I might as well cling-on to the guys at VS a little bit more.

This is a pattern you see over and over again: conservatives show up to a protest or counter protest, liberals show up, conservatives get their asses kicked, conservatives whine.

We need to try to break the vicious cycle here.

1) The cops do not have time to baby sit you. Self defense is your own duty.

2) Expect violent confrontation. Do not go to these events if you can't deal.

3) Learn how to box. This means taking boxing lessons. Do not go to the ground unless you've got a lot of friends with you. (See the vid to understand why).

4) Get physically in shape. Lift weights. Get bigger. You shouldn't be getting pushed around by fat tools in t-shirts that descend all the way to their ankles.

Any of you guys on Facebook? If so, email me.

I think this word needs resurrection.

Instead of having some inane 'black-is-white' argument with a SWPL about something so obvious that it needs no discussion, why just not attack the source of their dysfunction? Why just not reply with an indignant, "Shut up, fag!" when presented with some bleeding-heart nonsense about why I need to give away more of my money to fixing NAMs or giving them handouts?

The next time I hear some lib whine to me about Prop 8 or Obamacare, I'll try this and let you know how it goes.

We've got a son on the way. Judging by how much kicking he was doing very early in the pregnancy, I'm in for mother's revenge. I was not an easy baby. All the pictures I've seen of my mother holding me show her with a thousand-yard stare looking rather tired and emaciated. Oh well. It's too late now. Let the drama begin.

Anyways, I've got to get the wife a new car. I wanted to get something that was AWD in case we moved to a snowy area and didn't have too much ground clearance so that it has a low CG while having a passenger capacity of 5. A turbo would be nice as well, especially on a 4-banger. I liked the idea of a Subaru Outback because, on paper, it met those requirements. The reviews were less than stellar. I liked the idea of a minivan, but the Honda Odyssey seats 7, which is too much for us given the gas mileage and cost of the vehicle. I won't buy an American car having seen my parents go through too much heart-ache with them.

The Mazda CX-7 looks 1/2-way decent. Any other suggestions?

I have broken both these rules (actually, I'm in the process of breaking the second), but I am extremely blessed with the woman I have. For 80-90% of the rest of men, I think the advice of, "Do not marry, do not have children" is the only sound advice that can be given nowadays until there's a massive move towards fairness in the divorce laws.

With custody, she can then demand “child support” that may amount to half, two-thirds, or more of your income.

This is slavery. I have a friend who works under the table to hide income from the courts.

For Christian men who attend a NAPARC or conservative Missouri Synod church, I counsel them to marry, but only because there is some ecclesiastical authority preventing marriages from going bad. Some. I've still seen nasty divorces even in these churches, so pick your church elders wisely.

Over at Roissy's, a married reader councils against marriage, stating that even though "game" made his marriage palatable, it is still not worth it.

Many Christians and people into "the culture war" are worried about "pick-up artists" and guys like Roissy who take the climate of today's sexual mores to their logical conclusion. "We can't keep Western civilization going that way!" is usually the argument. Still, more evangelicals and culture warriors knock guys like Roissy because it doesn't validate their own lifestyle. They're miserable, so everyone else should be also. Evangelicalism is every bit as feminized and destructive to men as the culture at large, so the marriages in it are no better. Divorce is as common at evangelical churches as the fruity music they play every Sunday morning, and the pews are filled with shrews clucking on about something stupid their husbands did/said earlier that week.

To these latter types I ask, "Why do you care what everyone else does?" Sure Western civilization will collapse if everyone acted this way, but it's headed for collapse already and not really worth preserving at this point. The federal government takes 1/3 of my pay through income taxes alone. Why would I want that preserved? Why would I want to support a federal government that can't keep its hands off my guns and free speech rights? Short of violence, the only thing that can get rid of the monstrosity that the federal government has become is to starve it of fresh new taxpayers.

Sometimes, you've gotta just get out the real big explosives and start over from scratch (the Constitution).

But I'm fairly certain that if these objectors actually read what pick-up artists are saying, their marriages would be much, much happier.

It's good for your marriage when your wife's friends flirt with you and ask her where she found you. It's good to act like you have a back-bone. It's good to treat your wife like a kid-sister. That doesn't mean be an asshole, it doesn't mean be a jerk, but it does mean that you recognize your natural authority as the head of the relationship and act accordingly.

I find it bizarre that men nowadays let their women mock them publicly or let them assume more authority in the relationship than that which men naturally have. Why do men tolerate from their women what they wouldn't tolerate from their own male friends?

In short, marriage in the modern West (and especially the USA) has turned into this big male-bullying exercise. If you tolerate bullying, you get more of it.

I stopped by LGF to see what all of the kooks were up to and had one of my suspicions confirmed.

Chucky Johnson took this picture of the El Segundo jetty while on his bike ride down from Venice Beach. I used to live right over the hill from this spot off Grand Avenue and used to surf it when the tide got low enough and the surf got big enough to take off in front of the jetty going left.

Notice how Chucky Johnson sticks to the almost entirely white portions of Los Angeles, even though they are few and far between and pressed entirely up against the coast except for Long Beach?

Bill Lind , in a highly sensible piece, proposes Constitutional amendments restricting freedom of religion, for obvious reasons:

Be prepared to outlaw violent alternative primary loyalties, including some religions (which in the case of the U. S. would require Constitutional amendments). To those who argue that religious tolerance must be unlimited, I ask, would we tolerate the re-establishment of the Aztec religion, with its demand for ceaseless human sacrifices, on American soil? Of course not.

So, the "But freedom of religion!" people have some experimenting to do in their heads with Islam also. Should we allow a religion that calls for the subjugation of nonbelievers to propagate in this country? Of course not.

The cultural Marxists, leaping to the defense of “diversity,” their favorite poison for Western societies, claim Major Hasan’s massacre of his fellow soldiers does not represent Islam. Sorry, but it represents Islam all too well. Islam does not recognize any separation between church and state. States have no legitimacy in Islam; legitimacy adheres only to the Ummah, the community of all believers. The only legitimate law is Sharia. All Muslims are commanded to wage jihad against all non-Islamics. Loyalty to Islam must be the believer’s primary loyalty. ...
The U.S. military has already seen soldiers kill other soldiers as part of gang-related activities. Gangs may be as important an alternate primary loyalty as religion. As the state loses its legitimacy, the variety of new primary loyalties that arise to replace it will be limitless. As this column has often warned, Fourth Generation war is not just something fought “over there.” It comes to a theater near you. That includes places like Ft. Hood. Many 4GW entities know that the best way to deal with hostile state security forces, police as well as military, is to take them from within. Last week also saw the killing of five British soldiers in Afghanistan by an Afghan policeman working with their unit. Many police departments along the southern U.S. border are owned by the drug traffickers.

Both of these things (gangs/Muslims) are immigration problems. Both are racial problems as well. How will this end?

The Establishment, which continues to pretend the state (or Globalist super-state) has a monopoly on primary loyalty, predictably proclaimed the shootings the actions of “a madman.” That is what old and passing orders always say about the first avatars of the coming order (or disorder). It’s how the old order whistles past the graveyard – its own graveyard.

Here, here and here.

I got unnecessarily hissy with John and Morgen, but I think subscribing to Islam clearly fits the definition of treason under the Constitution, for the reasons I outlined in the comments. Giving the enemy aid, comfort, and adherence is treason. Islam is at war with us. We can simply follow SNK's flow-chart

Read all the comments and as usual you acquit yourself quit well. The US must ask and answer a few questions. This could be a flowchart.
1) Is this a war? Yes? No?
2) If "Yes", do we want to win? Yes? No?
3) If "Yes", who is the enemy?
4) Name the enemy
5) Kill every last one of the enemy you can until someone says 'uncle' and surrenders unconditionally.
I think the US (leaders at least & 'leaders' is a euphemism) has not answered question #1. Until we answer, this low-intensity war will continue and ratchet upward as the muslim population grows.

On your "Operation CamelBack", what would we have done with Nazi indoctrination centers in the US in WWII that were doing the same thing as the muslims are now? Since nazi-ism would not have been tolerated in the US in WWII, and action would have been taken (death, deportation) I would think there is a case to do the same with muslims.

Of course, no one would want such deaths on their hands when they've cooled off and thought about it, so Operation Camelback is the way to go.

So the peaceful Muslim turned jihadist who left no sign at all that he was jihad-prone (*sarc*) apparently had connections to the 9/11 hijackers. He attended Dar Al-Hijrah mosque in northern Virginiastan under the tutelage of Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki

The preacher at the time was Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born Yemeni scholar who was banned from addressing a meeting in London by video link in August because he is accused of supporting attacks on British troops and backing terrorist organisations.

Under our current rubric of Invade the World/Invite the World, we can expect more of these mosques as Muslims become more numerous in the US. What's that you say? You don't want more mosques? What about freedom of religion you bigot? After all, if we don't let whoever wants to come to America to come to America and do whatever they want, we wouldn't be America, would we? We'd be just like Adolph Hitler.

After being back-handedly accused of antisemitism over on Verum Serum, I decided to question whether or not my views would be good or bad for the Jews if everyone held them.

Considering I think the expulsion of all Muslims from the United States to be warranted based on shari'ah being a treasonous political doctrine that calls for the deprivation of Constitutional rights of infidels, I have to answer in the affirmative.

If everyone held to my view, the Jews would be decidedly better off.

SoCal is a hotbed of shari'ah promoting activity for anyone with eyes to see. Jews are harassed by Muslims at Berkeley, UCI, UCLA, and there is pro-"Palestinian" activity at every UC school and USC.

But consider, for a moment, what the source texts of Islam have to say about Jews:

“The hour of judgment will only come when Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, when the Jews hide behind the rocks and the trees, and the rocks and the trees cry out, ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’”

So Muslims wait in anticipation for the apocalyptic day in which they will rise up and kill Jews. It's right there in the Hadith compiled by Muslim, which is regarded as sahih, hence, Sahih Muslim.

Might such a hadith have influenced guys like, say, Ahmedinejad? Sure sounds a lot like the stuff he says. How about Sheikh Tantawi - the Grand Sheikh of Al-Azhar (the nearest thing Islam has to a Pope)? His entire dissertation was antisemitic and based on ahadith like these and Surah 2.

I dunno. What do you think? Antisemitic or not, are my views good for the Jews?

Is here, folks. Read through my exchange with the authors.

The main problem conservatism has right now is that it follows the Democrats' dictum of "No enemies to the Left, only enemies to the Right." It is so worried about the intellectual terrorism of the Left that it must describe all of its positions in unintelligible PeeCee platitudes for fear of giving the Left any ammunition. Of course, this means that it drifts ever to port.

I'd like a tally of what modern conservatism has accomplished for us. Has it ended abortion? Stopped the march of the homosexual agenda? Closed the borders? Made us more free economically? Ended "hate crimes" legislation? Strengthened the 2nd amendment? Strengthened the first? Ended entitlements? Gotten people off of welfare?

As far as I can tell, it's done the exact opposite of nearly all of those things. We're in the middle of Great Depression II due to the "conservative" Bush admin. We've got 30 million illegals living here off the government teet. We've got increasing incidence of Islamic jihad in the US and the unchecked march of shari'ah. More gun grabs are in currently in the House, and taxes are on their way up.

Heckuva job! Why, if this trend continues, we'll be the USSR (but worse) in no time!

Everyone is shocked, SHOCKED to learn Nidal Hasan could do something like this. After all, his Islamic jihad affinities were only hidden in plain sight.

Conservatism in the United States is a failed and idiotic enterprise. Under its current self-censoring regulation of "nondiscrimination," it has no basis upon which to call for an end to the importation of future Nidal Hasans into the United States.

Apparently, none of Hasan's family had any idea that Hasan could engage in the behavior he did. I mean, how could anyone read the Qur'an and come to the conclusion that it advocates violence against non-believers? Hasan's family is apparently cooperating with the FBI and is saddened by our kuffar deaths. These are the right things to say and do to avoid deportation from a country that is 98% kuffar.

I could only find passing mention of the incident at vaunted "conservative" publications like the National Review, a magazine in perpetual decline since the neoconservative takeover and firing of guys like Steve Sailer. No calls for deporting the Muslims or even ending Islamic immigration.

Pajamas Media was little better, with Victor Davis Hanson repeating the same tired bromides about CAIR and "extremism." Bruce Bawer didn't do much better, despite living in a country being ruined by Islamic immigration.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is that "Operation Camelback" is the only feasible solution I see to Islamic jihad in this country. Of course, I'm just a wild-eyed bigot, so who will listen to me. Those guys at Pajamas Media, NRO, and HotAir have much better ideas, which were....what, exactly? Oh, right, fighting them over in our Asian empire.

Tom Barnett has a link up on mobile phones revolutionizing third-world backwaters

Once the toys of rich yuppies, mobile phones have evolved in a few short years to become tools of economic empowerment for the world's poorest people. These phones compensate for inadequate infrastructure, such as bad roads and slow postal services, allowing information to move more freely, making markets more efficient and unleashing entrepreneurship. All this has a direct impact on economic growth: an extra ten phones per 100 people in a typical developing country boosts GDP growth by 0.8 percentage points . . ..

That's all great news. But how many cell phones are designed in Africa by Africans? How many African electrical engineers are there? How many people know what a fast fourier transform is? What an A/D is? How to design a patch antenna at microwave frequencies?

See, the thing is that all of these "revolutions" in the third world are completely dependent on the white people who've developed these technologies for the past 500 years. Fourier, Moore, Maxwell, Shannon, Nyquist, Cooley, and Tukey were all white electrical engineers and scientists who developed the fundamental technology that is now used in cell phones. How much, if any, have Africans contributed to these sciences since they've gotten more "connectivity?"

Nothing, of course. As long as whites and Asians are around to develop new technologies, an idiot can use them, and yes, they will increase productivity. But what happens when such people aren't around anymore?

Now that the white man has been run out of Africa, China is colonizing it. They don't see much potential in the African worker, apparently, as they have brought in a million Chinese laborers.

One item that makes the Chinese substantively different than the West is that they typically build infrastructure; various sources (I can’t seem to find a solid one) say that over 1 million Chinese are working today in Africa, mostly on these types of projects. It is simply amazing that the Chinese are importing labor into Africa; surplus labor is about all that Africa has in abundance.

Yes, amazing. Or not so amazing. How long will that infrastructure last once the Chinese are gone?

What all this "connectivity" and technology is bringing, if anything, is unchecked population growth in Africa, which will only amount to a Malthusian trap once white busybodies lose interest in going there to give money and hand out vaccines. I see some of these shows on National Geographic where a parent-like aging white person is standing amidst a village of sub-saharan Africans and offering them instructions on how to use a mosquito net over their beds like they're little children. Cognitively, they may be. Nevertheless, I find the behavior of whites treating sub-saharan Africans like children to be incredibly patronizing.

Actually, it's been around for awhile. His take on geeks is entirely appropriate.

Being an electrical engineer by training, I feel qualified to remark on some of Udolpho's comments. Basically, most geeks are loathesome people. They possess little (if any) awareness of the feelings of others and are mostly trapped in their little autistic world of online pwning, gadgetry, and movie line mimicry, just as Udolpho says. The only thing that protects them from others is the fact that society says they should be protected. Were we a society that saw little value in protecting the weak (well, we don't - just look at the millions of babies aborted), geeks would quickly be weeded out of the gene pool or forced into some sort of subservience of the local warlord who needs his weapons fixed.

Geeks were probably not always thus. In the past, you probably had to be more well-rounded. Weaklings were tolerated less. More of an emphasis was placed upon physical courage in our society. Now, however, geeks can go entire days basically without interacting with anyone. In line at Best Buy, they can sit on their stupid little iPhones browsing pages and commenting on some idiotic link they found. At work, getting them to go out to lunch for a beer is considered some major evolution, so it's fraught with high expectations and poor conversation.

Unsurprisingly, none of my close friends work in the tech industry. Most work blue collar jobs. Perhaps the blue collar workers, if there are any left after the Mexicans take all their jobs, will carry on middle class civilization. If you look at the voting patterns of the Republican party, it's mostly comprised of blue collar white males now. Democratic voters, of course, are nothing but a deadweight loss on society, and most geeks voted Obama.

If ethnicity doesn't exist or is irrelevant, ask yourself whether or not you'd be comfortable applying for a job as a "hispanic" or an "African American" if you're white. After all, if ethnicity "does not exist," saying you're one ethnicity or another isn't really lying, is it? It's no more an expression of reality than saying you're "non-Hispanic white," correct?

But if you're not comfortable with that lie, as I'm not, then you really DO belong to a legitimate ethnicity, and in this country belonging to the ethnicity "non-Hispanic white" can only hurt you when it comes to things like hiring, promotions, and admissions. If you really DO belong to that ethnicity, it's time to admit that, as a member of that ethnicity, you are subject to discrimination.

Excellent documentary on the Islamic slave trade in northern European peoples.

Against hysterical screams of "Racism1!!!1" by the media. In reality, racism is only a thing stupid whites worry about. Mexicans, blacks, and Asians will think something is wrong with you if you're not "racist."

By smearing as racist everyone concerned with illegal immigration and the overboard tolerance for radical Islam, the British left is desensitizing everyone to the legitimate charge when it is directed at the BNP. People think, “Well, I’m concerned about illegal immigration, Islamists, the white poor, etc., and I’m not a racist so maybe the BNP isn’t either.” The overuse of the left’s catch-all denunciation deprives it of meaning and force. People may simply stop listening to the left’s warnings because they’ve so many times labeled people with legitimate concerns as racist. By their own narcissism, self-righteousness and contempt, the left is actively driving people to fascist solutions just as their more radical ideological ancestors did back in the 1920s.

Well, the thing about fascism is that it was distinctly nationalist. It put country first. Communism, its opposition, is internationalist. At the end of the day, everything is local/national, not international.

The thing is, who cares if the BNP is genuinely racist? Do all the recent immigrants not have a place of ethnic origin? Of course they do. Do the ethnic British deserve an ethnic homeland just like the Jews have Israel? Of course they do.

A lot of people panic over budget deficits, but they're only bad under certain conditions, which we are sadly beginning to meet it spades. The budget deficit is "bad" if we can't find any overseas takers of our dollars, if the Fed can't counteract it with its monetary policy, and if it's outpacing the growth of productivity in a particular country.

The money supply is the driver of inflation. Under ideal circumstances, we'd like to keep the money supply growing at the same rate as productivity in this country so that we have neither inflation nor deflation, but still have the availability of capital. The Fed has various ways of controlling the money supply, including the reserve ratio, the sale or purchase of treasury bonds, and the discount rate. Contra Ron Paul, however, it doesn't have a monopoly on the printing of money. Government fiscal policy, ie. the running of a deficit or surplus, also affects the quantity of money in that it affects what the Fed does regarding it's monetary policy. Get it? Fed monetary policy and government fiscal policy are coupled. So all of these calls for "abolishing the Fed" may be disastrous for us because the Fed can actually help counteract the deficit our government runs. I'm also not sure going back to a gold standard would land us anywhere but in another deflationary depression akin to the one in the late 1800s as the money supply increased much more slowly than productivity, as the money supply was pegged to gold.

What's happening now is that the government is running huge deficits and the Fed has the discount rate pegged to 0. The only thing keeping the money supply from getting out of hand is that the banks aren't lending out that money. Effectively, this is the equivalent of the Fed increasing the reserve ratio, which has almost never happened.

Will that money hit the economy eventually? I have my doubts. People are chronically underemployed in the private sector, banks keep jacking up credit card rates, and we seem to have reached peak consumer debt. As Mish observes

In the US and globally we are in uncharted territory. Odds are we will see many things we have never seen before as stimulus after stimulus fails to produce desired results. Actual results, as in the examples above may very well be unbelievable to all the Keynesian and Monetarist clowns.

The stimulus, once it's been spent, will require another stimulus, which will require another and another ad infinitum

In reality, the entire inflationary mini-boomlet-within-the-depression was simply an illusion. 'GDP growth' that is bought with monetary pumping and feckless fiscal spending only misdirects and ultimately consumes even more scarce capital.

This is an Austrian argument: booms and busts are caused by the mis-allocation of capital. I don't think anyone could disagree with that, except maybe idiots like Krugman. As we cause ourselves more boom/busts with government fiscal policy, we'll keep seeing more of the same.

As good capital dries up, so does innovation. As innovation dries up, so does job creation and productivity. The fewer jobs created, the less need for capital and the less spending and more deflation. The biggest problem, though, will be the lack of productivity growth we would have had with more technological innovation and entrepeneurship. Productivity growth is really what keeps us out of the Malthusian trap. Without it, more wealth is not being created. In addition, the government actively campaigns against keeping business in this country with endless union laws, labor laws, environmental laws, and now tariffs on goods from countries who don't have such things.

If you really want to worry about where the country is headed economically, worry about the effects of government fiscal policy and legislation on businesses in this country.

I know of no businessman that enjoys conference calls to India or 9 hour plane rides to China. They would rather keep everything here. But businessmen have to eat as well.

Evangelicals who are somewhat interested in theology but don't want to engage in all of the unpleasantness of joining an actual Reformed congregation are avid readers of John Piper.

The problem with Piper is that he's not anchored to any specific Reformed tradition, confession, or denomination, so he's free to make things up as he goes along, even if that means embracing serious errors.

Piper is essentially a non-confessional Baptist, as is the rest of evangelicalism. What does that mean? Well, the Reformed would not say that Baptist congregations are true churches:

“An overwhelming majority of modern evangelicals hold Baptist convictions of one sort or another. If it is the case that rejecting infant baptism is sufficient to unchurch a congregation, i.e. to deprive them of the status of being a “church” then there are very few actual churches in North America, to pick but one global region. To many such a thought is impossible. It was quite difficult for me to reach this conclusion but I didn’t reach it carelessly or quickly. For most of my life in the Reformed world since 1980 I shared the assumption that, though I disagreed with my evangelical brothers and sisters over the question of baptism, their congregations were still churches. It’s only been in the last few years that the other shoe has dropped . . . This principle of radical discontinuity, this denial of the fundamental unity of the covenant of grace as symbolized in the administration of the sign and seal of the covenant of grace to covenant children, is serious enough to warrant saying that any congregation that will not practice infant initiation (baptism) into the administration of the covenant of grace is not a church.”

This becomes more and more obvious as time goes on and you hear what comes out of these sorts of places.