Monday, April 30, 2012

Kentucky's White Trayvon: Ignored by media

Guest post by

How often does this happen?

Apparently so frequently that it fails to qualify as news.

Derek Moore, 30, was found beaten on the side of US Hwy. 51 in Fulton County, Kentucky on Sept. 24, 2011. Moore died hours later after being air-lifted to a hospital in Nashville, Tennessee.

Three black males were arrested for their role in the murder.

The senseless beating death of a White man by three blacks merits no media attention.

The reason? Black on White crime, even murder, occurs too frequently to capture the attention of America's national news organizations. It merits little ink from local newspapers and, when it is reported, the racial aspect is ignored or purged.

It should be noted that the title of this post, Kentucky's White Trayvon, is a bit misleading. Trayvon was killed in self defense whereas Derek Moore was brutally murdered. Had Moore been armed, as was George Zimmerman, he may still be alive.

Had Moore been black and his attackers White, the story would have been an above-the-fold front-page story on every major newspaper. Cable and network news programs would have led with it as they expressed their dismay and outrage that racism still runs rampant in America.

How do I know? Think James Byrd.

Byrd was 49-years-old when attacked by three White men. News reports assured us that the attackers were white supremacists, stoking the racial angle to the story.

Like Moore, Byrd died after his attack. Unlike Moore, Byrd's death commanded national headlines for weeks. Fourteen years after the attack, the media continues to evoke his name to rub salt in the racial wounds that are innate to multiculturalism.

In short, Byrd's death served a purpose and was, therefore, exploited. Moore's death did not serve a purpose and, in fact, contradicted the perception of White privilege. It was, therefore, ignored.

Think Trayvon Martin.

The sordid details of a family man defending himself against an attack from a gold-toothed, hooded black teen need not be rehearsed. That story is fresh in our minds.

The contrast, however, merits notice. Trayvon's death commanded national media attention because the shooter, George Zimmerman, was not black. Although Zimmerman lacked the preferred credentials of a White male, the media ran with the story. White-on-black shootings are too rare to wait. It could be years before another James Byrd tragedy presents itself. It was the closest they could find. (It turns out that the half-Hispanic Zimmerman has African ancestry.)

The burden of truth falls upon the shoulders of a paltry few: those of us who bother to prowl the Internet in search of unfiltered news, scratch the surface of black-on-White violence, and publish our findings.

A search for black-on-White murder produced dozens are results for past few weeks.

Here's a sampling of what I found.

• South Carolina - Joseph J. DeVivo, 87, was a widowed White grandfather who lived alone. Arrested for the murder is a 31-year-old black male, Rico Herbert.

According to police records and news reports, Herbert broke into DeVivo's home to commit burglarly, murdered DeVivo, stuffed his body in the trunk of DeVivo's Chevy Malibu and drove him to a river where he disposed of his body. Herbert kept the car and DeVivo's wallet. He was tracked to North Carolina using mapping data and cell tower hits from several cellphones.

• Tennesee - David Martin, 27, was a White pizza manager who was gunned down outside his South Nashville apartment. As Martin returned home after work, he was approached by a black male who pulled a gun and demanded money. As the black thief left with Martin's money, he pulled his own gun and demanded he stop. The robber turned and fired, killing Martin. Witnesses described the black suspect as wearing a Trayvon-style hoody.

• Kentucky - Brett Thornberry, 18, was shot to death. A grand jury charged a 16-year-old black male as an adult with robbing and killing him. Indicted was Romello Rice, a former Holmes High School football player. A black 15-year-old has been arrested and charged with complicity to commit robbery and murder in connection with his death.

• New Jersey - Lena Triano, 57, was found bound, raped, strangled and with multiple stab wounds at her house in 1976. Nearly forty years later Carlton R. Franklin, a black male who has spent nearly 20 years behind bars for kidnapping and robbery since the murder, has been arrested for the crime. Franklin was 15 at the time of the murder.

• Texas - Randall Perkins, 20, was murdered in his home during a gathering of friends. Arrested is a black 22-year-old black male, Leandre “Dre” Vonzell Hill. News reports indicate that Vonzell was an uninvited guest who crashed the party with a group of black companions. Another White man, Paul Benavides, 24, was also shot, but survived.

The above are five of the most recent black on White murders. Hundreds occur each year with little or no media attention.

• Ohio - Matthew Dugan, a 34-year-old White male was shot in the head during a robbery at the former BP gas station. Anthony Belton, a black male, was sentenced to death by lethal injection for the murder.

• Dave Shotkoski, 30, was a White relief pitcher for Atlanta Braves. Shotkoski was killed as he returned to his hotel during Spring training. Neal Evans was charged with second-degree murder. That was due in part to a teammate who was determined to track down his killer. Evans was released from prison ten years early.

Again: Unlike the Trayvon episode, the above were murders; not acts of self defense.

There are literally hundreds of recent news accounts of black-on-White murders in the United States. Later this evening I plan to add a few more accounts.

Gays Gone Wild

Lately, the love that dare not speak its name has become the love that will not shut up.  Not too long ago, homosexuality was considered a vice, like alcoholism or gambling, that was tolerated if the practitioners refrained from shoving it in everybody's face.  The drunks and gamblers, we're still allowed to look askance at, but homosexuals have gone from being tolerated to being sympathized with to being Just As Good As Everybody Else If Not Better.  As Alexander Pope would have put it if he'd thought of it, we first endure, then pity, then embrathe.

We are now expected, as heterosexuals, not only to admire and encourage homosexual behavior, but even to feel a little inferior to their more advanced, nobler lifestyle.  We've stopped giving them advice on coping with the perversion they can't seem to resist, and now solicit their advice about how best to adapt ourselves to their new hegemony.  And those of us who are Christians are especially required to apologize endlessly for our previous lack of understanding of their innate superiority.

Recently, the homosexual activist and all-around sicko Dan Savage was unaccountably invited to speak to the National High School Journalism Convention.  He behaved, well, Savagely, though most savages I've heard of wouldn't put up with listening to such garbage, and neither did some of the students. Jim Goad analyzes this strange event, and comes up with the best anti-pro-homosexual rant I've seen so far.  You can read it HERE.

Socking it to Nixon

They're out to get Nixon again.  I've blogged before about the left's undying, irrational hatred for Nixon, despite the fact that he was clearly a liberal Republican, who espoused many leftist causes. The problem, of course, is that they've never forgiven Nixon for getting Alger Hiss, a leftist hero, and all his championing of civil rights and gun control and other beloved left-wing ideas can never make up for it. They can't say that flat-out, naturally, so they blame him for the triviality of Watergate, the Vietnam War (a Kennedy-Johnson project, which Nixon got us out of), and have made him out to be some kind of troglodyte right-winger, when he was always right with the Liberal Republican program.

Anyhow, there's a new book out that suggests that Nixon was a homosexual, a mobster, and a wife-beater, like Barney Frank, Bill Clinton, and John Edwards rolled into one.  Nicholas Stix tells us all about it HERE.


Cartoon from BALOO'S WEBSITE
"Democracy" is a tricky word.  It's one of those concepts, like "diversity," or "fairness," that's considered an automatically good thing that we must have, but is seldom clearly defined.  The only really good argument for democracy, when you define it as government selected by vote of all the people, is that giving everybody the vote gives everybody a sort of veto over government action that is against their interests. In practice, of course, this doesn't really work, because it comes down to rule by the majority, and if you don't belong to the majority, your vote doesn't amount to much.  So if you want to have your interests protected, what you need is Constitutional government, which is limited by law in what it can do. Our Founders knew that very well, and came up with a Constitution designed to make the government powerful enough to survive against the aggression of other governments, but weak enough that the people's rights would not be abridged.  Or abridged no more than absolutely necessary. So democracy and constitutionalism are actually in contradiction.

This very basic concept is a complete mystery to practically everybody these days.  The vote is now seen as a way to demand goodies and freebies paid for by productive people and given to unproductive people.  The latest overt manifestation of this is the kerfluffle about keeping student loan interest rates low.  If you keep them artificially low, what you're doing is simply indirectly transferring more money from those who pay taxes to those who don't, in this case college students.

So the only way voting can have a good effect is if it is limited.  Those who live on government handouts, which include several million Americans, can be counted on to vote for politicians who promise them more free stuff, and they are doing it.  And every year, the unproductive increase in numbers and need more free money. This is "not sustainable," to borrow a phrase from the environmentalists, because the geese who lay the golden eggs are dwindling in number, and some of them are giving up and joining the "gimme" crowd, because why shouldn't they? You would think it was obvious that those who don't pay taxes and who live on other people's tax money shouldn't be voters, but that would violate the "democracy" concept and nobody will hear of it. Oh, a lot of politicians know very well that such is the case, but they don't dare say so, because they have to run for reelection by those tax-absorbing voters.

One person who understand this is OneSTDV, who describes the situation as it is and how it ought to be HERE.  But how do we get there from here?

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Ron Paul Wins Louisiana Caucuses

Speaking of curmudgeons, my favorite curmudgeon, Ron Paul, just won the Louisiana Caucuses.  Big.  Overwhelmingly.  You'd think that would be pretty big news for the media, but they're busy with other stuff, I guess.  Maybe if he worked for Goldman-Sachs they'd show more interest. Read about it HERE.

More Curmudgeonry

A curmudgeon is usually an old guy, and his curmudgeonry comes from what I like to call his enlightened conservatism.  The curmudgeon tends to use tradition tested by experience as his guide, and is grumpy as hell because the goddam whippersnappers use whims and fashions instead.  Note a difference: A conservative is just a traditionalist who doesn't want things to change for whatever reason. A curmudgeon is basically a conservative who doesn't want things to change without thinking about it first.  Consequently, curmudgeons maddeningly turn out to be right most of the time. He knows that things are the way they are for a reason, and if they've been that way for a long time, they work, one way or the other, so you don't idly toss them out in exchange for some swell new idea from eager amateurs.  This applies to all aspects of life, but one specific thing is morality.  Curmudgeons generally support traditional morality, because it works pretty well, and their experience has shown them that violating it leads to bad consequences.  And one aspect of traditional morality is a prohibition against incest.  Awful word. It's so repugnant, that the left uses it as one reason to get rid of another aspect of traditional morality, the discouragement of abortion.  You've heard it over and over again, the argument that abortion must be legal because sometimes incest happens.

Well, we here in the West are pretty hard-core about hating incest, and we actually extend the definition of it further than much of mankind does, and being a curmudgeon myself, I'm in favor of that.  And this manifests as the tradition of prohibiting cousin marriage. One of the big jokes that the sophisticated like to make about hillbillies is that they marry their cousins, and even their sisters. (An aside: the ethnic group that a great many of these sophisticated humorists belong to has traditionally considers the union of a man and his niece to be the perfect marriage pairing.)

Some would argue that this prohibition against the marriage of close relatives is one of the reasons for the cultural, military, and economic hegemony the West holds over the rest of the world.  It's hygienic, you see, and avoids the mental and physical deformity that often accompanies cousin marriage.  And now the zinger.  A great many of the Third World immigrants to the West practice cousin marriage as a preferred strategy, for lots of historical reasons.  And that's precisely why, in part, that most of their societies are so screwed up by Western standars.  And when they immigrate to the West, they continue the practice, thereby screwing up our society.

One of the best curmudgeons out there, Steve Sailer, has been looking into the cousin marriage phenomenon for quite some time.  His latest is HERE. (And do read the comments. Many are quite enlightening.)

Saturday, April 28, 2012

Ron Paul Delegate Count?

Are the media deliberately distorting the delegate count?  Give a listen:

Friday, April 27, 2012

Buchanan Sizes Rubio Up

Here I am again, urging Romney not to pick Marco Rubio.  As I implied a couple of days ago, you can do better than that by picking somebody out of a phone book at random.  You see Marco here, in lockstep with the egregious Joe Lieberman, eager, as so many draft-dodger are, to send American troops all over the whole damn world to bollix things up even more, and make even more implacable enemies for no particular reason, using money borrowed from China and other deficit-ballooning methods.

It's gratifying to me that when I express an opinion about such things, I very often find Pat Buchanan saying the same thing.  His evaluation of Rubio is HERE.

The Mormon Threat

A chilling warning from Just Not Said:

Mormon elders warn of rioting

Now that it's apparent Mitt Romney will be the Republican nominee, some very ominous rumblings have started to emanate from the nation's Mormon community about what might happen should Romney not be elected.

Mormon priests have been warning that if Romney loses the Presidential election, there may be vast amounts of civil unrest, and even rioting. With Mormon communities in every major metropolis across the nation, some are worried that cities could burn. (Read the rest HERE.)

Alpha Males

I'm posting this because it's a cute idea, and nice sentiments are expressed in the caption, though there are clear problems with usage in the non-parallelism of "we invented... not bow down."  But I know what is meant.  I'm not sure who the second down on the right is, there, he looks like some popular toy I don't know about.  But it's gratifying to see one of my most favorite TV characters ever, whose name I can't remember, but who I think of as "the crossbow guy."

How about Duncan D. Hunter?

This is a PS to yesterday's Open Letter to Mitt Romney.  I was pointing out the faux conservatism of Marco Rubio, who has yet another "Dream Act" idea to legalize illegal immigrants and make them officially eligible for welfare and other freebies.  Read about that HERE.  With conservatives like Rubio we don't need any liberals. Anyhow, a commenter asked me who I thought Mitt should choose as a running mate.  So I thought about it and did some research and found Duncan D. Hunter, a veteran of both Iraq and Afghanistan, and a Marine Reserve Captain. His conservative record is pretty impressive, most especially on immigration, which is essentially the opposite of Rubio's.

From his reelection website:

Rep. Duncan Hunter’s Principles

  1. Individual liberty and personal responsibility are the cornerstones of our great nation.  The federal government’s role should be limited to protecting and defending our God given freedoms.
  2. Maintain a strong national security policy that funds the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps at appropriate levels and doesn’t cut defense spending during wartime for the first time in American history.  President Obama’s attempt to cut our military must be stopped. Islamofascism must be defeated.
  3. Border Security that includes a COMPLETELY secure southern and northern border. Border security is national security. NO AMNESTY for those here illegally.
  4. Real Economic Growth that comes from a vibrant private sector. Fight the Obama/Pelosi takeover of every industry in the United States.  Implement reform that will incentivize hard working Americans and entrepreneurs to create jobs. Bring manufacturing BACK from China and India to the United States.
  5. Tax cuts and fiscal responsibility are the keys to economic recovery and job growth.  The American people are overtaxed and the government spends too much.  We must have a balanced budget and every federal agency needs to be cut dramatically except for infrastructure and national defense.
  6. Energy independence.  The only way to free ourselves from terrorist despots who negotiate international policy using oil prices is to keep working on alternative energy while at the same time following an “all of the above” approach.  We must build more oil refineries, build nuclear facilities, and drill.
  7. Repeal the Obama/Pelosi healthcare takeover and replace it with common-sense, free-market reforms that will force health insurance companies to be accountable and transparent while, at the same time, increasing the quality and access of healthcare in America and reducing costs.

Now, I like everything I read there except for the silly word "Islamofascism," but he's certainly not alone in using it.  It's a neocon word, meant to obfuscate rather than inform.  Why didn't they pick "Islamocommunism"?  There's nothing particularly "fascist" about what is best called Islamic extremism. "Islamomafiaism" would be more accurate.

And, unfortunately, the use of the word indicates that he's pretty much on board with the whole war thing, which I hate.  But on the other hand, so are all the other candidates or possible candidates, with the sole exception of Dr. Paul.  In Hunter's defense, he has been in the war(s), so he knows what they entail, as opposed to the other candidates, bloodthirsty draft-dodgers all.

So, Mitt, surprise us all and pick a decorated military veteran and an authentic conservative as your running mate.

I now await comments informing me of horrible flaws in Hunter that I didn't know about.

Thursday, April 26, 2012

Blacks and Whites Getting Along, But...

An interesting phenomenon.  Frequently, in America, Blacks and Whites get along just fine, nobody gets mad, nobody gets offended.  White liberals to the rescue! If Blacks don't have the gumption to become offended where no offense is intended, White liberals step up to the plate and do it for them! And what could be more offensive than a prom dress with a Confederate Flag design?  I ask you. The White liberals in this case are evidently school administrators, the most gutless, pusillanimous group in America.  The story is here at American Renaissance, and the original is at the Daily Mail.

Please, Mitt, Not Marco! — An Open Letter

Not Marco, Mitt, please?  Pretty please?  Now, I'll most likely vote for you, because I certainly won't vote for Obama.  You're not my first choice — that would be Ron Paul — but from the rest of the herd, you're certainly among the best. You're way too inclined to compromise with dopey liberal stuff, whatever you think yourself, but I recognize that you're sensible and competent, and I'm begging the gods for a landslide for you.  But, please, not Marco Rubio!  Despite what the neocon narrative is, Hispanics out my way aren't going to be persuaded at all by Marco's name — Hispanics aren't very monolithic when it comes to voting.  And most Mexican-Americans aren't eager to have a Cuban-American in any of the top spots.  If you pin them down, they probably don't especially like Cubans anyway.

You're getting a lot of advice and suggestions — Chris Christie (combative and personable, but way too liberal), Rob Portman (I understand he comes across as boring, and you need more excitement), Condoleezza Rice (too token, and was probably really out of her depth as Secretary of State), Nikki Haley (nothing against her, but how many Sikh-American votes are there out there?), Jeb Bush (let there be an end to Bushes in office!), various other guys, who, like you, resemble insurance salesmen, like Pawlenty and Daniels — one of those on a ticket is enough — and Marco.  Worst suggestion of all.

In the first place, though Obama has certainly lowered the bar when it comes to Constitutional qualifications, Rubio was born in the US, but of parents who were not yet citizens, almost certainly meaning he's not a natural-born citizen.  In the second place, he's a lightweight, and even looks like a lightweight, reminding me more of Dan Quayle than anybody else, in terms, that is, of how he comes across, never mind what he really might be.

In the third place, he's not a veteran.  Neither are you, so it would really be nice if your running mate was a vet — Ron Paul is a vet, I'm just saying.  And since Rubio is chock-full of great ideas about how we should send troops all over the world to do this and that and overthrow various people, it would be nice if he had been a troop and had some idea of what he's talking about.  He's even been known to criticize his betters among Congressional Republicans who doubt the wisdom of sticking our noses into everybody else's business.  Check out THIS ARTICLE from the Telegraph.

Finally, let me describe who your ideal running mate should be:  You need a Southerner, a White Southerner, from the actual South.  You know, an ethnic Southerner.  Haley Barbour would have been worth considering, if he hadn't gone crazy with the pardons at the last minute.  And not Mike Huckabee, either — He has a horrible record on immigration, and one thing you need to make clear is that you'll be good on immigration, and that has to be the case with your VP, too.  But except for that, he'd be good, because you need a very clearly defined religious Protestant on the ticket to avoid scaring Evangelicals away who are afraid of Mormonism.  Anyhow, what you need is a White Protestant Southerner with a military background.  An Iraq War vet would be perfect.  So put your people to work hunting up somebody like that.  And forget Marco.  That's my advice and I'm sticking to it.

And yes, I know, that's not a picture of Marco up there.  Did I fool you?  Did I fool anybody?


I was just asked for a specific suggestion in the comments section.  How about Duncan D. Hunter?

Obama's Crucifixion Policy

One of Obama's EPA administrators, Al Armendariz (no relation to Al Qaeda?), recently described Obama's policy towards oil companies this way:

"It was kind of like how the Romans used to, you know, conquer villages in the Mediterranean," he said. "They'd go in to a little Turkish town somewhere, they'd find the first five guys they saw, and they'd crucify them. 
"And then, you know, that town was really easy to manage for the next few years," he said. 

Now, there's been a great fuss about all this — you can read the story and see a nice video of Mr. Armendariz HERE — but why are we surprised? This is a tried-and-true method of intimidation, and while I'm sure Obama didn't think of it himself, what with his golfing and all, he has lots of pals steeped in the lore of such things, like Axelrod and Emanuel, and they no doubt familiarized him with such tactics. We can all be grateful to Mr. Armendariz for describing this policy so explicitly, so we all know where we stand.

It's kind of like the Zimmerman thing. When some White (well, non-Black) guy takes down a Trayvon-type thug, crucify him.  And the next few guys who dare to defend themselves like that.  And then everybody else will fall into line, and when they see Trayvon types cruising around, casing houses for future burglaries, they'll stop and think:  If I do anything at all about this, I'll get hanged.  The Obama-Holder-Sharpton Triumvirate will see to it.  So I certainly won't confront this punk, or even look in his direction.  I won't call the cops, because, well, I might get a reputation for "profiling" and here will come the PC police.  So I'll just hide in my house and watch talking heads on TV wailing about White racism and stuff.

And it also can be applied to states.  First, we crucify Arizona....

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Another Trayvon/Zimmerman Race Card

Isn't it amazing how many details the press can dig up when it wants to? Soon we'll learn that Mitt Romney's barber has a third cousin who knew a guy who once attended a KKK meeting.  But once the media found out that George Zimmerman was a White guy (see Illustration) that was all they needed to know about him, and all they thought you needed to know. But the press isn't monolithic, though God knows it'd like to be, and now we find out that Zimmerman has not only American Indian blood from Peru, but also has a Black ancestor from Peru!

So now, I guess, it can be redefined as Black-on-Black violence, which is disappointing to our anointed leaders, but it's still okay, because Black-on-Black violence is Whitey's fault, too.  More details about Zimmerman in this STORY.

And just after I finished posting this, I checked out Steve Sailer's site, and he's quoted and commented on the same story I linked to.  As always, what Steve has to say about such things is well worth reading,  His post is HERE.

And Vox Day comments on the implications of this HERE.

Japanese Pop Music

It's been a rough blogging week, what with Trayvon and all, so it's time to shift gears and listen to some Japanese Pop Music.  This is one of my favorites, "Kimi Ga Ireba," (キミがいれば) one of the theme songs to "Detective Conan," one of my favorite Japanese animes — so much for right-wing xenophobia. I'll blog some rough political stuff later.

American Indians and Economics

There is no ethnic group or race more romanticized than American Indians, or, as I prefer to call them, (to avoid the ambiguity of both "Indians" and "Native Americans") Amerindians. Never mind the reality, they are one of those groups that are distant enough in both space and time for most people that you can attribute just about any positive characteristics to them.  In the past, they were dismissed as savages, and in the even less enlightened present, they are considered preternaturally virtuous, victims, as they are, of White racism and capitalism yadda yadda yadda. One popular idea is that Amerindians didn't believe in private property, and that they were natural socialists. Well, there really aren't any natural socialists among human groups.  That sort of thing is reserved for ants and bees. Part of the reason for this basic misconception is that, evidently, many Amerindian tribes did in fact own land in common, to one extent or another.  But that's only some of them, and Amerindians are just about as varied in their economic systems and social customs as any other race, stretched out as they were from Patagonia to Canada.

When most of us think of Amerindians, owing to a lifetime diet of Westerns, we visualize the nomadic plains tribes, and since nomads don't have a lot of property by definition, and one's personal property has to be pretty portable, it's easy to think of them as not believing in private property.  But as we have all learned from Margaret Mead, first impressions can be wrong, and if you already have touchy-feeley notions about noble savages, they often stay wrong. But even if you restrict it to those plains guys, the answer is hard to pin down, so I figure the best thing to do is to ask a Commanche.  HERE'S what Bad Eagle has to say on the topic of Indian Socialism.

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

Libertarians and Conservatives and Liberals

People have a natural tendency to make things symmetrical, and to consider themselves a sort of golden mean between two extremes, both of which are equally bad. Libertarians are no different.  A common meme, which you can see in the Nolan Chart, is that liberals are anti-freedom in economic terms, and conservatives are anti-freedom to an equal extent in personal terms.  This thinking enables a smug feeling of enlightenment, which is somewhat justified, but it distorts the reality of things. Talk to any libertarian with whiskers about the Nolan Chart, and he'll get around to telling you about the flaws in it, and the fact that it's very much oversimplified. And the reality in America today is that conservatives — and by that I mean actual conservatives, not liberals and marxist calling themselves conservatives, which is pretty much the definition of "neocon" — are much, much more compatible with libertarian thinking than liberals are.  My famous VENN DIAGRAM might help explain that.

Carson Holloway understands this fact very well, and has this to say:

Libertarians and conservatives should not allow their differences to impede political cooperation against the common adversary: egalitarian liberalism.

If the American right is successfully to defend limited government in the struggles of our times, libertarians and conservatives will have to cooperate as political allies. Such cooperation is impeded by the libertarians’ sense that they alone are the principled defenders of individual liberty, flanked on either side by liberals and conservatives who are, in different ways, equally statist. Liberals seek to violate individual liberty through regulation of economic transactions, while conservatives seek to violate it by defending morals legislation. So the argument goes.

This view, however, is mistaken, and sober libertarians should acknowledge that conservatives are much more their friends than are liberals.

Read the rest of this HERE.

L. Neil Smith puts all this in historical perspective

L. Neil Smith is about my age, and remembers most of the same stuff I do.  Here's a guest post from him that puts the current election in historical perspective, and concerns the best President we never had.  This originally appeared in the Libertarian Enterprise.

A Little History Lesson
by L. Neil Smith

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

In 1964, one of the most formative years in American history, the "movers and shakers" in the Republican Party were faced with the terrible prospect of the voters actually getting the candidate they wanted, instead of whatever member of Skull & Bones and the Council On Foreign Relations the party elite, in their wisdom, had chosen for them.

I was an enthusiastic part of a movement then that was almost indistinguishable from the Tea Party movement of today, pretty much with all the same virtues and failings: for better or worse, almost exactly the same general cast of characters. Nevertheless, over the outraged squawking of the GOP leadership, it was the candidate we wanted, Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who won the nomination that year.

Goldwater wasn't the first mid-20th century conservative to occupy the political spotlight. That would be Senator Robert Taft—a little before my time—who was cheated out of the nomination by a corrupt and empty GOP leadership that had thrown its support to a lifelong Democrat, General Dwight David Eisenhower, no warrior, and not a man of great moral character, but a military politician deluxe, whom billions of wartime propaganda dollars had elevated to virtual godhood.

Barry wasn't by any means a libertarian, either. The word had hardly been invented, but there were those of us—mostly Ayn Rand readers—who willingly accepted his shortcomings, largely because the man seemed to be illuminated from within, by the flame of liberty. There hadn't been anybody quite like him since the original Founding Fathers.

That, of course was exactly what had the GOP country-club elite, the old-money Republicans, quivering with terror. In effect, their fortunes depended on ignoring the Constitution and violating the rights of millions of Americans. Aided by mass media that were just as evil, stupid, and insane—and just as left-leaning—as today, they had desperately attempted to offer up one of their own lofty kind, instead.

"PLU" the Brits call them—"people like us."

It's possible that you're too young to remember that in 1964, the Democratic "foe" was Lyndon Baines Johnson, a Texas politico famously "crooked a barrel of fish hooks", the former Senate leg-breaker who, as Vice President, took over the White House after Jack Kennedy was murdered in Dallas. It's worth noting here that it's recently been revealed that Jackie Kennedy always thought Johnson had arranged the assassination. She wasn't alone: in college there was an underground play, a parody of what actors call "the Scottish play" entitled MacBird.

In 1964, the lines were clearly drawn. Johnson was a socialist who infiltrated groups of dissenters, X-rayed people's mail, used the IRS to hound his enemies to death, and was waging what would be a long, drawn-out, hideous, and illegal war in Vietnam for reasons that still elude explanation. At the same time, he was expanding tax-supported entitlement programs that, in the end, still contribute to America's ruin.

Goldwater wanted to end welfare, balance the budget, and sell off white elephants like the Tennessee Valley Authority. He was in favor of gun ownership and self-defense, blaming the incredibly high violent crime rate at the time (look up "Kitty Genovese") on a failure to respect the Constitution. One serious mistake on his part—and despite the fact that Johnson was the real war-monger, Barry paid for it dearly in the media—was that he failed to see that the war in Asia was unjustifiable. He wanted to end it quickly, with overwhelming force.

Conservatives today—even those nominally on our side, the correct side, of most other issues—continue making the same idiotic mistake.

But I digress.

Johnson was a collectivist. Goldwater was an individualist. The elite leaders of the Republican Party were, uh, what was the question again?

You may be old enough to remember Nelson Rockefeller—this guy was typical of the lot, who, in fact, the mass media referred to as "Rockefeller Republicans". An inheritor of his grand-daddy John D. Rockefeller's billions, former Republican Governor of New York state, captain of industry, master mercantilist, and pioneering environmental fascist, some fifteen years after 1964, he died slaving over a hot secretary.

Rockefeller and his gang were often called "moderate" because they were only moderately in favor of the defense of liberty, and only moderately opposed to injustice. It was to them that Goldwater was speaking when he uttered the famous words written for him by Karl Hess. The media and his mostly-Republican opponents said Barry was crazy. (They should have met Karl!) One magazine that claimed 1800 psychiatrists had diagnosed him as insane was sued out of its lying existence.

Rockefeller was the very epitome of the useless parasite who thinks he owns America—not just land and buildings, not just farms and factories, not just railroads and airlines—the people of the country, you and me, our friends and families, who exist, in the view of slugs like Rockefeller, only to make him wealthier. If it happens to be by working their lives away for his corporations, while half of what they earn is stolen by the government he also owns, that's just fine. If it's by being sent overseas by the thousands or millions to kill or die, so he can fill his coffers with war profit, that's fine, too.

In the end, although he won the nomination, the Republicans went limp on Barry. Some even bragged about going on vacation during the election. To those who knew what to look for, the treachery was plain to see—and impossible to forget. Obviously they preferred to see a proto-Marxist win the Presidency, and destroy the country with an insane war and even more insane spending, while trashing individual liberty and civil rights. The 1968 Gun Control Act was passed by the Johnson regime, but that was just okey-dokey with the Rockefeller Republicans—they were vehemently anti-gun themselves. It's clear that if one of them had been elected instead, it would have made no historical difference at all. Politically, they were all Johnson clones.

Sound familiar?

Today, every scribbler or babbler in the "Mainstream Media", and at least three quarters of the pundits in the "New Media", for reasons of their own, want desperately for you to believe that if America's next President isn't going to be Barack Obama, then it has to be Mitt Romney.

"Elect Socialist Party B to avoid electing Socialist Party A!"

And they're saying all the same things about Congressman and doctor Ron Paul that their moral precursors said about Goldwater, except—now get this—Ron is crazy because he wants to stop a war.

Conservatives I understand. They're vampires, of a sort, or at least Aztecs at heart. Most of them never saw a war they didn't like (or would willingly fight in, but that's a topic for another time). In the 20th century the poor darlings had to wait for the Democrats to start all the wars, so that they could cheer on the bloody mass sacrifices.

Democrats, who pretend to be the peace party, but did, in fact, start all the wars in the 20th century (with one or two minor exceptions), should be ashamed—if they were capable of feeling shame, which a lifetime of political activity has taught me they are not.

In addition to Nelson Rockefeller and his brother Winthrop, the gang consisted of individuals like William Scranton, who wept publicly when Goldwater was nominated, that old Boston codfish Henry Cabot Lodge, Charles Percy, Mark Hatfield, and Raymond P. Shafer. These are the four-flushers, dodgers, and shape-shifters who gave us Richard Nixon.

And oh, yes, one more: George Romney, Mitt's father, to the best of my recollection, Barry Goldwater's principal enemy, who taught his son to stand for nothing so that he could be held responsible for nothing.

Mitt hates, loathes, and despises your individual right to own and carry weapons. (He has a D-minus rating from Gun Owners of America.) He has Secret Service protection already, but he did his damnedest to keep Massachusetts Bill-of-Rights-free for years. Everybody is aware by now that he is an original architect of medical Marxism. And if that's not enough, he's said he'd have signed the NDAA. In the end, exactly like Obama, he will deliver the United States and all its assets into the genocidal hands of the United Nations.

It's clear—to me, at least—that if Mitt Romney gets elected instead of Obama, it will make no more historical difference than electing his father or any of his old man's friends would have back in 1964.

Politically, all Romney is, is an Obama clone.

It is all he ever will be.

I'm voting Paul—or not at all.

L. Neil Smith is the Publisher and Senior Columnist of L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE, as well as the author of 33 freedom-oriented books, the most recent of which is DOWN WITH POWER: Libertarian Policy in a Time of Crisis:
[ dead tree]
[ Kindle]
[ dead tree and Nook]

Chinese Thievery, Sort Of

China steals stuff.  Despite the formal laws about it, the People's Republic of China is big on copyright infringement, happily stealing intellectual property from the West and everywhere else, which they often claim to have cracked down on, but why should they?  But the really comical part is the instances of "sort of" infringement, like in the illustration.  Want to see more? At least one of them, I warn you, is deliberately or accidentally X-rated, but you can see them HERE.

In defense of (some) black people

A guest post from DailyKenn.  Powerful stuff.


No, this is not one of the articles that offers praise to Herman Cain.

Granted, he has the courage to stand against the tide of negro demagoguery. But this article has nothing to do with him.

Nor is it about Larry Elder, Starr Parker or Rep. Allen West.

There may be time in the future to explore the givings and misgivings of black conservatives, but this isn't that time. There will be no mention of Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell or Walter Williams. Armstrong Williams will also have to wait along with J.C. Watts, Alan Keyes, La Shawn Barber and a dozen others.

Rather, this article is dedicated to the defense of those like Terrell Mayes, Jr.

Terrell was three years old when a stray bullet struck him in the head. He died from his wounds and was remembered by friends and family. Terrell lived on the north side of Minneapolis, an area accustomed to gun fire, police sirens and street violence.

Given statistics, Terrell may have grown to become ingrained in that sordid environment. There is no way to know.

What we do know is that when Terrell was laid to rest there were no graveside tears shed by Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, or some para-military loon from the New Black Panthers.

The media that rallied around Trayvon Martin was absent when Terrell died. Trayvon served their purpose. Terrell did not. Trayvon provided a 'spin-and-exploit' opportunity to impress our culture with another layer of White guilt and black racism. Terrell's death did the opposite. It demanded we consider the crime and violence that is innately ingrained in America's black infrastructure. That's a story the media doesn't want to tell.

Marquel Peters was four years old when he died.

Marquel was with his parents in Decatur, Georgia when a bullet entered the roof of the church where the family was attending a New Years Eve concert. He was the victim of a round fired from an AK-47.

There's nothing to exploit here. No red meat for race hustlers. No one chased after TV cameras and oh-so-concerned TV reporters. There were no talking heads on evening news shows lamenting the violence that kills little black children. I didn't see Nancy Grace shed tears on CNN like she did for Trayvon. I doubt that MSNBC was even aware of this tragedy

Another stray bullet took the life of Keian Ester.

Keian was eleven years old when his life abruptly ended. He was playing video games in the safety of his Westwego, Louisiana home.

Arrested in Keian's death were Jamal Taylor, 25, Brandon Smith, 20, and Kelin Stevens, 29.

Tens of thousands rallied in Jena, Louisiana just three years earlier. They were protesting the arrests of black thugs who brutally beat a lone White victim. No one rallied in behalf of Keian. There were no hordes clogging the streets demanding safer neighborhoods, tougher laws on criminal thugs; no bleeding hearts, no White guilt; no black outrage. The Black Entertainment Network (BET) did not invite those charged with his death to be honored at a televised awards event.

It appears no one cares when blacks kill other blacks, even young children with promising futures are ignored.

Davion Powell was three years old when he was caught in the crossfire.

News reports say Davion's family was feuding with another group when someone fired a gun.

This story took a turn for the worse when, a year later, Davion's mother was arrested. Police nabbed Rodericka Bryant while awaiting a getaway car. She had stolen cash and a computer from a Louisville area motel, reports say.

There are professors aplenty who occupy the ivy halls of America's academia. These delight in telling tales of hooded horsemen who terrorized black families in the evil days of Jim Crow. They exaggerate, of course. And worse, still, is they find no fault in turning a blind eye and deaf ear to the tears and cries of thousands of black children who live daily in a culture of depravity that survives in dark-ally drug deals with macho mustered from illegal firearms that they carelessly use at the slightest whim.

Arrested was Roderick Moss.

Moss was no fool draped in a White sheet while peering from holes in a pointed hat. Rather, he was black male whose appearance blended with thousands of others who lived in Davion's community.

Davion had no reason to fear White men in sheets and tall pointed hats. He had reason to fear the black men who dwelt among him. There was no racist angle. No story here for the liberal media. This loss of life has no value to the social engineers who would have us believe that White privilege is the problem. We are not the problem.

The stories could go on forever. Literally.

Kiera Holmes was twenty three months old when a drive-by killer took her life in New Orleans.

J'Nylah Douglas, 7, died after being struck in the head by a stray bullet in St. Louis.

Sherdavia Jenkins was nine years old when gunned down as she played in her yard in Florida's infamouse Liberty City.

Jamon M. Baker was 15 when a stray bullet took his life.

Cheyenne Baez was seventeen years old when killed in Harlem by a stray bullet. She was the same age as Trayvon Martin. Had Cheyenne been shot by someone who looked like George Zimmerman instead of someone who looked like Jesse Jackson, her memory may have been emblazoned on our minds by massive protests, outraged race hustlers and teary-eyed news reporters.

Again, the list will never end.

As long as violent black crime is ignored by our media culture, there will continue to be scores of black children caught in the cross fire. Those who claim to care the most care the least.

Some of us pay attention.

We see the photos. Trayvon rides a horse, Trayvon goes skiing; Trayvon as a cute little kid. We get the message. We're supposed to imagine that a gold-toothed teenager with an early criminal record who towered over his victim was, himself, vulnerable.

Some of us can see through the illusion.

We know there is a racial driver that propelled the Trayvon episode to the forefront of the nation's mind. The fact is that thousands of truly vulnerable black kids are routinely ignored because there is no racist spin. That speaks volumes.

Had the racial element not been in place -- had Trayvon been killed by another black, as were Terrell, Marquel, Keian and Davion -- he would have been consigned as another statistic to be figured, then forgotten. We would never have known he existed.

It's not about Trayvon. It never has been.

It's about exploiting a racial dimension and redefining it in the context of racism.

I submit to you the simple fact that Al Sharpton cares no more about Trayvon than he cares about Terrell. It is the photo op, the media hype; the TV cameras and sound bytes that draw the likes of Rev. Jesse Jackson. The end is not justice and equality; and it's certainly not compassion. The end is another hustle, another large donation; a larger pot of gold at the end of the rainbow coalition.

Who will tell the truth? Who will have the courage to blame black behavior rather than White privilege? Who will weather the storm of pejoratives?

Will no one acknowledge the innocent victims of black violence? Will no one speak in their defense? Will no one tell the truth? Will no one expose race realism in spite of its noxious indignities?

I will.

Monday, April 23, 2012

Another Racist Cartoon — Poor Obama!

This cartoon, by A. F. Branco, is being called "racist," of course. If you disagree with that assessment, or even if you agree, go to Mike Opelka's site to discuss it.  My own thoughts are how odd it is that Indonesians, who generally consider themselves Muslims, go around eating dogs.  Or was this a Dream from his Father?

Come to think of it, though, this isn't all bad for Obama — He's sure to get Anthony Bourdain's vote now.

Vive Marine Le Pen!

France just had an election.  The top three candidates were Sarkozy, a sort of French neocon, whose policy is to drag France into Eurohell slowly but steadily, muttering pseudo-sensible aphorisms as he goes.  He came in slightly second after Hollande, an explicitly anti-French socialist candidate, who is so anti-French as to be named after a foreign country — You have to admire such forthrightness.  And the candidate who came in third, with a bit over 18%, is Marine Le Pen, an openly pro-French candidate.  It is an honor to the people of France that almost one-fifth of them are actual patriots.  Following the name theme, it's kind of spooky that the sarcastic candidate is, well, Sarkozy, the socialist is, as I said, named after Holland, and the patriotic National Front candidate, the one that shows a fighting, nationalistic spirit, is, appropriately enough, named "Marine." There will now be a runoff between the egregious Sarkozy and the pathetic Hollande. C'est la guerre.

Marine's old Dad is Jean-Marie Le Pen, who has given the job of running for President over to his daughter some time back, and is an admirable fellow himself, being a Vietnam vet (French division) and later a veteran of the War in Algeria, which nobody over here seems to have heard about.  Anyhow, like his daughter, he thinks France is and ought to be a sovereign nation, putting its own interests first, instead of the interests of several million potential immigrants.  We don't seem to have any candidates here with that much sense, except for Merlin Miller.

Interestingly, leaders who put their own countries first are admired by rational foreigners.  I very much admire both Le Pens, and Putin, and several other people like them who I'm supposed to dislike because they resist being ordered around by our American liberal/neocon elite.  A Brit who feels much the same way had THIS to say right before the election.

Of course, the great advantage French patriots have is that they don't have to worry about "wasting their vote" when they vote for a Le Pen.  If they lose, they get to vote again, as they will, for one of the top two candidates.  If they had our system, most of them would be so afraid of electing Hollande, they'd go ahead and vote for Sarkozy.  Unfortunately, most American patriots will have to vote for Romney, because if they were to vote for a patriot like Miller, it might swing their states to Obama, and no sane person wants that to happen. C'est la goddam guerre again.

Race War

There's nothing new about race war.  History is full of it, with various definitions of "race."  Point is, war happens when two or more human groups, in conflict about something or other, resort to violence to settle their dispute.  And human groups are very commonly defined by race. And yes, despite the nostrum to the contrary, violence very often does solve things.  Race war, and the threat of race war, has successfully ended White rule all over Africa, if you've been paying attention. Race war was instrumental in extending White American rule over what is now the United States.

And now we have threats of race war in the United States again. The current most vocal agent of the threat is Al Sharpton, though he has many co-belligerents vying for pole position. You see, the appeasement strategy that American Whites have been using for the last sixty years isn't working. With a mixture of guilt, fear, ignorance and just plain wrong-headedness, our Government has been Neville-Chamberlaining the civil rights issues for decades.  Assuring us that every retreat would lead to a victory and utopia, the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) has followed one capitulation after another, and lo and behold, race war is closer than ever.

I suppose it started with forced school integration.  The Supreme Court decided to further deteriorate the barriers between state governments and the Federal government, and decided that segregation was unfair and unconstitutional.  They also said that integration would greatly improve education for Blacks.  It didn't.  You can argue about the unfair and unconstitutional part, but you can hardly argue that Black education is in better shape than it was in 1950.  That thinking was ratcheted up when it was decided that schools that were not segregated, but which were insufficiently 'diverse' because of the geography of school districts, were de facto segregated and had to be treated just as if they'd done in all on purpose, so we got massive school busing, which satisfied nobody, and arguably made education inferior for both races.

And then, the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, the handiwork of the Worst President in History, did for just about everything else the same that had been done for the schools — forced integration on everything from hotels to restaurants to bars — with the same results. That is, made life a little harder for both groups.  Oh, it also had the unintended consequence (great ideas in legislation are just full of unintended consequences) of destroying a lot of Black-owned businesses that catered to Blacks, because their customers left them for White-owned businesses.

Since then, we've had lots more forced integration in the form of Affirmative Action, which has, of course, further wrecked education for Blacks, because to meet quotas, many colleges admit unprepared Blacks, who flunk out, while they might have done just fine at a lower-tier college.  This is explained better than I can explain it by Thomas Sowell HERE.

But the point of all this is that none of this appeasement has made American Blacks happier.  Actually, it's made them more discontented, because White liberals and their own con-artist leaders keep telling them that all their problems and shortcomings are caused by White racists.  In short, they keep calling for more appeasement in the form of more affirmative action, more welfare payments, and more toleration of bad behavior.  So all of the appeasement, designed in part to prevent racial animosity, has increased it instead, and brought race war ever nearer.  I'm not at all optimistic, because the MAG, having failed to improve things with their counterproductive programs, just call for more and more counterproductive programs.  Fred Reed isn't optimistic either.  His evaluation of all this is HERE.

Monday's Joke

Angela Merkel arrives at Passport Control at Paris airport.
"Nationality?" asks the immigration officer. 
"German," she replies. 
"No, just here for a few days."

Thanks to Dave Holle for this one.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Diversity and/or Equality

"Diversity" products HERE.
"Diversity" and "equality" are both buzz words these days, and neither of them has meaning out of context, and frequently are ambiguous in context. To take "equality" first, the meaning the Founding Fathers intended was simple equality before the law — that is, not one law for the high-born and another for everybody else, but one law for everybody.  They certainly had no notion that everybody was, or should be, regarded as equal in any other respect.  So when you hear somebody use the term "equality" with respect to human beings, it's time to stop them and ask them exactly what they mean by it. All too frequently, they won't be able to define it, which indicates they didn't know what they were talking about in the first place.

And then we have "diversity," which is usually even more devoid of meaning than "equality," but which, in practice, means "anti-White." Diversity is usually invoked as a "goal" of one sort or another, which requires lots of government intervention. Since human beings automatically sort themselves out by categories — linguistic, ethnic, racial, etc. — the authorities have to make great efforts to counter these tendencies, with affirmative actions laws, school busing, special efforts to recruit minorities into schools, neighborhoods, professions and other areas that they're reluctant to enter, and even special efforts to attract foreign immigrants into the West.  The idea is that mixing people by force somehow enhances their lives.

Of course, equality clashes with diversity, and often completely contradicts it.  The concept of giving a certain category of people special encouragement or an actual legal advantage over other categories is the opposite of equality before the law.  But that's exactly what we're doing.  If a school or corporation for whatever reason doesn't have "enough" minority group members in certain slots, it can count on some commissar like Eric Holder to rush in and require that they tweak their requirements so as to give special advantages to said minorities.  To get "diversity," you have to abandon "equality." There is no way around this.

Jerry Pournelle muses about this paradox, with special regard to immigration, HERE.

Friday, April 20, 2012

Separated at Birth

Thanks to L. Neil Smith for this one.

Marine Political Theory

Illustration by an actual Marine, Sgt. Tyr May
If we ever have a military coup, I hope this guy leads it.

The Evolution Paradox

From Baloo's Website. Go THERE.
Everybody makes mistakes, or, at least, comes to erroneous conclusions.  Jefferson famously was said to be skeptical about meteors, though there's some controversy about that.  But there are lots of cases of otherwise very erudite people who got something glaringly wrong.  Anyhow, assuming the Jefferson story is true, he doubted the reality of meteors precisely because he thought there wasn't enough evidence for it.  Since his time, we've found plenty of evidence for it, so while his skepticism was justifiable then, it wouldn't be now.

Currently there's a brouhaha about evolution. Me, now, I'm a Darwinist, in the same sense that I'm an arithmeticist — I think both theories stand up very well, and explain reality better than anything else I've heard of.  But I recognize that there are gaps in Darwinist theory and I'm always open to changes or modification as evolutionary thinking evolves. (Sorry.)  Before you holler at me about intelligent design, I've already tried to sort that out HERE.

But never mind science and scientists.  I'm thinking about your average enlightened guy who "believes in" evolution.  That's a little misleading, that verb, because it makes it sound like a belief from faith, rather than an informed conclusion.  I've blogged about this before, and concluded that most people who "believe in" evolution have never really thought about it, but say they believe in it simply because they want to assure everybody that they're not religious.  Those on the left like doing that sort of thing, of course, so it's my contention that most so-called Darwinists on the left don't understand evolution at all, and it's just one of their unexamined dogmas.  Because if they understood evolution, they'd see that its principles are in total contradiction to another leftist dogma — human equality.  Now, I'm not talking about equality of rights. That's a totally different animal.  The left believes, as a virtually religious principle, in the equal mental and moral capacity of all human beings, and particularly rejects with horror any suggestion that human ethnic groups or races might differ in those ways.  And such a concept violates the whole basis of Darwinism, which is natural selection of characteristics that vary by mutation.  If there isn't any variation, you have nothing to select for.  The whole point of the Origin of Species is that a given species changes over time, by mutation, and eventually part of that species changes enough that you have a different species.  It is perfectly clear to all of us that within a species, you have variation.  Breeds of dog differ tremendously in size, intelligence, and temperament.  And I mention dogs because most people are familiar with them, while most of us urban types don't know much about panda bears or rattlesnakes or seagulls, but trust me, they vary, too.

Human beings are not an exception to this.  Oddly, most leftists will accept medical differences between groups, and acknowledge that Black Africans are vulnerable to sickle-cell, some Orientals to lactose-intolerance, etc. etc., but they draw the line at any mental differences, despite great steaming piles of evidence to the contrary.  And human groups definitely vary with respect to intelligence and temperament, just like dogs and chickens and possums.

So what we have is a huge hole in leftist thinking — One of many holes, actually.  Leftist believers in both evolution and human equality have one hell of a big paradox in their laps, and don't even know it, because logic and facts aren't their strong suit.  Some of them are currently having hissy-fits about intelligent design, which they don't understand either, because their belief in human equality actually requires outside intervention to be credible.  They're what Steve Sailer calls "Liberal Creationists," whether they like it or not.

The current big controversy on the subject, a new law in Tennessee, is discussed by Joseph Allen HERE.


Today is Hitler's 123d birthday, and what better way to celebrate it than to post his latest rant here. Thanks to Vox Day for finding this.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

Would National Review Fire Bill Buckley?

The Bill Buckley of the Fifties, that is.  Buckley, in the beginning, was a pretty clear conservative, in most ways, though he was from the internationalist wing of conservatism as opposed to the isolationists. But as time went on, he and National Review became more and more liberal.  In the old days, NR was actually critical of Israel, an absolute no-no today.  It was very skeptical about the civil rights movement, and opposed both civil rights leaders and the Civil Rights Bill of 1964. Summary HERE.  But it morphed over time, until today its editorial position on most issues is to the left of most liberals of the 1950's.  It's totally on board with the status quo on civil rights, with all its affirmative action paraphernalia and forced integration of everybody everywhere, and only opposes the most extreme manifestations of it.  Editor Rich Lowry has proclaimed his solidarity with Al Sharpton on the Trayvon case.  Lowry also famously fired John Derbyshire for writing a common-sense column on race.  But before Lowry's time, under Buckley's leadership, NR also parted ways with conservatives Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis, and many others, for the crime of not following NR along the path to liberalism.  John Edwards describes in detail the fate of one of those abandoned conservatives, James J. Kilpatrick, HERE.

But to answer the question, would National Review fire the young Bill Buckley?  Of course they would. They wouldn't hire him in the first place.  They'd call him a racist.  And a fascist. But I'd be happy to let him do some guest posts here.  The kid had promise.