Articles

Sunday, August 02, 2015

A Tour of Our Decadent Civilization

Civilizations normally go through three stages; Barbaric, Vigorous and Decadent.

It's easy to find examples of barbaric and decadent civilizations. We can find all the barbaric civilizations to suit an entire faculty's worth of anthropologists in the Middle East. And then back home we can see the decadent civilization that employs their kind to bemoan the West.

Vigorous is what America used to be when it was moving west, producing at record rates and becoming a world power. Decadent is what it is becoming.

The barbaric civilization is the simplest of all. It runs on kinship. Pre-rational, it operates on explosions of emotion. It has no concept of enduring facts or objective reasoning. It holds life cheaply and kills casually. It loathes outsiders and has no universal laws. It is ruled by hierarchies which gain their position through brutality and trickery.

The decadent civilization has a million laws which it applies selectively. Its universal laws, inherited from a vigorous civilization, are so mired in legalisms as to be meaningless. The laws do not mean what they say. Instead they must be interpreted by a specialized caste. Everyone is always in violation of some obscure laws. Life depends on a lawless dispensation from the law.

The crucial task of the law is interpretation that keeps everyone from constantly being punished. This task is accomplished by lawyers, lobbyists and the politicians who are constantly adding more laws to fix the interpretations in the old laws creating a complex mass of contradictory information.

This holds true in every other area of life.

Interpretation is what the decadent civilization does best. While vigorous civilizations discover new things, decadent civilizations endlessly categorize and re-categorize them to accommodate intellectual fads.

The decadents are great categorizers. They know where everything should belong. They employ armies of bureaucrats to operate vast filing systems which never quite work as planned. They don't cure diseases. That's what vigorous civilizations do. But they do spend billions on medical record systems that never seem to be compatible with each other.

Decadents have a great deal of information and no idea what to do with it. The great task of decadent civilizations is a futile effort to organize all the information they have so that they can make use of it. The internet is the ultimate such mechanism and it is largely a failure as such. It has many entertaining and useful aspects, but it is actually becoming more disorganized with time, rather than less so. ObamaCare is another information organizational failure. So is the VA.

The decadent civilization is convinced that if it can amass enough information, its interpretations will be superior, but its information gathering techniques and its interpretative techniques are both fatally flawed by an inability to focus, by ideologically obsessions and societal corruption. Scientists may have more rapid access to more information, but the scientific community is more contaminated leading to worse results. Similarly, corruption undermines information gathering efforts from the start as projects are diverted to crony contractors by corrupt politicians.

Vigorous civilizations understand that a process must be kept clean by open debate. Decadent civilizations operate corrupt closed processes while convinced of their own innate superiority.

Decadent civilizations are less interested in discovering new things than in disproving old things. The corruption of the decadent civilizations handicaps its advancement. The middling talents at the helm rewrite history while justifying their misrule by denouncing the achievements of their vigorous ancestors.

Where the vigorous civilization disproves the old through its achievements, the decadent civilization considers the disproving of the old civilization to be an achievement in and of itself. Where the vigorous civilization outside its parent, the decadent civilization is still stuck fighting "Daddy".

If you examine our achievements today, they increasingly have much to do with the supposed social and intellectual progress we have made since the fifties. This progress is relative. It depends on how we view the fifties rather than what we actually have. Worse still, much of this progress is in outlook, rather than in reality. We are better because we are morally superior.

Despite the disdain for the past, decadent civilizations struggle to do more than deconstruct and then helplessly imitate the past. Chaotic deconstruction of past creative arts is followed by retro copying of them, first ironically and then earnestly. Nostalgia becomes the central industry of a civilization increasingly incapable of making its own culture.

The central cultural critique becomes updating older works to more politically correct forms. A classic character is made black or gay. Problems with diversity or sexism are tackled. The critic becomes a commissar whose job is to sanctify the transformation of an old politically incorrect work as politically correct. That is the role of the social justice warrior.

All this energy makes it appear as if there is cultural ferment when nothing is actually being produced. Instead older works are being "cleaned up" in keeping with new social values by a civilization that frantically chews up the past in a desire to forget the problems of the present.

People living in decadent civilization have a greater need for entertainment due to leisure time, extended adolescence and the breakup of the family. But their lack of meaningful work, family engagement and adult responsibilities leaves them increasingly less able to produce it. Instead they become children putting together pieces of stories that "Daddy" once told them while taking the credit.

Decadents confuse criticism and curation with creativity. They develop great sensitivity to everything from literary styles to foods. In a decadent society, everyone is a cultivated critic, but these critics value style over substance. Their criticism is a cultural signal rather than a mastery of technique. The decadent civilization is obsessed with taste as brand. It is sensitive to subtleties, but fails to see the large flaws in a work. Its creativity is microscopically innovative and macroscopically a failure. Its subtle refinements cannot compensate for the lack of vision.

In a decadent civilization, everyone can be a critic or a collector of something, even as no one actually produces anything new until there are more critics and collectors than creators.

The decadent civilization spends much of its time and effort in a battle against apathy. It is forever "raising awareness" about something or other. Its sophisticated messaging however creates apathy as quickly as it erases it. Its messaging becomes more short term and more hysterical. Everything is a crisis and every message is pitched at the highest possible level.

The outrage of today is quickly forgotten by the outrage of tomorrow. The organizers dream of sustaining awareness for real change only to dive into the next round of short-term messaging.

In a decadent civilization, everyone is always fighting a political battle, while the real changes are orchestrated by power groups behind the scenes and presented as fait accomplis to a bewildered public.And most of what is debated is a distraction from what truly matters.

Barbaric and decadent civilizations are both so dishonest that they are incapable of seeing their own lies.

The barbaric civilization simply does not understand the concept of a fixed truth. The minds of its people are capable of understanding it as an abstract notion, but not of holding it in their minds on a specific subjective matter of interest to them. A barbarian can understand that stealing is wrong, but not that robbing you is wrong.

A decadent however can understand that stealing from you is wrong, but not that stealing itself is wrong. The decadent civilization does not have fixed truths. Its people are trained to apply mores to subjective situations, much as barbarians do naturally. While barbarians can evolve from the fixed truth to the fixed value, the decadents have devolved by rejecting the fixed truth.

Fixed truths have been deconstructed and routed through a complex array of relativistic values. A decadent understands that murdering this baby right here is wrong, but can be taught that it is acceptable to trade parts of dead fetuses. For decadents in an information society, definitions are very important. Decadents and barbarians have an empathy that is triggered by cultural signals.

For barbarians, these signals are honor-shame kin-based. For decadents, the cultural signals are more complex group-based signals that are routed through complex intellectual justifications. These justifications naturally create their own unrecognized hypocrisies. Enemy civilians killed in a Republican's war are a horrific atrocity. Those killed in a Democrat's war don't exist.

Groups are politicized and every moral code is routed through an identity politics based on insecurity. There are no morals, only sides. Responses are emotional to shortcut rational reasoning. Decadents function like barbarians, not because they are barbarians, but because their minds have been wired in complex ways by brilliantly dishonest men in academia to reduce them to barbarians.

A major difference between vigorous and decadent civilizations is objectivity and long term thinking. Decadents are incapable of either while vigorous civilizations thrive on both. If decadent civilizations could engage in long term thinking, they wouldn't be doomed. If they could engage in objective reasoning, they wouldn't be slaves to the media machines under a lawless tyranny. 

The barbaric and vigorous civilizations speak little of sex and yet have high birth rates. Decadent civilizations are obsessed with sex and have few children. Perversions multiply in decadent civilizations, especially among the elites, who have the fewest morals, the most wealth and the greatest need for new taboos to violate. This is not a cause. It is only the symptom.

Gay marriage, like so much else, is the symptom of a decadent elite that confuses its own power and privilege with civil rights, that wants to legalize its illicit behaviors even though it only embarked on them because of their illicitness. In its perversity, it must find new taboos to violate each time an old one becomes socially accepted, before then embarking on a civil rights struggle to make its latest taboo socially acceptable so that one day it's gay marriage and the next it's men in dresses.

Barbarians have large families and a tolerance for limited personal space. They speak loudly, are more casual about the deaths of their children, and view success in terms of power. Decadents speak softly, have a high need for personal space, have small families while playing helicopter parents and view success in terms of their own unattainable happiness. Vigorous civilizations have medium sized families, speak loudly, view success in terms of personal accomplishment, are not too concerned about personal space and value their children while allowing them to take risks.

Decadents want emotional rewards without commitments. As a result they are constantly unhappy. They pursue happiness as if it were a quality that could be permanently obtained through the right techniques, rather than a shifting response to the rigors of daily life. The more decadents do this, the more unstable they become, obsessively self-medicating and attempting to otherwise set the conditions of their happiness by controlling its application, and blaming others for their failure.

The more deranged decadents search for those who deny them their right to happiness by failing to accept them, reward them or otherwise please them until they find meaning only in attacking others. Behind their venom is narcissistic self-pity, they are searching for revenge against a cruel world when they are the authors of their own unhappiness. 

The decadent civilization senses inwardly that it has no future. It becomes obsessed with apocalypses. Its people are always fixated on the next great threat to their health individually and the next great disaster that will bring their civilization to its knees. While vigorous civilizations boldly stride forward into the unknown, decadents are nervous and unsure. They veer between comfort zones and ritualized displays of destructive behavior that accomplish nothing except the illusion of freedom.

Vigorous civilizations pursue meaningful risks. Decadent civilizations pursue meaningless ones. For a vigorous civilization, adventure ends with an accomplishment. For a decadent civilization, risk is the accomplishment.

The decadent civilization obsessively manages risk. Its layers of government are mainly dedicated to that task. Accomplishment in a decadent civilization becomes a difficult task because of the many lawyers of corporate and government risk management standing in the way of getting anything done.

Fear is the true currency of the decadent civilization. A corrupted fear that is used to expand a vast bureaucracy that claims to manage risk, but in reality manages who is allowed to circumvent it. Groups are stampeded into accepting new tiers of fear government and fear authority based on the risk that something might happen. And yet the source of the fear is never dealt with.

A vigorous civilization rushes out to deal with threats. A decadent civilization imprisons itself out of fear.

Decadence in a civilization can be reversed. While the barbarian civilization must evolve upward, the decadent civilization must undo the damage that is devolving it. This is easier than it seems. Unlike the barbarian civilization, the decadent civilization has most of the same infrastructure, physical and mental, of the vigorous civilization. Only its ideas have become corrupted.

And even this deeper corruption is largely limited to the elites and the professional classes, while the rest of the civilization has experienced only a surface corruption that is easily wiped away.

The difficulty is however structural. A decadent civilization becomes more top-down with each year. And the source of the corruption is at the top. Removing the source of the corruption requires either removing all or almost all of the elites, and sizable sections of the professional classes as well. Or a campaign of ideas that transforms them as fundamentally as they were transformed.

Either is a daunting proposition. Both require a fundamental transformation, but the former transformation is structural, a revolution that changes how a civilization is run, displacing elites across all the tiers of society, while the latter is a revolution of ideas.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

The Useless Jewish Organization

After the Iran deal, American Jews turned to the “Establishment” of liberal Jewish organizations to whom they had written out so many checks over the years expecting them to do something about it.

And the organizations did what they do best. They expressed concern.

The ADL was “deeply concerned” about the Iran nuclear deal two years ago. It announced that it now has “cause for concern”. It’s unknown whether the next ADL boss, Obama crony Jonathan A. Greenblatt, it also concerned, but it doesn’t matter since the ADL’s concern and five bucks can get you an Iced Cinnamon Dolce Latte at Starbucks.

AIPAC is also “deeply concerned” about the deal. So is John Boehner. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was also “deeply concerned” about Iran’s nuclear program eight years ago. The IAEA was “deeply concerned” about it four years ago. And Obama, he’s now “deeply concerned” about the Americans held in Iran. The last time he was “deeply concerned” about the subject was two years ago.

Expressing concern, deep or otherwise, is a meaningless formula that reassures the people actually upset about an issue that they are being taken seriously, by the organizations otherwise ignoring them.

After four years, conservatives have learned that Boehner’s concern doesn’t amount to much. American Jews are baffled to realize that the organizations they expected to help them are just as worthless.

American Jewish liberalism is based on a comforting myth that in times of crisis, its organizations step up to the challenge, rescuing Jews from the Holocaust, saving Soviet Jewry and fighting for Israel. In real life, the establishment has a long history of fighting the “radical” and “extremist” groups that actually did these things, before eventually climbing on the bandwagon and then claiming all the credit.

Before it was fundraising off Israel, the establishment was militantly anti-Zionist.

In the 20s, the establishment was directing money away from Israel to the USSR’s “Jewish” farming colonies. At a time when the future of Israel hung in the balance, the American Jewish Congress had sponsored a report by Louis Fischer, a Communist sympathizer and propagandist (and a future anti-Communist), who was denying that there was a famine and urging millions be spent on Soviet colonies.

The JDC’s Agro-Joint project committed more resources to developing agriculture in the USSR than in Israel. Fortunes that could have been used to save countless Jews from the Holocaust and build a stronger Israel were instead funneled into the USSR. When the Communists had gotten what they wanted from their useful idiots, many of the Joint’s employees ended up colonizing gulags.

This was one of the earliest splits between Zionists and anti-Zionists in American Jewish life, with the anti-Zionists being Communist sympathizers or their useful idiots. As Stephen Wise pointed out, "The protagonists of this colonization were more concerned about Russia than about Jews."

A $16 million fundraiser (more than twice what the JDC had spent on Israel) was accompanied by propaganda claiming that the Jews of the Soviet settlements had found a “new life” and a “happy future”. David A. Brown, the anti-Zionist head of the United Jewish Campaign, claimed that it would get rid of anti-Semitism. Before long, most of the Joint’s employees had been shot or imprisoned by Stalin.

But by then over a decade and a fortune had been lost. By the time the Soviet colonization project had been thoroughly discredited, the British limitations on Jewish immigration had closed another door.

In 1943, James N. Rosenberg, the JDC boss, stated that the world ought to learn a lesson from “Russia’s treatment of minorities.” Meanwhile the USSR had begun its struggle against “rootless cosmopolitans”; a coded reference to Jews. The two Russian Jews he was welcoming, Solomon Mikhoels and Itzik Feffer, would soon be killed by Stalin as part of a larger purge of Soviet Jews.

Having learned nothing from the butchery of his own Joint people by Stalin, the anti-Zionist Rosenberg then suggested that European Jews after the war should move to the USSR.

Eventually in 1950, Rosenberg, whose “On the Steppes” was a key piece of establishment propaganda for the Soviet colonies, belatedly admitted that his project had, “ended in dust, ashes and death.”

Israel does not exist because of the establishment, but in spite of it. It exists because while the establishment bosses in New York were swallowing Soviet lies, young Jewish farmers worked the soil in Israel. If Israel survives, it will be because of its farmers, not because of New York’s corrupt bosses.

The Jewish establishment has always been anti-Zionist. It was anti-Zionist before the State of Israel was founded. It is anti-Zionist today. Then and now, it disguises that anti-Zionism behind excuses while redirecting money to its pet political causes. Once Israel had won, history was rewritten and the anti-Zionist Jewish establishment became Zionist; even if it was a Zionism in name only.

During the 20s, the establishment directed aid away from Israel and toward the USSR. In the 30s, there was a more progressive cause than saving Jews from Nazi Germany and his name was FDR.

Once again the establishment was “deeply concerned” about the mass murder of Jews and it was willing to hold as many meetings as it took to issue statements of deep concern. The one thing it could not and would not do was actually challenge a liberal president who had emerged as a progressive hero.

That fell to Jewish radicals and extremists in the Bergson Group who took out angry ads in newspapers with immoderate titles like “Guaranteed Human Beings at $50 a piece.”

FDR was far more concerned with Muslim feelings than Jewish lives. At the end of the war, Roosevelt would say that he had learned more about the Jewish problem by talking to the Saudi king for five minutes than he could have learned from numerous letters. At Yalta, FDR had told Stalin that he would be happy to give the Saudi king “the six million Jews in the United States.”

The Saudi king had stated, “The word of Allah teaches us, and we implicitly believe this… that for a Muslim to kill a Jew, or for him to be killed by a Jew ensures him an immediate entry into Paradise and into the august presence of Allah. What more then can a Muslim want in this hard world.”

Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long, who would cunningly block Jewish rescue efforts, wrote in his diary that “The whole Mohamedan world is tending to flare up at the indications that the Allied forces are trying to locate Jewish people under their protection in Moslem territory.”

Long before Obama or Carter, a liberal president was sacrificing Jews to Muslim anti-Semitism with the complicity of the major Jewish organizations that promised their constituents that their diplomacy on the inside would succeed. And after six million were dead, the organizations that let them die spent the rest of the century fundraising off their ashes to create tolerance programs and big buildings.

In the 60s, it was finally time for the USSR. For decades the Jewish establishment had expressed “deep concern” over the organized persecution of Jews in the USSR. While the establishment focused on keeping lines of communication to the USSR open, young Jewish activists in America staged protests. They didn’t just march; they disrupted the very dialogue that the establishment wanted so badly.

Like the Bergson Group, these activists were young and edgy. They were not impressed by meetings with officials. Instead they realized that they had to make themselves a nuisance to succeed.

They were not “deeply concerned”. Instead they acted.

If Obama’s nuclear deal is to be defeated, it won’t be done by the establishment insiders. The
establishment is invested in its own credibility and its politics. It will make a show of fighting the Iran deal before fundraising off its miserable failure. And the money will go to fund its progressive causes.

The establishment will not stand up to Obama, just like it didn’t stand up to FDR. The real action will come from ad-hoc coalitions, like the one behind the Stop Iran Rally, that throw things together. And it will come from a handful of kids somewhat that do what the adults aren’t doing.

Bergson was in his early twenties when he began his activism. Dennis Prager was in his early twenties when he began working as the national spokesman for Student Struggle for Soviet Jewry. Where the establishment failed, they succeeded in bringing national attention to an urgent crisis.

Creative solutions will not come from the establishment, but from outside it. The establishment has been 0 for 3 when it came to building Israel, the Holocaust and Soviet Jewry. Expecting it to do any more about Iran than be “deeply concerned” is a formula for disappointment.

This is not a time for more internal diplomacy in which establishment bosses chat with politicians and come away with four pounds of nothing in a torn sack. It’s time for forceful activism that wakes up everyone to the reality that we are facing a future in which terrorists have nuclear weapons.

While the ADL spends money on lesson plans about Bruce Jenner and social justice poetry, while the UJA winks and funds BDS, a new generation will once again be called on to stand against Armageddon.

Thursday, July 23, 2015

The Myth of Iran's Peaceful Nuclear Program

Last year Iran was selling gasoline for less than 50 cents a gallon. This year a desperate regime hiked prices up to over a dollar. Meanwhile, Iranians pay about a tenth of what Americans do for electricity.

Unlike Japan, Iran does not need nuclear power. It is already sitting on a mountain of gas and oil.

Iran blew between $100 billion to $500 billion on its nuclear program. The Bushehr reactor alone cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $11 billion making it one of the most expensive in the world.

This wasn’t done to cut power bills. Iran didn’t take its economy to the edge for a peaceful nuclear program. It built the Fordow fortified underground nuclear reactor that even Obama admitted was not part of a peaceful nuclear program, it built the underground Natanz enrichment facility whose construction at one point consumed all the cement in the country, because the nuclear program mattered more than anything else as a fulfillment of the Islamic Revolution’s purpose.

Iran did not do all this so that its citizens could pay 0.003 cents less for a kilowatt hour of electricity.

It built its nuclear program on the words of the Ayatollah Khomeini, “Islam makes it incumbent on all adult males, provided they are not disabled or incapacitated, to prepare themselves for the conquest of [other] countries so that the writ of Islam is obeyed in every country in the world.”

Iran’s constitution states that its military is an “ideological army” built to fulfill “the ideological mission of jihad in Allah's way; that is, extending the sovereignty of Allah’s law throughout the world.”

It quotes the Koranic verse urging Muslims to “strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of Allah”.

Article 3 of Iran’s Constitution calls for a foreign policy based on “unsparing support” to terrorists around the world. Article 11, the ISIS clause, demands the political unity of the Islamic world.

Iran is not just a country. It is the Islamic Revolution, the Shiite ISIS, a perpetual revolution to destroy the non-Muslim world and unite the Muslim world. Over half of Iran’s urban population lives below the poverty line and its regime sacrificed 100,000 child soldiers as human shields in the Iran-Iraq War.

Iran did not spend all that money just to build a peaceful civilian nuclear program to benefit its people. And yet the nuclear deal depends on the myth that its nuclear program is peaceful.

Obama insisted, “This deal is not contingent on Iran changing its behavior.” But if Iran isn’t changing its behavior, if it isn’t changing its priorities or its values, then there is no deal.

If Iran hasn’t changed its behavior, then the nuclear deal is just another way for it to get the bomb.

If Iran were really serious about abandoning a drive for nuclear weapons, it would have shut down its nuclear program. Not because America or Europe demanded it, but because it made no economic sense. For a fraction of the money it spent on its nuclear ambitions, it could have overhauled its decaying electrical grid and actually cut costs. But this isn’t about electricity, it’s about nuclear bombs.

The peaceful nuclear program is a hoax. The deal accepts the hoax. It assumes that Iran wants a peaceful nuclear program. It even undertakes to improve and protect Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear technology.

The reasoning behind the nuclear deal is false. It’s so blatantly false that the falseness has been written into the deal. The agreement punts on the military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program and creates a complicated and easily subverted mechanism for inspecting suspicious programs in Iranian military sites.

It builds in so many loopholes and delays, separate agreements and distractions, because it doesn’t really want to know. The inspections were built to help Iran cheat and give Obama plausible deniability.

With or without the agreement, Iran is on the road to a nuclear bomb. Sanctions closed some doors and opened others. The agreement opens some doors and closes others. It’s a tactical difference that moves the crisis from one stalemate to another. Nothing has been resolved. The underlying strategy is Iran’s.

Iran decided that the best way to conduct this stage of its nuclear weapons program was by getting technical assistance and sanctions relief from the West. This agreement doesn’t even pretend to resolve the problem of Iran’s nuclear weapons. Instead its best case scenario assumes that years from now Iran won’t want a nuclear bomb. So that’s why we’ll be helping Iran move along the path to building one.

It’s like teaching a terrorist to use TNT for mining purposes if he promises not to kill anyone.

But this agreement exists because the West refuses to come to terms with what Islam is. Successful negotiations depend on understanding what the other side wants. Celebratory media coverage talks about finding “common ground” with Iran. But what common ground is there with a regime that believes that America is the “Great Satan” and its number one enemy?

What common ground can there be with people who literally believe that you are the devil?

When Iranian leaders chant, “Death to America”, we are told that they are pandering to the hardliners. The possibility that they really believe it can’t be discussed because then the nuclear deal falls apart.

For Europe, the nuclear agreement is about ending an unprofitable standoff and doing business with Iran. For Obama, it’s about rewriting history by befriending another enemy of the United States. But for Iran’s Supreme Leader, it’s about pursuing a holy war against the enemies of his flavor of Islam.

The Supreme Leader of Iran already made it clear that the war will continue until America is destroyed. That may be the only common ground he has with Obama. Both America and Iran are governed by fanatics who believe that America is the source of all evil. Both believe that it needs to be destroyed.

Carter made the Islamic Revolution possible. Obama is enabling its nuclear revolution.

Today Tehran and Washington D.C. are united by a deep distrust of America, distaste for the West and a violent hatred of Israel. This deal is the product of that mutually incomprehensible unity. It is not meant to stop Iran from getting a nuclear bomb. It is meant to stop America and Israel from stopping it.

Both Obama and the Supreme Leader of Iran have a compelling vision of the world as it should be and don’t care about the consequences because they are convinced that the absolute good of their ideology makes a bad outcome inconceivable.

"O Allah, for your satisfaction, we sacrificed the offspring of Islam and the revolution," a despairing Ayatollah Khomeini wrote after the disastrous Iran-Iraq War cost the lives of three-quarters of a million Iranians. The letter quoted the need for "atomic weapons" and evicting America from the Persian Gulf.

Four years earlier, its current Supreme Leader had told officials that Khomeini had reactivated Iran’s nuclear program, vowing that it would prepare “for the emergence of Imam Mehdi.”

The Islamic Revolution’s nuclear program was never peaceful. It was a murderous fanatic’s vision for destroying the enemies of his ideology, rooted in war, restarted in a conflict in which he used children to detonate land mines, and meant for mass murder on a terrible scale.

The nuclear agreement has holes big enough to drive trucks through, but its biggest hole is the refusal of its supporters to acknowledge the history, ideology and agenda of Iran’s murderous tyrants. Like so many previous efforts at appeasement, the agreement assumes that Islam is a religion of peace.

The ideology and history of Iran’s Islamic Revolution tells us that it is an empire of blood.

The agreement asks us to choose between two possibilities. Either Iran has spent a huge fortune and nearly gone to war to slightly lower its already low electricity rates or it wants a nuclear bomb.

The deal assumes that Iran wants lower electricity rates. Iran’s constitution tells us that it wants Jihad. And unlike Obama, Iran’s leaders can be trusted to live up to their Constitution.

Sunday, July 19, 2015

Millions and Millions of Mohammeds

Before Mohammad Youssduf Adulazeer shot up a military recruiting center in Chattanooga from a car and then sped away, another Mohammed, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad did much the same thing in 2009.

Both struck military recruiting centers in the South, but the 2009 Mohammed had a message for Americans that we unfortunately failed to heed.

"This is not the first attack, and won't be the last," Muhammad warned. “I'm just one Muhammad. There are millions of Muhammads out there. And I hope and pray the next one be more deadlier than Muhammad Atta!”

There are millions of Mohammeds out there. It took exactly six years for one of them to finish what his predecessor started. In a world with lots of Mohammeds, we really need to consider whether we want Mohammed becoming the most common name for a boy in America, as it already has in countries like the UK.

The murderous Mohammeds embody the values of the original Mohammed, the founder of their brutal ideology. They kill like him. They kill in his name.

A country with more Mohammeds, is a country with more Muslim terrorism. And if the first Mohammed doesn't kill enough people, the next one will. We have to be lucky every time. The Mohammeds only have to be lucky once for there to be a bloody scene, handfuls of wilted flowers at makeshift memorials on concrete and Americans crying because a Mohammed has struck again.
Americans that unfortunately went unheeded.

The family that names a son Mohammed believes that the warlord who raped and murdered his way across Arabia in a manner that ISIS copied was a model for human behavior. Is it any surprise that the model Mohammed eventually imitates his bloody namesake's crimes?

When a Mohammed rapes young girls in the UK, as quite a few of them have, he is only doing what his prophet did. When a Mohammed opens fire on American soldiers, he is following the teachings of his namesake and prophet. Why blame a Mohammed for acting like Mohammed?

During WW2, we would not have allowed millions of Germans named after the Fuhrer, who admired him and worshiped him, into the country. And if we had done something that stupid, we would have had only ourselves to blame when the darling Adolfs shot and bombed their way across America.

A country with more Mohammeds is a more dangerous place. If a million mothers named their offspring after Charles Manson and raised them to embody Manson Family values, America would be a much scarier place. An America with a million Mohammeds will be even worse.

The mass murdering Mohammeds offer us a simple choice. Do we want to keep allowing people named after the Muslim Charles Manson whose big goals in life were killing non-Muslims and raping their wives and daughters in the name of tolerance or do we want to end this threat of terrorism?

Importing Mohammeds and Adolfs is no way to be tolerant. It feeds the cycle of terror, the bombs, the rapes, the shootings, the whines, the protests and the falling buildings. The first Mohammed kills and another Mohammed pops up to protest that he was only acting out of outrage. A third Mohammed emerges to kill because we arrested the first Mohammed. A fourth Mohammed demands that we free all the Mohammeds or he won't be able to stop the fifth Mohammed from becoming radicalized. Then the sixth Mohammed kills a bunch of people and the seventh Mohammed claims that he has nothing to do with Mohammedanism, which is a peaceful religion, but that we must stop offending Mohammeds or he won't be responsible for what the next thousand Mohammeds do.

Enough.

If we don't want Mohammedan murders, we should stop importing Mohammeds. If we keep importing Mohammeds, then nothing we do, including electing a President Mohammed on a platform of non-stop apologies and free nukes to every terrorist, will stop Mohammedan terrorism.

When there's a hole in a boat, you stop drilling. When a bunch of people named Mohammed keep killing Americans, it's time to tell the next million Mohammeds applying for a visa, "Sorry, no."

America does not need immigrants who view mass murderers as role models. On the list of the least desirable immigrants, Mohammed should rank somewhere below a leprous beggar, a convicted rapist with AIDS and Piers Morgan.

In a country where the Dukes of Hazzard is now a hate crime, we seem bent on importing people who model racist murders, slavery and rape as the highest of all human virtues. And then we're baffled when a Mohammed acts like a Mohammed. The clue is right in the name.

Muslims and the left are united in suppressing any discussion about Mohammed because if we were to recognize that the very model of a major Muslim prophet would be serving a life sentence in solitary confinement if he were alive today, much like many of his Mohammed disciples are serving today, then maybe there's something wrong with all the Mohammeds and with Mohammedanism.

Mohammad Youssduf Adulazeer boasted that his name triggers security alerts. And it should have. Instead he was allowed to work in a nuclear power plant despite his father's donations to Hamas.

Being named after a mass murderer is bad. Being named after a mass murderer by a cult that worships him to the degree that they won't even allow his image to be depicted is a scary sign. If we don't want the seventh century crimes of Mohammed being repeated in our own countries today, then the name Mohammed should trigger security alerts and flight bans.

We need to have a serious dialogue about what to expect from a boy named after a serial killer by a cult that worships that serial killer. And we need to have it before the next Mohammed shoots up the place.

Thursday, July 16, 2015

Why Trump is Winning

As the long slow race to beat Hillary drags on, there will be a thousand conservative stories and blog posts demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that Donald Trump is a hypocrite, that he supported illegal immigrants, Hillary, abortion and higher taxes. And few of them will leave our small bubble.

Trump may indeed be a liar and a hypocrite, though he wouldn't be the only candidate in the race who has moved to the right or abandoned previous positions, but he understands what the others don't.

The Republican field is a mass of highly qualified and talented people with poor media skills and worse communication skills. Some consciously choose to play it safe. Others seem to have no clue how to win a debate or a drive a message home.

Donald Trump has been a joke of one kind or another for most of his adult life, and until now he's been an incredibly successful joke. He is burning the empire that allowed him to enjoy a highly privileged lifestyle by marketing his brand as a blatant luxury item that anyone could have.

Trump made wealth populist. He made a seeming upper class lifestyle appear accessible in all its ridiculously tacky glory. He might be betting that he can get it all back once the furor dies down and his run becomes another chapter that keeps him in public view. But he's betting a lot as the corporations that enabled him to play billionaire are cutting their ties with him.

And without those companies marketing his brand, he's a moderately wealthy man with a lot of debts and a troubled business plan.

So Trump is taking a huge gamble. Whatever he believes, he appears to be betting that he can become president. Unlike some other candidates, this doesn't come down to speaking fees. If no company will touch his brand, being able to charge a few thousand more per speech won't make up for his losses.

Like the Confederate flag, the more he comes under fire, the more conservatives rally around him. It's a perverse dynamic that the media feeds on. The media would love to see Trump in the race long enough to make it come down to him and Jeb Bush. They might regret that, but they probably won't.

Conservative punditry is mourning a field in which talented and promising Republican leaders are being ground under. And they have a point, but if those Republicans were really so talented and promising they wouldn't be falling behind to a man whose big talent is brash self-confidence.

Brash self-confidence, an outsized personality, a willingness to take great personal risks are what is absent from the Republican field. And those define Trump's brand. They may be fake, but in an age where the camera defines truth, your messaging is only as good as your acting and your sales skills.

Donald Trump is a great salesman. His Republican rivals aren't. Some are talented lawyers. They understand policy and political tactics. But they couldn't sell a discounted heater to Eskimos.

His entry into the race may be an important wake up call.

If the genuine conservatives can't outsell Trump, they're not going to be able to outsell bland corporate brands like Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton. It won't matter who is left standing because no one will be left standing.

Like most great salesmen, Donald Trump is an instinctive populist. He knows how to get people's attention and how to promise them a better life. Those are also the skills of a good politician.

And like most salesmen, plenty of people hate him instinctively. Others are willing to believe in him all the way.

Trump has changed the race from a huddle of politicians trying to lock down distinct blocs and lines of appeal in the party, Evangelicals, libertarians, candidates who can appeal to minorities, youth votes, to blatant populism. Trump doesn't appeal to any blocs. He has the FOX News sensibility of shouting the right sorts of things at the right time with a fake working class edge.

In short, he's Bill O'Reilly.

The more he does it, the more he's identified with genuine conservatism. The liberal backlash feeds into his image because he's doing what none of the candidates seem to consistently do, which is fight.

Like Bill O'Reilly, Donald Trump is probably fake. But it doesn't really matter. Politics is itself fake. Trump's entry moves it from a race about blocs to a race about issues. It shows the other candidates what they aren't doing.

The gifted populist knows how to echo the anger of the people, to speak for those who feel unrepresented, to offer the common sense responses that most people think they would offer in his place. That is what some of the candidates have tried to do, it's what Trump is actually doing.

The Republican field is filled with candidates who offer workshopped solutions. Even the best of them don't quite channel the public outrage, the sense of persecution that so many people feel.

They're sensible, reasonably personable, somewhat articulate, possessed of a measured sense of humor and all those things that Mitt Romney couldn't figure out how to be in front of a camera.

By 2012 standards, they're a vast improvement. By 2016 standards, that may not be enough.

A lot of people are going to embrace Trump because he says what they're thinking and feeling. They're going to nod along to Ted Cruz or Scott Walker without feeling engaged in the same way.

That's just human nature.

Trump is a wake-up call that conservative candidates need to take it to the next level. That doesn't mean moving to the "right" of Trump. If Trump is willing to say anything, there may be no such place. It means connecting with people at a deeper level than just the rhetoric. It means doing more than retelling their own compelling personal stories.

People need someone to fight for them. They need more from a politician than a great story. They need the feeling that the politician will do everything he can to fight for their way of life.

If they want to win, they are going to have to silence their inner lawyer, shut down some of the skills they learned as politicians, and learn to project what their audience is feeling. A good politician knows what you want to hear. A good salesman knows what you want to feel.

Trump isn't fighting this as a battle of ideas or policies. He's talking about what people feel. 

Monday, July 13, 2015

Congressman Gohmert Reads "Slaver Flags of Islam" in Congress



Congressman Louie Gohmert read a portion of my article "Pull Down the Slaver Flags of Islam" on the floor of Congress which addresses the hypocrisy of censoring the Dukes of Hazzard while opening the doors to Islamic racism and other forms of supremacist bigotry and nostalgia for slave-owning cultures.

When Obama condemned Christianity for the Crusades, only a thousand years too late, in attendance was the Foreign Minister of Sudan; a country that practices slavery and genocide. Obama could have taken time out from his rigorous denunciation of the Middle Ages to speak truth to the emissary of a Muslim Brotherhood regime whose leader is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. But our moral liberals spend too much time romanticizing actual slaver cultures.

It’s a lot easier for Obama to get in his million dollar Cadillac with its 5-inch thick bulletproof windows, a ride Boss Hogg could only envy, and chase down a couple of good ole boys than it is to condemn a culture that committed genocide in our own time, not in 1099, and that keeps slaves today, not in 1815.

Even while the Duke boys were being chased through Georgia, Obama appeared at an Iftar dinner; an event at which Muslims emulate Mohammed, who had more slaves than Robert E. Lee. There are no slaves in Arlington House today, but in the heartlands of Islam, from Saudi mansions to ISIS dungeons, there are still slaves, laboring, beaten, bought, sold, raped and disposed of in Mohammed’s name.

Slavery does not exist under the Confederate flag eagerly being pulled down. It does exist under the black and green flags of Islam rising over mosques in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and America today.

In our incredibly tolerant culture, it has become politically incorrect to watch the General Lee jump a fence or a barn, but paying tribute to the culture that sent the slaves here and that still practices slavery is the culturally sensitive thing to do. In 2015, slavery is no longer freedom, but it certainly is tolerance.

And it’s not just about Islam.

If romanticizing Dixie is wrong, so is romanticizing those ancient African cultures so beloved by amateur anthropologists and professional sociologists with more plastic tribal jewelry than sense. Slavery was an indigenous African and Middle Eastern practice. Not to mention an indigenous practice in America among indigenous cultures.

If justice demands that we pull down the Confederate flag everywhere, even from the top of the orange car sailing through the air in the freeze frame of an old television show, then what possible justification is there for all the faux Aztec knickknacks? Even the worst Southern plantation owners didn’t tear out the hearts of their slaves on top of pyramids. The romanticization of Aztec brutality plays a crucial role in the mythology of Mexican nationalist groups like La Raza promoting the Reconquista of America today.

Black nationalists romanticize the slave-holding civilization of Egypt despite the fact that the narrative of the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from bondage played a crucial role in the end of slavery in America. The endless stories about the “Amazons” of the African kingdom of Dahomey neatly fit into the leftist myth of a peaceful matriarchal Africa disrupted by European colonialism, but Dahomey ran on slavery.

The “Amazons” helped capture slaves for the Atlantic slave trade. White and black liberals are romanticizing the very culture that captured and sold their forefathers into slavery. “In Dahomey,” the first major mainstream black musical was about African-Americans moving to Dahomey. By then the French had taken over old Dahomey and together with the British had put an end to the slave trade.

The French dismantled the “Amazons” and freed many of Dahomey’s slaves only for the idiot descendants of both groups to romanticize the noble last stand of Dahomey fighting for the right to export black slaves to Cuba and condemn the European liberators who put a stop to that atrocity.

If we crack down on romanticizing Dixie, how can we possibly justify romanticizing Dahomey or the Aztecs or Mohammed? If slavery and racism are wrong, then they are wrong across the board.

Even by the miserably racist standard under which all lives don’t matter, only black lives matter, Dahomey and Mohammed had bought, sold and killed enough black lives to be frowned upon.

If we go back far enough in time, most cultures kept slaves. The Romans and Greeks certainly did. That’s why the meaningful standard is not whether a culture ever had slaves, but whether it has slaves today. If we are going to eradicate the symbols of every culture that ever traded in slaves, there will be few cultural symbols that will escape unscathed. But the academics who insist on cultural relativism in 19th century Africa, reject it in 19th century South Carolina thereby revealing their own racism.

And so instead of fighting actual modern day slavery in Africa and the Middle East, social justice warriors are swarming to invade Hazzard County.

As Ben Carson pointed out, we will not get rid of racism by banning the Confederate flag. Even when it is used at its worst, by the likes of Dylann Storm Roof, it is a symptom, not the problem. Roof was not radicalized by the dead Confederacy, but by the racial tensions kicked off by the Trayvon Martin case.

The same racial tensions that led to the murder of two police officers by a #BlackLivesMatter protester in New York City led to the massacre of nine black congregants in a church in Charleston. This surge of violence has its roots in racist activism by Obama and his supporters seeking power and political gain, but feeding racial tensions for political purposes eventually risks leading to actual violence.

The Confederate flag is a matter of history. The racial tensions stirred up by Obama have actually gotten people killed. Slavery is not making a comeback and Robert E. Lee will not come riding into San Francisco any time soon. The Civil War ended long ago. The country would be a better place if modern racists who believe that some lives, whether black or white, matter more than others would stop trying to start one.

Tuesday, July 07, 2015

5 Ways to Fight the Left and Make Your Life Better

Lately I've been looking at Organic Opposition instead of Organizational Opposition. The latter is still important, but people are rightly disappointed and angry with everything from the GOP to assorted national groups and bewildered by a wide array of candidates.

Organic Opposition doesn't require organizations or a movement. It's about living in ways that naturally oppose the left.

Most of the people here already live in ways that the left resents without even thinking about it. Organic Opposition is about finding new ways to oppose the power of the left in your life.

This is not a complete checklist. It's a set of general ideas and people are welcome to add to them in the comments.


5. Don't Give Money to People Who Hate You

Imagine meeting an actor or a CEO, and telling him your political views and envision his response to them. If you can see his lip stretching into a sneer or a spittle-flecked rant as he orders security to throw you out, you really shouldn't be giving him your money.

That doesn't mean that you should lose out, but there are ways that you stop rewarding people who hate you.

For example, when buying new books, you are helping that writer and his publishers. If you don't support the writer, save money and buy the books used. It's easy to find most of the books you want in good condition for a fraction of the price on sites like Alibris.

Buying new books should be reserved for writers you support. Do look into writers on our side, like Edward Cline, if you like mysteries or Peter Grant, look at if you like Science Fiction, look at the projects that Adam Baldwin is involved in, and if you really must have that Stephen King or  John Grisham novel, buy it used. You're not just saving money, you're denying income to people who hate you.

I know that conservatives don't like doing this. I don't like doing this. But the left does this and it works. Look at the politics of the writers, actors and directors you support. That doesn't necessarily mean only reading only those writers you agree with, but a reasonable acid test is decency.

Decency, for example, means standing up for basic freedoms. People who are on the political left can do that and when they do it, they should be rewarded for it. When Patrick Stewart recently said that a bakery should not be compelled into writing a pro-gay marriage message on a wedding cake, that was a rejection of the totalitarian norms being imposed by social justice warriors.

People who hate you don't want you to be able to live in peace. That's the essence of the SJW.

Those who take a stand against them on an issue, even if they're on the left, should get some support and a note or tweet telling them why. Likewise those who make the wrong choices should be told that from now on that even if you buy anything they make money from, you'll do it in a way that they won't see any proceeds from it. That will make them angrier than a straight boycott would.

And there's a lot more you can do that will hit the left in its pockets.

Use AdBlockers on its sites. Not on conservative ones. You'll save time and hurt the left.

Dump subscriptions to liberal magazines and newspapers.

Get rid of your cable. Cable is a financially shaky proposition. If enough people leave, it falls apart. And even if the only thing you watch is FOX News, under the current system, you're subsidizing a whole bunch of left-wing channels. If you have cable internet, you can access a wider range of programming online than you could on cable. You'll save money and hurt the left.



4. Shop Small Business and Become Independent


People were surprised when Wal-Mart turned left. They shouldn't have been

Under the current system, major corporations will almost inevitably turn left to align with the authorities and tastemakers. Liberals have become champions of big government. The bigger a company becomes, the more it aligns with the system.

We all buy things from Amazon or Wal-Mart, but try to support local small businesses in your community when you can. They form a community in ways that a megastore won't and when they get a monopoly they will step on you, not just economically, but politically as well.

The Confederate flag hysteria and the Trump purge are a warning sign of things to come. Imagine a day when it's Ted Cruz's books being purged from every online retailer and Apple blocking his App.

It will come to that.

Look at the politics of major corporations and their policies. Avoid 'gated communities' created by the hardware sold by Amazon and Apple. Yes the Kindle and the iPhone are convenient, but you're giving control of your digital life to two left-wing corporations. As bad as Google and Microsoft are, they're somewhat better when it comes to freedom of speech.

A good test is imagine yourself working at a particular company. If you can't imagine even being tolerated there, maybe you shouldn't be rewarding it.

Learn something about the products and brands you buy. If you know of a company that shares your values, keep it in mind during your next purchase. Choose small manufacturers and stores when you can.

And avoid becoming dependent on megacorporations. The St. Patrick's Parade was undone because it had become dependent on Diageo, a mega whose vast catalog of brands includes Guinness.

When a corporation becomes big enough, it will find it easier to bend to the left than tolerate you.

A megacorp whose brands you eat will rob them of nutrition and taste to comply with the left's food police. Its cleaners will turn into useless junk to comply with the environmentalists. Even if it hasn't sold you out yet, it will sell you out later. And if you wait for it to become a monopoly, you'll have trouble finding alternatives.

Find ways to become independent. Make some of the things you've become accustomed to buying. Or buy and trade with other craftsmen. Those are useful skills in the best of times and we may be headed for darker times.

Independence threatens the left and makes your life better.




3. Build Likeminded Communities

You don't need to move to X to find a conservative community. You can build one organically by making friends, online and offline, cultivating ties, sharing and helping other people who share your worldview.

Make your own tribe. The left is doing it.

Find sane people at work. If you're in a position to hire sane people over likely leftists, do it.  Be careful, don't risk your position and don't tell anyone what you're doing, but do it if you can.

A community is about more than setting up a Facebook group. It's a support structure and you'll need those, if not now, then later. The members of a community help meet each other's needs.

Don't get seduced by telescopic philanthropy. Don't focus on helping Third World countries. Help your neighbors and friends. An hour spent helping someone you know does a lot more good than all the 'penny a day' for starving children in X, which really ends up going to the marketing department.

Protect communal institutions you have and avoid hostile ones. Don't stay in a church or synagogue that has gone to the left. Find one that meets your needs. If it doesn't exist, work with other dissatisfied worshipers to make one happen.

Never subsidize left-wing clergy. America got Hillary Clinton because she came under the influence of a left-wing minister at an impressionable age.

The left is trying to break up the country's traditional social structures. One of the best ways to resist them is to maintain them, whether it's a family, a religious institution or a club. Protect them and they'll protect you.

By being part of a real community, you'll be naturally resisting the left and making your life better.




2. Have Fun Starting Trouble

The pushback to the left may not start where you expect. The Cliven Bundy standoff and Gamergate both happened when groups of ordinary people with little in common pushed back when they felt pushed into a corner.

It wasn't a national issue. Grazing sites and corruption in gaming are about as narrow as you can get.

They became national because when people fight back against the left, local goes national and then global.

The American Revolution started in part over a dispute with a British officer over a bill in Boston. That led to the Boston Massacre and by then the issue that started it all no longer mattered. What people come away with is who is being abusive in that particular situation.

People rally to unlikely flags and causes and fight for unexpected things that they care about.

A revolution against the left won't be led by the GOP. It won't come out of Washington D.C. But the pushback just might come because a group nobody pays attention to is angry about some issues you've never even heard of.

That group might be next door to you.

Fighting back does not have to be about convincing them to read Thomas Sowell and Bill Buckley. If you think like a community organizer, it's about getting them to make the connection between what they're angry about and the source of the trouble from the left.

People want to know why they're being kicked around. They don't want to hear about the politics. Those come later. They don't need the big stuff. The little stuff is pointing them at their abusers.

Community organizers spend a lot of time listening to people's grievances, especially people not one else listens to, and then slowly pointing them in the right direction while making them feel empowered. You don't have to look at it as a job.

Think of it as being a troublemaker. It's not a chore. It's fun.

The next major issue may start in your backyard and you, not some national organization, might just be the one to help set it off.




1. Focus on Your Family

You can have more influence on your kids than you ever can on Facebook or Twitter. If you have them, your biggest job in the world is making sure that you are a bigger influence on them than the latest movie or trending topic.

Be involved in their lives.

Even if they're in their forties and seem to have turned out liberal, plenty of people have turned around their politics right at that age. Don't argue with them. Shouting matches never changed anyone's mind. Show them that the way you live is better in the long run.

If you win there, the left loses big. Its big gamble is generational. If it loses your kids and grandkids, it loses. Period.

And your life will be better for it.



Friday, July 03, 2015

Racing Through History

The return of the Confederacy was averted in the summer of 2015 when major retailers frantically scoured through their vast offerings to purge any images of a car from the Dukes of Hazzard. If not for their quick thinking, armies of men in gray might have come marching down the streets of New York and San Francisco to stop off for an Iced Mocha Frappucino ™ at a local Starbucks before restoring slavery.

History will little note nor long remember the tired wage slaves making $7.25 an hour while checking Amazon and eBay databases for tin models of an orange car with a Confederate flag on top. During this courageous defense of the homeland from the scourge of a mildly politically incorrect 80s show, Hillary Clinton committed her own unpardonable racist hate crime by saying, “All lives matter”.

The politically correct term is, “Black lives matter.”

Even while our own Boss Hoggs in DC and SF are locking up the Duke boys as a symbol of racism, they are loudly arguing that black lives matter, all lives don’t. The proportion that the weight of a life should be measured by race is the sort of idea that we might have associated with slavery. Today it’s an idea that we associate with racial tolerance as we heal our nation’s racial wounds one race riot at a time.

Romanticizing the South means a whipping from our cultural elite. Instead of romanticizing the culture that bought slaves, they romanticize the Middle Eastern and African cultures that sold them the slaves.

When Obama condemned Christianity for the Crusades, only a thousand years too late, in attendance was the Foreign Minister of Sudan; a country that practices slavery and genocide. Obama could have taken time out from his rigorous denunciation of the Middle Ages to speak truth to the emissary of a Muslim Brotherhood regime whose leader is wanted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity. But our moral liberals spend too much time romanticizing actual slaver cultures.

It’s a lot easier for Obama to get in his million dollar Cadillac with its 5-inch thick bulletproof windows, a ride Boss Hogg could only envy, and chase down a couple of good ole boys than it is to condemn a culture that committed genocide in our own time, not in 1099, and that keeps slaves today, not in 1815.

Even while the Duke boys were being chased through Georgia, Obama appeared at an Iftar dinner; an event at which Muslims emulate Mohammed, who had more slaves than Robert E. Lee. There are no slaves in Arlington House today, but in the heartlands of Islam, from Saudi mansions to ISIS dungeons, there are still slaves, laboring, beaten, bought, sold, raped and disposed of in Mohammed’s name.

Slavery does not exist under the Confederate flag eagerly being pulled down. It does exist under the black and green flags of Islam rising over mosques in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and America today.

In our incredibly tolerant culture, it has become politically incorrect to watch the General Lee jump a fence or a barn, but paying tribute to the culture that sent the slaves here and that still practices slavery is the culturally sensitive thing to do. In 2015, slavery is no longer freedom, but it certainly is tolerance.

And it’s not just about Islam.

If romanticizing Dixie is wrong, so is romanticizing those ancient African cultures so beloved by amateur anthropologists and professional sociologists with more plastic tribal jewelry than sense. Slavery was an indigenous African and Middle Eastern practice. Not to mention an indigenous practice in America among indigenous cultures.

If justice demands that we pull down the Confederate flag everywhere, even from the top of the orange car sailing through the air in the freeze frame of an old television show, then what possible justification is there for all the faux Aztec knickknacks? Even the worst Southern plantation owners didn’t tear out the hearts of their slaves on top of pyramids. The romanticization of Aztec brutality plays a crucial role in the mythology of Mexican nationalist groups like La Raza promoting the Reconquista of America today.

Black nationalists romanticize the slave-holding civilization of Egypt despite the fact that the narrative of the liberation of the Hebrew slaves from bondage played a crucial role in the end of slavery in America. The endless stories about the “Amazons” of the African kingdom of Dahomey neatly fit into the leftist myth of a peaceful matriarchal Africa disrupted by European colonialism, but Dahomey ran on slavery.

The “Amazons” helped capture slaves for the Atlantic slave trade. White and black liberals are romanticizing the very culture that captured and sold their forefathers into slavery. “In Dahomey”, the first major mainstream black musical was about African-Americans moving to Dahomey. By then the French had taken over old Dahomey and together with the British had put an end to the slave trade.

The French dismantled the “Amazons” and freed many of Dahomey’s slaves only for the idiot descendants of both groups to romanticize the noble last stand of Dahomey fighting for the right to export black slaves to Cuba and condemn the European liberators who put a stop to that atrocity.

If we crack down on romanticizing Dixie, how can we possibly justify romanticizing Dahomey or the Aztecs or Mohammed? If slavery and racism are wrong, then they are wrong across the board.

Even by the miserably racist standard under which all lives don’t matter, only black lives matter, Dahomey and Mohammed had bought, sold and killed enough black lives to be frowned upon.

If we go back far enough in time, most cultures kept slaves. The Romans and Greeks certainly did. That’s why the meaningful standard is not whether a culture ever had slaves, but whether it has slaves today. If we are going to eradicate the symbols of every culture that ever traded in slaves, there will be few cultural symbols that will escape unscathed. But the academics who insist on cultural relativism in 19th century Africa, reject it in 19th century South Carolina thereby revealing their own racism. And so instead of fighting actual modern day slavery in Africa and the Middle East, social justice warriors are swarming to invade Hazzard County.

Most of the cultures of the past that we admire, respect and even romanticize had slaves. When we look back at their achievements and even try to forge some connection to them, it does not have to mean an endorsement of their worst habits. This is a concept that liberals understood, but that leftists reject. The recent hysteria reminds us that the nuanced reason of the former has been replaced by the irrational destructive impulses of the latter. The left is so obsessed with creating utopias of the future that like the Taliban or ISIS, it destroys the relics of past societies that do not measure up to its impossible standards. And then it replaces them with imaginary utopias of the past that never existed.

As Ben Carson pointed out, we will not get rid of racism by banning the Confederate flag. Even when it is used at its worst, by the likes of Dylann Storm Roof, it is a symptom, not the problem. Roof was not radicalized by the dead Confederacy, but by the racial tensions kicked off by the Trayvon Martin case.

The same racial tensions that led to the murder of two police officers by a #BlackLivesMatter protester in New York City led to the massacre of nine black congregants in a church in Charleston. This surge of violence has its roots in racist activism by Obama and his supporters seeking power and political gain, but feeding racial tensions for political purposes eventually risks leading to actual violence.

The Confederate flag is a matter of history. The racial tensions stirred up by Obama have actually gotten people killed. Slavery is not making a comeback and Robert E. Lee will not come riding into San Francisco any time soon.

The Civil War ended long ago. The country would be a better place if modern racists who believe that some lives, whether black or white, matter more than others would stop trying to start one.

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

No Truce With the Left

There comes a time when every conservative thinker tries to find some common ground with the left in some area. Today it's criminal rights and the headlines have Rand Paul denouncing the racist justice system while Grover Norquist and the Koch Brothers join with the left to back their reforms. As usually happens, the conservatives or libertarians turn out to be the useful idiots of the left.

Liberals have a long history of being the left's useful idiots. It's only fair that libertarians get a turn.

Republicans are still trying to figure out a truce on gay marriage. They retreated to civil unions, then accepted a full defeat on gay marriage and then acted baffled when Christian bakery owners were dragged into court for refusing to participate in gay weddings. When the left insisted that gay marriage was a civil rights issue, they refused to take them as their word.

Now they're wondering how an accommodation can be made with tranny rights. A brief look back at gay rights will show that the only possible accommodation is one in which men in dresses have a legal right to use the ladies room and every single closed female space and event. And yes, that means your business will be shut down if you object to Steve using the female locker room.

After a few skirmishes, some fundraising and angry letters, the accommodationists will find ways to accommodate that and we can look forward to conservative activists eagerly crowing about the first gay Republican presidential candidate around say, 2024, and the first Republican man in a dress in the Senate around the same time.

Of course by then it will be something else. Maybe pedophiles. Gay rights activists don't like the analogy, but their movement and its assorted allies, particularly in Europe's Green parties, have a long history of advocating it. The same pop culture methods that were used to sell gay rights and Bruce Jenner can easily be flipped around to sell NAMBLA.

By 2024, the Republican gay and tranny candidates will be dismissed as tokens while the media oohs and aahs over a vocal and charismatic campaigner for some other love that dare not speak its name.

And that's the point. It has always been the point.

The left does not care about gay rights. If you doubt that, consider how many of the left's favorite Muslim countries have gay rights. The left has recently divided its campaign passions between gay marriage and defending Iran. Iran denies the existence of gays and hangs them where it finds them.

The USSR treated homosexuality as a crime even while it was recruiting gay men as spies in the West. Cuba, the darling of the American left, hated both gays and blacks. The ACLU backed the police states of Communism. If the left supports an enemy nation, the odds are excellent that it is also a violently bigoted place that makes a KKK rally look like a hippie hangout.

To understand the left, you need to remember that it does not care about 99 percent of the things it claims to care about. Name a leftist cause and then find a Communist country that actually practiced it. Labor unions? Outlawed. Environmentalism? Chernobyl. The left fights all sorts of social and political battles not because it believes in them, but to radicalize, disrupt and take power.

The left does not care about social justice. It cares about power.

That is why no truce is possible with the left. Not on social issues. Not on any issues.

The left is a drunk in a bar trying to pick a fight with you. Trying to convince him that you didn't disrespect him, put something in his beer to make him dizzy or make his feet so heavy won't work. There's no 'agree to disagree' possible here. He's picking a fight with you because he wants a fight.

The left does not care about Bruce Jenner. It does not care about gay rights, equal pay, police brutality or even slavery. Its activists 'care' about those things a great deal right now, but they could easily be persuaded tomorrow to be outraged by telephone poles, shredded wheat or people in green sweaters.

They care mainly about emotional venting and exercising power over others. It's the same phenomenon witnessed during the Salem Witch Trials, the French Revolution or any other mob scene. Except the individual elements of the mob are on social media and have a hashtag.

The outraged social justice warrior was laughing at tranny jokes a few years ago. Now he's ready to  kill over minor verbal missteps. A few years from now he'll be laughing at them again.

There's a long human history to such atrocities, to mobs whipping themselves up into spasms of manufactured outrage, subsuming their own doubts, confusion and unhappiness into the 'cause'.

The cause is progress, but the real cause is the power of its enforcers to vent their unhappiness and destructive impulses on everyone else under the guise of reform.

You can't find common ground with the left because it is an activist machine dedicated to destroy common ground, not only with the right, but even with its own allies on the left. Progress turns what was once progressive into what is reactionary. And what was reactionary into what is progressive.

These changes have the mad logic of a byzantine ideology behind them, but to the ordinary person their definition of progress seems entirely random.

A Socialist a century ago considered factories progressive instruments of the future and men in dresses a decadent reactionary behavior. Now factories are reactionary pollution machines of globalization and men in dresses are an oppressed victim group who have transcended biology with the power of their minds. 

Republicans, conservatives, libertarians and other class enemies cannot possibly 'progress' enough to be acceptable to the left because it identifies progress with political conformity. A tolerant and progressive Republican is a contradiction in terms.

If he were truly tolerant and progressive, he wouldn't be a Republican.

The left will destroy the things you care about, because you care about them. It will destroy them because that gives them power over you. It will destroy them because these things stand in the way of its power. It will destroy them because a good deal of its militant activists need things to destroy and if they can't attack you, they'll turn on the left in a frenzy of ideologically incestuous purges.

The left's social justice program is really a wave of these purges which force their own people to hurry up and conform to whatever the Party dictated this week. Examples are made out of laggards on social media to encourage the rest to stop thinking and start marching in line. As Orwell knew well, these shifts select for mindless ideological zombies while silencing critical thinkers.

Yesterday we were against fighting Hitler. Today we're for it. Retroactively, we were always at war with Oceania. Retroactively, Bruce Jenner was always a woman. Retroactively, Obama was always right about Iraq, even when he appeared to be making the wrong decisions.

These changes are a test of reason. If you can reason, you fail. If you can Doublethink, you pass.

The constant shifts create their own version of future shock. They leave people baffled and uncertain. Society no longer seems to resemble what they knew, even though the real society of men and women has not really changed much, only the media's presentation of it has. But a beaten down mass of ordinary people now imagines that the country is filled with gay men and trannies. They accept that what they thought was common sense no longer applies and that it's someone else's country now.

And that is the prize that the left dearly wants. Surrender.

The left's media machine makes its madness seem cool even though behind all the agitating young things are a bunch of bitter old leftists. But the madness is a means, not an end. So is the facade of revolutionary cool to each shift.

The Futurists of Russia vowed to heave the past "overboard from the steamship of modernity". But when the Revolution came, the classics came back into the libraries and the Futurists were forced to stop drawing triangles and make their art conform to the conventional structure of a totalitarian state.  The time of change had ended. Once the left was in power, the future became a lot like the past.

You can't accommodate the left on social issues. You can't accommodate it on fiscal issues. You can't do it. Period.

The left exists to destroy you. It does not seek to co-exist with you. Its existence would lose all meaning. Any common ground will be used to temporarily achieve a goal before the useful idiots are kicked to the curb and denounced as bigots who are holding back progress.

The purpose of power is power. The left is not seeking to achieve a set of policy goals before kicking back and having a beer. The policy goals are means of destroying societies, nations and peoples before taking over. If you allow it a policy goal, it will ram that goal down your throat. It will implement it as abusively as it can possibly can before it moves on to the next battle.

It's not about gay marriage. It's not about cakes. It's about power.

More fundamentally it's about the difference in human nature between the people who want to be left alone and those who want power over others.

You can't work out a truce with tyrants. You can give in or stand up to them. There's nothing else.

Friday, June 26, 2015

Be the Best Saboteur You Can Be

1. There is no conservative party

Governor Haley and Al Sharpton
There is a Republican Party. The purpose of the party and its politicians, much like that of its Democratic counterpart, is to obtain money and privileges for its major donors.  That doesn't mean that its members don't have other ideals and agendas, but Republican politicians who rise high enough come from an urban and suburban establishment that is more liberal than its base.

Expecting them to care as much about your issues as you do is unrealistic.

They will only do the right thing insofar as it helps them

A. Get control of money

B. Advance their careers

C. Become popular

And this is a good thing. It means that they're controllable. It means that the Democrats are also controllable. And this is how the left took over the Democratic Party.

The only way to interact with the large body of politicians is through the carrot and the stick. The "destructive" Republican saboteurs the establishment complains about, whatever their motives, are serve as the stick, undermining and sabotaging efforts to conduct business as usual.

The only way conservatives can get anything done now is by threatening business as usual.

Washington D.C. is never going to be the solution, but to the extent that its business as usual is threatened, sabotaged and held hostage, it will have trouble putting its boot on ordinary people. Until the Republican establishment changes its ways, populist saboteurs are the best conservative weapon.

Don't expect them to do the right thing. Don't be disappointed when they don't. And certainly don't expect them to solve all this.

The only way they will ever do the right thing is if you have leverage over them.



2. Fight the small stuff

You don't have to think in terms of a national movement. You don't even have to think in terms of an organization. Those are things that we need, but you can fight the left in small ways at home.

I'm not talking about Sign X or donate to Y.

Just obstruct any liberal initiative, policy or program in your community. It doesn't matter what. It doesn't matter if it's innocuous. It doesn't matter if you agree with it.

Undermine it on principle. If you can, vote it down. Encourage others to vote it down. If you can't, look for ways to tie it in red tape by attaching other agendas to it.

The left wins its biggest victories at the planning stage. Its activists come early and stay late. They propose their plans, rig meetings, use kids and the elderly as human shields, and get their way. They are not used to any real opposition. Particularly the kind that doesn't bluster, but finds ways to tie their proposals in knots, to make them expensive and drag them out as long as possible.

Oppose them when you can. Concern troll them when you can't.

If you don't have that kind of position, think of the origins of the term 'sabotage'. Workers threw their shoes into machines and stopped the machine. Don't do anything illegal. Don't do anything that will get you fired.

But if you have the opportunity to make a liberal program work badly, if you have a legal way to put more stress on it, to tie up the energy and time of the people running it, to make it worse... do it.

We're the underdogs. We're the political guerrillas. This is not our system. It's their system.

Our job is to make it run as badly as possible.

Henry David Thoreau wrote that there's always injustice in government just as there's always friction in a machine. It's when injustice becomes dominant in government, then friction has its own machine.

The left's friction is now the machine. Get your shoes in the machine. It already runs badly, make it run worse. It already costs too much, make it cost more. You are now the friction. With enough friction, the machine breaks down.

That's part of what the left did to us. It dragged down our government and culture. It poked a thousand holes in everything. It made it too tiresome and wearying to go on doing this and that. Morale withered, confidence broke down and the left took over.

Now it's their turn to be on the receiving end.

I'm not going to give the Mario Savio speech...

"There's a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart that you can't take part! You can't even passively take part! And you've got to put your bodies upon the gears and upon the wheels, upon the levers, upon all the apparatus -- and you've got to make it stop! And you've got to indicate to the people who run it, to the people who own it -- that unless you're free the machine will be prevented from working at all!"

That's for younger people. It's for a mass movement. 

But you can wear down the machine in a thousand different ways without risk. You don't have to throw your bodies on the gears. You just have to be a wholly legal burden on it and a pain in the ass of the people running it... and especially the people planning it.

The big stuff begins with the little stuff. When you fight the little stuff, the big stuff starts breaking down.





3. Deny legitimacy to the system

Liberals like to crow that ObamaCare is the law of the land. Now it's gay marriage. Tomorrow it'll be a ban on the Dukes of Hazzard.

All that implies legitimacy, order, a legal system. And that's not what we have.

What we have is a Supreme Court and a White House that acts with brazen illegality. ObamaCare was illegally passed. It was illegally preserved.

No matter how many judges sign off on it, it has no legitimacy. It will never have any legitimacy.

America is built on the simple premise that no system can be more legitimate than its natural laws and founding premises. It does not matter how many judges or politicians try to suspend the First or Second Amendments. All they are doing is removing their own legitimacy.

When a system acts illegally, then its dictates are not the law of the land, they are the law of force.

ObamaCare is coercion. Forcing people to participate in gay marriages is coercion. The FHA ruling is coercion. We may be compelled into compliance, but compulsion is all it is. It isn't law or justice.

The distinction is important.

When we follow the law, we do so because it is right. When we are coerced, we are at gunpoint by an illegitimate system. Those who compel us are not any different than criminals. 

Not only is the system illegitimate, but it is also inconsistent, though it claims there is equality under the law, is favors some at the expense of others.

The system is not only illegal, it is also hypocritical and corrupt. That must be emphasized at every turn.

Liberals maintain a narrative that their way is the inevitable path of progress. We know the truth. Their way has been tried and it failed a thousand times. The only thing inevitable is their eventual failure. Their systems will always be abusive, dishonest and corrupt.

They will always turn undemocratic no matter how they start out. They will always turn to coercion.

When we act and when we talk it is vitally important that we distinguish between the legitimate laws we follow and the illegitimate laws we comply with.

This may seem like a technicality, but it's a technicality that tyrannies have fallen on.

Every liberal victory is not a triumph. It is another pile of dirt on their own graves. It is another straw on the back of the camel. It is another demonstration that they are corrupt and illegitimate. Their latest victories were gained by abusing the process. They will in the long run lose them just as criminals eventually lose their loot. They have not defeated us. They have corrupted themselves.



4. We're not done

Every conservative these days seems to have a tipping point for when America will end. None of them are real.

This country was built out of a tiny fraction of the territory and population it holds today. It was built by a handful of people organizing and rousing a movement that spread to a minority of the population at the time.

If the revolution were happening today, it would look a lot like the way it looked then, with major cities in the hands of the establishment and the Loyalists and a handful of farmers that even their formally trained commanders held in contempt fighting against them and the might of an empire.

That's not coincidence. It's the whole of human history.

During the Revolutionary War, the entire rebel population of America would be outnumbered by the residents of Manhattan today.

Demographically outnumbered? They had it worse.

Economic collapse? They had it worse.

America isn't over until it's over. It will take a long time to happen. At some point the country will be completely unrecognizable, but that's relative. Would Washington have recognized America in 1952? Or even 1882? America has always been changing. We can't change it back, but we can change it to.

That's the real battle.

Contrary to what some conservatives like to believe, the left did not suddenly show up here in 1963 or 1905 and disrupt a formerly peaceful country. The left has always been here. It's a part of us.

No people and no country are untouched by evil. It's only a matter of what form it takes. But in any form, we know it by its destructive instincts, its facade of righteousness that poorly conceals a lust for power. Americans have fought it before. Americans have won.

It's big now, but it's not nearly as big as we think.



 5. A little rhyme and reason

I'll close with a few selected lines from a children's nursery rhyme from the days of the big bad USSR that once threatened the world, before folding under the pressure of its people who found the courage to stand up to it.

It's written for children... but like much that was written in the USSR, it had a message for adults.


The Monster Cockroach

Kornei Chukovsky

To the picnic they all come,
Munching candy and cake,

In a very merry mood,
For a day at the lake.

Then suddenly they grow numb and still!
Who's that coming down the hill?!

A fierce and dreadful Roach!
A mean cock-cock-Cockroach!
"Don't you dare to approach!"
He roars, he rages:

"I'll lock you in cages!
And swallow you ALL

"Or with a twitch of my mustache,
I'll turn you all to succotash!"

Alas! Not one dares to fight,
Every bird and beast take flight!

Now the Lion climbs a hill;
From there he speaks his royal will:

"We must regain our happy land!
Against the brute we'll take a stand!"

"And to the warrior who fears not this foe,
Who this monster will overthrow,
To him I'll give a juicy bone
And the finest pine cone!"

The creatures in one eager crowd,
Surge forth and cry out loud:

"We do not fear this nasty foe,
With tooth and claw
We'll lay him low!"

And they all rush to do battle-
Birds, fish, fowl, and cattle.

But the Roach moves his mustache
And bellows: "SUCCOTASH!"

One and all they beat a retreat.
The enemy they don't defeat!

Into the fields and woods they dash-
Terrorized by the Roach's mustache!

The Lion shouts: "What a disgrace!
Come back! Come out and show your face!
Pin the enemy with your horns-
Bulls, rhinoceros, unicorns!"

But each in his hiding place stays,
And wails: "Horns aren't cheap these days..."
And our skin is precious too-
What you ask we cannot do!"

Caught in nettles the crocodiles twitch,
And the elephants get caught in a ditch.

Lo! All that's heard now
Is the flow of tears;
All that's seen now
Is the trembling of their ears!

To the Cockroach they all yield-
He's now lord o'er wood and field.
He struts about among them,
Rubbing his tummy,
Looks at their young ones
And says: "How very yummy!"

The poor, poor parents
Are in distress.
Their dear babes
They hug and caress:

For what mother could give up her child,
Her baby tame or her baby wild?!
So that the monster could devour
Her precious crumb, her little flower!

So mommies and daddies moan and cry
As they bid their infants good-bye!

But now we see another picture:
a flighty flying nimble creature-
A carefree Sparrow lands with a trill
right there on the Roach's hill,

And for a moment all are mute
Fearing the mustachioed brute:

"A monster?! Where?!

"It's a roach, a roach, a wee-bit roach,
A little beetle you fear to approach.
Look! It's a midge a mite,
A bug that can't even bite!

For our trouble we're to blame!
What a shame!
What a shame!"

The Hippo then comes forth
With slow pace and a worried face,
Muttering in an anxious way:

"Please go away, go away!
Your words will make him very mad,
He may think of something very bad!

Then the Hippo falls still,
Surprised by a sudden trill...

The sparrow bends her dainty neck
Peck, peck, peck-
Not a smidgen, not a speck!

The roach is swallowed in a flash,
All of him and his mustache!