Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Immigrants on Welfare, etc.

The following was a part of a discussion on the net about immigration. I had pointed out that many immigrants somehow end up on welfare. Read Jeff's response and then I'll follow up with my comments.

Guest post by Jeff Colonnesi

Many are criticized for “taking advantage” of a perfectly legal option in the system. They come here, are told that they can legally get this or that benefit. Or they are told that they get this or that tax break if they structure their income or business a certain way. Then we blame them when they follow those rules to the letter, and don’t play by the unwritten ones that we handicap ourselves with.

That’s why free handouts, of any sort, do not work with immigration.

Most Americans will not dream of applying for handouts. American teenagers have to be browbeat by parents and school administrators to even apply for many scholarships. Young mothers look at WIC as something they won’t apply for unless desperate. Most Americans will take a job making pennies more than unemployment, just to have a job. Americans point fingers and accuse each other of “cheating” if they claim a business loss on their taxes.

Immigrants think about it differently. Without the cultural reference that condemns them for taking a handout, they look at those programs when they find out about them as “free money”. They structure their business to minimize the tax outlay, and think they have done a great job if they can (legally) claim a thriving business owes nothing in taxes. Our current political leaders are doing a damn good job of teaching Americans to look at it the same way (hence the staggering rise in the number of people on public assistance).

Any immigration faces that problem. If you or I immigrated to some other country we would have the written laws to base our decisions on. If someone tried to explain to us that it was the “cultural norm” to give away half our profits to our neighbors we would laugh at them and think they were trying to swindle us or playing a joke.

The only way to solve that issue is to remove the “free stuff” and make the legal laws represent what the culture actually expects.

Ex- Army here: Jeff is right. Immigrants always bring their culture with them, and crossing a border isn't magic. They continue, unless and until they learn otherwise, to follow all the customs and folkways they grew up with. And it goes deeper than that. Different countries have different levels of corruption and other criminal behavior. They have different marriage customs, different ideas of honor and personal responsibility, and totally different ideas of appropriate behavior. As he says, Americans, especially the basic old-time White European stock, have a gut aversion towards taking handouts burned into them by centuries of moral conditioning. Most nonEuropean immigrants have no such aversion, and look on welfare and other giveaways as a great opportunity.

Jeff's solution is correct, of course, but it's only a partial solution. Even if the gvt stopped with the handouts — and good luck with that, considering all the liberal and neocons in positions to stop any such reforms — private charities and churches would take the job on, and do just as poorly at it.

So we need  Jeff's reform, of course. And we also need to vet immigrants morally and culturally, and only let those in who are already in conformity with those "unwritten rules" that make up the bedrock of our culture. And that will automatically reduce the number of immigrants to a trickle, which just the size it ought to be.

Quibcag: Illustrated with Sensei of  Denkigai no Hon'ya-san (デンキ街の本屋さん?, lit. "The Electric Town's Bookstore"). who is quite good at looking like she's having difficulty grasping a concept. Second quibcag is an oldie, and I don't remember where I got the illustration. Wait! Correspondent YIH recognizes it. It's from Mitsudomoe.

Libertarians have two choices — either preen and posture, or vote for Trump.

All over the net I'm reading silly stuff from Libertarians about how they're going to vote for Gary Johnson, and they have a big chance to win this time, and so on. Talk about tone deaf.

This is the first time since 1964 that the two parties have given us a choice between going straight to Hell fast (LBJ, Clinton) with a globalist, anti-American agenda, or maybe actually reversing the trend and avoiding Hell (Goldwater, Trump) with a nationalist, pro-American agenda. I'm not including Carter/Reagan because they weren't so radically different as the other two matchings, and because Reagan slowed the trend but didn't really reverse it.

But there are two big differences between 1964 and 2016. First, Goldwater was more ideological, Trump more pragmatic. Second, and it's related to the first, Goldwater had little chance to win for that and other reasons, and Trump almost certainly will win, and win big. Because everybody's catching on that we really need him. Rich, poor, middle-class, PhD's and GED's. We're tired of being lectured to by liberals and neocons, and ready for a President who represents us and what we want.

And that everybody includes a lot of libertarians, one of whom is Judy Morris. This is from her blog [link]:

The Top 10 Reasons to Vote for Trump 

As a Ron Paul and Rand Paul supporter, I'm disillusioned with the political system, the systemic corruption of the RNC and DNC machines, the obnoxious elites of the political cesspool and their media, and every policy decision promulgated by the sellouts of America. I long for an America that works for Americans and American workers.  I also care deeply about other issues so I've outlined them and have included Trump's positions on these issues.

To be clear, Trump is no liberty activist, Libertarian or constitutional purist.  Moreover, it's 100% accurate to assume that most Americans could care less about the issues that are important to us. Liberty doesn't win at the ballot box, never has.  That said, Trump does hold positions on a lot of issues that are important to the American people to various degrees and I find myself in agreement with a lot of Trump's positions.  They hold the potential to rollback a lot of nasty policy decisions that have decimated America and American workers.  More importantly though is that Trump is truly kicking GOP establishment ass and I love it.  So do the American people.

#10 Common Core Trump has consistently blasted Common Core and vows that he is determined to repeal it.

#9 Vaccines I personally oppose forced vaccinations and do share Trump's concerns over their safety. Trump has stated that vaccines cause Autism, here, and there is ample evidence to support his assertion. Trump obviously isn't owned by Big Pharm who peddles poison.

#8 Marijuana Legalization Trump 100% supports medical marijuana and believes that the states should have the right to make the decisions on recreational marijuana.  That's a position that will make a ton of voters happy!

#7 Immigration: Trump has raised the issue of immigration. America keeps getting flooded with low wage immigrants and many of them are taking jobs from Americans who are actually getting fired and replaced with cheap foreign labor. Moreover, many of those comprising the 'cheap labor' workers are in fact so impoverished by low wages that they are entitlement dependent. I blogged about the immigration issue in depth - Let's Talk IMMIGRATION.

With 92 million Americans out of the workforce, here, I absolutely believe that we should make it a top priority to get Americans back to work.  Besides, many of those Americans are weighing down the welfare system.  Americans need jobs and if that translates to a temporary halt on immigration, then so be it - it makes sense.

There are many situations like the now well publicized Disney case where Disney fired American workers and forced them to train their foreign replacements.  Even the open border immigrant loving NYT penned a piece on this absurdity.

Pink Slips at Disney. But First, Training Foreign Replacements

It's as if war has been declared on American workers who are being cast aside as irrelevant and expendable scum.  This is simply wrong.

#6 Trade Agreements  America's nasty, job-destroying trade agreements that began with NAFTA and are now ballooning have decimated US manufacturing and those good paying middle class jobs. Trump is on record vociferously opposing these trade deals. Trump said "I am all for free trade, but it's got to be fair" and the "TPP is a horrible deal; no one has read its 5,600 pages".

On NAFTA, Trump says "I think NAFTA has been a disaster. I think our current deals are a disaster. I'm a free trader. The problem with free trade is, you need smart people representing you."

Trump has blasted the loss of US manufacturing jobs and the off-shoring of America's once legendary manufacturing industries that produced a prosperous middle class.

#5 2nd Amendment  Trump is fairly solid on the 2nd Amendment and his position on the issue from his website is here.

#4 Trump Is The Only Republican Who Stands a Chance of Defeating Hillary Clinton (or Bernie Sanders) in a General Election The POTUS general election is likely be close, very close, and will boil down to 6-8 critical swing states.  The POTUS kingmakers will be independent voters (they always are) and whoever can win over a percentage of the African American vote.  While the Dems tend to have a lock on both constituencies, there is no guarantee that they will vote Democrat.  In fact, polls have disclosed that 20% of Dems would vote for Trump over Clinton.

"Trump Could Win It All": 20% Of Democrats Say They'd Vote For Trump Over Hillary

20% is an incredible percentage and definitely is sufficient to swing the results in a swing state that are typically very close.

With POTUS 2016 almost entirely focusing on the economy, Trump is rapidly winning over the voters who view the economy as their top concern.  American voters are indeed very worried about their jobs, futures and prosperity because they view the present elitist run system as exclusively beneficial to Wall Street, mega-corporations and the cheap labor lobby.

#3 Foreign Policy The damn wars that have cost American taxpayers trillions are a thorn in everybody's side except the hardcore neocon nutjobs.
Trump is not a hardcore neocon like Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Clinton and even Sanders; in fact the neocons hate his guts. He's on record opposing the Iraq War and way back when Bush started the damn war. Trump opposed the Iraq War when it was popular and long before the horrors of Abu Ghraib emerged.

Not only is Trump on record opposing the Iraq War, during a GOP debate he blasted the Iraq War, its cost and the horrid damage to the Middle East:
"We've spent $4 trillion trying to topple various people that, frankly, if they were there and if we could have spent that $4 trillion in the United States to fix our roads, our bridges, and all of the other problems — our airports and all the other problems we have — we would have been a lot better off, I can tell you that right now.

We have done a tremendous disservice not only to the Middle East — we've done a tremendous disservice to humanity. The people that have been killed, the people that have been wiped away — and for what? It's not like we had victory. It's a mess. The Middle East is totally destabilized, a total and complete mess. I wish we had the 4 trillion dollars or 5 trillion dollars. I wish it were spent right here in the United States on schools, hospitals, roads, airports, and everything else that are all falling apart!"
For a Republican candidate to make such an anti-war statement during a Republican primary debate is no less than astounding but what is even more astounding is that his remark didn't hurt him in the least and he continued to rise in the polls despite the consternation of the neocons. I remember when Ron Paul got dissed in a South Carolina debate for suggesting that America follow the Golden Rule on foreign policy. He got booed. But the times they are a changing! Even Republican voters seem to have finally lost their appetite for never ending wars. Trump doesn't suffer in the polls when he attacks US foreign policy and on GOP sacred turf no less.

#2 Supreme Court Nominations  Few folks pay attention to this critically important issue. Even if Republicans, conservatives, Libertarians etc. seem blind to this issue, the left certainly isn't.  In fact, the left is freaking out over it because it believes that the next president could appoint 4 Supreme Court Justices.

How could the next president reshape the Supreme Court?
In the next few years, the Supreme Court may face as many as four vacancies as some of the justices age or enter retirement. That means the outcome of November's elections could be critical in determining the court's future composition.

Nearly half of the court -- four of the nine justices -- has served on it for 20 to 30 years and are either over the age of 80 or approaching it.

While stumping for Hillary Clinton on the New Hampshire campaign trail on Monday, former President Bill Clinton mentioned the next president could nominate between one and three justices. His wife's campaign posted a blog post last month titled, "A Republican president could nominate as many as 4 Supreme Court justices. That should terrify you."
Who in their right mind wants Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders nominating up to 4 Supreme Court Justices?  Considering the extreme longevity of their lifetime tenure, a progressive takeover of SCOTUS would have profound effects on America, Americans and the constitution that would require decades and generations to undo and unravel.

While I haven't the slightest clue who Trump would appoint, whoever he appoints to SCOTUS won't be as bad as a Sanders or Clinton appointee.

What few liberty oriented and/or sane rulings that are decreed by SCOTUS presently come with 5-4 decisions. A few days ago, SCOTUS shot down an Obama's climate change order that was supposed to be implemented by the EPA in a 5-4 decision.

Supreme Court deals blow to Obama by putting his climate change rules on hold

It's becoming increasingly apparent that Trump is succeeding in winning over Republican primary voters. Moreover, he's probably the best candidate to defeat Clinton or Sanders in a general election. Even if I hated Trump on every issued, which I don't, I'd take the chance and vote for him based on Supreme Court Justice nominees alone.

And the #1 reason to vote for Trump is to royally bitch slap the RNC-GOP elites who lord over us like a Nazified crime syndicate.  If Americans want change, a better future, the restoration of the American Dream and a chance reversing all the damage that has been done to the American people then they need to reject the bankster lovers, warmongers, open border advocates, globalists, one world government supporters, corporatists, fascists and the Republican elites responsible for destroying America (along with their Democrat partners in crime). 

Is Trump the man?  I don't know but he's certainly raised a lot of issues that are very important to the American people, issues that were formerly verboten and banned from discussion by the RNC elites. Trump has given the average American a powerful voice and while delivering will indeed be a challenge, if anybody has the courage, smarts and determination to try and fix all that is wrong with America and our corrupt to the core political system, Trump is the only option.  I believe he will try but succeeding in that pit of vipers known as the District of Crime (DC) will require one tough and seasoned son of a bitch.  Trump is tough, seasoned and READY.
Quibcag: Though sitting on a globe, she is not a globalist — Haruhi of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu)

Realists Value Cops, Fantasists Not So Much

Yes, I just coined "fantasist," because I couldn't find an antonym for "realist."

Awhile back, I mused that instead of the left-right spectrum, or other imaginative ways of classifying people politically on a scale, we might do better to use a fantasy-realism spectrum. The funny thing is, you'd find self-proclaimed "libertarians" at about every point on it, depending on how much they depend on theory, as opposed to reality.

Now, I'm not knocking fantasy. I think it's great when it's a literary genre. But it's pretty useless in political theory. Indeed, one of the absolute best fantasy authors ever, Jack Vance, was brutally realistic when dealing with political theory within his fantasy stories, if you know what I mean. Read anything from his "Tales of the Dying Earth" series [link] and you'll catch on quick.

I decided some time ago to stake out the "realistic" corner of sociopolitics, and judge ideas from there. Probably the most reliable realistic thinkers are conservatives, as long as you don't get them mixed up with neoconservatives. They're very much into sticking with what works, being prudent about making changes, and being very skeptical about anybody's plans to tweak human nature for the better. For an example of that, real my last post on "The Essence of Conservatism." [link]

Liberals, in the "progressive" sense, are surely the most fantasy-based of the big political movements. They're a little more so than Marxists, even, because the latter usually acknowledge that they'll need to use force to make the changes they want. Liberals mostly think they can do it with the aid of helpful unicorns.

As an illustration of the fantasy-thinking of liberals, especially the young ones, here's a Steven Pinker piece that I've blogged about before:

When law enforcement vanishes, all manner of violence breaks out: looting, settling old scores, ethnic cleansing, and petty warfare among gangs, warlords and mafias. This was obvious in the remnants of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union, and parts of Africa in the 1990s, but can also happen in countries with a long tradition of civility. As a young teenager in proudly peaceable Canada during the romantic 1960s, I was a true believer in Bakunin’s anarchism. I laughed off my parents’ argument that if the government ever laid down its arms all hell would break loose. Our competing predictions were put to the test at 8:00 A.M. on October 17, 1969, when the Montreal police went on strike. By 11:20 A.M. the first bank was robbed. By noon most downtown stores had closed because of looting. Within a few more hours, taxi drivers burned down the garage of a limousine service that had competed with them for airport customers, a rooftop sniper killed a provincial police officer, rioters broke into several hotels and restaurants, and a doctor slew a burglar in his suburban home. By the end of the day, six banks had been robbed, a hundred shops had been looted, twelve fires had been set, forty carloads of storefront glass had been broken, and three million dollars in property damage had been inflicted, before city authorities had to call ni the army and, of course, the Mounties to restore order. This decisive empirical test left my politics in tatters (and offered a foretaste of life as a scientist).

And, like I said, libertarians vary. Some are even sillier than your average liberal. For the sake of symmetry, I classified the young Pinker as a liberal, though you could also consider him a member of the anarchist branch of libertarianism. Anyway, the sillier libertarians actually do say that we can do without cops, courts, etc., or privatize them all, or something. This is very much a fantasy, and Bob Wallace, the realistic kind of libertarian,  reminds us that people who are forced by circumstances to deal with reality and all its warts, like cops do all the time, are seldom fantasists. This is from Uncabob's Treehouse. [link]

I Should Have Been a Cop - For a While

I've pointed out before I consider myself a working-class intellectual, although I am no longer working-class. But I was raised that way. Both my parents were high-school dropouts who later got their GEDs.
I consider myself to have common sense, a sense of humor, and compassion. 
So imagine my surprise when some years ago I started reading some of Joseph Wambaugh's novels about his years as a police officer in Los Angeles. Wambaugh wrote the best police officers were working-class, with common sense, a sense of humor, and compassion.
In other words, someone with an IQ with 125 is probably going to make a pretty bad police officer. The average police officer IQ is about 107, I think, which is the minimum IQ it takes to get a civilized society off of the ground and functioning.
I've never hated cops and have found that people who don't much like them - especially the more boneheaded "libertarians" who think society doesn't need them - live in small, safe towns. Unlike me who was raised with a bunch of psycho criminals.
Some people need to be removed from society. Punishment sure as hell doesn't work and "rehabilitation," rarely. The purpose of prison is to remove chronic criminals from society.Personally I don't care if they give criminals whores and drugs (by the way, sex and drugs are easy to get in prisons - it's just sex with men. As for drugs marijuana is easy to get because it calms people down.). Just as long as these people are removed from non-criminal society.
I have found stereotypes about people are true. After all, they wouldn't be sterotypes if there wasn't truth to them. Promiscuous, diseased, drug-ridden homosexuals...yep. Impulsive, low-IQ blacks...yep. Nerdy, boring Asians...yep. Alcoholics who act as if they're possessed by demons and you can smell the booze coming out of their pores? You bet. Hookers with hearts of gold? That, well, no.
I have never met a police officer who was a liberal. When you have as much experience in life as I have, you wouldn't be a liberal, either.
I was the second-closest thing to being a police officer - I owned a taxi for five years. And there is no such thing as a liberal cab driver. We've just about seen it all (about a quarter of the time I left like I was working vice).
Of course there are bad police officers. I'd estimate about ten percent, which of course is way too many.
But I'd like to see society function without a minimum of them.
Quibcag: Illustrated by Yumi the adorable cop, from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン).

The Essence of Conservatism

We tend to think of conservatism and liberalism as opposites, and, in some political contexts, they effectively are. But in their fundamental dictionary meanings they're not at all. Putting aside the fact that "liberalism" means different things to different people, sometimes being equivalent to progressivism and sometimes to libertarianism, "conservatism" has a pretty stable meaning. It's somewhat equivalent to the thinking expressed by "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

Conservatism follows the meaning of its root in that it is a tendency to conserve things. Principles, institutions, religions, customs, folkways. It's the sensibility of a person who recognizes that if a thing exists, it probably exists for a reason. And as such, it doesn't make sense to toss it out simply because you don't understand the reason right away. Many of the organs of the human body have important functions that weren't understood at all until recently, but a natural conservatism led people to keep those organs and keep them healthy anyway, assuming they had a reason for existence.

And the same applies to social institutions that the young and inexperienced don't quite understand the reason for yet, like brushing teeth and learning to read and going to work when you don't want to and marriage and morals and ethics in general.

Nobody's better than G. K. Chesterton at pointing this out and explaining it.

Thanks to Eli Harman and Matt Bailey for passing this bit of wisdom on.

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plin and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

"This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion." - G.K. Chesterton

Quibcag: Just for the sake of contrast, a quote of Vladimir Putin, who, at first glance, seems rather unChertertonian, but think about it for awhile. It's llustrated by Shirley Yeager of  Strike Witches (ストライクウィッチーズ Sutoraiku Witchīzu) who is, as usual, moving forward and upward.

Monday, May 30, 2016

The Self-Controlled Opposition

Most of us are aware by now of the Great Purge of the Right engineered by Wm F. Buckley before most of us were born. For whatever set of reasons he had, Buckley saw it as his mission to sanitize the Right in this country by driving out anybody who violated his standards of political correctness. This included anything and everything he considered "extreme," so there went the John Birch Society and everything like it. He decided that American right should basically accept the racial narrative of the left, so anybody who dissented from the dogma of egalitarianism had to go. Naturally, any overtly anti-Semitic rightist were taboo, and as time went on, this came to include anybody who was anything  less than a committed Zionist. Revilo Oliver, Joseph Sobran, Sam Francis, , and, finally, even Pat Buchanan were exiled for that reason. As in the French Revolution, the terror increased, until today, when Buckley's successors would certainly purge Buckley were he to somehow return.

But now, what passes for the Right, variously called the Establishment Right, Conservatism, Inc. etc., has sort of an ideological bulimia, constantly self-purging. It's like the Respectable Right (another of its names) has inserted a little commissar into all its members heads that keeps them on the approved ideological path. A situation which is, as the late, great Terry Pratchett put it in Interesting Times [link], is "better than a whip." But I like the "invisible dog fence" metaphor, too. This is from the Unz Review [link]:

The Right: Home of the Domesticated Intellectual

Thomas Jefferson on Immigration

I keep hearing from Social Justice Warriors — an alarming number of whom call themselves "libertarians" — that this country did have open borders until recently, and that it worked just fine, and that of course the Founding Fathers were open borders enthusiasts, and that those of us who want to be a little more careful about who we let in are just a bunch of racist fascist yadda yadda yadda.

Some of the Founding Fathers were more easy-going than others, of course, but when it comes to easygoingness, Jefferson was at the top. But he sounds considerably more restrictionist than Trump when he talks about immigrants from absolute monarchies, for example, in Notes on the State of Virginia [link]:

"They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In pro- portion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its directions, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass." - Thomas Jefferson

Something to think about the next time some SJW tells you not to worry about immigrants, that they'll assimilate right away. You do realize, do you not, that every damn one of the Founding Fathers would be voting for Trump right now, don't you?  More on the subject here [link].
Quibcag: And he said that awful bigoted stuff in the quibcag, too. It's illustrated by a girl who looks like Kato Marika of Bodacious Space Pirates (モーレツ宇宙海賊パイレーツ Mōretsu Pairētsu), but evidently isn't. I chose her because her outfit — well, 3.4 of her outfit, are rather similar to what Jefferson and his buddies went around in back then.

A Dissenting View from a Suicidal Ethnomasochist

There's crazy, and then there's suicidally crazy. In the first instance, you can at least hope to maybe say some day, "I told you so." But with the second, that isn't an option. Even less an option if the suicidally crazy manage to take you with them on their psychotic little journey. They won't be there to hear you say it, and you won't be there to say it to them.

In answer, evidently, to this graphic [link] this morning, I got this response from somebody in the Netherlands. My attempts to reply are interspersed:

The problem is that the real threat against a free society is already in. There is no place to send them back to. 

[Not so. People migrate from A to B every day. No reason why they can't migrate from B to A.]

Even those that seem clearly to be from another origin often are at least second but more often third generation. You cannot send them back anywhere, because they belong where they are. 

[Same misconception. If third- generation, say, Syrians, belong in Belgium, then fiftieth-generation 
Syrians in Syria damn well belong there, and shouldn't be allowed to immigrate.]

The only thing you can do is improve education and being inclusive to all, because often the bad reactions come about because of a lack of inclusion. I have seen both Belgium, where inclusion is a real problem, and the Netherlands, where inclusion is more in our DNA, and guess where the terrorist attack was? And yes, they were 100% belgians, just marginalized in the belgian society because of where their family comes from and how they look.

[The "inclusion" thing is hard to argue with, of course, because when terrorists strike, all you have to do is say they weren't included enough, and therefore it's the victims' fault. And, of course, when they are included, the host country is said to be destroying the immigrants' culture, by trying to assimilate them, and that's an excuse for terrorism. If Muslims stay in Muslim countries, and Christians stay in Christian countries, there's no reason for conflict, but that's reason and logic, and has no place in discussions of immigration, of course. Moreover, in this case "improve education" can only mean that the indigenous people — Belgians, Dutch, whatever — must be propagandized to be ashamed of their own race, culture, and traditions, and to admire the comparatively inferior and dysfunctional culture of the immigrants, with their obnoxious sexual customs, mistreatment of women, child marriage, and other little ideosyncrasies.]

My boss has a very nice expression that can help you with this: doodknuffelen (hug to death). If something goes bad and you start to fight it, they feel not listened to and fight back, and they have nothing to lose. If you embrace them instead, hug them to death, that means they see no need to fight back and they get invisible with ease. Avoid suppression if you want to solve integration problems: you should be the best option they want to belong to, go to.

[We've heard that one before! Disarm yourself, prostrate yourself, give them whatever they want, and then they'll have no reason to hurt you. But then they hurt you anyway, and the liberal deep thinkers come up with new excuses for them, and it still ends up being the victims' fault.]

Have you ever heard anything quite as crazy as "doodknuffelen"? Do you have any suggestions about how I could talk this person out of his ethnomasochism? This is the problem, of course. Once we in the West reach a consensus and decide not to put up with hostile immigrants, we'll solve the problem in about a week. But how do you reach a consensus with doodknuffelen people?
Quibcag: Here Urabe of Mysterious Girlfriend X (謎の彼女X. Nazo no Kanojo Ekkusu) is simulating craziness by performing a Franco-Japanese gesture called "Akanbe" or "あかんべえ ". Read about it here http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EyelidPullTaunt

What Doesn't Destroy Me Makes Me Angry!

The last think I expected to discuss on this blog is "Angry Birds." As an old coot  myself (no pun intended), I'm a little behind the curve on poptech stuff, and if you asked me what "Angry Birds" is, I'd answer that I think it's a game you play on your phone, and a little googling suggests that I'd have gotten that right, at least [link].  But now it's more than that. It's a movie, which I was also vaguely aware of, and my gut reaction was that it probably should be classified along with all those "Madagascar" movies for kids, i. e., stupid stuff that an adult can't bear watching. As an aside, have you noticed that? Animated cartons, for TV and theaters, do seem to fall into two types — enjoyable for adults, and unbearable for adults — I have no idea what kids think.

But I'd have been wrong about that. Evidently, "The Angry Birds Movie" [link] is not one of those stupid kids' movies. It would seem to be more in the "Animal Farm" direction. Here's a review from The Right Stuff [link]. Note: right now, from my computer, at least, it seems that there are several graphics interspersed in the review that just won't show up. Maybe they'll be there when you look. In any case, it starts out:

Angry Birds: The Most "Red"-Pilled Movie

So today I decided to head to the movies for the first time in a few years, because nothing recent in theaters has piqued my interests enough to shell out $10 for a ticket and another $20 for popcorn/drink.
Which movie was my destination? Well, it was a kids' movie. A kids' movie based on a mobile app, called Angry Birds. When I had first heard this movie announced I thought it was some sort of joke, wondering to myself how exactly they could make a feature film, in CGI, about a game where you shoot birds across the screen and knock down buildings housing pigs?
Well, to my bemusement, they did. This movie wasn't so much about the game as it was an excellent social commentary on the refugee/migrant crisis (read: invasion) spanning across Western Europe and soon into our own country (depending on who is elected).
Note: Spoilers below.
The movie starts out with the Red (Angry) bird having a slight backstory of being different. In art class they show him making a great statue of an eagle, whilst the rest of the class is painting rainbows. There's also some interesting peace signs that I myself have only attributed to William Pierce; they’re supposed to be sort of the hand print tracings kids make, but with bird feet, but I like my theory better.
Keep reading here:

And here's the trailer:

Quibcag. Well, no, it's not exactly a quibcag, but no matter. I got the illustration from https://bbs.dailystormer.com/t/is-the-angry-birds-movie-about-immigration/2094/40

Wait! More stuff! Commenters tz tells me that Stefan Molyneux reviews it. Okay, this is a gotta-see, as tz says!

After hearing Stefan, I'm beginning to think this movie might be our era's Birth of a Nation.

The Libertarian Party's Big Chance to Screw Things Up Even Worse

There's a lot of talk, on the net at least, about how now's the big chance for the Libertarian Party to get some real votes, what with Hillary and Trump and all. I'm afraid that the majority of the deep thinkers in the LP are very similar to the deep thinkers in the Democratic and Republican parties, in that they are completely clueless about the appeal of Trump to the American people. This is likely because the dogma in both parties is in favor of bad trade deals, US military intervention all over the world, all the time, and, of course, mass immigration of the Third World into the United States. Since all these principles are deemed righteous by the Deep Thinkers, and Trump opposes them, Trump is deemed evil, and the Deep Thinkers insist that the voters will realize that sooner or later.

Now, the Libertarian Party is for free trade, of course, which in reality translates into bad trade deals, and is more enthusiastic than the Dems and Reps, if that's even possible, about replacing Joe Sixpack with Juan and Ahmed and their extended families. So about the only dissent the libertarians really have is their alleged opposition to that universal military intervention.

But so is Trump, opposed, that is, and not in a rainbows-and-unicorns way, but in a practical and green-eyeshade way.

So if you want a little less of that crazy military stuff, now's your chance to vote for Trump and maybe get what you want. Or you can vote LP to help Hillary get elected. Because I just realized that there are political parties, and there are hobbies. The Dems and Reps are political parties, and the LP is a hobby.

This is demonstrated by this video:

which YIH brought to my attention. He wrote:

You want to know why libertarians (and especially the Libertarian Party) are not (nor should be) taken seriously? This should help clear that up.
SFW (I guess). Not Safe For Stomach. No one needed to see that - the human body is not always a beautiful thing.
No, he isn't their nominee, thankfully. The late Pat Paulsen understood how to unseriously run for Prez... And did so for nearly 30 years.
Quibcag: Wise words from Stefan Molyneux, illustrated with Marii Buratei of Joshiraku (じょしらく).

Sunday, May 29, 2016

When Leftist Propaganda Backfires

You know what's really nice about doing this blog? Great feedback. Now, I'm light-years from the amount of feedback popular sites like Steve Sailer [link], West Hunter [link] — oh, most of the blogs on my  blogroll over there — get. But boy do I get some good feedback. For example, on that last post, commenter YIH wrote:

Also, on that page you posted, here's some food for thought:
Scroll down for the pic, that ad is being tweeted around with the hashtag #whatifwelost (WWII). A vision of a 'nazified' America - Leave it to Beaver with swastikas. Be honest, you'd be hard pressed to consider that would have been a worse outcome compared to how things are now. ''Tranny rights'' you think the Nazis would have put up with that crap? Black Lives Matter? Not to them. And think how Detroit would have fared post-war, I doubt it would look like a war zone.

And here's the pic. Can't imagine how I missed seeing it the first time around. Do follow YIH's links and read the Vox Day blog post this is from. Very insightful stuff about why this pic was created and why it was taken out of circulation.

From https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/05/why-whitegenocide-doesnt-work.html

This is an interesting phenomenon. Exactly as in the Red Skull speech from the last post, the leftist propagandist creates some sort of "satire" of right-wing opinion. He puts it out there to shock everybody and make the right wing look bad. But he inadvertently does such a good job that it makes the right wing look good. The left, you see, thinks everybody, or at least the "undecided" out there, will respond to the same button-pushing that the left responds to. The left despises and feels superior to the "suburban" sensibility the picture portrays, so they expect Joe and Jane Sixpack should react the same way, and find the Nazi symbolism even more repugnant when shown this way.

Well, no. Like Vox says, people like me, and YIH, are actually drawn to such a scene, because we like that middle-class suburban set of lifestyle values, and the picture has the opposite effect from what was intended. The leftists' problem is, they prepare such things and show them to each other, nod their little heads, and agree that they've really skewered us. That's because they're preaching to their own choir, and the propaganda just doesn't work on us "unchurched," so to speak, in their tidy little leftists paradigm.

Lesson from this? When you're trying to persuade people to your point of view, you shouldn't necessarily use methods that would persuade you. Use methods tailored to your audience.

I didn't need to prepare a quibcag for this post, so here are a couple of bonus ones:

Quibcags: The first is illustrated by a version of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (涼宮ハルヒの憂鬱 Suzumiya Haruhi no Yūutsu) , the second by yet another K-On! (けいおん! Keion!)  girl.

Vulture of Critique, gaikokumaniakku, Wolves, r/K, where does it all end?

Whenever it comes to wolves, I tend to overdo it, and Vulture of Critique has to set me straight. Some time back, I made a complicated but romantic comparison of humanity and wolves [link], and Vulture of Critique (who moonlights as gaikokumaniakku —That's complicated, too) called me on it, showing that I needed to be a little less Kiplingish and a little more Konrad Lorenzish when it comes to ethology [link]. (That link doesn't work right now. Vulture! Where's your original post?) Now I'm confused. Want something even more confusing? —gaikokumaniakku/Vulture of Critique's original post I can't find, but Uncabob reprinted it some time ago, and you can read it here [link]. Uncabob also, BTW, dissents from the notion that human females instinctively follow the K strategy.

What all this comes down to is that I have a tendency to over-romanticize wolves* in particular, and zoology in general. It probably comes from reading too much Robert Ardrey [link] and Hugh Lofting [link] when I was a kid. If any of you out there, BTW, know of a really thorough analysis of the r/K theory with respect to human society, do let me know.

At any rate, this is his reply to this [link].  At the very least, his point that White European leaders (aristocrats), don't necessarily fit the K paradigm is revealing. Enjoy.

Fornicator Immensus et crudelis – Human aristocrats are neither r nor K

White aristocrats are interesting people – or rather, they were interesting, when they existed.
Here is a description of a Mighty Whitey, lightly edited from a book blurb:
Endowed with exceptional talents as a warrior, diplomat, and ruler–not to mention a temperament that earned him the epithet fornicator immensus et crudelis … –Vladimir of Russia (960?-1015) began his career at the age of twelve as Prince of Novgorod, rising to be known as “The Red Sun.” … years of conquest, violence, polygamy, and pagan ritual as the remarkable prince seized his brother’s throne, expanding his rule over the whole of Russia. A shrewd, hospitable, and progressive ruler, he adopted the Christian faith from the Greeks, bringing Christianity to Russia. A “second Constantine,” he was later canonized as a saint.
Now, by contrast, Ex-Army has a different idea of aristocracy, and as usual, I am going to disagree with him (and Baloo):
there are 5 r-rabbit traits: 
Aversion to competition (as there are lots of resources, rather than compete, rabbits just move to eat; fighting takes energy and rabbits lose all fights anyway)
Tolerance for promiscuity (as all rabbits are the same, it makes no sense to distinguish between potential mates – r folk don’t do morals)
Single parenting (rabbit life is simple. There is nothing to teach. So quick birthing and leaving is sufficient)
Early onset sexuality (early menarche makes more rabbits)
A lack of in-group loyalty (rabbits who go to protect other rabbits get eaten. There is no payoff for rabbit group solidarity). Liberals!
There are 5 K-wolf traits: 
Accepting competition, (and that there are winners and losers)
Rejecting promiscuity (wolves must select mates with the best genes if they’re to have offspring capable of hunting)
High investment parenting (cubs must develop skills in order to pass on their genes)
Delayed sexuality (you must wait for a wolf with means or at least see his skills prior to mating with him)
Fierce in-group loyalty (they hunt and fend off predators as a team, so cannot carry lukewarm adherents, this is why wolves are found in packs). Conservatives!
White people produced a lot of aristocrats for about 3000 years of recorded history.
White aristocrats did not reject promiscuity. They killed their competitors when possible, and they had as much sex as their circumstances allowed. White people had harems. Even when the majority of whites were locked into monogamy, white aristocrats had mistresses, concubines, and harems. Many white men tried to maximize the number of their children, regardless of parenting investment.
White aristocrats had moments of “fierce in-group loyalty,” but mostly they were just fierce. The history of Rome doesn’t show a whole lot of long-term in-group loyalty; even the Roman Republic enjoyed “competition” so much that they undermined collective loyalty. The history of Christianity (and before it, white philosophy) shows fierce loyalty to abstractions, not to people.
The theories of r and K may apply well to wolves and rabbits – I’m not a zoologist, so I’m not an expert on that topic. But the theories of r and K don’t apply very well to white history, particularly to the history of aristocrats.
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: I've used a lot of anime versions of Athena, and it's time for a cute one.
*And now rabbits. That probably comes from reading too much Richard Adams [link].

Saturday, May 28, 2016

Out of the Mouths of Supervillains

I've googled around to find out if this is authentic without success, but it certainly seems authentic, because the social engineers who do most comic books these days do this sort of thing all the time — they take true, reasonable statements, and prove that they're evil and/or pathological by putting them in the mouths of their worst supervillains. I'm past the age by a long shot when I paid close attention to the comics, but I check collections out now and then at the bookstore. and the stories are indeed getting more and more "relevant" from the leftist point of view, giving the superheroes all the politically correct attitudes and speeches, while, like I say, putting any right-of-center sentiments into the supervillain corner.

My guess is that this little speech was written for the Red Skull( a Nazi who, as I remember it, was Captain America's nemesis) to deliver to show that all the right-wing movements in the country, from Trump to the KKK to the American Legion, are really ruled by evil supervillians. Comics fans out there, am I right? Send me more info on this story, and I'll print it.

I don't really know why I made this into a quibcag, except that I'm in the habit of making them, but below is the original I found making its way around the net.
Quibcag: That's Haibara from Detective Conan, AKA Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン), who is very good at looking scary.

Late-breaking. Reader Charles Brennan says this is indeed legit, and sent along the whole page. I think you can click it to enlarge.
And even later late-breaking news: Article on all this:

Pundit, पण्डित , پنڈت

This is one of those occasions where I came across the quote, was inspired to create the quibcag, and then wrote a blog post to go with it. The quote strikes me, because, as I've written many times before, one's ideology is supposed to be a way of understanding and managing reality. It shouldn't work the other way around, where you cut-and-paste reality to make if match the ideology you're so fond of. Most of us fail in this, but the best of us try really hard not to. So, a good rule of thumb might be that pundits who have a clear, obvious ideology are probably the most likely to cherry-pick facts to support their ideology, instead of constantly updating their ideology to reflect the facts. I'm referring to a wide-ranging phenomenon here, but I'm especially thinking about those special snowflakes, open-borders libertarians, whose precious, unmodifiable ideology states that human being's freedom of travel to any country, anywhere is absolute, and we must therefore ignore the lessons of history, which demonstrate that all civilizations that fail to control immigration perish. Sorry. Had to get that out of my system. 

One of the pair who operate this blog, Baloo the cartoonist, took a course in Urdu in the Army forty-odd years ago, and has been fascinated by the language ever since. Especially fascinated by Urdu words that have wandered into the English language. Before confusion results, you should know that the two languages, Hindi and Urdu, are basically the same language, often known collectively as Hindustani. They differ in that the first is considered a Hindu language, and is written with Devanagri, as in the second word in the title, and the second a Muslim language, consequently written with the Arabic alphabet, as in the third word. All three words are pronounced "pundit," of course.

Wiktionary's etymology of the English word:

From Hindi पण्डित ‎(paṇḍit), from Sanskrit पण्डित ‎(paṇḍitáscholar, learned man, teacher, philosopher).

From "learned man," in the original, it of course has come to mean a public expert in something, usually politics. And the unique Greg Cochran, on his blog West Hunter [link], writes about them this way:

Public intellectuals, pundits, and all that

In principle, public intellectuals should have something interesting to say, ideally not just interesting because ridiculous or incredibly stupid. The ideal P.I. might have a special area of expertise and apply that to current events and questions, or whatever struck his fancy.. He might have a wide range of interests and make connections that others can’t see. He might be smart, or independent minded, or both. It would be nice if he had a decent predictive track record, better than a dart board. He should be stubborn enough to resist currently fashionable errors. 
As for ideology, that’s a poor substitute for understanding how things actually work. 
In my opinion, elegant prose isn’t very important. 
He probably does all this for $25 dollars a day and expenses, mostly gasoline and whiskey. That’s about all he’s going to get, because there’s not much demand for analysts, as opposed to cheerleaders. 
If most PIs are schlockmeisters, that’s because of popular demand. Bullshit walks.
I invite nominations: either a P.I. that is actually good-for-something (if you can find one), or give an amusingly damning quote for one of the vast majority of vile drones. 
Ex-Army speaking again. Now you need to go to the original [link] and read the many comments on who the best pundits are. You'll find it fascinating. I found some of my favorites there, and maybe you will too. Or add them there, or here if you're more comfortable in a smaller group.
Quibcag: Yep, my favorite science girl, Rika Shiguma of Haganai (はがない).