Monday, June 30, 2014

Feminism For Failures

Liberalism brings out the worst in everybody. Feminism, as an ultra-refined form of liberalism, brings out the purest of the worst in everybody. Regular feminists are silly and annoying enough, but the male feminists, whew! How do their minds work? Do they work in any meaningful sense? Well, they work, just not very deeply or ethically.

Like all forms of leftism, there are two sets of adherents. There are the cynics on the top. who don't really believe any of the demonstrably stupid ideology, but who find it a really wonderful technique to fool the rubes with and take their money and make them jump. And then there are the rubes, who lack, clearly, any critical sense, and follow the leaders like sheep, which is a cliché, but an accurate one.

Nobody with any sense really believes any of that feminist nonsense, but there are plenty out there who pretend to, especially among males. Jim Goad discusses them at Takimag. The excerpt below is pretty salty, so beware. Then again, it's a pretty salty subject.

Feminism As a Mating Strategy Among Beta Males

First they came for the male feminists, and no one spoke out—because no one likes them, not even the female feminists.

Dearest faithful reader, I’m a man who finds something to dislike about nearly everything and everyone, yet even I find male feminists to be especially grating—they’re perched wayyyy up near the top of my “Don’t Like ’Em” list. The very term “male feminist” seems as masochistically counterintuitive as “black Klansman,” “Jewish Nazi,” or “white Democrat.” Sure, one expects women to be feminists, just as one should expect all living organisms to be motivated by self-interest, but there’s something downright gender-traitorous about male feminism. Self-loathing is not an attractive trait in any of God’s creatures, and these dweebs are the Benedict Arnolds of the Invisible Biological Brotherhood.

It only took me a cursory perusal of Google Images to get the strong suspicion that most males get into feminism for the same reason that females do: because they are failures at embodying their gender’s most attractive traits. In other words, females become feminists because they’re failures as women, while men do it because they’re failures as men.

The white knight gallops in quickly and wants you to look at his shiny white horse, because if you took a long hard look at him, you’d never agree to get on that horse and go galloping into the sunset with him.

Seriously—have you seen many of these self-proclaimed male feminists? When I see all these sullen dorks standing like political prisoners holding their “I NEED FEMINISM BECAUSE…” signs, I wish that one of them could be honest and say they need feminism because they’re not naturally attractive to women.

I therefore posit that in at least some cases, male feminism is a mating strategy for men who aren’t getting laid on the virtues of being men alone. So they switch gears and attempt to get laid on the merits of proclaiming to be feminist “allies.” The “allies” thing is all lies. It is a sneaky way of trying to appeal to women by loudly proclaiming that you hate the type of guy who normally appeals to women. I believe the most reasonable explanation for the very existence of the modern “male feminist” is rooted in evolutionary biology: Calling oneself a male feminist is a deceptive and despicable little shame-dance, a pathetic self-puffing mating ritual that beta male lizards do to garner even a scrap of female attention.

It’s like going to some pro-marijuana rally because you know someone there is going to have weed. If you hang around enough girl feminists long enough and claim to be a feminist, sooner or later one of them will f*ck you…maybe…right?

I theorize that these genetic-lotto losers—who tend to be either too fat or too skinny yet are invariably too unhandsome—obviously aren’t going to sow much seed being the uninspiring specimens of near-manhood that they are, so they appeal to feminine wiles in a sort of Hail Mary pass.

But their untrained and unskilled minds don’t grasp that you don’t have to be a male feminist to get laid; in fact, all the available evidence suggests it’s an impediment. I would go so far as to pay top dollar for verified scientific evidence of a woman lubricating to the sound of a man saying, “I’m a feminist.”

For all that they claim to be women’s natural allies, these schmucks don’t have the first clue about female psychology, or they wouldn’t need to turn to feminism as a sort of invisible date-rape drug. To these self-centered bitter little men bouncing around in their baby bubbles, it’s not really about empathizing with women at all, because they obviously don’t understand how women operate; it’s about scoring with women. It is in this sense that male feminists are more misogynistic than, well, you know, the misogynists. Failing desperately in the categories of natural charm and sex appeal, male feminists seek to gain access to women’s bodies via deception.

Male feminists are therefore, by my own tortured logic, the biggest enemy that modern women currently face. They excuse and thereby enable the worst excesses of female feminist behavior while symbolically cuckolding their own entire gender on the outside chance that one of these girls will sooner or later consent to giving him oral.
Quibcag: Ran, Sonoko, and Sera Masumi of Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン) are very successful at being girls, as you can see.

I'm Sick and Tired of Civil Rights — Aren't You?

Civil rights is tiring, isn't it? Or aren't they? I first noticed civil rights back in the Sixties, when it was terribly important that Blacks go to restaurants and clubs and things where they weren't wanted, so Lyndon Johnson went against centuries of development of the rights of private property, and forced them in by law. In short, you don't have a right to say who enters your building, but the Federal Government does.

Well, "civil rights" has had its effect, and some say it's been a failure, as race relations are worse now than they were fifty years ago. But that's assuming that the purpose of "civil rights" was to improve race relations. I see no reason to think that was the case. I knew some low-level "civil rights" leaders, and their purpose was to stick it to Whitey.  And that has been supremely successful.

Brett Stevens explains why the whole idea of "civil rights" is stupid and self-destructive. From


by Brett Stevens
As we enter the age of civil rights fatigue those who oppose diversity will face increasing opposition from the dying system. A vastly entrenched nepotistic bureaucracy, industry and media exists because of the political jobs program created by anti-discrimination and anti-poverty legislation. They will defend their meal ticket with increasing acrimony. They can be defeated by attacking their motivations and clarifying our position.

Who is the opposition? Government employees and politicians can use race as a "blank check" to get approval, much as poverty has been used in democracies since the dawn of time. Your program seems self-serving until you justify it as helping the poor. Industry benefits by selling books, movies, and personalities based on their attitude toward race; non-profit groups like the SPLC furiously beat the drums of fear and receive a corresponding massive influx of donations. Media needs hot topic issues that are both a threat and a moral vindication to sell their online and print ads.

Their motivations can be attacked by looking to their self-interest. As Tom Wolfe notes, political correctness is a way of trend-hopping to advance oneself socially, just like the rest of liberalism. He called this mentality "Radical Chic" and defined it as:

" exercise in double-tracking one's public image: on the one hand, defining oneself through committed allegiance to a radical cause, but on the other, vitally, demonstrating this allegiance because it is the fashionable, au courant way to be seen in moneyed, name-conscious Society."Politically correct people do not care about the consequences of their words. They want to be hip, trendy, young, fresh and exciting, so they adopt a pose they think leads to that end. They believe that it's their ticket to the political and financial elite, and wherever liberals have money — generally the coastal cities — this can be true but is not universally so. Thus the politically correct herd is 95% wannabes and a lucky few who rise to the top.

Attacking the motivations of the politically correct requires recognizing what they are doing. They are trying to manipulate you with social guilt and implied exclusion from the group. You can retaliate by pointing out that they're just as conformist as the suit and tie guys of the 1950s. The hip has moved on. The un-hip and dead are these bogus 1960s values (really inherited from the early 1900s, when fashionable anarchists roamed London throwing ineffective bombs) that people keep flogging because... they're not hip. They're pretenders.

In response to the inevitable outrage, clarifying our position — I use "our" to refer to all who recognize the failure of diversity — precludes a number of stealth attacks the PC herd will attempt. Their goal is to style us as poseurs, or pretenders who are hiding racial hatred behind a social pretense of educated, scientific political inquiry. We can kick that assault to the curb by pointing out that instead we are nationalists.

Nationalism does not connote, as its detractors argue, preferenceagainst other races. Instead, nationalism demonstrates preference for its own ethnic group. It does not worry about whether other groups are "bad" or "inferior"; it simply excludes them. The point of nationalism is to have a national identity and thus a shared culture, heritage and values. With that, we can govern ourselves without ideological government and economic control (consumerism/socialism).

A nationalist wants inclusion of his own people only. Anything other than his people should be excluded. This is not a personal judgment, or even a values judgment at all. They don't fit: happy nations are homogenous in culture, heritage and values. By that definition, implied in reciprocal, any person who does not fit this type should be excluded. Even if they have 1,000 IQ points and never commit any crimes, they do not belong among Us because they are Them and should be excluded.

Hate groups arise because governments or economies force diversity upon populations. Those then retaliate by attacking the immediate cause of their discomfort, which is the presence of others among them. Unless individuals choose to join the pretense wagon of "it doesn't bother me, all my neighbors are lovely," which only fools the kind of people who weep over the "profound" messages on greeting cards, all people possess a natural instinct to group with people like themselves, not just in origins but behavior and morality, encompassed by the triad of culture, heritage and values.

The diversity crowd wants to equate nationalism with membership in a hate group. This confuses the intent of the two groups: nationalists want homogeneity to avoid racism; racists want diversity so that they can feel better than someone else. The West has seen enough immivasion to realize that Mexicans killing blacks and Indians clobbering Chinese are more common than "evil white people" beating up blacks. We have also witnessed enough Muslim hate attacks against Jews to see the religion issue is not a simple question of Christian supremacy. For these reasons people are turning from both racism and diversity.

Advocates of diversity will try to invoke outrage through the pretense of the "good" that diversity brings, so that they can summon a hive swarm of angry liberal bees intent on destroying the ideological violators. But our point is not to take either the left side, or the right; it is that we want a third option which is right down the middle: we want to be among ourselves only. We are not concerned with others. We want to make a future for Us. And so we've tossed diversity on the dustbin of history with other failed ideas. We're free of it now.

Quibcag: Narusegawa Naru of Love Hina (ラブ ひな Rabu Hina) obviously couldn't care less about hipness and coolness. Good for her.

Saturday, June 28, 2014

Just for Pun

by Matt Curran

Wuss Warmongers

Now, I'm not one of those starry-eyed touchie-feely idiots who want to end war forever. The last time we tried to end war forever was, well, 100 years ago, coincidentally, and it killed a hell of a lot of people. No, we're a warlike species, and we can't end war without changing human nature. And every time we try to change human nature, it blows up in our faces, so forget that.

No, what I want is to minimize war, and to do that, you avoid war unless it's absolutely necessary. See how that works? If you understand what conditions are, i. e., what human beings are actually like, you can try to arrange things so as to maximize the possibilities for peace. But if you don't understand these things, you end up with plenty of war and suffering, trying to turn sow's ears into silk purses.

Interestingly, the loudest pacifist voices our there currently seem to be calling for total war on everything. And this is going on simultaneously with a big denunciation of the Bush Administration for perpetrating the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now, I denounce them, too, but I'm not planning to do the exact same damn thing all over again for slightly nuanced reasons, which is what the liberals are up to.

We're all tired of hearing nonsense about fighting for democracy in Iraq, or stopping terrorism by bombing goat herders (most of us are, anyway), so in order to re-invade everybody, we need new, improved nonsense, and the Obama Administration and its minions are working late into the night to develop such nonsense. Justin Raimondo, at, brings us up to date on our new plan to fight the world for the right to cross-dress or whatever:

Political Correctness and Imperialism

They go together like peanut butter and jelly

by Justin Raimondo, June 27, 2014

With support for interventionism at an all-time low, the War Party is constantly on the lookout for fresh justifications of their failed and increasingly unpopular overseas meddling. The old saw about how "terrorists" mustn’t be allowed to establish "safe havens" is getting a bit stale, and was never all that persuasive to begin with: after all, the 9/11 attacks were planned in Hamburg, Germany. For the first time ever a majority of Americans think the ideal US foreign policy would be "minding our own business," as the wording of a recent Pew poll put it. So the old tart has to put on a new coat of paint and dress up in more fashionable raiment in order to keep her clientele and perhaps even attract some new ones.

Joe Biden is just the man for the job: brazenly opportunistic and happy to bloviate at a moment’s notice, the grandstanding Vice President declared this week that "protecting gay rights is a defining mark of a civilized nation and must trump national cultures and social traditions," according to NBC News.

"I don’t care what your culture is," he said, not telling us anything about American imperialism we didn’t already know. "Inhumanity is inhumanity is inhumanity. Prejudice is prejudice is prejudice."

And arrogance is arrogance is arrogance: but when you’re the mightiest military powerin the history of mankind – oh, excuse me, humankind – the concept of hubris is one of those "unknown unknowns," to use a phrase popularized by Biden’s right-wing equivalent. Donald Rumsfeld’s arrogance came in a different color, to be sure, but underneath the wrapping the same product is being sold: the idea that the United States is and must be the moral arbiter and policeman of the world.

Hubris? Isn’t that a Greek dish, kinda like couscous only spicier?

The NBC report avers that the Obama administration’s effort, highlighted at a US government-sponsored conference addressed by Biden and National Security honcho Susan Rice, aims at "seeking to mobilize a global front against anti-gay violence," but that’s just the wrapping – when you look inside, it’s something else altogether. A "Fact Sheet" put out by the White House outlines comprehensive programs that are already in place and gives us a broad overview of the principle under which they operate. Under "Country Engagement," we are told:

"The United States regularly engages with host governments and civil society in countries that have discriminatory laws or are considering legislation that would criminalize consensual same-sex conduct between adults. We press to discourage passage wherever possible, and in cases where laws are on the books, to protect LGBT individuals from violence and discrimination that often accompany the enactment and enforcement of such legislation."
Quibcag: This isn't technically a quibcag, because Joe Biden isn't technically a Cute Anime Girl, but he's still the perfect illustration for this. Back when I was getting yelled at by DI's at Ft. Campbell, Joe was busily dodging the draft along with Slick Willy and Dick Cheney so he could study hard at school to think up new reasons to send other people overseas to fight wars. His latest reason, of course, is to make the world safe for the cast of La Cage Aux Folles.

Friday, June 27, 2014


"And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea." — King James Bible
The other day I was speculating about the little acronym I came up with for the powers, that be, MAG, and how it stands for Media, Academia, and Government. But it occurred to me that it would even be better if it were MAGOG, but what the OG might stand for, I couldn't imagine. I got a couple of suggestions, but the best was from Vulture of Critique, who wrote:

Media, Academia, Government, Onlookers, Goons

In addition to Media, Academia, and Government, there are two important social sectors that impede reform: Onlookers and Goons.

Onlookers are the kind of people who would quietly watch an evil man kill fifteen innocent men, so long as the evil man had the marks of social respectability.
Goons are the kind of people who would lynch an innocent man, so long as the innocent man lacked the marks of social respectability.
If you run into Ex-Army, tell him about MAGOG.
And of course, that's just about perfect, because MAG is just the leadership of the whole thing, and in order for them actually to rule us, they need the other two elements: Onlookers, who are most of us, who passively watch, and by our inaction enable their unquestioned rule, and the Goons, who enforce the rule of the MAG by seizing the streets, and intimidating the rest of us into being only Onlookers.

The graphic, of course, is a work in progress, and I'm open to suggestions about how best to present the idea. I'm thinking about prevailing on our own Baloo to do some original art for it.

Now, who the heck is GOG?


P. S. I don't really expect anybody to believe this, but I just looked at the hit total for this page today, and the number was, no kidding, 666.

The Multidownsides of Multiculturalism

When American colonists swarmed into Texas in the early 19th century, very few of them wanted to become Mexicans. They wanted to remain Americans, with all their customs and religions and folkways — they just wanted to live in Mexico. Actually, as it turned out, they didn't even want to do that. They revolted, established an American-style republic, and became an American state. As has so often been the case, "immigrants" turned out to be colonists at best, and invaders at worst.

Very few people cross a border in order to become different people. The Turks who invaded Anatolia didn't want to become Greeks, and they didn't, as you can see. Caesar didn't invade Gaul in order to dress up like Asterix and become a Druid. Dutch colonists in South Africa didn't want to start a new life as Zulus. And the later Brit invaders of the same area didn't want to become Boers and speak Afrikaans. And the European Crusaders in the Holy Land certainly didn't want to convert to Islam and become Bedouin.

And, despite all the Ellis Island rhetoric, current immigrants to America, with some notable exceptions, don't have the slightest intention of assimilating and becoming Americans. Just look at Piers Morgan.

So if we accept a million immigrants from Bangla Desh, say, what we're going to end up with is a million Bangla Deshis in America, not a million new Americans. And they will almost unanimously demand that America change its own laws and customs to accomodate Bangla Deshi culture. Bet on it.

And it's not just odd-smelling food (which can actually be a plus) and exotic clothing (which can sometimes be quite pleasant). It's also things which can wreak havok on American culture, like arranged marriages, Sharia law, honor killings, and slavery. And, if you go far afield enough to find your vibrant immigrants, it can include Voodoo religion, cannibalism, female circumcision, exotic diseases, and other revolting customs that you haven't even thought of.

And Obama's latest plan to basically resettle everybody in Central America into everyplace in the United States from Mayberry to Riverdale has opened us up to some sexual developments that would turn Hugh Hefner's stomach — Hell, even Larry Flynt's stomach. At, Vox Day reports:

Immigration and sexual exploitation

The sexual exploitation of children is on the rise in America according to the FBI:
Six child victims and three pimps were discovered by law enforcement officers during the last several days in Texas. The apprehensions were made as the result of Operation Cross Country, an effort to curb commercial sex trafficking in the United States. Michelle Lee, a San Antonio-based FBI spokeswoman, told Breitbart Texas that the sexual exploitation of children is "increasing exponentially." The victims and pimps found during the most recent sting were located in Austin and San Antonio, according to a press release from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The recovered children were victims of child prostitution....

The number of child victims, as well as the number of arrests, related to child exploitation increases every year. Lee said, "It's not just because we're getting better at understanding the threat. ... The threat is also getting worse. At least here in San Antonio, our observation is that children are being victimized in increasing numbers when it comes to sexual exploitation and trafficking. It's increasing exponentially."
It is ludicrous to attempt to blame the increase on "social media". The real reason is immigration. There are four reasons why immigration is the primary cause of the increase in sexual exploitation:
  1. The stepfather effect: Men are far more likely to sexually exploit and abuse children of different races than children of their own race. The protective instinct all men is feel towards children is reduced due to the lack of visible genetic connection to the children.
  2. The color effect: In America, blacks, and particularly Hispanics, are much more likely to molest children than whites. Blacks are 1.85x more likely to molest children, and Hispanics are 2.35x more likely to do so. So, the more People of Color there are in a society, the more sexual exploitation of children there will be.
  3. The broken family effect: Immigration usually separates a nuclear family from an extended family, and often separates an individual from his nuclear family for extended periods of time. If they are children without the protection of a family, these individuals are more readily victimized. If they are adults, these individuals without the civilizing influence of a family more readily behave in a predatory manner, including a sexually exploitative one. 
  4. The cultural effect: Many immigrants come from cultures where it is acceptable to marry young girls as young as eight. The fact that they have changed their geographical location does not magically change their cultural values. They simply view underage girls as viable sexual objects in a way that no normal American does.
Since mass immigration, especially the immigration of unaccompanied children, has been on the rise, we can safely expect the sexual exploitation of children to continue to exponentially increase until the mass repatriations finally begin. The problem isn't limited to America either; in the UK, there are many networks of "Asians" (mostly Pakistanis) who have been systematically preying upon British girls for years, luring them in with presents and handsome young boyfriends, then gang-raping them and turning them into prostitutes.

Now that the economy is in depression, both observably and statistically, one cannot even argue for the economic benefits of immigration. Mass immigration is a societally destructive force, and the only civilized long-term solution is the mass repatriation of the various immigrants to their native lands.
Quibcag: It was a challenge to find an acceptable illustration for such a quote and situation, but I persevered. Here we have Kagura (神楽) of Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul"), who is not entirely a child, but certainly underage by the standards of most civilized people. But, being an extremely powerful alien, she's not at all vulnerable to sexual or any other kind of exploitation, as you can see.

The Curmudgeon's Curmudgeon, Fred Reed

Fred is being extra-curmudgeony this week, and he's writing on a very curmudgeony subject indeed, race and IQ. He starts:

Last Call at the Milk Bar

I’m being a pain in the ass again. My childhood makes me do it. When I was 11, we boy kids in Alabama liked to shoot a wasp’s nest with BB guns and run like hell. I guess it stuck.

In this column I will explain why the Caucasian race will shortly be extinct, and why it is a good idea. This conclusion flows ineluctably from evolutionary considerations and studies of racial IQ. It is simple biology.

Here’s the evolutionary-IQ perspective: As race realists have argued at length, IQ is a reliable measure of intelligence, and is primarily genetic. Twin studies, in which identical twins have been raised apart in differing environments, show that 80% of IQ is of genetic provenance. So far as I know, these studies seem to be correct.

The realists frequently publish curves of IQ distributions indicating that American blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Mexicans of 87, and white Americans of 98. (IQs tend to wander according to the argument one is making. For national averages I mostly use the figures in the table from IQ and the Wealth of Nations, regarded as canonical by race realists.) The authors who have discovered the superiority of whites, curiously enough, are white. As a rule, realists attribute almost every instance of high intelligence to genetics and, usually, to white blood.

The accuracy is doubtful. In particular, they omit distributions of groups superior to plain vanilla whites (PVWs). For example, the slant-eyed Asians—Japanese, Chinese, and Koreans. Their IQs, 105 to 108, are greatly superior to that of PVWs. Note that these Asians make up the first five countries by IQ in IQ and the Wealth. (China, mysteriously, is put at 100, but since Singapore, which is genetically similar, is given as 108, this would seem the best figure for developed Chinese societies.) There are well over a billion such Asians.

This is no statistical fluke. They are so overwhelmingly dominant in high-end universities (Caltech, 40%) that Ivy schools have quietly imposed quotas to protect PVWs—i.e., affirmative action for the non-competitive. Asians have larger brains, which perhaps explains their superior intelligence.

In short, these Asians are genetically superior. (And they know it. An acquaintance with access to the Asian community of California quoted them as describing whites as “lazy and stupid.”) By inevitable natural selection, they are beginning to replace PVWs in evolutionary niches requiring intelligence, as Cro-Magnons replaced Neanderthals.

Think I’m kidding? Here are some United States Math Olympiad winners. The proportion of Chinese names strongly suggests that the true Chinese IQ is well ahead of that of PVWs. Asians make up something like 6% of the U.S. population. Uncle Darwin is calling us to bedtime.

Non-Chinese Asians outperform whites as well. Thirteen of the last 17 winners of the Scripps National Spelling Bee have been Indians, who represent a tiny fraction of the U.S. population. Indians, says IQ and the Wealth, have a mean IQ of 81. Sure, and I’m Sophia of Anhalt-Zerbst. A common response of race realists is that only very bright Indians come to the U.S. Yes, but all the very bright American kids are already here, no?
Now, what you have to do is read Fred's whole piece at Takimag HERE, or, alternately, at Unz Review HERE, and then come back and read my reaction. You gotta read it all first, okay? I'll wait. Okay? Now, my reaction:

The main value of this piece is to remind us not to be all that sure of ourselves, in IQ or anything else. It is indeed true that test scores have varied here and there over the years, and the Irish thing is particularly interesting. 

Fred is misleading on one subject: He implies that race realists don't know about the higher East Asian and Ashkenazi IQ's. I'm a race realist, and I've read plenty of other race realists, and, as far as I know, they are all very well aware of those IQ scores. I certainly am. In fact, I don't know of anybody among race realists who fails to mention the fact that while White IQ is higher than Black IQ, Asian and Askenazi Jewish IQ is still higher than White.

And, interestingly, there's a certain symmetry between India and Mexico. Both countries have what you might call a White elite running what is largely a non-White mass. In the case of India, you have the upper castes largely descended from Aryan invaders, who are closely related to Afghans, Persians, and Europeans, while the rest of India is descended from the dark Caucasian population mixed with an earlier Australoid population that may have been the original inhabitants. It's those upper castes who immigrate to the US and win spelling bees, so I'm not at all surprised that the mean IQ of India as a whole is 81.  As for Mexico, Mexicans are largely Amerindian by blood, descended from Toltecs, Aztecs, etc., who were civilized and who built cities and empires, and other tribes who were not so civilized. They also are descended from Black Slaves and European conquistadors to a lesser extent. But the people who mostly run Mexico are of hidalgo blood, descendants of Spaniards for the most part, and they aren't the ones slipping over the border because they're in charge of Mexico and why would they want to leave?

So my guess is that the average Mexican has a higher IQ than the average Mexican immigrant, legal or illegal, to the US.

And, of course, one thing left out of Fred's piece are the truly low-IQ groups, like Sub-Saharan Africans and the Australoids of Australia and nearby areas. There's never been any genuine controversy about their IQ's, tests or no tests.

Oh, one final point: Can we do away with the totally useless term "Asian" once and for all? As it applies to human beings, that is?  When race is discussed, let's use Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Australoid, which are the races to be found in Asia. If you're a White person, you are much more closely related to Mahatma Ghandi than Ghandi is to Mao, so using "Asian" as an ethic or racial term is just stupid and misleading.
Quibcag: No, that's not a boy from Alabama. It's a girl from Upotte!! (うぽって!!).

Thursday, June 26, 2014

Blog Report

Blogging may look easy, but it's actually a lot of work. It takes a lot of research and thinking. It's hard to describe, other than to say it's like dragging a reluctant cat down a Japanese sidewalk.

Anyhow following a recommendation from Mangan's, I just added Council of European Canadians to the blogroll. A quick look at it indicates that it's quite sophisticated about the general attack on Europeans and Western Civilization by the MAG (Media, Academia, Government).

It occurs to me that my MAG acronym would be even better if it were MAGOG. Can anybody help me with what the OG might be made to stand for?

Elsewhere, there is a list of interesting blogs at Vulture of Critique that I will go through slowly.

Special Train For Atkins

I went into a public- 'ouse to get a pint o' beer,
The publican 'e up an sez, "We serve no red-coats here."
The girls behind the bar they laughed an' giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an' to myself sez I:
O it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy go away";
But it's "Thank you, Mister Atkins," when the band begins to play-
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it's "Thank you Mr Atkins," when the band begins to play.
I went into a theatre as sober as could be,
They gave a drunk civilian roo, but 'adn't none for me;
They sent me to the gallery or round the music-'alls,
But when it comes to fighting', Lord! They'll shove me in the stalls!
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy wait outside";
But it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide-
The troopship's on the tide, my boys, the troopship's on the tide,
O it's "Special train for Atkins," when the trooper's on the tide.
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleep
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
An' hustlin' drunken soldiers when they're goin' large a bit
Is five times better business than paradin' in full kit.
Then it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy 'ow's yer soul?"
But it's "Thin red line of 'eroes" when the drums begin to roll-
The drums begin to roll, my boys, the drums begin to roll,
O it's " Thin red line of 'eroes," when the drums begin to roll.
We aren't no thin red 'eroes, nor we aren't no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An' if sometimes our conduck isn't all your fancy paints,
Why single men in barricks don't grow into plaster saints;
While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Tommy fall be'ind,"
But it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind-
There's trouble in the wind, my boys, there's trouble in the wind,
O it's "Please to walk in front, sir," when there's trouble in the wind.
You talk o' better food for us, an' schools, an' fires, an' all:
We'll wait for extry rations if you treat us rational.
Don't mess about the cook-room slops, but prove it to our face
The Widow's Uniform is not the soldier-man's disgrace.
For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "Chuck 'im out, the brute!"
But it's "Saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot;
An' it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' anything you please;
An' Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool - you bet that Tommy sees!
— Rudyard Kipling

I try not to be doctrinaire about such things, but by and large, I believe that empires are not a good thing. Whatever good they do, which is mostly in keeping the peace, seems to pale into insignificance in comparison with the chaos and bloodshed that ensue when they finally fall apart. And peace is about it, really, for the advantages of empire. And when empires aren't peaceful, they really don't have much raison d'être.

I don't like the idea of an American Empire at all. When you compare it with the last really big empire, the British Empire, it's kind of depressing. The British Empire seems to have enriched a few people quite well, but look at the UK today. How much better off is the average Brit because his country once ruled great swaths of the Earth from India to Africa to the Middle East and beyond? Ironically, you can say that the British Empire enriched the places it conquered rather more than it did the home country. Would India have all those railroads if it had never been ruled by the Brits? Would the former British colonies in Africa have anything? Note that I'm not mentioning the countries predominantly made up of British migrants, like us, because that's a different story entirely.

Still just looking at the UK, largely as a result of having once been the seat of a great empire, it now has an enormous, intrusive bureaucracy and cameras on every corner. Also, it has hordes of Third-World immigrants from its former empire, who are likely to wipe out every aspect of Britishness within a couple of generations.

As an American, I know that a republic can't be an empire, and vice-versa. I know that having such an empire, no matter what you call it, benefits the average American not one bit, and only benefits that 1% the left whines about even as it calls for more and more government to serve it. And it really doesn't help the people we colonize much, though you can always find somebody who'd better off as a result. Most of the people are a lot worse off.

The latest on that is Joe Biden's pronouncement that the whole world has to fall on its knees in support of "gay rights," however we're defining it this week, or, I guess, fear that draft-dodger Joe will send troops to Africa and and Russia and who knows where else to by God establish gay rights. Info on this latest idiocy of Joe at Steve Sailer's blog HERE.

To paraphrase Bismarck, hardly a pacifist himself, I assert that Gay Marriage in Uganda isn't worth the bones of one Pennsylvanian rifleman.

Let's stop this empire nonsense and try the republic thing again.

Three And A Half Funerals
by L. Neil Smith

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

We've all seen it, dozens, perhaps even hundreds of times. A young man or woman, a young son or daughter, a young husband or wife, comes back from some unnecessary, idiotic war in "Bumf*ck, Egypt"—in a box.

Drums roll, bugles play, bagpipes flare. Maybe rifles in a row are fired. Meaningless platitudes are uttered. Attempting valiantly to hold back her tears, the widow in her Sunday church clothes, hardly more than a girl herself, accepts the flag from her husband's casket, now folded into a neat triangle. Beside her, a preschooler will grow up hardly remembering Daddy. The baby in her arms will never know its father.

The chaplain, minister, priest, or rabbi, and everybody else, the fallen soldier's parents, his commanding officer, his comrades-in-arms will all refer to him as a hero at one time or another on this day. So will some of the media. They won't tell you he was killed, smashing into a family's home halfway around the world, in search of weapons to confiscate.

Meanwhile, a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away, an Imperial Stormtrooper is laid to rest, the one member of his squad killed in an otherwise unremarkable act of murdering Uncle Owen Lars and his wife Aunt Beru. Owen got a shot off before he died; the Stormtrooper's white plastic armor didn't protect him. Now he'll be called a hero too, a valorous and faithful servant of the Empire. His family will take some small comfort from that, and never dream that he deserved to die.

Skip ahead of our own time an unknown number of years. Another young American soldier is being buried while family and friends watch, having been killed by an Improvised Explosive Device while attempting to suppress "insurgents"—in Ohio. He was trying to keep them from shooting the bulldozer drivers demolishing suburban neighborhoods, clearing the land for a "return to nature" under a United Nations mandate.

His older brother was killed the year before, his body armor no match for a civilian .375 Holland and Holland in a nation that, as Isoroku Yamamoto once warned, hides a rifleman behind every blade of grass

It's rumored that Washington is preparing to use neutron bombs to finish the job of depopulating "flyover country", the suburbs, and small towns, leaving all non-living assets intact. It's important to those presently collecting millions of cars to ship Mexico, where they will be sold to buyers in Europe, Africa, and Asia, or broken up for parts. Avoiding radiation is vital, too, if "reclaimed" land is to be given, in lieu of payment, to China and America's other creditors. Also, many powerful and wealthy politicians are looking forward to establishing "dachas" or private estates in the countryside, where they will reside in luxury, served by attractive kidnapped teenage slaves.

What these events have in common, of course, is that they are the funerals of young military people being killed while believing they are doing needful and heroic deeds. That's what their friends and families believe as well. That's the way it's presented in the state- controlled media, just like the funerals of many a Nazi or Soviet Army soldier.

To anyone who knows how to look, what's heartbreakingly obvious—and more painful to me than I can possibly express—is that we, the United States of America, have, by fits and starts, become the very evil that we have always believed we were fighting. Our young soldiers are invaders, villains, no matter how they look or sound, not heroes or liberators, as they claim—or it is claimed for them. By any objective standard, they are being killed by people trying to protect their property, their rights, and the way that they choose to live their lives, no matter how repulsive and abhorrent that may seem to us.

I'm old enough to have seen how Japanese soldiers were portrayed in propagandistic World War II media, with goofy buck teeth and Coke bottle glasses. I understand that now, individuals like you and me, respectable members of the American Productive Class, people who read actual books, Constitutionalists, libertarians, third party voters, hard money advocates, gun owners, Ron Paul supporters, religious folks, are being caricatured the same way, dehumanized, and labeled "terrorists", so it will be easier for young, heavily-indoctrinated, maybe even drugged Homeland Security, TSA, and UN troops to pull the trigger.

"We has met the enemy," said Pogo Possum during the Vietnam War, "and they is us." To a military brat like me, born in the shadow of World War II, Cub Scout, Boy Scout, Eagle Scout, and, I suppose, a patriot (how I wish I had read Smedley Butler's War Is A Racket in junior high school), it means I have lived my whole life in a fog of lies.

It's somewhat similar to the shock we all experienced as young Objectivists when we realized that private capitalism and corporate big business are not expressions of the same thing, but, in fact, polar opposites, as different as day and night, as different as freedom and slavery. Only the present shock of belatedly seeing the America we loved as a worldwide oppressor, is a hundred times worse; I don't know whether civilization—or humanity itself—can survive it.

You can complain about the damage done by Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, George H.W. Bush, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, or Abraham Lincoln. To a great extent, the America we loved was dealt a mortal blow in 1788, when the Constitution, and a strong central government, were imposed on us. That's largely what my novel The Probability Broach is about. Now Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and their cronies dream of ruling an America they have demolished and re-made to their specifications.

You and I have no place in that world.

If it's up to them, we're headed for the landfill.
Quibcag: I don't know where the girl came from in the first one.  In the second, we have the girls of Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā)

Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Suicidal Empathy

The sage said, "all things in moderation," and that's good advice, even for things that we've been taught are purely good, like altruism and empathy. Both of these things are indeed good, but only in moderation.

I'm of the school of thought attributed to sociobiology or evolutionary psychology that altruism is a characteristic that evolved because it was adaptive. The altruistic behavior of an individual in defense of or in support of his family members protects the genes he shares with them, hence, altruism is selected for. But a lot of things have been selected for that are good things in the circumstance of the times they were being selected. But not necessarily now, or in current circumstances.

For one example, the whole human species seems to have a sweet tooth, and we tend to gorge on sweet food. This can be explained evolutionarily by the fact that we do indeed need sugar, and in hardscrabble primitive times, it was fairly hard to get in any quantity. When our remote ancestors encountered a beehive, we ate the whole honey supply, and that enabled us to store up sugar and gave us an advantage. We also were attracted to sweet berries and such foods, and ate as many as we could. It was an adaptive drive.

Now though, sugar is all over the place, but we largely retain that old drive to gorge on it, when we no longer need that urge to help us survive. So uncontrolled, that urge can hurt or kill us. We have to recognize it for what it is, and not let it lead us into suicidal behavior.

The same thing applies to our urge towards altruism and empathy, which is a very adaptive thing when it strengthens our family, or the extended family called a 'tribe.' But altruism towards the alien — those not closely related to us — can cause us to support and protect others to the neglect of our own. Right now, we're told that it's a good thing to allow, say Haitians, to emigrate because we should feel empathy for them and altruism towards them. But, like the sugar urge, we have to control that lest it kill us. We welcome Haitians, or Iraqis, or whatever, in, and they or their offspring absorb our tax money at best — therefore depriving us and our offspring of our resources. And at worst, of course, they get into crime, form gangs, and flat out kill our offspring. And our genes dwindle to the advantage of alien genes.  That is the problem with universalism, which is the practice of applying principles of family and tribe to the whole human species.

But here I go blathering on when we have an actual evolutionary psychologist to listen to. Over at, Kevin MacDonald writes:

The Camp of the Saints Invasion: Empathy for Helpless Children Versus Racial/Ethnic Interests

One of the main reasons for unplugging myself from cable TV is that I wouldn’t have to watch displays like Kirsten Powers on the O’Reilly Factor (6/17) discussing the Camp of the Saints invasion across the U.S. southern border. Wikipedia says that Powers is a serious Christian:

In her mid-30s, she became an evangelical Christian. The process of conversion began when she dated a religious Christian man, who introduced her to the Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City and the teachings of its pastor, Tim Keller, and culminated in an experience in 2006 when, during a trip to Taiwan, she believes that she was visited by Jesus. She has called her conversion “a bit of a mind bender” due to her political beliefs and former atheism, and prefers the term “orthodox Christian” over “evangelical” to describe herself, given the “cultural baggage” around the word “evangelical”. She has said that the biggest impact her new-found religiosity had on her political beliefs was that she came to “view everyone as God’s child and that means everyone deserves grace and respect.”

This last statement seems to mean that in her view, anyone who appears on the border should be taken in and supported for moral reasons. As Andrew Joyce notes, contemporary Chirstianity is a disaster for the ethnic interests of Whites (“Tales of Blood and Gods: Some Thoughts on Religion and Race,”)

On the O’Reilly show, she begins and ends with the “argument” that these are children after all. Of course we have to take them in — even 100,000 would be no problem. When O’Reilly said that pretty much the whole world would want to come, she had no principled answer—only that most poor people would have to get on a plane to get here which is unlikely. So in her view, if they can get here, the U.S. has a moral obligation to support them.

O’Reilly agreed that compassion and empathy are mandated by our “Judeo-Christian” heritage. (Somehow the Israelis don’t interpret the Judeo part as mandating that African illegal immigrants remain in Israel). But, unable or unwilling to phrase the issue in terms of ethnic displacement, he opposed the invasion for economic reasons: the country is broke, so we can’t possibly absorb all these people.

Powers replied that we have plenty of money. After all, at this point it’s only 50,000 children, and besides you (O’Reilly) wanted the war in Iraq which set the U.S. back over $2 trillion. She might have also noted that the U.S. already takes in over 1,000,000 legal mainly poor immigrants and refugees every year; what’s another 50,000-100,000?

And if the economic argument fails, whatever else could it be? O’Reilly a racist?? Perish the thought.

The exchange is a good example of mainstream “conservative” rhetoric these days. Stripped of the ability to phrase the issue in terms of legitimate fears of racial/ethnic displacement and presented with a compelling situation that pulls for empathy, opponents of such invasions are helpless. (See Ted Sallis, “What the immigration debate should really be about.”) They are children after all.

So in the end, we are once against up against the Western proclivity for moral universalism—the unique Western proclivity toward moral idealism motivated by empathy which has now become a pathology endlessly exploited cynically by leftists, often to attain their own ethnic interests.

As Frank Salter notes in his On Genetic Interests, the argument from ethnic interests is not an emotionally compelling argument. One feels a bit like the pedantic professor giving a lecture, while people like Powers are plugging into deep feelings for helpless children facilitated by Western proclivities toward individualism and moral universalism. Other costs of multiculturalism also remain abstract for most Whites, shielded from reality by the mainstream media and the ability to move to predominantly White areas.

The good news is it seems very unlikely that Congress could pass an amnesty/immigration surge law now given that the border is demonstrably uncontrolled.

And although for obvious reasons the mainstream media is not giving the story much attention (according to Bernie Goldberg, also on O’Reilly [6/17]), I suspect that it’s another one of those events that is gradually resulting in ever greater racial polarization of American politics. We are under siege.
Quibcag: This is Shampoo of  Ranma ½ (らんま½), who is afflicted with neither empathy nor altruism.

A Guide to the Comparative Virtue of Immigrants

Cartoon by BALOO
This relates to a post I made a couple of days back HERE.

Steve Sailer had a post about how leftists view politics with respect to side-taking and principle, and one of the comments on his post by Wilkey said in part:

People whose ancestors arrived 15,000 years ago are morally superior to people whose ancestors came 200-400 years ago. People whose ancestors came 200-400 years ago ARE NOT morally superior to people whose ancestors arrived 0-150 years ago, and may even be morally inferior.

American Indians have some sacred rights because their ancestors wandered here across the Bering Strait some 15,000 years ago.

Descendants of the earliest settlers, mostly British, are entitled to no special treatment – are villains, actually – because they “displaced” the natives, even though they deliberately left the world’s most advanced civilization to settle a wilderness and build civilization for those who would come after.

Meanwhile, those who came “after” to enjoy the civilization that the British and a few others built are somehow special because…well, frankly because that group included the ancestors of men like Howard Zinn and those who control the media.

And those who came yesterday are completely innocent of the crimes currently being committed in their own homelands, and victims because of crimes committed by the Anglo-Saxons long before they got here. And of course they are entitled to move here because they are immigrants, and “immigrants” – a new and previously unknown ethnic group – built this country, dontcha know?

Another commenter said that this is the best and most succinct description of the leftist attitude towards immigration, and that it should be spread all over the net. I agree. I tried to extract part of this to make a quibcag, but the whole thing is a perfect piece and it would only diminish it to chop it up. So instead of a quibcag, enjoy a Baloo cartoon. And do spread this around.

Tuesday, June 24, 2014

LIbertarian Apologetics

One of the problems with "choosing a side," or deciding to classify yourself as something — Democrat, Republican, conservative, liberal, and yes, libertarian — is that you almost immediately launch yourself into defending all that the label implies, exaggerating its good points, pooh-poohing any evidence of its weaknesses, and generally becoming a boring true believer. That's one reason I call myself a "libertarian nationalist" and do my own defining, though in some contexts I call myself a "sort of libertarian."

Anyhow, above all, I try to be a realist, and form any resultant ideology I have from whatever I deem most closely relates to reality. I consider a great deal of what is called "libertarianism" to be very realistic, so I work from that. But one thing about an ideology is that it can't cover everything. There are limits to its applicability. As I understand it, quantum theory and relativity have been found to be fundamentally contradictory, so both can't be entirely correct. However, both theories are extremely useful in explaining physical reality as we perceive it. Again, I'm a layman, so I may not understand this exactly, but my impression is that relativity breaks down when you get to atomic nuclei and black holes, and quantum theory doesn't work when you're talking about extreme distances and velocities. I may have that wrong, but the principle applies.

Libertarianism works pretty well for the most part a nation full of fairly enlightened Western people from the Christian tradition with the shared values that their heritage gives them. It doesn't work worth a damn in Uganda or New Guinea, or in nations composed of large numbers of people from differing traditions. A libertarian Muslim nation seems like a total impossibility.  So this implies that one libertarian obsession — open borders — is the straw that breaks the camel's back. That's not to say libertarianism is wrong. It's to say that its applicability and feasibility are limited.  Mangan explains why:

Those funny libertarians

Over at EconLog, we read another episode in the horrendous injustice of national borders.

One has to admit that, taken on its own terms, it's difficult (for me anyway) to mount an effective counter-argument. Economic man sees nothing but money, and if some arrangement will increase the amount of money some people earn - in this case a Cuban baseball player and his new employer - then for Economan, all is just fine. Who are you to interfere in the free trade of other people?

But, those libertarians seem to think we don't even need nations. If borders are arbitrary lines, then that means nations are arbitrary. So we might as well do away with nations, at least our own, altogether. It might be argued that a border delimits the reach of a government, but if a government can't even enforce the border, that would seem nonsensical.

Libertarians might argue, and for all I know some do, that nations are relics of a time when communications were slow and difficult, when people lived and died in the same places where they were born, and when we didn't know of the wonderful benefits of open borders.

The sense of belonging and connection that marks a nation are deeply built into our psyches, and are not going away. In that sense, longing for open borders is like longing for communism: they're both utopian attacks on human nature, which have not a chance in hell of producing viable societies. Humans are territorial, and in most of history, masses of people coming into your territory would be considered an invasion, an act of war.

In any case, free trade does not even in the slightest imply open borders. The nation was founded in order to provide for the common defense and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, not to become a faceless entrepôt where we are to live in perpetual economic insecurity.
Quibcag: Though Japanese, the girls of Joshiraku (じょしらく) respect the nationhood and borders of the United States, which is more than you can say for Barack Obama.

Two Guys

Here's something to think about. I got this from Matt Bailey, who wrote:

Just going by the information here, Ted seems like the more sane individual to me. He spends his free time doing something he enjoys, instead of being guilt-tripped into spending it with unpleasant parasites whose misfortune he didn't cause in the first place. The cult of altruism is actually a more insidious side effect of Abrahamic religion than the homophobia which gets all the press. However, being implicitly a liberal, Ted here is likely in favor of actually stealing money from other individuals for handouts instead of paying up himself, while there is a slim possibility that George is not. In that case the advantage swings back to George, who possibly opposes socialism and probably at least doesn't initiate force against the person or property of individual gays. This is a complex bit of truthieness right here...
Now my comment:

I wouldn't be too sure about the sanity thing. It's a matter of taste, but I'm beginning to think that MMO's are not necessarily a sign of sanity, and I continue to think that atheists, or at least those who are quick to identify themselves as such, are at least a bit self-deluded as to their own intellectual scope. I'm sympathetic with Matt's criticism of altruism, but maybe George enjoys being altruistic even more than Ted enjoy's his MMO's and fun-making. I knew a guy who spent his spare time traveling to Africa with his church group and building houses for Africans. Now, that's altruism, and, to my mind, a horrible example of uncritical altruism. Altruism is like salt. A little bit is a good thing for society, too much, or too obsessive and uncritical the altruism, and the worse it gets.  I've always thought that missionary zeal was a little bit crazy anyway, so this part is a wash. I actually feel that supporting gay marriage is a case of being so detached from reality as to approach insanity, or at least irrationality, in that the very definition of the word "marriage" is meaningless, so why use it at all? As for "homophobia," I know the word is very popular now, but it has its own special craziness in that it sounds like a term for some sort of mental deviation instead of a sane reaction towards something that is a deviation.

But I agree that Ted is almost surely a liberal whether he realizes it himself or not, as he's following some very essential liberal dogma. And, as Matt says, chances are excellent that he also follows that liberal theft ethic. And I also agree that George very likely does not.

All in all, I can live with George, and would be glad to try to moderate his altruism a little, by appealing to his reason and common sense, and I might be successful. With Ted, I wouldn't even know where to start trying to ease him into rationality, because he thinks he already is rational, and would surely call me an ignorant, irrational bigot for disagreeing with me in any way.

Now it's your turn.

Rantin' Round the Flag with Neale Osborn

This week we start off with Mama Liberty's shootin' tips, then Neale tells us about his Taurus (I'm a Gemini myself), and a segue into a story about Don Pitaniello, who is, evidently, being punished for being what an American ought to be instead of a cringing serf. Then a bit about that buck-tooth witch, Satan, as Don Imus calls her, AKA Hillary Clinton, and her plans to disarm everybody so we all can be raped and murdered by the Mahdi's agents. And also, evidently, to outlaw protests by any who disagree with her plans.

And then we have a letter from an Australian, who says Australian gun control has had horrible consequences, of course. Then more sleazy behavior by the Supreme Court, and some statistics that show how gun control has led to still more crime in the UK. They could argue that part of that is caused by massive Third World immigration, but that's just as politically correct as gun rights. And a story about yet again, a civilian protecting his home from intruders with one of those nasty guns. Finally, some more stuff to think about from Mama Liberty.

Now, as for the illustration, I was called out last week by Vulture of Critique for re-using gif I'd used before, and he's not at all impressed by the virtue of recycling. So here's a new one. It does have both an anime girl and a gun in it, though its self-defense application is a bit obscure. Anyhow, it's hard to tell, but the girl is Amy, from Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet (翠星のガルガンティア Suisei no Garugantia).

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant Volume 6-22-2014
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Ya just don't mess with a successful format. And ya NEVER EVER piss off a pistol Packin' Mama Liberty. Okay, she's actually a very sweet woman, but that just doesn't have quite the ring. Here is the first of her two contributions to this missive, which is ALSO the 2nd in her series of articles on self defense training. [Link]
Next on the list of fundamentals is "breath control." There are several different methods used by most target and competition shooters, and any of them will help you obtain excellent scores if you practice them enough, but the same problem applies to breathing as to using the sights in an emergency. You are simply not apt to be able to control it very much, and one of the greatest dangers is forgetting to breath at all! A common response to shock, serious anger or fear is shallow breathing or hyperventilation. You don't generally get to choose which, or any alternatives.
After my "emergency," and after I got back into the house, I realized I was hyperventilating. If I had been forced to shoot again right then, holding my breath according to hoyle would not have been an option.
Just remember that you are not going to be worried about a "bulls eye," just a solid shot to the center of body mass if you really must shoot. You don't want to miss, of course, and a second or third shot is probably a good idea unless the attacker is down and no longer moving. Survival is the only "score" you care about in this instance.
Read on at the link—even those of you who call yourself well-trained can always learn something new.

I own a Taurus Model 605 polymer framed snub-nosed .357 mag, and it's one of my summer carry guns. Last week, on a trip to the range with my sons, I noticed the fluorescent insert in the front sight had fallen out. I called Taurus (who has a lifetime repair policy) and told them of my problem, They do not, under normal conditions, cover sights or grips after one year, and I've had the gun for 1 1/2 years. Buuut, they said this was not normal wear, but installation mishap. The new sight just showed up this afternoon. I REALLY like Taurus' customer service.

Anybody in or around Rutland County? This great employee might need one. [Link] He sounds quite the good employee to me.
As the store clerk was closing up for the night, a guy with a hoodie and a red bandana around his face came in with a knife and ordered the clerk to empty the cash register. That's when 58-year-old Vietnam vet and store clerk Don Pitaniello pulled his .380 out of his back pocket and told the guy that he'd "better get the **** [choose your favorite four-letter word] out of there." The would-be robber complied and got the you-know-what out of there. As the hoodied bandit ran off, Pitaniello followed him to see which direction he went so that he could tell the police.
Because of the store's no tolerance policy toward self-defense, Pitaniello might lose his job. He was suspended earlier this week. Apparently, he broke two of their rules. The first was bringing a gun inside the "gun-free" store; the other was following the robber.
Hire him. You KNOW he'll keep your property safer than a stupid gun free zone sign will.

Isn't it nice to hear Hillarious Rotten Clinton showing her true colors to the voters? [Link] This idiotic woman, whose sole qualifications forv president are being married to a president, and aiding him in destroying the reputations of women he molested, and serving as one of the worst Secretaries of State this country has ever seen ("What difference does it make?"), who presided over the rape/murder of a US Ambassador. And now, she feels that gun owners are terrorizing America. Never mind the fact that she is making it clear that she opposes the 1 Amendment, we can deal with that later.
After a school teacher in the audience asked Clinton about high capacity magazines and assault weapons, the presumptive2016 presidential candidate took the opportunity to go on an extraordinary anti-gun rant.
"I'm well aware that this is a hot political subject. And again, I will speak out no matter what role I find myself in, but I believe that we need a more thoughtful conversation. We cannot let a minority of people—and it's, that's what it is, it is a minority of people—hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people," said Clinton.
First, her claims that We, the People who support our Bill of Rights are a minority, are completely false.
Clinton's claim that only a "minority" of Americans oppose gun control is contradicted by a recent Rasmussen poll which found that 53% of Americans oppose stricter gun control laws and only 40% of likely voters back tighter firearms restrictions.
She ALSO states quite clearly that we cannot be allowed to hold an opinion that contradicts HER opinion. "We cannot let a minority of people—and it's, that's what it is, it is a minority of people— hold a viewpoint that terrorizes the majority of people" is pretty blunt. I can accept that she hates the 2nd Amendment and opposes those who support it. But telling the world that we have no right to opinions is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment protections of political free speech. Wasn't it Hillarious herself who once said "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration that somehow you're not patriotic. And we should stand up and say 'We are Americans and we have a right to disagree with any administration.'" ? Yup! [Link] I guess that pesky 1st Amendment only applies to Democrats opposing Bush, not anyone else opposing anything SHE likes.

Last week, I addressed the Liar-In-Chief's assertion that we need "Australian style confiscation of firearms" to battle crime. Here's an Australian's response to the LIC—[Link]
I am an Australian, and I must set the record straight.
The "success" of the 1996 Australian gun reform is a myth.
The only thing achieved was to take away the guns of the law-abiding citizenry, leaving only the criminals armed. Is this what you wish for America?
In Australia, if a citizen has firearms, the police have a right to search their property without a warrant at any time. Does that sound like America?
The laws you praise outlawed the Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun that my father played with as a child. Now you need a special permit, gun safe and serial number.
The letter has a LOT more worth reading. Do so.

The SCOTUS has, once again, refused to stand tall on the 2nd Amendment, this time in regards to so-called "strawman purchases". [Link] A "strawman purchase" is where a person who is legally permitted to buy a gun (first anti-Constitutional concept) purchases a gun for another person, who might or might not be permitted to "legally" purchase a gun. The SCOTUS has upheld federal bans on these purchases, which would even criminalize purchasing a gun for your wife or husband for Christmas, or for the kid as they turn 18, or any other purchase for another. Let me be crystal clear on this—people have a Constitutional, civil, and human right to own and carry, open or concealed, any weapon they so desire. Once a "criminal" has "paid his debt to society" (one of the biggest lies out there—the debt is NOT to society, it is to his victims, and he must make full restitution or be evicted from society), they are supposed to have their rights restored. So denying them the right to own and carry weapons is anti-Constitutional. Thus, this entire fiction of "legally permitted to own and carry arms" is exactly that—fiction. So Strawman purchases CANNOT be prohibited, Constitutionally speaking.
A federal district judge rejected Abramski's argument that he was not a straw purchaser because his uncle was eligible to buy firearms and the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Obama administration had argued that accepting Abramski's defense would impair the ability of law enforcement officials to trace firearms involved in crimes and keep weapons away from people who are not eligible to buy them. The administration said that even if the purchase is made on behalf of someone eligible to buy a firearm, the purpose of the law is frustrated since Congress requires the gun dealers—not purchasers—to run federal background checks on people buying guns.
Abramski claimed Congress' goal was to prevent guns from falling into the hands of convicted felons and others barred from owning firearms. He said that goal is not furthered if the gun is transferred to someone legally allowed to own guns.
The National Rifle Association sided with Abramski, asserting that the government wrongly interpreted the law and improperly expanded the scope of gun regulations. Twenty-six states also submitted a brief supporting Abramski's view of the law, while nine states and Washington, D.C., filed papers bolstering the Obama administration
NO ONE bothered to attack the entire concept of denying people a Constitutional right for ANY reason.

England and it's gun bans means less violent crime than here in the US. And here's the proof. Link to UK's violent crime for 2012. 1.9 million violent and sexual crimes (UK's version of rape). Link to FBI stats for violent crime on the US for 2012. 1.2 million violent crimes. Oh, wait. maybe population is different. Let's go for per capita rates. So, the US had 312 million residents, for 1 violent crime per every 260 citizens. The UK and Wales had a population of 56.6 million people, (link) for a rate of 1 violent crime per every 29.8 subjects. That means, if we just ban guns, and get another 9 million violent crimes committed, we can finally be on par with the UK. OORAH!

Again, we see that Armed Decent People never use a firearm successfully for self defense. [Link] For the idiot children out there who want to ban ANY type of guns, this is sarcasm.
At about 2:30 a.m., an adult man, a juvenile boy and juvenile girl entered a home in the 4400 block of Grandview Drive, according to investigators.
Police say one of the homeowners shot a male intruder.

* * * * *
The two other suspects—a 16-year-old man and a 17-year-old female—were caught and arrested a short time later by Union Township police.
The male juvenile was charged with aggravated robbery, assault and aggravated burglary. The girl was charged with complicity to aggravated robbery and complicity to aggravated burglary.
A handgun police said was used by the intruders was found at the scene.
One occupant at the home suffered a minor injury but refused additional medical attention, according to police.
Investigators said their preliminary report indicates that the homeowner shot the attacker in self-defense.
Of course, these poor burglarizing businesspeople would NEVER have used their handgun to harm the homeowners.

Gibraltarego, a member of a group I own on NewsVine, posted this link. It is short (2minutes, 47 seconds). Watch it. Pay close attention to how the forensic psychologist tells CNN and the rest of the media how to handle these tragic events IF they actually want them to stop. He makes a lot of sense. It comes down to Paul Harvey's famous lines (I copy them fairly regularly): [in his iconic voice] "Today, a man entered a school and killed three students. He'd like me to mention his name......"

Somehow, I missed this in my e-mail que last week. I hope mama Liberty forgives me, but I'm just going to give her the opening shot AND the final shot this week and hope for the best! [Link]
Lots of speculation and argument around the 'net already about the election that won't happen until 2016, especially in regards to the "president," of course. With no eligible incumbent and a VP who is less qualified than a dish of scrambled eggs, the field is wide open. Plenty of discussion of Ms Clinton and her vast array of conflicting liabilities and supposed assets, with some national pundits even talking openly about her long history of lies and deception, yet she is considered by many as viable candidate. Ron Paul is "too radical" for a lot of folks, and most of the rest of the potential candidates are pretty scary to one faction or another. Mr. Cruz has no look in, since he's Canadian, but not black... and so it goes.
The one thing I'm not seeing much of is rational analysis of the actual job description in the Constitution, for whatever that's worth, and how the various candidates might carry out those required duties and no more. Just what do people truly think a president should be doing and why?
Read it and see where it ends up....

Firearms Quote of the Week—

"The only thing that can make a 110 pound woman the equal of a 220 pound thug bent on doing her harm is 2 pounds of Hartford Steel." 

—Neale Osborn, paraphrasing Lucille Gallegos Kropotkin, a character in "The Probability Broach", by L. Neil Smith.

And that's a wrap for this week.