New Year's Gameplan

Saturday Audience Participation

Last year, we asked the readership: "Are you hungover?" This year, we ask the readership, will you be hungover? What are your plans for tonight? If you're going out, any social pattern you're looking forward to noting? Will you actually watch the TV when the ball drops and that New Year's song plays (last year they barely played any of it before switching to Sinatra's New York, New York)? Do you wish Dick Clark would call it a career or do you ignore his stroke-induced speech and enjoy the legend ushering us into yet another year? Do you get into the spirit of it being a "brand New Year!"? Or is that just for chicks and fat people? Are the people in Times Square just a little too excited? Do you want to punch every single person wearing those year-glasses? What's your favorite part of the New Year's celebration?

Sometimes Big Law and Order Screws People Over

At OneSTDV, we don't often defend ghetto black football players charged with statutory rape, but there's a first time for everything. Leftist sports rag Sports Illustrated gets all teary-eyed about a very talented black, college football player currently in prison. But in perhaps the most surprising news, he basically didn't do anything wrong. Long story short:

Big black football player at age seventeen gets drunk at a party and has sex with an uber-slut girl who claims to be sixteen. That same night, she also has sex with another football player and a 27 year-old man. Turns out, she was a few months shy of thirteen years-old. He loses his scholarship to play at Texas, but still gets admitted to Oklahoma State. While at OK State, he pleads guilty to the charges and subsequently gets kicked off the team after two promising seasons.

The kid made a mistake, but how was he to know that she wasn't even thirteen? Sometimes a justified Big Law and Order system reaches too far in order to engage in moral posturing. And sometimes that same system which keeps us safe ruins lives, as is the case for Mr. Collins. He caught on with another football program at Texas Southern, but then got careless with the terms of his probation. For example:

He blew off his weekly sex offender class, and when he did show up he "exhibited a narcissistic attitude and failed to take the program seriously," according to a probation report.

In April 2009 Collins failed a drug test for marijuana, violating his probation. He was sentenced to 30 days in county jail. After his release, his probation officer discovered nude photos of Collins and his 20-year-old girlfriend on his cellphone -- a violation of the order that he avoid all material portraying "nudity of a child or adult."

Six weeks into his employment at Pilgrims Pride, Collins skipped three straight days of work without calling in and was terminated. He didn't tell his P.O. about it, which was another probation violation. He also failed, for the umpteenth time, to show up and pay for a state-administered lie detector test. Collins tried to explain during a recent phone interview. "I got two kids," he said. "I don't have $200 to give someone to give me a polygraph test. I don't have that money to waste."

In April 2011, Collins admitted to drinking a beer on two occasions. (Collins is barred from drinking alcohol.)

That day, police responded to a domestic dispute call from Collins' girlfriend, who they found alone and bearing no evidence of injury or an altercation...The police were already going to take Collins in for an outstanding traffic citation, but tossing the phone earned him a disorderly conduct charge..

Yes, he should have done everything necessary for his probation, but come on. The guy didn't really commit a crime in the first place and now he sits in jail for smoking pot, drinking beer, looking at personal porn pics, and skipping a few unnecessary meetings. The guy is clearly benign, with absolutely no history of dysfunctional or violent behavior. And he will sit in jail as a prisoner for the next couple of years.

I'm a huge proponent of the Prison Industrial Complex, but sometimes the law overreaches. I guess this is what Sam Francis deemed the "tyranny" aspect of "anarcho-tyranny." Should we then reconsider our stance on harshly punishing criminals? I still don't think so, as no system can work perfectly nor should the absence of perfection justify dismantling a particular institution. We can however note when government, in this case overweening district attorneys who will make work for themselves no matter what, oversteps boundaries.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarification: Let me be clear: I think it's abhorrent that he had sex with a 12 year-old. I assuredly do not want 12 year-olds having sex, period. But there are a small portion of 12/13 year-old girls, especially with puberty starting so early these days, that legitimately look like they are in their late teens. If a girl who has a fully developed body and exudes sexual confidence tells a man she is sixteen, then he has no reason not to believe her. I just don't see how you can punish someone for believing a very believable lie.

More Thoughts on Ron Paul: Jews and Explicit Racial Conservatism

I've been meaning to write a Ron Paul post for a few days now, but then I realized just how many different issues arise in this discussion. I don't have time to go over all of them, such as Paul's vile, naive, and historically ignorant castigation of America for Islamic animosity, so I'll just cover the two topics below.

It's the Jews, stupid: For the last week or so, HalfSigma has been beating the drum that Ron Paul really hates Jews. Do I think Paul hates Jews? Well, let me say that I do not believe Dr. Paul is motivated merely by basic Jewish hatred. Instead, I believe Paul is, as he says he is, a strict libertarian Constitutionalist and that these principles dictate his often times ideologically rigid positions. But I believe this ideological loyalty has led him to harbor a slight animosity towards Jews, as he collectively blames Jews for their disproportionate membership amongst neocons and banksters.

In his series of posts on this topic, HalfSigma rejects Paul's close association with Murray Rothbard as evidence that Paul is not a Jew-hater, calling Rothbard a "self-hating Jew" and thus apparently disqualified from membership in the tribe. But, as I've noted before, a proper definition of anti-semitism should include solely ethnic-based animosity and thus even a "self-hating" Jew would find a similar fate as Edith Stein. That Paul can disregard both Rothbard's and von Mises' ethnic heritage implies that he is assuredly not a Jew-hater.

But Paul's Jewish problem goes beyond his own presumed biases, especially as it relates to his popularity amongst the anti-PC right. For example, take a look at this comment thread at Mangan's where my reticence regarding Paul's lack of explicitly race conscious nationalistic fervor is met with questions about my motives. One commenter notes that I have "the same dislikes of Paul that the Jewish HBD or Paleo bloggers have", another calls me "useless", and more than a few offered the inexorable "neocon" characterization. Funny that I criticize Paul for not celebrating white Christian America and all the Paul-bots can do is respond that I'm a Jewish neocon. In doing so, the Paul-bots expose their only real reason for liking Paul - he pisses off all the Jews, even the "conservative" ones, and won't genuflect before Israel (I like the latter though).

The alt-right Paul-bots ignore the fact that Paul has said essentially nothing positive about white America, thinks vague liberty is more important than traditionalist culture, opposes federal efforts for finding illegals, opposes a border fence, and has a pretty bad record on immigration, including an F from NumbersUSA. Sure, Paul pisses off the media and wonderfully articulates the problems of an insulated elite, but so does Sarah Palin, who reflects the heartland much better than politician lifer and doctor Paul. But then again, Paul's popularity lies in his singular ability to antagonize Jews, so none of these other things matter. Once again, the negative frame of reflexive alt-right pessimism manifests. (FWIW, I don't mind that he angers AIPAC Jews due to his lack of support for Israel because members of those kinds of groups have no loyalty to America, but his corresponding dhimmitude absolutely sickens me.)

Sterile conception of America and spurring a conservative renaissance: The Paul supporters will respond something along the lines of Chuck Rudd:

First and foremost, the modern Western tradition – and American culture – is based upon a strong rule of law, property rights, and the ability of families, communities and other small bodies (read: not centralized governments) to congeal in a natural and unimpeded way. Families and communities prosper because local support is a necessity. When distant support from a centralized authority enters the picture, those local ties begin to fray because they are less necessary.

Basically, alt-right Paul supporters believe that "liberty" is both a necessary and sufficient condition for a return to a racially conscious white America. Before I argue against this, let me show how this sterile view of America leads to, ironically enough, a neocon paradigm as illustrated by this comment thread:

Moreover, if you don't believe that states rights IS American culture, and local control of decision-making IS American culture, then you are a liberal, and neocon, full stop.

Paul is anti-collectivist as he believes that economic and personal freedom are axiomatic - that the power and the essence of a society and nation follows from that. to Paul, that freedom defines the United States - not an adherence to a certain culture, creed, or religion.

"Economic and personal freedom" and "states rights" - that's America, huh? No "apple pie, baseball, and Chevrolet"? No southern hospitality and northern Yankees? No pre-colonial Ivy League colleges? No Bible belt football? No Paul Revere's midnight ride, Pilgrims landing at Plymouth rock, Washington's cherry tree or crossing the Delaware, or Franklin's kite? No Boston Tea Party, California Gold Rush, or Pony Express? No Whitman, Twain, Hemingway, or Fitzgerald? No Leave it to Beaver, the quiet suburbs, the close small towns of the Midwest?

This sounds an awful lot like the neocons who think anyone can become an American, just as long as they buy into our "freedoms." The libertarian viewpoint says nothing about how a nation, built upon laws but not defined by them, ultimately arises from the genetic lineage of the people. If one defines nations merely by its Constitution, what separates America from the presidential republic of Central African Republic, the democratic republic of Zaire, and the constitutional republic of Mexico. I also aver that the Founders would never have supported this viewpoint, as they understood racial differences and how America, a land on a hill, owed itself in part to an intellectual inheritance from Europe.

As for the notion that culture will once again rise organically from political freedom, I'll cite Steve Sailer here. Note that I quote this in regards to how whites will or will not view themselves as a collective, not in regards to whites engaging racial nepotism.

Over the last millennium, something perhaps unique in world history occurred in Europe, especially in its northwestern quadrant (and, in later years, in its offshoots like America): a movement away from the fractiousness of clan and tribe, but without the usual congealment into despotism.

white Americans don’t want to act like the rest of the world, as the white nationalists advise them to, they want to act like white Americans. They don’t want to submit their individual freedom to their extended families, they want to marry whom they want to marry and then focus on their nuclear families.

In other words, whites don't appear particularly likely to "come together." I agree with Sailer here that whites will not just stand up and shake off 50 years of cultural programming from media, academia, and the elites. This assuredly will not happen in a "freer" society either. Especially if one considers Paul's hypothetical leadership being antagonistic towards the Republic (common man does not distinguish between his neighbors and the federal government) and reluctant to actually say anything good about American culture.

While I've argued quite often that conservative America lies dormant, they need social sanction to express their views. Right now, only the anonymity of the Internet provides that. What we need is a socially acceptable, widescale institution to give our ideas social merit. Then someone in the Ivory Tower or polite suburban society can point to a national figure with the proper credentials as evidence that not only hicks from Alabama have these conservative viewpoints. For example, note how many times Phil Donahue mentions Jared Taylor is a Yalie. We are social animals and until some break occurs in our overriding culture, propagated by the elites in government, academia, and media, people will be too scared to say anything anti-PC.

Admittedly, one could argue I've just championed an impossible task - changing the elites' minds. Maybe I have or maybe I unjustifiably reject the idea that a mass uprising could occur by itself; OWS does not count, as it was totally abetted by widespread cultural leftism. Possibly, but I still think that a catalyst needs to come. The people are definitely ready, but they need a spark. And Paul, in regards to conservative consciousness and race realism, will assuredly not provide it. Another better alternative - transparent media and elite hatred of a conservative white Christian may be the best "spark", as evinced by recent rallying around Tim Tebow and Sarah Palin.

Other issues amongst tons of others: libertarians are blank slatists; Paul is a little too Alex Jones; Paul sure seems to like Muslims; states may be sovereign, but America is still a cohesive nation and culture; best of a bad lot? - No, I like Bachmann more, but ultimately I can't really support any candidates unless Tom Tancredo or Sheriff Joe Arpaio run. Admittedly though, those old "racist" newsletters make him look GOOD and there are some things I like about Dr. Paul, especially his understanding of elite collusion.

Mall of America Brawl and What's Next?

[OK sorry, no Ron Paul post today. Hopefully for tomorrow.]

Punchline: blacks.



Oh those "young people", when will they ever learn? In the race realist sphere, we post these types of stories almost daily. I guess we do so as a way of saying, "hey MSM, everyone sees the pattern so start paying attention." Yet I've largely grown tired of noting single examples of black pathology or even the widespread relative dysfunction of blacks and Hispanics. As I remarked during the recent The Atlantic race-intelligence controversy, "[a]rguing about...racial differences in intelligence is like arguing about whether gravity exists or if the sun rises in the east." Basically, my answer to these unending incidents of NAMs actin' a fool is - so?

At his aggregator site, Ferdinand has dubbed these stories "flash mob porn." Of course, porn offers nothing substantial; and I don't need convincing that blacks get into fights and ignore the most basic decorum. After all, I went to some heavily black public schools. I think almost everyone except the most deluded of liberals don't need convincing either. So is it time to move on? Should we just presume the masses have already rejected the leftist media's narrative regarding black dysfunction? Take a look at essentially every single YouTube comment - my favorite "Rise of the Planet of the Apes." Maybe the war has already been won or, in fact, it never existed in the first place. No one seems to actually think we're at war with Eurasia, so we waste our energies in dismantling a social narrative whose only adherents insulate themselves in the Ivory Tower and liberal urban enclaves.

Of course, to the "genteel racists" (how Phil Donahue once characterized Jared Taylor), the question of "what's next" is a sticky subject. Who wants to be the first "respectable racist" to countenance a return to Jim Crow or South Africa style apartheid? I can't imagine many HBDers will gladly go that route, but if blacks can not live within a civilized society (a sentiment repeated constantly on blogs on my blogroll), then what other options exist? To now illustrate the coward point myself, I will of course refrain from offering an answer to "what's next", but I won't ignore the fact that an answer needs to be given.

The Oddity of Apathy

Every social commentator has a preferred enemy. These targeted groups include liberals, the 1%, the banksters, the neocons, the "extremist" Right and so forth. A particular ideological group will blame another particular ideological group for almost all the problems of society. I won't begrudge the narrative here, as I engage in this sort of rhetoric myself, attacking the overweening leftist elite as the primary cause of society's failings. This aggressive group is surely a problem, but one could justifiably argue that a concentrated elite are merely a necessary, not sufficient condition for a liberal downfall; for it is only in a society full of the complacent that an antagonistic elite can attain power and enact their noxious politics.

Take what the Manosphere has dubbed "divorce rape." This past week Mel Gibson had about $450 million stolen from him and basketball star Kobe Bryant will undoubtedly lose tens of millions to his soon-to-be ex-wife. This follows a general trend of successful male celebrities getting ripped off by their gold-digger ex-wives, such as Paul McCartney almost giving half his Beatles fortune to a one-legged prostitute.

I've had a few conversations in real life about these stories and I just couldn't understand the apathy of my friends and family members. While I don't care that Mel Gibson or Kobe Bryant lose a dime, I have a passionate loyalty to justice and this rather transparent theft really gets to me. Here we have men that put their lives into a certain craft and sacrifice tremendously to rise to the top of their professions. Yet the court ignores their struggle, coming in to steal their money and their hard work. The court transfers this wealth to an individual who has done essentially nothing to deserve that fortune. But even worse, if a man is ultimately defined by his passion and pugnacity, then "divorce rape" is the foremost rejection of his value as a person.

Yet so many simply do not care. They shrug their shoulders. They ask why the man didn't have a prenup. They offer a tepid condemnation of the problem. I just don't get it, how can people feel nothing when encountering such a perversion of justice and morality? Do most people have no concept of morality? Do most live selfish lives where gross notions of fairness have no meaning? Are most simply unable to connect, both intellectually and emotionally, to these larger ideals? Or maybe I'm the odd one, preferring the transcendent to the personal.

Christmas, Religion, and the Elites

A Gallup poll just in time for Christmas shows that Americans are still overwhelmingly religious and Christian.

The United States remains a predominantly Christian nation, with 78% of all adults identifying with a Christian faith, and more than 9 in 10 of those who have a religious identity identifying as Christians. [M]ore than 9 in 10 Americans say they believe in God, and … 8 in 10 say religion is a very or fairly important part of their lives.

I don't know about the accuracy of the above numbers, as most "Christmas and Easter" Christians would probably count themselves amongst religionists. Many of these people go to church maybe twice a year, believe in a sort of New Age "spiritual" perversion of their religion, and yet classify themselves as believers. They repudiate explicit concepts like Hell and the Resurrection, instead viewing God as both a big self-help guru in the sky and an exceedingly forgiving parent. Add their implicit acceptance of other faiths as equal paths to Truth to the heretical ideas above and one gets a version of "Christianity" wholly inconsistent with doctrine.

But even then, the masses do still see religion as an important part of their lives. While Europe's embrace of secularism grows, America remains a decidedly religious nation. However, as with almost all social phenomena, the elite disparage the masses' purportedly limited worldview. After all, the elite either champion a logically absurd amalgam of religions or "spiritual" claptrap like New Age Buddhism and Kabbalah (Mozilla does not recognize this word). Additionally, given the unabashed gushing over Christopher Hitchens last week, one presumes that a healthy animosity towards religion (Christianity) also dominates amongst the elite. For the reasons stated, I refuse to mock religion with "anti-religious" elites because they mostly just hate Christianity, yet think that other religions (primarily Judaism, Buddhism, or Hinduism) don't have all that crazy stuff present in backwards Christianity.

So anyway, enjoy the day. I do always get a little sad on Christmas because the holiday season is basically over. Maybe I don't much like Christmas music or the commercialization of December, but everyone just seems happier and nicer this time of year. I'll end with a pet peeve: take down your lights after New Year's, it just feels so wrong seeing a decorated house in February.

Turning off the TV?

Saturday Audience Participation

Mangan responded to my Ron Paul post yesterday. I don't want to discuss that, though I may write another Paul post soon. Instead, I want to point to a comment Mr. Mangan makes in responding to a criticism leveled at me:

I don't want to make this an attack on OneSTDV, but I have to agree with the commenter who said that there's little evidence that he's read serious books while there's abundant evidence that he's steeped in pop culture. Seems almost daily he features some pop phenomenon that I've never heard of (though I am out of touch that way). He really needs to turn off the TV.

Admittedly, I am quite steeped in popular culture, but I don't really spend that much time watching the idiot box. I watch some TV daily and I peruse the Entertainment page at HuffPo, but that's about it. Mangan clearly doesn't do either of these things, a testament to his intellectual maturity and/or his mature animosity towards decadent culture. I won't begrudge Mangan here as there's not much to defend about the frivolity of modern American culture; just a few days ago, I watched 15 minutes of a cupcake baking competition on TLC ("The Learning Channel").

Few reactionary bloggers even cover popular culture, with Paul Kersey and myself the two most prominent. (I know Chuck Ross is familiar with pop culture, but does not write about it as often. Fine, Whiskey too, but his incisive analysis often gets lost in "HATE HATE HATE" screeds.) While I could argue that one needs to understand the zeitgeist to thwart it, I won't. I don't imbibe vapid pop culture for anthropological reasons.

Quite simply, I watch crappy reality TV and know about celebrity gossip primarily to rest my mind. I couldn't care less about the stupid Kardashians or what idiots are on The Real World this season. But I like my culture easy to digest. Plus, none of it affects me; I turn off the TV and that's the end of it. For example, despite years of cultural indoctrination from The Real World, my view of gays hasn't changed for the positive. I also somewhat enjoy the vicarious experience of dysfunction. My life has very little "drama" (that's what the kids call it these days) and reality TV gives me a tiny sense of it.

Today's questions: Do you keep up to date with empty pop culture? Do you think reactionaries "should turn off the TV"? Is there something to be learned from keeping up with vapid pop culture? Is current American culture really that bad?

And Merry Christmas.

Ron Paul's Antagonism and Anti-Conservatism

Ron Paul put out anti-PC newsletters back in the 90's that made "offensive" statements about blacks. Yawn. As I said recently:

If something is true, it's racist.

The center-right and liberaltarians have largely come out against Dr. Paul, their implicit acceptance of leftism quite transparent. Additionally, the establishment Right who profit from their position as "respectable" conservatives, the kind of milquetoasts invited to high society dinner parties but then softly chided for their backwards viewpoints, seeks to undermine Paul's candidacy with this controversy. I have nothing to say on this matter really; it's just boring and predictable.

However, even with this recent problem, Dr. Paul continues his surprisingly strong candidacy. He has a good chance of taking Iowa, though perhaps Mike Huckabee will caution against putting too much weight on that result. Nonetheless, Paul's latest bid for Presidency may be his best shot yet or at least allows him an impact outside wide-eyed readers of Lew Rockwell and von Mises.

Paul's popularity rests on two primary ideas: his anti-establishment rhetoric and his non-interventionism. The former appeals to perhaps everyone, as the 99/1% frame finds favor amongst almost all groups, the masses eager to lament inequality if it gives them a larger piece of the pie. The notion that a shady cabal runs our society finds little favor outside Internet kooks, but enmity towards an insulated elite with too much concentrated power exists amongst liberals, conservatives, and every racial group. While Paul's almost 40 year on and off run as a politician makes him an odd figurehead for this cause, his criticism of the Federal Reserve and a war-mongering government has put him at the forefront.

Paul does seem to be very popular amongst the reactionary Right, though I do not share this enthusiasm. While I have decidedly anti-PC positions on race, gender, and society, I also support a corresponding cultural conservatism that seems wholly absent from Dr. Paul's paradigm. Take perhaps the central theme of his politics - non-interventionism. For comparison, history's most famous non-interventionist Charles Lindbergh (unfairly smeared as a Jew-hater) was spokesman for the anti-war outfit America First Committee. Note the title of the organization - "American First." Can you imagine Paul and his fellow libertarians couching their foreign policy ideas in such a framework? Instead, we get Paul inveighing against "Islamophobia":

When asked about conservative opposition to the “Ground Zero mosque,” Paul suggested Islamophobia was at the root of the controversy: “They never miss a chance to use hatred toward Muslims to rally support for the ill-conceived preventative wars. . . . This is all about hate and Islamophobia.”

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul responded to a question about Michele Bachmann by saying, “She doesn’t like Muslims. She hates Muslims. She wants to go get ’em.” This wasn’t the first time Paul has accused another conservative of Islamophobia — over the years he has repeatedly maligned Republicans for their views on Muslims, suggesting that bigotry is either a natural motivation or a necessary justification for the U.S.’s interventionist foreign policy.

Perhaps the foremost reason I dislike Paul is his soft-exoneration of Muslims. He has also blamed American foreign policy for the unbridled and historically persistent hatred of Islamic terrorists:

“But, very clearly — it was so tragic — but I just point out that a different foreign policy might have diminished the incentive. I don’t believe people are going to come over here and commit suicide to prove that we’re rich and free. They don’t do that. They come because they’re angry at us.”

He then explicitly references the reflexive nature of his foreign policy:

He added that America should have the “golden rule of foreign policy." "When we do something to someone else we should stop and think would we like it if they did it to us?”

I don't begrudge Paul's non-interventionist stance. I don't speak on foreign policy because I don't follow it very closely; but I surely reject our violent exportation of American ideals. Nonetheless, Dr. Paul adopts a wholly un-conservative frame in championing non-interventionism. He rarely if ever says something like, "I oppose intervention because America is more important than other countries. And we can not go around policing the world because it will cost America too much." Perhaps he makes occasional appeals to this idea, but his reflexive antipathy towards neocons is the primary motivation of his foreign policy.

This reticence in actually formulating a conservative perspective coincides with libertarian philosophy. As one notes when reading sites like Lew Rockwell, the vague promise of "freedom" and the aggressive, angry histrionics regarding government intervention dominate libertarian discourse. Never do we see something positive about protecting culture, heritage, or traditionalism from Paul and his ilk. Note that a curmudgeonly, paleo-libertarian ideology can incorporate traditionalism (roughly defined as traditional gender roles, race consciousness, and nationalism), as illustrated by Pat Buchanan's infamous "Culture War" speech from 1992:

In addition to criticizing "environmental extremists" and "radical feminism," he said public morality was a defining issue:

The agenda [Bill] Clinton and [Hillary] Clinton would impose on America — abortion on demand, a litmus test for the Supreme Court, homosexual rights, discrimination against religious schools, women in combat — that's change, all right. But it is not the kind of change America wants. It is not the kind of change America needs. And it is not the kind of change we can tolerate in a nation that we still call God's country.

Why then does Dr. Paul rarely ever speak fondly of American tradition? Because libertarians, given their indiscriminate hatred of the state, refuse to intellectually acknowledge a nation and the attendant cultural trends within them. To libertarians, collective social movements do not exist as such a conception would undermine the notion of the radically autonomous individual. I support the free individual, but the libertarian ignores how individuals comprise society and believe that personal actions manifest in a vacuum. Paul can not support his political positions by appeal to national heritage because to do so would imply that a national, cohesive unit even exists in the first place. And if a nation and national community exist, then one would presume top-down political policies would at least occasionally be justified, a concession at odds with anti-state libertarianism.

But if Paul ultimately supports the same ideas I do, then who cares? Well I'd argue he does not, as Paul has some interesting positions on illegals and immigration. But Paul also cares nothing for traditional America. He only cares about antagonizing the elite. When I turn on the TV in Paul-run America, I'll still see the same dumb white male commercials. When I go to a college classroom, I'll still hear how women are trapped in the home. And when I look up over the football stadium prior to a game, I'll see an advertisement for Brawndo instead of an ostentatious display of national strength. Paul's America is that of the free individual, whatever that means, not the satisfied individual living amongst his cultural peers.

Related post: A Central Failing of Ron Paul and Libertarianism

Infinite Delusion of the Human Brain

I don't know if these types of shows still exist, but the 90's was a veritable golden age for sleazy daytime talk shows. Give a nonthreatening personality a mic, persuade society's most reprehensible members to appear on the show and thus give viewers a means of feeling good about by themselves in watching. I did occasionally watch, primarily because I found the individuals fascinating in a morbid, WTF kind of way. Fortunately, I believe these shows have largely gone away; I guess we have the Internet and reality TV now for our safe voyeurism of the uber-lower class.

But today, we'll return to an episode of the Phil Donahue show about extremely obese women. Sorry "fit and fat" women who are "large-sized." Trigger warning for massive fatties (especially at 0:26):



The whole thing is unbelievable, but here's some quotes:

I can honestly say I'm a large-size woman, but I try and take care of myself.
I probably don't eat anywhere in the neighborhood of what someone would think I eat.
I'm trying to do my fruits and vegetables, what is it 5 a day?
No actually I'm not a sweet eater at all.
Given a choice between a chocolate cake and a small sandwich, I'd go for the sandwich anytime.

Can one legitimately classify these women as insane? I presume these women grossly exaggerate the audience's credulity as well as suffer from an astounding case of self-delusion. The community of "fit and fat" peers these women have erected likely exacerbates this pathological case of delusion. This group of enablers has unfortunately increased in membership as "fat acceptance" feminism and the obesity epidemic gain ground. The Internet also has allowed men with fat fetishes to support this community financially, as well as falsely inflating the fatties' esteem.

I imagine some readers will take issue with the notion that these women actually believe what they say. However, I will evoke Dalrock's "rationalization hamster" - people will willfully delude themselves to protect a fragile ego. The more erudite sociological scholars would include this in the larger framework of cognitive dissonance, with most individuals aware of their own failings, but refusing to consciously accept their inadequacies. In essence, these women "get" how everyone else looks at them, but somehow manage to never fully accept that as legitimate fact.

One can actually marvel at the potency of the human brain here. How can the human brain erect such a reality so removed from the verifiable? How can the human brain divorce itself from the real and measurable so as to believe the entirely opposite? If you still question that such a phenomenon exists, think of all the rejects on American Idol who seemingly believe in their own talent. And if you don't watch American Idol, then watch the video below and wonder why someone would ever post it for the world to see. That's not rhetorical; because while we've been to the Moon and composed elaborate symphonies, is the human brain really strong enough to produce this sort of delusion? (I do feel a little bad posting the video below, but...)



And for God's sake, FUPA, cankles, and flabby arm blubber are not "curves" nor do those nauseating physical attributes make you a "real" woman. For reference, this is a "curvy" woman (LSFW).

False Notions of Heroism and Bravery

In comments here and at other sites, this site has been criticized as a bit saccharine. I don't deny the charge though, as I do sometimes revel in the sappy and romantic. While the sorts of obvious displays of patriotism and conservatism, such as airplanes flying over a football game, do "get" to me, my decided positivity is partially in opposition to the overall blogosphere's negativity. Or using PA's fantastic neologism - "despair porn."

Ironically though, I've had a deliberately contrarian streak for as long as I can remember. In real life, I revel in saying things merely for affect, simply to antagonize polite society and those that feel comfortable within it. On the Internet however, everyone is a self-styled and often over-the-top heretic. Thus online notoriety rarely comes from blaspheming the PC; and those that try come off as immature children starving for attention. Yet I don't want to lose my edge entirely, even as I write a blog that takes on the most hallowed of "truths." Here goes...

Shooting victim Gabby Giffords appears in basically all the year end lists. Here CNN celebrates her as a "hero". The Examiner wonders why Mrs. Giffords was not featured on Barbara Walters' 10 Most Fascinating List. Mrs. Giffords was nominated for a "community hero" award back in September. NPR lauds her "herosim" back in August. Quite clearly, America considers Mrs. Giffords a hero. Now I obviously have no intention of criticizing Mrs. Giffords nor is this post even directed at her in particular.

To put this bluntly, getting shot in the head is not a heroic act. Neither is waking up from a coma or having doctors perform surgeries on you and save your life. Voting on the House floor is also not a heroic act. And neither is doing a TV interview. None of these acts constitute heroism, yet Mrs. Giffords has been universally lionized as a modern-day symbol of strength.

Victims of terrible disease receive similar fawning, with terms like "battle", "bravery", and "determination" often accompanying the undue veneration. Of course, I don't downplay the struggle or the pain experienced by Mrs. Giffords or cancer patients. But none of these individuals have done anything to warrant the respect given to them. Instead, we should praise the doctors who find cures and those that get their hands dirty saving lives every day. Merely deciding to get out of bed in the morning, while perhaps a difficult task for the seriously ill, does not require bravery. It does not require much perseverance either, unless we consider abstaining from suicide an esteemable accomplishment.

I suppose that we offer this unjustified praise as a means of emotional support. And in the end, I don't argue with the beneficial nature of such an odd practice, though I'd prefer we keep it personal and not parade around individuals like Mrs. Giffords as public examples of strength. A guy cutting off his arm to survive? A blind man running a marathon? A soldier saving the lives on the battlefield? A firefighter running into a burning building? All worthy of this measure of respect, but not those that merely have to endure misfortune. Such hardship should surely be cause for sympathy, but not a respect that should be earned through unique deed.

[YouTube's best (only?) alt-right vlogger and a reader of this site, Ramzpaul, sort of inspired this post. Check out of his videos for the sort of alt-right guy you'd want in your neighborhood.]

Nihilism and Marriage: Responding to Ferdinand Bardamu

So my Saturday post criticizing male travel bloggers set off a little bit of a comment firestorm. Ferdinand Bardamu (Ferd), editor of the Manosphere's central hub chastised me in the comments then linked to my post at In Bona Fide under the title "Arguing with 'Christian' Conservative Manginas." Ferd then followed that up yesterday morning with a full length post at In Mala Fide entitled Why Marriage Makes Men Stupid. Below are my thoughts on the primary motivation of male travel bloggers and the cultural milieu in which they reside:

Oh yea, add the eXiled to that list as perhaps they best illustrate this juvenile abdication of adulthood and responsibility. In essence, all of these "man travel" bloggers lash out at society indiscriminately, bashing all women, everything about Amerika, and everyone who seeks value in middle-class responsibility and family. According to travel bloggers, these "boring" individuals are drones imposed upon by our horrible society, while a foreign land full of underage hookers, loads of drugs, and other uppity expats apparently has something better to offer. Basically, these people believe finding love and raising a family is less spiritually uplifting than whatever else is out there.

A number of issues were raised in the comments. Ferd repeats the popular notion that Christian and pseudo-Christian shaming will force us to marry fat, entitled, bitchy, feminist American princesses:

Over the top at times, but a needed response to the willful naivete of "Christian" "conservatives" (in quotes because if Jesus were alive today, he'd be busy burning churches) who maliciously try to shame men into "manning up" and marrying some fat sow to save Christianity/the white race/insert cause of the month here.

Stop slumming around the Capital District, Ferd. Fatness is almost exclusively a lower class phenomenon. And for all the Manosphere's talk about "being a man", they have a woefully ignorant notion of gender relations. Women fall in line when a man asserts himself. As Roissy consistently shows, an entitled bitch with a degree from Oberlin melts when imposed upon by a stern, strong male figure.

In his article, Ferd then presents his main argument - marriage spiritually enervates men. He points to a number of luminaries who eschewed marriage or "CONservative" monogamy, such as Feynman, Chopin, and Schrödinger.

No matter who you are, having a girlfriend, wife, fuck-buddy or any relationship with a woman requires mental exertion. Women are inherently uncreative and unimaginative creatures — having to listen to their nattering day in and day out kills brain cells.

Note Ferdinand's predictable denunciation of all women as tiresome harpies. As I alluded to above, a viable patriarchy, both in a personal and societal sense, will undermine this unfortunate inclination of the Sex and the City generation. Donna Reed may not be coming back, but surely the insufferable caricature presented by the women-hating Manosphere needn't persist indefinitely. Further, and excuse my mawkishness here, many men do find genuine love offered by a kind, feminine woman. In sum, I simply do not agree with the Mansophere's (no doubt full of extreme nerds and in-the-closest homos) hysterical antipathy towards women nor their sterile conception of women as semen receptacles.

However, Ferd's argument does not fail primarily for this reason. Ferd's argument fails because he implicitly founds it upon nihilism. Now I won't begrudge Ferd's nihilism, as despite my blogging content, no one can outdo my own intellectual support of this basic philosophy. Yet, I have successfully compartmentalized nihilism from social pragmatism, understanding that we needn't always follow logic in our actions. By espousing a dubious argument based on an exceedingly small number of men's professional accomplishments, Ferd ignores the far more important societal level notion of marriage. While marriage may dampen intellectual output, a concern outweighed by the fact that long-term married people (not the shogun, lower-class version) are happier, we should not view it in the context of the personal.

Ferdinand appears to revel in his own brand of contrarian nihilism and refuses to understand that nihilism and egoism manifested as political and social policy leads to destruction. And that destruction leads to generally defined pain, a state of being that equally affects the materialist and the believer. In this context, we note the distinction between our two positions. Ferdinand takes nihilism too far, believing that a hedonistic lifestyle will have no ramifications down the line. While I agree with Ferd on the logical and intellectual justification of hedonism, as engaged in by male travel bloggers and anti-marriage supporters, I disagree with the premise that civilization can incorporate the radically autonomous.

For those now thoroughly lost - basically, I philosophically agree with Ferd that man should seek his own pleasure, yet I believe that Ferd carelessly overlooks the consequences of a society that condones such behavior. Further, I believe that the crusading conservatives who envision a cultural renaissance seek something far more valuable than hooker sex and getting high; they seek a healthy and just society that provides a collective, spiritual benefit to those that erected it.

Marriage and married men are ultimately the bedrock of any healthy society. A society that accepts Ferd's nihilism by not shaming men to "man up" welcomes its own suicide. By allowing men the complete freedom to seek their base desires, society undermines why it exists in the first place. By demanding that men find a woman to love and raise a family (oh the horror!), society ensures its survival and its leadership by a stable group. These married men raise their children in a loving home, coach their kids' friends in sports, pass down values and culture, engage in communal bonding, and act as social authority figures. Only married men, given the sanction of marriage and the genetic bond of fatherhood, can provide such stability. And from the nuclear family, everything else is built.

Ferd's ideological loyalty to nihilism also arises in his tacit support of soft-anarchy, a position famously championed by the nauseating folks at the eXiled. Ferd wants the same radical autonomy popular amongst liberals, even chiding us "CONservatives" for not going along with his plans. Logically, Ferd sees traditional organizations as the primary roadblock to a society that allows men total freedom. And chief among these traditional means of organization is marriage. By undermining marriage, Ferd can undermine the whole of society and seek pleasure without anyone or anything stopping him.

Now coming full circle, how will this naively individualistic conception of man and his social relations end? I confidently predict that a society without organization, without means to dampen man's carnality, without a fundamental social building block like the nuclear family will collapse. And when it collapses, this rundown, depressed society of the radical hedonist will offer him nothing. The pleasure he seeks will not outweigh the problems imposed by the wretched state of his society. He may "tan poolside", but what if there's no pool?

[Disclaimer: Ferd is still one of the only Manosphere blogger I actually really like. He often irks me, but he does scathing pessimism like very few others.]

Mormons Go Race Liberal

As we saw in Friday's post, Mormons are sort of the Germanic version of Jews - a well-behaved, smart, and insulated ethno-religious community. Fittingly, Mormons exist as a vestige of America's real-life, 1950's Pleasantvilles, a time period that progressive society now views with mocking contempt. Given the mainstream's caustic jabs, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Mormons are overwhelmingly white. Yet the easily scorned, relatively dysfunctional "wrong kind" of white do not comprise the Mormon church. Instead, Mormons are really the picture of stability and success. They have stable families, a solid communal bond, and Utah thrives despite the recession.

Unfortunately though, Mormonism has "progressed" consistent with a maxim of modern society:

That which is not sufficiently conservative will eventually become liberal.

As with most religions, the spiritual mandate to evangelize takes precedence over practical matters like race and nation. Mormons have unsurprisingly fall in line as our global society demands adherence to the leftist creed above all else. A series of videos on YouTube entitled "I'm a Mormon" presents the religion as a hip, multicultural belief system. The following video showcases a Mexican anchor baby who converted after gang and prison stints:



Another video shows a black Southerner who converted after dropping of high school and going to prison. Other videos showcase a black urban schoolteacher, a black social worker for the homeless, an interracial couple, and a "husband, rocker, Mormon." Wow, they're totally not a bunch of squares - sign me up! (Note that I am not criticizing any of the individuals shown as most appear to be respectable people.)

Mormonism has a sensitive history with regards to race, as the Church did not allow a black priest until the 70s. While the Church gave a number of different opinions on slavery and the supposed curse of black skin, the isolated community of Mormonism made it segregated by default. In the leftist narrative of history, this passive segregation and the persistent "whiteness" of Mormons today justifies charges of racism.

In searching for what motivates this risible campaign, we can look at how the mainstream currently portrays Mormonism. Two recent examples suffice. First, the BYU basketball team suspended black player Brandon Davies for breaking university policy by having premarital sex. The mainstream came down hard on BYU, censuring them for anachronistic policies and, of course, racism. Second, the award-winning Broadway play by South Park creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker, Book of Mormon, depicts two Mormon missionaries as square and naively earnest (a negative disposition in post-sincerity America). One notes a stark contrast between this "too white" caricature, an intention confirmed from one glance at the poster, and that of modern commercials which show brown/black multiculturalism as the sole means of vibrancy. And here's a random comment from a YouTube video describing Mormons as "an intolerant, white supremacist, inbred and inflexible subgroup." In sum, haughty mainstream elites and their foot soldier SWPLs look down on Mormons for characteristics a healthy society would celebrate.

And yet the official Mormon church has bowed to leftist cultural pressure by softly rejecting what makes them great in the first place. We see here how leftism undermines yet another pillar of traditionalism - religion. And the religious are mostly willing to go along, perhaps more concerned with the transcendent than the here and now.

Being Lied To

I grew up in an extremely religious, basically fundamentalist household. To this day, my parents have maintained their passionate faith, with this often a topic of contention between us. I began rebelling early on, demanding my own freedom from the family's faith-based zeal. My parents viewed this as a passing fad, vacillating between stern denunciation and begrudging acceptance. This adulthood apostasy from my childhood faith is often expressed with anger and resentment. I am the passionate heretic today because of the lies I learned as a youth, my dissent just as intellectual as emotional. I absolutely hate my parents' faith, as opposed to merely understanding its failings, primarily because I had to endure the lies as a child.

Of course, I speak of my mother's ardent vegetarianism which she unsuccessfully tried to impose upon me as a child. At about age eight I began incessantly begging for meat and have refused, to this day, to eat any of the vegetarian/vegan dishes she prepares, like quinoa, miso soup, and kous kous. Unlike a lot of other paleo-diet bloggers, I've analyzed this modern pseudo-religion in the context of social phenomena, perhaps as a result of my emotional anger at the doctrine of vegetarianism. While my mother adopted vegetarianism long before it became fashionable and did so almost entirely for health reasons, my rejection has a foundation outside the ostensible truths of biology. Much like the angry atheist born into a Mormon or Orthodox home, I am extremely angry that the supposedly reliable authority structure could lie to me for all those years.

I think the many of the most passionate adulthood voices stem from childhood resentment. PA has a theory on the genesis of the current alt-right that mirrors the oft-repeated notion of the "red pill":

In short, you can refer to alt-Righters as righties who lost confidence in traditional American institutions — business, military, the GOP, churches — as compromised beyond salvaging. In essence, alt-Right is the Old Right, resurrected for and by the Millennian/GenY.

In essence, alt-right contrarians need a cathartic forum primarily as a means of maintaining "red pill" lucidity. The popular zeitgeist isn't merely wrong; it's deceitful in propagating their message to a naive generation who subsequently resent the farce in which they were unwilling participants. From this, perhaps we learn something - the most fervent ideologues are spurred not by intellectual reason, but by antagonistic anger. Reason can convert a man, yet anger compels a man to express himself, providing a boon to whatever paradigm he champions. And very little angers a man more than do lies.

Thoughts on Male Travel Blogs

Saturday Audience Participation

The "Man"-osphere includes men who have decided to travel abroad as a means of escaping quarterlife crisis. For example, some guy writing for the site SingleDudeTravel often posts at In Mala Fide and the patron saint of this genre, Roosh V, still relays his anecdotes from a youth hostel in whatever third-world shithole he's sleeping in this week. The basic justification for this vagabond lifestyle follows:

-Dude, I just watched Fight Club.
-Fuck this.
-American girls are fat.
-I'm moving to South America to bang drunk, underage whores, drink all day, and frame my immature laziness as enlightened self-discovery.

Oh yea, add the eXiled to that list as perhaps they best illustrate this juvenile abdication of adulthood and responsibility. In essence, all of these "man travel" bloggers lash out at society indiscriminately, bashing all women, everything about Amerika, and everyone who seeks value in middle-class responsibility and family. According to travel bloggers, these "boring" individuals are drones imposed upon by our horrible society, while a foreign land full of underage hookers, loads of drugs, and other uppity expats apparently has something better to offer. Basically, these people believe finding love and raising a family is less spiritually uplifting than whatever else is out there. I present the dichotomy as such because it's really the truth of it - these "male travelers" seek anything but here, without consideration that "here" can offer something worthwhile if one looks properly.

Independent of the above characterization, I don't like travel in general. And if I did travel, it would be to the natural wonders of the United States, particularly anything mountain-y. I love the serenity of the mountains and that sort of clean, unadulterated air. America has plenty to offer in regards to travel, but of course one can't then impress the SWPL class with tales of a superficially edifying experience. If I had to go to another country, I sure wouldn't pick the South American destinations, land of huge asses and gangs of street thieves (or worse), popular amongst the "male travel" class. Japan, Greece, Italy, and the Netherlands/Belgium/Holland would probably be at the top of my list.

Today's questions: What do you think of these "male travel" blogs and bloggers? What do you think of their abject pessimism regarding America and American women? Are they chasing something just as superficial as what they criticize? They all seem to abhor family life, thoughts? Have you traveled? If yes, to where and what did you get from it?

[Note: I do sincerely admire their courage though.]

Bizzaro Asperger's Syndrome

A viral video this week comes from Utah State where a number of co-eds are asked about platonic relationships between men and women:



Highlight at 2:13: girl's apparent displeasure reacting to beta lust. The summary: all the girls initially state that men and women can be "just friends", but the interviewer prods a little further and the girls change their answer. In essence, these co-eds have a peer group of individuals Roissy/Heartiste has dubbed "beta orbiters", the milquetoasts who provide emotional support for attractive girls while they pursue "unavailable men."

The video is funny not only because it showcases how women can nonchalantly ignore the evident desires of unattractive men. But also because it shows the general ignorance that most people have towards their own behavior and the social phenomena present in their surroundings. While readers of this blog have that rare ability to discern social motivations and patterns, most people just live their lives without concern for such matters. Of course, everyone sort of notices how others act, but the vast majority of people would find notions of the "sexual marketplace", "selfish gene", and "social capital" incredibly odd.

People like to live without a conscious understanding of social minutiae, perhaps as a means of maintaining life's spiritual mysteries and because such a sterile conception of man contradicts the whimsical way in which people prefer to interact. This codified approach to human behavior has spurred some to label even a social genius like Roissy/Heartiste an "aspie." In doing so, they imply that only a socially awkward pariah would present a reductionist conception of man, down to the manner in which individuals hold their drinks and what angle to place one's feet. I agree that it seems odd at first, but people follow observable patterns and some others can't help but notice these patterns.

In sum, us social anthropologists suffer from a sort of bizzaro Asperger's syndrome. Unlike the traditional version, we have an intimate understanding of how and why people act the way they do. But similar to aspies, we have a decidedly unemotional, slightly perplexed response to others' idiosyncrasies, preferring analysis to comfortable ignorance. Regular people like the girls profiled in the video generally just sort of live their lives. They cry, laugh, and smile, never once stopping to think how those emotions manifest. If given a choice, I'd probably prefer this.

[Anyone else regretting not looking at Utah State in choosing a school? Seems to be lots of pretty girls there, not Arizona State uber-hot sluts, but the girly, cute, nice type.]

Jewish Attitudes in Politics and Culture

Generally, I just stay away from writing about the Jews. This isn't from lack of interest as I actually find HBD-osphere (somewhat distinct from the alt-right sphere) discussion of Jews quite fascinating. Unfortunately though, whenever I write a post about Jews, a small minority of "eccentric" individuals show up and take over the comment threads. It just gets tiresome. But today, I felt like writing a Jew post. Here goes.

Mangan posts a video of Daily Show host Jon Stewart mocking Republican presidential candidates pandering to Jews. Mangan presents a very simple, yet exactly correct argument against this kind of servitude:

Not exactly a huge fan of Jon Stewart, but he exactly nails the absurdity of a slew of presidential candidates vying to be winner in the "I Put Another Country Ahead of my Own" sweepstakes.

He then alludes to Ron Paul, the one nominee conspicuously absent from this event. I've written of my dislike for libertarianism before, but haven't spoken much on Paul's vile foreign policy position. While I share his isolationist stance, Dr. Paul does not justify it in the context that Mr. Mangan presents. Instead of merely saying "our interests supersede those of other countries", he comports with the radical left in downplaying Arab hatred of the West and censuring America as the prime motivator for Muslim animosity. In keeping with their general paradigm, paleo-libertarian isolationists adopt a negative conception of America as opposed to championing this nation as a valuable moral entity unto itself.

While Dr. Paul opposes all American escapades abroad, the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) does just the opposite. Let me repeat their name just in case you missed it - "Republican Jewish Coalition." I presume that this is an American outfit of "conservative"-leaning Jews. So why then do all the speakers go on and on about Israel? Why do they speak of their passion and experience with respect to Israel? Why do the candidates present political ideas and strategies relevant to Israeli's future? Why do they celebrate another nation in the midst of their running for America's presidency?

It appears then that the Republican Jewish Coalition doesn't much care for their own country. They will vote for the candidate who does the most for a foreign nation instead of the candidate who will do the most for this nation. I ask how can these Americans so blatantly express a divided loyalty, even advertising their soft-treason by hosting such an event. We know the candidates play along just to get donations, but the farcically named "Republican" Jewish Coalition will clearly only give their support to a candidate who speaks to their interests. And from the video, those interests have nothing to do with the economic, cultural, and social calamity currently occurring here.

The lack of patriotism extant amongst even "conservative" Jews reflects what I've seen as general ingratitude displayed by Jewish-Americans. Take University of Iowa professor Stephen Bloom who denigrates rural Iowans for their friendly inquiries about his presumed hunting activities:

And here's the point: I can't tell you how often over the years I'd be walking Hannah in our neighborhood and someone in a pickup would pull over and shout some variation of the following:

"Bet she hunts well."

"Do much hunting with the bitch?"

"Where you hunt her?"

To me, it summed up Iowa. You'd never get a dog because you might just want to walk with the dog or to throw a ball for her to fetch. No, that's not a reason to own a dog in Iowa. You get a dog to track and bag animals that you want to stuff, mount, or eat. That's the place that may very well determine the next U.S. president.

And god forbid they cordially wish strangers "Merry Christmas":

After years and years of in-your-face religion, I decided to give what has become an annual lecture, in which I urge my students not to bid strangers "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Easter," "Have you gotten all your Christmas shopping done?" or "Are you going to the Easter egg hunt?" Such well-wishes are not appropriate for everyone, I tell my charges gently. A cheery "Happy holidays!" will suffice. Small potatoes, I know, but did everyone have to proclaim their Christianity so loud and clear?

Here's his general description juxtaposed with some other awful (\sarcasm) observations below:

Whether a schizophrenic, economically-depressed, and some say, culturally-challenged state like Iowa should host the first grassroots referendum to determine who will be the next president isn't at issue. It's been this way since 1972, and there are no signs that it's going to change. In a perfect world, no way would Iowa ever be considered representative of America, or even a small part of it. Iowa's not representative of much. There are few minorities, no sizable cities...

----------

Driving through these throwback towns, a stranger might receive a slight nod from a farmer on the side of the road, or a two-finger driver's greeting from knobby fingers atop a pick-up's steering wheel. Strangers are rare in these parts...where car alarms are as unheard of as home burglar alarms? Locals don't bother to put on their turn signals because everyone knows where everyone else is going...And while it's changing fast, rural Iowa is still a place where homes sell for $40,000, serious crime is tee-peeing a high-school senior's front yard, and traffic is getting caught behind a tractor on Main Street. If rural Iowans ever drive on the highway, they welcome other vehicles accelerating on the entrance ramp, smiling, often motioning with their hand to move on over, as though gently patting the butt of a newborn.

In another article making the rounds this week, a rabbi fears Tim Tebow might spur an uprising of conservative white Christians (seriously):

If Tebow wins the Super Bowl, against all odds, it will buoy his faithful, and emboldened faithful can do insane things, like burning mosques, bashing gays and indiscriminately banishing immigrants. While America has become more inclusive since Jerry Falwell’s first political forays, a Tebow triumph could set those efforts back considerably.

Yet for all their disdain towards middle-America, what nation has allowed the Jews to prosper? What nation ushered in the creation of the Jewish state? What nation has more freely allowed Jews entry into their founding stock elite? What nation has allowed Jews to incorporate their ethnic culture into the mainstream? And most of all, what nation risked their most virile young men, many coming from those same small midwestern towns, sending them all the way across the world to save the Jews from extinction? And how do these ingrate coastal Jews repay them - by depicting flyover country as America's caste of untouchables?

Now, I don't claim to find much in common with the sorts of individuals who drive pickup trucks, watch NASCAR, hunt, or listen to country music. I surely wouldn't feel comfortable in the social circles of rural Iowa. But if someone pays their taxes, doesn't play loud music, and gives me a friendly wave at the supermarket, then what have they done to deserve my derision? I don't have to be friends with someone for them to earn respect and to refrain from condescendingly mocking their way of life. I respect good people with good values, that's all. (I will say though that rural America increasingly diverges from the venerable "Then" people in this post.)

I wonder if Jews will ever understand this far more real idea of tolerance, outside that of smarmy coastal liberalism, and realize the benedictions conferred upon them in this great nation.

The Real Motivation of Occupy Wall Street

Every time I walk into a large library, I feel a little overwhelmed. Imagine how much scholarship exists in just that one library. Think of all those books, filled with so much knowledge, written by all those people. Think of all the pages within those books, each one filled with arcane facts of history, impressive philosophical insights, and advanced math and science. A library overwhelms me because it makes me feel small, it makes me feel unaccomplished and, most of all, no matter my persistence, the scale of the information present is ultimately beyond my grasp. No one can comprehend the sum total of human knowledge; it can not be done. We can only hope, via long-term study, to attain mastery in a niche field.

Perhaps the most brilliant man to ever live, Issac Newton once said, "If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." While some dispute the intent of the claim, I interpret the quote to mean that Newton understood the sum chain that culminated with his work. He understood that worthwhile achievement does not come easily or hastily. Achievement is a process whereby we build on those that came before us and hope that, in time, our own contributions will be praised in the context of this continuing development.

* * *

Time magazine (justifiably) named Occupy Wall Street its top story of the year:

On Sept. 17, a couple hundred protesters demonstrating against the excesses of corporate execs and the pervasive influence of high finance in U.S. politics set up camp in Lower Manhattan's Zuccotti Park and refused to leave.

To some, Occupy Wall Street is the left-wing iteration of the Tea Party, directing their rage not at big government but at the big banks that gutted the world economy and took billions in bailouts from the U.S. government while awarding themselves hefty bonuses.

The common narrative about OWS is parroted above: antagonism towards corporate greed. This central message has expanded into standard leftist complaints about government redistributing more wealth, student loan costs, and an insulated elite. The OWS presents itself as moral dissidents, arguing that government must do something about wealth inequality and a generation hamstrung by rising college tuition. The movement had people go online to advertise their own hardships (read: poor choices) and garner sympathy because they're broke, pregnant out of wedlock, and their History degree from For-Profit U doesn't impress anyone.

I've criticized these individuals as the "entitled class" and I stand by that characterization. They whine about government redistribution not due to some transcendent sense of justice, but primarily because they want a free piece of the pie. The OWS crowd, of course, rejects such an unflattering depiction; preferring to cast corporate elites as the antagonists in an admittedly potent leftist, SWPL narrative. In sum, OWS discourages focus on themselves, their own bad choices, their own fears and instead castigates a faceless external cause for all their problems.

And while OWS does put on their best puppy dog faces sometimes, they rarely speak of their fear. Not fear about paying mortgages or caring for their bastard children, but rather an apprehension similar to the one I experience stepping into a library. A fear that consumes a BigLaw lawyer about to start studying for his bar exam. A fear of the new stockbroker that he won't measure up. The pre-game jitters of a rookie QB, nervousness of a 15 year-old technical apprentice, and the misgivings of a first-year engineering student. Notice what all these people have in common: they're at the bottom of the totem pole looking up at everyone else.

That fear comes from the hard work that awaits these neophytes as they resolve to climb the ladder. Every pursuit in life demands that we learn. We learn the "tricks of the trade", listen to our elders, and slowly climb as we gain skills and the commensurate respect. Almost everyone starts at the bottom and that "big library" I spoke of can feel daunting to the callow beginners.

Yet the OWS crowd, eager to rip apart occupational and societal structure and content in whining about the lack of comfy middle-class jobs ("...but I went to Dartmouth!"), don't want to "climb the ladder". They don't want to put in the work to rise the ranks. They want the comfort of middle-class life without the effort. They want the nice apartment and the money via political agitation rather than through hard work.

Should we find this surprising though? America raised a generation of princesses who got a sticker for trying and a celebration for mediocrity. They've been told that everyone is equal and have been praised for everything they do. How then should these kids react when the real world presents a much harsher reality, where status is gained via acts not existence, via merit not mere good behavior.

But I don't want to express too much sympathy in this regard. I sympathize with their anxiety, yet at some point, one has to man up. One has to accept struggle as part of life, simple as that. The OWS crowd, the tents gone but the entitlement remains, would do well to understand this simple truism.

Multicultural Crayons - Seriously

Sometimes, I think maybe we should just allow liberals to sink their own ship:

Accomplishments of White Society and Her People

A few weeks ago, I had a discussion with a liberal creationist that included these gems:

If it weren't for Native Americans, none of those dumb Europeans would have figured out how to grow crops in North America. And how did the settlers repay them? By giving the Indians smallpox.

America was built on the labor of black slaves and Asian immigrants. So to say white people made America is absolutely wrong - it would be nothing without non-whites working because white people didn't want to do so.

This idea that whites are basically dispensable has persisted, with the apparent necessity of Latino laborers and Asian hi-tech workers (though I do sincerely respect Asian society) now an entrenched idea. One can also add the leftist notion that whitey ain't so special as blacks and Hispanics would dominate Ivy league schools and Silicon Valley if just given the chance. And of course, whitey has no rhythm, game, or swag in regards to cultural vibrancy, so he doesn't provide much in that realm either.

While leftists pontificate on the importance of Mexican laborers (is that really something to brag about - "our race can tend to gardens and fold bedsheets!"), white people quietly make the country run smoothly. They provide the backbone of the productive middle class, from the medical professionals to the technicians and essentially everyone in between. America can not exist, either in a practical or transcendent sense, independent of white people. I don't say that as a means of conjuring up feelings of (irrational, but adaptive) racial pride; it's just the truth. White people do stuff and they do it well.

Note here how I present whites as a positive collective, instead of merely an exclusionary group that does not include non-whites. I've often championed a more inclusive, optimistic conception of race and society, as opposed to the "despair porn" and incessant bitching present in some corners of race conscious discussion. Some people just like to moan; that's not what I'm looking for though.

And to showcase that more explicitly, I present frequent commenter Doug1's "A Celebration of Whites", a brief summary of why white society and the people that comprise it are so great. Enjoy:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
White men created the modern world, from soup to nuts. The best any other race (the Japanese) has managed to do in the modern world is do some tweaking improvements. White men created the first mass production printing press, which unlike the non mass production Chinese ones, immediately created a rapidly transformational mass circulation of comparatively low priced pamphlets, books, and journals. White men created the first systematic and interconnected institution of Science, which was greatly facilitated by written communication from one end of Western and Central Europe to the other, with this connection of scholars aided by Gutenberg’s mass production printing press. They created the first truly advanced Mathematics heavily used in their science and the first precise mechanical timepieces.

They created the steam engine and the industrial revolution. They created the first industrial mass production, beginning with steam engine powered textile mills. They created the internal combustion engine and the automobile that utilized it. They created the diesel engine and the rail locomotives and large passenger and freight ships made of steel that used it. They were the first to drill for petroleum and build refineries that could turn it into not only gasoline and diesel fuel but also plastics and many other materials. They created the telegraph and the first nearly instantaneous trans continental and trans oceanic communications systems built on it. They created the telephone and the wireless radio and after that television and video cameras. They created photography and then motion pictures. They created electric lights, electric generators, record players and recording devices. They created aeroplanes and jet planes.

Whites then used their scientific and practical foundations to create rockets which they used to launch into earth orbit satellites for global communications, globally monitoring weather and climate, photographing the geography and developments, and then a multiple satellite global positioning system free for everyone of every race and nation to use. They invented rockets and guidance systems and computers and communications which took white men to the moon, and safely back to earth. They invented rocket launched satellites to the near and outer solar system to explore those planets and other mysteries of the origins of our world, plus the Hubble deep space exploring orbital telescope to explore the origins of the universe for the knowledge of all mankind.

White men created nuclear power and will create nuclear fusion power. They created computers and integrated circuits which powered more advanced and much smaller ones, and then the Internet. They created solar cells and electricity generating windmills. Hell, they even created electricity (at least of the man made and harnessed variety), electric motors, and all the myriad uses we make of electricity. They created scientific effective medicine and virtually all pharmaceuticals. They created virtually all chemistry and the endless products made from systematic scientific knowledge of it.

It’s damn hard to think of anything of great significance in the modern world that wasn’t created by white men, from useful products to communications to computations to all sciences to entertainment. The most beautiful art and the most sublime music are all created by white men, beginning in the Renaissance, though Greek statues and architecture were pretty damn impressive, and so was the art of the European high middle ages. Even the availability of ethnic culture has to do with the white man, as he created globalization and benevolently allowed or invited foreign virtuosos into his nations. White men created opera, symphonies and chamber music. Though, sadly, they did not invent rap.

White men created democracy and then the first republican representative democracies in large nations. White men didn’t invent slavery, but they did end it. White men lead the world in the first ever international consensus that aggressor territory grabbing war should be prohibited, with the founding of the UN. It only was more or less prohibited because of the enforcement of those UN principals primarily by predominantly white America, and to some extent the white nations of Britain and France. White men were the first in the world to develop our modern concept of human rights and spread it worldwide. White men were the first to end the routine use of torture as a criminal punishment.

The Industrial Revolution, preceded by the Scientific revolution, both entirely and exclusively the creation of white men, absolutely transformed the world and made it the modern entity it is today. The industrial revolution is on par in importance, or perhaps more important and transformational, with the agricultural revolution. For the first time in history those developed nations which have successfully adopted the industrial revolution have escaped mass Malthusian misery and their whole populations live relatively rich and comfortable lives. That was the work of white men, though many people of other races are now also similarly benefiting, beginning with the Japanese, but now fast on the Koreans and Chinese, and others around the world.

A Central Failing of Ron Paul and Libertarianism

I've been meaning to write on libertarianism's blind adherence to ideology over just about everything else. So I'd like to thank Ron Paul for gift-wrapping this post for me. In an effort to court conservative Christians, Paul has made the connection between his faith and his politics a more central theme of campaigning. While I applaud Paul's refreshing defense of capitalism as a moral issue, he still subordinates social and moral concerns to his political aims/boogeymen:

Paul sides with social conservatives on most issues: He believes that marriage should be defined as being between only one man and one woman and he does not think the federal government should guarantee women the right to have an abortion, a position influenced by his decades as an obstetrician who delivered thousands of babies.

So Paul is against gay marriage and abortion. One presumes that the gravity of these moral concerns, especially the latter, should be the most important consideration in enacting law. Yet, this isn't the case for Paul due to his opposition towards federal government:

"I don't want the federal government dictating marriage definitions nor a position on right to life. It should be done locally. It'll be imperfect, probably, because every state won't be the same, but what is really bad is when you allow the federal government to define marriage and put the pressure and make the states follow those laws."

In other words, abortion is murder, but only if it's done in a given state. For a man that casts himself a Biblical conservative, this reeks of moral relativism. An actual conservative sums it up wonderfully:

To us this is a morality issue. So the reason you don't have slavery in Alabama and not slavery in Iowa is because slavery is wrong. And we believe abortion is wrong. We don't believe it should be left up to the states. And the same way with marriage.

Right is right, wrong is wrong. Who cares where the sins occur? Law should reflect our morality, not exist as sort of an independent construct. In sum, Paul and other libertarians consider even life itself less important than a nebulous concept of "freedom." This is what libertarianism always comes down to, "freedom", a purposefully vague concept that somehow supersedes all others yet defies concise definition. Of course, I too support freedom, but I believe that some things are clearly more important - like life, traditional culture, and family.

I don't know if Paul is motivated more by fear (hysteria) over federal government or an ideological obstinacy that knows no bounds. But in the end, libertarians' sterile formulation of society manifests in a paradigm which gladly sacrifices sacred aspects of humanity and society for an ill-defined promise of "freedom."

Update: Response to opposing arguments.

Everyone Does It

Saturday Audience Participation

On tomorrow night's episode of "Kourtney and Kim Take New York" (I swear, I was channel surfing), Kourtney Kardashian finds some salacious content on baby-daddy/boyfriend Scott Disick's computer. Upon discovering what seems to be hardcore porn videos, she shows her sister the content and they needle him about it while Kourtney laughingly deems it "disgusting." From the short clip, Scott appears slightly embarrassed, but then takes it as motivation to suggest some dirty stuff to Kourtney.

At this blog, we actively try to steer away from indecent content, avoiding superfluous cursing and graphic discussion. I hesitated before posting about this because porn is surely not a subject in line with those aims. But then I recall reading last year about the utter ubiquity of porn, with a Canandian researcher unable to find even one adult male who had not viewed porn and the industry itself worth more than all three major sports league combined. In short, porn is everywhere and essentially everyone (men, at least) "watches" it.

Back to Scott's reaction: as has happened to essentially everyone, no matter how much one tries to cover his tracks, someone will discover that you "watch" it. And that someone will likely be a woman who reacts negatively, considering your little habit quite disgusting and "creepy." In a rather obvious bit of contradiction, I actually agree that porn is viscerally off-putting. It just feels very very wrong and dirty and that has nothing to do with societal pressure or the common characterization of male porn watchers as skeevy losers.

For this reason or another, almost no one actually openly discusses their porn habit. As with this infamous clip from Roseanne, everyone does it but no one, besides immature college students, actually talks about it, ever. Think about that - everyone does it, but no one admits to it. It's quite unbelievable when you consider how completely underground porn is despite being such an enormous social institution.

Today's questions: Are you embarrassed that you've watched or regularly watch porn? Someone ever found out about your habit that you didn't want to find out? Why do woman always react so negatively to male porn habits? Do you find porn disgusting and how does this affect your watching of it? Do you or did you in the past discuss your habit with anyone?

Begrudging Defense of "Epic Tram Lady"

A woman on public transport in London (public transportation = "People of Walmart" in motion) went on a rant about "her England" dying from mass immigration. The Internet has dubbed her "Epic Tram Lady":



Despite many on the alt-right celebrating such a brazen defender of ethnically homogeneous Britain, I side with Andy Nowicki at Alternative Right:

I'm sure that many Alt-Right readers will hold me guilty of snobbery for declining to back the not-so-epic tram lady on principle. But again, I don't object to Miss West for being an unlettered prole. Some of my best friends are unlettered proles. (Well, not really, but you see my larger rhetorical point.) Rather, I dislike the fact that she acted like a mean, bitchy tramp. Graceless behavior is hardly the staple of the working classes; we all succumb to it, on occasion. Yet we all must, and can, do better.

Even though she correctly opposes mass immigration and notes the cultural implications of Muslim and black (not to mention Polish) demographic changes, this woman is clearly an unhinged crazy person.

But should we defend her? Should we defend someone who clearly shares some of our principles, even though she presents them in a manner that confirms all the stereotypes leftists offer about nativists? Should we defend someone who champions a more exclusive, negative version of ethno-nationalism, as compared to my preferred notions of "ethnic self-determination" and "racial moral autonomy"? This same conundrum arose during the Duke Lacrosse rape witchhunt, in which race conscious conservatives had to consider defending a bunch of pompous lax douchebags.

In both cases though, I say we absolutely must defend them. Admittedly, optimistic visions of ethnically homogeneous European states do not include such obstreperous individuals. When most traditionalists envision a cultural upswing, they tend to ignore underclass louts like Ms. Tram Lady. Nonetheless, we must defend her, though not as an individual as this would require an implicit approval of her behavior. Instead, we must defend her primarily in a reflexive manner as the left rushes to socially and politically lynch Duke Lax and Ms. Tram Lady.

In essence, we don't specifically defend lax douchebags and ranting lumpenproles; we defend the general white male and the general British nativist from character assassination. The specific individuals do not matter as much as the leftist attacks which they attract; we must protect less than honorable individuals in sort of a "first they came for..." manner. If leftists will use these incidents to impugn the general classes, such as bashing all middle-class college students as "privileged racists", then we must respond. Sure, we'd rather lionize someone worthy of our moral white-knighting, like Tim Tebow or Officer Crowley, but when leftists seek cultural change based on these "teachable moments", someone has to push back.

Blagojevich gets 14 years, Seriously?!

Yesterday, disgraced ex-Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich got 14 years in prison, primarily for trying to sell Barack Obama's Senate seat.

Judge James Zagel gave Blagojevich some credit for taking responsibility for his actions, but said that didn't mitigate his crimes. The judge also said Blagojevich did good things for people as governor, but was more concerned about using his powers for himself.

"When it is the governor who goes bad, the fabric of Illinois is torn and disfigured and not easily repaired," Zagel said.

The twice-elected Democrat received by far the harshest sentence among the four Illinois governors sent to prison in the last four decades.

Is anyone else very much disturbed by this? FOURTEEN YEARS?! Our governing elite has already disowned the public, engaging in all sorts of back-door deals for their own benefit. Just look at the leading Republican candidate, Newt Gingrich, who got paid millions of dollars from Big Pharma and Freddie Mac to peddle their tripe. And we can even go to the source on that one - FDA, Big Agriculture, and Big Pharma colluding together to literally kill the public as a way of getting rich.

Yet Mr. Blagojevich gets 14 years for what I see as sort of just a political favor. OK, I'm not informed on the details, but whatever he did, 14 years seems outlandishly harsh. Maybe my jadedness comes through with this issue as I see an instance of elite corruption as rather mundane, an issue that deserves aggressive policing, but not something that surprises me. I figured Blagojevich would get a slap on the wrist and then resurface years later as an ignominious, yet respected public figure, ala Spitzer and Bill Clinton. Now he goes to the slammer while bankers and Big Pharma executives can legally profit off the masses.

Lesson here: take advantage of one's authority, but don't do so in such an explicitly underhanded manner.