The Jackboot Corollary

This right here is why I keep saying Fascism — capital F, armbands, cattle cars, the works — is inevitable in America:

It’s tempting to assume that whites are too timid and lost to fight back. Some are, for sure, but action in the streets has a funny way of bringing out the revolutionary in even old men. A big part of what plagues the West is there’s no place for men in modern societies. Rioting Muslim hoards in the streets suddenly will spike the demand for white males willing to crack skulls. The supply will soon follow.

The Z Man has discovered what I’m dubbing the Jackboot Corollary to Say’s Law.  Say’s Law is often misquoted as “supply creates its own demand.”  That’s not actually what it says, and it seems to be more false than not in any case when it comes to economics…. but as a social phenomenon, “supply creates its own demand” works quite well.

There is an oversupply of frustrated manhood in the West — read Roosh V, the guru of “neomasculinity.” His gospel is basically Ward Cleaver-, straight-from-the-1950s-style “be a man” updated for a feminist-dominated world.  He, and a few other clear-eyed ex-Pickup Artists like Heartise and Matt Forney and Vox Day, have realized that most of their readership has no interest in picking up girls — all the convoluted jargon and “sex at dawn” sub-Darwin theorizing of “PUA” is basically fantasy sports.  But unlike fantasy sports, their stuff has real world applications, and there are legions of guys who are willing to do whatever it takes to “be a man” out in the world… if only someone would show them how.

So these guys got into politics, and the minute they start holding Promise Keeper-type rallies, there are your stormtroopers.  The minute the Social Justice Warriors feel threatened by this, they’ll do what they always do — knuckle under, flip sides, and dial their new allegiance up to eleven.  And there are your einsatzkommando.

Shell Ft. Sumter While You’re at It

When asked if I thought an actual civil war was likely under the current dispensation, I replied, “probably not.”  But if anything would do the trick, it’s this:

After MSNBC’s panelists prodded him into acknowledging Trump has a chance of winning the nomination, Kristol indicated it might be time for him to leave the GOP if Trump becomes its standard-bearer.

“If all the other candidates remain as pathetic as they’ve been so far, I suppose it’s conceivable he’ll [Trump] be the nominee and then we’ll have to support a third party,” Kristol said.

As The Z Man, from whom I got the link, says, Kristol is pretty much the voice of the Donor Class.  He’s correctly “predicted” the Repubican nominees in the last several contests, because he’s the man with the fullest Rolodex.  If he says the GOP will go third party, it’s a pretty good bet the GOP will go third party.

Now, it would be beyond stupid for the GOP to shank their putative nominee like that…. or so you’d think.  But look at it from their perspective.  They can’t, simply CAN NOT, afford to acknowledge that Trump (or Carson, if you believe that one Iowa poll) represents anything but a few not-even-likely-voters throwing a hissy fit in a few early primaries.  If Trump (or Carson) has any substance to him at all, it means that the GOP is fatally flawed, and that the People have a (teeny tiny) hope of prevailing over the Donor Class.

And that simply won’t do.  Now, the Donor Class might prefer — in the abstract — President Rubio to President Hillary, but Hillary will do in a pinch.  She’s spectacularly corrupt, and while the optics of her selling the Washington Monument to the People’s Liberation Army and slapping corporate logos all over the Supreme Court like it’s fucking NASCAR would be a bit, ummm…. problematic, at least they’ll get their money’s worth.  And, of course, the GOP can continue their neverending run of Failure Theater just as well under President Hillary.  What are the rubes gonna do, not buy a ticket?  It’s like Cats on Broadway, they figure, except with six-figure campaign donations and taxpayer-funded junkets.

And it’s not like there’s a Trump Party out there.  It’s just the man himself.  Maybe the Cucks’ pockets get a little fatter if a “Republican” controls the White House, but they’re willing to take one for the team.  Trump won’t be around after eight years of President Hillary — who, to thank the GOP for their support, will immediately sic the entire FTC on him– and they, the Cuckstablishment, will be right there to pick up the pieces…..

Or so they think, because — again — they’re utterly, congenitally incapable of grasping the implications of Trump’s (Carson’s) showing in the polls.  Even though it has happened several times in our nation’s past, and even though every indication says it’s going to happen again very soon now, the GOP’s “leadership” just can’t grok that the American people can and will vote for None of the Above.

Representative governments that don’t actually represent anybody don’t inspire any loyalty, either.  The GOP voluntarily turning itself into a third party will show, like nothing else could, that the game is rigged — they’d rather hand the top prize to their sworn enemy than obey the expressed wishes of their own people.

If that ain’t an invitation to actual, open, shots-fired rebellion, I don’t know what is.

Random Thoughts

Some probably silly stuff that doesn’t deserve a full post, but has been percolating in my brain lately:

Fads and alarmism.  I’m sometimes accused of alarmism.  “Things don’t change that fast,” they say.  And yet… consider fads.  I remember when Friends debuted and overnight, 1 of every 3 girls between 13 and 45 were sporting the “Rachel” haircut.  Or watch what happens when Starbucks comes to a small town.  Again, seemingly overnight, you’ve got half the non-senior citizen population pretending they’ve always been hipster sophisticates.  It’s a complete shift in manners — in identity — and it happens instantaneously.  Are political movements somehow exempt?  Remember: not every citizen has to be a commissar.  Not even one in one hundred need be.  All such a movement needs to succeed is the tacit — that is, cost-free and socially-approved — consent of the people.

Horror movies.  I’m not as gushy over The Walking Dead as my hipster contemporaries, but it, and horror movies generally, are an interesting peek behind the zeitgeist’s curtain (or, these days, up its skirt).  In both TWD and its recent spinoff, Fear the Walking Dead, the government is either nonexistent, or a backstabbing group of cowardly sellouts.  In Fear the Walking Dead, citizens who might otherwise be a social burden — the (non-zombie) sick, drug addicts, etc. — are rounded up for disposal, but before the liquidations can begin, the army prepares to pull out.  And — this is important — they’re thwarted by a few civilizans and a bunch of walking corpses before they can even do that.  Think about the implications for a sec:  The world’s premier fighting force, and they can’t handle an old man, a school counselor, and a bunch of literally brainless corpses.

The lesson of both Walking Dead series couldn’t be clearer — when the shit hits the fan, you’re on your own.  Your government – whose #1 job is the protection of its citizens — will be useless at best, an active hindrance at worst.  The first season of the original Walking Dead even has a scene where a scientist at the CDC in Atlanta mentions that the French were close to a cure for the zombie plague.  The French!  Meanwhile, every American scientist, with the sole exception of Exposition Man, has “opted out.”  Even the hipsters who make up 99% of AMC’s viewing audience, in other words, expects zilch from their government (and note that TWD premiered in 2010, i.e. right in the middle of America’s slobbering honeymoon with Obama).

Note, too, the prevalence of horror movies these days.  Note especially the nature of the monster.  Is it slashers, like in the 80s?  Or meta in-jokes, like the 90s?  Rather, it’s a relentless, inexplicable something, that one simply endures.  The apex (or is it nadir?) of this particular style is last year’s It Follows, in which the “monster” has no origin at all.  It just IS, and you’re supposed to pass it on to another unsuspecting victim.  If the original function of horror was life-affirming catharsis — we are basically good, and will triumph in the end — then modern “horror” is 180 degrees from that.  These things can happen to anybody, for any reason (or NO reason), and there’s no heroism, just survival (witness any of the torture pron movies like Saw).  This isn’t life-affirming catharsis; it’s existential angst.

Men are witches now.  In early modern societies, the breakdown of the majority culture led to witchcraft trials and heresy hunts.  Such is campus “rape” hysteria.  When you read accounts of early modern witchcraft, one of the most striking things is the pettiness of the harm alleged.  Women were hanged or burned for causing milk to sour, rheumatism to flare, and other mind-bogglingly minor acts.  She sold her soul to the Devil for earthly power, and used it to do that?  “Rape” on campus works the same way.  All the awesome power of The Patriarchy (TM) is deployed for a two-minute dry hump with a nearly comatose 5.  The standard explanation, note, for witchcraft hysteria is the waning power of that same Patriarchy (TM) — they needed to prop up their authority, and so took it out on the most vulnerable members of their society.  In the 1600s, those least able to resist were poor, old women.  Who are the most powerless members of modern society?  To ask is to answer.

The “Intransigence” of the Non-Compromising

Van Harvey, a friend of mine in the grassroots, was asked to comment on a recent David Brooks column in the NYT lamenting the GOP’s abandonment of traditional conservatism for right-wing radicalism.”  It’s ALLLL Fox News and Talk Radio’s fault.

If only.   And people really need to read their history if they think politics in the US has not been this contentious throughout its history.  Not that that’s GOOD, per se, it’s just that it’s nothing new.

Anyway, I first thought it was a general call for comments and not specifically just from Van, so I kind of jumped in.  And the train of thought that ensued I think warranted publishing.

Right off the bat I saw something that just stuck in my craw.  David says:

“conservatism stands for intellectual humility, a belief in steady, incremental change, a preference for reform rather than revolution, a respect for hierarchy, precedence, balance and order, and a tone of voice that is prudent, measured and responsible. “change

I’d strike “a belief in steady, incremental change”. Why? Because I believe that belief in change is idiotic. Belief in other things might drive steady, incremental change, but belief in steady, incremental change is just Saul Alinsky Lite.

A respect for precedence is great when conservatism has been running things all along, but when you get people in power over the course of, say, 100 years who do not believe in intellectual humility and do believe in change – and not necessarily steady or incremental – who have thus purposely injected things into the system to take advantage of future respect for precedence… you’ve got a bit of a mess on your hands.  So-called conservatives allow this over and over and over and over and over and over and over again … eventually if there are any real conservatives left, it’s going to give rise to someone like Rush Limbaugh to stand up and say, “enough of this crap, we’ve been Mr. Nice Guy long enough!”

Which to his credit Mr. Brooks alludes to in the end:

“These insurgents are incompetent at governing and unwilling to be governed. But they are not a spontaneous growth. It took a thousand small betrayals of conservatism to get to the dysfunction we see all around.”

Well we have yet to see if they are incompetent at governing. And if they are unwilling to be governed by people who only give passing lip service to the Constitution that governs THEM … when you compromise again and again on the very principles of Republican Government, what do you do? Sit down and quietly go down with the ship … and it IS going down … or stand up and sound the alarm that the ship is sinking, you know why, and let’s set about righting the damned thing, or die trying?

Now Brooks probably means when things change they should change slowly and steadily.” But the reason I am sensitive to the language is that when he says “conservatives believe in steady, incremental change” –– the progressive left will answer “hey, so do we!”

Rules_for_RadicalsI read “Rules for Radicals”. The progressive left does believe in change. They actually believe in change for its own sake. Sometimes they call it “transformation”. One of them got really ballsy and called for “Fundamental Transformation”. These are softer terms, found more palatable to the public, for “Revolution”. I’m not making it up, it’s in the book.

Transformation means to change. Fundamental means at the basic, foundational level. To change at the basic, foundational level.  Dude, that’s called Revolution.

goalpostsAnd it’s been going on for a long time. Compromise for the sake of compromise is playing their game. Make your opponent live up to his own rulebook. Rules of fair-play are fundamental to the classical conservative viewpoint. So they’ll play that. Deal is, they won’t stop pushing.

They will move the goal posts every time you compromise until they are where they want to be.They will play that game all day long. Happy to do it. It gets them what they want.

Say a guy really wants to fondle your wife, really badly.

feel up“Hey, mind if I ogle your wife?”
“How about I just look at her?”
“Well, I guess I can’t stop you.”
“Hey, mind if I grab her breast?”
“Well, yeah, I do.”
“Ok, how about I just put my hand on her shoulder?”
“Why are you being so rigid?  You must compromise.  Compromise is a virtue.”
 *sigh* “Ok, you can put your hand on her shoulder.”
“Hey, mind if I remove your wife’s blouse?”
 “As a matter of fact, I do.”
 “Ok, how about I just stick my hand down her blouse?”
“Why are you being so rigid?  You must compromise.  Compromise is a virtue.”

Well at some point a person who values his wife and his standards is going to have to say, “no, and get the hell away from my wife, and away from me, while you’re at it!”

And you’re going to call him belligerent?

It’s actually worse than that. When you finally tell the guy to get the hell away from your wife, he will come back with, “ah, but you set a precedent. I may put my hand on her shoulder! You can’t go backward!”

Then you acquiesce to this principle, and he leaves his hand on her shoulder. But he begins to slip it down a bit. When you protest, he says “Hey, my hand is still on her shoulder. See? My palm is still on top. Besides, who says the shoulder just consists of the top?”

You seek a court order to have him move his hand back to the top. But he counter sues, claiming the shoulder is technically more than just the top.

quadrantAnd the judge your guys nominated and got through comes back and says, “The shoulder may be interpreted as anywhere in an upper quadrant of the torso. He may proceed.”

He starts flagrantly groping your wife right in front of you.

You protest that this was clearly not the intent of your compromise. But now by doing anything about it you are violating his “rights”, you see.

You protest again, and he gets in your face. You hold your hands up, palms out, signaling for him to back off.

He starts shouting “DON’T PUSH ME! HE’S SHOVING ME!’

News cameras show up and interview the man, who has clearly been wronged by your backward adherence to your moral values and your wife’s honor.

They demand to know when you stopped beating your wife.

This is how America feels right now. Her good nature has been taken advantage of far beyond decency.

“But any progress that this groper might enjoy, would result from the husband’s willfully refusing to acknowledge what was actually going on. The groper isn’t attempting to behave in a civil manner, incremental or otherwise, but rather is covertly using the husband’s presumed civility in order to violate his wife’s person (and really, after the second grope, a ‘conservative’ wife would likely remove her pistol from her purse and then seek out a good divorce lawyer).”  – Van Harvey

alinskyRe: Alinsky. They didn’t just read it. They took it to heart, and it defines the driving methods behind the leftist ideologues.  Hillary wrote her thesis on him.  Alinsky is the recognized Father of Community Organizing – something we didn’t know existed until Obama started running for president.  It’s ACORN’s Bible.  Barack was an attorney for them. The Clintons had Cloward and Piven to the White House, fer crissakes. Frances Piven is ecstatic to have Obama in the White House. And the Democrats have an openly admitted socialist who has a reasonable shot at the presidential nomination for one of the two major parties — over the dishonest socialist Alinsky Acolyte who will not openly admit in so many words that she is a socialist – but she’s made pretty clear over the years that her preferred policies align quite well with theirs.

The goal posts for us to compromise with have moved so far to the left it is not even recognizable as American anymore. That should be a 5 alarm fire wake up call. But I suppose we’ll just keep on with our quiet, dignified compromise, deference to precedence, and measured tone.

The argument came back, “do you really think a Republican candidate can get 51% of the vote” as a reason not to fight against things it is opposed to, or as a reason not to fight for things it claims to be for.

Van beat me to my response and probably put it better than I would have:

“We don’t care. To enter a fight only because you feel assured of winning is cowardice in drag.

“A divide that may be insurmountable at this point…” The divide IS insurmountable, but it still may be possible to co-operate civilly, though that is most definitely not what the community organizers want, as Alinsky noted, they want conflict. Period. To attribute that to the 24hr news cycle is too convenient and mechanistic, but again, there’s our divide, pragmatism vs principle, and it has been visible and in the open, again, since the late 1800’s.”

My response was less measured.

“Well, honey, we can’t get 51%, so we’re just going to have to stand by quietly and let him grope you.”

The other side doesn’t care, either. Consider Pelosi’s quote on passing Obamacare:

“We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we’re going to get health care reform passed for the America people.”

Now I don’t advocate trampling the intent of the rules to “get things done” like the democrats did to pass ACA. But, especially in the face of that kind of determination, if you don’t fight for it and try to get every vote you can regardless of whether you think you’re going to get 51%, then pack it the hell up and go home and hopefully let somebody who WILL fight for it do the fighting. Otherwise you guarantee the outcome will be the same as if you were not there.

Trampling is just what I believe Donald Trump would do — but the fight is why Trump is so popular – he is unapologetic about several issues that resonate with a lot of conservatives even though many of those conservatives realize he’s really not anything like a classical liberal “conservative”.  But it’s not even necessarily what he’s saying — it’s his perceived willingness to fight for what he apparently believes.  He pushes back on the media with the “gotcha” questions, and he’s unapologetic about it.

As for Talk Radio … if it weren’t for talk radio and Fox News, the ONLY arguments the people would hear would be the progressive left arguments.

And there’s good talk radio and bad talk radio. I can’t stand Savage. I think Hannity makes poor arguments albeit for the right things generally. But I’ll also say that I don’t think there’s’ any more thoughtful voice out there in the media than Glenn Beck’s – and if you don’t believe that you haven’t listened to him. I don’t agree with him about everything, but he’s right way more than he’s wrong.

Rush is a lot more thoughtful than his critics give him credit for. I said before I listened to him for a month precisely to get what he was saying directly from him rather than as filtered through his critics.  I found that his critics are mainly full of shit, and have probably not listened to more than sound bites.  Now his pompous schtick is just that.  It’s showbiz.  It’s a joke that the whole audience is in on.  It’s not my bag, so I stopped after the month I allotted myself. But what I found was if you are actually listening to him — he makes great arguments — FOR the things that Republicans say they champion but hide under their desks if they’re not SURE they can get 51%.  I saw a speech he gave at CPAC a few years back where he dropped the showbiz.  It was a really good speech.

Frankly I don’t watch Fox News, nor do I even really listen to Beck anymore on any sort of regular basis. I don’t need him anymore, but I’m glad they’re there — especially Beck. Instead I read Hayek, Bastiat, Rommen, Sowell, Lewis, and a whole host of other books that talk more about the why than the what.

But most people don’t have time for that. We have jobs.  We have families. Our side doesn’t have an army of Union workers and out-of-work welfare recipients to get out there and protest and lobby with a media friendly to its causes.  And the best most of the rest of us can do is tune into the radio in our cars or at work, or turn on some news channel at night that isn’t hyper-actively involved in the destruction of our own culture.

“Left” and “Right” Are Meaningless

This is a topic that probably deserves thousands of words and tons of examples, so let’s crowdsource it.  I bet half of our four readers are going to agree with me 100%; the other two are going to think I’m a lunatic.  So I’m asking for examples and counterexamples for my thesis, which is:

“Left” and “Right” are all but meaningless today.  They describe, at best, a certain rhetorical style.  Calling someone a “conservative” or a “liberal” doesn’t predict much of anything, policy preferece-wise, and the few policies it does kinda sorta predict don’t logically mesh up with each other.

Consider “liberal,” “leftist,” what have you.  Ask liberals what they’re about, and they’ll give you some mush about equality, tolerance, diversity, etc.  And yet, those three terms are 100% self-contradictory.  If everyone’s the same (equality) then there is no such thing as diversity.  Achieving diversity requires intolerance.  Tolerance precludes equality (if you tolerate differences, you acknowledge that not all is equal.  If everyone’s equal, there’s nothing to tolerate).  0 x 0 x 0 = 0.

Consider “conservative.”  Ask conservatives what they’re about, and you’ll get stuff about free markets, lower taxes, robust defense, etc.  But…. look around.  Do you see any of that?  There are basically six corporations in the world, and they make everything.  How is that a “free market”?  The only thing that’s “free” in the “free market” is the supply of immigrant labor… which directly contradicts “robust defense” (what’s the army defending us from, when anyone and everyone can waltz over our nonexistent borders?).  “Lower taxes” means either “lower taxes on the six companies that make everything” — there’s a reason they’re offshoring — or “tax breaks for social engineering schemes.”  I promise you, the pinkest 1910s Progressive would love Jeb W. Bush’s tax plans.  Leaving the people alone — what we used to call “individual liberty” — hasn’t been on the Republicans’ radar since William McKinley.  (They only look good on that score compared to the other side, who really wants to put lots of us in labor camps and hardly bothers to disguise it anymore).

So much for ideology.  Consider individuals.  Barack Obama isn’t a Marxist, you know — no, not even a Cultural one.  He’s a slightly cleaned up Mau Mau; a virulently anti-white racist.  “Cultural Marxism” is virulently anti-white, too, so that’s the language he speaks to his supporters, but if he had to choose between advancing a traditional Leftist policy aim and sticking it to white folks — assuming, for the sake of argument, that there’s a difference — you know which one he’d pick, every single time.

And every single “liberal” in America knows it too.  That’s why they voted for him in the first place.

Regarding “conservatives,” consider ¡Yeb!  Whether or not you agree with my thesis, I don’t think I have to sell y’all on the idea that this chucklehead is about as classicallly conservative as Josef Stalin.  Hillary’s the yin to his yang, and neither of them can actually tell you why they want to be president, other than it’s their turn.  And this is “conservatism.”

So… what do y’all think?

Just Nominate Incitatus Already

Having been good-naturedly needled by Nate about caesarism, I can only reply with this:

Speaker John Boehner has agreed to stay on as Speaker–not just until the Caucus nominates someone –but, until that person can confirm 218 votes on the House floor (needed to take the Speaker’s gavel). Short of that — Boehner will stay on for the rest of this Congress and steer legislation that is pending.

He was going to step down, but now he’s not, because there’s no clear-cut successor ready to take the reins.  Yeah.  And this on the heels of handpicked successor Kevin McCarthy unexpectedly dropping out.

And now all “the Caucus” — lovely name — has to do is come up juuuuuuust short on getting those 218 confirmed votes.  Gosh darn it, we tried for Real Reform ™, but the numbers weren’t there.  Out of our deep respect for the Constitution, we’ll have to let Boehner stay on and run the House as a Democrat.

I’d bet the GDP of Turkmenistan that McCarthy actually did have the votes to win.  Note the WaPo’s weasel wording:

Assuming Democrats follow past practice and support their leader, Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), or another Democrat for speaker, McCarthy can afford to lose no more than 29 Republican votes to retain a floor majority.

Biiiiiiiig assumption there, buddy.  The only reason the Dems wouldn’t vote for Boehner 2.0 is that it’s too obviously part of the con.  Any Dem legislation McCarthy passed — which as Boehner 2.0, would be roughly all of it — would be seen as a quid pro quo for their votes.

This way, they get everything they want and get to look like pure partisans.  The rubes are left with the impression that Republicans and Democrats actually oppose one another, instead of giving Caesar whatever he wants whenever he wants it…. and Caesar gets whatever he wants whenever he wants it.

Or, at least, that’s what I’d think about all this if I believed in conspiracy theories.

Settled Science Update

What’s that you say?  The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has over-estimated future global warming by as much as 10 times?

I’m shocked; shocked, I tells ya.  I can’t wait to hear how Dr. Evans, with his six degrees in applied math and his experience as a climate modeller for the Government’s Australian Greenhouse Office, doesn’t understand climate models.  Or is secretly in the pay of Halliburton.  Or once had lunch with Dick Cheney’s father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s former roommate.  Or something.  It’s always something.

Meanwhile, we must enact global socialism now, because the science is settled.

Dr Evans says his discovery “ought to change the world”.

“But the political obstacles are massive,” he said.

Squirty could not be reached for comment

Squirty could not be reached for comment

Conspiracy Theories in the Age of Asperger’s

We’ve been having a little discussion about Teh Jooos! in the comments here lately, so a little primer on the nature of conspiracy theories might be useful.

Despite my idol David Stove’s evisceration of Karl Popper, Popperism’s test of whether or not a proposition is “scientific” takes care of any and all conspiracy theories: Is it falsifiable?

If your hypothesis is “all swans are white,” all one has to do is produce a black swan to falsify it.  It’s neat, rigorous, and above all clear — here’s a black swan; ergo your hypothesis is false.

Now, Popper and his disciples get up to all kinds of chicanery with this.  They’ll maintain, for example, that no matter how many white swans you have, or black swans you don’t have, the proposition “all swans are white” is no closer to being proven than it would be if there were only one swan in the whole world…. and eventually that’s how you get jackalopes down at the local community college English Department claiming gravity is a social construction.

But whatever.  In the real world, common sense rules, and if there’s no way your theory about flouridated water or chemtrails or, yes, Teh Joooos! could ever be falsified, then you’re outside the realms of reason, my friend.

The problem is, not all “conspiracy theories” are Conspiracy Theories, and in this, the Age of Asperger’s, it’s sometimes difficult for some folks to tell them apart.  When I describe our political system as Caesarism, for example, and call the ruling elite Caesar (or DemPublicans, or what have you), some folks seem to think I think Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, John Boehner, and Jeb Bush are all on some secret Journolist server where they coordinate their various gaffes and misquotes and general tomfoolery.

Because internet people don’t process nuance, in other words, one is often forced to either state one’s argument in legalese, or risk getting dragged off into the weeds of irrelevant conspirazoid nonsense.

For example, there’s a perfectly easy and obvious explanation for why “the Jews” tend to act against America’s — and Israel’s! — best geopolitical interests.  It’s because — follow closely now — they tend to be doctrinaire fucking marxoids.  And they tend to be doctrinaire fucking marxoids because they have, on average, higher IQs than the rest of us, and thus spend much longer in the higher ed pipeline (and, as tertiary-degreed brainworkers, can afford to live far from the results of their preferred policies — just like their professors).

The correlation between “high IQ” and “blithering political idiocy” is entirely cultural, and well established.  The genetic link between “susceptibility to Tay-Sachs Disease” and “propensity to vote Democrat” exists only in certain excitable folks’ imaginations.

You’ll note, I hope, that this explanation of mine is entirely falsifiable.  Find me a handful of Jews who are

  • high IQ and
  • doctrinaire fucking marxoids and
  • working in America/Israel’s best interests

and we’ll talk.

Meanwhile, since I’m not a thoroughgoing Popperite, I’ll throw you some additional evidence for my hypothesis.  There’s a certain group that is, on average,

  • low IQ and
  • doctrinaire fucking marxoids and
  • against America/Israel’s best interests

I’m referring, of course, to blacks.  The same HBD folks who scream and yell the loudest about Teh Jooos! are the ones who scream and yell the loudest about the low average IQ of Africans and African-Americans.  Granting them their precious HBD, then, we see that blacks and Jews are at opposite ends of the spectrum, brain-wise, but prefer the exact same policies.


Tinfoil Hats in History

It’s really tough to separate an idea from its adherents.  A major reason folks aren’t drawing lessons from recent history, I’m starting to think, is because it’s hard to see the useful bits in among the sludge.

I can’t count the number of times, for instance, that I’ve written something to the effect of “people don’t understand Fascism because they can’t stop thinking about Hitler.”  Nazism is so comically theatrical that we forget there were real ideas under the armbands and the mustache and the snazzy Hugo Boss uniforms.  I tried to get around this by talking about Japan, but — aside from the fact that this history isn’t widely known — people still seem to be under the impression that, because the Fascists lost the war, Fascism is completely discredited.

It’s not.  China is doing national socialism right this very minute.  But because the Chinese have sludge of a different sort — they claim to be communists, and people believe them — that’s not a viable option either.  So I write about the F-word, and people still think I’m talking about the Waffen-SS goose stepping down Main Street.

Or take the Confederacy.  Those guys were absolutely right about the Constitution.  The government the Founders intended looked way more like what they were trying to do in Richmond than anything that has ever come out of Washington.  The 14th Amendment is a joke, imposed at bayonet point.  But we can’t even talk about theories of republican government in this country, because slavery.  This is not to say slavery wasn’t a monstrous evil, but just as corporatism doesn’t necessarily, logically entail jackboots and armbands, so proclaiming the 14th Amendment to be a huge mistake doesn’t entail a burning desire to bring back Jim Crow.

Which is the point I was trying to make in a comment, below.  By waving the anti-semite flag, folks on the alt-right are making it impossible to discuss any of their other ideas.  Steve Sailer, for example, likes to joke about how big league pundits obviously read him, but never give him any credit or invite him on any of their shows.  He should be thanking his lucky stars for that.  Right now, the networks don’t want to take the very real risk he’d start foaming at the mouth and spouting Protocols of the Elders of Zion shit.

Trust me: If alt-right ideas ever start gaining real traction — if Trump conclusively wins the next debate, say — that’s exactly what the networks are going to do.  They’ll trot out Sailer and Co. and start asking them loaded questions about Israel.

And then we’re sunk.

Whither the Media?

P.J. O’Rourke used to joke about the kind of journalism he called MEGO: My Eyes Glaze Over.  You know, those tedious ten-part thumbsuckers the New York Times runs on slow news days, with titles like “Whither Gambia?”

This won’t be one of those… if only because of the pictures.


You see, Caesar has a problem.  One of his constant petty annoyances is having to deal with people who won’t accept that they’re cogs in the machine.  People like Washington Post reporter Chris Cilizza:

But, I believe really strongly that the decline in trust in the media is primarily attributable to partisans — whether in politics or in the media — who have a vested interest in casting the press as hopelessly biased. What better way for liberal or conservative talk radio to (a) lure listeners and (b) stoke outrage than to insist that the mainstream media is lying to you? What better way for politicians to raise money from partisans already skeptical about the media than to say the media isn’t telling the truth?

As Ace of Spades, the author of the link, points out, it is indeed partisans — bloody obvious partisans like Chris Cilizza — who are the answer to the question, “why don’t people trust the media?”  People are finally starting to catch on to the con.

Which is bad news for Caesar.  Remember, the whole idea behind Caesarism is to make the plebs think their opinion matters.  A competently biased press is good for that.  But guys like Cilizza — and his butt buddies at CNN, Fox, the NewYork Times, National Review, etc. — aren’t content to take Caesar’s paychecks.  They too want to think their opinion matters; that they’re shaping policy.

They know they’re conning the voters on Caesar’s behalf, in other words, but they’ve conned themselves as well — “surely the guy who concocted this whole DemPublican dumbshow for the rubes would never pull the same scam on us!

Hey, nobody ever said journalists were bright.

And now Caesar faces a dilemma.  How to restore trust in the media?  Knowing as we do that Ace’s proposed solution — employing competent, nonpartisan journalists — is not in Caesar’s interests, we’re left with two likely options:

1) Caesar could go the embezzling-court-eunuch route, and crucify a few of the more obvious hacks in full view of the public.  The problem with this option is that a fair part of the public, and all of the media, consider journalists a de facto priesthood.  How does one execute a high priest of one’s own cult for blasphemy?  Oh, it’s been done, but the optics can be tricky.  What charge can you hang on him that won’t implicate everyone else in the college of cardinals?  Which brings us to my suggested solution….

Macho_Man_Randy_Savage2) Professional wrestling!!  Part of the joy of pro wrestling, I’m told, is knowing that it’s fake.  The outsized personalities, the gravity-defying moves, the theatricality… this could definitely work for the media.  Most of the WaPo‘s coverage lo these last ten years has been little more than a polysyllabic version of “Obama… oh yeah!!!” anyway.  Instead of pretending you’re not part of the show, Chris Cilizza, embrace being part of the show.  You get to keep your job, you get to pretend you’re delivering a valuable service (albeit not the one you thought you were), and, above all, you avoid ending up stretched across a telephone pole next to the Washington Monument.

Oh yeah!!!