Monday, December 30, 2013

What Is Anarcho-Tyranny?

I have seen the term anarcho-tyranny tossed around, but it went in one ear as "bad-bad" and came out the other. Recently the term has seen a mini-surge in popularity around in the reactosphere with several posts on it. Here are some links if like me, you weren't up on what exactly the term meant.

The original article from 2004 that coined the term: Anarcho-Tyranny—Where Multiculturalism Leads
Unwilling to control immigration and the cultural disintegration it causes, the authorities instead control the law-abiding. This is precisely the bizarre system of misrule I have elsewhere described as "anarcho-tyranny"—we refuse to control real criminals (that's the anarchy) so we control the innocent (that's the tyranny).
From metapedia: Anarcho-tyranny
While the government functions normally, violent crime remains a constant, creating a climate of fear (anarchy). He says that “laws that are supposed to protect ordinary citizens against ordinary criminals” routinely go unenforced, even though the state is “perfectly capable” of doing so. While this problem rages on, government elites concentrate their interests on law-abiding citizens. In fact, Middle America winds up on the receiving end of both anarchy and tyranny.
Radish goes into great detail fleshing out the concept in 3.9 Anarcho-Tyranny. Great use of photos to illustrate their points.

Aurini looks at the roots of it all in Anarcho-Tyranny’s Left-wing Roots
Because Liberals can’t actually assess someone else’s psychological state, they rely upon litmus tests. They try and apply the methods of science to personal behaviour, even though none of this is happening in a controlled environment. They take the DSM IV, and try and put it on the street: they write policies and procedures, best practices, autistic checks and balances to turn the cops into automatons- -and this is when Anarcho-Tyranny appears. Policing requires a subtle touch, not the blunt, blind rules and regulations of idiot savants.
Somewhat of a tangent, but Vox Day touched on this liberal approach in:  Mailvox: the Flat Gene Society
A focus on feelings is a reliable hallmark of those with no moral core at their center. The idea that opposing forced desegregation is necessarily indicative of hatred, much less a secret desire for genocide, is not only irrational, but exposes the ravenous, immoral beast at the heart of modern left-liberalism.
Observe the twisted left-liberal logic. First, there is the determination to deny reality. The genetic differences between the various human population groups either exist or not. The intellectual and behavioral limits imposed by those genetic differences either exist or not. And while for the last 50 years it has been de rigueur to claim that there are no genetic differences between various population groups, or that any differences are meaningless, advances in human genetics mean that is now the genetic equivalent of belonging to the Flat Earth Society.
Second, there is the illogical claim that recognizing those genetically imposed limits between various groups must necessarily lead to eugenics. This can only be true if one is operating from an immoral assumption of the right of some central authority to impose minimum capability requirements on the population. Needless to say, I completely reject this notion. The fact that some people are observably incapable of living in an advanced civilization does not justify harming them or treating them as sub-human. There is no reason they should not be able to live in the sort of society in which their predecessors have successfully lived for thousands of years.
The Left goes from zero to Holocaust in 3.2 seconds.

Several bloggers have referenced this article by the always great Dalrymple: I Have Seen the Future, and it Is Idiocy. It doesn't mention anarcho-tyranny, but the concept is there.

How Coca-Cola Stays on Top

No, Coca-Cola didn't go is anti-Cathedral.

Head over to Fr. Z's Blog and vote in the poll" A TV commercial for your consideration: POLL

Sunday, December 22, 2013

America In One Picture

See Urban Liberalism: White Gentrification

Idiocracy Now!

Tim Knight at SlopeofHope noticed that California's Obamacare website has some mistakes:

Welcome to the Third World Californians! Ware yor "Idiocracy Now" butens prowdlee.

Sacco Duck

Hey, I'm going to San Francisco! Hope I don't get AIDS! No worries, I watch Duck Dynasty.

Saturday, December 21, 2013

The Seven Deadly Sins, C.S. Lewis, Phil Robertson and GLAAD

First C.S. Lewis:

“There is nothing to be ashamed of in enjoying your food: there would be everything to be ashamed of if half the world made food the main interest of their lives and spent their time looking at pictures of food and dribbling and smacking their lips….
We grow up surrounded by propaganda in favor of unchastity. There are people who want to keep our sex instinct inflamed in order to make money out of us. Because, of course, a man with an obsession is a man who has very little sales-resistance.”
“You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act, that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you came to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was some equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us?”
A 400-lb person who sincerely struggles with their weight and seeks to get healthy is a sinner, but they do not deny their sin. A person who struggles with lust (fornication, adultery, pornography) or homosexuality similar does not deny their sin. However, the obese person struggling with weight gives a visual sign of their sin to the world; someone struggling with more internal sin can better hide their sin from the world.

In contrast, a 400-lb land whale who pushes fat acceptance denies their sin, and then takes it a step further and defines it as something good. It is sin squared, sin to the second power, because they make their sin their pride. The gay mafia does the same thing as the fat acceptance crowd, taking pride in their sin and pushing deviant sexual behaviors into the mainstream. They not only sin and take pride in their sin, they also actively seek to lead others into sin.

GLAAD and similar organizations are engines of sin. They are powered by sin and they seek to spread it far and wide in society, eradicating any pocket of resistance. They are not content with stopping at an open society, they seek to destroy any source of criticism, any part of society that still recognizes and names their sin. Much of society agrees with GLAAD—even if the disagree with the attack on Phil Robertson, they probably agree with the rest of GLAAD's mission.

I'm not going to paint a food analogy to what GLAAD is doing, but suffice to say, we live in a sick and twisted society whose deviancy and insane policies know no bounds. They sink (penetrate?) directly into the bowels of Hell and they are dragging the rest of society along with them.

Thursday, December 19, 2013

If You Like Your SS, You Can Keep It

CBO on SS - Another 29' Crash?
SS's finances deteriorate every year. What I found interesting is the extent of the deterioration. 2013 was the best year since 2008 for the broad economy. We had fairly steady growth in the economy, and the job market improved significantly. But the red ink at SS rose very rapidly.
In 2012 a 'fix' for SS would have required an immediate and permanent tax increase of 1.95%. A year later the cost of the fix has risen to 3.36%. That's a 70% deterioration in twelve months. To right the SS ship a payroll tax increase equal to $180B would be required for 2014, and that higher tax rate would have to be sustained forever. A tax increase of this magnitude would sink the economy into a recession that the country would struggle to get out of.
 Do Americans know that their Social Security benefits have an expiration date?
When the Trust Fund is running dry in 29' SS will be paying out at a rate equal to 6% of GDP. The 25% drop in benefits would translate into an immediate (and permanent) drop in consumption of 1.5% of GDP. That's a pretty steep cliff to go over.

So we are fifteen years away from a real problem, and no one is doing anything about it. Nothing will be done in 2014 as it is an election year. I doubt that any real fixes to SS will be made until after Obama is out of the White House. The result of inaction will be that the cost of the fix rises. By 2017 it will be damn near impossible to stabilize the system in the then remaining years before the cliff is hit.
Another problem is the depletion of the SS "trust fund." Debt in the "trust fund" do not receive interest payments; the interest is accrued. Currently, the SS trust fund is about $2.7 trillion, part of $4.8 trillion in intragovernmental debt. As this trust fund depletes and other debt comes due, the Treasury Department must issue new Treasury securities to the public because the government cannot pay the principal on these bonds.

Why this is important: even if the country's $17 trillion in debt did not grow over the next 20 years, the change from intragovernmental debt to public debt will increase the interest payments by roughly 30%, not counting any change in interest rates. Current Treasury debt is paying 2.4% on its debt. If the intragovernmental debt moves to public debt and interest rates increase to 3.6%, the government's interest costs will double.

Currently the federal government is paying about $250 billion in interest costs. We can't do a static analysis of the budget, but it's near inevitable that a mix of rising debt, shift from intragov to public debt, and rising interest rates will sharply increase interest costs.

Estimates put the total debt at about $20 trillion by the end of Obama's presidency in early 2017. This represents an approximate 25% increase to interest costs because public debt is currently about $12 trillion. The next president will have to cut spending by $250 billion dollars annually in order to keep the deficit from rising, or quadruple the recent Ryan-Murray budget deal.

All this will be happening as SS costs spiral out of control and Obamacare starts blowing a hole in the budget.

Wednesday, December 18, 2013

Conservative Wuss Machine Fires Up Again

Duck Dynasty star fired as syphilis addled gay mafia swarms! Will conservatives whine or will they take their business elsewhere? A&E said it supports homosexual propaganda and anti-Christians. Will conservatives seek to prove they aren't bigots, or will they call out the sinners and refuse to support anti-Christian media?

Sunday, December 15, 2013

Movies for the Dark Enlightenment

Mandela's Necklace - a poor refugee from the Congo flees to apartheid South Africa. He thrives there, builds a life, and eventually works as an informant for the apartheid government which sends him deep into the world of political terrorism. He realizes he is in too deep when he sees the entire family of an informant necklaced. Can he escape before he is forced to watch his family burn alive? This gory and chilling movie, a slow paced horror film with a shocking conclusion, is not suitable for children.

Holodomor: The Forgotten Holocaust - The story of the Ukranian genocide is told from the point of view of an American reporter who witnesses the crimes, but will the world learn the truth?

Mao's Children - the unvarnished story of the reign of Mao, beginning with the Great Leap Forward and ending with the Cultural Revolution is banned in China and rated NC-17 for good reason. The movie is a two-hour saga of man's cruelty to his fellow man; this Chinese language Hollywood production was almost cancelled due to fear of reprisals by China's Communist government.

Star Wars Empire - The idea for this movie was born out of the director's reading of The Case for the Empire. In this retelling, the galaxy is on the verge of war (where it isn't already at war) as the Senate breaks down, and the story unfolds as fans already know. Darth Vader is the Emperor's fist, but he soon realizes that the Emperor enjoys Chaos more than Order. This is confirmed when plans for a moon sized space station to foster population growth is redesigned as a Death Star on the Emperor's orders.

Vader is soon putting together a plan to overthrow the Emperor, but his plans are pushed aside by the Rebellion, which demands his attention. The highlight of the move is Vader's speech to Luke on Order: "Together we can rule the galaxy as father and son and bring Order out of the Chaos. The Emperor only seeks Chaos, but your Rebellion brings nothing more! Ignore your feelings Luke, they lead you astray. The Rebellion is as destructive as the Emperor because it will never quench its thirst for Chaos. Where men create Order, the Rebellion will seek to destroy it with its legions of advisers, economists and do-gooders. We have none of those in the Empire and once the Emperor is gone, men will be free to create their own Order under the protection of the Empire."

The trilogy ends with a throwback to the beginning of the entire saga. We find Luke an old Jedi retired on Tatooine, a planet that has collapsed into such violence that even a Jedi cannot stop it. The final scene is Luke visiting his niece and nephew who have rebuilt Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru's old moisture farm. He discovers their burnt bodies smoldering on the ruins of their farm, victims of a random raiding party. The final words are Luke's: "Father, what have I done?"

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Critique of Capitalism

The book: Outline of Sanity

A review
The greatest evil, according to the Liberal Capitalist ideology, is any type of governmental interference in the private bargaining between employer/employee, seller/buyer, and international financial institution/ local borrower. This is in marked distinction from Chesterton’s attitude towards the necessary role the government has in directing the economic activity of a nation so that monopoly does not exist. Chesterton goes so far as to state, concerning his belief in the need for governmental action for the sake of the economic common good, “The present problem of capitalist concentration is not a question of law but of criminal law, not to mention criminal lunacy.”

Friday, November 29, 2013

Withdrawing Consent

Spread the word.
Do the one thing that the ruling class and their sycophants can not survive.
Withdraw consent.
All you have to do is believe they represent illegitimate power.
Not much to it really.
Change in thinking, add a bit of reason, a minor grasp of the intent of our system of rule of law, and it becomes preference and culture.
Quietly mention it to everyone in the sphere of your life.
The truth becomes self apparent to those who have open minds.
Change one mind, you change the world.
Politically, crisis of legitimacy is political assassination of those who hold power through illegitimate means.
The elites can not survive a plurality who withdraws consent.
The folks in the liberty movement who advocate the movement of the 3 percent are far more prescient than they may know.
Where consent of the people is politically critical for the elites to hold onto power.
A cascade of preference among the governed, just regular people like us, who withdraw consent, is the most dangerous political force possible the ruling class faces.
Nothing represents as existential a threat to power, continuation of that power, the entire system of tyranny and corruption, the elitists have created, as loosing legitimacy in the minds of we the people.
Not our arms, our rule of law, revolution, political assassination via the vehicle of impeachment, nothing has the power of secession of political thought among the governed as withdrawal of consent to legitimacy of what our republic has been turned into by the ruling classes.
It is not only those who come up for election, but the people who really run things who don’t ever come up for re-election who require consent of the people for the elected in order to have the power to rule over us.
Hence it is not only the elected we deny consent thus legitimacy, it is the insidious rule of the unelected permanent bureaucracy.
It only requires an act of withdrawal of support for the status quo among consenting adults to achieve change in the thinking of the body of the people.
Once a plurality begins to believe, not only what is possible, but in itself as a force that is righteous, it begins to take on a political emphasis. It self perpetuates. It snowballs. It is culture up stream of politics. It is self perpetuating because by the very human nature of it’s simplicity, this plurality occupies and holds the legitimacy of moral high ground. It is this high ground which gives the advantage of power both political and cultural that supersedes all forms of governance.
Here is the thing.
Millions are looking for a sign, something that is self actualizing, the truth of who and what we are, in this atmosphere of universal deceit, treasonous dissimulation, and corporate system of corruption the elites create and perpetuate.
It is the elites sowing of disorder, doubt, Potemkin fantasy, the shell game system of big lies, crisis as means for manipulating and socially engineering, scandal as camouflage, purposefully deceiving continuously, overwhelming the body of the people, to wear them down, discourage them, disenfranchise them, manipulate them, make some subservient, creating classes of useful dupes, using fear as a lever to manipulate and instill false narratives, obfuscating the truth, creating but a fig leaf of legitimacy, to distract people from the truth it is they themselves who hold all the power. Truth it is the people who grant power. Not the other way around.
And all you have to do is believe.
And if you can, so can others.
It is the people’s sacred prerogative to distinguish what is legitimate and what is not.
There is comfort and security in believing as others, and knowing the truth.
Such a simple thing when the lies and obfuscations are stripped away.
Consent is yours as sure as your soul.
Withdrawal of consent costs nothing.
But it gains everything.
It requires no political party or entity.
You don’t vote for it.
It isn’t granted.
You don’t need permission to use it.
It requires not official sanction.
Indeed, what higher sanction than the natural born law of self determination, free thought, and will.
In that free will lies the beauty and the power of consent. Of the power a plurality possesses naturally, power to change the world. A plurality can not be denied. It’s mere existence would require extermination to do so. It can not be bargained with, because what, is it to bargain to relinquish it’s legitimacy to something illegitimate in the first place? It needs nor requires leadership, for it is the body of the people through it’s awareness, of it’s inherent legitimacy in numbers and thought that leaders are contradictory to the truth we are all born as freemen, and as freeman, we do not require to be led in our beliefs, principles and morals. Is this not the essence of what a freeman is to begin with?
Just imagine if you will the power of a plurality, it’s self awareness, it’s primal right to arm itself not only with truth of sovereignty, but with it’s natural right to possessing arms to defend itself.
It is a tyrants worst nightmare.
It is the stuff that changes the world.
A plurality did just that.
It was 3% of a population of 2.5 million, a plurality of 750,000, who accomplished an unknown feat in 5000 years of humanities history.
It destroyed a great and elitist tyranny and the ruling class power behind it.
Three percent did this. Three quarters of a million American’s fought the most kick-ass, successful revolution in all of history. And not only did this plurality win, against all accepted odds, against an empire that singularly ruled more of the world than any tyranny before or after, it went on to design and create for the very first time in all of history a nation where liberty and intent of the idea of rule of law placed all power of a government upon the simple concept of consent of the people.
A place where more people lived in liberty, than all the people combined in all of history, including those who have lived in liberty in America to this day.
Some contend the republic was flawed from the start. As soon as it began it ceased to be a republic. Well you know what, if so, then it was illegitimate only because people who abused others liberty acted illegitimately. What is the crux of what happened because of a plurality is Liberty lived. And I care not what but that today I am a freeman because of a plurality. I do not give consent to the illegitimate. It is My preference to determine my life, what I believe in, whom/what I give My consent to. Killing me because I refuse consent means I lived, and die a freeman. That is Liberty. That is preference. It is upstream of everything but my faith in God.
What about The III%?
Can the regime of those running things, in order to hold onto power, kill nine and a half million people who withdraw their consent?
Can they kill 3% of the people?
Lets be conservative.
Lets take 3% of the 3 percent:
– 3%
= 285,000
A bit over a quarter of a million American’s, who lets say, are die hard never give up, fight to the last bullet, tooth and nail, to the last man, “give me Liberty or give me death” patriots.
Would a legitimate constitutional government murder 285 thousand American souls because they withdrew consent?
Would a plurality withdraw consent of their government in the face of genocide on American soil due to actions of elected representatives?
Who would be legitimate?
What do you think?
And here we are today.
A plurality is growing, in the face of tyranny again.
It is out there.
It is waiting for you.
It will find you if you let it.
Can you sense it?
Then you are the plurality.
We are a nation today of approx. 315,469,000 people.
315 million Americans.
3% of this population figures out to a plurality of 9,464,070 sovereign Americans.
That is, nine million, four hundred sixty four thousand, seventy people.
No wonder those out to fundamentally destroy America, and those who enable and assist their bidding, are afraid of our arms, the tea party, the liberty movement, anyone who is not cowed or afraid of the monopoly of force or the illegitimate power of the present form of our government.
They are afraid of what the plurality will do to them for what they are doing to the plurality.
They are right to be afraid of the existential threat an aroused plurality represents to their power to rule over us. They are cunning in their pogrom of painting those who constitute the plurality of the people as domestic terrorists and enemies of the state. It is indicative of the extra-constitutional use of lawless diktat and regulatory fiat, that where legitimacy is paramount and systemic as a primal function of our government, there is no need or use of diktat or fiat. Legitimacy is a natural state.
I call our government illegitimate.
I say I withdraw my consent.
I believe those in power have no power because they never had any power to do what they are doing to my country to begin with.
I contend that without my consent, I am the plurality.
I am the plurality because I believe I am not alone.
That there is at least 9 million kindred Freemen just like me.
That right there is the real truth to power.

you are not alone, brothers and sisters
be the plurality
spread the word

Friday, November 01, 2013

The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics by Anonymous Conservative: Read It

Back in August I did a summary review of The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics. If you follow that link, you may be able to get a free copy. In that review I hadn't finished the book yet. After having finished it, I still am not qualified to say whether the science is correct or not. But what I do know is that I have seen the theory applied.
Read the book. Then, if you hadn't followed it, go back and read about VoxDay's run ins with the rabbits. That was a successful demonstration of the theory.

Tuesday, October 22, 2013

Friday, October 18, 2013

Daily Kos Readers Learn About Obamacare

I wish I had a photo of this guy's face when he read the news. On the plus side, the next 10-20 years will provide lots more of these moments.
Obamacare will double my monthly premium (according to Kaiser)

My wife and I just got our updates from Kaiser telling us what our 2014 rates will be. Her monthly has been $168 this year, mine $150. We have a high deductible. We are generally healthy people who don't go to the doctor often. I barely ever go. The insurance is in case of a major catastrophe.
Well, now, because of Obamacare, my wife's rate is gong to $302 per month and mine is jumping to $284.
I am canceling insurance for us and I am not paying any fucking penalty. What the hell kind of reform is this?

That would be "progressive" reform.

Cathedral Caught in a Lie

This is a 40-minute video about the new Fed Chairman, Janet Yellen. Peter Schiff starts with various snips from Cathedral media, which support Yellen's nomination due to her prescience in warning of a housing bubble. Schiff goes on to show that this is a complete fabrication. What I find most interesting is how the media went out of their way to lie; there are serious concerns about the erosion of confidence.

Friday, September 27, 2013

Wealth Gap Explained

Feminism + Huge Wave of Immigration = Falling Wages


Higher Supply leads to Lower Prices

Sunday, September 22, 2013

Dalrymple Channels Moldbug: Callous Altruism Kills

First, here's a snip from Moldbug's latest, Technology, communism and the Brown Scare. It's long, but it sets us up for Dalrymple's latest.
And what is communism?  As a political formula?  Perhaps we can define it, with a nice 20th-century social-science jargon edge, as nonempathic altruism.  Or for a sharper pejorative edge, callous altruism.

What is callous altruism?  Altruism itself is a piece of 20th-century jargon.  We could contrast it with the original word for the same thing, obviously too Christian to prosper in our age: charity.  When we say charity, of course, we think of empathic altruism.

When we think of charity, we think not just of helping others - but of helping others whom we know and love, for whom we feel a genuine, unforged emotional connection.  For whom we feel, in a word, empathy.  Understandably, these people tend to be those who are socially close to us.  If not people we already know, they are people we would easily befriend if we met them.

Dickens, no stranger to genuine empathy, had a term for nonempathic altruism.  He called it telescopic philanthropy.  Who is Peter Singer?  Mrs. Jellyby, with tenure.

So, for example, in classic Bolshevik communism, who is the revolution for?  The workers and peasants.  But... in classic Bolshevik communism... who actually makes the revolution?  Nobles (Lenin) and Jews (Trotsky), basically.  To wit, the groups in Russian society who are in fact most distant - emotionally, culturally, socially - from actual workers and peasants.

Similarly, the most passionate anti-racists in America are all to be found, in early September, at Burning Man.  Everyone at Burning Man, with hardly an exception, is highly altruistic toward African-Americans.  But, to within an epsilon, there are no African-Americans at Burning Man. 
But wait, why is this wrong?  What's wrong with nonempathic altruism?  Why does it matter to the people being helped if the brains of their helpers genuinely light up in the love lobe, or not?  Loved or not, they're still helped - right?

Or are they?  How'd that whole Soviet thing work out for the workers and peasants?

Heck, for the last 50 years, one of the central purposes of American political life has been advancing the African-American community.   And over the last four decades, what has happened to the African-American community?  I'll tell you one thing - in every major city in America, there's a burnt-out feral ghetto which, 50-years ago, was a thriving black business district.  On the other hand, there's a street in that ghetto named for Dr. King.   So, there's that.  And since we mentioned Mrs. Jellyby, what exactly has a century of telescopic philanthropy done for Africa?
.......Once you learn to recognize the distinction between empathic and nonempathic altruism, you'll see it everywhere.  Empathic altruism - charity - is simply good.  Nonempathic altruism - communism - is simply evil.  There's not a whole lot of gray area between good and evil.  Evil motivations can certainly, by coincidence, produce good results - but this is an accident, which has little or nothing to do with the supposed "good intentions."

Consider our late lamented "Arab Spring," a true "spring surprise" that is creeping closer and closer to having killed a million people.  As Stalin said, of course, a million people is just a statistic.  You need a visual.  I like to work with Olympic swimming pools full of blood.

And why did the Arab Spring happen?  It happened because our dear State Department incited revolutions across the Arab world.  And why did State do that?  They did it with the full-throated approval of the American people - all the American people, from left to right.  As far as I can recall, UR and David Goldmanwere the only two pundits condemning this enormous crime, which has produced exactly the results we expected.
And what were the American people thinking?  They were in a pure state of callous altruism.  They thought, we'll help our little brown Arab brothers by supporting them in their enlightened democratic revolution.  Mrs. Jellyby could not have expressed it better.

When you are motivated by genuine charity, and your charitable efforts backfire and actually harm the recipient of your help, you feel guilt and sorrow like nothing else.  You're a witness to a horrific motorcycle accident.  You run over to the man on the ground, pull his helmet off, hug him and give him CPR.  Unfortunately, he would have been fine, except that you just severed his spinal cord.  How do you feel?  Is your reaction: "oh well, at least I tried?"

How did the American people react when their Arab experiment didn't go so well?  I'll tell you exactly how they reacted.  "Oh well, at least we tried."  And then they changed the channel.  And that's what's wrong with callous altruism.
And here comes Dalrymple with UNICEF’s Chemical Weapon
In Bangladesh, UNICEF correctly observed that diarrheal diseases were killing a lot of children. In all poor countries diarrheal diseases caused by a contaminated water supply are among the most prolific killers of children, and UNICEF decided to give Bangladesh clean water. It sank millions of tube wells so that Bangladeshis should henceforth drink clean groundwater.
Unfortunately, as it turned out, much of the groundwater, clean enough bacteriologically, was contaminated with arsenic. This was natural rather than added by someone with wicked intent; but the result was that millions of Bangladeshis were poisoned by it. Chronic arsenic poisoning is an unpleasant condition and is even fatal in the long term. It is carcinogenic, and cancer rates began to rise in the country.
Nothing like it has been seen before. It is true that some people have attributed the downfall of the Roman Empire to the lead poisoning of the population caused by the lead water pipes, but this is not a generally accepted theory and in any case was a long time ago. UNICEF’s arsenic water makes the Syrian efforts seem bungling and amateurish.
Well, we all make mistakes, even if not quite on this scale. And none of us likes to admit our mistakes; UNICEF certainly didn’t. On the contrary, it was reluctant to accept the evidence of the arsenic poisoning long after the evidence was irrefutable: Its intentions have been too good for so unfortunate an effect. By the time UNICEF admitted its mistake, no one (outside Bangladesh, that is) cared.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Looking back at The X-Files on its 20th anniversary
ou could argue, and I would almost agree with you, that beneath all the obvious post-Watergate, post-JFK assassination government-conspiracy machinery, the real subject of The X-Files' stylized paranoia was the American city's anxiety toward small towns. The show out-noired noir by recognizing that the most extreme context for modern alienation was not the mean streets of the detective story but a white-collar bureaucracy that extended infinitely above the main protagonists — literally into space — and that threatened to control them without their knowing how or why. But Mulder and Scully spent most of their working hours, especially in the stand-alone "monster of the week" episodes that made up the bulk of the series, pursuing mysteries in Lake Okobogee, Iowa (where Ruby Morris was abducted by aliens in "Conduit"), or Delta Glen, Wisconsin (where the agents investigated a cult in "Red Museum"), or Miller's Grove, Massachusetts (where cockroaches attacked humans in "War of the Coprophages"). The strangeness and isolation of small towns was a theme the series returned to again and again, enough that Darin Morgan, the show's cleverest writer,2could already subvert the concept by the second season, when, in "Humbug," he sent Mulder and Scully to a town populated by circus freaks whose behavior was surprisingly normal.
In this show about not knowing, then, the agents confronted two distinct sets of frightening unknowns. On one side was the shadow government represented by the Cigarette-Smoking Man. On the other was the evil that lurked beneath the surface of every American hamlet. Often, Mulder and Scully's role was simply to act as interpreters between their own antagonists, rendering chaotic eruptions of small-town horror comprehensible to men in marble corridors in D.C. Think of all the shots of the heroes in their oversize '90s glasses laboring at their field reports, or again of all the shots of them cruising through a hostile rural enclave in businesslike topcoats and a sensible rented Buick.
This is why I stopped at saying that I would almost agree with you if you thought The X-Files' paranoia had to do with cities and small towns. For all their differences, the series' two realms shared a basic assumption about America, which was that in its essence it was still meant to be the country found in, say, Frank Capra movies: white, Christian, family-based, governed by old men. This was a status quo that was already doomed, though still superficially in effect, when the show began. Mulder and Scully function as its representatives, figures of a weird reactionary beauty, struggling to understand and then prevent the profound transformation breaking out across their world. Earth is not alone, aliens are among us, our way of life is under threat; is it so hard to locate within these sources of terror the sense of a vanishing historical phase? Think of the way Mulder and Scully have chemistry but not sex:5 Sex implies procreation, a future, a continuity that their experiences have destroyed. 

Saturday, September 07, 2013

The Cathdral Spins Its Wheels: Why Is Breaking Bad Wife Hated?

It's only confusing for people who live in the Cathedral, especially if a lot of the dislike for a female character comes from......other females.
As an actress, I realize that viewers are entitled to have whatever feelings they want about the characters they watch. But as a human being, I’m concerned that so many people react to Skyler with such venom. Could it be that they can’t stand a woman who won’t suffer silently or “stand by her man”? That they despise her because she won’t back down or give up? Or because she is, in fact, Walter’s equal?
It’s notable that viewers have expressed similar feelings about other complex TV wives — Carmela Soprano of “The Sopranos,” Betty Draper of “Mad Men.” Male characters don’t seem to inspire this kind of public venting and vitriol.
At some point on the message boards, the character of Skyler seemed to drop out of the conversation, and people transferred their negative feelings directly to me. The already harsh online comments became outright personal attacks. One such post read: “Could somebody tell me where I can find Anna Gunn so I can kill her?” Besides being frightened (and taking steps to ensure my safety), I was also astonished: how had disliking a character spiraled into homicidal rage at the actress playing her?
But I finally realized that most people’s hatred of Skyler had little to do with me and a lot to do with their own perception of women and wives. Because Skyler didn’t conform to a comfortable ideal of the archetypical female, she had become a kind of Rorschach test for society, a measure of our attitudes toward gender.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

Questions for Obama

Now that America is allied with Al-Qaeda, do you think it was a mistake to kill Bin Laden?

Does the alliance with Al-Qaeda mean that Benghazi is forgiven?

Saturday, August 24, 2013

How The Cathedral Lies

Is This What Ryan Julison Intended All Along?
All of the people involved in the murders, and most of their accomplices, have a self-identified position of advocacy for Trayvon Martin via their own social media accounts. Yet the legacy media, the national press, appear to completely disconnect themselves from this IN_YOUR_FACE similarity. However, the sheer open advocacy of this Justice For Trayvon™ motive is enough to make you look deeper to see if there really is a Trayvon Martin related violent pattern here. If you do a little research, and I do mean ‘just a little’, into news articles - what you find is STAGGERING. These are just a few which are dated from AFTER the trial completed.
It's a long article, but it is well worth it. This is a straight out of Hollywood script: a big lie is concocted to earn the liars money, while dozens of innocent people are killed by people who believed the lie.

Friday, August 23, 2013

UK Government Has Traitors

Edward Snowden is not a traitor for revealing secrets about NSA spying on Americans. What is treason, however, is revealing the spying on foreign nations.

Snowden: UK government now leaking documents about itself
Britain runs a secret internet-monitoring station in the Middle East to intercept and process vast quantities of emails, telephone calls and web traffic on behalf of Western intelligence agencies.
Note the Snowden quote in the headline: UK government officers are outing their own spies. How insane is that? Or maybe they were diversity wouldn't shock me to learn that the UK has Islamic radicals running it's Middle East intelligence operations. Then again, they probably wouldn't be so dumb as to reveal this information.

Based on the comments to the Independent article, most people think the Independent story is a fake so that they can get Snowden.

Want to Really Understand the Oberlin Race Hoax?

Read The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans

Thursday, August 22, 2013

One Meme To Rule Them All! The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans

A while back, Anonymous Conservative offered free Kindle copies of:
The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans

The stipulation was that you read it and spread the message. I'm reading on my commute each day, but it's taking a while to get through, so I'm going to review the first part (about 1/3 of the way through).

First some nuts and bolts: My main criticism (thus far), is that I found the first few opening chapters repetitive in the discussion of r/K theory and its implications. It is critical for the reader to grok r/K theory, so some repetition is warranted, but I felt like the first few chapters could be reduced by a good editor by cutting out some of the political discussion. He does a good job of setting up ideas that will be fleshed out later, but spends too much time on previewing what comes later. That said, the author writes clearly and moves the narrative forward, even with some of the aforementioned repetition. Chapter Seven is all about cuttlefish, which has both K-selected and r-selected descendants. It might sound boring as a topic, but that is when the book really picks up speed.

Here is the Amazon synopsis:
This book offers a scientific analysis of how our two main political ideologies evolved within our species. It explains how the competitive, aggressive, sexually selective and monogamous, two-parenting psychology underlying conservatism is a perfect reproductive strategy for use in a K-selected environment of limited resources, while a more competition-averse, pacifistic, sexually promiscuous, single parenting strategy is ideally adaptive to an r-selective environment of free resource availability.
It explains how these two psychologies arose through evolution, how they convey advantage in their respective environments, and how they arise today in response to a society's level of resource availability. It even shows how the emergence of one psychology or the other, in response to changes in resource availability, has altered history. 
Without understanding the materials contained within this book, ideologies are merely illogical accumulations of idiosyncratic personal preferences. That they randomly assort a myriad of issues into two distinct camps of issue platforms is an inexplicable puzzle. With this book however, one can see how ideological psychologies emerged in our species as specific adaptations to environmental conditions we faced, and even how they emerge today in response to those same environmental conditions.
Meticulously substantiated with all the latest peer reviewed research, this is the most complete analysis to date of how and why human beings became a political animal.

I'm not too familiar with the merits of r/K theory and I generally reject a lot of evolutionary psychology because of the "just so" stories. Humans are incredibly gifted at rationalizing their decisions and actions after the fact and concocting stories to explain why things are the way they are. Some Native Americans believed a spider birthed the world and frankly, a lot of evolutionary psychology strikes me as exactly the same, just gussied up for modern audiences.

From the authors about page, describing his blog, but it's applicable to the book as well:
Have no doubt, this is all correct. In fifty, or one hundred years, this would undoubtedly have been described by many others, had I not seen it. The similarities between politics and r/K Theory are just too obvious. However due to the whim of circumstances, you are seeing this all here first.
I don’t know why it hasn’t been written about before, but it is my pleasure and my honor to be among the first to scientifically demonstrate the inferiority and danger that Liberalism poses to our species and our societies. I hope you enjoy being a part of this nascent intellectual movement, and enjoy your stay here.
I'm not in a position to evaluate the science, but make no mistake, the author's theory is ambitious as he claims it to be.

The main thesis of the book is that liberals/liberalism is r-selected and conservatism is K-selected. When resources are plentiful and predators few, the best strategy is to have as many children as possible with as many mates as possible. Those who reproduce the fastest to fill the environmental carrying capacity will pass on their genes. When resources are few and predators many, the K-selected organism that delays reproduction in order to find a superior mate, while investing time and resources into only a few children who will be able to outcompete for resources and mates, will win. It applies to groups as well, and it's the case that K-dominant groups will have r-dominant members as well.

If you've read your Moldbug then you know we are living in a left-wing dominated world, but that makes sense based on the author's theory. If you consider the the industrial revolution created an abundance of resources, it makes sense that r-selected peoples and ideologies have gained the upper hand.

Even though I'm skeptical of evolutionary psychology, the author's thesis is quite powerful. I wouldn't dub it a "theory of everything," but a lot of ink has been spilled in trying to explain why liberals and conservatives are the way they are, with plenty of psychology books about conservatives and political books on liberals. From the more recent Liberal Fascism by Goldberg to the earlier Anti-Capitalistic Mentality by Mises, there have been plenty of books aiming at the psychology and history of socialists/statists, but none strikes to the root. The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans  goes much deeper, to a non-political level, much as liberals aim to do with studies on the "authoritarian personality." This is quite an ambitious argument by the author and even though I am one-third of the way through, I can see the power of his case. Whereas the "authoritarian personality" studies aim to paint all conservatives as proto-Nazis one step away from fascism.

Theodor W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford theorized about a personality type that involved the “potentially fascistic individual”.[1] They labeled it the "authoritarian personality" based on earlier writings by Erich Fromm that used this term.[2] Because the historical influences for their theory included the rise of fascism in the 1930s, World War II, and the Holocaust, a main component of the "authoritarian personality" is being susceptible to anti-Semitic ideology and anti-democratic political beliefs. 
...Soon after the publication of The Authoritarian Personality, the theory became the subject of many criticisms. Theoretical problems involved the psychoanalytic interpretation of personality, and methodological problems focused on the inadequacies of the F-scale. Another criticism is that the theory of the Berkeley group insinuates that authoritarianism exists only on the right of the political spectrum. As a result, some have claimed that the theory is corrupted by political bias.
Even though there is this criticism, the left still brings the authoritarian personality up to tar conservatives (there's a new study every few years). Conservatives then spend time trying to refute the study, but the meme goes into the mainstream. Thus even if the r/K selection theory is only as sound as the authoritarian personality, it is at the very least the conservative antidote to it, and yet goes far beyond it, making it a more powerful idea. People are not fully r or K as well, but exist on a continuum, so it's much more forgiving than the authoritarian personality in that regard.

What I find most compelling thus far is how it systematizes the left/right divide. It simplifies and clarifies a lot of seeming complex political issues by cutting to some of the core differences. This brings to what I see as the book's great strength. Above I was critical of evolutionary psychology, equating it with creation stories and myths. All societies need these stories though, and Anonymous Conservative has put forth an extremely powerful one. Conservatives/reactionaries who read this book will gain a fresh perspective on the left/right divide, and if they carry this argument into the mainstream, it could be a damaging arrow against liberalism because it comes from ground that liberals have claimed: evolution.

If you've read Roissy at Chateau Heartiste, then you've seen how evolutionary psychology can be wielded to conservatives advantage. Though I am skeptical of evolutionary psychology, many people are not, thus the author's thesis opens an entirely new field of attack for conservatives. It takes the debate onto the "turf" of liberals, who often claim science for their own.

Tuesday, August 20, 2013

Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian

Must watch to see a story, discussed for years online, in outlets ranging from far right to mainstream conservative/libertarian outlets such as Instapundit, finally get some media attention. The left understands that to change society, one must push and push and push, despite seeing no gains for years, because it takes a long time for ideas to filter through. Oprah doubles down on the Emmett Till comparison

Saturday, August 10, 2013

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

Design the Open Borders Logo

The Open Borders crowd needs a logo. Help them out!

Open Borders Logo Contest

The Open Borders movement seeks a symbol that embodies the spirit of free migration. To achieve that goal, we are sponsoring a logo contest. The winner of this contest will get $200 and their design will become the official logo of the Open Borders web site.
  • The goal: Create a simple logo, like the peace sign, that represents free migration.
  • How to enter: Go to the Open Borders Logo Contest Facebook page and post your image. Join the group and send me a message so I can add you. Then, you can post.
  • The criteria for selection: We seek something that is simple and powerful. Think of an image that a person with little artistic skill could paint on a sign or banner.
  • Who will choose the winner: The Open Borders website editors and the contest sponsors (Bryan Caplan and myself).
  • The winner will be announced on October 1, 2013 or later.

Here is my entry:

Can't see any borders, can you?

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

Many Black Males Live In War Zones

Death rate in WWII for ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY: 1.8% to 2.6% (depending on the numbers. Veterans Affairs puts active duty personnel serving in WWII at more than 16 million).

Homicide rate in 2000s America for BLACK MALES: more than 2%

Black males are dying at a rate associated with the land invasion of Europe and Asia. This is one of those cases where we need to separate out the volatility: deaths in high crime areas are a slow burn, while military deaths are clustered in major battles. One cannot compare visiting a Chicago ghetto with vacationing in Okinawa at the time of the typhoon of steel which killed over 100,000 Japanese and 65,000 allied soldiers. However, it is the case that by serving in the military for the duration of WWII, a male had as much risk of dying as a young black male in the ghetto.

I don't know what the casualty rates were in places like Lebanon during the civil war, but the odd thing is how normal the carnage in the inner cities has become to mainstream American society.

Grand Old Pussies: Video Edition

Palin banned from talking about Obama. We already knew this, but interesting to hear Palin lay it on the GOP establishment.
And then there's top scumbag Rove. I still remember him saying how he doesn't want his kids to do manual labor, minimum wage jobs. Import illegals for that. And here's Mark Levin laying into Rove
The first step in waking up conservatives is to shake them out of their support for the Northeast liberal controlled portion of the GOP, which seeks to use conservatives as a fig leaf to advance their own power (see the Bushes).

Friday, July 26, 2013

The Cathedral's View of Preparing For War With China

This article was published in Yale Journal, firmly ensconced within the Cathedral. It is news worthy in and of itself. That the Pentagon now believes war with China is a serious probability and they are seriously planning for it is a major change in U.S. policy. This is the Cathedral and the government working in real time, putting the United States on a path to what would likely be defined as World War III if there was any additional nations joined a China-U.S. war.

  Who Authorized Preparations for War with China?
There have been other occasions in which the Pentagon has framed key strategic decisions so as to elicit the preferred response from the Commander in Chief and elected representatives. A recent case in point was when the Pentagon led President Obama to order a high level surge in Afghanistan in 2009, against the advice of the Vice President and the U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan. The decision at hand stands out even more prominently because (a) the change in military posture may well lead to an arms race with China, which could culminate in a nuclear war; and (b) the economic condition of the United States requires a reduction in military spending, not a new arms race.
The Cathedral still likes the threat of nuclear war.
Congress held a considerable number of hearings about China in 2008 and in the years that followed. However, the main focus of these hearings was on economic issues such as trade, job losses due to com­panies moving them overseas, the U.S. dependency on China for financing the debt, Chinese currency controls, and Chinese violations of intellectual prop­erty and human rights. In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in February 2012, Admiral Robert F. Willard spoke of the potential challenges posed by China’s A2/AD capabilities, but made no sional China Caucus, wrote to Secretary of Defense Panetta in November 2011 that “[d]espite reports throughout 2011 AirSea Battle had been completed in an executive summary form, to my knowledge Members of Congress have yet to be briefed on its conclusions or in any way made a part of the process.”40
In the same month, Sen. Lieberman (I–CT) co-sponsored an amendment to the Fiscal 2012 Defense Authorization Bill that required a report on the implementation of and costs associated with the AirSea Battle Concept. It passed unanimously, but as of April 2013, such a report has yet to be released.41 In the public sphere there was no debate—led by either think tanks or public intel­lectuals—like that which is ongoing over whether or not to use the military option against Iran’s nuclear program, or the debate surrounding the 2009 surge of troops in Afghanistan. ASB did receive a modicum of critical examination from a small number of military analysts. However, most observers who can spell the ins-and-outs of using drones or bombing Iran—have no position on ASB or its implications for U.S.-China relations and the world order, simply because they do not know about it. A December 11, 2012 search of Google brings up 15,800,000 hits for “U.S. drone strikes”; a search for “AirSea Battle”: less than 200,000. In Googlish, this amounts to being unknown, and suggests this significant military shift is simply not on the wider public’s radar.
The argument being made here is that the Pentagon is pushing policy on the hapless and clueless Obama Administration. It's been well documented that the Cathedral isn't happy with Obama (though they mainly keep that discontent behind the scenes) because he's an utterly ineffectual leader. Having an empty suit in the White House is good for the Cathedral because it controls so many organs of State Power, but where it doesn't exert total control, such as the Pentagon, the weakness of an Obama becomes a problem.
I am not arguing that the U.S. military is seeking out war or intentionally usurping the role of the highest civilian authorities. Information about the rise of China as an economic and military power is open to a range of interpretations. And the Pentagon is discharging its duties when it identifies new threats and suggests ways to respond to them. Moreover, civilians—including two Secretaries of Defense—have endorsed ASB and arguably the strategy it implies. But while ASB should not be dismissed on the grounds that it is merely an attempt to secure a mission and funds for the military, there is room to question whether the threats have been overstated and to ask if the Pentagon-favored response is the right strategy.
The time has come for the White House and Congress to reassess both the threat and the suggested response. Four areas ought to be considered in such a review process: (i) While the economy of China does not by itself determine its military strength, it does constrain its options. One would be wise to take into account that China’s per capita GDP is far below that of the United States, and that to maintain support, the Communist Party needs to house, feed, clothe, and otherwise serve four times more people than the United States—on top of dealing with major environmental strains, an aging population, a high level of corruption, and growing social unrest.45 (ii) The military modernization of China often provokes concerns that it is ‘catching up.’
Although it is true that China has increased military spending, the budget for the PLA started well behind that of the U.S. military and China’s defense spending is still dwarfed by that of the United States. (iii) Moreover, whatever its capabilities, China’s intentions are rele­vant. China shows little interest in managing global affairs or imposing its ideology on other nations. Instead, China has shown a strong interest in secur­ing the flow of raw materials and energy on which is economy depends. However, the United States can accommodate this core interest without endan­gering its security by facilitating China’s efforts to secure energy deals in the global marketplace and pathways for the flow of resources (by constructing pipelines, railways, and new ports in places such as Pakistan)—rather than seeking to block them. (iv)
Finally, it is widely agreed that the United States can no longer afford to fight two major wars. Hence, one must note that the most urgent threats to U.S. security are—almost all of which can be found in the Near and Middle—not Far—East. It is up to the serious media, think tanks, public intellectuals and leaders of social political movements to urge for such a comprehensive review, and to counter the gradual slide toward war that the Pentagon is effecting—even if its intention may well be to promote peace through strength.
Emphasis mine.

China does not seek to manage global affairs. The United States seeks to manage global affairs, and if China doesn't like it, it can always work to dislodge American power. The view from inside the Cathedral is one of viewing the world as American territory, with foreign powers seeking to dislodge the hegemon. China may not consider itself the aggressor if it seeks to push the United States away from East Asia; it may act in response to U.S. actions. This is supported by the next point, which claims that the most urgent threats are in the Middle East. There is only one great threat to U.S. security: Russia. Only Russia has the capability and will to destroy the United States. China is a rising power that, based on current trends, will likely one day surpass Russia in power. The longer the U.S. remains bogged down in the Middle East, the longer the U.S. continues to spill its blood and treasure in what will ultimately be a futile effort at maintaining control of the global order, the more inevitable a collapse in U.S. power becomes, at which point war with China becomes more likely because the U.S. will be less willing to fight an all-out war simply to maintain dominance of East Asia at that point.

Wednesday, July 24, 2013

The Jim Snow Regime

Occam’s Butter Knife
In the 21st century, however, it’s increasingly the cities that have the largest margin for error—such as Washington, DC (your tax dollars at work) and New York City (your investment dollars at play)—that have most aggressively squeezed out poor African Americans.
It’s almost as if the national media obsesses over Sanford, Florida to distract from how their own gentrifying cities are boosting their personal property values by using Section 8 vouchers, police harassment, housing-project demolitions, and firing black teachers in the name of school reform to drive out black Americans. When the New York-Washington media obsess over how flyover America is a hotbed of racism and incipient Hitlerism, they are only projecting their own feelings about blacks onto the rest of the country.
This is also why urban liberals are so in favor of gun control: because if guns were more widely available, black people would also have more guns. And liberals do not want black people to have guns.

Monday, July 22, 2013

Life Under Jim Snow

A Slow News Week

You never heard of this case until now. It was not a media sensation, simply because it was was not of any utility to the media in their mission to dramatize the fantasies of our liberal ruling classes. Fantasies about evil white proles being beastly to helpless trembling minorities. This, ladies and gentlemen, is life under Jim Snow. Non-black guy shoots black teenager. Months of wall-to-wall TV coverage, marches, protests, Justice Department investigations, comments from the President, trial of the Century! Black guy shoots white teenager? Local story.

Saturday, July 20, 2013

What if Trayvon Had Been White, and the Shooter Black?

Same verdict, with even less legal standing for the defendant! What if Trayvon Had Been White, and the Shooter Black?
We know this because in fact, such an event occurred in 2009 in Greece, N.Y., a suburb of Rochester. Roderick Scott, a black man, shot and killed an unarmed white teen, Christopher Cervini, whom he believed was burglarizing a neighbor's car, with a licensed .40 cal. handgun. ...Despite the fact that he left his own property, confronted, and shot dead an unarmed white person thought to be committing a petty property crime, Scott was acquitted by a majority-white jury after claiming that the Cervini charged at him, putting him in imminent fear of his life.

Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Free: The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics

The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics Will Be Free In Kindle Form Next Thursday
If you’re interested in having a record of the total project on a budget, the Kindle version will be available free next Thursday. Just stop by and click on the link in the sidebar or at the top of this post, and you can cruise over to Amazon and grab a download for free. If you don’t have a kindle, they also have a free viewer program for your PC somewhere on the site. I’ll look for the link, and include it in a reminder post Wednesday. In return, I only ask you help the theory spread, and send this viral. Tell friends about the free download so they get a copy, share it on facebook, tweet it, and give it to bloggers – and if you like the book, a positive review on Amazon would also be appreciated. I’ve already gotten my first two bogus Liberal reviews from people who didn’t buy it, so it would be nice to balance those with some rightward reviews, and show the divergence in our psychologies.
Tomorrow is the day. Follow the link above for the link to Amazon.

Saturday, July 13, 2013

Well Done, Well Done

Not the normal fare, but quite hilarious. Some comments under the video try to claim the joke is racist, but it's just plain hilarious. It's sad how leftism causes a loss of a sense of humor. Also hilarious for the fact that the names made it on air and were read with a straight face all the way through. As one comment put it, Anchorman 2 received some great viral advertising.

Friday, July 12, 2013

How The Cathedral Orchestrates Hate

The #1 Hate Group in the United States today is the federal government and mainstream media.
"They just wanted an arrest" to placate protesters threatening violence, Lee told CNN earlier this week, even though the evidence provided no probable cause to arrest Zimmerman. He said it was purely a matter of self defense, and he was right.
As soon as the case was taken away from Lee, evidence was leaked to the Martin family and Sharpton and his thugs. They got to hear the 911 tapes and coordinate their stories. Who leaked them? The same person who fired Lee — Sanford City Manager Norton Bonaparte, a member of the National Forum for Black Public Administrators.
Before he sacked the police chief, Bonaparte met in Washington with — you guessed it — Eric Holder. The attorney general had summoned both him and Sanford's mayor to discuss the allegedly "unprovoked hate crime against a black teen."
The evidence is clear that Zimmerman was framed to look like a homicidal racist. It's also now clear there was a larger political orchestration behind the racial rabble-rousing, one that was led from the highest levels in Washington.
The point to drive home again and again, and again and again, and yet again when conversing with conservatives, is that the GOP is 80 to 90% guilty on race issues. Too many conservatives will obsess over Holder's role and try to pin the blame on the Obama administration, when it is the GOP that continues to grow this Leviathan every time they have the power to restrict it. All the Obama administration has done is used the power that exists, power that was created under a Republican president (Nixon) and expanded at every turn.

The entire debate on race exists within a leftist framework. Any conservative who holds a "respectable" opinion on race, including people who would be denounced as racists such as Rush Limbaugh, in fact hold leftist positions on the issue, which is why conservatives fail every time. Politicians operate within the mainstream and while they shouldn't get a pass, they aren't the issue. The right must work to push the Overton window of debate. Stop trying to win the center, which is safely ensconced on the left, and instead stake out positions that can truly change the debate by at worst moving the political right to a position where political compromise then shifts to the right.

To give an example, the latest "controversy" is some Rand Paul staffer who went by the name "Southern Avenger" and supported states' rights and disparaged Lincoln. MSNBC is of course all over this topic, but someone partly responsible for violent race riots, one Mr. Al Sharpton, has his own show on MSNBC. Many conservatives seem to think the world is just and that they can beat the left by pointing out Al Sharpton's past. However, there is no equivalence because what is taking place is political warfare.

The Right can never appeal the Left, it must combat the Left head on because the Left is running on Hate. Not logic, not reason, but only the emotion of Hate. The proper political response to complaints about the Southern Avenger or any other case is to say, "So what?" or "I don't care." Ignore it and move on. Or simply repeat over and over, to answer every question with, "Why is racist Al Sharpton on MSNBC?" This far Rand Paul has held firm, but it remains to be seen if he will eventually wilt under pressure.

 H/T: Sailer



Blog Archive