Translate

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Today is born of a Virgin, He who holds the whole Creation in His hand.

Today Is Born Of A Virgin





Coventry Carol (remembering the Slaughter Of The Innocents, 16th cent.)

Lully, lullay, Thou little tiny Child,
By, by, lully, lullay.
Lullay, thou little tiny Child,
By, by, lully, lullay.

O sisters too, how may we do,
For to preserve this day
This poor youngling for whom we do sing
By, by, lully, lullay.

Herod, the king, in his raging,
Charged he hath this day
His men of might, in his own sight,
All children young to slay.

Then, woe is me, poor Child for Thee!
And ever mourn and sigh
For thy parting neither say nor sing,
By, by, lully, lullay.

Friday, December 23, 2011

Great Britain

Transsexual pushes cross-dressing lawyer under a train

A transgender man who pushed his cross-dressing lawyer friend to her death under a Tube train has been jailed for seven years.

Senthooran Kanagasingham was undergoing sex-change treatment when he killed solicitor David Burgess, known as Sonia, at King's Cross station in London.

The 35-year-old, who was known as Nina at the time of the attack, was a close friend of the solicitor who had befriended him at a bar and often visited her Soho flat.

Just an hour before Sonia was pushed infront of the train the leading human rights and immigration lawyer had taken Kanagasingham to a doctor because she was so worried about his mental state.

Brian Altman QC, prosecuting, said shocked rush-hour commuters had seen Kanagasingham push Sonia from the back.

A note found in Kanagasingham's rucksack said he was 'broke, depressed and suffering from gender dysphoria'.

He told the court Sonia was 'gender-variant' and had not wished to have surgery to become a woman, but to all intents and purposes outside her professional life, lived as a female.

This was 'accepted and embraced' by everyone, including her three children...


In case you're confused (understandable), the cross-dressing lawyer is referred to as "she" and the man undergoing sex-change "treatment" (as it is euphemistically called) is referred to as "he." Click the link for pictures of the couple, if you wish.

The Guardian refers to David Burgess as the country's "renowned" and "most celebrated" immigration lawyer.

Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Jews, hedge fund managers and homosexuals agree...

Ron Paul cannot be allowed to win the Republican nomination

First, Sailer's post, to put things in context. In summary, the New York Times decided to dust off an old hatchet job on Ron Paul from The New Republic, now that he presents a clear and present danger of winning the Iowa primary.

The comments thread is pretty solid paleocon/libertarian, but it's always interesting to see what brings out the rabble on iSteve.

Aaron in Israel says,
Come on, Mr. Sailer. We all know that the word "racist" is wildly overused. Still, there is such a thing as racism (or bigotry), and the newsletters are racist (or bigoted). "The blacks," come on.

Even in the early 1990s it was known that AIDS wasn't transmitted by saliva. The author probably knew that, but lied anyway.

There's a huge difference between pandering to "rednecks" (Murray Rothbard's word) who are bigots, and using bigotry to pander to rednecks. Especially for someone who wants to be president, i.e., president of all citizens - blacks, white rednecks, etc.


Thank you, citizen of a Jewish supremacist nation-state for telling us how to run our country. How does one deal with "the blacks," do tell?

This one's my personal favorite:
The opposition to Ron Paul is not all about his views on the Middle East. He wants to abolish the Federal Reserve system and go back on the gold standard. There is no significant body of economists who think that is a good idea; it was from conservative economist Milton Friedman's research that the world learned monetary theory, and how a properly functioning central bank can avoid both depressions and periods of runaway inflation. We have avoided both for the past 30 years, since Paul Volcker killed double digit inflation during 1979-81. As a fixed income hedge fund research director, I cannot imagine the global bond markets functioning properly without a central banking system in the USA. From my perspective, Paul wants us to unlearn everything we have learned over the past 75 years about making capitalist economies function effectively.

It's unanimous: the geniuses who engineered the greatest episode of capital destruction and rent-seeking in history believe that Ron Paul would be a disaster.

Finally, the sodomites weigh in.
"When everybody knows (or at least has been told, over and over) that AIDS can be transmitted by heterosexual sex as easily as by homosexual practices."

Because it does, ignoramus. Actually, the mucous linning of the inner vulva is MORE susceptible to being penetrated by the HIV virus then the linning of the anus. The reason why there is less contamination in heterosexual intercourse is because straight couples usually wear prophylactics whilst gay men usually don't.

And this is none of your damn business! Gay men can have as much sex as they want with as many partners as they want, and you don't get to give your opinion on it.

Sailer is one cynical, callous liar. He wants to restrict the freedom of homosexual men because he deems them inferior to heterosexuals, but he pretends to want to restrict it because he "cares" about them and don't want them to die to AIDS. Yeah, right...the guy is a conservative, pro-traditional family, anti-gay marriage and we are supposed to believe he wants to restricts the freedom of gays because he doesen't want them to catch AIDS. Yeah, right...Sailer would probably love if all gays would disappear from off the face of the Earth, so don't pretend like you care about them.


Clearly, if Ron Paul is elected President, a deviant, childless, unhygienic sector constituting a full two to five percent of the population would disappear from off the face of the Earth. My only question is, can we clone the guy?

Saturday, November 19, 2011

The moral bankruptcy of conservatism

40 years of ultimatums, from Dalrock.
in the case of the gender war feminists have made an unspoken agreement with traditional conservatives:

You hold him down while I rob him.

Not only have Social Conservatives agreed, they were so eager to assist that they even volunteered to create an alibi for the crime. Whenever anything goes wrong with the heist, conservatives loudly blame men.

Feminists sternly tell us that 40 or so years ago women looked to their husbands as the rightful leader of the family. Men and women both married young, and with generally little previous sexual experience. Marriage was almost universally seen as a partnership for life.

Now women are actually proud to call themselves sassy. Lack of self control is now a virtue for women, and is openly celebrated in very young girls. This new high attitude woman however doesn’t come with the increased ability which would back it up. Women are being told they should delay marriage until they are at least 30, and many are following that advice. Yet after waiting so long to marry, women are now as likely as not to decide that they either don’t want to be married or have married the wrong man. Those who do stay married are very likely to feel justified to deny their husband sex and generally usurp his traditional role as head of the household. In the years prior to marriage women no longer feel that they must abstain from sex. Social conservatives have signed off on removing slut shaming, with the pretext that women’s preferred form of promiscuity is more moral than mens and any women who are slutty are merely innocent victims of the men they have sex with.


Prominent social conservatives like Peggy Young Nance and Bill Bennett are exhorting men to put down the video games, the porn and the beer and "man up" to marry all those modern American women. The assumption seems to be that men have some a priori duty to incur student loan debts, enter the corporate meat grinder, compete with the 1 million plus new Americans we import every year for housing and job opportunities, and marry a woman who is (1) in head-to-head economic competition with him, and (2) on the downward slope of attractiveness and fertility. The idea that any man would ever ask, "Why?," and "What's in it for me?" seems never to have entered anybody's head.

Large numbers of men can’t marry until their mid to late thirties. At the same time they are surrounded by large numbers of promiscuous attractive women being as true to themselves as they can possibly be. Men in this position have three options:

1. Stay celibate by choice.
2. Stay celibate or close to celibate due to being rejected by hypergamous young women.
3. Learn how to have sex with the hordes of young women riding the carousel.

This isn’t a question our society has spent much energy wrestling with. The underlying feeling is; who cares, so long as they man up and marry these women once they are done riding the carousel. It turns out however that the men themselves very much do care. This is an extremely long time we are expecting men to go before marrying. During this time we have the unspoken expectation that they will work their tails off to be ready to act as a provider while not getting too used to being single. Each decade we have pushed the envelope a little further, and we expect each new generation of men to simply suck it up a little more and fill in the gaps. One can argue that they should have beat another man to the punch and married one of the small number of chaste young submissive women who were looking to marry. But this is just shuffling the deck chairs around. At the end of the day this will only determine which men marry in their early to mid 20s and which ones are forced to wait it out; the overall numbers won’t change because the change is being driven by the choices of women, not men.


The game-changer in all this, it turns out, are the choices of men.

Social Conservatives and Feminists have been pretty happy with this deal for the last 40 years. What could possibly go wrong? Now along come men like Roissy and Roosh who say to young men not only do you not have to spend your youth in grinding celibacy, but you don’t need to sign up to marry a brassy sassy career gal slut who just as likely as not will deny you sex and/or take you to the cleaners while ripping your children away from you. They will teach young men how to pass the decade or so they would otherwise wait for their wife to tire of slutting around. Even better, they will teach them how to have all the sex they want with the youngest, prettiest women, all without having to knock themselves out career wise. Feminists and Traditional Conservatives gave men lemons; Roissy and Roosh taught them how to make lemonade.

Who reading this doesn’t understand that this was absolutely bound to happen? Why is anyone surprised at this? After 40 years of cumulative one sided demands (and concessions), men now see another option. Feminists and Traditional Conservatives are furious. How dare they choose something else! But they are the ones who turned marriage from a lifetime partnership to a way women can defraud men. They are the ones who told women to slut it up in their 20s and told men to wait for marriage until the women were done. They were the ones who denigrated the status of husband from leader of the family to cowering scapegoat. All I can say is they should get used to it. If it took 40 years of one sided demands to get here, it could easily take as long to move back to equilibrium (assuming it does).


The male marriage strike has started. The only thing that will break it will be the eventual return to patriarchal society. In the meantime, the movement-conservatives, with their wars to extend voting rights and feminism to Middle Eastern women, continue to reveal their moral bankruptcy.

Wednesday, October 26, 2011

Stupid, greedy and evil


A trifecta of bad policy, from Dr. Housing Bubble:

I.
It should be abundantly clear and obvious that the government and Wall Street want nothing more than to keep home prices inflated and are sticking out a giant middle finger to the majority of Americans. You might have missed the glorious news that our stunningly cunning Senate decided to reinstate the heightened loan limits for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the FHA (aka the entire stinking mortgage market). Of course the lobbying arms of the housing industry went gaga for this policy even though it keeps prices further inflated in bubble states like California and New York.

II.
Since our politicians care so deeply about working Americans, they are also examining a push at giving residential visas to foreigners looking to buy at least $500,000 in real estate. Forget about the fact that the median home in the U.S. costs more like $170,000 to $180,000.

III.
Then we have the Federal Reserve artificially keeping mortgage rates at historic lows and you hit the trifecta of housing welfare for expensive bubble ridden states while the overall economy falters.


The US is becoming a banana republic. In a banana republic, two simple rules guide economic policy: the poor cannot become the rich, and the rich are protected from becoming poor. The income tax, for example, is not a tax on being rich but a tax on becoming rich. The estate tax is not a tax on old money but on new old money, because the only thing Old Money hates more than New Money is New Old Money.

In the US banana republic, cash-rich foreigners get to bid prices up on housing, because what they're actually bidding on is citizenship. Hugely expensive homes must stay hugely expensive instead of hugely affordable, which is where the market has been trying to push them for the past three years. Savers who don't have the means or the desire to navigate the Wall Street casino are given no choice, because the Fed's casino barkers get to levy negative interest on their savings if they refuse to play.

It gets worse: student loans turn the aspiring middle class into lifelong debt-slaves, the huge alphabet soup of tax-deferred accounts acts as a giant sluice gate to Wall Street for Other People's Money. The hidden threads in this tapestry of tax, fiscal and monetary policy are the twin designs of keeping the money flow headed upstream and the barriers to socio-economic mobility fixed. Americans, as this commenter notes, are thrown into competition with the global poor for wages and with the global rich for housing.

Every action provokes reaction, and the US banana republic faces existential threat from an angry, desperate middle class. This threat has been considered and an appropriate policy response implemented: the American middle class is to be replaced with a compliant Third World peasantry.

Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Thanks for the memories

How many times in your life have you met someone, shaken hands, exchanged pleasantries. Then, later, you hear that they are dead and a sudden pang strikes you: I met that person, pressed his flesh, spoke with him.

What passed through the minds of these men when they heard Gaddafi had been killed? Did they recall when they met him, plenipotentiary to plenipotentiary, negotiating trade and other protocols? Did they recall how his voice sounded, his handshake, whether he was a pleasant guest or host?

The first three pictured with the Colonel, did they worry much over the ceremonial farce, knowing that they were just biding their time, and when the moment arrived, would assist in in his overthrow and lynching, and negotiate oil deals?

Democratic leaders can hide devious plots behind pleasantries and turn to war and assassination as callously and capriciously as the most tribalist dictator out there.






Monday, October 24, 2011

In memoriam: Col. Moammar Gaddafi

A man who embraced the modern American ideal.

America is not only for the whites, but it is for all. Who is the American? The American is you, me and that. When we go to America we will become Americans and there is no a race or nationalism called America and the Americans are those Africans, Indians, Chinese, and Europeans and whoever goes to America will become American. American is for all of us and the whole world had made and created America. All the people all over the world had made America and it shall accordingly be for all of us. I will never feel ashamed when I claim for my right in America and it will not be strange when I raise my voice in America."

George H.W. Bush says much the same thing in the linked entry, but one enjoys a Presidential pension and the other was bombed out of his capital city and killed by a mob.

Over and over again, we are told that America is a propositional nation to which anybody can belong. But as iSteve poster Baloo has pointed out, no thought is ever given to the ethnicity that developed the proposition and understands it, nor is there any recognition of the fact that a nation can have a proposition, but a proposition cannot be a nation.

Along these lines, there is still weeping and gnashing of teeth over the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki, a Muslim Yemeni cleric who nonetheless satisfied some technical criteria for US citizenship. But really, what other result follows from a bureaucratric state, totally detached from any notion of patrimony? 'America' is a global proposition, and its governors act globally to defend it. If Gaddafi threatens this global proposition, he will be assassinated. If al-Awlaki threatens this global proposition, he will be assassinated. If David Koresh threatens this global proposition, he will be assassinated. A citizen's good standing in the global proposition depends solely on administrative criteria which can be re-defined or ignored on bureaucratic whim.

The outrage should begin with the fact that American citizenship has become so debased that it warrants no particular consideration.

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Dems to OWS: You're on your own, Jack

Wall Street to Dems: you can't have it both ways
After the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent a recent email urging supporters to sign a petition backing the wave of Occupy Wall Street protests, phones at the party committee started ringing.

Banking executives personally called the offices of DCCC Chairman Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) and DCCC Finance Chairman Joe Crowley (D-N.Y.) last week demanding answers, three financial services lobbyists told POLITICO.

“They were livid,” said one Democratic lobbyist with banking clients.

The execs asked the lawmakers: “What are you doing? Do you even understand some of the things that they’ve called for?” said another lobbyist with financial services clients who is a former Democratic Senate aide.

The Occupy Wall Street movement, like the larger Left, is fundamentally incoherent. Do they really think all that vast welfare state infrastructure and social engineering would be possible just from current tax revenues? Do they realize the degree to which all levels of government in the US are reliant on Wall Street's leveraged financing schemes? Are they aware that a slight majority of voters with income over $200K voted for Obama?

Come to think of it, I haven't seen Obama or any other Democrat of much weight out there on the pickets.

It's funny and kind of sadly predictable how these movements degenerate into the typical hippy Marxist cornucopia: "free" medical care, END RACISM!, etc. The policies actually causing the harm--inflation, artifically low interest rates, rent seeking--are all stupidly (or deliberately) ignored.

Also, this is pretty funny too:

Monday, October 17, 2011

Autocephaly and the Orthodox Church in America

From the American Orthodox Institute (9/10/2011):

...TNH: What is the position of the Patriarchate of Moscow on the issue of the Orthodox Diaspora?

Hilarion: In the Russian Orthodox Church we believe that in the Diaspora it is possible to establish Canonical Orthodox Churches if there is agreement in the Orthodox populations of the particular countries. On this basis we granted autocephaly to the Orthodox Church in America in 1970. But now the Orthodox churches are coming closer together and we are commonly decided that the granting of autocephaly should be a matter of Panorthodox concern and that Tomes of Autocephaly should be signed by all the Primates of All the Orthodox Churches. In fact we agreed on a different model from that which existed before. We also agreed to establish Episcopal Assemblies in the Diaspora to facilitate cooperation among the different jurisdictions.

TNH: With this new decision are you saying that the Ecumenical Patriarchate no longer has the historical and canonical privilege of being the only one to grant Autocephaly?

Hilarion: This seems to be the consensus of all the representatives of all the Orthodox churches, that autocephaly should be granted with the agreement of all the Orthodox Churches. It can be proclaimed by the Ecumenical Patriarch, but the Tome will be signed by all the Primates.


To my distant, uninformed ear, this sounds like, we should never have granted the Tome. The next step would be Moscow's agreement with the other Patriarchates that the Tome was not originally theirs to give. The persistence of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad suggests revocation is a matter of time.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

Inconvenient Truths, from 1982

NY Times: New Homosexual Disorder Worries Health Officials

...Epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control have done studies among homosexual men with and without the immune disorder but matched in age, background and other characteristics. After testing for more than 130 potential risk factors, they found that the median number of lifetime male sexual partners for affected homosexual men was 1,160, compared to 524 for male homosexual men who did not have the syndrome. The study also found more use of sexual stimulants and illicit drugs among the GRID patients.

As further evidence against simple contagious spread, epidemiologists note that the syndrome has not spread to other family members, hospital workers or researchers on the disease...[emphasis added]


The HIV/AIDS cover-up is now in its third decade.

Gnosticism: the facts--rampant drug use and exponential sexual contacts--are inconvenient and impolitic.

The facts must be suppressed, distorted, concealed because they contradict the gnostic ideal: sodomy is just a preference, normative ideas about sex are just more repressive patriarchy.

How to Prepare for Communion


A very good reference from the excellent Notes on Arab Orthodoxy blog

Thursday, October 6, 2011

Please help Georgia agri-business

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports multi-million dollar losses due to Georgia immigration enforcement, none of which goes beyond the federal criteria for residence in this country.

The immigration debate is faith-based. Robert Solow won a Nobel prize for modeling the fact that higher capital per worker leads to higher output per worker. But when it comes to immigration, too much is never enough. Producer inputs per worker must fall to Third World levels and somehow we all get rich. Why doesn't this magic formula work in the Third World?

Apparently these companies have no solution to E-Verify other than to let crops rot in the field. Surely the Southern planters would agree: there is no economically viable way to grow cotton without slave labor. Oh, but then this got invented.



A commenter on the AJC thread sums things up nicely.
I believe that we have already settled the plantations owner’s right to use slave labor. They simply changed to a lighter color slave and now pay them what it used to cost to house them – a thin veil if you ask me. I do believe that those who remain reliant on this labor should fail – smaller and local agribusiness’ will take up the slack quickly.

Monday, September 19, 2011

Bad day at the office

UBS trader Adoboli held over $2bn loss
High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/258a38d2-df6a-11e0-845a-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1YS5PV3KG

The revelation that a trader in “Delta One” – an area of derivative trading activity that is one of the only remaining ways for banks to take big bets with their own money – could cause such a catastrophic loss has prompted calls for fresh restrictions on investment banks.

“Management doesn’t understand what’s going on in the Delta One desks,” said Terry Smith, chief executive of Tullett Prebon, the interdealer broker. “If you sat down with a CEO and asked them to please explain what happens they would try but they couldn’t give you an accurate answer because they don’t understand.”

Analysts at Goldman Sachs said the trading losses were a reason to “sharply scale back” investment banking at UBS.

“The key area of damage in our view is reputational and extends beyond the investment bank, into UBS’s private banking business,” the Wall Street bank said in a note to clients.

Analysts had forecast net profits of about SFr1.3bn ($1.5bn) for the quarter, but are now revising their outlook. UBS shares, down nearly 85 per cent in the past five years, fell 10.8 per cent to close at SFr9.75 in Zurich.

UBS’ investment banking division has only just begun to recover from near-disastrous losses during the financial crisis. Some stability has returned at the unit under Carsten Kengeter, the former Goldman Sachs executive who joined in 2009.

The bank’s last annual report said that “increased risk taking” had been authorised since 2010 “for incremental trading activity.”

How does this sort of thing happen? How can a 31-year old non-fiduciary expose a company to $2 billion in risk? Presumably the amount he could put in play was capped: $10 million, $20 million(?). Do derivatives carry that much leverage, or was he given just ridiculous amounts of money to play with? Even rinky-dink local governments and professional service firms nab employees for petty pilferage but the cream of international finance can't keep a leash on their traders.

These are the the institutions it's our patriotic duty to bail out, by the way. The rich are no longer allowed to become poor.

New tag: OPM (Other People's Money)

Good ol' Warren Buffett

Guy Somerset at Taki's takes him down a peg.
Buffett never tires of proclaiming he pays lower taxes than his employees. His constant exemplar of a secretary makes $60,000 annually—a respectable salary, yet not particularly generous as contrasted against running paperwork for one of the planet’s most active executives. Buffett himself makes approximately $46 million per year. And this is how the man who would care for all Americans provides for his own? Noblesse oblige begins at home, Warren...

Warren doesn’t state whether he is to assume any extraordinary liabilities of this country’s non-paying by utilizing the line on the American tax return whereupon one can voluntarily contribute beyond what is assessed. He is encouraged to make use of this assumption with all due haste so long as he donates his money and not our own.

Yet most infuriating about the entire debacle of debate is that in this Punch and Judy show in Washington, each continues to refer to the measure as making people “pay their fair share.” In this general notion, the author is in complete agreement. But we tend to disagree about who is not already paying that “fair share.”

What of the over 50% of American citizens who pay no income taxes whatsoever? Is zero percent their “fair share”? If so, one begs to differ. These are the very people who most avail themselves of social services of every kind. Not only do they pay nothing to begin with, they proceed to strip the system bare of the very things which those unpaid taxes so readily provide.


Like the author says, the problem is not that taxes aren't high enough, but that there are too many net tax consumers. Yet Buffett, a man of undeniable business acumen, seems unable to identify a single area of government waste.

Mike Krieger at Zero Hedge also puts the Buffster in perspective, commenting on his $5 billion stake in Bank of America. And make no mistake, the man is not running a charity.
So back to Buffett. The truth of the matter is, as I and other have exposed these last several years, is that he essentially runs a financial services company. When the system itself was threatened the status quo was threatened. Buffett stepped in and became a government agent once he saw the writing on the wall. He did not step up for America. He did not step up for the people. He stepped up for himself and his legacy. He stepped up to save the status quo because he is the status quo. All of this raises a very serious issue in America right now and one that needs to be dealt with in the next crisis (which has arrived) or we will never be able to recover into the world’s most vibrant and dynamic economy again. A lot of people lament the lack of upward mobility in the U.S. right now and I share those sentimentshare those sentiments. However, equally important is downward mobility. What makes the concept of America unique is not merely the concept that the poor can become rich but that the rich can become poor. It is this second part that is the most dangerous to social cohesion when it disappears. Unfortunately, the system that we have today of an unholy alliance between Wall Street, Washington D.C. and the multi-national corporations (including the military industrial complex of course) stands there holding onto all the levers of power to serve as gatekeepers of their own empires.


I've emphasized the money quote in Krieger's essay. What we euphemistically call "the system" has become unfair at a fundamental level, in that not only are the barriers to upward mobility so high but that the elite are insulated from their errors.

Thursday, September 1, 2011

Roissy's return

As Chateau Heartiste, and a look at Sinead O'Connor

Then:



Now:



Sinead drew some attention because she's apparently prepared to go the extra mile for sex at this point. Nubile looks and fertility having long since been overdrawn, her currency in the sexual marketplace is now kink.

Gnostic society tells women they are just like men: that they have the same choices as men; that they should be judged by the same standards as men; that they have the same biological timelines as men. Women therefore need not worry about capitalizing on their peak of attractiveness and fertility. Go to grad school, don't just get a job--get a career, hold out, maintain your standards: tall, wealthy, athletic, powerful, famous. There's plenty of time. Forty is the new twenty! You can always settle down with Mr. Right [i.e., George Clooney] once he gets tired of immature [i.e., younger, hotter] women [and he will, he will] and is ready to let you quit work and spend thousands of dollars trying to coax your aging eggs into a healthy brood. Right? Right?

Saturday, August 13, 2011

They

An astounding rant from Taki's.

They bring tens of millions of 7th-century Muslim immigrants to 21st-century Europe and then clamp down on Europe for resisting the unnatural graft.

They bring tens of millions of subliterate irredentist Mexicans to American territory conquered from Mexicans and then call “racist” those who notice that the Mexicans are subliterate irredentists.

They funnel 200 different peoples onto the same already-crowded patches of Europeans’ (or ex-Europeans’) land insisting that we are all the same and then invent multiculturalism and voting in 25 languages.

They import grasping poverty from the Third World and then are perplexed when the poverty grabs what it can purloin from its hosts’ public treasury.

They pillory Enoch Powell in 1968, only to wake up to smoldering England and bands of “youths” beating, stabbing, and robbing Britons in 2011.



Enoch Powell, indeed.

And there's more:
They export America’s industrial base to Asia and then debate why there is unemployment.

They pump trillions of conjured dollars into an economy staggering under a crushing burden of conjured dollars and then assert with a straight face that trillions more conjured dollars are needed because “recovery” has stalled.

They lend to the banksters at 0% and then borrow from them at 4%. Prattling of a “strong dollar,” they convert the world’s strongest currency into history’s largest Ponzi scheme and a cautionary tale told to Chinese children.

They put a black commie rabble-rouser in the White House and then are shocked when the economy tanks and their pet minorities along with it.

They hail the black commie rabble-rouser as The One Who Will Bring Us Together and then do the three wise monkeys when the Second Coming leads to Beat-Whitey Fridays all over the land.

They build $100-million schools for 85-IQ blacks in Harlem and $578-million schools for 89-IQ “Hispanics” in Los Angeles and then moan that the “achievement gap” continues and trillions more must be spent.

They bring down every public institution to the level of black achievement and then hire Ph.D.s to opine why every public institution is not achieving and America is lagging.

There is no end to the madness, nor to the mad schemes to deny the madness and to hunt down and silence those who notice the madness.

A combination of stupidity, lunacy, and gnostic malfeasance on this scale is unprecedented in history. The scope of the ultimate catastrophe to which this is leading may also be unprecedented—which is saying much, because the precedents include the fall of Rome and the fall of the Weimar Republic.


He's right. The end of the secular democratic experiment will be a watershed event.


Monday, August 8, 2011

Nationalism

An excellent statement on the subject, from Roland at saloforum.com.
The real historical significance of nationalism consists in its imposition upon heterogeneous populations by absolutist governments. The transformation of Europe from a vast complex of interconnected private properties, across which an individual from any region could freely travel, to a collection of territorial nation-states signals an abrupt change in political association. The real historical significance is the conscious eradication of more localized and often overlapping forms of communal identities in favor of the creation of mass, territorially-defined artificial identities. I don't think it's useful to simply speak of a uniform "nationalism" throughout history without looking at the particular forces behind each instantiation.
Multicultural societies can only exist in the absence of government-owned borders and civil rights laws, which take away the safe harbors from which people may interact or not interact as they choose.

And in response to this,
Normann, I am afraid this is incorrect. The European Scandinavians will run round giving them Vitamin D, dole money, social welfare, free housing, free religious schools, and a lot more, paid for by a diminishing band of middle class sucker-whites.

You will suddenly wake up to find there are large 'no-go' areas in Oslo where even the police are scared to enter, where Sharia Law prevails, and which the Left will parade as 'vibrant testimony to how people of different cultures can really, really live together'.

I think on your way back from the US, you should visit the UK, where major areas have effectively been ethnically cleansed of whites.

You will not read the truth in the media, you must see for yourself.
more from normann at at iSteve.

...Besides, there is a difference between surviving and thriving, as those of us who believe our lying eyes are finding out now. If you are a Tamil who moves to Oslo in your 30s, you are practically guaranteed to be an injecting type-2 diabetic by your 50s, no matter what you do. Even I, with my Czech-French-Anglo-Irish mixed complexion, need as much sun as I can get. On sunny weekends I have taken to going for strolls though Oslo's immigrant neighborhoods in shorts and shirtless. I get my vitamin D and have the added bonus of letting the tent people know who decides what is proper attire on a sunny summer's day in Norway.

I'll stand corrected when the children of warrior-caste taxi and bus drivers (for example) ditch their modesty and start following my sartorial example or deign to go to ag school to learn how to farm in a subarctic climate. I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath.
Make no mistake, Europe remains a nationalist society. The Left thinks, for now, that social democracy provides a big enough tent for anybody in the world to populate the Nation. Their error lies in conflating the Nation with the State. When the Left realizes its error, as Ralph Nader apparently did in this interview with Pat Buchanan, Europe's multicultural experiment will take a drastic turn.

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Breivik is wrong

Scandinavia will not be overrun by dark-skinned Muslims.

From this iSteve commenter:

It is very true that Norway's current immigration and assimilation policies are unsustainable, and there will be a national debate once a decent period of mourning has passed. I don't think that Somalis are being deliberately imported, though. Indeed, "new Norwegians" of Pakistani origin would like very much to restrict the immigration of Poles (never gonna happen, since Poles are entitled to seek employment in Norway under the EEA Agreement). Besides, the majority of Poles are skilled in building trades, unlike illiterate nephews from the Punjab. Taxis are one thing, but there are still lots of kitchens to be remodeled.

What I find ludicrous is the idea that somehow Norway will be overrun by darked-skinned Muslim Somalis and Pakistanis (or Hindu Tamils, for that matter). By and large, non-Western immigrants in Norway occupy very vulnerable occupational niches. They are also adapting very poorly to life at 60 degrees north and higher (which thanks to their skin pigmentation they can do absolutely nothing about). All the sequelae of vitamin D deficiency are endemic in these populations, as one would expect: diabetes, obesity, weak bones and skin problems. And I am referring to those who immigrated as adults. Their Norwegian-born children will suffer the same debilities, only at an earlier age. Where we see the "March of the Penguins" on city streets in immigrant neighborhoods in Oslo, in 20 years, Norwegian-born "niqabi girls" will be hobbling about town with canes. The will have a very hard time carrying babies to term.

Mother Nature is a hanging judge, and there is no appeal.

The Republic is saved

The US government can now take on more debt to pay its bills and service existing debt.

When you and I try this, creditors say we're insolvent and red flags go up all over the place. This is no different than the schlep in the credit card doom loop, gambling that the leverage will buy him time until he can turn things around. Won't work for the schlep, won't work for the government.

The Left is in an absolute froth over this purely political theater, reported in nauseating detail through the completely uncritical eye of mainstream media. Folks, the crisis is the debt, not the debt ceiling.

The US is in the last of all bubbles: the market for sovereign debt. Treasuries are at negative real yields. Does anybody seriously believe 2.6% annual will stay ahead of prices over 10 years?

Shell-shocked banks and funds are piling into Treasuries as a safe haven, bidding down yields on the bet that they can always unload the securities on somebody. This is the same "greater fool" theory that's been around from Dutch tulip bulbs to dot-com to housing. Eventually the music will stop and somebody will be left holding a pile of bonds they can't unload for anywhere near what they paid for them. The Fed will attempt to be the buyer of last resort and unleash hyper-inflation. The Chinese, OPEC and domestic pension funds are real creditors who expect to be paid with real dollars. The day of reckoning approacheth, and all the accounting legerdemain and economic jargon in the world can't stop it.

Monday, July 25, 2011

Two Dooms

Norway

1. The Norwegian Left now has its Reichstag fire and will exploit it for all its worth. Gun control, "tolerance," increased spying on Norwegians by their own government, all will be frantically and continuously broadcast to the populace.

2. All change occurs at the margins, and Breivik is on that very satanic edge. Everybody has their breaking point and envelope of what they are capable. Breivik hit his and, being intelligent and disciplined as well as horribly, brutally manic, inflicted an appalling toll. The good news, and the only good news, is that most people aren't Breiviks or Unabombers or Timothy McVeighs.

Between these two dooms there is not a lot of common ground for a political center to control the outcome.

An event that was reported and quickly passed on by the press was the destruction of Serrano's "Piss Christ" by Catholic young people in Avignon. Americans are fed a very careful diet of stories from Europe designed to impress them with how enlightened and content Europeans are. But then you hear about places like Avignon and Norway and it turns out not everybody is on board for the Great Neo-Liberal Project.

Europe has been behaving itself for over 60 years thanks to the heavy-handed presence of a US hegemon that has made clear the party line on globalism. The money for that arrangement is running out on both sides of the pond: Europe's welfare-state pie is shrinking and the US can no longer afford its vast, trans-global military.

When the Europeans erupt again (as they have done periodically for their entire existence), I don't think it will be to defend globalism.

For God's sake won't someone put this poor animal to sleep?


Campaign launched to heal paralyzed lion in Brazil

Thursday, April 28, 2011

Heroic Avignon

Andres Serrano's 'Piss Christ' vandalized
...[O]n Palm Sunday morning, four people in sunglasses aged between 18 and 25 entered the exhibition just after it opened at 11am. One took a hammer out of his sock and threatened the guards with it. A guard grabbed another man around the waist but within seconds the group managed to take a hammer to the plexiglass screen and slash the photograph with another sharp object, thought to be a screwdriver or ice-pick. They also smashed another work, which showed the hands of a meditating nun.

The gallery director, Eric Mézil, said it would reopen with the destroyed works on show "so people can see what barbarians can do". He said there had been a kind of "inquisition" against the art work.


The Guardian/UK article notes the vandals were between ages 18 and 25. There is hope for Europe yet.

The Western social democracies preside over a tyranny of rights, whereby the supposed right to desecrate sacred icons exacts a corresponding duty to tolerate the deviant, the obscene and the repulsive. The cost of protecting such expressions is socialized among a tax base that includes individuals who would not otherwise pay a cent to protect such displays. This is a point that eludes many anarchists: protection of rights bears a cost, and that cost will be set by the market. The right of children to the inviolability of their persons, for example, would be defended even by strangers with no thought as to cost, even of their own lives. The purported right of artists to offend religious sensibilities, not so much.

Pat Buchanan offers some related thoughts, back in 2006.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Why the welfare state can't work

From this iSteve thread:
I'm sorry, it is you (and unfortunately Steve) who do not understand the medical insurance business, and by extension the medical business.

There are many layers of confusion here, so let's take a look at some facts.

1) Most people lose money on insurance, because most of the time insurance doesn't pay out more than it takes in.

2) Thus, a "good" policy is a catastrophic-coverage-only, high-deductible policy, where most payments are out of pocket. This is a policy that protects you against the downside risk, but where you lose a lot less on average.

3) This is because the purpose of insurance is to protect yourself from *catastrophe*, not to make routine purchases.

4) For example, if you went to Best Buy and whipped out your home insurance card to get a new flat screen TV, everyone would look at you as a crazy man. "Don't you know that home insurance is only for fires and floods, and not for routine purchases?"

5) And so it should be with health insurance, because you'll actually -- *provably* -- pay less with a high deductible plan for all but catastrophic conditions.

6) Indeed, the most innovative and technologically advanced areas of medicine are ambulatory areas in which people feel that markets are "ok". These are paradoxically the most trivial areas: lasik, plastic surgery, dermatology, dentistry, even veterinary medicine.

7) Why are these areas so advanced? Because people pay cash money, because they choose based on quality, and because they are *able* to choose -- i.e. they aren't being wheeled up to the hospital in a gurney in a no choice scenario.

8) Moreover, with every technology ever, from cars to cell phones to air travel to computers, things that start out expensive become cheaper when enough people demand them. With medicine it seems to bite more that money means differences in care. But at the end of the day doctors, patients, nurses, drugs, ambulances...all that stuff means real resources, and a refusal to do explicit computations just results in massive waste as costs are shunted to a place where no one looks at them.

9) How insane is it, for example, that in this age of internet shopping that you can't do comparison shopping on a hip replacement or a physical on the internet? It has to do with the irrationality that surrounds the concept of paying for the most valuable service of all: for someone saving your life.

10) Now let's consider the elderly. The big problem here is that there IS going to be a catastrophe that hits them with probability 1. It's called dying from being old.

11) If you know anything about medicine, you know that futile care is a ridiculous proportion of healthcare expenditure.

12) Now, in the abstract everyone is all about taking care of the elderly. Witness eh's bleeding heart:

"Were they to offer profitable policies to old people, the premiums would be unaffordable."

The whole point is that *old people are going to die* with probability 1. So let's take those evil capitalists are out of the question, and assume for now that no innovative entrepreneur could figure out something win/win for his own grandpa. ...
Now we are in the realm of social justice. Which sounds so nice in the comments section. Until eh answers the question: how much of his children's money does eh want to spend on futile care for 83 year old Emma in Ohio? For 74 year old Bill in Texas? For countless, endless, unnamed others?

Because, eh, you can spend ALL of your money on futile care. Literally every last penny.

So now eh says, "well, of course there have to be limits".

And here we come to the nub of the matter.

This is h-bd land. We are adults. We understand hard facts.

One of those hard facts is that until Aubrey de Grey really gets on the hop, people *are* going to die.

The question is whether they die when THEY and their family run out of money -- localizing the catastrophe -- or whether every single one of them is connected to a public purse that they can draw down without consequence.

Because draw it down they will.

You see, for most of us, if our own mother was on a deathbed, if we had the ability to tax and steal from Joe and John and James to keep her alive we wouldn't think twice about it. Because even if took a million dollars in stolen tax money a day to keep her alive, well, hell, then I guess they'll just have to work harder.

The problem, of course, is when everyone thinks this way.

Because what quickly happens is that once you've given the government access to that giant pool of money, they make damned sure that no one ANYWHERE is spending that money other than them...and then too only for the express purpose of the vote-buying schemes that our esteemed host has bought hook, line, and sinker.

That money is not spent for saving any more mothers.

Not for actual care.

Not for innovative treatments.

Not for anything other than the necessary minimum to keep up the facade, to buy people's votes.

But hell, what does it matter, right? At least now we're all equal. Equally poor in health. We've defeated the Magic of the Market. We can now allocate scarce resources not through merit or money, but through queues and connections and politics.

Like this:

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/10/17/lance-armstrong-and-bill-clinton-help-fred-baron-get-tysabri/

Biogen Idec is running an early-stage trial of the drug in multiple myeloma, but Baron doesn’t meet the criteria to participate.

Baron’s a prominent donor to the Democratic party, and many of his powerful friends, including Lance Armstrong and Bill Clinton, made appeals on his behalf. And the family agreed not to sue if anything goes wrong.

Ultimately, his doctors at the Mayo Clinic worked directly with the FDA to find a “legal basis” for giving Baron Tysabri. The deal was announced on Baron’s son’s blog late yesterday. The details remain unclear.

Fantastic work, all of you. We've now taken the profit out of health care. No more profit motive to encourage ambitious young geniuses to develop miracle drugs rather than program social networks.

Instead it's just pure politics.


Sailer's post is actually about how the GOP is preparing to insure its electoral defeat by cutting Social Security and Medicare, entitlement programs for which older white voters have paid for decades and now feel, well, entitled to them.

It is an awful dilemma. The State, having assured the taxpayers that their geriatric needs would be met, must now breach its covenant with its citizens. As several commenters noted, there is no way out.
... As a society we are suffering tremendously because we forgot that the best retirement program is to have 6 children and teach them how to be prosperous and then stay on the good side or at least a few of them.


I have my own fantasy of a nice little country that extracts the minimum taxes necessary to fund its military and maintain the social safety net. I'm sure that has been the selling point trotted out by every welfare state politician since Bismarck. But inevitably it seems, net tax consumption increases, birth rates fall, the culture shifts to high time-preference, and the State inflates the currency and runs deficits--further distorting the productive economy--to keep the Ponzi scheme going.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

The Camp of the Saints

Disaster



This is not "immigration." This is conquest, without a shot being fired.

Moving next door to Libya, I predict Gaddafi's endgame:

Free boat ticket for all rebels to France and Italy.

That's why NATO's all over this one, because right now Sarko and Berlusconi are shitting bricks.

Note that the linked pictures depict what happens when the rebels win.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

The New York Times is all over it...

A Libyan fight for democracy, or a civil war?

Fledgling rebel government's behavior so far offers few clues to movement's true nature

TRIPOLI — The question has hovered over the Libyan uprising from the moment the first tank commander defected to join his cousins protesting in the streets of Benghazi: Is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war?

The answer could determine the course of both the Libyan uprising and the results of the Western intervention. In the West’s preferred chain of events, airstrikes enable the rebels to unite with the currently passive residents of the western region around Tripoli, under the banner of an essentially democratic revolution that topples Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

He, however, has predicted the opposite: that the revolt is a tribal war of eastern Libya against the west that ends in either his triumph or a prolonged period of chaos.

“It is a very important question that is terribly near impossible to answer,” said Paul Sullivan, a political scientist at Georgetown University who has studied Libya. “It could be a very big surprise when Qaddafi leaves and we find out who we are really dealing with.”

The behavior of the fledgling rebel government in Benghazi so far offers few clues to the rebels’ true nature. Their governing council is composed of secular-minded professionals — lawyers, academics, businesspeople — who talk about democracy, transparency, human rights and the rule of law. But their commitment to those principles is just now being tested as they confront the specter of potential Qaddafi spies in their midst, either with rough tribal justice or a more measured legal process.

Like the Qaddafi government, the operation around the rebel council is rife with family ties. And like the chiefs of the Libyan state news media, the rebels feel no loyalty to the truth in shaping their propaganda, claiming nonexistent battlefield victories, asserting they were still fighting in a key city days after it fell to Qaddafi forces, and making vastly inflated claims of his barbaric behavior.

Skeptics of the rebels’ commitment to democracy point to Libya’s short and brutal history. Until Colonel Qaddafi’s revolution in 1969, Libya could scarcely be considered a country, divided as it was under its former king into three separate provinces, each with myriad tribes of rural, semi-nomadic herders. Retaliatory tribal killings and violence were the main source of justice.

[Continued at link -- Via MSNBC]


Shouldn't we have been asking these questions before we committed air and naval support and fired about $100M worth of armaments? Isn't that why Congress is supposed to deliberate and debate and then issue a declaration of war?

One of Lawrence Auster's correspondents points out that the mainstream conservative view is now one of endless low-grade war for "democracy," with such factors as location, geography, resources or, I'd add, actual benefit to the American nation-state being secondary.

This strikes me as part of the further feminization of war (begun in the decidedly male Bush I and II administrations) towards empathic, open-ended (i.e., never won) goals such as humanitarian relief, nation-building, human rights, etc. Sure enough, Obama has his very own female troika advising him.

I'm reminded of Madeline Albright's strangely personalized campaign against Serbia--to make the world safe for Albanian Muslims. Is anybody asking who we're making Libya safe for? And if they'll be an improvement over an aging, increasingly withdrawn Qaddafi or his unpopular, incompetent sons? Or if any of this is even our business?

Friday, January 28, 2011

Confident, arrogant or frightened?

French President Sarkozy, via Ad Orientem:
France and Germany will never turn their backs on the euro, French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said in his most robust defence of the troubled single currency to date.

Addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos, he told speculators to be prepared for big losses if they bet against the euro. “[Germany’s] Chancellor Merkel and myself will never – do you hear me, never – let the euro fall,” he said.

“The euro is Europe. And Europe spells 60 years of peace. Therefore we will never let the euro go or be destroyed… To those who bet against the euro, watch out for your money because we are fully determined to defend the euro.”

Questions, Nico. Questions.

Have private French and German citizens been consulted about their purported greater duty to Europe?

Have the Turkish, Middle Eastern and North African peoples who will shortly constitute the French and German majorities agreed to work harder, accept less benefits and pay more taxes for the sake of "Europe?"

How does Southern Europe feel about Franco-German dominance? How does Eastern Europe feel about this?

How much longer will Americans pay to have their military garrisoned overseas to preserve "60 years of peace" for Europe? In particular, when Mexico and parts of the US Southwest slip into anarchy, where will US military priorities lie?

Thursday, January 13, 2011

The lie of college football

Auburn And The Opiate Of America, from Alternative Right.

In 2007, then-Stanford University head football coach Jim Harbaugh (now of the San Francisco 49ers) made statements about his alma mater, the University of Michigan, that cast aspersions on the school’s practice of admitting substandard students in order to compete in the Big Ten Conference. Said Harbaugh,

Michigan is a good school and I got a good education there… but the athletic department has ways to get borderline guys in and, when they’re in, they steer them to courses in sports communications. They’re adulated when they’re playing, but when they get out, the people who adulated them won’t hire them...


College football (and basketball) offer Black Americans opportunities to attend schools like Michigan that their academic records and performance on SAT/ACT tests would never grant them, even with affirmative action. Blacks make up only six percent of National Champion Auburn University’s 23,000 undergraduate body, for instance; they comprise around 80 percent of the football team’s starting lineup. Black people, who would seem to have little in common with many of the institutions for which they play, become heroes to students, alumni, and fans alike. Universities, in turn, rely on athletes like Auburn’s Cam Newton—and, by all indications, pay them handsomely—in order to bring in hundreds of millions in revenue each year.

Read the article in its entirety at the link. Richard Spencer and Paul Kersey tell an uncomfortable truth. College football allows erstwhile conservative, white sport fans to salve their consciences rather than acknowledge the hard reality: most black athletes have no business attending college and are in fact horribly disserved by it.
College football is an opiate for America, particularly Red State America, a way of recasting the world in an egalitarian image. Cam Newton, Michael Dyer—and Michael Vick—are exalted. And the White Americans who cheer them on are hardly willing to contemplate the reality of what they’re watching. Jim Harbaugh only hinted at it.

The solution is for the NBA and NFL to adopt minor leagues and let college athletics return to its roots as a purely amateur pursuit among academic rivals. Unfortunately, we are light-years past the point when any common sense could have prevailed.

Breaching the social contract

The inter-generational compact within families is that the adults will take care of the children through years of dependency, and when the youngsters become adults in their turn, they will take care of those who formerly took care of them.

Beginning with Chancellor Bismarck in 1884, the State took one of its periodic Great Leaps Forward and inserted itself into this social contract, and proposed to underwrite, through taxation, the care of the elderly. But every government action crowds out private action: if the government says you can just pay part of your income into the social security fund rather than saving it yourself for the future needs of your and other older family members, most people will take it at its word. What could go wrong?

Of course, from the perspective of 2011 we see: practically all the welfare states' social security funds are permanently bankrupt, as the taxation and anti-family culture of the welfare state takes its awful toll.

The British state has responded by repealing the 65-years "default retirement age," that is, the age at which an employer could fire a worker without penalty. The government despite its earlier promise must now renege: the State simply cannot afford so many pensioners and must apply the policy levers to keep the elderly in the work force. But having put itself and us all into this jam, we are not so easily got out, as the inter-generational and inter-familial ties that bound older and younger family members have been displaced.

Alex Kurtagic at AltRight observes,

[T]he phrase 'ageing population', because it is refers to a generalised phenomenon driven by several causes, conceals the unwillingness of the government to make the economy more family friendly: indigenous Europeans are delaying starting a family, having smaller ones, or not having them altogether, partly because of the cost relative to their incomes—resulting from, on the one hand, pressure from the consumer culture, and on the other, inflation, predatory taxation, and labyrinthine regulation—is seen as too high. (Another factor is Marxist feminism.)

Also concealed is the implicit realisation that the levels of immigration that would be required to close the fiscal gap is high enough to risk serious social disturbance and a significant rise in support for anti-immigration parties: one way of increasing the workforce without importing or creating new citizens is to allow existing citizens to work for longer.

By painting this legislative development as an act of government generosity, the report also misrepresents the facts. The desired implication is that the government is now 'allowing' those eager to work to do so for longer, and 'forcing' employers not to retire and not to deny employment to workers above a certain age. It fits in with the equality discourse that permeates modern culture. But the reality is that working past 65 is not a choice for many (because many hate their jobs), but a necessity. As we well know, Western governments have incurred unpayable debts and, as predicted by Kotlikoff years ago, they have decided money printing is the only way out: they cannot raise taxes nor cut welfare programmes enough without causing a revolution. The consequence is, of course, inflation, and neither incomes nor pensions being able to keep up with the devaluation of the currency. Most workers will increasingly have to work until they drop, occupying progressively more menial positions as age takes its toll.

I suspect other Western countries with default retirement ages still in place will be forced to follow. They may at first extend the retirement age, but they will eventually 'liberalise' or 'relax' employment legislation and it will be sold to the public as a way to keep active and boost the economy, just as it has been done here.


Westerners were sold a lie: that the secular State could eliminate the vagaries of family ties and provide a dignified retirement for the elderly. And having had the rug yanked out from under them, and their children laboring under their own tax burdens, the elderly must now go to work.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

The powers that be are outraged!

Poisonous Politics, from Pat Buchanan at Taki's.
Elements on the left are now connecting the dots—the words of Palin and Fox News—to the deeds of accused mass murderer Jared Loughner.

This is not political hardball. This is political dirt ball.

Do any such dots exist in reality? Or only in the embittered minds and malevolent motives of those unreconciled to the defeat they suffered on Nov. 2?

Undeniably, political rhetoric is hotter than it has been since the 1960s and ought to be dialed down. But Barack Obama, talking tough in 2008 about how he would deal with Republican attacks, himself said, “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. ... Folks in Philly like a good brawl.”

In 2010, Obama called on Hispanics to join him and “punish our enemies.” Harry Reid in 2009 called Tea Party critics “evil-mongers” who disrupt town-hall meetings with “lies, innuendo and rumors.”

It is easy for journalists to imply or impute a causal connection between hot words and horrible acts. Simply twin the two in a story, or ask an interviewee if he thinks these words and those deeds are not connected. And then let the public imagination do the rest...


From the comments:
[Tom:] I don’t know anything about this particular congresswoman, but I find it ironic that the elites are up in arms over 1 nut taking a few shots at a member of congress, when our elected officials and their handlers are swimming in innocent blood. And their answer to the situation is to circle the wagons and threaten the American population with further erosions of our civil liberties. In the end, that could well be the legacy of this whole incident. Either way, it shows that the two political parties and their monied handlers really stand together against the people who elect them.

I also love how it is the fault of average Americans for the “heated rhetoric” that supposedly caused this incident. The elites are far more radical, paranoid and violent than the population at large! These people use the U.S. military (which they and the children rarely serve in) around the globe with disasterous results, force radical demographic and social change at home that few want, destroy our economic/employment base and spend massive amounts of money that will have to be paid through generations of higher taxes, with practically no input from citizens, and claim to be surprised that they are disliked! I’m not advocating violence, but what do these people expect? Average Americans are at least as alienated as the radical left was 40 or 50 years ago.

And why are there separate laws for shooting at a national politician or government worker? Are the penalties stiffer?

War is the ultimate act of political violence, and our elites don't think twice about starting unjustified wars of aggression that kill untold numbers of innocent soldiers and civilians, waste massive amounts of money and cause unnecessary damage. I don't advocate political violence, but I also understand that our elites, and the politicians who do their bidding, are not innocent are niave. Sometimes they get shot at, too. Unfortunately, actual innocent bystanders get caught in the crossfire, whic is the real tragedy.


And another one:
[Bb]: "Undeniably, political rhetoric is hotter than it has been since the 1960s and ought to be dialed down."

But it won't be. Never before have the stakes been so high. We have an obtrusively "in-your-face" government, run on debt to the detrement of the citizens' wealth (and to the benefit of the well-connected), full of increasingly insular politicians and their hirelings, whose disdain towards "petition for redress of grievences" has grown into an air of untouchability.

Well, this past weekend, some nutjob touched 'em.

Monday, January 10, 2011

True Grit

The Coen brothers continue with their relentless message that civilization is inimical, or at least not conducive, to human morality. In the frontier, Rooster Cogburn protects the weak and dispenses justice according to the reward of the wicked and the innocent. In secular civilization, he is a carnival attraction. In frontier morality, for example, a man who does not recognize the special status of women by getting to his feet is trash meriting the same contempt as men who rob children of their fathers. I'm reminded of the scene in Gone With The Wind when Mammy chides the carpetbaggers for their overt approaches to Scarlett. The Coens place special emphasis on Cogburn's and LeBoeuf's status as Confederate veterans as well.

So, two Jewish men remain devoted and rigorous filmographers of Anglo-American history and culture, and from a perspective strikingly different from most of their Hollywood peers.

Convert growth in Orthodoxy

New converts flocking to an ancient church. From Ad Orientem.

Like many of his parishioners, Father Richard Petranek came to the Orthodox church in search of the past.

After 30 years as an Episcopalian priest, Petranek converted to the Antiochian Orthodox Church and leads a new but growing parish in west Houston, filled almost entirely with converts to the ancient faith.

"Most people come for the stability," he said. "The same thing that is taught today in the Orthodox church was taught 500 years ago, was taught 1,000 years ago, was taught 1,500 years ago."

At a time when most mainline Christian churches are losing members, Eastern Orthodox churches — which trace their beliefs to the church described in the New Testament - are growing, both in Houston and across the United States.

The numbers are still small: the 2010 U.S. Orthodox census estimates there are about 32,000 active Orthodox churchgoers in Texas and just more than 1 million nationally, although other estimates are higher. But the number of U.S. Orthodox parishes grew 16 percent over the past decade.

In Houston and its suburbs, the growth has been more dramatic, fueled by immigration from Eastern Europe, the Middle East and elsewhere, along with an increasing number of converts.

The Orthodox tradition includes Greek Orthodox, Antiochian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox and the Orthodox Church in America, among others.

"We were amazed the church still existed, and it had never changed," said Lana Jobe, who with her husband, Lloyd, left a Baptist church to join Petranek at St. Paul Antiochian Orthodox Church four years ago. "That was so important to us." ...


Much as I enjoy reading about this, I can't refrain from some minor carping. There is a superficial feel to this article, although that may be due to a reporter out of her element. What these individuals must internalize is that Orthodoxy is not, so to speak, the denomination that has it all figured out (No women priests! Use real wine!), or interprets the Bible CORRECTLY, even though we do.

Orthodoxy is the Faith; the very Church, founded when the Holy Spirit descended on Christ's followers after His ascension. The Apostles were her first priests and bishops, then their successors, and so on to the present day.

The Church, the Bride of Christ, is the way she is because she can be no other way. You have not found the one group that really gets it. You simply were not in the Church, and now you are in the Church.

People who come to the Church because it's the group that's "right" (like I kept trying to tell my liberal friends!) or because it's "traditional" (They wear robes! Incense!) will wash in, see the inter-ethnic squabbles, the corrupt hierarchs, the obtuse, incompetent priests, and then wash back out and on to the next American-christian fad.

Thursday, January 6, 2011

The end of facebook

Among other things its founder, Mark Zuckerburg, was named Time's Person Of The Year.

Richard Spencer at AltRight explains:
...Facebook’s recent re-design has transformed each profile into even more of a consumer preference survey just waiting to be data-mined—one now is encouraged to define one’s self by which professional sports team one roots for, which corporations one “likes,” etc. Facebook is ultimately a cluttered mess, with numerous redundancies, unhelpful features, and comment boxes suitable only for scattered, snarky one-liners and little else. It is quickly becoming the opposite of the intuitively functional web—losing its clean, Ivy League aura that originally helped its triumph over the ghetto-fied MySpace.

The kicker to all this is that Facebook has really no barrier to exit. There’s little stopping its hundreds of millions of users from stampeding to the exits, transforming the current Babylon of social media into something resembling the mysterious ruins of the Friendster civilization.

There are other articles predicting the demise here and here.

As Spencer notes, Facebook is losing its original, functional aesthetic as its programmers begin to design for the third-party advertisers who actually pay for the bandwidth. Facebook suffers from the AOL curse of being first-with-the-best in an industry with extremely low barriers to entry. Demand for equity appears high now, but I'm thinking Zuckerburg better roll the IPO out sooner rather than later. A social network is ultimately just a medium. Will the income stream from ads (how many of us have actually clicked and purchased from a hyperlink?) and beta-issue games support a fifteen to fifty BILLION dollar valuation?

Facebook may ultimately be just an echo of the old dot-com bubble. I question whether we can pay our collective bills as a nation of graphic designers and software developers who don't actually make anything.

By the way, here's a sarcastic post on iSteve--what were the best films of 2010? that had me cracking up all day:
the social network: I simply liked the movie's heartening message:

1) Jewish American princesses are wonderful, heroic women (even if they changed their name to Albright).

2) Asian girls are whores! Jewish men should avoid them.

3) Light-skinned and dark-skinned Jews should work together to crush WASP competitors and new aspiring minorities (Indians).

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

It takes a platonic village

The happy, henny klatch:


NYT: Four women, one dad make 'twiblings' born days apart - Parenting - TODAYshow.com

Where to start? How about with this creature's pudgy, whipped, practically invisible husband-thing, Mr. Turkey Baster, slouching around in the background. She spends his money on a series of IVF treatments, then decides on surrogacy for not one but two eggs and not one but two surrogate carriers/wet nurses. She also apparently requires the services of some person called a doula and a nanny. Then she refers to herself as a 'mother.'

Some interesting excerpts:
I was 41 when, after a gazillion not-quite-right relationships and a broken engagement, I met Michael, the man I would marry. He was five years younger; socially, it didn’t seem like an important age difference, but in terms of fertility, it turned out to be.

So, two decades wasting her sexual market value on "a gazillion" different men and this is it, the crown jewel, the piece de la resistance: Beta Tubby-Hubby.

Knowing that, I was still taken aback by how discouraging one adoption agency was about our prospects for “competing” against other couples. “Most birth mothers do prefer younger women,” the woman informed me. “But you’ll get a letter from your doctor, certifying you are in excellent health for the social worker anyway.”

“Right,” I said, thinking about the arthritic condition that caused the chronic pain I had been struggling with for many years.

Neurotic. Addicted to painkillers.
But I knew Michael and I were a great couple — I had pined so long for the elusive feeling of rightness, and now that I finally had it, I was damned if I was going to let biology unbless us. And I knew if we let biology become Mother Nature, we actually would be damned.

Yes lady, that's correct. Nature has already determined you would be an unfit mother.
The nurse urged me to stick with it. “We don’t want you to feel like you can’t nurse,” she said. I suddenly felt cross. Did she really think I couldn’t handle the reality that my body was not producing milk after it didn’t give birth to my baby? I knew she was trying to be supportive, but her concern made me feel diminished, as if she thought the truth of my infertility were unbearable (yet so easily disguised with plastic tubing). I looked down at my breasts, and they looked awfully small, whereas Melissa’s were enormous, dripping with fecundity, like a relic of a fertility goddess. I ditched the tube.

I felt similarly when Violet was born five days later and another perfectly nice nurse presented us with the hospital’s certificate to commemorate her birth, on which there was no mention of Fie. It wasn’t a legal birth certificate (our lawyer obtained a “prebirth judgment order,” which meant that a legal birth certificate would come in the mail, naming us as the parents) but a sentimental keepsake with a blank space for the baby’s name followed by the words “born to” over a pair of baby footprints. When the nurse came back in, I insisted she reprint it and include all three of our names. Just at that moment, Fie knocked on the door from her adjoining room to complain about her birth certificate, which had been doctored just the opposite way, to exclude mention of us.

“I was just trying to make everyone feel good,” the nurse said, backing toward the door, flustered.

“We feel good about the truth,” I said firmly. And I wanted people to reinforce — not undermine — that feeling.

Oookay.
I once felt a prick of an unpleasant emotion. It was the week the Fairy Goddonor came to Portland for the egg retrieval. Over tapas one night, I watched her and Michael laughing and suddenly felt unhappy. I poured myself more wine, but instead of dispelling the feelings, it made me feel more alone. “You were so quiet at dinner,” Michael said as we got into the car. He turned to look at me. “Are you not feeling well?”

“Is it weird that you’re having babies with her instead of me?”

“I’m not having babies with her. I’m having babies with Melissa and Fie.”

The conversation dissolved into laughter. That was the thing about our conception: there were too many players to be jealous of any one.

I predict more wine and more painkillers.

Newsflash:

Mexico is a failed state

Criminal cartels, hopelessly corrupt police and military, Iberian elites lording it over Aztec peasantry...Who knew?

Saturday, January 1, 2011

New Year's in Egypt

Car Bomb Kills 21 at Egyptian Church via Ad Orientem
ALEXANDRIA, Egypt (AP) — Christians clashed with Egyptian police in the northern city of Alexandria on Saturday, furious over an apparent suicide bombing against worshippers leaving a New Year's Mass at a church that killed at least 21 people. It was the worst violence against the country's Christian minority in a decade.

The Interior Ministry blamed "foreign elements," and the Alexandria governor accused al-Qaida, pointing to the terror network's branch in Iraq, which has carried out a string of attacks on Christians there and has threatened Egypt's Coptic Orthodox Christian community as well.

Egypt's government has long insisted that the terror network does not have a significant presence in the country, and it has never been conclusively linked to any attacks here. If al-Qaida was involved, it raises the prospect of a serious new security threat within Egypt. (continued at link)


I am going to suggest that there is no 'foreign element' and this attack was not directed by Old Sammy Bin Laden in his super-secret underground fortress in Pakistan. Events indicate a pan-Islamic opinion that there is no compelling reason for Christianity to be preserved in their lands. At worst, Christians will be slaughtered in their very houses of worship.

If Muslims don't believe in multi-culturalism in their own lands, why do we grant it to them here?

If diversity + proximity = violence elsewhere, why do we assume things will be different here?

God rest the souls of His Coptic faithful.