Blaming Welfare Queens Reply

From Kyle’s Corner.

_______________

In these troubling economic times those that wish to defend the establishment are scrambling for a demographic to scapegoat. Naturally, they have landed on the poor.

Recently, a young conservative, Christine Rousselle , demonstrated the point in her essay My Time at Walmart: Why We Need Serious Welfare Reform. In this short article she manages to make use of several clichéd right-wing attacks on the poor. She mentions the term “welfare queens” repeatedly, claims that the state is running out of money due to welfare programs for the poor, and she complains about proles committing “massive amounts of welfare fraud and abuse”.

This article touches on the three things that you must believe in order to be an establishment conservative in America:

  1. Americans stricken by poverty are unethical parasites sucking this country dry
  2. The Middle and Upper class stand on their own merits (they aren’t heavily subsidized by the state)
  3. Corporations like Wal-Mart and Goldman Sachs are bastions of the “free market” and need to be protected from the vicious classes

There are some glaring contradictions that arise when conservatives blame the poor for America’s economic plight. First off, the poor are not the biggest recipients of government loot. Secondly, this misdirected anger causes people to overlook the real thieves that are running this country. It’s easy to blame the powerless, but average conservatives are only shooting themselves in the foot when they side with the ruling class and attack the proles.

More…

The Stark Truth: Interview with Paul Craig Roberts Reply

Listen to the interview.

May 25, 2012

Paul Craig Roberts

Robert Stark interviews Paul Craig Roberts. Topics include:

  • PCR’s role in the Reagan administration and supply-side economics;
  • How job outsourcing was engineered by Wall Street and corporations;
  • The military-industrial complex;
  • Neoconservatives, foreign policy in the Middle East, and war with Iran;
  • Policy toward China;
  • 9/11;
  • Why we can’t take back the country by the ballot box.

VDARE, Lew Rockwell, and the Race-Obsessed Paleo Problem Reply

An oldy-but-goody from Dylan Waco at the Left Conservative.

_______________

Fresh off the heels of my post about the generational gap within the paleo movement on matters of race, comes the latest race obsessed nonsense from the folks at VDare. This time the issue is the alleged sellout of paleolibertarianism, by lewrockwell.com and the Murray Rothbard inspired, free market fundamentalists associated with the Austrian School of economics. While I am not a partisan of the Rothbardians, it does strike me that they are the saner of the two groupings, and they certainly have their priorities in order. They also understand tactical alliances, something that flies right over the head of the VDare crowd all to often.

Generally speaking I am a fan of the VDare website, particularly its focused work on immigration. While I don’t consider myself a restrictionist, I do think immigration is one of the major problems facing the nation, and lefties who pretend that the tide of illegals sweeping onto our shores is not an issue worthy of thought ought to quit pretending they care about things like the environment, urban sprawl, fair wages, or the autocratic status of the third world hellholes these folks are fleeing from. That said, VDare’s obsession with what it calls the “National Question”, is for the most part ideologically driven nonsense, and postings like the one offered up by “Arthur Pendleton” (most likely a pseudonym) do nothing to advance the cause of decentralized government, personal liberty, or community empowerment.

More…

The “F” Word Reply

By Paul Gottfried

Although the adjective “fascist,” as George Orwell pointed out during and right after World War II, was a slur applied to “those we don’t like,” the indiscriminate use of the “F” word seems more common now than it was in 1945.

Political correctness drives this revival, although the association of fascism with absolute evil was already common by the late 1960s. That’s when the new “F” word became the ultimate insult in New Left grunting (replacing the other “F” word, which was elevated to the socially chic). Then along came the Holocaust industry to equate fascism with Nazism and Auschwitz.

Fascism was a time- and space-related movement which arose in Europe between the two World Wars and which was heavily shaped by World War I’s effects. Fascism resulted from the mobilization of mass armies, the creation of command economies, and the problem of reintegrating veterans into war-torn societies. Fascists were also reacting against the revolutionary left, particularly anarchists and communists. Communists in Germany, Finland, Austria, and Hungary were then being supplied by the newly created Soviet Union. The paramilitary formations that opposed the left stressed national identity—and in the Austrian and Spanish cases, Catholic corporate structures—as opposed to communist internationalism and socialist atheism.

“Fascism has a definite historical meaning. It is not an expletive to describe everything that someone dislikes.”

Contrary to an idea popular among American libertarians, fascists were not really leftists and once in power were not particularly socialistic. In fascist Italy, they supported some welfare-state measures, particularly after the Depression, and what they introduced, such as subsidies to industries and farmers, paralleled the New Deal in the US.

Fascism belonged to the right but was not conservative in any traditional sense. It took over the revolutionary rhetoric of the leftist internationalists and socialists, but fascist “national revolutions” changed the social structure only minimally. In Latin countries and in Austria, the fascists borrowed heavily from the Catholic Church and took over at least the labeling of neo-medieval corporate and guild organizations.

More…

R. I. P. Richard Hunt 4

By Wayne John Sturgeon

Richard Hunt, former editor of  the UK based “Green Anarchist” and “Alternative Green” magazines, died may 2nd 2012. He was 79 years old.  Green Anarchist,  a publication he launched in the mid to late 80s, was a very beautifully illustrated magazine (Richard was an excellent artist) with a spirit very akin to the traveller, squatter, free festival and counter cultural punk scene of the time. Richard would  finance, write, edit,and illustrate this magazine until he was kicked out by the other editors for supposed reactionary views. These reactionary views apparently consisted of supporting traditional gender roles (despite being very pro-homosexual) admitting to a natural patriotism (he was opposed to the first Iraq war but felt an  kindred affinity to the british service personnel) and being concerned on enviromental  and sustainabillity grounds as to the impact mass immigration would have on the eco-system of the U. K., etc.

He parted to form Alternative Green magazine in the early 90s. Green Anarchist then changed into a much more aggressive, vanguardist, anarcho-primitivist, “propaganda of the deed” type mag that alienated and divided many and almost landed its editors a lengthy jail term before disappearing completely. Alternative Green (subtitled “green anarchism for the polictically incorrect”) seeked to transcend  both left and right dogmatism aiming at a synthesis of what Richard would refer to as “the loyality of the right with the compassion of the left.”

More…

An Open Letter to the So-Called Left Reply

By C. Derick Varn

An Open Letter To Much of the So-Called Left:

I am a man of the left. Make no mistake about it, I am a man of the fair left even. I have vaguely liberal social sensibilities, and a hard left politics. I have, however, noticed much notice in my life: one) a tendency to try confuse polemics and derailing tactics with arguments. In “anti-racist” battles I have noticed a strategic essentializing of the minority group to preserve self-identity move to a strategic essentializing of the majority. Take for example this bit from People of color organize:

More…

Talking With Chomsky: On OWS, Anarchism, Labor, Racism, Corporate Power and the Class War Reply

By Laura Flanders

Noam Chomsky has not just been watching the Occupy movement. A veteran of the civil rights, anti-war, and anti-intervention movements of the 1960s through the 1980s, he’s given lectures at Occupy Boston and talked with occupiers across the US.  A new publication from theOccupied Media Pamphlet Series brings together several of those lectures, a speech on “occupying foreign policy” and a brief tribute to his friend and co-agitator Howard Zinn.

From his speeches, and in this conversation, it’s clear that the emeritus MIT professor and author is as impressed by the spontaneous, cooperative communities some Occupy encampments created, as he is by the movement’s political impact.

We’re a nation whose leaders are pursuing policies that amount to economic “suicide” Chomsky says. But there are glimmers of possibility – in worker co-operatives, and other spaces where people get a taste of a different way of living.

We talked in his office, for Free Speech TV on April 24.

LF: Let’s start with the big picture. How do you describe the situation we’re in, historically?

More…

“We’re White, We’re Male, and We Suck!” Reply

By Jim Goad

American culture reached Peak Beta last week as three privileged white-male pundits wrote essays declaring that privileged white males suck.

Lifelong morbidly obese bitchy lesbian Roger Ebert apparently dismantled the presumably elaborate series of pulleys and harnesses that enable him to orally service his adiposely domineering, melanin-drenched wife in order to run that half-a-mouth of his about how “Women Are Better Than Men.” Amazingly, Ebert became privy to this startling epiphany while watching a movie about how women are better than men. Ebert, who was apparently born without male hormones, decried “testosterone.” He intimated that men, at least the brawny ones, are as obsolete as farm animals and that women will be better suited to take command of “our emerging world economy”:

Women are nicer than men. And the sooner more of them take positions of power, the better our chances as a species.

Mr. Ebert has obviously never heard of Aileen Wuornos or Elizabeth Báthory.

Ebert’s verbal genuflection before the Giant Invisible Goddess Vulva is nothing new. Nor was it as cringeworthy as other recent spectacles of public male self-neutering such as the unconsciously hysterical, vagina-dessiccating “Dear Woman” video compiled by a group of ex-men offering “a collective apology on behalf of their gender.” It wasn’t as abjectly self-deballing as the recent trend of progressive boy hamsters holding “I Am a Feminist Because…” placards in what appear to be last-ditch attempts to get laid. It is merely the latest example in a decades-long tradition of men taking pride in taking shame in being men.

More…

How to Create an Occupy Tribe Reply

By John Robb

Hat tip to NATA-NY.

There’s no question that the Occupy groups have done a great job with constructing the outlines ofresilient communities in the heart of many of our most dense urban areas.

People pitch in to do work. They are considerate despite the difficulty of the arrangement. Food gets served. The area gets cleaned. There is entertainment. There’s innovation (equipment, tech, workarounds). There is education (lots of seminars being taught). There is open, participatory governance. All of this is great and this experience will definitely pay off over the next decade as the global economy deteriorates, panics, fails. It will make building resilient communities easier (there are lots of ways to build a resilient community, we’re trying to document all of the ways how on MiiU).

However, is this experience building a tribal identity? An Occupy tribe? Something that can eventually (there’s lots to do in the short to medium term) go beyond protest and build something new? One even strong enough to create new resilient economic and social networks that step into the breach as the current one fails?

More…

Is Modern Conservatism a Mental Illness? Reply

By Paul Gottfried

Jonah Goldberg in his new collection of meditations, The Tyranny of Clichés: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas and Andrew Ferguson in his latest Weekly Standard opinion piece “The New Phrenology” complain how the other side gets nasty when depicting its well-meaning opponents. This bothers our “conservative” apologists, since they yearn for all the same good things as the other side: fairness, women’s rights, and democracy for the entire world.

Why, then, do liberals persist in depicting Republicans as fascists, a tendency that Ferguson insists is rife among Democratic sociologists? It recalls the Frankfurt School’s 1950 attack on the fascist “authoritarian personality.” According to Ferguson, the “political reporter” Thomas Edsall has discovered that “social science has lately become a tool of Democrats who want to reassure themselves that Republicans are heartless and stupid.” People such as Edsall, whom Ferguson refers to as “psychopundits,” treat Republican affiliations as evidence of mental disease.

I have called this phenomenon the “pathologization of dissent.” Goldberg and Ferguson superficially address these themes. But it seems ridiculous for those who have discarded the entire Old Right—and who, in Goldberg’s case, write for a magazine that purged John Derbyshire and Bob Weissberg—to be lecturing anyone about tolerance. Everything these journalists attribute to their “Democratic” or “liberal” debating partners applies equally to them. These chaps have no more right to be producing defenses of “conservatism” than Nero had to present himself as a defender of Christian teachings. Talk about chutzpah!

Read more

What Does Ron Paul Want? Reply

By Justin Raimondo

This is the question puzzling Paul’s friends, as well as his enemies. A recentannouncement by the campaign that the anti-interventionist Congressman andpresidential candidate is not spending money in the remaining primary states provoked a Drudge headline: “Paul Out.” That is the GOP Establishment’s fondest wish, but the reality is that Paul is far from “out”: his campaign is merely recalibrating its tactics, concentrating on getting delegates through the complicated and often arcane process of party caucuses and state conventions. In short, Paul is pursuing the very same strategy he’s been talking about since Day One of his remarkably successful campaign: harnessing the enthusiasm and discipline of his supporters to enter a basically hostile entity – the pro-warpro-Big Government Republican party – and challenging the Powers That Be.

There has been all kinds of loose talk about a “deal” being struck with the Romneyites, an impression pushed by the “mainstream” media and other clueless individuals who know little or nothing of Ron and imagine he’s just another politician. They are wrong. There will be no endorsement of Mitt Romney, and, because of that, no quarter will be given – or is being given – to Paulians intent on embedding themselves within the Grand Old Party.

The “go local” strategy of the Paul camp has recently met with a string of high profile successes: they took over the party in AlaskaNevadaIowaMinnesotaMaine, andColorado, and their delegate count is skyrocketing. Precinct by precinct, county by county, state by state, the Ron Paul Revolution is racking up victories – and the Romneyites are in a panic. Due to that panic, they are employing hard-line tactics, often simply closing down local conventions when it becomes clear the Paulians have a majority. They cut off the microphonescall the cops, and whine that the insurgents are “disrupting” a process the party bosses have controlled for as long as anyone can remember. At one point, attendees at a state Republican convention saw the walls literally closing in on them, as Rachel Maddow reported in a segment on MSNBC.

Using force, fraud, and their friends in the media, the Romneyites are determined to block Paul and his movement from having any visibility at the August national GOP convention, to be held in Tampa, Florida. What they want is a coronation: what they will get is a full-blown insurgency in their midst.

The key tactical question is this: will the Establishment even allow Paul’s name to be placed in nomination? GOP rules requires that, in order to do so, the Paul camp must have a plurality of the delegates in at least five states. Given the series of Paul victories at the local level, one would think this threshold has already been reached – but that’s not at all clear, given two factors. The first is that, in some states where the Paulians took control of the proceedings, many of those delegates legally bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot are actually Paul supporters. If they rebel in Tampa, however, there’s no telling what might happen. There seems to be no rule forbidding them from abstaining on the first ballot, and that, in itself, would be a very visible and powerful protest – precisely the sort of dissent the Romneyites justifiably fear.

More…

‘Racist’ Ron Paul Sends 15% Black and Hispanic GOP Delegation to Tampa Reply

Note: The Ron Paul movement provides a glimpse into what the demographics of the future resistance movement will look like and is consistent with the framework I have previously outlined in my “liberty and populism” and “ten core demographics” theories.

By Allan Stevo

In a party that tends to be old and white, Ron Paul and his views are attracting demographic groups that are not traditionally affiliated with the Republican Party – youth, minorities, civil libertarians, the apolitical, those who are traditionally non-voters, and even Democrats.

On May 6, Nevada Republicans announced that 22 Paul supporters were chosen to fill 25 spaces for the Republican National Convention. Recent analysis shows that of those delegates were two female delegates who identify as Hispanic and one black delegate.

One Paul supporter said about Sunday’s results: “A common critique of small-minded opponents on the left is that Paul is racist. He’s exactly the opposite – he sees everyone as an individual, the guy doesn’t give a damn about what ‘group’ we are a part of. He represents a belief in the importance of the individual – something the Republican Party used to represent.”

While Paul speaks an old message, one of freedom, it still resonates with people of all ages and is clearly attracting a new kind of energy to the stodgy, pro-establishment Republican Party.

One of the recently-elected delegates to the Republican National Convention, Wiselet Rouzard, who identifies as African American, commented, “The 15% minority delegation being sent to Tampa to represent Ron Paul is not a surprise but rather reassuring of what the movement is about.”

While some on the left claim the Tenth Amendment insistence of states’ rights and constitutional calls for individual liberties are a veil for racism, Rouzard has a very different perspective: “It’s a movement and revolution that defends civil liberties and equality for all ‘Individuals’ regardless of your skin color, religion, health, wealth, creed. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate that truly stands and abides by the Constitution and does what he says.”

Going even further in his displeasure with politicians playing the race card, Rouzard commented on how politicians who cater to specific groups of people tend to do more harm than good. Ultimately, these politicians end up being divisive and undermining the personal liberty of all in our society.

Said Rouzard: “Ron Paul and the Constitution have always understood that blacks, Hispanics, Native-Americans, Christians, the poor, are not the minority in a growing tyrannical government; the Individual has and always will be the minority. All the other candidates look to cater or promise to other sub groups and dismiss the Individual. [This] has continued to divide America.”

More…

Brandon Darby, Left Anarchist To Conservative Activist Reply

From leftoid, to FBI informant, to teabagger.

—–

blog.chron.com

Brandon Darby is probably not a name you are familiar with. After you read this you will wonder why you aren’t familiar with him. His story, to say the least, is fascinating. I met Brandon when he spoke at BlogCon a few weeks ago. The short version is this. Darby was approached by the FBI in late 2007 and asked to infiltrate a group of Leftwing anarchists Austin activists planning to protest and disrupt the 2008 Republican National Convention in Minneapolis, Minn. Based on information Darby provided, FBI agents arrested and charged two men on domestic terrorism charges in a plot to firebomb at the convention. Their house was raided, the bombs seized, and Bradley Crowder and David McKay were arrested, charged, accepted plea bargains, and served several year long incarcerations.

More…

European Nationalism: Golden Dawn or Old and Gone? Reply

By Jim Goad

Greece, the cradle of Western Civilization, seems destined to become either the West’s coffin or the site of its rebirth. The nation’s debt crisis, combined with the fact that it’s a primary entry point for illegal immigration into Europe—in 2010, nine of every ten “migrant” outlaws sashayed into the EU zone through Greece—have helped fuel violent street clashes between far-left (i.e., internationalist) and far-right (i.e., nationalist) factions for years.

Last week’s elections were largely a repudiation of the political center, specifically the EU’s financial stranglehold on Greece. Although unashamedly pro-communist parties won a far higher quotient of the votes, most media outrage was predictably focused on the fact that the nationalist party Golden Dawn received 7% of the total. Pundits referred to Golden Dawn’s minor victory as “absurd and repugnant,” “a dark day for Greece,” “a scary development,” “a political horror,” and all the other histrionic scare terms typically spewed by compliant media lapdogs trained to establish an immediate—although immediately fallacious—connection between the merest squib of nationalist sentiment and the Holocaust.

More…

Red Republicans and Lincoln’s Marxists: Marxism in the Civil War 8

From The Rising Seed

Before reading the book “Red Republican’s and Lincoln’s Marxists” I have to admit I was a bit skeptical. Despite my predisposition to be wary of any fiber of genuine Christian morality flowing within the veins of Lincoln not to mention the founders of the GOP, I did not think it likely that any of them would be sympathetic towards the precepts of communism. After all, communism is a monster of the 20th century isn’t it? More…

It’s Hard to Win When You’re Playing Against the Referee 1

By Paul Gottfried

The Italian political theorist and longtime socialist journalist Carlo Galli recently published a short volume called Perché ancora destra-sinistra (roughly translated, “Why is there still right and left?”). Galli’s definitions show scant evidence of semantic evenhandedness. He seems to identify with a perfumed definition of the left as the good guys “favoring equality and freedom for every individual.” The right, by contrast, is assigned the less palatable role of having to “defend authority, economic inequality, and ethnic roots.”

German legal theorist Carl Schmitt (1888-1985), on whom Galli and I have both written extensively, was much better than Galli in coming up with key definitions. Schmitt associated right-wing attitudes with such political theorists as Thomas Hobbes and St. Augustine—that is, with those who believed that human nature is violent and selfish and that social and political institutions exist to check dangerous human appetites. The left, by contrast, believes people are rational and kindly and can be made even better with a properly planned society. Unlike the right, the left also assumes that all human beings are roughly interchangeable and will develop similarly if exposed to the same meticulously engineered environment.

Galli associates the left with the creation of a modern democratic government aiming at universal equality. The right is not only against the progress of this scheme but is going nuts from failing to stop it. The “right” as defined in this book is not the Republican Party or the editorial staff of NR. It is, according to Galli, the side that views “disorder as a structural given, indeed as something primordial.” Having lost so often to its democratic-egalitarian enemy, this contemporary right “has come to view reality as unstable and contingent.” It now mocks any attempt to discuss “a priori conservative values” because “it is convinced that reality has no foundation.” The true right assumes “the contingent nature of all politics and the continuing disorder of the world.” In the interior of “any such possible right” is the “idea of existing without foundations (infondatezza), which suggests something irremediably nihilistic.”

More…

The Derb is the Word…or is He? Reply

From MRDA’s Inferno.

image

Who would’ve thought such a mild-mannered, bourgeois Englishman could ignite such a fibre-optic firestorm?

A few weekends back, all right-thinking Left-leaners united for a hyperextended Two Minutes Hate session against one John Derbyshire, a Brit expat and paleocon pundit who occupies a comfy niche amongst America’s “alternative Right”. Turns out that the round-goggled reprobate saw fit to scribe a rather un-PC survival guide for the melanin-deficient; and, judging from the resultant comments, and the rash of responses from various Lefty haunts, it appears to have left many a pissed-off Progressive in its wake.

Having previously clicked and leafed through Derbyshire’s output, including his musings on multiculturalism, immigration, and racial IQ, I registered little in the way of surprise when I read the article. It struck me as something of a synthesis of his scribblings, citing crime stats and group averages to concretize another slab of “conservative pessimism”.

I must admit that, whilst I’m not down with the paleocon paradigm for a number of reasons, I appreciate their often incisive criticisms of PC equalitarian conceits. Similarly, whatever misgivings I have with Derb’s Taki Mag piece, I admire his refusal to apologize to his detractors for speaking his mind, even in the face of a firing.

That said, “The Talk” left me feeling rather ambivalent upon “hearing” it… More…

Rick Santorum, I Hate Your Face Reply

Article by Jim Goad.

For me, politics isn’t so much about what sort of society I want to live in as much as what sort of people I want to avoid. I consider myself a misanthropic individualist.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Rick Santorum has been the Republican primary season’s Surprise Moral Warrior. He has already won eleven states, and depending on how he performs in Wisconsin tomorrow, he may continue to battle the icy Mormon cyborg Mitt Romney for the nomination.

Based merely on those who hate Santorum, I suppose I should love him.

After all, he has a rare talent for ruffling progressives’ preening peacock plumage, and that’s usually a good sign. To hear his haters tell the story, he is THE HEART OF EVIL and a DISGRACE TO THE HUMAN RACE who wants to pillage, rape, and divest all of America’s gay anal wombs of their Goddess-given recto-spiritual progeny—or something like that. They say he is a grotesquely bigoted bully whose heartless heart pumps solely on unrefined nitro-powered hatred, a sadistic closet case who is waging a violent Hate Jihad against women, homos, atheists, and every other untouchable pink lamb of modern sensitivities. As is the ironclad rule these days, the Anti-Hate Crusaders employ rhetoric and tactics that ooze far more palpable hatred than the “hate” they’re supposedly fighting, as evidenced in how they deliberately smeared his name with frothy brown anal lube in devising his “Google problem.” Because they took umbrage at the fact he supposedly said SHAME SHAME SHAME at them, they scream SHAME SHAME SHAME back at him, only ten times more loudly. They appear blind to the fact that the problem is hive-brain lynch-mob shaming itself, not which side’s doing it. Shame on all of you!

Last week he was targeted by the Racism Industrial Complex for allegedly calling Obama a “nig-” before correcting himself. I’m not convinced he said “nig-” on that video, but in the past he’s lied about calling people “black,” so it’s possible. Either way, I rate lying as far worse than using forbidden words, but I’m abnormal.

“I can’t muster one positive micron of feeling toward the man.”

But despite the fact that I hate his antagonists’ shriekingly misguided moralism, I can’t muster one positive micron of feeling toward the man. For starters, I have problems with his face. And his personality. And his politics. And his priggishness. And his authoritarian impulses. In politics as in life, the enemy of my enemy is not always my friend. In many cases, it’s merely some other jerkoff I dislike for entirely different reasons.

First there’s his face. Sure, it’s unfair to blame him for that incongruous nose jutting out of his lumpy head as if someone jammed a cheese wedge into a potato, so I will not hold him accountable for what is either an act of God or an accident of nature. But he is entirely to blame for that dorky, smug, imperious smirk that his attitude seems to have forever welded onto his visage. His is the mug of a priggish hall monitor who’s forever smelling something unpleasant.

But it’s so much more than his face. At a regrettably low, sad, destitute, and lonely point in my life a few months back, I found myself watching a couple of the Republican primary debates, and his personality rubbed me the wrong way like a Brillo Pad scraping against herpes sores. Both Santorum and I were raised as Pennsylvania papists, and he conjures distant memories of some generically uptight, passive-aggressive, repressed schmoe I would have hated during my dozen years of Catholic school. The fact that he’s Italian doesn’t help, either.

Next Page

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/rick_santorum_i_hate_your_face_jim_goad#ixzz1qzKx2CQz