Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Merry Christmas!

Have a good holiday.

Thursday, December 17, 2015

Did the Cultists of Gnu learn anything?

Having a pleasant discussion with John Mitchell in the comments. I now wonder if a sizable amount of Gnus are ready to realize that New Atheism was a bad idea. It didn't go a decade before being subverted by SJWs, who turned out to be a far bigger, far more proximate threat to atheists than Christianity has been in centuries.

Is it possible? Do they recognize this?

I wonder.

In light of the recent budget that was passed...

...Would anyone taking the 'I'd rather win with Rubio or Jeb thank lose and get Hillary!' line care to defend that position to me again?

Tell me the value of party loyalty again. I gave that up many a year ago, but now would be quite a good time to try and sell me on its value once more.

Edit: By the way, what is this bull:
“In terms of the process, I can tell you I’ve had more meaningful conversations with the speaker and leadership in the last couple of weeks than I think I have in the last couple of years,” said Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), who instigated the revolt against Speaker John Boehner that led to Boehner’s resignation this fall. “I would give it an A-plus in terms of trying to reach out to the rank and file.”
I'm glad you felt like he was really listening to you, Rep Meadows. I mean, that's why we ousted Boehner. Because you felt like you weren't really being given enough attention. Which really, like, sucks, because you're a cheerleader too.

This is what's being discussed, right? Being part of a cheerleader squad and getting snubbed by the more popular girls on the team? Because that's what it sounds like.

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Peggy Noonan stars in ad encouraging the use of 'Cuckservative'


Alright, not intentionally. But the effect is the same.

That hesitant stammer is all you need to see why it's both the term of choice by a significant portion of the right, and also a term which sends many self-described conservatives through the roof when it's used. If you think this is just a case of the very mild-mannered and softspoken Peggy Noonan simply being unable to handle foul language, I suggest you look at how Nick Searcy reacts to the term. Even if you agree with him and disagree with Vox, 'batshit' accurately describes his reaction to its use.

I have no sympathy for the people who hate the use of 'cuckservative'. Anti-immigration conservatives have been attacked for years - including by 'fellow conservatives' - using language that's just as toxic and demeaning. If they didn't want the debate to stoop to this level, they should have unleashed their hostility back when people opposed to massive immigration were being called racists, or told that they were afraid of immigrants 'stealin' their wimmenz'. They didn't, as now the debate is gutter-worthy on both sides.

I do regard it as a shame that it's come to this. Sure, I can be as foul-mouthed as anyone else, but I prefer to talk about things sensibly whenever possible. I recognize that once you deploy language like this, the dialectic ship has sailed - at least in that particular conversation. But watching demi-conservatives demand that everyone cease and desist from using the term cuckservative, after years of them belittling and brutally mocking immigration opponents, RINO opponents and (most recently) Trump supporters in some of the foulest terms?

See, that's a bit like watching a schoolyard bully pick on a kid with a stutter for years. Laughing at him whenever he tries to speak, mockingly imitating him, doing his damndest to make the kid break down in tears or shut up altogether. Then one day the kid with the stutter figures out - that bully? He got molested by the football coach once. And it turns out stutter-kid can do a hilarious imitation of that, one that makes the bully really lose his shit. So much so that the bully runs to the principal, begging and demanding that stutter-kid never, ever, ever be allowed to make fun of him, because that hurts and is so personal - while, you know, the whole 'stuttering' thing is fair game.

I should be sympathetic to the bully here?

Yeah, that's not happening.

Monday, December 14, 2015

Gambling on Trump.

When people talk to me about Trump, what they don't seem to get is that there's two aspects of my support for the man.

The first is the practical, here-and-now dividends I think Trump's existence in the race is paying in the culture wars. As someone who has spent a good chunk of his life watching 'conservatives' cower in fear of the dreaded 'racist' label - leading to act upon act of groveling, whimpering, and betrayal - I regard Trump's candidacy as a windfall. Not a potential windfall, should he win office. A real, honest-to-God bolt of electricity that has made given life and energy to nationalists and cultural defenders. The effect Trump is having on discussions about the border, about nationalism, about immigration, about #blacklivesmatter, is tremendous. Even if Trump is lying about every position he holds, even if he's just some kind of Manchurian candidate who is going to turn into Bernie Sanders if he wins, the value of his willingness to stand up defiantly against everyone from the media to the GOP establishment is incredible.

But the second reason? I regard him as a worthy gamble. Look - I'm not so naive as to think that Trump is a hardcore right-wing nationalist who was only pretending to be a left-of-the-road New Yorker all these years. It's a nice fantasy, but it's not something I'd bet much money on. People say 'Trump is a salesman - a good one! He'll say anything to get elected. But he's not guaranteed to do what he says!' think they're selling me a reason not to endorse him, but instead they're actually coming close to a major reason I support him: that he seems like a political wildcard.

I know what I'm going to get with Hillary Clinton. Wall Street servitude, leftist social issues and appeasement to an increasingly delirious SJW and corrupted culture. Not interested.

However, the GOP isn't much better. Remember that Trump rose to prominence when Jeb! was supposed to be the anointed candidate, and Rubio was considered to be the backup plan. Oh boy, a State of the Union address probably delivered in Spanish, amnesty, and yet more betrayal on every issue I consider worthwhile. On the upside, I'd be sure to see tax cuts on multinational corporations that do things like demand states veto their religious rights bills or forbid the presence of a confederate flag in their stores, and nominating SCOTUS justices like those famous GOP nominees, Kennedy and Souter.

How can I pass that up? Goodness. Yet somehow, I find it in me to pass.

Some people are bewildered about this, and take two tacks with me.

First is, 'What Trump is saying is racist. He's making us look bad. He's ruining the GOP brand. This is going to hurt our outreach with hispanics and blacks and women, running a guy like this.' To this I can simply say, nothing he's said is racist, and this kind of perpetual fear - and this belief that the only route available is amnesty for illegals, open borders, and cultural surrender on every point - no longer is something I'll entertain. Been there, done that. If you tell me that the American right has no power or will to do anything but roll over, but hopefully pass some tax cuts on the way, then 'let it burn' becomes to me the moderate position. 'Pour gas on the fire' will be my preference, and President Sanders can work his magic.

Second is, 'I'd rather at least get 3% of what I want with a President Rubio than 0% with a President Hillary.' This is usually offered up as the wise, crafty approach: 3% > 0%, ergo, this is the path of wisdom. Once again: if these are the scraps we're fighting over, then to hell with the project. And don't tell me we're laying the foundations for future successes by being pragmatic now. I lived through the GOP holding the senate, the house, and the presidency at once, and it holds two of those things now. Nothing of lasting value was accomplished, and it's because what I regard as valuable, the GOP kingmakers regard as toxic.

Again, no thanks. With Trump, I get to roll the dice, and I pick up some nice cultural victories on the way - something which actually may result in people building upon them, with a bit of luck. If the modern GOP is destroyed in the process, well - little of value will have been lost. In the meantime, I'm starting to like this recent turn of events, where ideas like 'American interests come before foreign ones', 'Illegal immigrants should be sent packing', 'Blacklivesmatter is a farce' and more are said on TV and defended openly, rather than whispered on blogs. I think I'd rather live my life standing by these values - even if they tarnish that precious GOP 'brand' - rather than pretending that, good golly, what would really benefit this country is a few million Syrians and 20 million H1-B visas.

Sunday, December 13, 2015

Dinesh D'Souza shows why cowardice is a SJW virtue.


Basically, because this sort of thing would happen otherwise.

I've called Dinesh D'Souza the Scrappy Doo of apologists, and I stand by that while extending it to political debate as well. He's animated and excitable. He's cocky. He's on the small side, both in terms of notoriety and stage presence. He, frankly, seems like the sort of guy who isn't going to do all that well in a dustup.

Then remember that this is a guy who managed to hand not just Daniel Dennett, but Christopher Hitchens their heads in an onstage conflict.

Because Scrappy Doo there, for all his excitability and energy and seeming naivete, is crafty. And not just crafty: relentless. Other debaters will usually be content to leave their opponent with a question they can't answer, and hope that the lingering sense of puzzlement in the air will suffice to make their point. They are satisfied with drawing blood. D'Souza prefers to go in for a kill when the opportunity is there. And in this case, it was.

Now, it's easy to watch this and feel a bit bad for the student. Yes, he got rolled. He was left standing up there, dumbfounded, clearly looking for help and coaching that was never going to arrive. What could anyone say? That no, he deserved to keep his privilege?

When you realize that SJWs are typically made up of well-off white children, you can easily see one reason why a frantic avoidance of engagement at any cost is sanctified, blessed and encouraged.

No one wants to be this guy. And yet, barring a severely stacked deck, this - or some form of it - is easily what they can become if they argue with the wrong person openly.

Intellectual Cowardice: A SJW Virtue

While people love to mock SJWs for their timidity and cowardice - their need of 'safe spaces', their mortal fear of intellectual opposition - what many fail to realize is that SJWs consider their frailty a virtue, not a vice.

The inability to encounter an idea without feeling physically ill is considered praiseworthy. Being unable to finish - or even start - a book they disagree with is a sign of moral development. If you're capable of reading things you deeply disagree with without being shaken to your core, the SJW regards you as at best an oddity, and at worst, somehow deficient. And if you regard a Wrongthink book as containing valid points (however few) that don't fit neatly with your own, you are not a thoughtful or open-minded person. You are morally deficient, and quite possibly a threat to everyone else by virtue of what thoughts you're willing to entertain, even if you thoroughly reject them.

In the SJW world, the proper reaction to dissent is not argument, or even rejection. It is stomach-twisting, incapacitated terror.


Thursday, December 10, 2015

Secular leftists are worse than militant muslims

Just so my position is clear. I'm all in favor of a ban of muslim immigration into the US, and a ban on immigration in general for a long time. But yes, I regard secular leftists as hardly better than modern muslims. They share in common similar desires to control speech, to nose their way into everyone's life, to aggressively convert, and more. Muslims make Christians pay the jizya, which is hardly different from fines for failing to make a same-sex wedding cake, or for refusing to pay for your employees' abortion and condoms.

In fact, the jizya is better - that's not designed with the intention of forcing compliance.

People will object strenuously that muslim extremists kill people. True. But so do leftists when the chips are down, and the typical secular leftist boosts abortion - and if we use that as reference for the body count, there's really no comparison.

Book Recommendation, Review to Follow




I'll be getting a fuller book review soon, but for now I'll just flat out recommend this book. If you're a conservative who is wondering why you've felt strangely abandoned by the politicians who are supposed to 'be on your side', this gives a nice diagnosis of the problem.

I hope Vox writes 'Churchians' next.

Wednesday, December 9, 2015

They're Finally Starting to Get Trump

At National Review, of all places - the premier cuckservative nest.
Critically, the Overton Window was smashed not by a politician but by a very American hybrid of corporate/entertainment titan — a man rich and powerful enough to be immune to elite condemnation and famous enough to dominate the news media. How many people can commandeer live television simply by picking up the phone and calling in? How many politicians can cause Twitter to detonate seemingly at will?  
While many of Trump’s actual proposals are misguided, nonsensical, or untenable, by smashing the window, he’s begun the process of freeing the American people from the artificial and destructive constraints of Left-defined discourse. Serious and substantive politicians like Ted Cruz will get a more respectful hearing, and PC shibboleths about allegedly boundless virtues of Islam and immigration will be treated with the skepticism they deserve.
Of course, French goes on to say that 'Trump should not rule the world he made'. But who should replace him? Marco fucking Rubio? Jeb!? Someone else with a golden leash around their neck, answering to donors with the same sympathies they've always had, but perhaps singing a different tune? Should we trust National Review's judgment, after they spent months trying desperately to protect the Overton Window they now praise the destruction of?

I'll gamble on Trump, thank you very much. Since he, you know - actually accomplished all this.

Come to think of it, all of the successes worth talking about lately have come from the section of the right that 'proper' conservatives and Republicans hate. Outfits like Breitbart. Writers like Milo 'Flamingly Gay Catholic' Yiannapolous. Vox Day, while he's promoting the Cuckservative label that -outrages- Republicans. Taki's Mag, home to guys like Derbyshire, who were ejected from National Review because liberals complained.

Meanwhile, in the mainstream right, Jeb Bush can speak in Spanish and Marco Rubio's young and peppy. How could I ever pass up that action?

Somehow, I'll find a way to do just that. And you should too.


Wednesday, December 2, 2015

Suddenly, this shooting is no big deal anymore!

Man, that narrative changed quick, didn't it?

That was building into quite the 'We must pass gun control NOW, because stopping shootings like these is of the utmost importance!' talk, right up until the moment one of the shooters' name was revealed as 'Saheed Farook'.

Now, what's really going to be stressed is that it's of the utmost importance not to blow this out of proportion, and the biggest mistake we could make is to maybe put a hold on immigration from muslim countries. We should view this as an isolated tragedy, perhaps a result of anti-muslim rhetoric.