blessed be my enemies; they bring out the best in me


with one comment

“…[F]urther integration and/or assimilation into a white cultural and social structure…
will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant.”
– President Barack Hussein Obama’s wife, Michelle Obama (nee LaVaughn Robinson), from her senior year thesis at Princeton, 1985


“It is this world…where white folks’ greed runs a world in need…”
– Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Obamas’ pastor of twenty (20) years, from an unidentified church sermon


“No, no, no!  Not God bless America—God damn America!  …God damn America for treating its citizens as less than human!

– Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Obamas’ pastor of twenty (20) years, from an unidentified church sermon


“You’ve never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never.
They always say, ‘We can’t believe it happened here.
We can’t believe it’s these suburban white kids.’
It’s only them*.”

– Obama-appointed Green Jobs “Czar” (aka “special advisor”) Anthony “Van” Jones, interview with Eyeblast.tv, December 2nd, 2005

* I’ve never seen a corrupt black investor rig a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme either.  Must be that there are no blacks with such evil intentions, right?  Certainly it has nothing to do with there being no blacks with the deadly combination of ill intent and sufficient intellectual capacity to pull of something so grandiose, right?  Right?


“And the white polluters and the white environmentalists are essentially
steering poison into the people-of-color communities,
because they don’t have a racial justice frame.”

– Obama-appointed “Green Jobs Czar” “Van” Jones, uncredited interview, January, 2008


“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.”

– Michelle Obama, campaigning for her husband in Wisconsin, February 18th, 2008


“The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity…
But she is a typical white person…”

– Barack Hussein Obama, interview on 610 WIP in Philadelphia, March 20th, 2008


“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to
high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers.”

– Economic adviser to President Obama, in congressional testimony on the economic recovery and stimulus plan, January 7th, 2009

We ask you to help us work for that day when
black will not be asked to get back,
when brown can stick around,
when yellow will be mellow,
when the red man can get ahead, man,
and when white will embrace what is right.”

– Reverend Joseph Lowery, from President Barack Hussein Obama’s inaugural benediction, January 20th, 2009


“I would hope that a wise Latina woman
with the richness of her experiences
would more often than not reach a better conclusion
than a white male
who hasn’t lived that life.”

– Obama-appointed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from her Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture, 2001 (nominated May 2009; confirmed August 2009)


“Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin,
their sexual orientation, that is what this statute [federal “hate crime” legislation]
tends — is designed to cover.”

– Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder, in response to a question if whites or Christians would be protected by the Justice Department’s interpretation of the federal hate crime statute, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, June 25th, 2009


“Why, because I’m a black man in America?!”
– Long-time friend of Obama and Harvard Professor Henry Louis “Skip” Gates, to Cambridge police officers responding to a call about a possible break-in, when asked for ID, July 16th, 2009


“I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that.
…[T]he Cambridge police acted stupidly…
…[T]here is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos
being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately*.”
– President Barack Hussein Obama, July 22nd, 2009

* Do not
“African-Americans” and “Latinos”
commit a
wildly disproportionate amount of crimes?


“…to describe it in those terms I think does a great disservice to people who…risked all, for my people.”
– Obama-appointed Attorney General Eric Holder, House Appropriations subcommittee hearing, March 1st, 2011


And now I’ll leave you with a post from Tim Wise, written after the Tea Party-delivered shellacking of the Democrats in the 2010 midterm elections (for a background of the “the most respected anti-racist writers & educators in the U.S.“, see

Written by Ex Machina

August 18, 2011 at 2:14 pm

All the News That’s Fit to Print

leave a comment »

You know, come to think of it, The
New York Times is perhaps the most honest newspaper in the MSM industry—at least insofar in that it states upfront that it’s going to be dishonest. It’s right there in front of you—you just have to read into their slogan a bit.

Who determines what news is “fit to print”? The editorial board at The New York Times. And who composes said editorial board? Leftists (what–you think there are any Ron Paul supporters on the board?). And what has been a common denominator of leftists over the past century? Spoon-feeding State-sanctioned (and State-contrived) “news” to the proletariat.

It’s not the fault of the Times for encapsulating the above in its pithy tagline—I mean, that’s the whole point of taglines—to be pithy! Really, it’s the fault of the intellectually torpid consumers of the Times for not putting on their critical-thinking caps and mustering the energy (and nerve) to peek behind the curtain.

But then, we already knew this of devoted Times readers.

Anyway, that’s really all beside the point.

So I pop open this morning’s USA Today and there’s a front page headline about pesticides being correlated with significantly lower IQs. The paper cites a study that saw as much as a seven point drop in average IQ’s across children raised in areas heavily exposed to pesticides compared to those who weren’t. It then goes on to compare this with lead poisoning, which had been associated with an average IQ impairment of two points. A two point drop in average IQ, says the article, “can have an enormous impact, says pediatrician Aaron Bernstein of Children’s Hospital Boston.”

It explains further…

“That’s because a population’s IQ scores, when plotted on a graph, tend to fall along a bell-shaped curve. Shifting the entire curve down, even if just by a few points, causes a big jump in the number of kids with low intelligence and a dramatic loss in the number of super-smart ones, says Bernstein, who wasn’t involved in the study. That can sharply increase the number of kids needing remedial education, says Bruce Lanphear, a professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, also not involved in the study.”

Of course the above is all true—the median of a Gaussian distribution of IQ scores is the A-#1 predictor of the success (or failure) of the population so measured. This has been known for quite a long time, has been repeatedly confirmed in study after study, and has yet to be refuted by any credible, competing, falsifiable theory.

Hey, you know what else is associated with lowered IQ? Oh wait—we’re not allowed to talk about that, are we? For if I were to suddenly start citing the mountains of evidence that show a distinct correlation between race and IQ, and that IQ is largely heritable (estimated at around 80% by the authorities on the subject, Hernstein & Murrary, if memory serves), and that IQ is essentially stable throughout one’s life—no matter how much money we throw at the DOE to erase that darned stubborn “achievement gap”—why, that will get me smeared as a “bigoted, hate-filled, redneck racist”, will destroy relationships, could cost me my job, and would probably even earn me threats upon my very life and limb.

Think I exaggerate here?

So, how is it that the MSM gets away with writing stories about IQ and normal distributions and how awful lowering those normal distributions by even two points is on society when talking about pesticide exposure, but has never, never, never, never, never brought up these facts when talking about immigration policy and the sundry “affirmative action”-type liberalist ridiculousness that have worked their ways into legal precedent, regulations, official policy, etc. (e.g., “disparate impact”, or “the achievement gap”)?

To anyone with their eyes open, the answer is obvious: “Environmentalism” (read: crypto-Communism and/or anti-humanism) is a cause near-and-dear to leftists (see the aforementioned “crypto-Communism”). Therefore, anything that might damn private industry and/or human development in general is heralded on the front pages of major newspapers—no matter how tenuous or preliminary be the studies. (The 800 lbs. gorilla of this very thing is, of course, the whole “OMFG GLOBAL COOLING! AN ICE AGE COMETH!!!”…oh wait, I mean “OMFG GLOBAL WARMING! PESTILENCE! FAMINE! WE’RE GOING TO BE BAKED ALIVE!”…oh wait, I mean, “OMFG THE CLIMATE CHANGES! IT CHANGES, MAN! THIS IS HORRIBLE! QUICK—GIVE ALL OF OUR MONEY TO DEVELOPING NATIONS!!! IT’S THE ONLY WAY TO STOP IT!!!“).

However, “race idealism” is the central dogma of modern liberalist thinking, and as such, anything at all that might be perceived as challenging this dogma is dutifully swept under the rug by the MSM. Hence we never hear anything about the fact that, say, allowing refugees and immigrants of untold numbers from sub-Saharan Africa—whose natives have an average IQ difference of twenty-five points relative to whites (and thirty points relative to East Asians), and Latin America—with an average IQ shortage of fifteen points relative to whites—should, by the very logic of the anti-pesticide crusaders stated in the USA Today article above, pose a catastrophic risk to American society.

Never hear about that, do you?

Oh, and just as an aside, anyone hear about the two innocent black folk on the MARTA in Atlanta the other day, on their way to work, and were savagely attacked by a wild mob of fifty or so white teens? What about the white twelve year-old who held up a convenience store outside of Detroit? Did you hear about the “flash mob” of whites in Venice Beach, CA, where things got violent and out-of-hand, leaving at least one person shot dead? How about the arrests and injuries that marred McDonald’s debuting of a grand hiring initiative targeted at unemployed white youth? What about the white stripper who knowingly falsely accused a bunch of innocent black college kids of raping her, leading to their being wrongly demonized by the media, while she went off and killed her boyfriend?

The cherry on top is that these sorts of things—of white youth going on violent, chaotic rampages that often target innocent black folk—have been happening essentially on a weekly basis for years. Did you know that?

No? You haven’t heard?

Of course you didn’t—because none of the above happened. But if it did happen, you’d hear about it non-stop. I’m sure it would even warrant President Obama to give one of his supposedly orgasm-inducing, nation-healing, war-ending, sea-parting speeches of unmatchable gravitas. And don’t even get me started on the raft of civil suits; the wailing of race hustlers like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton; the millions—or billions—paid out to the victimized blacks; the hate crime charges against the violent, racist whites; and the endless stream of anti-White legislation that would pour forth from DC, with the ridiculous career politicians esteeming themselves as an army of resurrected Churchills brought back to life to battle the second coming of MechaHitler.

But, of course, all of the above has happened with the races reversed. Black “youths” have become increasingly brazen in going on rampages attacking innocent, minding-their-own-business white folk who have the misfortune of having been reared in a society that tells them that rendering yourself defenseless is sophisticated and moral, being a victim is the only way to gain the attention of our fellow humans that our diversity-induced isolation has starved us of, and, as evil whites oppressors, we really had it coming anyway.

Beyond a white populace that has largely neutered itself and considers its own victimization and eradication to be the moral high ground in the never-ending quest for “social justice”, these out-of-control black “youths” also understand that they will never be held to account, precisely because they are black youths. There will be no race hustlers, there will be no gnashing of teeth by Eric “My People” Holder at the DoJ, and there will certainly be no “teaching moments” by our Affirmative-Action-Poster-Child-in-Chief.

And we can certainly expect the MSM to continue do what they do best: amplify that which fits their agenda; minimize or omit that which detracts from it.

Just like the good little propagandists they are.

Written by Ex Machina

April 21, 2011 at 9:19 am

Caped Crusaders – Government in a Nutshell

leave a comment »

…Or, really, a cape.

So…(long, exasperated pause)…this is what happens when you get handed millions of dollars of strangers’ money and are told to go find somewhere spend it, lest you give lie to the ridiculous waste that is your department’s operating budget.

Ah, bureaucrats…is there any idea too dumb for them?

Apparently not.


Florida officials are investigating an unemployment agency that spent public money to give 6,000 superhero capes to the jobless.

Workforce Central Florida spent more than $14,000 on the red capes as part of its “Cape-A-Bility Challenge” public relations campaign. The campaign featured a cartoon character, “Dr. Evil Unemployment,” who needs to be vanquished.


How sad is it that in the collective mind of the ruling class, spending tax dollars on cartoon characters and capes for the jobless is a way to battle unemployment…as opposed to, say, cutting taxes so businesses can keep more of their money…which they can then reinvest in their businesses…thereby growing their businesses…thereby creating, you know, jobs.

Modern liberalism (for lack of a better term) is truly a mental disorder, and a horrible one at that. It binds the afflicted to a lifetime of perpetual infantilism, all the while convincing them that it is exactly their deplorable behavior, their severely stunted maturation, and their suckling at the teat (or lower!) of the ruling class that renders them morally and intellectually superior to their involuntary benefactors…benefactors who suffer a fusillade of insults and smears any time they have the temerity to suggest that these narcissistic leeches grow up, act like adults, and earn their keep.

Yet it is precisely these sad, afflicted, overgrown children who are running our country.

And rather poorly, I might add.

Maybe they just need better capes…

Written by Ex Machina

April 19, 2011 at 5:53 pm

When Their Lips Are Moving

leave a comment »

Vivian Schiller, CEO of NPR, announced her resignation this morning. Credible sources (read: not NPR—see here) say NPR’s board forced her out.

It was James O’Keefe—that young, college-age, wonderfully dorky wisp of a whitey-white white boy—who was responsible for yesterday’s earlier-than-planned resignation of NPR’s Vice President of Fund Raising, followed by today’s much-earlier-than-planned resignation of NPR’s CEO.

This is the same James O’Keefe who, along with his cute cohort Hanna Giles, single-handedly (well, with messaging help from the brilliant and brilliantly media savvy Andrew Breitbart) took down Acorn—a nation-wide “Community Organizing” apparatus (oh, the euphemisms!) that “just happened” to be one of the DNC’s—and Obama’s, in particular—largest, most powerful vote-garnering operations (legal or otherwise—it matter not!).

While on this topic of ignominious resignations, you may also recall some other uncannily similar incidents.

Remember a certain “Van” Jones (in quotes because, as you may also recall, that’s not his real name—he simply chose “Van” because, sounding like your typical teenager, he “thought it sounded cool”) who was appointed by the Obama administration to head up Obama’s “green jobs” racket (which is exactly what it is)? Remember how that “stupid, crazy, radical, extremist” Glenn Beck found some videos of “Van” Jones admitting to his adoption of Communist ideology; his pride in being arrested for partaking in a riot “in support of” cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal; his [typical] demonizing of “white folk” for “steering poison into the people-of-color communities”; and then, in the coup de grâce, uncovered “Van” Jones’ signature on a “truther” petition that implicated George W. Bush (and, of course, evil Zionists) for being behind the felling of the Twin Towers on 9/11?

Remember what happened to “Van” Jones? Yes—he was spirited away from his cushy White House job in the middle of the night over the Labor Day weekend—not coincidentally at the pit of the news cycle.

While we’re here, remember also when a certain surreptitiously recorded conference call between the NEA’s [former] Communications Director Yosi Sargent and a squad of local “artists” who were conspiring on how to leverage tax payer money, funneled through the NEA, to help propagandize Obamacare (which was, at that time—and continually to this dayviewed unfavorably by a majority of the population)—remember what happened when those tapes were released to the public?

I’m sure there are plenty of other incidents I could cite but, as they are not sitting readily at the top of my head, I’ll leave it at that as I feel the few examples above should suffice for demonstrative purposes.

So now let’s go back to the latest NPR imbroglio for a moment.

Recall that [now former!] CEO Vivian Schiller had very recently publicly testified that NPR (and PBS) are greatly reliant upon taxpayer subsidies—which was immediately directly contradicted by her chief fund-raising executive in [what he thought was] a private conversation.

Recall too that very same [Vivian] Schiller saying there was no liberal bias at her organization, and that, despite the fact that conservatives and liberals are nearly unanimous in their respective opposition to/support of public funding for NPR, any accusations of bias were merely “problems of perception.” Again, this was immediately contradicted by the same chief fund-raising executive in the same assumed private conversation where he flagrantly trashed anyone to the right of Lenin while coughing up the standard liberal conceits about their (liberals’) presumed monopoly on all possible intelligent, reasoned, informed, pragmatic, responsible, and oh-so-moral political, social, and economic positions.

And note what [Ron] Schiller said in his official apology after his termination: “…I made statements during the course of the meeting that are…not reflective of my own beliefs.” Perhaps you may wish to re-watch him enunciating those “statements.” Do you honestly believe they are not truly reflective of his “own beliefs”? Didn’t he even say that he was “taking off his NPR hat”—i.e., speaking of his own beliefs—prior to making some of his most damning of statements?

And lastly, if you were to read the Ed Morrissey’s HotAir write-up linked to above, you’ll see that there is a direct contradiction between what NPR news is stating as the reason for [Vivian] Schiller’s abrupt resignation this morning, and what “those in the know” are saying.

As Juan Williams—understandably agitated to near paroxysms over the staggering depths of the very liberal hypocrisy, cynicism, and arrogance of which he, himself, was a victim—said in a quote to “Fox Nation” (emphasis mine): “The rank hypocrisy of his remarks was telling for me. They will say things to your face about how there’s no liberal orthodoxy at NPR, how they play it straight, but now you see it for what it is. They prostitute themselves for money.”

Did you happen to note that in all these incidents, there are two key unifying factors: 1) The guilty parties are all liberals, and 2) all that it took to usher their hasty downfall was to expose to the public what they were saying behind the public’s back?

It’s not like an Eliot Spitzer or Bill Clinton or even John Edwards situation where you have some Lothario getting snagged engaging in licentious behavior. Moral failings—especially when it comes to male sexuality—are, if not necessarily forgivable, at least somewhat understandable.

What we see above is categorically different. What we are seeing (and hearing), time and time again, is that when liberals in some position of power mistakenly believe they are speaking to a closed audience of like-minded individuals, they have a completely contradictory message to what they say publicly.

One can’t help but wonder: What else are they saying, out of public view, that hasn’t been clandestinely caught on tape?

And, even more enraging: How much have they gotten away with in all the years prior to the rise of the internet, blogs, YouTube, and social media whereby everyday citizens could finally perform the job that the patently colluding MSM was supposed to be doing?

To compare, take, e.g., Scott Walker, who was “punked” (oy, the childishness) by some goon from Buffalo into thinking he [Walker] was speaking with Libertarian philanthropist David Koch. Walker’s conversation with “Koch”, which he believed to be private, was perfectly consistent with what he [Walker] was saying to the public.

Which reinforces what I’ve contended before: Your average conservative can be characterized as one who means what he says and says what he means, while your average [modern] liberal can be characterized as a cynical, Machiavellian, amoral, narcissistic elitist who will do and say anything and everything to maintain or strengthen his grip on money, power, and influence.

In a question: How do you know when liberals are lying?

Written by Ex Machina

March 9, 2011 at 12:25 pm

Parody Becomes Impossible

leave a comment »

Geeks (read: people very smart on the technical side of things, but who tend to be very dumb on the social side) often look to Star Trek as a template for how to engineer the future—i.e., what fictional technologies are really cool and therefore should be the focus of R&D.

And as William Shatner would attest, this has resulted in a lot of very cool, very good things.

On the other hand, liberals, as it has long been apparent, tend to model their social engineering on some absurdity that had been deployed in the service of parody. Take, for example, this story:


More than 100 Northwestern students watched as a naked woman was penetrated by a sex toy wielded by her boyfriend during an after-class session of the school’s popular “Human Sexuality” class.

Anyone familiar with classic Monty Python and who reads the above snippet will no doubt involuntarily recall this scene from The Meaning of Life:


These days, it must be really vexing for satirists to keep up with liberal’s accelerating free-fall down the abyss, let alone get ahead of the curve enough to actually get some egregious absurdity published as fiction before liberals have already established it as fact. (I once had a thought about writing a Swiftian piece about liberals genetically engineering human tissue to serve in haute cuisine restaurants—so that they could be “humane” cannibals while still being “edgy” in their delighted and smug shattering of one of the last few remaining taboos. Woe is me, for literally the next day I came across this report: Berlin ‘cannibal’ restaurant calls for diners to donate body parts for menu.)

This all brings to mind a good friend of mine’s high school senior quote: “On matters of fashion, go with the flow; on matters of principle, stand like a rock.”

In the liberal’s world view where all is relative and there are absolutely no absolutes, all is fashion; everything goes with the flow.

And, subsequently, parody becomes impossible…and principles are eroded to sand.

Written by Ex Machina

March 3, 2011 at 12:47 pm

Killing the Undead

leave a comment »

“Modern Liberalism” (“Neo-Liberalism”, “Cultural Marxism”, “Crypto-Socialism”, whatever) is like a zombie—a horrible monster that feeds on human brains and absolutely refuses to stay dead no matter how many times the good guys shoot it.

But make no mistake: Kill the beast we must.

Though there are many significant philosophical differences between “hard-core Libertarians” and “moderates” (for my purposes here, I include in this latter umbrella term a wide swath of political perspectives: various conservative classifications such as paleos and neocons, moderates of both political parties, and independents), there is nevertheless a bedrock of common ground that is of fundamental importance: We all look to respect the US Constitution due to (and in addition to) our shared desire to see to it that the Republic of the United States of America endures, ensuring that unalienable rights such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (at minimum) are protected so as “to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Contrast this with modern-day Liberals—a motley crew of globalists, socialists, communists, anarchists, anti-capitalists, anti-white racists, anti-Christian zealots, anti-Semites, Islamo-fascists, anti-American nutcases, anti-humanity/pro-Gaia militant hippies, not to mention the sundry drunks, womanizers, gangsters, thugs, scammers, murderers, rapists, pedophiles, etc.—whose widely and wildly divergent agendas nonetheless all converge around the singular goal of negating every tradition and institution that has been correlated with (and arguably causative of) the rise of American Exceptionalism and the attendant modern Golden Age known as Pax Americana. These include (but are not limited to):

  • Demographics
    • A predominantly Christian people;
    • A predominantly white population; and
    • Integration and assimilation of immigrants—and flexible, pragmatic, and sane immigration policy that could be adjusted if certain immigrant groups prove problematic.
  • Culture
    • A reverence for the founding fathers, their vision for the nation, and their crowning achievements: the Declaration of Independence and the foundational contract between Americans and their government, the US Constitution;
    • Respect for, practice of, and promulgation of “Judeo-Christian” values, such as regular worship of “The Almighty”, the nuclear family, homosexuality as sinful (or at least socially aberrant), humility, honesty, fidelity, charity, respect for the law, peace-making, defense of the vulnerable, etc.;
    • A military that was incorruptibly disciplined and upright, rightly revered, and whose traditions were sacrosanct and immune to the whims and fashions of the populace whom it protects and shields from the horrors they are uniquely trained to confront;
    • Social mores that stressed personal responsibility, patriotism, industriousness, ingenuity, education, positivity (“where never is heard…a discouraging word…”), rugged individualism, community (yes, in addition to “rugged individualism”), chivalry, etiquette, and egalitarianism—and stigmatized collectivism, slovenly, boorish, or outright criminal or treasonous behavior, reliance upon charity or social services for anything beyond temporary assistance in the event of some personal catastrophe or hardship, and a lifetime embrace of victimhood, excuse-making, and childish petulance and importunateness as a means of slithering out of one’s responsibilities and/or getting something one wants; and
    • Faith in the abilities of fellow American citizens—hard-working, intelligent, civil, honest, and fair—to self-govern, and skepticism and antagonism toward those who would deign themselves superior and uniquely fit to commandingly micromanage the lives of said citizens.
  • Academia
    • Education emphasizing both the pragmatic (math, science, reading, writing, etc.) and the cultural pillars of Western Civilization (“the classics” of art & literature, the history of Western Civilization, etc.)—and regarded statist indoctrination as anathema; and
    • Instruction in civics, including basic knowledge of the system of American governance, an understanding of the Constitution, and general preparation of every student to become a “good citizen”, intimately knowledgeable and respectful of this, their “country of laws, not men.”
  • News Media
    • A free press that strove for objectivity and endeavored to keep the state in check by serving as the public’s watchdog against political machinations—and certainly not to provide cover for such political machinations.
  • Entertainment Media
    • Entertainment (including sports) that sought to entertain and/or ennoble, not to constantly drive a far-left political agenda and/or debase society by glorifying—and hugely remunerating—the absolute worst of human depravity.
  • Government
    • A judiciary that would adjudicate, not legislate;
    • “Blind justice” meaning equality under the law—regardless of socioeconomic status, gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, or the like;
    • A political class who, by and large, genuinely sought to serve their constituents, their cities or states, and their country, without cynicism or greed—let alone contempt and hostility toward those they were elected to represent; and
    • A federal government whose powers were specifically enumerated and strictly constrained, with nearly all powers delegated to states, localities, and—above all—to the individual.
  • Individual liberty
    • Free markets unfettered from onerous government interference and/or corrupt, political manipulation;
    • A decentralized economy guided by the “invisible hand” arising from the ingenuity, ambitions, and good faith of the individuals and their businesses that comprise said “free market”;
    • Freedom of speech and right to peaceable assembly, regardless of how unpopular that speech or assembly may be; and
    • Freedom to conduct one’s life as one chooses—to freely associate, to be able to defend one’s personal views without fear of losing one’s friends, livelihood, savings, or safety merely because those views are not popular, to eat as one wishes, to read what one chooses, to illuminate one’s home as one prefers, to use as many squares of toilet paper as one deems necessary—to make one’s own choices based upon one’s own unique, individual thinking and experiences and not be obligated to abide by the dictates of some far-removed, pompous, hypocritical, narcissistic, self-appointed, aristocratic vanguard issuing their untethered-from-reality, oft-destructive, do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do decrees from their palaces—palaces built and paid for by the very people they consider to be incorrigibly inferior to themselves.

The modern liberal—whether he realizes it or not—stands for and assists with the reversal of each facet of traditional American society bulleted above (and many more—it’s only a partial list).

As a result, Modern Liberalism, along with its political vector, the Democratic Party, has lost all legitimacy within the American body politic proper (“proper” meaning those who wish to see, not the destruction of, but the continuance of—and now, after 50 years of wildly destructive, Liberal Establishment hegemony, the revival of—the Republic). It’s as if we are entertaining enemies of the state as some sort of valid political alternative—treating traitors as simply some different but equally legitimate perspective on how best to run the business of America.

This is simply fallacious thinking.

Imagine Ward and June Cleaver grappling with some crisis that affected their household. Though Beaver and Wally may take different sides in the debate, it would be highly unlikely that things would get so ugly as to convince anyone that either side was actually rooting for and surreptitiously working toward the destruction and disintegration of the Cleaver household, no?

Now imagine Claudius, Gertrude, and Prince Hamlet. Despite Claudius’ affectations to the contrary, he is a dangerous, villainous man who rose to power through deceit and murder and who poses an existential threat to the legitimate—and noble—heir to the throne. Is Hamlet wrong for seeking Claudius’ destruction? Isn’t Hamlet’s cause just?

At the risk of putting things too simply, the “Leave it to Beaver” anecdote above is analogous to the Libertarian/Moderate split: Both are united in their desire to “fix the family”, but divided on how best to get there. On the other hand, “Hamlet” here is analogous to the (Moderate + Libertarian)/Modern Liberal split. Like Claudius, Modern Liberalism ascended to its position of power—and seeks to maintain that position of power—through deceit, bribery, extortion, racketeering, intimidation, and worse. It’s only just that this Machiavellian, power-hungry ideology is disposed of, its sycophants ridiculed into shamed silence, and its tyrants given the boot from all halls of power—whether that be from government offices, ivory towers, news organizations, or the like.

But being that this bad penny of an ideology is as stubborn and as it is crafty, like a zombie, it can’t be taken out with a few quick and easy shots. It must be obliterated, completely, and then safeguards must be put in place to make sure this zombie menace does not rise again.

There are so many fronts on which to fight this beast that it may seem overwhelming. But certainly even the least amongst us can assist the effort by removing their political blinders, acknowledging the situation for what it is, and not being afraid to “speak truth to power” as “they” love to say—no matter how many insults they hurl at you (stupid, racist, etc.).

The fight is on, the time is now, and there’s absolutely no upside to pussing out.

Written by Ex Machina

March 1, 2011 at 10:38 am

American Lives

leave a comment »

Yesterday, four innocent Americans were killed by Somali pirates.

You may recall a similar story from not too long ago involving the Russians. “Similar”, of course, only by virtue of the fact that Somali pirates took a Russian ship; the rest of the story, however, is quite different: In response, Russian commandos stormed their commandeered ship in the dead of night, liberated their countrymen (and their ship), arrested the pirates, handcuffed them to their (the pirates’) boat’s rigging—now here’s where it gets really good—lit the boat on fire with the pirates chained to itfilmed it…and posted it on YouTube for all the world to see.

All the world, mind you, including Somali pirates.

Now, guess what some non-Russian ships from small countries—countries without the supposed clout and superior military force of the United States—do when sailing through the pirate-infested waters of the Gulf of Aden? They hoist Russian flags, knowing that the Somali pirates, wild simians though they be, at least can do some basic visual pattern matching and recognize that that flag indicates the ship is not to be messed with.

One may wonder: How does the “world’s only super power”, with the most technologically-advanced military on the planet, allow its citizens to be killed by a motley band of missing links on barely-seaworthy rafts? Not only that, it’s not like this came out of the blue: These animals have been terrorizing these waters for decades, with a marked increase in these types of incidences over the past few years.

One may also wonder: Why does President Obama, who seems to be highly concerned about shoving a wealth-redistributive healthcare scheme down the throats of protesting majorities, suing his own states for daring to enforce immigration law, or using his massive and massively-financed political machine to topple a duly-elected governor’s attempt to execute the very things he was voted into office to execute—why does this president seem so inept in dealing with these international situations in which Americans are being killed by the world’s most ruthless and brutal thugs?

Any chance it could be his complete and utter lack of real-world experience?

Here’s a hypothetical question: What if those four murdered Americans were…

…instead of four folksy, white Christians (who perhaps are undistinguishable to President Obama because they’re, you know, typical white people)—might Obama have been a bit more impassioned about their defense?

(But to question President Obama’s racial biases is, of course, being racist, so I should stop that line of questioning before the thought police come down on me and I lose my job, my friends, my family, and get permanently blackballed from ever participating in “civil society” again.)

Now consider: Of those pirates who brutally murdered those four good, innocent Americans, 13 or 14 (I’ve read some conflicting numbers) will be brought to trial in the US and likely be holed up in a US prison for the rest of their lives.

Please take a moment to consider this: The pirates, who hail from one of the most impoverished, dysfunctional “nations” in the world, are going to be brought to America, put up in comparatively comfortable quarters, fed three squares a day (something they’re certainly not getting on a regular basis at home), given cable TV, books, full workout facilities, healthcare—healthcare—forget “better healthcare”—they now get healthcare whereas in Somalia they have nothing!…lawyers, Imams, Korans, prayer mats, etc…and—hold yourself—all paid for by the American taxpayer.

To pour some additional salt into the wound, keep in mind that when we say “American taxpayer”, we mean almost exclusively productive people who get up every day and go to work and earn a living—which the state and federal governments then strip to pay for, amongst other things, housing lawless, international murderers of innocent American citizens. (Yes, there are also sales taxes and the like that everyone, technically, pays—but factor in what is given back by the state and federal governments to the poorest amongst us, and their net tax contributions are effectively zero—if not more often negative.)

And who are these poorest amongst us? Well, for starters, there are the Somali refugees graciously taken in by “forward-thinking”, “compassionate” Minnesotan liberals. Guess how that’s working out for everyone?

Look, people—for any of you benighted fools out there still gullibly swallowing the Liberal Establishment bullsh-t: Gladly taking in and supporting people who steal your stuff, burn down your house, rape your mothers, beat your fathers, kill your children, and destroy your once-friendly and safe neighborhood because they are functional retards who have no appreciation for all the good things you’ve given them and only hate you all the more for doing so is not “forward-thinking” or “compassionate“—it’s stupid, cowardly, masochistic, and suicidal—not to mention fatally unfair to those who are exposed to these pariahs courtesy of your best-of-intentions.

There is no other way to describe it if one wishes to be forthright.

With that in mind, take a look at the situation in Libya. Remember back in the 80’s when Qaddafi was essentially the proto-Bin Laden, funding and orchestrating terrorist attacks against innocent Americans, Europeans, and Israelis the world over? Remember what made him stop? Give yourself a prize if you answered “President Reagan sent in a squadron of fighter jets and bombed the f*** out of the homes of Qaddafi’s family and paramilitary.” Remember how Qaddafi played nice after that (barring much later reports that he and/or his military were involved in the Lockerbie bombing)?

Next question on the subject: Do you remember when Qaddafi started playing really nice? When he not only ceased killing innocent people for the hell of it, but actually started cooperating with the US—e.g., handing over Muslims extremists, helping to “smoke out” Al Qaeda, etc.? Remember about when that started? Yup—on the heels of the world watching a ragged, filthy Saddam Hussein get pulled out of a “spider hole” by American military and then get his neck stretched courtesy of his fellow Muslim brothers.

And what happened once Obama—the Great American Apologist who would, we were promised by everyone in the Liberal Establishment, turn the tide of world opinion back in favor of the United States after eight years of the “disastrous” “Bush Doctrine” (you know the one—the guiding philosophy that by forcibly converting Iraq into a functioning Democracy, it would create a domino effect whereby the hoi polloi of neighboring nations would realize they didn’t have to live under the thumbs of ruthless dictators, and so would rise up against them—you remember that crazy doctrine that would never, ever, ever work we were repeatedly told, right?)—took the reins of the US? Remember what happened in 2009, within a year of Obama’s inauguration?

Here’s a reminder: That “Lockerbie Bomber” was released back to Libya per Qaddafi’s sudden threats against British Petroleum, who in turn pressured the UK government to provide some assistance.

And when a peaceful (turned violent, and now quickly escalating into an all-out civil war) movement started in Libya this past week to oust Qaddafi and his brutal regime, Qaddafi did what again? That’s right: He unleashed the full force of his military to kill his own countrymen and vowed to defy any and all international pressure to step aside. Remember that? I mean, it’s still happening, so it shouldn’t strain the memory too much.

Imagine: An evil, brutal dictator played nice when America used (or threatened to use) overwhelming force against him, and immediately returned to his evil ways once that charming, “post-racial”, wildly inexperienced, far-left liberal got voted into the White House and gave the warm-and-fuzzy, über-sophisticated, so-not-cowboyish promise to “extend a hand if you’d only unclench your fist.”

And guess what: As Libya descends into violent anarchy (in a Muslim nation—go figure!) and civil war, there are some estimated 5,000 Americans living—and now presumed trapped—within the country.

And what’s been the Obama administration’s efforts to bring them to safety?

Granted, we don’t, can’t, and shouldn’t know the details of those efforts at this time (outside of apparent efforts to ferry them out as I write this)—but can’t one be forgiven for thinking that the ostensible deer-in-headlights pussy-footing that we’re seeing this completely inexperienced administration doing once again as yet another Mid East nation goes up in flames is not some poker face routine but is, on the contrary, exactly as it appears to be: i.e., a far-left administration so focused on “community organizing” the whole of the American people into a macrocosm of hopelessly dysfunctional leftist Chicago (side note: yeah Rahm!) that they once again are caught without a plan, coherent strategy, or desire to deal with the international problems at hand? (Which is, of course, one of the federal government’s very few principle duties.)

And what does this portend for all of those Americans holed up inside an exploding and imploding—and, of course, America-demagoguing—Libya? Will Obama be willing to stop butting into the wholly and solely state politics of Wisconsin (and Indiana and Ohio…) and focus on readying every tool in his arsenal—including overwhelming military force—to bring our fellow Americans home to safety?

Or will those thousands of American citizens in Libya end up like those four innocent white folk recently kidnapped by a gaggle of simians on a dinghy, made so vulnerable and ultimately killed because our Liberal Establishment would rather sacrifice its own citizens than bear the condescension of snotty, adolescent Europeans who’d invariably charge we aren’t sufficiently concerned about the “human dignity” of ruthless barbarians?

All of the above (this blog ain’t called “Logorrheatorium” for nothing, btw) boils down to a simple, commonsensical point: There are evil people in the world, capable of unimaginably horrendous acts, and who will not be swayed by anything except brute f***ing force. And if you really care about humanity—really care, and don’t just pay hip lip service to that notion—then you’d recognize that in the interest of humanity, you’ll have to crack a few [bad] eggs once and awhile.

(Unfortunately, the Liberal Establishment has been hard at work for the past half century caking the eyes of the citizens of the Western World with pie-in-the-sky fantasies about world harmony and Kumbaya while simultaneously erasing the history of the nation that has served as one of the greatest forces for good in the whole of human civilization. As a result, common sense, as they say, ain’t so common any more.)

So the question is not “When did we become this pitiful nation of dim-witted, importunate, ball-less, sniveling Neville Chamberlains?” (obvious answer: the “60’s”), but rather: Will our younger generations do the growing up—and the growing of a pair—that their parents never did? Will they recognize that the real world does not abide by the dictates of Liberal fantasies, but rather uses these fantasies as a means to exploit the naïve, weak, and credulous? And will they be able to muster the honesty, courage, and diligence necessary to restore this nation as a safe and secure haven for the good people of the world, where they can live their lives in freedom, peace, prosperity, and progress?

In short, will American youth resume the mantle that has been dutifully carried by generations of sober-minded and adult Americans (these qualifiers, of course, except the Boomers and X’ers from this noble legacy), or will they adopt the depraved self-indulgence and suicidal insanity of their parents’ generation and watch this grand experiment in human excellence crumble into the pit of debilitating uncertainty, violent chaos, and relentless despair that typifies much of the rest of the world?

While the Obama administration ambivalently (and impotently) sputters as American lives hang in the balance, and though we may not be able to do much for our fellow Americans currently held hostage by the world’s miscreants (both at home and abroad), we can at least try to rescue our future—i.e., our youth—to wake them up from the Liberal Establishment’s induced dogmatic slumber, help them learn to recognize and accept reality for what it is, provide them the spiritual guidance necessary to differentiate right from wrong, and give them the education and resources that will enable them to stand up to and defend themselves and their loved ones against evil men and their sadistic machinations.

Though that task may seem daunting, it is certainly achievable.

And never forget that, as the pitch goes, we got to be in it to win it. If we don’t fight, we can’t win.

Written by Ex Machina

February 23, 2011 at 9:48 am