Sunday, May 29, 2016

Vulture of Critique, gaikokumaniakku, Wolves, r/K, where does it all end?

Whenever it comes to wolves, I tend to overdo it, and Vulture of Critique has to set me straight. Some time back, I made a complicated but romantic comparison of humanity and wolves [link], and Vulture of Critique (who moonlights as gaikokumaniakku —That's complicated, too) called me on it, showing that I needed to be a little less Kiplingish and a little more Konrad Lorenzish when it comes to ethology [link]. (That link doesn't work right now. Vulture! Where's your original post?) Now I'm confused. Want something even more confusing? —gaikokumaniakku/Vulture of Critique's original post I can't find, but Uncabob reprinted it some time ago, and you can read it here [link]. Uncabob also, BTW, dissents from the notion that human females instinctively follow the K strategy.

What all this comes down to is that I have a tendency to over-romanticize wolves* in particular, and zoology in general. It probably comes from reading too much Robert Ardrey [link] and Hugh Lofting [link] when I was a kid. If any of you out there, BTW, know of a really thorough analysis of the r/K theory with respect to human society, do let me know.

At any rate, this is his reply to this [link].  At the very least, his point that White European leaders (aristocrats), don't necessarily fit the K paradigm is revealing. Enjoy.

Fornicator Immensus et crudelis – Human aristocrats are neither r nor K

White aristocrats are interesting people – or rather, they were interesting, when they existed.
Here is a description of a Mighty Whitey, lightly edited from a book blurb:
Endowed with exceptional talents as a warrior, diplomat, and ruler–not to mention a temperament that earned him the epithet fornicator immensus et crudelis … –Vladimir of Russia (960?-1015) began his career at the age of twelve as Prince of Novgorod, rising to be known as “The Red Sun.” … years of conquest, violence, polygamy, and pagan ritual as the remarkable prince seized his brother’s throne, expanding his rule over the whole of Russia. A shrewd, hospitable, and progressive ruler, he adopted the Christian faith from the Greeks, bringing Christianity to Russia. A “second Constantine,” he was later canonized as a saint.
Now, by contrast, Ex-Army has a different idea of aristocracy, and as usual, I am going to disagree with him (and Baloo):
there are 5 r-rabbit traits: 
Aversion to competition (as there are lots of resources, rather than compete, rabbits just move to eat; fighting takes energy and rabbits lose all fights anyway)
Tolerance for promiscuity (as all rabbits are the same, it makes no sense to distinguish between potential mates – r folk don’t do morals)
Single parenting (rabbit life is simple. There is nothing to teach. So quick birthing and leaving is sufficient)
Early onset sexuality (early menarche makes more rabbits)
A lack of in-group loyalty (rabbits who go to protect other rabbits get eaten. There is no payoff for rabbit group solidarity). Liberals!
There are 5 K-wolf traits: 
Accepting competition, (and that there are winners and losers)
Rejecting promiscuity (wolves must select mates with the best genes if they’re to have offspring capable of hunting)
High investment parenting (cubs must develop skills in order to pass on their genes)
Delayed sexuality (you must wait for a wolf with means or at least see his skills prior to mating with him)
Fierce in-group loyalty (they hunt and fend off predators as a team, so cannot carry lukewarm adherents, this is why wolves are found in packs). Conservatives!
White people produced a lot of aristocrats for about 3000 years of recorded history.
White aristocrats did not reject promiscuity. They killed their competitors when possible, and they had as much sex as their circumstances allowed. White people had harems. Even when the majority of whites were locked into monogamy, white aristocrats had mistresses, concubines, and harems. Many white men tried to maximize the number of their children, regardless of parenting investment.
White aristocrats had moments of “fierce in-group loyalty,” but mostly they were just fierce. The history of Rome doesn’t show a whole lot of long-term in-group loyalty; even the Roman Republic enjoyed “competition” so much that they undermined collective loyalty. The history of Christianity (and before it, white philosophy) shows fierce loyalty to abstractions, not to people.
The theories of r and K may apply well to wolves and rabbits – I’m not a zoologist, so I’m not an expert on that topic. But the theories of r and K don’t apply very well to white history, particularly to the history of aristocrats.
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: I've used a lot of anime versions of Athena, and it's time for a cute one.
*And now rabbits. That probably comes from reading too much Richard Adams [link].

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Out of the Mouths of Supervillains

I've googled around to find out if this is authentic without success, but it certainly seems authentic, because the social engineers who do most comic books these days do this sort of thing all the time — they take true, reasonable statements, and prove that they're evil and/or pathological by putting them in the mouths of their worst supervillains. I'm past the age by a long shot when I paid close attention to the comics, but I check collections out now and then at the bookstore. and the stories are indeed getting more and more "relevant" from the leftist point of view, giving the superheroes all the politically correct attitudes and speeches, while, like I say, putting any right-of-center sentiments into the supervillain corner.

My guess is that this little speech was written for the Red Skull( a Nazi who, as I remember it, was Captain America's nemesis) to deliver to show that all the right-wing movements in the country, from Trump to the KKK to the American Legion, are really ruled by evil supervillians. Comics fans out there, am I right? Send me more info on this story, and I'll print it.

I don't really know why I made this into a quibcag, except that I'm in the habit of making them, but below is the original I found making its way around the net.
Quibcag: That's Haibara from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン), who is very good at looking scary.

Late-breaking. Reader Charles Brennan says this is indeed legit, and sent along the whole page. I think you can click it to enlarge.

Pundit, पण्डित , پنڈت

This is one of those occasions where I came across the quote, was inspired to create the quibcag, and then wrote a blog post to go with it. The quote strikes me, because, as I've written many times before, one's ideology is supposed to be a way of understanding and managing reality. It shouldn't work the other way around, where you cut-and-paste reality to make if match the ideology you're so fond of. Most of us fail in this, but the best of us try really hard not to. So, a good rule of thumb might be that pundits who have a clear, obvious ideology are probably the most likely to cherry-pick facts to support their ideology, instead of constantly updating their ideology to reflect the facts. I'm referring to a wide-ranging phenomenon here, but I'm especially thinking about those special snowflakes, open-borders libertarians, whose precious, unmodifiable ideology states that human being's freedom of travel to any country, anywhere is absolute, and we must therefore ignore the lessons of history, which demonstrate that all civilizations that fail to control immigration perish. Sorry. Had to get that out of my system. 

One of the pair who operate this blog, Baloo the cartoonist, took a course in Urdu in the Army forty-odd years ago, and has been fascinated by the language ever since. Especially fascinated by Urdu words that have wandered into the English language. Before confusion results, you should know that the two languages, Hindi and Urdu, are basically the same language, often known collectively as Hindustani. They differ in that the first is considered a Hindu language, and is written with Devanagri, as in the second word in the title, and the second a Muslim language, consequently written with the Arabic alphabet, as in the third word. All three words are pronounced "pundit," of course.

Wiktionary's etymology of the English word:

From Hindi पण्डित ‎(paṇḍit), from Sanskrit पण्डित ‎(paṇḍitáscholar, learned man, teacher, philosopher).

From "learned man," in the original, it of course has come to mean a public expert in something, usually politics. And the unique Greg Cochran, on his blog West Hunter [link], writes about them this way:

Public intellectuals, pundits, and all that

In principle, public intellectuals should have something interesting to say, ideally not just interesting because ridiculous or incredibly stupid. The ideal P.I. might have a special area of expertise and apply that to current events and questions, or whatever struck his fancy.. He might have a wide range of interests and make connections that others can’t see. He might be smart, or independent minded, or both. It would be nice if he had a decent predictive track record, better than a dart board. He should be stubborn enough to resist currently fashionable errors. 
As for ideology, that’s a poor substitute for understanding how things actually work. 
In my opinion, elegant prose isn’t very important. 
He probably does all this for $25 dollars a day and expenses, mostly gasoline and whiskey. That’s about all he’s going to get, because there’s not much demand for analysts, as opposed to cheerleaders. 
If most PIs are schlockmeisters, that’s because of popular demand. Bullshit walks.
I invite nominations: either a P.I. that is actually good-for-something (if you can find one), or give an amusingly damning quote for one of the vast majority of vile drones. 
Ex-Army speaking again. Now you need to go to the original [link] and read the many comments on who the best pundits are. You'll find it fascinating. I found some of my favorites there, and maybe you will too. Or add them there, or here if you're more comfortable in a smaller group.
Quibcag: Yep, my favorite science girl, Rika Shiguma of Haganai (はがない).

Trump: Explaining the Inexplicable

It's amazing to me how many people are amazed at the Trump phenomenon. The pundits had been telling us for years that what the American people want is something completely unlike Trump. Personalitywise, what we're supposed to want is some unthreatening Menudo-type like Marco Rubio, because of course we're all eager to turn our country over to somebody vaguely foreign and slightly effeminate. Or, failing that, what we'd be happy with is a crazy, corrupt old lady whose main political qualification is husband-selection. The idea that the American people would actually want a rambunctious ultra-masculine combination of Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt. and Scrooge McDuck was totally laughable to the talking heads. But it makes perfect sense to the American people, who have been voting accordingly.

No, the Trump phenomenon is an actual revolt against the system that locked itself in place when the first Bush Administration cleaned house and removed all the Reagan elements from the government, and made a pact with the Democratic Party that Business as Usual would be the law of the land and that no actual substantive changes would be permitted or even discussed. With the suppression of the Buchanan movement, the Establishment thought they had the American people neutralized for at least a generation. But maybe that's it. Maybe this is the next generation. The quote is actually the title of a post over at Nicholas Styx's blog [link], and you need to go there and read it right now.
Quibcag: I used, again, one of those ubiquitous anime girls in Trump hats that are all over the net.

Friday, May 27, 2016

An Irish Bull on the Mexican Standoff

I like diversity, in the sense of having a lot to choose from. Not in the sense of having everything thrust on me with no choice allowed or even implied. The difference is obvious, but when you point it out to our SJW's they tend to hyperventilate and screech for "safe places," because they can't stand the idea or anything or anybody being actually excluded, for any reason whatsoever. That's Hitler stuff.

One nice kind of diversity is what they call parallax [link]. It's a physics term, but physics terms and the concepts they signify very often are applicable to other fields, like anthropology and politics. It's like this. If you look at a star with your telescope, you can tell so much about it. If you looked at it six months later, when the Earth has about 186 million miles because it circles the sun, you can also tell so much about it. But when you put those two observations together, you can tell a lot more about it. For one thing, you can come up with a much better estimate of how far away it is. And other things. Do read the link, or google "parallax."

And there's a metaphorical parallax when  you check to see what Americans are thinking, and then what other people are thinking, and compare them. You often get, as in physics, more than double the info, because two points of view can lead to conclusions neither point could on its own. And that's one reason I read the Irish Savant regularly. I also read him because he's downright entertaining. Today [link] he had this to say about America, Mexico, immigration, and you-know-who:

An opening for Donald

The American Presidential campaign got yet another insight into Latin American electioneering yesterday in Albuquerque as a Trump rally was violently attacked by an army of Spics. "Parents escorted scared kids past the chaos, and eventually police even set up a mounted horse unit to deter the crowds. However this was not enough, as protesters eventually began to riot. Rocks and bottles were thrown at police, and the protesters were eventually able to break through barriers, allowing them to rush the entrance of the convention center, at which point the riot police responded with tear gas."

Ah yes, la Democracia Mexicana. Explain to me how mobs of rioters intimidating White Americans while waving Mexican flags and burning American ones is supposed to damage the Trump campaign. I don't think the wetbacks really have a handle on this democracy thingy, no more than do their leaders south of the border. But that doesn't stop them berating their American counterparts for their inhumane treatment of the 'migrants'.

Here's Presidente Neto "'I think it's discriminatory, yes, and it's unfortunate for a country whose formation and historic origin relies so much on the migration flows of many parts, Europe and Asia, for instance.....and that's why it's unfortunate to hear the exclusionary and discriminatory tones regarding migration flows into the United States." And his predecessor fumed at the 'intolerance, hate and discrimination' endured by the unfortunate Mexicans criminal freeloaders roosting in the USA.

So can we take it then the Mexico itself operates an open door immigration policy?  The Mexican legal code is quite specific. Would-be immigrants must provide birth certificate, documentation of financial independence and cannot have a criminal record.  You'll get refused if you're you're not 'physically or mentally healthy' or do not enhance 'the country's economic and national interests'. And how about this: Immigrants that risk upsetting'the equilibrium of national demographics' are booted out!

And boy, does Mexico boot them out.  Unlike in the US where illegals are showered with housing, education, health care, driving licenses and even get elected to City Councils, Mexico treats deportation backsliders to a hefty jail term before dumping them across the border....penniless and abused. As happened to thousands of Cubans summarily deported in 2008. Is there then a clamour for 'immigration reform' in Mexico?  Well, again no. Because Mexico has a battery of laws prohibiting non-nationals from political activity. And can be quite firm in tackling its own stroppy protesters, often gunning them down, hundreds at a time.

I'm waiting for Donald to point out this blatant hypocrisy and double standards. In fact I'm amazed he hasn't done it yet.  It's a powerful riposte and complements nicely the disgraceful behaviour of the illegals who now swarming over the whole country.
Quibcag: The illustration I found on the net, just googling for Trump hat anime. I of course photoshopped the text on the cap to make it fit the posts. The quotation is from here [link].

Camille Paglia Strikes Again!

If it's by or about Camille Paglia, I read it. Frankly, it still blows my mind that she continues to call herself a "feminist," because she's the unlikeliest feminist imaginable. Really. If your picture of "feminist" is anything like mine, and in this day and age, it probably is, Camille Paglia is the virtual opposite of it. First off, the quote in the quibcag — Your basic feminist hates the military, and only takes interest in it when there's a move afoot to devalue it, by sending girls to VMI or putting ladies in combat units, to show how irrelevant masculinity is. Camille values the military and the military virtues, which she recognizes as being overwhelmingly masculine. She's also into this "facts and logic" thing, which most feminists dismiss as constructs of the Patriarchy with no real existence.

And, of course, contemporary feminism of whichever "wave" you care to mention is basically just one arm of the left, with little actual relationship to the stated goals of feminism. And again in the quibcag, Camille Paglia shows contempt for the basic rainbows-and-unicorns "play nice" dogma of the left.

All this, you could say, comes down to realism: Camille Paglia is a realist. Standard mainstream feminism, like standard mainstream everything else these days, is not realistic, and takes pride in being unrealistic, though they like to call it being "idealistic." This interview is from the Wall Street Journal [link]:

Camille Paglia: A Feminist Defense of Masculine Virtues

The cultural critic on why ignoring the biological differences between men and women risks undermining Western civilization.


Read the whole interview here:
Quibcag: The three military girls are recruitment mascots for the Japanese Self-Defense Force. I found them here:

Survival Strategies r and K

Have I mentioned r and K strategy? It's a biological concept, but was first (I think) applied to human groups by Anonymous Conservative [link]. It's remarkably revealing and explains a lot about how human behavior, and therefore human evolution, differs from group to group, race to race.

By now, we've all heard the basic concept that when humans evolved where there was plenty of food and little need to plan ahead, they did not develop the tendency to defer gratification and make long-term plans, because they didn't need to.

But in harsher environments, as in Europe and the Far East, you'd starve to death if you didn't plan ahead. Consequently, those individuals and groups that tended to defer gratification and plan ahead were more likely to survive. In evolutionary terms, those traits, associated with higher intelligence and less-impulsive temperament, were selected for. That is a simple way to look at r/K, but the concept has since been developed far beyond that anecdotal principle.

You can learn more about this at Anonymous Conservative's site [link]. But the following is an extract from an essay at Alternative Right [link], in which John Press relates the r/K theory to "culturism." Do go check it out.


r and K are different survival strategies. The r survival strategy works when resources are plentiful and you may get eaten at any moment. In such circumstances, quickly breeding is the best way to get your genes into the next generation. The rabbit is the archetypal r animal. K strategy works when food is scarce and you need to hunt in a group to get it. In such a situation, each new baby must earn its keep and be trained to do so. The wolf is the archetypal K animal. Humans lean towards r or K, depending on their environment. 

Actually, there are 5 r-rabbit traits: 
  1. Aversion to competition (as there are lots of resources, rather than compete, rabbits just move to eat; fighting takes energy and rabbits lose all fights anyway)
  2. Tolerance for promiscuity (as all rabbits are the same, it makes no sense to distinguish between potential mates – r folk don’t do morals)
  3. Single parenting (rabbit life is simple. There is nothing to teach. So quick birthing and leaving is sufficient)
  4. Early onset sexuality (early menarche makes more rabbits)
  5. A lack of in-group loyalty (rabbits who go to protect other rabbits get eaten. There is no payoff for rabbit group solidarity). Liberals!
There are 5 K-wolf traits: 
  1. Accepting competition, (and that there are winners and losers)
  2. Rejecting promiscuity (wolves must select mates with the best genes if they’re to have offspring capable of hunting)
  3. High investment parenting (cubs must develop skills in order to pass on their genes)
  4. Delayed sexuality (you must wait for a wolf with means or at least see his skills prior to mating with him)
  5. Fierce in-group loyalty (they hunt and fend off predators as a team, so cannot carry lukewarm adherents, this is why wolves are found in packs). Conservatives!

*Anonymous Conservative’s “The Evolutionary Psychology Behind Politics: How Conservatism and Liberalism Evolved Within Humans,”
Quibcag: It's impossible to find anywhere an anime drawing of a girl with a rabbit and a wolf, so I had to cut and paste.