Friday, February 27, 2015

Liberal Myths about Non-Liberals

Stephen W. Browne has it dead right here. Wandering around, on the net and elsewhere, I find that conservatives, libertarians, and other halfway reasonable people understand liberals very well and are seldom surprised by them. There are a lot of theories about why liberals are the way they are, but what way they are is pretty well known.

On, the other hand, liberals of course never listen to nonliberals. They just cover their pink little ears and go WA WA WA WA WA so they won't hear forbidden things. They "find out" what conservative and other nonliberals think by watching TV and listening to other liberals make stuff up, either in the pseudo-news shows of dingbats like John Stuart, or as characters in dramas and sitcoms, dreamed up by egregiously liberal Hollywood writers.

Just the other day I was chatting with some silly liberals about racial gaps in IQ — American Caucasoids averaging 100 IQ and American Congoids averaging 85 IQ. One of the charming little liberals replied, saying:

"Then you think that all Whites are smarter than all Blacks, eh?"

Since no one in the world thinks that, this notion is either something the little liberal heard from his liberal mentors, making it up, or it results from his own inability to understand the concept of "average." Probably both. Another thing you always hear from liberals is that all we conservative/libertarians are fundamentalist Christians who hate women, Blacks, yadda yadda yadda.

Conservative and libertarians, on the other hand, understand liberals very well. They're pathetic duckspeaking sheep.
Quibcag: The girl is one of the characters from Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta)

Thursday, February 26, 2015


If you want to know what this is all about, go here:

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

C. S. Lewis on the Nanny State

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Nations in Decline

Most thinking people think that the West and all its nations, including the United States, are in decline. For liberals and neocons, it seems just the reverse. They see the expanding role of government to be an improvement, a sort of progress. And when social rules and laws change to elevate dysfunctional people to elite status while the normal is pathologized, that's a big step forward. And according to Sir John Glubb, when nations and cultures decline, it's downright spooky how they all decline with the same symptoms. This is from The Irish Savant, here:

A lesson from history

Sweeping generalised interpretations of broad historical trends tend to be suspect especially when used to push a contemporary agenda.  As with the social "sciences" the desired outcome may first be identified and the historical interpretation then retrofitted to conform to Approved Narrative. Sir John Glubb can fairly be excluded from this charge. A former head of the Arab Legion he spent many years examining eleven empires and discovered an astonishing consistency in their trajectory from growth through decline to eventual disappearance. He embodied this in his 1978 book The Fate of Empires and the Search For Survival, a summary of which can be read (here).  It should be read given its uncanny relevance to our own decline today.

Just take these excerpts alone:

The people of the great nations of the past seem normally to have imagined that their pre-eminence would last forever. Rome appeared to its citizens to be destined for all time to be the mistress of the world. The Abbasid Khalifs of Baghdad declared that God had appointed them to rule mankind until the day of judgement. Seventy years ago, many people in Britain believed that the empire would endure for ever."

“When the welfare state was introduced in Britain, it was hailed as a new high-water mark in the history of human development. History, however, seems to suggest that the age of decline of a great nation is often a period which shows a tendency to philanthropy and to sympathy for other races … The rights of citizenship are generously bestowed on every race, even those formerly subject, and the equality of mankind is proclaimed. The Roman Empire passed through this phase, when equal citizenship was thrown open to all peoples, such provincials even becoming Senators and emperors[And Glubb never even heard of Obummer!]The Arab Empire of Baghdad was equally, perhaps even more, generous. During the Age of Conquests, pure-bred Arabs had constituted a ruling class, but in the ninth century the empire was completely cosmopolitan."[And on its way to self-destruction].

The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolized by men. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed. 
“When I first read these contemporary descriptions of tenth-century Baghdad, I could scarcely believe my eyes……The resemblance of all the details was breathtaking – the break-up of the empire, the abandonment of sexual morality, the ‘pop’ singers with their guitars, the entry of women into the professions, the five day week......In the second half of the tenth century, as a result, much obscene sexual language came increasingly into use, such as would not have been tolerated in an earlier age.” 
“Neither is decadence physical. The citizens of nations in decline are sometimes described as too physically emasculated to be able to bear hardship or make great efforts. This does not seem to be a true picture. Citizens of great nations in decadence are normally physically larger and stronger than those of their barbarian invaders.  In a wider national sphere, the survival of the nation depends basically on the loyalty and self-sacrifice of its citizens."  [But] "the citizens of such a nation will no longer make an effort to save themselves, because they are not convinced that anything in life is worth saving." [Sweden, or indeed any advanced Western nation today?]
“As the nation declines in power and wealth, a universal pessimism gradually pervades the people, and itself hastens the decline … Frivolity is the frequent companion of pessimism … The resemblance between declining nations in this respect is truly surprising … The Roman mob, as we have seen, demanded free meals and public games … Gladiatorial shows, chariot races and athletic events were their passion. In the Byzantine Empire, the rivalries of the Greens and the Blues in the hippodrome attained the importance of a major crisis … The heroes of declining nations are always the same – the athlete, the singer or the actor.”

“We have not drawn from history the obvious conclusion that material success is the result of courage, endurance and hard work – a conclusion nevertheless obvious from the history of the meteoric rise of our own ancestors. This self-assurance of its own superiority seems to go hand-in-hand with the luxury resulting from wealth, in undermining the character of the dominant race.”

Hegel was correct  once again when he wrote "...what experience and history teach us is this - that people and governments never have learned from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."

Meanwhile, hastening the process of self-destruction along at merry pace is this guy, hiding in plain sight.

A Frank Look at Muslims

Guest post by Matt Bailey:

There are 1.6 billions Muslim, and whatever else is wrong with them, one thing they AREN'T is lotion-handed urban eunuchs of the "I would never carry a gun or take a human life, even to defend myself" variety. In point of fact, they no kidding look positively on the idea of DYING while killing perceived enemies. So trying to bluff them with violence is right out, obviously. Right now our policy consists of blowing up just enough of their women and babies to get them really pissed off, but not enough to exterminate them, which probably cannot be done anyway. See the problem here? And not only do we piss them off, we practically INVITE them to immigrate into the West. Our policy is going into the woods to throw rocks at a hornet's nest and wondering why you get stung, then taking the hornet's nest complete with inhabitants and larvae into your house.
Ex-Army here. Only thing I can nitpick about in Matt's post is that "practically invite." No "practically" about it. Our policy towards wannabee immigrants is to say. 

"You're a refugee, right? Of course you are! C'mon in and sign up for some freebies! And don't forget to demand affirmative action and other special accommodations."

And of course we have churches, synagogues, and mosques, along with all kinds of "progressive" groups, twisting and evading what few immigration laws that we do have to get as many Muslims in as possible, lecture them on how Whitey discriminates against them, and demand taxpayer money to take care of their every need.
Quibcag: Bee girl by LuigiL

Sunday, February 22, 2015

How to treat liberals

The below is a very nice article, from which I extracted the very nice quibcag here, but I couldn't figure out what "LARP" means.  Now, I know it means "live-action role playing," but that doesn't seem to fit, but maybe it does.  I looked around the net and found this definition by Spider58x:

In the alt-right parlance, "LARPing" refers to neckbearded losers who put all their mental energy into believing pie-in-the-sky, never-gonna-happen political fantasylands, like seceding to create a white ethnostate (AKA "Skyrimism"), seasteading, re-instating the House of Stuart in Great Britain, or putting some some sort of formalist philospher-king in charge of a city-state.

You can read more of what he says here [link].
The message of this article is a good one. Do everything you can to make Democrats (or liberals, or progressives, or whatever they're calling themselves right now) look like the immature, lying, slimeballs that they are.

Never compromise with them, never accept any of their premises, never "work with" them. Their goal, whether they know it or not, is our destruction, and you can't meet something like that halfway.

Pass this around with the URL, or just the quibcag.  This is from:

The Policy Stuff

In recent years, I’ve gradually lost interest in LARPy policy arguments. 2010 was a turning point for me. All the liberals I knew were clearly arguing in favor of some imaginary health care reform that had at best a tenuous relationship to what Harry Reid planned to inflict on us. Meanwhile, conservatives were arguing for policy that had exactly 0% chance of passing. What we got was a dildo straight in the pooper, and all our LARPing on all sides had exactly jack diddly crap to do with the outcome.

The usual proposed alternative to LARPing is compromise. The idea is that if we meet the left, they might replace the double dragon dildo with a smaller, smoother model, and may even let us lube up first. This, however, is a fool’s errand, as we all know the next compromise will simply a bigger, rougher, drier ravaging.
Now, conservatives have won major victories in the last couple decades on things like home schooling, the income tax, gun rights, and regulations on abortion. So it is clear that the Overton Window can in fact be moved rightward. As the alt-right grows and becomes a nontrivial influence in the Republican Party, what kind of policy should we support?
The correct thing to do is support the most viable policies, positions, and politicians that provoke the most outrage and butthurt among the left. A crying, screaming, raging mess of a human being is intrinsically repulsive to the median voter. The more repulsive the left becomes, the more attractive rebellion against them becomes, the harder it becomes for them to win election, the easier it is to ignore their howls of protest as we destroy their institutions. No one likes crybabies.

What we want is for the general public to regard liberals as disgusting, traitorous crybabies who utterly lack self-control and hate their country. This should not be terribly hard, as liberals actually are disgusting, embarrassing crybabies who utterly lack self-control and hate their country. One only need read Gawker, XOJane, or the Huffington Post for about twenty minutes to observe what nauseating people liberals truly are.
Remember, we’re talking about people who are okay with mass child rape so long as the rapists are Muslims.
This can result in supporting what would otherwise be counterintuitive policy.  A small marginal cut to a welfare program or a university budget may seem too trivial to fight over, and in the past Republicans rolled over on these fights. I am asserting that these are the most important fights to win, because they make Democrats look bad. The Democrat-driven shutdown over cuts to Planned Parenthood was followed by a historic Republican sweep in 2014. Freaking out because Bruce Rauner won’t pretend money can be pulled out of unicorn butts isn’t winning them friends in Illinois. Losing their goddamned minds because Scott Walker said state employees shouldn’t be forced to join a union has only solidified Republican control.
I have always said that the road to reaction starts with refusing to compromise with the left on anything. We don’t just want the most right-wing candidate to win. We want the left to lose its legitimacy, and for that, we’re going to need their help.
Quibcag: The crybaby is one of the girls, Renko, I think, from "Stella Women's Academy, High School Division Class C3" (特例措置団体ステラ女学院高等科C3部

Oxymoron of the Week: Social Justice Warrior Libertarians

I had the good fortune many years ago to first encounter explicit libertarianism in the form of a novel by L. Neil Smith called The Probability Broach [link]. I was intrigued by his thinking, which was much like my own, and went on to find other libertarian works by Hospers and Rothbard and others.  After an initial euphoria, I realized that the basic flaw in libertarianism was that, like pacifism only works if everybody is a pacifist, it works best when everybody is a libertarian. And hardly anybody is, even here in the US, home of the Founding Fathers, who were pretty much radical libertarians by today's standards.

There's another flaw, though, and it's not the fault of the basic philosophy itself, but of its adherents. It has become contaminated with political correctness, every bit as much as liberalism and neoconservatism have, and is rapidly trying to purge all the politically incorrect, like me, out of it. Sorry, guys — I was here first. Me and Tom and that other Tom and George and Benjamin, etc.

And the most extreme manifestation of political correctness currently is the "Social Justice Warrior," and libertarians who become SJW's are completely indistinguishable from the left. Which is the way the left wants it. This new libertarianism, which insists that a libertarian must be circumcised accept all the social assumptions of the left, has been called "Thick Libertarianism," and will probably end the movement for good and all soon, and the few sensible libertarians left will have to think up a new word for their philosophy, because "libertarian" will then just mean a bunch of crossdressing Marxists.  To read more about Thick Libertarianism just enter the term in "search this blog" on the top right there.

Think I'm exaggerating?  This from:

Libertarians Morphing into Leftist “Social Justice Warriors” At International Students for Liberty Conference

I promised myself I wouldn’t fall back on stereotypes and cheap shots. I swore I wouldn’t take the easy way out. But when the first things you see at the International Students for Liberty Conference, held February 13-15 in Washington D.C., are two dudes in fedoras groping each other and a desperate looking guy asking where the LGBT party is, it’s hard to resist.
The conference was not exactly a “safe space” for your typical FoxNews Republican. The most popular speaker was Edward Snowden, a man neoconservatives consider nothing less than a traitor [Libertarian Students Honor Their Chosen Hero, Edward Snowden, by Robby Soave, Reason, February 15, 2015]. “Conservative” Senators like Marco Rubio were objects of contempt, rather than reverence [Justin Amash Chastises Marco Rubio Over PATRIOT Act Reauthorization Stance, by Stephanie Slade, Reason, February 14, 2015].
And, true to Ann Coulter’s famous taunt, delegates shied away from issues like Affirmative Action, freedom of association and property rights to giggle about drugs, homosexuality, and other issues that wouldn’t offend your local Dean of Multicultural Affairs. The choice to present former Mexican President Vicente Fox as some kind of new libertarian hero speaks for itself [Vicente Fox Stumps to Legalize All Drugs Worldwide, by Fergus Hodgson, PanAm, February 16, 2015].
And the break between the Beltway Right and the young libertarian movement is actually overstated. Both groups are committed to Open Borders. Both groups are indifferent or actively hostile to any nationalist, National Conservative or Identitarian movements. And most importantly, both groups are against any attempt to reverse the Left’s social engineering project. While the typical Republican simply wants to avoid the Left’s Social Justice Warriors, the libertarians want to join them.
Ron Paul learned this the hard way at the conference, where the one-time libertarian idol was heavily criticized. Paul delivered a rambling address about the universal appeal of liberty and the need to renounce aggression, but he didn’t receive the kind of rapturous reception he would have gotten even three years ago.
Mackenzie Holst, a student from Texas Christian University who claimed to be linked to the “Center for a Stateless Society,” read a condemnation of Paul for his refusal to condemn his supposedly racist “Ron Paul Newsletters” and everyone tied to them [Edward Snowden and Ron Paul Kick Off Libertarian Student Conference With a Little Kerfuffle About Russia, by David Weigel, BloombergPolitics, February 13, 2015] This is rich coming from an organization dealing with the revelation that one of its founders was a self-admitted child molester [Freedom of Disassociation: Regarding Brad Spengler, Center for a Stateless Society, January 24, 2015]
To his credit, on this occasion Paul did not back down completely, stating, “For me to disavow everything I ever wrote in a newsletter, I mean, that’s foolishness” [Ron Paul: ‘I’m not pro-Russian. I’m pro factsby Ashley Killough, CNN, February 15, 2015]. (See how easy that was, Republicans?) A “no true libertarian” debate then erupted on Twitter over whether the questioner—who has since deleted her social media—was actually a libertarian or simply a Hillary supporting interloper.
More than one speaker asked critical questions of Paul regarding his perceived pro-Putin stance, especially one attendee from Kiev. Of course, as Paul said, he is not actually “pro-Putin” (although his Ron Paul Institute sometimes sounds like it). He simply does not want the U.S. to become actively involved in the dispute between Russia and Ukraine. However, as Putin is now seen by many as an “authoritarian”—especially because of Russia’s hostility to homosexual activism, an unspoken element in the libertarian movement—many self-described libertarians and classical liberals are pushing for an aggressive challenge to Putin’s Russia. For libertarians, Ron Paul is simply no longer a unifying figure.
(His son Senator Rand Paul also spoke at the conference. The BBC’s Anthony Zurcher reports reviews of the younger Paul “were generally supportive—but with some concerns” [Rand Paul and his Ron Paul conundrum, February 16 2015]).
So what does unify contemporary libertarians? It isn’t opposition to the state as such. State power used in defense of Leftist social policy, as in the case of gay marriage, was widely accepted. “Paleo-libertarianism” was almost entirely absent, as is discussion of concepts like local control or states’ rights.
We can’t even say that SFL is really upset by socialism as such. The presence of Oliver Stone as a speaker, the same Oliver Stone who was recently promoting his Hugo Chavez hagiography Mi Amigo Hugo, is self-discrediting and requires no further comment [Oliver Stone’s Disgraceful Tribute to Hugo Chavez, by Jeffrey Tayler, Foreign Policy, May 13, 2014].
What does upset Students for Liberty is any kind of national solidarity. Insofar as any issue was taken for granted, it was Open Borders. Bryan Caplan, Andrew Napolitano, David Boaz, and just about every other speaker wants more immigration.
The European contingent from overseas Students for Liberty chapters was chiefly distinguished for fighting against the nationalist movements in their own countries. The “Student of the Year” went to a feminist in Serbia whose activism consists of gay pride parades and standing up to “Nazis” in defense of drug use. It’s not surprising that self-designated libertarians now pen tributes to the “libertarian” influence of institutions like the nation-crushing European Union and its “achievement on behalf of liberty” [Two Nationalisms: Why Pro-Liberty Is Not Anti-EU, by Christoph Heuermann, AtlasOne, July 24, 2014].
The truth is that the libertarianism—especially the “millennial libertarianism” or “second wave libertarianism” that Students for Liberty is determined to promote— privileges cultural liberalism above restricting the state. You can’t take concepts like Leftist buzzwords like “privilege” and “normativity” seriously and still defend limited government. Once you accept these kinds of concepts, the inevitable performance gaps between racial groups, nations, and sexes become evidence of “oppression” rather than of objectively existing inequalities.
Of course, libertarians like Murray Rothbard recognized this, which is why he openly defended concepts like racial differences in average intelligence. Whatever name-dropping contemporary libertarians practice, it’s doubtful that the author of Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature would even be allowed on the stage at something like Students for Liberty.
Just as leftists no longer bother with the economic theories of Marx and look down on the white working classes they used to champion, contemporary libertarians are less offended by the Labor Theory of Value than the Ron Paul-supporting Christians of the John Birch Society. What Steve Sailer observed about Marxists is now true of libertarians—the people they champion are not the working masses but the transgender CEOs.
Thus, despite a massive organizational presence and huge amounts of money, the libertarian student activists on campus mean nothing. They are simply a redundant appendage to the already-existing status quo.
For example, take Students for Liberty’s Campus Coordinator at Duke University, Miriam Weeks. She’s best known as porn star “Belle Knox,” and is a proudly advertised guest speaker for the supposedly more conservative leaning Young Americans for Liberty [YAL@UNC-Chapel Hill Off To An Amazing Start, by Alex Johnson, Young Americans for Liberty, September 12, 2014]. Personally, I’m less triggered by her being a porn star than being a supposed libertarian whose “idol” is Gloria Allred [Porn Star Belle Knox Is Remaking Herself As A Libertarian Activist, by Hunter Walker, Business Insider, January 28, 2015]
The worst part of all of this is that this faux libertarian student activism will only grow because of the statist policy of mass immigration. As President Obama revealingly put it, mass immigration will turn the country into a “hodgepodge” devoid of identity and incapable of self-government. As there will still be a need for an American “Right,” why not a group of atomized, culturally progressive, and excruciatingly PC activists to lobby for tax cuts and free trade?
We may not get limited government, but the Beltway Right’s corporate donors will still get theirs. You might even call it Grover Norquist’s model political movement – which is probably why this pillar of Conservatism Inc. felt free to attend.
The new libertarian movement isn’t new, isn’t libertarian, and isn’t really a movement. It’s simply an AstroTurf lobbying effort that carefully guides students onto a path of pointless posturing. It reinforces the status quo. It undermines what resistance to the System already exists.
It’s less a challenge to the Beltway Right than an indispensable support working to ensure that a real alternative can never emerge.
James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.
Quibcag: Don't know who the girl is, but she looks smart. The quibcag itself was inspired by a net conversation with some "libertarians" who decided I was a racist because I said that Blacks vote Democratic because they want free stuff and special privileges. I asked them if they thought there was some other reason for their overwhelming Democratic voting. No answer so far :)


A Complicated Post

Bear with me, folks. A few days ago, Bob Wallace posted on his blog about

"Herbivore Man vs. Dried Fish Woman" [link]

I recommend that you click and give it a read. Nice video, too. When you've done with that, you can go over to

Rumiko should do a manga about Dried Fish Women [link]

 where Vulture of Critique comments on Bob's post, making a suggestion I wish I'd thought of myself. Go thou and enjoy.
Oh, the quibcag — The illustration is Kagome of Inuyasha (犬夜叉), who is demonstrating how a feminist looks when she doubles down. Being Japanese, she of course is not a feminist herself.


Saturday, February 21, 2015

In Rudy Veritas

This time, anyway. The quibcag has it right. For some reason, Giuliani has decides to declare outright the mokita that Obama doesn't love America. Of course he doesn't. He despises this country, and it is evident in everything he's ever said or written. One guy I heard on the radio clarified the matter — he said that it's not America that Obama dislikes, it's Americans. And that does tell us a little more. I'd be a little more nuanced and say that Obama dislikes those Americans who do love America. The Americans who also, like Obama, despise America, they're okay in Obama's book.

Like all leftists, Obama has a hierarchy of respect. He prefers countries that dislike America.  Especially nonWhite countries, and most especially Black countries, like his native? Kenya. He also likes communist countries, it would seem, and is even now figuring out how to give as much American money as possible to Cuba.

He gets his affection for communism from both parents, and evidently from his maternal grandparents.  And his bias towards Muslims has a few causes — Everybody on his father's side of the family is a Muslim, he went to Muslim schools, his mother married two Muslims, and a great way to wreck the US (and the Western World in general) is to welcome multitudes of Muslim immigrants.

So Rudy has told the truth at least once now. That puts him ahead of the pack, alas.
Quibcag: I believe the groveling apology is performed by a girl from Toradora! (とらドラ!) 

Glaivester Strikes Yet Again!

If you're new here, you may be unaware of just how bloody dangerous immigrants, especially illegal immigrants, are. They commit a lot of crimes, all the way from trivial to rape and murder, and there's a tacit agreement that the MAG* has with itself to never mention immigration status when reporting such crimes unless it's absolutely necessary.

We do hear a bit from the so-called right wing about how terrorists can slip over the border, and they're right, of course,  but for most of us, the danger is from ordinary Latin American immigrants, legal and otherwise, who are disproportionately inclined toward basic crime, from burglary to rape and, again, to murder.

See Glaivester's original post, with a larger version of the cartoon, here:

And, if you want to read about the crimes committed by immigrants that the media won't tell you about, you can't do better than reading:
*Media, Academia, Government

Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang Ker-POW! or, Neale's Weekly Gun Rant for 2-15-15

Augh! Big hurry this week, so no commentary, except to say that the illustration seems to be from a game called "Vanguard Princess," and, if you can read Hungarian, you can find out more about it HERE.

Neale's Weekly Gun Rant for 2-15-15
by Neale Osborn

Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

We're going to start this off with an interesting piece of writing from Mama Liberty. (WHY does this seem familiar? Oh yeah! That's how we start EVERY Rant we can!!) This one is one Impaired Self Defense. [Link] Okay, get OFF you're high horse—she's NOT saying run out, get drunk, and defend yourself.

"First, of course, it helps to define "impaired." Perfectly alert, with perfect judgment, perfect physical ability, and perfect training/experience describes nobody on earth, which makes every single human being "impaired" to some extent, if compared to perfection. If not perfection, to what is it compared? Who decides? And why? A person's physical abilities and judgment is relative to so many things, and the perception of those things is subjective and individual.

Don't think so? Try this: You say you are hungry, thirsty, or tired... Even if you can begin to articulate any measurable criteria that would apply to everyone (go ahead and try... I'll wait...), are you really willing for someone else to define hunger or thirst, etc. for YOU—and dictate what you must or must not do in that case?

Who, then, is responsible for setting limits for your impairment if you drink, oversleep, take drugs, or any of the hundreds, maybe thousands of things that would seriously (you decide) reduce your physical and mental ability to exercise good judgment and not harm others, whatever it is you are doing."

From here, she goes into an interesting and different take of gun carrying, self defense, and the Designated Shooter. Read on, dear reader, and see where she ends up. Mama—to answer your question—I do not drink outside the home, so I'm happy to be YOUR designated shooter any time you need one!

I'm going to spend a few moments discussing MY take on this, after you watch the linked video and read the article. [Link]

You would think with the amount of national tension between police and citizens the police would do a better job of policing themselves.

"It's one thing for an officer to discharge a defense weapon when the officer in question is under duress.

But to pepper spray somebody because he was walking too close? That's just crazy.

And yet that's exactly what happened after an MLK Jr. march."

Now, I read the entire article, and watched the 15 second video. Now, Mr. Hagopian was mistreated far worse than the story actually implies. How, you ask? It's really simple—he wasn't even targeted. He was walking and talking on the phone, and the police creature began indiscriminately spraying the crowd—Mr. Hagopian was just the only person who got hit hard. Watch the video—she's screaming at the crowd (most of whom aren't even paying attention to the scared little piggy) and spraying her pepper spray, first at Mr. H, and the woman next to him, then she proceeds to spray it around the area BEHIND him! This cop is treating her pepper spray like a machinegun on the walls of a fort under siege—yet the crowd isn't doing much more than carrying signs. I guess when you're bicycle police at a peaceful protest, you need to do SOMETHING to prove you are "The Man!" Luckily for Miss Piggy, she doesn't appear to have hit any children or asthmatics with her reckless endangerment. And I doubt she'll face any criminal charges for assault, even though they are justified. I re-watched that video 5 times, and I see NO threats to her or her fellow officers' safety that could possibly justify these actions.

Where do I start with this one....? [Link]

"Gun owners with legal permits would be allowed to carry concealed weapons around the country under a bill introduced in the Senate—a measure that previously came just three votes shy of passage in a Democratic-controlled chamber.

The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act "operates more or less like a driver's license," Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn told The Hill about the measure introduced Thursday.
"So, for example, if you have a driver's license in Texas, you can drive in New York, in Utah and other places, subject to the laws of those states."

Well, we can START with the entire anti-Constitutional idea of "Legally Armed". Ever hear of the Constitution? Then EVERYONE is already "legally armed". So the idea of federal legislation to "allow legally armed Americans" to carry in all 50 states is pretty asinine, because IT'S ALREADY OUR DAMNED RIGHT, YOU IDIOTS!!!!! But now, we have to address life in anti-Constitutional America today. Since despite the fact that most of the people demanding ever greater restrictions on a Constitutionally enumerated right like the RLKBA (restrictions they would start a revolution over if applied to any right THEY cherish), and in fact, many 2nd Amendment supporters have been brainwashed into thinking a license is actually a good thing, we need to look at this asinine idea from another angle. Since licenses exist, and since cowards refuse to fight against ALL licensing, and demand Constitutional carry (anything, anywhere, open or concealed, at the sole discretion of the citizen), we have to deal with the concept of state lines. We've all read the stories of people crossing a state line unawares and finding themselves incarcerated despite being "licensed" carriers of firearms. While ALL 50 STATES now have provisions for some form of concealed carry license, fully 1/3rd of the states will not honor licenses granted in other states, and more of them will not honor licenses from states that will not honor their licenses. So, shat to do? This legislation makes sense, sorta, under these circumstances. Sooo, IF I have to have a CCW to avoid jail time for engaging in my Constitutional rights, the least we can do, I guess, is force ALL states to recognize ALL licenses. That will keep me from needing both my NY license AND the Arizona license to protect me in 37 states.

I've got to say this Sheriff really impresses me. [Link] He's standing up for what is right, doing his job, AND following the Constitution.

"Constitutional Sheriffs are becoming more vocal and demonstrating why they are a valuable asset to freedom and their communities. The latest sheriff to take a constitutional stand is Eddy County, New Mexico's Scott London, the first sheriff in twenty-five to stand up to the IRS against a tyrannical attempt to sell a citizen in his county's land without due process.

Priscilla Jones provides the background information for the sheriff's actions:
Approximately ten days before Christmas, U.S. Marshals broke in the door of Carter's rental property with their guns drawn. The tenant was a young mother with a new baby—home alone while her husband was at work. Sheriff London was called to the property to intervene. He advised the Marshals that Carter's case was in appeal and he deserved due process. They threatened to arrest London, but he stood his ground and they backed off.
The Taxation & Revenue Department ordered Carter to cease "engaging in business in New Mexico" until his arbitrary tax debt was paid. Carter appealed this injunction on the grounds that it was both unconstitutional and vague, as it deprived him of his right to make a living and also prohibited him from, "carrying on or causing to be carried on any activity with the purpose of direct or indirect benefit."
While this is not an actual "Well Armed American" story, without it, we AREN'T Well Armed Americans. So I thought that this time, I'd post a story to HELP us remain well armed. [Link]
"Access to guns:
"It may be hard for an egg to turn into a bird: it would be a jolly sight harder for it to learn to fly while remaining an egg."—C.S. Lewis
In the western feature film, "Silverado" (1985), one of the main characters, "Emmett" (palyed by Scott Glenn) is shown out in the desert intensely practicing his shooting skills.

After demonstrating superlative acumen, knocking cans around, he smartly holsters his empty revolver and then walks toward his horse. Out of nowhere, the crooked deputy, "Garth," (played by Sam Garney) appears and says,
"You're empty, Mister!"
It reminds me of a scene from L. Neil Smith's excellent novel Pallas, where our protagonist, Emerson Ngu, leaves a silhouette shooting match without re-loading his handgun, and winds up forced to defend himself with an empty gun. Then, the author makes another great point about competition shooters (One I have oft remarked on at the range) which addresses the problem of "race guns" and self defense.

"I am also reminded of most "competition" participants. Nearly all leave the range with empty guns, locked away. This, after shooting all day in simulated "real life" scenarios! The minuscule few who do carry off the range, don't carry a gun that even slightly resembles the one they "practice" with!
They piously exercise "real life," but they don't live it!

In their next lethal emergency, I wonder how much "prep time" they foolishly imagine they're going to get. Are they really expecting a "miracle?"

I've built guns for local competitions. And, while they WERE to competition standards, they, and the holsters used, are so impractical for self defense scenarios that it would be funny if someone tried to use one in self defense (if it weren't so sad that they most likely would not help). Just turn on Outdoor Channel, and watch Shooting USA's Impossible Shots. Jerry Miculek is literally the fastest person with a revolver I have ever seen. using his custom built S&W revolvers, speed holsters, moon clips, and post clip holders, he can draw, aim, fire to empty, re-load, and empty the gun again so fast it sounds like a machinegun. But he starts from the ready position (hands at shoulder height, gun exposed) waiting for the signal to draw. While I'd NEVER wish to see him forced to actually USE the gun in self defense, one wonders if he'd be the survivor. I carry, every day. I practice drawing my carry guns from the carry position—whether it is the cargo pocket of shorts or kilt, IWB holster, shoulder holster, jacket holster, or whatever other option forced upon me by my clothing choices. And using the guns I carry. NOT my race 1911, with a comp, 1.7 pound trigger, disabled grip safety, and a skeletonized fast-draw holster. Even though it might be a great gun/holster combo, it isn't a defense rig.

Sean Gangol has some great points about ALL types of prohibition. So good that I thought it important to put it here even though my TLE readers have already seen it in last week's articles. You DID read Sean's piece last week, didn't you? [Link]

"The mind of a prohibitionist is something that I have never been able to comprehend. You would think that with the track record that prohibition measures have had on society, only a small fringe element would support such a thing. Yet there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who support prohibition in some form or another. Whenever I think about prohibition, I am always reminded of the stories I heard about my Great Grandfather Gangol who emigrated from Hungary to the great USA in the 1920's. Like many immigrants at the time he wasn't the most educated nor did he speak English. Despite this he was smart enough to figure out why prohibition was and will always remain a colossal failure. When he arrived he made his way to one of those little stations that would teach immigrants the fundamentals of living in America, one of which was the English language. They also taught basic economics, such as supply and demand. I am not sure about the exact moment that it happened, but the light bulb in my grandfather's head lit up when he applied supply and demand to the nation's ban on hooch. While the government continued its war on booze, there would be a greater demand for cocktails, which meant greater profits for those filling that demand. Pay attention to this because this will play a part in the conclusion of my article. What amazes me the most is the way that a prohibitionist will admit that the measures have failed in at least one aspect, but believe that it will somehow work against the very thing that they want to see eliminated. The first person who comes to mind is Emily Miller, a columnist for the Washington Post who has done a serious of articles on Washington DC's gun laws. She also wrote a book titled, Emily Gets Her Gun, where she describes the amount of red tape that she had to go through in order to legally own a gun in the nation's capital."

You should follow the link to TLE and see where this winds up....

It is time, once again, for the Quotes of the Week! This one, sent to me by Paul, is quite surprising to many—[Link]

"He who cannot protect himself or his nearest and dearest or their honor by non-violently facing death may and ought to do so by violently dealing with the oppressor. He who can do neither of the two is a burden. He has no business to be the head of a family. He must either hide himself, or must rest content to live for ever in helplessness and be prepared to crawl like a worm at the bidding of a bully."—Mohandas K. Gandhi 

Not what you were expecting from Ghandi, is it?

Well, I need to fire this off to the editor, so TTFN!

Friday, February 20, 2015

Vulturine Hyperbole, or is it?

Vulture of Critique very kindly reprinted one of my quibcags HERE, and went on to comment on the quibcag and the post it illustrated HERE, and was so expressive that yet another quibcag was born. This one here. As for the illustration, the girl is of course standing in for Lon Horiuchi, and I have no idea where she originated. And I've attributed the quote to Vulture of Critique, though the post is by "gaikokumaniakku," which name is too hard to fit onto a quibcag.

Do go over to Vulture of Critique and read his whole commentary.
P. S. If you don't know who Lon Horiuchi is, get to googlin'.

Thursday, February 19, 2015

La Différence

George Wallace famously said that there wasn't a 'dime's worth' of difference between Democrats and Republicans — maybe more like a nickle. And that was a long time ago. Coincidentally, the last time I voted for a Democrat it was Wallace, though he was running on the American Independent Party ticket at the time. Things haven't changed much since then. Oh, there was a rhetorical conservative movement under Reagan, but, as Limbaugh said the other day, the Reagan Administration just put on the brakes a little, and didn't reverse anything. And, at that, Limbaugh was overstating it.

Of course, we're dealing with millions of people in each party, so the differences, if any, are statistical. I've voted Republican since 1968 precisely because the Republican party includes a few decent people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan, while the Democrats don't have any at all any more. And the decent Republicans are a tiny minority.

But the quibcag holds. Those who explicitly advocate the destruction of the United States and the American people are irresistibly drawn to the Democratic Party, while the Republican, for the most part, don't really care one way or the other. The illustration is Marika, of Bodacious Space Pirates (モーレツ宇宙海賊パイレーツ Mōretsu Pairētsu), who is good at making decisions like this. Do circulate this far and wide.

Sunday, February 15, 2015

Monday Morning Outrageous Quibcag

Since there's a remote possibility that some of you have never seen or heard the original, of which this is a rather profound parody, you can read about it HERE.
And the quibcag girl is a Nazi chick, courtesy of Vulture of Critique.

Sunday Afternoon Quibcag

This occurred to me after doing that last post. The US Government used to throw illegal aliens out, and had comparatively stringent standards for legal immigrants. But that's all long gone. The gvt isn't interested in doing that, but would rather use the resources in policing American citizens, to make sure they don't discriminate against illegal aliens or hurt their feelings. Do pass this one around. The illustration is Kagura of Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul"), who, despite her appearance as a typical red-haired, blue-eyed Chinese girl, is actually an alien from a faraway planet.

Être Français

I've just been having fun quibbling with an openbordersnik on Facebook, who reacted to THIS POST by saying,

I don't see the distinction between Americans and foreigners... other than who collects their taxes.

Disingenuousness at its finest. Well, we went back and forth about whether there are differences between human groups and whether such differences are intrinsic, and then it dawned on me that I was wasting my time. I asked if he advocated open borders, and he replied:

The federal govt has no right to restrict voluntary interactions among people. Open borders has been policy for most of US history.

Ah. Of course. A state that has no power to keep invaders out is no longer a state in any meaningful way, and saying that it shouldn't have such power is to proclaim anarchism indirectly.  Well, that's a blind spot with many libertarians, including this guy.  But that's looking at state power in a perverse way.  The fact is that the people of a nation have the right to demand that the government they support and pay for at least do the minimum government function of protecting the borders from invaders.

And some Americans are waking up to that, despite the fact that their leaders, be they liberals, neocons, or libertarians, are eager to help Barack and Jeb destroy the American people and replace it with third world peasants and worse.

And some Frenchmen are waking up to the same thing.  This from:

“To Be French”: Reviving the National Dream

One characteristic of our dominant “postmodern” culture is the assault on all sense of shared narrative and identity, above all nationhood, which is subject to constant and aggressive “deconstruction.” But a recent video by the French think tank Polémia, founded by Jean-Yves Le Gallou, a former National Front (FN) Member of the European Parliament, shows how a positive national vision can be promoted amid the ambient relativism and traps of political correctness.

The above video is making the rounds in French nationalist circles and has already reached an impressive 140,000 views in less than two weeks (atranslation is available from the excellent English-language French nationalist news site GalliaWatch; reproduced below). What I love about this video is its optimism, its articulation of joint national and European identity, its being both rooted in the past and looking forward to the future, its inclusion of apolitical themes like heritage in music, food and good living, but also in explicit mentioning of the necessary ethnic component of national identity.


The narrator — a gentlemanly and generous-sounding elder — tells us on a background of elevating music:
A Frenchman is a French-speaking European.
To be French is to belong to a lineage which comes from the depths of time.
The French people remain the heir of the Gallo-Romans.
According to the great demographer Jacques Dupâquier, the ethnic composition of the national territory remained virtually unchanged until the beginning of the 1970s.
To be French is to belong to a civilization: European and Christian civilization. […]
The fatherland [patrie] is the soil and the dead. […]
“It is very good that there be yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen. They show that France is open to all races and that she has a universal vocation. But on the condition that they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France would no longer be France. We are of course above all a European people, of White race, of Greek and Latin culture, and of Christian religion.” — Charles de Gaulle
The presentation is perfect. The ethnic discussion is carefully woven into the narrative without being overbearing. The talk of being “a French-speaking European” and of “a lineage” could be considered dog-whistling. The fact of ethnic continuity, until recently, is pointed out. It is explicitly stated that European-Frenchman must remain the overwhelming majority of the country,by the absolutely unimpeachable Charles de Gaulle, the man who is the source of the French state’s official legitimacy since World War II.
Thus the video can be shared by most people, on social media or elsewhere, without too much fear of shaming and ostracism. This is critical. The politico-cultural system in place in the West since 1945 rules us by making any Western nationalism and defense of European identity and interests a hateful taboo morally equivalent to Auschwitz. This works, to the extent that one cannot even share a link to a particular  website or associate with a nationalist without fear of repercussions for one’s reputation and career. (In contrast, the far-left is absolutely tolerated, witness how the universities, media and political classes are often filled with former and current Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists and other assorted Marxoids. Even an orthodox Italian Fascist would obviously not be tolerated, even though Benito Mussolini’s regime did not kill a high number of people compared with either the Soviet Union or the Western democracies.) Polémia shows that you can create a message that raises our core themes despite the bounds of political correctness.
Similar videos could be made for Germany, Britain, Italy, Russia, Poland and all the great European nations. We are Europeans: Brothers of blood and faith. Our nations, with the glorious variation in their characteristics and trajectories, show only a fraction of the limitless potentialities of our people. Furthermore, each nation has a rich and often fascinating patriotic tradition to draw upon for its national renewal. The triumph of nationalism, I am convinced, will first go through particular nations, each with its particular heritage and consciousness.
No doubt a similar pan-European video could be made — perhaps featuring the Ice Age survivors, the Ancient Greeks and Romans, Charles Martel and Charlemagne, the Viking and Renaissance explorers, Galileo and Newton, Nietzsche and Darwin, and the men who walked on the Moon. From Ice Age to Space Age…
Translation, from GalliaWatch:
A cartoon appears at the beginning: Cartoon title: “Everyone is French”

Martian 1:
“And are we French too?”

Martian 2:

“But of course, everyone is French!”

No, no, dear Martian friends, everyone is not French!
To be French implies a marvelous alchemy:

To be French is to speak the French language,

The French language which is our mother

And the marvelous tool for the exercise of our intelligence

And the discovery of the Humanities.

A Frenchman is a European of French culture.

To be French is to belong to a bloodline

That comes from the depth of the Ages;

The French people remain as the heirs of the Gallo-Romans.

According to the great demographer Jacques Dupâquier,

The ethnic composition of the national territory

Stayed virtually unchanged until the beginning of the 1970’s.

To be French is to belong to a civilization,

The European and Christian civilization.

To be French is to share the memory of the Homeric poems,

Of the Celtic legends, of Roman heritage, of the medieval imagination, of courtly love.

Whether one is Christian or not, the Christian values of the world

Are an element of the French identity.

To be French is to share a history, a memory.

To be French is to share the pride of the great, national saga;

Of the Monarchy, of the Empire, and of the Republic.

The motherland is the land and the fallen.

To be French is to share the love of a land, of its different regions,

Of its varied landscapes, of its marvelous high terrains.

To be French is to share music and sounds, from the lyre to the bagpipe,

From the piano to the guitar, from the accordion to the symphony orchestra.
To be French is to share flavors and scents;

To be French is to share moments of happiness at the dinner table.

To be French is to share the desire to live together,

To have common glories of the past, a common will in the present,

Having done great things together, and wanting to do new ones.

Those are the essential conditions to be a people, according to Renan. (Ernest Renan)

To be French is to join together strength with the Arts.

Today it has succeeded in the synthesis between technical performance
And a certain art of living that leaves room for the beautiful, the elegant, and the sensuous.

It is that voice which today is being followed by French managers and engineers all over the world.

To be French is a singular identity which gives sense amidst the great noise of the world.

“It is very well that there are yellow Frenchmen, black Frenchmen, brown Frenchmen – it shows  that France is open to all races, and that she has a universal role, but only as long as they remain a small minority. Otherwise, France will no longer be France. We are after all, before anything else, a European people of white race, of Greek and Latin culture, and of Christian religion.” – Charles De Gaulle.

Let us also listen to Renan: “The Spartan Song – ‘We are what you were; we will be what you are’ – is, in its simplicity, the abridged hymn of every patrie.”

Quibcag. This is Lum, one of the few alien immigrants who really tries to fit in, though you can't really say that she's assimilated, and she certainly hasn't cut ties with her original cultural mindset. She's from Urusei Yatsura (うる星やつら).