Friday, February 28, 2014

A Vox Day Question

Now that the courts have decided that you can ban freedom of speech in order to prevent racial violence, Vox Day asks THIS QUESTION.

The Joys of Diversity — Ukraine

I have very little to say about Ukraine, because I know very little about Ukraine. I do know that things are a mess there, and that our western buzzards of the George Soros variety aren't done looting the place yet. I know that Ukrainians are to Russians, linguistically speaking, about like Bill Clinton is to Hillary. More of a difference of dialect than language. I know that Ukrainians have a long history of being dominated by somebody or other — Russia, Poland, Lithuania — and are heartily sick of it. And that's about all from me. When I don't know much about a subject, I look for somebody who does, and Kevin MacDonald knows all kinds of stuff.  Here he points out that the blessings of diversity are at least part of the disaster going on there now.  This is from The Occiental Observer.  The illustration is from the Japanese comic Hetalia, and is their conception of what Ukraine would look like if it was a young lady.


Competing Nationalisms in the Ukraine


Kevin MacDonald


In “Which Way White Man?,” Tom Sunic discusses the downside of European nationalism:
The Hungarian nationalist party Jobbik has had significant success in its PR overtures in the mainstream media in Europe and it deserves to be commended. Yet, few White American nationalists can comprehend their irrational call of the soil and blood and why Hungarian nationalists are not only concerned with Gypsy crime or with their government sell-out of the national treasure to foreign sharks, but also with the fact that one third of Hungary’s historical land still belongs to neighboring Romania and Slovakia. It must be amusing to observe from the American watchtower how White nationalists in Europe endlessly quarrel about which state in their vicinity should be in charge of a small creek in Transylvania or swaths of former German lands in today’s Silesia. For Europe’s White nationalists, however, these territorial, cultural, or linguistic disputes are a matter of life and death.
The list goes on and on all over Europe. The case study is a traumatic Croatian nationalism, which expresses itself, as a rule, in rigid papist ultra-Catholicism and which establishes its negative legitimacy in the endless name-calling of Christian Orthodox Serbs. A question: Can one be a good White nationalist without excluding the Other White nationalist?
We are certainly seeing some of that now in Ukraine. Ukraine is a textbook case of the costs of multiculturalism, a story of competing nationalisms. Around 17% of the population, mainly in the in the East and South of Ukraine, is ethnically Russian and favors strong ties with Russia. 
Advertisement

Now government buildings in the Crimea have been seized by Russian sympathizers:
Masked men with guns seized government buildings in the capital of Ukraine’s Crimea region on Thursday, barricading themselves inside and raising the Russian flag after mysterious overnight raids that appeared to be the work of militant Russian nationalists who want this volatile Black Sea region ruled from Moscow.
Police officers sealed off access to the buildings but said that they had no idea who was behind the assault, which sharply escalated tensions in a region that serves as home to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet and also to a number of radical pro-Russia groups that have appealed to Moscow to protect them from the new interim government in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital.
… In Crimea … a heavily ethnic Russian and Russian-speaking population mostly views the Ukrainian government installed after the ouster last weekend of Mr. Yanukovych as the illegitimate result of a fascist coup. …
Outside the occupied legislature building, columns of several hundred pro-Russia protesters forced their way through police lines chanting “Rossiya, Rossiya” — “Russia, Russia” — and waving Russian flags. The leader of a group called the Russian Movement for Crimea read out Mr. Yanukovych’s reported statement declaring himself to be the legitimate president. “We agree, we agree,” the crowd shouted. One man shouted through a bullhorn: “We are not separatists. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are one country.”
Lending more ethnic complexity to the situation, the Tatar population in the Crimea is opposed to strong ties with Russia and opposes Crimea splitting off from Ukraine:
Refat Chubarov, a member of the assembly and a leader of Crimea’s ethnic Tatar minority, … warned that any vote to separate Crimea from Ukraine would be “very dangerous.” Asserting that Russian armored vehicles were waiting outside the city, he called for calm but also urged Tatar residents to form “self-defense” units to protect their interests.
He blamed pro-Russia forces for the overnight seizure of government buildings, describing the action as “a direct interference in the affairs of Crimea and of Ukraine.”
The overnight raids left Simferopol [capital of Crimea] residents stunned and took place just hours after thousands of Crimean Tatars, the region’s minority indigenous Turkic population, and a separate throng of ethnic Russians staged dueling rallies Thursday outside Crimea’s regional legislature. The rallies, which ended in a chaotic melee and left several people injured, disrupted a session of the regional Parliament that hard-line pro-Russia groups had hoped would declare Crimea’s secession from Ukraine.
“This is the first step toward civil war,” said Igor Baklanov, a computer expert who joined a group of anxious residents gathered in a cold drizzle at a police line near the seized regional legislature. Rumors swirled of Russian troops on the way from Sevastopol, the headquarters of Russia’s fleet, of Russian nationalists arriving in force to reinforce the blockaded government buildings and of negotiations between the local authorities and the unidentified gunmen. …
Eight hundred miles away, President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia ordered a surprise military exercise of ground and air forces on Ukraine’s doorstep on Wednesday, adding to the tensions with Europe and the United States and underscoring his intention to keep Ukraine in Moscow’s orbit. …
While few analysts expected a Russian military intervention in Ukraine, most said that Mr. Putin was likely to respond in some fashion to such a stinging geopolitical defeat.
The idea that the revolt against the Yanukovych government was a “fascist coup” comes from the fact that Ukrainian nationalists were highly visible members of the opposition forces in Kiev. A leftist site hyperventilates:
What kind of legitimacy do ultranationalist, xenophobic, neo-Nazi, anti-Semites have? What kind substitutes unrestrained coercion for rule of law principles? What kind rules by intimidation?
What kind eliminates all political opposition? What kind bans all opposition information and opinions? The same kind substituting fascist dictatorship for democracy.
On Saturday, Ukrainian freedom died. Fascist extremism replaced it. Coup plotters seized power. They did so extrajudicially. They began consolidating rule straightaway. … Elements in charge are ultranationalist neo-Nazis.
Israel Shamir in Counterpunch provides some details to the role of Ukrainian nationalists in the coup:
The US and the EU won this round, and pushed Russia back eastwards, just as they intended. It remains to be seen whether the neo-Nazi thugs who won the battle will agree to surrender the sweet fruits of victory to politicians, who are, God knows, nasty enough. (“The Brown Revolution in Ukraine“)
Congruent with a variety of sources, Shamir sees the anti-Yanukovych forces as an alliance between liberals and Ukrainian nationalists. However, the ultimate fate of the nationalist element within the next government is uncertain at best.
Within the nationalist element, there are two main groups, the Right Sector,  motivated by hostility toward Russia and tracing their origins to the pro-German Ukrainians in WWII, and Svoboda, a nationalist political party that opposes teaching of the Russian language in schools and won 10.44% of the popular vote in the 2012 elections. Wikipedia notes that “Svoboda has been described as an anti-Semitic and sometimes a Neo-Nazi party by international newspapers, organizations that monitor hate speech, Jewish organizations, and political opponents.
(Our hyperventilating leftist screamed, “Oleh Tyahnybok heads Ukraine’s neo-Nazi Svoboda party. He wants use of Russian language criminalized. He wants ethnic Russians stripped of their citizenship. He wants them denied all rights. He wants them treated like Israel treats Palestinians.”)
The Right Sector is described in a Globe and Mail (Toronto) article (“Have Ukraine’s protests been taken over by this ultra-right-wing group?“) as an
ultra-right-wing movement, described by some as fascist, whose hundreds of soldiers (they call themselves an army) have become the sharp edge of the two-month-old protest movement that has upturned the politics of Ukraine, cost several lives and forced President Viktor Yanukovych to dismiss the government and promise to reform the constitution. … the people in the largest and most aggressive group, who generally refuse to speak to journalists, are members of Pravy Sektor, an umbrella group of fascist, nationalist, football-hooligan and right-wing extremist gangs – some with neo-Nazi histories – which is generally considered to the right of Svoboda and which tends to be very secretive. It has not, to this point, been a political party.
Shamir describes some of that history:
In the Western Ukraine, the serpent eggs hatched: children of Nazi collaborators who had imbibed hatred towards the Russians with their mothers’ milk. Their fathers had formed a network under Reinhard Gehlen, the German spymaster. In 1945, as Germany was defeated, Gehlen swore allegiance to the US and delivered his networks to the CIA. They continued their guerrilla war against the Soviets until 1956. Their cruelty was legendary, for they aimed to terrify the population into full compliance to their command. Notoriously, they strangulated the Ukrainians suspected of being friendly to Russians with their bare hands.
A horrifying confession of a participant tells of their activities in Volyn: “One night, we strangulated 84 men. We strangulated adults, as for little kids, we held their legs, swung and broke their heads at a doorpost. …Two nice kids, Stepa and Olya, 12 and 14 years old… we tore the younger one into two parts, and there was no need to strangulate her mother Julia, she died of a heart attack” and so on and so on. They slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Poles and Jews; even the dreadful Baby Yar [sic] massacre was done by them, with German connivance, somewhat similar to Israeli connivance in the Sabra and Chatila massacres of Palestinians by the Lebanese fascists of the Phalange.
The children of these Bandera murderers were brought up to hate Communism,  Soviets and Russians, and in adoration of their fathers’ deeds. They formed the spearhead of the pro-US anti-government rebels in the Ukraine, the Right Sector led by out-and-out fascist Dmytro Yarosh. They were ready to fight, to die and kill. Such units attract potential rebels of differing backgrounds: their spokesman is young Russian -turned -Ukrainian -nationalist Artem Skoropadsky, a journalist with the mainstream oligarch-owned Kommersant-UA daily. There are similar young Russians who join Salafi networks and become suicide-bombers in the Caucasus mountains – young people whose desire for action and sacrifice could not be satisfied in the consumer society. This is a Slav al-Qaeda — real neo-Nazi storm troopers, a natural ally of the US.
And they did not fight only for association with EC and against joining a Russia-led TC. Their enemies were also the Russians in the Ukraine, and Russian-speaking ethnic Ukrainians. The difference between the twain is moot. Before independence in 1991, some three quarters of the population preferred to speak Russian. Since then, successive governments have tried to force people to use Ukrainian. For the Ukrainian neo-Nazis, anyone who speaks Russian is an enemy.
The other nationalist group is affiliated with Svoboda:
Behind the spearhead of the Right Sector, with its fervent anti-communist and anti-Russian fighters, a larger organisation could be counted on: the neo-Nazi Freedom (Svoboda), of Tyagnibok. Some years ago Tyagnibokcalled for a fight against Russians and Jews, now he has become more cautious regarding the Jews. He is still as anti-Russian as John Foster Dulles.
So we have the specter of dueling nationalisms, plus a strong dose of liberals among the anti-Yanukovych forces, all aided by a large dose of U.S. intervention. Shamir:
[The West was] extremely active: the US State Department representative Victoria “Fuck EC’’ Nuland [who has impeccable neocon credentials]  had spent days and weeks in Kiev, feeding the insurgents with cookies, delivering millions of smuggled greenbacks to them, meeting with their leaders, planning and plotting the coup. Kiev is awash with the newest US dollars fresh from its mint (of a kind yet unseen in Moscow, I’ve been told by Russian friends). The US embassy spread money around like a tipsy Texan in a night club. Every able-bodied young man willing to fight received five hundred dollar a week, a qualified fighter – up to a thousand, a platoon commander had two thousand dollars – good money by Ukrainian standards.
The U.S. and the neocons favor the liberal contingent among the protestors and I assume that they will do what they can to push the nationalists aside in the new government despite their very prominent role in the coup. Obviously, the U.S., spearheaded by the neocons, favors a strong Ukrainian connection to the EU, to the detriment of Russia. But some very powerful forces have been unleashed by all this, and the end game is not predictable.
What is clear is that Ukraine is another example of age-old competing European nationalisms, for time being forced to co-exist side-by-side in a multicultural, multiethnic state.
The EU solution to all of this is to obliterate all borders, at least within Europe—a solution that is diametrically opposed to what nationalists of all stripes want. (Ever on the lookout for White people with strong ethnic/racial identities, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wants the U.S. to use its power to oppose all these rising European nationalisms [in Catalonia, Scotland, Belgium, the Northern League in Italy, etc.; he has no problem with Israeli and non-European nationalisms].) The worst part is that the EU combines its freedom of movement within Europe policy with massive non-European immigration, resulting in the same sorts of tensions within European societies that competing nationalisms engender —ethnic and religious strife.
Indeed, the EU solution to the nationalism problem is the worst of all possible worlds, resulting not only in high levels of tension and strife that we already see within European societies, but in the long run in the obliteration of all traditional European national cultures. This is because EU policy favors highly fertile and aggressive, unassimilable religious and ethnic groups that will eventually make native Europeans a relatively powerless minority in areas they have controlled for thousands of years.
It is very difficult to see how a Ukrainian nationalist could be optimistic about the long-term effects of allying Ukraine with the EU. The very clear signs of discontent with the EU precisely because of the obliteration of national cultures should be a clear sign to the anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalists that the EU is not the answer.
A better solution would be to break up states like Ukraine with large ethnic divisions into ethnically homogeneous societies, but to also develop a consensus that the territorial wars fueled by nationalism should be a thing of the European past. Europeans must find unity in the face of the massive invasions of non-Europeans that have occurred throughout the West. That may be a tall order, but the way of the EU with its present policies is suicide for all European peoples.

Some Foods Are Naturally Dangerous

Unknown anime girl indulges in New World cuisine.
There was an incident on the very enjoyable British sitcom Doc Martin wherein some patient of his had been taking some herb or another recommended by a "holistic healer" and had made himself sick with it.  He told the doctor that it couldn't be the herb that made him sick because it was "natural." That seems so obviously goofy an idea to some of us that it's only the stuff of comedy, but, actually, it's not obvious at all to lots of people.

Like many fallacies, it's an overdoing of a basically sound idea. If it's natural, it's been around a long time, and therefore it's not likely to harm us in an unexpected way. That morphs into the idea that all natural things are safe — forgetting the "unexpected" part — and that therefore, in another lapse of logic, all artificial things are not safe.

Clearly, new artificial things might not be safe, so caution is called for. But of course we've been consuming artificial things for millennia. Most food plants have been modified beyond recognition by farmers over the years.

But it's not the artificiality so much as it is the newness.  Greg Cochran, with tongue firmly in cheek, warns us Oldworlders about the hazards of Newworldish grub. From his blog HERE.

Death by Chocolate

I’ve been seeing some silly talk about the perils of GMO food here on this blog, but of course there’s much more of that out in the world.
They’re full of it, of course, but that hardly means that there’s nothing to worry about. The problem is that people have been worrying about the wrong things.
The question is, what are people adapted to eating?  That’s a big part of it, anyhow. If your ancestors were dining on a certain food for thousands of years, you will deal with it better than someone with no such ancestry.  You may be resistant to toxins in that food. You might be less likely to overindulge in it, if that’s a problem (C2H6O).  If it made up a big fraction of the ancestral diet and is short on some key molecule, your biochemistry may  be better at coping with that shortage (selection on an ergothioneine transporter).  If it had novel nutrients, or an unusual mix, you may be better than average at making use of that nutrient (amylase copy number, lactase persistence).
But if your ancestors never encountered this particular food,  you won’t have any specific adaptations to it.
So…   people need to worry about American crops, that nobody in the  Old World could possibly have encountered before Columbus.  These food don’t just differ from old-variant wheat in a couple of molecules – they’re different in many ways.  Sure, Amerindians tolerate them, but they’ve had thousands of years to adapt.  You haven’t.  Since those foods differ in many,many molecules from anything your ancestors ever tasted. you don’t have that adaptive shield.  It’s not whether that food is ‘natural’ – hell, poison ivy and hemlock are ‘natural’.
So, it would be hardly be surprising if some small fraction of Old World-types had some problems with potatoes or tomatoes [love apples!].   Maybe you should worry about peanuts.  Cassava’s full of cyanide. Green peppers – obviously you already have a death wish.  Chewing gum, vanilla, maple syrup, sunflower seeds – are they really safe?
And above all – no chocolate.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

For Us Dog People

Thanks to
Matt Treasonous Bailey
for the link!

Vox Day on Spike Lee

We've all heard about how Spike Lee deplores the White invasion of his neighborhood, but of course his indignation doesn't extend to the invasion of his country.  Assuming that he considers it his country. Vox Day expands on this, and in doing so, has inspired two quibcags from one post. A record. This is of course from his blog HERE. The quibcag illustrations: The first is Ayuko Oka from Mysterious Girlfriend X (謎の彼女X. Nazo no Kanojo Ekkusu), and the second is from an old Twilight Zone episode that old guys like me know about. Warning: Spike's language is X-rated.



It astonishes me that many people who are capable of grasping the fact that gentrification changes neighborhoods nevertheless reject the idea that immigration changes countries. Spike Lee opines on changes in Brooklyn:

You can’t discover this! We been here. You just can’t come and bogart. There were brothers playing motherfuckin’ African drums in Mount Morris Park for 40 years and now they can’t do it anymore because the new inhabitants said the drums are loud. My father’s a great jazz musician. He bought a house in nineteen-motherfuckin’-sixty-eight, and the motherfuckin’ people moved in last year and called the cops on my father. He’s not — he doesn’t even play electric bass! It’s acoustic! We bought the motherfuckin’ house in nineteen-sixty-motherfuckin’-eight and now you call the cops? In 2013? Get the fuck outta here!

Nah. You can’t do that. You can’t just come in the neighborhood and start bogarting and say, like you’re motherfuckin’ Columbus and kill off the Native Americans. Or what they do in Brazil, what they did to the indigenous people. You have to come with respect. There’s a code. There’s people.

You can’t just — here’s another thing: When Michael Jackson died they wanted to have a party for him in motherfuckin’ Fort Greene Park and all of a sudden the white people in Fort Greene said, “Wait a minute! We can’t have black people having a party for Michael Jackson to celebrate his life. Who’s coming to the neighborhood? They’re gonna leave lots of garbage.” Garbage? Have you seen Fort Greene Park in the morning? It’s like the motherfuckin’ Westminster Dog Show. There’s 20,000 dogs running around. Whoa. So we had to move it to Prospect Park!


I mean, they just move in the neighborhood. You just can’t come in the neighborhood. I’m for democracy and letting everybody live but you gotta have some respect. You can’t just come in when people have a culture that’s been laid down for generations and you come in and now shit gotta change because you’re here? Get the fuck outta here. Can’t do that!

And then! Whoa whoa whoa. And then! So you’re talking about the people’s property change? But what about the people who are renting? They can’t afford it anymore! You can’t afford it. People want live in Fort Greene. People wanna live in Clinton Hill. The Lower East Side, they move to Williamsburg, they can’t even afford fuckin’, motherfuckin’ Williamsburg now because of motherfuckin’ hipsters.

Gentrification, immigration, and colonization are all exactly the same thing. They are the replacement of the native population by invaders. Whether this happens peacefully or not is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things; the consequences are the same.

Too Funny Not To Post


Crime and Punishment and Fred Reed

Illustration from "You're Under Arrest."
You know what I like about Fred? He's a realist. One of the problems with those of us on the right is that we're overtheoretical. Theory has its place, but as a wise man once said, you should never let your ideology trump your common sense. And we really should leave the formulation of unrealistic theories to our friends on the left, who decided decades ago to ignore human nature when they formulate their plans to construct utopia. Indeed, before the neocon Trotskyites marched triumphantly into the Republican Party, the general idea was that conservative Republicans were the ones who had their feet on the ground and understood about human nature and the fallen state of mankind, and were therefore unlikely to fall for the rainbow and unicorn view of history. But now they're falling for it all over the place.

Anyhow, one very important thing about human nature that the liberals and neocons and all too many libertarians tend to deny out of hand is the fact that some people are criminals.  Not forced to be criminals because of poverty or racism or whatever is the trendy explanation, but criminals intrinsically. Fred doesn't have a utopian solution to this phenomenon, and neither do I, but Fred quite usefully points out here that the fashionable solutions don't work, and it's time we all got a little more realistic about things. When it comes to realism, you can't beat a curmudgeon. This from Takimag:

Sour Thoughts From the Police Beat

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Gun Control Kills

There are stories like this all over the country and have been for many, many years, but all the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) wants to talk about is poor little Trayvon. Quibcag features the girls of "Stella Women's Academy, High School Division Class C3" (特例措置団体ステラ女学院高等科C3部 Story is from Fox News

How gun control helped a stalker kill my husband


By Nicole Goeser Published February 25, 2014
FoxNews.com


In April 2009, my husband was shot six times in front of me in the middle of a busy restaurant by a man who was stalking me. I have a permit to carry a handgun but because of the law at that time in my home state of Tennessee, I had to leave the gun that I normally carried for self defense, locked in my car that night.

My husband Ben and I ran our mobile karaoke business out of a restaurant that served alcohol and my gun was forbidden there. I obeyed the law but my stalker, who was carrying a gun illegally, ignored it.

I noticed my stalker (a former karaoke customer) in the crowd that night and I knew something was not right. This was a man that I had blocked from my social network account due to inappropriate messages he had sent me.

He had never threatened me or my husband but he was definitely creepy.

My husband Ben had asked him to leave me alone before he showed up at this venue where I had never seen him before.

I realized at that point I was being stalked.

I asked the management at the restaurant to remove him.When they approached him and asked him to leave, he pulled out a .45 semi-auto and shot Ben. He then stood over him and continued to fire five more rounds into my husband.

I could only watch in horror and helplessness.

Since that terrible night I have learned that gun free zones are a predator's playground. This is where my stalker found us and where we were defenseless.

We all have a fight or flight response when we sense danger. We make decisions based on the options we have at that moment. Decisions must sometimes be made in a matter of seconds.

My only option that night was flight. Fight was not something I would have been able to follow through with because I was denied that chance. That basic human right was taken from me by a Legislature that unintentionally helped a predator hunt down his prey.

I hope that lawmakers around the nation will begin to understand that when you disarm law abiding citizens, you do not help protect law abiding citizens. Instead, you actually make it easier for those with evil intentions to be met with no little or no resistance.


In one way, I was lucky on the night my husband was shot and killed -- and so was everyone else in the restaurant. A United States Marine happened to be in the crowd, he tackled the man who killed my husband and held him until the police came.

I have been told the police arrived within 3 minutes after getting the 911 call. I can tell you that when something so terrible is happening to yourself or someone you love, even three minutes seems like an eternity. The familiar saying "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away" is very true.

I respect law enforcement. They have a very difficult job but even they know they cannot be anywhere and everywhere at anytime.

The majority of rank and file police officers I have spoken with support right to carry laws. They would much rather find an innocent person with a smoking gun and a dead bad guy than the other way around.

Unfortunately, most law enforcement officers fear speaking out in support of right to carry laws for fear of retaliation by their superiors, who, more often than not, are attuned to politics and not inclined to support self defense laws.

Then there are those who fear gun permit holders might do something wrong with a gun or hurt an innocent bystander.

I personally am more concerned about a bad guy shooting indiscriminately with no regard for innocent life rather than a permit holder who has had state certified training and fears criminal and civil penalties. Those penalties act as very real deterrents for good people. Less than one percent of permit holders ever do anything wrong with a gun. I can't think of any segment of society that is more law abiding.

It's time for law abiding people, who have taken proper legal measures to provide for their own self defense, to be allowed to carry a gun to places where they have a right to be present.

Evil can visit us anywhere. Signs posted on doors declaring "no guns allowed" do nothing to protect any of us.

Since my husband's murder, the law has been changed in the state of Tennessee. Handgun carry permit holders can now carry their guns into establishments that serve alcohol -- as long as they are not drinking alcohol and as long as the establishment has not posted a "no guns allowed" SIGN.

At least this gives law abiding citizens the ability to try to protect themselves. A right that my husband, Ben and I were tragically denied on the night he died.



Nicole Goeser is author of "Denied a Chance: How gun control helped a stalker murder my husband." Her story will be featured on February 25 at 10 p.m. ET on Investigation Discovery Network.

Back Down To Slavery

The internet is burning up with opinions about the proposed legislation in Arizona that would permit business owners to decline to do business with homosexuals, or at least in terms of effectuating homosexual shenanigans like homosexual marriage, provided that their religious principles require that they do so. According to some people on the net, such legislation will lead inexorably to death camps. Actually, we all have the right to decline to do business with anybody, the only question is, will the government violate that right? The Arizona law is an attempt to prevent the government from violating that right, at least in some circumstances.

What do you call it when you have to work for somebody when you don't want to?.... Ah, yes — "Involuntary servitude."

The quibcag was tough to make — Searching for "slave anime" images googles up some pretty gross things, that I certainly don't want to subject any of you to. So again, I had to settle for an image from Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet (翠星のガルガンティア Suisei no Garugantia), though she may be just kidding around with the chain.

Now to Neil:

The Auction Block Comes to Colorado
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com




Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

The Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads in part: "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Remember that, for later.

In a story that recently made national news, a Colorado baker who, for reasons of Christian conscience, refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, has been ordered by a Denver administrative law judge (and exactly what the hell is an "administrative law judge", anyway?) to do so nonetheless—and make similar cakes for any other customers who request them—or face fines and possibly a stretch in prison.

He will file reports and be watched closely from now on.

I am not kidding.

The baker, who has said that he will disobey the order, is Jack C. Phillips, his bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop. The judge's name is Robert Spencer. The gay couple are Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The lawsuit was brought on their behalf by the American Civil Liberties Union.

Craig and Mullins originally filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Apparently Phillips had refused another such request, by a lesbian couple, some time ago, and, according to local talk show host Peter Boyles of 710KNUS, was deliberately targeted, or "shopped", possibly by the judge, himself. Meanwhile, a Colorado Democratic legislator (whose name I can't find) has just introduced legislation that would crank up the fine for this "offense" by 7000 percent.

In a specimen of logic so twisted it would make Pablo Picasso or Salvador Dali vomit, Spencer has issued Phillips a "cease and desist" order—an official order to stop not doing something. It's exactly like a moment out of a nightmare collaboration between Stalin and Kafka.

Clearly, baker Phillips has a right, under the First Amendment—a right currently being denied him—to believe whatever he wishes, and to follow the precepts of his religion, as long as he doesn't deny anybody else their rights. He also has a First Amendment right to freedom of speech, which necessarily includes the right not to speak, when that appears more eloquent, or not to employ his artistic insights, intuitions, and skills in support of a cause that he personally finds obnoxious.

Certainly Craig and Mullins have their rights, as well, but they don't include compelling Phillips or anybody else to work for them, or to pretend as if they agreed with their ideas and help trumpet them to the world. The fact is, there are dozens of other bakeries in Denver more than willing to do that. But, as we now know from Obamacare, everybody has to comply. They want to get this guy and get him good.

It is precisely as if some judge tried to force me, a lifelong libertarian, to write essays in support of gun control or Marxism. Or perhaps I could be coerced into authoring a slim volume on animal rights—I write better than any of the ginks in that movement. There's a technical word for that idea: slavery. Together, almost a century and half after we believed it had been abolished, at the cost of hundreds of thousands of American lives, Craig, Mullins, Spencer—and the ACLU—have miraculously brought slavery back to life.

Congratulations, guys, aren't you glad you saved your Dixie cups?

Now how about a nice loud rebel yell?

But, as usual, I digress.

Our concern, here, is not so much with the religious or free speech aspects of the First Amendment, as with the Thirteenth Amendment. It isn't really that surprising: underneath the skin of every "progressive", there is a would-be plantation-owner and slave-keeper, struggling to get out. Democrats have a long, sick history of always supporting involuntary servitude of one kind or another. It's why they're all such fans of victim disarmament—you can't have slaves running around the plantation toting guns, now, can you?

Former Denver radio talk show host Ken Hamblin understands at first-hand the way that more than a century of "progressivism" has undermined and destroyed black families and black culture, with its welfare payments, the minimum wage, and condescending programs like Affirmative Action. An "African-American" conservative who called himself "The Black Avenger", Hamblin was eventually forced off the air by his political enemies (most of them black and Hispanic leftists, clearing the way in the Denver broadcast market for all white radio hosting), for saying things like, "Every liberal ought to own his own Negro."

I often disagreed with Hamblin, but I miss him.

I have a good friend who, when he discovered that he'd been hired by a company, not because he was an excellent engineer, but in order to fill out a racial quota, quit cold. I suspect it has cost him a lot, but he can look at himself in the mirror when he gets up every morning.

I am not a conservative, or a Christian. I support gay marriage. As if it were yesterday, I remember our wedding in 1983, Cathy's and mine, in Holly Park in downtown Colorado Springs, and I wonder how we'd feel about it now, if the beauty and wonder of that occasion had been wrenched involuntarily out of somebody else's individual sovereignty.

That's probably a concept that no "progressive" can understand. Look at Obamacare: they're natutral-born slavers. If you told them that taxation is slavery, too, they'd most likely pee themselves. They're always right about everything, after all, and everybody else is wrong. And if you should disagree with them, then you're just a reactionary.

Or a racist.

Or a sexist.

Or a homophobe.

But they are losing their death-grip on this battered country, and incidents like this are a big reason why. Having lost three members of the Colorado senate, recalled for imposing unconstitutional gun laws on the people of this highly Western state has taught them exactly dick.

I would be happy to try to explain it to them—for sufficient remuneration.

No refunds.

Hitler: Leftist or Rightist? — First, the Leftist Theory

It's a rare accomplishment to be responsible for a Bob Wallace essay, but I've gone and done it. A day or two back, an exchange in the comments to this post seems to have inspired Bob to do the following.  His original, and a link to buy Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn's book is HERE. Read Bob's essay and think about it, and in a day or so I'll write my reply to it, which won't be a disagreement as much as it'll be a change of perspective or even a paradigm shift.  Today's quibcag: It's remarkably difficult to find a useful illustration of a Birkenstock, or indeed any kind of a sandal, so I had to use this picture of Amy from Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet (翠星のガルガンティア Suisei no Garugantia), who is wearing some kind of sandals. You can see her dressed differently HERE.

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn on Leftism

Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn (1909-1999) has influenced me more than I can say. And not just me; he appeared in the first issue of "National Review" and was for many years a staple of the magazine, back when it was readable and ran greats like Russell Kirk. His magnum opus,Leftism Revisited, is ranked by "Intellectual Conservative" as number 12 out of the top 25 philosophical and ideological conservative books. It's one of those books everyone should own, whether he agrees with it or not.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn spent his life studying the history of leftism and tracing its destructive influence throughout the world. Although he admired the United States, he clearly saw what leftism had done to it. Were he alive today, I believe he would define the neo-conservatives not as conservatives, but as leftists. I believe he would also have defined George Bush's and Barak Obama's crusades as a blind, crude leftist attempt to remake the world. So, then, Bush, contrary to his "conservative" credentials, was more of a leftist than a rightist - which means those who think there is any great difference between the two id mistaken.

From a lifetime of thought, Kuehnelt-Leddihn distilled leftism into a list. Here is part of it.

Messianism assigned to one group: a nation, a race, a class.
Centralization: elimination of local administrations, traditions, characteristics, etc.
Totalitarianism: pervasive of all spheres of life by one doctrine.
Brute force and terror, not authority, an endogenous force.
Ideological one-party state.
Militarism: conscription, people's armies.
Territorial expansionist tendencies as a form of self-realization.
Exclusiveness: no other deities tolerated.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out that while most people knew the communists were leftists, few understood that so were the Nazis. Hitler understood there was little difference between the International Socialists of Russia and the National Socialists of Germany, which is why he gave orders that former Communists were to immediately admitted to the Nazi Party. He understood there was but a hair's breadth difference between the character of the two.

As Wikipedia said of Kuehnelt-Leddihn: "Contrary to the prevailing view that the Nazi Party was a radical right-wing movement with only superficial and minimal leftist elements, Kuehnelt-Leddihn asserted that Nazism (National Socialism) was a strongly leftist, democratic movement ultimately rooted in the French Revolution that unleashed forces of egalitarianism, conformity, materialism and centralization. He argued that Nazism, fascism, radical-liberalism, and communism were essentially democratic movements, based upon inciting the masses to revolution and intent upon destroying the old forms of society. Furthermore, he claimed that all democracy is basically totalitarian and that all democracies eventually degenerate into dictatorships."

Everything on the list is troublesome, but I perhaps "messianism" is the most troublesome characteristic on that list. Every empire has used as a justification for its abuses the belief it is "saving the world." People as far apart as Aesop and Jesus both commented that "all tyrants call themselves benefactors." "Saving the world" is always an excuse for trying to conquer it.

Doubtless messianism is related to our inborn narcissism, i.e., seeing ourselves (or our tribe) as grandiose and others as less than human. That splitting is the basis of all propaganda. In the western world the closest story I can find about a malignant narcissist is that of Satan, whose sin was pride, or hubris, and who wished to replace God no matter how much destruction he caused. In our temporal world that story clearly describes such people as Castro, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Stalin and Hitler.

Unfortunately, that story is the defining characteristic of all States, all of which consider themselves messianic, and therefore are Satanic. This includes the United States, contrary to the nationalists who believe the country has done no wrong. To the degree any country is messianic it is leftist, and will wreak havoc wherever it meddles.

Woodrow Wilson, whom Kuehnelt-Leddihn clearly thought was an utter incompetent, got the US involved in WWI to "save democracy." From his bumblings we got WWII, the Communist takeovers of eastern Europe, and in general the catastrophes of the 20th Century. The sayings, "no good deed goes unpunished" and "the road is Hell is paved with good intentions" make sense only in the context of people not minding their own business.

Messianism is related to "territorial expansionist tendencies as a form of self-realization." If a leader and enough citizens of the country believe he and the country are a messiah to the world, then expansionist tendencies necessarily follow. An current example of this kind of thinking from a few year's ago is Thomas P. M.. Barnett, author of The Pentagon's New Map.

Barnett divides the world into the Core and the Gap. We're the Core (civilized and good); all the "failed states" of the world are the Gap (uncivilized and bad). We're supposed to use war to conquer the Gap and remake them in our image. This is messianic thinking at its worst, and is close to being purely leftist. The author clearly believes he is a visionary, but his ideas are in reality a few thousand years old, and trenchant criticism of them can be found in the Bible. And since his views are leftist, I can predict that if they are put into effect, they will fail miserably - as we have in Afghanistan and Iraq (which I predicted).

Two others who remind me of Barnett are David Frum and Richard Perle, authors of An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror. They are even worse than Barnett, who appears positively sophisticated compared to them. Their views are simplistic: the United States is good; those who they believe pose a threat (even if they don't) have to be destroyed.

To this end they believe the U.S. should overthrow Iran, blockade North Korea, ignore Europe, twist Syria's and China's arms, and in general engage in an Orwellian perpetual war for perpetual peace. Their chances of succeeding are as about as good as Barnett's. Like Barnett, they have no intention of making their way to the front lines; that's for others.

"Exclusiveness: no other deities tolerated" is an inherent part of the first two characteristics I've mentioned. If a country is messianic and expansionist, it's going to consider itself purely good, and therefore will tolerate no dissent. Sometimes there is an attempt to replace God with country and State, such as the Nazis and Communists tried, but these attempts rapidly fell apart amid catastrophic destruction such as the world had never experienced.

What lasts longer is the melding of God and country. It might just as dangerous as replacing God with country, and certainly is just as false. I'd have to conclude people like Jerry Falwell, who wrote an article about how "God is Pro-war," is, if people take him seriously, a danger to the country. How can a man call himself a Christian when he such a rabid believer in massive war? Hasn't he ever heard of the saying, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God"? The converse of that saying would be, "Cursed are the war-makers, for they shall be called children of the Devil."

I conclude the easiest way to recognize a false Messiah or someone whose religion is warped, is that they do not see the shades of grey inherent in people's beliefs, but instead seeing everything as black or white, good or bad. Of course, they consider themselves good; those who disagree with them are bad and have to be sacrificed to save the good. The name for this is "human sacrifice."

All of those seven traits I've listed have one thing in common: the individual is nothing; only the group counts. I would define fascism, or Nazism, or Communism, or nationalism, or leftism, thus: "the attempt to coerce people into joining an unwanted group."

Kuehnelt-Leddihn made the comment, "'We' is from the Devil; 'I' is from God." While voluntary groups are a necessary part of life, involuntary groups are as demonic as Kuehnelt-Leddihn described them.

If I was to expand on a definition of leftism, I'd say: "the attempt to coerce people into joining a messianic group, with a messianic leader, with anyone defined as an outsider considered a potentially fatal threat." That definition is the message of Orwell's 1984.

That definition means no one man should have great political power. While it is true that some can handle it, there remains the problem of who comes after him. Clearly, the office of President has much too much power. It is far too easy for a Wilson, or a Bush, or an Obama, to consider himself a Messiah destined to change the world, at the cost of great slaughter and destruction. Then of course we have the problem of the nationalists who idolize such men, to the point of referring to them as "my President."

Are these not exactly the same kind of men who would have said "mein Fuhrer"?

Ultimately the problem can be defined in three words: groups, coercion, and hubris - everyone is supposed to think exactly the same (which is what PC is about). When all three come together, the problems generated are always catastrophic. The opposite is the individual in a voluntary group, persuasion, and a realistic appraisal of oneself, generally known as humility.

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

It' s All In The Cap

Buy such caps, etc. HERE.
Thanks to Robert Sharp for this one:

From a fellow retiree:

Yesterday I wore my Vietnam Veterans cap when I went to Wal-Mart. There was nothing in particular that I needed at the world's largest retailer; but, since I retired, trips to Wally World to look at the Walmartians is always good for some comic release. Besides I always feel pretty normal after seeing some of the people that frequent the establishment. But, I digress...enough of my psychological fixations.


While standing in line to check out, the guy in front of me, probably in his early thirties, asked, "Are you a Viet Nam Vet?"

"No," I replied.

"Then why are you wearing that cap?"

"Because I couldn't find the one from the War of 1812." I thought this was a snappy retort.

"The War of 1812, huh?" the Walmartian queried, "When was that?"

God forgive me, but I couldn't pass up such an opportunity. "1936," I answered as straight-faced as possible.

He pondered my response for a moment and then responded, "Why do they call it the War of 1812 if it was in 1936?"

"It was a Black Operation. No one is supposed to know about it." This was beginning to be way too much fun!

"Dude! Really?" he exclaimed. "How did you get to do something that COOOOL?"

I glanced furtively around me for effect, leaned toward the guy and in a low voice said, "I'm not sure. I was the only Caucasian on the mission."

"Dude," he was really getting excited about what he was hearing, "that is seriously awesome! But, didn't you kind of stand out?"

"Not really. The other guys were wearing white camouflage."

The moron nodded knowingly.

"Listen man," I said in a very serious tone, "You can't tell anyone about this. It's still 'top secret' and I shouldn't have said anything."

"Oh yeah?" he gave me that, 'don't threaten me look.' "Like, what's gonna happen if I do?"

With a really hard look I said, "You have a family don't you? We wouldn't want anything to happen to them, would we?"

The guy gulped, left his basket where it was and fled through the door. By this time the lady behind me was about to have a heart attack, she was laughing so hard. I just grinned at her.

After checking out and going to the parking lot I saw Dimwit leaning in a car window talking to a young woman. Upon catching sight of me he started pointing excitedly in my direction. Giving him another 'deadly' serious look, I made the 'I see you' gesture. He turned kind of pale, jumped into the car and sped out of the parking lot in a flurry of dust.

What a great time I had! Tomorrow I'm going back with my Homeland Security cap.

Then the next day I will go to the licensing agency so I can wear a Border Patrol hat, and see how long it takes to empty out the place.

Whoever said retirement is boring just needs the right kind of cap!

Social Anthropology — Another Meaningless Academic Navel-Gazing Exercise

This is Rika Shiguma (志熊 理科) from Haganai (はがない) 
I want to make sure I'm handing out the credit properly here.  First off, I read this over at Cochran and Harpending's Westhunt blog:



Posted on February 21, 2014 by harpend

The best part of running a blog is the quality of many of the people who show up. A recent customer, “A.J. West”, has a blog of his own here that our readers will surely enjoy.

Periodically on this blog Greg vents about anthropologists. When I name the people in our own department to him he allows that they are all excellent but he insists that most of anthropology is a disgraceful wasteland. He may be right: I pay little or no attention to anthropology any more.

Now on the West blog we have sad but funny confirmation of Greg’s point of view but without the outrage. West went to Oxford to study social anthropology, with interests that many of us share, only to discover that his interests were regarded with disdain and outside the stream of social anthropology. His story is that of a virgin finding himself in a bawdy house, or something like that. That particular post is here and is a good read, along with a later post on obscurantism .

Then I went to that blog, of course, and read the very long, very interesting post on social anthropology that says in part:

I want to emphasise that I am not in any way a political conservative and I don't oppose the social and political aims that have become entrenched parts of anthropology departments. But I don't think those aims are what anthropology is about, I don't think obscurantist pseudo-philosophy is a good way to achieve them, and I don't think writing obscure academic texts about how humans are now trans-human feminist cyborgs empowers minority groups or the working class, or achieves any worthwhile aim in any sphere of human activity.

Of course "social" anthropology isn't a science at all, or even an object of study, but just one of the latest attempts to indoctrinate people in Marxism by means of the dry husk of a dead academic discipline. Not that anthropology should be dead, but it is. It's very revealing that the blogger insists that he's not on the right politically, because he's sure to be accused of it for failing to enthusiastically endorse the aims of "social" anthropology. HERE'S a bit on what anthropology is turning into. I'm assuming he thinks of himself as a liberal or a moderate, and if he hasn't already, he's soon to learn that there's no room on the left for dissent.... I just read through the comments on Westhunt, and West is commenting there! (West and Westhunt are two different entities, remember) And it's worth your while to read them HERE.

Anyhow, I intend to read his blog regularly, because there's lots of interesting stuff there. Some of you will no doubt feel the same way, so I've added  "West's Meditations" to the blogroll.

Lying About Kids And Guns

As Karol Traven once said, "Those of us on the right have to constantly remind ourselves that the left does not share our concern for the truth. You see, our way of thinking is based on observation of reality and reasoning about it, i. e., truth. The left's way of thinking is, frankly, not thinking, but feeling, and feeling has little to do with the truth, and is indeed frequently at odds with it. We on the right are also relative immune to trendiness, while the left is always in a sweat to keep up with fashionable thinking."

And a very fashionable, but incorrect, thought these days is that guns cause crime. In fact, of course, they don't. If they have any effect at all, they reduce crime, because their presence makes it more dangerous to be a criminal, therefore discouraging criminality.  But the left doesn't like guns, just like it doesn't like capitalism or White racism (Black racism is OK) or America, so just about all the bad stuff that happens can be blamed on one of these things or a combination of them. And if you can't prove such blame, just assert it loudly and often, and enough people will believe you, or so goes the theory. The quibcag illustration is Naru Narusegawa (成瀬川 なる Narusegawa Naru), from the classic romantic comedy, Love Hina (ラブ ひな Rabu Hina).


Doctoring Data on Kids and Guns
by C.D. Michel
michellawyers.com


Special to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

That a medical student may have doctored data is both a crime and a terrible pun.

But this is probably what happened when a student formerly from the University of Michigan Medical School presented a paper at the American Academy of Pediatrics convention, and the media apishly copied headlines about the paper's claims concerning the intersection of guns and kids.

Since reporters are generally not well educated [should I end the sentence there] on criminology, statistics, robust data sources and the minutia of gun policy, they accepted the paper without scrutiny. So I'll have to roll-up my sleeves and dig into this one for the reporters who wouldn't.

The paper (United States Childhood Gun-Violence—Disturbing Trends) took child hospitalization discharge data along with survey responses concerning gun ownership, and applied a weighted analysis to determine that more handguns causes more child deaths and hospitalizations.

This came as a surprise to criminologists, and other people with cranial blood supplies, who have watched the number of handguns in circulation rise steadily over the past three decades, while simultaneously watching child firearm deaths decline. Using criminology/epidemiology data gold standards—Center for Disease Control (CDC) mortality databases and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Commerce Reports—we can chart these with ease. It shows that while gun availability has risen, fewer kids die.

Surprising then that the aspiring doctor told the world that "Policies designed to reduce the number of household firearms, especially handguns, may reduce childhood [gunshot wounds]."

To be clear, from 1981 through 2009, the number of child firearm fatalities has fallen 48%. But because the population kept growing, the rate of child firearm fatalities has fallen 56%. This reduction occurred in a period where the number of handguns went up 216%.

So how can a young doctor be so wrong, and would you want him removing your appendix? With only his abstract to review (the paper and raw data were not immediately locatable and a request sent to the American Academy of Pediatrics was not answered) we can only illustrate the obvious deficiencies in United States Childhood Gun-Violence—Disturbing Trends.

When is a database debased?

In every field of science, there are several sources of raw data. Some are the standard, some are not, and some simply stink. This paper failed to use the most common data sources available in the fields of criminology and epidemiology, namely the CDC's WISQARS database and the Bureau of Justice Statistics crime databases (both online for everyone to use). Instead the doctor-in-training selected a highly variable database of hospital discharge records and a single-point-in-time government survey of gun ownership.

None of this is pretty.

The Kids' Inpatient Database (KID) lists the discharge status of young patients. However, in terms of mortality and even injury, it is incomplete. Not every dead child enters a hospital, not every injured child needs hospitalization, and the descriptions of the "accidents" have no validation. Data quality is vague, and for such small numbers as those represented by fatal firearm deaths for children, they are statistically suspect.

But this gets much worse. Participation in KID is completely voluntary, and the number of contributing states and hospitals has risen since its inception. This means the number of children being recorded rose as well. Whereas the CDC shows a steady drop in child firearm deaths since 1993, the KID database wasn't even launched until 1997, when it had a mere 22 participating states. Between then and 2009, the number of states adding data to KID rose 200% and the number of hospitals went up 163%. As you can see, the raw numbers used in this intern's study mirrors the rise in KID database participation, not in actual firearm death rates.

Which is why United States Childhood Gun-Violence—Disturbing Trends uses raw numbers from an oddball source. Criminologists and the CDC—people who are ever so comfortable with numbers—always report in terms of rates of deaths. In other words, divide the number of deaths by the number of people. This is an accurate reflection of a situation because a change in numbers may reflect many other causes. For example, in the years immediately after Washington D.C. banned handguns, the number of homicides fell. But the population of D.C. was also dropping because the place had already become a gangster paradise and D.C. workers with cars moved to the suburbs. The number of homicides fell but rate of homicides rose at an alarming pace. Net-net, the odds of being murdered in D.C. skyrocketed.

So the raw numbers presented in United States Childhood Gun-Violence—Disturbing Trends not only conflict with the raw numbers provided by the CDC, they also obfuscate the rapidly falling rate of child firearm deaths. I would claim that the apprentice doctor did this on purpose, but I doubt he is that clever.

This report also leveraged the often rejected Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Run by the CDC, this periodic survey asks people a lot of embarrassing questions. In 2004 at least, they asked people about firearms they had in their homes, and this single year was used as the basis for firearm ownership rates in United States Childhood Gun-Violence—Disturbing Trends. Yet the study we have under a microscope covered a decade in which firearms in circulation and the number of concealed carry permit holders were rising rapidly, and childhood firearm deaths were simultaneously falling. A serious attempt to find causes and effects would have used more than a single data point, and would have used rates of deaths, not raw numbers.

Some critical criminologists think that the BRFSS sounds like passing gas, and is driven by the same raw material. Responses to government surveys about your firearm ownership are renowned for resulting in inaccurate tallies. Gun owners have been trained through government abuse not to trust the government on this subject. So the BRFSS is not a great source of accurate firearm ownership data. And using a single year of firearm ownership data to evaluate ten years of death is junk science.
Interestingly, the same instance of the BRFSS also asked people if they kept their guns loaded, which was relatively uncommon, and if they kept them locked. These data points might have been a better test variable than mere ownership.

Similar reporting problems may have occurred by our young saw-bones using "percent childhood [gunshot wounds] occurring in the home" as their measurement criteria. One thing we know for certain from the criminological world is that gunplay around inner-city gangland areas is common, and many innocent bystanders are hit by bullets fired during drug and turf wars. This is out-of-home gun mayhem, an odd thing to omit from a study about gun deaths. In the past year I can recall two childhood shooting deaths from rival gang crossfire in public places in Oakland, California alone ... and I don't read the Oakland Tribune every day. Given such connections, the University of Michigan Medical School seems uniquely unconcerned about a primary source of child gun fatalities. Which doctor is a witch doctor?

The Joyce Foundation—the financier of the American gun control movement—loves giving money to medical schools and having their indentured servants cook-up such studies. Google queries show many people at UofM involved neck-deep with the Joyce Foundation, as are Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard Medical School who predigested our young doctor's statistical gruel. It is yet another in a seemingly endless stream of doctors not doing what doctors are trained for, and instead trying their hand at research requiring deep methodological expertise in selected fields of non-medical inquiry.

Let's pray Arin Madenci was better at his medical studies than his criminological research. If not, then pray this careless intern isn't working when you are brought in for treatment.

Please help us inform and recruit grassroots activists to our network by forwarding this e-bulletin to your friends and reposting it wherever possible. Please attribute to calgunlaws.com. CalGunLaws.com, CalGunLaws' e-Bulletins, the Self-Defense DefenseRight to Keep and Bear ArmsMichelLawyers, andShooting Range Lawyers informational Facebook pages and the @MichelLawyers Twitter feed are produced as a pro bono public service by Michel & Associates, P.C., a full service law firm. We appreciate all your legal business inquires and client referrals. These help support the many pro bono public services we provide on behalf of your right to keep and bear arms. Submit A Free Case Evaluation