“Cheryl” Is A Cunt

Most women think the word “cunt” is an ugly word. It is, but a useful one. It perfectly describes the woman in this story. According to her testimony, she intends to hand out letters to fat kids on Halloween.

The letter, adorned with a smiling pumpkin graphic, begins “Happy Halloween and Happy Holidays Neighbor!”

“Your child is, in my opinion, moderately obese and should not be consuming sugar and treats to the extent of some children this Halloween season.

“My hope is that you will step up as a parent and ration candy this Halloween and not allow your child to continue these unhealthy eating habits.”

In the age of the beta male, this will not be much of a problem, but in a better age, this cunt would be driven from the neighborhood. When I was a kid, the parents would probably have helped us drive the bitch from town. Heck, the cops may have pitched in to help. Mob rule and vigilante justice are not to be encouraged, but they are not without some value. Some people are just assholes or cunts, as the case may be. They only respond to things that leave a scar. That means you have to punch them in the face once in a while to keep them from being a public nuisance.

Let’s hope the next time we hear from Cheryl it is a story about how she had to leave town.

 

Why Legal Weed Is Not So Easy

The libertarians are always banging their pots and pans about legalizing weed. It is fair to say they are obsessed over it. For as long as I’ve been alive, every conversation with a libertarian has always turned into a debate about legalizing drugs. While they are right about many of the consequences of the drug war, they are unrealistic about the consequences of legalization. The easiest way to think about it is this. A mother is driving down the road with her pre-teen kids and on the radio is a splashy ad about the weed sale at WalMart. In a society that has banned cigarette ads, it seems unlikely that we would tolerate the open sale of drugs, even mild ones like weed. In other words, libertarianism sounds great in the lab, but it would never hold up in the wild. The people will never allow it.

Even if you can work out a convenient lie like “medical marijuana” so you can have legal weed that exists on the fringe of society, there are other problems. This is a good example. If these two coaches were at a bar getting hammered, they would maybe face some sort of reprimand or a trip to a phoney counselor. That’s never going to happen with smoking weed, like these idiots were apparently doing. The public may be willing to legalize weed to a limited extent, they will never embrace it like beer. Punishing employees for doing that which is perfectly legal will be problematic. The public, faced with a choice between banning weed or allowing their kid’s teachers to do bong hits in the teacher’s lounge will prefer prohibition.

It is the central problem with libertarianism and liberalism. Both make assumptions about humans that are not based in reality. Humans are not moist robots. We have prejudices and preferences that are not always rational from a distance. Black kids, for example, join black student groups in college despite the fact it works against them. They just want to hang out with other kids like them. In social gatherings, women hang out together, often in the kitchen, while the men find their own space. The women can all be fiery feminists and the men beta males, but it happens anyway. Some things just don’t make sense if you think humans are rational in the way your iPad is rational.

If you give people, those irrational people, the freedom to arrange things the way they choose, they will inevitably choose to do things that are not liberal or not libertarian. This is not such a problem with liberalism as they don’t mind using force. Liberals are the intellectual heirs of Hobbes, not Locke. The libertarians have a big problem. On the one hand they want to let people have the choice to smoke week. On the other, they don’t want those same people to vote for politicians who promise to ban it. There’s a reason why we have never seen a libertarian society.

Banned From National Review

It took a while, but they finally banned me from posting at National Review. It seems my accurate portrayal of the execrable Ramesh Ponnuru finally did it. I called him Rich Lowry’s house boy, which must have finally forced their hand. The fact that he is Rich Lowry’s house boy did not seem to matter. Ponnuru is a hack who gets paid because he is willing to lick the boots of whoever pays him. Lowry keeps him around mostly for color. If Ramesh were a white guy named Smith he would be waxing Lowry’s car, not writing for his magazine. But, that’s how it goes with the upper-middle class twits these days. It is all appearances and gestures. The fact that a clown shoe like Lowry is in charge of National Review shows how pointless it is to support these organizations. “All movements become a business and then a racket.” National Review is now just a money raising racket for upper-middle class mediocrities.

It will be interesting to see how long National Review stays afloat. Buckley bankrolled the thing as it never made money, even when it actually stood for something. The ridiculous twink in charge now has no money of his own and limited ability to raise it from rich donors. Maybe Buckley set things up before he croaked so they could carry on, but that never stops the next generation from screwing it up in time. Their recent fundraisers have been disasters, forcing them to extend their deadlines. The quality of the product has declined sharply. The only worthwhile writer in their shop is Kevin Williamson. As happened with Henry Luce, the subsequent generations sell out the work of the founder eventually. Time went from solid new magazine to a looney tunes liberal absurdity. National Review will probably look like The Nation in a few years.

It was fun trying to get banned.

Race & Observation

According to a Danish economist, I’m a racist. The reason is I made the rather observation that Denmark has few NAM’s and that has a big impact on how their social services work. Judging from his post, I think merely pointing out the lack of a NAM population is racist. That’s not a surprise. We have reached a point that any mention of race or issues related to race is forbidden. I call it observationalism. It is the opposite of whatever causes people to say, “I don’t see race.” I see that on TV sometimes. I guess it means that someone has become so pure, they literally cannot tell the race of other people or themselves.

I thought about that while reading this story. Through the whole thing, get no hint of the ethnic element of the story. There’s a Spanish guy, maybe.  Pedro DeJesus is most likely Hispanic, but I’m probably violating some law by assuming that from his name. Otherwise, this could be a group of Swedes hunting down a Mongolian in a predominantly Nigerian neighborhood. You would think that the news account would mention something about the people involved. After all, a killer or killers are on the loose. Knowing something about them that could maybe lead to their arrest would be useful. Instead, we get “We’re told the suspect wore a dark-colored hooded sweatshirt.”

Good grief.

The great gift that allowed Martin Luther King to rise to the top of black America and successfully lead the Civil Rights Movement was his ability to read and manipulate upper middle-class white America. By most accounts, King was a lot like Al Sharpton. He was personally corrupt and a degenerate. He possessed  few skills other than his ability to perform in public. What he had was a sixth sense about the ruling class whites. He knew that they lacked the appetite for confrontation and were generally in favor of dismantling segregation. Northern whites wanted it gone because they hate southern whites, but upper class southerners wanted it gone too. King played on that divide as you can see in his Letter From Birmingham Jail. The subtle point, made in the context of the events that got him locked up, was that whites had a choice. They could negotiate with him or fight with the brothers on the street. It is, negotiate with me or else.

King knew that the white folks in charge had no appetite for a fight. The faction willing to fight would be abandoned and used as a scapegoat. Later, guys like Jackson and Sharpton turned this trick into a racket. They would threaten to riot until they got paid. Jackson became a millionaire shaking down large companies. Sharpton is less rich, but he certainly lives well scaring honkey liberals into paying his way. In post-Colonial Africa, we see the same act, but in a different context. The white colonials were looking to put a black face on their possessions and went looking for the best and brightest Africans. The Brits went so far as to send them back to England for training and education. Eventually, some rose up and took control as the colonials withdrew.

The thing you saw over and over with the new African leaders was they all possessed an ability to sooth the fears of the whites. Time after time, the colonials were lead to believe that these guys were more like them than the typical African. They held no ill will toward them and would continue on the policies established by the whites. Ian Smith of Rhodesia, a skeptic of British policy, was even won over. Once they gained power, however, the new black rulers set about slaughtering anyone they thought was a threat. Eventually, that meant turning on the white farmers and administrators. In some cases, like Zanzibar, the bloodbath came quickly and brutally. In all cases, however, the initial phase was the ruling class whites being charmed by the new black leaders.

We are seeing something similar with Barak Obama. It turns out that his only real skill is the ability to make upper-middle class white liberals do stuff for him. Otherwise, the guy is incompetent. You see it in this story from the LA Times, of all places.  This is the basic stuff of governance. Governments spy on one another. They get caught. They are always prepared for both so as not to look foolish. Yet, this administration is incapable of this basic duty. Pick an item and the only thing Obama has been able to do well is rally upper-middle class white liberals to defend him from his critics. Everything else has been a mess.

Americans are now getting see up close why Africa has failed. We elected the Robert Mugabe of America politics as President.

Back From The Memory Hole

I saw this on Drudge this morning. I find it odd in these times that so many things get tossed down the memory hole, only to pop back up later. The truly odd part is everyone did forget about them. In this case, it was well known when the crime occurred that the crime was not what the NYTimes claimed. They massaged the facts to fit the prevailing worldview amongst their readership. They may have even believed their own BS as these people are zealots. They had all the bogeymen right there in the story – rednecks, flyover country, western outfits. Shepherd, of course, had the right look. Liberals prefer their homosexuals to be of the twink variety, not the bear variety. It all made sense to the hive mind of the NYTimes. When skeptics questioned the veracity of their claims, it was easy for them to dismiss the critics as right-wing homophobes.

Now there is a book from a professional homo challenging all of the claims. The evidence is pretty clear that the three men knew one another. They certainly did drugs together and maybe sold drugs together. One of them was certainly gay or at least sampled the penis on occasion. The murder was the result of the same stupid shit we see every day from the lower classes. Drugs, money and sex are always the reason. With white trash, money is usually the reason, but drugs is a close second. Black kill more often over drugs and then money. Sex is a third as morality of any sort long dissipated in the lower classes, but a lover’s spat does result in killing once in a while. That was the case here. Three druggies that may have been homos together got into a dispute and one of them ended up dead.

Skinning The Sheep

[subscribe2]

Over at National Surrender, Jim Geraghty has a post up about the next phase of ObumblesCare. The math never worked and now that reality is about to become manifest. He writes:

Is it possible that most Congressional Democrats don’t know about the death spiral? Or that they don’t really understand the death spiral? Or that they somehow don’t believe in it? Are they convinced you can add a lot of sick, elderly people requiring expensive care to existing insurance plans, and the insurance companies won’t suddenly need a lot more money?  The insurance companies will raise premiums on their healthy customers, who will in some cases drop coverage, which will exacerbate the financial pressure… and the cycle continues until way too few healthy people are paying for the care of way too many sick people, and the insurance company goes under.

Not only is it possible, it is likely they do think insurance is a magic fountain of money. All of my moonbat friends have said something along the lines that “everyone deserves health insurance.” You see it the comments in the new stories. Every moonbat talks about insurance like it is a natural resource to be shared amongst the people. They don’t have the first clue as to how insurance works. What we are about to see in this narrow area will replay itself throughout the economy. The gimme guys and gimme gals will find out that you can sheer a sheep many times, but you can only skin him once.

What we are seeing in the West is what we saw in an accelerated pace in post-colonial Africa. The white colonists had established a degree of civilization, but it could not be maintained by the indigenous population alone. When the colonial governments fell and were replaced by indigenous rulers, they first tried to keep things the same, fearing the economic consequences if the whites fled.The blacks simply lacked the ability to run courts, administrative offices and the economy. But, pressure to “redistribute” the wealth lead to the whites fleeing and the economies collapsing. The wealth of a nation, it turns out, is its people. The Brits tried to remedy this by bringing the best Africans from their colonies to train in Britain. They built roads, schools, utilities and setup governments. The post-colonial collapse went slower, but it happened nonetheless. Rhodesia, for example, went from highly productive agricultural country to the second poorest on the planet.

Obama is turning out to be the Robert Mugabe of American politics. He came on the scene pitched as the ideal liberal candidate. He was foreign, exotic, black and highly educated. In his rise to power, the white’s in Rhodesia were told he was not a threat, despite the rhetoric. Once in power, he slowly chipped away at the agreements he made with Ian Smith. Eventually it was open warfare on the white minority, who eventually fled the country. Like Mugabe, Obama has always bought into the black liberation stuff and the socialist economics that go along with it. Also like Mugabe, Obama is a megalomaniac incapable of allowing others to share the stage. The result is the same brand of incompetent leadership. The difference is Obama does not have an army of drugged up teenagers with AK-47’s willing to kill his enemies. The economic results, however, are following the same path.

 

 

President Fuckup

[subscribe2]

The Saudis are an odious bunch, but they are the main power broker in the Middle East. As is often the case in foreign affairs, you have to team up with dickheads to thwart even bigger dickheads. Saving the French from the Nazis was unpleasant, but they were less odious than the Nazis. That’s the way it is with the Saudis. They will cause trouble for us, but nothing like what we get from the other players. The Bush family took this too far and acted like sock puppets for the Saudi Royal Family, but what Obama is doing is damned near criminal. This guy is such a fuck up, no one wants to be around him. That’s the issue here. It is the stunning incompetence of Obama that has the Saudis walking away from us.

In unusually blunt public remarks, Prince Turki al-Faisal called Obama’s policies in Syria ‘lamentable’ and ridiculed a U.S.-Russian deal to eliminate Assad’s chemical weapons. He suggested it was a ruse to let Obama avoid military action in Syria.

‘The current charade of international control over Bashar’s chemical arsenal would be funny if it were not so blatantly perfidious. And designed not only to give Mr. Obama an opportunity to back down (from military strikes), but also to help Assad to butcher his people,’ said Prince Turki, a member of the Saudi royal family and former director of Saudi intelligence.

Diplomats are not going to say Obama is a moron and they want nothing to do with him, but that’s what they are telling people. It is one thing to have a bad policy. It is one thing to poorly execute a policy. Shit happens and we get stuff wrong all the time. The clown show in the White House has no clue and staggers around like a drunk ten year old with a loaded gun. The one thing diplomats fear most is unpredictability. Nations with erratic leaders find themselves alone. That’s where we find ourselves now. The NSA spying, the numerous blunders in the Middle East and a hostility to longtime allies has the world talking about life after America.

It will take a generation to fix what President Fuckup has broken.

True Believers

[subscribe2]

The true believer is never dissuaded. Dedicated and loyal Catholics, for example, are convinced that each new Pope will revive their dying church. The pages of National Review, for example, are filled with glowing stories about the new Pope, despite the fact he is probably a communist and wants to take the Catholic Church down the same road as the Protestant faiths. The true believer is always sure that just around the corner, their dreams will come true. In modern America, the most active religion is Liberalism and they are at the end of a fanatical phase. For close to two decades they have been out in the streets, banging pots and pans, promising to bring heaven on earth to America. Even after two decades of tub thumping, they are still believing.

A great example is the hilariously incompetent ObumblesCare exchanges. Simple math said all along they could never work as promised. Perhaps some people will benefit, but the majority will be fucked. As the evidence pours in showing just how bad this disaster will be, the Left keeps insisting it is a dream come true. Never mind that Sally Kohn is probably a liar. Her claims cannot be confirmed and the available evidence contradicts her claims. She is probably not an evil person, just a true believer. She wants it to be true so bad, she deludes herself into believing it is true. No amount of evidence will change her mind.

Post Reality

In John Derbyshire’s last radio transmission, he mentioned the great Sam Francis. Francis was a brilliant observer of America, even if he was a bit too iconoclastic. There should always bee a wide space between what the culture rules out of bounds and that which the elites would like to silence. Elites will always try to silence their critics. In a free society, they can shout and bellow, but ultimately must win the argument. Even if that is not the case as we see in modern America, that does not change the fact some speech is rude, offensive and unnecessary.  You’re not getting very far by offending the people. Offending the rulers is one thing, but when you piss off the crowd, it give the rulers a free hand to dispatch you. That’s what happened when Francis indulged in pointless race mongering. Derbyshire arguably did the same thing with his infamous Taki column.

The point of bringing it up is that Francis was mostly right about things. It turns out, Pat Buchanan was mostly right about immigration, trade and the economy. Joe Sobran was mostly right about the culture and capitalism. John Derbyshire has been right about the things he considers important, namely immigration, culture and science. Robert Weissberg was right about the schools, in his book Bad Students, Not Bad Schools. I could go on, but the trend is rather clear. All of these men were once mainstream conservatives writing for popular conservative journals and city broadsheets. Today, those who are not dead have been pushed off to the fringe. Many were fired in ceremonious fashion from places like National Review and the Washington Times. What was once merely contrarian has now become heretical and damnable. The fact that time has proven most of them right (Sobran, Buchanan) and is vindicating others, says something about the drift of the nation.

Mark Steyn coined the term I’m using as a title. The elites of America are feverishly insulating themselves from reality. It is one thing to live behind a wall. It is another to think behind one. The hive mind is dangerous not because of ignorance. It is dangerous because it is aggressive. Our increasingly delusional elites are not sending dissenters off to the lithium mines just yet, but they are on that road. The conventional wisdom on the establishment right is that the tide goes out, but always returns. The rejoinder from guys like Derbyshire is it always returns until it doesn’t. Both of course can be right for a long time.