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.

...Is my proposed name for the operation to round up and deport Muslims in the United States. They're citizens, you say? Well, citizenship is conditional. You can't subscribe to shari'ah and the Constitution, and last I checked, the oath of office every military member and government critter subscribes to says that we'll defend the Constitution "against all enemies, foreign AND domestic."

Seriously, the Muslims here have not been working out for us.

The liberal chatter nowadays is that "we" (meaning, "not liberals, but those weird military people") need a war with Iran and we need to keep fighting in Afghanistan to liberate wymyn.

What happened to "Bush lied, people died?" It seems to me that liberals are fine with wars as long as they're their wars. When I was down in Mexico, this Asian liberal kid I was there with was asking about Obama getting us out of wars. I made remarks along the lines of those contained in the Buchanan article I just linked, and he kind of looked dour. The Democrats are traditionally the party of war. Bush was pretty much a Democrat, and what did he give us but wars with no goals or purposes in mind? Now that Obama has the reigns, I anticipate a third war so that we can just merge all three into "one big one," as some lib Facebook commenter quipped.

At least, that probably should have been the title of it, instead of "Machida vs. Rua."

Contra the guys at Bloody Elbow, I think the Rua/Machida decision was a robbery.

The UFC is in serious trouble, if you ask me, for the following reason. The weight classes are dominated by super-athletic guys and are populated below by guys who are much, much less skilled and athletic.

No one can hold a candle to BJ Penn at lightweight if he decides to train before the fight. No one can hold a candle to GSP at welterweight. No one can hold a candle to Anderson Silva at middleweight, LHW, or probably HW either.

The level of athleticism and talent in the UFC simply hasn't caught up to that of the NBA or NFL and it's getting pretty sad to watch guys who can't seem to improve their skills year-after-year fight for the scraps after losing their title shots.

The last title defense I watched before Machida/Rua was BJ Penn vs. Kenny Florian. We heard all this talk about how great Florian's muay thai was. Well, I saw no combinations from him longer than about a "jab/cross." He showed up much smaller than BJ Penn despite several months to put on weight. He clearly feared BJ's stand-up power and the fight was over when Penn finally decided to get him on the ground. I guess UFC's announcers don't know what good muay thai actually is.

Before that, I saw Georges St. Pierre run a clinic on Thiago Alves, despite being much smaller than Alves. St. Pierre is now talking about putting on weight and going up a class.

Great video of a white skater being assaulted by a gun-wielding Mexican and defending himself.

The Front Sight instructor made a bunch of observations below, some of which are idiotic:

Skater Boy’s technique is not pretty, or sophisticated, but what he lacked in professional training he made up for in his willingness to act with speed, determination, and aggression. The kid has the Combat Mindset!

Translation: You need to pay for my training! All of these armchair critiques are easy when you're not the guy being assaulted with a gun.

Punching repeatedly to the head is not the best choice because the skull is hard and it is difficult to incapacitate a man by striking him in the skull with your bare hands. Look to land strong blows to the throat, jaw and neck or grab the head and gouge your thumbs into the eye sockets.

Which fight was he watching? The initial right hook was good. The take-down worked, and he pulled mount and then started tee-ing off on the guy's chin and face, not the top of his head. I've seen trained UFC fighters do way worse. The reason he didn't knock the guy out is because he weighs nothing. You also can't exactly put a lot of "technique" into punching from the mount while you're trying to stay mounted.

He could have gone for the arm-bar, but that's about it. The Mexican actually did a credible job of defending his head, which is why some of the punches didn't land.

If you look in the background around 1:24, you can see the kid's friend beating up the other Mexican. The knee at the end was siiiick! If he'd put his hips into it a bit more, it could've been a solid KO.

What's not seen, (and I know having been in similar situations), is that these kids were being picked on for being "white boys." Those kids can now never skate there again because the Mexicans will come back with enough friends to actually win next time.

All-in-all, solid performance by this kid. He's got a lot more balls than 99.99% of the rest of us.

We're not allowed to discuss the financial crime of the century (the minority mortgage meltdown) because to do so would be racist. We would have to say, "Yes, blacks and especially illegal immigrants disproportionately took out liar loans that were packaged into mortgage-backed securities and sold overseas on the margin by effete, lily white banksters who's data told them that housing prices never go down (except in the Great Depression). This was done out of greed and to boost minority home ownership.

When I say "financial crime," I'm implying someone is the victim, aren't I? Yes. Ultimately you, Dear Taxpayer, are the victim. You're footing the bill for the bailouts to the banks and subsequent fallout, deflation, and credit contraction as well as dollar devaluing. As it stands right now, most of the taxpaying class is white, with a spattering of Asians.

Also, as these Mexicans have moved in, they've moved whites out with their crime and low-intensity warfare against Americans in the form of gangs, La Raza agitation, and general racism.

I've recently thought, "How could Armenians discuss the Armenian genocide under such rules?"

I'm not trying to compare this to the Armenian genocide, as it was a Islamic government-sponsored murder of over a million Armenians at the hands of the Turks and Kurds, I'm just merely posing the question.

What I mean is that the Armenian genocide involved one race killing or dispossessing another race off of what had been their land for thousands of years. Under the same rules whites are expected to live under when discussing what Mexicans have done to them, the Armenians wouldn't be allowed to tell the tale for fear of being called "racist" and marginalized as some sort of Hitler.

I suppose those are sort of the rules, nowadays, though. The Serbs were being driven out of Kosovo or killed by Albanian Muslims and we blamed the Serbs for a "genocide" (when the opposite was true) and then we bombed them.

I wonder how soon it will be before the government organizes a similar pogrom against us to what it did to the Serbs? Crazy thought, huh? They could never organize us into camps here, could they? Of course not.

"Peace and safety."

Iran has a Sunni insurgency problem. Barnett thinks this is an opportunity for us to "collaborate" with them. Huh. Sort of like collaborating with Stalin, right?

I've got a better idea. The best thing for infidels is when the Sunnis and Shi'a fight. Why not start funding the Sunni insurgency in Iran? We could also pull out of Iraq at the same time and allow the Sunnis and Shi'a to start fighting there, too. Then, Iran would have a 2-front war. Sunnis would start piling in from all over to join the jihad. Meanwhile, we could pay the Taliban to kill Al Qaeda and then start funding the Northern Alliance again in Pakistan to kill the Taliban. Pakistan will have to help as it wants the Taliban to run Afghanistan. Let India invade Pakistan. Pakistan now has a 3-front war b/w the Northern Alliance, India, and Iran.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

Apparently, virulently anti-semitic screeds have been appearing on the president's moderated website. I am inclined to think some kind of scam or false-flag operation is going on here yet, again, it's a moderated website.

In April 2008 a typical post appeared, claiming that “Jews owe Africa and Africans everything they have today because if Africa did not shelter them when they were homeless and starving, they would not be here today.” And in July 2008, a piece called “They fear peace” by Kate Smythe-Blake went up on Obama’s site. “The kike filth,” Smythe-Blake ranted, “are trying to steal this election from us. But this is our time. The kike live in fear of peace. They fear happiness. The thought of people living happily in peace without killing each other frightens the horde of kike that runs our government. But when pieces of kike use their kike manipulation tactics to stop Barack, it is time to strike back. There is nothing a kike army can do when faced with progressive people who are determined to achieve peace. We will achieve lasting peace.”

Detroit: Too broke to bury their dead
Money to bury Detroit's poor has dried up, forcing struggling families to abandon their loved ones in the morgue freezer.

"Struggling families?" Newspeak euphamism alert here. Only the most immoral and apathetic leave their dead family members unburied and in the care of some disinterested government bureaucracy. Your dead family members are not "loved ones" if you're leaving them in someone else's meat locker. I'm sure these "struggling families" all have the Dish network, blackberries, and thousands monthly in government aid and time for their crack habits.

For the $1.98 solution, borrow a truck, borrow a zodiac and drive over to Lake Michigan. Go out about a mile and dump. Make sure enough holes are drilled in the body and the bag to let gasses escape. Read from the Book of Common Prayer where it talks about burial at sea. The end.

More like money, but whatever. They've concluded they're "too white" and need to brown out their roster. Well, good luck getting money out of your new members.

mmigrants typically come to the US with 3rd world birthrates and 1st world appetites -- the WORST POSSIBLE COMBINATION from an ecological standpoint.

I'm white and I got a vasectomy and had no kids, because long ago I realized the Earth didn't need more humans. This was a good-faith decision on my part.

How do open borders advocates respond when I tell them that? Almost inevitably I am mocked, often times with semi-literate obscenities and mindless machismo bluster. It doesn't make me feel like grovelling for their approval, I'll tell you that.

Actually, the best thing for depopulating a country is bad government, not a vasectomy. Look at Russia. The gulag killed off millions during the lifetime of the USSR and the Russian population is now in a death spiral with only Mohammedans having kids. Good luck squeezing environmental preservation out of them. China has pursued a 1-child policy which will now doubt come back to bite them. Hitler sure helped de-populate Germany by about 10 million during his lifetime.

Giving yourself a vasectomy is not a proven way of helping keep the population down.

(h/t John Robb)

A lot of "survival" sites are really unhelpful and tend towards apocalypse porn. Many of them suggest owning hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of gear and property with little thought on how to defend that property from a determined band of armed thugs. Others suggest simply "bugging out" to a remote cabin somewhere in the weeelderness. From what I've seen of actual military survival handbooks, being in the wilderness usually involves starving and thus trying to get to civilization ASAP. Anyone who's ever hunted or fished knows that just because you have the gear and the knowledge does not mean you'll wind up killing anything. Man invented agriculture and animal husbandry and started living in cities because we got tired of starving and freezing in the weeeelderness.

Anyways, this Argentinan has a blog where he documents his trials in post collapse corporatist thief state Argentina. Since the USA is also a corporatist kleptocracy and since we may be more Latin American than Argentina, it might be smart to listen to the guy.

If he is good on the Sixties in general, he is especially good on the civil rights movement—which will surprise those who think that only a black can do justice to that great effort of the black people. There are special problems for insiders in this story. There have not been many accounts by those in Dr. King's circle, because it is hard for them to be candid. Jesse Jackson had a book contract for years and has searched for ways to work with a ghostwriter. But he and others have been tongue-tied by what happened to Ralph Abernathy when he wrote in his book that Dr. King had extramarital affairs. This was an open secret by that time, but Abernathy was severely punished by the movement, and especially by Coretta King, as a "Judas."

On sexual matters, Branch understands what many whites do not, that the sexual prowess of black preachers has been, for many of their flocks, a proof of their charisma. King himself said that he did not even know a black Baptist preacher who was chaste. Branch follows Othello's advice, "nothing extenuate," but he keeps matters in perspective. That is how he earned the confidence of others to get information his sources would be reluctant to use themselves—for instance, how members of King's entourage on his trip to accept the Nobel Prize were found running after naked or near-naked prostitutes in the Oslo hotel on the night when he received the award. (Bayard Rustin had to talk hotel security people out of reporting them.)²

Isn't chastity one of the requirements of eldership in the Christian church? As far as I know, being unchaste will get you removed in any real denomination and placed under church discipline by the remaining elders. The teaching elder is no different.