Today’s Suicidally Depressing Thought

Joe Biden has thrown his hat into the ring for 2016.  Y’all know it means we’re that much closer to PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP, right?

That’s not the suicidally depressing thought, though (bad as it is).  Today’s SDP is: what happens when people stop voting?

We assume that whatever’s coming next will come from the ballot box.  I’m not so sure.  Seems to me that two things tend to happen when “democracy” becomes a sham — people either vote for the “fuck you all” party, which gives you Hitler; or people just stop voting, which gives you whole areas of the country run on old tribal patterns.  Cf Greece if you want a contemporary example.

Let’s consider for a moment that 2020 is, at the outside, the last majority-white election in the USA.  Voting seems to be a Northern European quirk.  Call me raciss all you want, but the facts remain the facts — find me a recognizable democracy south of Florida or east of the Urals and I’ll move there tomorrow.*  Whether this is genetic, or cultural, or what is beyond me, but facts are facts.  The rule in Africa and Latin America is “one man, one vote, one time.”  It has always been thus, even in Hispanic Europe — cf. Franco and Salazar.

Blog-godfather Morgan is fond of pointing out that Detroit is what you get when you let Democrats run things.  No offense, but that’s false — Democrats have run Portland forever and it’s a lovely town.  Chicago works after a fashion.  Detroit, Baltimore, etc. are what you get when you let blacks run things.  Again, call me raciss all you like, but you’ll need to find a functioning African democracy to make a case against me.  I’ll wait.  To Detroiters and Baltimoreans, DC might as well be Mars — they hand over the cash and depart.  The local Big Man runs everything, just like in Africa.

Same deal with Indios.  Again, find me a functioning democracy south of the Rio Grande.  It has happened exactly once, to my knowledge — in Argentina.  And then they “elected” Peron, and you see how that worked out.  Hispanics in America, even the legal ones, don’t vote much; if their votes don’t bring them anything, they’ll go back to doing things like the old country.

Even among whites, this has happened before.  In the 19th century, Irish voted for Irish, Italians for Italians, Poles for Poles, etc.  Guys named O’Grady and Salvatrucci and Sobieski weren’t running for president, but back then, the presidency didn’t have much power.  Those guys were running Boston, and the Bronx, and the South Side of Chicago… much as they run Portland, and Austin, and the East Bay today.

So there’s a second viable scenario for you — fascism or tribalism. In 2016, whites can vote for whatever interchangeable nonentity they want, while those nonentities scramble for chunks of the vibrant vote.  However it shakes out, if the nonentity doesn’t deliver…..

We’re headed for interesting times, comrades.


*I’d happily move to Japan or Australia, if they’d have me.

A Martin Luther Moment

Folks tire of my Weimar ‘n’ Whig analogies, so let me try another way to explain my read on what’s happening now.  Call it a Martin Luther Moment.

[Please be advised that I’m not discussing The One True Faith here.  I have no opinion on who is, or isn’t, going to hell.  I’m pointing out some parallels to some stuff that happened.  Capisce?].

Luther’s ideas got traction for a lot of reasons.  They were politically useful — google up the Peace of Augsburg and work back.  They were a finger in the eye of the establishment — Henry VIII doubled his income with the Annates Bill; imagine how much better off peasants and burghers would be if ecclesiastical duties were cancelled.  They might even have been right — no small thing in a religious age.

But the most interesting part, for our purposes, is this: They kicked the mystical mumbo-jumbo out from under the Official Ideology.

95% of Europe’s population had never read the Bible before Luther.  They couldn’t.  It was in Latin, which nobody outside the elite spoke, and proposing that it should be translated into one’s own language got you burned at the stake.  Luther’s key doctrine was Sola Scriptura, and it required you to read the Bible (he helpfully provided a translation into German).  So lots of people did. They discovered that a whole bunch of stuff they were told was in there, wasn’t, and a bunch more stuff they were told wasn’t in there, was.

Official Ideologies depend on unquestioned assertions — canons of the Church; conventional wisdom; stuff “everybody knows.”  One guy questioning the unquestioned assumptions is a heretic.  One hundred guys questioning the unquestioned assumptions is a movement, and a thousand is a revolution.

The Powers That Be, caught flat-footed, bungle the job of suppression.  They lack the tools — unquestioned dominance of the public sphere has so eroded their ability to think critically that they’re left repeating the old mantras, just louder and shriller.  Luther was a mouth-frothing maniac, and calmer heads crushed him in debate.  Alas for the PTB, the cooler heads’ time was long past.  What Luther himself called a debate between monks had, thanks to the printing press, spread at lightning speed to every corner of Europe.  What followed was a charming time historians call the Period of the Wars of Religion, where maniacs far more maniacal than Luther turned the Official Ideology completely on its head.  Fun stuff, if you like forced polygamy, torture, and cannibalism.

Apply these examples to our own times.  It starts small, with the lunatic fringe, in an arena nobody cares about.  Then it grows, and mutates, spreads like wildfire over new, uncontrollable technology.  The PTB know that Donald Trump is leading in the polls.  Everyone who follows politics, and a lot of people who don’t, know what “cuckservative” means.  But nobody in the PTB knows why.  All they can do is repeat the same old mantras, louder and faster and shriller.

Until, of course, they get a mouth-frothing maniac of their own….

Cuckservative Update

At Ace of Spades, Gabriel Malor says it’s raciss.

At Vox Day’s, Nero of GamerGate says it’s not raciss.

Either way, the point we should be taking is this: The tactic of screaming “raciss!!” to shut up the opposition is in its death throes.  More and more often, the only reply to “that’s raciss!” is gonna be, “So?”

As has been completely predictable from the beginning.  Conservatives, of all people, should understand that “if I’m gonna be accused anyway, I wanna be guilty” is a feature, not a bug, of the human condition.  In Obama’s America, the word “racist” is flung around so often, by so many, that it’s just static.

It’s ugly, and it’s going to get a lot uglier.

“Only in a Crisis Will a Great Leader Emerge”

By now, y’all either see what I mean or you don’t.  But if somehow, someway, you’re still on the fence, I direct you to this bit by Quintus Curtius at Return of Kings.

It goes almost without saying that the mainstream Democrat and Republican candidates are two names with almost no distinction. Both of these parties long ago were bought out by big money and corporate interests, and ceased to care about the plight of the average man in America. Yes, of course, they pay lip service to the Old Ideal, and they are great readers of idealistic speeches on the teleprompter, but in the end they will do little to upset the status quo.

Notice that “upsetting the status quo” is considered a good in itself.

Then look at the examples:  Lincoln (a tyrant who hollowed out the Constitution).  James K. Polk (conquered Mexico at the behest of the Slave Power Conspiracy).  FDR (a fascist).

Last, and most important, look at the language.  “Only in a crisis will a great leader emerge.”  That could’ve come straight from the pen of Josef Goebbels (y’all really ought to read Michael; quite a lot of your fellow countrymen are in there).

Are we finally starting to get it?

Anger at #Cuckservative

Ace is upset that lots of undesirables are using the hashtag #cuckservative.

With all due respect, bro: What the pulsating reticulated fuck did you think was going to happen?!?

America runs on a racial spoils system.  Ace knows this, because he’s a breathing mammal.  The Left has been shoving the idea that race is a social construction down our throats for the last 50 years, and the idea that race is the end-all and be-all of politics for the last 60.  This, too, is common knowledge, to all vertebrates and several phyla of plants.

We’ve entered the zero-sum endgame.  Any slice of the pie going to you is, by definition, one less slice for me, and the only rule in the game is race uber alles.

So disaffected whites are socially constructing a race for themselves.

Yes, the Nazi flag-wavers and the folks who use phrases like “mud people” are loathsome.  One wouldn’t want to have them as neighbors.  But they’re playing the game exactly the way liberals have played it for the last half-century.

I’ll put it as plainly as possible: This “lose with dignity,” Marquis-of-Queensbury stuff was fine when prosperity was lifting all boats.  A nation with 4% unemployment can tolerate a lot of lunacy on the fringes.  But that nation is gone, never to return.  Your choices going forward aren’t going to be between Democratic lunacy and Republican fair play.  Unless we get very fucking lucky — I’m talking on the order of winning the lottery twice in one week — our choices are going to be lunatic international socialism, virulent national socialism, or a seven-way civil war in which every identifiable grievance group in America tries to kill off all the others.

People respond rationally to incentives.  In our case, all the incentives are insane… but they’re the only ones on offer, and people will respond however they think will bring them maximum advantage.

I thought conservatives, of all people, understood that.

Roosh Gets It

The dean of the neo-masculinity movement has this to say.

RTWT.  This is not to say he’s right — we may both be wrong.  But I’ve been saying these kinds of things for years now, and a LOT of folks — Return of Kings’ readership is huge — are now being exposed to these ideas.

And then ask yourself what this means:

I’m not sure what role neomasculinity will play after their collapse, but there will be power up for grabs. It’s time we do some serious soul searching, and ask ourselves how far we’re ready to go to put out the fires that will surely burn in America. May fortune favor the bold.

I’m pretty sure y’all know my answer.

Related: Derb, quoting Afrikaner nationalist Dan Roodt:

The sad truth is that Africa’s “economic miracle” will never happen. As the population grows, survival will mean only one thing: emigration….The rush to Europe will be so massive and relentless that it will not be possible to stop it without direct military force. That would require a fundamental ideological change, and without such a change, at some point in the 21st century, Europe will accept African domination.

No offense to Derb, but an African-dominated Europe isn’t inevitable.  Remember the 19th century, when it was the other way around?  If, as “race realists” constantly argue, Africans can’t be integrated into modern postindustrial society, then some kind of revanchist colonialism seems like an obvious way out — the ol’ mission civilisatrice, but with A Troublesome Inheritance instead of Bibles in the missionaries’ hands.  Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised to see the EU farming out the mission civilisatrice to the Chinese, who will be all too happy to oblige (and who celebrate diversity with tanks).

Americans would cheerfully vote for mandatory sterilization of entire ethnic groups if not doing so meant giving up their iCrap.  Europeans —  who have a bit of experience in these matters — will no doubt do it for far less.  I don’t know who this Dan Roodt guy is, but I’m betting a lot of people will soon become familiar with the ideas of another Afrikaner.

This is not going to end well.

A Fun New Drinking Game!

Recall the Three Laws of SJW:

  • SJWs always lie.
  • SJWs always project.
  • SJWs always double down.

If you want to go out like Leaving Las Vegas, a fun drinking game is: Sip every time you find an example of the Three Laws in a typical feminist rant.  Stacy McCain has a great one to get you started.  But here’s the catch: You have to clearly identify each example.

It’s tougher than it sounds.  Try it.

Men are socialized since birth to think their feelings and thoughts are the objective truth.

Now, is that a lie, or projection?  I know I for one was “socialized” to regard my feelings as much closer to the opposite of truth — that’s why they’re called feelings, not facts.  So I’d call that a lie.  Then again, I grew up in the Jurassic, so maybe it’s true now.  Millennial “men” certainly value their pwecious widdle feewings more than us fossils do ours.  But there’s definitely a whopping shitload of projection here, too, since feminism commonly calls the whole idea of “objective truth” a tool of The Patriarchy.

See what I mean?  And that’s just the first sentence.

They are taught they are generally right about something, unless contradicted by another male with equal or more authority.

Again, lie or projection?  I want to say projection — this “truth flows downhill from the head cheerleader” stuff is classic chick — but it’s also a lie, plus a double-down on her previous shrillery.  Be very careful — if the rest of the players vote against your interpretation, you have to drink an extra one.

Here’s an easy one:

This is why men often offer strong opinions on topics they just heard about, especially if they’re contradicting a woman.

But what about

Women are considered wrong by default and must argue their way to display their truth, no matter how strong their credentials.

The first one is classic projection — getting white-hot furious over stuff they’ve never heard of is classic SJW — but the second sentence beats my pair of jacks.  I’d venture to say that the kind of gelatinous, neutered “males” your typical feminist hangs around have never contradicted a woman on anything, ever.  Think this guy even remembers what it’s like to have a sack?


But then there’s the lovely incoherence of “display their truth.”  Are we back to maintaining, in default feminist mode, that there’s no such thing as objective truth?  Because I thought you just said men regard their opinions as objective truth.  Isn’t “my truth,” syntactically speaking, something that’s objectively true to me?  Yes yes, I know there’s no way to square that circle, because we’re arguing in oxymorons — the phrase “my truth” makes no more sense than the phrase “Lenin or coffee how.”  But you’d think someone who threw around the phrase “objective truth,” even to denigrate it, would have the weensiest little problem writing “display their truth” with a straight face.  Cognitive Dissonance Czar, can we get a ruling?

And then there’s the bit about arguing their way to something.  I can’t even parse that one out.  I know we have a former grammar teacher among our readership.  Can you do us a favor and diagram this one for us?

Women are considered wrong by default and must argue their way to display their truth, no matter how strong their credentials.

I’m tempted to be generous, and assume this is just bad writing (McCain says this gal is 25 years old, and she certainly writes like a grad student).  In other words, the sentence should read something like “Women are presumed wrong and must argue for the truth of statements men would accept by default from men, even if the woman’s credentials are greater than the man’s.”

Is that what she’s saying, though?  Or is “their way to display their truth” to be taken as the object of the argument, roughly equivalent to “opinion”?  Such that the sentence should read “Women are considered wrong by default and must defend every single one of their opinions, while men let that kind of thing slide from other dudes”?

You’ve got to figure that one out before you can determine if she’s lying or projecting.  Again, Omega Boy up there has never challenged a woman on anything, so I doubt Princess here has much experience arguing for anything (whereas guys routinely challenge other guys’ claims just for the hell of it — “busting balls,” we call it, which is another reason Omega Boy has no experience with it).

However it turns out, I definitely need a goddamn drink.

“A Transactional Society Run by Sociopaths”

A great phrase I came across browsing through the archives of a new must-read, the Z Man.  The post in question is about the UNC cheating scandal, which you probably haven’t heard of unless you follow college basketball, but the point is universal:

Walter Russell Mead calls what happened at UNC a moral collapse. That true, but it misses the larger issue. The UNC scandal is emblematic of what has happened to American society. The utter and complete moral collapse of the ruling class has reduced [us] to a transactional society run by sociopaths.

Your philosophy-of-government types call these moral collapses “crises of legitimacy.”  Governments maintain themselves in power in two ways: Consent of the governed, or monopoly of force.  When enough people realize that their government is illegitimate — it’s all hogs to the trough, and we the people are the trough — if that government doesn’t have a monopoly on force, they’re out.  A hard man comes along, a fellow with an uncompromising set of principles, and all the discontented rally to him.

History’s full of examples.  In 1860, Lincoln was the hard man.  “A transactional society run by sociopaths” describes the decadence of the second American party system to a T.  The abolitionists — much harder men than their figurehead — came up with a great phrase to demonize their opponents: The Slave Power Conspiracy.  But plantation owners didn’t want to enslave everybody.  They had no interest in keeping the white workingman down.  They just wanted to get theirs, the same way the Whigs wanted to get theirs.  Principles be damned; there’s money to be made by pulling the levers of government. We know where that led.

Oliver Cromwell was a hard man indeed, and you’d be hard pressed to find more transactional society than Charles I’s misrule.  But there was one — Nicholas II’s Russia — and it called forth a harder and more uncompromising man than even Cromwell.  China collapsed into warlordism soon after 1911 for similar reasons.  I’m sure by now I don’t have to tell you about Weimar.  As Z Man seems to love Roman history, I’ll throw in Septimius Severus as well.  And Napoleon, after the Terror.

You may have noticed that Donald Trump is leading the GOP polls.  Trump is a misbegotten clown, a vanity candidate, and everyone knows it — especially The Donald himself.  But someday soon there will be a steely-eyed fanatic saying exactly what Trump is saying, and he’ll mean every fuckin’ word.  You’ll feel the force of his conviction through the tv screen.

There’s your fuhrer.

Paging All Grammarians- UPDATED

Is there a word for this kind of thing?  There needs to be.  Via Vox Day’s Alpha Game site:

Being on the subways and streets of New York while female used to mean walking through a veritable gauntlet of harassment and catcalls. But lately, a curious thing has happened – my world is a much quieter place. The comments and lascivious stares from men have faded away the older I’ve gotten, leaving an understandable sense of relief. But alongside that is a slightly embarrassing feeling of insecurity that, with every year that goes by, I become more and more invisible to men.

So far, so much typical feminist whining.  But let’s examine the title of the original piece:

Men rarely catcall me any more. I hate that our culture makes me miss it

Someone break that down for me, grammatically.  Anyone remember how to diagram a sentence?

There needs to be a term for this weird passive-voice, gassy-noun leftist syntactical tic, since it seems to enable a lot of their parathought.  Look at what happens if you describe common life events feminist-style:

My team lost the big game.  I hate it that the other team made me feel this way.

I caught a summer cold.  I hate that medicine hasn’t found a way to make me feel less bad.

I got caught behind an accident on the freeway.  I hate that the city managers’ arbitrary placement of off-ramps made me late for my 10 o’clock meeting.

See what I mean?

Valenti hated being catcalled, because it’s rude.  But she kinda liked it, because it let her know that men found her sexually attractive.  For normal people, that’s just how the world goes — I love the way that triple heart attack burger with mega-fries tastes, but man oh man do I hate what happens on the scale (and in the toilet) the next morning.  It takes a special kind of stupidity — and, I’m coming to believe, this particular syntax trick — to make a simple fact of life into a grand Social Justice crusade.

Let’s break it down.  The first sentence

Men rarely catcall me anymore

is straightforward English prose — subject (men), verb (catcall), object (me).  This is the simplest grammatical construction there is.  There’s no doubt about who is doing the action (men), what the action is (catcalling), and the object of the action (Valenti).

But now let’s look at that second sentence.

I hate that our culture makes me miss it

That’s quite a bit trickier.  Meta-grammatically (or whatever the term is; apologies in advance to any linguists reading this), it’s a basic subject-verb-object arrangement — “I” is the subject, “hate” is the verb, and that other stuff is the object.  But the object is, in itself, a second sentence: “our culture makes me miss it.”  Here’s where the trick happens.

Notice the shift into passive voice.  Valenti, who started the sentence by hating, is now the direct object.  The subject is “our culture,” which, as I’m sure y’all are aware, isn’t a sentient being.  In the space of a single clause, we’ve gone from Valenti as a subject, using a very strong action verb — “hate” — to a passive object.  She doesn’t miss being catcalled; this amorphous thing called “our culture” makes her miss it.

I know, I know, I’m belaboring a pretty obvious point, but it’s important, y’all.  This way of talking — this way of thinking, if we can call it that — is how feminists and other marxoids stay white-hot angry at things they know nothing about.  If “our culture” were different, would she still miss being catcalled?  Or would she no longer hate missing it?

She doesn’t know, and you can parse her op-ed like a medieval scholastic without finding out.  The closest thing we get to a definition of “our culture” is here:

But when you’re brought up to feel that the most important thing you can be is attractive to men, the absence of their attention – even negative attention – can feel distressing.

Again, notice the passive voice* here, the lack of subject.  Who, exactly, brought you up this way, sweetie?  Isn’t your hate — your word — much more appropriately directed at them than at “our culture”?  I mean, you can always ask Mom and Dad why they made the parenting choices they did; it’s a lot harder to put culture as a whole into the dock.

She continues:

I do care [about not being catcalled] in some way that sits uncomfortably with my politics…

Yet another confusion is introduced, by yet more passive voice.  I’m getting a mental image here of a great battle taking place in poor Jessica’s head

285-homerwith “our culture” and “my politics” slugging it out while the lady herself is, at best, a stenographer.  Gee, I wonder who will win?

I know that my reaction is normal, considering the culture I’ve grown up in, as much as I know that my self worth does not depend on what strangers think. But I do wish there was more nuance in conversations about aging, beauty standards and feminism – room enough to admit without shame the complicated feelings we can have about it all.

Two points here.  First, reread the end of the opening sentence at try not to giggle: ” as much as I know that my self worth does not depend on what strangers think.”  But Jessica, darling, your whole piece is nothing but agony over what strangers think!  You just got done wondering if you’ve spent your “last fuckable day” (it’s adorable when girls cuss, by the way; so empowering), and telling us you shamefully assume you look particularly good when you do get catcalled. Again, it’s as if you’ve got two different beings inside your head — the active voice one, who tells us how you really feel, and the passive voice one, who tells us you’re very very good at ignoring yourself.

And then there’s this gem: “room enough to admit without shame the complicated feelings we can have about it all.”  Here again, we see how this gassy-passive thing transforms common everyday experience into a huge metaphysical problem.  Nobody likes getting old, my little chickadee.  And you can take it from me, even us macho white heterosexual patriarchal types feel a bit uneasy about losing our sex appeal.  Hell, I’m practically the fuckin’ Marlboro Man if wymyn’s studies textbooks are to be believed, and even I felt a disturbance in the force, by which I mean my balls, when I switched gyms recently and went from being one of the bigger guys in the room to one of the smaller ones.

Pictured: Me, according to feminism

Pictured: Me, according to feminism

It’s an odd kind of question begging, isn’t it?  We need a word for this.  Suggestions?



*Yes, humorless internet pedants, I’m broadening the sense of “passive voice”  here.  Grammatically, passive voice is when subject and object are reversed — “The play was written by Shakespeare” versus “Shakespeare wrote the play.”  But I need a broader tone to make my point, so deal with it.


UPDATE: A former grammar teacher points out that “broadening the sense” of words is what proggies do, and so “passive voice” won’t fly.  I’m asking for suggestions here.  As a placeholder, I’m going with “opossum voice.”  The opossum trundles along through its day until it encounters a threat, at which point it flops over and plays dead until the threat moves on. Then it hops back up and trundles on as if nothing had happened.  Which pretty much describes this “I hate…. society makes”-type construction.

“The Progressive Sense of History is Synchronic and Emotional”

A great insight from a blog I just found.

The Western tradition, informed by the Catholic scholarly traditions, is diachronic and dispassionate. History is a series of events, each influencing the other. The French Revolution, for example, led to Napoleon, the latter being the result of the former.

The Progressive sense of history is synchronic and emotional. The Civil Rights Movement has enormous emotional resonance with the left so it is of constant interest and talked about as if it happened yesterday. On the other hand, the near total domination of America urban centers by Progressive politicians has no emotional resonance so may as well have happened ten thousand years ago or not at all.