Friday, January 31, 2014

Joke of the Day


The Enlightenment Darkens.... The Dark Enlightenment, Part III

And yet another commenter on the newish concept of the "Dark Enlightenment" pops up. (More HERE and HERE.) To some extent, it's a question of semantics.  It's clever to look at the way we on the Real Right (my term, I believe) think in comparison to the overoptimistic thinkers of the Enlightenment and call ourselves the Dark Enlightenment. On the other hand, it's a helpful term in that it keeps us reminded that Mistakes Were Made back in the Eighteenth Century.  Not that the founders really believed in the intrinsic equality of man, but that they failed to make it absolutely clear what they did believe in, at least to the 21st Century person. But even considering that, they were, as a group, far too optimistic. They came from a civilization that had risen rapidly for a millennium, so they can be forgiven for thinking that everybody, given a millennium or so, would do likewise.

Well, since then we've had lots of social experimentation. We've seen the deterioration of the republic they created under White, Western management, never mind everybody else. We've seen the absolute failure of all attempts to uplift the downtrodden. And we've had Darwin and others (including religious thinkers) explain to us exactly why the perfectibility of man is a little dicey.

But now I'll back off and let John Derbyshire give you his thoughts.

Dark Thoughts



So Derb-wise, the Dark Enlightenment is not a “they,” it’s a “we,” although as a chronic non-joiner, I’m probably going to have trouble being consistent about that.

Well, mainstream British journalists have noticed the Dark Enlightenment. On January 20th a chap named Jamie Bartlett (Jamie? Isn’t that a girl’s name?) blogged a flesh-creeper piece titled “Meet The Dark Enlightenment: sophisticated neo-fascism that’s spreading fast on the net.” Good grief! I can hear the distant stomp of jackboots already!

What’s it all about, Jamie, this Dark Enlightenment?

Well, they—sorry, we—are fed up with democracy. And:

The neo-fascist bit lies in the view that races aren’t equal (they obsess over IQ testing and pseudoscience that they claim proves racial differences, like the Ku Klux Klan) and that women are primarily suited for domestic servitude.

I didn’t know that races obsess over IQ testing, etc., but let that pass.

Having got your flesh creeping, Jamie (really? Jamie?) closes with soothing reassurance: “I’ll be keeping an eye on them, and report back here with any interesting developments as they happen.” Thank you, Jamie! Who knows what pit of horror our society might fall into without brave souls like you, ever vigilant!

Objectivist Quibcag

Pass around to your Objectivist friends.  They probably won't think it's funny.

Thursday, January 30, 2014

Moron Du Jour


Wow. Where do you start. First, this seems to be a male, which makes it even worse. This seems like a parody, but it really does have the ring of truth to it. Yes, there are idiots just like that out there, and if you don't believe me, just hang out on Facebook and you'll meet lots of them.

Mencken Quote To Pass Around


Bob Wallace on the Ladies and their Political Behavior

Why do we grant anybody the vote, anyway? There are differing schools of thought on that. The Founding Fathers — and most people around the world who thought voting was a good thing in those days — wanted to limit the franchise to those who had wisdom and a stake in the country, and who would therefore vote for the benefit of the country as a whole. So they limited the vote to male property owners of a mature age. Nowadays, we think of voting as an intrinsic right, and voters are expected to vote in their own interest, not the interest of the country. Not a very stable situation.

One reason women weren't given the franchise is because the Founders realized that women simply aren't political thinkers — they don't, for the most part, think about the interests of the country, but about the interests of their families.  A very good thing in itself, but not at all compatible with the national interest, except coincidentally. That is the knee-jerk attitude of women. Men, now, for hundreds of generation, have been in the habit of working within tribal hierarchies, working for the tribal interest, giving orders and taking orders, and defending the tribe against outsiders. Men naturally have evolved into political thinkers. Not that all men are that way, or that they're all good at it, but that's what they've evolved to be, and you can't argue with Darwin. Women have evolved to keep families intact and to manage little children.  I say little children, because past, say, puberty, kids are effective adults in the tribe and no longer to be managed by their mothers.  But in our current pajama-boy world, they remain kids for a lot longer than that, and we have, as Bob describes it, a "Mommy State."  On his BLOG, Bob Wallace writes:

The Eternal Lure of Mommy

"Those who begin worshiping power soon worship evil." - C.S. Lewis

Many women have a decided tilt toward being natural socialists/fascists. I would not go so far as to say all women, but I wouldn't be surprised if in various degrees it was 80% of them.

To be accurate, there are men who exhibit these traits. The late drunken fat slob/murderer Teddy Kennedy was one of them, as are whackos like Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and Chuck Schumer. Yes, I know...but Hillary is not a woman.

As for Barak Obama, he is not only a socialist/fascist; he is a stupid one. To him, everything is magic. Abracadabra! Wealth is just there! Jobs are just there!

I'm sure that people in the past noticed this tendency in women to be natural socialists/fascists. Hence, I believe it is the main reason women have traditionally been denied the vote. When feminine socialism moves into the political (the political being defined as the attempt to rule others by force), it can do little more than destroy any society in which it becomes dominant – and it especially destroys men through its attempt to turn them into little boys or babies. We need do no more than look any further than the Mommy State as it exists in America today.

Notice that I wrote, "moves into the political." I've come to the conclusion that there is such a thing as a good leftism (and the feminine socialism of the Mommy State is pure leftism). This leftism belongs in one place only – the home. Even then it should be ruled by the father.

Friedrich Hayek, among others, has written that socialism is an attempt to take familial/tribal values and impose them on society. It's an attempt to make society "one big family." One big problem with this is that people remain children instead of growing up.

What is one of the things that children do? They blame their problems on everyone else. Blaming everyone else for all your problems is one of the main characteristics not only of children, but of immature adults.

These days, this "blame everyone else" attitude has infected society in general: "It's the gun manufacturers' fault I shot someone...it's fast-food restaurants' fault I'm fat...it's tobacco companies' fault I have lung cancer...it's McDonald's fault I spilled hot coffee in my lap."

This is what happens when "family" values are imposed by force on society: many "adults" still have a great deal of child in them, always pointing their fingers at someone else and crying, "It’s your fault! You made me do it!"

I understand the desire to impose family values on society. Ideally, it would be a society without envy, without violence, without anxiety. It's why leftists always want everyone to "share," even though this kind of sharing in any society can be imposed only by force. It's also why they are for gun control – little kids cannot be allowed to play with dangerous things. This desire for force, for power over others, is why leftists are so enamored of the idol of the State.

Leftists believe if everyone is totally equal through sharing, then there would be no envy. Unfortunately, it is not possible for everyone to be totally equal. As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn pointed out in Leftism Revisited, the only way people can be totally equal is if they are totally identical. Two quarters are totally equal because they are identical. The same does not apply to people, and never will.

Kuehnelt-Leddihn has also written about leftism as "the attempt to overthrow the Father," and uses as an example the "patriarchal" monarchies of Europe, which were overthrown by leftists, thereby ushering in the genocide of the 20th century. He pointed out that not one monarchy went down fighting.

If people are supposed to be children under leftism, who are supposed to be the parents? Those who plan and run societies, of course. These are the kind of people that Thomas Sowell mocked as "the Anointed." They are the people who believe that they are so intellectually and morally superior to everyone else it gives them the right to impose their vision on what they consider the unwashed masses.

A world without envy, without violence, without anxiety. Sure does sound good, doesn't it? It actually does exist in one place: the womb. It is a place to which we cannot return.

I suspect this eternal lure of the Mommy State is more than anything else an attempt to return to the womb. It's an attempt to avoid not only envy, violence, and anxiety, but self-consciousness. After all, babies in the womb are unconscious. And in that unconsciousness, there is no envy, no violence, no anxiety. Just the safe, blissful oceanic feeling of being one with Mommy.

Most political scientists appear to be clueless about this desire to return to the womb, but good artists certainly aren't. In 1953 the writer Philip Jose' Farmer wrote a truly creepy story called – yes, you guessed it – “Mother."

In it, an explorer on an alien planet ends up being trapped inside one of the planet's female inhabitants. She is little more than a gigantic immovable womb, in which everything he needs is given to him. At first he tries desperately to escape, but as time goes by, he gives up. And finally, when the Mother opens her "door" to allow him to leave...he won't go. He has returned to the bliss of the womb, escaping all the problems of the world. Of course, he gives up his self-consciousness.

This story not only describes the baby in the womb, but the way children relate to adults: what they want is just supposed to, somehow, "be there." Unfortunately, it's the way a lot of "adults" relate to the Mommy State. What they want is also just supposed to "be there." High-paying jobs should just "be there." Cheap, plentiful gasoline should just "be there."

The scariest of the leftist mother/wombs is Star Trek's the Borg. The Borg cube is essentially a gigantic womb flying through space. The members of the Borg are equal and identical. They feel no pain, no envy, no anxiety. They are unconscious in the womb of the Borg cube.

In a stroke of genius, the creators of the Borg have as the ruler not a King, but a Queen. A mother. In the movie, it's played by Alice Krige, who portrays the Queen with equal combinations of regality, sensuousness and motherliness. It's truly frightening combination, because she is both repulsive and desirable. As is the Borg womb.

For men, this return to the womb means to cease to be men. This, unfortunately, is one of the functions of (leftist) feminism – to literally make them children, even babies. To destroy them as men.

Feminism is the desire to castrate men, to return them to being little mama's boys or babies always dependent on the Mommy State. Leftism is ultimately an attempt to return everyone to being that original, unconscious fetus – a return to the womb-like Garden of Eden, a place in which Adam and Eve were, like babies, utterly safe and unconscious of evil.

In literature the Borg Queen fits the archetype known as the Temptress. In the book, Myths and Motifs in Literature, the Temptress is described as follows: "Women seen as destroyer created many taboos as to where and when females might appear within the tribal territory, what foods they might touch, what relations they might have with men. But male fantasies about women were equally matched by her erotic attractiveness...women who were seductive and beautiful, but who would bring about the destruction of those they ensnared." This is a nearly perfect description of the Borg Queen.

We certainly shouldn't return to silly tribal taboos about who can go where and who can eat what, but it should be kept in mind that that myth about the "feminine as destroyer" is an accurate description of what happens when feminine-socialist leftism moves into the political: it superficially appears to be attractive, but in the end it only destroys. Socialism is always the eternal Temptress: an unattainable womb that is eternally seductive, eternally destructive.
(For links to the books Bob discusses, go to his original post HERE.)

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Smokin'!

Like L. Neil, I don't smoke any more either, but I did for thirty or forty years.  A whole lot of pipes, many cigars, and maybe half a dozen cigarettes. To a pipe smoker, cigarettes are hard to consider tobacco at all. But it's not whether you smoke or not, but whether you're allowed to. And now we have the e-cigs, which sound outrageously wussy to me, like grilled tofu with lukewarm water on the side. Can you imagine Sherlock Holmes having a three-e-cig problem? But again, it's what you're allowed to do.

I Told You So—Again
by L. Neil Smith
lneil@netzero.com

 
Attribute to L. Neil Smith's The Libertarian Enterprise

Two or three decades ago, in a treatise on the social politics of cigarette smoking that I remember writing very clearly—but can no longer find in my archives—I observed that there are three kinds of individuals. [ was it "When They Came for the Smokers...", found here?—Editor ]

First, there are smokers, among whom I numbered myself for thirty years.

Among the War on Pleasure's countless victims, they have been made by the media, politicians, and pressure groups—as well as by their brainwashed neighbors, co-workers, families, and friends—to feel guilty about everything that they think, and feel, and say, and do -- and most of all, enjoy. They have been the subjects of more vicious bigotry than European Jews during the Black Plague. Everything you think you know, for example, about "secondhand smoke" is an outright, deliberate lie, propagated at the order of the George H.W. Bush Administration.

Second, there are non-smokers, whose ranks I had no rational alternative to joining after I suffered two myocardial infarctions in 1993.

Folks like this fall into two groups, those who have had to stop, and those who never indulged. My own philosopy is that it is better to have smoked, and quit, than never to have smoked at all. The memory of the first couple of drags on one of Nat Sherman's dark masterpieces, or the blast of a fresh Gauloises, or the down-home comfort-smoke of Marlboros, these will all be precious to me if I live a for thousand years (which, ironically, I'm far likelier to do if I refrain from smoking.)

But the salient point is that genuine non-smokers do not begrudge those who enjoy the Dixie weed, as long as it doesn't impinge on their own existence. Unlike many former smokers I am not a bit offended by the odor of tobacco smoke. I enjoy it, and will deliberately stand downwind of someone torching up. Nor am I even slightly tempted (as I suspect many former smokers actually are) to start smoking again. Nicotine causes red corpuscles to clump together, so when they hit a section of artery clogged by bacon-wrapped dates (a personal favorite of mine) or butter-drenched pan-seared diver scallops, it's lights out forever.

Of the third group, anti-smokers, whom that article and this one are about. I recall saying that if they were sitting in a restaurant, separated from the smokers by airlocks and plate glass six inches thick, so that not one molecule of tar or nicotine had any chance of reaching them, they would still be outraged merely by the sight of others enjoying themselves in a manner they don't approve of. Because that's what it's actually all about, not smoking, in and of itself, but what H.L. Mencken called the fear that someone, somewhere, is happy.

And this is where "I told you so" comes in.

I have probably had more excrement dumped on my head over issues related to tobacco politics, than with regard to any of my writings on the erroneously sainted Abraham Lincoln. For the most part, it was it was princesses of all four sexes, whining about a pea under their mattresses, or idiots with neatly compartmentalized ganglia (they don't deserve to be called "brains") denying, in one breath, that I had accurately described their neo-Puritanism, and in the next breath, without even a semicolon of separation, confirming everything I'd said.

By now you probably can't avoid being aware of a new electronic invention that allows its operators to inhale nicotine-laced water vapor without filling the air with tobacco smoke—the Devil's own flatulence—or the 400-year-old risk of setting fire to their noses or to anything else. They are called "e-cigs" and they are all the rage.

There are many things I could say about these devices. I may even have predicted them in one of my novels. They are of no use to me because of nicotine's aforementioned tendency to glue red blood cells together. In one of nature's better jokes, nicotine also constricts areteries, raising blood presssure, while increasing the rate of your heartbeat.

But worst of all, they offer people solace, and a kind of campfire comfort and companionship against loneliness that regular cigarettes, cigars, and pipes once offered—and at any cost, that must not be permitted, not while government is there to offer you comfort and companionship.

Whether you want it or not.

So naturally, without any basis whatever in science, and certainly none in decent, ethical behavior on the part of politicians, e-cigs are being lumped into various unconstitutional smoking bans around the country, notably that shining beacon of individual liberty, Chicago, Illinois—still the Second City despite the fascism of Bloomberg and DeBlasio.

At the same time, preachers and other such parasites, not content with nearly destroying America with their precious 1919 Volstead Act (look it up), and being indirectly, but palpably responsible for the invention of criminal turf wars, drive-by shootings, cement overshoes, and blindness or death owing to poorly-made or industrial alcohol, are doing their 6000-year-old damnedest to eradicate any picosecond of enjoyment that threatens to make life even the slightest bit worth living.

Some of that poisoning, of course, is still being done on purpose, by government, to make sure they get their two bucks a bottle of whiskey, tequila, rum, vodka, akvavit or any of the other waters of life.
But I digress.

The same herd of antihedonic lunatics and morons who once railed against miniskirts, platform heels, and video arcades, because they represented the end of civilization, are now attempting to outlaw the sale of e-cigs to people under 18, brutally crushing out even the most minuscule of pleasures people under 18 can experience because, well, people under 18 shouldn't be allowed even the most minuscule of pleasures.

It's bad for their character.

Meanwhile, that Progressive Era wet dream, the federal Food and Drug Administration—the same gaggle of geniuses who claim that meat and Vitaman D are bad for you—are scheming to require that e-cigs be "proven safe", as if sky-diving, skate-boarding, or race-car driving have been proven safe and are now allowable by an indulgent goverment.

Under their control, aspirin would be illegal.

Other neo-Puritans are agitating to forbid the sale of e-cigs online because obviously nothing good can possibly come from the Internet.

So was I right, or was I right?

This country has always been of two minds with regard to pleasure. There are the intellectual heirs of the Plymouth Rock crowd who would agree with Jerome Corsi that there's no justifiction for recreational sex.

Then again there are the libertarians, from Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine onward, who attributed to the "pursuit of happiness" an equivalence in value to liberty and life itself, even substituting it for property in the Declaration of Independence. That, by the way, is precisely what makes that document—as well as the Revolution it kicked off—libertarian in character, rather than merely the class-motivated struggle Marxists like Obama claim it was, of the landed class attempting to squirm out from under the thumb of the English monarchy.

The whole of American domestic history has consisted, pretty much, of one long, constant battle between those two points of view, freedom versus Puritanism, Franklin versus Mather, Jefferson versus Adams, the South and West versus New England, with an occasional foreign war to provide a breather. Now, because the sight of anyone having pleasure affects them the way that sunlight affects a vampire, the Puritans, Mathers, Adamses, and New Englanders are all out to diddle with your e-cigs.
And unless you stop them, between neo-Puritanism and political correctness, the final victory will go to the whiniest babies in the nursery.

Same as it ever was ... same as it ever was ... same as it ever was ...

Dark Enlightenment, Part II

No sooner do I put up a post on the Dark Enlightenment than Takimag puts up a more organized one. To elaborate a bit on what I said yesterday, those of us on the right are a thinky bunch, as opposed to those feely guys on the left. The left is all about emotion and feelings and judgmental things like "fairness" and "equality." The right, on the other hand, is into facts and reasoning. No wonder we have such a hard time communicating with leftist bozos. We want to discuss, and they want to emote.

Well, for a long time now, many of us on the right have been at least suspecting that "conservatives" are mainly just supporters of the liberal ideas of a few years ago, and not conservative in any sense other than the fact that they're slightly less liberal than the cutting-edge liberals are. Sometimes. And some of us are catching on that we've been letting liberals frame all the issues, and accepting some pretty freaky liberal assumptions.  Some examples:

1. Democracy is an end in itself. It's so good it trumps everything else.

2. All men are created equal. (Note that this doesn't mean today what Jefferson meant. He meant that nobody was entitled to rule because of noble birth. Nowadays it means that all races are equal, an idea which would have sent Jefferson into hysterical laughter.)

3. Freedom is always a good thing, no matter what people use it for.  This is a libertarian failing. They're often thrilled to see people killing themselves with illegal drugs, because they're "fighting for freedom."

4. The whole world should be, or become, just like us.  And it's a noble thing to waste our blood and treasure encouraging them to do so. This is very much a liberal idea, and you can trace  it to the progressives of a century ago.

5. Martin Luther King was way cool — kind of a conservative Republican. (Neocon nonsense.  He was a goddam communist.)

And etc. To make a long story short, the Dark Enlightenment are those catching on to those flaws.

Today's quibcag is from the essay below, and contains the pithiest critique of both conservatives and libertarians I've ever seen. To the essay, from Takimag:

Overreacting to Neoreaction


Mainstream liberal blogs have recently discovered the neoreactionary movement, also known as the Dark Enlightenment, which is a plucky collection of backward-looking upstarts that started to gel sometime in late 2012. The only unifying themes in coverage are an unfounded sense of hysteria and a complete inability to get the point.

To start with, neoreaction isn’t a political movement per se—at least not yet and not for lack of trying. It’s more an intellectual trend that scrutinizes hatefacts away from “The Cathedral,” the neoreactionary neologism for the semi-official universalist secular religion of equality that ironically emanates from Harvard’s elites.

Neoreactionaries trade ideas on WordPress blogs and Twitter. Their disparate voices include British expat continental philosopher Nick Land, monarchist transhumanist Michael Anissimov, Catholic anarchist Bryce Laliberte, post-libertarian escape artist Jim, and the snarky satirists of Radish. On discussion boards, scattered Old Right fanboys and a gaggle of fresh-faced, clean-cut Southern men working on oil rigs, ranches, and forex markets discuss the relative merits of Frederick the Great, Lee Kuan Yew, and Thomas Carlyle. Theden is the popular daily record, a sort of neoreactionary Huffington Post—except way, way smarter, natch.

The Dark Enlightenment is a big tent, but there are some common points of agreement. Democracy is seen as a dangerous scam, inevitably tending toward Morlock mob rule. Order is more precious than “justice,” which is really just a code word leftists use to bully everyone else. The world’s social order has been out of whack since approximately 1789, with cultural decline masked only by technological advance. Elitism—nay, aristocracy—is to be cultivated as the only antidote for the egalitarian dysgenic trend toward idiocracy.

Like any fringe movement, the DE has its own lexicon. The Cathedral is the seat of secularist, universalist, progressive power. One often hears the refrain “America is a Communist Country,” which is both a washing of the hands and a warning to cover your ass. Demotism means something between “democracy” and “populism”; it seamlessly encompasses fascism, Bolshevism, and Anglo-American liberal democracy.

It’s easy to see how TechCrunch, The American Spectator, and The Telegraph were so confused. There’s a lot to take in here, making it much easier to declare the movement an idiosyncratic form of monarchism or even (clutch the pearls) neofascism and move on without engaging it seriously. It’s even starting to scare some bloggers on the right who show a painfully shallow understanding.
(Intrigued?  I am. Read on HERE.)

Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Pete Seeger Dies, Goes To Hell


Communist Pete Seeger with communists Martin Luther King Jr,
Charis Horton, Rosa Parks, and Ralph Abernathy at communist 
Highlander Center in 1957.

Pete Seeger, an obnoxious communist who cheered on the death of millions with his little banjo, has finally died. Nicholas Stix, at his BLOG, writes:

Pete Seeger, America’s Most Famous Communist Folk Singer, 94, Now Playing to Standing Room Only Audiences… in Hell!


By Nicholas Stix

He was “the voice of America’s conscience,” as one of the brain-dead, pc morning shows put it. OnCBS This Morning, co-hosted by old Charlie Rose showed a clip of a 1983 interview of Seeger by an impossibly young looking… Charlie Rose!

Lefties have often used “conscience” as a code word for communist. It’s funny when you think about it: Communists have no concept of “conscience,” which for them is an individualistic, bourgeois concept.

At least one of the laudatios said that Seeger taught Martin Luther King Jr. “We Shall Overcome.” Was that a compliment, or a criticism?

The hagiographies emphasized Seeger’s work in the “civil rights movement” and in his later years, the environmental movement. Those weren’t two movements, they were one: The communist movement. (Read more, and see a lot of videos, HERE.)

The Dark Enlightenment

The "Dark Enlightenment," as I understand it, is a category that includes most of us on the right, from the paleoconservatives to the libertarian nationalists, from Nietzscheans to conservative Catholics, from constitutionalists to White nationalists to neofascists.  Talk about a herd of cats.  Well, that's just my impression. It might be simpler to call the DE the nemesis of progressivism.  Maybe the Quibcag quote is the simplest definition.  Well, I'm no authority, so this post is mainly in the service of grouping a lot of links together on the subject, so you can read what you like and make up your own mind.  And now I'll back away and let you do just that...

The Quibcag quote is from HERE.

Matt Parrott says:

The “Dark Enlightenment” is New Right Lite™
Matt Parrott

The mainstream blogosphere is beginning to awaken to the sinister threat of the “Neo-Reactionary” movement. One recent blog post among several dedicated to exposing these Neo-Reactionary villains warns its readers about “The Dark Enlightenment: The Creepy Internet Movement You’d Better Take Seriously“!

Wake up, liberals! A new bogeyman is threatening our hegemony . . . (Read his whole piece HERE.)

Occam's Razor describes the Dark Enlightenment HERE.
Nick Land says all THIS about the Dark Enlightenment.

RamZpaul says:

What is the Dark Enlightenment? Recently, there have been a flurry of Cathedral hit pieces against this sinister force.

Let's see the words used - "sad", "creepy", "fetid", "angry". Yup. Looks like they used all the cliche "scare" words. The one paragraph below ("Blossoming on the Internet like a fetid rose") reads like a bad romance novel.

The 'neo-fascist' Dark Enlightenment is more sad than scary

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100255944/the-dark-enlightenment-is-more-sad-than-neo-fascist-scary/


Basically, it’s a de-Christianized form of right wingery that is drinking deep of white supremacy and racialism.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/01/whats-the-dark-enlightenment.html

Blossoming on the Internet like a fetid rose, a mysterious new political movement has generated a serious and not un-terrifying critique of modern society. Its members are loud and growing in number, and they demand nothing less than the elimination of the democratic system. Mostly white, male and angry, they lie in wait for the imminent collapse of civilization

http://www.vocativ.com/12-2013/dark-enlightenment-creepy-internet-movement-youd-better-take-seriously/

HBD Chick writes THIS.

And more about it from The Erudite Knight:

The Dark Enlightenment
Posted on January 28, 2014


The Dark Enlightenment – an umbrella term, describing basically the manosphere/altright, is rapidly gaining both momentum and has sufficiently gained enough traction that the enemies it has long warned against – feminism, unbridled liberalism, mass government, denying biological realities etc have recently taken note. Hit pieces are popping up, demonizing us as well….just about everything, but f*ck them because it doesnt really matter, in fact it is predictable, they will call us sexist, racist, conservative, misogynist…misogynist…racist oh and misogynist.

I came across this hit piece:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/jamiebartlett/100012093/meet-the-dark-enlightenment-sophisticated-neo-fascism-thats-spreading-fast-on-the-net/ not worth reading but here is a relevant quote ” bizarre online neo-fascist movement….Its adherents are clever, angry white men patiently awaiting the collapse of civilisation, and a return to some kind of futuristic, ethno-centric feudalism….is a loose collection of neo-reactionary ideas, meaning a rejection of most modern thinking: democracy, liberty, and equality.”

Since ‘taking the pill’ about 2 and a half years ago my mind has been blown, and my eyes have been opened to the massive lies we are routinely fed throughout our lives. First let us get some things out of the way, despite the LIE of liberalism supporting alternative view points the monolith of modern society is utterly opposed to free thought. I am boldly declaring the republican and the democrat parties complete shit, they serve huge corporate interests that give a TOTAL shit about the average person.

For example, things like Operation American Spring which I link back to here (http://wp.me/p2YaVQ-gQ) do you think you are EVER going to hear this on main stream media? F*ck no. If it gets popular enough it might get some hit piece on it for being some disorganized mess of angry white people – regardless of any actual truth. ALL because the status quo must be maintained, the system would utterly collapse if the sheeple realized that a sizable portion of the populace thinks our system is totally f*cked up and the sheeple started seeing the light.

How about that hit piece at the beginning? Like the standard modern argument style which attempts to pass for ‘logic’ it starts with typical ad hominem and straw men arguments…hell they even use a ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum‘ which is so 10 years ago mother f*cker. But…that aside lets look at what this peice and all really try to claim:

They try to claim that Dark Enlightenment people (often viewed as young, male, and white) are against so many ‘self evident’ posistions like equality. (Like stated in this article directly) This takes SO many forms, typically, it is like ‘what you dont think black people can be as smart as a white person?’ ‘you dont think women should get paid the same as men?’ ‘the patriarchy has ruined everything’.

The absolute biggest thing I found is the DE proponents ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY! Consider for a moment all counter positions to DE: Feminism (I am a women, I have been a victim) Race (I am black I have been a victim) Girl’s having higher value (I am a girl, it makes sense I have more value than those ‘creepy’ guys) etc, they are all VICTIM mentalities.

The absolute craizest thing I realized upon taking the pill was I had to accept my own problems. No one told me ‘oh its okay, its SOMEONE ELSE’S fault’. It was harsh cold logic – girls are bitches and if you are not completely dialed you will get raped by girls who know more about the game then you. If you are losing IT IS YOUR OWN FAULT. Now of course it is known the game is highly rigged against you, but you are told the rules, and told advice on how to navigate the mine field. Or how about ‘the government/corporatocracy is rigged very hard against you BUT here are ways to minimize the raping you might be subject to. Start you own farm, your own business etc’

The game is rigged way the f*ck against us. Mass media will demonize us, feminists hate us, the government hates us, egalitarians hate us. Because we are speaking the truth we talk about things like Human Biodiversity (that there is MEASURABLE difference in races) and this comes off as some sort of pseudo science, while the fallacy of equality is promoted endlessly in college and mass media. We talk about how modern women are completely f*cked up in having a ‘I can have it all’ mentality from government largasse, and lack of manners, and that negotiating this realm that can leave you legally castrated is somehow ‘misogynist’. Talking about the monopolistic government and banking system gets you labeled a conspiratorial theorist despite it all being documented and you can find it yourself. I am reminded of an Immortal Technique song (a very good anti-establishment artist) ‘Read it for yourself instead of asking the government ‘why?’ !!!’





What is really funny about that hit peice is I get the feeling that guy kind of gets it, that a deep part of his brain is like ‘what if this world really is f*cked up, and I am being fed with lies to keep people in power? …uh nah…after all the wage gap is real right?’(Its not.)

So yes, the DE proponents see the world for what it is beyond the ‘white and black’ a crippled, ineffectual system that is doomed to failure. It is propped up by far to many lies. You can bash and demonize us with your shallow rhetoric and logically fallacies all day, your fans and sheeple will take it willingly, but there are a growing number of us, and it is spreading every day, every day someone new wakes up and spreads it further, wakes up to that white men in particular, and society in general has been fed a lie. Do what you can, say what you will, the lies are being exposed for what they are, and the end is coming in our lifetime. So…be prepared – economic collapse, ww3, domestic crackdown, ‘terrorist’ attacks. Oh wait, I guess that makes me some crazy person too right? I’m just some sort of ‘neo-fascist, misogynist, sexist, racist, misogynist, anti-american, loser who cant get laid, mother issues, never loved as a child, basement dweller who needs to lay off the porn, who doesnt value equality, oh I bet he’s a misogynist that supports the patriarchy too!’ Sling enough shit, and something might stick right? Well whatever, this bitch is going down, and until then we are doing what we can to survive and thrive, we are men, we aren't victims.


Now, what do you think the Dark Enlightenment is?

46% of the Senate is Treasonous

Be vigilant!


Sent in by Neale Osborn:

SECOND AMENDMENT SURVIVES....HOORAY!! SENATE VOTE 53-46.


The U.N. Resolution 2117 lists 21 points dealing with firearms control, but perhaps of most interest is point number 11: “CALLS FOR MEMBER STATES TO SUPPORT WEAPONS COLLECTION, DISARMAMENT ---” 
HOORAY - 53-46 vote - The U.S. Senate voted against the U.N. resolution.

Sorry to see so many other states have a sorry record of the 2nd amendment support.


This is that brief, glorious moment in history
when everyone stands around...reloading.

Now, Which 46 Senators Voted to Destroy Us? Well, let their names become known !! See below .

If you vote in one of the states listed with these 46 “legis..traitors”… vote against them.

In a 53-46 vote, the Senate narrowly passed a measure that will stop the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty.  The Statement of Purpose from the Bill reads: 

 "To uphold Second Amendment rights and prevent the United States from entering into the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty."  The U.N. Small Arms Treaty, which has been championed by the Obama Administration, would have effectively placed a global ban on the import and export of small firearms.  The ban would have affected all private gun owners in the U.S. and had language that would have implemented an international gun registry, now get this, on all private guns and ammo.

Astonishingly, 46 out of our 100 United States Senators were willing to give away our Constitutional rights to a foreign power.

Here are the 46 senators who voted to give your rights to the U.N.
Baldwin (D-WI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Coons (D-DE)
Cowan (D-MA)
Durbin (D-IL)j
Feinstein (D-CA)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hirono (D-HI)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Merkley (D-OR)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wyden (D-OR)

Folks: This needs to go viral.

These Senators voted to let the UN take OUR guns. They need to lose their next election. We have been betrayed.

46 Senators Voted to Give your 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights to the U.N.


Please send this to SOMEONE!

Civil Rights Rites

I kind of grew up with the Civil Rights movement, it was growing in the 50's at the same time I was. Being very naive, I thought it sounded like a good idea. All the little TV spots and most of the fiction I grew up reading certainly encouraged that kind of thinking. If you're as old as I am, maybe you'll remember the cute little TV spots telling us that diversity and tolerance were the coolest things ever. If you don't remember them, HERE'S a summary from Mama Lisa's World. Well, needless to say, all the tolerance went in one direction. The diversity/tolerance propaganda items were for White kids, and the nonWhite kids got all the "hate Whitey" propaganda, and all this is still going on, sometimes overtly, sometime subtly.

Since tolerance and diversity haven't worked out, we now have to find somebody to blame. You guessed it. Whitey again. Obviously, the mantras that EverybodyIsEqualEverybodyIsTheSame can't be wrong, so Whitey must be sabotaging the program. Despite the fact that the University authorities have done everything short of forcible kidnapping to get more minorities into college, somehow, some way, they've actually been keeping them out, despite the fact that they really really really want to learn stuff. Really. And that 15-point IQ gap will go away as soon as... as soon as then next really swell government program is implemented.  As Vonnegut would say, so it goes. This from Takimag:

Self-Esteem Über Alles


As the civil-rights movement settles into stagnation and one nostrum after the next fails to move the needle, public rituals celebrating the faith have become de rigueur. Nowhere is this religion-like activity more visible than when people beseech prestige universities to open their doors for more blacks and graduate them by hook or by crook. The college diploma has taken on a magical quality, the ticket to the middle class as if “the middle class” were an exclusive club requiring a BA to get by the doorman. That this give-us-a-diploma mania has been going on for decades with little to show for it makes scant difference—gotta keep the faith.

The latest public ceremony occurred on January 16, 2014. Here President Obama, egged on by First Lady Michelle, held a daylong White House “summit” attended by scores of college presidents, corporate heads, and nonprofit leaders. As the price of admission, all participants were obligated to bring a plan to increase minority college enrollments.

It was axiomatically assumed that intellectually talented black high-school students abound but that top colleges ignore them. Furthermore, these potential college graduates were allegedly often clueless regarding the admission process. Particularly odious according to the president were standardized tests such as the ACT and SAT that impede access to top schools. (In the civil-rights lingo, when blacks cannot pass a test, it is “a barrier.”) The president called for doubling of the National College Advising Corps where recent college graduates help students in “underserved” high schools complete the college admission process. He also advocated hiring new advisers and subsidizing college prep classes routinely available to rich white and Asian students.

Meanwhile, the University of Michigan also witnessed another ritualistic we-need-more-diplomas event. Here agitated black students were outraged that blacks comprised 14% of the state’s population but only 5% of the student body. So on the High Holy Day of Martin Luther King’s birthday, the activists granted the university seven days to respond to seven demands or face “physical actions” by Monday, January 27, 2014. Demands included emergency scholarships for black students unable to concentrate as a result of the school’s hostile racial climate, inexpensive on-campus housing for blacks, and doubling black enrollment to 10%. No mention was made of the state law that bars the university from using race in college admissions.

To a clear-eyed Martian, such rituals are truly bizarre given the plain-to-see reality. SAT scores do predict college success, and blacks and whites on average differ by 100 points on the reading, math, and writing tests. These gaps have remained unchanged for 25 years. (Keep reading HERE.)

Monday, January 27, 2014

Dogfare

From Gene Yarbrough:

My Dogs

This morning I went to sign my Dogs up for welfare. At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare". So I explained to her that my Dogs are mixed in color, unemployed, lazy, can't speak English and have no frigging clue who their Daddies are.They expect me to feed them, provide them with housing and medical care, and feel guilty because they are dogs.

So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify. My Dogs get their first checks Friday.

Damn, this is a great country.

Say Nope to the Pope!

In my last post, I remarked:

Christian morality, except where leftists have twisted it out of shape, is a pretty good way to organize your life.

And, I would have thought that the meaning of that was pretty clear, but it got pounced on immediately, from "What do you mean by that?" comments to accusations that I obviously don't understand Christianity.

Well, I guess I should be clearer. What I have in mind is the self-destructive messages that "Christians" of the left-wing, or crazy, variety send out all the time. They've elevated compassion above any and all other Christian principles, and essentially called for suicidal behavior on the part of anybody who wants to call himself a Christian. I first encountered this Wacko-Christianity back in the civil rights days, when the principle of integration and brotherhood between races was so important that the bad effects of such policy were to be ignored or lied about, and any opposition or even questioning of the policy was taboo.

Now, I wasn't brought up in a church. My relatives and ancestors are mainly Quakers or Baptists, and they for the most part understand that suicide isn't required of a Christian (Though some of the Quakers are a little shaky on that), and they also realize that they can have compassion for people of other races without actually having sexual relations with them. 

And, I'm a big fan of C. S. Lewis, who nowhere calls for surrender to the Calormenes, but rather for warfare against them.  If there are any Christians out there who can explain why he's wrong about that, do write in and do so.

So why doesn't the Pope understand this?  I've been avoiding writing about him, because of my Quaker/Baptist background, but the Irish Savant has no such impediment, and on his blog HERE he writes:

A lesson in practical morality for Francis

You know, the more I see of Pope Francis the less I like.  He has all the appearances of being trendy and tolerant, in tune with the zeitgeist and not at all comfortable with this sin business. In 'reaching out' to gays he made the astonishing claim that  'it is not possible [for the Church] to interfere spiritually in the life of a person."  Well, if it's not 'interfering spiritually' then what exactly is the Church's purpose?

And if a good press is what you're after you can't beat the Immigration Industry.  And he's been fast off the mark here too. Visiting Lampedusa and demanding that all immigrants be 'given a home in Europe'.  Before Christmas, in another PR coup, he visited immigrants in Rome, handing out gifts and declaring that "a change of attitude towards migrants and refugees is needed on the part of everyone, moving away from attitudes of defensiveness and fear, indifference and marginalisation, all typical of a throwaway culture, towards attitudes based on a culture of encounter, the only culture capable of building a better, more just and fraternal world."

According to Catholic Online he then rounded it all off  by expressing the hope that countries would welcome migrants keeping the values of their culture of origin. So are we to assume then the millions of Muslims rampaging through the West will retain their quaint customs, ones like stoning to death for adultery, death for apostasy and death for insulting the 'prophet'?  And Africans retain  'values and customs' such raping children to cure AIDS, or killing and eating your enemies?

Seems like it.

Look, I have no love for the Catholic Church. Growing up in Ireland when I did I in fact came to detest the narrow-mindedness and rampant hypocrisy in which it wallowed. Gave up Catholicism by my mid-teens.  But now I see it as a possible ally in the fight against the cultural war on the West.  But Pope Francis won't be much of an ally. What he fails to realise is that pandering to contemporary moral standards might win him some grudging brownie point from the chattering classes and the representatives of the various sexual degenerates out there.  But it also leads to oblivion.

Look at the Church of England which has become the most trendy of all.  Eschewing the taking of moral positions on anything, it instead espoused a vapid New Age feelgood vibe, kumbaya.  They even appointed an incomprehensible African tribesman as their head honcho to demonstrate their bona fides. Yet, far from making it relevant to the new age, the institution is for all practical purposes moribund. Its churches empty, the few believers rapidly ageing and dying off.  You see, for better or worse, it's the old fire and brimstone uncompromising religions that are doing best.  No matter how bizarre their teachings and rituals.

So this Pope is leading his institution down the path of oblivion.

Going back to the immigration issue, Aristotle taught us that impractical morality is no morality at all. (No wonder he's hated by libtards).  There is nothing on this earth more impractical than allowing vast numbers of additional immigrants into Europe. No need for me to elaborate why, of course.  And, were we to take the Pope's suggestion, the inevitable consequence would be to turbocharge the stampede, increasing numbers by orders of magnitude.  Impractical morality of the purest kind.

So here I make a practical moral suggestion for Pope Frankie. Open up the Vatican to the huddled masses on your doorsteps. Giving them call cards at Christmas is all well and good, but Frankie, you said it yourself, we must welcome them into our houses.  You have a very  very big one just up the road, and a lovely - and very large - holiday home at Castelgandolfo. The immigrants would just love them. And you know what?  you would too, Frankie.  You see they're such wonderful people. You said so yourself.

So what about it, Nincompope?

Nothing If Not Nihilism

Vox Day has a fascinating post today, which I reblog in its entirety below, concerning the nihilist thinking that is so trendy these days. But I'm not sure about this. I remember P. J. O'Rourke remarking years back about the Clinton Adminstration, saying something to this effect: "These people aren't smart enough to be communists."  That may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it's certain that many of them weren't thoughtful enough to be communists.  At any rate, we have to be careful not to give people credit for being nihilists, when they're just stupid and disorganized in their thinking. But, then, Vox doesn't use the word "nihilist," so maybe he's deliberately avoiding it for that reason.

Me, now, I'm not a believer in Christianity and never have been, but I'm certainly not smug about it. I wish I were a believer now and then, and, like Puddleglum in one of those Narnia stories, I sort of behave as though there were a Christian God, not to hedge my bets, but simply because it feels right to do so. Christian morality, except where leftists have twisted it out of shape, is a pretty good way to organize your life. So I, most definitely, am not a nihilist, because I, for whatever reason, believe in objective reality.

Well, in the course of his post, Vox quotes John C. Wright, of whom I hadn't heard, and I immediately found him quibcagworthy.  From http://voxday.blogspot.com/

The Nothing People

John C. Wright on the restless hearts of the empty souls, who are never content no matter what they achieve and regardless of what gains they make:
Being without a sense of the objective nature of reality, they are without a belief in objective morals. Being without a belief in objective morals, they lack honor, and, lacking honor, they lack courage, lack decency, lack courtesy.

Hence, their one, sole and only means of discussing their principles in debate is to accuse whomever dares question them of any and every thing they think evil: they call normal people stupid and evil and heartless, bigoted and racist and fascist and thisist and thatist.

The content of the accusation does not matter, only the relief of being able to accuse, and accuse, and accuse.

Their only consistent principle — a principle never admitted, of course, but obvious in their every manifesto — is the Unreality Principle, which holds that it is better and braver to believe in make-believe than in real reality. The more unreal the belief, the less based on fact, the more open the self contradiction, the greater the power of will and nobility of spirit needed to believe it, and hence the greatest applause from the modern mind is reserved to those of their number that believe the most unreal and unrealistic things. And yet, with typical unselfaware modern irony, they call themselves the reality-based community.

In sum, their philosophy consists of the single principle that no philosophy is valid. Their ethics consist of a single precept that making ethical judgments is ‘judgmental’ that is, ethically wrong. Their economic theory, socialism, consists of an arrogant denial that the laws of economics apply to economic phenomena. Their theory of psychology says that men do not have free will, because cause and effect is absolute; their theory of metaphysics is that subatomic particles do have free will, because cause and effect is statistical, approximate, uncertain, incomplete, and illusory. And on and on. All their thought is one self-refuting statement after another.

Philosophically, theologically and morally, the modern mindset is an end-state. Once a man has utterly rejected reason, he cannot reason himself to another conclusion. Once he has rejected morality, he has no sense of honor to compel him to live up to a philosophy more demanding than narrow selfishness.

Again, once he had rejected the authority of tradition, so that his one precept is to ignore all precepts of his teachers, he has no motive and no way to pass along to the next generation this selfsame precept, for he then is himself a teacher teaching them to ignore all teachers. And so on.
No compromise is possible with these people. I use the term loosely, for they are not morally accountable Men and Women in the full sense of the term. They are intellectual nomads, always on the move, always parasitical, always acting to destroy, always needing an accusational high that is more powerful than the one before.

This is why attempts to appease them are always fruitless, why they always devour their own. You might as rationally attempt to reason with the weather as attempt to reason with them. They eat their own as readily as they devour those they overcome, and their bitterest hatred is reserved for those who stand up to them and tell them, with all the contempt that they merit, "you are nothing and you will never be anything". Never ever back down to them.

If there is one thing they hate to hear, it is that they are fallen. They cling furiously to their pride and to their pretense to superiority because that is all they have. They are de facto psychopaths; they have no ability to empathize for all that they claim to empathize with everything and everyone from the snail darter to a bullied homosexual teen. They have endless hypothetical love for humanity and nothing of the real thing for their neighbors or anyone but themselves.

The real and the decent people sense their emptiness. We tiptoe around them, trying not to trigger the endless minefield of their sensitivities. This is pointless. Like insects, they thrive in darkness; whenever exposed to the harsh light of truth they are desperate to conceal their words and their deeds, to hide their empty sickness. But this is wrong, because there is only one hope for them, and that is the crushing of their pride.

There is nothing that can fill up the vast abyss within them except God. Nothing. So do not spare them. Remind them that they are nothing. Remind them that they are evil. Tell them the truth because they already know it and the reason for their frenetic activity is that they are running from it. Remind them their only hope at the joy they envy and crave is to abandon their empty, narcissistic pride and allow the Way, the Truth, and the Life to fill up the void within.

One of my friends once asked me why I seem to run into so many of these people, both personally and professionally. The answer is simple. I see them, they know I see them, and their instinctive reaction is to immediately attack those who recognize them for what they are. You see, the Nothing People always lie and thereby sentence themselves to a lifetime of policing the perceptions of others. It's not that I recognize their lies so much as I recognize the constant scanning of others perception of them in which they necessarily engage.

Sunday, January 26, 2014

Defending Huckabee, of All People

Earlier today I saw a left-wing post on Facebook that accused Mike Huckabee of saying that women can't control their libido. There was much weeping and gnashing of teeth about what a Neanderthal bigot he was for saying such a thing, and for expressing such "hate" for women, etc. etc., the usual liberal faux indignation, or, as it's been called elsewhere, an "indignogasm."  Then, of course, as I knew I would, I ran across what he actually did say, which is reproduced in the Donald Joy piece below, where he points out that it's feminists who say, or imply, that women can't control their libido and therefore need government help for birth control.

The think about Huckabee is that he's a neocon, that is, a liberal masquerading as a conservative, or, to be more charitable, a liberal with a couple of common-sense conservative characteristics. Overall, Huckabee is very disappointing to a genuine conservative or libertarian.  He's essentially a fan of open borders, for example, and supports our overseas adventuring in the Middle East, which is plenty for me to consider him a species of liberal.  In this particular instance, however, he quite properly denounces the ditzy feminists for what they are, as well as I could expect from a genuine conservative, or even a libertarian.  Would that he would show similar common sense in other connection.

This from ClashDaily:


If Old White Republican Men Don’t Chastise The Slut Culture, Who Will?

By Donald Joy / 26 January 2014 /



Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 presidential candidate Mike Huckabee has been poking the whores’ nest recently, by making some bold remarks on his TV show and at a Republican National Committee luncheon last Thursday. Democrats and their media operatives went apoplectic.

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are hopeless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing them with their prescription each month for birth control because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it,” Huckabee announced, sending seismic shocks throughout the ranks of both major parties.

Good for him. I don’t buy into this propaganda spin that says the Republican Party has an image problem, and needs to “rebrand” itself with all kinds of “progressive” posturing in order to woo more women voters, minority voters, and so forth. The people who say that–and there are an extremely large number of them who do say it–are really actually saying that republicans must abandon what we believe in and become democrats. It really is that simple.

Liberal democrats have perfected the art of constantly keeping conservatives on our heels backpedaling, defending, apologizing, groveling, and denying. Denying that we are this, or that, or stand for this, that, the other thing…come on. Let’s just stand up for what we believe in and be who we are. If our culture and our country have changed so much and become so corrupted that our views, principles, and platform are no longer popular or relevant or electable, then that is that, and we’ll simply lose elections and eventually cease to exist. So what?

Really, so what? I mean, how much control do we really have, over whether people voluntarily do the right thing or not, according to what we believe is the right thing? It’s God’s job to change hearts, not ours. And it’s vanity to think that we know with utter certainty, better than anyone else, what the right thing is. But that doesn’t mean we are off the hook from having to try to know, and to act. Yes, we do have some amount of influence, and we have to exert it to the extent possible. We have to make the case and seek to persuade, through various practical means. But there is a limit. And that limit is the same limit point which says once we stop ardently advocating for our beliefs, and instead cave in to what our opponents say we should think, do, and be, we cease to do the right thing by our consciences, or even be who we are. We are not all that interested in selling our souls, to win worldly elections.

Bringing us to the point in question: Huckabee was actually saying that it is the democrats, and their agenda/message of government dependence and avoidance of consequences for poor lifestyle choices, who insult American women–not republicans, with our message of independence from big government, and personal responsibility. What’s so hard to grasp about that? Nothing. It’s easy and clear. But the hyper-spin began even long before Mike Huckabee opened his mouth. The script always gets flipped around to make it sound like the republican party, admittedly comprised of a larger proportion of older Caucasian men as mouthpieces and ordinary members than the democrats, is somehow waging a “war on women” and hates minorities, and so on.

All because we dare stick with the tried and true, naturally engineered and ordained gender roles of eons and eons of human experience, and because we advocate for the preservation and prevalence of a unique, unprecedented, and wildly successful culture that was built with the blood sacrifices of millions of our English-speaking forefathers, a culture which is still the envy of the world and attracts millions to our shores to share in it. What is wrong with having spokespeople and advocates for that way of life, who happen to largely resemble those who designed, fought for, and died for it?

Nothing. Nothing at all. There’s nothing wrong with having older white male republicans lecturing to young, brazen, uppity communist slatterns among our overall population to keep their knees together until marriage and stop acting like prostitutes, spreading diseases and psychological damage, stop aborting millions of babies, and get back to tending the hearth and home like virtuous women should.

Such lectures need to be given and heard, and almost no one else else is delivering them. So it is up to us old white men to put our feet down where appropriate. Someone has to say it, someone has to do it. I applaud Mike Huckabee.


Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2014/01/old-white-republican-men-dont-chastise-slut-culture-will/#GcbODE1m703OoqpU.99