Saturday, April 30, 2016

Realism v. Fantasy

It's been trendy for some time now to say that the old left-right axis is inadequate to describe politics, and that what we need is the Nolan Chart, which has two axes, which evaluates both personal freedom and economic freedom. And some time back, I came up with a half-joking idea for a Venn diagram instead of either [link].

But now I'm wondering if maybe what we need is a chart that is based on realism v. fantasy. I'm considering that because of a lot of net discussions I've witnessed with two groups that overlap a lot, open-borders libertarians and anarchists.

It's kind of obvious to me that open-borders advocates, whether they're nominally libertarians, liberals, or neocons, are simply unrealistic, because they blind themselves to reality: an open-borders policy will change the country into a hodgepodge of people with no coherence, a situation that isn't good for any of the three ideologies, at least not good for what the ideologies say they're in favor of, but actually inimical to them. To put it another way, advocacy of open borders on the part of believers in any of those ideologies is really self-destructive.

And that goes double for anarchists, whom I've been talking to a lot lately. They keep telling me that a society without government — which will, BTW, certainly be an open-borders society — will be peaceful and prosperous, because it will be based on self-ownership and therefore very capitalistic and antiwar, which is very starry-eyed and blind to historical reality.

My point is that nature abhors a vacuum, and that an absence of government is a vacuum, and will attract every variety of nutty ideological notions, old and new, which will most certainly not be mutually respectful, and will not lead to peace and prosperity, but rather to competition of the violent sort, not the free-market sort.

Am I wrong? Now, I've read plenty of theory, Rothbard and all, about private police and insurance companies providing fire departments, etc., and it all sounds very plausible and persuasive. Then again, if you read other theorist, communism sounds plausible and persuasive. But as we know, communism has had some trial runs, and the practice of it is not like the theory at all. But anarchy, you might say, hasn't been tried, so it might work. Actually, though, I believe it has been tried. Whenever a government has collapsed in history, you get anarchy by definition, until another government develops. And what that tells me is that anarchy is not sustainable, that as soon as you have it, for whatever reason, government or governments start developing. And if you start an organization of some sort to prevent government from developing, that soon becomes a government.

As the quibcag says, that's the kind of animal we are. We are a social species that has a natural tendency to form hierarchies and, however formally or informally, governments. That's human nature, and ideologies that don't take human nature into consideration are not useful ideologies.
--------------
Quibcag: The first illustration is actually from some wallpaper I found at http://www.fanpop.com/. The second is illustrated by Shampoo and her panda companion from  Ranma ½ (らんま½)

Friday, April 29, 2016

The Indispensable Steve Sailer Strikes Again!

Steve says that his quote in the quibcag is his new motto. And it's a good one. In fact, it would make a good motto for all of us in the Alternative Right, Real Right, Paleo-Right, or whatever you want to call us. We're the only actual intellectual alternative to the liberal.neocon establishment, and Steve is our core philosopher. This morning,  for example, Steve writes about a strange movement of billionaires to stop Trump by advocating that the Republicans nominate General Mattis instead [link], which is strangely reminiscent of a similar plot by rich guys to nullify FDR with General Smedley Butler many years ago [link]. Some of you will remember that I've always thought highly of General Mattis and have even fantasized about him pulling a Rubicon-drossing [link]. But of course a Trump Presidency coud very well make that sort of thing unnecessary. Anyhow, as I'm a retired Jew right-wing curmudgeon living on a pension, I don't really need contributions, but Steve does, so I direct you to a way to encourage hie here [link]. I urge you to do this, because, as I say, Steve Sailer is indeed indispensable, and we have to keep him viable in order to keep ourselves viable and in the public eye..
------------
Quibcag: It's illustrated by an especially appropriate and intriguing picture of Haruhi of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu)and I swiped this particular drawing of her from Jay's Tee Vee at http://jaysteevee.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html

Thursday, April 28, 2016

Another Quibcag Dump!

I've been on a quibcag jag lately, with no posts to put them on, so here's another dump with a bit of commentary:
First off, here's one you can use on people who want to dump Jackson for Tubman. They say that those of us who oppose the idea are bigots, etc., and hate Blacks. It's illustrated by "Sensei," of Denkigai no Hon'ya-san (デンキ街の本屋さん?, lit. "The Electric Town's Bookstore")

And here's one I prepared for use when discussing things with the more self-righteous form of libertarian, the kind who think that libertarianism = anarchy.  Illustrated by a K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)  girl.


One of my favorite thoughts here. This is handy when you're dealing with multiculturalists, diversocrats, cultural relativists — the kind the academic asylum is turning out regularly — or whatever they call themselves lately, who insist that the most dysfunctional human tribes are every bit as good as, say, the Renaissance Italians. Illustrated by the sisters from Kiss×sis (Japanese: キス×シス Hepburn: Kisu×shisu), a rather kinky anime, I should warn you.
 This is for use when somebody on the net uses a slogan and thinks he's made an argument. Another K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)  girl.
 Another one to pound "libertarians" with who say they'll vote for whichever bozo the LP nominates even if it makes it likely that Hillary will be elected. This one's illustrated by Hatsune Miku. More about her here: http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2011/12/blog-post_07.html
 For use with anarchists who call you names like "statist" and "collectivist." The girls look like the ones from Strike Witches (ストライクウィッチーズ Sutoraiku Witchīzu)., but I'm not sure.
 Not a quibcag, of course, but you can have fun with it.
 And a good quote to use to push the Trump candidacy and argue against selling the country out in general by Matt Bailey. Illustrated by Kagome of Inuyasha (犬夜叉).
Have fun with these. See you next blog post.

Wednesday, April 27, 2016

Trump's Speech

Believe it or not, I missed Trump's speech. Somehow I didn't think it would be all that important. Okay, I messed up. And then I heard about this tweet:

GREATEST FOREIGN POLICY SPEECH SINCE WASHINGTON'S FAREWELL ADDRESS.


Whew! Wall Ann does exaggerate, but then I saw excerpts at Vox Day's site [link]. and here's his whole post:

Embracing America's unique heritage

You may not believe Donald Trump. But unlike all the other candidates, he is saying precisely the right things on immigration, on foreign policy, on war, on free trade, and on the existence of the American national interest. 
I will seek a foreign policy that all Americans, whatever their party, can support, and which our friends and allies will respect and welcome.

The world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends, and when old friends become allies.

To achieve these goals, Americans must have confidence in their country and its leadership again.

Many Americans must wonder why our politicians seem more interested in defending the borders of foreign countries than their own.

Americans must know that we are putting the American people first again. On trade, on immigration, on foreign policy – the jobs, incomes and security of the American worker will always be my first priority.

No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must do the same.

We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism.

The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.

NAFTA, as an example, has been a total disaster for the U.S. and has emptied our states of our manufacturing and our jobs. Never again. Only the reverse will happen. We will keep our jobs and bring in new ones. Their will be consequences for companies that leave the U.S. only to exploit it later.

Under a Trump Administration, no American citizen will ever again feel that their needs come second to the citizens of foreign countries.

I will view the world through the clear lens of American interests.

I will be America’s greatest defender and most loyal champion. We will not apologize for becoming successful again, but will instead embrace the unique heritage that makes us who we are.
I would like to get a copy of On the Question of Free Trade into his hands. I suspect he might find it very useful in the near term. In any event, read the whole thing. It's a great foreign policy speech.

"We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism."

How can you not support the man at this point? 
-----------------
And how can you? Oh, I saw the Ted and Carly show this morning, and while I do sort of like Carly, I'm not ready to trust her with the VP spot. "Like" shouldn't be the criterion, anyway. And, frankly, I see no reason to expect Ted to think anything like:

No country has ever prospered that failed to put its own interests first. Both our friends and enemies put their countries above ours and we, while being fair to them, must do the same.\

I mean, we know very well that Ted has all kinds of things that he puts ahead of America's interests. Israel's interests, for example, and zooming around the world righting wrongs and poking into other people's business. Spending American money and American lives on it all, which is not in America's interests. And, maybe even his wife's employer's interests. You know who they are, right?

And I heard the talking heads just now. One said that it was, I think, arrogant and cowardly. Arrogant because he criticized our foreign policy for the last 36 years, and cowardly, because he expressed a desire to get along with Putin. I guess the idea is that we should threaten Putin for the way he deals with Ukraine, and maybe even, like Kasich, plan World War III over the Crimea.

I have to kind of agree with Ann. He sounds more sensible than any of the other candidtes, Democrat or Republican. I still haven't read the whole speech, but I wouldn't change a word in what Vox quotes.


Liberals Who Think They're Libertarians

There are a lot of liberals out there on the net who either think they're libertarians or want everybody else to think they are. Some of them have learned enough libertarian rhetoric to sound plausible. Here's what one of them just said to me:

If you are a libertarian nationalist, you simply are catering the rednecks. Which means you advocate state determination of societal structuring. Liberterianism, if aligned to any political ideals, is about individual property rights, not about nationalism, nor redneck discomfort about people speaking spanish in Walmart.

I assume he means "catering to." Obviously a liberal at heart, with his gratuitous use of the term "redneck." He rejects nationalism, and implies that having a nation at all is some kind of "societal structuring," that is unacceptable. But opening the borders to everybody and endangering Americansn' property rights is A-OK, and somehow irrelevant to "societal structuring," whatever he might mean by that. And of course his anti-White sentiments shine clearly through. With libertarians like these, we don't need any liberals.
--------
Quibcag: Obviously inspired by the liberal/libertarian described above. Illustrated by a girl from Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta)



A Useful Meme

Here's one you cn use when you find yourself in conversation with a ditzy SJW on the net. The girl is one of those cuties from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) 

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

A LIttle More Preening and Showing Off

I liked what Andy Godwin said so much that now I've done it up in a third quibcag version. Moreover, I've added it in another form to the blogroll over there on the right. I thank Andy again, and I thank all of you who enjoy the daily red pill and help me spread it around! This one is illustrated by the lovable Rika Shiguma of Haganai (はがない). Pretty good job photoshopping that bottle of red pills in there, eh?

Why All the Criticism?

A correspondent just pointed out the following:

It's funny how your posts focus on a criticism of your opposition and offer little in the way of what you advocate.

I answered:

They do, don't they? I think it's because of what I see as a general tendency of libertarianism to infect itself with liberalism and, as I said, accept so much of the liberal narrative. Consequently, a lot of my energy goes into trying to thwart that. Before that happened, or before I became so aware of it, I spent rather more time on trying to spread basic libertarian notions. But many others do that very well, so maybe my time is better spent doing what I do, and trying to keep it all on the right track.

Also, libertarians, like any human group, like to be loved and respected, and what better way to do that than to follow the herd? In today's world, that means, usually, agreeing with the liberal trendy enthusiasms of the MAG (Media, Academia, Government). The most recent example is the almost 100% participation of libertarians in cheering on the replacement of Andrew Jackson (who used to be a libertarian icon) with Harriet Tubman on the currency. Oh, they have come up with lots of justifications for their participation, but their motivation is clearly a desire to fit into the crowd.


Interestingly, in replying to his remark, I reached a better understanding myself of what I'm trying to do here. Never ignore your critics. They can be very helpful sometimes.
---------------
Quibcag: The illustration of course is Haruhi of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu) — Note that she's geturing to her right, and is therefore fitting into the spirit of the quote.

Monday, April 25, 2016

LIbertarians — à la main left, and do-si-do

When I first started noticing the libertarian movement thirty-odd years ago, it seemed like a sort of conservatism that went deeper than usual into reason and logic. It was like the Ayn Rand movement without the idolatry of Ayn Rand. It seemed to be a better kind of right-wing and was clearly in opposition to almost everything on the left. This seemed to be the case with Rothbard or any other libertarian thinker you might happen to read.

Even its little mantra — "We're fiscally conservative and socially liberal" — meant something different then, because the definition of "liberal" has changed. "Fiscally conservative" is self-explanatory, but "socially liberal," back in the Nixon era, meant tolerant of different lifestyle choices. In the first place, there weren't nearly as many lifestyle choices, and most of our current sexual deviancies might have existed, but they certainly weren't anything anybody, even libertarians were inclined to be tolerant of. Tolerance of homosexuality was no big deal to libertarians, because everybody in Western Civilization had beee de facto tolerant of it as long as it was reasonably discreet. And while drug use was to be tolerated, even libertarians didn't think they were supposed to be tolerant of drug addiction.

And of course, again, back then, "socially liberal" meant "socially tolerant," And if even "tolerant" has changed its meaning in popular usage, at that time it meant putting up with something you didn't approve of, because you thought freedom was more important than your personal taste, and you expected the same courtesy from those who might disapprove of your idiosyncrasies. Now, of course, "socially liberal" has gone way beyond tolerance, and you don't have to just "put up with" homosexuality or Islam or pot smoking or whatever — you have to accept it, approve of it, and celebrate it. And appear in public with it, shaking hands and hugging.

You see, you have to call Bruce Jenner "she," because if you don't, you're not being socially liberal. You have to cheer on Muslim or any other kind of immigration, because that's what liberals do, and you have to emulate liberals on every social issue. And, of course, you have to march in lockstep with all the liberal enthusiasms, be it transvestites in the little girls' room or flag-burning, or you're no longer a good libertarian. You're a bigot.

And here's the acid test, the litmus test. Forty years ago, one of the great libertarian icons was Andrew Jackson. He was a patriot, and enemy of central banking, a champion of the common man, and about as brave a man as the country ever produced.

But now, if you check out all the libertarian sites on the net, you will see that Jackson is now said to be just what the liberals say he was. Some kind of racist, statist, bigot. And libertarians will have their licenses pulled and declared anathema if they don't agree with that, and band together with the liberal-neocon MAG (Media, Academia, Government) and insist that he be ousted from the twenty and replace by Harriet Tubman, who is now the new icon of the libertarian movement. In short, the left-libertarians, leftbertarians, liberals-who-think-they're-libertarians, or whatever you want to call them, are now the norm in the libertarian movement. The actual libertarians, the heirs to the Founding Fathers, are being slowly purged and replaced by fresh-faced little indoctrinated punks in Che T-shirts. And here's the illustration that seems to be required now on all libertarian sites:

Call me reactionary, but I'm still an Andy Jackson man.
----------------
Quibcag: The girl in the process of drying herself off is of course the adorable Akane Tendo of  Ranma ½ (らんま½)

Ex-Army Endorsed!

 People have said nice things about this blog in the past, but this is, I think, my favorite. I did two versions up as quibcags.  The first features a girl from K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) , and the second is illustrated by Ai Haibara of Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

Sunday, April 24, 2016

Thomas P. Kratman Sets the Church Straight

A guest post by Thomas P. Kratman:

A letter to my church:

Dear Father Remi:

I've come close to walking out of mass before, when Deacon Mike was plugging for gun control. I didn't, then, but I resolved that I would walk out if the church again attempted to interfere, even if only by suggestion, with matters of internal politics of the United States or undermining of the Constitution of the United States or undermining of the security of the United States.

This morning, at the early mass, I did walk out after we were intoned to not be afraid of letting in "refugees." I'm not sure what universe the reader lives in. I am not sure what universe the writer of the request for prayers lives in. In the universe I live in, the real universe, those refugees are mostly - no, _overwhelmingly_ - military age males, from a hostile religion, heavily infiltrated by ISIS/DAESH, a slave trading, raping, fanatical, genocidal, and expanding group of that religion. No, the State Department and DHS cannot filter out the maniacs.

Yes, as a matter of fact I do have quite a bit of experience over there.

I will not welcome them. I will not encourage others to welcome them. And I will not support a church that says we should. They are the enemy. They are the enemy of both civilization and Christianity. They are not an enemy to be turned by turning the other cheek. (Indeed, given the sexual proclivities of the region, it is wise to keep all one's cheeks far, far from them.) And those who would let them in are working hand in hand with the enemies of civilization and the Church.

Whether I shall come back to Saint Mary's, find another Catholic Church less politically and suicidally liberal, or join a less effectively anti-Christian Protestant church I cannot say at this time. I am pretty sure that whichever way I decide, God will understand my preferring not to support the ruin of my country, my civilization, or my religion.

Sincerely,

Thomas P. Kratman
------------
From Ex-Army: Me, now, the last time I was in a church was when I got married, I think, several decades ago. I have no hostility to religion or organized religion, I'm just sort of indifferent to its manifestation in public. Just indifferent. I have no grudge against it. If anything, I'm rather biased in favor of Christianity because it's been instrumental in producing the Western Civilization that I value above all other cultures of mankind. And, though I'm not a believer, I usually prefer believers to non-believers. They tend to be better people. I'm a lifelong fan of C. S. Lewis, G. K. Chesterton, and other Christian-oriented writers of that sort. Morality-wise, I find Christianity as good a guide as any religion or philosophy, and superior to the vast majority.

That said, a damn fool is a damn fool, whether he's a Christian or not. Some of my fellow-thinkers among the realist right are hostile to Christianity precisely because of the sort of nonsense that Mr. Kratman describes above. I'm not, or I'm usually not, because the same kind of nonsense can be found outside of the churches and outside of Christianity, among just about every other religion or nonreligious belief system. Indeed, I first encountered it, back in the 60's, with the counterculture movement which was overwhelmingly anti-Christian.

Obviously, Christians don't have to be damn fools, because Tom Kratman clearly isn't. Ir also occurs to me that while Pope Francis is a damn fool in much the same way that the priest addressed is, Pat Buchanan, of the same church, definitely is not.

My attitude in these matters is simple. When someone is correct on the issues of gun control and inviting "Syrian" "refugees" to move in, I respect him for his conclusions whether he's a theist or an atheist or something in between. When he's wrong on those issues, I have zero respect for his opinions on the matters whether he's a peasant, Pope, or punk rocker.

A religious leader is, supposedly, an expert on matters of religion. That's where his authority lies. He has no more expertise in matters of statecraft than does a janitor or a courtesan. Bad advice from a preacher or priest deserves no more respect than bad advice from anyone else.
-------------
Quibcag: Illustrated by Rosette Christopher of Chrono Crusade (Japaneseクロノ クルセイド HepburnKurono Kuruseido). Since I haven't actually seen the anime yet, I can't be sure, but she seems to be a sort of nun. If she is, she belongs to a church that is willing to defend itself.

Find out about Tom Kratman here:
http://www.tomkratman.com

An Eclectic Assortiment of Quibcags

I like that word, 'eclectic,' and use it whenever I can.  Anyhow, as you know, I do a quibcag whenever I run across a particularly striking quote, or illustration, or both, and sometimes I don't have a post to go with it. I've accumulated a few like that lately, so here they are with a bit of commentary:
This is a rather pretty one. The quote, of course, is an oldie by Friedrich Nietzche, who said a lot of things, some insightful, some bewildering, but this is one of my favorites, and the translation is, "Whatever does not destroy me, makes me stronger," which is a good way to look at learning or growth in general. A sort of 19th Century version of "tough love." The illustration is by The-Icon-of-Sin, and it depicts Tsumugi Kotobuki, of K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) , standing in front of the symbol of the British Union of Fascists, I believe.

And then we have a nice quote from Eli Harman, who says all manner of neat things, appropriately illustrated by Marika and Chiaki of Bodacious Space Pirates (モーレツ宇宙海賊パイレーツ Mōretsu Pairētsu), dealing with the universally well-known Star Trek, whose sins I have blogged about before [link], As Eli says, Star Trek is pretty much false in its messages and morals, being excruciatingly politically correct for the most part. But I remember one rather pleasant exception to the rule, when Picard had to go do something somewhere and Captain Jellico [link] took over at the Enterprise, annoying Riker and making Deanna put the right kind of britches on. It gratified those of us with actual military experience no end. As did Starhip Troopers, the book, certainly, and the movie  only a bit less so. If you haven't, read and watch them ASAP.

Then we have a Karol Traven quote that need no commentary illustrated by a character from Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta). Feel free to use this, and any other quibcags, of course, in any squabbles you might have with SJW's on the net.

And here's on you can use when you discuss diversity with everybody from neocons to liberals to the flaky variety of libertarian. It's a modification of the Orwell quote from 1984, of course — diversity is, after all, as the Zeitgeist uses the term, a form of ignorance — and it's illustrated by a Russian girl from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).

And finally, we have a quote from the irreplaceable Matt Bailey,with an illustration I found on Google Images here [l;ink], critiquing our SF libertarians who, alas, don't fully comprehend the philosophical oxymoronic nature of open-borders libertarianism. And that's all till next time.

Saturday, April 23, 2016

Jackson v. Tubman

No, I don't want to put Harriet Tubman on the twenty, or anyplace else on the currency, and I want Andrew Jackson kept right where he is. And I can't think of a woman, other than an abstraction like Miss Liberty, that I want on any of our money either. I'm not going to get all PC and deplore Jackson's treatment of Cherokees or slaves or anybody else, as is done even in the reprint below. Who else from that era is held to modern politically correct standards? Just other White men that the Cultural Marxists want to smear. If the bozos who want to glorify abolition need to be inspired by pictures on money, they cant get a five out and stare at Abe Lincoln all they want. And, for that matter, we have lots of Presidents who haven't yet been honored by being put on money. How about Teddy Roosevelt? Polk? Coolidge? Garfield? Hell, Harry Truman?

Most of the people who want to "honor" Harriet Tubman don't know the first thing about her, and their motivation is nothing more than to signal-virtue themselves by trampling on the memory of a great American President by replacing him with what, I suppose, they view as his opposite — a Black slave. Their motivation might go a little deeper than that, too, because Jackson was not only a White man, he was a Southern White man and an anti-elite Southern White man. He championed the cause of the White working class against the bankers and everybody else. And you know what the PC opinion is of the White working class, don't you? Yeah. Ignorant yahoos with jobs. Trump voters. All that they love to hate.

James E. Miller, over at Takimag [link], tells us some more about Andy Jackson.

Chopping Down Old Hickory


Instead of wishing he’d shot Henry Clay, I bet Andrew Jackson is now wishing he could plug Treasury
Secretary Jack Lew.

This week, Secretary Lew is expected to announce that Andrew Jackson’s visage will be wiped from the $20 bill in favor of a woman’s. Thanks to the wildly successful rap musical Hamilton, based on the life of founder Alexander Hamilton, the architect of the nation’s financial system will keep his place on the ten-spot. That leaves Jackson’s neck on the chopping block, as the Obama administration seeks to replace a stale, old white man with a feminine figure representative of our enlightened ideals.

The idea of removing Old Hickory from the federal note is not unpopular. Both Time magazine and The Washington Post have endorsed the purging of the seventh president. The New York Times editorial board wants Jackson gone from the twenty as well. These self-righteous ninnies can’t get over the fact that President Jackson was a slave-owning chauvinist who refused to genuflect before the Washington aristocracy.
“Jackson’s effect on how we view government is reason enough to keep his saber-scarred face on our money.”

The anti-Jackson bromides are not only wrongheaded but ignorant of the president’s impact on American democracy. Jackson was a man of ferocious ambition, of unworldly perseverance, and of seemingly unbreakable grit. He went from orphaned teenager to the highest office in the land, battling enemies far more powerful than himself along the way. His honor-driven frontiersman style is an American motif that has popped up periodically through our history. His effect on how we view government is reason enough to keep his saber-scarred face on our money.
----------
And more on Andrew Jackson here [link] and here [link].
----------
Quibcags: Don't know the provenance of the girl in the first, but the second is Ayumu Nishizawa from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!).

O Brave New World, That Has Such Sexually-Confused People In It

The mainstream media, of course, sees nothing wrong at all with the popular warping of sexuality and sex roles and the consequent effects on kids, except maybe that the decadence isn't moving fast enough. On the contrary, they cheer it all on, from convincing little boys that they're little girls, to effeminate dads doing the laundry while masculinized moms spend their time in the business world, filing sex-discrimination suits and pretending to be guys.

Only in the opposition to the mainstream, variously called paleoconservatives, right-libertarians, libertarian nationalists, etc. — the mainstream consisting of liberals, neocons, and all too many self-styled libertarians who are actually leftists at heart — do you find any dissent from this Brave New World of sexual nihilism, but even there, the awareness is mainly of the short end of the stick handed to boys, in order to push girls to the front. But that implies that somehow girls are being given some kind of advantage at the expense of boys. Actually, both sexes are being mistreated in this system. Not only are boys being feminized against their will, but girls are forced into being poor imitations of boys against their will, sometimes when they don't even realize it themselves, being indoctrinated with batty feminist dogma as they are.

Some would say that girls are more resilient than boys, and can recover from such bollixing-up more readily, because a lot of what makes up femininity is intrinsic, and girls don't need as many rites of passage as boys do. There may be some truth in that, but it's also true that girls' development into women is much more timetable-dependent, as in the phrase "biological clock," so in that sense, boys might recover more easily. Whatever the case, girls, along with boys, are being pretty severely warped by the Zeitgeist's attempt to turn them into an inferior version of the opposite sex. At his site, Had Enough Therapy? [link], Stuart Schneiderman describes the situation, and the complete inability of the conventional wisdom to cope with it:

The War against Girls


I probably do not need to tell you, but America’s children are in trouble. Perhaps not all of them are in the same kind of trouble, but most of them seem clearly to be troubled.

Parents bring their children to Dr. Leonard Sax because they are worried. In particular, they are worried about their sons. Their adolescent boys are layabouts. They play video games and sports. They are detached from school and from schoolwork. Dr. Sax does not quite mention it, but they are probably also absorbed in the world of internet porn.

Dr. Sax describes one patient:

He’s not working hard at school and his grades are sliding. At 16, he spends most of his free time playing video games like Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty, or surfing the Web for pictures of girls. He’s happy as a clam.

Dumb as a post and happy as a clam. Obviously, this does not signal great parenting or a culture that knows how to bring up boys. It shows that the culture has basically failed its sons.

Suffering in school systems controlled by radical feminists and Common Core advocates boys have lost interest in their schoolwork. They understand that the game is rigged against them, that they can only do well if they act more like girls. If they are being punished for acting like boys, they retreat into a world where they can compete like boys. And that means video games.

And, why should they work hard at school in order to grow up to become heads of their families? Why should they try to learn how to support their wives when said wives do not want to be supported? Boys have learned that the role of breadwinner is a relic and that being male, especially a white male, confers an unearned privilege that needs to be expiated. Girls can take care of themselves, so boys have no reason to want to become strong men who can care for women and children. They might just as well play video games.

They might be happy as clams now, but eventually this silliness will catch up with them. The mental health of American men, millennial and later generations, is not very good. And it’s beyond what a pill can fix.

As for those hyperachieving girls, the situation might look better. All those incipient feminists are doing their best Sheryl Sandberg imitations, but beneath the surface, all is not well.

Dr. Sax explains:

Both parents are actually quite proud of their 14-year-old daughter, who is a straight-A student, an athlete and has many friends. But when I met with her, she told me that she isn’t sleeping well. She wakes up in the middle of the night, feeling remorseful about having eaten a whole slice of pizza for dinner. She often has shortness of breath. Recently she has begun cutting herself with razor blades, on her upper inner thigh where her parents won’t see. She hasn’t told her parents any of this. On the surface, she is the golden girl. Inside, she is falling apart.

Dr. Sax is going to blame it all on social media, because, when you are in doubt, you blame everything on social media:

Imagine another girl sitting in her bedroom, alone. She’s scrolling through other girls’ Instagram and Snapchat feeds. She sees Sonya showing off her new bikini; Sonya looks awesome. She sees Madison at a party, having a blast. She sees Vanessa with her adorable new puppy. And she thinks: I’m just sitting here in my bedroom, not doing anything. My life sucks.

Dr. Sax points to the fact that the girls who are alone in their bedrooms with social media are suffering because they do not have a home life. They do not have dinner together, they rarely get together to converse with other family members.

Blaming social media allows him to avoid a dozen more salient questions. I cannot guarantee you that they pertain in one or all situations, but they are the questions that we ought to be asking.

We ought to be asking about the role models these girls have at home. Are their parents married or divorced or neither? What kinds of role models are these parents? Does Dad work or does he stay home playing video games and vacuuming the carpet? Does Mom work or stay at home? Does she cook dinner or does she fight with her husband about household chores? How much time do these mothers spend with their daughters, doing girl things? A lot or a little or none? Does social media fill in the gap left empty by absent parents?

Do these mothers teach their daughters to delight in becoming women? Do they like being women or do they consider it an impediment to career advancement? Do they rejoice in their femininity or are they acting like boys in lipstick?

These are largely inconvenient questions. Dr. Saz does not ask them. These parents are paying him, so it’s best to blame social media.

Are today’s adolescent girls excited to become women or do they dread it? How do they feel about the fact that they might have to learn to give blow jobs to boys they don’t know, lest they not be considered popular? Do they believe that any boy will ever love them? Do they think that becoming women will consign them to misery and oppression? Do they like being feminine? Do they enjoy playing with cosmetics and fashion? Or have they been told, over and over again, that they are strong, that they can do anything they want to do, that they can compete against boys at any activity, that they are perfectly self-contained and self-sufficient?

Has the media taught them that they should take up arms against sexism and engage in constant complaining about how oppressed she is? Does today's girl want to grow up to become like Hillary Clinton?

If a girl is told that she must grow up to become independent and autonomous, she might well hear that no man will ever love her, ever want her or ever desire her for anything other than sex? Is it not possible that she has become so male identified, so competitive, that she has so thoroughly gotten in touch with her manly side that she is afraid that boys will not know she is a female? Does she believe that she can only persuade them that she is a girl by sexting images of her private parts? How does she react to the fact that our pornified culture has exposed the feminine sex to more people and that feminism has made the national conversation about female reproductive anatomy a national obsession? Does the constant exposure of the feminine sex make her feel exposed? Does it make her feel that she has lost control over her own sexuality?

Does she want to grow up to become a wife and a mother or does she want to become a courtesan or a mistress? These are not the same; you cannot do both. Considering the cultural disapproval or the role of housewife, is today’s American girl in pain over the fact that the best that she can do is to be a courtesan, a vamp with a career.

Does she learn that her developing body is an impediment to her worldly success, that her femininity is a curse that prevents her from leaning in and from asserting herself like the boys do? Will she learn that her femininity, when it attracts attention, will attract the wrong kind of attention and subject her to rape culture and sexual abuse?

We are horrified at the notion that these girls sit in their rooms cutting themselves, but how many of their mothers, uncomfortable with their own aging, sit around talking about going under the knife, the better to enhance their appearance?

Now, Dr. Sax has nothing to say about any of these questions or issues. But, how is a psychiatrist going to help his patients when he systematically ignores all of the cultural and social factors that are making America’s children dysfunctional and unhappy.

As a culture we have broken down the differences between the sexes. We believe that sexual identity is merely a social construct. Now, our children are paying the price.
------------
Quibcag: This is a tad complicated. Sera Masumi is whispering to Mouri Ran here. Both are from the anime Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン). Sera Masumi is a girl who frequently dresses as a boy, not because, I think, she wants to be a boy or thinks she is, but for the purpose of disguise when she performs her role as a high-school detective. And also maybe a little because she enjoys befuddling everybody.  In the illustration, she may be cautioning Mouri Ran by quoting Yockey herself. It's not that Sera Masumi is completely normal, but I think she's offbeat in a healthy way, and is in no sense an inferior version of a boy. When dressed appropriately in her school uniform here, she's feminine enough to satisfy anybody, though perhaps she is a tad more self-assertive than the average Japanese schoolgirl.

Vox Day Reprints Jerry Poiurnelle's Evaluation of Trump

And Ex-Army reprints that. There are heaps of Trump supporters out there who have a hard time putting into words exactly why they're Trump supporters. That doesn't imply anything in particular about them, except that they're not professional analyst/writers and are therefore not good at analyzing their gut reactions and motivations and writing them up. Most of us can't. I'm sort of in the middle. Sometimes I can, and sometimes I have a hard time, too.

Anyhow, it's even harder with someone like Trump, because he doesn't fit the usual political mold. In a way, he's like Limbaugh, in that he's good at saying things that you've been thinking yourself, in a terse, pungent way. Like when he said we don't have time for political correctness. In a way, he's like Andrew Jackson, in that he's unsubtle and a bit vulgar, and consequently comes across as sincere and undevious. I'll give you a quick summary of why I support Trump: There are attractive things about Cruz, but he comes across as so goddam self-righteous and holier-than-thou, not to mention a little bit effeminate, that he's going to turn off a lot of people who feel very comfortable with Trump. Kasich is totally without principle or scruple — he ridicules the idea of deporting illegals. And Bernie and Hillary are the Liebknecht and Luxemburg of our time. And now, here's Jerry Pournelle's reasoning, form Vox Day's site [link]:

Jerry Pournelle on Donald Trump

A take on Trump that is entirely more interesting than my own on the man:
Trump is probably the least qualified candidate who ran for the Republican nomination this year. If you didn’t know that, you’d have to be a hermit to avoid finding it out. He also has far more delegates than any other candidate. I would think that would send a clear message to the Republican elite, particularly the country club establishment; but like the Bourbon kings of France restored after the Revolution, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.

Wouldn’t I want a more qualified, somewhat more experienced candidate? Well, of course. But the establishment wasn’t about to let anyone not within its ranks to get anywhere close to the nomination. In 1956 [Here, he has to mean 1976, or maybe 1980 — Ex-Army] the goal was “anyone but Reagan” among the Republican elite. Now it’s anybody but Trump. Before Trump they made it clear to all: it’s going to be one of us, like it or lump it. We can deal with upstarts.

But they didn’t intimidate Trump, and now he’s laid all of their compliant candidates low, and they’re turning to an old enemy, Cruz, in despair. The notion is that he’ll “grow” in office; it’s for sure that Trump won’t grow under their definition of grow.

But in fact he’s likely to. He has some good advisors and he has a definite point of view that may be hard to discern because it’s masked by his blatant – loudmouthed and irritating, if you like – tactics. But he has never wavered on his desire to fill the Supreme Court with Justices as near in scholarship and view to Scalia as possible; that alone would be enough to get me to the polls for Trump if he’s nominated.

He has consistently said we need to turn control of the schools to the local districts and stop dictating to them from Washington. This has been taken as meaning that he doesn’t know what to do on a nation al scale. Well, I have news: neither does anyone else, and the attempt, even with the best of will, will always fail. The schools worked better, over all, when they were paid for by local school district taxes and run by local school boards elected by the people who paid those taxes. If you don’t believe that, get a copy of the California Sixth Grade Reader from a hundred years ago and compare it to your child’s present day ninth grade reader. Then weep.

No, he’s not a “movement conservative”, but I’m not sure I still am, and I was a protégé of Russell Kirk and Stefan Possony, and a friend of Bill Buckley and Willmore Kendall. I’ve been in that “movement” a long time. Long enough to see National Review use the egregious Frum to read most of us out of the movement.

Trump is not a movement conservative, but his inclination is to set goals and get people working on them, not to jail and fine them for not doing so. He understands that being served by mindless minions is not the path to glory or wealth. Compared to Hillary or Sanders or anyone in Obama’s train, I’ll take Trump any day. I would prefer someone with government experience – some, not one whose only experience is in government – but we seem to be fresh out of those. I suppose I’d rather have establishment country club Republicans than anyone likely to be nominated by the Democratic establishment even if a plague took all the present candidates; we tried that with Bush I, who cleared the White House of Reagan people the day after inauguration, and proceeded to saddle us with the Americans With Disabilities act and a new Federal bureaucracy; but that’s another story.

Trump is a pragmatic populist. I can live with that. 
Considering the manifold failures of what we've been told are principled ideology, pragmatic populism is sounding pretty good right now. Whatever gets the borders closed and starts the respections. Say what you will about Dr. Pournelle, but he's not only smart, he has accumulated a fair bit of wisdom along the way.

Friday, April 22, 2016

Women Voters

Should women vote? Now, before I answer that, let me make a couple of points. Obviously — to anybody but, say, a liberal — twelve-year-olds shouldn't vote. That's not because there are no people of that age at all who could be expected to vote responsibly, but because most of them could not at all. Most of them. Now, the idea of voting, as far as I'm concerned, isn't at all about the right to vote, but about having responsible voters. The two ideas get confused a lot, but basically most of us think that only mature, sensible people should have the right to vote. Liberals and other idiots, of course, think that maturity and sensibility have nothing to do with it, and everybody should have the right to vote no matter how stupid and irresponsible they are.

And that brings us to women. Of course, a lot of men are horrible voters, but statistically, women are even worse. For one thing, they mostly aren't even interested in public policy, and therefore don't know anything about it. For another thing, women tend not to be as cooperative as men are, and political compromise doesn't make any sense to them at all. And as the quibcag indicates, women tend, far more than do men, to get all sappy and maudlin and vote in self-destructive ways.

And if what I've said doesn't have your dander up, just wait till you read the below from Bob Wallace's site [link].

Women Should Not be Allowed to Vote or Run for Office

I need use no example except for that corrupt monster know as the Hildebeast. If women were not allowed to vote she would be known only as Bill Clinton's drunken, lesbian "wife." And not scare the smart with her delusions she'd be a good president.
Only one question needs to be asked: are things better since women have gotten the vote? I see no evidence that this has happened.
Many women are natural fascists/socialists, and they put safety above all, including freedom. And since men - specifically white men - invented about 98% of everything in the world, and women have invented about one-hundredth of one percent, why should any women have any say in something they did not create and instead ultimately destroy?
Only someone who has no understanding of human nature would allow that.
Carl Jung once said that women are biologically indispensable because the have the babies and men are culturally indispensable because they created everything. Today, women are declining to have babies except they still expect men to create the culture - and "careers" for barren women. Or attempt to let them "have it all" - babies and career!
Ha! For all practical purposes it's impossible.
If women were not allowed to vote of course they would whine about not being allowed in the boy's treehouse. And they always want in. I guess they figure men are always having some kind of party in there and are engaging in a conspiracy to keep them out.
If only they knew how wrong they are.
------
Quibcag: The "ladies" are from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul")

Gay Black Pastor Insults Himself, Blames Whole Foods

I remember hearing a lot about the incident described below when it first happened — that is, I heard that this atrocity took place. Then, later, I heard that it was maybe a hoax, but I heard a lot less than I heard in the first place, because for some reason, in the media, a hate crime is infinitely more interesting than a hate crime hoax. It spoils the narrative of the left, you see. That's why you've heard about a lot of hate crimes, but have heard much less about their turning out to be hoaxes arranged by the alleged "victims." They've been happening regularly for quite some time [link]. And I never did hear that the perpetrator of the hoax was Black until I read John Criag's piece on the incident, reblogged below from his Just Not Said blog [link].

Munchausen's, liberal dishonesty, or just an ordinary scam?


Yet another hate hoaxer has been unmasked, this one an openly gay black pastor, Jordan Brown. He claimed that after he ordered a cake with icing spelling out "Love Wins," he received a cake spelling out "Love Wins Fag."

Here is a statement from Brown's attorney Austin Kaplan:

“Pastor Brown never asked for this to happen. He continues to be overwhelmed by the feelings of pain, anguish, and humiliation because of this incident. He frequently shopped at Whole Foods, which makes this all the more shocking and disappointing. What really concerns him is knowing that unless some action is taken, this kind of thing could happen again, and that someone else might have to go through a similarly excruciating experience.”

Practically breaks your heart, doesn't it? 

And how noble of Brown that his real concern is not any monetary gain or attention for himself, but the thought that "someone else might have to go through a similarly excruciating experience."

Except there was one little glitch: as the security cameras later proved, it turned out that Brown had added the extra word himself.

So Kaplan's statement is actually true in that regard: Brown never asked for this incident to happen: he simply made it happen.

Does Pastor Jordan Brown suffer from Munchausen's Syndrome, that "disease" (which only sociopaths seem to suffer from) which "compels" its sufferers to go to extremely dishonest lengths in order to gain attention and sympathy?

Is he another Leftie who simply wants to further his cause by any means necessary?

Is he simply another sociopathic con man who figured he could squeeze a few bucks out of deep pocketed company with his scam?

Or is he some combination of the above?

Whatever he was, he certainly fit the well-worn pattern of recent hate hoaxers: they all come from the Left, and they all fit the description of a "victim" as defined by the Left. Worse, they seem to revel in that description.

What conclusion can you draw from the fact that all of the hoaxers come from the Left?

And, if you believe in the concept of hate crimes, isn't a hate crime hoax really a hate crime
-----------
Quibcag: The pensive girl is Kagome, of Inuyasha (犬夜叉).