On the Syria Thing: Everyone Calm the Fuck Down

Thoughts on the Syria thing, with a detour on immigration that got a little out of hand.

Many on the Alt-Right are flipping their shit over the Syria bombing. For fuck’s sake, people, Trump just bombed an airstrip. (It was evacuated first, by the way.)

One hyperventilating doofus has said something to the effect of, “Oh My God! He’s going to betray all his promises! He hasn’t done anything on immigration either!”

What the unholy fuck?

He put forth two Executive Orders limiting immigration from predominantly Muslim countries. He put forth another EO starting the Wall-building process. Yes, both of the Muslim-nation immigration ones were attacked by dictators in black robes, but guys, THE GOD-EMPEROR WAS OBVIOUSLY WAITING TO APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT UNTIL AFTER GORSUCH’S CONFIRMATION. Which was like, 72 hours ago as of this writing. Jesus, calm the fuck down!

Trump will appeal his immigration EOs to the SC. If the SC tries to shoot them down, even with Gorsuch on hand, then my man Trumpy will instruct immigration enforcement officials to ignore the Court’s illegal repudiation of the law. That’s my prediction. I think Trump understands that if we cave on immigration, we’re done.

There’s plenty of room for other kinds of advances on immigration as well. E.g., he could push a law through Congress. Yeah, I know, I know, but hear me out: Congresspunks know at this point that this is the number one issue for much of white America. They enjoy selling out the country, and they like keeping their corporate sponsors happy with cheap immigrant labor, but they like remaining in office even more. In between immigration measures that are useless symbolism, and those that are “too extreme” for the cucks and lefties, there is plenty of scope for making progress.

Hell, just enforcing the immigration laws we have on the books right now would solve a significant amount of the problem. There’s a hell of a lot that the Chief Executive of the Federal government can do about enforcement. Have y’all already forgotten the burst of immigration raids from a few weeks ago?

All this panic, with members of the right running around with their hair on fire, would be hilarious if it weren’t so stupid and counterproductive. Guys, haven’t you learned yet? The man is extremely intelligent and he’s on our side, the side of the nation. He’s been damn perceptive so far about what moves he can make at what speed. Don’t demand total victory within five minutes of his taking the Oath of Office; you’re gonna give yourself a heart attack.

Getting back to the Syria thing: So he bombed a desert airstrip. Who cares? That doesn’t matter unless it gradually leads to a commitment of troops. I think the T-Dawg’s aware of the stupidity of that, given all his tweets on the subject in the past. Also, given all the noise his supporters are making about the bombing. When your own inclinations and your base are pushing you in the same direction, you’re going to move in that direction, absent some huge countervailing factor.

Furthermore, there are a few possibilities that suggest that this was a well-thought-out move. See Vox Day’s blog, for example. The Syria bombing could be:

(a) a way to distract North Korea ahead of a possible move against them by China,
(b) a way to prevent the normalization of using chemical weapons (we really don’t want WMDs normalized; think about it),
(c) a way to establish credible threats with various unfriendly nations and groups. That possibility will meet a annoyed reaction on the right, now that the right has taken a sharp isolationist turn. But guys, you can’t be secure by saying, “I’m nice! I’m harmless! I’ll never use my military!” Not on this planet. One bombing is not a trend, a move to a new pattern of globe-spanning military interventionism. Sheesh.
(d) a way to mollify various saber-rattlers. Now Trumpy is so Alpha he doesn’t really need to mollify jack shit, except for his own base, but if he sees there’s an advantage to doing so – say because it elicits concessions from various folks – then good.
(e) a way to discredit the insane Trump-is-conspiring-with-Russia meme the Left is desperately pushing. (Since Assad is a Russian client.) Now you shouldn’t let your enemies jerk you around by changing your behavior to discredit their lies. But suppose one or more of the above is true. In that case, Trumpy notices some gravy from opposing a Russia-supported regime. He chortles because he was going to do this anyway, and it suddenly has made the ridiculous Trump = Russia BS even harder for the Left to peddle. LOL. I guarantee you, at least one editor of a major Old Media newspaper, upon hearing about the Syria strike, had a major screaming fit. Probably threw objects at the walls, subordinates, etc. “How are we going to peddle the Russia bullshit when Trump just bombed a Russian client!? God DAMN it!” Ha, I can just see it.

So, to summarize: Stop the fucking panic terror. It’s completely irrational.

Advertisements

Red-pill classic quotes, Part 1

The past is a gold mine of red-pill truth.

E.g., Nietzsche, Beyond Good & Evil (Walter Kaufman’s translation):

Epigram 84:
Woman learns to hate to the extent to which her charms—decrease.

Quite. Most psychotic feminists who hate the world in general, and men in particular, are ugly (this includes fat of course, fat being a special case of ugliness).

Epigram 131:
Man likes woman peaceful – but woman is essentially unpeaceful, like a cat, however well she may have trained herself to seem peacable.

This quote identifies one kind of what we now call drama queenery (queenage?) and shit testing. Woman is restless when there is no strife. She feels that she is being unjustly suffocated; some bastard is forcing boredom upon her.

This personality feature is evolutionarily advantageous for females because it encourages them to create strife. Obviously, that’s a variety of shit test. Thus they find out who are the strong men and who are the weak ones.

139:
In revenge and in love woman is more barbarous than man.

Of course, Nietzsche wasn’t the first to note this. “Hell hath no fury…”

Even when the Old School stuff isn’t true, it sure is refreshing to read things that you Just Don’t Say these days. A case in point, where alas, I must disagree with ol’ Fred:

144:
When a woman has scholarly inclinations it usually means there is something wrong with her sexually.

I may be biased because I dig on intellectual chicks. I love how politically incorrect this one is, though.

Alt-Right dudes might harsh me for this, but to a large extent that’s because many of them have unfortunately fallen for the lie – deliberately created by feminists, of course – that “intellectual chick” essentially means “feminist.” Gaaahhh! Why does anyone fall for this when feminists not only are morons, but in fact explicitly reject logic as a white male rhetorical trap?

So I’d better clarify that by “intellectual chick” I actually mean “intellectual chick.” There aren’t a lot of them, but there’s something about them. And damn they’re good in bed. My theory: Too much time in the library ➞ Need to cut loose.

145:
Woman would not have the genius for finery if she did not have an instinct for a secondary role.

Wow. Awesome. Even in the 1880s, that may have been somewhat un-PC.

147:
From old Florentine novels; also—from life: “Buona femmina e mala femmina vuol bastone.”

(The Italian: “Good women and bad women want a stick.”)

By the way, you know who else is a really good source of politically incorrect quotes? Women. Get three beers in them, then get them talking.

There are plenty of chicks who would object furiously to the foregoing quote, but get a couple of beers in them and it’s “I need it! My body needs it!”

From Thus Spake Zarathustra (Hollingdale trans.):

As I went on my way alone to-day, at the hour when the sun declineth, there met me an old woman, and she spake thus unto my soul:

“Much hath Zarathustra spoken also to us women, but never spake he unto us concerning woman.”

And I answered her: “Concerning woman, one should only talk unto men.”

Well, of course. You can’t discuss with women the topic of how to handle women. That would be like telling the enemy how you plan on defeating them in an upcoming battle. Men and women aren’t enemies, exactly, but there is a certain amount of adversariality.

Aside from that, there’s the general futility and counterproductivity of discussing women with women. At best they’ll be balky and annoying, and at worst they’ll either flip out or fill your head with outrageous lies. (“We like nice guys!”) Women, as I am hardly the first man to observe, do not handle criticism well. To put it mildly.

(This is called Part 1 because there’s sure to be more in the future.)

“Escalation traps”

Xenosystems quotes Richard Fernandez:

It will inevitably occur to someone that the advantage in an escalation trap belongs to the side which cares about America less since there is no point at which it will desist for pity’s sake.

The quote gets it backward. We have the advantage in this situation precisely because we know the other side means to destroy us: We have nothing to gain from backing down and everything to lose. Backing down means we’re destroyed, not just as a culture, but in the literal sense too. It has become obvious in recent years that the left plans to commit genocide against native western populations if they can get away with it.

Indeed, one of the many reasons that Trump’s election has alarmed them so deeply is that it signals that more of those populations have figured out what their plans are. (This is one of the reasons that the standard “That’s racist!” attacks had no effect with white voters.) The left knows what it means for them if a critical mass – and it doesn’t have to be 50% by any means – of traditional western populations figure out what they intend.

Leftist Foresight and the Gramscian Long March

There has always been something weird about the Left’s Long March through our institutions, hasn’t there? The infiltration of our educational system, news media, commanding heights of pop culture… That took decades. And yet leftism is the philosophy of impatience, subpar planning, and lack of concern with long-run consequences. How the hell could they have thought up and executed a plan that took decades to come to fruition? A lot of them died – as they knew they must – before it bore fruit. All that toiling for no reward? It makes no sense!

Actually, it does, and the apparent puzzle is only apparent. You see, it didn’t actually require patience and foresight, because the Left loves to propagandize! That’s what they do! Hell, that, thuggishness, entryism/infiltration, and electoral fraud are practically all they do!

From their point of view, what could be better than infiltrating the educational system in order to propagandize!?

Nothing! There’s nothing they love more than propagandizing!

They did the Long March because they liked it in the immediate time frame. It didn’t require patience at all.

Lying to innocent school children, from these bastards’ perspective, is like heaven on earth. If they are in a position to lie, consequence-free, in their propaganda, well, that’s just one long orgasm from their point of view.

This resolves an intellectual puzzle I’ve been wrestling with for a while. It seemed so damned Satanic that people who don’t give a fuck about long-run consequences would have an obsession with long-run consequences right at the locus where it really mattered. It was almost as if they were being guided by Satan to be as socially destructive as possible.

But no; it all makes sense.

This may also somehow suggest ways to intensify and advance the fight against their takeover. Can we remove the pleasure of propagandizing somehow? Or tie it to other activities that the left dislikes? Or address the other side, the targets of their propaganda? Of course, the Net has done a hell of a lot to reduce the demand for the Old Media’s output, so that’s nice. If we could decrease the demand for higher education somehow, that would also be to our advantage.

Obviously, we still have their takeover of the legal system and Hollywood, etc. to deal with, but defeating them in the realms of education and information transmission will by themselves be crucial victories for us. Hell, that might even be enough the win The War.

The Left and Language, Part 89,315

Just came across this from 2014:

“Transgender” “lesbian” accused of “raping” “her” “wife.”

http://theothermccain.com/2014/04/11/transgender-lesbian-dana-mccallum-accused-of-raping-lesbian-ex-wife/

One can’t tell what the actual situation is here from the headline or the article, so one is forced to guess.

My guess, based on the article, is that the accused is actually a male-to-female transvestite and that his accuser is a woman. But one can’t really be sure.

Feminist debate re-enactment with amusing results

Lefty professor organizes a re-enactment of a Trump-Clinton debate with the gender roles reversed. An actor delivers Clinton’s lines; an actress delivers Trump’s lines. The professor expected people to sympathize more with the Clinton lines when they’re uttered by a man (because Clinton was kept down by misogyny!!!!!!), and to sympathize less with the Trump lines when they’re uttered by a woman (misogyny!!!!!!), but that turns out not to be the case, LOL.

In fact, the opposite is the case, so Clinton was actually helped by being a (nominal) female.

Via The Dark Herald.