Flyover Libertarian

The Lesson Liberals Should Learn From the Troy Davis Murder

2011-09-26T04:09:00.000-05:00

A few days ago, the state of Georgia murdered Troy Davis. Predictably, liberals and black activists are outraged, blaming America's justice (sic) system, white racism, and law-and-order conservatism. They are overlooking, perhaps intentionally, the real culprit: big government.

This is what governments do: they give people fancy uniforms, titles, and weapons and let those people kill others without consequence. Governments are founded upon violence. Whether it's by starving and working to death people in concentration camps or gulags, by dropping atomic or conventional bombs on cities, or injecting lethal drugs into peoples' bloodstreams, governments have perfected the art of murder.

If liberals want to prevent another murder such that of Troy Davis, instead of wasting their time ranting against White America, they should use their energies to combat the mafia that the sheeple have foolishly given the power to destroy lives.

Wherein I Try Game for the First Time

2011-06-16T23:31:00.001-05:00

I've been reading Game sites for about a year and a half, at first not for the Game advice and tips, but for their anti-feminist and gender realist content. Yet, I've never really tried to use Game. I have three major problems:

1) I'm an ex-shut-in. I spent college playing video games instead of engaging in social interaction and making friends. Indeed, whenever people would try to befriend me I would decline their friendships and when girls would express interest in me I would ignore it. In the last year I've been becoming much more social, but I still suffer from aftereffects of my wasted past.

2) I don't meet enough girls in the course of my daily life. I'm out of college. Gaming girls at work would be a bad idea for several reasons. As I'm a former shut-in, most of my friends are male and they are mostly nerds, meaning their friends are mostly male nerds, too. I go to bars occasionally, but the problem is I don't have any good drinking buddies. Only two of my friends go out to bars and such. One lives too far away to be a regular drinking buddy. The other is a drunkard who has cockblocked me in the past.

3) I suffer from approach anxiety. It's not that I'm too scared to approach random girls, it's that I can never think of any good openers (although I've heard that even "Hi" can make a decent opener since most AFCs are too cowardly to do even that). If I have a reason to approach them other than the fact that they are a cute girl at a bar, I'm fine.

Anyways, I was getting some late-night food with a friend last night when we ran into an old friend of his who was planning on going out to a nearby bar later. We ended up joining him.

My friend is very charismatic, but doesn't go after women. He's divorced with custody of his children and he doesn't drink, although he DDs a lot for his friends. My friend's friend was a gay guy, so he was outgoing and friendly.

The gay guy is a regular at the bar, so he knew everyone, including all the girls. One of his female friends accompanied us outside and soon another gay guy showed up. She was cute, blonde, somewhat skinny, and looked about 5 to 10 years older than me. The girl was friendly towards me, but I didn't talk to her much. They gay guys were the center of the conversation. I definitely should've talked more. My friend and the gay guy were talking a lot, so I should've engaged the girl in conversation.

We left that bar to go to another one and by this time both her and I were varying degrees of intoxicated. We talked a lot more a this bar and it was soon clear she was interested. I've read about negging countless times, but I always thought it seemed like a douchebag thing to do. I gave it a try and found it to be very effective.

At one point, she got really angry at me over a remark I made about straight girls at gay clubs. In retrospect, this may have been a shit test. My beta instincts were to apologize to her, but I managed to shake them off and passed with a mixture of redirection and humor.

I have no memory of most of the details of what happened at the second bar, but she ended up unbuttoning two of my shirt's buttons in a very flirtatious manner. Here's the weird part. I remember this event and her walking away, but I have no recollection what occurred in between - probably due to the alcohol. I was pretty drunk at this point. My friend says that she walked away to go the restroom, I was drunk and mistakenly thought I'd been rejected, and became a douchebag for the rest of the night.

I'm still irked at myself about my failure, but I did better than I expected I would. And I learned that if I'm trying to pick up a girl at a bar, I should limit the number of drinks I have (I had a pitcher of beer, a shot, and a mixed drink). Also, she said I have "pretty eyes." Every girl who has expressed romantic/sexual interest in me has said that to me soon after meeting me. I should find some way to take advantage of this.

Hopefully I'll have another chance to practice Game soon. The problem, like I mentioned before, is that I don't have very many friends who like to go out and going to bars alone doesn't sound like fun.

Keep the Change

2011-06-15T21:02:00.000-05:00

During the Bush administration, liberals (rightly) claimed that Bush was waging an illegal war in Iraq. In 2008, Obama campaigned on the promise of bringing change to Washington. Gullible white liberals and moderates bought it up and sent him to the White House, where he is now waging a war in a foreign country and claiming he doesn't need the authorization of Congress. So much for change.

Another Raceless Criminal

2011-05-31T16:02:00.000-05:00

In Rock Hill, a city near Charlotte, a woman wore a bikini that featured the design a Confederate flag to an apartment swimming pool with some friends. The Charlotte Observer says that a group of "people" came up, surrounded them, and called them racists. When one of the woman's friends stood up, a "suspect" pointed a gun at him before fleeing.

The Charlotte Observer doesn't give the race (or any other description) of the suspect, but his race was probably the same as most of the people who went wilding over Memorial Day weekend (including in Charlotte, where one man was killed and 70 people arrested after a gang melee).

The readers of the Observer's website aren't as clueless as the commissars of political correctness. The article has a postscript:

Editor's note: Comments have been disabled because of repeated violations of site policies. Please refrain from profanity, obscenity, racist remarks, spam, name-calling or attacking others for their views.

In other words, someone mentioned that the gunman was black, which prompted a discussion of blacks and crime in the comments, leading the horrified liberal editors to shut down the comments to prevent the spread of politically incorrect ideas.

(h/t Rebellion)

Chicks Dig Jerks, Exhibit #9000

2011-05-19T16:05:00.000-05:00

The LA Times broke the story earlier this week that Arnold Schwarzenegger fathered a child with a servant (I'm sorry, I meant "domestic worker") ten years ago. Firstly, how does this qualify as news? Rich and powerful men have been producing bastards with servants for thousands of years. If Arnold admitted that he had not fathered any children with servants, that would be news.

Secondly, the reaction from feminists and women in general is pretty amusing and revealing. Amanda Marcotte, whom I bashed a few days ago, typed up one of her typical acidic diatribes, complaining about how men in power objectify women and use them for sex. Jos at Feministing claims that his dalliance is in line with the rest of his sexist behavior. His previous sexist behavior according to her includes "sexually harassing" women at Rio's Carnival (check out the video she linked to and you will find that "sexual harassment" is the feminist term for "flirting with a girl"). Schwarzenegger's wife herself was a feminist gender warrior who reaped what she sowed. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Various alt-right bloggers have suggested that feminism is essentially a massive shit test. The feminist reaction to Schwarzenegger's adultery supports this. The liberal betas and pro-feminist manginas who worship women on a pedestal, never offend them, white knight for them, and nod their heads in agreement with feminist shews like puppies begging for a treat aren't spreading their genes across the world. The men whom feminists despise are. That should tell you something about what women really want when free of any societal constraints on their sexuality.

The Ten Worst States to Be a Dumb Slut

2011-05-16T16:01:00.000-05:00

Amanda Marcotte, the harpy queen of the feminist blogosphere, has a new article on Alternet about the ten worst American states to be a woman. She doesn't mince words, including claims that that "Mississippi has been such a bad state for women for so long it rarely even gets noticed in the news anymore." and "Kansas went from being a pretty bad place to be a woman to a hellhole rapidly."

What laws have Mississppi, Kansas, Arizona, Texas, and six other states passed? Are they allowing men to beat their wives, requiring women to wear shawls in public, banning the education of women, not allowing women to vote, and/or disallowing women from owning property?

No, it turns out that all of these states have passed or are considering passing laws that more closely regulate abortion.

I've noticed that when feminists use the word "woman," as in "women's reproductive healthcare" or "women's rights," they really mean "dumb sluts." Let's face it, in 21st century America, between condoms, pregnancy tests, IUDs, EC, and abortifacients, it is incredibly difficult for a woman of even below average intelligence to unintentionally get to the stage where surgical abortion or pregnancy are her only options.

If you want to laugh at feminist illogic, overemotion, incendiary rhetoric, and sensationalism, click here.

Freedom in Feminazi America

2011-05-11T17:14:00.000-05:00

This story pretty much speaks for itself. In Chicago, a 17 year old boy was arrested and charged with "disorderly conduct" for ranking girls at his school based on their looks and posting this listing on the Internet. Disorderly conduct, of course, is what cops and prosecutors use to punish people they dislike but did not break any laws.

Feminazism in America has reached totalitarian levels. If this boy can get arrested for ranking females based on their sexual attributes, than virtually every man could be arrested, too. The only men who aren't in danger of being arrested are gay men, who would instead rank males based on their physical looks, which is still acceptable. As Ferdinand Bardamu notes, this boy is getting arrested for something the liberal establishment celebrated when it was done by a college slut.

This is the culmination of fifty years of feminism, Jewish liberalism, Christian conservatism, and "civil rights" movements polluting America.

Obama: Fraudster of the Century

2011-05-04T19:43:00.000-05:00

First, Barrack Obama refused to release his birth certificate until two years into his presidency. Then when he finally released it, he released a forgery.

Now, he claims that American forces killed Osama bin Laden. But then within 24 hours of Osama's alleged death, his "body" was dumped into an ocean. There is allegedly photographic evidence of Osama's death, but Obama won't release it because his administration feels it would threaten Americans (here's an easier way to keep Americans safe: don't get involved in needless wars halfway across the world). Regardless, Americans are still celebrating Osama's "death."

The Obama administration reminds me of the phrase "There's a sucker born every minute." Barry Soetoro is a con artist and the American sheeple are his marks.

May 1, 2011, is not May 1, 1945

2011-05-02T01:17:00.002-05:00

Osama's dead.

Americans are in a very celebratory mood. I don't think I've seen a Facebook status in the last three hours that didn't mention or reference Osama bin Laden's death. On the East Coast, it's around 2:00 am, but hundreds of people are celebrating in front of the White House and Time Square. Tomorrow, New York will probably look like it did on V-J Day 1945. The World War II comparisons are inevitable, especially since the deaths of both Hitler and Osama were announced on May 1. Myriad pundits, politicians, and normal people will compare the death of Osama to the death of Hitler, VE-Day, or VJ-Day.

Hitler's death was nothing like Osama's. Hilter WAS Nazi Germany. He was an uncrowned absolute monarch who created and was integral to Nazi Germany. Without him, it could not exist. When Hitler committed suicide, he did so because his soldiers were fighting the enemy blocks away from his Bunker. His suicide did not end the war, he committed suicide because the war was over.

But in the War on Terror, the US is not fighting a totalitarian nation-state. It is fighting assorted violent non-state actors. Killing the leader of one of them won't cause the others to capitulate. It's also worth noting that al-Qaeda itself is decentralized. Al-Qaeda in Iraq, for example, is not run by Osama. They will continue fighting. They continued fighting when their own leader was killed in 2006. There's also the fact that Islamists have a fetish for martyrdom. Since 2002, Osama didn't really do much except release propaganda videos from time to time while on the lam. As a shahid his death will serve as propaganda for future generations of Islamists.

Killing Osama bin Laden won't end the War on Terrorism. The only thing that can end the War on Terrorism is an end to the American Empire and its foreign adventures. As long as we meddle in the Middle East and elsewhere, there are going to be people who are upset enough to turn to violence. Until the root causes are addressed, new Osamas and Zarqawis will continue to sprout like weeds.

America didn't slay the hydra, she just cut off one of its heads.

Ignorant Video Game Bashers at it Again

2011-04-25T16:36:00.001-05:00

There's a new video game app for Android called "Dog Wars" that lets you train, care for, and fight virtual dogs. Video game bashers, animal rights activists, the sensationalist media, and the lemmings flocking to today's Cause of the Day are calling for Google to ban it, of course.

I wonder if any of the fools supporting the Cause of the Day have heard of this game called "Pokemon."

To Liberals Who Think We Don't Pay Enough Taxes

2011-04-18T18:07:00.000-05:00

It's Tax Day in America, which means that for the next several hours we will be treated to articles by pompous liberals who think that "we" (read: middle- and upper-class white people) don't pay enough in taxes; that we should be thankful that the government steals a third of our income to redistribute it to the lumpenproletariat, bankers, the military-industrial complex, Big Business, and foreign dictators; and that they would gladly pay more taxes if only the money would go to social services (sic) rather than war.

Guess what, liberals? There is a way for you to get your wish of giving more money to the government. Simply write a check or money order to the United States Treasury and mail it to this address:

Gifts to the United States
U.S. Department of the Treasury
Credit Accounting Branch
3700 East-West Highway, Room 622D
Hyattsville, MD 20782

This way you can get your wish of giving more money to bureaucrats who will waste it without forcing the rest of us to do the same. Of course, I don't really expect any liberals to donate their money to the Gifts of the United States. Liberals are much more charitable with others' money than with their own.

A Question Regarding the Intervention in Libya

2011-03-23T03:43:00.000-05:00

Why is it that America is bombing Libya to stop its dictator from killing civilians while suppressing a rebellion when most Americans venerate Abraham Lincoln, a dictator who killed civillians while suppressing a rebellion?

What Would We Do Without Liberal Muckrakers?

2011-02-14T16:26:00.000-06:00

In Alternet's main story for today, Stan Cox informs us that mariners live dangerous lives. Truly, what would the world be like without such insight from liberal journalists?

Fuck Sin Taxes

2011-01-21T01:28:00.004-06:00

Normally I am more eloquent in my expression of my dislike for big government, but profanity is pretty much the only way I can concisely describe my dislike for what statists refer to as "sin taxes." To all of you fundie yokels who want to tax alcohol out of existence: fuck you. To all of you latte liberals who want to tax tobacco out of existence: fuck you. To all of you middle American moderates who want to put "common sense" taxes on everything that offends your low moral standards: fuck you.

Sin taxes are an embodiment of everything wrong with American politics: the idea that if 51% of people personally dislike something, they have every right to use the state to force the other 49% to stop doing that something.

They are the scion of an unholy alliance between two enemies of freedom: the red state fascist Christian theocrats and the SWPL/Jewish liberal totalitarians. In other words, they are the natural product of centrism and bipartisanship and the combination of both forms of statism that are fucking up America.

In particular, support for alcohol taxes always gets me. In most non-Islamic cultures, alcohol plays an important role. Alcohol was independently developed by by countless cultures. Even the Indians of the Amazon rainforest make drinks from fermented manioc. Yet, in both the "liberty-loving" red states and the "personal freedom-supporting" blue states of America no one bats an eye if a state doubles the tax on alcohol.

The fact that Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals/conservatives are so vocal in their support for sin taxes, especially on alcohol is surprising considering that Jesus was the ultimate bartender. Do any of them remember the part in the Book of John where he transmuted water to wine? If God is against alcohol consumption, as megachurch preachers blather whenever ~~petty tyrants~~ state legislators consider raising taxes on alcohol, why was his own Son was a miraculous vintner?

Liberals also put their hypocrisy on full display with regard to sin taxes. Any libertarians who are stupid enough to believe liberals when they say they are in favor of "personal freedoms" and "pro-choice" should take a look at the liberal record when it comes to sin taxes. For example, while they support marijuana legalization, they want to heavily tax it.

They have no problem with putting enough taxes on cigarettes to the point where the taxes cost more than the tobacco, ostensibly because of the public health hazard of tobacco. The claimed public health hazards of smoking have always struck me as overblown. I remember when my great-aunt died, her death certificate listed smoking as the cause of death even though she was in her 80s and in poor health all around. I wonder how many other "smoking-related deaths" were like hers. In 21st century America, doctors apparently don't think that people can die of old age anymore.

They even support putting special taxes on the use of indoor tanning. As with tobacco, they claim this is due to the health hazards of their use. (An alternate explanation is that feminists hate tanning salons because they make women more attractive and, as Rush says, "feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." Thus, anything that makes women more attractive to men, including tanning, breast implants, and make-up is verboten according to feminists and manginas.)

The mental disorder called liberalism, with its support for socialism, abortion, illegal immigrants, and coddling criminals, is certainly a public health hazard that has led to far more human deaths than smoking ever will. A tax on liberals would probably do more to save lives than a tax on cigarettes.

What sin tax proponents, both left and right, fail to realize is that it is not merely the use of tobacco, alcohol, and/or tanning that causes health problems, it is the excessive use. If you socially smoke you probably won't get lung cancer, but if you smoke three packs a day from age 18 to 60 you probably will. If you drink alcohol at a bar every Friday night, you probably won't develop health problems (instead your health will probably benefit), but if you chug a 12-pack of beer every night you will probably develop them. If you use a tanning bed prior to your vacation to Hawaii you probably won't develop skin cancer, but if you use them weekly for fifty years, you might.

Proponents of sin taxes do not understand the concept of moderation. They don't understand that many people who partake in "sinful" things such as alcohol are not compulsive or habitual users. True, some people abuse alchol, tobacco, etc., but why should the vast majority of people capable of self-control be punished for the high time preference of a few people? Those people will be punished for their lack of personal responsibility in due time. There's no need to tax everyone else for it.

Happy St. Martin's Day!

2011-01-17T23:55:00.000-06:00

Every Martin Luther King Day, we are treated to the same spectacle of the media and politicians - both Democrat and Republican - venerating America's most popular communist, adulterer, and plagiarist. It's embarrassing that so many whites worship the man who destroyed America.

I wouldn't be surprised if within a few decades "Dr." Martin Luther King, Jr. is canonized by a major church. The only question is, which denomination will be the first to do so?

Mainstream Conservative Organization Defends American Renaissance

2011-01-14T17:58:00.000-06:00

When the media, including "conservative" Fox News, was promoting the claim that Jared Loughner had ties to American Renaissance, the conservative media watchdog organization Accuracy in Media stepped in to refute their claims.

What's interesting about this is the language that AIM used to describe Amren. Normally conservatives parrot liberals and label such organizations as racist, white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and/or anti-Semitic. Instead, AIM referred to Amren as a "conservative publication" and described it as "on the right side of the political spectrum and is politically incorrect because of its criticism of racial preference and “diversity” programs and immigration policies that weaken the strength of a country."

This is a nice development, but I'm still not holding my breath for the Tea Party movement to come to its senses on racial issues.

Incendiary Rhetoric

2011-01-13T02:18:00.000-06:00

I find it amusing that the same people who call libertarians and conservatives who oppose Obama "tea baggers" are now complaining about the use of incendiary rhetoric in politics.

A Primer on Gun Terms for Liberals and Reporters

2011-01-11T17:32:00.001-06:00

Whenever there is a mass shooting, the media, the gun control lobby, and liberals in general howl about our nation's "lax gun laws." In doing so, they usually reveal themselves to be ignorant of basic gun terms. For example, they might whine about the fact that semi-automatic handguns are freely available, without realizing that most handguns today are semi-automatic, or they might claim that AK-47s are legally available for purchase in America, failing to note that the version available is not the one that most people think of when they hear "AK-47."

So, I've created a helpful little primer for liberals and reporters (or do I repeat myself) who don't know anything about guns except that they are used by creepy tea bagging racist rednecks in flyover country.

Automatic firearm: A gun that fires and reloads automatically as long as the trigger is held down. Purchasing or transferring one in the United States is a highly regulated, difficult, and long process.

Semi-automatic firearm: A gun in that reloads automatically, but requires the trigger to be pulled to fire one bullet. Semi-automatic handguns and rifles are extremely common today. Most handguns are semi-automatic, although non-semi-automatic bolt-action rifles are still popular amongst snipers and hunters.

Assault rifle: A rifle with switch allowing it to fire either automatically, semi-automatically, or in bursts (2 or 3 bullets per one pull of the trigger).

Assault weapon: A word used by politicians to refer to "scary" looking semi-automatic weapons with "scary" looking features including bayonet mounts, pistol grips, large magazines, and barrel shrouds (which are not, as Carolyn McCarthy claimed, "a shoulder thing that goes up").

AK-47: A Soviet-designed assault rifle used for over sixty years by dozens of militaries, police forces, paramilitaries, and terrorists. AK-47s capable of automatic fire are very difficult to purchase in the US. Buying one or any other fully automatic weapon requires a tax stamp and much paperwork. Semi-automatic versions, which have less power than the typical hunting rifle, are as legal as any other semi-automatic rifle.

The Media Smears American Renaissance

2011-01-10T04:47:00.007-06:00

Jared Loughner, the man who attacked Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' political event in Tuscon, lacks any coherent political ideology, but that hasn't stopped liberals from tarring him as a right-winger. Now that the liberal media has exhausted the claims that he was inspired by Sarah Palin or Ron Paul, they are attempting to tie him to American Renaissance (Amren), Jared Taylor's organization dedicated to supporting the insterests of white Americans, limiting immigration, preserving traditional America, and openly discussing issues such as race and crime and intelligence.

This AP "news" story is typical of the media's current smearing of Amren:

Probe examines possible link to anti-gov't group

WASHINGTON (AP) — An official familiar with the Arizona shooting investigation says local authorities are looking at a possible connection between Jared Loughner and an online group known for its anti-government rhetoric.

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the ongoing investigation, says this is one of several motives that local authorities are pursuing in the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz.

So the story is entirely based on the the information provided by one anonymous sourc? So much for writing stories with multiple reliable sources. If you go to a journalism school, you're just wasting $40,000 to learn modern-day yellow journalism.

The anti-government organization American Renaissance is connected to the white supremacist New Century Foundation, according to an analysis by the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based group that tracks hate crimes.

I was wrong. The story isn't just based on one anonymous source. It's based off of information provided by an anonymous source and ~~a liberal fundraising scam~~ the completely reliable and unbiased SPLC. No liberal article discussing right-wing organizations is complete without a reference to the SPLC. The liberal media quotes the SPLC like a Baptist preacher quotes the Bible.

As a libertarian, I have nothing against anti-government organizations, but American Renaissance is not one. While most of its members are paleocons or iconoclastic libertarians, the organization itself exists to advocate for white Americans. That does not make it inherently anti-government.

Calling the New Century Foundation "white supremacist" is simply slanderous. If advocating for white Americans makes an organization racist, then are black advocacy groups such as the NAACP "black supremacists?" Considering that the people who are affiliated with it tend to acknowledge that East Asians have higher IQs than Europeans, perhaps calling NCF a "yellow supremacist organization" would make more sense.

Members typically espouse anti-Semitic and anti-government views.

This is the problem with journalists. They think that just by talking to some "sources," they become experts in everything. Jared Taylor is pretty philo-Semitic. He welcomes Jews to Amren conferences, even having Jewish speakers in the past. Amren focuses on race, not Judaism. The anti-Semite accusation is just more evidence that the anonymous journalist who wrote this AP hit piece failed to do much more research than visiting www.splcenter.org.

And why is anti-government such a pejorative term? What's wrong about hating the thieves who take a third of your income to give to corporate supplicants, the military-industrial complex, and the lumpen?

Also, note the connotations the "reporter" is invoking. When people think of organizations "espous[ing] anti-Semitic and anti-government views," they think of guys in Idaho marching around in SA regalia or gun-loving militiamen in the Ozarks. American Renaissance conferences, however, consist of men in suits listening to academics and writers.

Loughner's online postings include language that is in line with such beliefs.

Loughner was a fan of The Communist Manifesto. I wonder when the AP will write articles about anonymous sources claiming that he is affiliated with the Communist Party USA?

"News" articles like this are what make me elated whenever I read about the decay and impending end of the Old Media.

The American Tyrant

2010-12-21T19:12:00.001-06:00

Yesterday marked the 150th anniversary of the establishment of the Republic of South Carolina. Next year, with the 150th anniversary of the start of the civil war, we are sure to hear incessant praise of America's only tyrant, Abraham Lincoln. The fact that so many Americans idolize the proto-fascist is revolting, especially when Americans take a dim view towards foreign leaders who kill thousands of their own people in wars.

For example, Slobodan Milošević killed 130,000 people to preserve the territorial integrity of Yugoslavia and he was arrested as a war criminal, dying in jail.

Yet, Abraham Lincoln killed 600,000 people to preserve the territorial integrity of the United States, but a Greek temple was built in his honor and his portrait was placed on America's most common coin.

Beta-in-Chief

2010-12-13T16:36:00.002-06:00

As I've written in the past, I'm a bit skeptical of the alpha-beta-omega paradigm popular amongst HBDers and gamists. Their definition of "alpha" seems to be a man who is capable of sleeping with a lot of sluts, whereas in biology and political science that term is used to describe the highest-ranked individual of a group (the leader). By the HBD/PUA definition, Adolf Hitler, despite his charisma and leadership abilities, was a beta or omega because he slept with few women in his lifetime. Yet, a gangsta who has four "bitches," but exists on the fringes of society without a job or education is an alpha.

My skepticism was assuaged today, when Barrack Obama demonstrated that is is quite possible to be both a beta by the HBDer/PUA definition and an alpha by the traditional definition. Obama and Bill Clinton were at a press conference regarding the tax "compromise" and Obama dodged the reporters with this exchange (video here):

Obama: "Here's what I'll say, I've been keeping the First Lady waiting for about half an hour, so I'm gonna take off."

Clinton (laughing): "I don't want to make her mad - please go."

(h/t: W.F. Price of The Spearhead)

Why I Support Extending Unemployment Benefits

2010-12-02T23:43:00.006-06:00

Despite my libertarian beliefs, I think it's clear that even libertarians should support the extension of unemployment benefits. This article from MSNBC notes the dreadful impact not extending those benefits would have on the economy (bolding is mine):

The [Council of Economic Advisers]’s report, which details how a failure to extend the aid would affect people on a state-by-state level, says nearly seven million Americans could lose coverage by the end of next year and that 600,000 jobs are at stake. Goolsbee contended the gross domestic product would be six-tenths of a percent point lower in December of next year if the benefits are not extended, slowing the nation's recovery from the worst recession since the Great Depression.

According to an earlier report by the National Employment Law Project, some two million workers nationally could lose benefits in December if they are not extended, an estimate the CEA also uses. The U.S. Joint Economic Committee estimates failure to extend the benefits program "would drain the economy of $80 billion in purchasing power and result in the loss of over one million jobs over the next year."

In order to preserve the GDP and prevent the loss of even more jobs, Congress must act quickly to take money from people who create jobs and give it to people who do not have jobs. Poorer people spend more of their money than rich people (who would just do socially irresponsible things like save or invest their money), so if we simply give poor and unemployed people more money, they will spend their way out of our recession.

Additionally, Congress should hire little boys to wander around towns and break windows. True, shopkeepers would have to pay to replace them, but just think of all the money that would be spent on windowmakers and glaziers. They would have to hire many more employees to keep up with the increasing demand for their services and they would have more money to spend, creating even more jobs. Our high unemployment rate would fall dramatically!

The Thousand Year Reich Comes to an End

2010-11-29T19:56:00.002-06:00

Paleocons and white nationalists are taking note of a demographic prediction that places 2066 as the year in which whites in Britain will be a minority. It couldn't happen to a more deserving nation.

The media portrays the English as a refined people, but they are nothing more than well-dressed barbarians who spent the last thousand years conquering as much as the world as they could - from their medieval Celtic neighbors to modern Iraq. Imperialism, which greatly contributed to nonwhite grievances and liberal self-hatred of Western civilization while doing nothing to civilize the Third World, was enthusiastically embraced by England.

In addition to imperialism, the English enthusiastically embraced every form of feminism, multiculturalism, and racial egalitarianism. Political correctness has replaced the Church of England as the state religion. The English have progressed from arresting heretics to those who utter hate speech.

England isn't worth saving. Paleocons, race realists, white nationalists, and HBDers should focus on the nation that is.

Spot the Difference, Part III (NSFW)

2010-11-21T17:17:00.004-06:00

Over at The Spearhead, WF Price writes about a Ukrainian feminist group called FEMEN, which consists of young feminist women who protest - oftentimes topless. There is a lot that could be said about their antics and the state of modern feminism, but overall Ukrainian men should consider themselves lucky. As illustrated below, it could worse.

Ukrainian feminists:

(from FEMEN's Flickr account)

American feminists:

Third World Immigration Brings Medieval Christianity to America

2010-11-18T17:50:00.002-06:00

There probably isn't an institution more to blame for the Mexican deluge than the Catholic Church. There was a time in which the Catholic Church was one of the foremost defenders of Western Civilization, but that time has long since passed. Now, the Catholic Church cares only about increasing its numbers, usually by recruiting nonwhites (although the same can be said of virtually every Christian church in America - from those of liberal Methodists to conservative evengelicals). In the United States, the Catholic Church has effectively become an arm of the diversity industry, opposing laws cracking down on illegals, supporting amnesty, and pushing for more social(ist) programs to provide for America's imported lumpen. The current Völkerwanderung has impacted the Church's demographics - 32% of Catholics in 2008 were Hispanic, but only 20% were in 1990.

It's no secret that non-whites hold superstitious beliefs that Europeans shed during the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Serious belief in witchcraft is common in parts of Third World countries and when people from those places come to the United States, they bring their backwards practices to the United States with them (Santeria, practiced by Hispanics and black Caribbean immigrants, is a good example of this).

The Catholic Church is already starting to show a response to its influx of large numbers of superstitious people from areas where witchcraft and sorcery are taken seriously. Last weekend, as the New York times reported, American bishops met to deal with the increase in the number of exorcism requests. The article notes that many American Catholics, both laymen and priests, are skeptical of exorcisms, so why is there such a new, high, demand for them?

Diversity, of course:

But [Fr. Richard Vega] said that there could eventually be a rising demand for exorcism because of the influx of Hispanic and African Catholics to the United States. People from those cultures, he said, are more attuned to the experience of the supernatural.

Congratulations, bishops. Your love of nonwhite immigration, missions to Third World cesspools, and minority outreaches is transforming your church into a medieval cult that will end up as the butt of countless late night comedians' jokes. Another Western institution is being destroyed by diversity.

I Hate Blogspot

2010-11-16T15:57:00.000-06:00

I had written a long post containing various thoughts on the Republican victories in the midterms, then when I opened it to make some final edits, Blogger autosaved, deleted all of my text (the undo function was unresponsive), and then autosaved again.

Alcohol-Related Nanny State Stupidity in Michigan

2010-11-07T21:21:00.001-06:00

Michigan's alcoholic beverage control commission recently banned the sale of alcoholic energy drinks, most prominently Four Loko, which is sold in 23.5 oz. cans that are 11% abv and contain as much caffeine as a cup of coffee. This was necessary since combining stimulants and depressants is dangerous according to the commission. Apparently there have been incidents in which retarded college students and future Darwin Award winners drank too much of it too quickly and were hospitalized (the caffeine masks the drunkenness so people inadvertently drink a lot more than they should and in some cases they drive, mistakenly believing they are sober). Rather than hold people who make stupid choices responsible for their actions, they decided to ban these drinks for everyone.

If the state is going to ban Four Loko, then will they ban Jaegermeister and Red Bull? Dropping a shot of Jaeger into a pint of Red Bull produces the wonderful drink known as a Jaegerbomb. Plenty of other alcoholic and caffeinated drinks mix well together. People have been drinking rum and coke since the early 1900s and Irish cream mixes well with coffee.

This won't stop anyone from mixing alcohol and caffeine - they can just do it themselves with a shot of vodka and a can of Mountain Dew. And it won't prevent anyone from dying of alcohol poisioning caused by overdrinking - college students are capable of doing that with pretty much anything that has alcohol in it. It's just another useless law that will have no effect other than to limit consumers' choices while gratifying a few fun-hating dinosaurs on a government commission.

Happy Columbus Day

2010-10-12T16:18:00.000-05:00

Today marks the 518th anniversary of Chrisopher Columbus' landfall in the Americas. A hundred years ago, Columbus Day was a celebrated by Americans (particularly Italian-Americans). Now, it's a day where the liberal elite trashes Columbus, America, and white people in general.

I understand why Native Americans protest Columbus Day, although it's worth noting that they are treated better than most other conquered indigenous peoples throughout history. But I suspect the white progressives who rant against Columbus are doing so only to open another front in their self-hating war against white people. Indeed, it's understandable as to why they hate the day so much, since Columbus' discovery led to the European colonization of America and eventually the creation of the United States.

Is There Anything Liberals Won't Start Boycotts Over?

2010-09-28T01:47:00.000-05:00

It seems like every time I visit a liberal website, someone's calling for a boycott of some business, state, or organization due to a slight against some facet of liberalism. Over at Feministing, they wrote last week about a boycott of Old Navy by "breastfeeding activists" (aka "lactavists") who are angry because they sell baby clothing with "Formula Powered" printed on it.

No, I'm not joking.

Ever since the boycotts and sanctions helped to end apartheid in South Africa, liberals have gotten the idea that boycotting is an effective tactic against anything that offends them, no matter how trivial. And it will continue to be an effective tactic until people are willing to stand up to the political correctness at the core of liberalism.

Mosque Protesters Go After the Wrong Religion

2010-09-07T19:09:00.006-05:00

A group of Muslims is trying to open a mosque on private property a couple blocks away from where the World Trade Center once stood and the Tea Party movement is taking a break from opposing government to protest the mosque and demand that the government DO SOMETHING about it. That's the solution to everything in modern America: get the government to stop something you find offensive.

Unlike most members of the alternative-right, I don't have a paralyzing fear or hatred of Islam. Sure, Islamic terrorists killed thousands of Americans on 9/11, but every year America's blacks kill three times as many people in America as Muslims did on 9/11 and yet conservatives don't protest black churches. (Instead they label the individuals who attend those churches "natural conservatives" despite the fact that they universally vote Democrat.)

I also have a great deal of respect for Muslims and Islam. While Christians are generally spineless, Muslims are not. Indeed, they are quite willing to kill people and die for their beliefs. If you offend Islam, expect all hell to break loose. If you offend Christianity, pundits will write blog posts complaining about the liberal media and secular humanism. Islam has also proven to be immune to the liberalism and feminization that infests modern Christianity.

If any religion is a threat to America, it is not Islam, but rather Judaism. Virtually every left-wing ideology, organization, and cause that has destroyed America over the last fifty years and caused the impending collapse was established or bankrolled by Jews. The leaders of the second-wave feminist movement were Jews. The criminal-loving ACLU was founded by Jews.

As was the NAACP. The civil rights movement in general had a strong Jewish influence, a fact that liberal Jews celebrate. Affirmative action, black crime, white flight, vibrant cities turned into ghettos, and the destruction of the black family - all of these are ultimately the result of Jewish meddling.

The "culture war" that conservatives used to rant about (I say used to because it seems that conservatives have capitulated in the culture war) was not caused by "secular humanism," but rather the Jewish media.
The liberal media that conservatives rant about would really be more accurately termed the Jewish media. CBS, NBC, and Disney (the owner of ABC) all have Jewish CEOs, a fact that Jews are proud of.

Gun control is likewise a movement with considerable Jewish influence. The two major anti-gun organizations, the Violence Policy Center and the Brady Campaign, are led by Jews. Look up any article on gun control and there is a high probability that it will be written by a Blum-, Rosen-, -man, -thal, and/or -stein. It's odd that a people who were disarmed by a dictator and then slaughtered would support gun control, but then again Jewish hypocrisy is nothing new.

Even in the area of foreign policy Jews have been at the forefront of destroying America. The Muslim terrorists who attacked close to the location conservatives are eagerly "defending" attacked America in part due to our support for Israel. Our foreign policy in the Middle East is largely Judeocentric and the Iraq War was pushed by a cabal of Jewish neoconservatives as well as their evangelical Christian toadies.

If the useful idiots protesting the Cordoba House rally cared about saving America, instead of protesting mosques they would protest synagogues.

Why I Never Watch TV

2010-08-18T23:12:00.000-05:00

When I'm at home I rarely, if ever, watch TV. Sometimes when I'm at friends' houses it can't be helped and when I catch something on TV, as I did today, my preference for Internet media is further strengthened.

Today, the last American combat troops exited Iraq. Instead of reporting this, the news programs I overheard informed viewers of house fires, pro-football training, and the fact that Ke$ha is wandering around New York City wearing a tiger mask.

And yet, the elites wonder why Old Media is dying.

There is No Sanctity of Marriage to Preserve

2010-08-11T15:23:00.000-05:00

No, I have not abandoned this blog. I just lost interest in blogging for a while. I intend to post regularly from now on.

A week ago, a federal judge struck down California's Prop 8. The subsequent conservative reaction to gay judge Vaughn Walker's ruling demonstrates how worthless modern conservatives are.

Since August 4, conservatives have been clamoring louder than usual about defending marriage and preserving its sanctity. There's just one problem: marriage in 2010 America is not worth defending. Thanks to no-fault divorce, something conservatives (except the ones who read blogs like this) never criticize anymore, marriage can essentially be unilaterally be ended by the wife (yes, that wasn't a gender neutral statement, but most divorces are initiated by wives) who will end up with half of the marital assets (read: her husband's money), alimony, and custody of the children with their accompanying child support.

Considering that half of all marriages end in divorce, calling marriage sacred is a sick joke. I fail to see how gay people marrying each other could make it any worse.

Everything is Discrimination

2010-07-28T02:12:00.000-05:00

When I read liberals/feminists complaining about "appearance discrimination" and supporting laws banning its practice in employment, I really should not have been surprised. Anything liberals dislike is discriminatory in some way.

This article from Feministing is an excellent example. Under US law, foreign organizations that the federal government provides anti-AIDS funding must oppose prostitution and sex-work. Now, feminists and sex worker advocates are complaining that this is discriminatory against prostitutes.

On Tuesday, July 20th, NSWP organized sex workers and allies to disrupt a speech by United States Global AIDS Coordinator Dr. Eric Goosby to demand justice for sex workers harmed by PEPFAR’s discriminatory anti-prostitution loyalty oath.

To be fair, it's not just liberals who are at fault for their incessant use of "discrimination." Conservatives who care more about ending racism and sexism than limiting government are the prime reason that liberals get away with this.

How Old Am I?

2010-07-25T23:38:00.000-05:00

I'm curious to see how old my readership thinks I am. If you'd like to venture a guess, post it in the comments.

Appearance Discrimination

2010-07-23T17:13:00.003-05:00

If you thought liberals whine too much about racism and sexism and think concepts such as ableism, ageism, and sizeism are ludicrous, take a look at what is soon to be the new liberal -ism: lookism.

This article, written by career feminist Lindsay Beyerstein, is over a month old and was written shortly after the Deborahlee Lorenzana story came to light, but it is nonetheless an important look into the worldview of liberal women.

In her provocative new book,The Beauty Bias: The Injustice of Appearance in Law and Life, Stanford law professor Deborah Rhode argues that workers deserve legal protection against appearance-based discrimination unless their looks are directly relevant to their job performance. [...]

Considering that leftists rant about racism, sexism, heteronormativity, cisgendierism, ableism, classism, ageism, and sizism I am not surprised that some feminist law professor wants to ban "lookism." In case anyone's curious, this is what the anti-lookist professor looks like.

It should go without saying that discrimination on the basis of appearance is unjust, especially when it comes to features individuals have little or no control over.

Actually, it should not go without saying. Only a liberal woman could write such an ignorant statement. Does she realize that, barring an odd fetish, even the most feminized, beta, herb liberal mangina still would have a much more positive reaction to a 9 model than he would an obese 2? If discriminating on the basis of appearance is unjust, then as physical appearances tend to be very important to men when selecting a mate, most men are unjust.

She is incorrect when she claims that people have little or no control over their appearances. They can become fat if they are sedentary and eat too much. They can stay fit if they exercise and eat right. They can become muscular if they lift weights (among other things).

Aside from exercising, there are plenty of ways to change your appearance. Buying new clothing can enhance your appearance. Hair dye gives you a new hair color. Make-up improves womens' faces (and mens' in some cultures). Fair women can tan. Dark women can use skin lightener.

Prior to feminism's triumph, women did a lot of things to improve their appearances. They took care of themselves; they wore make-up when going out; they wore skirts, dresses, and jackets; they wore feminine hats; they wore stockings; etc. It's only up until recently in Western history that women have taken to not caring about their appearances.

Also, it doesn't take that much work to avoid becoming obese. I'm a computer nerd, a member of a group not known for physical prowess, yet I exercise daily. It really is not very hard.

Rhode does a good job of spelling out why such bias is offensive to human dignity and equal opportunity. [...]

Equal opportunity sounds nice on paper, but in reality it doesn't work. Everyone is not equal. Some people are stronger, smarter, faster, smaller, larger, more dominant, or more attractive than others. No amount of liberal social engineering and legislation can change this.

The increasing prevalence of obesity in America has done nothing to curb virulent prejudice against fat people. Ironically, immobilizing obesity is protected as a disability, but discrimination based purely on cosmetic aversion to fat is totally legal.

It is perfectly legal because most people, even liberal manginas, think women who look like they could wrestle a bear and win are disgusting.

In one study, 43 percent of overweight women reported feeling stigmatized by their employers.

As they should be. If the remaining stigmas against fat were destroyed, most women in America would probably become lard buckets. Most men would too, for that matter.

Obese women earn 12 percent less than their thinner counterparts with comparable qualifications. Obese women are more likely to live in poverty, even after controlling for other factors.

So, why shouldn't women who take care of themselves be rewarded? Obesity is largely a result of lack of self control and absence of willpower. People with no self-control are more likely to waste their money, so it is obvious that they will be more likely to end up in poverty.

Her most egregious assault on reality comes with this statement:

Rhode notes that beauty bias also exacerbates and perpetuates other kinds of discrimination. Female workers are held to more elaborate grooming standards than their male counterparts. [...]

What universe is she living in? At every level, men are held to higher grooming standards than women. Many lower-class retail/service jobs prohibit men from having long hair, whereas I've never heard of any employer prohibiting short, dykish haircuts on women.

Workplace appearance standards in general are stricter regarding men than women. Ties are often required in service industry jobs, yet they are not for women (this is not considered discrimination by the government, although it's a guarantee that the reverse would be). Many workplaces specify attire for men, but allow women to basically wear anything except jeans. In workplaces requring professional dress, the men will be covered from the neck down with jackets, ties, slacks, button-down shirts, close-toed shoes, and socks, while women can get away with wearing sleeveless shirts, garments that are essentially T-shirts, no jackets, skirts with bare legs, and sandals.

There's a lot of overlap between appearance discrimination and racism. Some have speculated that coworkers perceived Lorenzana in a more sexualized way because she's Latina. Stereotypically Anglo-European features like smooth hair, slim hips, and pert noses loom large in our prevailing beauty ideals.

Is there anything liberals dislike that is not racist? And what is "Anglo-European"? I've never heard that word before. Is that a term referring to English people residing on the Continent?

There's a class component in beauty bias, too. A gleaming smile engineered by an orthodontist is a badge of membership in the middle class. As we all know, poverty increases the risk of obesity.

So not only is appearance discrimination racist, but it's classist, too! It's like a discrimination doubleheader.

Also, poverty doesn't increase the risk of obesity. Ultimately, low IQ causes both since people with low IQs are likely to have low time preferences and poor decision-making skills. Not that I'd expect a liberal feminist to acknowledge that.

Rhode acknowledges that the law can only do so much to mitigate the effects of such deep-seated prejudices, but she argues that the enormity of the problem is no excuse for inaction. Sexism, racism and homophobia are certainly ingrained, but that doesn't mean that the law is powerless against them. As segregationists said in the era of Brown, you can't legally force people not to be bigots. On the other hand, when you discourage people from acting like bigots, tolerance can become a habit.

So because the War Against Racism has gone very well, we should extend it to battling the evils of appearance discrimination. Fifty years ago, blacks and whites went to separate schools, lived in separate neighborhoods, and worshiped at separate churches. Today, it's the same, if not worse since in the 1950s most blacks weren't born to single women. A War Against Appearance Discrimination would be even more ineffective, since it would be difficult to prevent someone from having a visceral reaction upon seeing a bloated, obsese colossus or a woman who got smacked with an ugly stick.

Most people with racist views like myself are not biologically hardwired to view blacks as prone to crime or to view Asians as excelling in school (remember, even positive stereotypes are bad!). These views come from statistical evidence and personal experience. However, as Beyerstein notes in her article, even infants have a more positive reaction to people with attractive faces. Appearance discrimination is part of our biology.

Even after a couple decades of brainwashing schoolchildren with "body acceptance" propaganda, it still exists. Feminists will be unable to eradicate it from our society, no matter how much they try. All they will do is attack another aspect of freedom of association and thrust upon us another destructive bureaucracy.

In modern America, it is unacceptable to hold women to any form of standards related to sexuality, including appearance. Combined with the elite's veneration of equality no matter how absurd and laws against appearance discrimination are the natural consequence.

However, I think there's a more personal motive in Beyerstein's article on appearance discrimination. She's the blond in the picture below.

Upcoming Posts

2010-07-23T16:16:00.000-05:00

My posting has been sparse recently. I've been working on several posts to make up for it, which I will finish and post soon. Topics I intend to cover include:

-Apperance discrimination laws.
-"Slut-shaming."
-How the education system beta-izes boys.
-Why conservative Europhobia is misguided and aspects in which Europe is better than America.

Somewhere in the near future, I'm going to be writing another post about the double standard regarding female violence in the media (I originally intended to do so a month ago as a response to this article, but will wait until after the Angelina Jolie grrrl power movie Salt comes out) and one about women in video games and fantasy fiction (inspired by Ferdinand's post).

White Music

2010-07-21T03:20:00.013-05:00

I hate most modern music. It consists of ghetto blacks and negrified whites talking about committing perverted sex acts, going to "da club," and abusing creative drugs. When I'm in the car I listen to the local rock station, but their music is too white trash for me and ultimately much rock music is black music. When I'm at home, I listen to folk rock and metal. I especially like symphonic metal. It's quite refreshing compared to the jetsam radio stations toss out.

Unfortunately, most whites would rather give their money to blacks, wiggers, and Jews rather than their own people and they would rather listen to a Negro guttersnipe chant about "supersoak(ing) dat ho" than songs rich in their own history.

Below are some of the songs and bands that I am fond of. They are mostly by European bands, since apparently that's how far you have to go to avoid ghetto black influence.

Unless you are a linguist you won't understand the lyrics - this band often sings in Gaulish. Eluveitie is a Swiss folk metal band that plays with not only modern instruments, but also traditional Celtic instruments.

Here's another song from Eluveitie, albeit in English. This has the screaming vocals common in death metal. But you can also hear the traditional instruments pretty well.

If you don't like the primeval vocals, here's an instrumental version of one of their songs.

Here's a Swedish folk metal band called Asynja. Their songs are usually about Norse mythology.

They also have explicitly white nationalist songs, such as this one.

Here's one by the Swedish band Ultima Thule. It's an interesting rendition of the Civil War song, When Johnny Comes Marching Home.

Speaking of When Johnny Comes Marching Home, here's an instrumental version. Of course, since there are no lyrics it could also be For Bales.

I'm generally not a fan of country music, but I'll make an exception for Johnny Cash. Here's him singing Ghost Riders in the Sky.

Here's a rock version of it by the Outlaws.

Moving back to metal, this is from the gothic metal band Sirenia.

Some symphonic metal from the Finnish band Nightwish.

Here's another song by the same band.

Yet another. The female vocals are nice to listen to once you get tired of listening to death metal screams.

Here's their cover of The Phantom of the Opera.

This is a song about Valkyries by the Finnish band Amberian Dawn.

The songs above are examples of what happens when music is created by those on the right half of the bell curve rather than by the flotsam of society.

Roissy's Dating Market Value Test

2010-07-19T22:22:00.005-05:00

Dr. Helen wrote about Roissy's Dating Market Value Test For Women and her score, so I decided to take Roissy's test for men and it revealed (unsurprisingly) that I am a "classic beta."

Has anyone else taken one of Roissy's Dating Market Value Tests? If so, what did you score?

The Tea Party Movement is Worthless

2010-07-18T22:10:00.003-05:00

After the NAACP condemned "elements" of the Tea Party movement as racist, a Tea Party activist named Mark Williams wrote a hilarious letter mocking the NAACP and black political views in general (read the text here). Predictably, the Tea Party leaders are upset about this and expelled his group from the National Tea Party Federation.

Despite his expulsion, liberals and blacks will continue to call the Tea Party racist. Anyone who disagrees with blacks and wants to take their goodies away will be labeled a racist. They do so because they understand that whites are afraid of being called a racist and will do everything they can to avoid being called one.

Until the Tea Party movement becomes unfazed when it is called racist, it will accomplish nothing. A Tea Party movement that panders to blacks makes about as much sense as a Sinn Fein that wants to establish the Anglican church or a Geert Wilders who supports Islamic immigration.

Questions for Liberal Men and Male Feminists

2010-07-16T04:50:00.007-05:00

Every so often I get comments on this blog from liberal men, so if any of you are reading this post, I have a few questions for you:

Have you ever been slapped, hit, punched, kicked, or otherwise physically abused by a girlfriend, wife, or other close female?

If so, what was your reaction (i.e. walked away, apologized to her, slapped her back)?

Did she suffer any consequences for her behavior (i.e. she was arrested for DV, you left her)?

I doubt any will answer, but hopefully some do as I'm genuinely interested in responses.

Mel Gibson is a Race Realist

2010-07-10T00:45:00.004-05:00

Mel Gibson was in an argument with his Russian ex-girlfriend Oksana Grigorieva and told her "You look like a fucking pig in heat and if you get raped by a pack of niggers, it will be your fault."

Naturally, he accused of being a racist and misogynist. He's a misogynist because he dared to argue with a woman and criticize her appearance and behavior, something that men are not allowed to do in gynocentric America. He also warned her that she is not blameless for anything that might happen to her due to her actions. That is also forbidden in gynocentric America, since women should be able to do anything without facing any possible consequences.

If the smug liberal media and gossip columnists would consult the United States Department of Justice's study, Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2007, they would find that his racism is quite logical. In 2007, there were at least 14,093 white women raped by black men (I write "at least" because in 13.1% of rapes of white women, the race of the rapist was unknown or not available). The same year, between zero and ten black women were raped by white men. The 2007 survey does not list percentages of victims of gang rape by race, but does for offenders. There were approximately 8310 gang rapes in 2007 and 2/3 were committed by blacks, although the sample size for gang rape was less than 10. Oksana's chances of getting raped by a pack of men are low, but if it does happen, chances are that pack will indeed consist of, as Mel would say, "niggers."

Yes, he used the word "nigger." But he wasn't giving a public speech, this was a private conversation that was recorded. Furthermore, blacks appear to not find the word itself offensive, as they use "nigger" as a autonym and it makes up a substantial portion of the average Ebonics speaker's word choice. It just offends them when whites utter the word. It's a way for blacks to hold power over whites by making an entire word forbidden to our people, while they may use it freely.

Another White Knight Gets Himself Hurt

2010-07-07T16:34:00.004-05:00

A few months ago, feminists were upset over an ABC News experiment that sought to see whether people would intervene in domestic violence cases, as it was revealed that people were more likely to help non-slutty women. What the feminists overlooked is that there are many good reasons to not intervene in a domestic violence situation. First, women commit domestic violence about as often as men (yes, "ladies," slapping your boyfriend counts as domestic violence), so if someone intervenes and helps the woman, they might actually be helping the abuser. Second, many women return to or otherwise support their abusers, as long as they possess sufficient alphaness, so intervening could be utterly fruitless.

Finally, intervening in a domestic violence incident involving strangers can be physically dangerous. You might be arrested by the police, as Rob Chilson of Trenton, NJ, was when he intervened when a man hit is ex-wife after she slapped him (apparently he wasn't bothered by her slapping her ex-husband). Or you might be beaten by the man you attempt to stop and end up hospitalized, as Matthew Leone was a few days ago. Leone is the bassist in an alternative rock band and had a Wikipedia page even before this incident. I wonder if he'll be able to continue his career missing a third of his skull.

He's a certified white knight, as his brother Nathan told the reporter:

He walked about half way there and witnessed a guy beating on his wife. Where we come from, violence against women is absolutely disgusting,

I don't have much sympathy for Leone. It's clear he was a deluded white knight who thought he was doing his chivalrous duty by saving the fair maiden from the evildoer. Instead, the woman will probably end up standing by her man and all Leone will get out of it is brain surgery.

(H/T: Vox Day)

White Men Are Responsible For America's Gun Problems

2010-07-02T15:30:00.008-05:00

Predictably, liberal bloggers have reacted to McDonald v. Chicago with an array of ignorant, poorly written screeds. There are good reasons to be skeptical of McDonald, but the liberal reaction generally involves bashing white men and gun culture. The article below is a good example. It was written by Mark Karlin, the editor of BuzzFlash, a ~~socialist~~ progressive website.

If you think the 5-4 partisan hack decision denying the City of Chicago the right to ban handguns is about guns, you're wrong.

Governments do not have rights. They exist to protect rights that people have.

(It's the same 5-4 GOP block -- with some face changes -- that put Bush in the White House and bestowed Corporate Personhood in the Citizens United Case, in short a radical right activist majority of judges.)

True, there have been a few decisions such as Bush v. Gore that appear to be conservative judicial activism, but the number of liberal judicial activist cases dwarfs the number of conservative ones by a couple orders of magnitude.

It's about white males in America feeling threatened by becoming a minority and the gun is their last psychological reassurance of entitlement power against an encroaching demographic change in our democracy.

Two paragraphs in, Mark Karlin reveals himself to be a self-hating mangina. That's pretty awful, considering that most liberal white men are capable of doing so in the first paragraph.

Liberals love to psychoanalyze everything and accuse conservatives of being mentally ill. Has it ever occurred to them that maybe they are the ones who are mentally ill?

Also, why would white males be threatened by becoming a minority? We already are only about 33% of the population of the United States.

After all, the City of Chicago allows citizens to own rifles, so there never was a ban on guns in Chicago; there was a ban on a certain type of gun, which didn't even exist at the time the Constitution was written.

Chicago banned handguns, which were invented long before any of the Founding Fathers were even born. Pistols were used by cavalry since at least the 1500s. Gun grabbers are generally ignorant of guns and Ms. Karlin proves herself to be no exception.

But it is the handgun that makes so many white males feel impregnable, as if they were riding around with a turret gun in a Hummer.

I don't think she knows what the word "impregnable" means. Guns don't make you impregnable, body armor does (not against all rounds, though).

It's a vestige of the Confederacy; "I'm a white man and that allows me to do whatever I want and get away with it, so don't mess with me."

In addition to being ignorant of firearm history, she is also ignorant of American history. Gun ownership is not a vestige of the Confederacy. The Confederacy existed roughly seventy years after the Second Amendment was put into effect.

It's not about the Constitution; it's about a hormonal psychology under siege.

No, "hormonal psychology under siege" is when a forty-year old woman decides to stop chasing alphas and get married, only to discover that the men her age who would make good husbands are sleeping with 20-year olds. Gun ownership is about self-defense, freedom from tyranny, and just having fun.

Meanwhile, the presence of handguns in America causes more deaths than our wars -- and few politicians or corporate media will do anything but giving passing note to the carnage.

The reason why American cities are violent is not due to guns, it is due to the fact that they are filled with blacks and Mexicans, who commit disproportionate amounts of crime compared to whites and Asians.

Why? Because the white male is still too big of a voter block to psychologically "mess with." Even Harry Reid, the Democractic Majority Leader in the Senate, sent out a news release applauding the Supreme Court for overturning the ban on handguns in Chicago and "upholding the 2nd Amendment."

In 1993, the Democratic-controlled Congress passed the Brady Bill. In September 1994, the Democrats passed the Federal Assault Weapons Ban. The next month, in part due to their enthusiastic support for gun control, the Republicans took control of the House, the Senate, and a majority of state legislatures. Harry Reid, despite his flaws, is not stupid. He realizes that if the Democrats go on the offensive against guns in an election year, they will suffer losses at the ballot box as a result. And it's not just white men who would vote against the Democrats. While unmarried women vote Democratic, married white women tend to vote Republican.

As America becomes more diverse in race and religion, the white male psyche becomes more frantic in need of "firearms reassurance."

Despite her anti-white misandry, Ms. Karlin does have a point. As America becomes blacker and browner, crime will increase and there is the real possibility that eventually some blacks and mestizos might decide to "cut down the tall trees." Widespread gun ownership among whites would deter that.

And the death toll mounts as a result.

She is correct again. As America diversifies, the death toll will indeed mount. "Diversity + proximity = war." Not to mention the fact that the people who are diversifying America have a higher propensity for crime and violence than the people of pre-diverse America.

BuzzFlash doesn't think Jesus would walk around shoulder holstered and locked and loaded. The Supreme Court has just changed one of our nation's mottos from "In God We Trust" to "In Guns We Trust."

It's perfectly sensible to trust in guns more than God. As Napoleon noted, "God fights on the side with the best artillery."

Also, I think it's hilarious that liberals disdainfully bash Christianity and refer to Christian conservatives as "Christofascists," yet they have no problem using Jesus to promote liberalism.

America's First Lady and Russia's First Lady

2010-06-30T15:42:00.007-05:00

When Barrack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev were meeting, Michelle Obama took Medvedev's wife, Svetlana Medvedeva, to a performance at Duke Ellington School of the Arts. Above is a picture of them at that event.

I was going to write a post regarding Michelle Obama and her "style" (which the fashionistas are undoubtedly busy fawning over), but I think I'll let the picture speak for itself.

DR Congo Turns 50

2010-06-30T00:00:00.001-05:00

Fifty years ago today (June 30, 1960), the present-day Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly called Zaire) gained independence from Belgium. I wonder if the people of the DR Congo really think they are better under African kleptocrats than they were under Belgian colonialists.

"Street Harassment" Public Safety Alert in Toronto

2010-06-28T16:55:00.001-05:00

From the Globe and Mail:

June 17: Public Safety Alert, Suspicious man

"It is reported that: - a man has been approaching women in these parks, attempting to start conversations with them, while not criminal in nature, the conversations have generally consisted of the women’s physical characteristics, asking them their names or invitations to attend restaurants."

At first I was going to write a post criticizing the police for wasting time on "street harassment" cases. Then it occurred to me that Canadian cities have certain differences compared to their American counterparts. The fact that Toronto is populated mostly by whites and Asians, rather than blacks and Mexicans, being one of them. Apparently, when the police don't have to respond to ten homicides and dozens of shootings every weekend, they have different priorities.

Dress Codes for Women are a Joke

2010-06-24T19:21:00.005-05:00

Ever since "business casual" became popular in the 1990s, work dress codes have essentially become male-only. Women's only restrictions could be summed as "no bare breasts, midriff, or groin."

Take Disney for example. For years Disney's dress code for its employees was described as "conservative," which in the gynocentric, feminized liberal media means "women are expected to dress like they are not at work, not a nightclub." A few days ago, Disney apparently decided that they were wrong to hold women to any standards in appearance:

Disney theme parks' dress coder relaxed
Female employees don't have to wear pantyhose with skirts anymore, unless the leg wear is part of a costume.
By Hugo Martín and Jason Garcia
June 16, 2010
Reporting from Los Angeles and Orlando, Fla. —

Chalk one up for women who work at Disney theme parks: They don't have to wear pantyhose anymore.

In the biggest change to the company's appearance code in a decade, the Walt Disney Co. has decided to let most female employees at Disney theme parks worldwide, including the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, forgo pantyhose when wearing skirts.

Although it may seem a trivial change in any other business, the relaxing of dress codes at Disneyland is a significant move considering that founder Walt Disney was adamant about making sure all employees maintained a well-groomed, all-American look.

"That clean-cut look never went out of style as far as Walt Disney was concerned," said David Koenig, the author of four books on Disneyland and a regular writer for http://www.mouseplanet.com, a website about the Disney parks.

Koenig recounts a time in the 1970s when some Disneyland managers brandished rulers to ensure that employees' sideburns and hair length met strict grooming standards.

But since then, the company has regularly revisited and relaxed its appearance and dress codes. The last major change to the policy came in 2000 when the company let male employees wear mustaches. Disney tweaked its guidelines again a few years later by allowing male employees to style their hair in cornrows.

Disney officials said the latest change, announced companywide May 28, was prompted by a routine review of company guidelines and a comparison with the dress codes of other Fortune 500 corporations.

"We continuously evaluate our appearances," Disneyland spokeswoman Betsy Sanchez said. "We are trying to stay relevant."

The decision to permit female employees to forgo pantyhose applies to most Disney employees, except where the leg wear is part of a particular costume, such as the outfit for characters such as Tinker Bell or Alice from Alice in Wonderland.

Among the 20,000 or so employees at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim, the changes will apply mostly to staff who work in offices or behind the scenes at the park.

Among other changes to the code, women will for the first time be permitted to wear sleeveless tops — though in typically restrictive Disney fashion, only if the shoulder straps are at least 3 inches wide. Female employees also will be allowed to wear Capri pants and sling-back shoes that also have open toes.

Men, meanwhile, will now be allowed to wear untucked, casual shirts.

This "dress code" like most modern American dress codes for working women is a joke. Note that under Disney's new dress code women can wear sleeveless shirts, capris, skirts with bare legs, and sandals. They can basically wear whatever they want (except shorts, it would appear). That's not professional looking - that's casual. And keep in mind that this is the dress code at a "conservative" company. But of course, "conservative" means "what was liberal ten or fifteen years ago."

Men, in contrast, are now finally allowed to wear untucked shirts, although women were probably doing that at Disney for years before. But even with untucked (presumably collared) shirts, men will still be wearing slacks, socks, and dress shoes, which look a lot more professional than what the women will be wearing.

The headline writer made a big deal over the fact that women don't have to wear nylons anymore (Disney was probably one of the few places left to require women to wear them after bare legs became ubiquitous throughout the 2000s). Nylons make women look professional and polished, improving their image. Of course, American women stopped caring about their appearances long ago, except to make themselves look sluttier, so it's understandable why they are happy about not having to wear them anymore.

Don't mistake me for a prude. I have no problem with women wearing revealing clothing in general and I'm probably less prudish than most Americans in some ways. For example I wouldn't have a problem with women going topless on American beaches as many do in Europe. But I think that there is a time and place for such clothing. Work is not one of them. If men are capable of dressing professionally, then women should be to.

It really shouldn't be surprising that so many companies have nonexistent dress codes for women. HR departments are run by women, like the spokeswoman quoted, who are to busy "trying to stay relevant" with the latest Sex and the City styles than to hold women to any sort of professional appearance standards. That just wouldn't be fashionable. And corporate men are probably too afraid to hold women to any sort of appearance standards, for various reasons.

Professional jobs are becoming more and more feminized as America reverts to a 21st century female farming system matriarchy. Combine this with the fact that young American women have sluttiness ingrained into them from the time they are kids and it's easy to see why corporations don't (or are unable to) hold women to appearance and dress standards anymore.

When Black Knights Attack

2010-06-21T14:42:00.006-05:00

By now, the video of the black girl being punched by a Seattle police officer has been commented on by innumerable bloggers, reporters, and writers. What most of them fail to note is that the police officer did not punch the girl for no reason - he did so after she shoved him when he was arresting her friend.

Liberals, libertarians, blacks, and feminists are uproarious, attacking the police officer for his "excessive use of force," "police brutality," "racism," etc.

They really should just admit that they are upset because a man hit a woman. If a man - even a black man - had shoved a police officer and received a punch to the face, there would be no news stories, no YouTube videos, and no blog posts ranting about the police.

Ashkenazi Jews Protest In Support of School Segregation...

2010-06-19T13:43:00.006-05:00

... in Israel.

In some ways, Israeli Jews function as foils to American Jews. While American Jews almost uniformly believe "diversity is our strength," Israeli Jews do not. Not only can they not get along with the Arabs, but some can't even get along with members of other Jewish ethnic divisions.

A few days ago, thousands of ultra-Orthodox Ashkenazi Jews protested in Jerusalem against the integration of a girls' school, which forced their girls to go to school with Sephardi girls:

Parents of European, or Ashkenazi, descent at a girls' school in the West Bank settlement of Emanuel don't want their daughters to study with schoolgirls of Mideast and North African descent, known as Sephardim.
The Ashkenazi parents insist they aren't racist, but want to keep the classrooms segregated, as they have been for years, arguing that the families of the Sephardi girls aren't religious enough.
Israel's Supreme Court rejected that argument, and ruled that the 43 sets of parents who have defied the integration efforts by keeping their daughters from school were to be jailed on Thursday for two weeks.

Haaretz's article contained a revealing passage:

Thirty-five men, fathers to the Ashkenazi girls attending an illegally segregated school in the West Bank settlement of Immanuel, arrived at the Ma'asiyahu prison earlier Thursday evening to serve a two-week sentence.

But two other fathers and 22 mothers also sentenced failed to show at the Jerusalem police headquarters as ordered by the court.

Both mothers and fathers were ordered to prison, but the all of the mothers are failing to report. Part of civil disobedience is accepting your punishment, but apparently the women disagree. I wouldn't be surprised if the courts end up dropping the charges against the women. Remember, women are never responsible for their actions - men are.

Anyways, this is yet another example of the fact that diversity is not a strength. Instead, it sows discord and conflict wherever it is found.

Templates

2010-06-18T13:50:00.001-05:00

I got tired of the default "simple" template, so I'm experimenting with this black and white one. Any thoughts on it or alternate templates?

Why I Am Not a Conservative, Part II

2010-06-16T12:49:00.024-05:00

In the past five years, I've read countless articles and blog posts by paleoconservatives, libertarian-conservatives, constitutionalists, and "traditional conservatives" arguing that the Republicans are not authentic or true conservatives. These arguments strike me as similar to old English teachers who obsess over the use of "who" and "whom." In both cases, they fail to realize that words change. "Conservatism" may have once meant limited government, but it now does not mean that

I probably should have written my original post better, as most of the readers of this blog are probably self-described conservatives, rather than self-described libertarians. I should have focused on the hypocrisy of conservatives (i.e. supporting war while calling for lower taxes, attacking gay marriage while their 17-year old unmarried daughters get pregnant). I also should have focused more on my first criticism of conservatism and how it is a baseless, shifting, incoherent ideology. I also should have made it clear that I don't have a problem with paleoconservatives (although some of my criticisms would undoubtedly apply to them), but rather the mainstream conservatives.

Anyways, I have a lot to respond to. First, I will do so to Justin of The Truth Shall Set You Free:

For example, I would think you would agree that cultural and social libertarianism are abject failures, in fact, totally disgusting and destructive in their support of sexual deviance, for example.

I would argue that there really isn't such a think as social libertarianism. Libertarians believe that people should be free from government interference, but that doesn't mean they have to support the actions they perform.

Clearly, libertarians also fall under condemnation number seven, also being blind on racial issues, and they default to blaming minority pathologies on government programs rather than facing biological realities.

True, although during the 90s, the Rothbardians and Ron Paul understood race. Many of LewRockwell.com's columns from its first year (2000) hinted that their writers understood race - they even had a Rhodesian Bush War veteran write for them. Also, libertarians don't praise diversity to the extent that conservatives do.

As for number eight, don't libertarians also worship democracy? I can't think of any libertarian theorists who have suggested anything else, can you?

Hans-Hermann Hoppe, an Austrian economist and libertarian theorist, wrote a book called Democracy: The God that Failed, eviscerating the concept of democracy. His work is well received on LewRockwell.com, probably the most popular libertarian website. Most libertarians are critical of the 17th Amendment, including the beltway Cato Institute.

Can libertarians claim to have better moral values? Aside from Christian libertarians like Ron Paul, the only other libertarian morality I can think of is Ayn Rand-style Objectivist elevation of selfishness. Which of course lead us into the acceptance of all the moral degeneracy that makes cultural libertarianism attractive to the Left.

I was not saying that libertarians, conservatives, or liberals have better moral values than the others. I was critical of the fact that conservatives use "moral values" as a rallying cry, even though they have no better moral values than people of other political groups.

As for libertarian women's sluttiness, well, I dunno, are there women libertarians? :-) You must admit, they are few and far between. In my own sample, for what it's worth, the girls I knew who were into Ayn Rand were total sluts, and often consciously proud of it.

Female libertarians are rare. Some of them are almost hipster-ish, and hipster girls often seem less slutty than other women. But my criticism is that conservative women, especially young ones, are no less slutty than liberal ones, despite the fact that conservatives attack liberal culture for its sluttiness.

Maybe just being overly semantic here, but saying paleoconservatives aren't conservatives seems a bit unwarranted. In fact, as you seem to recognize, you fit the bill rather squarely as a paleoconservative yourself. I would say you are either a paleocon, or simply Radical Reactionary.

I don't think that paleocons are not conservatives. I just think that when most people imagine conservatives, they aren't thinking of Pat Buchanan and Jared Taylor, they are thinking of Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck, the kind of people who possess the views and characteristics I criticized.

foseti:

Many of these points apply just as well to libertarians, yet you call yourself a libertarian.

I'd be curious to know why you are ok with the libertarian label.

Only 5 and 7 apply to many libertarians. I'm okay with just being labeled a libertarian because there isn't a term for a race realist who holds libertarian views.

Professor Hale (Rebellion University) wrote an extensive post to argue against my post. My response follows. The numbers in parenthesis were added by me and refer to which of my original points he quoted (I excised the quotations to cut down on the length of this post).

(1)You have made the fallacious argument that the core values of conservatism are unworthy because the practitioners of conservatism do not uphold those values. You are right to point out that censorship and the police state are not conservative values. But your proper conclusion should be that those people who claim to be conservative are not really practicing what they preach.

The problem is, what are conservative values? If you say support for limited government, peace, and liberty, with respect for every person's right to life, liberty, and property, then that would describe libertarianism. American conservatism seems to be a cacophony of various, contradicting ideas.

The size of the military budget is always open for debate among conservatives. But again, BEING conservative means opposing big government and higher taxes, even if that results in a smaller military. Being for a strong defense should always be predicated upon how much is necessary. I, as a conservative, claim we could certainly do with a lot less. A LOT LESS. See? That wasn’t so hard. The fact that other so-called conservatives are for expanding military budgets does not make me any less of a conservative. Conservative principles are against military adventurism, but FOR a strong national defense. Reasonable people can argue about where the boundary is between the two, but the principle is still sound and those who uphold the principle are no less conservative for doing so.

And how many conservative politicians or activists support gutting the military budget? Other than the paleons, none. Instead, they attack Obama for his cuts to the military budget. None of the Tea Partiers, save libetarians, have broached the issue of stupidity cutting taxes while maintaining an empire. Militarism is a tenet of modern American conservatism.

(2)Here you have mistaken the people of the military and its institution with the political powers that control it. It is virtuous to serve others at risk to yourself. Many of those in the military do so at great risk (notably those in the Army in Iraq and Afghanistan). None of those serving in uniform had any say in which countries would be invaded or why. The military service would still be praiseworthy if there were no wars and all of them were at Fort Bragg playing beach volleyball. But according to conservatives, there is no institution IN THE GOVERNMENT more worthy of praise than the military. Conservatives also admire other institutions like industry, church and risk taking. Still, claiming that conservatives "worship" the military is unsupported by your arguments. I tend to think of it as a career choice, like any other. Most of the jobs in the military are just jobs and no more praise-worthy than any other productive employment. The military police is equal in merit to the county sheriff. The nurse at the military hospital is equal in merit to the one at the local clinic.

Worship was hyperbole, but is not far from it. Last year, when Obama slightly cut the military budget, conservatives online and on talk radio were yelling about it for days. Conservatives often attack liberals and libertarians for being "anti-military." Don't forget the early days of the Iraq War, where they were accusing anyone who opposed the disaster as being "anti-American."

The US military is inescapably a part of the federal government. Despite being the most conservative part of the government, as evidenced by surveys of its members, it cannot escape the full control of politicians in congress and politically appointed leaders, who tend to be distinctively not conservative. The military is in no way more PC than other federal or state government agencies. The military is likely the only place in the country where it is still OK to discriminate against gays (for the time being).

Discrimination against gays is still legal in some states, although if a major company discriminated against gays they would end up getting boycotted by liberals. But military has lower physical standards for women than men. That strikes me as being a lot more politically correct than mere affirmative action in civilian departments, considering that physical strength and endurance is necessary in many parts of the military.

(3) I suspect your religious views are a lot less complex than you think they are, but they are not really relevant to this topic. Further, your provably incorrect view of Christianity being detrimental is likewise not relevant. What makes them so is that your initial statement “Conservatives are Christian” is only a half truth. Not all conservatives are Christian. Further, not all Christians are conservative. Our current president was elected by a strong majority of liberal church members. Members of Christianity are a widely diverse and energetic group. As such they are both at the forefront of refugee importation and at the forefront of opposing it. Similarly, Christians were at the forefront of upholding slavery and ending it. You would do better by seeking allies where they are. Defending our national sovereignty is a conservative value. The fact that some so-called conservatives fail at this, does not diminish the strength of the principle. Christianity is the largest religion on the planet. It would be foolish to presuppose that that makes all Christians alike, conservative or otherwise.

I don't disagree with what you wrote. But the fact is, conservatives in America are mostly Christian and I am a non-Christian. Thus, another difference between us exists. And where I live, conservatism and Christianity are thoroughly entwined.

(4) No. Politicians, some of whom claimed to be conservatives, expanded the scope and power of the state. Real conservatives opposed this. No child left behind was written by Kennedy (not a conservative) and passed by a majority of liberals in congress. It was signed by a president who was in practice more liberal than Clinton. Faith-based funding never really panned out and was likely nothing more than a fundraising stunt, but its principle goal was conservative: Faith-based organizations should be able to compete to perform public service contracts on the same basis as non-faith-based groups. Equality under the law is a conservative value. Patriot act has always been a red herring. It was overhyped by republicans for its terrorist-busting ability and overhyped by the democrats for its violations of freedom. In reality, it accomplished little and was no more intrusive than existing law. The homeland security act was in no way conservative. So your point is again comparing the acts of liberals as a failure of conservative principles. The principle of smaller, less intrusive government is still sound and is still conservative.

That's starting to sound awfully close like a No true Scotsman fallacy. What exactly is a real conservative? Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity seem like real conservatives to me, yet they supported Bush's government expansion. Regarding NCBL, it passed with overwhelming majorities: 384-45 in the House and 91-8 in the Senate. It wasn't just liberals who supported it. As for the Homeland Security Act, then why did so many conservatives support it if it's not conservative? Paleocons opposed (and continue to oppose) it, yet the mainstream conservatives promoted it.

That is the first time I have heard John McCain described as a conservative. He lost the election against Obama because he was never able to convince his conservative base that he was worth the effort. Conservatives in the Republican party are tired of holding their noses and voting for another establishment republican. So in this case, you are misrepresenting Republicans as conservatives. Alternate realities are pointless to argue about but there has been growing discontent among conservatives throughout the Bush presidency. That discontent directly led to the Obama presidency. If McCain had been elected, the result would have been further conservative discontent.

Conservatives weren't very discontent when Bush, who was similar to McCain, was in power. Instead they were chanting "Four more years!"

Sarah Palin energized the conservative base due to her conservatism. She meets most of the characteristics of conservatism I criticized. I predicted the alternate reality based on past events: the Bush administration. When Bush was increasing the size of the federal government, there were no conservative protests. Sure, there might have been a couple of articles in National Review, but there was no mass movement similar to the Tea Parties.

(5) As you point out, I don’t think any group is innocent of this. That does not refute the conservative principle that the free market is the best means for the distribution of goods and services and it is a conservative principle to restrain government from interfering in the free market.

I agree with that principle. The problem is, many conservatives conflate the free market with corporatism.

(6) You seem to be advocating that conservatives should use the power of the state to force people to accept their own cultural and social standards. That is not a conservative value. The conservative value is that government, even conservative-led government, has no role in shaping the culture. Those roles rightly belong to the church and other voluntary organizations.

No, I don't think that social and cultural conservatives should have used the power of the state to force changes in social standards. However, I think George W. Bush and conservative congressmen could have used their influence to promote their cultural and social standards, just as the Obamas are doing now.

(9)I am not getting your argument here. I am certain that liberals believe that their moral values are superior but since morality is defined by the user and not by any objective source, this can neither be measured nor rationally argued.

Conservatives generally act as if they have better moral values than liberals, but this is a myth, as anyone who has seen self-described conservative college girls on a weekend night can attest. I was criticizing conservative hypocrisy.

Since neocons have proven to be more “neo” than “con”, anything you wish to say about them is not really a good argument against being a conservative.

They were accepted as part of the conservative coalition during the Bush years. Even now they have not been purged. Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and other conservative talk radio hosts can be heard spouting out their talking points daily.

Unless it is their war. BTW, I reject that whole “lying to start a war” BS. But since it is not relevant to your argument I won’t bother to defend it here. The bottom line is that a government that is truthful with its citizens on the major issues facing the nation is a conservative value. All conservatives should embrace that value.

Yet from 2002, conservatives didn't defend government truthfulness as a value.

And your 11th point is another variation on a theme that because some conservatives are not “good conservatives” you can’t be one either.

No, my point was that conservatives tend to be white knights and I am not one, so I have yet another difference with conservatives.

In summary, the significant weight of your argument is that political leaders who are Republican are not upholding conservative principles so you deem the principles themselves at fault. In fact, if you identify with those principles (and you seem to) then YOU are the true and authentic conservative. This is exactly how the other authentic conservatives see it and why they claim to be conservatives, despite the failings of other people. Your arguments against Christianity are weak but in the end not relevant to the discussion of being a conservative.

If you understand what conservative principles are, and support those principles, then you should be a conservative, without regard to what other people, acting on other principles call themselves.

Most of the commenters on Professor Hale's post express an opinion similar to those in his last two paragraphs.

A good example of the stupidity of modern conservatism is South Carolina's 2008 senate election. a paleoconservative Democrat was running against Lindsey Graham. He lost 57-42 because the self-destructive conservatives voted for Amnesty Graham.

Conservatives allegedly wish to "conserve" the status quo. I doubt Professor Hale and the people reading my and his posts want to do so. Do you really want to "conserve" Third World immigration, federal income taxes, the degenerate culture, foreign wars, "civil rights" laws (including the Voting Rights Act), social services, and feminism?

I'm guessing they probably do not. Yet, conservatives do. They are fine with Third World immigration just as long as its done with the permission of the federal government. They may attack America's degenerate culture, while at the same time they partake in its degeneracy (see 9 and 10 in my original post). They may laughingly attack abortion ("Abortion hurts women!"), but they won't confront feminism. Instead, they laud it now with Sarah Palin, Nikki Haley, et al.

It should be obvious by now, in the era of Sarah Palin and the Tea Parties, that conservatism is subjective and its definition varies with time and location. A conservative in modern America is much different from the paleo hero Robert Taft. A conservative in Texas is different than one in New Jersey. A conservative in the 1991 Soviet Union would be considered far left in modern America.

Libertarianism, in contrast, is static with regards to location and time. Peace, limited government, and the rights to life, liberty, and property do not change. While circumstances are different - a 1980 libertarian would have had to advocate against much less government than a 2010 one, the principles are the same. But the principles and goals of the conservative movement are much more dynamic.

Perhaps self-described "conservatives" who support limited government (not just regarding economics), peace, and liberty should cease calling themselves conservatives. They are essentially holding libertarian views.

When Liberals Say They Support Freedom of Speech, They Are Lying

2010-06-15T21:49:00.010-05:00

It's a common view that liberals support freedom of speech (or expression) more so than conservatives. The problem is, liberals care more about discrimination and egalitarianism more than they do freedom of speech, so if someone's speech offends a protected group - racial minorities, women, gays - then they do not support freedom of speech and the offending speech must be suppressed. (I realize that there are people with some left-wing views who are free speech purists, but these people are often left-libertarians rather than liberals.)

Here's yet another example. I found this via a link on Feministing, which led to a site named Sociological Images (as an aside, I took an intro to sociology class four years ago and it would have more accurately been termed "intro to socialism). In ~~New Mogadishu~~ Minneapolis, Minnesota, an ISP named USI Wireless put up billboards saying "Fast, cheap and satisfaction guaranteed." A woman named Stacey Burns of Minneapolis (who has an online trail as a feminist activist and Obama campaigner, and is married to this guy) saw one of them, took a picture, posted it on her Facebook. The caption she put is:

"USI Wireless is a pimp. This is how they're selling their wireless service in Minneapolis. Give them a call at 952.253.3262 (Option 1) or email: info@usiwireless.com. When I called, they assured me that they did some test marketing and everybody loved it, but the 100,000 American girls sexually trafficked in the US with an initial recruitment age of 11-14 might not guffaw quite as loudly as the focus group did."

So there you have it. If you put up a billboard that makes a joking reference to cheap hookers, you're a pimp and inconsiderate towards child sexual abuse victims!

Thanks to Burns, the billboards eventually gained the attention of City Council member Gary Schiff (e-mail), a women's studies major (no, I'm not joking), who was unsurprisingly offended and "then talked to city staff, who told him they had been talking to USI's founders for three days but had gotten nowhere. Schiff also called USI, but said his calls were never returned."

Another councilwoman, Elizabeth Glidden (e-mail), joined in: "My message to them was, 'I hope you're taking these down right now." As a result of the governmental pressure, Clear Channel (the billboard owners) and USI caved and removed the billboards.

Predictably, a few scattered "progressive" websites are heralding this as a victory. After all, if they find something offensive, it must be shut down. American Renaissance discovered this a few months ago and Pam Geller is learning this right now.

Can you imagine the reaction if conservative politicians leaned on advertisers to not put up billboards they considered to be blasphemous? It would be a national story in the liberal media, with commentators rushing to condemn the conservatives for their assault on freedom of speech. The conservative politicians would then apologize and withdraw their criticisms.

But when two liberal city government leaders pressure a private company to take down an ad they find offensive, it only garners a few local news articles and posts on liberal websites. This is how liberals work - they slowly take away our freedom and the media ignores it. When whites start getting arrested for "hate speech," the liberal media will probably ignore it, too.

The next time a Republican is in power, libertarians should remember stories like this before allying with liberals against conservatism statism. Despite what they claim, liberals do not support freedom of speech. They are its enemy.

Why I Am Not a Conservative

2010-06-14T19:35:00.009-05:00

Libertarians in general are often confused with conservatives. With my particularly reactionary views on race and gender, I wouldn't be surprised if I'm mistaken for a conservative by some. I reject that label for several reasons, some of which I have listed below.

***

1. Conservatism is an incoherent ideology.
Like liberalism, conservatism is characterized by cognitive dissonance. Conservatives claim to support limited government, but they also support wars, censorship, the police state, and anything else that increases the scope of the enforcement arm of the government. Also, when was the last time you heard a conservative politician other than Ron Paul seriously advocate abolishing most of the federal government, social services, and income taxes?

Conservatives claim to oppose big government and taxes, but the fact is, due to the giant military budget, it will be impossible to drastically cut the size of the federal government and federal taxes without cutting the military budget and using the military solely for national defense, rather than foreign adventures.

2. Conservatives worship the military.
According to conservatives, there is no institution more worthy of praise than the United States military. Personally, I don't see what's so praiseworthy about invading countries halfway across the world that pose no threat to us and killing thousands of their citizens. If the military was deployed along the Mexican border, I would support it, but the fact is the US military as it currently exists does not defend America, just the interests of certain Americans.

Also, far from being a conservative institution, the United States military is probably the most PC-infested organization in the United States.

3. Conservatives are Christians.
My religious views are somewhat complex and I will probably write a future post describing them in detail, but for now it suffices that I am not a Christian. I believe that Christianity is a detriment to America and all of white European civilization. It is a global religion, not an ethnic religion, and its adherents are generally at the forefront of the liberal agenda, usually unwittingly (i.e. the refugee importation movement).

4. Conservatives are statists.
The current conservative anti-government sentiment is fraudulent. From January 2001 to January 2009, conservatives did all they could to increase the size of the federal government, from No Child Left Behind and faith-based funding to the Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act. Lew Rockwell aptly dubbed this "red-state fascism."

Conservatives only whine about big government when they are not controlling the government. If John McCain had been elected and expanded the welfare state, there would be no Tea Party protests.

5. Conservatives are corporate sycophants.
This applies to many libertarians, too. While liberal attacks on the free market should be opposed, supporting corporations does not defend the free market. Corporations are a product of the state and many of them, such as the military-industrial complex, subsist entirely on taxpayer dollars, while others are privileged by the state, such as media industries with their Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

6. Cultural and social conservatism are abject failures.
The 2000s were a decade dominated by conservatives. And what happened? Our society moved closer to Idiocracy, our culture became trashier, rap music became accepted by whites, women became sluttier, and our values further declined. The Clintonian 90s were more socially and culturally conservative than the Bush 2000s were.

7. Conservatives are blind on racial issues.
Mainstream conservatives are as liberal on race as any Democrat. They may oppose affirmative action, although many don't, but none will defend freedom of association, nor will any acknowledge human biodiversity and racial differences in IQ.

8. Conservatives worship democracy.
Democracy will probably end up destroying conservatism; as the percentage of nonwhites increases in the United States, the likelihood of the Republicans winning the presidency will decrease (John McCain would have won if 2008 America's demographics were the same as those of 1976 America). Yet, conservatives are so fond of this ideology that will destroy them that they seek to export it.

9. Conservatives don't have better moral values than liberals.
Conservatives, particularly those of the religious variety, fashion themselves as having better moral values than liberals. Indeed, this was one of the main themes of the 2004 election. The fact is, outside of the Left Coast, liberals and conservatives have about the same moral values.

Neocons, in my opinion, have worse moral values than liberals. At least liberals acknowledge that lying to start a war that kills hundreds of thousands of people is wrong.

10. Conservative women are no less slutty than liberal women.
This seems like a minor issue, but I've long been irked by the fact that conservatives blame women's sluttiness on liberalism. The fact is, conservative women are no less slutty than liberal ones, especially young conservative women. Plenty of conservative girls go off to college to become binge-drinking dorm rats and if you take a look at pictures from CPAC, College Republican events, conservative internships, etc., you'll find that just like liberal and apolitical women, young conservative women are incapable of dressing professionally.

Sarah Palin's family is a good example. They are often described as a conservative family, yet her daughter spawned a bastard child. Sarah doesn't exactly dress very conservatively either - last year, as the Huffington Post reported, she wore a short skirt, bare legged, with sandals to a Memorial Day commemoration.

11. Conservative men are usually white knights.
While conservatives acknowledge the damage that feminism has wrought on American society, whenever they discuss one of the consequences of feminism, they inevitably find some way to blame it on men. Just like feminists, they believe that women hold no responsibility for their actions, but that men are to blame for every problem women self-inflict. Many also believe that women are naturally morally superior to men.

For example, when they write about campus hook-up culture, instead of blaming it on college girls being sluts, conservatives blame it on predatory men and claim that it harms young women ("women need relationships," etc.). Same with abortion. Instead of blaming women who have abortions, they blame the abortionists - men like George Tiller.

Conservatives also decry the fact that men have responded to female empowerment by becoming decidedly less chivalrous and often question the manhood of men who are reluctant to risk their lives for ungrateful, empowered women. Christian conservatives especially are critical of the lack of gallantry found in the modern American man (there's even an organization of suicidal men and brainwashed boys dedicated to restoring this - the Christian Boys' & Men's Titanic Society). I remember back in 2007, Christian conservatives were astounded that the men at Virginia Tech on April 16 did not throw themselves at Cho Seung Hui to protect the women in their classes.

***

Note that most of the items on this list do not apply to paleoconservatives, but paleocons have been excommunicated from the official conservative movement. When the word "conservative" is used, people don't think of Pat Buchanan, Alternative Right, and The Political Cesspool, they think of Sarah Palin, George W. Bush, and talk radio.

Diversity is (Not) Our Strength

2010-06-13T19:57:00.003-05:00

Liberals and mainstream conservatives can often be heard repeating the mantra "diversity is our strength." Apparently, no one bothered to tell that to the Kyrgyz, who have driven out 75,000 ethnic Uzbeks from Kyrgystan and killed around 100 people.

Everywhere diversity exists, violence follows. It's only a matter of time before something like this happens in the United States.

Female Sexuality Is Good; Male Sexuality is Bad

2010-06-11T16:11:00.003-05:00

The idea that feminists are hypocrites is probably viewed as an axiom by most of the readers of this blog. One of their greatest hypocrisies is the fact that they attack male sexuality as exploitative, sexist, patriarchal, oppressive, etc., yet at the same time they glorify female sexuality of all kinds.

Over at Feministe, Jill Filipovic posted an entry that is essentially just a picture of World Cup players in their boxers. Now, what do you think would be this cunt's* reaction would be if a magazine posted pictures of female soccer players in their underwear?

That was a rhetorical question, as she would of course lambaste them for "sexism" and "objectifying women."

*Yes, I used the dreaded c-word. Considering that feminists refer to people such as myself as "asshats" and "douchebags," I believe I am justified in referring to them as cunts. Also, I don't fear political correctness.

Fun With Feministing: Lookism Edition

2010-06-10T16:04:00.008-05:00

Yesterday, over at Feministing, Samhita Mukhopadhyay, their token nonwhite, is upset because American Apparel requires you to e-mail them a picture of yourself if you want to work there.

Just When You Thought American Apparel Couldn't Fail Any Harder... They manage to.To work at American Apparel you must email a full body shot to some mysterious email address after which you are approved or rejected. Failure.
Via Gawker.

Clearly, that standard leaves a lot of wiggle room. Now, a source tells us that American Apparel has a new hiring policy. For the past several months, they say, job applicants at AA have had their photos taken--photos which are then sent to the email address work@americanapparel.net, where they are "approved" by a nameless person for hiring. The applicant's resumé is a distant second when it comes to hiring decisions, our source says.
Our source also tells us that a new policy now says that in order for current AA employees to be approved for a promotion or raise, they must also have their photos approved. As they put it, "Your looks determine your position and pay rate, not how effective you are at your job."

Douchey D Charney even had the audacity to say last time he was questioned on judging employees by looks that his employees must, "have good fashion sense...But this does not necessarily mean they have to be physically attractive." What do you have to say for yourself this time? And I have been to American Apparel. If what their employees are wearing is a "good sense of style," then I color me anti-fashion.

Not satisfied with fighting racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, agism, cisgenderism, and ablism, leftists are now fighting against lookism - the practice on judging people based on their physical appearance. I've always wondered, if it's wrong for men to judge women based on their looks, is it wrong for women to judge men based on their alphaness?

However, it's perfectly understandable why Samhita is fighting lookism:

For comparison, here's what she looked like four or five years ago:

Talk about letting yourself go. I guess she decided to fight the lookist patriarchy by making herself ugly, Andrea Dworkin style.

To Any Criminals in the Portland, Oregon, Area

2010-06-09T17:23:00.008-05:00

If you're looking for an easy robbery, stop by the Red and Black Cafe. This left-wing anarchist-owned establishment, located at 400 Southeast 12th Avenue, Portland, Oregon, does not serve police officers, so you won't have to worry about a police officer being present when you rob it. Once you rob it, since the owners hate the police they wouldn't call them and you won't go to jail since they support "community forums" and "restorative justice" instead of punishment. Also, since it's a radical leftist hangout, the feminists and emasculated "men" who work and eat there probably don't carry concealed, so you won't have to worry about getting shot by an employee or customer.

From OregonLive.com:

Showing a policeman the door turned out -- inadvertently -- to be a good business decision for the Red and Black Cafe in Southeast Portland.

The vegan establishment was deluged with customers in the two days after news came out last week that one of the co-owners had served coffee to a Portland police officer, then kicked him out.

"We had a couple of really busy days over the weekend," said John Langley, the co-owner who served Officer James Crooker and asked him to leave. "We had two $1,100 days, which is maybe double a typical day."

The story sparked a fiery response, with national coverage and about 600 comments posted on oregonlive.com. Along with a boost in customers, the cafe has received five threats of arson and other violence.

Many people also expressed outrage at Langley's treatment of Crooker, who's received an outpouring of support on the streets.

All that after buying a quick coffee on May 18. Crooker was walking out of the cafe when he was approached by a customer, Cornelia Seigneur, who said she appreciated the work of Portland police. Langley, who was watching, said seeing a uniformed officer in the cafe made him uncomfortable. So he went up and asked Crooker to leave, which he did.

And that was that, until Seigneur blogged about it, and the story went viral.

Langley said that most of the criticism has come from people threatening never to eat at the cafe. "I think most of those folks are people who had never or would never come to the restaurant," he said.

The cafe hasn't suffered any vandalism or any other attacks, and Langley doesn't expect any, either. "It would be highly ironic if there were because the folks who are the most upset about this are presumably those who are in support of the police," he said, "so it would be weird for them to commit crimes."

Although business has picked up, some customers voiced support for police. "I wouldn't even think twice about it if a police officer came in here for a bite, maybe to make sure things are running OK," said Stacey Tran, who lives in the neighborhood and was at the cafe Monday. "That's part of their job. It's what our tax dollars go toward."

Online commenters have asked what the cafe's seven co-owners would do if they were attacked. Call the police?

"I don't think we are trying to be purists about it," Langley said. "We would prefer that there be some practical alternative to police like community forums for restorative justice, for example."

At a news conference Monday, Langley rejected criticism that he had discriminated against the officer. "In no way does this compare to racial profiling or racism," he said. "A person can choose to be a police officer but a person of color cannot."

Langley said earlier that many of the customers in the cafe, which draws vegans and environmental and animal rights activists, have been victims of harsh police tactics and were worried about police shootings.

A member of Rose City Copwatch, a police monitoring group, backed up that sentiment at the news conference, saying in a statement that Portland police are focused on arresting people "to maintain a status quo that is built along race, class and gender lines."

Still, Langley said police officers are welcome in the cafe out of uniform. "It's not personal," he said.

Nor did Crooker take the incident to heart. In fact, the reaction has been heartening, he said.

He's received calls from police officers from New York and Washington state offering to buy him, even the entire bureau, coffee. Portlanders have approached him on the street offering to treat him to coffee as well.

"Every single police officer in the area has been receiving the same love from the citizens and that's heartwarming," Crooker said.

None of his colleagues is angry about the incident, he said.

"I don't know of any police officers who have any ill will towards the cafe owner or anyone who's involved in this," Crooker said. "Hopefully everyone walks away from this graciously with the lessons that life has taught us and nobody has any bad feelings about anything."

-- Lynne Terry

-- Kate Mather and Shane Dixon Kavanaugh contributed to this story.

I'm a libertarian, so I am sometimes critical of the police, but it is just stupid for a business owner to refuse service to police officers. First, every society, even an all-white libertarian one, would require someone to enforce the law. Also, the presence of police deters crime. This is why many restaurants will give discounts to police officers and why QuikTrip provides them with free donuts. Criminals are less likely to rob a place when there could be a police officer present.

Left-wing anarchofags (it's not so much of a slur as it is an accurate description - I bet most of the workers and customers are lesbian, bisexual, gay, transexual, pansexual, or something else) like these are particularly hypocritical. They hate the police, yet they whine about how horrible the Tea Party movement is for wanting to cut taxes and "social services."

I thought the comment on abolishing the police and supporting "practical alternative to police like community forums for restorative justice" was particularly naive. These anarchofags should be careful what they wish for. If the police were abolished, in Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle, community forums (and high crime rates) would probably result, but in other parts of the country, the police would be replaced with shotgun blasts, beatings, tarring-and-featherings, and nooses. Undoubtably, the anarchofags would complain about this, just as they do whenever a citizen shoots an armed robber.

Instead of hiding behind a facade of anarchism and anti-authoritarianism, the anarchofags should just be honest and admit that they don't hate the police, but instead they love criminals.

Feminist Upset That an Action Movie Contains Violence Against Women

2010-06-08T15:44:00.010-05:00

Back in February, when a feminist remarked on the fact that most speaking roles in films are men, I posted that it was because most of the bad guys are men. I also noted that if filmmakers increased the number of female characters by making female bad guys (bad girls?) for the heroes to kill, feminists would complain about "violence against women."

Over at Feministing, Chloe reviewed Killers and fulfilled my prediction:

Perhaps one of the most upsetting things about this movie is the rather graphic violence against women. It's nice to see women get in on the action, literally: The majority of the assassins who come after Spencer and Jen are women. But it's not nice to note that the assassins who are most brutally killed are women. When the women are killed - impaled on chandeliers made of antlers or shot point-blank - we see it in gory detail, and we see close-ups of their bleeding bodies. When the men are killed, there's no such attention to detail.

I haven't seen Killers so I can't remark on whether or not there really was more gore when women died than men, or if it was just Chloe's perception. Even if it was the case, does it really matter? There are hundreds of films (or more) out there where dozens of men die messily and no women do, so is one film that subverts this trope really that bad? "Graphic violence against men" occurs in virtually every action film. The only difference between this film and the others is that is that the people dying graphically have tits.

It is impossible to please feminists. If what Chloe wrote about a majority of the assassins being women is true (and there is no reason to think that it isn't), then Killers is probably the first action movie in which most of the bad guys are really bad girls. Instead of praising the film for this new step in the full inclusion and portrayal of women in film, she attacks it.

After fifty years of feminism, it should be clear that feminists do not want equality and this is just another example. When hundreds of movies show countless men dying graphically, no one (including feminists) bats an eye, but when one movie shows female antagonists dying graphically, feminists whine about its depiction of "violence against women."

Israel's Gaza Flotilla Raid

2010-06-05T16:24:00.006-05:00

The past week has seen Jewish neocons and Christian Zionists defending actions that would have had them clamoring for war had they been performed by Iran. The fact that Israel would attack a flotilla in international waters that was planning to run the blockade (not "break" it as the media often states) shouldn't be very surprising. Israel has shown time and time again that it has no respect for human rights (yes, I realize that none of its neighbors are any better with regard to human rights, but that is irrelevant to Israel's human rights record), which shouldn't surprise anyone, considering that Israel was, like Palestine eventually will be, founded by terrorists.

There have been a couple of propagated by Jewish neocons and their Christian lapdogs regarding the resistance by the flotilla's crew and passengers that shows that when it comes to Israel, "conservatives" leave their conservatism behind:

1. The people on the flotilla attacked the Israeli soldiers, beating them and in one case pushing one into the ocean, so the Israelis were justified in responding with force.

This is perhaps the stupidest argument they are using to justify the massacre (Larry Auster, a man who normally is highly intelligent was spouting this earlier in the week). The Israeli military attacked civilian ships in international waters. The people on the flotilla had the right to fight back in self-defense, the Israelis certainly did not. If a burglar breaks in, you shoot him, and he shoots you, he will be the one charged, not you (unless your DA is a liberal). If anything, the Israeli soldiers got off easy be merely being beaten. Pirates used to be summarily executed.

2. Several of the "peace activists" were carrying firearms.

Everyone is entitled to self-defense, including Muslims and leftists. The idea that peace activists can't carry weapons shows that Christian conservatives and neocons are not immune to cognitive dissonance, considering that most of them probably believe things like "more guns, less crime" and "an armed society is a polite society," meaning the threat of force can deter violence and preserve peace.

The fact that Christian "conservatives" aren't very conservative when it comes to Israel shouldn't be surprising. Considering that most American conservatives belong to a religion where they worship a Jew in the spiritual world, it makes sense that they would worship Jews also in the material world, in the same way that white liberals worship blacks.

I'm Still Here

2010-06-04T17:28:00.003-05:00

I haven't posted anything for a week, but I haven't abandoned this blog. I was busy last weekend and never really got back into posting this week. I'll be writing a few posts over the next few days about:
-Deborahlee Lorenzana, the woman who is suing for being fired from a bank for dressing too sexily, and how businesses only have themselves to blame for things like this
-The Israeli raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla, wherein I discuss my opinions on Jews in general.
-The media's gender and violence double standard, specifically the gender demographics of protagonists versus those of antagonists.

My First Banning!

2010-05-28T00:33:00.008-05:00

I got banned from a political website for the first time thanks to my political views as posted here on this blog. The blog in question, Alas, a Blog, belongs to the cartoonist Barry Deutsch aka Ampersand, the fine gentleman pictured below. It's the typical liberal blog, albeit much more radically feminist, ironic since Barry is apparently a man.

It started on a thread regarding libertarianism and gay marriage, which I responded:

The problem with Rand Paul is that he is not very good at explaining his views, which is lethal to any libertarian politician. Also, he tries to pander to everyone.

If you want to read a coherent libertarian view of same-sex marriage, I would suggest reading this article by Michael Badnarik, the 2004 Libertarian Party presidential candidate.

Another poster on the blog responded with:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?

—Myca

However, the "omg ur a racist" comments soon started coming at me. A pleasant fellow named joe wrote:

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

Try http://www.theagitator.com as a ‘good’ representation of libertarianism.

At least he plugged Radley Balko. Then a gentleman named Chris responded:

I would agree with Joe. Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities. The first kind of libertarian can be debated against, the second kind is only worthy or scorn and mockery.

To which I replied:

TAS, I’ve found your posts interesting. Would you say that you’re a pretty good representative of libertarianism?

Perhaps. I’m far more politically incorrect than most libertarians. Also, I’m not a corporation-worshiper like the Beltway libertarians, since I recognize that most corporate power comes from government-granted privileges, pro-corporate laws (i.e. DMCA), and corporate welfare.

I’d say his posts are NOT a good representation of libertarianism.

Decent representation of misogyny though.

I’m hold views that most would consider to be “sexist,” yes, but that’s not the same as misogyny.

Most libertarians, rightly or wrongly, don’t believe in civil rights laws because they legitimately think property rights are more important. TAS doesn’t believe in civil rights laws because he hates women and minorities.

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

Also, I’ve been a libertarian for several years and I did adopt my opposition to civil rights laws because they infringed on property rights. My views on race didn’t evolve until much a few years later.

Chris responded, complete with a request for my banning. Liberals realize they can't win against HBDers - the statistical evidence is just too strongly against them - so they seek to silence us"

I freely admit I hold racist and sexist views (most people - even many liberals - do, they just pretend like they don’t), but I don’t “hate” any certain groups, I’m just strongly critical of them.

TAS, some of the post titles on your blog are “Screw Single Mothers,” “Obama Nominates Jewish Dyke to Supreme Court,” and “Blacks Ruin Everything.”

That is called hate.

This bigot should not even be allowed to post here.

I cordially invited him to comment on my blog if he felt offended:

If you have a problem with something I wrote on my blog, then feel free to comment on the relevant posts there. I have a very open moderation policy - the only comments I generally delete are spam.

He declined and decided to stop talking to me. Liberals are basically overgrown children. Also, he claims to have commented on my blog. I think he's Souza, the bastard son of a single mom, who enjoys calling me a racistsexistclassisthomophobe on various posts of mine. Both Chris and Souza seem to have very similar political positions, are quick to anger, and are highly childish.

I have commented on your blog, TAS. I find engaging with you a fruitless exercise, so this will be the last time I respond to you directly.

Then mythago joined in:

Rand Paul’s website says that he has been married for 19 years. If he believes government should be out of marriage, why didn’t he and his “loving wife” go for private contracts rather than state-sponsored marriage? Or, if that were not possible 19 years ago, why don’t they now legally divorce and use private contracts to arrange their affairs?

Those are rhetorical questions, of course.

TAS, “politically incorrect” is the PC, euphemistic term for what, in pre-PC days, used to be called “loudmouthed bigot”. I don’t understand the current fashion for tiptoeing around calling something what it really is.

Finally, the big man (in multiple ways) himself, Ampersand joined in, issuing his banning edict

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

Notice how he doesn't even bother to respond to anything I posted on my blog or commented on his. He saw my HBD/racialist views and decided not to talk to me. Liberals fear people who recognize racial and gender differences. They realize that no amount of social engineering and brainwashing can change the fact that blacks and whites are not equal and that men and women are different. Thus they to avoid conversations about such topics entirely and silence those who believe that racial and gender differences exist.

The irony is that I wasn't even disagreeing with anything in the original post. I didn't attack gay marriage, I in fact criticized Rand Paul's flip-floppy, pandering view on the subject.

I posted a response to Ampersand, ~~though I doubt it will make it through moderation~~ which was deleted from the moderation queue:

TAS, after checking out your website, I’ve decided that you’re not someone I wish to have a discussion with.

I figured this would happen. Liberals generally do not like debating people who understand human biodiversity.

Please don’t post any further comments on “Alas.”

No problem, although it’s worth noting that I allow pretty much anyone to comment on my blog, including feminists, socialists, and other leftists.

If any liberals from Alas are reading this, I'd like to reiterate once again that unlike Barry, I do not fear people who hold different political opinions. I do not ban people or delete comments unless they are spam. It doesn't matter if you are a libertarian, neocon, Christian conservative, moderate, liberal, socialist, anarchist, or Black nationalist; I welcome people who wish to debate or argue with my about my posts.

Liberal Free-dumb

2010-05-27T16:50:00.006-05:00

In the Bush II years, liberals often claimed to be defenders of the Constitution and supporters of freedom and liberty. Their actions during the Obama era have shown that they don't care about the Constitution, just certain parts of its penumbras.

In fact, liberal freedom (which I refer to as "free-dumb") is generally limited to the following freedoms, some of which conflict with others' rights to life and property:

1. The freedom to get an abortion and access to contraception (with taxpayer funding!).
2. The freedom to have anal sex.
3. The freedom to tresspass (see anti-discrimination laws).
4. The freedom to enter this county illegally.
5. The freedom to commit crimes more easily.
6. The freedom to use drugs (except nicotine).

Essentially, the only freedoms liberalism supports are those that attack the established, and now collapsing, social order.

Net Neutrality: A Noxious Combination of Liberal Ignorance and Radical Egalitarianism

2010-05-25T18:42:00.006-05:00

About once a week, Alternet, Mother Jones, Feministing, and other major liberal websites publish an article or blog post promoting "net neutrality." The idea behind net neutrality is that it is unfair for Internet service providers to treat different uses for Internet access differently. This seemingly-benign concept has pushed by liberals for close to five years.

With net neutrality, liberals take egalitarianism to an extreme. Now, not only are all human beings equal, but all forms of Internet data transfer are as well. Advocates for net neutrality are ignorant of one of the modern principles of electronic communications: quality of service (QoS). This is essentially an idea that acknowledges that the various means of Internet communication have different needs and resources should be allocated accordingly.

There are several components to QoS, with these being among the most common:

Bandwidth: Essentially how much data and how fast it can be sent, often measured in bits per second (bps) or bytes per second (Bps; equal to bps/8).

Jitter: Over the Internet, large chunks of data are broken up into smaller blocks of data called packets and sent. Sometimes packets may arrive out of order, this is called jitter.

Delay: How long it takes for a packet to be delivered.

Reliability/Loss: How many packets are lost during transit.

Different applications have different QoS requirements. E-mail deals with relatively small amounts of data, so it does not need much bandwidth. But if a frame is lost, then part of the message is gone so it must be very reliable. Voice over IP needs more bandwidth than e-mail, but if a few packets are lost, it does not prevent the receivers from understanding what is being said, so its reliability requirement is low. Anything involving video would need more bandwidth than audio, and much more than e-mail. However, real-time communication such as video and audio would require low delay, as if it takes packets too long to reach their destination, it leads to lag and words might be difficult or impossible to understand. But when it comes to e-mail, a high delay is acceptable because if it takes an e-mail a few extra seconds to be delivered, it usually does not matter.

But according to liberals, this just isn't fair! Just as we have to pretend that blacks and whites commit the same amount of crime, we have to pretend like the 14-year old boy Torrenting porn and pirated games is entitled to the same amount of bandwidth as a corporate executive using VoIP. Network resources are not unlimited. Private companies who operate networks must efficiently manage all of the requests for their resources. If that means a Torrenter has to wait an extra half hour before he gets his pirated game so someone using VoIP can carry on an intelligible conversation, then so be it. If they have a problem with current networking principles, they should start their own telecommunications company with an entirely QoS-free network and see how many days it lasts before going bankrupt.

Naturally, most of the liberals who discuss net neutrality know absolutely nothing about computer networking. See, liberals love to think that they are experts in everything, which is why we get to read articles by sociology majors who don't know the difference between packet- and circuit-switching explaining why it's necessary to treat every packet the same.

Liberals do not understand scarcity. They think that everything is free. If they need money for a social program, they just tax the "wealthy" and don't think any further. They want to move from coal and nuclear power plants to solar power, because they view it as "free" (though I doubt any of the liberal arts graduates who call for the government to spend gigadollars on "green energy" could even describe how the photoelectric effect works). Likewise, when it comes to bandwidth, they don't understand that bandwidth is limited.

Liberalism is essentially an ideology that seeks to ignore the constraints of reality. Net neutrality is just another example of this.

Spot the Difference, Part 2

2010-05-24T16:56:00.009-05:00

American woman, 1910s:

Balinese woman, 1910s:

American women, 2000s:

Balinese women, 2000s:

I find it ironic that when Westerners colonized tropical and subtropical parts of the world in the 1700-1900s and encountered women sensibly dressed topless due to the climate, they forced the women to put on tops and those women's descendants dress modestly now even after the end of colonialism, while modern Western women have no idea what the word "modesty" means.

Repost: Anti-Unionism

2010-05-23T23:39:00.004-05:00

I'm too tired to write much tonight, so I've decided to repost something that I posted several months ago when I first started the blog (and had fewer readers).

Most libertarians and conservatives, with the exception some paleocons and left-libertarians, are staunch opponents of trade unions. Warner Todd Huston, a rather eccentric "conservative" (and from his picture, evidently a donut-eating contest winner) has said "unions are inherently unAmerican", a belief not uncommon on the mainstream right. Libertarian/anarcho-capitalist Lew Rockwell even titled a UAW-related blogpost "Another Criminal Strike". Indeed, the LewRockwell.com writers in general frequently refer to unions as criminal gangs.

As a libertarian, I oppose the privileges granted to unions by the federal government, but nor do I like the privileges granted to corporations and groups of corporations by all levels of government, including eminent domain takings, tax increment financing, subsidies, and insane copyright laws such as the DMCA (which in no way "promote(s) the Progress of Science and useful Arts", but that's a topic for another day). Corporations themselves are government creations and receive special protections and privileges from governments. Now, I realize that libertarians criticize corporate welfare and Big Business, but it is ludicrous that conservatives and Chamber of Commerce libertarians will call Big Labor criminals and anti-American while at the same time verbally fellating Big Business, which can be pretty criminal and anti-American itself (i.e. hiring illegal immigrants).

Sure, the SEIU is probably close to being a criminal organization, but I doubt anyone could honestly call the bricklayers union a group of thugs. In some trades, joining the union means higher wages and better benefit, so it makes sense for the workers to join unions, just as it makes sense for different corporations of certain fields to form trade associations to protect their interests and for white-collar workers to join professional organizations (for example, the IEEE).

The union most frequently targeted by conservatives is the National Education Assocation (NEA). The conservative hatred of the NEA is comparable to the liberal hatred of Wal-Mart. Yes, the NEA is dominated by liberals and feminists, but whenever a conservative bashes the NEA, inevitably they bring up its policies that affect "urban students." These commentators correctly note the fact that urban schools, well, suck.

However, the fact that urban schools suck has nothing to do with the NEA. Suburban students are taught by NEA members and they have decent test scores. The fact is, urban schools suck because they are predominantly black and Hispanic, while suburban schools are attended by whites and Asians. Blacks have a mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 89, Whites 103, and Asians 106. Lower IQ students will simply do worse in school than higher IQ students. Neither the liberal solution, spending more gigadollars on urban schools, nor the conservative solution, abolishing the NEA (and giving the black kids vouchers), will solve this.

Yes, this post was supposed to be about anti-unionism, but I wanted to point out how far conservatives will go just to prove that they are not racist to liberals who will hate them anyways and blacks who will never vote for them.

Originally posted here on February 10.

Flip-Flops and Young Women's Inability to Dress Nicely

2010-05-22T14:58:00.005-05:00

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I attended a graduation at a large university last Sunday. Aside from the male women's study major, another thing that surprised me was how many female graduates were wearing flip-flops with their cap and gown.

I'm accustomed to seeing people, especially women, dressing shoddily to events that only a decade ago required a certain formality in dress, but it's pretty ridiculous that women are wearing Asian peasant footwear to such events. Even after a decade of business casual, men (including young men) are still capable of dressing somewhat nicely when the situation requires - I saw plenty of male graduates in ties and most were wearing at least button-down shirts, slacks, and dress shoes - yet young women do not seem to be capable of doing so.

I guess that there are two reasons behind this: the first is the "decline of the matriarch" that Welmer of The Spearhead has written about. The second is that in this era of pussywhipped men, feminism, "strong and independent women," and sexual harassment laws, men are afraid of criticizing women's appearances - including how they dress for events that should require formality from them - for fear of being attacked by a feminist harpy mob.

Rand Paul Surrenders

2010-05-21T14:51:00.008-05:00

I had never completely liked Rand Paul. The fact that he advertised himself to libertarians while at the same time holding certain neocon views such as keeping Gitmo open suggested to me that he was a panderer. However, a couple days ago when I heard about his criticism, albeit mild, of the Civil Rights Act and his defense of private property, I changed my mind. Despite his flaws, very few public figures have the courage to criticize the Civil Rights Act.

Now I have to change my opinion of Rand Paul yet again. Instead of defending his views, he is now saying he does not support repealing the Civil Rights Act. Not only that, but he now claims to support using the federal government to force desegregation:

There was a need for federal intervention to say that you can't have segregation, that we shouldn't be doing that.

In other words, the federal government should dictate the business practices of every store in America. With libertarians like this, who needs liberals?

He should have held his ground. Yes, if he did not support the Freedom of Association Destruction Act, he would have been attacked mercilessly by liberals. But he's a libertarian who wants to abolish most of the imperial government: liberals will attack him mercilessly anyways. Likewise, he has no need to pander to blacks. No matter how much he grovels before them, they won't vote for a libertarian Republican who wants to take away their free stuff.

Sword and Sandal at the White House

2010-05-20T14:54:00.006-05:00

This is the dress that Michelle Obama wore to a yesterday's state dinner with Felipe Calderon. Larry Auster wrote about it here - be sure to read all of the comments, they are amusing.

From the dress' "fabric" (I put fabric in quotes because it looks like it's made out of plastic), the single strap (the dress probably would have looked less ugly with no straps), its sword and sandal B-movie look, and her black ghetto bitch scowl, to the fact that her cleavage appears to start at her collarbone, her entire appearance is repulsive.

I don't have a problem with women wearing cleavage-revealing dresses to formal events. Women have been wearing cleavage- or bosom-baring dresses for centuries, but in the past, they looked nice while doing so. Modern American women seem to be incapable of making such a dress look elegant, a word which few American women seem to know the meaning of. Younger women end up looking like sluts and middle-aged women end up looking ridiculous. Michelle Obama looks like the Nubian Queen in a direct-to-DVD sequel to Clash of the Titans.

Since the elite loves Michelle Obama, more women will probably attempt to copy her "fashion."

Blood Alcohol Content Limits and Gender Discrimination

2010-05-20T01:37:00.016-05:00

It takes women fewer alcoholic drinks to get drunk than it does men. This is because of a number of reasons, such as the fact that the average woman weighs less than the average man and the fact that women have more body fat than men.

I'm surprised that the ACLU or other feminist litigators have not sued to have DUI laws struck down under the 14th Amendment. Since DUI laws prohibit driving while having a blood alcohol content above a certain level and it takes women fewer drinks to reach that level, the government is discriminating against women by requiring them to drink fewer alcoholic drinks than men in order to be able to drive without (possibly) being arrested.

Sure, the idea that BAC limits constitute gender discrimination may sound ludicrous. But consider that the branches of the United States military have more lenient physical standards for women than men. In similar fields, such as police, firefighting, and corrections departments, height standards have been eliminated due to their discriminatory nature. In many cases, especially police departments, physical standards have been made "gender neutral" - meaning in order to allow for an acceptable number of women to pass their physical tests without resorting to different physical standards by gender, the tests have been made so easy that any man in better shape than a WoW player is capable of passing.

Now, I am not a true believer in the typical conservative mantras that the military "protects our freedom" and the police are always looking out for us, but physical performance is essential to jobs in such organizations, those organizations are a necessary part of any safe and functional society, and watering down standards for women in such organizations is dangerous. If it is okay for the military to hold women to lesser physical standards and for police to water down their tests in the name of Equality, then surely it would be okay for states to allow women to drive with a higher blood alcohol content then men so they can have the same number of beers as men, because it is clear that Equality trumps society's safety.

Video Games and Intelligence

2010-05-18T16:44:00.007-05:00

It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation between intelligence and preferences for certain video game genres, as well as between intelligence and preference for console vs. computer gaming.

It would make sense that on average, computer gamers are more intelligent than console gamers. Being a PC gamer requires knowledge of video cards, RAM, hard disks, and computer maintenence, plus an intermediate or higher level of experience with computers. Console gamers just need to plug an audio/video cable into their TV, a power cable into an outlet, and press the power button. If something fails, they don't have to figure out which component of their computer is malfunctioning, they just call the Microsoft/Nintendo/Sony tech support number.

As for genres and intelligence, my guess is that first-person shooters, sports games, and racing games would tend to attract people with lower IQs. Strategy games and role-playing games seem to attract smarter players. You don't find very many blacks or low-class whites playing World of Warcraft, for example, but instead it is played by hordes of intelligent whites and Asians.

I've been looking for detailed statistics regarding video game player demographics, but most of the studies I've found do not say much about race, just age and gender (usually with the intent of promoting the female gamer myth, something I will address in a future post), and I haven't been able to find anything on the demographics of players by genre.

Wherein I Lay Bare My Prejudices

2010-05-17T15:47:00.053-05:00

Whenever a liberal discovers this blog, they inevitably leave a comment calling me a racist, sexist, etc. and whenever I comment about HBD on non-HBD blogs, the same happens. I have found that being called a racist, sexist, etc. does not bother me, because I basically am a racist, sexist, etc.

I decided that, unlike most people who hold such views, I would openly admit to being a racist, sexist, etc. and would openly write about the prejudicial views I have towards certain ethnic, racial, sexual, and social groups.

Blacks: I've written my thoughts about blacks many times before. I freely admit that I hold racist views with regards to them and rarely associate with them. The fact is, blacks commit crime at very disproportionate rates, possess an average IQ of 85, speak proper English worse than most Mexican immigrants, have turned spawning bastards into a form of art, have a culture that would make Idiocracy look like ancient Athens, and are basically a drain on America. And thanks to the liberal elites, black culture and its vices have been enthusiastically accepted by self-hating, young white lemmings.

Women: I admit I hold some sexist and maybe even misogynistic views. I detest feminism and the prominent role it has played in the destruction of America. I dislike young American women - and foreign women who have assimilated into American culture - since they are sluts. Does anyone even bother to disagree about that point anymore? Even young "conservative" women are slutty.

Mexicans: I have a more positive view of Mexicans than I do blacks. I've worked with and managed both and if I had the choice of eight blacks or four Mexicans, I would go with the Mexicans. They are indeed hard-working, but I don't want to live in an area that is mostly Mexican. Also, I like Mexican immigrants better than I do American-born Hispanics, since large portions of the younger population of the latter tend to basically be brown niggers.

White trash: I dislike them, but so does the liberal elite, whereas it celebrates equivalently trashy black culture.

Guidos: A blight on humanity.

Mudsharks: They disgust me.

East Asians: With the exception of chiggers, they are a benefit to America.

Indians (Asian): American-born ones have all the vices and virtues of white Americans. Ones actually from India tend to smell badly. If you don't believe me, go into a computer lab in an engineering building on a college campus.

Indians (American): Native Americans were savages until little more than a hundred years ago. Of course, so were my Celto-Germanic ancestors.

LGBT: Gays and bisexuals I do not have a problem with. Transsexuals are freaks and disgust me. Some lesbians are okay, but a lot of them are man-hating feminists.

Low-class people: Whenever I have the misfortune of entering a Wal-Mart, as a thought experiment I often ponder the benefits and drawbacks of various methods of rendering most of the individuals I encounter incapable of spreading their noxious genes. I am highly classist. I loathe the poor-worshipping that liberals and many conservatives possess. The fact is, despite the myth of poor people who spend all their time working just to make ends meet, most poor people are lazy, stupid, and spend their time smoking marijuana, smoking cigarettes, drinking, and engaging in dysgenics. Pretty much every self-described poor person I have ever met spends copious amounts of money on marijuana and alcohol.

Fat people: I abhor the concept of "fat acceptance." Fat women repulse me and fat men usually possess a stench.

"Male" Women's Studies Majors

2010-05-16T19:44:00.007-05:00

I went to a graduation today and afterward flipped through the program. I took a look at the list of women's studies graduates and I noticed that there was an individual with male first and middle names.

A man has to be very self-hating and emasculated to choose a major that involves him sitting through a number of classes in which he gets to listen to a bunch of feminists talk about how evil men are and how horrible the "patriarchy" is. Alternatively, he could have just been trying to meet and hook up with women by attending classes that are almost all female, but there are cheaper ways to do so than by spending $40,000 on a degree.

I'm actually surprised there aren't more male women's studies majors. Considering that boys are indoctrinated with feminist propaganda for 13 years, it seems like there should be more liberal men out there who possess enough self-hatred to pursue such a major.

Knowing Your Audience

2010-05-14T19:49:00.004-05:00

Earlier today, in addition to having ads for various liberal causes and organizations, Feministing had ads for Weight Watchers. I wonder, where are the ads for adoptable cats and laser hair removal?

Grrrl Power in Disney's Prince of Persia

2010-05-13T17:14:00.022-05:00

Later this month, Disney is releasing the film Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, based on the similarly named adventure video game series. When I saw the trailer, I noticed that it looks as if the main female character, Princess Tamina, has been turned into an action girl. She can be seen wielding a sword and fighting with it. It's interesting to contrast her role with those of women in the Prince of Persia video games.

In the game in which the movie appears to have been based, the eponymous Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, there was a female protagonist (Farah) who followed the Prince, but she was an archer. Also, in the 2008 reboot, simply titled Prince of Persia, there was a woman (Elika) who accompanied the Prince, but she was a magic-user, not a warrior. Both of them essentially ended up as damsels in distress, though not in the traditional manner.

Evidentally, Disney decided that female archers and mages don't have enough "grrrl power" so they turned her into a warrior. I'm not really surprised, since Disney has made a habit out of making anachronistic "empowered woman" characters, such as in Pirates of the Carribean and Alice and Wonderland. And in modern film and TV, writers are not creative enough to demonstrate a woman's empowerment besides having them kill one or more men in physical combat.

Also, in the video game and its sequels, there were female villains and generic enemies - corrupted harem concubines and sorceresses, among others. Somehow, I doubt that there will be any female enemies in the film. Female enemies are ubiquitous in video games, but are nonexistent in action and adventure movies.

Remember, according to Hollywood, even though female-on-male violence is "empowering" and "kick-ass," male-on-female violence is "abusive" and "misgynistic." And in Hollywood, if one woman dies it's a tragedy (unless an Action Girl kills her), but if a dozen men die it's entertainment. Disney in particular has been promoting both of those (look at Pirates of the Carribean for plenty of examples).

On the good side, it looks as if Disney is depicting the Persians as white, unlike in other films such as Alexander where the Iranian wife of Alexander the Great was played by a mulatto and in 300 where they were a motley assortment of dark-skinned peoples.

Arizona Continues to Infuriate Liberals

2010-05-12T16:30:00.003-05:00

In recent weeks, Arizona has allowed the carry of concealed weapons without a permit and cracked down on illegal immigrants. Now, they've banned "ethnic studies" classes. So now, Arizona taxpayers (read: white people) won't have to pay for classes in which mestizo, black, and self-hating white communists tell students about how evil white people are.

Jan Brewer also signed a law allowing the sale of certain fireworks, such as sparklers. I'm sure we will soon hear liberals whining about how "unsafe" this is because children might be able to hold sparklers.

Whenever liberals in the Left Coast or New England dislike a law that some state in Middle America passes, they inevitably attempt to have a judicial activist strike it down. I wonder how many of these new Arizona laws will end up repealed by a judge.

Screw Single Mothers

2010-05-11T23:26:00.008-05:00

It's time for another post in which I bash a feminist who whines about the plight of "poor" single women who spawn bastard children and then expect society to pick up the tab. I found this article, "Single mothers need pathway out of poverty," via Feministing. It was published on Mother's Day by Majorie R. Sims on The Grio, a black website apparently affiliated with MSNBC.

As we celebrate mothers across the nation this week, I'm reminded of a segment of mothers who likely will face more challenges than cheers this Mother's Day.

In the U.S., the number of children in single-mother families has risen dramatically over the past four decades, with nearly one-fourth (24 percent) of the 75 million children under age 18 living in a single-mother family. Race also plays a defining role in the poverty rate, with two-thirds (66 percent) of low-income African American children living in single-mother families, compared to just over a third (35 percent) of low income white children living in single-mother households. This growing number of single-mother families has a significant impact on their children.

The reason why single mother families have been increasing in number is because in the 1960s, feminists and public policy decided that fathers were optional and that one woman could provide for and raise children just as well as a father and mother. And this sure will have a significant impact on their children - they will be more likely to commit crime and have bastards of their own.

According to a recent report issued by the Population Reference Bureau (PRB), children of mother-headed families are more likely to live in poverty, with 42 percent of all low-income children living in single-mother families, compared to 32 percent of children in non single-mother families. For children under the age of 8, results are even more striking, with more than three-quarters (77 percent) of young children in single-mother families falling in the poor or low-income range. In addition, children of mother-headed families are more likely to drop out of high school and less likely to have health insurance.

If families led by single mothers are so awful, then instead of promoting single motherhood, the government should cut its wealth redistribution programs, thus ending the subsidies for this.

These single mothers face their own challenges, with data showing they tend to be less educated, less likely to have a job or full-time employment and considerably less likely to have a management position or professional occupation. In fact, the largest proportion of working, low-income mothers work in services, with 41 percent of low-income single mothers working in services compared to only 17 percent of higher-income single moms.
A recent report from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research shows that single-parent families believe their economic stability, role as parents and financial providers, and sense of well-being are all negatively impacted by the challenges inherent in single parenthood. At the same time, single parents remain hopeful and express deep commitment to their families and believe in their ability to provide a strong home life and future for their children despite the obstacles.

So in other words, they knew they couldn't support a family by themselves, yet they attempted to do so anyways and are failing. Good. Perhaps if enough of them fail, they young women will realize that trying to raise a family as a single mother is a bad idea.

Ideally, we need to improve the economic conditions of families who live at 200 percent of poverty and below, or with an annual income of $44,100 or less for a family of four. To help these women-headed families establish financial economic security, there are a few components critical to success. Gender-focused strategies can work well to provide skills, careers, financial education and new models of support to create pathways out of poverty. A greater understanding of the relationship between gender and poverty and an investment in projects that take on a gender-specific focus will help us meet the needs of these families.

Why should "we" do anything? It is not "our" (read: taxpayers') job to improve the conditions of these so-called families. And understanding the relationship between gender and poverty is pretty simple: when young, uneducated single women spawn bastards, the family will probably be poor due to the expenses of taking care of children.

Secondly, connecting vulnerable families to existing services and benefits - like financial education and high-quality, affordable early learning and childcare options--can help propel them forward on the path.
Third, single mothers need career ladders and quality job opportunities. We can make this happen by connecting them with community colleges, increasing the number of quality family-supporting jobs in lower-income communities and ensuring they have access to education and training that will lead to career advancement and entrepreneurship opportunities.

In the first part of the article, Sims writes about the problems with single motherhood. Now, she writes about how "we" (read: middle and upper-class white people who pay taxes) can improve the status of these single mothers' families. If we improve the status of single mothers' families to that of two-parent families, then there will be little incentive for many women to get married, which would increase single motherhood and lead to even more of the problems Sims described earlier, particularly the propensity for single mothers' bastards to commit crime and spawn more bastards (hooray for positive feedback loops!).

Also, the fact is that many single mothers simply would not benefit from more education. The fact is, higher education, even after decades of dumbing-down, still requires an above average IQ. Single mothers tend to come from populations with low average IQs, such as blacks, mestizos, and white trash, so forcing them through school would not allow them to climb the career ladder. Not to mention the fact that the dumb sluts got pregnant while they were young and poor in the first place is evidence that they are not very smart, so it makes no sense to waste money on morons to go to school when are smart people who could use money for college (funded through private scholarships, rather than government grants, of course).

We cannot merely focus on moving women-headed families above the poverty line. Rather we should consider ways to help them transform their lives from just surviving to actually thriving, with an increase in the number of women holding quality jobs; more low-income families with bank accounts, savings and increased financial knowledge; and ultimately, significantly fewer single-mother families living at or below 200 percent of the poverty line. Let's honor these mothers with fresh thinking, innovative models and policy decisions that will actually change the trajectory of their lives and those of their children.

In the end it is revealed: this push for helping single mothers is just another way for liberals to expand the welfare state and the reach of government. Pretty much everything liberals advocate ultimately leads to those goals.

Also this week, Melissa McEwan, the disgustingly fat feminist who runs Shakespeare's Sister in between runs to her local all-you-can-eat pizza buffe t, wrote an article with a similar theme on Alternet, attacking a conservative who wrote an article attacking single-mother families in the underclass and advocating instead that the government increase social services. Kievsky at Occidental Dissent wrote a decent rebuttal.

Liberals probably really care about single mothers as much as I do (which is not at all), they just use them to expand government by replacing fathers with welfare.

More on Female Violence in the Media

2010-05-10T17:35:00.008-05:00

Last Friday I wrote a post about the prevalence of female violence against men in the media and the double standards regarding it versus the portrayal of male violence against women. Then later in the weekend, I saw the first episode of Farscape for the very first time (yes, I realize that it came out eleven years ago). Early on, there's a scene where a human man from Earth is in a cell in an alien ship with a figure in a flight suit and helmet. The person takes off their helmet, revealing a female human face. The man goes over to talk to her and the woman apparently thinks he's a deserter or spy and proceeds to attack him by kneeing him, punching him, knocking him to the ground, and standing over him with her foot on top of him. Naturally, she suffers no consequences for her brutal assault, whereas in TV and film, any man who merely hits a woman will have something bad happen to him, usually at the hands of the woman he hit and probably involving a groin kick.

Now, if the roles were reversed, even today feminist blogs would still be ranting about this as evidence of the "prevalence" of "violence against women" in movies and TV. Instead, this kind of assault is viewed as empowering grrl power, even though the man basically did nothing wrong. Indeed, it seems to be a requirement that if a woman is to be shown as a "strong, empowered woman" she has to beat up one or more men. The only exception I can think to this trope is in Starship Troopers (the movie, not the book) when Dizzy fights a drill sergeant for the right to join his training unit... and ends up loosing (though the drill sergeant respects her and ends up accepting her into the unit).

I've noticed that a lot of this grrrl power and glamorized female-on-male violence comes from movies and TV directed at nerds, such as sci-fi, fantasy, and comic book films (such as in Iron Man 2 - discussed today by Elusive Wapiti at The Spearhead). For a while I've been thinking that Ferdinand Bardamu was correct when he called gamers and nerds manginas over at The Spearhead and that I was wrong when I defended them.

Obama Nominates "Jewish" Dyke to Supreme Court

2010-05-10T15:50:00.004-05:00

Is anyone really surprised? The Obama administration is basically one big "Fuck you!" to the old, pre-Obama white America.

Also, I put Jewish in quotation marks because if Elena Kagan had lived during the time in which Judaism developed, the other Jews probably would have stoned her to death for being a lesbian.

Movies' Female Violence Double Standard

2010-05-07T14:46:00.013-05:00

In modern American media, with the exception of video games (which are unsurprisingly hated by the establishment) the standard relationship between violence and gender looks something like this:

Male on male: entertaining, amusing
Male on female: abusive, sexist
Female on female: hot (especially if they are scantily clad)
Female on male: empowering, humorous

Despite the feminist whining about "violence against women" in the media, male on female violence much rarer than female on male violence in modern movies. If it is present, it is usually either used to show how evil a villain is or is used in a fight scene that the female character wins (usually unscathed). As TV Tropes notes, it is possible to discern the villain and hero in most fight scenes based on gender alone. Note that there are some exceptions to this model, such as Inglorious Bastards, but that isn't exactly an average movie.

The white knights of both the liberal mangina and chivalrous conservative variety out there will probably argue that "violence against women is always wrong" and spout out something about not hitting women and respecting them. But it's interesting to note that the people who essentially laid the foundations for our society, the ancient Greeks, did not have this taboo in their myths. Greek mythology was full of antagonistic goddesses, evil queens, and even had an entire nation of villainous women. Pretty much every Greek hero ends up fighting and killing a female villain at some point. Contrary to their portrayal in feminized popular culture, the Amazons were not heroes in Greek mythology, but were villains and several of the Greek heroes (Achilles, Heracles, and Theseus come to mind) fought them. Somehow I doubt we will see any movies involving Heracles killing Amazons and "stealing the girdle" of their queen.

Anyways, what got me thinking about this topic was watching the Iron Man 2 trailer, which towards the end shows Scarlett Johansson's character beating up a bunch of male security guards. Naturally, most members of the current generation of young men, after thirteen to seventeen years of feminist indoctrination, probably thought that scene was "badass." Somehow I doubt modern American women would consider Heracles killing Amazons to be "badass." They'd probably complain to their congresswoman.

I've noticed in the past couple months that female violence against men is common in movie trailers. Hot Tub Time Machine's trailer showed a woman slapping a man in a bar, Kick Ass's showed a young girl killing a dozen men, and Death at a Funeral's showed a black woman punching a white man. Naturally, in any cases, the reverse would never be shown in a trailer. I'm sure feminists and "family values" conservatives would unite to condemn it. They did last year over the fact that a mere 11% of the violent acts on TV are committed against women.

Also, it's worth noting that those trailers are available for viewing on MTV's website. This is the same MTV that, when a woman got punched in the face in a bar during an episode of the reality show Jersey Shore, blacked out the punch and ran a public-service announcement saying "Violence against women in any form is a crime" and giving the number to an abuse hotline.

That there is a double standard regarding to portrayal of male-on-female and female-on-male violence in movies and TV is unsurprising. We live in an era of double standards.

Neocons and Feminists Unite Against Iran

2010-05-06T21:34:00.005-05:00

Iran was recently elected to the UN's Commission on the Status of Women, the feminist wing of the UN's bureaucracy. Rather than criticize the commission's very existence, as anyone who actually supports liberty would, female "conservatives" have joined forces with feminists to criticize the election. I try to avoid reading the blogs of female conservatives, mostly because they tend to be a bunch of hypocrites who veil their feminism in the cloak of pseudo-conservatism. Older female conservatives like Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham have the personalities of a wood chipper, while the younger one s act (and look) even sluttier than liberal women, while at the same time laughingly complaining about how corrupted our culture is and whining because young men won't take them out to dinner before sex.

Now, I think that Iran's treatment of women leaves a lot to be desired. The requirement that Iranian women cover their heads is abominable in my opinion, considering how beautiful Persian women are. But I also have no problem with a country that wishes to curtail the spread of feminism, which ultimately destroys the civilizations it infests. America lasted for only 190 years before feminism (and Michael King) began to destroy it. It's understandable that an ancient civilization stretching back 5000 years would seek to protect itself from feminism.

Ironically, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad used the feminists' own (bogus) domestic violence statistics against them by using them to show that women were "safer" in Iran than in Europe. It's amusing to see their lies come back to bite them.

The Futility of Arguing Race and Intelligence With Liberals

2010-05-05T15:10:00.015-05:00

Since liberals started making a national controversy of involving the e-mail Harvard law student Stephanie Grace wrote (which was forwarded to a black group by Yelena Shagall six months later) in which she stated their was a possibility of blacks having a lower average intelligence than whites, I've attempted to argue on various liberal websites about this topic, with no success at all. Instead, I discovered that liberals do not even want to touch this topic. On pretty much every issue from healthcare to abortion, liberals relish a debate with right-wingers. But when it comes to racial differences in intelligence, liberals' only goal is to shut their opponents up.

A lot of the comments I made arguing point that racial differences in intelligence were simply deleted from various blogs and websites. Those that were not were usually met with comments simply calling me (and others who attempted to debate the issue) a "racist." Indeed, one liberal commenter at Above the Law responded to a multi-paragrah comment I made by writing that most of what I wrote was worthy of argument due to fact it was "racist." Unlike when they discuss black crime, they don't even bother with their standard explanations for black deficiency - slavery, Jim Crow, poverty, institutionalized racism, etc. They just say that the idea of racial differences in intelligence is just so racist that it's not even worth debating.

Another common response from liberals to people who discuss race and intelligence is that if you're not a scientist, you can't say anything on race and intelligence (another liberal at Above the Law responded to my comment this way). The requirement to be a scientist to discuss science, naturally does not apply to liberals. Otherwise, we couldn't have the joy of reading journalism majors inform us of how global warming will destroy the planet if we don't give the government more power. Likewise, this does not stop sociology students who do not know the difference between circuit-switching and packet-switching from calling for "net neutrality," nor does it prevent liberal arts majors who don't know what the "broadband" in "broadband Internet" means from criticizing the recent court case limiting the FCC's regulation of broadband Internet companies.

The reason for the liberals' absolute refusal to even debate this topic is obvious: they've seen the statistics and understand that it's pretty much impossible to refute the results of pretty much every test that measures intelligence or a function of it. If they had to acknowledge that there were racial differences in intelligence, then that means egalitarianism is founded on a lie, which means their entire worldview is essentially incorrect. Thus, it's easier for them just to call their opponents racists and move on. Ignorance is bliss.

In Defense of Stephanie Grace (Or Business As Usual in the Modern University) - UPDATED

2010-05-02T21:02:00.080-05:00

Pictured: Stephanie Grace

UPDATE: Yelena Shagall has been revealed as the leak source. She appears to be a conservative or Beltway libertarian. For much more information on her, please see the end of the post.

When I first read about the Stephanie Grace controversy a few days ago, I didn't bother to write about it because there didn't seem to be any point. White people get attacked for being "racist" all the time. The only difference was that this person was a young female student rather than an older white man with a PhD. I figured that someone in the HBDer/paleocon/alt right blogosphere more eloquent than myself would write everything there is to say about it. Surprisingly, no one has, so combined with the fact that the liberal attack on Grace has taken on an enormous intensity, I figured I would give the story a shot.

Upon Googling "stephanie grace harvard," I was greeted with headlines screaming about how this young college student had sent a racist e-mail. This sounds serious. Did she advocate lynching? Did she recruit people to join the Ku Klux Klan or the National Socialist Movement? Did she refer to blacks as "cockroaches" and advocate killing them all? Did she advocate the forced repatriation of blacks back to Africa?

Well, no. It turns out she broke the Commandment of Liberalism: Thou shalt not dishonor a Negro. Six months ago this Harvard law student had engaged in a conversation about race at a private dinner party. Following the party she sent an e-mail to participants clarifying her views in which she stated "I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent."

Eventually, she got into a fight with a person she had sent it to, a certain Yelena Shagall, who then leaked it to the Black ~~Affirmative Action Recipients Association~~ Law Students Association. From there it got spread accross the Internet, apparently first to Above the Law.

Let me reiterate. A student attending a PRIVATE dinner is being crucified over a single PRIVATE e-mail she sent SIX MONTHS AGO in which she described the POSSIBILITY of racial differences in intelligence. Yet, liberal blogs responded to the e-mail with a fury matched only by that of a crowd of blacks who have just learned that KFC has just run out of chicken in the middle of the lunch rush.

The first blog I read about this story on was Feministe, where Jill Filipovic (a female attorney who writes about how evil the rich are on her blog, while at the same time posts literally thousands of pictures on her Flickr account of her travels all over the world, meaning she is either very upper-middle class or rich herself) noted that the racism was "self-evident" and proceeded to write about how law schools are basically racist themselves and they should focus more on "social justice" and "racism." Apparently, in her view universities don't waste enough hours and gigadollars to propogandize multiculturalism. It's obvious Jill has never taken a sociology, history, or English class at a modern American university.

She updated her post and laughably attempted to tackle the subject of race and intelligence. This gem is an example of her thoughts on the topic: "Intelligence, too, is impossible to separate from environment and socialization, again making it impossible for anyone to say with absolute certainty that there is absolutely no biological or genetic difference at all ever between racial and ethnic groups." Well, the fact is, even when blacks grow up away from the ghetto, they still have low IQs relative to whites of their social class. The Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study and plenty of other studies have demonstrated this.

The next paragraph down, she claims "I take people who argue that maybe there are race-based genetic differences that determine intelligence about as seriously as I take people who argue that maybe God did create the earth in 7 days with all humans and animals in the exact same form as we find them today." HBDers will of course see the irony in that statement. Liberals claim to support evolution, but they really do not. They believe that it ended the moment the first human crossed the Sinai. They are the ones who are like creationists, not the people who believe evolution continues to this day.

Various other liberal websites picked up on the story. Gawker reported in its typical method of gossipy, contentless-writing. The harpies of Jezebel published their own smear piece. Note that neither of them bothered to refute her statement regarding the possibility of black intellectual inferiority. Maybe they did some research in order to disprove her views and they discovered that research on race and intelligence has proven her to be correct, so instead, they just smeared her as a racist. The reaction from these two websites is understandable. Jezebel and Gawker have always struck me as the type of websites frequented by people residing on the left half of the bell curve who only care about gossip and headlines rather than substance.

Eventually, the Harvard Law School Dean, Martha Minow, learned of it and naturally condemned it and gave the typical liberal discourse on diversity and equality, once again without actually bothering to refute anything Grace wrote. It seems to me that the dean of a major university should have better ways to spend her time than by making statements regarding private e-mails of students, but enforcing liberalism is far more important than education in modern American universities.

A couple mainstream conservative blogs covered this story, too. Ann Althouse, a law professor and antagonist of Feministe and Feministing, didn't even bother to defend her views. Instead she attacked Minow for her hypocrisy regarding the diversity of ideas, being too cowardly to actually discuss the possibility that blacks are less intelligent than whites.

Unfortunately, like James Watson and most other people who bring up the idea of HBD in public, she ended up revealing herself to be a coward by grovelling before political correctness. According to the Boston Globe, she sent the Black Law Students Association an apology containing the following: “I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my e-mail. I never intended to cause any harm, and I am heartbroken and devastated by the harm that has ensued. I would give anything to take it back.’’ Then Grace distanced herself from her previous comments by writing "I emphatically do not believe that African-Americans are genetically inferior in any way. I understand why my words expressing even a doubt in that regard were and are offensive."

Despite her pathetic, sniveling apology, liberals want her to loose her clerkship with a United States Circuit Court Judge. Liberals always demand apologies from the politically incorrect, but they never end there. As the sagas of Trent Lott, Don Imus, Larry Summers, and James Watson attest, whenever liberals receive an apology from someone who offends Negroes, they then seek to destroy that person. In her original e-mail's conclusion, she asked its recipients to not "pull a Larry Summers on [her]," so it is obvious she knows how the liberal smear machine works. Instead of giving them what they wanted, she should have stood her ground and defended her views. She wouldn't have been any worse off. Maybe she even would have provoked one of those "dialogues about race" liberals are always clamoring for.

Since she won't defend her own views, I will. The fact is, Stephanie Grace was right.

It is "self-evident," as Jill of Feministe would say, that blacks are intellectually inferior to virtually every other race (save Australoids). Virtually every measurement of intelligence, from the various IQ tests, to SATs, to simple high school graduation rates has demonstrated that there is an intellectual gap between whites (and Asians) and blacks. Since the 1960s, billions of dollars have been spent to close this "achievement gap," with very little change in black performance compared to that of whites. The chasm is still gaping.

Even disregarding all of the statistics from decades of testing, historical and contemporary events demonstrate that is undeniable that any country or region inhabited primarily by blacks is a cesspool of violence, crime, poverty, corruption, and virtually every other ailment of humanity. Even when blacks inherit a prosperous land, they ruin it. Zimbabwe, the Breadbasket of Africa when it was called Rhodesia, abandoned its currency last year due to hyperinflation. South Africa developed nuclear weapons under Afrikaner rule, but now they have trouble merely keeping the power on. Detroit was a prosperous city in the 1950s, but forty years after white flight the wilderness is reclaiming much of it. If blacks were, as liberals claim, intellectually equal to whites, then they should have had no problem maintaining these white civilizations. Instead, they trashed them.

Compare Europe's black colonies with its Asian ones. Hong Kong, Singapore, and Macau were European-ruled for a long time. The modern cities were essentially built by the Europeans. Yet, when they were decolonized, instead of running them into the ground, the Asians who took over maintained them as modern cities. Coincidentally, East Asians have a higher average IQ than blacks (and whites, for that matter).

Additionally, its worth noting that Grace doesn't fully endorse the idea of racial differences in intelligence. She just thinks that it is possible. I wonder how liberals and blacks would respond if a true believer in human biodiversity such as Richard Lynn or Jared Taylor were to speak at Harvard Law?

This whole story is utterly ridiculous. The fact that this received national attention demonstrates yet again how pathetic and delicate liberals and blacks are. A student at a private university sent one private e-mail six months ago. Big. Fucking. Deal. These liberal crybabies need to grow the fuck up and stop turning every slight against blacks into a national controversy.

I think the reason why they did so in this case has to do with the fact that it was young woman at Harvard who wrote this. Note that Feministe, Gawker, and Jezebel were basically the ones who covered the story first. All three are havens for educated, liberal feminists. And the only thing educated, liberal feminists hate more than white men are conservative women.

Regardless of the reason for the controversy, the lunacy of the modern university has been revealed once again, just as it was in 2005 with Larry Summers and again in 2009 with Henry Gates. Had Grace defended herself, we might have had a minor improvement in its situation. Instead, she struck the colors, as most whites do against blacks, granting liberals and blacks yet another victory in their war against White America.

The full text of her e-mail follows:

.. . .. I just hate leaving things where I feel I misstated my position.
I absolutely do not rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent. I could also obviously be convinced that by controlling for the right variables, we would see that they are, in fact, as intelligent as white people under the same circumstances. The fact is, some things are genetic. African Americans tend to have darker skin. Irish people are more likely to have red hair. (Now on to the more controversial:) Women tend to perform less well in math due at least in part to prenatal levels of testosterone, which also account for variations in mathematics performance within genders. This suggests to me that some part of intelligence is genetic, just like identical twins raised apart tend to have very similar IQs and just like I think my babies will be geniuses and beautiful individuals whether I raise them or give them to an orphanage in Nigeria. I don't think it is that controversial of an opinion to say I think it is at least possible that African Americans are less intelligent on a genetic level, and I didn't mean to shy away from that opinion at dinner.
I also don't think that there are no cultural differences or that cultural differences are not likely the most important sources of disparate test scores (statistically, the measurable ones like income do account for some raw differences). I would just like some scientific data to disprove the genetic position, and it is often hard given difficult to quantify cultural aspects. One example (courtesy of Randall Kennedy) is that some people, based on crime statistics, might think African Americans are genetically more likely to be violent, since income and other statistics cannot close the racial gap. In the slavery era, however, the stereotype was of a docile, childlike, African American, and they were, in fact, responsible for very little violence (which was why the handful of rebellions seriously shook white people up). Obviously group wide rates of violence could not fluctuate so dramatically in ten generations if the cause was genetic, and so although there are no quantifiable data currently available to "explain" away the racial discrepancy in violent crimes, it must be some nongenetic cultural shift. Of course, there are pro-genetic counterarguments, but if we assume we can control for all variables in the given time periods, the form of the argument is compelling.

In conclusion, I think it is bad science to disagree with a conclusion in your heart, and then try (unsuccessfully, so far at least) to find data that will confirm what you want to be true. Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension, or at least the really important ones like intelligence. I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case.

Please don't pull a Larry Summers on me.''

UPDATE:

I managed to find the name of the leaker via a comment on a posting of OneSTDV and confirmed it with other sources. Her name is Yelena Shagall. She is a Belarusian-born Jew from Skokie, IL.

Her Facebook page indicates she is a graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago (class of 2006), where she majored in political science and mathematics (winning an award in that department), and is a Harvard graduate student in the class of 2010 currently living in Cambridge, MA. Her Facebook profile pic (above) is the typical slutty picture that a lot of college girls seem to put up on Facebook, replete with pseudo-gang signs.

She is a right-leaning individual having ties to numerous conservative organizations. She has ties to various Beltway libertarian groups, too. At UIC she dabbled in Objectivism, was involved with the College Republicans (she was UIC's CR vice president in 2003), and attended Cato University in summer 2004. She had a column in the Chicago Flame through which she expressed viewpoints that were a mixture of snarky collegiate neoconservatism and economic libertarianism (the combination of viewpoints that get libertarians seen as just Republicans who like to party), including the typical female conservative criticism of feminism (where they bash feminism while reaping all of its benefits to women). She wrote at least two articles regarding race, though neither of them express support for HBD. Her libertarian views are pretty much a joke, though, as she supported the war in Iraq and when Bush won in 2004, remarked that "it's going to be OK."

At Harvard Law, she was an officer of its Federalist Society in 2008. More interesting is the fact that she worked with the Institute for Justice, a Beltway "libertarian" law firm, as a "summer clerk or intern" in 2008. She is the woman in the green suit jacket in the picture below. (As an aside, why is it that young women are incapable of dressing professionally? The men in the picture are wearing full suits, but the women are wearing short sleeved shirts and one has a skirt with bare legs. They look pretty unprofessional contrasted with the men.)

She appears to be a Zionist, having led a counter-protest at UIC against a pro-Palestinian protest.

Her e-mail address is Yelena.Shagall@gmail.com

Yelena, welcome to the Internet.

Christianity is a Greater Threat to America Than Islam

2010-04-28T16:35:00.014-05:00

The response to Arizona's immigration law by various allegedly conservative Christian sects, such as the Catholic Church and Evangelicals, has shown that modern Christianity is just another one of the forces bent on destroying America. Catholic, Evangelical, and other Christian leaders are united in opposition to this law, which essentially means they supporting America's descent into a Third World cesspool.

Neoconservatives might argue that Islam is a threat because of Islamic terrorism. But the fact is, Islamic terrorism takes place in countries that are fighting against Muslims. The subway bombings in Russia, Spain, and the UK took place because those countries are (or were) engaged in war against Muslims. As for the September 11 attacks, the reason why they occurred is because America entered into the entangling alliances that George Washington warned us of. Islam has a history of forceful expansion, but so what? America is thousands of miles from the Muslim world with oceans in between. Islamic expansion is the Europeans' problem. If Islam is a threat to them, then they should deal with it how they did back when "European" was not synonymous with "sissy," or at the very least not let millions of Muslims immigrate to their countries.

Christianity, on the other hand, is destroying America from the inside. Liberal Christians promote Marxism. Catholicism demands open borders. Evangelical Christians spend their time clamoring for more "aid" for Africa and Haiti.

Catholicism is probably the worst. I regret writing that post last month defending it from liberal criticism. The Catholic Church is at the forefront of the movement to alter the demographic face of America. Predictably, the bishops are complaining about the Arizona anti-illegal immigrant law. The Catholic Church loves Mexican illegal immigrants. It's okay as long as millions of Third World immigrants come here, just as long as they are Catholic. Back in the late Roman Empire, the bishops at least had spines. A lot of people don't know this, but most of the barbarians who invaded the Roman Empire were Christians. Yet, the bishops did not call on the Romans to welcome the invaders simply because they were also Christians. Instead, in many cases, the bishops led the defense of their cities and towns when the Roman legions abandoned them. Back then, the Catholics recognized that just because a group of people shares a religion with you doesn't mean you should let them move into your country.

It's not only the Catholic Church - even Evangelicals are joining in. Evangelical Christianity is a joke. Liberals incessantly bash Evangelicals due to their perceived conservatism, but aside from opposition to gay marriage and abortion, Evangelical Christians are entirely supportive of the liberal agenda. They support environmentalism, feminism (sure, they don't like abortion, but they never blame the women who have abortions), and "diversity." Evangelicals seem to have an obsession with Africa and basically follow the liberal belief that if we just give blacks more money, they will behave. The idea of Evangelical moral superiority is a joke, too. The same people who clamor about how horrible gay marriage is have daughters who go to college and become sluts and sons who pathetically try to mimic black ghetto culture.

Regardless of the reason, Christianity, both the liberal and "conservative" varieties, is killing America. I'd even go as far as to say that the United States would be better if it were predominantly Muslim, rather than filled with the spineless hypocrites who make up the bulk of modern Christianity. At least Muslims are uncompromising in their beliefs and their women don't go out in public dressed like prostitutes. True, Islam does have a tenancy to cause political violence. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, as Thomas Jefferson noted. Most Muslim cities are probably safer than the black Christian inner-cities of the United States, anyways.

Christianity will be America's downfall, due to the fact that the vast majority Christian denominations are either feminized liberal sects or "compassionate conservatives" who do their best to out-liberal the liberals. These short-sighted fools will do more damage to America than a bunch of Muslims halfway across the world ever will.

Protesting Against America: The Response to the Arizona Immigration Law

2010-04-26T20:49:00.010-05:00

It is common for liberals to accuse Tea Party members of being seditious, treasonous, or anti-American. While it is true that there are protesters out there who hate America, they are not Tea Partiers, but rather they are the people protesting the Arizona immigration law.

America is what it is because of the fact that it was founded by Europeans and was overwhelmingly European until the 1960s. Once America becomes majority nonwhite, it will cease to be America. Oh sure, it might be called the "United States of America," but it will be America in name only. Kind of like how despite the fact that Mehmed titled himself the Roman Emperor after taking Constantinople, he had little in common with, say, Julius Caesar. "Hispanic" immigration is the major cause of the demographic shift (I put Hispanic in quotes because most so-called Hispanics are about as Spanish as Barack Obama - mestizo would be a more accurate word).

Most white people, including non-paleo conservatives, are too cowardly to speak of this openly, either because they don't want to be called a racist or because they don't want to loose their job or friends if they speak candidly on race. So instead, they talk about "illegal immigration" and all of the harms it causes, while still singing praises of diversity and support for legal immigration, despite the fact that legal immigrants bring the same problems as illegals. However, action against illegal immigrants is still good, though it won't be enough.

Arizonans took the first step in taking back our country by making illegal immigrants requiring police to verify the status of anyone they suspect to be an illegal immigrant. Predictably, the establishment was outrage. Liberals are hysterical because conservatives have finally sucked it up and passed a law that will do something.

Liberals and anti-Americans of all stripes have rushed to condemn this law as "racist" because of the fact that most illegal immigrants (especially in Arizona) are mestizos means that if police see suspicious looking mestizos who can't speak English, the police might do their job and question them, leading to them getting arrested. The fact is, crime statistics are racist. Mestizos, like blacks, simply commit more crime than whites and Asians, so they will have more negative interactions with the police, meaning more opportunity for them to be arrested under this law. If the police target mestizos over this bill, sure it might be racist, but it makes sense. When there is a spate of gang violence in the inner cities, police departments don't step up patrols in the white suburbs to be "fair," they target their resources into the areas affected, the black ghettoes. Police enforcement of this law will just follow the same logic.

Barry Soetoro labeled the law "misguided." No, Barry, people who voted for you were misguided. Arizona is simply doing the job that your federal government refuses to do.

My favorite response is the threat by liberals and mestizos to boycott the state unless the law is repealed. If liberals boycott Arizona, the state will be better off. Also, if mestizos boycott Arizona, does that mean all of the Mexicans in Arizona will go back to Mexico? If they do, that will pretty much make the law moot.

However, it's a sure bet sure the Soetoro Justice Department or the ACLU will find a liberal Jewish kritarch to strike down the law because it violates one of the penumbras of one of the Amendments to the Constitution.

Despite that, and the fact that Jan Brewer lauded diversity and condemned racial profiling when she signed the law, I am optimistic. This law shows that there are whites in this country who understand the true problems of America and are looking to solve them. Arizona's law is the first step in taking our country back the anti-white America-haters who control it. That is why liberals are so determined to stop it.

(It occurs to me that white liberals should be deported to Mexico. There is plenty of rich, luscious diversity in that country for them to enjoy. I'm sure they would love it more thanthe horrible racist, sexist, and homophobic America)

"Middle-class" Welfare Queens

2010-04-21T14:52:00.022-05:00

Over at Alternet, they posted an article about a "middle-class" single mother named Nan Mooney complaining about the fact that if her state cuts daycare subsidies, her artificial middle-class existence will cease to exist. Of course, since she's on a form of welfare (her subsidized daycare) she is not middle-class, but is just a lower-class person pretending to be middle-class thanks to the government (kind of like black affirmative action workers) or grew up middle-class but made low-class decisions and is being bailed out by the government.

This article exemplifies all that is wrong with America - from the welfare dependency, to the fatherless children and the sense of entitlement people like Mooney have.

One Thursday morning last month I took a break from my job as a journalist and freelance writer and, after dropping off my 2-year-old at his subsidized daycare, drove myself and my 10-week-old daughter across town to a cupcake shop. Our mission? To decorate Cupcake-grams that momsrising.org, a national non-profit that targets family and children's issues, planned to deliver to every last member of the Washington State legislature along with a note about the critical importance of early childhood care and learning.

I didn't do this just for the fun or the frosting. I did it because my livelihood was at stake.

Washington State had threatened deep budget cuts in a number of areas, including slicing $30 million from the Working Connections Childcare program that helped to fund my childcare. I'm a single parent. I work hard to support my family of three but I don't make anywhere near enough to pay the $2,000-plus a month I'd need to put two kids in full-time daycare. Working Connections gives me the freedom to work and therefore feed, clothe and house my children. If it goes, I'm screwed.

Note that there is no mention of a father or husband. Indeed, she fails to mention him at all in the article. Perhaps she should have thought about the difficulties of raising three children before she decided to become a career woman with three kids. True, the father (probably fathers) of her children might not pay much in child support, could be incapacitated or dead, and might have abandoned her and her children. However, if that was the case, she probably would have mentioned it to gain the sympathy of her reader. She would have appeared as a hardworking woman who fell on tough times rather than being a dumb slut who bit off more than she could chew.

Single career women with kids don't need a husband, remember? They are strong and independent women. Well, not quite independent, since they essentially use Big Government as a surrogate husband.

If she loses the subsidies, she says she will be screwed. Good. If more single mothers like her end up poor, maybe women will realize that both choosing to be a single mother and trying to live a middle class existence is impossible without some form of external support.

Though the cupcake protest may be an original spin on things, our merry band of frosters was far from alone. In Buffalo (childcare subsidies eliminated for four in 10 children), in Chicago (proposed $150 million cuts in human services, among them childcare), in Brooklyn (15 daycare centers slated to close in July) and in California (proposed cut of 18,000 childcare spaces), protesters are hitting the phone lines and the streets because they recognize something the legislators and the mainstream media seem to have missed: Child care really matters.

Due to the recession, tax revenues are down. Legislators can either 1) raise taxes or 2) cut spending. Even the Democrats aren't stupid enough to significantly raise taxes during a recession and take more money from the very people who provide others with jobs. That leaves spending cuts, which no government agency is immune to right now. Even police departments are receiving funding cuts.

For the majority of today's families, child care is an expensive but all too necessary fact of life. In 1975, nearly half of families with children consisted of a male breadwinner and a female homemaker. Today, only one in five families still embody that traditional set-up. In fact mothers are now primary breadwinners--making as much or more than their spouse or filling the role of single working parent --in nearly four in 10 families. And as more mothers flood the workplace, families have to shoulder the often dizzying costs of finding someone else to watch their kids. Getting help with childcare isn't an added perk like a parking space in the company garage. It's a lynchpin, one that can affect healthy child development, job security and the frayed economic realities of today's low-income families.

In other words, liberals destroyed traditional America and are shocked at their results. Congratulations, you destroyed the family wage and made it impossible to support a middle-class family on one income, turned women into sluts, and turned men from being beta providers to being gaming pseudo-alphas and basement dwellers. Everything has a consequence. Liberalism is essentially an ideology that seeks to ignore consequences.

Also, she used the word "lynchpin" on Alternet. I'm surprised the editors allowed it, because it contains the word "lynch," which they probably think is a racist word (like "looter").

People need to appreciate that funding quality child are isn't just a work support issue, it's also a child development issue," says Danielle Ewen, the director of childcare and early learning at the Center for Law and Social Policy. "If we don't invest in early childhood care and learning, kids will arrive at school unprepared to learn. It will affect the number of children with special needs. It will affect graduation rates. It goes to the heart of what our public education system is all about."

For years, kids started elementary school at six or seven years old and they did well. America became the most powerful nation in the world without having kids start school when they were two or three. It sounds like Ewen is just another one of those liberal "experts" who wants to destroy childhood. Thirteen years of liberal indoctrination must not be enough.

For many of us, childcare subsidies play a critical role in the economic infrastructure, bridging the gap to provide a service as essential as food or housing. About 30 percent of all low-income families using child care centers, and 16 percent using an in-home care giver receive subsidies, about 14 percent of those who are federally eligible. Not only do such subsidies ensure that parents can work, they also place those children in healthy environments focused on development and learning. If subsidies disappear, many low-income families are forced into an impossible situation in which their income is less than the cost of paying someone to watch their child.

Once again, liberals fail to realize that actions have consequences. If these "low-income families" (liberal code words for "single black women and their brood of bastards with different fathers") can't support their spawn, then they should not engage in sex. Pretty much everyone other than pre-contact Australian aborigines and young children understands the relationship between sex and women having babies. It really is not a difficult concept.

It's a lifesaver," says Francine Almash, a Brooklyn resident and single parent who relies on subsidies to pay for daycare for her three children. Almash, who works as a freelance editor and splits her time between telecommuting and going in to the office, pays $5 a week to send her kids to a city-funded daycare center near her home. "Without the subsidies I'd have to pay a minimum of about $2,100 a month, even to put my kids in a city-funded daycare. There's no way I could possibly afford that. It's almost my entire income."

No liberal article demanding the government to spend money on something would be complete without a sob story.

Francine Almash is raising three kids in New York City while making around $25,000. She could at least move to a city with a lower cost of living. But that would involve "personal responsibility," a concept that is an anathema to liberals. What a dumb bitch.

When asked what she would do if her subsidy were cut, there's a long silence.

I don't know," Almash finally says. "I really don't know. Maybe I could try to keep one kid home? I'd probably just have to quit working and go on public assistance."

Perhaps Almash should have thought about this before she decided to raise three children as a single mother in New York City - not exactly a cheap place to live - while working as an editor. It's interesting to note that the author of this piece is also a single mother journalist. I wonder why so many single mothers are writers? If they are supporting a family on one income, they should probably

For families like Almash's, the loss of childcare subsidies would be devastating. The subsequent scramble for any kind of care, let alone a licensed quality provider, would force them to play fast and loose with their children's well-being.

In other words, they will have to deal with the consequences off their actions. This is what adults do.

"There are issues of child development and child safety at stake," says Heather Boushey, a senior economist with the Center for American Progress. "Without subsidies, more kids will wind up in unstable care situations that the parents are managing day to day. They may be shuffled around to friends or relatives or even be left home alone to take care of themselves."

There's another solution: single, career women shouldn't have bastard children. And if they do decide to have children, get married first so someone can watch the kid. As for kids having to be home alone, I understand the concern about younger kids, but once kids are of a certain age (say 9 or 10) is it really that big of a deal to have them walk home from school and stay home alone for an hour and a half until their mom comes come?

For many, the juggling required to grapple with suboptimal childcare can lead to taking days off work, arriving late and leaving early. As a result, parents risk losing those same jobs subsidies are meant to help facilitate. In addition, cuts in childcare dollars mean that childcare workers, many of whom are women and many of whom are single parents, now face having their hours cut or their jobs eliminated.

"In part, we see childcare subsidies as a job program," Boushey says. "Without reliable childcare, many low-income parents are forced into a position where they are less consistent on the job because they are dealing with childcare-related issues. They risk losing jobs and losing promotions. And in a tight job market like we have now, driving people out of the workplace is the last thing we want to be doing."

A more effective job program would be to slash the welfare/warfare state, abolish the income and capital gains tax, and allow wealthy people and small businessmen to create jobs. Also, expelling all illegal immigrants and many legal immigrants would help, too. That would be a far more effective job program than providing single women with an incentive to pop out bastards. It would also be a lot better for society than subsidizing the increase in the number of criminals and teen pregnancies that result from single motherhood.

What also seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle is how much such cuts could potentially cost individual states and the country as a whole. If I lost my daycare subsidy I would have to turn to food stamps, Medicaid, temporary assistance for needy families, Section 8, and every other social service out there to support my zero-income family. I would wind up the kind of financial burden no one's looking to take on these days. In addition, every child who doesn't get what they need in terms of early childhood care and learning risks costing the system more down the line in the form of behavioral problems or poor school performance.

If she would end up on welfare if she lost her daycare subsidy, she really isn't living a middle-class existence as she claims. She is living one artificially created with taxpayer dollars.

Also, due to the fact that her children are being raised by a single mother, they already are likely to have behavioral problems and poor school performance.

"Childcare faces a serious threat right now," says Ewen. "The short-term implications of the recession are very bad. We could see states making tremendous cuts, particularly once the stimulus money expires. The hard truth is that we can't make any reforms without resources. We know what we need to do -- develop a system in which the highest quality care is available to the widest range of families. Now it's a question of finding the means to do it."

The Obama administration seems committed to early childhood care and learning, pledging an additional $1.6 billion toward the Child Care and Development Block Grant in fiscal year 2011 (a pledge that still has to make it through Congress). Advocates hit a major stumbling block when the Early Learning Challenge Grant --$8 billion stretched across eight years targeted for education and learning for children from birth to age 5 --wasn't included in the final health care bill passed by the Senate. Now it's up to Congress to allocate more money to the states and also to states to put their own resources on the table.

Naturally, Obama and the Democrats will step in and further subsidize the destruction of the family with stolen money.

We can only hope they see the bigger issues at stake. Investing in childcare means investing in the future of our children and our education system, in job growth and creation.

She becomes very Orwellian in this sentence and the following ones.

By "investing" in childcare, she really means "take money from hardworking people via taxes and give it to single women." That is not investing, it is taking money from the people who invest.

It isn't a handout.

...

If this isn't a handout, then what is?

It's a crucial step toward helping individuals to help themselves.

No, it leads to the exact opposite. When someone gets $2000 a month from the government, as Mooney appears to, this does not cause them to take care of themselves. If they took care of themselves, that money would go way and they would have to pay $2000 a month out of their own pocket, so there is no incentive to help themselves. People realize they do not need to take care of themselves because the government will do it better than they can. This is one of the problems with welfare and why it is so destructive.

If Mooney wanted to take care of herself, she should have either not gotten pregnant or got married to the father of her children. Or she could have exercised this "choice" that feminists are always clamoring about.

Nan Mooney is the author of "(Not) Keeping Up with Our Parents" (Beacon, 2008). Read more about the book and her work at Nan Mooney.com.

Perhaps if Mooney is poor enough that her middle-class existence is endangered, she should find a more lucrative job than writing progressive political books for a non-profit organization (Beacon Press is run by a Unitarian group). And the reason why we are "not keeping up with our parents" is because liberals like her destroyed the society that our parents lived in, though I'm sure in her book she blames it on Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

I hate single mothers. I really do. I don't hate widows or mothers whose husbands/boyfriends turn out to be deadbeats, criminals, or otherwise worthless, but I hate single women who decide to have children knowing there will be no father in their children's lives and then expect everyone else (via government taxation) to pay for their decisions. Not only do I hate ghetto black welfare queens running around with their brood of five misbehaving nigglets, but I also hate "middle-class" white career women like this who have fatherless children and whine about the price of daycare (and the fact that school hours don't work well with office hours, that their employer won't give them time off to see their kids' school plays, etc.).

Nan Mooney is an embodiment of everything wrong with America.

"Looter" is a Racist Word

2010-04-20T16:48:00.004-05:00

In yesterday's New York Times, Paul Krugman wrote a column headlined "Looters in Loafers." Joshua Holland (who appears to be the result of a dyke having a sex change operation) calls this "hopelessly naive" and implies that looters is a racist word because only black people are called "looters." To support his claim, he resurrects the set of pictures taken in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina in which the caption says that a black kid "looted" food, but the caption for another picture claims that two white people "found" food. Of course, he doesn't mention the plainly visible fact that the pictures were taken by two different photographers working for two different companies.

Everything is racist to liberals. It is impossible for white people to do, say, or write anything that liberals will not find some way to turn into racism.

Why Was the Plaza Safe This Weekend?

2010-04-18T17:38:00.009-05:00

Last Sunday I wrote about the black wilding on Kansas City's Country Club Plaza last Saturday. While the MSM, police, and politicians were too cowardly to mention the fact that the "distrubances" were caused by large numbers of black "youths," they did understand that if the wildings occurred again, the Plaza would be doomed. The police were out in large numbers (including mounted officers and a sort of mobile command center) and would ticket parents whose children violated the curfew, Mayor Mark Funkhouser and the KCPD chief spent the evening on the Plaza with their families, and a group of 60 black men led by Alvin Brooks (the man who Funkhouser defeated to be elected mayor) wandered the Plaza to ensure that if large numbers of "youths" showed up, they would not cause any problems. Naturally, the Plaza was safe last night.

This incident is an example of why I am critical of libertarians who complain about "the police state." The fact is, if you want to maintain law and order in an area populated by NAMs, particularly blacks, you must have a police state.

The Kansas City Star notes "Hordes of dressy prom-goers ruled the entertainment area instead of the groups of unruly youths who swarmed the streets the previous Saturday night." Of course, they leave out the essential difference between the "prom goers" and the "unruly youths" - the fact that most of these prom-goers were white suburbanites, while these unruly youths were entirely black. The cowardice of the MSM is disgusting.

The plaza was safe this weekend because the "youths" who strolled it were white, not black, and because the police and community activists patrolled the Plaza to prevent blacks from wilding again. I'm sure Kansas City's liberal media will attempt to come up with plenty of alternative explanations, though. It should be fun to laugh at them.

"They're Just a Bunch of Old White Men"

2010-04-16T19:29:00.003-05:00

In the last few days, with the Tax Day Tea Party protests in the news, I've often heard variations of that statement used to describe the Tea Partiers. Leaving aside the fact that families, young people, and middle-aged people attended the protests and the fact that women are about as equally represented as men, this statement shows just how much liberals hate whites, America, and basically western civilization. It implies that soon, these old white men will be gone and a new era of DIVERSITY can reign.

Whites created America and have sustained it. When whites are a minority, America will turn into a Brasil del Norte, with all of the problems inherent to a country populated and run by blacks and mestizos. These "old white men" are the reason why America is America.

"Sharing" Housework

2010-04-16T14:30:00.000-05:00

Whenever I see a man pushing a stroller or wandering around with a baby in a papoose I wonder if since he does his share of childcare, does his wife mow the lawn? (And before any FRAs start complaining, no I do not have a problem with fathers taking care of their children, I just think the sight of men wandering around carrying babies in papooses looks ridiculous and emasculating.) Feminists, their "pro-feminist" mangina allies, and women in general often whine that men don't do their share of housework, but men do plenty of housework, except that it is outside or if it is inside it involves using strength and/or getting dirty.

Most of the people who I've seen changing tires, fixing cars, mowing lawns, landscaping and exterior decorating, doing fix-it work, cleaning gutters, and painting houses are men. True, this work might not take as much time as women's indoor work, but it is a lot more tiring and in some cases, dangerous. Plus, a lot of women's work is mostly automated. Women don't wash the clothes with a washboard and string them on a clothesline, they just dump them in the washer and dryer and later fold them. Likewise, cooking really isn't very labor intensive for the most part (unless you are preparing ingredients, mixing them, or stirring them), especially since most American women just throw something into the microwave or oven. And in households where the man works and the woman stays at home, he spends 8 hours a day working, so the least she can do is the housework.

To answer my question in the first paragraph, I'm guessing that the wives/girlfriends of men who wander around carrying babies in papooses while their wives work, shop, or visit friends probably don't repay the favor by doing yardwork. The kind of men they are married to are the kind of nice guys that believe that "equality" means women have no responsibilities or are "pro-feminist" manginas who are too meek to stand up to women (because that would be patriarchal and sexist).

Mass Effect 2

2010-04-15T00:02:00.003-05:00

Recently I finished playing Mass Effect 2. It was easily the best computer game I've played. I'll be posting a review sometime in the near future.

Blacks Ruin Everything

2010-04-11T18:19:00.013-05:00

"Kansas City Police were busy on Saturday night after massive crowds took over the Plaza. Some people compared the wild scene to rioting in downtown L.A."

Whenever large numbers of young blacks gather together, whether it is in South Africa, New Orleans, Congo, Chicago, or Paris, chaos, destruction, and violence are sure to follow due to their low average IQ and different social order. Whether it is a rap "concert," basketball game, track-and-field event, a movie, or just a Saturday night in a shopping district, anything that attracts blacks will attract trouble.

In Kansas City, Missouri, the Country Club Plaza is an upscale outdoor shopping center encompassing a few city blocks. It has a number of restaurants and stores, all of which are relatively pricey and attract large numbers of suburban whites, usually from Johnson County, Kansas. Unfortunately, it is on the northern end of an oasis in a typical urban wasteland. If you go to the west you will find the bar district of Westport (which is relatively safe because it attracts mostly whites), if you go south you will find expensive homes and yuppie neighborhoods. If you go southeast you will find the University of Missouri-Kansas City and Rockhurst University. However, to the north and east are black ghettos.

Due to private security and police, the Plaza had managed to remain relatively safe from black wildings that have plauged so many other locales around the United States. Until now.

On Saturday night, hundreds of Negro "youths" went rampaging like a bachelor herd of wildebeests. Between 500 and 1000 Negroes swarmed the Plaza, damaging property, attacking actual shoppers, harassing motorists by banging on windows and jumping in front of cars, firing off guns or fireworks, breaking store windows, robbing people, seriously injuring at least one person, and fighting amongst themselves. The police had to block of roads and unleash pepper spray on these clowders of chaos. Naturally, the liberal media referred to the Negroes as "youths" without detailing their race, but non-establishment sources revealed that they were black (as most people who read the MSM stories probably suspected).

Many whites in the Kansas City metropolitan area are leary of the Plaza as a result of this and if another wilding occurs, the Plaza will die. It might even die as a result of this one. The fact that it occurred on a prom night when many suburban white kids were eating at the Plaza restaurants will make the damage much worse - many suburban parents will avoid the Plaza and ban their children from going there after this. Suburban whites in general will soon realize that the Plaza is no longer safe and will retreat to their suburban entertainment centers, leaving the Plaza to rot just as Bannister Mall did years ago for the same reason. Naturally, Negro leaders will whine about how racist whites are because they don't want to share the Plaza with blacks, just as they did when Bannister Mall failed. Of course, if the Plaza was saved by allowing the police and security to kick out miscreants or prevent them from entering, the Negroes would object to that as racist, too.

Segregation is reviled by most people today, but was segregation really bad compared to the black kleptocracy that we have now? The fact is, segregation existed (and not only in the South) prior to the 1960s because whites understood the fact that crime, chaos, and violence follow blacks. A wilding like this would never have happened in Kansas City in the 1960s and before - during the MLK riots, for example, suburban police blocked off entrances to the suburbs and prevented blacks from entering. Back then it was understood who the troublemakers were and how to stop them.

Businesses should be allowed to ban Negro youths and the police should not be restrained from blocking them from entering white areas to prevent wildings like this from occurring. Some may say that this would be a "police state" and no one can suggest this and still call himself a libertarian. The problem is, libertarianism works if there is a population of people who respect others' rights to life, liberty, and property. Blacks, however, do not. Libertarianism will not work in places with large black populations where the "youths" spend their time ruining everyone else's lives.

(Heh. I bet this post will cause me to be delinked from a few blogs. Also, if anyone objects to me using the word "Negro" in this post, go complain to the United Negro College Fund while you're at it.)

Tea Partiers and the Half of Americans Who Don't Pay Taxes

2010-04-10T02:18:00.013-05:00

At Feministe, Jill Filipovic remarks on the fact that nearly half of US households pay no federal income tax, as if taxes really aren't that bad because many people don't even pay them and so maybe "anti-tax conservatives" and Tea Partiers should just shut up and go home.

The fact is, many of the Tea Partiers are well aware of this fact and are angry about it (conservative anti-tax organizations have been reporting it for years). They are upset that the money they work hard for is redistributed to "poor" people through the many government welfare programs (it's funny how these "poor" people who can somehow afford alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, electronics, "urban" clothing, and expensive rims, but that's a topic for another post). If you go to a Tea Party protest you will find that the people are working-class, middle-class, upper-middle-class, and even some wealthy people. Virtually all of them are white. And not only do they have to live in expensive neighborhoods and commute long distances to avoid NAMs, but they have to subsidize NAMs' (and lumpen whites') lifestyles, as they are the ones paying the taxes. The Tea Partiers are too afraid to say it, but most of them are probably aware of the racial composition of their group versus that of the people whose existence they pay for.

Each year when they put away money to pay for their young child's future college education, they pay for part of others' in the form of Pell Grants. When they work every day to feed their families, they pay for fat ghetto queens and their broods to consume junk food with food stamps. When they work to pay the mortgages on their houses in nice, expensive white flight suburbs, they pay for Mexican immigrants to pour into the apartments of those neighborhoods with Section 8. When they spend thousands of dollars each year for daycare due to requiring two incomes to support the high cost of a modern suburban lifestyle, they pay for ghetto sluts to nest their myriad children in virtually free child care. While they work because they were raised to believe that's what adults do, they pay for the lumpen to be motivated to do so with tax credits and refunds such as the "Making Work Pay" credit and the EITC (which, by the way, basically cancels out the FICA taxes that the lumpen pay).

Yes, I realize my language in the last paragraph was probably inflammatory, racist, classist, and insensitive. But I don't care. If anyone doubts me, then drive through a white suburb during the day where you will find everyone either at school or studying for it, staying at home with children, working at local businesses, or out of the area due to a long commute. Then drive through a black inner city and look at all of the people driving around playing loud rap music, sitting around drinking, and standing around on street corners doing nothing.

It's ironic that blacks continue to whine about slavery that ended 145 years ago, since in the present-day whites have to work from January 1 to April 9 to pay for them to live.

Women March Topless in Maine & Get Mad When Men Watch Them

2010-04-05T20:14:00.011-05:00

A few days ago, in Portland, Maine, two dozen women decided to protest the double standard in America regarding male vs. female toplessness by marching topless along a main street. Predictably, this rather unusual attracted the attention of many men, many of whom took pictures of this public event. The Portland Press Herald provides a picture, although it is a rear view. Judging from their pale skin, short and ragged hair, chunky physiques, and the Mirror of Venus painted on the back of one of them, it's safe to say that they were probably feminists and hipster girls, which makes me wonder why so many men were taking pictures in the first place.

Generally, women who go around topless protesting the toplessness double standard tend to be feminists and lesbians, usually ugly ones. Maybe they would have better luck fighting the double standard if they brought good-looking non-man-hating women to their protests, like PETA does. Until then, toplessness in America will be associated with fat, ugly feminists, lesbians, and goddess-worshipers and the double standard will not vanish because men will associate publicly bare breasts with the flabby one of such women.

The funniest part of this story is the fact that the marchers were mad that they attracted a crowd:

"Ty McDowell, who organized the march, said she was "enraged" by the turnout of men attracted to the demonstration. The purpose, she said, was for society to have the same reaction to a woman walking around topless as it does to men without shirts on."

Societal attitudes are not going to be changed by a single march. This is probably the first time nearly two dozen women walked topless through this city - it was an abnormal event. If a jester walked along the sidewalk with a dancing bear, it probably would probably attract a photographing crowd, too (or maybe everyone would have ran away in fear). Even if the double standard is eroded, do they really think no one would notice a bunch of women walking topless along a street? In Europe, it is common for women to go topless on beaches, but if twenty women marched topless along a main street in Barcelona or Bucharest, would the men really ignore them?

"However, McDowell said she plans to organize similar demonstrations in the future and said she would be more "aggressive" in discouraging oglers."

Note the typical feminist/liberal response. If you don't like what someone is using, shut them down somehow. It worked on Tom Tancredo, Ann Coulter, American Rennaisance, et al. I'm sure there were plenty of Christian conservatives who were upset by this legal (in Maine female public toplessness is not a crime) protest, yet they didn't attempt to interfere.

How exactly is she going to discourage oglers? They are in a public place, so the oglers have as much right to be there as the marchers do. A lot of these oglers were probably men who had legitimate business shopping, eating, or working downtown; they weren't protesters trying to stir up trouble. The "aggressive" part suggests that she intends to use force to stop the oglers, which will result in them getting arrested (and probably praised on feminist blogs). There are instances in which getting arrested at protests is beneficial to the protesters, but the public wouldn't have much sympathy for a bunch of topless fat, ugly feminists and lesbians who attack men who watch them as they walk around half-naked in public. If they get "aggressive," it will probably just backfire on them.

Also, if the whole point is to draw attention to the double standard, it is pointless to discourage people from watching their protest. Generally, people who march around expressing their point of view want people to notice them.

However, I admit that I am also enraged that men were ogling the marchers. Really, what kind of man enjoys watching a bunch of fat feminists and man-hating lesbians walking around exposing their flabby breasts? There must be a lot of weird fetishists in Maine...

RapeLay and Ignorant Video Game Bashers

2010-04-02T18:12:00.009-05:00

Feminists and the Old Media have rediscovered RapeLay, the Japanese rape simulation game that video game bashers love to use to attack gaming.

Before I discuss that, I wanted to mention an ignorant video game bashing (and male-bashing) article from the Times-Herald of Dubuque, Iowa, which I found via GiantBomb. I am posting the article in its entirety due to the fact that online newspaper articles, especially those from papers with relatively low circulation, have a tendency to link rot.

Monday, March 29, 2010
Change 'culture of violence'
Teach boys that abusing women and degrading others will not be tolerated.
BY TIM MOOTHART

You and I began life as a being without a propensity to harm others. All of us, yes even the mass murderer on death row, began life as a child who would never think of harming another human being.

However:

* Some 18 percent of women in the United States have been victims of a completed or attempted rape.

* Riverview Center in Dubuque served 1,100 children and adults this year related to violence.

Who is performing this violence?

* Some 64 percent of women who reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked since age 18 were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner, boyfriend, or date.

* Typical perpetrators are not aliens or misfits. They are your neighbors, your relatives, your co-workers.

What happened?

Jackson Katz, noted expert on gender violence, says, "Most men who assault women are not so much disturbed as disturbingly normal ... they are influenced by broad cultural beliefs about manhood that shape their psyches and identities. And ours. They not only learn to be violent, they learn that violence is manly."

Yes, all of us together have created a "culture of violence" and live with its logical outcome, a society racked with pain and suffering inflicted upon each other by acts of violence. Violence is a learned behavior and all of us have been its teachers.

What can we do?

Like any skill or learned trait, we can learn to approach gender violence from a different perspective. We can all be teachers of a new approach.

First, it requires all of us to believe that WE have the responsibility to change our culture. It's not just the perpetrators or "them" that have to change, it's all of us.

Next, reject the idea that violence is inevitable and that some men abuse women. Hold yourself to a higher standard. Boys learn how to be men from observing other men. In Dubuque, let's make sure they observe that degrading women and abusing others is not part of manhood and will not be tolerated.

Take a look inside yourself. Men, do you believe that men should be in control in a relationship? Do you act as if males are "the stronger gender"? Do you treat and talk about others as if they were objects rather than fellow humans?

Show our children how to respect others even when you disagree with them or they have hurt you in some way.

Take advantage of those teachable moments. Let's say your 12-year-old boy asks you to buy him the wildly popular video game "Grand Theft Auto." Tell him, "I don't want GTA in my house because it is disrespectful to women. It teaches boys to think that violence against women is just a big joke. As a man, I will not spend my money on this and I don't want it in my house."

Join us as we work to change the culture of our community and our attitude toward gender violence. Help us educate all community members on its negative impact and what ALL of us can do to prevent it by the way we live.

Together we can learn to eliminate gender and domestic violence! What are you teaching?

The article reeks of the chivalrous male-bashing common among conservative nice guy manginas. He writes about how we need to teach boys to respect women and girls, etc., etc. Of course, no mention is made of teaching girls to respect boys and men. I am used to reading that kind of drivel so to me that was not the dumbest part. This was:

Take advantage of those teachable moments. Let's say your 12-year-old boy asks you to buy him the wildly popular video game "Grand Theft Auto." Tell him, "I don't want GTA in my house because it is disrespectful to women. It teaches boys to think that violence against women is just a big joke. As a man, I will not spend my money on this and I don't want it in my house."

It's obvious that this man has never played or even researched much about the GTA series. He's just a lemming who read an article in the newspaper or saw a report on Fox News telling about how players in GTA can commit violence against women.

The truth is, GTA has less violence against women than most modern games. True, you can have sex with prostitutes, then kill them and take the money, but this is not part of the main storyline. Pretty much all of the enemies you fight and kill in GTA, including both police and criminals are male (which is odd considering women make up like 20% of most big city police departments), unlike in many games where there are many female enemies. So I wonder why Tim Moothart didn't say that GTA disrespected men?

Via Feministing, I found a story from CNN regarding a video game called RapeLay. First off, RapeLay has been out for four years and RapeLay has been known among gamers and the Internet subculture for a few years. It is pathetic that CNN is only catching on now. The Old Media is utterly useless when it comes to Internet-related news.

Anyways, the whole point of RapeLay is to rape women. It seems sick, right? But when you think about it, there are a lot of sicker games out there. In first-person shooters you slaughter hundreds of people, including unarmed civilians in some cases, to complete the game. In games where there is some sort of morality system present, such as alignment in Dungeons and Dragons-based games and the Renegade/Paragon system of Mass Effect, the player can do horrible things to people. In Mass Effect 2, you can beat information out of a prisoner (there's actually a few parts of the game that involve beating information out of people) and execute unarmed civilians and surrendered enemies if you go for the Renegade path. In Bioshock, you can kill little girls if you play as an evil character. True, you aren't required to do evil acts like you are in RapeLay, but the potential is still there and a lot of players do so.

Predictably feminists are outraged over it. I agree that stores should probably not be selling it, but their public outrage is only going to cause it to spread even further. It is something known as the Streisand effect - things that people try to censor on the Internet end up getting spread around more than they would have if they were just left alone. Indeed, CNN shockingly notes that the game went viral as a result of the feminists' protests and people can download it through tubes of the Internets. Who would've thought?

Of course, a bunch of feminist activists and Old Media reporters - or do I repeat myself? - wouldn't know anything about the Streisand effect or Internet culture in general. Which is probably a good thing. If they dug deeper into Internet culture, they would undoubtedly be horrified by what they would find, and we would get even more articles like this.

Predictably, feminists have a solution and it involves government regulation. For the article, CNN "interviewed" Taina Bien-Aime from Equality Now, one of the people who helped get the game removed from the shelves last year. Bien-Aime wants Japan "to ban all games that promote and simulate sexual violence, sexual torture, stalking and rape against women and girls." The fact is, as distasteful as games like RapeLay are, they do not hurt anyone. 0s and 1s are being "raped," not real women. Also, if governments can ban RapeLay, they will probably try to ban violent games and games with politically incorrect content later on. Yes, that involves a slippery slope, but when discussing government regulations the slippery slope is not a fallacy, it is generally a legitimate concern.

Perhaps Taina Bien-Aime and her Equality Now should put more effort into fighting real, tangible oppression towards women, instead of calling for governments to censor video games they don't like in First World countries where women are very well off.