Category Archives: The Decline

Drafting Women

It seems that drafting women has come up among the GOP candidates for some reason. So, I’ll give my take on it.

First, women are far too valuable to waste on military activity, with the possible exception of a truly existential threat (such as both the Russians and Germans each faced from the other in WW2). Doug Wilson gets the right of it:

Once you have signed off on the nation/state conscripting your daughters to go serve in combat roles, whatever it was you thought you were conserving — thus allowing you to call yourself a conservative — has had a fork stuck in it and is done. Nothing really to conserve any more.

A nation that conscripts its daughters for its defense is a nation that no longer deserves a defense. We may have to fight later as a practical matter, but this is a matter of rudimentary allegiance.

In a civilized society, anybody proposing sending women to war would be sent to a penal battalion himself to die honourably for the motherland.

On the other hand though, Wilson is right. Our society is no longer civilized and no longer worth defending or supporting. There is nothing to conserve and we should stop acting like there’s anything left.

Most “military age” women voluntarily render themselves infertile, so it’s not like we’re taking them away child creation and rearing. They’ve willingly and enthusiastically removed their own civilizational value and made themselves as expendable as men. There’s no civilizational reason to protect expendable self-sterilized young women.

Rationally we should be drafting women. Women claim to be men’s equals, and equals don’t get defended. Equals have to carry their own weight, and in this case carrying their own weight means being drafted and sent to die in case of war. If we’re going to do this liberalism, we should do it right. Allowing women into the military but not drafting them is one of those unprincipled exceptions that Zippy likes to talk about. If women are allowed in the military like men, then they should drafted like men.

(And no, to unseeing tradcons, this is not men cowering behind women, women enthusiastically pursue equality).

On Wilson’s biblical argument, the case Wilson makes does not support the idea that women at war is objectively sinful, just imprudent. So, I will talk in practical terms, not moral ones.

As for the combat effectiveness, it is obvious to anybody who’s not ideologically blinded that women will lower the military’s combat effectiveness and that’s a positive thing (I hesitate to use the word good). America’s hard military effectiveness doesn’t matter. America has had few just wars, hasn’t had a truly defensive war in a long time, possibly ever (the Pacific front of WW2 and the confederate defence in the War of the States may have been defensive, although, the US did provoke Japan and the CSA was not the USA) and has never fought a necessary war at all as far as I can recall at the moment. There’s certainly not going to be a defensive foreign war any time soon, and definitely not an existential one.

As for foreign conquests, America also has the gear and numbers to utterly destroy any possible foreign enemy that it gets serious on. The only reason America loses wars is because America (purposely?) tries to fail. A loss of combat effectiveness simply doesn’t matter against foreign enemies.

On the other hand, the happening could occur in the next couple of decades, and where the military falls during this times will matter a lot. The red tribe (ie. the tribe I support and the one not wholly given to degeneracy) has the absolute advantage when it comes to capacity for violence, but if the military falls on the side of the blue tribe, things could get rough. So, a less effective military helps neutralize a potential threat to the red tribe.

As for the purpose of women in the military being to destroy masculine virtue and manly pride, that’s also a positive. The military is the enemy. It is a part of USG and is controlled at the top by the same people destroying the rest of our civilization. Even worse, it is an enemy filled with good people who should be the allies of us and civilization. Because of its association with masculine virtue and red tribe values, the red tribe disproportionately volunteers to support the institution controlled by those who hate them. As well, it is the most trusted institution in the US, acting as a bulwark of trust for the otherwise (rightfully) mistrusted fedgov.

We need to disillusion young white men of their allegiance to the military. White men shouldn’t be fighting the wars of those who hate them. The more we can destroy  the (undeserved) trust the military has among young white men and the less we white men think they can get manly pride from joining up, the fewer white men will volunteer to die in a on the other side of the world while forcing liberalism, sodomy, corporate rape, and democracy upon foreigners.

The same argument holds for lowering military standards. It is a foregone conclusion that military standards will be lowered so that women look equal on paper. This is not something to fear, it is a positive as it will further lower combat effectiveness and eat at trust in the military.

Finally, and more morbidly, having CNN and the NYT showing hundreds of body bags from whatever foreign sandpit we’ll lodge ourselves in next beside the pictures of formerly cute (now dead) young women may end up being a wake-up call for the country (or not, it’s hard to tell where our depravity ends). A little bit of accelerationism in this area could lead to awakening.

So, it’s horrific (but not objectively sinful) that we’re wasting valuable women in the military, but those women were wasting their value themselves, so corporately and civilizationally we’re not really losing anything. If we’re going to let them into the military, we should follow through on the base principles and draft them. The practical effects of this will be positive for those concerned with eventual restoration.

Le Petite Mort

I was asked if I was going to write something on the French Attacks. I wasn’t planning to, but I will now.

Anyone could have told France these attacks were inevitable, and in fact many have. The French invited diversity in and were culturally enriched. Following 9/11, Charlie Hebdo, Rotherham, 7/7, Burgas, Madrid, numerous riots, and the untold other incedences, this is not unexpected.

However, unlike in Charlie Hebdo, these were not leftists, these were just normal people going about their lives, so I do have sympathy and wish their families the best; may God have mercy on the victims in the next life.

And yet, while the individual victims deserve sympathy, France as a corporate body doesn’t. France is a democracy. Theoretically, the people rule and, in actuality, the people are able to vote for their government in relatively fair elections. The people even have a party dedicated to preventing foreign invasion and mass murder. Yet, the people refuse to vote for that party. France has willfully chosen pro-immigration policies and has once again received the natural consequences of their actions. If the French don’t want to be mass-murdered by savages, they should stop inviting savages in.

France chose to suffer these attacks. Not just once, but repeatedly, the French have overwhelmingly voted to aid savages in attacking France. If the French wish to play status games rather than defend themselves, no amount of sympathy in the world will help them. They have chosen their fate.

Now, I doubt the French are going to lay prostrate forever. They probably won’t do anything real now, the status games are too entrenched, but at some point something will happen.

The rational, compassionate thing to do, would be to find and execute everyone somewhat involved in these attacks, then end (Muslim) immigration and (humanely) mass deport Muslims from France. This would be a calm, measured respone and could be done with minimal bloodshed and suffering.

But equal and opposite reactions are the thing of physics. Humans work differently, especially when aggregated. They tend not to take measured and appropriate responses. Instead, they tend to keep doing what they are doing, ignoring or downplaying tensions as they build. Political inertia is a powerful force. Things will keep chugging along as they are right now.

Then suddenly, they won’t.

Humanity does not work like a spherical cow in a vacuum, it works more like man’s most base act. The act begins, tension mounts over time, then the pent-up pressure is released in a singular explosive moment.

In the case of Muslim immigration, the act has already begun. We are in the tensions mounting phase. Attacks, assaults, and riots and the occasional counter-attack (a la Breivik) will create continual friction between the French and their invaders, but nothing will be solved by these thrusts and counter-thrusts. Instead, at some point, the French tensions will reach their breaking point, and the French will release themselves in an orgasm of violence.

This will be an explosive release, not a calm, measured response. Cracked had a recent article about the Bosnian genocide, and an earlier one about the Rwandan genocide, the first point of each is how sudden it was. So it will be in France.

Contrary to these articles, these types of violence are never sudden or shocking, however quickly they may occur. They are the final result of long-standing tensions. They can be prevented if action is taken before the release, but once the release occurs it can not be stopped until it is fully spent.

The French will play their status games, ignoring the low-level guerrilla war and avoiding taking necessary measures, then, at some unknowable point for some unforeseeable reason, the dam will burst and genocidal violence will release all over the country. Rather than enacting a preventative policy now, while it will be comparatively clean and merciful, the French will bloody their hands in brutality when the situation has gone beyond reason.

After the violent release, they will look back and realize a little part of them died in that brutality. Their sons and daughters will look back and wonder how neighbour could turn against neighbour so suddenly.  People will be shocked at how violence like that could happen so suddenly.

Now, as I said before, I want to prevent this violence. I don’t want the white man to be broken and forced into this brutality simply to be able to enjoy their own civilization and culture in peace.

So, France, please stop the status games and act now while you can do so with clean hands. Don’t wait until fields of blood are your only recourse. If nothing is done now, the blood will be on your hands, because you valued status more than peace and justice.

Normalization

You’ve probably seen that Salon has put out a pro-pedophile article. You might have seen #cuckservative Charles CW Cooke defending Salon at NRO. (Interesting, that the #cuckservatives are less condemning of leftists mainstreaming pedophiles, than of viral, cultist Trumpkins). Two years makes for a lot of change on this issue at NRO, although, at least Goldberg is not (yet) cucked enough to jump on this particular bandwagon, although he is cucked enough to think “Salon made a mistake running that piece” rather than knowing that this is intentional. It is “not, to [his] mind, commendable” to promote pedophilia, but normalizing pedophilia is not enough to fight a war to break-up conservatism, unlike backing Trump.

Anyway, #cuckservatives and Trump are not the purpose of this post, so I’ll hold off. You may remember I wrote on pedophilia a couple of times about a year ago when the NYT and TIL wrote their normalization articles. As I said there, I’m not unsympathetic to those struggling with pedophilic tendencies, sometimes people just get dealt a shit hand in life and no temptation exists that is not common to man, including this one, which about 20% of men are afflicted with to some degree.

So, am I a hypocrite? What’s the difference between what I wrote and what Salon wrote? Although, Cooke doesn’t get it, Goldberg almost seems to get it, so I’ll explain.

The difference is normalization. As Goldberg said, pedophilia is currently taboo, and for good reason, sex with children is an unnatural and wrong act. Breaking down that taboo, normalization, is dangerous.

Taboos (or their violation) can really only be discussed without blanket condemnation privately with trusted people, through humour, or through disinterested analytical conversation with the occasional caveat of ‘I’m against this, but to play devil’s advocate…’. As an example, racism is the greatest taboo in today’s religiously egalitarian society, and nigger is the ultimate profane word. Hence, racism can only be discussed in polite company if one is lamenting how horrible it is and nigger can only be used in trusted conversation or by comedians (although, even that is often not safe anymore) by anyone other than blacks themselves.

Pedophilia is currently taboo, as homosexuality was only a few decades ago. (Side note: although, the media will ignore or paper over it, the original platform of the gay rights movement included the end of age of consent. The homosexual movement’s acceptance of NAMBLA continued until they were purged in the 8090’s). You can’t discuss it outside dark humour or academia without expressing disgust.

Any public discussion of pedophilia needs to be unabashedly denounce it as evil. It can be sympathetic, but it can not be accepting, it must condemnatory. If someone is struggling with pedophilia, the proper place to talk about without condemnation is privately with a close friend, priest, psychiatrist, or an anonymous support board on the internet. Any public discussion of the issue should make it clear that talking about this publicly is not allowed. It is taboo.

Just as you currently can make racist jokes with your drunk uncle, but can’t say them to your coworker; you can tell your friend that you struggle with pedophilia, but you can’t tell the public that children make you hard.

What Cooke fails to get is that the Salon article is not reinforcing the taboo, it is destroying it. It is actively giving a clinical pedophile a stage to say “be understanding and supportive… Treat us like people with a massive handicap we must overcome, not as a monster.” But he is a monster. As I wrote, someone who wants to have sex with kids is broken on a fundamental level. Treating pedophilia as a handicap rather than innate evil proclivity, is removing the stigma from it, it is breaking down the taboo.

Once the taboo is gone, acceptable public discourse will move from “he’s not evil, just troubled, be understanding” to “he’s not evil, he was born that way, be accepting” to “he was born that way, don’t judge him for his sexual orientation” to “it’s only natural to act on your sexual orientation” to “pedophobe”. And unlike Goldberg’s assertion this is a mistake, Salon know exactly what it is doing. This is planned.

You can publicly discuss pedophilia and those suffering that temptation sympathetically, even compassionately, without normalizing it, by making sure a public statement is condemnatory of that evil. Non-judgmentalism is for private conversations.

The left is enacting the Gramscian long march with the ultimate goal of destroying the family, which is the strongest bulwark against the state, so that the managerial state can replace it. Salon and all these other sites are either knowingly or unknowingly in on this. They are not making a mistake, they are purposefully enacting their ideology. Legalizing pedophilia will be another blow against the family and for the state, and this is what they want.

If we don’t crush this now, in a few decades, you will be denounced as a pedophobe for objecting to a 40-year-old man fucking your 9-year-old daughter or sodomizing you 6-year-old son. Then the leftists will start in on normalizing the final sexual taboo: rape.

****

Post-Script: Contra Cooke’s proclamation that “the author seems to be doing exactly what he should be doing given his condition: Namely, a) accepting that he has an unimaginably serious problem, and b) doing his utmost to refrain from acting upon it.”, Todd Nickerson has not shown he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Someone honestly trying to avoid acting on his pedophilic proclivities would not be making “little girl friends” then bragging about it on the internet. Someone honestly trying to help themselves, would be actively avoiding being alone with unrelated little girls.

Swimming Left

Forgot to post on Friday. I’m sure you all were heartbroken.

Scott had a piece on Trump where he said:

Everyone knows that America is getting more ideologically polarized these days. The right is getting rightier. The left is getting leftier.

I responded on Twitter:

It is fairly obvious we have been moving left. I then finished the piece and looked through the comments. Many of the people there seemed to think the US is actually moving right. Are they insane?

In the US you can now lose your job or your business for having the same opinion on gay marriage that almost everyone 15 years ago would have had. This is leftward shift happening in real time with no ambiguity to it.

But maybe on other issues this is not the case, so I’m going to look at the top 10 most important political issues to Americans to see how they’ve moved. (Oddly, despite the huge amount of attention placed on it, the number of people who think gay “rights” is the most important issue ranges from “*”, almost non-existent, to 1%). I’ll ignore two of the top three as they are non-partisan issues with no discernible left or right positions: dissatisfaction with government and unemployment. Everybody hates unemployment and dissatisfaction is non-partisan. This leaves 8 issues that 4% or more of Americans thought are the most important issues.

1) Economy in General – Generally, the left is for more state economic intervention, the right for less. Government spending as a percentage of GDP is a decent proxy for state intervention. Other than a temporary dip in the late 90’s, government spending has been consistently rising. On the economy the government is moving left.

2) Immigration – The left is generally pro-immigration, the right generally anti. The proportion of immigrants has been increasing since the 1950’s, although, this mirrors a decrease in the first half of the 20th century. As well, due to the removal of country of origin laws by the left, immigration has become increasingly “diverse”. Immigration has become more left.

3) Race Relations – The president is black. 50 years ago the US legalized racial marriage and public opinion has been growing consistently in favour of it. Jim Crow laws have disappeared. The last lynching was in 1964, while today, black mobs burn down black-run Baltimore and injure over 100 cops with the establishment’s approval because a black man was killed while being arrested for possessing an illegal weapon (a crime that is only a crime because of the left). Society has moved left on racial relations.

4) Healthcare – Obamacare was just passed a few years ago. The Bush public drug plan was introduced a decade before that. Moving left.

5) Education – Public education spending, staffing levels, and funding per student have all been increasing at a rapid pace. Moving left.

 

6) Debt/Deficit – The right is generally anti-deficit, while the left is generally in favour of Keynesian deficit spending. The debt has been consistently increasing, barring a decline following WW2 and a temporary drop in the lates 90’s. We’ll say it’s been moving left.

7) Terrorism – The War on Terror continues and was right-wing in origin, although the left has instigated the Libya and Syria theatres of the war. But we’ll say the (mainstream) right won this one, now that the left is playing the game.

8) Foreign policy/foreign aid/focus overseas – I’m not actually sure how to look at this one. Foreign aid is declining, a right-wing win, but I highly doubt it is the main component driving the importance of this issue. There’s more hate against Russia and ISIS more nowadays, but those aren’t particularly partisan issues. The opening of Cuba and the Iran deal are vaguely left. The Cold War is over; NATO’s still around. Free trade agreements are increasing, but that issue is largely non-partisan: the elites vs everyone else. I don’t think this one is able to be judged along a left/right axis, so I’m not going to assign anything to it.

The following three I looked at as well, because at first I accidentally was reading the May column, not the August Column, but they’ve been written so I’ll include them:

9) National Security – See terrorism. Us defence spending as a percentage of GDP has been on a fairly steady decline since the 50’s, with a leveling-out/small rise since the mid-90’s. The number of defence personnel follows a similar trend (in absolute numbers, so, percentage wise it has been decreasing even more so). The trend has been moving left.
http://www.cfr.org/defense-budget/trends-us-military-spending/p28855

10) Gap between rich and poor –  The Gini coefficient has been rising since the 70’s, but that was following  a fall in the first half of the century. The left is opposed to the gap; the right is neutral on it. While the right isn’t in favour of a gap, they aren’t really opposed, and the left are very opposed, so we’ll say this has been moving right.

11) Ethics/Moral/Religious decline – See gay marriage above. The number of religious people has been declining and church attendance has plummeted. Marriage rates have declined. Divorce rates have increased. Fertility rates have plunged. Bastardry has increased. Female-headed households have increased. Things are moving left here.

Conclusion:

So, on a total of the 13 of the most important issues to Americans, I didn’t rate 3 of them. Of the remaining 10, 8 have been moving left and 2 has been moving right.

On the majority of the issues that matter most to Americans the left has been winning. The US is moving left.

I realized after writing this that the question I ended up answering has changed slightly from the initial question, which was where the party’s are moving, not where the country is moving.

 

Sexual Liberation

Behold sexual liberation in all it’s glory:

The tables are filled with young women and men who’ve been chasing money and deals on Wall Street all day, and now they’re out looking for hookups. Everyone is drinking, peering into their screens and swiping on the faces of strangers they may have sex with later that evening. Or not. “Ew, this guy has Dad bod,” a young woman says of a potential match, swiping left. Her friends smirk, not looking up.

Alienation so deep, they’re even alienated from their own hedonistic activities.

“Tinder sucks,” they say. But they don’t stop swiping.

Addiction.

“Brittany, Morgan, Amber,” Marty says, counting on his fingers. “Oh, and the Russian—Ukrainian?”

“Ukrainian,” Alex confirms. “She works at—” He says the name of a high-end art auction house. Asked what these women are like, he shrugs. “I could offer a résumé, but that’s about it … Works at J. Crew; senior at Parsons; junior at Pace; works in finance … ”

“We don’t know what the girls are like,” Marty says.

“And they don’t know us,” says Alex.

Mutual masturbation.

“It’s rare for a woman of our generation to meet a man who treats her like a priority instead of an option,” wrote Erica Gordon on the Gen Y Web site Elite Daily, in 2014.

Why would anyone pay top price for meat that is cheap and readily available?

Short-term mating strategies” seem to work for plenty of women too; some don’t want to be in committed relationships, either, particularly those in their 20s who are focusing on their education and launching careers.

The boilerplate feminist defence in an article where women do little but lament the hook-up culture.

“Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not—they can go, ‘She’s girlfriend material, she’s hookup material.’ … There is still a pervasive double standard. We need to puzzle out why women have made more strides in the public arena than in the private arena.”

Women have the power to decide what enters their vagina. If they wanted to be relationship material they’d be relationship material, and find relationships.

“There is no dating. There’s no relationships,” says Amanda, the tall elegant one. “They’re rare. You can have a fling that could last like seven, eight months and you could never actually call someone your ‘boyfriend.’ [Hooking up] is a lot easier. No one gets hurt—well, not on the surface.”

They give a wary laugh.

Can it be called self-deception, when you know you’re deceiving yourself?

They tell me how, at their school, an adjunct instructor in philosophy, Kerry Cronin, teaches a freshman class in which an optional assignment is going out on an actual date. “And meet them sober and not when you’re both, like, blackout drunk,” says Jane. “Like, get to know someone before you start something with them. And I know that’s scary.”

Autistic alienation.

“And it reaches a point,” says Jane, “where, if you receive a text message” from a guy, “you forward the message to, like, seven different people: ‘What do I say back? Oh my God, he just texted me!’ It becomes a surprise. ‘He texted me!’ Which is really sad.”

“It is sad,” Amanda says. “That one A.M. text becomes ‘Oh my God, he texted me!’ No, he texted you at one A.M.—it’s meaningless.”

They laugh ruefully.

How fulfilling. How starved for affection can they be?

“It’s not, she says, that women don’t want to have sex. “Who doesn’t want to have sex? But it feels bad when they’re like, ‘See ya.’ ”

“It seems like the girls don’t have any control over the situation, and it should not be like that at all,” Fallon says.

“It’s a contest to see who cares less, and guys win a lot at caring less,” Amanda says.

“It’s body first, personality second,” says Stephanie.

Why would a man care about the personality of his sex toy?

If you object to calling a girl a sex toy, why don’t you object to the girl treating herself like one?

“Sex should stem from emotional intimacy, and it’s the opposite with us right now, and I think it really is kind of destroying females’ self-images,” says Fallon.

That’s how society got in this mess in the first place.

“But if you say any of this out loud, it’s like you’re weak, you’re not independent, you somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism,” says Amanda.

See here.

“I hooked up with three girls, thanks to the Internet, off of Tinder, in the course of four nights, and I spent a total of $80 on all three girls,” Nick relays proudly. He goes on to describe each date, one of which he says began with the young woman asking him on Tinder to “ ‘come over and smoke [weed] and watch a movie.’ I know what that means,” he says, grinning.

$80. Hookers make more and probably receive more affection.

They all say they don’t want to be in relationships. “I don’t want one,” says Nick. “I don’t want to have to deal with all that—stuff.”

“You can’t be selfish in a relationship,” Brian says. “It feels good just to do what I want.”

I ask them if it ever feels like they lack a deeper connection with someone.

There’s a small silence. After a moment, John says, “I think at some points it does.”

“But that’s assuming that that’s something that I want, which I don’t,” Nick says, a trifle annoyed. “Does that mean that my life is lacking something? I’m perfectly happy. I have a good time. I go to work—I’m busy. And when I’m not, I go out with my friends.”

Alienation.

He’s a womanizer, an especially callous one, as well as kind of a loser. The word has been around for at least a decade with different meanings; it’s only in about the last year that it has become so frequently used by women and girls to refer to their hookups.

“What percentage of boys now do you think are fuckboys?,” I asked some young women from New Albany, Indiana.

“One hundred percent,” said Meredith, 20, a sophomore at Bellarmine University in Louisville.

“No, like 90 percent,” said Ashley (the same as mentioned earlier). “I’m hoping to find the 10 percent somewhere. But every boy I’ve ever met is a fuckboy.”

How blindcan they be?

‘He drove me home in the morning.’ That’s a big deal,” said Rebecca, 21, a senior at the University of Delaware.

Heh.

Bring all of this up to young men, however, and they scoff. Women are just as responsible for “the shit show that dating has become,” according to one. “Romance is completely dead, and it’s the girls’ fault,” says Alex, 25, a New Yorker who works in the film industry. “They act like all they want is to have sex with you and then they yell at you for not wanting to have a relationship. How are you gonna feel romantic about a girl like that? Oh, and by the way? I met you on Tinder.”

Someone brings the truth.

Rebecca, the blonde with the canny eyes, also mentioned above, hooked up with someone, too. “It was O.K.” She shrugs. “Right after it was done, it was kind of like, mmmp … mmmp.” She gives a little grunt of disappointment.

Sounds fun.

“I’m on it nonstop, like nonstop, like 20 hours a day,” says Courtney, the one who looks like a 70s movie star.

“It’s, like, fun to get the messages,” Danielle says. “If someone ‘likes’ you, they think you’re attractive.”

“It’s a confidence booster,” says Jessica, 21, the one who looks like a Swedish tennis player.

Self-esteem addiction.

“A lot of guys are lacking in that department,” says Courtney with a sigh. “What’s a real orgasm like? I wouldn’t know.”

They all laugh knowingly.

“I know how to give one to myself,” says Courtney.

“Yeah, but men don’t know what to do,” says Jessica, texting.

“Without [a vibrator] I can’t have one,” Courtney says. “It’s never happened” with a guy. “It’s a huge problem.”

“It is a problem,” Jessica concurs.

Sound like they’re enjoying it, no?

“I think men have a skewed view of the reality of sex through porn,” Jessica says, looking up from her phone. “Because sometimes I think porn sex is not always great—like pounding someone.” She makes a pounding motion with her hand, looking indignant.

“Yeah, it looks like it hurts,” Danielle says.

“Like porn sex,” says Jessica, “those women—that’s not, like, enjoyable, like having their hair pulled or being choked or slammed. I mean, whatever you’re into, but men just think”—bro voice—“ ‘I’m gonna fuck her,’ and sometimes that’s not great.”

“Yeah,” Danielle agrees. “Like last night I was having sex with this guy, and I’m a very submissive person—like, not aggressive at all—and this boy that came over last night, he was hurting me.”

They were quiet a moment.

And yet they all go along with it enthusiastically.

This article by itself is justification for patriarchy. These young women are addicted to attention. They are not enjoying themselves, they are neither respected nor loved, they are starved for affection, and they are willingly making themselves sex toys for men who don’t care in the least about them and enjoy hurting them. It is destroying their emotional core, but they can’t quit their addiction.

They need a stern father to drag them back home and force them to respect themselves.

The men are aimless and alienated. They need responsibility. Instead, they get untold free poon. Why do they need to care, when they can drown themselves in hedonism? They need the women’s fathers to to be cut off from empty masturbation with their breathing sex toys and be forced to contribute and care before hedonism can take them, so they can grow into men.

This is not healthy.

Hail the Donald!

Land is wary of the Trump enthusiasm from some of the NRx crowd, and rightfully so, we can’t become demotist around here. Being one who occasionally joins in on the Trump enthusiasm, I thought I’d respond. I should note that I’m Canadian and can’t vote in the US and that I wouldn’t vote even if I could, but here’s why NRx should support Trump.

Before I begin, Trump won’t win and even if he does, not much will change (except maybe the wall). No matter how popular Trump becomes, he won’t win the presidency. I doubt he’ll even win the Republican primary. There is no way the Cathedral will let him win; they will do everything in their power to destroy him, and it will work. If, by some miracle, their efforts fail, Trump will lose against the bureaucracy and if he manages to get past the bureaucracy, the Supreme Court will shut him down. Nothing real will change (except maybe the wall). Whatever minor changes he gets through will be reversed a decade later.

#1: lulz: Everybody worth hating hates Trump. Lapping up their tears as he succeeds beyond what anybody expected is a worthwhile endeavour in its own right. There are two things that makes me consider voting and liberal tears is the second (gun freedom is the first). Sure voting means nothing, but it sure is fun to watch liberals suffer when their candidate loses.

#2: The destruction of the Republican Party. The Republican establishment are afraid and are doing what they can to try to stop him, but Trump speaks for the base. By trying to destroy him the GOP will destroy itself. If Trump somehow wins the nomination, the establishment will have suffered a huge blow and maybe the base can use it to clean house and heighten the ideological conflict. But in the more likely event the GOP rigs things against Trump (as they did with Ron Paul) and Trump loses, the GOP’s credibility will be destroyed. How many libertarians were alienated by the GOP’s treatment of Ron Paul? (How much did his treatment do to drive some to NRx?) And he was just a small side candidate. How fully will the base be alienated when the GOP destroys Trump? Unless Trump pussies out (and he does not seem the type to do so), Trump’s run could spark a bloodbath in the GOP no matter what the result. One of NRx’s goals is to get conservatives to realize that the GOP is no more than the controlled opposition who exist to lose and Trump could be a catalyst for endarkenment.

#3: Immigration. Immigration is the issue all the elites try to suppress. Trump is bringing it to the forefront and the people are responding. When he gets shut down and it is further drilled in that their elites hate them, how much endarkenment will that engender among the masses?

#4: Flowing from this: the truth of democracy. If the Trump train starts chugging for real: the Cathedral will bring all the rigging, all the slandering, all the viciousness, all the lawfare, etc. it can against Trump and his supporters and he will almost inevitably lose. How many of his supporters will realize how much of a sham democracy is as this occurs? How many people will people will come to understand the Cathedral and its ways through this?

#5: The Wall. If against all odds Trump wins, the wall will go up. There is no way I could see him back down from it, as the wall is his campaign, and I can’t see anybody who will be able to bring a clear enough threat against him to stop him. Once the wall is up, bureaucratic self-preservation will keep it up.  The wall is good because collapse is coming; it is nigh unavoidable. The question is the conditions under which the collapse comes. Living out in Asia, Land may be mostly insulated when the American Empire (and its dependencies: the Commonwealth and the EU) implode, but for those of us who refuse to leave our homeland the on-the-ground conditions when the collapse occurs do matter quite a bit. There are two main issues relevant to collapse: immigration and guns. Guns is obvious: will we have the ability to defend and hold our own when the happening goes down? This issue has mostly been won in the US and is the only real victory conservatives have ever achieved. When the happening occurs, people will inevitably split along tribal lines: when this happens how many of them will there be at war with us? The wall will lessen the number of them and maybe savagery can be prevented or at least mitigated.

#6: The punishment. Trump is both rich enough and bombastic enough to punish those activists attacking him. He’s already suing Univision for $500M and is threatening to sue the Hispanic Media Coalition and NBC for dropping him. Trump has the resources to really bring the heat against those who cave to activists and show that there are consequences for bowing to liberalism.

#7: The fluke. Have you read Caliphate by Tom Kratman? In it, a future-history tells of not-Patrick Buchanan winning the presidency and establishing a dictatorship through manipulation of presidential powers that freezes the decline. While he probably won’t do that, Trump is a wild card. I wouldn’t put much past him if he had the opportunity. If somehow he wins, you never know what could happen. (King Trump, anyone?)

As for the man himself:

Sure, Trump may be clownish, arrogant, and self-aggrandizing, but it’s an honest arrogance. The entire system holds you in contempt and wants to destroy your culture; every wanna-be chekist, SJW, bureaucrat, and politician is arrogant enough to think they should be able to dictate what you think, what you say, what you eat, what guns you can own, what you buy, what you drive, etc. Compared to that contempt, that insufferable, smug, all-consuming arrogance hidden under a thin veil of ‘the greater good’, a bit of honest old-fashioned arrogance is a breath of fresh air. As for clownishness, nothing Trump has done or could do could possibly compare to ‘a thrill up my leg’ and the outright worship everybody bestowed upon Obama 8 years ago. Democratic politics is clownish by its very nature; Trump is the only influential person awake enough to see it.

Sure, it’s hard to tell what is theatre and what is real, but it’s honest theatre. Everybody knows Trump is playing to the audience and he’s not even trying to conceal that he is. Compare that to the democratic theatre we regularly have. The GOP pretending to stand for something, the barely concealed corruption of the iron triangle, the farce of a democracy where Judge Roberts can single-handedly rewrite the law, the delusion we are free when we pay taxes even serfs and slaves of bygone days would think harsh. At least Trump’s show is a fun spectacle, rather than mind-killing, soul-draining drudgery of lies that is our normal politics.

So, however much you hate democracy, however useless you know politics is, however doomed you think we are, you should still agree:

Viva la Trump!

No One Will Help You

Going around is the story of a Democratic activist who encountered diversity on the subway and was culturally enriched with a folding knife. The Federalist goes on some kind of shaming rant of the beta males who watched his encounter with vibrancy, but this is misguided. The better question is why would we expect anyone to help?

The freedom of self-defence has been under full-court attack, particularly by the progressive types of whom Sutherland was a part. If you read his blog and look at the voting record of the man he interned with, Sutherland was in favour of removing people’s ability to protect themselves and others. Why would anyone protect a man who not only is unwilling to protect himself but is dedicated to preventing others from protecting themselves?

Beyond the why, is the how. Contrary to what you see in the movies, fighting off a knife attack is very difficult if you’re unarmed and don’t have training. Davidson has no clue what he’s talking about when he says, “Any two adult men in that subway car could have stopped him, no matter how crazy or strong he was.” Thanks to Democrats like Sutherland, DC has very restrictive concealed carry laws and bans open carry, among other restrictive gun laws.

The only effective means of stopping stopping a knife attacker is practically illegal in Washington, so how exactly was someone supposed to intervene?

Further, the progressive types of Sutherland was a part have been actively trying to remove the ability to prevent these types of attacks from police. Look at what Jim Himes, the Democrat for whom Sutherland interned, has to say on the issue of Ferguson and policing black crime:

One indisputable fact in the United States of America today, and there’s no argument about this, is that the judicial system, from stop and frisk to who gets arrested to what crimes they get charged with to how long they get sentenced to all the way to the application of the death penalty is dramatically discriminatory against our African American population, There’s no argument about that. National data shows that if you’re an 18-year-old African American man arrested with marijuana in your pocket versus a white 18-year-old with marijuana in your pocket you’re treated totally different by the judicial system. The African American community in Ferguson knew that.

Well, we can see what supporting that opinion got Sutherland. Did you know that Jasper Spires may have been high on synthetic marijuana and had been arrested for felony robbery a week earlier, but was released only the Friday before the stabbing? Sometimes, you have to learn the hard way that ideas have consequences; sadly, Sutherland learned the hardest way.

Finally, why would anybody want to intervene to stop a black criminal from violence. Why would anybody volunteer to be the next George Zimmerman? Who wants to be the next Darren Wilson? Why would someone want to have risk having their life destroyed to protect some random stranger?

Did you know that Jim Himes, the person Himes interned for, attended an “I am Trayvon Martin” rally back in 2012?

It seems the demonization of those who protect their neighbours and themselves didn’t turn out too well for Sutherland.

Now, none of this is an accident. There has been a campaign (intentional or not) to get you to stop helping your neighbours so that the atomization of society can continue. As a Democratic operative, Sutherland was on the front lines of this campaign. It’s too bad the atomization worked against him when the time came.

We can’t atomize society and attack those who help others then expect others to help when people are in need. Jesus might help, but we’re not Jesus. A person might help family and friends, but strangers? Probably not. Why would anybody help a random stranger when helping is impossible and will lead to a lynch mob?

Congratulations, you won. No one will help you.