Barrel Strength

Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Barrel Strength - Over-Proof Opinion, Smoothly Aged Insight

Loose lips sink ships

I am tiring of liberal tolerance. To be more precise,  I am tiring of tolerance itself being promoted as a virtue without reference to what is being tolerated.

I had occasion to issue a gentle reproof yesterday to an American friend who keeps uttering nearly homicidal anger at Evangelicals, fundamentalists, and Republicans. In short, I grew intolerant of loose talk the net effect of which was to legitimize violence against one’s fellow citizens. Even if the speaker is civilized and over 65, I am becoming sufficiently alarmed at the general atmosphere of loose talk that I feel it necessary to risk social offence in saying: “tone it down”.


Myspace Chris Harper-Mercer, 26 gunman in the Umpqua Community College in Oregon
Chris Harper-Mercer, 26, gunman in the Umpqua Community College in Oregon

The rampage killer in the Oregon community college, Chris Harper Mercer, martyred – that is the word – ten Christians yesterday for the crime – in his eyes- of their faith. I can only shudder at the bravery of those who, seeing their classmates killed for admitting to being Christians, still admitted to being Christians themselves. I am not sure I would have had the courage. But my concern is the atmosphere of loose anti-Christian talk of the Dawkins-Dennett variety that has pervaded the culture, and given the justification to the crazy angry young men of this world to kill Christians. The killer was not a Muslim; he was what can be described as a secular-humanist, an atheist. Such people used to lack convictions; recently they have been led to believe their atheism amounts to a justification for martyring the faithful who have convictions or beliefs different from their own.

In the same way that we can hold Wahhabist doctrines to be the source of Islamic jihad, so we can now hold militant atheism/materialism  to be responsible for this martyrdom of Christians. They have now joined the ranks of the rest of us fallible humans: people will kill for what they believe, and now the atheist/materialists have their own home-grown American mass killers.

Of course, Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot beat them to the punch many years ago.


Have you noticed?

All unprovoked attacks by blacks on other races are always described as “random”. As in statistically unfathomable, without pattern. What is almost always shown on cameras is a black joyfully attacking another person and frequently exulting in the attack.

The victim is almost always described by the police and media as “in the wrong place at the wrong time”, that is, being near a black, male or female, who suddenly attacks. But the violence of black people is always treated like the weather, as beyond predicting.

The witnesses and relatives express deepest mystification as to why the person was attacked. I remember an ancient sound track of George Lincoln Rockwell, American Nazi, in the 1960s – before computer  mediated anything – speaking of “niggers going crazy and killing people”. There are days when I think he had a small but important point,amid his general racist craziness.

“It is not the evil itself which is horrifying about our times – it is the way we not only tolerate evil, but have made a cult of positively worshipping weakness, depravity, rottenness and evil itself.”


According to US federal department of Justice statistics, a white person is 87 times more likely to be killed by a black person in the USA than a black person is likely to be killed by a white person. Yet if you followed the media, you would be tempted to believe that there is a pogrom in operation by policemen to shoot black males. Apparently not.

I could post stuff like this every day and turn my blog into Stuff Black People Don’t Like. I have other things to do. I could just as easily turn Barrelstrength into something dedicated to exposing Islamic Jihad,  with as much justification, and no lack of easily bloggable events. I am too busy trying to earn a living, but please be assured, I notice, and I watch, and I notice many other Canadians of intelligence and good faith are as aware as I am. The fog of political correctness cannot disguise what is going on before our eyes. That is why, to the consternation of the Globe and even the National Post, the niqab issue is gaining traction for the Conservatives.

But I digress.

Oswald and the Kennedy assassination

The 1960s were a clamorous and turbulent decade, marred by the assassinations of John F. Kennedy, his brother Robert, and Martin Luther King. Those who lived in that time felt that the world had spun out of control. It was but a small taste of what people had gone through in the 1930s, with Stalin and Hitler vying for attention and power, and war looming.

In all the enormous literature of the John Kennedy assassination, nothing has seemed stranger to me than the failure to point out the obvious. Lee Harvey Oswald was a deserter from the US Marines, he defected to the Soviet Union, he married a Soviet citizen, he renounced his American citizenship, then  demanded  it back from none other than John Connally,  Governor of Texas, whom Oswald later wounded in the attack of November 22nd,1963, and was admitted back into the United States and his citizenship restored.

Now the CIA has released formerly secret information

Three days after John F. Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas, U.S. intelligence officials told President Lyndon B. Johnson that they had confirmed that assassin Lee Harvey Oswald had recently traveled to Mexico City to visit both the Cuban and Soviet embassies, according to a half-century old briefing memo declassified on Wednesday.

According to the Nov. 25, 1963 briefing, Oswald — a former U.S. Marine who defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 — visited both the Cuban and Soviet embassies on Sept. 28, 1963.

According to the Nov. 25, 1963 briefing, Oswald — a former U.S. Marine who defected to the Soviet Union in 1959 — visited both the Cuban and Soviet embassies on Sept. 28, 1963.

I am fascinated by the general line on Oswald that came out of the Warren Commission’s findings, that he was a lone gunman. While this is plausible, it is by no means the only conclusion consistent with the facts.

Amidst all the speculation that Oswald was a hitman for the Mob, angered by Attorney-General Robert Kennedy’s prosecution of them, and other more far- fetched ideas, the one theory that was never pursued in public was that it was a Soviet wet job. After all, in 1983 the KGB got the Bulgarians to hire a Turk to shoot a Pope, did they not?

It was not until the Swedish Prime Minister Olof Palme was killed in the streets of Stockholm in 1986 that Soviet assassination attempts against western leaders ceased. Palme was the moral equivalent of the Pope to the Soviets, in my belief. Read the Wikipedia entry on him (above) and you will see why.

But I am off topic. Regardless of the effects of the Palme assassination on Soviet adventurism, the fact remains that the obvious linkage between Lee Harvey Oswald and the Soviet Union was never publicly explored. Why? Was it just too frightening to contemplate that the KGB could kill a US President and get away with it?

NYC, A land of liberal hermits


New Yorker film critic “Pauline Kael famously commented, after the 1972 Presidential election, ‘I live in a rather special world. I only know one person who voted for Nixon. Where they are I don’t know. They’re outside my ken. But sometimes when I’m in a theater I can feel them.’”


The CEO of one large Wall Street firm, who declined to be identified by name criticizing the GOP front-runner, … “I don’t know anyone who is a Donald Trump supporter. I don’t know anyone who knows anyone who is a Donald Trump supporter. They are like this huge mystery group,” the CEO said. “So it’s a combination of shock and bewilderment. No one really knows why this is happening. But my own belief is that the laws of gravity will apply and those who are prepared to run the marathon will benefit when Trump drops out at mile 22. Right now people think Trump is pretty hilarious but the longer it goes on the more frightening it gets.”


30% of Americans think he is Muslim

Misperceptions about Obama’s religious beliefs are more common than those about his birth, particularly among Republicans. Overall, 29% of Americans say they think the President is a Muslim, including 43% of Republicans.

Gosh! I can’t imagine why.

  • Obama gives a major foreign policy speech to El-Ahram Mosque in Cairo, claiming to understand why Muslims are angry because American foreign policy has interfered with the Hajj, among other offences.
  • Obama gives a speech at the United Nations saying the future does not belong to those who insult the Prophet Mohammad.
  • Obama backs the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, the suppression of which has been the goal of all governments of Egypt since it was formed in the 1930s.The Muslim Brotherhood takes over after the “Arab Spring”  and sets about persecuting and murdering Christians, burning churches, and driving the country to near bankruptcy. Also causing trouble for Israel.
  • Obama turns on Ghaddaffi, the only source of stability in Libya, bombs him into smithereens after he has voluntarily got rid of all nuclear  materials, and presides over the creation of a state of anarchy in Libya, which engenders new flow of refugees and migrants, and allows for more slaughter of Egyptian Christians.
  • When the Egyptian Army restores sanity and order be overthrowing the Muslim Brotherhood government, Obama refuses to supply the Army with new weapons, and maintains a generally hostile attitude towards the only force for sanity in Egypt, General Al-Sissi, who in former times would have been understood to be “our guy”.
  • Obama withdraws US troops from Iraq, opening the way for Da’esh to take over.
  • Obama negotiates a weak and flawed nuclear deal with Iran, which will drive the Sunnis to arm themselves accordingly.
  • By failing to stabilize the Middle East, Obama engenders a horde of Syrian migrants to invade Europe, simultaneously assisting the Islamification of Europe while making no criticism of Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states for refusing a single migrant to enter.
  • When Russia sides with Assad to fight Da’esh (ISIL), Obama expresses hostility to the plan, yet ending the Syrian conflict is the only chance of stabilizing the region and turning off the flood of refugees.

Is there anything I have missed? Most assuredly. Why, for example,  was the US Ambassador to Libya dealing arms out of the Libyan consulate and sending them to fight Assad in Syria?

And you wonder why some low information voter gets the impression that Obama is a Muslim? In whose interest is he ruling? Why would anyone think they are fundamentally mistaken? They just attribute religious motivation to Obama’s perfidy.

Reasons to dismiss Trump, and reasons not

There are plenty of reasons not to bother yourself with Donald Trump. Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review has given them, and his views seem reasonable.

Why then do I not believe them?

Because I keep hoping that America is ready for a reasonable assertion of the rights of its native people – that is, people born there –  to assert their legitimate interests. What are those interests? They are opposed to the dominance of US immigration policy by a cosmopolitan elite, both Democrat and Republican, who wish to replace the population as fast as possible with docile Hispanics who will do the elite’s bidding, to keep class of useful servants to mow their lawns and bring them drinks. The US may have got rid of slavery, but it has not  rid itself of the belief – on the part of some – that some other people were born to serve them.

The white and black working class of the United States are being replaced by immigrants prepared to work for far less and sleep in dormitories until they can find a foothold in suburbia. Accordingly, the question arises whether the interests of the people born in the United States are legitimate, and can be expressed.

The answer, from the political left, is that this is – horror of horrors! – white nationalism, not just nationalism but white nationalism. And the answer from the right, as in Republican establishment, or Conservatism Inc., as it is called, is the same thing, said more politely.

Hence James Kirkpatrick in VDare writes:

Trump matters because he is connecting the largely symbolic rhetoric of the GOP with actual appeals to the concrete interests of grassroots white conservatives on immigration, trade, and jobs. Politics is about who, not what. Trump’s strategy of mobilizing voters behind an explicitly nationalist agenda may prove harder to contain than Conservatism Inc. expects [What’s the secret to Donald Trump’s appeal? Nationalism by Ezra Dulis, Breitbart, August 7, 2015].

The hard truth: the legacy of William F. Buckley is failure. Because of the massive demographic shift that American cuckservatives enabled when they purged men like Sam Francis, Pat Buchanan, and Peter Brimelow, the future of American politics is, like Francis predicted, ethnopolitics.

The Left is already practicing this, and as the Obama Administration shows, is becoming quite successful. Republicans either need to adopt or find themselves replaced and irrelevant in the emerging post-America. If they had wanted to talk only about “classical liberalism,” they should have stopped Third World immigration a few decades ago.

Trump offers a compromise position with his patriotic vision of renewed American greatness. But Conservatism Inc. may honestly prefer to remain Politically Correct and lose rather than be “offensive” and win. In effect, they may prefer running out the clock on Anglo-America in order to squeeze out consultants’ fees and board directorships for a few more election cycles.

In that case, ultimately, the dread specter of “White Nationalism” will move from the margins to the mainstream as the only alternative to a permanent Leftist (and anti-white) regime.


Seen from the perspective of a Ramesh Ponnuru, of National Review, Buckley’s sadly diminished remnant, and the exponent of Conservatism Inc., Trump is a nullity scarcely worth heeding.


I just can’t take Trump that seriously. He is not going to be president. He’s not going to be the Republican nominee. He’s probably not going to hurt the eventual nominee’s chances of winning. Trump is an existential threat to the weakest primary candidates – but not to anybody else.

And that is where Trump is today, caught between significance and insignificance.

Trump: the rebuke to elite consensus

What makes Trump significant? Two views are linked here. One is by Peggy  Noonan, who wrote Reagan’s speeches in the 1980s. Her main observation is that Trump’s candidacy is shaking up political allegiances and motivating people who are fed up with the current consensus of elites to foist free trade and open borders on the citizens of the United States.

Both sides, the elites and the non-elites, sense that things are stuck.

The people hate the elites, which is not new, and very American. The elites have no faith in the people, which, actually, is new. Everything is stasis. Then Donald Trump comes, like a rock thrown through a showroom window, and the molecules start to move.

The second is by Julius Krein in the American Standard, called “Traitor to his Class”.

What Trump offers is permission to conceive of an American interest as a national interest separate from the “international community” and permission to wish to see that interest triumph. What makes him popular on immigration is not how extreme his policies are, but the emphasis he puts on the interests of Americans rather than everyone else. His slogan is “Make America Great Again,” and he is not ashamed of the fact that this means making it better than other places, perhaps even at their expense.

His least practical suggestion—making Mexico pay for the border wall—is precisely the most significant: It shows that a President Trump would be willing to take something from someone else in order to give it to the American people. Whether he could achieve this is of secondary importance; the fact that he is willing to say it is everything. Nothing is more terrifying to the business and donor class—as well as the media and the entire elite—than Trump’s embrace of a tangible American nationalism. The fact that Trump should by all rights be a member of this class and is in fact a traitor to it makes him all the more attractive to his supporters and all the more baffling to pundits.

I recall the almost universal condemnation of Ronald Reagan back when he emerged as a possible Republican candidate in the late 1970s. That was when Communism was here to stay, and the legitimacy of the Soviet Union as a permanent fact of history permitted to be challenged in the then élite consensus. Reagan broke from that consensus. After he became President, he shocked the Atlanticist policy élites by the very simple statement of calling the USSR “an evil empire”, which is exactly what it was: evil and imperial.

The American people gave him two terms as President. The USA went on a military spending spree, called an arms race, culminating in the Strategic Defense Initiative, which was designed to scare the bejeezus out of Soviet war planners. It succeeded. The USSR collapsed from military overspending weighing on a sclerotic economy, contained within a vast prison camp of nations.

I do not wish to conflate Reagan and Trump. There are differences in origin, style, and policy, and at this stage of their careers,  degree of greatness. What I find reminiscent is the desire for liberation from stasis on the part of the American people, and the leader who is calling it like it is, and whose words are resonating with an electorate alienated from the élite consensus, and the gasps of horror from the bien-pensants.




Obviously the most interesting candidate in the primary season is Donald Trump, a blowhard from his days in primary school, billionaire, disruptor, egotist, and accomplisher. The issue is: what is his long game?

Is he seeking a high price to be bought out of the race? Or is he seeking the White House for real?

As others have observed, his success so far is a standing indictment of the US political class, Republican and Democratic alike. His every outrage is increasing his strength in polls.




Trump is having the same effect as Nigel Farage in the UK, Geert Wilders in Holland and, in his day, Preston Manning in Canada: he is opening the boundaries of political possibilities; in a stifling political environment; he is introducing fresh air into an over-managed politically-correct public discourse.

Democrats guffaw, Republicans tremble and splutter in assumed rage. I was dining with a table largely full of Democrats last night. You may imagine their derision. But the most politically savvy among them has a son working for Joe Biden. Why? Because they feel that the first post-feminine female candidate, Hilary Clinton, is not going to win the Presidency. Why? You tell me.

The one American Republican at the table was saying to his colleagues that he could see the circumstances in which he, a hugely intelligent technology entrepreneur and manager, could vote for Trump. The two Canadians at the table were trying to tell the Americans about a certain improbable Toronto mayor named Ford who took the mayoralty of Toronto despite all the hostility of the chattering classes.

Trump as President: it could happen, and that is what the American political class fears. Especially the Republicans. The Dems have their own problem to solve, and her name is Hilary. That bitch won’t hunt.

Between the bull moose in the cow pasture and an heir presumptive who is perceived to be fatally weak, the American presidential race is interesting this month.



Not black enough

You have to read the article carefully to discover that the claim of “discrimination” is essentially one of a Canadian-born black woman serving in the Washington DC police department, who is suing an American black woman supervisor for discrimination. The reason behind the friction? The Canadian-born  woman was not black enough. Not like us black folks down here, so she must be some sort of whitey bitch, I guess. Anyway the complainant has a PhD in criminology and spoke “white”, a double disqualification for the black-run Washington DC police department.

According to the statement of claim, Samuel, who was born in Canada, completed graduate work in the United States and joined the MPD in 2006 shortly after finishing a PhD in criminology.

The bulk of her allegations are levelled against Diane Hains Walton, who was her direct supervisor for most of her time with the department.

Hains Walton grew resentful in 2008 when Samuel was assigned greater responsibility within the force’s human resources management division, the statement says.

This allegedly triggered a number of “snide remarks” against Samuel’s heritage and country of birth.

The statement says Hains Walton once told Samuel that she “talked white,” adding it was not typical for an “African-American.”

So much for the theory that only white people can engage in racism.

On letting it go

Donal  Trump caught some well-deserved blame for attacking John McCain, the American senator and fighter pilot who spent seven years in captivity in North Vietnam. And my point is neither about McCain, nor Trump, both of whom I like for different reasons. It is about the endless nonsense that Americans make about Vietnam. It seems the same people who deeply opposed the war, also cannot let it go.

One such article resurrected against McCain was by Sidney Schanberg, which documented – supposedly – McCain’s attempts to deny that US prisoners remained in Vietnamese prisons after the peace accords had been signed. The article had been written in 2008 in the left-wing magazine, “The Nation”, but had been resurrected now that Trump had been caught in a temporary foofaraw with Senator McCain.

Whatever is asserted by Schanberg about prisoners held back by VietNam, and held for ransom which never came, is probably true. And here I dare to say that, amidst all the tragedies of that war, it is not really important. Like the millions of Vietnamese, French and American war dead. Tragic but not really important.

I realize this is provocative, but I have finally come around to the view that there is a lot of truth asserted in political disputes, to which the answer is best given as “so what?”.
I have little doubt that the Viet Communists kept some prisoners, and treated them all abominably, as a policy.  I have little doubt that the Americans would be keen to suppress news of this fact. Let us assume the truth of what was written there. And yet I dare to ask: “so what?”

John McCain and others spent years being tortured by the Vietnamese communists. Most broke under torture. Who would not? So what? He has an anger problem, it is said. Who doesn’t, except the depressives, and I am not so sure about them, either.

What exactly does anyone propose to do to repatriate aged men from prisons, when even the author of the article, Sidney Schanberg,  doubts that any are still alive in captivity?

What is anyone going to do, exactly, about lost POWs? Bomb Hanoi?

Vietnam is now our ally against the Chinese.

Cam Ranh Bay is a US naval station, again. No amount of finger-pointing or chest beating or self-flagellation will return one live ancient POW slave prisoner.

Trump is largely right in attacking the immigrant crime question. You can tell he is striking a nerve by attacking Mexican/illegal immigrant crime rates. Good on him. But Trump has a large fast loose mouth on him, and he is wide of the mark in attacking McCain, for all his faults.

I think Trump serves a useful purpose, just as Nigel Farage, Geert Wilders and Ezra Levant do. My point is not about the usefulness of disturbers of the peace of the complacent, and the dissenters from the twaddle that passes for thought in political life.

At some point, you just have to let it go. Your bad marriage and worse divorce. Your difficult teenagerhood. Your wretched mother, or father. For the Americans, it is the Viet Nam war.

On the subject of McCain and lost prisoners, the usual US hysteria is at work.They cannot admit to themselves that they were defeated and that the pain of defeat sucks. Losing is way worse than winning is good. The same hysteria of denial is at work on other issues as well. For example, there are still people who think President Franklin Roosevelt kept back information from the US naval and air commanders  in Oahu in 1941, when in fact the commanders would not have acted intelligently even if they had had correct information in time. Armed with prior information about unknown Japanese threats, the commander of the Oahu airbases grouped his planes closer together on the ground and doubled the watch – against domestic Hawaiian Japanese saboteurs!  – thus making Japanese bombing more effective

No one imagined the Japanese would do anything so bold and effective as bomb Pearl Harbour. And no one in charge of US policy realized that the Viets would lead their own people to the slaughter and accept any casualties short of nuclear war to win, but they did accept those losses, and they won, because we did not kill them in numbers large enough to stop them, and no US politician could have bombed them into submission, except Nixon – and look what the left did to him.

Sometimes the US loses, and it always invents conspiracies and coverups when the plain fact is, they lost, and defeat sucks. The measure of how bad defeat sucks is the fact that articles like the one  Sidney Schanberg wrote are still being written forty five years after the last American got out, except for the possibility of some poor captives held for ransom. Would a good Jewish liberal like Sidney Schanberg have supported the cruel and bloody measures needed to extract American PoWs after the Paris Peace Accords had been signed? Would he or his political ilk have supported re-flattening Hanoi? The US Democratic-controlled House and Senate would not even supply their South Vietnamese allies the money to fight the Communists, after Nixon had resigned. It was the greatest betrayal of an ally in US history. Do you think they were in a mood to bomb the Vietnamese again for a thousand missing prisoners of war when they would not help thirty million South Vietnamese?

And Americans can’t stand the fact that Viet Nam was a defeat, not a mistake, so they write articles like the one Schanberg wrote. Someone must be blamed, and after forty-three years, anyone is fair game. It was McCain’s turn this week to have ancient calumnies resurrected against him.

It is just noise –  that article. Just political noise.