The Caliphate Will Have Its Upsides

I think most of us can agree that this woman needs some serious burqa time.

6a00d83451675669e201bb0922b764970d-800wi(safe link to David Thompson).

Seriously, though: You wanna know why we’re gonna get Fascism?  It’s the culture, stupid.  This woman literally has nothing better to do than pretend to worry about the size of her daughter’s turds.  She lives a life so different from normal people that she might as well be a Martian, fretting over the number of freeps in the smerp….

…and yet, she’s absolutely certain she knows how to run your life better than you do.  Given a single erg of power, she’d enact mandatory Niceness and ban the internal combustion engine.  For the children.  Meanwhile, ever-increasing numbers of Westerners are worried about how to afford diapers.

The first politician who promises to toss women like this out of public life and into an updated Bund Deutscher Madel is going to win whatever he’s running for in a landslide.  The fuel of populism is hatred, I’m told, but tell me Cloud People like this aren’t doing everything in their considerable power to make themselves hated.  Be careful what you wish for….

Atheism and Critical Thinking

A post at Z Man’s got me going.  I had some thoughts that aren’t appropriate for his comments, but wanted to throw out there for discussion.

Yesterday I said that “if I had to pick the one worst thing about America 2016, it would be ‘failure to listen to the very words that are coming out of one’s mouth.'”  Today I’m going to add: “Failure to know what the words coming out of one’s mouth even mean.”

For instance, “atheists” aren’t really atheist.  For one thing, we all know that it’s logically impossible to prove a negative.  That sounds like hair-splitting semantics, but that’s my point — the word atheism is, by its very nature, self-contradictory.  The very best one can logically do is agnosticism — concluding that, given all the evidence, the probability of there being at least one god is vanishingly low.

So: “atheism” doesn’t mean what it means.  The first step in clear thinking is recognizing the meaning of the words one uses.  That’s why Big Brother invented Newspeak — without the vocabulary to express forbidden thoughts, forbidden thoughts would not arise.

In practice, of course, atheist means “anti-Christian.”  Ever met a South Asian atheist, who insists there is no Vishnu?  There’s probably one out there somewhere, but atheism seems to be a strictly Western preoccupation.  And even then its confined to a subset of the West, as I’m pretty sure the Dawkins types aren’t trolling Jewish blogs about Yahweh and all the contradictions in the Torah.  It’s Jesus, specifically, that our atheists are hacked off at.

And that’s perfectly fine.  Christianity is absurd.  Its claims rest on the literally impossible — the self-resurrection of a man, who was also a god.  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof to be known as fact, and short of actually being there in the tomb and seeing the breath of life come back into his three-day-old corpse with your own eyes, there is no proof extraordinary enough to move that claim into the realm of fact.

So if you want to claim that Christianity is ridiculous, I’ll agree with you 100%.  Its central claim, the foundation of 2000 years of belief, violates all known laws of physics and the logical law of non-contradiction.  But in return, I’d like you to admit that this does not preclude the existence of any and all gods; it simply invalidates the claims of this particular god.  To admit, in short, that you’re not an atheist — you’re just anti-Christian.

Show of hands: who thinks our evangelical atheists would take this deal?

The irony here is especially corrosive, as guys like Dawkins have convinced generations of young neckbeards that they’re critical thinkers.  They charge into e-battle armed with long lists of contradictory stuff in the Bible, books excised from the New Testament by the Church Fathers, claims about the fossil record, and whatnot.  As if all this proved that it is impossible for any god to exist!

As I said at Z Man’s, it’s the arrogance of this that bugs me the most.  They act as if the first time they think of something is the first time in all of human history that thought has been thunk.  As if Christians haven’t been struggling with this stuff for 2000 years.  As if nobody ever picked up his Bible and noticed that there are multiple divergent accounts of important events.  As if no less a theologian than St. Thomas Aquinas didn’t come right out and declare that the truths of revelation can’t be proved by reason…..

Et cetera ad nausam.  They have the stones to call this “critical thinking,” when in fact it takes breathtaking ignorance of intellectual history to even call their piddly little assertions “problems.”  But then again, what else can one expect from folks whose very movement name is a misnomer?

Again, if you want to be anti-Christian, go nuts.  Since I’m not invincibly ignorant of the Western cultural tradition, I know that anti-Christianity has a long, long pedigree.  A Roman emperor wrote a pretty good book about it, and of course there’s Hobbes, Hume, Nietzsche… you’ve got some heavy hitters in your corner, is what I’m saying.  Check them out.  But please, stop pretending you’ve proven there is no God, when all you’ve demonstrated is that you’ve got a beef with Jesus, mmmkay?

Buddy_christ

Rebuilding “Conservatism”

Via Vox Day, I see that some cuck named Andrew Klavan has produced a bullet point list of how to “rebuild conservatism.”  Vox fisks it admirably, and RTWT if that’s your bag.  But I prefer to take the project seriously.  If I were to “rebuild conservatism,” the first thing I’d do is….

Well, scratch that.  Before we even get to my list, we need to acknowledge that there is no such thing as “conservatism.”  Hare-brained, holy-rolling world-savers* have been trying to synthesize their systems so long that “conservatism,” like “capitalism,” has become a system in its own right — he who is not a Liberal is a “conservative;” he who is not a Socialist is a “capitalist.”  But that’s baloney.  There’s no such thing as “capitalism,” or a “capitalist” — there’s just the exchanging of stuff for other stuff, with each exchanger looking for the best deal for himself in the prevailing circumstances.  Ditto “conservatism” and “conservative” — there is Reality, and one either acknowledges Reality or one retreats into various flavors of jargony make-believe.  So let’s make that Step 0:

0. Acknowledge Reality, and abandon all vocabulary which implies that Reality can somehow be forced into alignment with some kind of intellectual system.

From there, it’s basically common sense.  An obvious consequence of 0 is

1. Make using the word “equality,” and any of its cognates, synonyms, and derivatives, outside of math class or #2, below, a jail-time offense.

This ought to be an easy sell to Liberals and Cucks alike, as they all “fucking love science.”  Humans are just evolved monkeys, no?  Primates have elaborately defined hierarchies, and we’re the apex primates.  You do believe in Evolution, don’t you?

2. Outside of math class, “equal” means “equal before the law.”  Equality of opportunity, not outcome.

Nobody gets anything because of their genetics, good or bad.  Yes, that means the smart-but-unscrupulous will generally profit at the expense of the dumb-but-good.  And that sucks, but hey, life’s not fair — and saying that it is, or should be, is now punishable by up to five years in federal pound me in the ass prison.

3. Yep, 0+1+2 = some people are going to get royally screwed, pretty much all the time.  But again, there is Reality, and there is Fantasy.  Conservatives are the Reality people.

In my glorious “conservative” regime, we will all have equal opportunity to play in the NBA, start a software company, fly a commercial airliner, and marry a supermodel.  Just as we will all have equal opportunity to become a meth addict, drop out of school, and spend all day tinkering with that old Camaro we’ve got up on blocks on the front lawn.  Some of us have a suite of genetic and cultural traits which predispose us to the former; some, to the latter.  But just as it makes no sense to insist that I could play in the NBA if I really really wanted to and trained hard (or I can’t because of “racism” or whatever), it also makes no sense to pretend that Cletus the meth-head up the holler could run Microsoft were it not for anti-redneck prejudice.**

And… that’s it, really.  There are few things I’d toss in if I had my druthers.  I’d acknowledge that centralization has been the trend in politics throughout human history, and set some hard limits on the size of governmental units.  I’d bring back property qualifications, poll taxes, and literacy tests with a vengeance.  Hell, I’d tie the franchise to military service (or, at least, being draft-eligible), and if you lose your vote because you’re 4F through no fault of your own, well, see #3, above.  I’d be disenfranchised under my own proposals, too.  But see #2 – I don’t get an exception to the rules because I’m the guy who came up with the rules.  I’d reinstall Christianity as the official state religion, as the need for a system is inherent to the human personality, and at its best Christianity gets the closest to institutionalizing numbers 0, 1, 2, and 3 than anything else.

But all that is lagniappe, as the rednecks among my friends and family like to say.   It’s really quite simple to “rebuild conservatism” — all it takes is a long hard look at Reality.

 

 

*”eschaton immanentizers,” to the connoisseurs.  It’s 1997, holla if ya hear me!

** As I understand these things, anti-redneck bias is cancelled out under the current dispensation by White Skin Privilege.  That’s why you see so many gap-toothed hillbillies running startups in Silicon Valley.

Vlad Loves Donald!

Donald Trump is, I’m told, a fascist.  Fascists, I’m told, are militarists.  Logically, then, the first thing President Trump would do is find an Existential Enemy, the better to whip up hate and resentment and a nice profitable war or two, no?

Why on God’s green earth, then, would Vladimir Putin be backing Donald Trump?  Half of America already thinks Putin is Stalin reincarnated (metaphorically, of course, since — American education being what it is — way more than half the population has never heard of Stalin).  If I were a Fascist, reigniting the Cold War would accomplish most of my goals at a stroke.  Vlad backing Donald is like the Yankees sending their cleanup hitter and their staff ace to the Red Sox to make things competitive again.

If I had to pick the one worst thing about America 2016, it would be “failure to listen to the very words that are coming out of one’s mouth.”

New Word Needed

Morgan likes inventing new words.  I’ve taken a few cracks at it myself.  But I’m stumped by this one.  What’s a good word for the idea that difference is a problem?

Maybe it’s a subspecies of solipsism.  You know the kind of thing I mean:

What does it mean for a man to be truly feminist? Is that even possible, or is a man only ever, at best, a feminist ally and a recovering misogynist? . . .
For feminist women, dating men can feel like a lose-lose proposition. Either you settle for someone who invalidates your politics and therefore your personhood, or you gamble on a man who claims to support your cause but may or may not actually give a s–t.

Admittedly, we’re so used to hearing marxoids talk like this that it’s just word salad — a pathetic mix of buzzwords lying limply there under a sneeze guard at the end of the intellectual buffet line.  But let’s take Ms. Sloan far more seriously than xyr deserves and actually analyze some of this verbiage.

Is it even possible for a man to be truly feminist?  Judging by feminists’ behavior I’d have to say no, but their dogma says yes.  Gender, like everything else, is just a “social construction,” which means people are completely malleable.  Arrange society just right — and shoot everyone who disagrees — and you’ll have the New Soviet Woman in no time.  It is, as Lenin assures us, science.  There is no difference; only apparent antitheses that have not yet been resolved into the glorious Marxist synthesis.

Which leads to

invalidates your politics and therefore your personhood

which is a fascinating equivalence, implying as it does that either A) politics are immutable, or B) one’s personhood can change at a moment’s notice if the mass line requires it.  In practice, of course, there’s no problem, since they all believe A but do B.  But think about how weird it must be to write a line like that.  Whatever “feminism” is today — and not even Ms. Sloan would, I think, argue that it came down complete from heaven like the Koran — then that’s what I am today.  It could be completely different tomorrow, and therefore so will I.

When you look at it that way, it’s clear that what these people really want is no distinctions whatsoever.  No difference at all.  Everything is what it is, and it always will be, and nothing can ever be different.  The True Believer is finally personality-less, merged into the all-consuming whole.

Is that just pathological solipsism?  Or something else — Acquired Marxoid Narcissism, maybe?  What do y’all think, Four Regular Readers?

Always Fighting the Last War

Funny how liberals say this to denigrate the military, when their entire thing is as retro as it gets.  It’s been that way since Karl Marx — that whole “capitalists own the means of production, peasants have nothing to sell but their labor, alienation, etc. etc.” deal is actually a spot-on description of feudalism, not industrial capitalism.  In the same way, they’ve been fighting the Civil Rights Movement for the last 50 years, as if tranny-free bathrooms were in any way equivalent to colored-only water fountains.

The last Liberal Great Awakening ended when their policies produced enough crime, stagflation, and international humiliation that their footsoldiers couldn’t stand it anymore.  But there’s not going to be any Reagan prosperity this time around….

It’s the end of an era, y’all.  Just to stick with a theme, let’s look at what happened at the end of the Middle Ages. We see the same things happening now.  For instance, a vast doubling-down on the outward trappings of the old order by the Elite.  Most of the stuff we think of as quintessentially “medieval” was a fabrication, of course, but it was a fabrication of the very last days, when the world it pretended to describe was almost totally gone.  The things that weren’t fabrications were elaborately useless — the expansion of the peerage while Parliament increasingly held all the real power; vast, days-long tournaments in 100 lb armor when firearms and pikemen made cavalry charges gaudy suicide.  Vastly expanded sumptuary laws to keep the nouveau riche from outshining the impoverished aristocracy; tighter and tighter guild monopolies to throttle international trade.  (Our Elite are the globalists now, but the principle is the same).  The most elaborate and sweeping declaration of papal supremacy was written in 1302, just as the Church was about to plunge into 200 years of schism and turmoil and, ultimately, Reformation.  And, of course, the Inquisition….

We — alt right and cuckservative and liberal and moonbat — are mostly still trying to process events under the old paradigms. The alt-right doesn’t understand economics much better than the moonbat left, so they try to shoehorn everything into “race realism” (and, of course, Teh Jooooos!).  The moonbats, meanwhile, cling to a notion of economics that was garbage in 1909, and a view of humanity that should’ve been decisively disproved in 1793.  The cucks still think we can definitively prove, with the postulates of Aristotelian dialectic, just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  Meanwhile the tectonic plates keep shifting, and the earth rumbles….

It’s gonna be bad.  Hopefully just Reformation-in-England bad, not 30 Years’ War bad or World War I bad.  My money is on barbarians-crossing-the-Rhine bad….

Propaganda Fail

I don’t care about Chickbusters, or whatever clever name we patriarchal troglodytes are supposed to be calling it.  (Honestly, I didn’t think the original was all that great anyway).  But I’m happy it’s flopping so hard.

Theodore Dalrymple has already written the epitaph of art in the West:

In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, not to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is…in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

Chickbusters is overt propaganda.  It was designed to fail.  The original movie was funny (in the parts where it actually was funny) because of the chemistry between the four male leads — and everyone knows that.  Cast anyone other than Murray and Ackroyd as Venkman and Stantz, and the original would’ve bombed, too.  So… we’re supposed to laugh at the same “jokes” that wouldn’t have been funny delivered by any other two men on the planet, now that they’re being delivered by two women?

Riiight.

We’re supposed to say “Chickbusters isn’t funny,” to which the scripted reply is: “But it was funny when a man said it!”  No, it was two particular men who made it funny, but whatever.  Propaganda is as propaganda does.  I’m just glad that the public at large still recognizes it as such.  Not all is yet lost….

Dumb Guy’s Revenge

Provided we survive it, the Trump phenomenon has the potential to finally kill one of the worst mental pathogens of our age: being Smart.

First, check this.  I know, I know, it’s Rod Dreher quoting Ross Douthat, which is nearly enough to form a supermassive black hole of Cuck.  But stopped clocks and all that.

And here is why it’s tribalism: [the Globalists] see anyone outside the tribe as barbarian. The fact that they see themselves as sophisticated and advanced instead of mere partisans of a different tribe, with their own prejudices and limitations, is what makes them so hard to take. Technocratic liberalism is their religion, and its god is a jealous god.

I further know the fact Cucky McCuckerson wrote this piece should also create a supermassive black hole of self-unawareness.  But evidently time itself does survive past the event horizon, because this stopped clock is still right.

The reason the Globalists don’t see themselves as a tribe, of course, is the same reason Liberals insist that facts have a liberal bias — they’re Smarter Than You.  That’s it.  Being Smart, they have access to a level of cognition that’s simply beyond us.  Facts don’t matter when you’re Smart.  Put a blue-haired bicurious vegan slam poet in a debate about astrophysics with Einstein, and within a minute she’ll be telling him his so-called “facts” don’t count, because math is racist.

Trump’s platform thumps all this.  Not because Trump is Dumb — though, of course, he is; he’s Not Our Class, Dear — but because in attacking Trump, the Smart people have finally made it obvious what Smart means.

Smart people have no nation, no culture.  In fact, they have no identity whatsoever, other than being Smart.  And being Smart consists of….?

Since we’re rending holes in the fabric of space-time already, let me recommend a book by the cuckiest cuck of them all, David “Pants Crease” Brooks.  Bobos in Paradise perfectly describes what it’s like being Smart.  Or, at least, what it was like in 2001, when the stock market was up and social mobility was still upward.  It’s all fashion — limousine liberalism as a substitute for old-school conspicuous consumption.  If it’s vulgar to flaunt one’s wealth on bling and Bentleys like a rapper, it’s nonetheless perfectly acceptable to flaunt it by serving only locally-sourced, shade-grown, free-trade tofu at your daughter’s pre-preschool (did you know there’s a 6-year waiting list?  And a top quintile score on the Stanford-Binet is the minimum qualification?).

The problem with this is: There’s no there there.  It’s nice to pretend one is a transnational cosmopolitan sophisticate when one can afford to shift with the wind.  In 2001, for instance, when the Bobos were still in paradise, Cloud Person opinion on gay “marriage” was largely what it was in 1999 — a horrible patriarchal imposition by the breeders.  How dare they force monogamy down gays’ throats?  But by 2004 it was a fundamental human right, and by 2015, of course, it was enshrined in the Constitution.

So with any and all Smart fashions.  So long as one has the money, one can still play make-believe.  So long as the stock market is up, then, one can aspire to make enough money to pretend, and you can fake it til you make it — parrot all the fashionable make-believe, and people will think you’re rich enough to be Smart.

Dumb guys, by contrast, have real identities.  They know what they like, and they know why they like it.  It might not rise above the level of “I like NASCAR because of the crashes,” but hey, it’s something.  A redneck knows who he is, in the way a faux hipster sophisticate simply can’t.

But both can feel which way the wind is blowing.  In this economy, you will be proletarianized.  The question is, how do you make your peace with it?  Personally, I’d much rather be a redneck than whatever you call a barista who’s forever chasing the Bobo life on $8.75 an hour.  And that’s really what the choice between the candidates boils down to.  Vote Hillary, and you’re voting to let people like Hillary maintain her lifestyle at your expense.  She can shift with whatever wind, because she can always sell a few more national security secrets to the Chinese if she’s low on ready cash.  Vote Trump, and maybe you tell the world you’re a redneck… but at least you don’t have to pretend anymore.  When you don’t have two nickels to rub together, being forced to play make-believe by some shrieking harpy who obviously considers you a dupe and a rube is the final indignity.

If being Smart is letting Hillary et al force me to work my fingers to the bone buying her a fourth yacht, then fucking forget it.  Sign me up for the NASCAR channel.  I don’t think I’m alone in that.

Mission Civilisatrice

The bad news is that lots of The Current Year’s problems could have easily been foreseen if people read history (not “took history classes,” read.  History profs are among the ditziest leftoids in captivity.  Learn to seamlessly combine a few basic buzzwords — CisHetPat etc. — and you can ace any history class at any college in America).

The good news, though, is that history provides the solution, too.

By the French Revolution, it was generally taken for granted that the whole of the non-Western world was in need of French civilization. The idea of the mission civilisatrice did not originate in 1870 with the Third Republic, but it acquired a particularly strong resonance after the return of democratic institutions to France. The French colonizers were attempting overseas what French republican administrators and teachers were trying to accomplish in the rural areas of metropolitan France. A zeal to modernize and cast out the perceived demons of ignorance and superstition was as characteristic of domestic republicans as it was of their colonial counterparts. The mission civilisatrice ensured support for the imperial enterprise from otherwise democratic elements in the French population.

We tend to think of the French as the runners-up in the Great Game, but some of their colonies were wonders to behold.  I’m not an expert, but it seems to me that the main reasons they rate #2 behind the British are: 1) No India-equivalent (despite their best efforts, Vietnam et al just don’t cut it), and 2) greater proximity to Germany (Japan had to take Britain’s Far Eastern colonies by force), and 3) the MS seemed more Catholic than the white man’s burden was Protestant*.

And as a coherent program, the MS beats the British “system” cold.  With the admittedly huge exception of India, the Limeys didn’t much care about the natives under their rule.  As long as they didn’t have to pay to put down insurrections, they could care less what Rhodes, Lugard, and the rest got up to south of the Sahara.  Much more cost-effective, but see Decolonization, problems of, for some of the more obvious consequences.

Were I a betting man, I’d wager that the MS is going to come back in a big way here in the next few decades.  Effectively re-colonizing Africa is an easy solution to a lot of the world’s more intractable problems (as Jonah Goldberg, of all people, noted at the turn of the century).  As the epic Olympic clusterfuck in Brazil is illustrating for us every day, modern civilization requires a certain skillset that our darker brethren seem to lack.**  Once realism about IQ comes back in vogue — and Our Betters are working 24/7 to set up the mass muggings, beatings, and rapes it’ll take — starry-eyed world-savers will start wanting to treat the problem at its source.  (Plus, this will let them self-righteously torment people without nearly as much danger of someone shooting back, as Evil Whites are wont to do).

Alas, this wouldn’t be my post without some gloom-n-doom, so here goes: I doubt it will be Westerners bringing back the MS.  We’re too far gone.  It’ll be the Russians and Chinese, who tend to interact with The Other with AK rounds.  As I keep telling all my liberal dimwit acquaintances in academia, if you thought European colonialism was the axis of evil, you’re gonna just looooove the Chinese version.

 

*Not necessarily true, of course — the British were as keen on spreading Churchianity in their domains as the French were to spread Catholicism in theirs.  Cf. Brian Stanley’s The Bible and the Flag, which paints British imperialism as an almost entirely missionary effort.

** I read somewhere that foreign policy wonks used to joke that Brazil is the up-and-coming country of the next century, and always will be.

The Gods of the Copybook Headings: Profit Motive

I know, I know: Capitalism is eeevil.  Alas, in the real world filled with actual humans, science fiction novels are luxury goods.  The “pink SF” crowd seems determined to learn this the hard way.

I did that with my WIP, swapped the male lead to female, then had the same people read what I had so far. The women loved it, the men hated it, whereas before the men loved it, and the women were just sorta meh about it. Made me decide to leave it as a female lead. I figured, if it was making the men so uncomfortable, then I was doing something right.

Emphasis mine.  This is what the CisHetPat philosophy crowd calls a “category error.”  The point of writing science fiction novels is not to make men uncomfortable.  The point is to GET PAID (a.k.a. the Tao of Larry Correia).  If you’re not writing to reach your audience — and you can tell if you are, because you’re GETTING PAID — then you’re not really a novelist.  You’re a preacher.

Which is fine; the world needs preachers, too, and there are millions of street corners on which to rant.  But don’t expect to be taken seriously as an author of science fiction.  (Same deal with the preacher — a minister whose every homily is about Ringo Rocket’s battle with the Robo-Men of Planet X-22 is going to be minus a congregation).