Category Archives: Social Issues
Gays Want Special Rights That No One Else Has…and Then Use Those Against Anyone Who Disagrees With Their Agenda
“The left does not accept laws it doesn’t like. They just don’t.”
If a gay couple walk into a bake shop and say, “We want you to bake our wedding cake,” and the shop owners, “Well, you’re homosexual. I’m not going to do it.”
They want to be able to force the business to respect the desires of the customers that walk in the front door. Religious beliefs, as Allah knows, religious beliefs can’t be used to stop anything the left wants to impose, unless they’re Muslim religious beliefs, then we have to honor those. But any other religious beliefs, not permitted, the left will not allow them. Media Soap Opera Turns to Jan Brewer – The Rush Limbaugh Show
Found at AD: http://americandigest.org/
This misplaced philanthropic confidence is the idiot stepchild of life in a free enterprise society where anything can be accomplished for the right price. Do you want to build a house on the edge of a cliff so that the waves crash under your window? Do you want to play on every golf course in the world? Do you want to clone a dinosaur so you can hunt it?
It hasn’t been done yet, but it’s probably doable.
So why can’t we end world hunger for only the price of a cup of coffee every six seconds or forty percent of the national debt or some other appealing figure that looks good on an infographic?
Hunger isn’t a resource shortage problem. That seems implausible to free worlders who think that hunger is what happens when they can’t find a fast food place open late at night or are on a diet.
The Soviet dissident writer Vladimir Voinovich told an American cab driver about meat rationing in the USSR. The cab driver refused to believe him and demanded to know why people didn’t just set up more chicken farms. Voinovich tried to explain to the incredulous driver that under Socialism, setting up more chicken farms doesn’t produce more chickens.
The USSR had plenty of land, labor and experts. It went from exporting wheat to importing wheat despite throwing everything it had into agriculture because there was a disconnect at every level in the process of planning and production. Like a sack race with three hundred legs in one sack, the harder the USSR tried to increase yields and production, the worse they became.
Sending the USSR food, as the United States repeatedly did from its early years when Hoover fought famine with an army of aid workers to its waning days when the Evil Empire went deep into debt buying American wheat, didn’t solve anything. Soviet attempts at copying American successes in agriculture actually backfired leading to worse disasters. The only solution to the USSR’s agriculture problems came with the collapse of Soviet feudalism whose central planning had created the meat shortages and bread shortages.
Most “hungry” countries aren’t Communist, but they are dysfunctional. They aren’t going to be fixed for the price of a cup of coffee a day or an hour or a second. Hundreds of billions of dollars have been poured into Africa and it’s the opinion of African economic experts that the money did more harm than good by crippling developing economies with a weak global social safety net.
Every “free” item sent to another country is one item that isn’t going to be sold or manufactured there. An aid economy works a lot like a regular economy except that it can’t sustain domestic production or domestic experts. Its doctors are trained by Western countries and stay there instead of going back home. Their place is taken by Western professionals who enjoy the feeling of satisfaction and the philanthropic credentials of helping out in an exotic country for a few weeks a year. The same is often true for teachers and any other role that Western aid tourists cheerfully show up to fill.
An aid economy is planned, instead of responsive, and so it depresses local production without fully satisfying local demand leaving the population in a state of semi-deprivation. And the aid never properly reaches the people who need it because of the monopolies and corruption that caused the deprivation that made the aid necessary. This cycle of corruption feeds an aid economy by knocking out the middle class who might otherwise step into the roles of merchants and professionals and rewards anyone with enough guns to hijack the aid and shake down the charities that distribute it.
Trying to save Africa for the cost of a cup of coffee a day has made it a much worse place. And that’s as true of the United States as it is of Africa.
Domestic warlords don’t have child soldiers who drive around with machine guns on pickup trucks. Instead they wear suits, they coordinate with community organizers and they clamor for more money for broken inner city neighborhoods so they can siphon it off. There are parts of the United States that are just as broken as any Third World country because they run on the same aid economy that rewards political warlords and discourages independence and initiative.
Every year, activists and politicians announce that for only twenty billion or two hundred billion we can end world hunger, educate every child or give every family their own cow. These proposals all apply the free enterprise logic of solving a problem by ‘buying’ a solution. But you can’t buy solutions to human problems the way that you can solve engineering problems by building a house on the edge of a cliff. People have to become their own solutions. Buying a solution for them won’t work.
And even if it could work, it wouldn’t work on that scale. Helping people isn’t like building cars and aid isn’t mass production. Throwing more money and people at the problem only makes it that much harder to solve.
Buying a homeless man a sandwich for two dollars is a direct investment of resources. Appropriating twenty billion dollars to feed a sandwich to every homeless man in America will feed sandwiches to a small percentage of the homeless at a cost of four thousand dollars a sandwich.
This is where the comfort zone of a industrial society where everyone is used to the benefits of mass production leads idealists astray. Socialists treated the factory as a metaphor for human society with experts planning everything from health care to leisure entertainments for productive output. But human society isn’t a factory. A factory is where people agree to work in order to earn money for the things that they care about. Once work becomes non-consensual, production drops off, as it did in the USSR, and when all of life has the flavor of a factory, the motivation to do anything disappears.
The linear progression of a factory’s tasks are at odds with the complex range of motives of the actors in human society and the human variables make every link in the chain of planning less efficient. It’s easy to buy a homeless man a sandwich, but once you try to buy sandwiches for millions of homeless men, the sandwich money is eaten up by the expenses of planning how to identify the homeless men, what kind of sandwiches they would like, studies on marketing sandwiches to homeless men over social media, the costs of diversity training for the sandwich makers and a million other things.
Every lofty aid goal begins with a big number and bleeds down to the prosaic reality that the goal will never be met, but that everyone involved will be told to feel good about themselves for trying. The bigger the goal, the bigger the administrative overhead, the corruption and the inefficiency. Instead of scaling up results by scaling up funds, more money and more people lead to fewer individual results.
The aid economy of the underprivileged is the smaller half of the overall aid economy. The biggest piece of the aid economy is in the hands of the aid organizations that profit from an unsolvable problem that, all their fundraising brochures to the contrary, they have no interest in solving because it would remove their reason for existing. Africa’s misery is their wealth. The worse Africa becomes, the more incentive the easily empathetic and the guilty of the West will have to pour money into their latest cause to buy everyone in Africa a goat, a laptop or a sandwich.
It’s the old Soviet problem. The producers have no interest in producing anything. The aid recipients, distributors and providers have achieved a dysfunctional equilibrium. The system is broken, but everyone has learned their roles within the broken system. If the system changes, they will all have to get jobs. It was that inertia which kept the USSR going long after its leaders stopped caring about the ravings of Marx, Lenin and Stalin. It took the energy of a younger generation that had yet to become invested in the system to topple it and it is the older generation that is most likely to march with portraits of Communist leaders and kiss them for the cameras.
You can buy a homeless man a sandwich, but you can’t buy them all sandwiches because once you do that, you are no longer engaging in a personal interaction, but building an organization and the organization perpetuates itself. You don’t need a homeless man to exist so that you can buy him a sandwich, but once an agency exists that is tasked with buying homeless men sandwiches, it needs the homeless men to exist as ‘clients’ so that it can buy them sandwiches and buy itself steak dinners.
In aid economies, the scale of the problem grows slightly faster than the amount of aid and activists hold out the tempting promise that by increasing spending to stay ahead of the problem, it can be solved completely. All it would take is for everyone to become engaged and care. That isn’t a plan, it’s a pat on the back for the people who do care and an incentive to show their moral superiority by continuing to throw good money after bad into the aid economy.
The West can’t fix Africa no matter how much of the price of a cup of coffee it donates. By attempting to fix it, Africa and the West become entangled in each other’s problems, each worsening the problems of the other instead of solving them.
No one can save Africa except Africans. No one can fix Detroit except the majority of the people who live there. Social problems aren’t solved by nationalizing them or internationalizing them. They aren’t solved by engaging and guilt tripping those who have already solved those problems and live thousands of miles away but by engaging the people who live right there and are part of the problem.
If a man is drowning, you can toss him a rope. But if a man jumps into the water, tossing him a rope doesn’t accomplish anything. A physical problem can be solved by applying the right resources, but a human problem can’t be solved except when the affected humans change their attitudes or behaviors.
Trying to solve a problem rooted in behavior with monetary rewards only perpetuates that behavior. Instead of saving the world, throwing money at it destroys it instead.
Drug Overdoses Are Killing More People Than Cars, Guns
According to the latest available data from the Centers for Disease Control, drug overdoses were responsible for 38,329 deaths in 2010,
30,006 of which were unintentional. That’s a rate of 105 every day, and that number doesn’t take into account the 6,748 people treated every day for the misuse or abuse of drugs. In comparison, traffic accidents were responsible for 33,687 deaths in 2010. Firearms killed 31,672 people, and 26,852 died as a result of falling. America, It’s Time For An Intervention
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
Helpless and Hopeless Creatures’
Posted on | January 24, 2014
“Nobody cares about ‘social issues’ anymore, we have been told. Democrats have become the Pervert Party . . . and Republicans are now the Party That Dare Not Disagree. Morality is no longer a matter of the divine ‘thou shalt not’ that Jehovah declared to the Israelites at Mount Sinai. Nowadays, moral authority is determined by Hollywood, Harvard University and the New York Times. In post-Christian America, we have reverted to a sort of neo-heathenism, depending on guidance from secular wizards and a priestly caste of experts who gaze at poll numbers the way ancient astrologers looked for omens in the stars.” – Robert Stacy McCain, “The New Abnormal,” The American Spectator, July 31, 2013
Mike Huckabee gave a speech yesterday at the Republican National Committee’s winter meeting that has been treated as scandalously controversial. Chris Moody of Yahoo News provided the full context of Huckabee’s remarks:
“I think it’s time for Republicans to no longer accept listening to Democrats talk about a war on women. Because the fact is, the Republicans don’t have a war on women. They have a war for women. For them to be empowered; to be something other than victims of their gender. “Women I know are outraged that Democrats think that women are nothing more than helpless and hopeless creatures whose only goal in life is to have a government provide for them birth control medication. “Women I know are smart, educated, intelligent, capable of doing anything anyone else can do. Our party stands for the recognition of the equality of women and the capacity of women. That’s not a war on women, it’s a war for them. And if the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of government, then so be it — let’s take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than Democrats have made them to be. And women across America have to stand up and say, enough of that nonsense.”
Huckabee’s use of the word “libido” — a quaintly Freudian term for “sex drive” — was the specific button-pusher here, but let’s face reality: No one can say anything about women that deviates from Official Feminist Dogma without committing Thought Crime and, because Democrats control the terms of what is accepted as Official Feminist Dogma, the Thought Police are always more vigilant in scrutinizing Republicans for deviations from the script. Allahpundit:
Does it really matter what he said? The liberal thought process on this works this way, I think: “Known social conservative + something about women + something about sex and birth control = outrage.” Right? It’s basically Pavlovian.
Allah links Ace’s rant against social conservatives:
The elevation of strictly personal decisions . . . into a major political issue is childish and tribalist. Yes we all have a preferred mode of living. News at 11. The law is not about preferred modes of living, and neither should we make “political issues” about it.
The problem, of course, is that it was feminists and their Democrat allies who decided that “the personal is political,” so that radical messages about How We Should Live are the constant theme of propaganda from the news media, Hollywood and academia.
Children are being indoctrinated in public schools, at taxpayer expense, about How We Should Live. If you are a parent who doesn’t want your daughters living the Disney Starlet Lifestyle — or if you don’t want your sons performing in “bareback orgy” videos — who is on your side?
Well, certainly not the Republican Party, I guess, because if any Republican so much as mentions the Culture War nowadays, he or she will be denounced not only by the Left, but also by conservative pundits who insist that the GOP must cede the field to Democrats on social issues and never say a word about how The Pervert Party benefits from America’s descent into decadence.
This position of pre-emptive surrender in the Culture War seems to have begun in 1992, when the GOP ran for cover rather than to defend Dan Quayle’s critique of “Murphy Brown.” It seems to have escaped the notice of most Republicans when, a year after that controversy, Dr. Barbara Dafoe Whitehead declared in the pages of The Atlantic Monthly, “Dan Quayle Was Right.”
Whitehead developed that article into a fascinating book, The Divorce Culture, but apparently I’m the only conservative blogger who read that book, because I never see Ace or Allah or anyone else acknowledge Whitehead’s critique of the “Love Family” ideology which “liberates sexual, compassionate, and parental love from its institutional and cultural moorings in marriage.” For that matter, have you ever seen any conservative blogger mention Carolyn Graglia’s Domestic Tranquility: A Brief Against Feminism or Dana Mack’s The Assault on Parenthood?
My point is that social conservatism is more intellectually respectable than most people imagine, but for 20 years, those who are serious about fighting the Culture War have been shunted aside and told to be quiet, lest they cause Republicans to lose elections.
Oddly, however, the GOP’s active suppression of social conservatism has not translated to Republican electoral dominance. The nomination of John McCain — whose profound contempt for social conservatives is no secret — did not produce a GOP triumph, nor was the Massachusetts moderate Mitt Romney able to dodge the remarkably counterfactual Democrat propaganda that painted him as an extremist Trojan Horse, an agent of the Republican Taliban.
The fundamental problem here is probably too large to be reduced to a blog post, and I’m not in a mood to tackle the whole problem today, but let’s say this: Systemic incentives encourage conservative writers to devote themselves to the day-to-day political headlines, and to identify as “important” only those issues which directly and immediately affect the Republican Party.
Meanwhile, liberals — who comprise 80%-90% of journalists and academics — are writing about Everything Else, including sexuality, marriage and parenthood. So it is that, outside of whatever issues bear directly on the daily R-vs.-D political battle, nearly everything you read is written by liberals. This explains how the cultural “mainstream” is dragged steadily leftward, and most people don’t even notice the shift until Phil Robertson creates a firestorm by quoting the Bible, or one day you click an Internet link and find people arguing that high-school boys getting bareback butt-humped in porn videos is no cause for concern.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that, says Glenn Beck.
Almost unnoticed, a posture of enlightened non-judgmentalism has become compulsory, because liberal dominance of the intelligentsia means that nearly every articulate person has been indoctrinated in the Egalitarian Orthodoxy, and no critic of the Left’s social agenda has access to a vocabulary of rational dissent.
One afternoon last August, I found myself amid a crowd of feminists marching down the street and chanting about rape, and I was denounced as a misogynist for noticing that several of the marchers were displaying their bare breasts during this political parade.
“Nice tits” is now hate speech, even if the aforesaid tits are brandished naked in broad daylight in downtown D.C. By the same token, a Republican may not suggest a connection between “libido” and the demand for taxpayer-funded contraception.
What we are witnessing is the abolition of common sense and its replacement by a political ideology. Common sense tells us that it is unusual — indeed, the word abnormal is appropriate — for women to parade bare-breasted through the streets. Common sense likewise tells us that the Contraceptive Culture is directly related to the prevalence of licentiousness and promiscuity in society.
Has it been only 10 years since Lawrence v. Texas? Has it been only 15 years since Nina Burleigh said she would cheerfully give Bill Clinton a blow job to thank him for keeping abortion legal?
Am I the only one who has noticed how rapidly the “Emerging Awareness” doctrine has gained a death-grip on our culture?
Huckabee’s use of the word “libido” caught my attention for reasons entirely different than the reasons that made him the object of a leftist Two-Minute Hate. Huckabee is 58 years old. He graduated from Ouchita State University in the mid-1970s, and is therefore old enough to remember when Freudian ideas about “libido” were entirely respectable. Nowadays, Freud’s categories are mocked as obsolete, and neurobiology is made to explain what was once attributed to “Oedipal complexes,” repressed impulses and so forth. Whatever way you are, we’re now told, you were Born That Way, and never mind if this biological determinism is vaguely redolent of Nazi race doctrine.
This is Science with a capital “s,” and Progress with a capital “p,” and no enlightened person is ever supposed to question whether today’s ideas of Scientific Progress are really any more valid than the discarded ideas of yesterday’s Scientific Progress.
Lost somewhere in all this is the old-fashioned understanding that humans are creatures of habit, and that if one gets into the habit of indulging certain unruly appetites, those habits may become the shackles of lifelong slavery, impairing the individual’s capacity for happiness, and inflicting various forms of misery on society at large.
Where did Kathryn Camille Murray get the idea that having sex with a 15-year-old boy was a pleasant and harmless amusement?
Perhaps the answer is to be found somewhere among the penumbras and emanations where Justice Douglas found a “right to privacy” in Griswold v. Connecticut, a few decades before Justice Kennedy invoked the hitherto unknown doctrine of “emerging awareness” in striking down the Texas sodomy statute. And who knows whither the emerging awareness shall henceforth emerge?
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
We all know the official economic numbers are a fraud, but just how bad is the real situation? According to an influential Wall Street advisor, extremely bad:
In a memo to clients provided to Secrets, David John Marotta calculates the actual unemployment rate of those not working at a sky-high 37.2 percent, not the 6.7 percent advertised by the Fed, and the Misery Index at over 14, not the 8 claimed by the government.
Unemployment + inflation = the Misery Index. Put smiley-faced lies into the equation, a smiley-faced lie comes out. According to Marotta:
“Unemployment in its truest definition, meaning the portion of people who do not have any job, is 37.2 percent.”
The reason the official unemployment rate has declined despite Obama still being in office, as Marotta and colleague Megan Russell explain, is that
“officially-reported unemployment numbers decrease when enough time passes to discourage the unemployed from looking for work. A decrease is not necessarily beneficial; an increase is clearly detrimental.”
As for inflation, the government underreports it “by about 3%.”
According to official numbers, the current Misery Index is 7.54. But we no longer have the sort of government that produces reliable numbers. Using a more honest inflation rate of 4.5% and an unemployment rate of 10.2% (which includes discouraged workers who aren’t actively seeking a job, but not everybody who isn’t working) yields a Misery Index of 14.7, “worse even than during the Ford Administration.”
Worse still is the Youth Misery Index, which tracks how well voting for Obama is working out for young people. The YMI is
calculated by adding youth unemployment and average college loan debt figures with each person’s share of the national debt. While it has steadily grown over the decades, under Obama the figure has shot up dramatically, from 83.5 in 2009 to 98.6 in 2013.
The index has increased by 18.1 percent since Obama took office, the highest increase under any president, making Obama the worst president for youth economic opportunity, according to the nonprofit that released the figure.
“Young people are suffering under this economy,” said Ashley Pratte, program officer for Young America’s Foundation, which developed the index and calculates it annually using federal statistics.
Look at the bright side, young people. It could be worse. They could calculate the YMI using real numbers instead of government stats. Then you would really be hurting.
On a tip from Bob Roberts.
From MB: http://moonbattery.com/
America is based on this picture.
My position has been consistent since 1997: diversity doesn’t work.
This is different from dislike or fear of the elements of diversity, such as “I don’t like black people” or “I think Caucasians are inferior.” It is not a critique of a specific aspect of diversity, but diversity itself.
It applies uniformly to diversity of religious, ethnic/racial, cultural, linguistic and even caste distinctions. The rule is that the less variation you have in your society, the healthier and happier it is.
A society which is unified requires the fewest rules, police and government interventions. Culture is a superior method for enforcing values because it does not require enforcers. Ordinary citizens enforce it by ostracizing those who do not meet its standards.
Without that culture — which unifies vital measures as disparate as the value system, identity, and social pressures — only government can enforce standards. What inevitably results is a Nanny State that makes many rules, sets up lots of detail-fixated bureaucrats, and grows like a cancer, enriching itself.
The problem with diversity is that instead of culture, it chooses anti-culture, or the culture of having no culture. It’s an extension of the idea of freedom, which is that you don’t have any positive goals, but share a negative goal, which is agreeing to have no goals.
A person in a culture afflicted with diversity — known also by its synonyms internationalism, multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism — faces an ugly choice: they can either join the culture of non-culture and give up on their own values, or they can retain their own values and be socially ostracized or treated as a stereotype.
Diversity always leads to the same thing. Society simultaneously widens its tolerance while demanding more government interference to enforce basic rules. This becomes too much, and soon third-world levels of criminality, corruption, low hygiene and disorder descend.
Look at most countries on earth. Most of them are of mixed race, culture and religion. Over time, this became an anti-culture which settled on the lowest common denominator, which means that no one has much in common. People just want to get rich and escape such societies. There is no actual joy.
Some time ago, Robert Putnam came out with a study that was so toxic to prevailing attitudes in academia that he has spent the years since it came out fighting for his career. In it, he revealed that diverse societies increase internal alienation and distrust:
“Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for Bowling Alone, his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.”
Incorporating different groups means we cannot have a common standard of behavior. This means that we cannot predict society’s response to what we do, and if someone is offended, we lose big. That translates as “take your toys and go home.”
For most people, society has become hostile. As a result, they retreat to gated communities and let the lack of social standards trash public spaces, public expectations, culture, and morality.
Total freedom would mean a society with no rules. That means nothing is a crime. Even more, it is means that nothing is shunned. The guy dumping toxic waste in the river may just be expressing his freedom, and if enough other people agree with him, he’s free to do it.
Even more, without cultural standards, people have no identity. Identity helps explain to ourselves and others who we are and what value system we apply. “I don’t pollute, because I’m from this place and I love it,” is a value conveyed only by culture, not government.
Recently, new research came to light which shows the mechanism by which diversity dissolves community and replaces it with alienated, atomized individuals:
“However, recent theoretical and empirical work has uncovered a community-diversity dialectic wherein the contextual conditions that foster respect for diversity often run in opposition to those that foster sense of community. More specifically, within neighborhoods, residential integration provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community.”
There are two contrasting forces here: the need for homogeneity of values in order to build a community, and the desire for diversity. The two work against each other. The more homogeneous a community, the less diverse it is, and the more diverse a community is, the less it really is a community.
When communities break down, what is left is the atomized individual. This person cares for nothing other than their immediate wants and desires. They have zero interest in the society around them except as it will impact them through say, higher taxes or fewer entitlements.
As a result, your chance at having a higher society breaks down. What is left is a group of selfish people held together by an economy and a political system but nothing else. This group actively penalizes civic interest and any behavior except individualistic isolation.
This results in a condition of extreme individualism, or narcissism. In this state, we are incapable of forming bonds with each other. Friendship, romance, and citizenship are all means to an end, and there is no faith or pride, thus no long-term thinking.
If you wonder why the greatest civilizations are no longer with us, this is what brought them down. Like the apathy that afflicts large corporations, the entropy of volunteer organizations over time, or the stagnation of a social group, diversity is death.
Brett Stevens blogs at Amerika.org
You’ve heard of road rage, air rage, office rage and computer rage. Well now there’s a new rage spreading across the UK – and you’d better learn to control it, because it can get you locked up.
It’s called diversity rage (DR) and it’s what happens when people explode from pent-up anger at finding themselves foreigners in their own country. Consequences for transgressors are unpredictable, but can include tut-tutting, official condemnation, fines, even sacking or imprisonment.
Native British people account for 99% of DR cases in the UK; however the recent appearance of DR amongst minorities shows just how serious a problem it’s become.
What can be done? Well, there are Government programmes to help us love and embrace diversity; but where voluntary education isn’t enough, compulsory re-education in prison can do the job of curing DR and changing behaviour.
Before multiculturalism gets you raging and carted off to jail, take our simple questionnaire below to see if you have a problem.
DIVERSITY RAGE: ARE YOU AT RISK?
1. Stepping onto a packed bus, you realise that you’re the only English person on board. Do you:
a) Whoop with joy that inner London’s vibrant multiculturalism has finally reached your neighbourhood. b) Sit quietly in a corner seat, trying not to draw attention to yourself. c) Fantasise about hijacking the bus, driving it to Dover, hijacking a ferry and dumping the bus in Calais town centre.
2. The local mosque is blasting out the call to prayer so loudly that you can hear it from your garden half a mile away. Do you:
a) Respectfully turn your garden chair towards Mecca. b) Telephone the imam and ask politely if he might turn it down a tad. c) Set up a stadium PA system opposite the mosque and play Led Zeppelin full volume until the police come to arrest you.
3. You meet a minority person in the high street wearing full traditional garb. Do you:
a) Congratulate him for retaining his own culture and rejecting oppressive Western styles of dress. b) Direct him to the nearest gents’ outfitter. c) Demand to know why in God’s name he’s still in his pyjamas at three in the afternoon.
4. Walking through your local street market you hear a dozen different languages but no word of English. Do you:
a) Put your earphones on and listen to music. b) Grumble under your breath and get away as fast as possible. c) Get a T-shirt printed with the slogan: “You’re in England now SO SPEAK ENGLISH!”
5. TV news announces a fresh wave of immigration from Eastern Europe. Do you:
a) Sack your nanny/ cleaner, hire a cheaper one and break out the champagne. b) Wonder how your grown-up children are ever going to find work. c) Write a furious letter to your MP demanding that the UK Border Agency be replaced by the British Army.
6. You discover that your child is being taunted at school for being one of the few English kids there. Do you:
a) Immediately enrol him in Urdu/ Bengali/ Polish/ Ukrainian language classes. b) Ask for him to be transferred to another school. c) Complain to the headmaster that you’re sick and tired of your child being treated like an alien in his own country, that the school should clamp down on this kind of racist bullying and while they’re at it go back to teaching British history and culture like they used to, instead of all this multicultural shit. Then wait in his office until the police arrive to arrest you.
7. Your child comes home from school reciting verses from his new Koran. Do you:
a) Get out your own copy and recite along with him. b) Ignore him. c) Rip out the pages and hang them from a piece of string in the smallest room.
8. An MP appears on the BBC extolling the benefits of mass immigration. Do you:
a) Nod in agreement. b) Switch over to Emmerdale. c) Throw your dinner at the screen.
If your answers are mostly (a): You are a new model citizen who has truly embraced diversity. Harriet Harman and Diane Abbott would be proud of you!
Mostly (b): You show worrying signs of inappropriate anger. It’s time to book an appointment with a hypnotherapist who can help you to love and embrace vibrant multiculturalism.
Mostly (c): You are at serious risk of diversity rage, and should immediately seek medication, enrol on a rage management programme, or better still emigrate to a remote part of New Zealand where you won’t cause any more trouble or ask awkward questions about immigration policy.
Originally published at Liberty GB.
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/category/diversity-rage-are-you-at-risk
By George Neumayr on 10.23.13
Russell Moore, the new head of the Southern Baptist Convention, counsels retreat from the culture wars.
“Evangelical Leader Preaches A Pullback From Politics, Culture Wars,” blared a front-page Wall Street Journal headline on Tuesday.
According to the paper, Russell Moore, the new head of the Southern Baptist Convention, “says it is time to tone down the rhetoric and pull back from the political fray, given what he calls a ‘visceral recoil’ among younger evangelicals to the culture wars.”
The reporter contrasts Moore’s softer approach to the rise of“gay marriage” with that of his predecessor, Richard Land, who spoke of it as the culmination of the “radical homosexual agenda.”Moore, after the Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act, sent out a flier to 45,000 churches titled “How Should Your Churches Respond” in which he said homosexuals “aren’t part of an evil conspiracy” and that gay marriage shouldn’t be seen as a“‘culture war’ political issue.”
Backward, Christian soldiers, Moore appears to be saying. But to where? It is not at all clear, at least from this article. If the killing of unborn children and the spreading of sham marriage doesn’t qualify as an urgent reason for Christians to participate in politics, what issues would?
Oddly enough, the article, after informing us that Moore considers the Christian right to be too political, says that he“has allied with the Roman Catholic Church and other religious groups to make the case that overhauling the U.S. immigration is a Christian goal.” Huh? Gay marriage isn’t a worthy “’culture war’political issue,” but the drive for de facto amnesty is?
This makes no sense. Christians are free to disagree on the exact configurations of immigration policy, but no Christian can support so-called gay marriage…
On the surface, it appears that Moore is counseling a more“spiritual” Christian approach. Don’t kid yourself. It is a far more worldly one. Falwell was a true “prophetic minority voice” who understood, to use Moore’s words, that “we belong to another kingdom.” While Moore no doubt has his strong points, he seems like just another neoconservative (he voted for Clinton but “loved”George W. Bush) who considers pats on the head from pro-gay marriage publications like the Wall Street Journal to be evidence of evangelical effectiveness. They’re not. They are simply evidence of a Christian movement gone spineless.
I want to be wrong about this. I don’t want to see it for what it is. I want to see it some other way. Yet I can’t help but draw rational conclusions, because I am, tragically, a rational human being.
Try to follow my logic, and tell me where I’m going wrong:
Logical statement #1: Something is “yours” — belonging to you, and nobody else — if you own it. You own it if you have ownership of it; a synonym of “ownership” is “property.” It is yours if it is your property. You might come to own something — making it your property — by earning it, buying it, growing it, cultivating it, producing it, making it, constructing it, or trading for it.
Logical statement #2: “Stealing” is “taking what isn’t yours without permission, especially by force.” If you come to possess that which is another’s property, without his or her consent or choice, you have stolen it. You have, by any definition, “taken” what is not, in fact, “yours.” That’s stealing. That’s how any sane person would define stealing.
Agreed? I thought so.
Logical statement #3: If you employ a third party to carry out the act of forceful taking — or “stealing” — and then that third party hands the ill-gotten gains over to you, you are still guilty of stealing. Much like a husband who hires a hit-man to kill his wife is still guilty of murder.
Agreed? Of course.
So, with all of these statements in mind, how is the Welfare State NOT a giant machine of theft and redistribution? Yes, yes, I know. I’m a heartless SOB for asking the question. I’ve never struggled to feed myself (even though I have), and I’ve never been “low income” (even though I have), and I don’t care about poor people (even though I do, and deeply so). I get it. I’m a cold blooded scoundrel, I hear ya. Fine. But can you answer the question? If statements 1, 2, and 3 are all accurate, how does welfare manage to fall outside of these parameters? How is welfare not stealing? How, exactly?
It seems to me that there can be only one answer: It’s OK because the government is doing it. This is America now. This is what it’s come to. It’s OK because the government is doing it. And how far can that principle be stretched? And how many horrendous atrocities can be justified by this logic? If the government can erase any concept of private property on a whim, and defy every moral law against theft by simply calling it a “program,” what else can it do? If you’ve ever read a history book, you already know the answer. If you pay attention to the news, you’ve already gotten a glimpse. If you neither know history nor the news, you’ll find out eventually. And you won’t like it when you do.
Read the entire article at Matt Walsh Blog: http://themattwalshblog.com/2013/10/14/ebt-recipients-stole-food-this-weekend-and-every-other-weekend/
From 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
We on the broad spectrum of the “True Right” consider ourselves opposed to several facets of the present world order: atomised individualism, social massification, feminism, universalism and “human rights”, demographic replacement and multiculturalism, cultural Marxism, and so on.
But if there is a single ideological thread that runs through all of these and bestows legitimacy upon them, it would undoubtedly be egalitarianism. It is the secular god of Equality which insists on subverting all Tradition and dissolving all distinctions between men; which further seeks to abolish not only the differences between men and women but also the very concept of gender; which mandates the subversion and invasion of foreign countries under the banner of equal human rights; and which calls for the destruction of European nations through an endless flow of immigrants, whose right to these nations must be considered equal to that of the natives.
Given that Equality hovers like a spectre over almost every case of injustice that we encounter in the present day, any of our number who wish to go beyond mere day-to-day politics (e.g. shallow “conservative” polemics) are forced to craft a credible response to this ideal. One such response is to defiantly attack Equality as the dehumanising ideal of the borstal, and to argue instead for elitism, “rule of the best” (aristocracy) and traditional hierarchy.
While these arguments have the virtue of being consistent with our ideals, the problem with framing them in this way (a problem recognised by probably all of us) is that it amounts to political suicide in the modern world. If the last true representatives of Europe’s now utterly decayed aristocracy could not defend elitism against egalitarianism from their positions as elites, we have a miserable chance of doing so today. Movements existing in a position of weakness do not argue for an elitism that they do not possess, but instead tap into the politics of grievance among those who fear and distrust the elite.
Moreover, to constantly invoke Equality – even as an object of attack – in such arguments is to cede ground at the very outset. To use the enemy’s terms uncritically is to surrender to his thought: it is like trying to refute an advocate of Hobbesian anarchy by declaring yourself to be against “liberty”. The term “equality” (like “liberal”) has a positive ring that in certain contexts might even have sounded sweet to our aristocratic Indo-European ancestors (1), and we cannot expect some cultural tectonic shift to turn it into a curse word. Also, to aim one’s fire at the spectral figure of Equality is to imply that there is some actual substance to this figure, i.e. that it is an ideal that holds some possibility of being realised (however much we may insist that this is undesirable).
Thus, a different approach is needed. Firstly, when confronting the cult of Equality we should simply assert the truths in which we already believe: that the meaningful equality of all human beings is an impossible absurdity, and that the dominance of a ruling elite is a fact of life – whether in a traditional hierarchy or a modern “egalitarian society”.
With the reality of elitism thus taken for granted, our positions on aristocracy and Tradition can then be framed in clearer terms: not as defences of elitism over equality, but moral arguments for the rule of a worthy elite as opposed to modern-day kakistocracy (2) – literally the “rule of the worst” – which is, in truth, both the aim and the result of universal egalitarianism.
To justify this approach, we must defend three arguments:
- That Equality (in the modern, universal, ideological sense) is a hollow fiction;
- That modern “egalitarian societies” are in fact dominated by a ruling class;
- That the nature of this ruling class is such as to justify referring to it as a kakistocracy, i.e. the rule of the worst elements in a population.
THE TOXIC FICTION OF EQUALITY
As Steven Pinker writes in The Blank Slate, the egalitarian ‘tabula rasa’ vision of human nature – long dominant in the social sciences – is slowly and painfully crumbling under the tide of reality. Humans are not born equal, nor are they malleable enough to ever be made so: they display a certain number of innate traits which are different and therefore unequal, and the groups to which they belong display average inequalities as well. Some of these inequalities, such as intelligence, have been discovered to be not only innate but also partly heritable. Others, such as the biological differences between men and women, have always been obvious to anyone who has not read himself stupid on egalitarian dogma.
Mere facts such as these, of course, cannot hope to even dent the Equality machine – which over ten years after Pinker’s book is still loudly conducting inquisitions into “unearned privilege”. For this reason I will not bore the reader by citing in detail the voluminous data on innate human inequality. However, reflecting on the immutable fact of that inequality can give us a clearer idea of what the religion of Equality can and cannot accomplish – which might in turn furnish us with some clues as to its true intentions.
What egalitarianism cannot do is to abolish the innate human disparities in talent, intelligence, strength, beauty etc., which so often develop into disparities of wealth, power and happiness in the wider world. Nor can it change the essentially pyramidal structure of civilised society, which inevitably restricts true power and influence to a few. What egalitarianism can (and does) do effectively is to dissolve traditional social structures and distinctions, and eliminate traditional ruling elites.
First we will deal with the dissolution of structures and distinctions, because this is the kind of egalitarianism most recognisable to us in the modern West: the obsessive-compulsive disorder that constantly demands the abolition not only of class but also of sex, race, culture, “stereotypes” etc, all in the name of “oppressed victims”.
It should first of all be noted that the expansion of this kind of egalitarianism in recent decades to include ever wider groups of “victims” has not prevented basic social inequality in most Western countries from rising at the same time (3) – especially in America and Britain, which can both be described as drifting towards oligarchy. In addition, the cult of Equality has introduced into these societies a further violation of the older (and saner) egalitarian principle of equal treatment under the law, by bestowing arbitrary privileges on those who can make often dubious claims to “victimhood”. Egalitarianism in all its forms routinely tramples on many rights – among them the right to liberty of various kinds, the right of females to be women and males to be men, the right to fair distribution of reward for effort, the right of national sovereignty, and the right of a people to its homeland – but what it bestows in return is far less meaningful than is generally supposed.
Moreover: in cases where egalitarianism appears to have achieved some measure of “redress” or “justice” for a disadvantaged group, in later years it often undermines or reverses these achievements in the pursuit of its own logic, i.e. more egalitarianism. Harping on the “historical achievements” of the egalitarian religion is myopic stupidity: for no sooner has one “oppressed group” been mobilised by the cult of Equality to break down one set of hierarchies, than another even more wretched group is found and more often than not set against the last, with the only consistent effect of all this being the destruction of more and more social bonds.
An example of this would be the support of radical egalitarians for the interests of the native working classes of Europe, in an era when this group was expected to bring those radicals to power through violent revolution. Today, modern egalitarianism has not only abandoned this group; it has subjected it to the brunt of demographic replacement and wage competition from Third World immigration, and stigmatised it in public discourse as a bulwark of “racism” and “bigotry”. The same pattern constantly repeats itself in the present day: for example, two gynocentric feminists in Britain were recently silenced like rowdy housewives by the subset of mutilated men known as “trans women” (4), who indeed represent an assault on the very idea of womanhood.
Egalitarianism, then, is far better at mobilising “oppressed groups” to destroy social distinctions than it is at fulfilling its promises to “uplift” these groups once those distinctions are destroyed. And as we see around us in the modern West, it is certainly in the dissolving of traditional social structures that egalitarianism has “succeeded”. However, those who praise this as a victory of “justice” should consider its full implications for individuals.
When traditional social structures are more or less intact, the ambitions of a single individual are confined within a particular social stratum, and there is no shame in belonging to a group other than the most powerful or wealthy one in society. Under egalitarianism, however, an “everyman” individual has often been educated at massive expense (paid for by either public tax or private debt) in subjects only of use to a minority of academic elites, and propagandised by the self-help industry into expecting that he can rise to the top of society with a fortuitous start-up, an abundance of hard work, or the recitation of the right koans. He is then subjected to the full brutal reality of the inequalities of money, talent, and influence (and now “victim status”), as well as the immutable fact that positions of wealth, power and importance in any society can only go to a few. Condemned more often than not to the life of a slave performing what Evola (in Revolt Against the Modern World) calls “shallow, impersonal, automatic jobs”, he nevertheless alienates himself from thid reality; and, encouraged by testimonies of people “just like him” who “made it” (when there are countless others who did not), continues to buy into the egalitarian myth like a fool buying lottery tickets. Gone is the collective consciousness and bargaining power that comes with membership of a particular class of society; gone also is the moderation of ambition, which creates psychological agony if not fulfilled, within reasonable expecations. The burden of disappointment falls squarely on the shoulders of the individual “loser”, who must suffer the dissonance between the reality of his ordinary existence and the egoistic ambition that has been so artificially inflated within him. (It is no wonder that this society does such a good trade in opportunities to masturbate this excess hubris away through the fantasy world of videogames.)
This, of course, is not the full picture. For in addition to merely dissolving social distinctions, egalitarianism has at several times in its history attempted a full or partial eradication of all inequalities in society: in most cases directed primarily at those inequalities mandated by tradition, but theoretically including those of wealth, talent, intelligence and so on.
This is carried out by eliminating existing elites altogether, or else crippling dominant groups so as to break their influence decisively. While this is primarily associated with communist projects such as the Bolshevik revolution and anti-kulak campaigns in Russia, it can also be seen in the modern-day progressivist campaigns against “white privilege” across much of the West.
However, “humbling the mighty for the benefit of all” is another egalitarian promise that always seems to go unfulfilled in reality. Rather than universal prosperity, the most common result of such egalitarianism is an “equality in poverty”, which is hardly mitigated by the visible rise of a few members of the previously disadvantaged group to elite positions in the new society. Thus, the well-known result of Soviet egalitarianism was a “workers’ paradise” in which wages were some four times lower than in the more unequal societies of the West. (5) In America, half a century of attacks on white dominance since the Civil Rights Act has done precious little to advance the dignity and position of blacks (6), who in many areas seem to be experiencing a societal breakdown. The full admittance of the Third World into the developed West would have a similar result: rather than bringing the advantages of Western society to the members of the Third World, it would only bring the disadvantages of Third World society to plague the West. And so on.
Thus, apart from the transient spoils of organised theft and the equally transient gratification of seeing the mighty fall, it is often difficult to see what the majority of egalitarianism’s “intended beneficiaries” really get out of it. However, unlike the conservatives who have harped on this fact for decades to no effect, we will not be so blind as to leave so-called “misguided good intentions” unquestioned. For the benefits of eliminating a traditional elite, and thus decapitating a society,are far more obvious from the perspective of the kakistocracy which intends to supplant it.
THE “PROGRESSIVE” RULING CLASS
In discussing the impossibility of Equality, we confined our argument for the reality of elitism to obvious factors such as the presence of ineradicable human inequalities in talent and intelligence, as well as the inevitable need of society for more followers than leaders.
This is not, of course, the full story – for there is a far more fundamental drive toward elitism within the egalitarian religion itself. It is simply that Equality needs first of all to be argued, planned and agitated for; and once the resistance obstructing it has fallen, Equality must be administered, monitored, and regulated by a class of professional bureaucrats, who must of necessity exert a high level of surveillance and control over the “equalised” society.
In the modern West, the ranks of those whose primary role in society is the furtherment of Equality include: agitators and radicals, academics, journalists and writers, teachers, politicians and political organisers, “diversity officers”, managers, and other bureaucrats. (In a more egalitarian society, of course, these ranks would also include commissars, party members and secret police.) Given that these people are entrusted with the task of upholding and implementing Equality, it is extremely important that they be politically “progressive” (this is far more important than, say, that the manager of a large trading company be a free-market conservative).
Progressivism (i.e. the current vanguard of egalitarian ideology) is thus the essential qualification that this entire class holds in common, just as everyone involved in the running of a church must adhere to that church’s religion. The comparison with a church is an illuminating one, because the priests and bishops of a state-supported church form a social elite in their own right.
Many of us have noticed the elitism (and hypocrisy) of wealthy and privileged progressivists who, for example, argue for mass Third World immigration from lily-white suburbs. However, any clear examination of a class must start with the basic mechanism by which it defines itself and differentiates itself from the masses – whether this be conspicuous wealth, special clothing, or refined manners. For the progressive-egalitarian class, this self-differentiation is primarily done through the special language of political correctness.
Although political correctness is viewed by its proponents as a mark of moral virtue, familiarity with its complex and ever-changing minutiae of “acceptable” language reflects two things above all: 1) the “right” progressive education, probably in an economically useless subject; and 2) a dogmatic belief in the currently fashionable form of egalitarianism in a wide range of contexts. Political correctness thus provides an “ingroup/outgroup” differentiation against those who do not have these things; it also provides a sort of inner hierarchy, in that even “well-intentioned” believers cannot take on public duties in the media, bureaucracy etc. if they are prone to lapse into “offensive” speech or thought in unfamiliar contexts. Most importantly, of course, political correctness provides a justification for excluding the majority of the population (especially lower-class whites) from respectable public discourse, dismissing their language and thoughts out of court with a telling epithet: “ignorant”.
It is in this context that so many of the “microaggressions” (public infringements of political correctness) currently being compiled all over the internet by progressivist college students can be reinterpreted. To quote a particularly telling example in full:
“I was walking through an underground tunnel which leads to a railway station. A truly dreadful busker was using his guitar to colonise the public space with sound, as men so often do. I must have been grimacing at the awful noise as I approached – he stopped mid-song to tell me that I should smile, otherwise I will never be able to compete with Asian ladies.”(7)
Rendered into an older and more honest language of snobbery, this might read as follows: “I encountered a dreadful busker playing music for money on the streets, who affronted me with an ungentlemanly remark betraying his lack of education and manners”. But once couched in the language of political correctness, the member of the bottom demographic of society is transformed into an oppressor (note the loaded word “colonise”), while the unsympathetic female bystander becomes a victim. Political correctness provides a conceptual prism through which a form of moral supremacy can be asserted over poorer, less educated and less privileged people (primarily, of course, those who are white).
It follows from this that any analysis of the Equality cult’s political crusades must identify the high priests of that cult as an elite in their own right, and factor their self-interested will-to-power into the equation. In this light, campaigns for “inclusion” and “equality” on behalf of some “marginalised group” – for instance, the gay marriage campaign – appear in uglier terms, as deliberate attempts to subvert traditions dear to the majority by rendering them meaningless (8). The “selflessness” of white “anti-racist” activists in opening their countries to mass immigration can also be swiftly deconstructed, simply by drawing a line between these activists and the majority of poorer whites who are condemned to suffer most of the negative effects (9).
While its arrogance and self-regard are fairly banal, the curious feature of the progressive-egalitarian class – which is best compared to a religious cult containing a priestly elite – is that it goes to great lengths to deny its own exercise of power in society. Progressivists almost always present themselves as embattled, marginalised, and outside the ranks of society’s “ruling elites”, whom they constantly accuse of seeking to obstruct or reverse the progress of Equality.
The progressive-egalitarian class (moral elite) directs these accusations sometimes at the democratic-governmental class (political elite), which is feared to be capable of either stirring up or giving into the reactionary tendencies of the mob; and more often at the business-capitalist class (economic elite) – which, being associated with political conservatism and economic inequality, is seen as representing the very antithesis of egalitarianism. The bogeyman of “fascism” is seen as having the potential to rise to power through either of these two elites.
However, we shall see that the cult of Equality has far more common ground with these two “rival” elites than it would ever dare to admit in public.
(to be continued)
Solniger X maintains a blog at www.solniger.net
1. See Ricardo Duchesne, The Uniqueness of Western Civilisation
5. Tomislav Sunic, Against Democracy and Equality
8. On gay marriage, see also http://brendanoneill.co.uk/post/50513134456/gay-marriage-a-fight-for-equality-or-a-war-on
9. See also writer Mencius Moldbug’s theory of yi yi zhi yi
From Alternative Right: http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/10/2/egalitarianism
“The genius of television is that,
to shape a people as you want, you don’t need unrestrained governmental authority, nor do you need to tell people what you want of them.
Indeed, if you told them what to do, they would be likely to refuse. . . . No. You merely have to show them, over and over, day after day, the behavior you wish to instill. Show them enough mothers of illegitimate children heartwarmingly portrayed. Endlessly broadcast story lines suggesting that excellence is elitist. Constantly air ghetto values and moiling back-alley mobs grunting and thrusting their faces at the camera—and slowly, unconsciously, people will come to accept and then imitate them. Patience is everything. . . . Few call this imperialism. It is, with a vengeance.” – - Foseti
From AD: http://americandigest.org/
“You’ve got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette.”
1) A ten percent across-the-board cut in the Federal budget – to include the Defense budget.
I’m not talking a ten-percent cut in the future increase of the budget, which is what they do every time they say they cut the budget. I’m talking a REAL ten percent cut in the existing budget – and NO INCREASE.
They would never miss it. There is so much fraud, waste & abuse in government organizations, all they’d have to do is cut back on office supplies (warehouses full of the stuff they never use) and they’d never use it. That, and maybe cut back on a few of those junkets they have all the time.
This is what happens in government organizations every September – they tell all their people to put in their orders and spend all their money before the new fiscal year in October, because if they have any left over, they will be cut that amount out of the next fiscal year. So there’s this wild spending spree for stuff they have no need for what little amount of time of the day they work anyway, and the beat goes on . . .
2) Cut Taxes
Cut taxes across the board. The top Federal Income Tax rate will be set at 30% for the top 30% levels of income, 20% for the middle 30% of earners, and 10% for the the bottom 30%. This is all before deductions – nobody pays nothing, everybody pays something, but most people will pay a lot less than what they’re paying now.
Cut taxes, and watch the economy SOAR!
3) Drill, Baby, Drill
Go hog wild all out drilling for oil in the ANWAR, open up the Keystone Pipeline, lift any and all moratoriums on offshore drilling, frack the hell out of the shale or whatever it is, dig up all the oil sands and extract the oil anywhere and everywhere. Forget about corn and ethanol – what a waste of energy; it takes two gallons of diesel fuel to make a gallon of ethanol AND yours and my tax dollars to boot – put that diesel to good use in the engines & machines it takes to dig up all the coal underneath that National Wilderness Area Clinton established right over the world’s largest seam of the purest quality of coal in the world. Use all the tax money off all this commercial activity to build at least four new refineries – one up by Detroit, one in Pennsylvania, one down by Texas and one over in California.
If we did this we would be energy independent in less than five years.
4) Eliminate the Department of Energy and the Department of Education
The Department of Energy doesn’t make a single watt of energy, and the Department of Education educates nobody. In fact, since we started both these Carter Administration fiascos, the price of energy has continually risen and the quality of American education has gone steadily downhill. They are the epitome of worthless government bureaucracies that cost you and me and our children all the way out to their children’s children a lot of money. Get rid of them.
5) Make government employees merit-based, just like private employment
If I was in charge, the days of government employment-for-life to a cushy retirement would be a distant memory. You produce results or you’re gone just like in the real world and we think long and hard about getting rid of your position permanently before we authorize a replacement.
Oh yeah, and no unions for public employees, either. Unions for what? To negotiate against ‘We The People’? Even FDR was against that. You want to be a union member, go out there into the cold cruel world and get a real job and join a union that way.
Exception to my brothers in law enforcement and emergency services – their professions are unique, the work is incredibly challenging and they need all the help they can get. That is different.
6) Sell NASA
The time for the absolute commercialization of space is long overdue. Columbus made it to the New World under government sponsorship, but the operation went commercial in very short order and was an overwhelming success, from a free enterprise point-of-view. Sell NASA and all its facilities to private, commercial space launch enterprises. If there’s anything out there worth overcoming gravity to get our hands on, they’re find it, mine it and bring it back to Earth to cut it up into mood rings or pet rocks or whatever.
We don’t even DO this anymore so we might as well break up what we have left and sell it all for parts.
7) Welfare Reform
Welfare is for those who REALLY need it – in other words, you need to be missing body parts to qualify. If you’re able to work, we will give you a shovel and you can go to work digging up all that coal or fixing the roads in and out of the oil fields.
To qualify for Welfare or food stamps you need to be a US citizen so all you illegals need not apply, and you need to pass a drug test. I expect to wipe at least ninety percent off the roles in short order.
8) Voter ID
In order to eliminate even the question of voter fraud, Voter ID will be mandatory. But not everyone can vote; criminals cannot vote, neither can non-citizens or dead people. In fact, in order to qualify to vote, you have to be of age, be a taxpayer and own land. OK – but what about urban professionals who are productive members of society but do not vote? Well, if they own stock in companies, they own real estate by proxy – they qualify. You have to have some skin in the game to be able to vote – that’s only fair.
9) Illegal Aliens
You walk across our borders and this is how it works: we give you an ID card – its an electronic ID card that you have to swipe just like when you buy stuff at the store. We know where you are and what you are doing, and we tax you. You get five years in the US to make your pile then you’re out of here. No overstaying because you can’t work without that card, and no anchor babies. Any babies you make while you are here go with you. They are not US citizens by accident of geography. We won’t even have to amend the Constitution; ‘Natural born Americans’ as far as I’m concerned includes Canadians and Mexicans – they are part of North America – for that matter anybody born anywhere in THE Americas – North, South, Central or the Caribbean – is some kind of American. That is not the same thing as US citizen.
Only possible exception is if you agree to six years in the military. I will enjoy establishing the American equivalent of the Foreign Legion and you can earn your citizenship the same way I earned mine – the Ancient Roman way.
10) Equal Opportunity
If you say you’re black, we’ll run a DNA test on you and if you have a single drop of white blood in you, then you’re not black. If you say you’re white, we’ll do the same and if you have a single drop of black blood in you, then you’re not white. Likewise for the Orientals, Hispanics, Arabs, everybody.
In other words, no more racial quotas, equal opportunity, playing the race card, nothing. Everybody is equal and everything will be merit-based, just like in professional sports and the entertainment industry – two areas that minorities excel in, oddly enough.
11) The Death Penalty
If I become President there won’t be a Death Row there will be a Death Week. And to hell with that pussyfied ‘lethal injection’ crap. You heard of the electric chair? Well, I’d like to introduce the world to the ELECTRIC BLEACHERS.
Sheriff Joe Arpaio will be my Attorney General so you know this will get done in short order.
But just to prove that I’m not entirely heartless, there will be a comprehensive parole plan – criminals not on Death Row will be kept in large encampments surrounded by triple zones of electrified chainlink fence topped with bands of razor wire, located within the impact areas of large US military bases surrounded by batteries of howitzers of all caliber. If the criminals survive a thousand barrages of artillery fire with some A-10 Warthogs to work them over and some B-52 arc light strikes thrown in for good measure, they will be considered “cured” and they can go out into society. If they fuck up a second time, they are incurable – criminally insane – and so it’s the electric bleachers for them.
12) Gun Control
My proposal is to arm the Citizenry: make firearms training & possession mandatory for all law-abiding males 16-65 i.e. the original definition of “militia” – OK in this day & age we can include the females. Everyone knows the female of the species is more deadly than the male, especially when defending their young. Allow teachers to carry in schools, and everybody else to carry all over the place ESPECIALLY on planes and in airports.
The sidearm will become the badge of a law abiding citizen, and mass shootings will become an extinct phenomenon of the past.
13) Gay Marriage
The State endorses and encourages the institution of marriage for a reason; to ensure the next generation. We need kids, and kids need a mom and a dad – that is the best and most successful way of raising happy and healthy children – and so we should encourage this as much as possible. There is no “gay” DNA, for all we know gay is a kink and as far as transgenders go, getting an lop-a-dicktomy doesn’t make a man into a woman – he still has a prostate gland and he sure as hell doesn’t have uterus. Lets face it, the only reason gays want to get married is to beat the tax man and that goes right back to the State endorses and encourages the institution of marriage to ensure the next generation. When two men can get together or two women can get together and make a baby, I will be for gay marriage.
If we did only half of the above, this country would be in ten times better shape than what it is now. Just by doing the first three on the list, we will be able to pay off the National Debt in about ten years. That’s my story and I’m sticking to it . . .
Dependency and excellence
In sports, when have you heard a coach explain or excuse a black player’s poor performance by blaming it on a “legacy of slavery” or on that player’s being raised in a single-parent household? When have you heard sports standards called racist or culturally biased? I have yet to hear a player, much less a coach, speak such nonsense. In fact, the standards of performance in sports are just about the most ruthless anywhere. Excuses are not tolerated. Think about it. What happens to a player, black or white, who doesn’t come up to a college basketball or football coach’s standards? He’s off the team. Players know this, and they make every effort to excel. They do so even more if they have aspirations to be a professional player. By the way, blacks also excel in the entertainment industry — another industry in which there’s ruthless dog-eat-dog competition.
Seeing as blacks have demonstrated an ability to thrive in an environment of ruthless competition and demanding standards, there might be some gains from a similar school environment. Maybe we ought to have some schools in which youngsters are loaded up with homework, frequent tests and demanding, top-notch teachers. In such schools, there would be no excuses for anything. Youngsters cut the mustard, or they’re kicked out and put into some other school. I’m betting that a significant number of black youngsters would prosper in such an environment, just as they prosper in the highly competitive sports and entertainment environments.
Progressives’ agenda calls for not only excuse-making but also dependency. Nowhere is this more obvious than it is in their efforts to get as many Americans as they can to be dependent on food stamps; however, in this part of their agenda, they offer racial equal opportunity. During President Barack Obama’s years in office, the number of people receiving food stamps has skyrocketed by 39 percent. Professor Edward Lazear, chairman of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers from 2006-09, wrote in a Wall Street Journal article titled “The Hidden Jobless Disaster” (June 5, 2013) that research done by University of Chicago’s Casey Mulligan suggests “that because government benefits are lost when income rises, some people forgo poor jobs in lieu of government benefits –unemployment insurance, food stamps and disability benefits among the most obvious.” Government handouts probably go a long way toward explaining the unprecedented number of Americans, close to 90 million, who are no longer looking for work.
This is all a part of the progressive agenda to hook Americans, particularly black Americans, on government handouts. In future elections, they will be able to claim that anyone who campaigns on cutting taxing and spending is a racist.
Pretty seamless little web they’ve built for us there, isn’t it? In fact, you could think of it as a circle. Like, say, a corral.
I would say, too, that there ARE such schools as Williams talks about out there. They’re just not run by the government.
Update! Fred: it’s the culture, stupid.
Similarly, I do not believe that I have a right to tell African-Americans how to live—provided that their culture does not affect me. Being a European-American, my suspicion is that people in Detroit would prosper by studying more and shooting each other less, but this is a cultural prejudice on my part. They can do as seems best to them. Nor do I pretend to impose my European-American notions of proper schooling on Detroit. The African-American community can teach its children anything it wants, or nothing at all. I don’t care. It isn’t my business—provided that it doesn’t affect me.
I don´t say this from hard-heartedness. If the schools of Detroit said, “Fred, we got these lousy, worn-out stupid textbooks and not enough of them. We need books with bigger words and smaller pictures. Can you help us?” I would respond, “Sure, which books you want? They will be on a truck by noon tomorrow. No charge.”
But multiculturalism is, or should be, a street of two directions. If I don’t want to impose my values on other cultures, neither do I want them to impose their values on me and mine. And that is exactly what the federal government is trying to do. It is trying to destroy my culture by melding it with others. This is not multiculturalism.
For example, I believe in the correct use of language. My culture after all produced Milton, Shakespeare, Dodgson, Galsworthy, and Tolkien. But when African-Americans are put into a European-American school, they do not learn English, but rather impose Ebonics, and every third word is “Fuck.” This latter is said to be acceptable because it is part of their culture, as it certainly is. It is not part of mine.
As a European-American, I believe in advanced courses and strict grading. African-Americans do not, and so standards have to be lowered for my children. As a European-American, I believe that boys should wear their pants somewhat higher than the level of their ankles, and that any student who curses or pushes a teacher should be permanently expelled. African-Americans do not share my European-American views.
How other cultures view these matters is not my concern. Provided that they do it in their own schools.
Having said these things, I will of course be said to be a white supremacist and a racist and all the other markers of very dim minds. Hardly. For one thing, culture is not synonymous with race. I am perfectly content to have people of other cultures and races in the schools of my children, provided that they accept my European-American core values. For another, I am not aware that Koreans, Japanese, Chinese, and Vietnamese, whom I very much admire, are white, though perhaps with global warming a hotter sun has bleached them. I know many Mexicans who share the core values of European-American culture, and do not regard myself as supreme over them.
Further, like almost all who are called white supremacists, I am in fact a cultural left-aloneist. I do not want supremacy over any group, as that would mean having them in custody, a responsibility of which I weary.
Myself, I weary of the fruitless, juiceless “national conversation” brought on by the dismal, ongoing failure of Progressivism to produce anything but the mediocrity and deprivation that it inevitably must.
From Cold Fury: http://coldfury.com/
We bitches be like’n rap ‘n fuck’n and weed and niggas.
[Hook: 2 Chainz, Drake, and Rocky]
I love bad bitches, that’s my fuckin problem
And yeah I like to fuck, I got a fuckin problem
I love bad bitches, that’s my fuckin problem
And yeah I like to fuck I got a fuckin problem
I love bad bitches, that’s my fuckin problem
And yeah I like to fuck, I got a fuckin problem
If finding somebody real is your fuckin problem
Bring ya girls to the crib maybe we can solve it
[Verse 1: A$AP Rocky]
Hold up bitches simmer down
Takin’ hella long bitch give it to me now
Make that thing pop like a semi or a nine
Oh baby like it raw with a shimmy shimmy ya
Huh, ASAP get like me
Never met a motherfucker fresh like me
All these motherfuckers wanna dress like me
Put the chrome to your dome make you sweat like Keith
Cause I’m the nigga, the nigga nigga, like how you figure?
Getting figures and fuckin bitches, she rollin’ swishers
Brought her bitches, I brought my niggas, they getting bent up off the liquor
She love my licorice, I let her lick it
They say money make a nigga act nigger-ish
But at least a nigga nigga rich
I be fuckin’ broads like I be fuckin’ bored
Turn a dyke bitch out have her fuckin’ boys, beast
[Verse 2: Drake]
I know you love it when this beat is on
Make you think about all of the niggas you’ve been leading on
Make me think about all of the rappers I’ve been feeding on
Got a feeling that’s the same dudes that we speakin’ on, oh word?
Ain’t heard my album? Who you sleepin’ on?
You should print the lyrics out and have a fucking read-along
Ain’t a fucking sing-along unless you brought the weed along
Then ju.. (Okay, okay, okay)
Then just drop down and get yo’ eagle on
Or we can stare up at the stars and put the Beatles on
All that shit you talkin’ bout is not up for discussion
I will pay to make it bigger, I don’t pay for no reduction
If it’s comin’ from a nigga I don’t know, then I don’t trust it
If you comin’ for my head, then motherfucker get to bustin’
Yes Lord, I don’t really say this often
But this long dick nigga ain’t for the long talking, I beast
[Verse 3: Kendrick Lamar]
Yeah ho this the finale
My pep talk turn into a pep rally
Say she’s from the hood but she live inside in the valley now
Vacate in Atlanta, then she going back to Cali
Got your girl on my line, world on my line
The irony I fuck ‘em at the same damn time
She eyeing me like a nigga don’t exist
Girl, I know you want this dick
Girl, I’m Kendrick Lamar
Aka Benz is to me just a car
That mean your friends need to be up to a par
See my standards are pampered by threesomes tomorrow
Kill ‘em all dead bodies in the hallway
Don’t get involved listen what the crystal ball say
Halle Berry, hallelujah
Holla back I’ll do ya, beast
And since I mentioned Barack Hussein, here’s a flashback to the ho’s playlist in the White House, “President Obama’s ‘Rap Palate’: Why Praise Violent, Misogynistic Hip-Hop Stars?”
That bitch got a problem, mf.
From American Power: http://americanpowerblog.blogspot.com/
“Porn now Considered to Be part of The Elementary Education “Core Curriculum” – Wow. Unreal. This Country is Racing to Hell.
Common Core Education has sparked political controversy since the U.S. Department of Education decided to adopt its curriculum nationwide in both public and private schools. The Common Core website lists “exemplar texts” by grade which they recommend for reading and one in particular has some parents taking action. The Common Core recommends a book for 11th and 12th graders by Nobel Prize winning author Toni Morrison called “The Bluest Eye”. The excerpts from the book are too pornographic to post here but you can choose to read them here at this link. The Bluest Eye depicts detailed accounts of incest, rape and pedophilia as “friendly”, “innocent” and “tender”. The biggest issue with the book is that the story is told from the pedophile’s point of view so the reader can become a “co-conspirator” with the rapist. The author purposely did not portray the pedophile’s actions as wrong so the reader can “sympathize” with the pedophile.
Obviously the reason behind some parents calls for removing the book are the graphic depictions of incest, rape and pedophilia. And not just that, the book actually lets the reader see the depictions from the perpetrators point of view. In fact, the author of the book, Morrison, says that she wanted the reader to feel as though they are a “co-conspirator” with the rapist. She took pains to make sure she never portrayed the actions as wrong in order to show how everyone has their own problems. She even goes as far as to describe the pedophilia, rape and incest “friendly,” “innocent,” and “tender.”
It’s no wonder that this book is in the top 10 list of most contested books in the country. The Bluest Eye is the story of Pecola Breedlove, a young black girl, who prays every day for beauty: for the blond hair and blue eyes that she believes will allow her to fit in. As her life begins to disintegrate in the face of adversity and strife, such as being raped by her father and beaten by her mother, she finally appeals to Soaphead Church, a pedophile, to help her attain blue eyes. After being impregnated by her father, she loses her baby and ultimately loses her mind.
Macey France goes on to explain why this is no different than child pornography:
Using just the smallest amount of common sense we can deduce that if the book cannot be read aloud in the class, could not be viewable if it was a movie and couldn’t be played on the stereo if it was a CD, then why is it okay for it to be read and discussed; in school of all places! In fact, according to one lawyer, if the incidents in this book were a movie or a picture there would be a very clear cut case for prosecution for child pornography.
From The Daley Gator: http://thedaleygator.wordpress.com/page/2/
Note: This is a terrible situation and whoever the person is that wrote this letter is heartless and cruel. But not as heartless and cruel as the death panels will be when they start calling the shots on who gets healthcare and who does not. Liberals like Obama and his ilk regard individuals with special needs as parasites on the system. According to the social engineers of our day, these people contribute nothing to society and cost millions of dollars to maintain and care for. Notice in the letter the woman writes: “We will all be better off.” That is precisely the criteria that will be used by the government bureaucrats in Washington – society will be “better off” without this monetary drain on our available corporate healthcare resources. The Liberal Utopian society that Obama and his kind envision is all about “The Greater Good.” The groundwork for this is already laid and the implementation is coming faster than we realize - and when it does – there will nothing you or I can do about it. Prepare for the forced euthanization of the “undesirables” in the years ahead and it will not be pretty. Don’t doubt that this is coming. It will surely come. These people are ruthless evil individuals. Pray that God will have mercy on this country and the people that have ascribed to this evil ideology and purpose. ZTW
Ontario police aware of hateful letter telling family to ‘euthanize’ autistic child
Ontario police are aware of a disgustingletter that apparently sent to a woman caring for an autistic child by a woman neighbour who wanted the “wild animal kid” out of her neighbourhood, even if it meant killing the child.
The hateful letter was reportedly sent last week to a resident of Newcastle, Ont., just west of Toronto, who hosts her 13-year-old grandson, Max, during summer days.
Mother Karley Begley spoke with CityNews and broke down in tears as she tried to read the letter.
The letter was re-posted on Twitter by Lennon and Maisy, a young Ontario singing duo who also star on ABC’s Nashville.
The post has been retweeted more than 3,000 times. A Durham Regional Police officer told Yahoo! Canada News they were aware of the letter.
From its tone, the letter could be considered anything from abusive to threatening or perhaps even criminal. It is addressed to “the lady living at this address” and signed, “One pissed off mother!!!!*”
*The number, but not the frequency, of exclamation and question marks used in the letter has been approximated in this post. It reads:
I also live in this neighbourhood and have a problem!!!! You have a kid that is mentally handicapped and you consciously decided that it would be a good idea to live in a close proximity neighgbourhood like this???? You selfishly put your kid outside everyday and let him be a nothing but a nuisance and a problem to everyone else with that noise polluting whaling he constantly makes!!! That noise he makes when he is outside is DREADFUL!!!!!!!!!! It scares the hell out of my normal children!!!!!!!!!
The letter goes on to state:
- Crying babies, music and even barking dogs are normal sounds in a residential neighbourhood!!!!! He is NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- He is a nuisance to everyone and will always be that way!!!!!! Who the hell is going to care for him????????? No employer will hire him, no normal girl is going to marry/love him and you are not going to live forever!!
- [T]hey should take whatever non retarded body parts he possesses and donate it to science. What the hell else good is he to anyone!!!!
- You had a retarded kid, deal with it… properly!!!!! What right do you have to do this to hard working people!!!!!!!!!
- I HATE people like you who believe, just because you have a special needs kid, you are entitled to special treatment!!! GOD!!!!
- Go live in a tralier in the woods or something with your wild animal kid!!! Nobody wants you living here and they don’t have the guts to tell you!!!!!
- Do the right thing and move or euthanize him!!! Either way, we are ALL better off!!!
According to CityNews, the neighbourhood has come out in support of the Begley family and is trying to determine who sent the letter. The reaction on Twitter was no less severe.
Tolerance does not usher in some tolerant anarchy in which we learn to tolerate all things. Rather tolerance is a finite substance. It can only be allocated to so many places. While a society changes, human beings do not fundamentally change. They remain creatures of habit, bound to the poles of things that they like and dislike, the people that they look up to and look down on.
The balance of tolerance and intolerance always remains the same no matter how progressive a society becomes. A tolerant society allocates its intolerance differently. There is no such thing as a universally tolerant society. Only a society that tolerates different things. A tolerant society does not cease being bigoted. It is bigoted in different ways.
America today tolerates different things. It tolerates little boys dressing up as little girls at school, but not little boys pointing pencils and making machine gun noises on the playground.
The little boy whose mother dressed him up in girlish clothes once used to be a figure of contempt while the little boy pretending to be a marine was the future of the nation. Now the boy in the dress is the future of the nation having joined an identity group and entirely new gender by virtue of his mother’s Münchausen-syndrome-by-proxy and the aspiring little marine is suspected of one day trading in his sharpened pencil for one of those weapons of war as soon as the next gun show comes to town.
The Duke of Wellington once said that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing-fields of Eton. What battles will the boys playing on the playgrounds where dodgeball is banned and finger guns are a crime win and what sort of nation will they be fighting to protect?
The average school shooter is closer to the boy in the dress than the aspiring marine, but the paranoia over school shootings isn’t really about profiles, it’s about personalities. It’s easier to dump the blame for all those school shootings onto masculinity’s already reviled shoulders than to examine the premises. And mental shortcuts that speed along highways of prejudice to bring us to the town of preconceived notions are the essence of intolerance.
The trouble with tolerance is that there is always someone deciding what to tolerate. It is a natural process for individuals, but a dangerous one for governments and institutions.
In one of George Washington’s most famous letters, he wrote to the Hebrew Congregation at Newport that, “All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people, that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights.”
The letter is widely quoted, including on a site that bills itself as “Tolerance.org”, mainly for its more famous quote of, “the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance”. But the tolerant quoters miss the point.
George Washington was not advocating transforming the United States government into an arbiter of tolerance in order to fight against bigotry; he was decrying the very notion that the government should act to impose the condescension of tolerance on some perceived inferior classes.
Tolerance is arrogant. A free society does not tolerate people, it allows them to live their own values. And a tolerant society is not free. It is a dictatorship of virtue that is intolerant toward established values in order to better tolerate formerly intolerable values. A free society does not tell people of any religion or no religion what to believe. A tolerant society forces them all to pay for abortions because its dictators of virtue have decided that the time has come to teach this lesson in tolerance.
An open society finds wisdom in its own uncertainty. A tolerant society, like a teenager, is certain that it already knows all the answers and lacks only the means of imposing them on others. It confuses its destruction of the past with progress and its sense of insecurity with righteousness.
To the tolerant, intolerance is the most powerful act possible. They solve problems by refusing to tolerate their root causes. School shootings are carried out with guns and so the administrative denizens of the gun-free zones run campaigns of intolerance toward the physical existence of guns, the owners of guns, the manufacturers of guns, the civil rights groups that defend gun ownership and eventually toward John Puckle, Samuel Colt, John Moses Browning and the 82nd element in the periodic table.
None of this accomplishes a single practical thing, but it is an assertion of values, not of functions. The paranoid mindset that cracks down on little boys who chew pop tarts into deadly shapes, little boys who point pencils and fingers at each other, is not out to stop school shootings, but is struggling to assert the intolerance of its tolerant value system over the intangible root of violence.
It’s not about preventing school shootings, but about asserting a value system in which there is no place for the aspiring marine, unless he’s handing out food to starving children in Africa in a relief operation, serving as a model of gay marriage to rural America or engaging in some other approved, but non-violent activity.
To understand the NRA’s argument about the moral value of a gun deriving from the moral value of the wielder would require a worldview that is more willing to accept a continuum of shades, rather than criminalizing pencils and pop tarts for guilt by geometric association. A free society could do that, but a tolerant society, in which everything must be assigned an unchanging value to determine whether it will be tolerated and enforced or not tolerated and outlawed, cannot.
A tolerant society is as rigidly moralistic as the most stereotypical band of puritans. It is never at ease unless it has assigned an absolute moral value to every object in its world, no matter how petty, until it represents either good or evil. If good, it must be mandated. If evil, it must be regulated. And everything that is not good, must by exclusion be evil. Everything that does not lead to greater tolerance must be intolerable.
The FDA is proposing to regulate caffeine. The EPA is regulating carbon emission and encouraging states to tax the rain. Schools are suspending students for the abstract depiction of guns on such a symbolic level that Picasso would have trouble recognizing them. There is something medieval about such a compulsive need to impose a complete moral order on every aspect of one’s environment.
These policies take place in the real world and in response to assertions of real threats, but they are largely assertions of values. The debates over them tap into a clash of worldviews. That is as true of Newtown as it is of Boston. The same tolerant liberalism that can see deadly menace in a pencil or a pop tart, is blind to the lethal threat of a Chechen Islamist. If a gun is innately evil, then a member of a minority group, especially a persecuted one, is innately good. The group certainly remains above reproach.
The arrogance of tolerance does not allow for ambiguity. There is no room for guns in schools or profiling of terrorists. Instead all guns are bad and all Muslims are good. In the real world, it may take bad guns to stop good Muslims, but the system just doubles down on encouraging students to recite the Islamic declaration of faith while suspending them for chewing their pop tarts the wrong way.
Liberal values are at odds with reality and they are not about to let reality win. In their more tolerant nation, there is more room than ever for little boys who dream of one day setting off pressure cooker bombs at public events in the name of their religion, but very little room for little boys dreaming of being the ones to stop them.
As a society we have come to celebrate the helplessness of victimhood and the empowerment of “speaking out” as the single most meaningful act to be found in a society that has become all talk. The new heroism is the assertion of some marginal identity, rather than the defense of a society in which all identities can exist. That is the difference between freedom and tolerance.
The little boy in a dress has put on the uniform of tolerance while the little boy making rat tat noises with a pencil is showing strong signs of playing for the wrong team. The wrong team is the one that solves problems by shooting people, rather than lawyering them to death or writing denunciations of them to the tolerance department of diversity and othering.
The complainer is the hero and the doer is the villain. Reporters and lawyers are the heroes because they are the arbiters of tolerance. Soldiers and police officers are the gun-happy villains because they respond to realities, rather than identities. They unthinkingly shoot without understanding the subtext. A free society is practical. It acts in its own defense. A tolerant society acts to assert its values. The former fights terrorists and murderers, while the latter lets them go to show off its tolerant values.
A free society teaches little boys that the highest value is to die in defense of others. A tolerant society teaches them that it is better to die as recognized victims than to become the aggressor and lose the moral high ground.
This is the clash of values that holds true on the playground and on the battlefield of war. On the playground, little boys are suspended for waving around pencils and on the battlefield, soldiers are ordered not to defend themselves so that their country can win the hearts and minds of the locals in the endless Afghan Valentine’s Day of COIN that has stacked up a horrifying toll of bodies.
In their cities, men and women are told to be tolerant, to extend every courtesy and to suspect nothing of the friendly Islamists in their neighborhoods. It is better to be blown up as a tolerant society, they are told, than to point the pop tart of intolerance on the great playground of the nanny state.
However, society did have a tool that picked up where laws left off – shame.
Though not codified or written down, society had their own set of unspoken rules or laws called “standards” and if you violated these social standards you would be shamed and scorned. This shame would compel you to behave appropriately and was a vital and necessary component of society in order for it to survive and succeed.
However, shame is very interesting in that it’s very much like “paying taxes” or “having to work for a living.” It’s a fact of life nobody likes. You step out of line you may not go to jail, but you will be shamed by society. Therefore, you don’t get to do whatever you want to do all willy nilly. However, also like paying taxes and having to work for a living, shame can be used as a political tool. Specifically, when it comes to a democracy, an amoral political party can ignore the importance shame plays in society, capitalize on childish-mentalities of the lesser members of the electorate, and promise a world with no shame.
You don’t want to work? Fine! We’ll tax other undeserving people to finance your life.
You don’t want to pay taxes? Fine! We’ll make a villainized group pay them for you!
You don’t want shame? Fine! We’ll launch an all out assault on traditional historical standards, the country’s historical culture, and institute moral relativism.
In short, promising the electorate the elimination of shame is nothing more than bribing them. However unlike welfare, medicare or EBT cards, it’s a psychological benefit, not a financial one. And thus, just as sure as leftist parties across the world promise their voters other people’s money, they also do their best to eliminate shame.
We see this everyday. The idiot who couldn’t do basic math and bought a house he couldn’t afford is a “victim.” The unemployed Music Therapy major, living at home is “just down on his luck.” And there is no better example of the elimination of shame as we replace military veterans with “single moms” as our nation’s greatest hero. So successful is the left that the political and social environment is now so hostile that it’s now “shameful to shame.” If you dare criticize somebody for failing to meet a standard you are the one that is shamed. You are accused of being rude. Your target of shaming is even arrogant and entitled, yelling “HOW DARE YOU JUDGE ME!!!” And if your target of shame happens to be in a “victim class” you are immediately called an “ist” (even though you are criticizing their actions and not their race, ethnicity, sex, etc. etc.).
Additionally, since shaming by its nature is a public or publicized action (i.e. – you can’t secretly shame someone) you are immediately alienated and ostracized from society. Dare you demand EBT cards be the size of a poster for all to see on a blog or a forum, employers will no longer hire you. Dare you criticize illegal immigration and are consequently accused of racism, you cannot run for public office. And dare you criticize single parenthood, you can forget finding a date. In short we have fully eliminated shaming from society and all the benefits (personal responsibility being the key one) that came with it.
Naturally, a shameless society will fail. You can make all the laws you want, but without the social norms and mores that force people to be self-reliant, responsible, and respectful units of society, those individual units will revert to their basic human instinct and decay into shameless and parasitical ones. However, there is a consequence to society failing. Specifically, those people who are vested in society and are moral, are going to lose the only thing that matters to them – society. And while a high percentage of them may still be too intimidated or brainwashed to speak out, bluntly and truthfully, a certain percentage of people will realize the cost is too great and start shaming again. Specifically, those people who have nothing left to lose.
Understand that the reason most people don’t speak out against and shame the social atrocities occurring in the US is because they have too much at risk. They have a house, they have a family, they have a career. Their entire lives have been built within this system and are thus dependent on it. And dare they get out of line, and dare they publicly shame the wrong group, the political and social cost for them daring to point out the emperor has no clothes is that they will lose it all. An HR nazi will be auditing your facebook posts. Your hiring manager will get a complaint. An Adria Richards will narc on you. Careers in America are so fragile and employers so spineless, you dare don’t rock the societal boat with shaming. You watch that recent immigrant use her EBT card at your expense and you shut up and like it.
But what if you’re part of a group with nothing left to lose? What if you’re young, endebted by previous generations to the tune of $225,000, facing a lousy job market, and no future? What if you’re part of a group that is just assumed to have benefits and privileges when that is not the case, and you’re constantly accused of bigotry and being part of a “patriarchy?” Oh, and by the way, what if a mental illness has infected the half of society you SHOULD have gotten the greatest joy out of in life and instead corrupted and spoiled them leaving you little-to-no shot in life at marriage of family? What if your future was just plain taken away?
Why you’d be the typical young man in America today.
And it is here where shame is not only going to have a triumphant return, but it is already back in full force.
I hate to inform all the various political groups, victim groups, protected classes, sacrosanct faux heroes and other shameless classes the left has formed, but your strategy to “shame the shamers” won’t work on this group of people. And the reason why is that your strategy hinges on one thing – that there would be an economic cost inflicted on anybody who dares to shame. But if they have no money, no job, no career, no hope, and no future, there’s nothing you can take from them. Worst still, as they slowly start to wake up and realize just how much your anti-shaming campaign has screwed up society, they will blame you (rightly so) for stealing and destroying their futures. And with nothing left to do and at no cost to them, shaming you and your ideological adherents is going to become their favorite hobby.
Political courage my ass, Obama’s just looking to expand his base.
Via NBC News:
President Barack Obama on Monday called for lawmakers in Washington to muster the “political courage” to pass comprehensive immigration reform that he can sign into law “as soon as possible.”
“We are making progress but we’ve got to finish the job,” Obama said at a naturalization ceremony for 28 new Americans at the White House.
The White House has offered support to the efforts of bipartisan lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have been working behind closed doors to craft reform legislation.
Obama said that he expects a bill to be put forward and for debate on the draft legislation to begin next month.
Noting past attempts to address the nation’s immigration issues, the president said the time for merely studying the problem is over.
“We’ve all proposed solutions, we’ve got a lot of white papers and studies,” he said. “We’ve just got – at this point – to work up the political courage to do what’s required to be done.”
From Weasel Zippers: http://weaselzippers.us/
Found at 90 miles: http://ninetymilesfromtyranny.blogspot.com/
It is truly said that “America is so rich our poor people are obese.” That seems to grow more true by the moment for the poor, low-information eaters teetering among us on wobbling platform heels or swooping past us in those little electric carts in the supermarkets.
Conversely is also said that “you can never be to rich or too thin.” To confirm that the rich among us are always fooling around with their intake in a binge/purge self-fornication festival. On the one hand many among our rich of pallor have chosen to feed on the lard-laden excrement doled out daily by the current administration and are lining up to by more. On the other hand it would seem that the same wan affluent are lining up to buy food that is so refined and uptight that it has been entirely stripped of what any other culture, any other era, would recognize as… well… food itself. So deep is the affluent American’s longing for thin that we have now arrived at “food free food.”
It is no surprise to anyone paying attention to the long and unwinding national nutrition neurosis that we need to have some new mountain of diet bullshit to climb every five years of so.
Mount Lo-Fat No-Fat.
Mount Creamy No-Fat.
Yes, it is a libidinal landscape made of featureless false and phony foods. It is a dietary desert of drifting sans. Sans lactose. Sans meat. Sans chicken. Sans land animal. Sans face. Salt free. Sugar free. Gluten free. And, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever will be, Kosher.
Up and up the bullshit steams in a never ending inward spinning gyre of dietary dreck and nutritional nuttiness so complicated and so intertwined in morality and self-image that there seems to be, at times, nothing left to eat in a country that has more food per capita than any other nation in the history of the world. To quote that great American philosopher, Chester A. Riley, “What a revoltin’ development this is.”
It now seems to be the case that the food fetish factories of the world, in an effort to separate the American rich from their extra money, have pushed the pedal to the metal now that it is clear the American dollar is about to go the way of the Zimbabwe dollar. Just last month I noticed the store in my neighborhood was selling bags of crispy kelp flakes. That’s right. Kelp aka “Seaweed.” A bag of these unfrosted flakes weighing in at less than an ounce was being offered up “on sale” for $4.99. A quick bit of grocery store math tells you that some company in collusion with the store seemed to feel it could retail its product for $60 a pound. Sixty smackers a pound. For…. Kelp aka “Seaweed.” Weed from the sea….. An offer beyond bogglement.
But I only wandered in that brave new kelpflaked world beyond bogglement for a bit before I came across, just this afternoon, a new product that offered me even less food for more money. It was something called “Crispibread” and its selling points were proudly displayed on the box:
There you have it. To say this food is “vegan” (as it does) is to underestimate its nothingness. Free of nuts. Free of soy. Free of gluten, wheat, dairy, eggs, and that evil life form, yeast. Free of it all. Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free of food at last!
Our long national nightmare is over.
From American Digest: http://americandigest.org/
Posted on | January 21, 2013
Bottom line up front: “XX” != ” XY”.
Anybody who thinks that the moral fiber of the United States has been diminished since feminism and the sexual revolution disgraced our shores can find a contemporary example of the disease here, emphasis mine:
Start to complain about your preschooler adopting gentlemanly behavior and you quickly discover how out of step you are with the rest of the world. Almost everyone I mention it to thinks it’s lovely and sweet. What’s the harm in teaching little boys to respect little girls?
The implication, of course, is that I’m overreacting, and as a parent, I’ll admit to being prone to the occasional bout of hypersensitivity. For months, I grumbled that the inappropriately breathy tone of Cinderella on Emmett’s LeapFrog Princess laptop was warping a generation of impressionable young minds.
But I don’t think it’s an overreaction to resent the fact that your son is being given an extra set of rules to follow simply because he’s a boy. His behavior, already constrained by a series of societal norms, now has additional restrictions. Worse than that, he’s actively being taught to treat girls differently, something I thought we all agreed to stop doing, like, three decades ago. That the concept of selective privilege has been introduced in preschool of all places — the inner sanctum of fair play, the high temple of taking turns — is mind-boggling to me. How can you preach the ethos of sharing at the dramatic play center and ignore it 20 feet away at the toilet?
Yet as much as this double standard offends me as a mom, it’s nothing compared with how much it infuriates me as a feminist. Forty years after the tender, sweet, young thing in “Free to Be You and Me” gets eaten by a pack of hungry tigers after asserting that ladies should go first, we are still insisting on empty courtesies that instill in women a sense of entitlement for meaningless things. Many women see gallantry as one of the benefits of their sex; I see it as one of its consolations.
As we peer into the wreckage of our culture, wondering how we went from greatness to corruption, we need to point to the Lynn Messinas as the flies in the soup. Thanks to the internet, we can underscore just how false your ideas are Messina, and share some information about the origins of your jacked-up thinking.
This ‘notion of rules’ and sense of ’treating girls differently’ does not end in a ‘sense of entitlement for meaningless things’, as events in Aurora tragically underscored. Without doing a thorough survey, how many of the recent spate of atrocities were undertaken by men who’d enjoyed a stable family life? How many featured a father who, understanding traditional values as pillars of strength rather than the bars of a prison, led the family in traditional roles of worship, character development, and masculine nurturing? I’d fall well short of connecting dots on anything here. I’m not making any correlation-equals-causation argument. Rather, I’m pointing out that the fundamentally good things Messina rejects are not, themselves, apparent drivers for evil at Newtown, Aurora, VA Tech, and so on.
Furthermore, if you ever want to develop the kind of men you need when the fertilizer truly hits the air circulator, you had better read every word Messina writes and proceed to do the opposite as parents. Denouncing the sort of idiocy she seems to encourage is among the minor reasons I blog at all. We, as a culture, need to stand up and oppose people that are throwing Western Civilization under the bus. They seem comfortable making room, not only for abortion, but for the kind of barbaric cultures that can genitally mutilate girls and then dress them in a bags when grown. If Messina was worthy of the attention, one should like to drop her somewhere in Asia for a year or so, as sort of a “homeland appreciation tour”.
From The Other McCain: http://theothermccain.com/
Nowadays the first step to take after a school shooting, far from mourning or otherwise feeling sorry for the families whose children were killed by a maniac, is calling for new and immediate restrictions on gun ownership.
The second step is insisting that there must be some external reason why this wonderful, loving 20-year-old would commit such an atrocious crime. He must have been driven to it by society’s unrealistic expectations, our culture of violence, or something else. Certainly it couldn’t be that Adam Lanza was the problem, that he fully understood what he was doing and didn’t care.
Many seem to believe otherwise, though. They act as if it’s our collective duty to find out exactly why everyone—with the exception of Adam Lanza—is responsible for the massacre so we may change our ways and become a model society of enlightened wimps. People and organizations are taking ridiculous lengths to ensure that they don’t offend anyone’s delicate sensibilities for the next few weeks.
Read the entire article at Taki Magazine:
German pensioners are being sent to care homes in Eastern Europe and Asia in what has been described as an ‘inhumane deportation.’ Rising numbers of the elderly and sick are moved overseas for long-term care because of sky-high costs at home.
UK DAILY MAIL Some private healthcare providers are even building homes overseas, while state insurers are also investigating whether they can care for their clients abroad. Experts describe a time bomb’ of increasing numbers unable to afford the growing costs of retirement homes. (Of course not, all the money goes into welfare payments for Muslim parasites)
And they say the situation should be a warning to Britain, where rising numbers of pensioners are forced to sell their homes to pay for care. The Sozialverband Deutschland (VdK), a socio-political advisory group, said the fact that many Germans were unable to afford the costs of a retirement home in their own country was a huge ‘alarm signal’.
‘We simply cannot let those people, who built Germany up to be what it is, be deported,’ VdK’s president Ulrike Mascher told The Guardian. ‘It is inhumane.’
Researchers found an estimated 7,146 German pensioners living in retirement homes in Hungary in 2011. More than 3,000 were in the Czech Republic and more than 600 in Slovakia. There were also unknown numbers in Spain, Greece and the Ukraine, as well as Thailand and the Philippines.
According to Germany’s federal bureau of statistics, more than 400,000 senior citizens cannot afford a German retirement home, a figure growing by around 5 per cent a year. This is because many are living for longer while their pensions are stagnating. (Yet welfare benefits for Muslims are growing)
Gatestone The controversial book titled “Germany Does Away With Itself,” a best-seller, authored by 65-year-old Thilo Sarrazin, a prominent German banker who is also a long-time member of the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), has outraged the German political elite, who abhor Sarrazin’s audacity to question the status quo of German multiculturalism.
Excerpts from the book, which is written in a highly confrontational style, include the following:
“In every European country, due to their low participation in the labor market and high claim on state welfare benefits, Muslim migrants cost the state more than they generate in added economic value. In terms of culture and civilization, their notions of society and values are a step backwards.”
“No other religion in Europe is so demanding and no other migration group depends so much on the social welfare state and is so much connected to criminality.”
“Most of the cultural and economic problems [in Germany] are concentrated in a group of the five to six million immigrants from Muslim countries.”
“I do not want my grandchildren and great-grandchildren to live in a mostly Muslim country where Turkish and Arabic are widely spoken, women wear headscarves and the day’s rhythm is determined by the call of the muezzin.”
“If the birthrate of migrants remains higher than that of the indigenous population, within a few generations, the migrants will take over the state and society.”
Wanted: a Winston Churchill for the culture war
Published in: Melanie’s blog
The story sounds just too idiotic and outrageous to be true. A Rotherham couple, by all accounts exemplary foster parents for nearly seven years, took on two children and a baby in an emergency placement.
Eight weeks later, social workers came and took the children away — despite the fact that they were thriving — on the grounds that because the couple belonged to the UK Independence Party this was not ‘the right cultural match’.
Astonishingly, the official in charge is still unrepentant. Joyce Thacker, the council’s director of children and young people’s services, has said that the children, who were from ‘EU migrant backgrounds’, had been removed to protect their ‘cultural and ethnic needs’ from UKIP’s ‘strong views’ and apparent ‘opposition to multiculturalism’.
This is as ludicrous and illogical as it is sinister.
This apparently splendid couple have been treated as criminals merely because social workers disapproved of their political views — which happen to be shared, incidentally, by millions of fellow citizens. This is the kind of behaviour we associate with a totalitarian state.
The clear implication is that they were racists. But there is nothing racist about opposing multiculturalism. Indeed, many immigrants themselves oppose it. To damn this couple in this way is an appalling smear.
In any event, this was merely a short-term emergency foster placement. These children clearly needed as a matter of urgency a safe and loving environment — which by all accounts this couple gave them.
Ms Thacker said: ‘I have to think about how sensitive I am being to those children.’ Is this woman for real? Clearly, she is actually doing them harm by putting ideological dogma above the children’s own needs.
The whole thing sounds beyond parody. But, alas, this goes far wider and deeper than this one incident.
In the early Nineties, I unearthed what it is no exaggeration to say was a climate of totalitarianism in social-work training.
Anti-racist zealots had captured the social workers’ training body, and built into the social-work diploma the explicit assumption that society was fundamentally racist and oppressive.
What followed was an utterly chilling degree of intimidation and thought control. Blameless social work students were forced in tears to ‘confess’ to their own racism; some failed to qualify unless they identified racist attitudes even where none existed.
These and other politically correct dogma, and the requirement to enforce them, remain stamped into social-work culture like the name of Blackpool in a stick of rock.
As a result, the needs of vulnerable children and other social-work clients have been junked in favour of the overriding requirement to impose an ideological view of the world in which minorities can do no wrong while the majority can do no right.
Over the years, this has given rise to one horror story after another. Twelve years ago, an eight-year-old Ivorian child, Victoria Climbié, was tortured and murdered by her guardians under the noses of social workers who believed such behaviour had to be respected as part of African culture.
In the early Nineties, Islington council was revealed to have ignored the systematic sexual abuse and prostitution of children in its care because it was terrified of being called racist or homophobic if it disciplined black or gay staff perpetrating such crimes.
In Rotherham itself, the sickening sexual enslavement of under-age white girls by organised prostitution and pimping rings was largely ignored for more than two decades, in part because the abusers came overwhelmingly from Pakistani Muslim backgrounds.
And for years, would-be adoptive parents have been turned down by social workers because they are deemed to be too white, too middle class or in some other way fall foul of the politically correct inquisition.
All this goes far wider and deeper even than the failings of public sector professionals.
The grip of the Left on our culture has meant not just that many perfectly reasonable things are now deemed to be unsayable in civilised society.
Worse still, since political correctness stands truth and lies on their heads, people are vilified as extremists or bigots simply for telling the truth, connecting to reality or standing up for right over wrong.
Let us be clear: the claim that it is racist to oppose multiculturalism is the opposite of the truth. This is because multiculturalism does not, as is so often mistakenly believed, mean being tolerant of other cultures. It is a creed which holds instead that no one culture can trump any other.
That means you can’t uphold human rights, equality for women or freedom of religious belief over cultures that don’t uphold these values.
So multiculturalism inescapably involves abandoning certain ethnic minorities to violence, inequality and persecution. And that is truly racist.
Clearly, this row is an electoral gift to UKIP, coming as it does just days before the Rotherham by-election. And now it has spawned another similar accusation that a UKIP member was barred from volunteering for the charity Barnardo’s.
Whether this is all an amazing coincidence of timing, or whether UKIP sympathisers are deliberately leaking the stories at the moment they will gain most attention, the issue at the heart of this controversy is all too real.
For what it illuminates is nothing less than our ongoing culture war, in which political correctness — which should really be called cultural Marxism — is being used by the Left to revolutionise society by undermining and subverting its core beliefs.
So, fundamental values embodied in issues such as immigration, national identity, marriage and family and many others are under systematic assault, while all who seek to defend them are vilified as bigots, swivel-eyed extremists and lunatics.
This has not been achieved by any one organisation imbued with mythical and conspiratorial powers. It has occurred over decades as a result of two main factors.
The first was the steady rise into power, across the universities, media, professions, political parties and civil service, of those whose opinions were shaped in the Sixties and Seventies by the New Left, which believed in the cultural transformation of society.
The second was the demoralisation of the institutions which should have defended our culture — in particular, the Church and the governing class, which had become convinced of their own and their country’s inevitable decline.
The result was what far-Leftists have called ‘the long march through the institutions’ — which all fell like dominoes.
Since this culture war has been fanatically prosecuted by the Labour Party — which consigns anyone who commits a politically incorrect heresy to the third circle of hell — Ed Miliband’s condemnation of Rotherham’s Labour council is the most arrant hypocrisy.
But the real problem is that David Cameron, in his obsession with rebranding the Tories, has not only failed to recognise that fighting the culture war is the great conservative cause of our time, but has even positioned himself on the wrong side.
Recent figures have shown that under Mr Cameron even more Labour ‘cronies’ are being appointed to quangos and charities than under the last Labour government.
And in 2006 he called UKIP ‘a bunch of fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists’ — thus helping legitimise the kind of demonisation that has emerged in Rotherham.
In the wake of this row, Downing Street said the Prime Minister had not intended people to understand that all UKIP members were racist. ‘Not all’, eh? Well that’s nice of him! Talk about missing the point.
What’s needed is not just root and branch reform of social-work training. It’s a leader who will halt this onslaught on Britain’s core values and its terrifying descent into cultural tyranny. We need nothing less than a Winston Churchill for the culture war.
From Melanie Phillips: http://melaniephillips.com/wanted-a-winston-churchill-for-the-culture-warhttp