Category Archives: Commentary
At the end of November, Americans gather to celebrate the annual feast of Black Friday, a high holy day dedicated to the acquisition of various products cranked out by Chinese slave labor. On the eve of this festival, a time once known as “Thanksgiving”, citizens will habitually watch football on television and engorge themselves unto nausea. Then, with nightfall and the ritual about to commence, it is time to hurry off to shopping malls and big-box department stores, veritable temples of consumption that can be found in practically every corner of the country. Here at the temple doors they form lines, crowd and wait impatiently until that moment of climax. Unfortunate employees draw back the gates to be immediately slammed by the ecstatically furious oncoming mob. Through the store the shoppers swarm like locusts, grasping at anything marked a “bargain”, clawing at each other in desperation over the latest piece of electronics that supposedly renders meaning to existence. The news media is dutifully on hand to broadcast any deaths or incidences of violence, sacrifices in their own way, as well as imprint the frenzy into the public psyche.
Viewing footage of the Black Friday rite, we must conclude that it is one phenomenon among many uniting Americans of the most diverse ancestry into a common cause- the cult of Mammon. Look into the consumer throngs: here can be seen the uprooted children ofAfrica, Meso-Americans, Asians and the sad descendants of the Indo-Europeans. As editorial writers have informed us upon President Obama’s re-election, the United States has entered “a new normal” of cultural and demographic transformation. The old holiday of Thanksgiving simply did not extract the necessary profits desired by the corporate-financial priesthood, and so it was re-formulated to fulfill their wishes. In the same way the U.S.population has been subjected to several decades of Cabalistic processing through every available means: psychological warfare waged by the media-entertainment complex, indoctrination in academia and so many of the churches, and waves of immigration from alien lands. Black Friday marks the perfection of mass man, the “individual” consumer wholly divorced from generations of his faith, ethnic heritage and family, a slave to debt, technology and base impulses.
“Where did America go wrong?” many will ask, searching out some terrible error from the recent past in the hope of applying a remedy. An observer might feel as if he has been sucked into an absurd alternate reality similar to the narratives of popular science fiction. In the second installment of the Back to the Future films, hero Marty McFly finds his hometown, the quaint Hill Valley, in a state of anarcho-tyranny under the control of idiot-villain Biff Tannen. Marty’s antagonist managed to make himself a wealthy national icon through time travel and ruled his empire from the casino Biff’s Pleasure Paradise. Today we recognize the Pleasure Paradise as our own society, as large swathes of the country resemble a crime-ridden theme park of strip malls featuring taxpayer-funded Goodwill centers, massage parlors, liquor stores and check-cashing outlets. Yet there is no readily convenient culprit to accuse, no Biff to confound in order to make things right again. The elites of Washington, Wall Street and Hollywood are villainous to the core, but their ascent was guaranteed by the very tenets of American civic religion.
Degeneration is America‘s destiny; no other outcome is possible when a polity embraces the toxic, nation-destroying ideals of liberty and equality. For this reason we must look past the accelerated implosion of the past decade, the entirety of the 1960s or the Federal Reserve Bank’s incorporation in 1913. The United States was created as a rationalist republic and beacon for the progress of humanity, and its driving ethos has always been secular-pluralist.
The time has come to discard any lingering delusions relative to America‘s religious mission. All the florid entreaties to some generic Providence by the Deist-Masonic Founders were but rhetorical cover for man’s grand experiment in self-transfiguration and the re-ordering of the world according to his supreme will. This is revolution par excellence, the usurpation of divine sovereignty in the name of “We the People”, an amorphous and alienated mass useful in legitimizing oligarchic power. No less than the Declaration of Independence, that treasured document so matter-of-factly pronouncing all men created equal, was authored by an immeasurably proud intellect who wrote Christ’s divinity out of the Gospels. Why, then, should there be any surprise that America‘s Gospel is the Book of Mammon? Our land is ordained “the last, best hope on earth”, so that every nation may enjoy democracy, usury, pornography and abortion.
Behold our more perfect union! We witness humanism’s final revelation: an engineered andentertained sub-humanity is to be governed by inhuman predators who fancy themselves gods. And throughout this chaos, many well-intentioned Americans continue to call for a restoration of the Constitution, the ultimate Enlightenment project, a bloodless abstraction held sacred and infallible. Never do they see how the operation of this artificial regime, administering “rights” and “liberties” held by autonomous self-creating wills, has led directly to the Babylonian nightmare we inhabit at present. This, too, shall perish from the earth: after the orgy there is no freedom, just entropy and death. A people committed to survival, especially survival in eternity, will hold liberal conceits like the social contract in contempt.
Even Locke’s disciples, the revered Founders of the United States, would be shocked and horrified by today’s America, yet it was they who laid its ideological cornerstone. Brilliant statesmen the calibre of John Adams knew well of the inevitable slide toward decadence and despotism in democracy, but they considered their republic of reason to be a sublime enterprise. The common-law traditions of the Anglo-Saxons were pressed into the service of an arrogant, disembodied rationalism that subverted what the human heart always held dear: loyalty to God, an organic notion of authority and solidarity with one’s kin. Because of this the Constitution in its essence was a suicide pact. European man turned away from Christ the Savior and rejected his blessed patrimony to worship at the altar of reason, that prostitute to infernal passions. The 20th-century Serbian scholar and monk St. Justin Popovic apprehended what fate awaited a West glorying in its own apostasy:
In the world of man there is no even approximately equivalent value that could in any way replace the God-Man Christ. In all spheres of human life He is absolutely irreplaceable. All genuine values derive from Him and find completion in him. If human reason wishes to resolve any problem without Him or aside from Him, it will inevitably collapse into abysses of nihilism or the chaos of anarchism. And because in Western Europe the God-Man is supplanted by man, namely because of this European humanity dwells in chaos. Revolutions, anarchy, tyranny, massacres, cannibalism and murders serve as the only way out. That which is not built upon the God-Man is in itself destroyed. Full of the superman’s proud spirit of megalomania, mined with a virulent element of self-proclaimed ‘infallibility’, the body of Europe must explode and disintegrate into dust and ash.
Daily the Black Mass of the triumphant moderns is celebrated in rebellion against God, and the world cannot but wish its own destruction. The murderous vanity of the Novus Ordo Seclorum will not go unpunished. And what shall become of the ruined West? According to the desires of the materialists, it would be cast into darkness and utterly forgotten. Yet hope still resides in the few men who conquer through prayer and repentance, combatants who will be sanctified in struggle. Salvation is attained not in any temporal kingdoms, but only in our Heavenly Fatherland.
Originally published on Alternative Right on 15th December 2012.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/our-more-perfect-union2
Aside from it being a disgustingly offensive farce and an insult to common civility, it’s hard to even begin describing the psychopathic race-hate cult called White Privilege.
For one, it’s not just another shin-kicking tantrum wrapped around just another smarmy ripoff, it’s the deck from which race cards are dealt, an evil perversion of good will, a candy-coated curriculum for self-induced moral collapse, a Goebbels-level big lie, the mother ship of intolerance, case hardened and serrated edged…..
It says there can be no peace as long as whites exist, in short, it says racial cleansing is fitting and honorable. The surge in attacks on random whites in public places may trace to this notion. Some black intellectuals, Walter Williams among them, say they haven’t thought this through, and they’re right. Society is continually disconnecting and reconnecting in new, often surprising arrangements, and the word minority has a demographic meaning apart from its sociological freight. Serbia-style direct action isn’t a realistic option for thirteen per cent of this or any other population. – - ol remus and the woodpile report
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Morales’ hoax is a blip in the larger pattern of faked hate crimes. Bigotry is the witch hunt of the modern Salem and progressive witch hunters are just as careless about facts and evidence. Now as then, the goal is to stamp out an attitude and a cultural threat, rather than to enforce the law, and that leads inevitably to the entire tawdry parade of hysterical denunciations and moral panic.
But what is behind this need to manufacture intolerance?
The left built up its replacement for class warfare around identity politics. Though we take most of these identities, including the racial trinity and homosexuality, for granted, they are really modern artificial constructs that define how people should define themselves, rather than accepting them as they are.
Strangely enough, racial and sexual identities were more nuanced centuries ago than they are today where the “one drop rule” now goes completely unchallenged in matters of race and equally so in matters of sexual orientation. Anyone who can be claimed on any grounds by the victim group, must be identified with them or face accusations of false consciousness.
We are less willing to contemplate biracial and bisexual today than we were a century ago. Instead leftist collectivism demands that everyone be either one thing or another. Everyone is divided into categories of victim and oppressor. Just as no one can be both on both sides of the class struggle; so too the left rejects the idea of being on both sides of the victim line in race or sexual orientation.
On Seinfeld, Jerry’s dentist joined Judaism for the jokes. Leftists are joining native tribes for the victimhood. Meanwhile they’re defining those identities solely in terms of victimhood.
The absurdity of people lining up to be victims has led to the proliferation of fake Indians, like Elizabeth Warren and Ward Churchill in the United States, and white aborigines in Australia. The fake indigenous tribal has little in the way of a genetic or cultural connection to any native people; but chooses to trade in his or her white identity, at least temporarily, to enhance their leftist politics.
They are engaging in a fraud much bigger than a forged receipt; but they are doing it for the same reasons.
An identity defined in terms of victimhood needs fresh injections of oppression to sustain its existence. Those African-Americans who define “blackness” not in terms of positive values but in terms of negative values, need white racism, the real thing or the fake one, to remind them of who they are. And the same holds true for other oppressed minorities who define themselves not by their culture or values; but by their resentments.
Intolerance has become identity. If you define your minority identity on the left’s terms, then if you aren’t being oppressed, you aren’t real. And if you constantly read accounts about other black people or other gay people being discriminated against and those experiences don’t match yours; you begin to wonder if something isn’t wrong with you. If maybe you aren’t an authentic member of the group.
There are two ways out of this intellectual trap; either recognizing that an identity need not be based on a sense of persecution or becoming “creative” about finding new forms of persecution.
It’s easy to mock Dayna Morales for forging a receipt snub. If only she had learned about critical race theory, she would have been able to denounce the family in question for their privilege. Instead of faking a receipt, she would have been able to express her internal need for persecution in the political language of the left.
Dayna only forged a single receipt. Obama spent five years in the White House forging phony racism accusations to protect him on every issue from the economy to ObamaCare.
The left’s need for victimization means that increasing levels of tolerance actually lead to escalating confrontations with these manufacturers of intolerance. The assertion that all white people are innately racist because of their privilege is one such response to increasing tolerance. By claiming that whiteness itself is racist, the left gets back to political identity, rather than actual discrimination, as the source of conflict and redefines even the most tolerant university multicultural spaces as racist.
The manufacturers of intolerance, whether they’re tenured academics like Ward Churchill, professional politicians like Barack Obama or angry waitresses like Dayna Morales, respond to tolerance with provocations. Their goal is to elicit evidence of intolerance to sustain their political identity. The more tolerance they encounter, the more they escalate their provocations.
Their goal is not a tolerant society. It’s not a multiracial society or a post-racial society. It is a society perpetually at war over identity politics. That conflict is what gives them power.
Tolerance provokes them by challenging their identity as members in good standing of the officially oppressed. Being accepted insults the entire basis of their identity. Schizophrenics experience the discontinuity between the real world and the distorted world in their heads as threatening. Likewise the left, which insists on racism, reacts with paranoia to any talk that the country has become more tolerant. Their political schizophrenia is unable to accept America as it is. Instead they are bent on seeing the bigoted country that they experience inside their own heads.
Paranoid schizophrenics manufacture things to be paranoid about. Identity politics manufactures its own illusory bigotries. The schizophrenic Two Americas of liberals are really the America that exists and the hateful cartoon of it that they draw in their own heads, depict in movies, scrawl into articles and broadcast on television.
Liberals claim to want a better America, but they reject it at every turn. Their cynicism even poisons what should have been their triumphs.
Obama’s victory was an opportunity for healing and unity. Even many Republicans cheered his inauguration, but liberals rejected the gift that Americans were giving and instead doubled down. Racism became their response to everything. Now every week brings another editorial accusing skeptics of government health care of being the new Confederacy. The New York Times even ran an op-ed describing a new Mason-Dixon line composed of states that rejected Medicaid expansion.
As disappointing at this behavior was to many, it was an inevitable as that forged receipt. The left derives its purpose from defending the oppressed and doling out social justice. If racism were gone, it would have to find a new reason to justify its existence. It had to go through that once when class warfare imploded under the pressure of American prosperity. It isn’t about to go searching for a substitute for the racial tensions it manufactures.
The dominant political identity groups have responded to growing tolerance in the United States by defining intolerance down or provoking intolerant responses through aggressive publicity stunts. If the stunts don’t bring out disgust and anger that they can work with, then they will simply invent intolerance wholesale by claiming that bigotry isn’t an act or a word, but an innate attitude that lurks buried deep within the majority group. And that the only healing can come when the majority rejects its own identity and joins a minority group.
Beyond the community organizers, the academics and the political hacks who feed off that hatred are the millions of Americans who have not only unknowingly swallowed their dogma, but who have built entire identities around that sense of insecurity and oppression. These people are driven to organically manufacture intolerance because it defines who they are.
The left has dumped millions of Americans into this shadowy world where they have no positive reason for existing, only a negative one of defying some phantom establishment of patriarchy and some nebulous idea of white privilege.
Wearing chips on their shoulders they seek to provoke the confrontations that give them meaning and when their anger is met with tolerance, they manufacture intolerance with forged receipts, with accusations of white privilege, with fake hate crimes and phony accusations of racism.
It’s a short distance from Dayna Morales forging a receipt to get some money and attention to Barack Obama faking accusations of racism to win a political fight and score another term.
The advantage to being a dreadful awful ghastly racist like Paul Weston, Chairman of Liberty GB, is that you can say things that most people don’t even dare think about:
A civilization is defined not by its physical location but by the people who live there. When the homes of Western Civilization — Europe, North America, Australia — are populated predominantly by Third Worlders, Western Civilization will cease to exist in these places. With nowhere to live, the civilization that brought us everything from the Roman Empire to da Vinci to Mozart to the US Constitution to flight to men walking on the moon will die.
This is fine with the liberals in charge, who are driving the importation of millions upon millions from the Third World with welfare incentives financed by overtaxing the very population they are eradicating. Their treason is on a scale that defies comprehension.
The demographic trend cannot be reversed until the political situation has been reversed.
On a tip from DJ.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
• 11.22.13 11:54 am
When the relentlessly annoying Keith Olbermann was suspended for being a liberal who supports Democrats,conservative Bill Kristol came out and said, “Hold on. I hate that piece of shit but that’s SUPER fucked up” (I’m paraphrasing). That’s the way it is with the Archie Bunkers of the world. If you outlawed homosexuality tomorrow,
all the “progressives” would run and hide while Arch would say, “Oh goddamnit, now I gotta go defend queers” and he’d start a militia that fought the army and helped gays hide in basements. When self-indulgent shitbag Alec Baldwin was fired for being vulgar, everyone with an ounce of dignity said, “Goddamnit.”
I’m no fan of Alec Baldwin but firing a guy for swearing at someone after they threaten his family is fucking gay. The paps surrounded his wife and child as they always do so he lost his temper and called one a “cocksucking faggot.” I’m pretty sure it’s legal in Texas to pull out a shotgun when your family is perceived to be in imminent danger. I don’t know about you but I’d rather be accused of blowing someone than have my head blown off. Alas, we live in the Northeast where everyone is expected to act like aristocrats even when they’re being attacked by savages.
The right seized this opportunity to give the left a taste of their own medicine. They pounced on Baldwin and demanded he be hoisted on his own petard. The left complied, claiming, “Alec Baldwin was attacking our families.” I don’t enjoy seeing retards on petards, because I hate petards. It’s fair for conservatives to use this outburst to showcase the left’s hypocrisy, but demanding apologies and insisting people lose their job is everything that’s wrong with the liberal ethos. Ann Coulter agrees. “This was just a curse word” she told Bill Hoffman at Newsmax, “It was like using the f-word and, frankly, a lot of these paparazzi photographers deserve it.” Coulter understands the difference between exposing hypocrisy and participating in it. You don’t demand apologies. You fight back. When the Perpetually Offended crowd demanded she apologize for saying “retard” she said, “screw them.”
Though language policing is a liberal disease the right also talks a lot about how we should talk. When everyone thought Rush Limbaugh called Sandra Fluke a slut, many conservatives were angry at him. “He shouldn’t have stooped to that level” they said, “it cheapens the whole discussion.” Fuck that. She went to a Catholic school and wanted to have sex before marriage. In that context, that’s exactly what she is (and he never even said that). “How you should talk” is the root of political correctness. “Oh, it’s not ‘African American’” they say with their pinky in the air, “It’s ‘person of color’.” Actually, it’s “black” you patronizing prick.
All this talk of keeping a stiff upper lip sounds downright un-American to me. I’m from Canada where centuries of Scotch/Irish culture mean everyone talks like they’re drunk. If a man walks into a bar with a burn on his face, we say, “Holy fuck guy, what happened to your face?” It’s a British trait to pretend nothing’s unusual. Didn’t America kick out the British almost a quarter of a millenium ago? They didn’t do it lining up and taking fire, either. They did it by rolling up their sleeves, jumping out of trees, and fighting dirty. That’s the kind of spirit that made me immigrate here in the first place.
The Democrats are winning the culture war because they’re fighting dirty. Let’s punch them in the fucking face. I’m not saying you come into a debate calling everyone a bunch of cocksuckers but if four professors are smirking and guffawing at your points and calling your references, “fantasy studies,” come back with, “fucking idiot.”
William F Buckley had many great moments but the scene he is most lionized for is the 1968 TV appearance when, after Gore Vidal bitchily called him a Nazi many times, Bill bounced back with, “Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I’ll sock you in your goddamn face, and you’ll stay plastered.” He didn’t demand an apology or insist Vidal be fired. He called him a queer and threatened to knock him out. Can we get back to that please? What’s so great about being civil? It doesn’t work. Many lament the prominence of cutthroat campaigns and attack ads but they’re the best way to get the dirt on both party’s candidates. Brawling is the American way. You can still wear a suit and feel strongly about family values. You can still be a God-fearing, pro-life traditionalist, but stop being so fucking polite to assholes.
ARTICLE CONTINUES HERE
From Street Carnage: http://streetcarnage.com/blog/the-case-for-vulgarity/
From Mad Medic
Found at Red Blooded America
I’m sure you’ve heard of the “Knockout Game” that appears to be sweeping the nation. If you’re unfamiliar, here’s how it works:
The participants of this pastime randomly select an innocent stranger, sneak up behind them, and attempt to knock them out with one punch.
That’s it. That’s the “game.” In some corners of the Earth, this activity is also known as “attempted murder.” Here, for some teenagers, it’s a hobby, like collecting baseball cards.
This has been going on for a while, but the media has been reluctant to report on it; mostly because the victims are usually white and the assailants are usually black. I say “usually,” but I’m not actually aware of a single instance where the assailant has been white and the victim black. Is the racial component relevant here? Yes, of course it is. But we live in a country of spineless white-guilt ridden wimps, so we’ll just pretend there’s nothing “racial” about black teens beating white folks to death for sport. Leave it to modern America to find ways to turn a peanut butter and jelly sandwich into a symbol of white privilege, while a rash of black-on-white beatings are categorized as “random” instances of a violent “game.”
A few people have already been killed by the Knockout Game, while plenty of others have been sent to the hospital. The victims come in any age or gender, but it’s worth noting one particularly egregious case where an elderly woman in New York ended up in the ER after being brutalized by one of these teenage cowards.
All of this inevitably leads to a conversation about what, precisely, drives a person to do this, and how to stop it in the future. I already touched on the why in a previous post. They do it, not due to a lack of “education spending” or “youth programs,” but because they choose to do it. They do it for the same reason all people commit evil acts: it makes them feel powerful. It makes them feel like they’re in control. It gives them an illusion of dominance. They do it because they enjoy it. They enjoy it because of the evil in their hearts. There is evil in their hearts because they let it in and feed it.
Why do we all act so perplexed by something that’s as old as time? We deny the existence of evil and then we’re thrown for a loop every time it pops up. That’s when we resort to our psychology textbooks and our pseudo-sociology; anything to avoid the inescapable conclusion that human beings have free will and they choose to do the things they do.
You can tell me about “environmental” factors all day, and you can sing me a sad song about their upbringing and their income bracket and whatever phantom prejudices are supposedly keeping them down, but you can not remove their responsibility from this equation. You can not mitigate it or diminish it. However hard their lives have been, a billion other people have experienced worse, and a billion other people aren’t patrolling the street searching for elderly people to sucker punch. What makes them different? Their choices. That’s all.
Now, while there’s nothing we can do to stop a man (yes, “man”; you aren’t a “kid” anymore once you graduate to felony assault) from doing evil if evil is what he wishes to do, we could take certain steps, as a society, to alleviate the situation slightly. We could, for instance, keep our families together. Dads could stop running out on their kids. Couples could get married before they have babies. Radical ideas, I realize, but nothing will get better as long as we’re unwilling to consider them.
I’ve extrapolated on those points many times, so, for right now, I’d like to lay out a more immediate three step plan for dealing with the Knockout Game. These are rational suggestions; suggestions that are absolutely guaranteed to slow down this “trend”:
In the old days, they used to banish prisoners to deserts and island colonies. They permanently removed the criminals from society. We can’t employ the same strategy anymore — I don’t think Australia would appreciate it — but we can keep in mind the fact that prisons are designed to protect our loved ones from predators. I’m all for rehabilitation, but that is not the primary function of a prison. Its primary function is to take dangerous people and neutralize the threat they pose to the rest of us. Everything else is secondary. Forgiveness is essential, but just because we forgive someone doesn’t mean we unleash them into our neighborhoods. You might forgive a pedophile for being a pedophile, but would you let him babysit your kids?
So why don’t we start using prisons for their intended purpose? These genius thugs are posting video of themselves playing their “game” online; it shouldn’t be that hard to track them down. When we do, they ought to be looking at significant time in a cage. I’m talking about ten years or longer. Whether their victim lands in a hospital or a morgue, I fail to see why it should matter all that much in terms of sentencing. The purpose of the game is to inflict as much damage as possible on the innocent passerby. Should they get credit if they accidentally fail to seriously hurt their prey?
The emotional detachment and moral depravity it requires to participate in something like this should not be taken lightly. I was always taught that, contrary to popular belief, you don’t always get a second chance in life. We all have one chance to not be vicious animals who prowl around the community looking to beat pedestrians unconscious. If you squander that chance, you don’t get another one. At least not during this decade. Sending a violent criminal to jail for a year or two is just about the most self defeating strategy I’ve ever encountered. There’s no sense in shipping a budding hooligan off to network with hardened criminals for 16 months, only to release him back into the community once he’s officially transitioned from delinquent to full-on gangbanger. Maybe prison could be a deterrent if the courts stopped playing pattycake with these goons and started doling out hard time for hard crimes.
Put them there and keep them there. Keep them there for a good long while. Need room to accommodate these extended stays? No problem. Release all of the non-violent criminals you want. I’d be more than happy if we stopped imprisoning people for growing plants or using unhealthy substances. Besides, it accomplishes precisely nothing to throw drug addicts in a cell for being drug addicts. All you’ve done is take vulnerable, desperate, non-violent people and put them around manipulative sociopaths. Not a good mix. Clear them out and make room for the actual dangerous crooks.
Boredom is a new epidemic. So is teenagedom. In the past, nobody had time to be either of these things. People worked. Work can cure a teenager of his boredom, and his teenage-ness. It boggles my mind that any “kid” is able to reach the ripe old age of 17 having never worked a day in his/her life. My parents wouldn’t have allowed such a thing.
Do we think anything good is going to happen when we take a bunch of confused, hormonal, aggressive, energetic teenagers and give them massive amounts of free time? Doing nothing — this is another concept I was never allowed to get too familiar with when I was growing up. Maybe it’s time to stop “protecting” our kids from sweaty brows and calloused hands. Maybe work could actually be protection from far more detrimental things — like criminal records and drug addictions. We don’t have sweat shops in this country anymore. Most of the mines are closing down. In other words, repeal child labor laws and what will be the result? Thirteen year olds working cash registers and pushing lawnmowers? They’ll survive. It’ll be good for them. It’ll keep them busy. It’ll let them contribute financially to their households — a concept that seems quite scandalous these days, but only because we’re often scandalized by sensible things.
They say you can’t solve a problem by “adding more guns” to the situation. That’s true, which is why Obama’s foreign policy has been such an abysmal failure. But I, much like any other Second Amendment advocate, do not suggest simply throwing a pile of guns at the problem. I suggest you consider adding one gun to a holster, and then adding that holster to your hip. At a certain point we — the pool of potential victims — must refuse to fulfill that destiny. Forget the prisons, the schools, family dynamics, the cultural ills; when a predator picks you out of the crowd, none of that matters. It’s too late for the system, or parents, or the government to help you. In that moment, you’ve either got the tools to defend yourself, or you don’t. These cowards hedge their bets and put all their coins on you being unarmed. It’s a glorious occasion every time they lose that gamble.
God gives you life. He doesn’t give it to you so that you can let some adolescent punk take it away. Guard it. It is a precious thing; it the most precious thing you’ve ever been given (aside from your children’s lives, if you have any).
Let’s be real here. My first two suggestions won’t happen. But number three can happen. Defend yourself.
From Matt Walsh: http://themattwalshblog.com/
islam: The New Communism. (Aside: This World is Really F#*Ked Up.) And “Orwellian” takes on A Whole New Meaning.
The Orwellian world finds its natural expression in our world of unnamable wars against unnamable enemies who are peacefully at war with us in the name of a religion that our leaders assure us is wholly peaceful and should not be identified with the people killing us in its name. There is enough convoluted reasoning in a single press conference after any act of Muslim terror to have provided Orwell with material for three sequels.
But in a Doublethink world where everything means the opposite of what it is, even Orwell isn’t immune from inversion. The popularization of Orwell has made him ubiquitous. Animal Farm’s book cover appears on reusable shopping bags. Every television show, from singing competitions to spy shows, will sooner or later be described as Orwellian.
Orwell is everywhere and his ideas are nowhere. Instead of censoring him, the Doublethinkers, in the fashion of the Ministry of Truth, rewrote him and made him banal.
Dubai, a city in a totalitarian state that practices censorship and fills jails with political prisoners, will host its Inaugural George Orwell Lecture under the auspices of His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum; a billionaire ruler with more wives and yachts than human rights.
Considering Dubai’s international reputation as a glittering city for the wealthy built on the backs of slave labor, the stark contradiction between its primitive base and its skyscrapers, a party city where women have fewer rights than kidnapped child camel jockeys, there ought to be plenty of material for an Orwell lecture.
Dubai, like Islam, is slavery masquerading as freedom.
But His Highness Sheikh Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum is not about to sponsor a lecture critical of his glittering tyranny. Not in a tyranny where the son of the UAE president and the brother of its crown prince was filmed using cattle prods, lighter fluid and nails to torture a businessman. In a properly Orwellian statement, the Ministry of the Interior, whose cops had been involved in the torture, said that “all rules, policies and procedures were followed correctly by the Police Department”.
Orwellian tyrannies like the UAE don’t allow lectures on Orwell unless they have been properly routed through the Ministry of the Interior, which follows procedures correctly when sticking a cattle prod into the rectum of a screaming Afghan businessman, the Ministry of Truth and their useful Western idiots who do all the Doublethinking on behalf of their countrymen.
And so instead of an Orwell lecture on the Orwellian nature of the country it’s actually taking place in, Gavin Esler, a BBC television presenter, which is to say an employee of a massive media bureaucracy that everyone must support by law, will claim that 1984 was warning England about the threat of the X-Factor television singing competition and Wayne Rooney; an English soccer player.
And that is no exaggeration. That is the actual preview of his talk.
It is no doubt comforting to believe, as so many left-wing intellectuals seem to, that the threat of totalitarianism comes from the Daily Mail and Manchester United, rather than The Independent and The Guardian. Talent competition judges don’t send people off to reeducation camps. That is more in the wheelhouse of left-wing intellectuals. And tabloids don’t send people to blow themselves up in the London Underground to enforce Islamic law on the United Kingdom.
There is something undeniably subversive about an Orwell Lecture that is itself Orwellian, but that no doubt is not what Gavin Esler has in mind. In classic Doublethink fashion, he is unaware of his inversion of reality because his own reality has been permanently inverted. And so an audience of Europeans will attend an event in a totalitarian Muslim country where the royal family casually tortures people and nod along knowingly to the revelation that Orwell wasn’t writing about the tyranny of torture chambers and thought police, but the tyranny of television cliches.
Orwellian lectures on Orwell appear to be the fashion at the Orwell Trust. The annual Orwell Lecture has already been delivered by Muslim Brotherhood scion and stoning apologist Tarik Ramadan. The topic of Ramadan’s lecture was “Democratising the Middle East: A New Role for the West”.
To the Muslim Brotherhood, democratization means the same thing that a plane ticket does to their Al Qaeda splinter group. A Muslim Brotherhood Supreme Guide was once quoted as saying, “Democracy is like a pair of slippers that we wear until we reach the bathroom, and then we take them off.” The Brotherhood was booted out of power because it decided that Egypt was already in the toilet and that it could take off its democracy slippers prematurely.
Democracy, to the Freedom and Justice Party of the Muslim Brotherhood, which offered neither freedom nor justice, was another word for tyranny. And that made Tarik Ramadan’s talk title an actual embodiment of the Party’s three slogans in 1984.
Tarik Ramadan has described the Muslim Brotherhood as a “legalist, anti-colonialist and nonviolent movement that claimed legitimacy for armed resistance in Palestine against Zionist expansionism during the period before World War II.” That’s a rather roundabout way of saying that it was an Anti-Western totalitarian movement that drew support from Nazi Germany because of their common goal of exterminating the Jews.
“Al-Banna’s objective was to found an “Islamic state” based on gradual reform, beginning with popular education and broad-based social programs,” Ramadan writes. But he neglects to mention that Hassan al Banna was his grandfather or that his Islamic state would “regulate every aspect of life”, conduct “surveillance of theaters and cinemas”, confiscate “provocative stories and books that implant the seeds of skepticism”, criminalize the mingling of men and women and restore the Caliphate.
If this sounds like an Islamic Oceania, that makes it all the more outrageous that his grandson should, in thoroughly dishonest terms, promote the creation of this Caliphate, where men and women will be flogged, books will be burned and the Freedom and Justice Party will watch everyone all the time, at a memorial lecture for the writer who warned that Oceania was coming.
It was the very rise of this burgeoning Caliphate in Egypt that turned the Tahrir Square protesters against Muslim Brotherhood rule. Just as it provoked youthful uprisings in Turkey, a despotism that Ramadan promoted as the Brotherhood’s ideal model. But according to Ramadan, the overthrow of the Brotherhood, the mobs in the street chanting for Morsi to join Mubarak, was a Zionist conspiracy.
Unlike Machiavellian, Orwellian was never meant to characterize George Orwell as a supporter of the totalitarianism that he wrote about. But the Orwell Trust has perversely embraced the very same totalitarianism depicted in 1984; the distortion of language into Doublethink and the advancement of slavery, war and ignorance under the guise of freedom, peace and justice.
Consider Orwell book prize judges like Arifa Akbar, who has spent a good deal of time claiming that the UK isn’t the victim of Muslim terrorism, but that Muslims are rather the victims of UK counter-terrorism, a proper inversion of the truth worthy of the Ministry of Truth, and winners like Raja Shehadeh for Palestinian Walks; the former director of a group that supports terrorism.
In a Harold Bloom edited collection of essays on Orwell’s Animal Farm, one essay suggests that the writer was drawing on Islamic themes when describing Napoleon’s four sows, matching the number of permitted wives in the Koran, and writing that Sugarcandy Mountain, the fictional afterlife propounded by one of Napoleon’s stooges was derived from descriptions of Islamic paradise.
Commentary of this sort however has grown rarer and rarer. Instead of using Orwell’s work to shine a critical light on distortions of language that enable totalitarianism, the deceased writer has been recruited to distort language to enable the totalitarian fantasies of Islam.
The Orwell Trust has become Orwellian in the worst sense. Its descent into collaboration with totalitarian states and ideologies is the very sort of conduct among the left that Orwell had been writing about.
George Orwell struggled to publish Animal Farm because no one wanted to hear anything negative about Stalin and the Soviet Union. Today, Islam and the Caliphate have taken the place of Communism and the Soviet Union. The new Doublethinkers of the left have drafted Orwell into their Ministry of Truth that claims Islam is a religion of peace, that the Freedom and Justice Party of the Muslim Brotherhood does not stand for the enslavement of half the population and that ignorance of these things is not a weakness, but a strength.
Just Buy It
That’s our entire economic system: buy things. Everybody buy. It doesn’t matter what you buy. Just buy. It doesn’t matter if you don’t have money. Just buy.
Our entire civilization now rests on the assumption that, no matter what else happens, we will all continue to buy lots and lots of things. Buy, buy, buy, buy, buy. And then buy a little more. Don’t create, or produce, or discover — just buy. Never save, never invest, never cut back — just buy. Buy what you don’t need with money you don’t have. Buy when you’re happy. Buy when you’re sad. Buy when you’re hungry. Buy when you want to lose weight. Buy an iPhone. Six months have passed, here, buy another iPhone. – - If you shop on Thanksgiving, you are part of the problem | The Matt Walsh Blog
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
It is natural for a society to search for explanations and motivations in the wake of a man-made tragedy. It is also somewhat natural for people to be driven by their personal biases when looking for someone or something to blame. In recent years, however, our country has been carefully conditioned to view almost every criminal event from an ideological perspective.
The mainstream media now places far more emphasis on the political affiliations and philosophies of “madmen” than it does on their personal disorders and psychosis. The media’s goal, or mission, if you will, is to associate every dark deed whether real or engineered to the political enemies of the establishment, and to make the actions of each individual the collective shame of an entire group of people…
The establishment desires to acclimate Americans to the idea that being anti-government is wrong; that it is a despicable philosophy embracing social deviance, aimless violence, isolation and zealotry. Looking beyond the mainstream position, my question is, is it really such a bad thing to be anti-government today?
Read it all at Lew Rockwell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/11/brandon-smith/why-is-it-wrong-to-be-anti-government/
Awww! You would think everyone’s natural sympathy would overwhelm their critical capacity, but fear not: Idiot Liberal™ is here!
Happy for #SFBatKid, but can’t help but wonder if this would happen for a kid who isn’t white. Let’s put energy into solving societal ills
@thedapperdiner the teabaggers are mad and I’m all lol. Sadly, I don’t have time to engage anyone.
yup — they love “The masses,” they hate actual people @AtlasCoached
It’s an attitude once riotously spoofed in a Saturday Night Live sketch, “Fondue Forks for Namibia.” There is a fascination with the exotic that I’ve sometimes called xenophilia: A preference for distant people and foreign cultures, as if one’s own nation or community — one’s family, friends and neighbors — were unworthy of interest or respect. (Xenophilia’s obverse is oikophobia, fear of the familiar.)
This is the secular liberal’s version of Christian missionary zeal, and it has been a cliché at least since Randall Jarrell mocked it in Pictures from an Institution, published in 1954.
Speaking of doing something to help children, how about not killing them in the womb? Isn’t that a way to help the world? And then raising them up to be hard-working and responsible, so that they can support themselves and maybe — just maybe — do a little something useful with their lives. Because you know, I’ve got six kids of my own.
My oldest worked her way through college, graduated summa cum laudeand is now teaching the children of Haitian immigrants at a Christian school. So maybe you could say I’ve done my share, indirectly at least, for the whole “solving societal ills” thing.
But it’s never enough for liberals. Their hearts are so overflowing with compassion for the downtrodden and oppressed that they must constantly lecture the rest of us about our moral inferiority.
See all of the Twitter comments on Stacy’s post.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Merely a Hunch
By David Warren
My hunch began with specific persons who, in the past, had patiently mouthed politically-correct platitudes, but were now omitting this requirement of a quiet life. Self-conscious at first, they may grow bolder. They make passing remarks that are “racist, sexist, classist, homophobic, Islamophobic,” & so forth. And this not because they are especially bigoted, but rather because they no longer wish to be told what to say. Men, & women, in their different but mutually resonant ways, suffer sudden & strange recollections. Little masculine qualities re-emerge in the men, little feminine qualities in the women, after lifetimes of suppression. This could potentially disturb the peace.
Read the entire article at: http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/
What follows is the transcript of the speech I delivered at the second National Policy Institute’s conference, which was held at the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, DC on October 26th.
(Ed.Note: Emphasis mine. ZTW)
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is not always easy to tell the difference between destiny and chance.
I discovered the “Alternative Right” three years ago, by a link posted on a Swiss blog. It was a perfect illustration of a famous line in Simon and Garfunkel’s song The Sound of Silence: “The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, and tenement halls.”
I was going through a period of questioning at that time. I had been working for a couple of years for the “conservative movement” in Paris and I couldn’t fail to notice that all my efforts had been invested in a cause that was not really mine, that had never really been mine actually.
Until that fateful day of July 2010, I had always centered my attention on France. My only knowledge of the other Western countries was through history books, movies or touristic trips.
Regarding politics proper, I wasn’t much interested in what was going on outside France. Though I was involved with the Right, I had always been wary of the American Right. For me, being right-wing in America meant worshipping the Holy Scrap (also known as “the Constitution”), waving a stars and stripes flag in the garden of a generic white-picket-fenced house, and making boring, tired jokes about the French who “always surrender.” I had still not digested my dish of freedom fries.
Discovering the Alternative Right was an Epiphany for me, as I think the discovery of the European New Right was for many Americans present in this room today. I’m thinking particularly of Richard Spencer and of John Morgan, the editor-in-chief of Arktos Media.
I discovered that though I wasn’t feeling at home in the French “conservative movement,” there were “people like me” on the Web, all over the Western world, who shared my hopes and concerns.
Ironically enough, I even discovered French authors thanks to American publications like AlternativeRight.com or Counter-Currents.com. Of course, the name “Alain de Benoist” was familiar to me, but he was not very popular, let alone read, in my corner of the Right.
Now, it seems that more and more Western people (White people as you say in America) are aware of the fact that what brings them together is much stronger than what divides them. And I’m not only talking about activists like us here. When this British soldier was beheaded in London by two African Muslims last Spring, I could see many manifestations of solidarity by average Western people. It’s something that would have been unthinkable a mere decade ago. As this example shows, reasons for this growing awareness among Western people are often negative ones: Westerners face the same danger of being displaced in their historic homelands.
There are positive reasons too, the first of which being the fact that we are the heirs of a great civilization. But although it is important to focus on the positive more than on the negative, it’s about a problem that is remarkable but not often commented on that I want to talk today: the generational divide.
When I say that this problem is not often commented on, it is not quite true. Actually, the liberal narrative about generational relationships is that the baby-boom generation, thanks to a courageous revolution, managed to put an end to an oppressive, reactionary, boring society.
There is some truth to that liberal narrative. But the generational divide applies differently to nationalist movements, and this is what I want to dedicate my attention to today.
More than a generational divide, there is, first off, a generational gap in right-wing movements. If the generation of my grand-parents (born between the two world wars) was rather conservative in the right sense of the word, the baby-boom generation is, in my experience, much more liberal in its outlook, hence the lack of right-wing activists from this generation. This is what explains “gerontocracy,” i.e. government of the old, in many right-wing movements, especially in Europe.
Even self-defined right-wingers born during the baby-boom are liberal in their views.
The most striking thing that I noticed, in France, Europe and America, was the inability of baby-boomers, even when they see themselves as dissidents, to completely break away from the institutions. The desire of recognition, the fear of social rejection makes the right-wing baby-boomer gives legitimacy to the very institutions that are willing to destroy him.
For instance, right-wing baby-boomers show a great deal of respect to Academia. They are very proud of their PhD when they hold one, and when they don’t, they are all the prouder to mention that an author they publish does. Well, at a time when there are PhDs in queer, gender, black, and even chicano studies in America, is it so important to mention that? Wouldn’t we be better advised to give as little legitimacy to university degrees as we can, given the circumstances?
This PhD cult among right-wing baby-boomers is related to their own rationalistic, scientistic delusions. Since conservatives are outmoded liberals — and many White nationalists are conservatives: they just want to conserve their people as it is, as if it were possible to save said people without becoming a new one in the process — they still believe in the Enlightenment myth that one would just have to show “the truth” to people to gain credibility and support. (And trying — in vain — to gain credibility from an Establishment that despises or hates them is an important trait of right-wing baby-boomers.)
But this idea that people would just have to know “the truth” to support the cause of saving Western civilization and the White race is fallacious. People have to be inspired rather than convinced, and they won’t be inspired by a set of bell curves, IQ tables and cranial measurements. Furthermore, it reduces “the truth” to the only things that can be numbered and quantified. The problem with that idea is that our struggle is a qualitative one. We can’t “prove” that architecture has become ugly since the 20th century, for example. Yet it’s something that has to be said.
I mentioned the PhD cult because it is one of the most obvious problems in right-wing intellectual circles. But this excessive respect of right-wing baby-boomers is granted to institutions in general, chiefly to the State, the Nation-State.
Since I was born in the 1980′s, at a time when the main Western countries had already been “enriched” with mass immigration, I understand that it is easier for me to dissociate myself from my own Nation-State.
Here, I’m reminded of an American friend I met in Paris a few weeks ago. He was born in the 1960′s, and when I mentioned to him the idea of an Ethnostate, he chuckled: for him, up to ten years ago, he had always considered he was already living in an Ethnostate: the United States.
And in day-to-day life, it remains common to hear people say “we” and “us” when they talk about the State. “We went to Iraq.” “Our troops are bringing democracy there.” “Syria’s chemical weapons threaten us.” I’m using silly examples here to make a point, but if you listen to people around you, you will inevitably notice that they keep saying — and thus thinking — that the State is them. That the State is the Nation.
But it’s getting more and more necessary to get rid of this false consciousness. Since the end of the 18th century and the American and French revolutions, the Nation-State has monopolized the way Westerners see themselves. This triumph is so complete that even multiculturalists use the Nation-State as a comforting reference to impose their dogma on the West. In every Western country, you can hear the same mantra that “Our [national] identity is diversity.”
Some people in our movement suggest that we should likewise use the Nation-State as a means to make people aware of our goals. The problem is that we can’t use the same tactic, for two reasons: first, we are obviously not in charge of the State. Second, a strict national consciousness leads to serious errors of interpretation. It is common in countries that used to have colonies and slaves to hear people say that our problems are rooted in colonization and slavery. In my homeland, the troubles with the Algerian community are thus attributed to French colonization and civil war there.
But Sweden, which never had any colony nor slaves, is facing similar, if not graver threats than Britain, America or France. We are not attacked for what our ancestors did, or allegedly did, but for what we are: White, Western people.
From my understanding, it is easier for my generation to see a brother or sister in another Westerner than it is for the former generation, which was born in the aftermath of the Second World War. In France, Front National is still anti-German, as well as it is anti-British and anti-American. But for the young generation, all these grudges are fading into irrelevance. A Briton might dislike the Germans or the French, wrongly or rightly, but those are unlikely to drug and pimp his daughters, behead a soldier in broad daylight, or burn the city down when a drug dealer is killed by the police.
In case you are wondering, I’m talking about things that actually happened in Britain in the last years.
Young Westerners know that they are more and more becoming one nation, the same way that other races, as Jared Taylor had noted in his book White Identity, are more and more seeing themselves as one people when they live in the West.
The right-wing baby-boomer is not able to fully understand what is happening in other Western countries, since he relies solely on national, liberal media, unlike young right-wingers who get information via alternative, Pan-Western websites. The liberal media gives him a distorted image of reality. As he knows that mainstream journalists are liberal, he basically inverts their depictions of other “far-right” movements in other Western countries to make his own opinion of them. Right-wingers, most often, only define themselves in opposition to the Left. What the Left likes, they hate. What the Left loathes, they love. It is thus easy to manipulate them into supporting a controlled opposition, given that their only justification to support is: “Since liberals hate it so much, it must be doing something right.” By this false standard, George W. Bush “was doing something right” when he made up the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq to invade this country.
Generally speaking, the right-wing baby-boomer is subject to the bourgeois dream, which has been known as the “American dream” since the end of the Second World War: a world of peace, trade, and boredom.
Right-wing baby-boomers share the project of two American politicians (both born before the baby-boom though), Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, whose similarities are more obvious than their differences. Their common motto can best be summed up as “Leave us alone.” Well, we of the New Guard don’t want to be “left alone.” We want to rule. We want to rule not only because we want actual power to get ourselves out of the present situation, but because we know that the “leave us alone” idea, which was behind the White flight phenomenon, is precisely what has led us to our current dispossession. Baby-boomers wanted to be “left alone,” so they fled to even further suburbs, moving further and further away from their own responsibilities. It is this process, White flight, that guaranteed that the ongoing dispossession could go on without being too painful.
The “good news” is that it is becoming impossible to continue the White flight process. Rising housing costs, growing gas prices, the concentration of jobs in city centers are putting the bourgeois dream to an end. It is now almost impossible for a generation that can only wait tables after a masters degree to keep fleeing. Problems will have to be faced, and dealt with.
At this point, I realize that I might seem unfair to the previous generation, but keep in mind that baby-boomers did what everyone else would have done if given the choice. This choice no longer exists. The quiet, suburban life has become impossible for the reasons mentioned before.
What is to be done, then? As of now, nobody, including myself of course, has a genuine solution to offer. Many in our circles claim that it is “five to midnight,” but I would argue that it is “five past midnight.” Not because it is too late, but because it is too soon. A mere decade ago, many people in this room, including, again, the foolish 20-year-old liberal that I was, were not aware of what was going on. Our awakening is too recent to find political solutions to our current problems now. For politics as we would like it to be to become possible, we have to win the intellectual and cultural battles, which right-wing baby-boomers have never really considered worth fighting. It is time we do so.
What we can thus do in the meantime is to get intellectually prepared as a movement (for the individual and practical aspects of this preparation, Piero San Giorgio and Jack Donovan are more competent than I am). The first task would be to get rid of intellectual debates dating back to the Cold War, with the false dichotomies between libertarianism and socialism, conservatism and progressivism, etc.
This necessity to go beyond these false dichotomies seems obvious to activists like us, but it is still in these terms that politics are debated today.
When I say that we have to go beyond Left and Right, I don’t mean that we have to reject both notions altogether — our ethno-national project obviously belongs on the Right — but the way they have been defined and falsely opposed for these past seventy years. The alternative is not between the kolkhoz and IKEA, the best reason for that being that the kolkhoz and IKEA are two sides of the same materialistic coin. We have to find a way out of here, a way forward and upward, and that implies rising above these irrelevant debates.
As a radical movement, we need to attract intelligent and educated young men, who are the future.
Crime statistics and differences of achievement between races are important, to be sure, but no snowboarding session on the bell curve will attract young men to us. We need to show them a way out, and thus to remind them of the need to gradually withdraw from the prevailing disorder, but we also have to show them a way into, and that is what the Old Guard has been unable to do so far.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m not trying to bury the Old Guard, or even to dispute its achievements. We wouldn’t be here today if the Old Guard had not taken the first step in the past. But we can’t keep doing the same things for decades.
It is now clear why we want to found a new society, now is coming the harder part: what we want and how we are going to achieve it.
The answer is not sure at this point. What is sure is that the powers of creation, not only of reaction, will have to be summoned.
Thank you for your attention.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/children-of-oedipus
Hollow people, hollow ideas.
Logical fallacies are not the end-all be-all of logic. In fact, they’re just a handy shorthand for recognizing common mistakes made in argument.
However, if you find one present in an argument someone is making, like “we should all be liberals,” you should proceed with caution. Where the basic assumptions are logical errors, more are sure to follow. And worse, those who accept logical errors can’t tell the difference between insanity and sanity, so you’re in for a rough ride.
In liberalism, the fundamental fallacy is “begging the question”:
Begging the Claim: The conclusion that the writer should prove is validated within the claim. Example:
Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
In this, the trick is to front-load what you’re arguing against with certain traits that you imply are inherent to it. Thus coal is “filthy and polluting” and our inclination is to ban it.
These are a subset of what are called “talking points,” which are concepts used by liberals because they sound good in conversation and which almost never bear a passing resemblance to logical argument. It’s sad to see even college-educated people indulge in these.
With modern liberalism, we see this type of fallacy in most of their public statements. Here are some examples of typical things you may hear liberals saying:
- We should support the equality of all people. Please assume that equality is a good thing.
- Republicans oppose an equal chance for all through socialism only because they’re the party of the wealthy. Equality is implied to be good, and socialism implied to be the only method of achieving it.
- Why would someone oppose Obamacare, which lowers health care costs and supports the poor?You’re either for it, or you hate the poor and want high costs.
- If this nation doesn’t decide to ban guns which encourage violence, I’m going to move to Canada.The implied connection between guns and violence is rehashed.
Here’s an example from the wild:
“Both inside the humanities and outside, people feel that the intellectual firepower in the universities is in the sciences, that the important issues that people of all sorts care about, like inequality and climate change, are being addressed not in the English departments,” said Andrew Delbanco, a Columbia University professor who writes about higher education.
In this quotation, it’s implied that “inequality and climate change” are “the important issues” and that because “people of all sorts” care about them, they’re universal.
None of this is true.
Liberal education traditionally focused on teaching people how to think, not teaching them what to think and how many times to repeat it. It’s only in the post-1960s world where Marxism dominates the campus that teaching talking points has been considered an education.
Not only that, while it’s true that “(some) people of all sorts care about” these two issues, it’s not true that all people care about them, or even that most people care about them.
What the liberals are doing here is stating their own ideological agenda as if it were universal truth that we should all care about. It’s hard to think of a clearer example of the “begging” the question fallacy than that.
In short, we’ve gone from:
Filthy and polluting coal should be banned.
Universal, benevolent and popular Liberalism coal should be the only goal.
Watch for this logical fallacy as you see liberals converse in the world at large.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/liberalism-is-based-on-a-logical-fallacy
An open letter to Rep John Lewis (D-GA)
Dear Rep Lewis,
While we in the TEA Party movement — that is, those Americans who stand and fight for constitutional principles, the sovereignty of the individual, and the epistemology of the Enlightenment — appreciate your timely reminder of the Democratic Party’s past involvements in segregation and the brutal subjugation of parts of the citizenry, we would like to correct your latest attempt to tie our efforts at resisting the remaking of the citizen-as-subject, as an economic unit in service of a state master, that is, as slaves, to past attempts by your Party to enslave Americans, or keep them segregated and subjugated, tied to some particular plantation or other over which you lord.
The Supreme Court has ruled before — and John Roberts, in a last minute attempt to secure for himself a legacy of bipartisan comity rather than judicial rigor, a move that will forever tarnish his reputation and damage the standing of the Court, ruled in the case of ObamaCare — that in fact the US government does have a right to force Americans into a kind of sanctioned slavery. In this case, we are told that the federal government can force us to enter in a contract it writes for us and demands we pay for under penalty of fine or imprisonment, even though to enter into that contract means we are compelled to purchase services we may not want or need, and by doing so, subsidize those same services for those who can’t afford to purchase them on their own. Legalized theft disguised as forced charity.
If to resist such coercion truly reminds you of an attempt to keep southern blacks away from lunch counters or in the backs of buses, one can only conclude that you haven’t the faculties to operate a shoe lace, much less serve as a lawmaker — though to be fair, this is not merely an indictment upon you, but upon those who vote for you, who have been taught to believe (and haven’t the intellectual curiosity to challenge) such ludicrous parallels as those you try to draw. In one instance, we have people of all races, genders, sexual orientations, and prior political affiliations rising up to protest the unpopular imposition upon us of a health insurance system that we neither want nor can afford — one that we know will decrease the quality of our health care while increasing our financial burdens, should we not be that part of your constituency that you insist be able to exist on the labor of others through your endless wealth redistribution schemes, the very thing that buys you votes and keeps your client list full. In the second instance, we have those who — while they worked to make sure they themselves were heavily subsidized and not forced to live under the very law they insist upon foisting on us, even as they’ve proven that access to the means of procuring the health insurance they claim to provide is impossible, onerous, and open to all sort of invasions of privacy and the theft of personal data — still insist we shut up and accept our lot as subjects.
And yet you have the audacity to tie the former to racial oppressors, while painting yourselves and your subjugators as noble and compassionate liberators, marchers against the predations of a capitalist system whose private health insurance providers (to the extent they’re even able to remain private, given the breadth and scope of government regulation) routinely grant claims at a higher rate than previous iterations of government health insurance (Medicare has a higher rejection rate than all private insurers)?
You sir, are a disgrace to the civil rights movement, a disgrace to the seriousness of the historic fight for equal rights for blacks (led by Republicans), a disgrace to those you purport to represent, yet upon whose ignorance and perpetually stoked victimization you continue to prey.
I despise people like you. You’ve turned a past injustice into a cottage race industry upon which you live like a parasite. And your attempts to tether that past injustice to those of us who today fight for the freedom and autonomy of the individual to resist the oppression of the state suggests that it is you, sir, who today carries the fire hoses and have shown yourself willing, time and again, to release the dogs against those who oppose your designs on their liberty.
In short, you are an opportunistic relic who, your protestations to the contrary, has become a bane to the very progress of the people your purport to speak for. So go fuck yourself.
We, the People
From Protein Wisdom: http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=51752
Mark Levin published this post early this morning.
It is truly a must-read, for it looks at our situation without blinders and is filled with that spirit that animated The Founders in their struggles and which we need to possess to restore those freedoms and liberties they left in our charge.
This is worth quoting in full:
The RINOs want a Terry McAuliffe victory in Virginia.
Many in the GOP establishment, from major fundraisers and consultants, to GOP officeholders such as the GOP Lt. Gov and mayor of Virginia Beach, have either trashed Attorney General Ken Cuccinnelli or endorsed McAuliffe outright. The GOP national machine has done next to nothing for Cuccinnelli. And GOP bag man, Karl Rove, is all over Fox without a word of support for Cuccinnelli, while he schemes and whispers behind the scenes against conservatives nationwide.
Having tried to sabotage Cuccinnelli’s candidacy from the start, these GOP actors are hoping for a Cuccinnelli loss and a big Chris Christie win (built on a Huey Long style of politics) to make the case that only big government Republicans can win and limited government, constitutional conservatives, such as Tea Party activists, are too extreme to prevail. They’ve already written the script.
In fact, the GOP establishment’s attacks on the Tea Party, which is an obvious assault on conservatives and conservatism generally, are increasingly difficult to distinguish from Obama and the Left’s attacks on the same folks. The ruling class in Washington is clearly united in one respect: to wipe out conservative resistance to their corruption, cronyism, and nation-killing policies.
Keep an eye on RINO columnists like Washington Compost mouthpiece Jennifer Rubin, as well as Rove and other commentators on cable TV, who have and will continue to reveal it all through their myopic ruling class lenses in the days ahead. As I said, their propaganda is written and ready to spread. And they’ll be given soap box after soap box to spin away.
Meanwhile, despite it all, including tens of millions of dollars in relentless leftwing smear ads funded by truly extreme groups hoping to beat Cuccinnelli and turn Virginia into Hillary Clinton territory in 2016, much of the big GOP money stays on the sidelines. Better to try to clear the field of conservatives who threaten the ruling class and its preferred nominees. Better to protect the RINO investment in big government than beat Hillary. The conservative grassroots is to be crushed and dispirited.
So, that’s the game. Still, recent polls show Cuccinnelli closing fast. This makes the Left and RINOs very nervous. The rest of us are cheering, and hopefully helping, the underdog. We identify with him, not the sleazy McAuliffe, his radical donors, and the ruling class. We won’t retreat. We won’t give up. We will fight for the last vote. What a sweet victory it would be! But make no mistake, this is one of many, many battles to come, win, lose, or recount.
What these people will never understand is that for most of us this isn’t about politics per se but preserving what’s left of our society, Constitution, and individual free will. It is about our families and our way of life. It is about who we are as Americans. We are not surrendering to this because we will not sit quietly while the ruling class continues to destroy our nation. We fight against growing oppression as many did before us. And we will fight like hell through the constitutional process. We will continue to learn, we will take names, and we will battle these people and groups at every turn, and in every election. We are not going anywhere.
And as the ruling class catastrophe continues to unfold, as with Obamacare, the monstrous debt, and suffocating regulations, and with the cycle of unsustainable spending and confiscatory taxing, the coerciveness of the ruling class and its federal agencies will only intensify. There will be a commensurate backlash.
The sleeping giant that is the American people is only beginning to awaken. It is only a matter of time until more people are roused to join this all important constitutional fight. We fight to hold Virginia today and we fight on thereafter.
From TCOTS: http://thecampofthesaints.org/
Many people these days that call themselves “conservative” and many others, that go further and consider themselves “resistors” are really just “legends” in their own mind. People like myself, especially, who have not been in the military, or at least been involved in some area of law enforcement, only fool themselves if they think because they can win some warfare video game that they are the biggest bad ass on the planet. It is only a matter of time before the shit hits the fan in this country, and when it does, very few, who in their opinion are ready for anything, will, in fact, be ready for nothing. Western Rifle Shooters Association, who anyone that considers themselves in one of the two aforementioned categories should be reading, has a link today to the November issue of III Magazine which has a wake up article by John Mosby on just exactly what we can expect when the SHTF. Go here http://iiimagazine.com/NOV13/ and read this excellent article entitled “Untutored Courage” and discover why those of us that consider ourselves patriots need to be trained and realize what this so called “resistance” really entails and what that encompasses is no fricken walk in the park. Below are a few quotes from this article:
“The absolute truth is that fighting as a guerrilla, whether modern or classical/tribal, pretty much sucks.”
“Being an effective fighter does not come naturally to anyone, I don’t care what anyone tells you.”
“There is a very sad condition that exists in people, and is especially apparent in the gun and preparedness communities, for men to delude themselves into believing that they know more than they do.”
Now, go read the article and look in the mirror, be honest with yourself, and realize that, like most of us, you don’t really know shit but we need to know. Our lives will depend on it. ZTW
This magazine link and many other great articles come from Western Rifle Shooters website: http://westernrifleshooters.wordpress.com/
Pedobear – the thin end of the wedge
On Thursday 18th September Russia’s President Vladimir Putin criticised what he called ‘excesses of political correctness’ in ‘Euro-Atlantic’ nations, referring to the ruling earlier this year in the Netherlands where a ban was overturned on a pro-paedophilia party.
His bold comments were made at the Valdai Discussion Club’s annual meeting at a Kremlin backed delegation of scholars, ministers and foreign dignitaries in north-western Russia, where among other things he vigorously defended the cosiness of traditionalism, dismissed the cultural molestation known as multiculturalism, globalisation, the ‘unipolar world’ - and the erosion of Christian values manifesting as a social focus on heart warming, pill popping, gender-bender genital mutilation.
Such comments coming from a world leader highlight a Fascist-left agenda which enforces ‘tolerance’ for the cultural eviction of the western peoples as a moral imperative.
But his words could be taken further. It could be said regarding Cultural Marxism, and the total political correctness it spawned to impose it, that Newspeak ‘sexism,’ ‘racism’ and ‘homophobia’ doesn’t even exist.
‘Neither does ‘Islamophobia’ (the irrational fear of being blown up), or ‘patriarchy,’ or ’white supremacy.’ But that’s not to say there isn’t genuine racial hatred: A bunch of black ‘youths’ beating up white families at the Wisconsin State Fair is evidence of that, Nor can it be said that homosexuals aren’t despised: Savage Muslim attacks in quaint Parisian suburbs account for that, too.
And here lies the point: Social justice twinned with political correctness means that only straight white males (in particular) can be viewed as ‘racist’ and ‘homophobic’ and somehow defective. With everyone else it’s ‘cultural’ or blamed on poverty… like poverty causes 20 black men to gang rape an eleven year old Mexican.
This means, perversely, that acknowledging the epidemic of black on white crime is ‘racism.’ It’s intolerant ‘Islamophobia’ to suggest, regarding Islamofascism, that future immigration from this demographic (miscalculating a liberal western influence on them) should be curtailed in the interests of national security and cohesion.
It means it is ‘sexism’ to assert that men and women on average have differences and that this is why disparate outcomes can be expected in their selected career choice. The useful feminist hate-word ‘misogyny’ is approved. The counter word ‘misandry’ isn’t. They know the way language shapes thought.
That’s why it’s not racist ‘hate speech’ to say that those who suffered under apartheid in South Africa fought against ‘white oppression,’ but the New York Times will damn as ‘anti-Semitic’ references to ‘Jewish oppression’ regarding Palestinians in the West Bank. Their only consistency is that white people are bad.
Armed with this hammer and sickle lexicon and social perception monopoly, the establishment Fascist-left’s army of ‘oppressed groups,’ their Stormtroopers, are encouraged to be professionally offended like proletariats in the early 20th century, a game which so far has only claimed the lives of over a hundred million souls.
Manufactured grievance being a valuable commodity, they stoke the furnace of ‘creative destruction,’ tearing down the ‘oppressive’ west which they hate – even though illegal immigrants in boats die to get there.
They are the authoritarians who call themselves ‘liberal’ while craving status and demanding unfair equality, the ideology of mediocrity. Whatever they fight for, it has nothing to do with rights – if it undermines western society they promote it.
Like paedophilia, which still inspires a healthy revulsion, but like heritage, culture and family, they are working to break down. How long before we hear of peadophobia: The irrational fear of those who want to have sex with children?
And if their Mickey Mouse words and social constructs do exist as defined, why not? It would be a word like the others, designed to frame reality to their liking.
Some of those working to liberate paedophiles today are far-left literary icon Allen Ginsberg, who during his lifetimesupported boy-love advocates, and gay rights OutRage! leader Peter Tatchell, the latter forced by paedophobes to backtrack after claiming ‘the positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-western cultures.’
The key to breaking their spell, and the Fascist-left knows this, is that once a people is free to be itself without fear and loathing, everything else, as Winston Smith observed in 1984, will follow.
As Putin remarked, people in western nations are ‘embarrassed and afraid to speak about their religious beliefs.’ And as long as this is so, everything will carry on. They will invent new forms of psychological rape – their weirdly new neologism ‘white privilege’ putting the gullible into states resembling post-traumatic stress.
Like Mao’s heartless Cultural Revolution, political correctness is a similar attack but on European consciousness. Inevitably then the first step of self-defence is a negation of it. To come to a state of mind where if one doesn’t agree with cultural genocide, they have a different opinion, they’re not ‘racist’ or bigoted. From this follows the control of culture, with that political power.
And this is liberation, not pioneering ‘hate-denial,’ a term which the Fascist-left would use. It is the recognition that only a society which embraces debate instead of criminalizing speech is the only one worth living it. It is respecting the notion that it is a human right to offend and it’s a human right to choose not to be offended.
Earning the ire of his comrades, Christopher Hitchens wrote: ‘Those who are determined to be ‘offended’ will discover a provocation somewhere. We cannot possibly adjust enough to please the fanatics, and it is degrading to make the attempt.’
One thing that the past few weeks have accomplished is the total destruction of Obama’s “towering intellect” persona.
This is one the standard lenses through which Obama is viewed, with differing but complimentary angles from each end of the spectrum: the liberal “reigning intellect of his age” as opposed to the conservative “master chess player with a plan for destruction.”
The basis of Obama’s reputation for intellectual superiority lies in a mixture of Democratic propaganda and PC indoctrination. The Democratic stance has been steadily maintained for years and prevails in some circles impervious to embarrassment or shame. Obama was an Ivy-league man! He was president of the Harvard Law Review! He was a constitutional law professor! He won the Nobel Prize! He wrote best-selling books!
This was bolstered by the PC contention that blacks who display any level of talent must immediately be promoted to the top of their field (except if their names are Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, or Clarence Thomas).
This belief leaked over into the conservative camp while taking the form that Obama was an implacable superhuman entity, a combination of Fu Manchu, Lenin, and Hal 9000, who had plans in the same detail, certainty, and breadth of vision as Asimov’s Foundation. Entire generations would live and die amid the unfolding of Obama’s plans, which never actually terminated at any particular date but simply faded out into the misty depths of future evolutionary effects. There was no point in trying to outwit this monstrous intellect; any such attempt had already been taken into consideration and counteracted. Any development, no matter how apparently disastrous, mindless, or asinine, was simply part of the plan, intended all along by the master of the dialectic in order to enmesh America deeper in his multidimensional schemes.
That there has never been anything behind all this ought to go without saying. Obama’s actual academic record remains a high state secret, unobtainable even by Edward Snowden. His history at Occidental College is totally opaque. Almost no one recalls him ever setting foot on the Columbia campus. His record at Harvard can’t even be called pedestrian. He made absolutely no impact – certainly not on the Law Review, where he remains the sole president with no actual contributions to his name.
He was never a “constitutional scholar” but merely an adjunct hired to fill in an empty period between jobs. The Nobel stands as the nadir of the committee’s attempt to use the shreds of the Prize’s prestige to manipulate international politics.
As for the books, see “Cashill, Jack.” I was skeptical concerning the extent of Bill Ayer’s contribution until I read a quote from Michelle O. herself stating that Bill helped out by “editing the book after Barack got stuck.”
Anybody with editorial experience knows about this kind of “editing.” There’s the friend or acquaintance who really wants to write and has enough talent to put some words on the page. But somewhere along the line, they get “stuck.” So you pick it up, go through it, restructure it, rewrite it, put in whatever connecting material is called for, in extreme cases reconstruct the whole damn thing from the first page on. These missions never end well — the editee is aware of the truth of the matter and is always a little resentful.
Looking at this record with a cold eye, it’s clear that Obama is no intellectual in any real sense. It’s almost a certainty that he owes most of his progress to affirmative action (it would be difficult to argue otherwise, seeing that his academic career occurred in the 80s and 90s, the peak of the diversity epidemic). Except for errors of the “57 states” variety, Obama has never said anything memorable – astonishing in and of itself, since so much of black American culture is based on the word. He is connected with no intellectual circles or movements, as Reagan was. He has no known hobbies or interests of an intellectual nature. Barack Obama is simply average, and average, as Harvey Pekar taught us, is dumb.
As for the conservative nightmare, let’s face it – there is a sizable minority within conservatism that might be called “depressive cons,” that will say things along these lines no matter who it is or what the situation. We’re always doomed, there’s never anything to be done, there’s no way out. Because of the constraints put in place over the past fifty years concerning any serious criticism of blacks, Obama is a perfect fit for this conservative Beckett formula. So the portrait of Obama the master chess-player has maintained itself even as disaster has piled on disaster to the point of farce.
The events of the past month have brought this to an end. Obama has at last been confronted by situations outside the control of his supporters, and which cannot be masked by legacy media.
The Mideast situation is now in its worst point within living memory, all thanks to Barack Obama. Islamic radicals are in control of several once-friendly Muslim states. The U.S. government has alienated the leadership of the leading Arab state, Egypt, and the richest one, Saudi Arabia. Syria has freely used WMD’s without any tangible response. The Muslim Brotherhood was progressing by leaps and bounds until the Egyptian military finally moved against it. The same organization – the Ur-terrorist group of the Islamic world – has infiltrated our own federal government with impunity. The United States, for reasons impossible to grasp, finds itself allied with Al-Qaeda affiliates. Iran is on the brink of gaining nuclear weapons.
Every last one of these developments is a direct result of decisions made by Barack Obama. The current situation in the Middle East is a product of the efforts of four Obama aides: Samantha Power, a strange and unsettling woman with two apparent goals in this world: the exaltation of the Arab Islamists and the abject destruction of Israel. Susan Rice is a career diplomat who lacks, along with other basic talents, an ability to lie convincingly. Hillary Clinton is the exact female equivalent of Obama: a woman of no ability apart from a certain feral cleverness boosted to high status for purely ideological reasons. (We’re omitting Huma Abedin to this list due to the fact that she’s Hillary’s). Valerie Jarrett has a past even more opaque than that of Obama himself – about all we know is that she is Obama’s closest aide and is Iran-born.
No person of even normal perceptiveness would have hired this coven, or would have stood by as they left a wake of destruction and misery across the Near East and the Mediterranean littoral. No person of decency would tolerate the results. But Obama doesn’t even seem aware that anything is wrong. He does not appear to grasp that things have changed for the worse and require correction.
The end result of this… well, it can’t be called a “policy,” generated as it is by offhand attitudes, momentary whims, and wish-fulfillment daydreams, has been the most thorough humiliation of an American president on the foreign policy stage since James Madison. The Mideast is teetering on the precipice, the people of Egypt (and likely Libya and Tunisia as well) are seething with bitterness toward the United States – and justifiably so; they were betrayed by the U.S. government. Israel has all but written off the Obama administration and will make its own decisions from here on. Obama has been reduced to groveling before the Iranian mullahs while his Secretary of State John Kerry acts like an automaton in overseeing a completely irrelevant set of negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
The French avant gardist and filmmaker Jean Cocteau once said, “Stupidity is always astonishing, no matter how many times you encounter it.” Obama’s Mideast debacle can serve as an illustration. It doesn’t matter what the goal may have been or what anybody involved had in mind. Not only did it not happen that way, there was no possibility that it was ever going to happen that way. The man who gave his first public speech as president in Cairo now doesn’t dare appear within 500 miles of the place.
The woe-is-us conservative take on this is that it’s deliberate, that Obama truly wants to hand over power to the Islamic radicals (the same ones he’s killing with drones) and it’s all proceeding according to plan. Enthralled as I am by the image of Obama aboard Air Force One wearing a Mao jacket and stroking a Persian cat while hissing, “Mubarak? Eliminate him,” I have to demur. Chaos achieved through contradiction is always a product of idiocy and nothing else. There is no way to plan such a chain of events or to guarantee any benefit from it – it’s the equivalent of dropping a grand piano from a forty-story building in hopes that the impact will tune it. The alternate, and convincing, explanation is that Obama is in over his head and doesn’t understand what’s going on around him.
We turn to the collapse of Obama’s “legacy” program, ObamaCare. Nothing like ObamaCare – the rationalization of an entire national health system – had ever before been implemented. In cases such as the British NHS, the government simply took control of an already going health-care system. ObamaCare is an attempt to impose on the run an entirely new operational template on a health-care system, and not one operating in some city-state or sparsely-populated third-world country, but in the largest economy in the world. If it was to be done, it had to be done once, it had to be done without major glitches, and it had to work the first time out.
So who did Obama hire for this task? Yet another underqualified female, Kathleen Sebelius, former governor of that health-care powerhouse, Kansas. Sebelius had no serious experience in health care and her administrative record was limited. But she was a “Catholic” who supported abortion, which transformed her into a multipotent chessboard queen against the Catholic Church, the single most powerful operator in American health care. That alone reveals on exactly what level ObamaCare thinking actually occurred – low strategy intended to outwit Obama’s opponents rather than to construct anything like a workable system.
Obama never considered that at all. Medical treatment and the apparatus surrounding it was one of those things that lesser people do. All that was required of Obama was that he flick his fly whisk and the thing would be done.
Add incompetent personnel to imbecilic premise and you just naturally give rise to error after error.
A Canadian-based company, GCI, was selected as software developer – that is, a company operating in a country whose national health-care system has been circling the drain for the better part of a decade. Furthermore, a company suspended from doing business with that very same system for failure to meet deadlines three years in a row. (Does anyone have any idea how bad you have to be for the Canadian government to take action against you?)
While developing the system, coders evidently cut and pasted code (largely from an application called DataTables from the British software developer SpryMedia, which is now complaining that its copyright was violated) with no connection to health care. It appears that no integration or testing of this Frankenstein code was carried out. (Coding, it was revealed last weekend, did not begin until the spring of 2013, only six months before O-day.)
The ObamaCare web commerce site was deliberately designed with a bottleneck as the very first step. On sites run by outfits with something worthwhile to sell, browsing and surfing is encouraged to develop and maintain customer interest. The ObamaCare site demands that you fill out the lengthy and complex application before you do anything else, even so much as access another page of the site. This was done out of fear that potential enrollees would take one look at the insurance plans on offer and flee. Instead, they spend an hour or more filling out the ap, take a look at the plans, and then flee. The large numbers of people jammed up simultaneously on the application page results in the site crashing repeatedly. (Complexity in service of a grotesquely inappropriate goal is an unfailing mark of stupidity.) Note that this feature (not a bug) renders it impossible to repair the site – anything added to that function simply makes it more complicated and apt to fail.
A third point is that even “successful” applications do not mean that a policy has been purchased. It turns out that the application is so complex, the instructions so poor, that the majority of them are unusable by insurance companies. The number of completed applications range from 1% to 50%. Which means that the already pitiful 51,000 applications made in the first week may in truth be as low as 5-10,000. The rest will have to be corrected by hand, after phoning the applicant, on land lines, in the year 2013. (On October 18, New York state revealed that precisely zero individuals had bought insurance though its independent website.)
The end result of all this is an e-commerce effort perpetually frozen at very moment of consumer entry, like a spaceship fallen into a black hole that remains stuck for all eternity. No activity can occur until a process is completed that can’t ever be finished because no activity can occur. This is government by squirrel cage, and we’re expected to be the squirrels.
And even if all this was repaired, if the rescue teams supposedly being sent by Google were totally successful, it would be still be of no use, because the actual law, above and beyond the software, contains a feature that negates itself, like Ouroboros, the legendary snake that swallows its own tail. Over the past few weeks it has been revealed that the engine driving ObamaCare is comprised of healthy young people buying expensive policies that will in turn pay for the policies of older and poorer applicants. This feature, apparently borrowed from Social Security, is absolutely crucial to the success of the program.
And yet, ObamaCare allows adult children, those very same healthy young people, to remain on their parent’s health plans, paying nothing, until age 26.
This is halfwittedness raised to the level of sublimity. No wonder they gave him the Nobel.
The executive behind such a catastrophe should be polishing her résumé. Not Kathleen Sebelius. She was last heard from in Pittsburgh, unveiling the system at the Heinz Arena with the help of the Steelers. (No wonder they’re blowing the entire season.) After a speech consisting of standard boilerplate about the system recited in her customary robotic monotone, Sebelius called attention to twenty people on the field with computers, ready to apply. None was even able to get to step one. Sebelius promptly blamed the arena itself – and by extension the team – for the failure. Infuriating a million and a half Steelers fans – now that’s good thinking.
After three weeks, Obama felt compelled to come to the rescue of his “signature achievement,” by way of a speech in the Rose Garden. His solution was for everyone to call ObamaCare’s phone number, which promptly crashed. And that’s it – we shouldn’t expect any more. Obama is a bystander at his own train wreck. He directed the train be built, fueled it up, wrote the schedule, got it rolling, sabotaged the tracks, and watched it fling itself halfway across the landscape. Now he’s lost interest. It has nothing to do with him. He’s going to play golf.
We could go on with this. During the same period O blockaded national monuments; put snipers on the White House roof to fend off enraged vets in wheelchairs; cut death benefits to families of dead soldiers; and cancelled experimental cancer treatment for small children. Another characteristic of stupidity is that it is neverending. Once it starts rolling, it continues onward until it at last finds a cliff to go over.
Back to Cocteau, who had a lot to say about the subject: “The problem with the modern world is that stupidity has begun to think.”
Cocteau was referring to the brute ideologies of the 20th century, ideologies that required, first and above all, the truncation of the questing and questioning facets of human nature in order to operate. Liberalism has long since joined that lineup, long enough ago for intellectual sclerosis to have reached its peak. Obama is the perfect representative of this final collapse of the liberal black hole: the leading ideologue who believes just as fervently as his most doltish follower, because he has never been exposed to an alternative. Liberalism today is a collection of slogans vague enough to be slotted into just about any given situation. Obama mastered those slogans long ago, and believes that’s all he needs to do. His cult, the media, and half the country believe it too. The chief error of ideologues of this type is that they truly think that they’ll remain immune to the consequences of folly. But this is something not granted to any man. Stupidity twinned with arrogance creates its own nemesis. Obama has just about reached that point.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
“For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.” — Ephesians 6:12
The politician must appeal to the vanity of low human nature, through the flattery implicit in all demagogic speech.
The class resentment, that is unambiguously at the heart of Marxism, is also at the heart of democracy in its less violent forms; the demand for equality because, “I’m as good as you are.” Finally it pulls down not only the rich from their stations — the landed, the responsible, the high-born — but with them every noble aspiration the natural hierarchy existed to serve. In its place, & to assuage their iconic longings, the crass are provided with a theatre of “celebrities” instead; of the morally worthless, “famous for being famous.” Monarchy, where it survives, itself descends to the Hollywood level, in the vagrant hope of appeasing this mob. – - Three horsemen : Essays in Idleness
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
October 24, 2013
Every American who values the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, every American who enjoys the right to be different and the right to be left alone, and every American who believes that the government works for us and we don’t work for the government should thank Edward Snowden for his courageous and heroic revelations of the National Security Agency’s gargantuan spying operations. Without Snowden’s revelations, we would be ignorant children to a paternalistic government and completely in the dark about what the government sees of us and knows about us. And we would not know that it has stolen our freedoms.
I reject the argument that the government is empowered to take our liberties — here, the right to privacy — by majority vote or by secret fiat as part of an involuntary collective bargain that it needs to monitor us in private in order to protect us in public. The government’s job is to keep us free and safe. If it keeps us safe but not free, it is not doing its job.
Read the entire article at Lew Rockwell: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/10/andrew-p-napolitano/the-all-seeing-eye-of-mordor/
By: Patrice Lewis
Black-eyed peas are a very tasty bean, one we all enjoy. But they’re a warm-weather crop and we can’t grow them here in north Idaho. Therefore I like to keep some on hand.
To explain, let me digress slightly and discuss one of my favorite novels, The Far Pavillions by M.M. Kaye, which takes place in 19th century India. The story opens shortly before the Indian Rebellion (sometimes called the Sepoy Mutiny) of 1857. Concerning that event, consider a couple of passages:
“Akbar Khan had many friends in Delhi, and normally he would have wished to linger there. But this year he was aware of odd and uneasy undercurrents, and the conversation of his friends disturbed him. The city was full of strange rumors and there was tension and an ominous sense of suppressed excitement in the narrow, noisy streets and crowded bazaars. It gave him a sharp feeling of apprehension and an awareness of impending evil.”
The main character of the book, Ashton, is four years old at the time of the Mutiny. Both he and his Hindu foster-mother Sita are caught up in the brutal events that took place during the Rebellion and are forced to flee, hiding in jungles and trudging through remote villages in search of a safe haven. The author describes their situation as follows: “But many who must reap the whirlwind [the aftermath of the Mutiny] were as blameless and bewildered as Sita and Ash-Baba, blown helplessly before the gale like two small and insignificant sparrows on a wild day of storm.”
These two passages strike me strongly every time I read them. In the first passage, Akbar Khan is wise enough to note the ominous rumble beneath his feet, and he and his party respond by leaving Delhi and heading for the high Himalayan passes. ["A Prudent man sees danger and takes refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it." -- Proverbs 22:3]
In the second passage, it illustrates how bad things can happen to good people. Sita and Ash are two small and insignificant sparrows, unprepared for the violence that kills thousands of people over many months. Sita and Ash did nothing to deserve the life-changing events they had to live through as a result of the actions of others.
I can’t help but draw parallels to today.
Are you feeling “odd and uneasy undercurrents” swirling around? I know I am. I don’t know what the future holds in America, but it concerns me. I have a sense of urgency to put our ducks in order — finalize the garden, make some improvements in our farm infrastructure, and in general try to make the homestead more self-sufficient.
It’s not just me. I’ve heard others who also sense that something is coming. Nobody knows what, but a lot of people just have a general sense of… dread? concern? uncertainty? Call it what you will.
A couple weeks ago a comment on a news article caught my eye. It read: “Folks, whether you are getting government program assistance or not, PLANT GARDENS….plant everything and anything you can….in jars, in pots, in your basement, in your garage…in your house, on top of the house….in garden houses, in cold frames….wherever, however….starting planting now…..and learn to can food. The sky will fall when people on government programs cannot get food to eat. We must make sure that we all eat and have shelter. No matter what you think is normal routine life….do not ignore the necessity to provide for the future. Doesn’t matter how much money you have…the money may not be available. Don’t rely on food stores as the prices are skyrocketing. Need Plans B and C for survival.”
A little incoherent, perhaps; but you can certainly sense this person’s urgency.
Last week on Zero Hedge, there was a startling article called They’re Coming for Your Savings. To quote: “Will more countries introduce capital controls or asset confiscations in the next few years? Duh, of course. Debt levels are unmanageable, so they have to be lowered. And there are only three ways to do it: deflationary collapse that wipes out the debt through default, inflation that wipes out the debt by destroying the world’s major currencies, or stealing enough private sector wealth to reset the clock. Option one – depression – is political poison so will be avoided at all costs. Option two is being tried and is failing because the deflationary effect of trillions of dollars of bad debt more or less equals the inflationary impact of trillions of dollars of new currency.
That just leaves door number three, demonize the successful and take what they’ve accumulated. Recall from the historical list that opened this post that governments like to pick on members of society who 1) have lots of money and 2) have lots of enemies or can easily be framed for crimes. This time around it will be “the rich” who are living well at the expense of the rest of us. The trick will be to define ‘rich’ down far enough to make possible the confiscation of middle-class IRAs and 401(K)s, since that’s where the real money is.”
Yes, odd and uneasy undercurrents. A couple extra sacks of beans — rather than a savings account — sounds like a pretty good idea right now.
By Betsy McCaughey on 10.23.13
His proposal goes against 226 years of U.S. history.
Last Sunday on Meet the Press, Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York announced he will propose legislation to permanently take control of the debt limit away from Congress and give it to the president. It’s a dictator’s dream come true. The framers of the U.S. Constitution gave Congress alone power to borrow, tax, and decide how public revenues are spent. They wanted to prevent a president from spending excessively and saddling the public with huge debts. That’s what the despotic kings of Europe had done.
Article 1 Sect. 8 states that “Congress shall have the Power To lay and collect Taxes…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general welfare of the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States.” Schumer’s proposal stuffs the Constitution in the waste basket. It would allow the president to raise the debt ceiling, subject only to a two-thirds vote of disapproval by both houses of Congress. That’s no more constitutional than allowing the president to impose whatever taxes he wants, unless two-thirds of both houses disapprove.
The bargain rushed through Congress last week to reopen the government ceded control over the debt limit to the president until February 7. That temporary concession itself violated the Constitution, though Washington politicians ignored that fact as they hurried to make a deal. Schumer would make this unconstitutional arrangement permanent.
Schumer’s proposal goes against 226 years of American history. Until 1917, the president had to ask Congress’s permission for each borrowing and frequently acquiesced to conditions. That year, Congress devised the debt ceiling, which allowed the president flexibility to borrow up to a certain amount in order to fund a world war. Ever since then, presidents have come to Congress once or twice a year for a debt ceiling hike, often making political concessions to get it. Until this year, Congress had never abdicated control over the nation’s indebtedness.
Read it all at The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2013/10/23/schumers-dangerous-idea
Found at American Power Blog
Found at American Power Blog
Was this a test to see how the ‘natives would riot?’
Why would that be far-fetched? Almost all of these politicians are Communists-who are just chomping at the bit to get us to war each other so they can start the murder and take all of our hard earned money and possessions–give it to the ‘have-not’ criminals..
Boehner caved to every single demand of the Communist, terrorist (acting as a President)-Obama. Jack Welch says that Barack Has Too Much Power. I believe the whole government besides a few patriots are rotten to the core but also believe that Obama is one of the most evil people alive and is agitating Americans to kill each other…
This must have made the Government Communists happy: Some of the natives ARE restless: FOOD STAMPS GO BLANK: GLITCH SHUTS DOWN DEBIT CARD SYSTEM NATIONWIDE... PANIC...
THE DAY THE GOP DIED: Boehner Caves, Begs Obama To Let Him Do Whatever It Takes To Re-Open Government, Keep ObamaCare Intact – Agrees To Even End Sequester Cuts. He caved to EVERYTHING making me think they did this to test the waters…
Cartoon from Sad Hill News
From The Mad Jewess: http://themadjewess.com/