Tuesday, December 31, 2013

Homophile BS

This idiotic meme has been going around the net, misleading everybody, and I've been wanting to refute it. Luckily, the unique Robert Lindsay has already done it so I don't have to. You can pass the meme around now, as I've added this URL to make it enlightening rather than otherwise.  Robert Lindsay sets us all straight on Matthew Shepherd and Harvey Milk — This is not to imply that Robert is pro-Robertson. He is not at all. The meme correction is my idea. On his blog, Robert writes:

The Truth About Matthew Shephard and Harvey Milk


And Harvey.

These are of course two of the modern heroes of the gay movement in the US. Both were murdered.

Milk was a San Fransisco supervisor murdered by another San Fransisco supervisor in 1978.

Shepard was a college student in Wyoming supposedly murdered by homophobes for being gay.

Milk is treated by many as a modern hero, but I am not exactly sure why. A movie was made about him called The Mayor of Castro Street. I liked that movie a lot; it was very well-done.

The Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill was passed by the US Congress after Shepard’s murder that calls for enhanced penalties for assaults and homicides against gay people.

The truth about Shepard is more complicated. First of all, his murder was apparently not a homophobic crime. Instead, one of the killers was his gay lover, obviously not a homophobe. The other was not a homophobe either obviously. The motive for the crime was robbery. Not many know this, but Matthew was a male prostitute, a hustler, a rent boy. He arranged for a sex meeting with these two men. He would give them gay sex and they would give him methamphetamine. Matthew wanted the meth because he was a regular meth user. Matthew was trading drugs for sex. Although his body was hung from a tree in a crucifixion position, there was no homophobic or anti-gay motive for that.

The story is that Matthew propositioned the two men, who were both straight. These straight men were so homophobically outraged by being propositioned by a gay man that they murdered him in retaliation.

Of course, it is a very sad story how this young man was brutally murdered by a couple of monsters. But he was not murdered for being gay. And he wasn’t exactly a saint either.

Milk, age 33, was actually a pederast like many gay men.

Anyway, Milk was a hardcore chickenhawk. He preyed on confused teenage boys, often runaways with mental issues and drug problems. At least one of boys he took in was simply a troubled adolescent and there is no indication that the boy was gay at all. Instead, Milk seems to have recruited him into a gay lifestyle.

So Milk was far from an angel. Instead he was a serial predator of vulnerable underage teenage boys. This behavior is quite illegal in the US and people who do it are often called child molesters. Although this characterization is incorrect, this is how the public sees it. In other words, for a majority of the US public, Harvey Milk would be seen as a child molester.

The US is now honoring Milk with a new postage stamp. I am not exactly against it, but it would be nice if we knew the truth about this man.

Of course whatever he did with these boys, I do not think he deserved to be murdered, and his chickenhawk ways were not the motive for his killing anyway.

The stories we have been told about these two gay heroes are obviously not accurate and both of them were a lot less saintly than we are led to believe.

Neale Osborn's Gun Rant — Short, But Not Too Big Around

Everything's a little bit confused and makeshift this time of year, so Neale Osborn gives us a short rant this week. But it's an inspiring one. Help him as much as you can to put this project together. This week's illustration is from the very weird Upotte!! うぽって!!

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Readers' Assignment
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Good morning, Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, and a Wondrous Winter Solstice to all! This will be a brief one. VERY Brief.

I have an assignment for all of those who support gun ownership and the 2nd Amendment. I am going to collect gun use cases where the good guys use a firearm defensively. PLEASE NOTE—Defensive use of a firearm includes, but is not limited to, a dead or wounded criminal, a fled criminal, and apprehended and unharmed criminal, and even the unarmed claiming to have a gun and the perp fleeing. ALL such stories, unless your own personal tale, must be accompanied by a link to the newspaper, TV, or radio source. I do not want to give the nitwit idiots who think guns are eeeeevilllll any fodder for their pathetic attempts to disarm American citizens and turn us all into helpless victims of criminals and the state. Please use the e-mail in the article header to reply (for TLE readers). No recompense available other than my heartfelt thanks and a defense of our rights.

Our brave defenders of American plane passengers strike again. The TSA defends us from evil sock monkeys and their perfidious use of the deadly 2" plastic toy sixshooter. Link. Thank the giant space going mollusk whose holy poop formed the universe they saved us from this evil terrorist plot to take over the world. And they didn't even have to sexually assault anyone to do it!

Mama Liberty sends us her traditional Christmas story: 

My Perfect Christmas

A blessed Zagmuk to all, and a Happy Gravmas Charles Curley.

The Knockout Game Goes Into Overtime

Real knockout games aren't cute, like this illustration from
Ranma 1/2. I include this only to get your attention.
I've been trying to thing of something useful to say about the knockout game that I haven't already said, now that Eric Holder has decided that finally, finally, it's time to prosecute somebody for it. Up to now, you see, it's been a Black crime, and since Blacks are Eric Holder's people, they can do no wrong, and if some of them decide to attack a White person for no reason at all other than the race of the victim, well, it's just good clean fun or youthful high spirits or something.  You see, I tend to rant about such things, which makes for too predictable a blog post.  So I turn to John Craig, over at Justnotsaid, who is better at keeping his cool.  He writes:

Where's the outrage?

The knockout game has been going on for a couple years now, and finally got some publicity within the past couple months. Virtually every assailant has been black, and the vast majority of victims have been white.

Finally, there has been an instance of a white doing it to a black. Conrad Alvin Barrett, 27, knocked down a 79-year-old black man, in Fulshear, Texas, then boasted about it on social media.

The Eric Holder Justice Department has chosen that case to bring its first federal hate crimes charge relating to the knockout game. After years of blacks doing it to whites, finally, a white does it to a black, and the machinery of the Justice Department finally kicks into gear.

When I first heard about this, on Steve Sailer's blog, I thought it might be a joke. But when I read about it for the second time, I realized that it wasn't.

What would the reaction have been had the knockout game been perpetrated by whites on blacks for years, and then, the first time a black did it to a white, the Justice Department finally decided to bring hate crimes charges? Would the media have turned a blind eye?

This post is not a defense of Barrett. He deserves jail time for his attack, as do all the other perpetrators of this "game." It's an indictment of the Holder Justice Department.

Has there ever been a more blatant example of what this Eric Holder, and, by extension, the Obama administration, are all about?

The DOJ's press release was put out five days ago, yet there has been almost no reaction from the mainstream media.

You'd think they'd be embarrassed to do this. But they must have assumed, rightly, that the media would let it pass without comment.

Maybe I'm the one who's off-kilter here. Maybe, when a young white man decides to attack a defenseless old black, it's done with hatred. But when a group of young black men decide to attack a defenseless old white, they are completely without malice.

Monday, December 30, 2013

The Annoying Countdown

That is, the countdown of the annoying. And there are heaps and heaps of annoying people out there, self-righteous idiots, simpering toadies of politicians, simpering toadies who are politicians, talking-head TV ignoramuses, actors and other performers who are spectacularly ignorant but chock full of opinions about everything, and ivory-tower academics who snatch up the banners dropped by the Soviets.

All of those who annoy Jim Goad annoy me as well, though I might rearrange the list a bit and maybe even bump a couple off and add others. Surely any such list should include Alan Colmes, who I'd certainly cast as one of the bolshies taking over the family mansion if I was doing a remake of Dr. Zhivago. But it's hard to argue with his top choice, Ethan Krupp there, who does it all with simple body language.  Here's more of Jim's list:

The 13 Most Annoying People of 2013

As someone who’s offended by nothing but annoyed by everyone, I found no shortage of people this past year to stoke the angry embers of my irascible soul. Try as I may to shield my eyes from the countless blinding petty indignities and massive vexations of everyday existence, each sunrise seemed to drop a new human being on my doorstep to annoy me.

I tend to focus on the negative at the expense of everything else, so when I looked back over the past year, I immediately began thinking of people who annoyed me. It was hard to winnow down my list to only 13 selections. They are ranked in ascending levels of annoyance. Although I bear no personal ill will toward any of these people, nor do I engage in any violent fantasies about them, it would not be untrue to say that I would not cry if, say, any of them were to be struck dead by a train in the coming New Year.

If you understand the basic principles behind the butterfly effect, you would be forced to agree with me that these are all people who, each in their own way, have made life a little harder for all of us this year. Through their very existence, they force you and I to suffer. Damn them. Damn them all to hell!

In September a rough, beaten-up-looking South Carolina woman named Vernett Bader was arrested after allegedly slashing her housemate with a 14-inch serrated bread knife. Her victim, an unnamed 64-year-old man, had allegedly told her to “shut up” after she complained that he’d been playing too much music by the classic rock band Eagles. (It can never be repeated enough, if only to ratchet up the annoyance factor, that the band is not called The Eagles—they are simply random, unspecified Eagles.) And refusing to quit blasting your stupid, overplayed Eagles music when your torn-and-frayed female housemate requests that you do so qualifies as annoying enough to warrant being stabbed. He should be grateful she didn’t kill him.
“These are all people who, each in their own way, have made life a little harder for all of us this year.”

Back in April, a group of typically sincere and comically misguided men’s-rights activists was trying to peaceably air its views at the University of Toronto when a chanting pack of progressive albino twat-monkeys pulled the fire alarm and disrupted the event. Outside the building, a plump harpy with her hair dyed the color of menstrual blood that had been exposed to nuclear radiation barked and howled and belittled the persistently peaceable and earnest MRAs in a breathtakingly hostile videotaped rant that singlehandedly managed to justify every misogynist stereotype throughout world history. After the video became viral, she was apparently harassed and threatened into hiding, and I can only hope that wherever she’s hiding, there’s no man there for her to yell at.

Would any sane person think that a dry batch of asparagus is evidence of systemic racism? Of course not, but we’re living in racially insane times. The award for the year’s pettiest racial complaint goes to David Olander, a member of the human relations commission in University City, MO. After espying a relatively desiccated bunch of asparagus at a Schnucks grocery store in a predominantly black neighborhood, Olander says he remembered that the asparagus at a Schnucks in a mostly white neighborhood was much fresher, moister, and more vibrant. Olander fired off a letter of racial grievance to Scott Schnuck of Schnucks, which I only mention so I can repeat the phrase “Scott Schnuck of Schnucks.”

Despite the absurd and nauseating posthumous canonization of junior thug Trayvon Martin, the most rational conclusion one can reach about the Zimmerman/Martin saga is that they were both douchebags and idiots for various reasons and to different degrees. But despite Trayvon’s transparent cretinism, William Lowell Putnam III of the Lowell Observatory encouraged an astronomer friend to submit a suggestion that an asteroid be named in Martin’s honor. The suggestion was rejected, and I’m glad that it was. It’s a better universe without an asteroid named Trayvon.

Failing to ever publicly acknowledge that she is astronomically fatter and richer in Evil Racist America than if her ample rump had been reared in Mother Africa, the wealthiest black woman in the history of black womanhood spent most of the year wheezing like a punctured accordion about how tough it is to be black. She possibly fabricated a tale of being snubbed by a Swiss clerk, falsely claimed that “millions” of blacks had been lynched in America (the total was actually somewhere around 4,000), blamed criticism of Obama on white American racism, and suggested that the problem will only get better when white racists start dying en masse. Miz Winfrey, you is one ungrateful Negress. And you pee too much.
(Read about all the others HERE.)

Nature and Nurture Nonsense

I guess I'm going to knock liberals again. Can't see any way around it. But I'm not knocking only liberals, but liberals and all the other people who believe in the myth of human equality. Now, I'm not speaking in the religious sense of the equal worth of every human soul (though I think that's a little iffy, too), or in the "all men are created equal" sense, which means only that nobility and royalty have no intrinsic rights that commoners lack, but in the scientific sense. Liberals are fond of saying that they're "scientific" while everybody else is superstitious or religious or something, but there is nothing less scientific than liberalism, which values intentions over results, fairness over justice, and wishes over facts.  The fact is that human races vary considerably in intellect and temperament, and every conceivable test has been devised in an attempt to disprove that, and none have succeeded. Or even come close. Whenever you point this fact out to a liberal (or a Marxist, or a neocon, for that matter), he assures you that "scientists" have proven that everybody is equal in intellect and temperament, but he can never tell you who these "scientists" are.  They're all in his imagination. Fact is, most scientists simply avoid answering the question because if they answer truthfully, they lose their jobs. Just ask James Watson.

Which brings me to the "culture" response, popular among libertarians.  They state that the problem with Blacks in America is that they have a dysfunctional culture.  And they tricky part here is that they're right. But the implication is that race has no effect on culture, and that you can through education or force or bribes you can make any human group adopt any human culture. so all we have to do is get Blacks or whoever to adopt Western or European culture, and then they'll function exactly like Whites do.  Wrong. It seems to be the case that race has an enormous effect on culture and that for a number of reasons, Blacks aren't going to adopt anybody else's damn culture. The reasons are in the Vox Day quibcag above, and in the Vox Day essay below:

Mailvox: clinging to the myth

MS clings to the myth of equality between different human population groups:
I don't need to base anything on race; the problem with many blacks in America is their culture. A lazy, irresponsible, INFERIOR culture compared to eurocentric "white" culture. If they adopted our culture tomorrow, most of their problems would disappear (IMO).
He's completely wrong. Africans don't adopt European culture for three reasons. First, because they can't. Second, because they prefer their own culture. Third, because Europeans have increasingly abandoned it themselves. Europeans have been trying to force Africans to adopt European culture for more than 200 years. It's not possible, and more to the point, it's not their choice.

Think about it. What could be more racist, what could be more culturally imperialistic, than to insist that Africans must adopt European culture? This is even worse than Muslims imposing Sharia on everyone; Sharia at least permits the dhimmi to retain their religion and customs. Why should Asians not insist that Europeans adopt their culture? If we put it to a global vote, I'm quite confident the Han Chinese would win.

Africans have a perfect right to live the way they want to live. So do Europeans. This is why desegregation is not only doomed to failure, but is intrinsically immoral. It is also likely to destroy whichever culture has the longer time preferences.

Remember, there are no shortage of whites, especially overweight, unattractive white women, who genuinely prefer the African culture of living fast, consuming conspicuously, and dying young in a promiscuous, matriarchal society to the European culture of living conservatively and saving to build for the future in a sexually restricted patriarchal society. As with all things economic, these are questions of preferences and time-orientation, not morality or science. (Read the rest HERE.)

Cucumber Quibcag

Thanks to
Tremont Ellingson III
for this one. Pass it around.

Saturday, December 28, 2013

Reed Downs Dowd

When Fred Reed is good, he is very, very good. Apparently Maureen Dowd recently participated in a silly feminist (I know, that's redundant) foofraw or hootenanny or coven or something called "Are Men Obsolete?", full of the usual trendy drivel. I would like to write something sarcastic about it, but I couldn't hope to compete with Fred Reed, who is at his finest and most witheringly sarcastic here. He has graced this blog
before with such pieces as "Fred Reed on Sex Roles" and "Another Modest Proposal from Fred Reed", and now he takes on the Dowdy one herself.
He writes:

Is Maureen Dowd Obsolete?

“Without men, civilization would last until the oil needed changing.”
—Federicius Aurelius Superomnem, 345 BC

Oh god, oh god. Death, taxes, migraine, sinus drainage, beriberi, and Maureen Dowd, the resentment columnist at The New York Times. On the Web I find her at some feminist bitch-in called “Are Men Obsolete?” She has this to say to men:

So now that women don’t need men to reproduce and refinance, the question is, will we keep you around? And the answer is, ‘You know we need you in the way we need ice cream — you’ll be more ornamental.’
I was delighted to think that I might be ornamental, no one having suggested the concept until now. I could have used it in high school. Maureen herself is beyond being ornamental, having that injection-molded look that follows the seventh face-lift, probably accomplished by the surgical use of a construction crane.
But I will say this to her:

Listen, Corn Flower. Let’s think over this business of obsolete men. Reflect. You live in New York, in which every building was designed and built by men. You perhaps use the subway—designed, built, and maintained by men. You travel in a car—invented, designed, and built by men—a vehicle that you don’t understand (what is a cam lobe?) and couldn’t maintain (have you ever changed a tire? Could you even findthe tires?), and you do this on roads designed, built, and maintained by men. You fly in aircraft designed, built, and maintained by men, which you do not understand. (What, Moon Pie, is a high-bypass turbofan?)

In short, as you run from convention to convention, peeing on hydrants, you depend utterly on men to keep you fed (via tractors designed by men, guided by a GPS invented, designed, and launched by men, on farms run by men), and comfy (air conditioning invented…but need I repeat myself?).

I do not want to be unjust. It is not in my nature. While men may be obsolete—unless you want to eat—I cannot say, Apple Cheeks, that feminists are obsolete. They are not. Obsolescence implies having passed through a period of usefulness.
(Get some popcorn and a beer and read the rest HERE.)

Friday, December 27, 2013

Where the Hell is Alternative Right?

This is annoying, because I have lots of links back to various articles on Alternative Right from posts on this blog, and now, I guess, the links are no good.  I'm not going to fix it on my blogroll till they have a permanent new URL.  As a public service, here's what AltRight has to say on its Facebook page:

To those of you still wondering, here's what happened: on Christmas Day, we discovered that Richard Spencer, the originator and former editor-in-chief of Alternative Right, had fixed the web address of alternativeright.com so that it automatically reroutes to his new magazine, Radix Journal. This unannounced move caught us by surprise. Although Richard owns the URL for Alternative Right, and thus had every legal right to do what he did, we were still taken aback by the way this transition was handled.

That said, we forge forward, without acrimony. We wish Richard Spencer and his new venture the best, and recommend that all Alternative Right readers check it out for themselves. (The more thought-crime, the merrier!) At the same time, we plan to continue bringing you, our loyal Alternative Right-ists, the same hard-hitting, hilarious, provocative fare you have come to love, crave, and expect from us.

Just be sure to bookmark our new, temporary link, which is where we'll post articles, podcasts, and other nuggets of glory until we alight upon a more permanent home:www.alternative-right.blogspot.co.uk/

Thank you for staying tuned! --Andy and Colin
Alternative Right

Blogging the Unbloggable

Which is which?
I like to pride myself on saying outrageous, taboo things, but now I find myself surpassed by John Craig, who, on his blog HERE, writes today:

Fun vs. not fun

Overheard recently from a young man: "Dumb girls who realize they're dumb can be fun. Dumb girls who think they're smart are just a big pain in the ass."

He thought for a moment, then added, pensively, "And really, those are pretty much the only types of girls there are."

When I mentioned a girl this young man knew who is in fact smart, he admitted there might be exceptions, but insisted they were rare. He noted that most women have "hive minds," i.e., are overly influenced by mainstream opinions.  

I'm not necessarily agreeing with the young man's sentiments.

But I'm not necessarily entirely disagreeing with them either.

An Upbeat Headline for a Change

General Mattis Crosses Potomac With 100,000 Troops; President, Senate Flee City

WASHINGTON — In an unprecedented turn in American history, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, several years after being dismissed by the President and exiled to his estate in the countryside, marched on the national capitol early Tuesday morning with an army over one hundred thousand strong.

This number includes at least ten infantry legions, several aviation and artillery legions, and multiple cavalry cohorts.

“I come in peace, by myself, in order to hand-deliver a Memorandum of Concern to the Commander in Chief and the Senate,” said Mattis in a press conference. “I am moving on foot at a leisurely pace, with no ill will. If these American citizens choose to take a stroll with me, then who am I to turn down their companionship?”

The contents of the so-called memorandum are unknown, but are rumored by Mattis’ close advisors to contain paragraphs addressing unconstitutional acts by the administration and the Senate. Alarmed by the amassing of troops sympathetic to Mattis over the last week at Fort Myer, the Senate, the President, and various generals attempted to recall various combat divisions to Washington to defend the city.

These included the 101st Airborne, 82nd Airborne, 10th Mountain, and 3rd Infantry Divisions, in addition to the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Force.

“We even attempted to contact NAVSURFLANT and SUBLANT,” confided one Senate aide as he packed his Datsun to flee northward. “All we got was laughter and then static.”

The summoned units all either ignored their movement orders, or by the next morning had joined forces with Mattis’ ad-hoc command.

Mattis was apparently done waiting, and crossed the Potomac on landing craft, escorted by an honor guard from MARSOC. After setting fire to the National Archives and sabotaging key infrastructure, the cabinet and most members of the Senate fled north toward New York and Boston in cars, vans and whatever other vehicles they could commandeer.

The President has not been seen since early yesterday morning, but sources inside the State Department confirm that he is on a scheduled goodwill trip to Egypt, which was kept from the press for safety reasons. His travel schedule has not been released to pool reporters.

Read more: http://www.duffelblog.com/2013/12/general-mattis-crosses-potomac-100000-troops-president-senate-flee-city/#ixzz2ohel2mZO

A Perverse View of Perversion — Some Thoughts and Facts About Homosexuality

Some thoughts about homosexuality that I've accumulated over the years: First off, there's a distinction between homosexual behavior and homosexual people, right? I have to think that there are a lot of people of both sexes who have all the heterosexual urges but who, for one reason or another, have had homosexual experiences. I mean, prison rapists aren't homosexuals in the usual sense, right? My understanding is that, before homosexuality became a political thing, it was considered a vice, like drunkenness or thievery, that a person might indulge in, but that didn't define the person. Now, there have always been exclusive homosexuals, people who have no attraction, and maybe even an aversion, to the opposite sex. But they're always a small percentage, for rather obvious Darwinian reasons.  Since it's all political now, the tendency is to define as many people as possible as homosexuals, which really skews our perception of reality. This has reached the ridiculous extent of "gay marriage," which is an oxymoron, because marriage is an institution for reproduction, and homosexuality, whatever its merits is not about reproduction. More on that HERE. Also HERE.

In an effort to clarify things a little, here's

The Straight Dope on Homosexuality

Is homosexuality a perversion? If not, is it entirely normal? Almost normal?

These days, the very idea of perversion is out of fashion. The Washington Post would probably use the word only to describe an intense desire to balance the budget or enforce immigration laws.

However, a practical, even scientific definition of sexual perversion begins by defining the objects of normal, healthy reproductive desire. Wanting to have sex with anything that falls outside that definition is perversion.

Obviously, reproductive desire should be for another person. This means that sexual desire for trees or goats or ladies’ shoes is perversion. Sexual desire should also be for a live human being, which rules out dead people. And the live human beings should be at least of reproductive age, so wanting sex with children is also perverted.

But what do all these excluded objects of desire have in common? They are a complete dead end. For someone’s reproductive drives to be oriented toward children or rocks or goats or dead people is perverse because a reproductive urge in any of those directions is bound to fail. It’s an evolutionary absurdity.

So we’re not far if we define perversion as acting on a sexual desire for something or someone with whom reproduction is obviously impossible. But that definition would classify homosexuals among the perverts.

To consider homosexuality abnormal is now considered outmoded—maybe even perverted. The American Psychological Association calmly explains that “Both heterosexual behavior and homosexual behavior are normal aspects of human sexuality.” However, people who say that are in the odd position of having to agree that, yes, having a reproductive urge for every other reproductive dead end is abnormal and maybe even perverse, but it’s fine if men want to have sex with men.

I can’t think of any scientific or logical basis on which to make that exception. A dead end is a dead end, whether it’s a sheep or a corpse or someone of the same sex or a toaster.

We must, however, exclude from perversion certain makeshifts to which people resort when they can’t be with a live person of the opposite sex of at least reproductive age. Masturbation is the most common example; the basic orientation is normal but you couldn’t find a date. And it is obviously not perverse for a man to continue to have sexual relations with a woman past menopause.

Perversion or not, homosexuality has become respectable with astonishing speed. Before 1962, it was illegal in every state. As late as 2003, 14 states still had anti-sodomy laws on the books. Now the District of Columbia and 14 states (and eight American Indian tribes) recognize same-sex marriage, and four more states recognize same-sex “civil unions.”

As recently as 1982, the Department of Defense stated bluntly: “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service.” Nowadays, open homosexuals serve in all branches of the military.

Is this progress or decadence?
(Keep reading HERE.)

Thursday, December 26, 2013

Some Truths About the Middle East

I know considerably more than most people do about the Middle East, and I know very, very little. As in the case of a lot of complicated subjects, first you have to understand how profoundly ignorant you are before you can even get started. The Middle East is at the core of the Islamic World and is frequently confused with it. But the Islamic World as a whole is even more complicated and self-contradictory, so let's just talk about the Middle East, roughly thought of as the Arabic-speaking parts of North Africa and the Fertile Crescent, plus Iran and Afghanistan. Sometimes Pakistan is included, sometimes it's not.

Some truths about the Middle East then, that even I, with my limited knowledge, can be sure of:

1. The Middle East is not homogeneous. Even if you leave Israel out, it is a mix of ethnicities and religions and ethnic groups and languages, none of which are particularly enamored of any of the others.

2. Within Islam, the Sunni/Shi'a split is profound and meaningful, and any analysis of the place that doesn't include it is absurdly incomplete.

3. Some Muslims are much more tolerant of other religions than other Muslims are.

4. No Middle East governments are trustworthy. They are all liars.

5. Our government is not trustworthy on the subject of the Middle East.

6. All Middle East governments despise the West and the United States. This includes all of our "allies" there.

7. Our government does not care about Christians in the Middle East, or anywhere else, for that matter.

8. There is a tacit alliance between the Saudis and the Israelis, despite all the rhetoric from both countries.

9.  Arabs hate Persians, and vice-versa.

I could add some more, but why not read Taki instead.  He knows a lot more about it all than I do. Last minute addition: more on this at Vulture of Critique.

Same Old Neocons

During these holidays we should take a second and send our best wishes to the neocons, poor dears, who are having a bad time during this holy season because their plans have gone awry—for at least the next six months.

Ten years ago they were sitting pretty. Saddam had fallen, his chemical and nuclear weapons were about to be discovered, and a new, improved Middle East loomed on the horizon. Well, we all know what a con that was—one that not only cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi ones, and millions of refugees, but also one that turned Uncle Sam from a rich “have” into a heavily indebted “have-not” looking at a Chinese laundryman friend for a loan.

The neocons got away with it. They kept their jobs and the roles they play in the media as American patriots, and now they want to repeat the exercise. They’ve only changed one letter, from q to n, from Iraq to Iran. And—amazingly—they have gone one better: This time they want Uncle Sam to be on the side of the bad guys and rain bombs on the good ones. Have they gone completely bonkers, or has someone been putting LSD in the DC water supply?

The greatest bribers and influence-peddlers in DC are the Israeli and Saudi lobbies. Overthrowing Assad has been a Saudi/Sunni master plan since donkey’s years, and I’m surprised the wily Israelis have gone along with it—if they have, that is. For the Saudis, the Iranian nuclear program and the Syrian war are parts of a single conflict. (That’s where the Israel/Saudi alliance comes in.) The militant jihadists fighting the secular Assad forces are financed by Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the money controlled by gangs who call themselves royals and who have stolen their countries’ oil and mineral wealth from their people to finance their hookers and palaces where they can drink their whiskey in peace. Al-Qaeda, that nice group who gave us 9/11, is the main beneficiary. Its aim is to get rid of Christianity in the Holy Land.

Which brings me to the new persecution—that of Christians.

In Baghdad, Sunni terrorists have bombed dozens of Christian churches; an estimated million Christians have fled Iraq. A huge quotient of Syria’s Christian population has fled their villages and towns for Assad-controlled areas. In Egypt, where Copts have lived since Christ’s time, millions have been intimidated or murdered during the brief time the Muslim Brotherhood held sway. They are now treated as third-class citizens and confined to squalid quarters. Priests are regularly murdered and churches are routinely bombed. Saudi Arabia, of course, does not tolerate Christianity or any other religion for that matter, but Saudi interests are given priority in the West because money talks and Saudi money talks louder than most.

So the Christian faith is under attack by the very people who are painted in the West as freedom fighters, financed by the Saudi-Qatari gang that hopes to establish a Sunni zone across Syria and Iraq and bottle up the snake, as the so-called Saudi King called Iran.
(Keep reading HERE.)

Christmas Poetry

I made my usual visit to Vulture of Critique a couple of days ago, and saw that he'd reprinted "The Journey Of The Magi," by T. S. Eliot. Way cool, I thought, and decided I, too, should reprint a classic Christmas poem that isn't generally remembered.  I picked "Christmas in India," by Rudyard Kipling. You guessed it. Vulture of Critique reprinted THAT this morning. So I send you THERE to read it. It is very hard to compete with VofC.

So what's left for me to do?  How about this?

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Merry Odinmas!

There's a lot more to Christmas than religion. Indeed, even within the bounds of religion, there's a lot more to Christmas than Christianity. Surely we all know by now that a lot of the elements of Christmas have their origin in pre-Christian religion. But I didn't realize, somehow, that there's more to Santa Claus than a morphing of a 4th-century saint. Specifically, I'd never heard of the Odin connection described in the quibcag and in the Jim Goad essay below.

But it's a strangely satisfying thought. It's certainly true that a great deal of what we White Europeans are has its roots in our pre-Christian past. Our customs and moral sensibilities are not, as most people suppose, a result of Christianity. It sort of worked the other way — Christianity modified itself by absorbing into itself much of our old culture. (More on this over at Sodahead.)

But Jim Goad has a lot more to say about Christianity, Christmas, and Santa Claus than that. It all starts with the startling notion that Santa Claus could be anything other than White. I guess that's a permissible thought, now that Stan Lee and all have converted Nick Fury and Heimdall into Africans.  But Jim isn't having any:

Santa Claus: Still White

Although Santa Claus doesn’t exist, I am nevertheless convinced that he is white. I take it as a matter of faith that he is as white as his beard and as white as the polar ice caps. As a pale male of exclusively Northern European descent, I also choose to believe that Santa Claus is a man—a heterosexual man who enjoys giving Mrs. Claus a right good rogering from time to time.

Aisha Harris would disagree. Aisha is a blogger for slate.com. She shares a first name with the girl who was married to Muhammad at age six and consummated their marriage at the unripened age of nine—while Ol’ Mo was 53—but I didn’t see this fact mentioned in the article that set off a diarrheal blast of news coverage last week.

The essay was called “Santa Claus Should Not Be a White Man Anymore,” and forgive me if I think it’s a wee bit uppity for Aisha to presume she has the authority to make such declarations. Aisha writes of the shame and pain and confusion and heartache she’d experience every holiday season when she walked out into the Scary Big White World and was ruthlessly confronted with “pale” Santas who had “skin as pink as bubble gum.” Aisha failed to note that if she were still living in her ancestral homeland, she likely wouldn’t be concerned with such trifles. Back in those non-wintry climes, she might even know what horseflies taste like.

The language Aisha uses in her article to deride Santa’s commonly understood physiognomy would likely raise the hackles of microaggression-sniffing progressive watchdogs were they applied to anyone else besides white men. Harris called Santa “melanin-deficient,” a “fat old white man,” an “old white male,” and a “fat white guy”:

…I propose that America abandon Santa-as-fat-old-white-man and create a new symbol of Christmas cheer. From here on out, Santa Claus should be a penguin….That’s right: a penguin….Why, you ask? For one thing, making Santa Claus an animal rather than an old white male could spare millions of nonwhite kids the insecurity and shame that I remember from childhood.

A young black-and-white penguin, you say? Preferably one that would likely morph into a young hermaphroditic rainbow-colored penguin? And then a young human in a hermaphroditic rainbow-colored penguin costume because the animal-rights activists complained? I don’t like where this is headed at all, Aisha. Not one tiny little bit. You get a lump of coal from me this Christmas.

Tuesday, December 24, 2013

Ducks Through Thick and thin

We had a blog post on thick and thin libertarianism before HERE, and now we have a piece on the same subject by Tom Woods. I find it interesting that the first examples of "thick" libertarianism is of the left-wing variety, which to me... well, let me back off and talk about this in general terms:

The bare bones of libertarianism is the NAP or ZAP, i. e., the non-aggression principle, or the zero aggression principle. Essentially, it means that people are, or ought to be, free to do anything at all provided that they do not aggress, or initiate force, against others.  The trick, of course, is to apply this to the real world after you've accepted it.

Tom Woods discusses the "thick" libertarians who think that to implement such a system, one must first make sure that everyone has liberal, or, as I like to put it, "hippy-dippy" views on social matters. They feel that any kind of conservative, or traditional values makes the ZAP impossible. They are dead wrong. The opposite is the case.  Liberal hippy-dippy values are exactly what makes a libertarian society impossible. This is because liberal values promote the dissolution of social norms and traditional values, and at the same time encourage any and all self-destructive behavior that anybody can dream up, from sexual promiscuity to economic profligacy. And when people are rendered incapable of self-reliance and individualism, they become dependent sheep, and there goes any hope of a libertarian society.

Now, as Bob Wallace puts it, libertarians with liberal values are liberals for all practical purposes, and their professed libertarianism is bogus.  But, no, I'll be kinder than that. Some of them really are libertarians, but they really don't grasp the principle above, that liberalism destroys the very things that make a libertarian society possible. They're like pacifists, who believe that if they don't fight, nobody will fight them. In other words, they're unrealistic, and don't understand how the world works.

So I'm a "thick" libertarian, but one from the other side, who believes that without social norms and constraints that encourage people to behave in a healthy, responsible manner, the state will always fill the gap as society deteriorates.  Indeed, a state that wants to grow in power will encourage self-destructive behavior on the part of its subjects so that they'll call on the state for assistance at every point, as they sit there in their jammies with their hot chocolate.

Thanks to Kier Martland for sending this in.
From Tom Woods' blog:


Tom Woods  

I am in haste, as I always am these days because of the time I’m spending creating course material for the Ron Paul homeschool curriculum, but a quick note about Duck Dynasty. My wife really likes the show. I myself haven’t been able to get into it. I just find it boring. I realize I’m in the minority.
Having said that, I thought the whole matter of Phil Robertson brought up an interesting issue for libertarians. Some libertarians say the traditional libertarian principle of nonaggression is insufficient. That is merely “thin” libertarianism, they say. We also need to have left-liberal views on religion, sexual morality, feminism, etc., because reactionary beliefs among the public are also threats to liberty. This is “thick” libertarianism.
As a “thin” libertarian myself (or what in the past was simply called a libertarian), I reject the claims of the thickists. I see no good reason to expand the list of requirements people must meet in order to be admitted to our little group. If they support nonaggression, they are libertarians.
But if the thickists are concerned that certain cultural attitudes might be dangerous to liberty, why do I never hear them express concern that the hysteria of the cultural Left might be prejudicial to liberty? Why is it only the traditional moral ideas of the bourgeoisie that are supposed to be so threatening? Could this be yet another double standard?
Everyone in American society now knows there are certain things they must never say, lest they be banished from polite society by the opinion police. The opinion police do not believe competing views have a right to exist. Yes, yes, in theory they do. But in practice they seek out and destroy anyone who does not accept fashionable opinion on a range of questions. Couple this with thought-control organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, which conflates “hate” with unconventional views — having condemned such purveyors of violence and hate as Judge Napolitano and Ron Paul (note to the brain-dead: that is sarcasm) — and which actually collaborates with law enforcement, and isn’t the result far more dangerous to liberty than the fact that lots of people dissent from the new orthodoxy on sex?
Yet I haven’t come across a thickist who seems concerned about this. Maybe I haven’t been looking hard enough. I doubt it.

Monday, December 23, 2013

Ilana Mercer on Apartheid

I thought I was done with the Mandela madness, and then I came across the below essay by Ilana Mercer. In the first place, it clarifies the history of South Africa and apartheid from the point of view of a South African. In the second place, it reinforces what I've been saying in many different ways over the years, that libertarian isn't some sort of Platonic ideal floating in the air, but is rooted in history and culture, and is not capable of existing outside the bounds of Western Civilization and the White race, and has a hell of a time existing even there. My only caveat here is that even Ilana Mercer feels that she just has to denounce apartheid as evil, even as she musters facts that prove that it was the absolute best system available for South Africa, and the only thing that kept civilization from collapsing there. It is now, you may have noticed, collapsing. What she describes as the "right kind" of libertarian is what she calls paleolibertarian and what I customarily call libertarian nationalist.

This is from World Net Daily.

Apartheid South Africa: Reality vs. libertarian fantasy

One needn’t propagate lies about the state-enforced segregation that was Apartheid in order to condemn it.

Yet in defiance of fact, one prominent libertarian economist has gone so far as to assert that apartheid was “a version of Castroite socialism.”

How can one credibly say that about a country that in its heyday had a gold-backed currency, enjoyed the confidence of investors the world over, sported low to no government debt and similar rates of inflation, the most opulent and spectacular shopping malls, the freest, finest medicine I’ve experience in life on three continents, near-unfettered legal access to handguns (for whites) and relatively secure property rights for the same minority? You can’t. Not if you wish to retain intellectual credibility.

Racial segregation, inequality under the law, injustice: yes, yes, and yes. But “Castroite socialism”?

Not quite as embarrassing, another wag asserted the following: “Apartheid was a system of government control and regulation to artificially keep South African blacks from competing against whites in the marketplace.”

This is only partly true. The problem with half-truths is that the conclusions that flow from their premises will likewise be deficient.


Distorting the facts about Apartheid’s raison d’être does nothing to promote the truth.

“Hermann Giliomee – whose grand historical synthesis and primary source exegesis (“The Afrikaners: Biography of a People”) is referenced extensively in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa” – has concluded that Afrikaner anxieties were overwhelmingly existential, rather than racial. Leading thinkers at Stellenbosch University devised a system for the National Party to ensure “the security of the Afrikaners as a dominant minority.” (More about Apartheid as “A Strategy for Survival,” in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” pp. 67-70.)

As noted in the same book:

Anybody who lived … among Afrikaners during the apartheid era can testify that crime and communism were foremost on their minds. To rationalize the cruel, Kafkaesque laws of Apartheid, Afrikaners spoke of the Swart Gevaar (which meant the “Black Threat”), and of the Rooi Gevaar (the “Red Threat”). My Afrikaner neighbor would regularly admonish me for my incipient liberalism: “You want black rule so badly, look around you at the rest of Africa! Anglos like you simply don’t understand what’s at stake.” (P. 70)

The sweeping non sequitur that follows from the partial truth aforementioned has it that “black poverty” and misery stemmed solely from Apartheid’s “suppression of free market forces.” This is economic reductionism, typical of the impoverished analysis of South Africa, offered so authoritatively by libertarian economists stateside.

Apartheid is a necessary explanatory variable in the “black poverty” equation, but never a sufficient one.

As expounded in “Into the Cannibal’s Pot,” “the maze of racial laws that formed the edifice of Apartheid” had been dismantled by the offending National Party almost a decade before the transition to democracy; by 1986, the party had already brought down Apartheid’s pillars, the “pernicious influx control laws,” for example.

In all, South Africa has now been racially desegregated for almost 28 years.

Documented in the same book are these immutable facts: “Twelve years into the Nationalist government’s rule, the rate of literacy among the Bantu of South Africa was already higher than that of any other state in Africa, or that of India. From the 8.6 million recorded in the 1946 census, the black population rose to 17.4 million in 1974 and 28.3 million by 1991. [In-migration from the north was just about non-existent.] From the 1940s to the 1990s, life expectancy for blacks soared from thirty-eight to sixty-one years!” (P. 178.)

“Since the dawn of democracy in 1994, life expectancy has plummeted by nine years. Crime has reached crippling levels … and is certainly much higher than in the Old South Africa. … unemployment had jumped from 19 percent in 1994 (before ‘freedom’) to 31 percent in 2003 (after ‘freedom’), steadily rising until, in 2005, it stood at 38.8 percent. The trend is consistent and persistent.” (P. 178)

These stubborn facts collapse the politically pleasing but reductive theory, promulgated by libertarian know-nothings, that holds Apartheid to be the sole cause of black South Africa’s dysfunction, economic and other.

As the pesky facts attest, black dysfunction in racially desegregated South Africa is way worse than it was during state-enforced segregation. In fact, it now resembles that of the rest of Africa.

Apartheid was reprehensible. But dogma denuded of data does nothing to bolster this uncontested, incontrovertible position.


Herein lies the difference between the paleolibertarian analysis and what this column has termed the lite libertarian one, philosopher Hans-Hermann Hoppe being the finest example of the former. The rest fall into the latter, lite category.

A crucial difference between lite libertarians and the right kind is that to the former, the idea of liberty is propositional – a deracinated principle, unmoored from the realities of history, hierarchy, biology, tradition, culture, values.

Conversely, the paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the libertarian non-aggression axiom, by which we all must live, cannot endure. “The pursuit of the … paleolibertarian ideal,” explained Catholic philosopher Jack Kerwick, Ph.D., “is the pursuit of an ideal of liberty brought down from the clouds to the nit and the grit of the history and culture from which it emerged.”


Indeed, the truth about the Old South Africa is far more nuanced. As this writer tried mightily to explain during an RT broadcast (embedded), “The color of money” did speak loud and clear to enlightened self-interest in Apartheid South Africa.

“‘The market is color-blind,’ said Milton Friedman. ‘No one who goes to the market to buy bread knows or cares whether the wheat was grown by a Jew, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim or atheist; by whites or blacks.’ As Thomas Sowell put it so well, ‘prejudice is free, but discrimination has costs.’ Added South African academic, Steven Farron: ‘[P]eople demand that their governments restrict the economic and occupational success of specific ethnic or racial groups. However, when the same people act as individuals or business owners, they actively resist and/or circumvent these restrictions.’” (P. 127)

All people do this. Apartheid South Africa was no different.

During Apartheid, white industrialists – miners especially – “put continual pressure on the South African government to allow them to use more black labor.” Afrikaner farmers also chose overwhelmingly to ignore racial job quotas, despite their own racist predilections, and also despite high unemployment among rural Afrikaners. Well before the official dismantling of Apartheid laws (carried out, as mentioned, by the white minority government), the agricultural sector, skilled and managerial jobs included, came to be dominated by blacks. As was the semi-skilled labor market – clothing, furniture, millinery, sheet metal, construction, mining, baking. Clearly, whites, acting as individuals, chose to subordinate ethnic advancement to optimize their livelihood. (P. 126)


“Free market economists (the only kind worth consulting) have long since insisted that the rational, self-interest of individuals in private enterprise is always not to discriminate. Arguably, however, the good economists, while certainly not wholesale liars as are their Keynesian counterparts, are still offering up a half-truth. Rational self-interest does indeed propel people, however prejudiced, to set aside bias and put their scarce resources to the best use. But to state simply that ‘discrimination is bad for business’ is to present an incomplete picture of reality. This solecism stems from the taint the word ‘discriminate’ has acquired. The market, by which we mean the trillions of capitalist acts between consenting adults, is discriminating as in discerning – it is biased toward productivity. Hiring people on the basis of criteria other than productivity hurts the proprietor’s pocket.” (P. 127)

“Thus, we can be fairly certain that, absent racist affirmative-action laws, the market would reflect a bias toward productivity. In other words, what the good economists are loath to let on is that a free market is a market in which groups and individuals are differently represented. Parity in prosperity and performance between differently able individuals and groups can be achieved only by playing socialist leveler.” (P. 128.)


Contra the economic reductionism of the lite libertarian, free-market capitalism is a necessary but insufficient condition to sustain freedom in a country of South Africa’s complexion.

The truth absent from the phantasmagorical formulations critiqued is this: Economic freedom does not necessarily reduce so-called wealth inequality. Inegalitarainism is a feature of a free economy. If history is anything to go by, certain minorities will achieve prosperity from poverty, no matter how gravely the state and society impede them. Jews did it in Europe. Levantines and Indians in Africa and the Middle East. Chinese in southeast Asia and everywhere else they go. Europeans in South Africa.

Moreover, “While all people want safety and sustenance for themselves, not everyone is prepared to allow those whom they dislike and envy to peacefully pursue the same.” (P. 4) Free-market capitalism is not enough to safeguard ordered liberty in racially riven societies like South Africa, where the majority will always covet the possessions of immensely wealthier minorities and associate these riches with racial privilege.

Ultimately, the rights to life, liberty and private property will forever be imperiled in a country whose constitution has a clause devoted to “Limitation of Rights,” and where redistributive “justice” is a constitutional article of faith. (P. 101)

This, paleolibertarians (all three of us) know too well.

In “The Cannibal” chapter entitled “Saving South Africans S.O.S.,” secession is explored as one solution, it being a species of the private-law society delineated by Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Hoppe, of course, has never been afraid to speak to the “unequal civilizing potential” (in James Burnham’s coinage) of different people and peoples.


For the sins of man, hard leftists blame society, and the lite libertarian saddles the state.

In its social determinism, the lite libertarian’s “the-state-made-me-do-it” argumentation apes that of the left’s “society-made-me-do-it” argumentation. Both philosophical factions implicate forces outside the individual for individual and aggregate group dysfunction.

In the New South Africa, the left’s “argument” has been taken to a new level of abstraction: “The legacy of Apartheid” is said to explain the unparalleled depravity of Nelson Mandela’s dominant-party mobocracy.

While the state is a worthier culprit than society, both are analytical equals in as much as they absolve the individual of responsibility for his actions. For the philosophy of freedom is predicated on individual responsibility.

“Societies are only as good as the individuals of whom they are comprised; individuals only as good as their actions.” (P. 4) If the sanctity of life is the highest value in a civilized society – then Mandela’s South Africa is uncivilized in every way possible.

The unvarnished truth about democratic South Africa is that it is “now preponderantly overrun by elements, both within and without government, which make a safe and thriving civil society impossible to sustain.” (P. 4)

Although absolutely essential, free-market capitalism is insufficient to the task of tackling this tide of sinecured criminals.

Order lIana Mercer’s brilliant polemical work, “Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa”

Jim Goad on the Great Duck Dynasty Kerfluffle

I've been waiting for Jim Goad to chime in on the Duck Dynasty thing. The controversy is made to order for the author of The Redneck Manifesto, which I heartily recommend, by the way. As I said before, the controversy seems to be about homosexuality (and peripherally, race), but is actually all about the Culture War. The anti-American elite vs. Americans, and anything that seems to symbolize Americans. Now, I normally try to keep my quibcags as G-rated as possible, but the Jim Goad quote was just too good to pass up. And, FYI, our own "Baloo" has dealt with ducks in this week's "Atlantea the Beautiful" HERE.

When Ducks Cry

As Americans huddle by their fireplaces and space heaters this week to either celebrate or avoid the Christmas holiday, the nation’s hottest cultural controversy hinges on whether anuses are more desirable than vaginas.

This latest bloody clash in the national Kulturkampf pits dick-hunters versus duck-hunters. It revolves around all manner of contentious cultural axes: red state versus blue state, rural versus urban, gun-toting carnivores versus gun-grabbing vegans, and Christian fundamentalists versus egalitarian true believers.

It was spurred by comments published in GQ last week by Phil Robertson, the scowling, grey-bearded, headband-wearing patriarch of the duck-hunting clan in A&E’s reality show Duck Dynasty, which is touted as the most successful nonfiction program in cable television history:

It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me. I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.

When asked what he considered sinful, Robertson paraphrased a passage from 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, which is reprinted here from the New International Version:

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Clearly the Christian Bible preaches that “men who have sex with men” will not go to heaven. Despite what the Lavender Lobby and the Gay Mafia and the Homo Militia and their rainbow coalition of allies and enablers and apologists would have you believe, homosexuality is explicitly condemned in the Old Testament, New Testament, and the Quran. None of the three major Western monotheistic religions is down with the idea of men going down on other men. So you can either be a faithful adherent to one of these religions, or you can have sex with persons of your own gender—pick one and stick to it. But you can’t have both. Hey, I don’t make the rules—I only report them.

Don’t try telling that to GLAAD spokesman Wilson Cruz, who said that Phil Robertson, rather than the pro-gay progressive revisionist lobby, was perverting the Gospel:

Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe.

GLAAD—which in practice almost always seems far more AANGRY than GLAAD—allegedly used its gay superpowers to squeeze the A&E Network into “indefinitely” suspending Robertson from the show within hours after his homo-unfriendly comments went live.
(Read the rest HERE.)

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Dysfunction Triumphant

I've been missing out on something. I've heard of the blog "Chateau Heartiste" many times, but every time I've looked at it, the subject seemed to be about sex, in the "manosphere" sense, which is fine, but which doesn't mesh very well with this blog. Well, that was mostly unfortunate coincidences, because there's a lot more to the blog than that. And I found that out when Spychiatrist sent me the quote in this quibcag. As you all know by now, I admire insightful statements expressed well, and this certainly qualifies. Technically, it's not a true quibcag, because the nature of the message was such that it just didn't go with the usual quibcag pattern of cute anime girls doing cute things. So it's illustrated by a more appropriate row of skulls instead. This quote is, believe it or not, in reaction to the bizarre, disturbing advertising campaign going on in support of somehow getting enough idiots to sign up for Obamacare to make it look like something less than an apocalyptic failure.  CH's blog post begins below, and be sure to check out his "Pajamaboy Caption Contest," also:

Obama’s America: Land Of The Twee, Home Of The Fey

Organizing for Action, a creepily nondescript leftoid group tasked with propagandizing President Barack Obama’s (jesus it still sticks in the craw to say that) healthcare law, have released an ad campaign on Twitter under the hashtag #GetTalking that, well, you’ve gotta see to believe.

I didn’t think it possible that the Barack Boyman Brigade’s “Hosurance” ads could be beat in loathsomeness, but you’d never go broke underestimating the junk-tucking faggotry of Obama’s sop troops. You could build an online comedy empire just copy/pasting Obama Administration-authorized jpegs.

No wonder feminists are so bitter. These are the newborn androgynes they’re stuck dating. The feminist has sold her womanly soul — what was left of it — for a battalion of bootlickers to escort her to ideologically reaffirmed spinsterhood.

Can you look at that swaddled manlet for more than two seconds without laughing? I could carve a better man out of a banana. We laugh because that’s one of our natural human reactions to seeing something repugnant. It’s similar to the chortles induced when watching a fat woman trip and bounce a few times off the pavement. So gross, we have to laugh it off.

Think about why this ad was approved for mass distribution. Your first instinct is to ask yourself, “What were they thinking?”. A fair question. It’s targeted at urban liberal SWPLs, just the demographic filled to brimming with these vegetable lasagnas. A brimful of asslove off the 95.

So right there you know that Obama’s healthcare law needs these effete clever sillies to sign up so that the money can be compassionately thieved and redistributed to the parasite class (soon to capsize and tip over into majority status). Perhaps the creators thought that a gelding in a onesie was the way to appeal to the SWPL yuppies they need to sign up. If they thought this, and their intentions were sincere, we can conclude that stuff like this works on SWPLs because SWPLs take a kind of twisted retard pride in acting and looking like house eunuchs. To them, this androgynous lifestyle of hot cocoa and plush jammies signals sophistication and success. They’re so coddled and insulated in their Caplan-esque bubble that they can’t tell when they’re coming off like perfumed pansies. Cerebral Scalzi, meet schizopareeneia.

If Obama’s supporters and media messengers are all mental and sexual onesies — and evidence accrues that that is indeed the case — then these ad creators would have no clue that they’re broadcasting prime mockery material to their enemies. It’s hard to believe that could be true, what with all those 130+ IQ neoCalvinists comprising the Obama cult machine, but accelerated social sorting by ideology can easily blind a person to how they’re perceived by those not like him.