Milo

[Guest post by Nate Winchester]

In case you’re reading this in the future and have forgotten what we were all talking about back in February of 2017, a quick refresher.

A conservative speaker (or at least, an anti-left speaker) named Milo had several media pieces released about something he said over two years ago that apparently had to ferment before it became a scandal.  The uproar over this lost clip caused Milo to get dis-invited to an event, lose a book deal, and a writing gig with a website.

The reactions to it trend towards 3 groups.

1) The Leftists who could care less about children (see here) but want to take down a cultural opponent.

2) The Rightists who oppose Milo as a public face for them.

3) The Rightists who support Milo.

Now groups 1 & 2 are both howling at group 3 asking “why? Why do you support this guy?”

Rather than come down one way or another in the kerfuffle, this post will instead answer that question.  Because group 3 can actually be divided up into two more subgroups.

The first group consists of those who may or may not agree with Milo, but insist that after he falls, you will be next (example), like the infamous poem, “First they came for…”  This is also the only group I’ve found leftists that support Milo in so far.

Survival is an easy enough motivation, what about the second group?

Well like all other things in modern life, this can be explained by CS Lewis’ book The Abolition of Man.  (Seriously, it’s the only thing you need to read to get what’s going on today.)

“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”

See, if you look closely, when we get to full-on Milo support, it trends towards younger people.  New generations that have been simmering for long years in an education and culture thoroughly dominated by the zeitgeist of the Left.  A zeitgeist that long ago abandoned honor and principles as necessary for man and nihilism as the only truth.  You can pick any number of reasons why (such as “honor is patriarchal”) but fundamentally it was because in a conflict the first side to abandon honor or rules enjoys an advantage over the side that adheres to them.

Because “the Youth” is always liberal, the Left thought it could use a lack of standards to finish crushing the Right and then enjoy unchallenged years of dominance.  The problem is that “the Youth” isn’t always liberal, it’s always rebellious, and as soon as they started noticing it was really the Left in charge (the 1950s being long past) their rebellion against it would begin.

A rebellion with no lessons or training in honor and standards.  Because the Left never believed a new generation might arise against them having been instructed in the very rules of war the Left taught.
So for those wondering what happened to “the Right” when it comes to Milo?  Behold the fruit of the seeds you planted.  You have raised up an enemy every bit as ready and willing to fight as dirty and nasty as you do.  Why do so many still support Milo completely?  Because that’s how they were trained.

“Subjects”

The Victorian Idealists, who believed the world to be a construction of the human mind, had a slogan: “No Object Without Subject.”  If there is no one around to perceive the world, the world ceases to be.

Postcolonialists are forever jargonizing about “subject positions.”  Subalterns, they say, are made “objects” of colonial powers; they (the postcolonialists) want to give them (the subalterns) their “subjectivity” back, thereby making them masters of their own destinies(1).

Subjectivaction in Continental philosophy (2) is, I’m told, a way of looking at consciousness as “socially constructed by forms of knowledge and techniques of power. The historical fabrication of subjectivity has come to be known as ‘subjectivation’.”

It’s tough being a subject, in other words.

***

In the comments to this post, commenter “Brother John” pointed out that I’m using “passive voice” in a nonstandard way.  Guilty as charged.  Grammatically, “passive voice” puts the subject behind the verb: “Hamlet was written by Shakespeare” vs. “Shakespeare wrote Hamlet.”  Both are OK — passive voice will get you dinged by an English teacher (assuming she’s allowed to correct your style; surely that’s racist by now?), but it’s not a grammatical error.

Well, “passive voice” as I’m using it isn’t a grammatical error either, but it’s very definitely wrong.  I’m trying to highlight this verbal tic Lefties have, of removing individuals from their discourse.  English sentences require a grammatical subject — e.g. Shakespeare in the above example — but Leftist political discourse all but requires removing specific individuals.  So, the subject of any Leftist sentence is likely to be some vague, gassy notion like “society,” “the patriarchy,” “capitalism,” or my favorite, “some people.”  As in,

  • Some people are likely to find Donald Trump’s stance on ___ offensive.
  • Race is just a social construction.
  • Women are inherently oppressed by heterosexuality.

Etc. etc.  Gramatically, those sentences are fine, but practically they remove the all-important concept of agency.  Consider “social construction.”  A “construction” entails a constructor (if you’ll forgive the clunky phrase), as a “building” entails a builder.  As “society” is a collection of individuals, a “social construction” must therefore the work of all of us, or at least a majority of us.  And yet, nobody I know “constructs” race.  How about you?  Anyone care to try it?  Walk into a black nightclub, say, and begin “constructing” race.  Bonus points if you’re white, double bonus points if you slip the word “Foucauldian” in there, and I hope you have one hell of a health insurance plan.

“But but but,” I hear every grad student in America saying, “it’s all unconscious.  Race is constructed through media messages…”  Yeah yeah, and so’s everything.  Again, who is doing the construction?  TV shows have writers, you know.  If, say, Family Matters contributed to the construction of blackness, then the four individuals credited with writing 215 episodes must’ve been among the most influential people in America, race-wise.  Wait, they weren’t?  Is that because race isn’t a social construction, or Urkel isn’t black?  Think very carefully before you answer, comrade; this will be on the final exam.

Remove the individuals, and at best you’re left with a chicken-and-egg problem.  Sticking with TV for a sec, The Wire was acclaimed for — among many, many, many other things — its realistic portrayal of black street life in the inner city.  Did this accurate portrayal (assuming for the sake of argument that it is accurate) create white America’s idea of inner city blacks?  Or did it merely refine and perpetuate — reify is the marxoblather — this idea?  If A), then race is indeed a social construction — specifically, the construction of series creator David Simon.  (There you go, #BLM activists).  If B), however, then it’s still an open question as to who’s doing the construction.  Unless you seriously want to maintain that black drug dealers in Baltimore learn how to act like black drug dealers in Baltimore by watching The Wire….?

That’s what I mean by “passive voice.”  Put the individuals back — e.g. assert that yes, white America’s perception of black street criminals is entirely due to Wire creator David Simon — and the incoherence of Leftist discourse becomes obvious.  They have to remove agency, such that anything that happens anywhere is the result of …. forces, groups, collectives, ideas, habits, culture.  Anything but actual persons, lest the whole thing vanish in a puff of logic.(3)

 

(1) how a group of academics giving something to an oppressed group of brown people that they study like bizarre new species of bugs isn’t the exact same thing as “colonialist discourses of knowledge production” is a mystery that your faithful correspondent lacks the philosophy to master; just go with me here.

(2) “Continental philosophy,” of course, is the polite way of saying “Froggy marxoblather.”

(3) N.b. that when journalistic conventions require a named individual to move the chains on one of these “social construction” thingies, it’s almost always the same individual.  Specifically, it’s Greg Packer, a highway maintenance worker from Huntington, NY.  Wikipedia says he’s been quoted more that 100 times as a “member of the public” by many different news organizations.  See also “Green Helmet Guy” in suspiciously convenient Middle East war zone photographs.  Fake news?  What fake news?

LITERALLY a Metaphor

Kids these days can’t process figurative speech.  Literally can’t process it, which is why they say “literally” all the time.  If you’re under 30, it’s like… like…

I’m sure there are cog-sci studies on this, if anyone cares to plow through PubMed one rainy afternoon.  I’m going off my observations interacting with, and attempting to instruct, college kids.  So, yeah, it’s all anecdotal, but the sample size is decent.  I see the following types of communication:

Undigested Metaphors.  E.g “Donald Trump is literally Hitler.”  George Orwell nailed this back in 1946, and as this post is really just an attempt to update “Politics and the English Language,” you should probably skip this and go read that.  Should you choose to soldier on, this is the essay with the famous quote “The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. ”  The rest of the paragraph is equally instructive:

The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Statements like Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church is opposed to persecution, are almost always made with intent to deceive. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

We don’t use Bolshevik jargon like “reactionary” or “bourgeois” much anymore, but the others are very much with us.  In Orwell’s day they at least still had vestigial meanings — even the commie trying to justify Stalin’s gulags would make a nod to Plato when asked “what is justice?”(1)  These days, we’re in the odd position of throwing around words and phrases that have never meant anything.  Whites being racist towards other whites in favor of blacks, as compensation for the supposed racism of other whites towards other blacks — all of whom have been dead for 100+ years in most cases — and calling anyone who notices the blatant self-contradiction “racist”… that’s the kind of thing I mean.  Kids who call Donald Trump “literally Hitler” don’t know any of Trump’s policies and couldn’t recognize a Nazi if he anschlussed their ass with his jackboot.  It’s just a metaphor that passes through their speech undigested, kinda like corn in… well, that’s another metaphor, so I won’t confuse any Millennial readers with it.  The point of Undigested Metaphors is to express disapproval, with an implied threat of legal action.

Voice-to-Text.  This is an expression of disapproval without the implied threat of legal action, as most VtT phrases could themselves be actionable.  E.g. “ur a fag,” the standard putdown of “noobs” (or whatever it is now) on the internet / video games / whatever.  It might as well be an emoji, and had voice-to-text technology progressed slower, it probably would’ve been, e.g. 8=>.  It doesn’t occur to users that words like “fag” actually mean something — it can’t, as the people who throw around homosexual slurs the most are Social Justice Warriors, who at every opportunity proclaim themselves the BFFs of every sexual orientation except straight.

Tweets. A cant(2) phrase intended to be retweeted / upvoted, i.e. virtue-signaling.  As any actual information content would almost always destroy the intended effect, Tweets are effectively anti-communication. E.g. “love trumps hate!,” followed immediately by “DIAF Republicans!”  In the dark ages before social media, this was called bumperstickerese — see, for example, any Subaru Outback in any college town in America, where “Coexist” bumper stickers nestle quite comfortably next to calls for the eradication of entire classes of people.

Tinfoil Hat Prose.  According to feminists, everything that’s wrong with a feminist’s life is the fault of The Patriarchy, even though nobody knows any patriarchs.  Same goes for White Skin Privilege, Heterosexuality, and all the other “social constructions” — if they were true, we’d never know about it, because all the chicks, gays, blacks, etc. would still be on the plantation(3).  Phrases like “social construction” give the veneer of academic respectability to what are essentially hare-brained conspiracy theories.  It’s easy enough to detect one — just ask, “who is society (a patriarch, etc.), comrade?  Point to a specific member of the set.”  As the whole point of Tinfoil Hat Prose is to keep everything in the passive voice — “women are oppressed by the patriarchal reification of capitalism” instead of “women are oppressed by Steve” — the same technique refudiates it.

KISSes.  New writers are commanded to “Keep It Simple, Stupid,” and this is the only type of prose modern kids can handle.  In my experience, you can’t make instructions simple enough.  Your sentences can’t be too short, too clear, too declarative.  If you leave any room for interpretation at all, you will be misinterpreted, in hilarious ways you couldn’t have forseen in a million years.  This is literally — literally!!! — the only way to communicate with Millennials.

More as the mood strikes me.

 

(1) n.b. to any Millennials reading this: “What is justice?” was the central question of Plato’s Republic, which used to be required reading in any college humanities class… often in the original Greek.  Here’s a summary.

(2) n.b. to Millennials, not a typo (though how would you know?).  “Clear your mind of cant” isn’t an uplifting slogan about being all you can be; it’s about thinking for yourself.  “Cant” is dogma, things “everyone knows,” the rote bullshit you had to memorize for every test you’ve ever taken in your entire lives.  Rosa Parks is the patron saint of cant.

(3) no, really, homosexuals used to be confined to lavender plantations, which were located in closets.  That was the point of the Stonewall Riots.  Pick up a history book, why dontcha?

Wait, Is This Rhetorical?

Ace of Spades this morning:

And so the question is how does President Trump, along with the citizenry of the nation, working legally within the constraints of the law fight an entrenched political enemy that will use its power and break laws (and increasingly bust heads) to essentially overthrow the government?

Is that a trick question?

The answer, obviously, is: You don’t.  Trump has two choices: Organize some headbusters himself, or have his entire administration doomed to irrelevance.

Still think it can’t happen here?

Nazis, Weathermen, Millennials

We all know how Our Betters, the Liberals, like to throw the word “Nazi” around.

  • The Nazis were racists and nationalists;
  • racism is bad;
  • nationalism is “right wing;”
  • therefore “nationalist” means “racist” means “right winger;”
  • therefore anyone who disagrees with a Liberal is bad
  • because Nazi
  • QED.

That doesn’t mean the Nazis aren’t worth studying, though.

GERyouth4
In reality, Nazism was a utopian revolutionary movement like any other.  The only difference was the details, which cynics on both sides acknowledged — Goebbels bragged he could turn a Red into a Nazi in two weeks; the German Communist Party recruited heavily among Nazi Brownshirts.  Let’s leave the details aside, then, and focus on the process.

The names everyone recognizes — Hitler, Goebbels, Goering — were anomalies.  Great War veterans(1), they were middle-aged when the Nazis seized power in 1933.  Their time on the Western Front defined their lives — Hitler’s military decisions, for example, don’t make sense outside the context  of trench warfare.  But the men who actually carried out the prototypically Nazi stuff — the SS, the Einsatzkommandos, the Gestapo — were younger.  Their defining life experience wasn’t the War, though they were fully aware of it.  The “War Youth” generation was defined by defeat, the stab in the back, the missed opportunity to prove themselves worthy of their Fatherland.

This is important: They spent their entire adolescence preparing for war, physically, mentally, and emotionally.  They longed to test their mettle in the crucible of combat like their fathers, brothers, and older schoolmates did…. but they didn’t get the chance to.

So they turned to radical politics.

As “everyone knows,” the guys who joined the SS(2) were mindless thugs, sadists, failures like Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann, wannabe-farmers who (in Eichmann’s case) actually scratched out a living raising chickens for a while after the war.   As with pretty much everything “everyone knows,” this is false.  SS officers were largely college-educated; many had real degrees in real subjects; quite a few of them considered themselves intellectuals and, of those, quite a few actually were.  They preached, and practiced, a radical ideology they learned in college — a distinctive, instantly recognizable weltanschaaung that guided their actions.

Again, this is important: They learned this stuff in college.  They were Nazis long before the war, and their actions during the war were logical, though horrifying, consequences of their ideology.  The war didn’t turn them into fanatical killers, their ideology did.  The war, especially the brutality of the Eastern Front — which they all regarded as an existential struggle against Bolshevism — provided them with the means and opportunity to put their motives into practice.  Had Germany not gone to war, or had the war gone differently, these guys still would’ve been fanatical, murderous Nazis… except instead of leading “special actions” in Russia, they’d be teaching college seminars.(3)

I’m pretty sure the Six Regular Readers see where I’m going with this but for everyone else, let’s talk about the Sixties.

trep_0001_0001_0_img0018-T2

That’s Bernardine Dohrn, the driving force behind Weatherman, the most violent radical group in the 1970s.(4)  For those who haven’t heard of Dohrn, Barack Obama’s best bud Bill Ayers, and the rest, Weatherman, like every other white radical outfit in the Sixties and Seventies, was a movement by, for, and about the frustrations of over-privileged college kids.  Their membership was invariably middle- to upper-middle class: Dohrn grew up in an upper-middle-class suburb of Milwaukee and was a law student; Ayers’s father was the CEO of ConEd energy in Chicago; Mark Rudd and John “J.J.” Jacobs were undergrads at Columbia.  And they all wanted to be black — “I think in our hearts what all of us wanted to be was a Black Panther,” a former (female, natch) leader proclaimed, and none of the black groups who terrified California in the early 70s would’v gotten anywhere without the white, female attorneys who helped them… and, of course, slept with them.

Reading about Weatherman and the rest, then — Bryan Burrough’s Days of Rage is a good start — one gets the overwhelming impression of solipsistic kids overdosing on white guilt and boredom.

The parallels are obvious if you choose to see them.  Where the German “War Youth” were radicalized by defeat, the Americans were done in by victory.  Their fathers defeated Hitler, then and now the evilest human being that could ever be.  What could possibly compete with that?  They’d never be tested in battle.  They’d never endure the hardships of the Great Depression.  The only foreign evil on offer was Communism, whose JV squad was slapping their generational cohorts around and whose Varsity was armed with ICBMs.  A hot war with Ivan would be over in twenty minutes.

If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.  Like the SS intellectuals, the Radical intellectuals of the 1960s were convinced that utopia was within reach, if only we had the steel to reach out and take it.  Their idols — Che Guevara, Regis Debray, Carlos Marighella, Lenin, Mao — taught that a dedicated cadre of professional revolutionaries could lead the masses to victory.  The only requirements were iron will, utter ruthlessness, and total rejection of conventional morality.  The American version played out like a caricature of modern SJW hyperventilating — in their total rejection of “the System,” Weatherman leaders decided to “smash monogamy” by ordering all revolutionary couples to break up; when that wasn’t enough they moved on to mandatory orgies, and when that proved insufficient, to compulsory homosexuality (somehow Dohrn herself always seemed to miss out on the action).  It would almost be funny if not for the bombs, but these people were serious:

We have the moral right, we had the duty to our people to do it, to kill this people who would kill us. We however do not have the right to enrich ourselves with even one fur, with one Mark, with one cigarette, with one watch, with anything. That we do not have. Because we don’t want, at the end of all this, to get sick and die from the same bacillus that we have exterminated. I will never see it happen that even one bit of putrefaction comes in contact with us, or takes root in us. On the contrary, where it might try to take root, we will burn it out together. But altogether we can say: We have carried out this most difficult task for the love of our people. And we have suffered no defect within us, in our soul, or in our character.

That’s Heinrich Himmler addressing a group of SS officers, not Bill Ayers addressing the Weathermen, but change the “bacillus” from “Jews” to “capitalism” and he’d agree with every word.

Which brings us to the Millennials.

2015-08-04-1438723390-8535074-Cover_YoungHipsterGL

Once again, we see an entire generation of over-educated youngsters who feel they’ve missed an opportunity — really, the opportunity — to test their mettle.  The wandervogel who were radicalized into the SS in college missed the First World War, the Weathermen missed the Second, and the Millennials missed everything.(5)  And unlike the Sixties, money can’t paper this over — when The Simpsons joked about Homer’s hippy-dippy mom “marketing Jerry Rubin’s line of diet shakes, proofreading Bobby Seale’s cookbook, and running credit checks at Tom Hayden’s Porsche dealership,” it wasn’t really a joke.  Hayden never owned a Porsche dealership (Wiki prissily informs us), but the rest of the Sixties bomb-throwing crew did just fine — ask Bill Ayers, emeritus professor of education at Northwestern, or Bernardine Dohrn, law professor at same. Mark Rudd was a college prof, too, and so is Tom Hayden, who was also married to Jane Fonda back when she was still hot.

The rest of the Sixties flower children became hedge fund managers.  Their grandkids can barely get jobs at Starbucks.  And — this is the important part — radical politics are dead, too, at least as we’re used to understanding them.  The Weathermen were stupid, grandiose, murderous clowns, but at least the racism they decried (in between the mandatory homosexual orgies, anyway) was a real evil.  Millennials are stuck picketing department stores so that 6-2 dudes in dresses can make wee-wee in the little girls’ room.

So what’s left for them?  As Matt Forney (a Millennial himself) points out, they’re turning en masse to a new kind of radical politics — the shitlord kind.

Millennials came of age in a world where the entire establishment, from the politicians down to the flesh-puppets of Hollywood, were complete and total jokes. No shock that we want to crash it with no survivors. Donald Trump is the avatar of our rage: while not a millennial himself, his ideas and attitude make the overly comfortable chattering classes collectively brown their pantaloons. Because we have no memory of the leftist upheavals of the sixties and seventies, we’re not bound by the taboos that have held back Boomers and GenXers. Our parents fear the taint of “racism” because of their memories of Hair, Martin Luther King, Jr. and industrial-strength LSD: we see four Chicago savages kidnapping an autistic boy for an anti-white snuff film and we call a spade a spade.

If you’ve followed along with me this far (I’m sure all but the Six Readers stopped about a paragraph in — “oh god, he’s on about the Nazis again!”), you’ll see where this is going.  The only important difference between the SS and the Weathermen was opportunity.  Because America was a lovely place, even in the coked-out patchouli-reeking early 1970s, only a few truly deluded weirdos went underground and became Weathermen.  The Ostfront in a total war was a whole different ballgame, and while Ayers, Dohrn, et al were willing to kill cops and soldiers — and Weatherman did bomb police headquarters in L.A., and the bomb that blew many of their stupid asses up was intended for an army dance at Ft. Dix — the Einsatzkommandos could shoot all the Jews and Commissars they had bullets for.  Bernardine Dohrn praised the Manson Family for killing a pregnant Sharon Tate and sticking a fork in her stomach; Himmler praised his men for remaining “decent” while herding women and children into mobile gas vans.  Other than scale, the difference is…. what, exactly?

The opportunity for serious political violence — on an SS scale, not a Weatherman scale — is potentially right around the corner.  An entire generation is angry, hopeless, and backed into a corner. They’ve been stewed in radical politics their whole lives — remember, Ayers is a professor of education; former flower children have been in charge of almost every primary school, and certainly every college, in America for decades.  The Nazis spared no expense conducting “research” to prop up their bizarre racial views, and the flower children could at least quote Marx Marcuse and Mao to back up their weird notions of collective guilt.  Millennials can’t grasp — literally can’t grasp, and for once I’m using their signature slang unironically — the notion that different groups don’t have different rights.  They can micro-calibrate racial, gender, and sexual identities with a sickening ease that’s beyond us older folks.  They’ve been trained to do so for literally their entire lives.

What happens when the student loan bubble pops?

What happens when China’s economy crashes?

What happens when the shitlords in the crowd start punching first?

It’s not going to end well.

 

 

(1) except Goebbels, who was rejected for service due to a club foot.

(2) As any World War 2-related discussion invariably brings out the internet’s spergiest spergs, let’s get this down for the record: I’m grossly oversimplifying.  I’m talking about the type of guy who ended up in one (or several) of the organizations under the umbrella of the RHSA, the Reich Main Security Office.   The SS was a separate organization, and because of the distinctive Nazi leadership style, there was serious, vicious competition between them and the RHSA, and within the various departments of the RHSA.  But because the Nazi-est Nazis were in the SS, and because everyone who was anyone in the Gestapo, SD, etc. also held SS rank, I’m using “SS” as a catchall term to describe this type of guy.  I’m also aware that the SS itself was far from a homogeneous organization, and that there’s a difference between an Einsatzkommando and a private in the Waffen-SS.  I’m really not interested in who did what during the war, who should’ve been sentenced to what at Nuremberg, et cetera ad nauseam.  There are plenty of cheeto-stained gentlemen on the internet who’d be happy to discuss all that with you; don’t bring it up here.

(3) N.b. to spergs part II: Whether the Nazi regime could’ve existed without going to war, or if it were capable of winning any of the wars it could have chosen to fight, are open questions that we won’t be getting into here.  Save it for your Man in the High Castle fan fic.

(4) not a typo; their official name was WeathermAn, singular.

(5) I know, I know, I’m excluding Gen X.  For one thing, that’s my generation, so it’s hard to be objective about it.  My quick take, though, is that Gen X was largely against youthful rebellion because “being against youthful rebellion” WAS youthful rebellion.  Remember: our parents, the Boomers, made Sticking it to The Man a lifestyle, and they just Would. Not. Shut. UP. about it.  When you’re 18, everything your parents tell you to do is lame; therefore, Sticking it to The Man is lame.  We still did it, of course — “it” being sex drugs and rock’n’roll — since that’s what modern kids do, but we had to be all, like, you know, whatever about it.  Which is one of the main reasons our kids are so fucked up.  And now, back to the rant….

“Home Grown” Rotten Fruit

So I’m reading this article … and it suddenly becomes crystal clear what I’m being sold and how it’s being sold:

Allowing a terrorist disguised as a refugee is a possibility, Sandweg said. But he added, “talk to any professional and they will probably say what keeps them up at night is the homegrown terrorist.”

In Paris, where 129 were killed in a combination of shootouts and bombings, some of those responsible were radicalized French or Belgian citizens.

“There is a notion that refugees are the source of the problem.  Recent events show the opposite.  Individuals get radicalized at home and it’s not the wolf slipping in in sheep’s clothing.”

Let’s take a look at the wording up there.

“Homegrown terrorist.”

And “homegrown” terrorists are grown from what sort of seed, in general?

Next sentence “some of those responsible were radicalized French or Belgian citizens”.

Some of them.  They didn’t even say “most” of them.  And you know darned well that if they could say “most” of them, they would.

Second, if we look at the “radicalized” citizens, what was their path to said citizenship?  I’ll bet francs to beignets they weren’t multi-generational French people named “Pierre” or “Francois”.  Immigrants become citizens unless they’re there illegally.  Refugees who have children have children who are citizens at the very least.

Now back to my first question … who is it being radicalized?

By saying “homegrown” and “citizens”, they are intentionally disguising the problem, and that is the problem of setting up a culture clash in your own country.  It might not happen often in the first generation … but that’s not what’s been going on in Europe, is it?

This is exactly what one would expect when you import people from radically different cultures and bend over backward to allow them not to assimilate.  This leaves, after a generation or two, a large population of unassimilated people who have thus not been able to successfully integrate into society, most of whom probably therefore have crappy jobs and don’t mix with their new “home” countrymen.  And they understandably feel “separate” and “other”.  And it just so happens that their religious cohorts in their families’ original home countries and around the world are all to willing to provide the spark needed for radicalization, even self-radicalization.

But it all happened here at home, so don’t worry about bringing more in.  Nothing to see here.  Move along.

 

Reconstructing a Deconstruction

There’s this fairly common joke construct. Goes like this. “I thought ___A__ was OK, until I found out ___B___.”

In the formula, “A” is something people pretty much universally agree is horrible, and “B” is something that is relatively trivial. The bigger the disparity, the greater the irony, the funnier the joke.

The point is never to trivialize the evil of A, it is always to trivialize “B” as an offense.

Might go something like this….

“I thought Hiltler was OK until I found out he was a vegetarian.”

The irony being, of course, who really gives a damn if someone is a vegetarian? (Unless they’re constantly in your face about it, at which point they’re Vegetarian Nazis  😉 )

“B” doesn’t even have to be true for the joke to work, but “A” must be universally perceived to be *very* bad, or the joke won’t work.

“I thought Mother Theresa was OK until I found out she treated people for leprosy.”

Doesn’t work for 2 reasons. Most people admire Mother Theresa, and pretty much nobody thinks treating people for leprosy is bad on any level.

But this one might work …

“I thought Charles Manson was OK until I found out he liked the Teletubbies.”

A lot of people think the Teletubbies are weird and don’t like them. But it’s certainly not anywhere near the evil that Manson wrought. You could replace “Teletubbies” with “Jersey Shore”, or any other TV show many people don’t like.

And so another one might go like this…

“I thought the KKK was OK until I found out they smoked pot.”

Which a joke Jeff Sessions told 30 years ago that seemed to be the crux of the case *against* him.

One of the most insidious things about the NewSpeak nature of Political Correctness is that it that it doesn’t just make words mean things they don’t mean, but that it can actually go so far as to make words mean the exact opposite of what they mean if it suits the person engaging in Political Correctness.

Work Sets You Free

Hey, did you know Milo Yiannapoulos is a Nazi?  No, really:

Milo Yiannapoulos is a gay Jew who can’t seem to go more than five minutes without mentioning that he loves sucking black cock. He has openly and repeatedly disavowed white nationalism, especially the “14/88” crowd.

If that’s not a member of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, my friends, then I don’t know who is.

Alt-realists who have read their Orwell know that Lefties are duckspeakers.  Duckspeak, in case you’ve forgotten, is the thoughtless recitation of rote phrases in place of real communication.  It’s what we call “virtue-signalling” — whether it’s praise of Big Brother, proclaiming the science settled, calling a gay Jew a Nazi, or whatever, the speaker’s just trying to keep the Thought Police off his back.  It is, in fact, anti-communication, and it’s designed to be — Newspeak, which is just systematized Political Correctness, prevents forbidden thoughts by removing the vocabulary to express them.

You can see a good example of it here.  Observe the troll collective “Zachriel” freak out as Morgan, Phil, and I try to hash out a Left/Right distinction that doesn’t involve who sat where in the Estates General back in the 18th century.  Admittedly they’re an extreme example of an extremely weird breed, but when you skim it you’ll quickly see that they cling to the old’n’busted “definitions” because that allows them to assign all virtues to the Left, and all vices to the Right.

See also here, re: The Great Magic Party Switch of 1964 (scroll up if you need more context) — again, I’m only picking on these particular weirdos because they illustrate the point so clearly.  The Democrats can’t have been the party of Jim Crow, because that would make them racists, and that doesn’t compute.  No no, it’s the Republicans who were, are, and always shall be the racists… and so you get the fascinating contention that the guys who freed the slaves, seated a bunch of freedmen in Congress, passed all the civil rights legislation in American history (including the sainted Civil Rights Act of 1964), all over the strenuous (and, from 1861-65, armed) resistance of the Democrats…. these guys were the real racists.  Because Right-wingers.

Duckspeak.  You can’t possibly maintain that the Democrats were the liberals in the Gilded Age, just as you can’t possibly maintain that a gay Jew is a Nazi.  The only meaning those statements could ever convey is: “I’m a goodthinker; please don’t throw me in Room 101 and strap rats to my face.”

Which works.  The Left have become so programmed by Newspeak, their cognitive capacities so pared down by their tiny, arcane vocabulary, that you can’t argue with them.  Back them into all the semantic, historical, and logical corners you want; they’ll never stop quacking, because they can’t.  They’re New Soviet Men.  Their brains have been rewired (literally rewired, to use one of their favorite quacky modifiers).

So how do we fix their wiring?

I suggest work.  An honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay, in a job where words have to mean what they mean in order to get the job done.  Morgan talks about this all the time re: coding — a successful software engineer, or any kind of engineer for that matter, needs to build things that work, so their definitions have to be clear, precise, and universally applicable.  You can’t virtue-signal with math, because 2+2 will still equal 4 even if Hitler says it, and will never equal 5 even if Mother Theresa, Gandhi, and the Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Junior all swear to it.

Work has worked wonders with the liberals I knew in college.  Admittedly this was quite a while ago — the PC pathology is far more advanced now — but simple practice at communicating in apolitical terms really helped them.  Throw in typical adult responsibilities like car payments, mortgages, kids, and the like, and there’s a limit to how liberal one can be… sure, sure, they’ll still mouth social justice platitudes from time to time, but that’s more nostalgia for the good ol’ college days than anything else.  They know how to bend to reality, because feminism won’t fix your car and you can’t fob off a deadline with a pious sermon about intersectionality.

If that means shutting down all the Starbucks and making “unpaid internships” a felony, well, so be it.  But it’s the only humane way.

Clowns

The people who say that Hitler is Antichrist, or alternatively, the Holy Ghost, are nearer an understanding of the truth than the intellectuals who for ten dreadful years have kept it up that he is merely a figure out of comic opera, not worth taking seriously. All that this idea really reflects is the sheltered conditions of English life…Only in the English-speaking countries was it fashionable to believe, right up to the outbreak of war, that Hitler was an unimportant lunatic and the German tanks made of cardboard. …A lifelong habit of thought stands between [them] and an understanding of Hitler’s power.*

Clows can be very, very dangerous.  Both sides need to learn that.  Fast.

For the Professional Left, the GOPe, and the Cuckoisie — assuming there’s a meaningful difference — Donald Trump is Hitler.  He is.  Literally Hitler, and in this one case I’m literally serious.  Here’s a free pro tip, from someone who passed high school history back when schools actually taught history: The obnoxious blowhard clown you think you’re using is actually using you, much better and far, far more ruthlessly.

The Soros-ites think Trump is a gravy train, keeping the money flowing into their various causes.  The GOPe think that the Uniparty’s big money donors will reward them with power and influence if they obstruct Trump’s agenda.  The Cucks think they can play their usual game of “advance the Left’s agenda, but politely,” and reap the usual rewards.  The idiot apparatchiks in #The Resistance think they’ll be first in line for a promotion when things return to normal.

That’s not going to happen.  Trump’s been doing the Lucy-with-the-football routine since the primaries, far earlier than most of us — myself most definitely included — could see it.  Remember all those Dems crossing over in the open primaries to vote for Trump?  Remember those few weeks when every Lefty pundit in existence was gleefully on the Trump train, begging Republicans to vote for him?  How’d that work out, geniuses?  To anyone who’s been paying attention, it’s pretty clear that Trump loves giving people enough rope to hang themselves… and like Lenin said, he’ll even sell them the rope.**  He’s already talking about defuding Berkeley, and at this rate Soros will find himself deported into the loving arms of Viktor Orban.  Smarten up, comrades.

And now a word of warning to the Right.  Like you, I’m tempted to dismiss the “Black Bloc” and the rest of the sandalistas as a bunch of trust-fund Trotskies who can’t handle any resistance stiffer than a mild breeze.  Remember, I’ve spent most of my working life in and around a college town.  I see these bozos all day every day — the clodhopper shoes and pudding-bowl haircuts (the women); the ratty little beards and the loafers with socks (the men); the smug smirk of a bad little boy who just cut a silent but violent fart in church (both).  The men top out at 150 lbs, the women at twice that, and tattoos and face jewelry are much, much higher than hygiene on the priority list.  These are the people who thought Pajamaboy was an effective PR stunt, because that’s the life they want to live.

obama-pajama-boy-white-house-r

Yes, they are complete and utter pussies, even when they’re not dressed like them.

But it doesn’t matter.  They don’t have to be brave, or even successful, to be effective.  Remember the Weather Underground?  How about COINTELPRO?  You really ought to read up on the Sixties, my alt-realist friends.***  Long story short, the few radicals of whatever persuasion who managed to do anything violent in the Sixties quickly got themselves infiltrated by the FBI.  There’s a reason you don’t hear about Klan rallies anymore, despite the plague of white-hooded lab equipment on our nation’s college campuses.  That was then, with Sixties-level technology, and in a time where most of our political class had at least a vestigial respect for the Constitution.

These days?  Remember, Hillary is on record wanting to drone-strike Julian Assange.  Donald Trump has that power now.  Think he’ll use it?  What do you think the Left thinks?

The point, my brothers, is that when the crackdown comes — and it IS coming, if present trends continue — most of us are going to want to cheer.  Yes, a stretch in federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison is just what the doctor ordered for most of these lunatics, and we all would love to see them get it.  But…. are we ok with a ‘roided out, nuclear-armed, 21st century COINTELPRO?  Please note that I am NOT saying I’m ok with things like the Berkeley riots, much less the Weathermen.  What I am saying, however, is that we’re in very real danger of falling into the same trap the Left has fallen into: Thinking the pendulum of history only swings one way.  Obama’s famous pen and phone are in Trump’s hands now.  Do we really want to hand COINTELPRO-plus to, say, Elizabeth Warren?  Do we really want gangs of headbusters roaming the streets, even if they’re our headbusters, schutzstaffel-ing our politicians?

Think about it, y’all.  Yes, please, support the police.  Absolutely, throw the book at any and all “antifas” who get themselves arrested at riots.  Maybe, just maybe, a few stiff jail sentences and tear-gassings, swiftly applied, will cause the idiot Left to rethink things.  But since thinking isn’t really their thing, I’d imagine not.  So it’s up to us.  Please, y’all, think about it… no matter how delicious the schadenfreude is.  Clowns are very, very dangerous.  Don’t be one of them.

 

 

 

*(George Orwell, “Wells, Hitler and the World State,” 1941)

**None of this should be construed as my endorsing a “Trump is a 32-dimensional chess grand master” theory.  Personality cults are the Left’s thing.  He’s done plenty of stupid stuff, and will continue to do so, but for an American public that’s used to idiot politicians doing the dumbest conceivable thing time after time after time, a guy doing something as obvious as “firing people who conspire against you” looks freakin’ brilliant.  Jeb! would’ve elevated them all to his cabinet.

***Horowitz and Collier are a good place to start

 

Conditions Under Which I Would Respect the Left

You know why everyone hates you, Liberals?  It’s the hypocrisy.  No, I don’t mean things like “living in the whitest enclave you can find while endlessly whining about diversity, and fleeing to whiter pastures the moment a Vibrant moves in.”  Although that doesn’t help.  It’s this whole “antifa” thing — proclaiming yourselves “anti-fascist,” then acting like jackbooted thugs.  But you know what?  That’d even be ok, if you went all the way with it.

For instance, when you invite all and sundry Trump supporters to “meet [you] in the UFC octagon,” don’t puss out when an actual MMA guy steps up to the challenge.  Take your lumps, tough guy.  I don’t expect Tim Kennedy to even break a sweat choking your bitch ass out, but backing up your words with deeds is the behavioral equivalent of functional testicles.  Don’t do the one, you ain’t got the other.

Or knocking “Nazis” out, then throwing your hands up and shouting “peaceful protest!”  If he’s really a Nazi, go ahead and knock him out.  That’s what the Commies and various other flavors of “anti-fascists” did in Germany back in the 20s and early 30s.  But…. they also stayed to do battle with the Nazi’s buddies when the Brownshirts showed up ready to rumble.  They didn’t throw their hands up like meek little lambs, then run away from security.

Which brings us to this Berkeley thing.  And look, I agree with you.  If Trump’s as bad as you say, then absolutely you should be doing what you’re doing.  Hell, you should be doing a lot more!  But….. if he’s really that bad, then you need to be prepared to take the consequences.  I know, I know, history always begins this morning for y’all, but you’d do well to reflect on the fate of the German Left under Hitler.  The police…. yeah, the ones you say are all racist fascists, but also the only people in America who should have guns… are they with you or against you, do you think?  And those are the police you know about, comrade.  What about the secret police?  Does Trump have some?  Do you think he’s likely to get some, what with being the new Fuhrer and all?

The SA, the SS… these are just names for you to call your political opponents now, but they were real groups — millions strong — who did real things to real people.  People like you, comrades.  Since you’re as ignorant as you are cowardly, I’ll tell you what happened to the Communists in Nazi Germany: Quite a few of their comrades sold them out to the Gestapo; the rest spent the war in Dachau (the ones that didn’t get beaten to death or shot in the back of the neck in secret police dungeons, that is).  Are Trump supporters capable of that?  I don’t see how you can possibly argue that they aren’t, based on all your previous hyperbole.  So… what are you gonna do when the Brownshirts show up?

Make no mistake, boys, I abhor political violence.  Once Der Trumpenfuhrer’s Brownshirts do show up, representative government in this country is dead.  But remember, I’m the guy who’s been predicting American fascism for years.  Why?  Because I’m around you people all the damn time, and I know basic history, and, to quote one of your idols (even though you have no idea who he is or what he did), you don’t need a Weatherman to tell which way the wind is blowing.  You people are making this happen.  Are you going to take the consequences when they come, like real men?

Of course not.  I’d respect you if you did.  I’d even defend you, IF Trump were as bad as you say.  But it’ll never come to that, will it?

You might want to ask yourselves why, before it’s too late.