mohammed, but it seems to me that they're mad about us invading and bombing so many of their countries and signing off on every nasty trick the Israelis, especially the Likudniks, think up.

So, why are they mad?  It's like this.  They are different from us in many ways, and they don't approve of us and our values.  Now, they probably wouldn't approve of other places either, like say Japan or Argentina or Iceland.  Thing is, though, those countries aren't constantly interfering with them.  Sheer distance and lack of interest causes those countries to leave the Islamic world in general, and the Arab world in particular, alone.  And, of course, vice versa.

So we have three options:  Change ourselves into the kind of people the Arab/Muslims will approve of.  This would involve tossing out the Constitution and 90% of Western Civilization.  Obama's trying, but it's a big job.  Another option is to change the Arab/Muslims.  Frankly, that would involve converting them to Christianity and using up all the economic and military resources of the West in other ways with no guarantee of success.  And the third option is to keep this crap up, like Ali Baba and the Forty Neocons, bombing them and giving them money and propagandizing them and inviting them to immigrate, etc.  How's that working out?  Oh, there's a fourth option that the Dems and Reps have never thought about:  Leave them the hell alone, and insist that they leave us alone.  Guy Somerset advocates that crazy idea, and has also done some thinking about Arabs and their religion HERE.

Symbolism and the Old Right and New Right

You know the dialectic, right?  Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.  Cute, and sometimes it applies, but I don't think it's any kind of an iron law.  Anyhow, as I've been blogging about lately HERE and HERE, the Old Right, for all its virtues, is basically dead, and any successful New Right won't just be a reawakening of the Old, but something New indeed. Or largely New.  That's how it is with movements.  Religious awakenings, for example, are seldom very much like the previous awakening.  Almost always there's a paradigm shift somewhere in there, shedding old elements that don't work or apply well any more, and adding new ones.  Sometimes the new elements are actually borrowed from the enemy (that's where the 'synthesis' comes in), as fascism borrowed a number of elements from communism to combat communism.  This has led, BTW, to the false identification of fascism with the left, popularized by neocons like Jonah Goldberg.  And it's nonsense. In just about all its forms, fascism is profoundly anti-left and anti-liberal.

Anyhow, a lot of politics is symbolism.  Red flags, swastikas, SPQR, donkeys and elephants, and statues of liberty.  As we build a New Right, what symbolism shall we utilize?  Do we need all new symbols, or some of the old ones plus new ones?  Can we fuse some of the old ones, previously opposed to one another, together, going back to the dialectic?  The old symbols still have power, and have been used to stand for rather contradictory things over the years.  Near-anarchist Thomas Jefferson and near-totalitarian Barack Obama have stood in front of many of the same symbols while furthering their contradictory creeds.

Matt Parrott calls this phenomenon "skeuomorphism." He explains how it relates to the New Right HERE.

How big is your "L"?

Here's what DailyKenn has to say about the election. The original is HERE.  I agree with him:

Time to vote libertarian; not Libertarian

by DailyKenn.com

There are two reasons to vote for a Libertarian Party candidate:

1. The candidate may win
2. To send the GOP  a message.

Rule out #1.

#2 will definitely send a message if libertarians throw the election to Obama. 

But at what price?

The damage done by Obama II will be irreversible and irrevocable. There will be nothing gained.

• The objective

Keep in mind the ultimate objective is not to elect a libertarian (or Libertarian). The goal is to affect public policy. Electing candidates who believe in small, unintrusive government is  not the end objective. It's a means to an end. 

Voting for a Libertarian Party candidate may actually have a negative effect on public policy if it results in a Marxist being re-elected to the White House. 

When an election is extremely close -- as the polls indicate is the case in this presidential election -- the most effective way to sway public policy in a libertarian direction is to support the lesser of two evils. 

• Small 'l' libertarians vs large 'L' Libertarians. 

A small 'l' libertarian is one who votes for the candidate who, if elected, will sway public policy in a libertarian direction. A large 'L' Libertarian is one who votes for the Libertarian Party candidate, even if it results in damaging the cause of the liberty. 

In the 2012 presidential election, therefore, libertarians have two choices: They can vote libertarian (small 'l') by supporting Mitt Romney, or they can vote Libertarian (large 'L') by supporting Gary Johnson. 

Romney is the libertarian candidate. Johnson is the Libertarian candidate. 

• Time to face reality

Earlier this month notable libertarian Libertarian Wayne Allyn Root became a libertarian Republican. His decision to change parties reflects an abandon of irrational thinking and a choice to embrace reality. 

Considering what is at stake in the 2012 presidential election, we should keep in mind that libertarian Libertarians who insist on supporting Gary Johnson rather than Mitt Romney are, in fact, voting for greater of two evils: Barack Obama. 

Paleos and then some

Buy this on merchandise HERE.

I've identified myself as a paleoconservative and a libertarian nationalist, and placed myself firmly in the good area of the Notorious Venn Diagram. But if you want to call me a right-wing extremist, feel free. I'll be in good company.  To come at it from a different direction, I accept and applaud the libertarian critique of just about everything, especially in the realm of economics, but I'm also aware of the limits of the applicability of the critique.  I know, for example, that economics states that it's a short-term great idea to import illiterate peasants to pick tomatoes cheap, so that tomatoes will cost a penny a pound less.  But I also know that it's a terrible idea because while your tomatoes are cheap, your taxes will go up to provide food stamps, free education, free health care, etc. etc. to those illiterate peasants and their offspring.  In short, I'm a libertarian within the constraints of the necessary conditions for a healthy nationalism. I've been calling that libertarian nationalism, neatly enough, but now John Derbyshire says some things that might indicate that I'm actually a paleolibertarian.  He writes:

What a menagerie we have become, here on the political Right!

Neoconservatives we all know about. They are the guys who favor restraint in taxation and regulation while being supportive of free trade, the welfare state, globalization, and the World Policeman role. Neoconservatives are currently basking in well-funded triumph, having taken over the Republican Party.

Paleoconservatives are still with us, or at least Pat Buchanan and Chronicles magazine are. They preach restraint in foreign relations,traditional values, patriotism, and the Tariff.

Somewhere in between the two lie neo-reactionaries. I can't quite get a handle on this term, but I have been seeing it with rising frequency this past few months. Is it really possible to have a category that includes both Jonah Goldberg and the weird but brilliant Mencius Moldbug? (I am a regular reader of MM, insofar as one can be a regular reader of a blogger who sometimes goes two months between posts.)  [Read the rest HERE.]

The Neo-New Right

"Any American New Right will rise from the suffocating slop of liberalism, gasping for air and shouting 'NO MORE!'" — Jack Donovan

What he said.  The American right is dead, and has been for some time.  Lincoln unseated it, Wilson marginalized it, FDR trampled it, LBJ buried it, and Obama is dancing on its grave.  Liberalism is triumphant.  Obama embodies it, in all its decadent, multicultural, perverse manifestations, and Romney, rather than opposing it, worships it, saying only that he can take us the rest of the way to Hell in a more efficient, dignified manner.

We can't resuscitate the Old Right.  It's a goner.  But as Jack Donovan suggest above, we can make a  New Right for the future, rather than wax nostalgic about an Old Right that was intrinsically too weak to resist liberalism.  Think about it.  If we were to magically reanimate Old Right leaders, what would they do?  Oh, I have no doubt that they could help in some ways, but keep in mind that they lost the first time around.  Could they win against modern liberalism when they lost to the old-fashioned, much less ruthless variety?  No.  George Wallace wouldn't have a prayer, nor would Goldwater or Jeff Davis or even Lindbergh.

So we're going to make something new.  We're not going to reprise the past Old Right, but create a futuristic version of it that keeps much of its intrinsic nature, while adapting it to the times.  We're going to make it obvious that liberalism is old-fashioned and out of step with the times.  Exactly how this will happen is unknowable in detail, but Jack Donovan has still more thoughts on that HERE.

Trouble Spots Nobody Cares About

If you know only what the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) tells you, you'd think that the only real trouble spots are in the Middle East, all other places being rather peaceful.  Or you might even think that the Middle East, and most particularly Israel and its neighbors, is the only actually important place in the world.  I mean, we don't have Presidential candidates flying to the US-Mexico border or touring South African farms where the White farmers have been murdered.  So such places must be of little importance compared to which gang of Middle Eastern religious barbarians gets to claim Jerusalem as its capital.

Well, I blogged awhile back about the Senkaku Islands, which are in dispute between Japan and China, and now I'm informed that there are other points of dispute in Asia, which are of course of no importance to us because they're not an existential threat to Israel, which is of course what God created the United States to deal with and never mind other stuff.  Anyhow, Charles A. Coulombe tells us about some of them HERE.

I scream, you scream, 47% scream....

Found on the net:

Allegedly From a teacher in the Nashville area

"We are worried about 'the cow' when it is all about the 'ice cream.' The most eye-opening civics lesson I ever had was while teaching 3rd grade. The last Presidential election was heating up and some of the children showed an interest. I decided we would have an election for a class president. We would choose our nominees. They would make a campaign speech and the class would vote. To simplify the process, candidates were nominated by other class members. We discussed what kinds of characteristics these students should have. We got many nominations and from those, Jamie and Olivia were picked to run for the top spot.

The class had done a great job in their selections, both candidates were good kids.


I thought Jamie might have an advantage because he got lots of parental support.

I had never seen Olivia's mother.

The day arrived when they were to make their speeches.

Jamie went first.

He had specific ideas about how to make our class a better place. He ended by promising to do his very best.

Everyone applauded and he sat down.

Now it was Olivia's turn to speak.

Her speech was concise. She said, "If you will vote for me, I will give you ice cream." She sat down.

The class went wild. "Yes! Yes! We want ice cream."

She surely would say more. She did not have to.

A discussion followed. How did she plan to pay for the ice cream? She wasn't sure. But no one pursued that question. They took her at her word.

Would her parents buy it or would the class pay for it...She didn't know.

The class really didn't care. All they were thinking about was ice cream...

Jamie was forgotten. Olivia won by a landslide.

Every time Barack Obama opened his mouth he offered ice cream and 51.4 % of the people reacted like nine year olds.

They want ice cream.

The other 48.6% percent know they're going to have to feed the cow and clean up the mess."

This is the ice cream Obama promised us!

Remember, the government cannot give anything to anyone that they have not first taken away from someone else.

Did you vote for the ice cream?

THAT, MY FRIEND, IS HOW OBAMA GOT ELECTED, BY THOSE WHO WANT EVERYTHING FOR FREE AND DON'T THINK ABOUT HOW TO PAY FOR IT.

Copy this and send it everywhere, or just send this URL:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2012/09/i-scream-you-scream-47-scream.html

Bourgeois vs. Barbarian

I've been saying for years that the bourgeoisie, or middle-class, is the highest development of humanity so far, and that the higher the percentage of a country belongs to the bourgeoisie, the more civilized the country is.  By bourgeoisie I don't mean middle-income.  That's a characteristic of the middle class, but not a definition of it, no matter what the talking heads say.  The bourgeoisie is defined as a class of people with middle-class values — a work ethic, a tendency towards high investment in their children, a preference for marriage and family life in general, a fairly rigid moral code (religion-based or otherwise), and an aversion towards frivolity and dissipation. The lower classes don't have these things, and therefore remain lower class. The upper classes don't need these things — they already have money and power — so they tend not to develop them.

So what I see as the ideal direction for this country is to strengthen these values among the middle class, and encourage the lower classes to adopt them and therefore become middle class.  As for the upper classes, I'm in favor of forcing them into a middle-class mold or tossing them out.

And I stick to this thinking, but I acknowledge that there are other ideas on the right.  Maybe I'm thinking in too narrow an American way.  Maybe not.  But I'm always ready to give any responsible dissenting view a hearing.  And James O'Meara thinks differently about the bourgeoisie, even deploring it.  Maybe the truth is a synthesis of his view and mine.  You be the judge.  His piece is HERE.

Sheikhing things up

Now we're getting reports that the whole Musim rioting and frothing at the mouth thing is actually all about getting Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman released.  You may remember him as the guy who tried and failed to blow up the World Trade Center.  Well, be that as it may (and I really don't think there was any single cause for all this, do you?), it's certainly an interesting idea that we would be idiotic enough to turn him loose for "humanitarian" or any other reasons.  The Scots, now, they're certainly idiotic enough.  So maybe we will be, too. I mean, Romney is dithery enough to consider it, and Obama would be glad to turn him loose, on general principles and because Rahman isn't a White Christian American, so he has to be comparatively innocent, right?

Maybe something can be worked out.  Maybe something really elegant.  Let's see.  The Israelis haven't actually rioted about it yet, but they definitely want us to turn Jonathan Pollard loose.  I mean, spying on a bunch of Goyim for the benefit of the Herrenvolk is a mitzvah, right?  Well, let's kill rehabilitate two birds with one stone.  Let's release both of them!  We can send Pollard to the Egyptians and Abdel-Rahman to the Israelis.  Win-Win.

China vs. Japan

There's not a lot of love lost between China and Japan.  And when you throw Korea into the mix, you pretty much have a three-way hatefest.  Lots of excellent historical reasons for their attitudes, so I'm not going to be self-righteous about this, but just do a little reporting.  The news media is distracted by the foam-at-the-mouth stuff in the Islamic world, and understandably hasn't had much to say about the rioting in China.  That, and the media have a tough time figuring out how it all fits their agenda, so they prefer not to say anything.  Well, the Chinese really don't like any foreigners, and they especially dislike foreigners who invade China, so they're miffed at Japan already, and are now extra-miffed about a dispute over a couple of islands.  I doubt that any of the rioting could be taking place without the approval of the Chinese government, so it does look like China is agitating for a war against Japan, or at least wants to look like it wants one.  They're even rioting against Japanese cars.  And, unfortunately, the rioting is catching on among Chinese-Americans, giving the lie to the theory that immigrants magically become Americans when they cross the border.  It would be really nice if we could stay out of this dispute, but we do have a defense treaty with Japan.  Maybe Obama can threaten to stop borrowing money from China. That should make them think twice.

White Diaspora?

There's a confusion about the words "White" and "caucasian" as they apply to race.  "Caucasian" is the scientific term, and it refers to one of the four generally-accepted divisions of mankind, the others being Congoid, Australoid, and Mongoloid.  Congoids and Mongoloids are what we traditionally call Black or Negro and Oriental or Eastasian, and Australoids are a less well-known race that extends from India thru Southeast Asia to the Pacific.

"White" and "Caucasian" are often used synonymously, but that's kind of a waste of a word. There are very dark-Skinned caucasians in India and Ethiopia who are usually considered nonWhite in a cultural sense, at least.  I think it's more useful to reserve White for those caucasians who originated in Europe.  Light-skinned, hair all the way from black to blond.  In short, any people, who, if they told you they were French or German or Portuguese, wouldn't surprise you at all.  Obviously, there are such White people all over the world, having migrated there from Europe, forming majorities in the US and Canada, Argentina and Chile, Australia, etc.  But in parts of Asia, surprisingly, you'll find a lot of people who, when you look past their exotic garb, could pass for Danes or Scots or anybody else in Europe.  I first noticed this when I was in Washington DC 40-odd years ago.  I knew some Indians and Pakistanis.  All were basically caucasian — that is, clearly not Black or Oriental or Australoid — but many of them had the characteristic reddish-brown skin of that area, and most had the narrow hands and feet that predominate in South Asia, along with the straight black hair you'd expect.  But some definitely looked more like Europeans than Indian stereotypes.  I got this video from Robert Lindsay's Blog.  Watch and be intrigued.

Obama — Metro or Homo or Both?

Obama has always seemed a bit ambiguous to me in the sexual area, but I really don't have much intuition in that respect, so I've never made a big deal about it.  Besides, I do know that the signals differ across racial/cultural/ethnic lines.  What would be over homosexual behavior on the part of a Welsh coal miner, say, would be regarded as perfectly normal and heterosexual in a French waiter.  But evidence continues to mount that there's more to Obama's behavior than meets the eye, just as there's less to his intellect than meets the eye. The Right-Wing News, where I found this delightful illustration, says THIS.  And, though the Huffington Post is clearly appalled at the idea, they couldn't resist reporting on it HERE.

And one of my favorite sites, "Just Not Said," has the following:


Is Obama gay?

When I first heard a few days ago that Obama might be gay, my initial reaction was, that's ridiculous. He's married, has two kids, and he's never set off my gaydar. I had read a few years ago about Larry Sinclair, who claimed he had given Obama oral sex when Obama was a state senator. But at the time I just figured that any famous person is bound to attract a few loonies who will say anything to get publicity.

But after I read the article linked two posts ago (and directly below), I started reading more about Obama's gayness, and after a while, it just made too much sense not to be true. (Read the rest HERE.)

Allergy Chic

Back when I was in school with Tom and Becky and Huck, I don't think I even knew the word "allergy," and I didn't hear about schoolkids with any particular allergies till I was an adult and my own kids were in school. Now they're all the rage, and you especially hear horror stories about peanut allergies, with terrifying details about their effect on some kids.  You hear about it so often that every school must have several kids allergic to peanuts.  But I only started hearing about it relatively recently.  So if there were as many kids with the condition sixty years ago, they must have just fallen over dead without anybody knowing why.  And you didn't hear about that sort of thing happening, either.  Another possibility is that the percentage of kids with the condition has gone way up, which would have to be due to a huge population shift or a wild mutation or something.

Another possibility is that kids diagnosed with allergies, especially peanut allergies, are being misdiagnosed, or their parents are mistaken, or that they have actually very mild allergies that actually wouldn't have been noticed were it not for constant medical checks of anything and everything.  If either or both is the case, why is such a big deal being made of something so minor?  Well, sixty years ago it was cool to be healthy, but now it's cool to have something wrong with you.  It's the victim-as-hero mentality.  Kids want to be special, sometimes, and their parents always want their kids to be special.  And it can get you out of things you don't want to do, like gym and stuff.

Well, turns out my suspicions were sort of right.  A lot of these kids' allergies are bogus.  Jim Goad gives us the details and speculates as to the meaning of it all HERE.  And Vox Day puts his two cents in HERE.

The Life and Times of Barry Soetoro

Reprinted from the Libertarian Enterprise:

I am Passing This On As Received 

from Marc V. Ridenour 

marcvridenour@gmail.com

Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Subject: I am passing this on as received

This forward is from my "correct the news media network" partner, Shelby Kristie of MO.

This doctor does work in Springfield, Missouri.
I am merely passing this on as received.

Written by a female Obama supporter who voted for him for president.



Legitimate Question: This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. I voted for Obama. McCain was a Washington insider and we don't need any more of them. I have changed my mind three times, since then. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. I started thinking, "Where does all the money come from for President Obama?" I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's history for my own peace of mind.

Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.

My question—Where did he get the money for this trip? Neither I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they were in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack—not Barry.

Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap to say the least. My girls asked me; where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe it's none of my business?

After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000. a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York. By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery several times in the past and in 2011. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association". About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? His family has no money that's for sure.

After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what I discovered? They represented "Rezar" which is Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans—Where did he get the money for this property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran ! Am I going nuts or is there a pattern here?

On May 10, 2008, The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran. This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq, he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things". What the heck does that mean?

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that were born in Pakistan? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2009, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "He made a mistake". Some mistake huh?

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it—Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett:

Daily Times—Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times—September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008.

Now the BIG question—If I found out all this information on my own, why haven't all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this? Is this a Kettle of Fish?? As Arsenio Hall would say—HUMMMMMMM! Does something stink or is it my imagination?" These are legitimate questions for our president.

Rachelle Derrough
Provider—M.D., RS—PHYSICIANS FOR WOMEN
CoxHealth

PASS THIS ON TO ALL INTERESTED PARTNERS.
Use the icons below to share on Facebook, etc., or the icon up at the top to share on Reddit.

What we do, what we are

We do what we do because we are what we are.  I was lucky enough to run across Robert Ardrey's books, including African Genesis, when I was young, and I got a dose of that kind of thinking before the blankslatist educational establishment got to me.  What we are, of course, is a hominid (aka "great ape") that diverges from the others (gorillas, chimps, orangutans) in diet and lifestyle.  They are almost exclusively herbivores, while we are omnivores who hunt. Therefore, our social organization differs from the others, having many of the characteristics of a wolf pack.  This is not just a cultural choice in the sense of choice of cuisine.  This is a cultural pattern that we've evolved to match.  You can't make us into another kind of animal.  We are what we are.  All the education, indoctrination, and propaganda can't make us into anything but the killer ape that we are.  Oh, it can make us think we're not killer apes.  Enough lies can convince people of just about anything.  But they can't make people behave unlike a killer ape, because we are killer apes, and we do what we do because we are what we are.

Me, I think it's a good thing that we have a theory that actually explains human behavior adequately, unlike other theories, like Marxism and Freudianism and liberalism, which manifestly do not explain human behavior, but rather try to prescribe it.

So I'm happy with my Darwinistic, killer-ape theory of human behavior.  It explains the past and predicts the future. It tells us what we actually are, and you can improve yourself only if you understand your present condition.  It tells us that all efforts to eliminate human aggression are a waste at best and counterproductive at worst.  Since it acknowledges human nature and the existence of innate drives, it keeps us from futile efforts to change humanity into something else, but rather encourages us to channel human drives into benign directions.

Fred Reed is aware of all this, but he reminds me of Mark Twain in his reaction to it.  Mark Twain always seemed to be disappointed when he came across such truths.  Maybe he regretted that the religion of his youth couldn't explain things so well.

I'm not disappointed at all to realize that we're an intrinsically aggressive killer ape, and that we can't be changed into something else.  Because if we could, the government nannies would do it, rest assured, and convert us into an animal that couldn't survive.  Well, judge for yourself.  I think Fred is completely right, but he doesn't seem happy enough about it.  His essay is HERE.

And there's a joke here I can't quite figure out how to approach.  We're a killer ape, but we're also an ape with a brain that can invent weapons and an opposable thumb that can wield them.  Therefore, we're a killer ape with killers apps.  Sorry.

The Leadership Principle

Cartoon from BALOO'S WEBSITE

Nope, not das Führerprinzip, but just the notion of leadership at all.  Something we don't have, it is said, like we used to. Right now, we have a struggle for power between Romney and Obama, who isn't a leader in any sense at all. The only decision he makes is to make no decision, it seems, and his Affirmative Action life has called on him to do nothing except what his handlers tell him to.  Then we have Mitt Romney, who looks like Alexander the Great in comparison, but who is actually a pretty run-of-the-mill businessman, a man of the balance sheet (which is a good thing in itself, make no mistake) but not a dynamic idea guy.  His father was more of a leader in the political sense, I think.

One thing a leader is not, is the fellow who runs to the front of a movement and pretends he's leading it.  A leader changes the course of events.  The Founding Fathers included a lot of leaders in that sense.  Most any of them could have joined the other side and done just fine in their lives, but they didn't like the accepted path, and wanted to create a new one.

It's hard for any of us to be objective, because we hate to think of those we despise as leaders, though they might be very good leaders, indeed.  FDR was, for example.  As was Lincoln.  And we tend to think of those we agree with as leaders, though they might not be very good leaders at all. Ron Paul is a great man and a great statesman, but is he a great leader?

Well, Charles Coulombe asks where all the great leaders have gone, and attempts and answer and an explanation HERE.

Speaking of leadership, one last point:  I ask again, is it too late to run Putin as a write-in candidate here?  Wouldn't you love to have a President who talked to reporters like this?  Thanks to Kylie over at http://isteve.blogspot.com/ for the link.

Judging Islam

Some things I have to say over and over again, in different ways, in the hope that I'll persuade a few more people.  The more obvious the point I'm making, the harder it seems to get across.  Today I want to make the point, again, that the US in particular and the West in general is totally screwed up in its policy towards the Islamic world.  Right now, we — and "we" means the US and Western Europe — have a two-part policy:  1. Interfere with all Islamic countries at the drop of a hat.  Criticize the way they do everything, keep calling them "medieval" and "barbaric" (contradictory, but that's the way it goes), demand that they kowtow to Israel, and bomb or even invade them for any reason or no reason.  2.  Invite all Muslims in the world, especially from the countries we've been interfering with the most, to immigrate here.  Once they're here, let them bitch about everything and give in to their demands that their religion be accommodated publicly while keeping Christianity behind closed doors so as not to offend them. Also give them affirmative action and sign them up for any and all kinds of government assistance.  As Steve Sailer would say, "What could possibly go wrong?"

These two Pillars of Neocon/Liberal Wisdom have been faithfully followed for several decades now, with no dissent from either political party.  Any of their members, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich, who do dissent become crazy, evil extremists.  Anyone who says that maybe we shouldn't be doing all the bombing and invading is denounced by the neocons as a "liberal," despite the fact that actual liberals have always supported such actions.  Anyone who says that maybe we shouldn't be allowing Muslims to immigrate to the West are denounced by the liberals as a Nazi or bigot or something.  Actually, the neocons will do the same thing.  And even more actually, the liberals and neocons agree completely about these two principles and any apparent disagreement is just play-acting, like professional wrestling.

Both principles are wrong, of course.  We can't do anything to improve the Islamic world, no matter how much we invade or bomb or send Peace Corps fools to them. So the thing to do is hold all interaction with them to a minimum, especially militarily, and make it clear that they'd be very foolish to attack the West.  That's easy.  None of them are crazy enough to do that when we're determined not to allow it.  And the second principle is wrong.  No Muslims should be allowed to immigrate, and the vast majority of those who have already immigrated need to be sent home.  In other words, live and let live, mind your own business, and all that right-wing thinking.

The editors over at Takimag.com seem to agree. They explain their position HERE.

Inequality and then some

The creed, or one of the creeds, of the Zeitgeist is equality.  Everything is equal.  As I said before, this to some extent is a perversion of the Founders' poor choice of words when they said that "all men are created equal."  All they meant was that privileges for nobility and royalty were logically invalid.  But all men aren't created equal in any other sense, and only an idiot would claim that they are.  So men aren't equal, and countries aren't equal, and races aren't equal, and ethnic groups aren't equal, and languages aren't equal, and religions sure as hell aren't equal. Bet you think I'm going to segue into Islam here, and point out that it's not equal to Christianity. Well, for the most part, it's not. Christianity was 'designed,' in a spontaneous-order sort of way, for Europeans, generally speaking, while Islam was designed rather deliberately by Muhammed for Arabs, as a sort of Arab version of Christianity, and it has spread to people, again generally speaking, who tend to resemble Arabs culturally in the first place.  Of course, Islam and Christianity are both very big, heterogenous things, so exceptions to what I've said here are rife.

But I'm not going to talk about Islam, which has a got of good points, but about Scientology, which has none.  I haven't made a particular study of it, but a lot of other people have, and it would seem to be a textbook example of a cult.  To me, the basic thing about a cult is that it always wants your money, or sometimes your labor in place of money, very early on, as a condition of membership.  Another frequent sign of cultishness is its tendency to isolate members from nonmembers, most especially the relatives of those members.  And then there's the harassment of ex-members. Scientology qualifies in all these respects.  I've heard it described as "stupidity for smart people" because it brags about how many high-IQ members it has, and then it requires them to believe some silly-assed stuf that would cause a Mormon to make winding motions by his ear with one finger.

Scientologists are proud to have the likes of Tom Cruise and these flaky celebrities as members, which would be enough all by itself to convince me of its uselessness. My impression is that Scientology basically consists of a half-assed system of psychotherapy paired with a theology made up by a second-rate science fiction author — L. Ron Hubbard up there — which tends to remind me of Theosophy and Mt. Shasta and garbage like that.

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I've never been religious.  Very few religions have any attraction for me, and those that do attract me because of their esthetic sense, sometimes, and because I like the way their members behave.  My own ethics is based on my own thinking about what is worthwhile and how best to promote such things, not on religious belief.  But I find that most of what I think worthwhile is reflected in basic Christianity and in some other religions to a lesser extent.  So to me, Scientology neither promotes proper behavior nor does it have a particularly esthetic set of beliefs and ceremony.

So I'll let Gavin McInnes rip into Scientology for me.  He's funnier about it than I could be, anyway.  His exposé on the evil stupidity of Scientology is HERE.

Time for a cute break

You know I get a kick out of cute things, especially after blogging about such decidedly uncute things as politics and foreign policy.  And the Orient is full of cute things.  Usually it's artwork by Japanese manga and anime artists that appeals to me, but today I ran across some pictures of this  5-year old Taiwanese cosplayer named Nini — a cosplayer, BTW, is someone who indulges in cosplay, which is a Japanese term from the English "costume player," and means, basically, someone who likes to dress up like fictional characters, most usually cartoon characters, from superheros to funny animals. Go see more of Nini HERE.

Passing for White, and then passing back

For a very long time, in this country, people with a bit of Negro blood who appeared to be completely White attempted to conceal their Black ancestry and "pass" for White.  They wanted to take advantage of "White privilege," which is a phenomenon whereby White people had intrinsic social advantages because of their race.  This privilege has slowly been eroded since the Civil War, and it was eliminated completely in our time.  Really, by the Sixties.  Now, it's reversed, and we have absolutely no White privilege at all, but instead we have non-White privilege, whereby non-Whites get preference in education, hiring, acquiring mortgages, etc., and also have a special immunity to punishment for bad behavior, being held to a much lower standard than Whites are.

Even White liberals know, tho they'd rather attend NASCAR than admit it, that checking a minority box on an application for just about anything gives you a tremendous advantage.  On top of such official Affirmative Action, we have informal Affirmative Action, whereby individuals make decisions to give minorities, especially Blacks, special advantages wherever possible, and to let them get away with behavior they'd never put up with on the part of Whites.  Black flash mobs, for example, are now taken for granted, and cops are afraid to do anything about them because they could ruin their careers that way.

Anyhow, the point of all this is that while in the past it was an advantage to hide Black ancestry, it is now an advantage to flaunt it.  Harding, it was alleged, had Black ancestry, but of course had to hide it in order to be President.  Now, Obama wouldn't have gotten anywhere near the Presidency if he hadn't been part Black. That's actually his only advantage.  Whites voted for in in large part because it was an opportunity to prove how enlightened they were.  Let's hope most of them are over that by now.

For a history of the phenomenon of "passing," and developments since, check out THIS piece by Steve Sailer.  Be sure to read the comments.  Then go to Steve's own site and read the comments HERE.

Winning the Blame Game

Well, Christopher Stevens is dead, and our relations, if you can call them that, with Libya are not at their best right now. But the thing the press wants you to remember and focus on is that none of this has anything to do with Obama.  Whoever overthrew Gadaffi and threw Libya in to chaos was nuts, of course, but it must have been Bush or Cheney or Hitler or somebody like that who did it, because God knows Obama would never screw up like that.  So never mind how it got in such a mess, and never mind that Hillary, the second smartest person in the world after Obama, sent Stevens there to get killed. All that blame belongs elsewhere.  And it can't be the fault of the Libyans themselves, of course, because all they want is freedom and democracy. And it can't have been any kind of Islamic thing, because Islam is a religion of peace — That's something Bush and Obama agree on.  So, we can't be upset with Obama, or Hillary, or the Libyans, or Arabs in general, or Muslims in general.  So who is left to heap the consequent opprobrium on?  Steve Sailer explains that much better than I can HERE.

Riddle Me This....

See if you can guess what demographic group is responsible for all these things:

Euclidean geometry. Parabolic geometry. Hyperbolic geometry. Projective geometry. Differential geometry. Algebra. Limits, continuity, differentiation, integration. Physical chemistry. Organic chemistry. Biochemistry. Classical mechanics. The indeterminacy principle. The wave equation. The Parthenon. The Anabasis. Air conditioning. Number theory. Romanesque architecture. Gothic architecture. Information theory. Entropy. Enthalpy. Almost every symphony ever written. Pierre Auguste Renoir. The twelve-tone scale. The mathematics behind it, twelfth root of two and all that. S-p hybrid bonding orbitals. The Bohr-Sommerfeld atom. The purine-pyrimidine structure of the DNA ladder. Single-sideband radio. All other radio. Dentistry. The internal-combustion engine. Turbojets. Turbofans. Doppler beam-sharpening. Penicillin. Airplanes. Surgery. The mammogram. The Pill. The condom. Polio vaccine. The integrated circuit. The computer. Football. Computational fluid dynamics. Tensors. The Constitution. Euripides, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Aeschylus, Homer, Hesiod. Glass. Rubber. Nylon. Roads. Buildings. Elvis. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors. (OK, those are nerve agents, and maybe we didn't really need them.) Silicone. The automobile. Really weird stuff, like clathrates, Buckyballs, and rotaxanes. The Bible. Bug spray. Diffie-Hellman, public-key cryptography, and RSA. Et cetera.

Give up?  Fred Reed knows who it is, and tells us all about it HERE.

Two of my Favorite Subjects: Canadians and Gypsies.

Gypsies are good at music, dancing, fortune telling, and crime. Maybe some other stuff, but that's what I've heard about. And they seem to have invented flash mobs, too. I described my first encounter with a Gypsy flash mob HERE.  I've frequently pointed out here that certain ethnic groups are just fine at home, but cause trouble abroad.  They don't fit in with the locals, and friction results.  If you don't believe me, just ask Moctezuma what happened when a bunch of Spanish immigrants showed up.  One reason that Gypsies have a reputation for being a pain in the neck to everybody is that they're never at home.  Lacking a country of their own, they live in other people's countries, and, for the most part, resist assimilation like mad.  Therefore, they're not just fine at home, never actually being at home, but are universally a pain in the neck.

In times past, there's been a sort of truce with Gypsies in most of the world.  Everybody knows they're a bunch of thieves, so nobody wanted them to settle nearby, but they were tolerated, because they were indeed good at music and other entertainment, and some of them were good at tinkering and other travel-friendly occupations.

Then World War II came along, followed by the cultural Marxism known as 'political correctness,' and it's considered gauche at best to recognize that any ethnic groups have other than positive characteristics, so we must not acknowledge the fact that for centuries, Gypsy culture has been built around crime. We have to pretend that's not so, and welcome them in everywhere and sign them up for welfare.  At least, that's what While liberals want to do, and what better place to find a bunch of totally flaked-out White liberals than America's frozen mullet, Canada.  Kathy Shaidle tells us about the latest incident there, and its exacerbation by the bizarre Bernie Farber, HERE.

Robbing Peter to pay Christopher

On second thought, that title doesn't make any sense at all.  No matter.  It's all to introduce Peter Hitchens.  He's not the late Christopher Hitchens, on the left (appropriately enough) there, but his brother, on the right.  Most of us yanks (We might as well accept the word for all of us, since the Brits don't know any better. We can get revenge by calling Scots "English.") who are political junkies at all,  have heard of Christopher, but not of Peter.  Well, Peter is rather conservative, as far as I can tell, in contrast to the Trotskyite/Neocon Christopher, and writes for the Daily Mail regularly.  His stuff is well worth looking at, even for us Yanks, and his latest column reminds us that no matter how screwed up and politically correct our justice system is, it can always get worse.  And apparently has, in the UK.  Peter Hitchens writes:

Have a nice cup of tea, Mr Burglar and please don't say I hurt you

This is Peter Hitchens’ Mail on Sunday column

Get used to it. You are not safe in your own home. Just because only one judge has been silly enough to admit that he thinks burglars are brave, don’t think there aren’t hundreds more just the same.

They simply don’t have the courage to admit it. Some older judges, true, may still secretly disapprove of thieves. But they lack the principle to resign  from a job where their main task is to keep criminals out  of prison. (Read the rest HERE.)

Procrustocracy*

Do we all know the story of Procrustes and his bed?  Maya Angelou didn't write it, so you younger folks probably didn't learn about it in school.  So, just in case, here's the story from Mythweb:

Procrustes was a host who adjusted his guests to their bed. Procrustes, whose name means "he who stretches", was arguably the most interesting of Theseus's challenges on the way to becoming a hero. He kept a house by the side of the road where he offered hospitality to passing strangers, who were invited in for a pleasant meal and a night's rest in his very special bed. Procrustes described it as having the unique property that its length exactly matched whomsoever lay down upon it. What Procrustes didn't volunteer was the method by which this "one-size-fits-all" was achieved, namely as soon as the guest lay down Procrustes went to work upon him, stretching him on the rack if he was too short for the bed and chopping off his legs if he was too long. Theseus turned the tables on Procrustes, fatally adjusting him to fit his own bed.

So, you see, obsession with the principle of equality isn't new.  The Founding Fathers, unfortunately, used the phrase "All men are created equal," and that was the camel's nose under the tent.  Of course, all they meant was that there was no intrinsic difference between social classes, that is, commoners, aristocrats, and royalty, and that therefore there should be one law for them all.  They had no problem with different laws for the sexes, or for different age groups, or for different races or national groups.  All they were referring to was social class. They rejected the principle that noble birth should have political meaning.  But try to tell a Democrat that.  In fact, try telling a Republican.

Modern procrustocrats are mostly too lazy to stretch anybody, though, and are content to trim everybody down to the lowest common denominator instead.  Marx didn't think this stuff up.  He just systematized it.

Anyhow, the irony is this:  When we were ruled by aristocrats and royals, there was abuse. But the most arrogant king ever would have hesitated to be a tenth as brutal and murderous as the champions of equality have.  Compare, say, Caligula to Mao.  Any Tsar at all to Stalin.  Richard III to Pol Pot.  Jeff Davis to Obama. Yes, indeed, we're now in the age of Procrustocracy, obsessed with "disparities," and willing to murder to eliminate them.  Black test scores in school too low?  Move resources from the other kids to the Black kids.  Make it illegal to punish Black kids for misbehavior at a higher rate than other kids.  And by all means force integration on everybody from the schools to the military to marriage itself.  That'll chop those damn long legs off.

Well, I rave.  Andy Nowicki, a cooler, more even-tempered guy, writes about the intrinsic murderousness of egalitarianism HERE.

_____________

* I just Googled "procrustocracy," and got no hits on the net.  So I guess I just coined it.  Feel free to use it yourself, but credit cranky old Ex-Army with its creation.