Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Don't Give Up The Flag

I just finished a dust-up with an SF writer whose stuff I like, but who has taken the orthodox liberal/progressive wise-ass position on the Confederate flag. It's evil, it stands for evil, yadda yadda yadda. It all started with his lickspittle praise of Bree Newsome, the latest liberal mascot, who showed great courage in ripping the flag down with the approval of everybody. She should get a medal. No. I don't go around defacing Black symbols, or ripping them down. Images of Malcolm X are safe from me and my sort. And I don't want anybody tearing down symbols of me and mine, either. When they disrespect the icons of my cultural history, from that flag to Thomas Jefferson to Ben Franklin and all the way back to Charles Martel, they're disrespecting me.

I pointed out in the exchange that Bree hates Whitey. This was said to be "stupid" on my part because she had some pathologically anti-White Whites helping her out. Therefore, of course, she can't hate Whitey. Liberals always make this extremely illogical point, forgetting (or never knowing) that all groups have their traitors, and there's always somebody ready to open the gates to the enemy. Some moron once asserted to me on the net that Obama can't have any hostility to Whites because his mother was White. He'd evidently never heard of Malcolm X. Or even Spock.

Since the "stupid" gauntlet had been thrown down, I responded in kind, so of course the administrator cautioned me against "gratuitous abuse." When a liberal/progressive calls you stupid or bigoted, it's just good clean fun and ethical debating. But if you respond by questioning their character, intelligence, or just the reliability of their information, you're being abusive and you have to shut up.

Well, the best response to all this is from a better SF writer, L. Neil Smith, who strikes to the heart of the matter. Instead of arguing with idiots who keep telling you the flag is racist or whatever, just use this graphic, ideally linking back to here.
Quibcag: The girls saluting the flag are from Girls und Panzer (ガールズ&パンツァーGāruzu ando Pantsā).

A Sensible Statement on Immigration from the Left

I've mentioned before that Robert Lindsay [link] is my favorite leftists. He may even be a Marxist, but he is definitely not a cultural Marxist. In fact, the only thing I disagree with him about is whether a planned economy would be superior to a free economy. He seems to lean towards the planned economy, while I lean towards a free economy with constant scrutiny from everybody to keep it honest. But all that to the side, he definitely understands the economics of immigration, legal and illegal, and unlike most of the left, he sees it for what it really is — an attack on the White working class.  And, I have to agree with him, one of the really big flaws in the free market. Of course, I'd say that as long as the government is subsidizing immigration and interfering in the economy so as to encourage that immigration and discourage participation in the economy by Whites, it's not really a free market. But that's just a quibble about definitions. Read this, see the wisdom in it, and then visit Robert's site and congratulate him for pointing out the elephant in the room while everybody else is marveling at the elephant dung and wondering where it comes from.

There Are No “Jobs White Men Won’t Do”


I recently lived for 20 years in an all white community in California. Trust me,there was not one single job in that area that White people would not do. Nothing was too low for any White man of any age. Even many older White men were doing some of the worst, most low-paying jobs you could imagine. But it was a working class town, and everyone respected any man who worked, no matter at what kind of a job.

All the garbage collectors were White men. All the janitors and landscape crews were White men. All the dishwashers were White men. All the construction workers and painters were White men.

Towards the end though the Mexicans started flooding in and ruining everything.

A friend worked construction and the scumbag capitalist boss kept threatening to replace all the White workers with Mexicans. His exact words. Mexicans generally means illegals. Another friend is a painter and he said he could not compete anymore as all the competition was hiring Mexicans (illegals). When I left, even the roofing was being done by illegals. The roofing in my apartment was done by illegals.

I was so furious I wanted to call someone, but of course there is no INS to call about this sort of thing. The landlord was a capitalist piece of shit who never fixed anything and always bitched about how poor he was. He was not poor at all, trust me. The tenants like me? Now that’s poor.

The people who love the illegals are White small businessmen who hire them in droves. Restaurant owners, landscapers, roofers, construction contractors, painters, they are all hiring illegals in droves. I do not think many corporations are hiring illegals in California, but I could be wrong. Also a lot of relatively well-off White homeowners want to hire illegals to do work for them around their homes. I have had a number of White homeowners ask me where they could find some illegals to do some work around their place for them.

It is pretty much middle class and upper middle class Whites who are hiring illegals. So middle and upper class Whites are waging all out war on working class and poor Whites and using the illegal scabs as a weapon.

The word is that is how you get rich in California. Start a labor intensive small business, hire all illegals, and get rich. Apparently a lot of people are doing just that.

There is no downside to hiring illegals. There is zero law enforcement and you will never get caught.

White people pretty much suck. As long as the illegals are not taking their jobs, then they tend to support the illegals as a source of cheap labor. Or at least their job is not being threatened by them. You will notice that almost every White person who loves illegals makes pretty good money and is in a job that is not threatened by illegals. Human beings are no good. People suck. If it doesn’t effect them personally, they don’t give a f*ck. It ruins your life? So what? It doesn’t ruin mine so you can burn, haha. That’s how humans think.
Afterword. Robert is clearly right, but this attitude on the part of those who hire illegals is only due in part to basic human nature. It's also, as he says, because hiring illegals is risk-free, indeed, less risky than hiring Americans. It's also due to the neocon/neoliberal/libertarian notion that money, or at least economics, is everything, and to hell with race, nation, community, whatever else. And it's also due to the constant propaganda that we must welcome illegals, that they're actually better than we are, yadda yadda yadda, also a constant theme from the NNL's.  As for the quibcag, I found the illustratoin here:  http://zeiex.blogspot.com/

Sunday, June 28, 2015

On Universal Love

It's always seemed to me that universality of any kind is self-contradictory. If everybody owns everything, nobody owns anything. If you care about everybody, you don't care about anybody. If there are no distinctions between things, you can't even think any more.

Matt Bailey comes at the question from an engineering perspective. I tried to edit this down for a quibcag, but just couldn't. So here it is both ways:

A mechanic's observation on philosophy, culture, and human nature:

This "everybody love everybody!" stuff is an idea that pops up from time to time, generally in the hands of 1st century Judean mystics, hippies, and other jobless vagabonds. It has a certain emotional appeal, as well as certain political implications. However, It is as much impractical fantasy as the perpetual motion machine, and for precisely the same reason: Friction inevitably occurs. In point of fact, to work at all machines require what are called tolerances. These are NOT "the everybody hold hands and sing kum-ba-yah!" thing the flaky Left thinks of in regards to "tolerance", but quite the opposite: In machine terms that word refers to the necessary SPACE between the parts that allows them freedom to move and work, as opposed to just locking up and grinding each other to destruction. Likely this is because most people demand that their machines actually work and create rational benefits, whereas many folks apparently do not require the same of philosophies.
Quibcag: This, I believe, is Caroline, from Fullmetal Alchemist  鋼の錬金術師, Hagane no Renkinjutsushi)

Saturday, June 27, 2015

On the Re-Write Side of History

And another one to pass around:

Black Lies Matter

Here's one for you to pass around. Fill Facebook up with it!

Right Arm Tied Behind Our Back

The left has just had quite a series of victories. Banning flags, sanctioning homosexual marriage, dumping the Constitution in favor of feel-good stuff. Why? Are they so smart that they always win, or what is going on?

I think the problem is with us — the right wing in general. We seem to accept most of the left's assumptions about what is good and bad, so of course they win these things. The right in this country is mainly just kind of a focus group for the left to use to refine their propaganda efforts.

Racism and sexism are two things we seem to accept without argument, and we spend an awful lot of time and effort trying to prove that we're not racist/sexist. A waste of time, because by leftist standards, anybody who disagrees with their latest enthusiasm is racist/sexist by definition.

My tactic has been more or less to point out that the two terms are either meaningless or so vague as to be useless, which has some success here and there, but only with those leftist who have some residual respect left for reason and facts. Not many of them on the ground.

Colin Liddell takes a different tack, accepting the meaning of the terms, but refusing to consider their manifestation all black or all white. This is worth reading and thinking about:

Why the Left Keeps Winning & How to Fight Back

The greatest humiliations are to be outwitted by an idiot and shamed by a scumbag, but that is exactly what keeps on happening to Conservatives whenever they run into the Left, as with the latest debacle over Confederate symbolism in the USA. 
Based on what they espouse, the Left are clearly idiots and scumbags – they freely believe in any number of ostensibly absurd and immoral ideas – but they nevertheless manage to run rings round Conservatives using a very simple formula that should be relatively easy to understand and counter, but which Conservatives fail to do.
Right now my Facebook feed is full of dumb news items from the mainstream media reflecting the ongoing “Cultural Revolution” that is sweeping America, directed explicitly at Confederate cultural symbols, but also implicitly at anything else from before the dawn of political-correctness. The latest one that sticks in my mind is a link asking whether the 1946 Disney live-action/animated musical film Song of the South is racist or not. The implication, of course, is that if it is “racist” it should be dropped down the cultural memory hole, regardless of the degree to which it is “racist.” I have seen other items about various Civil War computer games and even the movie Gone With the Wind.
But rather than a grassroots groundswell from the masses, this frenzy seems to be cooked up by a combination of Twitter mobs, establishment elites, the media, spineless commercial concerns keen to brand themselves as “inclusive” (in case they have to fire too many Black people next month), and, of course, weak-kneed, jittery Republican presidential candidates nervous about losing access to the mushy political centre.
Yes, it seems that a “perfect storm” of factors has coalesced to drive this insanity. But this is merely the latest chapter in an all-too-familiar story. Conservatives have been on the back foot for decades now, retreating from the position of a common sense society, conceding mile after foot of territory to their unworthy opponents.
Retreats of this length only occur when two opposing forces are completely mismatched in their weaponry. Despite their superior value systems, their greater integrity, and firmer grasp on reality, Conservatives remain powerless against the simple tricks employed by their foes, and find themselves constantly outflanked and pushed back. This has a lot to do with their ideological naivety.
The way that the Left gulls Conservatives is actually very simple. They take two complex categories that can be applied to most debates in the West, namely race and sex, and moralize them as absolute moral negatives by adding the “-ist” suffix. In this way Racism and Sexism become states that either are or aren’t in the same way that murder or pregnancy either are or aren’t.
But the reality is that things denoted by the “racism” category are complex and multifaceted and exist on a gradational continuum. Racism, given its polymorphous application, can never be simple. It is something with many degrees that range from extremely harmful ethnomasochism all the way through to psychopathic and self-harming hatred of the other, via a number of beneficial and even mutually beneficialstates in between.
The same can be said for sexism.
Imagine it as a bowl of porridge. From the story of Goldilocks, we know that too cold is not good, but neither is too hot, but then there is that other bowl of porridge which is “just right.” However, if you can persuade Goldilocks that all bowls of porridge are always too hot, then you might be able to stop her from ever eating porridge again. I use this reference to a children’s story to emphasize just how simple the trick played on Conservatives really is.
We can see how the Left is acting in the present situation. Stories often start with headlines or intros that ask the question is such-and-such a film/ flag/ statue/ movie/ computer game/ etc. “symbolic of our racist past” or not. This is essentially like asking if something is porridge after convincing Goldilocks that porridge could only ever be too hot.
With racism or sexism the debate is never about whether something is generally harmful or beneficial, or what group it harms or benefits. The debate simply becomes focused on whether it is racist or not.
This gives the Left an enormous inbuilt advantage, because, most things actually are racist or sexist in the sense that all aspects of life actually reveal quite natural inequalities. Once the Left is able to point to something that indicates any kind of inequality of outcome on a racial or gender basis, Conservatives have basically no option but to pack up their knapsacks and resume their endless retreat, even if the item identified as “racist” is merely an old-fashioned, genial characterization of a Black man from a Disney film.
The only way that Conservatives can fight back is to reject the Left’s relentless imposition of moral absolutism on categories that are complex, contextual, and gradated, and which embrace beneficial as well as detrimental aspects. The only way to defeat the Left is to recognize that there are in fact good forms of racism and sexism, as well as bad ones, and that debates have to work to elucidate this and specify which groups win and lose by them.
Read the original here:

Quibcag: Illustrated by Marii of Joshiraku (じょしらく), in her rant mode.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Putin: Guardian of Western Civilization

Speaking of revising reality, back when the Soviets took Russia over, many of the zealots did their best to destroy Russian culture, of course, but then cooler heads (seriously) like Stalin came to understand that for the Soviet Union to survive, it needed most of the underpinnings of Russian culture to maintain it, statecraft-wise. So many of the things that American leftist revere, like homosexual marriage, drug addictions, and the other jolly lifestyle trends we're hearing so much about were actively discouraged by the Soviets. And when communism fell, the church even came back, and Russia became more conservative than ever in the cultural ways that count.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for the overthrow of communism. But we shouldn't see it as Putin having reversed course in all ways. In many ways, he's maintained the essential domestic conservatism of the Soviet era, revising and extending it, so to speak.

The only reason the left encourages decadent culture is to bring down the power structures of their enemies. In their own bailiwick, they want everybody not to be decadent, because they want their country to be strong, stable, and prosperous. American leftists encourage decadence because they want America to be weak, unstable, and poor.  And it's working.

Stuart Schneiderman elaborates:

Russia Leads a Counterrevolution

We tend to believe that everything gets decided by the government. We even believe that the executive, the legislature and the courts can create new realities. Even new values.

At present, America is undergoing a cultural revolution. It began during the Vietnam era and has proceeded apace, with ups and downs.

We are so fully confident of our revolutionary values that we are selling them around the world, in term of liberal democracy and human rights.

America is now thoroughly open about all things sexual. We do not merely obsess; we show off our new liberated attitude toward all things sexual.

We continue to flagellate ourselves for the sins of the past, the better to create a culture where guilt prevails. America’ success was purchased on the backs of the oppressed and now we are duty-bound to make reparations. Everyone who is not a privileged white male can now line up to receive some form of largesse. It’s not about any oppressed minority, because the oppressed are a majority now.

America has increasingly rejected religion in favor of atheism. We don’t believe in a Creator who produced reality as we know it. We believe that we can create our own realities: either by interpreting things differently or by believing that we are one thing or another.

America has embraced pharmacology as the cure to everything that ails it. Licit and illicit drugs are becoming increasing available. We’re becoming a stoner nation.

We have become mindlessly hypersensitive to the possibility of giving offense and we insist that people use language differently, lest they give offense. It’s bad enough when colleges ban The Vagina Monologues because it might offend women without vaginas, but when JP Morgan Chase bank tells its employees to avoid words like “wife” because someone might take offense, you know that the cultural decline is accelerating.

Of course, these values are now being enshrined by the courts in the name of equal rights and non-discrimination. It’s as though people have come to believe that because people have equal rights they are equal in all other things.

Some believe that this cultural revolution has brought us closer to the truth. Others have suggested that it’s a grand cultural experiment that may work but that may not. Time will tell.

Dare we point out that the playing field is not the Supreme Court. The playing field is international economic, political and military competition. If America becomes too slothful to compete effectively, the future will look less bright. When Camille Paglia sounded an alarm about America’s new decadence and when she said that the minds of American college students were like jello, this is what she was talking about.

Of course, some countries are following America’s lead. Others are not. They do not accept the new cultural values and are leading a counterrevolution.

Ironically, to say the least, the leading counterrevolutionary force today is Vladimir Putin’s Russia. So says Roger Cohen. One might add Xi Jinping’s China to the list, but more on that later.

Putin has very bad press in the West. He is often portrayed as a new type of autocrat… not without justification. Putin’s actions in the Ukraine have provoked economic sanctions. He has ignored them.

It’s not just that he does not care. Why should he when his approval rating in Russia is around 89%.

Roger Cohen raises the issue in his column today:

The escalating conflict between the West and Moscow has been portrayed as political, military and economic. It is in fact deeper than that. It is cultural. President Vladimir Putin has set himself up as the guardian of an absolutist culture against what Russia sees as the predatory and relativist culture of the West.

To listen to pro-Putin Russian intellectuals these days is to be subjected to a litany of complaints about the “revolutionary” West, with its irreligious embrace of same-sex marriage, radical feminism, euthanasia, homosexuality and other manifestations of “decadence.” It is to be told that the West loses no opportunity to globalize these “subversive” values, often under cover of democracy promotion and human rights.

The Cold War against godless Communism was well worth fighting. Now the tables seem to have turned. It’s Vladimir Putin, in an increasingly close alliance with China and even Turkey who is fighting culture war against the godless West:

Beyond Putin’s annexation of Crimea and stirring-up of a small war in eastern Ukraine (although large enough to leave more than 6,000 dead), it is this decision to adopt cultural defiance of the West that suggests the confrontation with Russia will last decades. Communism was a global ideology; Putinism is less than that. But a war of ideas has begun in which counterrevolution against the godless and insinuating West is a cornerstone of Russian ideology. To some degree, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey shares Putin’s view of the West. China, meanwhile, finds uses in it.

Of course, Putin has suffered economic sanctions. But, he does not very much care about having been expelled from the G-8. (As a sidelight, famed investor Jim Rogers thinks that Russia is a great investment.)

Putin does not care about the West because he is pivoting toward Asia, and in particular toward China:

This Russian decision has strategic implications the West is only beginning to digest. It involves an eastward pivot more substantial than President Obama’s to Asia. Putin is now more interested in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose core is China and Russia, than he is in cooperation with the G-8 (from which Russia has been suspended) or the European Union.

China reciprocates this interest to some degree because a Moscow hostile to the West is useful for the defense of its own authoritarian political model and because it sees economic opportunity in Russia and former Soviet Central Asian countries. But China’s fierce modernizing drive cannot be accomplished through backward-looking Russia. There are clear limits to the current Chinese-Russian rapprochement.

What we all want to know is: who will win. Cohen believes that the West should cling to its values and that Russia will ultimately fail.

He writes:

As a senior European official attending a conference organized by Harvard University’s Weatherhead Center for International Affairs put it, Russia’s is a “loser’s challenge” to the West, because it has given up on modernization and globalization, whereas China’s is potentially a “winner’s challenge,” because it is betting everything on a high-tech, modern economy.

Cohen believes that Russia has given up on economic modernization and globalization. Time will tell whether this is true or false. Given Putin’s popularity in Russia, he has clearly grasped something essential about what is going on in the world.

One does not know how the rapprochement between Russia and China will affect both nations. Perhaps Russia will adopt a more Chinese free enterprise-driven model of economic growth?

To offer some needed historical perspective, Russia under Gorbachev and Yeltsin tried to modernize according to the Western democratic model. People all over the West cheered.

At the same time Deng Xiaoping led China to modernize by using an authoritarian capitalist model.

By most objective standards, the Chinese model prevailed. Russia has a higher per-capita GDP, but much of it is due to commodities. Today, the commodities market--let by oil--is declining. With it, Russia economic growth is falling. China has been growing far more rapidly and seems capable of continuing to do so. So, Putin is not merely rejecting the decadence of the West but he is trying to reverse course after the Russian democratic experiment.

But, Cohen retorts that refugees the world over are flocking to Western Europe and America. Surely they are seeking freedom and opportunity and human rights. Or, are they seeking refuge from the culture wars in the Middle East and Africa. Then again, they might want welfare and generous entitlements?

Whichever is true, these people also know that Russia would never allow masses of undocumented aliens to invade its territory. The same applies to China.
The original is here:
Quibcag: Illustrated by our favorite Russian Attorney General, Natalia Poklonskaya.

Revising Reality

There's a human tradition, that seems to have started with the Greeks, that calls for reality to be valued more than fantasy. In the Western World, this thinking really got humming with the idea of science, and the scientific method, where you observe reality, come up with theories to explain how things work, and then test those theories.  But that's really grueling and not user-friendly all all for our modern liberal/neocon establishment, which prefers to live in what Bob Wallace calls a groovy little fantasy world [link].  In such a world, you don't have to put up with dismal old reality, but can make stuff up that sounds better and believe in that. And at one point, the fantasists realized that all this would work even better if these fantasies were actually called reality, and reality itself was renamed bigotry or racism or sexism or something like that.

At one point in the past, it was thought that skepticism was a good way to come to understand reality, and indeed it is, except that human beings have a talent for self-delusion, and end up being skeptical about common sense facts, and true believers in idiocy.

John Derbyshire thinks all this is getting steadily worse, and has to do with the decline of religion and the rise of political correctness. At takimag.com, he writes:

Nothing Is Real

T.S. Eliot’s observation that “human kind cannot bear very much reality” is surely up among the half-dozen wisest things ever said about our common nature.

There is, of course, individual variation in how much reality we can bear. I flatter myself by believing I am up toward the high end. I readily admit, however, that I have spent not insignificant portions of my life in a state of self-delusion driven by wishful thinking—a hugely underestimated force in human affairs. Some humility is in order, and not just for me.

There is group variation, too. Speaking generally, and again with much individual variation, the old can bear more reality than the young; men more than women; people in up-against-it professions like medicine or law enforcement more than those in comparatively sheltered occupations; people educated in STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, math) more than humanities majors; and so on.

I am now going to propose a half-baked theory to you.

Theory: In advanced societies, the average amount of reality people can bear has declined across the past few decades.

This, I believe, has something to do with the ever-increasing availability of screen-based entertainment (movies, TV, the internet), something to do with the decline of religion, something to do with the revolution in manners that we call “political correctness,” and something to do with the falloff in violence, as chronicled by Steven Pinker.

There are surely connections there; but which is cause, which is effect, and which mere symptom, I don’t know. That’s why the theory is half-baked.

Illustrations: As we have seen these past few days, the whole zone of “identity” is shot through with barefaced, unblushing denial of reality.

All but a very tiny proportion of human beings are biologically male (an X and a Y chromosome in the genome) or female (two X chromosomes). A person who is biologically of one sex but believes himself to be of the other is in the grip of a delusion. That is what everybody would have said 50 years ago.

Some of those who said it would have followed up with an expression of disgust; some with unkind mockery; some with sympathy and suggestions for psychiatric counseling. Well-nigh nobody would have said: “Well, if he thinks he’s a gal, then he is a gal.” Yet that is the majority view nowadays. It is a flagrant denial of reality; but if you scoff at it, you place yourself out beyond the borders of acceptable opinion.

Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Ironically illustrated by Haruhi Suzumiya of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu), because when she stops believing in reality, it does go away. But to understand that you'd have to watch the anime.

Thursday, June 25, 2015

First PC Peoples

I wasn't really disappointed in PBS's First Peoples [link] last night, because it was what I expected. A little science with a lot of political correct massaging so that we'll come away from it Thinking The Right Things.

First off, in the America episode, we are told that a skeleton from 13.5 thousand years back in Yucatan was sort of here before the Native Americans, who came later. And since the show decided not to refer to race in any way whatsoever, we are wondering just who that was — a Mongoloid or an Australoid. And we're told that Kennewick Man is indeed ancestral to Native—look, I'm going to say "Amerinds," okay? Though he seems to be Australoid. And the fact that Amerinds have an Australoid ancestor or two, does not make Kennewick Man an Amerind. So we're left a little confused, there. One scientist, a Dane, I think, in the film seems to be utterly delighted that he can show Kennewick Man to be ancestral to Amerinds, and he seems so respectful of the Amerind idea that the human body is sacred and must be buried with reverence (when it isn't being eaten, I suppose). One wonders what he thinks of his own European religious traditions and whether he'd let them stand in the way of scientific research.

But the show goes haywire on the second part, about Africa, when we are shown "Modern Man," all of whom seem to be Negroes, encountering Neanderthals, all of whom seem to be White rednecks, referred to as "archaic humans." And we get all excited when we are told that advanced modern Negroes interbred with these White Neanderthals, because hybridization is way cool. Especially Blacks interbreeding with Whites. And we are left with the thought that we need a whole lot more of that — interbreeding, that is.

We have the usual doublethink going on, with one tenure-grasping science-wallah telling us at least twice that human differences ("racial" seems to be a taboo word here) are superficial. And then being told that although these differences are meaningingless, blending them somehow creates something superior. But also that nobody is superior to anybody else.  Except hybrids. And we're all hybrids, except that we're clearly not hybrid enough.

Obviously, folks, some interbreeding can be good, some bad, and some indifferent. But we are told that it is just plain good.

You can learn some stuff from this program, not the least of which is how you hold an atlatl, but don't forget that they're using every technique they can think of to jolly you along the PC egalitarian narrative. If your kids watch it, be ready to explain to them what's being distorted or left out.

And why the devil is the music so loud that you can't hear the narrator?
Illustration is from http://baloocartoons.com/

Wednesday, June 24, 2015

An Opportunity for Progressives

Another opportunity for our progressive SJWs to have a hissy-fit and an indignasm. This should justify burning all his CDs, and maybe even digging him up and desecrating the corpse. Then the inner party can delete him from the internet.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Do Pigs Trickle? The Answer May Surprise You.

As I've pointed out before, though we Americans have a lot of solid libertarian thinking, starting with the Founding Fathers, sometimes our Brit cousins over in Airstrip One are solider. For one thing, there's this notion here that libertarianism is some kind of eclectic blend of the good ideas of the right and the left, symbolized by the Nolan Chart. The chart is a good thing for introductions, but a poor guide to reality. And the reality is that while the right has many good ideas that are indeed a part of libertarianism, the left really has no good ideas, except for one or two about which they are right for the wrong reasons. For example, the left always talks a lot about freedom of speech, but it's clear that they mean freedom to say things destructive of civilization. When it comes to the expression of conservative or right-wing ideas, they're all for banning them. Like the current indignigasm they're performing about the Confederate Battle Flag.

But I digress. Alex Rantwell reminds us that it's all too easy to unknowingly accept leftist narratives in place of reality, this time about economics, the one thing even the flaky libertarian faction should be able to get right:

Trickle Down versus a Pig

The term “trickle down” economics is now almost a pejorative in itself. The idea that promoting growth and allowing people to be wealthy is a benefit to all is as fashionable as a mullet and a neon Swatch. Guardian economics editor Larry Elliot wrote recently that the theory has been disproven since 2008 by the growing gap between the super rich and the rest, citing Chistine Lagarde, Managing Director of the IMF presenting a report showing rising inequality, and the need to boost the incomes of the poor to achieve overall economic growth.

However the term “trickle down” economics is not a piece of right wing dogma from the 1980s. The term was first used by Democratic Presidential hopeful William Jennings Bryan in his 1896 campaign for the White House. Then as now the term was a straw man. Bryan believed that the state needed to intervene to raise the incomes of the poorest to drive economic growth. The term has occasionally been adopted by those in favour of the free market, but more generally through it’s history has been used by those arguing for state intervention.

As so often with the psuedo-science of economics it pays to cut through the worthy sounding reports and peer reviewed numbers games, and to simplify it back to something readily visualised. In this case a pig. If I buy a piglet, feed and raise it to a good size, kill it and sell the meat then wealth has been created. My labour and capital have grown to a value that is greater than the sum of their parts. Yet no wealth has trickled down. I haven’t been the fortunate beneficiary of a redistribution. I have used inputs to produce something of value. If someone cures parts of that pig into bacon they have done likewise. If someone cooks that bacon and sells it in sandwiches then they have added to this chain. In no case has wealth trickled down.

This misconception about the nature of wealth seems fundamental to left wing thought. The very notion of trickle down economics rests on the idea that wealth is some sort of endowment, given to the few to be dispersed to the rest. This is a fundamentally interventionist view of the world which will always lead to the demand that the state must intervene to rectify the inequity of the situation. It’s an idea that might make some sense in a feudal kingdom where the right to hunt, farm, fish or trade is handed down to the commoners by barons who in turn derive their authority from the king. In a free, property owning society it is a nonsense.

Wealth is not an endowment handed down to the wealthy to be distributed to the population, by trickling down or otherwise. Wealth is what people create by arranging their capital and labour to their own advantage. It doesn’t matter if this is done by rearing a pig, 1,000 pigs or by putting together a complex finance deal to fund corporate merger, the principle remains the same.

When people talk scathingly of trickle-down economics being discredited they are attacking a straw man with an attractive yet wholly false metaphor. The idea of wealth trickling down from rich to poor relies entirely on a perception of wealth which is rooted in a feudal society. This was rendered obsolete not by the state redistributing wealth from rich to poor but by property rights giving people the incentive to create wealth themselves.

The original is here:
Quibcag: Featuring Akane Tendou of Ranma ½ (らんま½) and her loyal pig, P-chan.

Heaven, the Earth, Pope Francis, and Matt Bailey

Elsewhere on the net, in response to our current Pope's shenanigans and hijinks, Matt Bailey wrote:

"Love thy neighbor" in general just doesn't work. It is unnatural. It sounds like a good ideal, but the expectations it sets up lead to bad problems when men inevitably fall short. "Leave the bastard alone" is much better. It is much more attainable, much harder to interpret in boneheaded ways that lead to messes. The man who loves his neighbor may feel compelled to "save" this fellow from the drink, the vile weed, streetwalkers, or the dice. From such flows nearly every bad policy of the last 100 years. The man of my philosophy however, understands that it's the other guys life, he can run it to ruin if he likes. These folks who think heaven can be built on Earth, give em the reins of a nation and they'll drive it straight to hell.

And, lest you think Matt is being irreligious here, another said much the same thing in a different way:

"Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive." — C. S. Lewis.

They're both quite right, of course, and put the lie to the liberal/progressive notion that intentions are everything, and outcomes are secondary. Oh, they seldom say it so overtly, except when some liberal project has ruined a bunch of lives, when the excuse is that so-and-so meant well.

One of my progressive friends on Facebook is thrilled to pieces that Burma seems to be throwing some Muslims the hell out, and want us to take them all in and sign them up for welfare and the whole ball of wax. Emma Lazarus is quoted at length. In case you weren't aware, she called for America to be a refuge for everybody, but, as a proto-Zionist, she had plans to create a country that would only let Jews in. There was doublethink long before Orwell named it.

Of course, when Muslim masses yearn to breath free, they end up yearning for Sharia and other Muslim social institutions, and to hell with those stupid countries that welcome them in. Polygamy and honor killings are the new freedom and democracy.

And, if you're the sensitive type, and care about the fate of such Muslims, is it really doing them a favor to move them in here among all us evil White Supremacists with our Confederate Battle Flag and grits and Coors? More on this later.
Quibcag: Angel girl is from Nichijou (日常)

Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Steve Sailer's United Field Theory of Transies

You'll note that I don't say "trannies," because I think "tranny" has a more specific meaning. Anyhow, Wiktionary says:

(slang, chiefly pejorative and offensive) A transsexual, transgender or transvestite person, usually a transwoman.

So I needed a word that would also include the cutting-edge popular new transracial category. And who knows what next? Transchronal? (lies about one's age) Transelevational? (wears lifts) Transspeciesal? (is some sort of nonhuman at heart) and on and on and on. If anybody has a better word than "transy," let me know.

Anyhow, as far as the sexual categories and racial thing is concerned, the dependable Steve Sailer has come up with a sort of unified field theory that explains them all, and places them in the social construction area, as opposed to the real area, which consists of pretty basic biological definitions instead of the groovy fantasy world area so beloved of our leftist pals, who plan to change the world not with revolution any more, but with wishful thinking and everybody who believes in fairies clap their hands.

And do notice as you read this, that Steve invokes Darwin. Not in the usual leftist manner of using Darwin to bash Christians, but in the manner of applying what Darwin actually said and thought to the controversy, a thing leftists would rather die than do.

Over at takimag, Steve writes:

The Flight From White

As you may have noticed, the more denunciations we hear of Cisgender Straight White Male Privilege, the more the evidence mounts that, all else being equal, the rewards in 2015 tend to lie on the other side.

If you want to know which side is more powerful at present, just observe who is wielding the rhetorical whip hand. It’s human nature to fear, respect, and even admire those with the power to harm you. Hence, it’s popular to side with the strong to denounce the weak. As Mencius Moldbug observed in 2013:

The logic of the witch hunter is simple…. The first requirement is to invert the reality of power…. In a country where anyone who speaks out against the witches is soon found dangling by his heels from an oak at midnight with his head shrunk to the size of a baseball, we won’t see a lot of witch-hunting and we know there’s a serious witch problem. In a country where witch-hunting is a stable and lucrative career, and also an amateur pastime enjoyed by millions of hobbyists on the weekend, we know there are no real witches worth a damn.

Of course, the more our society obsesses over the Looming Witch Menace, the more absurd becomes the daily news, and the harder it is to refrain from breaking out laughing. Perhaps June 2015 will go down in history as the month the reigning pieties jumped the shark.

For example, white male has-been Bruce Jenner is now superstarette Caitlyn Jenner, a Good Witch in the war upon male dignity, whose courage is lauded by both the president and millions of Kardashian fans.

And don’t you dare act as if Jenner having threatened to unman himself on the E! network might be a little funny. Clint Eastwood, for example, made the slightest verbal gesture that he found something amusing about it all (“Caitlyn somebody”) and had his heresy censored by the Spike network.

Shortly after Jenner’s transubstantiation, we learned that a social-justice warriorette named Rachel Dolezal had moved to the big city of Spokane, Wash., tanned her skin, permed her hair, and built herself a nice little career as a black activist witch-hunting white racists. And when there weren’t enough white witches to be found, she would (apparently) gin up a few of the usual Hate Crime Hoaxes. Life was good, until her mother and father pointed out to the press that they were white.

Many media outlets were baffled that anybody in 21st-century America would find it advantageous to give up all that White Privilege to be perceived as black. After all, we know that vicious white racists lie in wait to victimize black bodies by murdering them, raping them, and not letting them use the swimming pool.

But that raised the uncomfortable (or amusing) question: Weren’t the liberals denouncing Dolezal being transphobic?

Among non-SJWs, Ms. Dolezal’s embarrassment proved a welcome relief to many who had been baffled by how sanctimoniously the dispensers of conventional wisdom had greeted Jenner’s transparent ploy to make millions off an upcoming reality TV show about whether or not in the season finale he’d finally have himself castrated.
It just keeps getting better. Read the rest here:


Quibcag: This is a two-quibcag article. Deserves them. But the first isn't technically a quibcag, because we have a scene from Star Trek TOS instead of the usual Cute Anime Girl. But we make up for that in the second quibcag, which includes three Cute Anime Girls, from Little Witch Academia (リトルウィッチアカデミアRitoru Witchi Akademia).

Hayek v. Orwell v. May

Found the top of this graphic on the net, and finished it off. All too many snarky libertarians would simply brush Orwell's statement off as wrongheaded and not come up with an argument against it but rely on ideological purity and dogmatic anarchist piety to carry the day. Rex F. May, contrariwise, has acknowledged the truth in Orwell's position and produces a balanced, sensible libertarian reply to it.
Do pass it around.

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

More Liberal Doublethink

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them." — George Orwell.

And, boy, are liberals good at that! We all have our list of liberal doublethinks, but at the top of the list is their absolute rejection of the thought that any kind of behavior other than sexual could have any genetic cause whatsoever, while they insist that homosexuality must be genetically hard-wired and therefore must be approved of and sanctioned. This is, of course, doublethinking necessary to maintain their narrative of absolute racial equality and, at the same time, and for a different reason, the equivalence of heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Quibcag: Since it's a science-y quote, the illustration is Rika of Haganai (はがない)

Friday, June 12, 2015

Warriors and Mothers

A discussion worth reading is going on at Matt Bailey's Facebook site [link] about whether libertarians should join the armed forces. My answer, of course, is 'of course.' In the first place, there are tremendous benefits for young men (and I don't oppose young women joining, but the benefits are much less, and there are good reasons against it as well) in doing a hitch. It certainly did me a lot of good that way. And, most importantly, as the quibcag states, it is necessary for a tribe, race, nation, whatever subdivision of mankind you belong to, to have both male defenders to protect it and female mothers to continue it. Without these two things, the group goes out of existence and nothing else it might accomplish means much of anything. I remember reading somewhere years ago that Austria-Hungary gave the same medal that they gave to soldiers killed in combat to women who died in childbirth. I've been googling to confirm that, but I can't find anything. Anybody know about that medal?

At any rate, the truth is undeniable. A group without defenders or reproducers is biologically, philosophically, and a lot of other adverbs, irrelevant and meaningless.
Quibcag: I used Amy from Gargantia on the Verdurous Planet (翠星のガルガンティア Suisei no Garugantia), because she looks kind of tribal.

Thursday, June 11, 2015

They just like to use these words....

I have vague memories of using words wrong when I was a kid. I learned to read early, so I was reading stuff and coming across words I didn't know, so I naturally tried to figure them out, and I frequently got it wrong. Not just the pronunciation, but the meaning. I specifically remember coming across the word 'insult' and thinking, for some reason, that it meant something good, so I defined it as a compliment of some sort. That happened with a lot of other words.

Well, as in the quibcag, a lot of people, not just kids, like to use popular words without knowing at all what they mean. In Seinfeld's story, his daughter seems to define 'sexist' as anything that in any way refers to sexual differences or sexual behavior. In like manner, 'racist' now seems to mean any reference to race in any manner by a White person.

Indeed, the operative part of the quote is "They just like to use these words." They've learned, not what the words mean, but that when you use them, people take you seriously and tend to grovel before you, so of course you use them whenever you have an excuse.

Steve Sailer has some insights on this here:
Quibcag: Hinagiku of Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!) isn't a sullen fourteen-year-old girl, but she kind of looks like one in the illustration.

Tuesday, June 9, 2015

A Non-Propositional Proposal

One thing that liberals and neocons agree on (along with all too many libertarians of the more flaky variety) is that there's nothing special at all about Americans. I'm not talking about 'exceptionalism' here, whatever anybody might mean by it, but unique identity. The special kind of people that we are, just as the French are a special French sort of people, Japanese a special Japanese sort of people, etc. In short, it's not that we're uniquely unique. All nations are unique, with a history and blood line that defines them, whether they acknowledge the fact or not. We are not a propositional nation. Nothing of the sort could possible be stable. What to call ourselves other than 'Americans' is tricky, because we've been taught by our betters for years that some joker who just arrived from Somalia or Sumatra and wangled citizenship is "just as American as we are." Nonsense, of course, but that's the myth of our age. Yes, before you start yelling and hissy-fitting, foreigners, some of them, can become pretty good Americans, and back when we were halfway picky about who we let in, most of them did, because that's why they came. We didn't have squads of social workers ready to leap to keep them from becoming Americans back then.

Anyhow, over at http://therightstuff.biz/, Lawrence Murray settles on the term "Anglo-American." He explains:


There's been some discussion lately on our corner of the internet aboutpropositional nationalism in the United States, our historical and current white majority, immigration myths and related topics. A lot of us believe in some form of white nationalism—even if we are hesitant to call it that—or at the very least, the idea that a white American identity is or should be a positive thing. Over at my personal blog I started to organize my own thoughts about what defines us. In short, we're white, English-speaking, and have become native to North America. That must be the basis for our identity as a group. We are Anglo-Americans, not something esoteric but a people with a history on this continent. In the mainstream view of things, however, we are a people who only have an identity when we are needed as a bogeyman: privileged racist white male shitlord oppressors.

If you buy into a negative white identity, you might be on the wrong website. The biggest problem with undoing this narrative is that we have thus far failed to advocate for ourselves in the realm of identity politics, where we are in constant conflict with a coalition of rent-seekers. Pathological altruism in action. Our position will only worsen as our majority shrinks to a plurality and thereafter, perhaps a minority. Every vote counts, our share of those votes is shrinking, and we aren't voting for our interests.

Enter metapolitics. We need to compile and spread our ideas. Namely, that we exist, we ought to exist, and we must compete to exist. It's something so basic yet something we've on the whole forgotten. The Theodore Roosevelts and Lothrop Stoddards and Madison Grants of the world have passed and white racial consciousness itself has gone into a marked dormancy since the world wars. If we are going to accept white nationalism as the vehicle for white survival and flourishing, despite the fact that widespread support for it is no longer fait accompli, we need to ask ourselves how to get or get back there.

I think there's a lot to be learned from the 19th century, which might not sound immediately obvious or intuitive unless you're familiar with nationalism. In many ways, nationalism became a secular religion and was something that needed to be cultivated by writers, thinkers, composers, artists, clergy, statesmen, soldiers, and of course, blood and iron. Nationalism created the world we see today, and has manifested differently for each people. If religion exists in your nation, as Christianity does for so many white Americans, you can incorporate it and if not you must build an alternative. I do not think that Christianity alone can revitalize white America. We need a new narrative about an extant people. A purpose on earth and not in heaven. Explicit meaning where it was only implicit. Nationalism is about a people, their ancestors, and their future. Everything else is subordinate to that.

Read the rest here:

Quibcag: A Japanese illustration just didn't seem appropriate, so I used Baloo's "Libbie" character superimposed on the flaf rom Murray's essay.

A Few Things You Need to Know About...

Over at Vulture of Critique, we are asked what happened on June 8th, 1967. Follow this [link] to find out. (Philip Giraldi on the same subject at [link]) And he has interesting things to point out about the latest cool trend, "gayness," at this [link]. Also he has strange cartoons at [link].  Elsewhere, the Irish Savant says outrageously taboo things about the Wehrmacht, etc., here:

Hitler's Jewish soldiers

And speaking of taboo, Bob Wallace writes:

And you may, of course, circulate the meme everywhere.

Monday, June 8, 2015

Fred on the Two Americas

There has always been a tension between those who love and value their country and those who, frankly, dislike it and want to change it into something else, anything else. Interestingly, those of us who love and value the United States aren't averse to change — We're averse to destruction, and most of the "changes" desired by the self-appointed leftist (and neocon, which is a variation of leftist) elite are most certainly intended to be destructive. There is no combination more destructive than the liberal/neocon advocacy of open borders with a welfare and legal system guaranteed to attract the absolute worst kind of immigrant. And running a close second is the liberal/neocon refrain insisting on "tolerance" of anything and everything — and they use "tolerance" not in its original meaning, but have conflated it with approval, advocacy, and, if necessary, subsidization.

And that's all I'm going to say, not because I can't say more, but because Fred Reed is so much better at saying it than I am. This is from http://www.unz.com/, a site you should visit every day.

Turn Out the Lights and Lock the Door
I Hear the Fat Lady Singing