Thursday, October 31, 2013

Diversity is like a box of chocolates...

You never know what you're going to get. Cute, but true. And even truer if you envision an unconstrained box of chocolates, that includes chocolate-covered cherries, chocolate-covered almonds, chocolate-covered chicken nuggets, chocolate-covered cockroaches, and chocolate-covered caltrops.  You get the idea. Not yummy. But we keep hearing that "diversity is strength," an assertion on a par with "all property is theft" and "millions now living will never die" in terms of sheer, spectacular falsity. I dealt a bit with that ridiculous notion a couple of days ago, bringing up one of the more frustrating disadvantages of diversity when it comes to touchy-feeley government programs. The fact is that a diverse country finds it very difficult to get people to agree to any kind of socialism, because ethnic groups don't trust each other not to game the system — mutual distrust is almost part of the definition of "ethnic groups," and it's comical that anybody would expect it to work any other way.  And, of course, they're quite right not to do so. In this country, Whites expect Blacks to game the system when there's any kind of government assistance available, and take without giving. They're right, of course, because Blacks have been taught for the last few generations that Whitey is at fault for all their misfortunes, so they damn well deserve to game the system.  And when Whites see this happening, they start gaming the system, so they won't, they think, get ripped off entirely. It's a vicious circle.

This basic fact, that diversity decreases public trust, is itself considered a pretty bigoted view of things, despite (or maybe because of) its undeniable truth. It violates the liberal/neocon narrative that diversity is always a wonderful thing and that any downsides are probably imaginary, and at worst, very temporary. They genuinely think that Minneapolis is a better place for having shipped in thousands of savage Somali Muslims.

But it's hard to lie about everything all the time, because it leads to too many contradictions, and Kevin MacDonald has just caught the ghastly David Frum in a truth.  He wants to hold back on diversity just a tad for now, in order to make sure to destroy the country in other ways.  This from the Occidental Observer:

David Frum is an Evolutionary Psychologist

The point of my “Implicit Whiteness Sightings: Shutting Down the Government and Talk of Secession” is the well-replicated finding that people are less willing to contribute to public goods in multiracial, multicultural societies. This has a very basic evolutionary logic: there is a lot lower threshold for altruism and a higher expectation of reciprocity with people that look like you than people who don’t.

Now VDARE’s must-read Patrick Cleburne discusses a column by David Frum that has exactly the same logic (“David Frum ‘Obama Would Be a Fool to Pursue Immigration Next‘“). Frum notes that

the two most popular programs in the United States are Medicare and Social Security. Look at what they have in common:

1) They do not look redistributionist. All contribute something; all receive something.

2) They were launched in years of rapid economic growth: 1965 for Medicare and 1935 for Social Security. (By later estimates, the U.S. economy grew at a Chinese-like 9 percent in 1935. The unemployment rate dropped 8 points in that single year.)

3) They were launched at times when the U.S. population was evolving toward greater homogeneity. Large-scale immigration had been halted a decade before Social Security; in 1965, the foreign-born portion of the population was dwindling to the lowest point ever recorded in U.S. history.

Economic insecurity is important as well. Americans are thinking about the ever expanding $17 trillion debt and are deeply concerned that the future is unsustainable. From an evolutionary perspective based on social identity theory (see here, p. 70ff), this feeds into a circle-the-wagons mentality where ingroup/outgroup distinctions are magnified. The circle of wagons is composed of people who look like you. Frum:

It was already true even before the financial crisis of 2008 that the pace of demographic change in the United States was outpacing many conservative voters’ tolerance. Since then, two things have happened. First, Americans have come to feel much less economically secure. Second, the baby boomers have begun to retire, intensifying already intense anxieties about the sustainability of Social Security and Medicare. To add on top of that a costly new program that appears to compete with those older programs [e.g., the cuts in Medicare that are part of Obamacare] for the benefit of a different population…that’s asking for trouble.

By that same logic, the very generous social welfare programs and national health care of much of Europe would never pass today. They were passed in economically prosperous, racially homogeneous societies.

Today, White voters in those countries would be thinking about the hordes of immigrants who would be in the same line that they are for benefits like health care and subsidized housing. They would worry that the never-ending stream of poor, uneducated, high-fertility, low-IQ immigrants—most of whom remain at the low end of the SES distribution for generations—will cut into their own prospects in times of economic difficulty. Not at all unreasonable. And it has nothing to do with hate.

It’s asking for trouble, but, as Frum notes, ”the Obama administration seems intent on maximizing such negative consequences. ‘You know that demographic change that’s making you so hostile to new social welfare programs? Let’s have a lot more of it! And faster!’”

This is playing with fire. As noted here, quoting William A. Galston, “the Republicans believe that their country has been taken away from them. They are

aroused, angry and above all fearful, in full revolt against a new elite—backed by the new American demography—that threatens its interests and scorns its values.”


These people may not be a majority any more, but they constitute a very large, angry minority. It’s what revolutions and secessions are made of.

Supporting The Troops ≠ Supporting The Government


I've mentioned before that UK libertarians, on the average, are more realistic than US libertarians. There are probably lots of reasons for this, not the least of which is the clear presence of havok-wreaking Muslims in Britain, while much of America is still unaware of the immigration problem. They also lost a lot more in the two World Wars, while the US actually seems to have benefited from them.  If you substitute a few words here and there, though, and D. J. Webb's essay could very easily be made to apply to the United States.  The Brits, you see, have pretty much the same brand of evil, scumbag politicians than we do, but seem to be more aware of the fact. And one sentence here is a beauty that American libertarians need to meditate on.  "I support our soldiers unconditionally, whether the wars are justified or not, as they are British soldiers." Even the Russian Bolsheviks weren't stupid enough to trash the Russian troops, but many American "libertarians" think it's the clever thing to do.  Well. This is a reprint from the Libertarian Alliance.

Why I’m not Wearing a Poppy
by D.J. Webb

Once again the annual row on the wearing of poppies is taking place. The powers that be are against patriotism on principle, although there is considerable contradiction in running a society and not being supportive of it. However, the issue has been rather muddied for me by Britain‘s habit of sending young men abroad into wars that have no conceivable connection to our national interest. I support our soldiers unconditionally, whether the wars are justified or not, as they are British soldiers. I also feel very sorry for those wounded, or killed, in wars staged for the convenience of the liberal elite. But I have not worn a poppy for several years now.

I know many conservatives will be pained to read a short article explaining why a poppy should not be worn. But to my mind, the wearing of a poppy is tokenism at its worst, considerably cheapened by the wearing of poppies by BBC correspondents and members of the political class–in most cases, people who are not remotely interest in Great Britain as a nation-state. I don’t watch television, and so I don’t know if David Cameron has been espied this year wearing a poppy, but I expect he has done so or will be doing so very shortly, and the juxtaposition of that with his decisions to support “the bringing of democracy toAfghanistan“, as well as similar campaigns in other countries, just illustrates to me the false nature of the whole thing. The Queen has often been spotted wearing several poppies at once, which seem to indicate that she is a more important patriot, or has a higher patriotic conscience than most of us. Yet, the whole point of poppies is the support of the nation as a whole for its war dead, and the wearing of outsized poppies or more than one poppy by anyone, including the Queen, is simply inappropriate. In the Queen’s case, as she does sign off on the sending of young men, without proper equipment, into wars that are not for the national interest, her wearing of a poppy is rather to be deprecated. “She has never put a foot wrong”, we are told; but I understand this to mean she has never challenged the liberal elite on anything.

Worst of all for me is the fact that the poppy seeks to depoliticise Britain‘s wars. After the First World War, when “lions were led by donkeys”, an accounting with those who had encouraged an unnecessary war would have been appropriate, including a public explanation by King George V as to why he, as commander-in-chief, had authorised Great Britain‘s joining of the war in the first place. Yet the bringing in of the poppy tradition has encouraged a non-political “commemoration”. What is the point of commemorations if our political class are committed to sending more and more young men abroad into “wars of choice” in the years ahead?

I would not want to show disrespect to Britain‘s war dead, but to me the greatest respect that can be shown is to mount a political discussion of Britain‘s role in the world and whether it should be attempting to remain a military power in the way it is and whether it should be continuing to intervene in distant countries in fatuous attempts to impose democracy. I cannot wear the White Poppy that is used to symbolise peace, as I would support war for the national interest (such as the Falklands War), but not the staging of foreign wars for the political convenience of British leaders where no national interest is at stake.

I welcome the charity work of the Royal British Legion, but why is the RBL not campaigning to stop British military interventions in countries thousands of miles away? What about the fact that Britain today is not the “land fit for heroes” that some people thought they were fighting for in the 1940s? Mass immigration, the state promotion of political causes such as multi-culturalism, feminism and ‘gay’ rights, the stymieing of so much political discussion in the UK by reference to the policy strictures imposed by our membership of the European Union, the way the vast majority of the population is left with a £100 a week state pension while required via the tax system to fund much more generous public-sector equivalents: all these things illustrate how “our glorious dead” died for nothing. If you feel any sorrow over the loss of young lives in foreign jaunts, forget the poppy and start campaigning politically, as otherwise more of our young people will be killed in the name of a political class that cares nothing for them and is rapidly effecting the disintegration of anything positive in British society.

How the Economy Works

It's really much simpler than you've been led to believe.  There are four basic steps:

1. You pay your taxes.
2. The government gives your tax money to Goldman Sachs.
3. Goldman Sachs gives it to Hillary.
4. Repeat as needed.

From National Review On Line:

Hillary Clinton’s Lucrative Goldman Sachs Speaking Gigs

Hillary Clinton spoke at two separate Goldman Sachs events on the evenings of Thursday, October 24 and Tuesday, October 29. As both Politico and the New York Times report, Clinton’s fee is about $200,000 per speech, meaning she likely netted around $400,000 for her paid gigs at Goldman over the course of six days.
Last Thursday, Clinton spoke for the AIMS Alternative Investment Conference hosted by Goldman Sachs, a closed event exclusively for Goldman clients. AIMS is an annual conference that explores the latest strategies and products available to financial advisers. At the event, Clinton offered what one attendee described to me as “prepared remarks followed by questions.”
On Tuesday, Clinton spoke at the Builders and Innovators Summit, devoted to discussing entrepreneurship and how to help innovators expand and grow their businesses. According to Politico, Clinton conducted a question-and-answer session with Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein. Goldman Sachs declined to comment on the subject of her remarks or why Mrs. Clinton in particular was invited to the events.
Keeping close to the investment world, Clinton also made visits to private-equity firms KKR in July and the Carlyle Group in September. At KKR’s annual investor meeting in California, Clinton answered questions from firm co-founder Henry Kravis on the Middle East, Washington, and politics. At Carlyle Group, Clinton made a speech to shareholders moderated by Carlyle founder David Rubenstein.
Clinton’s office did not respond to a request for comment.

Wednesday, October 30, 2013

Wisdom from Facebook

This, from a Facebook commentator who says I'm dumb — Punctuation and all, folks, punctuation and all:

Facebook is not a good way to judge someone literacy, in fact I am very literate, even though you can't tell by my posts... I mean what just one thing was not spelled correctly or I used the wrong version of a word? So what

I repeat, the punctuation is all his. His favorite howler is to type "your" for "you're." Not an occasional mental slip like most of us might fall prey to, but a consistent practice of his.

In Praise of the Ethnostate

You've heard that "diversity is strength."  It's not. Particularly the way it's usually meant, that a country or any small organized human unit is at its best if it's composed of various races, religions, ethnicities, sexual orientations, etc. etc.  Actually, it's almost always a severe weakness. Studies have shown that the more diverse a society is, the less mutual trust, the less cooperation, the more strife and resentment. It's not at all like it is on board the Enterprise, where humans and Vulcans and Klingons and Ferengi cooperate with enormous mutual respect and affection. As William Shatner once said, "it's only a TV show." Not something to pattern your life after. In any case, happy is the country that holds "diversity" to a minimum. Paradoxically, homogeneous countries like, say, Ireland or Norway have been propagandized until they're ashamed of their homogeneity, and talk themselves into sending off for some nice juicy Muslim immigrants from the Middle East to rape their women and sign up for welfare, or, even better, some Africans who do all that and more.

This is a manifestation of White liberalism, the craziest, most self-destructive philosophy around, and, naturally, nonWhites seem to be immune from it, to their credit. At the top of that list are the Koreans and Japanese, who are perfectly content to be monolingual, monocultural, and monoracial.  For a look at Japan in particular, over at VDare, "Federale" writes:

Federale In Japan: It Works—And It Could Work In The U.S. Too

I have seen the future, and it works! But unlike Lincoln Steffens, I’m not writing about the Soviet Union. I’m writing about Japan, which shows that low immigration and an ethnostate can work effectively in today’s world. Two weeks in Japan resembled nothing so much as a visit to the lost paradise of California 30 years ago.
In a real country like Japan, border security is still intact. I had the pleasure of being profiled—by both the Japanese Immigration Service and the Japanese Customs Service. Japan still maintains two services visitors from abroad must pass through. Their operations were conducted simply and efficiently.
The airport at Narita was well-designed for processing arriving passengers. Unlike the new San Francisco International Airport, with its ill-designed and inadequate Federal Inspection Service area, Narita was spacious and staffing levels were adequate for quick processing of the arriving passengers.
More importantly, the Japanese did not waste time harassing legitimate travelers. With their ability to utilize human capital, their officers used profiling to make quick decisions on admissibility and further inspections. I was not asked any questions by the Immigration Inspector and only two questions by the Customs Inspector. A white American coming directly from a Western country presents little threat in the way of customs or immigration law violations.
Sometimes the Japanese do indeed profile a Westerner—but only when he’s arriving from a Third World country. [Top court voids acquittal of British drug smuggler, Japan Times, Oct 23, 2013] Not surprisingly, their suspicion in that case was validated.
This mixture of efficiency and security extended to the departure process. Unlike the United States, the only major country in the world where there is no customs and immigration inspection on exit, Japan inspectspeople leaving the country. In immigration law enforcement, departure control is an important aspect of national sovereignty and border control. America does not do this, so we do not control our borders because we do not know who remains in the United States after they are admitted. (What’s worse, even some immigration patriot groups such as the Center For Immigration Studies oppose or don't understand the importance of actual physical inspection of departing persons).
The result of a real border security policy: the Japanese get to have a real country. Japan is mostly staffed by the Japanese, at all levels of employment. I saw few foreign workers in the hotel and other service industries. At one high-end hotel in Tokyo, I saw some foreign staff: a British executive chef; a French waiter; one Filipino maid. At a mid-range hotel in Kyoto, the only foreign staff was the primary concierge, who was Australian but a long-time resident, married to a Japanese woman.
What a dramatic departure from the U.S. with its monolithic domination by Hispanic maids and kitchen staff!
At all levels, with one exception, I observed no aliens, whether it was at a Starbucks, an izakaya, or a Michelin starred restaurant. Just once, there was a Filipino hostess at Restaurant Omae XEX.
In the United States, the lower end the restaurant, the more likely the alien or illegal alien among the staff. However, in Japan, the opposite is true. The lower end the restaurant, the more likely the restaurant is staffed only by Japanese nationals.
This is most obvious is this among the thousands of Izakayas—specialty restaurants serving one type of food. The izakayas serve an important purpose, not just as restaurants, but by providing employment for those in Japan who do not make the cut for universities or major companies.
Izakayas are much more informal than many Japanese restaurants, and much cheaper as well. They are an entrepreneurial outlet for those young people in Japan who are more individualistic. Customers are greeted loudly and informally, as opposed to the quiet greeting and the formal bow at higher-end establishments. Bleached and long hair on the young men and open laughter and boisterousness from the young women serve as a stark contrast to the staidness of the higher-end restaurants, and in corporate life in general. Izakayas don’t just serve as employment for rebellious young Japanese, but social centers.
The hiring policies of hotels and restaurants reflect the Japanese government’s nationalist focus. Japan pursues a strategy aimed at both full employment and an ethnostate—a country where there is a social compact between the governed and the governing. (Read the rest HERE.)


Tuesday, October 29, 2013

Rights and Monsters

This is a tad complicated, but this was too good not to post.  I'm reproducing exactly below a post from Nicholas Stix, which itself is a reposting of a comment on the American Renaissance blog. Now, I don't want to second-guess this guy, but I'm inclined to think he's a tad too black-and-white (heh!) and maybe some people who aren't White have a cultural concept of rights and responsibilities.  Not too many, but some, maybe in the Middle East and the Far East.  But maybe not.  I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.  But the thrust of his comment is basically concerning Europeans in contrast to Africans, and no realistic person can argue that he's wrong.


Are Blacks Monsters? Is Crime a White Idea?

Re-posted by Nicholas Stix

I found the following disturbing essay today by an anonymous American Renaissance reader.
 ___________

Crime is a white idea. White people, and white people ONLY hold to certain rights and responsibilities all people have....so-called inalienable rights endowed to us by God. Violation of these rights makes one a criminal. Violating the rights of another is crime.

Where there is no recognition of those rights, there can be no crime. This is literally what almost every black person caught committing “crime” means when he exclaims, “I didn’ do nuffin.” He means he didn’t do anything wrong. His non-recognition of the basic rights of others, even to exist, means that the very idea that he might be doing something wrong, never enters into his head and he has no guilt whatsoever over the most heinous of acts... rape, robbery, murder, assault. The only limits he recognizes (and only during those rare times he bothers to think rationally at all) is the punishment and pain, even death, others will heap on him in retaliation. Such things, to his thinking are always unreasonable (I didn’ do nuffin’).

However, the flip side of such is a much desired outcome. How much he can get away with, and his victims are helpless to do anything about it, determines his status. The contradiction never enters his mind.

At best, non-whites are psychopaths, by our standards. But really, what they are, are monsters. What makes a monster a monster is his nature. Monsters don’t make decisions. Monsters lack choice. This is the fundamental misunderstanding all white people have with regard to non-whites.

People have choice. People change. People can be rehabilitated. People repent. Monsters cannot. Evil isn’t something they do. It’s something they are. As far as repentance goes, the term means to return. To go back to the beginning to a state of innocence and start again. Monsters can’t do that. They were never innocent. Think on THAT, the next time you see black children and wonder what they will be in 20 years. The liberal sees them, and feels hope. He feels hope because he sees children in a state of innocence. More experienced people notice that at age, 4, 5, 6, the black “children” are already hurting others. Where did they “learn” this? It is a mystery, until you admit they did not have to learn it. It’s not what they do. It’s what they are.

What is the point of all that? The point is that a crime rate that goes up and down, is largely meaningless. Who cares, if monsters are more or less active that season than in seasons prior? They are still monsters. No “progress” has been made, just because the “crime rate” is down. Quite frankly, such things have far more to do with changing demographics and the propensity for those in charge to simply lie, than anything else.

Which is a very important point. 
There is a certain threshold where the monsters take over and crime mysteriously disappears. Did the criminal behaviors stop? No... if anything they’ve dramatically increased. What is happening is a combination of monsters pretending to be cops, no longer arresting other monsters. Monsters in charge of keeping the stats, simply make up whatever lie is handy. And, worst of all, a monster faces a true jury of his peers when called to court and other monsters agree wholeheartedly with him that “he didn’ do nuffin.”

So-called crime is a white idea we virtually eliminated among ourselves. This issue with the monsters is completely different. Our techniques for dealing with crime are ludicrous in the face of what monsters are. What good is it to arrest a monster and jail him, when the entire population he belongs to is just like him? Will you arrest everyone? The U.S. seems to have tried. Some small success, at incredible costs. Can you rehabilitate a monster? Hahahaha... no. Punish a monster? Dat be rayciss... is the only response you will ever get.

All these things have in common the false paradigm of inclusion, [according to which] at the end of the day, what matters is they are of us, just like us, only different in skin color. That is not only untrue, it’s an intentional deception (by whom is a whole other question... one that leads to war). But with regard to “crime,” what we need is a paradigm of exclusion.

They are not human. They are monsters. No different than if we were in the middle of a bad zombie film. A whole different set of assumptions, behaviors, and beliefs apply.

Of course, “dat be rayciss.”

Neale Osborn's 31st Rant!

Neale Osborn on guns at the airport, Piers "Pissant" Morgan, Louisiana, and other gun-related news items.  This week's illustration was swiped from Vulture of Critique.

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 31
by Neale Osborn
nealebooks@hotmail.com


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

I'm not generally a fan of supporting bad behavior. This time, I think I have to chalk it up to incipient senility, though, not to stupidity. Bill Russell was one hell of a basketball player. I know his name and face despite not being a fan of hoops at all. Link. No one wants to back up stupidity. And certainly, in today's climate, "forgetting" you put a loaded pistol in your carryon is sheer stupidity. But, a 79 year old man HAS to be cut a little slack. I'm thinking he really did forget. Not that it was an evil act even if it was on purpose. But I digress.....Here's hoping a little common sense can prevail.
Two from one of my favorite members of my gun group on NewsVine, Viner Neffy Teri. Guys, she might be cute and cuddly, but this girl is a serious pistol packin' (not yet a) mama. Dinnae be messing with her. She brought this one to my attention— more proof that Piers Morgan is nothing but a lying idiot who should go back to England, where his politics would fit right in. Link. The frigging idiot reports news, opines about how we Americans must give up all our guns to make him feel safe and happy, and the jackass doesn't even know which Amendment he's advocating removing from the Constitution. Then the liar claims he's never actually advocated gun control. Alan Gottlieb read him the riot act, though.
On CBS This Morning, Morgan stated, "I have no problem, in a country with so many guns in circulation, with a family exercising their First Amendment [sic] right to defend their families with a handgun at home."

[1] UK Daily Mail 12-29-2012— Deport me? If America won't change its crazy gun laws... I may deport myself says Piers Morgan
"Nuff said. Read Alan's piece at the link above. The second piece by Neffy is dealing with a new law overwhelmingly passed by Louisiana last November. Link. The law?:
Almost 75 percent of Louisiana voters who cast ballots in November approved adding to the state constitution, "The right of individuals to acquire, keep, possess, transport, carry, transfer, and use arms for defense of life and liberty, and for all other legitimate purposes, is fundamental and shall not be denied or infringed, and any restriction on this right must be subjected to strict scrutiny."
Now, many will not agree with allowing convicted felons who have served their time the right to own and carry weapons. I won't get into that right now, other than to say it is my opinion that the high recidivism rate for convicted criminals is, to no small extent, the direct result of our prejudicial system of continuing to punish criminals after they leave jail. People who have, according to the law, paid their debt to society and are now free. Yet are denied rights (there's no provision for stripping rights in the Constitution) that are Constitutionally enumerated. But you GOTTA love the amendment! I'd like to see it cross the nation. Ideally, added to the 2nd Amendment or as a new Amendment to the Constitution. (Inside joke coming) 2 gold stars to Neffy Teri.

You know, it's always pissed me off when people use "Do you REALLY think that if the government uses the military and the police to forcibly disarm you, you could actually fight and win?" or "Do you REALLY think an armed revolt could defeat the federal government if you ever tried?" as justification for eliminating the 2nd Amendment. These two arguments are ALWAYS used when I point out that the 2nd Amendment isn't just about duck hunting, or only about self defense against a mugger or carjacker. That it is about, ultimately, our right to defend ourselves against a tyrannical government. One of my favorite contributors to The Libertarian Enterprise wrote the following in his article this week. Link.
Even if resistance was futile, as Patrick Swayze said in Red Dawn "We're all going to die, so let's die standing up." That was why a group of ragtag Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto chose to fight, knowing that they would likely be crushed by the Nazi war machine. That was why 300 Spartans choose to fight the overwhelming force of the Persian army, instead of surrendering. That was also true of the people of United 93. Chances are those people knew they were going die, but instead of allowing the hijackers to proceed with their plans, they choose to fight. They all realized that it was better to die on their feet then on their knees.
While the article is about the revisionists saying that A) the Nazis didn't disarm anybody but the Jews (Lie number one) and that B) even if they hadn't disarmed the Jews, the Jews would never have been able to resist the Nazis anyway (Lie number two— look at the Warsaw Ghetto), the point of the article is summed up by the above quote. It really IS better to go down fighting than to go down kneeling over an open ditch. Thanks, Sean Gangol, for an excellent article.

Is this more stupid cops, making stupid mistakes, or a righteous shoot? Link. Now, do not get me wrong— carrying a replica AK and a plastic pistol around any city these days is not a sign of great intelligence. But generally speaking, it's pretty easy to tell someone is a kid. And unless he pointed the "gun" at the police (which the story does not mention) they had absolutely no excuse to shoot him. I'm hoping like hell there's more to the story than this.

One of my friends posted this in the comment section of a previous rant, and I liked it so much, I felt obliged to make it part of the body of THIS one! Link. Talk about poetic justice, just gotta hope the homeowner doesn't get sued for improperly storing a loaded firearm of something. My thanks to A. Leone for the Link.
Detective John Williams says investigators found a shotgun and the rifle Sunday morning, side by side on the passenger-side floorboard of a stolen farm truck, barrels pointed at the driver.

Williams says it appears that a lever on the shotgun got into the trigger guard of the rifle. When the truck hit a bump in the road, the rifle fired once, striking and killing Mendoza in a freak accident.

However, Sheriff Bob Wolfe said police are still investigating the incident to make sure no other parties were involved in the burglary. He added that it seemed clear that Mendoza's death was accidental and the result of failing to safely store the weapons he stole.
Und so, next Ve get to the capitol of Nazi Amerika. Link. A man faces felony charges for possessing an empty rifle shell, a dud 12 ga round, and other non-gun items in Washington DC. In addition, his sister, in a neighboring town, is facing legal hassles for storing QUITE LEGALLY her brother's firearms and refusing to allow DC cops to search her home.
The police banged on the front door of Mr. Witaschek's Georgetown home at 8:20 p.m. on July 7, 2012, to execute a search warrant for "firearms and ammunition ... gun cleaning equipment, holsters, bullet holders and ammunition receipts."
What the FUCK!?!? Holsters? Gun cleaning equipment? AMMU-FUCKING-NITION RECEIPTS??? Our nation's capitol, supposed to represent America, has become a Nazi-like police state far worse than I ever suspected. In DC, "D.C. law requires residents to register every firearm with the police, and only registered gun owners can possess ammunition, which includes spent shells and casings. The maximum penalty for violating these laws is a $1,000 fine and a year in jail." I can't quote anymore. I have to watch my Blood Pressure. Read the article for yourself. Thanks to NewsVine member Reality Check for the Link.

For the Gunsmith's Korner this week we have...... Nada. No one asked, and I didn't think of much to cover except for a shameless plug for my favorite gun-care product. BreakFree CLP. It's a cleaner AND lubricant rolled up in one. Aerosol or liquid, it works great. It leaves behind a thin layer of Teflon. I use it as the first step in any repair job, and finish the job with a thin coat.
That wraps up this week's rant.

Japan Declines

When Commodore Matthew Perry showed up and forcibly opened Japan in 1854, the Japanese were, though admirable in many ways, strangers to any concept of individualism, actual nationalism, and the rule of law. They learned all of that from us, more or less, so now we can make a list of things the Japanese learned from us that we have since forgotten:

1. Work ethic.
2. Immigration restriction.
3. National pride.
4. Race awareness.
5. Monoculturalism
6. Nationalism.
7. Animation. (Just kidding — We can still do that.)

And now we can add:

8. Constitutionalism.

From Sankaku Complex (again, beware — this site has adult pictures on it)

Japan “Refused To Spy For NSA”


Japan has refused to spy on Internet traffic for the NSA, offering the amazing excuse that it would be unconstitutional for them to do so.
According to Snowden-sourced documents passed to The Guardian, the NSA tried to get Japan to help it tap all transpacific traffic passing though Japanese tubes with the hopes of seeing what the sneaky Chinese were up to.
Unlike their spineless UK lapdogs, the USA’s demands that Japan assist its indiscriminate spying operations by tapping undersea data cables were apparently rejected, on the astonishing and by American standards rather quaint grounds that it would be a violation of the Japanese constitution to do so.
The scale of the proposed operation was also apparently so large that Japan’s comparatively sensibly sized spy agencies would be unable to manage it without private sector assistance, further discouraging them.
Whatever the actual reason – some have also suggested fears about letting a rampant US spy agency hand over choice Japanese trade secrets to US companies might have had something to do with it – the news has surprised many who thought Japan to be amongst the most supine of the US “allies.”

Monday, October 28, 2013

Universal Truths

The trouble with universal truths is that they're, well, universal, and thus very, very hard to avoid, as much as you'd like to. I've just been having some fun chatting with people on the net who think they're libertarians, and who burst into hissy-fits at any hint that there's any significant variation in behavior of various human ethnic groups. Oh, they'll put up with you saying that some non-White group is superior in some way — Koreans are industrious, Brazilians are vibrant, Afghans are courageous, or whatever. But God help you if you criticize the behavior of any non-White group. Of course, what's funny is that if you spread an ethnic group around the whole blasted world, they continue to act the same way, sort of like cats meow wherever they go. Germans, for example, seem to brew beer no matter where they are, be it Germany, Mexico, Argentina, or Tsingtao. In like manner, Chinese seem to start businesses and make more money than most other people no matter where they migrate to. As for ethnic groups with less admirable reputations, I'll leave you to think that through for yourself or blame Whitey or whatever.  And now, Colin Liddell, from http://alternativeright.com/


The latest video to go viral is a lovely little number featuring some tiny little lasses tarted up in tutus, presumably auditioning to be the next Miley Cyrus to a bump n' grind sass-a-long song called “Broadway Baby.”
That in itself would be bad enough, but what makes this video stand out, and the reason for it getting over one-and-a-half-million views, is the excruciatingly bad performance of one of the tap-dancing tiny tots who just happens to be Black.
Now, all the performances, as you would expect, are excruciatingly bad, but because they’re tots we’re supposed to think they’re adorable. That’s the whole point of these sub-Svengalian productions. But what we’re supposed to love even more is the fact that the little Black girl is so animated and totally doing her own thing. Great! Fantastic! Fine...I get it. She’s a little nugget of pure, unrefined freedom to perk up our dull, conformist lives. 
But then there are those nasty people who simply don’t “get it” and describe her actions as just another “chimp out” and the product of obvious bad parentingThe shame! What horrible narrow minds they must have, daring to criticize a 5-year-old! etc., etc.
No wonder comments have been "disabled" on the Youtube video.
But what struck me, when I wasted five minutes of my life to check out what all the fuss was about, was just how implicitly aggressive her actions actually were. During her little 'dance' routine, she throws herself about in the personal space of the other kids and hardly watches where she swings her arms and legs. It’s only down to luck she didn’t actually smack one of them in the face.
This kind of testing or ignoring of other people’s personal space is often a key stage in the run up to Black-on-White violence. OK, the kid’s not a thug (at least not yet), but anyone familiar with the way racial attacks and bullying happen must feel slightly uncomfortable watching these moves.
Not content with stealing the show with her over-the-top antics, she also takes time out to mock and leer at the other little dancers, almost crowing at how much they are in her shadow before an indulgent audience that she can feel responding mainly to her.
Yup, she’s just discovered 'privilege,' that by being (a) a tot in a tutu and (b) Black she can do no wrong. People, especially polite, racially-conflicted Whites, will clap n’ cheer whatever stupid moves she makes. Welcome to the modern West, where these infantilist strategies and the indulgence they elicit are exploited by entire adult groups – Blacks, other ethnics, feminists, and gays, some of whom even don the tutus – in order to hitch a free ride on a society that nervously cheers and applauds as they act up, chimp out, goof around, and do encores.
This little scene is the microcosm of the macrocosm. When the truth is universal, you can find it even in a grain of sand.

To save you the trouble of clicking around, here's the video:

Veni, Vidi, WICCANS!


Guest commentary by Baloo: As a cartoonist, not to mention as a human being, I agree most enthusiastically with Neil here about the value of the ethnic joke not just as pure humor, but as a measure of — seemingly paradoxically — the esteem and acceptance some ethnic groups can have for one another. (I remember my time in the Army, forty-odd years ago, and how in my unit, composed mostly of Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Blacks, and Rednecks, the most popular jokes were about Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Blacks, and Rednecks. And a good time was had by all. Since it was the Army, we had hardly any White liberals around to spoil everything.) And also as a measure of, inversely proportionally, the advance and domination of the cultural marxism commonly known as "political correctness." And, of course, I'm certainly not going to let Halloween go by, much less an L. Neil Smith essay dealing with Halloween, without including a picture or two of some cute anime witches.


Good Offenses Make good Neighbors
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com


Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

There are, this very minute, a myriad of imperious directives circulating on the Internet, with regard to the official, proper, respectful, and, above everything, politically correct observance of Halloween.
Elementary, middle , and high school principals, deans and student committees in what we jokingly call higher education, publications on the gooshy Hubert Humphrey left, have issued uncountable "thou shalt nots" concerning what kinds of costumes are "appropriate" and what are not.
That's why I call them "Notsies".

These are the drooling morons—mostly white-bread "progressives"—who insist that, if you decide to honor an ethnic group, or maybe borrow a little of their juju, by naming your athletic organization after them—even if the ethnic group in question states clearly that they do not mind, you have committed an offense, for which you must be severely punished by the death of a thousand pecky little liberal sound-bites.

First and foremost, Halloweenwise, you may not dress up, however admiringly and respectfully, as a member of the Negro race, black-face being an ultimate anathema. I find this disappointing, as I had hoped to go to a party someday, dressed up as Walter Williams, Tom Sowell, or my friend Libertarian Party Vice Presidential candidate Dick Boddie.

You may not dress up as either kind of Indian, the sort with turbans or with feathers, although folks from the Asian subcontinent are making more and more valuable contributions to our culture and deserve to be honored, and, as every anthropologist and paleontologist knows (but is afraid to say) there's no such thing as a "native American".

Likewise, you may not dress up as a cowboy (although like many Westerners I tend to do that every other day of the year) because that might offend Indians of the feathered sort, and I suppose, with regard to the other sort, a 19th century British Army outfit is right out, as well.

We are warned not to dress in any way that invokes the notion of crime, or of professional sex-work. So it's clear that dressing as a gangster, a policeman, or a liberal arts professor or news-caster is prohibited.

You may not dress up as a Roman Catholic priest because it might offend molested acolytes and choir-boys. Neither may you dress up like a nun because ... well ... even nuns don't dress up like nuns any more.

You may not dress up as a witch—one of the staples of Halloween costumery—because it might somehow offend Wiccans or ugly women or something. Instead, watch the Annual Nose-Wart Telethon and contribute generously.

Furthermore, you may not dress up as a ghost, as doing so might offend the dead. (Actually, I made that one up, but it's certainly no sillier than any other ridiculous decree that these simpletons are issuing.)

There are many reasons for choosing whatever costume you wish to wear. One of them, as I've said, is to recognize and honor (or dishonor) celebrities, politicians, and others that you may like or dislike. You could dress up as the Wright Brothers, Charles Lindbergh, or Amelia Earhart if you were certain it wouldn't offend pioneer aviators. Plenty of individuals dressed up like Richard Nixon in the day.
As soon as I was capable of thinking about things historically, I realized that Halloween, once the evening before a religious holiday most people don't celebrate or remember any more, had become a moment to make light of things that used to frighten our species, of ancient and debilitating superstitions we have discarded that held humankind and civilization back for thousands of years until being vanquished by daring individuals like Charles Darwin and Thomas Edison and Richard Dawkins.

Halloween is a moment to look Death in the face—and spit.

So we gleefully attire ourselves as departed spirits, specific or generic, as zombies, who are enjoying entirely too much popularity, as Frankenstein's monster, as Dracula (even at the dire risk of offending Transylvanians) and as werewolves. We dress up as lions and tigers and bears.

Oh my.

Speaking of discarded superstitions, many of my readers wouldn't really want to know what kind of costumes I'd like most to see on Halloween. Aside from various religious figures, from Dagon, through Jupiter, to more modern Imaginary Playmates (not excluding Cthulhu and the Flying Spaghetti Monster), I wonder how you'd go about dressing as a "progressive", a tree-hugger (bring your own tree?), or a global warmista. I once dressed normally, carrying a big box of Fruity Pebbles into which I'd plunged a big plastic dagger: I was a cereal killer.

Today, that would probably offend gay gelogists.

I recall in the 1950s (I am a 1946 Baby Boomer) my little brother and I trudging through the October cold and dark to collect tribute from neighborhoods for miles around, borrowing a phone to call home for a ride when we were finished. The haul was measurable in bushels, and it was safe, because in those days, if some cetin molested a child, they'd find his mangled body in an irrigation ditch the next day.

I have heard purveyors of political correctness ("carriers" might be a more accurate word) proclaim that their concerns take precedence, even over the First Amendment. But I have a news flash for them: the Bill of Rights trumps every other consideration, and I will cheerfully go to war—or to court—to defend that simple, undeniable truth. In these times of inflation, I estimate that my right to free speech is worth at least eleven figures; how about we make it a nice, round $50,000,000,000?

Which brings me to the bottom line. My bottom line, anyway. I was brought up to believe I was Polish, and was subjected to every kind of Polack joke imaginable. I was not psychologically damaged, or even annoyed by jokes like that—I laughed at them, collected them, and passed them on—because they were, and remain, a tacit recognition of how far destitute Polish immigrants have come in the Land of Opportunity.

And they were funny.

My wife and daughter are both blond. Oh the humanity.

Now I know I'm Irish, and I feel exactly the same way—whiskey is a fair trade for ruling the world, and clean bowling shirts all around!

As usual, "progressives" have made what the British call a "dog's breakfast" of social relations in America (and I don't even want to think about Europe, land of contented cattle) and everywhere else they broadcast their stupidity. If you take nothing else from this essay, take this: I'm an old guy. I remember. While the battle for equality before the law was one of the most important political revolutions in history, we were a nicer people when we were free to offend one another.

I think ethnic jokes tended to release and evaporate tensions that parasitic leftist "neighborhood organizers" find useful unreleased and unevaporated. They have no interest in solved problems or cordial relations.

I don't know whether this social damage can be repaired. We can start by giving the political correctness Notsies the raspberry every time they make their asinine pronouncements. (You can't dress up as Chewbacca because it might offend those who are excessively hairy, and you can't dress up as R2-D2 because it might offend sapient garbage cans.)

Maybe we can make some kind of a start by offending one another again. Did you ever hear the one about the newly-married Polish couple who ...

Fred Reed on Sex Roles

Our last little piece designed to make feminists and their male-oid familiars froth at the mouth was by Gavin McInnes, and now Fred Reed has written one guaranteed to send them over the edge. A lot of what he says is maybe obvious to you when you read it, but it's definitely an "emperor's new clothes" situation, because to many of us, it wasn't obvious at all until Fred wrote it. We've all been propagandized for decades that the sexes aren't different at all, and that women can do anything men can, yadda yadda yadda, which is palpable nonsense, but we've been taught that the real stuff is on the TV screen, and if reality doesn't mirror it, we're just stuck in an anomalous part of reality or something.

Seriously, one of the worst aspects of the sexual equality nonsense is to be found in the cloud-cuckoo world of education, which Fred (and many others) points out is currently designed for girls only, and boys have to undergo a procrustean process to survive it at all. Today's quibcag uses an illustration from Love Hina (ラブ ひな) by Ken Akamatsu.

Valentines? Valentines?

Notes on the Pussification of America


It is time to get women out of the schooling of boys. It is way past time. Women in our feminized classrooms are consigning generations of our sons to years of misery and diminished futures. The evidence is everywhere. Few dare notice it.

The feminization is real. More than seventy-five percent of teachers are women; in New York state, over ninety percent of elementary school teachers are women; in the US, over seventy percent of psychologists are women, with (sez me) the rest being doubtful. This is feminization with fangs.
I have just read Back to Normal: Why Ordinary Childhood Behavior Is Mistaken for ADHD, Bipolar Disorder, and Autism Spectrum Disorder, by a psychologist, Enrico Gnaulati, who works with children alleged to have psychological problems in school, usually meaning boys. I decline to recommend it because of its psychobabble, its tendency to discover the obvious at great length, and its Genderallly Correct pronouns, which will grate on the literate. (I mean constructions resembling “If a student comes in, tell him or her that he or she should put his or her books in his or her locker”) However, a serious interest in the subject justifies slogging through the prose. (The statistics above are from the book.)

The relevant content is that women are making school hell for boys, that they have turned normal boyish behavior, such as enjoyment of rough-housing, into psychiatric “personality disorders.” They are doping boys up, forcing them into behavior utterly alien to them, and sending them to psychiatrists if they don´t conform to standards of behavior suited to girls. The result is that boy children hate school and do poorly (despite, as Gnaulati, says, having higher IQs). This is no secret for anyone paying attention, but  Gnaulati  makes it explicit.

As a galling example he cites one Robert, an adolescent responding badly to classes and therefore suspected by his teacher of having a “personality disorder.”  From the book:
“She required all forty students in the class to design Valentine’s Day cards for each other. She was emphatic about wanting them personalized. Names had to be spelled correctly and compliments written up genuinely.”

Valentines? This was eight-grade English. Students, who by then once knew grammar cold, should be reading literature or learning to write coherently. In my eighth-grade class, we read Julius Caesar: “I want the men around me to be fat, healthy-looking men who sleep at night.” Valentines? Compliments?

This, the author assures the reader, did not take place in an asylum for the mildly retarded, but in one of the ten best high-schools in California. What must the rest be like?

Of course Robert was having trouble putting up with the girly drivel, this feminized ooze, devoid of academic content. ”Oooooh! Let´s have a warm, emotional bonding experience.”

This is why women should not be allowed within fifty feet of a school where boys are taught. A boy, especially a bright one, will want to drop out of school through the nearest window, run screaming to a recruiting office for the French Foreign Legion, anything to get away from inane, vapid, and insubstantial feel-good compulsory niceness inflicted by some low-wattage ed-school grad.

Get these ditz-rabbits away from our sons. Let us have separate schools for the sexes, with each being taught by teachers of the same sex. I do not presume to tell women what they should teach girls—astrophysics, valentine design with sincere compliments, whatever they like. Just stay away from the boys.

The thrust of current social propaganda is that the sexes are identical in all important respects. They are not. The differences are great. It is time we stopped pretending otherwise.
First: By their nature, females are far more interested in social relationships than in academic substance. If you are a man, ask yourself how often you have serious intellectual discussions of politics, science, history, or society with women as compared to men. Seldom. Degrees and exceptions, yes. Stiil, seldom.

Second: Women are totalitarian. Men are happy to let boys be boys and girls be girls. Women want all children to be girls. In school this means emphasizing diligence—neat homework done on time, no matter how silly or academically vacuous—over performance, meaning material learned. Women favor docility, orderliness, cooperation in groups, not making waves, niceness and comity. For boys this is asphyxiating.

If women wanted to start a bar for women only, men would not care. If men want a private club in which to enjoy male company, women go explode in fury. Totalitarian.

In common with the keepers of the Russian gulag, women are more than willing to drug little boys into submission. There is a Stalinist mercilessness in this, a complete lack of understanding of, or interest in, what boys are. (“Ve haff vays of making you….”)

Third: Women prefer security to freedom, males freedom to security. In politics, this has ominous implications for civil liberties. In the schools this means that wrestling and dodge ball are violence, that tag might lead to a fall and scraped knees, that a little boy who draws a soldier with a rifle is a dangerous psychopath in the making. This is hysteria.

(Stray thought: If I wanted to create a murderous psycho, I would Ritalinate him into a little speed freak, repress his every instinct, and humiliate him by having the police drag him away. It would work like a charm. In his trial, his defense would be justifiable sociopathy.)

Fourth: “Therapy.” This disguised witchcraft is very much a subset of the female fascination with emotional relations. It allows them to talk endlessly about their feelings. Men would rather be crucified. Thus everything becomes a “disorder.” Among these absurdities are things ilke Intermittent Explosive Disorder (appropriately, IED), and Temper Irregulation Disorder. These disorders have only been discovered since women took over the schools.

The list could go on. Boys, like men, are competitive, physically and intellectually, delighted to play hours of intensely competitive pick-up basketball. Women in the schools prefer a cooperative group game led by a caring adult. What a horror.

Even the ways in which men get along with each other differ sharply from the female approach. (Thus the desire for venues for men only.) For example, when I once broke a leg in a sky-diving accident, the women in the news room were sympathetic and concerned. At a Special Forces party I attended, there was laughter and sarcasm. “Goddam dumbass Marine can´t even do a PLF right. (parachute landing fall). Hey, let´s break his other leg.”  Translated from the male, this meant (a) that they accepted me as one of them, and (b) that to them a broken leg was not a tragedy but an inconvenience. Which it is.

Fifth: In the United States, women simply dislike men. Saying this causes eruptions of denials. If you believe these, I´d like you to meet my friend Daisy Lou the Tooth Fairy. Check the ranting of feminists, the endless portrayal on television of men as fools and swine, the punitive political correctness and the silly anti-rape fantasies on campus.

In the schools this hostility takes the form of the passive aggression behind the predatory niceness. “We´re boring him to death, keeping him miseable, and sending him for psychiatric reprogramming because we care so much about him.” Uh, yeah.

Outside of the US, fewer women buy this. My stepdaughter Natalia, Mexican, is working on a degree in clinical psychology, and sees students—read “boys”—sent to her by teachers to determine whether they have ADHD. “They don´t have ADHS,” she says. “They´re bored.”

Finally: Women display a pedestrian practicality alien to males. If a woman needs to use a computer, she will learn to do it, and do it well. She won´t learn assembly-language programming for the pure joy of it. She can drive a car perfectly well, but has no notion of what a cam lobe is or the difference between disk and drum brakes. This is why men invent things, and women seldom do.
Boys' schools, male teachers.
----------------
Now, if you learned something from that, I recommend that you go right over to Fred's Site, and read some more of his essays.  While you're at it, send him a contribution and scroll down and buy some of his books.  People like Fred need to be encouraged.  Lord knows there are plenty of people trying to DIScourage him.