A Brief Jaunt Through Recent History, Part II

(sequel to A Brief Jaunt Through Recent History, Part I)

Actions have consequences.  Often unintended.  And most of the time those unintended consequences aren’t good ones.

In the early 20th century, the world started dabbling in what its proponents called “progressive” ideology.  Social safety nets, short work weeks, national health care, central planning, population control, eugenic, all within the state nothing outside the state …. that sort of thing.

A few of which are great things to have to the extent you can afford them.  Europe, especially ran with it, and for a while it was easy what with them having outsourced their defense to the United States during the Cold War.

But these kinds of things ultimately turned out to be pyramid schemes which depended on the next generation always being larger than the previous so you had more paying into the system than you were paying out to.  And at first, the ratio was great.  But as people voted themselves more and more benefits and had fewer and fewer children … supporting the growing aging population with more costly programs and fewer and fewer people in each succeeding generation paying into it started to destabilize things.  So the Europeans did the only sensible thing.

They outsourced procreation.  They started bringing in immigrants who would take the lower wages they themselves wouldn’t take and of course no longer had to because of the social safety nets.  It made them feel good about themselves. Oh, and it would be so oppressive to expect them to assimilate, we’re all so “multicultural”.  We’re above that. We’re worldly.  Accepting of other cultures.  And we’re giving them a lift out of poverty. Why we practically have one foot in heaven already!

Just not in their back yards.

Which left large swaths of these populations especially in France and now increasingly in Germany and Sweden living quite separately from the societies that imported them, in francecheap, crowded, maybe government housing.

That didn’t turn out so well.

We’ve done the same kind of thing here as well.  The main difference is we import our cheap labor from  mainly Mexico and Central America, and Europe has imported its cheap labor mainly from the Muslim world.

We haven’t had the problems they are having … yet.  And that’s mainly because the cultural differences between us and our cheap labor sources aren’t that great.   There’s no jihadi component in Central America.

But you can’t say that for Europe and its labor sources.

We can, however, learn from what has happened in Europe. and think twice about who we bring into this country and on what conditions.

If you want to come here and be an American, come on in, fulfill the requirements, pass the test, take the pledge, and assimilate as best you can.  You wanted to be one of us, be one of us.

If you want to come here just to work, that’s cool.  We can make that clear in the arrangement and if you ever find it’s not working out for you you can always go back.  And if you decide “hey this American thing is cool, I want to be a citizen”, well you can apply just like everyone else who immigrates has to.  Like they have to in every other country.

We do have an interest in accepting compatible people and rejecting incompatible people. This has nothing to do with race or origin.  It has to do with culture and attitude.

So now there’s a power vacuum in Syria, and various factions are duking it out, including ISIS.  Which was created in the vacuum we left when we “ended” the war in Iraq.  The Russians like their man Assad and are bombing on his behalf.   We’ve been bombing against ISIS and other Islamist factions in Syria.  It’s a soup of factions of people who aren’t big fans of America, and our bombing probably isn’t helping that image with most of them.

So it’s REALLY unclear who the refugees actually are, how do you sift through them, and where do you put them?

Do you put them in cities all across western countries?

Ask France.  Ask Germany.  Ask Sweeden.  They tried it and it got ugly fast. It’s also true some of the problems that crop up often take a generation or two to develop, and when they do, you get … civil war here.

The answers are not as simple as many would like you to believe.

A Brief Jaunt Through Recent History, Part I

It’s pretty apparent my millennial friends have had their history badly filtered, giving them an extremely skewed worldview, which is detrimental to them and their children.  Now I don’t claim this to be a complete history by any means, but I wish to fill in some blanks I suspect they’re not familiar with.

I’m going to start with this photo from Tehran University, teheranTehran, Iran, during the 1970’s.

But something changed in 1979, before most of you were born.

That something was not the invasion of the West, or of the U.S., but rather what is known today as Radical Islam.  The change was the expulsion of all western influence.  Admittedly, this was a reaction to western meddling over the previous century.  But the forced expulsion of all things western was not a step forward.

A similar change occurred in Afghanistan, fueled by reaction to the invasion of the Soviets.  The US helped the opposition (mujaheddin) in Afghanistan fight the Soviets, mainly with training and weapons support.  The mujaheddin wore the Soviets down over the next 10 years, and when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, leaving a weak state run by whoever took over your town this week.  This power vacuum led to the rise of the Taliban, which many Afghans welcomed at first — they stopped the rampant crime. But the Taliban imposed Sharia Law in its place.  I’m sorry someone raped your daughter, we’ll have to stone her to death.

Keep in mind women in Afghanistan were going to college and dressing as they pleased before all of this came about, and this has everything to do with having been Western colonies controlled by western countries. But we need to move this along.

In late 1990, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein declared that Kuwait was a part of Iraq and invaded and took it over by military means.  The United Nations, which was created to stop such things, condemned the action.  But in reality, the United States is the enforcement wing for the United Nations. It just is.  We do the heavy lifting and then take the flack for it.

Saudi Arabia, fearing Iraq would set it sights on her next, agreed to let the UN (read mainly, the US) station troops in Saudi Arabia to help protect her in Operation Desert Shield.  In the mean time, the UN had demanded Iraq leave Kuwait.

President George HW Bush set about building a coalition of countries to support verbally and/or lend some military aid, and Operation Desert Storm – the expulsion from Kuwait, began.

Well we kicked Iraq out of Kuwait.  But we had promised the Arab states in the coalition that we would stop there.  It was hoped that the Iraqi people might seize the opportunity and topple Saddam themselves.  Many believed we would even help.  But we didn’t, at the behest of the other Arab states. And Saddam slaughtered millions of his own countrymen.

This, of course, was an outrage, and the world demanded action.  So we set up “No Fly Zones” in Iraq to try to keep Saddam from mass-murdering more of his own people.

Our planes and troops for this were still based in Saudi Arabia.

This did not sit well with radical Islamists throughout the middle east, as it meant infidels living on holy soil.  It was also a bit humiliating them to have infidels protecting the holy land.   It especially did not sit well with one particular Saudi, Osama bin Laden.

His organization tried to collapse the World Trade Center in 1993 with a bomb in the parking garage underneath it.  It killed 6 people and injured over 1,000, but the attempt failed to topple the tower.

The US did not treat this as an act of war, though.  It treated it as a law enforcement issue, and convicted 4 men in the bombing, and President Clinton fired a cruise missile at a milk factory to distract people from his having perjured himself.  Bin Laden vowed that he would destroy the buildings one day.  But it took him a while longer to get the next plan worked out and rolling.

About 8 years longer.

During this time Bin Laden had been able to set up shop in Taliban controlled Afghanistan, which again rose in the power vacuum left after the Soviets pulled out.

This time, the plan worked.  He convinced 15 men to hijack airplanes and crash them into not only the World Trade Center, but into the Pentagon and the White House as well.  Only the one headed for the White House failed, thanks to the stones of some great Americans on Flight 93.

The attack was roundly condemned, and the U.S. went into Afghanistan looking for Bin Laden and his Taliban protectors.

In a nutshell, Bin Laden got pissed about Americans in Saudi Arabia who were there for 10 years at the U.N.’s behest mainly to keep Saddam Hussein from killing more of his own people. He was so pissed he tried twice to destroy the World Trade Center and succeed spectacularly the second time.

What are your options as President at this point?

Apologize to Bin Laden and pull out of Saudi Arabia, rewarding terrorist behavior?  And what happens to Iraqis Saddam doesn’t like after we leave?

Bush decided the best option was to finish the job started in 1990 which was cut short and set up this chain of events in the first place.

Now as part of the 1991 cease fire Iraq was supposed to get rid of all of it’s chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, referred to as “WMD”.  Now every Democrat and his brother over the previous decade had asserted that Hussein had them, Hussein had asserted that he had them, and he was supposed to destroy them and prove that he’d destroyed them by letting the U.N. inspect various sites.  Which he basically refused to do.  He also routinely shot at U.S. planes enforcing the no-fly zone that was there to keep him from slaughtering more Iraqis.  In fact, Hussein was in violation of 17 U.N. resolutions and all the U.N. would do about it was write sternly worded letters.  Meantime, US troops still on sacred soil.  To protect Iraqis.  Note that just about everybody we’re protecting at this time are Muslims.  Protecting Muslims from dictators, and Muslims from radical Muslims.

For all of these reasons (no, it wasn’t JUST about the WMD everyone said was there) Congress votes President GW Bush the authority to launch a war in Iraq.  But almost immediately, the Democrats paint GW as a “war monger” helping his “oil buddies”, and VP Cheney as a dark war profiteer for a company that he … uh … used to work for.   This was ALL politics.  John Kerry famously said, in a strange attempt to garner favor from hawks when he decided to run against Bush “I was FOR the war before I was against it.”

You can’t have it both ways.

The media immediately started painting the war in the worst possible light (which is easy to do because war isn’t pretty, which is why you fight them as swiftly as possible, and fight them to win), assigning the worst possible motives to everyone involved (except for Saddam.  See Michael Moore’s stupid movie with the unicorns and flowers in Iraq when we just started dropping bombs because we hate brown people).  It was chaos.  It was a quagmire.  There was no chance of winning.  A surge would fail.  (Only a surge didn’t fail.)  But all of this was to help soften the ground for their presidential run in 2008.  Bush is Hitler.  Cheney is Darth Vader.  They just hate brown people.  All of that rot.

Obama ran on “ending” the war.  So he “ended” it.  Funny thing about wars, though.  The party that decides when a war is over is the party that loses the war.  No matter how you slice it, it’s the side that cries “Uncle”.  So he “ended” the war by losing what was gained, pulled out and left a ….

Power vacuum.

Power vacuums in the middle east don’t turn out well.  They are quickly filled by ruthless scum who murder anyone who isn’t with them.  So they murder Muslims who aren’t “Muslim” enough, Christians, Hindus, atheists, Jews … whoever they like.

And in the middle east, Radical Islamists export this brutality.

Because they want to bring about the 12th Imam and his Caliphate.  Seriously it’s part of the religion (no, look it up yourself).  They need to establish chaos to bring it about, and to spread Islam by the sword or by cultural jihad (yes, this is an actual thing) everywhere they can.

Stay tuned for Part II


I have a very dear friend who has some native ancestry and Indian Nation issues are very important to her.

Thus I’m in an awkward, bad position between her friendship and the DAPL hysteria.

I’m not upset with her.  I’m upset with the people who have fed the hysteria for their own political and economic purposes.  There are those who don’t want us to use oil, period, because Man Bear Pig (who ironically are now posting about how low gas prices are because Obama … who wanted them to go up… I’m so confused)  — and those with economic interests in the status quo … transporting more oil over their railways or in trucks over our highways (burning fossil fuels whose exhaust feeds Man Bear Pig — again, these people don’t appear to have a need to be consistent.)

I ran across a post this morning where she asked

“So where were your safety measures for THIS pipeline spill?” linking an article about a spill in Montana in the Yellowstone River a few years ago by an Exxon pipeline.

Naturally curious me, I go read about it.  And this is what I found.

That pipeline (Silvertip) was placed 70 years ago and runs 5-12 feet deep under the river (incidentally, *now* it runs 40 feet beneath the river). 5-12 feet of sediment can easily be scoured out by erosion especially during floods. What they think happened in Montana was boulders moving along the bottom during recent flooding ripped an exposed section of the pipeline open, right there at the river bottom during flooding. No pipeline should be that close to the surface under a waterway — especially a river.

Pipelines in the past have been  cavalierly placed much too close to the surface. The proposed DAPL pipeline run would pass 95 to 115 feet deep under the lake.  So the answer is, safety measures weren’t in place for that pipeline. They didn’t exist when the pipeline was built. In the case of the one that recently ruptured, “under” was closer to “running right along the bottom of”. This was bad, and there are probably a lot more of these that need to be addressed with modern equipment and higher standards for how deep they go when they pass underneath waterways. Along with thicker metal and perhaps double-walls.

I would be more concerned with having companies like Exxon replace old sections of the hundreds of pipelines that currently run under bodies of water all over the country with the same kind of design developed for DAPL. I’m far more worried about contamination from those than I am about this DAPL run.

I do consider myself an environmentalist.  Not one of these hyper, every bug must be protected at all costs environmentalists.  But I, like most people, want clean air and water and unspoiled places to go to get away from life in the city and experience the wild country.  I’m kind of big on that, really.

So I’m serious about that addressing old pipelines bit.  Not only do we not want to waste crude oil, but no, I really don’t want it in the water and contaminating the rivers’ edges.

Alternative Facts

I gotta admit, that one did bug me.  What the hell do you mean, “Alternative Facts”???

I thought a clarification was in order, especially since it was jumped on so quickly.  And hey, you know our side would have jumped on it, too.  It was just too juicy.  She set Chuck Todd up for a spike.  Oh, and he friggin’ buried that ball.

If they really were going that route, yeah, it sounded a bit Orwellian.  But I think I’ve got it sorted out now.

And in their defense, no clarification would ever have been acceptable anyway.  Stop digging, right?

But now that I’ve gone and tracked down what was said and in what contexts regarding crowd size, audience size, and the use of the term “Alternative Facts” … this is what it looks like to me.
1) At first, Trump claimed there were 1.5 million people. Somebody in his camp probably told him this. This was a faulty estimate based on how many people different sections of the mall holds.  From the angle most people on stage see it from, it would have appeared that the mall was full. They didn’t have the advantage of the higher angle from the cameras on the more famous photos that were produced later.
2) The photo at 12:01pm clearly shows that the mall was not, in fact, full, that there was quite a bit of sparsely populated, even almost empty space.
3) Spicer revised the assertion (without retracting the claim about attenedees) to “I have a right to say if you add up the network streaming numbers, Facebook, YouTube, all of the various live streaming that we have information on so far, I don’t think there’s any question it was the largest watched inauguration, ever” — which while it isn’t indisputable, even liberal outlets admit that this may very well be true.
4) Kellyanne Conway, when talking about the situation used a term which she will never live down in her awkwardly worded response. “What — You’re saying it’s a falsehood. And they’re giving Sean Spicer, our press secretary, gave alternative facts to that.”
It’s clear, after going over what was said and when it was said that by “alternative facts” she meant “alternate facts”. An “alternate fact” would be another fact that they choose to focus on instead of that one. One that, if you substitute it for the first, r1935belated fact, might underscore the idea they were trying to get across. The fact that it was Da Biggesssst™.   …. audience …. um … around the world, physical and electronic. She may have been ineloquent but she isn’t stupid. It wasn’t some Orwellian attempt to say that the crowd on the mall wasn’t smaller because they had an “alternative fact” that it was actually larger because they said so. Though there’s no doubt they were trying to gloss over the fact that the physical attendance was smaller (and this is important, why?). They were glossing over it by painting with a broader brush, a different fact which still had to do with audience, just not physical audience present at the event. A related fact, a fact in the same family that didn’t negate the fact that there were fewer people present, but deflected it by talking about a bigger picture.
So it’s much ado about nothing in the end. But it was yet another foot-in-mouth moment for the Trump camp which has never been known for its eloquence.

Fake Intellectuals

Further to a post at Z Man’s, there is exactly one political principle that doesn’t lead directly to totalitarianism: Equality before the law.  This principle cannot be amended, modified, nuanced, gray area-d, penumbra-d, folded, spindled, or mutilated.  Equality before the law, and let the chips fall where they may.

This will of course entail some outcomes that are not socially just.  Equally applied, the anti-crime laws will disproportionately affect blacks, as they commit disproportionate amounts of crime.  Equally applied, the patent laws will disproportionately favor Jews and East Asians, as they have higher average IQs.  And yes, equally applied, the laws pretty much guarantee that some people are going to get screwed, even up to, sigh, children starving in the streets.


Life ain’t fair, and this notion that it’s somehow the government’s job to make life fair — thus abandoning the principle of Equality Before the Law — leads directly to tyranny:

  • There is no objective definition of “fair;”
  • Therefore, someone must be empowered to judge individual cases;
  • Anyone granted such power will abuse it;

And pretty soon we’re reduced to arguing whether that FEMA camp is a gulag, a workhouse, a concentration camp, or a thought reform center.

That’s really all there is to it.  People are what they are.  We can make up fancy theories about why this can’t happen, or that it’s actually fair, or how that guy really deserved his rubber hose time in a secret police dungeon, but at bottom there is only Reality.

Stop intellectualizing.  Stop over-thinking.  Stop rationalizing.  There is Reality, and there is Theory, and when the two conflict, Theory must yield to Reality.  You’ll find that’s true even in the gulag (thought reform center, whatever).  The way things are going, I’ll be in the next bunk over.

Nazi Fatigue

So Donald Trump is Hitler.  At least, that’s what you Lefties keep telling me.  Which is kinda strange when you think about it.  Didn’t George W. Bush — who was also Hitler — put y’all in labor camps back in 2003?  Did you get paroled or something?

But whatever.  As much as I enjoy watching you beclown yourselves, I’m going to give you some helpful advice: Nobody cares about Nazis anymore.

Seriously.  To have even experienced in any meaningful way a world with Hitler in it, you’d have to have been born in the 1930s.  To have had an informed, contemporary opinion on him, you’d need to have been born in the 1920s.  So if you’re not currently at least 80 years old, you don’t really know what you’re talking about when it comes to National Socialism.

To prove it to you, I’ll ask all of you, Left and Right, to tell me what, exactly, is so wrong with Nazism?  As we want to stick as closely as possible to the facts — we all fucking looove science, don’t we? — we’ll base our discussion on the 25 points of the Nazi Party, first put forth in 1920.  The original points are underlined; my commentary follows.

1. We demand the uniting of all Germans within one Greater Germany, on the basis of the right to self-determination of nations.  “The right to self-determination” was behind many of impeccably Progressive Woodrow Wilson’s 14 Points at Versailles; it was part of the Progressive catechism until very recently.  Ask Bill Clinton.

2. We demand equal rights for the German people (Volk) with respect to other nations, and the annulment of the peace treaty of Versailles and St. Germain.  See above, especially re: the Muslims in Serbia.

3. We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.  Overpopulation has been a Lefty bugbear since at least the 1970s.  Of course, these days they’d prefer there to be less population, period….

4. Only Nationals (Volksgenossen) can be Citizens of the State. Only persons of German blood can be Nationals, regardless of religious affiliation. No Jew can therefore be a German National.  Flip “German” and “Jew” in those sentences, and I’m pretty sure you have Israel’s immigration policy.

5. Any person who is not a Citizen will be able to live in Germany only as a guest and must be subject to legislation for Aliens.  C’mon, man, this is just common sense.  Which means the Left hates it, but if that’s all it takes to make one a Nazi, I think Captain America himself is in the SS.

6. Only a Citizen is entitled to decide the leadership and laws of the State. We therefore demand that only Citizens may hold public office, regardless of whether it is a national, state or local office.  Again, common sense.  Who knew the Nazis were so reasonable?

We oppose the corrupting parliamentary custom of making party considerations, and not character and ability, the criterion for appointments to official positions.  Adolf, meet the Pendleton Act.  I guess Chester Arthur was a Nazi, too (well, he was a Republican….)

7. We demand that the State make it its duty to provide opportunities of employment first of all for its own Citizens. If it is not possible to maintain the entire population of the State, then foreign nationals (non-Citizens) are to be expelled from the Reich.  Talk about bipartisan!  Yeah, Trump’s guys love the “expelled from the Reich” part, but that whole bit about the State’s duty to provide jobs…. pure Left.  Oh, and those jobs shall pay a minimum wage of $15/hr.

8. Any further immigration of non-Germans is to be prevented. We demand that all non-Germans who entered Germany after August 2, 1914, be forced to leave the Reich without delay.  Yep, that’s Trump all right.  One of eight so far.  Definitely a Nazi.

9. All German Citizens must have equal rights and duties.  I can see why the Left hates this one, since “duties” implies “responsibility,” which implies work, which no Special Snowflake will ever undertake voluntarily.  But who could be against equal rights?

10. It must be the first duty of every Citizen to carry out intellectual or physical work. Individual activity must not be harmful to the public interest and must be pursued within the framework of the community and for the general good.  See what I mean?  Who could be against this stuff?  I’m perfectly willing to consider the possibility that Wymyn’s Studies et al is “for the general good” and “not harmful to the public interest”…. if you can explain why, without jargon or snark.

We therefore demand:

11. The abolition of all income obtained without labor or effort.  Capital gains taxes, anyone?

Breaking the Servitude of Interest.  Wasn’t that “Occupy Wall Street’s” first demand, e.g. in regard to student loans?  I just knew those guys were fascists at heart.

12. In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.  Plus, that’d run Lockheed, Boeing, and General Dynamics out of business.  Right, hippies?

13. We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts).  I could swear I heard some white dude with dreadlocks demanding this just yesterday, down at the student union.

14. We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.  So do all their employees.

15. We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.  Get your government hands off my Medicare, Adolf!

16. We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community authorities.  “And the middle class” was the title of every Hillary Clinton campaign speech that wasn’t “Because Vagina.”

17. We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.  Cf. Occupy Wall St. and any and all “community organizers” in every inner city in America.

18. We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard to religion or race.  Speaking of Occupy Wall St…. I think “usurers, profiteers, etc.” describes student loan lenders, don’t you?

19. We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law.  “Special laws for special groups” is the cornerstone of Progressive jurisprudence.  Ask the Memories Pizza folks.

20. In order to make higher education – and thereby entry into leading positions – available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latters’ position or occupation.  Jesus, I think we should haul the OWS people up on plagiarism charges.  Of course, as “specially gifted children” — hoo boy are they special! — they’d probably get off, especially as they’re already sponging off the taxpayers.

21. The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievements of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people.  Insufficient.  Single payer now!!!

22. We demand the abolition of hireling troops and the creation of a national army. Not really relevant here, but it’s kinda funny hearing the Original Hessians griping about “hireling troops.”

23. We demand laws to fight against deliberate political lies and their dissemination by the press. In order to make it possible to create a German press, we demand:

a) all editors and editorial employees of newspapers appearing in the German language must be German by race;

b) non-German newspapers require express permission from the State for their publication. They may not be printed in the German language;

c) any financial participation in a German newspaper or influence on such a paper is to be forbidden by law to non-Germans and the penalty for any breach of this law will be the closing of the newspaper in question, as well as the immediate expulsion from the Reich of the non-Germans involved.  Fake news!!!!!

Newspapers which violate the public interest are to be banned. We demand laws against trends in art and literature which have a destructive effect on our national life, and the suppression of performances that offend against the above requirements.  Does Fox News violate the public interest?  Does NASCAR have a destructive effect on our national life?  Think carefully.

24. We demand freedom for all religious denominations, provided that they do not endanger the existence of the State or offend the concepts of decency and morality of the Germanic race.  No more Exploding Mohammeds?  I can live with that, and as a bone to the Left, y’all can ban Westboro Baptist.  Bipartisanship, baby!

The Party as such stands for positive Christianity, without associating itself with any particular denomination. It fights against the Jewish-materialistic spirit within and around us, and is convinced that a permanent revival of our nation can be achieved only from within, on the basis of: Public Interest before Private Interest.  Even ex-president Obama pretended to stand for positive Christianity, though of course without associating Himself with any particular denomination.  Especially not Jeremiah Wright’s hateful, anti-American denomination… at least, after He got caught, and long after Wright married him and baptized his children.  And as for that “Jewish-materialistic spirit” stuff, well, as I like to point out, “Berkeley or Nazi?” is a fun drinking game if all you’ve got is Drano cocktails.  Who was the bigger anti-Semite, Adolf or Rachel Corrie?  Or any one of the “anti-Zionist” loons you find at any large Leftie protest?

25. To carry out all the above we demand: the creation of a strong central authority in the Reich. Unquestioned authority by the political central Parliament over the entire Reich and over its organizations in general. The establishment of trade and professional organizations to enforce the Reich basic laws in the individual states.  And that strong central authority shall be… Barack Obama.  Is it still such a terrible awful no good very bad thing?

See what I mean?  By my rough count, any contemporary “conservative” could sign off on half that platform, and any modern “Progressive” would sign off on pretty much all of it.  Would y’all care to revise and extend your remarks, re: President Trump and National Socialism?

I Made Jim Give at the Office

So this meme post comes across my timeline when a friend commented on it.

I’ve seen it before.  But man.  It is so demonstrably untrue, this time I had to say something.

As with a lot of these things, there’s a lot missing. Of course conservatives care. They just don’t think they should be able to use the force of government to force anyone else to act like they care, and in what ways they must act like they care. Conservatives don’t typically have a need to be seen caring. They just do it.

To which one woman replied:

“Sorry. Cutting aid to starving children doesn’t seem like caring about anything but your own pocketbook.”

So I went on:

You talk as if aid is this thing that is just there in nature – like air, that everyone has a right to, and someone is taking it away.

It’s a matter of perspective. Aid should be given freely, not taken. When government is in charge of it, the only “taking” is done from the people who had it to begin with.

As if it is only aid if it came from the government. Well nothing comes from the government. Everything it has came from someone else (or will come from someone else, since it borrows heavily from our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ futures to pay for this aid in this generation).

And it is demonstrably untrue that conservatives don’t care and don’t give to charity. Conservatives give more to charity than liberals … here, a link from the definitively NOT conservative NYT on a study that surprised even the researcher. (note this is on TOP of what they are required to “give” through the government).

Political liberals are all about telling people how much of other people’s money people should get, but it apparently stops with supporting the mandates, not giving freely themselves.

“I’ll pass, I made Jim give at the office.”

Get this … here’s a real response I got.

Why are all of these trolls suddenly showing up on a Liberal FB page?? All of you need to leave us alone.

So you can be free to echo the hate you have based on demonstrably false premises without being challenged?  And we’re responsible for the divisiveness?

Happy Inauguration Day, Lefties!!

And as you desperately seek your Safe Spaces, remember — YOU made this happen.

If you hadn’t hurled yourselves lemming-like over the cliffs of cult-marx, identity politics insanity, dragging the unwilling nation kicking and screaming behind you, none of this would be happening.  While some Americans like Donald Trump’s policies and would’ve voted for him anyway, many more — many, many more — voted for him just to spite you.  Lots of us Deplorables are already calling the 2016 election The Great Fuck You, and we do mean you, Snowflake.  It’s all your fault.

It’s all your fault.

It’s all your fault.

So suck it, you petulant totalitarian losers.  All those precedents your president set?  They’re ours now.  That pen, that phone…  Donald Trump has one huge hand on each.

You did this, Snowflakes. And if we can’t make America great again, at least we can make you whiny little bitches suffer at least the smallest little bit of what we suffered these last eight years.  May you enjoy every single minute of it.

Zero Follow-Through

This started out as a reply to KR, below, but then it became a whole post, like so:

Lefties are like my golf shots: random, spastic, and painful to watch.  And part of the reason both suck is the same: poor follow-though.  For instance, KR tells the tale of a sad “gender-fluid” individual who insists on being called by plural pronouns, because “she (?) found gender pronouns profoundly upsetting.”  Calling her “her” is an affront to this kid’s identity…..

….BUT: If we grant that “gender identity” is

  • a) a primary component of one’s overall personal identity, and
  • b) completely malleable, and
  • c) a proper object for politics

— all of which this kid insists we do, whether or not she’d (be able to) articulate it like that — then what part of one’s identity isn’t?

Let’s say I start walking around campus, insisting that I’m no longer Severian, blogger extraordinaire, but Napoleon Bonaparte.  When people call me on this — “hey, so you decided to drop that stupid blog handle, eh?” — I insist that no no, I’m really Napoleon Bonaparte.  I was born on Corsica in 1769, I beat the Russians at Austerlitz, I revolutionized the French legal system, I schtupped Josephine on the regular, the works.

How is this any different than me declaring myself “gender-fluid” and insisting on going by “xyr”?

I know, I know, but try it.  Can you prove I’m not Napoleon?  How do we really know anything about the “historical” Napoleon, anyway?  History, after all, is a social construction like anything else, and is famously written by the winners.  By stating that Napoleon “died” in 1821, we’re really just affirming the existing power dynamics put forth by Prince Metternich, that cis/het/pat white bastard, at the Congress of Vienna.  And don’t you dare say that I’d be 248 years old if that were true, which is impossible — what are you, some kind of “age-ist”?  Nor can you appeal to DNA evidence — if Bruce Jenner is really a woman despite Y chromosomes and a full package, then the mismatch of my and Napoleon’s nucleotides is equally meaningless.  Oh, and don’t even think about suggesting schizophrenia as an explanation.  Is “gender dysphoria” — having all the outward signs of being one sex but knowing you’re the other — a mental illness?  Obviously not, you walking hate crime.  Thus I AM Napoleon, and I demand to be addressed as such.

“Your majesty” is acceptable, as is “your highness.”  You can call me the Little Corporal, but then I’d have to kill you.  And if you think this is satire, wait a few years.

Reductio ad Leftism

Stacy McCain has some questions for the radical feminists:

Any skeptic must ask, why are the categories of “man” and “woman” political? Why is there a quasi-Marxist “class struggle” between men and women,” what does it mean to describe heterosexuality as an “economic system,” and what manner of “society” could exist without heterosexuality?

Let me take a stab at answering them.  Now, obviously these are rhetorical questions — the answer, as McCain notes in the very next sentence, is: “Wittig’s purpose is to destroy “society” as it exists.”  What I want to do here is explore some of the “thought” process behind this rhetorical strategy, because trust me, your kids are getting this in college.

There’s a nugget of truth in every Big Idea Leftist academics (BIRM) have farted out over the last half century… so I guess technically it should be “sharted out,” but whatever, point is, all academic theorizing is a variation of Jon Stewart’s “clown nose on / clown nose off” rhetorical strategy.  Stewart makes some asinine fanservice remark, and if he gets too much blowback for being an obvious partisan hack, he says “oh lighten up, it was just a joke,” and points to his smirking fanbois as evidence.  If he doesn’t get called on it, though, he and all his fanbois repeat it over and over as if it’s a serious bit of political analysis, which enables them to claim that they’re Smarter and Better Informed Than You even though they get all their profound mindthoughts from a Comedy Central bobblehead.

Academia works the same way.  They like to pretend that everything, and I do mean everything, is words and nothing but words.  Which is tautologically true: Since we can only think in words, words are necessarily what we think in.  So what happens if we change the words?

No, seriously.  Maybe you weren’t a huge nerd as a teenager, but trust me, this stuff is catnip to a certain kind of dork who thinks he’s way smarter than he actually is.  Normies see you calling a rabbit a smeerp and laugh, because hey, it’s still just a rabbit.  But playing with words does change your perceptions.  Consider these definitions of “human being:”

  • A human being is a rational animal, the only known rational animal in the universe.
  • A human being is a great ape, halfway in size between a chimpanzee and a gorilla.

Both equally true, but oh what a difference!  Clown nose off, this is persuasion, a selective presentation of facts towards a rhetorical end.  Clown nose on, and in comes the unstated but lethally important qualifier, the suggestion of which is the whole point of the exercise:  “A human being is nothing but a great ape.”

So the tautology

  • “as we can only think in words, we think in words”

becomes, clown nose on,

  • “as we can only think in words, words mediate our interaction with reality”

which with the addition of some baggy pants, floppy shoes, and a seltzer horn, becomes

  • “as words mediate our interaction with reality, words create our reality.”

which of course is logically equivalent to

  • “reality itself is nothing but words.”

And boom, you’re a Social Justice Warrior.*  My preferred pronouns are “xyr” and “jermajesty.”


Should anyone challenge you on this… well, since you usually only hear stuff like this in the academy, what you do is fail ’em and report ’em to the Dean for hate speech.  But if someone on the Board of Regents, say, asks you — pink slip in hand — if you’re really teaching undergrads that reality itself is nothing but words, you take the clown nose off and say oh no, of course not, we’re only teaching that words influence perception.

And that’s how you get feminists asserting that “man” and “woman” are political, that there’s a class struggle between them, et cetera ad nauseam.  It’d make your eyes bleed to do this for every item on the list, but here’s a brief e.g.:

“Masculinity,” say, is both DEscriptive and PREscriptive.  When we define behavior X as “masculine,” we’re saying “X is what real men do;” at the same time, we’re also saying “if you want to be considered a real man, do X.”  And who is this “we”?  Why, the community of language-users, of course.  And since that community changes, the sense of the word also changes — the Vikings had a word for “masculine,” no doubt, but it meant something very different than the English word.  Which means notions like “masculinity” are (nothing but) “social constructions;” they change as society changes.  And how does society change?  Via politics, of course, since “politics” is defined as the interplay of personal preferences in the public sphere.  Thus words like “man” and “woman” are, at bottom, political categories.  You and I and my prison gang voted; you’re the woman.

Feel free to take the final exam: If social life is nothing but economics — which follows, clown nose on, from the observation that people exchange stuff for other stuff — you should easily be able to deduce why heterosexuality is an economic system, and thus explain the quasi-Marxist class war between the sexes.

Yes, they really do think like this.  They have to — without the notion that life itself is nothing but words, Leftism will always founder on Reality’s rocks.  I’ve given you the academic version, but you can see it everywhere these days.  It’s why the Cult will never give up on the idea that Putin hacked the election, for example — if he didn’t, then the American people really did prefer Trump to their terrible, horrible, no good very bad candidate Hillary, which is unpossible.  So they’ll keep repeating it until it’s true, and it will be true — until the last remnants of the USA are overrun by superintelligent apes, it’ll be a true fact that everyone knows Putin hacked the election for Trump.  Because if you can just get enough people to repeat if for long enough, reality itself will conform to your magic, magic words, because after all, since we can only think in words, words mediate our interaction with….




*The Six Readers will undoubtedly recognize this as The Gem, aka The Worst Argument in the World.  I seriously can’t recommend David Stove enough to y’all.