Monday, October 31, 2016

Who is John Galt, and Why is he a Collectivist?

Okay, to set this up, first there was this article [link] by Robert Zubrin in The Federalist. It's the typical neocon "propositional nation" drivel, which ignores the "posterity" in

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

As Eli says below, not to any rag-tag and bobtail that can heave itself over the border and sign up for bennies and register to vote for Hillary, but the posterity of the Founders and their countrymen — their descendants. Yes, when we were very thinly populated, the Founders, or many of them, wanted more people to come here from Britain, people who were still considered countrymen, and some even thought Scandinavians and Frenchmen and Germans, who would be assimilated easily, would make desirable immigrants. If the British were brothers, those others were first cousins.

And Zubrin gives the usual blather about how Trump isn't a "real" conservative, "conservative" evidently being redefined when nobody was looking as a form of internationalism/globalism that has Barry Goldwater and all his conservative forbears spinning in their graves. It calls for virtually open borders (giving lip service to border control tongue-in-cheek, which is quite a physical feat if you think about it) and sneers at any notion that the basic founding stock of America has any right to exist any more, let alone be a majority. Always remember that John Galt's strike was a collectivist action.

And speaking of Atlas Shrugged, we have the usual Randian/Objectivist accusation of "collectivism." Listen, everybody is a collectivist to one extent or another, except maybe a wild-eyed anarchist living alone on a bleak mountaintop. All human beings are evolved to engage in actions both individualist and collectivist, so  anybody at all can, from the principles they enunciate, be accused of collectivism. Libertarians accuse  one another of it all the time.

And Zubrin seems to think that "all men were created equal" implies that all men are fungible, and it doesn't matter whether we get our immigrants from Guernsey or Guinea, or New Guinea for that matter, which is idiotic on the face of it. What the Founders meant by that, of course, was that there should be a rule of law which gives equal protection to all, and — we've forgotten the significance of this — noble birth must not endow anyone with special privileges. That's really all they meant. They didn't mean that men could use the ladies' room, or that the Navy Seals should recruit girls. And they certainly didn't want affirmative action.

Anyhow, do read Zubrin's article [link] first, and below is Eli Harman's reply to it. As he says, he plays to elaborate more, but I want to get this into print right now.

This is my first response to this piece, where I address some of Zubrin's points. I am going to try and elaborate on this more and eventually rework it into something I send to him.
"But is nativism truly an American conservative ideology? Our nation was founded on the proposition that all men are created equal, with inalienable rights granted by no less authority than God. How can a movement that explicitly denies that creed be considered conservative?"
It is true that something is not conservative if it has not enjoyed much currency in recent centuries, but it can be reactionary if it enjoyed overwhelming support prior to that, and for a lot longer. In the grand sweep of history, propositions like "all men are created equal" and "inalienable rights" were not regarded as self evident. In fact they would have been regarded, if they had been regarded at all, as false, because they are. And how those experiments have turned out has shown this to be the case. Nevertheless, nativist sentiments have been part and parcel of American history right down to the present day, although they have been largely subsumed - the last few decades - by cosmopolitan, multicultural, values that have proven even more disasterous than the (initially quite benign but progressively metastacizing) errors of the Revolution. 
"All Hitler had done, said Hayek, was to grasp that racism is required for socialism"
Racism IS required for socialism. But this does not imply that socialism is required for racism. In fact, racism could be required for many things. It is now abundantly clear that racism is required, also, for individualism. You can't maintain an individualist, market order, in the face of mass immigration by collectivists, by theocrats, by tribalists, and by socialists of various stripes, who refuse to assimilate. Racism is also required for Democracy. Democracy works fine for homogenous societies where interests are aligned. It works fine, for example, for corporations where shareholder interests are nearly perfectly aligned towards maximization of profits, with no realistic way for shareholders to profit at one another's expense. But as soon as heterogenous groups are incorporated, with divergent and often conflicting interests, it just becomes another avenue for predation and parasitism by self-serving coalitions. And the farther the results of democracy, and voting, diverge from the likely results of war, the more incentive there is for those likely to prevail in war to engage in open war instead, to obtain victory by those means rather than defeat by democratic ones.
"Trump is also radical trade protectionist who would destroy the global economic foundation of American prosperity since World War II in order to impose a system enriching insiders who can arrange for government action to block foreign competition."
This is exactly backwards. Yes, Trump has proposed protectionism. But the fact is, ordinary Americans have largely not shared in many of the gains from trade brought about from globalization. Wealth has flowed to the third world, and poverty has declined there. At the same time, the owners of western capital have earned record returns, and western corporations have posted record profits (insiders who can arrange for liberalization of trade to push down labor costs) while the working and middle classes have seen stagnation or even backslid, many being downsized from comfortable, rewarding jobs forced to seek lower paid, lower status, jobs in the service economy. The fact is that people will not support an order that is not working for them. And this order, is not working for a lot of people. IF the gains from trade are real, if they are truly positive sum (and I have no doubt many are) then there should be no trouble negotiating trade deals that cut everyone in on the benefits, instead of leaving large classes out entirely, who have the power, if they so choose, to fuck up everyone's shit, and no reason, given the existing incentives, not to. That was a profoundly short sighted plan. 
"Trump openly embraces Nietzschean ethics" 
Some people like that about him.
"in direct opposition to the Judeo-Christian morality conservatives treasure."
Rather, Trump is an exemplar of the ancient values of Chivalry and Nobless oblige. Trump demonstrates a passion and a concern for the "little people" which he seems to recognize as more pragmatic and rationally self-interested in the long run than a callous disregard that will provoke them eventually to far for damaging and destructive revolts. Do you want another French revolution? Do you want another Russian revolution? Because that's where we're headed, unless somone like Trump can change our course.
"So for Trump, the illegal immigration question can hardly be about the sacred rule of law."
We don't have the rule of law at present. The question is, if we desire it, how do we go about restablishing it? One absolute necessity is to defeat it's staunchest enemies, the lying, parasitic, perpetually aggrieved, special pleading left, and the corrupt establishment. Trump plausibily represents a powerful champion against both.
"Trump is a completely consistent collectivist."
Collectivism and individualism are not intrinsically opposed. They are not polar opposites. They are not absolutes. They are strategies, engaged in by individuals, for individual reasons. And the collection of strategies particular individuals or groups of individuals adopt can be more or less individualistic, or collectivistic, with tradeoffs all the way across. 
Like most westerners, I prefer a high degree of individualism. But individualism can only be maintained and defended by adopting some collectivist strategies. One of these is borders. 
Borders are analogous to property lines. Both are arbitrary social constructs which exist only by convention. Both nevertheless exist because Darwin rewards people who practice their use. (And punishes those who do not.)
Property lines exist when individuals claim territory and succeed in defending it.
Borders exist when groups claim territory and succeed in defending it.
If property lines are the boundaries between property holdings, borders can be thought of as the boundaries between property regimes.
In practice, you have the property and property rights that the people around you are willing to concede that you have. One man cannot stand alone against the world.
But a few in confederation can hold the looting hoards at bay indefinitely.
Property and property rights are obtained in exchange. You recognize and uphold mine and I'll do the same for yours.
But to this basic condition, others can be added to protect the long term viability of the confederation which gives it force.
And first among these must be "don't let the looters in."
One condition people may demand for recognizing and upholding your private property is help in upholding shared borders.
You don't have to assent to that condition, but if not, you might find your position very lonely.
Individual vs. collective is a tradeoff. Sometimes, what's good for the individual is not good for the collective, and they may profitably suppress the individual.
But it is in the interest of the individual to be part of a good collective. So as long as the benefits of being in a collective outweigh the costs (including opportunity costs) then the individual will remain in the collective.
The same is true in the other direction. So long as the benefits of retaining an individual in collective exceed the costs of doing the same, then the collective will do so.
I think the facts of the matter urge competition and free exit, to make this tradeoff calculable for individuals and to allow them to impose accountability on collectives.
But the right of free exit (on the part of the individual) is corollary to the right of forcible exclusion (on the part of the collective.)
They are two sides of the same coin.
"Not to put too fine a point on the matter, racism—or tribalism, if you will—is not a conservative ideology; it is collectivist ideology."
In truth, all *three* of the principal western political orientations are profoundly and fundamentally individualistic.
Leftism is individualism for those with instantaneous time horizons. Food and shelter and medicine and college and debt forgiveness and status and orgasms for ME, right now, regardless of the costs to others or to society or to my future self.
Libertarianism is individualism for those with intermediate time horizons, who recognize some of the incentives and conditions necessary for engaging in production and exchange: so all of that *through* and *because* of property rights and markets over so many years as may be necessary to organize their production, without regard to the costs to tradition, culture, extended family, (ethnicity) commons or future generations.
Rightism is individualism for people with very long time horizons, who recognize the full spectrum of conditions and incentives necessary to engage in production and exchange not just NOW, but for generations to come. So all of that for ME AND MINE, securely, now and for the future, by drawing on the hard won, evolutionary-gleaned wisdom of the past, and maintaining the various commons (things like public decency, good order, and common defense) that give us our competitive advantages over others who do not share our values or have our best interests at heart.
And that last part, keeping the "others" at arms length, is absolutely essential for a great many reasons. 
The Preamble to the Constition says "to ourselves and our Posterity" not "to whoever happens to wander by." And we might rightly inquire what value the latter sort really have "to ourselves and our posterity" over as long a time frame as we wish.
Quibcags: The first illustration is swiped from Vulture of Critique here, and the second I cobbled together from an Earth Day poster I found here:

Modified Map of the Alt-Right

Well, Ex-Army has finally made it onto the Great Map of the Alt-Right!
In response to that last post [link], gaikokumaniakku [link] sent this in. Words fail me!
Ex-Army goes in the top left corner, because his QUIBCAGs are more ecchi than anything else.

What more can I say?

Sunday, October 30, 2016

Map of the Alt-Right

The Alt-Right is a very broad thing, and as I always say, "Pas d'ennemi à droite" [link], so I consider everybody on the Alt-Right — or real right, or paleoright, or what we had before the neocons, who are just a breed of Trotskyite, took over and are no more on the right than the DNC is — a friend and ally, so naturally I look at this map to see where they've put Ex-Army....

Click to increase size, or use the controls to make your
browser image bigger, or whatever works.

Nope, I can't find myself (Ex-Army) on this map anywhere, and I certainly think I deserve to be there somewhere. However, I'm not sure where to place myself. I'm certainly a libertarian nationalist, but I'm also an ethnonationalist, sort of a secular traditionalist, certainly an HBDist, and also into political philosophy. Anybody got any ideas as to where I should be included?

Nationalism is Like...

Here you go. Pass this one around, with this URL:

And do please visit this related URL:

Finally, here's a version I made myself. I find that the web-generated memes, like the one above, suffer from being hard to read, being a little messy looking with the text imposed on top of the illustration, and looking too much like the other memes generated at the same sites. Do pass around either or both of these memes.

Saturday, October 29, 2016

The Woman is a Disaster!

I've been reading Camille Paglia for years and years with great enjoyment, even when I disagree with her. In fact, I almost never completely disagree with her, because even when she's wrong, she's wrong for good reasons.

And she's the only reason I don't have utter contempt for any and all feminists. She calls herself a feminist, you see, and advocates that women actually become stronger, instead of demanding "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings," which is the norm among mainstream feminists these days. Their whole mission is to make women weaker and weaker so that they'll become more dependent on government. That is why I consider mainstream feminism to be nothing more but an arm of the general movement to destroy Western Civilization.

Paglia is different. She doesn't call on us to "teach men not to rape," because, not being an idiot, she knows that only a small minority of men are inclined to rape (at least here in Western Civilization, so far), and don't need to be taught anything of the kind, and also that men who are inclined to rape can't be taught anything, for the most part, and that therefore girls and women have to learn to protect themselves from that small group. Telling them otherwise is, basically, advocating that they be raped.

Anyhow, Paglia is my kind of feminist, as opposed to the idiot kind. Here's something about Paglia's opinion of Hillary. It's not good.

Feminist Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton: ‘The Woman Is a Disaster’

Hillary Clinton’s “gender card” politics is rubbing feminist Camille Paglia the wrong way.

In an interview with The Spectator, Paglia tells journalist Emily Hill that Clinton’s claim that her election to the presidency would break the final pane of the glass ceiling is balderdash:
It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilization of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!
Having already voted once for Jill Stein of the Green Party, the 69-year-old professor of humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia asserts she’s already voted for a woman for president, so it’s no big deal. Paglia’s view of feminism is light years away from the likes of Clinton and Madeleine Albright, who told young women there would be a “special place in hell” for them if they chose Bernie Sanders over Clinton.
“My philosophy of feminism, I call street-smart Amazon feminism,” Paglia explains. “I’m from an immigrant family. The way I was brought up was: the world is a dangerous place; you must learn to defend yourself. You can’t be a fool. You have to stay alert.”
Nowadays, however, the author of soon-to-be-published Free Women, Free Men: Sex, Gender, Feminism finds young girls are protected and coddled as they’re taught to become “helpless victims” when life becomes challenging.
“We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own,” she says. “This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.”
And, of course, that is the image of women conveyed by Clinton and her feminist colleagues. At a recent campaign stop in Haverford, Pennsylvania, Clinton – with daughter Chelsea in tow – told an audience of mostly women and young people that women need taxpayer-funded assistance, courtesy of the government, from cradle to grave in order to survive.
Read the rest, and see video, here:

And if that's not enough, take a look here:
Quibcag: Here we have Ezra Scarlet of Fairy Tail (Japaneseフェアリーテイル HepburnFearī Teiru) playing a card.


Just send this one to everybody you know:

Thursday, October 27, 2016

Guest Post by Michael P. Tremoglie

We're being bamboozled, folks. We're being led to believe that there are all sorts of fundamental defects in Trump, while Hillary is somehow squeaky-clean. It is to laugh. The reverse is closer to the truth. Everybody's confusion on this basic fact is attributable to a cooperative effort on the part of the MAG (Media, Academia, Government) and of course the Crooked Hillary Cabal (or maybe "Coven"). We are going to Hell in a handbasket, and Hillary is promising to speed up the process. Trump says he'll reverse course. And as for the notion that Hillary is more corrupt and blameworthy than Trump could ever hope to be, here we have a nice summary supporting that:

Michael P. Tremoglie wrote:

Defend Trump? I want you to defend Hillary. Did Trump laugh about getting a rapist off? No Hillary did. Did Trump lie to the families of the victims of Benghazi? No. Hillary did. Did Trump lie about classified information? No. Hillary did. Did Trump accept bribes? No, Hillary did. Did Trump peddle influence? No, Hillary did. Did Trump take underwear tax deductions? No, Hillary did. Did Trump intimidate women who were sexual assault victims? No, Hillary did. Did Trump call Catholics and Evangelicals Severely Backwards?No, her top lieutenants did! Does Trump support the procedure in the picture below? No, but Hillary does. Anybody who feels Trump needs defending is a sucker who is being played by the propaganda shell game of the mainstream media, the DNC, and the GOP establishment.
Ex-Army here: I'll add to that, "Does Trump want to touch off a war with Russia by imposing a no-fly zone over Syria? No, but Hillary does."

Quibcag: This is actually a re-use. The girl is from Lucky Star (らき☆すた RakiSuta).

Tuesday, October 25, 2016

Consensus Science

The most egregious case of "consensus science," at least when the word "consensus" is actually used, is of course the global warming AKA climate change trend, where we're always being told that 93% or whatever of "scientists" believe in climate change, and therefore skeptics should shut the hell up. I was enlightened about this assertion by somebody on the net, who pointed out that the "scientists" referred to include physicians, psychiatrists, sociologists, anthropologists, etc. The way the argument is phrased, however, leads us to think it means 93% of climatologists, which it does not.

In a completely different connection, we constantly hear that there's no such thing as race, and that all races are equal in intellect and temperament. Leaving aside the fact that these two propositions are contradictory, they're always put forward as though there's some sort of scientific consensus that they are true. "Racial difference have been discredited by science," or some such thing. Of course, nothing of the sort has taken place, and any and all studies have shown that there is a distinct racial hierarchy of intellect and temperament. Now, I'm sure that if you count school teachers and government bureaucrats as "scientists" you might come up with something approaching such a "consensus."

In any case, it doesn't matter. Science doesn't work that way. Science is about finding the truth by the scientific method, not by holding elections or arranging polls. If you know anything at all about the history of science, you know that often one man figured out the truth about something, and the consensus was against him. If they'd held a vote about evolution, or heliocentric astronomy, we'd all still have to believe some pretty inaccurate things.

Here's the rest of what Michael Crichton said:

Michael Crichton

“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.”

― Michael Crichton, Caltech Michelin Lecture, January 17, 2003
Quibcag: You guessed it. That's Rika Shiguma of Haganai (はがない).

Curt Doolittle on the Evolution of our Understanding

This I found on Facebook, posted by Curt Doolittle [link] and was very intrigued by it. Some of its assertions are inarguable, some are more baffling to the layman, and some are simply a very good summary of intellectual history. There's been a lot of work lately on the origins of the European people, and this reflects much of it.

Feel free to argue or confirm any of this in the "comments" section.

(even if I solve cooperation that does not solve sentience)
The universe is simple and regular.
Change from Geometry to Equations.
Behind all of nature was simple laws and ordered.
Four Pillars of Western Science.
The four pillars are false. it is not that regular.
Most influential paper in mathematics in the past few hundred years
5 - 1880-1970 FAIL (COOPERATION)
The operational revolution fails. (What I am trying to do)
Spencer, Mises, Brouwer, Bridgman, Hayek, Popper.
I am pretty sure I solved this.
6 - ???? ??????? (SENTIENCE)
the measurement of reason (what Taleb is really trying to do)
(I have no idea what lies beyond sentience - if anything does.)
"Kurgan culture":
- Bug-Dniester (6th millennium)
- Samara (5th millennium)
- Kvalynsk (5th millennium)
- Sredny Stog (mid-5th to mid-4th millennia)
- Dnieper-Donets (5th to 4th millennia)
- Usatovo culture (late 4th millennium)
- Maikop-Dereivka (mid-4th to mid-3rd millennia)
4500–4000: Early PIE. Sredny Stog, Dnieper-Donets and Samara cultures, domestication of the horse (Wave 1).
4000–3500: The Pit Grave culture (a.k.a. Yamna culture), the prototypical kurgan builders, emerges in the steppe, and the Maykop culture in the northern Caucasus. Indo-Hittite models postulate the separation of Proto-Anatolian before this time.
3500–3000: Middle PIE. The Pit Grave culture is at its peak, representing the classical reconstructed Proto-Indo-European society with stone idols, predominantly practicing animal husbandry in permanent settlements protected by hillforts, subsisting on agriculture, and fishing along rivers. Contact of the Pit Grave culture with late Neolithic Europe cultures results in the "kurganized" Globular Amphora and Baden cultures (Wave 2). The Maykop culture shows the earliest evidence of the beginning Bronze Age, and Bronze weapons and artifacts are introduced to Pit Grave territory. Probable early Satemization.
3000–2500: Late PIE. The Pit Grave culture extends over the entire Pontic steppe (Wave 3). The Corded Ware culture extends from the Rhine to the Volga, corresponding to the latest phase of Indo-European unity, the vast "kurganized" area disintegrating into various independent languages and cultures, still in loose contact enabling the spread of technology and early loans between the groups, except for the Anatolian and Tocharian branches, which are already isolated from these processes. The Centum-Satem break is probably complete, but the phonetic trends of Satemization remain active.
The find probably marks the end of more than 100 years of archaeological debate over whether the great cultural upheaval seen in the Bronze Age (2700 BC. to 500 BC.) was driven by ideas or by immigration.
"It is completely ground breaking, and the entire history must now be rewritten into a story of mobility and human expansion," says archaeologist Kristian Kristiansen from Gothenburg University. He led the archaeological part of the study.
By extracting and identifying genetic material from 101 Bronze Age people excavated in Europe and Asia, the scientists were able to see who Bronze Age people were and how they were related.
"This is the largest study ever -- more than double that of all previous studies combined -- and for the first time we can make population studies on fossil genetics," says Assistant Professor Morten E. Allentoft from the Centre for GeoGenetics.
The study has just been published in Nature alongside a similar study, led by Professor David Reich from Harvard Medical School, which maps the DNA of 69 Bronze Age people and supports the same conclusions.
Europeans were created by three migrations
The last few years were an intense race between Willerslev and Reich to be the first to map and analyse the European’s ancient genetic material.
They have already shown that modern Europeans share the genetic components of the early hunters but with the arrival of farming culture about 8500 years ago, there was a mixing with new genetic components. This shows up as a genetic difference between southern and northern Europe.
Neolithic people (4000-1700 BC) resemble us more but there is still something missing, and last year it became clear to scientists that there must have been a third wave of migration.
This was a migration to northern Europe, which could explain the genetic differences between northern and southern Europeans today.
"Whether the sample was taken in Germany, Poland, Denmark or Sweden, we see the same component, and we can show that it comes from the Caucasus," says Allentoft.
The component matches that of the relatively unknown steppe people, the Yamnaya, who were nomads from thousands of kilometres north of the Caucasus between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea.
Reichs and Willerslev's research groups agree that the Yamnaya tribe migrated west into northern Europe around 5,000 years ago.
Previous archaeological findings have shown that changes occurred in northern Europe around the same time.
The Yamnaya brought a completely new social structure with them, says Kristiansen.
"Pastoral people are more collective and live in villages, but with [the Yamnaya] there’s a much more individualistic culture, organised in nuclear families. You can see the change in the funeral rituals they introduce, such as the family burial mounds," he says.
The Yamnaya were a nomadic people who brought livestock with them and used horses to pull wagons that carried all their belongings. They burned forests to create grazing land until about 2000 BC when they began to settle down.
"But we see individual households with family farms and not villages," says Kristiansen and points to a fundamental change of Europeans both culturally and genetically.
"They are our main ancestor," he says.
Here, the first Yamnaya replaced the existing people, and then around 1,000 years later Yamnaya in Central Asia are abruptly replaced by a warlike people called Sintashta.
the migration of the Yamnaya culture seems to solve the old conundrum about the origins of Indo-European language.
"The mystery is solved -- the Indo-European language is first spread in Europe and then east to Iran and India," said Kristiansen.
The Yamnaya eastern migration also solves the riddle of how the now extinct Indo-European language Tokaisk arose from within China.
The new study strongly supports the “steppe hypothesis”, which claims that the Indo-European languages spread with these steppe people as late as 3,700 to 2,000 BC.
Why did the Yamnaya people migrate?
With large pieces of the puzzle beginning to fall into place, new questions open up -- such as what triggered that Yamnaya culture to migrate in the first place.
Kristiansen explains the current belief is that there was a decrease in farmers about 100 to 200 years before the Yamnaya migrated. One hypothesis is that these communities were hit by illness or crop failure and famine, which provided space for the Yamnaya.
The new studies set the stage for further work, to map genetic material deeper back in time, as well as our more recent history.
"We can for example see the formation of the modern Dane is not quite complete 2,000 years ago," says Willerslev. "It could be really interesting to see what happens later in the Iron Age and Viking times.""---
My point being that the steppe breeds for aggression and we are failing to understand that it reverses thousands of years of peadomorphic evolution by western man.
Quibcag: A standard map of Indo-European languages, with a teacher-girl I've used before and have forgotten the provenance of.

Friday, October 21, 2016

Pathological Altruism

Pathological altruism is self-explanatory. It's altruism, which is one's benign attitude that wants the best for others, exaggeraged and perverted into a self-destructive urge. It's nearly identical to Nietzsche's definition of "corrupt" in the quibcag. Barbara Oakley has a different definition,

"behavior in which attempts to promote the welfare of another, or others, results instead in harm that an external observer would conclude was reasonably foreseeable.” [link].

That is, she defines it as behavior designed to help someone that results in harm to that someone instead, as opposed to the one doing the behaving, or so the definition seems to suggest..

But that phenomenon is best described as "misguided altruism," or "counterproductive altruism," because it's not pathological in the usual sense, just stupid or unthinking, and she of course means the harm as unexpected and unintended.

In fact, Oakley has written a book titled Pathological Altruism, and it includes the definition above, but also includes the definition used by most of us on the alt-right, as altruism that harms the altruist as opposed to the beneficiary of the altruism. I'd say that her first definition is best dropped in favor of this one I found at Stormfront [link]: 

Pathological/Psychotic altruism is defined as the sometimes bizarre forms of care-taking behaviour and associated self-denial seen in psychotic individuals, and often based on delusion.

And at The Right Stuff, Diabolus Candidus has a longer definition/evolutionary explanation [link].

And my definition is "the sacrifice of the welfare of oneself and of those one loves for the benefit of strangers." That makes it sound more explicitly crazy, which it certainly is.

The "Syrian refugees" who Obama and Hillary are inviting to move in and sign up for goodies will of course not be "vetted" because A, it's virtually impossible, and B, they don't really want to vet them, will include terrorists, plus just plain criminals. Many will rape and kill. Anybody who wants this to happen either hates this country or suffers from pathological altruism.

More on the subject from Tim Murray, over at The Occidental Observer:

Hope for Bleeding Heart Social Justice Warriors

Tim Murray

“When a ship goes down there are never enough lifeboats. Sailors are trained to beat off with violence those still in the sea once the lifeboat is full. If they do not—everyone dies. This is real compassion.”   Sam Gerrans
I know that there are many of you who are deeply affected by the pitiable plight of Syrian refugees, and indeed with the awful privations that poor African migrants suffer. You are full of empathy, but you lack the resources to help them. You feel impotent. It is a helpless feeling, isn’t it?
This is a painting called "Pathological Altruism"
by Jesse Waugh [link]. Note the bleeding hearts.
So instinctively, you implore governments to take action. You ask them not only to provide aid with my tax dollars, but to fling open our borders to allow them to pour in un-vetted, so as to overburden our social safety net, bring chaos and conflict to our society, expose our women to rape, fill up our parks and streets with make-shift tents and rubbish, occupy social housing units left empty by the forcible eviction of our own low income residents, and ultimately make refugees out of our own citizens.
You do everything to pull our heart strings. You even take heartrending pictures of migrant women and children in distress, while ignoring the homeless and the unfed and unclothed in your own backyard.
And then, if this is not enough, you turn to me for help. You appeal to my conscience. You try to guilt me out. Even though I am a pensioner who has worked long and hard to fund the medical system and the benefits that accrue from it, you tell me that I have too much, that I am too affluent, that I can afford to share my “bounty”. And that I should open my heart and wallet to these poor unfortunates and let them have the hospital bed and the dental care and subsidized one bedroom apartment that I am entitled to.

You make this plea because you are afflicted with a mental illness—pathological altruism—which essentially forms the ideological underpinning of Greens, Leftists, Progressives, addled-headed clergymen and Popes. And you expect me to enable your self-flagellating, ethno-masochistic, anti-Western personality disorder by forfeiting my living standards, quality of life, and cultural heirloom in the service of your mad dystopian vision.
Your message can be summed as this: Move over and squeeze tighter to make room for more and more incoming migrants. What you don’t grasp is that the queue of people aspiring to come to this country is endless. 80 million people are born every year, and most of them are born poor, in many cases, desperately poor. It is a bottomless pit, and you apparently have no bottom line. You apparently have no understanding that there are Limits to Growth.   That makes you a perfect progressive. So you demand that I tighten my belt and fork over.
You characterize my unwillingness to make this sacrifice as “racist’. And then you call me a ‘xenophobe’, as if the fear of being overwhelmed by tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Middle Eastern and African migrants is an irrational fear, while the population explosion in Africa is manifest and leading voices warn of massive numbers of environmental refugees across the globe.
You are obviously a very troubled individual, consumed by self-hatred and inner turmoil. You would change but you are, as David Brin would say, chemically addicted to self-righteousness. You can’t help yourself. You can’t help trying to gain social status by showcasing your empathy for “The Other” and your disgust for selfish and ignorant “Deplorables” like me.
The rage and projected self-loathing is eating you up. You want to shout down professors, outlaw speech, shame transgressors, get ‘racists’ fired, disregard privacy rights, secretly and illegally tape private conversations, abolish the presumption of innocence, cast aside due process, demand ‘safe spaces’, complain about ‘micro-aggressions…the list goes on. You want to lash out at the world. It is killing you.
But don’t despair. There is hope. There is a way out. A way out that does not involve ingesting pharmaceuticals. You don’t need to take anti-depressants or benzodiazepines or oxycodone tablets or any of the dangerously addictive street drugs. You don’t need to trade your addiction for another.
No, you only need do one thing. Follow this great man’s example. Take his sage advice. Heed his dictum of wisdom:

Quibcag: These are some of the animals of the Chinese Zodiac, found at Pinterest.

Wednesday, October 19, 2016

Brainwashing the Nation, According to Scott Adams

As H. Allen Smith used to say, good goddle mighty! The networks have seized on the truly important issues at stake in this election — exactly what Trump said in a locker room about sex a few decades ago. Never mind all the Hillary scandals. It's not fair to hit girls, evidently. But more important than the scandals are the policies, and I don't think we've had such diametrically opposed policies since Goldwater versus Johnson. Actually, since both Goldwater and Johnson explicitly wanted the country to hold together, more or less, and Trump and Hillary disagree on that, with Hillary being an advocate of the country falling apart, I'd say maybe the policies are the most diametrically opposed since 1860. And you know what that resulted in.

Their policy differences: Trump wants Obamacare repealed, Hillary wants more of the same. Trump wants a sane immigration policy, Hillary wants open borders, especially for the Third World. Trump wants to work with Russia to solve the ISIS problem, Hillary wants war with Russia (See previous post). Trump is supportive of cops and law enforcement in general, Hillary seems to hate cops and law enforcement, just like Obama does. Trump thinks the government should negotiate trade deals that benefit America in general and American workers in particular, Hillary likes trade deals that favor Wall Street and her donors. Trump calls race riots "race riots," Hillary calls them "protests" and thinks White people are guilty of causing them. Trump wants to drain the damn swamp, Hillary wants to wallow around in it.

Have you fallen for the "Trump is a racist, sexist, etc. monster" refrain? Remember that they said all the same things about Mitt Romney, even if with somewhat less vehemence? They say that about all Republicans, and certainly all Republican presidential nominees, because that's what Democrats do. Their policies and performance are impossible to defend, so they use their energy smearing Republicans instead.

Somebody who hasn't fallen for that refrain is Scott Adams, who does the comic strip "Dilbert."
This is from Scott's blog here [link]:

I Wake You Up for the Presidential Debate

Here’s a little thought experiment for you:
If a friend said he could see a pink elephant in the room, standing right in front of you, but you don’t see it, which one of you is hallucinating?
Answer: The one who sees the pink elephant is hallucinating.
Let’s try another one.
If a friend tells you that you were both abducted by aliens last night but for some reason only he remembers it, which one of you hallucinated?
Answer: The one who saw the aliens is hallucinating.
Now let’s add some participants and try another one.
If a crowd of people are pointing to a stain on the wall, and telling you it is talking to them, with a message from God, and you don’t see anything but a stain, who is hallucinating? Is it the majority who see the stain talking or the one person who does not?
Answer: The people who see the stain talking are experiencing a group hallucination, which is more common than you think.
In nearly every scenario you can imagine, the person experiencing an unlikely addition to their reality is the one hallucinating. If all observers see the same addition to their reality, it might be real. But if even one participant can’t see the phenomenon – no matter how many can – it is almost certainly not real. 
Read the rest here, where Scott relates all this to the election:
Quibcag: The brainwashed girls are from Hayate the Combat Butler (ハヤテのごとく! Hayate no Gotoku!).

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

"Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war." — John Adams

As I've said before, never mind all the other issues — when you vote in a few days you'll be deciding whether you want war or peace.

And no, this isn't about Trump insulting Pakistan or some damn place and war resulting. That really isn't how wars get started these days. Trump actually sends the message that he's willing to hold negotiations about our relationships with all countries, because our strength is obvious, and threats aren't necessary.

As for insults, Trump didn't say these things about Vladimir Putin, who runs Russia, the second most capable nuclear power on Earth.

"I think (Putin) is at heart, a bully ... you have to stand up, and you have to encircle, and you have to try to choke off his ability to be so aggressive.”
"I see a very cold-blooded, calculating former KGB agent who is determined to ... enrich himself and his closest colleagues..."
"Aside (from) his personality, ... his agenda is one that threatens American interests." [link]
Hillary Clinton did. Trump insults illegal aliens, maybe, but Hillary insults somebody with nuclear stockpiles. Smart. Nothing new about that. During the Clinton administration, she egged Bill on to attack Serbia, which in effect amounted to a big insult to Russia, and all that resulted in a new Islamic state in Europe, Kosovo. And as Secretary of State, she was instrumental in the overthrow and murder of Qadafi, leaving Libya without a coherent government, creating chaos there, and also making Libya into a departure point for Africans moving into Europe, which Qadafi had prevented.

And now she wants to do pretty much the same thing to Syria. With the same results. When you remove a strong man like Assad, or Saddam Hussein, you get chaos and untold human suffering. Most Middle East countries are better off with a strong man, because without one, they have civil wars and chaos until another one takes over.

So your peace vote goes to Trump, definitely not to Clinton. Lest you doubt me, here's Stefan Molyneux on the subject:

Pat Buchanan wrote years ago that there was an understanding between Russia and the US that if Russia permitted Germany to reunite, NATO would not expand to the east. We broke that agreement, obviously. It's almost like we, or our rulers, are angry with Russia for not being communist any more, because we were never this belligerent towards the USSR.

And here's Buchanan on our current pointless standoff with Russia, from Townhall [link].

Trolling for War with Russia

by Pat Buchanan

Some 50 State Department officials have signed a memo calling on President Obama to launch air and missile strikes on the Damascus regime of Bashar Assad.

A "judicious use of stand-off and air weapons," they claim, "would undergird and drive a more focused and hard-nosed U.S.-led diplomatic process."

In brief, to strengthen the hand of our diplomats and show we mean business, we should start bombing and killing Syrian soldiers.

Yet Syria has not attacked us. And Congress has not declared war on Syria, or authorized an attack. Where do these State hawks think President Obama gets the authority to launch a war on Syria?

Does State consider the Constitution to be purely advisory when it grants Congress the sole power to declare war? Was not waging aggressive war the principal charge against the Nazis at Nuremberg?

If U.S. bombs and missiles rain down on Damascus, to the cheers of the C-Street Pattons, what do we do if Bashar Assad's allies Iran and Hezbollah retaliate with Benghazi-type attacks on U.S. diplomats across the Middle East? What do we do if Syrian missiles and Russian planes starting shooting down U.S. planes?

Go to war with Hezbollah, Iran and Russia?

Assume U.S. strikes break Syria's regime and Assad falls and flees. Who fills the power vacuum in Damascus, if not the most ruthless of the terrorist forces in that country, al-Nusra and ISIS?

Should ISIS reach Damascus first, and a slaughter of Alawites and Christians ensue, would we send an American army to save them?
Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Illustration found at Gary Johnson was invited to comment also, but he wasn't sure where Syria is.

Open Borders, Open Pandora's Box

Some time back because I referred to open-borders libertarians as useful idiots for the establishment. Well, I should be clearer about that. Some are indeed useful idiots, some are just idiots, because their behavior otherwise makes them useless to the establishment, and some are liars, because they know very well that open borders would wipe the very idea of libertarianism out in about six months.

Do I really have to explain this obvious fact? Right now we have a feeble version of open borders, i. e., the government is being sneaky about it and just letting in Latin Americans and Middle Easterners with as little fanfare as possible. This is because the American people would revolt if it declared an official policy of open borders, and tried to establish it all at once instead of incrementally. This is a "boiled frog" phenomenon [link].

But if the American people would hold still for it, and the government officially declared the borders open, China would send several million colonists here toot sweet (yes, I know it's supposed to be tout de suite) to loot the country by political and industrial espionage. And other, lesser nations would do the same according to their population numbers.
And, of course, countries with altogether too many poor people would do their best to send all the poor people here where they will demand freebies and make it even more impossible to do away with the welfare state. And the Chinese who decide to stay here will help them with their demands, because all immigrants except for a few from Europe align themselves with the left, the left being the Democratic party.

And what will you do when new immigrants from, say, Uganda defecate on your lawn? Use your Second Amendment rights to shoot them? Or just shrug and put up with the new order, lest the other libertarians call you a racist?

Libertarians didn't use to be so uniformly idiotic. I'm not sure what happened, except that I suspect a bunch of ex-hippies have joined the movement and brought all their idiocy with them. It wasn't ages ago that Murray Rothbard said:

The “nation,” of course, is not the same thing as the state, a difference that earlier libertarians and classical liberals such as Ludwig von Mises and Albert Jay Nock understood full well.

...And the quote continues up there in the quibcag.

Still not convinced? Read this from Alternative Right [link]:


On the anniversary of 9/11, President Obama called for the US to embrace diversity. 

The reason multiculturalism makes my blood boil is, whilst I am a libertarian, I am also strongly nationalistic. Many libertarians confuse nationalism with collectivism, statism, and racism; the implication being, if you’re an alt-righter and share nationalistic sentiments, you’re no libertarian. They assume we are delusionally taking personal pride in the historical achievements of long-dead, successful European people. That is, we forget our individualistic selves and imagine a racial collective which can take credit for the achievements of others who share certain genes. But, that’s not why I’m nationalistic at all.

Of course, I am proud of Western civilization for developing modern capitalism and an overwhelming number of other great innovations, just as I am proud of the association I have with my beautiful, bright daughter or the successes of a close friend. These things are a social benefit, however remote, to me and so I feel a natural desire to celebrate them.

However, my nationalism is based purely on my subjective values, derived from simple, socio-biological facts; not some superficial notion of ‘white pride’ – you know, Aristotle and John Locke were white etc.

First, nationality does not necessarily refer to the legal citizenship of a nation-state. 

Read the rest here:
Quibcag: The various nation-symbols are from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).