Click These

Domain Registrations from just $3.98/Year
Nikola Tesla Secret
how to grow indoor cannabis $2.95 .Com at!

Do Visit!

Follow Me

Nikola Tesla Secret

HOAX EXPOSED, new rules of engagement, electrical blackouts, Tyranny in Amerika

police have power to kill you


HOAX EXPOSED: Full Clip Of Cliven Bundy’s Non-Racist, Pro-Black, Pro-Mexican, Anti-Government Remarks Vs. NYTimes’ Deceptively Edited Version


Watch Bundy explain how we need to keep things from going backwards for blacks, and how the Federal government has created a neo-slave class via entitlement dependency that is so bad it is arguably worse than plantation slavery was. It is 100% clear that Cliven Bundy is not saying that blacks should be slaves picking cotton, but that the Federal government has created conditions for them so terrible, that their current situation may actually be worse. (If you are person of low intelligence, the fact that that is his point might be too hard for you to understand.) And he’s not blaming blacks for the issues of abortions, and crime and broken families, he’s blaming the Feds. This is the exact opposite of a racist, this is an advocate for the welfare and best interests of blacks. And just as importantly, you’ll at the end of the video he gives passionate praise and defense of hispanic illegal aliens, lauding them for “better family structures than most white peoples’” Racist? Why is he praising Mexicans as better than whites, if he’s some sort of white supremacist racist?. Take a hike all you lying, character-assassinating, leftist pieces of dog shit.

From HERE.


Bundy Ranch and the new rules of engagement: Send this analysis to your favorite fed

In the aftermath of round one of the Bundy Ranch armed siege by the U.S. government, I have decided to offer the federal government an intelligent analysis of the new rules of engagement. People like Daniel P. Love, Special Agent in Charge of BLM Region 3, desperately need to review and learn these rules. Other federal agents also need to understand the tectonic shift of power that has just taken place and how it will impact their operations from here forward.

Why am I doing this? Because the BLM, through its astounding incompetence and arrogance, very nearly initiated a massacre at Bundy Ranch which would have been disastrous for the BLM agents actively engaged there. The incident very nearly came to a shooting war, and it is the outdated, ill-informed government playbook that inflamed the situation and brought it to a flashpoint of violence. At every step, BLM escalated the situation beyond reason: who brings snipers to a tortoise dispute? Who unleashes attack dogs on unarmed pregnant women and cancer survivors? The BLM, that’s who!

I know there remain many good agents in many different departments of the federal government. But there are also many incompetent agents who are still living in the 1990′s and think they can run an armed ranch siege in 2014 the same way the ATF ran the Waco, Texas siege in 1993. But the rules have changed. As proof of that, consider the now-historical fact that BLM agents publicly surrendered and retreated from hundreds of armed citizens near Bunkerville, Nevada. How did this happen, exactly? To understand that, you must understand the new rules of engagement between the feds, the media and the citizens.

So if you have any friends who are feds in any department — BLM, ATF, DEA, FBI, etc. — make sure they get a copy of this article… and we all might spare ourselves some bloodshed in the near future.

Much more HERE.



Supreme Court of Alabama Puts the Blindfold back on Justice – Declares Unborn have same Rights as Born

Justice is supposed to be blind. Not blind as in the inability to see. But blind in the sense that justice is the same for everyone, regardless of personal bias’ or societal standing.

In fact, blindness is demanded so that the innocent can be protected.

The purpose of the law is to protect the weak and innocent. The rich and politically-connected count on Lady Justice peeking out from under her blindfold. When justice can be influenced by the rich, or pressured by the powerful, then justice is no longer blind.

The scales Lady Justice holds are useless if her decision is based upon who puts the most coins in the scales. We don’t want justice to be blind. We want justice to be just.

Just is defined as “treating people in a way that is moral or good.” All law is based on morality. To remove morality from law is to make the law lawless.

Justice matters to the Lord. It used to matter to America. Because Lady Justice has removed her, blindfold the weak and innocent struggle to find justice in our courts. No group has been preyed upon more by the powerful than little innocent unborn baby boys and girls.

This is not as simple as calling a judge an originalist or a progressive. There is no legal ideology that can declare murder to be just. There is, however, an ideology that declares some people more human than others. Justice is not supposed to have a point of view or politically ideology. It should be blind.

The United States Supreme Court once declared that a woman had no right to vote. Another SCOTUS declared a black man to be 3/5ths of a human being. Those were not moral decisions, they were immoral ones. Most decisions based on politics are immoral.

That is the way ideology has always worked. The progressives know that they cannot legalize the murder of a human being so they merely change the meaning of the term human being. Negroes weren’t humans. Women weren’t humans. The Nazis declared Jews weren’t human. Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, called blacks “human weeds.” The Roe Court declared unborn babies weren’t human either.

Simple. Murder isn’t murder if the victim isn’t human. Even Dr. Seuss knew better than that.

“A Who is a Who know matter how small.”

Read it all HERE.





America’s power grid at the limit: The road to electrical blackouts

Americans take electricity for granted. It powers our lights, our computers, our offices, and our industries. But misguided environmental policies are eroding the reliability of our power system.

Last winter, bitterly cold weather placed massive stress on the US electrical system ? and the system almost broke. On January 7 in the midst of the polar vortex, PJM Interconnection, the Regional Transmission Organization serving the heart of America from New Jersey to Illinois, experienced a new all-time peak winter load of almost 142,000 megawatts.

Eight of the top ten of PJM’s all-time winter peaks occurred in January 2014. Heroic efforts by grid operators saved large parts of the nation’s heartland from blackouts during record-cold temperature days. Nicholas Akins, CEO of American Electric Power, stated in Congressional testimony, “This country did not just dodge a bullet ? we dodged a cannon ball.”

Environmental policies established by Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are moving us toward electrical grid failure. The capacity reserve margin for hot or cold weather events is shrinking in many regions. According to Philip Moeller, Commissioner of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, “the experience of this past winter indicates that the power grid is now already at the limit.”

EPA policies, such as the Mercury and Air Toxics rule and the Section 316 Cooling Water Rule, are forcing the closure of many coal-fired plants, which provided 39 percent of U.S. electricity last year. American Electric Power, a provider of about ten percent of the electricity to eastern states, will close almost one quarter of the firm’s coal-fired generating plants in the next fourteen months. Eighty-nine percent of the power scheduled for closure was needed to meet electricity demand in January. Not all of this capacity has replacement plans.

Read it all HERE.



Hostile Bureaucratic Armies

For most of the patriot/liberty community the Constitution is really of no importance any longer. The federal government has tossed that document over long ago. To whatever degree they bandy about the Constitution, it is always in context of violating its meaning by re-defining the words to arrive at a position where the Constitution permits the violation of rights guaranteed within the Constitution. If that sounds contradictory and vague, it is intended to be. That is the purpose of the federal government at this stage in our devolution to traditional dictatorship/monarchy/oligarchy rule of a once free nation.

The Constitution, like individual rights, is as relevant as the people demand. For a hundred years the people have asked nothing of the Constitution. To them, it seemed to be working as advertised. It is only within the past forty years or so that the federal government has come to exert its power over the states and the people to a degree that the people find intolerable. The “spotted owl” decimated the Northwest production of lumber and paper. The land grab continues with bureaucrats at the head of large federal militias in the form of BLM and National Park Service agents. This is a standing army amongst us, dedicated to the destruction of private property and confiscation of large swaths of state land.

The struggle for liberty is against these forces. The militias of citizens and the militias of bureaucrats are now facing off against one another. This is not law enforcement versus citizen. If this struggle is properly understood by the states, it is a struggle for the land itself which makes up the greater part of the states. Since, constitutionally it is only with the consent of the state that the federal government might erect and establish “needful buildings” the state has every right to prevent the bureaucratic militias access to any of the land itself and force them back into their buildings, or vote to rescind permission to own anything at all within the boundaries of the state.

I suggest that these states: Texas, Oklahoma, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, South Dakota, North Dakota, New Mexico and Arizona, or any of them individually recognize that the bureaucractic militias have become abusive to their hosts, hostile to their citizens and illegally promoting conflict and a breach of peace within these states specifically.

Read all HERE.





What this Muslim Imam said while “preaching” in TENNESSEE about Christians and Jews should be national news…

This is happening in America! #smh

I promise you if a Christian was saying things like “We need to kill all the Muslims” it would be front page news for weeks. Instead, we will hear crickets on this. Do your part and share it. We can’t allow this man to continue preaching calling for murder in our homeland.

From Right Wing News:

What this famous and revered Imam, Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, preaches goes beyond hate speech… it’s a mission of purification through promoting a religious extermination order. This Imam openly preaches it and we’ve got it on tape.

More HERE.


The Vicious Cycle of Apathy Towards Tyranny in Amerika

Recently one of my friends and I were discussing the disgusting level of apathy by the American public towards the tyrannical behavior of the US government, its agencies and its individual officials. The definition of the word “Apathy” via Wikipedia is defined as: “a lack of feeling, emotion, interest, or concern. It is a state of indifference, or the suppression of emotions such as concern, excitement, motivation, and/or passion.

An apathetic individual has an absence of interest in or concern about emotional, social, spiritual, philosophical and/or physical life and the world.” That pretty much sums up the attitude and state of mind of the vast majority of the American population in regards to the treasonous, criminal behavior being perpetrated on them by their own government.

Let’s briefly look at some recent examples of this Tyranny:

1.) The level of crony capitalism and financial crimes that have been committed in recent years including the blatant rigging and manipulation of every possible financial market. Even though this has been greatly exposed and accepted as truth, few individuals have been prosecuted or jailed as a result.
2.) The last 4 Presidents of the United States have shown complete and total disregard for the American Constitution and the American legislative process by abusing the Executive Signing Order powers usurped by their offices in order to subjugate the citizenry of this country.

3.) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been turned into a financial assassination squad used to destroy individuals, organizations, and corporations who have become political enemies of the State.

4.) Eric Holder, the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government is a criminal who is blatantly guilty of Perjury and Contempt of Congress, and many other crimes too numerous to list here, crimes that would otherwise land your average citizen in a federal prison for many years.

5.) The NSA/ FBI / CIA and God knows who else have engaged in massive unconstitutional / illegal surveillance and data collection operations against millions of Americans under the guise of “National Security”.

More to read HERE.



Racist Utopia Liberals Want, Found the G Spot, comparison of God vs. government, red-pill economics



Sonia Sotomayor Spells Out Racist Utopia Liberals Want

Back in 2006, Michigan voters amended the state constitution to ban state-funded, public colleges and universities from considering race when deciding whether or not to accept a student applicant. You would think that we would all be glad to live in an age when colleges lived up to Martin Luther King’s dream to not consider the color of an applicant’s skin, but rather the content of their academic record.

But no. Even though it would be a crime for a college to turn away a black applicant because he was black, it was somehow necessary to accept a black applicant because he was black. And because colleges can accept only a finite number of students, this practice entailed turning down white students because they were white. No wonder Michigan residents decided to demand a change in the state constitution to eliminate these racist practices.

So people in favor of the racist practices sued on the theory that prohibiting college-entrance racism was unconstitutional. This made its way to the Supreme Court. 6-2 they decided in favor of the right of Michigan voters to decide for themselves what entrance requirements they wanted their schools to apply (Elena Kagan recused herself). According to

“The respondents in this case insist that a difficult question of public policy must be taken from the reach of the voters, and thus removed from the realm of public discussion, dialogue, and debate in an election campaign,” Kennedy wrote in an opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito.” Quite in addition to the serious First Amendment implications of that position with respect to any particular election, it is inconsistent with the underlying premises of a responsible, functioning democracy … It is demeaning to the democratic process to presume that the voters are not capable of deciding an issue of this sensitivity on decent and rational grounds.”

So nothing here was said against the idea or practice of making racial identity a reason to prefer a college applicant. I can only assume that the Supreme Court would reverse themselves and come up with a reason to forbid such a practice if public universities favored majorities.

But even merely allowing the states to democratically decide to have racially blind admission policies was some kind of threat against civilization as far as Sotomayor was concerned. She read her dissent out loud. It was longer than the other four written opinions put together. According to AP:

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision tramples on the rights of minorities, even though the amendment was adopted democratically.

“But without checks, democratically approved legislation can oppress minority groups,” said Sotomayor, who read her dissent aloud in the courtroom Tuesday. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg sided with Sotomayor in dissent.

Everyone should know that majorities can oppress minorities. That’s why we need the government to acknowledge limits so that, no matter what the majority want, the government is forbidden from doing unjust things—like taxing people unequally or imposing racial quotas on college student bodies.

But for Sotomayor, you are oppressing a minority if you don’t prefer them over a non-minority in the college application process. This insane idea is “justified”—if the line of reasoning deserves such a term—by the history of racism and alleged racism that exists now.

Of course, if it is racist not to give preferential treatment to minority races, then I can hardly argue against the presence of racism according to that insane definition. When do we ever get to outgrow the sins of history for people possessed by this mindset? You know the answer: never. In fact, it is the gift that keeps on giving since past racial grievances are used to justify a trail of ever new racial grievances. The losers in this situation are all members of peaceful society, whatever their race. The winner is the state, which pacifies society by keeping various members at odds with one another by its race-based devices.

Ironically, the AP story went on in the very next paragraph to mention real inequality in our society and treat it as if it didn’t matter:

Judges “ought not sit back and wish away, rather than confront, the racial inequality that exists in our society,” Sotomayor said. She is one of two justices, along with Clarence Thomas, who have acknowledged that affirmative action was a factor in their admission to Princeton University and Yale University, respectively. They both attended law school at Yale. Thomas is a staunch opponent of racial preferences.

We have thousands of schools in this country, but only graduates from a handful of Ivy League schools get to be nominated as Supreme Court Justices. Do you really think there are no judges who graduated from other law schools who are qualified to sit on the Supreme Court? Conveniently for the regime, people who go to Yale or Harvard or Princeton are not marked out by race or ethnicity in every individual case. So they can pretend to diversity on the Supreme Court when they are actually one monolithic ruling regime.

Someone can try to argue this difference between Sotomayor and Ginsburg and the rest constitutes “diversity,” but that is nonsense. They all believe that a public institution has the right to feed on taxpayers while discriminating against some taxpayers and in favor of others. They all have a common philosophy, in other words, of tyranny. Their difference over application, though it is a happy thing for Michigan residents, doesn’t change their monolithic and discriminatory make-up.

A real blow for social justice would be struck by banning any graduates from Ivy League schools from holding any office in government for the next century. Now that would be a real attempt to deal with a history of inequality in the United States!

Found at Political Outcast.



This month in public school teachers confiscating Bibles and yelling at students about Bibles

Public school teachers across America are cracking down this month on kids who read the Bible during “read to myself” time or carry a personal copy of the canonical collection of sacred texts through school hallways.

On Tuesday, the family of a second-grade student at Hamilton Elementary School in the Houston suburb of Cypress claimed that the girl’s teacher took her Bible away during “read to myself” time.

Instead of complaining to school officials, the family, which wishes to remain anonymous, took its complaint to the Liberty Institute, a conservative Christian advocacy outfit, Houston-area CBS affiliate KHOU reports.

Michael Berry, one of the attorneys representing the family, noted that the actual incident occurred a couple weeks ago. He also noted that the Hamilton Elementary library includes copies of the Bible.

“So if it’s appropriate for their own library, why on earth would it not be appropriate for their own students?” Berry asked, according to KHOU.

Local parents were split on whether the teacher reacted appropriately when she allegedly swiped a little kid’s Bible during independent reading time.

“They are letting them read the Hunger Games,” parent Jennifer Muse told KHOU. “That’s kids killing kids. Why can’t she read the Bible?”

Finish reading HERE.


found the g spot



Extremely hilarious comparison of God vs. government

Perrysburg,OH – Two things you were always told to never talk about at family gathering has always and will always be religion and politics. Unfortunately for myself my two favorite things to discuss are religion and politics.

Over the weekend I gave a speech at the Toledo Tax Day Rally in Perrysburg, Ohio (a suburb right outside of Toledo) over the differences between God and government. The differences are clear and range from those listed in the video to the difference in approval rating.

The speech was meant to have some humor however also to address some very real issues conservatives have long brought up and even an issue brought up by progressives. Not to brag but I must say this was probably one of my best speeches so far so please make sure to listen to what I would hope is an excellent speech.

More HERE.




5 Ways Obama Has Destroyed The Rule Of Law In America

When you allow unlawful acts to go unpunished, you’re moving toward a government of men rather than a government of law; you’re moving toward anarchy. And that’s exactly what we’re doing. — John Wayne

All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. — George Orwell

Tell me why any American should respect the law?

Because it’s moral? Not necessarily. Slavery was once the law of the land. Abortion is the law of the land today. Even in a nation like America, it’s not unusual for laws to be unfair, unjust, and even immoral.

Is it because laws represent the will of the people? Not anymore. Today, the “law” is often summarily created from murky statutes by unelected bureaucrats who face no consequences for destroying people’s lives.

Well, is the law at least equally applied? Absolutely not. Your political affiliation and how well connected you are to the regime in charge can have a direct bearing on whether you’re prosecuted for breaking the law and how serious the penalty will be.

So, what’s left?

Respect for the law? Why should anyone respect arbitrary, immoral laws that aren’t equally applied and don’t reflect the will of the people? Under Barack Obama, the “law” in this country has become nothing more than whatever you can get away with and we’re likely to feel the consequences of that for decades to come.

Finish reading all this HERE.


iadarevolt diff


Welcome to the Paradise of the Real

How to refute progressive fantasies — or, a red-pill economics

Word Problem No. 1: It’s lunchtime for Mrs. Piketty’s second-grade class. Bobby has 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has 20 SweeTarts. Bobby and Jenny both like Gummi Worms and SweeTarts, but both like SweeTarts a little bit more, so Jenny trades three of her SweeTarts for four of Bobby’s Gummi Worms. Both are happy with this trade, so they do it again. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Word Problem No. 2: Mrs. Piketty is unhappy with the inequality in her second-grade classroom. Jenny’s 20 SweeTarts are valued much more highly than are Bobby’s 20 Gummi Worms, trading at a rate of 3:4. To even things out, Mrs. Piketty gives Bobby a voucher for seven SweeTarts. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Word Problem No. 3: Mrs. Piketty’s attempt to solve the problem of inequality in her classroom has yielded unsatisfactory results. Bobby has his 20 Gummi Worms, and Jenny has her 20 SweeTarts, and SweeTarts still trade for Gummi Worms at a rate of 3:4. So Mrs. Piketty enacts some new policies. First, she hires Bobby as a hall monitor and decrees that hall monitors receive a minimum income of at least ten SweeTarts or the equivalent value in Gummi Worms. Also, she decrees that the high price of SweeTarts — three of them cost four Gummi Worms — is oppressive, but she’s not an all-the-way-to-the-wall outright red, either, more of a social-democrat type with a subscription to The Nation, so she simply enacts some counteracting price supports for Gummi Worms, decreeing that they cannot be traded at a price less than 13/15th of a SweeTart. She enlists Mrs. Yellen from the next classroom over to provide zero-interest financing for the purchase of up to five SweeTarts per lunch period, increases Bobby’s voucher allowance to nine SweeTarts per lunch period, and offsets that on her budget with a “fairness” tax of two SweeTarts per lunch period on Jenny, who is the sole member of her tax bracket. Question: How many pieces of candy do the two students end up with for dessert?

Answers: (1.) 40; (2.) 40; (3.) 40. There are only 40 pieces of candy, and rules, vouchers, taxes, zero-interest loans, redistribution, and mandates do not magic more pieces of candy into existence. If Jenny does not like the trading price imposed by Mrs. Piketty, she can keep all of her SweeTarts, while Bobby gets none. If Mrs. Piketty sends out her second-grade tactical SWAT unit to seize Jenny’s SweeTarts and put some serious asset-forfeiture and social-by-God-justice up in her smug little 1-percenter face, Jenny can still leave her SweeTarts at home, eating them before or after school, and maybe even save them up in the hopes that her third-grade teacher next year will not be a howling moonbat. Faced with that inconvenient reality, Mrs. Piketty may demand the repatriation of these SweeTart assets and denounce Jenny as an “economic traitor,” but she does not have any real power outside her classroom. Plus, Jenny and her SweeTarts are sort of popular, and she’s a pretty good student to boot, and so there are other classrooms that would just love to have her, with Mr. Lee’s nicely air-conditioned classroom across the hall offering some very attractive laissez-faire policies vis-à-vis SweeTarts and confectionery gains in general.

Forty is forty is forty, 10 times 4, 8 times 5, 6.32455532034 squared, 23 plus 17. You can set the trading ratio of apples to oranges however you like, but if you have 20 of each, you have 40 pieces of fruit at any price — and the only way to bring more of it into the world is to plant trees, cultivate them, and pick the fruit.

Which is to say: Reality is not optional.

Money is a symbolic system, the purpose of which is to facilitate exchange and to act as a recordkeeping technology. That money is so very important to our everyday lives and yet has no real connection with physical reality is the source of many apparent paradoxes and contradictions. These are the best of times, these are the worst of times.

Measured by money, things look relatively grim for the American middle class and the poor. Men’s inflation-adjusted average wages peaked in 1973, and inflation-adjusted household incomes for much of the middle class have shown little or no growth in some time. The incomes of those at the top of the distribution (which is not composed of a stable group of individuals, political rhetoric notwithstanding) continue to pull away from those in the middle and those at the bottom. The difference between a CEO’s compensation and the average worker’s compensation continues to grow.

Finish reading all this HERE.




Shocking Reality: Clean Drinking Water Could Be Gone In America in Coming Years

The “perfect storm” is brewing when it comes to global clean drinking water supply. The cost of quenching your thirst could be your health.

Currently, there are 768 million people around the world that have no access to clean drinking water and 2.5 billion are without proper sanitation. This according to analysts with Bank of America Merrill Lynch Global Research.

“Water scarcity is a pressing people and planet issue,” they write in a recent report on the subject matter.

It’s been discovered that humans have reached what’s called “peak water”, meaning we’re at or very near the limit of environmental, physical and economic demands on the renewable freshwater supply. Of all the water on earth, just 2.5% of it is considered to be fresh water.

When the available amount of water is exceeded by demand, the situation is referred to as “water stress”, which is projected to inflict half of the world’s population by the year 2030. By 2050, 45 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP) could be at risk, with as many as 50 nations expected to be involved in conflicts over water.

Water shortages and scarcity are already a major issue in the U.S. Food prices are soaring across the country due to the ongoing drought California is experiencing, where a lot of produce is grown. Meanwhile, the state is planning a series of costly and controversial water desalination plants along its coastline.In California, “water has become the input that is constraining all agricultural outputs right now,” said J.R. DeShazo, director of UCLA’s Luskin Center for Innovation. “And I think that has renewed the policy focus, and the management focus, on how to better utilize what we have, and how to plan for, in the future, reliability and supplies.”

Food price is not all that is soaring in the U.S, an average household’s water bill is costing Americans a lot more than past estimates of around $300. Until recently, most consumers paid less for their drinking water than they did for electricity, cable television, telephone or other goods and services.

But those days are in the past and we’re facing a very dry future. We have treated water as if it were a free resource, as if it were a superabundant resource. As a result, we all need to begin to conserve this valuable resource if there is to be any left in the coming years.

While there are a variety of public policy solutions when it comes to how we deal with energy, waste disposal and recycling issues, our approach to water supply and management still needs to come into the 21st century.

From HERE.


Japanese MP who was angry that Michelle didn’t join president on Tokyo trip makes extraordinary claim that Obama CHEATS and their looming divorce is ‘an open secret’

  • Kazuyuki Hamada, a member of the upper house of Japan’s parliament, is miffed that Michelle Obama is staying home as her husband tours Japan
  • He claimed on his blog that a marital rift is responsible for the president’s stag trip to Tokyo
  • Mrs. and Mrs. Obama, he wrote, have already decided to divorce after he leaves office – a claim mirroring one in the National Enquirer
  • Hamada claims Michelle Obama knows her husband is cheating on her and using the Secret Service to hide the evidence
  • He wrote a 2009 ‘birther’ book titled ‘Who is Obama?’ that argued the president likely wasn’t born in the United States

Read it all HERE.


saying and shit


“So what?”

How do you like them apples?

I am puzzled as to why racism is thought to be a terrible thing, rather than entirely natural and often reasonable, and why people allow themselves to be brow-beaten about it. Maybe we should stop. Domestic tranquility would follow in torrents.

As nearly as I can tell, a racist is one who approves of rigorous education, good English, civilized manners, minimal criminality, and responsible parenthood, among other things. I am, then, a racist. I see no reason to grovel about it.

I decided long ago that if, while I was doing a radio interview, a caller-in told me, “You a racist!” I would hesitate as if puzzled, and say “…So what?” This would add immeasurably to the planetary supply of stunned silence. The expectation is that anyone so charged will fall on his knees and beg for mercy. It would be a lesser offense to be caught sexually molesting autistic three-year-old girls while attending a Nazi torch-rally.

Herewith another and yet worse confession:: I do not see, or care, why it is thought my duty to like, or dislike, groups because of their race, creed, color, sex, sexual aberration, or national origin. Nor do I think it their duty to like me. I especially do not understand why the federal government should decide with whom I ought to associate.

But back to “So what?” Among its charms is that there is no answer to it, other than huffing and puffing and indignant expostulation. All of these amuse me. Used frequently, “So what?”would shut up people who badly need to shut up, or else force them to think. Not likely, as most apparently cannot.

Let us, improbably, glance at reality. A characteristic of human groups is that they do not like each other. The greater the difference between the groups, the greater the dislike; the closer the contact between them, the more open the friction. Note that before the advent of mass immigration, Americans of whatever politics had no dislike of Hispanics.

Thus separation increases the likelihood of amity. Is this not obvious? The instinctive rancor between disparate groups accounts for most of the world’s problems. Moslems and Christians dislike each other, Tamils and Sinhalese, Cambodians and Vietnamese, blacks and whites, Americans and Frenchmen, men and women, homosexuals and the normal and, as Tom Lehrer famously sang, “…everybody hates the Jews.”

Except that in America Jews are so assimilated that most of us don’t remember to hate them. They aren’t different enough. I’ll have to make myself a note.

Humans like to be among their own kind. This can mean many things. It can be political. In Washington, white liberals cheerlead for diversity while spending their time exclusively with white liberals and execrating Southerners, Jesus Creepers, genocidal conservatives (understood to mean all conservatives), Catholics, racists, owners of guns, rednecks, and so on. No dissenting voices are heard because, like conservatives, liberals choose to be among their own. Similarly, if in any of Washington’s dives you know that one person in a table of six has an IQ in excess 130, it is a good bet that all do. It isn’t snobbery. Smart people enjoy the company of smart people. Their own kind. So what?

If left alone, people will naturally and peacefully form such associations as seem to them desirable. If left alone. So what?

The Chinese cluster together in China Towns because they want to be among their own. So what? Jews have yeshivas because they want to preserve their culture. So what? On campus, black students want separate fraternities and dormitories. So what? When men can find a pretext for being among other men, they do. So what?

From HERE.


properly dressed teacher