If you go to any liberal website, you will find at least one (probably more) article about the revelation that the Vatican protected a molester priest. The Vatican's actions in this case were wrong and what happened to the men when they were teens was horrible, but that is not the reason why they are promoting this story. Plenty of boys and girls are molested by teachers - including female ones - yet liberals pay no attention to that (or they minimize it).
Most of the liberals' articles about this sad case are basically just ways to promote their same old anti-Catholic viewpoints. The Catholic Church is one of the few institutions to oppose abortion, gay marriage, divorce, and supports marriage. According to liberal logic, this church has no place in the post-1960s diversity wonderland that exists today so it must be destroyed. I wouldn't be surprised if liberals eventually try to take the church to court over the fact that women cannot be ordained and find a Christian-hating liberal Jew to rule in their favor. Now, I am not religious, but you don't need to be religious to see that liberals hate the Catholic Church with a passion almost as extreme as their hatred of Sarah Palin.
Contrast this with liberals' views of Islam: they do not criticize it and attack those who do as an Islamophobe, racist, fascist, or the dreaded "wingnut" or claim that by criticizing Islam, they are provoking Muslims. Whenever a liberal actually criticizes Islam, it's always highly watered down and they often spend more time discussing the "oppression" of women in America than they do criticizing the treatment of Muslim women.
The Catholic Church, like it or not, is one of the foundations of Western civilization. Islam has been an enemy of Western civilization since the Muslim armies besieged Byzantine Jerusalem. Since liberals loathe Western civilization, it should be no surprise they love Islam as much as they hate the Catholic Church.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Are Nerds Really Manginas?
Over at The Spearhead, Ferdinand Bardamu (of In Mala Fide) recently wrote an article about nerds and gamers as manginas who worship women. He cites a new online service called PlayDates where men pay $8.25 to play a ten minute game on X-Box Live or a six minute casual Flash game with a female gamer. The whole business concept is pretty pathetic and Bardamu sums it up nicely:
The sad thing is, there are plenty of losers out there who are stupid enough to partake in this service. I agree with his criticism of PlayDates itself and the loser gamers/nerds who will undoubtedly frequent it.
However, he also makes the statement:
There are a lot of gamers and nerds out there who basically worship women and feminists, as manginas tend to do. However, I disagree with his assertion that most nerds and gamers are manginas.
About once a month on most gaming forums, a topic pops up regarding the presence of female enemies in a specific game or games in general. Female enemies are pretty common nowadays. Sometimes they will be bosses or elite enemies (like in Wolfenstein), but in many games they make up a good portion of the common mooks (i.e. Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Bethesda's games). Predictably, whenever these board topics about female enemies pop up, a few male gamers will write about how horrible it is to have female enemies in games and that they feel guilty about having to kill female enemies (somehow I doubt female gamers feel guilty about killing male enemies while playing as Joanna Dark or Lara Croft).
That's right, there are gamers out there who get sad when they have to "kill" women who exist only as a sequence of 0s and 1s in RAM. But these gamers are the minority. Whenever some manginas whine about "violence against women" in games, they get smacked down by the non-mangina nerds that greatly outnumber them. Also, the fact that most games nowadays have female enemies shows that nerds are not manginas in general. If nerds were manginas, there probably would be no female enemies in video games and female villains would be treated sympathy in order to avoid offending the supposed mangina audience. Additionally, the people who make video games are nerds (see this picture of Bethesda's Fallout 3 development team, for example) and if most of them were manginas, then they would go out of their way to exclude or demonize "violence against women" (a term that manginas love to use) instead of including it in their games.
Mangina nerds are pretty easy to distinguish from other nerds. They worship "ass-kicking women" and think women who can beat them up are awesome. They are the kind of nerds who get upset when his opponent in a game of Magic: the Gathering refers to a creature card depicting a woman as a "bitch," not due to the unsportsmanlike comment but due to its "sexism." He's the kind of guy who complains about how a new video game "glorifies violence against women" because it has female enemies, a female villain, and allows you to hit a woman in a scene played for comedy. Yet he not only has no problem with video games depicting women beating up and killing men, but likes such women because of how "empowered" they are. This is the kind of man who writes a feminist review of Portal.
I've met these kind of mangina nerds before. I've noticed that they tend to be on the less intelligent than the average nerd and perhaps as a result they try to act more "normal" than other nerds. That's the key. The nerds who are normal and the nerds who are not normal but know it are not manginas. It's usually the less-intelligent nerds who try to fit in with normal people who end up as manginas.
I call this the "uncanny mountain of nerdom." The name derives from the uncanny valley theory in robotics that basically states that as an object similar to a human becomes close to looking and behaving like a human, its familiarity suddenly and sharply plumets, then rises again.
In the graph of the "uncanny mountain of nerdom," as a nerd's normalness increases, there is a significant increase in his level of mangina-ness, prior to falling. This uncanny mountain is caused by beta male nerds who try to act cool like everyone else, but have difficulties inherent to their nerdom. And while they are still reasonably smart, they lack other nerd's high intelligence and its accompanying benefits. In order to attempt to attract women and fit in with our emasculated culture, they act like manginas both in person and on the internet.
While there are a lot of gamers who are manginas, I wouldn't say that a majority of gamers are manginas. I think such statements are as inaccurate as saying most nerds are omega males. True, there are some gamers and nerds who exude manginaness, but female-worshipping beta males, gamma males (per Vox Day's hierarchy), white knights, nice guys, and manginas - or whatever else you want to call them - exist in large numbers everywhere.
I think the reason why a lot of people hold such stereotypes about nerds and gamers is that the media portrays them as such. If they are not fat, friendless, omega losers, they are decent-looking but socially awkward betas/gammas who worship the ground that women tread on. The reason for this is probably due to the fact that the media is dominated by feminists and liberal men who act like manginas to appease the feminists. So when they portray nerds, they will either portray loser nerds for women (and non-nerd alpha males) to laugh at or mangina nerds so women can feel smug and self-important.
Unfortunately, these mangina, female-worshipping males tend to be the more publicly visible nerds, especially in the film industry. It probably has to do with the fact that they have slightly better social skills and far less misanthropy than the average nerd so they are better suited for the public eye. Video game industry leaders are closer to the average nerd, which is probably why the mainstream media, politicians, middle-class suburban mothers, and activist groups hate video games: they're not used to dealing with nerds - and men in general - who aren't politically correct manginas.
Note: I wrote about why not all nerds are omegas here.
“PlayDates” is quite appropriate, since the dorks who sign up for GameCrush are basically paying women like prostitutes, but without the sex. It’s like phone sex but just as pricey and only half as retarded.
The sad thing is, there are plenty of losers out there who are stupid enough to partake in this service. I agree with his criticism of PlayDates itself and the loser gamers/nerds who will undoubtedly frequent it.
However, he also makes the statement:
It’s not a stretch to say that most hardcore gamers are nerds, and while not all manginas are nerds, almost all nerds are manginas.
There are a lot of gamers and nerds out there who basically worship women and feminists, as manginas tend to do. However, I disagree with his assertion that most nerds and gamers are manginas.
About once a month on most gaming forums, a topic pops up regarding the presence of female enemies in a specific game or games in general. Female enemies are pretty common nowadays. Sometimes they will be bosses or elite enemies (like in Wolfenstein), but in many games they make up a good portion of the common mooks (i.e. Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Bethesda's games). Predictably, whenever these board topics about female enemies pop up, a few male gamers will write about how horrible it is to have female enemies in games and that they feel guilty about having to kill female enemies (somehow I doubt female gamers feel guilty about killing male enemies while playing as Joanna Dark or Lara Croft).
That's right, there are gamers out there who get sad when they have to "kill" women who exist only as a sequence of 0s and 1s in RAM. But these gamers are the minority. Whenever some manginas whine about "violence against women" in games, they get smacked down by the non-mangina nerds that greatly outnumber them. Also, the fact that most games nowadays have female enemies shows that nerds are not manginas in general. If nerds were manginas, there probably would be no female enemies in video games and female villains would be treated sympathy in order to avoid offending the supposed mangina audience. Additionally, the people who make video games are nerds (see this picture of Bethesda's Fallout 3 development team, for example) and if most of them were manginas, then they would go out of their way to exclude or demonize "violence against women" (a term that manginas love to use) instead of including it in their games.
Mangina nerds are pretty easy to distinguish from other nerds. They worship "ass-kicking women" and think women who can beat them up are awesome. They are the kind of nerds who get upset when his opponent in a game of Magic: the Gathering refers to a creature card depicting a woman as a "bitch," not due to the unsportsmanlike comment but due to its "sexism." He's the kind of guy who complains about how a new video game "glorifies violence against women" because it has female enemies, a female villain, and allows you to hit a woman in a scene played for comedy. Yet he not only has no problem with video games depicting women beating up and killing men, but likes such women because of how "empowered" they are. This is the kind of man who writes a feminist review of Portal.
I've met these kind of mangina nerds before. I've noticed that they tend to be on the less intelligent than the average nerd and perhaps as a result they try to act more "normal" than other nerds. That's the key. The nerds who are normal and the nerds who are not normal but know it are not manginas. It's usually the less-intelligent nerds who try to fit in with normal people who end up as manginas.
I call this the "uncanny mountain of nerdom." The name derives from the uncanny valley theory in robotics that basically states that as an object similar to a human becomes close to looking and behaving like a human, its familiarity suddenly and sharply plumets, then rises again.
In the graph of the "uncanny mountain of nerdom," as a nerd's normalness increases, there is a significant increase in his level of mangina-ness, prior to falling. This uncanny mountain is caused by beta male nerds who try to act cool like everyone else, but have difficulties inherent to their nerdom. And while they are still reasonably smart, they lack other nerd's high intelligence and its accompanying benefits. In order to attempt to attract women and fit in with our emasculated culture, they act like manginas both in person and on the internet.
While there are a lot of gamers who are manginas, I wouldn't say that a majority of gamers are manginas. I think such statements are as inaccurate as saying most nerds are omega males. True, there are some gamers and nerds who exude manginaness, but female-worshipping beta males, gamma males (per Vox Day's hierarchy), white knights, nice guys, and manginas - or whatever else you want to call them - exist in large numbers everywhere.
I think the reason why a lot of people hold such stereotypes about nerds and gamers is that the media portrays them as such. If they are not fat, friendless, omega losers, they are decent-looking but socially awkward betas/gammas who worship the ground that women tread on. The reason for this is probably due to the fact that the media is dominated by feminists and liberal men who act like manginas to appease the feminists. So when they portray nerds, they will either portray loser nerds for women (and non-nerd alpha males) to laugh at or mangina nerds so women can feel smug and self-important.
Unfortunately, these mangina, female-worshipping males tend to be the more publicly visible nerds, especially in the film industry. It probably has to do with the fact that they have slightly better social skills and far less misanthropy than the average nerd so they are better suited for the public eye. Video game industry leaders are closer to the average nerd, which is probably why the mainstream media, politicians, middle-class suburban mothers, and activist groups hate video games: they're not used to dealing with nerds - and men in general - who aren't politically correct manginas.
Note: I wrote about why not all nerds are omegas here.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Obama and Idiocracy
Someone on YouTube took an Obama speech, edited the video a bit, and swapped the audio for that of President Kamacho's speech from Idiocracy. It works quite nicely.
Friday, March 26, 2010
On Healthcare "Reform"
I've been meaning to write a longer post on healthcare reform, but I probably won't until next week. I'm just too angry right now about what a bunch of idiot liberals and their President Camacho, put into power by a bunch of Third Worlders (thanks Ted Kennedy!), brainwashed college students, and dumb, guilty, self-hating white suburbanites, are doing to America. And it's not just healthcare they destroyed with that bill, they are also going to complete the destruction of higher education by pushing more people who don't belong in college into it. If I wrote about Obamacare in depth right now, it would probably just turn into a rant (like this).
Spot the Difference
1950s grocery store:
Present-day Wal-Mart:
People of Walmart disgusts me. Not the website itself, which I think is brilliant, but the individuals who are depicted there, such as the woman shown above (at least, I think it's a woman). Whenever I go to Wal-Mart, fortunately an infrequent event, I feel like I've left reality and entered the world of Idiocracy.
Present-day Wal-Mart:
People of Walmart disgusts me. Not the website itself, which I think is brilliant, but the individuals who are depicted there, such as the woman shown above (at least, I think it's a woman). Whenever I go to Wal-Mart, fortunately an infrequent event, I feel like I've left reality and entered the world of Idiocracy.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Arians of Alternative Right
I had thought that the Arians had vanished in the middle of the 1st millennium, but evidentally they have reappeared at Alternative Right.
Over at Hip Hop Republican (don't laugh, please, I'm trying to be serious here), a rather large black woman named Cleo E. Brown, who holds "a Master's Degree in Contemporary African-American History" has written a "rebuttal" to Alternative Right entitled "No Auschwitz in the USA!" It is full the usual stuff we've come to expect from black writers, albeit this one labels herself a Republican rather than a Democrat. She writes about how she didn't receive a doctorate in the early 1990s, just a master's degree, because of racism and sexism, but lost when she filed a complaint. In the end her "rebuttal" turns into a massive reductio ad Hitlerum. So this is what conservatives mean when they talk about black outreach? How joyous. Now we get to have Republican black race hustlers, too!
The crowning jewel of her piece is the very last sentence: "And, unfortunately, Alternative Right is obsessed with the idea of Arian Superiority." Now, I realize that everyone makes spelling mistakes and typos, but it's pretty sad that someone with a master's degree can't tell the difference between the followers of Arius and the peoples originating from the Pontic steppe.
Over at Hip Hop Republican (don't laugh, please, I'm trying to be serious here), a rather large black woman named Cleo E. Brown, who holds "a Master's Degree in Contemporary African-American History" has written a "rebuttal" to Alternative Right entitled "No Auschwitz in the USA!" It is full the usual stuff we've come to expect from black writers, albeit this one labels herself a Republican rather than a Democrat. She writes about how she didn't receive a doctorate in the early 1990s, just a master's degree, because of racism and sexism, but lost when she filed a complaint. In the end her "rebuttal" turns into a massive reductio ad Hitlerum. So this is what conservatives mean when they talk about black outreach? How joyous. Now we get to have Republican black race hustlers, too!
The crowning jewel of her piece is the very last sentence: "And, unfortunately, Alternative Right is obsessed with the idea of Arian Superiority." Now, I realize that everyone makes spelling mistakes and typos, but it's pretty sad that someone with a master's degree can't tell the difference between the followers of Arius and the peoples originating from the Pontic steppe.
Monday, March 22, 2010
Nerds and Omega Males
Most of the websites and blogs of the alternative right often categorize people, especially men, into classifications such as alpha, beta, gamma, and omega, which are obviously inspired by the structure of a wolf pack. Many of these people categorize nerds as omega males, a classification that I find entirely wrong.
If you ask most of these nerd-haters what a nerd is, they probably couldn't give a good answer. I've attempted to come up with one: my definition of a nerd is an intelligent person with an IQ over 120 and an interest in computers and interests in fantasy, sci-fi, gaming, science, and/or math, as well as related areas. Now, it's possible to be a nerd and not have all of those interests (such as a gamer who spends 8 hours a day playing World of Warcraft but couldn't care less about dy/dx), but having a high IQ and an interest in computers are absolute requirements. The interest in computing can range from programming and graphic design to building 133t boxes to merely using computers frequently to play WoW and MW2. A smart person who hates computers is just a smart person (maybe a medical or law student) and stupid people who love computers are known as "Twitter users."
When PUAs and HBDers call nerds omegas, they are being too broad in their labeling and, in my opinion, they are misusing the word omega. An omega is the lowest member of the pack. However, most nerds are not members of "the pack." Many of them do not interact well with stupider people - "the pack." They either have their own nerd pack or would be more accurately characterized as lone wolves. Nerds know they don't fit in and instead of trying to, like an omega wolf following the others, they go their own separate way.
True, there are plenty of nerds out there who lack social skills, proper hygiene (see the picture above), and emit an aura that repulses women as well as other nerds. These people are both omegas and nerds, I agree. But they are also losers (I use the term "geek" to describe this group of people). There are losers among many social groups, not just nerds. As an aside, I've noticed from my considerable anecdotal experience dealing with nerds that most of these stereotypical loser nerds tend to be more interested in the gaming aspect of nerdom rather than intellectual pursuits. Take note that I'm not saying hard-core gamers are losers - that is an accusation thrown around by single middle-aged women who are upset because men would rather play X-Box than marry them - just that most of the stereotypical nerds seem to be hard-core gamers.
(If you're wondering about my classification of nerds and related people, here is it described using set notation:
Nerds = {x | smart, interested in computers, interested in gaming, science, math, sci-fi, and/or fantasy}
Gamers = {x | interested in gaming}
Losers = {x | no life nor social skills}
Geeks = Nerds ∩ Losers
Losers ⊆ Omegas)
Omega males also either find it nearly impossible to get girlfriends/female companions or have a girlfriend rating low on the 1-10 scale. The fact is, most nerds are capable of finding girlfriends. Go to any nerd convention (i.e. Comic-Con), computer science class, LAN party, Dungeons and Dragons session, or game shop and get to know people there and you will find that they have girlfriends, wives (!), and other forms of female companionship. Some of them will have nerd girlfriends, but due to the fact that male nerds greatly outnumber female nerds (in part because of the differences in male and female IQ standard deviations) many of them have normal girlfriends who really are not that bad looking.
There's also the fact that most nerds, due to their superior IQ, end up successful in life. Nerds not only end up in high positions in tech companies, but in lower-paying, but prestigious, positions as university professors and similar jobs. Even nerds who have a very hard time with social interaction can find jobs where they use their intelligence to make a decent income. I've had a few STEM professors - decent ones at that - who were like that. Omegas, by definition, are unsuccessful.
I have a theory about why PUAS and HBDers seem to have a disliking of nerds, although that should probably wait for another time. My point is, nerds are not omegas by default. Sure, some are loser omegas, but most are just really smart people who are interested in things people with lower IQs are not. And the chances are, many of you reading this work for a nerd, but it is safe to say that none or very few work for an omega.
Welcome to the USSA
Everywhere socialism has been tried, it has failed miserably. It didn't work in Russia. It didn't work in East Germany. It didn't work in Cuba. It didn't work in Zimbabwe. It didn't work in .
But American liberals think that they can make it work thanks to their mulatto Changeman.
Good luck.
But American liberals think that they can make it work thanks to their mulatto Changeman.
Good luck.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Wal-Mart "Hate Crime" Perpetrator Arrested
And it turned out to be a 16-year old boy. I don't believe the police. It must have been the KKK or Republicans! Everyone knows that 16-year old boys don't go out and commit stupid pranks. /sarcasm
This whole mess is ridiculous. I wonder how many thousands of dollars were wasted by Wal-Mart and several police departments were wasted just to track down some teenage kid who did a dumb prank that harmed no persons or property. Now, he's being charged with "bias intimidation and harassment" and could be sentenced to up to a year in juvenile detention if convicted. So he could get a year in jail for offending a bunch of blacks. Where are the liberals decrying the harshness of America's criminal justice system now?
If a black kid had told all white people to leave Target (there's not enough white people at Wal-Mart to make a prank there worthwhile), it is safe to say there would not have been an investigation and there would be be no hate crimes charges.
I previously blogged about the prank here.
This whole mess is ridiculous. I wonder how many thousands of dollars were wasted by Wal-Mart and several police departments were wasted just to track down some teenage kid who did a dumb prank that harmed no persons or property. Now, he's being charged with "bias intimidation and harassment" and could be sentenced to up to a year in juvenile detention if convicted. So he could get a year in jail for offending a bunch of blacks. Where are the liberals decrying the harshness of America's criminal justice system now?
If a black kid had told all white people to leave Target (there's not enough white people at Wal-Mart to make a prank there worthwhile), it is safe to say there would not have been an investigation and there would be be no hate crimes charges.
I previously blogged about the prank here.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Politically Incorrect Old Movies
I enjoy watching many older movies and one thing I notice is how despite the content restrictions placed on movies prior to the mid-1960s, they often contain political incorrectness that would either get them never made today or would cause people to picket theaters showing them. Today it's acceptable to show dozens of men being graphically killed in action films and show completely gratuitous sex scenes and nudity in any R-rated film. Yet, if you happen to offend one of the myriad victim groups or show something that the elites object to, expect to be badgered by myriad liberal or religious conservative activist groups.
Last night I watched Battle of Britain, a 1969 film. There's a scene where a British pilot is shot down over London and parachutes to safety. A young boy witnesses this, runs into his house, and returns with a box of cigarettes, offering one to the pilot.
If that had been scene had been in a modern movie, the reaction would have been enormous. Various "public health advocates" would have been decrying the fact that the film glamorized smoking. Liberals would rant about Big Tobacco corrupting children. Even the religious right would find something to find offensive (they always do).
Speaking of old movies in the modern era, the 1950s film The Dam Busters is being remade, produced by Peter Jackson. They are running into trouble because the name of the squadron's commander was "nigger." Of course, the studio will probably have the remake be much more violent than the original was, yet they probably won't be able to say the word "nigger."
Last night I watched Battle of Britain, a 1969 film. There's a scene where a British pilot is shot down over London and parachutes to safety. A young boy witnesses this, runs into his house, and returns with a box of cigarettes, offering one to the pilot.
If that had been scene had been in a modern movie, the reaction would have been enormous. Various "public health advocates" would have been decrying the fact that the film glamorized smoking. Liberals would rant about Big Tobacco corrupting children. Even the religious right would find something to find offensive (they always do).
Speaking of old movies in the modern era, the 1950s film The Dam Busters is being remade, produced by Peter Jackson. They are running into trouble because the name of the squadron's commander was "nigger." Of course, the studio will probably have the remake be much more violent than the original was, yet they probably won't be able to say the word "nigger."
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Turning Harmless Pranks into Crimes
It seems that in a New Jersey Wal-Mart, someone used the store's public address system to broadcast: "Attention Wal-Mart customers: All black people leave the store now." Wal-Mart officials are trying to figure out who did it, which is understandable. However, it is not just Wal-Mart investigating:
In a saner era, Wal-Mart would find a way to secure its PA system and if the found the perpetrator, they would either discipline them (if an employee) or ban them from returning to the store (if a customer). Now, doing a prank in Wal-Mart is a hate crime if you happen to offend blacks.
Blacks need to grow the fuck up.
The fact is, Wal-Mart is the target of many, many pranks. Youtube has myriad videos (quite literally) of people carrying out every imaginable prank inside Wal-Marts. Outside of YouTube there are thousands of pages about Wal-Mart pranks, such as this one where an ex-employee messes with Wal-Mart on Black Friday. There are plenty of YouTube videos and webpags with pranks that people have done using the Wal-Mart PA system and/or phones. That's what this probably was about. Just some bored guy who wanted to have some fun at Wal-Mart.
Of course, if he gets caught, he can expect to have the book thrown at him. Earlier this month, two Mizzou students scattered cotton balls on the lawn of Mizzou's Black Culture Center as a prank. Instead of the incident being treated like pranks used to be, the two were arrested for the felony of second-degree tampering and the incident was treated as a hate crime.
What's ironic about these situations is that the same blacks and liberals who call for the prosecution of juvenile - but harmless - pranks are the same ones who protested in the thousands when a gang of black thugs brutally beat up a white boy at a high school and were charged with attempted murder. Liberal hypocrisy is in action once more.
Washington Township police, with the assistance of the Gloucester County Prosecutor's Office, are investigating the episode as a possible bias crime, said Bernie Weisenfeld, spokesman for the prosecutor's office.
In a saner era, Wal-Mart would find a way to secure its PA system and if the found the perpetrator, they would either discipline them (if an employee) or ban them from returning to the store (if a customer). Now, doing a prank in Wal-Mart is a hate crime if you happen to offend blacks.
Blacks need to grow the fuck up.
The fact is, Wal-Mart is the target of many, many pranks. Youtube has myriad videos (quite literally) of people carrying out every imaginable prank inside Wal-Marts. Outside of YouTube there are thousands of pages about Wal-Mart pranks, such as this one where an ex-employee messes with Wal-Mart on Black Friday. There are plenty of YouTube videos and webpags with pranks that people have done using the Wal-Mart PA system and/or phones. That's what this probably was about. Just some bored guy who wanted to have some fun at Wal-Mart.
Of course, if he gets caught, he can expect to have the book thrown at him. Earlier this month, two Mizzou students scattered cotton balls on the lawn of Mizzou's Black Culture Center as a prank. Instead of the incident being treated like pranks used to be, the two were arrested for the felony of second-degree tampering and the incident was treated as a hate crime.
What's ironic about these situations is that the same blacks and liberals who call for the prosecution of juvenile - but harmless - pranks are the same ones who protested in the thousands when a gang of black thugs brutally beat up a white boy at a high school and were charged with attempted murder. Liberal hypocrisy is in action once more.
Monday, March 15, 2010
"Street Harassment" and Freedom of Speech
Libertarians often make the statement that liberals are right on civil liberties and conservatives are right on economic liberties. The truth, of course, is that conservatives are awful on economic liberties and liberals are horrible on civil liberties. To liberals, racial and gender egalitarian trumps everything, including civil rights and liberties. This is why when a black thug murders people, they call for mercy, but when wealthy white college students are accused of raping a black stripper, they get out the pitchforks and torches.
Despite the fact that liberals are reputed to support freedom of speech, they really support a warped version of it (I refer to it as liberal free-dumb). They believe that freedom of speech means students can disrupt a Tom Tancredo speech or shut down an interstate to whine about budget cuts, but it does not apply whenever someone says something that offends NAMs or feminists. The recent shutdown of the AmRen conference is one example. Now an article has been written by a Huffington Post feminist arguing for legal restrictions on street harassment. For those of you who are unfamiliar with feminist buzzwords, street harassment is when say things, sometimes offensive, to a woman who is dressed sexily in public.
Holly Kearl argues that since sexual harassment is illegal in the workplace, it should be illegal in public. Of course, she fails to explain the legal basis for the illegality of sexual harassment in the workplace. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s (so much for Kearl's claim that workplace sexual harassment was illegal 19 years before she was born) that sexual harassment constitutes gender discrimination, which is prohibited by the Property Rights and Freedom of Association Destruction Act of 1964 (more commonly called the Civil Rights Act). I do not have a legal background so I do not know why the courts have not struck down the Civil Rights Act as infringing on freedom of speech, but I'm guessing it has to do with the facts that 1) as mentioned above, liberals have a different definition of free speech and 2) it involves businesses, which the courts have allowed the federal government virtually unlimited reign to meddle with since the 1930s.
Anyways, she goes on to praise the Egyptian Parliament's recent passing of a law banning street harassment and suggests that the same happen here. Considering that Egypt has been ruled by the same man since 1981 under a state of emergency, if Egypt passes a law, it's probably a bad idea to pass the same law here. The idea of the federal government banning street harassment reminds me of the South Park episode Cartman's Silly Hate Crime, where Cartman (a 4th grader) throws a rock at a black kid and ends up getting arrested by the FBI and sent to prison (before being pardoned when his friends explain to the governor how hate crime laws are a "savage hypocrisy").
A federal law that banned street harassment would certainly be unconstitutional even with a strict originalist interpretation - it literally bans speech in public places simply because someone finds it offensive (of course, it would also violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, but that's another topic). SCOTUS consistently ruled in favor of an expansive view of freedom of speech. For example, it ruled in the 1970s that it is not constitutional to arrest someone for wearing a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" into a courthouse, so I really can't see them upholding a law like this. And to enforce this law would simply expand the police state that liberals are so fond of attacking and would undoubtedly lead to the arrest of thousands of young black men. It would be amusing to see liberals' reactions when black men are disproportionately arrested under a street harassment law.
If women want to end street harassment, there's a really good way: don't dress like a slut. The fact is, when a woman wears a short skirt, high heels, and a sleeveless or strapless shirt, she is asking for attention. True, some of these "victims" are professional women dressed for the office, but many of these "professional" women wear only slightly more clothing than women going to nightclubs. Ten or fifteen years ago, professional women wore knee-length skirt-suits or dresses, closed-toed shoes, and hosiery. Now, it seems to be acceptable for "professional" women to go bare legged and wear sandals, short(er) skirts, glorified T-shirts, and even sleeveless shirts.
Yes, I realize I am being politically incorrect and "blaming the victim," but I simply do not care. If women do not want attention, then they should not do their best to attract it.
I find a lot of things that people say offensive, but I don't go around calling for laws to make them shut up. Kearl and other feminists completely miss the point of freedom of speech. The idea of freedom of speech is that people have the right to say things that offend others. If you don't like the fact that a strange man said something about your short skirt, then either insult him back, don't dress like you are trying to attract men's attention if you don't want it, or ignore him and get on with your life like an adult. Feminists wanted wanted to be treated like equals so they should act like it, instead of acting like helpless little girls. Plenty of men have been insulted or harassed by strangers in public, yet you don't see men clamoring for street harassment laws.
However, I really can't blame Kearl for want to ban street harassment. Looking at her picture, it's clear she's never been "street harassed" in her life. She's probably jealous.
EDIT: Fixed a minor error.
Despite the fact that liberals are reputed to support freedom of speech, they really support a warped version of it (I refer to it as liberal free-dumb). They believe that freedom of speech means students can disrupt a Tom Tancredo speech or shut down an interstate to whine about budget cuts, but it does not apply whenever someone says something that offends NAMs or feminists. The recent shutdown of the AmRen conference is one example. Now an article has been written by a Huffington Post feminist arguing for legal restrictions on street harassment. For those of you who are unfamiliar with feminist buzzwords, street harassment is when say things, sometimes offensive, to a woman who is dressed sexily in public.
Holly Kearl argues that since sexual harassment is illegal in the workplace, it should be illegal in public. Of course, she fails to explain the legal basis for the illegality of sexual harassment in the workplace. Essentially, the Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s (so much for Kearl's claim that workplace sexual harassment was illegal 19 years before she was born) that sexual harassment constitutes gender discrimination, which is prohibited by the Property Rights and Freedom of Association Destruction Act of 1964 (more commonly called the Civil Rights Act). I do not have a legal background so I do not know why the courts have not struck down the Civil Rights Act as infringing on freedom of speech, but I'm guessing it has to do with the facts that 1) as mentioned above, liberals have a different definition of free speech and 2) it involves businesses, which the courts have allowed the federal government virtually unlimited reign to meddle with since the 1930s.
Anyways, she goes on to praise the Egyptian Parliament's recent passing of a law banning street harassment and suggests that the same happen here. Considering that Egypt has been ruled by the same man since 1981 under a state of emergency, if Egypt passes a law, it's probably a bad idea to pass the same law here. The idea of the federal government banning street harassment reminds me of the South Park episode Cartman's Silly Hate Crime, where Cartman (a 4th grader) throws a rock at a black kid and ends up getting arrested by the FBI and sent to prison (before being pardoned when his friends explain to the governor how hate crime laws are a "savage hypocrisy").
A federal law that banned street harassment would certainly be unconstitutional even with a strict originalist interpretation - it literally bans speech in public places simply because someone finds it offensive (of course, it would also violate the 9th and 10th Amendments, but that's another topic). SCOTUS consistently ruled in favor of an expansive view of freedom of speech. For example, it ruled in the 1970s that it is not constitutional to arrest someone for wearing a jacket reading "Fuck the Draft" into a courthouse, so I really can't see them upholding a law like this. And to enforce this law would simply expand the police state that liberals are so fond of attacking and would undoubtedly lead to the arrest of thousands of young black men. It would be amusing to see liberals' reactions when black men are disproportionately arrested under a street harassment law.
If women want to end street harassment, there's a really good way: don't dress like a slut. The fact is, when a woman wears a short skirt, high heels, and a sleeveless or strapless shirt, she is asking for attention. True, some of these "victims" are professional women dressed for the office, but many of these "professional" women wear only slightly more clothing than women going to nightclubs. Ten or fifteen years ago, professional women wore knee-length skirt-suits or dresses, closed-toed shoes, and hosiery. Now, it seems to be acceptable for "professional" women to go bare legged and wear sandals, short(er) skirts, glorified T-shirts, and even sleeveless shirts.
Yes, I realize I am being politically incorrect and "blaming the victim," but I simply do not care. If women do not want attention, then they should not do their best to attract it.
I find a lot of things that people say offensive, but I don't go around calling for laws to make them shut up. Kearl and other feminists completely miss the point of freedom of speech. The idea of freedom of speech is that people have the right to say things that offend others. If you don't like the fact that a strange man said something about your short skirt, then either insult him back, don't dress like you are trying to attract men's attention if you don't want it, or ignore him and get on with your life like an adult. Feminists wanted wanted to be treated like equals so they should act like it, instead of acting like helpless little girls. Plenty of men have been insulted or harassed by strangers in public, yet you don't see men clamoring for street harassment laws.
However, I really can't blame Kearl for want to ban street harassment. Looking at her picture, it's clear she's never been "street harassed" in her life. She's probably jealous.
EDIT: Fixed a minor error.
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Pro-Life Race Hustlers
Happy Pi Day. I haven't posted anything since Wednesday, so today I will be posting two or three entries.
I've argued that the Religious Right has a lot in common with progressives. They were essentially the same movement in the early 1900s and late 1800s. This is especially apparent with the issue of abortion. Pro-lifers often focus on the fact that "abortion harms women" or that "abortion exploits women." The laws they pass target abortionists, not the women who get abortions. This is essentially the feminist worldview - women can't be held responsible for their actions.
Now they've decided to play the race card. For weeks now, there has been controversy over pro-life billboards in Georgia stating "Black children are an endangered species." Now Republicans in Georgia are working to pass a law that would ban abortions based on race or gender. What a waste of time. The courts would probably just strike it down as unconstitutional.
So the pro-lifers are relying on disparate impact - the same theory that has led to dumbed-down schools, public safety departments staffed by unqualified people, and the destruction of effective policing.
Aside from looking stupid, if conservatives begin using the idea of disparate impact, it could harm many of their political arguments. Conservatives (even mainstream ones) often criticize the fact that liberals use disparate impact theory to argue that schools and the police are racist, arguing that equal opportunity is not equal outcome. If conservatives use disparate impact in the issue of abortion, liberals could argue that conservatives are hypocrites on this issue (which would be true).
Yeah, it can't be the fact that black women tend to be poor, less educated (or uneducated), and have premarital sex more than white women. It has to be white racism. I'm used to this kind of ignorance coming from liberal racial egalitarians, but not from alleged conservatives. This story is starting to remind me of the story about how in the 1980s a rumor sprung up among blacks that the KKK owned KFC and put a chemical in chicken to sterilize black men. Her fear also seems rooted in the black distrust of doctors as a result of the Tuskegee syphilis study, which ended forty years ago.
It's kind of sad that liberals, who are known for their economic illiteracy, have a better understanding of how businesses operate than conservative pro-lifers. If black women are more likely to have abortions then white women, then it follows that more abortion clinics will be located near black neighborhoods than white.
Once again, the liberal is making more sense than the conservative.
Here the fully story comes out. This "abortion is racist" campaign is being spearheaded by a black woman. So essentially Georgia Right to Life has been hijacked by a Michael Steele wannabe. Although I'm sure Georgia RTL wouldn't consider it a hijacking. They are undoubtably overjoyed about the fact that their campaign is now "diverse."
This is the result of years of conservative outreach to blacks: instead of there being only left-wing race hustlers, now there are conservative race-hustlers. Of course, I'm sure the Republican Party is overjoyed. Don't forget that the Bush administration was full of this mentality. For example, Condolzeea Rice once compared the Iraq War to the civil rights marches in Alabama, with the implication that critics of the Iraq War were racists.
I have no problem with people who support their racial or ethnic interests, but only if they do so with well-thought arguments. Davis is just a third-rate race hustler powered by black distrust of the healthcare system who is using the idea of disparate impact to make ludicrous claims.
It's bad enough when liberals play the race card, but when conservatives do it they just look like condescending, pandering hypocrites.
I've argued that the Religious Right has a lot in common with progressives. They were essentially the same movement in the early 1900s and late 1800s. This is especially apparent with the issue of abortion. Pro-lifers often focus on the fact that "abortion harms women" or that "abortion exploits women." The laws they pass target abortionists, not the women who get abortions. This is essentially the feminist worldview - women can't be held responsible for their actions.
Now they've decided to play the race card. For weeks now, there has been controversy over pro-life billboards in Georgia stating "Black children are an endangered species." Now Republicans in Georgia are working to pass a law that would ban abortions based on race or gender. What a waste of time. The courts would probably just strike it down as unconstitutional.
Catherine Davis, director of minority outreach for Georgia Right to Life, the group behind the billboard campaign, told FoxNews.com that she supports the legislation that she says will address an issue that has "such a disproportionate impact on the black community rather than every other community in Georgia, as well as the nation."
So the pro-lifers are relying on disparate impact - the same theory that has led to dumbed-down schools, public safety departments staffed by unqualified people, and the destruction of effective policing.
Aside from looking stupid, if conservatives begin using the idea of disparate impact, it could harm many of their political arguments. Conservatives (even mainstream ones) often criticize the fact that liberals use disparate impact theory to argue that schools and the police are racist, arguing that equal opportunity is not equal outcome. If conservatives use disparate impact in the issue of abortion, liberals could argue that conservatives are hypocrites on this issue (which would be true).
Davis noted that in 2008, blacks made up 30 percent of the population in Georgia but more than 57 percent of the abortions.
"Those numbers are so horrific," she said. "There has to be something else contributing to this number."
Yeah, it can't be the fact that black women tend to be poor, less educated (or uneducated), and have premarital sex more than white women. It has to be white racism. I'm used to this kind of ignorance coming from liberal racial egalitarians, but not from alleged conservatives. This story is starting to remind me of the story about how in the 1980s a rumor sprung up among blacks that the KKK owned KFC and put a chemical in chicken to sterilize black men. Her fear also seems rooted in the black distrust of doctors as a result of the Tuskegee syphilis study, which ended forty years ago.
"I believe it's deliberate," she said, citing Oregon as one example where most abortion clinics are located in black neighborhoods despite an overwhelming white population in the state.
But Ross dismissed that out of hand.
"I can't find facts to fit their conspiracy theory," she said, arguing that abortion clinics are located where there are clients.
It's kind of sad that liberals, who are known for their economic illiteracy, have a better understanding of how businesses operate than conservative pro-lifers. If black women are more likely to have abortions then white women, then it follows that more abortion clinics will be located near black neighborhoods than white.
"Because of health disparities, less access to birth control, less access to sex education," [Ross] said. "We have a higher rate of childhood sexual abuse. … And so when you have those types of disparities, you'll have unintended consequences.
Once again, the liberal is making more sense than the conservative.
Davis, who is black, said she just wants to see an end to what she called a racially motivated practice.
"If they will stop targeting my people, I will fade softly into the background," she said.
Here the fully story comes out. This "abortion is racist" campaign is being spearheaded by a black woman. So essentially Georgia Right to Life has been hijacked by a Michael Steele wannabe. Although I'm sure Georgia RTL wouldn't consider it a hijacking. They are undoubtably overjoyed about the fact that their campaign is now "diverse."
This is the result of years of conservative outreach to blacks: instead of there being only left-wing race hustlers, now there are conservative race-hustlers. Of course, I'm sure the Republican Party is overjoyed. Don't forget that the Bush administration was full of this mentality. For example, Condolzeea Rice once compared the Iraq War to the civil rights marches in Alabama, with the implication that critics of the Iraq War were racists.
I have no problem with people who support their racial or ethnic interests, but only if they do so with well-thought arguments. Davis is just a third-rate race hustler powered by black distrust of the healthcare system who is using the idea of disparate impact to make ludicrous claims.
It's bad enough when liberals play the race card, but when conservatives do it they just look like condescending, pandering hypocrites.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Conservative Female Supremacists
There have been a couple of columns by white conservative men recently that have essentially said "women are better than men." Roissy took Paul Greenberg on, as did The Spearhead and Dr. Helen. They do not seem to have noticed Jonah Goldberg's similar column from around the same time, so I'll be addressing his column here.
Female worship is popular among conservatives (when I use conservatives in this post - indeed, most of my posts - I'm referring to the mainstream conservatives, neocons, and religions right, not paleocons, libertarians, HBDers, and Patriots). Liberal men might believe that all of women's problems are caused by evil white male patriarchy, but conservatives view women as children and thus not responsible for their actions - there's always a man ultimately behind them. Abortion is a good example of this. Pro-lifers spend their time shutting down abortionists and passing laws that try to restrict them, but they don't go after women who have abortions with that much furor. Instead, they view them as victims (of men, of course) and try to help them - but probably wouldn't do the same for a mafia don who hired a hitman to kill someone for him. The women in combat issue is a another example. While there are reasons to oppose women in combat arms, such as physical standards, conservative opposition essentially boils down to "those poor little women might be killed and if they are captured they will be raped." No mention of the fact that male military deaths in Iraq outnumber female deaths by about 50 to 1. No mention of the fact that women are voluntarily enlisting to fight in the military - once again they are viewed as children irresponsible for their actions. (Also, if they care about women being raped, conservatives ought to focus on the epidemic of black-on-white rape, but that's a little off-topic.)
One of the errors that these conservatives make is assuming that women are responsible for civilization and that without women's guidance, men would be club-dragging barbarians. "Women civilize men," Jonah Goldberg concludes in his column. It would be far more accurate to state "men civilized women." It was men, not women, who established civilization and its laws. If women civilized men, then the ancient civilizations would have been matriarchal, but instead they were highly patriarchal. The ancient Greeks, in particular, had a dim view of matriarchal societies. Today's popular culture views the Amazons as "good guys," but they were villains in Greek myth, representing the uncivilized barbarians of the east and opposing the patriarchal, civilized, enlightened Greek men. Since conservatives like Goldberg are always criticizing liberals for undermining western civilization, I wonder what they would say if they knew that the fathers of western civilization viewed men as the civilizing force?
Goldberg makes more ridiculous statements. For example, in the lead he talks about mothers ironing their daughters' breasts in Cameroon to make them more attractive to boys. Let me repeat that: he thinks women civilize men, yet he opens his column by describing WOMEN WHO IRON THEIR DAUGHTERS' BREASTS! I know neocons aren't supposed to make sense, but really... He of course blames the horrific things that Cameroonian women do to their daughters on men. And this type of conservatism is different from feminism in what way? Sure, he might oppose abortion, but his worldview is eerily similar to feminists'.
Female equality seems to be a pretty reliable treatment for many of the world’s worst pathologies. Population growth in the Third World tends to go down as female literacy goes up. Indeed, female empowerment might be the single best weapon in the “root causes” arsenal in the war on terror.
He does have a point about female literacy being beneficial. Educated people are less likely to do stupid things and are more productive, thus educated societies are better - but how this involves women civilizing men he never explains. As for the War on Terror, the root cause of anti-American terrorism is American support for Israel, which has nothing to do with female empowerment. Plus there's the fact that women are increasingly joining terrorist, insurgent, and guerrilla organizations. Women made up a large percentage of the LTTE including many (most?) of their suicide bombers. Even Islamic militants, including Chechens, Palestinians, Iraqis, and even Pakistani fundamentalists use female fighters. They make up around a third of the PKK, FARC, and the Communist Party of Nepal, which are among the more well-known guerilla/terrorist groups. And what do the LTTE, PKK, FARC, and CPN-M have in common? They all promote female empowerment. This video about PKK women shows it pretty clearly with the interviews of angry young women with assault rifles, especially at the end when they show the feminist indoctrination. Female empowerment does not lead to peace, it leads to twice as many people being capable of waging war.
Looking at their pictures, it's pretty easy to see why Greenberg and Goldberg hold these views. Greenberg is an older man and grew up before the chivalry of the 1800s to 1960s died away and is struggling to deal with the conflicting ideas of chivalry and female equality. Goldberg strikes me as an overgrown frat boy. Maybe he got drunk a lot and did stupid things in college, but stopped when he got married so he thinks his wife civilized him.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Avatar Doesn't Win Best Picture
I was surprised that Avatar didn't win. The film was essentially the Hollywood worldview crammed into two and a half hours and combined with good CGI. It was about a human who allies with peaceful alien natives and fights off an evil human corporation and miliary to protect them. It was almost as if the writers had went to TVTropes.org, found all of the tropes they could use to promote their anti-white, anti-male, anti-Western, anti-capitalist, environut views, and blended them into a script.
The entire thing was supposed to be an allegory for the Western treatment of various "natives." White people find a verdant paradise. White people move in. White people defile the paradise. White people steal the resources. White people kill the natives. Only this time, the natives fight back and defeat the evil white people! I wonder when Hollywood will get around to making an allegory showing how the blacks who inherited the prosperous lands of Rhodesia, South Africa, Haiti, and Detroit proceeded to wreck them. Or an allegory about the epidemic of black on white crime, in particular black on white rape. Or make an allegory showing the "noble" savages as, well, savages, which is what many "native" people throughout history were. Maybe they could show that "native" people aren't always environmentally-friendly, too.
In addition to being anti-white, it was anti-male (anti-white films tend to be - those two views frequently go together in Hollywood). While the good humans and the Navri included both males and females, the bad guys were entirely male from the leaders to the common soldiers. There was only one female bad guy, Michelle Rodriguez's character (an action girl, like most of the characters she plays), but she ended up helping the good guys. So the only good (morally) soldier was a woman and vice versa. Did a feminist write the script? Actually, this is pretty common, as in most movies the good guys will be diverse while the bad guys will be all men (usually all or mostly white, too). I was just surprised that considering that women in the world's militaries are very common even today, it was odd that they were basically nonexistant in the military in a movie set in the 22nd century, when women are supposed to be even more "equal." I guess we know Hollywood's idea of equality now. (I'll be writing a more general blog post about this trope sometime in the near future.)
The sad thing about the movie was that so many white men were enamored with the special effects and topless blue alien women that they were oblivious to the message directed at them: you are evil. Some liberal men undoubtedly saw the message, but agreed with it. I guess the 13 years of multicultural, feminist brainwashing (17 years for university students) must be pretty effective.
Even libertarians are buying into the Avatar-worship - Lew Rockwell is complaining that The Hurt Locker won and there were plenty of posts on the LewRockwell.com blog when Avatar came out praising it and its message.
One more thing: Spearhead ran an article in January critical of Avatar and its themes. The authors views are similar to mine, but though the article goes into much more depth: check it out here. It's a pretty good article.
The entire thing was supposed to be an allegory for the Western treatment of various "natives." White people find a verdant paradise. White people move in. White people defile the paradise. White people steal the resources. White people kill the natives. Only this time, the natives fight back and defeat the evil white people! I wonder when Hollywood will get around to making an allegory showing how the blacks who inherited the prosperous lands of Rhodesia, South Africa, Haiti, and Detroit proceeded to wreck them. Or an allegory about the epidemic of black on white crime, in particular black on white rape. Or make an allegory showing the "noble" savages as, well, savages, which is what many "native" people throughout history were. Maybe they could show that "native" people aren't always environmentally-friendly, too.
In addition to being anti-white, it was anti-male (anti-white films tend to be - those two views frequently go together in Hollywood). While the good humans and the Navri included both males and females, the bad guys were entirely male from the leaders to the common soldiers. There was only one female bad guy, Michelle Rodriguez's character (an action girl, like most of the characters she plays), but she ended up helping the good guys. So the only good (morally) soldier was a woman and vice versa. Did a feminist write the script? Actually, this is pretty common, as in most movies the good guys will be diverse while the bad guys will be all men (usually all or mostly white, too). I was just surprised that considering that women in the world's militaries are very common even today, it was odd that they were basically nonexistant in the military in a movie set in the 22nd century, when women are supposed to be even more "equal." I guess we know Hollywood's idea of equality now. (I'll be writing a more general blog post about this trope sometime in the near future.)
The sad thing about the movie was that so many white men were enamored with the special effects and topless blue alien women that they were oblivious to the message directed at them: you are evil. Some liberal men undoubtedly saw the message, but agreed with it. I guess the 13 years of multicultural, feminist brainwashing (17 years for university students) must be pretty effective.
Even libertarians are buying into the Avatar-worship - Lew Rockwell is complaining that The Hurt Locker won and there were plenty of posts on the LewRockwell.com blog when Avatar came out praising it and its message.
One more thing: Spearhead ran an article in January critical of Avatar and its themes. The authors views are similar to mine, but though the article goes into much more depth: check it out here. It's a pretty good article.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
"It's safer than the United States."
One idea I've found commonly espoused on websites and TV shows related to travel and geography is that many countries in the world are safer to travel to than the United States. I've heard or read most European countries, Canada, Australia, Japan, China, Turkey, Israel, Syria, Iran, and even Mexico described as such. Many liberals have picked up on this and use these countries as evidence as to why America needs gun control or better social services.
Of course, the real reason why those countries are safer to travel in than the United States is that none of those countries have large urban black populations. When people travel they often visit cities, which in America are filled with blacks. If you go to Tokyo you will find Japanese; if you go to Aleppo you will find Arabs; if you go to Berlin you will find Germans. If you go to a large American city, you will find nice, white enclaves with shopping districts, museums, parks, and tourist attractions surrounded by black ghettos. Note that you'll never hear anyone talking about a non-Arab African country as being safer to travel to than the United States.
As with most things in modern America, the key to understanding why it is less safe to travel in America than it is in many other countries is race.
Of course, the real reason why those countries are safer to travel in than the United States is that none of those countries have large urban black populations. When people travel they often visit cities, which in America are filled with blacks. If you go to Tokyo you will find Japanese; if you go to Aleppo you will find Arabs; if you go to Berlin you will find Germans. If you go to a large American city, you will find nice, white enclaves with shopping districts, museums, parks, and tourist attractions surrounded by black ghettos. Note that you'll never hear anyone talking about a non-Arab African country as being safer to travel to than the United States.
As with most things in modern America, the key to understanding why it is less safe to travel in America than it is in many other countries is race.
Friday, March 5, 2010
The Pentagon Shooter Was a Libertarian
UPDATED
Last night, a man named John Patrick Bedell shot and wounded two police officers at an entrance into the Pentagon (or as Lew Rockwell calls it, the Pentagram) before being killed himself (here). It turns out he was a physics graduate from San Francisco interested in computers and electrical engineering. He was also a libertarian interested in Austrian economics and a firm opponent of drug prohibition.
Here's his Wikipedia user page, although he hasn't updated it since February 2007. Wikipediawill probably scrub it soon scrubbed it, so I'm posting its contents here:
Indeed, the neocons are already spewing out lies - which the liberals will probably use for their own agenda. Take Fox News' headline to an AP story: "Pentagon Shooter Railed Against U.S. on Internet." Note that the shooter did not rail against the US in his various online posts, but rather against the federal government and its actions. In particular he thought the feds were covering up the death Air Force Colonel James Sabow, whom he and others believe did not commit suicide but was murdered as a result of a plot involving CIA drug trafficking. Bedell was not anti-American, but rather anti-government. The difference between a country and its government has been lost on most modern Americans, whether liberal or (neo)conservative.
As he was a computer nerd, he left traces all over the internet. He had a Linkedin profile stating he was an MSEE (Master of Science in Electrical Engineering, most likely). His Facebook page is still up (here) and his friends list is quite interesting. He's friends with a few notable libertarians - Lew Rockwell and William Norman Grigg (which doesn't necessarily mean anything - Lew Rockwell has several thousand FB friends), as well as a bunch of South Asians. I'm sure some neocon will use that as "evidence" that he was part of some foreign group, but it's more likely that he met them in his electrical engineering program since South Asians fill the electrical engineering programs (both as students and professors) in American universities.
Bedell was into cannabis, even going so far as to post a picture of his marijuana to WikiCommons here. In many of his postings on the Internet he showed an interest in Rothbardix, a Linux distro he was working on, that was tied to this concept he envisioned called "information currency." He describes that on his YouTube channel here. Of course, his online presence will soon begin to be scrubbed away so I was sure to save all of what I found. He was an interesting fellow.
In some ways it seems as if he was a Joe Stack copycat, but he was a different man overall. Joe Stack was angry with the IRS, whereas John Patrick Bedell was critical of the whole political and economic system altogether. Also, Stack had a family, whereas Bedell seems to be a high IQ, but lonely computer nerd with plenty of time to become well-read.
I can't help but wonder if these attacks are just a couple of isolated incidents that will soon be forgotten or whether the Second American Revolution is beginning around us...
UPDATE: At around 2:00 AM I noticed that Wikipedia scrubbed his user page (which was formerly here). I knew they would, as they scrubbed James von Brunn's user page after he carried out his shooting. His Facebook is still up, oddly enough.
Last night, a man named John Patrick Bedell shot and wounded two police officers at an entrance into the Pentagon (or as Lew Rockwell calls it, the Pentagram) before being killed himself (here). It turns out he was a physics graduate from San Francisco interested in computers and electrical engineering. He was also a libertarian interested in Austrian economics and a firm opponent of drug prohibition.
Here's his Wikipedia user page, although he hasn't updated it since February 2007. Wikipedia
The liberals will go crazy over this. Usually, the military is the target of liberals (such as anti-war protesters vandalizing recruitment centers), whereas right-wing political violence attacks the bureaucratic wing of the state (OKC bombing, Joe Stack). This was a week after Joe Stack's IRS plane attack and this shooting was probably inspired by last week's attack - Bedell was a nerdy man fascinated by computers (like Stack) and he was a Misean libertarian (meaning anti-government).User:JPatrickBedell
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
My hope is to use the creativity of markets and advanced technology to transcend the destructive regimes that have fastened themselves upon the world. I have dreamed for an number of years of creating v:production econosystems, which I hope to apply to the creation of v:security service econosystems using new and economic mechanisms and information technology.
I have a bachelor's degree in physics from the University of California, Santa Cruz, and studied biochemistry at San Jose State University. I've studied electrical engineering with the goal of creating microsystems for molecular analysis.[1][2][3][4] You can see a proposal to use aluminum anodization as an adsorption method for DNA molecules on CMOS chips at v:DNA_integrated_circuit/proposal_import_2007 (which originates from an unsuccessful DARPA proposal to create a "microMIRV" interoperable with standard firearms ammunition), and a proposal to use xenon difluoride to create a picoliter-scale computer-controlled device for sorting biomolecules (available at v:Capillary_electrode_array/proposal_import_2007), including DNA and protein molecules. My goals include the discovery of a protein sequence for the diamondase enzyme, enabling the creation of macroscale diamond structures, and the creation of self-assembled macrosystems with CMOS DNA-integrated circuits. The scale of these and other projects have led me to develop financial instruments representing information as a tool to manage large projects that are very knowledge-intensive.
I am determined to see that justice is served in the death of Colonel James Sabow, as a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions and institutions such as the coup regime of 1963 that maintains itself in power through the global drug trade, financial corruption, and murder, among other crimes. My work to develop information currency is an effort to create a framework for information management that uses financial markets to create the economic signals (prices) that will effect complex human actions in the real world based on specified information. My desire for justice led me to violate what I think is one of the most unjust laws, cannabis prohibition, by growing 16 cannabis plants on my balcony in Irvine, CA from March 2006 to June 2006. I've posted the Orange County, CA District Attorney's complaint for this offense at http://cannabis.wikia.com/wiki/JPatrickBedell_2006-06-06_cannabis_felony_complaint .
One desired result of my effort is (will be) billions and billions of carefully cultivated, highly valuable cannabis plants growing throughout the United States with complete security of property. I have posted the image to the right in order to illustrate the use of cannabis as a monetary system using digital financial instruments. There are two information currency units in each of the PDF417 codes pictured. One of the information currency units is drawn from a series with "one gram cannabis" with the underlying asset, and the second ICU in each code has as its underlying asset the URL http://www.mises.org/humanaction/pdf/humanaction.pdf and the SHA-1 digest value of the file at that location (fd8205cb8b4793d43b57ba6f6c7367aa700c307a). This is a way of associating the work of Ludwig von Mises with financial value, which may be a tool to implement his ideas in reality. I hope someday to see full-reserve banking and observance of Article One, Section 10 of the US Constitution.
I apologize for the graphic content of some of my contributions, but detailed evidence is sometimes necessary to address important matters. I am very disturbed by the fact that Col. Sabow's civilian superiors and their successors have been able to continue their narco-mercantilism. For historical comparison, I might resemble the odd German still complaining about the murders of the Night of the Long Knives in 1938(?). Of course, Wikipedia didn't exist in 1938!
I am looking for collaborators for ongoing commercial and intellectual efforts. Email to jpbedell at mises.com is welcome!
Indeed, the neocons are already spewing out lies - which the liberals will probably use for their own agenda. Take Fox News' headline to an AP story: "Pentagon Shooter Railed Against U.S. on Internet." Note that the shooter did not rail against the US in his various online posts, but rather against the federal government and its actions. In particular he thought the feds were covering up the death Air Force Colonel James Sabow, whom he and others believe did not commit suicide but was murdered as a result of a plot involving CIA drug trafficking. Bedell was not anti-American, but rather anti-government. The difference between a country and its government has been lost on most modern Americans, whether liberal or (neo)conservative.
As he was a computer nerd, he left traces all over the internet. He had a Linkedin profile stating he was an MSEE (Master of Science in Electrical Engineering, most likely). His Facebook page is still up (here) and his friends list is quite interesting. He's friends with a few notable libertarians - Lew Rockwell and William Norman Grigg (which doesn't necessarily mean anything - Lew Rockwell has several thousand FB friends), as well as a bunch of South Asians. I'm sure some neocon will use that as "evidence" that he was part of some foreign group, but it's more likely that he met them in his electrical engineering program since South Asians fill the electrical engineering programs (both as students and professors) in American universities.
Bedell was into cannabis, even going so far as to post a picture of his marijuana to WikiCommons here. In many of his postings on the Internet he showed an interest in Rothbardix, a Linux distro he was working on, that was tied to this concept he envisioned called "information currency." He describes that on his YouTube channel here. Of course, his online presence will soon begin to be scrubbed away so I was sure to save all of what I found. He was an interesting fellow.
In some ways it seems as if he was a Joe Stack copycat, but he was a different man overall. Joe Stack was angry with the IRS, whereas John Patrick Bedell was critical of the whole political and economic system altogether. Also, Stack had a family, whereas Bedell seems to be a high IQ, but lonely computer nerd with plenty of time to become well-read.
I can't help but wonder if these attacks are just a couple of isolated incidents that will soon be forgotten or whether the Second American Revolution is beginning around us...
UPDATE: At around 2:00 AM I noticed that Wikipedia scrubbed his user page (which was formerly here). I knew they would, as they scrubbed James von Brunn's user page after he carried out his shooting. His Facebook is still up, oddly enough.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
If Diversity is Our Strength...
... then why isn't the Middle East a paradise? It has myriad ethnic groups - Arabs, Bedouins, Lebanese, Egyptians, Ashkenazi Jews, Mizrahi Jews, Sephardi Jews, Greeks, Turks, Persians, Azeris, Armenians, Georgians, other Caucasians, Assyrians, Turkmen, Kurds, as well as Asian workers in the Gulf. The people have many different religions - there are Sunni Muslims, Shi'a Muslims, Alawites, Druzes, Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Yazidi, Mandeans, and Baha'i.
The media and politicians are always telling us how wonderful diversity is. It seems to me that such a diverse place should be a prosperous, peaceful region, yet it is the site of many current conflicts. I wonder why that is so?
The media and politicians are always telling us how wonderful diversity is. It seems to me that such a diverse place should be a prosperous, peaceful region, yet it is the site of many current conflicts. I wonder why that is so?
Monday, March 1, 2010
Martin Luther King Sainthood
I don't think my motherboard has a slot for DERAM...
Every January we are treated to the spectacle of white Americans of every political alignment, social class, and geographic region trying to outdo each other in praising "Dr." Martin Luther King, Jr. I put "Dr." in quotation marks because Martin Luther King plagiarized his doctoral dissertation. In addition to being a plagiarist, MLK was also a communist and an adulterer, although you'll never hear this from the lamestream conservatives telling you MLK was a conservative due to his "content of their character" remark.
I wonder why Martin Luther King has not been canonized yet. It would make sense in this Age of Obama. The only question is: which church will be the first to do so?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)