Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Communism or Environmentalism?

Anyone remember a british documentary called the Swindle of Global Warming? When I first saw it, I thought it was a slam dunk debunking of global warming.

Then I found out that they'd omitted data from 1980 onwards.

Then I found out that this same data forms the infamous "hockey stick" that has itself been refuted.

So we've got advocates and partisans on at least two sides of this lying, cooking the data, or omitting data that doesn't fit the conclusion they are trying to promote.

THIS is the fundamental problem with the "debate." When you have enough accurate information, the truth becomes self evident. When arguments continue despite the presence of conclusive data, and that data itself is obscured or omitted, it is because of hidden agendas.

I honestly and truly believe that the leftists who promote global warming / climate change / latest euphemism are doing so not for ecological reasons but for political and economic reasons. Its all about making the 3rd world safe for communism because pre-industrial agrarian societies are the ONLY places where communism has emerged from within. Communism can be externally imposed as in the case of eastern Europe under Stalin, but communist revolutions have never evolved on their own in any industrialized nation.

The leftists are well aware of this. However they cannot argue to the freedom loving peoples of the earth that economic development in the 3rd world will prevent a resurgence of communism. So instead they dress up as environmentalists and discourage economic development under the notion that it is bad ecologically.

The thing to remember however is that most of those on the left aren't really aware of this. They really do FEEL (as opposed to think) that carbon is bad, etc, etc, and that they are saving the earth from humanity. They're useful idiots in other words. There is a cadre, a vanguard, who cook these schemes up and drive the rhetoric who are fully aware of the true intent, but they don't advertise what they're really up to. It isn't that they're really trying to hide their true intentions either. They simply promote their false intentions so loudly that anything which reveals their true goals are drowned out. This isn't a huge conspiracy, but a huge scam perpetrated by a relatively small conspiracy.

However, when groups and individuals that set out to oppose these scam artists do things like omit data from 1980 onwards, it only helps the scam artists in the long run. You have to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You have to tell truths that undermine your argument. If you cannot do this, then your argument itself is flawed. Failure to tell the whole truth will be seized upon and used against you.

Sooner or later the truth of the global warming scam will be understood by most, if not all. But by that time these leftist subversives will have moved on to some other scam. It is far better to fight them here and now than wait for them to cook up some other scam.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

PC bullshit now supposedly a constitutional issue

I really don't see what his emails have to do with the 1st amendment.

Locking Hasan up months ago because he sent those emails would have been absolutely unconstitutional, and I'd be the first person to stand up and say that.

Depriving someone of their rights because of what they have said is WRONG. Locking someone up for saying something unpopular is the kind of thing they do in France to those who refuse to knuckle under to the dictates of Political Correctness. It is not what is done in a free society that values the open expression and exchange of ideas, no matter how unpopular.

Being a member of the US military is not a right. Being in a position of trust is not a right. Subjecting someone to scrutiny and careful surveillance on the basis of what they have said is not a violation of their rights, but common sense.

If I say "I want to kill Bob" and the police overhear me, it would be utterly wrong for them to arrest and incarcerate me on the basis of that statement alone. However it would not be wrong for them to keep a closer eye on me, and perhaps to warn Bob about what I'd said.

Diversity is a leftist nothing-word. It means nothing. America is a melting pot of people from a multitude of heritages, cultures and ethnicities. There is no special effort required to ensure that individuals from these various backgrounds live and work together as this is the inevitable outcome of their mere co-existence.

Tolerance is a good thing. Picking on someone for dressing differently, eating different foods, or practising a different religion is wrong. That being said, tolerance of difference does not and should not require the tolerance of evil. Your post-modernist liars will whine and claim that judging other cultures is wrong (and even impossible) because the notions of morality are culturally specific. This is bullshit. Right and wrong may not be ideas that are universally agreed upon, but they are universal truths. Some things are right, other things are wrong, and which is which can be known by the effects and consequences that ensue from each. In many cases one or more things may be right or wrong at the same time, with the difference being a matter of degree.

Tolerating that which you believe to be evil (not just different) is not a moral virtue, it is moral cowardice.

Many Muslims living in America speak a language other than English. This is a difference that should not be disparaged because it is not wrong in any way. Naturally they should be able to speak English as well if they expect to function in an English speaking country, but that is a pragmatic concern, not a moral one.

Many of these same Muslims are also extreme misogynists. This is a difference that should NOT be tolerated because it is demonstrably EVIL. Muslims who practice misogyny should be publicly humiliated and punished just as non-Muslims who do so are.

This is but one example, there are many others.

At the same time, there may very well be moral lessons that the greater society can learn from Muslims or their sub-cultures. The pursuit of moral improvement goes both ways. In a melting pot society, the virtues and positive values from all contributors are blended together, not melted away by the dominance of one.

Monday, November 9, 2009

Wisdom From Ace of Spades

Just knee cap Hassan and toss him in a pen full of half starved hogs and film it for distribution, then tell the world that this is how all terrorists will be executed. "Engage in jihad and we'll turn you into pig shit."

Friday, November 6, 2009

Gay Marriage and other Irrelevant nonsense

What difference does it make if dykes and queers have their relationships recognized by the state?

I really do think that issues like abortion and gay marriage are nothing but proxies for other things. Social authoritarians and cultural Marxists use these issues as battlegrounds because they allow both sides to do what they most love, beat up on each other. Forget football or baseball, ideological squabbling is America's real national pastime.

What convinces me that these issues are proxies is that they are so unimportant. Real issues of real import wouldn't attract so many hangers on. Neither would real issues split so cleanly down ideological lines. Gay marriage affects gay people, who are an extreme minority. It doesn't affect normal people. Abortion affects teenagers who are too ignorant and stupid to use contraceptives properly. It doesn't affect responsible adults. It affects the dead babies too of course, but they aren't adding much to the debate. They're a quiet bunch, don't tend to say much.

The bile and vitriol exchanged over these topics are so extreme precisely because the stakes are so small. Whether abortion is legal or not won't make one whit of difference in the lives of most people. The same goes for gay marriage. This is also why a consensus is never reached, because to do so would mean that they players would have to find some other irrelevancy to bitch at each other about.

About the only thing that is good about all this is that it keeps these nutters occupied. Heaven forbid they ever stopped fighting with each other and had the opportunity to lay in to everyone else.

"Honor" maimer now a murderer

Misogynist succeeds in murdering his daughter

Many would say that he should be executed, but I think that is going easy on him. There are fates in this world worse than death.

I think he should have his hands and feet chopped off. The same hands and feet that operated the Jeep he used to murder his own daughter. Leave him unable to feed himself or even wipe his own ass.

I'd also investigate the hell out the rest of the family too. This kind of crap doesn't happen in a vacuum and is usually a conspiracy hatched by multiple family members.

The AP can't handle the truth

Senate blocks census US-citizenship question

Apparently the AP doesn't know the difference between a naturalized citizen and an illegal alien. The article above details how the Dhimmis in the senate have blocked a measure that would have census takers ask whether someone is a citizen or not. As transparently malicious as this is, it is what I expect from those turds and so I'm not particularly ruffled over it.

What does get my goat is how the author of the article repeatedly refers to non-citizens as "immigrants." This would be perfectly reasonable if he were writing an article about people with green cards or visas. In this case however he is writing about illegal aliens. To refer to them as "immigrants" is a flat out lie. He is deliberately obscuring the difference between illegal aliens and legal immigrants. This isn't the first time I've seen this kind of deception. Lefties just love to call illegal aliens "immigrants" and talk about how awful it is that so many Americans are bigoted against "immigrants."

Tuesday, November 3, 2009

Reaction of leftists to conservative victories

Hain't we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain't that a big enough majority in any town?
-- Mark Twain, "Huckleberry Finn"

Guess not....

The stupidity of the American people has been greatly exaggerated.

Friday, October 30, 2009

Honor Maiming here in Arizona

Muslim Arizona Man Arrested After Allegedly Running Down 'Westernized' Daughter

Yet another misogynistic bastard using religion to justify his hatred of women and his desire to treat them as property.

Yet another victim group discovered in the UK

Why are fat people abused?

Attacks on overweight people are not the problem here, they are the symptom. The problem is a society where fundamental notions of decency have decayed away, leaving only malignant nihilism in their place.

Special laws to protect the overweight are just as useless as special laws to protect any other identity group.

Trying to legislate morality simply doesn't work. Morality is learned at home. Morality is the character of a society, and character is destiny. Morality cannot be legislated into place but must be created, preserved and renewed by the people themselves. Failure to do this results in a society of amoral narcissists.

The solution to the problem of overweight people being abused is cultural renewal, not a flurry of new legislation.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Racism alive and well in the midwest

Suit claims East St. Louis passed up white police chief over race

East St. Louis: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

For those of you who are not aware of East St. Louis, it is the portion of the city that lies in Illinois, on the opposite bank of the Mississippi from St. Louis proper, which is in Missouri.

East St Louis is the worst slum in the US, bar none.

Why is it like this? I really don't know. A place is just a place. It is the people who live in that place who define its character.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have them

Gun crime in UK up over 89% in a decade

Guns are illegal in the UK, and yet gun violence is at an all time high.

Many would see this as a strong argument against what the left euphemistically calls "gun control." The left commonly makes the public argument that gun control equals crime control, relying on fear and ignorance to convince the gullible into adopting their anti-gun stance.

Evidence that gun control does not lead to a reduction in violent crime, but instead creates more of it, falls upon deaf ears when presented to leftists because their anti-gun agenda has nothing to do with crime prevention.

Leftists don't want to disarm criminals, they want to disarm their political opponents. They dream of imposing Marxist tyranny on everyone, and the empowerment of the individual that firearm ownership represents is a direct threat to that goal. They fear an armed society for the same reason that all criminals fear citizens with guns: they don't want to get shot.

Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. This is one of Mao's most famous quotes, but one that is most often misunderstood, or even disregarded because of the identity of its originator. What Mao was trying to say is that those who are most able and willing to use deadly force in the pursuit of an agenda will usually get their way, the very definition of political power.

The virtue of democracy and civil society is that disputes that would otherwise be resolved through the use of raw force are instead sorted out through peaceful means. But this is a very fragile arrangement that only works when all the would-be combatants buy into the idea. It also depends upon a mexican standoff when it comes to the direct use of force. Groups that would otherwise be at each other's throats are restrained from doing so by rational self interest in preserving their own skin. This standoff is only possible when all parties have the power to defend themselves and their interests through deadly force. Take that ability away from some, and those who have retained their raw power soon make a mockery of civil society.

The left is well aware of this, and in fact is counting on it. They hate democracy because it does not create the Marxist dystopia of their dreams. Instead it tends to result in free markets that reward each individual in direct proportion to their value to others. Once upon a time they bought into democracy because they believed that it was a possible path to Marxism. In truth democracy is a defense against Marxism and other forms of tyranny. As such, a healthy democracy will never lead to Marxism, only away from it. This becomes more and more obvious to the left as time goes by, and so their hatred of democracy grows.

Democracy itself depends upon the empowerment of the individual, and few things are more empowering than the ability to use deadly force in defense of one's liberty. A person empowered in this way can never be enslaved. The most you can do is kill them, and that only with great difficulty and at extreme risk. This is why the left is so rabidly in favor of gun control. It isn't about reducing crime, but about reducing the power of the people to resist the tyranny that the left dreams of imposing upon us all.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

More proof that the legal system primarily punishes the unpopular rather than the guilty.

In Defense of Extreme Pornography

"...They managed to achieve what not even John Waters ever accomplished: They were sent to prison for having bad taste"

Monday, October 26, 2009

Conservatives increase their ranks

More Conservatives, fewer leftists and moderates.

The title given of the report linked to above is "Conservatives Maintain Edge as Top Ideological Group." You would think from such a title that leftists or moderates had swelled their ranks at the expense of conservatives, leaving the latter as a slim plurality, but you would be wrong. The number of conservatives has actually increased at the expense of leftists and moderates. How is that maintaining their edge? If the temperature climbed from 70 to 74, you wouldn't say "temperatures avoid falling" unless you were trying to deceive someone.

Kinda makes you wonder about the ideological bend (aka honesty) of the Gallup organization. I've heard rumblings about dishonesty from them in the past. This latest skewed title kind of confirms that.

But in any case this is good news for me since mainstream conservatives and libertarians have a great deal in common, far more so than libertarians and leftists. So much so that many libertarians self identify as conservative when asked simply to avoid confusing people whose understanding of political philosophy is stuck in the left vs right paradigm.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Is YOUR news organization Messiah Approved?

What's that? Dear leader hasn't designated your source of news and information as legitimate?

Well you'd better change that channel bub!

Only Government Approved sources of information are certified by the Ministry of Truth.

If you start reading and listening to other sources of information, you're likely to fall prey to unorthodoxy and that leads straight to Thoughcrime. You wouldn't want that now, would you?

The Ministry of Love knows how to deal with thought criminals!

Saturday, October 24, 2009

I don't know art, but I do know what I like.

Thursday evening I visited the art district in Scottsdale as part of Art Walk Thursday

While the art district is perhaps best known as a center of western art, it is increasingly home to other genres as well.

There is so much to see there that I cannot hope to describe it all, so I'm simply going to provide links to work by two artists that caught my attention:

Evgeni Gordiets

Juan Castellanos

My mediocre response to an excellent article

Below is my response to The Cold War Never Ended, an excellent article by at Reason magazine:

This is a quibble, but one that I believe to be important.

Time and time again I see communism compared not to democracy, but to capitalism. To do this is to fall into a verbal trap set by communists and their sympathizers in which the war between freedom and slavery is cast as a contest between two economic theories.

Many people do not know what the word capitalism means. Many more have been influenced by the whispers of leftists into believing that it is something distasteful or even evil.

Capitalism is the economic consequence of liberal democracy. It is economic liberty, but it is dependent upon and flows from political liberty.

It is political liberty which is the actual counterpoint to communism, not merely the economic consequence of that liberty. Leftists dare not make the direct comparison between liberty and communism because to do so is to concede defeat. Only the profoundly foolish and insane will knowingly and willingly enslave themselves. So instead they compare communism to capitalism and work to undermine the public's understanding of the latter.

By using the terms that the left prefers you hand them a victory.

I'd also like to point out a flaw in your reasoning behind the statement that “the Cold War will never truly be settled by the side that won.” Simply because someone was living in a western democracy does not mean that they were on the side of that democracy. There were and continue to be many communists living among us for whom the fall of the Evil Empire was a personal tragedy.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Border fences and E-Verify

Shock: eVerify, Border Fence Provisions Mysteriously Vanish from Homeland Security Bill in Conference

Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity.
- George S. Patton

A border fence is not the answer.

The solution to illegal aliens invading our country is to make it impossible for them to function in society once they get here. Illegals will depart when laws are created, and existing laws enforced, to prevent illegal aliens from
  • working
  • voting
  • conducting financial transactions at banks or other institutions
  • buying a house or renting an apartment
  • enrolling their children in public school
  • registering a car or obtaining a driver's license
  • otherwise functioning in society
As it stands right now, once illegals are over the border, they're pretty much home free. Making it more difficult to get past the border will help some, but not very much. The border does need to be secured against Islamic terrorists, but ONLY as part of a larger comprehensive effort to protect the country against that threat. It is not an effective singlular defense against illegal aliens.

The virtue of systematically excluding illegals from American society is that it will not only discourage them from coming here, but will encourage those who are already among us to return from whence they came.

Back when I was in high school in the late 80's and early 90's, I was required to provide official documents to prove I was a U.S. Citizen in order to get a job at the local fast food joints. Today all those jobs are being done by illegal aliens. If even the existing laws were being enforced then this would not be happening. What good is a border fence when the local Wendy's franchise owner is willing to pay Paco under the table? But if Paco can't use that money to put a roof over his head, has to ride the bus to work because he can't drive, and can't send his kids to school, then he simply won't stick around. This is why E-Verify is so very important, far more important than building a fence.

The reason for doing this is not so that the American losing class will still be able to find jobs scrubbing toilets and flipping burgers. The reason to do this is to prevent the Gramscian Marxists on the left from having a new group to play with. For those of you who are not familiar with Gramscian Marxism, a good explanation, with a bit of Catholic bias, can be found here:

Who was Antonio Gramsci? How was he influencial on the ''Frankfurt School''? And what has the ''Frankfurt School'' been doing to our kids for the last 50 years?

I am about to give a synopsis of the most dangerous threat the Western World has ever faced - worse than Osama bin Laden by a longshot. It's a conspiracy to change the hearts and minds of those living in freedom so that they will not just embrace slavery and bondage to the State, but they will riverdance joyfully right into the gulag. Europe has already succumbed to it.

Antonio Gramsci (pronounced ''GRAM-ski''), was one of the founders of the Italian Communist Party, and he died a prisoner of Mussolini's prison system on April 27, 1937. While imprisoned he kept a diary of his political musings and historical studies and insites. These Prison Diaries give a full picture of Gramsci's ideas on Marxism, which were quite different than those of the Soviets, who provided money and logistics to the Italian Party in its early years.

The Soviet model for the spread of Communism was the export of revolution. Soviet agencies would find and support communists in a country who engaged in protest at government policies and actions. Meanwhile Soviet spies worked at subverting the government's response to political and social need, as well as Party activities, both legitimate and illegitimate. The theory goes that the combination of fomenting popular dissent coupled with subverting the normal function of government would cause the populace to rise in revolt, and in the ensuing chaos the Communists would take power, ruthlessly sweep aside all competitors, and a new ''prolateriat of the people'' would be born.

Gramsci's insite, indeed his genius, came from comparing Italian history to Russian history. He determined that despite the efforts of the Czar to modernize Russia in the pre-revolutionary period, Russia was not a Western nation. Italy was, and Gramsci thought that Western traditions and values were simply too strongly engrained in the Italian people, and the people of other Western nations, to be overcome by armed revolution.
Gramsci advocated a long-term approach instead. He thought the only way to conquer the West was to destroy the West's political and religious values through moral subversion and reinterpret Western history in such a way that makes it look evil and corrupt. Gramsci knew this was a long term goal, since those people of his own generation were exposed to Western values and would be unwilling to give them up. Gramsci knew though that future generations could be influenced IF there was a way of exposing them to the proper propaganda. Gramsci, in a shrewd mix of Machiavelli, Marx and Proverbs 22:6, advocated attacking the children through the schools in order to - Pied Piper-like - lead them into communism.

Gramsci had many followers both in Italy and Germany, although he was generally derided in Soviet influenced circles. Among those followers were a group of German education theorists known as the ''Frankfurt School''.

Headed by Max Horkheimer, the group included Theodor Adorno, Alfred Schmidt, Jurgen Habermas, Erich Fromm, and Wilhelm Reich - all names that should be familiar to any Political Science, Education, Psychology or Philosophy majors and degree holders. The philosophic outlook of the School was Gramscian, although Max Weber, Sigmund Freud, Immanuel Kant, and Friedrich Hegel were also influential. The members of the Frankfurt School saw it as their duty to comment on social conditions which Marx may not have been aware of and attempt to influence public policy along Marxist lines to change those social conditions.

This was due to the belief that even the individual and the family unit were repressive structures imposed by capitalism and Christianity. By liberating the individual from social controling factors of their culture, people would be free to follow the logical and rational choice of communism. Universal values (like equality before the law), and even the concept of ''truth'' itself - which are central to Western civilization and are the contribution of Judaism and Christianity to Western political thought - were deemed to be simply a means of oppressing the individual from accepting communism.

In 1933, the members of the Frankfurt School fled Germany once Hitler took power. The majority of the members of the movement came to the United States where they were allowed to teach in American universities. They were very influential in Political Science and Education departments, where their social criticisms were deemed a new way of looking at social structure, called ''deconstructionism''.
Essentially, they began rewriting history in such a way that makes Western Culture look guilty of crimes against all other cultures it has come into contact with. The reason the West committed these crimes was due to trying to spread the poison of Christianity to other cultures so they could be subdued and exploited.

Christianity was guilty of crimes against humanity - it encouraged slavery, attempted to impose itself on Islam by force through the Crusades, murdered millions in the Spanish Inquisition, tried to silence Galileo from pushing forward the boundaries of rationalism and science, destroyed the cultures of North and Central America in a search for filthy lucre, attempted to do the same to the Far East and Africa through colonialization, and was responsible for the murder of 8 million Jews in the Holocaust. Christianity was genocidal, repressive of sexual expression, the justification for capitalistic exploitation, and placed restraints on the individual, the family and society in order to keep the oppresive class structure going.

Over the years they influenced generations of students, using tenure to launch attacks on both American and European Culture and those in academia who opposed their views. The 1960's counterculture and peace movements, long recognized by both political sides as being a leftist phenominon, was a direct result of this Gramsciist indoctrination - ''You can't trust the social institutions or the government because they are run by the Man and should be torn down.''

By starting in the Education, Poli Sci, and Philosophy departments, the Gramsciists gained control over the Teachers, Bureaucrats, and Lawyers (since according to the UNF Philosophy Department's own brosure, Philosophy majors are the most successful majors in Law School, and do the best in courtroom settings according to statistics). The most important of these was the teachers.

Those of you who are old enough to have had your children in the 1960's probably remember the news stories about ''The New Math''. Certainly you remember the first efforts at Sex Education. Probably fewer of you remember the controversy over teaching phonics, or ''values education''. Only those ostriches with their heads in the sand can fail to notice the more modern educational talk about ''tolerance'', ''diversity'', ''multiculturalism'', ''critical thinking'' and ''political correctness''.
All of this - ALL of this - is part of the Gramsciist theory of taking over a culture. Stop teaching the rugrats the skills needed to function successfully in society, such as reading, writing and arithmatics, and start teaching them to not be judgemental and the proper way to put a condom on (since they are going to have sex anyway because they shouldn't follow mom and dad's judgemental attitude towards premarital sex among minors. ''How dare they impose their hypocritical, Christian, outdated morals on me! Oh, my aching self-esteem!'')

Why can't Johnny read? Because we stopped teaching him how to read and started teaching him to be critical of traditional values and uncritical of non-traditional values. But don't worry, some one who can read will read Heather Has Two Mommies to him. Right after the filmstrip of George W. Bush's war crimes. We already see the effect of Gramsciism all around us - the anti-War movement, the Gay marriage movement, the Environmental movement, the phenominon of The DaVinci Code. All began with a change in what was being taught in school.

By understanding Gramsciism's hold on modern society can we hope to understand why groups always on the fringe of society are able to gain consessions under the law. And with control of the schools, the mindset that allows this to happen is engrained at an early age. Train up a child in the way he should go...

This is a leaderless conspiracy. There is no smoke filled room running the ''great conspiracy'' because Gramsci knew all that was needed was a seed being planted. Gramsci spoke of cultural ''hegemony'', which simply means that those in power set the philosophy by which those not in power live by. All that was needed was to control one part of the culture - the one where the young learned how to function within the culture - by which they would be taught the ''truth'' about their culture and the ''common sense'' of Marxism. And when the children reached the age where they took control of society they would act in a way that moved society towards that ''common sense''. ''Thinking globally and acting locally.''

In this way, ''leaders'' and ''organizer'' would arise from within the ranks of bourgeois society; in short a ''new intellectual'' would arise who saw his purpose as organizing the people rather than the ruling class. As Gramsci himself stated, ''The mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence, but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organizer, 'permanent persuader' and not just a simple orator.''

Gramscianism is the basis of Political Correctness and the notion that being a racial or ethnic minority entitles someone to special treatment. They are the ones who have convince so many that they are victims of oppression because of their skin color or the fact that their surname ends with a vowel. They are the promoters of hyphenated americanism and the adversarial tribalism that underlies it.

Keeping illegal aliens out helps prevent gramscians from being able to do more damage than they already have. Without illegals, there would be no groups like La Raza.

Monday, October 19, 2009

Politically Correct "White Flight"

"PC "White Flight"

The term "white flight" is a misnomer. It isn't white people who seek out nice places to live, but the best and brightest of all creeds and colors who make their way to good communities.

The slums and ghettos of the inner cities are comprised of those Darwin Award winners who don't have the good sense to leave. For years and years I've heard all this talk about ghettos and the people who live there and how so many of them dream of getting out. This might be a sad story if these people were being prevented from leaving, but they are not. Buy a bus ticket and leave town. It really is that simple. But then it isn't that simple. These people are stuck because they imagine themselves to be. The ghetto is not a place, but a state of mind. People stay in the ghetto and refuse to leave because they cannot imagine any other kind of existence.

Those on the left would argue that this is all due to racism, and invent exceptionally sophisticated arguments to back this claim up. Failing that, they will get nasty and start calling people names.

The truth of the matter is that the ghetto is created by the people who live there. If things are bad in a community, then it is the fault of the people who make up that community. You can't blame other people in other places who are not a part of that community and are contributing nothing to that community - either good or bad. You can't blame conditions in China on people in Australia.

The same is true of ghettos. Crime in the ghetto is perpetrated by people who live in the ghetto. It isn't committed by someone somewhere else. High rates of illegitimacy and STD infection are the result of people in the ghetto engaging in irresponsible and self destructive sexual practices. All of these problems are being actively created and perpetuated by the people who live there. There ain't nobody else around to do these things but the people who are there. If and when these people stop doing the wrong things and start going the right things then these problems will disappear. You can't have a high crime rate if people aren't out committing crimes. You can't have bad schools if the students are trying to learn and their parents are supporting them in their educational pursuits. You can't have rampant STD infections and unwed mothers when men and women are being sexually responsible.

In a way I almost envy someone who lives in a ghetto for one simple reason: they have no one to go but up. Not only that, but they have an almost incalculable quantity of the most precious of all resources: opportunity. Someone living in a bad neighborhood and going to a bad school is still master of their own destiny. If they apply themselves, they can make their lives into anything they can imagine. Their road will be harder than that of someone like Ted Kennedy, but not so hard that it cannot be traveled. They will encounter racism and unfair discrimination along the way to be sure, but they will also encounter those who will work to make their path easier. At the end of the day, whether they succeed or fail is entirely up to them, which is precisely the lesson that the left does NOT want them to learn.

The left must maintain the fiction that minority failure is the result of racism in order to convince those minorities that they cannot hope to achieve anything. The game that the left plays is to take someone who is in a bad place, but who has vast opportunities to change their life for the better, and convince that person that their lot in life is the result of external oppression. The leftist then works to discourage that person from taking advantage of the opportunities that are available, telling them that it is useless and pointless to do so because “the man” will never let them be a free and equal member of society. Anyone from this minority group who sees through the con and makes something of themself anyway is labeled a traitor and subjected to the most extreme form of racist attacks. This is why leftists and the useful idiots within the black community who have falled for the con attack people like Thomas Sowell or Clarence Thomas with such ferocity. The left is terrified that the people who populate these gettoes will realize what most conservatives know instinctively: Character is destiny. Not color, not creed, not social class, but character and the choices that one makes. These are what determine how much success and happiness someone will find in their life.

The left has been perpetrating the con of “Whitey won't let you” on black people for generations now, and that they are working very hard to perpetrate it on hispanics as well. It is no accident that the left is so anxious to bring in as many illegal aliens as possible. They want to create or import as many designated “victims” as possible. The purpose behind this is to create a swelling underclass of the disenfranchised in preparation for Marxist revolution. No matter what they tell you, this is what they are trying to do. Or at least what the ones who are actually aware of the agenda are consciously trying to do. There are also innumerable Useful Idiots who actually fall for the cover stories and sophistry that the leftist apologists invent to hide their agenda and go along with whatever they are told, never realizing the evil nature of what they are promoting.

It really doesn't matter what leftists say from one day to the next or one decade to the next, everything they do and everything they work for is either directly or indirectly for the purpose turning America into a Marxist prison state. Leftists lie, even when they tell the truth.

So don't be surprised that leftists seek to insulate themselves from the groups of the downtrodden and discouraged that they work to create. They're seeking to destroy society, but they want to enjoy the benefits of society in the meantime.

Illegal Alien halloween costume "offends" open borders apologist

Illegal Alien Halloween Costume

This article is a perfect example of the kind of dishonesty the MSM has become so famous for.

Illegal aliens are not "immigrants." To describe them as such without any reference to the fact that they are here in violation of federal law is a lie of omission. This kind of dishonesty has become so blatant and widespread that most people now know that when the MSM says "immigrant," they really mean illegal alien.

To then cite an illegal alien apologist as a moral authority is just too much. You might as well cite David Duke.

Worst of all is that Target caved to this woman and the people she marshalled to bitch instead of ignoring them. Target had nothing to apologize for. Their explanation for why it was being sold is not an excuse for wrong doing, but a capitulation to a group they never should have acknowledged as legitimate in the first place.

I can only hope that other retailers will have more integrity, but I doubt it.

Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Blaming the symptom, not the problem

Dishonesty and cheating are nothing new. Loaded dice were found in the ruins of Pompeii, and I'm sure that the pedagogues of that era had to deal with their share of cheating students.

What is different nowadays is the nonchalant attitude towards cheating. This is not something that is happening in a vacuum. It is part and parcel of our society's ongoing decay and degradation. This is going to get worse, and manifest itself in even more appalling ways.

Requiring that cheating students take a course on ethics will do little good when their parents are not teaching them the difference between right and wrong, and vulgar culture encourages them to take ethical shortcuts and even to take pride in having gotten away with doing so.

Rules and standards of conduct are effective only when most people follow them without coercion, and those who are tempted to do otherwise will be shamed and condemned by their peers if they are found out.

But when people begin to ignore ethical standards and refuse to judge others based upon their adherence to these standards, everything unravels. Formal punishments and legal sanctions alone are ineffective, and their over application is the face of widespread moral decay does more harm than good. Police states may be orderly, but they are not moral.

Technology cannot be blamed for cheating, anymore than a knife or bullet can be blamed for murder. Both are legitimate tools with legitimate uses. The prevalence of cheating is inversely proportional to the moral and ethical integrity of those who might be tempted to cheat. These character traits are derived from the values they have learned at home and from the culture in which they live. Technology, or the lack thereof, makes no difference.

Sending demonstrated cheaters to a remedial class on the difference between right and wrong, while better than doing nothing, will be of little help.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Eharmony Ordeal

I signed up with Eharmony several months ago, in large part because I wanted some friends to stop pestering me about dating.

But once I'd signed up, I was genuinely interested to see what sort a result I'd get. I filled out all their questionnaires and forms and gave honest responses. I even included a picture of myself, not a great picture, but an ok one. I don't really have pictures of myself lying about after all, I'm not some kind of narcissist.

Eharmony immediately began sending me profiles of women that their software determined I might be interested in meeting. This was fine. I wasn't really interested in meeting anyone, but I wasn't averse to seeing who was out there.

This is when the bad things began.

It seems that my profile was also being sent out to women in my area who their software thought I would be a possible match for. This is of course to be expected, but what wasn't expected, at least by me, was the responses I got. I began to receive "closed" message from women who I'd never made any effort to contact. In other words, these women were pre-emptively blocking me from contacting them before I even knew they were there to contact.

Imagine if you will that you are at home. Women you've never seen before begin knocking on your door to inform you that they have absolutely no desire to go out with you. After a few successive knocks, this would get a little trying and more than a little insulting. That is what going to eharmony's site began to feel like, and still does.

Who ARE these women, and why are they bothering me? What is it about my profile that is so horrible that they feel the need to tell me to go away before I even know that they are there, let alone approach them?

At first this didn't bother me so much, but after a while it began to weigh upon me. I eventually figured out how to turn the find-a-match part of the site OFF so that at least my profile wasn't being paraded about, this effectively ended the closed messages, but it also meant that my profile wasn't being offered any more. Kind of defeats the whole purpose.

This evening I decided to go back and look at my profile and see if I couldn't improve it. Maybe there is something about it that is really off-putting in some way. Yet when I try to edit my profile I find myself becoming extremely angry and resentful of the kinds of questions the profile asks. Why should I be willing to talk about myself if doing so will only open me up to being rejected in advance by strange women I've never even attempted to contact in the first place?

And to think I actually paid, quite a bit of money, for this.

I've also recently discovered a site called brainiac dating, which is free and still rather crude. It is supposed to be site where people who consider themselves to be intelligent can meet other people who consider themselves to be bright. Thanks to the degradation of our educational system, such that the further someone goes in school, the less they actually know about certain things, this site is chock full of leftists. At least that is the kind of person who shows up in the forum section where topics such as socialized medicine are discussed. Being leftists, they are naturally wholly in favor putting the government in charge.

I remain flabbergasted that a supposedly intelligent person would want to create such a monopoly. I suppose the lessons of the French Revolution are lost upon those who didn't learn them first hand. These people have been carefully indoctrinated to see the state as benevolent and private enterprises as malicious, when in truth neither is comprised entirely of angels or demons, just fallible human beings whose actions are motivated by perceived self interest. The failure to understand this, and the failure to understand the primacy of human nature, underlies most of the folly of these sorts of people, at least when they're not being wilfully blind and maliciously dishonest.

Naturally I'm not particularly well liked there, though it can be amusing to watch them throw out their canned arguments in favor of state imposed tyranny. They promote tyranny dressied up in populist garb as if it were humanitarianism.

I'm rambling, so I'm going to stop now.

No one reads my blog anyway.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Internet Addiction

I saw this story on Ace of Spades and I cannot help but comment on it.

"Internet Addiction" is simply the latest nonsense being peddled to the public to explain people whose whose real problems lie elsewhere.

If someone has trouble reading body language, starting conversations, and maintaining their personal hygiene, they most likely suffer from an autism spectrum disorder known as Asperger's Syndrome.

This is an issue I know something about because the world of people who are into computers is chock full of Asperger's types. In fact, the stereotypical behavior that most people associate with geekiness is really just a layperson's description of Asperger's syndrome.

These people are not "addicted" to the internet or to online gaming. They are simply using these technologies to address their basic need for human contact and companionship, which their condition normally acts as a barrier to. They have severe problems with non-verbal communication. So for them, an environment in which ALL communication is verbal quite literally levels the playing field.

Describing this as an addiction to the internet is like describing a cripple as having an addiction to wheelchairs.

Now that doesn't mean that they should not be helped with their non-verbal communication skills and related issues, but this assistance should not be couched in terms of "addiction."

In a way, this is kind of like drug addiction. A person cannot develop a problem with drugs unless they are taking drugs in the first place. So the question is, why are they taking drugs? Unless they take responsibility for dealing with that problem, they will either stay on drugs, or find some thing else to be "addicted" to.

The people behind this operation are charging $14,500 for a 45 day stay. I do believe I'm in the wrong line of work. I should go buy a house in the woods and start renting rooms to Asperger's cases at $320 a day and give them advice on how to dress and talk to girls. Not that I would know anything about that really, but in the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king.

The Banality of Incompetence

I was watching Fox News yesterday morning when a story came on that gave me an uneasy feeling I couldn't quite pin down. This was a story about a new application created for cell phones that would prevent “texting” when the phone was moving at a speed greater than 10 miles per hour. This application was being promoted to parents of teenagers as a way to prevent their kids from “texting” while driving. The presenter went on to describe how the application uses teenage slang instead of standard English in its message telling the user that texting is disabled. This was touted as a “feature.” This I found ridiculous. When older people tell a teenager something that the kid doesn't want to hear in the first place, use of a slang dialect doesn't help. In fact, it is pathetic and insulting, especially when the kid in question does not speak in that way themselves. Kids grow up speaking standard English (or whatever passes for it where they are from.) If you want them to get a message instead of being distracted and insulted by the language used to communicate it, talk to them normally.

But as absurd as the use of slang was in this product, that wasn't what really bugged me. After thinking about it for a while, I realized that this product served no real purpose and was in fact a disservice to the parents and kids for whom it was created. The core issue here is that this product is being promoted for use on phones owned by licensed drivers.

Think about that for a moment.

People who have driver's licenses should not need to have their phones locked down to prevent them from doing something dangerous and stupid while driving. If someone lacks the competence and judgment required to drive safely, playing games with their phone isn't going to fix the problem. Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity. If someone cannot be trusted to drive a car safely and competently, then they have no business driving in the first place.

It says something very discouraging about our culture that incompetence bordering on criminal would be considered so ordinary, and even inevitable. Parents of teenagers who refuse to drive safely should take away their licenses and car keys instead of mucking with their phone. The phone is not the problem here, the kid is the problem. Deal with the problem.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

Charles Johnson Hates Me

I've been banned from Little Green Footballs.


Because of my response to the following story:

Obama is black.

Get over it.

This picture is perfectly appropriate. The fact that his race contributes to its effectiveness as satire does not make it a negative statement about Obama as a black man or black people in general.

Talking about race and using race in satire is NOT an endorsement of racial hatred.

To pretend otherwise is to suggest that blacks and other racial and ethnic groups are endangered species in need of special protection from reminders of their superficial differences.

Were Obama a white man with red hair then dressing him up to look like Carrot Top or Ronald McDonald would be perfectly appropriate. This image is no less appropriate.

This response was given a -4 and my account was removed.

I've been hearing things on other blogs about Charles going down the Andrew Sullivan path. Until now I didn't give those statements much credence.

I remain baffled as to why my honest assessment would be so far beyond the pale as to warrant ostracism.

I guess maybe I'm supposed to be a racist. That is the most common accusation levied against someone who dares not toe the line and reflexively respond to anything that touches upon race with the designated genuflections and obeisance.

I refuse to pretend that being a member of a particular race makes someone special or deserving of different treatment than someone of another race. If this is what it means to be a racist then sue me.

Not only that, but I don't even believe in the idea of race in the first place. Race is a social construct, nothing more. There are of course distinctive characteristics that some people share, but the significance that is attached to these characteristics is completely arbitrary and manufactured.

Some of your lefties try to pretend that sexual differences a social construct. They claim that men and women have the same psychological make-up at birth, and that the behavioral differences that can be observed are the result of social conditioning. They are mostly mistaken when it comes to sexual differences, but that doesn't mean that the concept of groups as social constructs is invalid. It is quite valid when applied to the issue of race.

Racial distinctions and differences are nothing more than an extended version of the same principles of inheritance that are at work within a family. A person with brown eyes tends to have parents with brown eyes. A person whose ancestors hail from a certain part of the world is likely to have inherited physical features that are common among the people there.

What we call race is an accident of genetic drift resulting from geographic isolation created when homo sapiens migrated out of Africa thousands of years ago. The differences we identify as racial distinctions have no more biological significance than differences in hair or eye color. The significances we attach to skin color and other distinctions are purely a social construct, nothing more.

There is only one race, the human race.

In the future, as people in developed societies who belong to different racial groups continue to intermarry, the entire concept of race will slowly fade away. What are currently seen as racial characteristics will be seen as ordinary variations just as differences in hair or eye color are seen today. This has already happened at least once before. The reason why differences in hair and eye color are seen as ordinary among caucasians is because the population of Europe is the result of an homogenization of what were previously distinct groups. This is even more true in the US and other places where Europeans have migrated to.

The same thing will happen with what are currently seen as distinct races within the varied populations living in the US and other immigrant rich areas.

I think that Warren Beatty put it best in Bullworth when he said "Everybody's gonna keep fucking everybody till we're all the same color." Beatty is a lefty, but even lefties are right every once in a while.