Thoughts on Reactionary Blogosphere

Saturday Audience Participation

The Saturday Guest Post has been postponed until later this week. I received a personal e-mail from someone I consider a "race realist" luminary and I'm waiting for confirmation that I may post his e-mail. Feel free to guess who it is in the comments.

With the release of Obama's actual birth certificate (assuming it's real), Donald Trump has gleefully deemed himself the primary cause. While Trump's self-aggrandizement and assuredness know no bounds, we probably should give him most of the credit for finally getting this issue resolved. So if we do consider this a victory for Trump, one notes how a primarily online movement, which the mainstream deigned to cover and only dishonestly, got a big-time mouthpiece and actually made a real world impact - from the President of the United States no less. For those toiling away online, commenting, writing, and arguing about politics, this should encourage us.

So today's questions: What do you think, in general, of the reactionary/anti-PC blogosphere (loosely defined as my blogroll and sites one degree away)? What do you consider are its strengths and its weaknesses? Does it need a mainstream head? If so, should this come from an apolitical source (I think so as to avoid the partisan attacks, though Jimmy the Greek and James Watson might argue otherwise)? Are there too many differing opinions or too much consensus? Is it too pessimistic, masculine, or unpalatable to a wide audience? Is it shrinking or gaining a niche mainstream presence by arising sporadically in news stories like this one? How can the reactionary/anti-PC blogosphere improve?

Pretty Girls Rule The World?

This is a very pretty girl. Enjoy. (Just for kicks because I love Internet Male Syndrome, does anyone seriously not find her incredibly attractive?)


OK, but that's not all. How much of man's political motivations (I use "man" here not to merely subvert PC but also as an implied observation that political movements are almost exclusively started by men) derive from seeking the attention of women like the one pictured. If one answers something like "most", then I think one takes a decidedly reductionist perspective on man. In that, even when he champions fairness, honor, and all that jazz, he really just wants to get laid. Maybe it's true because, after all, we live to reproduce and ancillary motivations would seem, from an evolutionary perspective, somewhat superfluous. But then such a reductionist conception leaves me feeling emotionally hollow. I guess we can lean towards biological determinism intellectually, but just try not to think about it a lot.

However, while this remains an intellectually interesting question, the supposition most commonly arises in instances of political shaming. The feminists offer insults about sexual insecurity, the anti-racists about purported inter-racial sexual paranoia, and pro-sex liberals about conservative sexual ignorance and uptightness. Are there those to which these usually baseless insults apply? Sure. But as noted above and in an ironic twist given the groups mentioned, reducing everything to sexual competition completely undermines the "nurture" argument. Once again, liberals are inconsistent hypocrites.

I personally don't know how to answer the question posed. Consciously, I don't think political movements are about sex. I think political movements are about power, wanting to connect to something larger than yourself, and often a sincere dedication to a cause (that goes both ways). For me personally, it's almost entirely the last two. Now one could then argue that if we go down far enough, it all comes down to the penis. But again, that just rubs me the wrong way.

Conservatives Vindicated on Birth Certificate

Obama finally released his actual birth certificate. Of course, Obama chided those loony right-wingers for focusing on a purported non-issue:

But we're not going to be able to do it if we are distracted. We're not going to be able to do it if we spend time vilifying each other. We're not going to be able to do it if we just make stuff up and pretend that facts are not facts.

We're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.

We do not have time for this kind of silliness.

The actual birth certificate has nothing controversial on it, so it leaves basically everyone puzzled as to why he waited so long in releasing it. I'm now satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii, though the circumstances of his parents' marriage and his early childhood remain mysterious.

What we do know from this event - the Obama administration and the vicious left has no qualms about promoting complete lies. Here's Robert Gibbs two years ago when asked about the birth certificate:

Gibbs: "Are you looking for the President's birth certificate?"

Kinsolving: "Yes."

Gibbs: "It's on the Internet, Lester."

Kinsolving: "No, no, no -- the long form listing his hospital and physician." (Laughter.)

Gibbs: "Lester, this question in many ways continues to astound me. The state of Hawaii provided a copy with the seal of the President's birth. I know there are apparently at least 400,000 people – (laughter) – that continue to doubt the existence of and the certification by the state of Hawaii of the president's birth there, but it's on the Internet because we put it on the Internet for each of those 400,000 to download. I certainly hope by the fourth year of our administration that we'll have dealt with this burgeoning birth controversy."

So we now know, via the release of his actual birth certificate yesterday, that the one released in 2008 was NOT his actual birth certificate. Thus, this administration has promoted an outright lie. In the end, the conservative point about his "certificate of life birth" was the correct one, a fact implicitly substantiated by the administration itself.

All the vilification from the left has proved completely unjustified, at least concerning the mainstream consternation of "why won't he just release the damn thing already?" It's funny that an administration that touted itself as championing an age of government transparency took three years to make one phone call. And then instead of admitting the falsehood they promoted to the American public for all this time, Obama denigrates those that brought up this obvious lie.

Of course, the left will continue to attack the strawman crazy birthers, instead of noting that most everyone, like Trump, simply couldn't understand Obama's stubbornness.

Scientific Transcendence

And now for some good news: the Higgs boson may have been found - or maybe not. Who knows really, it's all very murky:

An internal note leaked on the web reveals that a group of researchers at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) has detected a signal compatible with the sought-after particle. A spokesman for Cern, which runs the LHC, confirmed the note was authentic. But he told the BBC it had not been held up to proper scientific scrutiny and could turn out to be a false alarm. The Higgs boson is of huge importance to the widely accepted theory of physics, known as the Standard Model. It is the sub-atomic particle which explains why all other particles have mass.

However, despite decades trying, no-one, so far, has detected it.

Will we ever figure "it" all out? I don't know, but it's all really compelling nonetheless.

As I've ventured more into politics, I've strayed from my once strong interest in astronomy and how this particular academic discipline can enliven our "spirit" unlike any other. I think we all experience this sense of wonderment peering into the vast unknown - whether that be other people (as in the ubiquitous hobby of "people-watching"), new places to live, discovering the "New World", staring into a dark night, or imagining where we come from and who else is out there. I know I still get chills thinking that every single atom in my body was once in a star. And I still get excited thinking about other intelligent life out there in the ether, waiting to hear from us, waiting to share their story and their knowledge.

Of course, no discussion of the transcendence of science can exist independent of the other primary means of knowledge - religion. Surely religion remains an immensely popular human institution despite the opposing claims offered by science. But I'd wager the popularity of religion does not preclude interest in the majesty of the universe. It's just that the details of such inquiry are completely opaque to those without a scientific bent. So why then do I suppose that everyone can find inspiration like I do?

Think about the popularity of science fiction movies, probably the most widespread film genre. People find this stuff immensely interesting but only if couched in palatable terms. If only the material puts them at the center, expresses how these ideas impact them and relate to who they are. Is this evidence of our species' narcissism? (Side note: I use species here due to the context of the post.) Perhaps, but why shouldn't we succumb to this vice? I look at the Heavens with awe, but ultimately my feet are stuck on the ground.

Women Like Being Abused: "How Deep the Rabbit Hole Goes"

In The Matrix, Morpheus presents Neo with the red and blue pill, a choice to return to the pretty lies of society or venture on a brazen path to ultimate truth. Neo takes the red pill and wakes up in the pod with wires and tubes connected to him. A machine finds and transports him to the "real world". Neo then endures intensive therapy to condition his muscles and learns to navigate a world he thought he once knew. Neo's journey from Morpheus' lackey to transcendent savior takes time; it's a gradual process in which he must understand his surroundings slowly and with caution.

When Morpheus first presents the red pill, he informs Neo that he'll discover "how deep the rabbit hole goes." In the anti-PC sphere, many individuals often evoke the red/blue pill choice as emblematic of society's falsehoods. In my own discoveries of man's hidden truths, I've often found myself going deeper and deeper into this "rabbit hole". I began by reading Sailer and HalfSigma and only after about 1.5 years of reading them did I discover Roissy and the attendant truths of sexual realism. Now, Roissy fashions himself a Game theorist, but he strays from the more PC adages of that cohort by gleefully couching his advice in amoral terms. Reading Roissy, you don't get field tested theory on body language or openers; you get the unvarnished truths of womanhood, the solipsism, the speciousness, and even the endearing idiosyncrasies.

But should one present Roissy-type analysis as the initial gambit for those stuck in the Matrix? Is his analysis too much all at once? Will the incipient anti-PC mind recoil at such an honest and controversial expression of truth?

The most "trouble" I've ever gotten into online was when I supported the notion that women actually like to be abused. Feminists blame the "confounding" behavior of abuse victims on patriarchy and this rather odd control abusive men have over women. For some reason, a reason feminists can not properly articulate besides interspersing their point with terms like "misogyny" and "small penis", abusive men seem to put a spell on their women. Now in the case of wives, there are external circumstances, primarily economic, that would explain why so many abused women keep returning, but why then do so many abused girlfriends return?

A new study says such positive feelings are quite common:

A new study by researchers in Toronto and New York suggests that many who live with chronic psychological abuse still see certain positive traits in their abusers -- such as dependability and being affectionate -- which may partly explain why they stay.

But a considerable number of women felt their abusive male partners still possessed some good qualities: more than half (54%) saw their partners as highly dependable, while one in five (21%) felt the men in their lives possessed significant positive traits (i.e., being affectionate).

Based on the survey findings, the researchers divided the male abusers into three groups: "Dependable, yet abusive" men (44% of the sample) had the lowest scores for controlling and generally violent behaviors, and the highest scores for dependability and positive traits.

In other words, despite getting beat up, women still like these men. As I stated above, I've yet to hear a viable argument besides feminist cacophony concerning the patriarchy and such. But the red pill takers know why: women like social dominance above all else and still hold affection towards dominant men even if that dominance manifests in violence. Physical abuse is the ultimate expression of dominance and women actually sort of like it. Of course, as a society we must understand this truth and do our best to oppose it through cultural and political initiatives, lest we endure the ramifications.

Back to the gradual descent into the rabbit hole, imagine a possible convert learning this truth about women. Imagine the pristine image of women being undermined. Can he handle such a devastating blow to the prevailing wisdom? I mean, this isn't merely "play hard to get", this is "beating your wife might make her love you more." I'm not sure, but those that intend to spread anti-PC truths should understand this in attempting to win over others.

[Note: I don't advocate domestic abuse at all; instead, I merely understand that it illustrates a fundamental truth of female sexual attraction.]

Two Spheres of Discourse

A few weeks ago I had a discussion with an older family member ("Adam"). Not sure how it got started, but this is the relevant part:

Adam: When I'm watching boxing, I always root for the guy with less tattoos.
Me: That makes sense. And it's probably why the NBA has been losing popularity recently. The NBA isn't full of guys like Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, and Larry Bird anymore. It probably started with Allen Iverson. Now the NBA is full of guys like that and the league itself has embraced that type of image. And the general public has trouble relating to the guys they're supposed to root for.
Adam: I see what you mean. I watched the All-Star game stuff and it was so...black. But I'm an old-timer. No one thinks like me anymore.
Me: Well maybe you're wrong and lots more people do think like you.

In other words, Adam presumed that no one shared his "old-timer" conservative viewpoint that eschewed contemporary mass culture. But is he right? Or is Adam underestimating the number of others like him because of what the mainstream institutions push into the public sphere?

I'd say the latter. In essence, there exists two opposing spheres of discourse, one of which leftism dominates and one of which commonsense/conservatism dominates. The first is composed of the mainstream media, academic, government, and corporate conglomerate. The second is composed of the masses outside these institutions, basically just regular people with minds not sullied by leftist doctrine.

The problem for conservatives is that the former group, an assuredly smaller cohort, dictates the behavior of the latter. PC media, academia, and government define what's acceptable and what we're allowed to think or say. These institutions oversee, generally through repetition and peer pressure, the dominant social landscape by championing particular cultural memes. These ideas then become embedded in the social consciousness of the populace.

Yet, I contend that most everyone doesn't buy into the pretty lies of these leftist dominated institutions. No matter the persistence or aggressiveness of the indoctrination, people believe what they see in front of them. They know intelligence exists, that women are more emotional, and that blacks behave differently than whites. We all know it. So how then does Adam casually reject the notion that others agree about tattooed boxers and NBA players? Why does he confidently presume that the masses think differently than he does when I assert the opposite?

Because the leftist-dominated institutions connect people. We have all these people individually thinking the same thing, but they need social sanction to express it. They see the pink elephant, but they want to be certain everyone else sees it before making it a big deal. And yet the edifices that would provide such countenance champion an opposing perspective. The mainstream pushes Lady Gaga instead of Taylor Swift as emblematic of a generation, Allen Iverson as an NBA icon instead of Steve Nash and Tim Duncan, and "urban" as the prevailing cultural trend instead of staid suburbia. The public gets deluged with images of "slut walks" instead of promise rings as empowering, of studying, helping, or "finding oneself" abroad instead of doing that in America, and of female licentiousness instead of motherhood as the ultimate joy.

And people like Adam see these images over and over again, believing that he's just an old-timer who doesn't get it. So slowly he silences himself more as the indoctrination sets in and after awhile, he rejects his own feelings as the obdurate frustration of a fuddy-duddy. He can't fathom, given what media, academia, and government keep telling him, that the person sitting next to him in McDonald's or the guy in line at the DMV think exactly the same way he does. That they hate what's going on too, that they can't believe the tripe they witness everyday.

The leftist cabal divides them even though they stand right next to each other.

More Blacks Behaving Badly on YouTube

I've celebrated YouTube and the ubiquity of cell phone cameras as a means of "bringing HBD to the masses" and "the greatest thing to happen to HBD since Francis Galton." This week has brought more of the same - black people actin' a fool. I'll post a few videos that have spread around recently (H/T: Mangan's, Roissy, Chuck Ross, and SBPDL). Be aware that the 3rd one is particularly hard to watch - so I'll gleefully give my first trigger warning!









In Mangan's post on the subject, he muses:

I generally avoid posting these sorts of things, because while we are aware of the truth, each individual story like the above can be dismissed as just one example and an unrepresentative one. Yet it's becoming increasingly hard to ignore, even though the media is doing its utmost to keep the public ignorant, that these sorts of incidents are commonplace, at least on a national level.

Yes, one could dismiss these as isolated incidents and surely that's the kind of mendacious explanation offered by anti-racists and liberals. But I surmise this doesn't convince the masses, especially in the YouTube age where one can experience black dysfunction in safe seclusion.

As to the particular behavior shown above, short-termed HBD blogger Planet Grok once noted:

On any HBD blog, an inordinate amount of time will be spent discussing black people.

I'd say it's probably true, but for good reason. Look at the behavior above and try to temper your jadedness. The behavior is shockingly savage, animalistic, and carnal. The way they speak, the extreme lack of control, the violent outbursts. HBD blogs focus so much on blacks because their behavior best illustrates racial disparities. While one can surely find much to criticize about lower-class white proles (i.e. "white trash"), their behavior never devolves to this level of savagery. HBDers intend to showcase racial disparities; focusing on a wide disparity as that between blacks and whites does best in achieving this goal.

Additionally, these types of "caught on tape" moments are far more socially palatable than William Shockley's charts or The Bell Curve's abstruse arguments. You don't need to understand any complex argument to know what's going here - you merely need a set of eyes and a brain not totally inundated with the doctrine of racial egalitarianism.

Unfortunately, this focus on blacks might prove fruitless. After all, Hispanic fecundity might ultimately become a larger problem, though the reasons remain more subtle and esoteric, e.g. healthcare costs, never-ending education reform, a younger generation without enough productive middle-class workers, and cultural undermining of American tradition. For now though, with racial lunacy still dominating public discourse, these videos provide an invaluable resource.

Bartering Independent of the Government = Terrorism

Saturday Guest Post

The following is a guest post from frequent commenter and fellow blogger Honky Dory.

Don’t privately barter with your own homemade currency. I saw this story a few weeks ago and it is now popping up again. A man created his own currency to privately trade goods and services, and the Feds are now charging him with a crime. What crime? And I quote:

“Attempts to undermine the legitimate currency of this country are simply a unique form of domestic terrorism," U.S. Attorney Anne Tompkins said in a statement after von NotHaus was convicted.

“While these forms of anti-government activities do not involve violence, they are every bit as insidious and represent a clear and present danger to the economic stability of this country.”

Domestic terrorism? This man is looked upon by our government as an “extremist” on par with Bin Laden. The crime is technically counterfeiting (which I don’t believe it is), and this man is a threat to the U.S. by way of domestic terrorism. It’s not even worth getting into the government’s continuation of watering down the meaning of “terrorism” with events that are not terrorism.

“Federal prosecutors successfully argued that von NotHaus was, in fact, trying to pass off the silver coins as U.S. currency. Coming in denominations of 5, 10, 20, and 50, the Liberty Dollars also featured a dollar sign, the word "dollar" and the motto "Trust in God," similar to the "In God We Trust" that appears on U.S. coins.”

Here we see the Feds trying to use a copyright infringement technique to convict. This is the ostensible reason, but in reality they are deathly afraid of a currency backed by actual metals with actual worth, unlike U.S. minted currency. If too many people start bartering with their own currency, it undermines and devalues the dollar, meaning it's competition for US dollars. They are making an example out of this "terrorist" to deter others from doing the same.

“That's partly why von NotHaus' group has been followed for years by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group that tracks political extremism. Long before the government began its investigation into von NotHaus, the group was raising concerns about the popularity of Liberty Dollars among fringe groups on the far right.”

When the SPLC is involved, whoever they are against is normally a traditionalist, a Patriot, and/or a conservative. They are always on the wrong side of freedom. If one is unsure of the legitimacy of a law or circumstance, one can use the SPLCs stance as a litmus test; if the SPLC disapproves of an action, the action is patriotic and legitimate.

"He's playing on a core idea of the radical right, that evil bankers in the Federal Reserve are ripping you off by controlling the money supply," said Mark Potok, spokesman for the group. "He very much exists in the world of the anti-government patriot movement, whatever he may say. That's who his customers are."

Yes. If you can’t trust the Federal Reserve, who can you trust right? Creating trillions of worthless dollars out of thin air is perfectly legal. Creating your own means of trading with currency holding real value is terrorism.

I’ve boiled it down to this. The Feds say this man is a threat to the U.S.; a domestic terrorist who is seeking to take down the government by privately bartering with his own currency. They say he is a counterfeiter, even though all parties are aware that the currency is not U.S. minted. If two individuals agree to trade goods and services, the barter with which each trades holds value.

People have privately bartered for eternity, long before worthless paper money, or IOUs, came about. In the good ol' days, neighboring farmers traded chickens for tomatoes, etc. Today, if a customer needs a hammer from Home Depot, Home Depot can accept any form of barter they please be it money, silver, or a donkey. As long as both parties agree to the trade pact, there is no crime. True value is subjective to the individuals trading goods and services.

The last paragraph of the article states the truth: it’s a “far-right” radical fringe anti-government movement. There's the real crime, coupled with the government's jealousy of a citizen that has created money with real world value.

Anti-Family Attitude of the Manosphere

I've previously lamented the negativity present amongst the reactionary sphere, especially the Men's Right "division" and their often overt animus towards basically every woman. Awhile back, I read a post at In Mala Fide from consummate woman-hater Advocatus Diaboli lionizing prostitute escorts as superior to women whose affection you actually earn:

I have often said, on my blog, that using sexual services of escorts is a better deal than maintaining the facade of a relationship with ‘real’ women. I will try to summarize my main points starting with this post, the first in a series. What desirable sensation can a ‘real’ relationship give you that a quality escort cannot?

He pontificates with some pseudo-intellectual claptrap straight out a 16 year-old's viewing of The Matrix while toking his first joint. My one line response: personal relationships, of which romantic love is a subset, probably only exist in our brains, but it still makes you feel something nothing else can. But as to his larger point which reduces to "womynz suck, give me a blowjob", it reflects the anti-family attitude popular amongst the Manosphere.

These fatalists can't stop yapping about family court, custody, and child support or noting every minor transgression by any woman anywhere. And while I surely sympathize with their concerns, especially how these injustices connect to the large framework of feminism and female supremacism, they sound like whining losers. What they're basically saying, "there are risks to getting married and having a family and I'm too afraid to take on any of these risks." Funny that a blogosphere enamored with masculinity can't even discern their own female-like neuroticism. Or in cases like Advocatus Diaboli, "I can never attract an actual woman, so I'll just pay for sex, then justify my loneliness under the guise of anti-feminism and soft anarchism."

The anti-feminist movement popular amongst traditionalist-leaning individuals like myself doesn't want men going their own way; they want a return to patriarchy where family men are respected and women follow, where women dress well, smell good, and look nice, where harpies like Amanda Marcotte and her warpig acolytes get pushed aside for being insufferable and unattractive, where the family is man's greatest achievement and source of joy. Anti-feminist traditionalists want to go back to a social landscape that shames the carouseling, mannish, urbanite, social-climbing, SWPL liberal, baby-procrastinating, entitled princesses. We understand that men and women comprise an integral dichotomy to both life itself and any successful society.

After reading the above article, I sent it to family man Dalrock and encouraged him to take on this type of garbage. Yesterday, he posted Newsflash: My Marriage still Doesn't Suck!:

My wife cooks nearly every day and is a fanatic about keeping herself in shape. The sex is great in every way. We laugh all the time and even after 16 years of marriage still stay up late talking about any topic you can imagine. Every night I put our son to bed; no matter what is going on he always makes me laugh. Actually I make him laugh first by tickling him and he makes me laugh by being so contagious with his wide mouthed grin. If I am fixing or working on something, our daughter appears instantly to watch. It doesn’t matter if I’m fixing the dishwasher or tuning up the lawn mower; it is all fascinating to her.

The ironic thing is I do not plan on becoming a father - primarily because I don't foresee myself being a good one. I know that's a rather harsh admonishment of myself, but we deal in honesty at OneSTDV. But I know from my own experience and being a discerning observer of society, that family grounds us as individuals, as communities, and as a nation. Those in the Manosphere who harbor extreme bitterness and fear their own betatude do others a disservice by spreading their anti-family filth. [I presume there's a significant racial component to this as well, but maybe I'll get into that in a future post.]

Update: Elusive Wapiti resolves to take a more positive attitude in blogging and discussing the harm of liberalism.

Analyzing the 20-something Wigger

A few days ago, I met a middle-class, highly intelligent, highly educated white man (OK, PA?) in his mid-20's. None of this would seem out of ordinary except that he was an unabashed wigger. And not the soft kind who quietly listens to Common or Mos Def, considers blacks the primary source of cultural vibrancy, thinks Kanye West is a literary genius, and believes blacks will one day subvert the racial hierarchy when the Man relinquishes his grip. No, this guy was straight outta Malibu's Most Wanted - ebonics (hilariously ending each sentence with 'yo'), bumping rap music, hat tipped sideways, and his jeans sagging below the waist and cuffed above his Timbs.

I really couldn't do anything but laugh as I looked him over. I mean, how many 25 year-old middle-class whites still act like this. Soft wiggerdom and exoticization of blacks was extremely popular growing up in my suburban hood, but I don't recall anyone continuing that fad past high school. In fact, the reverence proffered towards blacks started to wane at the end of high school when one of my friends discovered the term "reggin" and its use amongst my cohort of friends became quite frequent (though not in a derisive manner). And later viral videos started, like this classic from Bubb Rub and Lil Sis. So I just can't imagine any middle-class, highly intelligent white guy behaving this way into their 20's.

So what exactly motivates such rare individuals? One presumes he hasn't woken up from the stupor of his teenage years, a period where vulnerable adolescents are motivated partly by adopting black bravado via mere association and partly by the political zeitgeist that glorifies black culture. In an educational system that buttresses this type of thinking, wiggerdom seems a somewhat successful path at co-opting black personality traits and differentiating oneself from the teenaged masses.

I surmise that wiggerdom ceases at around age 20 for two reasons. First, there exist far better avenues for social capital than the temerity popular amongst rap culture. Occupational success, money, and collegiate social opportunities all come to mind. Second, and connected to this, hip-hop culture, and black culture in general, is largely connected to childish behaviors, the impetuousness, the heightened sensitivity to any perceived slight, the often unjustified bragging, and the reflexive mistrust of authority. No one wishes to adopt these characteristics in adulthood, yet many of these traits will raise one's social status in adolescence.

With this in mind, I wonder when my acquaintance will "wake up" from his wiggerdom. I mean how long can he keep this up? Not only for social reasons, as it tickles me to envision him as a 45 year-old blasting Biggie. But also because wiggerdom, a daily act comprised of consciously altering one's speech, gait, and dress, is quite exhausting.

War on Childhood: Wiffleball is Dangerous

The War on Childhood comes to New York:

State bureaucrats have identified a potentially deadly hazard facing our children this summer - freeze tag. That's right, officials have decided the age-old street game - along with Wiffle Ball, kickball and dodgeball - poses a "significant risk of injury." And classics like Capture the Flag, Steal the Bacon and Red Rover are also deemed dangerous in new state regulations for day camps.

The New York health department did later back off, but how did these laws get passed in the first place? We shouldn't be surprised though, as according to the Arne Duncan, kids should spend their summers doing worksheets and having fun with more schoolwork! I mean, what 10 year-old doesn't want to sit in an air conditioned room, work through endless, supervised busy work, and then probably do some more studying at home.

I'll list a few possible reasons for this law:

-We've created a false middle class largely comprised of legislative workers (affirmative action for gender and race). These people have no real job responsibilities so they make up stuff to do, like passing idiotic laws.
-Pathologizing of human nature and the natural state of childhood play.
-Boys like to physical play - so can't have that.
-Nerdy government busybodies bitter about their unathletic childhood.
-SWPL hysteria about childhood danger.

Is Socialism Really that Bad?: What Conservatives Miss

One popular buzzword during the Obama administration has been "socialist." According to the more bombastic right-wing firebrands, Obama wants to impose this harmful economic system on all the hard-working, "real" Americans. And damn do people get angry when they hear this. From Rush's guttural rants to the Tea Party's fast rise to mainstream attention, you keep hearing about the dangers of socialism. But should we really be so afraid of socialism? Or more accurately, is the mainstream criticism of socialism lacking, in that it does not diagnose the primary problem and therefore fails to oppose socialism in the correct manner.

If you read enough economics scholarship, then you realize no one really agrees. And I'm not talking some esoteric concept batted around by guys at Chicago - I'm talking about concepts in Econ 101. You have Noble Laureates, like Princeton professor and NYT columnist Paul Krugman, who can't reach a consensus on the most trivial of economic matters. One can clearly chalk this up to partisan politics; but I think the large amount of conflicting real-world data also plays an important role. Both sides of the aisle can point to successful societies built upon their preferred economic system.

And even though the Right has largely denounced socialism as a failed system, what do they say of Sweden, Denmark, and Norway. Maybe not the most ideologically pure socialist states, but they sure don't cherish capitalism as an inherent right like we do. Yet, in the list of the world's best countries, these Scandinavian utopias always rank at the very top. How can we denounce socialism as leading to inexorable destitution when modern states have successfully implemented important aspects of this much-maligned system.

The answer - the Right both refuses to consider the more contentious aspects of economic efficacy and focuses too much on the pragmatic arguments for the free-market. First, as always, one must consider the people and their culture as central to an economic system's success. Finland is largely populated by Fins - big shock that they do well no matter what. Same with Norway and Communist China. America has a permanent underclass and thus, we must consider alternative economic systems.

Further, as I've mentioned before, one can not view economics independent of an attendant cultural landscape. In ethnically homogeneous Norway where leftist compassion dominates, socialism works because everyone considers themselves in it together. In early Israeli communes, the residents understood the brazen path of creating a new nation built upon the small communal bonds they fostered. The economic sharing reflected this social milieu. And in America, our narrative built upon the up by one's own bootstraps American Dream, we value the pugnacious individual who earns his own way.

Accordingly, the people aren't necessarily motivated by monetary concerns, but instead by the cultural mores present in their society. Sure, people want money, but this is largely a means to social capitol. In the end, people want the acceptance of their peers and if a society decides money isn't the primary indicator of "success", the proxy indicator will serve as ample motivation.

In accordance with the above, the pragmatic argument against socialism fails because it doesn't adequately express the mass' opposition. The masses will prattle on about socialism not working in a practical sense - but what really gets to them is the moral aspect of wealth redistribution. For all of Ayn Rand's foibles, her most important contribution was the notion that we should view economics in a moral spectrum. She considered rational egoism a morally tenable concept, with the industrial man earning whatever he sought to earn. The people have been convinced to reflexively reject socialism, but in actuality, they really can't stand thievery. They want people to earn what they have and they want to profit off their own hard work. They don't want to work for strangers or have their earnings stolen because someone else was too lazy.

Unfortunately though, the randroid nerds have perverted this moral analysis with fantasies of the rapacious Gordon Gecko. They have replaced the basic, perhaps carnal, satisfaction experienced from a job well done with a largely blind worship of the dollar.

Are We all Liberals Now?: Civil War Edition

This month marks the 150th anniversary of the United States Civil war. And even though it's been 150 years, most people still can't decide what the whole thing was about. Celebrations in the South depict it as a fight for liberty, the secession a noble effort to maintain freedom in the idyllic antebellum full of majestic hills and fancy dresses. The North and its attendant liberalism reduces it to a question of slavery with the insubordinate South ultimately beaten by the more righteous Union.

The opposing histories of the Civil War, or the more telling revisionist name War Between the States, connects with the opposing concepts of liberalism and conservatism and how these ideas change with time. Conservatives like to regard their values as pragmatically stubborn, the tried and true institutions of yesterday working today. They lament "how things have changed". They disregard whatever modern fad of liberalism finds current popularity. They are content with what worked in the past, preferring the way things used to be for both social and practical reasons.

However, no one, even amongst the purported "racist reactionary Right", champions a return to slavery. No one thinks we should bring back that particular institution. But think about the conservatives in 1860 - they would find such a position the epitome of liberalism. They would viciously attack any Northern Yankee who considered blacks anything except farmhands and property. 1860's conservatism considered slavery a central aspect to the "way things were" and they fought to keep it that way. So it would seem that eventually we're all liberals. It would seem that conservatives, no matter how iconoclastic, still reside in the contemporary political arena.

But I'm not so sure about that. The above view of conservatism regards it as irrationally hidebound. Conservatism does not mean that everything, no matter what, be preserved. A successful conservatism means that we value historical institutions because they've worked and because we are the heirs to a valuable cultural tradition. But it doesn't mean we keep everything our forefathers bestow upon us. Just because the religious conservatives of yesterday burned witches doesn't mean the people of Salem, Mass should consider it a respectable aspect of their history.

People and societies make mistakes; conservatism works because it cautiously looks at the failures and successes of yesterday instead of mindlessly "progressing" forward based on a reactive aversion to tradition.

Pop Culture that I Enjoy

A popular article in the blogosphere last week ponders the awfulness of "faith-based films":

But do Christian-themed movies really have to be so bad? I won't even pretend that "Soul Surfer" is the worst film I'll see this month, since it lacks the overarching, high-concept horribleness of something like "Your Highness." But it's a trite, sentimental puddle of sub-Hollywood mush, with mediocre photography, weak special effects and an utterly formulaic script that somehow required seven (!) credited writers.

A letter to the editor agrees, but expresses his derision in more explicit terms:

Christian films suck because by and large, the evangelical audience doesn't want challenging, complex characters or art. They want the same pabulum spoon-fed to them over and over: God has a plan, accept Jesus and be saved, secularists bad, blah blah blah. There's no shading or nuance or dark ambiguity in Christian cinema...

As implied by the excerpts above, such offerings, where the good guy wins, the bad guy loses, and everyone lives happily everafter, apparently aren't good enough. It seems a movie must proffer some insightful analysis on life, or better yet, confuse the audience so much that no one has any idea what just happened. To movie critics and the preening intellectual class, opaqueness defines a good movie, not something crazy like just being enjoyable.

I've mentioned before, usually in passing, that I enjoy vapid, easily digestible entertainment. I want big explosions, game winning shots at the buzzer, and a big kiss with crescendo sound effects. So "challenging, complex characters" don't do it for me. I have real life to experience the nuances of real life; I don't need the unfortunate circumstances of life reflecting back at me when I'm supposed to be enjoying myself. Maybe we have a society of masochists, cultural sheep, and people so blind to real life social nuances that they can only notice it in a fictional context.

But not me. I want to sit back and relax, not solve a brain teaser. And throw some pretty girls in there too - I like that as well.

Saturday Guest Post: Lisa Nowak's Wild Ride

Saturday Guest Post

In OneSTDV's first of hopefully a weekly series of Saturday Guest Posts, frequent commenter JHB profiles female astronaut Lisa Nowak. If you recall, Nowak put on a pair of diapers and confronted, with a bottle of pepper spray, her cad "boyfriend's" other lover. The media ate the story up, yet their depiction of a uniquely stressed-out and borderline crazy woman belies the often volatile feelings of ardor many women experience. They might not buy duct tape and travel across the country defecating in a diaper, but this type of cattiness pervades the sexual marketplace. It's interesting to note that despite her accomplishments as a Navy officer, she was still a woman at heart.

JHB profiles Nowak's charmed rise through the Navy and astronaut programs, contending that her promotions primarily derived from owning a vagina.

Lisa Nowak is a Captain in the United States Navy. That’s pretty remarkable, given that it’s been over four years since she allegedly donned adult diapers, drove from Texas to Florida with a knife, a BB gun, pepper spray, and a steel mallet, and violently confronted the new, younger lover of the junior officer with whom she was having an adulterous relationship. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is designed to provide swift justice, justice fast enough for wartime. Nonetheless, fifty months after apparently committing adultery, burglary, battery, conduct unbecoming an officer, and possibly attempted kidnapping, Captain Nowak continues to draw pay and benefits as a Captain. Including full value of benefits as well as salary, she has been compensated roughly a million dollars since her epic ride to Florida. While she is nominally attached to a training command and she has been nominally responsible for curriculum review, it’s little exaggeration to write that she’s been paid for doing nothing for four years. Male officers accused of adultery are, as a rule, drummed out of the service within months. Captain Nowak has enjoyed significant benefit from the unusual delay.

Long before Captain Nowak was a celebrity, though, she enjoyed several unusual opportunities in her career path:

- After graduation from the Naval Academy, before going to her training as a naval flight officer, she was assigned to Johnson Space Center for six months. The training pipeline for new Naval Academy graduates cannot take every new officer immediately, and many young officers work either at the Academy or in commands near their homes for a few months in “stash” jobs. Not many officers are “stashed” for half a year, not many officers get any job far from both the Naval Academy and their homes, and not many young officers get to work at anything as exciting or prestigious as the Johnson Space Center.

- After graduation from Flight School, she was assigned to an opposition force electronic warfare squadron based in Southern California. That’s unusual for two reasons: new Navy officers either go to sea or go overseas for their first tour, and the opposition force squadrons are staffed by the best Naval Aviators as proven by sea duty. An opposition force squadron is not a first tour in the Navy; a continental US command of any sort is not a first tour in the Navy.

- She failed to select for Test Pilot School, the normal prerequisite for astronaut training, during her first squadron tour. She did get selected for Naval Postgraduate School, and she went there for her next tour, earning a Master’s Degree in Aeronautical Engineering at taxpayer expense. For her “payback” tour, using her new degree to help the Navy, she was assigned to Naval Air Station (NAS) Patuxent River to work on the engineering teams designing and modifying new Navy aircraft. NAS Patuxent River is also the home to Test Pilot School, and she was selected for Test Pilot School to earn, at taxpayer expense, the exact same degree that she’d already earned at Naval Postgraduate School. That is certainly rare and probably unprecedented.

- After completing Test Pilot School, she did her “payback” tour at, again, NAS Patuxent River. For her next tour she was assigned to a procurement job at Naval Air Systems Command, which was moving from Washington DC to NAS Patuxent River. It appears that the job required procurement training and experience that she lacked, but she got the job regardless. That was Nowak’s fourth consecutive tour in and around NAS Patuxent River, and it was her seventh consecutive tour in the continental United States (not counting her six months at the Johnson Space Center). Nowak had still never served either at sea or at an overseas duty station. Most Navy Officers spend most of their careers on sea duty; Nowak had never served at sea, not even on a tender or repair ship practically “welded to the pier.” Her training would have made her a perfect candidate for squadron VQ-1 at Guam or VQ-2 at Rota, Spain, and she would have been eligible for hundreds of other overseas billets. As an aviator, she could have done a career-enhancing tour on a carrier as ship’s company, which would have been the training carrier in Pensacola for a female officer. Instead, she somehow received four consecutive shore duty tours in or around NAS Patuxent River, Maryland.

- Despite never having proven herself either at sea or on the front lines of the nation’s defense overseas, Nowak was then selected to be an astronaut.

Any male officer would have had to prove himself in rank-appropriate sea duty tours just to have been promoted to Lieutenant Commander. Naval aviators needed to successfully complete tours in deploying squadrons, usually carrier-deployed squadrons, to be promoted to Lieutenant Commander. Officers in other warfare specialties needed two sea tours, one as a Department Head, to be promoted to Lieutenant Commander. Officers in any warfare specialty normally need to serve in four billets at sea or overseas, concluding with a command tour, to be promoted to Captain. Nowak never went to sea and never went overseas. That in itself is mind-boggling. That she was selected for the highly competitive astronaut program and was promoted to Captain despite such a career is unthinkable.

Except that she was, and is, a woman.

The early female Service Academy graduates went on to lead charmed and privileged lives as officers. Even before her cross-country diaper-clad vendetta, Captain Nowak had five times received favorable assignments that few, if any, male officers in her circumstance would have received. The treatment that Captain Nowak is receiving, while far better than that received by male officers who committed any of the offenses she allegedly committed, is not dissimilar to the favored treatment she’s received through her entire career.

The military reflects our society. Despite continuous and continuing allegations of discrimination against women in both the military and the private sector, when one does longitudinal study of how women did in professional careers, those who committed to careers over family have done, as a rule, remarkably well. What the military offers is a very rigid career track where special favors and accommodations stand out more than they do in the private sector. Lisa Nowak certainly enjoyed favors all the way up, just as she seems to enjoy favors still today. She received those favors because external pressures forced the military to offer every opportunity to women. Given that the military responded to Congress and the Executive Branch (especially President Carter) in creating opportunity for females, there seems no reason to believe that such favoritism was restricted to the military in recent decades.

Exotic Minority Groups

Sit down - I'm about to agree with an article at Racialicious. In an article lauding The Office for its reflection of workplace racial dynamics, the anti-racist author actually makes a few insightful points with which I agree. Of course, the self-hating white author couches it in terms of pervasive racism and the notion that "people of color" (POC) must consistently endure horrible instances of prejudice. She blames whites for their insensitivity in conjunction with their (ironically almost indiscernible) antipathy towards POC.

It is interested in providing its POC viewers with a catharsis, a chance to see their daily experiences validated by mainstream media.

We often talk about how important it is for POCs to see themselves represented on TV....We want ample screen time and good dialogue given to well-rounded characters who are beyond stereotypes, and reflect a true experience of their community. [Priceless.]

This is the brilliance of The Office. Its documentary style allows for reaction shots that are directly to the camera so they can be shared with the audience. The workplace setting gives the writers numerous opportunities to address real-life situations of racism, like wage gaps and “unintentionally” offensive theme parties.

Of course, this is garbage. But the author then correctly notes something I've discussed before - the notion that minority groups, especially Asians, posses an almost ethereal uniqueness:

Where it really stands out is in the subtle ways it fulfills both sides of the “what we want to see” coin: it presents a relatable experience for Asian-American viewers, and provides a smart, non-exoticised picture of Indian-American culture for viewers who may not have any frame of reference for it.

The more important part of this scene, however, is in Kelly’s description of the holiday, and her inability to answer specific questions about her religion...But Kelly’s response allows her to avoid becoming a mannequin of the exotic. By not having specific answers to the questions and describing Diwali as a fun party, she shows that there is more to her than her religion, and that there’s more to her religion than just its value as something foreign and strange for others to experience.

This is actually well-said. Too often minorities are presented as exotic, more wise and worldly than their white counterparts. This is wrong for two reasons: it denigrates whites and their societies and, going a little PC here, reduces minorities to nothing more than a reflection of their collective.

I'll give an example from my own experience. Since I didn't personally know any Asians until I was a teenager, I honestly thought Asians had sort of mystical powers from watching Mr. Miyagi in The Karate Kid. Subsequent experience disabused of this idea, but this notion still persists considering the enormous popularity of Eastern mysticism as a medical practice and a path to "enlightenment". I wrote about the sweat lodge deaths from an Oprah-approved "guru" in a post entitled Death by New Age:

Thus, the oppressed non-whites and their noble savage wisdom must possess truths not readily available to the privileged Westerners. Further, the stodgy portrayal of Western science, with its empirical testing and data, speaks to a coldness perpetrated by an oppressive white ruling class. Contrastingly, the non-whites possess an exotic quality closer to the spiritual basis of man, not besmirched by the racist, classist, and sexist West.

But this is where I diverge from the author, as she predictably blames such "insensitivity" on whites, contending it reflects some insidious racism present in our society. As I discuss above, I believe this minority exoticism derives from our PC lionization of non-white groups. Our culture celebrates minority traditions so much that this devolves from passive tolerance to outright parody. This desperation then comes up in situations like those presented on The Office, situations that don't reflect white ignorance but rather whites' self-imposed subservience to minority culture.

Kobe Bryant, Gay Slurs, and Public Values

NBA superstar Kobe Bryant was fined $100,000 by the NBA yesterday for uttering a gay slur at a referee:

The NBA fined Kobe Bryant $100,000 on Wednesday for using a derogatory gay term in frustration over a referee's call. NBA Commissioner David Stern issued a swift disciplinary ruling after the Los Angeles Lakers' five-time NBA champion guard cursed and used the homophobic slur when referee Bennie Adams called a technical foul on him during the third quarter of a victory over the San Antonio Spurs.

Both NBA commish David Stern and Kobe apologized for the incident:

Stern: "...such a distasteful term should never be tolerated. ... Kobe and everyone associated with the NBA know that insensitive or derogatory comments are not acceptable and have no place in our game or society."

Bryant: "What I said last night should not be taken literally. My actions were out of frustration during the heat of the game, period," Bryant said in a statement issued through the Lakers. "The words expressed do NOT reflect my feelings towards the gay and lesbian communities and were NOT meant to offend anyone."

The less cynical amongst us would take Stern and Bryant for their word and accept their prostrating to the gay lynching mafia. I'll do that with Stern because he's a New York Jew with a law degree from Columbia. But come on - no one believes Bryant's apology is sincere. I think we can safely conclude that he offered the apology to protect his public image.

OK, makes sense. Every celebrity, especially popular athletes who directly profit from sales of their merchandise, need to maintain a positive image. And this means they don't come across as arrogant, angry, violent, or intolerant. This last one doesn't specifically derive from political correctness; instead it's just good business to not exclude any potential consumers via antagonistic statements towards particular groups.

With this in mind, why then would Bryant offer an apology given he ostensibly offended gays? Or in other words, did Bryant really need to apologize to gays in order to continue making money off his image? I'd say no - as gays don't like sports. I can confidently assert that gays make up an extremely small portion of the consumer base of the NBA and Bryant's products in particular. Bryant can offend gays all he wants and the offended parties would not overlap at all with potential consumers of his products.

So if we can safely conclude gays comprise almost no part of the NBA fan base, then what's the point in issuing such forced apologies. Succinctly, we do not live in a cultural vacuum. Any popular (liberal) cultural meme ineluctably disseminates to essentially every widespread aspect of public life. Thus, even in a context assuredly orthogonal to a particular leftist issue, the reach of leftism still motivates behavior, it still demands adherence to the prevailing zeitgeist. Bryant had to apologize because the entirety of our culture is intertwined. Basketball is a niche interest, but it resides in a larger liberal framework that dictates its norms. Thus even though basketball itself, as an independent institution, has little sympathy towards gays, it still must present itself as a public entity. And this means groveling to gays for forgiveness.

Liberals falsely believe that culture can exist in insulated communities. They believe that any behavior or ideal popular with one group has no effect on another. Now sometimes this can actually happen, e.g. the Amish, but leftism seeks converts and the swaying of public opinion. The left desires wholesale public acceptance of their ideals and because of this, because they have resolved to entirely change the current zeitgeist, the notion of insulated cultural communities becomes largely infeasible. So Bryant has to apologize as he seeks to maintain his status as a public figure in a leftist-dominated society.

A "Discussion of Race and Class"

Liberals love to complain about the underhanded tactics of the modern Right, the Willie Horton type messages conservative politicians and pundits apparently send out to their sycophantic admirers. If they actually did this, I'd have a lot less to blog about. Yet for all their blathering about conservative the telepathic Southern Strategy, liberals have their own set of code words and phrases. Consider the term "poor folks", as in this rather candid 1990 Obama quote:

"I'm not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me. And I'm not interested in isolating myself," Obama said in a recent interview. "I feel good when I'm engaged in what I think are the core issues of the society, and those core issues to me are what's happening to poor folks in this society."

Does anyone think this means poor whites in Appalachia - the ones who don't benefit from centuries of bequeathed wealth, ostracized from the coastal elite due to surface features like accent, culture, and birthplace.

I've recently come across another catchphrase popular amongst the anti-racist crowd: "a discussion of race and class." For those unfamiliar with the phrase, allow me to translate:

A rant-fest where black (and Latino) intellectuals attack Whitey for keeping the brothas and sistas down. Or call for the outright genocide of whites - on CSPAN.

As in Eric Holder's infamous "nation of cowards" speech, a "discussion of race and class" is as racially exclusionary as an Alabaman breakfast counter in 1945. Take the anti-racist blogosphere's reaction to Charles Murray's recent speech on white America. Note that Murray's speech was actually about race and class and offered no racial analysis besides that concerning the schism of whites into culturally and economically segregated classes, e.g. NASCAR proles vs. SWPL suburbanites.

While many of us were commemorating the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination yesterday, the influential neoconservative think-tank, the American Enterprise Institute, decided to have scientific racist and AEI fellow Charles Murray deliver a lecture entitled “The State of White America.”

Many other articles objected similarly, decrying Murray as a "scientific racist" (a title I presume all us HBDers can aspire to). In other words, how dare Murray notice that the term "race" can apply to groups other than the sun peoples. I broached a similar topic last summer, noting that the use of "racial" concerns only black or Latino activity, therefore implying other racial groups essentially don't exist as quantifiable collectives.

Accepting the implied assumption that a "racial" characterization would be absent for a white brawl, one notes how "race" only exists for blacks and other minorities. An incident, group, statistic, or hate crime becomes "racial" or "involves race" only if it applies to non-white cohorts. Whites have become the default nothingness, the bland, the mundane, the cohort lacking a collective identity. Popular culture has fashioned white men as dolts, American history as ethnic genocide, and political positions held primarily by whites as unacceptable.

The meddling elite, a cohort of black intellectuals and disingenuous white liberals (H/T: SBDPL), assure that any deep, insightful "discussion of race and class" be confined to the appropriate arenas - mainstream media, college orientations, and government education centers. As I noted yesterday in a post about government and national identity, leftism works by removing cultural and social choices from the people.

By undermining traditional values and championing the notion that experts know all, the people can no longer decide for themselves. They either have no values for motivating behavior, e.g. teen pregnancy in the trailer park, or they depend on the paternalistic construct of academia, media, and government, the latter of which "helps" economically, to guide them. And thus the "discussions of race and class" proceed in the predictable manner, constituting an attack on white men as oppressors, the incessant complaints of racial "inequality", the narrative that traditional Anglosphere nations were created with blood on their hands, and miscellaneous garbage like "Western beauty standards" and the like.

Government and Community Defining Society

Over at the Huffington Post (which I actually quite like despite its nauseating liberalism), former Democratic Senator and current Scholar-In-Residence at Colorado Gary Hart opines on America as a society:

The current U.S. budget confrontation raises the same issue: Is there such a thing as an American society? The current confrontation between parties and ideologies is over the role of government. But even more deeply it is a foundational disagreement over whether we are a society, a community, or whether we are a collection of individuals inhabiting the same geographical space.

Unsurprisingly, Hart immediately looks to government in answering this question:

If we are all "in this together," then we share more than just an interest in collective security. And if we have collective interests, the instrument by which we pursue and promote those interests is the national government, not Wall Street or the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The current, and perpetually recurring, confrontation is only symbolically about "spending." Public programs flow from policies. Policies flow from partisan ideologies. Ideologies flow from political philosophies.

Hart considers the current political firestorm as a refection of our social schisms. Yet, besides appealing to the opinions of FDR and Jefferson, Hart has nothing substantial to say. He subtly chides right-wing types for the current fervor and mentions "common interests" a number of times. But like many liberals, he persists in passive-aggressive ambiguity, content to condemn with coy statements instead of actually saying something.

Yet for all his philosophizing, Hart never even answers his own question: "Are we a society?", "a community...or a collection of individuals inhabiting the same geographical space." Hart seems to believe that government can somehow impose this sense of community. That a set of laws, budgets, and whatever else happens in the District can foster communal bonds in the heartland, the suburbs, and the inner city. Now a curious sort such as myself asks how exactly does this even happen? Unless we imbue government with the ultimate powers of an actual nanny state, how can it find itself affecting personal relationships.

As Hart quotes, society is defined by "the sum of human conditions and activity regarded as a whole functioning interdependently" and as "the customs and organization of an ordered community," yet the totality of life doesn't involve whatever government decides. Even a fascist or Communist understands, perhaps begrudgingly, that some aspects of life inevitably exist in the realm outside whatever government can affect. So what then defines our society in contexts outside the budget crisis, the housing bubble, and the bank bailouts?

Hart does seem willing to accept the notion of communal interests, but he does so under the provision that a central body decides on what those constitute. Of course, this position is popular amongst liberals as it gives them collectivism, but assuredly not in the conservative/ populist sense. Instead of a common cultural narrative and an agreed upon set of values defining society, the government gets to decide. And that government, centralized and more rigorously organized than the amorphous traditions of a nation and its peoples, is far more susceptible to "change we can believe in."

Emotional Response to an Insane (Liberal) World

In a heartbreaking post about his grandfather's death from statin use, Hawaiian Libertarian (HL) Keoni Galt discusses his ultimately futile efforts at helping:

I'm of the belief that he was murdered. Slowly poisoned to death by the pharmaceutical industry and the manner in which they are able to shape the conventional wisdom of allopathic Western medicine. I had arguments with my relatives for years regarding my Grandfather's health care. He was taken to the doctors every month, where the Doctor prescribed him statins that he took for well over a decade.

Of course, when I tried to object to this [statin use and high-grain diet], my family members would look at me like I was insane. "Who are you? You think you know better than a Doctor?"

I imagine that the story of HL's grandfather is a common one, a tragic tale caused by ignorance and an undying faith in "experts." Of course, we see such failures in all aspects of life; this site primarily concerned with the blank slatist political schemes that underpin liberalism and the corresponding damage imposed upon this nation. But, as in HL's medical apostasy concerning the lipid hypothesis and the harmfulness of statin use, we know the problem and the solution. Yet the public and its meddling elite persist in delusion. The media, academic, corporate, and government conglomerate pushes unsubstantiated lies and the public, our family, our friends, our nation, and our culture suffers as a result.

So what then is the appropriate reaction to such lunacy? How should one respond to an insane world where everyone mindlessly believes the lies, paying the consequences as a result? Here's how HL reacts:

I am not grief stricken...but rather consumed with rage.

In regards to nutrition myths, I completely agree with HL. I am absolutely enraged that the omega male, liberal academics have pushed vegetarianism and that Big Pharma has capitalized on this as well as the pathologization industrial complex that pushes drugs down our throats. It makes me so angry, more than I can adequately articulate, that the public has been force-fed these lies. In the words of Al Franken, these lying liars who tell lies piss me off without limit. They have pushed these bogus lies with immeasurable ramifications; they have literally killed or significantly harmed so many people all in the pursuit of this leftist utopia where men look like marathon runners and everyone eats beans from Mexico, falafel from Egypt, and rice from Thailand.

I'm frustrated that they dupe the entire public, ostracize dissenters as cranks, and literally destroy the health of this nation. I'm frustrated and at my wit's end that the sane ones like Gary Taubes get a token appearance every year on some national talk show, inevitably depicted as an eccentric, while Dr. Oz gets his own daily program and the unparalleled stamp of approval from Oprah.

And then we get to politics, where I have perhaps a slightly different emotional reaction. Instead of unbridled rage, I am sickened and fearful. I am sickened that we have a cultural and academic landscape that vilifies the most productive nation and peoples on Earth. I am sickened that our culture has a perverted set of values that lauds dysfunction and denigrates the staid and normal. I am sickened that a traditional way of life means nothing. I am sickened at the entitlement paradigm, the spoiled, parasitic class, and the aversion to meritocracy.

And I'm fearful that these ideals portend the downfall of a nation and a culture that I know and admire. I'm fearful that these policies will impact this nation and irrevocably change who and what it is. I'm fearful about this nation's potential turn, no longer a beacon of enlightenment and prosperity, more a reflection of its coming majority. I'm fearful that American conservatism will lose. I'm fearful about the future and liberalism's perpetual march against any nominally traditional construct.

Yet some people understand the answer, Atkins, Taubes, Jan Brewer, Tom Tancredo, even a mainstream guy like Trump not afraid to risk expulsion from high society to disseminate the truth. I still believe that large scale cultural and political shifts are possible (Taylor Swift and the Tea Party), but perhaps we should really focus on ourselves and those around us. We should try, on a small-scale, to inform others. And if it doesn't work out, as in HL's case, we can find satisfaction in knowing that we tried our best to motivate positive change.

Liberal Blindness to Conservative Opinion

Liberals rarely ever view conservatism as pragmatic or just; instead, they consider it the work of insidious actors with equally amoral motives. I needn't repeat all the empty insults spewed by the left, such as in this video of NY Democrat Louise Slaughter (real name) who apparently missed the "civility" memo from this January:

“In ’94 people were elected simply to come here to kill the National Endowment for the Arts. Now they’re here to kill women."

“You are allowed to have an abortion if you have been raped or it’s a matter of incest,” said Slaughter. “However, you have to keep a receipt. Did you know that? It’s sort of like an old German Nazi movie. Show me your papers!”

Because the left relies so heavily on unjustified invective, they (ironically so for the empathy party) can't put themselves in the shoes of their opposition. They simply can't understand how their opposition views a particular issue. Before I get into a specific example, let me concede that surely some conservatives are equally guilty of such short-sightedness. But in a PC world dominated by leftism with appeals to the seemingly axiomatic principles of the mainstream not sufficing, conservatives must actually deal with the arguments. Or at the very least, conservatives have an informed opinion because they simply can't escape what the mainstream media believes. And for my own bona fides, I have expressed sympathy for leftist ideas such as feminist trigger warnings and the fat acceptance movement.

With this in mind comes an article from leading leftist and founder of Journolist Ezra Klein on Planned Parenthood. Much of the controversy about Planned Parenthood surrounds their abortion services, with leftists feeling that conservatives exaggerate exactly what Planned Parenthood does. Klein offers a pie chart to illustrate the relatively small amount of Planned Parenthood's services pertaining to abortion:

As you can see in the chart atop this post, abortion services account for about 3 percent of Planned Parenthood’s activities. That’s less than cancer screening and prevention (16 percent), STD testing for both men and women (35 percent), and contraception (also 35 percent). About 80 percent of Planned Parenthood’s users are over age 20, and 75 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the poverty line.

So though the fight over Planned Parenthood might be about abortion, Planned Parenthood itself isn’t about abortion. It’s primarily about contraception and reproductive health.

OK, let's say he offers accurate statistics - 3% is definitely a very small amount. And from Klein's perspective, one which undoubtedly considers abortion an inalienable liberty up there with breathing, this further justifies the organization's funding. Yet, Klein clearly doesn't consider the conservative viewpoint that sees ANY abortion as tantamount to murder. So even though 3% is a relatively small amount, anything above zero abortions is morally unacceptable. To the pro-life individuals, Klein's "but it's only 3%" means absolutely nothing. Murder is murder, no matter how few occur. Thus, if Planned Parenthood spends any money or provides any services aiding abortion, then a pro-life conservative will justifiably oppose it.

Yet Klein can only view this issue within his insular liberal bubble. Klein continues in his ignorance through the rest of the article by discussing the practical benefits of Planned Parenthood, once again missing the primary issue of the pro-life argument (hint: not about hating women). Notice that I'm not criticizing the pro-abortion argument per se, but rather I'm pointing out that Klein, like most liberals, lacks the ability to even consider the opposing side's viewpoint. However, we should expect such obtuseness from liberals concerning their pet causes. Remember their undying support of Tookie Williams, the cold-blooded murderer, who apparently absolved himself by writing children's books.

Saturday Guest Posts?

Saturday Audience Participation or Saturday Guest Post

Are you a new reactionary blogger hoping to attract more people to your site to call you a racist? Are you a fat loser wallowing away in your mother's basement wishing that someone out there will listen to you? Are you a sick and twisted individual motivated only by hatred and lacking any semblance of humanity? Are you expressing a subversive political ideology because your entire life has been a personal, professional, and social failure? Are you a racist, woman-hating nerd who no one could ever like? Are you suffering from child sexual abuse and manifesting this struggle through conservatism? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then OneSTDV wants you.

For the last year and a half, I've written these Saturday Audience Participation posts where I ask the readership a number of questions on a particularly contentious subject or issue. But I'm thinking about going in another direction and initiating a weekly Guest Post.

The Guest Post would be open to anyone and they could write on any subject matter they choose. No strict rules or guidelines other than a moderate length and a topic that would interest the readers. I'd especially like frequent commenters and other bloggers to contribute, though lurkers are surely welcome as well. As for topic, I especially like ruminations on the reactionary blogosphere, though again, almost any topic would suffice.

So today's questions (maybe for the last time in awhile): Which would you rather have - audience participation or guest posts? If guest posts, would you be willing to contribute one? If yes, what's something you might want to write about?

Anti-Racist Pill: Seriously

I've expressed my skepticism towards mainstream medicine so passionately because I believe the promotion of misleading health advice, like the vegetarian paradigm of nutrition or the high cholesterol myth, is literally killing people. I've largely explained the proliferation of health myths as the confluence of leftist bias and monetary motivations. Well, I think I've found the ultimate example of this phenomenon - pills to make you a "better person." Yes, "scientists" are developing pills to improve "moral behavior"; take a wild guess what particular pathologies they will target:

A pill to enhance moral behaviour; a treatment for racist thoughts; a therapy to increase your empathy for people in other countries - these may sound like the stuff of science fiction but, with medicine moving closer to altering our moral state, society should be preparing for the consequences, according to a book reviewing scientific developments in the field.

The quoted experts argue that drugs can have a significant effect on behavior and thus one would presume these changes could eventually apply to moral action. Funny that they describe moral behavior in the terms above and in the following excerpt:

"Relating to the plight of people on the other side of the world or of future generations is not in our nature," he says. "This new body of drugs could make possible feelings of global affiliation and of abstract empathy for future generations."

Here we see an almost unbelievable example of leftist bias in academia and the corporate willingness to profit from promoting it. Big Pharma will gladly use the entrenched concept of leftist morality (read: whitey sucks) to make a bunch of money; the physical harm to its consumers be damned. One wonders though what kind of person would volunteer to take the pill:

He also admits it is unlikely that people would rush to take a pill that would improve their morals.

I don't know; I can imagine this pill becoming quite popular amongst the SWPL crowd. I mean, it's one step away from vegetarianism in the self-aggrandizing moral status game of leftist SWPLdom. The article actually do consider forcing people to take it:

Kahane does not advocate putting morality drugs in the water supply but does suggest that if administered widely...

Wow, he probably had to reign himself in answering that one. For what it's worth, I don't even think this will work nor do I foresee some conspiracy where all right-wingers have to take the pill. Anyone who does probably has a Truther bumper sticker and wears tinfoil on their head. What I find so distressing is the fact that anyone would even consider this a good idea. It reeks of a dystopian sort of social landscape, the people mindless robots but that's fine as long as they buy into liberalism. The article ends by opining on the initial usage:

Meulen suggests moral-enhancement drugs might be used in the criminal justice system. "These drugs will be more effective in prevention and cure than prison," he says.

Does he really think this will happen? Two words: Tuskegee hysteria. Plus, we know who the real target of this pill is, hint - not the majority demographics comprising violent criminals.

How the Media Presents the 2050 White Minority Timeline

Every night I peruse a number of mainstream news sites, blogs, and other media outlets like Slate.com or HuffPo looking for relevant content. Tonight's outing seemed somewhat repetitive, as one particular story kept popping up:

Blackvoices: Census Gives the American Child a New Face
WSJ: Census Shows Hispanic, Asian Children Surging
CNN: White Children the minority in 10 states
Boston Globe: Asian, Hispanic numbers increase dramatically

And here's more coverage from my google search. As you can see, this is quite a popular story. Many of the articles simply summarize the recent findings of a Brookings Institute analysis of the 2010 census. The articles just regurgitate the relevant numbers, enumerating the various gains or loses of each racial group. It's all very boring really, with essentially none of the articles expounding upon the social or economic ramifications.

In reading the stories, I kept thinking that this is really old news. I've heard about the Hispanic population explosion many times before this study. I'm confused as to the newsworthiness of this story given that it provides no new information. So why then the enthusiastic and ubiquitous coverage? To understand this, one must consider the basic motivations of media and how they go about surreptitiously nudging public opinion.

As I noted above, the articles are devoid of commentary independent of hyperbolic code words like "surging" and "dramatically." By focusing solely on numbers, the leftist media obscures the bias of their coverage, which, in this case, exists due merely to the ubiquity of the story. Note the difference here between focused attacks on public information, ala Journolist, and the more sly avenue taken here. Instead of going on MSNBC and engaging in the intellectual equivalent of chanting "na-na, na-na, you can't do anything about it", they merely inundate the public with these types of stories.

So what then does this "over-coverage" strategy accomplish? By constantly discussing the coming white minority, they make it seem inevitable. This implies the 2050 white minority timeline is unavoidable, no matter what. They have these fancy graphs and lots of numbers. It all looks very official, with a very scholarly feel to it. And the incredulous public, the apathetic masses, believes it because the experts have divined it as such. They believe that all those graphs are set in stone, due to the authority conferred upon our academic and media classes proferring this information and the constant stream of stories telling us that's the way it will be.

And this enervates their opposition. They keep seeing the timeline, the numbers, the graphs, and they can't imagine any intervention will suffice in reversing the apparent trends. So the masses acquiesce without recourse because they simply can't imagine any alternative. Of course, the media has consciously silenced any mention of the alternatives and replaced it with a cohesive diversity narrative. In the end, new media provides an invaluable source for combating the mainstream's distortions.

Reactionary Conservatism and Pessimism

Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner gets a lot of flak for crying all the time. Funny that even the shrill feminist women on The View, so eager to lament cultural notions of femininity (read: beauty), gleefully mock him for his un-masculine behavior. What everyone misses - Boehner cries not due to weakness, but due to passion. Perhaps we need more stoic male leaders, yet I don't mind it too much. I don't mind it because it comes from an intense and abiding faith and love for this country. From his 60 minutes interview:

Making sure these kids have a shot at the American dream like I did...it's important.

In between the uncontrollable sobbing comes forth the genuine passion of a man both concerned for this nation's future and wholly cognizant of its unparalleled successes and the opportunities it affords its citizens. As I've written before, I think the reactionary sphere dabbles too much in reactive pessimism. Many commenters are content to focus only on the wrongs of society, the injustices imposed upon the productive class, the failings of our elite to maintain whatever traditional edifices we have left. Instead, we need a more balanced approach such as that expressed by Boehner. Mr. Boehner never forgets what America is at its core, no matter the harm perpetuated by liberalism.

And I think I've somewhat forgotten this, caught up in the admittedly fulfilling blame-game, the all too uncommon dismantling of embedded leftism. What we condemn in the reactionary sphere undoubtedly needs to be put out there in the intellectual sphere. But it needs an optimistic qualification, an understanding that liberalism may not poison future generations if we stand forthright against it. And we need to exalt the America that causes the passion Boehner expresses. The America that (perhaps unfortunately) attracts so many to its shores. The America that mainstream patriots revere. And we can understand these positives at the same time as criticizing the assuredly destructive progression we see in regards to race, gender, and culture.

The issue next becomes public relations. As noted recently by some individuals, The Spearhead has devolved in a whiner's paradise, a place for men to basically complain about a woman not holding the door open or eating too many brownies at the last office meeting. Obviously I don't consider the reactionary sphere a bunch of whiners, as pessimism and reaction remain orthogonal to whining if the arguments hold water (and yes they almost always do). Instead I'm concerned about the baseless invectives directed at reactionary conservatives, as I foresee an idealized depiction of a traditional, Pleasantville-type America serving as a viable counter-argument.

Though, with my devil's advocate inner monologue kicking in, taboo subjects need focused attention to even make a dent in the mainstream. The arguments must make explicit claims without apology. Any distilling of the particular subject matter leads to pandering and groveling for the opposition's acceptance. I guess it's a tricky balance though and I'll leave it at that.

In the end, a socially palatable reactionary conservatism should resemble Father Knows Best mixed with an intellectually sound Archie Bunker.

Number 2: The Paleo Way

A few weeks ago, a number of commenters chided me for discussing bowel movements on the paleo diet. And while one could argue that such discussion crosses into too-much-information territory, what better indicator of what goes in one end than what comes out the other. In fact, I'd argue that "what comes out the other" is the easiest and most telling indicator of one's general health. And to keep this going, is there any bodily function more natural and frequent than bowel movements? I'd say no.

So with this in mind, take a recent article from Cracked.com (leftist but lots of interesting articles) informing us that we're doing it all wrong:

Chances are the pooping facility nearest you is a sitting toilet, a relatively recent invention that flushed its way into mankind's heart with the advent of indoor plumbing in the 19th century. Indoor plumbing has turned out pretty well for the most part, but the pooping style that came with it definitely has not. Pooping on a modern sitting toilet is a big part of where hemorrhoids come from, and it can also cause diverticular disease, an age-related condition that pretty much only occurs in parts of the world where sitting toilets are used, and which can lead to a range of pleasantries up to and including colonic obstruction.

And here's the right way:

A 2003 study observed 28 people pooping in three positions: sitting on a high toilet, sitting on a lower one and squatting like they were catchers at a baseball game...the researchers found that pooping took about a minute less when done squatting and that participants rated the experience as "easier"...In fact, toilets that require you to squat that way have been the standard for most of human history and are still widely used in the non-Western world.

According to proctologists, "We were not meant to sit on toilets, we were meant to squat in the field."

Any of this sound familiar? I relay this information not because I think we should all dig a hole and squat over it. Instead, this is yet more proof of the "paleo worldview" which holds that modern society, no matter how hard it tries, can not undo thousands of years of evolution.

As noted in yesterday's post, and never answered, some commenters wonder how all these various topics come together. After all, why would someone champion HBD, Game, the paleo diet, and a kibosh on educational reform. Because each position understands that man's natural construction is largely immutable, that none of modern society's innovations or the idealistic initiatives of liberalism can change him. He may surrender to society's whims, complacent in his physicality, content with a comfortable quiet life. But he (or she) will feel restless, as if something deep within the recesses of his hindbrain call to him.

Now, such carnal desires aren't always a good thing, but the fact that they exist speaks to an undeniable truth about man. He is a product of thousands of years of natural selection and no matter how much leftist indoctrination and grain-based food you feed him, he still wants to dig a hole and let go.