Friday, May 31, 2013

Where Are The Droogies When We Need Them?

Alas, Alex and the lads have been feminized and wussified.

Mentally Disarmed
by A.X. Perez

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Lately a British soldier was run down and then literally butchered by two knife wielding self proclaimed Jihadists. Then killers then stood around for several minutes chatting with witnesses and proclaiming their ideals until the bobbies finally showed up to shoot then without killing them and arrest them.
The madman who tried to assassinate Gabby Gifford and who killed and wounded several others was overcome by essentially an unarmed mob. Several mass murders in the US have been prevented or reduced in severity by one persons resistance. Even in the horrific Aurora and Sandy Hook massacres it is recorded that many of the killed and wounded were shot protecting the lives of others.
The London killers chatted with witnesses until the cops showed up.
News reports indicate that for the last two generations Conservative and Labour Governments in the UK have tried to stamp courage and fighting spirit out of the British people. The murder of a British soldier by self proclaimed Jihadists in front of a large enough group of witnesses who did not mob and beat them into submission, if not to death, for their actions tells me that the UK's politicians have succeeded.
They might as well keep their gun control laws, with the mentality showed the fourth week of 2013 it appears most British would be disarmed with guns in their hands anyhow.
And this is what a bunch of America's misleaders want for the US.

Immigrants Aren't What They Used To Be

Liberals live in the past.  Oh, they're not alone — a lot of us live in the past because it's human nature to remember how things were, while the way they are now is new, and harder to remember. But liberals do so for good, practical reasons.  What liberals like to do is whine and moan and complain, and many of the things they want to whine, etc. about are no longer a problem.  Women are no longer denied the opportunity to humiliate themselves by joining the armed forces.  Blacks are no longer afraid to express themselves in public — boy are they no longer afraid!  Homosexuals no longer have a love that dare not speak, but now have a love that will not shut up.  But liberals still want to complain about all that stuff like it was still in effect.  So they pretend that it's 1955 again and Fonzie still has to confront the Man, or something.

Another way they like to live in the past is to proclaim that all these immigrants, documented and undocumented and forgery-documented, "just want to be Americans," or "just want to make a better life for themselves and their children" or "do the jobs Americans won't do."  And so forth.  That was true, again, in 1955, but now we have a lot of immigrants who don't want to be Americans at all, but continue to regard themselves as Mexicans or Chinese or Israeli or whatever, and are just here for the beer, so to speak.  They often want an easier life for themselves and their children, what with welfare and freebies and all kinds of affirmative action deals.  And many of them don't intend to do any damn jobs at all, because of the welfare, etc.

Gavin MacInnes is the son of immigrants from guess where.  And he's in a position to assure us that his parents didn't join La McRaza or riot in the street or demand freebies or insist on voting ballots in Gaelic.  And he's pretty funny about it all.  Not everything he says is exclusive to immigrants, of course.  My ancestors have been here forever, and I remember the front door thing and the recycled bathwater myself.  But lets not get ahead of ourselves.  He writes:

10 Problems With Having Immigrant Parents

I’m a middle-class child of immigrants. I’m told we were poor when my parents emigrated from Scotland to Canada in the 70s, but I don’t remember any of that. All I remember is a bucolic childhood where I was never in want for anything I needed.

Everything I wanted, however, was another matter entirely. You see, like most middle-class children of immigrants, my parents were born and raised working class. That means they were never quite comfortable in the new world they created for themselves. It also meant problems. I didn’t have the kind of problems they had. I didn’t have to fight every day in Glasgow’s slums like my father did, and I didn’t have to make my own meals at 13 because my single parent was on vacation again, as was the case with my mother. That doesn’t mean my problems weren’t problems, though.

For example, you’re not allowed to use the front door. Unless the president is coming for dinner, everyone has to walk around to the back and take off his or her shoes there. There’s also a fancy living room nobody sits in unless front-door guests arrive, which is basically never. Here are ten more problems they created for me.

Scottish people are cheap. Boomers who grew up with parents from the Great Depression are stingy. Immigrants are frugal. Put them all together and you might as well have a tattoo on your face that says, “Take care of the pennies and the pounds take care of themselves!” But you can’t get a tattoo because Scottish immigrants still think it’s the 1950s when tattooed people were uneducated and doomed to a life working on the docks.

Despite the low price of food, the meals my mother made looked like a dietitian put them together for someone dying of obesity. You’d get a third of a potato, a slice of meat, maybe a few leaves of spinach, and that’s it. My brother and I coped by pigging out on apples and ice cream for dessert and then making a ginormous bowl of popcorn. But my parents were also hungry after dinner and they’d loom over us like vultures. My father has a degree in physics and was able to somehow fit 80% of the bowl’s contents into one handful. As he pulled his hand out and balanced this Dr. Seuss-like tower of popcorn away from us, my stomach would growl, “You bastard.”
 (There's lots more.  Keep reading HERE.)

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Let's Help John Barrow out

It is so rare that you run across a Democrat these days who you can respect, let alone support. But his looks like one.  A reprint from Glaivester's Blog.

John Barrow, Democratic Congressman Hero

Democrat John Barrow has introduced H.R. 2124, the Keeping the Promise of IRCA Act. It's an enforcement only immigration reform bill!

This is John Barrow's campaign website if you want to donate to his re-election campaign.

You can leave a message with your donation, so this would be a good opportunity to say something along the lines of "I'm a single-issue voter. Thank you for coming out in sup
port of immigration enforcement by introducing H.R. 2124, Keeping the Promise of IRCA."

Here is his Washington number: (202) 225-2823, if you want to leave a message saying "Thank you for introducing H.R. 2124, Keeping the Promise of IRCA. This is the type of reform we need, not the giveaway to corporate interests that is the Gang of Eight Bill."

Or you can contact him on his webform.

Here is his Facebook page, if you want to comment on his announcement of his bill, or to "like" him or his announcement.

With him and Peter DeFazio, we just need two more Democrats and we can get an "Untouchables of Eight" to counter the "Gang!"

That is all.

Inside the Boy Scouts

And now there are other, less amusing changes.
Thanks to BALOO for the cartoon.

Inside the Boy Scouts

by Charles G. Mills

GLEN COVE, NY -  The Boy Scouts of America have been led into a terrible mistake with their recent vote on homosexuality.
         The traditional position of the Boy Scouts on homosexuality has been based on three principles:
1. Homosexuality is incompatible with the Boy Scout Oath.
2. Homosexuals do not make appropriate role models for young people.
3. Homosexuals represent a danger to young people.

         The Boy Scouts have two kinds of leaders: professional and volunteer. The professional leaders include scout executives and district executives; volunteer leaders include scoutmasters, assistant scoutmasters, cubmasters, den leaders, commissioners, merit badge counselors, eagle project counselors, committee members, and sea scout skippers. The professionals are full time and have substantial power; the volunteers are part time and have the power of the vote.

        The political momentum in the more liberal parts of the country for acceptance of the view that the exclusion of homosexuals and atheists from Scouting is wrong has been increasing. The homosexual lobby, in particular, has fought for the right of homosexuals to be adult leaders. For many years, the Boy Scouts have strictly excluded homosexuals, atheists, and other inappropriate people from leadership roles of all kinds. Homosexual and atheist youth are also excluded, although in practice this has not extended to boys too young to be certain of their sexual orientation or religious beliefs.

         The Boy Scouts have not, however, gone hunting for homosexuals, atheists, adulterers, and drunks if their vices were kept secret. The Boy Scouts also conduct programs for teenage boys and girls in areas such as law enforcement and fire fighting. No inquiry is made as to whether the high-ranking police officials and firefighters who advise these teenagers meet the standards of a scout leader.

         The question of whether the Boy Scouts should drop the prohibition of homosexuality came up at the 2012 annual meeting. It was decided to postpone it to this year's annual meeting to give the organization time to ascertain the views among scout leaders around the country and to conduct a contentious vote. A resolution was put before the 2013 annual meeting to prohibit the exclusion of any youth from scouting on the sole basis of his sexual orientation or preference. This resolution passed with a comfortable, if not an overwhelming, majority. Those who want homosexual adults in scouting regard this as only a first step.

        The resolution was sold to a number of adult volunteer leaders as simply a matter of doing something good for some boys, certainly a goal of Boy Scout leaders. In reality, however, what was sold is a bill of goods. There is no definition of "youth." Most people assume that youth means under age 18, which is a requirement for youth membership in a Boy Scout troop.

         The matter is more complicated, however. The Boy Scouts of America run several programs for boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 20. Boy Scout summer camps are often staffed in part by college students, and technically they are often part of one of those teenage programs. At the age of 18, a boy ceases to be a youth member of his troop. From that point on, he showers and sleeps with the adults and has an adult registration in the Boy Scouts of America. If, however, he is a leader in the Order of the Arrow, a Boy Scout Honor Society, he may continue as a youth leader in that order.

         The Boy Scouts have strict rules that one adult may not interact with one unrelated youth unless they are in the view of other people. This is a very important part of the Boy Scouts' program of youth protection. Technically, a junior assistant scoutmaster who is 18years and one day old should not be alone with a Boy Scout who is 17 years and 350 days old, although the rule is not always enforced that rigidly. However, a 17-year-old Boy Scout can go off into the woods with a 14-year-old Boy Scout or share a tent with him.

         Although the new rule was presented to some volunteers as only allowing troops to keep homosexual youth, it actually states that no youth shall be denied membership solely on the basis of sexual preference or orientation. The overall picture is that older boys may now endanger slightly young boys. The Boy Scouts of America have undermined the strong and effective youth protection program. The new rule has been met by a flood of expressions of fear. I have received a lot of e-mails to this effect, as has a former Boy Scout council president who is a friend.

         It has always been the position of the Boy Scouts of America that homosexual acts are incompatible with the Scout Oath. It is impossible to see how this position can be maintained while forbidding the removal of homosexuals.

         There is a position in the Boy Scouts called a "den chief." This is typically a young teenage Boy Scout who visits a Cub Scout den or pack from time to time and helps the Cubs and inspires them to want to be Boy Scouts when old enough. It is hard to see how homosexual den chiefs can be good role models for Cub Scouts, but homosexual adults cannot be good role models for den chiefs.
         The Boy Scouts have now undermined all three objections to homosexuals in scouting. Traditionally, the Boy Scouts have formed a corps of young men with better characters than their typical contemporaries. If, instead, they let the degenerates of society lead them, they will forfeit their ability to form character, and truly become the Baby Sitters of America.


The Confederate Lawyer column is copyright © 2013 by
Charles G. Mills and the Fitzgerald Griffin Foundation, All rights reserved. This column may be reposted or forwarded if credit is given to Charles Mills and


Charles Mills has been involved in various leadership capacities in the Boy Scouts of America of Nassau County, New York, for many years. He is a member of his district Eagle Board and District Committee, is a chartered organization representative of his scout troop, and is a member at large of the Theodore Roosevelt Council. In the past, he has served on the Executive Board of that council, and as Chairman of the Scouting for the Handicapped Division.

Jack Vance, R. I. P.

I just found out that the unique Jack Vance died last week.  He is, I've always thought, the most underrated of science-fiction authors, because of his subtlety and challenge to the reader.  I'll have a lot more to say in a future retrospective post, but for now, this from the Los Angeles Times:


Jack Vance, prolific, prize-winning pulp author, dies at 96

By Jenny Hendrix

May 30, 2013, 7:20 a.m.

Jack Vance, prolific author of science fiction, mystery and epic fantasy, died Sunday at 96, his son John told the Associated Press. He had written more than 60 books during his long life.

Vance, whose real name was John Holbrook, also published under the names John Holbrook Vance, Alan Wade, Peter Held, John van See and Jay Kavanse, and he wrote three Ellery Queen novels. His best-known series, "The Dying Earth," was set in a future in which the sun is slowly dying out, and a world where technology and the supernatural exist side-by-side.

Vance's novel "The Dragon Masters" won the Hugo Award in 1963, followed by another Hugo for "The Last Castle" in 1967, and another for his memoir "This is Me, Jack Vance!" in 2010. Along the way he also picked up a Nebula Award, an Edgar Award, a World Fantasy award for lifetime achievement, was made a Grand Master by the Science Fiction Writers of America, and was inducted into the Science Fiction Hall of Fame. Still, according to the Guardian, Vance always said he wrote just to make money.

While he had no aspirations to literary fame, Vance certainly made his mark on other writers, and developed a loyal and passionate base of fans. Among the many who cite Vance as an influence are Ursula K Le Guin, George RR Martin, Gene Wolfe and Jack L Chalker.

Broader recognition of Vance's literary merits seems to have been held back by the impression that he was just another genre writer, his books hidden under pulpy, monster-laden covers. As Michael Chabon told the New York Times Magazine in 2009, "Jack Vance is the most painful case of all the writers I love who I feel don't get the credit they deserve. If 'The Last Castle' or 'The Dragon Masters' has the name Italo Calvino on it, or just a foreign name, it would be received as a profound meditation, but because he's Jack Vance and published in Amazing Whatever, there's this insurmountable barrier."

Legally blind since the 1980s, Vance continued to write with the assistance of his wife, Norma, and with specially designed computer software, according to his son. His final novel, "Lurulu," was published in 2000.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Neale Osborn Rants for the Eleventh Time!

Neale Osborne continues to rant, as well he should:

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 11
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

California's got a new way to do a backdoor gun ban. Require microstamping. And require that the microstamping be re-certified every three years, apparently to verify that the gun still stamps. Wanna bet the re-cert will cost a substantial chunk of cash?
This is why you should own a gun and defend yourself rather than rely on the cops. At Hofstra University, Long Island, an armed man invaded an apartment. When one tenant got out and called the police, they responded quickly. But when the criminal held the other girl hostage, they shot BOTH of them. So remember, class, it's probably better to own a gun and protect/defend yourself. At least at Hofstra, the cops will kill you quicker than the criminals Isn't it kinda funny tthat an organization that regularly and vigorously advocates for the destruction of the 2nd Amendment bitches because the government attacks the 1st Amendment? Unlike the AP, however, I happen to support the ENTIRE Bill of Rights. So I stand strong beside the AP, demanding that this assault on the 1st be punished immediately and vigorously. I recognize that whenever we tolerate (or worse, aid in) the restriction, reduction, or destruction of an enumerated right, of ANY enumerated right, we leave the door gaping wide to the destruction of them all.
How many ways is this story wrong and/or scary as hell? Let me just point out one wrong part and one scary part. The story is about a cell-phone activated gun disabler. The wrong part I wanted to point out is the FALSE claim that 2nd Amendment concerns killed the owner device gun disablers of 20 or so years ago. Not true. The magnetic ring disablers (no ring on finger, gun doesn't fire) died for two reasons. It relied on exact placement of the ring in order for the gun to work, meaning if your grip on the gun was not IDENTICAL EVERY TIME (which is hard to do under stress, when you need the gun the most) the gun won't fire. Also, if your strong hand was injured, the weak hand could not use the gun unless you wore TWO rings, one on each hand. The rings were VERY pricey. The scary part is the new system itself. It is claimed that it "Notifies the owner via cell phone of unauthorized movement of the gun and allows the owner to disable the gun remotely." Sounds great, doesn't it? But wait, there's an unsaid more to that idea. The gun contains a radio receiver AND transmitter. The receiver lets you disable the gun. The transmitter is necessary in order to let you know the gun has moved, right? But any building could be wired to receive/detect these signals. Traffic cams on the street could do the same with a little wiring. Hell, ANY surveillance system can. Suddenly, your concealed weapon is anything but concealed. Defeating both the purpose AND the requirements most states have that the gun remain hidden. But wait... there's more! Who else can disable the gun? Why, anybody who can receive the signal. Or even anybody who can build a blanket transmitter that will shut down ANYTHING operating in the assigned set of wavelengths. The cops don't want people defending themselves at the scene of a disaster, they broadcast the shut-down signal, and suddenly you're holding a 2.5 pound club. The government decides no one needs a gun anymore, they can shut them all down. Now THAT is scary as hell to anyone who knows what the 2nd Amendment is all about. And you can bet that it will become mandatory in some states.
Uncle Ted's brother Jeff is supporting the unConstitutional background checks The Nuge opposes. (For those not in the know, "Uncle Ted" and "The Nuge" are nicknames of Ted Nugent.) Ted's brother, former Revlon CEO and supposedly avid gunner and supporter of the 2nd Amendment nevertheless feels that "Some people shouldn't be allowed to own guns, so background checks are a necessity". While Ted and Jeff are both NRA members, Jeff supports the background checks the NRA is accused of helping to kill this past month. Ted vigorously (and correctly) opposes them. Don't back down, Uncle Ted. You're on the right side despite your support of the NRA.
Does this smell as bad to you as it does to me? The FBI has a man in their control, and is questioning him. He confesses to having helped one of the Boston marathon bombers kill 3 people during a drug heist, when they realized their victim could have identified them. THEN he draws a knife and attacks the interrogator, and they shoot him down. I'm calling BS on this one. Sounds more to me like a trigger happy FBI clown or a local cop who was participating in the interrogation killing a suspect for no legitimate reason. New developements claim he was a MMA fighter. So what? He confesses, then decides "WTF? I think I'll attack these G-men, the local cops, and anybody else around with a knife. Cuz, that way, I'll get away scot free."
The TSA finally begins to show a teeny glimmer of intelligence, and sparks "Bipartisan support" for an over-rule of that spark. Remember a few months ago, TSA announced they would permit small knives (less than 1.5 inch blades) on airplanes. It sparked outrage from stewardesses, pilots, and politicians, as well as the ignorant fools who roam the streets. ALL of them forget that, using nothing but boxcutters (which have even smaller blades), 19 terrorists took over 4 airliners, resulting in the deaths of over 3000 people. (No, I do not believe the Twin Towers were blown up by Dubbya) ONE group, on Flight 93 out of Newark Airport, using their hands and feet, managed to force a crash of the plane. Imagine if the passengers on those planes had ALL had the right to carry a small pocketknife on board. Perhaps, the passengers on Flight 93 would have lived. Perhaps another plane or two might not have hit their target. So Republican and Democrat politicians alike are joining up to remove the first intelligent action of the TSA. Currently, the Democrats are working on a bill to prevent the TSA from doing this. What really ought to happen is to allow armed passengers to carry on planes, with their weapons loaded with frangibles (airframe safe bullets at low velocity.)
MSN lies again. But what else can you expect? They correctly refer to gun building parties, which do happen, as growing in popularity. What they lie about is, they claim the parts are obtained "untraceably on the internet". First, if you buy it on the internet, the government can trace it. Second, the receivers, without which there is no gun, you cannot buy "untraceably" on the internet. While it IS possible to buy a receiver without a background check from a private individual, the number available is actually (sadly) rather small. But again, MSN, like the rest of mainstram media, will tell any lie, omit any fact, and twist any truth, in order to advance their agenda of making the total disarmament of the American people a reality.
Washington DC is contemplating mandatory liability insurance, to the tune of $250K, for ALL gun owners. They claim it will cut crime (even though insurance companies do not cover you if you commit a crime), and will force you to be more careful with storage and handling of your weapons. They have NO idea what the policy might cost (because the insurance companies won't even agree to to write these policies). And they can find no justification for requiring insurance to engage in a Constitutional activity (can anyone say "Poll tax"? I knew you could). You have to wonder what these idiots would say if you were forced to have liability insurance before being permitted to publish anything in case what you write might be libelious. Or any other Constitutionally enumerated right.

Dominique Venner, R. I. P.

A great man died by his own hand a few days ago, and I've refrained from commenting because I didn't feel I knew enough about him to say anything worthwhile. But now I've come across three tributes to him that give us a balanced view of the man.  First, from Roman Bernard:


May 22, 2013 

Dominique Venner, a “French-speaking European,” as he liked to define himself, died yesterday, at the age of 78. Around 4:00 PM, he entered Notre-Dame-de-Paris cathedral, walked straight to the choir and left a letter on the altar. Then he shot himself in the mouth, with a 9 mm pistol. Venner was a renowned specialist of guns and hunting.
Soon came the first headlines, almost identical from one media outlet to another, including the “respectable conservative” press: “Death of a Far-Right historian.” At least they had the honesty of mentioning his trade. Venner was a renowned historian.
Not only did liberals of all shades try to soil Dominique Venner's memory, but so did representatives of the clueless, “baptize them all” religious Right. The rector of Notre-Dame declared that “he was not a faithful of the cathedral,” as if the former church of the Knights Templar, now trampled by some 13 million yelling tourists in bermudas each year, was still a genuine place of worship, and not a “living history” museum. By saying that, the rector was possibly alluding to Venner's “Paganism.” If it were so, he would be mistaken, as Venner has always defended Europe as a whole. Commiting suicide in a church was not a last defiance to Christianity but a mark of deep respect. (Read the rest HERE.)
And this, from Paul Gottfried:

Dancing on a Hero’s Grave

As a college student I would buy copies of The New Yorker to sample the sparkling prose of James Thurber and S. J. Perelman and to appreciate the clever cartoons that graced each issue. Despite the magazine’s veering toward the trendy left thereafter, I could still find material in it worth reading well into the 1980s, such as John Updike’s elegantly phrased erotica or the occasional vignettes of interwar Hungary by John Lukacs. Then The New Yorker took a further slide into sheer madness, and the results are visible in a libelous obit that came out last Wednesday by a certain Judith Thurman. Seething with rage syndrome, Thurman announced the “Final Solution” of my onetime correspondent and one of France’s most illustrious historians of the last century, Dominique Venner (1935-2013).

On May 21, Venner, acting desperately in the face of events he could no longer control, committed suicide by shooting himself in the mouth in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. Venner left behind a suicide note explaining his horror at the gay-marriage law that French President Francois Hollande had just pushed through the National Assembly. Venner further lamented the self-destruction of his country and of European civilization that he ascribed to gay marriage and to Western Europeans’ unwillingness to keep Muslims from resettling their countries.
“Venner, acting desperately in the face of events he could no longer control, committed suicide by shooting himself in the mouth in Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris.”

It continues to be disputed whether Venner was a believing Catholic, although the “Catholic traditionalists” in whose company Thurman places Venner admired his cultural stands and continue to hope that he’ll make it into heaven despite the mortal sin he committed by hastening his departure from this world.

Venner was also a hero to the neo-pagan European right, and since the 1960s he was active in laying and extending the foundations of the emphatically anti-Christian French new right, together with his frequent collaborator Alain de Benoist. Venner had a clear record of standing defiantly in the face of the French Communist Party. Unlike the communists and other French leftists who supported the Algerian rebels, Venner fought gallantly and was decorated as a sergeant in the French forces in Algeria. (Keep reading HERE.)

Finally, from Greg Johnson:

Suicide in the Cathedral:
The Death of Dominique Venner

Dominique Venner is too big for me to judge. Thus I am not going to criticize or second-guess his decision to end his life with a bullet at the altar of the Cathedral of Notre Dame on May 21, 2013.

But I have no qualms about judging the reactions of smaller men to his suicide.

1. Venner’s Suicide was not a Protest Against Gay Marriage

Venner made it clear in his final blog post that he believed that the gay marriage protests were merely a distraction. Venner was opposed to gay marriage, but without passion and without “homophobia.” He was, however, intrigued by the massive protests, as well as France’s pervasive cynicism about the political establishment, phenomena that he judged to have revolutionary potential. But he believed that this potential was being wasted on the issue of gay marriage when a much greater threat to France was looming unopposed: the replacement of the French people with non-white immigrants organized under the banner of Islam. Venner made it clear that his suicide was not a protest against gay marriage but an attempt to awaken people to the danger of demographic displacement.

The gay marriage statute, after all, is only a law. Laws can be changed. And this particular law clearly will be abolished, along with the rest of liberalism, when Sharia law is imposed by France’s rising Muslim majority. Sharia law, of course, is not forever either. But Sharia law will be imposed only by the demographic swamping of the French, which will lead to their genetic and cultural obliteration. And extinction is forever.

Of course the mainstream media wish to keep our people unaware of this very danger. So naturally they are reporting that Venner killed himself simply to protest gay marriage. Venner has even been described as a traditionalist Catholic, although a traditionalist Catholic would not commit suicide at all, much less at the altar of Notre Dame. Beyond that, Venner makes it clear in his final writings that he was an atheist and a cultural pagan.

But when people on the Right, who should be both sympathetic to Venner and skeptical of the press, repeat these false claims at face value, what is their excuse?

2. “One more bullet that will not be fired at the enemy.”

Many of Venner’s Right-wing critics fault him for killing himself rather than one of our enemies. But Venner was right, for two reasons. First, as I have argued elsewhere, revolutionary violence today is premature and thus pointless. Second, if Venner had killed another individual, the primary focus would be on the victim, and Venner himself would simply be dismissed as another crazed, embittered Right-wing loser. By killing himself, he knew that he would still be vilified and mocked. But he also knew that it would be far more likely that at least some people would actually take his ideas seriously. Very few people have convictions they will die for, thus some people will want to learn what those convictions were.

3. Venner’s Career as Activist and Intellectual

Some of Venner’s Right-wing critics reproach him for killing himself, as opposed to engaging in political or metapolitical activism. But from 1956 to 1971, Dominique Venner was very much a political and metapolitical activist.  (Keep reading HERE.)

Six Crises

Feel free to pass this around everywhere — the graphic or the URL or both.

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

If Obama had a family...

If Obama had a family, they wouldn't look anything like these guys.  As a matter of fact, he does have a family, and indeed, they look nothing like these folks, who look a lot more like my family. So this may explain why Obama is in such a sweat to throw these people out of the country.  They look like they might be related to me, i. e., White, and Obama doesn't like White people much. Even his own White relatives.  He was taught, you see, by his psychotic White proto-hippie free-spirit mother that Whitey is no good. So, for the good of the country, Obama certainly doesn't want to let any more White people in, unless they're gay or Muslim or something.  This wretched bunch is evangelical!  And German!  And home-schoolers!  How undesirable can you get?  What Obama wants, and what his sycophants want, is for the White race in America to dwindle away, and be replaced by Mexicans and Africans and what-have-you.  All are welcome if they promise to vote Democratic and hate Whitey. Like Aunt Zeituni and Uncle Omar, who are in no danger of going home.   THESE are the kinds of immigrants Obama finds desirable.  Me, now, I'm just the opposite.  I want White immigrants.  White Christian immigrants, please.  White people are my favorite kind of people anyway, and of course any country is better off if it's fairly homogenous.  Sane countries like Japan and Israel know this, so they're not aching for diversity like we are.  More on the Romeike family from VDare:

Memo From Middle America | More On The Romeike Case—What’s Wrong With Wanting White Immigrants?

 This picture of Hannelore and Damaris Romeike was used by Slate’s Sally Kohn to highlight the unbearable whiteness of the RomeikThis picture of Hannelore and Damaris Romeike was used by Slate’s Sally Kohn to highlight the unbearable whiteness of the Romeikes.
VDARE.COM readers know that our country’s refugee/asylum policy is a disaster.
For example, the Boston bombings would never have occurred if the Chechen/Avar Tsarnaevs had not been given asylum here. The fact that Tamerlan and the parents later returned to Russia – the country they were supposedly fleeing – indicates what a fraud it was. And, as Steve Sailer has pointed out recently, the Tsarnaevsweren’t the only ones.
Janet Napolitano, however, assures us that our asylum screening process is A-OK--just like she claims the border is secure and the system worked to stop the underwear bomber.
But even though there is room for fraudulent refugees like the Tsarnaev family, and room for tens of millions of illegal aliens and their families, according to Eric Holder’s Department of Justice, there is no room for a family of white German evangelical homeschoolers. (Keep reading HERE.)

Tricky Racist Swedes

In the old days, Swedes used to go a-viking and murder and rob people.  At some point, they got tired of doing that or something, so now they invite people to come to Sweden all the way from Africa to murder and rob them.  Now, before you develop too much sympathy for them, remember that they are White people, some would say the epitome of White people, being Scandinavian and all, so that whatever they do must be done with the most deplorable of motives.  So don't go blaming the poor Africans or Afghans or Afrits or whoever they are allegedly doing the rioting and burning cars and stuff.  Well, they are doing that, but is it their fault?  Hardly! With millions of White people around to blame? These White Swedes might be liberals, but even White liberals are White, with all the evil and guilt thereunto appertaining.  DailyKenn explains what's really going on:

Hate-filled, selfish white Swedes caused the Stockholm riots

Intolerance, not insane immigration policy, is causing riots in Sweden this week. At least that's the spin we learn from the mainstream Marxist media (MSMM).

Note the subtlety.

Riots didn't erupt in the immigrant areas of Sweden this week, according to the media. Rather, the riots raged in the "deprived" areas of Sweden.

Read the headline from the Irish Times: Three nights’ rioting in deprived areas of Stockholm shocks placid Sweden.

The headline is an abject lie. It should have read Three nights’ rioting in immigrant areas of Stockholm shocks grateful Swedes or Three nights’ rioting in non-white areas of Stockholm stuns brainwashed Swedes.

Note that 'placid' is a placeholder for 'complacent' and implies that white Swedes are uncaring and inconsiderate. They are callously oblivious to the suffering and deprivation of non-white immigrants.

The mainstream Marxist media blame white Swedes
for the riots in Stockholm. 
By enforcing the notion that non-white immigrants are the victims of white Europeans through economic deprivation enables the violence that is marring that millenia-old culture. The London police officer who was hacked to death by a black Muslim is another example of deadly violence reinforced by the abject lies, blatant distortions, and subtle suggestions routinely published in the mainstream Marxist media (MSMM).

The Reuters article published in the Irish Times invested a considerable amount of ink 'informing' readers that the unrest in Sweden was due to social injustice.

The article quoted justice minister Beatrice Ask who said, “Social exclusion is a very serious cause of many problems.”

Reuters then shamelessly editorialized the 'news' by concluding, "Stockholm has been reducing the role of the state since the 1990s, spurring the fastest growth in inequality of any advanced OECD economy."

What the media refuses to tell is, in itself, telling.

• The media refuses to blame the riots on insane immigration policies. It opts, instead, to infer that the violence is the outcome of white Swedes who are imposing economic hardships on non-white immigrants.

• The media refuses to note that non-white immigrants fare better in Sweden than in their native homelands. There is a reason why hordes of non-white immigrants are flocking to Sweden. It is because they are drawn by enhanced economic opportunities unavailable in their nations of origin.

• The media refuses to note that white Swedes have selflessly improved the well-being of non-white immigrants simply by allowing them into their country. Furthermore, white Swedes are financing social  programs for non-white immigrants.

• The media refuses to mention that many in the immigrant communities refuse to adapt to Swedish culture and customs opting, instead, to retain Muslim traditions that are adverse to their adopted culture. Although many immigrants exclude themselves in enclaves of cultural homogeneity, white Swedes are tarred and feathered in guilt for committing the crime of "social exclusion."

• Rather than presenting an accurate accounting of violent hordes of non-white ingrates running riot through their nation, the media describes the rioters as victims of evil white people. While the media justifies the violence as the outcome of unfairness, it heaps guilt upon the true victims of Sweden's insane immigration policies.

White Swedes should be outraged.

They should be demanding and end to immigration from third-world nations. They should be demanding those immigrants be deported. They should demand the mainstream Marxist media stop lying to them.

Instead, they are overcome by feelings of guilt and shame.

So what is truly causing the riots in Sweden? Cultural Marxism.

It's insane.

Source ►

Science Gotta Hate.

Let's face facts.  Facts are hurtful.  Knowledge is hurtful. What good does it do people to know things when things just hurt their feelings?  And speaking of feelings, feelings are much nicer than knowledge.  Feelings, well, feel good.  Knowledge is tricky, and ultimately unfair.  Far better to live in a Groovy Little Fantasy World, where you're protected from hurtful so-called facts.  And the worst kind of knowledge, the most painful kind of knowledge, is science.  Now, I'm not talking about pseudoscience.  Pseudoscience can be fun and groovy and good for your self-esteem, you know, like that Al Gore stuff, or most kinds of psychology.  The most fun kind of pseudoscience is the kind that's the exact opposite of science, like psychobabble "proofs" that all people are completely equal in intellect and temperament, and that all apparent differences are caused by "environment." (Except homosexuality. That's hereditary, and it's the only thing that isn't caused by environment.)  No matter about sex, or race, or ethnic group or culture. We're all absolutely equal! And this is endorsed by such eminent pseudoscientists as the late Stephen Jay Gould and Jared Diamond, and, again Al Gore!  But, unfortunately, actual science keeps raising its ugly head and contradicting the comforting assertions of pseudoscience.  But, fear not. Greg Cochran has a solution or two.  This, from West Hunter:

The End of Science

John Horgan believes that research on race and IQ should be banned, and that having university IRBs veto such research would be a reasonable way of doing so. There are problems with this idea. Not just that freedom of enquiry is a thing of value, and that John, if given the chance, would exchange his soul for a pile of dung – and be right to do so. No, enforcement of this policy entails technical difficulties. For one thing, essentially all IRBs already try to ban such research, but they don’t do a very good job, because they don’t know enough about the subject. Probably nobody does. For example, not so long ago people felt free to speculate that modern humans might have picked a few useful alleles from Neanderthals – including ones that increased intelligence. That was before it was found that there is substantial Neanderthal admixture only in non-Africans. In much the same way, it was ok to talk about male-driven mutation that increases with paternal age, but if you couple that with the actual populations that have high average paternal age, the topic becomes sensitive. Sometimes the clues aren’t there yet, sometimes no-one has put them together – but ignorance is a minefield, not least because of the nasty way in which one thing leads to another. You start out trying to breed a pig with more bacon and before you know it you’re arguing that medieval evolution made the Jews smarter.
I can see two possible ways of addressing the problem. One is to end all science. Horgan might like that: he thinks that there isn’t much more to find out anyhow. The other solution is to find out exactly what it is that we don’t want anyone to know: find the true causes of ethnic differences in cognition and personality. Find the exact number and position of the mines in the minefield, all the Bouncing Bettys and Claymores, so that we can tell people exactly what topics to avoid or ignore. The current system is particularly unfair to immigrant scholars who have been raised on a different brand of nonsense (for example, thinking that the Tibetans are resistant to hypoxia = racism) and aren’t familiar with our Index. We don’t have to worry about the minefield being empty: people like Horgan know damn well what they expect research to find – if they thought there was nothing there, they wouldn’t worry about it.
Of course, once you had the complete story, there are only a few billion obvious ways in which the information could leak out. But that’s the subject for another post!

Monday, May 27, 2013

Hitler - What he was and what he wasn't

Hitler was a lot of things — soldier, writer, artist, war hero, historian, agitator, politician, orator, dictator, military commander, music critic, etc., but he was not a little teapot! Thanks to Matt Parrott for this.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is long overdue.

You never know who's going to turn out to be extremist.
I love all this "extremist" talk.  Republicans, who are barely distinguishable from Democrats, and who purged almost all their conservatives long ago, are routinely denounced by said Democrats and their media lap dogs and characterized as "extremist" when they want to waste a couple million less on some counterproductive fiasco than the Democrats do.  People who hold what were nearly universal views on economics, morality, and race sixty years ago are considered outrageous extremists by the MAG (Media, Academia, Government).  In fact, just about any sensible attitude about anything socio-political is now thought of as extreme bigotry which must be stamped out.

You know what?  This is all projection. What has happened is that the MAG (see above) has been taken over completely by actual extremists. Extremists who make the amoral scumbags of the Sixties seem pretty moderate.  The government is dominated by the sort of freaks that were only Bill Clinton's second team, being too flaky-left even for him (and that, of course, includes his abominable wife).  The media, despite the recent self-defensive glitch over the AP affair, is devoted to the service of the government, and academia is unspeakably vile.

Colin Liddell explains how and why the patients have taken over the asylum in Britain:


A near Orwellian police state with bans on weapons, bans on words and thoughts, and an incessant flow of PC propaganda is no defence against the insanities created by “multicultural Britain,” as we saw yet again in London, where we were recently ‘treated’ to an iPhone clip of a Sub-Saharan Muslim lecturing us with hands crimsoned with the blood of an off-duty British soldier that he and an associate had just hit with a car and then butchered with knives and a meat cleaver on the streets of Woolwich in South East London.
The basic problem is not the nature of Sub-Saharan Africans or the nature of Islam. These have been well-known for a long time and are what they are for a variety of reasons that it is superfluous to go into here. No, the real problem is one of politics and ideology, and, in short, of the systemic dislocation of the political spectrum.
In the wake of such horror, we can expect to hear the usual cries for “tolerance” and the throb-in-the-throat pleas not to let the “extremists” win. But the trouble is the extremists won long ago. What other word can you use for political parties like the Conservative and Labour Parties that have been creating cultural chaos and enacting genocide and race replacement on a massive scale?
The only extremists are those holding the reins of government, as they have been doing for the last 60 years. But they would have you believe that they are the “moderates,” the reasonable ones, and that the extremists are the "unrepresentative" Muslims who committed the Woolwich atrocity and the “Far Right" parties and organizations who have opposed mass immigration and the kind of multiracialism that has Sub-Saharan Muslims living cheek-by-slashed-jowl with troops serving the interests of America and Israel.
The Muslims who committed this atrocity are not extremists. They are following one of the broadest roads in a major world religion, a religion that grew up among a band of desert cutthroats and expanded by conquest, violence, intimidation, slavery, and mass rape; a religion that tolerates nothing but itself and drives its more logical adherents to acts of violence.
A so-called “moderate” Muslim is nothing more than a bad Muslim, someone who probably drinks alcohol and eats pork as well. A good Muslim is one who acts within the genocidal dictates of the religion’s founder. Needless to say, the rest of us should avoid good Muslims like the plague and be wary of bad Muslims in case they start taking their religion seriously.
The so-called “racists” and “fascists” who oppose multiracial Britain and wish not only to stop mass immigration but also to start the necessary process of “exigration” – the removal of the unassimilatable immigrant population – are not the extremists either. These people are common sense moderates, who, despite the lies of their higher and betters and the endless extremist propaganda of the “multicultural” state, realized at some gut level that the ruling elites were creating a madhouse.
The extremists are David Cameron, Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, John Major, Margaret Thatcher, Jim Callaghan, Edward Heath, Harold Wilson, Alec Douglas-Home, Harold Macmillan, and Anthony Eden, the prime ministers who facilitated the process by which Britain has been transformed into the Bedlam it is today.
The extremists are the media, the BBC and the newspapers of the oligarchs, who have bandied about the word “racist” in an attempt to suppress any opposition to the Third World colonization of Britain, in effect creating a society whose every second thought is now race.
The extremists are the academics, who have used their intelligence to blind themselves for the pleasures of sneering at lowly common sense and basking in the glow of a false moral smugness, while furthering their lie-driven careers.
But the extremists are also the majority of the British people who have voted for these politicians, listened to these journalists, and respected these academics, all the while feeling that something was deeply wrong.
Things like the increasing imposition of multicultural totalitarianism and the Woolwich atrocity that it pathetically failed to stop are not accidents. They are the symptoms of a deep disease of the political system. This disease is extremism, but not as the mass media uses the term.
Extremism exists naturally at the extreme ends of any system. Think of it like a bell curve. The left and right sides of the curve – the ‘extremes’ – taper to nothing, while the centre bulges to the highest point and contains most of the mass.
The fact that extremes exist in any system is not a problem in itself, and, in the grand scheme of things, may even be necessary. The problem we have in the West is that “the bulge” has been dislocated so that now the weight of opinion and power has been dislocated to the extreme Left for the last 60 years.
What is ‘centric’ or moderate about the ideas on which modern Britain is based? Nothing! The viewpoint that race is a construct, that blood exerts no pull on the human heart, that loyalty to your own kind is evil, and that we are all blank slates is self-evidently an extremist Leftist one, but it is one that has become displaced towards the centre of our society.

L. Neil Smith on Memorial Day

As is so often the case, I find myself in 99% agreement with Neil, with one caveat.  The armed forces are to a country what a gun is to a person.  It can be used, misused, or anything in between.  Obviously, this country has severely misused its armed forces by any standards over the last couple of centuries, but, like the individual's gun, the possibility of misuse doesn't invalidate the possibility of proper use.  And while war is and should be a last resort, the threat of war, i. e., deterrence, is a constant, universal application of armed force.  Switzerland, a place that knocks most people's treasured theories into a cocked hat, is famous for two things:  near-universal military service with all male citizens over a certain age being armed, and the fact that it hasn't actually been in a war since Napoleon.  And, of course, any nation that doesn't have a formidable military is very vulnerable to invasion, and finds itself following the orders of nations that do have a military lest it be invaded.  Sometimes "neutrals" are protected by the fact that opposing powers protect it from one another, but that's a rare, unstable situation.  So color me Swiss.  I want powerful armed forces to protect us from invasion, but I oppose their use except as a deterrent and as possible retaliation.  With that teensy condition, I endorse Neil's Memorial Day thoughts entirely — Ex-Army

Memorial Day
by L. Neil Smith

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Yesterday, I received in my Inbox, a message from a well-meaning individual whose mailings I generally enjoy. He sends me many jokes, funny pictures, and the occasional right wing rant appropriate to one who clings to his guns and his religion. To me—as one who clings to his guns andAtlas Shrugged—this makes him a goodguy, a fellow traveler.
He also occasionally sends me messages—and he is far from the only one—like the one reproduced in part below. Usually, I let them pass—he probably doesn't care what I think about intellectual property rights, or other controversies within the libertarian movement. But on this occasion, he sent me some ideas I need to talk about.
Before I start, I should mention that my grandfather died in an Army camp near Waco, Texas, in 1918, a volunteer for Woodrow Wilson's "war to end war ... and make the world safe for democracy" who never got a chance to fight, thanks to what was then called the "Spanish Influenza".
In 1944, my father, who never got a chance to meet his father, was a bombardier, a young Army Air Corps lieutenant in the nose of a B-17 who flew something like 29 missions over Europe before being shot down over Germany. He was taken as a prisoner to Stalag Luft Drei for about a year, had many horrible adventures both before and after he was captured, and was rescued, with his fellow inmates, after the D-Day landing.
After the war, Dad tried civilian life, discovering that some corporations—United Airlines, for one—are worse than government. He re-enlisted in the brand new shiny Air Force as a staff sergeant, and, owing to the Korean War, was then recalled to his commissioned rank and ultimately assigned to Strategic Air Command. The war in Asia ended before his training did, so he never had to go "over there", but he went on to achieve the rank of Major and retired as a 30-year veteran.
I grew up on and around Air Force bases all over North America from the time I was five years old until I graduated from high school. As a kid, I agreed with my father that he was helping to keep America safe and free from communist aggression, by flying a B-52 with a belly full of fusion bombs up over the North Pole two or three times a week, and hanging around at the edge of Soviet airspace, just to let the badguys know what they were up against. Who the hell knows? Maybe it worked.
For the most part, I liked life as a military dependent, I liked growing up within the military community, and I actually pitied the civilian people I met who weren't a part of that warm world. But as time went on, Dad began to question a culture that somehow, by mere coincidence, managed to provide a war—or two—for each and every generation. And by the time he had retired, in 1965, and had two sons of military age in the middle of the murderously futile exercise in Vietnam, he was certain. He never read Smedley Darlington Butler's War Is A Racket, but he managed to figure out what the score really was.
I still like and get along with military people, of all branches of service. They tend to like me, and what I do. I was told once that my first novel, The Probability Broach was, in popularity aboard our nuclear submarine fleet, second only to Garfield comics, and I felt highly complimented. If there had been a Navy R.O.T.C. program when I was at Colorado State University, my life would have turned out very differently. Air Force brat or not, I desperately wanted to be a sub-driver.
But thanks to the Vietnam War, which I successfully avoided, I never had any illusions. I was not about to sacrifice a minute of my life to enhance the power of that giant ball of mucus, Lyndon Baines Johnson, who represented a vastly greater threat to my life, liberty, and property than Ho Chi Minh or anybody like him ever did. He was the fat, lying, murderous bastard who accused Barry Goldwater of wanting to fight a land war in Asia, and stuck us with the 1968 Gun Control Act.
So with all that in mind, let's consider the Memorial Day claims my friend sent to me, and I can only hope he'll be my friend after this.
"It is the veteran, not the preacher, who has given us freedom of religion."
The truth is that neither the veteran nor the preacher ever gave us such a right, it is ours, under natural law, the very moment we are born. It can certainly be suppressed, and has been other places in the world, and here, as well—ask any Mormon—but this government hasn't fought a war to defend any American's rights since the Revolution.
"It is the veteran, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press."
Once again, not so. When the War of 1812 "broke out"—the U.S. was attempting to bestow the blessings of American life upon Canada whether Canada wanted them or not—and people objected (New England nearly seceded over it) people were accused of "sedition", a charge that should be impossible under the First Amendment, and thrown in jail.
Later, Abraham Lincoln used the Army to smash the printing presses of his political opposition and intimidate voters during the 1864 election.
"It is the veteran, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech."
Freedom of speech and of the press are natural rights, as well, which governments in general, and the American government in particular, have always regarded as a threat. If any single individual can be thanked for it, that honor belongs to John Peter Zenger (look him up). At some point, the establishment press became so corrupt, concealing or excusing government atrocities, that they became a part of government, and a new press—the Internet—had to evolve in its place.
"It is the veteran, not the campus organizer, who has given us freedom to assemble."
Having once been a "campus organizer" myself, I am well aware how little we had to do with defending the right to assemble, and how very badly it was done. But please, don't be ridiculous. Two words: Kent State.
"It is the veteran, not the lawyer, who has given us the right to a fair trial."
Actually, to the extent that any human institution is responsible for the right to a fair trial, it's a thousand years of English Common Law.
"It is the veteran, not the politician, Who has given us the right to vote."
A dubious gift, at best, but it didn't come from any politicians or veterans. Thank the Greeks, and don't forget the Basques, whose methods of self-government were consciously imitated by the Founding Fathers.
I like and admire veterans, My dad was a vet and his dad before him. But name any war the United States ever fought to defend American rights.
As I said, the War of 1812 was a failed attempt to conquer Canada. What legitimate American interests were threatened by the British in 1812?
The Mexican War was declared on us by a crazy military dictator who couldn't believe he had been humiliated by an Army of farmers and ranchers. What legitimate American interests were threatened by the Mexicans?
The War Between the States was fought to consolidate an empire forged out of the shattered remnants of a confederation of free republics. Many northern soldiers thought they were fighting slavery, but the slaves who labored though the war on the Capitol dome might disagree. The South was tired of paying 80% of the taxes being collected. What legitimate American interests were threatened by the South?
The Spanish-American War was an attempt by idiots like William McKinley and William Randolph Hearst to extend Lincoln's Empire overseas. What legitimate American interests were threatened by the Spaniards?
World War I had nothing to do with America, but Americans were sent "Over There" by the evil Wilson to establish us as a global power. What legitimate American interests were threatened by the Kaiser?
Even World War II had nothing to do with us, although it's easy to understand—and difficult to resist—the impulse to destroy a monster like Hitler. It's important to remember that Hitler was created by the incredible stupidity of the victorious allies in the First World War. The sad thing about it all is that it was not a conflict between good and evil, but between differing brands of fascism.
Fascism won.
Korea was an exercise in absolute insanity. I'm glad that the south remains prosperous and free, but the price for us was far too high. There was no reason whatever for Americans to be involved on the peninsula. What legitimate American interests were threatened by North Korea?
To this day, nobody is absolutely sure what Vietnam was all about. There's even a movie, Twilight's Last Gleaming, in which an Army officer hijacks a missile silo to force the President to tell the world the terrible truth of the thing. We killed 60,000 of our own— possibly including someone who, later in life, might have found a cure for cancer or Alzheimer's disease—and two million Vietnamese who are among the finest, bravest, most admirable human beings on this planet. What legitimate American interests were threatened by the Vietnmese?
And now Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, and whatever else is to follow. What legitimate American interests are threatened by any of those nations?
Nothing about individual rights, property, or American life except their further destruction by the only government close enough to do us harm. Both major U.S. parties are controlled by warmongers who want to keep the government money flowing at any cost—to you and me, that is. Every legitimate American interest is threatened by the current government.
There are ways to stop it, if you're interested.

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] 
DOWN WITH POWER was selected as the Freedom Book Club Book-of-the-Month for August 2012
He is Senior Editorial Consultant with Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership