« "A Scytheclaw and her Boy" by Tyler | Main | I'm back. »

26 August 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



It took you three paragraphs to answer a yes or no question.

If you have no idea who La Raza is you have no business commenting here.


1) AA males were overwhelmingly commiting crimes that resulted in lynching. Unlike you I have no tears for rapists. The "agitprop" comes from you guys making a mountain out of a molehill while burying your heads in the sand regarding interracial violence (black on white) that occurs today. It's always 1866 with you idiots.

2) You declaring something "not statistically true" does not make it true. A cursory glance at statistics shows that Chicago is a violent hell hole while W Va might have unpleasant places, but they're not war zones. The fact you have to reach back to the EIGHTIES is hilarious (it's always the past, the present never matters) is hilarious, and I notice you didn't mention the race of the culprits except to blithely assume they were all "pink", as if Kentucky has no blacks. What was the race of the perps? I'll wait.

Weak argument by assumption fallacy. Poor troll. No facts. 1/10 would mock again.



PA is a true believer, and facts don't count to a true believer, only his fiction of Holy Negroes Born Without Sin.



Before the Civil War a majority of those lynched were white (80% if i remember correctly); after the CW the percentages reversed with more black lynchings. When was the last lynching? I don't know but the only reason blacks and white liberals bring it up is for political leverage and not presently justified fear.



Pacifica Radio is in the forefront of Cultural Marxist propaganda. To them western civilization is the cause of all the world's problems that keeps us from living in an Eden-like utopia. Their call-in program is as entertaining as Cheech and Chong. They're still asking "Why can't we all get along?"



My opinion is the framers also recognized that the original constitutional framework wasn't perfect, evidenced by the provision and process for amendments. Not very easily though, which is what gives the Supreme Court such great power, even when the vast majority disagrees with its decisions, a constitutional amendment to overrule isn't very likely. Flag-burning is a case in point. So, yeah, unlimited democracy is not what we have. I called it "unreformed", but "unrevised" might have been a better choice of word. I would say I vastly prefer the current constitution over the original without the bill of rights, etc..

I would like it revised further so we aren't ruled by oligarchs or corporations, actually. Corporations aren't people. That is the most absurd concept imaginable. But it is very handy for the oligarchs.


You mean this Kevin MacDonald?




The framers were careful to make re-casting the constitution very difficult and the power of judicial review was not given to SCOTUS. John Marshall seized it in Marbury vs Madison while Jefferson who had insisted on the Bill of Rights stood by and let him believing case was trivial as it was a minor appointment made in the dead of night by Adams for political reasons concerning the appointment of a deputy sheriff for DC. IMO Jefferson should have defied Marshall. pl

Keith Harbaugh

"what the Boomers have made"
Trying to blame "the Boomers" for the mess we're in?
Sounds like a cover story that's being circulated by those who are truly responsible for that mess,
a group that the Colonel seems to be interested in protecting,
a group I (of the Baby Boom generation) spent years being educated by.

As to who makes up "the AR",
there are some Boomers in the heart of it.
For one,
Kevin MacDonald.
See his posts at theoccidentalobserver.net or vdare.com.
(Or is his name being suppressed by the Colonel?
Yesterday I tried to post a recommendation amongst these comments
for his outstanding book, The Culture of Critique,
but that post apparently did not appear.)



I was waiting for you to invoke the guilt by association disqualify argument. No one cares.

Tell me how he's wrong.



"a group that the Colonel seems to be interested in protecting, a group I (of the Baby Boom generation) spent years being educated by." You poor thing. Who is Kevin Macdonald and what is "AR?" What group am I supposed to be protecting? I don't remember your comment. If you don't like my editing go somewhere else. pl

Mark Logan


The jobs won't come back because we won't stand together. "Why? Why is that impossible? You're so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank's table that you've missed your God given right to something better."



Mark Logan

"Longshanks?" Edward I? pl

Keith Harbaugh

My apologies to the Colonel for my remarks concerning him in the above comment.
At the time I made them, somehow my earlier comment had not appeared on the copy of the web page in my browser.
I considered that comment (a reference to MacDonald's book) fairly innocuous, and wanted to protest it not appearing.
Since then, it has appeared (a technical glitch somewhere?),
and I withdraw and, again, apologize for, the unjustified criticism of the Colonel.


Respectfully, the Clinton campaign has no need to seek to “destroy” Trump when he’s doing such a fine job of it by himself.

Utah’s AG Sean Reyes is a Mormon and a Filipino (also Hispanic and Japanese). He had previously come out in support of Trump. You can imagine his surprise when Trump took after Filipinos as a terrorist threat. He complained to the Trump campaign, who agreed that their candidate should not be doing that. This is what happens when you go out on a limb for the Donald.

I also understand that Trump has jacked up the rents for his own campaign and is spending money disproportionately on items like campaign swag. However the money those small donors are sending him is being distributed, very little of it seems to be going into campaign infrastructure. Perhaps he realizes that barring some unanticipated event his campaign is toast, and he wants to scrounge as much dough out of it as possible while the going is good. Still wondering where those tax returns are.



Corporations were people long before the peasants were--it was the basis of many societies in the Middle Ages, Europe and elsewhere. That's where the idea behind municipalities (in the Middle Ages sense), Guilds, and many other legal entities. In this sense, "citizens" were a select few who partook in the rights of the corporate bodies which they belonged to, not "everyone."

In a sense, the same is true with "oligarchs." However much we might want, the actual process of governing will be limited to a relatively small number of people, who, through their roles, will be enjoying privileges and influences, formal or informal, that are not available to the masses. The real question is whether these oligarchs use their privileges and influences virtuously or not, and whether the masses possess sufficient wisdom to permit those who are sufficiently virtuous into the ranks of these oligarchs. Madison, at the Virginia ratifying convention, said "Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks--no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea." Madison, was not, of course, someone who believed in virtue as answers to all questions of politics: he did write Fed. #10 after all, too. But he was wise enough to know that the final bulwark that preserves a free society is virtue, among the leaders and citizens alike.

I don't like the Clintons: besides being corrupt and supercillious, I suspect that HRC, especially, is intent on destroying the world just to show that a woman can. (She reminds me of the crazy woman running the sanitorium in the play "The Physicists"). But, the only alternative to the Clintons are the sad lot that makes up the Republican Party? Is Trump any better than the rest of the crazy gang in the GOP leadership? So, to repeat Madison's question, is there no virtue among us now?


It's absurd to think all minorities can form tribes to live in comfort with their own group but whites can't. Tribalists resist interacting with other groups and want to maintain the integrity of their own culture, or so they think, not understanding the back-and-forth sharing of cultures that is imbedded in American history, indeed, world history. America is grounded in western culture but even parts of that have come from distant civilizations. Europeans have always been interested in other cultures to the point of accumulating and saving ancient artifacts, texts and knowledge neglected by the original culture. But only the Japanese and Chinese seem to embrace western culture with enthusiasm.

Two different cultures cannot exist in the same space. So let the different tribes create their own communities, so long as they don't war with each other. In a way, that was the structure of urban areas and small towns in America which began to break down mid-twentieth century. There is still some separation but not as much as there was.

For those of us that don't feel like joining and limiting ourselves to a tribe but accept American culture, let us live together without allowing another tribe to dominate us. I guess it would be a sort of non-ethnic, tolerant tribe.

Breitbart has what I think is an interesting description of the alt-right and its subgroups.




Yes yes, unite with the people who will work for a bowl of rice. I'm sure a Bangladeshi illiterate with an iq of 80 understands Federalist #2. Get out of here with your defeatism and nonsense fantasy.



This is nonsense post modern revisionism BS. Those cultures have a shallow and narrow influence on the US, if at all.

Do you believe Muslims have some sort of founding role in America outside of a verse in the Marine Corps Hymn as well?


It should also be noted that the Moscow Times is a hotbed of "Fifth Column" sentiment against Russia and its culture, and politics. A bit of a giveaway is the fact that it is largely aimed at a foreign audience, being published in English, and thus arguably not at Russians who associate themselves with, you know, Russia.

As to the stats, it should be recalled that Russia is still recovering from the depredations of the neoliberal assault on the nation that Tyler indicates. (The neoliberals still infest the place, especially the central bank.) Life was pretty non-awesome for the citizens for quite some time, and in this area, as in so many others, they have struggled to overcome that economic/social/political collapse. There are many national goals all advocating for access to limited resources against a background of internal "fifth column" attack as well as western "sanctions", a/k/a war against the nation by other means.

The American South went through a somewhat similar crisis period for many years following the Civil War/War Between the States wherein all manner of infrastructure and general economic underpinnings had been wiped out in the course of the conflict and during the Reconstruction. It took the New Deal (TVA/rural electrification and ilk) for many of these structural deficits to be systematically and nationally prioritized and addressed.

Considering the hammer blows that Russia and Russians have endured over merely the last century - 1st World War, Marxist Revolution and Civil War, the nightmarish Stalinist period, the Second World War, etc. - I would say that their very survival as a nation and a culture serves to amply demonstrate their resilience and inner fortitude. Ask yourself, would the US have demonstrated similar strength confronted with analogous challenges?

If you choose to characterize this post as "making excuses", well, there's no reasoning with you.


DC, as I recall, I took considerable derision for authoring that piece. I take no particular pleasure in the current state of Venezuela as a country. It looks to be a complete disaster. And I am not particularly knowledgable of just how Bolivia is faring. Evo appears to have managed the situation better than Hugo but I lack current knowledge.

I like your definition of 'Nism'. I have oft repeated Robert Heinlein's dictum that the only reason for doing something is because it works. When it is, instead, being done because the ideology being followed says to do it, why then it is truly a 'Nism'.

And I think I titled that polemic The Sucking Sound Of Bolivarnism.



More progressive mountains out of molehills. UTAH AG oh my sides are dying here. If you grasp for straws any harder you're gonna make a hay bale. Which Mother Jones article did you get this revelation from?

Trump's tax returns? Actually out there, unlike the gorillion emails Hillary deleted about "yoga classes". Your candidate is so weak, so pathetic, can't even get into a car by herself, and has a supine media to try and drag her drugged carcass across the finish line, and she is drowning.

Good times in AR land. 8)



I thought you were going to stop posting for a while?



I find it hard to take your stance as anything other than virtue signalling when the options are a hot war with Europe or someone who says mean things on Twitter.



You can blame the Boomers for their nonsense as well as members of (((academia))) and the (((courts))) for our present predicament, as well as ((Hollywood)). There's plenty of blame to go around.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad