Wednesday, July 30, 2014

Vulture of Critique on the Theory of Memes and Quibcags.

You know, I have to admit, he has a point. Quibcagwrights everywhere should consult Vulture's comments HERE before launching a quibcag career.
-----
Quibcag: This quibcag is of course appropriately but ironically illustrated by the adorable Ayuko Oka from Mysterious Girlfriend X (謎の彼女X. Nazo no Kanojo Ekkusu).

Israelolatry

Even as I type this, I'm hearing some rabbi (I think) on a TV ad explaining to me that "these are very difficult times for Israel and the Jewish people," and that I should pledge five bucks a month or something to send food parcels to starving Jews in Israel, because God knows, they're strapped for cash over there. (insert sarcasm emoticon) Well, like I said a few days ago HERE, it might indeed have been a fine idea for Jews to have a country of their own, but it was a little, shall we say, psychotic to establish it right smack in the middle of Palestine and run hundreds of thousands of natives out of the place to make room for it. And somehow expect everybody to be okay with it.

Part of the problem for Americans is that they understand the situation from having watched Exodus or listening to people who have, or by listening to Israeli propaganda. The reality is of course a lot more complicate than that, has all kinds of roots in history, and has been severely distorted by the unconditional love shown the Israeli state by naive Americans. American Presidents who failed to give the Israelis everything they demanded somehow ended up as one-term Presidents. One didn't even finish one term — I'll leave you to contemplate that one. Meanwhile, read this from the Unz Review by Philip Giraldi:

Israel Right or Wrong
But What's In It For Americans?

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Open Minds and Closed Borders

Again I beat the drum. I call myself a libertarian, specifically a libertarian nationalist, because libertarianism comes closest to define my set of beliefs and principles, not because I've joined the herd of true believers and shape my perception of reality to fit the libertarian dogma. I simply believe in the value of human liberty, and in having as much of it as is sustainable. At some times and in some places, very little human liberty is even possible, let alone desirable, because granting too much of it leads to automatic conflict, which will soon result in the loss of even more liberty when order is restored by whatever means.

I think that a great deal of liberty — more than we've got — is possible in the United States and in other countries of Western Civilization. I also think it's somewhat possible in places that have accepted some of the principles of Western Civilization, like Japan.

But as you can't make a little clean place in a gutter, you can't establish freedom in a country that allows unrestricted immigration from unfree places. The liberal/neocon creed is that immigrants from unfree places want to come here to be free. That may be true of some, but most of them want to escape from the conditions caused in part by lack of freedom, and enjoy the fruits of our culture without attributing them to our free way of life. As I type this, illegals are demonstrating all over the place for freebies and special treatment. They have no desire to live in a free country. They want the country to serve them. Hordes of non-libertarian immigrants do not further libertarianism here or anywhere else.

But if that simple statement of common sense isn't convincing enough, here's Stephan Kinsella's argument for restricting immigration while adhering to the strictest libertarian ethics, from Lew Rockwell's site HERE.

A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders

by N. Stephan Kinsella
by N. Stephan Kinsella
To own means one has the right to control a given resource. Ownership is distinct from mere possession or actual control; it is the right to control. (On the nature of ownership, see Hans-Hermann Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, chs. 1, 2, esp. pp. 5—6, 8—18, discussing notions of scarcity, aggression, property, norms, and justification, and ch. 9, esp. pp. 130—145; also links in this post.)
As H.L.A. Hart argued, the question of what the law is, is different from the question of whether a particular law is moral or just. We can distinguish the way things are from the way things should be. Fact and norm, is and ought, are different things. When we speak of the actual state of affairs, we are talking about actual or legal ownership, and the positive, legal right to control a resource.
What I am getting at is that the state does own many resources, even if (as I and other anarcho-libertarians believe) the state has no natural or moral right to own these things. Nonetheless the state does own some resources — roads, ports, buildings and facilities, military bases, etc. We can allow that a road, for example, is actually, or legally, owned by the state, while also recognizing that the "real" owners are the taxpayers or previous expropriated owners of the land who are entitled to it. This poses no conceptual problem: there is no conflict between the proposition that the taxpayers have a moral or natural right to the land, i.e. they should have the (legal) right to control it; and the assertion that the state has the actual positive or legal right to control the land. The state is the legal owner; but this legal ownership is unjustified, because it amounts to continuing trespass by the state against property "really" owned (normatively or morally) by certain victims of the state (e.g., taxpayers or the resource's previous owners).

The point here is the state does (legally) own resources which are "really" owned by others. As libertarians, we can view this situation as the state holding property on behalf of the real owners, as a sort of uninvited caretaker.

Now my contention is that given the existence of significant public property in a certain country, it is not necessarily unlibertarian for immigration to be restricted by means of usage-rules established on public property by the state-owner.

Consider this case. I live in a small independent city, which has about 10,000 residents. It is very small and dense, and smack-dab in the middle of Houston, which has 4 million people. Our City has a public pool a few blocks from my house. As a resident of the City (and hence a taxpayer) I am entitled to use the pool for a very small fee — say, $2 per visit. Nonresidents — outsiders — may use the pool too, but they pay three times as much: $6 per visit.

Now let's say that as a libertarian I would rather the pool be privatized, or sold and the proceeds returned to those who have been victimized to found or maintain it — the taxpayers, or residents, of this City. This would be a type of restitution for the crime committed against them. Alternatively, if the land for the pool had been expropriated, the owner ought to be paid restitution. Etc. The point is that given a government theft, taking, or trespass, it is better, other things being equal, for the victims to receive restitution; and more restitution is better than a smaller, insufficient amount.

But restitution need not be made only in dollars. It can be made by providing other value or benefits to the victims. One such benefit to me is the ability to use a nice, uncrowded, local pool for a cheap price. It is arguably better, even more libertarian, for the City to discriminate against outsiders. If it did not, the pool would be overrun by outsiders seeking cheap swimming. It would be virtually worthless to me and most of my fellow residents of the City if there were no rules on entry, or no discrimination against outsiders. The rule set on the usage of this property by its caretaker-owner, the City, is a reasonable one — one that the owner of a private pool might adopt, and also one that generates more restitution for the victims of the City's aggression, than a less discriminatory rule would.

This example illustrates the general point that when the state assumes ownership of a resource, then it has to establish some rules as to the resource's usage. This is what it means to own something: to be able to determine how the thing is used. Coming back to immigration, let's take the case of the federal government as owner-caretaker of an extensive network of public roads and other facilities. If the feds adopted a rule that only citizens and certain invited outsiders are permitted to use these resources, this would in effect radically restrict immigration. Even if private property owners were not prohibited from inviting whomever they wish onto their own property, the guest would have a hard time getting there, or leaving, without using, say, the public roads. So merely prohibiting non-citizens from using public property would be one means of establishing de facto immigration restrictions. It need not literally prohibit private property owners from having illegal immigrants on their property. It need only prevent them from using the roads or ports — which it owns.

It seems to me establishing rules as to how public roads are to be used is not inherently unlibertarian. Even libertarians who say the state has no right to make any rules at all regarding property it possesses — even speed limits etc. — really advocate the following rule: allow anyone to use it, and/or return it to the people. This is a way of using a piece of property. But most libertarians don't seem to have a principled opposition to the very idea of rule-setting itself. Sure, the state should not own a sports stadium or road, but so long as it does, it is not inherently unlibertarian for the state-owner to promulgate and enforcesome rules regarding usage of the resource. A road may have speed limits; a stadium or museum may charge an entrance fee; the sheriff's office and the courthouse might have locks on the doors preventing anyone but employees from entering.

Advocates of open-borders/unrestricted immigration are simply those who prefer a certain rule of usage be issued by the feds: that anyone at all may use federal roads, ports, etc. Whereas other citizens have a different preference: they prefer that the fedsnot allow everyone, but only some people. By having the latter rule, obviously, a version of immigration restriction could be established de facto.

Now I am not so far arguing for the latter rule. I am simply noting that it is not necessarily unlibertarian, as the open-borders types want to maintain. They urge that the illegitimate owner-caretaker of public property use it in this way; others want it used another way. We all agree the rule that really should be adopted is: return the property to private hands. Where we differ is on what second-best rule is more libertarian, or more preferred. Is one second-best rule more clearly libertarian than the other? It seems to me that one useful way to compare alternative rules is to examine the restitution that would be provided by various usage-rules. A rule that generates more restitution for more people is, other things being equal, probably preferable to other rules.
In the case of federal highways, for example, most citizens currently get a benefit from being able to use roads. Is it "worth" the cost of being taxed to maintain the roads, or to pay for compensation fees paid to expropriated or bought-out property owners, or the associated liberty violations? No. But given a rights violation, some restitution is better than none. If the feds announced tomorrow that no rules at all applied to the federal highways, the utility of the roads to most people would fall dramatically, meaning that restitution has decreased. The resource would be wasted. If the feds announced tomorrow that no one could use the roads except the military, then again, this would reduce overall restitution. Some more reasonable rule in between would obviously generate a more respectable amount of restitution than either extreme.
Is there an "optimal" rule that leads to "optimal" restitution? Most certainly not. Private property is the only way to objectively and efficiently allocate capital. But some rules are better than others; and one reasonable rule of thumb used to judge the validity of a given usage rule for a publicly owned resource is to ask whether a private owner of a similar resource might adopt a similar rule; or to compare the amount and types of restitution corresponding to alternative usage-rules. And since it is impossible for the state to adopt a rule that perfectly satisfies all citizens — this is one problem with having public property in the first place — then, other things being equal, a rule that is favored by the overwhelming majority may be viewed as providing "more" overall restitution than one that is favored only by a few people.

Given these considerations, it seems obvious to me that, just as my neighborhood pool discriminates against outsiders, and just as a private pool also does this, so the state owner-caretaker of federal property might also establish rules that discriminate against some immigrants. It is obvious that the overwhelming majority of citizens do not want open borders; which means almost every American taxpayer would prefer that public property not be open to everyone. It is also clear that given federal anti-discrimination laws, providing unlimited access to public roads is tantamount to forced integration, has Hoppe has argued (12). This cost is yet another reason why most Americans would prefer not to have public property open to all with no discrimination or restrictions. Given that values are subjective, using property to cater to the subjective preferences of the vast majority would seem to be one way of achieving a more substantial degree of restitution.

What are my own personal preferences? Well, I would prefer the public property be returned as restitution to the victims and the mafia called the state disbanded. Barring that, so long as they hold property rightfully "owned" by me and others to whom the state owes damages/restitution, I would prefer property they own to be used only for peaceful purposes of the type that would exist in the free market (can any libertarian seriously deny that it's objectively better for the state to build a library or park on public property than an IRS office or chemical weapons factory?). I would prefer rules to be set regarding the usage of these resources so that they are not wasted, and so as to act in a reasonable manner like private owners would, and to maximize restitution. So far, I think my "preferences" are the only libertarian ones possible.

But what actual rules should we prefer? Here I think we start to veer from libertarianism into the realm of personal preference. I would not want the feds to allow any and all comers onto federal property, for the reasons mentioned above — I believe it would reduce the utility of public property, and impose costs (such as forced integration). In any event, even if this were now my own preference, I have to admit 99% of my fellow taxpayers would simply prefer some immigration restrictions, and therefore probably would prefer some kinds of rules of the road that discriminate against outsiders — given this preference, which does not seem per se unlibertarian — it is obvious that far more restitution is made overall if such rules are enacted.

Libertarians who righteously assume that their open borders view is the only principled one can only maintain this stance if they argue that the state should not ever establish any rules on property it asserts ownership of. Once they grant that some rules should be set, then they can not assume that discriminatory rules are automatically unlibertarian; all rules are "discriminatory." And I do not personally believe it can be convincingly argued that there should be no rules on public property, because this would result in significant costs to citizens who are victimized enough. It cannot be a libertarian requirement to add injury to injury; libertarianism is about vindicating and defending the victim, not about victimizing him further.
--------
Quibcag: I have no excuse for the illustration except that it's eye-catching. I'm not sure who the girl is, but she has something to do with Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā)

Miscellany — Immigration, etc.

First off, some good links from the Drudge Report. The titles alone are depressing:



Then, GAIKOKUMANIAKKU blows my mind, so to speak, by asserting that my most recent post was my "gayest post ever."

And back to immigration with this post:

A Billy de Blasio Homeless Shelter For Black And Latino Families In Queens Gets Protested By Locals Screaming In Mandarin : Proof Positive That The Competitive Compassion Vermin At The New York Times Protect Their Oppressed Pets At Any Cost, Even If It Makes Them Look Stupid And Hypocritical


Finally, some Monty Pythonian fun and games from Steve Sailer HERE.

And that's enough for now.




Monday, July 28, 2014

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, a Sort of Review

So far, I haven't been able to bring myself to see Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, so I do the next best thing, and read reviews of it. One good review is by Steve Sailer HERE. None have so far persuaded me that I ought to see it.

But Francisco Albanese has seen it, and found some stuff in it to be meaningful. At least, it helps illuminate some of the points made in Jack Donovan's book, The Way of Men. And anything that reminds you of Jack Donovan has to be worth thinking about. I won't go so far as to recommend the movie. I, like Francisco, still prefer the first Charton Heston movie to all the others, so far, and I prefer the original novel by Pierre Boulle HERE. Note: there's an absolutely tremendous difference between the book and the movie. In a way, the movie takes as much from the novel Genus Homo by L. Sprague de Camp and P. Schuyler Miller. I wonder if Boulle read that before he wrote his novel.

Anyhow, this is from Counter-Currents:


Apes, Together, STRONG!

I’m a big fan of the seventh art, so the Dawn of the Planet of the Apes premiere was mandatory for me.
Although my favorite version of the saga is the one with Charlton Heston, the new movies are excellent, and the most recent one in particular reminded me of Jack Donovan’s book The Way of Men. Thus this is less a review than a set of notes comparing aspects of the film with the ideas developed in The Way of Men.
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes is about survival. Both males and females are important to survival. Males are responsable for hunting and protecting the perimeter of the tribe. Females are responsable for nuturing the young and gathering. It is an organic community led by an alpha male.
(I will ignore the “demonization” of bonobos since I am not a liberal nor a feminist, so this controversy is completely irrelevant to me. In this essay, both chimpanzees and bonobos will be treated just as chimps.)
The movie is set after the social and economic collapse of western civilization due to a virus which has killed most of humanity. Nature has reclaimed its place, its role, its throne, and, in San Francisco, humankind is now just a little colony of those who are immune to the virus.
But there is also an ape community. It is a diverse community — there are not only chimps, but also gorillas, bonobos, orangutans — ruled by male chimps using their strength and organizational skills.
Although their community is diverse, the diversity is handled in a politically incorrect fashion: they have a caste society. Gorillas are in charge of the borders. The orangutans, led by Maurice, are the Brahmin caste, in charge of teaching reading and writing to the community. And chimpanzees are the rulers, warriors, and hunters – the Kshatriya caste.
The first job of men has always been to keep the perimeter, to face danger, to hunt and fight. (The Way of Men, p. 94)
They hunt for meat, they kill for meat, they eat meat. They wear war-paint on their faces in order to scare their prey. They also share the rituals of hunting and fighting, with scars, spears, and blood.
When Blue Eyes (Caesar’s son) is wounded by a bear, Koba (or Caesar, I don’t remember which) tells him “Scars make you strong.”
 . . . to put it in the words of Tyler Durden, “How much can you know about yourself, [if] you’ve never been in a fight?” Modern men are not merely lacking initiation into manhood . . . they are lacking meaningful trials of strength and courage. (p. 136)
Blue Eyes did not like his scar, but even though he was defeated by the bear, at that moment he was recognized as a member of the gang, a true hunter, bearer of a scar.
The community is peaceful, discharging brutality and aggression through hunting. The peace inside the community is secured by the strength and might of its Alpha Male – Caesar, the most intelligent chimp. Koba is violent and brutal, perhaps even more than Caesar, but Koba lacks the intelligence and perspective that mark Caesar. This quality makes Caesar stronger than any ape: he understands the form and function of the community, and he leaves aside his own interests to give the community what it needs.
When Blue Eyes and Ash (Rocket’s son) have an encounter with a human, Ash is wounded. So Caesar is pushed by the community to demonstrate their strength. The apes do not want war, but they will fight to defend their home.
In a survival band, it is tactically advantageous to maintain a reputation for being strong, courageous and masterful as a group. (p. 58)
Although humanity has been reduced to the absolute basics, human beings are still concerned with useless things, looking to rebuild their former world of comforts and urban vices. The apes, by contrast, have been strengthened by simplicity: they hunt and kill for meat, and they have achieved a peaceful life by fighting against nature.
Before you can have church and philosophy, you need to be able to survive. You need to triumph over nature and other men. (p. 48)
In its culture of us vs. them (p. 110), the community has created a perimeter and has established security. We see the triumph of “demonic males” over the “bonobo masturbation society,” i.e., the remnants of human civilization who are in conflict with their own animal natures. The apes, however, focus on living with nature, and by triumphing over nature, apes are triumphing over themselves with the help of nature.
Gangs of men with separate identities and interests of their own are always a threat to established interests. (p. 80)
Why did the ape community fail? Egotism, selfishness, putting individual interests over the interests of the community. Koba was motivated by hatred and resentment, putting his violence in the service of his own interests and passions instead of the gang, instead of the community. Finally, the community triumphs over its own faults. However, there is no peace in the future, but war. And what about humanity?
Humanity needs to go into a Dark Age for a few hundred years and think about what it’s done. (p. 142)
---------
Quibcag: Since this is about what men do, I couldn't use one of my cute anime girl warriors, so the illustration is from Samurai Champloo (サムライチャンプルーSamurai Chanpurū), about which I know virtually nothing.

Sean Gabb on Political Correctness at the BBC

Sean Gabb is, to put it simply, the libertarian in the UK. He is remarkably free of the scourge of political correctness that seems to have so many American libertarians tied up in knots. This is probably due in part to the fact that he doesn't live in his mother's basement and has a much more extensive relationship to reality than most of his American counterparts. Maybe it's a maturity thing as much as anything else.

Anyhow, this piece shows that we're not alone here in America in being jerked around by Cultural Marxist commissars. If you learn nothing else from what Dr. Gabb says here, remember the message of the quibcag: Never apologize for being right. And the more right you are, the more you're called on to apologize. This is from the Libertarian Alliance.

Blacking up on the Road to Auschwitz

 By Sean Gabb
 
On Friday, the 25th July, I was called by a female researcher at BBC Radio Ulster for a comment on a story in Northern Ireland. Several members of the Rugby Team there had been photographed at a fancy dress party, with their faces blacked up and wearing chains round their necks. All hell had broken loose on publications of the photographs, and grovelling apologies from all concerned hadn’t been enough to settle things. The local anti-racism bureaucracies were calling for resignations from the Team. Would I, as Director of the Libertarian Alliance, care to make a comment on this?

I could have come out with the boilerplate libertarian reply – that it’s not our business if someone paints his face black or green at a party, or puts on an SS uniform, or hangs himself, or consumes recreational drugs. I could also have said what I do believe about this incident, or what I know about it: that, if the politically correct hegemony makes it almost irresistible not to make jokes, it is uncharitable to laugh at black people in this way. However, I was in a bad mood that day, and so began the following conversation with the researcher:

SIG Can you explain to me why anyone should take offence if a white man chooses to paint his face black?

BBC Because t shows contempt for black people.

SIG I see. Yet there is a black comedian called Lenny Henry who often whites up and mocks white people – and on the BBC. Talking of comedians, the female duo Dawn French and Jennifer Saunders used to have a sketch where they dressed as fat, working class white men and mocked them. I’m not aware in either case of any outrage and calls for them to be taken off air. Why is it so terrible, then, if a couple of white men paint their faces black? Before I can make a comment on your show, I do need to have it explained what the problem is.

BBC [Long pause] Because they were wearing chains as well. They were mocking slavery.

SIG I think we can both agree that slavery is a terrible thing – and we can celebrate the role of the United Kingdom in putting down both slavery and the slave trade. But is there any reason to suppose that the sportsmen were somehow calling for black people to be made slaves and forced to work on sugar or cotton plantations?

BBC [Another long pause] Making fun of white men is an act of defiance. It’s an attack on patriarchy by the oppressed.

SIG Really? So a couple of women whose comedy has made millionaires of them are oppressed? As for men as a dominant group, is it your ambition to follow French and Saunders into comedy? Men are at a structural disadvantage in divorce and custody proceedings. Men are more often sent to prison than women for the same offences. Men accused of rape are generally treated as guilty until proven innocent. Women who make malicious accusations of rape are seldom punished, and hardly ever harshly. Men die earlier than women. NHS resources committed to male illnesses, such as prostate cancer, are trifling set against the obsession with breast and cervical cancer. Men commit suicide in disproportionate numbers. School teaching and examinations are biased to improving the grades of girls rather than boys. The BBC itself discriminates against men in its hiring and promotion policies. Speaking as a man, I don’t see much evidence of a discourse of patriarchy that consigns women to second place in this country. [Facts here]

BBC [Now impatient] So you think there’s nothing wrong if ethnic minorities are insulted?

SIG I haven’t said that. However, I will elaborate on my earlier comments. We live in a soft totalitarian police state, and the BBC is one of its instruments. Hardly anyone gets locked away for disagreeing with the justifying ideology of multi-culturalism. But dissidents go get stuck in the pillory. They are especially pilloried if there are white men popular with the working classes, and if their disagreement is expressed as mockery. Whatever can be seen as dissident humour – and I really have no idea why those sportsmen blacked up – is portrayed as the start of a continuum than ends in Auschwitz. This has to be done, because nothing is more subversive of a police state than mockery. Also going after these sportsmen in as integral part of manufacturing the appearance of consent. When people can be destroyed for upsetting the inquisitors, the rest of us become vary careful about what we say or do. For most of us, the surest way to be careful is to say or do nothing that is likely to upset. The resulting absence of dissent keeps the unstable equilibrium from falling over….

The debate on air that resulted from this was more Punch and Judy than cultural analysis. To do it justice, the BBC is sometimes a good place for the latter. But a five minute slot, with a nervous presenter to shut me up every few seconds, wasn’t the right place. I sneered at the complainants, pointing out that they were all somewhere on the State’s payroll. At one point, I had to tell the enraged anti-racism campaigner I was up against to shut up and let me have my turn. Before the microphone was turned off on me, I managed to say that this was a story only given prominence because the BBC was a culturally Marxist institution, and that it said more about the obsessions of our ruling class than the wickedness of a few rugby players.

Given another minute without interruptions, I’d have added that apologies never work in these cases. Step on someone’s foot in a railway carriage, or get his name mixed up, and an apology usually works – and may even start an interesting friendship. But do not suppose you can buy off the anti-racist inquisition with an apology. It helps not to get these people sniffing round in the first place. Those sportsmen must have been stupid to think they could get away with what they did – especially in a world where everyone has a mobile telephone packed with recording hardware. After the event, though, the only response should be a shrug and a curt “No comment.” Once you start apologising, these people smell blood and start circling in earnest. Stonewalling works more often than you might suppose. Even when it doesn’t you’ll go down with more dignity on your feet than one your knees.

I sometimes wonder why the BBC lets me so often on air. I’m on the radio once a week on average, and sometimes get an audience of several million. Could it be that the British state broadcaster has a genuine commitment to diversity of opinion, and that, when I make the effort, I can be crisp and entertaining? I doubt this. More likely, the BBC has a legal obligation to go through the motions of allowing a diversity of views, and I have a reputation for not actually swearing at the fools and villains I’m put against. Otherwise, the BBC may be homogenous in its ideology, but is decentralised in its structure. The researchers hardly ever compare notes with each other. Once they have you in their databases, you stay there until you die or the researchers move to other jobs.

Whatever the case, I had a good time last Friday – in retrospect at least. Not, I’ll confess, that it did any measurable good.
---------
Quibcag: "The Professor," of Nichijou (日常), demonstrates how to deal with sharks — get them before they smell any blood.

Obama as Hitler, but not in the usual sense

Comparing anybody one dislikes to Hitler is so common as to be unremarkable, what with recent "Hitlers" such as Saddam Hussein, Khomeini, Putin, and dozens more. But it annoys the bejeezus out of me when the "right," including the phony neocons and sincere but naive conservatives when they try to liken Obama, of all people, to Hitler. Here's a little list of their profound differences:

Hitler was a war hero, while Obama is about as unmilitary as possible.

Hitler was pro-White. Need I say what Obama is?

Hitler was extremly pro-German, that is, patriotic. Obama considers patriotism uncool, and hopes to bring the US down to Third-World level, and then wreck it entirely.

Hitler denied firearms to those he considered non-German or anti-German, while encouraging their ownership for Germans. Obama wants to deny firearms to Americans, especially White Americans, while giving guns away to Islamic fundamentalists, Mexican drug cartels, etc.

Hitler struggled and risked everything to gain political power. Obama had it handed to him on a plate by his handlers.

Hitler wanted to expel those he considered incompatible (Jews, Gypsies, etc.) from Germany. Obama is trying his best to swamp America with the most incompatible immigrants he can find.

And I could go on and on. But Bob Wallace has actually found a real similarity, of a sort. In his appeal to certain demographics. A similarity of technique, you might say, rather than purpose. This is from his blog HERE. Go to it to see the illustrations. Read and ponder.

"Obama, Hitler and Women's Votes"


I suspect only ten percent of women should allowed to vote (I once told a woman that Obama was a "half-breed POS Commie" - which is what he is - and she was so offended she never spoke to me again).

Unfortunately, many women appear to be of a socialist/fascist character. That's why in the past they were never allowed to vote. While they may be nurturing in private life, in politics they are always destructive.

I should also mention the girls in the top photo are exhibiting what I've heard called "the O face" - the orgasm face. See the article for more on that.

I've also tried to read Mein Kampf, which I found excruciating. However, the section on propaganda was fascinating, and right on the money.

The article below explains why women should not be allowed to vote. It was written by Eric Ross, Ph.D. and is from the site Fathers and Children Coalition.

"In 2008, Obama was voted into the Office of the President of the United States. Women overall voted overwhelmingly for Obama — 56 percent for, and 43 percent against him; men's votes were split almost equally – 49 percent for, and 48 percent against him. Unmarried women voted for Obama by a massive 70 to 29 percent. With women in the US being the majority – 53 percent of the 2008 national electorate, one can safely say that Obama rode into power on the backs of American women voters.

"There is an interesting historical parallel here, which may appear at first inappropriate: in 1932, Adolf Hitler, the head of the National Socialist Workers Party of Germany (NSDAP), rode to power thanks to German women overwhelmingly voting for Hitler and the NSDAP ticket.
"As a pragmatist favoring the interests of the community, job creation and the growth of the middle class, I do not subscribe to the Republican dogmatic talking points any more than to dogmatic Democrat talking points, and would never draw a 'controversial' parallel like this… if it weren’t for Obama’s oratory, which echoes the familiar Nazi-styled, sinister and divisive demagogy. When it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it just ain't a chicken.
"Before we draw such a 'shocking' parallel with the notorious Leader of the Nazi Germany, it is inappropriate to equate a U.S. politician to Hitler in the scale and scope of evil. After all, Hitler lead the German youth to mass-murder millions of people all over Europe; his dictatorial rule resulted in the destruction of German cities, and in death and suffering for millions of German people. It is wrong to trivialize the horrors of Nazism and WW-2 by comparing people with whom we disagree, political figures whom we dislike for some reason, to Hitler, when such comparison simply serves to went and denigrate. Yet, when it comes to demagogy, Obama apparently comes from the same school of thought as the notorious Nazi leader, and has mastered and perfected the Führer's oratory, adapting it to today. His strife to polarize America for the benefit of his ill-conceived election strategies is as demagogic as they come. The most recent one was to bait the Republican frugality, abhorrence of fraud and waste, and then to sell to the American people the Republican natural opposition to fraud as a 'War on Women'.

"It is a shame that he dishonors the office of the President by polarizing America as part of his ill-conceived elections strategy, by creating racial strife leading to murders, by 'leadership,' which resorts to political demagogy in discussing important national issues. Thus a spotlight on such strong parallels is only fair, appropriate and timely. The Democrat-devised strategy of scaring women voters to vote Democrat with the alleged GOP's 'war on women' is actually a 'straw woman' argument. The concept of a 'straw woman' argument has been around for quite a while, perfected by Hitler, and now employed by Obama, without much finesse. It is making an argument by using a gross misrepresentation of your opponent’s position. Then, the demagogue can easily defeat the 'straw woman' – the fragrantly misrepresented position of his political rival, and his political rival along with it.

"Hitler, prior to coming to power had not killed anyone. He was a sociopath with a gift for gab, seeking to rise into the status of God by presenting himself as a messianic figure, but few could see that he was insane. Hitler was seen as a gifted, energetic leader of the People and was hailed as the savior of Germany, who re-energized the country. He was admired by Germans and had very influential and very rich sympathizers throughout the world. Hitler considered Henry Ford his personal friend. Indeed Ford financed NSDAP. Documents discovered in German and American archives after Hitler's defeat in 1945, show that in certain instances, American managers of both Ford and GM plants in Germany went along with the Nazi directives to convert the plants to military production at a time when U.S. government documents show they were still resisting calls by the Roosevelt administration to step up military production in their plants at home. Ford and GM combined were producing over 70 percent of the German cars and military trucks at the beginning of the War in 1939.

"Hitler was also popular among the masses of people – the working class and particularly… among women. They shed tears when he spoke, they fainted, they devoted poems and songs to him, they screamed louder than American girls at mass rock concerts. He was not a politician, a celebrity, but a 'messiah'. In the eyes of many German citizens, he restored Germany’s national pride. He projected himself as their savior. He ran on the platform of change and hope. Yes, change!

"Despite a common misconception that it was 'authoritarian men' who brought National Socialist Hitler to power, his rise to power was fully supported by the majority of German women, and only a minority of men. In contrast, his counterpart Stalin, a Bolshevik International Socialist leader of the Soviet Union was shy of his inability to speak proper Russian, and came to power as an intriguing bureaucrat, patiently pitting his more talented political foes against one another. Stalin physically eliminated other contenders to his absolute power within the Bolshevik government, undemocratic to begin with, based on the ideology of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat.' Unlike Stalin, Hitler rose to power through democratic elections, with women’s overwhelming support, once again proving that there is but a small step from Democracy to Fascism. The NSDAP … was much more attractive to female voters than the German Left in general, and the KPD in particular.

"Hitler himself thought that key to his success as an orator was in his ability to reduce his audience, both male and female, to 'a condition of femininity', in which he could play on their darkest emotions and abandon any attempt to appeal to their reason. In fact, he thought that the masses were already 'feminine'. In his book Mein Kampf, Hitler postulated that 'the masses' of voters are female in nature:
“'a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another. (...) The great majority of a nation is so feminine in its character and outlook that its thought and conduct are ruled by sentiment rather than by sober reasoning.'
"From the vast mass of verbiage in Mein Kampf, the passages on propaganda and oratory are virtually the only ones, which the politicians of today find worth noting. More over, Hitler appealed, first and foremost to the least rational people in his voter base:
"'All propaganda must be presented in a popular form and must fix its intellectual level so as not to be above the heads of the least intellectual of those to whom it is directed. (...) The art of propaganda consists precisely in being able to awaken the imagination of the public through an appeal to their feelings, in finding the appropriate psychological form that will arrest the attention and appeal to the hearts of the national masses.'
"Hitler kept his people deliberately uninformed and liked it that way:
"'The broad masses of the people are not made up of diplomats or professors of public jurisprudence nor simply of persons who are able to form reasoned judgment in given cases, but a vacillating crowd of human children who are constantly wavering between one idea and another." (all quotations above are from Chapter V of Hitler's Mein Kampf.)
"One of the most successful demagogic orators of all time, Hitler’s words on public speaking didn’t fall deaf on Obama’s ears. Both appealed first and foremost to women, and to those voters limited in their capacity to think rationally, those predisposed to 'straw woman' arguments, to demagoguery, which plays on their emotions of greed, fear, hatred and mistrust.

"As social fads in history go, pre-WW-2 German women liked or at least did not mind the idea of being pampered by the Nazi hierarchy. In a Nazi state, a German woman would be a reward, the Blau Blume (a Blue Flower, in German Romantic literature). A German woman would be responsible for nothing, but in charge of her household, while her husband is conquering for her the new lands, Lebensraum (killing off their native populations.) Hitler was the top dog in the Nazi male-supremacist hierarchy, and there is hardly any doubt that the majority of German women of all ages were captivated by his persona. 'His animal magnetism' and 'messianic' appearance, were canonized and made iconoclastic by his personal film director, the Nazi beauty-and-the-brain, the movie producer Leni Riefenstahl. At mass rallies, women reacted to his presence with complete, utter hysteria, perhaps feeling quite justified in their public display of orgasmic ecstasy 'expected of them' due to the pop-culture mythology of women being 'emotional creatures.'

"For women, Hitler exuded magnetism, which today is comparable only to the mass appeal of a rock star, usually affecting the female part of the audience much more than the male. The adulation of Adolf Hitler was no less electrified, than the teleprompter-guided, demagoguery-infused oratorical events by Barack Hussein Obama. Hitler was it. A woman whose hand he touched at a political rally, did not wash her hand for many days, so she could kiss it, thus touching her Furher. Doris K., then 14, wrote in her diary, 'Everybody screamed like crazy. Mass suggestiveness! The scream became a roar . . . Especially the women were fascinated. Their emotions were strongly touched and so were, without a doubt, unfulfilled sexual wishes and desires.'

"Electoral support for the NSDAP was spread unevenly across the age range, similarly to how enthusiastically younger women voted for Obama. The Nazi Party has often been portrayed as dynamic and youthful, while contrasted with the alleged sclerosis and conservatism of the traditional Right, the 60-year-old geezers who saw Hitler as a danger to democracy and the nation. The youthful, energetic image of the NSDAP was not without a reason: NSDAP membership was younger than that of other parties; the average age of those joining between 1925 and 1932 was around twenty-nine. It rose to an average of thirty-two in 1932. As with Obama, younger women, factory workers, university students and clerical personnel flocked to NSDAP.

"Of the few attempts to explain why German women voted for Hitler in 1932-33, the most popular, the most widely repeated, and generally accepted to this day was that, which explained Hitler’s popularity with women in terms of their supposed inherent irrationality.
"Contemporary analysts claimed that women were letting their hearts rule over their heads, 'in a female way'. Arguably it was a sexist point of view, as men are probably affected by emotion no less than women. The first major commentator to advance such 'Freudian analysis' was the disillusioned Nazi provincial leader, Hermann Rauschning, who fled to France. He remarked on the emotional affect which Hitler had on women, having witnessed from an angle close to the Furher’s podium the rapturously rolling, moist, veiled eyes of the females in the audience, which in his mind left no doubt as to the sexual character of their enthusiasm. Other commentators adhered to similar views. Thus, Richard Grunberger wrote:
“'Hitler's monkish persona… engendered a great deal of sexual hysteria among women . . . not least among spinsters, who transmuted their repressed yearnings into lachrymose adoration.'
"According to some contemporary writers, the sexual sublimation, which served as the driving-force of popular, mostly female enthusiasm for Hitler, was not merely one-sided: Hitler, too – they suggested – found an outlet for his frustrated sexuality, a compensation for his lack of a 'normal sexual relationship', in whipping up hysteria of adulation among his female listeners. Thus, Nazi rallies became a 'collective debauch', resembling 'the public sexual acts of primitive tribes.'
"Regardless of whether such 'keen observations' by contemporary commentators of 1940's hold any value today, Hitler the politician 'systematically adapted himself to the taste of women', as there was very considerable political capital to be gained. According to his biographers, Hitler exploited and manipulated 'specific female qualities, such as capacity for self-surrender ordemand for authority and order', to the advantage of his party and himself.

"Devised in 2012, the Democrat political stratagem to corral American women voters into the Democrat barn by alleging Republican 'War on Women' is not only 'a straw woman' argument denying American women their intelligence, it is a hardly veiled 'War on Truth' waged by President Obama and his advisers. As for Obama's 'sex appeal' to women, sooner or later, the 'beauty' is what comes from within. His divisive racial, gender and class demagoguery is ugly as mortal sin."
-------
Quibcag: I'm pretty sure the girl is from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!). Correct me if I'm wrong.