Angel or Ape?

This is way too simple, of course, because for one thing I don't fit neatly into it anywhere. But it's a good jumping-off point for discussion. I've always been on the risen ape side, but I think the fallen angel thinking has merit as well. As for the end points of both, I find myself in sympathy with four of the five. Only the progressive view seems completely at odds with reality.  As for the graphic, I know it's messy. If you can point out or send me a better copy, I'll replace it.

Matt the Barbarian

Guest post by Matt Bailey.

So I was reading the review on an anthology of Robert E. Howard stories, and I came across the White male (obviously, if they are reading a fantasy book) being aghast at the following... 

"You said I was a Barbarian,” he said harshly, “and that is true, Crom be thanked. If you had men of the outlands guarding you instead of soft-gutted civilized weaklings, you would not be the slave of a black pig this night. I am Conan, a Cimmerian, and I live by the sword’s edge. But I am not such a dog as to leave a white woman in the clutches of a black man...If you were old and ugly as the devil’s pet vulture, I’d take you away from Bajujh simply because of the color of your hide. " 

...Now the situation is that a Northern girl has been captured by these savages, her brother slaughtered, and Conan is adventuring among the black Kushites as a war-leader. So she implores him to rescue her, which he does, by the strength of his arm, at great personal risk, and sends her back to her homeland, without even requiring her to give up her (offered) body to him. Obviously this was a horrible misdeed that is completely un-praiseworthy (WTF?)

This was written in a pulp for ordinary White men in the 1930s. In 2015, ordinary White men are getting their panties in their bunch over the prospect of an extraordnarily powerful White man rescuing a White woman from slavery and certain rape at he hands of people who cut her brother into pieces for the cook pot. What a difference the decades of PC have made.

Philosopher Libertarians

According to Matt Bailey [link], at least 50% of libertarians are like this. My recent experience is that it's rather more than that.
This is from
http://existentialcomics.com/

On Cakes and Abortions

All libertarians that I know of agree that it's wrong to force a baker to make a gay wedding cake, though some think gay weddings are fine and should be permitted, while some don't. As for the abortion thing, libertarians are again divided in their attitude, some thinking abortion is a right, others thinking it a form of murder. But both groups would agree that the state should not fund abortions.

But liberals are different. They want abortion funded and encouraged by the government, and the baking of gay wedding cakes to be mandatory. This graphic is dedicated to them. Pass it around.

Bob Wallace Welcomes the New Matriarchy

Somebody asked on the net if feminism was compatible with libertarianism. Somebody else brought up the fact that feminism isn't really compatible with anything. The it all degenerated into the question of what kind of feminism was meant — first, second, or third-wave. I am not going to bother to find out the profound differences, but I gather that the first wave was when feminism sort of made sense, or at least wasn't obviously batsh*t crazy. You know, advocacy of women being able to own property and such things that everybody in all ideologies takes granted now. I'll make an exception for the vote, because if you've heard ladies discussing politics lately you'll agree that it's not their area of expertise.

Anyhow the current wave wants Hillary to be President and other idiotic ideas, and Bob Wallace says sure, why not:

I, For One, Welcome Our New Eve Overlords

I think women should rule the world. Now, of course, this can only be done through the force of law, since it goes against human nature, but that’s okay. Human nature, if you’re a leftist, doesn’t matter. Because to them it doesn’t exist!

Let’s look at what we’d have to do. First, we’d have to keep men out of influential high-paying jobs that require a lot of education and work. That can be done with Affirmative Action, which essentially means “white men need not apply.”

We’d also have to keep men out of college, which is what is happening these days. Right now there are a lot more women in college than men. This is a good thing. No, it’s a great thing!

Men should only be carpenters (I used to be one), taxi drivers (used to be one), coal miners (nope), stuff like that. Stuff that women don’t want to do because it’s too hard, hot, dirty, dangerous, unpleasant, etc.

Women want those nice indoor air-conditioned jobs where they can sit around, drink coffee, hold meetings, and think they’re working. And this is good!

One of my taxi driver friends got murdered. Another got repeatedly stabbed in the face with a steak knife by a crazy woman. Then there was the one had the misfortune of having a pistol pointed at him three times during three different robberies. But all of this is okay! Men are worthless and expendable!

The fact is, men shouldn’t be educated at all. They’re awful!! They should be like those Epsilon-Minus Semi-Morons in Brave New World, the ones that ran the elevators. Serves them right.
The worst -- especially the worst! – are white men, who are drooling troglodyte sexist racist homophobic specieist child-molesting rapist pornographer Ice People brutes who introduced slavery into the world. (Well, actually, that’s not true – white men got rid of slavery, and in record time: about 55 years, after slavery was around at least 7000 years. But facts don’t matter!)

Men should receive no education at all. Not even reading, writing and arithmetic! Revenge is good, and it doesn’t matter if it’s aimed at the wrong people.

One way to prevent this education is by drugging little boys. I think Ritalin would be a good choice. It’ll fix their brains up but good, like that Ritalin child Kurt Cobain, who returned the favor by fixing his own brains permanently!

Yep, make sure men receive no education, dope them up, prevent them by law from getting educated jobs…and women will be able to rule the world!

Now what kind of world would we have if women ruled it completely and men had absolutely no influence at all, had no education, and were completely at the bottom?

I think the humorist P.J. O’Rourke gave us a clue with his comment, “Without men, civilization would last until the next oil change.” Or as Camille Paglia commented, if women had been in charge of civilization, we’d still be living in grass huts. Okay, well, maybe teepees.

Hmmm…let’s see…who invented about 97% of everything in the world? Well, as best as I can remember, it was European men and their descendants in America. Those horrible hideous white men who are responsible for every problem in the world! . . . they invented almost everything? Huh?
But let’s concentrate on the United States and not the entire world. If women ruled completely and men had no influence at all, it’d be a great country. Utopia! Paradise on Earth!

Things would go backward, of course, I suppose to some sort of primitive, barely technological society. Tribal and pastoral. But that would be great!

I think I might be exaggerating a little bit (or maybe a lot) but you can learn a lot from reductio ad absurdum.

Very few women can invent anything – or drive for that matter -- but so what? A primitive, loving, pastoral tribe in which everyone chipped in and helped change the babies…it’d be wonderful! It’d be just like that idyllic tribe in One Million Years B.C., in which Raquel Welch wore a two-piece fur bikini. Woo hoo, what a life! I can’t wait.

Of course, women (and some men) don’t believe this would happen. Somehow – not quite sure how – we’d still have an advanced technological society with big-screen TVs and SUVs and dentistry and surgery and easy high-paying careers, even though men would be so uneducated, stupid, doped up and out of work they couldn’t do anything except drink and smoke dope and lie around jerking off to computer porn and wondering how to use that sex-toy they bought mail-order.

But what the heck. All those women oppressed throughout history, why, once they’re free, think of all the inventions waiting to be invented by them! Forget that Gloria Steinem said that logic didn’t matter. It doesn’t matter! Or that there are certain things that shouldn’t be investigated, like the differences between men and women. She’s right about that, too!

And of course, women would have all the government jobs, so we can be ruled by bureaucrats. Of course, being women, they won’t act like bureaucrats, unless they were mommy-bureaucrats. Thank God for that!

Women being supported by the government is a good thing, since marriage would collapse, what with men not being able to support a family. So women would have babies without being married or the children having a father’s influence. All of us would end up acting lower-class. And this is good!
It’s always a good thing for teenage girls to not get married and have kids to get more welfare. And for teenage boys to form gangs as surrogate families. And the fact these things are caused by not having intact families with fathers? It’s a good thing!

In essence, women would be marrying the government. And this is a good thing. Families and fathers are so primitive!

Well, primitive yes, but not primitive like tribal primitive. That’s good primitive. It’d be some other kind of primitive, like not-needed primitive, like hair in your ears or nostrils.

So what if many women would be unhappy hateful frustrated hysterical shrews, except for all those revenge-minded man-hating lesbians who helped found feminism? And envious ugly leftist feminists like the hideous monster Betty Friedan? And if men are unhappy and drink and do drugs and get violent? Ha! Since when did happiness ever matter? Revenge is what matters! Fairness is what matters…well, yeah, I know, it wouldn’t be fair, but so what?

And if society didn’t advance and instead went backwards, so what about that, too? Primitive tribes without dental care and air-conditioning are the place to be!

Many women are natural socialists, which means they are irrational, ruled by their feelings and think everyone should be forced to share and do favors for others whether they want to or not. This is good. I think that’s the reason they’ve always been denied the vote. That’s not good! It’s certainly why so many of them vote Democrat. And that’s good!

Throughout history women have always been the home and the heart (maybe it should be the Home and the Heart). Men have always been the rational creative inventing part – the fixers, the inventors, the discoverers.

About 40 years ago the brain researcher Paul McLean discovered three structures to the brain: at the bottom, the reptilian complex, on top of that, the limbic system (emotion) and on top of that, the neocortex (reason).

One writer called it the Snake brain, the Eve brain, and the Adam brain. But whatever you call it, the rational brain sits on top of the emotional brain, which means our emotions are supposed to be subject to our reason -- not the other way around.

It’s not as if men are all reason and women are all emotion. Each sex has a bit of the other in it, like Jung postulated with the anima/amimus or that Yin/Yang thingie.

If each gender didn’t have a bit of the other in it, we’d never be able to understand each other. Both sexes have mirror neurons, although women have more. Men have a bigger visual-spatial area in their brain. That’s a bad thing! . . .I think.

But, heck, so what? Facts don’t matter. Only archaic left-wing socialist/tribal fantasies matter. It doesn’t even matter if they don’t work and destroy lives and societies!

I, for one, welcome our new Eve overlords. All our base are belong to them!


--------


Read the original and comment here:


http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2015/07/i-for-one-welcome-our-new-eve-overlords.html


--------


Quibcag: I have no idea who the oil-changing girl is. I found her on the net. She's there for the irony of it all

ZAPping the NAP

There's a lot of talk in libertarian circles about the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP), also known as the Zero Aggression Principle (ZAP). Unfortunately, too many libertarians discuss it as though it were a law of nature that somebody discovered, like e=mc2 or the germ theory of disease. It isn't anything of the kind. It's a (drum roll) social construct. No, really, an actual social construct, devised by a human mind as a proposal for a simple rule of ethics, not a description of reality. A law of nature is a description of reality, devised to explain observed facts. A rule of ethics is meant to guide human behavior, not to describe it. It's test is not whether people behave that way, but whether, if they did behave that way, it would result in a stable social order. Some such ethical social constructs are fairly stable, like Catholicism or most of what Machiavelli came up with. The former has evolved rules of thumb over the centuries that work fairly well in keeping civilization going without too much agony, the latter was deliberately devised to do all that.

The ZAP, then, is not something you observe happening, but rather something you try to get people to agree to. It's an echo, sort of, of the golden rule, obviously, which explicitly states what you ought to do, not what you do do.

This thinking was inspired, BTW, by a discussion on Facebook [link] wherein my good friend Matt Bailey (who gets at least half credit for the cartoon up there) tries mightily to show that the ZAP only works when enough people agree to abide by it as an ethical principle. And, I might add, it's only really workable when it's limited to reciprocity. That is, I observe the ZAP with those who also observe it with respect to me. In this, it's oddly similar to pacifism as an ethical principle. If you apply it promiscuously, it's suicidal. If you employ it only with others who agree to employ it with you, it works just fine. In fact, it works all the time, with most people, who don't go around attacking other people at random. But you don't call it "pacifism" unless it is promiscuous.

Anyhow, too many people misuse the ZAP, extending it beyond its reasonable area of application to the use of it in any and all situations, where it would die a quick death, because in most human societies throughout history, aggression is automatic and necessary against the out-group, which can be assumed not to share any zero aggression ideas.

One of the best examples of this is the idiot libertarian notion that one mustn't "aggress" against peaceful foreigners who sneak across the border to soak up the goodies that you and your ancestors produced. No, one must let them in and pay one's taxes (Yeah, you have to. Just try not doing it.) to subsidize them so they can work cheap for the guys who can therefore cut your wages or not hire you in the first place. And wait till they actually rob or rape or kill you, and then you can, when it's too late, do something about it. Or not. With Obama, it's usually not.

I'll finish up here with a quote from Matt Bailey that's too long for a quibcag:

A useful philosophy should decide what you want out of the world and go about getting it, in a practical manner that takes note of objective reality. If you want others to go along with your idea, you should probably explain how it benefits them, instead of trying to philosophize/moralize them into conversion. If they remain intractable or in fact your idea DOESN'T really benefit them, then you're going to have to overcome them at the ballot box/and or the battlefield if you want your idea to carry the day.

Open Borders and the Founding Fathers

Libertarians of the "thick" type, who are dedicated to the destruction of the country by mass immigration, keep telling me that the Founding Fathers were open-borders enthusiasts, also. They have no evidence whatsoever for this, except for various statements here and there by some of them advocating immigration from the British Isles, which, if you think about it, is somewhat different than immigration from Mexico or Southeast Asia.

But Benjamin Franklin was even worried about our getting too many Germans, of all things [link], and, as for John Jay, here's what he had to say about it all in Federalist #2:

"With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people -- a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.

Similar sentiments have hitherto prevailed among all orders and denominations of men among us. To all general purposes we have uniformly been one people each individual citizen everywhere enjoying the same national rights, privileges, and protection. As a nation we have made peace and war; as a nation we have vanquished our common enemies; as a nation we have formed alliances, and made treaties, and entered into various compacts and conventions with foreign states.

A strong sense of the value and blessings of union induced the people, at a very early period, to institute a federal government to preserve and perpetuate it. They formed it almost as soon as they had a political existence; nay, at a time when their habitations were in flames, when many of their citizens were bleeding, and when the progress of hostility and desolation left little room for those calm and mature inquiries and reflections which must ever precede the formation of a wise and well-balanced government for a free people. It is not to be wondered at, that a government instituted in times so inauspicious, should on experiment be found greatly deficient and inadequate to the purpose it was intended to answer.

This intelligent people perceived and regretted these defects. Still continuing no less attached to union than enamored of liberty, they observed the danger which immediately threatened the former and more remotely the latter; and being pursuaded that ample security for both could only be found in a national government more wisely framed, they as with one voice, convened the late convention at Philadelphia, to take that important subject under consideration."

Connections, Consequences, Logic, and Other Boring Right-Wing Concepts

Some idiot talking head, I can't remember which one — I think it was Geraldo — said recently that Obama's immigration policy and Francisco Sanchez' murder of Kate Steinle were "completely unrelated." I guess it just happened in a vacuum, and the only way to prevent such things in the future is to ban guns for regular American citizens. I guess that's his thinking — I hesitate to call it "logic." And the moron Juan Williams is said to be "baffled" by the fact that some people advocate allowing military personnel to defend themselves, because it might lead to trouble in mall parking lots or something.

The left certainly is challenged when it comes to actual thinking instead of feeling. Do I need to explain the graphic? If I do, it would be for my small group of leftist readers. Do pass it around.
----------
One last thought:  Of course, the graphic explains how we're supposed to think of Roof and Abdulazeez in completely different terms. And this is absolutely necessary, otherwise we might think that maybe à la the Confederate flag, we should now insist on removing all Islamic symbols from public places, tearing all the Mosques in the country down, and desecrating the graves of any and all Muslims. Just a idea derived from the thought processes of the left.

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America?

From The Revolution:

What if 20 Million Illegal Aliens Vacated America?

Visit Obama Enemies for more on Illegal immigration

I, Tina Griego, journalist for the Denver Rocky Mountain News wrote a column titled, "Mexican Visitor's Lament."

I interviewed Mexican journalist Evangelina Hernandez while visiting Denver last week. Hernandez said, "Illegal aliens pay rent, buy groceries, buy clothes. What happens to your country's economy if 20 million people go away?"

Hmmm, I thought, what would happen?

So I did my due diligence, buried my nose as a reporter into the FACTS I found below.

It's a good question... it deserves an honest answer. Over 80% of Americans demand secured borders and illegal migration stopped. But what would happen if all 20 million or more vacated America? The answers I found may surprise you!

In California, if 3.5 million illegal aliens moved back to Mexico, it would leave an extra $10.2 billion to spend on overloaded school systems, bankrupt hospitals and overrun prisons. It would leave highways cleaner, safer and less congested. Everyone could understand one another as English became the dominant language again.

In Colorado, 500,000 illegal migrants, plus their 300,000 kids and grandchilds would move back "home," mostly to Mexico. That would save Colorado an estimated $2 billion (other experts say $7 billion) annually in taxes that pay for schooling, medical, social-services and incarceration costs. It means 12,000 gang members would vanish out of Denver alone.

Colorado would save more than $20 million in prison costs, and the terror that those 7,300 alien criminals set upon local citizens. Denver Officer Don Young and hundreds of Colorado victims would not have suffered death, accidents, rapes and other crimes by illegals.

Denver Public Schools would not suffer a 67% dropout/flunk rate because of thousands of illegal alien students speaking 41 different languages. At least 200,000 vehicles would vanish from our gridlocked cities in Colorado. Denver's 4% unem ployment rate would vanish as our working poor would gain jobs at a living wage.

In Florida, 1.5 million illegals would return the Sunshine State back to America, the rule of law, and English.

In Chicago, Illinois, 2.1 million illegals would free up hospitals, schools, prisons and highways for a safer, cleaner and more crime-free experience.

If 20 million illegal aliens returned 'home,' the U.S. Economy would return to the rule of law. Employers would hire legal American citizens at a living wage. Everyone would pay their fair share of taxes because they wouldn't be working off the books. That would result in an additional $401 billion in IRS income taxes collected annually, and an equal amount for local, state and city coffers.

No more push '1' for Spanish or '2' for English. No more confusion in American schools that now must contend with over 100 languages that degrade the educational system for American kids. Our overcrowded schools would lose more than two million illegal alien kids at a cost of billions in ESL and free breakfasts and lunches.

We would lose 500,000 illegal criminal alien inmates at a cost of more than $1.6 billion annually. That includes 15,000 MS-13 gang members who distribute $130 billion in drugs annually would vacate our country.

In cities like L.A., 20,000 members of the '18th Street Gang' would vanish from our nation. No more Mexican forgery gangs for ID theft from Americans! No more foreign rapists and child molesters!

Losing more than 20 million people would clear up our crowded highways and gridlock. Cleaner air and less drinking and driving American deaths by illegal aliens!

America's economy is drained. Taxpayers are harmed. Employers get rich. Over $80 billion annually wouldn't return to the aliens' home countries by cash transfers. Illegal migrants earned half that money untaxed, which further drains America 's economy which currently suffers an $8.7 trillion debt. $8.7 trillion debt!!!

At least 400,000 anchor babies would not be born in our country, costing us $109 billion per year per cycle. At least 86 hospitals in California, Georgia and Florida would still be operating instead of being bankrupt out of existence because illegals pay nothing via the EMTOLA Act. Americans wouldn't suffer thousands of TB and hepatitis cases rampant in our country - brought in by illegals unscreened at our borders.

Our cities would see 20 million less people driving, polluting and grid locking our cities. It would also put the 'progressives' on the horns of a dilemma; illegal aliens and their families cause 11% of our greenhouse gases.

Over one million of Mexico's poorest citizens now live inside and along our border from Brownsville, Texas, to San Diego, California, in what the New York Times called, 'colonias' or new neighborhoods. Trouble is, those living areas resemble Bombay and Calcutta where grinding poverty, filth, diseases, drugs, crimes, no sanitation and worse. They live without sewage, clean water, streets, roads, electricity, or any kind of sanitation.

The New York Times reported them to be America's new 'Third World' inside our own country. Within 20 years, at their current growth rate, they expect 20 million residents of those colonials. (I've seen them personally in Texas and Arizona; it's sickening beyond anything you can imagine.)

By enforcing our laws, we could repatriate them back to Mexico. We should invite 20 million aliens to go home, fix their own countries and/or make a better life in Mexico. We already invite a million people into our country legally annually, more than all other countries combined. We cannot and must not allow anarchy at our borders, more anarchy within our borders and growing lawlessness at every level in our nation.

It's time to stand up for our country, our culture, our civilization and our way of life.

Interesting Statistics!

Here are 14 reasons illegal aliens should vacate America, and I hope they are forwarded over and over again until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them:

1. $14 billion to $22 billion dollars are spent each year on welfare to illegal aliens (that's Billion with a 'B')

3. $7.5 billion dollars are spent each year on Medicaid for illegal aliens.

4. $12 billion dollars are spent each year on primary and secondary school education for children here illegally and they still cannot speak a word of English!

5. $27 billion dollars are spent each year for education for the American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.

6. $3 Million Dollars 'PER DAY' is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens. That's $1.2 Billion a year.

7. 28% percent of all federal prison inmates are illegal aliens.

8. $190 billion dollars are spent each year on illegal aliens for welfare & social services by the American taxpayers.

9. $200 billion dollars per year in suppressed American wages are caused by the illegal aliens.

10. The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate that's two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens. In particular, their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in t he US.

11. During the year 2005, there were 8 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens that crossed our southern border with as many as 19,500 illegal aliens from other terrorist countries. Over 10,000 of those were middle-eastern terrorists. Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin, crack, guns, and marijuana crossed into the U.S. from the southern border.

12. The National Policy Institute, estimates that the total cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion, or an average cost of between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.

13. In 2006, illegal aliens sent home $65 BILLION in remittances back to their countries of origin, to their families and friends.

14. The dark side of illegal immigration: Nearly one million sex crimes are committed by illegal immigrants in the United States!

Total cost a whopping $538.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR !
---------
Quibcag: Since she's a scientists and knows about things like self-destruct buttons, the quibcag is illustrated by Rika Shiguma of Haganai (はがない).

The Immigration Agenda

There are a lot of groups wildly in favor of mass immigration and open borders, and very few with a sane attitude about the issue. That's why so many of us are delighted that Trump is pounding away at the issue. As the graphic states, the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) love the idea of masses of incompatible foreigners moving in and replacing the American people, because, frankly, the MAG hates the American people. Simple as that. Others pushing for mass immigration include the sappier sort of Christian, who think it's their duty to give up all they have (and all the rest of us have) and give it to random immigrants, who of course will not appreciate it but just whimper that they need more. Then there are the doublethinking Zionists (including many of the aforementioned Christians) who think Israel's borders are sacred and inviolable, but that ours are artificial or stupid or something. There are liberals in general, who, as a part of, or ally of, the MAG, prefer foreigners to Americans, nonWhites to Whites, nonChristians to Christians, etc. And we have the neocons, like the Bush boys, who want to be hidalgos lording over a multicultural empire full of an easily-manipulated ethnically ambiguous people, who will work cheap and be dependent on the government.  And then we have th flakier sort of libertarian, who says that everybody has a 'right of travel,' and therefore we have no right to keep anybody out of our country. This is much like the liberal notion that freedom of anything requires that the government subsidize everything that one might want to be 'free' to do.

Speaking of Christians, at Vdare.com Michelle Malkin writes:

Is Your Church Abetting Sanctuary Nation?

The random, heartless murder of a young tourist on San Francisco’s Pier 14 by a five-time illegal alien deportee who benefited from the “progressive” city’s sanctuary policy has law-abiding Americans, law enforcement officials and political opportunists of all stripes up in arms.

But for decades, feckless government leaders ignored the pleas of families who suffered the bloody consequences of open borders.

For every Kate Steinle who died at the hands of an illegal alien sanctuary beneficiary, there is a Tony, Michael and Matthew Bologna in San Francisco.

A Jamiel Shaw (age 17) or Xinran Ji (age 24) in Los Angeles.

A Marten Kudlis (age 3) in Denver.

An Iofemi Hightower, Dashon Harvey, Terrance Aeriel, or Natasha Aeriel in Newark.

A Zina Linnik (age 12) in Tacoma.

A Vanessa Pham (age 19) in Fairfax County, Va.

As I’ve reported time and again, liberal “sanctuary” programs in these metropolitan areas have protected, harbored and enabled criminal illegal aliens who disappeared into the deportation abyss. Both Democrats and Republicans, goaded by Big Government and Big Business interests, collaborated to turn America into a collective sanctuary nation. Non-enforcement is the rule, deportation evasion is the game, and the country is a safe haven—for law-breakers from around the world.

Yet, even as born-again tough-on-borders grandstanders now race in front of cameras to condemn these dangerous policies, churches across the country are brazenly thumbing their nosesat our immigration laws. And political phonies are doing nothing to stop them.

In Northeast Portland, Ore., the Augustana Lutheran Church is shielding illegal alien Francisco Aguirre-Velasquez after he committed drunk driving and drug crimes and violated deportation rules.

Read the rest, and see some illustrations, here:

http://www.vdare.com/articles/is-your-church-abetting-sanctuary-nation

That Confederate Flag

This isn't the sort of thing you argue about. When somebody calls your mother a whore, you don't discuss the matter. What they've done is trash you and everything you stand for. That's what the Confederate flag — I know, it's the battle flag, but everybody calls it the Confederate flag — is all about. It's a symbol of the South, as well as a symbol of the White people of the South, and by extension a symbol of White people in America and White people everywhere.

The attack on the flag is already followed by insistence that we desecrate the graves of everybody associated with the Confederacy. Did you think they'd be satisfied with the flag?

And when all this is done, they'll point out that the Union forces were a bunch of racists, too, and their flag will have to come down. This all reminds me of how soon after the Nazis were vanquished and denounced, the very Western allies who defeated them were castigated as fascists themselves.

Maybe Nikki Haley should visit her ancestral homeland in Amritsar. I'm sure there are a lot of flags she could pull down over there.

Todd Starnes Quote

I don't know much about Todd Starnes, but he's sure got this right.

More Liberal Cognitive Dissonance

There's not much I can add to this Kevin George Tuma [link] quibcag, except to say it's exactly correct. I don't know how many times I've heard "It's the law of the land" from lefties whenever Obamacare is criticized, which implies, of course, that it's bad form to even express a dislike for a law. Imagine them saying that about any of the laws they don't like. Laws permitting the bearing of arms, for example, which they think of as "Republican."

And I've never seen quite so much about how awful it is that anybody is opposing Obama's program in any way (opposition to Bush, Reagan, etc., was called 'patriotic'), and I've even seen claims that such opposition is "treason."

And of course the left applauds any and all overreaches by Obama or any of his Attorney Generals. This is a good graphic to keep handy to react to such behavior by the left on the net.

---------

Quibcag: Again we have Marii from Joshiraku (じょしらく),

The Liberal Mind, If We Can Call It That

We've really started something here! Now we have another video, this one from Stephen W. Browne, on how that old black magic the liberal mind works.
This also serves as a good introduction to Stephen W. Browne [link] himself.
------
Quibcag: The quibcag is illustrated by the adorable Kagome of Inuyasha (犬夜叉).

How Liberals Think

That last post led to a commenter pointing out this nice little video that is well worth listening to. It's a speech by Evan Sayet (the name looked Turkish to me, but boy, is that wrong!) to the Heritage Foundation. Now, this fellow is almost certainly a neocon, but you have to remember that neocons do say a lot of accurate things, especially about their liberal cousins. And you really should listen to this guy, as he points out that what he calls modern liberal thought is, at base, simple nihilism.

Don't let his unquestioning support of Israel put you off. I'm well aware that Israel's interests aren't our interests, and that Israel has behaved shabbily and worse on many occasions — not least because of our unquestioning support — but his analysis of the motivations behind leftist criticism of, and opposition to, Israel are dead on.

Likewise, he is correct about the motivation behind leftist opposition to the Iraq War.  There were good reasons to oppose it, and I certainly opposed it, but not because of the usual leftist claptrap about racism, etc., but because I thought it was a waste our blood and treasure and not in our interest.

The left, of course, when it opposes Israel and/or the Iraq War, does so precisely because it thinks, in its wisdom, that these two things are in America's interest, and therefore just hates them. One can disagree about both of these issues, because of different analysis of just what our interests are, but the left, never forget, takes its position because the left opposes America's interest as they see it.

So what Mr. Sayet is for may be a bit dubious and we may not like it all, but his evaluation of the left and its motivations is both informative and useful. It's obviously several years old, but still timely! So, take a grain of salt and listen:

-------
Quibcag: Again we have Marii of Joshiraku (じょしらく).

The Phony Left

One difference between the left and the right is that the latter has a bias in favor of honesty. It isn't always honest, of course, but down deep inside, all of us on the right know damn well that we ought to be. There are probably a lot of reasons for that, but one of the main reasons is that the right is in favor of maintaining civilization, and it was determined long ago that, for Western civilization at least, honesty and truth are basic underpinnings of the whole way of thinking and behaving.

The left has no such bias. Oh, there are a few people on the left who aren't that way, but they're sure not in the driver's seat of the movement. Most of them are constantly pointing out that the Communist world and its successors in the West — Obama, Hillary, all of the Democrats and most of the Republicans — aren't the real left. Maybe so. But they think they're the left, and so does everybody else, so what I say here refers to the actual leftist movement, from Mao to Bernie Sanders, and not some outliers who haven't gotten the message about lying all the time.

So almost none of the causes of the left are real causes, in the sense that the left thinks they are a good thing and ought to be established. Au contraire. The left promotes a lot of crazy stuff — affirmative action, homosexual marriage, handcuffing the cops, free speech (only for filth and self-destructive ideas) mass immigration, etc. etc. — that it wouldn't allow for a minute once it's completely in control. None of any of that in North Korea or Cuba. They don't allow it on their watch because they know it's destructive. So there's no point in arguing with the left that their ideas are bad. They know they're bad. They like them bad. Tell them that homosexual marriage undermines real marriage and they'll argue that it doesn't. But they know it does, and that's precisely why they support it. Except for a few adolescents who don't know any better, the left has no desire to improve conditions for anybody, but to make things worse and make their own takeover inevitable.

I've been saying all this for awhile, but I've never expressed it as fluently as Daniel Greenfield has. I came across his essay on http://www.ncc-1776.org/, a site you should visit at least once a week.  He writes:

No Truce With the Left

 by Daniel Greenfield

There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it's criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.

Liberals have a long history of being the left's useful idiots. It's only fair that libertarians get a turn.

Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.

Now they're wondering how an accommodation can be made with tranny rights. A brief look back at gay rights will show that the only possible accommodation is one in which men in dresses have a legal right to use the ladies room and every single closed female space and event. And yes, that means your business will be shut down if you object to Steve using the female locker room. 

After a few skirmishes, some fundraising and angry letters, the accommodationists will find ways to accommodate that and we can look forward to conservative activists eagerly crowing about the first gay Republican presidential candidate around say, 2024, and the first Republican man in a dress in the Senate around the same time.

Of course by then it will be something else. Maybe pedophiles. Gay rights activists don't like the analogy, but their movement and its assorted allies, particularly in Europe's Green parties, have a long history of advocating it. The same pop culture methods that were used to sell gay rights and Bruce Jenner can easily be flipped around to sell NAMBLA.

By 2024, the Republican gay and tranny candidates will be dismissed as tokens while the media oohs and aahs over a vocal and charismatic campaigner for some other love that dare not speak its name.

And that's the point. It has always been the point.

The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left's favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.

The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout. 

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.

That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.

The left is a drunk in a bar trying to pick a fight with you. Trying to convince him that you didn't disrespect him, put something in his beer to make him dizzy or make his feet so heavy won't work. There's no 'agree to disagree' possible here. He's picking a fight with you because he wants a fight.

The left does not care about Bruce Jenner. It does not care about gay rights, equal pay, police brutality or even slavery. Its activists 'care' about those things a great deal right now, but they could easily be persuaded tomorrow to be outraged by telephone poles, shredded wheat or people in green sweaters.

They care mainly about emotional venting and exercising power over others. It's the same phenomenon witnessed during the Salem Witch Trials, the French Revolution or any other mob scene. Except the individual elements of the mob are on social media and have a hashtag.

The outraged social justice warrior was laughing at tranny jokes a few years ago. Now he's ready to  kill over minor verbal missteps. A few years from now he'll be laughing at them again.

There's a long human history to such atrocities, to mobs whipping themselves up into spasms of manufactured outrage, subsuming their own doubts, confusion and unhappiness into the 'cause'.

The cause is progress, but the real cause is the power of its enforcers to vent their unhappiness and destructive impulses on everyone else under the guise of reform.

You can't find common ground with the left because it is an activist machine dedicated to destroy common ground, not only with the right, but even with its own allies on the left. Progress turns what was once progressive into what is reactionary. And what was reactionary into what is progressive.

Read the rest at Daniel's blog, Sultan Knish, here:

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/06/no-truce-with-left.html

Illegal Immigrants Murder People, and Pointing That Out is Bigotry

I've been back-and-forthing with a very young, naive, flaky libertarian on a forum about immigration. He has a charming reason why we have to have open borders. It goes this way. If A wants to rent a room to B, and B isn't allowed to move into the United States to live in the room because of immigration laws, A's property rights are being violated. The difference between flaky libertarians and liberals are mainly that the former likes to make sentences up that sound somehow logical to justify their idiotic conclusions.  The liberals don't bother, and just appeal to emotions instead.

In the real world, of course, A's rent is paid not by B, but by the US government in the form of all kinds of goodies that are available to immigrants, legal and otherwise, from all different government levels. So if A is deprived of a cut of these handouts, somehow we're harming him.

With libertarians like that, we don't need liberals.

Oh, liberals, flaky libertarians, and neocons are all big on immigration, and constantly assure us that immigrants are just what we need, and that any other attitude is downright bigotry.

Wouldn't it have been a crying shame if somehow we'd deported Francisco Sanchez and made it stick? Think of the landlords whose property rights would have been violated! This is from http://www.unz.com/isteve/

Happy Independence Day

STEVE SAILER

The Associated Press reports:

San Francisco: No ‘legal basis’ to hold shooting suspect
Associated Press
1 hour ago

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A man suspected in the shooting death of a woman at a busy San Francisco tourist destination has seven felony convictions and has been deported five times, most recently in 2009, a federal agency said Friday.

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had turned Francisco Sanchez over to San Francisco police March 26 on an outstanding drug warrant, agency spokeswoman Virginia Kice said.

Officers arrested Francisco Sanchez about an hour after Wednesday’s seemingly random slaying of Kathryn Steinle at Pier 14 — one of the busiest attractions in the city. People gather there to take in the views, joggers exercise, and families push strollers at all hours.

Sanchez was on probation for an unspecified conviction, police Sgt. Michael Andraychak said Thursday.

Kice said ICE issued a detainer for Sanchez in March, requesting notification of his release and that he stay in custody until immigration authorities could pick him up. The detainer was not honored, she said.

Freya Horne, counsel for the sheriff’s office, said Friday that federal detention orders are not a legal basis to hold someone, so Sanchez was released April 15. San Francisco is a sanctuary city, and local money cannot be spent to cooperate with federal immigration law.

The city does not turn over people who are in the country illegally unless there’s an active warrant for their arrest, she said. Horne said they checked and found none. ICE could have issued an active warrant if they wanted the city to keep him, she said.

“It’s not legal to hold someone on a request to detain. This is not just us. This is a widely adopted position,” Horne said.

Steinle was gunned down while out for an evening stroll with her father along the waterfront. Police said witnesses heard no argument or dispute before the shooting, suggesting it was a random attack.

Perhaps the President will speak at Kathryn Steinle’s funeral?

Read the rest, and see some videos, here:

http://www.unz.com/isteve/happy-independence-day/

--------

Quibcag: Charmingly illustrated by Sera Masumi of Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

The Fungiblity of Immigration (There's very little)

The net and the media in general have gone mad over Trump's immigration comments. Nowhere, of course, is anything that he said being refuted or ever argued about in the usual sense. What's going on is that he's being threatened, smeared, ridiculed, and called every name in the book.

There's a general notion among liberals, neocons, and the flakier variety of libertarian that human beings are infinitely fungible. That means for our purposes that all immigrants are equally desirable, because they evidently have the anthropological equivalent of Maxwell's Demon at the border, ensuring that only the best cross over. Wrong. The usual rational reply to that is that some people are coming here for the wrong reasons, and/or are of bad character or limited ability, and will therefore hurt a lot more than they will help. If they help at all.

But let's go a little further. We're not really a 'propositional nation' [link]. No nation is. Nations (note that I'm saying 'nation,' not 'country) are ethnically based. And if they change ethnically, they turn into something else, as Ann Coulter says. The Democrats and Republicans seem to think that's just peachy, and look forward to Whites being a minority. I don't.  So, I'm supporting Trump.
---------
Quibcag: That last one turned out so well, I think I'll use Lum, of Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら)., for all my Coulter quibcags from now on.

Trump-Coulter 2016!

It's hard to keep track of all of them, but it seems to me that all the prospective Republican nominees for President have failed to say anything rational about immigration, and many of them have taken the opportunity to proclaim their irrationality on the subject instead. In reaction to the one prospective nominee who has said rational things about immigration, Donald Trump.

The Democrat/Republican party line is, of course, that all immigrants are wonderful, and that we need them very badly. A few Republicans make a feeble case for maybe being careful not to admit downright criminals, but they're easily talked out of that with inspiring stories of illegal immigrant children winning scholarships and curing cancer and squaring the circle. All made up, of course, but in a good cause, the refrain goes.

And, since the single most important issue is immigration, and because the rest of the Republicans seem perfectly comfortable with Obama's policy of luring illegals in, and flying them in if necessary, putting them on the government dole, and 'de-emphasizing deportation' (i. e. not deporting anybody at all, really), I'm declaring my support for Donald Trump, warts and all.  And John Derbyshire agrees, and thinks Ann Coulter would make him a good running mate. At unz.com, he writes:

Trump-Coulter 2016!

JOHN DERBYSHIRE

At the American Renaissance conference this spring we had a formal debate on the question: “Can the American political system solve the race problem?”

Arguing for the affirmative, I said the following thing:

Nothing grows to the sky. Public attitudes ebb and flow; the pendulum swings. The English puritans banned Christmas and hanged adulterers; twenty years later came the license and gaiety of the Restoration. A century and a half later, Regency gave way toVictorian primness.

How much further can we go in the direction of reality-denial andethnomasochism? The nation has twice voted for Barack Obama as President: an affirmative-action hire whose previous executive experience was running a playgroup in Chicago. What next—President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho?

The events of the past month have left that looking a tad optimistic. In the Cold Civil War between goodwhite progressives and us badwhite traditionalists, the enemy has won a rapid succession of victories and is bursting with triumphalist zeal.

• The June 17th church massacre in Charleston, South Carolina played right into the progressive Narrative of the U.S.A. as a place where nervous blacks scurry around in constant fear of violence at the hands of leering, arrogant badwhites who seek to harm them.
• Thus energized, the Jacobins of liberalism are on a nationwide rampage,defacing historic monuments and tearing down badwhite emblems with all the passion of ISIS thugs smashing up pre-Islamic antiquities.
• In a ruling on the case of Texas v. Inclusive Communities Project the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the irrational and pernicious doctrine of “disparate impact,” which argues that absence of intent to discriminate is no defense against a charge of discrimination.

In this case, “The court decided it did not matter if the state housing department did not explicitly set out to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin—the effect was enough to violate the law.” [Supreme Court: Texas Reinforced Segregated Housing by Liz Crampton, The Texas Tribune, June 25,2015.]

• While denying the relevance of intent in the Texas case, the Supremes simultaneouslyhanded down a ruling on Obamacare in King v. Burwell that the intent of those who draft a law supersedes the plain meaning of the actual words in the actual statement of the law.

Chief Justice Roberts ruled with the majority, brushing aside the petitioners’ appeals to federalism.

• Next day the Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that homosexual couples must be accorded the same marriage rights as heterosexuals in all states of the Union.

Chief Justice Roberts posted a vigorous dissent, arguing that the ruling violated the principle of federalism.

In the atmosphere of Left triumphalism and jurisprudential confusion generated by these victories, what was previously unthinkable now seems all too possible.

The zealots have, for example, seized on a decision by the U.S. Treasury earlier this year to make the portraits on U.S. money bills more “inclusive.” Their call for all streets, schools, landmarks, and institutions named for Confederate generals and statesmen to be renamed is now fast expanding into demands to de-legitimize the very Founders themselves, or at least those of them that owned slaves.

CNN’s Don Lemon suggested on air last week that: “There may come a day when we may want to rethink Jefferson.” How long before activists, amply fed and equipped with funds from George Soros and cheered on by the $PLC and the New York Mexican Times, demands the renaming of our nation’s capital? Washington?District of Columbia?

In the spirit of my AmRen address, commentators have been arguing that we must now be at, or close to, Peak Leftism or Peak Liberalism. In the nature of things, by a sort of Newtonian principle, they say, surely a reaction is overdue—a counter-revolution?

It would be nice to think so, but this latest round of defeats leave me wondering whether, perhaps, things can indeed grow to the sky. Polygamy and polyandry? Legalized incest? Amnesty and instant citizenship for illegal aliens? Federal outlawing of separate Men’s and Women’s lavatories? The return of forced busing? Compulsory integration of housing? Anything seems possible—anything Leftists can dream of.

What can we do about this? Well, we can bellyache on the internet. That is personally satisfying, but not very effectual—mere guerilla harassment of a mighty, well-equipped occupying army. The entire readership of all Dissident Right websites doesn’t add up to the population of an average provincial city.

(An amusing feature of the current situation is that some of the less intelligent foot-soldiers in that army still believe themselves to be the counter-culture, Speaking Truth to Power. As Ramzpaul told the unkempt, neck-bearded little gaggle of antifa demonstrators outside the 2014 AmRen conference: “Do you really imagine you’re sticking it to the Man? You are the Man!”)

Meanwhile the Left consolidates its hold on all the commanding heights of our society: the Main Stream Media, the schools and universities, the big corporations, the courts, the churches, the political party bosses.

We webizens can bloviate to our hearts’ content; the rulers don’t really care. They have perfected the art of running a “beggars’ democracy.”

This refers to the more relaxed sort of despotism in which the lower orders—the beggars—are permitted some modest freedoms of expression, so long as they do not challenge the basic assumptions ofthe state ideology too boldly.

[Begging Questions by John Derbyshire; Taki’s Magazine, March 5, 2015.]

Steve Sailer doesn’t get invited on Fox News; Jared Taylor isn’t being asked to give college commencement addresses.

Occasional eruptions of citizen resistance to the ruling power are easily smacked down. When supporters of the Confederate flag were set upon by an antifa mob in Columbia, South Carolina on Monday this week, there was only one arrest… of a flag supporter.

Things look bad all over for traditional values and the historic American nation.

I’m here to cheer you up, though. There have been some rays of light through the gloom these past few days.

Two rays of light, to be precise: Donald Trump and Ann Coulter.

Read the rest here:

http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/trump-coulter-2016/