Monthly Archives: February 2016

Marcus Junius Brutus, You’re My Hero

I’m sure this will surprise absolutely no one who has been paying attention:

A few weeks after Senator Marco Rubio joined a bipartisan push for an immigration overhaul in 2013, he arrived alongside Senator Chuck Schumer at the executive dining room of News Corporation’s Manhattan headquarters for dinner.

Their mission was to persuade Rupert Murdoch, the owner of the media empire, and Roger Ailes, the chairman and chief executive of its Fox News division, to keep the network’s on-air personalities from savaging the legislation and give it a fighting chance at survival.

It’s a scam.  It’s ALL a scam.  As much as I hate to even acknowledge their existence, the folks who think Teh Joooos! are in charge of everything kinda have a point.  There seem to be a few hundred people, a few thousand at most, whose opinions actually matter in this country.  They want what they want, and they seem to all have each other on speed dial, and that’s why your options always seem to boil down to “Left” and “Left, but slightly slower.”

In an actual representative government, like the one the Founders designed, you wouldn’t see policies forced over the objections of citizen majorities… but that’s what happens again and again.  Open borders, Obamacare, gay marriage, you name it — 50-75% of the country doesn’t want it, but we get it anyway.

(Lest you think this is a new problem, recall that The Slave Power Conspiracy pulled the same trick again and again.  No system is so byzantine that it can keep oligarchs from colluding.  Vigilance, eternal vigilance, is the price of liberty, as someone once said).

Nor does pure aristocracy have this problem.  The king can only alienate so many of his subjects for so long, before a disgruntled nobleman manufactures a claim to the throne and launches a rebellion.  The vaunted Rights of Englishmen are actually the Threat of Frenchmen — without the King of France around to support any half-assed pretender to the throne, English kings would’ve become much more tyrannical.

Nor, needless to say, does dictatorship.  The problem there, though, is El Caudillo del Momento’s tendency to shoot his former backers… and, of course, the ruthless Darwinian scramble to be even a candidate for caudillo.  Rupert Murdoch, Rubio, Chuck Schumer, the Koch Brothers, Soros, et al are ruthless sumbitches, but they’re not exactly up to commanding a cohort of Praetorian guards.

It’s only in a situation like ours — where the plebs still cherish a notion of liberty, and the patricians are both utterly amoral and physically weak — where you have to stage-manage things like this.

Loading Likes...

Nouns vs. Traits

An interesting link at Anonymous Conservative:

A group or researchers in Kent found that conservative politicians prefer using nouns in their speeches compared liberals….The researchers…established that conservatives, more than liberals, generally tend to refer to things by their names instead of describing them in terms of their features.

AC goes on to argue that

Liberals have a psychological need to have a moldable world around them, because they have an innate aversion to a solid reality. Throughout their life, they have learned to perceive the world as changeable….That wiggle rooms is not to be able to deceive you later. It is to maintain their ability to deceive themselves, and construct the reality they need to keep their amygdala puttering along, without revving up over the redline.

To “using traits instead of nouns,” add an addiction to passive voice and an aversion to pronouns.

Saying “I propose a code of conduct” puts you on the hook for the details of the code — and its consequences.  Saying “a code of conduct should be put in place to make all feel welcome” is — in addition to being an obvious SJW brownshirt entryist move — a way to isolate yourself from the consequences.  “Oh, the code of conduct went bad?  It wasn’t me who proposed it!  I was just expressing my support for the concept of codes of conduct in general.  Of course I’m against this particular code.  I am a GoodThinker.”

See also “some people might be offended” vs. “she might be offended.”  If you say “she,” you have to point at a real person, to whom the question can easily be put: “Hey Jane, does this offend you?”  But theoretical somebodies are always on the verge of being offended, and never available for direct interrogation.

It’s all of a piece with taking liberal arguments seriously.  Pronounless, passive voice word salad is the first and most obvious liberal tell online.  A simple restatement of their premises into active voice is usually enough to send them running for their safe spaces, screaming about trigger warnings.


Loading Likes...

Basic Western History Quiz

Since everyone seemed to enjoy the (((Sexy Fun Time))) quiz, I’m stealing a bit from John C. Wright.  Hows about an impromptu Basic Western History Quiz?

  1. Who fought in the Peloponnesian war? 
  2. What was at stake at the Battle of Salamis? 
  3. Who taught Plato, and whom did Plato teach? 
  4. How did Socrates die? 
  5. Raise your hand if you have read both the Iliad and the Odyssey. 
  6. The Canterbury Tales?  Paradise Lost? The Inferno?
  7. Who was Saul of Tarsus? 
  8. What were the 95 theses, who wrote them, and what was their effect? 
  9. Why does the Magna Carta matter? 
  10. How and where did Thomas Becket die? 
  11. What happened to Charles I? 
  12. Who was Guy Fawkes, and why is there a day named after him? 
  13. What happened at Yorktown in 1781? 
  14. What did Lincoln say in his Second Inaugural? 
  15. His first Inaugural?  How about his third Inaugural?
  16. Who can tell me one or two of the arguments that are made in Federalist 10?
  17. Who has read Federalist 10? 
  18. What are the Federalist Papers

The problem here — if you’re anything like me — is that you’ve probably read quite a bit of this stuff, but don’t remember.  That’s no excuse for incoming freshmen, but it can’t hurt for the rest of us old fogies to bone up.  So… how’d you do?

Here are mine, for the record:

  1. Athens and Sparta
  2. The Persian invasion of Greece.  Or was that Aegespotomoi? (sp.?).  One was the invasion, the other was from the Peloponnesian War, but I forget which is which.
  3. Socrates; Aristotle
  4. Suicide, forced on him by the Athenian assembly
  5. Yes, but so long ago I barely remember anything
  6. Yes, the whole damn thing, in the original Middle English; most of it; yes… but again, all of that long enough ago that I barely remember any of it
  7. Became the Apostle Paul; basically founded Christianity as we know it
  8. Martin Luther’s complaints against the Church; kicked off the Reformation
  9. Established the basics of the English Constitution; placed the king under the laws
  10. Murdered by Henry II’s goons at Canterbury Cathedral
  11. Executed for treason
  12. Tried to blow up Parliament in the Gunpowder Plot
  13. Surrender of Lord Cornwallis, effectively ending the American Revolution
  14. Don’t remember.  Was that the “house divided?”
  15. I think his first was the “house divided” speech.  Of course, he had no 3rd inaugural.
  16. An expanding republic will mitigate against “faction;” I forget the rest
  17. A long, long time ago
  18. A pamphlet series urging ratification of the Constitution; they lay out the philosophical underpinnings of the Republic
Loading Likes...

Left and Right, Again

I’m pretty sure nobody cares anymore — by now, everyone convincible has been convinced — but if you want another thumbnail definition of Fascism, Vox Day has you covered:

…classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, free trade, constitutionalism, and a whole host of other 18th century concepts that were largely theoretical as well as being near and dear to our hearts have fundamentally failed.

Technology and events have fundamentally changed the way we must now think about these things; the logical cases that were laid out by the various 18th century Enlightenment thinkers are now subject to the analysis of more than 200 years of readily available data. Let the cult of reason be silent when experience and history gainsay its conclusions.

I’m not kidding when I say Goebbels could have written that.  But so could Lenin.  Which is why it’s so sad — by which I mean, utterly predictable — that people are still trying to label this attitude “right wing.”

Here’s the key sentence:

Technology and events have fundamentally changed the way we must now think about these things [classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, free trade, constitutionalism, and a whole host of other 18th century concepts].

and the key word: Technology.

indexKarl Marx, as everyone knows, spent his whole intellectual life fulminating against the Industrial Revolution (while living off the tit of Friedrich Engels, the trustafarian son of a factory owner).  He squirted a lot of squid ink about the proletariat owning the means of production, but you can’t read The Communist Manifesto without sensing he was a Luddite at heart.

MTIwNjA4NjMzODgyNTEwODYwLenin, though, was a whole different kettle of mass murder.  Like Marx, he felt that the whole Enlightenment schmear — “classical liberalism, conservatism, libertarianism, free trade, constitutionalism,” etc. — had been overturned by industrialism.  But Lenin had a modern civil war to win, which required modern production techniques, and, after victory, a modern(-ish) economy to run in the real world.  So he canceled out Marx’s vague gassy agrarianism with one of those pithy slogans: “Communism,” he declared, “is Soviet power plus electrification.”

And it worked — at least, kind of, when starting from a barely-above-medieval baseline and with a whole whopping boatload of lies, and gulags, and lies about the gulags.  And because it “worked” (=”worked well enough to fool those who really wanted to believe”), Lenin’s little slogan became the basis for the entire Left’s reaction to Modernity.

The fellow travelers, of course, went on being the internationalist Left (albeit where “internationalist” really meant “pro-Soviet”).  But others, like Mussolini and Hitler, became nationalist Leftists.  Those guys, as we know, were all in on Marx’s division of humanity into mutually hostile economic classes.  They were also all in on Lenin’s techno-worship.  The only difference is, while Lenin saw technology marching into the glorious global communist future, Mussolini and especially Hitler saw it leapfrogging all the way back into the past.

Which is why Nazi propaganda was full of images like this

129377_v1and especially this

prop_12Ancient, and especially medieval, motifs were everywhere in German propaganda, and as far as I know, only there — the British Empire was second to none in keeping relics of chivalry alive, but their propaganda tended to look like this:

are-we-afraid-noYou can see many more examples of the Nazis’ medieval fetish by googling terms like “nazi propaganda knight.”  The point of this style of propaganda wasn’t just to keep the boys fighting; a neo-classical / neo-medieval aesthetic was an essential part of the Nazi message from the get-go.  As was — crucially — technological progress.  When the war is over, this style of art proclaimed, cutting edge Me-262 jet interceptors will be beaten into plowshares.

That’s Fascism.  Classical liberalism, constitutionalism, free trade, everything that the “right wing” holds dear, has exactly zero to do with it.  It’s collectivist to the bone — it’s just nationalist collectivism, as opposed to Lenin’s universal dictatorship of the proletariat.

Which is why it’s called National Socialism.  And it’s coming back.  Just as Vox Day is talking about tossing constitutionalism in the name of science, so a good portion of the rest of the “manosphere” simply assumes the categorical inferiority of entire races based on HBD.  And that’s ultimately how they’ll win over the liberals who get mugged by reality.  They’ll appeal to Our Betters’ well known love — excuse me, fucking love — of “science.”

Loading Likes...

Captain Opaque

Morgan wonders what to call those liberal “arguments” that fall apart the second you take them seriously.

Arguments that are so fragile, that you completely ruin them just by taking them seriously. “Yes feminist sister, you are right; gender is a big nothing, an artificial societal construct, an illusion. And one of these genders is so much better than the other.”

I always assumed there was a name. We have names for the rebuttals, like the reductio ad absurdum mentioned above. But what about these overly-delicate, beached-whale arguments themselves, structurally incapable of bearing their own weight?

I don’t know (though I rather like my suggestion, FUSAG arguments; sounds like “fugazi”), but whatever they are, they’re not just “arguments”  — it’s an entire rhetorical style.  Call it “Paging Captain Opaque.”  Here, see if you can spot the FUSAG, fugazi, Captain Opaque, whatever argument in this Onion AV Club review of “The Witch:”

What if the architects and accusers of the Salem witch trials had it right the whole time? What if the women of their community really were in league with the devil, conspiring in black of night and deep of woods? That’s not technically the premise of the new satanic horror film The Witch, which is set in 1630, more than half a century before a group of overzealous puritans put the mark of infamy on their Massachusetts seaport. Still, the events in Salem loom large over the events of the film, like the long shadows of gnarled tree branches. Subtitled “A New England Folktale,” The Witch could be seen as an origin story of American fanaticism—one of the many tall tales that might have inspired a group of young girls to start pointing fingers at their friends and neighbors. Just as easily, however, given the film’s self-advertised stabs at historical accuracy, one could read this singular shocker as something even more disturbing: a kind of fright-flick answer to Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, presenting a revisionist national history in which true evil exists and religious hysteria is the proper response to it.

Did you catch it?  I didn’t, the first time around — I’m so used to this kind of conclusion-first boilerplate that it slipped right by.  After all, it’s The Onion; anything that portrays religion as anything but a fraud perpetrated on (and by) idiots is by definition bad.  So here it is:

What if the architects and accusers of the Salem witch trials had it right the whole time?

Ummm….. isn’t the fundamental premise of ANY horror movie that the horrors are real?  That’s why it’s The Nightmare on Elm Street, not The Meta-Ironic In-Joke on Elm Street, no?

f0e69e802ec40bfe3b935249c63a55c6And because SJWs always double down — it’s Rule #2 in the manual — here it is again:

a kind of fright-flick answer to Arthur Miller’s The Crucible, presenting a revisionist national history in which true evil exists and religious hysteria is the proper response to it.

Ummmm…. yeah — if true evil does exist, and it’s right frickin’ there, then yes, absolutely, religious hysteria is absolutely the proper response.  If I really thought my neighbor was possessed by the Devil, I can assure you I’d go to the Pope himself if I had to.

See what I mean?

Loading Likes...

“We Were Beaten by the Best, Boy”

Spud: Hey! They just ran into the house! That Homer fella grifted you good, Dad.

Cooder: Well, there’s no shame in bein’ beaten by the best.

Spud: But he didn’t seem all that…

Cooder{brusque}: We were beaten by the best, boy.

Once again, I’m wondering if I read the same books as everyone else back in high school.  In this case, Psych 101.  Here’s Ace of Spades on how Trump just torpedoed his own campaign (ever notice how he’s always doing that?) by claiming GW Bush “lied us into war:”

Trump damaged himself with his claim that Bush lied us into war in Iraq. Not botched the intelligence, not read too much into thin intelligence.

Most Republicans, I think, would agree that that.

No, Trump claimed that Bush deliberately lied us into war….

If Donald Trump is right, and George W. Bush deliberately schemed with his neo-con advisers to “lie” us into a phony war with Iraq, what does that say about the average Republican voter who supported Bush from 1999, voted for him, defended him through the recount, cried with him on 9/11, agreed with him on Iraq, defended him from ceaseless liberal attacks on him during the war, defended him from Obama’s never-expiring “Blame Bush” blame-shifting, etc.?

Well… what does it say?

Ace thinks Trump just called Republican voters morons.  I think he just gave them permission to finally abandon Bush.

Show of hands: Anyone without an equity stake in Lockheed-Martin still think the Iraq War was a good idea?  It’s true that the average Republican voter supported it.  I did.  And it’s true that lots of us defended it — again, guilty — in the face of our liberal acquaintances’ nastiness and hysteria.  But — follow closely now — we were wrong.

It’s not easy for most people to admit they were wrong, even on piddly little things.  It’s even harder to admit that you were wrong about big things, and it’s really, really tough to admit you were wrong on huge things, identity-defining things that you went to the mat for again and again.

Like used cars.  Everyone knows someone who has bought a lemon, and every lemon-buyer has the same story: “The salesman tricked me!”  But it’s not true, and everyone, including the lemon-buyer, knows it.  Salesmen never lie, because it’s the end of their world if they get caught.  You tricked yourself.  You got your identity caught up in it — as the kind of guy who drives that particular car, or, more likely, as the kind of savvy shopper who got conned the conman.  You know the salesman’s not really going back to the office to “clear it with his manage,” right?  He’s giving you time to fix that identity in your head — you’re the gearhead who really put one over on that dimbulb sales dude.  Once it’s off the lot, it’s your problem.

Claiming that the salesman lied to you is a psychological defense mechanism.  If your wallet is more important to you than your ego, you admit that you got took, and change your behavior accordingly.  If ego trumps wallet, then not only do I have a used car to sell you, but I can get you a big discount on the undercoating.

Politics works the same way.  Not only do you have to swallow the pill that you were wrong about the Iraq War — galling enough, considering what it says about your judgment — but you have to at least tacitly admit that all those screeching liberal assholes were at least kinda sorta right.  Yes, they were against it for all the wrong reasons.  Yes, their whole pretend pacifism thing was and is bullshit.  Yes, they are grotesque hypocrites.  And so on and so on and scooby dooby doo, BUT — they were right.  All the grand Iraqi adventure got us was more government, more surveillance, more “homeland security,” more debt, more terrorism, more Democrats in the White House… and all at the cost of several thousand precious American lives.  That’s a near-fatal psychological wound….

….unless, of course, you got conned.  You were beaten by the best.  We all know that George W. Bush isn’t the idiot liberals make him out to be.  In fact, he’s the evil scheming Machiavellian genius liberals make him out to be.  There’s no shame in bein’ beatin by the best.

Time will tell, of course, whether I’m right, or Ace is.  But I’ll bet you two cases of undercoating that Trump’s poll numbers don’t drop a fraction.


Loading Likes...

Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor….

The main reason I got into political blogging back in, what, 2003 …. was I needed an outlet.  I needed to speak up.  I found myself yelling at NPR on the way to work … (I know, I know, my first mistake was listening to NPR, right?  But you know that’s what all the intuhlektualls taught me to listen to.

At any rate, I just found myself privy to a conversation that absolutely blew me away.  A man and a woman I know, talking.  One says she took her grandson to Chick Fil A … because they had things for him to play with and on.  The man says he doesn’t go to Chick Fil A  The woman is curious, why not?

So he answers her … “when religion and politics get brought into the workplace, I just can’t go there.  In their case, it’s both.”

W.      T.         F.        ???????????

Ok, let’s review.  A few years ago, the late owner of Chick Fil A disclosed his personal convictions on traditional marriage in an interview when he was asked. And, according to his convictions, he donated money to one or more organizations that fought to preserve traditional marriage. Vocal, pro-gay-marriage activists took offense to his position and decided to boycott his business.  Which is all fine and good, they have a right to do that.

If you want to avoid going there because you disagree with the convictions of the owner, that’s your right.

But let’s be clear.  Chick Fil A did not bring religion or politics into their workplace.  The activists brought it to them.  There was not, and is not, any policy or practice within Chick Fil A which discriminates against people on the basis of gender, creed, race, or even sexual preferences.  None.

I can’t really say anything to the person in question for a couple of reasons, and one is that I believe he has a gay person in his immediate family … I don’t want to come off … and I would come off that way to him if I did, I’m sure … as attacking this person’s family member.

But it just blows me away that this is what people, even relatively centrist people, came away with from that whole ordeal.

I guess it shouldn’t.  The media sure spun it that way really hard.

Sticks in my craw.

Loading Likes...


Fair warning: These are disjointed thoughts about cultural stuff, written, like all my recent posts, while brutally sleep deprived.  Make of them what you will.

Let’s start with an anti-Trump cheap shot from Stacy McCain’s blog sidekick Smitty:

I sure would like to know how many other core leaders in Trump’s campaign cut their teeth working for the Commies. I don’t know the lady–her support could be sincere. Or not.

Because, you see, adults aren’t allowed to change their minds.  Oh, maybe they can follow fashion, but not on big important stuff.  Ronald Reagan certainly never did.

Behold Authenticity, the signature modern mental pathology.  When, exactly, are we supposed to pick our Forever Selves?  Is it not at least possible that this woman had an epiphany?  Maybe she made a trip to Damascus in the last four years?

The problem is that, back in the Sixties, way too many impressionable young folk read The Catcher in the Rye and decided that “phoniness” is “crumby.”  Then they all went into teaching, and made Catcher assigned reading in their English classes, and before long the mantra of every teenage social reject in America became “Authenticity is Everything.”  I’m not saying Smitty was a teenage social reject; he seems pretty cool to me.  But that’s the point — because those rejects became English teachers themselves, lo, even unto the third generation, “Authenticity” has seeped into the water supply, and lots of people nowadays find it impossible to grok that someone can look one way and actually be another way.

Which, if you think about it, is one of the organizing dogmas of Cultural Marxism.  I’ve written about this before (rather inelegantly) — Leftists long for a legible world.  Which makes sense — in my experience, folks who are further out to the political left tend to be further along on the autism spectrum.  They need nice, bright-line distinctions in order to function.  A woman who is pro-life scrambles their circuits, as does a small-government black, a sedate homosexual, and so forth.

The problem is, though, this is almost exclusively a SWPL preoccupation (has anyone ever met an autistic minority, or even an autistic something-other-than-upper-middle-class?).  Since there are no clear markers with which to differentiate themselves, they have to make up all these bullshit micro-identities, which they then police with an Inquisitorial zeal that would make Torquemada blush….

… and now the Right is doing it, too.  Again, no knock on Smitty specifically (although that was a cheap shot, dude); I’m mainly talking about stuff like this.  And this.  In short, what the “Game” community is devolving into.

All that stuff, Left and Right, is toxic, because it’s a desperate quest for external Authenticity.

It’ll probably help to consider at a relatively benign version first.  So, let’s look at this fucking hipster.  This is nothing but a quest for external validation, since hipsters don’t stand for anything.  Problem is, it’s fairly easy to fake, which is why the people in those photos are forever trying to out-extreme each other — I could grow a tiny mustache, put on a peacoat and a longshoreman’s cap, and achieve exactly the same result vis-a-vis Society as this douchebag:

tumblr_l7tc0zKvbb1qzzhzdo1_540So it goes with the “Right” version, the Pick-Up Artist:


They have their party uniform and their specialist lingo.  Just as hipsters can argue over who likes the most obscure band for hours, commenters on “Game” sites can devote thousands of words to the arcana of pickup and “the socio-sexual hierarchy.”  Is Megan Fox an HB10, or just a 9.5?  Was Hamlet a gamma male, or a sigma?

The point, if you’re tempted to miss it (because real PUA’s don’t dress like that anymore, bro), is that the style is the substance, and vice versa.  It’s next to impossible to verify that the PUA really has bagged all those women, just as for all we know, Pizza Tat up there really listens to Taylor Swift (unironically).  With a quick trip to the dime store, a half-hour at a tattoo parlor, and a bit of research, you can convince even members of your chosen subculture that you are what you say you are.  Nothing that flimsy can be satisfying for long.

Which is what happened to Roosh V.  “Game’s” fundamental problem is that once the hedonistic rush of getting laid wears off, it’s self-defeating — it’s not “the real you” getting laid, it’s the Game, and the Game can be taught to anybody.  Roosh realized this, and his “neomasculinity” crusade is an attempt to find a real, enduring identity — internal Authenticity.  You can still dress and act like a PUA if you want to — if you just want the image — but there’s an ideology behind it.

The problem is that the ideology actually isn’t an ideology.  It’s purely negative.  Read Roosh’s neomasculinity manifesto.  There are about three sentences on what a neomasculine man IS, and 10,000 on what he’s not.  Not an SJW.  Not a pussy.  Not deluded by politicized “science.”  He doesn’t fall for “the narrative,” and he doesn’t conform to feminized social norms.  Etc.  This, too, is all external Authenticity.

It’s also quintessentially Fascist.  I’m quite serious.  I’ll say this until I’m blue in the face, and send all four of our readers over to Daily Kos for a breath of fresh air: Fascism is a totality.  State, Economy, Society, and Culture are all one — “all within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.”  But since we don’t know what Fascism is anymore, we think it’s Jew-hating, or aggressive nationalism, or “intolerance.”

That’s wrong.  It’s culture — the State will reorder Society, via the Economy, for the benefit of a very specific kind of Culture.  You could take a Hitler speech, replace “Jew” with “feminist,” and nobody on the Alt-Right could tell the difference.

Again, the validation is all external.  Fascist Man is defined by his enemies in the same way hipsters and Progressives are.  Fascist Man measures himself in reference to an ideal, and the ideal is always negative — not weak, not decadent, not bamboozled by pretty lies, not gonna take it anymore, and not — NOT — conservative.  It’s an alternate religion based on external Authenticity, just like Progressivism.

Proof?  It’s simple.  Browse through “red pill” writings, and note how much of it still boils down to “do this, and you’ll get hotter girls.”

Loading Likes...

Fascism Quiz Answers

The “made in China” one was the most obvious of the three in retrospect.  But the “Degradation of American Woman” one had an interesting reply from Gary that’s worth a close look.  Here’s the heart of it:

Finally, we get to the original question of why this situation is Fascist. Referencing Goldberg’s definition, I’ll give the following answers:

1) The PC Brownshirts at Allison’s university (and in entertainment, Facebook, MSM, etc) are totalitarian, viewing everything as political and any action they take as being justified to achieve the common good.

2) In the above situation we see that political correctness “seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action,” mostly through social pressure, but sometimes through raw force. Everything “must be aligned with its objectives.”

3) We also see that any individual or group that disagrees with PC is seen as part of the problem and is “therefore defined as the enemy.”

That’s an excellent description of campus culture as totalitarian.  Which it is — I lived many years in a college town, and I assure you that the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is alive and well and going stronger than ever.  But that’s not what makes it specifically Fascist.  All Fascists are totalitarians; not all totalitarians are Fascists.

Part of the issue is that we’re working off Jonah Goldberg’s definition of Fascism.  Which is a good one as far as it goes:

Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the “problem” and therefore defined as the enemy.

But there’s a problem here: The first sentence.  Fascism looks like a “religion of the state.”  So does Communism.  So does campus Leftism (a “religion of the administration,” in that case).  But we can never forget that Communists, Fascists, and campus feminists are all Leftists, and the fundamental doctrine of Leftism is that Utopia can be achieved right here on earth.*

What will this Utopia look like?

We know that every other flavor of Leftist doesn’t have an answer, because we’ve pretty much tried every lunatic idea they’ve ever come up with, and every single one of them has failed.  (Just consider that “rape culture” wasn’t on feminism’s mile-long list of grievances against academia back in the Sixties.  50 years of feminist shrieking, and — according to feminists themselves — women are much less safe on campus than they were back in the horrible days of total patriarchal oppression).

Fascists have an answer.  They’ll express it in different ways — “culture,” “tradition,” “blood and soil,” etc. — but just to stick with a theme, here’s a simple question.  Guys, which one of these women would you prefer to have a long-term relationship with?

A) 21yogirl4


B) 17yogirl1a

That’s the same girl, after four years of

occupy girl2and


hillaryshoppeddown at the local college.

That’s Fascism.  We all know what happened to that girl, and we all know how to stop it.  Heartiste is the Fascist in this scenario.

I’ve focused on the appeal to men because that’s where the action is right now — there’s a surplus of testosterone with no legitimate outlet in our culture — but I can easily pose the same question to women.  How about it, ladies:



Cheap shot, I know, because of those tabs on his collar.  But remember it.  I’ll be in the reeducation camp by then, so maybe you can smuggle me in a chocolate bar or something.

That’s Fascism, y’all.  Xenophobia?  Intolerance?  Hate?  Sure.  All of that and more.  But keep looking at those pictures until you get it.  We’ve tried it the campus Left’s way for 50+ years, and all it has gotten us is more whining, more fear, longer and longer lists of things you can’t do, say, think, or be, and it goes faster and faster.  There are a thousand decent, humane alternatives to our modern CultMarx madness, that don’t descend into a police state.  But none of them has a sales pitch, because none of them even dares to state the problem.

A) vJL5ldor B) GERyouth4It’s the only question that matters right now.




*I’m well aware that Goldberg, who writes so eloquently on the Gnostic roots of the Left, knows this.  He’s writing about Fascism as it’s actually practiced; I’m concerned with how we get to Fascism in the first place.

Loading Likes...

The Zeroth Law Of SJWs

A guest post by Nate Winchester:

For those who don’t want to read the whole thing it is thus:
SJW ism is Marxism for social capital.


I’m a computer guy by trade so it’s old habit for me to define variables at the start (I also notice that most debates on the Internet boil down to a misunderstanding of terms).

Marxism– the principle that things should be as equitable as possible. Example: If I have a $100 and you have $0 then Marxism proscribes we both have $50.

Social Capital– This is going to be tricky because pointing SC out to people is like trying to get fish grasp the concept of “water.” Honor, Reputation, Respect, Friendship, even Privilege are all terms for things that cover a wide swath of SC and are sometimes used as synonyms but don’t quite equal the totality. The reality of SC becomes especially apparent when you move to a new town.  In my hometown if my car breaks down, I know which tow service is the best to call, which garage does the best work & is the most honest, which friends are free/busy to give me a ride, who can loan me a car, and backups for all of the above in case something goes wrong with my first choice.  But when I move to a new town and my car breaks down?  I have none of that.  I don’t know which tow service will get the job done promptly, or which garage will give me an honest deal, I have no friends that can give me a ride and no cars to borrow.  Social capital is the catch all term for EVERYTHING social around you.  If you want an easier way to measure it, the simplest would probably be funeral attendance.  The more SC you have, the fewer empty seats at your service.


If you are reading this, you are probably at least vaguely aware of social justice warriors (SJW) and their most recent vocal complaints. (for fun, post what was the most recent complaint at the time of reading – it should paint interesting historical patterns)  A lot has been written on SJWs, whole books even, but if you’re like me, you can’t help but notice that while everything which can be said about SJWs has been said it all seems… off.  There’s something missing to bring it all together, but what?

It finally hit me when I read this article by the federalist, which (with some irony) goes over plenty of things I already knew (if you keep up with comics, you’re very familiar with SJWs).  But like in the movies, gathering it all together and going over it again might be all the detective needs to catch what he missed before.

See, one thing you learn is that people can be very bad about explaining what they want.  For example, little kids will often say they’re hungry when they’re not.  But they know that hunger is a bad feeling of discomfort so any feeling they have which isn’t comfortable is thus expressed as “hungry.”  Likewise SJWs, further handicapped by an extensive “knowledge” edifice dedicated to obfuscating language, end up with a need for which they cannot vocalize.  And like the toddlers who want something other than the food their parents are shoving into their face, the SJWs get frustrated and begin caterwauling as loudly as they can (thus why often giving SJWs what they say they want leads to them being angrier and more enraged – but that’s another thesis for another day).

However these SJWs are ostensibly adults, they SHOULD be able to communicate, why can they not vocalize their needs?  Because modern society has lost the ability to verbalize and discuss social capital in any meaningful way. (If you want an example, just look at how many seem unable to get some of the basic concepts spelled out in the Holy Bible – like Jesus’ parable of the shrewd manager which is, in the literal sense about a man trading literal capital for social capital.)  And once you realize the true nature of SC, it all makes sense.

And part of SC (and what makes it so complex) is that it doesn’t always apply to only humans.  For example, let’s look at comics.  If I say “Superman” SOMETHING pops into your mind (yes, even if you, dear reader, are from another country, the odds are that you STILL know who Superman is) in fact several things probably pop into your mind.  ALL of that, everything that your brain conjured is social capital for Superman.  No, he doesn’t exist, he’s just a fictional character, but he still has social capital invested in him because of humanity nature towards stories.  A fictional character that has some meaning to you, no matter how small, is a character with some SC.

By now you’re probably starting to see it too, and you realize something else: everything about social capital is HARD.  Regular money is a symbol, an agreed upon representation of meaning by people which give it some amount of power and that makes it easy to deal with.  Thus the belief of marxism, if we take all the money and evenly distribute it (which can at least conceptually be done) then we’ll all be better off!  We’ll have even power at last!

Except not really, because the power isn’t in capital but social capital (this is what Jonah Goldberg speaks of when he says it’s not money that corrupts, but friendship).  Money can be stolen, it can be taxed, it can be distributed.  SC cannot.  I cannot hit you over the head and take your reputation.  I cannot break into your house and steal your friends.  I can’t pass a law that everyone has to trust me like they trust you (well I could but it would be unenforceable).  No, SC can only be gained by years and years of work and effort and… living*.

Thus we bring it all back to the article by the federalist and SJW demands that popular characters be gay or trans or plaid or whatever is the group de jour of the day.  When I brought up Superman earlier, you thought of something.  If I were to mention “Midnighter” the number of you reading this who have ANY thoughts or opinions pop into your head at the name is much much less (indeed he’s pretty much unknown outside the hard core comic fans).  That’s what upsets the SJWs, the SC in Superman’s bank is far greater than in Midnighter’s (or any other character they might pick).  This is ultimately what they mean when they speak of “privilege.”  The problem is, all the SC built up by these comic characters, by star wars, by anything you hear them complain about, took years, decades, GENERATIONS to build upon the investments of the creators.  And the SJWs don’t want to wait that long.  Whichever group is the victim of the hour (and by victim they mean, “possessing less SC than I think they should have”) they want that group to occupy your feelings and memories the way “Superman” does.  The way “Luke Skywalker” does.  The way “Frodo Baggins” does.

Thus, “SJWism is all about marxism for social capital.”

*Yes there is an issue with media & rumors and how they affect SC but that’s another thesis for another time.  But you should at least notice that getting the media/rumors/etc to all agree on robbing someone’s SC still takes more effort and work than just lifting the same person’s wallet.

Loading Likes...