It’s not a slip up, it’s a rare admission of the truth.
Category Archives: America
Oops! Thankfully for them, a chivalrous white knight stepped in to help fix the problem created by dogmatic radical egalitarian ideology giving rise to such a situation.
IOW, it took a man to fix it.
He shouldn’t have bothered. I wouldn’t have. But then, I’m Red-Pilled; I’ve broken my chivalrous programming.
This is an observant comment by theng85, about the costs, big and small, that Diversity™ imposes on society.
Also, a shower thought regarding vibrancy and open borders:
You’ve mentioned before that when a country’s border in weak or unstable, more mini-barriers will be opened up within the confines of the border. I’ll never forget walking by a brownstone in Brooklyn that had a “No border wall” sign in the window….A window that had bars over it and a locking gate around the property. What’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander, I guess.
But there are more boundaries where there’s more vibrancy. My litmus test for whether or not I’m in a bad area is how easily I can access things in something like a gas station or a McDonald’s. If there’s a table with napkins, straws, ketchup, sugar packets, and I can walk into the bathroom and do my business without needing to talk to the staff, then I’m in a good (Read: White) area.
But if the ketchup and napkins are behind the counter, or you need to be buzzed into the bathroom/given a key, or you have to talk to the cashier through a 6 inch sheet of bulletproof glass, then you’re in a bad (Read: Vibrant) area. One of the selling points of my current apartment was that the 24-hour gas station down the street had open access to its bathrooms 24/7. That means I was in a safe neighborhood with little to no vibrancy. And I was right!
tl;dr: Diversity causes instability, instability creates boundaries.
Yep. I’ve noticed the same thing…
Another: does a neighbourhood / school dance require you to go through airport-style security?
When I went back to post-graduate school a few years back in Toronto, one night, I decided to attend a school dance; when I went, I shit you not, there was an X-ray machine that they made me pass the contents of my pockets through, and there was a portal I had to pass through, and an electromagnetic, beeping wand was waved around my body after, to make sure I hadn’t anything metallic still in my pockets. Just like at an airport.
At a college dance.
That never used to happen in the Great White North.
But now it does.
I found out why: 99% of the attendees were either homeboys / homegirls, guidos, or other wiggers, all droopy-pants-barely-wearing, ‘sup, ‘sup, yo’, hand-gesturing excessively types…
And it was all ‘urban’, hip-hop / R&B music…
Needless to say, I didn’t stick around very long that evening; I had maybe two beers, then I left…
Anyway, theng85’s comment at Roissy is helpful if you’re investigating a place, considering moving there… (I also had a real estate agent describe a building elsewhere in the GTA to me as probably being ‘too Jane-and-Finch-y’ for my tastes, and anyone who’s ever spent any time in Toronto will know exactly what that means…)
Be careful not to step in the ‘diversity’…
This report from the Washington Post has to be fake news, because there is no way that any entity connected to the administration of President Donald J. Trump would attempt to draw Chinese immigrants into the US for their own personal financial benefit, given the president’s strong views on immigration and China. Right? Right?! Excerpts:
BEIJING — The Kushner family came to the United States as refugees, worked hard and made it big — and if you invest in Kushner properties, so can you.
That was the message delivered Saturday by White House senior adviser Jared Kushner’s sister Nicole Kushner Meyer to a ballroom full of wealthy Chinese investors in Beijing.
Over several hours of slide shows and presentations, representatives from the Kushner family business urged Chinese citizens gathered at a Ritz-Carlton hotel to consider investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in a New Jersey luxury apartment complex that would help them secure what’s known as an investor visa.
The potential investors were advised to invest sooner rather than later in case visa rules change under the Trump administration. “Invest early, and you will invest under the old rules,” one speaker said.
The tagline on a brochure for the event: “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States.”
I suppose, since they already own America, it’s only fair… 😉
Peter Berger notices a sector of American religiosity where true inclusion and diversity reigns — the military chaplaincy:
One particularly interesting development is that the military chaplaincy, in its Protestant group, is increasingly filled with Evangelicals, who feel more at home in the military than among largely liberal mainline clergy, whose concerns over gender and multiculturalism Evangelicals don’t resonate with. Some years ago I presided over a seminar dealing with whatever issues members of the seminar were concerned about. One of the seminar students was an Evangelical Air Force chaplain. This was the issue she wanted to think through: She served on a small base in the Arctic where she was the only Protestant chaplain. Of course she was not expected to perform religious services that did not agree with her own beliefs. But she was expected to facilitate services for any group of Air Force personnel. A group of Air Force women wanted to perform the rituals of Wicca, which defines itself as a modernized version of the old witches’ Sabbath. How, she asked, could she help organize a worship service of the devil without betraying the core of her Christian faith? I tried to convince her that the devil part was not to be taken seriously, that Wicca was a rather harmless form of nature worship—dancing naked in the moonlight and showing respect for menstrual blood. She said that the way I spoke about this showed I did not take the religious beliefs of this group seriously. I’m afraid she was quite right. In the end she had no choice unless she wanted to resign from the chaplaincy—so the would-be witches did their thing as facilitated by a nonsectarian Evangelical minister. (Religious freedom bears strange fruit, including the struggle of conscience of an Evangelical pastor ordered to go against her conscience by her commanding officer.)
Just more of the crap that happens with chaplaincies in the U.S. military these days (see previous examples here, here, here, and here), which, along with the aspect of in effect blessing the State’s wars, have made me wonder why churches bother sending chaplains to the military. (I’ve also wondered why should the State bother having chaplaincies, but I get why they do; to invoke God’s blessing upon their enterprise, though whether to use such to garner support for imperialism or to convince themselves they’re doing right, I don’t know nor care.)
So says Srdja Trifkovic, and I agree:
“Use of force” means going to war against North Korea. This is a reckless and irresponsible proposition. That Pyongyang embodies a bizarre mix of Stalinism and Oriental despotism is beyond dispute. North Korean soldiers comically emulate their taller Western models in their goose-stepping routine, but the idea is the same: “passo romano” is the metaphor for violent dominance devoid of reason. North Korea is a dystopia unable to feed its cowed serfs—at least two million are estimated to have died of hunger two decades ago—yet it is perfectly capable of unleashing a hurricane of artillery fire against Seoul and other targets in the south at a moment’s notice, killing and maiming tens of thousands of civilians. That is not the kind of protection South Korea needs or wants.
The response of the Truman Administration to Kim Il Sung’s aggression in June 1950 was remarkably swift, bold, and necessary. For many years after the armistice, the presence of U.S. forces in South Korea was justified by the fact that neither China nor the USSR could be trusted to keep the North under control. Since the fall of the Berlin Wall, however, the equation has changed. South Korea is an economic powerhouse with the financial and scientific potential to become a nuclear power at a short notice. It is perfectly capable of deterring North Korea, a fourth-rate power and an economic basket case. Qatar and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia notwithstanding, the “Democratic People’s Republic of Korea” is the worst country on the planet in terms of what passes for “human rights” and “freedom” among reasonable people. As per the Holy Roman Empire, it is neither democratic, nor people’s, nor a republic. It is “Korean” in the narrow sense of the Kim family’s acceptance of a quasi-nationalist mantle of self-sufficiency (juche); a quick visit to the approved source will give you some idea of the nebulous concept.
North Korea is a bad place ruled by bad people, but the character of its regime is irrelevant to the security of the United. The assertion that the country’s ineptly executed missile and nuclear testing programs can or will be used as a means of disrupting the regional balance of power—let alone deployed as an imminent threat to “our homeland”—is preposterous. Even if it had the wherewithal to threaten the U.S.—which it does not have—North Korea could not do it credibly. A single missile or two would be fairly easy to intercept and destroy; and the ensuing retaliation would turn much of the PDRK into a parking lot. In a few years the North may develop a medium-range device capable of reliably delivering a warhead, but much longer it will have no guidance system necessary for reasonable accuracy. For decades it will lack re-entry technology to develop and deploy an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM).
If North Korea does develop functional nuclear missiles some time in the late 2030’s, South Korea and Japan can and should acquire them too, in order to establish a regional balance of terror. This is the only viable model of regional stability. The U.S. and the Soviet Union (later Russia)—followed by China, Great Britain, France, India, Pakistan, and Israel—have had nuclear bombs for many years, but never used them against each other, or their lesser adversaries, or anyone else. Having the nukes makes no difference to China’s stalled efforts to bring Taiwan under its control. South Africa had developed its own nuclear arsenal in the 1980s—it has been dismantled since—but this did not enhance its government’s ability to resist the winds of change in the early 1990’s. It is like having a check for a million dollars that can never be cashed.
On the plus side, ever since 1945 the political effect of a country’s possession of nuclear weapons has been to force its potential adversaries to exercise caution and to freeze the existing frontiers. There is no reason to think that North Korea would be an exception. A coherent American response needs to address the question why North Korea feels it needs nuclear weapons at all. This is not because its regime intends to reunify the peninsula by force, but because Pyongyang regards the United States as an existential threat. North Korea may be the most unpleasant dictatorship in the world, but ever since it was designated the eastern pivot of the “Axis of Evil” in President George W. Bush’s 2002 State of the Union Address it has had legitimate grounds to feel threatened. The Korean peninsula’s partition is unnatural but as inevitable as the German partition during the Cold War. Adopting the same principle in Korea today that was applied to the reality of two German states in 1974, when the United States established diplomatic relations with East Germany, would be prudent and rational, a technical move that implies no approval of Pyongyang’s policies.
For the North Korean regime the possession of nuclear weapons is the only reliable insurance policy against Washington’s regime-change obsession. Had Serbia had the bomb in 1999 or Iraq in 2003, they would not have been subjected to illegal American attacks on patently spurious grounds (“the Kosovo genocide,” “Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction”).
It is not America’s responsibility to play Globo-Cop; certainly, God didn’t declare such in Scripture, so the decision of the powers that be to pursue such a course is entirely of their own devising.
Frankly, I hope the NORKs get nukes; then the American government will leave them the fuck alone.
Anyway, I’m sorry Trump feels the need to invoke conventional imperialist warmongering rhetoric against the NORKs, instead of charting a new course for America in terms of treatment of the Pyongyang regime; I’m also sorry he’s sucking up to China in the process. Of course, since China owns America, I suppose he felt the need to bow and kow-tow to them…
“Every revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy. The chains of tormented mankind are made out of red tape.” – attributed to Franz Kafka
A few days ago our legislators reached a tentative deal to fund the government through September; though the legislation has not been finalized and signed yet, the current agreement expires at the end of the week. Byron York reports that, like any 1,665-page bill, it’s stuffed with a lot of lawmakers’ pet priorities:
One of those priorities sure to cause controversy, if it becomes widely known, is a provision to greatly increase the number of temporary, low-wage foreign workers allowed into the United States. (In government-speak, “temporary” can mean a worker who spends up to nine months a year in the U.S. for multiple years.) The number of such workers is currently limited to 66,000 per year. Under the new spending bill, that could double.
It’s right there on page 735, in a section dealing with H-2B visas, which allow foreign workers to fill low-wage, seasonal, non-agricultural jobs in the United States. … “Notwithstanding the numerical limitation set forth [in the law],” the bill says, “the Secretary of Homeland Security, after consultation with the Secretary of Labor, and upon the determination that the needs of American businesses cannot be satisfied in fiscal year 2017 with United States workers who are willing, qualified, and able to perform temporary nonagricultural labor, may increase the total number of aliens who may receive a visa [under the H-2B law].”
In addition to increasing the number of H-2Bs, the new provision would remove some key protections for U.S. workers. In an email conversation, Michael Hancock, a former top official in the Labor Department’s Wage and Hour Division, said that at present, there is a requirement that U.S. workers in the same geographical area as H-2B workers “are entitled to at least as generous wages and terms of employment as H-2B workers.” The visa provision in the spending bill, Hancock said, “forbids the Department of Labor from enforcing this protection on behalf of U.S. workers.”
Never mind the wall; how about just NOT increasing the total number of low-skill foreigners present in America, and protecting American workers?
What about ‘America First’, huh?
Hey, unswayable Trump loyalists: Still not tired of being betrayed?