More Fireworks! aka CNN Dun Fucked Up

While Stefan gives his usual excellent overview, in this instance I think Sargon of Akkad gives just enough needed backstory. Oh, and Razorfist displays his usual vulgar eleoquence.

(Update - it's unsure at this time whther the person who created the original GIF was a minor or not. Some rumors indicate yes, but there exists reason to believe this is not the case. This in no way makes it better because we either have CNN ruining the life of a minor before he even graduates, or, since the altrnative is very possibly a middle aged guy with a family, destroying the career of an adult with a family to support.)

(Update 2 - The Didact made a nice post on this too, with a handy graphic pointing to a handful of CNN Advertisers)

Frankly, other than discovering a vast, depthless well of shadenfreude I hadn't previously been aware of, I can't add much to the conversation. I'm in awe, the degree to which they managed to score an own goal. I don't think "Leeeeeeerooooooy Jenkins!" begins to cover it.

A couple fun memes and gif's were found though, and I've added a couple myself, though I suspect mine aren't up to the same degree of quality.

Some Really Sick Fucks Out There

And Twitter, of course, doesn't mind when the "right" targets are the subject of death threats and calls for assassination.

But Milo was "inciting violence".

Best part......One for #killtrump and one for #killpence. Our country is about to get a whole lot more beautiful. pic.twitter.com/zVdpAW97ng

— John Silva (@JohnnyKing663) March 2, 2017

In case it's erased...

Why Would Non White Non Americans Prefer A White-led West and America?

The Didact was asked why, not being white, nor American, he so was so strongly pro a white, or at minimum, a white-led and dominant America and west. The whole article is worth a read. So is the one he refers to.

I particularly like and appreciate the white folk of America's heartlands. Whether I am visiting towns and villages populated by the quietly unflappable folk of rural and countryside New England, or the courtly and immensely hospitable people of Texas, or the welcoming and charming characters to be found in lovely Vermont, I have always been treated with politeness and civility.

I cannot claim to have such positive experiences in parts of my own homeland.

Now obviously, not every non-white non-Westerner who has spent roughly half his life in Western lands can claim to have had the same happy experience as I have. There are parts of America- the more "diverse" bits, usually, and that is not an accident- where foreigners like me are treated quite badly. But, in general, the reason why everyone and his dog wants to come here to live and work is because white people have made it a great country.

That is true throughout the Western world, and the rest of us ignore this basic fact of life at our own great peril.

For while white Westerners are unusually welcoming of foreigners- I argue that these days they are too welcoming- they are also capable of great and terrible violence against "the other" if they choose. The history of Western culture is replete with examples of xenophobia taken to unhealthy and very violent extremes, and I fear that there will come a time in the not-too-distant future when such violence will flare up once again.

As a general rule, white people are not the problem. White people certainly create many of their own problems, usually through ignorance of history or active stupidity, or both, but they also have a remarkable knack for solving problems too.

That is why Western culture is quite clearly the best. That is why the Western nations have the highest living standards in the world. That is why everyone else wants to go there, or at least send his kids there.

Moar Winning

I overheard a conversation at an employee lounge where I was sitting to finish up some paperwork before setting off to my next job, related to the movie "La La Land."

The thrust was that they really, really, enjoyed the soundtrack (done by Justin Hurwitz, who also did the score for the also jazz-centered Whiplash), but at first hadn't "gotten" why so many people were so enthusiastic about the movie. Then they opined about how the music and tone were just sooo upbeat, and in these hard times, with such a bad year, with everyone so depressed and divided, they needed something to cheer them up.

Three points here. The least significant? The fact that she contradicts herself - if we're "sooo divided" and it's a bad year because of Trump/racism/sexism, etc., it stands to reason that not everyone is having a bad year, but logic is not a liberal strong suit when it comes to feelz.

Next - she lives in a bubble, and isn't even willing to peek outside of it. Like all too many liberals I've seen around my parts they have, if anything, retreated further in. "Everyone" is having a bad year? I'm sure everyone she knows is depressed, etc. about this but one doesn't have to look far to find happy Trump supporters, even with the way the #fakenews legacy media is editing the rally coverage. That, or she doesn't really consider Trump supporters people, but again, this comes down to more feelz than actual facts.

Third - they still feel like they're losing. Prager - who occasionally has useful videos on stuff but is otherwise useless and has all the spine of a soggy loaf of bread in standing up to the left - tried to tell the left that "Four Years Ago, Conservatives Were Just as Depressed"

Bullshit.

Depressed? Yes. Pissed? Yes. I think it took less than one day before I shrugged my shoulders and told myself it was time to do something useful about it. The epic meltdowns of election night (Laci Green below being one of the meaner examples, but a lot of screaming and waterworks were to be found), the ongoing depression, the doubling down.

No. We may have been depressed and pissed, but not just as depressed, and certainly not as emotionally incontinent.

That tweet clearly demonstrates how much they hate us, and condescend to us, do not consider us equals, how arrogantly assured they were, how they lived in a bubble, why they are doubling down, and why we are, at this time, likely to win in 2020.

As a total aside: I had actually somewhat liked Whiplash. Even as the music teacher was abusive in how he pushed the main character to stretch himself, it was still a film centered on excellence, that mere talent is not enough, and the lengths one must go to to master their craft.

Insofar as Oscars, the only Oscar-bait I'd seen was Hell or High Water, by the same director as Sicario. Solid film but it won't get best film because while it's "occupy wall street" with bank robbers who're also taking advantage of the oil companies, it's also about white men, and the protagonist is doing everything he can to provide for his son, come "hell or high water."

Not having seen them, I think La La Land will get best score, at least it's catchy, and Hidden Figures will get best film. All the movies at that tier are competently edited and shot, but people who see it find it uplifting and inspirational, so it managed to do the messaging well, and even if it had not, it gets to check off the boxes for "women in STEM" and "blacks overcoming systemic oppression."

My record on predicting Oscars by social justice checkboxes has been pretty good the last few years. I'd predicted Spotlight purely because I saw the self-congratulatory myth of the press as standing up to entrenched powers and its attacks on religion and the Catholic church specifically as a better fit for the mood of the time.  Not only was I told I was crazy for "why" and "no it's not an attack on the church", but the person trying to dress me down later had the honesty to admit I was right on the latter after the director got up on stage and made his speech.

How Mussolini Took Power

Quintus Curtius has posted this little bit on Mussolini's rise to power. This caught my eye:

It was never established whether Mussolini was involved or knew anything about the plot beforehand.  He was certainly not above using violence, or encouraging its use, against political opponents; but such a reckless step probably was taken without his knowledge or approval.  Despite this, he was able to use the crisis that the murder generated to consolidate his hold on power.  Anti-fascist demonstrations escalated in the streets, general strikes were declared, and it seems that Mussolini would have to resign.

But the king did not call for him to step down.  His political opponents then committed a grievous error:  they left the field of political conflict and walked out of the Chamber of Deputies.  Trying to imitate the ancient Roman plebian practice of going to the Aventine Hill to protest measures taken by the nobility, the anti-fascist deputies probably thought that by walking out of the chamber they could pressure Mussolini to resign.  In this they were sorely mistaken.  The situation was getting more and more dangerous by the hour, until finally Mussolini (on January 3, 1925) threw down the gauntlet.  In a dramatic speech, he “assumed responsibility” (whatever that meant) for the crisis and dared those present to remove him or indict him.

Note well - not letting a crisis go to waste. Note well the cowardice of those who supposedly opposed him doing nothing to stop him (as with cuckservatives today).

The whole article is worth a read, but there are also a couple outstanding comments drawing parallels to Scott Adams discussing leftists making the fascist they want out of Trump, crony capitalism, and, of course, the history of Fascists being, by and large, really of the left. An excerpt from one:

Ultimately what must be understood is that big business (fortune 500 companies) have no problem working hand in hand with government so long as it is to their benefit. In face contrary to popular beliefs they want regulations, as they do not hurt the big giants the oligarchies, but wreck medium and small businesses causing them to either sell out to the oligarchies or go bankrupt. Hence Wall Streets support for Hillary and not Turmp. Much of this was genuinely popular with the people, and regardless of the fecklessness of the political parties in Italy, and Wiemar Germany, both Fascism, and National Socialism were for quite some time genuinely popular movements.

A Refreshing Breath of Honesty - But Only a Little Bit.

[*] Update - I belatedly realized there was so much bullshit here that I overlooked addressing a few points, and made a couple errors. Normally I tack these on the end, but since it will be interspersed, I will tag updates with the [*], and any deletions will be lined out to keep things honest.

I stumbled into an article today that, before I eviscerate it, needs to be at least congratulated on being refreshingly honest about one point.

They hate us, and have no interest in being fair.

I have some difficult news for everyone: Progressives aren’t interested in diversity. We aren’t interested in inclusion. We aren’t interested in tolerance. The progressives I know give exactly zero shits about those things. 

We have no interest in everyone getting treated the same. We have no interest in giving all ideas equal airtime. We have no interest in “tolerating” all beliefs. I don’t know where this fairy tale comes from, but it’s completely disconnected from every experience I’ve had with progressive liberal folks in my lifetime. 

When conservatives cross their arms and glare and shout “It’s not fair! You’re supposed to welcome everyone but you aren’t being nice to me!” it stings about as much as if they shouted, “It’s not fair, you’re supposed to be wearing tutus and juggling flaming donuts!”

Now, the rest of this post is the pseudo-intellectual drivel you'd expect from the crowd that used to shout "nuance", but never, of course, actually meant it.

Let's step back just a bit.

It starts off with the following Asimov quote:

“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ― Isaac Asimov

It's beloved of the credentialists, the pseudointellectuals, and, redundantly, SJW's and the left. You are ignorant, because you hold those opinions, so we don't have to listen to you. Of course, there is a huge difference between ignoring a pilot when he's explaining how a plane flies, and saying that normal people are unqualified to comment on matters of politics, which always touch the real word in the areas of human behavior, patterns, and psychology.

This anti-intellectualism is not aimed at knowledge, wisdom, experience, or searching for truth, but at those who pretend they are better, or better informed because they read something in a book somewhere. One of the most brutal and softly worded takedowns of this occurs at a TED talk where Mike Rowe discusses a dirty jobs episode where it turns out the "uneducated" ranchers knew far more about their jobs than the "intellectuals".

The intellectual dishonesty, bullshit phrasing, cherry picking, misrepresentation, and so on only get worse. How they see themselves:

The progressive liberal agenda isn’t about being nice. It’s about confronting evil, violence, trauma, and death. It’s about acknowledging the ways systemic power, systemic oppression, systemic evil, work in our world around us. I’m not fighting for diversity. I’m not fighting for tolerance. I’m fighting to overturn horrific systems of dehumanizing oppression.

This is used to justify almost any inversion of the order. They aren't interested in fairness, or giving men and women, whites and blacks, etc. an equal chance. They want to force everyone to get equal representation, equal time in the supreme court, equal time in the presidency, and so forth. Fuck freedom (free men are not equal, equal men are not free). You'll have to force people to do this because there is a limited degree to which even the worst bigot will hire or not hire someone because of their genitals, skin color, "pronouns", or such, than because they can or cannot do the job right.

Personally I’m not interested in a female president for the sake of “diversity.” Putting a woman in the white house in 2020 won’t mean that gender equality has arrived. We’ve had 43 presidents. It’s going to take 43 women serving as president before we even have a chance to reach parity.

If you want to pretend that the racial and gender horror in the world has already been righted, was righted in the 1960’s, is almost righted now, or can hope to come close to being righted in your lifetime (43 female presidents), you’re not getting the picture. We have a collective buildup of hundreds (thousands) of years of injustice to metabolize. 

To believe this is good and proper, that things were so horribly unfair to women that the only answer is to punish capable, effective men to balance the scales in such a draconian manner, is to believe that women, outside of a couple accidents of biology, they're fungible gears in a cog. That women were just as capable, intelligent, strong, etc. as men in every way, and yet, despite women being more than half the population AND raising the kids during their formative years, that they had no influence or choice in how society treated them. That despite being, again, just as smart, etc., outnumbering men, raising the kids, that "the patriarchy" somehow snookered the vast majority of women into accepting a "lesser" role. And that despite how horribly difficult it is for even a handful of people to keep a secret, that men had a nearly 100% success rate in snookering women AND keeping the secret.

Whether or not it is a lesser role is a discussion for another day.

Let’s pause on this. I live in Seattle, Washington. A liberal city if there ever was one. Full of cheery whites with “Black Lives Matter” signs in their windows. But in Seattle, Washington, black residents make less money than white ones. 5% less, 10% less? No. The average black Seattlite’s income is less than half of the average white Seattleite’s income. 

Less than half. 

So, either there are unspoken forces at play that make it twice as hard for black people in Seattle to earn money, or black people are exactly half as intelligent and hard-working as white folks. Take your pick. But be honest about which one you’re choosing. [my emphasis]

This is where the intellectual honesty starts going to hell, and despite the length of the article, any semblance of nuance goes out the window with a couch tied to it going first.

"Unspoken forces at play", given the alternative he allows, is obviously supposed to be racism. Either racism is the reason (because there are no differences in culture, etc at all, nope) or "strawman".

If blacks had a 50 IQ they'd have problems tying their own shoes, so obviously the answer is supposed to be "racism". Here's the problem. IQ and wages are not linear. Hell - depending on a person's discipline, connections, personality type, they may have little bearing at all other than generally smarter people - up to a certain point - tend to do better in life (at higher levels, luck begins playing a part because the difficulty in talking to normal people results in a lot of mensa people working as janitors, etc., as in the Dilbert cartoons). 

Ditto working "twice as hard/long". It's obvious that he believes in the labor theory of value in the sense that one hour of labor is worth the same as any other hour of labor.  Obviously, not all work has the same value. One hour of my billable time is easily worth more than a day at minimum wage, because that's what people are willing to pay me to solve their problems so they can keep on making money.

You only have to be a little bit lazy, and a little bit dumber on average, to make a lot less money, on average, in the generalized world of statistics. The second you understand that the useful work a person goes down faster than IQ, and that not all labor has the same value, the argument goes to hell.

Stefan Molyneux, Eric Raymond, and others have brought up the far from politically correct point that crime doesn't correlate to color, to socioeconomic status, or to other factors, but to IQ, with the band around 85 being the high point of the bell curve. Smart enough to do stuff including, of course, crime, not smart enough when combined with [*]the subset of said population having time preferences geared to immediate gratification to do it honestly.

And blacks, on average, have a lower IQ. This impacts not only crimes, but the value of the jobs, on average, they may be able to perform at in the same proportion as, say, a Korean population. 

I'll insert this caveat once, as statistically men, women, blacks, whites, chinese, etc., are not the same in height, health risks, average IQ, and other strengths and weaknesses. Yes, we're talking generalities - of course there are exceptions. I know a number personally and any distribution of course has people on the right of the curve. Also, IQ doesn't correlate directly to wisdom or common sense, and there are a lot of jobs where a work ethic and honesty count for more than book smarts.

I don't even want to get into whether nature or nurture is the primary driver in black culture, but can tell you from experience with other cultures that cultural assumptions even among populations who've moved into a different one and taken the trouble to assimilate show up for at least several generations.

I have a four-year-old white son. A black boy his age, in the same income bracket, same level of education, will live, on-average, 5 years less than him. Half a decade. 

Mysteriously. 

That same black boy has a higher chance of spending time in prison than my son. How much higher? 110% the rate? 150% the rate? Nope, 500% as likely to be imprisoned.

Colin Flaherty covers this in depth over at http://whitegirlbleedalot.com/ and the associated podcasts, etc. It's worth noting that when you compare the arrest rate to a survey was done of crime victims, the arrest rates for blacks matches the criminality rate reported. Given that blacks - who if they subscribed to "whites are out to get me" identity politics had an incentive to lie - are reporting those rates, and arrest rates are within a few percentage points, perhaps this is "mysterious" only if you subscribe to all people being fungible cogs with no statistical differences in culture or anything else.

But crying ‘persecution’ is what conservatives do with every single step towards gender equality, racial equality, any movement that seeks to treat all humans with the same dignity currently conferred on white men. The conservatives’ definition of a war on their rights is that gay people are allowed to get married and Latinx people are allowed to live in the same zip code. The false equivalency of straight white Christen men’s feelings with everyone else’s lives is absurd.

Here he both delves into bullshit, and contradicts his opener that they're not worried about the same dignity, though I guess one could stretch "the same dignity" to be by the measure of "my turn now, until we've caught up". The bullshit is the part where, except by his draconian measure, he describes what liberals are doing as "just" being about the dignity of minorities, and not, as he blatantly advocates near the beginning, punishing the majority until the minorities feel they've had their comeuppance.

As to gay rights - I could care less who screws who as consenting adults in the individual, but in the societal sense, any society that isn't working to replace itself with a following generation, dies. Promoting that, vs tolerating it, in conjunction with no-fault divorce and the welfare state encouraging single motherhood, and careers for women instead of kids - all things that are individual choices skewed by government largess - result in plummeting birthrates that mean the suicide of a decadent society that cares more for its immediate pleasures than its legacy.

As to the latin thing, let's again leave aside the nature vs nurture argument, and just point out, again, that it takes at least three generations minimum for cultural inertia to fade out and a family line to assimilate. A bunch of Mexicans moving in next door means your neighbors no longer have the same [*]cultural standards and assumptions as you - especially if they are not strongly encouraged to assimilate (hint: they no longer are). This ranges across many areas, but could include something as simple as to whether or not its safe to loan your neighbor your lawnmower or leave a bike out in the front yard. It's not just my  personal experience, but something relayed by others like Portuguese-born Sara Hoyt, that latin people figure if you cared about it you would keep it locked in behind a fence or gate or garage. Their concept of "theft" just isn't the same.

If you don't believe me, Robert Putnam set out to prove "strength through diversity", and was so upset by the results he sat on the results for years.

Again, notice the bullshit weasel words. "Just" sharing the same zip code, as if, again, they are fungible cogs and there's nothing different about how they think or behave, even if they are decent people, than a greater penchant for tortillas.

It's also worth watching Razorfist in his why we need a wall video, as he covers some other issues related to the negative impact of immigration on the country left behind.

Poor Nazi soldiers, getting rounded up into prisoner of war camps while those Jewish people are getting let out of prisons by the same Allied soldiers! Jewish people get all the preferential treatment… 

Furthermore, conservative Christians have allied themselves with racism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, mass incarceration, war crimes, death sentences, and gun culture. These Christians work actively to undermine scientific thinking. Anti-evolution, anti-global warming, anti-intellectual, and anti-factual. None of these line up with the values most universities share.

Yup, start with the Nazi comparisons..... and the usual list of SJW thought crimes. 

Yes, it’s important to intellectual growth to have variety. It’s important that unpopular ideas get a hearing. It’s important for there to be debate, and changes of heart, and to allow sincere disagreements to continue to wrestle with one another for clarification. I have no interest in our universities being populated by people who think like me. But I do have an interest in them being populated with people who think.

Which means that he believes - as he has stated elsewhere - that conservatives don't think. Are dumb (as well as nazis, etc...)

Universities aren’t bereft of conservatives and Evangelicals because of a vast left-wing conspiracy. They’re bereft of those people because people committed to those world views so rarely have anything to offer to an open-minded, inquiring, growing community. Universities are lacking in conservatives and fundamentalist Christians because the amount of education that it takes to become a professor is likely to expose Evangelicals and conservatives to enough good ideas that they’re no longer fundamentalist or conservative.

Hmm. By your own argument you're going to practice in-group selection to exclude conservatives, just like all other liberals already really do, but nope, not a conspiracy. 

Note how he uses bullshit persuasion terms like "open minded" and so forth without defining them, and assumes that all the good ideas ( the ones he assumes are also true) are the ones that lead to people not holding conservative values. Note, again, that he flat out admits that liberals exclude conservatives, and only make sure what they consider "good ideas" are allowed, and then they tout that the little propaganda factories tend to make more people who go through the "education" agree with them. 

The fact that humanities departments are exceptionally lacking in conservatives and dogmatically religious people highlights this reality. Psychology, poetry, sociology, political science. People who have wrestled with the human condition, the human soul, literature and art, are the least likely to give credence to backwards ideas that are diminishing to human value and human dignity.

Funny. The people who've studied the sociology in vogue the last century or so have, not too metaphorically, cheered on an ideology that's killed tens, if not hundreds (possibly plural) of millions of their own citizens in search of utopia, and praised mass murdering tyrants. Modern poetry, music, and so called art is nihilistic and generally lacks the beauty of old. Our use of language is measurably, objectively dropping as what we read and write is dumbed down. Literature and stories in the last century, especially the last five decades, have stripped out the divine, the aspirational, the ability of man to reach for divinity and glory, in favor of cynicism and base instincts.

Because all political decisions aren’t equally right. Aren’t equally moral. Aren’t equally recognizing of human dignity and justice and freedom. Because liberals recognize that there are wrong and right decisions, because they parse good and evil, contrary to what my church taught me about them.

I agree with the first three sentences. Yet I find it hard to reconcile the disparity between "freedom" and cheering on forcing others to be oppressed.

And if he thinks liberals parse good and evil, the sacred and the profane, he may want a conversation with Jon Haidt.

Because democracy isn’t the only value we hold. We don’t accept the 51% enslaving the 49% by popular vote. We believe in human rights. We believe in the Bill of Rights. Because we balance the will of the people with the sanctity of each individual life. And no, your right to not sell flowers doesn’t outweigh someone else’s right to get married. Because not all rights are equal.

"We believe in the Bill of Rights". No you don't. Not in true freedom of speech, not in the freedom to practice a religion without interference by the state, not in the right to bear arms (per a later quote) not in the right to be free from having one's work and property taken from them without just compensation, and not in the limitation of powers of the central government, with the rest going to the states. You've effectively contradicted every, single, one of these. So fuck off, liar.

"Because we balance the will of the people with the sanctity of each individual life" - only if you agree with their opinions, as you've already made clear. 

"Your right to not sell flowers doesn’t outweigh someone else’s right to get married." Hunh. So I can stop a wedding by simply refusing to sell flowers?

Because Hitler was brought to power by a democratically elected government. Because American slavery was legal.

Hmmm. Which party doesn't know how it's different from a socialist party? What kind of government consistently generates underperforming and/or mass murdering hellholes like North Korea, China through the great leap forward, the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany (not enough time for the German work ethic and cultural cohesiveness to be insufficient to deal with economic issues, plus a war), Cuba, Venezuela, and so forth?

The Left meanwhile is roaring in the streets about the countless deaths of unarmed black Americans by the people charged with keeping them safe. Roaring in the streets about environmental devastation that the smartest humans among us agree poses a threat to all human life. Roaring in the streets about an admitted sexual predator being appointed as administer over our nation’s federal law enforcement.

He really should look at Colin Flaherty's site, the crime victim survey, and other relevant statistics. Even the WashPo agrees "hands up don't shoot" was bullshit.

[*]Leaving aside who is actually the "smartest among us", no, scientists, etc. do not agree - and those on the catastrophist side have been caught conspiring to hide raw data, and writing models for temperature graphs that result in hockey sticks with a flat data set. In short  - these "smartest" are not actually using the tools of science, and letting others cross-check their work.

Finally, "admitted sexual predator" - what part of "and they let you do it" is not consent? It's as if the readily observable phenomenon of groupies and gold diggers throwing themselves at the rich and famous has been forgotten. Was it vulgar? yes. Do all men talk in the locker room like that? No - though more do than admitted it over this flap. Was it "sexual assault" in a world where "50 Shades" is a bestselling book series, and it doesn't even meet L&O:SVU standards of sexual assault? 

No.

Conservatives not having taken to the streets to riot when Obama was elected doesn’t prevent us from taking to the streets to direct as much resistance to Trump as humanly possible. Because Trump and Obama aren’t equal. Conservatives being deeply outraged and fearful when Obama was elected doesn’t negate or somehow counterbalance the outrage and fear on the Left right now. Because the Right was afraid of ridiculous, imagined fantasies of end times persecution and wildly inaccurate information. When the primary source of terror in living under an Obama administration is that he’s a Muslim, you don’t have one ounce of sympathy from me.

This and other paragraphs demonstrate perfectly what Haidt pointed out - the left really does not understand how conservatives think, just how Colbert, Stewart, the media, and the NYT tell them how conservatives think.

Meanwhile the Left is dealing with Donald Trump’s actually announced plans. To commit war crimes. To imprison his political opponents. Compel a religious minority to register themselves. To gut the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. Donald Trump is actually appointing white nationalists to top positions. Actually sexually assaulting women. He’s a man who openly admires the most despotic regimes in the world. His vice president has actually worked to jail homosexuals for applying for a marriage license. Actually worked to redirect HIV treatment funding to Pray-The-Gay-Away™ conversion therapy.

All of these of course are varying degrees of the truth, none of them complete insofar as I can tell, as seen through the liberal "Trump and his supporters are nazis" filter darkly. 

Trump says we’re in the middle of a crime wave! I say crime’s the lowest it’s been in decades. Well darn. Back to that 50/50 chance either of us is right. We may never know.

He links to factcheck - and yes, crime has been going down for decades, until the last couple years, in largely Democrat cities, with a demographic mix heavily leaning toward those that have had their violence excused at the highest levels of power since Ferguson. But the snark was sure convincing, wasn't it?

Trump says undocumented immigrants are dangerous! I say they’re more law-abiding than citizens. Trump says they’re destroying our economy! I say they’re a benefit to our economy.

He points to a time article that points to Cato - and while I'm also generally libertarian-ish (less so these days), they're notoriously open borders. Leaving aside the opportunity and trust costs already mentioned, the studies they tout go on about how "violent crime goes down" -  a little, or no correlation - and a few buried bits indicate property crimes go up. Not exactly the slam dunk "crime is massively lower" being argued here and at Time magazine.

A few thought experiments. I don't notice in the article calibration for unreported crimes. Most crimes within ethnically homogeonous communities disproportionally affect those communities. And Mexicans, columbians, etc., are somewhat less likely to report these to the police, especially given the degree of corruption that is accepted as normal in central and south American cultures, and how much of the violence is gang related.

[*]Again, it's almost like our foreign bretheren are little cogs just like us, completely swappable, with no cultural differences that need to be factored in.

[*]Increased security and receipt checks at stores like Lowes, Retail retail handling of checkout lines, [*]increased home security such as bars, gated outdoor entryways, braced doors, and fences are all common in Miami, even in "well off" areas, to a degree I hadn't seen in other "high crime" areas.

It's funny how predominantly black, "crime infested" areas of LA are now hispanic. I'm sure they were incentivized out with hugs and kisses.

[*] Finally - not all immigrants are equal (cogs, see above). Sweden, for example, has gone from a very civil and peacefully place to basically the rape capital of Europe. No, the rapists, including the ones recently livestreaming their gang rape of a girl, do not look like ethnic swedes.

Lastly - one of the very first comments:

Thanks for this Tucker! I remember growing up and people screaming, “ if we let two men marry, what will come next, are they going to marry an animal?” 

I have yet to hear a man marrying an animal.

She could have corrected her ignorance with a simple Google search for "[man | woman] marries [dog | horse | dolphin]" - not to mention the recent push seen in slate and the Huffpo to condone and excuse pedophiles.

See you guys, this level of stupid and self-unawareness is difficult to process. Since it's after hours, this will be tomorrow's post, but I'm putting it up tonight, and may yet still do something else tomorrow. 

Reckonings and Consequences

Second order consequences and responses are not, as has often been observed, a strong suit of SJW's and the crop of morons running the Democratic party - a party notable in that, when one of its senior representatives was asked how it differed from a National Socialist (Bernie Sanders) she had just described as a "good Democrat", was completely caught off guard and unable to do so.

We've had a number of conservatives point out a "civil" war would be a bad thing, and that the left is showing signs of not only losing it's mind, but, as Scott Adams has noted, beginning to show signs that if Trump isn't "Hitler", then they'll manufacture one anyway.

More and more, the personal is political, and even the sports one watches are not exempt. For fuck's sake, we've got people melting down that Atlanta lost the Superbowl to a team quarterbacked by a Trump supporter. Direct quote, overheard: "We can't win an election, and now we can't win a Superbowl?"

In that light, this comment from a recent Peter Grant post is relevant.

I don't think the Democratic Party has thought this through.  If they agitate so much that someone takes a shot at President Trump, they're absolutely certain to be blamed for it - at least in part - by those who voted for Mr. Trump.  There will be a reckoning for that.  It's inevitable.  It's human nature.  What's more, we - America as a whole - will be very fortunate if that reckoning is only at the ballot box.

TRYING to Love, Be Kind, Selfless - and Talking Past

Bear with me, as this involves a partially remembered conversation of someone paraphrasing.

It's been said, here and elsewhere, that SJW's and liberals are children. Like narcissists and other cluster-B's they act as if they are emotionally stunted, never progressing beyond the teenage years, if that, in the ability to deal with conflict and setbacks.

A few days back I observed a conversation where one side pointed out the bit at the women's march, just after the inauguration, where Madonna spoke of dreaming of blowing up the white house. The other retorted that, yeah, but she then spoke of love "Trumping" hate, and that they would show love, be peaceful, etc.

It's only today it hit me what the lady was blind to.

The key point for those of us pointing out Madonna's statement, in or out of context, is that she has these thoughts in the first place. Whereas on the right, even during the Obama years, you wouldn't hear such talk. Can you imagine a protester at the Tea party getting up to say that?

I don't mean the media/Mother Jones/left reaction. I mean can you imagine a speaker at a Tea Party or other right wing rally getting up and going "I dream of blowing up the white house," even if they then state that they decided there was a better way?

Yes, people are fallen, and selfish, and have to be taught to transform their self-concern into virtue. Whether its lack of emotional maturity or mental discipline, or some other aspect of the behaviors in common between the left and narcissists, the right doesn't obsess over hurting people, nursing grudges like a mean girl or a gamma would. I had the mental image of that line by Dr Banner in the Avengers - the secret to his becoming the Hulk is not that he gets angry, it's that he releases the leash upon the fury constantly boiling inside. Given that it comes from a (otherwise successful) gamma like Joss Whedon, that suddenly makes more sense.

I've long had the sense that the left is so obsessed with TRYING to love, signaling their tolerance and kindness, because they desperately want to be, and are not. That they are angry, and you can see the mask slip, watch them lash out. Watch the contempt come out for anything you think because it hurts, it requires them to accept that not all is as they want. Instead of improving themselves they take shortcuts to feel good, don a mask. And to the degree they are narcissists, borderlines, etc., the mask may well be the best they can do.

But it's also why they will never understand why we have an issue with someone who declares they dream of exacting violence upon others, no matter how much they then decide to be "tolerant."

We've seen the "tolerance" in action.

To refer back to the old parable of the two wolves - they don't feed the wolf of virtue, they slaughter it and dress the wolf of anger, hate, and fear in its skin.

The Path to Tyranny

I was looking at a G+ conversation initiated by Eric Raymond when someone of libertarian, nevertrump bent started utterly going off the rails about Trump being a fascist bent on taking over the USA, and his moves just being preparation for a coup.

A bit of background. Eric is a libertarian who* explicitly changed his registration to Republican to vote for someone other than Trump in the primaries, but since the election, has found himself defending Trump more and more as the left has become increasingly more unhinged. This has resulted in a contentious series of G+ postings.

An interesting question came up though - what were the warning signs of a tyrant? Eric's answer:

What's your personal canary in the coal mine?

That's finally a constructive question.

I have several: attempts at prior censorship, attempts to restrict the possession of weapons by political opponents, attempts to coerce the legislature, attempts to amend the constitution to vest more power in El Maximum Lider.

I didn't pick these out of a hat. I've studied the history of fascism and totalitarian revolutions in detail. This was formative of my politics.

We'e not even seeing state-centralist rhetoric from Trump, let alone any of these moves.

Here's one to watch for that generally precedes all of them: the formation of a Sturmabteilung- or baseej-like paramilitary that answers only to the leader.

Let's take a look at these in light of the two major US parties.

Attempts at prior censorship: 

None. Nada. Threatening to sue after something untrue gets published doesn't count. If calling the news fake counts - see Obama - but I disagree that it's censorship, or necessarily a bad thing. Even under Obama, I considered it to be an example of who he considered his enemies, and found it more of a concern when he'd work to block certain outlets from having the same access as the rest of the press, whereas Trump is reducing access to the White House grounds by the press in general, yet, despite mocking outlets that have admitted to carrying water for the Democrats, gives them the same access to press conferences.

Given that even the very uniformly liberal press that carried water for Hillary ended up complaining about how far more secretive the "most transparent administration ever" was, my sympathies for "less access to white house grounds" without having to set appointments, etc. is limited.

Hell, Trump wants them to step on their dick. It's easier to do that when he gives them the rope to hang themselves.

Attempts to restrict the possession of weapons by political opponents:

I would tell my daughter that those who want to control you do not want you to be able to resist.

One side wants all of the citizens to be disarmed - and thus, no longer free citizens. The other is pushing for concealed carry reciprocity, and appears friendly to constitutional carry.

Attempts to coerce the legislature:

Define "coerce". Everything is a negotiation. The entire point of our governmental structure is that they are supposed to be at odds with each other, and through the means built into the constitution, and by appealing to the voters, convince each other it's in their own, and the country's, best interest, to help promote a certain policy.

I have to take coerce to mean not just threatening a politicians re-electability with the public, but 9mm (or higher caliber) lobotomies, threats to murder or kidnap family, etc.

In that context, neither party has crossed the line. That said, the de facto cover provided by the media and leftist politicians for black lives matter, radical muslims, and protestors as they loot, break, and burn, and assault people is troubling. Nice shopping district you've got there, be a shame if anything happened to it.

Attempts to amend the constitution to vest more power in El Maximum Lider:

All sides have pushed the boundaries of executive authority in the last few decades, but one has informed us that he won, he has a pen and a phone.

It seems that Trump is far more affective at using them.

I'll gladly push for reductions in executive power - once previous EO's are repealed -  but I'm not going to cry that Trump is playing the game by the same de-facto rules that the left have been.

That said, nothing in the Trump campaign promises or actions now show that he is attempting to get the constitution changed to give the government in general, much less him more power.

Sturmabteilung:

No, keeping a private security firm doesn't count, as they're not being sent out to crack heads, but, given that various SS people have publicly proclaimed they wouldn't do their jobs, necessary extra precautions.

Even under Obama the closest we came was the massive up-arming of various agencies that, frankly, don't need all the weapons, much less armored riot vehicles. Is this a full blown guard of the true believers? No - but it certainly is out of place with the needs of the respective agencies, and leads to why are we providing more deadly force to the state, in the hands of bureaucracies who's baseline assumptions are more liberal and socialist/progressive?

State Centralist Rhetoric: 

There is a difference between nationalist rhetoric and state-centralist rhetoric. The nation and its people are not the government. One deals with preserving a shared set of assumptions and population groups, the other with gathering power to the state.

Trump is trying to destroy or hamstring agencies, and massively cut regulations. This is the diametric opposite of "state centralist".

The Democrats, on the other hand.....


Update: * I added this in to make clearer that Eric's politics were not Democrat/Republican aligned.

Treat Barbarians Like Barbarians

Ace of Spades is, as Vox Day noted, coming around, as evidenced by a recent post on how "How Losing My Political Values Helped Me Gain My Freedom":

Donald Trump isn't the bully; he only insults and abuses people in power who have attacked him. They're the fucking bullies. The left, with their smears, their witch hunts, their slanders, their insults, their riots, their violence, and their weaponizing of the federal bureaucracy.

There aren't any rules anymore because the left only applies them one way. And in doing so, they've left what once was a civil compact between the two parties in smoldering ruins.

I have no personal investment in Donald Trump. He is a tool to punish the left and roll back their ill-gotten gains, no more and no less. If he succeeds even partially in those two things, then I'll consider his election a win.

Further, I no longer have any investment in any particular political values, save one: The rules created by the left will be applied to the left as equally and punitively as they have applied them to the right. And when they beg for mercy, I'll begin to reconsider. Or maybe not. Because fuck these people.

Civilized behavior is for civilized people. When people violate those standards, we must push back. And as noted in a Campbell essay Pournelle included in his Imperial Stars anthology for Baen, the barbarians are just as likely to come from within.

I noted in a very late comment there:

Civilized behavior is something we owe civilized people.

People who demonstrate they don't care about that - those who put themselves outside the law, also, morally, put themselves outside the limits.

Some, as in the prisoners dilemma, will, once you punch back, back off and say "sorry" and straighten out and act right.

Others will double down. Worse, even if you don't punch back, they'll take it as weakness and double down, triple down, and then cry if you ever even say "no."

It may only be a "minority" of the left, but it's a LOUD one. Many of the offenders are in positions of power, status, adn influence. And those in positions of status who do not engage in this behavior nevertheless cover for it.

I dare any leftist to find me a case of protests similar to Friday's after Obamas inauguration. Even if they manage, or go "muh abortion clinic bombers", you won't find the behavior of those violent scum excused.

The left does it. The left doesn't care. The die hard among the left refuses to believe when you show them.

They wanted to break heads, scream nazi, and put people out of jobs? They wanted to put themselves outside the law and that behavior on the table?

They should have been careful what they wished for.

Lying Media - Business Insider Edition

I'm usually not inclined to do simple "look at this idiocy" posts - if a lesson can't be learned, a principle displayed, it's usually pointless. That said, this deserves some analysis, if nothing else, as an example of pure-grade bullshit.

Why?

It's an article that basically undermines its own headline and premise within itself.

I, teeth gritted, at least have to give Business Insider props for reporting the facts - before completely ignoring them.

An inaccurate report on the conspiratorial website InfoWars led more than 100,000 individuals this week to sign an online petition calling for Comedy Central to fire a comedian who tweeted a tasteless joke about Barron Trump, President Donald Trump's 10-year-old son.

Well. That's a problem, isn't it? So how was it inaccurate?

The problem? The New York City-based comedian doesn't and has never worked for Comedy Central.

..... 

The controversy started on Monday when InfoWars writer Paul Joseph Watson, a prominent conspiracy theorist, wrongly identified Spinola as a Comedy Central writer in a story about the comedian's tweet.

 Hmmm... So Paul Joseph Watson just made shit up? Skipping forward a bit:

Spinola told Business Insider he suspected that after "Saturday Night Live" writer Katie Rich was suspended for a tweet on Trump's youngest child that conservatives went searching for jokes other comedians had made. At the time, his bio said he was a "Comedy Central content contributor" because the channel had featured some of his work on a show.

Ok - so a guy claims in his bio he's a "content contributor" and it's PJW's fault for not reading his mind and realizing it was self-aggrandizing bullshit to make his work look more important than it seemed? And BI, of course, just glosses over that point, that the person misrepresented himself, is at best a liar, and more likely worse, a bullshitter.

Again, the only reason anyone thinks this idiot works for Comedy Central is because the idiot - in a legally deniable way - claims he did. 

So what was this "joke"? Given the current level of honesty on this idiots bio, and at BI, I expect more bullshit about how it wasn't a big deal.

In the now-deleted tweet, Spinola joked that Trump's 10-year-old son "looks like a very handsome date-rapist-to-be." In a follow-up post, he doubled down.

SJW laws one and two - and a truly horrible joke. Given we have entire, long-running TV series based on how awful men are due to rape culture, and they should be locked up, what kind of same person in their right mi...

Nevermind.

If I understand the article, the problem here isn't that a comedian filled his bio with bullshit to make his work seem more important, or that he made a horribly tasteless and vile joke, or that he doubled down on it. It's that PJW didn't verify whether the guys own self-claimed bio meant he'd sold some work to them or worked for them regularly.

But Spinola has never worked for the channel in any official capacity. He has since deleted the tweets, acknowledging it was insensitive to joke about Trump's child. 

"I knew the tweets were wrong," he told Business Insider. "They are just dumb. They weren't something I would say onstage or something I stand by."

... 

"As a comedian, I make a lot of jokes that are not great," he later added. "A lot of comedians make a lot of jokes that are not great. I made a mistake by attacking a 10-year-old boy."

Insensitive?

Before his last decade of life, when he let his bitterness overcome him, and he still took potshots at leftist idiocy - the Earth wanting plastic for itself and his evisceration of feminists being classics along with the language used at airlines - Carlin had a very serious sketch about how we distance ourselves from the emotional impact of words through euphemisms, and traced the evolution of the term "shellshock" into PTSD.

BI manages to gloss over that even the bullshitting comedian said the jokes were wrong. Even if the comedian then tries to minimize it later in the article.

If you can stomach reading the whole thing, it then goes into how he's getting angry messages, supposed death threats, and so forth. While I'm sure he's getting angry messages, I'm also sure the degree to which there are actual threats, etc. are over exaggerated. But it's milked for the fake news and victimhood angle. And he shows that his apology was pro-forma - he still doesn't realize how vile his statement was, if he thinks the anger directed at him is so awful.

But Spinola did say he found it odd that people were defending Barron Trump by "doing things 1,000 times worse." 

"Shows how dangerous fake news can actually be," he said.

Alternative Facts? More FakeNews

Frankly, it's a rhetorical miss and is already being lambasted. Of course, one reason for that is it's the easiest handle for the media to grasp to do anything, anything at all to shield themselves from claims of bias.

For context, Sean Spicer gave a very short press conference on the 21st. I it he lambasted the media for it's reporting, specifically on two points. The first, a reporter claiming that the statue of Martin Luther King had been removed, and later retracting it, and the second related to attendance numbers.

The first was used as an example of how the media is ready to jump to conclusions, and not even seek out the truth, before posting something.

The second is due to a pair of published photos, one taken at the height of Obamas inauguration, and the second, from eyewitness reports and also, from shots taken of the inauguration itself, taken a bit early, showing very sparse attendance. This is where Spicer verges into spin doctor territory - and bullshit or something approaching sets my teeth on edge - yet at no point does he tell a lie that I can parse, as long as you parse carefully.

No, even with "we used lawn coverings", the physical crowd is not what it was at Obama's. Though listing out the available crowd space at each zone is useful in getting an estimate.

That said, the photo published, IIRC, by the NYT, was sparser than the crowd shown in photos from the inauguration itself, and various witnesses in the area have remarked that they know the space was more populated during the inauguration. The NYT used a bullshit photo to make the point that attendance was lower because Trump was unpopular. While physical attendance was lower, it wasn't LOW, and certainly not as low as they implied by falsely implying an apples-to-apples comparison of the photos. It's also worth keeping in mind that DC is not precisely a haven for Trump supporters - so people attending would have, on average, been traveling further if they bothered.

Which brings us to online attendance, which Spicer specifically included. And this is where the press bashing Kellyanne Conway are tripping over themselves.

From Politico:

Without taking reporters' questions, Spicer called Trump's inaugural crowds "the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period." Photographs, however, show the crowd to be considerably smaller than former President Barack Obama's inauguration in 2009.

They didn't give the full quote. If Spicer had said exactly that, and only that, it likely would have been untrue. USA Today was more honest with the quoting, but still pressing the "Alternative Facts" line without giving it the context as not "alternative to the truth", but "alternative to the media narrative".

While aerial photos showed that Trump drew a smaller crowd to his inaugural address than President Obama did, White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters Saturday: "This was the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration — period — both in person and around the globe."

Note again, the use of bullshit. They conflate the physical crowd with Spicer's statement. Or the timing of the presented photos with reality.

TechCrunch on the online attendance:

However, when comparing the inauguration with other more recent events, it still came out on top. For example, the 2016 Euro soccer tournament final peaked at 7.3 Tbps and 3.3 million concurrent viewers. The Rio women’s team gymnastics final hit 4.5 Tbps and 1.5 million concurrent viewers.

At its peak, 4.6 million concurrent viewers watched the inauguration. 

“The presidential inauguration is the latest in a series of record-breaking live, online video streaming events that we have supported over the last year,” said Bill Wheaton, Executive Vice President and General Manager of Media at Akamai, in a statement. “More people than ever are watching video online, and it’s being done across more devices at increasingly higher levels of quality.”

The statement Spicer made about attendance, as stated, is true in both detail and in spirit.

The statement made about CIA attendance goes against the "unpopular" narrative.

It's worth noting that in the two articles I linked, neither mention the MLK bust tweet. Maybe because it doesn't fit their narrative?

An update: FWIW - to the extent that crowds were smaller, how much of that was the supposed "lack of popularity", and how much of it was lack of willingness to travel when they could watch it online or on TV? How much of it was a lack of willingness to travel given that any Trump supporter with two brain cells to rub together knows there will be protests, and is less likely to want to go somewhere where trouble is brewing, especially when they can't go armed (because DC is a bastion of freedom and second amendment... crap, can't say that with a straight face...)? Finally, how many people were delayed by the protests that deliberately acted to cut off and restrict access to the inauguration?

The protests that they covered very passively, as if they were just people marching around and a couple storefronts and cars damaged?

Immigration - a Rant

Not too long after posts on immigration by myself, and a followup on it and "skin in the game" in "Fixing the Magic Dirt Problem" by the Didact, here's a rant by the inimitable Razorfist. I largely agree with it, and though I'd likely be more restrictive on even legal immigration numbers than he is, I think every point he makes here is pure gold.

While I agree that it's surprising how many people actually want restricted immigration despite their supposed politics - it's still surprising how many people who drank the SJW koolaid are true believers.

He also spends a lot of time on something many immigration debaters ignore - the country the immigrants are coming from.

Update - the woman yelling "stop splitting up families"?

Stefan Molyneux has an excellent response - should we not send a murderer to jail because "it breaks up the family"? What about a deadbeat "child support in arrears" dad?

Update 2: BTW - The "deadbeat dad" argument is for the feminist types who believe jailing such people is a good thing. Wouldn't work on me. Leaving aside the "so how is he going to pay you now" argument, the entire divorce/child support industry is a money extracting scam for the benefit of the legal system and not the families, or the kids.

It is worth noting though that feminists are perfectly happy to split up families, ignore abuses of visitation, put dads in jail, etc. if they're not immigrants or violent criminals.

Tom Kratman plays Cassandra for Liberals

...and will be ignored. That was her fate after all, to see the future and not to be believed.

So Tom explores the question of Martial Law, as proposed in jaw-dropping stupidity by Rosie O.

It starts:

Dear Rosie…

…you unbefuckinglievably stupid and ignorant twat.1 Oh, and all you morons who agree with the silly bint, too.

In case you think he's being a bit rough on the poor whale lady...

But let’s just override that. Let’s go ahead with your fantasy a tad further. Let’s suppose that Trump is somehow preemptively locked away so that he can neither take the presidential oath nor transmit to anyone that he has. Let’s further suppose that (okay, this is a stretch) the military (which is to say that a majority of the politically corrupt moral and intellectual whores we call “flag officers”) decides that President Obama’s declaration is constitutional and that, as commander in chief, he is the proper ultimate martial authority to oversee martial law. At noon on the 20th Trump does not take his oath of office and martial law is announced.

As 12:01, Eastern Time, the civil war begins. I know it begins at that time because if no one else does I’ll start it myself. Now you, in your vast knowledge of history, can only think, “Well, so what? We won the last one.”

Yeah, and what were the odds in manpower then? What are they now? And where was the industry then? Where is it now? And how evenly was the martial spirit divided then? Where is the martial spirit now? And did the military hate the federal government back then as it tends to hate it now and will definitely hate it in that lefty martial law future? Just go to the red state-blue state map from the last election. No, instead go to the red county-blue county map. All that red stuff? They hate you.

So either way, whether Trump takes the oath and the military follows him, or he doesn’t and the military rebels against their senior officers and follows him, the result is ultimately the same: Martial Law but in hands that hate you.

What does that look like, by the way, as it ultimately plays out? Well, I want you to imagine a long ditch, Rosie.

Yes, the country is divided. One part may have disliked the other, but harrumphed, and been happy to go on its own way. The other? The other thought they were soooo special, so much better, that they had to tell everyone how to live, whether they wanted it, or not.

I'm not sure hate even qualifies. After watching BLM, the meltdowns, the condemnation of nearly half the country, the fake rape claims, the fake hate crimes, and everything the last few years...

It's a cold, hard, anger.

There's a reason we are slow to anger, we turn the other cheek, etc. Because once we decide the problem has to be dealt with, we tend to be thorough. Walter Russel Mead - liberal that he was - nevertheless saw a glimpse of this aspect of western civilization when he tried to describe what he called the Jacksonian Tradition in American politics.

Stephan Molyneux observed in an interview with Vox Day, that Europeans are very, very nice, until suddenly, they are very, very not. Others have observed "black people burn cities, white people burn continents."

We may be better able to rebuild them as well, but that's small consolation to the well meaning when everything goes up in flames.

The rabbits keep pushing, thinking our anger, our hatred, is as theirs - transient. A show to make people back off.

May god help them if, as Rosie proposes, they do something truly stupid.

Germans, Being Germans.

The topic is serious, but perhaps one of the best illustrations of the mentality I'm going to discuss is nonetheless funny. As has been observed, Eurpoeans are very, very nice. Until they, very suddenly, are very not. The video below is a gag, where the husband of a typical german couple, in a typical german house, with their typical garden, decides to do something about cars that have been driving through the neighborhood too fast.

Note their appearance and behavior - mildly neurotic. Slightly OCD. Pleasant. He's positively excited about finding a solution. And though said solution is played over the top for laughs, and the housewife is horrified, I can tell you that the Germans - mostly engineers - I know tend to fit this profile. Very pleasant Will avoid rocking the boat. If they have a nice car will park it around the back or in the garage because showing off even moderate wealth is considered tacky. And if they decide to do something about a problem, once it has awakened their ire, they will very matter-of-factly, very totally, make it go away. When they commit to something, they can be a bit... extreme.

In the same vein, this recent article at Gates of Vienna - "When a German is Aggravated Enough, a German Strikes” (with translation below):

The following video was made by a German YouTube satirist named Hagen Grell. Despite the humor in it, his entertaining rant has an edge — it expresses a fundamental truth about the hidden undercurrents of German culture, using satirical means.

The Butthurt is Gloriously Strong at Forbes

Forbes recently published an article on Chuck Johnson titled "A Troll Outside Trump Tower Is Helping To Pick Your Next Government".

Yeah, the butthurt is glorious.

An internet troll, who was once called “the most hated man on the internet” and is banned from Twitter, is recommending candidates to serve in the Trump administration.

Charles “Chuck” Johnson, a controversial blogger and conservative online personality, has been pushing for various political appointees to serve under Donald Trump, according to multiple sources close to the President-elect’s transition team. While Johnson does not have a formal position, FORBES has learned that he is working behind the scenes with members of the transition team’s executive committee, including billionaire Trump donor Peter Thiel, to recommend, vet and give something of a seal of approval to potential nominees from the so-called "alt-right."

The proximity to power is something new for Johnson, a self-described “journalist, author and debunker of frauds,” who has made a name for himself by peddling false information and right-wing conspiracy theories online. In the months leading up to the election, Johnson, 28, used social media and his website GotNews.com to stump for the President-elect while also publishing misinformation on Trump’s detractors. Now, Johnson is helping to pick some of the leaders who may run the country for the next four years.

Troll, like "racist" is something liberals call people when they have nothing better that "you're hurting our feelings" to fall back on. The only reason I give this article any credibility whatsoever is that my initial response to the article is not the "oh crap" I'm sure Forbes is aiming for, but instead "awesome." That said, it's likely this is just another fever dream called up in the vein of "Russhia Haxxed Mai Elecshunz". Oh, and we can't have any approval from the alt-right, can we?

Love how he's labeled "fakenews" without actually using the term - "peddling false information and right-wing conspiracy theories". I will grant this - GotNews has hysterically hyperbolic click-bait headlines. Typing the articles in all caps might actually tone them down. Yet, everything I've seen there is meticulously researched, with backing information, a lot of which has enough info for you to cross reference it yourself. While they don't retract, they constantly post updates as new information comes to light.

This is of course far different from so called "news organizations" that butcher video to claim the opposite of what the video shows you.

In the end, I'm not sure if this is true or not. If not - hey, I don't expect accuracy anymore out of the legacy media. If so - then I'm sure I'm hardly the only person who thought "awesome," and they will fail in scaring people off.

All Your Base

Tom Kratman, in his regular column delivers a meme laden post which starts out with TrigglyPuff setting us up the bomb, and comes up with an indecently funny proposal for inauguration day.

Go give him some eyeballs, but I have this ready in the spirit.

Immigration

Men of the West recently published a piece that proposes an interesting solution to dealing with illegals and giving them a "path to citizenship." Think a US Foreign Legion, roughly modeled on the French one.

So what are my thoughts?

I'll admit, it's been difficult to shake a lifetime of programming regarding "we're a nation of immigrants." - you can see it everywhere, down to repeated lines in the music for Hamilton about how he's "an immigrant" and so is Lafayette, and "they get the job done."

Having overheard a chunk of the third-party remix, I can assure you that those references are not only deliberate (and distortions of what is meant by "immigrant"), but that the crowd that loves that play is far, far more activist about it.

So what do I consider acceptable? Well - while I would now consider mass deportations - which have happened before - it still isn't my first choice. Below is what I'd consider an absolute minimum. It also has the advantage of giving us time and breathing room to mobilize for more proactive efforts, if needed. I'm also dashing this off so if you have any questions, etc., or anything is unclear or seems it's ill thought out, ask. It's likely my fault for how I wrote it.

1. Enforce the borders - these laws are already on the books. Will we get everyone? No. So? If we consistently send back the ones we catch, and stop looking the other way, we'll improve things. This may still require a ramp up but cutting down the flow of people coming in is a must, because any other step we take to push people back out will otherwise be undercut.
2. Make the work environment less welcoming to illegals. Sucks for the otherwise "law abiding" ones that work hard, etc., and I'm will not easily be convinced to expand the "proof of citizenship" requirements for most jobs,  but anyone lying on such paperwork - including the employer and/or their HR staff - should be held accountable. Everyone also knows where the illegals hang out for under the table work. Make it harder to get those jobs and the illegals will be less inclined to come over. Again, nothing new is required here except the will power to enforce existing law. 
3. Make the welfare environment less hospitable to non-citizens. I'm willing to entertain some leeway for people who've gone through the hoops, have their papers, and hit on hard times. If they're actually the kind of people who're willing to work hard and advance themselves they'll get back out of it. "Undocumented"? - hell no. 
4. Enforce assimilation as a standard. While we're at it - make English the official language, or take similar measures to stop this "press two for spanish" bullshit. They want to be part of our culture? Assimilate.
5. For illegals already in country: If you're caught committing a felony or other significant crime (DUI, rape, robbery, murder, mugging, etc.), you get shipped out. I'd even accept "goes to trial, goes to prison first if committed" as long as, either way, he gets shipped out. Period.
6. If convicted, they never get a chance to come back in legally. I can at least consider arguments for the rest, especially if cleared at trial, but no-one convicted should be allowed back in. They're at that point double lawbreakers and proven destructive ones at that.  
7. If, and only if you wish to give illegals in country a "path to citizenship" they should go to the back of the line, be free of a criminal record, and do something above and beyond given they already broke the law once. The Men of the West article provides some food for thought, but if they weren't willing to take the legal path, they need to prove themselves somehow.
8. While I actually fully endorse cutting down on stupid paperwork and bureaucratic bullshit for immigrants, more skin in the game is needed in either case. I have no policy suggestions here, but de facto not even requiring immigrants to learn english anymore or otherwise prove themselves is not acceptable. Does it suck that someone born to a citizen doesn't have to pass tests? Sure. So? They're born into the club, and have absorbed its assumptions with mother's milk. Someone who's an outsider has to prove their dedication. I can speak from personal experience that even invested, a large number of second, third, etc. generation European immigrants revert to their ancestor's cultural assumptions.
9. Shift immigration preferences away from south and central America, and the third world.. If we're going to take immigrants, take more that come from a similar culture. Even so, see #7. I know some brits who make our left look sane, though generally they're the wives of much saner, and fairly conservative husbands.
10. While we're at it, start basing immigration acceptance on "will they be productive citizens who can help the USA?" I'm not a college degree snob, so I'd even accept blue-collar and tradesman skills, but we have the right to choose who we take in, and not take those who can't or won't work, or be able to help us as literate members of a modern western society. 
11. Cut down on overall immigration. Why should we brain-drain countries? These very same stable, law-abiding, competent people would be invaluable in maintaining or building the cultures they came from.

This may not be enough, and if so, we can look at stronger measures, but they are the absolute minimum. There's no need to take on floods of illiterate "refugees" - even ignoring that most aren't actually women and children but fighting age men. Enforcing these will get the parasites out, minimize the number entering, and better invest those we do allow in. Given that, the number of issues we have with illegals undercutting jobs, committing crime, and diluting the culture will drop like a rock without having to gather people up by the trainload.

Also, most of this stuff is already on the books, or was (countries we accept immigrants from, for example), until the last few decades. Most of what really is needed is something the west, or it's political "leaders" have lacked. 

Will.

We can do it the relatively humane and low-friction way, getting rid of obvious troublemakers, not taking people in, expecting assimilation, and encouraging the rest to leave, or we can do it the really ugly, violent, high friction way. Or we can avoid rocking the boat, and in the end, go away, little but a memory. That said, if we don't choose a), low friction, then I believe we won't go away, and things will get very, very nasty indeed.

Socialism is Evil

No, I'm not kidding.

I fully realize that there are some damn good people who fully believe in socialism. Some, like Orwell, have the excuse that it hadn't been broadly applied such that it's inherent failures could be exposed for all the world to see - and even he, as time went on, began to change his views. It's no coincidence that 1984 and Animal Farm were eviscerations of totalitarian systems like the Soviet Union, or just in general. Others, well intentioned, not necessarily stupid, though likely being more than a little of what Nassim Taleb would label the "Intellectual Yet Idiot", haven't looked deep enough to the second order consequences of the pretty-sounding and pleasant goals that socialism is sold under.

Not all of them are social justice warriors either. Increasingly rare, there are some intellectually astute socialists and liberals who don't buy into the SJW crap.

So, again, despite some well meaning people who believe in it, socialism is inherently evil. 

Why? After all, isn't it just a set of ideas? How can ideas be inherently evil? 

Yes socialism is a set of ideas, and ideas that are not acted upon, any more than a gun that is not pointed at someone and the trigger pulled, are indeed just tools. But for the sake of this post, we're not talking about some abstract model that you can pick apart to see how it works, or doesn't. We are talking about a living, breathing ideology carried by living, breathing people who try to put it into practice. 

Aren't the goals good?

Yes. So? If I wish to make 100% of the population literate, I could do it the hard way and accept that not all children will be, but that we could get most of them. I could of course lie about the numbers and be only moderately evil, or redefine "literate" - though the number of children who are literate and the ones we call literate never will match up, and we've devalued trust, and meaning.

I could also walk around killing every single child who does not meet the standard. That would give us 100% literacy - of the remaining population. And it would of course be the inhuman, evil way of achieving the goal.

Don't we have a number of socialist systems in place in the United States? Welfare? Etc? We have almost the entire socialist party platform of the 30's in place right now!

Yes, and many do more harm than good. It's the old "just because people are doing it" argument.

Also note, that just because something is agreed upon as a "good" thing by socialists - namely, the government doing something - doesn't mean it's inherently bad. A competent evil overlord will have read the Evil Overlord List - and will do many things that are virtuous to build loyalty, build competence, etc., even if all of this is ultimately to evil purpose.

But... EVIL?

Yes. Because it plays off of not only greed, but envy. Because it is against nature. Because it doesn't allow for checks on the needed power structures to make it work.

Look. Objectivism and Libertarianism play off of greed. In part, one argument is that self-interest in greed is easier to manage than the sins that underlie how socialism is sold. Of course, being utopian, they also require angels for them to succeed, but despite ignoring that people exist in a society, with friends and family, and are not individual atomic units, are nevertheless closer to the reality of nature with distributed power and distributed decision systems addressing the problems of the moment.

Envy though - that's how socialism is sold. Look at that income disparity! Look at that wage gap! Look at that job gap doing "cool things"! As the Dark Triad Man wrote: 

Envy is a nasty, spiteful resentment. It is the projection outward of bitterness of self. Envy is a rejected acceptance of one’s own incapacity or lack of wealth, power, position or property. It is the involuntary transformation of the resulting disappointment into an ugly and pointless hatred of those who present examples of higher achievement.

Envy is the failure to accept unsatisfied desire. It is a failure, more importantly, to accept personal responsibility for both that dissatisfaction and a demand for better achievement of desire through greater personal effort. Envy is the external flinging of suffering when the psyche is not strong enough to withstand adoption of this true ownership.


Envy results in bitterness, in a curdled malevolence of heart.

For their faults, freedom-oriented ideologies like Libertarianism eschew the poison of envy. If you want what someone else has, don't ruin their lives, don't cut them down to your level, and don't steal from them. Make your own!

Since it is sold on envy. Everything that someone else has that you want is a source of pain that must be corrected by making things equal - and ultimately, that means an outside power must decide what is "fair", and take from those who have "too much" to give to those who have "not enough."

Far too much ink has been spilled on the truth that this leads to the capable not working- one of the better ones being Stefan Molyneux's dissection of Thanksgiving, and how the Plymouth colony ended up in such dire straights in the first place - so I will not go into it here. It leads us though, into being against nature. Not only natural limits of what we know, but the nature of man.

For socialism to work, one must assume that, if not all will work, then enough will work in the face of those who refuse to, to keep the system afloat. Despite much idealism, reality has yet to demonstrate such a trait. The opposite is not only eminently predictable, but has borne out, time and time again, and so of course force is needed to make people work. This again, requires a central organization to determine what is adequate "work", and who can be excused from it.

Again, the central control - and that is another natural limit. Sure, in a family, it's possible to know enough of what's going on to decide what's best for the family as a whole and who can do what, and no functional family is a democracy (nor is it an authoritarian hellhole), but despite the illusion provided by games like Civilization, etc., we simply never can acquire the knowledge to judge for everyone in any sizable community, much less a nation.

As much as individuals will make mistakes, many will manage to make OK decisions, and the scope of those decisions will be limited, rather than national. 

And central control brings us to the last point. Psychopaths, sociopaths, narcissists, and those who crave power over others are drawn to politics like moths to a flame. The greater the power, the greater the scope of control, the more attractive it is, and the more damage they can do to people's lives with it, while better guaranteeing they will never lose access to those levers.

It's amazing that those who who are unwilling to trust people with the individual power inherent in freedom will trust people with power over thousands - because supposedly there's a vetting process. More than enough people can attest at how well sociopaths and narcissists can hide amongst people.

That desire to retain that power and prevent challenges to it also underlies the observation in the United States that gun control isn't about guns - for their bodyguards, security services, and armies will still have them - it's about control.

And ultimately, that need for control as people refuse to do what's "best for them/the country" as determined by the thought leaders, leads to the suffering, starvation, torture, and enslavement in job lots of one's own citizens, time after time after time.