Thursday, January 29, 2015

More on Cultural Marxism

A comment on this post from Ondra Veselý. My comments will follow:

Another great article, but I have to object this idea expressed thoughout the article, that capitalism and cultural marxism are compatible. I strongly disagree!

The system we have today is certainly not capitatalistic. I mean not even close! The word itself comes from roman "capita" meaning "head" in a sence of individual. Conservativism is based on individualism, classical liberalism too, therefore they are compatible with with capitalism in it's crude form, but the same thing doesn't fit for today "liberalism", democratic socialism, "progressivism" or any other type of cultural marxist "-ism" at all.

These labels of "ideologies" are actually brutally collectivistic, pretending to be "individualistic", and they also impose all sorts of sh*tty government-based PC regulations on markets and their actors-individuals, such as affirmative action laws produced by the multicultural NGOs sponsored by the governments and "capitalists" (e.g. George Soros), foreign "aid", support for nationalistic sentiments among non-white nations (typically african nations, Tibet, Chechnya or Palestine), but the govenment-paid suppression of the exact same sentiments among white people, phony environmentalism expressed by the global warming bullshit most notably represented by the carbon taxes, excessive environmental anti-CO2 campaings and regulations, anti-fracking and anti-nuke movements, all sorts of subsidies for so called "clean sources of energy", "wars" on terror and drugs (they should be called war for terror and war for intoxication) and of course, central banking (controlled by the Jewish lobby) etc., all of which causes more instability and impoverishment of everybody except for the goverment-connected cultural marxist f*cks, which results in mass-emigration of non-whites from their homelands to the white countries.

If something, this system can be described as a mixture of regulated "capitalism" and government programs-based socialism, in other words market socialism, corporatism, corporate socialism, C-M fascism etc., but not as capitalism, since it doesn't promote individual rights and freedoms but privileges for minority GROUPS (collectivism) over the rights of individuals from the white majority (individualism).

I think that thinking of many nationalists has been f*cked up by this system' propaganda coming from the public schools, government-run academia and government-promoted MSM because the terminology used by them is improper too, at least when it comes to the economic point of view.
Ondra's point is well taken. It's misleading to say that Cultural Marxism is compatible with capitalism in its free-market sense. Because, of course, we actually have a system that is variously described as crony capitalism, state capitalism, or mercantilism. Some even call it fascism (I oppose this usage, because fascism has to do with much more than just economics).

You can call our system a version of capitalism because it's supported at least in part by the investment of accumulated capital. But such investment is accompanied and distorted by the investment of fiat money produced by government, and by what amounts to, in effect, a command economy managed by unfunded government mandates that extend from the forced integration of lunch counters to environmental regulations to Jesse Jackson shaking corporations down with the support of the Department of Justice and the White House.

Monday, January 26, 2015

Cultural Marxism by Any Other Name

Cultural Marxism is of course a real phenomenon, but I've heard everybody from liberals to left-libertarians assure me that it is not. I've been working myself up to writing about the latest discussions of it on the net, but Duns Scotus has beaten me to it, and done a better job than I could have anyway. There's just a couple of points I want to make or reemphasize here:

1. Cultural Marxism is commonly known as political correctness, and it is an attempt to inject ideas into the mainstream of Western Culture that will destroy it. Of course, both terms, "Cultural Marxism" and "political correctness" are avoided, and such ideas are alway advanced as self-evident and the inevitable positions of all intelligent people.

2. As Keith Preston points out, Marx himself would have disagreed with many of the ideas included in "Cultural Marxism," because he personally had no intention of destroying Western Culture; he merely urged on what he saw as the logical development of that culture towards communism. The intentions of Cultural Marxism aren't to establish a sociopolitical communist system, but to destroy Western Civilization, a quite different thing.

3. Consequently, "Cultural Marxism" is a bit of a misnomer. But then, so is "liberalism" and a lot of other such terms, the meanings of which have changed over times.

This essay (do follow the links) is from , and do go there to read it in the original and see the original illustrations, which are pretty entertaining all by themselves.


by Duns Scotus

Recently there has been some discussion about this thing called "Cultural Marxism," and whether–or how–it exists or not. The discussion began with an article by Jason Wilson in Britain's premier left-wing broadsheet the Guardian, titled “Cultural Marxism: a uniting theory for right wingers who love to play the victim,” to which Michael Enoch at The Right Stuffresponded with “I Acknowledge That Cultural Marxism Exists,” with which alt-right stalwarts Keith Preston and Greg Johnson then seemingly concurred.

First, here is Wilson setting out his stall:

"The conspiracy theorists claim that these 'cultural Marxists' began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation."

Enoch, perhaps taking inspiration from his recent reading of Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, states that Cultural Marxism doesn't need to be an actual conscious conspiracy. Here is the summing up of his argument:

“In the end the argument is just a semantic shell game used by leftists to avoid any discussion or criticism of actual ideas and policies and keep the debate focused on word games and obfuscation. Cultural Marxism is a useful and coherent label for a body of easily recognizable leftist theories and ideas concerning identity politics and oppression. We could just as easily call it Flying Spaghetti Marxism for all it matters though. What is important is the substance, which people like Wilson never actually want to discuss.”

Preston's view, expressed in an article commenting on Enoch's article, stresses the abandonment of Economic Marxism implicit in the term Cultural Marxism and explicit in the various causes that Cultural Marxism promotes:

“Lastly, PC and capitalism are not necessarily in conflict. Capitalism wants workers, consumers, investors, and new markets. This means operating among an ever greater number of demographics. It is therefore perfectly logical that capitalism would embrace anti-racism, feminism, gay rights, etc. They want to sell products to minorities, women, and gays, and hire them as workers and managers, not discriminate against them. (See Noam Chomsky’s comments on how big business supports anti-racism). I suspect the serious thinkers among the cultural Left realize this, which is part of the reason why they have softened their anti-capitalism in their old age. This also explains why the corporate class has mostly rolled over in the face of PC. Remember that Singapore (which the Left considers to be fascist, and which free market conservatives often hold up as a model) also has strict “hate speech” laws.” 

Johnson, in a comment on Enoch’s article, follows a similar tack:

“Cultural Marxism (another term for it is the New Left) is completely consistent with capitalism. Cultural Marxism does not champion the working class against capital. National Socialism taught the Jewish Left that the working class could turn against them. Stalinism taught the Jewish Left that the totalitarian state can turn against them. Thus the Jewish Left began to abandon the Old Left and replace it with the New Left, which champions "inclusion" and upward mobility within the capitalist system of previously excluded groups. Most of these groups are mere proxies and avatars for the group that pushes this agenda and benefits from it most, namely Jews. Cultural Marxism has expanded and cemented Jewish hegemony in the West. The result is, as Jonathan Bowden pointed out, something previously thought to be impossible: a hyper-oligarchical form of capitalism with a reigning Left-wing value system. (It is Left wing, at least, until the Left conflicts with Jewish interests.)”

From his other writings and podcasts, Enoch could be fairly described as a race realist, gender traditionalist, American nationalist, cultural Christian, and believer in the market, in other words, not too distant from an old school Republican. Cultural Marxism, with its race denying, gender confounding, universalist, atheist, and socialist tendencies, is therefore an extremely convenient label for all the ideas and tendencies he is diametrically opposed to. Cultural Marxism is a greater convenience for Enoch as a catch-all bugbear than it would be for almost anyone else.

Preston and Johnson's views, however, emphasize the sinister synergies between Capitalism and the Left, with Johnson giving this his usual Jewish spin – and not without reason in the light of the news that the Ferguson protests had largely been kept going by the generosity of George Soros. Rather than agreeing with Enoch, the views of Preston and Johnson significantly differ.

Both Preston and Johnson have ideas and attitudes that would be more comfortably placed on the Left. Johnson is much more socially liberal and has a keen interest in various economic theories like social credit that are truly anti-capitalist. Preston, of course, is well-known as an anti-state anarchist. I suspect that Enoch, in his troll-channeling humorous style, would describe some of Preston and Johnson's positions as "dildo" or even "autistic right," two phrases often employed on Enoch's excellent if irreverent Daily Shoah radio show. But cheap jibes aside, there is a real problem with ideological explanations of ideology and believing in "Cultural Marxism" just because it is personally convenient.

Preston, in his article, points the way by digging up some ideological history, something he is well versed in. Here he is on the surprising beliefs of the twin fountainheads of Marxism:

“Marx and Engels were essentially Germanic or at least Nordic supremacists, viewed indigenous peoples as non-historical, and regarded Western imperialism as a historically progressive force (they had the same view of capitalism).”

Preston would also be able to tell you that Marx was a rather sincere anti-Semite despite his own Jewish origins (self-loathing has perhaps always been germane to Leftism). What Preston's historical perspective reveals is that Marxism has greatly mutated and changed in its comparatively short history. Furthermore it has also developed remarkably diverse and contradictory regional variants.

This suggests that Marxism's actual essence is weak, or that it is merely a protean entity, ever ready to bend with the times. But such shape-shifting is not just limited to Marxism. We have seen it with Christianity and various political parties, such as the US Democratic Party, once the citadel of Ku Klux Klan power.

A particularly striking example of "ideological ambidexterity" is the way in which the West and the East (the Soviet Union and now Russia) have ideologically switched places since the Cold War, with America now being all about "equality," while Russia shelters behind a Christian-infused form of Conservatism.

Far from the "insidious forms of psychological manipulation" of supposedly omnipotent academics (an oxymoron, in case you're wondering), what changed America was geopolitical expediency. In the 1950s with the threat posed by a particularly cunning and fascistic version of Communism, America was forced to reformulate its quintessential and, of course, ineradicable racism in such a way that it would not be a geopolitical drag on it in its struggle with the Soviet Union for the hearts, minds, oil, and markets of the non-aligned world.

Jim Crow might even have been around today if the balance of power had not tilted so dangerously against the West with the fall of China to Mao's Communists in 1949. Later still the liberal, secular West found an alliance with militant Islam to be particularly useful, as it sought to stem the spread of Communism by stirring up the Afghans.

History is full of such ideological backtracking, going all the way back to the Romans and their adoption of Christianity as a system for imposing a totalitarian system on their weakening empire – a move alas that did not pay off. Ideology, as it exists in the world, is nothing more than a protean form of convenience for particular political alignments and group interests, which are sure to shift from time to time. All ideological formations are prone to this plasticizing effect, which, over time, turns each one into a mockery of itself. What exactly is the point of any ideology besides putting a gloss on underlying factors?

But the clincher when it comes to considering Cultural Marxism and the absurd notion that an ideology can be a causal factor, rather than just a weird form of PR, is the Frankfurt School. This group of German-Jewish academics and its corpus of writings is cited as the engine of the Cultural Marxist Revolution that has supposedly conquered the West with its legendary "march through the institutions." But the Frankfurt School was essentially just a small group of ugly, uprooted academics with funny accents who couldn't write to save themselves, or anybody else for that matter. Just try reading their works – I dare you!

After being unceremoniously kicked out of Europe, they were horrified at ending up in a country that had no need for their Marxist claptrap. That Cultural Marxism then supposedly became such a big success is only explicable by the fact that it didn’t.

How can anyone claim that Cultural Marxism is an effective ideological force when its key texts, the major works of the Frankfurt School have hardly been read by any of today’s Leftists – and even if they have, it's a fair bet that they haven't been understood at all well. For an ideology to have any validity it has to have a clear cut message that can be communicated, and which can then move people. The Frankfurt school lacks these attributes.

Peoples and societies may be changing in many puzzling and aberrant ways, but none of this would ever take place if it were not for the consent of certain powerful economic and cultural elites, and the forces and interests that they channel. Ideology is just the wrapping paper for that particular package, not its substance.

The value system of something as large, complex, and powerful as the West or any other empire will never come from musty books and cloistered academics, but instead from trade systems, consumption patterns, and geopolitical power balances. If sticking a label on aspects of this is temporarily expedient, then names like "Liberalism," "Marxism," "Cultural Marxism," or even "Islam" may be appended, but, underneath, quite mechanisms do their work.

Islam is a good example of the protean aspects of ideology. It essentially got its start not as "the faith of the true believers," but as a rather sleazy device for uniting the desert tribes to take full advantage of the massive mutual weakening that the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires had been inflicting on each other for decades beforehand. The faith or ideology of Islam would have had no traction otherwise, and in the face of two healthy empires able to repel them, the tribes would have cheerfully returned to slitting each other's throats. It was plunder that built Islam, and when the plunder ran out, it went into a protracted period of abeyance. It's recent revival since 1967 as a supposed "ideological force" has much to do with the expediences of asymmetrical warfare for which its tribal origins give it some utility and its convenience as a channeling device for second-generation immigrantressentiment in Europe.

So, how about Cultural Marxism? If it is not the real world manifestation of the world-changing brains of Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and their modern-day followers, what exactly is it? One thing is for sure: it is not a coherent set of ideas that is shaping the world in its image. The power flows the other way. Cultural Marxism is simply the gloss that a post-Christian West, caught in the habit of seeking moral justification, places on the decadent proclivities made possible by its unprecedented affluence. To kill it, you have to kill the post-Christian reflex, or else kill the affluence. Nothing else will do. Talking about it won't have the slightest effect.

Sunday, January 25, 2015

Why did the chicken cross the line?

From at the Libertarian Enterprise.


You've heard it before...

The little Red Hen called all of her Democrat neighbors together and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"NOT I", said the Cow. 

"NOT I", said the Duck. 

"NOT I", said the Pig. 

"NOT I", said the Goose.

"Then I will do it myself", said the little Red Hen, and so she did.

The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little Red Hen.

"NOT I", said the Duck. 


"I'D LOSE MY SENIORITY", said the Cow. 


"Then I will do it myself", said the little Red Hen, and so she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread.

"Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little Red Hen.





"Then I will do it myself", said the little Red Hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share.

But the little Red Hen said, "No I shall eat all five loaves!"

"EXCESS PROFITS!", cried the Cow. (Nancy Pelosi) 

"CAPITALIST LEECH!", screamed the Duck. (Barbara Boxer) 

"I DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS!", yelled the Goose. (Jesse Jackson) 

THE PIG JUST "GRUNTED" IN DISDAIN. (Ted Kennedy from the Grave)

And the all painted 'UNFAIR' picket signs and marched around the little Red Hen, shouting obscenities.

Then the farmer (Obama) came. He said to the little Red Hen, "You must not be so greedy."

"But I earned the bread", said the little Red Hen.

"Exactly", said Barack the farmer. "That is what makes our free enterprise system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those who are lazy and idle."

And they all lived happily ever after including the little Red Hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand."

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again baked bread because she joined the 'Party' and got her bread free. And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness had been established.

Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one long as there was free bread that the 'Rich' were paying for.


Bill Clinton got $12 million for his memoirs.

Hillary got $8 million for hers.

That's $20 million for the memories from two people, who for eight years, repeatedly testified under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.


Friday, January 23, 2015

Sean Gabb tells us about a contest

And it looks easy enough to enter. This from Sean:

My dear friend, Mr Blake, and his publisher would be most grateful if you could help to publicise this competition.

Best regards,


‘Vivid characters, devious plotting and buckets of gore’ – Daily Telegraph

Richard Blake brings to life a fascinating, little-known period of 7th Century Europe in the DEATH OF ROME SAGA – a six book series set in the dying days of the Roman Empire and featuring Aelric, a young Saxon nobleman transplanted to Rome from England. It’s the perfect time to begin this brilliant series because book one, Conspiracies of Rome, is currently just 99p on eBook.
To celebrate we’re giving away a prize no history fan should be without, a year’s English Heritage membership.

To enter, simply head over to Twitter and re-tweet this tweet.

Sean Gabb
Director, The Libertarian Alliance (Carbon Positive since 1979)  Tel: 07956 472 199 Skype: seangabb
Postal Address: Suite 35, 2 Lansdowne Row, London W1J 6HL, England
Donate to the Libertarian Alliance
See details of my new novel, The Break. It has been nominated for the Prometheus Award 2015. See my books here on Amazon, and here on Barnes & Noble, and here on iBooks. See them here in hard copy.

See Hodder & Stoughton or Amazon for books by Richard Blake.

The Wonderful Wizard of Osborn!

And this week we start with a challenge from Mama Liberty, followed by some pondering about democracy and the right of self-defense. And a couple of "armed good guy civilians shoot scumbag criminals" stories. Then another dubious story about cops and shooting. And another righteous armed civilian story. Then some actors who should restrict their public lecturing to their opinions about acting. And then some more good quotes. The illustration is from something called Kantai Collection (艦隊これくしょん Kantai Korekushon, lit. "Combined Fleet Collection"), of which more later.

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant for 1-18-2015
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise]

As I note below, Mama Liberty has issued a challenge. She wants us to tell of a time WE passed the torch to a non- or anti- gunner, getting them to change their stance on gun rights. And here's her article outlining why she thinks it's important. [Link] So "Don't Sit There Complaining.... DO Something!!" I have a headache... Reading about the gun grabbers, their collaborators and apologists in Washington State last week, and in Texas—not to mention Colorado, Nevada and California over the last few months. Compromise artists like Alan Gottlieb, occasional outbursts of marginally useful to downright nutty OC demonstrations, and the ongoing push/pull of public opinion, usually without much clear reasoning or understanding of the facts... The gun grabber biased media is the Chinese water torture of the decade.

Personally, I consider attempts to deal with this via politics, demonstrations, letters to the editor and so forth to be a waste of time, even if not directly counterproductive. Each person has to do what they think is best, obviously, but if you are not inclined to political games like that, don't let anyone tell you that you those are the only things you can do to promote or protect your rights. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

This article deserves a careful read—it's pretty damn good. my story, down below, doesn't quite meet the criteria, but it's a good start. Send me yours!!

My new friend, Rob Morse, has an interesting and, I think, possibly legitimate point about firearms owners.[Link]
Do firearms owners deserve the legal right to own guns? I ask because a republic does not run itself. We elect lawmakers who set public policy. We might blame the police and judges, but it is not their job to care about or enforce human rights. They certainly don't protect the right of self-defense. Police and judges only enforce existing laws, and laws in California and Washington State are taking away the legal right of self-defense. I don't think the gun owners in Washington and California deserve to keep their guns. Unfortunately, they are not alone.
Democracy works for those who show up. Starting with California, gun owners simply didn't bother to vote to protect their rights. There is no reason for politicians to respect the rights of gun owners once they have removed themselves from the political process. Gun owners either voted for politicians who wanted to take away their rights.. or gun owners stayed home last November. Let me show you.
If 70 percent of California gun owners voted for a pro-self-defense candidate, then the new California governor would have vetoed anti-gun legislation. 70 percent is a lot to ask, but that is all it would have taken. If only half of California gun owners voted for a pro-self-defense candidate, then the new California attorney general would have defended their rights in court. The vote from gun owners alone would have carried every statewide office. That didn't happen.
Follow the link to read the rest of Rob's excellent opinion piece. Needless to say, the fact that I will NEVER tolerate someone else's laziness stripping ME of my rights makes the point meaningless to an extent, but he DOES make an excellent point. Unless, of course, you're a hardcore Libertarian who doesn't acknowledge ANYONE'S power to strip another of their rights!

Here's our first example of a "Well Armed American" doing the right thing, and leaving nothing but a body on the floor for the cops to collect. [Link]
In North Memphis, Tennessee, a woman opened the door on Christmas Eve. She was confronted by a 22-year-old Nico Carlisle, brandishing a gun. Like many thugs who figure they are "badder" than their victims, Carlisle apparently assumed he would easily overpower the woman. He forced his way in and held his gun against her neck. That's when a man inside the home grabbed his own gun and shot Carlisle dead.
WREG Television reports:
Officers responded to a home in the 2300 block of Devoy at about 6:20 p.m. Tuesday, where they saw 22-year-old Nico Carlisle with multiple gunshot wounds lying at the front door. Officials pronounced Carlisle dead at the scene.
Investigators say Carlisle and another man knocked on the door, then forced their way inside when a woman answered the door. Carlisle then put a gun to the woman's neck.
The homeowner grabbed a handgun before going to investigate the commotion, and fired multiple shots at the men, hitting Carlisle.
The second man escaped and has not been identified...
Charges have not been filed against the homeowner.
THIS should be the result any time a scumbag tries to use a gun for criminal purposes.

This punk thought a pair of sneakers were worth risking his life over—now, he has neither sneakers OR his life. Darwin rues again! [Link] Another "Well Armed American" defends property and self with a gun.
An Ohio man who was leaving a Dayton mall with a pair of Nike Air Jordan sneakers he had just purchased was forced to shoot a teenager who pulled a gun on him during a robbery attempt on Saturday.
Police say 16-year-old Jawaad Jabbar showed up too late to a limited sales event at Hhgregg shoe store at a mall in Dayton, Ohio where the popular $200 sneakers were being sold.
So Jabbar decided to try to rob a man with a pair of the shoes, pulling a gun on him on the sidewalk outside of the store.
But Jabbar picked the wrong target.
The man, who was with a friend, was armed. He pulled his gun and shot Jabbar once, killing him.
Two juveniles with Jabbar at the time bolted but were later arrested.
"This was a random act of 'I want something that person has and I'm going to take it from them by any means,'" said Miami Township, Ohio police Sgt. Jay Phares.
Athletic shoes such as Air Jordan's—NBA legend Michael Jordan's sneaker line—are a popular target among thieves, especially during the Christmas season.
"You know, I'm a concealed carry permit holder. If someone attempts, you know, I'm prepared," said a man at the scene in an interview with WLWT.
Ohio has issued over 90K concealed carry permits this past year. And they are working!

We have another fine example of cops shooting at unarmed suspects in a victimless crime. [Link] And the person the cops shot? ANOTHER COP!!!!! (At least THIS one won't draw Sharpton to the podium!)
Police have not released the names of any of the officers who were involved, but criminal complaints filed in Metropolitan Court against the two targets of the investigation identify the undercover officers as detectives Holly Garcia and Jacob Grant, The Albuquerque Journal reported.
According to the criminal complaint, Garcia and Grant met a suspect to buy $60 worth of "shards," another term for meth. The suspects got into Garcia's car and she drove them to an Econo Lodge Motel. One of the suspects went into a room and returned to Garcia's vehicle with the meth.
Garcia then went to a McDonald's parking lot and gave the signal to begin the bust, the shooting took place shortly after.
Witnesses report that they heard around five shots, and the officer was shot multiple times, but the exact number has not yet been released.
Police have not yet come forward with any explanation as to why an officer opened fire, but it appears as though both of the suspects were unarmed. The pair was taken into custody on drug trafficking charges following the shooting.
Trigger happy or just plain stupid? Sooner or later, the truth MIGHT come out.

We shall have to consider this our last "Well Armed American" for the week. A young lady defends herself from a thief (something the anti-Constitutionalists say cannot happen). [Link]
On January 11, a robbery suspect put a gun to the head of a DeKalb County, Georgia pizza delivery woman, ordered her to the ground, and got shot in the face when the woman pulled her own gun in self-defense.
According to Channel 2 Action News, police found the suspect—24-year-old Donquaz Devon Stevenson—"nearby with a gunshot wound to his face." He "was arrested and charged with armed robbery."
A second, "unidentified" suspect is now being sought. This suspect allegedly fled the scene in a "silver 2000 Honda Accord" when the police delivery woman pulled her gun and fired at the first suspect.
The delivery woman was not injured but is concerned that she may be punished by Papa John's because she "carried... a gun for protection."
Nice job. Funny typo—"Police delivery woman". I hear the call now.... "Hello, Papa Johns? Yes, can you deliver a Large policeman with pepperoni and extra doughnuts to 1313 Mockingbird Lane?"

We all know Hollywood and most of her actors are liberal asswipes—Sigourney Weaver trashes guns, yet her biggest paychecks (the Alien series) have come with her holding weapons. Daniel Craig (the latest, and not very good, I might add) Bond hates guns in civilian hands. and I admit—I rarely bother to check out an actor's political views, because their opinions don't matter to me. Liam Neeson, however, has been a fun guy for me to watch since my kids got me hooked on the "Taken" trilogy. I am truly disappointed in his stupidity. Unlike Siggy and Danny, Neeson's character is engaging in (an admittedly unbelievable) series of violent exploits to protect his family—and he's NOT doing it for the government, he's doing it on his own. One might think he'd be in favor of a citizen protecting his family. NOPE. Hell, he thinks America (you know, the people paying him fantastic amounts of money to shoot people on film) is full of idiotic yahoos who should have all their guns confiscated.[Link] Hey Neeson—Last weekend was the last time you'll ever get any money out of MY family. Consider your Irish ass boycotted.

Mama Liberty has proposed a reader participation section, and I liked it. So here it is --
I'd love you to start each rant with a challenge to all your readers to think of a specific person, especially a specific woman, to encourage and teach each week—to add one more person to the ever increasing number of people botharmed and ready to actually defend themselves. I'd love that. :) Love, Mama
Consider the challenge made. MOST places I post this, you get a method of contacting me. PLEASE tell me the story of someone you took to the range, or taught to shoot, or taught firearms safety to. And I'll start this ball rolling.

A co-worker of mine was getting a new job, and he'd be away from home for weeks at a time. Prior to this job, he'd never had to be away overnight. With a wife and two small kids, living in Denver in a less than ideal neighborhood, he didn't feel comfortable leaving his wife defenseless. His problem was, while he shot a bit, and was a safe handler of firearms, he was a lousy teacher—ESPECIALLY to his wife. Since he knew I was a shooter, he asked me to lend a hand. I took Jill to the local range, with a small gun collection, and we went over firearms safety, pistol and short shotgun handling, and then we moved on to shooting. She eventually decided to get a 20 gauge pump for the house, and later went on to get a CCW (Denver being nasty to open carry even though, at the time, it was still sorta legal). She now carries, and has, herself, taken the NRA instructor class for pistol carry, and taught. I need to check my records, and see if I can get hold of her and see what she's doing these days....

Send me YOUR story, in your own words, and I'll see about putting it in an upcoming rant!

Ta DAAAA!!!! It's QUOTE OF THE WEEK time!!!!

"[I]f a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man—and you're not—what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If 'he' happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have? 

"On the other hand—or the other party—should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries? 

"Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue—health care, international trade—all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it."L. Neil Smith, Sept, 1999, "Why did it have to be guns?"

"Teddy Kennedy has killed more people with his car than I have with ALL my guns, combined."—Source unkowon, but very true in my case!

[C]onceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.—14 Debates in the House of Representatives, Roger Sherman 1790, ed. Linda Grand De Pauw. (Balt., Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972), 92-3

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.—Tench Coxe (1755—1824), writing as "A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

"A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and thecartridge box. Let no man be kept from the ballot box because of his color. Let no woman be kept from the ballot box because of her sex."—Frederick Douglass, in a speech delivered on 15 November 1867.

"Armed people are free. No state can control those who have the machinery and the will to resist, no mob can take their liberty and property. And no 220 pound thug can threaten the well-being or dignity of a 110 pound woman who has two pounds of iron to even things out. Is that evil? Is that wrong?"—L. Neil Smith, "The Probability Broach"

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an out right ban, picking up every one of them... "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, "I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."—U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), CBS-TV's "60 Minutes," 2/5/95 (just for you assholes who claim no one wants to take away our guns)

"A free people ought to be armed."—George Washington

"If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves."—Joseph Stalin

"All political power comes from the barrel of a gun. The communist party must command all the guns, that way, no guns can ever be used to command the party."—Mao Tze Tung, Nov 6 1938

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"—Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined...The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."—Patrick Henry

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."—William Pitt, Nov. 18, 1783

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."—Noah Webster, 1787

"Nuff said? This rant is off to the publisher!!

Thursday, January 22, 2015

White Cop Beats Unarmed Black Man!

Tuesday, January 20, 2015

Time to Chuck MLK Day?

I can remember when there wasn't an MLK Day. I can remember when most people considered Martin Luther King a cynical rabble-rouser with communist connections. They were right. I can remember when Malcolm X, for all his flaws, seemed like a noble, praiseworthy fellow in contrast to King. I don't have much regard for Black Americans in general, but it's actually kind of an insult to them to elevate a scoundrel like King to his present state of political sainthood and think we're doing them a favor. 

Now I'm hoping to live to see the day when Congress eliminates Martin Luther King Day, and I hope they can summon up the courage to do it soon. Peter Brimelow has this to say:


Time To Rethink Martin Luther King Day

Robert E. Lee And Martin Luther King
 Happy Robert E. Lee Day! His January 19 birthday was once widely celebrated across the South (it still is mentionable in Alabama) but during the Second Reconstruction has been quietly suppressed to the point where even such a devoted son of the Confederacy asAmerican Renaissance’s Jared Taylor was unaware, when I talked to him on Sunday night, that its local variant in his and Lee’s state of Virginia, Lee-Jackson Day, was supposed to be celebrated last Friday. (Not surprisingly—it seems to have been recently crudely scrubbed from Virginia’s webpage).
But there’s a silver lining, sort of, in this tale of attempted historical lobotomy: it shows that public holidays come—and they go. Martin Luther King Day, rushed through Congress with Obamacare-style disregard of process in 1983, has been by now weighed in the balance for almost thirty years. It has inarguably (but unmentionably) been found wanting. It is time for it to go.
And in fact, I believe it will go, or at least be quietly suppressed like Robert E. Lee Day. The reasons:
  • MLK Day’s 2027 Problem
It is obvious to everyone that there is a reason King’s FBI files were sealed for fifty years back in 1977, and only the Main Stream Media’s typically relentless Politically Correct air cover prevented this flagrant maneuver from discrediting the Martin Luther King Day legislation in 1983.
The problem that these sealed files pose, the MSM/ Ruling Class determination to repress it—and incidentally the unimpeachably reasonable nature of the MLK Day opponents’ position—emerged at President Ronald Reagan’s famous October 19, 1983 press conference:
[Sam Donaldson, ABC News]. Mr. President, Senator [Jesse] Helms has been saying on the Senate floor that Martin Luther King, Jr., had Communist associations, was a Communist sympathizer. Do you agree?
The President. We’ll know in about 35 years, won’t we?
No, I don’t fault Senator Helms’ sincerity with regard to wanting the records opened up. I think that he’s motivated by a feeling that if we’re going to have a national holiday named for any American, when it’s only been named for one American in all our history up until this time, that he feels we should know everything there is to know about an individual. As I say, I don’t fault his sincerity in that, but I also recognize there is no way that these records can be opened, because an agreement was reached between the family and the government with regard to those records. And we’re not going to turn away from that or set a precedent of breaking agreements of that kind.
Sir, what do we do then in 35 years if the records are opened and we find that Dr. King was a Communist sympathizer? Do we then try to undo the law? I mean, I’m not quite certain where the logic is there.
The President. The logic is there in that there is no way that this government should violate its word and open those records now.
I happen to — while I would have preferred a day of recognition for his accomplishments and what he meant in a stormy period in our history here, I would have preferred a day similar to, say, Lincoln’s birthday, which is not technically a national holiday, but is certainly a day reverenced by a great many people in our country and has been. I would have preferred that, but since they seem bent on making it a national holiday, I believe the symbolism of that day is important enough that I’ll sign that legislation when it reaches my desk.
The President’s News Conference, Reagan Library, October 19, 1983
At the time, there was much MSM hyperventilating because Reagan had not roundly rejected the idea that King had Communist connections [Not A 35-Year Question, Editorial, New York Times, October 21, 1983]. But this was simply a demand, now familiar, for religious conformity to the burgeoning King Cult. Reagan’s was the only rational position, especially given the (widely-known but little-reported) information that Senator Helms had already placed in the Congressional Record.
Note, also, the bizarre MSM claim (which Reagan sidestepped) that there would be no “logic” in revoking MLK Day if King turned out to be a Communist. To put this in perspective, consider the protracted and merciless persecution, then just getting underway, of Arthur Rudolph, creator of the Saturn V moon rocket, because of the discovery of his alleged connection with forced labor projects in World War II Germany.
More recently, consider the continuing campaign against GOP Majority Whip Steve Scalise—who now, not coincidentally, is being attacked for his votes against the King holiday: GOP House Majority Whip Steve Scalise tried to kill Louisiana resolution apologizing for slaveryby Scott Kaufman, Raw Story, January 15, 2015. What Kaufman calls Scalise’s “ties” to David Duke’s relict organization in Louisiana were, on any reading, infinitesimal compared to King’s relationships with Communists and their causes. And when Scalise gave his speech, the U.S. was not engaged in a global struggle with a white supremacist power, nor losing thousands of men in adesperate war against one of its allies.
The plain fact is that King was a Man of the Left and American radicals are quite right to complain that he has been stolen from them. Thus, given that Leftist agitations are much more organized than the MSM cares to report, it might very well turn out that King’s decision to come out in opposition to the Vietnam War in April 1967 was ultimately at the behest of America’s foreign enemies. 
A federal holiday for Benedict Arnold?
All this and serial adultery too.
But whatever embarrassments these files may contain—and chilling as it seems to those of us who were around at the time—only twelve years remain before they will be opened. Of course, the way things are going, criticizing King may then be considered Hate Speech.
  • “Integration” just Isn’t working
This week near Dover, Delaware, a viral video appears to show another instance of black-on-white violence among high school students.
Editor’s Note: YouTube has deleted the video originally embedded in this article. Should users navigate to thevideo’s URL, a message states: “This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube’s policy prohibiting content designed to harass, bully or threaten.”
The shaky cell phone video shows a group of black teenage boys punching, knocking down, and kicking a white teenage boy, leaving him dazed and confused on the school bus floor.
The victim of the attack had been riding home from Parkway Academy School near Dover when the assault reportedly began. The video shows him sitting alone, facing front, when the attack begins from the rear – and continues from the side and the front of the school bus. “I didn’t do nothing,” he protests.
Video: Black Teens Assault White Student on School Bus, by Colin Flaherty, Breitbart, April 30, 2014.
Just another day in the life of white America in the aftermath of the Civil Rights revolution —Flaherty has chronicled scores of similar stories. But one entry in the comment thread, and the reaction to it, was really significant:
I noticed that the School Bus driver failed to intervene or notify the police. It is shockingly evident that we need to create a segregated public school system where the victims of racial violence are separated from their abusers…
Fifty years after the Civil Rights Act, the sophisticated arguments of its opponents go undiscussed, but the simple reality that drove segregation seems to be winning it a new generation of supporters—albeit silent, for now.
From Selma to Birmingham to Detroit, the results of the Civil Rights revolution have been uniformly catastrophic.
The worst racial conflicts since the 1960s are being used to launch a new campaign of Leftist activism. But, although there has been little overt opposition, the election returns make clear that American whites just aren’t buying it.
How long will they continue to buy the Holiday?
  • MLK Day can’t be contained
Many Americans unquestionably thought that, if they just made this one symbolic concession of accepting Martin Luther King Day, they would then be left alone. (They probably think the same about homosexual “marriage.”)
But it hasn’t worked put that way. Martin Luther King Day has simply become a staging area for the inculcation of more white guilt, above all in the class room.
Thus when my son Alexander was eight, he came home from public school early in January and told us that he`d been in some kind of play to dramatize an African American being turned away from a restaurant in the bad old days of the segregated South. In honor of Martin Luther King Day. Sort of like a Christmas Pageant. (Remember Christmas Pageants?)
The Connecticut Berkshires, where we lived, are a whitopia with absolutely no history of segregation whatsoever. Alexander was deeply puzzled. He was particularly impressed by the news that it was bad for policemen to use the word “boy.”
But this area of Connecticut was a hotbed of abolitionism. Those Connecticut farm boys joined up in vast numbers, and died in vast numbers, fighting to free the slaves. There was one famous regiment raised in Litchfield County: the 2nd Connecticut Heavy Artillery, which despite its name was an infantry regiment and which was shot to pieces at Cold Harbor.
There’s still a substantial blue collar population of colonial Yankee stock in northwestern Connecticut. The woman who cut my hair, the man who delivered my mail, had relatives who died in that battle. They were aware of it—but I have never heard any mention of it in the public schools.
I asked teachers about it, I asked the principals about it. None of them had ever heard of it, although they certainly had children in their classes whose ancestors were involved.
Those children could have been taught, even accepting the conventional Civil War morality play, that their forebears had done a noble thing. Instead, they were taught that they, whites, had oppressed blacks—even though their forebears had specifically not done so.
This goes to the issue of what we mean by a “Proposition Nation“. Maybe kids are being taught some kind of a “Proposition”, a national creed, in the public schools. But what is it?
Writ large, the result of this sort of brainwashing can be seen in the ludicrous spectacle of the Republican Establishment stampeding away from Republican National Committeeman Dave Agema just because he reposted on his FaceBook page an article from Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance called Confessions of a Public Defenderby “Michael Smith.”
It made no difference that Agema apparently picked up the AmRen story from the website of Black Republican and former Congressman Allen West, who wrote respectfully of it. Nor does it make any difference that Confessions is basically a straight description of scenes (admittedly dismaying) in heavily black courtrooms—bearing an unmistakable resemblance to scenes in Tom Wolfe’s 1987 best-seller Bonfire of the Vanities. has defended Agema before, when he was under attack for being insufficiently enthusiastic about Muslim immigration. He didn’t resign then, and we hope he doesn’t resign now.
But the unfortunate reality is that debate about race has gone backward in the three decades that Martin Luther King Day has been celebrated—at least in part because of the emotionalism that it systematically exacerbates.
This emotionalism is not an accident. Just as the hyping of the Ferguson fiasco and the Trayvon Martin scam bear all the signs of a concerted campaign to rally the Left’s core voters, so the intensifying King Cult, and the regular Two-Minute Hates against race deviationists like John Derbyshire , Pat BuchananFrank Borzellieri, and James Watson, reflect the profound instability of American politics. As the Democratic Party tips away from whites, it can now only hope to form (to put it brutally) Obama-style Minority Occupation Governments. At all costs, the Left must keep the historic American nation from uniting before it is swamped by government-imposed non-traditional immigration—which it began to show alarming signs of doing (no thanks to the GOP leadership) in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
This comes naturally, because the Politically Incorrect fact is that neither the Left`s blackHispanic or Jewish components have any strong tradition of free speech. The question is whether they can cow the historic American nation into accepting its subjugation.
Diversity is not strength: it is weakness. The celebration of adeeply-flawed figure like Martin Luther King was a confession of weakness, and the attempt to turn him into a national role model has required unsustainable myth-making. Perhaps in the future, Americans will be allowed to celebrate their own races’ heroes separately, just as Italian villages have different patron saints. Right now, however, the cost of the King cult to white America is too high.