Wednesday, December 12, 2018

Will the the 21st Century See The Dismantling Of Centralized Power?

“The story of the 21st Century will be the dismantling of centralized power.“ : Richard Bledsoe

I can’t think of any evidence for this. Are there any governments on earth which are smaller than they were ten years ago? Is Google’s power shrinking? Amazon’s? Big banks? Has Giant Faceless MegaCorp decided to break itself up into independent twenty employee segments?

We have seen in the last couple decades the creation of a global surveillance state of intertwined governments and private businesses which not even the Stasi could have dreamed of in their wildest drug induced fantasies.

We in the US have evolved from a nation of independent small business owners aka farmers and artisans, into a nation of employees trained to take orders. Our fundamental mindset has changed from that of owners into obedient order takers.

I see no evidence whatsoever that anyone in either major American political party would even consider overturning the foundation of the modern regulatory state -Wickard vs Filburn (look it up)- much less return our government to only those activities authorized by the Constitution.

The UN and leading politicians around the world are working openly to end national sovereignty, criminalize free speech including criticism of Islam and of immigration. Merkel may lose her office, but she has succeeded beyond the dreams of the mullahs in Islamizing Germany, and those people are not going to leave. Nor are those in France, Britain, Holland, Spain, or Italy.

Islam is hardly a force for decentralization, nor is the wave of socialism sweeping Americans who have been taught to despise individualism, capitalism, and the bourgeoisie.

Quite the contrary to decentralization: I think we are far more likely to see the complete politicization of economic activity coupled with a surveillance state like the world has never seen.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, November 28, 2018

The Oxford Comma

The Question of the Oxford Comma reared it’s ugly head today, so since I was weak on exactly what it is, I looked it up in Wikipedia. That was a mistake.

Wikipedia has more than I ever want to know about the Oxford comma. So much more that I chucked the reading of it after the Case of the Missing Comma aka O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy. Frank and Joe Hardy would have done a more engaging story. Heck, their mother could have, and she seemed to devote most of her time to baking cookies, or possibly running cocaine to Chicago, but F.W. Dixon never discussed that, so I don’t know for sure. She seemed way too good to be on the up and up. I’m less familiar with the cases of Nancy Drew, but I’m entirely satisfied she would have run rings around O'Connor v. Oakhurst Dairy while hedging her investments in the ax murder industry.

Good grief. This is the sort of article which so turned me off to language studies that I cannot for my very life tell you what an adverb is, nor a participle, dangling or otherwise, nor can I gin up the interest to remember even if someone were wishful, or wistful enough, as the case may or may not be, to tell me. Things of such dubious repute exist; that is sufficient and more. Participles and adverbs are like venereal diseases: I know there are people acutely, even joyously, involved in promulgating them, but I have no interest in joining.

I bet Dante didn’t know either (insert a comma or not, as you please) (had some nefarious meddler even invented participles and other such abominations by Dante’s day? Whoever foisted that horror upon us should have done some terminal dangling him or even herself, ideally from a naturally occurring oak cantilever) and he got around to write a decent thing or two. At least so some claim. Personally, I take my linguistical and culinary guidance alike from my hero and role model Huckleberry Finn. To wit:

While an inmate in the Widow Douglas’ house: "When you got to the table you couldn't go right to eating, but you had to wait for the widow to tuck down her head and grumble a little over the victuals, though there warn't really anything the matter with them. That is, nothing only everything was cooked by itself. In a barrel of odds and ends it is different; things get mixed up, and the juice kind of swaps around, and the things go better."

An even finer, and earlier manifestation of something, I can’t decide what, but surely literary, is Robinson Crusoe and his magnificent run on sentences, such as and to wit again:

After Crusoe was shipwrecked on his island and began to establish himself there, he discovered some stalks of rice and barley growing near his home. At first he was touched by God's goodness, but:

“At last it occurred to my thoughts that I had shaken a bag of chickens' meat [sic, that’s grain] out in that place, and then the wonder began to cease; and I must confess my religious thankfulness to God's providence began to abate too upon discovering that all this was nothing but what was common; though I ought to have been as thankful for so strange and unforeseen providence as if it had been miraculous: for it was really the work of Providence as to me that should order or appoint that ten or twelve grains of corn [sic] should remain unspoiled (when the rats had destroyed all the rest), as if it had been dropped from heaven; as also that I would throw it out in that particular place, where, it being in the shade of a high rock, it sprang up immediately; whereas, if I had thrown it anywhere else at the time, it had been burned up and destroyed.”

Now, that’s a sentence worthy of the writing. It’s unpretentious, it runs along, like a squash vine on the ground, putting out a fruit or some flowers now and then for one’s delectation, then turning back on itself and repeating in another direction without entirely losing the point, and meanders about until it decides it’s finished. It marches on, not boldly, but unselfconsciously, without worrying about participles, whatever they may be. Its a sentence the way sentences ought to be and sometimes were before the perfessers took ahold of them by the neck and strangled the life out of them and beat them on a rock like a piece of laundry just to be sure.

Another glory of the English language, on his struggle to make ceramics in which to store his grain harvest:

“It would make the reader pity me, or rather laugh at me, to tell how many awkward ways I took to raise this paste; what odd, misshapen, ugly things I made; how many of them fell in, and how many fell out, the clay not being stiff enough to bear its own weight; how many cracked by the overviolent heat of the sun, being set out too hastily; and how many fell in pieces with only removing as well before as after they were dried; and, in a word, how, after having laboured hard to find the clay, to dig it, to temper it, to bring it home and work it, I could not make above two large earthen ugly things- I cannot call them jars- in about two months' labour. “

Are those magnificent sentences er whut? I guarantee you Robinson Crusoe didn’t know a participle from a conundrum, but he got the idea across.

Yer Humble and Obedient Servant,


Labels: ,

Monday, November 12, 2018

William Lloyd Garrison

Gotta love a patriotic guy who would get up on the banner-bedecked stage with flags flying proudly and burn a copy of the US Constitution at a 4th of July rally. He had his reasons.

I’m not sure of the relationship but I think his wife was my great-great-great-grandmother’s first cousin. Something along those lines. Anyway, it isn’t my fault.

His name was William Lloyd Garrison, and he published a rabble-rousing abolitionist newspaper called The Liberator. At one point some Democrats in Boston lassoed him and dragged him through the streets on the way to tar and featherdom on Boston Common, but the sheriff came to the rescue by arresting Garrison and locking in the pokey. So Democrats’ behavior has improved, if only slightly, since then. They’re working on it tho.

“On July 4, 1854, he publicly burned a copy of the Constitution, condemning it as "a Covenant with Death, an Agreement with Hell," referring to the compromise that had written slavery into the Constitution.”

Now that’s a rabble rouser for you. We could use more Republicans like William Lloyd Garrison. The Democrats took sledge hammers to his printing press, and still he soldiered on. Burned the Constitution at a 4th of July rally. Just imagine.

More here.

Labels: , , , ,

Wednesday, October 31, 2018

White and Black, Jews, Nazis, and Enemies

There was a good, if somewhat rambling columnabout the difference between US and British views on race and Jews by Robert Koerner at the Foundation for Economic Freedom site, to which I replied. It got marked by someone as spam, perhaps by accident or perhaps to hide it, but I asked it be revealed. we’ll see. In any case, my comment:

That was a thought provoking column. Thank you.
“And no, I’m not your enemy, whatever you tell me.” I’m not sure that I agree with that.

At one level it makes sense, in that German Jews/Jewish Germans weren’t enemies of Germany: they were Germans. Same with Austrians, Poles, Dutch, French Jews. However, the Nazis didn’t allow them to be other than enemies, and it didn’t matter as a practical issue if the Jews didn’t consider themselves enemies of the the Nazis.

I was in a voluntary organization many years ago in which two rival factions were running things. The arguments between them were largely over ideological purity vs political practicality. The practical faction considered the pure faction impractical and personally abusive, both of which had some truth to them. The pure people considered the practical people evil, and were quite outspoken about that.
I wanted to stay on the sidelines on that debate, but the pure people would not allow that. One was either on their side or an enemy. Take your pick, but those were the only options. No Sidelines Option was available. Ally or enemy. Take your pick.

While I eventually decided to simply leave the organization, I did decide that while people may not want to be other’s enemy, the decision is not up to them: it is up to those who demand all be either allies or enemies.

So, it seems to me that if BLM, the DNC, the RNC, or any other group declares me to be an enemy, then I am in fact their enemy. It doesn’t matter that I don’t want to be their enemy: it isn’t my choice. It’s theirs.

European Jews of all nationalities WERE enemies of the Nazis, not because they wanted to be but because the Nazis designated them as such. It wasn’t in the Jews’ power to not be enemies. It simply wasn’t up to them. It was up to the Nazis.

It also seems to me that one of the biggest failures of European Jews was the majority’s failure to understand that, internalize it, and act on that sad realization, either by fleeing or taking up arms and fighting their genocidal enemies.

There may not be much we can do to lessen the power or growth of the virulent racists on the left. Apologizing, self-flagellation, and submitting will be no more effective than it was for European Jews.

We can keep an eye on them, and we can in most states consider arming ourselves against overt violence. I think we should do so, because the time to prepare against assault is not after the assault has taken place but before. Steve Scalise was prepared with armed guards, and that preparation saved not only his own life, but those of the other Republicans at that soft ball practice.

Think of the so-called protests in Portland a few weeks ago, in which leftists blocked traffic, re-directed vehicles, and beat on vehicles. Suppose it had gone a bit further, and people were dragged from their cars and beaten. Would the time to prepare be the next day? Ask Reginald Denny after he was dragged from his truck and a cement block dropped repeatedly on his head. Minding his own business, until he was surrounded by people who designated him their enemy.

I don’t know how violent these leftists will get, nor how many allies they will attract, but it does seem important to keep an eye on them, and to prepare for worse violence than they are now committing, because at some point it may be too late to prepare. We won’t have the option of not being their enemy. It will be their decision, and by their own statements they have already made it.

Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 30, 2018

Putting An Anti-Undocumented Immigrant Hater In His Place

You apparently don’t understand: the US doesn’t produce enough native-born scofflaws, so we have to import foreign-born scofflaws to make up the shortage.

In order to be sure we aren’t wasting our tax dollars on law-abiding immigrants, we have to be sure we are importing actual scofflaws. The best way to do that is start with people whose very first act, crossing the border, is illegal. That way we know they have the right attitude.

The best kind of scofflaw is one who grew up in a country and culture which understands that rule of law is a scam to prevent dishonest people from getting ahead in life. They get here already understanding that government exists for the purpose of separating the poor from as much of their earnings as possible, and if we lure enough such people into the country with immediate subsidies, they will overwhelm the outdated rule of law attitudes of the local Americans and law-abiding immigrants who bothered to get green cards.

You gotta get with the program or else we will never join the poverty stricken countries which rightfully dominate the world.

Look at California: those people understand the importance of having no respect for the rule of law, and it shows up in the results.

In barely a generation they have gone from an exemplar of law-abiding Western Civilization middle class prosperity right back to noble Third World ultra-stratified poverty stricken masses with a tiny group of stunningly rich on the coast.

You need to understand that we can make the same achievement, but only if we put our minds to it, and repudiate lawful behavior. We need more scofflaws to show us the way. Almost a third of prisoners are Scofflaw-Americans. Well, actually Scofflaw-Hondurans, Scofflaw-Mexicans, Scofflaw-Guatemalans, and so forth. The real shortage today may actually be Scofflaw-Iranians and Scofflaw-Arabs, and people like you with your negative attitudes toward the Constitutional right of hostile foreigners to come here at will is a large part of the problem.

As our revered Senator Mazie Hirono said: “Just shut up.” Learn your place in society. You aren’t here to tell people like Maizie that you are dissatisfied with her policies. Your place is to ‘just shut up’. Or else.

And stop being so hide bound: pay your local legislators a few bucks under the table now and then when you need something done. Just like in Third World countries. Working together, we can do it!

Labels: , , , , ,

Friday, June 15, 2018

“whiteness as a real and alarming force”

If there is anything making me question moving back to the Mainland it is the Democratic Party’s promotion of Black vs White racial obsession.

From the NYT Magazine:

“The Trump era, however, has compelled an unprecedented acknowledgment of whiteness as a real and alarming force.“

“Chief among our remarked-upon habits is our...affinity for individuality, a supposed indifference to race that often reads more like ignorance of it.”

Funny: I thought indifference to race was a laudable goal. Apparently we are supposed to obsess about race. All other racial groups do, so why shouldn’t we? It is good that POCs do, so why is it bad for us? (Notice that in using the terms ‘we’ and ‘us’ I am speaking here exactly as the Democratic Party wants me to speak: not as an individual who tries to evaluate individual people on the basis of their character, but as a white person. ‘We’ in the Democratic Party’s parlance is the opposite of an inclusive term. It is based on racial exclusion. It does not evaluate people individually but on the basis of their membership in a racial group. Because, as the writer suggest, ‘our’ affinity for individualism is apparently an alarming thing.

I think that is a bad thing, but apparently I’m the bad person until I get with the program and think of myself and all others in terms primarily racial.

“White people are losing the luxury of non-self-awareness, an emotionally complicated shift that we are not always taking well. “

Do tell. Demand that everyone obsess about race and guess what: white people will be racially obsessed just like the writer. That’s a bad thing. A really bad thing. Unless you’re a Democrat, in which case white racial obsession is a really good thing so long as the obsession includes the ‘understanding’ that white people by ‘our’ nature are terrible.

“A majority of white Americans currently believe that their own race is discriminated against. News accounts fill with white resentment and torch-lit white-power marches.”

Discriminate enough against any race and members of that race will see themselves as discriminated against on the basis of race, but putting “torch-lit white-power marches” in the next sentence is a cute way of painting newly ‘racially aware’ whites -apparently the Democratic Party goal- as Kluxers. Which is apparently also how the Democrats want to see ‘us’.

The Democratic Party appears to want not race blindness but a race war. Think of their succeeding. Really: think about the personal consequences of a White/Black race war, with some Asians tossed in to keep things interesting.

I have a low enough opinion of Republicans, but Democrats are evil people. Instead of trying to unite Americans they consciously work at dividing Americans into mutually hostile racial groups, and have succeeded.

‘Race awareness’ and ‘race pride’ are explicitly racist concepts. They aren’t confined to white racists, either. Encouraging racial obsessiveness leads only to conflict.

This is going in a truly lousy direction unless one’s goal is to tear America apart. Which, I think, is the real goal, because they think individualist, capitalist America must be destroyed, replaced with racially obsessed collectivism.

More here:


Tuesday, April 10, 2018

"What is a country club approach to politics?"

My response to an inquiry:

"What is a country club approach to politics?"

'I am a lady or gentleman and I shall not engage with the rabble on their terms, no matter what it costs me."

One of the problems common to Republicans is their extreme hostility to fighting political street fights except by following Queensbury rules. There is only one rule in street fighting: 1) There are no other rules.

Remember the first Indiana Jones movie when a giant muscular Arab in the street twirls a scimitar to threaten Indiana Jones? Did Indiana pull out his own knife and fight the guy in fair fight? No. He pulled out a great big revolver and shot the guy. That's a street fight.

Gentlemen automatically lose street fights because they are more concerned with being gentlemen than they are with winning.

John McCain, Mitt Romney, all of Trump's primary opponents, were more committed to seeing themselves and being seen as gentleman than they were were in winning. They were all in street fights, so they all lost.

Romney was at a complete loss in 2012 when he, probably the most decent man to run for high office in our lifetimes, was routinely denounced as a Nazi, a hater and a despicable human being.

He had not the foggiest idea how to respond other than to maintain his gentlemanly attitude and deny it. He was the archetypal Nice Guy, and the old saying is 'Show me a nice guy and I'll show you a loser.' One NEVER wants to be called a nice guy by a street fighter, because he is explicitly calling one a loser. 'Explicitly' because all street fighters know the saying.

Trump was the only Republican to understand that he was in a street fight and to relish it. Like him or despise him, he was the only Republican with a shadow of a chance of defeating Clinton.

The upside is that while our opponents around the world are street fighters, even actual street fighters, Trump's delight in street fighting made him the only Republican qualified to take them on.

The Republicans finally nominated a street fighter, and by golly, he won.

How did that Romney presidency turn out? Oh....yeah....

Labels: , ,