Tuesday, December 21, 2010

The American Tyrant

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.

Monday, December 13, 2010


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)

Thursday, December 2, 2010

Why I Support Extending Unemployment Benefits

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!

Monday, November 29, 2010

The Thousand Year Reich Comes to an End

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.

Sunday, November 21, 2010

Spot the Difference, Part III (NSFW)

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:

Thursday, November 18, 2010

Third World Immigration Brings Medieval Christianity to America

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.

Tuesday, November 16, 2010

I Hate Blogspot

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.

Sunday, November 7, 2010

Alcohol-Related Nanny State Stupidity in Michigan

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.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Happy Columbus Day

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.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Is There Anything Liberals Won't Start Boycotts Over?

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.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010

Mosque Protesters Go After the Wrong Religion

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.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Why I Never Watch TV

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.

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

There is No Sanctity of Marriage to Preserve

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.

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Everything is Discrimination

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.

Sunday, July 25, 2010

How Old Am I?

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.

Friday, July 23, 2010

Appearance Discrimination

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

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.
-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).

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

White Music

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.

Monday, July 19, 2010

Roissy's Dating Market Value Test

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?

Sunday, July 18, 2010

The Tea Party Movement is Worthless

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.

Friday, July 16, 2010

Questions for Liberal Men and Male Feminists

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.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Mel Gibson is a Race Realist

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.

Wednesday, July 7, 2010

Another White Knight Gets Himself Hurt

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)

Friday, July 2, 2010

White Men Are Responsible For America's Gun Problems

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.

Wednesday, June 30, 2010

America's First Lady and Russia's First Lady

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

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.

Monday, June 28, 2010

"Street Harassment" Public Safety Alert in Toronto

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.

Thursday, June 24, 2010

Dress Codes for Women are a Joke

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.

Monday, June 21, 2010

When Black Knights Attack

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.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Ashkenazi Jews Protest In Support of School Segregation...

... 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.

Friday, June 18, 2010


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?

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Why I Am Not a Conservative, Part II

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.

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.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

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

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.

Monday, June 14, 2010

Why I Am Not a Conservative

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.