What Would John Galt Do?

A whole different way of looking at "WWJD"

Friday, December 07, 2018

Pearl Harbor: Did FDR Know?

I have a blatant dislike of conspiracy theories.  I get downright abusive on social media of people who espouse them.

And yet, conspiracies do exist.  Most conspiracy theories are bunk, but human nature being what it is, it's almost certain that out of all the noise, there are probably one or two that are real.  The only question is:  which one or two?

There are two that I find credible.  The first is the "International Communist Conspiracy." There really was an international organization of various countries' Communist Parties, known internally as ComIntern (Communist International, sometimes further abbreviated to "ComInt"), that met regularly in conferences to plan how best to bring the world under Communist rule.  There were seven of these conferences before Comrade Stalin shut them down in the 1940s, referred to by insiders by the shorthand of "Second International," "Third International," and so forth.

So, yes.  It might not be an actual conspiracy, since they operated in the open until the 1940's, but there are people today who will accuse you of wearing a tinfoil hat if you speak of it.

The other conspiracy theory that I find credible is vastly more interesting:  the rumors that Franklin D. Roosevelt knew in advance of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on this day in 1941, and allowed it to happen.

First, a bit of background.  By 1941, Britain and Germany had been at war against each other for over two years.  We know from Winston Churchill's memoir The Gathering Storm that Roosevelt communicated to Churchill his desire to help the British, but the American people were were not having any of it, and were dead set against getting involved.

That all changed when the Japanese attacked American soil.  Americans changed their minds en masse and Roosevelt got his wish:  we entered The War the next day.

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

Thompson Falls, Montana is a little logging, mining and ranching burg with a weekly newspaper known as The Sanders County Ledger.  For thirty years its owner, publisher, and editor-in-chief was a self-described "big fish in a small pond, " an old news-hound that, if I remember correctly, had once worked for the major dailies (or maybe the Wires), gave it all up, and bought a small-town paper in Montana to live out his years quietly.  His name was K. A. "Doc" Eggensperger.  I knew him.  Everyone in town knew him.  And every newspaper editor in Montana, including the big-city Dailies, knew him.

One day a story appeared that intrigued and shocked me:  he'd been to some convention of Press people and wound up in a bar with some other old News Hounds, one of whom had been in the White House Press Corps when Roosevelt was in office.  This old reporter claimed that Roosevelt had told them confidentially, "Boys, we're going to war against the Japanese."  That there would be an attack on Pearl Harbor, which would rile up the American people and give FDR the political backing that he needed to take the US into World War Two, which had already been raging for a couple of years.

I tried to put the story out of my mind.  "Well, national press corps reporters are all a bunch of drunks, and this guy was in a bar drinking," I told myself.  Still, I couldn't get it out of my mind.

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

My dad was a World War II Navy veteran.  He turned eighteen about a year before Pearl Harbor.  In the National Guard at the time, he saw what was going on in Europe and correctly deduced that he was eventually going to end up in the Army somewhere slogging through the mud.  That prospect didn't suit him very well, so he went down to the Navy recruiter's office to talk about serving his country where he'd be sleeping in a warm bunk every night and have nice hot meals from a ship's galley.

The recruiter needed a signature from Dad's National Guard commanding officer.  "What do you want to join the Navy for, boy?"  the man roared.

"Well, I think we're going to get involved in that war over in Europe," Dad replied.

"Oh, no, we'll NEVER get called in to that," the CO snorted.  But he signed the paper.

According to Dad, his Guard unit was called up into the Army two weeks after he'd sworn in to the Navy.  He claimed that most of them ended up in the Bataan death march.

Dad was apparently a pretty good trombone player in high school (I never heard him play) and signed up to be in the Navy band.  "He can play anything I put in front of him," his instructor exasperatedly explained to his superior, "but he has no tone."  So Dad flunked out of Navy music school and went on to be just an ordinary swab.  The trombone player sitting next to him ended up on the Battleship Missouri.  The man is still there.

So one day I asked my dad if he'd heard that story about Pearl Harbor.  He said that he hadn't, and then said something that I've never forgotten:  "It always seemed strange to me that the only ship at  that base that was worth anything just happened to be out on maneuvers that day.  Everything that was destroyed in the Harbor was basically junk."

Hmmm...

-----------

Decades later -- indeed, only a few years ago, I was in Colorado conversing with an Old Prospector who owned a gold mine that was open to the public for tours.  Unlike most gold mines, which the old joke goes are a hole in the ground with liars standing around it, this mine really did have a vein:  I saw it with my own eyes.  But I think he made most of his money giving tours.  And like every owner of a gold mine, that old geezer loved to talk.  In fact, that's all he did:  his employees did all the work.

I love to talk too, so he and I had a great time.  I don't remember how it came up, but he'd been a Navy man in signals intelligence during the Korean war.  I asked him if he had an opinion on the "FDR knew" story, and he related a story that his superior had told him back in his Navy days.

The superior had been a very young Navy man who was somewhere in the Pacific intercepting and decoding (we had cracked their encryption) Japanese radio signals.  He began to see a lot of traffic relating to an attack on a Navy base.

He alerted his commander, and the alert went nowhere.  Alarmed, he began escalating up the chain, and got ignored at every step of the way.  Finally, in a total breach of protocol he sent a desperate letter to someone at the top in Washington, DC.  I think it was Secretary of the Navy or somebody.

A day or two later, his commanding officer called him into his office and delivered a sealed telegram.  "I don't know what you've done, boy, but this came all the way from the top."  With quaking hands, he opened the message and read:  "You will not question the decisions of the United States Navy."


Wednesday, December 05, 2018

"All The Reasons Why" - deconstructing a feminist C&W song

My first real exposure to Country & Western music (as opposed to just plain Country, which includes C&W along with other genres such as bluegrass and its predecessor, old-time music) was as a teenager when a rock station that I listened to changed their format to C&W.

I was in Dad's tool shed doing my science experiments when the DJ said, "Well Aaaaah haaaaw!" and played Tammy Wynette singing D-I-V-O-R-C-E.  As a brash kid who'd never had any experience in relationships, let alone ones that had gone bad, I thought that was hokeiest, most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard..

Fast forward a couple of decades, when I was married with two kids and the marriage was falling apart.  I was waiting in line at the counter of an auto parts house when the C&W radio station they were using for store music played the Gatlin Brothers' Broken Lady:

She vowed every morning that what God put together
No one else in the world could pull apart -
But the walls came tumbling to the ground
And her world came crashing down around her heart

Now she's a broken lady
Waiting to be mended...

And it hit me, right there, standing in front of that parts counter.  They were singing about what I was going through.

Then I thought back to the Bobby Braddock and Curly Putman song that Tammy Wynette had made famous decades earlier.  All of a sudden, it wasn't hokey any more.  She was singing about Real Feelings that Real People go through.

And I started listening to C&W.

I remember a construction site I was working at, during those years, where one of the carpenters was playing C&W on his personal stereo (what we used to call a "Boom Box") all day long.  Finally, one of the electricians had had enough and just blew up.  "I remember when I was going through that phase.  Couldn't stand rock n' roll any more, and just had to have my country."

"So what phase are you going through now?" I asked him.

"I ain't goin' through no fuckin' phase."

Well, I'm out of my "Country phase" now myself, having moved on to Metal.  I still listen to the old classics of C&W though, and still love the genre as it existed in the Eighties.  I don't care much for the new stuff.

So I've said all that to say this:  Highway 101.  A song named All the Reasons Why.

Paulette Carlson is Highway 101.  She started the band, hired the musicians, and wrote some of the songs.  It's her band.  And she communicates a female perspective on life, relationships, and bar etiquette that is, in my opinion, instructive.

I like almost all of their songs.  This post is about the one exception:  an emotionally blind screed written by Carlson and another female songwriter about a woman dumping her man for no discernible reason at all:  All The Reasons Why.  Some excerpts:


All the reasons why won’t make you understand
I’m trying to explain but I’m not sure I can...


You ask what you've done wrong, and if there's someone new
What has changed my heart and what else can you do
Oh darling can’t you see, it’s not so cut and dry
And who knows where love goes and all the reasons why...


If I could explain it I would, take away the hurt if I could


What a cold, cold song.  And so representative of how women look at what they call "love."  I'm trying to explain... it's not so cut and dry... who knows where love goes... If I could explain it I would...

But she can't explain it.  Because it's not rational:  it's all about her feelings:  he doesn't make her wet anymore.  She doesn't feel the tingles any more.  And her feelings - mostly wetness and tingles - are the only thing she cares about.

The numbers vary with the telling, but supposedly somewhere between two-thirds and three-fourths of the divorces in the United States are initiated by the woman¹.  I find this credible.  Yes, there are cruel men out there who mistreat their wives and girlfriends and deserve to be alone.  I might have even met one or two of them.

But I have met many -- many -- who were unceremoniously dumped by their wife, girlfriend, life partner, whatever you want to call it, with no explanation whatsoever.  I vividly remember one poor neighbor who had come home from work to find all of the stuff gone from his apartment -- hers and a great deal of his -- and coping with the loss with a bottle.  I walked home that night with a heavy heart, thinking of his pain.  And thinking that he was probably dealing with the initial shock in the best way possible.

I've known tons of men with the same story.  And it's always:  no reason given.  I'm trying to explain but I'm not sure I can.  Who knows where love goes?

Because when "love" is based on nothing but feelings, on tingles and wetness, it doesn't go anywhere.  It just goes POOF! and evaporates.  Men view love differently, very differently.

Most of us men take wedding vows seriously.  When we vow "to have and to hold, for better or for worse, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, till death do us part," most of us mean it.  When she gets older, puts on weight, and unsightly wrinkles & bulges appear, we stay with her, continue to support her, honor and cherish her.

When women say those words, most of them mean, "Until I find a higher branch I can swing up to."

I once dated a woman whose first husband had been a doctor.  I got the opportunity to meet him and even party with him -- she was on good terms with all of her exes except one -- and he was a cool guy.  I asked her, "Why did you leave him?"

"Because I thought I could do better," came the surprisingly frank reply.

I'll bet she told him the same things the songwriters said:  Who knows where love goes?  I'm not sure I can explain...  Left unsaid:  because there aren't any reasons why.  I just want to swing to a higher branch.

I thought I could do better.  We have a word for that:  hypergamy.  Also called branch-swinging.  Look it up.  I won't say that all women are like that, but... well, it's in the mammalian part of our DNA and they can't help it; you might as well try to get your dog not to bark.  You can't overcome fifty or sixty million years of evolution with a mere ten thousand years of culture.

But you can get partway there.  And we used to be partway there.  Ten thousand years of culture had brought us stable (for the most part) marriages and family structures.  Many of the lower classes were unable to keep their commitments, but most people did.  Wealth was created, and passed down to heirs, who married others from stable families and leveraged the inherited wealth to create more.

In the past eighty years or so, there has been a systematic effort to dismantle all that to pave the way for a world under Collectivist rule.  Incentives that hindered branch-swinging have been swept away, and other, perverse, incentives have been created:  there is a reason why half of all marriages fail, and ⅔ to ¾ of those that do, are initiated by the woman.

Who knows where love goes?

I have saved the worst for last:  a line in the song's chorus.

I don’t think I can go through them again
I was hoping we’d end up friends


One of the most disgusting things about the female perspective on relationships is the idea that you can, for no good reason or any reason at all, dump a man who loves you, take away from him everything you built together, spit on the way he cherished you, rip his heart out and stomp all over it in front of his friends and family, deny him day-to-day contact with his children and even in many cases turn them against him, take away the bulk of the fruit of his labor at the point of a gun using the "child support" authorities --

and expect him to remain FRIENDS?

Women have no idea what love even means to a man.  But I've already written about that.

----------------
¹I've not found an authoritative source for that; if anyone finds one please let me know.

Friday, November 30, 2018

Red Pill Truth: Women are incapable of love

About a year ago, I exasperated a very nice lady (a psychologist, if I remember correctly) in a social media thread in which I asserted that "Women are incapable of love." She was very nice about it, and expressed pity for what pain I must have gone through to result in such a negative outlook on life.

Well, sure. Who hasn't been hurt? But some of us learn from our pain. Today is a good day to lay out my argument.

"Love" is a word that means whatever one wants it to mean (and is therefore meaningless) but know this: it does not mean the same thing to women as it does to men. I speak here according to what it means to US [men].

A few cliches might be useful, as they represent views on the topic that are widely held:

"Behind every successful man is a __(1) woman."

"Men think that sex is love; to women, sex is a response to love."

And of course King Lemuel's famous paean to "a virtuous woman" in Proverbs 31.

We shan't debate whether these are true; what matters here is the insight they give us into the human species. True or not, they represent what we believe in the deepest, most primal part of our nature.

So let us begin to parse them. Not the literal meanings, but the primal drive, driven by DNA that is over fifty million years old, that they explain.

The first cliche speaks of a very deep-seated desire that most of us men don't want to admit. It probably doesn't apply to Alphas. But most men aren't, cannot be, and never will be Alphas: that's one dog per pack. One elk per herd. One man out of dozens. This post is about the others, which are the majority.

So what does "Behind every successful man..." really mean? It means that most of us have self-doubts (this is normal). We need: validation. We need someone in our life who believes in us. Because Out There is a world that doesn't. Ecosystems are brutal and don't care if you live or die. They don't care about your pain, your fatigue, your exhaustion. Fighting whatever you had to kill that day to feed your family - and fighting the saber-toothed tigers to whom your family is food - is exhausting. Though we don't do that anymore, it's only been 10,000 years since we did, and evolution doesn't move that fast: all of this is still in our DNA.

So, deep within our souls is a primordial need, after a long day of killing food while avoiding being food, an exhausting day in which one almost died - not once, but twice - a hunt that wasn't as successful as one wanted, a day of being mocked by the brutal forces of Nature for one's puniness and weakness... is a primordial need for validation. A primordial need (not a nice-to-have) for someone at home who believes in us, encourages us, makes us believe that Yes, We Can...

-- because tomorrow you have to get out of bed and go out there and almost get killed again. The "almost get killed" part is still literally true after all these millennia: more than 90% of workplace fatalities are: MEN.

Men need a reason to get up in the morning. A woman who believes in her man, who validates him, encourages him, strengthens him -- is, literally, the reason that a hell of a lot of us get up every morning. Without her, we feel like the old Emo Phillips joke: "Sometimes, it hardly seems worth it to chew through the leather restraints in the morning." Because Life is brutal. Every day, men die. And every one of us (soyboys excluded) knows that: today might be my day to die.

This is what the cliche means. Not that men can't make it without a woman; many do. Not that we need a woman to succeed; the Red Pillers warn men against that mindset all the time. No, it's a statement of what men want. And what the word "love" means to a man. Validation. And sex is the greatest validation of all (or at least, the greatest of all that a woman can give a man). It means everything (well, almost everything) to us. Which is why, to us, sex is love.

The second cliche is one that my sister told me, when I was struggling with relationships. I was seeking to understand women: what they want, how to please them, etc. There is a great deal there in her words. I've already explained the male half, now let's parse the female half: "To women, sex is a response to love."

"...a response to love." And right there, men, are some of the coldest words ever spoken by a woman.  A rare instance in which a woman actually told the Truth. It means: payment, and not payment for what we call love. It means, payment for what they call "love." Payment.  Not love.  To her, it's a business transaction and little more.

She doesn't give a damn how many times you almost died today to bring in food for the table. She doesn't give a damn about the stabbing pain you're suffering after slipping and falling while you speared that fur-bearing animal so that she could have a nice pair of fur slippers. She cares about the food. She cares about the slippers. And oh, by the way, she wants a pony. Which you will feed. 

Women are a lot like cats: Food is love. They don't care what it took to get that food; they only expect it to be there when they need it. Keep the food coming and Pussy will "love" you (meaning: it feels like love). Fail to provide it, and goodbye! The cat has moved in with the neighbor, and The Woman You Love doesn't love you. 

The extreme radical 3rd-wave Feminists are right about one thing: marriage really is an elaborate, formalized form of prostitution (actually, it's the other way around: prostitution is a raw, stripped-down, bare-bones-essentials version of marriage). Indeed, almost all sex between men and women is an exchange, one way or another, of sex for goods.

This, too, goes back tens of millions of years, even before Homo Sapiens descended from the trees. It is well known among primate researchers that exchange of food for sex is common among chimps and others (baboons, if I remember correctly). This is not a Bad Thing; it is nothing to be ashamed of: it is simply the way we are.

We men constantly fall into the delusion that "if a woman has sex with me, she loves me." Because that's the way we view sex. But it isn't true, most of the time. To her, it's "a response to love" (according to her definition of the word, not yours). In other words, it's a business transaction. She's rewarding you for something she's getting from you, or something she expects to get shortly.

The delusion works, most of the time. Men think they're being loved because someone is willing to give them sex. Women usually get what they want out of the transaction because most men are more than willing to give them the fruits of their labor (with a little bit held out for beer and toys of course). It has worked, and worked well, for ten thousand years.

So this is what I mean when I say that women are incapable of love. Not that all women are; see, for instance, Ayn Rand -- who admired men, and even understood men (see Chapter 2 of Atlas Shrugged). It means: in general, women don't even understand what we mean by "love." They can't grok the constant danger of Death, risk of Death, and fear of Death that's still in our DNA. They can't grok it because it's not in their DNA. They can't grok (non-Alpha) men's deep-seated need for admiration, validation and encouragement because it's not there in their psyche. If they can't understand it, how the Hell can they ever give it?

Yet a few do. A very, very, few. And that is what King Lemuel meant by: "Who can find a [good] woman?"

Men: most of you will never be loved by a woman - except possibly your mother, and even those are rare.

Women: most of you will never understand your man's deepest emotional needs. For one thing, we don't talk about them. For another, it's outside of your Life Experiences.

Everyone: traditional gender roles are the result of ten thousand years of cultural evolution(2). They are not arbitrary: they exist because they work, and have worked better than other arrangements. And yes, there have been "other arrangements." There still are. We refer to them as: "primitive cultures." Most never even got around to inventing the Wheel. Our culture is successful because it works better than the alternatives.

So ignore traditional roles at your peril. In the Current Year, we are ignoring them with reckless abandon.

1. good, strong, great et. al.

2. see: The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism, F. A. Hayek

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

The Left Hand of Thanks

There's an abundance of sloppy-sentimental "patriotism" in America on days like the one just past.  And a fair number of creeps who come out of the woodwork to exploit a day that is supposed to be about honoring those who died in service to America -- for partisan political fuckery.

I'm a Libertarian who doesn't go Full Rothbard.  I am not anti-war, and I am not anti-military.  I shan't elaborate here; I only want to make it clear that I'm not coming from any of the usual ideological perspectives as I write this.

So I ran across a rant over the weekend by someone claiming to be "a veteran of both the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy" who "served from Vietnam to Beirut" (it's possible -- the two were only about ten years apart) about the hollowness of the whole "Thank a Vet" that has become all but a meaningless gesture.

His rant starts out well:
...but why are people doing it, really?

I am old enough to have experienced the very different reception that was given to Vietnam era veterans where veterans were spat upon, called names like "murderer, baby killer, baby burner,” etc. Sometimes ... people who were there (America 1960s-70s) try to compensate for the shameful actions still lodged in their memories....

There are others, unfortunately, and they seem the most vocal and public, who just want to feel good about themselves. They want to be seen thanking veterans and by doing so ... gain the image of being "Patriotic." It isn't really about the veteran, it is all about them....
Amen.  I, too wonder whether a lot of this is an overreaction to the despicable way that returning Vietnam vets were treated.  Unfortunately, from there the rant takes a sharp Left turn and proceeds straight down the road to Hell:


If you really want to thank a Veteran: 

...Stop voting for people who deny help for military families who need food stamps to exist month to month.

Stop voting for people who make it impossible for veterans and their families to get the education they need to build a better life.

Stop voting for people who ... could not care less if your grandmother loses her home and has to live in a cardboard box under a bridge while you are serving your country in Afghanistan and her Social Security and Medicare are taken away.
What a steaming pile of crap.  This is pure Democrat National Committee propaganda:  NO politician has ever denied anyone food stamps, or taken away anyone's Social Security, but the DNC has been slandering Republicans with these charges for decades.  And the remark about making it impossible for vets to get an education -- a pure, lying, sack of shit.

Look carefully at the wording:  this has come straight out of the DNC talking points, word for word.

So we know that we're dealing with a partisan Democrat.  And we've known since the Paul Wellstone funeral that Democrats will exploit any corpse in pursuit of their Socialist agenda.  I shouldn't be surprised, I guess, that they also have no qualms about desecrating dead soldiers, but -- a veteran!  Doing this to his own!  I've lost a little bit of my respect for veterans qua veterans*, right here.

Enough of that.  So I got to thinking about the whole "military families on food stamps" meme, and got to wondering:  What does that actually mean?  And just how in the hell does that happen?  If a couple is that poor, they have no business having babies they can't afford.  Why should it matter if one of them is a soldier?  Does "supporting our troops" mean that we also have to support all the kids they're having?

So I decided to do a little fact checking.  I presume that we're not talking about officers here.  So here are this year's monthly pay grades for grunts:

E-1E-2E-3E-4E-5
2 years or less$1,546.83$1,733.88$1,824.24$2,019.48$2,202.90
Over 2 years$1,546.83$1,733.88$1,938.04$2,122.92$2,350.74
Over 3 years$1,546.83$1,733.88$2,055.38$2,238.07$2,464.34

A few notes:

  • Promotion from E-1 to E-2 is pretty much automatic during the first year.  After 2 years, the only E-1's are people who really screwed up.
  • Hardly anyone makes E-5 in the first four years.
  • This is taxable income, so it would be an apples-to-apples comparison to civilian pay... except:
  • They also get a housing allowance, tax-free.  This varies by zip code, but a quick check in zip codes where I've lived indicate that it very nearly amounts to free rent.  Not quite, but very close.
  • So for a real apples-to-apples comparison, add to these numbers whatever rents are typical for your zip code.
Now let's compare all this to this year's food stamp thresholds:

Household size Gross monthly income (130 percent of poverty) Net monthly income (100 percent of poverty)
1 $1,265 $ 973
2 1,705 1,311
3 2,144 1,650
4 2,584 1,988
5 3,024 2,326

So there's no way that a young childless couple, one of whom is in the military, is going to get food stamps.  Even if only one of them is working.

Even with one kid, it ain't happening.  With two kids and the soldier hasn't made it past being a PFC, still probably not.  Three kids -- if you're popping out three kids in your first three years in the service, and you haven't yet made E3 -- uh, something is wrong with this picture.

I checked with a family member who is a recent veteran, and he told me that "military families on food stamps" is a crock.  He said that the whole time he was in, he never knew anyone who was on food stamps.

So if you want to thank a veteran -- first of all, don't do it with your left wing hand.  Deal with things as they really are, not as some Socialist wants the world to view them.

Or better yet, wait for "Hanoi Jane" Fonda to die and go piss on her grave.  But you're going to have to wait in line... a long line... mostly of veterans...

Just sayin'.

You can read the original rant here.
------
* By that I mean:  it does not lessen my respect for any individual, that I already know, who happens to be a veteran; it does mean that I am less likely to prejudicially favor someone I don't yet know, just because s/he is a member of that group.

Saturday, February 07, 2015

Fifty Shades of Bootleggers and Baptists

Any time two despicable groups who hate each other agree on something, know that your freedom is at stake.

Economists have long observed a phenomenon that, in their jargon, they simply call "Bootleggers and Baptists."  You should probably Google it to get the whole story, but here's the nutshell version:

As it became more and more obvious what a colossal mistake Prohibition was in the United States, two groups remained steadfastly opposed to the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment:  religious busybodies whom God had anointed to stick their noses into other people's personal choices and pleasures -- and the criminals who profited enormously from supplying the forbidden drug.

Here were two groups that hated each other, working toward a common goal.  Note that the goal was the loss of personal freedom.

And now we have another Holy War, again waged by two despicable groups joining forces to deny you the freedom to make your own personal choices.  I would like to call this one Feminists and Fundamentalists (or "F&F" for short) in the hate campaign currently being waged against the movie Fifty Shades of Grey that will be released later this week.

Both groups really do not want you to watch that movie.  Or, apparently, read the book.

I saw the trailer and, frankly, it's boring:  well, duh, it's a "chick flick."  And I've heard that the novel isn't exactly high prose.  But nobody is complaining about the movie being boring or the novel being poorly-written.  No, they're complaining that it "promotes" (i.e., exposes people to forbidden ideas) a sexual practice that has been around since humans first evolved from the apes:  BDSM (Bondage, Dominance, Sado-Masochism).  And therefore, you shouldn't watch it.  Nobody should watch it.  Because, well, "vanilla" sex is the only kind that is Approved By God.  Or something.

The feminists hate it because, well, Doms and Subs*.  And any time the Dom is male and the Sub is female, then we have a problem.  Because, you know,  oppression and exploitation and hegemony and all the rest of that huge steaming pile of Marxist crap that is called Postmodernism.

Now, it isn't likely that I'll ever read the book or watch the movie.  Which saddens me a little bit because I love seeing Holier-than-thou Christians and Postmodern feminists suffer.  But I have a feeling that the movie will be a great success without me.

BDSM isn't for everyone.  But there are some people I count as friends who derive great pleasure from it, and who have taken the effort to explain to me what they do and why.  I shan't go into details here, but there is a well-known physiological basis to the pleasure that a "Sub" derives from BDSM play.  And it is all consensual:  all of the people I know who do this kind of play have a rather strict set of rules governing consent, and of ensuring that consent is continuous throughout the play session.

So, if you don't like BDSM, don't engage in it.  But what other people do with their genitals between or among consenting adults IS NONE OF YOUR GODDAMNED BUSINESS.

If you don't like Fifty Shades of Grey, then don't watch it.  If other people want to watch it, that's their business, not yours.  Leave them alone.

And -- dare I suggest? -- if you think other people's sexuality is any of your business, you need a spanking.

* Not gonna explain it.  Go look it up.  NOT at work!

Friday, November 21, 2014

On Thanksgiving, thank an economist

By now most of you reading this have heard the story of what actually happened in Plymouth Rock between the time the Pilgrims landed in 1620 and the first Thanksgiving feast in 1623, so I shan't dwell on it very long.

For the rest, here's a cursory explanation of the story; you are encouraged to look it up and fill in the details yourselves:

The original Mayflower Compact held that it was to be a Collectivist society, with no private property and all work to be done in common. Within three months, half of them were dead. And for the next two years, starvation and resentment ruled the colony.

William Bradford recorded the reason in his diary:
For this comunitie (so farr as it was) was found to breed much confusion and discontent, and retard much imploymet that would have been to their benefite and comforte. For ye yong-men that were most able and fitte for labour and service did repine that they should spend their time and streingth to worke for other mens wives and children, with out any recompence. ... And for mens wives to be commanded to doe servise for other men, as dresing their meate, washing their cloaths, &c., they deemd it a kind of slav­erie, neither could many husbands well brokke it.
The same thing happened in the Ukraine three hundred years later when the Soviet Union tried Collectivism again.  Fifty million people died of starvation in one of the richest wheat-growing regions in the world.

After two years of starvation at Plymouth (the daily ration of corn was reportedly three kernels per person) the Colony elders relented from their Utopian "Platonic ideal" and divided up the land among the families, with each empowered to keep all of what they harvested, to consume or to trade as they wished.

And that year's harvest was abundant beyond all expectations.

150 years later, men began studying economics and we now understand what happened there and why it happened. What happened was: Private property. Individual rights. Free Trade.

At its core, Thanksgiving is a celebration of the triumph of individual rights over Collectivism. And that is why I shan't be spending it with my family, or with any others who still believe the fables of Collectivism. I shall spend it with someone who, like me, understands economics -- and appreciates the power thereof.

I suggest that all who read this do the same.

Labels: , ,

Friday, January 18, 2013

One More Thing...

Ever since my first post on this blog, I've been reminding you Dear Readers that there are only three things that really light my fuse.  Those are, and have always been (in no particular order):  Stupidity, Dishonesty, and Hypocrisy.

Almost everything that angers me in today's political or interpersonal discourse -- most of which can be boiled down to people who want to control other peoples' lives -- fits very nicely into one or more of those three categories.  Environmentalists, fundamentalist Christians, Marxists, clueless Republicans, Keynesians, fundamentalist Muslims, anti-Free Market corporations, what Ayn Rand called "moochers, looters and parasites," Democrats (but I repeat myself), and people who think it's their business to dictate what other people do with their sex organs -- all are guilty of at least one of the above, most are guilty of two, and a few are guilty of all three.

About a year ago I began recognizing a fourth category.  This is the "One More Thing" that is the subject of today's post:

Hatred.

Hatred is inextricably linked with that most vile of all human drives:  the urge to control others.

Over the last two and a half decades we have seen a precipitous rise in what Rush Limbaugh once called "the politics of personal destruction" practiced by the Left.  It's a lot older than that, of course -- witness the way they utterly destroyed Sen. Joe McCarthy (who, as we now know, was right all along).  What I am talking about is the ongoing, nonstop barrage of sustained machine-gun-fire of hatred that I first noticed in the hate campaign against loggers in the Pacific Northwest.  In that campaign cute, fuzzy, large-eyed Spotted Owls were pitted in a false-dichotomy struggle against "evil," "greedy," logger-"rapists."  Yes, they actually referred to loggers as "rapists," and did so repeatedly. And they won that war, just as they won the one against Sen. McCarthy four decades earlier.

Since demonization is one of the most pernicious of the panoply of ad hominem attacks employed daily by the Left, it is worth taking our time to look at it here before moving on.  Since a demon is the Spawn of Hell and one of Satan's minions (i.e., not a human being), once you have successfully demonized someone -- which means to turn that person into a demon in the eyes of your audience -- you make that person less than human.

So in the end, demonization is dehumanization.  And once you have successfully dehumanized someone, that person no longer deserves any human rights, and you are free to abuse him in any way that your most perverse tastes desire.  You may take away his property -- everything he owns, and everything he will ever own -- his dignity, and even that most precious human right of all, his life.  You need never concern yourself again with any of the moral injunctions that govern relations between and among human beings, because that person is not a human; s/he has become an other.

And this is what political discourse in the United States has come down to.

The next barrage after the Spotted Owl hoax, launched even before that one had died down, was in response to a flawed and vastly over-reaching 1992 Oregon ballot measure to insert language into the state Constitution "that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia, sadism and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse."  As extreme, ridiculous and stupid as this was, the Left managed to outperform the measure's sponsors, ratcheting the demonization all the way Up To Eleven with the vilest, most vicious ad hominem attacks ever seen at that time.

Note that the sexual Neanderthals (fundamentalist Christians, all) who proposed the measure never engaged in even a single ad hominem attack throughout the entire campaign -- but their opponents did, repeatedly.  Note that while Lefties are fond of invoking Godwin's Law to shut down a debate, they repeatedly made lying references to Nazi Germany in that debate, invoking revisionist events that never happened.  And they made repeated use of the words "hate" and "bigotry" without ever bothering to look up what those two words actually mean.

But I did look them up, back then.  Mostly because I wanted to understand what the word "bigot" actually means, and what it does not, before using the word in a sentence.  Using a Funk & Wagnall's, I started with the word "bigotry" and then looked up, in the same dictionary, the actual meaning of all the words that were used to define "bigotry."  And then I looked up the meanings of the words used to define those words.  And so on, until I came to what I believed was a solid, foundational understanding of what was being talked about.

What I found was that if you trace far enough, you'll find that both hate and bigotry involve taking away someone's rights. 

We shan't go into the issue of whether the ballot measure did that.  I mentioned the story mainly to segue into what "hate" is, and is not.  And to explain, in precise terms, what I mean when I use the word in a political context:

When I accuse someone of hatred, I always mean it within the context of taking away someone's rights.  If no rights are being taken away, then the thing under discussion does not clear the bar, and is not hatred.

Let us now look at what are rights -- and what are not.  A few of them are enumerated in the U.S. Constitution.  Many more are not.  And finally, a plethora of so-called "rights" being bandied about today -- simply do not exist.
The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men. ... As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind:  to abstain from violating his own rights.
-- Ayn Rand, "Man's Rights," The Virtue of Selfishness

As Ms. Rand explains a few sentences later, there is no such thing as a "right" to an object.  Which includes:  another's wealth.  And, later yet, that property rights are not rights to an object:
The right to property means that a man has the right to take the economic actions necessary to earn property, to use it and to dispose of it; it does not mean that others must provide him with property.
-- ibid.

Stated another way:  a right is a moral prohibition of actions that others may not take against you.  There is no such thing as a "right" compelling anyone to do anything for you.  And the rights enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are examples (but not an exhaustive list) of actions that Government may not take against you.  Again, there is no such thing as a Constitutional "right" to have Government give you anything.

Any time someone is accused of hatred, the first question in your mind should be, "What right is being taken away here?"

So when a Libtard throws out the old, tired, "You only hate Obama because he is black," the only proper response is:  "Oh, really?  What right am I trying to take away from him?"

And when I accuse (for one example out of thousands) the Huffington Post of being a hate group, I believe I am on firm ground, since they repeatedly support taking away the fruit of certain people's (but not others') labors at the point of a gun, and redistributing it to those who have produced nothing.  Wealth redistribution is nothing short of slavery.

This is precisely the same hatred that led to the slaughter of six million Jews in Germany.  As Winston Churchill wrote in The Gathering Storm, Hitler didn't hate the Jews because they were Jews:  he hated them because they were "the rich."

And every reference to a "right" to health care is a Grand Lie, because 1) what is really meant is a "right" to make someone else pay your expenses, and 2) there is no such thing as a "right" to other people's wealth.

Now let's talk about sex.

The hate that bothers me the most isn't that coming from the Left.  Since theirs is an ideology based on class envy and hatred, it is to be expected from them:  you might as well get angry at cats because they like to kill things, or birds because they like to poop from above. No, the hatred that gets me the angriest is that coming from self-identified Conservatives -- almost all of whom are coming from the perspective of a certain shame-based religion that hates the entire human race:
Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. ...his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts.... The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.
-- Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

And thanks to a certain sex addict* named Saul of Tarsus a.k.a. Paul the Apostle, all of Western civilization has been infected to varying degrees with the disease of shame.  From birth, most of us have been conditioned, Pavlov-style, to be ashamed of our sex organs:  ashamed that we have them in the first place, ashamed of the pleasure that they bring us, and especially ashamed of our desire to feel that pleasure again and again.

Every tyrant, every dictator, despot, and general, all-around asshole that I have been able to find throughout history, has used this shame to control his subjects: China.  The Soviet Union.  Iran.  The Vatican.  The Ayatollahs in control of the Republican Party.  And in every instance that I have found, it is always used to the same end:  controlling people.  Forcing people to give up their souls, their humanity, their very lives (all of which are the essence of your sexuality) -- to satisfy the whim of an autocrat who takes pleasure in seeing others suffer in abject human misery -- ranks among the most despicable examples of man's inhumanity to man.  Because there are only one or two human conditions that are more miserable than being forbidden the affirmation of Life and pure joy that naturally flows from sex-play with other consenting adults of your choice.

Many there be among the self-identified conservatives who think that only monogamous, heterosexual partnering is "normal" -- and that it is somehow their mission in life to force you into that mold.  Even if you're gay.  Or polyamorous.  Or that most despised creature of all:  a bisexual.

I recently left an online community known as Galt's Gulch Online because of this.  It is a place built with the best of intentions by Harmon Kaslow, the producer of the Atlas Shrugged movies.  Unfortunately, the site has been over run by two married women who are constantly flirting with the men, while simultaneously condemning anyone who actually lives a sexually alternate lifestyle.

Their sniping at bisexual women ("can't decide which way she wants to swing," for one example) is especially galling.  As if each of us is allowed only one partner...

The final straw was a rant in which one of them demanded that married men who want to plan for the number and timing of children (instead of, you know, having them come haphazardly) should either wear a condom or do without sex completely!

Yes, there are women who hate men.  Even among Objectivists (or at least, people who claim to be), and a large number who identify as Conservatives.  They anger me even more than Lie-berals.

Which makes a nice segue into another rant, which I shall have to write someday.


-----
* because, whether you compulsively seek a thing, or compulsively avoid it, it is still controlling your life and you are, by definition, an addict.  Doubly so if you are compulsively seeking to force others to avoid it.

Labels: , , , , , ,