Category Archives: Welfare

UPDATE IV: Bitchslapped in London (Bravo Michael Nutter; Boo Darcus Howe)

Ann Coulter, Britain, Crime, GUNS, Media, Political Correctness, Private Property, Race, Racism, Welfare

Srdja Trifkovic, at Chronicles Magazine, sums up “London’s Postmodern Riots” thus: “The problem with today’s Britain is that donkeys are in charge not only at Bramshill but also at Westminster and at No. 10, Downing Street. If and when ordinary Britons feel compelled to resort to more robust tools than BlackBerryss and Nokias when faced with a looting mob, the lions may have a chance once again.”

[SNIP]

Srdja’s sentiment is a hopeful one. More telling are images such as this one, showing the oppressed disrobing before the oppressor, or wielding a broom to clean-up after the goons.

Described in “Sacrificing Kids To PC Pietism,” the prototypical western man “is flabby in body and mind. He is fearful and easily cowed. He erupts in tears at a drop of a hat. He is gripped by the culture of apology, and flagellates over sins he has not committed. His eternal state of expiation is driven not by goodness, but by insufferable self-righteousness.”

This archetypal man forgives unspeakable violence against himself and those he is obligated to protect. He would not hurt a fly, much less repel a foe. An astute alien would notice that, in this regard, there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ earthling. …
Not only does this generic Joe refuse to identify his proud, empowered attackers, but he rejects the possibility that they act out of ingrained animus for his kind. The swarms that descended to take what is his—to hurt him and even kill him—he jocularly terms mischief-makers, teens, twitter-operators, technology savvy youth. Yes, this brow-beaten, emasculated, excuse-for-a-man uses diminutives to describe the contempt-filled stalkers who menace him and who would squash him like the bug he is

UPDATE I (June 11): COULTER’S SAFE SCREED. Here is my reply to the posting of Ann Coulter’s “diagnosis” to my Facebook Wall:

Myron, Larry Auster has diagnosed this “leftist spinning,” to which Coulter, generally a PC writer, adheres. Coulter’s shtick, like Mark Steyn’s, relies on maintaining the illusion of American exceptionalism. As if the US doesn’t run as enormous a Managerial State as the EU and UK! Here Auster writes:

“While I don’t have all the facts as to numbers, my impression of the article is that they’re trying to make the non-black involvement seem much more than it is. The truth seems to be that the riots were started by blacks, and then others (whites and Muslims) joined in, especially in the looting. But it remains mainly a black thing, and The Guardian is trying to deny that. Also, it’s not surprising that whites would be involved. As Charles Murray wrote ten years years ago, underclass whites in Britain are in their behavior very much like underclass blacks–products of the welfare state, of fatherlessness, etc., and producers of fatherlessness. And we’ve known for years about the yobs who can be as unruly and dangerous as the black thugs. Britain has this huge low-level white population of which there is no equivalent in America. So it’s no surprise that they would join with the blacks.”

Ann Coulter’s column is generally safe. That’s her secret. As Canadian writer Kevin Michael Grace once mused: “The secret to becoming a successful right-wing columnist is to echo the mob while complimenting yourself on your daring. That’s all there is to Ann Coulter’s craft, the rest is exploitation of the sexual masochism of the American male—he just can’t get enough of the kitten with claws.”

UPDATE II: Some people are able to distinguish right from wrong. One such individual is Mayor Michael Nutter. Via Pat Buchanan:

“You’ve damaged your own race,” said Mayor Michael Nutter to the black youths of Philadelphia whose flash mobs have been beating and robbing shoppers in the fashionable district of downtown.
“Take those God-darn hoodies down,” the mayor went on in his blistering lecture. “Pull your pants up and buy a belt, ’cause no one wants to see your underwear or the crack of your butt.”
And the mayor had some advice for teenagers looking for work.
“You walk into somebody’s office with your hair uncombed and a pick in the back and your shoes untied and your pants half down, tattoos up and down your arms and on your neck, and you wonder why somebody won’t hire you?
“They don’t hire you ’cause you look like you’re crazy.”
Nutter is African-American and the first leader to speak out about the racial character of the flash mobs attacking people in one American city after another. And where are our other leaders?

Other people can only distinguish one race from the other.

How telling that this gas bag has so many YouTube viewers. What herd mentality would drive anyone to think of Darcus Howe—a West Indian “writer,” who has made himself comfortable in London—as a voice worth heeding? Darcus blames the wanton destruction of private property on the emasculated British bobby. “The worst violence visited [on England] and its capital since Goering’s Luftwaffe executed the ‘Blitz'” is the fault of the lefty, community-oriented police, which would sooner jail a gun owner for defending what’s his than stop a hateful hooligan from destroying what is not his.

These are the defenders of private property, died guarding his community from hooligans. Darcus the drek stands with evil.

Think the film “Harry Brown” with Michael Caine …

The London riots were the work of moral barbarians with no loyalty to the people in whose midst they live and no love for the society to which they give nothing, only take.

UPDATE III (Aug 12): Compassionate Fascist: I think Ann Coulter is attractive; her politics are what’s unattractive.

UPDATE IV: Larry Auster has sent the correct URL for the image of the submissive and the barbarian.

Darker Clouds On the Horizon

Affirmative Action, Barack Obama, Economy, Race, Taxation, Welfare

The dynamics Pat Buchanan describes in his latest column, “Black America vs. Obama?,” might very well be borne out: African-Americans will likely turn on the black president who was forced to slash the oink sector in which they are overrepresented.

Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.
When the Obama administration suggested shutting down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants whose losses of $150 billion have had to be made up by taxpayers, The Washington Post warned, in a story headlined, “Winding Down Fannie and Freddie Could Put Minority Careers at Risk,” that 44 percent of Fannie employees and 50 percent of Freddie’s were persons of color.
In Washington, D.C., we have also seen the result of government cuts on African-American leaders who had to approve those cuts.
When Mayor Adrian Fenty stood behind schools chancellor Michelle Rhee, who fired hundreds of teachers, most of them African-American, the wards east of the Anacostia cut him dead. In 2010, Fenty was thrown out by many of the black voters who elected him

Is this is a welcome development? Hardly. (And I fully understand that Mr. Buchanan is hardly making such a claim.)

While coalitions of the aggrieved are good, where here is there a coalition for freedom-loving Americans to pursue? Fifty percent or so of Americans—those who pay the taxes—want the excesses of the oink sector curtailed. The African-American cohort Buchanan cites wants these programs to carry on in perpetuity.

It’s possible that Mr. Buchanan is simply warning that African-Americans are just going to get angrier and angrier.

UPDATE IV: Not Cueing The Mariachi Band For Perry (Female Self-Ownership)

Abortion, Conservatism, Crime, Elections, Individual Rights, Political Philosophy, Politics, Private Property, Republicans, States' Rights, Welfare

I “Cued The Mariachi Band” when Rick Perry, the (dashing) governor of Texas, defied Mexico City, The Hague, and their enablers in Washington, and ended José Medellin’s miserable life. Bush, on the other hand, was willing to wrestle a crocodile for Medellin, the man who raped Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Peña in every which way possible and then proceeded to strangle, slash, and stomp the young Texan girls to death.

And it is a happy occasion when any American politician whoops it up for the Tenth Amendment, and speaks about property rights, as Gov. Perry did at the Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans, La. Have you noticed that almost none does? It’s usually, “The right of Boeing to open a business,” rather than the title an owner has in his property, as an extension of the individual’s self-ownership (and they always preclude a woman’s right of self ownership, for some reason). (“The right of ownership is an extension of the right to life. In order to survive, man must— and it is in his nature to — transform the resources around him by mixing his labor with them and making them his own. Man’s labor and property are extensions of himself.”

Fair enough: Seventy percent of all jobs created in the US last year were in Texas. Alas, the governor’s record is at best spotty. And at a time when no one but a minority cares to sweat the “social issues,” these, unfortunately, formed a good part of his address in New Orleans.

UPDATE I: I’d like to clarify (but not discuss abortion, because the abortion issue is one hill upon which I refuse to die): When, last night, I praised Gov. Perry for “whooping it up for property rights,” I added in parenthesis that “this precludes a woman’s self-ownership.” What I meant is this: I always wonder why it is that, when speaking of the right of ownership (property), which is an extension of each individual’s dominion over his body and the things he homesteads—conservatives sidetrack the problem of a woman’s dominion over her body. I don’t wish to discuss abortion. However, conservatives never flesh out this inconsistency. Perhaps they believe human beings, women in particular, don’t have a property right in their own bodies. How does ownership arise, in the conservative mind? Does property not include one’s own body?

UPDATE II (June 20): Cross-posted @ facebook: Kevin (Williamson), I have worked out a formulation about abortion that appeases (as opposed to pleases) me as a paleolibertarian and an absolute propertarian. But is it safe to share it? I worry, because I die on enough hills. It seems prudent not to come out on this issue. Libertarians can agree that no state funding, local or federal, should be allocated to such a procedure. Liberals should be exposed, but never are (certainly not by conservatives), for conflating this position (no public funding) with a denial of what they term “abortion rights.” However, it’s highly problematic to say that by virtue of her fertility, a woman loses a property title in her body. She doesn’t.

UPDATE III (June 20): Kevin, Myron, Don, Joseph, Guy, etc: The tone on this Facebook thread/Wall is pleasingly rational and civil. It’s not surprising among these respondents/writers/thinkers, here. I wonder how many friends I’d lose if I shared my solution, which is still unsatisfactory. Look, abortion is a horrid procedure; especially now that what was promoted as a “blob,” can be viewed by available technology. At 6 weeks in utero, my daughter’s heartbeat was loud—it melted me. Walter Block, a dear friend, has developed “the evictionism theory of abortion.” I don’t subscribe to it, needless to say. But any traditionalist/libertarian solution to the abortion vexation has to be rational, and consider a person’s dominion over his body.

UPDATE IV: From the Facebook thread/Wall: It’s, however, incontrovertible to say that “late-term” termination is a euphemism for cold-blooded murder. Not to evoke the Argument from Nazi-ism (one of the laziest and lowest forms of argument); but it’s the stuff of Josef Mengele, or his female counterpart (his right-hand “service provider,” the proverbial Brunhilda).

Afghan GDP Equals US Military Spending There

Drug War, Foreign Aid, Foreign Policy, Military, Neoconservatism, War, Welfare

Belatedly, and after spilling much blood and treasure for nothing at all in Afghanistan, mainstream opinion makers have concluded what we non-interventionists concluded a decade ago. Making Afghans (and Iraqis) wards of the American state will increase their impotence (to say nothing of violating their negative, leave-me-alone rights and ours, as we’ve paid for the adventure in lost lives and livelihoods). “Ultimately, philanthropic wars are transfer programs—the quintessential big-government projects.”

A “two-year congressional investigation from Senate Democrats” gives details of the defeat. Via the National Journal:

“World Bank data estimates that 97 percent of Afghanistan’s gross domestic product comes from spending related to the military and donor community presence, according the report, which warns that a withdrawal could pull the rug out from under the Afghan economy.” …

MORE…

I suspect that slashing and burning the Afghans’ poppy fields hasn’t helped them either. “In a country with a poor infrastructure, the ‘relatively stable value of opium and its nonperishability means that it can also serve as an important source of savings and investment among traders and cultivators.'” (From “Tokers Are Terrorists Now”)