Cold Fury

Harshing your mellow since 9/01

A time for choosing

Wise, and sobering, words.

We’re a hodgepodge of nations that’s at each other’s throats over six gorillion differences, all of which fall on one or the other side of the political divide between nationalists and globalists. Those divisions run through families and between friends. Talking with liberals is a waste of time for two reasons.

One, appeals to higher values and self-interest are foreign language to libs. There is no communication because we live in different worlds, like black-square and white-square bishops on the chessboard: proximate but never connecting. Namely, the Right follows Truth, the Left follows Power.

Two, it’s bad Game to try to woo them back to sanity. All it does is stroke their ego, validating liberals’ schema that they have the power, ergo moral and intellectual high ground. It’s better to freeze them out and be curt even in nonpolitical contact to flip the abuse-supplication script that they’ve become too comfortable with over the past decades of cuckservatism.

But if someone who’s on the fence approaches you in good faith, know that our differences can be worked out as long as we agree on the fundamental question. Which is:

Do you believe that immigration to this country should be increased, or reversed?

There is no splitting the difference, no middle ground. The arrow of destiny can only go in one or the other direction.

Now go look at his pictorial representation of what the choices boil down to, which is both hilarious and—like I said—sobering.

(Via WRSA)

Share

Inclusive?

Remember how I mentioned yesterday my lack of patience for the alt-right’s Jewhate? Well, here’s who those people advocate allying ourselves with.

No thanks.

On Friday afternoon, during one of the rare liberal media acknowledgements of Louis Farrakhan’s prominent presence at Aretha Franklin’s funeral, MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell gave an odd underreaction as she cited it as evidence of an “inclusive group” being on stage.

She then pivoted to commenting on the aesthetics of the funeral procession: “We can see also on screen some of that parade of pink Cadillacs. I mean, the drama of this funeral and what Aretha Franklin means to the nation.”

So having a notorious racist and anti-Semite from the left prominently featured at an event alongside several high-profile liberals was treated as if it were just another normal day…

It IS just another normal day. Ed quotes this Tweet:



What can one say but: heh. Indeed™.

Share

Where’s MY white privilege, dammit?

Self-loathing is an essential—perhaps THE essential—component driving the modern liberal psyche.

The concept of ‘white privilege’ was popularized by Peggy McIntosh in a 1989 paper written at Harvard University and titled, “White Privilege: Unpacking The Invisible Knapsack.” It was written as a personal, experiential essay, and it details 26 ways in which McIntosh’s skin color has been decisive in determining her life outcomes. This hugely influential paper has been responsible for the subsequent proliferation of a rigidly enforced theory of privilege throughout social movements and university classrooms. So central has this doctrine become to progressive politics, pedagogy, and activism, that to even question its validity is to invite the inquisitorial wrath of ‘social justice’ radicals. But it is for this very reason that it is important to subject McIntosh’s ideas to scrutiny. So let us return to the source and to first principles and unpack Peggy McIntosh’s knapsack…

Follows, a close examination of the tremendously large silver spoon ensconced in the gormless nitwit’s mouth from birth, a matter far more of wealth, social position, and access to a network of lofty connections than of race. She doesn’t seem interested in groveling apologetically for those things, oddly enough.

In other words, Peggy McIntosh was born into the very cream of America’s aristocratic elite, and has remained ensconced there ever since. Her ‘experiential’ list enumerating the ways in which she benefits from being born with white skin simply confuses racial privilege with the financial advantages she has always been fortunate enough to enjoy. Many of her points are demonstrably economic. One is left to wonder why, given her stated conviction that she has unfairly benefited from her skin color, there seems to be no record of her involvement in any charity or civil rights work. If she did take to the streets in support of some cause or other, she left no trace that I can see. Nor, as far as I can tell, has she spent any time teaching the underprivileged or working directly to better anyone’s condition but her own. Instead, she has contented herself with a generous six figure salary, and has not shown any particular eagerness to hand her position over to a more deserving person of color.

Very few of the people reading this article—whatever the color of their skin—will have even the vaguest idea of the comfort and privilege in which Peggy McIntosh grew up and to which she has since become accustomed. Nor will we have access to the world of opportunities that she has been fortunate enough to enjoy. But even though the lifetime of privilege McIntosh has experienced is almost certainly due to her wealth and not the colour of her skin, she nevertheless found a way to share this irksome burden with the illiterate children of Kentucky coal miners, the hopeless peasants of the Appalachians, poor single mothers struggling to make ends meet on welfare, and the vast majority of whites in the United States and throughout the world who never had the chance to attend Radcliffe or Harvard. She simply reclassified her manifest economic advantage as racial privilege and then dumped this newly discovered original sin onto every person who happens to share her skin color. Without, of course, actually redistributing any of the wealth that, by her own account, she had done nothing to deserve.

All of which means that pretty much anything you read about ‘white privilege’ is traceable to an ‘experiential’ essay written by a woman who benefitted from massive wealth, a panoply of aristocratic connections, and absolutely no self-awareness whatsoever. This alone calls into question the seriousness and scholarly validity of the derivative works, since they are all the fruit of a poisonous tree. But McIntosh’s hypothesis was eagerly embraced nonetheless, because it served a particular purpose—it helped to mainstream a bitter zero-sum politics of guilt and identity. This dark epistemology has quietly percolated through the universities and the wider culture for two decades now. It has had the effect of draining attention from a massive and growing wealth gap and it has pitted the poor against one another in public spectacles of acrimony and even violence. Even so, it was readily embraced by progressively-minded professors who might otherwise have had trouble squaring their thirst for social justice with their high six figure salaries. In the last decade, this dogma has come screaming out of the nation’s august halls of learning and into mainstream civil discourse (although to call most of what passes for discourse today ‘civil’ somewhat labours the definition). And, still, we are endlessly and forcefully reminded that to question this concept in any way is, in and of itself, racist.

That’s probably enough excerpting; it’s a deep, well-conceived and crafted piece which goes into some unexpected places and is deserving of a read in full. Good comments, too.

McIntosh’s unwelcome gift of the burden of her own misguided guilt, neurosis, and self-flagellation is one the world could have done without. Whatever happened to the notion of a becoming sense of gratitude, responsibility, and noblesse oblige as an accompaniment to the good fortune of being born into a life of wealth and privilege, anyway?

If we’re all going to have to shoulder the load of stupid PC-Progtard angst, though, I’m gonna have to insist that they lay off their damned appropriation of my culture: “The Language Police Want Y’all to Adopt the Gender-Neutral, Non-Sexist ‘Y’all’.” Help, help, I’ve been microaggressed!

Seriously, though, the idea of sensible people “uniting” with such useless skinbags for any purpose at all seems fanciful beyond even the wildest science-fiction these days. Not even something as cataclysmic as the events in John Ringo’s Posleen War series could do it, seems to me. I know that whenever a gaggle of ’em goes out to attempt a “dialogue” with the Posleen in hopes of finding a “peaceful resolution of our differences,” “compromise,” and “reconciliation” with them—and you know damned well they would—I won’t be making any attempts to talk ’em out of it.

(Via KT)

Share

“Sick, twisted racism”

They’re not even bothering to try to hide their hate anymore.

On Wednesday, the New York Times hired Sarah Jeong to join their editorial board. Shortly thereafter, Jeong’s old racist tweets emerged.

The tweets aren’t exactly ancient history. In 2014 and 2015, Jeong — senior writer at the Verge — unleashed a few Twitter tirades against people with a lighter complexion. She seems to have deleted them now, but screenshots showing the tweets (and her new Twitter bio as “soon to be editorial board @nytimes”) have surfaced on the Internet.

“Dumba** f**king white people marking up the internet with their opinions like dogs p**sing on fire hydrants,” Jeong tweeted in November 2014. Ouch! Not only a profanity-laced tirade, but a tirade comparing people to dogs because of the color of their skin!

“Are white people genetically predisposed to burn faster in the sun, thus logically being only fit to live underground like groveling goblins,” she wondered in December 2014. Make no mistake, she suggested a whole race of people were unfit for above ground habitation due to the color of their skin.

In July 2014, Jeong admitted to taking a sick pleasure from being cruel to people based on the color of their skin. “It’s kind of sick how much joy I get out of being cruel to old white men,” she confided. This confession did not specify what Jeong did to men based on their age and the color of their skin, but she did admit taking pleasure in cruelty.

Yeah, well, in the unlikely event she ever tries something “cruel” on THIS old white man, what she’ll wind up getting isn’t going to give her any pleasure at all.

The NYT, naturally, issued a quite lame defense of their brand-spanking new hire which, who cares.

Anybody out there still feeling good about our chances of being able to live peaceably cheek-by-jowl with “people” like this? If so, could you maybe explain to me just how you figger it?

I swiped my title from a Schlichter tweet posted by Insty:



I dunno, Kurt. Trump should mention it, sure. In fact, he should wave it like a bloody flag in LibMedia’s face every time they go all ragged and weepy about A) their self-asserted integrity and lack of “bias”; B) the environment of “danger” welling up in response to their open contempt for us; C) the very idea that the “news” they present might be of the “fake” variety. But honestly, I don’t see anybody being able to make them defend anything at all; at this point, they quite obviously no longer care who sees how overflowing with insane hatred they are.

Share

Guilty of being white

They hate you. They really, really hate you.

The Democratic coalition is always on the verge of flying apart in fratricidal enmity. At the moment, for example, the media is stoking black rage toward white women, whom The New York Times is repeatedly calling by the racist slur “Becky,” for summoning the police when they feel unsafe.

The one thing the Democrats’ confederacy of the dissimilar can share is hatred of whites, or, to be precise, cisgender straight white men.

This is why the press keeps pushing endless hate hoaxes. Shameful antiwhite racist libels are the KKKrazy Glue that holds together the Democratic coalition.

To Vox readers, importing a new electorate of foreign ringers is how they intend to grind their enemies, their fellow American citizens, into the dust beneath their political chariot wheels, so it’s best not to notice what they’ve chosen to inflict upon their nation.

After all, that white Americans are slowly waking up to the fact that they don’t really want to get pushed around by newcomers just for being white merely proves that whites deserve their fate.

Klein eventually seems to endorse the stratagem offered by his favorite researcher, Jennifer Richeson: The media should lie harder to white people.

Richeson believes it would be wise for demographers to stop using terms like “majority-minority America”—after all, whites will still be a plurality, and what good can come of framing America’s trajectory in a way that leaves the single largest group feeling maximally threatened? It sounds like “a force of nonwhite people who are coming and they are working as a coalition to overturn white people and whiteness,” Richeson said, laughing. “That’s a problem!”

But for the Democrats, of course, that’s not a problem; that’s the plan.

My post title up there is swiped from an old Minor Threat song:

I’m sorry
For something that I didn’t do
Lynched somebody
But I don’t know who
You blame me for slavery
A hundred years before I was born


DAMN, but I still love that band. Anyways, and along these same lines, Thales names his Idiot Of The Week:

Self-loathing white people are some of the most disturbing people to have ever drawn breath. Drama queens might be the best way to describe them, for they obsess endlessly about things they haven’t done, they elevate petty problems to the world stage and bury major ones behind a veneer of political correctness. A white kid wearing dreadlocks is the end of the world. But recognizing that ISIS lobs gay people off of buildings for amusement is probably racism (even though, paradoxically, Islam is not a race). Sanctimony is their religion, Social Justice their crusade, and endless self-hatred their spiritual diet.

Here’s a window into the insane mind of one of these cretins: White People Have No Culture. And it cries out in the darkness of colossal ignorance for a proper fisking.

For a moment, I almost felt sorry for the author. While I generally feel quite secure in the knowledge of where I come from, who I am, and the history and culture of my ancestors, she clearly does not feel this. I could discuss this topic for hours. Today’s modern urbanite “cosmopolitans” have only the most superficial understanding of culture and history. The author knows that her knowledge of “indigenous” culture and history is woefully lacking, but she doesn’t stop to consider the possibility that her understanding of European cultures and history is similarly lacking. Imagine standing beneath the Hagia Sophia and saying “white people have no culture.” Imagine walking into the Pantheon in Rome and suggesting that white people have no understanding of their history.

Powerful stuff, as is his closer.

Share

Black BART

Still waiting for that “national conversation on race” we were supposed to be having.

In 2015, the crime on BART trains was so bad that BART created an app where riders could document any chaos or violence or lawlessness, then automatically send it to BART.

After a year, the geniuses at the East Bay Express ascertained that black ridership on BART was about 11 percent, but complaints against black people made up about 70 percent of the info from the app. It did not take long to figure out that the app was racist, and it was soon never heard from again.

Flash forward to less than a year ago: 50-70 black people rampaged through a BART station, beating and robbing a few white passengers – just the latest in a series of black mob violence at BART trains and stations. Some fatal. Most ignored. All treated as a symptom of white racism.

All with videotape that BART executives refused to share for the craziest of reasons: BART executives said doing so would be “embarrassing to minorities.” And no, I do not expect you to believe that unless you see it for yourself. So here’s an excerpt from a recent video I did. Just click here: BART refuses to release videos.

If that is not enough, try this on for size: an article I wrote about it at the time for American Thinker with lots of links. Just click here.

Just a few weeks ago, BART was back in the news when it was revealed that 66% of the people banned from BART for criminal behavior are black. More racism, of course, said the people who were loath to consider, even for a second, that black people on BART create holy Hell six times more than their ridership should.

It ain’t just Oakland, it ain’t just the Bay Area, it ain’t just BART. And as long as so many of us are too squeamish to start demanding truth and accountability in place of coverups and PC misdirection, it ain’t going to change.

Share

And now you know the rest of the story

But…but…but…it’s UNPOSSIBLE.

My great-grandfather was given the nickname Nwaubani, which means “from the Bonny port region,” because he had the bright skin and healthy appearance associated at the time with people who lived near the coast and had access to rich foreign foods. (This became our family name.) In the late nineteenth century, he carried a slave-trading license from the Royal Niger Company, an English corporation that ruled southern Nigeria. His agents captured slaves across the region and passed them to middlemen, who brought them to the ports of Bonny and Calabar and sold them to white merchants. Slavery had already been abolished in the United States and the United Kingdom, but his slaves were legally shipped to Cuba and Brazil. To win his favor, local leaders gave him their daughters in marriage. (By his death, he had dozens of wives.) His influence drew the attention of colonial officials, who appointed him chief of Umujieze and several other towns. He presided over court cases and set up churches and schools. He built a guesthouse on the land where my parents’ home now stands, and hosted British dignitaries. To inform him of their impending arrival and verify their identities, guests sent him envelopes containing locks of their Caucasian hair.

Last year, I travelled from Abuja, where I live, to Umujieze for my parents’ forty-sixth wedding anniversary. My father is the oldest man in his generation and the head of our extended family. One morning, a man arrived at our gate from a distant Anglican church that was celebrating its centenary. Its records showed that Nwaubani Ogogo had given an armed escort to the first missionaries in the region—a trio known as the Cookey brothers—to insure their safety. The man invited my father to receive an award for Nwaubani Ogogo’s work spreading the gospel. After the man left, my father sat in his favorite armchair, among a group of his grandchildren, and told stories about Nwaubani Ogogo.

“Are you not ashamed of what he did?” I asked.

“I can never be ashamed of him,” he said, irritated. “Why should I be? His business was legitimate at the time. He was respected by everyone around.” My father is a lawyer and a human-rights activist who has spent much of his life challenging government abuses in southeast Nigeria. He sometimes had to flee our home to avoid being arrested. But his pride in his family was unwavering. “Not everyone could summon the courage to be a slave trader,” he said. “You had to have some boldness in you.”

My father succeeded in transmitting to me not just Nwaubani Ogogo’s stories but also pride in his life. During my school days, if a friend asked the meaning of my surname, I gave her a narrative instead of a translation. But, in the past decade, I’ve felt a growing sense of unease. African intellectuals tend to blame the West for the slave trade, but I knew that white traders couldn’t have loaded their ships without help from Africans like my great-grandfather. I read arguments for paying reparations to the descendants of American slaves and wondered whether someone might soon expect my family to contribute. Other members of my generation felt similarly unsettled. My cousin Chidi, who grew up in England, was twelve years old when he visited Nigeria and asked our uncle the meaning of our surname. He was shocked to learn our family’s history, and has been reluctant to share it with his British friends. My cousin Chioma, a doctor in Lagos, told me that she feels anguished when she watches movies about slavery. “I cry and cry and ask God to forgive our ancestors,” she said.

Huh. And all this time I’ve been led to believe slavery existed exclusively in the states of the old Confederacy here in America—an evil unique to my ancestors alone, a blot which will and should stain all Southerners unto eternity. Why, next you’ll be telling me that the slave ships coming here were mainly run by Brits and New Englanders, or that slavery still exists in the Muslim world without exciting the slightest murmur of condemnation from Westerners who will nonetheless sneer most heartily at anyone with a Southern accent they may meet.

The part I bolded above highlights a key truth as regards A) both the condescension and moral smugness Southerners still face from “damn Yankees” even now, and B) the author’s anguish over his family history. Namely: it’s foolish and unjust to condemn the people of bygone eras by the standards of our own. My sarcasm above aside, it’s a fascinating article in a pretty improbable spot.

Share

Bar raised

Bakeries. Why is it always bakeries, for Pete’s sake?

Portland bakery fires employees for denying black woman service after closing
PORTLAND, Ore. — Two employees of a bakery in Northeast Portland were fired earlier this month for denying a black woman service because the business had closed.

“Back To Eden Bakery” released several public apologies and statements following the incident, before letting the employees go. In one Facebook post, the bakery’s co-owner wrote, “We are doing business in a gentrified neighborhood in a racist city within a racist state of a racist country.”

Annnd here we go.

In one statement, “Back To Eden Bakery” says that according to its own surveillance video, a black woman named “Lillian”, who is well known in the area as a “professional equity activist”,

Of course she is.

entered at 9:06 p.m., after the bakery’s closing time. Employees had also turned off the “Open” sign, but several customers (all white) who had already ordered were still inside. Two other white women who went to the bakery two minutes before “Lillian”, and were also informed that the business was closed for the night.

The bakery says “Lillian” left the store briefly and began recording video.

In other words, as with the Memories Pizza incident, the whole thing was a put-up job from the git-go. Some inflamed carbuncle visited the bakery purely with the intention of raising a stink, nothing more. The pestilential oxygen-thief was way more interested in ginning up controversy than she ever was in cupcakes or eclairs.

The bakery’s statement says that even though it does not consider the employees to be racist and that they were following the business’s protocol of closing at 9 p.m., they were fired because “sometimes impact outweighs intent.”

So these kids basically got fired for doing their fucking jobs properly, then. Mark it on your calendar, gang: now, right now, is the moment when we finally reached Peak Progtard Idiocy. Next headline from Libloonyville: Apoplectic Negress agitator has shitfit, sues Woolworth’s after being refused service at store that had been closed for decades!

In the statement “Back To Eden” says the employees were fired because the woman and the “clamoring public” demanded they be fired.

Fine by me; let the public clamor as much as it likes. Also let it do without baked goods in the future, and the Starbucks coffee to go with it, as “woke” businesses run by shitlibs in Progtard hellholes are driven out of business one after another. Then they can all sit back and have themselves a good cry over “food deserts,” “redlining,” and the unavailability of damned near everything as the fruits of their obstinate jackassery fully ripen at last, leaving them with nothing but the stinking, rotten peel.

Via Glenn and Hinderaker, who says:

Utterly sickening. Sure, you can say it happened in Portland. (“It’s Chinatown, Jake.”) But this kind of insanity has taken root all across the country. We are in a fight for our lives.

Yep.

Share

“They tried to get me to hate white people, but someone would always come along & spoil it”

The great Thelonius Monk quote above leads off a truly daring piece.

The underlying logic of using the past to justify racial double-standards in the present is rarely interrogated. What do slavery and Jim Crow have to do with modern-day blacks, who experienced neither? Do all black people have P.T.S.D from racism, as the Grammy and Emmy award-winning artist Donald Glover recently claimed? Is ancestral suffering actually transmitted to descendants? If so, how? What exactly are historical ‘ties’ made of?

We often speak and think in metaphors. For instance, life can have ups and downs and highs and lows, despite the fact that our joys and sorrows do not literally pull our bodies along a vertical axis. Similarly, modern-day black intellectuals often say things like, “We were brought here against our will,” despite the fact that they have never seen a slave ship in their lives, let alone been on one. When metaphors are made explicit—i.e., emotions are vertical, groups are individuals—it’s easy to see that they are just metaphors. Yet many black intellectuals carry on as if they were literal truths.

One such intellectual is Michael Eric Dyson, who recently shared the stage with Michelle Goldberg in a debate against Jordan Peterson and Stephen Fry. Though the debate was ostensibly about political correctness, it ranged everywhere from Marxism to ‘white privilege.’ Around halfway through the debate, Dyson said:

If you have benefitted from 300 years of holding people in servitude, thinking that you did it all on your own…”Why can’t these people work harder?” Let me see…for 300 years you ain’t had no job! So the reality is for 300 years you hold people in the bands…you refuse to give them rights. Then all of a sudden, you ‘free’ them and say, “You’re now individuals.”

Taken literally, Dyson’s claims make no sense. No person has ever suffered 300 years of joblessness because no person has ever lived for 300 years. Of course, Dyson wasn’t speaking literally. His ‘you’ refers not to identifiable, living humans, but to groups of long-deceased individuals with whom he shares nothing in common except a location on the color wheel. But by appropriating a grievance whose rightful owners died long ago, and by slipping between the metaphorical and the literal, Dyson was able to portray himself as a member of an abstract oppressed class and Peterson as a member of an abstract oppressor class. In his reply, barely audible over Dyson’s sanctimonious harangue, Peterson put his finger on this rhetorical sleight-of-hand: “Who is this ‘you’ that you’re referring to?”

This is one hell of a well-reasoned, well-researched, and well-written article, and you really must read all of it. Many, many kudos to Coleman Hughes for his fine work. He has a couple of other posts at the same site, which I’ve bookmarked and will report back on here as and when I have time to dive into ’em.

Share

Change of heart

A conservative is a liberal who’s been mugged.

Many leaders in the Democratic Party are veering too far left and overpromising government programs that are not fiscally possible, Howard Schultz told CNBC on Tuesday.

Without naming names, Schultz said in a “Squawk Box” interview: “It concerns me that so many voices within the Democratic Party are going so far to the left. I say to myself, ‘How are we going to pay for these things,’ in terms of things like single payer [and] people espousing the fact that the government is going to give everyone a job. I don’t think that’s realistic.”

“I think we got to get away from these falsehoods and start talking about the truth and not false promises” said Schultz, whose Monday announcement that he’s stepping down as executive chairman of Starbucks is driving speculation that he may run for president in the 2020 election.

Now, I don’t know a damned thing about the guy really, and so could be all wet here. But I can’t help but wonder how he felt about these issues before he got a good dose of Lefty biting back over his suddenly “racist” coffee shops.

Share

Another mind opened

Remember when I (and others) said if the Democrat Socialists lose as little as 20 percent of the black vote, they’re finished as a national party? Yeah, well, about all that.

At Stanford University on Tuesday night, a black student enrolled at the institution stood up and denounced Black Lives Matter for several reasons — saying it is funded by white liberals and founded by three black lesbians and does not champion the need for strong black families with husbands and fathers as the role models.

The freshman made the comments during a “Make Stanford Great Again” event hosted by the College Republicans, which featured Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk and Candace Owens, the latter of whom is a black woman who has been thrust into the national spotlight in recent tweets by Kanye West and President Donald Trump that praise her for her I’m-not-a-victim message.

Emboldened by Owens, the student stood up during the Q&A and spoke about how he had researched Black Lives Matter and found it severely lacking when it comes to defending straight black men and discussing the need for black men to be strong fathers and husbands.

“I’m cool with gay black people, my best friend is a gay black dude. Like, I’m not homophobic,” the student said. “But I’m just saying, I’ve been researching Black Lives Matter and I’ve been understanding the politics and how they are funded by white liberals. And recently I’ve been feeling like [BLM is] white liberals in black face. … It’s because the white liberals are all about feminism, LGBT — white liberals don’t really care about black people. I realize, white liberals don’t really care about me, bro. I’m off the plantation, bro! I’m off the plantation, bro!”

“I escaped the plantation, bro,” he continued. “I’m empowered. They don’t want me to have power. They want to keep me dependent. But I’m realizing this. They put white liberal ideas — LGBT, women, non-binary, white feminism, all that Hillary Clinton stuff — put it in black face!”

After the event, Owens declared it a sign of a budding “Black Revolution.”

The tale of this young man’s path to enlightenment is interesting. Welcome to the party, y’all. Make yourselves at home.

Share

Disgusting, in so many ways

Saw this on the local teewee news earlier, and…well, see for yourself.

RALEIGH, N.C. (WNCN) – The dress code at Kickback Jack’s has some customers a little upset.

“The sign is bogus,” said customer Zaena Graham. “I think it’s a bunch of…rubbish.”

The sign is hanging in the window of HIS FUCKING RESTAURANT, to establish the rules for acceptable dress and conduct that HE FUCKING PREFERS in HIS FUCKING RESTAURANT. You don’t like it, you are perfectly free to go eat somewhere else, you whiny dipshit. Know what really is “bogus”? The fact that you think you have some innate “right” to take issue with this man’s rules IN ANY FASHION WHATSOEVER—and to have attention paid to your whining by sensible people as if said whining was worth the simple chronic halitosis used to expel it, or was deserving of any response other than to chuck you out bodily into oncoming traffic.

The sign posted inside its restaurant lists the dress code and behavior requirements. The list starts off prohibiting negative attitudes, offensive language, and any attire containing profanity.

“In a family atmosphere other than just a sports bar, I think profanity should be restricted in any public place,” said John Baucom, a customer.

“The first part sounded OK, but it just got, to me, more discriminatory,” said Laurie Washington, who was eating at the restaurant with her husband, Thomas Washington.

The dress code goes on to say no low-hanging pants or shorts, no plain white T-shirts, and no excessively baggy attire.

Laurie and Thomas Washington believe it has a racial undertone and is offensive to them.

“That’s typically, younger African-American type attire,” said Laurie Washington.

So, if I don’t want to look at the crack of some thug-life teenage twerp’s ass while I eat—white OR black—or have the disgusting sight of his underwear exposed by having his pants down around his knees inflicted on me during dinner out, that’s RACIST!™ now, is it?

Well, allow me to share my specific thoughts on all that: FUCK YOU, IDIOT BITCH. You, and everybody else who “thinks” like you. Word to the clueless: it’s called UNDERwear for a fucking REASON. And just because you and yours think you have a “right” to do anything you damned well please, up to and including being patently offensive to civilized people possessed of a sense of decency and decorum you so clearly lack, does NOT mean that you actually and in fact do. You do NOT.

If feeling that way about this spurious complaint makes me a racist, then fine, I’m a motherfucking racist then. What else you got?

Baucom said not having the policy could be offensive to others.

You’re gott-damned right about that, buddy.

“The way they wear their pants and exposing certain parts of skin or whatever, I think that should be a manager’s discretion as far as offensive to other people,” he said.

And in a free country, it certainly would be. But when anti-smoking Nazis did away with the right of restaurant and bar owners to have a smoking and non-smoking section in their own joints if they so chose, this stopped being the case. So expect a lawsuit from these gibbering retards forthwith—and expect Kickback Jack’s to lose.

Myself, I’m considering walking around from now on with my pants around my knees too…commando-style, no underwear at all. Because I gots myself a RIGHT to walk around enjoying the free feeling of my junk swinging in the breeze, yo, and to hell with you if you don’t like it. Wonder what the reaction to that might be, eh?

O brave new world, that has such assholes in it. The great thing, though, is that the more idiots like this cry RACISM! over such self-evident tommyrot, the more they reduce the sting of the word, thereby undermining their own idiocy and removing one more arrow from their quiver.

Share

Big, big trouble

For the Democrat Socialists. Which of course means very good news for everybody else. First, it was this:



Then the hammer really dropped.



Why does this matter? This:



We just might be at that. If blacks finally lever themselves free of the Democrat Socialist plantation—and conversations with black friends and neighbors of mine lead me to conclude that the eary stages of just such a “tectonic realignment” are indeed upon us—the Democrat Socialist Party is well and truly screwed, probably for good. No wonder they’re so desperate for open borders and limitless, unchecked illegal immigration. Sefton puts it this way:

As has been reported – in the real news blogosphere, not the Democrat-Media-Propaganda Complex – black and latino unemployment since Donald Trump has been inaugurated is at an all time low. But, as I have illustrated, you’d never know it and in fact would think black folk are still “strange fruit” to quote the late, great Billie Holiday. And as I said, if Kanye West donned a MAGA hat to praise PDT and also blast Obama as some sort of publicity stunt, I’d fire my PR manager (especially since Kanye has had financial troubles and nowhere near as well to do as the former crack dealer and sibling shooter).

But if he, and now a rapper who goes by the name of Chance, honestly is having some sort of come-to-Jesus moment about what we all know are the real reasons why Black America is dying (Democrats, Socialism), then perhaps this is a harbinger of something stirring at the grassroots level. But let’s assume it isn’t. Even if it is only Kanye West, the thing to realize is that he’s no Clarence Thomas or Ben Carson insofar as they’re considered Uncle Toms, sellouts, “house ni88ers,” not authentic or down for the “shtruggle.” And because he’s not, he’s dangerous – a black man who ordinary black youth and the younger generation as a whole respect and relate to. The question is, will this influence be enough to overcome the strong leftist anti-Trump poison and general anti-American indoctrination that the aforementioned have been brainwashed with? Even if it causes the most hardcore skull-full-of-mush to pause just for a moment to question his beliefs, it’s a victory. I think and hope against hope that this really is a harbinger. And if so, now you understand why Amnesty is game, set and match for the Democrat-Left.

Yep. I posted not too long ago that it was positively criminal what the Democrat Socialists had done to black families and the black middle class. This class was rapidly expanding in the post-WW2 era and into the 50s, only to be slowly strangled by policies designed to replace it with a permanent-dependent class trapped in urban ghettoes, utterly convinced of their own helplessness and perpetual-victim status, continually reminded of the wrongs done their forefathers via slavery in order to stoke their resentment as if they had been slaves themselves. At the risk of sounding like a broken damned record with this: not an accident. From Economic Facts And Fallacies, by the great Thomas Sowell:

The percentage of black families with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87 percent to 47 percent over that span, before either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when “affirmative action” evolved into numerical “goals” or “quotas”. While the downward trend in poverty continued, the pace of that decline did not accelerate after these legal landmards but in fact slackened.

I’ve seen more facts and figures here and there over the years regarding the intentional destruction of the black middle class, but I ain’t gonna go digging them up right now. Nor am I going to repeat LBJ’s revealing quote on the Civil Rights Act. Suffice it to say the Democrat Socialist Party agenda’s impact on the black middle class and black families can’t even be charitably credited with being neutral. It has been destructive, actively so. If guys like Kanye and Chance are rethinking reflexive black allegiance to the Democrat Socialists at long last, I say good on ’em.

Share

Racial reality

An examination of it, along with some practical ideas for dealing with it rationally. All of which we must never, ever mention again.

It has both everything and nothing to do with race: nothing because, when you control for IQ, black and white levels of deviance and criminality are comparable, and everything because blacks in America, on average, are a full standard deviation below whites in IQ, and in sub-Saharan Africa, two full standard deviations below whites. Asians, with higher average IQs than either group, commit less crime and make more money; earning potential, as I’ve covered in “From Womb to Tomb,” has a direct correlation with IQ, as does time preference and impulse control. This is a depressing thought if you’re invested in the equity agenda, and it’s little wonder the spread of this information has been so ruthlessly suppressed. It is the poison pill of egalitarianism.

I’m not saying blacks and browns are doomed to some Calvinist pre-destination of hell—there are many, many outliers. Realistically, however, we’ve got to start making civilizationally responsible decisions firmly rooted in reality and not patty-cake idealism.

Ah, but if we do away with patty-cake idealism, what use will we then have for all those liberals?

There are different kinds of intelligence, and though one may not score highly on the IQ test, we can assess an individual’s aptitude and try to train them in some field—music, the trades, etc.—that will still allow them to be successful in their own right. Not everyone needs to be a CEO. As evidenced by Pareto’s Distribution and other factors, there will always be clear divides in any society, and this is a natural occurrence. Inequality, like transience, is both the beauty and tragedy of life. Blacks, for example, are wildly over-represented in entertainment. Has anyone stopped to wonder why? A musical genius or a mechanical wizard need not be a MENSA member—they are a different kind of genius, and it’s not like IQ is the be-all end-all. We can curse the Maker all we want; there’s nothing we can do but maximize the hand we’re dealt. So much of it is luck of the draw, however, when it’s time to become a parent, there are obvious steps you can take to give your child the best chance at success—do not in-breed like many Moslems, emphasize pre-natal nutrition—especially iodine—breast feed, get and stay married, and do not beat the child, all of which will optimize your offspring’s mental acuity and emotional stability. The rest is chance and circumstance beyond your control, but success, as it were, is when luck meets aptitude and preparation.

As Stefan Molyneux says, “If you realize that IQ differences are significantly genetic, it’s tragic, but it’s no one’s fault.” The simple but reliable metric of IQ does more to dispel the egalitarian myth than just about anything else, besides perhaps professional sports, where the disparity between the haves and the have-nots is thrown into stark visual relief; we don’t clamor for a sixty-something percent white NBA to reflect the population distribution, so why do the reverse for a 13 or 14% black professoriate or software programming team? Jordan Peterson says it best: “Borders are rational.” This is exactly why the “standard” of egalitarianism is only selectively applied. It’s all about having your cake and eating it, too. As George Orwell once pointed out, the typical socialist’s motivations aren’t borne of empathy but of invidiousness; his peers didn’t care about the working class, they just hated and envied the wealthy. No movement genuinely based on compassion would have such a strong current of vitriol and intolerance running through it. This ideology is very appealing for many because it offers pre-packaged excuses and scapegoats for why they’re failures.

And there’s all that FREE SHIT too, don’t forget.

If America and the other Western nations are so terrible and oppressive, then we should be discouraging people from coming here, not facilitating it. The truly compassionate thing to do would be to turn people away and ensure those already caught in the jaws of white supremacy are deported or re-patriated immediately for their own benefit. Leftists must make up their minds, however; either the “Countries of Poop” as the French press translated Donald Trump’s “shithole” comment really are repositories of excrement, or they’re just fine, and we don’t need to “rescue” the hapless brown masses of the world. Further, this begs the question if the Third World nations in question are indeed Countries of Poop, how, pray tell, did they get that way, and what benefit would we in the West derive from importing them in the millions?

It ain’t about OUR benefit, you big silly. At this point, in America it’s about bringing in desperately-needed new Democrat-Socialist voters to offset the increasing number of Normals who want nothing whatever to do with them.

That’s appetite-whetting excerpt aplenty already, but I just gotta throw this bit out there too:

Damon Sajnani (Canadian rapper and former Harvard University Nasir Jones Hip-Hop Fellow, whatever the fuck that is)

Holy crap. I knew Harvard was fucked right enough, but I honestly had no idea it was that fucked.

(Via WRSA)

Share

Our most powerful weapon

They eat their own, and all we have to do is sit back and let it happen. Because nobody—NOBODY—can ever be Left enough to suit the raving psychos.

Way, way back in the deepest mists of history, circa March 2015, the Starbucks Corporation rolled out an initiative they called “Race Together.” Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, concerned about the racial divide in America, instructed baristas to scribble the thought-provoking phrase “Race Together” on customers’ cups as a way to “foster discussion.” Because that’s exactly what you want when you’re waiting in line for an overpriced cup of coffee that tastes like it was filtered through a hobo’s liver. You want a lecture about what a racist you are.

After a solid week of razzing back in March 2015, Starbucks put the kibosh on the whole thing. It was a silly but well-meaning effort to do something about a problem that can’t be solved by writing words on coffee cups. So they stopped, and the baristas went back to misspelling your name on your cup, and America found other stuff to freak out about.

Until now! Look at what happened in a Starbucks in Philadelphia last week:

Two African-American guys said they were just waiting for a friend before ordering anything. The manager called the cops, and the two men were arrested.

I’m really confused about whom to believe here. The other customers claim that the two men did nothing wrong. But those other customers are… white. Am I really supposed to take the word of some white folks? You know how those people are.

So now, of course, everybody wants to #BoycottStarbucks. And they’re doing it #ByAnyMeansNecessary.

Okay, kids. I guess you gotta boycott something this week. Might as well make it Starbucks. I #BoycottStarbucks every day already, because their coffee tastes like burnt buttholes. Glad to help.

I hope this fiasco proves instructive to Howard Schultz and everybody else at Starbucks. No matter how liberal you are, no matter how hard you work to establish and maintain your #woke credentials, all it takes is one slip-up. Just one viral video, taken on one of the cameras that we all carry now, and the angry mob will descend on you. Nothing you do or say will appease them. No apology will be sufficient. You can’t grovel low enough.

I don’t much care what happens to Starbucks; as Treacher says, their coffee is awful enough even before the obigatory splash of liberal sanctimony renders it capable of inducing violent regurgitation. Too, I’m just fine with the Progressivist Purity Police turning on their slightly less extreme brethren and tearing them to bloody pieces; it’s less time they can spend on fucking with us, and sometimes mildly amusing as well. So I’m content to more or less ignore the Left’s occasional outburst of ideological cannibalism and just go on with my day.

But this hilarious picture makes the Starbucks tempest in a teapot worthy of notice:


starbucks_philadelphia_4-18-18-1.jpg

Ahh, the idiot Left and their ever-present bullhorns—indoors, no less. Looking at the poor put-upon barista’s stoic resignation to a high-volume hectoring from that bespectacled twerp makes me think that his disillusionment with Progressivist twaddle and his eventual abandonment of it in search of a saner, less self-righteous alternative just might be beginning…right…about…NOW.

Welcome to the Dark Side, bub. It’s much nicer and more relaxed over here, and when we want to indulge any propensity for making loud noises we usually do so at the shooting range, without bothering a single soul.

Share

Let’s have a REAL “national conversation” on race

The last thing in the world they want. Zman examines the reasons why.

If you were trying to reduce the main points of the Dissident Right with a few bullet points, it would be:

  • The people in charge have dangerous fantasies about the future of society and the nature of man
  • The mass media is just propaganda for those fantasies and can never be taken at face value
  • Race is real, ethnicity is real and evolution is real. In the main, humans prefer to live with their own kind. Diversity leads to conflict.

There is more to it, but those are the three main items that come up over and over among writers in the Dissident Right. The people in charge, of course, dispute these and consider them to be ignorant, paranoid and immoral. Question the browning of America and you’re a dumb racist. Notice that mass media often looks like a coordinated public relations campaign and you’re branded as a paranoid. Of course, anyone mentioning the realities of race and sex is the branded a Nazi or white supremacist.

All of which amounts to more support for the idea that the Dissident Right is onto something. The Iron Law of Progressivism applies here as in so many other places: take careful note of whatever it is the Left might be shrieking loudest about and most hysterically accusing their opponents of at any given time…because that is exactly what they themselves are actually guilty of.

Of course, what the mass media is selling is the crackpot fantasy our rulers have about a non-white future. It used to be they would finesse this by arguing that race and ethnicity did not matter. With the right policies, the swarthy hordes they were importing would be transformed into middle-class burghers. They don’t do that anymore. Instead, they are frankly talking about the browning of America, by which they mean the elimination of white people. The Black Panther movie is part of the celebration of the end of whitey.

The black utopia that is Wakanda, the mythical state in the movie and comic books, could never exist. If the white world suddenly stopped sending food aid to Africa, famine would set in within a month. The West sends about $50 Billion in aid to Africa every year. That’s the official amounts from governments. The billions that flow in from charitable organizations is on top of that. A world without white people means Africa experiences a mass starvation event, followed by a mass die off. Africa could end up depopulated.

The underlying argument from our rulers is that Africa is a mess, because of racism. The book Why Nations Fail is the model for this argument. Whites destroyed the native African institutions and left behind extractive ones. That’s why Africa is a mess. The reality is sub-Saharan Africans have an average IQ in the low-80’s. Eritrea is the “smartest” country with an average IQ of 85. What that means is most Africans are borderline to mildly retarded. The reason Africa is not and never will be Wakanda is it is full of Africans.

Now, you cannot fault blacks for celebrating this fictionalized black homeland where they are at the top of the heap. The promotion of this fantasy, however, makes the essential point of the Dissident Right. Humans naturally want to reign supreme in their own domains, surrounded by people that are like them. Wakanda would not resonate with black people if the ruler was a guy named Muary Greenblatt and his minions were all East Asians or Mexicans. Like everyone, blacks dream of a world without diversity.

Well, except when it comes to the hordes of brainwashed young white girls following them around, panting like thirsty pups and in the throes of what you might call a Mandingo Complex. Those, they’ll keep, thanks. David Cole more or less affirms Z’s thesis from a different direction, and then discusses a, uhh—well, a unique form of pushback that…umm…well…

Okay, I’ll just confess I was totally unaware of this before now and leave it at that.

I reject the “blame it on racism” nonsense of the left, and the Boy Scout/Horatio Alger “dad advice” of the establishment right. My pessimism regarding black America is not so easily soothed. Keep in mind, back in my own days as a GOP cog, when I was actually organizing events with Ben Shapiro, I would have given the “eat your broccoli, do your homework” answer myself. My “evolution” on the issue began, oddly enough, while watching some of my favorite prank videos on YouTube (cruel YouTube prank videos are not a guilty pleasure of mine, because I feel no guilt for enjoying them). You may not know this, but there’s an entire subgenre of YouTube prank videos in which white, Asian, and Hispanic pranksters venture into black communities just to fuck with the locals. They’re called “hood pranks,” and, cumulatively, they have hundreds of millions of views. And within this subgenre is a sub-subgenre in which pranksters fart on black people. Or at least they pretend to (they use a handheld noisemaker called a “pooter”). The premise is so simpleminded, even George Lucas could appreciate it. Fart on a black person, and enjoy the angry reaction (and maybe get socked in the face).

This is what it’s come to. Black America is now seen as a joke, a prop for comedy. Wanna see a startling Black History Month statistic? On YouTube, the most watched upload of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech has 9.8 million views. The most watched “farting on black people” video? 16.7 million views. Let that sink in: People are way more interested in seeing blacks get farted on than they are in hearing about King’s noble dream. The most watched hood-prank video of all time? 44 million views. Dr. King’s dream doesn’t stand a chance. The hood-prank videos are popular in large part because indolent “hood” blacks are so easily driven to violent rage. The responses to the pranks are inevitably furious and brutal. One could say that this is a testament to the level of anger and bitterness the average young black carries around inside him these days, but perhaps what’s more important is that the insane popularity of these videos is a testament to what the black community has come to represent to nonblacks: a source of comedy and an object of derision. “It’s not just that we’ve stopped caring about your anger,” the message seems to be, “it’s that your anger has now become comical to us.”

The problem is, blacks have not, as a community, made themselves indispensable enough for the rest of the nation to give a damn about them. Jews? Hate ’em if you will, but they have made themselves indispensable in most of the fields and industries that matter (for better or worse…I’m not making value judgments here, just stating the obvious). Curse Mexican immigration all you want, but in my home state (as I detailed in a previous piece), Mexicans have made themselves indispensable (again, for better or worse). But blacks? Look at the 2017 Bureau of Labor Statistics population survey. The industries in which blacks comprise a truly significant percentage? Barbers, bus drivers, and private security (i.e., bouncers and bodyguards). Penny-ante stuff.

A 1994 HBO adaptation of Derrick Bell’s “The Space Traders” depicts aliens from another planet who offer the U.S. a deal: untold technological wonders in exchange for handing over every black American, no questions asked regarding their fate. The only big-money forces arguing against accepting the deal? Pro sports and the liquor industry. Bell was black, and his story has been dismissed by conservatives as paranoid fantasy. Because, you know, “eat your greens, go to church, button that shirt.” But maybe Bell was a prophet of sorts. Wouldn’t a population that takes such pleasure at the sight of blacks being farted on enthusiastically accept the aliens’ deal? And I pose that question with no joy. The state of the U.S. black community, and its likely future, is nothing to celebrate. It’s a terrible tragedy.

Actually, it’s more like a crime. Because it was done to them on purpose, with malice aforethought, by a political party implementing the dependency-fostering scheme fostered by a man whose intention was to, as he himself put it, “have them niggers voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.” (Side note: plenty of supporting links in both Cole’s and Z’s posts, including a link to the riotously funny hood-farting vid—which, given the backstory, I can’t believe YouTube hasn’t taken down yet.)

Cole’s vision of the “African” American future flatly dismisses the prospect of any race war, but is none the less grim for it:

So what does the future hold? Well, the fantasists will say “race war.” That’s bullshit, of course. No, the most likely future is a “whimper rather than a bang” scenario. And to make my point, I’ll once again invoke Native Americans. Right now, about a quarter of all American Indians live in squalor and dependency on reservations. The rest are spread out across the country, making a living, contributing to society. Individual Native Americans are fine, but “the community” is shit. I think that’s what we’re going to see happen with blacks. As the black community continues to decay, and as it continues to get squeezed by whites, Asians, and the stupefyingly fertile Hispanics, we’ll see a kind of urban “reservation” network take shape. Blacks with skills and a desire to be seen as something other than fart receptacles will leave the community and mix with everyone else. The remaining detritus? They’ll be increasingly boxed into urban hellholes. Reservations, essentially. Places with lots of welfare, lots of crime, and little hope. Places that cannot be helped, places that cannot be saved.

Myself, I’d say David has the right of it, though it may not look much like it from smack in the middle of a Black Lives Murder urban riot/burning and looting spree. In fact, a damned good argument could be made that we’re already there, and have been for years and years now.

Update! After watching the thing twice and damned near busting a gut laughing at it, I can’t resist embedding the Hood Farting video. I’m sorry, guys, really I am. But I just can’t.




Awright, awright already, I admit it: I might have watched it more than twice.

Share

The end of euphemism, the dawn of Truth

Aw, just say it Daniel, and quit dancing around it.

12,513 Afghans became permanent residents in ’16. Their country is in the middle of an endless civil war between the Islamic terrorists who hate us and the Islamic terrorists who really, really hate us.

Only 31% of the population of Afghanistan can read. Around 1,000 of the Afghans we took in have jobs. 8,190 don’t have jobs.  3,158 are marked as unknown. That’s an 8% employment rate.

The left has been shrieking that wrapping up Temporary Protected Status for aliens from El Salvador will wreak havoc on our businesses and economy. In ’16, we took in 23,449 Salvadorans. Around 3,000 have jobs. The other 20,000 don’t seem to.

Before TPS ended for El Salvador, it ended for Haiti. 23,584 Haitians became permanent residents in ’16. Haiti is a permanent disaster. So are its immigrants. Only 2,691 or 11% are employed.

And in ’16, we also took in 5,159 residents from France. 40% of them are working.

The mainstream media turned into one big 24/7 outrage hole over what President Trump might have said. The alleged hole has filled the hole in CNN’s programming left by the lack of missing airliners or new revelations about Trump’s ice cream eating habits. But whether he said it or not, it’s undeniably true. And the media talking heads spitting like poisonous lizards at their teleprompters know it’s true.

Last week, they were shouting that sending Salvadorians back to El Salvador, a country run by gangs, was a monstrous act. But now suddenly El Salvador and Haiti are misunderstood paradises. If they’re such wonderful places, then let’s send the TPS recipients there. If they’re holes, then tell the truth.

NownownownowNOW, let’s not get crazy here! Tell the truth? The Left is so firmly ensconced in lies they probably wouldn’t know the truth by now if it bit them on the leg.

But that ain’t the half of it. They’ve gotten themselves mired in a real, umm, hole, one they dug their own selves with dishonesty and the contradictions integral to their crippled, unworkable worldview as the picks and shovels. Think of their position: Progtards now have to argue that either: a clear, incontrovertible shithole of a country is no such thing; or that they may indeed BE shitholes (and they are), but it’s just not polite or helpful to say so, and doing so might embarrass shithole denizens so horridly as to render them incapable of seeing to the changes essential to reversing their national shithole status.

Both of those positions are laughably absurd—obviously so, to any sensible American. But that’s it; it’s all the Democrat Socialist boobs have.

But does it get even worse for them, you ask? You already know it does. They’re also faced with the unpleasant prospect of having to argue that the Trump tax cuts are a disaster—even as a huge majority of Americans are already seeing more money in their pockets as a direct result of their passage, and will see more still when the cuts take effect in February. Jobs are easier to get than they’ve been in years—MANY years, not just one or two—and incomes are rising. The economy is showing every sign of being poised to take off like a rocket after years of Obama stagnation and hopeless futility; it’s as if the economy is Popeye, lacking only a can of spinach to jump back up off the mat, shake off his groggy daze, and start kicking ass again. Here’s just the latest example…of over a hundred now:

Jan. 11 (UPI) — Fiat Chrysler Automobiles said Thursday it plans to invest more than $1 billion in a Detroit-area truck plant and move production of its Ram Heavy Duty trucks there from Mexico.

The move is expected to create more than 2,500 jobs in the Detroit area by 2020. In addition, FCA said it will give special bonus payments of $2,000 to approximately 60,000 f its hourly and salaried employees.

FCA credited the recently-passed tax reform legislation for these decisions.

“These announcements reflect our ongoing commitment to our U.S. manufacturing footprint and the dedicated employees who have contributed to FCA’s success,” Fiat Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne said in a news release. “It is only proper that our employees share in the savings generated by tax reform and that we openly acknowledge the resulting improvement in the U.S. business environment by investing in our industrial footprint accordingly.”

President Donald Trump praised FCA’s announcement via Twitter on Thursday.

Of course he did. And the Democrat Socialists, meanwhile, can do only one of three things: declare their opposition to it; remain silent, pull the covers over their heads, and pretend it isn’t happening; or pooh pooh it as “no big deal.”

Not one of which option is going to endear them to Americans who can see with their own eyes just what a wondrous transformation Trump has wrought in such an astoundingly short time. The panicked or dismissive bah-humbuggery of liberal talking heads—worse still, their default “we’re all DOOMED!!” gambit—isn’t going to cut a lot of ice with people who aren’t just being told they’re better off, but are living it.

Throw in (as if all that wasn’t plenty enough to doom them for real) a program of importing thousands if not millions of hostile, ignorant, illiterate, unemployable, surly, permanent dependents—many of the Muslim portion which will attempt to murder us in job lots all across the country, a huge majority of the horde entire which will attach themselves to kindly Uncle Sugar Tit, never to be removed for the rest of their lives.

So what’s the Progtard comeback for all that, then? What’s their last-ditch strategy to erase the stain of failure and incompetence that is no more than the natural consequence of the practical application of their ass-backwards ideology, putting them back into positions of power they will abuse ruinously?

“He’s stupid! He’s CRAZY! He MUST BE IMPEACHED! 25th Amendment, 25th Amendment, 25th Amennnndmeeeennnnnnt!!”

With all the accompanying shrieks, lamentations, childish weeping, and catatonic trembling we’ve all been laughing so hard at as the icing on the cake.

Anybody out there think all that’s a winning electoral formula, one that will suffice to persuade Normals to roll it all back and return to the Democrat Socialist agenda of disgrace, defeat, weakness, impoverishment, and despair? Of establishing the US as a global welfare agency, to be milked as long as Other People’s Money lasts? Of turning our country into exactly the kind of shithole they’ve created everywhere shitholes are to be found?

ANYBODY? Besides Pelousy, Little Dick Turban, and Chucky Schemer, I mean?

If so, may I have some of what you’re smoking?

Update! Aesop says:

So, we’ve gone from a president who spent his first year in office calling America the shithole, to one who puts that shoe on the right foot.
 
I’m looking for a downside.

Ain’t none that I can see. Especially when you figure the fact that it’s absolutely destroying them into the bargain. Look for them to drop this one real quick and move on to the next Scandal of the Century of the Week. Just like they have with all their previous humiliating failures.

Share

Martin Luther King

Yeah, I know, I’m a day late on this. But it’s worth the wait; some truths can’t be repeated often enough.

Was he a great man? He showed great courage, commitment to his cause, insistence on nonviolence, strong political and leadership skills, patriotism, and became a highly eloquent spokesman for civil rights. “I Have a Dream” is one of the great speeches in the English language. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” more than equals any Thoreau or Gandhi writings, and is not something that today’s civil rights leaders, such as they are, could match, nor could the typical graduate of almost any university in the world today. (The letter’s pacing, erudition, and, above all, the surgical preciseness with which it takes down opposing arguments bring to mind General Sherman’s letter to the Mayor of Atlanta.) King’s life made a difference to millions of people. The answer, therefore, to this paragraph’s question is yes, he was a great man.

That said, serious problems exist with some of the narrative spun about King, in particular, and the civil rights struggle, in general. Part of the problem, of course, is that King died young, enabling others, as with the two Kennedy brothers, to fill in the rest of the story and use it to further certain political agendas. King died short of his fortieth birthday; had he lived longer, presumably he would have evolved and, possibly, become a very different man than he was when he died–we will never know. What we do know is that the Democratic Party and their “progressive” media and education machines have rewritten the history of the civil rights struggle. This was driven home to me some years ago while visiting a college campus. The students assumed King was a Democrat, and the segregationists confronting the peaceful marchers, and using fire hoses, snarling police dogs, and truncheons, and wearing white hoods were Republicans. They assume a Republican killed King–today’s college kids probably believe the Tea Party had him killed. That the exact opposite is true, shocks many. King came from a staunchly Republican family–his father, a prominent leader in his own right–openly endorsed Richard Nixon against JFK in the 1960 presidential election. The Democrats had a one-party lock on the South. The party of slave owners and secessionists, had become the party of Jim Crow, school segregation, anti-miscegenation laws, poll taxes, and on and on.

Many Americans, not to mention foreigners, do not realize not only that the Republican party was formed in opposition to slavery and that Lincoln was a Republican, but that the famous Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren, whose rulings dismantled the legal basis for segregation and put serious limitations on the power of police, was a former Republican Governor of California. It was, furthermore, war hero and Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops to Arkansas to enforce court-ordered desegregation at Little Rock Central High School. Congressional Republicans were the main supporters of civil rights legislation; their votes ensured passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, over the opposition of a significant bloc of Democrats–let us also not forget that Congressional Democrats for years blocked Republican efforts to pass federal anti-lynching legislation. All this, of course, is history, but an important chunk of American history that is being lost, distorted, or otherwise flushed down the memory sewer–along with the fact that anti-leftist J. Edgar Hoover proved the most formidable foe of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), an organization founded and staffed by Democrats, such as long-time Democratic Senator Robert Byrd.

I’ll honor fair use for once and let you click over for the rest. For my own part, I’ll profess my long-standing irritation with the “yes, he was a flawed man” disclaimer almost always trotted out when discussing King, both from the Right and Left, albeit with different motivations. I mean, come ON, people! A “flawed man”? Seriously? Would you maybe care to try naming me one who wasn’t? OF COURSE he was a flawed man, ferchrissakes! I can’t think of anyone besides King for whom it’s ever even brought into play. Beyond that, I’ll heartily endorse everything Dip says above, most especially this:

In sum, he was a great man with a great vision. His successors, many of them frauds of the first rank, largely have not been faithful to that vision of liberty and color-blindness, and we all have suffered for it.

Don’t see how anybody can argue with that.

Share

Desperation

Hey, remember when Trump was patently unqualified to be President because he was a mere celebrity, a near-lifelike TV character with no political experience, no knowledge of how the DC game is played?

Yeah, well. About that.

Elizabeth Warren can’t be happy about Oprah considering a run. Big Chief Running Mouth is shrill and annoying, and you get the idea that she’s always on the verge of telling you to use your inside voice. Oprah is calm and soothing and offers mindless insights about how you have to be the very best you you can be, and how you always have to stand in your own truth. The rabble-rousing squaw wants to get people riled up and on the warpath. But Winfrey wants to calm them down, to make them relax, to allow them not to think, and to be swept away in the feel-good vibes. She wants to be the Oprah-oid of the masses.

Warren wants to keep resisting. Oprah’s secret is her unspoken promise of a return to normalcy, of calm and quiet. But, of course, that’s a lie. Oprah will be an activist liberal and will put a bull’s eye on those of us who refuse to fawn and applaud.

Oprah superficially seems to love everybody. She’s all feelings and hugs, but a TV show isn’t the campaign trail, and since the liberal media no longer has a monopoly of coverage, she won’t get to write the script. The truth will come out. Oprah already has her own deplorable problem – there’s an interview with her suggesting a good chunk of non-liberal Americans are racist and need to die. These people are apparently not the very best yous they can be, and must therefore be purged.

Oprah checks all the liberal boxes. She believes in science, meaning she thinks both heat waves and cold fronts prove global warming, that you can change your gender by wanting to, that vaccines are a conspiracy, and that Dr. Oz’s magic fungus extract will cleanse your body of negative waves, thereby allowing you to be the very best you you can be.

You know she’s going to hate guns in the hands of anyone but her private security force. You know that she believes in perpetual conflict over race, gender, and all the other touchstones of liberal hate-mongering. You know that a Winfrey administration would be filled with the same band of punks and hacks who brought us ISIS, North Korean nukes, and who abandoned the Iranian freedom fighters just before shipping their oppressors pallets of 100 dollar bills.

All of which underscores not just Oprah’s primary obstacle, but the Democrat Socialist Party’s as well. If their desperation was a tsunami approaching the West Coast, people as far east as, say, Missouri would be well advised to pack up and flee. And if futility was a snowstorm, we’d all be until June digging out from under it.

Share

The African crucible

Melting away liberal pieties, one after another.

You see, Africa is the example that counters everything our Progressive rulers believe about the world. If the blank slate is true, then Africans should have made great strides in closing the gap with the white world. If things like “institutional racism” were real things, Africa should be racing toward modernity now. If colonialism was the reason these places were so backward, a half century of freedom should have gone a long way toward curing the effects of the white man. Instead. everywhere Africa is worse than a half century ago.

The response from our Progressive rulers is to just ignore Africa. You see it in this National Review article on the end of Mugabe’s rule. The authoress is young, so she was poached in the warm liquids of multiculturalism her whole life. Her struggle to explain the decline of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe reads like a person trying to disarm a bomb while blindfolded. She not only avoids the elephant in the room, which is race, she leaves the reader with the impression that there is no such thing as elephants. Race does not exist.

That’s why Africa stopped being important to our Progressive rulers. It’s why the efforts of George Bush to do something about AIDS in Africa was largely ignored. You can’t talk about Africa without talking about race and race realism. Those are taboo subjects, so the whole continent may as well not exist. Bring up the subject in a room full of Progressives and watch their reaction. You won’t see fear. It will be confusion. The subject has been purged from the catechism, so it no longer exists. Africa is not cool anymore.

That’s why Africa should be a central topic on this side of the river. It is the easiest way for the normie on the other side to begin his journey. It’s a topic where the facts are so stark, it is easy to understand the basics of human bio-diversity, evolution and the cognitive differences between groups of humans. The group characteristics on display in Africa, also look like what Americans see on their televisions. There’s also the great divide between East and West. The Dark Continent is a living museum of human evolution.

Oh, I dunno about all that. It would certainly be so if weepy libtards had a shred of sense, integrity, humility, or shame to go along with their surfeit of compassion. But although I do admit to seeing a fair bit less discussion of that eternal pit now than in years past, I doubt it’s because of any sudden emergence of those other qualities. More likely, it’s just not Africa’s turn to be a prominent topic of liberal scolding. But that scolding is cyclical; Africa will no doubt come back to take its turn in the rotation eventually. And I’m quite sure that there are plenty of libs willing to seize any offered chance to hang Africa’s perpetual disaster around America’s neck still.

Africa is what it is, what it’s always been: a disease-ridden, poverty-stricken, war-torn hellhole: its more developed areas run by corrupt, vicious dictators; its remoter, wilder areas by murderous tribal chieftains interested mostly in subjugating and/or killing off rival tribes. There’s a wider variety of extremely unpleasant ways of dying to be found there than anyplace else on Earth. There’s a higher incidence of ignorance, illiteracy, child-like superstition, and general barbarism there than you’ll find in more advanced countries.

Contrary to what libtards would have you believe, this is NOT our fault.

Continue reading “The African crucible”

Share

The Kwanzaa con

Fake news holiday.

BLACKS IN AMERICA have suffered an endless series of insults and degradations, the latest of which goes by the name of Kwanzaa.

Ron Karenga (aka Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga) invented the seven-day feast (Dec. 26-Jan. 1) in 1966, branding it a black alternative to Christmas. The idea was to celebrate the end of what he considered the Christmas-season exploitation of African Americans.

Now, the point: There is no part of Kwanzaa that is not fraudulent. Begin with the name. The celebration comes from the Swahili term “matunda yakwanza,” or “first fruit,” and the festival’s trappings have Swahili names — such as “ujima” for “collective work and responsibility” or “muhindi,” which are ears of corn celebrants set aside for each child in a family.

Unfortunately, Swahili has little relevance for American blacks. Most slaves were ripped from the shores of West Africa. Swahili is an East African tongue.

To put that in perspective, the cultural gap between Senegal and Kenya is as dramatic as the chasm that separates, say, London and Tehran. Imagine singing “G-d Save the Queen” in Farsi, and you grasp the enormity of the gaffe.

Worse, Kwanzaa ceremonies have no discernible African roots. No culture on earth celebrates a harvesting ritual in December, for instance, and the implicit pledges about human dignity don’t necessarily jibe with such still-common practices as female circumcision and polygamy. The inventors of Kwanzaa weren’t promoting a return to roots; they were shilling for Marxism. They even appropriated the term “ujima,” which Julius Nyrere cited when he uprooted tens of thousands of Tanzanians and shipped them forcibly to collective farms, where they proved more adept at cultivating misery than banishing hunger.

Even the rituals using corn don’t fit. Corn isn’t indigenous to Africa. Mexican Indians developed it, and the crop was carried worldwide by white colonialists.

That’s from a classic old column by the late great Tony Snow, laying bare the whole disgraceful swindle. I don’t give enough of a shit about the worthless tool to bother looking it up, but I’d be willing to bet almost anything that the “Dr” in Ron Malingerer’s asserted nom de fraud is as big a shuck-and-jive as everything else associated with him is.

Oh, and need I even mention the Kwanzaa Kreep himself is a woman-torturing psycho, too? In sum:

It is hard to understand why anybody would want to follow a violent felon, in a made-up holiday that mistakes racism and segregation-ism for spirituality, and fiction for history.

Because they’re fucking chumps, that’s why. With a capital C-H-U-M-P, in big bold letters so nobody makes any mistakes about it.

Share

Quote of the year

Via Bill:

I think what you said is bullshit. No, wait — it’s worse than that. We talk about the black people in Uganda, and the brown people in New Guinea, and you say that we push our cultural artifacts upon them…You mean, medicine? You mean, TV? You mean, cars? Those people are just as smart as we are. They’d love to sit around a swimming pool and drink lemonade and listen to Eminem and get flu shots when they need them.

You want to keep them in some kind of crazy zoo, hunting with spears, so we can look at them and study their culture. I’ve done that. I lived in a zoo. I lived in a tent when I was a kid and drank sewage and had the shits for six years in a row. I’d kill somebody to keep from going back to that. I can goddamn well guarantee if you took one of those guys out of the jungle in New Guinea and gave him some jeans and T-shirts and a good pair of shoes, he’d cut your heart out before he’d let you send him back.

I’d bet you anything that they’d rather live in a nice apartment with a stereo and a toilet and running water that you can drink. So what I think is, you’re arguing that you have to allow the niggers to stay in their place. That’s about half a step from we gotta keep the niggers in their place. Simple racism is what it is.

Naked Prey by John Sandford

Fake but accurate, fictional but not false, from first to last.

Share

There they go again

Now the Lyin’ Left is hoping to hang Charles Manson around the Right’s neck.

At VICE magazine—which at the moment appears to be on the verge of about 100,000 sexual harassment lawsuits, give or take a few—we are told that Manson was a “virulent racist” and that “If Charles Manson were alive and literate, he would be writing for Breitbart.”

The Huffington Post refers to the Manson Family as a “Far-Right…Cult.” It further alleges that both Charlie Manson and leaders of the modern Alt-Right such as Richard Spencer were ultimately seeking power, as if no one on the left ever cloaks their unquenchable thirst for power beneath bullshit phrases such as “equality” and “justice.”

Even in India they’re trying to shackle Manson to Donald Trump and the Alt-Right. An essay in The Hindu aggressively denies that Manson was in any way a product—and especially not the reductio ad absurdum—of the 1960s counterculture:

Manson had a well-documented hatred of Jewish people, African-Americans and women. Rather than the liberal counterculture movement of the 1960s, his bigoted philosophy bears a disturbing resemblance in some respects with the far-right or alt-right brand of neo-fascism that has mushroomed in certain pockets of U.S. politics recently.

Writing for Raw Story, 85-year-old hippie icon Paul Krassner blames imprisonment and Scientology—Manson for many years claimed to be a Scientologist—rather than the 60s counterculture for molding Manson’s psychology: “Manson was never really a hippie,” he writes.

Oh, really?

Would anyone care to explain the fact that the Manson Family first took root in San Francisco’s Haight-Ashbury district during 1967’s “Summer of Love”? What about all the orgies and long hair and LSD? Care to account for the communal living and dumpster-diving? How about the Manson Family’s rock-star aspirations and the fact that the Beach Boys covered one of Charlie’s songs? What about their vocal opposition to the Vietnam War, to “the establishment,” to “capitalist filth,” and all the inflamed rhetoric about “pigs”? What about the fact that Richard Nixon openly hated Charles Manson and vice-versa? How about Manson girl Lynette “Squeaky” Fromme’s failed 1975 assassination attempt on Nixon’s successor, Gerald Ford?

What about when John Lennon approvingly noted that Manson “took children in when nobody else would” and claimed that “I just think a lot of the things he says are true”? How about the fact that folksinger Phil Ochs and Jerry Rubin visited Manson in jail? How do you explain Bernadine Dohrn of the far-left murderous terrorist group Weather Underground—and later cosponsor of Barack Obama’s fledgling political career—describing the LaBianca murders in the following psychotically exultant terms?

First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, then they even shoved a fork into a victim’s stomach. Wild! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.

To claim that Charles Manson had nothing to do with the 1960s counterculture is like saying that the 100+ million killed under communist regimes had nothing to do with real communism.

Pretty much, yep. Which isn’t to say that Manson’s own political beliefs (if any) were Leftist, mind. As with so many of these mass-murdering nuts, his political leanings—to the extent he had any at all; if he ever stated them in any great depth I’m not aware of it—were a chaotic, nonsensical melange of disparate and even contradictory bits of this and that. Manson’s primary motivation was never politics at all, but his demented obsession with sparking a race war (Goad has further examination of that, and proposes a much more mundane and pragmatic alternative idea behind the Tate/LaBianca murders). Bottom line:

Manson was indeed a product of the 1960s, but more than anything he was the product of a teenaged alcoholic mother/prostitute and the doomed path such a bedraggled spawning set him on. By the time of the Tate/LaBianca murders, Manson had already spent half of his life in correctional facilities of one sort or another. And if he developed negative attitudes toward blacks, it likely had far less to do with reading George Lincoln Rockwell and far more to do with being forced to interact with blacks behind bars during his formative years. He was not nearly as naive about race as so many who’d condemn him for being a “racist” are.

MLK was murdered a year before the Manson Family murders. Riots had sprung up all across the USA. As a street hustler and lifetime con, Manson had the survival instincts that so very few pampered modern leftist scribes will ever have. If he foresaw an inevitable race war in America, maybe he was nothing more than a hillbilly Bob Dylan and saw it blowin’ in the wind.

If Manson was truly prophetic about anything, though, it was why whites would lose a theoretical race war. According to Manson, when blacks came seeking blood vengeance, whites would be too hopelessly split between those with self-preservation instincts—those who are now defamed as “racists”—and the uptight, sheltered squares who thought it would be “racist” not to let black people start killing them en masse.

None of which will dissuade the contemptible, self-loathing Progtards from trying to make political hay out of him themselves, naturally. In fact, if the Manson Family murders had happened last week, they’d probably be trying to gin up a way to call for another gun ban in the wake of it, and blaming Trump and Fox News for the whole thing. Which only means they’re damned near as loony, incoherent, and manipulative as Manson was.

Share

Pow wow chow!

Steyn is having WAY too much fun batting Fauxcahantas around like a cheap cat toy.

Why, back in 1984 she submitted some of her favorite dishes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook, a “compilation of recipes passed down through the Five Tribes families.”

The recipes sent in by “Elizabeth Warren—Cherokee” include a crab dish with tomato mayonnaise. Mrs. Warren’s fictional Cherokee ancestors in Oklahoma were renowned for their ability to spear the fast-moving Oklahoma crab.

But then the white man came and now the Oklahoma crab is extinct, and at the Cherokee clambakes they have to make do with Mrs. Warren’s traditional Five Tribes recipe for Cherokee Lime Pie…

Even in a world where everyone’s incredible, some things ought to be truly incredible. Yet Harvard Law School touted Elizabeth “Dances with Crabs” Warren as their “first woman of color”—and nobody laughed.

But, with the impertinent jackanapes of the press querying the bona fides of Harvard Lore School’s first Native American female professor, the Warren campaign got to work and eventually turned up a great-great-great-grandmother designated as Cherokee in the online transcription of a marriage application of 1894.

Hallelujah! In the old racist America, we had quadroons and octoroons. But in the new post-racial America, we have—give me a minute to fish out my calculator—duoettrigintaroons! Martin Luther King dreamed of a day when men would be judged not on the color of their skin but on the content of their great-great-great-grandmother’s wedding-license application. And now it’s here! You can read all about it in Elizabeth Warren’s memoir of her struggles to come to terms with her racial identity, Dreams from My Great-Great-Great-Grandmother.

Unfortunately, the actual original marriage license does not list Great-Great-Great-Gran’ma as Cherokee, but let’s cut Elizabeth Fauxcahontas Crockagawea Warren some slack here. She couldn’t be black. Like Barack Obama’s composite girlfriend, she would if she could, but she couldn’t. But she could be 1/32nd Cherokee, and maybe get invited to a luncheon with others of her kind—”people who are like I am,” 31/32nds white, and they can all sit around celebrating their diversity together. She is a testament to America’s melting pot, composite pot, composting pot, whatever.

Just in case you’re having difficulty keeping up with all these Composite-Americans, George Zimmerman, the son of a Peruvian mestiza, is the embodiment of endemic white racism and the reincarnation of Bull Connor, but Elizabeth Warren, the great-great-great-granddaughter of someone who might possibly have been listed as Cherokee on an application for a marriage license, is a heartwarming testimony to how minorities are shattering the glass ceiling in Harvard Yard. George Zimmerman, redneck; Elizabeth Warren, redskin. Under the Third Reich’s Nuremberg Laws, Mrs. Warren would have been classified as Aryan and Mr. Zimmerman as non-Aryan. Now it’s the other way round. Progress!

Of a sort, I suppose. The truly wonderful part of it is how ALL of the liberal pieties have now whirled on their creators and are chewing them to pieces. I’ll leave it to you guys to debate whether or to what extent the onset of this welcome cannibal picnic might have been driven by the above-the-odds installation in the White House of the only guy willing to actually fight back against them, and to deny the righteousness of those pieties in no uncertain terms.

See, guys? All those years the RepubliCons were telling us they just couldn’t possibly win against them, that there was no hope…and as it turns out, they’re fragile as broken eggshells, and all it really takes to crush them into powder is to just grab a hammer and start swinging.

Share

Ta Nahisi Coates is a damned idiot

But when he goes attacking Shelby Foote, he’s putting himself on the fightin’ side of me.

Specifically, Kelly has been excoriated for daring to call Robert E. Lee an “honorable man” and expressing the same view of the Civil War put forward in Burns’ enormously popular 1990 Civil War documentary. Up until this week, Burns’ series had been a celebrated work—a restored version of the series aired on PBS just two years ago. But now, at least according to Jonathan Chait of New York magazine, Burns’ masterpiece is a “disaster,” mostly because it relied heavily on interviews with Foote.

Foote is, of course, the author of his own celebrated Civil War masterpiece, a three-volume narrative history of the war, each about a thousand pages long, that stands as a triumph of American history and literature. The trilogy, which began as a contract with Random House to write a short one-volume history to mark the war’s approaching centennial, took Foote 20 years to write.

The volumes, published between 1958 and 1974, were almost immediately hailed as a seminal contribution to American letters. Writing in The New Republic, literary scholar and critic Louis D. Rubin Jr. said Foote’s trilogy “is a model of what military history can be.” The New York Times Book Review called it “a remarkable achievement, prodigiously researched, vigorous, detailed, absorbing.” (Presumably by today’s standards these reviewers would be upbraided for praising Foote.)

All of which is true. Now watch as a real mental pygmy crawls up on a better man’s shoulders and starts thumping his scrawny chest.

But because we live in an ignorant age, Foote’s reputation is getting dragged through the mud. In an article noting that White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders defended Kelly’s comments by citing the Burns documentary, Chait writes that Burns relies heavily on Foote, and “Foote presented Lee and other Confederate fighters as largely driven by motives other than preserving human property, and bemoaned the failure of the North and South to compromise (a compromise that would inevitably have preserved slavery).”

This should be dismissed as a simple case of historical ignorance, especially since it’s been repeated so often by a Wikipedia-reliant press corps over the past few days. Even someone with a cursory knowledge of the Civil War should know that the war came about, as all wars do, because of a failure to compromise.

In our case, the entire history of the United States prior to outbreak of war in 1861 was full of compromises on the question of slavery. It began with the Three-Fifths Compromise written into the U.S. Constitution and was followed by the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (which prohibited slavery north of the 36°30’ parallel, excluding Missouri), the Compromise of 1850, then the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, which repealed the Missouri Compromise and eventually led to the election of Abraham Lincoln and the subsequent secession of the southern states. Through all this, we inched toward emancipation, albeit slowly.

In other words, the breakdown of all those decades of compromise did indeed lead to the Civil War. This is a point that Foote and other historians have made many times and that Kelly tried his best to paraphrase. Compromising on slavery had been part of how America stayed together, and staved off war, from the beginning. No historian disputes this. But for writers like Chait and The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, compromise was a bad thing because it preserved slavery. That such compromises limited slavery’s spread and put it on the path to extinction carries no weight with them.

That’s because Coates, like all too many black Americans, suffers from complete tunnel vision when it comes to slavery, especially as it intersects with and vivifies their default hatred for America. Our historical experience with slavery is shared by plenty of other nations and cultures stretching back to antiquity…except for the part where we fought a most hideous and bloody war to put an end to it. In that, we’re unique.

To put the cherry on all this pluperfect dumbassery, Coates conveniently ignores—as all his fellow Leftard America-haters do—the inconvenient fact that slavery is still practiced in plenty of African and Moslem nations to this very day. Not that you’ll ever hear one word of protest uttered by them over that inconvenient little fact. The only instance of the “peculiar institution” that seems to matter to them is the one that happened here, and was abolished going on two centuries ago.

All of which means Coates and his contemptible ilk can and should be fairly ignored—not just on this issue, but every other one too. Anybody so willfully blinded by their own over-emotional dimwittedness on any one issue is not to be trusted to have a remotely intelligent take on anything else. Thankfully, Foote’s legacy will far outshine and outlast whatever meager, noisome droppings will end up having to serve Coates as a pitiful excuse for one.

Share

Categories

Archives

"America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." – Claire Wolfe, 101 Things to Do 'Til the Revolution

Subscribe to CF!
Support options

SHAMELESS BEGGING

If you enjoy the site, please consider donating:



Click HERE for great deals on ammo! Using this link helps support CF by getting me credits for ammo too.

Image swiped from The Last Refuge

2016 Fabulous 50 Blog Awards

RSS FEED

RSS - entries - Entries
RSS - entries - Comments

E-MAIL


mike at this URL dot com

All e-mails assumed to be legitimate fodder for publication, scorn, ridicule, or other public mockery unless otherwise specified

Boycott the New York Times -- Read the Real News at Larwyn's Linx

All original content © Mike Hendrix