Archive for January, 2015

One out of Every Five Will Get Raped

Monday, January 5th, 2015

Pretty vicious. But when devastation is heaped upon an argument merely by taking the points seriously, the damage was deserved.

Remember, if it’s a statistic, and democrats repeat it over and over again, it’s probably bullshit. It’s a simplistic formula, but it works.

Reynolds University. The university where nobody gets raped.

Men Who Don’t Work

Monday, January 5th, 2015

From about a month ago, the New York Times has an animated graphic that will shock the shit out of you.

In the late 1960s, almost all men between the ages of 25 and 54 went to work. Only about 5 out of every 100 did not have a job in any given week. By 2000, this figure had more than doubled, to 11 out of every 100 men. This year, it’s 16. (People in the military, prison and institutions are excluded from these figures.)

Of course, the economy was stronger in 2000 than it is today, with a lower official unemployment rate — the share of people not working and actively looking for work — than today. But for prime-age men, the rise in official unemployment explains only about one-third of the increase in not working.

The remaining two-thirds is made up of those who are not working and not looking for work. [bold emphasis mine]

Now, why is that? We would be well served to, before working too long & hard looking for the answer, first acknowledging: There are a lot of loud, noisy people who like it that way. Or think they like it that way. Men working: Bad. Men not working: Good.

I dissent. Item #3 of my 42 definitions of a strong society:

3. Men do things. Able-bodied men, of all ages, are knights. They defend women, children, old and handicapped people, from trifling inconvenience as well as danger and bodily harm. They never, ever remain sitting when a lady approaches.

And…they work.

“Why Are Fascists Portrayed as Conservatives?”

Monday, January 5th, 2015

Bill Flax, writing at Forbes, linked by Trevor Loudon:

In Argentina, everyone acknowledges that fascism, state capitalism, corporatism – whatever – reflects very leftwing ideology. Eva Peron remains a liberal icon. President Obama’s Fabian policies promise similar ends. His proposed infrastructure bank is just the latest gyration of corporatism. Why then are fascists consistently portrayed as conservatives?

Well obviously, the answer is: Because it is friendly to the liberal agenda to portray fascists as conservatives, and what liberals want, they get. But that raises the question: How come it is that liberals keep getting what they want, when it comes to writing down history?

The short answer is, because they do most of the talking.

Long answer is, we have reached an era in which talking has become more-or-less mutually exclusive from doing. If you can manage to do enough talking, and recruiting others to do your talking for you, within a bureaucratic mess that will tolerate no dissent, you’re probably not a producer of consumable goods. If you’re a producer of consumable goods, you are probably too busy to do much talking. Which is a shame, because as a producer of consumable goods, you have to make sure your shit works or else you aren’t going to have a paycheck tomorrow. Which suggest that when you do get around to talking, your talking might be on the boring side, but there’s merit in it and it’s a worthy decision others make to go ahead & listen to it.

When you talk for a living, on the other hand, your paycheck comes in when you…talk. And you know what you’re saying must be right because you…we-ell…say so. Your friends all say so. And they know they’re right because they agree with you. They know you’re right because you agree with them.

It even works with economics, in which we can see with our own eyes what works and what doesn’t. Nevertheless we still have “economists” who say Obama’s policies are good, and would be even better if only He could get more power. In other words, they say the precise opposite of what the evidence says, and in this so-called “science” they get away with it. Well, on the ladder of testability, it turns out history is on the next rung down. We “know” whatever someone took the time to write down. As far as verifying it? All we can do is recall, footnote where we can, and guess. There’s a lot of uncertainty involved; some people choose not to acknowledge it just because they can’t comprehend uncertainty, which ends up being a very silly way to go about studying history.

But we have a wedge driven between academe and reality now. And that’s how it’s done now, through the magic of manufacturing consensus by booting out dissent, and then calling it science. That is why fascists are portrayed as right wing, even though the evidence clearly shows they are left wing.


Sunday, January 4th, 2015

Chris Hernandez on the changing definition of the word in the title, and how it’s affected by all this noise about so-called “microaggressions” and “trigger warnings.” He starts off with several paragraphs of anecdotal example to define what his own understanding has been. Since this includes experience as a cop and a U.S. Marine, these are not stories for timid readers. Teen suicide, people burning to death in helicopter crashes, toddlers getting decapitated in car accidents, et al.

Then he begins to inspect what has been changing lately (H/T: Instapundit).

I suppose I’ve always defined “trauma” the traditional way: a terrible experience, usually involving significant loss or mortal danger, which left a lasting scar. However, I’ve recently discovered my definition of trauma is wrong. Trauma now seems to be pretty much anything that bothers anyone, in any way, ever. And the worst “trauma” seems to come not from horrible brushes with death like I described above; instead, they’re the result of racism and discrimination.

Over the last year I’ve heard references to “Microagressions” and “Trigger Warnings”. Trigger Warnings tell trauma victims that certain material may “contain disturbing themes that may trigger traumatic memories for sufferers”; it’s a way for them to continue avoiding what bothers them, rather than facing it (and the memories that get triggered often seem to be about discrimination, rather than mortal danger). Microaggressions are minor, seemingly innocuous statements that are actually stereotype-reinforcing trauma, even if the person making the statement meant nothing negative.

Finally, he goes in for the kill:

I’ve reviewed these reports of “trauma”, and have reached a conclusion about them. I’m going to make a brief statement summarizing my conclusion. While I mean this in the nicest way possible, I don’t want victims of Microaggressions or supporters of Trigger Warnings to doubt my sincerity.

Life is ToughFuck your trauma.

Yes, fuck your trauma. My sympathy for your suffering, whether that suffering was real or imaginary, ended when you demanded I change my life to avoid bringing up your bad memories. You don’t seem to have figured this out, but there is no “I must never be reminded of a negative experience” expectation in any culture anywhere on earth.
If your psyche is so fragile you fall apart when someone inadvertently reminds you of “trauma”, especially if that trauma consisted of you overreacting to a self-interpreted racial slur, you need therapy. You belong on a psychiatrist’s couch, not in college dictating what the rest of society can’t do, say or think. Get your own head right before you start trying to run other people’s lives. If you expect everyone around you to cater to your neurosis, forever, you’re what I’d call a “failure at life”. And you’re doomed to perpetual disappointment.
If your past bothers you that much, get help. I honestly hope you come to terms with it. I hope you manage to move forward. I won’t say anything meant to dredge up bad memories, and don’t think anyone should intentionally try to harm your feelings.

But nobody, nobody, should censor themselves to protect you from your pathological, and pathologically stupid, sensitivities.

People have been getting traumatized, according to both definitions, for thousands of years now. How come the definition is morphing lately? It’s only obvious that the liberals are bringing it about, partly because we’ve been watching them do it if we’ve been paying attention; if we haven’t been paying attention, we can simply notice that all of the ingredients are there. A cultural change that brings with it a lot more grievance-mongering and complaining, and very little else. The melding of the well-intentioned, who make poor decisions, with those who seek to destroy society as it currently exists and are capable of hardening and executing brilliantly-conceived strategy. Useful idiots sending their own usefulness into an arc of decline. “Education,” formal as it may be, leaving those who are “educated” with less capability to get anything done in life, rather than more.

You watch it awhile and you begin to see where Sen. Joseph McCarthy got off with his famous observation: “If he were merely stupid, the laws of probability dictate that part of his decisions would serve this country’s interest.” You ask yourself: If I wanted to ensure the next generation did absolutely nothing productive, what is the difference between how I would seek to affect them, and what I’m seeing happening?

And then you talk to some of those in favor of the transformation, and you realize these aren’t people who want to destroy anything at all. They truly do care about the feelings of kids who are being (modern-version) “traumatized.” They just don’t seem to understand how people find maturity before doing productive things in adulthood, and because of this lack of understanding they make awful, terrible decisions. Then, you realize you’re watching the ultimate nightmare juxtaposition: The poorly-intentioned leading the well-intentioned, but poor decision makers, around by their dumb noses. And, you realize our society is attacked from within on yet one more front. You realize what you’re seeing is liberalism, which destroys everything it touches. Everything.

“I Would Like to Elect in 2016 a President Who Loves America With All His Heart”

Saturday, January 3rd, 2015

Christopher Chantrill writes in American Thinker:

I don’t mean that the president should be a Polly-Anna and pretend that everything is hunky-dory in America. I just want a president that wants to fix America because he loves America.

Unlike our liberal friends and their poster boy, President Barack Obama.

The problem with our liberal friends is that they think that they are too evolved to descend to the celebration of a nation-state and its flummeries of patriotism and flags and Pledges of Allegiance. And so thinks President Obama. Liberals are globalists; they are cosmopolitans. And so is President Obama. They believe in supranational governance with the EU and the UN. And so does President Obama.

They do not love America; they sneer at America.

An idea whose time has come?