Monday, November 28, 2016

Here we go again

I swiped this graphic from Vulture of Critique, and you probably can see it bigger and more clearly at his site here [link]. Of course the talking heads on TV are pointing out that it's still a mystery as to what could possibly motivate a teenage Muslim Somali refugee to try to kill a bunch of us with a car and a butcher knife. Now that he's dead, of course, we'll never know, but it was no doubt either racism or Islamophobia, as you can see from the article above. Seriously, if you were in Somalia, and you couldn't find a Christian church to pray in, wouldn't you run your car into a crowd of Somalis and then attack them with a butcher knife? Of course you would. It's only natural. This is sarcasm.

Read Vulture's account of all this here [link].
Diversity is Chaos writes this [link].
And this question from SPBDL [link].

Now, then, will you SJW's out there explain to me how the beautiful diversity we enjoy by welcoming Muslims offsets the death and mayhem we suffer from them once they get here?

Oh, and here we have SJW idiots calling for gun control because the killer used a car and a knife. [link] There were no guns there, but there was a Muslim.

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Matt Bailey puts things in perspective....

And it fits into a quibcag, which features, of course, the girls of K-On! (けいおん! Keion!) 

Wednesday, November 23, 2016

Matt Bailey has been reading Gibbon, or Poul Anderson, or something like that.

Matt summarizes our situation pretty well below, and all I want to add is that we — "we" meaning our government — already has an empire, what with our having troops stationed practically everywhere, and bombing going on in an unbelievable number of places, either by us or our proxies. Or maybe a better word would be "hegemony," since we don't rule these places directly. If God-Emperor Trump does things right, we'll end up with a more modest, real empire, limited to our basic sphere of influence, and not incorporating incompatible ethnic groups. I mean, Canada would make more sense as a group of American provinces than Iraq or Yemen, right?

Anyhow, here's Matt:

I'm just gonna throw this out: All nations run by democracy pass through the stage where the politicians have expanded their vote-buying projects too much, where too much of the population is parasitical, voting for bread or circuses out of a (diminishing) public coffer. Democracy is no protector of life, liberty, and property when the masses are rushing madcap to vote all those things away. At that point your civilization can either fall to ruin and absorption by other nations, as many Greek city-states did, or it can *rise* to empire under someone with the strength to reign in the masses, as did Rome. Look here, I've seen worse starts for a royal dynasty. Probably rule well for several generations before they start producing Neros and they have to be replaced. 
Look at your blue-haired "Goths and Vandals" in the streets and tell me we don't need an iron man on a golden throne to just make them sit down and shut up. (Should be easy, unlike the original Goths and Vandals these are vegan twerps with no appreciable testosterone...)
AND, worse comes to worst: "The beauty of rule by kings is that changing the government only takes a sharp knife or a few drops of poison"-Matt Bailey
Quibcag: First llustration found on Pinterest. The second I assembled from a meme going around with Trump as Caesar plus the USA mascot from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).

Monday, November 21, 2016


I haven't seen the musical Hamilton, and I have no intention to. If, somehow, I did, I suppose I'd just boo during the whole performance, both in solidarity with Mike Pence, and in reaction to the fact that, as I understand it, the whole cast is nonWhite. For some reason, that reminds me of The Terror of Tinytown*. Heh. Well, I haven't seen it, but I still suspect that it doesn't cover one aspect of Hamilton's thinking — He was a hard-core immigration restrictionist, making Trump look like a starry-eyed open-border liberal.

As is so often the case, the greatest journalist of our time, Steve Sailer (you can contribute to him here [link]) has dug into the background of all this, and found a delightful piece by Alexander Hamilton, partially quoted in the quibcag, making all the same points that we on the alt-right have been making for what seems like forever: Immigrants should not be able to vote immediately upon becoming citizens. There should be a waiting period of years, and maybe they never should be allowed to vote. Immigration should be restricted to our cultural and genetic brothers and cousins. Europeans only, with advantages given to the nations whose people already form a large part of our population — Brits, primarily. There should be less immigration rather than more, so we won't be overwhelmed. He quotes Jefferson to the effect that immigrants tend to bring all their culture and folkways with them, including a preference for the form of government they left behind them. And he points out, again partially quoted in the quibcag, that history shows that haphazardly granting citizenship to every rag tag and bobtail tends to destroy one's civilization.

And this is all written in reaction to President Jefferson's policy to call for more and more immigration. Hamilton refutes the desirability of this by using Jefferson's own writings against him. Damn clever. Now, it is written in the rather turgid (to us) 18th Century prose style, but it's worth struggling through. It starts:

Hamilton Denounces Jefferson for Putting Immigrants on the Path to Citizenship

Saturday, November 19, 2016

The Last Time....

Found on Reddit:

The Right Man for the Job

What more can I say? I swiped this from Vulture of Critique [link]. He uses it to illustrate a post on dissident physics, but I'm using it as a stand-alone thought-provoker. The strip is, of course XKCD

The Destruction of Motherhood

One of the most self-destructive things the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) has urged on us is the perverse notion that motherhood just isn't enough for women, and is actually rather contemptible in contrast with the things that "career women" do, no matter how useless and make-work these careers might be.

Hillary is an excellent example of this sort of thing. She allegedly went the abortion route a few times until somebody told her that having a kid would make her more likable and politically viable, so Chelsea came along. Luckily, there were Arkansas state troopers available to bring her up. And other than that, she's led a totally pointless life, having a "political career" that would have been impossible without her marriage to a consummate politician. And the actual political positions she's held — Senator and Secretary of State — would have been performed much better by some mediocre male politician, like, say, Joe Biden. And no doubt he would have performed better than she did as a presidential candidate, too.

Some role model for your daughters, eh? Have a pointless "career," and don't have any kids, or, if you just have to have kids, have them brought up by some third-world nanny or just be latchkey kids and let the TV bring them up.

And Curt Doolittle also points out that our current social structure has led to women forgetting how to mother:


Western women are losing the art of motherhood and parenting which was transferred intergenerationally through direct experience, just like the military responsibility of men. Women may no longer have either the knowledge or the confidence to mother children. So not only have we destroyed the family, not only have we infantilized our children for multiple generations, but we have destroyed motherhood, fatherhood, responsibility for the commons and the nation. So are we nothing more than decreasingly civilized, decreasingly domesticated, irrelevant individual animals herded by the government for tax revenue? And for what purpose? So that women could enter the workplace and increase the scope and scale of government? so that we could delay entry into the workplace and lengthen retirement out of it? So that we must immigrate hordes of the undomesticated underclasses and commit genocide against our people? To undo all western civilization for no other purpose than to justify a school system and tax system that serves as little more than socially and developmentally destructive day care?

The alternative is simply to restore ourselves to rulership, specialize in rulership, and breed in the luxury of rulership.
Quibcag: Illustration found on Pinterest. The kids seem to have wolf tails. I don't know why.

Trump Even Inspires Our Friends in Airstrip One

I'm against all other countries except my own. That sounds polemic, but in practice it's not. What it means is that I put our interests above the interests of all other countries. For the most part, interestingly, our interests and their interests coincide. They usually differ only incrementally and occasionally. Most disputes are trivial, really, when you look at the commonalities. Fishing rights, trade agreements, tiny islands or other small territories in dispute. Countries are like people. Reasonable ones seldom come to blows, and settle their differences long before they result in violence. We remember the exceptions, of course, because they're so spectacular.

So, in effect, and in practice, I'm not against all other countries except my own. I want to get along with them, settle disputes peacefully, and make the most of our common interests, of which there are many.

Sean Gabb seems to be thinking sort of like that. He sees that Brexit and the Trump ascendancy are similar, and hopes that both lead to more such things in America, Britain, and Europe. He has a love for his country and a benign attitude towards America and other countries, and wishes the best for them. This is from The Libertarian Alliance [link]:

Donald Trump and English Patriotism:
An Unexpected Wrinkle
by Sean Gabb
(14th November 2016)
The election last week of Donald Trump took nearly everyone by surprise. For some of us, it was a moment of joy, for others a terrible shock. I was in the first category. The British Government was in the second. From Theresa May downward, the Ministers had spent a year heaping scorn on Mr Trump. The scale and nature of their insults will not be quickly forgotten. Their earliest punishment appears to be that they have been told to approach Mr Trump only through Nigel Farage. I have no doubt there will be other humiliations.
Part of me is delighted. I like Donald Trump. I like Nigel Farage. Even if she is better than David Cameron, I remain suspicious of and hostile to Mrs May. Let her and her ministers eat dirt for a few weeks, and then come to a more reasonable view of British interests. All this does, however, leave part of me uncomfortable. This article, I must warn you, will be more than usually solipsistic. On the other hand, I have always tried to be intellectually honest, and I feel obliged at least to describe my present difficulty.
During the twenty years or so till last Tuesday, I held a set of opinions that – I always grant – may have been wrong, but that were internally consistent. They went something like this:
The fundamental interests of every country are the same. These are to give as much freedom and security to their citizens as local circumstances will allow, while living at peace with all other countries. What disturbs this view of the world is that interest and ability do not always coincide. The United States has been able to dominate the world, and it has. Britain is no longer able to do this, but has been able to act above its inherent power through becoming a satellite of the United States. I found both these facts irritating before 1989. After then, America became the home of political correctness and neoconservatism. For me, therefore, America became The Great Satan. Any British Government committed to our fundamental interests should begin by breaking off relations with the United States. In the meantime, I was even willing to see membership of the European Union as a useful counterweight to American power.
I do not know what a Trump Presidency will be really like. But it is possible that the opinions I have just summarised are suddenly obsolete. It is possible that, within a few weeks, America will cease being The Great Satan, and become the seat of the God-Emperor-Daddy. I already find myself in the same position as leftists did towards France in 1789, or towards Russia in 1917. It may, then, be that you can strip out all the Powellite rhetoric, and I shall be revealed as nothing more than a dissident Anglospherist. My only difference with the people I have been denouncing for a generation is nothing more than that I want a different American Empire.
There is some truth in this. The government of my own country is now at the head of the neoconservative interest. I shall certainly be relieved if stiff orders come out of Washington, and Theresa May and Boris Johnson go scuttling off to Moscow to patch up their differences with Mr Putin. But, if the facts are changed, my principles are not.
No hard reset button was pressed last week in America. The country will not revert to what it was supposed to become in the 1780s. America will remain the most powerful country in the world, with interests on every continent. It may conceive and pursue these in a more rational manner. But its interests are unlikely to become perfectly aligned with those of my own country. For this reason, our interests depend, in the long term, on close relations with France and Germany, and an adequate relationship with Russia. If we can add to this friendly relations with America, that will be a bonus.
I turn to the matter of what Mr Trump is already doing to Mrs May. For a long time, the British Establishment has been a wholly-owned franchise of the military-industrial complex in America, taken in its widest sense. British Governments are neoconservative because that is what Washington wanted. They are politically correct for the same reason. If American pressure is not to be removed, but merely changed in a better direction, I shall be grateful for that. I shall be grateful in the short term. In the longer term, I still want full independence. I will put up with a more sensible master when his bailiffs are told to go easy on the whip. The final ambition remains no master at all.
I turn now to how I view the “Anglosphere.” There is no doubt that England and America are rather in the position of Siamese twins. We share a language. We share a culture. Speaking for myself, I have as many American friends as English. When I go abroad, and am among Americans, we always find ourselves part of a single group, almost forgetting differences of passport, and sharing jokes about the foreigners we are among. Always taking account of our different weight, what was done to the world after 1989 was a joint British-American enterprise. The intellectual resistance to this has been no less a joint British-American enterprise – again taking account of our different weights. Libertarians and conservatives in our two countries have not merely worked together over the past few decades – we have belonged to the same movement, and we have worked against the same enemy, though in two different locations. My American friends rejoiced when the British Establishment got a bloody nose last June. We now rejoice that Mr Trump is to be the next President. Our struggle has been, and is, the same. Our victories are their victories. Their victories are ours.
I am not sure if I have made myself as clear as I want to be. Perhaps I need to think more about the events of this year before I can become as self-assured again as I have been for the past third of a century. It remains, however, that I am delighted that the uncertainty I describe has become necessary. All those American leftists last week, their faces like burst balloons, were an early Christmas present. The strained faces of Theresa May and her ministers are of exactly the same kind.
I look forward to Mrs May’s first trip to Washington next year, and I shall have a good laugh when she prostrates herself in the appropriate manner before the God-Emperor-Daddy. It will be a victory for me and everyone else in the world who wants the best for England and America in particular, and for a suffering humanity in general.
Quibcag: The USA and UK mascot girls are from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).

Thursday, November 17, 2016

Curt Doolittle on the Compatibility of the Christian Myth with Natural Law, and the Incompatibility of Judaism and Islam

On social media, Curt Doolittle wrote:

Assuming you teach Christianity as myth rather than history, by and large it's compatible with natural law. But not judaism. And not Islam.
Intrigued, I wrote:
I'd enjoy it if you'd elaborate on that.

Curt replied:

Well, if by Christianity we are talking about the content of teh bible, and in particular of the new testament, then this is different than the doctrines of the church.

1) The ten commandments enumerate what we call natural law, or property rights, prohibiting envy, deceit, interference in others contract, theft, and murder - thereby preserving the value of cooperation.
The nuclear family is the basic unit of social production, and the costs of it must be born by all of us in every generation for the good of all.
Invest heavily in the creation of opportunity and insurance of others even in the face of offense and rejection by treating non kin with the tolerance and care of kin, in order to increase the number of those with whom we can cooperate with us, just as we cooperate with kin.
Impulsivity, Selfishness, Arrogance and Hubris await us at every moment and it is only through constant practice at patience that we learn enough about the world to avoid impulsivity, selfishness, arrogance, and hubris.
The state - the aristocracy and our enemies - cannot be resisted by the force of the weak, but the weak can insure one another independently of the state - we are weak, but if we are many, and we treat one another as kin, we will be equally as strong in resisting the state. If we are not dependent on the state, but dependent upon one another, we create the power of a state without a state.
Regular prayer for advice to an all knowing 'father' will teach you to be as honest with yourself, and once honest with yourself honest with others.
Reserve regular time to contemplate this law together, and seek to apply and improve it in daily life.
There is no law higher than this. And any that says or does otherwise is not only to be mistrusted, but shunned, and if necessary, punished.

2) most of the babylonian myths are stated in slave language, but still informative. Read in parallel to the greek myths they're the lower class version for the weak, just as the greek myths for the strong.

3) the lives of the saints tell us about how to extend that kinship love.

4) most of the catholic encyclopedia provides an exceptional history of europe.

5) the church dogma is reducible to "we will ostracize you if you don't believe this nonsesnse as your price of insurance by the insurer of last resort: the church". The rest is all drivel.

6) the content of a religion varies, but the method of constructing a religion through the evocation of the elation we feel from the pack response in every walk of life remains constant. All members of all religions think that it is the content that provides the elation and spirituality but it is merely the pack response produced by the rituals. We can judge the content of the message separately. Christianity's content tends to be compatible with natural (cooperative) law.

Then I added:

Very informative. Could you add something about how Judaism and Islam don't have the same effect? I'd like to make a blog post out of this.

Curt did just that:

It is not obvious, even to those who have followed me for a while, that using propertarian analysis is quite simple if you simple look for changes in the composition of capital by volutnary or involuntary, fully informed or not fully informed, truthful or untruthful, warrantied or not warrantied, transfers. So my criticisms aren't arbitrary.

Christianity consists mostly of church manufactured dogma for the purpose of persisting authoritarian rule, by preserving the ignorance of the population, but suggesting, directing, and commanding them to act in accorance with natural law with one another, using readings from the text. This is, from what I understrand, why prosperity increases with the distribution of christianity: trust extension through constant repetition and virtue signaling.

However, we are often the victims of the fact that the church held a near monopoly on literacy, and just as Bede manufactured a history of England, the church manufactured a history of its own over-importance. The reason being that the church/state divide was always present - a division of houses of government. So the church's message of submission must be retained in context of the nobility's caprice, aggression, and violence - a constant battle between two extremes.

Once literacy arrives via the printing press, and the bible is available in the vulgate, and other books are available as competitors to the dogma, christianity does not consist of the church falsehoods and authoritarianism, but the expansion of christian virtues. (The so called "germanicization of christianity".) These virtues combine with the rise of the hansa civilization's gradual middle class expansion, and the expansion of the population after the decline of the plagues. The power of the church declines. And the number of educated preachers increases (my family members among them in England). We see the professionalization of the craft of teaching rather than the expansion of the church bureaucracy.

When I refer to christianity, I am referring to the german professional era rather than latin bureaucratic era. The latin era which I consider lingering only in third world countries. And moreover, that the decline of the church has largely to do with the failure to complete the transition of the role of the priesthood to professional teachers that not only retain myth and ritual, but that teach what the common people need to be taught in order to oppose the (evil) religion of the totaliatrian state: fitness, virtues, friendship, marriage, parenting, household management, money, accounting, economics, natural law, history, and the conduct of WAR. And to provide banking services that have been monpolized by the state against the interest of the people. This is the reason for the failure of the church to preserve intergeneraitonal relevance, while the state simply "manufactures skilled labor for the tax-mines".

Judaism is poly-moral. In other words, there are different moral standards for in-group and out-group members. The general strategy is to contribute nothing to the commons, nothing to the host, but to extract and hold within the clan (tribe) every calorie possible. It is perfectly acceptable to create negative externalities, to 'cheat', and it is part of the law that permits them to - and encourages them to.

So where christianity tries to increase their numbers by low cost purchase of options to build trust, judaism tries to accumulate capital by parasitic exploitation of the commons and host.

islamism is immoral. it seeks and spreads obedience and ignorance. it asks not for christian productivity and trust expansion to all, and instead of jewish parasitism, seeks expansionary conquest and predation - the expansion of mandatory ignorance. And it does so by fascinating means: the promise of respect for submission (non-contribution) rather than contribution. Islam sperads the curse of ignoranc stagnation illiteracy and impulsivity and weaponizes reproduction. it is not a primitive religion. This is the mistake we make. it is a vrery sophisticated means of spreading ignorance via the expansion of a lower class that is antagonistic to any competitior that falsifies its false promise by higher correspondence with reality.

Once we have literacy and have escaped the church's imposition of ignorance and submission against the population, we are left with the current state of these three abrahamic religions:

(Reformed) Christian expansion of trust and production.
Jewish expansion of deceit and parasitism
Islamic expansion of ignorance and predation.

If that is not a damnation of all that exists in all three then I don't know what is. But we have largely reformed chirstianity. And the only step remaiing is to redirect our churches to their role as professional teachers of intertemporal knowledge that is a competitor to the predatory education of the state.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.

Is this guy good, or what?
Quibcag: The girls from The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu) , dressed up as nuns.
After reading the above, Katie Boundary replied:

"The Ten Commandments enumerate natural law..."

No. Natural law says nothing about a sabbath, or honoring your parents, or idolatry, or a lord with a name, much less the concept of taking that lord's name in vain. There are about 4 commandments that overlap with natural law.

"...or property rights..."

Only one commandment deals with property rights. One. Out of ten.

"...prohibiting.... deceit"

Nope. That particular prohibition is against perjury. More broadly interpreted, it also prohibits false accusations.

"...interference in others' contracts..."

Nothing about that in ANY of the commandments. Nothing at all.

"...thereby preserving the value of cooperation"

The TC do not do this. At all.

"The Nuclear family is the basic unit of social production..."

Wrong. The nuclear family is not a unit at all. It is an arbitrary and artificial modern construct and has nothing to do with production of any kind.

"...and the costs of it..."

The nuclear family is as cost-free as any other living arrangement.

Wednesday, November 16, 2016

A Quick Quibcag on Nationalism

I liked this. It's from the comments section at Vox Day's site [link]. I'm thinking of also quibcagging just the last part: What do you think?

I still consider myself a Nationalist Libertarian. Which for me means 'Go with Liberty, until Liberty may adversely effect the Nation, then go with the Nation'.

The Superhero Complex, Again

That superhero complex again, indeed. And make that a wrongheaded superhero who gets confused and rescues robbers from bank guards. In their defense, superheroes, busybodies as they may be, at least put their own bodies at risk when they crusade around saving the world. Not so with those with the superhero complex. They almost never risk their own lives, but rather want farm boys to join the military and risk theirs. And such farm boys will sign up every time. Our neocons and liberals definitely have the superhero complex. Right now they want to save A from B in the Middle East. Or maybe B from A. The deeper thinkers want to organize some kind of C to fight both of them. That seems to be the way you create such things as Al Qaeda and Isis, and, for all I know, Hamas and Fatah and the Rotary Club.

What throws you off is the fact that sometimes, when one country invades another to change something, it actually does result in changes for the better. The chances are very much against this, of course, and sometimes the invader gets burned by the results. Our sort-of invasion that opened Japan up in 1853 was the beginning of the modernization of Japan, which was fine for the Japanese, but which finally resulted in one hell of a war with them almost a century later.

Most of the time, no. The US has been playing superhero for a long time now, our to put down the bad guys in two World Wars, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, etc., etc., and it can be argued, at least, that every one of those actions resulted in a worse mess than we started with.

Now, we just elected a president who seems not to have a superhero complex. And many people just can't stand it, among which is crazy old Senator McCain. This is from

McCain to Trump: Don't You Dare Make Peace with Russia!

Sit down. This is going to shock you. (Not). We reported yesterday on the telephone call between US president-elect Trump and Russian president Putin, where the current and future presidents discussed the need to set aside differences and look to more constructive future relations. With serious observers of this past year's increasing tensions between US and Russia openly worrying about a nuclear war breaking out, with some 300,000 NATO troops placed on Russia's border, with sanctions hurting average businesspersons on both sides, a normal person might look at the slight thaw in Cold War 2.0 as an early positive indicator of the end of the Obama Era.
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) begs to differ.

A-ko Magami, a true superhero, characteristically kicks a
hole in a giant robot.
In a blistering statement he released today responding to the Trump/Putin telephone call, Sen. McCain condemned any efforts by President-elect Trump to find common ground with Putin.

Any claim by Putin that he wants to improve relations with the US must be vigorously opposed, writes McCain. He explains:

We should place as much faith in such statements as any other made by a former KGB agent who has plunged his country into tyranny, murdered his political opponents, invaded his neighbors, threatened America’s allies, and attempted to undermine America’s elections. 

Interesting that Republican McCain has taken to using the Hillary Clinton campaign line (the one that lost her the election) that somehow the Russians were manipulating the US electoral process. The claim was never backed up by facts and Hillary's claim that some 17 US intelligence agencies agreed with her was shown to be a dangerous and foolish lie.

Why is Putin not to be trusted, according to McCain?

Vladimir Putin has rejoined Bashar Assad in his barbaric war against the Syrian people with the resumption of large-scale Russian air and missile strikes in Idlib and Homs. Another brutal assault on the city of Aleppo could soon follow.

What McCain doesn't say is that unlike US troops in Syria, the Russians are invited by the Syrian government and operate according to international law. Oh yes, and they are also fighting al-Qaeda and ISIS, which has sought to overthrow Assad for the past five years.

Maybe McCain is just really sensitive after meeting with al-Qaeda and ISIS in Syria?

As rumors swirl from Washington about neocons sniffing out top jobs in the incoming administration, it would serve president-elect Trump well to reflect on he true nature of the neocon beast...

Copyright © 2016 by RonPaul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.
Please donate to the Ron Paul Institute
Quibcag: This is illustrated by my favorite Japanese superhero, A-ko, also known as Eiko (pronounced the same way). She is one tough cookie, and it's no surprise, considering that her parents are Superman and Wonder Woman. (See illustration. Mom and dad have some coffee while A-ko departs for school. Also see her in action in the gif above.) The A-ko anime is thirty years old, which accounts for its somewhat retro drawing style. You can read about it here [link]. Unlike Senator McCain, though, A-ko only fights when she or one of her friends is attacked. She doesn't go around looking for trouble. Hillary would hate her. It's said that Hillary was especially fond of Captain Janeway of Voyager, who famously stuck her nose into the affairs of every planet in the Delta Quadrant.

And now you can watch an A-ko movie. The fun starts a little past four minutes, after the outer space and bombing sequence, which you should watch to understand the background. This is Japanese, so it's risqué in parts, but rather innocently so. Enjoy.

Monday, November 14, 2016

B'Man or Vulture?

Some interesting stuff over at Vulture of Critique in response to B'Man's Revolt [link] (Both on my blogrolls); they're taking opposite positions on what to expect from Trump. B'Man states:

White people, on the whole, however, have taken their eyes off of the real problem (which is not immigration, jobs shipped overseas, etc). The real problem is jewish power and control of every aspect of our lives. Remove that influence and the other problems take care of themselves as sanity rules again without their influence.

Vulture goes on to reply, in part:

Trump is Establishment enough to get cooperation from the old-boys’-club that runs the ReTHUGlican Parody – excuse me, the Republican Party. Guys like Pence are old-school Establishment. No Deplorable Gunslinger would ever have voted for Pence as the main man of the ticket. But Deplorable Gunslingers are willing to let Pence ride in their posse so long as Trump vouches for Pence.
The thing about gunslingers, though, is that they don’t follow leaders, they ride in posses. They know that Trump is moderate. The Christian Gunslingers know that Trump is not pious. The Veteran Gunslingers know the Trump never wore the uniform. They all know that they are much farther to the political “right” than Trump is. They are not going to stop believing in right-wing ideals. They are rejoicing because Trump has suddenly moved the Overton Window far to the right. If Trump becomes political poison, the Deplorable Gunslingers are not going to suddenly hand over their shooting irons and beg for mercy.
Read the whole post, and see an intriguing photo of some rednecks, here [link].

Others have noticed the same thing about the Overton Window. National Review writes this [link].
Quibcag: What better illustration for Deplorable Gunslingers than this from Gunslinger Girl (ガンスリンガー・ガール)?

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Progressives Regressing

The quibcag is only a partial quote. You can find the whole thing at Had Enough Therapy here [link]. I'm putting it up for you all to use on social media when "progressives" behave this way, and believe me, you'll get lots of opportunities, because that's all they've got left these days, except for their flat-out lies, of course. It's illustrated by Urabe of Mysterious Girlfriend X [link], who is being derisive and indulging in mockery in a distinct Japanese way, but sticking her tongue out and pulling down on the lower eyelid under her eye to expose the redness. This is called "Akanbe" [link]. You are free to use the quibcag and akanbe, if you think you can pull it off.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

A Nobel Peace Prize for Trump, if Obama Hasn't Cheapened it Too Much

Since Trump has already, long before even taking office, managed to turn us away from war with Russia, reversing Hillary's intent, is it too early to award him the Nobel Peace Prize? I mean, Obama got one for being Black, so preventing what would probably have become a nuclear war would seem at least as qualifying.

And if that isn't enough, maybe we could award it to him for wiping out two malignant political crime families — the Bushes and the Clintons — in a single presidential campaign. That's like putting an end to the Corleones and the Tataglias in a single operation. 

But, seriously, the war threat was a very real thing, with Hillary planning for a no-fly zone over Syria (which would be like the Russians imposing a no-fly zone over Newfoundland), and calling for NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, which would be like... well, you can think of the analogy for yourself.

The reason for this contrast between Trump and Clinton is that Trump doesn't have to prove how tough he is, while Clinton of course would see a nuclear war as just another glass ceiling to be broken. She allegedly talked Bill into much of the aggressive bombing that he conducted during the first (and Lord be praised, last) Clinton Administration.

The following is from

How the God-Emperor ALREADY saved the world

I have spoken to several Europeans in the aftermath of the US presidential election, and they've all been very curious about what happened, and how it was possible for Donald Trump to win when everything they had heard from their medias indicated that he was a) very, very bad, and, b) certain to lose by a huge margin.

Of course, they were even more deluded than the US electorate, as the European media took the already misleading US narrative and exaggerated it, just as the US media does the same thing in reverse.

What is interesting is their reaction to finding out that Hillary Clinton supported NATO membership for both Ukraine and Georgia. It can be best described as "aghast". Learning about Hillary's foreign policy on Russia also suffices to convince them that Donald Trump was, in fact, the vastly preferable candidate. One man even said, "well, no wonder he won, given that he was clearly running against a madwoman."

Unlike Americans, Europeans take the idea of war with Russia very, very seriously and understand it is something to be absolutely avoided at almost all costs. There are still millions of people who remember the brutal swath that the Red Army cut across Eastern Europe on its way to Berlin. They also understand that a considerable quantity of the natural gas that heats their homes comes from Russia, and that the first consequence of any military action will be for that pipeline to be shut off.

Very, very few Americans or Europeans understood just how serious the danger that Hillary Clinton posed to the world was. First, she supported NATO membership for Ukraine:

The former U.S Secretary of State is a far more vocal critic of Vladimir Putin than her party rival Bernie Sanders. She has argued that Ukraine deserves more military equipment and training and financial aid (the latter dependent on the government’s ability to carry out the necessary reforms). The U.S. Democrat’s frontrunner for the White House has also urged other E.U. states to be more committed to sanctions and has supported the strengthening of ties between NATO and Ukraine (unlike Bernie Sanders who sees NATO expansion as a provocation against Russia).
Second, she supported NATO membership for Georgia, who had already started and lost a brief war with Russia after being encouraged to join NATO in 2008.
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Washington will continue assistance to Georgia in the field of security and defense and supports country’s NATO membership. The Secretary spoke at the opening of the U.S.-Georgia Strategic Partnership Commission plenary session in Batumi, Georgia. Georgia is strategic partner of U.S. as regards the issues of regional and world security. She stressed that increase in combat readiness of Georgia and matching it with NATO standards continues within the framework of agreement reached by both countries’ presidents, Gruziya Online reports.
Third, the woman who would likely have been Secretary of Defense under Hillary favored direct military intervention in Syria and called for spending $3 billion on military assistance for Ukraine.
The woman expected to run the Pentagon under Hillary Clinton said she would direct U.S. troops to push President Bashar al-Assad’s forces out of southern Syria and would send more American boots to fight the Islamic State in the region. Michele Flournoy, formerly the third-ranking civilian in the Pentagon under President Barack Obama, called for “limited military coercion” to help remove Assad from power in Syria, including a “no bombing” zone over parts of Syria held by U.S.-backed rebels. Flournoy, and several of her colleagues at the Center for New American Security, or CNAS, have been making the case for sending more American troops into combat against ISIS and the Assad regime than the Obama administration has been willing to commit.
Meanwhile, Russia has consistently warned, since 2008 when Ukraine submitted a Membership Action Plan and Georgia indicated its desire to do so, that it would respond to any such actions by invading and conquering both countries. This is just one of the many implicit warnings delivered.
Admission of Ukraine and Georgia to NATO will place Europe on the verge of a large-scale crisis, Russia’s Permanent Representative to NATO added. "One can’t imagine the situation when those countries [Ukraine and Georgia] keep cherishing the hope to join NATO and the alliance really plans to admit them, as this would explode the situation and put Europe on the brink of a crisis, whose size and scale can’t be imagined today," Grushko said.
The warnings are not, as some foolish neocons insist, mere bluff. Russia has already invaded both countries for much smaller provocations than NATO membership. I strongly suspect that the troop movements that were taking place on both sides, which combined consisted of nearly one million troops, indicate that if Hillary Clinton had been elected President, Putin would have ordered the invasion and occupation of Ukraine before January.
I think the idea was for Crimea to become a NATO base as part of this ongoing campaign to surround Russia which has clearly been in the works now for the last 25 years despite the fact that when the Soviet Union fell in 1991 and even before that, the end of the Warsaw Pact, there were assurances that were given to Russia that NATO would not move eastward. Twelve new countries have been added to NATO since that time and Ukraine would have been number 13 and would have been actually I believe the most dangerous from Russian point of view.... I think that it is clear that the United States is pursuing what it views as its interests as it always does, the United States government. In Syria, in the Middle East and in regard to Russia and we, I believe, are very likely to see an even more aggressive policy in Europe against Russia if Hillary Clinton and her entourage come into power with the November 8 election.
For 25 years, the US has been knowingly playing a dangerous game, trying to see how far they can push Russia without provoking it to war. As her record in Georgia, Libya and Syria clearly shows, Hillary has no strategic vision, no understanding of war, and would have almost certainly erred on the side of excess provocation.
Many congressional members say that Putin has not been deterred, but he has, to some degree, because if he wanted to he could order the full-scale invasion of the entirety of Ukrainian territory. That he has kept Russian direct personnel support for the separatists’ brutal aggression relatively small (1,000 military and intelligence personnel by recent NATO estimates) demonstrates that his decisions are rational (to him) and done with some awareness of the likely consequences.
And that is why Donald Trump has been one of the most effective Presidents in U.S. history, even before he has taken office.
Quibcag: I don't know where the illustration originally came from.

Scott Adams (of "Dilbert") on Evolution and Politics

Scott Adams is one smart guy. He knows stuff. And one thing he seems to understand far better than most is the concept of evolution. As the quibcag states, the mechanism of evolution is about selection for procreation. Of course, it also selects for survival insofar as a creature has to survive long enough to procreate, but it's easy to imagine a very long-lived creature which, for whatever reason, doesn't procreate, and is therefore not selected by the evolutionary process.

So when you think in terms of the traits evolution selects — size, strength, intelligence, camouflage, etc. — you have to remember that such traits are selected only if they lead to more and better procreation.

And one insight of Scott's, or at least somebody's insight that he expresses very well, is that the ability to evaluate and understand reality isn't necessarily selected for at all, but what is selected for are any and all concepts of reality that lead to survival and procreation.

And this, Scott says, is why we have competing views of reality. They all work, and you can be a Christian, a socialist, a Theosophist, or a conspiracy theorist or whatever, and all these reality-concepts work very well at making you capable of procreation, and are therefore evolutionarily viable. Being a Shaker, however, didn't work, so we don't have Shakers any more. But let's have Scott speak for himself, This is from his blog here [link]:

The Cognitive Dissonance Cluster Bomb

Earlier this week listed 24 different theories that pundits have provided for why Trump won. And the list isn’t even complete. I’ve heard other explanations as well. What does it tell you when there are 24 different explanations for a thing?
It tells you that someone just dropped a cognitive dissonance cluster bomb on the public. Heads exploded. Cognitive dissonance set in. Weird theories came out. This is the cleanest and clearest example of cognitive dissonance you will ever see. Remember it.
This phenomenon is why a year ago I told you I was putting so much emphasis on PREDICTING the outcome of the election using the Master Persuader Filter. I told you it would be easy to fit any theory to the facts AFTER the result. And sure enough, we can fit lots of theories to the facts. At least 24 of them by CNN’s count.
Generally speaking, the greater the persuasion, the more cognitive dissonance you get. Trump is – in my opinion – the greatest persuader of my lifetime. I expected this level of cognitive dissonance. Next time you see a persuader of this magnitude, you can expect the outcome to be cognitive dissonance in that case too.
This brings me to the anti-Trump protests. The protesters look as though they are protesting Trump, but they are not. They are locked in an imaginary world and battling their own hallucinations of the future. Here’s the setup that triggered them.
1. They believe they are smart and well-informed.
2. Their good judgement told them Trump is OBVIOUSLY the next Hitler, or something similarly bad.
3. Half of the voters of the United States – including a lot of smart people – voted Trump into office anyway.
Those “facts” can’t be reconciled in the minds of the anti-Trumpers. Mentally, something has to give. That’s where cognitive dissonance comes in.
There are two ways for an anti-Trumper to interpret that reality. One option is to accept that if half the public doesn’t see Trump as a dangerous monster, perhaps he isn’t. But that would conflict with a person’s self-image as being smart and well-informed in the first place. When you violate a person’s self-image, it triggers cognitive dissonance to explain-away the discrepancy.
So how do you explain-away Trump’s election if you think you are smart and you think you are well-informed and you think Trump is OBVIOUSLY a monster?
You solve for that incongruity by hallucinating – literally – that Trump supporters KNOW Trump is a monster and they PREFER the monster. In this hallucination, the KKK is not a nutty fringe group but rather a symbol of how all Trump supporters must feel. (They don’t. Not even close.)
In a rational world it would be obvious that Trump supporters include lots of brilliant and well-informed people. That fact – as obvious as it would seem – is invisible to the folks who can’t even imagine a world in which their powers of perception could be so wrong. To reconcile their world, they have to imagine all Trump supporters as defective in some moral or cognitive way, or both.
As I often tell you, we all live in our own movies inside our heads. Humans did not evolve with the capability to understand their reality because it was not important to survival. Any illusion that keeps us alive long enough to procreate is good enough.
That’s why the protestors live in a movie in which they are fighting against a monster called Trump and you live in a movie where you got the president you wanted for the changes you prefer. Same planet, different realities.

Quibcag: Here we have the girls of Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā). In the original illustration, they were watching something innocuous, so I Photoshopped in (and it wasn't easy) an iconic scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey, to fit the evolution thrust of the post.

Another Quibcag Dump

Here are some quibcags and other graphics that I haven't had occasion to use, or if I did, I don't remember:

First, a commentary on the last couple of years, via flags:

 And an observation found on the net, illustrated by Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā):

And a more extreme one. Feel free to use it on social media when you encounter "celebrate diversity." Feel free to use any of these, of course.

Somebody suggested I do this as a parody of One Punch Man, which is itself a parody:

And a nice thought-provoking Karol Traven quote, illustrated by the American girl from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).:

And another thought-provoker from Matt Parrott, illustration of girl swiped from and superimposed on an Indiana flag (Matt is a Hoosier, as am I):

And here, Karol Traven puts sexual and racial statistical differences in perspective. I don't know where I got the illustration:

Finally, Matt Bailey pithily describes what libertarianism was before it became just another component of the left. A nice Alice illustration emphasizes the "sane" part.