Sunday, August 7, 2016

Fast thoughts 8/8/16

* I'm ambivalent about the rise of Erdogan and the whiff of the death of Turkey as the Great Muslim Example for the west. On the one hand, I've got no great love of Islam. On the other, I have no great love of secularism either - especially not what I take to be Ataturk-style utter worship of secular ideals. The alt-right involves a lot of disdain for Islam, but equal disdain for SJWs and cucks. But SJWs and cucks are more dire threats to the West than Islam is - and they are secular, even irreligious, through and through. I don't care what Erdogan does, for the most part, so long as he does it inside of his borders. The guy certainly seems popular enough.

* I notice the embers of Nevertrump still burn. To be expected, sure. What surprises me are the Christians who are particularly incensed against him, and it typically comes down heavily to 'He's not nearly as excited about foreign wars as we like' and 'He's not NEARLY reliable on free trade as we like'. That they tend to express this with a surprisingly left-wing focus - 'Trump's so racist! He's so sexist! Building a wall is racist! Deportation is racist!' - says a lot. At this point I wonder if we're not witnessing a re-alignment of our political parties, along the lines of the Democrats becoming abortion-fanatical, sexual-monstrosity-obsessed SJWs with a big love of corporations. More proof that God has a sense of humor.

* Asians who try mightily to be considered as a 'People of Color' victim class always stand out like a sore thumb, and they always will. From the worldwide success of asian cultures to the success of asians in the US, they're - across ethnicities - the embarrassing race, the exception that doesn't prove the rule, but destroys it. Watching them try to complain about their treatment - 'white people think we're so smart and responsible and well-mannered, it's oppressive!' - comes across more like a Monty Python sketch lampooning the very idea. The one legitimate negative stereotype asians have - "Small dicks" - also happens to be the last thing any of them want to ever discuss. Not exactly the sort of thing you want on the banner under your image on CNN.

* Lauren Southern is a frightening woman. I mean that in a positive way. Cute, slender female running around throwing herself into the thick of liberal protests and visiting crazy immigrant enclaves while being some right-wing scion? She's one of a handful of women who actually kind of confound me because they're just too aggressive. (Hillary Clinton doesn't make this list, and frankly I'll be impressed if she finishes this election without shitting her pantsuit on camera. She's just a puppet.)

* I would love to see a poll conducted where they found out how many men and women would admit to being sexually aroused by and welcoming of things that various people regard as blatant sexual assault. 'Do you like being woken up being fondled by your spouse or SO?' I suspect the numbers are higher than anyone wants to admit.

* I don't mean to shit on anyone's parade, but isn't the very idea of masturbating to pornography kind of... fucked up? Put the sensible religious aspect aside, and even the straightforward Thomist views. 'Masturbating while watching other people have sex'? I can see why people once upon a time thought of this as mental illness to be nipped in the bud. Conversely, while Japan's lost all interest in sex, I notice they have -not- lost an interest in porn. There's a conversation no one wants to talk about. Still, I imagine it's not going to be long before feminist thinkers start openly talking about how masturbating while thinking about a woman is idealization of rape. We'll see how well that ship sails.

* It turns out that 'How Hillary Clinton is like your abuela' thing could have potentially been accurate. 'She has alzheimers and she can't even walk upstairs on her own' would have nailed it.

* Isn't Bernie Sanders just the most pathetic figure in this entire election? I mean Jeb! was hard to top, but holy shit, that guy. I don't even have additional commentary, I'm just amazed at what a loser he was from start to finish, which is made all the more amazing by how close he came to winning the nomination.

8 comments:

B. Prokop said...

"What surprises me are the Christians who are particularly incensed against him"

I am a Christian, and I am most certainly against Trump... but not because of any "political" reasons. My reasons for opposing him are totally concerned with character. Trump is arrogant, a blowhard, and narcissistic. He is a bully and a boor, a name-caller and a belittler. He is thin-skinned and impulsive - quick to attack any and all who do not fawn all over him. He apparently has no self control, no inner voice telling him to keep silent when silence is appropriate. He displays a total lack of empathy for anyone. He has built his fortune on sin (rather like the Taliban who finance their "holy wars" by selling dope to the West). He is the builder of casinos and strip clubs. Trump is a serial adulterer, who boasts of the fact! He has a track record of stiffing his contractors and scamming his customers (e.g., the Trump "University"). He shows a frightening admiration for tyrants and strongmen overseas, to include Putin, Kim Jong-Un, and even Saddam Hussein. And speaking of Putin, just what is in those tax returns? Is there an all-too-close relationship between Trump, Inc. and the Russian Oligarchy?

And don't get me started on Trump's blasphemy, or his belief that he has no need for God's forgiveness.

Note how nothing I wrote above is in the least bit "political". You don't need to bring in foreign wars, or trade policy, or any political issue at all, to regard him as a Bad Man, totally unfit for the presidency.

Crude said...

Let me rephrase that, Bob:

I'm surprised that Christians who have not displayed a lifelong tolerance for the party of abortion and gay marriage are against him. Christians who have a supreme tolerance for atheists (so long as they're the good kind of atheists, aka -leftist- atheists), for abortion, for gay marriage, for racism in the form of racial quotas and anti-white diatribes, for corruption? Yeah, that's not news.

You don't need to bring in foreign wars, or trade policy, or any political issue at all, to regard him as a Bad Man, totally unfit for the presidency.

You actually do, for a simple reason.

His opposition is Hillary Clinton. Who is guilty of everything you've mentioned, or worse.

Arrogant, blowhard and narcissistic? Hello 'first female president', constantly talking up her accomplishments despite not having any other than 'able to avoid prison time despite everything from leaking state secrets to getting innocents killed through a mix of malice and incompetence'.

She's a bully, a name caller and a belittler. She doesn't just criticize those who oppose her - she attempts to ruin them.

She is corrupt beyond belief. Trump made billions via real estate. Hillary made hers giving speeches to globalists and foreign nations, enriching herself to sell favors to people who kill Christian converts as a matter of public policy. She shipped weapons to ISIS, and helped create them. When muslims kill in the name of Islam, she not only defends them - she demands to import them by the tens of thousands.

Her husband is a serial adulterer and a rapist, whose crimes she has invested in covering up throughout the years. And blasphemy? She's an abortion hound, who has expressed every intention to attack churches even more for resisting it.

So, on every score, Clinton is worse. And since we have only Clinton and Trump to choose between, I choose the guy who's an asshole but whose commitments are for the betterment of this country, not its destruction.

That said, I support Jill Stein in her candidacy, as I agree with you that it's imperative to create a viable, thriving third party alternative for the left-wing.

The Deuce said...

What makes Lauren Southern frightening isn't just that she's aggressive, but the way she enjoys direct in-person confrontation. She doesn't so much overcome fear of confrontation as she appears to not have any fear of it to overcome in the first place. And she's not angry or screechy about it like more confrontational feminists are either. Rather, she seems to experience it as a thoroughly fun and enjoyable game when (for instance) some loon responds to her in-real-life trolling by losing his temper and tossing piss at her. That's an extremely rare trait in anyone, especially a woman.

malcolmthecynic said...

I think, right now, that Trump's policies are best for the country long term.

He's the right guy for the moment, but I wouldn't want him as Emperor.

Crude said...

Malcolm,

I agree. He's also one of the few who was willing to stand up the way he did, getting the fire he received.

I'd say that the people screaming about the desire for a Constitutionalist don't seem to understand that they are very few in number, but I also suspect many of them don't care. Trump worries them for other reasons.

Andrew said...

Crude, I stopped taking the Constitutionalists seriously last fall when they all coalesced around the 'brilliant' Cruz and then immediately engaged in pretzel logic (one might say Ginsburg logic) to justify the whole born in Canada thing.

Crude said...

Andrew,

I never looked too deeply into that, so I can't comment. But one problem I have with 'Constitutionalist' arguments - especially in this context - is that a single man who is a Constitutionalist doesn't mean a thing. To hear people talk, all that's been missing up until this point is one man with some *really good legal arguments*. A person who thinks that's the problem in front of us just isn't going to fly. Not in a culture where Hillary can commit crimes and not be charged because, darn it, she's just too big, and Obamacare can evade getting struck down because, darn it, it's just too important, and more.

The Practical Conservative said...

The same people are against implementing Glenn Reynolds' lawfare ideas, though, which are, y'know, using really good legal arguments.

I think a lot of this is because there are lots of conservatives who became lawyers back when the lawfare field was more even a playing ground. HSLDA could never have gotten homeschool-friendly legislation through or won its many victories if it was trying to get going today. But if you became a lawyer in even 1987, you can't get that it's radically changed in the last twenty years (essentially post internet, it was not great in the 1970s and 1980s, but there was still some pretense of fair play in many arenas).