Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Upside Down World

This latest episode of Non sequitur by Wiley Miller at first glance appears to be reasonable. It's making fun of a ridiculous policy that does not seem to make sense at all.

That is, until you consider that it is in response to the ridiculous idea that a guy with a penis and testicles is a woman if he - oops, "she" - feels like one.

That Wiley Miller sees nothing ridiculous about a "woman" with a penis and testicles speaks volumes about the sickness of our society.

That is all.

Monday, June 20, 2016

On (((Jews))) - (E(Jews)E), (B(Jews)B), and (R(Jews)R)

Being somewhat connected with alt-right (don't know if I am alt-right, neoreactionary, etc. or what. Don't really care which label fits me), it has come to my attention that there is a lot of discussion about the role that Jews play in the current anti-white (anti-white Gentile, anyway) fever.

Thinking about things, I have come to a conclusion.

I think that most Jews who take an interest in internal European and America politics can be divided into one of three camps:

The Jewish establishment. JewE, if you will. These are the people who lead the big, well-funded groups, as well as those who actively agree with them. These largely do to one extent or another fit the stereotype of the guy who wants to tear down white Gentile/Christian culture wherever it exists, and do see racial minorities and third-worlders as weapons to be used against white Gentiles. Examples would be Abe Foxman, Barbara Lerner Spectre, and Chuck Schumer. Other examples would be Paul Singer and Sheldon Adelson, but Adelson's recent willingness to support Trump has opened the possibility that he might be willing to prioritize other things over inundating the U.S. with human flotsam and jetsam.

Blue-pill Jews. Basically, these are rank-and-file Jews who more or less follow JewE, but largely out of inertia, out of an assumption that they are looking out for their best interests, or other mundane reasons. There is no active hatred of Christians or white Gentiles, although there may be a back-of-the mind fear that drives them to the establishment for protection. I don't know if I have that many examples, because by definition I am mostly talking about people who are not setting agendas but following others.

Red-pill Jews. These are Jews who realize that Western culture is a good thing, and to the extent they are ethnocentric, as good for the Jews, and either see Jewish culture (and Israel) as part of the west or as symbiotic with the west. They see Islam as the great threat, and see white Gentiles as being, on the whole, friends or potential friends. I would include bloggers Nicholas Stix, The Mad Jewess, Mickey Kaus, and Ilana Mercer among this number.

I think that with the increasing Muslim population, Europe's Jews are increasingly getting red-pilled.

In many ways, American Jews are sort of like the GOP in 2004 - rot at the establishment top, lots of people following "their team," and only a few really caring about the problems that they are heading into.

So, if you want to use the ((())) symbols around Jewish people, may I suggest (E()E) for Establishment types (I sort of like the name "JewE"), (B()B) for blue-pill types (largely the only (B()B) types that would be prominent enough to mention would be "man on the street" interviewees or maybe someone who once wrote a letter to the editor), and (R()R) for red-pill types.

That is all.

Sunday, May 22, 2016

The Best Quote from "A Few Good Men"

Capt. West: Commander Galloway, why don't you get yourself a cup of coffee.
Galloway: Thank you, sir, I'm fine.
Capt. West: Commander, I'd like you to leave the room so we can talk about you behind your back.
Galloway: Certainly, sir.

That is all.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Recall Grover Norquist

Dear readers:

I should have dealt with this earlier, but, if you are a fully paid Life Member of the NRA or have been a member for 5 straight years, you can vote for their board of directors and should have received a ballot in the MArch 2016 magazine.

In the ballot is a recall measure for Grover Norquist, due to his alleged connections to groups that are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Regardless of the veracity of these charges, Norquist is a known proponent of amnesty (see him promote the "Gang of Eight" bill here), which would destroy our gun rights by changing the electorate.

I remember calling the NRA and urging them to take a stand on the Gang of Eight bill. They declined, unlike Gun Owners of America (guess which one will and which one will not be getting my donations in the future). Maybe Norquist is part of the reason why they don't see immigration as affecting gun rights?

Anyway, I encourage you to mail in a "Yes" vote to recall Norquist. Remember, it has to be received by (not maild by, received by) Saturday, May 1.

That is all.

Tuesday, February 09, 2016

The Point of "Cuckservative"

Someone on Twitter asked me what the point of name-calling, e.g. "cuckservative" is. Won't the term simply alienate people instead of change their minds?

I think this misses a vital point. While there are people who are mistaken on the amnesty question and on racial questions in general (that is, they think that aping the liberals is going to help the Republicans win, or believe that the liberal paradigm for race relations, e.g. "denouncing white privilege" is correct, there are many who are simply cowards who would sell anything out not to be called racist, or who are taking positions to please donors and who do not actually take their positions based on well-considered morality.

The point in such cases is two-fold; first, to counter the idea that hating your own people in the name of "equality" is a good thing. For someone to celebrate the idea that their ethnic group is going to become a minority in a country they created is insane. It is not something that anyone has done throughout history or that it is assumed to be normal that someone does. When someone says that it is racist to be against an immigration policy specifically because it will make whites a minority in the United States, the best response is to point out how ludicrous it is to call someone a name for wanting to keep the majority population of America what it has always been (more or less, obviously we are not going to revert to the WASPiness of the 18th and 19th centuries). The point is to have a counter-insult to racist.

The point also is to point out that many of these "conservatives" are determined to pander to those who hate them. They will reach across the aisle to Democrats who are not willing to reach back in return (note how all the Democrats in lockstep refused to defund Obama's executive amnesty), and are constantly trying to find ways to reach out to minority communities that have no interest in voting for anyone who does not support a generous welfare state and affirmative action, and more-or-less become a Democrat, while ignoring reaching out to their mostly white base. In other words, the term refers largely to "conservatives": who are desperate for approval by liberals and who will concede whatever they need to in order to get approval.

Note how in 2012 the Romney campaign was more interested in reaching out to blacks and Latinos than in trying to reach out to the disaffected Paul voters who were concerned about interventionist foreign policy.

"Cuck" is an appropriate term, because it suggests a hatred or indifference to one's own blood, and to one's own friends, while supporting those who have no interest in being friends. The point of the term, when used amongst allies, is to remind one's self of what the problem with the traitors within are. When used at others as an insult, the goal is to make "cuckish" behavior as unacceptable as "racism." Maybe we will alienate people, and maybe people will embrace the term. But long-term, the effect will be the same as the term "racist." People will try to deny that they are "cucks" as as people realize that they cannot escape disapproval by conceding to liberals.

The idea, in short, is to reverse the dominant paradigm of political discourse, which always favors liberals.

The fact of the matter is, the current immigration debate reflects an America that is being cuckolded; its people are being replaced by foreigners, whose children we are told we must support. As a Steve Sailer commenter pointed out in 2014, we lack a vocabulary to describe this, and so we are defenseless to stop it. The term "cuckold" isn't even in popular circulation to describe literal individual cuckolding, and we are supposed to think it fine to force a man to pay child support for the product of a wife's infidelity, with absolutely no negative consequences for the faithless wife. Terms such as "cuckservative" are a way of regaining that vocabulary, and of trying to reframe the debate on terms that are (a) favorable to conservatives, and (b) reflect the unstated realities of our current situation.

That is all.

Monday, November 23, 2015

Terrorism is Only Secondarily a Foreign-Policy Issue

Articles like this one by the Christian Science Monitor usually involve the Conventional Wisdom types expressing surprise that after the Paris attacks, in a time of crisis, people are still flocking to Trump and not to the "moire serious" candidates such as Jeb or Marco (to be fair, Ted Cruz is also sometimes mentioned).

Whiole Greg Sargent does not express any surprise over it, he also to some extent misdiagnoses the problem as being entirely due to Trump's "strong man" image; that is, people care less about policy than about the fact he makes a big noise about it.

There is a more important point, though, that I think most people are not getting. Most pundits, and many politicians, insist on seeing the Paris attacks and terrorism in general as primarily an issue of foreign policy; we are being attacked by a foreign power and need to retaliate; we need to conquer the foreign power that is attacking us.

In reality, the problem is the enemy within; many western countries have large, unassimilated, and unassimilating Muslim populations. When we are told that most of the Paris attacks were carried out by French and Belgian nationals, the media try to distinguish them from immigrants in order to make us believe that the problem is our own people; in reality, what it proves is that the enemy has infiltrated us. But there is an importance to the distinction; it's not that immigrants are not dangerous; it is that the problem with Muslim immigrants is not merely one of whether individuals have terrorist ties, it is whether or not people of Muslim background are likely to become, in essence, fifth columnists in the future. In other words, there is an explicitly racial/cultural/religious angle to the political question of immigration, and more importantly, IT IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE FOR THERE TO BE A RACIAL/CULTURAL/RELIGIOUS ANGLE.

What we are getting from the "serious people" is that the primary solution here is to destroy ISIS and other radicals at the source and to remove their threat. While definitely this is a part of the war on terror, it is unclear whether this will accomplish anything as long as we are letting millions of Muslims into the West, many of whom share, if not the exact ideology of ISIS, ideologies of conquest that are just as deadly to western civilization.

And the problem here is that among the most ardent hawks are also those who most want vastly increase immigration (e.g. Marco Rubio, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Kelly Ayotte, Bob Corker, George W. Bush, Jeb Bush). The fact of the matter is, the most effective way "not to fight the terrorists here" is NOT TO BRING THEM HERE, and "fighting them over there" is a secondary tactic.

After 9/11, we were assured by all of the usual suspects that illegal aliens were "willing workers" and that we should distinguish between desperately needed low-pay farmworkers and people with bombs strapped to them or some such. The point being that controlling our borders was not a good way to keep terrorists out, so instead of course we ought to focus on fighting wars in the Middle East. Many came to feel that these wars at least in part served as a distraction to stop the public from demanding actual homeland security policies that dealt with the immigration angle. Being asked to have security guards look at you naked is not too high a price to pay for security, but not letting American corporations get foreign labor for a dollar less an hour is off the table.

What we are getting from Trump is someone who is talking about protecting the homeland first and foremost. He was talking about immigration before any of the other candidates made it a big deal. People sense that he is interested in avoiding Islamic terrorism via immigration policy to a greater extent than any other candidate, and therefore they flock to him, not to "serious" candidates like Rubio, whose Gang of Eight bill would have vastly increased immigration, including giving administrations far more leeway in granting refugee and asylum claims. Almost certainly the Gang of Eight bill would have brought more Muslims into the United States. So no one trusts Rubio. Similarly, Bush's love of immigrants over and above American citizens makes people distrust him on this issue.

In other words, Trump is dealing with the issue that most Americans think is most behind the terrorist attacks. Being a "serious candidate" means dealing primarily with an issue that most Americans think is at best a back-up to the primary issue and at worst a distraction. Hence Trump's success.

That is all.
There was an error in this gadget