Knowing Things That Aren’t So


I am a bookish person and my family has always excelled in philosophy which is a required course in Portuguese High School. In a point system that theoretically went from 1 to 20 but in which, practically, 14 was an A and you rarely saw anything higher, Father, brother and I averaged between 18 and 20 in philosophy.  (And history.  And for me in English, but that might be personal.)

Philosophy is a neat thing, because most of it is the study of closed systems.  I.e. people build entire worlds in their heads and the philosophy survives or not depending on how well it describes the real world (and therefore how useful it is to the people to whom it is communicated.)

If you study the history of philosophy, you find that the theories get more and more fanciful as they go, and less and less applicable to anything that means much of anything in day to day life.

I haven’t graphed it — though if I tell husband he probably will.  Lately he’s been spending a lot of time with things like workforce statistics and graphs.  I suspect there will be a post or a series of posts — but I suspect the “the theory is very pretty, but day to day it makes no difference” becoming popular travels along the same curve as human prosperity.

Someone who lives and dies by planting and harvesting doesn’t even have a philosophy.  He has the proverbs that come from experience.  Early to bed and early to rise, you know, and if it’s red in the west the hens get to rest or whatever.  Look, I have no clue.  Grandma, who, though not living from it, got a substantial portion of our food from her vegetable garden was full of these sayings.  “It will be a hard year.  Easter is in March” is the one I remember.  Mom says it differently “Years with Easter in march are years of famine or of great dying.”

Now correlation is not causation.  If Easter is on March 31st as opposed to April 1st, is that cause to be worried? And is this tied to agricultural cycles in Portugal? Or is there some grand cycle we can’t explain and whose mechanisms we can’t penetrate that has that as a side effect? I don’t know.  I know I get vaguely uneasy when Easter falls in March.  And I’ll note it did in 2001.  Which means the crazy hamster at the back of my head got a little crazier.

But when you live close to the bone, in the potential of famine and death, you hold on to these bits of wisdom and don’t try to think of underlying causes. When you have more time on your hands, and finding a crust of bread for the table is not the primary thing on your mind, you have the opportunity to scrute the inscrutable and unscrew the primary cause of the universe.  That great solipsistic cry of “I think, therefore I am” is not the cry of someone who needs to find his next meal, where the imperative becomes “I must find something to eat, or I’ll stop being.”

Even our images of the struggling philosopher — or artist — are not connected to true famine or true conditions of exigency.  The “starving artist” might catch some illness from not eating enough (though in real life he was more likely to catch a disease due to screwing too much, or at least two indiscriminately, but let it stand. Sure, the philosopher or artist is sacrificing for his art, but that is not something people do in a society subject to famines and mass dyings. There you do what you have to do to stay alive.

The problem — okay, one of the many — of the 20th century is that it was the first century (the end of the nineteenth perhaps also, haven’t looked at figures) — where a majority of humanity (at least in the west) was beyond that absolute need to root, hog or die.   You could live better or worse, but you no longer spent your entire life in immediate need.

Thus the great wars of the twentieth century were caused mostly by high flown philosophical theories, often — but not always — slating to a national identity.

The problem with the Nazis was not that they loved Germany.  If a human doesn’t love his homeland (or her chosen homeland.  Shut up or I’ll throw a fish at you) and his tribe, he’s already more than a little mad.  We’re creatures of band and territory. To try to suppress nationalism is to go against human nature, and it can’t be done anyway.  You can suppress nationalism, but then you get tribalism.  And since overcoming tribalism (loyalty to family or those who look like us only) was a great part of what enabled civilization to flourish and get us beyond the need for looking for the next meal, that’s a massive step backwards.  What you can’t do is eliminate the need for the band or the tribe.  Ain’t gonna happen.

The big problem with Nazism was the whole mess of the racial theories.  Not that the Nazis were unique in this respect.  Read any science fiction from the 30s and what you find is a hot mess of “racial hygiene” and other pseudo scientific nonsense.  But the Nazis wrapped it all in German RACIAL superiority (if Germans are a race, I’m a pseudopodous mouse) etc, etc ad nauseum. They marched under the shiny philosophy that if they won the world would be perfect because they were the master race, after all.  Also they could do whatever they wanted to to people of different origins, because those people were not so far distant from animals.

Portugal managed to be national socialist without building vast camps or considering anyone subhuman (or notably hating Jews.  Though frankly, given how emulsified Jewish populations were in the general Portuguese population, Jew-hatred would have depopulated the country.) and “just” making everyone poor and freezing life at around the 1940s. Because in Portugal the philosophy was not that strong.  It was mostly crap-stuff from Rome.  (I learned most Roman “people building” stories in elementary school.) and much chest puffing about how great the Portuguese were because we had the greatest history in the world. It wasn’t great. It was authoritarian, but its death rate was probably no more than is from international socialism: opportunity costs, inventions that weren’t made, the sclerotic national health.  That sort of thing.  Not the digging of mass graves and the piling of bodies like cord-wood.  (Yes, the colonial wars, and Americans tend to be sympathetic to colonies, and I get that.  But if you understand most colonial wars for “independence” or against Portugal were instigated (and often staffed by Cubans) by the Soviets, I don’t think a free country could have avoided fighting, anyway.  Of course when the international socialists were in charge the territories in Africa were handed over to the soviets and their Cuban mercenaries.  What happened then is the type of thing I don’t even like to think about.  I was only 11 and couldn’t have done much about it, even if I understood it, but I still feel I should have. May G-d have mercy on our souls.)

In the same way the problem with the crazy version of socialism that international socialists try to impose was not that it was a form of Russian nationalism, which it really was, if you looked at it at all closely, nor that the Russians were trying to take over Europe.  It was that they tried to take over Europe under the banner of Marx’s just-so stories.  Marx was really a later-day Don Quixote, living without working and expounding ideas already disproved in his time to people as detached from reality and real economics as he was. Which is actually a good metaphor, because those infected with Marx’s internally coherent (before Gramsci got hold of it) theories are incapable of seeing the world as it really is, and go forth fighting dragons that are really windmills for romanticized minorities that are really just people.

Jorge Luis Borges once called Don Quixote the least necessary of books.  Nothing would change if it had not been written.  I think he was wrong.  Don Quixote is a metaphor for the “age of ideologies.”  At the dawn of mechanization, which made abundance and freedom from toil possible, Cervants foresaw how possible it was to get completely detached from reality and beguiled by pretty tales.

The problem with knowing a lot of things that just aren’t so, is that they rarely (if ever) cohere with life-as-it-actually-works.  The day to day world isn’t glamorous, particularly coherent, nor does it inspire one to marsh on, shoulders back and head tilted up in the way of the art of every totalitarian regime ever.

But the made up theories and made up world — particularly in a society consumed by the certainty that everything can be known and proven or disproved by “science” — can be manipulated by people perhaps also beguiled by other philosophies (Marxism is an almost universal culprit these days.)

I never understood why the left in the US consistently identified the right with Nazis, when the “right” in the US isn’t even blood-and-soil, but just “Oh, for the love of bob, leave me alone already” or why or how the left could decide we, mostly small l libertarians (what is known as constitutional conservatives) are “authoritarian.”  And not just me but any number of you have been puzzled at the idea that they think we are sexually repressed, or that we hate sexual minorities, or that we want women to be chained to house and kitchen, or that we are incredibly, fervently religious, or a number of other things.

But the left believes this with such absolute fervor they continuously “attack” us on that front.  Take the rather vomitous naked pictures of lefties saying that they’d “grab us by the vote.”

Look, I was born with no body modesty.  I suspect it’s something in the brain that was just left out of my head.  Yes, it was a Latin country and I’m fairly sure I was sujected to a never end of lectures about how showing my body was immoral, but it was such an alien concept that I don’t remember any but one: a priest who stopped me at 11 or so, when I was climbing a wall in short skirts and gave me a lecture on how all the boys were looking at me.  I remember that one, because if the boys were looking at me… well, I don’t remember it that way and I think we were all too young, and also because at the time it puzzled me so profoundly.  I remember asking mom why anyone would be looking at my legs (at the time tanned and scratched pipe-cleaners) and I remember she didn’t tell me.

Eventually, at 13 or so (and fully developed) I was persuaded not to go out naked in public, that I should wear a bikini top at the beach or I’d be arrested, and that other people put some sort of construction on people going around in the altogether, so I should no longer get up from bed and rush downstairs naked because we had visitors.  (I had hair you could sit on, so I suspect no one ever saw much.  Brother called me Lady Godiva.)

Later, nudist or topless beaches didn’t even make an impression on me.

HOWEVER I’m 56, overweight and my body is shaped by two difficult pregnancies.  I don’t have body modesty, but I have body-shame, because frankly, it ain’t pretty.

Most of the people taking the Grab them by the vote pictures had bodies worse than mine.  They should have had the basic understanding that no one, possibly including themselves, wanted to see them naked.  So what was the point of those icky pictures?

They thought they were shocking us. Because of course we are sexually repressed.  This is, btw the same kind of lunacy that caused them to think at the height of Sad Puppies that Kate Paulk — Kate fricking Paulk who is Aussie by birth and generates triple entendres like she breathes — was too delicate to write the word vagina.

Anyway, we know the left has this image of us in their heads, what most of us never understood is WHY.

I confess I’ve never done a deep dive on the crazy pseudo-scientific bullshit of the twentieth century.  I’m a depressive, okay?  I try not to read things that make me want to slit my wrists.

But yesterday I strayed into a link to an essay that called the 2016 election the “Flight 93” election, i.e. “Storm the cockpit or die”.  You might still die anyway, but it’s your only chance.  I followed it, because the left is STILL foaming at the mouth mad at it.  But you know, the essay isn’t wrong.  It isn’t even slightly wrong.

Anyway, this morning I woke up to write this post (well, A post, I actually didn’t have any ideas) and I’d left that essay up, so I was tempted by one of the links at the bottom.

The post is about Donald Trump and how he isn’t a real authoritarian and books claiming he is.  I don’t need to go into that here, but in the middle of it I found this:

The mid-20th-century creators of the concept of “authoritarianism” appear to have cooked their books. In the pathbreaking work The Authoritarian Personality (1950), the authors—including German sociologist Theodor Adorno, one of the leading lights of the Frankfurt School—created four “scales” measuring anti-Semitism, ethnocentrism, political and economic conservatism, and fascism. All of these indicators, they alleged, do not merely correlate highly, they are inherently connected. If you score high on the scale for one trait, you almost certainly score high on them all. Thus were the hitherto respectable—even fundamentally American—tenets of conservatism, and also the inborn and inexpungable passion of love of one’s own, now “scientifically” linked to anti-Semitism and fascism. Which is to say, to Auschwitz.

Coming in 1950, this was explosive stuff. The Left naturally intuited that here was the perfect moment to forever tar the Right with Nazism.

Nor was that all. The traits that place one on the “F-scale” (for fascist) include conventionalism, aggression, submission (hard to see how these go together, but let’s forge on), superstition, predilection for stereotypes, worship of power and “toughness,” destructiveness, cynicism, a propensity for projection, and—channeling Freud while anticipating the ’60s—sexual hang-ups. All of which the authors identified as mental disorders. Conservatives were not only proto-fascists, but also borderline insane.

The whole apparatus is a high-toned ancestor of those clickbait articles on pop-left-wing websites with headlines like “Study Shows: Conservatives Meaner than Liberals” or “Red State Average IQs 10 Points Lower than Blue.” Which is exactly what it is: “science” twisted to serve and popularize leftist political ends.

What Harvard’s Nathan Glazer said of the original study—“the authors of The Authoritarian Personality seem quite oblivious to authoritarianism on the political left, and so set a precedent for studying authoritarianism without need for unpleasant self-examination”—may not be true to the letter of these present-day updates……

I doubt most of the left knows of this book.  Or perhaps they do, at least the college educated ones.  But that book, digested by the chattering classes and fitting into the wholly made up universe of Marx and the extremely flawed (because mostly based on self-analysis, and that man wasn’t WELL) of Freudianism to regurgitate the certainties the left has about us.  And also the certain that they’re simon-pure and absolutely nice because well… because they think that everyone should fuck wildly (except, of course, if it offends feminists.  They might want to look in the mirror now) and they don’t hate Jews (but they hate Israel with anti-Semitic fervor and now have convinced themselves Jews control everything, but never mind) and they’re not nationalists and in fact despise their own country, and oh, yeah, they don’t want to control the press, except for that icky “right wing” press.

Actually, even in Adorno’s very flawed vision, the left scores high as authoritarian, particularly when you view nationalism as “loyalty to the tribe” which they have in spades, both to the leftist tribe and to whatever subdivision of victimhood they can claim.  The only thing that doesn’t fit, at first blush, is the sexual inhibition one.  But then you get into “all penetration is violation” and “you’re raping me with your eyes” and you’ve arrived.

But the fact is that all this is a bloody pack of nonsense.  Jew-hatred correlates ONLY with authoritarianism BECAUSE a totalitarian state hates all divergent minorities.  In the end they try to beat down every nail that sticks up, including the exceptionally smart, the exceptionally dumb, homosexuals, assexuals, creatives and introverts.  Jews are just a rather visible non-conforming group and therefore the canary in the coal mine.  Portugal, for instance, managed to be quite authoritarian without EVER descending into Jew-hatred.  And in America today anti-Semitism is far more prevalent on the left than the right, something most American Jews don’t seem to notice possibly because they’re beguiled by the philosophy.

They know a lot of things that just ain’t so.  And they’re fat and sassy enough they’ll never notice they don’t fit with reality until and unless their nonsense (like say the “No America at all” they were chanting again yesterday) comes to fruition and they realize that they are creatures of abundance, and that without abundance they can’t hold these just-so stories in their heads.  (A reason that Europe seems to be edging closer to Jackboots and former liberals are leading.)

And we, Lord bless us, are trying to prevent them from getting their reckoning.  Not that we love them that much, every unwashed dreadlock and flabby fat exposed fold, but because our fate and theirs are tied by living in the same area and being subjected to the same laws, and working in the same economy.

However, for the record, here is what real authoritanism is: when you feel you must control everyone else, including people wholly unrelated to you.  When you want to control what they read, what they think, what they say in every minor detail. When youu want to make sure they have no options but the ones you approve of.

It’s particularly bad if you do all this under some sort of “unified philosophy.”

And if people and groups with those characteristics get the power to do it, the result is always mass graves.

And no, it makes absolutely no difference if you’ve convinced yourself that it’s your opponents who “really” want to do this, or if you engage in psychic projection to figure out what’s driving the opposition.  (Which is how “we want fun stories, we don’t give a damn about politics” became, to the left “they want stories with no women or gay people or minorities. And they don’t want those people write either.” Something that, looking at the principals, or at the stories they write would have exploded in a New York minute.  But they’re Don Quixote beguiled by the story in their heads and unable to see reality.)

That you’ve convinced yourself that people voted for Donald Trump — Donald EFFING Trump, people — because they think he is a paragon of Christian virtue and modesty just doesn’t make it so.

Look instead at who does what they can to ensure books and movies and series with opposing viewpoints (or even slightly divergent.  Or even you know the creator didn’t buy into the latest politically correct “truth”) don’t see the light of day.  Look at who is willing to destroy careers and lives to ensure their narrative isn’t challenged, even slightly.  Look at who tries to shut down websites, leaves bad reviews to books never read, and calls those who agree with them “the good people.”

Those are the real authoritarians.  Whether people want to sleep with everything that waves in the wind or with no one has nothing to do with it.  Freud was wrong and studies on this are tainted.  The Victorians have been long-dead, and they weren’t nearly as prudish as the left likes to believe (in fact, if you read their books you find young people accusing them of having a “mind like a sink” in which everything was sexual.) And we on the right? Bah.  We actually do embrace a wide diversity.  Yes, even in political thought.  My friends range from Libertarians for whom any rule is an imposition to Socons who think that children not always obeying their parents is a sign of the apocalypse.

We debate things hotly and sometimes incandescently, but we don’t require other people fit every spot of our mental map to be friends, or indeed to be PEOPLE.  Which is what the real authoritarians do.  The left, OTOH will excommunicate you for having ONE thought out of line with their mental map.

Perhaps they know their mental map doesn’t fit anything? Surely after the fall of the Soviet Union, they must have an inkling it doesn’t fit REALITY?

Perhaps this is why they’ve decided, instead, to put their hands over their ears and lalalalala very loudly in the face of disproving facts?

It seems to be the case.  They seem to have decided that if they just believe hard enough and push hard enough reality will conform to their dream-world.

So, you know, for conservatives and libertarians — most of whom, frankly would rather be concerned with their private lives, doing their work and raising fat babies — it’s not just that 2016 was the Flight 93 election.  It’s that we live in Flight 93 times.  The left, after 100 years of dominance of the culture, has made it clear we must keep charging the cockpit or die.  We have no other choice.

Most of us completely understand the words of Based Lindsey Graham: You want power so bad, and I hope to God you never get it.

Because we can’t let them get it, not in the amount they want.  Because their programming is to destroy western civilization in the firm belief they’re bringing about paradises of freedom when in fact, they’ll take the world into an authoritarian age of misery, famine and tribalism.

Meanwhile, they’re living in Ruby Slippers times.  If they click their feet hard enough and wish hard enough….

And that is where we are, and why it doesn’t look good.

The only thing I can tell you is that in the end we win, they lose.  But it’s going to be a hard, hard road to a place where they realize they’re wrong.  Dreams are so hard to kill.

Be not afraid.  Let’s roll.




498 thoughts on “Knowing Things That Aren’t So

  1. ♫ When Herr Goebbels says “Ve ist der master race!”
    We HEIL!, HEIL!
    Right in der Furher’s face ♫

    1. I thought the second line included the sound politely known as raspberries, as in:

      We shout HEIL (phbbbt)! HEIL (phbbbt)!
      Right in der Fuhrer’s face!

        1. “When the war is over Hitler will be dead
          He wants to go to Heaven with a halo on his head
          But the Lord said no,
          you have to go below
          There’s only room for Churchill

          Jump rope rhyme.

          And that’s why we’ve lost every war since WW2.

    2. Yeah, as is said of the Gauls in Asterix, the one thing our side is, isn’t very polite.
      Which now I think about it is another difference. The left only does rudeness to opponents. We elevate irreverence to an art, both to opponents, horrors (Goebbels) but even to people we like.
      We would totally walk up to Julius Caesar and go “Hyia Julie!”
      We’d yuck it up with Reagan himself.
      And even though I’ve come to — G-d help me — think rather well of Trump, my nickname for him is Moist von Lipwig and if I had the opportunity to talk to him the first thing out of my mouth would be “you need a winged, golden hat.”
      We don’t have much respect for authority. I rather like it.


                “When ‘Omer smote ‘is bloomin’ lyre,
                He’d ‘eard men sing by land an’ sea;
                An’ what he thought ‘e might require,
                ‘E went an’ took — the same as me!

                The market-girls an’ fishermen,
                The shepherds an’ the sailors, too,
                They ‘eard old songs turn up again,
                But kep’ it quiet — same as you!

                They knew ‘e stole; ‘e knew they knowed.
                They didn’t tell, nor make a fuss,
                But winked at ‘Omer down the road,
                An’ ‘e winked back — the same as us!”

              2. And the thief (flat cat cultural appropriator) in question claimed to have done it unintentionally. Although the FCCA is a bit of a jerk he was probably less so in those days so I’ll give it to him. And in any case it can’t be a flat cat we know Mars clearly has only calots as pets given the literature provided by E.R. Burroughs.

          1. The racist media is clearly prejudiced against orange people. That’s the only plausible explanation for their derogatory attitude toward President Trump.

                1. I’ve an inexplicable desire* to see a movie in which a top-secret government agent foils a plot by the Greens and SJWs to overturn the Constitutionally defined government of the United States. That agent’s code name? Agent Orange.

                  *In the interest of transparency I ought acknowledge that nearly all of my desires are inexplicable.

              1. Nyah, they like Oomploompas … so long as they remember their place. Same way they like African-Americans, Hispanics, Gay folk and women.

                Currently they’re reportedly enraged over “White women who’ve betrayed the Sisterhood.” Who drafted those women into this mythical Sisterhood and when was the vote on the bylaws?

                1. SJW: Why do white women insist on not voting their own interests?
                  WW: Actually I considered both candidates and voted for the one I deemed in my best interests.
                  SJW: You’re selfish.

                  Not even “You’re stupid” which is at least consistent.

                  1. That is sooooo redolent of the denunciations Proglodytes issued about George W Bush: “He’s arrogant; he refuses to take our advice.”

                    Perfect example of the “When you point a finger at somebody you’re pointing four back at yourself.”

                2. Yeah. I saw that on Twitter a couple of days ago and my outrage skyrocketed to immediately-post-Kavanaugh levels. I *was* just voting; now I’mma volunteer.

        1. Sure though it’s hard to judge, given time, place, and different norms.
          BUT he was also immensely powerful, and these two nobodies walk up and say “hya Julie” which is totally what we’d do.

          1. And while the rest of the gladiators are doing the classic “We who are about to die salute you”.

        2. I’m actually okay with that, given the vast number of unfairly evil men (and women — evil does not discriminate in its tools.)

      1. I think that we should and ought to be *informal* if we believe that we are Free Men, but there’s no real reason not to be *polite*.

        And doesn’t the bible warn us not to be respecters of men? Which I always took to be the sort of toadying fawning behavior that denies our equality.

        But we keep being told that confessing and endorsing a set of mandated untruths are simply being “polite” that too much politeness is almost seen as dishonesty, and rude behavior seems refreshingly frank.

      2. Classic American joke:

        Englishman at a Dude Ranch walks up to one of the hands and asks, “My good man, kindly take me to your master.”

        Cowhand replies, “The sonovabitch ain’t been born yet.”

        The English enjoy a certain similar perspective, although embodied in their class structure. Watching an old episode of Danger Man (shown in the US as Secret Agent Man) the lead, John Drake (Patrick McGoohan) is undercover as butler in a house rented to a (presumably) Eastern European magnate, who has upbraided “Drake” for insufficient subservience. Beloved Spouse & I both “heard” the reply, “Sir, I am an English butler. English butlers are deferential but never subservient.”

        “Maybe I was the first American, the beginning of a national type. A person with a really fantastic and inexcusable aversion to taking orders, coupled with a complete abhorrence for governmental corruption. … and an utter incapacity for doing anything about it.”

        From the Broadway show

        Knickerbocker Holiday … a romantic comedy and a thinly veiled allegory equating the New Deal of Franklin D. Roosevelt with fascism. (A Roosevelt ancestor is one of the characters on the corrupt New Amsterdam council in the play.) Playwright Anderson believed that government was necessary in society, but that it must always be watched because it is swayed by the self-interests of those in power. He saw FDR’s New Deal as an American version of the corporatism and concentration of political power which had given rise to Nazism and Stalinism.

        Plot summary
        The action is narrated by 19th-century author Washington Irving, who announces his intent to write a history of the original Dutch settlement of New Amsterdam. The story opens in Manhattan in 1647, where the colony awaits the arrival of its new Governor from Holland, Peter Stuyvesant. Irving selects as his hero the young Brom Broeck, a brave but impulsive fellow who becomes enraged if anyone tries to give him orders. The narrator and his character reflect that this independent streak is characteristic of American citizens.

        “He insists on eating, he insists on drinking, he insists on reading, he insists on thinking free of governmental snooping or of governmental plan, and that’s an American.”

      3. That goes all the way to the very top. I often joke with the Catholic priests that I work with that Heaven would be really boring if all you did was sing songs of praise and the like. Much more likely that you do all the fun stuff you never had quite enough time to do on earth – and that Jesus joins in, and it’s always more fun when He comes along. Like, you get to go whitewater rafting; it’s always fun, but whenever Jesus comes along and says, “Hey, can I join you guys?” everyone goes “All right! Jesus is coming on this trip!” because it’s ALWAYS more fun when He joins you.

        Or, you’re into model trains, and you and John Allen and Frank Ellison and Bill McClanahan and all the other pioneering model railroaders are having an operating session on the gigantic supercool model train layout in heaven, and Jesus shows up with His throttle: “Hey, can I run trains with you guys today?” and everyone goes “All right! Jesus is joining us!”

        Or he shows up to the jam session with his guitar – you name it….

        (See? Irreverent, but not insulting.)

        1. I dunno … whitewater rafting without danger? That don’t impress me much. Having Jesus along would seem to put a damper on the whole thing. since He can calm the seas or even walk on the water. Where’s the thrill there?

            1. Forget whitewater rafting- I want to go body surfing on the relativistic jet from a Supermassive Black Hole.

        2. Being eternal and not subject to the laws of physics, one could watch a galaxy form and die out in subjective moments, examine a supernova in minute to-the-atom detail, see the full electromagnetic spectrum- all sorts of godlike immortal cool stuff.

  2. “I never understood why the left in the US consistently identified the right with Nazis, when the “right” in the US isn’t even blood-and-soil, but just “Oh, for the love of bob, leave me alone already” or why or how the left could decide we, mostly small l libertarians (what is known as constitutional conservatives) are “authoritarian.” And not just me but any number of you have been puzzled at the idea that they think we are sexually repressed, or that we hate sexual minorities, or that we want women to be chained to house and kitchen, or that we are incredibly, fervently religious, or a number of other things.”

    Let’s not forget some of the big L libertarians feel nearly this same way (*cough* Eric Raymond *cough*). They’re right in there with the Lefties who think that there’s a remotely significant number on the Right who wish to institute a theocracy in America.

      1. Well, of course there’s a (remote) chance of theocracy in America, complete with covering up females and killing unbelievers, a la Handwashing-Tales or whatever it’s called. It’s just not possible under any variation of Christianity, or Judaism, or Hinduism, or Shintoism, or any -ism that is not based on that goofy moon-god religion.

        1. I’ve seen it noted elsewhere on occasion that a ridiculously (and disturbingly) large number of conflicts in the world right now involve that particular religion. It’s well over ninety percent.

          1. Why do WE have to worry about what happens after Islam takes over???
            We will be dead won’t we? I can’t see many of us submitting, can you?

            1. I have a pact with a gay friend. They’ll drop a wall on him ten seconds after they put me in a burka. I.e. we’ll go down fighting back to back. (He, probably, being a lot funnier and snarkier.)

              1. If one actually imagined tbat there was a real likelihood of an Islamic State ala what happened to the Iranians, poor sods, discussing options on a popular website would seem unwise.

                Mrs. Hoyt’s sentiments are well known, but many conservatives have a not completely unwarranted reputation for being “anti-gay”

                1. Possibly… On the other hand, knowing we’re going to come out guns blazing if they get too squirrely is quite the deterrent. When I was in Iraq they never ambushed people who were READY for them.

                2. I’m not anti-gay but if the SJW types who claim to love gays get their way and overthrow the left I’m going to walk liberal LGBT types in regular free fall with no greater thought than, “Karma is a bitch” or, if I’m channeling my Navy days, “Choose your rate; choose your fate.”

                  These people cannot seem to grasp that rejecting the best of the imperfect real human societies does not ensure a perfect society, but a worse of the imperfect ones.

                    1. Oh, plenty aren’t and for them I would hide them and smuggle them out of the country at my own peril.

                      But the liberal ones. The ones helping lead the charge to cut down my freedoms to protect their feelings as I am so “dangerous” such as the one who told me I, for my Christianity, was a bigger threat than Muslims.

                      No, should the Muslims come for them I will remind them merely the Muslims are saving them from me.

                  1. People who romance their own sex have the same problem blacks do. They’ve chosen an identity that has baked-in Leftist crazy and prog greed, irresponsibility, and viciousness. And there’s no divine upside as with Christian or religious (not secular) Jew

        2. A woman in my congressional district voted in her Handmaid cosplay costume.

          Wish it had been where I was voted. I’d have asked why she qualified as a Handmaid and not as a Martha, Utility Wife, Jezebel, or Unwoman, ie. why was she so privileged.

          1. You have to wonder if dressing as a handmaid is their crying out to be used in just such a fashion. Oh, but that would be blaming the victim, wouldn’t it?

            1. I believe it is.

              No, seriously. I think it is a 50 Shades kind of thing. They have fetishized patriarchal expression and thus want to experience it. Dressing as a handmaid from the book is an accepted feminist way to express desire to experience being dominated by a man sexually.

              Tim Pool has argued a lot of so called anti-racists are racism fetishists…they look for racism everywhere and feel good when they find it.

              1. The declination blog author (or original author) is a DJ and he works rough clubs. He says you can find most feminist speaksthings any night of the week looking for some rough male to hit them, beat them and make them eat… cheese.

                1. Yep, I’m familiar both with his writing on the subject and direct experience of the same thing (as well as feminist infighting over it).

                  As for make them eat cheese. If we ever meet in person ask me about the “Thunder on the Mountain” feeding scene that everyone who does DM training gets told.

                    1. Not a euphemism as far as I know. I was referencing Sarah about eating cheese which I took quite literally.

                      I was referencing a story about feeding somebody that is…interesting.

                    2. a friend of Dan’s in college who was violently allergic to cheese was pretending to be a masochist (maybe not pretending) and said “beat me, whip me, make me eat cheese.” Around the house we use it as a “throw me in the briar patch” phrase.

          2. Eeeeexactly. Just like PETA protestors like to dress up in body-paint-and-nothin’ and climb into cages to indulge their personal fet–FEELINGS, I MEAN FEELINGS about the mean horrible way we treat animals.

            1. When I worked in downtown Hartford across from the civic center they had the girl in the sexy ringmaster costume with the girl in tiger paint in a case the week Barnum & Bailey Circus was in the civic center.

              Every day at lunch they had a large crowd of businessmen taking literature which quickly became litter.

              They raised awareness (among other things), but not about animal rights.

              Still, I enjoyed it.

      2. A variant Puritanism that embraces fabulousness and the LGBT community over marriage as proper conduct.

        No, that is not a joke. The most theorcratic movement in the US is Progressivism which has its roots in various Protestant revivals not unlike historical Puritanism. The difference is in the “sins” and “rightly compelled behavior” (although on sex they are converging because Progs are more anti-sex than they claim and Puritans were more pro-sex than is taught), not in the broad structure of the belief and devotions.

          1. The Fosterite Church (from Stranger) is a possible religious revival but I don’t think they could pull off a theocratic movement.

        1. Puritans were definitely NOT anti-sex, at least not within the bounds of monogamy. Which is one of the reasons my wife is a descendent of Richard Warren from the Mayflower. Lots of kids (and hence, lots of sex) and most of them lived to have kids of their own.

          1. Yep…in fact, you could wind up in the stocks for now having marital relations.

            There are some arguments, although I’m not 100% convinced, was bundling was sometimes a form of letting a couple test sexual compatability prior to matrimony.

              1. Hit send too soon.

                Fillipancy aside, I suspect they did strongly correlate the two. If you didn’t like it you weren’t going to be very fecund.

                1. it could be slightly more than that. Even if you liked the sex between you, you might care a great deal that the union not be barren. Though it seems more likely that it was not so forthright.

                  1. There’s an enormous number of premature first births in my family tree. Pre-1900, seemed to be more common than not.

                    1. Or the sudden knowledge of the “current new generation” realizing that the prior “old” generation had to know what sex was AND still participate. Is there anything worse than discovering your parents still, “indulge”? 😉 😉 The response to “How do you think you were born? Cabbage Patch?” is more often than not “EW. Yuck. TMI. Eye bleach please!”

                    2. Sigh. My parents destroyed my last few remaining illusions when I visited 7 years ago. They sleep with door open because mom is claustrophobic. And there’s this special laugh mom makes… I mean, I knew that way back. BUT… Dad had just turned eighty. So, there I am reading in my room, and from down the hall come the familiar noises…
                      And Marshall comes running into my room going “Mom, tell me they’re not….”
                      So we locked ourselves in my room and put music on.

        2. “….The difference is in the “sins” and “rightly compelled behavior””

          All Morality Must Be Legislated.

          It really is about that blatant. It’s just a different list of “moral” behavior. Not that icky, sex-negative, morality, but this shiny new wonderful morality. If only everyone followed this moral code the world would be a nearly perfect place.

          It is SO closely mirroring religious thought that it’s like you don’t even have to change the proper nouns to the new set.

          In fact, pick the most obnoxious, holier-than-thou, sin-seeking Church Lady of your childhood and you’re looking right straight at an SJW.

              1. That squirrel has to hide somewhere……..

                “As that squirrel made laps inside her dress
                She began to cry and then confess….”

        3. That is spot-on in describing my relatives who are very much leftists.
          They grew up claiming Christianity (through their parents) but their leftism heavily affects their views about what the Bible means, and what is sin (rather than the other way around).

          1. It’s amazing the number of lefitsts who insist that (their interpretation of) Christianity means we need to obey them or be bad Christians.

            John C. Wright had to include that as one of the few things you will get banned for on his blog.

      3. As an agnostic, I would be delighted to see general acceptance of Atheism being a religion, and thus Atheists have no more right to impose their symbolism (or lack of same) on others than anyone else.

        Every time I read about some twit suing to have a cross taken off od a memorial, I want to kick him in the fork so hard he suddenly goes deaf. How DARE he impose his esthetic on a generation past?

      4. “Theocracy in America is loony toons. ”

        Agreed, but that doesn’t stop multiple Christian denominations from trying to bring it about. I don’t know how much contact you’ve had with young-Earth creationists, but I can tell you for sure that:
        a) they really exist;
        b) they really do advocate a theocracy of one degree or another; and
        c) even today, there are places in the United States where they wield a considerable amount of power. The “Bible Belt” isn’t what it once was, but neither is it entirely an invention of the mainstream media.

        1. As a “young-earth creationist” myself, I’d be right with you voting down attempts to theocratize these United States of ours, whether from the Sam-Browne Bible Belt or the Caliphate of Mr. M’hammed Pbuh, or the GLT Light-Loafers Legion out of Sans Francisco. Let every man and woman be free to stand– or kneel– before the Lord WITHOUT governmental interference.

          1. My husband is also a “young-earth creationist” (which gets interesting because I’m a geologist. We agree on the Rock of Ages, not so much so the age of rocks.) We’d both be fighting (literally and metaphorically) against a theocracy.

        2. Almost as if on cue. You must be one of those big “L” types I was referring to.

          a) So do hermaphrodites, who have more sway in this country than the unnamed denominations to which you refer.

          b) See a.

          c) Gonna need to see your work on that one.

          1. There are some folks who consider any law which correlates with a religious teaching, no matter how it is rationally supported, to be “imposed theocracy” if they do not desire it.

            Attempting to counter-argue, especially if you start with the logical fallacy there, is ignored.

          2. “c) Gonna need to see your work on that one.”

            Consider that it’s been barely a year since Roy Moore ran for Jeff Sessions’ old Senate seat on an openly and explicitly evangelical-Christian platform – and won the Republican primary election with almost 40% of the vote.

            Consider also that anti-evolution bills are routinely introduced in many state legislatures. On rare occasions they even become law. Since religious fundamentalism is the only reason to oppose evolutionary theory, I take those anti-evolution bills as proof that Christian fundamentalists still wield considerable political power in some states.

              1. No really, it is. :/

                Being Christian in the public sphere is not theocracy, it’s a Constitutional Right. Our Rights aren’t limited to what we do only in secret.

                Evolution is another pail of worms but implicitly (and factually) related to the other. The *reason* to oppose “evolutionary theory” is that it is used by people with malice aforethought to deprive others of their First Amendment right to teach their Religious faith to their children. It is presented as an inarguable Truth that religious faith is wrong or even evil. (After all, a person of faith never managed to develop enough of an understanding of microbiology to understand contagious disease, /sarc)

                Except for public education (which any decent Libertarian or libertarian ought to understand the objection to giving the power and control of indoctrinating your children to a government entity) the question of “Evolution” is completely pointless. No one cares. Christian doctors are fully able to treat infections and understand genetic diseases and probably do it with more objectivity than the progressive sorts who demand that we not suppress the primary vectors of infection because someone might feel bad.

                1. The Daughtorial Unit’s undergrad degree was in Biochemistry (among others) and one of the surest ways to get her wound up is to ask her opinion of what is passed off as “teaching Evolution” in the public schools. It would be one thing if what they taught was evolutionary theory, but they’re passing off the intellectual equivalent White Castle sliders as gourmet burgers.

                  As Himself transcends Time, peering through the lens of Time at however He elects to shape Man is inherently invalid. Evolution relies on the Seguentialist Heresy while He utilizes the Synchronicity of all.

                  1. Science taught in high school is bad enough. Add in how “evolution” is taught and it hardly qualifies as science any more. It could, in fact, be entirely omitted and the students would emerge better informed.

                    No, I’m not a “young earth” anything. I know why we conclude that the Earth is 4.3ish billion years old. I can explain the geology of that to anyone who asks.

                    And yet, as a geologist, I know that none of the information gained matters unless you can hold it in your hand. At the high school level (and certainly in grade school where kids can’t tell a thousand years from 60 million) the issue is irrelevant. Completely and utterly. Sticking up a picture of a monkey progressing to a man and telling kids to learn it has NO scientific value. It’s put there as a religious argument to dispute the faith of children too young to integrate the supernatural with the natural.

                  2. ….is nuclear explosion roughly accurate for when they have those dang embryology drawings and/or re-encapsulation come up?
                    (the theory that developing embryos go through stages that align with ancestral forms)

                    1. Nuclear explosion is when they show the evidence of the moths adapting to the coal soot — you know the pictures, the ones which proponents created by sticking dead moths to the trees.

                      Think the embryo stages are more like to provoke super-novas.

                      Daughter knows science. Science is a friend of hers. And that, sirrah, is not science.

                2. The funny thing is, most of the folks I know who are most obsessed/hobby horse about the “theory of evolution”?


                  Who are dedicated to the scientific method.

                  Teaching what amounts to “we really have no evidence, a bunch of contradicting theories, but don’t you dare question us!” is personally offensive to them.
                  (My eyes tend to glaze about this time, but it usually boils down to “it doesn’t cover everything if we don’t have this” is not logical support.)

                  Micro evolution, ie, observing that natural selection can function somewhat like guided evolution/selective breeding is both supported by observation and provides predictions which can be checked and, best of all, are USEFUL!

                  1. what is… funny ironic , not haha funny.. to me is the agnostics that will cry to the hills about how they are skeptics about everything… most of them buy global warming hook like and sinker and will basically call you out as a heretic if you dare question it to them.

                    1. Usually I get that from the atheists, but I tend to piss off a decent number by asking informed questions so my sample might be tainted.

                      Sad thing is, I really do want to know why folks think like they do, and the first time I asked what a grownup failing them had to do with the nature of the universe, I was utterly serious….

            1. Apparently, teaching the tenants of multiple (mutually exclusive) models for events for which no demonstrative proof CAN be furnished (how’re you going to PROVE in a laboratory that the universe started thus, and not so?) is a theocracy, whereas teaching just the one endorsed by the State Religion* is not.

              The thing is that WHATEVER model of Origins one ascribes to, it’s a matter of HISTORICAL events and non-replicable conditions. Whether one allows for non-material causation and affectors or not, the criteria of evidence and proof that one must apply to laboratory science can’t work, except in piecemeal, and generally only in the negative to disprove a model or hypothesis. As historical events, their proof is best taken by assessing witness accounts, and it’s difficult to find credible origin-stories from someone who was there to witness it, for obvious reasons.

              * Secular atheism is just as religious as fundamentalist protestantism or Tibetan buddhism or Sufi islam. And it requires at least as much faith in the lack of the “supernatural” as any other religion requires for the inclusion of it.

            2. Roy Moore is your answer? Sorry, friend. That doesn’t cut it. I’m not going to waste a paragraph deconstructing the absurdity of such an assertion.

              And if the states are such hotbeds of Theocracy-craving fundies, why is it that their governments have never resembled anything of the sort, even when Christians wielded much more power and influence and the 10th Amendment actually meant something?

              Not only is your argument – such as it is – not persuasive, it doesn’t even seem you’ve given it serious thought.

            3. So openly evangelical people not being elected is a theocracy, but open communists actually being elected is somehow not communism?

            4. *headdesk* So, basically, people don’t agree with you, they’re religious, so their views are a “theocracy.”

              And if you haven’t noticed the evangelical atheism baked into “evolution” education– pro tip, when the teaching of the theory involves going beyond what science can conclude, such as categorically ruling out any possible outside influence, it is no longer science– then that’s your problem.

        3. A friend of mine works for the best-known young-earth creationist organization, and has 0 desire to see anything even vaguely looking like a theocracy.

          1. Some people have an extremely strange definition of “theocracy”. 😦

            1. Yes, a theocracy is any government which does not force everyone else to believe what they know to be true.

              A variation on Freedom is Slavery.

              1. Anything at all that a person might happen on that would alert him to the fact that there are religious people in existence — signs for churches — or inconvenience him in anyway, like the crowded parking when they gather for a prayer group, as if a poker game would not cause the same.

          2. TXRed: I don’t doubt it. The problem is that your friend is not the one who makes policy for the group. Much like many rank-and-file Democrats don’t support gun bans or abortion-on-demand, but the people who make party policy do.

            It’s been a couple of years since I really checked on what the YECs were up to, but last time I looked, they still wanted to get rid of evolutionary theory in schools first, and the rest of our .. how did they put it … right, “materialism and its cultural legacies” afterward. The “Wedge Strategy” was and is quite real; the fact that its advocates have consistently failed to achieve any of their goals doesn’t mean they’re not still trying. And when somebody tells me straight out that he wants the United States to be run according to Biblical law, as more than one creationist has done, I have a hard time calling that anything else but “a theocracy.”

            1. So, you’ve got a vague group that routinely fails in its goals and exactly one anecdote to show that there’s a significant cohort of Christians lying in wait to impose their idea of a theocracy?

              Do I have that right?

              1. Yes. Wanting the country to be run by “biblical law” would be a disaster. Good thing those bloody Methodists never got anywhere with their anti-slave trade nonsense. Christian morality is such a buzz-kill.

                But props to figuring out that “evolution” particularly the bastardized version taught in public high schools is a wedge issue: for materialism, Marxism, and Eugenics.

                Shocking that anyone would want to reverse this particular indoctrination.

                However, I personally have no problem with teaching TENS in public schools if the local community wants it so long as a semester course in basic logic is a mandatory prerequisite.

        4. As a Southern Baptist, we can hardly keep a single church body together without someone getting offended about something, and having a split (as the old saying goes, if you have two or more Baptist, you’re going to have a split).
          And then you have all the other Baptist denominations, who don’t exactly like the Southern Baptist.
          Then there’s the other big Protestant denominations, most of whom are fairly Left & Progressive, and despise the more conservative Fundamentalist.
          And so on and so on.

          1. In WASP, WHERE IS THY STING Florence King explained how to parse Protestant Sect names. I don’t remember all the details, but as I recall one starts with (to pick a notorious example) Davidians. The first schism are called Branch Davidians, and the second (if the Branch Davidians had lasted long enough) would be Reform Branch Davidians.

        5. Back in the 1980’s the word was ‘Creationism’. Every year my Father (adopted son of a Methodist minister) would teach a combined section on the History of Science. And every year, when he came to Darwin, some young twerp would pipe up and ask ‘What about the theory of Creationism?”

          And my father wold look over his glasses at the twerp and say “I have never understood why you would wish to call the Revelation of Genesis a ‘theory’.”

          Evolution is our best understanding of how the various species came about. Genesis is an all knowing being’s attempt to explain Creation to a tribe of semi-literate goat-herds. And if God has not seen fit to visit us with a more detailed explaination since, it is doubtless because from His perspective the difference between Modern Man and a tribe of semi-literate goat-herds is not big enough to be important.

          1. It strikes me that a tribe of semi-literate goat-herds is likelier to show Him greater deference and ask fewer ignorant questions.

          2. I think the answer would be “Well, you’re starting to fill in the details, but you’ve still got a long way to go before you’re ready for the full detailed explanation.”

        6. Balderdash. My dad (the nuclear engineer) was a young earth creationist. He raised his kids to be patriots. Theocracy is Un-American. Not to mention contrary to LCMS doctrine.

          Young Earth Creationism is a surprisingly reasonable theological position (since TENS has turned out to be a wash, predictive power-wise.) so any overlap with the handful of Christian fools who actually want the equivalent of, say, a Baptist Caliphate* is entirely coincidental. Like Hitler, I too love dogs.

          * I am old enough to remember They exist. They all exist.

        7. Please explain how “people who want to install oftern contradictory theocracies” means “we are headed for theocracy.”

          There are multiple communist parties in the US and there are candidates they have endorsed (admittedly via cross endorsement) in office. They are also portrayed as positive forces, usually in the form of movements they control, by the press and entertainment media unlike the various theocracy groups.

          Should I thus fear a communist takeover of the US is just around the corner?

      5. We wouldn’t have one theocracy. We would have forty-thousand theocracies.

        Actually, that’s a form of libertarianism that might work — Pick Your Own Theocracy, with some kind of overriding constitutional synod.

        “Nyah, you’re not the boss of me and neither is your pastor! You’re Reformed Baptist Pentecostal Seventh Dimensionist!”

        “Fine. Then I’ll have my pastor call your shepherdess and eldresses, and you’ll be getting in big trouble!”

        1. The problem is that too many of the theocracies proscribed death for those who want to vote with their feet.

          Otherwise.. The former libertarian in me is tempted. Federalism FTW, right?

          1. The theocrats that most concern me are those damned Marx worshipers. The number of lives sacrificed on their altar in just the last 100 years is appalling, the vows of poverty imposed by their doctrine too oppressive and their environmental depredations too extreme.

            1. I also. I have a theory that even Islam didn’t become the global menace it is today (despite the whole death-to-apostates policy) until they started sending their young men off to be educated by Western Marxists.

        2. Actually, the prohibition on Congress creating a state church was precisely that.

          Remember, in 1787 several of the states did in fact have state churches:

          Connecticut: Congregational until 1818
          Georgia: Church of England until 1789
          Massachusetts: Congregational until 1834
          New Hampshire: Congregational until 1877 (one of the strongest pieces of evidence against the inclusion interpretation of the 14th amendment)
          South Carolina: Church of England until 1790

          Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland had recognized The Church of England was their state church but had changed that in 1786 for the first and 1776 for the later two. Maryland is the surprise.

          Notice 8 of the original 13 states had state churches. Now no state has a state church.

          The only evidence of the risk of theocracy in the US is that it has decreased over the life of the nation.

  3. Don Quixote is a metaphor for the “age of ideologies.” At the dawn of mechanization, which made abundance and freedom from toil possible, Cervant[e]s foresaw how possible it was to get completely detached from reality and beguiled by pretty tales.

    I really like this: Don Quixote as a cautionary tale about Augmented Reality gaming.

  4. My friends range from Libertarians….to Socons who think that children not always obeying their parents is a sign of the apocalypse.

    So…the apocalypse has always been happening, gotcha. 😉

    (Seriously, that made me laugh really hard. One of those “Have they MET any children?” moments.)

        1. Most people don’t REMEMBER being children. I think the fact I have fuzzy memories from about age 6 months, and clear from age 4 on gave me a great advantage as a mother.

          1. Six months is impressive. I definitely have some details by the age of four, though.

            Probably the funniest (if somewhat later than four) was reading some parenting advice and then asking my mother ever so seriously if she thought I wasn’t pushing my boundaries enough.

            1. I only realized it was six months when mom told me they took my crib out and put it beneath the vineyard on a fine day in March. I remember looking up at green, confused at the change. That level of “fuzzy memory.” And yes, it’s the only time they did it, because they were doing something in the kitchen like painting.

        1. Well, I mean yeah, I was the abnormally well behaved one (me and the youngest, eh) to the point that mom told me I’d been false advertising…but no way in hell was I obedient 100% of the time.

          And my earliest memory is at about 18 months, so you’re not alone in that. There are large chunks of my childhood I don’t remember, but also large chunks I do.

          1. There are studies “proving” you remember no such thing, that any such memories are retroactively imagined.

            Who you gonna believe, government certified experts or your own feeble mind?

            1. The memories from Bumpass Hell, which I related to my mother as a “dream” when I was about 10, and which she replied, startled, were from the actual hike we took when I was all of two years old.

              We finally went back there a few years back. I was able to reasonably place the location on the boardwalk where the memories were formed. So yeah, my feeble mind with enough locational details to place a memory 35 years later.

              1. “Science” says that’s just a delusion. You ain’t trying to deny Science, are you?

                As Hall of Fame pitcher Dizzy Dean supposedly retorted to the scientist claim that a curveball’s break was an optical illusion, “Stand behind a tree 60 feet away, and I’ll whomp you with an optical illusion.”

          2. I had to remind MomRed that Sib was “the normal one.” She sighed deeply and said, “That’s right. I keep forgetting.”

  5. The problem — okay, one of the many — of the 20th century is that it was the first century … where a majority of humanity (at least in the west) was beyond that absolute need to root, hog or die.

    More concisely: Stupidity has stopped being unaffordable and instead is being subsidized. Bad ideas carry no immediate penalty and confer many immediate benefits. Encouragement of short-term risk.reward factors conditions the lab rats to squat when they hear “[Poop]!”

    The last thing any bureaucratic state desires is an informed populace. Take your Soma and leave the driving to your betters trained, certified experts.

  6. “They thought they were shocking us. Because of course we are sexually repressed.”

    Reminds me…

    A while back, a photo was circulated that was claimed to be Michelle Malkin wearing a bikini in college. It was a photoshop by a progressive. And why did a progressive go to the trouble of photoshopping Michelle Malkin’s head on another woman’s body? Apparently the thinking was that conservatives would be so shocked and appalled to see her in a bikini that they’d drop her like a hot potato.

      1. Not quite as funny as those who insist that Catholics are horribly, terribly, incredibly hung up about sex. . . .

        . . . . and have large families.

        I’ve been on some Catholic blogs where that stereotype got tossed around. The parents of many children were the ones most amused by its existence.

        1. I cherish the memory of some twit online informing me that I am a bitter, dried-up old lesbian virgin….

          When I was in my late 20s, happily married and very, very pregnant.

          1. There was the accusation that I was saying something because I couldn’t find a woman willing to bear my children. Pointing out that my handle correctly showed that willingness is not the problem didn’t even penetrated.

            That being the most extreme of the accusations of being a man.

        1. Yes. We are authoritarian and oppressive and sexist and stuff, so the thought that Michele Malkin or Dana Loesch might once have been so shameless as to let people *see* her skin in public will certainly make us turn our backs on her in utter disgust. Only the Enlightened are capable of being proud of their bodies.

      1. It is clear they are. Given the look at a slut walk and various fat pride things and so on I give some credence to Rush Limbaugh’s contention that the real purpose of feminism is to give ugly women access to the mainstream. It isn’t so much they are baseline unattractive, but that they do all they can to be unattractive then demand we treat them as if they were great beauties.

        1. While I was in the process of dropping out of Johns Hopkins, I happened across a table set up by some Feminist organization that was selling buttons that said “The average woman would rather have beauty than brains because the average man can see better than he can think.”. I bought one, and the girl (she wasn’t mature enough to rate ‘woman’) behind the table asked me why.

          “I’m going to give it to my girlfriend”, I said.

          “Is she really beautiful?”, she asked in a hostile voice.

          “Well, I think so, but she comes up to my chin and weighs more than I do.”

          She looked like I’d hit her in the back of the head with a board.

          The ‘ugly’ women of feminism aren’t ugly because they fail to meet some unrealistic level of hotness. They’re ugly because of the chip they carry on their shoulders.

          1. If I’d been this heavy when Elf and I were dating, I’d be demanding to know what you’re doing here!

            (I STILL can’t see what he sees, but I’ll take his horrible taste in women as a great bargain!)

            1. I fell in love with My Lady’s mind. I married my best friend at a time of life when I was farmtoo young and stupid to do anything that clever on purpose. You know you have the right life-partner when (s)he mangles a quotation, and you know exactly what was meant anyway.

      2. They are frightened because they feel that they can’t compete. They want to be Queen Bees. Have you seen TrigglyPuff?

      3. ‘Cause they know they won’t have them for long?

        Seriously, how many progressive women are attractive over 50? I swear, older progressive women are my biggest incentive to be a conservative; I don’t want to have a life full of thoughts that’ll make my face look like THAT.

    1. If you encounter anyone who thinks conservatives are sexually repressed you are openly invited to send them to my place to review my entire collection of “repression” how to manuals.

      Yeah, we’ll see who’s repressed.

            1. Elves in chains? All wrong. Its the angels that are in chains. Spinal Tap tells us so in Christmas with the Devil:

              The elves are dressed in leather
              And the angels are in chains
              (Christmas with the Devil)

              The sugar plums are rancid
              And the stockings are in flames
              (Christmas with the Devil)

              There’s a demon in my belly
              And a gremlin in my brain
              There’s someone up the chimney hole
              And Satan is his name

              And there is a video to go with it:

        1. Their efforts to épater le bourgeois remain rather a pathetic indictment of their imaginations. It’s so cute when the kiddies think they’ve invented a new sin.

          But when I woke up, Mom and Dad
          Are rolling on the couch
          Rolling numbers, rock and rollin’
          Got my KISS records out

            1. Heard them back in the 80’s at the State Fair. I was standing on a post, watching the stage while waiting for the rest of the family, Rick said Hello to me and then got on an over ambitious fan to leave the security guys alone please.
              They were great.

          1. That’s one of my favorite songs of all time.

            “Mother told me, yes she told me
            I’d meet girls like you.
            She also told me, ‘stay away;
            you never know what you’ll get’.”

        1. Uhm, no. I read under a Darkening Sky having heard about the S&M content.

          Loved the book, listen to the playlist in the back regularly (already knew most of it), and had lots of fun. Have the next book and the shorts collection in the queue (looking forward to our hostess’s story) but was very disappointed by the S&M.

          No, I have actual how to manuals. With step by step instructions and illustrations and sample agreements.

            1. Ah.

              I mean, when they are discussing tying each other down in case they are infected and the wife makes amorous noises at her hubby that was cute, but I was thinking “that’s it?”

                  1. I’ve never actually read Ghost. I might have if the valence were reversed, but probably still not. My mind tends to be more interesting than written erotica.

                    1. I have tried writing erotica and find mine has too little sex to work as erotica. I spend too much time setting up why the good stuff will be so good and then don’t get enough of the “good stuff” in compared to erotica books I’ve read.

                      Still like my good stuff better because it has that warm context that makes you feel like gravity has been suspended around your privates and they are in free fall before the fun even starts.

                      That said, “How to Write Erotica” was a good recommendation on other areas I fall flat in writing.

                    2. @snelson134: Believe it or not, that actually unsells me some. Not so much that I don’t like Mach Bolan/Able Team but…

                      Well, I don’t like Hooters and the entire breastaurant category. It isn’t that I don’t like the two ingredients, but generally I’d rather just mainline the pure stuff in each case because I find most hybrids, especially “action + porn” hybrids don’t turn out two well. I love Gor for imagery and setting and, with a bit of reality check, ideas but the actual execution, ie reading a book, is just inferior to other sword & planet or bondage porn straight.

              1. Yeah. No matter what John Ringo writes in any other novel series, it’s all but guaranteed to be tame compared to the Ghost books. And the very first novel is the one that inspired the phrase above from a reader.

                And by the way, Ringo himself has stated that he agrees with the sentiment. The books are part of a series that he never would have published. He wrote them as a guilty pleasure, and made the mistake of mentioning them to fans. Then Baen found out about them, practically insisted that he publish them, and the rest is history.

                1. I’ve had some of my fans complain about Sword and Blood with Oh, Sarah Hoyt, no. Which is ridiculous. Yes, there are sexual glimpses, but not …. shocking ones. I guess I’ve trained my fans wrong. Just wait till I finish that series 😉

                  1. It’s not the Sexx0rs it’s the psychological horror. Which you do really well and I can’t take.

                    The actual physical stuff isn’t a patch on what the gang in Cambodia, got up to, for exams.

                    1. Yeah. Honestly,if that thing hadn’t been core-dumped into my head, all three books, I wouldn’t ever have written them. But I need to.
                      Hey, it ends in redemption.

              2. That kind of interaction is common spousal flirting and not an indication that anybody wants (or would consent to) bondage.

                Ghost OTOH, originated as “the wanker novel” and has fairly* explicit descriptions of S&M activity, not merely when one character, who enjoys playing the sub, is captured and “tortured” by the enemy.

                The series is a particularly pungent exploration of Ringo’s common theme that “heroes” are often severely damaged people and not normally Dudley DoRights.

                *Fairly, meaning not overly gratuitous. The explicitness is necessary to understanding the characters’ drives.

                1. Ghost and its sequels are pretty tame compared to what passes for “romance” nowadays. At least some of it.

      1. The problem isn’t that Cnservatives are repressed. The problem if that Lefties lack ENOUGH repression. Seriously, I don’t need to know the details of your sex life or your fantasy life. Unless you are a great storyteller, I don’t WANT to know the details. What you do in your bedrooms (or the moist recesses of you minds) is (as the Lefties loudly assert) none of my business. For God’s sake, keep it that way by making it possible for me to NOT speculate.

        No person without inhibitions is fit to live in a polite society. Please develop some.

        1. Now you’re trying to shame them merely because they can’t be bothered to develop any self-control.

    2. /sigh
      I have such a wide range of what I consider “The Cute Chick” to look like.
      They could photoshop Michelle’s head onto a gorilla and I’d probably say, “Oh, I guess she has a couple percent more Neanderthal genes than the average woman.”

      1. And ironically, agitprop is pretty much the only way that Melania gets covered these days. Gotta keep her out of the public eye as much as possible.

      2. My response is “so, my horndog has scored hotter checks than your most recent one (Bill Clinton).”

        I mean, the man was President and the best he could do was Monica? I mean, she was cute although I think most guys would consider her a moped, but I want a President who can do better…like all five Spice Girls at once or something.

            1. Actually, I’ve thought for a long time that the second JFK was Ronald Reagan. Irish American; charismsatic; staunchly anti-Communist; wanted to get the economy going with tax cuts; pro-space . . . that’s closer than the average Hollywood remake. Clinton was at best the direct to video version, if not the porn version.

            2. Clinton was JFK with half the charm, a third the smarts, and a tenth the ethics.

              The Left keeps trying to nominate another JFK, without coming to grips with the fact that they would HATE JFK’s policies.

              1. Exactly! They *got* the re-incarnation of JFK. His name is Donald Trump and they think he’s Satan and want him to die painfully.

                1. Donald Trump is not JFK. JFK was, at best, an OK President with a first rate political machine put together by his Father (a real sonofabitch). If he had not been assassinated, he would be rated on about the same level as Herbert Hoover.

                  1. I admit to being young enough that all I know of Kennedy is the media legends. He seems like the last Dem president to at least *pretend* to care about the good of the country as a whole.

    3. It has long been recognized that the persons most likely to be attacked with various slurs denouncing racial, ethnic, sexual, religious and orientational characteristics are conservatives who have dared deviate from Progressive Orthodoxy’s decreed definition of their permitted beliefs.

      Malkin has amply documented the wide range of invective hurled at her by “Liberal” opponents. They do not attempt to refute her arguments, they just want her to shut-the-F-up.

    4. The Left, despite it’s control of the propaganda machines, keeps failing because they have no idea what details to make up. I’m sure there must be someone somewhere who would be horrified at the idea that (a) Michelle Malkin once wore a bikini, and (b) was photographed in it, but I can’t imagine who that person would be.

      Somewhat reminds me of the 60 Minutes Rathergate scandal. Even if the story had been 100% true, it would have been greeted by a collective shrug: no one was voting for GWB because they thought he had been a model member of the National Guard. The fact that they did such a bad job and got caught was just the hilarious icing on the cake.

      1. I think it was the same reason they were so intent on putting Trump in bed with the Russians. It was a ‘he does it too’ thing. Kerry was being hit by the swift boat vets and they figured could drag Bush down too so was equal.

  7. Phone refused to copy and paste:-(
    Anyway, the reason the left considers Nazis the right is because Stalin used that as the reason Hitler attacked and broke the treaty/arrangement. Their “socialist cousins” to the west “turned right-wing” and attacked. Otherwise he’s never have had an agreement with them. They also believe that Trotsky was too right-wing, so . . .

  8. “Jew-hatred correlates ONLY with authoritarianism BECAUSE a totalitarian state hates all divergent minorities”

    There’s another reason for the Authoritarian State to LOATHE the Jews; it is from the Jews that we get the idea that the Law is above the State. They held (and hold) that God must keep His word, and if God must obey The Law, nobody lesser has any excuse.

    Authoritarians HATE THAT.

    “This is the State above the Law,
    the State that exists for the State alone.
    [this is the gland at the back of the jaw,
    and an answering lump by the collar bone]”

    1. If my memory is correct it was also a well established target. Wasn’t the first pogram, just the first industrialized one.

    2. “There is neither Evil nor Good in Life,
      Except as the needs of the State ordain.”

    3. The modern left also hates Jews because to them Jews=capitalists, and they want to end capitalism, which in their minds necessarily means ending “Jews”. The Chicago “occupy’ crowd even put out posters expressly denouncing Jews as the 1% that controls the 1%. Their hatred of Jews is out in the open (as is that of Louis Farrakhan) and yet somehow Trump was responsible for a lunatic Trump hater shooting up a synagogue? Really?

      1. A lot of the Left hate Jews because they ARE (ethnic) Jews, and they hate their parents. In fact, of course, they hate their parents not because their parents were too strict (which is what they would tell you if you called them on it) but because their parents didn’t smack them enough to kepp them from wasting their lives in sordid idiocy.

        1. Had I not been suffering such a bad head cold their getting up in arms over Trump’s attack on George Soros being “anti-Semitic” I would have been rolling on the floor in laughter. I kept hearing the sotto voce complaint “that is our weapon of choice and he can’t use it!”

          1. Anti-Semitism is only allowed for black leftists like Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, or de Blasio administration Hate Crimes staffer James Polite, who apparently go confused about whether he was supposed to be preventing or perpetrating.

          2. Note that the same leftists trying to tear down every single statue that even mentions the Confederacy is utterly silent on Marcon’s plan to honor Vichy France leader Marshall Petain, who personally was involved in sending Jews off to concentration camps, because “Marshall Petain was also a great soldier during World War I” even though he made “fatal choices during the Second World War,” (Macron quote from speech in town in northern France).

            Meanwhile Soros himself is well documented as having been a Nazi collaborator. Whether he was or not, does not mean criticism of him is anti-Semitic. I note that the left routinely attacks Sheldon Adelson for his financial contributions to conservative causes. Of course, given his support for Israel, I suspect far more of the attacks on Adelson from the left are in fact at least partially motivated by hatred of Israel and Jews.

            1. We had a friend who was the daughter of WWII-vintage French Jews. When the Germans paid reparations for the transported the French Government stepped up and said, “We’ll take that; it is payment for crimes against the French People who happened to be Jews.”

              Gotta admire the chutzpah in their willingness to sell out their citizens going and coming.

              1. I have started calling the EU the Fourth Reich, because they want an all powerful central government that controls all of Europe, dictates every aspect of what everyone can and cannot do and is socialist. The EU’s antipathy towards Jews (notwithstanding their pro forma statements claiming they oppose anti-Semitism) makes it more and more apparent that it is likely to be closer the Third Reich than the First one.

      2. Eh, I tend to think its the reverse: they hate Jews and need to justify it to themselves, so they simply stick the Jews into the capitalist role. Anti-Semitism is remarkably flexible that way.

    4. Also, Jews keep their own set of books, so that when the State decrees “You bums have never had things so good!”, Jews can demur and reply, “It was much better than this fifty years ago, before your policies were implemented. See, you can look it up.”

      He who controls the Past controls the Present, and Jews dispute that control.

    5. For that matter, the Mosaic Law is one of the first law codes to establish there is no distinction based on position.
      Didn’t matter if you were a clan chief and you whacked a foreigner. You were going to die for it.

  9. Perhaps this is why they’ve decided, instead, to put their hands over their ears and lalalalala very loudly in the face of disproving facts?

    It seems to be the case. They seem to have decided that if they just believe hard enough and push hard enough reality will conform to their dream-world.

    The issue is they don’t sit at home, wishing real hard for Tink to live Hillary to be President – they are having public tantrums, mobbing up and breaking the windows in the Starbucks and McDonalds downtown and setting cars on fire, then assaulting (yes, shouting is assault) opposition party diners at random restaurants, and then terrorizing family members at homes of media figures with whom they disagree.

    Sounds like a criminal conspiracy to me.

    1. I tried saying there’s no such thing as Hillary. Unfortunately, she didn’t fall down and die.

  10. “I never understood why the left in the US consistently identified the right with Nazis, when the “right” in the US isn’t even blood-and-soil, but just “Oh, for the love of bob, leave me alone already” or why or how the left could decide we, mostly small l libertarians (what is known as constitutional conservatives) are “authoritarian.””

    I think part of it comes down to their tribalism. If you’re a part of the evil white male “majority” that supposedly controls all power, then you have two possible ways to maintain your white male power. You can be direct, and adopt a white supremacist tone, openly attempting to keep all of the other racial groups as well as women subservient to you. Or you can claim that it’s all a lot of nonsense, fighting over racial groups is a distraction, and no one should judge based on race. Of course, since whites are already “on top”, and open white supremacy is considered rude and taboo, a clever white supremacist would adopt the latter tactic since it would maintain the status quo of whites being on top, while hiding the individual’s white supremacy. And so, according to their thinking, anyone who claims to be against racial and gender tribalism is either secretly for it, or a dupe to white male supremacists.

    Further muddying the issue, comments that I very rarely see on other conservative blogs seem to suggest that there are some individuals who think that way. Those comments are usually carefully (and cautiously) couched along lines of, “Well, since the progressives are trying to destroy all of us whites anyway, we need to band together as a racial group to fight back…”

    1. Ah, the alt right. They’re marginally preferable to the control left but only in the sense that getting shot in the knee is better than getting shot through the head. Their map of the world is just as crazy.
      For the record, HERE, all those comments vanished when I banned Russian IPs. Make of that what you will.

      1. That’s curious…

        As for ‘alt-right’, I sometimes see people (established commenters, and not people whose names I’ve never seen before) over in Ace’s comments section pushing the argument that we shouldn’t abandon the term alt-right, just because the media has “slandered” the term by “linking” it with white supremacists. The arguments typically also involve abandoning the terms “political right” or “conservative” under the claim that the Republican Establishment has hopelessly tainted those terms. Ace hasn’t pushed that idea himself, so hopefully it’ll stay restricted to the occasional eruption in the comments.

        1. I can see the appeal, though. I’d not have considered myself alt-right at any point (I don’t think that a libertarian could) but I don’t think it began as anything much more weird than the basic notion of neo-con did. My recollection was that it was mostly the idea of an alternative-right… which shockingly is what people called themselves… to the “establishment” right. I do think that the people I knew who seemed to go that way were Statists. Lots of Republicans are… “Everything good should be compelled” except with different ideas about what “good” was, right? Certainly *certainly* they were populists. What do we even call populists these days? They used to be (frequently) called Democrats. Blue collar. Labor.

          But other than the nit-picking on my part about what I remember about the original coining of the label, I object on principle to the way we allow “the left” to define things for us, or slander and personally destroy people, and then count on some “reasonable” person over here saying about how wasn’t that too bad after all, so unfair but (insert thing or person here) has been tainted in the public eye, so we need to move on and find something (or someone) that hasn’t been tainted yet. Yet.

          I heard people saying that about Kavanaugh. So unfair, but how could he serve after this? /single tear

          What none of it is at this point, is practical really, at least not related to that term as there seems to be so many better hills to die on than that one. Just understand the tactic and be prepared for next time.

          1. I understood alt-right to stand in contrast to the establishment-right, typically in the context of complaining the establishment-right were effectively left of center squishes.

            I believe in never indulging the Progs in their word games as those always devolve into a heads-we-win, tails-you-lose conclusion. So knock over the table and be done with them.

            As for Kavanaugh, well, while the Notorious RBG is laid-up we’ll be having a 5-3 conservative court, won’t we? May she take all the time needed to fully heal.

            1. True, RES, and in that context I considered myself “alt-right.” That was before the anti-Semitic trolls showed up and ruined it for the rest of us.

            2. We’ll need it. Looking like it’ll be a 52/48 senate so murkie and collins can grandstand more if she does leave. MT, AZ, FL maybe GA not beyond margin of fraud. P

              1. Especially as Florida is exploring new dimensions to that margin.

                She illegally destroyed ballots in 2016. Now the Florida GOP worries she’s trying to steal a Senate seat
                Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., is angry. He has reason to be.

                Counties must report early voting and mail ballot voting within 30 minutes of polls closing, according to Florida state law, Rubio complained on Twitter Thursday. But Broward County has not reported those votes or the number of votes left to be counted, more than 40 hours after the polling station closed on Election Day.

                Republicans should be worried, and it isn’t just because Broward County is a Democratic stronghold that could tip the results of the still-contested races for Senate and even perhaps governor. It is because Broward County has a history of destroying ballots and skewing races.

                [END EXCERPT]

                As Stalin noted, who votes matters less than who counts the votes.

                1. Exactly what I was referring to. Ms. “Meth lab of the country” also found some 10k ballots just like iirc had 50k found for walker.

                  This is not going to end well at all. This brazen theft will push more people tottering on edge.

                    1. We’ve seen what happens when people lose faith in their election system.

                      It won’t be pretty here, either. But it’ll likely be quick.

                  1. They somehow think if they take away the ballot box there are no boxes left.

                    Or they think there is no way a bunch of yahoos with hunting rifles can defeat the US military.

                    They ignore their base assumptions:
                    1. Overwhelming majority of the US military would put down a revolt over it.
                    2. Said yahoos are more likely veterans than not
                    3. They spend the other 23 hours of the day whining how said yahoos have “assault weapons” that only the military should have (does any major military field regulars with only semi-automatic rifles these days?)
                    4. They talk about how guerrillas are something the US military can’t defeat and have been since Vietnam.

                    1. 1. I think that would depend more on who shot first and what if any organization. There is still a large enough megaphone that enough military would put it down. Again I’ve heard people saying they’d do it with glee.

                      2. Yes.

                      3. Isn’t current doctrine aimed single shot? And only one of mine is military issue and it ain’t a black plastic one.

                      4. Those guerillas tend to have external support.

                      It would not be hard to make life bad enough in rebel areas to get enough fish to leave the school. Meanwhile probably could do a pretty effective news blackout and lies.

                    2. 1. That is an open question I really would prefer not learning the answer to. My direct impressions are now two decades out of date. If I had to make a guess I would figure a 2:1 loyal ratio initially but with high attrition on the government side to routine desertion.

                      3. Not sure, but I was more remarking on the progs simultaneously claiming AR-15 are weapons of war with no civilian purpose and that AR-15s are totally useless to an armed uprising.

                      4. you don’t think armed insurrection in the US wouldn’t get a lot of external support. Admittedly not ideological but “get the US so tied up we can retake Taiwan/Ukraine/North Africa/wherever).

                      I don’t want to test my assumptions, but I am aware I have them and that they might be wrong.

                      The progs pushing towards that end either don’t know they are or have so confused their assumptions with proven facts that they don’t even worry about it happening.

                    3. I’d expect the majority of external support to be to the govt side. Ironically it may only be Russia or China that help supply and support an insurrection. In addition you have cartels and others coming out to play.

                      They are acting like religious zealots, at least the ones driving the lemming herd. God is on their side, or so they think. And given recent events I understand why.

                    4. I’d expect the majority of external support to be to the govt side.

                      I wouldn’t. Their goal wouldn’t be to help the insurgents (or the government for that matter). It would be to weaken the US. Anything that keeps us squabbling among ourselves and not interfering in their designs elsewhere would be a good thing to them.

                    5. It would probably start when a socialist prez overreaches. EU already made plain that they support the socialists US as opposed to the Republic US. So you would get something from Europe. Mexico just be cartels taking advantage. Russia (more likely) or China would be the most likely to meddle
                      But the fact that the US is the host for so many parasitic countries tosses a wrench there.

                    6. 4) There are significant differences between the US and other places that render this one less applicable than might first appear to be the case. The external support for guerillas has mostly been weapons, ammo, and training cadre. The US civilian population already has more guns and ammo than the entire world’s militaries combined. Military veterans, more than adequate to forming a “training cadre” outnumber the military, active and reserve, by about seven to one. Most of what “external support” has traditionally provided to guerillas we already have.

                    7. And if you point out that we ‘lost Vietnam’ because congress defunded our treaty to supply arms and materiel so South Vietnam could defend themselves, after the peace treaty was signed, they will look at you like you just stabbed the sacred cow in broad daylight.

                      Likewise, if you use that same event to point out how we can back out of a treaty once we’ve signed it.

                    8. Contemporary American History.

                      Perhaps the closest to an honest description of our Vietnam failure Hollywood ever provided.

                    9. 4. They talk about how guerrillas are something the US military can’t defeat and have been since Vietnam.

                      Yeah, No.

                      In spite of George Lucas’ and the rest of the Hollywood elite’s fervent wishes, sorry, the U.S. military won the war against the Viet Cong. After the Tet offensive, the VC were just no longer there on the field, and the war shifted to be the U.S. Army and ARVN against North Vietnamese Army regular formations, sent down from the North to continue the war against the South.

                      And the ARVN troops could have held the line against the North if Teddy Kennedy and the rest of the rat bastard Dems in Congress hadn’t stabbed our allies in the back, withholding ammunition resupply and air strikes, with Gerald Ford passively standing by. The South Vietnamese proved they could do the job when US air power tore up the NVA armored columns in 1972 during the Easter Offensive – the US bombed the crap out of the Soviet-style tank-heavy armored columns, and the ARVN backstopped the leakers.

                      The US lost in the end in Vietnam because Teddy Kennedy & Co. decided to make it so (after the peace treaty that let the US leave also left the NVA in place over the border in the South), and Gerald Ford had neither the will nor the political capital left to spend in just ordering US war stocks shipped over to Vietnamese ports and telling the Air Force to go kill the NVA again.

                      But that was by no possible definition any part or parcel of a guerrilla war – it was an armored invasion of the South by the North, a la Korea in 1949.

                      Look, you can ask any VC that survived who won the guerrilla phase of that war – well, you can if they not just survived Tet, but then survived the re-education camps that the North threw them into. You can’t have trained revolutionary cadre just running around loose in your newly united worker’s paradise.

                      Similarly, you can ask the survivors who the more recent guerrilla war in Anbar and the rest of western Iraq – well, the ones who changed sides to trigger the Anbar Awakening, so they survived. There again the US won conclusively.

                      Again, any loss in Iraq was driven by politics in the US. Guess which party.

                      And to be fair, one guerrilla war the US can be honestly judged to have not won is the one in Afghanistan, but #1, it’s NATO; #2, nobody has ever been able to win there; and #3, still in progress.

                    10. One reason they think that is they will happily sanction the use of weapons and tactics against Americans that they would call “war crimes” if used against foreign enemies. See Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan in ACW 1.0.

                2. Which is why this election cycle I sent as much money to places like TrueTheVote as I did candidates.

        2. We know the establishment media are commie traitors who hate us. They are the ones insisting that the only legit Alt-Right are the swastika panty people.

          So: Why do Good Conservatives en masse agree with and cheer on those who want to destroy them and all they hold dear on this one? At least some suspicion would be warranted, no?

          The kingdom of Kek or the Race Realist or the We Hate the Establishment Cons crews would seem to have equal claim to the Alt Right title. Why refuse to make the distinction?

          First thing the progs come for is the language. Always. Oddly, the one and only thing the blogosphere and the various conservative chattering classes can always conserve is the words they chose to use: A.D. Sex vs. Gender, etc. And yet they don’t. Is this related?

          Racism is a badly broken concept. When a Christian is honestly more appalled by someone promoting racism than atheism you know *something* hinky is going on. The Alt-right (not the Nazi LARPer crew) has figured that out. Exactly how and why and the best way to deal with it… not as much. The Kek crew have the best handle on it, practically speaking, because they don’t care: they just point and mock. Not much use for figuring it out. I do think the core problems are Jew-hatred and contempt for Blacks. Few care that much about racism vs. any other ethnic group except opportunists trying to exploit the Jewish/Black action (or copy America’s racial grievance industry for local fun and profit). Few are as systemically screwed up (and screwed over) as Jews or Blacks.

          Just one exemplar: Race-hatred is bad, yes? Why should it be worse than any other hatred? But, apparently it is.

          Still thinking on it… Thoughtful commentary would be welcome.

          1. Because it’s hatred for something that is not a choice and cannot be changed. That’s why.
            And yeah, I’m more ticked off at someone who claims to believe in the God of the Bible but denies that other people are made as much in His image as they are than I am at an atheist. At least the atheist is honest in his idolatry.

            1. This is helpful. It doesn’t explain the Juden-hasse issue (but I think that’s a separate problem, like sexism).

              If it’s nothing but Motte-and-Bailey language it should be easier to deal with than it is. But… well, never mind. Thanks.

            2. Exactly this, and it’s why they so eagerly embraced the idea of a “gay gene”.

              Overgrownhobbit, the Juden-hasse is because they are also looking at Jews as a separate race (shades of Hitler there), and also as a culture/mindset. They deny the possibility of the Divine, so they can’t really understand religion except as a more effective version of the brainwashing they use.

          2. Racism is a badly broken concept. When a Christian is honestly more appalled by someone promoting racism than atheism you know *something* hinky is going on.

            Most of the evangelical atheists I’ve been exposed to are hurting, while the evangelical racists wish to hurt.

            When a pattern is strong enough, it’s going to change your immediate reaction to what folks do, evne if you don’t have evidence that it fits the pattern, yet.

          3. Race-hatred is bad, yes? Why should it be worse than any other hatred?

            Even when race-hatred fails to meet the Left’s standard for “raaaaacism” it remains bigotry.

            Their denunciations of racism are primarily a tool for attacking certain castes and in no way reflect underlying aversion to the prejudice denounced. It is merely a stick with which they can beat decent people, a Kafka-trap from which the only escape is gnawing off one’s paw.

            1. Yeah. I thought so as well. But “racism” has been a shackle on good men and an enabler of real evil (see the Broward County election crone) and needs fighting. But how, without the falling off the other side of the donkey?

      2. Personally, I’m thinking of starting the SHIFT-HOME.

        Or maybe CTRL-PAGE UP.

        Mac keyboard users could do OPTION-Fn.

        1. Or, people interested in getting off this rock could be part of the OPTION-ESC movement!

      3. Well, I have made noises in their direction of the “if we are going to have no choice but to play by those rules then the Alt-RIght is my team because I refuse to just lie down and die.”

        Not that I want to play by those rules, but I still worry that we will be left with no choice (although less than I worried 2-3 years ago).

        The irony is I remember in the 90s when UMass started their whiteness studies BS and said the way to end racism was for whites to be more conscious of their whiteness. I remember saying back then the last thing you want is the largest racial group in the country becoming race conscious as a whole.

        They thought they’d get a nation of self-flagellating whites instead of the alt-right. Which says how well their models match human behavior. No one embraces an identity based on shame.

        1. “…when UMass started their whiteness studies BS and said the way to end racism was for whites to be more conscious of their whiteness. I remember saying back then the last thing you want is the largest racial group in the country becoming race conscious as a whole.”

          This, exactly.

        2. They are counting on the retention of the college indoctrinated and bleeding hearts and single women. Question falls to before or after consolidated grip on power

        3. “No one embraces an identity based on shame”

          Correction: no one who isn’t self-loathing embraces an identity based on shame. I suspect academics, particularly ones who specialize in grievance studies, have rather more self-loathing than the general populace.

          1. It’s like taking pride in your humility. If being ashamed is a mark of status, status-seekers will publicly shame themselves.

      4. I tend to describe them as fools who think if they join in on forging chains for everyone they’ll get a set with comfortable pads.

        1. Like the Aes Sedai who when she came to the lands of the Seanchan created the bracelets used to enslave her sisters only to scream in horror when she was enslaved with them after she helped them get all the rest.

          Strange aside, those bracelets and the descriptions around them are one of the best descriptions of kink mindset in SF/F I have encountered, the other being vamps and their blood dolls (forget the in series terms) in the Hollows books. Yet the former, especially, aren’t seen by people as sexual characters.

          That is another thing the “shock the conservatives” types miss. The truly great representation of alternate lifestyles from the mainstream are so well done as to not be shocking and arguably not even stand out.

          I doubt such a portrayal was Jordan’s goal, but I’m not nearly so certain about Kim Harrison. Oddly, the sexy payoff I wanted that whole series to get has not happened and I am over halfway through. She teased it a few times, but nada.

  11. “I don’t have body modesty, but I have body-shame, because frankly, it ain’t pretty.”

    So much this. More modest than some. Never been a “sex kitten”, just don’t pay attention to that stuff. But now, wouldn’t want someone to go blind because they see the extra padding & the sagging; yes, lets call it padding. No, it ain’t pretty..

    As for demonstrative sex. Don’t care what you & whomever you are with, or not, as long as you are both consenting & legal age, do in private, or where. But, omg, keep it private. If you don’t I will turn hubby loose to critique* & we will both point & mock. *He’s more eloquent.

    1. Yeah, if you’re going to sex as a performance art you best be really interesting when you do it.

      Given most porn stars aren’t, I’m not sure why so many people think they are (see Folsom Street Fair for plenty of examples)

          1. Baby duck noises. Then you can tell them how much their free show is worth, too. “Cheep cheep cheep”

      1. It’s really not that hard–well, “performance” more than “art”. You basically just have to choose a venue in which people are *already* horny and *already* in a mindset to find things interesting. At that point, it seems like just throwing forth some enthusiasm wins you the room, even a fair bit into suboptimal-appearing. (I mean, you’ve probably got a bunch more experience? But that’s how I’ve noticed it work at the not-particularly-city gatherings I’ve been to.)

        That said… corollary, if you’re trying to throw this at an uninterested audience, which pretty much by definition includes anyone who didn’t choose to be in an audience, you could be Twiggy impersonating Cirque du Soleil and still be only offputting. x_x (I hated how overblown that “Joshua Bell as a busker on the DC Metro” article was a decade ago, but it really did make a decent point about art and context.)

        1. Your first paragraph is funny given it is why a friend once said she always invited two swingers couples to any kink party she threw (in general they are very separate communities who crossover potential varies in time and place…most places I’ve been kinkers really look down on swingers).

          1. Huh! That makes sense–I’ve dabbled in both, but yeah, these experiences were swinger parties. (The kink group… seemed way more into drama than I was comfortable with, so I didn’t try that many. Haven’t found another group.)

            (I doesn’t seem to go the other way–being flogged in the basement at the swinger party got a pretty big audience. That’s probably why I forgot to differentiate.)

            Thanks for the Intel 🙂

            1. Well, she used the swingers as ice breakers…while everyone else stood around waiting for something to happen the swingers would disrobe and get the party going so to speak. Not so much they created an audience, but served as a catalyst.

              1. Heh! That makes sense. 🙂 Wish it worked more often at the swinger parties–it seems like half the time someone tries that, you wind up with awkward waiting that happens to include some naked people. X_x

    2. I think there’s something about this that the Politically Active Gays DON’T GET. Look, when you turn up at a (opressed group name here) Pride event wearing your outlandish bedplay costumes, you as good as FORCE people to imagine you and your sweetie putting them to use. And unless you are quite young and quite good looking (and somehow, these loons never seem to be) that doesn’t help your cause. I’m over 50, have bad teeth, weight more than I should, and am generally flabby. Granted there’s probably SOMEBODY that finds that a turn-on, but most don’t. I don’t dress to make you picture me nekkid. Grant me the favor of doing the same, k?

      1. This.

        You want to show $ORIENTATION_PRIDE by dress there are a ton of ways to do that.

        Wear your bar vest with all your patches and bar pins. You are showing off and being proud, but you are inviting conversation not forcing imagination.

        “All these pins are cool. Where do you buy them?”
        “Oh, you can’t, you get them as part of registrations for runs and other events.”
        “Oh, so you get them when you sign up and just put them on.”
        “Some people do, but others have traditions around it just like submariners pin on dolphins and pilots pin on wings.”
        “Really, can you tell me?”
        “I can, but I’ll warn you some can be graphic and others can be described in non-graphic ways but are still very TMI.”

        Now, you have given the person the ability to be curious if they want and ask or not and leave it there. You have come across as someone reasonably adult, sane, and polite who just has a different private life.

        You have actually make yourself MORE relateable.

        But most idiots want to freak the mundanes as much as possible. I get it is fun and I won’t protest small measures and asides designed to do that (see motes and beams), but these idiots just make us all look like insane freaks with no self control.

    3. As they say, just don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses. Or any of the rest of us mammals.

  12. Look, I was born with no body modesty.

    He, much the same. Back when I did community theater, some folk who were knew to it always puzzled me how they could be bothered by shared dressing rooms (basically one dressing room that everyone used simultaneously because we didn’t have either time or space to do it any other way). I mean, skin is skin. Big deal.

    However, I did learn to fake it. As I put it, “I have no body modesty. I simulate one for social purposes (and as a matter of courtesy–I own a mirror so I know nobody wants to see that).”

    1. Yeah, on the nobody wants to see that. But at 36, when I caught the neighbor’s teen sons spying on me (from their cottage. It was maybe 20 feet) as I came out of the shower, I DID throw open the window and shout “Bless you my children. It’s not many people who want to see a middle aged mother naked.”
      …. interestingly, they never did it again.

      1. A very long time ago, I read an article written by a journalist who had attended a nude beauty contest. The beauty contest had come up on the list of possible events for someone at the journalist’s organization to report on, and so the journalist writing the article had nobly taken it upon himself to shield his fellows from the difficulty of attending that particular event. *cough*

        On a more serious note, the journalist related that mid-way through the event, a female reporter from a different organization – apparently wearing a dress – had climbed up a nearby ladder to get a better view (a camera might have been involved, though I don’t remember for certain). And certain male members who were nearby craned their necks back in an attempt to get a surreptitious look up the woman’s skirt.

        Yes, while there were (presumably) attractive naked women on the stage, men in the audience were attempting to steal a glance up a woman’s skirt.

        The reporter closed out the article by noting that part (but only part) of what makes the whole nudity thing of interest for people is the taboo nature of it. As a result, you get men ignoring attractive women who are openly showing off their uncovered genitals, so that these men can make an attempt to get a quick peek at the covered genitals of a woman who isn’t trying to display them.

        1. Naked slave girls are inherently less interesting than those in Gorean silks or a stereotypical arabesque costume or even just a sarong worn so the front is easily opened.

          It is the combination of covering plus access so your imagination is excited as is those you are showing your girl off to that makes it erotic.

          This is also the principle that makes Dita von Tease so much better than a regular stripper (yes, she works on routines, but she does that because of this knowledge).

          It is what makes lingerie so exciting.

        2. What was the Ferengi complaint? “You humans cover your women to make people wonder what they look like!”

      2. Don’t have windows in any of our bathrooms, including the RV trainer. But my response would have been: “Hey! Do you WANT to be scared for life?” Even when I was the weight I should have been for my height & extremely fit, thought that way. I would surprise me to have anyone else want to look.

        1. Which reminds me of going to the hotel spa-hot-bath in Misawa City, back in the day. It was a wonderful public bath – I was told there was a hot spring involved. It was on the bottom floor of a high-rise hotel on the outskirts of Misawa City, and in the winter those of us in the female barracks purely loved to go there, to soak in the women’s pool. I swear, it was the only totally-warm place in the whole of northern Japan, when the snow was stacked up to two or three feet all around.
          The men’s side had a hot waterfall – but the women’s side had a lovely deep pool, designed to look like a natural pond, edged with pebble-shaped tile, and surrounded by natural-looking lava rocks. Anyway, the separation between the men’s and the women’s side was — at one point – a chest-high bamboo lattice woven about with artificial vines.
          And … there were always very young Japanese males looking over that barrier, if they had seen Caucasian or Afro-American women going into the female side of the baths. I guess they wanted to see if the carpet REALLY matched the drapes … The only way to get rid of them, if one had the nerve for it, and most of us did, as we were in the military in the first place — was to stand up, as bold as brass, look them in the eye and wave.
          The boys would slink away, then, hideously embarrassed.

            1. Relations between the sexes in Anime are the fantasies of a class of people (Otaku) who lack the social skills or courage to approach the opposit sex. Since the broader culture of which they are a part also has daunting problems with intimacy (in part because of crowding) their fantasies sell.

              The Japanese are a far more alien culture than one realizes until you start looking more closely..

    2. Way back when, as a young college student, I went to my first proper life drawing class…I spent about ten seconds wondering if I (a devout Mormon, and we do have certain Views regarding bodies on display) ought to be shocked or not…and then had my epiphany: Nude people are funny looking. Even attractive ones. We’re funny looking. (That’s not to say I don’t admire, say, a naked Hugh Jackman, but still. Funny. Looking.)

      Never bothered me a bit after that.

      1. Yep, but then I came around the other way after 3rd life drawing class, and I realized ALL of them are beautiful. Even the old, out of shape and/or multipierced. I started loving the shapes and the dark and light. I might be wrong in the head.

        1. On the DVD release of (the original) THE PRODUCERS, the extras include a number of interviews, and the woman who played the secretary (Lee Meredith), and my God she was more beautiful in the interview than she was in her 20’s! Ulla was a callow blonde chick, comma, one each. Nubile, but not really interesting.

        2. No, it’s not wrong in the head. It is an artist thing–I have frequently told people that the only ‘ugly’ people I’ve ever met are the ugly on the inside types. It sounds trite, but it’s true: human beings are also astonishingly beautiful, in all their forms (and naked or clothed). Unless they’re awful people, in which case all the physical beauty in the world does them no good.

          I have an entire pinterest board dedicated to photographs of all kinds of people–and many of the photos are in fact of the elderly, usually laughing, who have the most beautiful and interesting faces of them all.The wrinkles are wonderful.

          (Most of the other photos are of kids, heh. Only a few are of the young-adult-and-conventially-beautiful. It’s not that they aren’t, it’s just that they aren’t as interesting as the very young or the very old.)

      2. It’s pretty obvious when you remove the sexual attraction stuff that messes with your brain. If you’re attracted to one gender, and not the other, then you’ll probably giggle or roll your eyes when confronted with a naked individual of your own sex.

      3. I had a similar epiphany in my 20’s when I first started running into homoeroticism, and wondered why it bugged me.

        Unless you are hormonally attracted to one or more of the participants, sex is an ungainly business that reminds us far too much that we are, on some level, animals. Thus straights are far liklier to be put off by homoerotic porn than gays are by straight porn, because the gays are likely to be sexually attracted to half of the straight pair, at least a little.

        It isn’t all ‘homophobia’, it’s ‘this signal is noise’.

    3. It is my experience that nobody is *born* with body modesty. It’s hard to stop 3 year olds from taking off their clothes and running down the street. It’s a learned behavior. Some of us just learned to obey the forms to get along without losing an appreciation for nudity while others internalized a “nudity is shameful” message. I don’t know whether that correlates to the parental teaching style or not.

      1. “I don’t know whether that correlates to the parental teaching style or not.”

        Definite correlation to the parental teaching style. To the point where I’m having to start barring my ten-year-old from coming in the room when I’m changing, since it’s going to get weird for him very soon and I’d rather he not be embarrassed. (I’m a theatre geek, so while we’re not walking around the house nude, I haven’t been visually horrified when dealing with nekkid kids, especially as I still have a little one who needs to be forcibly told to put his pants back on after using the bathroom.)

        At least none of my kids seem to be the streaker types. Probably because any kid who refused to get dressed on a brisk morning got swept into the garage and sat on the cold concrete floor. Amazing how that created incentive for putting on clothing…

    4. Back in my theatrical days it was primarily a matter of decoding community norms so as to avoid inadvertent violation of standards. When you are new to a group you tend to hang back and watch for cues.

  13. “…What Harvard’s Nathan Glazer said of the original study—“the authors of The Authoritarian Personality seem quite oblivious to authoritarianism on the political left, and so set a precedent for studying authoritarianism without need for unpleasant self-examination”—may not be true to the letter of these present-day updates……”

    From the long block quote… I was just struck by the last phrase because OMG is it true to the letter *today*. Today it’s all, I’m not authoritarian because I only want to force you to do GOOD things. Trump (you, whoever, Koch and libertarians and evil conservatives) are authoritarian BECAUSE YOU WON’T LET ME.

    And then double down extra hard on the part about not needing any unpleasant self-examination. And anyone who says you ought to “look in a mirror” is proving that you’re correct because they don’t have an argument but attack you instead.

    It’s unfalsifiable by design.

  14. And the bits about philosophy being a pretty coherent picture, true because it all holds together in a nice and pleasing way, but never being applied to real life struck a cord as well.

    And yet, explain that people don’t “act that way” in real life and it will be dismissed as “because they’re mean.”

    I always sort of wonder… what if it *was* because they’re mean? Your beautiful picture is STILL not going to work in real life.

      1. I don’t care how many people you can get to (metaphorically) clap hands for Tinkerbell to live, we still need to budget for the electricity that battery powered cars will suck up, we still need to have stable power generation that wind and solar won’t provide, we still need to have a plan for dealing with the toxic side effects of paper recycling and dead car batteries, and decomissioned wind turbines and solar cells.

        So many ‘solutions’ that are worse than the ‘problems’.

        1. Oh, and incidentally, assuming we overcome the technical problems with running a modern society on ‘100% renewable energy’; that’s a heck of a lot of energy you propose to take out of a dynamic system where it is presumably already doing SOMETHING. What effect will THAT have on the environment?

        2. Wonder if we could power with their clapping.

          It’s like the IFLscience crowd doesnt. They love the trappings of science on their religion.

          Me, I’d rather use nuke

              1. Like Medical Marijuana, I think the benefits and uses of wind and solar power are greatly exaggerated. Unlike Medical Marijuana, I think the downsides are serious. Both wind turbines and solar cells use rare and toxic elements in their construction, meaning they damage the environment to produce and at the end of their service life, when they must be disposed of. I have seen analysis proportions to show that both use more energy in their creation than they will produce in their expected lifetimes, though I’m not sure how real that is.

                And then there’s the question I’ve raised elsewhere; both solar and wind involve taking energy out of a dynamic system. What does that do, exactly? Is anyone even ASKING?

                1. Items with low power needs in remote areas. Not anything with environmental as much as location. Same reason you had wind powered pumps on plains.

  15. Its no different than all of the 79 sexes, agender bathrooms, etc. By saying something you make it reality. Its Goebbels big lie applied to reality. And with the megaphones they have it is still plenty doable

      1. Speaking of which, California had a very near brush with that. But I’m happy to report that the attempt to lift the state’s restrictions on Rent Control failed at the ballot box on Tuesday (and by a decent margin, too).

        1. Yeah. But the idiocy of Prop 11 passed (which wasn’t going to force EMTs to work on their breaks in the event of an emergency, since they already did that. It just keeps them from getting paid for their interrupted breaks.) And So Many Bonds.

          1. And the insane “be nicer to chickens” prop passed, so expect even yet higher food prices in CA.

            1. That didn’t really surprise me. What surprised me was that every single bond measure passed *EXCEPT* for the one that was to build more water storage infrastructure in the state.

              1. The water storage one wasn’t well-designed. And the Sacramento River watershed is still nervous about the proposed Delta tunnels, so anything that might lead to that is apt to get axed.

                    1. Yep – 400+ miles of concrete canals to guard 24/7/365.25, along with several really big pump stations, all the electric lines powering them, and those big pipes up across the mountains N of LA.

                      Makes one wonder about deciding to live in LA.

              2. Why would they want more water for those deplorable redneck farmers? That’s the only reason there’s a shortage /s

              1. Ya. There needs to be some sort of way to get buy in from public on state questions do that they are clear and honest. Most seem to be convoluted and doublespeak.

                And I have met very few medics or techs that haven’t dumped a burger or sandwich. So it’s not as if an actual emergent call (assuming competent dispatchers) won’t get an equivalent response.

      2. In long term, yes. It’s like that bridge collapse back in 2000s. Underlying structure was just waiting to fail. Took 30 years but eventually gave way.

        Question falls to how many autocrats will we pass thru when their reality gives way because gonna take a lot of people with em.

  16. I identify as a 25 in really bad shape.( Except to qualify for the ancient and decrepit discount.)
    You know you are getting old, when you are thankful when it doesn’t hurt.

  17. “But it’s going to be a hard, hard road to a place where they realize they’re wrong.”

    HA! That’s never going to happen. They’ll go to their graves swearing they were right, no matter what calamity befalls them.

    That’s the thing about people with delusions. They’re deluded. ~:D

  18. Over the weekend we had a visit from one of C’s friends, who wanted to talk about politics. She said something about libertarians and conservatives being the same thing. So I said that really there are significant differences, and went on to say that people on the left tend to think that conservative, fascist, libertarian, and nationalist are all basically the same thing—and she really didn’t get the idea that there was a difference. I was kind of struck dumb.

        1. I recall that the very first article I commented on here had some mention of one of your ex-editors (?) saying that someone who wanted to ban the internal combustion engine must be a libertarian. It seems any number of people on the Left have absolutely no idea what any of these labels mean, only that they’re all BADWRONG, and thus, interchangeable.

      1. I didn’t even try. I was trying not to be contentious, and at that point I was in danger of saying something contentious. And really I was too perplexed to think of an intelligent comment.

        1. I honestly favor text for that, got my cousin to elaborate on what he thought we thought– he can’t get that we think gov’t should be limited, that it’s a tool. Like a hammer.

          He views it as a kind of dial, he wants more, we want as close to none as possible.

          I can imagine the gobsmacking what the hey involved.

        2. Avoiding being contentious is where employing Socratic Agreement is a useful technique. It is surprisingly easy to agree them into a corner so absurd they deny the walls.

    1. Yeah, and there’s hardly a whit of difference between Catholics, Episcopalians and Mormons — they all have excessively complex pointless rituals and their prayer leaders dress funny.

      Unlike the differences between Socialists, Communists, Trotskyites, Fabians, Maoists …

  19. ” And in America today anti-Semitism is far more prevalent on the left than the right, something most American Jews don’t seem to notice possibly because they’re beguiled by the philosophy.”

    Yes. American Jews are, for the most part, Jews. We are a group self-selected for millennia for susceptibility to ideologies. Just in case anybody here hasn’t heard my explanation before, I’ll explain why that is relevant.

    The people in Judah who lost the war against Babylon around 600 BC ( were probably a pretty normal group of Levantine Semites. Some of them were monotheistic. Many of them weren’t (ask Jeremiah if you don’t believe me, But that was about twenty six centuries ago.

    Many exiled Judeans probably found it prudent to join the mainstream culture that defeated them. You can find their descendants in Iraq. But a few listened to people like Ezekiel. maintained their Judaism, and eventually moved back to Judah when Cyrus allowed them to do so. When they met with the descendants of the lower class people who weren’t worth deporting, and those the Assyrians exiled there who intermarried with them, they decided their worship of God wasn’t pure enough (that’s how we got the Samaritans).

    Later, Judea went through several hands. All of those hands were either Hellenistic or deeply influenced by Hellenistic culture (even the Jewish one, The road to wealth and power went through Hellenism. This was especially true after most (presumably non-Hellenistic) Jews decided it would be a good idea to rebel against Rome ( It took three wars to convince the Jews that fighting Rome was a losing proposition, despite the fact that the Romans could really hammer that point home (not a figure of speech – actual nails were used to attach captured rebels to actual wooden crosses).

    Since then, in almost(1) all times and places, Jews were surrounded either by Christians or Muslims. Both religions are universalist, they believe that it would be best if everybody converts to their religion. Jews with common sense could significantly improve their position by converting.

    Modern Jews are culturally descended from their long process of self-selection. Either their genetic ancestors had been Jews for the entire period or or somebody in their background (possibly themselves) decided to convert into such a culture. As a result, we tend to be extremely susceptible to ideology. Those of us who rejected Orthodox Judaism, or whose ancestors did, often find a different ideology to fill its place.

    (1) Exceptions were the pre-Islamic Zoroastrians (not since the 700s), and the tiny Jewish communities in India and China.

  20. Jorge Luis Borges once called Don Quixote the least necessary of books. Nothing would change if it had not been written.

    Sorry to get distracted by a side point, but whether Don Quixote qualifies or not, who the @#$%! is Borges to decide if books are “necessary” or not? And by what qualification is a book “necessary”? If Don Quixote made someone laugh during a difficult period in life, perhaps when he would otherwise have fallen into depression, would that make the book “necessary”? Or is it only if the book somehow causes a political revolution in Whereveristan that it becomes necessary?


    Okay, I’ve got that out of my system. We can return to our regularly scheduled discussion.

    1. Borges would be prudent to avoid opening any discussions ranking “least necessary novels” as he would certainly be high on the list.

      It is possible the novel would have developed as it did without Cervantes’ example, but there can be no doubt about the (non-)effect of removing Borges’ oeuvre.

      1. I had to giggle and roll my eyes when I was reading a short bio of Borges. He’s not considered a Latin American writer or a “magical realist” by the proper lit-critters and literati because he wasn’t a Marxist. Since he suffered from BadThink, he doesn’t count.

  21. I never understood why the left in the US consistently identified the right with Nazis, when the “right” in the US isn’t even blood-and-soil, but just “Oh, for the love of bob, leave me alone already”

    It’s actually pretty simple when you think about how they look at things.

    1) Conservatives (libertarians etc.) are all whites, because Leftist Identity politics say it is so.

    2) White supremacists are also white, ergo, all white people are white supremacists because we all share one same identity politics pool, so what is true for some, is true for all.

    3) It isn’t much of a leap from white supremacists to neo-Nazis and/or Nazis because that’s how it is in the movies (no it isn’t lost on me who makes the movies).

    Trump supposedly “proved them right” when he went “Nationalist” for his campaign. There still are a few among the Left smart enough to remember that the Nazi movement was also a “Nationalist” movement. Although apparently not smart enough to know that the Nazi’s National SOCIALIST movement is pretty much the opposite of Trump’s National CAPITALIST movement.

    1. Either not smart enough, or able to hold two definitions in head. Sanders straight up used the name for his philosophy

      1. I stared, literally slack-jawed, when I saw that interview clip the first time. Then I wanted to reach into the screen and Gibbs-slap him in the name of history teachers everywhere.

        1. This- because they are Woke, they are Superior to the grunting, racist masses of typical white flyover cows.

  22. “And in America today anti-Semitism is far more prevalent on the left than the right, something most American Jews don’t seem to notice possibly because they’re beguiled by the philosophy.”

    I believe this is because many are over-weighting history…even mis-perceived history…and under-weighting what should be the evidence of their eyes. There is a perception that Christians are the enemies of Jews–based on, for example, pogroms led by priests in Czarist Russia, and ignoring the generally friendly attitude of American Christians toward Jews…and that Democrats are friends of Jews–based on an inherited high regards for FDR, despite the fact that evidence shows him to have been something of an anti-Semite.

    It can be very dangerous to identify your friends and your enemies based soley or excessively on history. A vivid and rather chilling example: In the Polish town of Eishyshok at the time of the German invasion in 1941, many of the local Jews viewed the coming of the German troops with equanimity. The town had been occupied during the First World War, and the German officers and troops of that time had been very well-behaved and even helpful, and those residents who had been POWs in Germany during WWI spoke highly of their good treatment. Too many of the town’s Jews failed to realize that “German soldier” meant something different in 1941 than it had in 1914. Analogously, “Democratic politician” means something very different in 2018 than it did in 1960.

    1. There also seem to be a significant number who don’t consider it to count if a generally positive regard is rooted in, for example, considering Judaism to be an important historical root and influence of Christianity. Which I kind of get, I guess, even if a lot of the people engaging in this sort of rejection consider the only proper approach to be SJW-ism.

      1. It only counts as “caring” if you care for the RIGHT reason. See, all these idiots on Twitter going “Don’t care about women because you have a daughter; care about them because they’re People!”

  23. I haven’t read Brave New World decades. It was a book that really turned me off with it’s totalitarianism and baby creches. The the more the left bumbles about pushing their abominations on us, the more I think I need to go back and re-read it. Because it seems like so many of them are using it as a vision of what they want.

    1. Given how far left Wells’ politics were, I’m no longer sure he intended Brave New World as a dystopia.

    2. In school, that one bothered me so much, I wrote my book report on why I DIDN’T finish reading it… And got a “B”.

      Now that I’m older and more thick skinned, I wonder if I should go back and actually read it.

      1. It’s a good book, and a post-scarcity society devoted to people’s “happiness” is a far better foundation for a tyranny than the drab world of “1984”.

        1. Still any one size fits all policy is wrong. People are different. Just look at peoples biochemistry. All are wildly different.

          1. Huxley’s dystopia, though, definitely wasn’t “one size fits all.” They deliberately, artificially shaped people to fit a hierarchy, from Alpha Plus to Epsilon Minus (or maybe Double Minus). Each level in the hierarchy had its own assigned role to play. Those biochemical differences weren’t denied, but intentionally cultivated. They even had the comparatively humane policy of sending their dissidents, at least the smart ones, off to islands where they could cultivate wild ideas without infecting anyone. I’ve read a lot of nastier dystopias, starting with Nineteen Eighty-Four.

            1. Even then, part of the novel is about how this pleasant utopia can become a hell for the occasional odd

              1. Yes, well, I never thought of it as a utopia. It’s not as horrible a dystopia as, say, Orwell’s, but mainly because they might take people like me and send them to islands. But I think it’s clear that Huxley detested it.

                My real point was that BNW wasn’t “one size fits all”; they deliberately engineered people to be unequal.

        2. Oddly, I liked 1984 when I read it at age 12. I read Brave New World at 15 and was both squicked and scared. Not that it’s a BAD book, but I’ve never reread it.

    3. I personally find BNW more likely than 1984 – at least, at first. Later on we might drift into 1984. But BNW would be more likely as the first step. IMO, everyone should read BNW at least once.

      Fun fact – Aldous Huxley taught George Orwell, and the latter sent his old teacher a copy of 1984 after it was published. There’s a letter you can find online with a little searching that Huxley sent to Orwell after finishing the novel describing what Huxley thought about it.

      1. Reading about the Chinese “Social Capital” implementation strongly suggests that BNW is underway.

        1. Oops! Reverse that: 1984 is underway.

          In China, at any rate.

          Fupid stingers, not typing what I was thinking.

      2. From the letter:

        Within the next generation I believe that the world’s rulers will discover that infant conditioning and narco-hypnosis are more efficient, as instruments of government, than clubs and prisons

        ‘Social Justice’ indoctrination and Ritalin for the win . . .

  24. Someone really needs to write down what’s happening, chisel it on stone, and hide it somewhere so that future generations can dig it up and figure just what the hell happened to start the new dark ages.

  25. “I never understood why the left in the US consistently identified the right with Nazis, ”

    Useful idiots. Stalin said so, and all the lefitsts obediently fell in line. Or rather Stalin decreed that anyone who disagreed with him was Right. The other consequence was a latter deduction.

  26. Heh. Mark Steyn’s election analysis is spot on:

    [T]he narrowness of the House victory does mean that anything they try on in that regard will cause them at least as many problems as it causes the President.

    ~As for the Paul Ryan House, neither Trump nor his base will miss it. The reason? Headlines like this:

    Republicans Surrender on Trump’s Border Wall to Push Paul Ryan’s ‘Tax Reform 2.0’

    As I commented way back when:

    Gee, it’s almost like they want to lose.

    And so they did. Me again:

    As I said back at the dawn of the new Administration, Trump has a base and the Democrats have a base, but it’s not clear to me the Congressional GOP has a base.

    Just so. Ryan’s contribution to the last two years is nicely summarized by our pal Dennis Miller here:

    Paul Ryan is ostensibly a friend who can only make Trump look bad. Pelosi is an enemy who can only make Trump look good.

      1. The lawyer leading the Democratic Party efforts is Mark Elias, the same lawyer who hired Fusion GPS and engineered the farcical Steele dossier and acted as Hillary campaign and DNC money launderer.

        This is going to get very, very ugly, and may be what turns the cold civil war, hot.

        1. WHY do we have to put up with blatantly forged results. You have them in CO — it’s obvious, a state that voted down every tax initiative wouldn’t elect “spend, tax, spend” socialist governor. When they fake ballots they only fill in the “important” things — and now these. The country can survive Chicago. How many more can we survive?

          1. Broward County Head Supervisor of Elections was actually caught destroying ballots in a 2016 congressional election and still has her job, because the Democrats who won the county want her to act as an election fixer. As an example of what is going on, they supposedly “found” a box of provisional ballots “mixed in with other stuff” in a room at one of the polling places, TWO DAYS after the election; i.e. they found, meaning created, the ballots after deciding how many more votes they need to create to steal the election.

            1. The same chain of custody principles employed in criminal evidence proceedings need to be applied to ballots. As we have no idea whose ballots are being rejected, NOBODY can claim their ballot wasn’t counted.

              Not that there won’t be people aplenty to so complain, at minimum wage with scheduled breaks.

            2. I think the problem is they figured out how many votes they would have to “find”, and think that they can manage that many.

              My opinion is, since Broward County Supervisor or Elections is (perhaps arguably) breaking election law. Someone (Meaning Federal Law Enforcement) needs to get in there and start investigating, if only to protect the people’s confidence in this election, and in the voting/counting system in general.

              Granted, I can only go by what I’ve read/heard since I’m not a Lawyer and don’t know enough about election law here in Florida. But I’m pretty sure Rubio does have at least a clue, and he’s been twerpinating up a storm on the subject.

              1. So far today, Florida Governor Rick Scott got judges to issue orders regarding the ongoing shenanigans in Palm Beach and Broward. Reportedly, after several hours of blatant disregard of those orders, he has ordered Florida law enforcement officers to seize all ballots in those two counties.

  27. As a Christian and a pastor, I contend that every civil government is a theocracy. The question is who or what is the professed god of the system. That deity is easily known by asking who is the highest authority in this system, whose name cannot be blasphemed, whose will must be done.

  28. What Is A Theocracy?

    Since a certain person has “claimed” that there are Christians currently “working toward/wanting a Theocracy”, I thought that I should give my opinion.

    The basic dictionary definition is “Rule By Clergy/Priests”.

    Iran is a Muslim Theocracy because there’s a Supreme Council of Muslim Religious “Experts” that have the power to over-ride the Secular Authorities.

    A Theocracy doesn’t mean “Secular Laws Based On Religious Beliefs” when the Citizens have a say in the creation of such Laws. After all “Thou Shall Not Murder” is a Religious Belief and we have Laws against Murder. Somebody might claim “That’s Different” because there are Secular Reasons for laws against murder but quite frankly there is plenty of overlap between “Religious Reasons For Laws” and “Secular Reasons For Laws”.

    In the US, we have hundreds of different Christian Churches and plenty of non-Christian Religious Groups.

    So any idiots wanting to create a Real Theocracy is going to face plenty of opposition from Religious People/Organizations let alone from non-Religious People.

    IMO It is one thing to whine about “some Bad Law” but another thing to claim that people supporting that “Bad Law” want a Theocracy.

    To be Blunt, I find it very hard to NOT see stupid claims about “They Want A Theocracy” as Anti-Religious Bigotry.

    Hey! Where Did This Soapbox Come From? 😈

    1. What gets labeled as “theocracy” here in the US is usually any law inspired by the religiously-inspired moral beliefs. These are NOT equivalent. It may be a good law, it may be a bad law, but it isn’t “theocracy.” Not is it typically even remotely unconstitutional.

      The way liberals throw around the word “theocracy” is similar to the way they throw around “fascist.”

      1. Most annoyingly, folks tend to make a leap from “I don’t like this law, someone I know that told me something vaguely similar had religious reasons, it MUST be a religious law!”

        And then when you go and LOOK at stuff, it’s usually more pattern recognition. Like laws about bar closing times, or boarding houses– it’s basically anti-frat-boy laws. They don’t care about the religion, they care about those guys’ behavior being obnoxious.

        I swear, it’s like Terry Pratchett’s vampires and flinching back from anything that vaguely sort of a little looks like a religious symbol.

          1. HeHe, HaHa, LOL

            Current generation must have sex because you must practice to have the

            Prior parental generation had sex only X many times (once for each kid).

            The subsequent generations (kids/grandkids) are celibate. Obviously the resulting grandchildren are all divine miracles!!

            Hey. Now. Didn’t say it was logical. It just is …

      2. any law inspired by the religiously-inspired moral beliefs

        Any law the speaker doesn’t like. Reactions to pointing out they are logically bound to object to the Civil Rights Acts are varied but never impressive displays of logic and common sense.

        1. Their objection s to us imposing our outdated, repressive antediluvian morals on them, not on them imposing their enlightened woke morals on us.

          Sheesh, as if earth-despoiling and earth-preserving were equivalent.

  29. Why the Left does not Fear the Right.
    1. We NEVER do anything. We say we will if things get bad enough but things never get bad enough.
    2. We don’t demonstrate, protest, yell and scream, etc. Because we have jobs, and payments to make, kids to raise, and WE don’t think demonstrations and protesting is FUN.
    3. We have been too polite. Look at George Bush. They bashed him 24/7, he just smiled back at them. This is one reason They are so crazy with Trump. They don’t know what to do with a Republican who fights back.
    4. The Republicans have let themselves be walked all over for at least 60 years and they have done nothing to fight back or even seriously tried to.

    So WHY should the Democrats fear the Republicans about anything? History has shown that the Republicans are nothing but hot air and will do nothing.

    The problem is Republicans fear the LAW, it can destroy a person’s life. Just being accused can destroy your life. So the first hurtle is the cause has to be worth loosing everything. That becomes a rather HIGH BAR.
    The Left has no such worries. Getting arrested at a protest, no big deal. So they have NO IDEA of the level of fear of the LAW. They see NO HIGH Bar. Because they cannot see it, they believe that Republicans and anyone on our side is just windbags, all talk and no action, playing with our guns because we can no longer get it up.

    If the day does come when that HIGH BAR is jumped, the surprised look on the Left’s face will be icing on the Cake.

Comments are closed.