Buy your swag from Amazon through this link and I get a small piece of their profit.

Its like a tip jar, but you get something you want!

Friday, January 23, 2015


A quick little post on conservatism makes the case for conservatism and family very well:
No free society has ever existed that was constituted primarily of individuals pursuing their own interests as isolated individuals. It is stable, successful families, and communities of families, that make a free society possible.  The only real world alternative to a society built upon the state, is a society built upon the family.
I recommend the whole piece.

Thursday, January 22, 2015


"This will only lead to trouble."

I have a simple question I'd like to ask.  I don't mean to be offensive, and I'm asking with genuine curiosity, not mockery or to start a fight.  I honestly, really want to know.
The question is this: my African American/black/etc fellow Americans, why don't you speak like the rest of us?
I know you can, because every black person I know of has an official American voice they speak with, even if they shift to a race-based dialect at other times.  There's nothing stopping you.
See, I ask this because every other country on earth, everywhere, black people speak like everyone else around them.  If you find a black Frenchman, he sounds like every other Frenchman around him.  Ditto in Germany, Japan, Finland, England, Canada, Mexico.   Everywhere, except America.
You can't blame slavery, because all of these nations had slavery in their past.  England had slavery up until less than a generation before the US ended it as an institution.  And slavery in America ended more than 3 generations ago.
Not everyone in a given country talks exactly the same.  Someone from Texas tends to sound different than, say, Idaho.  And its true everywhere - in London you'll hear 10 different accents depending on what part of the city you're in.
But here's the thing.  A black guy from Seven Dials sounds just like the white people, and the Indian people, and everyone else from Seven Dials.  I know why my friend Sarah has a Mexican accent, because she's from Mexico.  You're not from another country.  I didn't mind when my friend Martin from Sierra Leone had an accent, he was from Africa.  You were born here.  Your parents were born here.  Their parents were born here.
So what's up?  Why is it more "authentic" to bust out this "ebonics?"  Why can't you talk like everyone else, all the time?
I know you're aware this hurts you in official and important situations, because it goes away when you interview for a job or talk to an authority figure.  What's up?

Tuesday, January 20, 2015


"On to my next quest"

You may have seen these ads, particularly if you watch anything on Comcast On Demand.  Comcast is trying to sell their home security system by comparing their app-based cable connected security with an old clanky knight.  Here's a sample:

Now, putting aside the silly concept of anyone, anywhere hiring a knight in armor, let alone an aged one, to guard their home, let us consider this a bit more closely.
Comcast is trying to act like using any other security system is old fashioned; its actually a tag line in some of their ads "don't be old fashioned."  They're using the old knight in armor to stand in for any other security system which, not being "in the cloud" and accessible "anywhere" from your smart phone is thus dated and old.
But consider; which would be preferable?
  • An internet based system which, by its own advertising notes that you can turn it off "from anywhere" using only a phone, and look at cameras anywhere in your home, just by using the phone.
  • An armored knight with a broadsword.
Now, perhaps you're new to the internet and aren't aware of this, but it gets hacked pretty much every minute of the day. Passwords are stolen and sold on Chinese and Russian websites.  Your smart phone is not secure.
I once found a website (now gone) that had live feeds of people's homes from around the world by clicking on various names.  All they did was use commonly used passwords and logged into the security systems.  It was like this weird voyeuristic show, but really boring because it was all empty rooms and darkness - people turn on their security when they leave, not when they do fun stuff to watch.
What I'm saying is what should be abundantly obvious to everyone who has a television to watch Comcast ads: this is a really stupid, bad idea.  You're making it easier for burglars to turn off your security system and watch for when you aren't home.  You're making it easier for evil sexual predators and monsters to know your patterns and when you're home or alone.  Get it?
This is like publishing your daily activities and living in a glass building all day long.  It seems cool and high tech and new and fancy, but its just really stupid.
But an armored knight?  Unless he goes to sleep, he's a physical, combat-ready soldier that acts as a physical deterrent to intruders.
And its not even old fashioned.  Its so old an image, it doesn't even feel old fashioned, it feels beyond vintage to a fantasy era.  Which is cooler to you, being guarded by a knight in shining armor with a sword, or your smart phone?
These ads have a viral feel to them, like some hip college dude with a fancy business card came up with it for Comcast, but they don't make sense.  I doubt they even get people to want to buy the product.
In other words, it gets people to be aware of and talk about comcast's security system... but not in a positive way that makes them want to purchase the security system.  You can get a viral video of you being hurled over a bull's head by his horns in your furry beanbags, but that doesn't make people think you're cool.  You will get millions of hits, but who thinks anything positive of you from watching it?
The purpose of advertising is to make people think positively of your product and even want to purchase it.  Not to just make you familiar.  Being known but known in a negative light doesn't help your company.  But they've sunk millions into these ads, and for what?
Maybe its just me.  Maybe they do work.  Maybe people see it and go "yeah dude, he's old, get a phone app!"  I don't know.  All I know is everyone I ask about this chooses the knight over the hackable phone.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015


"Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no."

The terrorist murders in Paris of the staff of a satirical magazine has shocked the continent, even if it had less impact on the president of the US.  A huge "unity" rally was held, although what exactly it represented, meant, or the unity was about is not exactly clear.  It seems probable to me that most of the people involved thought it was some kind of big multiculturalism celebration.
One of the slogans that popped up is "Je Suis Charlie" - I am Charlie -  in a sort of solidarity with the people of that magazine and the slain journalists.  The idea is that the French people (and others around the world) are stating that these people don't stand alone and we're all opposed to brutal murder by radical Muslims.
Except, as Andrew Bolt points out, we're not all Charlie:
Unlike most politicians, journalists, lawyers and other members of our ruling classes, this fearless magazine dared to mock Islam in the way the Left routinely mocks Christianity. Unlike much of our ruling class, it refused to sell out our freedom to speak.

Its greatest sin — to the Islamists — was to republish the infamous cartoons of Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten which mocked Mohammed, and then to publish even more of its own, including one showing the Muslim prophet naked.

Are we really all Charlie? No, no and shamefully no.

No Australian newspaper dared published those pictures, too, bar one which did so in error.

The Obama administration three years ago even attacked Charlie Hebdo for publishing the naked Mohammed cartoon, saying it was “deeply offensive”.

President Barack Obama even told the United Nations “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam” and damned a YouTube clip “Innocence of Muslims” which did just that. The filmmaker was thrown in jail.
The New York Times refused to publish the latest cover of Charlie Hebdo out of fear that it might offend and be hurtful to Muslims.  NPR made the same call.  Determined to be a leader in craven capitulation, the New York Times referred to Muhammad as "The prophet" Muhammad - a trend echoed in several major news sources such as CNN recently, offering Muhammad an honorific denied other prophets and religious leaders they mention, such as Joseph Smith, Moses, Buddha, and Jesus of Nazareth.
The Associated Press ran the cover picture, but cropped it so much its essentially censored and not recognizable.  President Obama in January through his press secretary announced that "the White House has a moral responsibility to push back on the nation’s journalism community when it is planning to publish anti-jihadi articles that might cause a jihadi attack against the nation's defenses forces."  Former President Jimmy Carter blamed Jews for the attack because they are refusing to roll over and die for the palestinians.  On and on it goes.
Some seem to be coming to the realization that those on the right have long understood - that radical Muslims are a deadly blight determined to destroy our civilization and liberties - such as Bill Maher, who said "This happens way too frequently. It's like Groundhog Day, except if the Groundhog kept getting his head cut off... we have to stop saying when something like this that happened in Paris today, we have to stop saying, well, we should not insult a great religion."  The mayor of Rotterdam Holland - a Moroccan immigrant - was very angry:
'It is incomprehensible that you can turn against freedom,' Mayor Aboutaleb told Dutch current affairs program Nieuwsuur (Newshour).

'But if you don't like freedom, for heaven's sake pack your bags and leave.  'If you do not like it here because some humorists you don't like are making a newspaper, may I then say you can f*** off.

'This is stupid, this so incomprehensible. Vanish from the Netherlands if you cannot find your place here.'
He went on to note that their evil acts are making people suspicious of law abiding Muslims who are fitting into Dutch culture.   France's Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls recently said:
"Yes, France is at war against terrorism, jihadism, and radical Islam... but not against a religion." "France is not at war against Islam or the Muslims.... France will protect all of its citizens, those who believe and and those who don't"
The problem is, they're catching on quite late, are few in number, and one questions their sincerity.  Yes, they're upset now, but what will they do?  And how long will this ire last, given their previous behavior toward Islam?  Its all fine and good to rail against radical Muslims after an event like this - the world did against them after 9/11 - but then mere weeks later the song started to change when it became apparent someone was actually going to do something about it rather than talk. 
Because ultimately, "Je Suis Charlie" is not about free speech. It's about French people not wanting to be executed at gunpoint for saying what Islamists don't like.  They aren't taking a strong stance on speech and expression but on fear and shock at the killings. So the core idea of multiculturalism and social justice held by the left is unchallenged and unchanged, just this particular specific aspect of it.
Yet there's an aspect to this that someone at Ace of Spades HQ brought up I think is worth repeating and considering.  Posting under the name "Wheatie" she noted:
Let's call those 'No-Go Zones' what they are...they're Colonies.

It's not immigration if you are ceding them territory. It's Colonization.
And that's a key point here.  See, in parts of Paris, as well as parts of different cities in England (Primarily London) and its getting that way in places such as Dearborn Michigan in the USA as well as elsewhere, Muslims are creating colonies.
They are "no go" zones that cops only enter in force and following careful Muslim-approved guidelines established at their headquarters.  Areas that speak Arabic (or other native languages) and are Muslim-only.  Areas that non-Muslims are attacked for entering, and women are treated as if they are in the depths of the most radical Muslim pockets of Syria and Pakistan.  Areas where the liberties and structures of the surrounding society are denied.
These aren't areas like Chinatown or Little Italy, where the culture dominates the area with food and speech.  You could always walk into these ethnic regions of cities such as New York City and Chicago, buy things, eat, do business, and leave.  Not so these Muslim colonies.
And the host nations are going out of their way to assist these colonies in their establishment.  New laws or exceptions to existing laws are passed.  Courts and police look the other way, even going to colonial leaders to ask permission to act.
In the old days, a superior force would colonize a less-advanced area, establishing their existence through strength and technological superiority.  Native Americans outnumbered white colonists but were kept back through superior weaponry and fortifications.  These new colonies are only able to exist and thrive through the assistance of multiculturalism and self-destructive policies of their host countries.
In other words, its like someone deliberately introducing cancer into their system, then eating and behaving in such a way that helps the cancer thrive.  Eventually it will overwhelm and destroy the host body, but until then maybe it can help them politically.
Because make no mistake that's exactly what the motivation is.  The Labor Party in England made that specifically and literally clear in a memo that was leaked, saying they wanted to make more immigration possible and coddle the immigrants so that they would gain political power by the new votes.  They knew they were going to have a hard time winning over English voters, so they figured they'd just add new ones.
Except these new ones don't want to be English.  They want to be al'Albionians, or whatever the Arabic conquerers would call the British Isles.  They want England to go away, they want to destroy democracy, throw away basic human rights and liberties, obliterate common law, jettison the government and establish an Islamic government in its place.  All the culture, all the history, all the laws, all the government, language, and existing structure, they want gone.
And that's the danger of how multiculturalism is presented.  And its evils are becoming apparent to even the dullest, most glassy-eyed supporter.  The problem is, that dullness is blinding them to the clear problem and they instead are looking at individual, isolated cases as if they are unrelated or not part of a blatant pattern.

These colonies are a serious problem that the left does not want to address because they were counting on them to win power.  But what they thought would help them gain power is becoming the power in their lands.  And now, belatedly, and confusedly, the left is becoming horrified at their demonic stepchild.

For more thoughts on the cultural suicide of the left, check out this piece by Colin Liddell.