“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.

 

Authenticity

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:

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.”

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

or

B) 17yogirl1a

That’s the same girl, after four years of

occupy girl2and

358599871_rachel_maddow_031009_300x296_answer_1_xlargeand

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:

ThisB-uDP6fWkAE9mr8or

this?ssmann

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.

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.

Definitions

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.

Thesis

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.

Rape Roundup

Stacy McCain reports on the latest insanity from Yale:

Brunch is the ideal time to do it. Dinner is usually too crowded, and lunch and breakfast are so rushed that I don’t have the time. On any given weekend, I arrive at a dining hall past noon, usually with leggings and a warm, knit sweater. I swipe my card.
Then I count the amount of rapists in the room.….
I can’t speak about other campuses because I know only this one, but Yale has an epidemic. Each day, students fear for their safety as they walk across campus. Whether stepping into the library or taking a seat in a classroom, they’re reminded of some of the most traumatizing moments of their lives.

I’ve spent some time in the Ivy League, and I can assure you that living in the land of the Old School Tie does not grant one magical rapist-spotting powers.  Plus, I’ve been to New Haven.  It looks like somebody set Oxford down in the middle of South-Central LA.  If there’s any rape happening, the membership of Skull and Bones should be about #602 on the police’s suspect list.

Speaking of the police… where the hell are they in all this?  Again, this is the Ivy League.  I have personally witnessed the daughters of very prominent people — people who could probably get Delta Force called out — wandering between off-campus bars in the dead of night.  Are we really supposed to believe that there’s a “rape epidemic” happening where half the political class of several dozen nations, not to mention CEOs, generals, etc., send their teenage daughters?

I think Matt Forney’s advice to those accusing him of rape is sound:

In the U.S., rape is not only illegal, it’s a felony. If you think someone is a rapist, you owe it to their victim(s) to contact law enforcement. Therefore, I have a challenge for feminists…

If you think that I’m a rapist, call the police.

I live in Chicago, as does my purported victim, so all you have to do is call the Chicago Police Department’s non-emergency hotline at 312-746-6000. In fact, if you live in Chicago, you don’t even have to go that far: just dial 311. Tell them that you believe that Rogers Park resident Matt Forney has raped a woman and you want the police to investigate and arrest him.

That’s it. If you’re convinced that I’m a rapist and you want to do something about it, all you have to do is call the cops.

It says here that there were 80 reported rapes in New Haven in the last reporting period — 0.61 per 1,000 people.  Which is still 0.61 too many, but the absolute fastest way to put that number at zero where it should be is to call the police.  If this woman really knows that the rapists she spots in the dining hall are guilty, why the hell isn’t she on the phone to the cops?  Instead of yelling at professors about Halloween costumes, shouldn’t they be out picketing the New Haven Police Department?

 

Another Pop Quiz

Why would anyone lie about having read these?

David Copperfield I get, I guess — if you’ve read Dickens, you’re “cultured” (everyone forgets that Dickens was the Stephen King of his day).  But what virtue-signalling culture points do you get from lying about Harry Potter?

For the record, unlike the Fascism quiz I don’t know the answer here.  I’m honestly curious.  And for the record, here are my answers:

  1. Alice’s Adventures In Wonderland – Lewis CarrollNope.  Victorian lit in general bores me stiff; I don’t see any reason to read it.  
  2. 1984 – George OrwellYes, and it’s great.  I hated it when I first read it (required reading in high school — imagine that!), but because I thought it was supposed to be sci fi.  As if any school would ever be that cool.  Hey, nobody said I was real bright.
  3. The Lord Of The Rings trilogy – JRR TolkienNo.  I tried three or four times, and it put me to sleep.  I assume it gets good after that cutesy dork’s birthday party, but since that goes on for like the first 400 pages….
  4. War And Peace – Leo Tolstoy — Tried, and failed.  You need a flowchart to keep up with all the names.  I don’t want to have to take notes on my pleasure reading.
  5. Anna Karenina – Leo Tolstoy — Ditto.
  6. The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes – Arthur Conan Doyle — Can’t say I’ve read all of them, but a good amount.  I went through a detective phase back when I was 11 or so.
  7. To Kill A Mockingbird – Harper Lee — Required reading in high school.  It appears racism is bad. 
  8. David Copperfield – Charles Dickens — No. I never got the appeal of Dickens.
  9. Crime And Punishment – Fyodor Dostoyevsky — Cf. Russian novels, above.  I’ve given this one a go and found it good enough to probably come back to when I have time for deep, depressing, 800-page tomes….
  10. Pride And Prejudice – Jane Austen — High school required reading.  Even the chicks were bored by it.
  11. Bleak House – Charles Dickens — No.  Cf Dickens, mystified by the appeal of, above. 
  12. Harry Potter (series) – JK Rowling — I’m not a chick, I’m not a child, and I have no pressing reason to pretend to be either.
  13. Great Expectations – Charles Dickens — High school required reading.  This one is all the Dickens I’ll ever need.
  14. The Diary Of Anne Frank – Anne Frank — High school required reading.  Turns out Nazis are bad.
  15. Oliver Twist – Charles Dickens — No.
  16. Fifty Shades trilogy – EL James — No.  I wonder if this list includes folks who actually have read stuff, but don’t want to admit it. 
  17. And Then There Were None – Agatha Christie — I read some Agatha Christie back in my detective phase.  Definitely Murder on the Orient Express, but I don’t remember if I read this one or not.
  18. The Great Gatsby – F Scott Fitzgerald — Twice.  Once, as required HS reading, and hated it.  Then I read it again, to see how my tastes had changed since then.  It was pretty good on a second go.
  19. Catch 22 – Joseph Heller — Yes, and it’s hilarious.  Which is odd, because I normally hate surrealist humor. 
  20. The Catcher In The Rye – JD Salinger — Oh God yes, and I am eternally thankful to J.D. Salinger for it.  Since it’s one of those books certain people can’t help bringing up, it’s great for helping me avoid human toothaches.  If you liked Catcher, I hate you.  If you consider yourself “the Holden Caulfield of ____,” I want to strangle you with your school tie.  I thought Holden Caulfield was a pretentious little shit who needed nothing more in this world than a good beating, back when I myself was a pretentious little shit in desperate need of a good beating.  Luckily, I got mine; the folks who like Catcher never did.

Wil Wheaton is Not Leon Trotsky

Wil Wheaton, of Star Trek: The Next Generation fame, has been called out by other Progressives for being insufficiently Progressive.  Via Vox Day:

Like many of you, I’ve been aware of Wil Wheaton’s outspoken position as a Bro-Feminist for quite some time. Occasionally, he’ll retweet or even say something that might seem profound. But I’m also not alone in suspecting that, beneath his “yay, feminism!” facade, lies deep-rooted misogyny. Recently, he proved my suspicions correct when he attempted to brand Clinton supporters a rather disgusting sexist slur that I will not repeat.

And there was great rejoicing on the Right side of the internet, because we’re apparently as bad as Leftists about remembering what happened five minutes ago.

Yes, this is the inevitable consequence of “social justice.”  Eventually all the little micro-identities come into conflict with one another.

No, this will not change one single mind.  Remember 2008?  Hillary supporters called Obama supporters misogynists; Obama supporters called Hillary supporters racists.  Heck, there was even some talk on the right about the resurgence of something like “Reagan Democrats.”  Remember the Pumas?  Ace of Spades was big on them for a while, thinking that this — finally!!– might wake some folks up to the gross self-contradictions in modern liberalism.

Those folks are all rock-ribbed conservatives these days, right?

Sheesh.  C’mon, y’all.  These are the same people who claim to believe, with all apparent sincerety, that Bruce Jenner is a woman because he puts on a dress and does the Buffalo Bill tuck-under.  They’ll go back to loving Wil Wheaton 0.0000325 seconds after this election is over.  He’s a “feminist,” after all.  And isn’t that show just so funny?

Pop Quiz, Hotshots

Further to my “Defense of Fascism” post, below.

Since these days even educated people often think “Fascism” means little more than “something not desirable,” I though it would help to include a little pop quiz.

Here, for instance, is a Fascist economic proposal.  Are you clear why this is Fascist? Could you explain why, to a disinterested observer, in a short paragraph?

Here is a cultural one.  Same question (it’s a bit easier, but not quite the slam dunk it appears).

How about here — who is the Fascist in this little dustup?

There’s apparently a fight on the left about the following proposition:

Is Bernie Sanders a racist, white-priveleged, mansplaining monster for only pushing hardcore socialism rather than, as the Hillary Maenads would prefer, a toxic brew of both hardcore socialism and war-of-all-against-all identity politics?

See, the SJW set doesn’t want to talk about socialism; they really just want to talk about how they’re Aggrieved. (It doesn’t occur to them that socialism is nothing but butthurt economics for the malignantly aggrieved and economically useless.)

They don’t like how Bernie Sanders pushes socialism without adequately talking up Black Lives Matter and White Skin Priveledge.

Again, not quite a layup, if you haven’t been doing a little extracurricular reading.

None of this is meant to insult anyone’s intelligence.  I posted it because, given the woeful state of the American educational system and 70+ years’ preaching by Leftists (BIRM), most people don’t know what they don’t know when it comes to contentious topics like this.

Have fun!

In Defense of Fascism

Before we begin (1): This is one of those long, MEGO political philosophy posts.

Before we begin (2): Read this.

It’s a piece from a wonderful site called The Last Psychiatrist, whose archives are just filled with goodness (though TLP himself seems to have passed on).  It begins with the story of Keisha, a 27 year old woman who considers herself “retired” because she’s On Disability.  Most of the rest of the post details our — society’s — complicity in this farce:

The economy was a Ferrari and now it’s only a Honda, but either way, not much time for absences and no time at all for Keisha’s learning curve.  Keisha isn’t just unemployed, she is completely unemployable.   We can argue whether auto plants should pay $20/hr or $50/hr, but for certain there is no market for unskilled labor at all….The jobs employers would be willing to take a gamble on are jobs that pay too little for it to be worth her showing up at all.  Hence SSI [=”being On Disability”].

Also:

For fun, let me point that that another 10% of the unemployed in America are relabeled as “incarcerated”, so total you have a real rate of 15-20% unemployment, and this does not include the unemployable who have been relabeled as “military personnel” thanks to two endless wars, or those who manage ten hours a week at the Buy-n-Large who are relabeled as employed and thus are of no consequence;  all of which is good because if the unemployment rate printed higher than “9%” the credit rating of the US would have to fall to C-.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of the main problems Fascism is designed to solve.

Section break!

Section break!

Fascists accept Marx’s fundamental premise, that society is composed of three mutually hostile classes.  That’s why “Nazi” is short for “National Socialism.”  The difference is, while Marx thought this class antagonism would inexorably lead to international proletarian revolution, Mussolini et al thought it could be channeled — and eventually eliminated — by restructuring the institutions of one particular society.  Hence, National Socialism.

To the Marxist, our labor is all any of us really has.  Which is why Marxism became Marxism-Leninism after the Russian Revolution.  Lenin had a civil war to win and a country to run, and soon enough he realized that the Keishas of the world will never be generals or surgeons or factory managers.  It took him a little longer to realize that intellectuals make poor factory hands — early post-revolutionary Russia is filled with morbid stories of university faculties turned out as “shock workers” — but he eventually did.  And in typical commie fashion, he churned out a zillion pages of “theory” justifying why Communism looks just like Capitalism when you actually put it into practice, except nobody gets paid and nothing works.

Fascism skips all the squid ink and accepts the fundamental reality that people are different.  This is one of the main sources of Fascism’s appeal.  Unlike Marxists, who believe that the Proletariat is capable of all things (under the leadership of Marxists, of course), Fascists realize that there’s generally a reason for people falling where they do on the socioeconomic spectrum.  No amount of community college classes on Dialectical Materialism is ever going to make Keisha employable in a modern economy.  Keisha will always be “unskilled labor,” because she is [pick one: genetically, historically, congenitally] incapable of ever acquiring an economically useful skill.

Section break!

Section break!

Fascism also recognizes that Keisha is always with us.  Liberals and/or schoolchildren please take note: This is why George W. Bush wasn’t a Fascist.  Unlike Bush, Fascists realize that it’s mathematically impossible for everyone to be above average.  No matter how exotic and specialized the economy gets, there will always be someone who can’t keep up.  Something must be done for Keisha.

A truly capitalist society, like the one Rachel Maddow fans think America is, would simply let Keisha starve in the gutter.  On the other hand, there’s plenty of work at a living wage for her in People’s Heavy Tractor Manufactory #202 in Krasnoyarsk… and all she has to do is give up her land, her family, her people, and her traditions.  Become a faceless prole, interchangeable with all the others all over the globe, or starve — those are Keisha’s options.

And who’s to say that they won’t be your options someday soon, if the Communist revolution succeeds, or the Capitalists find someone to do your job cheaper?

National Socialism solves all that.  Keisha gets a decent job at a decent wage.  She gets the pride of working for a living, not a soul-crushing handout.  Meanwhile, her employer gets a willing employee.  True, his profits won’t be quite as large, but he, too, has his pride. He’s contributing to national success in a direct, highly visible way, since most jobs that could employ a Keisha — McDonald’s, let’s say, to stick with TLP’s example — are locally owned.  Indeed, the only people we harm by stopping outsourcing, offshoring, and automation are the very biggest Capitalists, i.e. the very same bastards who brought us here in the first place.

Section break!

Section break!

If you accept Marx’s view of life, then — if life is, at bottom, just economics — then Fascism is not only a viable alternative, it’s the best alternative.  For Fascists, State, Economy, Society, and Culture are synonyms — they’re three different descriptions of the same thing.  As Man is an economic animal, Society is the economic organization of human groups.  Culture is the expression of that economic organization, and the State provides its security.  Thus, the Fascist will preserve Culture by rejiggering Society and the Economy via the State.  The vast numbers of poor are helped, only a few of the super-rich are harmed… and they’re all internationalist parasites anyway.

Look closer

These aren’t my personal views, of course.  Fascism terrifies me.  But… can you find the flaws in this post?  Because a whole lot of people would be nodding along with every single word… and that number is growing by leaps and bounds, every day.  If you want have have any hope of heading American Fascism off, you’d better start digging.

My Iowa Prediction – UPDATED

Trump, of course.

Honestly, I hadn’t thought much about it, as the Iowa caucus is the most ridiculous, overrated political institution in America.  Loony no-hopers like Michelle Bachmann and Rick Santorum always do well there, because they can flog the gospel of Corn Socialism with the kind of lunatic conviction a viable general-election candidate simply can’t.

But recent polling suggests that the only obvious panderers to the “Jesus loves ethanol!” crowd — Carson, Huckabee, and Yeb! — are in single digits.  I’ve heard that Cruz told the ethanol lobby to have intimate congress with itself, which rules him out (though the Z Man makes a decent case for a Cruz victory here).

I don’t know what Rubio’s position on ethanol is, though I assume he’s fanatically for it when in front of farmers and adamantly against it everywhere else…. in short, he’s an Establishment cuck of the first order, and I don’t think even Archer Daniels Midland can save him now.  Though Ace of Spades makes an interesting case that it can — or, more accurately, that being the “safe” choice can, as it did Romney and all the other cucks who went on to crater in the general election:

A friend proposed to me that Trump would never win, as Cruz would never win, because, in the end, Republicans will do what Republicans have been doing for 30 years, settling, unenthusiastically, on a choice that seems “safe.”

The idea is that one should ignore all the particulars of a race — candidate personality, agenda, etc. — and focus on the structural underpinnings which decide most races.

Republicans, he reminded me, aren’t all bloggers or angry young men who can just shrug off the possibility of massive upheavals or political chaos. They own businesses. They have mortgages. They have, crucially, children.

All of these things make them more risk-averse in their political choices than they might be if ideology were their primary motivator.

Fair enough.  But, ultimately, I think this little factoid will be the deciding factor:

Over the past 15 years, the Latino population in Iowa more than doubled. And today’s population is expected to almost triple by 2050. The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that 40,000 undocumented immigrants live in Iowa, up from 5,000 two decades ago.

And they’re so blatant about it!  You’ll notice that these nine “undocumented Iowans” weren’t speaking anonymously, from a secret location, with ICE hot on their trail.  One charming abuelita, a Martin O’Malley fan, “has been living in Iowa for more than two decades.”

And that’s where Ace’s friend’s “structural” argument fails.  All those “safe choice” Republican voters won’t have businesses much longer, and their children will be growing up poorer, colder, and far less safe…. unless.

It ought to be interesting.  If I’m right about the national mood, and Iowans share that mood — two big ifs — Trump wins in a walk.  If he doesn’t, we’ll learn something interesting about the zeitgeist.

Either way, it ought to be a hoot.

 

Update 2/2/2016: His partisans are calling a 4-point Cruz win “commanding.”  Which it may be in the context of the Iowa caucuses, but… four points.  The media are already anointing Marco Rubio the winner for almost finishing second — which is, you know, technically third — but hey, he’s the only shot they have left.  I wonder if Yeb! even makes it to New Hampshire.  Meanwhile, Hillary won with a coin flip.  Who says we don’t have an informed, responsible electorate?