Wednesday, March 30, 2016

The Alt-Right — Not a Keyboard Command

The Alt-Right is a movement of youngsters. And, though I've been on Social Security for awhile now, I guess I'm years ahead of my time, because most of the description of the Alt-Right fits me just fine. I've always been on the right, pretty much, and on the more hard-core part of the right. Several years ago I discovered the libertarian movement, and after rummaging around in it for a long time, I decided that much of it was valid, but that too many of its adherents took it as a guide to life rather than as a method of critique, In doing so, they elevated it to a near-religion instead of a useful paradigm for looking at human affairs by means of logic and economic laws.

This seems to be true of a great many members of the Alt-Right: They start with a bias towards conservatism and tradition, and refine it with a libertarian filter, so to speak.

Some of the old coots on the right — I'm luckily an exception — are a bit put off by the exuberance and snarkiness of the Alt-Righters, and are suspicious of their motivations. But the leftists, in a way, understand the Alt-Righters a little better than that and quite correctly consider them a formidable foe. Because the Alt-Right understands the left much better than the traditional right ever could.

To paraphrase ol' Nietzche, an insightful leftist might say:

"I have seen the Alt-Right-Man, and I fear him."

And here's an introduction to the Alt-Right, from Breitbart [link]:

An Establishment Conservative’s Guide To The Alt-Right

A specter is haunting the dinner parties, fundraisers and think-tanks of the Establishment: the specter of the “alternative right.” Young, creative and eager to commit secular heresies, they have become public enemy number one to beltway conservatives — more hated, even, than Democrats or loopy progressives.

The alternative right, more commonly known as the alt-right, is an amorphous movement. Some — mostly Establishment types — insist it’s little more than a vehicle for the worst dregs of human society: anti-Semites, white supremacists, and other members of the Stormfront set. They’re wrong.
Previously an obscure subculture, the alt-right burst onto the national political scene in 2015. Although initially small in number, the alt-right has a youthful energy and jarring, taboo-defying rhetoric that have boosted its membership and made it impossible to ignore.
It has already triggered a string of fearful op-eds and hit pieces from both Left and Right: Lefties dismiss it as racist, while the conservative press, always desperate to avoid charges of bigotry from the Left, has thrown these young readers and voters to the wolves as well.
National Review attacked them as bitter members of the white working-class who worship “father-Führer” Donald Trump. Betsy Woodruff of The Daily Beast attacked Rush Limbaugh for sympathising with the “white supremacist alt-right.” BuzzFeed begrudgingly acknowledged that the movement has a “great feel for how the internet works,” while simultaneously accusing them of targeting “blacks, Jews, women, Latinos and Muslims.”
The amount of column inches generated by the alt-right is a testament to their cultural punch. But so far, no one has really been able to explain the movement’s appeal and reach without desperate caveats and virtue-signalling to readers.
Part of this is down to the alt-right’s addiction to provocation. The alt-right is a movement born out of the youthful, subversive, underground edges of the internet. 4chan and 8chan are hubs of alt-right activity. For years, members of these forums – political and non-political – have delighted in attention-grabbing, juvenile pranks. Long before the alt-right, 4channers turned trolling the national media into an in-house sport.
Having once defended gamers, another group accused of harbouring the worst dregs of human society, we feel compelled to take a closer look at the force that’s alarming so many. Are they really just the second coming of 1980s skinheads, or something more subtle?
We’ve spent the past month tracking down the elusive, often anonymous members of the alt-right, and working out exactly what they stand for.


There are many things that separate the alternative right from old-school racist skinheads (to whom they are often idiotically compared), but one thing stands out above all else: intelligence. Skinheads, by and large, are low-information, low-IQ thugs driven by the thrill of violence and tribal hatred. The alternative right are a much smarter group of people — which perhaps suggests why the Left hates them so much. They’re dangerously bright.
There's lots more. Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Yep, that's one of those K-on girls from K-On! (けいおん! Keion! again. They turn up everywhere.

Two Handy Graphics

Here you go, two graphics. The first is a quibcag that you can use when your libertarian friends get a little too flaky, and insist that they can get along just fine without a government or borders or anything. The illustration is Rally Vincent, meant to symbolize the rule of law, because she looks like a cop, which she actually isn't. She's from Gunsmith Cats (ガンスミス キャッツGansumisu Kyattsu).

And the second is a graphic coming from the libertarian directions, which you can use when your liberal/neocon friends want legislation to force businesses to bake wedding cakes for homosexuals, supply birth control to everybody, or just be politically correct in general. This was found on the net.

Tuesday, March 29, 2016

More on "Cuckservatism"

Since I last posted on the phenomenon [link], the word "cuckservative" has gained even more momentum. A "cuckservative," of course, is a person who claims to be a conservative but who either actively supports or quickly caves in to the liberal agenda. You can read several other definitions here [link]. The Wiktionary definition at this point, BTW, is wrong.

The word has gained a lot of momentum since the entrance of Trump into the race. Whatever you think of him, his rhetoric, in comparison to that of all the other Republicans, is definitely not cuckservative, but rather quite conservative in the traditional sense.

Indeed, the very things Trump is mostly criticized for by his opponents are the things which distinguish an actual conservative from a cuckservative. He is said to be vulgar and aggressive, because the cuckservative ideal is to be a goody-two-shoes and be passive and accepting rather than aggressive. He is said to be 'racist,' precisely because he doesn't cheer on the entry of millions of nonWhite third-worlders, as the other candidates do. While all the other candidates are eager to do the bidding of the Israeli lobby, and threaten more war in the Middle East and even threaten Russia, Trump calls for defending American interests first.  A good cuckservative ignores American interests, and White interests, and Christian interests, and puts the welfare of others ahead of his own people.

So while I was originally kind of put off by the grossness of the term "cuckservative," I now embrace it as our latest versatile rhetorical weapon against our enemies. This is from The Right Stuff [link]:

"Cuck" is Our "Racist"

For decades the left and their allies have been able to shut down any talk of race that might presumably lead to White racial consciousness with accusations of "racist!" or "racism!" or any variation of the term. The accusation of racism remains so devastating primarily because it is an utterly nonsensical word that can be redefined at will to suit the circumstances of the time and place. Thus it's able to bypass any and all rational arguments against its legitimacy and descriptive power. In light of this, the word racism is perhaps best-described as a virus in word form: it is continually mutating to avoid destruction by antibodies—ie. facts and reason—as it works towards its one and only goal, the shut-down of the White mind. 
HBDers and race realists have continually tried to deconstruct the word “racist” to reveal its utter preposterousness but as anyone knows, the mob listens to emotion, not reason. Their deconstructions therefore fell upon deaf ears. As the right dwindled into kosher conservatism, particularly in America, GOP flunkies resorted to calling the left "the real racists," an argument so ludicrous that we actually tend to forget that the reasoning behind them doing this was actually sound: conservatives understood that "racist" was a powerful, weaponized term and they sought to use this powerful weapon against their opponents. Still, no one bought it, as conservatives failed to understand that since the left controls the media and schools, they as opponents of the left are in no position to redefine the word. 
Then in 2015, something happened. A term was birthed from the alternative right to describe precisely this dysfunctional breed of rightist: “cuckservative,” a seemingly right-leaning politician or personality who sees fascism as the greatest threat to the West, is willing to flood his country with millions of Third Worlders in the name of free-market capitalism, and is always ready to sacrifice the lives of his countrymen to defend the violently anti-Western, socialist theocracy of Israel. The word, of course, was absolutely devastating. It was so powerful that cuckservative websites devoted time and effort to writing articles condemning the word, ironically using the cuckiest logic possible and only proving the alternative right correct. The term even made its way into the mainstream media, eventually getting onto MSNBC and Real Time with Bill Maher. Even now, using the word will get one banned from National Review’s comment section.
“Cuck” works for the same reason that “racist” works: it is an irrational word that cannot be deconstructed with reasoning. Just as “racist” hits rightists hard because it attempts to psychopathologize the healthy preference for our own race, “cuck” is devastating to leftists because they are being described as the most humiliating kind of man possible, one who gets aroused by letting another man—or other men—have sex with his wife. Leftists and conservatives are not literally cuckolds, they are simply traitors. However, just like “racism” transcends political terminology like “fascist” and brings morality into the discussion, “cuck” transcends political terminology like “traitor” and brings sexuality and gender into the discussion, thus widening its implications. For years this kind of transcendent, weaponized term was missing from the right’s lexicon, but now it’s here, and that’s why “cuck” is so hurtful to the left and kosher conservatives.
The word is now everywhere. Everyone from communists to liberals to mainstream conservatives are being called cucks, on and offline. Politicians and everyday people are cucks, the wealthy and the lower-class alike… and they have no defense against it. Some fly into a defensive rage and make fools of themselves by screaming about how horrible the term is while others try to affirm the word and imply it’s a good thing. That doesn’t work, either. It’s like if someone calls you a retard and you respond with, “Yeah, I’m a retard. So what?” It looks stupid and ridiculous to everyone else. Just as “racist” puts mainstream rightists on the defensive, “cuck” puts the left on the defensive, and as any strategy-minded person knows, if you’re always on the defensive, you’re losing the battle.
It’s time the right go on the attack. Recognize “cuck” for how powerful, funny, and effective it is at hitting the enemy in his gut, and keep using it and keep spreading it. Also recognize that it’s a nasty and immature word, and relish that. The more offended the left is, the better. After all, they have never been an honorable enemy. There is no deconstruction of “cuck” on the horizon. They have no way of avoiding the accusation or explaining it away. They can’t fight it, no matter what they do, and they can’t turn it against us. “Racist” makes no sense coming from a rightist and “cuck” makes no sense coming from a leftist. It’s our word, it works, and it will keep on working until it becomes fully mainstream and starts to define the nature of the anti-Western forces of leftism, Islam, and Zionism and those who collaborate with them. 
Want more? Go here for a list:
Quibcag: I didn't want to use my usual cute illustration, so this is the Grim Reaper from
The poem is from:

Open-Borders Libertarians Again.

All over the net, lately, there are scads of flaky libertarians assuring me that open borders are an absolute must. They say that all human beings have an inherent right to travel anywhere they like, except onto private property, and that therefore they have a right to go to any country at all in the world. They assume that any part of a country that isn't actually owned by a private person is fair game for anybody on the planet, and that it's therefore immoral to have national borders, let alone keep foreigners from crossing them. And if you argue with them, they call you a statist, or a collectivist, or a racist.

A little thinking makes it clear that such a principle is absolutely self-destructive for any country. And for all of history, all countries have realized that, and have therefore, one way or another, at least tried to specify their borders and control who does and does not cross them.

But flaky libertarians know better, and assure me that it'll all work out, and that if China decides to ship a couple hundred million of their least-desired citizens over here, we have no right to tel them they can't, and that such immigrants will fit right in an become good Americans who would never dream of interfering with our freedoms in any way. The same goes for Muslims, Africans, whoever.

One such libertarian told me that we don't have to worry about what the immigrants do, because if they do anything to take our freedoms away, we can just shoot them.

Open-borders libertarians are, of course, nothing more than useful idiots for the liberal/neocon establishment. I think that's clear as a bell, but I can't seem to get that through their heads. Any suggestions?
Quibcag: Illustrated by Himeko of Sket Dance, スケット・ダンス, because she's a survivor.

MAG V. MAGA, and Fred

Every now and then, when you deal in acronyms, you come across a weird coincidence. The latest big one is BLM, which can stand for Bureau of Land Management, which loomed large in the recent Cliven Bundy situation, and also Black Lives Matter, which looms large all over the place. It's nothing new. I remember being bemused many years ago by the National Recovery Act and the National Rifle Association.

But one of my pet acronyms, which I coined here on this very blog, is MAG, which stands for Media, Academia, and Government, the three things that pretty much control what constitutes goodthink in our times, also known as Political Correctness, and, sometimes, the Overton Window.

Curiously, it can also stand for Make America Great, which, happily, is usually a bit longer, in the form of Make America Great Again, so that it's MAGA rather than MAG. And that's good, because Make America Great Again is precisely what Media, Academia, and Government don't want to happen.

And then you have KRAV MAGA (קְרַב מַגָּע), which, as Monty Python would tell you, is something completely different from both.

And all of this is in aid of a segue to the unique Fred Reed, who doesn't use MAG, but symbolizes our intellectual gatekeepers with another triad, that of Washington, New York, and Hollywood, which also works. The following is from Fred's site at Fred on Everything [link], and is also reprinted at Takimag [link], where you can also comment on it all. (Comments at Taki's are always worth reading all by themselves.)

It Cometh from the Pit:And Hath a Knout

Once upon a time there was a fairy kingdom that lived inside a place called The Beltway, and was surrounded on all four sides by a land called America. The Beltway was aligned with another kingdom called Manhattan, inhabited by disembodied heads that spoke from the walls of bars, and with with yet another closed kingdom called Hollywood, the abode of  half-educated narcissists. These kingdoms were in eternal political syzygy, and spoke not with the people of the surrounding lands, of whom they knew nothing. The following is a chronicle of what befell them, and why.
After years of peace, the Kingdoms were taken greatly aback by the rise of the Trump Monster, their surprise being proof that they knew nothing of the surrounding lands. They knew nothing for good reasons, of which there were two. The first was that they passed their lives with each other and among each other and talking to each other and writing about each other and reading about each other behind the high walls of their kingdoms. In organs like National Review and The Weekly Standard they endlessly wrote stories of the form “A soothsayer in Manhattan replies to what some  other sayer of sooths said about yet another’s  attack on someone else.”
They had all dwelt in monasteries called Harvard and Princeton, where they learned that they were the wisest of men, and inerrant. They had no idea that they were hated in the strange lands without the walls, which on their maps were drawn as fog with notations such as “Here dwelleth dragons.” They did not know that there were people who agreed not with them. For were they not right about all things?
The other reason for their puzzlement was a powerful spell called “Political Correctness.” This strong magic prevented the outlanders from saying anything that the Three Kingdoms did not want to hear. Anyone who engaged incantations called “slurs,” which were truthful thoughts about sacred tribes, or who said Inappropriate Things about a certain little country whose only importance was being that little country, was thrown into durance vile. Thus the Three Kingdoms never heard anything they didn’t like, and so believed that almost everyone without the walls loved them. They had scarce an idea what furies were roiling and boiling and stirring under the surface of the Outer Realms.
Now, until the Trump Monster appeared, the America was ruled by a pseudo-democracy of one bicephalous party with two names. The Only Party consisted of blackguards and Quislings and pickpockets bought and paid for by the plutocratic oligarchy of large corporations, AIPAC,  and the. very rich. These told the two halves of the One Party what to do. Every four years there was played  a great tournament in which candidates of the Two Names of the One Party engaged in the most savage combat imaginable.  This was to distract the people outside the walls . Afterwards nothing changed and all went on as before, though the division of the spoils shifted a bit.
And in their ignorance and pride the Three Kingdoms engendered a monster called Trump, and it bit them.
It just keeps getting better. Read the rest here:
Quibcag: The illustration is another one from this delightful page [link], and the quote is from Pat Buchanan's latest column here [link]. I feel I should tell some of you young whippersnappers out there that I picked the quote partly because Pat himself used that slogan in his own Presidential campaign some years back, and it was the name of the political party he founded [link] (thanks to Pookie [link] for that info), and, of course, it was originally used way back in the WW II days by Lindbergh and others. Read about that here:
P.S. A reader informed me that BLM is not an acronym because an acronym is a word formed from (usually) the initial letters of a phrase that can be pronounced as a word in itself, like MAG or NATO. Then I realized I don't know what to call it when it's not an acronym. Looking it up, I found taht BLM is an 'initialism,' but that the term 'acronym' is coming to include things like BLM also. So the usage of the term is in the process of changing, and I wasn't entirely wrong to call BLM an acronym.

Sunday, March 27, 2016

Bernie Surges!

It's almost like the Democrats are trying to make Republicans, every one of them, no matter how egregious, seem admirable by contrast. They're basically running a somewhat demented, aged Elena Ceaușescu against the most stereotypical old communist Jew you can imagine, who looks and sounds like he just stepped out of the centerfold of Der Stürmer. Hillary's support, it's theorized, comes mainly from Blacks, Democrat apparatchiks, the flakier variety of feminists, and sexually ambiguous White males. As for Bernie, who can say? But the graphic suggests that he's cutting into Hillary's demographic a little, at least one branch of it. I suppose it can't hurt any to pass this around. The dinks supporting Bernie might be offended a little, but this surely isn't enough to tilt them over to supporting you-know-who. Even those who wear Bernie Support Socks (sorry!) aren't so perverse as to do that.

Saturday, March 26, 2016

Were Fascists Leftists or Rightists?

I've blogged about this before, but the misconception is still vigorously making the rounds, and it's time to make the point again. The notion that fascism, and therefore naziism, are somehow left-wing movements, and not right-wing at all, probably wasn't originated by Jonah Goldberg's book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning [link], but was certainly popularized by it.

Goldberg, of course, is a neoconservative, AKA, neocon, and that particular political faction is leftist, deriving, as it does, from the Trotskyite faction of the communist movement [link]. Now, of course, a lot of rank-and-file neocons have no idea about the origins of their political movement, and think they're standard conservatives. They're not. Actual conservatives have been pretty much purged from both parties over the years. Real conservatives, like Bob Taft, Calvin Coolidge, Grover Cleveland, and even Barry Goldwater, were proponents of small, limited governments and opposed unnecessary military intervention abroad and social engineering. Neoconservatives, of course, take the opposite, liberal positions on all these issues.

And, since, neoconservatives are masquerading as conservatives, it's to their advantage to confuse the matter still further and accuse their ostensible opponents, liberals, of being fascists, and accuse fascists of being leftists. It keeps Americans from catching on that the ideologies of the Democratic and Republican parties are basically the same, and that their alleged differences are mainly rhetorical, not real.

To make a very simple, quick refutation of the classification of fascism as leftists, consider that the left is anti-nationalistic, anti-tradition, anti-reli dismissive of racial and cultural differences, and in general in favor of the destruction of social order and its replacement by institutions recommended by Marxist theory. Fascism tends to be strongly nationalistic, respectful of tradition and religion, respectful of racial and ethnic differences, and in favor reforming the social order to make it more stable and efficient, not destroying it. The fact, made much of by Goldberg and his sort, that fascists formed organizations of street fighters like the communists did, is easily explained: The communists formed such groups first, and the fascists formed their own for defense against the communist groups.

Indeed, the only leaders in the United States these days who can be regarded as genuine conservatives are pretty much rejected as "extremists" or "isolationists" by both political parties — people like Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan. And a great many rank-and-file conservatives, like myself, avoid the term because of all the confusion and call themselves paleoconservatives, libertarians, libertarian nationalists, alt-rightists, or something else.

Some years back Paul Gottfried very clearly explained that fascism is not leftist. His essay appeared at Takimag [link] and begins this way:

The “F” Word

Friday, March 25, 2016

Diversity is whose strength, exactly?

The "diversity" thing. I've been going on about it for some time now, and it's surprising when you think about just how vague the definition of it is, as it's commonly used. Oh, its non-sociopolitical meaning is pretty simple and straightforward. It's just another way of saying "variety," in the sense of having a set of different things. Like at a buffet. Some of this, some of that. But sociopolitically it has an ambiguous meaning, really. It usually means having a bunch of different kinds of people in a given  setting, or so they say. Like in the old World War II platoons in the movies, you had some guys from the city, some from the country. One Jewish guy, one Italian guy, one Polish guy, that old cliché. Right now, of course, it actually means fewer White people, especially male, American, heterosexual White people. Sometimes, none at all.

And while most of us realize by now that the call for diversity is always a call to marginalize Whites or eliminate them entirely, it also, paradoxically, calls for a mixture of people, geographically, socially, and genetically, that would end up doing away with actual diversity and rendering the human species into a uniform mixture of all the present races and making all human groups and individuals interchangeable.

But most of us in the philosophical corner variously called the alt-right, the real right, paleoconservatives, libertarian nationalists, etc., tend to zero in on the fact that this "diversity" obsession is designed to put an end to the White race, we sometimes forget to point out that it also necessarily entails the destruction, or genocide, if you will, of all human groups, nations, races, ethnic groups, and even religions — other than the Cult of Diversity, of course. So if anybody out there who belongs to a different group is cheering on the War on Whites, he should consider that they'll get to his group down the line.

And when it looks like "diversity fatigue" might be setting in, and that the proles might be catching on to their real intentions, our leaders change the terminology a little to make it sound like a new idea, and call it "multiculturalism."

The Hawaiian Libertarian is, like me, one of those libertarians who, contrary to the Official Libertarian Overton Window, do not want to help the neocon/liberal establishment to destroy all nations, ethnic groups, races, and religions that stand in the way of their march through the institutions to the New World Order. And he has written the following [link]:

The Cult of Multi Has Ensorcelled the World

The sheeple herders who control the Concentrated Sheeple Feeding Operations of the Western Civilization Franchise, have decided that their most favored practice to manage the vast herds of Western sheeple is to repeatedly import a multitude of differing Sheeple Breeds from all the other feedlot franchises found at other international locales of the multi-national corporate conglomerate, colliquially known here at this outpost in the fever swamps of teh Interwebz, as our Brave New World Order Inc.

By constantly adding a steady influx of various breed stocks of differing heritages and genetics,  the slow-motion process of mass mongrelization over multiple generations of the entire herd stock, is doing it's intended purpose of general herd pacification by reducing potential pockets of resistance from coalescing around common cultural social and/or racial bonds to more effectively resist their operations.

Disjointed, disconnected, dysfunctional, atomized human resources that have no common grounds to bond and communicate with each other, bereft of a common family and culture, trends towards an improvement in conditioned sheeple stock that are more likely to graze compliantly for a lifetime at the feedlot's troughs of agriculturally engineered feed to fatten them up for eventual harvest day. 

While even the most miscegenated mongrel can potentially wake up to the reality of our existence and go off the reservation, most are easily kept in line and complacent by bombarding the herds with incessant messages via digitized media, promoting homogenized mass culture, all based on the cardinal virtues of corporate consumerism, degenerate morality and spiritual degradation. 

One of the most pervasive and ubiquitous messages being broadcast incessantly into the minds of the herds for decades now has been a simply worded but highly effective meme:


THEY use advanced modern technology to incessantly disseminate such regularly scheduled programming to all the inhabitants of a feedlot operation this vast. To control so many sheeple's minds amongst the enormous herds; to keep them happily confined and unable to comprehend potential emancipation from their machinations; these sort of operations requires the best media system fiat usury money can buy.

Read the rest, and see more interesting graphics here:
Quibcag: I had to give up. It's impossible to find an anime graphic anywhere that adequately symbolizes Hawaii without being clichéd. At least I found one of a luau with a girl in what appears to be a sarong rather than a grass skirt. The drawing, is, of course, from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!).

Wednesday, March 23, 2016

A View of Trump from Abroad — No, Not What You'd Expect

Again I deplore the fact that most American libertarians, with a few notable exceptions, seem to see their first law of robotics to be adherence to the ever-shifting standards of Political Correctness in social matters of every kind. They lost the distinction between tolerance and approval a long time ago, and are now insisting on not just approval of every aspect of the "other," but celebration.

This is one of the reasons why libertarians as a group, with the exception of Walter Block's organization [link], seem every bit as bamboozled as the liberals and neocons are about the American electorate's sudden enthusiasm for Trump. They have so bought in to the liberal/neocon narrative about the wonderfulness of homosexuals, transsexuals, Muslims, foreigners in general, and everything else that isn't White, Western, or Christian that they think everybody must agree with them on such matters, and therefore totally miss the appeal of Trump's subtle affirmation of normality, patriotism, and community that so enrages the Establishment and excites the rest of us.

So again I wander over to our libertarian cousins in Old Blighty/Airstrip One, and find rather more insight there about the Trumpian appeal than I do among our own libertarians who are edging closer and closer to full membership in the SJW hive-mind. This is, of course, from the Libertarian Alliance [link]:

Angry Trumpers?

By D. J. Webb
We have been constantly told how nasty, divisive and hateful Donald J. Trump has been in the contest for the Republican nomination for the US presidency. Decent people don’t support people like that, right? Surely we’re all rubbing our eyes in disbelief that the trailer trash are supporting him?

Clearly, I have no knowledge of what Mr Trump is like in private. I could easily believe that all billionaires have to be unpleasant people to get where they are. They have to have the killer instinct. However, what we are being told does not really relate to Mr Trump’s personal behaviour, but to his political views. We are being told that George Soros, billionaire, is a sweet guy because of his left-wing views, whereas Donald Trump, billionaire, is unpleasant because of some right-wing views.

This narrative is extremely self-serving for the left: it nicely sets them all up as, by definition, sweet people. Funnily enough, being a pleasant person has nothing to do with the way you treat people you meet in your life; it is all to do with a number of cheap political views on race, sex, and now things as disparate as “transgenderism” and climate change.

Curiously enough, the views that make one pleasant shift with the political fashion. Two or three years ago, it was considered quite sufficient to support civil partnership for homosexuals. Then, apparently overnight, it was considered bigoted not to support full “gay marriage”. There is a constant shifting in the cultural goalposts, to keep us all on our toes, so to speak, in a way that only those fully abreast of bien pensant opinion can keep up with. We are all potential bigots if our opinions do not shift as fast as those of the cultural elite.

The labelling of those who are left behind the curve in the Culture Wars as “bigots” is in itself problematic. If you don’t like what has happened to society since the Cultural Wars dug themselves in, you are a hater! Such people are thought to approve of Mr Trump’s candidacy (as well as Marine Le Pen in France, UKIP in England, the Alternative for Germany and other similar parties). But where is the evidence for this claimed bigotry and hatred?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines “bigotry” as “intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself”. If we use this definition of the word, surely those who despise the views of those who haven’t kept up with the Culture Wars are the real bigots. The sheer assumption that people who oppose immigration, multiculturalism, transgenderism, breastfeeding in public and a large number of other cultural phenomena must be totally wrong is bigotry.

You can hold an opinion profoundly while still believing that your opponents could well be good people who have some justification for their views: this is the non-bigoted way of dealing with opposing opinions that is really a prior condition for a free society. Once we are unable to conceive of there being more than one legitimate opinion on a host of subjects, we are on the brink of wrapping up free speech and even democracy altogether. On many university campuses, feminists such as Germaine Greer who oppose transgenderism are no longer even permitted to deliver talks. This is bigotry in its fullest sense: if people are “no platformed”, it is because there is a bigoted assumption that only one view should even be voiced. Those who hold the wrong views need to be repressed.

Whatever you think of Mr Trump’s presidential bid, and his likely ability to implement anything substantial for his electoral base, the problem is that a whole section of society, loosely defined as the white working class, are seen, in advance, as not having a legitimate voice in society. The liberal bigots, in a case of the pot calling the kettle black, then claim that this is because such people are “haters”. Are Mr Trump’s supporters attempting to close down rallies by his opponents? No. It is the left who are attempting, by violence, to close down his. The hatred and bigotry they show towards his supporters is a logical consequence of a self-righteous view of the world that demands to be defined against others who are not so righteous: just as the Pharisee in Luke 18 prayed “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers”.

In fact, and contrary to most newspaper reports, Mr Trump has not called on his followers to hate Mexicans or any other immigrants. There is little in the way of detectable hatred among his followers at his rallies. It seems some politically incorrect supporters accept the media designation of them as “angry men”, some telling the media that they are angry with the establishment, but the spirit of his rallies is characterised more by a carnival atmosphere.

After years of being told what to think, it is a liberating experience for many to hear politically correct sacred cows being slaughtered. I doubt many Trumpers believe that Mr Trump could reverse the demographic change wrought on America, but the fact that he hints—and it is often no more than a hint—that he understands their views places him on their side culturally. Mr Trump’s right-wing credentials have, in fact, grown in the telling.

In other words, Mr Trump’s candidacy is more a symbol of the lack of a connection between elite views and those of the ordinary man in the street than evidence of seething mass rage. It seems the ability of the elite to influence the average Joe’s views is receding rapidly. Current polls show Mr Trump will perform badly against Mistress Clinton: I think such polls underestimate Mr Trump’s ability to enthuse millions of discouraged voters to turn out and vote. But whether he is elected or not, it is to be hoped that his candidacy helps to change the Republican Party for good. The prospect of that happening is producing real apoplexy in the American Establishment: it seems the real angry white men are the Establishment figures who assumed they would have it all their way for good and can’t bear to see real competition in the field of ideas.

As it happens, anger is more than justified when one considers the success of the elite plan in America and Britain to transform the population demographically. Should we just walk off the stage of history without a murmur, or should we, in the words of the poem, “rage against the dying of the light”? Be that as it may, Mr Trump is not galvanising popular fury, but igniting genuine enthusiasm among people who have tired of being presented with identikit politicians to vote for. Isn’t that what they used to call democracy? You’d have to be a bigot not to approve of it
Quibcag: I've been getting these illustrations of Trumper anime girls from here: 

Tuesday, March 22, 2016

Max Boot Piles On

I knew it had to be Trump's fault, didn't you? It sure as hell can't be the fault of the wonderful European leaders who decided to let a few million Bedouins and Jihadis in and sign them up for welfare. And God knows it can't be the Muslims' fault. It's Whitey's fault in general, of course, and Trump's fault in particular. If you haven't heard of Max Boot, he's one of the more prominent of the neocons, who are a groups of Trotskyites who used to hang out in the Democratic party until it was totally taken over by groovy hippies, and then moved over to the Republican Party and took that over to make sure it was belligerent as hell against Russia, which they never forgave for picking Stalin over Trotsky, and also against all Arab countries for the benefit of Israel, which they consider a far more important country than the silly old United States. Google "Max Boot" for more.

And in this quote, of course, Boot makes sure that Trump, who is the only Presidential hopeful we have who has the slightest intention of defending this country and its interests, is blamed for what a bunch of murdering jihadis did in Belgium.

In this, he is typical of the neocon scum which has been running the Republican Party for years, and who are scared to death Trump might take it away from them.

This quote just appeared on Steve Sailer's blog. To discuss it and it's meaning, do go there and learn even more from Steve's commenters. It's all here:
Quibcag: The jihadis in the illustration are, I believe, the girls from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) cosplaying.

Two British Reactions to Brussels

What we're going to get from American politicians, including most libertarians, are more smarmy lectures about the dangers of Islamophobia, except, of course, from Trump. We get more rational reactions from British libertarians, which I find at The Libertarian Alliance [link]. The first from Sean Gabb: 

A Brief Response to the Brussels Atrocity
Sean Gabb
Aside from expressing the usual sadness, I have little to say about the present events in Brussels. However, since I feel obliged to say something, I will say this:
  1. Since the end of the Sinn Fein/IRA rebellion, terrorism has been a statistically insignificant cause of death in the United Kingdom. During the present century, about five people a year have been killed in this country by terrorists – the same as the number of people killed by wasp and bee stings. Indeed, in 2010, 53 people died by falling off ladders. This is not to dismiss any avoidable death as unimportant, but it does put terrorism into context. In the next few days, all the usual suspects will start calling for an even bigger police state than the one we have. My belief is that we have not been given a police state in order to fight terrorism; instead, terrorism has been made the latest excuse for a police state. Anyone who takes a dim view of Islam or mass-immigration should bear this continually in mind.
  2. For the past generation, Western countries have followed a dual policy of what Steve Sailer calls “invade the world/invite the world.” There are very good reasons for not turning much of the Islamic world into slag heaps dripping with blood. There are very good reasons for not letting in millions of unassimilable alien paupers. Doing both at the same time is at least unwise.
Bearing in mind these two points, I deplore the latest terrorist atrocity in Brussels, and hope that the Belgian authorities take all reasonable steps to catch as many of those responsible as have not blown themselves up. But I will continue going about my normal business, and suggest that everyone else of reasonably firm mind should do the same. I shall also regard whatever response our own authorities propose or make with undiminished suspicion.
And the second from Keir Martland:
Brussels: Déjà vuBy Keir Martland
I remember watching with horror on the night of the 13th November 2015 as the news of the Paris atrocities came through. RT, the BBC, and Sky were all of them thoroughly confused by the events and yet I stayed up until the small hours of the morning. When I woke up, the death toll was well over a hundred.  It made me, and countless others, almost physically ill. It also made me very angry.
This morning, I sat down with my breakfast and switched on the television set with the intention of getting my 5-10 minutes of BBC propaganda. Instead, I was very nearly late for college. Just as in November, I was glued to the screen, only this time I don’t feel the same anger. Yes, I am repulsed. I would hope that the very idea that any one of us could be blown to smithereens by some lunatic while on the way to work or waiting for our luggage – in our own country – would repulse any sensible person. But I am incapable of reproducing the emotions of last year.Instead, what I mostly feel is déjà vu. 
Why not the same excitable reaction?
Firstly, simply because the circumstances are so similar. The perpetrators appear to be Islamist terrorists. They killed innocent Europeans. The death toll has crept upwards throughout the day, from about 10 while digesting my cereal to over 30 as I sit writing this.
Secondly, because the politicians have cried the same crocodile tears as they did last November. David Cameron has made it known to the world just how “shocked” he is that such a thing could happen. If that is truly the case, then David Cameron is the most retarded Prime Minister this country has ever had.
Thirdly, because our retarded Prime Minister has promised to “do everything he can to help.” This is perhaps the worst thing I have heard today besides the death of over 30 innocent civilians in terrorist atrocities at the Zaventem airport and the Maelbeek metro station.
I do not believe David Cameron should do “everything he can.”
David Cameron is a neoconservative. Having been a complete failure at home, he has turned his sights abroad, where he has also been a complete failure. David Cameron believes in spreading democracy throughout the world. More specifically, he believes, like Tony Blair, in imposing democracy on the Middle East through the waging of costly and ineffective wars and regime change.
Yet, David Cameron has proved doubly as bad as Tony Blair. For, at least Blair destroyed only Iraq. David Cameron has destroyed both Libya and Syria, albeit in league with other despicable men.
In 2011, our Prime Minister joined in enthusiastically in Hillary Clinton’s Crusade in Libya, along with the French, on the pretext of protecting civilians’ human rights. That Crusade was authorised by the modern equivalent of a mediaeval papal bull, a United Nations resolution. But unlike the First Crusade, they set out not to conquer and rule Libya as their own, but simply to destroy its state.
Now, I have anarchist sympathies. I have no qualms about the realisation of a stateless society. But the trouble is that if you destroy a Middle Eastern state, it creates a vacuum which will be filled by lunatics. The result was that Libya became a ‘failed state’, overflowing with mercenaries funded by the United States and the various Gulf Arab factions. Some of these mercenaries then went on to fight in the five-way Syrian Civil War.
Libya is now a mess and yet David Cameron to this day maintains that what he did was right.
After Ed Miliband’s Labour Opposition saved us from intervention in Syria in 2013 in support of the rebels against President Assad, David Cameron decided to take Britain into Syria in 2015 with the aim of fighting ISIS. Cameron exploited the November 2015 Paris atrocities in the most appalling fashion most likely to distract attention from his disastrous economic record at home. Not only did Cameron lie to Parliament when he claimed that there were 70,000 “moderate rebels” to assist in the fight against ISIS (whom he wanted to support in 2013), but he also maintains that “Assad must go.” Therefore, the British Government went into a five-way civil war, opposing two sides and supporting a side that is non-existent.
David Cameron has one of the worst, if not the worst, foreign policy records of any British premier to date.
Wars of this kind in the Middle East are not fought by only natives to the country in question. Rather, various Arab states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, along with the United States and the other Western powers, employ Islamist mercenaries to destroy these countries for them. And these mercenaries are seriously crazy. I have heard reports that the United States, for example, give out drugs to their Islamist fighters which make them think they are invincible. In any case, the psychological impact on any human being of the type of wars that are nowadays fought would be enough to turn even the sanest of us into lunatics.
Many of these mercenaries are Muslims who have recently settled in Europe. According to the rather conservative estimates of General Breedlove of NATO, in Syria alone there have been 9,000 ‘foreign’ fighters and 1,500 of them are on their way back to Europe. Indeed, it makes sense for many of them to do so, since the Russian bombing of ISIS bases, combined with internal strife within ISIS’ ranks, mean that the Syrian Civil War will probably die down soon provided the various factions don’t ignite it again by throwing more men, arms, and money into it.
Returning to the November 2015 Paris atrocities, ISIS claimed responsibility for this and all of the perpetrators were EU citizens. ISIS justified the murder of 130 civilians in Paris by reference to the French bombing of both Syria and Iraq. A number of the perpetrators had been Islamist fighters in the Middle East who had come ‘home.’
One example is Bilal Hadfi, who was associated with Boko Haram, and both the Libyan and Syrian branches of Islamic State. He had French citizenship and the authorities were aware that he had gone to fight in Syria.
Another example is the Syrian Ahmad al-Mohammad, who claimed to be a Syrian refugee.
I am not usually a betting man, but I would be willing to bet a few quid that the bastards who blew themselves up today were in some way connected to ISIS, and may even have recently come home from Syria.
While the Cameron Regime was elected on a promise to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, it has instead risen to record levels, with the figure for last year being well over 300,000, the equivalent of another Wigan or another Enfield in the space of just one year. The politicians talk glibly about the impact of immigration on housing and school places, but they dare not mention the impact on racial and religious tensions. Immigration is effectively Balkanising this country, which will mean ultimately the collapse of civil society and the rise of an all-powerful State.
But a number of British Muslims have also gone off to fight in the Middle East. Britain is also home to a number Syrian refugees – the numbers are difficult to ascertain, but I would guess into the thousands. Many of them are being housed in hotels which now have lucrative contracts with the British State to become, in effect, makeshift detention centres. The fact that all of our existing detention centres are full tells you all you need to know about the scale of the problem.
The reason I am not angry when I hear about terrorist attacks in France or in Belgium is because I am relieved it is not Britain’s turn…yet. The British State’s foreign and immigration policies guarantee that there will soon enough be a London atrocity, or a Manchester atrocity, or a Liverpool atrocity, or a Birmingham atrocity. However, there may yet be time to remove the inevitability.
What, then, should David Cameron do?
Firstly, he should end all British involvement in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations.
Secondly, he should temporarily close Britain’s borders, only to be re-opened “when our leaders figure out what the hell is going on” as Donald Trump would say.
Thirdly, he should get Parliament to repeal all anti-gun legislation so that if an Islamist former mercenary starts killing civilians left, right, and centre with a Kalashnikov,  we can shoot the bastard, before he shoots us.
While I said I’m not a betting man, I am willing to make another bet: that not one of these measures will be taken by the Cameron Government. Instead, the latest round of atrocities in Belgium will be used to get the Investigatory Powers Bill passed into law.
Now, why can't American Libertarians be this realistic? Is it because they're so damn inoculated by liberal political correctness that they're just useful idiots for the liberal/necon narrative? I'm beginning to think so. 
Quibcag: This illustration is from here:

Do as I say, not as I do

Politicians are full of advice on how we great unwashed should behave, and are always lecturing us about it. They've been doing this as long as I can remember, but seldom do they take their own advice. I remember back when forced integration was the moral imperative, and we were all supposed to welcome it in schools first and then neighborhoods, aided by court orders for school bussing and then by Section 8 and other government coercion methods. Interestingly, the politicians themselves and their families were often exempt from these things, somehow ending up in all-White neighborhoods and sending their kids to private, all-White schools.

Right now we're being lectured a lot. The incumbent, Obama, has been lecturing us for years — and by "us" I mean White Americans — that we must go along with any and all government plans to integrate the bejeezus out of everything, hand our tax money out to everybody in the world, invite the most dysfunctional people imaginable to immigrate and sign up for freebies, and waste more money and lives trying to sort out the eternal mess in the Middle East. And most of the Presidential hopefuls are giving us pretty much the same lectures. This included Democrats and Republicans, with the notable exception of Trump, who seems, at this point, anyway, to listen to the aspirations of the American people rather than lecture them on their shortcomings.

But, of course, as is usually the case, the Democrats manage to outdo the Republicans in their smarminess. This is from Council of European Canadians [link]:

Hillary and Bernie's America
by Tim Murray

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were asked in one of their boring debates if they would deport "undocumented" immigrants who have not committed any crimes. Both indicated that they would not.

I am glad to hear that, because I wanted to sneak across the BC-Idaho border, and make my way to Vermont to seek out a better life. The problem is, I have no place to stay. I am a man of meagre means without a passport and I don't have a Green Card. I am "undocumented". Therefore, when Senator Sanders is on the road or attending to his Senatorial duties, I plan to sneak into his house and live in the basement.

I know that I need not live in fear, because upon his return, I can infer from his remarks in Miami that Senator Sanders will not kick me out. Not only that, but he would endeavour to create a pathway to American citizenship for me. He would also encourage me to obtain a drivers licence because, with his blessing, the government of Vermont allows illegal aliens to do just that. After all, being able to drive a car is in most cases, an essential job requirement, and it is important that illegal workers have the ability to undercut American wages and displace their jobs. No wonder they call Vermont a "progressive" state.

Should Senator Sanders prove to be inhospitable however, then I shall try my luck at Secretary Clinton's house....
Read the rest here:
Quibcags: The Traven quote is illustrated by a scene from Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet (翠星のガルガンティア Suisei no Garugantia), which just kind of looks Utopian. The Colonnesi quote has another version of Isis-Chan [link] as an illustration.

Monday, March 21, 2016

Fred on the Damn Mess We're in.

I caterwaul about our hideous predicament on this blog all the time. Indeed, if anybody wonders why I am so unexpectedly enthusiastic about Trump, it's because I see him as the first Presidential possibility in a long time who just might start to get us out of our predicament. For the last few decades, the Democrats have promised to make the predicament worse as fast as possible, while the Republicans, at their best, have promised only to slow it down a bit, maybe, plus tax cuts for their pals. Maybe Reagan was a little better than that, but only a little. And at worst, of course Republicans have promised to screw things up just as bad as Democrats would, only maybe with a little more dignity. Maybe.

If you don't agree with me that we're in bad shape and getting worse fast, it's because you're too young to know any better, or because you're numb, having slowly gotten used to the collapse and it looks like normality to you. Something to meditate on while you consider: Obama is in Cuba right now, promising God knows what to the Cuban government. Note that he was not welcomed by the government leader when he landed. I don't care any more than you do how much Obama is dissed as a person, but when he's acting as US representative abroad, it more than annoys me that communist scumbags dis him. And that it's okay with him.

But when it comes to describing the mess we're in, nobody can beat Fred Reed. This is from his website, Fred on Everything [link]:

Betting on Gray Sludge: What Fun

How stable is the United States?

Things do not look good. The country is disintegrating. The borders are open, against the will of much of the population. Our universities are in sharp decline, the students a rebellious unschooled rabble portending a peasant future. The economy gutters and standards of living fall. Jobs are few and becoming fewer. Racial animosity is high and rising, with blacks out of control and looting at will.

We have that least American of Presidents, a marginally competent Afro-Indonesian confection of Moslem background who doesn’t like whites, has little in common with most of the country and is now a virtual dictator reshaping the country as he chooses. The Talking-Headocracy supports this. The decline will not stop.

Can this last?

The foregoing disasters are forced upon the many who hate it by a corrupt government of self-interested hacks, Northeastern in flavor, intent on outlawing Christianity and controlling the population by ever-tightening surveillance and police powers.

The national anger increases palpably: Islamophobes versus Islamophiles, gun owners versus gun controllers, sexual curiosities versus the traditionally moral, lesbian feminists against men and normal women. Viscerality is high. The contending sides hate each other m more than they care about the issues that provide pretexts.
Strong stuff, eh? Read the rest here:
Quibcag: The illustration is Isis-Chan, appropriately enough. Read about her here: