Monthly Archives: August 2010

Iraq is a bargain!

The pro-war, any-war crowd is glomming onto a Congressional Budget Office report that shows Obama’s ill-fated stimulus has cost more than current appropriations on the ill-fated Iraq War.

Now that’s a devastating argument: “Our boondoggle cost less than your boondoggle!”

Americaneocon gloats:

“And how’s that “stimulus” working out? Well, the worst is yet to come.”

Of course, the same is true of the Iraqi War. von Rumsfeld said it would cost $50 billion, but projected costs, including caring for the horribly wounded, will be closer to $3 trillion.

And that’s not even counting the cost of future reprisals in revenge for what US forces have done to Iraq.

So when do the Iraqis begin construction of George W. Bush Square? They must be mighty grateful to their liberator, who has wrecked the Iraqi nation, including its economy. That project could provide work for Iraq’s 5 million orphans.

Filmmaker James Cameron Chickens Out of Climate Change Debate

James Cameron called out climate change skeptics to a debate and then chickens out. What a wuss.

Last March James Cameron sounded defiant.

The Avatar director was determined to expose journalists, such as myself, who thought it was important to ask questions about climate change orthodoxy and the radical “solutions” being proposed.

Cameron said was itching to debate the issue and show skeptical journalists and scientists that they were wrong.

“I want to call those deniers out into the street at high noon and shoot it out with those boneheads,” he said in an interview…

And then, yesterday, just one day before the debate, his representatives sent an e-mail that Mr. “shoot it out ” Cameron no longer wanted to take part. The debate was canceled.

Some unsolicited advice for Mr. Cameron: if you are going to talk tough you best be willing to back it up. Otherwise keep your big mouth shut.

HT: BT

Mexican-Style Christianity

Christianity does not exist in a vacuum. It absorbs and adopts indigenous traditions wherever it spreads. In Europe, during the latter part of the Roman Empire, a distinctly European form of Christianity took hold. Melding European paganism and Christianity, Europe gave birth to syncretized holidays like Christmas and Easter. Yet, there is no reason why Christianity should or must be European. Christianity, growing in non-Western areas, will adopt and absorb other, non-Western, traditions. As Philip Jenkins has pointed out, as Christianity spreads throughout the Third World, Christianity soon will not only be non-Western, but probably anti-Western.

The following excerpt is from a documentary on Christianity in Latin America and the rise of “Mestizo Christianity” in Mexico.  Discarding unnecessary European baggage, Mexico, borrowing from its Amerindian traditions, gives birth to a new, non-Western variety of Christianity. As the narrator in part I of the documentary states, “the white way is not the only way to salvation.”  Here he gives us Christianity “Mexican style.”  He comments:

What’s going on now is not a pagan survival, but Christianity Mexican style.  It’s much like when Pope Gregory wrote to St. Augustine in the 6th century during the English conversion to Christianity.   He wrote, “Don’t destroy their religious traditions; simply adapt them to Christianity.”  And it worked.  What happened then founded Western Christendom.  What’s happening now is part of a New Christendom.  The fact is, Christianity has never been just the white man’s religion.

A Mexican man interviewed in the video continues:

In Mexican religious history, the Virgin of Guadalupe is half Indian, half white — or rather indigenous. And therefore her face, and the way the friars wanted to represent her — they wanted to show a virgin close to the Mexican people — a dark version just like them, not a blond European one, but a dark one. That’s the main idea. The virgin appeared here and she loves her people, her dark people.

Sarah Palin at Beck’s “Love Leviathan” rally

Yesterday, I wrote that Beck’s rally at the Lincoln shrine was a snare and delusion; instead of a call to restore liberty by downsizing the central government, it cheered on the aggressive, unrestrained use of force at home and abroad under the fig leaf of promoting civil rights.

Sarah Palin’s speech at that rally confirms my view. Here’s a partial transcript:

There in the distance stands the monument to the Father of Our Country. And behind me, the towering presence of the Great Emancipator — he secured our union at the moment of its most perilous time and freed those whose captivity was our greatest shame.

And over these grounds where we are so honored to stand today, we feel the spirit of the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. He, who on this very day two score and seven years ago, gave voice to a dream that would challenge us to honor the sacred charters of our liberty that all men are created equal.

Now in honoring these giants, these giants who are linked by a solid rock foundation of faith in the one true God of justice – in honoring them, we must not forget the ordinary men and women on whose shoulders they stood. The ordinary called for extraordinary bravery. I’m speaking, of course, of America’s finest, our men and women in uniform, a force for good in this country and that is nothing to apologize for.

Abraham Lincoln once spoke of the mystic chords of memory stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land. And for over two hundred years, those mystic chords have bound us in gratitude to those who are willing to sacrifice, to restrain evil, to protect God-given liberty, to sacrifice all in defense of our country.

They fought for its freedom at Bunker Hill, they fought for its survival at Gettysburg and for the ideals on which it stands – liberty and justice for all – on a thousand battlefields far from home.

“Fought for its survival at Gettysburg”? H. L. Mencken debunked that lie decades ago.

In other words, if we are to believe the Beck-Palin view of history, Leviathan is the source of all good, and those who oppose it deserve to be crushed. If you’re a patriotic American in the Beck-Palin mold, you understand that citizen surveillance, reconstruction at home, and militarism abroad are noble endeavors we must support with our blood and treasure.

I’m calling game, set, and match.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

Glenn Beck is unclear on the concept

87,000 showed up at the Lincoln Memorial for Beck’s rally:

Forty-seven years after Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream Speech,” Fox News host Glenn Beck stood Saturday close to the spot at the Lincoln Memorial where the civil rights leader called for racial equality, urging the nation to return to “faith, hope and charity.”

Now let me get this straight — Beck stands at a monument that deifies the man who transformed the voluntary union of States into a centralized behemoth, and invokes the legacy of a man tied closely to communists — for the purpose of restoring liberty and small government?

One of us is realllllly missing something.

Oikophobia Part I

Something happened to my first post on Oikophobia? Weird? Here it is again. My Facebook friend Bret posted this as his status.

Word of the day — Oikophobia. Oikophobia is fear of the familiar: “the disposition, in any conflict, to side with the ‘them’ against the ‘us’, and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that
are identifiably ‘ours.’” The West today is diseased w/ Oikophobia.

Sometime just reduced to “Oiks” for the sake of simplicity.

i.e. — The socialist two party system is comprised of oiks who only feel good about themselves if they are wallowing is self-hatred.

I suggest that anytime a PC thought policer accuses you of xenophobia, that you accuse him of oikophobia in return.

Oikophobia Part II

My friend Bret (see below) was getting his quote from this WSJ column by Jame Taranto. It is a must read.

There is one important difference between the American oik and his European counterpart. American patriotism is not a blood-and-soil nationalism but an allegiance to a country based in an idea of enlightened universalism. Thus our oiks masquerade as–and may even believe themselves to be–superpatriots, more loyal to American principles than the vast majority of Americans, whom they denounce as “un-American” for feeling an attachment to their actual country as opposed to a collection of abstractions.

The article contains this excellent observation from Charles Krauthammer:

a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

Of course I could point out how neocons like Krauthammer have long practiced this same elitist slur campaign against paleos, but I’ll save that for another post.

A Tea Party Foreign Policy

Like Kowalski in Vanishing Point, DC’s foreign policy is about to come to a dead stop. Kowalski ended up crashing his Dodge Challenger into a bulldozer; DC is about to hit the dead-end of its credit limit. Here, Ron Paul warns us that the bulldozer we’re racing toward is operated by Chinese bankers:

As many frustrated Americans who have joined the Tea Party realize, we cannot stand against big government at home while supporting it abroad. We cannot talk about fiscal responsibility while spending trillions on occupying and bullying the rest of the world. We cannot talk about the budget deficit and spiraling domestic spending without looking at the costs of maintaining an American empire of more than 700 military bases in more than 120 foreign countries. …

Our foreign policy is based on an illusion: that we are actually paying for it. What we are doing is borrowing and printing money to maintain our presence overseas. Americans are seeing the cost of this irresponsible approach as their own communities crumble and our economic decline continues.

In the past, I’ve argued against DC’s malignant militarism based on its effect on our civil liberties. But it’s coming to the point where we have to confront the disastrous economic repercussions of empire.

Egalitarianism vs. Science

“Since 1965, America has invested trillions in education with a primary goal of equalizing test scores among the races and genders. Measured by U.S. test scores, it has been a waste—an immense transfer of wealth from private citizens to an education industry that has grown bloated while failing us again and again. Perhaps it is time to abandon the goal of educational equality as utopian—i.e., unattainable—and to focus, as we do in sports and art, on excellence. Teach all kids to the limit of their ability, while recognizing that all are not equal in their ability to read, write, learn, compute or debate, any more than they are equally able to play in a band or excel on a ball field….. The beginning of wisdom is to recognize this world as it is, not as what we would wish it to be.” ~ Patrick J. Buchanan, Op-Ed, August 26, 2010

I wonder whether Buchanan will get any flack for his op-ed today?

It’s odd. What he writes everyone knows to be true. Yet, he is not allowed to say it.  Even stranger, the left still presents religion as the enemy of science. But, in reality, it’s egalitarianism that’s at odds with science, at least with evolutionary theory. If Eurasians separated from Africans around 100,000 years ago, and Europeans and Asians separated from each other around 40,000 years ago, it stands to reason that these groups would have evolved along different paths. James D. Watson, co-discoverer of DNA, notes that genes responsible for creating differences in human intelligence can be found within a decade. He writes:

“There is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically. Our wanting to reserve equal powers of reason as some universal heritage of humanity will not be enough to make it so.”

It’s the difference between is and ought. Just because egalitarians wish for things to be equal doesn’t mean they are equal. How much longer will egalitarianism be at war with science? And how much longer will European Americans suffer because of this war?

Too be white and poor in America III – False pretenses

Next spring, April 13-16, 2011 to be exact, the annual White Privilege Conference will take place in Bloomington, Minn.  A group leftist race-baiters have been holding this conference which will go about accusing white of having not just a disproportionate amount of wealth in the country, but so-called “privileges” exclusive only to whites in the U.S. Your guess is a good as mine as to what they are but apparently they exists because these people say they do.

Read through the entire article and one gets the sense that the rhetoric this conference uses is similar to that of the Ku Klux Klan: white people are special simply because they are white.  Of course anyone who is white and poor in this country knows this is complete BS but once again a claque of people spend their time trying to convince poor whites to overlook their economic woes and embrace the fact they have skin. Only this crowd does so through a different point of view.

One woman describe the experience as having her “blinders taken off.” Well, I too hope the persons who attend this conference have their blinders taken off as well. In fact, I’ll volunteer my services to do so. I will be happy to transport them around my county and elsewhere in western Wisconsin and Minnesota so they can witness the white poor, up close and personal in their broken down trailers and farm homes and explain all these special privileges they receive for being white. I’m sure they just don’t know what they are. I guess they’ve been too busy, I don’t know, trying to keep from starving or worrying about unemployment or whether their mine might collapse on them or getting their faces blown off in Iraq or Afghanistan because nobody else wishes to serve in the military. That’s it, they’ve been too busy to figure all this out. There’s got to be a special benefit to being white they’re missing out on and I hope the persons at this conference will go inside their shotgun shacks and explain it to them because I certainly can’t.

Coffee Time (and open thread)

Amb. James Bissett reviews The Krajina Chronicle: A History of Serbs in Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia by Srdja Trifkovic.

James Fulford reports that former RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman has come out of the closet. (I’m shocked! When was the last time the RNC had a chair representative of Middle America?)  Fulford also suggests that Michael Gerson is toxic for the GOP, and notes that the DEA is hiring ebonics/jive translators.

Richard Spencer discusses how hyperinflation will happen, laments that Turkish cops are patrolling German streets, and interviews Paul Gottfried about the H.L. Mencken Club.

Steve Sailer notes that the LAUSD spent $578 million on a new school for illegal mestizos,  argues that we should pursue both tracks (legislation and amendment) to end birthright citizenship,  observes how some colleges are dropout factories, and laments that the media refuse to discuss the insane population growth in the Third World.

Patrick Cleburne reports that the Obama stealth amnesty may be expanding, and notes that Obama is vacationing in New Brazil.

Heather MacDonald observes how the Obama Regime simply does not want to enforce immigration laws.

Sartre writes about the dangers of genetically modified foods.

Michelle Malkin demonstrates that John McCain is a complete fraud.

William L. Houston discusses the “Beat Whitey Night” in Iowa.

Classics Corner:

Arthur Pendleton: “Lew Rockwell And The Strange Death Of Paleolibertarianism

Updates:

Thomas Knapp on the Death of Liberaltarianism

I believe I have more sympathy for a right-wing libertarian/traditionalist fusionism than do most paleos (for practical political reasons more  than philosophical consistency reasons). But a leftist libertarian/liberal fusionism has always impressed me as undesirable from an ideological standpoint (of course) and unworkable from a practical political standpoint.

Thomas Knapp, who is a leftist libertarian himself and has some sympathy for the idea, recognizes the political impracticality of it. I think his insights are right on in this post.

The Death of Liberaltarianism?

Daniel McCarthy of The American Conservative thinks it might be. He is responding to this story by Dave Weigel which reports on the departure of Brink Lindsey and Will Wilkinson from the Cato Institute.

We at this blog have often referred to the Liberaltarians as cosmotarians as their liberal social values reflect their more “cosmopolitian” outlook compared to more populist oriented provincial libertarians out here in flyover country.

But I say good riddance. Libertarians are only useful in so far as they don’t undermine traditional moral values and organic institutions of authority such as the family and the church. Liberaltarians embody all that is wrong with a certain expression of libertarianism.

Another public official under fire

Yesterday, we noted how a city councilman in Selma, Alabama, was being pressured to resign because of his connection to that dangerous and scary pro-Southern organization called the League of the South.

Imagine that — a public official supporting an organization dedicated to “the cultural, social, economic, and political well-being and independence of the Southern people.”

In California, Rep. Brian Bilbray is under fire for working for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), whose purpose is to “improve border security, to stop illegal immigration, and to promote immigration levels consistent with the national interest—more traditional rates of about 300,000 a year.”

There’s an organization that supports the views of 55% of Americans? Horrors!

But the SPLC, the regime’s outsourced Inquisition, has pronounced FAIR a “hate group,” which means FAIR represents the views of the people, rather than the enlightened elite (see previous post).

Yes, this is how bad things have gotten in the last days of the DC Empire.

Thomas Fleming on the “Ground Zero Mosque”

A couple of posters have already referred to Dr. Fleming’s article on the “Ground Zero Mosque,” but this is the important take home point that I think needs emphasizing.

I don’t know which set of arguments is more degrading, the opponents’ cry of insensitivity or the defenders’ claim of religious freedom.

Let us begin with the more obvious exercise in stupidity, the notion that the First Amendment to the Constitution of 1787 grants a blanket freedom of religion to be enforced by the Federal government. Anyone who got through second grade by now is aware that it is not the First Amendment that is in play but the 14th, which was passed illegally for the purpose of giving civil rights (primarily involving contracts and wills) to former slaves. Only the tortured metaphysics and imbecility of federal judges–no exceptions alive today that I know of-could twist this into anything relevant to the current case. The purpose of the First Amendment was to prevent power-crazed national politicians from imposing their religious views on the rest of us in the states…

We know the context in which the First Amendment was written. Many states had established churches and nearly all had religious tests for voting or holding office. Some of the tests require some vague statement of belief in a god, while others are more specific and Christian. The tiny minority of Jews was, for the most part left alone, but no one in his right mind would have thought they had a right to practice their religion. Muslims and Hindus were not imaginable.

Daily Reading (and open thread)

Thomas Fleming writes about the ridiculous debate surrounding the ground zero mosque.

Srdja Trifkovic comments about Sarah Palin’s misguided demagoguery.

Paul Gottfried discusses Jonah Goldberg‘s asinine suggestion to build a gay bar at ground zero.

Michael O’Meara writes that the left-right dichotomy may be replaced by a universalist-particularist (globalist-nationalist) dichotomy.

Jared Taylor writes about the decline of the English language in the age of political correctness.

Richard Spencer praises Pia Kjærsgaard who wants to restrict all non-European immigration to Denmark, and notes that the Chinese are starting to dump the U.S. dollar.

Paul Craig Roberts writes that unless the current “wars are not immediately stopped and the jobs brought back to America, the US is relegated to the trash bin of history.”

Kevin Michael Grace notes that Camp of the Saints is coming true in certain parts of Canada.

Derek Turner writes about Tony Benn.

Federale discusses the various ways the Obama Regime may attempt a stealth amnesty.

Allan Wall notes that Mexico is more progressive than the U.S. in promoting gay “marriage.”

Steve Sailer notes that, despite the media’s propaganda, the public is not really “divided” over immigration (most oppose it).

Dennis Watkins suggests that the anti-white media have sunk to a new low.

Christopher Roach writes that “racism” has become the “Hail Mary” of the left.

James Edwards, of the Political Cesspool, interviews Hutton Gibson (Mel Gibson’s father), which has generated much publicity.

Classics Corner:

James Kalb, “Anti-Racism

Updates:

Machete the Movie

While we’re on the subject of movies, I have seen two trailers for the movie Machete, one before Predators and one before The Expendables. Neither had any hint of the hate whitey element that characterized the “Arizona Edition” of the trailer that came out after Arizona passed their new immigration law. As I predicted at the time (see link above), that take on the movie was so inflammatory that it couldn’t help but alienate a sizable portion of its intended audience. I suspect some people recognized the push back that trailer caused and have sanitized the official version.

The Expendables #1 at the Box-Office for 2nd Week in a Row!

Proof that the American male is not yet totally feminized.

Interestingly, Piranha 3D, which I thought looked fun in an intentionally campy sort of way, did poorly. I don’t think the viewing audience knows what to do with high production value but intentionally campy movies like this or, for another example, the much anticipated but underperforming Snakes on a Plane. Audience like intentional spoofs like this weekend’s Vampires Suck, and they like (on TV at least) intentionally campy but obviously B movie fair, but they don’t know what to do with intentionally campy mainstream releases that look like they belong on the Syfy Channel. That’s my take on Piranha 3D’s underwhelming performance at least.