Sunday, August 31, 2014

An Alternate History Question: President Rumsfeld?

I think I found this link at, but in any case, it's a fascinating question, asked over at National Review Online. Go there and give it a read, and then I'll give my reaction.....

If Reagan Had Picked Rumsfeld as His Vice President, Would We Never Have Had President Clinton?
My reaction is maybe. Clearly, Rumsfeld would have been a good choice for Reagan. His resume wasn't as good as Bush's, but his credentials were solid. I doubt that he would have ever been perceived as wishy-washy as Bush was, and I'm virtually certain he would not have picked Dan Quayle as his VP. My guess it that it would have been either Jack Kemp or Howard Baker. Let's say Baker to add a Southerner to the ticket. He would certainly have won over Dukakis, for the same reasons that Bush did.

And, assuming that Gulf War I would have happened as it did, and the Soviet collapse had done so as well, I expect Rumsfeld would have been much better at taking credit for both, and would not have been challenged for the nomination by Pat Buchanan, changing the 1992 from a downer to an upper for Rumsfeld. Likewise, a Perot candidacy very well might not have taken place.  Now, with Baker on the Repubican ticket, Clinton would most likely not have picked Gore as his running mate, and would have gone with, say Jerry Brown, and regretted it. My guess is that the election would have been closer than in our history, but that Rumsfeld would have beaten Clinton and served a second term.

Then what? Baker would have been 67 in 1996, and probably would not have been nominated. Having lost, Clinton probably wouldn't have been nominated a second time. My guess: Mario Cuomo with Bob Kerrey as running mate would have beaten a Republican ticket of Phil Gramm and Arlen Specter. Cuomo-Kerrey would win again in 2000 against Lamar Alexander and Jack Kemp.

9-11 would have happened as it did in our time, but instead of Gulf War II, Cuomo would have responded in a more piecemeal fashion, accomplishing as much as Bush did, but not being perceived as well. This would have resulted in Fred Thompson-Rudy Giuliani beating a Bob Kerrey-Evan Bayh ticket in 2004 and being reelected in 2008 against Dick Durbin and John Edwards.

And in 2012, Rudy Giuliani, running with Mitt Romney, would have beaten the Democratic ticket of Chuck Schumer and Ken Salazar and he'd be President right now.

No Clintons, no Obamas.

Now, it's your turn. Pick this to pieces.
NOTE!  A commenter interpreted this post as my saying that Rumsfeld would have been a good President. NO NO NO!  He would have been a terrible President, at least as bad as Bush the First. This is just an alternate history speculation about what would have followed if he had been President. Me, I wanted Pat Buchanan to be President.

Interstellar Political Correctness, AKA "Star Trek"

When we actually get to the 23-24th century era, I expect that people will have a lot of fun watching the old Star Trek tapes or pods or whatever format they'll be in, much like it's fun for us to real science-fiction novels from a century ago and and see how wrong they got it.

Actually, though, I'd call myself a Star Trek fan. Not a Trekkie, which I take to be a true-believer fan. I actually kind of missed the original series (TOS) the first time around, what with being in the Army most of the time and all, but what I did see of it didn't impress me much, probably because I'd been a science fiction reader from childhood — I still have vivid memories of reading Perelandra and Pebble in the Sky for the first time, and marveling at it. Before that, I'd read through all the Doctor Dolittle books (the unexpurgated versions, BTW) and they were certainly SF for kids.

Even for TV, I didn't think ST was all that innovative, because Twilight Zone was mostly much more sophisticated. If anything, TOS seemed like Captain Video or Tom Corbett, Space Cadet upgraded for a more adult viewership.

Then, much later, the first movie came out, and, though still somewhat hokey for a veteran science fiction reader, it was a definite improvement. And after a year or so of shaking off the TOS sensibility, Star Trek: The Next Generation (TNG) really got to a mature level, and was genuinely enjoyable. DS9, in many ways, ratcheted things up a notch, and added a gritty realpolitic feel to the franchise, which I very much appreciated. Voyager, by any measure, was a joke, sort of the B-Team version of ST. And my theory of Voyager, which I'm sure I've mentioned before, is that it never really happened, but was a holodeck program created by and for Clerk-Typist Third Class Janeway of Starfleet for use in her free time. Enterprise had some good writing and good ideas in it, but I thought Bakula unconvincing in his role and the whole thing never really gelled for me.

But to the point: ST is no exception to the political correctness rules of television. First and foremost, it underscores the myth of our age, that diversity is strength, as in the illustration. (Tribbles, of course, carried diversity a little too far.) In reality, the racial and cultural diversity championed by ST and other PC TV shoss is a weakness, as a moment of actual thought will confirm. If you actually did welcome welcome Klingons into Starfleet, of course, you'd have a lot of Major Nidal Hasan incidents — maybe they do, and the Federation equivalent of Eric Holder just suppresses the information. They did make Worf as believable as possible by having him brought up by human parents.

Come to think of it, I've said a lot of this before. Just put STAR TREK in the search box at the top right there and you'll find it. This post is mainly just a reaction to the nice quibcag that Baloo made for me there.

Saturday, August 30, 2014

The Obvious Solution to ISIS

Obama, as we all know by now, has no strategy to deal with ISIS or anything else, really. But the strategy is actually quite obvious. It eluded us all, however, until John Craig over at Just Not Said pointed it out:

Spreading the good word

Last night I asked a friend who is a Middle East expert what he thought we should do about ISIS, what with their convert-or-die ultimatums, their killing of journalists, their intent to commit genocide against the Yazidis, and their desecration of sacred Muslim relics.

He shrugged helplessly and said the situation over there is as bad as he's ever seen it. He said they would have to be stopped eventually, and that Iraq would probably have to be carved up into three parts. The Kurds, in the north, will have oil. And the Shiites, in the south, will also have oil. But the Sunnis, in the West, will be left without oil. These ancient blood rivalries and the unequal distribution of wealth are why ISIS, essentially a Sunni movement, plans to capture the oil fields in the Kurdish north.

It was when I was driving home after dinner that it hit me: the only reason there is so much strife in Iraq is, they don't yet appreciate that their diversity is their strength!

All we need to do is go over and teach them this philosophy, which has worked so well here in the U.S. In fact, that's all we need to do all over the globe.

The Israelis and Palestinians will learn to coexist in peace, as soon as they realize that their diversity is their strength.

Ditto for the Ukrainians and ethnic Russians in the Ukraine. All their problems will be over, as soon as they get the good word.

The Chechnyans and Russians? Same simple solution.

All we Americans need to do is export our superior wisdom.

Friday, August 29, 2014

Paul Gottfried on the Degeneracy of Conservatism and World War I

Time was when conservatives were actually conservative. They had a sense of history and the "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude. But that's old hat now. Conservatives are, at their best, liberals who are slightly more prudent than other liberals. And I do mean slightly. Because of that, I never call them conservatives. The last really conservative Presidential candidate was Goldwater, and the only prominent conservative today is Pat Buchanan. So these contemporary, self-styled "conservatives" are better called "neoconservatives," and I don't really like that word, because they're not conservatives in any sense at all. Calling them "neoconservatives" is like calling Scientologists "neocatholics." As for World War I, I've always believed that the whole thing was a damn mess caused by the major powers not having sense enough to avoid a general war, with the Brits being way too aggressive. But I'm no historian, and Paul Gottfried is. Here's what he says over at the Unz Review:

Ignorant Conservatives and August 1914
Those Intellectuals Who Know Nothing of the Past May Help to Repeat It

Thursday, August 28, 2014

L. Neil Smith Report, and Breakfast

Guest post by Baloo.

I stopped by to visit L. Neil Smith yesterday. I'm happy to report that he's on the mend. First, he asked me to thank everybody's who's been helping him and his family out during his illness. His speech is almost completely back to normal now, and he's regaining a lot of the physical control he temporarily lost. He's eager to get back to writing, but for the time being, he suggested that I reprint one of his classic pieces below.

Neil and I think alike in many ways, but what makes it interesting is that we're also complete opposites in other ways. I pointed out before HERE that he's a cat person and I'm a dog person. Also, as you'll learn, he's a night person and I'm a morning person. Me, I love eggs in the morning, though the fact that I'm a good fifty pounds overweight leads me to be prudent, but not because I want to be. (As Robert Benchley once said, I'm considered rather agile in spite of my enormous weight.) Ideally, they should be fried over medium, but I'm not too picky. Bacon? Hell, yes! Sausage? Bring it on! Muffins? Okay (but, like Neil says, not the McDonald's version), though biscuits made in the old Midwestern style (no gravy, please) are the ideal. And I won't sneer at a pancake now and then. There are a couple of good cereals out there, but mostly, as Neil suggests, they're only slightly superior to shredded styrofoam.

Now to Neil:

I Hate Breakfast

By L. Neil Smith

         I don't know about you, but it annoys the hell out of me that someone else gets to decide that I can't have a cheeseburger and fries before eleven in the morning. 

         I hate breakfast and always have. Confronting eggs before noon -- fried, poached, or otherwise 
-- makes me bilious. Pancakes and waffles are worse. The one thing bacon is good for is sticking between lettuce and tomatoes in a sandwich (slathered with Miracle Whip -- mayonnaise isn't the same at all) you'd choose for that vastly more civilized meal, lunch. And to paraphrase Apocalypse Now, the smell of maple syrup in the morning reminds me of ... napalm. 

         In my youth, I never ate breakfast. I was a night-person forced to suffer government indoctrination at daybreak. Eating anything under such conditions induced nausea; I was content to wait for lunch. I still rise early to get Cathy off to work before resuming labor on the current novel. I'm also a Type II diabetic who takes pills that make it absolutely necessary that I eat something. Still, the only thing the pimpled dimbulbs out along the fast food strip will sell me is exactly the kind of glop I've spent an entire lifetime avoiding. 

         For over a century, corporations like Kellogg, Post, and a dozen others have spent quintillions of advertising dollars in a horrifyingly successful attempt to persuade mothers that the cattle feed they manufacture is suitable to foist off on helpless children before they're wide awake enough to defend themselves. 

         It's enlightening to learn the history of these companies. Vegetarians today believe that consuming animal flesh spawns an urge to violence in the human psyche. (Keep in mind what I said about vegetarians in Pallas: you are what you eat.) A century ago, the overriding preoccupation was sexuality, especially what was politely referred to way back then as "self-abuse". (This was later defined in the 60s as "doing your own thing".) Kellogg and others claimed that laying off sirloins and stuffing yourself with hormone-absorbing cereal products closely resembling wood shavings would somehow prevent impure thoughts. 

         (For a hilarious examination of this topic, The Road to Wellville is a movie demonstrating that the goofiest garbage our grandmothers thought up -- mine got undressed in her bedroom closet, even when she was alone in the house -- are not too goofy for the hairsprayed heads of TV to attempt to convince us of today. Guess it proves you can hide as many bees in a bouffant as in a bonnet.) 

         Cereal magnates of the late 19th and early 20th centuries believed a lot of other goofy things, as well -- in particular, in various trendy forms of socialism, which they gleefully advocated and subsidized in a variety of manners. 

         Which brings us at long last, I think, to some kind of point. 

         Today's captains of the fast food industry are no more contented simply to make billions of bucks than their corn-flakey predecessors were. They gotta be socially conscious. They gotta fry potatoes up in some tasteless petroleum byproduct instead of delicious, natural lard. What's worse, they gotta shovel mountains of mazuma over to those very social and political causes most grimly dedicated to reducing us -- the ultimate source of all their largesse, already forced to pay for too much of this nonsense through taxation -- under absolute despotism. 

         There are entire countries with gross national products smaller than the amounts that the founders of McDonald's have bestowed upon Democratic Party grabbies who routinely confiscate half of my income, have spent half their lifetimes (and mine) trying to confiscate my means of self-defense, and who would even take away my right to choose my own doctor. They support criminals who want to kill me or make my life so miserable that I'll kill myself. Small wonder, then, they also feel entitled to decide for me what I should eat for breakfast. 

         I suppose it's possible that the fast food empires have never looked at things in quite this way before. (People say that a lot about what I write.) What's more, if they feel right about offering me a rubber egg on a pasteboard muffin instead of what I really want, why shouldn't I tell them what to do? And so, on the very remote chance that they may be interested in making up for their malfeasances, misfeasances, nonfeasances, upfeasances, downfeasances, sidefeasances, or whatever other feasances they may be guilty of, I have a few suggestions. 

         Remember that, as a corporation, in the act of seeking special privileges and immunities unavailable to mere individuals, you've made yourself nothing, more or less, than a branch of government. The Constitution (especially its first ten amendments) was written as an absolute limit on government activity. Be aware that there is an increasingly popular idea in this country today that corporations (as branches of government) should be limited in exactly the same way. 

         Ask your legal department what that would cost. 

         Back before Disney Corp got taken over by the AntiWalt, they reminded us, now and again, of what this country's all about. Way back then, militias were politically correct; they did a nifty series on the Sons of Liberty. They did a swell mouse cartoon about the Revolution and the Declaration of Independence called Ben and Me. They did a great movie about an 18th century British tax resistor (and the Navigation Acts that sparked our own revolution) called The Scarecrow

         Forget 101 Dalmations, forget The Hunchback of Notre Dame, forget The Lion King and the sick, sappy substitute for philosophy that permeates all of them. Forget animal rights -- animals are for breakfast. Let's have a slick, appealing promotion based on the Bill of Rights. (And before you offer up all the usual suit-excuses, you'd better understand that we know that you know that it's only boring if you try to make it safe; I'm sure we'll agree wholeheartedly that the Second Amendment isn't safe -- it wasn't meant to be -- and the First Amendment is even dangerouser.) Relax, you don't have to do anything Republican. Hell, you can be even trendier than Left, you can be Libertarian. 

         Try repairing the civilization you've worked so hard and spent so much to wreck. 

         And while you're at it, fry me a goddamn cheeseburger!

The Rotherham Child-Abuse Scandal — Reactions from Around the Net

"Racism," as I've said before, certainly doesn't mean anything these days, if it ever did. "Anti-racism," of course, just means anti-White. Several years ago, fear of being labeled "racist" led to, in at least one case, a TSA worker allowing one of the 911 hijackers through they system. And in Airstrip one, it has led to a pretty horrible real rape culture.  This from Vox Day:

Anti-racism fosters rape, child abuse

It is easy to prove that the material costs of anti-racism are CONSIDERABLY worse than the material costs of racism:
The sexual abuse of about 1,400 children at the hands of Asian men went unreported for 16 years as staff feared they would be seen as racist, a report said today.

Children as young as 11 were trafficked, beaten, and raped by large numbers of men between 1997 and 2013 in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, the review into child protection revealed. And shockingly, more than a third of the cases were already known to agencies.

But according to the report's author: 'several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought racist'. The landmark report exposing widespread failures of the council, police and social services revealed:

  • Victims were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, terrorised with guns, made to witness brutally-violent rapes and told they would be the next if they spoke out;
  • They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten and intimidated;
  • One victim described gang rape as 'a way of life';
  • Police 'regarded many child victims with contempt';
  • The approximate figure of 1,400 abuse victims is likely to be a conservative estimate of the true scale of abuse.
Anti-racists not only actively celebrate predatory relationships, they regularly demonstrate that they have no problem whatsoever with child abuse, whether it occurs within the same race or is interracial. Moreover, what they falsely decry as "racism" is quite often nothing more than the exercise of the Constitutional right of free association.

Hypothesis: the degree of an individual's anti-racism is directly related to the anti-racist's inability to emotionally connect to his own kind.

If you think that you possess the higher moral ground because you are anti-racist, think again. You are observably enabling widespread crime, particularly rape and child abuse, and are quite literally doing material harm to your own nation.

On the same subject, HBD Chick writes:
ok. listen up political correct people! if you’re someone who reflexively calls others “racists” or “neofascists” without first checking into whether or not they actually are, you need to STOP it, because you’re creating a climate of fear in which people are afraid to do their jobs.
and now i’m not talking about some academics sitting comfortably in their ivy towers, i’m talking about governmental agencies like THE POLICE and child welfare services. here’s where your pc moral posturing has gotten us today:
And Mangan writes:


This is an exceedingly unpleasant subject one would rather not have to write about: Rotherham child abuse scandal: 1,400 children exploited, report finds.
At least 1,400 children were subjected to appalling sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, a report has found.

Children as young as 11 were raped by multiple perpetrators, abducted, trafficked to other cities in England, beaten and intimidated, it said.

The report, commissioned by Rotherham Borough Council, revealed there had been three previous inquiries.

Council leader Roger Stone said he would step down with immediate effect.

Mr Stone, who has been the leader since 2003, said: "I believe it is only right that as leader I take responsibility for the historic failings described so clearly."

The inquiry team noted fears among council staff of being labelled "racist" if they focused on victims' description of the majority of abusers as "Asian" men.

'Doused in petrol'
Professor Alexis Jay, who wrote the latest report, said there had been "blatant" collective failures by the council's leadership, senior managers had "underplayed" the scale of the problem and South Yorkshire Police had failed to prioritise the issue.
At least 1400 children. Rotherham's population is about 260,000, so the population of girls aged 11 to 18 will be some small fraction of that, say 20,000. So perhaps 7% of that cohort of girls was abused in the most horrid ways.

The Rotherham Council dithered, despite having a very good idea of what was going on, for fear of being labeled racist, as "a majority" of the men accused were "Asian", i.e. Muslim. The thing is, in that case, is that the councilors are the very people themselves who would have cried racism. Take a look: the Rotherham Council is almost entirely Labour. (Two Conservatives, although there are a few UKIP members, undoubtedly late additions.) So they didn't stay silent out of fear; no, they themselves are the very ones who would have done the accusing. They stayed silent because it suited their leftist, nation-busting ideology. And please note that no one on the council or the police is facing any disciplinary action whatsoever.

Also, a majority of the perps were Muslims. How much of a majority? I'll take a guess and say that it approaches 100%.

This was the same city council of Rotherham that removed three foster kids from their foster parents because the latter had voted UKIP.

When a couple of the fathers tracked down their daughters and attempted to remove them from the houses of abuse, they were arrested:
In two of the cases we read, fathers tracked down their daughters and tried to remove them from houses where they were being abused, only to be arrested themselves when police were called to the scene. In a small number of cases (which have already received media attention) the victims were arrested for offences such as breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly, with no action taken against the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault against children.
Rotherham is not the only place this has happened, Oxford being another. (I believe there are other known cases.) My guess is that Rotherham is the tip of the iceberg, and more of this type of abuse and cover-up will come to light.

I don't see how any Briton worthy of the name can sit still for this. There ought to be prosecution and trials of all involved. And bring back the death penalty.
And this just came in from Alternative Right:


The latest case to emerge of sexual grooming and abuse by Pakistani gangs committed against English children in the Northern town ofRotherham has finally pushed the issue to national breakthrough and media saturation level, but in essence this is nothing new. It is only the magnitude – 1,400 victims (conservative estimate) in a town of a quarter of a million over 16 years – that is different.

It is a horrifying thought, but if the entire UK were like Rotherham, we could project a national total of 336,000 child sex abuse victims. Thankfully, not the whole of the country is cursed with Pakistani immigrant communities.

But as big and newsworthy as this case is, it is just the same old story of ethnic crimes and misdemeanours being green lighted, downplayed, or soft pedalled for fears of someone being called a "racist" somewhere, sometime.
(Read it all HERE.)

And let me add: There is no room in the West for Islam or Muslims. We should neither interfere in their countries, or allow them to interfere in ours. And immigration is interference.

Tuesday, August 26, 2014

Kevin MacDonald on the War Against Whites

If you listen to the MAG instead of paying attention to reality, you'll believe that there are a lot of wars going on. There's the famous "War on Women," of course, which seems to be waged chiefly by people resisting giving free birth control to girls who should know better. And there's the eternal "War on Blacks," which means that once in a blue moon, some cop shoots a Black hood, or that some Republican criticizes Obama. And of course there's this "War on Gays," which doesn't seem to manifest in any particular way at all other than the fact that many heterosexuals are insufficiently enthusiastic about homosexuals pretending to marry each other. And there's also the "War on Illegal Aliens," which isn't being fought very well, evidently, and the opening shots on the "War on Transgenders" haven't actually been fired yet, but you know.

All of these "wars" are bogus, of course, and just part of the MAG narrative, especially when you consider that all these groups being warred on are given special legal advantages and can screech to a number of Government bureaus for assistance when they're confronted with any opposition at all, real or imagined.

Which leaves Whites, and there is, of course, a War on Whites. Obama is the Commanding General in this war, and Eric Holder is his Chief of Staff. It's waged, simply enough, by giving special advantages to everybody but Whites, and holding Whites responsible for everybody else's misfortunes.

And there's one hell of a good system of enlistment bonuses for those who volunteer in this war. Kevin MacDonald explains. This is from the Occidental Observer:

The War Against Whites Is Massively Incentivized

Kevin MacDonald

The war on Whites is getting increasingly obvious, to the point that a very mainstream source, Congressman Mo Brooks, stated it and then refused to back down. This war is being carried on with a number of very potent weapons.

At TOO [the Occidental Observer] we have stressed the moral onslaught which has inculcated guilt among legions of Whites for actions that have occurred among all peoples (e.g., slavery, segregation) while ignoring morally motivated phenomena that are unique to the West (e.g., the moral crusade that abolished slavery, the Civil Rights movement).

But another main weapon is that displacing Whites often has financial rewards. The triumphant multicultural left has created a context in which many Whites benefit financially from the process of White displacement. Obviously, financial incentives are quite powerful in a capitalist economy where most people measure their self-worth by their bank account.

Whites who cooperate in their own displacement are handsomely rewarded. White businessmen benefit from immigration because it lowers labor costs — a recurrent theme at Companies like First Data Corporationdirectly benefit from immigration by taking a cut of remittances sent by immigrants to relatives in other countries.


Another example is the refugee/resettlement program in which money is funneled from the U.S. government to private non-profits, mostly religious groups (Lutherans: “The children are a gift” and we need a second lobbyist in Washington to make sure the gift keeps giving):

[A] GAO report quotes a state official who notes “that local affiliate funding is based on the number of refugees they serve, so affiliates (private contractors) have an incentive to maintain or increase the number of refugees they resettle each year rather than allowing the number to decrease.” …

Refugee resettlement is a self-perpetuating global enterprise. Staff and management of the hundreds of taxpayer supported U.S. contractors are largely refugees or immigrants whose purpose is to gain entry for more refugees, usually for their co-ethnics.

[As an evolutionist, I am shocked that much of the motivation for displacing those evil, racist Whites comes from people favoring their own group.] …

According to David Robinson, a former acting director of the State Department’s refugee bureau, writing about the refugee contractors: “the federal government provides about ninety percent of its collective budget” and its lobbying umbrella “wields enormous influence over the Administration’s refugee admissions policy. It lobbies the Hill effectively to increase the number of refugees admitted for permanent resettlement each year ….If there is a conflict of interest, it is never mentioned…. The solution its members offer to every refugee crisis is simplistic and the same: increase the number of admissions to the United States without regard to budgets…” (see here)

In the university White professors who want to move into lucrative positions in administration must be warriors on behalf of non-Whites. A noteworthy example is Mary Sue Coleman, who earns north of $900,000/year as the president of the University of Michigan and has been a leader in attempting to preserve racial preferences and in promoting the educational benefits of diversity.

But her views are entirely typical in the academic world, and her salary only puts her in 6th place for salaries at public universities as of 2012. It’s inconceivable that one could get a position like this without cooperating enthusiastically with the displacement of White America, favoring affirmative action and cooperating in funding and staffing the infrastructure of the academic left (e.g., ethnic studies departments, gender studies, etc.). The massive social approval University of Michigan president Mary Sue Coleman receives within the culture of the university for her positions on diversity issues is doubtless a positive component of her job.

At a lower level on the academic food chain, one of the most important criteria for professors is whether they can obtain government grants which then pay them extra salary and pay the university for the costs of administering the grant — a major source of funding for the university and a major factor in tenure decisions. Right now there is a lot of money in grants aimed at improving the educational prospects of Blacks and Latinos and no shortage of White professors eager to get their hands on that money.

Another lucrative area is forming companies that essentially provide insurance policies for companies concerned about being charged with being “too White” or too insensitive to non-Whites. A lot of this is on display at the White Privilege Conference where firms compete to show that they are on the cutting edge of the guilt-inducing industry. There is clearly a vast anti-White infrastructure centered in the universities (college course credit is available for registrants of the White Privilege Conference) and spilling over into private enterprise. It is devoted to displays of White guilt that are quite profitable. For example, one firm advertises itself by claiming “We will provide the most cutting edge pedagogical tools, training materials, application models and conceptual frameworks drawn from the most current trends in the professional areas in which we work.” Having one leg up on the competition means devising ever more outlandish remedies for the evil of Whiteness. One member of the group, is “trained in Craniosacral Therapy and Global Somatics body work and co-facilitates with Dr. Hackman the ‘More Than Skin Deep: Challenging White Supremacy One Cell At A Time’ workshops examining whiteness, trauma and healing in the service of ending racism.”

A recent article posted at AmRen, Robert Bloch has provided us with an insider’s look at the incentivization process for White displacement at large U.S. companies (“Making Money on White Displacement“).

The diversity entrepreneur, Jim Malackowski, determined to make money on the increased value of minority-owned companies due to their getting preferences in government contracts.

The non-White for whom doors magically open, resulting in a quick rise to big salaries. Fatemeh Hall is “a fashionable, attractive, and articulate Muslim woman … recently arrived from Iran, and she had a matchless zeal for uplifting African-Americans in particular.” Amazing how quickly non-Whites figure out the rules of the game. Immigrate to evil, racist America and immediately get on the anti-White gravy train.

High-level White executives who are entirely complicit. Bloch describes “minority business conferences graced with high-profile speakers and earnest, usually white, and surprisingly senior corporate executives. … Relentless, ruthless intelligence has gone into minority supplier programs. They are supported at the board level, and thus have significant input from white men. … GM’s Chief Diversity Officer is a white man and a retired Navy Captain, Kenneth J. Barrett. Mr. Barrett was the Navy’s Chief Diversity Officer, and if there are medals for discriminating against whites he presumably wears them proudly. … The executives who spoke at Fatemeh’s conferences–top-level white guys, rather than black diversity officers–emphasized that they thought diversity was a desirable end in itself and they were eager to do more than the government required. I came to believe them.”
Bloch notes that there are market limits on this process — he was unable to get private sector cooperation in a scheme that would have given non-White businesses money upfront on the assumption of an assured revenue stream. However, it’s mainly government that funds White displacementf, so market restraints are not critical to the success of White displacement.

As Frank Salter has pointed out, Whites who fail to attend to the interests of their wider kinship group benefit themselves and their families at the expense of their own ethnic interests. This is especially true for elite Whites—people whose intelligence, power, and wealth could make a very large difference in culture and politics. They are in effect sacrificing millions of ethnic kin for the benefit of themselves and their immediate family.

This is a disastrously wrongheaded choice by all the standard measures of evolutionary success. However, because our evolved psychology is much more attuned to individual and family interests than to the interests of the ethnic group or race, Whites who benefit economically or professionally from adopting conventional views on race and ethnicity are unlikely to feel unease at the psychological level. (This is especially true of Europeans because we are prone to individualism as a result of our evolutionary history.) Indeed, such people are often praised to the skies for having such enlightened views on race that they actively cooperate against their ethnic interests. They go to bed at night quite at peace with themselves.

It’s the same logic with the many non-Jews who are involved with neoconservatism. Being a foot soldier on behalf of Israel is a great career move for media figures, not to mention politicians, and government workers who can expect a soft landing in neocon think tanks and pro-Israel advocacy organizations if the political winds change. The most recent examples are the Republican groveling before Sheldon Adelson and the Republican Jewish Coalition in Las Vegas and Hillary Clinton’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg where she criticized the Obama administration’s Middle East policies and generally said everything that a neocon could hope for (see (Ed Maloney, “Hillary Clinton’s 11th-hour Diplomacy“).

We have to face the fact that idealistic motives don’t work with most people, or at least they can be easily trumped by more tangible rewards. Whites who are financially benefiting from the displacement of their people are not psychologically open to arguments about the dire consequences to America and to people like themselves if things continue like this for another generation or two. They are primed to believe the mantras about diversity as strength and easily persuaded that pessimism about the future is just another manifestation of White racism. It’s easier to believe anything if it aligns with one’s material interests.

They are not only financially rewarded, they also reap psychological rewards that come raining down from the elite media and from their many complicit friends and colleagues. For so many Whites, the pro-diversity, anti-White policies are seen as morally praiseworthy, thus tapping into a very potent source of motivation for Whites (see above link). They can do well by doing good.

This is a tough combination to go up against. We have to hope that racially conscious Whites will eventually create an infrastructure that begins to match the multicultural, anti-White infrastructure that is already in place. The money is certainly there and the situation on the ground can only convince more and more Whites that Rep. Mo Brooks is right — that there is indeed a war against them.
Quibcag: This is too serious to use something cute, as usual, so this isn't really a quibcag. I used some clip art instead.

Jim Goad Doubles Down on the Double Standard

Jack Kerwick has already covered the Black/White cop White/Black perp paradox HERE. But let's not forget about it just yet. There is a narrative, treasured by the MAG (Media, Academia, Government), that has White cops shooting down young Black men all over the country for no reason at all. And, of course, as any cop of either race will tell you, a White cop who shoots a Black person is in for a career-destroying ordeal, so, if anything, a Black perp is much safer from the cops than he is from his peers.

Jim Goad supplies some statistics below that show that cops shoot more White perps than Black perps. And he says other interesting things. This is from Taki Mag.

Murder by Cherry-Picking

A society’s understanding of history is shaped not so much by what they’re told, but by what is hidden from them.

After a white police officer shot and killed the undeniably black Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO on August 9, the story blew up in the nation’s face and has dominated headlines for two weeks running now.

But in South Salt Lake, UT on August 11—a mere two days after Brown was shot to death—a police officer described as “not white” shot and killed 20-year-old Dillon Taylor, whose pictures (HERE, HERE, and HERE) reveal him to be at least predominantly Caucasian, if perchance not a purebred Nordic snow bunny. Taylor appears to be mostly white phenotypically (if not stylistically) and is far whiter-looking than George Zimmerman, whom the liberal press initially described as “white” for reasons that appear to have suited an agenda. And unlike the Brown shooting, there is currently video evidence of the Taylor killing available for public consumption, which should inflame white passions to the point where they’d riot—that is, if modern American whites were like blacks in the sense that they were prone to torching cities when one of their own gets killed.

Then again, it’s hard to get upset when you’re not even aware that something upsetting has happened. As I type this, a Google News search for the phrase “Michael Brown” alongside “Ferguson” yields a fulsome 13,700,000 results, whereas “Dillon Taylor” and “Salt Lake” only coughs up a puny 4,250 hits.

Why is there such a high-decibel hubbub about the Brown killing but nary a cricket chirp about Taylor’s death?

It can’t be because police kill more blacks in America than whites, because that’s not true. Politifact claims that CDC stats from 1999-2011 show that “2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks.”

Were you aware of that statistic? I wasn’t until I went searching for it.

Similar sins of omission and obfuscation pockmarked the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman fiasco. The left-leaning media repeatedly opted to run the baby-faced Travyon picture rather than the more current and relevant one, which shows him as a cold-eyed, bird-flipping douchebag thug. NBC almost singlehandedly ignited a race war by deliberately editing Zimmerman’s 911 call in a way to make it appear he was troubled by Martin’s skin color.

I lived in Los Angeles during the Rodney King beating and subsequent riots. I heard the media continually refer to “four white police officers,” although technically, one of them was Mexican. And it wasn’t until a year or two ago when I learned that on the night he was beaten, King had two friends with him who obeyed police orders and emerged without a scratch. Fifty-eight people died in those riots, but I doubt anything nearly as catastrophic would have happened if the public had been aware that it wasn’t a tale of rabid Nazi cops attacking a lone meek non-belligerent descendant of slaves. By omitting crucial factual details to sustain a prefabricated moral narrative, the press seemed to enable mass murder.

And the propaganda deck is so stacked these days, merely mentioning any of this automatically leads to accusations that you hate blacks. They only wish. Double standards, though—especially dangerous ones—drive me up a freaking wall.
(Read the rest HERE.)
Quibcag: The illustration is Sera Masumi imparting wisdom to Mouri Ran, both from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

A Fistful of Rants by Neale Osborn

Lots of good stuff from Neale this week — News from Mama Liberty, followed by a denunciation of the NRA, but not for the usual reasons, with reference to Aaron Zelman. Some economic facts follow, then guns and schools and silly educrats in Georgia. Then, illegal aliens stealing American flags and burning them. Nice. But Obama's busy defending borders in the Middle East. And then Bloomberg's Yentas Demand Action here and there. More on guns and schools. And then Hillary and Mars Rover Sheila Jackson Lee want to put a stop to freedom of speech and assembly to protect us all. Then an idiot judge sounds off. And a bunch of good quotes. Now, I'm still not finding any good new girls-with-guns gifs, so instead I'm giving you a picture of Rally Vincent of Gunsmith Cats (ガンスミス キャッツGansumisu Kyattsu)., followed, after Neale's rant, by a video, chapter one of the anime. You can find the other two chapters on the net. It's a quirky little story about a gunsmith girl in Chicago who's roped into working with the ATF. Intrigued? Enjoy. Now to Neale.

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 8-25-2014
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

This week, from Mama Liberty we have some damn bad news, in the form of a Claire Wolfe column. [Link] Let me preface this with a brief bit of info—Backwoods Home magazine is one of the most balls to the wall, hardcore "Leave me the f*ck alone!!" magazine for the libertarian thinker, even if you do not want to live off grid. Now, to the meat of the matter. As many idiots have had to be reminded, I do not support the NRA because it does not stand for me. The NRA makes a shit pot of money off of people who donate to the NRA/ILA in the false belief that the NRA is the only group fighting the Anti-Constitutionalist Victim Disarmament Crowd. As Claire points out in the article of the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA is the same—"A housewife and a cat will both chase mice out of the kitchen. But the cat wants more mice to come back."—Aaron Zelman The NRA does not want to win, because the money machine will dry up. So the NRA actually helps WRITE Victim Disarmament legislation. So I have been recommending people join NAGR, GOA, and, until now, the JPFO.
"A housewife and a cat will both chase mice out of the kitchen. But the cat wants more mice to come back."
—Aaron Zelman

Somebody reminded me this week of that statement from Aaron, the late, great founder of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. That was how Aaron contrasted himself and JPFO with Alan Gottlieb and Gottlieb's SAF/CCRKBA.
Aaron wanted to educate people so that victim disarmament would go away. He would have been thrilled to be able to close JPFO's doors and say, "We've done it."
On the other hand, he despised Alan Gottlieb and saw him as an opportunist who used scary mailings to turn SAF/CCRKBA into a fundraising factory. He saw Gottlieb as a person who needed and wanted "gun control" because that's what kept the money and the publicity flowing.
Gottlieb certainly confirmed many of the things Aaron said about him when he supported the Manchin-Toomey (really Manchin-Toomey-Schumer) universal background check bill last year. He even boasted of having spent hours helping to write the bill.
Now, the JPFO board of directors has hatched a plan to hand JPFO over to SAF—a merger that is scheduled to be finalized next week if JPFO supporters don't stop it.
Go read the rest. Then do your part, or another fine organization will stop fighting for our rights, and start fighting for our wallets.

Passed to you from Doctor Bartucci, Doctor of Medicine, philosopher, and all-around curmudgeon! (The best type of curmudgeon there is!)
Gotta nice quotation for your edification:
    Do you know what the minimum wage was in 1964 (the last year our money was backed in any way by silver)? It was $1.15 an hour in September of 1964. That was one silver dollar, one silver dime, and one nickel/copper nickel. Excluding the actual value of the nickel in today's terms, the silver dollar and silver dime would be worth almost $21. Consider that for a moment.That means that the minimum wage in 1964 had an equivalent buying power in today's dollars of about $21 dollars an hour. That was minimum wage. If you still think the solution is raising minimum wage, or redistributing the wealth of evil corporations, you've been drinking too much Kool-Aid.
    —Michael Minkoff, "Don't Raise Minimum Wage, Just Fix the Currency" (23 August 2014)
Excellent point, Mr. Minkoff.

Has it actually come down to this? [Link] We now have to file lawsuits in order to get a school to follow state law. reported Friday that the lawsuit claims that the principal told Hugh Myers that he could not bring his gun onto the campus of Beulah Elementary School other than when he is dropping off or picking up his daughter. The principal allegedly threatened to have him arrested if he did so.
Myers' attorney John Monroe is arguing that Myers is allowed to bring his gun under a new Georgia law that took effect last month, according to
The bill allows guns in bars without restrictions and guns in some government buildings that don't have certain security measures, such as metal detectors or security guards screening visitors. Religious leaders have the final say as to whether guns can be carried into their place of worship.
Under the law, school districts are now able, if they choose, to allow some employees to carry a firearm on school grounds under certain conditions.
According to, the lawsuit states that Myers frequently goes to the school to participate in his daughter's activities, and wishes to carry a gun in case of confrontation.
This dunbass principal should realize that bad guys wouldn't bother asking permission. DUH!!

I shall preface this by pissing some of you off. Sorry... NOT! I do not, and have never, supported banning the burning of the American (or any other country's) flag as a sign of protest or even outright disrespect. That pesky 1st Amendment protects ALL forms of free speech. But this is NOT about freedom of speech, political or otherwise. It is about STEALING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND DESTROYING IT AGAINST THE WISHES OF IT'S OWNERS!
In Weatherford, Texas, flags have been unceremoniously ripped from the homes where they proudly flew, tossed into the street and torched.
All-in-all, it happened just 8 times in one night, and both police and residents are reacting with concern.
Unfortunately, the incident isn't localized just to Texas. The same thing happened inWinona, Minnesota, where residents reported flag burnings were happening "all over town," with more than 13 cases reported.
Apparently, this is being done by illegal aliens. Funny, isn't it, how people supposedly love America so much they break our laws to come, and hate it so much the first thing they do is burn one of the symbols of said country? Again, it is the right of an American citizen to engage in free political (and other) speech. But it is NO ONE'S RIGHT to steal something they disapprove of and destroy it. Now, the TEA Party (which I happen to agree with on a large number of things) thinks this is part of a vast conspiracy to destroy America. Maybe. Maybe not. Whether it is or not doesn't matter much to me. I happen to fly the American flag, and right under it, the Gadsen Flag. Take either down to burn it. I dare you. Fuck the dog,BEWARE OF OWNER!

Ain't it funny? Mom's Demand Asininity, er, ACTION, lose again! [Link]

On August 18 Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America launched its latest shame campaign to pressure Kroger—which owns Fred Meyer Grocery and QFC—to ban open carry of guns in its stores.

On the same day, August 18, Fred Meyer released a statement indicating it will not be banning the open carry of guns but will instead continue to follow state and local laws. According to KOIN CBS-Portland, a Fred Meyer Public Affairs representative said:
The safety of our customers and associates is one of our most important values. We don't want to have to put our associates in a position of having to confront a customer who is legally carrying a gun. That is why our longstanding policy on this issue is to follow state and local laws.
This failure to sway Fred Meyer comes after Moms Demand Action failed to sway Staples or Starbucks to ban guns on their property, as well as the failure to get Facebook to "prohibit the private selling or trading of firearms on its platforms."

Staples not only rejected Moms Demand Action's request, they actually kicked them off their property.

I wish we had one of these stores around here for me to patronize. At least Wegman's doesn't have a problem with guns in store. Of course, with Baby-Don Andrew Cuomo in Albany, Open Carry of any kind is strictly verboeten.

Isn't it funny how the very weapons of EEEVIL, those (falsely named) assault rifles are ALSO the weapon of choice for school districts in Kahleefourneeyah? [Link] Let's start at the very beginning (a very nice place to start) ((sorry, Julie)). I happen to believe that IF you are going to incarcerate your children in a massive prey-habitat ( I don't, but that is a different story) these precious people MUST be protected by their jailers... er TEACHERS. I meant to say "teachers". But this is NOT to be accomplished by the school police (Huh?!?) possessing rifles, semi automatic rifles, HIGH CAPACITY SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLES (the same rifles Kahleefourneeyah violates the citizens' right to own).
Semi-automatic AR-15s are the latest weapon at the disposal of campus police officers in Compton, Calif., where school officials say the need to protect lives trumps critics' claims of "deeply disturbing" militarization.
The K-12 Compton Unified School District approved a plan last month to allow specially-trained officers to keep the high-powered assault rifles in the trunks of their cars for use during emergencies. District spokesman Ron Suazo confirmed the new policy, referring to a statement from Compton School Police Chief William Wu.
"Our objective is quite simple—we want to save lives," Wu said. "These rifles give us greater flexibility in dealing with a person with bad intent who comes onto any of our campuses."
Wu and district officials noted that eight other California communities and school districts already use the weapons, including Los Angeles, Santa Ana, Baldwin Park and Fontana. They've also been approved for use or have been purchased by other districts in Topeka, Kan., Gainesville, Fla., and Granite, Utah.
They work to deny US the "greater flexibility in dealing with a person with bad intent who comes" into our homes, while demanding that same flexibility for the "campus police". How about this, Kahleefourneeyah (and the rest of America)—let's STOP herding our kids into the "Defenseless Victim Free-Prey Zones" commonly referred to as "Public Schools", and at the very least, allow teachers and other staff to possess and carry concealed handguns for student protection. MY kids are protected by handguns—I home school—and I'll never have to worry about a school shooting spree!
It's really funny how, when a liberal protests against or demonstrates in favor of ANYTHING, no one has the right to tell them they shouldn't. Let anyone with a conservative, libertarian, or Constitutional agenda try to demonstrate or protest, and suddenly it's "This should not be allowed!" And once again, a leading Democrat displays this attitude. Recently Hillarious Rotten Clinton said that we should not be allowed to think in favor of the RTKBA, and now, Sheila Jerkson Lee, D—Texas, has decided that NO ONE should be allowed to demonstrate in favor of Open Carry (and presumably, in favor of ANY carry). [Link]
(The Blaze)—Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) said over the weekend that a gun rights group shouldn't bother rescheduling a planned march through Houston's Fifth Ward, and that these sorts of demonstrations "need to end."
Open Carry Texas was set to march through the political subdivision of Houston, but had to postpone the event. According to the Houston Chronicle, Jackson Lee and others gathered to say they oppose the group's effort to raise awareness about the right to openly carry rifles and shotguns in Texas.
"We come in peace," said Jackson Lee. "On behalf of many thousands who live in this community that are minding their daily business, Open Carry's efforts need to stop, need to be canceled, they need to end."
Apparently, we should not be allowed First Amendment rights when it comes to Second Amendment rights. And, as we all know (assuming we believe the liars on the left) that gun owners are all rich white racists and redneck white racists who have no desire to get along with minorities of any stripe. Here, I'll show you what I mean-
The Chronicle said the Fifth Ward is an historically black neighborhood, and that Open Carry decided to hold an event there after being criticized for only holding events in "rich white neighborhoods." "We also want to work with the minority community to get them more involved in their right to legally bear arms," said Open Carry Texas leader C.J. Grisham.
Then, trying to avoid threats of violence, the OCT cancelled the demonstration.

It's amazing how ignorant judges are about firearms. [Link] This woman is an idiot about guns, but I guess, as the article points out, that you can't expect more than ignorance from a judge appointed by Blow-job Billy Clinton.
District Court Judge Catherine Blake said military style rifles are unusual and dangerous. That wasn't an easy decision to reach. Judge Blake concluded the government needs guns for its protection, but you don't. It is her conclusion that doesn't make sense. She said our modern semi-automatic magazine fed rifles are unusual. Maybe we shouldn't expect much acuity from her given that she was appointed by President Clinton.
Judge Blake said the government may deny civilians the right to own a firearm because the firearm is too dangerous. Set aside the historical fact that magazine fed semi-automatic rifles were designed over a hundred years ago. Look at them today. Modern military rifles are designed to be easy to carry, easy to operate, and adaptable to fit a soldier of any size. Those features make modern rifles popular with civilians even now. Set that fact aside too.
Understand that these are the same firearms widely used by law enforcement organizations today. The government calls these small arms "self-defense" or "personal-defense" weapons. The judge said is illegal for civilians to own a particular firearm but legal for a government employee to carry that same firearm for the exact same purpose of self-defense.
I guess civilians are less important than cops or military, and have no right to the best self defense money can buy.

And finally, we get to our Firearms and Freedom related quotes of the week. this batch is from average citizens, courtesy of the Buckeye Firearms Association (except for the last massive one, from a NewsVine Article I wrote a few years ago):

"Keeping and bearing arms is not only a fundamental right; it is a fundamental duty upon which all liberty and sovereignty is based."—Donald L. Cline

"A shoot-out is better than a massacre!"—David M. Bennett

"The gun control extremist has at least two things in common with the Islamic extremist. He has a willingness to die for his fundamental beliefs. And he has the sanctimony to demand that others go with him."—Dr. Mike Adams

"I'd much rather go to my grave never needing my gun, than go there wishing I had it."—Phil Dalmolin

"Those who deny me the freedom to carry a firearm with which to protect my family and myself, are as complicit and guilty as the perpetrator should we be harmed or murdered by an act of violence." —Charles F. "Chuck" Bearden

"Sooner or later we all must die. Warriors choose to do so on their feet, standing between their enemies and those they hold dear. With a weapon in their hands. Cowards choose to do so on their bellies. Unarmed."—Dave Gell (inspired by author David Weber)

"In a perfect world, you wouldn't need guns. This is not a perfect world."—Sheriff Ben Johnson, Volusia County, Florida

"The West was not won with a registered gun."—unknown

"The problem is not the availability of guns, it is the availability of morons."—Antonio Meloni

"Know guns, no crime. No guns, know crime."—Ralph Lauretano

Mark in Wyoming:
I don't carry a gun........ kill people. I carry a gun to keep from being killed.
I don't carry a gun to scare people. I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.
I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid. I carry a gun because there are real threats in this world.
I don't carry a gun because I am evil. I carry a gun because I've lived long enough to see the evil in the world.
I don't carry a gun because I hate the government. I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.
I don't carry a gun because I'm angry. I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.
I don't carry a gun because my sex organs are too small. I carry a gun because I want to continue to use those sex organs for the purpose they were intended for a good long time to come.
I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone. I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.
I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man. I carry a gun because a real man knows how to take care and protect their property, themselves and the ones they love.
I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate. I carry a gun because unarmed and facing armed thugs I am inadequate.
I don't carry a gun because I love it. I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.
I don't carry a gun to shoot to kill someone. I carry a gun and would shoot as necessary to stay alive. If the assailant dies as a result of a desire to harm me, it's no loss to society.
And that's it for tonight!