Tuesday, January 31, 2017

“For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”

Guest post from:
Jonathan David Baird

The natural state of man in the wild is the same as a wolf pack. An extended family group that works and hunts together over a large territory. In nature Man packs and Wolf packs rarely fight among themselves. The idea of the Alpha dog is a myth in a hunting and gathering society. Packs are lead by the parents or grandparents. This alpha mentality only exists when packs are cobbled together from different family groups. Men and wolves when forced to live with unrelated pack members resort to an Alpha dog mentality that puts the strongest at the top of the heap. This unnatural state became man's primary mode of governance when he is no longer a nomadic hunter. Tribalism, feudalism, and totalitarianism grow out of the unnatural state of being settled in one place for too long.

Ex-Army talking now. I've over-romanticized wolves and wolf packs in the past [link], but what Baird says here has the ring of scientific truth about it. Somebody said once that primitive man could be described as an offshoot of chimpanzees who adopted a wolf lifestyle. That's not quite true, because I believe wolves are exclusively hunters, and basically carnivores, while our species certainly hunts, but also gathers, and is omnivorous. 

But the suggestion that a lot of bad stuff happened when human groups got too big, and in getting big, tended to become sedentary (or vice-versa — the causation may go both ways), I've heard elsewhere, and it's rather revealing. We've learned that savages are seldom noble, but very often very free by our standards. And one of the purposes of statecraft is to create and preserve a polity that provides room for freedom in spite of the fact that we're very urban and tend to live in very large groups.

Now, coincidentally, over at the Anonymous Conservative, there's a piece that melds nicely with Baird's, and goes a little deeper into the wolf thing, and compares it to other animals that don't live in packs. And I'm given to wonder just how much difference there is between Koch and cuck:

Koch-servative Brothers Go To War With President Trump

Tea Party founder and conservative billionaire Charles Koch has attacked Donald Trump’s controversial travel ban, branding it as ‘authoritarian’. Koch said he will oppose the billionaire president if and when he deviates from a commitment to ‘free and open societies’. Commenting on the travel ban controversy, he said: ‘[The] travel ban is the wrong approach and will likely be counterproductive.’
The pro-jobs tax plan being developed by establishment Republicans, including House Speaker Paul Ryan, is now being opposed by the Koch brothers’ advocacy group, Americans For Prosperity. 
The opposition of the Koch-funded group shows a widening clash between the GOP’s donors and Donald Trump’s expanding populist “Buy American, Hire American” coalition. 
So far, the two groups have clashed over cheap-labor immigration and Trump’s successful candidacy. That clash was garishly demonstrated late December, when Trump publicly booted a friend of David Koch off one of his golf courses, prompting Koch to also leave. 
Brothers Charles and David Koch opposed Trump during the Republican primary season and refused to help him against Hillary Clinton, partly because Trump and many of his voters oppose unrestricted trade and mass immigration.
As I have said, libertarianism is a reproductive strategy designed to function alone, in spread out areas with low population densities, where large groups do not form. In r/K Theory, it is akin to the breakdown in r/K that occurs when population densities drop.
Koch is designed to function alone, avoid trouble with others, and only fight as a last resort, if it is absolutely necessary. He lacks the group-forming and reflexively competing urge of the K-strategist. Without that urge, he cannot fathom why we should have borders, or try to out-compete other nations by only buying American. He wants to avoid all conflict, and he is driven to do that by minimizing any constraints we impose on others. 
He will formulate all sorts of arguments for why his position is superior. He will talk about the need to treat all religions as equals, he will argue against discrimination, and so on. But he is just trying to punch amygdala buttons that are supportive of his underlying urges, which lack any drive to associate with or form groups or initiate aggressive actions with others in a direct fashion.
He is very much akin to the Grizzly Bear, who wants to avoid others, avoid conflict, and leave everyone else alone. The Grizzly bear can’t grasp why the wolf wants to join a pack or why they attack others they happen upon in their territory for no reason other than the trespass.
Koch would be right, if there were only a few humans around, and we could all avoid each other. But in a densely packed world with other K-strategists actively trying to defeat us, and the insanity of radical Islam lashing out at us, his strategy, no matter how “moral” it “feels”to him, is destined for failure. Amazingly, if he had his way and President Trump imported millions of Muslims, they took over the nation, and suddenly gays were being thrown from rooftops, women were being forcibly circumcised and murdered in honor killings, and all non-Muslims ended up subjugated and taxed for being unbelievers, Koch would proudly say that we should take solace in the fact that we had acted “morally.”
What he wouldn’t grasp is that his morals are just his reproductive strategy, and it was not properly adapted to the K-selected world he was living in. 
I understand this, because as a programmed libertarian, I feel his urges. It has only been through intensive observation and contemplation that I came to understand that outside of select areas like the forests of Alaska and the Midwest, the world is too densely packed for libertarianism. r and K will always beat it out, because there are too many people, and they are all driven to either compete or betray. As a result, the only choices we have that will be enacted are r or K. Given the inherent resource scarcity of the world, the only practical option is the K-strategy, and fortunately for libertarians, you can find enough common ground there to provide enough freedom to make the world it creates tolerable.
As the Apocalypse approaches, K will be the only option, because the entire nation is going K.

Quibcag: That's Princess Mononoke on her wolf, from Princess Mononoke (Japaneseもののけ姫 HepburnMononoke-hime, "Spirit/Monster Princess"), not to be confused with Kagura on her dog, from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul").

Oh, the title is a quote from Kipling.

Pepe, what is best in life?

From Vox Day [link]. Enjoy!

Sunday, January 29, 2017


I frankly don't know whether to replace MAG or not, but I've decided on MAGOG to replace MAG if it's going to be replaced. It's different enough from MAGA so as not to be confused, I believe, and it can be taken as standing for either:
Media, Academia, Government, Oligarchs, & Goons
as in the illustration, or just:
Media, Academia, Government, Oh, God!

At any rate, MAGOG has an apocalyptic Biblical connection, which is a plus [link].

It was also the name of a pretty awful alien race in the Andromeda TV show with Kevin Sorbo [link]. The illustration for the first quibcag is of a MAGOG from that show.

And, I just found out, there's another MAGOG out there — a villain from DC comics. But he's evidently one of those ambiguous types, because he's described as a sort of hero here [link].

But I should mention here that Joshua Sinistar made this suggestion:

How about MIGCHOAT? Military Industrial Gods of the Copybook Headings , Offices, Academies and Tax-consumers.

And I also got this comment from "Unknown" that seems right on the money:

Trump's great power was that he was totally unafraid of the MAG. Anyone the MAG considers the slightest threat they rip apart utterly, like a turkey among starving dogs. Professors decry them to their students and get them to march around their house. Media from the most serious reporter to the crudest late night comic will attack him constantly on all channels. If he's really unlucky he might even face a government investigation. Every secret and bit of his past will be dug up and searched through. Sure he might hear a voice of support in talk radio or the internet. But he won't be able to engage with the rest of the world without coming to the conclusion that all of America hates him. Then along came Trump, Trump made it clear he did not give a f*ck. The MAG had railed that he was just a goofy pop-culture icon, now he was Literally Worse Than Hitler. Every gaffe and mistep was replayed and analyzed endlessly. He was a stupid joke until he got closer to the presidency. Then the MAG stopped laughing and started screeching. Trump still didn't care; he continued speaking what was on his mind, and it was what was on our mind too. The press dug up a tape that was secretly recorded more than a decade ago without Trump's knowledge. In a private conversation two adult heterosexual men talked about women in crude sexual terms. Despite the fact that his opponent's husband was a sexual predator, despite the fact that you can hear and see a thousand times worse on basic cable (and a million times worse on HBO) the MAG and the liberals suddenly became pearl-clutching old ladies getting the vapors. Trump kept on not caring. Didn't apologize didn't belly crawl to feminists just kept running. He didn't care and the public didn't either despite the MAG frenzy. The MAG told us he could never win, he was too crude, too stupid, too evil. And you know what? I believed them. I thought they were right, now I see how wrong they are. How powerless they are in reality. They're like a pufferfish, blowing themselves up to appear more intimidating. They are not the people, or even their opinions. They are the MAG and I think they realize how screwed they are, because a man took them on and won. Spectacularly and publicly, and the MAG is still screaming in pain.

And the way "MAG" is used in that comment almost persuades me to leave well enough alone and keep using MAG myself.
Quibcags: As I said, the first is illustrated by the Andromeda character, the second by the DC comics character.

Libertarians are Huddled Masochists, too!

I got "huddled masochists" from the unique Steve Sailer [link] just so you'll know. The kid is a great phrase-maker, I'm sure you'll agree. Well, the ditzy Libertarian Party has done it again, making itself super-irrelevant by aligning itself with the most malignant group of "immigrants" in our history. Their whole screed is here [link], but it ends with this smarmy drivel.

Today and everyday, the Libertarian Party says to our Muslim brothers and sisters, we are with you. We have your back. We’ll do our best to speak out and amplify your voice. We hope and pray that a registry is never created. But if one is, we will oppose it vigorously and you can rest assured that many of our members will register themselves in protest. We will speak out against travel and immigration bans. We will speak out loudly against any and all acts of violence or destruction that may be committed against you. When your rights and humanity are infringed upon, we stand with you.

In other words, the LP doesn't care about acts of terrorism or the importation of millions who can't/won't assimilate. It's fine with them. They don't care. They thing that somehow, the Founding Fathers came up with the First Amendment so that nobody could ever object to the invasion of millions of Muslims, or, as they called them in those days, Musselmen or Mohammedans. So, for things that count, they're indistinguishable from liberals and the more egregious variety of neocons.

No, my friends, the Libertarian Party is not libertarian, unless you consider libertarianism just to be liberalism's understudy. Libertarianism is a right-wing idea, founded on the ideas of individualism (not anomie) and a rational society. Real libertarians, like Hoppe, know that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, and that you can't make a libertarian society out of Third-World detritus who consider "freedom" to be the opportunity to misbehave with impunity and have zero idea of civic responsibility — an idea that most modern libertarians sneer at just like their liberal sisters do.

Have you noticed that the idea of "assimilation" seems to have largely been forgotten lately? The idea that if Muslims want to be part of a Western country they should abandon Islam is considered the rankest bigotry. And of course they should also be encouraged, really, not to change a thing, but bring their entire culture and way of life along with them. Most naive people make a big deal about these immigrants learning to speak English, which is fine, but really secondary to problems caused by customs and folkways they bring along that have nothing to do with language, important as that might be. 

You know the drill by now, surely. The fact is that Islam, like it or not, isn't just another "church" like Methodism or Lutheranism, but an entire social and governmental system that a good Muslim must adhere to. Oh, it's true enough that there have been secular "Muslim" leaders like Attaturk and Muhammed Ali Jinnah and even Saddam Hussein, who made it their policy to suppress the flakier, more savage, aspects of Islam. But their efforts bore little fruit.

Frankly, then (And I know there are individual exceptions. So what?), Muslims do not fit into Western Culture. Western Culture is Christian, both practicing and culturally, and any halfway sincere Muslim has an afrit on his shoulder telling him to spread the faith and oppose the Nasrani. (Muslims seem to consider us all Nazarenes by religion and Franks by ethnicity.) And as Jonathan David Baird says, we might as well encourage communists to immigrate and of course remain communists.
Quibcags: The first one is illustrated by the girls of K-On! (けいおん! Keion!). The second illustration, I found the suicide bomber girl here: https://yukkurishiteitteni.wordpress.com/tag/tips-and-tricks/. And for the third, in honor of Bobby Jindal's ancestral heritage (tho he himself seems almost gobsmackingly assimilated) I picked Sally Bollywood [link]. Pretty cute, eh? And if you're intrigued, here's one of Sally's videos:

A Newer Colossus?

Here's a plan. Take this ditzy nonsense off of the Statue of Liberty:

by Emma Lazarus

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

And put this on it:

by Rudyard Kipling

It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

They were not easily moved,
They were icy -- willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.

It was not suddently bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.
I hope I don't need to interpret either of these poems for you, but just in case...

The first poem is pure BS. The description doesn't apply to the basic American stock at all. It applies to Lazarus' relatives, who were Jews from Europe. An article explaining that is here [link]. Lazarus didn't give a flying you-know-what about gentiles. Her concern for immigration was exclusively to make sure any and all Jews got to come here and be safe until they got around to establishing a Jewish ethnostate to which no gentiles would be allowed to immigrate. The quote to the left is from here [link] and the last sentence in that post is one of my rare disagreements with Steve. Or sort of a disagreement. He says:

Letting in millions of anti-Semite foreigners today is thus not the fulfillment, but the betrayal of what Lazarus and other Jewish-American ancestors worked for.

I'm not at all sure it's a betrayal in the sense Steve means it. I doubt if Lazarus cared anything about the United States one way or the other, except as a temporary refuge for her friends and relatives. If she had the same contempt for the basic American stock that so many Jews of her era and ours have, she'd be indifferent to who else immigrated because all gentiles are basically alike anyway, right? But if she had the hostility to us that many Jew have demonstrated, then she'd think it cool that we got lots of anti-American immigrants because it serves us right for not being Jewish.

And if you doubt that she was a proto-Zionist, here's something from the Jewish Women's Archive [link]:

One of the first successful Jewish American authors, Lazarus was part of the late nineteenth century New York literary elite and was recognized in her day as an important American poet. In her later years, she wrote bold, powerful poetry and essays protesting the rise of antisemitism and arguing for Russian immigrants' rights. She called on Jews to unite and create a homeland in Palestine before the title Zionist had even been coined.

But God help us if we call on White Gentiles to unite and create a homeland in North America. And when we decide to do that, we'll be following the spirit of the second poem.

And Steve Sailer relates all this to a third poem here [link].

And to even more pop-ish pop culture here [link].

Oh, what the hey. Just go here [link] and scroll down to the posts I just referred to and a few more on the same subject.

There's nobody who's been more incisive or funnier about the immigration mess than Steve Sailer. Read him every day. I do.
Quibcags: The illustrations for the first three I found here and there on the net and they're self-explanatory. The last one is illustrated by Kagura of Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul") and her family, who are immigrants to Earth from a faraway planet. Would I kid you?

Wednesday, January 25, 2017


A few years back I started using the acronym MAG, for the three pillars of the establishment — Media, Academia, Government. I was influenced to some extent by the Biblical name "Magog" [link] with its apocalyptic connotations.

And then the Trumpster, God-Emperor Trump, comes up with MAGA, for Make America Great Again, which is basically the opposite of my MAG, because it overturns MAG's applecart and then some.

So what's an acronym-originator to do? MAGA is so familiar to everybody now, that using MAG will confuse and best and mislead at worst. I could reverse it to GAM, but that's an old slang word for "leg," and doesn't seem all that appealing in other ways. Any other combo would be unpronounceable. So I'll have to substitute words to get different initials. Let's say we leave "Academia" alone, and:

M (Media) > P (Press)
G (Government) > S (State)
or maybe:
G (Government) > B (Bureaucracy)

So that gives me:

PAS - so-so
SAP - maybe
PSA - no, that also means "public service announcement"
SPA - another no, because it has an irrelevant meaning in English
ASP - a poisonous snake. That's a maybe, definitely

And with B instead of S:

PAB - so-so
BAP - unexciting
BSA - nope, Boy Scouts of America
and no other combo is pronounceable

And if I keep the G and change the M to P

PGA (heh!)

Or keeping the M and changing the G to S:


Or keeping the M and changing the G to B:


But returning to MAG for a moment, does Greg Gutfeld read this blog?

Come to think of it, M could > J, for "Journalism."


One commenter, Undocumented Pharmacist, asks:

So you're not down with "the cathedral"?

If "the cathedral" is new to you, it's defined here [link].

And Joe Sobran used the term "hive" to mean much the same thing [link]. And I'm sure there are other terms that I can't bring to mind right now.

I think it's going to be ASP, but there's some appeal to BAM.  What do you all think? Which is best? Any other ideas?
After thinking about this for a couple of days, I'm inclined to take the path of least resistance and use GAM.

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Is Libertarianism Compatible with Leftism? HELL no!

First off, the quibcag is here to introduce a Rothbard quote:

“Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be – and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular – and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.”

The emphasis is added by Hans-Herman Hoppe, who is probably my favorite libertarian.

There are, you see, two kinds of libertarian. The most common, or at least the most common among those who self-identify as libertarian, are, unfortunately, so contaminated by leftist "principles" and the liberal narrative that they've become nothing but Social Justice Warriors with guns. They think, or, better, accept without thinking, that you can allow all kinds of self-destructive behavior on the part of individuals — drug addiction, sexual deviancy, polygamy, feminism, etc. — and somehow still have a libertarian society. In practice, of course, as we've come to not only allow, but encourage such behavior, we've become less libertarian as a society. It's simple, inevitable cause-and-effect. As you make individuals less sovereign, by promoting self-destructive behavior, they become more needy, and needy people want government and taxpayers to take care of them.

This sort of libertarian (who are usually accurately called "left-libertarians," the "left" being more central than the "libertarian") would immediately and indignantly claim that people have a right to use heroin, have multiple marriages, etc. Okay, I answer, that may or may not be true, but if people exercise such rights, our libertarian society becomes unstable and collapses in short order.

I belong to that other faction of libertarian. I believe that you need a population of people who take care of themselves and their families, and who are as sovereign as they can possibly be, to form a libertarian society. Great Britain was probably the most libertarian place on earth 300 years ago, and then it was surpassed, almost accidentally, by the United States, where a more or less self-selected group of people who wanted to take care of themselves migrated from Britain and settled here, and taught their offspring the glory of freedom.

I was about to reprint the article the quote came from, and then I realized I already had, a couple of years ago. After the Rothbard quote, Hoppe goes on to say:
Let me begin with a few remarks on libertarianism as a pure deductive theory.

If there were no scarcity in the world, human conflicts would be impossible. Interpersonal conflicts are always and everywhere conflicts concerning scarce things. I want to do X with a given thing and you want to do Y with the same thing.

Because of such conflicts – and because we are able to communicate and argue with each other – we seek out norms of behavior with the purpose of avoiding these conflicts. The purpose of norms is conflict-avoidance. If we did not want to avoid conflicts, the search for norms of conduct would be senseless. We would simply fight and struggle.

Absent a perfect harmony of all interests, conflicts regarding scarce resources can only be avoided if all scarce resources are assigned as private, exclusive property to some specified individual. Only then can I act independently, with my own things, from you, with your own things, without you and me coming into conflict.

But who owns what scarce resource as his private property and who does not? First: Each person owns his physical body that only he and no one else controls directly (I can control your body only in-directly, by first directly controlling my body, and vice versa) and that only he directly controls also in particular when discussing and arguing the question at hand. Otherwise, if body-ownership were assigned to some indirect body-controller, conflict would become unavoidable as the direct body-controller cannot give up his direct control over his body as long as he is alive; and in particular, otherwise it would be impossible that any two persons, as the contenders in any property dispute, could ever argue and debate the question whose will is to prevail, since arguing and debating presupposes that both, the proponent and the opponent, have exclusive control over their respective bodies and so come to the correct judgment on their own, without a fight (in a conflict-free form of interaction).

The rest is here:
Quibcag: Number one: the two girls look equal, but they aren't at all. They're Narusegawa and Mutsumi from Love Hina (ラブ ひな Rabu Hina). The second is illustrated by the gang from Gin Tama (銀魂 Gintama, lit. "Silver Soul"), and the third I found somewhere on the net.

Wednesday, January 18, 2017

Good Words from Airstrip One!

Guest post by
Robert Lees

Well guys, I've been watching from across the pond, what I consider to be the biggest social movement in a long time.

I've always had a deep rooted love for the US despite how media portrays all of you. I enjoy history a lot and I have always been fascinated by what your people did and love the regional pockets of European culture that many of you still keep in touch with.

Your people for the second time in your existence are on a brave new frontier, you all have the potential to take down an institution that no longer cares for you or your land. Now you finally have a leader (who may not be everything we thought) who actually cares for the country. Many have been angry that Trump went pretty center, but imo a smart move with the turmoil in your homeland. But he is only the beginning, may you all continue the work that his attitude started. Trump isn't a big deal at the end of the day, you all are. His mouth spewed ideals that resignated with the forgotten of the world.

I am in no place to give advice not being part of your nation, but never become what the left want you to be. Everything else will come in play if this is not forgotten.

Many of you are some of the brightest, steadfast and caring chaps I've ever had the pleasure of chatting with.

Good luck to all of you, seriously. Let's hope my country gets farage as PM so our "special relationship" actually exists for a change, rather than our politicians just telling us this is how it is.

I hope to one day live in your nation if I'm being honest and nothing would make me happier if my children could one day say they are American. 
And that is a good proof that nationalism unites people, and doesn't divide. — Ex-Army


Confirmation Bias and Freedom from Facts

"Confirmation bias" is a great phrase. To put it simply, it's the phenomenon where you interpret what you observe in the light of what you already think. For example, if you already think that White cops are belligerent racists, when you read that a cop has shot a Black thug who just robbed a convenience store and then tried to take the cop's gun away, that's just one more racist cop picking on a peaceful Black man. Boy, really. Over at Had Enough Therapy? [link], Stuart Schneiderman discusses confirmation bias and fact-free thinking, and relates it all to Freud and liberal politics:

An Orgy of Confirmation Bias

As you know, Freud was in the business of interpreting. He told people what it all meant. Or, what it appeared to mean. The meaning of life, the meaning of death, the meaning of the universe… whatever it was, Freud claimed to know what it meant.

Invariably, the meaning was all about desire. Freud knew what people really, really wanted. This implies, of course, that he could read minds. Why would he know better than you what you wanted?

As it happens, your desire is not an objective fact. You cannot determine empirically, on the basis of evidence, that you want an ice cream cone or a trip to Tahiti. And even if you are persuaded that you know what you want, no one else can really claim to have any objective knowledge of your desire… beyond what you tell him.

You sense that you want this and not that. You act on your sense impression, but that is not the same as knowing, for example, that a cat is on a mat. The latter can be determined objectively. Your desire cannot.

One thing we know about desire is that if you have something you cannot want it. By definition. Wanting something means not having it. You can say that you wish you were anywhere but where you are right now, but you cannot say, in English, that you wish you were where you are. It makes no sense. No one uses such sentences.

No fact proves that you desire something. Just because you do not have a carpet in your hallway does not mean that you want to carpet the hallway.

Nowadays, as the emotionally overwrought have lit upon the notion that the incoming president has no relationship with facts, one feels constrained to note that the outgoing president has never let himself be constrained by fact or by constitutional law or by loyalty to America.

If one can argue cogently that the incoming president is not qualified for the office he is about to assume, what mind warp can possibly make it that the outgoing president was even remotely qualified for the office of the presidency.

In a fact-free world, Obama was supremely qualified, his presidency was a rousing success and Hillary Clinton was the most qualified candidate for the presidency… ever. In a fact-free world you can say what you want and then force people to believe it all… as a higher truth. What matters is not what is true but what you want to be true.

During the Obama years America took leave of fact. Now, with the incoming Trump administration,
Americans are rediscovering facts.

You know which ones. Take the fact that tells us, biologically, based on chromosomes, that Bradley Manning is a male. It’s a fact. And yet, Manning believes that he is a she and if you deny the fact you are a bigot. And now, our fact-challenged president, reverting to the kind of thinking that caused him to spend two decades lapping up the hate-filled swill issuing from Rev. Jeremiah Wright, has decided that Manning’s betrayal of America was no big deal.

Is it a fact that no one died as a result of Manning’s treason? The New York Times says so. Thus, you can ignore the fact that terrorists the world over pored through the documents that Manning leaked and exacted revenge on anyone who remotely resembled the people described therein. It’s a fact. 

Read the rest here:
Quibcags: Neither is an actual quibcag, of course. The first is illustrated by what looks like a movie still, and the second by our local cartoonist, Baloo.

Monday, January 16, 2017

John Lewis: Civil Rights Icon or Fort Sumter?

Guest post by Albert Perez:

People either aren't getting it or are being deliberately disingenuous. If Mr. Lewis had said he was boycotting Mr. Trump's inauguration because he felt the Donald was a racist misogynistic jerk, I'd say fine. If he said he could not support Mr. Trump's policies and had to boycott the Inauguration for this reason I'd say good on Mr. Lewis. What he said was that he did not consider Mr. Trump to be the legitimate President of the US. This is a step towards calling for civil war. Maybe it's a tiny insignificant step, but it is exactly such a step. Now I know many people will claim I'm being extreme in pointing this out. However, if the President is not legit then he is a tyrant and it is the duty of people to resist his exercise of the presidential office, by force if necessary. There is no room in between for honest men to reasonably disagree, either Donald Trump is legitimately the President or he is a tyrant who must be forced out of office, even at the cost of a shooting civil war. People accused Trump of fomenting civil war by suggesting he might refuse to accept Hillary Clinton's legitimacy if she won the election. Now Mr. Lewis must answer the same accusation, either by owning it or by denying that he was calling for civil war and explaining why his words do not go there. Not his apologists, but he himself must explain why he was not calling for civil war when he said he did not believe Donald Trump was legitimatetly the president of the US.

This appeared on social media, and Matt Bailey replied:

The people who think Trump should be ousted from office think dildos and bongs are weapons. They haven't thought this "war" thing through. Just let California Exit and absorb all the rabbit people (They're not even tough communists like in the Cold War, these people are hot-house plants) and let the rest of America be America.

Which I made into a quibcag, of course.
Quibcag: That's Haruhi of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu) . She's not a rabbit person in the sense Matt means it. She's just a person who likes to dress up like a rabbit. And she does it very well.

He Had the Dream, we have the Nightmare

Nice quote, eh? It's from a video you can see over at Quartermain's site here [link]. Now, as I've said lately, I was around when all this was going on, and I very quickly grew to admire Malcolm X a lot more than Martin Luther King, especially when I learned about their respective personal lives. And at the time, the Black community was pretty much run by their natural leaders — businessmen, clergymen, some academics, etc. Now, of course, it's run by con men, like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Obama. And now we have Cory Booker sticking his head up. These "leaders," for the most part, haven't really been selected by Blacks, but by White liberals, the worst enemy Blacks have ever had in America. White liberals, you see, dote on Black criminals and degenerates, which is hardly helpful to those Black who want to live decent, productive lives.

Anyhow, I rather think that the American electorate is no longer impressed by the sort of person described by Medal of Freedom recipient Joe Biden, thus:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

But that's okay, you see, because Joe is a Democrat, and a liberal one at that. But I sort of think I'm right, and we've been through the "elect the cool Black guy" phase, so we'll have to move on to electing the first woman. Maybe Kellyanne Conway [link].

The point of all this is to get across the fact that MLK and his movement not only harmed the White majority, but wreaked much worse harm on the Black minority. Before King and the whole civil rights mess, most Blacks, believe it or not, lived in families with a father present, and most births were legitimate. Black unemployment was very low, and Black neighborhoods were paradises of safety compared to what they are now. So hesitate no longer, go over to  Quartermain's site, "Quartermain's Quarter," and watch the video [link].
Quibcag: I found the illustration of MLK on the net somewhere, and I added the exasperated girl, who is from Lucky Star (らき☆すた Raki☆Suta).

Civil Rights Fatigue — Yes, you have it, I have it, most all of us have it.

I had an interesting exchange with a SJW on the net the other day. He'd been spouting the usual myths about Trump (read about those myths here [link]) and I asked him if he had any disagreements at all with the liberal narrative. He replied by sneeringly asserting that I had no disagreements with the conservative narrative. He certainly hadn't paid any attention to what I was saying there, and definitely had never looked at this blog. I ended by sort of congratulating him on his loyal adherence to the liberal narrative, and stating that I was sure he'd continue to do so, no matter how many times the narrative mutated into something else. You know, "We have always been at war with Eastasia" sort of thing. Much like, as I remember the youthful era of the modern left back in the Sixties, the practice of calling conservatives or anybody on the right "queers." Yes, Virginia, the left used to denigrate homosexuals, accusing everybody to the right, from J. Edgar Hoover to Joe McCarthy to George Lincoln Rockwell, of being homosexuals. The have now stopped doing that, because homosexuality has become a sacred thing in their holy narrative. How will it change in the future? Which will become sacred next — pedophilia or polygamy?

Well, one thing that's been sacred to the left for many, many years is the Civil Rights Movement, and you can tell because every time the controversy about John Lewis refusing to attend Trump's inaugural comes up, Lewis is referred to as a "civil rights icon." And I believe "icon" is just a step on the way to liberal sainthood.

And speaking of remembering what the left used to be, I'm clearly old enough to remember the Sixties. I was in my teens and early twenties, and at first I thought the civil rights thing made sense. I even joined the NAACP, and I'm glad I did, because I saw first hand who was running the (((NAACP))) and the intentions of the Black members. Oh, some of the Blacks were sincere, and honestly were not up to no good. But many, especially the young ones (John Lewis' generation and younger) were big on hating Whitey and wanting not rights, but revenge. They had adopted (and exaggerated) Malcolm X's anti-White principles and rhetoric, while also adopting MLK's technique of forcing themselves into White institutions with "passive resistance" with a clear threat of violence. The worst of both worlds. They wanted into Whitey's schools and churches and other institutions, not to benefit from the centuries-long development of Western Culture, but to destroy it.

And before I hand this post off to Vox Day, I want to say this: I wouldn't argue that many Blacks have personally benefited from the civil rights movement. One prominent one is James Meredith, who, if you're not aware, ended up doing rather odd things for a civil rights veteran [link]. They never call him an icon. But the race as a whole? Before the CRM, you never had the "knockout game" or mall riots, or the likes of Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, They weren't perfect, of course, but Black leaders prior to the CRM were at least dignified and maybe among the best of the race. Now they're let by charlatans. And of course they're murdering one another at a much higher rate than they were prior to the Sixties. And now, Vox Day, on his website here [link], writes:

Martin Luther King, in his own words

The myth of Martin Luther King often appears to have more to do with Gandhi or the Buddha than to the actual man himself. It can be amusing to use his words to trigger SJWs, who don't hesitate to declare them deplorably racist right up until the moment they discover whose words they are.
Alex Haley: Your dissatisfaction with the Civil Rights Act reflects that of most other Negro spokesmen. According to recent polls, however, many whites resent this attitude, calling the Negro “ungrateful” and “unrealistic” to press his demands for more.

Martin Luther King: This is a litany to those of us in this field. “What more will the Negro want?” “What will it take to make these demonstrations end?” Well, I would like to reply with another rhetorical question: Why do white people seem to find it so difficult to understand that the Negro is sick and tired of having reluctantly parceled out to him those rights and privileges which all others receive upon birth or entry in America? I never cease to wonder at the amazing presumption of much of white society, assuming that they have the right to bargain with the Negro for his freedom. This continued arrogant ladling out of pieces of the rights of citizenship has begun to generate a fury in the Negro. Even so, he is not pressing for revenge, or for conquest, or to gain spoils, or to enslave, or even to marry the sisters of those who have injured him. What the Negro wants—and will not stop until he gets—is absolute and unqualified freedom and equality here in this land of his birth, and not in Africa or in some imaginary state. The Negro no longer will be tolerant of anything less than his due right and heritage. He is pursuing only that which he knows is honorably his. He knows that he is right.

But every Negro leader since the turn of the century has been saying this in one form or another. It is because we have been so long and so conscientiously ignored by the dominant white society that the situation has now reached such crisis proportions. Few white people, even today, will face the clear fact that the very future and destiny of this country are tied up in what answer will be given to the Negro. And that answer must be given soon.

Alex Haley: If it’s morally right for supporters of civil rights to violate segregation laws which they consider unjust, why is it wrong for segregationists to resist the enforcement of integration laws which they consider unjust?

Martin Luther King: Because segregation, as even the segregationists know in their hearts, is morally wrong and sinful. If it weren’t, the white South would not be haunted as it is by a deep sense of guilt for what it has done to the Negro—guilt for patronizing him, degrading him, brutalizing him, depersonalizing him, thingifying him; guilt for lying to itself. This is the source of the schizophrenia that the South will suffer until it goes through its crisis of conscience.
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Since the 'civil rights movement' was just a return to reconstruction after a hiatus of 75 years or so, and reconstruction was a direct result of the Northern victory in the civil war, this is illustrated by a Southern belle with her flag. Southern belles were pretty much wiped out by the war plus reconstruction (doesn't "reconstruction" have an Orwellian Newspeak feel to it?). Just see Gone with the Wind, book or movie. Oh, the illustration I found at: http://hetaliafanmadecharacters.wikia.com/wiki/Confederate_States

Sunday, January 15, 2017

Pragmatism v. Moralism, plus a Comment on Originality

First, the originality. Some SJW on Facebook really hates the quibcags I do, and stated that he didn't want them on his page, or whatever you call it. When asked why, he said that it wasn't "original work" (he's a cartoonist) and I'm some kind of poltroon who "steals" quotes from people. Then he deleted all my comments. Well, the cartoonist half of this blog disagrees. That's Baloo. He puts the quibcags together, but either one of us might come up with the ideas. Interestingly, this blog is a collaboration, and therefore a better thing than either one of us could make individually. And that's the quibcag theory, too. A quibcag is usually a "collaboration" between some anime artist, some person who said or wrote something very meaningful and pithy, and Baloo (and often me, too), who puts them together. Actually, the Facebook fellow just wanted an excuse to reject the quibcags, because they very effectively refute his silly SJW arguments.

Okay, that's my rant about that. Now, as you know, our liberal/neocon leaders are all horrified that Trump might work out a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia (they all seem to prefer armed conflict with Russia) and are doing everything they can to undermine any efforts in that direction. And it's not just that. Trump threatens to drain the swamp, and many of our politicians have money invested in all the alligators and other creatures there, and will do their best to prevent Trump from upsetting their lucrative apple carts, and I can mix metaphors with the best of them!

Over at Had Enough Therapy? [link}, Stuart Schneiderman performs a public service by refuting the left's arguments in favor of belligerence towards Russia with quotes from the left, including some from Andrew Young (if you're not old enough to know who he is, click here [link]), of all people, which we excerpted for the quibcag up there. And here's what Stuart wrote:

A New Cold War with Russia?

Barack Obama is riding off on a wave of glory. The media is pushing the narrative that Obama really was the Messiah—and thus that the media was right, the American people notwithstanding.

And the same media have been peddling the story that Donald Trump is the Antichrist. Thus must mean that they are looking forward to the Second Coming of Christ… after they destroy the Antichrist. 

As always, all good things are to the credit of Barack Obama. All bad things are the fault of Republicans, whether Trump or G. W. Bush.

It is such a flagrant lie that it rates with the notion that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified presidential candidate in American history. Anyone who believed that suffers from a thought disorder.

Today, the national hue and cry is directed against Russia. Obama spent eight years ceding authority and power to Russia (and to China, if you wish).  The picture of an all-powerful Russia—one that was pulling the strings in the American election by manipulating a weakened American mind--  makes clear that Obama yielded to Russia, just as he yielded to Iran and just as he let the Chinese do what they wanted. Attacks on Russia show that Obama made Russia powerful.

Incidentally, how did it happen that, according to this scenario, the American mind is so easily manipulated?

And now Obama’s supporters are insisting that Donald Trump get into a fight with Russia. They have been attacking Rex Tillerson for being soft on Russia. Mostly, this is coming from the left, the same left that cheered Barack Obama’s retreat from world leadership. Though naturally, John McCain and Lindsey Graham have hopped on the bandwagon.

Where Trump seems to be reviving the policy of détente, even Republicans like Marco Rubio are beating the drums for toughness against Russia. For the record, Rubio’s mindless insistence that prospective Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declare Vladimir Putin a war criminal tells us that many people seriously overestimated the political savvy of Marco Rubio. Can you imagine an American Secretary of State making his opening gambit in a negotiation with Putin the statement that Putin is a war criminal?

Anyway, the long knives are out for Donald Trump. Leftist forces have been in overdrive trying to discredit his election and to undermine his administration… even before it starts. It tells us that however much Barack Obama was courtly and eloquent and reasonable in his own comportment, he was ultimately a divisive president. 

Anyway, the other night on Tucker Carlson’s show, many of us saw a conversation between Tucker and Stephen Cohen.  See this link also. Cohen is a retired academic, an expert on Russia, who often writes for The Nation—which is not a publication of the alt-right. As it happens, Cohen is married to Katrina vanden Heuvel, the publisher of The Nation. 

Cohen believes that Trump wants to pursue a policy of détente toward Russia, a policy that was first practiced by Richard Nixon,that was denounced but eventually revived by Ronald Reagan. But, he says that certain forces do not want this to happen and are trying to delegitimize the Trump administration in order to produce a new Cold War. Moreover, Cohen suggests, those who are blaming Putin are trying to find someone to blame for the failure of the Obama administration foreign policy.

Read the rest here:
Quibcags: The businessgirl in the first one I found here [link]. The hacker in the second one is, of course, Hatsune Miku 初音ミク), sometimes referred to as Miku Hatsune.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Nationalism, Globalism, Imperialism, and Trump

Lots of posts on this blog have dealt with nationalism v. globalism. Just enter the latter word in the search box over there to the right and you'll find many of them.  But like a lot of important concepts, it doesn't hurt to point out the difference and its significance over and over again, because "nationalism" is  still a dirty word to the MAG (Media, Academia, Government, not to be confused with MAGA, which is an unfortunate coincidence as acronyms go. Maybe I should use GAM instead).

But if nationalism is a bad thing, then its opposite must be a good thing, right? I've always maintained that globalism is the opposite, because if you don't have sovereign countries, you must have, in effect, one big government over the whole world. Joseph Pearce uses "internationalism" as the opposite, which seems to mean precisely the same thing as "globalism." And Pearce goes on to say that "internationalism" and "imperialism" are essentially the same thing, and he has me convinced, because what is imperialism other than the expansion of a national government to rule other nations as well? Rome was once a nation, and it expanded its authority to all of Italy at first, and finally to the Roman Empire as we remember it.

And the United States, whatever it calls itself, has been operating as an empire for decades, extending its rule over such far-flung places as Iraq, Vietnam, and Libya. And our liberal/neocon leaders seem to think that somehow our empire should include Ukraine and the Baltic states and various places in the Caucasus, right up to the borders of Russia. Bad idea. Joseph Pearce thinks so, too. His essay is from: http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/01/trump-nationalist-imperialist-joseph-pearce.html

by Joseph Pearce

If Donald Trump fights the globalist Empire and defends the weak against the strong, he will be a nationalist; if he employs his strength against the weak for what he claims to be American interests, he will be an imperialist. So, is there any indication as to which President Trump will be?…

It seems that nationalism in its various guises is on the rise. It also seems that the political establishment, or what might be called the liberal ascendency, is not very happy with the phenomenon. The response from the liberal globalist old guard has been, for the most part, shrill and irrational, animated by a reactionary descent into the reductionism of stereotypes and name-calling. Thus, anyone who voted for Donald Trump or for Brexit is a xenophobe, a fascist, a racist, a bigot or any number of other labels that can be spat venomously in the venting of one’s spleen. Amateur psychologists will note that this sort of knee-jerk name-calling, and descent to the language of the lowest common denominator and the stereotype, is not that dissimilar from the manner in which xenophobes, fascists, racists and bigots conduct themselves. There is, therefore, more than a little irony in the manner in which such mudslinging and smear-mongering have replaced rational discourse.
It is, however, in the spirit of rational discourse that we should proceed, irrespective of the anti-fascist fascism of the enemies of reason.
Let’s begin with a basic definition of nationalism as a belief in the political sovereignty of nations. Its antonym is internationalism, a belief in the absence or minimizing of the political sovereignty of nations. Beyond this basic and fundamental definition, of which we should never lose sight, there are different manifestations of nationalism, as there are different manifestations of internationalism.
Take Irish nationalism, for instance. It would seem to have little or nothing in common with British nationalism. Indeed it is, at its core, antagonistic towards British nationalism. Isn’t this the problem with nationalism? Doesn’t it lead to tensions between nations? Isn’t the answer to such tensions their eradication by means of some form of internationalism which weakens or destroys the cause or source of enmity between nations? If there were no nations, the argument runs, there could be no enmity between them. This is true, to be sure, but it’s like saying that if there were no neighbours there would be no enmity between them. Nations are like neighbours; like the poor they are always with us. We can only destroy them by placing something far worse in their place. Were anyone to seriously believe that a One World government would be better in terms of political liberty than the relatively smaller governments of sovereign nations, they know nothing of the nature of political power. Nor would it eradicate tensions among nations, which might then be called merely “regions.” Faced with a globalist Empire, we would see the rise of “regionalism” demanding political freedom from Big Brother. And this is, in fact, exactly what we are seeing today. The rise of nationalism is nothing other than a healthy rebellion against the globalist Empire.
But what of the problem of nations hating nations? What of the British and the Irish? These are good questions but they are rooted in a misunderstanding of the political relationship between nations. Most of us fail to understand that the tension between nations is not caused by nationalism but by internationalism. Thus the problem between the British and the Irish is not rooted in nationalism but in imperialism, the latter is merely a synonym for internationalism. When one nation imposes its will on another nation, it is acting as an imperial power, not as a national power. Since this is so, a true nationalist can never be an imperialist because an imperialist is an internationalist. An English nationalist, as distinct from a British imperialist, does not seek to impose English power on Scotland, or Ireland, or Wales. On the contrary, insofar as he is a nationalist he respects the nationalism of his neighbours and would welcome an independent Scotland and Wales, as he welcomes an independent Ireland. In this sense, one who boasts that the sun never set on the British Empire is not a British Nationalist but a British Imperialist. In the same sense it can be seen that the Nazis were not German nationalists but German imperialists, as the German invasion of Poland illustrated all too grimly.
Having discussed what nationalism is and, equally importantly, what it isn’t, we can perhaps better judge whether Donald Trump is truly a nationalist. If he seeks to liberate the American economy from the encroachments of globalist economic imperialism, as he has promised he will, he will be acting as a nationalist. If he comes to the aid of a small sovereign nation, at that nation’s request, when it is the victim of the imperialism of another nation, he could be said to be acting in accordance with nationalist principles; if, however, he exerts American political muscle on small sovereign nations to their detriment, in order to pursue America’s interests, he will be acting as an imperialist or internationalist. Thus, for instance, Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 was an act of imperialism, whereas Britain’s declaration of war on Germany in order to defend Poland was not; Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was an act of imperialism, whereas the USA’s declaration of war on Iraq to liberate Kuwait was not. On the other hand, the USA’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, deploying weapons of mass destruction on the dubious grounds that Iraq possessed such weapons, was an act of imperialism.
With these criteria in mind, we can begin to judge whether Donald Trump’s presidency will be nationalist or imperialist. If he fights the globalist Empire and defends the weak against the strong, he will be a nationalist (and a hero); if he employs his strength against the weak for what he claims to be American interests, he will be an imperialist (and a villain). For the sake of justice and peace, we can all hope he proves to be a nationalist, and not an internationalist, imperialist, and globalist.
Books by Joseph Pearce may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore.
Ex-Army here again. I agree with practically everything Pearce says above, except that his classification of acts of nationalism and imperialism may be a trifle oversimplified, if only because almost all acts of imperialism such as those he mentioned can be justified, or at least obfuscated, by explanations that make them seem like acts of nationalism. And the converse is often true as well. And where do you put invasion of country A because it is oppressing its own people? But the basic principle remains, and is valid, despite the efforts of politicians to confuse the issue.
Quibcag: These three girls are what is known as Nyotalia, which is the female version of Hetalia, which you can find explained here: Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア). That is, while most or all of the Hetalia characters are male symbols of various countries, the Nyotalia characters are their female versions. I of course usually lean towards Nyotalia, because they're cuter. Now, I picked this illustration because it was very appealing visually, but I'm not certain which countries are symbolized here. The one on the right looks a lot like the USA girl that I've seen elsewhere, and the center one certainly looks Japanese. And if I had to bet, I'd say the one on the left is the UK.
Maybe you can figure it out for sure. I got the image from https://www.pinterest.com/pin/479000110351342867/