Do we even have the language anymore to articulate the concept of being personally cuckolded? Is the word “cuckold” even in current circulation?Well, maybe it ought to be. And now it is being brought back. That is all.
Monday, August 03, 2015
Am I the only one who thought of this column when I first began to notice the words "cuckservative," "race-cuck," etc.? I particularly like this line:
Saturday, August 01, 2015
I don't see what all of the brouhaha over Huckabee's comments about Obama leading the Jews to the ovens is about. Huckabee's position is that if Iran gets a nuclear weapon, it will use it against Israel. Now, you can debate the merits of this belief. Personally, I don't think the Iranians will do it; they are evil, but they are not crazy. This doesn't mean I want them to have nukes. It would probably lead to an arms race and get Iran a lot more influence over the Middle East. But I do not think they are Bond villains. However, if you think they would use it against Israel, the comparison is perfectly apt. As I said, you can debate the merits of what Huckabee is suggesting. But if you think that Iran would nuke Israel if given a chance, then the comparison is quite apt. The only difference is that the deaths will be over a much smaller period of time. I just don't see how comparing hundreds of thousands or millions of civilians being vaporized and more civilians dying a slow agonizing death from radiation poisoning to the Holocaust diminishes the Holocaust. That is all.
Sunday, July 26, 2015
Interesting piece by "hateful Heretic" on the new term "Cuckservative." In case you missed it, a "cuckservative" is a (normally establishment) conservative who wants to make conservatism friendly to multiculturalism and "anti-racist" (a code word for anti-white). The good news is that the campaign has been noticed. Matt K. Lewis and Erick Erickson have both commented on it. They would not comment on it if they weren't worried it would affect people. Join the Hashtag campaign on twitter: #cuckservative. That is all.
The Hulk Hogan incident has reminded me of this earlier post about the Paula Deen incident. It is said that if you want to know who is in control, figure out who you are not allowed to criticize. I might say, find out who you are not allowed to insult. There has been a big brouhaha over making pictures of Mohammed as a way to stand up to Muslim terrorists. Well, in Black-Run American, you are not allowed to criticize blacks, or to insult them. If people are having their lives ruined because of perfectly natural statements made in private, it is time to once again defy the PC police so they don't nigger everything up, especially with the new Obama directive to niggerize all of the neighborhoods in America. Nigger. I mean, that is all.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Don't throw it away (not if it is postage paid, anyway). Instead, print out the following picture and mail it back, along with all of the paraphernalia that came with the letter to you:
That is all.
That is all.
24ahead.com often talks about how conservatives miss opportunities to discredit amnesty supporters by being stupid in their questions. To demonstrate, I wish to show you this article about a town meeting featuring Lindsey Graham and John McCain back in 2013 when they were promoting the "Gang of Eight" amnesty bill. Graham, lying, told the crowd this:
“Who’s got the ‘Remember 1986’ truck out there?” Graham asked. “If we remember what we did not do in 1986 and get it done this time, there will not be a third wave of illegal immigration, and that’s how you get 70 votes (for the bill in the Senate).”The attendee replied:
“With all due respect, you didn’t do the job in 1986 and I doubt very seriously that you’ll do the job again,” he said to applause.John McCain shot back, again lying:
“All I can tell you is, sir, that we negotiated with every segment of America’s economy, and the religious side, and every other part of America, and all of them, literally without exception, are in support of this legislation.”The thing is, there were several responses that would have hurt them much more. Firstly, when Graham suggested that we "do what we didn't do in 1986," someone should have asked specific questions to discredit him, like these: * Senator Graham, you say that we can avoid another 1986 by doing "what we didn't do in 1986." Exactly what do you plan to do different to avoid another wave of illegal immigration? At this point, if he answers anything that involves making legal immigration easier, the answer back ought to be something along the lines of: "If we wanted a massive increase in immigration, wouldn't we not care about illegal immigration?" * Senator Graham, the main thing we did wrong in 1986 was give the illegal aliens legal status first, then schedule enforcement for later. Every report out currently says that you plan to give the illegal aliens legal status before increasing enforcement. Doesn't that undercut your plans to "avoid doing what we did in 1986?" (The report (April 4 2013) came out earlier than the town meeting (April 29 2013, the Monday before the April 30 article)) - if there were a town meeting a few weeks later, after the bill had passed the Senate Judiciary Committee (or partway through markup), one could also have asked: *Senator Graham, you claim that we can avoid another 1986 by doing "what we didn't do in 1986." However, the main problem with the 1986 amnesty was that it put legalization before enforcement, and during committee markup, you helped to shoot down any amendments that would make legalization dependent on border security. Doesn't that mean you are trying to repeat the mistakes of 1986? Admittedly, the third question would not have been possible at the town meeting, as it occurred priot to committee markup. But the first two questions could have been asked with the information that was already well-known. Doing so, and spreading a video of the resulting dissembling, would have hurt McCaion and Graham;'s credibility. Secondly, McCain's statement that support of the Gang of Eight bill is unanimous is laughably ludicrous. One could have simply asked him: * McCain, you say that every part of America is in support of the Gang of Eight legislation. Why don't you include the American Legion, which came out against your legislation back in February? * McCain, you say that support for this bill is unanimous. However, it is well known that Immigration and Customs Enforcement was locked out of the negotiations over the bill, towards which they have expressed severe skepticism. Isn't it possible that you have manufactured unanimous agreement by deliberately avoiding meeting with anyone who disagrees? With such inveterate liars, a little prior research and an ability to bring facts to bear would go a long way to changing the debate. That is all.
Wednesday, March 11, 2015
This is a cartoon comparing antisemitism and antijaphetism. Antijaphetism refers to a prejudice against European Gentiles (white Gentiles). I am not the first to use the term. The etymology basically parallels that of antisemitism - whereas biblically, Jews are the sons of Shem (Semites), Europeans are the sons of Japheth (Japhetites or Japhites). The man on the left is a white Gentile, accusing Jews of assaulting white women, general greed and avarice, and of controlling the U.S. government. He denies the Holocaust, using the term "Holohoax" and "Z.O.G. (Zionist Occupied Government). The man on the right is Jewish, and is accusing white Gentiles of oppressing non-whites (a Latino, a black, and an Asian), and of general cruelty. I do think that one of the major problems in our current society is antijaphetism, and that there is a lot of antijaphetism in the Jewish community - at least among the elite, those who have influence in our society. On the other hand, I think that responding to this with a general anger at Jews is counterproductive. The fact that Chuck Schumer or Sheldon Adelson often conform to antisemitic stereotypes ought not be held against Ben Stein, Don Feder, or Nicholas Stix. That is all.
After seeing this little scribble re-printed in my local newspaper, I decided to take action and make my own cartoon response: It is time that all who criticize "inaction" on amnesty or who talk about a "do-nothing Congress" or who in other ways suggest that we owe illegal aliens something, or that there is some failure in not passing legislation to open our borders, are confronted with the evil of what they are really suggesting. Traitors to our nation ought not to be given a pass. That is all.
Friday, February 27, 2015
This cartoon is about the Jamiel Shaw Jr. case; a black teenager who was killed by an illegal alien who should have been deported but was not. You can read about it here. His father, Jamiel Shaw Sr., spoke recently to Congress about the problem of illegal aliens, including criminals, not being deported by a government that doesn't care to enforce the law. Lest anyone think this is mere Obama-bashing, Shaw was killed when George W. Bush was President, and the problem is much bigger than just one man, although Obama has gone far beyond his predecessors. The first woman is meant to be Sabrina Fulton, Trayvon Martin's mother, and the second Lesley McSpadden, Mike Brown's mother. The man in the final two panels is Jamiel Shaw Sr. Lefty is the guy in the red shirt. That is all.
One problem with the conservative movement is that too many folks are determined to believe in the good will of the other side, no matter how much the other side shows their bad will. This is especially a problem with The American Conservative, which has turned from a paleoconservative publication (Taki's and Unz.com seem to fill the gap) to essentially a wishy-washy pseudoconservative magazine that wants to appear reasonable. This particular article by Rod Dreher, where he insists that it is bad form for Giuliani to suggest that Obama does not love America, when he clearly hates America, at least in its current form, shows his extreme unwillingness to face facts. So here is my opinion of Rod in that article: That is all.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
In case the cartoon is unclear, the donkey has taken off his gloves and is hitting the elephant with a folded-up folding chair, like the ones against the wall. After this post (I will be making a new post on the matter with a cartoon soon), I want to explain why, although I like Rod Dreher, I find him exasperating. I think this post by Dreher sums it up. He thinks that whether or not he rule of judges over issues such as marriage gives correct decisions, legally or otherwise, socons are morally bound to follow the liberal interpretation of the Constitution and to try to fight them using the rules they determine. Combined with the first sentence of the last paragraph of this post: Nothing left to do but pray that Anthony Kennedy will be charitable towards religious liberty when imposing the terms of our defeat. We see a man who wants to lose, or at least who doesn't want to fight to win. He wants to be able to say he lost gracefully and played by the rules. That's fine in a game. In real life, other than real moral rules (as opposed to strictures your enemy wants to place on you) you do what it takes to win when survival is on the line. That is all.
Blogger 24AheadDotCom has long advocated for a plan to stop amnesty that involves publicly discrediting the people pushing amnesty. The idea essentially is to make it untenable to support amnesty by forcing amnesty advocates to answer questions publicly (or be seen explicitly not doing so). Along with this is the idea of trying to find people who support an amnesty advocate, and discredit the advocate in their eyes. One idea for this is the Stop Amnesty Challenge. The basic idea is to offer a prize to someone who asks a hard question to a prominent amnesty supporter on video. The goal is to make it a question that is resistant to glib responses, so that the amnesty supporter can't go into a pre-rehearsed answer and either looks like a fool or has to shut up or so obviously dissemble that they lose credibility. More importantly, the idea is to get people with influence (e.g., Ann Coulter) to do this. Most importantly, the idea is to discredit amnesty supporters to those who support them. Bernie Sanders or Richard Trumka are not going to care that Breitbart is against amnesty or that Fox News is (if it actually were). They will care if Huffington Post readers demand that columnists explain why they support positions that hurt working Americans (or if Huffington Post columnists ask the question themselves). The original idea for this used a cash prize of $350. While the original tilt bounty page for getting the prize has expired, I will continue the contest by agreeing to pay it personally. The prize is still offered to the anyone who will take it up (up to five people); I will pay the money upon confirmation that you have posted a video that meets the qualifications on YouTube. general qualifications are listed on 24ahead.com's old Tilt page here, in the "How Do I Claim the Bounty section. I will also award prizes for questions sasked of prominent non-politician amnesty advocates. Contact me to know if someone qualifies. I can be contacted on my Twitter account @Glaivester, my email Glaivester at Yahoo dot com, or by commenting on this post. However, the general idea right now goes beyond this specific contest. We need in general to demand that people with influence ask politicians these tough questions, and that lobbying groups such as NumbersUSA start campaigns to do so. This is a good start. So please, let's start participating in the Stop Amnesty Challenge today. That is all.