Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Put this in your Starbucks and sip it!

Just a few days ago I posted "Time to Lawyer up?", a reprint of a Greg Johnson piece calling for racial separation. That inspired the usual hissy-fits by liberals who'd rather see blood in the streets than question any part of their touchy feely ideology. When you think about it, though, about the only people pushing more and more integration are people who are not affected by it — that is, affluent liberals in their all-White gated communities, which includes just about all liberal politicians, and in this regard, 95% of Republicans are liberals. If you peek at history, you'll see that Republicans invented liberalism in its modern totalitarian sense, and Democrats didn't really pick up on it till the 20th Century.

Of course, segregation in the sense of "birds of a feather flock together" is the most natural, common-sensical phenomenon you can imagine. That's why you don't invite just anybody to come in and hang around your house. Whether you realize it or not, you alway invite people you are compatible with, which means people who are like you in some respect or another. Usually several respects. People who are too different from you are probably going to annoy you (and vice-versa), and you may annoy one another so badly that violence ensues.

But if you don't invite them into your house, and only interact with them in public places, the chances of conflict are lessened. And when you have separate countries altogether, the likelihood of violent conflict is minimized. Estonians and Uruguayans almost never fight with each other. But start a big integration program and see what happens.

And if you don't believe me, just ask Fred, who has been around th block a few times.

Plinking Cops

The Symptoms Worsen

March 15, 2015

Partial index, Knockout Game a Lie? To cure a disease, begin by admitting that you have it.

Ah, the joys of escalation. In Ferguson blacks are shooting policemen as others cheer .It does a curmudgeon’s soul good: Everything gets worse, the collapse continues, and unreasoning stupidity goes thundering into the future.

We will hear I suppose that it wasn’t racial, that teens did it, that discrimination  caused it, white privilege, racism, institutional racism, slavery, colonialism, bigots, Southerners, rednecks—everything but the hatred of blacks for whites.

And thus we will avoid the unavoidable, that racial relations are a disaster, will remain a disaster, will get worse, are getting worse, and will lead to some awful denouement no matter how much we lie, preen, vituperate, chatter like Barbary apes, or admire ourselves.

It isn’t working. There is no sign that it ever will. What now?

The only solution, if there is a solution, would seem to be an amicable separation. This methinks would be greatly better than the slow-motion, intensifying racial war we now see, and pretend not to see. When the races mix, there is trouble. So, don’t mix them.

A one-sided race war of low intensity is exactly what we have, and will have. This has been multiply documented, and the documentation ignored, yet it is readily available. Most recently, there is Colin Flaherty’s  Knockout Game a Lie?: Awww, Hell No!  dealing with gang attacks of whites by blacks. It is a clever book since, being available in Kindle format only, it can (and does) contain hundreds of clickable links to original sources. It all checks out. So does Ann Coulter’s Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama: . So does Flaherty’s earlier book, 'White Girl Bleed A Lot': The Return of Racial Violence to America and How the Media Ignore It.

The racial hostility of blacks for whites can be seen elsewhere, for example in targeting of crime, most starkly in interracial rates of rape. One of the less appealing tendencies of uncivilized masculinity, a staple of military history, is the desire to humiliate the enemy by having his women. The numbers on rape, almost entirely black on white, also check out as cold fact, being derived from the federal UCR and NCVS. This has been analyzed to death, and ignored to death, but perhaps the most readable account is Jim Goad’s For Whom the Cat Calls (the numbers of note come below the ads).

Even without the (inevitable) racial hostility, togetherheid would not work well. The races have little or nothing in common. They do not want the same things. Whites come from a literate European tradition dating at least from the Iliad in 800 BC, a tradition characterized by literature, mathematics, architecture, philosophy, and the sciences. Africa, having a very different social traditions, was barely touched by this, and today blacks still show little interest. Even in the degenerate America of today, whites put far more emphasis on education than do blacks.

The media paint the problems of blacks as consequent to discrimination, but they clearly are not. If blacks in white schools wanted to do the work, or could, whites would applaud. If in black schools they demanded thicker textbooks with bigger words and smaller pictures, no white would refuse. The illiteracy, the very high rates of illegitimacy, the crime in general, the constant killing of young black men by young black men in particular—whites do not do these. They are either genetic, and irremediable, or cultural, and remediable, if at all, only in the very long run. We live in the short run.
Would it then not be reasonable to encourage a voluntary segregation? Having only black policemen in black regions would slow the burning of cities. If we let people live among their own, let them study what they chose to study, let them police themselves and order their schools as they chose, considerable calm would fall over the country.

If the races had the choice of running their own lives apart, they would. If this is not true, why do we have to spend such effort trying to force them together?

IIt is a great fallacy to think that because we ought to love one another, we will; or that because bloodshed among groups makes no sense, it won’t happen. The disparate seldom get along, whether Tamils and Sinhalese or Hindus and Moslems or Protestants and Catholics or Jews and Palestinians. The greater the cultural and genetic difference, the greater the likelihood and intensity of conflict. Blacks and whites are very, very different.

Separation does not imply disadvantage. The assertion that “separate is inherently unequal” is a catchiphrastic embodiment of the Supreme Court’s characteristic blowing in the political wind. A college for girls is not inherently inferior to a college for boys, nor a yeshiva for Jews inherently inferior to a parish school for Catholics. And maybe it is the business of girls and boys, Catholics and Jews, to decide what and where they want to study—not the government’s business.

And so with segregation. While a comfortable distance would make for peace, black policemen should get the same pay and equipment as white, black teachers the same pay as white, and black schools equal facilities and any books and curricula they want.

Autonomy in setting policy for police would further reduce anger. For example, blacks are unhappy because so many of them are in prison, frequently on drug charges. Why not make arrests a local option? If the residents of black neighborhoods wanted their police to arrest drug dealers, they could do so. If they wanted to ignore dealers, or dealers in some drugs, they could do that too. We might call this “choice,” or “freedom.”

Washington, with its hothouse isolation from America, ruled by the exotic orchids flowering in the Senate and by billionaire hustlers, may believe that America is what the talking heads tell us it should be. If you savagely punish anyone who points out that you have cancer, they stop pointing—but you don’t stop having cancer. Maybe we should think about this.

Anger hangs over the country. Not everyone white is a professor or collegiate sophomore or network anchor. Not every white—not by a long shot—in Congress or the federal bureaucracy is a Mother Jones liberal, not in private conversation. They say aloud what they have to say. But in the Great Plains and small-town South, in corner bars in Chicago and Denver, in the black enclave of the cities, a lot of people are ready to rumble. Read the comments section of the St. Louis papers after the riots. We can call the commenters whatever names we choose but when we finish, they will still be there. The shooting of policemen for racial reason--at least four to date--is not a good sign. We will do nothing about it but chatter.

Write to Fred

Due to volume and other things I simply cannot respond to many emails. No offense intended. Most of my email is civil, intelligent, and thoughtful, and I appreciate it.
NOTE: Add a subject if you wish but do not delete the "pdq" or my spam filter will heartlessly delete your message.
Philip Francis Stanley and Grotesque Ophthalmological Malpractice
The original is here:
Quibcag: The illustration, representing "trouble," I absconded with after a visit to

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Did the baby boomers wreck western civilisation?

This is a point that is clearly true, but as far as I can remember, I've never seen it articulated directly. I'm a baby boomer, born in 46, and it was clear to me, even as I was growing up and long before my cohort was making any public policy decisions, that things were heading downhill fast. Back then you had to be 21 to vote, and as a result my first vote was in 1968 (guess who for), when the collapse was well under way. Of course, the rot is even more evident now, but it was apparent to sensible people back then. This is from The Politically Incorrect Australian.

did the baby boomers wreck western civilisation?

Many people see the 1960s and 1970s as being the time when western civilisation started to fall apart. It is therefore often assumed that the baby boomers, a spoilt pampered generation, were the ones responsible for all the subsequent disasters. 

But is this really true?

There’s no question that the 60s and 70s were catastrophic. And the masses of dirty stinking hippies were certainly no friends to civilisation. It could however be argued that the student radicals of the late 60s were simply a symptom of a disease that was already far advanced, rather than the cause.

It’s worth pointing out that the governments that did so much to wreck western civilisation, the Labor government of Harold Wilson in the UK and the Administration of Lyndon Johnson in the US, were not elected by baby boomers. They were elected by the previous generation, the so-called Greatest Generation. 

And much of the damage had been done long before the 60s. The transformation of European societies into bloated socialist welfare states was well underway by the 50s. implemented by governments (like the Attlee Labor Government in Britain) that had been elected before the baby boomers were even born. The rot had started even earlier in the US with the election of the socialist Franklin Roosevelt in 1932. In fact you could plausibly date the beginnings of the rot in the US to the rise of Progressivism decades earlier.

Whatever madness afflicted the western world it clearly was well and truly established long before the baby boomers were out of the nursery.

Where did the madness first start?

I’ve always been inclined to think that democracy played a key role. Choosing governments on the basis of a popularity contest among the mob seems a very dubious idea indeed. Democracy however does not provide the complete explanation. However much damage the mob has done it’s clear that the ruling classes played a major role in undermining our civilisation.

The Romantic Movement seems like a good candidate as the beginning of the process of disintegration. The essence of Romanticism was the privileging of feelings over reason and common sense. You have only to read the poetry of Keats, Shelley and Byron to be disturbingly aware that you are dealing with the products of very unhealthy minds. There’s the same wallowing in emotionalism that has become such a feature of what passes for civilisation today. The ideas of the Romantic Movement infected the minds of the ruling classes, turning their brains into soggy mush.

The Romantic Movement produced some great poetry and some great painting but it cannot be denied that it represents a fundamentally warped and diseased view of the world. It represents the first step in the establishment of the cult of feelings. Through its offshoots, such as the Aesthetic Movement, it would poison the minds of successive generations of the ruling class. It would also, ironically, prepare the ground for the rise of the avowedly anti-rational cult of Modernism.

The baby boomers certainly contributed their share to the destruction of our civilisation but their forefathers had already undermined the foundations. 
Quibcag: The illustration is Marii from Joshiraku (じょしらく),, for no reason other than that I like the way she looks.

Monday, March 23, 2015

The Misbehavior of Miniorities is Just More Proof of White Culpability

As Steve Sailer has often pointed out, noticing patterns is one of the worst sins these days. If you notice trends in the behavior of Blacks, Hispanics, or any other nonWhite group, it had better be very praiseworthy behavior, or you are a racist. Indeed, you have something seriously wrong with you, and we have guys in lab coats holding clipboards working on the great problem: What is wrong with White people when they object to dysfunctional minority behavior. You know, that annoyance you feel when crowds of Blacks act up, shoving in front of lines, making noise, driving Whites out of public places — that annoyance is proof of your lack of sensitivity and racist tendencies. And that applies to any feelings you have about any other nonWhite groups. As a liberal friend of mine likes to say, race isn't real but racism is. He actually believes that. But, again, luckily we have experts figuring out how to make us feel bad about having such feelings, and maybe even make such feelings illegal.

Steve reports on one such super-science guy here:

Brain Scientist Tries to Uncover Why White People Are Prejudiced Against Gypsies

Saying What You Mean

HBD chick is someone I read all the time, but who I haven't reprinted much from before today. This is because she mostly talks about genetics and related matters, and sticks to scientific views of reality, and can get pretty technical about it. She even has said that she's not very political. Of course, sticking to actual science is very political, since it puts her in opposition to the vast majority of political ideologues, who hate the way science undermines their pet ideas.

But here, in the quibcag, she says something of prime importance. The insistence of the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) to use language to obscure, rather than clarify, reality. Of course, Orwell pointed out this tendency many years ago in his "Politics and the English Language." You can read the whole thing at this LINK.

This particular misuse of language can be described as watching a cat have kittens in an oven and referring to them as "biscuits." [LINK] No, the American or British jihads are not American or British and referring to them as such is dishonest and deliberately misleading.

And HBD Chick is also a funny writer. Rare everywhere, but especially among science types. Here's her article. Note that she uses the Ziggy method of all lower-case, especially the first person pronoun.

what’s in a name?

we’ve all seen headlines like this…
…only to click through and find that this “belgian’s” name is younes abaaoud and his parents are (or at least his father is) originally from morocco. i know that most of the members of the press are hopelessly politically correct and that they must want to obscure the origins of people like abaaoud — or they really believe it when they say this kid is belgian, which is an even scarier thought — i know this, and i’ve known it for quite a while now, but it still irritates me when i read such headlines. it irritates me because it’s such misinformation. it’s unhelpful. when i read the word “beligan,” i picture a short, round little man with a curious moustache. or at least an obviously north european person making waffles.
we have words for things — give names to things — for a reason: to help in identifying those things and to communicate something about them. and — and perhaps i am and have always been misguided about this — i thought the idea of naming things was to aid in the communication process, not make it all more confused. but i’m beginning to think i might’ve been wrong about this.
at the very least, i think someone like abaaoud — a second-generation immigrant to belgium with (i don’t think) any belgian or european ancestry whatsoever — ought to be called a moroccan-belgian. to aid in the communication process.
since it’s st. patrick’s day (woo-hoo!), i’m going to use ireland as an example. (disclaimer: all of my recent ancestors came from ireland. i’m pretty sure that a very large part of my ancestry is “native irish,” but there’s also some amount of scots and maybe even some norman. i doubt there’s much anglo-irishness in me.)
once upon a time, we had names for the different populations in ireland, and they were actively used: the gaelic or native irish (the people(s) who were in ireland before the viking and norman invasions), the hiberno-normans, the old english, the ulster scots, the anglo-irish. there were even names for rival viking groups at one time (names that were eventually reused for some of the normans). more and more nowadays, however, i see everyone from ireland being called simply “irish.” needless to say, i think we should keep right on using the variety of more specific terms we have.
i can hear some of you objecting already: “but hbd chick! it doesn’t matter anymore! those norman and anglo settlers arrived in ireland so long ago!” oh, really? [links added by me – fine gael and fianna fáil are two of the largest political parties in the republic of ireland]:

“THERE ARE real tribal differences between Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil that date back hundreds of years before the foundation of the State, according to two political scientists.
“An analysis of the names of all of the TDs [members of parliament] who have served in the Dáil shows that Fine Gael TDs are more likely to come from Norman/Old English families while Fianna Fáilers tend to come from Gaelic backgrounds.
“The analysis was carried out by Dr Eoin O’Malley of DCU (a son of former Progressive Democrat leader Des O’Malley) and Dr Kevin Byrne of Trinity College Dublin.
“They based their research on the fact that Irish surnames are among the oldest in the world, dating back many centuries.
“The origin of almost all of those names, whether Gaelic, Norman or English, is known.
“After identifying the surname origin of every one of the 1,100 TDs ever elected, the researchers found significant differences in the distribution of surnames between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.
“While 64 per cent of Fianna Fáil TDs have surnames of exclusively Gaelic origin, only 51 per cent of Fine Gael TDs do.
“The opposite pattern is seen for Old English (Norman) and New English surnames, with 22 per cent of Fine Gael TDs bearing names of that origin, but only 12 per cent of Fianna Fáil deputies.
“‘While a surname of a given origin isn’t enough to predict a politician’s party, there is a bias in affiliation toward Fianna Fáil TDs having Gaelic surnames and Fine Gael TDs having Old and New English surnames,’ say the researchers.
“They add that the probability of these differences arising by chance is very remote, so they conclude that the tribal polarisation between Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael is statistically significant.

“‘In addition, Fianna Fáil has significantly more TDs with Gaelic surnames than would be expected given the Irish population, while Fine Gael has more deputies with Old and New English surnames than a random sampling of Irish citizens would warrant,’ they add….”
so there. (except see here.)
furthermore, whenever you hear about some famous “irish” person, like a scientist or an author, they’re more than likely to have anglo-irish or scots-irish ancestry.
for instance, if you look at this list on wikipedia of famous “irish” scientists (*chuckle*), the vast majority are or were either of scots-irish, old english, or anglo-irish background, not native irish. one or two were even partly or fully of some other ethnic background(s) (i.e. french huguenot and sephardic jewish). i can pick out only seven who are likely candidates for having a (mostly) native irish background: louis brennan,pádraig de brúnnicholas callanaeneas coffeyrichard kirwan (“one of the last supporters of the theory of phlogiston”), william dargan, and john philip holland — and i’m not so sure about dargan or holland (both of those surnames could be either british or irish). so that’s five to seven native irish out of a list of forty “irish”, and i bet most of you have never heard of any of them.
and if we look at “irish” nobel laureates (heh — yes, there have been a couple!), of the science ones, we’ve got ernest walton (physics, 1951)aaaaaand…no, sorry, that’s it. ernest walton. needless to say, walton isan old anglo-saxon name, and ernest’s father was a methodist minister, so probably not very native irish. (maybe there are some native irish laureates in amongst the u.s. or canadian or australian winners. i didn’t get around to checking that.)
and all those famous irish authors? w.b. yeats? anglo-irish. oscar wilde? anglo-irish. bernard shaw? anglo-irish. jonathan swift? anglo-irish.samuel beckett? anglo-irish. bram stoker? anglo-irish. j.m. synge? anglo-irish. clearly overrepresented. (not that there’s anything wrong with that!)
can’t even give the native irish much credit for our trademark alcoholic beverages, guinness or jameson. arthur guinness was anglo-irish, although he does appear to have had some native irish roots, so a bit of a mix he was:

“MARCH 17th is St Patrick’s day, a celebration of all things Irish—and of one thing in particular. Around Ireland and all over the world people will celebrate with a pint or two (or three, or four) of Guinness, Ireland’s unofficial national intoxicant…. But how Irish is it really?
“Arthur Guinness, who founded the brewery in Dublin in 1759, might have been surprised that his drink would one day become such a potent national symbol. He was a committed unionist and opponent of Irish nationalism, who before the Irish Rebellion of 1798 was even accused of spying for the British authorities. His descendants continued passionately to support unionism — one giving the Ulster Volunteer Force £10,000 in 1913 (about £1m, or $1.7m, in today’s money) to fund a paramilitary campaign to resist Ireland being given legislative independence. The company was alleged to have lent men and equipment to the British army to help crush Irish rebels during the Easter Rising of 1916, afterwards firing members of staff whom it believed to have Irish-nationalist sympathies.

“The beer the company has become most famous for — porter stout — was based on a London ale, a favourite of the street porters of Covent Garden and Billingsgate markets. Since 1886 the firm has floated on the London Stock Exchange, and the company moved its headquarters to London in 1932, where it has been based ever since (it merged with Grand Metropolitan and renamed itself Diageo in 1997)….”
my point here is that, given our numbers, the native irish haven’t achieved all that much. comparatively speaking, anyway. we were not the first population to go to space, and we won’t be the first to land on mars.
is any of this a problem? no. is it of any interest? h*ll, yeah! if you want toreally know anything about “irish” people or scientists or authors or whatever, you might want to know their true background. same goes for terrorists and isis volunteers.
what’s in a name? INFORMATION!
some people might think that i want to single out immigrants or minority groups when i say that i want to be specific about what they’re called. nothing could be further from the truth. i believe in (can i still say this?!) calling a spade a spade. because THAT tells me something. calling a spade a shovel would misinform me.
p.s. – there is also this theory as to why the native irish haven’t gone to mars first. (~_^)

Read the original here:

Saturday, March 21, 2015

Camille Paglia Says American Students Have Minds Like Jello

Much as I hold on to the term "libertarian," despite its being mostly taken over by thumb-sucking liberals and bed-wetting social justice warriors, Camille Paglia hangs on to the term "feminist," though her sharp intellect and powers of observation are just about the diametric opposite of everything that "feminist" has come to mean over the last few decades.

So if you're fed up to the gills with feminist blather and illogical nonsense, don't let her use of the term keep you from reading Camille Paglia. If you're not convinced, maybe the title of the following piece will persuade you that she has something to say:

Camille Paglia Says American Students Have Minds Like Jello

I am always happy to read a new piece by Camille Paglia. Few American academics have her intellectual courage and integrity.

At times, her views coincide with mine. At times, they are diametrically opposed. But, they are always well-thought out and well expressed.

When it comes to the general condition of today’s college student, she, an active professor, has a much better immediate take on the situation than I do.

For me, her views are something of a reality test.

Yesterday, Reason Magazine released a video in which Paglia was interviewed by Nick Gillespie. For those who have less time, the magazine included a transcript after the video.

Many of Paglia’s most salient remarks concern today’s college students.

She opens with a discussion of the current furor over rape culture. Dare I say, she is not sympathetic to the notion that women, in particular, should not feel responsible for the consequences of their behavior.

She is not saying that women should not be able to do foolish things. She is saying that they should understand that sometimes more foolish actions lead to very bad outcomes.

In Paglia’s words:

I'm talking about this new reclassification of people getting drunk, going on a date, going to fraternity houses, and women not taking responsibility for their own behavior. I said that gay men for thousands of years have been going out and having sex with strangers everywhere. They know they can be beaten up. They know they can be killed. What is this where women are, "Oh, we must be protected against even our foolish choices. It's up to men to…" This is ridiculous. This is an intrusion into the civil liberties of young people that have this kind of vampiric parent figures and the administrators hovering, watching, supervising people's sex lives. In Europe, there's nothing like this. There's no idea that the University of Paris is concerned about the dating lives of damn students.

She continues:

Well, in my point of view, no college administration should be taking any interest whatever in the social lives of the students. None! If a crime's committed on campus, it should always be reported to the police. I absolutely do not agree with any committees investigating any charge of sexual assault. Either it's a real crime, or it's not a real crime. Get the hell out. So you get this expansion of the campus bureaucracy with this Stalinist oversight. But the students have been raised with helicopter parents. They want it. The students of today—they're utterly uninformed, not necessarily at my school, the art school, I'm talking about the elite schools.

If universities should not be in the business of policing student behavior, they should be in the business of forming young minds. There, according to Paglia, they have failed miserably:

Now, I've encountered these graduates of Harvard, Yale, the University of Pennsylvania, and Princeton, I've encountered them in the media, and people in their 30s now, some of them, their minds are like Jell-O. They know nothing! They've not been trained in history. They have absolutely no structure to their minds. Their emotions are unfixed. The banality of contemporary cultural criticism, of academe, the absolute collapse of any kind of intellectual discourse in the U.S. is the result of these colleges, which should have been the best, have produced the finest minds, instead having retracted into caretaking. The whole thing is about approved social positions in a kind of misty, love of humanity without any direct knowledge of history or economics or anthropology.

A wondrous image: minds like jello. Insubstantial, unstructured, incapable of dealing with ideas … quivering with deep feeling about nothing in particular.

She adds:

I can feel the vacuum and the nothingness of American cultural criticism at the present time. It is impossible—any journalist today, an American journalist, you cannot have any kind of deep discussion of ideas.

Of course, Paglia, a self-professed lesbian has been deeply involved in the debate over sexuality. As it happens, she is none too pleased with today’s open discussion and debate about everyone’s sexual proclivities, propensities and behaviors.

To her decidedly un-jello-like mind, it’s not about what people do in the privacy of their boudoirs but the fact that the topic of sexuality is so openly discussed in public. She does not say it, but she implies that people should be identified by their face, not by the shape of their genitalia.

She sees it as a sign of decadence, of a civilization in decline:

But over time, what's happened, I think, is that gender identity has become really almost fascist. It's to me a very shrunk and miniaturized way of perceiving your position in the world and in the universe. There [comes] a time when these fine gradations of gender identity—I'm a male trans doing this, etc.—this is a symbol of decadence, I'm sorry. Sexual Personaetalks about this, that was in fact the inspiration for it, was that my overview of history and my noticing that in late phases, you all of a sudden get a proliferation of homosexuality, of sadomasochism, or gendered games, impersonations and masks, and so on. I think we're in a really kind of late phase of culture.

And also:

And so what's happening is everyone's so busy busy busy with themselves with this narcissistic sense of who they are in terms of sexual orientation or gender, and this intense gender consciousness, woman consciousness at the same time, and meanwhile…

Quite correctly, Paglia understands that the current sense that you can choose your gender identity has nothing to do with reality. It lacks a biological referent:

But I think most of the problems as I perceive them in my students and so on, is that there's this new obsession with where you are on this wide gender spectrum. That view of gender seems to me to be unrealistic because it's so divorced from any biological referent. I do believe in biology, and I say the first paragraph of Sexual Personae that sexuality is an intricate intersection of nature and culture, but what's happened now is that they way the universities are teaching, it's nothing but culture and nothing's from biology. It's madness! It's a form of madness, because women who want to marry and have children are going to have to encounter their own hormonal realities at a certain point.

As for education, she, as I, believes in the canon, the great works of literature and philosophy. And she bemoans the fact that the pogrom called deconstruction has made it impossible to teach them any more:

The humanities destroyed themselves with veering toward postmodernism and post-structuralism. It's over. They've been completely marginalized by deconstruction, by questioning, undermining, and throwing out the whole idea of the genius, of the master of great works of art. I believe that there are great works of art. I do not believe that the canon is produced by critics sitting in a room testifying to their own power. I believe the canon is created by other artists. You identify the canon by who had the greatest influence on other artists over time. That is the story. The whole historical tradition, the linear line, which I absolutely believe in in terms of art history, has been discarded. The survey courses are being abandoned. Graduate students are not being trained even to think in large terms anymore. They have no sense of history.

The results, she continues, are on display in the kids of cultural criticism you see in the media:

I've tried to find interesting pieces of cultural criticism on the web and in the magazines and so on, and I find them horribly written, verbose, meandering all over the place, solipsistic, and so on. I read the comments, and now and then, there will be some very sharp comments diagnosing exactly what was wrong, but overwhelmingly, the comments are stupid as well. There's an absolute degeneration of American culture that is speeding up.

For good measure, and to brighten up our day, Paglia offers a few choice remarks about Hillary Clinton:

Hillary is a mess. And we're going to reward the presidency to a woman who's enabled the depredations and exploitation of women by that cornpone husband of hers? The way feminists have spoken makes us blind to Hillary's record of trashing [women]. They were going to try to destroy Monica Lewinsky. It's a scandal! Anyone who believe in sexual harassment guidelines should have seen that the disparity of power between Clinton and Monica Lewinsky was one of the most grotesque ever in the history of sex crime. He's a sex criminal! We're going to put that guy back in the White House? Hillary's ridden on his coattails. This is not a woman who has her own career, who's made her own career! The woman who failed the bar exam in Washington! The only reason she went to Arkansas and got a job in the Rose law firm was because her husband was a politician.

It’s always a special joy to read Camille Paglia.

Quibcag:  The jello girl is by NeviNakuta.

Neale's Gun Rant for 3-15-2015 — He's only just beGUN!

And now for another Neale Osborn gun rant! This one starts off quirkily, with a substitute for Mama Liberty, who brings up a principle very important to the gun rights movement that is too often neglected — the principle of deterrence. And that's rather confusing, actually. The deterrence principle has been basic to international relations for a very long time, long before nuclear weapons. When a nation arms itself, it very likely has no aggressive intentions whatsoever —
Switzerland being an iconic example — but intends its armaments to serve as a deterrence agains those who would aggress against it.  One the flakiest of lefties refuse to acknowledge the role of deterrence in this connection. But when it comes to an individual possessing or carrying arms, it's almost impossible to get the deterrence value understood. I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but think about using the example of international peace through strength to make people understand the social importance of gun rights. Especially for women.

Then the latest of the legality of machine guns, and an ammo victory. And a Colorado Republican show tha exception to the rule that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans. Then another story of civilians defending themselves from criminals, which my liberal friends assure me is impossible. Then an uncommon example of common sense. Then Common Core, which seems to be the opposite of common sense. and a nice list of quotes.
And this week's illustration is Homura, again, of Puella Magi Madoka Magica (魔法少女まどか☆マギカ Mahō Shōjo Madoka Magika, "Magical Girl Madoka Magica")

Neale's Gun Rant for 3-15-2015
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Mama Liberty is under the weather this week, so I chose an article from a young lady I believe Mama would take a shine to for our opening segment this week. Dinnae Fash, lads and lasses, Mama will return as soon as she's up to it. Now, I've always considered a woman voting for gun control to be like a Jew voting for the American Nazi Party, or a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders—just plain stupid. But I never considered why they should oppose Concealed Carry Only states, and should demand open carry. Oh, don't get me wrong, I don't consider ANY law that restricts my, your, her, or anyone else's right to carry ANY weapons, open or concealed, any where, any time, without being required to beg permission from ANY elected official OR bureaucrat (other than on posted PRIVATE property, of course) to be Constitutional. But I never considered this side of the discussion. Link.

Liberals are always preaching about how sexism is "inherently part of our legal system." Then, they oppose open carry. This is truly ironic, because women would benefit the most from allowing open carry. For starters, can you imagine someone trying to attack a woman who is blatantly carrying a gun? It's hard to imagine someone picking a girl with a gun on her waistband out as a good target. It's a deterrent.

Aside from that, let's look at the practicality of concealed carry for women. It's difficult. Many men are able to simply stick a small handgun in their pants pocket and that's that. Have you ever seen the pockets on women's jeans? I can't even fit my cell phone or wallet in there. Unless a woman wants to wear cargo pants everywhere, pocket-carry isn't an option.

There's a reason women carry their things in a purse instead of in their pockets. A purse, however, is a bad place to carry a concealed weapon. Women will understand why immediately—things shift around in purses. If a purse is big enough to carry a gun and everything else that woman needs, it's big enough for the gun to get buried in. Generally, if you need a gun to defend your life, you need that gun NOW—not thirty seconds later when you dig it out of the bottom of a handbag. If a potential attacker is following you down the street, you might have time to rummage for a second and be poised to draw. But if a rapist jumps out at you from behind a corner, you can't afford the distraction nor the time.

This lady hits the nail on the head, though. of course, not being a woman, I never considered what she said before I read this.

I'm of mixed thoughts on this.... Oh, NOT on the lawsuit, but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough—it needs to sue for the removal of the entire Class Three category, then move on to ALL Victim Disarmament laws.[Link]

Automatic weapons clearly qualify as military arms of the kind that would be useful for militia service, and while Congress' National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA) restricting the sale and possession has never been successfully challenged in court, it appears that the Hughes Amendment would not pass strict scrutiny in front of a reasonably honest jurist. 

If the challenges are successful, the uninformed media will now doubt (once again, still) scream that overturning the blatantly unconstitutional law will lead to "blood in the streets." 

This is of course absurd, as purchasers will still be required to go through the same process they currently do to acquire automatic weapons through the ATF as outlined in the NFA. 

The practical effect of striking down the Hughes Amendment would be that purchasers who paid their $200 tax stamp and were approved to own machine guns after a thorough background check would be able to buy new machine guns, instead of being restricted to those built prior to when the law went into effect as part of the Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986. 

So they still want the exorbitant fees and licenses, they just want to pay them for NEW guns rather than just old ones! 

Note—the BATFE realized what a mistake they were contemplating with their reversal of their ruling on M855 green tip .223 ammo, and they caved. Thanks to YOU, the People, who told them to stop it. Now, let's keep up the pressure, and get them to run back some OTHER anti-Constitutional bureaucratic assaults on the 2nd Amendment!

I've got to address this topic, especially since a counselor to these same students tried to tell me they are all afraid of guns now. Link.

Patrick Neville, a Republican who serves in the Colorado legislature, is not your average state representative. He is a survivor of the infamous 1999 shooting at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado. That day, twelve students, a teacher, and the two perpetrators themselves were victims of gun violence. Neville learned firsthand that gun control laws are futile, and schools cannot be guaranteed "gun free zones." Now Representative Neville has introduced a bill to allow anyone with a concealed carry permit to carry a gun in public schools.

While I do not consider the shooters (who would like me to mention their names) to be victims of "gun violence", I like what Mr. Neville has to say. Why? Because he's correct. Just as with the shooting in Sandy Hook, armed teachers MIGHT have saved the day. Or at least, reduced the damage. Now, as we read on in the story, we find that this is, as usual, limited to people who have bought permission from the government to exercise their RTKBA, but it IS a step in the correct direction. Ahhh, I hear it now—the shrieks of horror, the outrage, the cries of "What if the teacher misses the scumbags?" or "the little darlings will be afraid if a gun is in the classroom or on campus!" Guess what, people—I don't care about you false fears. The students won't know the guns are there unless they are needed—when they will be flocking to the defenders and their handguns.

An elderly Ohio couple are our next "Well Armed Americans. Link. And they are not alone—Ohio has a lot of these events happening!

The North Side homeowner dialed 911 just after noon yesterday and gave his address. When asked what his emergency was, he replied, "Some ... some guy broke into my house, and I shot him."
Officers arrived to find the homeowner inside and the intruder dead on the porch. The door showed signs of being kicked in. The intruder was pronounced dead at 12:12 p.m. Sgt. Rich Weiner, a Columbus police spokesman, said it appeared to be a case of self-defense. 

"Everyone has the right to protect their house," Weiner said. At the same time, "it's very tragic. It's something he'll have to live with." 

* * * * *

Police identified the deceased man as 31-year-old Michael Rinehart. Again, from the article: 
Rinehart served four years in prison after being convicted of burglary in 2010. He petitioned for judicial release in 2013, saying his drug addiction had led to his crimes, but it was denied.
Police did not name the man who shot Rinehart, but Franklin County housing records showed that the homeowner is Joseph Miklich, 71. 
The Dispatch article goes on to note that this was the second time this month that a homeowner has shot and killed an intruder. 
On Feb. 19, a woman on N. Guilford Avenue in Franklinton shot Christopher Lee Willis after he smashed through her front window.
In January, a man who told police he was being carjacked shot David A. Mullins in a Franklinton alley. Mullins died at the scene. 

If you're an asshole, trying to rob people from Ohio, I hope you, too, wind up feeding worms.

I thought Y'all might like this-

"Common Sense" 1. George Mason—"The militia consists of the whole people, except for a few politicians." This of course was the wording of one of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. 2. Article 3, Section 3: "Treason... shall consist of levying war against (the United States)..."

3. In American history and jurisprudence, the disarmament of the people and the militia is an act of war. (Viz: Lexington and Concorde).

4. Therefore, any action which disarms any law abiding person is an act of treason.
T. J. Mason 

Copied from a letter to the editor by TJ Mason to The Libertarian Enterprise-Link.[email him]

And many of Y'all call me paranoid or crazy for homeschooling for non-religious reasons. Link. Even a little kid knows common core is asinine, but the teachers keep teaching it.... 

Want to see a little kid prove to his teacher just how ridiculous common core really is?
Take a look at the picture below:
In what world does 8+5=10?
If the teacher wanted to know what number to add to 8 to get 10, why didn't she just ask that? Or why not ask what 8+5 equals?
We'll probably never know. But one thing we do know is that the poor teacher is stuck teaching an obscenely ridiculous standard of education that no one should have to endure.
Please tell us what you think of Common Core.
We're not the only ones who think it's crazy are we?
You have to see the accompanying photo of the referenced question.

This set of Quotes of the Week Starts out with truth from the good Colonel—

"Safety is something that happens between your ears, not something you hold in your hands."—Jeff Cooper

"Reread that pesky first clause of the Second Amendment. It doesn't say what any of us thought it said. What it says is that infringing the right of the people to keep and bears arms is treason. What else do you call an act that endangers "the security of a free state"? And if it's treason,then it's punishable by death. I suggest due process, speedy trials, and public hangings."—L. Neil Smith

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."—George Washington

"The right to own weapons is the right to be free."—A.E. Van Vogt, The Weapon Shops of Isher
"After a shooting spree, they always want to take the guns away from the people who didn't do it."—William S. Burroughs

"No law ever written has stopped any robber, rapist or killer, like cold blue steel in the hands of their last intended victim."—W. Emerson Wright

Y'all jest set on back and enjoy this'n. I'll be back NEXT w

Friday, March 20, 2015

Matt Bailey Sets Us Straight on Reality Versus Ideology

My last post, Time to Lawyer up?, led to the usual sputtering and finger-pointing from liberals who think they're libertarians because they watched Firefly. I won't bother to answer them here, because their 'argument' is that the post said 'racist' things. Not wrong things, you understand, but racist things, so of course that's all the refutation necessary.

Better than that, my post calling for consideration of Jeff Sessions for President, because of his rational stand on immigration, drew much the same response from another such self-styled libertarian, who trotted out the ZAP (Zero Aggression Principle, sometimes called the NAP, or Non-Aggression Principle), interpreting it as a suicide pact between True Believers, ready to give up their lives, the lives of their friends and families, and the whole damn country now and forever so that future Chinese archaeologists can praise them for their philosophical consistency.  But see, I always get snarky and impatient with such nonsense. Matt Bailer is much cooler and calmer.  In reply to all that, he wrote:

There is no particular conflict between embracing the NAP as GENERALLY a good rule for human interaction and being realistic about the obvious and easily proven average differences between racial, cultural, and religious groups. In point of fact, Leftists often attack libertarian views on property rights and freedom of association because (horror!) people might choose to voluntarily associate only with groups they like, and not associate with groups they don't find compatible. Libertarians should quit lamely asserting that this won't happen, plainly folks DO associate with people like themselves and avoid those whose standards they find abhorrent as much as possible unless forced to do otherwise. Libertarians should rather ask why it is a bad thing for people to behave in this way, it is in fact logical and beneficial. For instance, large scale interactions between Blacks and Whites in this country are plainly disastrous. There is what has been accurately called a low-intensity, one sided race war going on in this country, which is to say that statistics indicate that 90% of interracial crime in this country is Black on White. As Whites grow tired of this crap, there is real danger that the problem will cease being one-sided. Plainly large numbers of Blacks will attack the person and property of innocent third parties whenever police misconduct against a Black, real or imagined, occurs. The dominant culture amongst Blacks when it comes to views on crime, law, education, redistributive socialism, noise, the primacy of logic and evidence, etcetera, is plainly inimical to the views of most Whites on these subjects, ESPECIALLY most libertarian Whites, who are not coincidentally 99% of all libertarians.

See? You don't have to be a rainbows-and-unicorns liberal first to be a libertarian. Matt certainly isn't. If you have libertarian friends who just don't get it, send them this URL.

Thursday, March 19, 2015

Time to Lawyer up?

It was always a bad idea, you know. The notion that Blacks and Whites could actually live together in the same country without massive conflict. People who weren't crazy or indifferent knew it a long time ago.

"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free. Nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government. Nature, habit, opinion has drawn indelible lines of distinction between them."
The last part of that quote is usually left out. It was Jefferson, BTW. He knew what he was talking about.

The time for arguing about how to make it all work is over. It won't work. Now the subject at hand is what to do that will work.

Separatism has been an idea kicked around since Jefferson's time, and which has been advocated by both Blacks and Whites, from Lincoln to Malcolm X. This is from

Irreconcilable Differences:
The Case for Racial Divorce

White Nationalists believe that our race is on the road to simple biological extinction, and that the only real solution is to create homogeneously white homelands with pro-natal, pro-family institutions. 
To make White Nationalism a reality, however, we have to convince our people that such policies are necessary, that they are moral, and that they are possible.
Political separation along ethnic lines does not happen every day, and it usually involves hatred, violence, and bloodshed. So most whites simply do not wish to contemplate it. But all-too-many whites are quite willing contemplate a smaller-scale form of separation, namely divorce. And indeed, the model we recommend for peaceful and humane racial separation is the so-called “velvet divorce” between the Czechs and the Slovaks.
If the relationship between whites and blacks in America today were a marriage, we would have divorced long ago. The same is true of whites and Jews, and any other non-white group. White Nationalists are simply proposing a policy of racial divorce.
Legally, there are two kinds of divorce: fault and no fault. In a fault divorce, at least one party is held responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. Causes include:
  • spousal abuse
  • substance abuse
  • incarceration
  • adultery
  • infecting one’s spouse with a sexually-transmitted disease
  • insanity
  • abandonment
In no fault divorces, neither party is held to be singly responsible. The main causes are separation and irreconcilable differences. Irreconcilable differences include:
  • Strong personality differences
  • Strong lifestyle differences
  • Strong differences between work and spending patterns
  • Lack of trust
  • Lack of reciprocity
  • Constant bickering
  • Long-simmering resentment
  • Contempt
  • Inability of the relationship to meet the emotional needs of one or both partners
It is interesting that even something as seemingly trivial as different work and spending habits can be a cause for divorce. But earning and spending are a large part of life, and mismatches there can easily spill over into and upset the rest of one’s life.
In the case of blacks and whites in America, there is plenty of fault on both sides. But focusing on historical grievances is actually a trap, simply because groups may be victims, but they are not perpetrators. Collective guilt is meaningless. And manyindividual whites and blacks today have not harmed or been harmed by one another, so collective historical grievances are not sufficient cause for many to contemplate racial divorce.
For instance, I think it was a terrible crime to introduce black slaves to the New World. But I do not feel a shred of guilt for it. And although my life has been negatively impacted by the presence of blacks in America, most black individuals have done me no harm, and some have actually benefited me. Thus my desire for racial divorce has nothing to do with guilt or innocence or moral judgments of any kind.
Racial divorce is not really about individuals at all. It is about the incompatibility of groups. There are above average blacks who are credits to white society, and there are below average whites who drag our race down. But the character of a society is determined by the average, not the outliers. Thus my desire for racial divorce is based simply on the recognition that whites and blacks as groups have irreconcilable differences that make it impossible for them to be fully happy when forced to live in the same system.
All the common causes of no fault divorce apply to the relationship of blacks and whites in America: on the whole, the races have different personalities, different lifestyles, different work and spending habits, etc. When forced to live in the same system, these differences create tensions. To use a trivial example, blacks have a very different sense of the passage of time, and when a long line of white people forms while a black Post Office clerk inanely chats away with the customer at the window, the result is resentment. We resent blacks for failing to live up to our standards, and blacks resent us for imposing white standards in the first place.
These problems are not based on history but on nature. Even without black slavery and black crime — even if the past could be completely wiped away and blacks and whites could start fresh on a desert island — these differences would give rise to new frictions and new resentments.
Given these differences, it should come as no surprise that relations between whites and blacks are poisoned with endless bickering, distrust, contempt, and long-simmering resentment and bitterness. Reciprocity is central to our idea of moral conduct, and unequal peoples cannot practice real reciprocity.
Again, if this were a marriage, it would have ended in divorce a long time ago. Any responsible marriage counselor would recommend a no fault divorce as quickly as possible, because such a relationship is on the road to a fault divorce, when bitterness becomes hatred and hatred becomes violence.
It is false to claim that White Nationalism is based simply on racial hatred. As the author of Confessions of a Reluctant Hater, I do not deny that hatred plays a role. But I believe that hatred must be seen primarily as the product, rather than the cause, of bad racial relationships. I hate other groups because of multiculturalism. I believe in racial divorce because I don’t want to hate other groups.
Most people who divorce do not simply hate one another. Presumably, they originally married out of affection. So usually there is a love-hate relationship. And although blacks and whites in America were forced together — the equivalent of a shotgun marriage — elements of genuine affection have still managed to grow up between the races. So there is a love-hate relationship here as well.
But in some cases, there is no hatred in divorce at all. Both parties simply recognize that they would be happier on their own, and they cordially separate. Furthermore, once people divorce, it is not uncommon for them to like one another more. It is easier to admire some people at a distance. Some people remember why they got married in the first place. Some even make the same mistake twice.
The main reason why individuals are willing to stay in unhappy and even abusive marriages is the conviction that their own happiness does not matter. They believe that duties to God or community or family are more important. Or they believe that they deserve to be unhappy because of feelings of guilt and worthlessness. Divorce is legitimate only if individual happiness is legitimate.
The same is true of bad racial relationships as well. Whites will never be free until we recover the conviction that we have the right to be happy, to flourish as a race rather than just fill the stomachs and empty the bedpans of the Third World.
When Barack Obama prissily reminds whites of the alleged horrors of the Crusades a millennium ago, lest headlines about ISIS give us any ideas about separation from the Muslim world today, or when Jews traumatize our children with Holocaust “education,” we have to see them for what they are: abusive spouses telling us that we are worthless, that we do not deserve to be happy, to keep us in subordinate, exploitative, parasitic relationships.
There is nothing more obscene than being exploited because of one’s conscience, by means of one’s conscience, by those who lack conscience altogether.
White Nationalists tend to be uncomfortable with divorce. We think that divorce rates are too high, because people are too individualistic and unwilling to compromise or to grow as individuals to make marriages and families work. But for all that, we recognize that individual happiness still matters, and that, try as we must, some marriages cannot work and should be dissolved for the good of all.
Our reluctance to condone divorce and our willingness to work to save even doomed marriages should give us insight into the minds of white liberals, many of whom are trying to make multiculturalism work out of the same essentially decent motives.
Yet white liberals are also willing — perhaps too willing — to condone divorce on the grounds of individual happiness. We need to make this tendency work for us. White Nationalism will seem much more appealing if our people come to see that multiculturalism is a marriage made in hell.
Quibcag: The girl is from a Japanese computer game called Let's Fish.