Wednesday, April 30, 2014

Wednesday Afternoon Miscellany

Steve Sailer is channeling Jonathan Swift again here:

Vox Day discusses the politicization of Science Fiction by the left here:

And Larry Correia on the same subject here:

John Craig speculates on the light-in-the-loafers narcissism of the Obama here:

Vulture of Critique muses about the effects of Buddhism, and its possible appropriateness as a crucible for panpherohoplocracy (which would certainly lead to panpherohoplocratophobia) here:

And Kevin MacDonald deconstructs the Donald Sterling brouhaha here:
Quibcag: I lifted the quote from Sailer's piece at Takimag. The girl is Hinagiku Katsura (桂 ヒナギク Katsura Hinagiku) from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく!, Hayate no Gotoku!)

The MAO Gene

Somebody recently gave the advice, "Always tell the truth when you can — It's easier to remember." And it also works better than lies for other purposes, like formulating public policy. And one truth is that people vary, and, although environment does affect people, they also vary intrinsically. And even people who deny this fact, often behave in such a way that suggests that, maybe unconsciously, they are aware of it. But in many cases, they're quite conscious of it, they just lie about it, because that's the demand of the Zeitgeist, which insists on the absolute intrinsic equality of all human beings. Actually, the only people who believe in such equality are especially naive White liberals. Everybody else knows better, and, since they don't give a damn what White liberals think, they're quite ready to say so.

But even at the New York Times, where you'd expect Orwellian adherence to party doctrine, the truth has a way of asserting itself. Steve Sailer, the best journalist of the 21st Century, tells us about one such manifestation at Takimag:

The Liberal Creationists

As the topic of race continues to pop up in the news now and then, what with the Los Angeles Clippers imbroglio and whatnot, it’s worth reconsidering the conventional wisdom on the subject, which has congealed into: “Race does not biologically exist because, uh … Science!”

Nicholas Wade, the New York Times’ chief genetics reporter, has published 1,052 articles in the newspaper of record since 1983. For most of this century, Wade has been methodically waging war in the Science section of the NYT against the liberal creationist myth that race isn’t real. He has now written a definitive book on the existence of biological differences among races, A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History, which will be published on May 6.

In his new book, Wade writes:

Ever since the first modern humans dispersed from the ancestral homeland in northeast Africa … the populations on each continent have evolved largely independently of one another as each adapted to its regional environment. … Because of these divisions in the human population, anyone interested in recent human evolution is almost inevitably studying human races, whether they wish to or not.

To Wade, race isn’t just skin deep. In fact, he finds the visual differences between races less significant than the behavioral. Evolution’s strategy for adapting to radically different environments is to “keep the human body much the same but change the social behavior.”

For example, in one study, the variant of the MAO-A gene most associated with aggression and delinquency was found in 5.2 percent of a sample of black males but only 0.1 percent of Caucasian males, which may explain a lot.
(Read the rest HERE, and tell Steve I sent you.)
Quibcag: Sorry about the pun, but the Mao girl is from “Nyotaika!! Dictators of the World,”

Understanding and Peace, Rainbows and Unicorns

"It is a myth dear to Americans, namely, that persons and nations fight because they do not know each other well enough, because they do not speak the same language, they do not live contiguous enough. Utter hogwash. These two roosters were of the same breed, crowed the same way, had the same friends -- and fought each other to the death. So did the North and the South in the Civil War. We fought two wars against our English cousin -- same language, same customs; and two with our next nearest of kin, the Germans, whose language is a cognate of English, and whom we knew and understood best of all peoples in the world after those of the British Isles. We were twice allies of the Russians, whom we do not understand at all and who are the least contiguous to us. If we have not yet fought Ireland, it is not because we understand the Irish, but because they have not yet challenged our supremacy of the sea!" - Dr. Austin App

Thanks to Alex Gleason for the quote.

It's trivially true that certain kinds of understanding can prevent conflict.  For example, if the King of Ruritania compliments the King of Graustark, but the translator gets it wrong, and makes it sound like an insult, war might result, while a better understanding might have prevented war..

But that sort of thing is trivial. The liberal touchy-feely idea is that if nations just understood each other better, they'd be friends. That's one of the main propaganda points of the Esperanto movement, as a matter of fact. Their idea is that if everybody had a common language, they'd understand one another better, and not fight. Again, that has validity in a trivial way, in that it can help prevent misunderstandings that could lead to conflict. On the other hand, sometimes lacking a common language can actually prevent conflict, when insults aren't noticed, and irreconcilable differences aren't quite so obvious.

The Swiss speak four languages, and don't fight with each other, not because they can communicate so well, but because there aren't reasons for conflict. The Serbs and the Croats speak the same language, and it doesn't help a bit, because they have powerful disagreements that are very clear to all concerned.

Sometimes the best way to prevent conflict is simply to come into minimal contact. Scandinavians never fought with Muslims in recent history, because the Scandinavians lived in Scandinavia, and Muslims lived other places. Now that Muslims are moving to Scandinavia, there's plenty of conflicts, and it's not because they can't communicate.

Good fences, and good borders, and good long distances, make good neighbors.

Tuesday, April 29, 2014

Leftist Weasels in Conservative Sheep's Clothing

Give me a nice, honest leftist any day. Oh, hardly any of them are completely honest, of course, but there are degrees. For example, some of them state flat-out that they want individual ownership of guns outlawed, and work openly for that end. Then you have the Bloombergs, who assure us that they don't want that, but just want laws to prevent the wrong kind of people from having them, criminals and children and such. Some of those might even be sincere, but of course, once the laws are in place, we find out that we're almost all the wrong kind of people, after all.  And leftists, of course, hate the very idea of people like Cliven Bundy walking around free, and some of them say so. The less honest ones lie about him, saying they're against him because he's a racist (a lie) or because he's "stealing government land" (another lie, at the very best an outrageous distortion of the truth). But a minority of leftist say very clearly what they really think, and you can at least argue with them.

But then we have something much worse than such leftists. Leftists disguised as conservatives. And some of them are sincere, I'm sure. They've just soaked up so many of the principles of leftism that they don't know it, like a fish isn't really aware of the water he swims in, and to them "conservatism" is all about... moderating liberalism. Running in the same direction as the leftists, these faux-conservatives differ from the usual leftists only in that they urge that the running be a steady jog instead of a sprint, and that care is taken not to trip over anything. But many of them aren't sincere at all, but call themselves conservatives the better to confuse the issue and talk unsophisticated people into assisting the leftist agenda.

Jack Kerwick tells us about a particular weasel in sheep's clothing, doing his deception at, of all places, National Review.  This is from

With ‘Conservatives’ Like This, Who Needs Leftists?

National Review Online (NRO) blogger, Reihan Salaam—a self-declared “conservative” who also writes for the left-wing publication, Slate—recently charged those who prefer intra-racial dating with being “racist.”
Referencing a questionnaire on the dating site, OkCupid, Salaam expressed his shock over just how many peopleadmitted to having “strong same-race preferences.” “One would think,” Salaam writes, “that many people who do have such preferences would either choose not to disclose them publicly, or choose to skip the question entirely.”
Such people are “clueless,” Salaam continues, for “the moral appropriateness” of their practices is questionable.
The idea here seems to be something like this: Same-race preferences (at least when indulged in by whites) are bad because they lead to “in-group favoritism.” The latter is bad (at least when indulged in by whites), because it leads to “racial inequality.” This in turn is bad, for it is synonymous with “racism.”
And, of course, “racism” (at least when indulged in by whites) is the worse.
Government policies designed to combat “in-group favoritism” are bound to fail, Salaam laments, for “in-group favoritism is a powerful human impulse.” Thus, it’s more feasible for all decent, respectable types to simply aspire to “expand the boundaries of the in-group [.]” Approvingly referring back to “one of the more provocative Ph.D. dissertations I’ve ever read”—The Duty to Miscegenate—Salaam explains how this can be done. First, and most obviously, is by way of interracial procreation. He also asserts the need for more "inter-dining." "The rural white Southerner," he remarks, "who dines with nonwhites as a matter of course is doing more to tackle stigma than the urbane white hipster who hardly ever does the same."
Salaam concludes his essay by underscoring that "it’s [not] too much to ask those who do express such [same-race] preferences, and those who live them in practice, to reflect on them, and on how there might be more than fighting racism than voting ‘the right way.’"
That Salaam’s article could make it out of a college freshman course in critical thinking or ethics without being saturated in red ink, let alone be published in a widely read venue (however much of a rag), is a truly scandalous commentary on the intellectual and moral state of our culture. That he considers himself a "conservative," and is so considered by the folks at National Review (and beyond?), speaks volumes about the state of contemporary "conservatism."
It should be noted that Salaam nowhere supplies an argument for his thesis that intra-racial dating is "racist." Rather, he stacks the deck in favor of his conclusion from the very outset, and he does so through not one, but two, logical fallacies.
Salaam begs the question in favor of his position by assuming precisely that which needs to be proved: intra-racial dating is "racist." That his reasoning is viciously circular becomes obvious enough once we relieve it of the mountains of condescending fluff in which it is buried. It goes something like this: Intra-racial dating is “racist” because it leads to "racial inequality"—which is "racism." So, intra-racial dating is "racist" because it leads to "racism."
Yet at one and the same moment, Salaam also resorts to the old tried and true—but logically illicit—tactic of the ad hominem attack. Those who disagree with him aren’t just in error, and they aren’t just immoral: they are racist. Salaam, like every other inhabitant of the planet Earth in 2014, knows all too well that the charge of “racism” serves to simultaneously place the accuser on the side of the angels and the heads of the accused on the chopping block.
There are two other points.
First, if intra-racial dating (at least when practiced by whites) is “racist” and, hence, morally reprehensible, then those of us of racially homogenous backgrounds (at least if we are white) must reckon with the fact that our parents and grandparents were “racist” and, hence, morally reprehensible. Our very existence is questionable—the legacy of a crime, as it were—for if not for the “racism” of our ancestors, we would not be.
Second, it is true that Salaam—a so-called “conservative,” mind you, and a writer forNational Review—does not think that government should intervene to prevent or reduce intra-racial dating. However, this is only because he doesn’t think it is feasible. In other words, in theory he supports such action, but in practice he regards it as an exercise in futility.
This would be frightening stuff to hear coming from anyone’s lips. It’s that much worse coming from one who is promoted as being a conservative.
The verdict is decisive: If Salaam is any indication of the intellectual and moral fiber of the contemporary conservative movement, the movement is all but worthless.
With “conservatives” like Salaam, who needs leftists?
Quibcag: The girl is Ayuko Oka from Mysterious Girlfriend X (謎の彼女X. Nazo no Kanojo Ekkusu)

A Sterling Fellow

This is a bit of a catch-all. Right now the news is dominated by liberals gleefully screeching "racist" at Cliven Bundy and Donald T. Sterling. Despite the surface similarity, it's hard to imaging two more distinctly different men. My support for and esteem of Cliven Bundy is rock-solid. This is a productive, decent man who was in the wrong place (land Harry Reid wants to sell to China, evidently) at the wrong time (the Obama administration), and who has been picked for sacrifice. Donald T. Sterling, on the other hand, would seem to be a slimeball who is under attack by rival slimeballs. See Steve Sailer's Blog for theories about just how that's working.

So while I wish the best for Bundy, I feel differently about Sterling. Whatever punishment the NBA or whoever comes up with for him, I will happily regard it not as punishment for his comical blather on his phone, but for all the money he's poured into the downright evil NAACP over the years. Whatever it is, it will serve him right, for that reason and related ones.

And, as an aside, Bundy is of course one of the worst things imaginable — a White, non-liberal non-Northeasterner, non-metrosexual.  An "ignorant redneck," as he's been characterized all over the net. They're not calling Sterling that, of course, although the MAG is hoping we'll think of him that way. No, he's no redneck. He's actually Donald Tokowitz, not a hillbilly country boy at all, but a nice Jewish boy from Chicago, who grew up in L. A.  You can read about him HERE. That sort of accounts for the resemblance in the graphic. Do you have them sorted out yet?

You know who else he reminds me of? Same ethnicity, same sleaze, same attitude, same smell....Yeah!

Cliven Bundy, Gandhi and Self-Genocidal Idiocy

It is truly breathtaking, the extent to which Cliven Bundy has been demonized by the MAG (Media, Academia, Government). People who aren't paying a lot of attention think there must be something to the constant refrain that he's a "racist," and does "racist diatribes," but, ultimately, there's nothing to it. So there must be an agenda, right? Right. This from John Young at Western Voices World News:

Cliven Bundy, Gandhi and Self-Genocidal Idiocy

by John Young

The brain-damaged leftists generally elevate people to hero status on a very narrow range of issues.

For example, the National Organization for Women soundly endorsed Bill Clinton despite sexual harassment of a subordinate and credible allegations of rape simply because he favored public funding of abortions. Abortion, it is well-known, disproportionately affects blacks -- practically to the point of genocide -- yet he also received the support of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (Or, at least those who haven't been aborted).

A quick examination of heroes championed by the left reveals that, so long as these heroes serve a particular narrow purpose, they can hold practically any view without penalty.

Gandhi is extolled as an example of wisdom and ultimate virtue. Yet, his views on blacks as a species so inferior he wouldn't even tolerate them in his home were even more extreme than those of many labeled as "racist" today in America. Likewise, his views on homosexuals would have been entirely consistent with those of Iran. But because he served the leftist purpose, most people aren't even aware Gandhi held such views.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is so revered that in most of the United States, his birthday is a holiday. His agenda served a purpose of the left. Therefore, his sympathies with the murderous regime in Moscow that had murdered tens of millions of people and his extremely misogynistic views on women are hardly even known to the general public.

Likewise, Harry Reid was unafraid to refer to then-Senator Obama as having "No Negro dialect." He could get away with that because, of course, he served the purpose of the left.

So what does this have to do with Cliven Bundy?
Cliven Bundy is the rancher whose use of public property has been a matter of contention with the Bureau of Land Management, because of a crony-capitalism deal to make that land available for a solar energy project backed by Harry Reid.

Bundy owns no firearms of his own, but his confrontation with Federal officials made national news when independent citizen militias came to his aid to prevent the illegal destruction of his cattle.

Though the left labeled him as a terrorist because of the aid he received from citizen militias, he was a darling of the moderate right for this same reason.

But one thing we need to learn is that, to a large degree, left and right are the same thing in this country, simply displayed under different rhetoric. If you don't believe me, just look at results. Don't judge them by their words. Judge them instead by their deeds.

Several times in the past 20 years, Republicans (allegedly a "right wing" party) had control of the Presidency, both houses of Congress and a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court. During those times, was Affirmative Action repealed? No. Was the size, scope or cost of government decreased? No. Were any gun laws on the books repealed? No. Was the offshoring of American jobs stopped? No. Was the number of H1-B visas reduced? No. Was the size of the welfare state reduced? No. Were our borders enforced? No.

I could go on and on. On any issue that actually MATTERS, the standard right and the standard left may differ in degree, but they do not differ in substance. Instead, they pose and posture over issues that generally affect less than 1% of the population, such as gay marriage. But the marriage tax penalty that affects everyone else is left alone.

Therefore, it should come as no shock that the moderate right has now deserted Cliven Bundy over a poorly phrased remark with zero racist intent, but can be taken out of context and made to sound bad.

Cliven Bundy, looking at the destruction of the black family precipitated by the Great Society programs of the left, the rampant violence in black communities and so forth, stated that blacks were better off under slavery.

Now, obviously, in terms of personal freedom, blacks are better off today. However, in terms of human misery and death toll as a whole, Bundy has a point. More black people die from violence in their communities in a single week today than died under the entire period of Jim Crow.

Between 1619 and 1807, about 388,000 blacks were imported into what is now the U.S. as slaves. By 1860, there were a total of 3,950,528 slaves in the United States.

During slavery, about 64% of blacks lived in nuclear households with a father, mother and children. About 21% were single parents. Today, those statistics have reversed, with 67% of black children being raised without fathers.

Since 1973, over 200,000 blacks in the U.S. have died from AIDS, 306,000 have died from violence (usually black-on-black), and over 13 MILLION have been aborted. That's right. The total number of blacks who have died from the violence in their communities since 1973 is nearly as large as the total number of blacks imported into the United States during slavery, and the number of blacks aborted since 1973 is 300% larger than the total number of slaves in America in 1860.

So yes, in terms of sheer death toll and the scope of human misery, Cliven Bundy was correct.

And that is because the welfare state is, in itself, a form of slavery.

Quite frankly, if I were black, I'd be outraged at both the left and the (fake) right. But I'm not black. Because whenever blacks show up to vote, they block vote at a 90% rate in favor of the very candidates whose policies are most responsible for their genocide.

Unfortunately, most white voters don't seem any smarter. They keep voting for their own genocide as well.

I wonder when they will wake up?
Quibcag: The two virtually identical left-and-right girls are Naru Narusegawa (成瀬川 なる Narusegawa Naru) and Mutsumi Otohime (乙姫 むつみ Otohime Mutsumi) from the classic anime, Love Hina (ラブ ひな Rabu Hina)

Monday, April 28, 2014

Birds, Rice, Liberals, and Statism

It's seldom big things, but little things, that increase the power of the liberal/neocon state. It's almost always a case of the camel's nose under the tent. I can remember when Hubert Humphrey swore up and down that the Civil Rights bill wouldn't have that much of an effect, just make things a little "fairer." And who can object to "fairer"? But that was just the entering wedge. Soon, "fairness" led to massive Government interference with everything from employment to education to public accommodation, and the wreckage is still piling up. And we were even more recently assured that doing away with laws against homosexual behavior was a trivial little thing, again all about "fairness." So now we have homosexual "marriage," and people suing bakers for not making gay wedding cakes. And winning. And "environmentalism," which started out as discouraging dropping trash where Iron Eyes Cody could see it, is now grounds for slaughtering ranchers' cattle to protect turtles, destroying jobs all over the place, and teaching schoolkids to worship the Earth instead of actually learning stuff.

And A, X. "The Ax" Perez, tells us that something as simple as throwing rice at a wedding can lead to a self-perpetuating string of lies, all in the service of making us all behave in a way that liberals want us to, instead of the way we want to.

The Truth be Told
by A.X. Perez

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Recently I read an editorial page article decrying the release of doves at weddings and other similar events. The author's complaint was that the birds in question were totally domesticated and unsuited to survive in the wild. My first thought was that hawks, feral cats, and my dogs (who will kill and eat pigeons in my yard when the mood hits them) gotta eat and dove is tasty. My second thought was that this is a cautionary tale about why we need to resist Big government's efforts, whether benign or diabolical, to make us dependent on the state for survival (remember over half of Americans are collecting one benefit or another from Big G). Believe it or not, that's not my point.

The author of the article in question correctly pointed out that raising doves to depend on humans and then throwing them to the wild to starve or be lunch is cruel. Then said author pointed out that back in the Eighties the word got passed around to stop throwing rice at weddings because birds ate it and then died when the rice expanded in their crops. People believed this, and now it is somewhat less customary to throw rice at weddings. The author hoped that passing the word on how doves suffered would similarly help end the practice of releasing them at special events.

Little problem, I know that the birds and rice story is a lie. I will come back to that later (it is the point of this after all.). This inspired a little research and one of the first articles I hit was a statement by professional dove wranglers that in fact the doves they use are properly trained white homing pigeons. So all I will say is check the credentials of the people who release doves at your events. Make sure they are raising birds that will find their way home. Let's say the starving doves story is a half truth (predator chow is another story.).

However the rice story is a total lie. Basically birds guts are full of gizzard stones, acids, and enzymes that are used to turn rice and other things birds ingest into either bird or bird blood sugar. This myth was exposed almost immediately yet continues to enjoy credence. While I'm not sure why people continue to buy this lie, i've got a fairly good idea how it started.

I first heard the story that expanding rice killed birds back in the Eighties, about the time of the big famines in Africa. Somehow some liberal Church types took offense at the idea that people were wasting rice by throwing it at newlyweds while poor people were starving, so they began to get after people not to throw rice at weddings. Of course, it's rather obvious that nobody is going to throw enough rice to make a dent in world hunger at any given wedding. But still, throwing rice at weddings in a starving world is a waste. So...

Somwhere someone grabbed the "fact" out of thin air (or somewhere else) that when birds ate rice at weddings the rice expanded in their stomachs and killed the birds. They told a lie for a good cause.
And that is the way too many statists work. They have good intentions, come up with good causes. Then they tell a "little white lie" to push their cause. Then another, and another, and they create some new cause based on their lies and end up needing the state to solve their problem. The imaginary problem is based on one lie, then another, then a third. However, the laws they get passed aren't illusions, they are enforced with real fines and jail time.

So, if you want to release doves at your next wedding and you can line up an ethical and reliable company that leases them out enjoy yourself. And if you want to throw rice, well maybe the doves need a snack to last until they find their way home. However, in this and all other cases, don't let well intentioned liars erode your freedoms.

Which is the point of all these words.

Quibcag: I don't know who the girl is, but she's from

Feminists: Do not read this post. It might hurt your feelings.

In his blog, Uncle Bob's Treehouse, Bob Wallace is an inspiration to all us cranky old right-wing bloggers. See HERE. It's an understatement to say he's prolific. He does as many posts as I do, at least, but a lot of my posts, like this one, are partial or complete reprints, with a little commentary of my own. Bob's stuff is probably 95% original, and almost always startlingly iconoclastic. He's all over the map, skeptical about everything, and, Mencken-like, he sees through ritual and feel-good conventional wisdom to write about what is, not what ought to be. In this piece, he initally reacts to a particularly idiotic piece of feminist/liberal blather going around the net about "rape culture" and, especially ditzy, "men should be taught not to rape." The first time I came across it, I wondered if it should be done with Powerpoint, or maybe just let the Muppets try to handle it. And here I'll paraphrase Limbaugh to say that the first remedial student should be Bill Clinton. And I'll segue with this:

Warning: Some ditzy feminists may be offended by the following essay:

"Women Should Be Taught Not To Murder Their Babies"

I have for many years thought that liberals can't think, just imitate and memorize bad ideas.I was once told by a woman not too long ago, "Men should be taught not to rape." I did not ask, but suspected she also believed in "rape culture." (I once mentioned to a goofy-brained liberal woman that the only "rape culture" that existed was among blacks, and that about 36,000 white women a year were sexually assaulted by blacks and 0-10 black women by sexually assaulted by white men. That was a fun time.)

So I decided to have some fun with this foolish woman. Here is what I said:

"Women should be taught not to murder their babies."

I knew what the response would be, and I got it:

"Abortion is none of your business!"

Me: "I didn't say abortion, did I?"

Here is where her brains froze, so I pressed on: "Ninety-eight percent of newborns who are murdered in their first week of life are murdered by their mothers."

I got the Denial of Reality that is one of the main characteristics of liberals

"I don't believe that!"

"That's because liberals are like the Cowardly Lion. If you say, 'I wish! I wish!' long and hard enough you think reality changes. If you don't believe what I said, Google it. You're not my kid and I didn't take you to raise. You can do it on your own. You're all grown up, aren't you?"

According to the Center for Disease Control: "Among homicides during the first week of life, 82.6 percent occurred on the day of birth, 9.2 percent on the second day, and 8.2 percent during the remainder of the week...infant homicide [is] probably under-reported."

There is more weirdness involved: "The second highest peak in risk for infant homicide occurs during the eighth week of life and may be due to a caregiver's reaction to an infant's persistent crying. Infant crying duration peaks at six to eight weeks of age."

Don't cry, babies! Your mother just might rub you out!

On a related note, when you look at the distilled wisdom of the human race - folk tales - you'll find children/young women who are the objects of attempted murder by women (in their case, unrelated woman). Take a look at "Hansel and Gretel" ..."Cinderella"..."Sleeping Beauty." In the last two stories, the cruelty was done out of envy.

Now why is it we never hear about any of this? We hear about how women are supposed to be underpaid compared to men (they're not), and this and that and ban bossy, but not a peep about what women do to their infants.

I have always considered women worse than men. Think the myths about Eve and Pandora.
Liberals would rather live in their silly fantasy worlds where they are innocent and self-righteous and everyone else is guilty and evil.

Men in the past never allowed women to vote, because they understood what they would do to society. That is, destroy it. Like annihilating the next generation.

One other thing - you're more likely to be murdered in your first few weeks of life than for the rest of your life. After all, babies can't fight back.
Quibcag:  The girl, I believe, is Rin from Fate/stay night (フェイト/ステイナイト Feito/sutei naito)

Images of a Right-Wing Blogger

Gaikokumaniakku did this clever post HERE, which prompted me to do this:






Hey, Gaikokumaniakku, I can't figure out how to comment on your blog!

Hickory-Dockracy, Panpherohoplocracy

Sooner or later I'll write the second part of Hoppeanism Or Panpherohoplocracy? — A Self-Referential Metapost, but not just yet. Vulture of Critique is way ahead of me in speculation about the implications of Panpherohoplocracy. (If you can't figure the word out, here's a graphic novel about a panpherohoplocratic country.) Anyhow, I've been fencing with a congeries of liberals at various places on the net about the concept of an armed society. Most of them are simply hoplophobes, and there's no reasoning with them whatsoever. They have a visceral aversions to firearms, except when their beloved film stars utilize them in movies.

Now, I'm sure Vulture of Critique is no more starry-eyed than I am, and is well aware that utopias are unattainable. But, again like me, I think, he seems to believe that utopia can be approached a lot closer than we have so far, maybe even asymptotically. (When I read VofC, my vocabulary just naturally proliferates.)

So, in this link, he extrapolates from the idea of Panpherohoplocracy to what kind of society or societies it would naturally lead to, and frankly, they sound pretty good to me. He also, as he so often does, provides me with an excellent quibcag quote. So click on, and enjoy

What can Report From Iron Mountain suggest about panpherohoplocracy?
Quibcag: The armed girls, who, you'll notice, aren't shooting one another or anybody else, are, of course from "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

Sunday, April 27, 2014

Quibcag Archive

We've done quite a few quibcags here. I say we, because Baloo actually makes them, while I help him think them up. Anyhow, readers have asked if they can use them, and the answer is "of course." And sometimes they remember one and ask me to tell them where to find it, and so many have been done by now that they're hard to find. Well, I've begun a Quibcag Archive, all the way to the bottom on the sidebar there. They're more or less in order of the name of the person quoted, and that's all the sorting I seem to be able to do.

So a request:

Can any computer-savvy readers out there do a searchable archive of quibcags for us?  Like, arranged by author, subject, category, maybe even by illustration origin? On this site, or one of Baloo's sites, or on your own site? Or any other way that would be useful? Or, failing that, make suggestions as to how we can do that, within Blogger or elsewhere? I see these showing up, along with other memes, on Facebook and other media, and at least some people are finding them very handy to make points with, and, if we say so ourselves, they are more attractive and eye-catching that the usual graphic memes.

The Further Demonization of Cliven Bundy

I've just now been listening to a bunch of talking heads on "Media Buzz" falling over one another to be the most horrified at the words of poor old Cliven Bundy. I'm listening as closely as I can bear to, and it was instructive that they praised/blessed the egregious faux-conservative Sean Hannity for his expressed horror about the whole incident. Bundy, of course, said nothing that any sane person could be horrified about, as I demonstrated in THIS post, and afterwards in THIS post. So what I've witnessed this morning, and all over the media over the last few days, is pure herd behavior, Orwellian behavior. Of course, it wouldn't really matter to the issue of the grazing rights and the Government's behavior whether Bundy is a right-wing something or other or a Scientologist or a Druid or anything else, but picking at him this way — and it is permitted to do so, because he's an Old White Guy — serves as a wonderful distraction to the actual issue, and sets up the public to accept anything that Obama wants to do to him, jail him or shoot him or confiscate all his property or whatever. That's called "demonizing."

Again I'm on the point of ranting, so let me defer to A. X. "The Ax" Perez, who has a much cooler head than I do on this subject, and whose observations are always worth listening to:


Cliven Bundy has become all things to all people.
Some see him as the darling of those who would 
resist overweening government power and its abuse.
Others see him as the victim of a plot to steal his
land for the friends of those with political power. 
Still others see him as a bit of a jerk who has been running
cattle on his neighbors' land without permission or 
paying fair rent, both that of the government and other
people's private property. By now both sides have started
churning the rumor mill to where differentiating fact from 
fiction is all but impossible, let alone determining who
is right ( and to be honest the mainstream media has 
worked hard to reach this point.).

Speaking of the mainstream media, this wonderful bunch
chose to release comments made by Mr. Bundy butchered 
to make him sound like a racist jerk. Several 
"libertarian/conservative 'leaders'" (use of multiple quotation
marks carefully considered these men just proved they are phonies
as lib/cons and lack the appropriate hormonal balance and sense of
justice to lead) were quick to jump ship on him before the truth came 
out. What amazes is the need demonstrated by progressives for Mr.
Bundy to be racist, or homophobe, or religious fanatic, or some other 
kind of pariah unworthy of having rights. This tells me more than I
ever wanted to know about liberals, they have a need to for somebody
to ostracize and marginalize, to create a group of people it's okay to
to bully, rob, and murder. Sound like the kind of people who march around 
in snazzy uniforms with a cool insignia on an armband and saluting a leader/

We are close to a civil and war my friends, and what surprises me is the number 
of people who want it to happen,who appear unwilling to let people run their
own lives or even vote on how to run their lives, but who want to point guns at
their neighbors and force the rest of us to be their kind of people. And some of 

them are people who honestly think they are friends of liberty. 
Quibcag: I actually came across this quote used in a completely different connection over at The Irish Savant, a site I visit regularly, but it is universally applicable to a host of such issues. The thoughtful girl in the illustration is Yuki Nagato (長門 有希 Nagato Yuki) from the anime, The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu)

Saturday, April 26, 2014

MORE Racism!

I just hope this is satire and not a prediction.

Cliven Bundy Proved Guilty of Whiteness

I almost never do, but last night I happened to listen to that steaming pile of political correctness, Bill O'Reilly. He was flinging faux-conservative dung at Cliven Bundy, along with all his buddies, some of whom are a little more honest about being left-wing slimeballs. O'Reilly, a poodle in pit bull's clothing, has never seen a liberal position he's not ready to cave in to after a short period of pro forma conservative-sounding blather. He took the position that Bundy was "ignorant," evidently meaning that he doesn't spend half his time checking with the elite pundits like him to see what the current acceptable terminology is for any and all sacred minority groups. As I showed in an earlier post HERE, only a fool or a liar could construe anything Bundy has said as "racist," no matter how broad one's definition.

But to hell with O'Reilly. He's a pissant.

Cliven Bundy isn't Black, or Hispanic, or LGBT, or a latté-swilling White liberal either. Therefore, he's pure evil, and it really doesn't matter what he does or says. He's the enemy of the MAG (Media, Academia, Government). Not only is he an old White guy, he's a productive White guy, who isn't at the Government teat. On the contrary, the controversy is about his failing to give the Government a little more of his money so it can build turtle sanctuaries, or something. And if that issue wasn't available, the MAG would find another reason to condemn him, demonize him, and slaughter a few of his cattle, à la Waco, just to show that they can do it and get away with it.

It's about identity. You'll notice that Bundy's benign attitude towards illegal aliens isn't nearly enough to absolve him of the sin of Whiteness. Make no mistake — all of this is about wiping Whites out, politically, economically, and, finally, biologically, to make room for the Brave New World of no borders, no standard, and the ultimate supremacy of Wall Street.

I'm beginning to rant again. Read what Gregory Hood has to say at Counter-Currents:

Waking Up From the American Dream
Fear of a White Rancher

Multiculturalism is the state ideology of the System – and you will be made to agree. Even a sadly conventional old rancher protecting his cattle has become an Enemy of the People, as no one will be permitted to escape the Empire of Diversity. 
The rekindling of the “sagebrush rebellion” is an instructive guide to the contemporary Culture Wars, as neither side is talking about what is actually at stake. The Right is mumbling vaguely about the Constitution. The Left is screeching about the Rule of Law. Neither of these things matter in our system of government.
As always, this is a battle about identity. As usual, once they make their initial ideological claim, the Left quickly admits the primal tribal (or should that be Tribal?) impulse behind their motivations, while American conservatism takes solace in misleading rhetoric so they don’t have to admit they are on the same side as rural white people.
The issue started when one Cliven Bundy of Nevada refused to pay fees that would allow his cattle to graze on land adjacent to federal land. As a result, the Bureau of Land Management moved to seize his cattle. Though Bundy is clinging to the view that the “sovereign state of Nevada” and not the federal government owns the land, it seems clear that Bundy is in the legal wrong and simply does not want to give up his cattle.
But the law is an ass. And it’s more complicated than that. While Bundy and other ranchers once enjoyed free grazing on the land, the federal government is slowly squeezing ranchers ostensibly in the name of “protecting” federal holdings and the environment. In Bundy’s case, his family’s doom was sealed because of a tortoise. The Bureau of Land Management ruled that Bundy would have to pay a fee for each head of cattle in response to a native tortoise being listed under the Endangered Species Act. Bundy did not pay, and legal battles resulted, which Bundy of course had no chance to win.
The same federal government which can’t pay for body armor for American soldiers or a simple fence at the American border did manage to find helicopters and advanced surveillance to keep track of exactly how much cattle Bundy had assembled. When the BLM moved in, they tasered Bundy’s son, sicced snipers and police dogs on citizens, and barricaded protesters in a “First Amendment Zone” similar to those set up to cordon off conservatives on college campuses.
The BLM also began confiscating Bundy’s cattle, though it denied that it was killing them. We now know that was a lie and that the animals were being slaughtered. The BLM backed down in the face of citizen opposition – including militias – and the media on the East and Left Coasts began screeching about “thuggery.” Of course, they didn’t mean the people pointing guns at ranchers – they meant the citizens who came to protest it.
The reaction of the System’s media and its obedient followers is an illuminating guide to the precarious physical security of the historic American nation in the Age of Obama. For a fun experiment, check out the comments section of the likes of the Huffington Postwhenever there’s a tornado or flood in a Red State and enjoy the pure vitriol and death threats made against white Americans. For that matter, check out the comments section anytime a conservative has a child. Of course these people want to kill us. Of course they would celebrate if the BLM simply opened up on the crowd. Trayvon Martin will be honored in the degenerate churches across the continent, but who will mourn for productive citizens except “racists?”
And the media did not disappoint this time. Ryan Cooper at The Week was relatively restrained in his dismissal of “some kook and his pack of assault rifle-wielding thugs.”, featuring the usual stable of anti-white bigots doing their best to make Julius Streicher look like Wendell Berry, is ululating with a never ending series of articlesconcern-trolling about “violence” – as if the government hasn’t already unleashed it. They are also explicitly arguing that the BLM needs use more regulation to drive out the ranchers, not less.
Among them are liberal creationist Amanda Marcotte, who connected the issue to her “right” to have others pay for her birth control, not surprisingly considering her hatred of children (a blessing if it ensures she remains an evolutionary dead end). And of course, there is the usual librage against “angry old white men” who dare disobey the multiculturalAdministratum and think they can “disobey the law.” A Heather Digby Parton desperately screeches that she’s still cool and sneers that conservatives “never had a day of sheer, joyful fun in their sad, unimaginative lives.” One can only say that the tragic spectacle of a withered Lefty crone having flashbacks about Woodstock because it was the last time she received male attention is sufficient in itself to discredit everything she’s ever said.
The Southern Poverty Law Center is continuing its mission creep by flailing about Bundy. It’s tempting to ask why an organization ostensibly dedicated to fighting “hate” should care one way or the other about whether some rancher gets to keep his cows. But as the Family Research Council, the Foundation for American Immigration Reform, “pick up artists” who teach men to approach women, Senator Rand Paul, and The Lord of the Rings are all apparently threats to the System these days, it’s no surprise that the SPLC is shrieking about “extremists” in the West, and Mark Potok has been brought on MSNBC to read his press releases about “imminent bloodshed” “entirely provoked” by Bundy and his supporters.
(Read the rest HERE.)
Quibcag: Again, not exactly a quibcag. This isn't an appropriate quote for something cute. Instead, I used a picture of a Yakuza thug that I found HERE.

The Mother Of All Blog Posts

No, not this one....

Steve Sailer has written what might be the greatest blog post in history. As you read it, keep Orwell, Jonathan Swift, and Aesop in mind. I shall say no more. Just read THIS, and he has a follow-up HERE.
The illustration is of J. Fred Muggs, a Pan troglodytes-American, and friend.

Friday, April 25, 2014

Cliven Bundy Joins the Ranks of Hitlers

Just to clarify matters a little bit, here's what Bundy said in context, not that it matters a damn one way or the other. Obama's jerking him around because he can. It doesn't matter what he said or thinks about anything. They're demonizing him this way to scare off the fair-weather "conservatives." And it's working, of course.  This is from Truth Revolt:

Unedited Tape of Bundy Emerges, Sheds Light on 'Racist' Remarks

A new, unedited version of comments by Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy has emerged, and it sheds some light on the context of his remarks, universally condemned on Thursday as horrifically racist.
The 67-year-old Bundy, battling the U.S. government after federal agents stormed his ranch to confiscate his cattle in a dispute over grazing fees, said far more than what appeared in the New York Times and most other news accounts. While his grammar is pretty bad -- and his use of "negro" and "colored" considered politically incorrect (although they were both once preferred terms chosen by blacks) -- he actually was making a larger point, not simply deriding blacks.
In a YouTube video, he is filmed already in mid-sentence. 
... and so what I've testified to you -- I was in the Watts riot, I seen the beginning fire and I seen that last fire. What I seen is civil disturbance. People are not happy, people are thinking they don't have their freedoms, they didn't have these things, and they didn't have them.
We've progressed quite a bit from that day until now, and we sure don't want to go back. We sure don't want the colored people to go back to that point. We sure don't want these Mexican people to go back to that point. And we can make a difference right now by taking care of some of these bureaucracies, and do it in a peaceful way.
Those comments appear to change the context of the next section, which was quoted in the New York Times. One clear point the rancher made: America has progressed since the 1965 race riots and "we sure don't want to go back." 
Here are the heavily quoted comments from Bundy that followed the above section edited out by most news organizations.
Let me tell, talk to you about the Mexicans, and these are just things I know about the negroes. I want to tell you one more thing I know about the negro. When I go, went, go to Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and I would see these little government houses, and in front of that government house the door was usually open and the older people and the kids -- and there's always at least a half a dozen people sitting on the porch. They didn’t have nothing to do. They didn’t have nothing for their kids to do. They didn’t have nothing for their young girls to do.
And because they were basically on government subsidy -- so now what do they do? They abort their young children, they put their young men in jail, because they never, they never learned how to pick cotton. And I’ve often wondered are they were better off as slaves, picking cotton and having a family life and doing things? Or are they better off under government subsidy?
You know they didn’t get more freedom, they got less freedom -- they got less family life, and their happiness -- you could see it in their faces -- they wasn't happy sitting on that concrete sidewalk. Down there they was probably growing their turnips -- so that’s all government, that’s not freedom.
But Bundy went on after saying that -- and again, his comments were edited out of most reports.
Now, let me talk about the Spanish people. You know, I understand that they come over here against our Constitution and cross our borders. But they’re here and they’re people -- and I’ve worked side by side a lot of them.
Don’t tell me they don’t work, and don’t tell me they don’t pay taxes. And don’t tell me they don’t have better family structures than most of us white people. When you see those Mexican families, they’re together, they picnic together, they’re spending their time together, and I’ll tell you in my way of thinking they’re awful nice people. And we need to have those people join us and be with us not, not come to our party.
So, Bundy thinks Hispanics are hard-working family people, and laments the current plight of American blacks under the federal welfare system while saying there has been much progress and that "we sure don't want to go back." As always, there's more to the story than what the New York Times says.

A Neale Osborn Gun Rant, Short, But Not Too Big Around

Neale starts out this week with a quote for Mama Liberty, wondering why feminists cry out to be rendered helpless, then some speculation about the Great Western Land Grab. Something about "unloaded carry" in California, which is like having the First Amendment as long as you speak inaudibly. And evidently John Kerry wants Connecticut to disarm the Ukraine or something. And...Bloomberg again. And that great Perez quote that we made a quibcag out of back HERE. And when I can't figure out anything else to do, I run an illustration from "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 )

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 4-20-2014
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

From Mama Liberty's own pen, this time. [Link]
Unfortunately, these women are very eager to believe that they can live in the land of unicorns and fairy farts. They don’t want—or cannot even conceive of—personal responsibility for anything. They see oppression on every hand when their choices and actions result in pain and loss (when they can actually see and admit it at all)... it’s someone else’s fault, of course—and their lives would be so wonderful if EVERYONE they don’t like were forced to be mewling newborn kittens. They can’t even begin to see the hypocrisy here.
So true. As has been said so many times, a woman voting for gun control er, Victim Disarmament, is like a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders.

I REALLY hope they do! [Link] It appears that at least 9 western states are contemplating taking back control of lands the federal government has claimed for itself, so that valuable oil, timber, and mineral rights will be available for the states to use, rather than being tied up by EPA, BLM, and other ridiculous federal agencies to save a frigging turtle or snail darter.
Officials from nine Western states met in Salt Lake City on Friday to discuss taking control of federal lands within their borders on the heels of a standoff between Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy and the Bureau of Land Management.

The lawmakers and county commissioners discussed ways to wresting oil-, timber- and mineral-rich lands away from the feds. Utah House Speaker Becky Lockhart said it was in the works before this month's standoff.
Maybe we can set a precedent for reviving the country, both economically AND Constitutionally.
Kahleefourneeyah is at it again. After a defeat four years ago of a bill to permit the open carry of unloaded firearms (Yeah, you read that right—UNLOADED firearms—less usefull that tits on a boar hog), Gun Owners of California (GOC) is once more pushing for open carry in California. Now, do not get me wrong—I happen to support ANY type of carry, anywhere (other than on private property where the property-owner prohibits weapons), anytime, without permission from ANY government official or bureaucrat. I just wonder why they think they have a chance on the left coast?
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the push comes four years after a group of gun owners in Northern California pushed for open carry of "unloaded handguns," and two years since the state legislature passed a law banning open carry "except for rural counties where a gun owner obtains law enforcement permission."

But now that the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled twice in favor of gun rights regarding concealed carry—once on February 13th and again on March 5th—GOC's Sam Paredes believes the time is right to pursue open carry again.
Can't hurt to try. Dunno why they ask—if you REALLY want to get somewhere, stage an armed rally. 5000 openly armed people peacefully sitting on the law the capitol in Sacramento might do the trick......

Jerkoff Johnny Kerry today spoke about the "solution to the problem between Russia and the Ukraine". In laying out the solution, he said something scary to a 2nd Amendment supporter such as myself. He said that part of the deal was that all "Illegally armed" civilians were to be disarmed. A few questions, Mr. Kerry. Who determines who is "illegally armed"? The government of Ukraine, the government of Russia, or the UN? Let me make this CRYSTAL CLEAR. There are NO illegally armed civilians. Being armed and able to defend yourself against attack is a basic human, civil, and, in America, Constitutional right. Now, taking up arms to aid one country to steal all or part of another country, especially against the will of the majority of the populace of said country, is not being aggression free. I do not claim to know all about the crap going on in Crimea or Ukraine. I do not know (or to be honest, give a damn), but one thing I DO know is that I do not want MY country to aid or abet the forcible disarming of civilians ANYWHERE on the globe.

Nanny Bloomberg attempts to strike again. [Link] He is going to spend 50 million dollars of his own money to finance a new anti-gun lobby. As my good friend, A.X. Perez said in the same missive that contains the Quote of the Week,
He is also donating $50 million to Everytown against Gun Violence, his latest anti-gun front group. I will give him props for using his own money, but i'm sure he and his supporters will find a way to tap into public funds (our tax money) soon enough.
Probably. But on the bright side (IF we can believe anything the lying former mayor says) he will NOT run for president.

The deadline... is past! Dum dum DUM!!!! Ve vill be comink to seize your assault rifles (which are NOT assault rifles, in point of fact) because you haff failed to comply vis our anti-Constitutional NYSafe Act. Midnight, 4-15-2014, was the deadline for rolling over, pissing on your belly, and sucking off the communist asswipe governor, baby-Don Andrew Cuomo. I am proud to say that not one person I know who will admit to having one of these eeeeevillllll weapons or their magazines has has complied. well, except for the owner of ONE local gun shop, who has had to because he owns a Desert Eagle .44mag handgun- which is an assault rifle. No, you did not misread me, and I did not mistype. Any semi-automatic handgun that weighs over 50 ounces, empty, is an assault rifle. Don't ask me why, because I do not know. I'm lucky- currently, I own no pseudo-assault weapons. I wish I did, but the money just isn't around for one right now.

Watch the included video. Clive hasn't won the war, perhaps, but he sure as shot won the battle. [Link] Citizen cowboys on horseback, citizen protesters on foot, and the federales retreat. The bloviating Harry Reid states that "It isn't over, but one has to wonder if he'll win his next bid for the Nevada seat....

Permit me to wander through the current "assault-style" weapons debate. United States V Miller was the case that got sawed-off shotguns declared class three because they "serve no purpose in a militia". Setting the table for all the arguments that a weapon can be banned or restricted severely if it serves no militia purpose. Yet a militia is a group of people, regular or irregular, that uses personally owned weapons for defense of state or country if called by the appropriate people. SO, why is it okay to ban the perfect militia weapons- semi-auto, select-fire, or full auto one-person weapons? I think we have approached this from the wrong direction....

Our Quote of the Week:

I am puzzled how groups that claim to seek to empower women encourage them to embrace the false security of being disarmed and relying on others to defend them. It will be interesting to see if women find packing heat or giving up their right to own the tools of self defense more empowering. A.X.Perez, 4-16-2014

Note that this quote is what triggered Mama Liberty's weekly contribution.
Now, I need to go help my lovely wife with the holiday baking. Easter Pie—YUM!