Principles vs. Narratives

This is where people get confused. They think because they have principles (plural), libtards must have them, too. They don’t. They have a Narrative, like with most religions. Just as a Hebrew around 1k BC would tell you that God destroying the people of Sodom right down to the babies in their cribs was a good thing because the Sodomites were wicked and depraved, and everything God does is good by definition, a 21st century libtard will tell you everything they do is good because their Narrative says so..

To someone who operates via principle, wearing a button that says “vote black” when you’d go apeshit if you saw a button that says “vote white” marks you as a racist. Someone who operates via Narrative has to crack the book, and the book says, “blacks have been held down by whites so it’s okay to have double standards with regard to the races.”

To someone who operates via principle, supporting race-based institutions for everyone but whites, and opposing them for only whites, marks you as a racist. Someone who operates via Narrative has to crack the book, and the book says, “whites are oppressors, everyone else is the victim, so it’s okay to have double standards for whites and non-whites.”

To someone who operates via principle, condemning an executive team for being too white, but never condeming an executive team for being too yellow, brown*, sepia, or Jewish marks you as a racist. Someone who operates via Narrative has to crack the book, and the book says, “whites are oppressors, everyone else is the victim, so it’s okay to have double standards for whites and non-whites.”

This is why libtards must control history and culture; they have to make sure their Narrative is the Narrative. If they don’t, the whole thing falls apart.

Also, obsessing about race is great protective covering for white libtards; if everyone is paying attention to the NAMs crying about white overrepresentation, no one is paying attention to the white southerner crying about Yankee overrepresentation, white Christians crying about Jewish overrepresentation, etc. They keep upwardly-mobile whites in check by pretending to give a shit about AA sinecures.

*Remember, “hispanics” are automatically “brown.” I didn’t make the rules.


Trayvon: please stop calling him a “child.”

Team Trayvon (the “mainstream” media, libtards, leftoids, Blacks, assorted goofballs) are fond of referring to 17-year-old, 6-foot-plus Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin as a “child.” A “child” who brings pot and bags of stolen jewelry to school, wears a “grill” (removable gold teef), makes fight club videos of himself, calls himself a “made nigga,” etc.

(It’s funny how when 17-year-old Blacks act out in a group, they’re “youths,” and when they’re left alone by their parents to prowl around a strange neighborhood, they’re “children,” but when it comes to sex they’re “young adults,” no?)

I suppose that Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” is a “child” to the degree to which his father is guilty of child neglect for having left him alone without any supervision.

According to

Here are some things to consider when deciding if your child is old enough to be home alone without a sitter:

You child needs to be responsible. Age does not matter, if your child is not responsible enough to know that he needs to sit down and start on his homework rather than playing video games. Additionally, does your child have good judgment and reasoning abilities, making it possible for him to remember not to open the door when the doorbell chimes, or not let a stranger on the phone know that you are not there?

Epic fail. EPIC. Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” wasn’t responsible enough to know not to bring pot and hot jewelry to school, or to get himself suspended from school several times a year, much less responsible enough to do his homework. His judgment was nowhere near the level of responsibility needed, according to these guidelines.

Is your home safe? If you live in a safe neighborhood, your windows and doors are in good repair, and your child knows how to work the burglar alarm and call the authorities if necessary, you could say that it is by and large safe for your child to be home alone. On the other hand, if your home is near to venues that attract unsafe characters and if your neighborhood is prone to gang violence, leaving your child home alone is unwise.

Epic fail. EPIC. The neighborhood was a high-crime area, and Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin couldn’t even be trusted not to prowl around outdoors.

Have you trained your child in proper safety procedures? In other words, does your child know what to do if there was an attempted break-in, a fire, or other emergency?

Epic Fail. EPIC. Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” was so devoid of knowledge of self-preservational procedure that he thought circling around to confront (and attack) the stranger following him was a good idea. The idea of going home was too complex for him.

Do we know if Mr. Martin, Sr., did any of the things recommended in that article, before he ditched his son (who was visiting from out of town) and went off to dinner with his girlfriend? And shouldn’t we wonder what kind of father brings a “child” to stay with him, and then ditches that “child” to go off to dinner with his girlfriend? Was Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin so much of an anti-social thug that dad didn’t want to take him out to dinner? Such a burden, that he’d rather leave him at home than spend time with him? Remember, he was just visiting. He had just come to stay with dad, but dad was already ditching him for dinner with the girlfriend. Or maybe, it was Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin’s decision? Is that the kind of decision a child makes?

In Mr. Martin, Sr.’s place, would you feel completely comfortable leaving Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin alone in your home? Would you feel he was up to the responsibility? That he had proven he had his head screwed on straight? Would you even feel halfway comfortable?

And why isn’t the media asking Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” Martin’s parents any of these questions? Why haven’t they asked Mr. Martin, Sr., WTF he was thinking leaving his violent, law-breaking, rule-breaking, anti-social, budding young thug of a son home alone?

Would Trayvon “No Limits Nigga” be in the ground right now, if his father hadn’t left him at home alone?

Would he be in the ground right now, if his mother had kept him at home with her, rather than send him to stay with his father?

Ben Tillman on Derb’s “The Talk.”

Funny, I haven’t blogged in quite a while, and when I do, I’m talking about the Derb again:

Ben Tillman posted this comment about Derbyshire’s The Talk at Sailer’s blog:

Ultimately, the Derbyshire controversy boils down to the following question: Do Blacks own non-Blacks?

If you have a problem with what Derbyshire wrote, then you have answered the question in the affirmative.

Suppose that Derbyshire’s daughters and other non-Blacks followed Derbyshire’s advice. What would be the result? Only that Blacks would be deprived of the presence of non-Blacks and the positive externalities they produce.

If you object to this result — if you think this is wrong — you are asserting that Blacks have an ownership interest in non-Blacks that obligates non-Blacks to be where Blacks want them to be and to share with Blacks what they produce.

Interesting. I wonder what substantive answer Libtards could, or would, give to this. That might be a bit like asking “I wonder what non-libtard answer libtards could give to this,” I suppose. They’d probably just change the subject, or argue over semantics, or lean on their old standby, feminine shaming language:

“The problem is Derb’s hate-speech”

“Laws against discrimination are not slavery.”


I think they’d just stick to talking about how indecent it was of Derb to say what he said. But that raises the question: why are libtards so comfortable ignoring criticisms leveled against them? Why are they so uninterested in acknowledging, much less correcting, their obvious moral and ethical failings? Is it just as simple as conformity? I.e., they wouldn’t get a “buzz” from going against the grain of their groupthink and moving to higher moral and ethical ground because they only get a buzz from the groupthink?

Pakistanis hang Obama in effigy

A supporter of the Human Rights Network group wears a mask of U.S President Barack Obama with a noose around his neck while holding the U.S flag during an anti-American rally in Karachi February 26

But don’t expect any hue and cry from the American press over this. Pakistanis aren’t White Americans. If White American Conservatives had done this, the press would have a field day. They’d be calling us terrorists, racists, etc. But since Pakistanis are quite fertile ground for terrorists, and they aren’t White, Christian, or of European descent, Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations suggests that if anything, the American Left & Media (but I repeat myself) will run cover for and defend the Pakistani effigy-hangers, rather than criticize them.

Just keep in mind that they’d go ape if you did it, White man. It’s only racism when Whites, Europeans, Conservatives, Christians, etc., do it. Anti-racism means “anti-White racism.”