Monday, December 31, 2012

The Gentle Art of Taking Offense Where None is Intended

Cartoon by BALOO

It's practically an Olympic sport these days.  Back in the old days, people who "took offense" to things were either Margaret Dumont or the target of more offense as a result, or both.  Actually, I think it was feminists who started the sport of taking unintended offense, because, being girls, nobody knocked them down for it.  When it became established as the trendy thing to do, girly-men like Phil Donahue started taking such offense, and the next great advance was taking offense where none is intended on behalf of other people. This is where White liberals shine.  Some upper-class White twit from a gated community can take offense and call you a racist when you point out that Obama is full of baloney or that Whoopi Goldberg is an idiot.  A friend of mine on the net once made an observation that it was odd that Henry Kissinger supported right-wing parties in post-war Germany, because the German right still harbored some anti-Semitic elements and Kissinger, of course, is Jewish.  My friend was immediately accused of being anti-Semitic himself for making the observation.  Figure out the logic of that, if you will.

Well, there was a lot of expert offense-taking in 2013, what with the election and all.  The latest, which I just came across today, is people taking offense on behalf of Hillary Clinton, when her manifold sudden ailments, resulting in her non-testimony about Benghazi, are doubted.  Now, you see, doubting the honesty of a politician is an act of offense.  Elsewhere on the net, some bozo is taking offense on Piers Morgan's behalf, indignant that people are saying he ought to be deported.  It's offensive, you see, to point out that he's a jerk whom we don't need here.

But to save the rest of us the trouble, Jim Goad has compiled a list of the greatest feats of offense-taking of the year.  He starts out:

2012: The Year in PC

If this isn’t the most easily offended civilization in world history, I’m glad I missed whichever one was worse.

Still, our modern thought police—those prigs and fussbudgets and censors and tattletales and hall monitors and snitches and meddlers and natural-born teacher’s pets—insist that “political correctness” was a brief blip on America’s cultural radar that evaporated sometime in the mid-1990s.

As with everything else, they are wrong.

Whereas PC was still somewhat a fringe phenom in the 1990s, it has become the very fabric of our dying civilization. It is now so pervasive and dominant that it only seems invisible. It has metastasized into the popular narrative and continues expanding with no end in sight.

Never has so much bitterness and hostility been expended in the service of kindness and compassion. Oh, how I loathe the desiccated, humorless souls of the neo-tolerant, those whose endless capacity for getting offended has itself become offensive, who are morally outraged at the mere suggestion that they are absurdly prone to gross public displays of moral outrage. Hear them spout off about their dimly conceived and shabbily articulated notions of human rights, ones that conveniently always seem to trample on the rights of other humans.

One need not try to offend them. Even if you don’t try, they’ll get offended. Even if you make a conscious effort NOT to offend them, they’ll get offended. The very air they breathe offends them. They are offended by everything except their own existence. Look at them whining and whimpering and wailing, curled in a ball at the bottom of the shower, picking at their scabs and pretending to nurse self-inflicted wounds that they never intended to heal.

It almost makes the idea of committing hate crimes against them seem pleasurable, but not for any of the reasons they’d think—not their skin or gender or what they do with their genitals. No, it’s their personalities. It has always been their personalities and their personalities alone. In case I still need to spell it out for you, here’s the problem: T-H-E-I-R P-E-R-S-O-N-A-L-I-T-I-E-S.
(Read the rest, with the big list, HERE.)

Officers Down: Another Glorious Triumph of Feminist Ideology

If you keep seeing it on TV, it must be real, right?  You know, brilliant Black scientists everywhere you go.  And many of them female.  Hell, most of them female.  Well, to simplify, TV seems determined to feature just about anybody outside the "White male heterosexual" classification as something extraordinarily able, brilliant, powerful, etc.  One thing we sure get a lot of is the idea of powerful lady fighters.  When it's superhero silliness, it's not quite as offensive, because that stuff is clearly make-believe.  But when you see cutie-pie girl cops regularly kicking the crap out of tough male thugs, you're outside the realm of normal fiction and into feminist hallucination-land.  Now, before you write in to tell me about some lady you know who can and does whip tough males, I hasten to assure you that I know a couple of those, too.  What we have here is something called the 'Bell Curve,' which is a statistical concept based on a White male idea called 'mathematics.'  Essentially, it explains how it can be that while some women are taller than some men, the average woman is shorter than the average man.

But that's too 'thinky' for feminists, who are into feelings rather than logic, so we've had a big push for years to recruit and deploy as many female cops as possible, because, hey, everybody's equal, right?  Now, of course, whereas male cops have to be of a certain height to qualify, females don't have to be quite that tall, because that would have a 'disparate impact,' which is a doublethink concept whereby you acknowledge that one group is superior to another while simultaneously denying it.

Well, we have all these cute lady cops now, and what is the result?  You probably know all about Rodney King, except for the little detail that a lady cop was involved, and had she been male, we might never have heard of King and his adventures.  That, and a more recent case is discussed by Nicholas Stix:

Affirmative Action Almost Costs 3 Lives in Gloucester Twnshp, NJ: Domestic Violence Suspect Easily Overpowers Lady Cop, Takes Her Gun, and Shoots Her and 2 Policemen; Policemen Return Fire, Killing Suspect; MSM Ignore Story

Sgt. James Garber was shot several times and underwent surgery. Garber has been released from the hospital.

By Nicholas Stix
Updated at 4:18 a.m., Monday, December 31, 2012

[“Brian Nichols in Atlanta: PC Kills… Again”; and

Part II: “Aiding and Abetting: Feminism and the Brian Nichols Case.”]

The reader who anonymously sent this story wrote,

“A man was arrested for stalking his girlfriend in Gloucester County, NJ (near Phila). The man was taken to police station. While being processed by a female police officer (young and cute), the suspect grabs cutie officer's pistol and shoots her as well as 2 other cops. Suspect dies of wounds. All 3 officers alive, 1 was wounded in gut, just released from hospital. Lots of angles: 1. Suspect a usual suspect ... involved in crime against a woman. 2. Female cop not able to handle suspect and jeopardizes others due to her incompetence. 3. Gun control, or lack of control from this female officer. Link below.”

This is why women cannot serve as cops. They can fulfill the traditional job of police matrons who search and guard female suspects, but they no more have the physical ability to tangle with men criminals than to serve in the military in combat.

Two LAPD officers were railroaded by the feds for giving a violent, extremely intoxicated felon, Rodney King, a severe but lawful beatdown in 1991, when King repeatedly resisted arrest and assaulted four policemen. The ultimate responsibility for that beatdown lay entirely with King. However, things could have gone much worse. (Lots more.  Keep reading HERE.)

Sunday, December 30, 2012

Multiculturalism Vs. Culturalism

There are a lot of notions covered by the term "multiculturalism," just about all of them stupid and illogical. But let's start with two extremes: The first I'll call "culturalism," and it more or less states that "My culture is infinitely superior to all others, and no alien culture has anything worthwhile to contribute to mine, but, on the contrary, all alien cultures should be destroyed and replaced my my culture."  Now, that's a narrow-minded view of things, because our own culture, Western civilization, has already borrowed lots of ideas and institutions from other cultures and they're now part and parcel of Western civilization.  To say that it's all 'just right' now, and that adding any new outside elements would only be a detriment is illogical.

The opposite view is "multiculturalism," which more or less states the opposite extreme: "All cultures are of equal value, and we should welcome any and all foreign cultures into our own without question."

The first view is narrow-minded, but it's at least sort of viable. The second view is psychotic and self-destructive, as well as being logically untenable.  The first view can keep a culture in existence for awhile, at least, while the second view is immediately and inevitably suicidal.

My own view, within this paradigm, is a "modified culturalism."  I do think my culture, as a whole,  is superior to all others that I know anything about. But I think that it has room for improvement, and that by examining other cultures critically, we can discover things worthy of emulation, some trivial and some profound.  The surface things most people think about are usually trivial, like cuisine and some pop culture.  More profound things include technology, philosophy, religion, and other folkways that have a more powerful impact.  So, from my point of view, some of these things should be borrowed and others shunned.

Now, here's the rub.  Although I think that Western Culture is superior to Islamic Culture, and could go on and on about why, I do not want Islamic Culture destroyed.  Oh, it needs to be kept out of the West, certainly, and I'd do just about anything to accomplish that.  But I have no desire to use Western blood and treasure to destroy it on its own turf, all things being equal.  I want their culture to be kept sealed off from ours. This doesn't violate my notion that there are things in their culture worth emulating, because, after close association with Islam for centuries, we've already borrowed all the good stuff, and we don't need the bad stuff.

Some people can't see that distinction, and they think that there are only two positions.  Active destruction of foreign cultures or active acceptance of them into ours.  Both are, all things being equal, absurd.  Interestingly and paradoxically, both postions are public policy.  Our elite leaders actually argue that we need to occupy places like Afghanistan and Somalia to make them stop doing bad things.  Mostly bad things to their own women.  At the same time, they call for massive immigration of Afghans, Somalis, etc., who of course will bring all their obnoxious customs with them.

Me, I want both to stop.  We can disapprove of the way Afghans or Ugandans or Colombians or Estonians live without feeling the need to make them live our way by force.  At the same time, we can  keep them from immigrating, or, when they show that the want to keep on with their egregious behavior here, send them the hell home.

But I digress.  What I want to point out here is the craziness of the whole "multiculturalism" thing, and how it twists our thinking.  Now, keep in mind that you can, as I recommend, disapprove of cannibalism or wife-beating or soccer without being morally required to send the Marines to put a stop to it all in foreign countries.  You can and should disapprove of things that are immoral in your culture.  But some of our youngsters don't get that.  They take to heart the idea that to criticize another culture is, well, judgmental, and that's just awful.  I want to give you the provenance of this.  I came across the link to this at  It starts out:

Is it still wrong if another culture says it is right? A teacher’s surprising discovery

Denyse O'Leary

Recently, a Canadian high school teacher broke the silence about where cultural relativism really leads.
Update: When we celebrate “diversity,” what exactly are we celebrating? And Does a man’s honour reallylie between the legs of a woman?
We are told that it means that everyone will accept people of other faiths and sexualities. But what can that mean when it is unpacked?
In “Moments of startling clarity: Moral education programming in Ontario today,”* Stephen L. Anderson recounts what happened when he tried to show students what can happen to women in a culture with no tradition of treating women as if they were fellow human beings with men:
I was teaching my senior Philosophy class. We had just finished a unit on Metaphysics and were about to get into Ethics, the philosophy of how we make moral judgments. The school had also just had several social-justice-type assemblies—multiculturalism, women’s rights, anti-violence and gay acceptance. So there was no shortage of reference points from which to begin.
I decided to open by simply displaying, without comment, the photo of Bibi Aisha. Aisha was the Afghani teenager who was forced into an abusive marriage with a Taliban fighter, who abused her and kept her with his animals. When she attempted to flee, her family caught her, hacked off her nose and ears, and left her for dead in the mountains. After crawling to her grandfather’s house, she was saved by a nearby American hospital. I felt quite sure that my students, seeing the suffering of this poor girl of their own age, would have a clear ethical reaction, from which we could build toward more difficult cases.
The picture is horrific. Aisha’s beautiful eyes stare hauntingly back at you above the mangled hole that was once her nose. Some of my students could not even raise their eyes to look at it. I could see that many were experiencing deep emotions.
But I was not prepared for their reaction.
I had expected strong aversion; but that’s not what I got. Instead, they became confused. They seemed not to know what to think. They spoke timorously, afraid to make any moral judgment at all. They were unwilling to criticize any situation originating in a different culture.
They said, “Well, we might not like it, but maybe over there it’s okay.” One student said, “I don’t feel anything at all; I see lots of this kind of stuff .”
Another said (with no consciousness of self-contradiction), “It’s just wrong to judge other cultures.”
(Mind-blowing, eh?  Keep reading it HERE.) 

Inequality before the law

It used to be the rich and the poor, but more and more, it's a case of one law for the political elite and another law for the rest of us.  Or, even, no laws at all for the elite, and far too many damn laws to keep track of for the rest of us.  Let's see.... We are now being informed that the very thought of armed guards to protect our kids in their schools is laughable, crazy, too expensive, and probably racist.  But the idea of armed guards to protect the kids of the elite, as is the case at Sidwell Friends, is sensible, rational, yadda, yadda, and yadda.  "Guns don't make us safe," says Obama, flanked by a squad of armed Secret Service agents.  Over at, Mark Steyne ponders all this, and tells us about one of the latest manifestations of the quirky way laws, particularly laws concerning firearms, are applied:

Laws Are for Little People 
And not for David Gregory.
By Mark Steyn

A week ago on NBC’s Meet the Press, David Gregory brandished on screen a high-capacity magazine. To most media experts, a “high-capacity magazine” means an ad-stuffed double issue of Vanity Fair with the triple-page perfume-scented pullouts. But apparently in America’s gun-nut gun culture of gun-crazed gun kooks, it’s something else entirely, and it was this latter kind that Mr. Gregory produced in order to taunt Wayne LaPierre of the NRA. As the poster child for America’s gun-crazed gun-kook gun culture, Mr. LaPierre would probably have been more scared by the host waving around a headily perfumed Vanity Fair. But that was merely NBC’s first miscalculation. It seems a high-capacity magazine is illegal in the District of Columbia, and the flagrant breach of D.C. gun laws is now under investigation by the police.
This is, declared NYU professor Jay Rosen, “the dumbest media story of 2012.” Why? Because, as CNN’s Howard Kurtz breezily put it, everybody knows David Gregory wasn’t “planning to commit any crimes.”
So what? Neither are the overwhelming majority of his fellow high-capacity-magazine-owning Americans. Yet they’re expected to know, as they drive around visiting friends and family over Christmas, the various and contradictory gun laws in different jurisdictions. Ignorantia juris non excusat is one of the oldest concepts in civilized society: Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Back when there was a modest and proportionate number of laws, that was just about doable. But in today’s America there are laws against everything, and any one of us at any time is unknowingly in breach of dozens of them. And in this case NBC were informed by the D.C. police that it would be illegal to show the thing on TV, and they went ahead and did it anyway: You’ll never take me alive, copper! You’ll have to pry my high-capacity magazine from my cold dead fingers! When the D.C. SWAT team, the FBI, and the ATF take out NBC News and the whole building goes up in one almighty fireball, David Gregory will be the crazed loon up on the roof like Jimmy Cagney in White Heat: “Made it, Ma! Top of the world!” At last, some actual must-see TV on that lousy network.

Friday, December 28, 2012

The Hobbit

I haven't seen The Hobbit yet, but I've been hearing good things about it.  Evidently, whereas Lord of the Rings had to be compressed to fit into a film trilogy (I haven't forgiven them for leaving Tom Bombadil out.  Bill Murray would have be perfect for the role.), The Hobbit has to be expanded a little, if anything.  Maybe I'll get around to seeing it soon, and giving you my thoughts on it, but more importantly, Kevin MacDonald has seen it, and has of course detected a deeper meaning to it. The meaning is obvious when you have your nose rubbed in it, and it's possible that the meaning was so obvious to Tolkien that he took it for granted that everyone would see it and it didn't need to be commented on.  Or not. It's hard to read his mind from this distance.  Anyhow, according to Kevin MacDonald:

Implicitly White themes in “The Hobbit”

The Hobbit is a bit long, and some of the scenes could have been edited down. But I am not really complaining. It held my interest. The only thing is that it has a sort of “one thing after another for no good reason” feel—the result of a lot of padding needed to make a trilogy of movies out of a short novel. But when you look at the garbage put out by Hollywood, The Hobbit is certainly most welcome.

There are a lot of good things here. You have to marvel at the 3-D magic and computer graphics, especially in the fighting and chase scenes. Of course, I am relatively unjaded when it comes to computer graphics in movies because I am rarely inspired to enter the enemy-controlled territory of the local cinema.

There are some really beautiful scenes set in the forests, fields, and mountains of New Zealand. The scene with Gollum and Bilbo Baggins, set in an underground lake, is hauntingly beautiful—with rocky crags and still, dark waters, illuminated as if by the moon.

And I always resonate to the shire, even though we get to experience it only at the beginning. The rounded doorways, arches and windows, with houses partly underground and grass growing on the roof. Nothing ostentatious. The interior woodwork is stunning, beautifully carved and fitting precisely—the work of master carpenters using very fine wood. Indeed, excellent workmanship is apparent everywhere—in the ways that foods are wrapped, the beautifully formed cheeses, the jars of preserves, the loaves of bread. These are people who know how to make a comfortable, happy life for themselves without working too hard, and being satisfied with what they have.

The Hobbits are an image of softness, of childlike innocence and just plain niceness—the actors obviously chosen to appear as child-like adults, forever young, their features rounded. Like teenage boys, they have no facial hair. Even in his old age, Bilbo looks like an aged teenager. It is because of this niceness, of course, that the Hobbits may be trusted with the ring, whereas the others would easily corrupted. (Keep reading, and see some really nice illustrations, HERE.)

Assimilation made easy

"Assimilation" means different things to different people.  In times past, before LBJ decided to turn America into Teddy Roosevelt's international boarding house, most all immigrants to the US thought that "assimilation" meant becoming Americans, not just legally, but culturally.  Almost all of them were eager to learn to speak English, learn about the Constitution and our other political traditions, and pretty much stop being German or Irish or Slovene or Greek or whatever they were before.  Oh, it was understood that bringing a few cultural attributes along with them — cuisine, religion, other folkways — was fine, provided that such attributes were compatible with corresponding American attributes.  But the idea of remaining loyal to the IRA or the Kaiser or some Tsar or other grandee was out of the question.

However, to all too many of our current immigrants, legal and otherwise, if "assimilation" is even thought of at all, it means learning how to sign up for all the free goodies, and how to find lawyers to help you get more free goodies and to insist that Americans bend over backwards to accomodate your culture, rather than vice-versa.

But there's a more sinister meaning of "assimilation" afoot these days, another one of the many things we've learned from Star Trek.  Bob Wallace explains:

I was a big fan, as a little boy, of the original Star Trek. I wanted to whoosh around the galaxy in the Enterprise, if I could have avoided being the unnamed and expendable crewman who when he beamed down with the crew invariably got croaked by getting the salt vacuumed out of his body by some sucker-mouthed alien monstrosity, or otherwise got rubbed out in some other other way. I didn't care to experience any of these most unusual methods of getting bumped off, which always ended with Dr. McCoy leaning over the lifeless guy sprawled on the ground and saying, "He's dead, Jim."

Then we had Star Trek: the Next Generation, which I didn't like nearly as much as I did the original. Jean-Luc Picard, played by an English actor pretending to be a humorless French capitan, was no James T. Kirk. I also could have done without all the gooey touchy-feely syrup from Gates McFadden and Marina Sirtis, both of whom made me grit my teeth.

However, I was very impressed by the Borg, whom I consider the scariest of the modern-day monsters I've encountered. Any villain who flies through space in a mountain-sized cube and whose motto is "Resistance is futile; you will be assimilated" has my vote for the baddest of today's bad guys.

There are two reasons for my view the Borg are the scariest of the scary.

One, being monsters, they do what is the nature of monsters to always do: be the Bad intruding into the Good, the monstrous intruding into the normal. As Stephen King wrote in his non-fiction book, Danse Macabre, the Bad intruding into the Good is the structure of every horror story. Think the Morlocks attacking the Eloi.

What's makes the Borg so scary as monsters is that they don't want to conquer one world or one galaxy; they want to conquer the entire universe.

Judging from their power and ruthlessness, it's entirely possible they could have. They certainly gave it a good try.

King referred to the structure of the horror story as the Apollonian intruding into the Dionysian, but in simpler terms is Evil attacking Good. It's the archetype that animates Dracula and the Wolfman, which are based on two of the three archetypes King identified: the Vampire and the Werewolf (the third is the Ghost). This structure not only undergirds all of King's stories, but the stories of every horror writer, all the way back to whomever wrote the myth of Satan, which might be the classic archetypal horror story. (What could be more horrific than someone trying to overthrow God and rule all of time and space?)

Two, the Borg are a perfect example of the warfare/welfare state, which are eternally the two sides of the same coin. Monsters and the welfare/warfare State always go together; no matter how many people claim the State is not the former, and that we have can have the welfare without the warfare. We can't.

All empires, whether past or present, Terran or future interstellar, have been, are, and will be monsters and welfare/warfare: a murderous, destructive threat to Society, with Mommy-State welfare at home and Daddy-State warfare abroad. Remember Rome? Better yet, think of its modern reincarnation--the warped administration now running the U.S. (Read the rest HERE.)

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Inouye's last request blown off by Governor of Hawaii

Brian Schatz, New Senator from Hawaii

...Just like the Axis forces blew his arm off long ago.  

I frankly don't know much about Inouye's voting record.  I assume it was orthodox Democrat and I therefore wouldn't like it.  But given his biography, I kinda think his wishes about his successor in the Senate deserved more consideration than the Governor saw fit to give them.

From "Matthew," a commenter over at Steve Sailer's Blog.

In other news, Hawaiian governor Neil Abercrombie has made his selection to fill the seat of recently deceased Japanese-American Senator Daniel Inouye.
Oops, sorry — This is Brian Schatz.  All these
Hawaiians look alike to me.

The Hawaii Democratic Party presented Governor Abercrombie (D) with three candidates. The first was Esther Kia'aina, 
a high-level state official and a woman of native Hawaiian ancestry. The second was Colleen Hanabusa, a Japanese-American US congresswoman and Inouye's preferred replacement. But since women, Japanese-Americans, and Hawaiian-Americans are all dramatically overrepresented in the US Senate, Abercrombie understandably settled on Brian Schatz, a graduate of an impoverished, gang-ridden inner-city school and member of a poor, highly oppressed ethno-religion that is heavily underrepresented in the United States Congress.

Fighting for Chuck Hagel

I don't know what I think of Chuck Hagel, frankly.  He's my age, and served in the Army around the same time that I did, and was an E-5 like I was.  On the other hand, while I had my rear firmly planted in a swivel chair stateside, reading and rewriting intel reports, Hagel was leading an infantry squad in the field, acquiring a couple of purple hearts, among other medals.  So, in that respect at least, he's a far better man than I am, and would make a good Secretary of Defense, knowing, as he does, what a soldier is and what soldiers do. He looks pretty good in the Wikipedia Article, in comparison to most phoney-baloney politicians.  From that article,

Voted for the Patriot Act [22]
Voted for the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts [23] [24]
Voted against No Child Left Behind [25]
Voted against Bush’s Medicare prescription drug bill [26]
Voted against McCain-Feingold[27]

That's certainly above average, all good except for the Patriot Act vote.  He's certainly better than most Republicans on the whole war thing, not being an uncritical advocate of invading everybody, but he's horrible, as are most, on the immigration issue, but not nearly as horrible as he might.  As SecDef, tho, the former is more important than the latter.  The worst thing about him, as far as I can see, is that he might be willing to work for Obama at all. But then, whoever succeeds Panetta is by definition willing to work for Obama, so I guess I have to disregard that.  All in all, his dissent from the Bush Administration's silliness is a plus.  But would he dissent from Obama's even sillier silliness in foreign policy?  Remains to be seen.  Anyhow, a lot of the criticism of Hagel from Republicans seems to be based on his lack of enthusiasm in constantly kissing Israel's ass.  Oh, he kisses it, but doesn't seem to enjoy it as much as other Senators usually do.

Anyhow, all this may seem irrelevant to Gilbert Cavanaugh's piece on Al Franken and Rich Lowry, etc., but it's not.  And here's the piece:

The Neocowardice of Rich Lowry

Imagine if Al Franken gave you a call and offered to fight you. A real fight, too—no gloves, no clock, and no rules.

Would you do it?

Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, would not. He explained it all in his sniveling and aptly titled piece “Why I Won’t Fight Al Franken.” Apparently in 2000 Franken was looking for a fight because Lowry had been publicly lamenting the way “liberals and feminists” were promoting “the feminization of America.” So Franken challenged him to put his money where his mouth was, and Lowry pussied out. It’s not that Lowry “feminized out”—he “pussied out,” which is how people who aren’t pussies would describe it.
“Lowry may have the guts to slam Hagel on the Web, but he can’t even muster up the courage to fight Al Franken, let alone serve in the military he wants to see march across the globe.”

When all of this happened, Lowry was 32 while Franken was 49 and had a bad back. Only a few months earlier, Jonah Goldberg (Lowry’s colleague at NR) had written a piece called “A Continent Bleeds” in which he advocated an American invasion of Africa. A few years later, right after the invasion of Iraq, Lowry would imply that after Iraq should come Syria. Yes, there seems to be a disconnect here.

It brings to mind one of this site’s most popular pieces, Scott Locklin’s “Never Trust Anyone Who Hasn’t Been Punched in the Face.” But why bring up the nuances of a fight that didn’t happen over a decade ago? Because with the possibility of Chuck Hagel becoming Obama’s new Secretary of Defense, it’s more relevant than ever.  (See?  There's the connection.  Keep reading HERE.)

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

A Gun for Everyone

Finally, a rap song I can agree with.  Be warned: vulgar language that might offend some of us.  But the sentiments are sure to offend our gun-grabbing leftie friends.  From "Freedom Feens."

Education at your own risk

Maybe we need to rethink the whole "school" thing.  Basically, you put a lot of kids into a building with a handful of rather ineffectual adults, mostly or entirely female, supposedly teaching them things and acting in loco parentis for the most part.  The idea is that they're supposed to be better at teaching things than your average parent, which is arguable, and at least as good as actual parents at other functions, such as protecting the kids from aggression, which is laughable.  There have been lots of good suggestions about how to make up for that last deficiency, from hiring armed guards, to arming the teachers, to permitting the teachers to be armed, to having volunteers guarding the schools.  Also plenty of idiotic counterproductive suggestions, but we've all heard those.  But none of these ideas would do away with all risks, so the question is, do the kids get enough out of this "school" thing to justify putting them at any risk at all?  For most of them, the answer is hell, no.  Home schooling would be vastly superior for almost all kids, really.  If you doubt any of this, just ask our Canadian Correspondent, Kathy  Shaidle:

Ban Schools, Not Guns

I blame the Burning Schoolhouse.

Canadians are perversely proud that our most popular backyard firework is unavailable in the United States. More like a science-fair volcano than a proper pyrotechnic, the homely Burning Schoolhouse merely spews a two-foot flame that lasts half a minute if you’re lucky.

But every May Two-Four for generations, Canadian kids have cherished those measly 30 sacred seconds, indulging in socially sanctioned fantasies of third-degree carnage.

You won’t hear this from Michael Moore, but modern school shootings are a Canadian invention, too, and I don’t just mean 1989’s “Montreal Massacre.” Despite the absence of a so-called “gun culture,” we spawned the first Adam Lanzas back in the mid-1970s, getting a twenty-plus-year head start on Columbine.

Don’t be fooled by those low body counts circa 1975. Look at the number of wounded, too. In both instances—unlike most American school shootings in the 1970s—those Canucks were would-be spree killers, targeting more than just a hated teacher or classmate.

I’m only kidding about blaming a tacky once-a-year firecracker display, but in the wake of Sandy Hook, would-be reformers are deadly serious. From the gun grabbers to those who want to lock up loonies, they’re all foolishly looking for a solution through the wrong end of the telescope.

It’s obvious that the way to end school shootings is to forget about the “shootings” part and focus on the first word instead.

We need to abolish schools. (Keep reading HERE.)

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

A Spike Jones Christmas

Ladies and gentlemen, SPIKE JONES!

Monday, December 24, 2012

Idiots from the Idiot Box

A couple of nice videos sent in by commenter Quartermain.  Thanks, Q!

Christmas Wishing

It's traditional to wish for things, or hope for things, towards the end of the year, with Christmas and New Year's Eve and all.  But as the West declines ever more, it's hard to think of something reasonable to wish for.  Really good things seem too visionary.  But I'll do some wishes anyway, and you can decide if they're reasonable or not.

1.  I wish people would comprehend the difference between thinking and memorizing slogans.  All over the media, including the net, no matter what the issue is, everybody keeps repeating things they've heard as though they're original thoughts.  And all too many of these things aren't actual opinions in any meaningful sense, but just slogans that have to be interpreted before they can be applied to the real world, and, when interpreted, often turn out to be meaningless at best and irrelevant to the issue at worst.  For example, lately I keep hearing that "nobody needs an assault rifle to hunt deer."  First, it's irrelevant to whether someone has the right to own a rifle.  Second, "assault" rifle has no actual meaning, but is used as though it means "bad rifle."  Third, nobody ever said they needed an assault rifle to hunt deer, so the slogan is in response to.... nothing.

2.  I wish feminists would shut the hell up so that actual women could get a word in edgewise.

3.  I wish Piers Morgan would go home and stay there.

4.  I wish Obama would go home and stay there — Any of his home countries would do.

5.  I wish the Clintons and the Bushes and what's left of the Kennedys would take up needlepoint or speed-walking or conlanging or something and get out of politics forever.

Jim Goad is in pretty much the same mood.  He's gone further, and piled up a heap of wishes to send straight to St. Nick.  Read his letter HERE.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

Ho, Ho, Ho, Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk!

Hoping you all get what you want!

Saturday, December 22, 2012

Black Culture

Black culture never had a chance.  Oh, things looked pretty decent for awhile there, what with Scott Joplin and George Schuyler and even Motown and old-time jazz.  But then things started to deteriorate, all the way from ragtime to rap.  Sad.  Now, I don't know much about music, but I know what I like, and I also know what's obnoxious.  And Black music is all obnoxious now.  Or all that I ever hear.  Thing is, before LBJ's great Civil Rights Revolution, American Blacks, like everybody else in America, were judged by their merits — Yeah, I know, they were dumped on even when they did the right thing, but when they did receive praise or approbation from the culture at large, it was because they did something perceived as good.  Remember, this was the way the culture basically used to work.  When you did something worthwhile, you were praised, and when you did something bad, you were criticized or punished, and never mind your self-esteem.

But when the flaky liberals took over in the Sixties, they didn't see it that way.  They thought kids should be patted on the head no matter what they did, and that intentions were more important than results, and, for that matter, that any intentions at all were okay, because who are we to say that one thing is better than another?  Or that one culture is better than another.  That was the point when everybody started spoiling kids, rushing about to protect them from reality instead of teaching them what reality was and how to cope with it.  That's when everybody was urged to express their feelings, no matter how vapid or pointless, and we were to applaud everybody and give them trophies for just showing up.

Well, that resulted in the kidults who run the show right now, the most self-indulgent generation or two in history, easily.  You know the mantras:  Everybody is entitled to his, or her, opinion.  There are different kinds of families, all just fine.  Marriage is slavery, except for gay marriage, which is a holy thing.  I could go on and on.

But I won't.  My point, here, is that while the culture in general has deteriorated, the Black subculture has deteriorated most of all.  It's true, sometimes, that minorities suffer from these things the most.  White liberal coddling has sent the Black illegitimacy rate through the roof, made enormous numbers of them totally welfare-dependent, and corrupted them morally.  Thanks a heap, White liberals.  And one of the clearest examples and symbols of this corruption is rap music.  This from Gavin McInnes:

The Game of Blasphemy

Last week, one of the realest niggas in rap dropped his fifth album on yo ass, and mad bitches started to trip the fuck out. If you haven’t heard of The Game, you don’t know what time it is. He’s the guy who tattooed a butterfly on his face and then covered it up with “LA” and then put a star on that. His name means “the act of acquiring money by any means necessary, including crime” and his album Jesus Piecerefers to the ridiculously large medallion successful rappers and criminals pay Jacob the Jeweler $50,000 to make.

The album cover features Jesus looking mad gangster with his own Jesus piece and a Blood bandana on his face. The Game claims the album is a testament to his recent discovery of Christ and the gangsta elements of the cover are his way of keeping it real. As he puts it:

…I wanted to make an album where you could love God and be of God, but still get it poppin’ in your life.

Get it? Basically, the guy is a complete idiot. Not only is he totally unaware of his own blasphemy, he thinks it’s a tribute.

Michelle Malkin doesn’t care what his intentions are, and within hours of the record being released, she said to her half-million Twitter followers:

Rapper @TheGame would NEVER dare do to Mohammed what he did to Jesus Christ

In a world where big white men are petrified of being called racist, this tiny Filipina seems to be the only one brave enough to call rappers out. It’s not that she hates rap; she’s the only one who doesn’t give it a free pass. When the Washington Post nominated The Coup’s Party Music as best album of 2001, she called it a “stomach-turning example of anti-Americanism” and pointed out the original album cover showed the band blowing up the World Trade Center. They made the cover a few months before 9/11 but the sentiment wasn’t unusual. After 9/11, Paris’s Sonic Jihad featured a plane flying into the White House. In 2007, Malkin exposed Akon for sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl, and Akon subsequently lost Verizon as a sponsor. She calls Obama the “Hip-Hop President” and ridicules Ludacris for his corny song about painting “the White House black.”
(Read the rest HERE.)

Crackpot Realists

Don't take the illustration the wrong way.  I'm not implying that Napoleon was a crackpot or a realist or both.  It's just that he's such a nice symbol — only symbol, really — of the delusional fellow who thinks he's somebody else.  They tried it with Teddy Roosevelt in Arsenic and Old Lace, but it really didn't catch on.  Napoleon it is.  Anyhow, I interpret "crackpot realist" as someone with bad, unrealistic ideas, who nevertheless is realistic about getting such ideas implemented.  The second part we can all pretty much agree on — basically, if such a person acquires political power at all, he's proven that he's at least realistic enough to do that.  And if he then goes on to keep the power and put his crackpot ideas into effect, whether they're effective or not, he's shown that much more realism.  As to the crackpot content of his ideas, we'll of course disagree.  What I think is a good idea, you may think is nuts, and vice-versa.  That's why we libertarian nationalists want as many decisions kept out of the political sphere as possible, so that crackpottery can be tested in the free market.  Bob Wallace gives us his thought on such folks:

The Crackpots Who Rule Us

For many years I have been wondering about the relationship between the rulers and the ruled. With a nod to C. Wright Mills, I have decided many those who gravitate towards the State are merely crackpots. Or as Mills termed them, "crackpot realists."Before Obama, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld struck me as prime examples. They appeared to be competent (merely competent) running large corporations. Their expertise didn't translate into being statesmen. In fact, their marginal abilities to run large corporations (themselves creations of the State) didn't translate in the slightest into running the government. In those positions they became extremely dangerous.
Although I can't read their minds, I suspect Cheney and Rumsfeld would consider themselves "conservatives." Yet leftists can be just as big of crackpots, and if history is any guide, much worse.
Van Jones — a buffoon if there ever was one — is clearly a Communist, which means he is automatically a crackpot. One of the main differences, in my view, is that almost all leftists can't manage any business, although they are convinced they have the ability to run everyone else's lives.
These crackpots act as if they are the grownups, which makes everyone less then grownup. Yet grownups are supposed to have some understanding of human nature. I have never seen it from any of these men. They are in fact fools.
I am reminded of the first Bush, who when he finally made his way to a grocery store, was amazed to see a barcode scanner. Clearly our ruling crackpots don't get out much.
Being fools, they are unread and therefore uneducated. They are unaware of the simplest facts of human nature, to wit, you don't humiliate people, and you certainly don't humiliate countries.
There were quite a few people who predicted some kind of blowback against the United States, blowback that culminated in 9-11. Osama bin Laden said the attacks were "a copy" of the humiliation the United States had been visiting on the Islamic world for some 60 years, overthrowing governments, installing repressive regimes, and crushing popular uprisings.
9-11 was a demonstration of what the ancient Greeks called Hubris followed by Nemesis. The original meaning of Hubris was to humiliate someone in public, and the Greeks banned it from the theater as obscene. Nemesis is the goddess of fate and retribution.
In other word, humiliate someone (or countries) and the oppressor is fated to suffer revenge. And revenge, in the simplest of definitions, is the attempt to replace humiliation with pride by humiliating the oppressor.
The worst thing you can do to anyone (or any country) is to strip from them their pride and dignity. That stripping of those things from Germany after World War I (and Germany was no more guilty than any other combatant) led inexorably to World War II. And World War II, for all practical purposes, is still going on.
Do any of our crackpots understand these truths about what happens when people and countries are humiliated? No, they don't, even though this fact was noticed by the Hebrews, the Greeks (Aristotle noticed it), and the early Christian fathers, such as St. Augustine and St. Aquinas. Not to mention all the modern researchers who have written about it.
Our crackpot realists, most unfortunately, appear to be bound and determined to humiliate everyone in the world. It's not so much that they will be the ones who suffer Nemesis. It'll be, as always, the innocent public.

Friday, December 21, 2012

WND's Man of the Year

We were just having a staff meeting here at Ex-Army, discussing how Time magazine had just sucked up to Obama by naming him "Man of the Year," and that maybe we should name our own.  We were considering names when an e-mail arrived and we learned that World Net Daily had beaten us to it. And not only did they beat us to it, they made a darn good pick that we wish we'd thought of.  Pat Buchanan.  I've blogged before about Pat's place in history, and how he's the President who should have been, but WND (Not to be confused with WMD) has some good stuff to add.  They explain their choice:

Inaugural honor goes to stalwart of conservative thought

Time magazine may have named Barack Obama Man of the Year for 2012, but in a first-ever honor, WND today named Patrick Buchanan as the WND Man of the Year, honoring the stalwart of conservative thought for his incisive and insightful contributions to the America of economic, military, political and social influence.

He has been adviser to three presidents, a two-time candidate for the Republican presidential nomination himself, served as the presidential nominee of the Reform Party in 2000 and churned out six straight New York Times bestsellers, including “A Republic, Not an Empire,” “The Death of the West,” “Where the Right Went Wrong,” “State of Emergency,” “Day of Reckoning” and “Churchill, Hitler and The Unnecessary War.”

He’s now an editor of the American Conservative, chairman of the American Cause, a political analyst and columnist.

His commentary is a staple on the WND pages, and his own website keeps fans abreast of the developments key to the nation.

This year, something happened to Pat Buchanan that was different than his broad-ranging experience in media and politics for a generation. He was fired by MSNBC because of the tough positions he took in his newest book on the changing demographics of America. He had been a regular fixture on American television since the early days of CNN and its “Crossfire” program. Suddenly, in 2012, Buchanan, who is saying nothing he wasn’t saying and writing 40 years ago, became a media pariah.

“What stood out to the panel of WND judges was Pat’s steadfast commitment to principle – even in the face of losing a lucrative TV gig,” said Joseph Farah, editor and founder of WND. “Pat is unflappable. He’s honest. You may agree with him or disagree with him, but it’s hard to deny he has something important to say to the American people and deserves a platform to say it.”

The award was designated for the man who during the year 2012 did the most to represent goodness, perseverance, manliness and character. The recipient should be someone prominent enough to have had an impact on wider American, and global opinion. Their successes and failures for the year are to be weighed and considered.
(

Guns used for defense

Cartoon by BALOO
One big refrain I keep hearing is that normal armed citizens just never use guns to stop crime.  It's evidently impossible.  If they ever try to do so, they just end up hurting themselves or more innocent bystanders.  They just can't figure out how to use a gun properly.  Oh, 14-year-old gang-bangers can master the arcane skill of pistol-shooting, but regular people just can't.  Why do so many people think that guns just can't be used for defense?

1.  When they are used for defense, they're almost never actually fired, the assailant or potential criminal goes away, and that's not the sort of thing that gets on the news.  If they are fired, the news media might report it as a generic homicide, but virtually never as a defensive use of firearms.

2.  Also, the newsclowns often report the use of firearms to stop a criminal, as in the Appalachian School of Law incident, but they'll usually report that the perpetrator was "subdued by students," or something to that effect, without mentioning how the subduing took place.

3.  High-profile mass shooting incidents almost always occur in "gun-free" zones, where nobody but the criminal has a weapon, so of course he isn't stopped by an armed person — the law prohibits an armed person being present.

4.  Such mass shootings basically don't take place in areas not designatated as gun-free zones.  So we can conclude that the possible presence of armed citizens in such places deter criminal activity.  As many have said recently, you never hear of mass shootings at gun shows.

5.  To summarize, the news media carefully refrains from reporting any facts that would clash with the anti-gun agenda. Not only is all their editorializing anti-Second-Amendment, they also carefully edit actual news reports to support their stance.

But, if you want to read about what really happens when armed citizens deter crime, check out Tough Targets.

Thursday, December 20, 2012

Bad Brits and Good

Boy, we sure got a prize when Piers Morgan showed up. Not only does he seem to be a completely unprincipled journalist, what with his phone hacking and all, but his idea of interviewing someone is to call them a series of names, as he recently did with Larry Pratt.  And he clearly despises Americans, as I'm sure he despises most of his fellow Brits.  My libertarian friends, doesn't the example of this waste of protoplasm make you consider modifying your open borders ideology? I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this, but can't we start a petition to deport this swine?

But not all Brit immigrants are a bad thing.  Just think of Tom Paine.  And imagine what Piers Morgan would call him!  But someone more contemporary is John Derbyshire, also an immigrant from Airstrip One, but one with a totally different Weltanschauung.  Whereas Morgan seems to have come over here to abuse us and sneer at us, Derbyshire seems to prefer America and its freedoms to the police state the UK has become.  In contrast to Morgan, who calls American gun-rights advocates "unbelievably stupid," among other things, Derbyshire is a gun-rights advocate himself, and he recently had this to say about it all:

Grief, Chaos, and Silence

The shooting at a Connecticut elementary school last Friday was a dreadful business, doubly dreadful for happening a few days before Christmas. Any citizen with any power of imagination can see the presents that will never be opened, the festive tree in the living room on Christmas morning waiting for the eager little figures who never come, and the excited little voices that will never again be heard.

That said, it didn’t take long—around 24 hours—for me to feel that there had been quite enough coverage of, and commentary on, the incident.

Not that there is necessarily any harm in so much coverage, though there may be. There’s the copycat business; and yes, crazy people get ideas from other crazy people. The Herostratus factor is in there somewhere—the desire to attain fame by any method at all. Herostratus was the bloke who burned down the temple of Diana in 356 BC for no other reason than that he wanted to be famous. The yearning to be famous is widespread and normal and has inspired great deeds; but in the mind of a lunatic it curdles, like other normal desires. (Keep reading HERE.)

Quote of the day

"Notice that the liberals are angrier at Mrs. Lanza than they are at her murdering son? Why? Because she bought the guns. Liberals hate gun owners more than they hate actual murderers. The actual murderers they feel sorry for." — Warner Todd Huston
Well, that explains something.  I'm getting all kinds of hostility from people when I point out, here and elsewhere, that had any of the teachers been armed, the killer could have been stopped, and, if he'd know they might be armed, he might never have tried in the first place.  They usually quote articles they've read that say that no armed civilian has ever stopped a criminal, and nonsense like that, and maybe they even believe it, but Warner's quote has made me think.  It's not that they think armed civilians can't stop criminals.  It's that they don't want them to, so they keep saying that they can't.  Or, in the case of George Zimmerman and Trayvon, they insist that the criminals are innocent and that the armed civilians stopping criminals are the real criminals.

Not that liberals are terribly logical or systematic in any case, but somehow, deep inside them, they must feel that Adam Lanza was a poor, troubled soul worthy of our pity, and that anybody contemplating shooting the poor guy is some kind of evil neanderthal.  Fits in with most liberal thinking, or, better, emoting.

Your Right to Stay Alive

That's what it's all about, you know — Your right to stay alive.  Your right to defend yourself.  They never put it that way, you know.  The talking heads never never mention the concept of deterrence when it comes to gun rights.  The concept, you see, means that if you are armed, or are assumed to be armed, or even thought maybe to be armed, your life is considerably safer than if the evil and crazy out there feel safe in assuming that you're not armed, and therefore helpless.  Like if you're in an official "Gun Free" zone such as a school, church, restaurant, or whatever with an idiotic sign up proclaiming that the place is full of potential victims.  Or, in certain places, you don't even need the sign.  Vox Day explains that not only do you have a right to defend your own life, you also have an obligation to do so.  Read it HERE.

Tim Scott — What's a Liberal to do?

Usually, when I hear the phrase "first since reconstruction," I wince in preparation for some fresh hell from our feckless politicians.  But in this case, it's something actually rather pleasant: Tim Scott is, or will soon be,  the first Black Senator from the South since reconstruction, courtesy of Nikki Haley, who is certainly the first female American of Sikh descent to serve as a governor of a Southern state since before reconstruction.  Well before.  Now, I don't know much about Tim Scott, and upon closer scrutiny, he may turn out to be a disappointment for those conservatives who hope he'll turn things around.  In short, we have to be careful not to think of him as a conservative version of those "magic negroes" the liberals dote on so fondly.  But I'm not trying to be a wet blanket here.  From his record, he seems to be dependably conservative on most issues, and has actually said good things on the immigration problem, which is rare even among conservatives, and virtually nonexistent among Black politicians.  Of course, the best thing about him is that he absolutely does not fit the liberal narrative.  DailyKenn explains:

What's wrong with Tim Scott

"We have a problem."

The phrase echoes through the halls of Congress, into the dusty gray chambers of the Democratic Party headquarters, and seeps through the cracks of the fretting black media.

There's a negro on the lose!

Tim Scott, the South Carolina businessman and U.S. Congressman, is heading for the Senate.


On the surface, Scott is merely a black conservative Republican. That, alone, is cause for liberals to recoil in horror like vampires hiding behind their capes in view of tiny, silver amulets.

Not since Joe Biden led a lynch mob intent on stringing up Clarence Thomas has the lunatic left cowered beneath such fearful apprehension.

But there's more. The horror story takes a decidedly dastardly turn as liberals realize that Scott fits the perfect profile of a black man whooped and beaten by the scourge of white privilege.

Scott was raised in poverty by a single mom in the repressive South. By all accounts he should be a ward of the state, a pavement-pounding negro in search of a job in a world dominated by white bigots.

The life course of Scott is very different.

He didn't find it necessary to hold up a liquor store, deal drugs on the street corner, and suck up EBT funds to survive. He is not a ward of the state nor a member of the excessively black-male social-status club commonly referred to as the nation's prison population.

Black males who do such things -- and the guilt-laden white people who feel they are to blame -- can no longer use white racism as an excuse. It's a slippery slope, and the liberals are clinging with fingernails entrenched hoping -- PRAYING! -- that other Negros don't discover that the chains that bind them are nothing more than a social construct.

Scott proved -- horror of horrors -- that the stereotypical black male as projected by political 'progressives' is bunk, baloney and utter [enter expletive]. Scott not only participated in the white-innovated free market system, he thrived. This put-upon black kid rose from poverty to prosperity. His life defies the liberal lies and kicks the foundation out from under the propaganda that causes tears to swell in the eyes of liberals (when the news cameras are on) and guilt to grasp the souls of gullible white people.

Compounding their frustration is that fact that massive hordes of conservative whites are actually supporting a black Senator. The Tea Party's partiality for Herman Cain was dismissed as a fluke and its support of Congressman Allen West was ignored as a local stunt to sucker dumb black people. The world may discover that white conservatives don't own white robes and tall, pointy hats. Liberals may no longer be able to accuse of racism. Gasp! again.

Worrisome liberals fret that even a few black people may wise up to the scam. Heaven help us!

Scott possesses two qualities that set him apart from the stereotypes that liberals insist in imposing upon black males: First, he's intelligent. Second, he has character.

What's wrong with Tim Scott?

He's not only a black conservative Republican, he's a black man whose life disproves the liberal lies.

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Sexual Politics and the English Language

If the title sounds oddly familiar, it's meant to suggest Orwell's "Politics and the English Language," which you should go read now if you haven't already.  Now, Jared Taylor has written an essay, which begins:

Unsexing the Language

Yesterday I stopped by a Methodist church that was having a charity Christmas-tree sale. A man told me the sale was over for the day and then wished me “Happy Holidays.”

“Don’t you mean ‘Merry Christmas’?” I asked, smoke coming out of my ears.

Yes, this is the season in which we must spare the sensitivities of Jews—and now Hindus and Buddhists and atheists, I suppose—by downgrading Christmas to just another “holiday.” Even people who sell Christmas trees at churches don’t dare utter the offensive word.

Christmas has not been completely rubbed out, though. Surely the preacher, from the safety of his altar, will bring himself to wish the congregation a Merry Christmas. Greater damage to the language has been done by everything having to do with “gender.”

First, let’s get one thing straight: We humans don’t have a gender; we have a sex—until recently, just one each. Gender is a grammatical term used in languages such as French and Spanish to describe the differences between such things as masculine and feminine nouns, and adjectives that agree with them. Examples are la grande fille and le grand garçon. English has gender in such words as waiter/waitress and actor/actress.


Now, at this point you should go read the whole thing HERE, and then I'll comment on it, and quote some more bits of it as needed.  I'll wait......

Okay?  Now, back to the part already quoted.  Everything he says is true.  "Gender," when used to mean "sex," is just plain wrong.  Originally, it meant "kind" or "variety" and could refer to sexes, sized, colors, or anything else.  Using it just to mean "sex" is clumsy, especially when it clashes so awkwardly with the grammatical meaning.  Yes, it does clash, though some of the languages most of us are familiar with — French and Spanish and Italian — have two genders, masculine and feminine, which do seem to correspond with sex, and some others, like Russian and German and Latin, have three genders, masculine and feminine plus neuter, which again corresponds to male and female sex, plus things that don't have any sex.  But when you go further afield, you'll find languages with quite
different gender structures. Here are some of the most common structures:

  • masculine / feminine
  • masculine / feminine / neuter
  • animate / inanimate
  • human / non-human
  • human / animal / inanimate
  • male / other

  • And you have much stranger setups than that — Swahili with its sixteen genders, and Dyirbal with this setup:

  • I - most animate objects, men
  • II - women, waterfireviolence, and exceptional animals[3]
  • III - edible fruit and vegetables
  • IV - miscellaneous (includes things not classifiable in the first three)

  • You can read all about grammatical gender HERE.

    But he ends up with something not quite true.  Waiter/waitress is not a matter of gender, but, again, of sex.  English used to have gender, but it doesn't any more.  The only vestige of it is referring to ships and other vessels as "she," and that is rapidly disappearing.  He goes on:

    The feminists have done even worse things, such as bullying us into breaking the laws of grammar. It is a peculiarity of English that we use the singular pronoun “he” and the possessive “his” when the subject’s sex is unspecified, as in “Each student has his own desk.” The students can be boys or girls, but each has a desk. Feminists can’t stand this. They claim that “his” excludes half the population, but this is absurd. Did anyone ever think that “He who hesitates is lost” doesn’t apply to women? Or that only men would be living in the workers’ paradise of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”?

    This is something that's been driving me crazy for years.  He's right again.  The masculine he/him is also the indeterminate in English, used when the sex of the referent is not known or ambiguous.  So do not say "his or her" and crap like that.  It's really wussy.

    What surprises me here is that although Jared Taylor grew up in Japan, and speaks Japanese like a native, he doesn't point out here that Japanese has a sexless, genderless, third person pronoun, "ano hito," if memory serves.  It literally means "that person."  And according to feminist grammatical theory, languages that don't have the he/she distinction should be really great for sexual equality, and languages that do have it are probably all patriarchal.  For the record, these languages have that indeterminate 3d-person pronoun and therefore their speakers should be totally free of sexual discrimination:

    And a heap more, none of which are spoken by particularly egalitarian societies.

    And languages that do have he/she distinction:

    Oh, let's cut to the chase — Almost all Indo-European and Afro-Asiatic (Semitic) languages have that distinction.  Has nothing to do with anything except linguistic peculiarities.