Thursday, March 31, 2011
A great big humungous biography of Heinlein is out HERE. I'll get around to reading it sometime. Meanwhile, here's an intriguing evaluation of Heinlein's legacy by STEVE SAILER (link fixed).
A quote from it: "Heinlein was not an ideologue, but rather a creative artist whose medium was ideas." That explains a lot. He used a lot of ideas in his fiction that he didn't necessarily believe. Some of these ideas were proto-PC, of course, and in retrospect kind of dopey. But I'd say he did more good than harm. I'd rather have a kid reading Heinlein's juveniles than watching junk on TV.
at 7:55 AM
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
There's been a lot of talk lately about the "Obama Doctine," and what it might be. Stuff about using force only to protect civilians, or using force only when the UN tells him to, or maybe NATO, or maybe just France. Or only using air power instead of ground troops to win wars, except they're not wars. They're frenetic military shenanigans or something. Air power doesn't win wars, BTW. Just ask the Russians why they pulled out of Afghanistan.
But all that's just foreign policy, what's more important is the domestic "Obama Doctrine." And that can be summed up in two words, just like New Deal, Fair Deal, New Frontier, Great Society, etc. It's "Hate Whitey." Simple, no? Something even thumb-sucking White liberals can get behind, because they're so ashamed of being White. And if Obama is the Messiah of Hate Whitey, Eric Holder is primus inter pares of the Twelve Apostles. Remember the Black Panther Voter Intimidation Case? The one that Holder decided not to pursue, because White folks need to be taken down a peg or two? Here's an UPDATE.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Iraq and Afghanistan have both had many unintended consequences, assuming that the planners were pretty much ignorant of history in general and the history of those places in particular. Now we have Libya, a 'good war,' after all, because it's Obama's war. What could possibly go wrong? We know from his great accomplishments as a community organizer that he's extremely brilliant, almost painfully brilliant, so this good war can have no unintended consequences, like the wars of that dummy Bush have.
at 9:37 AM
Monday, March 28, 2011
at 8:30 AM
Sunday, March 27, 2011
The answer is easy. He doesn't know what he's doing. The only thing he's good at is hating Whitey. Even Bush gave a half-assed explanation of why we had to invade two Muslim countries. A stupid, wrong explanation, but at least he felt that he ought to say something. Anyhow, Obama doesn't feel that it's in keeping with his dignity to explain, I guess. Anyhow, Peggy Noonan has a column on all this. Great quote from it:
I was in Boulder, Colorado the other day. They have some nice restaurants there, and the entertainment is great. It consists of listening to thumb-sucking liberals at the other tables using PC jargon in conversation with each other in all seriousness. The hilarity isn't all verbal. While I was drinking some very good beer, a party of three entered. Some White guy much like an older 40-ish version of Meathead up there, a Black woman the same age with definite Whoopi looks, and, honest to god, an Oriental girl about ten years old. I thought I was in a National Lampoon parody. You can't get PC combos like that without really trying. But it's probably much easier in Boulder. Anyhow, by just writing this post, I'm demonstrating what you might call 'hate consciousness.' The original term, 'hate speech,' is where you speak in such a way as to offend liberals. A 'hate fact' is when you say something that is absolutely true, like, say, the Black crime rate is much higher than the White crime rate. Now it's time for 'hate consciousness,' where you show awareness that liberals are idiotic and hilarious. Well, what this post was supposed to be about is how one should react when liberals call you names, and, if you don't keep your mouth shut, they will call you names. Advice on the proper responses from JARED TAYLOR.
at 6:48 AM
Saturday, March 26, 2011
at 6:22 PM
Western philosophy and religion tends towards universalism. That is, it potentially includes everybody. There isn't much of that outside the West. Technically, Islam is universalist, in that anyone can (and should, in Muslims' opinion) become a Muslim. However, it's mostly a scary type universalism, and quite different from ours, because when it has the power to do so, it insists on conversion or punishment of some kind. But in the West, religion has tended to be looser, especially since the enlightenment, and we tend to think in terms of all mankind, no matter whether they share our culture or religions or not. And we send all kinds of missionaries around the world, hand out foreign aid, and consider every poor nation a special responsibility of our own people. Well, that's a pretty rare attitude. You can find exceptions, but by and large, there's very little universalist thinking outside the West. India, China, Japan, Africa... most of them are very exclusive, only with the greatest reluctance considering the outgroup entirely human and worthy of consideration. So, is our universalism -— and it's a pretty extreme universalism — killing us? We ostracize those of our own kind who don't think in universalist terms, calling them bigots, racists, etc., while, paradoxically, inviting clearly nonuniversalist groups, who have no trace of universalism in their philosophical makeup, to move in and live among us, assuring them, for the most part, that they don't have to change a thing about themselves, and we'll clutch them to our bosom, giving them all the rights of natives, and, more often than not, special rights to special treatment.
at 5:16 PM