Sunday, July 31, 2016

Star Trek and Donald Trump — The Conflation


I came across this delightful anime-ish Star Trek illustration on the net — I have no idea where it came from and would love to find out — and have been trying to use it in effective ways. So I decided on conflating the Star Trek Universe, our own, and also, with the CoDominium reference, Jerry Pournelle's Universe [link].  In this scenario, however, the CoDominium is a more benign phenomenon, taking place after the fall of communism and being a force for stability and progress.

So, what do you think? Is this a nice template for further use? And if anybody knows of any similar illustrations that I can use for such purposes, please send them or the links to me in the comments.

The Ratchet

It's almost like a ballet, the way the left and the "right" work together. Of course, if you weren't aware, the so-called right, personified by the Republican Party and the "mainstream conservatives," such as McCain, George Will, Romney, etc., has become, over the years, just a sidekick for the left, usually advocating the same things, sometimes advocating the same things in a more moderate way, and sometimes advocating different things but putting absolutely no energy into promoting them.

This, of course, results in a steady march to the left, which we've been experiencing since the Great Society, with minor slowdowns here and there, as we had under Reagan.

And straight out of nowhere comes Trump, totally unexpected, who leaps on the stage and spoils the nice ballet by initiating a line dance of sorts and inviting the dancers and the audience to participate.

The idea was, of course, to nominate a nice domesticated cuckservative like Jeb Bush, who would join the ballet and either lose gracefully to the crook or somehow win and carry out most of the crooks agenda for her.

And if that didn't work, they had Cruz in reserve, who would placate most of us on the real right with his rhetoric. He'd carry out the same Clinton-Bush foreign war policy, only explicitly for religious reasons rather than political ones. And he'd proclaim a much more conservative domestic policy, which would, of course, never be implemented.

So sit back and enjoy the line dance, folks. Yee-HAW!

And here's Thrasymachus' take, from
Deconstructing Leftism [link]:

Booooorrrrriiiiiiiinnnnnnngggggggg, Again

Commentary has gotten so, I hate to say it, boring.
All the usual idiots talk about what’s going on, and offer their sage opinions and wise moral judgments, but they don’t really know anything, and they don’t understand what’s going on.
Trump is evil. And his followers are evil, or maybe they are just poor deluded hicks, in the most charitable reading. All the nice people agree on this. Hillary Clinton is the last hope of civilization, but don’t worry, she will crush Donald Drumpf with her historic accomplishment. All the nice people agree on this too.
The progressive left and the mainstream right work pretty well together. The progressive left makes progress; then the mainstream right “conserves”, which is to say doesn’t do anything to move things back. Nothing new happens under conservative rule- nothing progressive or regressive. And so the cucks and the progressives just trade places, and the ratchet ratchets.
So all these losers can agree on Trump. They don’t understand anything, but they don’t have to understand anything, and they don’t want to understand anything.
They assume resistance will be crushed, as it always is, and things will go back to normal. And it may be, or it may not. I think being willfully stupid is supposed to be a status marker- only worker bees need to be actually able to do things, and predict if their work will be successful.
--------
Quibcag: The illustration is a version of Tweedledum and Tweedledee from http://myanimelist.net

Saturday, July 30, 2016

The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism

I'm getting more reverberations from the recent posts about fascism, both pro and con. Not too many people neutral on the subject. One thing that is indisputable, however, is that fascism and its variant, National Socialism were not  simple, and, because they lost the war, the historians, overwhelmingly from the victorious nations,  have been unkind to them

When "nationalism" comes up on this blog, some bozo always equates it to Naziism. These bozos are almost always leftists, and are consequently anti-nationalist and anti-Western. Now, the bozos aren't entirely wrong, because they know that nationalism isn't good for their ilk, any more than National Socialism would be. No, globalism is best for the bozos, and they instinctively know it. And while nationalism is not equivalent to National Socialism, the latter of course entails nationalism.

And because, ever since the end of the War, nationalism, at least in the West, has been suppressed by the elite, the point made in the quibcag is valid, and the Brexit vote, and the resurgence of nationalism in Europe and America might well lead to a revival of interest in you-know-who.

Speaking of Trump (yes, I know we weren't), here's a review of a quirky book about Hitler, who actually was "literally Hitler":

Hitler as 'Enlightenment Intellectual':
The Enduring Allure of Hitlerism

  • Hitler as Philosophe: Remnants of the Enlightenment in National Socialism, by Lawrence Birken. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1995. Hardcover. 120 pages. Reference notes. Bibliography. Index. 
Reviewed by Mark Weber
A specter is haunting the world -- the specter of Hitlerism. That, in short, is the stern warning of this provocative book, written by an Assistant Professor of History at Ball State University (Indiana), and published by Praeger, a leading US academic publisher.
In spite of decades of vehement vilification, says author Lawrence Birken, Hitler's views have enduring and dangerous appeal -- not because they are bizarre and alien, but precisely because they are rational and well grounded in Western thought. In particular, Birken stresses, Hitlerism is firmly rooted in the rationalist and scientific outlook of the 18th-century European Enlightenment. This is not meant as a compliment, however; the author is hostile to the West and its traditions. Rejecting the American and Western historical legacy, Prof. Birken openly calls for a new, racially homogenized America.
For more than half a century, Hitler and his views have been ceaselessly demonized in motion pictures, on television and in the print media. And yet, according to Birken, the appeal of Hitlerism remains so potent that it threatens the ideal of a racially "redefined" America of "higher unity." As traditional standards and long-established cultural, racial and religious values come under ever greater attack, and as this country's racial and cultural crisis becomes ever more acute, Birken fears that those who are unwilling to accept the "redefined" society that is developing in America and Europe will turn in ever greater numbers to Hitler's alternative vision of society. Hitlerism, Birken says, will loom ever larger as a dangerously seductive "siren song."
The author has no doubt made a sincere effort to provide an informed and objective look at Hitler and his views. But even if we overlook the numerous misspellings of proper names and titles, and the often polemical prose style, this is a badly flawed work. Birken's understanding of what Hitler really thought and believed is both limited and skewed.
This is due in large part to the author's exclusive reliance on English translations of Hitler's writings and speeches (apparently he cannot read German), and a naive trust in unreliable secondary studies. These include Robert Waite's The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler (1977), a sensationalistic psychodramatization, and Hermann Rauschning's Revolution of Nihilism (1939), a thoroughly discredited diatribe. (See "Rauschning's Phony 'Conversations With Hitler': An Update," Winter 1985 Journal, pp. 499-500.)
Birken also quotes repeatedly from The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents, supposedly a transcript of "table talk" remarks made by Hitler in February and April 1945. These "documents" are fake, says British historian David Irving, who reports that the late Swiss banker François Genoud admitted to him that he was the author.

'A Genuine Intellectual'

Reflecting the ideological perspective that prevails in the Western world today, scholars of Hitler and Third Reich Germany have tended to dismiss the German leader's intellectual outlook as simplistic and crude -- or even crazy. Many play down or simply deny Hitler's place in Western culture "as a means of sanitizing that culture," says Birken. "But if we are to read Hitler neither to condemn nor to praise but merely to understand, then we come away with a very different conclusion about his place in European history."
Scholars and others have made a major mistake in failing to take Hitler seriously as a thinker, argues Birken, who believes that the German political leader "must be regarded as a genuine intellectual" on a par with Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud. Birken's assessment is not as startling as many might believe. As he notes, as early as 1953, British historian Hugh R. Trevor-Roper "evoked the image of Hitler as a kind of synthesis of Spengler and Napoleon, noting that of all world conquerors the German leader had been the most 'philosophical'..." More recently, German historian Rainer Zitelmann established in a study of impressive scholarship that Hitler's outlook was rational, self-consistent and "modern." (R. Zitelmann, Hitler: Selbtsverständnis eines Revolutionärs [second
edition, 1989].)
Moreover, Hitler's outlook was very much a part of the Western intellectual tradition. In his "combination of an almost religious faith with a revolutionary secularism," writes Birken, "Hitler represented the continuation of an essentially Enlightenment style of thought... Nazism, and especially Hitler's exposition of it, represented an attenuated and popularized form of the Enlightenment style of thought."
Hitler had a gift for presenting his message in an attractive, accessible form. Writes Birken:
The most attractive feature of Hitler's ideology was thus its optimism. It was not merely his mood but his message that carried an infectious excitement. He was a secular messiah proclaiming a Germanic version of the "good news." The possibility of class reconciliation, the plans for a national revival, the identification of a universal enemy whose elimination would usher in the millennium, all stirred his audiences to the very depths. Hitler spoke the language of the [Enlightenment] philosophes, a language that had almost passed out of existence in the rarefied strata of the grand intelligentsia.
However, placing Hitler and Hitlerism in the intellectual tradition of the West, Birken continues, "should do less to raise our opinion" of Hitlerism, than to "lower our opinion" of "the intellectual history of the West."

Economic Views

Hitler's economic worldview, writes Birken, was likewise rational, self-consistent, progressive, and entirely in keeping with Western tradition. "Hitler's economic ideas were also permeated by Enlightenment notions of progress," and were "closer to Ricardo and Marx than to Machiavelli or Keynes." Birken adds:
...A careful reading of his speeches and writings suggests that he was neither a mercantilist nor a Keynesian, neither a medievalist nor a marginalist. Rather... his economic ideas fit all too well into the classical-physiocratic style of thought.
Hitler believed that social and national considerations, not economic ones, should be paramount in society. The economic and political system must serve the nation, not the other way around. Thus, Birken points out, while "political economy played an important role in his thinking," Hitler
did not restore the primacy of the state after all but, quite the contrary, subordinated the state itself to a dynamic of aggressive technological and cultural expansion. In doing this, Hitler also asserted himself against the last remnants of aristocratic civility at the same time that he opposed the emerging relativism of consumer culture.
As Birken explains, Hitler believed that "all growth could be traced to individual effort -- but only at the service of the common good. He thus tempered what might be taken as a 'libertarian' definition of inventiveness with a somber collectivism." Believing that socially useful creativity was "the product of individual geniuses of high personality value," Hitler supported equal social opportunity for all, and opposed legal and social barriers to individual economic achievement and success. Governmental and social policies, he believed, should encourage merit-based social mobility.
Hitler was critical of both capitalism and Marxism -- the first because it was "insufficiently democratic," and the latter because it was "too democratic" or "leveling." While supporting economic growth across national boundaries, "Hitler also took what he considered to be a conservative stand against the coming hyper-commercialism of an emerging global economy."

Views on Race and Religion

Although he is endlessly castigated as "the most notorious racist of the twentieth century," Hitler's racial views were actually quite in harmony with mainstream 19th- and early 20th-century European thinking. "It should be obvious," writes Birken, "that Hitler possessed a 'classical' theory of race which dovetailed nicely with his classical notions of political economy."
Far from being aberrant or bizarre, his views on race were consistent with those of most prominent Westerners in the decades before the Second World War. And while Birken does not specifically mention it, Hitler's racial views were comparable to those of Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill.
Contrary to popular belief, Hitler never supported notions of breeding a homogenous blond "hyper-Aryan" race. Accepting the reality that the German population consisted of several distinct sub-racial groups, he stressed the German people's national and social unity. A certain degree of racial variety was desirable, he thought, and too much racial blending or homogeneity could be harmful because it would homogenize and thus eliminate superior as well as inferior genetic traits.
Hitler believed that "both conservative prudery and radical eroticism" harmed society, and he opposed birth control because it tended to lower the genetic quality of the society that practices it.
While he was critical of Christianity, Hitler was no atheist. "The religion of Hitlerism was thus essentially a kind of deism," concludes Birken. Like Thomas Jefferson and other prominent early American leaders, Hitler equated God with "the dominion of natural laws throughout the whole universe." Thus, "for Hitler, national socialism was natural socialism."

Attitude Toward Jews

It is "of course, a great mistake to see anti-Semitism as a rejection of Enlightenment values," writes Birken. "On the contrary, the Enlightenment simply secularized rather than destroyed traditional Judeophobia." (No Western thinker was more outspokenly anti-Jewish than Voltaire, the great French philosophe, who regarded the Jews as "enemies of mankind.") The Enlightenment concept of social "fraternity," Birken writes, demands social solidarity, which implies that Jews, as an alien and self-absorbed people, cannot fit in.
Hitler's hostile attitude toward Jews, Birken writes, was neither irrational nor aberrant. He saw "Jews as the personification of a great lie": that is, while they pretended to be merely a religious community, in fact they constituted a self-selected national-ethnic group with international ambitions. Because he regarded the Jews as the enemies of all peoples, Hitler held that combatting Jewish power and influence should be the common duty of all nations -- a view that Birken calls an expression of "Germanic universalism."

The United States

Hitler's attitude toward the United States was mixed. He saw much to admire in 18th- and 19th-century America, and as Birken notes, he praised this country's pre-1940s pro-White racial policies, its restrictions on non-White immigration, and its pioneering adoption of eugenics measures.
But Hitler also saw ominous trends during the 1920s and 1930s. Echoing the views of American industrialist Henry Ford, he was dismayed by the spectacular growth of Jewish power and cultural influence, and regarded Franklin Roosevelt's "New Deal" administration as a virtual revolution in American life, through which Jews largely usurped the country's traditional ruling class.

A Persistent Allure

The defeat of Germany in 1945, Birken rightly notes, "clearly marked a watershed" in world history, and especially for the West:
In a real sense, Hitler's defeat implicitly became the defeat of the European nation-state and the Enlightenment values that underpinned it. Germany's heirs, the United States and the Soviet Union, were both fundamentally transnational, multiracial empires whose territories were seemingly unlimited.
As a result, for half a century we have been living in what Birken calls a "consumer capitalist" world in which "the hierarchical order of sex and race which had originally sustained bourgeois nationalism has been disintegrating" and in which "the increasing relativization of values is encouraged by the ever greater globalization of the economy and consequent emergence of a multinational business elite."
This new world order is less durable than it might appear, says Birken. The recent collapse of the multi-ethnic, multi-racial Soviet Union, he warns, portends similar problems for the American empire. Even a mere contraction of the economy could threaten "to dissolve the United States into several races." In Birken's view, racial nationalism threatens "the continued existence of the United States." He warns:
What Hitler said in the thirties is thus what our racial nationalists are saying today: namely, that a genuinely inclusive multiracial nation violates the natural order of things. The United States must either be a white-dominated state or a collection of breakaway republics made up of this or that group.
In short: if Hitler was right, America is an increasingly unnatural and artificial construct that does not deserve to survive, and will not survive.
Birken fears that Hitlerism will become ever more attractive to those who reject today's supra-national "consumer capitalism," and who resist the rapidly emerging "genuinely inclusive multiracial" order. This alternative vision has appeal beyond America and Europe, Birken believes. As he notes, Hitler's fight against the British empire -- a war he actually never sought nor wanted -- "won him [Hitler] the admiration of colonial peoples from Ireland to India ..."

A New 'Cosmic' Nation

Birken concludes his book with a fervent call for "the gradual formation of an American race as a higher synthesis. Then the Americans will truly constitute a universal or 'cosmic' people." In Birken's view, the "race myth" and Hitlerism "will continue to tempt us" unless Americans "can be given a genuine metaphysical foundation." This "metaphysical foundation" must be to "uncreate race" through massive racial mixing. Therefore, Birken writes, "we should not be afraid of that dirty little word, 'miscegenation'." (Consistent with this vision, President Bill Clinton, in his much-discussed June 14, 1997, speech in San Diego on race relations, openly proclaimed the goal of making America "the world's first truly multiracial democracy.")
Given the reluctance of many Americans, particularly conservative Whites, to warmly embrace this new "universal" nation, Birken says "we must have an education system that is able to instill this redefinition of American culture."
"Before we try uniting the world," Birken concludes, "let us try uniting ourselves. Until we do so, the siren song of Hitlerism will call to us."

Stark Alternatives

To anyone who views the past with an open mind, history demonstrates the utterly fantastic nature of the goal laid out by Prof. Birken (and President Clinton) -- a vision no less utopian than Marxian Communism. In any case, to meld the American population into a "universal" racial-cultural entity would require government repression on a scale unimaginable today.
Few Americans today are able or willing to fully grasp the enormous implications of the radical program that intellectuals such as Birken (and political leaders such as Clinton) are spelling out for our future. But once they do (and as Prof. Birken fears) many will likely turn to Hitlerism as an alternative to the official prevailing ideology. The decades-long campaign of vilification of Hitler and Third Reich Germany may actually contribute to this by convincing millions of Americans that Hitlerism is the antithesis of the Establishment's ideology, and thus the only real alternative.
In spite of its defects, Hitler as Philosophe effectively dispels some widely-held misconceptions about Hitler and Hitlerism, acknowledges the critical importance of the race issue, and boldly spells out stark alternatives for the future of America and Europe. For this the author deserves credit.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Sept.- Oct. 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 5), pages 34-37.
-------------
Quibcag: The girl is from here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi0kjNKPpRo

Trump as Zen Master, v. Run-Amok Hillary

The Democrats are saying the craziest goddam things lately, throwing all the mud they can find at Trump, hoping that some of it will stick. They really don't have a leg to stand on, because Hillary's past and personality are too well-known to be hidden. "You can fool all the people some of the time," etc. So they're mostly playing word-assiciation games, like:

Trump: "It's awfully hot out today."

NY Times headline: "Trump admits global warming, contradicts his previous statements."

Trump at restaurant: "I'll have a burger and fries... On second thought, I'll have the onion rings instead."

CNN Evening News: "Another serious flip-flop by Trump. Can this man be trusted with nuclear weapons?

And so forth.

The fact about Trump is that he's brilliant, savvy, very good at managing conflict and finding solutions, and, from all indications, an American patriot who thinks the American government should first serve the American people. We know his motivations, which are good, and there's zero evidence that he's unstable in any way. On the contrary, considering his lifetime activities, if he had any tendency to be unstable, it would have manifested many times since then.

Over at Just Not Said [link], John Craig goes a little deeper into this:

Who is temperamentally unfit to be President?

The Democratic line is that Trump is temperamentally unfit to be President, since he has responded to political attacks with personal insults. It's true that he's said some rash things that he would have been better off not saying.

Commenting on Carly Fiorina's looks was un-Presidential; and saying that Megan Kelly was bleeding from "her wherever" was an unfortunate choice of words. Saying that John McCain was not a war hero was simply not true.

But the central conceit of the Democrats that Trump, because he has a sharp tongue, is as likely to lob a nuclear bomb as an insult, is ludicrous. Does anyone really think that he can't tell the difference?

Contrast Trump's behavior to Hillary's. According to several accounts, Hillary would actually claw at her husband's face, punch him, and throw things at him during her tantrums. When a Secret Service man said good morning to her, she replied, "Fuck off!" This was evidently typical of her behavior toward the law enforcement assigned to guard her.

Which is more indicative of a personality temperamentally unsuited to the Presidency -- hurling insults, or hurling ashtrays?
---------
Me, I'll go with the insult guy. And in related matters, John Craig also wrote:

Which is a scary title indeed.
-----------------
Quibcag: Illustrated with Sensei of , who looks insane, if not with fury. And if anybody doesn't believe that the quote came from the flaming liberal (in most ways) Piers Morgan, here's his tweet:

Trump makes a funny, obvious joke about Russia going after Hillary's emails & U.S. media goes insane with fury. He plays them so easily....



It is an honor to be critiqued by the Vulture

It is indeed. I always learn a lot when the Vulture of Critique pedantically disagrees with me, and I encourage him to do so whenever he thinks it a necessity, or just an occasion for putting some knowledge out there. A teaching moment, if you will. His latest such critique seems to have been triggered (look! — I used a trendy word, but probably not in a PC way) by the cartoon here [link]. I rush to assure Vulture that the cartoon isn't an endorsement of Pinochet, a man of whom I know very little, but rather a send-up of the libertarian "non-aggression principle" dogma, which wouldn't work in a day-care center, let alone a planet full of contending religions and ideologies. The point of course is that such libertarian high-minded principles are totally useless in combatting any contending aggressive ideology, like communism, whereas a man like Pinochet, whatever his flaws, knows very well how to handle people like that.

But that's really a side issue. What Vulture mainly reacts to is this post [link], where I argue that fascism is a tool that came into being as a direct result of the communist threat. Yes, that's a gross oversimplification, but it has validity. And I pause here to point out the obvious, that most people the liberals and neocons call "fascists" are nothing of the kind. Fascists are defined as Mussolini and his followers and their ideology. Nobody can argue with that. Then, you can add those people and movements that explicitly consider themselves imitations of Mussolini's fascists, like the National Socialists in Germany, the British Union of Fascists, the Lapua Movement in Finland, Engelbert Dollfuß' austrofascists, the Iron Guard in Romania, and, most lately, George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party. More dubious is designating Franco's  Falange movement as fascist, which is based more on his connection with the Axis than with his actual ideology, which has too much Christian sensibility in it to be truly fascist.

Another dubiousness is George Lincoln Rockwell's American Nazi Party, which is often said not to be really Nazi — which needs a more restrictive definition than that for "fascist" — but just a standard right-wing American movement that used Nazi symbolism to attract attention. I believe some such criticism can be found in Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven's Escape from Hell [link].

Regardless of other truths about it, I continue to contend that fascism arose as a reaction to communism. In the interwar period, it became clear that liberal democracy was ineffective in resisting communism, as were most other government forms. On the simplest level, the fascists knew that if the communists used street thugs to break up meetings of their political opponents, they needed their own street thugs both to protect their own meetings and to break up communist meetings. Fascists had no qualms about using communist methods to fight communism.

And, at this point, due to Vulture's critique, I modify my previous assertion that "fascism is a tool" to "fascism is a political system, a dogma, a belief system, a guide to life, and a paradigm for reality, and can also be used as a tool."

But enough about all that. Clearly, there's more to fascism than I know, so I direct you to Vulture, who will teach us all about the phenomenon. This is from:

Fascism assumes that the universe is governed by strife. Does anybody else see a downside to such an assumption? [link]


I love Ex-Army, mostly because he always gives me something I can pedantically disagree with.
Some of Ex-Army’s endorsements are genuinely stupid, such as the one where he posted a cartoon which praised Pinochet as a cool guy:
That’s so stupid I don’t have time to prepare a remedial lesson about why Pinochet was not cool.  If time permits, I may post a short listicle on the topic: Top Ten Dick Moves That Proved Pinochet was an Ass-Clown, or something to that effect.
 But sometimes Ex-Army trolls me on some point that I had been meaning to address, so I have my remedial lesson all typed up and ready to go.  This post is one of those times.
So Ex-Army (and his cartooning partner, Baloo) have endorsed a guy called Doolittle who is seriously out of touch with what fascism is all about.
Doolittle is wrong because he claims fascism is just a tool, not a model.  If Doolittle has not lost himself in fascism, he has not practiced fascism at all.  If Doolittle has lost himself in fascism, he is telling an untruth – regardless of whether he believes what he is saying.
In fact, fascism is a paradigmatic model. If your thought accepts a critical mass of the axioms of fascism, part of your critical thinking ability dies and you brainwash yourself into believing the fascist propaganda.
(Propagandists who believe their own propaganda often make stupid mistakes.)
I encounter online fascists on various chans very frequently.
Online fascists have a very forceful rhetoric. The part that I most often run into is some poor soul pleading with the anonymous flames of the chans.
Poor soul: How can we stop life from sucking so much?
Chan Fascist: Stop asking for release from strife. There is only strife. There is only conflict. Seek only victory, rejoice only in glory. If you die nobly for OUR tribe, we will honor your memory; if you die heroically for our enemies, we might remember you as a worthy adversary, but if you don’t live and die for the glory of a tribe, you are beneath contempt and have no standing as a human being. 
Now, many channers are weak in real life, and some are not, but I always note that fascist channers use fascist rhetoric to express their contempt for the weak.
If Uncabob were here, he might claim that fascist channers have a “grandiose” self and a “devalued” self.
We can give a short summary, and an in-depth explanation, of fascism:

1. The first feature of Ur-Fascism is the cult of tradition.
2. Traditionalism implies the rejection of modernism.
3. Irrationalism also depends on the cult of action for action’s sake.
4. The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism.
5. Besides, disagreement is a sign of diversity.
6. Ur-Fascism derives from individual or social frustration.
7. To people who feel deprived of a clear social identity, Ur-Fascism says that their only privilege is the most common one, to be born in the same country.
8. The followers must feel humiliated by the ostentatious wealth and force of their enemies.
9. For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.
10. Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology, insofar as it is fundamentally aristocratic, and aristocratic and militaristic elitism cruelly implies contempt for the weak.
11. In such a perspective everybody is educated to become a hero.
12. Since both permanent war and heroism are difficult games to play, the Ur-Fascist transfers his will to power to sexual matters.
13. Ur-Fascism is based upon a selective populism, a qualitative populism, one might say.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak.
There's a lot more, mainly in a long essay by Umberto Eco dealing with fascism, and who should know better than he? He writes a hell of a novel, anyway. So continue to read here [link].
-------------
Quibcag: the illustration is a version of the Italy mascot from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).


Friday, July 29, 2016

Wisdom from Lao Tze and Bob Wallace

Have you noticed something about obvious facts? Either they're not obvious any more, or the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) hates them so much that they insist that they're not facts.

For example, anybody who pays attention knows that all these young Black men who are getting shot are getting shot by other young Black men, and the phenomenon has nothing to do with Whites or White racism. This is an obvious fact, so the MAG suppresses it, and tries to get us to visualize instead crowds of clean-cut young Black men on their way to church being shot down by the cast of Hee-Haw.

It's also pretty obvious that if you bomb hell out of a country — Afghanistan, Syria, wherever — and then invite the survivors to immigrate to your country to live, you're going to have trouble. Again, this doesn't fit the narrative of the MAG that diversity is supercool, so they scream loudly to drown the fact out.

So don't assume that anything is obvious. Don't assume that it's obvious to anybody, especially the young, because they're constantly being taught obviously wrong things, like diversity is strength, disarming farmers in South Dakota will prevent homicides in South Side Chicago, and that America should be ruled by a crazy old lady and her loyal sidekick, Huma.

Kipling spoke of obvious truths as being expressed by the "Gods of the copybook headings."[link] And in folklore, many of them are called proverbs, or simply "sayings."  And I'm not sure what the Chinese sages, like Confucius and Lao-Tze called them, but they wrote a lot of them down. This is from Bob Wallace's site, Unca Bob's Treehouse,  and deals with the truths from one of them, Lao-Tze:

Good Wine in Old Bottles

I am a believer in Natural Law. That is, there are laws in the universe, and human nature, and they can be discovered. You don't have to have a Ph.D. to discover them, or to understand if you follow them things will work out for you and society, and if you don't, instead bad things will happen.
Many of these laws have already been discovered thousands of years ago. Since Natural Laws are universal, you can find them in the moral codes of all societies and all religions.
Let's take a little book called the Tao Te Ching, a book written a few thousand years ago, by Lao Tze. I have a few translations of this book. Here are some of the sayings in it:
"Why are people starving?
Because the rulers eat up the money in taxes.
Therefore the people are starving." 
I have modern-day books by Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, both of whom have expanded greatly on that comment above. I have hundreds of books, with thousands of pages. Yet, those three lines, millennia old and true as can be, stay in my mind.
"Why are the people rebellious?
Because the rulers interfere too much.
Therefore they are rebellious." 
Well, that's certainly true, isn't it? The State never learns that lesson, does it? 

"The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be."
Hey, Lao Tze was a smart guy! Rules and regulations make people poor.
"The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers."
Yep. Not just the average joe, but the people in the State stealing people's money through misnamed "taxes."

Therefore, The sage does nothing and people govern themselves,
Provokes no one and people are peaceful,
Does not interfere and people prosper,
Is without desire and people fulfill themselves." 
Throw out all the Ph.D.s in Political Science from Harvard and Yale and Princeton and the places down. Instead, teach the sayings in this article starting in grade school.

"The more people are controlled, the less contented they become. 
But when will leaders understand the significance of this? " 
Apparently leaders will never understand it. 
“The best rulers are scarcely known by their subjects;
The next best are loved and praised;
The next are feared;
The next despised:
They have no faith in their people,
And their people become unfaithful to them.”
I think I’m not going to make any more comments. Lao Tze doesn’t really did them, since he’s self-explanatory. 
“When the best rulers achieve their purpose
Their subjects claim the achievement as their own..
“When harmonious relationships dissolve
Then respect and devotion arise;
When a nation falls to chaos
Then loyalty and patriotism are born.
“Those who wish to change the world
According with their desire
Cannot succeed.
“The world is shaped by the Way;
It cannot be shaped by the self.
Trying to change it, you damage it;
Trying to possess it, you lose it.
“Powerful men are well advised not to use violence,
For violence has a habit of returning;
Thorns and weeds grow wherever an army goes,
And lean years follow a great war.
“A general is well advised
To achieve nothing more than his orders:
Not to take advantage of his victory.
Nor to glory, boast or pride himself;
To do what is dictated by necessity,
But not by choice.
“For even the strongest force will weaken with time,
And then its violence will return, and kill it.
“Armies are tools of violence;
They cause men to hate and fear.
The sage will not join them.
His purpose is creation;
Their purpose is destruction.
“Weapons are tools of violence,
Not of the sage;
He uses them only when there is no choice,
And then calmly, and with tact,
For he finds no beauty in them.
“Whoever finds beauty in weapons
Delights in the slaughter of men;
And who delights in slaughter
Cannot content himself with peace.
“So slaughters must be mourned
And conquest celebrated with a funeral.
“To reduce someone's influence, first expand it;
To reduce someone's force, first increase it;
To overthrow someone, first exalt them;
To take from someone, first give to them.
“This is the subtlety by which the weak overcome the strong:
Fish should not leave their depths,
And swords should not leave their scabbards.
“Well established hierarchies are not easily uprooted;
Closely held beliefs are not easily released;
So ritual enthralls generation after generation.
“When government is lazy and informal
The people are kind and honest;
When government is efficient and severe
The people are discontented and deceitful.
“Who recognizes his limitations is healthy;
Who ignores his limitations is sick.
The sage recognizes this sickness as a limitation.
And so becomes immune.
“When people have nothing more to lose,
Then revolution will result.
“Do not take away their lands,
And do not destroy their livelihoods;
If your burden is not heavy then they will not shirk it.
“When rulers take grain so that they may feast,
Their people become hungry;
When rulers take action to serve their own interests,
Their people become rebellious;
When rulers take lives so that their own lives are maintained,
Their people no longer fear death.” 
Who needs all those books when you have this?
--------------
Quibcag: Yep, it's Kagura of Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul"), pretending to be Chinese. She does a good job.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

Hillary for Looter-in-Chief

It's been pointed out by several people so far, but I'll reiterate:

1. Trump didn't ask, in reality or in jest, for Russia to hack for those e-mails. He asked for them to look to see if they already had them, and if so, to maybe share them with us.

2. It was a joke, in the usual Trump style, and all the Dems and liberals and newsclowns who pretend not to know that are totally disingenuous and hypocritical.

3. The joke depends on the fact that Hillary was criminally irresponsible in keeping the e-mails where they could be hacked. Something they don't mention.

4. If Hillary was telling the truth, and there was nothing classified on her e-mails, and they were about yoga classes and wedding planning, then asking Russia to look for them has to be a joke, since they are harmless.

5. If she was lying, the treason lies in her behavior, not in somebody joking about it.

Are we clear on all that now? Good.

Next. There is a Putin-Trump connection, but it lies solely in the fact that Putin is a patriotic leader who puts Russia's interests ahead of those of other nations, and is vigorous and firm about it, while Trump is a patriotic leader who intends, if elected, to put America's interests ahead of those of other nations. Two guys like that can find common ground and work for their own nations, and work together to serve the interests of both. Most obviously in this case in defeating ISIS, which both want to do.

Hillary, contrariwise, seems to want to pick a fight with Russia, and instead go it alone in the Middle East, using Muslim "allies" instead. This is true of a lot of liberals and Democrats, who have been blindly anti-Russian ever since Russia threw the communists out. It broke all the liberals' hearts, and they can't forgive Putin for presiding over an anti-communist Russia.

Speaking of that, if you'll remember, when the communists were thrown out, the Wall Street crowd moved in to loot Russia — you know, Soros and that gang — and after a little initial heroism, Yeltsin unfortunately cooperated with the looting.

And now we're being looted. Jobs gone, factories dismantled, horrible trade deficits, AND Hillary is planning to bring in God knows how many third-world "refugees" to eat up the rest.

As the quibcag suggests, all our recent candidates have been Yeltsin figures, eager to help with the looting. Except for Trump, who is, we hope, a Putin figure. This from Takimag:

Putin 1 - Internation Vampires 0

The accusation that Putin has a connection to Trump, so widely repeated now by the corporate media and the Democrats with whom they coordinate, is nothing new. It also came up in the primaries. Republican political operatives and the neoconservative intelligentsia, unable to understand the threat or accept the repudiation of their failed policies, claimed that Trump’s rise was somehow aided by Russia, and that his online supporters were “Kremlin-funded trolls.”
This last charge is repeated even now. And Hillary Clinton makes dark hints about “celebrations in the Kremlin” if Trump were to win. His prudence and restraint in wanting to avoid war with Russia are presented as “evidence” that he is “Putin’s agent” by the same reckless political and foreign-policy establishment that has brought one humiliation after another to the United States over the past three decades.
There’s more than just jingoistic hysteria behind the many accusations that Trump is “Putin’s agent.” In a poetic way, this is true. The international interests that financially wrecked Russia in the ’90s are doing the same to the United States now. Putin stopped them in Russia and Trump is promising to stop them in America. They recognize Trump as the enemy and slander in the only style they know—the paranoid style.
Trump was once blamed for praising Putin’s performance. But he was right. Pensions, salaries, GDP, and the value of gold reserves in Russia have risen greatly since 1999—in some cases tenfold or more. This was while both inflation and the debt-to-GDP ratio declined by orders of magnitude. The rise in living standard under Putin is reflected in longer life expectancy: It had dropped to a third-world level during the 1990s, to around 55–57, and has now risen back up to 70 by most measures. Birthrates have normalized and recently overtaken the United States. Visit Moscow and you will see infrastructure, buildings, and development that are more impressive than those found in any American city—though the same could be said, of course, for many other countries now.
Read the rest here:
http://takimag.com/article/putin_1_internation_vampires_0_costin_alamariu/print#ixzz4Fkld5siE
------------
Quibcag: The girl isn't actually a hand puppet, but she looks like one. She's from Midori Days (美鳥の日々 Midori no Hibi.