Thursday, January 31, 2013

You-genics Versus Me-genics

I'm listening to Chuck Hagel being quizzed by the likes of Graham and McCain, and I'd side with him if he hadn't proved he was an idiot.  He proved it by saying he "enthusiastically supports" the idiot idea of ladies in combat. He's a combat veteran himself, so he's either an idiot or a complete phony.  He can't claim ignorance of combat conditions.  Maybe he's never met a woman.  Anyhow, the big problem the Senators have with him is his insufficient enthusiasm for unconditional support for whatever the hell Israel feels like doing.  Maybe he's like Jimmy Carter, and really believes the liberal nonsense he spouts.  When you worship diversity and open borders, like all our politicians, liberal and neocon, do, you can accidentally forget that diversity and open borders is basically a plan to destroy the United States and the Western World, and that it isn't really a good thing for countries that practice it.  And when you forget that, you might advocate that Israel practice it, which would be, of course, suicidal for Israel just like it would be for any country.

When Israel was established, it was announced that it was to be a refuge for the Jews of the world, and that any of them were free to immigrate there, and were invited to do so.  Contrariwise nobody else was allowed to immigrate.  Very reasonable.  We used to have a vaguely similar policy to a lesser degree, which favored White Europeans as immigrants.  Lyndon Johnson, may he be burning in Hell for this and other reasons, turned that policy on its head.

But, back to Israel. When they came up with their Zionist policy, they seemingly didn't realize that there were Jews other than Ashkenazim and Shephardim, and some of them were, well, pretty Black.  So they ended up taking in Africans who claimed to be Jewish by descent, though they really, really didn't want to, for the same reason that no sane country wants to take in Africans.

So now they're stuck with them.  Or are they?  Steve Sailer tells us about their method to minimize the ill effects of African immigration, a method that if adopted by White Christians, would be described as Naziism:


Israel’s Fertility Policy Bears Fruit


With the Washington establishment agreeing that what America needs right now is to double down on guest workers and amnesty for illegal aliens, it’s worthwhile to notice how a serious country such as Israel deals with past mistakes in immigration policy.

In America, we try not to learn from the past. For example, in all the talk this year about a new amnesty, how often have you heard mention of one of the 1986 amnesty’s chief unanticipated consequences: the subsequent Hispanic baby bubble?

This drove up the total fertility rate among foreign-born Latinas from 3.2 in 1987 to 4.4 in 1991 before finally subsiding back to the baseline in 2000. (The replacement rate is 2.06.)

The demographic bulge proved hugely expensive to California taxpayers. In the later 1990s, this pig-in-the-python cohort started to overcrowd California schools, leading to construction of new ones. Since it takes forever to get anything built in California—the $578,000,000 Robert F. Kennedy facility on Wilshire Boulevard didn’t open until 2010 after a 21-year ordeal—by the time the new schools were finally finished, many of these Amnesty Bubble kids had already dropped out.

The Public Policy Institute of California asked in 2002:

Why did total fertility rates increase so dramatically for Hispanic immigrants?…In California alone, 1.6 million unauthorized immigrants applied for amnesty (legal immigrant status) under this act. The vast majority were young men, and many were agricultural workers who settled permanently in the United States.

Illegal aliens who get amnestied get lonely and send for ladies back home. When they aren’t illegal anymore, it’s time to have babies. The PPIC continues:

Previous research indicates that many of those granted amnesty were joined later by spouses and relatives in the United States….As a result, many young adult Hispanic women came to California during the late 1980s.

In contrast, Israel is not the kind of country to follow up a failed immigration experiment with more of the same.

Between 1984 and 1991, Israel achieved a public-relations coup by importing tens of thousands of Ethiopians who claimed to be Jews. Over the last decade, however, Israel has been taking direct action to limit its black citizens’ fertility.

Originally, Israel had banned immigration by the various sub-Saharan African tribes that claim some kind of hazy Jewish heritage, arguing that they aren’t real Jews. (Recent DNA studies suggest that Ethiopian Jews are only tenuously related to other Jews. These communities probably had a limited number of Jewish ancestors, travelers who married into the much larger local populations.)

In the fevered post-1967 ideological climate, however, Zionism was denounced around the world as racism, as the latest manifestation of white colonialism. The Jewish state hit upon the PR masterstroke of embracing its Ethiopian aspirants.
(Read the rest HERE.)
(And, Vox Day on the same subject HERE.)




Healthy Skepticism

“I caution you not to blindly trust anyone who claims they know God personally. In far too many cases, these types turn out to be nothing more than weirdos who want to get in your pants.” — Jim Goad

Surely, by now, we all expect the Spanish Inquisition, right?  Probably not.  Every generation has to learn the same old stuff over and over.  But, speaking of religion, I've always had a nice healthy skepticism about it all.  Skepticism about religion, sure, we all have that — You can't believe in all of them, after all, so you have to be skeptical about most of them.  But we also need skepticism about religious people.  Nope, not attacking religion here, just attacking people who use religion for nefarious purposes.

Most especially, and fundamentally, we shouldn't trust people simply because they profess religion. Indeed, I've never come across any principle in Christianity, at least, that implies that people who profess religion are more trustworthy than anybody else, have you?  In fact, Christianity keeps warning us about false prophets.  That is, Christians have known for a long time that religion can be a racket.  Phony religious people can get away with a lot of abuse for a long time before they're caught, and sometimes even after they're caught.  Certain misbehaving televangelists spring to mind.  And of course people who get caught always have the option of becoming religious after the fact, and then getting away with it.  Not good theology, but people keep falling for it.

But the real point here is that this phenomenon appears in all religion, as far as I can see, but the only time you ever hear about it is when Christians screw up.  And White Christians in particular.  When Catholic priests do you-know-what, we never hear the end of it, but when non-Christian clergy abuse their charges, the media seem strangely uninterested.  Why is that?  When you look at the statistics, I'd bet you'd find out that Christian clergy are somewhat less inclined to behave like yahoos than certain other clergy.  Jim Goad thinks it has to do with White versus everybody else.  I think he's correct.  He writes:

Religion, Perversion, and Whiteness


Catholic-bashers worldwide have new reason to bask in schadenfreude at the recent arrest of former Connecticut pastor Kevin Wallin, AKA “Monsignor Meth,” on drug-trafficking charges.

Except for pedophilia, the alleged details in Wallin’s sordid saga combine nearly all the elements that tend to please such blood-sniffing unbelievers. Wallin’s case is a clerical version of Breaking Bad where the antihero vends huge quantities of crystal meth, attempts to launder money through a sex shop called The Land of Oz & Dorothy’s Place, and engages in sexual trysts with “odd-looking men” while dressed as a woman. These details inevitably lead to lascivious headlines such as “The Kinky Priest Who Sold Meth” and “Cross-dressing priest indicted for dealing meth liked sex in rectory.”

(Oh, I’ll bet he liked it in the “rectory,” all right!)

As expected, the snark and smarm are bulging thick, veiny, and purplish on comment threads, as Christianity’s ever-emboldened naysayers use the story to indict Christianity generally and Roman Catholicism in particular. There are LOLs, LMAOs, and ROTFLMAOs in abundance, as well as entirely unconcealed glee at the Catholic Church’s ongoing public-relations self-immolation.

But it would seem to be a severe case of overreaching to indict the entire Holy Roman Church here. In Wallin’s case, Church officials appeared to act swiftly the moment there were allegations of impropriety. He was asked to resign in June 2011 soon after accusations of his rectory-rump-wranglin’ started to surface, and officials only found a bag of “sex paraphernalia” in his room after he officially left his post. And his acts of meth-dealing all appear to have occurred after he was suspended from public ministry in May of last year.

(Full disclosure: I was raised Catholic—including a dozen years at Catholic schools—but I now describe myself as agnostic, because I feel the only truly honest thing to do is admit that I have absolutely no idea why I’m here on Earth. I also strongly suspect that I may simply be too dumb to ever understand why. I didn’t have quite the best experiences with the Catholic clergy, and when stories of priestly sex abuse were gobbling up headlines ten years ago, my main objection was that no one seemed to be paying attention to the grievous and exceedingly sadistic sexual misdeeds of nuns.)

Still, as someone whose only training at a non-Catholic school came in college while obtaining a journalism degree, I often find myself wondering why our popular media tend to create an impression that clerical malfeasance is almost exclusively the domain of white Christians. One occasionally sees headlines about high-profile black pastors who allegedly molest boys or choke their own daughters, but they never seem to be reported with the same degree of triumphant lasciviousness as when the press catches a goyishe man of the cloth with his pants down.
(It keeps getting better.  Continue reading HERE.)

The Americans With No Abilities Act

President Barack Obama and the Democratic Senate are considering sweeping legislation that will provide new benefits for many Americans. The Americans With No Abilities Act is being hailed as a major legislative goal by advocates of the millions of Americans who lack any real skills or ambition.

"Roughly 50 percent of Americans do not possess the competence and drive necessary to carve out a meaningful role for themselves in society," said California Sen. Barbara Boxer. "We can no longer stand by and allow People of Inability (POI) to be ridiculed and passed over. With this legislation, employers will no longer be able to grant special favors to a small group of workers, simply because they have some idea of what they are doing."

In a Capitol Hill press conference, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pointed to the success of the U.S. Postal Service, which has a long-standing policy of providing opportunity without regard to performance. At the state government level, the Department of Motor Vehicles also has an excellent record of hiring Persons with No Ability (63 percent).

Under the Americans With No Abilities Act, more than 25 million mid-level positions will be created, with important-sounding titles but little real responsibility, thus providing an illusory sense of purpose and performance.

Mandatory non-performance-based raises and promotions will be given to guarantee upward mobility for even the most unremarkable employees. The legislation provides substantial tax breaks to corporations that promote a significant number of Persons of Inability (POI) into middle-management positions, and give a tax credit to small and medium-sized businesses that agree to hire one clueless worker for every two talented hires.

Finally, the Americans With No Abilities Act contains tough new measures to make it more difficult to discriminate against the non-abled, banning, for example, discriminatory interview questions such as, "Do you have any skills or experience that relate to this job?"

"As a non-abled person, I can’t be expected to keep up with people who have something going for them," said Mary Lou Gertz, who lost her position as a lug-nut twister at the GM plant in Flint, Mich., due to her inability to remember righty tighty, lefty loosey. "This new law should be real good for people like me. I’ll finally have job security." With the passage of this bill, Gertz and millions of other untalented citizens will finally see a light at the end of the tunnel.

Said Sen. Dick Durbin: "As a senator with no abilities, I believe the same privileges that elected officials enjoy ought to be extended to every American with no abilities. It is our duty as lawmakers to provide each and every American citizen, regardless of his or her inadequacy, with some sort of space to take up in this great nation and a good salary for doing so."

-----------------------

Interesting provenance here.  I came across this at Jerry Pournelle's site,  but it seemed a little old, so I googled and found out that in its original form, it was published at The Onion back in 1998, but has obviously been updated since.  It remains funny.  Another interesting thing is that Snopes.com felt it necessary to "debunk" this as "false."  As I've said elsewhere, it's hard to parody things these days, because the reality is so extremely idiotic, it's hard to top.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013

No Comment Necessary



Well, no. One comment is necessary after all. I was just informed that after the conclusion of the video proper, here, YouTube does something vulgar. As my correspondent wrote: "Wonderful video.
But after it plays YouTube then offers a vid from The Young Turks that is repulsive."  So if you don't want to see that, just watch till the guy finishes testifying.

Winsome Warrior Women

It's not cute like this, really.  In my last "Ladies in Combat" post, I pointed out yet again that despite all the fictional examples from Hollywood, girls just aren't cut out to be combat troops.  Some would argue that they're not cut out to be any kind of troops, and that's only slightly less obvious than the combat thing.  Anyhow, one anonymous commenter wrote:

Some of the blame, unfortunately, must go to the "buttkicking babe" meme that pervades the media (and to which I must admit being somewhat partial). I would blame the pervasiveness of this meme on the desire of the elites from the Ethnicity Which Must Not be Criticized to erode traditional gender roles, except it's not limited to pussy-whipped westerners, but seems to be at least as common in anime as in western media.
Unlike us brainwashed westerners, though, I'm pretty sure folks like the Japanese recognize that most females in combat are less likely to react like this:
http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/0/6246/529359-yuki_protect.jpg
and more likely to react like this:
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRerXEiflVBKxeWB6Uk15iHZaSVLMMJPouJLsM31dy37ApZXzVG


Another Anime fan.  Good for him.  Yes, the fictional media (are there any other kind?) are full of soldier girls and warrior women, so much that even cynical old coots like me tend to accept such things as at least slightly plausible.  The reason that these types are present in fiction are 1. to follow  the rules of political correctness. 2. They are cute. Eye candy. Erotic. 3. They allow for romantic subplots in adventure/police dramas. 4. Novelty.  A story about pirates or soldiers or cops is simply more novel, therefore more interesting, than one with an all-male cast.

That last is the same principle as talking animals in Looney Tunes.  Much more fun to have talking rabbits foiling hunters than a wisecracking human being foiling some guy who wants to shoot him. Seriously, talking animals are novel, and fun, and we like cartoons about them.  We are not, however, as a result likely to hire platypuses as secret agents or try to borrow money from wealthy ducks.

But when it comes to lady fighters, like Zoe on Firefly or Xena or any of a zillion soldier girls in recent TV dramas, we do believe it.  We don't believe in talking squirrels or entrepreneur ducks or those mice in Ziggy who are always using his phone to order pizzas with extra cheese, but we do believe in rough-tough girl soldiers/marines, who are every bit as imaginary as the animals. None of it is real. Jared Taylor explains why women just aren't the real deal when it comes to the infantry:

Women in Combat: Another Nail in the Coffin

On January 23, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women in combat. He gave the generals three years to open up all positions to women, and if any of them think there is a job women can’t do, they’ll have to explain themselves.

The combat arms—infantry, armor, and artillery—are closed to women for good reasons: They can’t do the job, and they keep men from doing the job.

Drones and laser-guided munitions haven’t changed things for a grunt: You still have to run up hills with an 80-pound pack, live in dirt for weeks, and hump 96-pound 155mm artillery shells onto the back of a truck. Your buddies count on you to carry them out of the fight if they are wounded, and they can’t count on someone with half the upper-body strength of a man.

An extensive 1994 Army study of men and women—written by a woman—discovered the obvious: “The average woman does not have the same physical capacity, nor can she be trained to have the same physical capacity as the average man.” There were tests with practically no overlap. On Maximum Lifting Strength, the worst 2 percent of men were at the 92nd percentile for women.

Soldiers may have to kill or be killed at close quarters. All your enemy needs is an extra inch of reach, an extra pound of muscle, or an extra burst of speed, and he will use that advantage to kill you. No one is talking about putting women on professional sports teams—we might lose a game!—but the military is now asking for weak links that could get the whole squad killed.

Last year, a lady Marine captain named Katie Petronio wrote an article for the Marine Corps Gazette called “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.” She is a pretty tough gal—she says she could bench-press 145 pounds and squat 200 pounds—but when she worked with men in the field, “the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines.”
“A soldier’s job is to find the enemy and kill him—yes, him—not to be part of a giant experiment in egalitarian fantasy.”

She writes that if women join up, the infantry is “going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.” Some of these toy soldiers will break before they even see the enemy and then spend their lives drawing disability pay they don’t deserve.
Women in combat? Combat means close quarters. During the 2003 Iraq invasion, Marine Ryan Smith rode in an amphibious assault vehicle designed for 15 men. There were breakdowns and “by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back.” They went 48 straight hours in the vehicle with no sanitation, and men got dysentery. “When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE [meals ready to eat] bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.”

(That graphic enough for you?  Hard to imagine the cutie-pie at the top, there, coping with such conditions, or any woman you've ever known, for that matter?  Keep reading Taylor's piece HERE.)

My Chinese Readers

Awhile back, I warned China about Japan's nefarious military plans.  I never dreamed for a minute that the Chinese Government was actually reading this blog.  So I guess I'd better be more careful what I say.  Let's see...

Obama is a great military leader.  We're stronger than ever.  No rival superpower had better try pushing us around.  Nosiree.  Our great foreign policy successes in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and Yadayadastan should make any countries with a population of a billion think twice about messing with us.  Obama will get them if they do.  He shoots guns all the time.  Really.  He's like Douglas MacArthur and Sidney Poitier rolled into one.

Anyhow, because they evidently do read this blog, the Chinese are finally wising up to the threat of miniskirted high school girls:



China’s military media has been attracting ridicule in China and beyond after it published an article attacking bishoujo tanker anime Girls und Panzer for being secret Japanese militarist propaganda.

The piece, originally published by a PLA affiliated military newspaper, criticised Girls und Panzer for downplaying Japanese wartime aggression in favour of cute girls, even going so far as to suggest it was intended as subtle militarist propaganda and might help train the tank crews Japan is obviously desperate to send rampaging through China.  (See the whole story HERE.)

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Uncle Bob on Feminism and Envy

Cartoon by BALOO
There's more to feminism than stupidity, though stupidity is an essential part of it. Some feminists are stupider than others, but they're all stupid. Some feminists are more ignorant than others, but they're all ignorant. I'm not religious, so words like "envy" don't automatically spring to mind, but Bob Wallace draws a clear line from envy, through basic leftism, to the particular manifestation of leftism we call feminism. From Uncle Bob's Treehouse:


The modern feminist movement can, I believe, be said to have been built on an impersonal, generalized envy..."-Joseph Epstein

Feminism, being leftist, is based on envy, as all leftism is based on envy. It is based on the envy of both sexes, of both women and men.

And, like all leftism, it can only be imposed by the force of the State. Of course it will never work, not in the long run, because, as Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn wrote in Leftism Revisited, "Leftists don't merely misunderstand human nature. They don't understand it at all."

Leftists, however, don't believe they are equal to others. Instead they believe they are intellectually and morally superior to the unwashed masses, and believe not only should they prescribe for them, but their prescriptions should have the force of law to back them up. Of course, these Anointed (as Thomas Sowell mocked them) don't believe they should follow their advice for others.

The original hard-care feminists were the oddest of oddballs: either man-hating lesbians or women who couldn't get, because of their ugliness and unpleasantness, a husband, a home and children. Therefore, they had to devalue women who wanted these things. And in many ways, it worked.

The also envied men, and since the main defense against envy is devaluation, they devalued men -- just as they had devalued women. For example, in the year 2011 I had two women tell me, "Men are responsible for all the problems in the world." (Both were middle-aged spinsters without husband, home and children.)

Envy is the ugliest and most destructive emotion in history. It is the only one of the Seven Deadly Sins that isn't any fun. It is if anything an attack on goodness itself.

I've always been such a low-envy person it took me years to realize what a problem envy is. Now I realize it is the worst problem ever.

The destructiveness of envy has been noticed in one of the most well-known myths in the Western world -- the story of the Garden of Eden.

When Adam and Eve are caught breaking the rules, Adam immediately claims he is innocent and devalues Eve by saying, "She made me do it." Eve claims she is innocent and says the serpent made her do it.

The serpent is a symbol of envy and hate, as John Milton well-noticed in Paradise Lost.

This myth tells us than when people claim they're innocent -- and are not -- their first defense is to blame their problems on someone else. That blame is usually based on envy.

Example: some months ago I was watching TV and saw three coeds from the University of Georgia savaging the men in college. They had nothing good to say about them (one said they showed up on dates "In a dirty t-shirt and holding a bag of condoms"). Of course, not one of them suggested women had a problem, too. Apparently it never even occurred to them.

Why were they doing this? In their minds, right or wrong, men were denying them what they wanted: ambitious men, who wanted to make a lot of money, and of course, good-looking and taller than they are. And would marry them, be faithful, and somehow support their "careers" and want children, too.

Because men were denying them what they thought they wanted, they envied men's power to make them happy and so had to devalue them. "I'm innocent here...you're the one with the problem." They project their problems on other people.

Never disturb the innocence of the self-righteous (I am reminded of the old saying: "Never come between a woman and her delusions"). You'll get nothing more than outrage.

In other words, what these three women on TV are doing is putting angel's wings on themselves and horns, a spaded tail and a pitchfork on men. That is not conducive to seeing things clearly.

Appreciation and gratitude? These girls don't even know what it means.

This blaming others for your problems -- projection -- is the first defense people engage in. What parent has not heard every child at one time or another claim, "You/he/she made me do it!"

The psychiatrists Melanie Klein and Joan Riviere wrote this about projection, "The first and the most fundamental of our insurances or safety measures against feelings of pain, of being attacked, or of helplessness --one from which so many others spring -- is that device we call projection. All painful and unpleasant sensations and feelings in the mind are by this device automatically relegated outside oneself...[W]e blame them on someone else. [Insofar] as such destructive forces are recognized in ourselves we claim that they have come there arbitrarily and by some external agency...[P]rojection is the baby's first reaction to pain and it probably remains the most spontaneous reaction in all of us to any painful feeling throughout our lives."

Another name for projection is "scapegoating." The French philosopher and theologian Rene Girard, author of Violence and the Sacred and Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World, believes function of a scapegoat was to renew society, and another theologian, Walter Wink, agreed with him, calling it "the myth of redemptive violence," i.e., the world can be reborn through violence.

In other words, feminism believes society and women can be reborn by devaluing and scapegoating men. Ultimately, this means trying to turn men into women.

For the last several decades psychologists and other scholars who study envy have noticed there is a sequence: envy, followed by guilt, followed by reparations, followed by gratitude. And, as has been noticed for several hundred years, if not longer, without gratitude you cannot be happy.

One of the worst things about envy is that you want to destroy the people who make you happy, because of the power they have over you to make you happy ("biting the hand that feeds you"). That should ideally lead to guilt, which leads to reparations, which then leads to gratitude. To quote Meister Eckhart, "If the only prayer you said in your whole life was, 'thank you,' that would suffice."

The Catholic church noticed several hundred years ago that people were absolved of their guilt by confession and penance (the word "atonement" means "at-one-ment": to become one, i.e., whole again). In other words, guilt followed by reparation.

The ancient Greeks noticed it, too, which is why after Hercules went temporarily insane and slaughterd his family he had to do penance. That is, his twelve labors.

You can also see guilt followed by atonement in the movie, The Mission, where after Robert DeNiro murders his brother he has to drag his armor up a hill then devote his life to fighting the slavery he had until then supported.

Ideally, you get over your envy and instead are grateful to the person who can make you happy. As Carl Jung once said, you can have power or love, but not both.

In politics there are no shades of grey; everything is either black or white, good or bad. That is the nature of politics. So not only is it based on force, it is based on propaganda and setting people at each other's throats.

As John Mason Brown wrote, "Nowhere are prejudices more mistaken for truth, passion for reason, and invective for documentation than in politics. This is a realm, peopled only by villains or heroes, in which everything is black or white and gray is a forbidden color."

When everything is seen as all-good or all-bad, either innocent or guilty, envy and resentment is going to be ever-increasing, and as for gratitude and happiness, there will be less and less of it.

Boycott Buffalo Wild Wings!

Yes, let's do please boycott these morons.  Join the boycott on FACEBOOK.  More on this HERE.  Contact their main office and tell them why you're boycotting them HERE.

P. S.  This from a friend on Facebook:

"I believe it is the managers decision.
We had a meeting of local Liberty activists at the neighborhood BWW Sunday evening and there was no victim disarmament signage and no problems.
I thanked them for resisting the hysteria.
Don't forget to support the ones who support our right to carry whatever, wherever and whenever we want."

So check your local place for the sign before you raise a ruckus.

Powerful Pierre's Progeny

Show of hands. Who remembers Pierre Elliott Trudeau? I always thought the "Elliott" a bit pretentious, till I just now found out that the whole name is Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau. Sounds more like a Bourbon or a Windsor. And, oddly, he had the same baldish look that most French Presidents seem to have. I didn't know it was that genetic. Well, he wasn't Garry Trudeau, but the Prime Minister of Canada now and then, known for getting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is sort of an Onion parody of the U.S. Bill of Rights (Much like Canada is a parody of Minnesota), into the Canadian Constitution. He was also renowned for, as I think Florence King put it, marrying a hippie.

The Canadians, bless 'em, are always trying to one-up us goofy Americans, and they elected Trudeau, who almost amounted to a foreigner to English Canada, years before we started importing Presidents from Africa.  And when it comes to that, Canada sort of beat us to the punch in another way, having a Haitian Governor-General three years before we made fools of ourselves with Obama.

And, lest we totally forget about any and all Canadians except William Shatner, Kathy Shaidle keeps us informed about "Trudeau — The Second Generation," now playing north of the 49th.


At the height of its power—it was called “Canada’s natural governing party” for generations—the Liberals made no secret of their desire to make the Great White North more “European.”

(Hence Pat Buchanan’s famous nickname for the smug, spayed, socialized-everything nation they proudly created during almost three quarters of a century in power: “Soviet Canuckistan.”)

So it is with more amusement than surprise that we learn that among those currently vying for the Grit’s leadership are a former prime minister’s son…and his father’s former mistress.

How veritably French, non?
“The same Canadians who irrationally claim to loathe anything ‘American’ actually pine for a photogenic, dynastic Kennedy family of their own.”

The “son” is Justin Trudeau, whom I introduced to Taki readers last year as a flouncy-haired, forty-year-old Fauntleroy, “slender of body and of resume,” “living in the moral equivalent of his father’s basement.”

Justin’s most notable accomplishment to date has been forcing Canada’s conservatives—for whom the former PM’s surname is a spittle-flecked swear word; as a child, I’d assumed the man’s first name was “That”—to pay the late Pierre pere backhanded compliments, à la “As least the boy’s father had a few accomplishments to his name at that age….”

So who’s the broad?

Meet Deborah Coyne, seen here at Trudeau’s state funeral with her love child by PET, standing next to the PM’s infamous ex-wife (and former Rolling Stones groupie turned bipolar drunk driver) Maggie and her kids, including Coyne’s future opponent (and her daughter’s half-brother), Justin—I told you this was all tres français, did I not?

(You can read the rest HERE, and I'll bet a lot of people still think this is a post about "Doonesbury.")




Monday, January 28, 2013

Malcolm Vs. Farrakhan

“See, the right to bear arms was given at a time when there was no regulated militia to protect America, but now you have police well-armed, you have state troopers well-armed, you have the National Guard and you have federal troops.” — Louis Farrakhan

So Farrakhan is is complete agreement with Obama and Feinstein and all the liberals who want the American people disarmed. Farrakhan, of course, considers himself the second coming of Malcolm X, bow tie and all, but here's what Malcolm X said on the same subject.

“The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob.” — Malcolm X

So, of course, we are to believe that Louis "Calypso Gene" Farrakhan is much wiser than Malcolm X, just as Joe Biden is much wiser than Thomas Jefferson.  Now, Malcolm X was far from perfect, but his concepts of self-reliance, self-respect, self-help, self-sufficiency, and self-defense is 180 degrees from the whining dependency preached by Farrakhan, Jackson, Sharpton and other Black "Leaders," who are nothing more than puppets of White liberals.

Tom Sowell on Gun Control

Have you ever noticed that the people who blow off the most about how we need gun control are the most ignorant when it comes to firearms?  Seriously.  In a trip around the net you find people who don't know a revolver from a shotgun, who think there actually is a classification of rifle called an "assault rifle," and who, basically, get all their gun knowledge from Hollywood.

This reminds me of another interesting fact, and that is that politicians with no military experience are the ones most eager to deploy troops all around the world. Obama and both Clintons spring to mind. They get their knowledge about war from Hollywood.

And when it comes to race relations, the people who spout off the most about it turn out to live in all-White gated communities in the best part of town.  And the ones who insist on lots of diversity and integration in schools always seem to have their own kids in private schools.

But, back to the guns.  Most big gun controllers not only know nothing about guns, but they're usually without military experience as well.  College athlete and gun-control expert Joe Biden somehow couldn't pass the physical back in the Vietnam days, so the honor of serving was left to other people.  Joe's making up for it by leading the charge to disarm all the people who served in his stead.

But here's an opinion on gun control from someone with military experience and knowledge of firearms.  In fact, he was a pistol instructor in the Marine Corps.  Not like Joe Biden at all.

Do Gun Control Laws Control Guns?

By Thomas Sowell

The gun control controversy is only the latest of many issues to be debated almost solely in terms of fixed preconceptions, with little or no examination of hard facts.

Media discussions of gun control are dominated by two factors: the National Rifle Association and the Second Amendment. But the over-riding factual question is whether gun control laws actually reduce gun crimes in general or murder rates in particular.

If, as gun control advocates claim, gun control laws really do control guns and save lives, there is nothing to prevent repealing the Second Amendment, any more than there was anything to prevent repealing the Eighteenth Amendment that created Prohibition.

But, if the hard facts show that gun control laws do not actually control guns, but instead lead to more armed robberies and higher murder rates after law-abiding citizens are disarmed, then gun control laws would be a bad idea, even if there were no Second Amendment and no National Rifle Association.

The central issue boils down to the question: What are the facts? Yet there are many zealots who seem utterly unconcerned about facts or about their own lack of knowledge of facts.

There are people who have never fired a shot in their life who do not hesitate to declare how many bullets should be the limit to put into a firearm's clip or magazine. Some say ten bullets but New York state's recent gun control law specifies seven.  (Read the whole thing HERE.)

The Hawaiian Libertarian

"The Hawaiian Libertarian," who I just added to my blogroll, seems to have severed himself from the primary outlets of the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) and gets all his news from the Internet.  As such, he reacts to recent news items in a unique way:


As I've unplugged from the mainstream mass media years ago, I now find myself only hearing about the latest current events from the commentary and amateur reporting of the pajama's brigade on the fringes of teh Interwebz.

For instance, I didn't watch a single second of news footage about the Sandy Hook false flag even - not even YouTube vids.

I didn't listen to a single Clear Channel or NPR pundit's take on the matter, nor did I read a single mainstream mass media publications "reportage" either. Not any magazines, nor any newspaper, nor their affiliated websites.

I already know what the story was about as soon as I saw the blogosphere's reaction to the mass media narrative and account of the event.

THEY are coming for teh gunz of WeTheSheeple.
Likewise, after I logged on to Dalrock's this morning to indulge my daily readings with my coffee, I now see The US war machine has decided that teh Womynz can now have equal opportunity to participate in combat operations in war zones, just like teh Menz.

I also see Mr. Price's first reaction to this is to call for equality in Selective Service Registration. Excellent rhetoric for metaphorically hanging of the feminist by their own petard. And of course, the commentary all throughout the MAndrosphere is either concerned with shadenfraude - "Let the bitches find out what we men have always known: WAR IS HELL!"; or with the idea that the only reason we did not have women forced by law to register with SS, was due to the former prohibition of women in combat. Now that this no longer applies, it's time to sign up all teh Gurlz for the draft, too!

I say the answer for SS "selective service" is the same one we need for SS "socialist security" - end it, don't mend it! But I digress. (Keep reading HERE.)

The Fiscal Cliff Put In Perspective

The "Fiscal Cliff" rhetoric is over, but of course the economic principle remains the same. Whether we raise debt ceilings or just pretend the debt isn't there, the fact remains that the Government is spending a lot more money than it has coming in, and that a great deal of it is wasted, and a lot of that is actually conterproductive. This from Western Voices World News

Lesson # 1:
  • U.S. Tax Revenue: $2,170,000,000,000
  • Federal Budget: $3,820,000,000,000
  • New Debt: $1,650,000,000,000
  • National Debt: $14,271,000,000,000
  • Recent Budget cuts: 38,500,000,000
Let’s now remove 8 zeros and pretend it’s a household budge:
  • Annual family income: $21,700
  • Money the family spent: $38,200
  • New debt on the credit card: $16,500
  • Outstanding balance on the credit card: $142,710
  • Total budget cuts so far: $38.50
Got it?…. OK now…
Lesson # 2
Here’s another way of looking at the Debt Ceiling:
Let’s say you come home from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood… and your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings.  What do you think you should do?
Raise the ceiling or remove the crap?

The Liberal Fantasy World: Gay Marriage

The salient feature of liberalism is its immaturity, as I've pointed out before.  And one major feature of immaturity is pretending and fantasizing.  Oh, we all fantasize, and mature people keep their fantasizing in perspective, but little kids — immature, you know— spend a lot of time pretending/fantasizing that they're something other than little kids.  They're soldiers or astronauts or ballet dancers or cowboys or mommies or something else.  And with kids, that's a good thing, because they're learning by pretending.  But past a certain age, pretending is no longer educational, but obfuscatory.

Things liberals like to pretend/fantasize:

1. We can get anything we want from the Government, because, like Mommy and Daddy, it's all-powerful and has unlimited resources.

2.  People who disagree with #1 are mean and hate us.

3.  Everybody is equal — Not just equal in political rights, but equal in every way.  People who don't seem to be equal have just been discriminated against by mean people (See #2).

4.  Ethics and morality are stupid and out-dated.  Only those mean people  mentions above like ethics and morality.

5.  Wanting something is equivalent to needing it.  Needing something is equivalent to deserving it.

6.  Wishing can make it so.

Riffing off #6, there, sometimes they go a bit further, and believe that declaring can make it so.  Everybody who believes in fairies, clap your hands.  Everybody who believes fairies should marry each other, clap your hands really hard. 

Gore Vidal thought gay marriage was a stupid idea, but modern, hip, White heterosexual liberals know better, and consider it a magnificent human right, as important as the First Amendment.  Because declaring something a marriage makes it a marriage, don't you see, like when a little girl marries her cat to her teddy bear, and only a bigot could argue with it.  And this has to be true, because it says so in a comic book.

The unique Taki brings his experience to bear on this issue, thus:


Sweeping Gay Marriage Back Into the Closet


In a tiny hamlet next to where I live high up in the Swiss Alps, two gay friends of mine have set up house, and a beautiful old chalet it is. One man, a German, looks like a Panzer commander straight out of central casting; the other is an Englishman, more P. G. Wodehouse than John Bull. Both are very nice, very good-looking, generous, and amusing. I recently asked them if they planned to marry. They looked at me as if I had proposed Russian roulette. Here in Switzerland, a tolerant place as long as one has money, gay marriage does not the headlines make. After all, women’s right to vote was imposed from above on one of its cantons, Appenzell, as late as 1971. American feminists missed the occasion, but Bill Buckley and I did not, writing about how the end was nigh.

Recently The New York Times ran a long and boring article by Bill Keller, a very upright and boring man who used to edit the rag. His dateline was South Africa, and the spiel was how the South African Constitutional Court had established the right of South African gays and lesbians to marry. He then went on to bash Uncle Sam’s intolerance, blah, blah, blah, and to remind us that Thomas Jefferson favored castration for homosexuals. (Ouch—bad old Tom, and in the 18th century to boot.)
“There are priorities in this world, and gay marriage is not one of them.”

What I find so ludicrous are the realities. Unless Keller is an utter fool, which he probably is, he must know very well that gays in South Africa risk being lynched by their fellow Africans if they show homosexual behaviors such as flirting or kissing in public. Never mind what the court has ruled: Equal rights for gays are as likely to be respected in South Africa as I am to lead the Gay Pride Parade in Greenwich Village come June. Keller should have at least pointed out that before anything else, South Africa—Johannesburg being one of the world’s murder capitals—must ensure that first and foremost comes the right to live and not be murdered, and then to worry about gay marriage. But no, the fact that a South African court established the right for same-sex marriage makes America the hate and intolerance capital of the world, so there. (Read the rest HERE.)

Sunday, January 27, 2013

NAANP

Cartoon from BALOO'S WEBSITE.
Don't take the title of this post wrong.  I'm not implying that Blacks are Neanderthals.  In fact, African Blacks are believed to have no Neanderthal blood at all, while we Europeans have more of it than anybody else.  Of course, American Blacks mostly have a little Neanderthal in them by virtue of their European ancestors.  But Neanderthals have been in the news lately.  You've no doubt seen versions of this headline:

'ADVENTUROUS' SURROGATE WANTED TO CARRY CLONED NEANDERTHAL


Just Google "Neanderthal" "clone" and you'll get plenty of them. This is an excellent example of why journalists are undependable jerks.  Nobody has called for any such thing.  The truth is spectacular in its way but harder to make a titillating headline out of.  Gregory Cochran, an actual scientist, not a journalist, writes:


Thawing out the Neanderthals


If Harvard geneticist George Church gets his way, we may be seeing Neanderthals in the not-so-distant future—without having to first drink a quart of Old Overcoat.

The kerfuffle arose when Der Spiegel interviewed Church about his recent book, Regenesis: How Synthetic Biology Will Reinvent Nature and Ourselves. People got the impression that Church favors using ancient DNA to create a Neanderthal and is looking for a woman crazy enough to be the surrogate mother. He’s trying to back off, but there’s no reason to believe him. He does favor this experiment, although he doesn’t have want ads out for the crazy lady. Yet. Here is the relevant passage in his book:

If society becomes comfortable with cloning and sees value in true human diversity, then the whole Neanderthal creature itself could be cloned by a surrogate mother chimp—or by an extremely adventurous human female.

That’s clear enough. For some reason people make a distinction between what you write in a book and what you say to a reporter, presumably because no one ever actually reads the book. It only becomes controversial when it comes straight out of your mouth.

George Church says he believes that conjuring up a Neanderthal could be done in the near future and that it would be a good idea to do so. Genetic technology has been advancing furiously over the past decade, and if anything the pace is accelerating. And there is no fundamental reason why this couldn’t be done. So he’s likely correct in thinking that this will soon (ten years?) be possible—except that you certainly wouldn’t want to use a chimpanzee surrogate. Neanderthals had big heads, larger than those of people today, and I doubt if a lady chimp could manage. Church is a world-class expert in lab genetics, but he clearly doesn’t know much about birthin’ babies.

Church is not just thinking about creating a single Neanderthal. In the Der Speigel interview, he says:

You would certainly have to create a cohort, so they would have some sense of identity. They could maybe even create a new neo-Neanderthal culture and become a political force.

He’s a classic mad scientist—not that there’s anything wrong with that!
(Read the whole thing HERE.)

Saturday, January 26, 2013

Israeli Ladies in Combat? Another Myth.

Now that the idiot Panetta (I'm assuming he's idiotic instead of treasonous) has decided to put ladies in combat roles, the other idiots on the left are all giddy about how great it all is, and how stupid and right-wing everybody was who objected to the idea in the first place.  One "proof" of all this is how wonderfully well Israeli women perform in combat roles.  Most of the morons who bring this up have never been anywhere near a real military, so they base everything on what they see in the movies.  Literally.  They think all that stuff is real.  Steve Sailer discusses this phenomenon HERE.

Anyhow, the thing about the Israeli women in combat is bogus, bogus, bogus.  This from World Net Daily:

DEBUNKING THE ISRAELI 'WOMEN IN COMBAT' MYTH


Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots – mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier – pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat.

Israel – a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbors – allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so “male-centered”?

It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.

“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.

“For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.
(Read more HERE.)

And Linda Chavez points out another slight problem with women in the military in general, never mind combat, HERE.  (Thanks to Justnotsaid for the link!)

Holy Affirmative Action, Batman!

From Funnyjunk


I don't believe I've linked to "Stuff Black People Don't Like" before.  The title is, of course a parody of "Stuff White People Like." At any rate, it's a blog devoted to posts about what actually goes on in Black America, as opposed to the Potemkin villages we're regularly shown by the MAG (Media, Academia, Government). It seems to be run by Paul Kersey, who also writes for Alternative Right.  At any rate, several of his books are advertised on the site. There's also a "Stuff Black People Don't Like 2.0," which confuses me.  In a recent post, SBPDL compares the Gotham City of the 1989 Batman film to the reality of Birmingham, Alabama today.  It starts:


Tim Burton's 1989 "Batman" vs. 2013 Birmingham: Where Fact and Fiction Merge


Remember Tim Burton’s 1989 ‘Batman’ film? There’s a great scene earlier in the movie that establishes two important components to the films plot: 1. Gotham City is bankrupt, and 2. Crime keeps decent people away from the city. Here’s the line from the movie:
Coming soon: The History of Birmingham conveniently left out...

EXT: CITY HALL: DAY A "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" banner hangs over City Hall. Mayor Borg, Police Commissioner Gordon and District Attorney Harvey Dent exit from the building. 
"I don't care how deeply in debt this festival is, I want a parade. I want hot dogs, balloons, the whole schemer. 
We are going to celebrate this 200 year anniversary, proudly and publicly," says the Mayor.

"We may be celebrating this anniversary in bankruptcy court. This festival is already $250,000 in debt and we haven't seen one balloon," replies Dent. 
 "You fill this square with people, the businesses will come back here," says the Mayor. 
 "A lot of people might stay away. They are scared," answers Police Commissioner Gordon. 
 "They won't be scared when you get Grissom in that Court House, I promise you that," says Mayor Borg. 
 [This establishes that the community is terrorized by Grissom and his crime syndicate. They are so afraid that they won't even come out for a parade. Grissom's activities are the cause for businesses leaving the city, and thereby destroying the economy. The tax base is so small that the city government cannot even afford to hold a parade. The scene is designed to turn the audience against the criminals.)

A quarter of million dollars doesn’t sound like an insurmountable amount of money to appropriated from a budget, but what if a city in the real-world – our world – just allocated the exact same amount of money that the fictional town of Gotham City was in debt in ‘Batman’?

What if this same city has a “criminal problem” just like Gotham City, though no syndicate or mafia is behind the epidemic of crime keeping businesses and ‘decent people’ away? 

Unlike in Gotham City, it is merely this city’s residents who keep away businesses and ensure the tax-base will be insufficient in providing the proper revenues necessary to run a city.

And though people get murdered, mugged, and fall victim to wanton criminality everyday in this city, unlike in Gotham City, no hero rises to the occasion to battle the evil-doers. Instead, a culture of ‘no-snitching’ protects the criminals.

Only in pages of comic books and on the big-screen does a hero rise up to protect a city; for in 2013 Birmingham, Alabama (a 75% black city), it has been a hilarious run of elected black officials attempting to protect not the city, but the cherished legacy of 1963 that serves as a reminder that the villain some times is victorious.

2013 Birmingham is a city with conditions far worse then that depicted in the dystopian urban environment of Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman” film; after all, a guy dressed up as a bat was able to turn the city’s fortunes around by standing up to organized crime.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Make My Day Kitty



In the old days, on Gunsmoke, Miss Kitty would from time to time get really annoyed at some misbehavior in her saloon, and she'd break a whiskey bottle on the bar and threaten to cut some cowboy up with it who'd crossed the line.  I don't remember her ever offering to shoot anybody, but maybe she did.  It was a long series.  But this isn't Miss Kitty's world any more.  This is Hello Kitty's world.  A grim, violent world, where tiny little girls have to be restrained by kevlar-clad militarized cops, lest they bubble somebody to death.  Thank God Senator Feinstein and Honorary Senator Barbra Streisand are doing something about stuff like this. No, not kidding.  Wish I were.   This from The Global Dispatch:

Hello Kitty The Terrorist

Zero Tolerance Idiocy Regarding Toy Guns…And you thought that the Socialist Government school system couldn’t get any loonier…

Seriously, children are being conditioned and frightened into adopting an anti-gun mentality…

Just look at the asinine actions of school officials with regard to a 5 year old child bringing a Hello Kitty Bubble Gun into school:


“A 5-year-old girl was suspended from school earlier this week after she made what the school called a “terrorist threat.”

Her weapon of choice? A small, Hello Kitty automatic bubble blower.

The kindergartner, who attends Mount Carmel Area Elementary School in Pennsylvania, caught administrators’ attention after suggesting she and a classmate should shoot each other with bubbles.

“I think people know how harmless a bubble is. It doesn’t hurt,” said Robin Ficker, an attorney for the girl’s family. According to Ficker, the girl, whose identity has not been released, didn’t even have the bubble gun toy with her at school.

The kindergartner was ordered to undergo a psychological evaluation during her 10-day suspension, which was later reduced to two days. The evaluation deemed the girl normal and not a threat to others, Ficker said.”


Seems to me the ones that need psychiatric evaluation are the school administrators – not the children. 

Hard Boots and Soft Money

This isn't Uncle Bob's boot.  This is Revy's boot.
A reprint from 

Uncle Bob's Treehouse

The Federal Reserve Bank vs. My Shoes


When I was in college the best salesman in the world talked me into buying a pair of Allen Edmonds shoes -- specifically the chukka boots. They cost $75.

They were the best shoes I ever had. Unfortunately I didn't take particularly good care of them. I wore them every day, I once dried them on the heat register (the toes curled straight up), and I didn't moisturize them enough. Still, they lasted ten years.

They were made out of boarskin, they had cork in the insoles to conform to your feet, and they were so comfortable I used to wear them without socks.

Had I take proper care of them, and have the company rebuild them, I'd still have them (I wish I still had my '67 Pontiac Tempest slant-4).

Then I bought another pair of chukkas. By then they were up to $150. They lasted about 13 years. I still didn't take very good care of them, specifically wearing them every day, which is a big no-no for shoes.

A week for so ago I checked on the price of these boots.

$335.

I blame this almost exclusively on the Federal Reserve Bank, which is not federal, has no reserves, and is not a bank. It is in fact a legal counterfeiter which has 100% control over our money supply.

And when you have control of the money supply, you can make yourself into a billionaire, impoverish everyone else, and ultimately, destroy the country and culture.

Of course, the Fed is thoroughly unconstitutional. The Constitution forbids anything but gold or silver being money. On top of that, it also forbids Bills of Credit, i.e., paper money.

Central banks were tried in the U.S. in the past. Andrew Jackson, for one, swore eternal enmity against them.

"The bold effort the present (central) bank had made to control the government ... are but premonitions of the fate that await the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it," he once said. "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the grace of the Eternal God, will rout you out."

Jackson engaged in a lot of duels. He once got shot, shook it off like a bee sting, plugged the guy and killed him. Perhaps we need dueling to be legal today, especially for traitors, almost all of whom are in our various governments.

Since the creation of the Fed in 1913, the dollar has lost about 99% of its value through inflation, which is nothing more than the expansion of the money and credit supply.

This inflation of money and credit means what cost one penny in 1916 costs one dollar today. In 1890, for example, one silver dime would get you a seven-course meal at a fancy hotel. Today, a quarter will get you a piece of bubble-gum out of a machine.

Perhaps without the Feds my chukka boots today would cost..maybe a couple of dollars?

This acceleration of this loss of value really took off in 1973, two years after Richard Nixon went completely off the gold standard in 1971.

Not surprisingly, wages stopped going up in 1973, and have been flat or declining ever since. Except for course, for the one percent whose income has been skyrocketing -- and they accomplished this by using the State to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense.

I've seen more than one estimate that if GDP had keep increasing at 1950's rates, the average salary today would be more than $90,000 a year.

If people truly understood what the federal government has done to them, and especially the Federal Reserve Bank, they would march on D.C. with flaming torches and pitchforks, and hang the guilty by their heels from lamp posts...just as was done to Mussolini.



Fortunately, Allen Edmonds is still an American company. And thank God for that. They haven't fled to China, where the workers make ten cents day, work 12 hour shifts, and live in cinder-block dormitories.

As an aside, one "libertarian" moron told me there was nothing wrong with Allen Edmonds moving to China to make "good, cheap shoes." "Am I missing something here?" he asked rhetorically.

"Apparently the ability to understand basic economics," I told him. For one thing, there is no such thing as Economic Man, who's run by rational economics. For an example, once you lose your reputation you can never get it back. If Allen Edmonds moved to China, their reputation and loyal customers are gone forever.

Let's see any economist quantify reputation.

Lots of American workers appear to make good money - in nominal wages. If the Fed had never existed, the average wage might be $10,000 a year -- and houses might cost $10,000 (my parents told me they rented a two-story farmhouse in '67 for $60 a month, and they paid $141 a month for a 30-year mortgage).

American companies wouldn't be hemorrhaging jobs to foreign companies if it wasn't for this huge disparity in wages.

More and more people are learning what the Federal Reserve Bank is. They're learning it creates money and credit out of thin air, lends it out, and charges interest. That makes money nothing more than debt. In other words, if no one borrowed, perhaps 90% of the "money" that "exists" would just evaporate.

Sooner or later, the Fed will go. The first two American central banks had 20-year charters, and then they were gone. The current one needs to go. Sooner or later, it will go.

Unfortunately, I expect pretty much a complete collapse of the economy before the Fed is eliminated.