With the Detroit Lions being pilloried by football fans everywhere for their ludicrous hiring of the completely underwhelming Jim Caldwell as their new head coach, an old bit of hilarity crept back into my mind.
Caldwell previously served as head coach (read: Peyton Manning's Applauder in Chief / guarantor of the Andrew Luck NFL Draft Golden Ticket) from 2009-2011. Of course Manning was running the show on an offense that he learned under Tom Moore for over a decade before Caldwell even hit town, but the man did have one seemingly easy responsibility that he managed to botch in such a horrific way that it ended the team's season in 2010.
So given that introduction and without further ado, let's go right to what has always been one of the all-time howlers for me. The following quote is taken verbatim from Caldwell's Biography page on the official Indianapolis Colts' website and dates back to his tenure there. Honestly, I do believe it is THE single funniest thing I have ever seen (or heard of or read of or whatever) on a resume in my entire life:
Caldwell spent 1993-2000 as head coach at Wake Forest. In 1999, Caldwell led the school to its first winning season and bowl game since 1992.
Hot damn, if that doesn't sum up affirmative action in a nutshell right there!
How can anyone be expected to take a man seriously who lists such a thing under his accomplishments?
It's a quite amazing world we live in now that we've left deeds behind and jumped on board the emotional "equality" caravan. The standards are literally below bottom floor now. They can be twisted and defined any way one likes because they are not substantial or real anymore.
It is a terrible, corrosive mindset that demands that a society must not judge an individual by his actions or achievements because there are supposedly higher purposes served by his artificial advancement to positions of importance that he does not deserve to hold.
It is a mindset that will affect much more than who coaches a professional football team.
What makes me laugh every time one of these things comes around - every 2 to 4 years of course being THE MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION EVER - is all those folks out there who mock their fellow citizens who pay too much attention to Dancing With the Stars or sports or whatever other meaningless distractions they are so wrapped up in and "don't care enough about their country to take the time to vote."
Please pay attention, because I'm only gonna say this once:
The election IS the distraction.
The political circus is the curtain cast over the economic construct that is hammering us all into indentured slavery.
95 percent of the politicians are owned outright by this economic construct. The other 5 percent are useful idiots because they make the charade all the more believable. They will never have the power to effect meaningful change inside a fixed game and so they go to Washington and learn how to "work within the system." And then they slowly become part of the other 95 percent.
If you want to effect real change in this nation, stop buying things from large multinational corporations. Get your money out of big banks. Don't go to movies or sporting events. Get rid of cable. Boycott Disney.
Stop feeding the tyranny. Stop buying into the illusion of choice.
It will be difficult and you won't always be 100 percent pure but that is the only way to really do something. To the best of your ability, remove yourself from the rotted construct.
Or you can vote. And continue to be part of the problem while getting to lecture all the rest of us about how you are part of the solution.
You get to feel good about yourself. And, hey, isn't that the most important thing in America today?
Just caught a summer repeat of this 60 Minutes feature on a Massachusetts state cop and Iraq war veteran's "brilliant" idea to police the city of Springfield just as his military unit policed hostile cities in occupied Iraq:
Our intrepid CBS correspondent Lesley Stahl breathlessly reported this wonderful new police enforcement concept in a manner that unflinchingly portrayed the police as white knights coming to the rescue. There is brief mention made of concerns about using military tactics in domestic policing but the oversized elephant in the room is never mentioned: We have gotten to the point now where an American city is being treated in the same way that our military treats foreign-occupied territory. The gangs and other associated criminals in the story were compared to Iraqi insurgents but the sad reality of what causes police officers to go into the third-largest city in the state of Massachusetts with the same wariness and tactical concerns that an army unit has when entering a war-torn foreign village was never touched upon.
The state cop who came up with the Counterinsurgency-in-Mayberry plan openly compares Springfield to Mogadishu and Kandahar City, yet of course there will never be a real effort by CBS to explain just how an American city that is located over 2,000 miles from the Mexican border had become so overrun by hostiles forces.
This did not just happen overnight. It was the result of a deliberate attempt to destabilize and balkanize a cohesive nation of citizens bound by a common culture through neighborhood breaking and massive non-European immigration.
I personally witnessed a key moment in the destruction of Springfield, Massachusetts. You see, I lived there for a time as a small child, from 1972-75, and have vivid memories of the takeover of the working-class Irish neighborhood where we resided.
It all started with a wave of Puerto Rican immigrants into the city in the late '60s and early '70s who arrived in the immediate wake of Ted Kennedy's disastrous Immigration Act of 1965, which specifically mandated a national preference for Third World immigrants instead of the more assimilable Europeans in our immigration policy. This undoubtedly created an encouraging environment for the massive and nonstop influx of Puerto Ricans, whose rights to move to continental America were of course not dependent on the 1965 law, into cities such as Springfield:
Hartford, Connecticut and Springfield, Massachusetts have both a large Puerto Rican population and an extremely high proportion of Puerto Rican among the Hispanics, making these metro areas valuable for study of the distinctive impact of Puerto Rican presence. Between 1990 and 2000, non-Hispanic Whites in these metropolitan areas were moving away from towns and cities where Hispanics were concentrated and growing. Such population separation may in part be attributable to the relatively high-poverty level among Hispanics. Multivariate analysis applied to data for 38 metro areas with varying levels of Puerto Rican predominance among Hispanics shows, however, that ethnic group segregation was influenced by Puerto Rican presence even when controlling for the economic status of Hispanics. The “Puerto Rican effect” may stem from the greater racialization of Puerto Ricans. By contrast other Hispanic groups may have benefitted from an immigrant identity that has now become more of a liability.
Even as a 6-year-old, I could see the effect this had on one neighborhood in Springfield. The Hungry Hill section was a longstanding Irish enclave. We lived on the bottom of the hill on our street, with old Mrs. Shea next door and a childhood friend whose last name was Murphy all the way at the top. Every day my brother, sister and I would run up the hill to play with our pal, whose dad was a Springfield cop.
Like so many white families in the face of the Puerto Rican invasion, we moved out to the suburbs as soon as we could. Our parents saw which way the wind was blowing. But we came back to visit our friend only a year or two later and I recall him pointing out the houses on the street that we had run past so many times on our way up and down the hill. "Oh, that one's a drug dealer. Oh, the cops raided that place the other day." Etc. etc. Our childhood friend was all of 8 years old as he gave us this rundown. My memory of my reaction to that experience was hoping the Murphy family would be able to escape too before it was too late.
That it was all an intentional effort to destroy white city neighborhoods surely escaped our young minds at the time. But the evidence is out there today for those who care to look back, and massive immigration was not the only weapon used.
"The Six-District Plan - Integration of The Springfield, Mass. Elementary Schools," an official 1976 report from the Massachusetts Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, spotlights the use of busing as one way to destroy the old neighborhoods. This whole paper reads like a Soviet plan to transfer native Ukrainians to Siberia and replace them with some bizarre minority from the steppes of Asia.
The strong-arm tactics and eager desire to use force are not even disguised. Homogenous neighborhoods are seen as a threat. All local concerns are dismissed out of hand.
This quote on the top of page 24 from Dr. John E. Deady, Springfield's superintendent of schools, is downright Orwellian:
"I sympathize with the man who wants his neighborhood school. However, I believe that the majority must sacrifice that neighborhood school in order to create the integrated society which in the long run will benefit us all. In Springfield, busing became unavoidable."
Also note how the churches, with the Catholic archdiocese squarely at the fore, enthusiastically volunteered to help force The Plan down residents' throats (page 34):
At the request of the council of churches and the Catholic Diocese, many ministers of all denominations and priests talked about the Six-District Plan and the importance of integration from the pulpit the Sunday before the opening of school and urged their parishioners to obey the law.
People see the pedophilia scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church in recent decades and think that is the only damage these treacherous shepherds were inflicting on their naive flocks at the time. Little mentioned is how these same corrupt clerics were actively conspiring in the destruction of their very own parishes.
I vividly recall the Catholic education I received in the 1970s and '80s, first in the suburbs and then back in Springfield itself for high school. The Catholic duty to support open and widespread Third World immigration was constantly pushed on us from an early age, along with the usual wooden and overblown Civil Rights movement badgerings that portrayed white males as the great evil of the 20th century.
Even as kids and early teens, one could sense that we were being manipulated. I remember our class being forced to watch a pro-Sanctuary Movement PBS propaganda film that featured a memorable scene where two brown-skinned kids trying to sneak into America are attacked in a sewage tunnel by a pack of rats:
101:45 mark:
We were supposed to be horrified by this and confused and angry at our government for making poor unfortunates like this have to undergo such trauma when they were only trying to improve their lives. But kids know better. Kids have an inherent sense of right and wrong that they don't need to learn from their elders. When a group of kids is playing with the ball you brought along and somebody runs off with your ball and won't give it back, you don't need an adult to tell you you've been wronged. And that is how I remember feeling watching that scene. Remembering that Irish neighborhood that had literally gone to Hell, the instinctive response I had to this scene was that these people were trying to take something that was mine. I didn't need to have a political orientation to instinctively see the rats as a last line of defense and cheer them on as they attempted to thwart the intruders who were trying to take something away from me. Sounds cruel, and as an adult I wouldn't be as immature and callous, but it was a basic honesty that comes with childhood that told me that I was being played here by those who were trying to use my own emotions against me. They were trying to brainwash me against my own home and hearth, and I wasn't buying it. Go Rats!
Six-district plans, bald-faced propaganda at parochial school and at Sunday Mass, what did it all lead to? The conclusion could not be more pronounced yet nobody seems to want to tot up the score and mark accounts. It is an unavoidable fact that the result of all that pious preening and white guilt trips is a smaller Detroit on the Connecticut River... an uninhabitable, crumbling ghetto of a city marked by violence, racial strife and squalor to such an extent that the police openly regard it as another Mogadishu or Kandahar City.
The non-assimilable immigration, the forced "integration" of the neighborhood schools... the whole effort is a total and complete failure if you accept the notion that these 1970s multicultural progressives were really attempting to do good. Of course, that is not what they were attempting to do at all.
The common threads have been broken. Neighborhoods have been destroyed. The once-dominant citizenry is rootless and isolated. And the era of progressive collectivism on a total scale is one giant step closer.
Current industrial farming practices rely heavily on grain. Under current US agriculture policy, the government provides substantial subsidies to farmers who produce grains, particularly corn and soybeans. Livestock producers often use corn and soy as a base for their animal feed because these protein-rich grains help bring animals to market weight faster, and because they are cheaper than other feed options as a result of government subsidies. It has been estimated that the operating costs of factory farms would be 7-10% higher without these subsidies. As a result, a large percentage of grains grown in the US are used in animal feed, with 47% of soy and 60% of corn produced in the US being consumed by livestock.
Government welfare? Yes. Cheaper? Yes. Better? A resounding NO:
The overreliance on grain-based animal feeds in industrial food animal production has negative consequences for animal health, the environment, and even human health. Considering the natural eating habits of livestock animals when formulating animal feeds would be beneficial to both animals and consumers, and will result in healthier herds and flocks, less reliance on antibiotics to control disease, as well as a lower chance of introducing certain pathogens into society via contaminated meat.
In short, you get what you pay for. The notion that something is cheap for the consumers' benefit is the number one thing that has to be stamped out of modern American brains. Mass-produced goods such as what passes for modern food are cheap for the benefit of massive multinational corporations. Period.
If it was more profitable for them to sell a quality product at a quality price, they would do so. It is not. In this Potemkin mirage of convenience and plenty, the money is made by selling cheap garbage at a small markup over and over and over again.
You pay $3 for a crappy gallon of filth that costs them 20 cents to produce. I pay $5 for a quality gallon of pure, nutrient-dense, real milk from healthy, pastured cows. The larger price is factored in from the cost of maintaining the land, keeping the cows healthy and happy and all the other little things that make for the superior living food product I immensely enjoy with every glorious glass of joy.
In the past I never felt the remotest need to give thanks to God for my store-bought milk. The idea seemed silly. I truly in my heart thank God for the life-giving bounty that nourishes me now.
Pay more for real food and pay less for your pointless distractions, such as the wasteland that is cable television today. You need food to live. You don't need reality television at all.
Two jarring news items this week reveal yet again that the world white American males once lived in is gone. The whole terrain has changed. We are on different and dangerous footing. A sense of personal responsibility and concern once compelled a man to take certain steps for the greater good. These steps are now in our New Society seen as missteps. And a misstep can cost you very dearly.
Our first news item concerns the white male schoolteacher who felt a call to impart knowledge and a sense of fairness to his students:
A Batavia High School teacher's fans are rallying to support him as he faces possible discipline for advising students of their Constitutional rights before taking a school survey on their behavior.
[. . .]
Students and parents have praised his ability to interest reluctant students in history and current affairs.
But John Dryden said he's not the point. He wants people to focus on the issue he raised:
Whether school officials considered that students could incriminate themselves with their answers to the survey that included questions about drug and alcohol use.
Dryden, a social studies teacher, told some of his students April 18 that they had a 5th Amendment right to not incriminate themselves by answering questions on the survey, which had each student's name printed on it.
This man was no doubt motivated by a keen sense of honesty and integrity and did not want his students to have to compromise themselves in the narrow interests of an educational bureaucracy that has failed students for decades now. He obviously wants his students to be able to think for themselves and to know that they have rights as well as responsibilities as young citizens of this nation.
In short, he was promoting everything the New Society opposes. This survey that got him in hot water was no coincidence, no well-intentioned mistake that a good man can point out and correct. No, the survey is in fact a crucial part of these kids' education. They are being taught and conditioned to accept that they have less rights than those who came before them. They are being taught and conditioned to accept the belief that their personal rights are subordinate to the "rights" of the New Society as a whole. They are being taught to be afraid of and submissive to authority.
This teacher is facing disciplinary action precisely because he tried to thwart the very purpose of the New Society's educational methods. The New Society doesn't want kids who can think. It wants kids who can be conditioned properly to toe the line. Thus a teacher who attempts to teach is getting in the way of the real teaching. And, sooner rather than later, he will not be allowed to be a teacher anymore.
Our second news item captures the fate of a white American male who still thought he had personal property rights in our New Society and also believed that looking out for his neighbors was the right thing to do. This proved to be a fatal mistake:
A Texas man was gunned down in his own driveway by police officers yesterday morning after he came out of his house to check out a neighbor's burglar alarm.
The death of 72-year-old Jerry Waller, shocked the quiet Fort Worth community, where six shots rang out just before 1am.
Mr Waller was reportedly awoke after a burglar alarm had gone off at a home across the street. He grabbed his .38 caliber handgun and went outside to investigate.
Police responding to the alarm instead went to Mr Waller's home, where they encountered him in his driveway and near the garage.
Fort Worth Police Cpl Tracey Knight told reporters that the officers - both rookies who have been with the department for less than a year - 'felt threatened' by the elderly grandfather - and shot him.
Waller, 72, was shot six times in the chest after he went outside to investigate bright lights outside of the bedroom on Havenwood Lane.
Investigators say he had a handgun, but sources tell CBS 11 News that he had put the gun down and then picked it back up before he was shot.
“We were disturbed by suggestions that police may have felt threatened by a man in his own garage faced with unknown trespassers wielding flashlights,” said Angie Waller.
What is so infuriating about this, besides the asinine defense by the police department that a supposedly-trained police officer would feel threatened by a 72-year-old man standing in his own garage, is the sort of comments the Daily Mail article received, which impart the real lesson to white males attempting to reside in our New Society:
If this poor old man hadn't been trying to play cop perhaps he wouldn't have been shot?
- Parade , Portland, 30/5/2013 20:27
He should have stayed in his house. Cowboy mentality will get you killed every time.
- Chiniquy , Melbourne, 30/5/2013 15:10
There you have it, white man. Make no attempt to give an honest education to the schoolchildren placed in your trust. You will only come to grief. Make no attempt to help your neighbor in a time of perceived distress, you will only get what you have coming to you.
Bury your head, hide under the covers and leave things up to our Big Government officials. They are looking out for us all. No input on your part is necessary. Do as you are told or lose your job... or your life.
One wonders if this imposed impotence played a huge role in the total destruction of the black family as blacks moved into urban areas from the country. One wonders if black males were so stripped of their personal authority and standing in their community that they collapsed into the chaos of crime and irresponsibility. One wonders if this is not the fate that now awaits the white American male in our New Society. One wonders if this is exactly what the creators of our New Society have in mind.
Self-described "devout Catholic" Paul Ryan now says he supports homosexuals adopting children, disavowing his previous voting record on the issue:
RYAN: Adoption, I’d vote differently these days. That was I think a vote I took in my first term, 1999 or 2000. I do believe that if there are children who are orphans who do not have a loving person or couple I think if a person wants to love and raise a child they ought to be able to do that. Period. I would vote that way.
Gotta love the "period" part. Like he's taking a strong stand on something instead of just blowing in the wind.
It's bad enough that we have the most corrupt politicians of all time. But do they have to be so awkward and flat-out bad at concealing their corruption?
This article from across the pond is frightening and revealing...
Homes in Britain are becoming the smallest in Europe with new one-bed flats now typically no bigger than a Tube carriage.
Faced with rising land costs, developers are cramming a lounge, kitchen, bedroom and bathroom into as little as 495 square feet.
The result is ‘cramped, dark and artificially lit’ environments that put health and wellbeing at risk, the Royal Institute of Architects said.
With our corrupt politicians in the pockets of large, amoral corporations AND simultaneously seeking to expand the total influence of the federal goliath over us all, this is the future we have to look forward to.
There is a concerted effort to get citizens off the land and into the ever-growing megacities currently cropping up all over the U.S. I lived in Washington, D.C. for 25 years before moving away in October and one could see quite plainly how the city stretched out ever wider by the year, like a sponge absorbing more and more around it.
Today, the city of Washington is a vast swath of strip malls, townhouses and condos extending for miles without reprieve. One could drive from Warrenton, Va. north for about 12 miles, then east to the Beltway and north toward Frederick Md., a distance of roughly 78 miles in all. You could chart the continual growth of the Communist Bulgaria-era block housing over time. There would be gaps here and there, but you could see the blight pushing in to fill any remaining space with each passing year.
It is all very soulless, overcrowded and removed from the land. An artificial glow of streetlights and business lighting constantly smothers the beauty of night and the choking oppression of traffic and cookie-cutter concrete landscapes suffocate the natural light of day.
When the government provides everything they can stuff us into cages. There we will be far easier to control than if we were scattered amongst the countryside, like... oh, what's the word?.... like.... free people.
These mind-boggling images capture the scale of soaring apartment blocks in one of the world's most densely populated areas; Hong Kong.
As home to a population of more than seven million crammed into an area measuring just 424 square miles, space in Hong Kong is at a premium.
It means that, when it comes to providing accommodation for Hong Kong's huge population, the only way to go is up.
But fret not. Everybody gets his own box to call his own:
They are barely large enough for a single person to squeeze into at all, let alone swing a cat.
But incredibly these tiny 'coffin' apartments in central Tokyo still command rents of up to £400 a month.
The Japanese capital is one of the most crowded cities in the world, and to cash in on the chronic housing problem, landlords have developed what are known as 'geki-sema' or share houses.
If you want to avoid this definition of Hell, fight against the illegal invasion of our homeland, stop supporting the corporate behemoths who dream of one universal customer base and get back in touch with the outdoors and the rhythmic heartbeat of nature.
Years ago I came across this prophetic quote and it has stuck with me ever since. This man foresaw the horror of our modern "global village", a horror that is now threatening to engulf us all:
In a 1932 essay filed from Berlin, the critic Giovanni Battista Angioletti warned Italians of the dire fate that awaited them if they succumbed to the seductions of foreign models of modernity:
[Y]ou will be an element, an atom of the crowd... surrounded by four million men similar to yourself, who have your same thoughts... You will see the green fields and open sky only on Saturdays and Sundays. You will never know your neighbors, and for your whole life you will be a complete unknown in the city where you live.
No love for the superrich thieves but this is a hollow argument:
Why? It's all about giving a tyrannical federal government more money.
We don't need to tax the rich more. We don't need to tax anybody more.
We need to cut 90 percent of all taxes and 99 percent of government SPENDING.
The tax inequality squabble is intentionally inflamed to distract us from the real problem: out of control government spending that of course goes right into the pockets of the superrich thieves who own our corrupt lawmakers.
If you want to hurt the superrich, take away their Federal Daddy money, in the forms of military contracts, Big Ag subsidies and a million other examples.
Making them pay more taxes into the very same honeypot that they have their sticky fingers engorged in is not going to solve anything.
.jpg){kind=link}
