Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Ubiquitous Yet Counterproductive Deceit

     Honesty has apparently gone out of fashion.

     Have you been thinking approximately the same? The political lies alone are enough to drive an “indifferent honest” man to drink. The self-promotional lies being told by business institutions and ordinary persons around us are marginally comprehensible for motive, at least. Whatever impels them, every deceit great or small leads us deeper into what Samuel Johnson termed “the general degradation of human testimony.”

     If you’re wondering what triggered this particular outburst, it’s an email I just received. It comes from a well-known newspaper which operates, as they all do these days, a Web annex. The subject line did the job all by itself:

Sale extended due to popular demand! 99c for 3 months or $9.99 for 6 months of digital access [Now ends 9/30]

     “Sale extended due to popular demand?” No commercial institution has ever extended a sale because it was popular. The very idea boggles the mind. A sale is instituted to encourage customers. If a sufficient number of persons respond positively, the sale will end. It will only be extended if the institution’s operators badly need additional customers and the first iteration didn’t produce enough of them.

     A newspaper that stages a sale is admitting, sotto voce, that it needs subscribers – “eyeballs,” in journalism jargon. The bulk of a news outlet’s revenue comes from advertisers, and advertisers prefer outlets that can claim a large subscribership. “Popular demand?” Please! “Advertiser indifference” would be the honest reason the sale is being extended.

     Such insults to our intelligence are the very worst sort of lie. They work against the objectives of the liar. In effect, he’s saying to his target that “you’re too stupid to notice what I’ve done here.” The intelligence to be downgraded in such a case is his.

     SF writer John C. Wright recently wrote that he could understand and even somewhat admire a well-crafted lie that actually advances the purposes of the liar. Such a lie is morally deplorable, but tactically justifiable. What he couldn’t grasp were the sort that sets those purposes back. Yet such deceits are all around us – and a great fraction thereof come from persons already well established as founts of fabrication.

     It would seem that there’s an underserved market niche: instruction in how to lie constructively and effectively. I’d rather see that niche remain unfilled, but this is the United States of America, where demand calls forth supply as regularly as the Sun rises in the East. Or perhaps we’ve at last deduced what sort of creature pays to go to those innumerable, intolerable “self-improvement” seminars, most of which are operated by persons whose entire fortune comes from...operating self-improvement seminars.

     Later, Gentle Reader.

Tuesday, September 27, 2016

The Anger Gambit

     Quite a bit of our political discourse is, to put it non-discoursively, nothing but shouting. The participants, whether consciously or otherwise, simply reject the use of facts and reasoning. They shout by preference.

     Time was, this was not considered acceptable conduct in a discussion intended to establish which of two policy directions was the preferable one. Today it appears to be the default route. Moreover, Left-inclined persons typically adopt it from the outset of any exchange, under the pretense of having been “triggered.”

     This video, supplied by commenter Brinster, provides an example. Though it’s unpleasant to watch, the illustration it provides is valuable:

     The young black woman who leaps into the fray screeching about how she’ll owe a substantial amount of money for her college education while her white contemporaries won’t – a dubious assertion, to say the least – is practicing the Anger Gambit. It’s a tough thrust to parry, because for some decades now whites have been conditioned to respond to an angry outburst with conciliation, especially when the angry person is black. This overlooks the tactical nature of the outburst. It is essentially tactical rather than sincere even if the speaker is sincerely angry.

     There is no calm-yet-profitable way to reply to such an outburst. Conciliation is the least desirable route, as it tends to ratify the speaker’s complaint as legitimate and relevant. That is seldom the case in political discourse.

     Yet consider the roots of the speaker’s complaint, assuming it’s factual:

  • She attends a college that charges tuition and fees, as most such do.
  • Her earnings and savings aren’t adequate to meet those charges.
  • Her parents, assuming they’re alive, can’t or won’t defray the balance.

     Look at the assumptions behind those assertions:

  • She assumes she has a right to attend that college.
  • She assumes that other people have an obligation to pay for it.
  • She assumes that being black will protect her from counterfire.

     The appalling thing is that such assumptions go unquestioned far more often than not. But would it be effective to respond as follows:

  • “What makes you think you have a right to go to college?”
  • “Why didn’t you work and save for a few years, so you could afford it?”
  • “Why are white people responsible for giving you what you want at no cost to you?”

     Scorn and laughter will occasionally carry the day against the Anger Gambit – but seldom. They must issue from someone of impervious confidence and bearing. White men with such qualifications are rare in our time.

     Central to all this is our reluctance to meet anger with anger.


     I am a racist, a sexist, an ableist, a homophobe, and an Islamophobe. I admit it freely. Able-bodied white Christian heterosexual males built Western Civilization. Non-whites, non-Christians, homosexuals, the handicapped, and women have made only minor contributions, though they enjoy the benefits. If they can’t afford or partake of some of the benefits, it’s no fault of ours.

     That attitude equips me to meet the Anger Gambit with heavy counterfire of a sort that’s rare in such exchanges. It’s also why I rarely involve myself in such exchanges. They have a nasty habit of descending to violence. I dislike the consequences of interpersonal violence, even when all the bleeding and broken limbs accrue to the other party.

     But counterfire, even when the consequences are successfully weathered, doesn’t change anyone’s mind. If third parties, unpersuaded prior to the exchange, are listening, they’re likely to walk away thinking “A pox on both their houses.” So from the perspective of one who seeks improvement rather than the mere visceral satisfaction of meeting provocation with a good vent, there’s no point.

     In consequence, there’s essentially no discourse remaining. Instead, the Left keeps screeching to “keep the hate alive.” The reaction on the Right is usually something like this:

     I’m increasingly pissed off by what I’m seeing and I resent the people behind it. Guys like Juan Williams should be on TV demanding the cops round up every last Charlotte rioter and pack them off to Africa. The rich black guys on TV talking sportsball should be mortified that their co-ethnics are embarrassing their race with these antics. If the roles were reversed and it was whites making asses of themselves, you can be sure the honkies on TV would be furious and embarrassed, demanding a halt to it.

     That’s not how it works and that’s what is getting tiresome. Those two black girls get the idea in their heads to make a nuisance of themselves in the street and I’m supposed to feel guilty about it. Frankly, Glenn Reynolds was right. Let’s have a few motorists drive over these people and then we can talk about feeling guilty. Let’s have the cops unleash the dogs and water cannon on these rioters and then talk to me about feeling guilty. I’ll be happy to feel guilty as long as the streets are clear.

     I’ve simply had enough.

     Open-if-insincere anger versus repressed-but-justified anger. Who wins?


     Mind you, this is not an argument against getting angry. It’s about what anger-in-discourse means and how it can be used.

     The Left’s adoption of a politics of division compels them to brandish anger as their principal weapon. And to the extent that it gains its objectives, it will be emulated and intensified.

     To prevent Leftist anger-in-discourse from gaining its objectives, we must meet anger with anger – and our anger must be of incomparably greater magnitude.

     There’s already a perceptible movement in that direction. Whites are sick and tired for being blamed for the myriad failures of American blacks. Christians are sick and tired of being persecuted de facto for their beliefs. Men have pretty much had it with feminists and their endless shrill denunciations. And so on.

     It’s a start, but only a start. It must grow, and become vocal, and to the extent required by circumstances – girls, hold onto your boyfriends -- it must meet violence with superior force.

     That will be a sticking point for many, who prefer to leave “that sort of thing” to the politicians, organizers, and commentators (and the superior force part, of course, to “the authorities”). However, dealing ourselves out because we’re private persons who “just want to be left alone” is no longer viable...especially as “the authorities” are tacitly complicit in the Left’s tactics. Consider the “official” reactions to the rioting in Ferguson, Baltimore, Charlotte, and Milwaukee.

     Paddy Chayevsky’s Howard Beale had the right idea:

     I don't have to tell you things are bad. Everybody knows things are bad. It's a depression. Everybody's out of work or scared of losing their job. The dollar buys a nickel's worth, banks are going bust, shopkeepers keep a gun under the counter. Punks are running wild in the street and there's nobody anywhere who seems to know what to do, and there's no end to it. We know the air is unfit to breathe and our food is unfit to eat, and we sit watching our TV's while some local newscaster tells us that today we had fifteen homicides and sixty-three violent crimes, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

     We know things are bad - worse than bad. They're crazy. It's like everything everywhere is going crazy, so we don't go out anymore. We sit in the house, and slowly the world we are living in is getting smaller, and all we say is, 'Please, at least leave us alone in our living rooms. Let me have my toaster and my TV and my steel-belted radials and I won't say anything. Just leave us alone.' Well, I'm not gonna leave you alone. I want you to get mad! I don't want you to protest. I don't want you to riot - I don't want you to write to your congressman because I wouldn't know what to tell you to write. I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first you've got to get mad. You've got to say, 'I'm a HUMAN BEING, God damn it! My life has VALUE!'

     So I want you to get up now. I want all of you to get up out of your chairs. I want you to get up right now and go to the window. Open it, and stick your head out, and yell, 'I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!' I want you to get up right now, sit up, go to your windows, open them and stick your head out and yell - 'I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Things have got to change. But first, you've gotta get mad!... You've got to say, 'I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore!' Then we'll figure out what to do about the depression and the inflation and the oil crisis. But first get up out of your chairs, open the window, stick your head out, and yell, and say it: "I'M AS MAD AS HELL, AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!"

     But yelling out the window mustn’t be the end of it. The Anger Gambit is too resilient to be defeated that way.

     Give it some thought.

Monday, September 26, 2016

So Up-To-The-Minute...

     ...that the minute itself will be deemed late:

     The meme is so new it hasn't even hit Know Your Meme: "Describe yourself in three fictional characters." I agonized over this rather longer than I'd intended to, mostly because some of the characters on my first list were there, not so much because they reminded me of me, but because I was overly fond of them. Eventually I pared that list, and these three individuals are left.

     Charles’s selections don’t surprise me overly. When I started thinking about my own was when the surprises began.

     Perhaps Gentle Readers who are also readers of fiction – and I do hope that’s both all of you – will attempt this exercise and put your cogitations in the comments. Among other things, it would give me a sense for what sort of fiction really strikes home with you. That would make my pandering marketing a bit easier.

"Black Lives Matter" in one graph.

H/t: Maggie's Farm.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Miscellaneous Religious Irritations

     No, this doesn’t qualify as a Rumination. Those are generally more hortatory, more inspirational in tone. But then, you got a quick one at midweek. No, this is more of a “clear your brain before the static ruins your Sunday” sort of piece.


     Now and then, one must grit one’s teeth at some of the bilge being proffered as Christian doctrine. “Opinions are like assholes; everybody’s gotta have one.” (Me) And priests, of course, are part of “everybody.” But there are places where opinions, particularly political opinions, are both unwarranted and destructive of faith. The pulpit is one such place.

     Just now, a certain Jorge Cardinal Bergoglio, a.k.a. Pope Francis, is doing great harm to the Church by orating on political and economic subjects. If he were to confine the former to freedom of religion and the latter to “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” he’d be on safe, even sanctified ground. But this, to put it gently, is not the case.

     More locally, If I hear Father Francis X. Pizzarelli call illegal aliens “the undocumented” one more time, I just might change parishes. I intend to let my pastor and the prelate of the Diocese of Rockville Center know that, in flaming letters.


     It also offends me to hear non-Christians speak about Christian doctrine, or about what Christians are obliged or expected to do. How dare they? How would they take it if the shoe were on the other foot – say, if a Christian were to prescribe and proscribe for a Jew? Surely the offense would be equal in magnitude, if opposite in direction.

     Yet that is what David Goldman, a.k.a. “Spengler,” dares to do to Andrew Klavan this morning:

     It isn’t so simple for a Jew to convert to Christianity. We were called to be God’s people at Mount Sinai some 3,400 years ago. You [Goldman is addressing Klavan here] were there, even if you don’t remember it. This is something that Christians also believe, for they read the same Bible as the Jews. We Jews accepted a divine mission, and by “we,” I mean all of our generations, including yours....

     For a Jew to convert to Christianity raises a number of problems that you do not appear to have considered. Are Jewish Christians obligated to perform the mitzvoth, to keep the Sabbath and to keep kosher? The Jewish Christians of the early Church surely did. Wyschogrod answered in the affirmative, in a famous open letter to Cardinal Lustiger. Whether or not you feel called to Christ in the Spirit, you are still chosen in the flesh, and because Jewish flesh is holy—it is the vessel for God’s Indwelling on earth—it must be given the appropriate sanctity, for example kashrut.

     Here is the paradox: You cannot be a Christian unless you also accept your Election as a Jew, but you have never lived as a Jew, and do not know what it is to be a Jew.

     The insult is beyond my ability to characterize. It borders on unforgivable. I’m certain Goldman would have felt greatly offended had Klavan catechized him in such a fashion. And if Goldman were attentive even to the prescriptions of Leviticus, he would have known better.

     Appalling.


     Finally for this morning, a few words on freedom of religion.

     If we are free in any area of life, it implies the absence of coercion and constraint over that area by any temporal authority. It does not imply that the laws of Nature ought not to stand in our way. Yet innumerable persons claim to be “unfree” because of a law of Nature – for example, the laws of biology.

     Worse, atheists frequently side with the State over the individual when the subject is freedom of religion. As atheism is itself a species of faith, this is particularly ludicrous. An atheist wouldn’t last five minutes after openly avowing his faith in Iran, for example.

     The most conspicuous example of this in our day is, of course, the prescriptions of ObamaCare concerning the provision of abortion and contraception coverage to the employees of any sufficiently large firm. Thus, Catholic company owners are forced to pay for what their faith – yes, and mine – condemns as heinous mortal sins. This is so manifestly a denial of freedom of religion that even a child aware of the doctrines of the Catholic Church would see it at once. But the arrogant atheist, immovably convinced that his faith is the only true faith, cannot see it.

     As I’ve written before, true freedom of religion is only possible in a sharply limited political order, such as that set down in the Constitution of the United States. That’s why the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The drafters of the First Amendment did not intend it to apply to state governments. But of course, the arrogant atheist will have no truck with that.

     Many and great will be the lamentations on the Last Day.


     Forgive me, Gentle Reader. I had to get these things off my chest. They obstruct my practice of my religion. Given the Law of General Benevolence that all wholesome creeds share, it’s particularly important to emphasize that I mean no one any harm. I condemn behavior, not persons...though I must admit, some persons do cause me to test the elasticity of that doctrine.

     Have a nice Sunday. Go Giants.

An Announcement

     I’ve had enough.

     Too many sites are using badly flawed “active server” techniques to pour reams of advertising down our throats. It makes those sites effectively unreadable. Particularly annoying are the ones that use half-clever, “anti-adblocker” techniques to circumvent the visitor’s protections of his browser.

     In consequence, users’ browsers are freezing and their attempts to surf away are being impeded. A great deal of irritation and hostility have resulted – some of it mine.

     If that strikes you as a minor nuisance, think about this for a moment: “Smart TVs” are integrating browser capabilities into their standard, central function. Do you own one? Do you expect to own one? Would you like your television to freeze the way an overrun browser does?

     I will list offenders here as I discover them. Today’s offender is Breitbart.com. This is unfortunate, as there’s a lot of good material there. But that doesn’t win them an exemption for freezing Chrome and Internet Explorer on consecutive visits.

I will not explore any ad featured on such a site. Neither will I ever purchase from the advertised vendor. I exhort my Gentle Readers to do the same.

     For the moment, Brave.com, a browser explicitly designed to block all advertising ab initio, appears to thwart the push-purveyors...though I’m sure they’re working on that. However, for the present I intend to use Brave.com exclusively. Though it’s in beta-test, I recommend it for general use.

     We’ll see how matters develop.

Leftist sanctimony at its best.

SanctiMOANy is more like it.


Short version: Self-important anti-Trump celebrities renowned for their political insight and historical knowledge, trembling lips, quavering voices, barely suppressed tears, pregnant pauses, something about "sincerity," saving the day for "our children," protecting the country from fear and ignorance, and, inevitably, "common sense" gun laws (universal concealed carry, presumably).

One startling point is that Trump's signature reality show "firing" of apprentices (on TV) is the proof that he enjoys "firing" things and will therefore "fire" nuclear missiles to pass the time of day. If the logic of the last point is clear to you, you're in the target audience for this clip and have found your way to this web site totally by accident.

The actual logical result of this Trump predisposition is that he would "fire" the missiles in our arsenal, that is get rid of them, because they are no longer needed. This has occurred to none of the actors in the video. Trump, the clear peace candidate.

Opposed by Hillaria Maxima, The Destroyer of Nations.

H/t: The Federalist.

Saturday, September 24, 2016

The Ice Cream Is Running Low

     There are many days in anyone’s life when “it’s all getting to be a bit much.” I’m no exception, and I’m having one now. So rather than dribble on about essentially nothing of consequence, I’ll provide a few links to others’ jottings from which I took some edification or amusement.

     First and foremost for today, Nicki at The Liberty Zone has produced a classic rant, admirable in every way. When I finished it, I muttered “so I’m not the only one,” and wondered thereafter whether that’s a good thing.

     Second, if you’ve been struck by the similarities among the various “Black Lives Matter” riots, you’re not alone. Kelly Riddell provides a look at where some of their funding comes from.

     Third, please read this swift, unsparing dissection of the “Islam is a religion of peace” fraud. I’ve known that for quite some time, but the resistance to the idea persists among far too many Americans.

     Fourth, if you haven’t yet pondered the strange form of capital we call political power, read Dystopic’s analysis. Far too many people fail to understand that no one and nothing can “corrupt a politician.” A corrupt politician arrives in office already corrupt, because it’s the love of power that corrupts.

     Fifth and last for today, when the subject is feminism, Stacy McCain often becomes repetitious. However, here he gets both the length and the substance just right. Young women puzzled by feminists’ open, avowed hostility toward men (and young men inclined to think there might be exceptions) especially need the insights here.

     See you tomorrow, I hope.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Political Dynamics Engender Fiscal Dynamics

     When you must purchase the political support required to attain (or stay in) power, you’ll seize on any source of funding:

     Donald Trump wants to completely repeal the federal estate tax. Hillary Clinton wants to raise it in two key ways. On this issue, their views could not be more opposite. Whether you call it an estate tax, a death tax, or a tax on accumulated wealth, it is controversial. It is entirely distinct from income tax. You pay income tax as you earn, but whatever you have left at your death, might be taxed again.

     Presently, estates worth $5.45 million or less are exempt from federal estate tax. Beyond that dollar limit, the estate tax kicks in, generally requiring you to pay a tax of 40%. Clinton wants to raise that 40% tax rate to 45%. She also thinks the $5.45 million exemption threshold is too high. She would cut it materially so that more people have to pay estate tax, dropping the exemption amount from $5.45 million to $3.5 million.

     That would result in a rather significant increase in the tax burden on such an estate – and in an even more significant strain on the sort of small family-owned businesses that are typically the targets of the estate tax. Reporter Robert Wood elaborates on this effect:

     Already, it is hard for many family-owned businesses to stay afloat after the death of a key figure. Not all of the reasons are managerial. Many are financial, and taxes can force a sale. With no step up, we could have the world’s highest estate tax rate. Some have calculated an effective death tax rate of 57%. Then, if you add in state inheritance taxes, the combined tax rate could go as high as 68%.

     [Applause to CM Blake for the link.]

     Yet the predominant characterization of the candidates is that Trump is “for the plutocrats” while Clinton is “for the little guy.”


     Some years ago, a politician – a conservative, of course – made a rather penetrating statement about the estate tax: “Death should not be a taxable event.” Of course a sentence that includes the word should is an expression of opinion. Yet that statement drew a great deal of attention at the time, and despite heavy counterfire from the Democrats about “privileging the rich,” considerable approbation from Americans generally.

     For me it’s a reminder of what the late Cyril Northcote Parkinson said:

     Wasting the labour of the people “under the pretence of caring for them” is exactly what our governments do. Freedom is founded on ownership of property.... It cannot exist where the rulers own everything, nor even when they concede some limited right of tenure. But the modern belief is that spendable income is a concession of the State. The taxation which is intended to promote equality, the taxation which exceeds the real public need, and above all the tax which is so graduated as to prevent the accumulation of capital, is inconsistent with freedom. Against a State which owns everything, the individual has neither the means of defence nor anything to defend....

     There are many human achievements, including some of the finest, which need more than a single lifetime for completion. The individual can compose a symphony or paint a canvas, build up a business or restore order in a city. He cannot build a cathedral or grow an avenue of oak trees. Still less can he gain the stature essential to statesmanship in a highly developed and complex society. There is a need for continuity of effort, spread over several generations, and for just such a continuity as governments lack. Given the party system more especially, under the democratic form of rule, policy is continually modified or reversed. A family can be biologically stable in a way that a modern legislature is not. It is to families, therefore, that we look for such stability as society may need. But how can the family function if subject to crippling taxes during every lifetime and partial confiscation with every death? How can one generation provide the springboard for the next? Without such a springboard, all must start alike, and none can excel; and where none can excel nothing excellent will result.

     [C. Northcote Parkinson, The Law, Complete. Emphases added by FWP.]

     Parkinson, best known for his First Law (“Work expands to fill the time available for its completion”), was largely disregarded by the thinkers of his day. Yet he was more insightful than any of his contemporaries. The above thoughts are especially pertinent to us of today.

     But the Left is opposed to excellence, don’t y’know. It cross-cuts their thesis about “equality,” one of the most abused words in political discourse. And of course, their politicians and rabble rousers need the money.


     For an organization that adopts “coalition politics” as its strategy, the prevailing dynamic is to purchase, via privileges, subsidies, and other subventions, voting blocs amounting to “50% + 1 votes.” To make this possible:

  • A sufficiency of voting blocs must exist;
  • The cohesion of those blocs must be highly reliable;
  • And the means required for bribing them must be available.

     There is a counter-dynamic, which kicks in at or near the desired threshold: Each group importuned at that point, if it’s been watching developments, will know that it can make the coalition a majority. That raises its price. In short, the last of the required votes is the most costly.

     In this connection, thundering about “tax privileges” for the “rich” is particularly attractive to the Left. While lowering the upper bound on a wholly nontaxable estate wouldn’t result in a large gain in revenue, it’s a most effective pander to the envy of many Left-inclined voters. In an envy-riddled society, the pitch itself is of greater value than the revenue.

     If I may be allowed a brief tangent, we have here yet another demonstration of how envy obstructs the ability to see second-order and more remote consequences. A confiscatory estate tax not only “brings the rich down;” it also prevents the not-rich from accumulating wealth of their own. But that item of analysis is lost on the typical Democrat voter.


     To sum up: Inasmuch as the “racism” gambit has failed the Clinton for President campaign, I expect to see the Democrats return to their old soft-Marxist class-warfare themes: the political expression of envy. Whether it’s still possible for them to get a middle class that’s suffered badly during the Obama Interregnum to believe that middle-class families’ travails are the fault of “the rich” is uncertain. However, the attempt is not – and the estate tax will be an important component of the approach.

     Perhaps there’s a countermeasure. It might lie in the thinking of Cyril Northcote Parkinson, if supplemented with this insight from C. S. Lewis:

     What I want to fix your attention on is the vast, overall movement towards the discrediting, and finally the elimination, of every kind of human excellence — moral, cultural, social, or intellectual. And is it not pretty to notice how “democracy” (in the incantatory sense) is now doing for us the work that was once done by the most ancient Dictatorships, and by the same methods? You remember how one of the Greek Dictators (they called them “tyrants” then) sent an envoy to another Dictator to ask his advice about the principles of government. The second Dictator led the envoy into a field of grain, and there he snicked off with his cane the top of every stalk that rose an inch or so above the general level. The moral was plain. Allow no preeminence among your subjects. Let no man live who is wiser or better or more famous or even handsomer than the mass. Cut them all down to a level: all slaves, all ciphers, all nobodies. All equals. Thus Tyrants could practise, in a sense, “democracy.” But now “democracy” can do the same work without any tyranny other than her own. No one need now go through the field with a cane. The little stalks will now of themselves bite the tops off the big ones. The big ones are beginning to bite off their own in their desire to Be Like Stalks.

     As our beloved InstaPundit might say: Heh. Indeed.

Eurologic.

The president of Daimler-Benz gave an interview about six months ago stating that for years now they have been waiting for such young and motivated potential workers. Bayer reminded everyone that in Europe many small emigrations are happening at the same time. Thousands of young people from Spain are migrating to South-America, Brits are migrating to Australia because they can’t find work here. From Hungary about 250,000 (by the leftists’ estimate, about half a million) left the country to work somewhere else in the EU, but the President of Daimler-Benz does not want these young European workers; he needs the Bedouin goat-herders and poppy-seed producers for a “motivated” workforce, the journalist commented cynically.
Zsolt Bayer in "Our Duty is to defend Europe," translation by CrossWare published at "What Kind of Europe do we Want Our Children to Inherit?" By Baron Bodissey, Gates of Vienna, 9/22/16.

Thursday, September 22, 2016

Just Some Thunderous Applause...

     ...for WeirdDave, who included this in last night’s Overnight Thread at Ace of Spades HQ:

     This Green Beret Saved A Young Boy From Being Kept As A Sex Slave And Beat His “Owner” … Obama Responded By Kicking Him Out Of The Army

     There is a reason we have cars and medicine and grocery stores full of food. There's a reason why women can walk down the street unmolested and children aren't kept as slaves in America. There's a reason we can speak our mind freely and walk our streets (mostly) safely.

     It's because we're better than they are.

     Specifically, our culture is better than their culture. We used to take this with us when we fought. When Germany surrendered at the end of WWII, any German woman with a lick of sense or the opportunity made for the American zone as fast as she could. Why? Because the Soviet zone was an orgy of rape. With rare (and immediately prosecuted) exceptions, the American zone wasn't. Even in third world shitholes, American soldiers stand for doing the right thing. That's what this soldier did, and he got a dishonorable discharge for his trouble.

     Fortunately, that soldier’s expulsion from the Army was reversed. (Now and then, the Good Guys do win one.) That, of course, doesn’t undo the injustice of the prior expulsion – nor can we overlook the motives of those who caused it. Frankly, those who ordered First Sergeant Charles Martland dishonorably discharged should be horsewhipped naked down every street in the District of Columbia, preferably to the beat of some brisk martial music.

     But we mustn’t miss WeirdDave’s peroration:

     Why? Because “all cultures are equal, man”? I never see anyone making that statement moving to live in another one. Because it's not right to “force” our culture on someone else? That's what they are doing. Migrant In Court For Violent Rape: ‘I Came to Austria to F*ck the Women’. Islam means “submission”. In their culture, rape is used as a method of flaunting your superiority over populations you've subjugated. That's what all of those shouts of Aloha Snackbar! MEAN during a terrorist attack; “Our god is great, we can kill you whenever we want”. The West is losing a 1400 year old war because we refuse to recognize that we're in one.

     It cannot be put better nor more succinctly than that.

Illumination From An Unexpected Source: A Quickie Rumination

     Fox’s evening series Lucifer isn’t really based on the Biblical story pertaining to the Great Adversary, though it does incorporate some elements of the Christian mythos. It struck me as an unlikely place to encounter a piercing insight...but anyone who desires to advance in wisdom should be prepared to be surprised.

     I viewed the first episode of the second season just yesterday evening, and was struck by the exchange between detective Chloe and a newly introduced lab technician who wears a conspicuous cross pendant. Chloe asked the tech whether she really believes in God, and the tech responded that she sometimes has doubts about her faith. Chloe, somewhat surprised by the admission, asks, approximately thus: If you had a chance to be sure one way or the other, would you take it?

     The tech’s answer was stunningly penetrating for an emission from a nighttime entertainment. She replied that either answer would destroy her faith, and that her faith is something she needs.

     Pope Benedict XVI, in our time one of Christianity’s foremost intellectual forces, admitted to doubts. Yet he, too, argued that faith that admits of no doubt is virtually unknown – probably impossible.

     This is part of a larger human need. I’ve said as much myself:

     We observed the life, ministry, Passion and Resurrection of Christ just as we observed your own, more recent adventure. It was plain that he was of an order superior both to Mankind and to the Brothers of the Realm. His passing rewrote laws of Creation so fundamental that we had never previously suspected their existence. We believe that it was his power that you invoked to expel Tiran from Creation. It was a match for the forces he commanded in every observable way. We cannot prove it...but we believe it.
     —That’s faith, isn’t it?
     Indeed. Be grateful.
     —Hm? How so?
     Your psyches are built to require it. An emotionally healthy man with no faith is the rarest of creatures.

     Indeed. No ideal ever embraced, whether by one man or a multitude, can be proved. Devotion to an abstract proposition, whatever its import, will always require faith. Faith in the existence of God, in His benevolence, and in the possibility of some day dwelling near to Him in eternal bliss, is but one case thereof.

     May He bless and keep you all!

Black But White?

     The rioting in Charlotte, NC over the shooting death of Keith Lamont Scott appears indifferent to some rather significant facts:

     We wrote here about Keith Lamont Scott and his long criminal record which includes assault convictions and gun offenses. But what about Brentley Vinson, the black police officer who fatally shot Scott?

     The Charlotte Observer provides this profile of Officer Vinson. From it, we learn that he grew up in Charlotte, was a football star in high school, and dreamed of becoming a police officer like his father.

     Vinson was all-conference in football as a high school junior, but was unable to play during his senior year due to a serious knee injury. The next year, he played at a prep school, earning a scholarship to Liberty University.

     At Liberty, Vinson studied criminal justice. He became a captain of the football team and led it in tackles as a senior in 2012.

     In 2014, Vinson joined the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police force. He has not been subject to any disciplinary action, according to personnel records released by the police department.

     Officer Brentley Vinson appears to be exactly the kind of upright, admirable person a sensible American would want as a police officer. Add that he’s black, which makes him exactly the kind of black American we need more of: the kind who would not hesitate to discipline the unruly and disorderly among us, without regard for their race. This is a doubly valuable man whom we should encourage young men to admire and emulate.

     Yet you can almost hear the mutterings from the rioters:

     “But he a brother! He ain’t supposed to shoot no brother!”

     It would seem that a black man who puts on a policeman’s uniform becomes white by association, which provides the title for this brief piece. Or perhaps the rioters have placed Officer Vinson in an entirely new racial category: not black, but blue. There’s a certain unreality about the suggestion, but for the Charlotte looters and rioters it’s apparently sufficient.

A Squib On The Electoral College

     Anyone reasonably conversant with the history of the American Constitutional order will know that the Founding Fathers designed the electoral college as they did to prevent the more urban, more populous states from politically dominating – and suppressing the interests of – the smaller, more agrarian states. Yet the scheme was not proof against the passage of time, as the following graphic shows:

     In the projection above, taken from MarketWatch, Hillary Clinton would prevail in only 22 states, yet she would edge Donald Trump in the electoral college, thus becoming the 45th president of the United States. Now, I’m not about to call that “unfair.” It would be entirely consistent with the Constitutional design. What it does illustrate is how powerfully the urbanizing tendency of the century behind us has shaped the American political scene.

     I wrote some time ago about how the concentration of a population into cities magnifies the power of the political class. The strategists and kingmakers of that class are fully aware of this tendency. It’s perfectly consistent that those who want power should gravitate to cities...and that those who seek the pinnacle of power in the United States should concentrate their efforts on the most urbanized states, which mainly sit along the national borders.

     Conservatively inclined New Yorkers have complained for decades about the Big Apple’s dominance of New York State politics. Given that Gomorrah on the Hudson contains more than 40% of the state’s population, there’s little to be done about it at the moment. However, it does suggest that conservatives willing to play a “long game” should ponder the possibility of a decades-long strategy to encourage the de-urbanization of New York.

     Clearly, that can’t require having a large fraction of New Yorkers return to farming and hunting for their livelihoods. But if there exists a path toward such a de-urbanization that would serve the economic and social interests of New Yorkers – or any other heavily urban state – it would be worth considering for its political impact, as well.

     Hm. It seems I’ve just suggested that conservative lawmakers and strategists should urge happy (mostly) city dwellers into the countryside. No, I haven’t been possessed by the ghost of Pol Pot. But it does suggest that I should have more than one cup of coffee before setting my fingers to these damnable keys. Well, we all have our little ways.