A reader at VDARE points out that the famous Rodney King tape was more heavily edited than the Shirley Sherrod recording. But we aren't supposed to remember that fact, are we?
That is all.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Whites are Always Evil
When a white man kills immigrants, we are supposed to blame anti-illegal immigration rhetoric:
Hate Crimes Tied to Immigration Debate?
Subtitle: Civil Rights Group Says Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Driving Increase in Hate Crimes
When a black man kills white people, we are supposed to focus on white racism.
Conn. Gunman: 'I Wish I Could Have Killed More People'
Subtitle: Girlfriend of Connecticut Gunman Who Killed 9: Racial Harassment 'Would Make Somebody Go Crazy'
More from Steve Sailer:
Did the Hartford Massacre victims have it coming?
More Pavlovian News Analysis
Breaking News!
from Lawrence Auster:
The Big Lie, in its efflorescence
Eight whites murdered for their “racism” at Connecticut beer distributorship
from Dennis Mangan:
The Media's Anti-White Agenda
from Nicholas Stix:
Family: Racism caused Conn. gunman to snap
That is all.
Hate Crimes Tied to Immigration Debate?
Subtitle: Civil Rights Group Says Anti-Immigrant Rhetoric Driving Increase in Hate Crimes
When a black man kills white people, we are supposed to focus on white racism.
Conn. Gunman: 'I Wish I Could Have Killed More People'
Subtitle: Girlfriend of Connecticut Gunman Who Killed 9: Racial Harassment 'Would Make Somebody Go Crazy'
More from Steve Sailer:
Did the Hartford Massacre victims have it coming?
More Pavlovian News Analysis
Breaking News!
from Lawrence Auster:
The Big Lie, in its efflorescence
Eight whites murdered for their “racism” at Connecticut beer distributorship
from Dennis Mangan:
The Media's Anti-White Agenda
from Nicholas Stix:
Family: Racism caused Conn. gunman to snap
That is all.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Shirley Sherrod
First of all, I should say that I am appalled by the use of a selectively edited recording to impugn Ms. Sherrod's character. Racial McCarthyism is racial McCarthyism, and what was done to her was wrong, and to the extent that Mr. Breitbart's involvement in this involved a reckless disregard for the truth or worse, involved delberatley misleading people, he shuld be held in contempt.
Having said that, James Fulford has an interesting article on VDARE where he points out that Ms. Sherrod still is not exactly an unobjectionable figure, even if we have no reason to believe her to be racist.
I also think that his assertion that Breitbart should, under the liberal interpretation of the Constitution, be immunized from libel suits is a very good starting point to discuss the limits of free speech as it relates to relaying deliberately false information, or of information that was deliberately underchecked.
None of which i to say that she should have been let go for the statement she made, or for that matter for any radical political views she might be accused of having; as long as the job is civil service rather than appointed, her political views do not make firing her on false pretenses any more justifiable, nor should she be fired for her views (in the latter case, it would be different if she were a political appointee, e.g. secretary of HUD).
But the idea that she is not radical or objectionable at all may not stand up to close scrutiny.
That is all.
Having said that, James Fulford has an interesting article on VDARE where he points out that Ms. Sherrod still is not exactly an unobjectionable figure, even if we have no reason to believe her to be racist.
I also think that his assertion that Breitbart should, under the liberal interpretation of the Constitution, be immunized from libel suits is a very good starting point to discuss the limits of free speech as it relates to relaying deliberately false information, or of information that was deliberately underchecked.
None of which i to say that she should have been let go for the statement she made, or for that matter for any radical political views she might be accused of having; as long as the job is civil service rather than appointed, her political views do not make firing her on false pretenses any more justifiable, nor should she be fired for her views (in the latter case, it would be different if she were a political appointee, e.g. secretary of HUD).
But the idea that she is not radical or objectionable at all may not stand up to close scrutiny.
That is all.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Let's Play a Game
The next time that Lawrence Auster has a post about Alt Right or that Dennis Mangan has a post about Jewish influence on American politics, how long do you think it will be before the other posts a response? I say six hours.
That is all.
That is all.
Saturday, July 03, 2010
Is Jewish Hypocrisy vis a vis Israel and the U.S. Really that Prevalent?
Recently, Dennis Mangan put up a post decrying a Jewish writer who said that Israel really didn't want friends who were nationalists. That is, who supported the right of their own nations to exist rather than just supporting Israel's.
This brought up an issue which is becoming somewhat bigger on the paleo, nationalist, and white nationalist right. Are Jews mostly hypocrites who want one standard for Israel and another for Gentile countries?
While it certainly is a convenient stand to take, and while blaming the decline of white America on Jewish perfidy creates an easy target, I think that the case for this is weaker than it may initially seem.
The problem is that while there are Jews who very strongly take Israel's side on any foreign policy issue, and Jews who very much want to disempower whites and replace them in order to multiculturalize every white country on the planet, they are by and large not the same Jews. Plenty of leftist Jews dislike Jewish Israel as much as they dislike white America and/or Europe. M.J. Rosenberg of TPMCafe comes to mind.
Anyone advocating a "one-state solution" where Israel would have to stop being a Jewish state is essentially wishing to do the same to Israel as the open borders crowd wants to do to the U.S.
And many of the more pro-Israel Jews are also very pro-U.S. Take Don Feder, for instance, who has described himself as "to the right of [Ariel] Sharon on Zionism, [and] to the right of Pat Buchanan on immigration and Americanism,"
The pro-Israel anti-white America (and Europe) position is taken largely by a small number of neocon or noeoliberal Jews. The reason why this has been picked up on as representative of Jewish hypocrisy in general is probably because paleoconservatism is, to a great extent, a reaction to neoconservatism. This has caused a much greeater focus on neoconservative positions than on the positions of any other sector of the political landscape. It has also caused a focus on non-neocons who take a position that is similar to that of the neocons on either Israel or the U.S., and assuyming essentially the neocon position on the other subject - or, alternately, combining each of the two positions (pro-Israel and anti-white America) one each espoused by two different Jewish people, and assuming a level of hypocrisy from that, as if both being Jewish meant that their opinions were, in essence, the opinion of one person.
In short, I think that the idea that Jewish positions are driven by different attitudes towards Israeli ethnic policy and U.S./European ethnic policy is not that applicable to most Jews.
That is all.
This brought up an issue which is becoming somewhat bigger on the paleo, nationalist, and white nationalist right. Are Jews mostly hypocrites who want one standard for Israel and another for Gentile countries?
While it certainly is a convenient stand to take, and while blaming the decline of white America on Jewish perfidy creates an easy target, I think that the case for this is weaker than it may initially seem.
The problem is that while there are Jews who very strongly take Israel's side on any foreign policy issue, and Jews who very much want to disempower whites and replace them in order to multiculturalize every white country on the planet, they are by and large not the same Jews. Plenty of leftist Jews dislike Jewish Israel as much as they dislike white America and/or Europe. M.J. Rosenberg of TPMCafe comes to mind.
Anyone advocating a "one-state solution" where Israel would have to stop being a Jewish state is essentially wishing to do the same to Israel as the open borders crowd wants to do to the U.S.
And many of the more pro-Israel Jews are also very pro-U.S. Take Don Feder, for instance, who has described himself as "to the right of [Ariel] Sharon on Zionism, [and] to the right of Pat Buchanan on immigration and Americanism,"
The pro-Israel anti-white America (and Europe) position is taken largely by a small number of neocon or noeoliberal Jews. The reason why this has been picked up on as representative of Jewish hypocrisy in general is probably because paleoconservatism is, to a great extent, a reaction to neoconservatism. This has caused a much greeater focus on neoconservative positions than on the positions of any other sector of the political landscape. It has also caused a focus on non-neocons who take a position that is similar to that of the neocons on either Israel or the U.S., and assuyming essentially the neocon position on the other subject - or, alternately, combining each of the two positions (pro-Israel and anti-white America) one each espoused by two different Jewish people, and assuming a level of hypocrisy from that, as if both being Jewish meant that their opinions were, in essence, the opinion of one person.
In short, I think that the idea that Jewish positions are driven by different attitudes towards Israeli ethnic policy and U.S./European ethnic policy is not that applicable to most Jews.
That is all.
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
Obama Administration Tries to Stop Arizona from Punishing Illegal Immigrant Employers
So the Feds won't do the job, and now they are trying to stop anyone else from doing it?
I thought that punishing employers was what the liberals said we should be doing.
I especially liked this part:
A separate Arizona law penalizing employers of undocumented workers would "disrupt a careful balance that Congress struck" in the 1986 federal immigration act, the Justice Department told the court in a filing Friday.
What balance? There was an amnesty, and then no enforcement.
I also liked this part:
The Arizona law, passed in 2007, subjects employers to stiffer penalties than federal law and lacks safeguards that Congress provided against employment discrimination, government lawyers said.
Screw the antidiscrimination laws.
That is all.
I thought that punishing employers was what the liberals said we should be doing.
I especially liked this part:
A separate Arizona law penalizing employers of undocumented workers would "disrupt a careful balance that Congress struck" in the 1986 federal immigration act, the Justice Department told the court in a filing Friday.
What balance? There was an amnesty, and then no enforcement.
I also liked this part:
The Arizona law, passed in 2007, subjects employers to stiffer penalties than federal law and lacks safeguards that Congress provided against employment discrimination, government lawyers said.
Screw the antidiscrimination laws.
That is all.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
The Problem with Gays in the Military - or, is Homosexuality More Enlightened than Heterosexuality?
*
A reader at VFR lays it out:
Congress is now moving to admit open homosexuals to the military. We're told that homosexuals are no more likely to engage in sexual misconduct or harassment than heterosexuals. That's debatable, but so what? Heterosexual men in the military don't bunk down and shower with the women. But homosexual men will indeed bunk down and shower with the other males if Obama gets his way. Ditto for lesbians and the other females. There would be universal outrage if heterosexual male soldiers demanded to shower with naked female soldiers, but naked male soldiers are expected to shower with homosexuals who might desire them. Female soldiers are expected to shower with lesbians.
And he sums it up in a way that no one ever has before (at least to my knowledge):
What we're being told, indirectly, is that homosexuality is a more enlightened form of sexuality... Heterosexuals can be barred from situations where sexually improper behavior might result, but homosexuals cannot. Indeed, they have a right not to be barred.
That is all.
A reader at VFR lays it out:
Congress is now moving to admit open homosexuals to the military. We're told that homosexuals are no more likely to engage in sexual misconduct or harassment than heterosexuals. That's debatable, but so what? Heterosexual men in the military don't bunk down and shower with the women. But homosexual men will indeed bunk down and shower with the other males if Obama gets his way. Ditto for lesbians and the other females. There would be universal outrage if heterosexual male soldiers demanded to shower with naked female soldiers, but naked male soldiers are expected to shower with homosexuals who might desire them. Female soldiers are expected to shower with lesbians.
And he sums it up in a way that no one ever has before (at least to my knowledge):
What we're being told, indirectly, is that homosexuality is a more enlightened form of sexuality... Heterosexuals can be barred from situations where sexually improper behavior might result, but homosexuals cannot. Indeed, they have a right not to be barred.
That is all.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Tax Striker vs. Illegal Immigration
Nicholas Stix at the VDARE blog has a good point.
Every single argument that is used against immigration enforcement can also be used against paying income taxes. Likewise, people who seem to insist that deportation should be treated under criminal justice presumptions rather than civil ones (that is, that people should be considered legally here until they are proven illegal) never seem to put the same thinking into filing out individual income tax forms.
While I do not advocate "tax striking" it does seem to me that as a thought experiment it provides a good counterpoint to those who demand amnesty for illegal aliens, and reveals their hypocrisy when they couch their terms in the impossibility of enforcement or in the unconstitutionality of effective enforcement.
That is all.
Every single argument that is used against immigration enforcement can also be used against paying income taxes. Likewise, people who seem to insist that deportation should be treated under criminal justice presumptions rather than civil ones (that is, that people should be considered legally here until they are proven illegal) never seem to put the same thinking into filing out individual income tax forms.
While I do not advocate "tax striking" it does seem to me that as a thought experiment it provides a good counterpoint to those who demand amnesty for illegal aliens, and reveals their hypocrisy when they couch their terms in the impossibility of enforcement or in the unconstitutionality of effective enforcement.
That is all.
Thoughts on Rand Paul
Update: Lawrence Auster says that my assumptions on Rand Paul not knowing this question was going to be asked beforehand are incorrect. I will have to check this out more, as I have been rather busy and haven't had time to check everything out as fully as I should have. More on this as I check it out.
But yes, if he knew this was going to come up he should have %%#&&*^!! well prepared for it.
Original entry:
I pretty much agree with Rand Paul's assessment that extending anbtidiscrimination laws to private business is bad. I do think that Lawrence Auster's distinction (scroll down to the fourth, and as of now, last, comment by Auster ("LA") to see him make his point) between employmenbt and service (i.e. that people could be allowed to discriminate against people in hiring them for a job, but still be legally forced to accept them as customers) has some merit, although I never thought of the issue that way before.
I think that people who criticize Paul for stepping in it are somewhat correct. Having said that, Paul's problem is not, as Unqualified Offerings' Thoreau suggests, that Paul focused on the wrong aspect of racial issues with liberty to deal with. He didn't choose this topic, it was thrust on him. On the other hand, Paul could talk more about issues where his philosophy would disproportionately help black people and emphasize that, as a way of reducing the impact of issues such as this - in fact, it would be a good idea to have done so early on as a "vaccination" against issues like this later.
I think that Lawrence Auster has a much better point, that Paul (a) should have prepared for such questions in advance, and (b) should have avoided hostile forums until he had prepared.
That is all.
But yes, if he knew this was going to come up he should have %%#&&*^!! well prepared for it.
Original entry:
I pretty much agree with Rand Paul's assessment that extending anbtidiscrimination laws to private business is bad. I do think that Lawrence Auster's distinction (scroll down to the fourth, and as of now, last, comment by Auster ("LA") to see him make his point) between employmenbt and service (i.e. that people could be allowed to discriminate against people in hiring them for a job, but still be legally forced to accept them as customers) has some merit, although I never thought of the issue that way before.
I think that people who criticize Paul for stepping in it are somewhat correct. Having said that, Paul's problem is not, as Unqualified Offerings' Thoreau suggests, that Paul focused on the wrong aspect of racial issues with liberty to deal with. He didn't choose this topic, it was thrust on him. On the other hand, Paul could talk more about issues where his philosophy would disproportionately help black people and emphasize that, as a way of reducing the impact of issues such as this - in fact, it would be a good idea to have done so early on as a "vaccination" against issues like this later.
I think that Lawrence Auster has a much better point, that Paul (a) should have prepared for such questions in advance, and (b) should have avoided hostile forums until he had prepared.
That is all.
Friday, May 07, 2010
Thoughts on the Upcoming Movie MacGruber
Aside from the fact that the film is a parody of a TV show that ended 18 years ago, the fact that the TV trailer for the movie contains not one, but two jokes about "number two" gives me grave doubts about this movie.
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, May 04, 2010
Sorry for Lack of Posts
Sorry. I've been worn out the past few weeks. I will try to get up a few posts this next week. I have big post about Austrian economics that I have saved as a draft, but I haven't added to it for a while.
That is all.
That is all.
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
Finally, a Snappy Comeback
I have finally figured out a snappy comeback to one of Krugman's anti-Austrian fallacies. This makes me happy, because my previous efforts against him took practically a thesis to explain.
But I finally figured out the snappy answer when he asked the question again in a blog post today:
The Austrian view is that unemployment in a slump results from the difficulty of “adaptation of the structure of production” — workers are unemployed as resources are painfully transferred out of an overblown investment-goods sector back into production of consumption goods.
But this immediately raises the question, why isn’t there similar unemployment during the boom, as workers* are transferred into investment goods production?
This is a variation on a question he asked previously:
And now as then, the whole notion falls apart when you ask why, say, a housing boom — which requires shifting resources into housing — doesn’t produce the same kind of unemployment as a housing bust that shifts resources out of housing.
The simple answer:
During the boom, resources are transferred into investment goods production from savings, not from production goods investment. During the bust, there were no more savings, so the transfer had to come from decreased investment.
*It makes more sense if you assume that Krugman meant "resources" here.
That is all.
But I finally figured out the snappy answer when he asked the question again in a blog post today:
The Austrian view is that unemployment in a slump results from the difficulty of “adaptation of the structure of production” — workers are unemployed as resources are painfully transferred out of an overblown investment-goods sector back into production of consumption goods.
But this immediately raises the question, why isn’t there similar unemployment during the boom, as workers* are transferred into investment goods production?
This is a variation on a question he asked previously:
And now as then, the whole notion falls apart when you ask why, say, a housing boom — which requires shifting resources into housing — doesn’t produce the same kind of unemployment as a housing bust that shifts resources out of housing.
The simple answer:
During the boom, resources are transferred into investment goods production from savings, not from production goods investment. During the bust, there were no more savings, so the transfer had to come from decreased investment.
*It makes more sense if you assume that Krugman meant "resources" here.
That is all.
Monday, April 05, 2010
Books on the Austrian Theory
Looking through my bookmarks, I found this old piece by Jeffrey Tucker.
Some interesting reading material, and also a good insight as to why the Austrian Theory can seem like such a light bulb in the darkness of modern economics.
That is all.
Some interesting reading material, and also a good insight as to why the Austrian Theory can seem like such a light bulb in the darkness of modern economics.
That is all.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Real Good Quote
If the crowd is overwhelmingly white, it's not because the Tea Party has a problem with people of color. It's because so many people of color have a problem with limited government.
-Mark Davis
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to James Fulford on the VDARE blog.
That is all.
-Mark Davis
Thanx and a tip o' the hat to James Fulford on the VDARE blog.
That is all.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Why I Oppose Cap-and-Trade
Chris Roach has an excellent post detailing why reducing greenhouse gas emissions the way the government wants us to is likely to be unrealistic and why better approaches are needed, even if global warming is a serious issue.
Meanwhile, I am certain the the environmentalists are still simply confident that somehow if we ban the use of carbon, solar energy will suddenly become cheap and efficient, or else they welcome a return to horse-and-buggy days.
That is all.
Meanwhile, I am certain the the environmentalists are still simply confident that somehow if we ban the use of carbon, solar energy will suddenly become cheap and efficient, or else they welcome a return to horse-and-buggy days.
That is all.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
How Rude of Them to Be Alive When No One Wants Them
Apparently, in an attempt to prevent them from becoming too numberous and taking over, Jordan is rescinding the citizenship of some of its Palestinian people, although the excuse is that it will somehow prevent Israel from preventing them from returning to their homeland when that pesky conflict is finally resolved (any day now).
This does actually point out one of the big problems in the idea of "transfer" as a solution. Who is going to take them, or do you give a damn if the Palestinians topple the current Jordanian government.
It seems to me that no one wants the Palestinians, which leads to the inevitable question of how are they going to be dealt with? I have a feeling that the general feelin throughout the entire Middle East is probably something along the lines of Lord Farquaad's famous statement about Shrek,
Now really, it's rude enough being alive when no one wants you.
Is there any solution?
Of course, there is for the U.S. Stay out of the whole business. This one's not our problem.
That is all.
This does actually point out one of the big problems in the idea of "transfer" as a solution. Who is going to take them, or do you give a damn if the Palestinians topple the current Jordanian government.
It seems to me that no one wants the Palestinians, which leads to the inevitable question of how are they going to be dealt with? I have a feeling that the general feelin throughout the entire Middle East is probably something along the lines of Lord Farquaad's famous statement about Shrek,
Now really, it's rude enough being alive when no one wants you.
Is there any solution?
Of course, there is for the U.S. Stay out of the whole business. This one's not our problem.
That is all.
Monday, March 22, 2010
A Nation of Cowards
Based on recent events, I have decided that on balance, it would be a good thing to add "Nation of Cowards" to my blogroll. It takes a comment by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and turns it around (making it more accurate in the process).
I don't necessarily agree with everything the blogger does (and sometimes he is a little more impolite than I would be, especially in his "moments of racial levity"), but overall I think that his voice is worth hearing.
That is all.
I don't necessarily agree with everything the blogger does (and sometimes he is a little more impolite than I would be, especially in his "moments of racial levity"), but overall I think that his voice is worth hearing.
That is all.
Ban Him from Wal*Mart, Don't Prosecute Him
If the kid who made the stupid declaration in Wal*Mart gets prosecuted, it is a grave injustice.
Don't get me wrong. What he did is despicablke, and Wal*Mart is within its rights to ban him from its property.
But if he wasn't using a non-public phone, I don't see him having done anything illegal.
Wal*Mart has every right to say "go away and don't come back,"* but to get thelaw involved in this way is stupid.
That is all.
*But if the situation were reversed, does anyone think that they would be allowed to ban a black kid for saying things like this against white people?
Don't get me wrong. What he did is despicablke, and Wal*Mart is within its rights to ban him from its property.
But if he wasn't using a non-public phone, I don't see him having done anything illegal.
Wal*Mart has every right to say "go away and don't come back,"* but to get thelaw involved in this way is stupid.
That is all.
*But if the situation were reversed, does anyone think that they would be allowed to ban a black kid for saying things like this against white people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)