“Only in a Crisis Will a Great Leader Emerge”

By now, y’all either see what I mean or you don’t.  But if somehow, someway, you’re still on the fence, I direct you to this bit by Quintus Curtius at Return of Kings.

It goes almost without saying that the mainstream Democrat and Republican candidates are two names with almost no distinction. Both of these parties long ago were bought out by big money and corporate interests, and ceased to care about the plight of the average man in America. Yes, of course, they pay lip service to the Old Ideal, and they are great readers of idealistic speeches on the teleprompter, but in the end they will do little to upset the status quo.

Notice that “upsetting the status quo” is considered a good in itself.

Then look at the examples:  Lincoln (a tyrant who hollowed out the Constitution).  James K. Polk (conquered Mexico at the behest of the Slave Power Conspiracy).  FDR (a fascist).

Last, and most important, look at the language.  “Only in a crisis will a great leader emerge.”  That could’ve come straight from the pen of Josef Goebbels (y’all really ought to read Michael; quite a lot of your fellow countrymen are in there).

Are we finally starting to get it?

Anger at #Cuckservative

Ace is upset that lots of undesirables are using the hashtag #cuckservative.

With all due respect, bro: What the pulsating reticulated fuck did you think was going to happen?!?

America runs on a racial spoils system.  Ace knows this, because he’s a breathing mammal.  The Left has been shoving the idea that race is a social construction down our throats for the last 50 years, and the idea that race is the end-all and be-all of politics for the last 60.  This, too, is common knowledge, to all vertebrates and several phyla of plants.

We’ve entered the zero-sum endgame.  Any slice of the pie going to you is, by definition, one less slice for me, and the only rule in the game is race uber alles.

So disaffected whites are socially constructing a race for themselves.

Yes, the Nazi flag-wavers and the folks who use phrases like “mud people” are loathsome.  One wouldn’t want to have them as neighbors.  But they’re playing the game exactly the way liberals have played it for the last half-century.

I’ll put it as plainly as possible: This “lose with dignity,” Marquis-of-Queensbury stuff was fine when prosperity was lifting all boats.  A nation with 4% unemployment can tolerate a lot of lunacy on the fringes.  But that nation is gone, never to return.  Your choices going forward aren’t going to be between Democratic lunacy and Republican fair play.  Unless we get very fucking lucky — I’m talking on the order of winning the lottery twice in one week — our choices are going to be lunatic international socialism, virulent national socialism, or a seven-way civil war in which every identifiable grievance group in America tries to kill off all the others.

People respond rationally to incentives.  In our case, all the incentives are insane… but they’re the only ones on offer, and people will respond however they think will bring them maximum advantage.

I thought conservatives, of all people, understood that.

Roosh Gets It

The dean of the neo-masculinity movement has this to say.

RTWT.  This is not to say he’s right — we may both be wrong.  But I’ve been saying these kinds of things for years now, and a LOT of folks — Return of Kings’ readership is huge — are now being exposed to these ideas.

And then ask yourself what this means:

I’m not sure what role neomasculinity will play after their collapse, but there will be power up for grabs. It’s time we do some serious soul searching, and ask ourselves how far we’re ready to go to put out the fires that will surely burn in America. May fortune favor the bold.

I’m pretty sure y’all know my answer.

Related: Derb, quoting Afrikaner nationalist Dan Roodt:

The sad truth is that Africa’s “economic miracle” will never happen. As the population grows, survival will mean only one thing: emigration….The rush to Europe will be so massive and relentless that it will not be possible to stop it without direct military force. That would require a fundamental ideological change, and without such a change, at some point in the 21st century, Europe will accept African domination.

No offense to Derb, but an African-dominated Europe isn’t inevitable.  Remember the 19th century, when it was the other way around?  If, as “race realists” constantly argue, Africans can’t be integrated into modern postindustrial society, then some kind of revanchist colonialism seems like an obvious way out — the ol’ mission civilisatrice, but with A Troublesome Inheritance instead of Bibles in the missionaries’ hands.  Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the EU farming out the mission civilisatrice to the Chinese, who will be all too happy to oblige (and who celebrate diversity with tanks).

Americans would cheerfully vote for mandatory sterilization of entire ethnic groups if not doing so meant giving up their iCrap.  Europeans —  who have a bit of experience in these matters — will no doubt do it for far less.  I don’t know who this Dan Roodt guy is, but I’m betting a lot of people will soon become familiar with the ideas of another Afrikaner.

This is not going to end well.

A Fun New Drinking Game!

Recall the Three Laws of SJW:

  • SJWs always lie.
  • SJWs always project.
  • SJWs always double down.

If you want to go out like Leaving Las Vegas, a fun drinking game is: Sip every time you find an example of the Three Laws in a typical feminist rant.  Stacy McCain has a great one to get you started.  But here’s the catch: You have to clearly identify each example.

It’s tougher than it sounds.  Try it.

Men are socialized since birth to think their feelings and thoughts are the objective truth.

Now, is that a lie, or projection?  I know I for one was “socialized” to regard my feelings as much closer to the opposite of truth — that’s why they’re called feelings, not facts.  So I’d call that a lie.  Then again, I grew up in the Jurassic, so maybe it’s true now.  Millennial “men” certainly value their pwecious widdle feewings more than us fossils do ours.  But there’s definitely a whopping shitload of projection here, too, since feminism commonly calls the whole idea of “objective truth” a tool of The Patriarchy.

See what I mean?  And that’s just the first sentence.

They are taught they are generally right about something, unless contradicted by another male with equal or more authority.

Again, lie or projection?  I want to say projection — this “truth flows downhill from the head cheerleader” stuff is classic chick — but it’s also a lie, plus a double-down on her previous shrillery.  Be very careful — if the rest of the players vote against your interpretation, you have to drink an extra one.

Here’s an easy one:

This is why men often offer strong opinions on topics they just heard about, especially if they’re contradicting a woman.

But what about

Women are considered wrong by default and must argue their way to display their truth, no matter how strong their credentials.

The first one is classic projection — getting white-hot furious over stuff they’ve never heard of is classic SJW — but the second sentence beats my pair of jacks.  I’d venture to say that the kind of gelatinous, neutered “males” your typical feminist hangs around have never contradicted a woman on anything, ever.  Think this guy even remembers what it’s like to have a sack?

B-uDP6fWkAE9mr8

But then there’s the lovely incoherence of “display their truth.”  Are we back to maintaining, in default feminist mode, that there’s no such thing as objective truth?  Because I thought you just said men regard their opinions as objective truth.  Isn’t “my truth,” syntactically speaking, something that’s objectively true to me?  Yes yes, I know there’s no way to square that circle, because we’re arguing in oxymorons — the phrase “my truth” makes no more sense than the phrase “Lenin or coffee how.”  But you’d think someone who threw around the phrase “objective truth,” even to denigrate it, would have the weensiest little problem writing “display their truth” with a straight face.  Cognitive Dissonance Czar, can we get a ruling?

And then there’s the bit about arguing their way to something.  I can’t even parse that one out.  I know we have a former grammar teacher among our readership.  Can you do us a favor and diagram this one for us?

Women are considered wrong by default and must argue their way to display their truth, no matter how strong their credentials.

I’m tempted to be generous, and assume this is just bad writing (McCain says this gal is 25 years old, and she certainly writes like a grad student).  In other words, the sentence should read something like “Women are presumed wrong and must argue for the truth of statements men would accept by default from men, even if the woman’s credentials are greater than the man’s.”

Is that what she’s saying, though?  Or is “their way to display their truth” to be taken as the object of the argument, roughly equivalent to “opinion”?  Such that the sentence should read “Women are considered wrong by default and must defend every single one of their opinions, while men let that kind of thing slide from other dudes”?

You’ve got to figure that one out before you can determine if she’s lying or projecting.  Again, Omega Boy up there has never challenged a woman on anything, so I doubt Princess here has much experience arguing for anything (whereas guys routinely challenge other guys’ claims just for the hell of it — “busting balls,” we call it, which is another reason Omega Boy has no experience with it).

However it turns out, I definitely need a goddamn drink.

“Getting the Pithy up There in the Post”

This started as a reply to Nate Winchester, here, but I want to expand on the history biz a bit.

What bugs me when some libertarians & conservatives say “go learn yourself” is that they don’t seem to realize that the left has learned if they can’t control the information, that drowning the truth (especially with “accepted wisdom”) is just as acceptable.

This is true, and it’s often quite difficult — especially with academic history — to tell where the facts end and the interpretation begins.  But you don’t really need as many facts as you think you do.

I’m not being anti-intellectual here.  I’m not arguing that you should charge blithely into battle completely unarmed.  But facts quickly pass the point of diminishing returns.  The example Nate uses is “was Hitler a Christian”?  There’s no way to “win” this “debate,” because Hitler was both a human and a politician.  Humans’ beliefs change over time.  Lucky for most of us, we’re not on record.  Politicians are.  Hitler was probably the Pope’s best buddy when talking to Catholic Bavarians, and a Thor-worshiping neo-pagan while addressing SS officers.  Hell, he was probably both of those things, and seventeen other things besides, in his own head half the time.  As he was a public figure, though, we have him on record opining about the state of his soul, and we can use those “facts” to construct whatever argument we wish….

…And notice what just happened there.  We’ve slid between two different applications of the word “fact.”  When we say “Hitler told a gathering of SS officers that Christianity is nonsense in a speech on 9 November, 1938,” the fact in that sentence isn’t

  • Hitler thought Christianity is nonsense;

it’s

  • Hilter said Christianity is nonsense to a group of SS officers on 11/9/1938.

The fact that he made the speech is part of the construction of the opinion that he wasn’t a Christian.

Again, I sound like I’m belaboring the obvious, but this is how the process works.  And it’s why facts, as such, quickly pass the point of usefulness.  We can’t simply add up all his statements pro and con, subtract one from the other, and look at the result.  People are just too complex for that.  The archives, alas, are not a magic bullet.  There will never be a smoking-gun statement that will prove a claim like that (and even if there were, would the other side ever accept it?  No true Scotsman and all that).*

Now, academic history — the stuff argued over in portentously-titled tomes from micro-presses — may well turn on one or two facts unearthed from dusty archives.  And things “everybody knows” in the biz** are routinely challenged and disproven (that’s one of the ways you get tenure).  But that’s not particularly useful for our purposes.

I’ll give you an example.  I’ve been arguing in these pages that the 2016 campaign has been a weird mishmash of the 1852 and 1856 presidential elections, with Donald Trump in the John C. Fremont role.  I claim national defense (= borders + Muzzies) now is equivalent to slavery back then — the only thing ordinary people wanted to talk about, and the one thing both political parties wouldn’t talk about under torture.  I say Trump is Fremont because both Trump and Fremont, are, quite frankly, lunatics — but they’re straight-talking lunatics who won’t shut up about the one issue the public actually wants to hear, and who promise action.

Fremont was a sort of gentleman-adventurer back in the 1830s and 40s.  He got rich by shady means, which included seizing control of a nominally independent country, the so-called “Bear Flag Republic” of California, while serving as a US Army officer. He got a bug up his ass about slavery, which was the appeal of the new Republican Party, and though cooler heads like Lincoln prevailed as the party’s public face after 1856, Fremont remained a major force, so much so that Lincoln had to give him a military command in the Civil War… which he used to unilaterally free all the slaves in his AOR, nearly torpedoing the Union war effort before it got started.

Now, any competent first-year grad student could tear that argument apart.  Hell, a humorless internet pedant could, in about five minutes, using nothing but facts — the border isn’t slavery; Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn’t the Mexican War; there’s no Know-Nothing Party***; etc. etc.

To which I say, look at Trump’s popular appeal.  “Because he’s got game” is a stupid fucking reason to vote for a politician, but lots of people are sympathetic to burn-it-down, shit-flinging nihilism.  And when the party system is so obviously a fatcat-protection racket, when the party boys who are our rulers so obviously despise the ruled, a protest vote for the shit-flinging nihilist seems like the only sensible option.  If my official choices are Jebillary or Hilleb, a hearty “fuck you” is emotionally satisfying.  An Aztec will still have my job, the Thought Police will still be on my case, I’ll still have to maintain constant vigilance against the day some amnestied towelhead blows himself up at the local mall… but I can at least kinda sorta hold my head up as a man for one more day (until the shrieking harpies in Congress finally get around to passing the Castration Act of 2017).

Do I seem angry to you?  A little deranged, perhaps?  Good.  This is the headspace of a lot of your fellow citizens.  It’s why Trump is leading in the polls, and why a serious candidate who says what he says will finally end this ridiculous farce sooner than later.

Facts, as such, don’t capture that.  You can find the same seething anger, the same unhinged rhetoric, on the pages of any newspaper in the country circa 1858.  But the fact is that they’re talking about slavery, which we don’t have.  You can point out, quite rightly, that the Republican Party platform which so many found appealing was tailored to economic and social conditions so different from our own that it may as well have been written on Mars.****  One can even point out, as at least one of our regular readers does, that the GOP is kicking ass right now if you look at election returns; winning parties don’t generally go out of business overnight.

It’s easy to get lost in those kinds of facts — missing the forest for the trees.  The more you read up on Fremont, say, the less he looks like Trump.  The past really is a different country.  But… how did we get here from there?  It’s still possible right now, in AD 2015, to shake hands with men who shook hands with men who fought in the Civil War.  1858 was just yesterday, but facts won’t tell you that.

 

*A great example of the problem with archives, using a similar example, is Richard Evans’s Lying about Hitler.  The problem is that there’s no smoking-gun order for the Holocaust over Hitler’s signature in the archives.  This has allowed sick fucks like David Irving to pretend that the Holocaust never happened, and/or that whatever number of Jews died — I think he admits to low six figures — Hitler had nothing to do with it. Nazi Germany didn’t work that way, of course, and the evidence we do have is irrefutable and overwhelming.  But nobody can wave a piece of paper around and say it disproves, 100%, the crackpot theories of the Holocaust deniers.  It’s a good read.

**which are not things “everybody knows” in real life, alas.  If you want to claw your eyeballs out, read some of the “debates” over just how capitalist slavery was or wasn’t in the Old South.  In academia, “everybody knows” that slaveholders just had to be eeevil capitalists, because “slaveholder” and “capitalist” basically mean the same thing.  But the facts on the ground keep contradicting that, and so every time some grad student writes a dissertation on slavery in Frog Wallow County, Georgia, 1832-1834, the entire profession has to re-litigate the whole thing in the reviews.  Nobody in the real world gives a shit.

***The current GOP in fact knows nothing, but they’re not Know-Nothings.  Alas.

****The fun irony, for those who like such things, is that the best book on the early Republicans is still Eric Foner’s Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men.  Foner is an out-n-proud commie, but his book is top notch.

UPDATE:  And hey, whaddaya know, just as I’m finishing this up, I see this.  Fremont’s “coup” worked, but I leave the respective levels of crazy involved as an exercise for the reader.

 

“A Transactional Society Run by Sociopaths”

A great phrase I came across browsing through the archives of a new must-read, the Z Man.  The post in question is about the UNC cheating scandal, which you probably haven’t heard of unless you follow college basketball, but the point is universal:

Walter Russell Mead calls what happened at UNC a moral collapse. That true, but it misses the larger issue. The UNC scandal is emblematic of what has happened to American society. The utter and complete moral collapse of the ruling class has reduced [us] to a transactional society run by sociopaths.

Your philosophy-of-government types call these moral collapses “crises of legitimacy.”  Governments maintain themselves in power in two ways: Consent of the governed, or monopoly of force.  When enough people realize that their government is illegitimate — it’s all hogs to the trough, and we the people are the trough — if that government doesn’t have a monopoly on force, they’re out.  A hard man comes along, a fellow with an uncompromising set of principles, and all the discontented rally to him.

History’s full of examples.  In 1860, Lincoln was the hard man.  “A transactional society run by sociopaths” describes the decadence of the second American party system to a T.  The abolitionists — much harder men than their figurehead — came up with a great phrase to demonize their opponents: The Slave Power Conspiracy.  But plantation owners didn’t want to enslave everybody.  They had no interest in keeping the white workingman down.  They just wanted to get theirs, the same way the Whigs wanted to get theirs.  Principles be damned; there’s money to be made by pulling the levers of government. We know where that led.

Oliver Cromwell was a hard man indeed, and you’d be hard pressed to find more transactional society than Charles I’s misrule.  But there was one — Nicholas II’s Russia — and it called forth a harder and more uncompromising man than even Cromwell.  China collapsed into warlordism soon after 1911 for similar reasons.  I’m sure by now I don’t have to tell you about Weimar.  As Z Man seems to love Roman history, I’ll throw in Septimius Severus as well.  And Napoleon, after the Terror.

You may have noticed that Donald Trump is leading the GOP polls.  Trump is a misbegotten clown, a vanity candidate, and everyone knows it — especially The Donald himself.  But someday soon there will be a steely-eyed fanatic saying exactly what Trump is saying, and he’ll mean every fuckin’ word.  You’ll feel the force of his conviction through the tv screen.

There’s your fuhrer.

Paging All Grammarians- UPDATED

Is there a word for this kind of thing?  There needs to be.  Via Vox Day’s Alpha Game site:

Being on the subways and streets of New York while female used to mean walking through a veritable gauntlet of harassment and catcalls. But lately, a curious thing has happened – my world is a much quieter place. The comments and lascivious stares from men have faded away the older I’ve gotten, leaving an understandable sense of relief. But alongside that is a slightly embarrassing feeling of insecurity that, with every year that goes by, I become more and more invisible to men.

So far, so much typical feminist whining.  But let’s examine the title of the original piece:

Men rarely catcall me any more. I hate that our culture makes me miss it

Someone break that down for me, grammatically.  Anyone remember how to diagram a sentence?

There needs to be a term for this weird passive-voice, gassy-noun leftist syntactical tic, since it seems to enable a lot of their parathought.  Look at what happens if you describe common life events feminist-style:

My team lost the big game.  I hate it that the other team made me feel this way.

I caught a summer cold.  I hate that medicine hasn’t found a way to make me feel less bad.

I got caught behind an accident on the freeway.  I hate that the city managers’ arbitrary placement of off-ramps made me late for my 10 o’clock meeting.

See what I mean?

Valenti hated being catcalled, because it’s rude.  But she kinda liked it, because it let her know that men found her sexually attractive.  For normal people, that’s just how the world goes — I love the way that triple heart attack burger with mega-fries tastes, but man oh man do I hate what happens on the scale (and in the toilet) the next morning.  It takes a special kind of stupidity — and, I’m coming to believe, this particular syntax trick — to make a simple fact of life into a grand Social Justice crusade.

Let’s break it down.  The first sentence

Men rarely catcall me anymore

is straightforward English prose — subject (men), verb (catcall), object (me).  This is the simplest grammatical construction there is.  There’s no doubt about who is doing the action (men), what the action is (catcalling), and the object of the action (Valenti).

But now let’s look at that second sentence.

I hate that our culture makes me miss it

That’s quite a bit trickier.  Meta-grammatically (or whatever the term is; apologies in advance to any linguists reading this), it’s a basic subject-verb-object arrangement — “I” is the subject, “hate” is the verb, and that other stuff is the object.  But the object is, in itself, a second sentence: “our culture makes me miss it.”  Here’s where the trick happens.

Notice the shift into passive voice.  Valenti, who started the sentence by hating, is now the direct object.  The subject is “our culture,” which, as I’m sure y’all are aware, isn’t a sentient being.  In the space of a single clause, we’ve gone from Valenti as a subject, using a very strong action verb — “hate” — to a passive object.  She doesn’t miss being catcalled; this amorphous thing called “our culture” makes her miss it.

I know, I know, I’m belaboring a pretty obvious point, but it’s important, y’all.  This way of talking — this way of thinking, if we can call it that — is how feminists and other marxoids stay white-hot angry at things they know nothing about.  If “our culture” were different, would she still miss being catcalled?  Or would she no longer hate missing it?

She doesn’t know, and you can parse her op-ed like a medieval scholastic without finding out.  The closest thing we get to a definition of “our culture” is here:

But when you’re brought up to feel that the most important thing you can be is attractive to men, the absence of their attention – even negative attention – can feel distressing.

Again, notice the passive voice* here, the lack of subject.  Who, exactly, brought you up this way, sweetie?  Isn’t your hate — your word — much more appropriately directed at them than at “our culture”?  I mean, you can always ask Mom and Dad why they made the parenting choices they did; it’s a lot harder to put culture as a whole into the dock.

She continues:

I do care [about not being catcalled] in some way that sits uncomfortably with my politics…

Yet another confusion is introduced, by yet more passive voice.  I’m getting a mental image here of a great battle taking place in poor Jessica’s head

285-homerwith “our culture” and “my politics” slugging it out while the lady herself is, at best, a stenographer.  Gee, I wonder who will win?

I know that my reaction is normal, considering the culture I’ve grown up in, as much as I know that my self worth does not depend on what strangers think. But I do wish there was more nuance in conversations about aging, beauty standards and feminism – room enough to admit without shame the complicated feelings we can have about it all.

Two points here.  First, reread the end of the opening sentence at try not to giggle: ” as much as I know that my self worth does not depend on what strangers think.”  But Jessica, darling, your whole piece is nothing but agony over what strangers think!  You just got done wondering if you’ve spent your “last fuckable day” (it’s adorable when girls cuss, by the way; so empowering), and telling us you shamefully assume you look particularly good when you do get catcalled. Again, it’s as if you’ve got two different beings inside your head — the active voice one, who tells us how you really feel, and the passive voice one, who tells us you’re very very good at ignoring yourself.

And then there’s this gem: “room enough to admit without shame the complicated feelings we can have about it all.”  Here again, we see how this gassy-passive thing transforms common everyday experience into a huge metaphysical problem.  Nobody likes getting old, my little chickadee.  And you can take it from me, even us macho white heterosexual patriarchal types feel a bit uneasy about losing our sex appeal.  Hell, I’m practically the fuckin’ Marlboro Man if wymyn’s studies textbooks are to be believed, and even I felt a disturbance in the force, by which I mean my balls, when I switched gyms recently and went from being one of the bigger guys in the room to one of the smaller ones.

Pictured: Me, according to feminism

Pictured: Me, according to feminism

It’s an odd kind of question begging, isn’t it?  We need a word for this.  Suggestions?

 

 

*Yes, humorless internet pedants, I’m broadening the sense of “passive voice”  here.  Grammatically, passive voice is when subject and object are reversed — “The play was written by Shakespeare” versus “Shakespeare wrote the play.”  But I need a broader tone to make my point, so deal with it.

 

UPDATE: A former grammar teacher points out that “broadening the sense” of words is what proggies do, and so “passive voice” won’t fly.  I’m asking for suggestions here.  As a placeholder, I’m going with “opossum voice.”  The opossum trundles along through its day until it encounters a threat, at which point it flops over and plays dead until the threat moves on. Then it hops back up and trundles on as if nothing had happened.  Which pretty much describes this “I hate…. society makes”-type construction.

“The Progressive Sense of History is Synchronic and Emotional”

A great insight from a blog I just found.

The Western tradition, informed by the Catholic scholarly traditions, is diachronic and dispassionate. History is a series of events, each influencing the other. The French Revolution, for example, led to Napoleon, the latter being the result of the former.

The Progressive sense of history is synchronic and emotional. The Civil Rights Movement has enormous emotional resonance with the left so it is of constant interest and talked about as if it happened yesterday. On the other hand, the near total domination of America urban centers by Progressive politicians has no emotional resonance so may as well have happened ten thousand years ago or not at all.

RTWT.

Today’s Suicidally Depressing Thought – UPDATED

These are the people to whom we have lost the culture war.

As I write this, my children are asleep in their room, Loretta Lynn is on the stereo, and my wife is out on a date with a man named Paulo. It’s her second date this week; her fourth this month so far. If it goes like the others, she’ll come home in the middle of the night, crawl into bed beside me, and tell me all about how she and Paulo had sex. I won’t explode with anger or seethe with resentment. I’ll tell her it’s a hot story and I’m glad she had fun. It’s hot because she’s excited…

Holy break-dancing Mohammed. We deserve everything we’re going to get.  Oh lord, how we deserve it.

UPDATE: Stacy McCain thinks this is a hoax.

If a story seems too good to be true, it’s probably not true, and I suspect “Sonmore” is a hoax designed to elicit reaction — particularly, sexist reactions from men — which will then be cited as proof of what misogynistic pigs men really are.

Well, mission accomplished, baby.  If being disgusted by that article makes me a misogynistic pig, then I wear the label proudly.  Oink oink.

McCain cites Iowahawk:

I’ve got 10 bucks that says this is a fantasy piece written by a 48 year old childless cat lady.

That seems plausible, too.  But really, doesn’t the fact that so many of us were taken in (if we were, in fact, taken in) say something in itself?  McCain cites this bit as the big tell:

Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression, and, not to get all women’s-studies major about it, patriarchal oppression essentially boils down to a man’s fear that a woman with sexual agency is a woman he can’t control.

McCain says

OK, that’s the point at which I called “bullshit” on this story. Whose “sexual agency” is “controlled” by monogamy? Both partners are equally obligated to fidelity in marriage, but to suggest that this is “patriarchal oppression” driven by “a man’s fear” of “a woman he can’t control” is a psychological projection, a reversal of reality.

Far be it from me to contradict the guy who wrote Sex Trouble — and you should get at least the Silver Star for that act of heroism, buddy — but “a psychological projection, a reversal of reality” is a pretty good working definition of feminism.  “Monogamy meant I controlled her sexual expression” is exactly the kind of thing I hear in coffee shops every single day in my college town.  And not just from women — McCain says “this recitation of feminist jargon — “patriarchal oppression” and all that — is simply too perfect.”  I say it’s an A on a sophomore term paper, and I for one have no problem believing a “male feminist” would talk like this.

But whatever.  Time will tell, I suppose.

Putting My Money Where My Mouth Is

I have some predictions as to what will happen here in the US, government-wise, in the next 10 years or so.  I base these on my understanding of history — stuff like a viable 3rd party and fascism just seem obvious to me, based on the way things have gone in the past.

But maybe I’m wrong.  Maybe I will end up looking very, very foolish — and I’d be thrilled to end up looking foolish.  So let’s test it.  Here are a few other things that I think will happen in the next few years, all else being equal:

Iran gets The Bomb.  I don’t think anyone, His Choom-ness included, seriously disputes that this will happen, so it hardly counts as Muad’dib-leve prescience.  But based on that….

Oil prices are going to skyrocket on the assumption that there will be a Mideast war sometime within the next decade.  Oil companies will start hedging, of course, but as Presidents Obama and Clinton will surely veto any expansion of the domestic energy industry, we’re going to be hit particularly hard.

China will also start hedging and, as they give zero shits about Global Weather or anything else, they will develop an aggressive energy security policy.  Which may mean war in the South China Sea (what else are those artificial islands for?).  The annexation of Taiwan is, I think, nearly certain, and if I were them I’d do it now, so that it’s a fait accompli by the 2016 presidential debates (on the off chance that Hillary might let a comment slip on her total unconcern for foreign policy).

I’d also bet on China engaging in some neo-colonial adventuring in Africa — a state petrochem company “advising,” say, Nigeria on the “development” of their petroleum industry… with a private security force, of course, and an attache, and a whole lot of oil rig workers who look surprisingly like People’s Liberaton Army Special Forces.

Knowing this, Japan and India — no fools they — will step up their rearmament programs (which are already well underway).  The Indians have nukes; the Japanese may acquire them.  And if Vlad Putin running lots of “exercises” eastward for no good reason, things are about to hit the fan in a major way.

Speaking of Vlad Putin, a protracted Mideast war is great for his bottom line, so expect stepped up arms sales to Iran (aside from the big SAM sales they’ve already made, that is).

Chinese neo-colonial “aid” to their fraternal socialist brothers in Venezuela certainly isn’t out of the question, either.

Finally, I wouldn’t rule out a full-on conventional military invasion of Iran by Israel as their bomb gets nearer to completion, probably with the tacit acceptance, and maybe even open aid, of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the Gulf States.  What choice do they have?  Of course, Israel’s a democracy, so they may well vote to keep their heads in the sands, America-style.  But with rising anti-Semitism all across Europe (and America), I’m betting they take Ahmedinajad’s Hitler-with-nukes rhetoric seriously.  And it’s not like the Mossad couldn’t cook up a casus belli in no time….

Time will tell, of course.  I hope I’m embarrassingly wrong on all counts.