Category Archives: Commentary
If a government passes a law, and nobody obeys, what is that government to do?
. When Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy (D) signed the “toughest assault weapons legislation in the nation” last year, his administration estimated between 372,000 and 400,000 firearms would be registered and about 2 million magazines that hold more than ten rounds.
The registration requirement kicked in on Jan. 1 – more than four months ago.
To date, about 50,000 “assault weapons” have been registered – less than 15 percent – and only 38,000 “high-capacity” magazines have been registered – or about 2 percent.
This has liberals – led by the leftist Hartford Courant – in a rage. In a Valentine’s Day editorial, the newspaper said state police should comb the state and federal background check databases to find those millions of scofflaws and… well, arrest them.
The Courant doesn’t say this outright, they argue that the state should find these people, but since violating the new law is a felony, and “felonies cannot go unenforced.”
“A Class D felony calls for a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. Even much lesser penalties or probation would mar a heretofore clean record and could adversely affect, say, the ability to have a pistol permit,” they write. “if you want to disobey the law, you should be prepared to face the consequences.
What the newspaper is afraid to call for outright is the imprisonment of tens of thousands of gun and high-capacity magazine owners in the state. Throw them in prison for merely owning a weapon or magazine.
Luckily, Gov. Malloy is a little brighter than the good people at the Courant. Sending state troopers descending on thousands of gun owners can not end well. Some folks – even folks in Connecticut – are inclined to believe their Second Amendment Right is inalienable and would react rather negatively if somebody attempted to disarm them.
So that’s out. What about threatening them with criminal charges? That’s out too. The new law already classifies them as felons and they don’t seem to mind.
So what is Malloy likely to do? Nothing. Pretend the law doesn’t even exist and try to move on. Of course, this just proves what we’ve already known: tyrants are toothless against an armed and educated populace.
From TDG: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/
Ann Barnhardt and Psychopathic Politicians
3. I am going to post the “Psychopathy Checklist” that has been going around for the past week or so. Read it and tell me that my characterization of politicians as psychopaths isn’t accurate. I’m telling you, these people are all psychopaths and you simply CANNOT deal with psychopaths as if they are normal people. They are playing a completely different game with a completely different rulebook, and unless you savvy to this and respond appropriately, they will lay waste to entire nations and civilizations without batting an eyelash. I think that the most critical point may be point 12 below – psychopaths are devoid of any sense of shame. They cannot be shamed, and thus things like “censures” or even public humiliation (think Bill Clinton, Anthony Weiner) are useless against them because they genuinely do not care. They have to be physically stopped and restrained, sometimes permanently. This is why capital crimes must be punished as such. I know it is unpleasant to face this fact, but there is no escaping it.
I can’t help but comment on the last sentence in point 14. I look back at my life and recognize that one key indicator about people is how they treat waitstaff at restaurants. I know that sounds rather trivial, but it is so true. I remember meeting a couple when I first moved to Denver. We went out to dinner, and it was wonderful. HOWEVER, they were both extremely rude and dismissive to the waitstaff. When a waiter or busboy would come to the table this couple would ignore them – literally not look at them or respond, and would not look the waiter in the eye when ordering (ALWAYS watch the eyes). I alone spoke to the waitstaff, even though I was the “lowest ranking” person at the table by far. I noted the behavior because it was so egregious, but blew it off, which was pure weakness on my part. In retrospect, I could just kick myself a million times for that, and I have seen the same thing over and over again. Watch how people treat those in weaker or service positions. It is a highly reliable indicator.
This is from sources on the web, and is based on Robert Hare’s psychopathy checklist.
1. Look for glib and superficial charm. A psychopath will also put on what professionals refer to as a ‘mask of sanity’ that is likable and pleasant. It is a thin veneer.
2. Look for a grandiose self perception. Psychopaths will often believe they are smarter or more powerful than they actually are.
3. Watch for a constant need for stimulation. Stillness, quiet and reflection are not things embraced by psychopaths. They need constant entertainment and activity.
4. Determine if there is pathological lying. A psychopath will tell all sorts of lies; little white lies as well as huge stories intended to mislead. Psychopaths are gifted or dull, high functioning or low performing like other people. An untalented psychopath may harm a few; a highly talented psychopath may lay waste to nations. The difference between the psychopath and others lies in their organic lack of conscience and empathy for others. The sociopath is trained to lack empathy and conscience. The psychopath is a natural.
5. Evaluate the level of manipulation. All psychopaths are identified as cunning and able to get people to do things they might not normally do. They can use guilt, force and other methods to manipulate.
6. Look for any feelings of guilt. An absence of any guilt or remorse is a sign of psychopathy. They will often blame the victim.
7. Consider the level of emotional response a person has. Psychopaths demonstrate shallow emotional reactions to deaths, injuries, trauma or other events that would otherwise cause a deeper response. Other people are satisfaction suppliers, nothing more.
8. Look for a lack of empathy. Psychopaths are callous and have no way of relating to others in non-exploitative ways. They may find a temporary kinship with other psychopaths and sociopaths that is strictly utilitarian and goal-oriented.
9. Psychopaths are often parasitic. They live off other people, emotionally, physically, and financially. Their modus operandi is domination and control. They will claim to be maligned or misunderstood to gain your sympathy.
10. Look for obsessive risk taking and lack of self-control. The Hare Checklist includes three behavior indicators; poor behavior control, sexual promiscuity, and behavioral problems.
11. Psychopaths have unrealistic goals or none at all for the long term. Either there are no goals at all, or they are unattainable and based on the exaggerated sense of one’s own accomplishments and abilities.
12. Psychopaths will often be shockingly impulsive or irresponsible. Their shamelessness knows no bounds. You will ask, what were they thinking? And the answer was, they weren’t because they did not care.
13. A psychopath will not genuinely accept personal responsibility. A psychopath will never admit to being wrong or owning up to mistakes and errors in judgment, except as part of a manipulative ploy. They will despise and denigrate their victims once they are done with them. If they have any regret it is that their source of satisfaction supply has ended and they must seek another.
14. Psychopaths lack long term personal relationships. If there have been many short term marriages, broken friendships, purely transactional relationships, the chances the person is a psychopath increase. Watch especially how they treat other people in weaker positions and even animals.
15. Psychopaths are often versatile in their criminality. Psychopaths are able to get away with a lot, and while they might sometimes get caught, the ability to be flexible and adaptable when committing crimes is indicative.
If you should find yourself in a business or personal relationship with a psychopath, the best advice is seek counseling if you need, obtain assistance if you must, and run if you can. You are a diffused and multi-faceted person with many interests. A psychopath is powerfully focused on obtaining what he wishes from others, without many prohibitions or distractions. Avoidance is the best policy. Long term confinement is their best treatment.
I do not think the repetitive sociopathic behaviours and psychopathic tendencies of the Roman imperial leadership to be accidental. The mad emperors kept recurring because they were the creatures of what that culture had become, and they stood as emblems at its apex.
Men are social animals, and can go mad in groups, as well as alone. Psychopathy can be the black hole at the center of a whole galaxy of madness and sociopathy under the right conditions, and the results can be flamboyantly destructive, as we most recently saw in several places during the 20th century. The psychopaths can thrive anywhere that deception is an advantage, but their prime hunting ground is a system in crisis, a controllable chaos lacking a well defined rule of law.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
The rotors are spinning at full speed, the manure is loaded into the trebuchet and the slack is out of the firing trigger.
Nervous? Troubled? Afraid? Don’t be. There is Someone who is thoroughly in charge. And no, it ain’t Valerie Putin or Vladimir Jarret. (Yes, you should be laughing. It’s okay.)
Deep breath. Read this and remember it tomorrow and next week. Your sanity may depend on it.
And Jesus came and touched them: and said to them, Arise, and fear not.
There are 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) stars in our galaxy.
It is estimated that there are 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) galaxies in the universe.
That means that there are 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10 sextillion) stars in the universe, or so I estimate.
Our sun, which we will consider an average star, burns 607,000,000 (607 million) tons of hydrogen per second in fusion reactions.
If we take the 10 sextillion stars in the universe multiplied by an average hydrogen burn of 607 million tons per star per second, we get a universal hydrogen burn of:
6,070,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (6.07 nontillion) tons of hydrogen per second.
1 gram of hydrogen contains 602,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (602 sextillion) atoms. Remember “moles” from chemistry class?
There are 454 grams in a pound.
There are 2000 pounds in a ton.
Therefore, there are 908,000 grams in a ton.
If we take the 602 sextillion atoms in one gram of hydrogen and multiply that by 908,000 grams per ton, we get:
546,616,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (546 octillion) hydrogen atoms per ton.
Multiply the 546 octillion atoms per ton by the universal hydrogen burn of 6.07 nontillion tons per second, and you get:
3,317,959,120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (3.318 novemdecillion) atoms of hydrogen consumed every second in the universe.
Because every fusion reaction is fusing 2 atoms of hydrogen into one atom of helium (plus an energy yield), we divide 3.318 novemdecillion by 2 and get:
1,658,979,560,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1.659 novemdecillion) fusion reactions per second in the universe.
God is specifically and infinitely conscious of every single one of those fusion reactions because He is the cause, driver and sustenance of every single one of them. If He doesn’t will it or permit it, it doesn’t happen.
This is the same God that spends every nanosecond of your life in a state of burning, aching, consuming love for YOU. Correction. He didn’t start loving you when your life began. He has loved you FOR ALL ETERNITY. There has literally never been a “time” when He didn’t love you. This is the same God that is so desperately and – dare I say it – pathetically in love with you that He died for you. In fact, He let YOU kill Him, because that was the only way that His love could be consummated. It had to be. And He knew it had to be that way from all eternity. And He still willed you into existence and knit you together atom by atom, cell by cell, in you mother’s womb WHILE He was driving 1.659 novemdecillion fusion reactions per second – just so you could maybe look up into the night sky and see this:
The Perseus Cluster. Every point of light in this image is NOT one star, but one GALAXY.
From Ann Barnhardt: http://www.barnhardt.biz/
Earth Hour stigmatizes human accomplishment as the root of all evils and treats the lack of accomplishment as an accomplishment. For all the pretense of activism, environmentalism celebrates inaction.
Don’t build, don’t create and don’t do– are its mandates. Turn off the lights and feel good about how much you aren’t doing right now.
Humanity is what is wrong with the world. It began with fire, then the wheelbarrow, the lever and the ax, the mason, the carpenter, the scientist, the visionary. It can end with you.
Just turn out the lights.
Environmentalism has degenerated from valuing how much the skies and the oceans, the butterfly and the beaver, the still lake and the blade of grass, enrich our humanity into a conviction that all human activity is destructive because the species of man is the greatest threat to the planet. Each death, each act of undoing and unmaking, each darkness that is brought about by the cessation of humanity becomes a profoundly environmentalist activity.
Kill yourself and save the planet. Put out the lights, tear down the city and let the earth revert to some imaginary primeval paradise free of all pollution; whether it is the carbon breath of men, dogs and cows or the light pollution of their cities.
Embrace the darkness.
While we take electric light for granted, being able to read and write after dark is a technological achievement that transformed our civilization. Animals are governed by day and night cycles. Artificial light made it possible for us to work independently of the day and night cycle. And that made our literature and our sciences, our civilization, possible.
Like all environmental gimmicks, Earth Hour is self-defeating as anything other than an assertion of identity and faith. Far more energy is consumed promoting it, than is saved by practicing it.
Websites switch to black, even though displaying black on television sets or monitors consumes more energy. Turning off electricity to entire buildings after working hours and then turning it on costs more than letting it run. And getting 90 million people across the country to turn their power on and off at a scheduled time is an energy savings disaster. And since power companies draw down on their more expensive ‘green’ generators first, Earth Hour actually shuts down ‘green’ power.
But its sponsors don’t claim that Earth Hour saves energy or prevents us from polluting the globe. Like every environmentalist stunt from flying rock stars around the world on jet planes to carving thousands of statues made of ice and then leaving them to melt in a public square, Earth Hour is described as spreading “awareness”.
Spreading awareness is the sole purpose of most environmental activism. Awareness spreading doesn’t improve anything, but spreads the ideology that humanity is evil to make people feel guilty, outraged, hopeful or some combination of the appropriate political sentiments in the face of an imminent armageddon that can only be fought by convincing everyone to be deeply concerned by it and disdainful of everyone who stands outside their Chicken Little consensus.
It is a religious ritual for a secular religion that has no god, but whose devil is the gear and the microchip, the milk cow and the imported banana, the skyscraper and the lathe.
The WWF, Earth Hour’s godmother, has learned that shrill attention seeking is a reliable fundraising method. One of the WWF’s more memorable fundraising methods was an ad showing hundreds of planes headed toward the World Trade Center, to highlight just how much more important their work is than fighting terrorism. Franny Armstrong of Age of Stupid, which was promoted by the WWF, ran a 10:10 campaign in the UK, whose ads featured environmentalists murdering dissenters, including a group of schoolchildren. The ads are just ads, but London’s leftist former mayor, Ken Livingstone had said of Age of Stupid, “Every single person in the country should be forcibly sat down on a chair and made to watch this film.”
That is the dark side of environmentalism. The most active non-Muslim domestic terrorist group is environmental. The undercurrent of violence finds easy purchase in environmentalism’s creed that the only real problem with the world is people.
No amount of turning off the lights is enough. Eventually you come around to having to turn off the people.
The Nazis were among the most enthusiastic environmentalists of their day, even the term ‘Ecology’ was coined by Ernst Haeckel, whose racial views served as precursors to Nazi eugenics. But while Nazi environmentalist believed that we were all animals, they insisted that some animals were better than others. Modern environmentalists believe that we are all worse than animals. In their view we are both natural and unnatural. Natural because we come from the ape and unnatural because we are intelligent. We live on the planet, but our intelligence excludes us from ever belonging to it.
Tools are our crime against nature. We make things. And we make things better. Earth Hour is our reminder to drop our tools and stop. Stop thinking. Stop doing. Just stop.
The incompatibility of productive man with the natural world is a fundamental tenet of the environmental movement. Everything we do is destructive because of what we are. We are tool builders, inventors and producers. And the environmentalist movement is aimed at convincing us to stop being these things. To turn off the lights, make do with less and march back to the caves with a few clever ad campaigns and a catchy tune.
Not only mankind must go, but all the animals that man has domesticated and bred– cows, dogs and cats. That is why PETA kills thousands of dogs and cats a year, promotes the euthanasia of wild cats and pet spaying and its staffers have even been known to kidnap animals and then kill them. It is why the Global Warming crowd has made cow emissions into their whipping bovine.
It’s not enough to kill man, tear down his cities and put out his lights. His cats and dogs and his cows and sheep must die along with him.
Environmentalism is not motivated by a love for all creatures, but by the fanatical belief in the purification of the earth from all traces of human civilization. The political leftist romanticizes the noble savage over the civilized man and its environmentalist arm romanticizes the jungle over the thousand acre farm. It prefers the the swamp to the garden, the wolf to the dog, and the tiger to the house cat.
This preference is not scientific, it is emotional, rooted in an antipathy to industrialization and human development. It wraps itself in the cloak of science, but it is a reactionary longing for a romanticized nomadic past that never existed. A way back to the lost eden of noble savages free from morality and guilt.
In the environmental bible– man is the source of all evil. The transition from the nomadic to the domestic, the village to the city, and the craftsman to the factory, is its version of original sin.
The environmentalist began with a distaste for human civilization and the fetishization of the rural farm life of the peasant. The champions of this “naturalism” were invariably urban artists and writers from the upper classes who were enthusiastic about being in touch with nature. After them came the “Nature Fakers” crafting myths about the high moral standards of wild animals. Domestic animals in such stories were always wicked and dumb, while wild animals lived deep and spiritual lives out in the woods. And so the animal kingdom was subdivided into the noble savage and the uncle tom.
The world was divided into two polar opposites, the green and the gray, in an apocalyptic struggle. Either man would drown the world in industry, or he would return to a natural way of life through a lethal virus (Mary Shelley, The Last Man, 1826), a devastating war (H.G. Wells), oppressive social policies (Edward Bellamy) or eco-terrorism (The Monkey Wrench Gang). The more civilization grew, the more apocalyptic the scenarios became culminating in the two great environmental myths; nuclear winter and global warming. These apocalyptic myths have served the same purpose for environmentalists as apocalypses do for all religions. They predict a time when the sinful order is overturned and the earth is renewed to make way for the faithful.
Man is the environmentalist’s devil. He must be beaten, broken and subjugated. Even the animals he has bred, who are the spark of his genius, must be taken out and killed. Take away his food and his power. Blame him for the natural cycles of the planet and the inevitable extinction of species that goes on whether he is there or not. Take away his technology and his inventions. Tell him that the humblest bacteria is better than him for it is dumb and follows its natural instincts while he insists on using his mind. Take away his primacy and his learning. And then leave him in the dark.
The environmental movement is tenacious, fanatical and deceptive. Its creed is the undoing of all human progress.
There is money to be made from that, as there is in all revolutions, but beneath the inconveniences of living under an environmental regime, from dirty clothes to high taxes, while being forced to listen to the hypocrisies and false pieties of the Gorean clergy of environmentalist activists heating their mansions while the poor freeze in energy poverty, is the darker reality that environmentalism is an anti-human movement with a vicious hostility toward man and the civilization he has built.
Whatever he has built, it must destroy.
The gap between darkness and light is a profound symbol in every civilization. The light of knowledge pitted against the shadowy dark of ignorance. The light reveals, but the darkness hides.
Civilization and the moral code exist in the light of awareness, but the darkness is home to unthinking bestial things. To call for a return to the darkness is a profound act of symbolism. A civilization that celebrates a return to the darkness for even a single hour is longing for a return to a deeper state of darkness.
A darkness of the soul.
From Sultan Knish: http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/
Haven’t you learned anything from history?
‘Advancements’ earned through tyranny never endure. You can only win a debate by suffocating your opposition for so long.
Your strategy is doomed for failure, because it has always failed. In the name of ‘fighting for the freedom to love,’ you’ve utilized hate. For the sake of ‘tolerance,’ you’ve wielded bigotry. In order to push ‘diversity,’ you’ve been dogmatic. You are everything you accuse your opponents of being, and you stand for all the evil things that you claim they champion. You are exposed. We see you for what you are: a force of destruction and division. Hey gay rights fascists: in spite of your Mozilla victory, you will still lose | The Matt Walsh Blog
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Vladimir Putin & the Appetites of Men
“The fact of the matter is that there is a little bit of the totalitarian buried somewhere, way down deep,
in each & every one of us. It is only the cheerful light of confidence & security which keeps this evil genius down…If confidence & security were to disappear, don’t think that he would not be waiting to take their place.” – George Kennan – - A Catholic Thinker
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Noah: “Think Days of Our Lives meets Waterworld.”
I’ve also heard some “Christian leaders” endorse this steaming pile of heretical horse manure.
I’m tempted to accuse them of being cowardly, dumb, or dishonest, but I’ll just give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they slept through the most troubling parts — like the part at the beginning, and the end, and all of the parts in between. I’m a Christian and I think ‘Noah’ deserves a four star review | The Matt Walsh Blog
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Is it about time that we start searching for America instead of this airplane?
I am more interested in where our country has gone, and I wish we would have just as intense a focus on what has happened and where our country went down as there has been on this airplane. - – Limbaugh
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
The Prayer of Java (From the Archives of The Doctor is In Blog)
April 4th, 2008
Been quite busy of late, so I’ve resurrected an OBG (Oldie But Goodie) in lieu of actually writing something new and intelligible. Back soon, God bless.
Recently, in an e-mail exchange, Gerard Van der Leun brought up the issue of prayer, and how it was a difficult learning experience for him. Like so much in the world of web logs, a seed gets planted which starts you thinking. Well, Gerard’s been thinking — and writing — while I’ve had this post sitting in my drafts box for a month. Seems like one of those pokes in the ribs that awakens you when you’re in the blessed arms of Morpheus — and snoring…
The subject of prayer is a fascinating one for me in many ways, not only because of its effect on my life, but because — as a logical-sequential scientist by profession and disposition, I want to understand how it works — and I don’t, and I can’t. But it does. And that cognitive dissonance drives me a little nuts.
Billions of words have been written on prayer, by foolish and wise, scholarly and simple. For the secular skeptic, baptized into the random meaninglessness of a life accidental, it must seem odd — if they stop to think of it, which I suspect they rarely do — that mankind throughout eons and cultures has devoted so much time and energy to a pointless litany of words directed to the non-existent. Even among we who confess to the existence and significance of a Being higher than ourselves, prayer confounds and frustrates us, as we search for some formula, some talisman to garner the attention and blessing of the invisible, inscrutable deity.
But this does not keep us from trying. The drunk asks God to help him out of this jam, promising not to drink again. The agnostic pleads with God that the biopsy not show cancer. The unhappy spouse prays that her husband change to her liking. We pray for money, for success, for jobs, for relief from emotional agony and physical pain. We pray ritualistically, hoping that by repetition an indifferent or annoyed God will throw some crumb our way to get us off His case.
Prayer, perhaps more than anything else, reveals what we think about God and about ourselves in relationship to such deity. If our God is remote, abstract, indifferent, then our prayers will have the character of whistling through the graveyard — hoping against hope that the very act of addressing this unknown force will ward off fear of some greater evil closer at hand. If we serve an angry, judgmental power — vengeful and quick to accuse — then we will pray from fear, pleading nervously for mercy while recommitting ourselves to the required perfection we have no hope of achieving. If we worship Santa Claus, then endless lists of self-gratifying demands will appear, as we hope we have been less naughty than nice. Like nothing else, prayer reveals the smallness of our god and the poverty of our souls. It lays forth the preconceptions which rule our lives and the limits which bind us — if we will but take the time to examine them. Gerard, in his thoughtful meditation, says the following:
In fact, whole elements of religion are centered around having you find and keep a personal relationship with God. But just because you have a personal relationship with God (and you should), doesn’t mean God has to have a personal relationship with you. He is, after all, God and He’s got a whole universe to run. It’s a big place and He’s just one God and He’s busy.
Far be it from me to disparage a friend’s worldview or theology (and this is most certainly not my intent) — my own will likely be the standing joke at the Pearly Gates. But his depiction — intended to be humorous, if I read correctly (in risio, veritas?) — nevertheless strikes me as a nearly-universal presumption, a governor principle on the engine of God. This understanding of God — called theism by those who put names to God-ideas — has just never made a lot of sense to me. God — whose presumed job is to handle very big enterprises — sets out to create a spectacular universe of unspeakable complexity and beauty. At the high point of His craftsmanship, He creates a being a lot like Himself — capable of thought, reason, passion, beauty, love, creativity — and gives this creature a glimpse of the spiritual, of that which is beyond time, place, and limits, beyond the physical, in a universe without dimensions. He endows this being with a relational spirit, made whole through interaction both with Himself and with others of like kind. Having crafted such an extraordinary masterpiece, the blind watchmaker then supposedly just walks away — too busy polishing the instruments and arranging the sheet music to listen to the symphony He has created. I for one find this concept of God implausible, unfulfilling and even cruel — to say the least.
A God who can craft a universe of unspeakable vastness and beauty with but a word, who designs galaxies and gamma particles, black holes and hummingbirds, is not stressed out by its administration. We have no grasp of the infinite — after endless accomplishments, there are endless more yet to come: there is no exhausting the infinite. There is only one limit on His limitlessness: the limits I place by believing He can’t, or won’t, or is too busy, or not interested.
So what then of prayer? Is it the missing nucleotide in the DNA of evolution, as Gerard postulates? A cosmic post-it note? Perhaps, although I prefer to think of it rather differently — it is, to my mind, the coffee house of another, non-dimensional world, the spiritual world. A world not bounded by time or space, limits or liabilities. It is friends — not equals, mind you, but close, trusted friends — sitting together over too-strong brew, sharing odd thoughts, mulling questions, venting frustrations, angry, remorseful, laughing, weeping — melding hearts, two into one.
It is in many ways an odd but satisfying conversation: I speak, He listens — yet somehow I know what He is thinking, and He most surely knows my thoughts. It is decidedly non-linear. The questions I ask, the problems I present, are answered — always. But not in words, almost never at the time I speak or ask. But I know they have been answered — although the fruition, the language, the form of the answer may be hours, months, years away. It may arrive as circumstances, or in a conversation with a complete stranger in another time and place, or in an entirely unexpected — even unwanted — change of heart or inner peace about some deeply troubling or puzzling dilemma. Yet I know it is God’s answer — the answer He gave me back at that table, shootin’ the breeze and guzzling joe. It is a conversation freed from time and space — bizarre, but strangely more real than that which we unwisely and hastily call “reality.”
Now the skeptic will ask — including the skeptic in my own head — how do you know? What proof do you have that these occurrences, these thoughts, these conversations and situations, have anything to do with God? Are they not mere chance, wishful thinking, psychological crutches, neuro-endocrine surges that my highly-evolved cerebrum maps into culturally-molded thought patterns?
Of course, the skeptic’s challenge contains a presumption — one rarely recognized, in fact: that everything which exists, all that is real, can be measured, tested, analyzed, proven, and recorded. But much which is human — perhaps all which makes us uniquely human — is beyond such simple means of measurement and proof. How much does love weigh? What are the dimensions of courage? What is the deceleration velocity of a failing marriage? What color is hope? What formula predicts despair? Why does a rose smell exquisite, but a rotten egg horrendous? Sure, we can speak of neurotransmitters and aromatic organic compounds, but such things touch on the spirit, and the tools of the physical realm are wholly inadequate as inquisitors. The disciplines which come closest to addressing these matters — psychology and social science — are at best mediocre observers — and miserable failures at repairing the damaged spirit. Don’t believe this? Ask your friendly secular psychologist to explain the phenomenon of evil — then sit back and enjoy the blubbering blather of psychobabble which results. Evil will be alive and well — and wholly uncomprehended — when he finishes.
I do not point this out to dodge the question of proof, or disparage a profession, but simply to illustrate the inadequacy of physical science — or reason handcuffed by concrete presumptions — to measure the real yet intangible realm of the spirit: you cannot measure your shoe size with a Geiger counter. But the evidence is there, in abundance, if you know where to look. Medicine is near-miraculous at healing the body — and miserable at healing the spirit. We can cure cancer, but not save marriages; give you new kidneys, but not flush the impurities from your mind or the hatred from your heart. But prayer can — and does — do just that, a work far more miraculous than a wonder drug or robotic surgery. When a hopeless drunk, an avowed atheist, starts to pray out of desperation to a god he doesn’t believe in, and loses the compulsion to drink, it is an aberration; when it happens to two drunks, a coincidence; when it happens to tens of thousands, it begins to look a lot like evidence. What cure will you seek for unhappiness? (Hint: it’s not a new car, a younger, trade-in wife, or a diamond-shaped blue pill). Medicine can kill the pain, but not cure the spirit; prayer can do both.
Of course, it is not the prayer itself, but the power it unleashes, which accomplishes such things. Gravity worked the same for Cro-Magnon man as it does for a modern physicist; understanding the force changes it not one wit. But you say: I prayed for this or that — many times, even — and it did not happen: prayer does not work. And here’s the rub: the power behind prayer is not an inert physical force, but an infinitely wise and caring God. Whether you believe in Him or not, He exists, He listens — and amazingly (given our reprobate nature), always has our best interest at heart. As I look back at my own life, were I to have received a tenth of the things I asked for in prayer, my life would be an unmitigated disaster. God knows when to say “no”, where to say “wait”; He knows how to listen to what I ask for and give me instead what I really need, and truly want.
There is one secret ingredient to make prayer work: trust. Gotta have it. Can God work without your trust? Sure — the rain falls on the just and the unjust, as the proverb says. Our problem is we want to understand God before we trust Him. We want Him to strut His stuff, lightning bolts and miracles and the like, before we’ll acquiesce and maybe give Him a break. Sorry, that’s not trust — just the opposite. But God cannot be understood — even in a limited way with our most enfeebled minds — until we first trust Him. Sounds like a bum deal, a Catch-22, but that’s just the way it works. Get over it — you won’t regret it.
And one last thought in this long-winded essay: If you’re new to this prayer thing (or even not so new), start small. Praying for world peace or a cure for your cancer is fine, but a bit grandiose for starters. Pray about your misplaced car keys, finding a parking spot, the wisdom to deal with that difficult patient, or co-worker, or child, or situation. Then open your eyes, your ears, your heart for the response. You won’t hear it every time — but I bet you’ll be surprised how often you do, and you’ll learn something about God, about yourself, and in some small way about how this spiritual world works.
And set aside a little time for a cup o’ joe with God — good news is, He’s already picked up the tab.
From The Doctor is In Archives: http://docisinblog.com/index.php/2008/04/04/prayer-of-java-2/
Found at American Digest: http://americandigest.org/ which linked to this article
The Spark Gap
I’ve long had a theory about why prayers are answered, but answered rarely. I think that God, for all his omnipresence, omnipotence, and omniscience is pretty much nailed to the present as far as humans go.
Yes, I know all the arguments for predestination and preordination but those strike me as a one-way street to Dullsville even for God. If, as God, You let Yourself know everything that was going to happen everywhere for all time (Not that You couldn’t if You wanted to.), what’s the entertainment value in that proposition? Slim to none, if you ask me.
We don’t know much about God. Indeed, there are many among us who make it a point to know even less — until they are proud, damned proud, to know nothing at all. Once they achieve this brainfade, they encourage the rest of us to follow suit in a paroxysm of self-willed ignorance. Today there are fresh new scriptures attesting to this revelation. There are traveling preachers of this gospel. There are even congregations, support groups, jewelry, and t-shirts. It’s a religion. Of sorts. A religion in which you collectively as individuals agree to worship Zero, and to carry the gospel to others. Seems like a waste of life to me.
In fact, we are probably not yet wired to know much about God. If the Smart Monkey survives itself, evolution (Great and brilliant tool of God that it is.) will probably finish the deeper neural nets of our brains at some point in the aeons to come, and we will slowly come to descry the faintest shadow of a clue. About all that is. About the fundamental nature of the miracle. For the present, most of us remain in shadow, looking at the noema from without; running on the insights of the genetic spiritual sports that appear on Earth so rarely that their lives are remembered forever.
At the present time, most of what we know about God comes from assumptions built on revelations. These are backed-up with a sheaf of incomplete, poorly translated notes from chance encounters.
The Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate that, to date, our record keeping is spotty and our storage methods poor. If you think that any future chance meetings or memos are going, in the long run, to be kept any better than the Dead Sea Scrolls, please tell me what’s on that six-inch floppy disc at the bottom of the fourth box to the left on the third shelf from the top at the back of my garage.
Nope. The problem is not knowing the will and laws of God. They are pretty simple, straight forward, and seem, for the most part, to be embedded in the cerebral cortex of most before birth. In addition, there are lots of memos in every language and no shortage of interpreters — AM/FM/SW; network and cable; 24/7/365, forever and ever, amen, can I get a witness? Even so there have to be thousands of memos that, although sent, we just didn’t get. Indeed, even working with the memos that we did get, you’d have to admit that we are very poor at carrying out the policies they announce. It probably has to do with us not being finished just yet.
To read the rest of this article go to AD: http://americandigest.org/
From: Patrice Lewis
Here’s the article on Market Watch. To quote: “To be sure, as McClellan acknowledged: “Every pattern analog I have ever studied breaks correlation eventually, and often at the point when I am most counting on it to continue working. So there is no guarantee that the market has to continue following through with every step of the 1929 pattern. But between now and May 2014, there is plenty of reason for caution.”
As the adage goes, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.”
I don’t pretend to understand the stock market, much less economics in general. But I do know there are endless precedents in history which should give us fair warning that things are not as stable and cheery as our government would have us believe. That’s why we prep.
Preppers often are students of history. They’re read about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. They know about the fall of Greece. They’ve studied the Black Plague. They’re aware of the French Revolution. They’ve studied the American Revolution. They know the Great Depression inside and out.
And above all, they know that history has an annoying habit of repeating itself.
The history of humanity is one of struggle, strife, bloodshed, famine, competition for resources, and other discouragements. It’s a cycle. It’s happened again and again. But most people tend to think that anything that hasn’t happened since the time they were born hasn’t happened before, but of course that’s patently untrue.
In the last hundred years, most Americans have not had to deal with these difficulties on our soil. We’ve fought wars, but those have been overseas. We’ve competed for resources, but we’ve always won. Our innovation as a nation has meant we’ve been blessed with untold material comfort and food safety.
But this doesn’t mean we’ll never have to handle challenges. When we refuse to learn from history, or think history cannot repeat itself, or think we are immune to historical precedent, in our arrogance we are therefore doomed to repeat it.
People often deny that history could ever repeat itself. “This time,” they assure us, “it’s different” – without ever being able to specify what “it” is and why it would be different this time.
We like to think we live in unique times. To some extent, we do. At no other time in history has our knowledge of technology and medical skills been higher. But human nature never changes, and it’s our human flaws as well as unforeseen environmental or natural disasters that can bring even a mighty civilization to its knees.
Besides being a fascinating study, history offers a useful guide for how to handle current or future events. Being prepared to handle crises (both personally and as a nation) such as hunger, loss of resources, and other catastrophes is never a bad thing.
But rather astonishingly, some people DO look upon this thoughtful regard for history as just that – a bad thing. History has shown that governments of even the freest nations eventually turn rogue, grow cancerously large, become increasingly paranoid and suspicious, begin to steal liberties from citizens, and eventually become tyrannical, oppressive, and mistrustful of anyone who seeks to recapture individual independence and freedom.
We are currently in that state.
Our nation has come to view those who prefer to NOT depend on the government as everything from lovable crackpots to domestic terrorists. This is shortsighted in the extreme, but that’s the nature of government and its useful idiots.
That is why I urge people to study history in conjunction with preparedness. Take a look at prior civilizations and note the nature of the calamities most likely to affect us, and think what you yourself can do to mitigate the possibilities.
Naturally, preparing in no way guarantees we can avoid calamities; it simply means we try our best to minimize the impact.
“You may still be inclined to dismiss this,” notes the Market Watch article. “But there were many more were laughing last November when this scary chart began circulating. Not as many are laughing now.”
By: Patrice Lewis
Needless to say there are people arguing both sides of the issue, but one comment in particular caught my eye.
This commenter was responding to a mother who pulled her girls from Girl Scouts. He or she didn’t deny any supposed affiliation with Planned Parenthood; rather, he/she seemed to defend Planned Parenthood’s influence on girls. S/he wrote: “So you want to empower your girls by making sure they don’t know anything about sex, birth control or the most important decisions of their lives. Yeah. Ignorance of important topics is _very_ empowering.
You can’t have “respect for self” while your self is locked in a cage with no options. You can’t teach “respect for others” if you don’t respect them enough to give them all the facts and let them make their own decisions. And you’re not teaching “faith in God,” either, since you clearly don’t trust God’s gift of free will to them; you’re trying to take it back in case they actually use it.”
Girl Scouts aside, I found this comment astoundingly ignorant on the mechanics of raising children with faith.
By this person’s logic, we should never teach our children anything. Nothing. Zip, zilch, nada. After all, anything we teach them might interfere with their God-given gift of free will, right? So don’t teach a toddler to control his tantrums. Don’t teach children not to hit. Don’t teach kids to respect their elders. Don’t teach teens to control their hormonal urges. Hey, free will means a free-for-all! Whoo-hoo!
What this person is arguing, of course, is that girls should be encouraged to act out on their sexuality (that’s the eternal interpretation of “letting them make their own decisions”). We’re not talking legal adults here, folks; we’re talking GIRLS who are still MINORS.
Another commenter referred to family values as “medieval morality that revolves around controlling women.” Huh?
Empowering is a buzz word progressives use to encourage girls and women to abandon all moral teachings and rut like animals. But as the mother of teen girls, it makes a lot more sense to empower my daughters to know they must be responsible for their own decisions and that there are consequences to actions.
In another column entitled Shirley Temple’s America is No More, the author wrote: “Today’s sneering secular audiences would reflexively dismiss the film [Bright Eyes] as Norman Rockwell-ish… What such cynics really mean is that the film isn’t sufficiently depraved for modern tastes. Shirley doesn’t pole dance or “twerk.” She doesn’t do a darling little strip tease for the boys while singing “Good Ship, Lollipop.”
That’s the difference, apparently. The Miley Cyruses of the world are “empowered.” The Shirley Temples are not. Abortions are empowering. Restraint is not.
I hate to break it to people, but women hold a unique position in society: they are capable of conceiving life. Therefore it behooves them to refrain from activities that result in being forced to make harsh decisions that will cause heartbreak no matter what.
I know feminists would love for women to be just like men, but we’re not. Therefore I will “empower” my girls to understand that they hold the key to their future happiness in their own hands, and they need to make good choices (the essence of a simple life, if you recall) in order to live with as little heartbreak as possible.
Just some thoughts for Valentine’s Day.
NEW SPORTING EQUIPMENT LAW: ARTICLE 3759.5.(e).1 (Golf Clubs)
The administration has passed a new law titled: “The Affordable Golf Club Act” declaring that every citizen must purchase a new set of golf clubs, before April 2014.
This law has been passed, because until now, typically only the wealthy or financially responsible have been able to purchase new golf clubs without the assistance of their government.
This new law ensures that every American can now have “affordable” golf clubs of their own, because everyone is equally entitled to new golf clubs. And if you want to keep the golf clubs you already have, you can do that, until April 2014.
These affordable golf clubs will cost from $1,000 to $3,000 each depending on your income level. This does not include taxes, pull cart, electric cart fees, green fees, membership fees, balls, tees, gloves, range finders, storage fees, maintenance, or repair costs.
In order to make sure everyone participates and purchases their affordable golf clubs, the costs of owning golf clubs will increase 50% each year up to 400% by year 2018. This way, wealthy people will pay more for something that other people don’t want or can’t afford to maintain. People who can’t afford or refuse to maintain their golf clubs will be fined. However, children under the age of 26 can use their parents’ golf clubs until they turn 27 at which time they must purchase their own golf clubs.
If you don’t want or think you don’t need golf clubs, you are still required to buy them. If you refuse to buy a set or make claims that you can’t afford them, you will be fined $800 until you purchase a set or face imprisonment.
People living in farming areas, ghettos, inner cities, Wyoming, or areas with no access to golf courses are not exempt. Age, health, prior experience or no experience are not acceptable excuses for not buying, maintaining, and using your golf clubs.
A government review board that doesn’t know the difference between a hook and a slice will decide everything. This includes when, where, how often and for what purposes you can use your golf clubs along with how many people can ride in your golf cart. The board will also determine if participants are too old or not healthy enough to be able to use their golf clubs.
They will also decide if your golf clubs have outlived their usefulness or if you must purchase specific accessories, like a range finder with slope adjustment or a newer and more expensive set of golf clubs.
Those that can afford memberships at expensive golf country clubs will be required to buy memberships. If you are already a member and you like your membership you can keep your membership. After April 2014, a different country club will be assigned for you to purchase a membership.
Government officials are exempt from this new law as they and their families and some of their friends and a few of their friends friends can obtain golf clubs at taxpayers’ expense.
Found at Rural Revolution: http://www.rural-revolution.com/
The Nuge on Obama:
Just last month, he called the president a “subhuman mongrel” in an interview with Guns.com.
“I have obviously failed to galvanize and prod, if not shame enough Americans to be ever vigilant not to let a Chicago communist-raised, communist-educated, communist-nurtured subhuman mongrel like the acorn community organizer gangster Barack Hussein Obama to weasel his way into the top office of authority in the United States of America.”
On John Maynard Keynes and the Hollow Man Phenomenon
By: Ann Barnhardt
A few of years ago I stumbled across a movie on Netflix (when I still had it) that I *thought* would be very interesting. It was called “Carrington” and starred Emma Thompson, whom I have liked as an actress ever since she dramatized and starred in what will forever be the definitive film version of Jane Austen’s “Sense & Sensibility”.
The movie “Carrington” was about the so-called “Bloomsbury Group” in England in the early 20th century. This group of people is widely regarded in retrospect as being massively influential, and as one of the purest early sources of Modernism – the heresy which has infected and all-but-destroyed the Church, and Western Civilization as a corollary.
These people were all massively disturbed, with almost all of them being bisexual and embracing sodomy and rejecting monogamy as one of the purest forms of protest and rejection of (locally) Victorian, traditional, bourgeois, Christian society. To put it simply, they were all – male and female – screwing each other, egged on largely by the wicked sodomite ringleader Lytton Strachey.
You can watch “Carrington” if you want, I suppose, but be forewarned: it is pornographic. And no, not titillating or grasping at beauty in any way – it is the kind of thing that once you see you just want to go inflict a severe head trauma upon yourself so that maybe – just maybe – those incredibly sad, ugly and evil images will be purged from your memory. And in the hopes of thoroughly ruining it for you, the way it all ended was that Lytton Strachey died of cancer or some such, whereupon the “heroine”, Dora Carrington, promptly blew her head off with a shotgun.
Oh, wait. Did I also mention that they were all EUGENICISTS? Yeah. Funny how these little “idiosyncrasies” always seem to crop up cheek-by-jowel, no?
So, you may be sitting there asking yourself why in the WOLRD would I have any interest in a movie about these people in the first place. The answer is because one of the core members of this wicked group of Modernist sodomite eugenicists was none other than…
JOHN MAYNARD KEYNES.
Yes, THAT John Maynard Keynes. The father and “god” of all modern economics – the most influential economist, without question, of the 20th century. Keynes’ economic theories (and it is extremely charitable to even dignify them as “theories”) basically revolved around the premise that aggregate demand was the sole determiner of overall economic activity, and thus if the State (read: “The Central Banks’ respective puppet fronts and operational arms”) intervened in the economy by printing money and providing “stimulus” to aggregate demand, this was the means by which full employment could be achieved and permanently maintained.
DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR????
As people with functioning brains in their heads now know and understand, if even only from a purely experiential, real-life basis, this is all abject, steaming hog diarrhea. Government intervention does NOT stimulate aggregate demand, but in fact hinders it. Printing money and debasing the currency is not only ineffective, but is a capital crime because it is THEFT on a scale so massive that it is literally obscured from the view of the people by virtue of its enormity. The only purpose applied Keynesian theory serves is to rapidly enrich and fraudulently empower a micro-oligarchy dwelling within the Central Bank-cum-Government matrix.
Did I mention Keynes was a super-promiscuous sodomite? And a eugenicist?
Back to the movie. So I sit through this hideous film, and guess what? Guess who has been utterly purged from the script? Guess who is never seen or mentioned?
John. Maynard. Keynes.
Wow. Ya think? Ya think these Modernist wretch tyrants and their media toadies would want to hide the fact that the “father” of this economic paradigm that is taught as unquestionable dogma in every university in Western Civilization today was a nasty pervert and despicable human being?
But wait, it gets better. Last night I stumbled across this video posted over at Ace of Spades of Friedrich Hayek being interviewed in which he speaks about Keynes. And what does Hayek (a genuinely good and contributive economist) say of Keynes? Basically, that Keynes the economist was a total fraud. He praises Keynes intrinsic intelligence, but says that he was lazy and that his economic theories were pure fluff – a paper facade. Keynes gave no deep, serious thought to any of it, and couldn’t defend it when confronted by great minds.
As even armchair economists can now see, such simple questions as:
1. What is money? 2. Where will the so-called intervening government stimulus money come from? 3. Does printing money ad infinitum have any negative moral or economic consequences? 4. If government “stimulus” does not achieve full employment, is more stimulus the answer? Is there any limit to the amount of stimulus that could be required? 5. Could an economy become addicted to this government “stimulus” and thus turn into a massive, sucking maw which then inevitably implodes upon itself killing a non-trivial percentage of the surface population? 6. Are you okay with point 5 as long as the majority of those killed are brown people and/or those who “judge” your enthusiasm for violently abusing your posterior fundament, and the posterior fundaments of others?
Guys, I have said this before, but I’ll say it again. This flagging civilization, which you are right in the heart of, is a giant, hollow scam. There’s no “there” there. The people running the world and being hailed as geniuses are almost all utter frauds. Universities churn out people who are all-but-illiterate. If you define “literacy” as being able to read street signs, then yes, most of them (but not all) are literate. If you define literacy properly, meaning a man who is well-read and truly educated and thus able to THINK, and REASON and CREATE, and thus contribute to and grow the culture, then… no. Sorry. Intellects are hollow. Souls are hollow. Culture is hollow. Government is hollow. Economies are hollow. MEN ARE HOLLOW.
It’s all going to pop. Maybe not tomorrow. Maybe not next week or next month, but it WILL pop because it MUST.
Keynes was a fraud.
The totality of the political class are all slack-jawed frauds. They couldn’t solve ANY of these problems even if they wanted to because they lack the intelligence and the character to actually do it.
The universities are FILLED with frauds, especially in the soft sciences.
The Church is filled with frauds (Marxist-sodomite infiltrators) and with those who are so woefully ignorant that their non-invincible ignorance constitutes a form of fraud.
Everything you see around you is tissue-paper thin, and if you scratch it, you realize that there is no solidity to anything in Western Civilization any longer. Instead of being anchored to Truth in a well-built and competently-helmed barque, the ropes have been cut, the ballast jettisoned, and our papier mache ship of lies is riding the gulf stream of evil straight into Hurricane Reality.
The Good News (TM) is that scripture is filled with the imagery and language of the empty being filled. Over and over again Our Lord makes clear that this condition of “hollowness” is not only fixable in every man, but what Our Lord desires for every man. But only He can fill the hollowness in men. There is no substitute. Everything else is fraud, and not only will the hollowness remain, but will increase with each attempt at filling oneself with these frauds. Dora Carrington tried to fill her hollowness with perverted sex and philosophical lies until finally her facade gave way – to a shell-full of double-aught buck. And her “friend”, John Maynard Keynes, “helped” her the same way he is “helping” the global economies today: straight into hell.
Give glory to the Lord, for He is good: for His mercy endureth for ever. Let them say so that have been redeemed by the Lord, whom He hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy: and gathered out of the countries. From the rising and the setting of the sun, from the north and from the sea. They wandered in a wilderness, in a place without water: they found not the way of a city for their habitation. They were hungry and thirsty: their soul fainted in them.
And they cried to the Lord in their tribulation: and He delivered them out of their distresses. And He led them into the right way: that they might go to a city of habitation. Let the mercies of the Lord give glory to Him: and His wonderful works to the children of men. For He hath satisfied the empty soul, and hath filled the hungry soul with good things. Such as sat in darkness and in the shadow of death: bound in want and in iron.
Because they had exasperated the words of God: and provoked the counsel of the most High: And their heart was humbled with labours: they were weakened, and their was none to help them. Then they cried to the Lord in their affliction: and He delivered them out of their distresses. And He brought them out of darkness, and the shadow of death; and broke their bonds in sunder. Let the mercies of the Lord give glory to Him, and His wonderful works to the children of men.
Because He hath broken gates of brass, and burst the iron bars. He took them out of the way of their iniquity: for they were brought low for their injustices. Their soul abhorred all manner of meat: and they drew nigh even to the gates of death. And they cried to the Lord in their affliction: and He delivered them out of their distresses. He sent His Word, and healed them: and delivered them from their destructions.
Let the mercies of the Lord give glory to Him: and His wonderful works to the children of men. And let them sacrifice the sacrifice of praise: and declare His works with joy. They that go down to the sea in ships, doing business in the great waters: These have seen the works of the Lord, and His wonders in the deep. He said the Word, and there arose a storm of wind: and the waves thereof were lifted up.
They mount up to the heavens, and they go down to the depths: their soul pined away with evils. They were troubled, and reeled like a drunken man; and all their wisdom was swallowed up. And they cried to the Lord in their affliction: and He brought them out of their distresses. And He turned the storm into a breeze: and its waves were still. And they rejoiced because they were still: and He brought them to the haven which they wished for.
Let the mercies of the Lord give glory to Him, and his wonderful works to the children of men. And let them exalt Him in the church of the people: and praise Him in the chair of the ancients. He hath turned rivers into a wilderness: and the sources of water into dry ground: A fruitful land into barrenness, for the wickedness of them that dwell therein. He hath turned a wilderness into pools of water, and a dry land into water springs.
And hath placed there the hungry; and they made a city for their habitation. And they sowed fields, and planted vineyards: and they yielded fruit of birth. And He blessed them, and they were multiplied exceedingly: and their cattle he suffered not to decrease. Then they were brought to be few: and they were afflicted through the trouble of evils and sorrow. Contempt was poured forth upon their princes: and he caused them to wander where there was no passing, and out of the way.
And He helped the poor out of poverty: and made Him families like a flock of sheep. The just shall see, and shall rejoice, and all iniquity shall stop their mouth. Who is wise, and will keep these things: and will understand the mercies of the Lord?
The Unfortunately Innate Nature of Intelligence
By: Fred Reed
(Excerpts from the article)
Human races are subspecies of Homo sapiens (sic), just as basset hounds and Chihuahuas are subspecies of dog. The breeds of neither are precise genetic categories: In the words of the heroic John Derbyshire, genetically “what you see is a continuum with some pretty sharp clines.” Yet the genetic commonalities are sufficient to be obvious: At a glance one can distinguish between a Japanese and a Norwegian, or a Siberian wolf hound and a dachshund…
Here we should note the dual modes of viewing intelligence, specifically Normal Mode and Racial Mode.
In Normal Mode, we all know what we mean by intelligence, and we all recognize that people vary greatly in how much of it they have. If John could read classical Greek at age three and graduated in mathematics from CalTech at fifteen, we would all agree that he was bright. If I said at a cocktail party, “Whoa! That gal Therese is smarter than five whips wired in parallel. Anybody got her phone number?” no one would tell me that I was a bigot or that Therese had exactly the same intelligence as everyone else. Rather they would say that I Just knew a good thing when I saw it.
In Group Mode, everything changes according to the group being discussed. If I said that Jews were smart, and adduced all manner of achievements over the centuries, no one would deny it. Similarly for the Chinese. If I said however that Australian aborigines were inferior in IQ, I would be told as follows: Intelligence does not exist; it is a social construct; it is culturally determined; it can’t be measured; it has no genetic basis; the tests are biased; lack of achievement is caused by discrimination, or institutional racism running through Australian society, or geographic considerations. Whereas if I said that Italians were of low intelligence the response would be to produce counter evidence, in the case of the aborigines it would be to give all manner of reasons why there was no counter evidence…
Read the entire article here: http://fredoneverything.net/Bowser.shtml
(Excerpt of the article: Obama’s terrorists are America’s Freedom Fighters by T.L. Davis)
“Those who believe they have the right to say anything they want; the right to decide what religion they will claim and the right to freely exercise their religious beliefs; the right to bear arms; the right to be free of federal troops occupying their home to spy on other citizens; the right to be free from government searches and seizures without sworn warrant; the right to life, liberty and property unless due process of law has given reason that the person should forfeit those rights; the right to a jury trial of one’s peers; the right to be free of cruel or unusual punishment; the rights to do many other things other than what are specified in the Bill of Rights; the rights of the states to do whatever has not been specifically given to congress under the Constitution are terrorists.”
In order to reclaim these rights, they must fight for their freedom. Obama’s terrorists have become America’s Freedom fighters.
Read the entire article at Christian Mercenary: http://christianmerc.blogspot.com/2014/02/obamas-terrorists-are-americas-freedom.html
The left finally has its Un-American tyranny. So why is it so angry?
Watch MSNBC or browse any left-wing site and you see a level of anger that would make you think that Al Gore had just conceded or Nixon had just won reelection. There’s more anger in the privileged circles of the left than in the political rearguard of the Tea Party.
That anger trickles from the top down. Obama’s interview with Bill O’Reilly was yet another opportunity for the most powerful man in the country to blame a vast right wing conspiracy. A day doesn’t pass without another email from Obama, his wife, Sandra Fluke or Joe Biden warning that without another five or ten dollar contribution, the “right” will take over America.
The left has unchallenged control over the government, academia and the entertainment industry and yet it talks as if the country is 5 seconds away from Sarah Palin marching into Washington D.C. at the head of an army of Duck Dynasty fans to outlaw abortion.
The apocalyptic political paranoia and the uncontrolled outbursts of rage haven’t changed much since 2003. Ten years later, the ideologues in power still act as if George W. Bush is serving out his fourth term. Every day on MSNBC, a stew of conspiracy theories about oil companies, Israel, the Koch Brothers, Wal-Mart and Karl Rove leaves a slimy trail across the television screen.
On the internet, manufactured outrage has become the only progressive stock in trade. Did Jerry Seinfeld say that he values humor over racial quotas? He’s a racist. Did an ESPN magazine out a compulsive liar who also happened to be pretending to be a woman? Lock him up. Did Mike Huckabee say something that could be misinterpreted with enough ellipses and out of context “Twitterized” quotes? Before you know it, he’s a sexist pig.
Pageviews are the obvious profit motive behind all this and yet it says something deeply disturbing about a progressive readership that eats up hate and doesn’t react to anything positive. The rash of fake hate crimes feeds into that same perverse need for an enemy to hate and fight. The left used to pretend that it wanted to do something positive. But now that it has the power, it can’t stop searching for someone to hate instead.
The left is more comfortable being angry than being anything else; it finds it easier to rally the troops against something than for something so that even its triumphs only lead to more anger. The MSNBC tweet about an interracial Cheerios commercial was revealing of a deeper problem within the left. It was assumed that the MSNBC audience wouldn’t care about an interracial ad unless it could somehow pretend to “spite” the right by watching it.
Obama’s awkward stumble from cause to cause, letting the old Bush policies run on Autoplay unless a crusade kicks in, as it eventually did on gay marriage and illegal immigration, is indicative of the problem with the left’s governing style. As with an interracial Cheerios commercial, it cares less about gay marriage or legalizing illegal aliens than it does about stirring up conflict.
That is another reason why the left began neglecting some of its bread and butter issues after Obama won. Aside from the need to protect its own man, it wasn’t really all that interested in closing Gitmo, gay marriage or opposing the War in Iraq. The things it wants to do are never as important to it as its obsessive need to feel that it is fighting against the right.
For all the Obama Worship, the left is more united by hatred for Sarah Palin or Ted Cruz or any other conservative villain of the month than by its support for its own leaders. It derives its identity more from the things that it is against, the middle class, the country, the businessman, the white male, than from the things that it is for.
The left’s sense of self is strongest when it is attacking, not when it is inspiring, when it is destroying, not when it is building.
Deprived of an external enemy, its ideologues carve out narrow orthodoxies and denounce each other for violating them. When the right and the center have been purged, the purges of the left begin and don’t end until there is nothing left except one tyrant-guru and his terrified minions. Or until some outside force throws a pot of cold water on the quarreling and shrieking acolytes brawling over minor points of doctrine.
The small scale bloodsport documented in the outward reaches of feminism by The Nation in its article “Feminism’s Toxic Twitter Wars” as transgender rights activists denounce Eve Ensler for excluding them by using the word “Vagina” and black feminists denounce white feminists for ignoring their concerns. This is what the left begins doing when it has free time on its hands. It doesn’t stop fighting. Instead its wars become pettier power struggles over points of doctrine.
When all enemies to the right have been eliminated, the left doesn’t find peace. Its ideology is a weapon, its gurus are egomaniacs and its followers joined to fight. When it wins in an arena, whether it’s academia or entertainment, the winners begins warring against each other proving that even in an ideological vacuum, its ideology remains a destructive force whose followers would rather denounce and destroy, than educate and enlighten.
As a victorious parasite writes its own obituary, a successful left is a threat to its own existence and the only thing saving the left from the violent disintegration into its own insanity is the right.
Hating the right is the only thing that keeps the left together. When it doesn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore, it dissolves into a wet puddle of goo. If it didn’t have Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney and every other figure who took his turn starring in their grim theater of the Two Minutes Hate, it would revert back to the petty infighting of a thousand minor eccentric causes.
The left needs to believe in a vast right-wing conspiracy. It needs the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, Evangelical Christians, AIPAC, oil companies, defense contractors and every other element of its conspiracy theories to keep its gurus and followers focused on the “real” threat instead of purging each other for tone policing, insufficient privilege checking and any other outrage of the week.
Like the Salafists shooting and shelling each other in Syria, the ranks of the left are filled with dogmatic and intolerant fanatics whose only goal in life is the absolute victory of their point of view. Their mutual fanaticism and aggrieved sense of victimhood gives them more in common with each other and that very commonality is the source of their mutual hatred. Only they can understand each other well enough to truly want to kill each other as no outsider possibly can.
Hate is the force that gives the left meaning. It isn’t hope that animates its leaders and thinkers, but the darker side of human nature that calls on them to destroy and to kill. That dark side is why the left’s victories end in tragedies, why the red flags are painted with blood and when its followers have run out of enemies to kill, they turn on each other and destroy their own movements with firing squads, gulags and guillotines.
The left finds its identity not in its utopian visions, but in the things and people it wishes to destroy. Only by knowing what they hate, do its followers know who they are.
Kill off religion and what do you have left? The answer can be seen in China. You’re left with materialism and family interests.. Cast off the shackles of the family for individualistic consumerism and you’re left with nothing except materialism as can be seen in any major Western city.
Modern urban man is much too “smart” for religion. At least his own. He wants to add an ethical dimension to life without having to believe in anything except the sense of fairness that he already has, but which he does not realize is not nearly as valid objectively as it is subjectively in his inner emotional reality.
And that is what the left is. It strips away everything except that egotistical sense that things should be run more fairly with predictably unfair results.
Liberalism, and the milder flavors of the left, provide a permission slip for materialism by elevating it through political activism. This is the philosophical purpose of environmentalism’s green label. It tells you that you are a good person for buying something and soothes the moral anxieties of an urban class with no coherent moral system except the need to impose an ethical order on the consumerism that defined their childhood, their adolescence and their adult life.
Those most in need of the moral system of materialism are the descendants of the displaced, whether by immigration to the United States or migration within the United States from rural to urban areas, who have become detached from a large extended family structure that once sustained them.
Their grandparents had already loosened their grip on religion and as the family disintegrated, materialism took its place. Their grandparents worked hard to provide for their children, but the children no longer saw maintaining the family as a moral activity. Sometimes they didn’t even bother with a family. They became lonely individuals looking for a collective. A virtual political family.
Liberalism fills the missing space once inhabited by religion and the family. It provides a moral and ethical system as religion did and the accompanying sense of purpose and its state institutions replace and supplant the family. It does both of these things destructively and badly as its institutions forever try to patch social problems created by the disintegration of the family and its ideas provide too few people with a sense of purpose of a meaningful life.
And yet it isn’t entirely to blame for this state of affairs. The left has actively tried to destroy the family and religion, but the American liberal was until recently less guilty on both charges. His main crime was collaborating with the left while refusing to acknowledge its destructive aims. The process by which the displacement of liberal ideas and their replacement by the ideas of the far left is nearly complete. The American liberal is now an aging relic. In his place is the resentful radical.
The process that led to this state of affairs isn’t the left’s fault either. Even if it’s not for lack of trying. In some ways the left isn’t the problem, it’s a symptom of the problem. Its ability to fundamentally transform people is limited. The transformation that has occurred is because of the choices that people have been led into making trading religion and family for a dead end materialism. Those choices evolved organically from the natural direction of society and technology.
And into that empty space, the left came. It dominates because there is nothing else to fill that space. It can only be truly resisted by cultural groups that have maintained hold of family and religion. Without that sense of purpose, there is only the endless baffled retreat of the Republican Party.
Liberalism appeals more to the middle class and the upper class because it is a religion of materialism. It makes very little sense to those who don’t have material things. The underclass might embrace the harsher populism of the left, but shows little interest in its larger collectivist philosophy. The underclass is losing family and religion at a faster rate than the upper class, but it clings to what it has and finds meaning in it. It may be nakedly materialistic, but it doesn’t believe that it is too smart for religion or too individualistic for family. It has many flaws, but arrogance isn’t one of them.
Ennobling consumerism is a difficult task. The left doesn’t come anywhere close to succeeding at it. Instead it makes it more expensive and raises the entry barriers for everything by working to eliminate cheap food, cheap household goods and cheap everything. It’s a class issue.
Why does the left really hate Walmart? It doesn’t really have a lot to do with unions and has a lot to do with class. Walmart’s crime is industrial. It’s the crime of the factory and the supermarket and every means of mass production and consumption. It makes cheap products too readily available to the masses. Liberals like to believe that they oppose consumerism, but what they really want to do is raise the entry levels to the lifestyle. Liberal consumerism is all about upselling ethics.
When tangible goods become too easy to produce, you add value through intangibles. The fair trade food tastes the same as non-fair trade food. Organic, a category with a debatable meaning, doesn’t really provide that much more value. And environmental labels are worth very little. And yet the average product at Whole Foods is covered in so many “ethical liberal” labels that it’s hard to figure out what it even is.
Intangible value is all about class. And class is all about creating barriers to entry.
Liberalism has become a revolt against the middle class that its grandparents struggled to reach, a rejection of their “materialism” while substituting the “ethical materialism” of liberalism in its place that envisions a much smaller upper and middle class that derives its wealth and power not from hard work in the private sector, but highly profitable social justice volunteerism in the public sector.
An American Dream of universal prosperity has been pitted against the left’s dream of a benevolent feudal system in which the few will be very well paid to oversee the income equality of the many.
The left’s private argument against the American Dream is that it’s little more than Walmart. And to some degree they’re right. Easy availability of the necessities of life does not lead to a meaningful life. But the easy contempt that the left has for it shows its basic inability to understand how important these things are and how hard they were to come by for most of human history.
Salt was once a precious commodity. Today it sells for pennies a pound. The ability to light the darkness meant the difference between studying at night and living in ignorance. Today a light bulb goes for a quarter. At least it did until the left banned them. And electricity, the left also keeps raising the price of that. Few of the post-apocalyptic fantasies spilling out of Hollywood really describe what would happen if the people manufacturing them were thrown back before the industrial revolution..
Progress has made a good life materially possible, but it has also displaced and damaged the social mechanisms that make a good life socially possible. We have easy access to technology and streets full of vicious illiterate thugs. We can discuss anything with anyone, but we live in a society that values few things worth discussing. We have mass production, but not mass character.
For all its feigned populism, such elitist critiques of society are not foreign to the left. The left’s elitist critiques differ in some regards, but they are on the same basic wavelength as those of the social conservative. And its solution is to promote what it considers social progress by reversing or slowing down industrial, commercial and technological progress. The environmental movement is only the latest ideological incarnation of this philosophy which strives to slow down the rate of progress.
That’s not a solution to the problem. It is the problem.
The left cannot escape its own materialism. Its attempts at adding an ethical dimension to materialism fail because its ethical dimension is still materialistic. Its pathetic efforts at injecting pastiches of Third World and minority spirituality into its politics to provide the illusion of a spiritual dimension are hollow and racist. The left cannot fill its own hole, because it is the hole.
Like Islam, it provides something for people to believe in, but the thing it provides is the compulsion to find meaning by forcibly remaking other people’s lives in a perpetual revolution which becomes its own purpose.
The left can’t replace family or religion. Its social solutions are alien and artificial. They fix nothing and damage everything. Their appeal is to those who are arrogant and starved for meaning, who want religion without religion and family without family only to discover that they are not enough.
The Bright Are Too White
Another jewel of degradation gleaming in the wan light of witlessness:
A school (should I say “school”?) in Brooklyn, more than two-thirds of whose students are black or Hispanic, has abolished its (I mean “it’s”) advanced courses for the intelligent. Why this salubrious excision? Why, because too many of the students therein are white. That is, classes for the intelligent contain the intelligent. My god. This cancer must be corrected lest it spread. Fred Reed — The Soul of a Curmudgeon
The modern tactic, for dealing with sin, is more neurotic than psychotic.
The guilt remains, but the sin is denied. It would be invidious to take any one of the Seven Deadlies for my example: let us just say they take all the time they could spend repenting, instead convincing themselves that it was not a sin. – - Essays in Idleness
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
Posted on | February 10, 2014
Left to right: Leon Trotsky, Felix Dzerzhinsky, Lavrenti Beria.
“Lenin, at every passing opportunity, emphasized the absolute necessity of the terror. . . . “We heard such tirades from him a dozen times a day and they were always aimed at some one among those present who was suspected of ‘pacifism.’” – Leon Trotsky, Lenin (1925)
“Socialism has never and nowhere been at first a working-class movement. . . . It is a construction of theorists, deriving from certain tendencies of abstract thought with which for a long time only the intellectuals were familiar . . .” – F.A. Hayek, “The Intellectuals and Socialism” (1949)
Marxism envisions the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” so that there can be no Marxism without violent terror, and self-described communist Jesse Myerson must fail in his attempts to evade this truth.
Ever since his Rolling Stone article advocating the abolition of private property provoked a furious reaction last month, Myerson has sought to evade the consequences of his ideas by employing rhetorical tactics familiar to anyone who has long studied the Left. His Salon.com article last Sunday was a particularly tedious exercise in these methods, and inspired me to remind readers of how Ludwig von Mises had described the ultimate futility of socialism:
“Socialist writers may continue to publish books about the decay of Capitalism and the coming of the socialist millennium; they may paint the evils of Capitalism in lurid colours and contrast with them an enticing picture of the blessings of a socialist society; their writings may continue to impress the thoughtless — but all this cannot alter the fate of the socialist idea.”
Myerson’s fanciful blather about a “far more open, humane, democratic, participatory and egalitarian” communism in the future, which would somehow miraculously avoid the monstrous evils of previous communist regimes, signified his own ignorance of history. Myerson’s response, however, is to accuse communism’s opponents of being ignorant: He is knowledgeable and wise; we are McCarthyite fools.
Read the rest of the article at The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Found at The Daley Gator
“Burn The Witch!” Heritage Foundation Scuttles Away From Jason Richwine—And The Cold Hard Facts
The story so far (in the wee hours of Thursday morning). Following the release of a report by the Heritage Foundation arguing that the Rubio-Schumer immigration bill will cost the nation $6.3 trillion, the Slave Power set their dwarf miners to digging.
They soon found gold. One of the co-authors of the study is twentysomething Jason Richwine, a Heritage analyst. Not just an analyst, but a quantitative analyst: “Heritage’s senior policy analyst in empirical studies.”
Uh-oh. This Richwine guy deals with numbers, evidence, and facts—radioactive materials in a nation under strong ideological control.
To sift truth from error at best requires an effort; where there is no great advantage for the former, the latter often prevails, as errors are infinite, simple, and attractive—and many a fancy lends support to established position—while truth is one and often stern. The imperial order, itself irrational and hence distrusting reason, excels in credulity and superstition.
—Robert G. Wesson, The Imperial Order
The Washington Post ran a gleeful story on the find under the headline “Heritage study co-author opposed letting in immigrants with low IQs.” [By Dylan Matthews, May 8, 2013]They note that:
Richwine’s dissertation asserts that there are deep-set differentials in intelligence between races.
Eek! A witch! But how to link this evil person (for such he plainly is) with the Heritage report costing Rubio-Schumer? Easy.
First, the Post notes that Richwine’s thesis argues for selection of immigrants by IQ. (“I believe there is a strong case for IQ selection”—page 133 of the thesis.) However:
He does caution against referring to it as IQ-based selection, saying that using the term “skill-based” would “blunt the negative reaction.”
That rhetorical strategy is reflected in Heritage’s current work on immigration. His and Rector’s report recommends greatly reducing “low-skilled” immigration and increasing “high-skilled” immigration. “The legal immigration system should be altered to greatly reduce the number of low-skill immigrants entering the country and increase the number of new entrants with high levels of education and skills that are in demand by U.S. firms,” they write.
See? That Heritage report on the Rubio-Schumer bill is nothing but a conduit for the twisted white supremacist fantasies of a racist bigot!
(I note in passing that the Heritage position favoring increases in high-skilled immigration is at odds with VDARE.com’s position, and also with the data.)
Post columnist Jennifer Rubin, on secondment from Conservatism, Inc. to offer some pretense of “balance” at the Post, hastened to join the lynch mob. “It undermines the cause of all immigration opponents to have their prized work authored by such a character,” she wrote, reading Richwine out of respectable society.
It’s an unpleasant reminder that sincere opponents of reform should distance themselves from the collection of extremists and bigots who populate certain anti-immigrant groups.[ Heritage stumbles, again and again, May 8, 2013]
She then brings in Jennifer S. Korn for a quote. Ms. Korn was Secretary for Hispandering in the George W. Bush White House. (Note that her bio page on the Hispanic Leadership Network website retails the old lie about Bush getting 44 percent of the Hispanic vote in 2004. These people live in lies like maggots in rotten meat.)
What does Ms. Korn have to tell us?
Richwine’s comments are bigoted and ignorant. America is a nation of immigrants; to impugn the intelligence of immigrants is to offend each and every American and the foundation of our country.
So you can get a Ph.D. from Harvard by submitting “comments” to the thesis examiners? Who knew?
In fact Richwine’s thesis is of a properly scholarly standard, with twelve pages of references (pp. 147-158) and a wealth of quantitative data from published academic sources.
As to Richwine having “impugned” the intelligence of immigrants: My dictionary defines “impugn” as “cast doubt upon.” Far from casting doubt, Richwine’s thesis seeks to remove doubt by careful quantitative analysis.
Even if you take Ms. Korn’s usage of “impugn” to mean Richwine has stated that immigrants have lower mean IQ than natives, she is wrong. Table 2.2 in the thesis (p. 30) gives an average estimated mean IQ of 105.5 for immigrants from Northeast Asia. Should Mrs. Derbyshire consider herself impugned? (I asked: she doesn’t.) The estimated mean for European immigrants—that’s me!—in that table is 98.0. Am I thereby impugned? I’m reaching for it, trying to feel it, but . . . no, it’s not there.
The comment thread to Jennifer Rubin’s piece is laden with the usual driveling ignorant obscurantist piffle one gets in these cases. “I’m an immigrant and I’m smart!” (Commenter at 5/8/2013 8:42 PM.) Not smart enough to understand the concept of an average, apparently. “Goddard said Jewish immigrants were dumb!” No he didn’t. Fox News . . . the Koch brothers . . . You know how it goes.
(Not even trying! Ms. Rubin herself, by way of slandering George Borjas, one of Richwine’s thesis advisers, links to an 849-word column by Hispanic race shill Raoul Lowery Contreras that has “Nazi” at word number three—a sensational GQ of 0.35!)
There is, though, in that comment thread, some good push-back against the nitwits. A shout-out here from me to “Bob017,” whoever he is (I have no idea), for stalwart service. Our own Steve Sailer is in there, too. Magna est veritas et prævalebit—“The truth is great and it will prevail a bit.”
And so another “anti-racist” witch hunt commences. I know how Jason Richwine feels right now: about the same way I felt the weekend of April 7th-8th last year.
The forces of orthodoxy have identified a heretic. They’re marching on his hut with pitchforks and flaming brands. The cry echoes around the internet: “Burn the witch!”
Here’s what you can expect, Jason.
First, you’re not going to come to any physical harm (though your email might get sabotaged). It’s not really personal. The lefties are not after you, though if they mess up your life they will of course feel pleased with themselves. They are after the Heritage Foundation, just as the mob coming after me last year were after National Review.
Old Chinese proverb: sha ji xìa hóu—“kill a chicken to scare the monkeys.” You’re the chicken, pal.
Second, the monkeys will be duly scared. Expect Heritage to disown you.
It’s not that Heritage people in general are jerks, though of course a few individuals may be. It’s part prudential, part ideological.
The prudential aspect is simply the hard logic of fighting a war—the Cold Civil War—with numerically inferior forces. You have to pick your fights with care, like Joe Johnston retreating up the Peninsula before the Seven Days. Joining battle with the massed forces of Cultural Marxism—the media, schools and colleges, corporations, unions, major religious establishments, government bureaucracies—on behalf of a lone staffer could be suicidal.
From where we stand here on the Dissident Right, Conservatism, Inc., of which the Heritage Foundation is one pillar, looks pretty formidable. As much as we have fun scoffing at them, though, we should remember that they see themselves, accurately, as a beleaguered minority.
And they are not a beleaguered minority of quantitative analysts, unfortunately. I doubt there are many Jason Richwines at the Heritage Foundation. Statistical numeracy is a rare talent, rare enough that you can spend many hours among the inmates of conservative think-tanks without encountering the slightest smidgeon, trace, jot, or tittle of it.
Hence the ideological factor. Absent that coldly empirical, quantitative cast of mind that Jason Richwine admirably displays in his Ph.D. thesis, one is open to infection by feelgood ideological fads. This applies to self-identifying conservatives as much as to liberals; and since the overwhelming ideological authority in our country belongs to the Cultural Marxists, not-very-numerate conservatives are generally infected to some degree.
Thus the underbusthrowing of Jason Richwine by Heritage Foundation, which seems to be already under way as I write, is not only prudential. The immigration romantics and world-saving missionaries who control Conservatism, Inc., and who are no doubt plentiful in the decision-makers at Heritage, will be repelled by Richwine’s thesis, or by the accounts of it they are fed by Cultural Marxist outlets (thanks, guys!)
In dumping Richwine they will feel vaguely that they are performing an act of institutional hygiene, cleansing themselves of the dread taint of racism. That everything he says is true, and buttressed by facts, will count for nothing. “Truth is one and often stern”—too stern for the soft minds of careerist hacks.
See you in the camps, Jason!
John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amounton all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. His latest book is From The Dissident Right. His writings are archived at JohnDerbyshire.com.
Readers who wish to donate (tax deductible) funds specifically earmarked for John Derbyshire’s writings at VDARE.com can do so here.
Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…A Police State Superbowl
Above, Bronco quarterback Peyton Manning (left); Seattle quarterback Russell Wilson (right).
Today, the Denver Broncos and the Seattle Seahawks football franchises will participate in the 48th playing of the National Football League’s Super Bowl.
Would even one of the fans then sitting in the Los Angeles Coliseum have believed that the same venue would see the US national soccer team booed in favor of the Mexican —or that a Los Angeles Times columnist would praise this development? [Again, it's red, white and boo, By Bill Plaschke, June 26, 2011]
Would even one fan believe that an elite academic institution, Stanford University, would not only willingly abandon the teaching of Western Civilization course required of all freshmen (“Hey, hey, ho, ho, Western culture’s got to go…”—Jesse Jackson), but consider Richard Sherman’s worthy of admission despite his low SAT score just because he runs an above-average 40 time?
How could you convince those fans, who had casually strolled into a stadium with almost no security, that to enter Super Bowl 48, they’d be subjected to an invasive search of their person, presumed a potentially terrorist threat until deemed innocent and worthy to enter the stadium?
More than 30 federal agencies, 100 law enforcement agencies, 700 state troopers, 3,000 private security officers, snipers hidden on among the crowd, US Army Black Hawk attack helicopters enforcing a 10-mile “no fly zone” around the stadium, and US Air Force F-16s on emergency stand-by will protect this XLVIII playing of the Super Bowl.
The America of 1967, when the first Super Bowl was played, was 90 percent white, bursting with social capital and upward mobility for its citizens. But, thanks to the 1965 Immigration Act and the simultaneous collapse of immigration enforcement, the America of 2014 is a country where the majority of births are non-white, the middle class is shrinking—and the state of social capital is devastatingly summed up by the Police State measures required to ensure the safety of a football game.
Fans with tickets to the 2014 Super Bowl can’t even tailgate outside MetLife Stadium. [No tailgating at Super Bowl, By Jane McManus, ESPN, December 9, 2013] You can’t even walk to the stadium, with the NFL devising “Fan Express Zones” (at a cost $51 per ride), where you can board a bus and be shuttled to and from the Broncos-Seahawks game. [You Can’t Walk to the Super Bowl Because You Are the NFL’s Personal ATM, By Sean Conboy, Sports Illustrated, January 28, 2014]
What would one of those 1967 fans have thought if they’d be able to see Super Bowl 48? (Mind you, the number of black players on the field in that first game resembles the number of white players on the field in today’s game.)
You don’t have to be InfoWars.com’s Alex Jones to understand something is seriously wrong, as police state measures are implemented not just in the NFL and at the Super Bowl, but across all of America. [NFL wants pat-downs from ankles up at all stadiums, USA Today, September 15 2011]
Jones, whose webzine is one of the fastest growing media organizations precisely because so many Americans are becoming increasingly worried about their freedoms, has called for a boycott of the NFL, arguing that the league’s TSA-style security at stadiums is just another way of conditioning fans to accept the encroaching police state. [NFL Faces National Protest, Infowars.com, December 4, 2013]
Purses and backpacks have been banned from games, with the Department of Homeland Security providing a stamp of approval for the NFL’s safety measures. [NFL Bans Purses and Backpacks, Limits Fans to One Gallon-Sized Baggie, By Zenon Evans, Reason, August 6, 2013]
Jones noted, in announcing his decision to call for a boycott of the NFL, that the league vetoed a Super Bowl commercial by rifle manufacturer Daniel Defense:
The company’s “offensive” ad depicts a former marine arriving home to greet his wife and child, accompanied by a voice over stating, “no one has the right to tell me how to defend them.”
The ad supposedly violates the NFL’s advertising guidelines, which bar ads featuring “firearms, ammunition or other weapons,” even though the ad doesn’t actually show any of the above, aside from an illustration of their popular DDM4 rifle featured below Daniel Defense’s logo.
[National Movement to Boycott NFL Launched: Pro-Obamacare NFL launches war on Second Amendment, InfoWars.com, December 4, 2013]
How could you tell the America of John Wayne that, one day, several U.S. states would be waging war with the 2nd Amendment and that the NFL—with Bob Costas of NBC’s Football Night in America leading the way—would be an active participant?
Some fear the NFL’s Police-State measures amount to something far more pernicious: The NFL’s Role In the Coming Martial Law, By Dave Hodges, Lew Rockwell.com, December 10, 2013]
But 2014 America is radically different from 1967 America precisely because of the racial composition of the country. With such drastic changes, the social capital that once held the country together is in short supply. And with such changes come consequences.
What was it The Economist just published about diversity? Something about the downside of diversity based on research on “ambient cultural disharmony” by Roy Y.J .Chua, of Harvard Business School, I believe:
Tension between people over matters of culture, he says, can pollute the wider environment and reduce “multicultural creativity”, meaning people’s ability to see non-obvious connections between ideas from different cultures. “Ambient cultural disharmony” persuades people to give up on making such connections because they conclude that it is not worth the trouble.
The downside of diversity, January 21, 2014]
The security measures required at Super Bowl 48 are a metaphor for the changes in America. A Police State is required to keep the peace in—to paraphrase Chua—the “polluted wider environment created by tension between people over matters of culture”?
Symmetrically, there apparently will be plenty of seats available (“18,000 Super Bowl Seats Still Available”) for the 48th version of the game as well, now that the US is an increasingly heterogeneous empire, with a Police State required to hold it together.
Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Escape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013.
DEATH WISH At Forty: Are We Allowed To “Notice” Race NOW?
In contrast to Obama’s America, where Hollywood, television, and the Main Stream Media are working overtime to promote false consciousness about crime in America (just watch an episode of Law & Order or remember what the producer of COPS said about wanting to show only reversing the ratio of white and minority criminals (“I do that intentionally because I do not want to contribute to negative stereotypes”) this movie packed a powerful reminder: no matter how much incessant propaganda tries to make people believe a lie, one perfectly-packaged dose of truth is enough to make it all go away.
That movie: Death Wish. To celebrate the 40th anniversary of its theatrical release, a special edition Blu Ray version was released today (February 4). [Purchase here and direct a commission to VDARE.com at no cost to you!] Never has the response of the Charles Bronson character (named, by an amazing coincidence, Paul Kersey) to the rape-murder of his wife and rape-mental ruin of his daughter looked better.
Based on a novel by Brian Garfield (interestingly, its protagonist was named Paul Benjamin and was Jewish), Death Wish spawned four sequels. But it was the compelling manner in which the original movie portrayed Bronson’s actions as justified that frightened Ebert. He said:
There’s never any question of injustice, because the crimes are attempted right there before our eyes. And then Bronson becomes judge and jury—and executioner.
No doubt this was exactly why the great Murray Rothbard praised the movie so much:
Death Wish is a superb movie, the best hero-and-vengeance picture since Dirty Harry. Bronson, an architect whose young family has been destroyed by muggers, drops his namby-pamby left-liberalism, and begins to pack a gun, defending himself brilliantly and uncompromisingly against a series of muggers who infest New York City. Yet he never kills the innocent, or commits excesses. Naturally, even though he is only defending himself against assault, the police, who have failed to go after the muggers and who acknowledge the fall in the crime rate due to Bronson’s activities, devote their resources to pursuing him instead of the criminals who terrorize New York. It is a great and heroic picture, a picture demonstrating one man’s successful fight for justice.
As might be expected, Death Wish has been subjected to hysterical attacks by the left-liberal critics who acknowledge the power and technical qualities of the picture, which they proceed to denounce for its “fascist ideology” (self-defense by victims against crimes) and its “pornography of violence” (in a just cause).
Don’t miss Death Wish; it says more about the “urban problem” than a dozen “message” documentaries, and it helps bring back heroism to the movies.
August 1974 issue of The Libertarian Forum
One line of dialogue in Death Wish cuts to the heart of America’s crime dilemma. While Bronson’s character is at a dinner party in New York City, he overhears a conversation between two guests about his vigilante actions:
Man: I’ll tell you one thing: the guy’s a racist. You notice he kills more Blacks than Whites.
Woman: Oh, for Pete’s sake, Harry. More Blacks are muggers than Whites. What do you want to do–increase the proportion of White muggers, so we’ll have racial equality among muggers?
Roger Ebert balked at the movie’s depicting New York City
…like one of those bloody future cities in science-fiction novels about anarchy in the twenty-first century. Literally every shadow holds a mugger; every subway train harbors a killer; the park is a breeding ground for crime.
But as the 1970s drew on, New York City did indeed become a place where “anarchy” reigned, along with all the ills Ebert brushed aside.
Fast forward to 2014: Those demographic groups behind Rothbard’s “urban problem” in New York City now have a true friend in Mayor Bill de Blasio.
And, with the repudiation of Rudy Giuliani’s reforms, it will again become a city with the increasingly “bloody future” that Ebert whined about Death Wish’s depicting.
Today, New York City is 33 percent white, 25.5 black, 28.6 Hispanic, and 12.7% Asian.
When Death Wish came out (1974), New York was 62.95 white, 21.13 percent black, and 16. percent Hispanic.
Only 30 years prior to that, the city was 91.97 percent white.
The record shows that 1.3 percent (2008), 1.4 percent (2009), 1.4 (2010), 2.5 (2011), and 2.4 (2012) of the arrested suspects in shootings (defined as any crime where the victim is struck with a bullet) in New York City were white.
During that same time, 78.3 percent (2008), 79.8 percent (2009), 74.2 (2010), 72.5 (2011), and 78.2 (2012), of the arrested suspects in shootings were black.
And during that same time, 18.3 percent (2008), 19.9 percent (2009), 23.3 (2010), 23.9 (2011), and 18.9 (2012) of the arrested suspects in shootings were Hispanic.
In short: forty years after Death Wish, almost all gun crime in New York City is non-white.
How about murder victims/suspects?
- Blacks were 61.72 percent of murder victims and 58.3 percent of murder suspects.
- Hispanics were 26.2 percent of murder victims and 32.78 percent of murder suspects.
- Whites were 7.84 percent of murder victims and 6.08 percent of murder suspects.
In short: between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 91.08 percent of murder suspects in New York City.
How about rape victims/suspects over the same period?
- Blacks were 39.34 percent of rape victims and 51.42 percent of rape suspects.
- Hispanics were 38.44 percent of rape victims and 35 percent of rape suspects.
- Whites were 16.64 percent of rape victims and 9.28 percent of rape suspects.
In short: Between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 86.42 percent of rape suspects in New York City.
- Blacks were 31.6 percent of robbery victims and 71.02 percent of rape suspects.
- Hispanics were 37.46 percent of robbery victims and 23.32 percent of rape suspects.
- Whites were 18.04 percent of robbery victims and 4.32 percent of rape suspects.
In short: between 2008-2012, blacks and Hispanics were 94.34 percent of robbery suspects in New York City.
Ebert was right to label Bronson’s Death Wish “scary,” but he was wrong about why. The fact that, despite all the anti-gun propaganda in school, the MSM, and Hollywood/TV, that this film resonated so deeply proves that Andrew Breitbart was right when he said: “Politics is downstream from culture.”
The subversive essence of Death Wish wasn’t that Bronson’s character went out and killed muggers, seeking revenge.
It’s that one scene from the dinner party, when the racial reality of crime in New York City is repudiated—a powerful reminder that “noticing” is the true crime in modern America.
Because when you “notice,” and pattern recognition develops obvious truths—justifying, for example “Stop and Frisk”—it becomes apparent why, as the black and Hispanic population of New York City becomes greater, the white American population becomes less.
But this bit of dialogue between Kersey and the young husband of his destroyed daughter puts that white flight in a grim perspective:
Paul Kersey: Nothing to do but cut and run, huh? What else? What about the old American social custom of self-defense? If the police don’t defend us, maybe we ought to do it ourselves.
Jack Toby: We’re not pioneers anymore, Dad.
Paul Kersey: What are we, Jack?
Jack Toby: What do you mean?
Paul Kersey: I mean, if we’re not pioneers, what have we become? What do you call people who, when they’re faced with a condition or fear, do nothing about it, they just run and hide?
Jack Toby: Civilized?
Paul Kersey: No.
2014 America is a less civilized place—precisely because we have been cutting and running in the forty years since Death Wish came out.
Paul Kersey[Email him] is the author of the blog SBPDL, and has published the books SBPDL Year One, Hollywood in Blackface and Escape From Detroit, Opiate of America: College Football in Black and White and Second City Confidential: The Black Experience in Chicagoland. His latest book is The Tragic City: Birmingham 1963-2013.
Heroin and the Algebra of Need
Junk yields a basic formula of “evil” virus: The Algebra of Need. The face of “evil” is always the face of total need. A dope fiend is a man in total need of dope. Beyond a certain frequency need knows absolutely no limit or control. In the words of total need: “Wouldn’t you?” Yes you would. You would lie, cheat, inform on your friends, steal, do anything to satisfy total need. Because you would be in a state of total sickness, total possession, and not in a position to act in any other way. Dope fiends are sick people who cannot act other than they do. A rabid dog cannot choose but bite. Assuming a self- righteous position is nothing to the purpose unless your purpose be to keep the junk virus in operation. – William S. Burroughs’ Depostion
From AD: http://americandigest.org/