Race, Amalgomy, and the Irrelevance of Superiority

Mrs. Cranky reminded me of something I had quite forgotten about. A generation ago, we decided not to tell an elderly relation of mine about Mrs. Cranky’s Latina heritage because it would likely cause an issue. This elderly relation came from a generation that didn’t mix the races. He lived some distance away, his vision wasn’t all that fantastic, and he’s now long passed, so it wasn’t really a big issue. There’s a few of those types on Mrs. Cranky’s side as well, so for us it was never a big mean evil whitey thing but more a generational thing that really touches all people groups.

It’s kind of funny that this is the generation I’m talking about that stamped out the xenophobic hyper-nationalism of Hitler’s National Socialists, Mussolini’s fascists, and Japanese imperialism, all three of which had elements of thinking that promoted not simply bigotry, but beliefs in racial supremacy. As much as Hitler had his mind of Arian Supremacy, the Japanese also considered themselves the superior Asian people. To this day many Asian people have a particular disdain for Japan, which I learned in college when I dated a girl from Taiwan. I had been previously unaware that non-Japanese Asian women consider Japanese men disgusting. I admit, I was a little surprised to discover how wide-spread that sentiment was among non-Japanese Asians, but it is a pervasive view.

One of the issues that repeatedly comes up is this concept of supremacy that finds itself associated with race, yet never seems to me particularly well defined. In order to actually make a case for the supremacy of a thing, it seems reasonable that someone ought to define what makes something superior. What is the standard of superiority? What features and traits are necessarily superior?

Let’s talk about the automobile. Is a Ferrari superior to a diesel pick-up? Well, if you’re after speed and performance, I suppose it is. If you want to pull a fifth wheel through the mountains however, not so much. The same characteristics that make it superior in one way make it inferior in another. Low to the ground, lightweight and lots of horsepower are great for a sports car, but to pull that trailer, you really need a taller center of gravity, weight, and torque. So in the case of the automobile, it seems reasonable to argue that a vehicle can be superior for it’s intended purpose, but when you mix purposes, the argument falls apart. You cannot argue that a Ferrari is superior to a pick-up because of its performance capabilities because a pick-up isn’t designed or intended to perform like a sports car. A diesel pick-up is designed to handle heavy work loads.

This analogy doesn’t translate perfectly to the case of humanity because there is less clarity on the issue of purpose and design, but it serves well enough to make a few points. We can talk about man in terms of divine purpose, but to do so one must discuss the Designer or Architect of that purpose. Most of those discussions become easily distracted by prejudicial thinkers who don’t like religion because Christians are judgemental meanies or Muslims blow stuff up. As such it becomes difficult to have a discussion about the design of man, which we ought to be able to talk about whether the Designer is Nature or the God of nature.

What makes a man superior is his ability to fulfill his purpose. If we do not know what his purpose is, we cannot know his level of supremacy or inferiority toward the fulfillment of that purpose. While the point of this work is not really to speak to an eternal purpose, there are some obvious basic purposes that all living things possess.

Everything that lives seeks to survive, thrive, and build a future. I see this every day because I live in the country. A lot of people like to talk about nature from the convenience of the city. A few of us actually are a part of nature. For example, I have trees that have made their home along a creek. That’s a great place for a tree to survive because it’s easy for the roots to find water. They also thrive there. They drop a cone and a new tree grows next to it. They build for the future. These trees have marched along the bank of this creek till they converged in a marsh where they have created a small forest. That’s my backyard. They find a good place for survival, they thrive by reproducing, and they build a tree community. They intertwine their roots and they spread out in all directions to build a little empire of trees. I could talk to you about our foxes, wild turkeys, deer, frogs, lilies, and more, but the result would be the same. By design they seek to survive, thrive and build.

People are no different. First order of business is survival. From the age of hunting and gathering to the age of agriculture and industry, to the age of information and technology, people seek to survive, thrive and build. Whether it be the man tiling the field or his wife cooking what he harvested, man seeks to survive. Men and women seek to thrive by reproducing; they reproduce themselves, raise their children, teach them their ways, and are replaced by them. They build. They create families, extended families, communities, states and nations. They build an empire that will receive many generations of their influence, just like a forest and it’s many generations of trees.

So what makes a man superior? What makes him more fit to survive, thrive and build? The answer, I would argue, is we can’t know. We can’t know what makes a man superior because we can’t know what he is designed to be, without delving into a religious and metaphysical discussion, and while I’m not opposed to doing so, it won’t amount to a proof of anything. There is no proof of spirit. In point of fact, we really shouldn’t expect there to be because it is contrary to the nature of the spiritual to present a tangible proof of itself, otherwise it wouldn’t be spiritual at all but rather physical, and governed by the physical laws of nature. Arguing proofs or disproofs of spirit are therefore nonsense because they are built on a false premise. The nature of spirit is experience, not something tangible that may be heated in a test tube over a Bunsen burner. It’s an unreasonable expectation to demand the spiritual to avail itself of the physical. You wouldn’t after all demand that of a thought, would you? Do you have an atomic equation that equals the thought, “You are the love of my life?” I didn’t think so.

So right then, we cannot know, but what do we think makes a man superior? We all know the stereotypes. White Europeans are considered the intellectually and philosophically superior, ingenuitive race of humanity that dominates the globe with his sophisticated social orders and industrial machinations. The negro is considered less intelligent, yet physically more developed, stronger and better suited to harsh tropical conditions. The Asian is considered a small and insular kind of people not particularly creative but innovative with little individuality and a strong devotion to culture and group. These are the stereotypes. There are more of course, but fill in the blanks as you will. Stereotypes tell us about the perceptions of others who are outside looking in. Undoubtedly there is some truth within them or they wouldn’t be pervasive as they are, but of course, they are only glimpses of a much larger picture. Racial distinctions are complex. It’s bound to be difficult even for the geneticist to determine where the code ends and culture begins. I’m sure that there are many distinctions scattered throughout the races of humanity that could be quantified as superior or inferior, and my purpose here is not to argue the truth or falsity of it, but rather the relevance.

Have you heard the story of Mauatua Maimiti? Perhaps you know it better as The Mutiny on the Bounty. At the time the Bounty reached Tahiti, the British Empire was the most advanced and powerful force in human history. They had a world class navy and colonies on every corner of the globe. Great Britain’s achievements in science, philosophy, literature and the arts were second to none in this day, and a young Fletcher Christian was a talented young officer from a respectable family who was rising in his career. Mauatua Maimiti, it could be said, was at the top of her own social order as the daughter of a Tahitian chief, but even though Tahiti has a fascinating culture with a complex and interesting language, music, an oral history that was being recounted in dance, and was just beginning a kind of written history in the form of tattooing… I’m sure everyone agrees that by comparison, Tahiti was no Great Britain. As a nation and a culture they stood far beneath the Empire and were virtually unknown while Great Britain was busily dominating the globe. Tahiti at this time was a zero impact nation of savages by comparison.

Captain William Bligh was a dictatorial officer given to irrational behavior and demands, and it is worth noting that while mutiny is no small thing, the Bounty is not the only command he lost control of. He went on to lose control of his command in India as well and has largely been discredited as an officer who pushed his men to the point of breaking. After his failure in India, he never held a command again. This is the background where where we find the young chief’s daughter Mauatua Maimiti encountering the young officer Fletcher Christian, a rising star in the British Navy. How this young native girl managed to get so deeply inside Christian is quite a mystery. We know she was very beautiful, and in her own culture she was no doubt accomplished, but the English must have seemed like gods to the humble Tahitians on their remote islands in the vast Pacific. Bligh attempted to dissuade Christian’s interest in her pointing out how likely it was that she would be rejected and dismissed by his own family as a person far beneath his own status. This appeal fell on deaf ears, and as the Bounty sailed away, the crew’s disaffection with Bligh’s command grew until it reached the point of mutiny. The crew turned to Christian to captain the Bounty, and he returned to Tahiti for his native wife Mauatua Maimiti. There is no reason to believe he planned the mutiny, but when the circumstance of history gave him the opportunity to change course, he seized it. They settled on Pitcairn Island where they had three children, and the descendants of Mauatua Maimiti and Fletcher Christian are alive to this day.

What do we say of Mauatua Maimiti? The savage princess of an inferior culture, uneducated and backward by every standard of the time… yet strangely superior and more fit to survive. A nobody who reached into the heart of the greatest Empire the world had yet seen and ripped out of it here desire. She survived, thrived, and built a legacy that is still spoken of in literature and film today. It seems impossible that it could have happened. Mutiny was a death sentence, yet even Bligh in his own testimony acknowledged to his inquiry that he plainly underestimated the affection Fletcher Christian held for Mauatua Maimiti. Christian tossed aside the supremacy of his station like so much rubbish and abandoned both family and Empire for a life on the run that ended short in violence, but Mauatua Maimiti continued and her legacy thrived.

Our concepts of supremacy seem like nonsense. We don’t really know how intelligent she was, how physically fit or healthy she was, and certainly not what her genetic code might have told us about her as an example of humanity, but by every standard of the time Mauatua Maimiti was inferior, yet her history argues quite the opposite. In her ability to reach far above her own status to find a desirable mate, reproduce, and build a lasting legacy, history shows us that her inferior status meant absolutely nothing.

Suppose we acknowledge her inferiority. No doubt she descended from a very limited gene pool as an isolated Polynesian native, and who can say that some natural part of the human desire to reproduce with healthy children did not play a role in whatever led her to fall in love with her English mate and expand the influence of her people’s genetic code. Let us for a moment simply acknowledge that she was very likely an inferior example of the human race in most if not all ways. The question becomes… So what? She still proved herself fully capable of doing what it is that humanity does by design. In this sense she adds to humanity rather than detracts from it regardless of supremacy or inferiority.

So regarding racism, bigotry, and prejudice, let us say it is possible that some examples of humanity are superior to others in some and perhaps even many ways. The question remains, so what? If an inferior man can fulfill his place and purpose, what difference does his inferiority make? It seems and feels to me like something completely irrelevant, even if it’s true. So my question is why does anyone care? Why does anybody give a fuck about racial superiority?

From the prodigy we may learn the highest heights of man’s creative potential, such as Mozart. From the genius we might learn the nature of the universe and the theory of relativity. A brilliant theologian might kick off the Reformation. What shall we learn from the village idiot? Actually, we may learn a great deal. Obviously we learn not to marry our cousins because inbred, six-toed retards do not bode well for the survival of our species, yet what if we learn more? What if we learn about compassion for the weak and the sick, which builds the strength of our communities and ties us together as one? People are so busy taking offense to the idea that we might not all be equal that they neglect to ask the correct questions. Let’s put aside our egalitarian vanity for just a moment and not concern ourselves with whether someone considers us inferior, because there is an important question to be considered. What if the survival of our species depends not merely on the brilliant or strong or superior. What if we also need the mediocre, the stupid and the weak? We’re not merely individuals and we’re not merely members of a race, a culture, or a nation. We are members of a species, and what if our species requires the strong, the weak, and the mediocre middle to survive for reasons we can only partly understand? Does it not make sense to be satisfied with who and what we are, and let others do the same? In the larger scheme of things, does it not make more sense to say, who gives a fuck about the irrelevance of supremacy?


Equality and a Little Islamic Rape Fun

Do you believe all cultures are equal? If there was a culture out there that was fundamentally opposed to the principles of equality in a libertarian society, would you want that culture to come be a part of your society, or would you want to protect your society from a culture that wants to fundamentally change your society, with violence if necessary?

I ask because of the situation that is unfolding across Europe. The New Year’s Celebration in Cologne, Germany brought with it a lot of fun for Muslim men. German women… not so much. There are now over 300 reported sexual and rape assaults from that event, and the details are growing. Apparently marauding Muslim rape gangs were cruising the celebration, surrounding women attacking, robbing, assaulting and raping women throughout the night. There were thousands of them involved.

This is only one example that was very visible, but there are stories on a smaller scale being recounted throughout Europe, and incidents of rape are exploding all across the continent. And yes, there are Syrian refugees counted among the gangs, according to reports.

Initially local officials tried to cover up, then minimize reports of Muslim involvement, but I suppose the sheer scale of the thing simply couldn’t be contained. It’s a lot like the San Bernardino shooting, how all the initial speculation pointed toward workplace violence, but pretty quickly the media wasn’t able to cover up the emerging details that in fact the culprits were Muslim Jihadi types. How unfortunate for the folks who want to extend the principles of equality to a culture that wants to dismantle your way of life.

Back to the joys of Muslim rape gangs…

Europe is already flooded with millions of these folks, primarily refugees from Syria, and strangely… America and Canada are talking about bringing tens of thousands of them here. Good idea? This is going to advance gender equality in our society? How so?

Throughout the Middle-East and in Muslim countries around the globe women are generally treated to various degrees of oppression, from a general second class level of citizenship to being looked upon and treated as little more than property to be used and abused at leisure. Rape, sexual slavery and pedophilia are common place, according to countless articles I’ve read. Polygamy is ordinary. Are these the things that advance the principles of equality in a libertarian society, or is there nothing to be concerned about?

What happens when a false ethic of cultural parity comes in conflict with established Constitutional principles of gender equality? Are you going to ignore the marauding Muslim rape gangs that are arising in the streets of Europe and abandon your women?

Let me ask it another way… are you looking forward to the influx of Middle-Eastern refugees so you can enjoy the fun of seeing your wives and daughters ass-raped by Muslim gangs in the streets?

Yeah, I know… to ask the question makes me an Islamophobic bigot, right? LOL so fucking what?


People are religious by nature. It doesn’t really matter what you believe regarding the existence of a God or an afterlife. There is an obvious need that is spiritual in its essence and will always find a form of expression. For the last decade or so I have noticed this need expressing itself in American politics.

My personal view is that politics makes a poor religion, and parties are a cheap substitute for a decent sect or denomination. Take for example the two main American parties. We see an extraordinary devotion to the Democratic and Republican parties playing out in our culture that has made the public deeply frustrated to the point of fielding strong support this year to complete outsiders. The party insiders of both sides seem equally frustrated at the public’s rejection of their attempts to anoint candidates of favor. There really seems to be a strange devotion to the chosen from within the machine that is being resisted by the sensible masses.

On the left side of things we have the Virgin Hillary, a kind of high priestess who’s claim to fame is that of being the mistreated bride of an amoral dirtbag who shucked and jived his way into a governorship and a presidency with a kind of bubba populist slickism that a few of us found contemptible, but many liked. She followed that triumph by winning an utterly safe seat that any Democrat not incarcerated could have won as it was vacated by the retiring Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Her final victory was to loose her party’s nomination to an unqualified teleprompter parrot who skated into the Presidency on the power of his amazing minority status, aided by white guilt and a lack of serious competition. She then went to work for this underachieving tool and became the lackey of a distracted failure who has more interest in how much gay ass-pounding goes on in Africa than he has in our national security.

On the right, things seem even more absurd if you can believe that. The insiders started with a mediocre governor who had the distinction of the name of Bush, yet possessed none of the likability of his brother. Jeb went nowhere, but he’s still running. In search of a likable prophet, the insiders have looked at a variety of options including the now defunct Lindsey, the anti-states’ rights nationalist Rick, and the very junior Senator Marco, who is turning out to be a lot more pliable in his commitment to the base than he campaigned as. None of these dillweeds seems to have the balls to really stand for what their base seems to want, and this is really a kind of commentary on the fallacy of the likable prophet. A prophet is one who ‘tells forth.’ Truth is implied in this, and in religious tradition, nobody likes a truth telling prophet who shows up declaring what’s wrong rather than what you want to hear. Ask Isaiah. They stuck his ass in a log and sawed him in half.

As far as religious themes go, this is very much a familiar tale. In the Biblical account, there was a newly founded nation called Israel arisen out of the oppression of a tyranny called Egypt, and in typology, this represents a virtuous remnant taken from a corrupt world. The nation was divided into twelve tribes, each one unique, not unlike the federalist structure of America’s fifty states. Occasionally God would send them a kind of prophet called a ‘judge’ who would… You guessed it… judge them. It wasn’t their favorite thing, and so by the time you reach the prophet Samuel, the people have largely abandoned the limited and divided structure they were given and demanded of Samuel, ‘Give us a king.’ It’s not at all unlike America’s movement away from federalism toward nationalism and a much more empirical presidency. The past is prologue. The problem with centralizing power and responsibility is that when evil men acquire power, the whole of the nation suffers instead of just a part. This was true under Jeroboam and Rehoboam as much as it is now. Let the civil war begin. There does come a point after all when there’s nothing left worth saving.

Devotion to the cult of politics holds precisely these types of conclusions, but of course nobody is interested in history, so these cycles simply repeat themselves. When politics becomes a quasi-religion, history is reinterpreted and reinvented to serve the dogma of the hour. It doesn’t matter that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’ and the issues we deal with now have been dealt with already.

Sodom, Greece, and Rome all had their self-ruining fun with homos, but somehow this is a new and enlightened issue of civil liberties that will serve us better. The immorality of abortion was addressed by Hypocrites, but you think this is a modern argument about privacy and a woman’s choice. You give little or no charity of your own volition, but you vote for the people who create the programs that make other people take care of the poor, so you think you’ve absolved yourself of your moral obligation by thinking the right thoughts and feeling the right feelings. The cult of your politics arises. You are now invested with a partisan ideal to replace your personal need for a moral ethic to satisfy your spiritual obligation. You are very religious, yet you may not even believe in a God.

Within a religious cult there arise sacred doctrines that take upon themselves an infallible mystique. For example, in Catholicism, there is the doctrine of transubstantiation which mystifies the sacrament of communion. It doesn’t matter that Christ himself calls this sacrament a memorial; the establishment of the mystical character of the doctrine creates a moral objection to questioning its premise; this is dogma. By the same token we see the rise of political dogma. For example, wherever we have gun control we see a rise in crime, yet the partisan response to gun crime is almost always more gun control. The fact that it has never worked is not relevant. The dogma of the hour is that guns equal crime therefore less guns will equal less crime in some non-existent fantasyland out there. Another is that women are concerned about the legality of abortion. Now some of the polls I’ve read suggest that a floating majority of women between 55 and 60 percent generally want abortion to be legal. However, there are the occasional polls that ask whether or not a woman would ever themselves have an abortion, and the last poll of that brand I read said about 87 percent of American women would never themselves have an abortion for any reason. What does it mean? Clearly it means that the vast majority of women in America do not have any actual use for abortion, but there is an expectation upon them to confess their faith in the theology of the virtue of on demand abortion as a part of the cult of political theology for correctly thinking women. In other words, the polls are bullshit, and the vast majority of women have no use for abortion in America, yet it has become a doctrine and a statement of faith that is hard to speak out against. There is a pseudo-religious pressure that prevents the speaking of heresy.

Polls have acquired the mystique of doxology. They are like some bizarre sermon from a populist preacher who tells you what you are supposed to think. This is accomplished by reporting polls in the media as if they were published sermons. People feel a pressure to fall into line with what the Catholic body politic believes. If there is a majority opinion, your disagreement becomes a kind of heresy that you are uncomfortable expressing because this puts you outside the body looking in. If there is a growing minority opinion, you find yourself losing the the tide, or being swept into the new movement. It makes no difference that a growing tide of opinion is not a proof of anything being right or wrong, good or bad, divine or carnal. There is only the perception of being on the winning or losing side of things. The longing for a divine justice is present here and encourages you to conform or wait. If you conform, you acquire the perception of winning. If you wait, you keep your objection in silence and trust the divine to figure it out on judgement day. Either way, popularity becomes truth, and accuracy is irrelevant. In this way polls are a kind of lie that pressures conformity and dismisses objections. They are inherently biased by nature, and do not at any time serve the love or pursuit of truth. Sometimes that bias is flagrant. PPP recently conducted a poll and asked Americans if they approved of military action against an imaginary city with a Muslimish sounding name from the Disney movie Aladdin. This was followed by numerous articles deriding Republicans for wanting to bomb an imaginary city. The implication of this is what the media has already determined, to be a Republican and to disagree with us is to be stupid. Of course, the media did not report that a large number of Democrats wanted to save the imaginary city because they fancy themselves as the pacifist champions of peace, and the media also didn’t touch upon the point that the majority of the people answered the trick question with an ‘I don’t know’ answer. Of course they couldn’t speak to this because what’s obvious in it is that the people are generally honest, the polls are generally fraudulent, and the media is generally biased. It doesn’t support the sermon notes in the preacher’s message, so it doesn’t get discussed.

What does get discussed is confession and ecclesiology, as presented by the ministry of politicians who hope to find themselves elevated to the American papacy by our very own college of Cardinals, as directed by the sermon of populism. Floating to the right you will find the confessors who make their claims to the beliefs they say they hold dearly, a confession in the traditional principals of Americanism. They don’t actually do anything to preserve those principles, quite the contrary, in their zeal to acquire the day’s victory, they rush to the top and build a roof upon a sinking house with a broken foundation. They chase the imperial presidency like the prize of their faith yet wonder why government grows. They are the equal opposite of the same coin in the coffers that believe salvation is nigh if only they might reign as a Christ upon the throne of government, and they centralize power almost as quickly as their opponents would. They do little to achieve victory by the people and the states via Congress or the states and local communities.

Then there are the ecclesiasts, preachers of the leftward morality seeking to normalize deviance and gain victories without cost. They will tell you marriage can be defined by a log in the shoot and this has parity with procreation and the survival of the species. They will tell you their drone war shall defeat ISIS, even though no war in history has ever been won without soldiers. It is the false preaching of the hyper-religious cultist who promises victory without cost. You can call yourself married, even though there is no ‘marier.’ You can win a ground war with cylon-like air drones. You can get free food, free rent, free money, free education, free health care, free phones, a free fucking life of leisure that will cost you nothing because the mythically fantastical rich pixies of civilization’s top one percent shall be taxed of their magic dust whereby the evil fairies shall be chased out of Cornwall. Let us now sit with pious leisure beneath a tree beside Marx and compose a poem… a deeply religious poem or psalm in honor of a God called government, and the President is his prophet.

Then come the zealots. They used to knock on your door under the pretense of conducting a survey, “Don’t you think candidate so and so looks and sounds a lot like Hitler?” Then they call you during dinner, “Do you think it’s possible candidate so and so is the prodigy of Satan?” Next you could hear them on the radio calling in to popular talk shows, “I’m an independent, so you can trust me to be unbiased when I say such and such party is actually the kingdom of the anti-Christ.” Now we find them on the internet. Partisan shills float from site to site looking to misdirect discourse with bullshit arguments presented by websites devoted to how the other side is a big meanie. They troll those they don’t agree with and get into their business, harassing them on places like Facebook and Twitter, following them around the internet with sock-puppet accounts pretending to be other than who they are in their zealotry like the fanatical cultists they are. They think they do their side a service by winning at all cost, no matter how they slander, defame, lie, and deceive. They do not grasp that part of good religion is sound doctrine and personal morality. These are not the things that move the zealot who is eager to demonstrate that his commitment to the cause is very great because his religion is about his performance. In this way he becomes the self-proclaimed God of his own cult, he defines his own brand of alternative morality that suits his purposes, and he proceeds on the course of persecution against the blasphemous sinners who oppose him. Ultimately, the zealot of politico-religiosity is nothing more than a weak-minded fool who makes himself the tool and lackey of his party’s priesthood. Reason is lost on him. If you dissect his arguments he will misdirect the conversation. He will assert parity when he or his side has been caught in dishonesty by claiming they do it too because dishonest people always believe everybody else is just like them. They will waste your time with never ending arguments that eventually become nothing more than justifications of what they already think rather than a pursuit of truth. When all else fails, they will bully you. They will stalk you online and they will set up fake accounts pretending to be you so they can post outrageous nonsense in your name as an attempt to discredit you, label you a racist or an idiot. These are the tactics of the pathetic little pussy who is the zealot of his partisan cult. He hates your freedom and will do anything he can to shut you up, and he imagines he is making America a better place because little people without significance love to imagine themselves the hero of their own tale.

There’s nothing really that can be done about the rise of politico-religiosity. Real religion costs something while fake cults seduce you with ease and pleasure. It’s always going to be easier to pull down your neighbor instead of restraining yourself. Pursuit of self is ultimately the chief theology of politics as a religion. Denial of self is at the core of good religion. Personally I’d rather hang out with a real religious figure like Jesus then a fake politician like CultBama, or insert your favorite whipping boy. I’m not after a quick win, a dishonest victory, and I have no need to make of myself something more than I am, so while you pledge your oaths of loyalty to your favorite cult, I think I’ll hang out and drink a beer with Jesus. He’s better company.

India and Pakistan Leading Truth

As long as I can remember, India and Pakistan have been at varying levels of conflict. They have long been disputing over the region of Kashmir since before I was born, and for all intents and purposes, there is really no reason to believe they will ever be in accord, because they don’t even really agree about why they disagree.

India claims the region based on nationalistic territorial claims. You would expect that. Nationalism is a pinnacle to India-think because of their liberty arising out of British colonialism. Pakistan however claims the region based on a connection with the people’s religious traditions, a large percentage of Kashmir being Muslim. In Pakistan-think, your religious identity outweighs your national identity without any pause or consideration.

There is no third way of thinking between the two for very clear reasons. In both cases, there is nothing between the citizen and his identity, unlike here in the West. In the West, we have this thing called ‘culture’ that is sandwiched between our national identity on the left and our religious identity on the right. The idea of culture as an independent thing all of its own arises from our Renaissance and Reformation, neither of which has happened in the Middle-East or Asia-Minor. When an American proudly calls himself an American, he is almost never talking about the borders on a map of our continent, nor our Protestant heritage. He is almost always talking about something distinct from both nationalism and religion, yet includes the influence of either and both. “I’m an American” means a whole host of things. It means profound things like, “the business of the state is to secure the liberty of the citizen,” or “religious liberty is founded in the Protestant theology of the priesthood of the believer and the autonomy of the local church.” It also means baseball is the greatest game in the history of civilization, BBQ is a form of fine dining, there is no liquid refreshment more meaningful than beer, and if you’re car does not have a V-8 for horsepower or a straight 6 for torque… You are driving an unredeamably underpowered piece of shit that you would be ashamed of if you had any pride. The chariot of God is a Jeep.

So what does this strange hodge-podge collection of random thought lead to, you may wonder. It leads to many things, yet it kinda explodes onto the global scene in the form of an interesting article like a bomb of truth blowing up what you thought mattered.

India and Pakistan are talking peace, and it seems both genuine and serious:


Some of you are so distracted out there with the isolationist mindset of your superficial partisanship from the cult of your favorite political party, that you fucking missed it. The attention of the global mindset has shifted, and you completely missed it because you’ve been listening to politicians and the media. It’s hard to know how to help you.

England, France, Germany, Russia, China, Indonesia, and a host of other countries have all made recent shifts in their determination of the rising threat of radical Islamic terror and it’s priority. There has been no threat like it since the rise of Communism, and even though many of you are convinced it’s really important right now to make sure that homos can earn $15.00 an hour while getting free health care in a gay marriage in order to stop global warming… the rest of the world is gearing up for the ideological war of our lifetime.

India and Pakistan are the biggest indicator yet that while so many of you have allowed your brains to be poisoned by the cultish, pseudo-religious devotion to partisanship, history and global events are about to get into your way. We see that with the frustration and desperation of America’s President attempting to keep the agenda he likes relevant with strange arguments of rational distortion like… global warming leads to terror… gun control will stop ISIS attacks… what Africa needs is more homo booty-poking… nuns should be forced by the state to supply free contraceptives… the list goes on and on. Partisanship is poison. Devotion to the two-party system is a systemic barrier to any form of rational thought, and the notion that choosing a DemoPublican advances anything other than the further entrenchment of a political ruling class is stupid on the face of it. But by all means… Keep telling yourselves that your party is the right one. Democrats should keep telling themselves that their party supports civil liberties even though the current administration has done more spying on it’s own people than J. Edgar Hoover. Republicans should keep telling themselves they believe in economic liberty even though they’re moved more then half our manufacturing base to the shores of the commie fucking Chinese, who systematically hack us, steal our trade secrets, and influence our elections through corporate donations from multinational companies that have no patriotic commitment to America’s future.

As you discuss these very important issues, you should equally keep in mind how the supremacy of Hillary’s politically correct vajayjay may contrast with the amazing power of Carson’s evangelical blackness when Trump’s hair implants cannot supplant Carly’s face because Sanders is very inclusive with his old white maleness. Should I even mention that Cruz wouldn’t drink a beer with me and Jesus?

Here’s what I want to leave you with. Partisanship is a poison to your brain’s capacity for rational thought. DemoPublicans do not give a shit about you. In the same way that all-ness is equal to one-ness, any government is equal to all government. The direction is totality… think about it. The day will come when you see this more clearly than you do. That will be a dangerous day for the political establishment and the ruling elite who want you to stay in your little box of thought limitation. Whether the box of your confinement leans left or right has as much relevance as a mayonnaise jar would to a kangaroo. The machine has contained you. Democrats say those other guys are racist meanies. Republicans say those other guys are destroying liberty. They seem to have no idea that they are both contained, and therefore controlled.

Yet truth is exploding like a really glorious bomb in the face of the sleeping partisan drone who cannot think. Every western nation is going to have no choice but to awaken and face the rise of the new threat. Anyone who thinks otherwise is sleeping. There’s a 7’th Century death cult in your future.

Fuck Syria

Fuck Syria

In a lot of ways and for a lot of reasons, the only decent thing a thinking person can do is leave off from the compulsion to run save Syrians and bring ten thousand of them here to America. It is only the reactionary emotionalist that wants to do this, and despite the fact that how you feel carries a kind of false truth to it, that hardly makes it a good idea for public policy.

Most people who talk about compassion and humanitarian aid are full of shit. These are people in my experience who stick their change between their cheeks to keep their coins squeaky and shiny. They don’t give to charity, they don’t volunteer their time anywhere, and they don’t do anything that costs them something beyond emotional gratification. This means they think the right thoughts and want the government to fix it by taxing the mythically abundant rich out there. It removes the sense of lazy immoral guilt and makes them feel that they’ve done something by advocating for somebody else to do something. One should never underestimate the capacity of the poor or the common to be selfish and greedy.

My contention is that these people are not being helped by being brought here, nor are we helped by bringing them. It’s very likely to be a bad deal for both sides, and the amazing power of people’s emotional sense of goodness won’t change that. It’s not even an issue being discussed.

Who says they want to come? Really, do we actually know that these Syrians want to come here? Certainly the Jihadi types that sneak among them want to come and shoot as many of us as may be feasible without ignoring the joys of a good pipe bomb, but it seems extraordinary that the real refugees want to. They are being displaced from their homes by a civil war and are being forced to flee because of the extreme danger, but that hardly means they want to leave. There is a certain presumptive arrogance that says what we have is so much better, thus these Syrian refugees will want to come to the other side of the world to a strange continent and a radically different culture. The further away they are displaced from home, the less likely it is they will feel the desire to blend in and find anything to be happy about, so it seems to me. My own feeling is that I would hardly want to travel even as far as Canada or Mexico let alone be transported to the other side of the globe away from my home, family, friends and culture. If I feel that way, why wouldn’t Syrian refugees? You could argue the supremacy of our situation, but we’re not talking about any empirical standard of what makes a country and culture good or bad; we’re talking about how people feel. How many people are actually going to feel good about such a radical displacement, and how many years will it take to develop such feelings?

Along the lines of arrogant naivete, is it reasonable to believe that Syrian refugees are going to find themselves in love with America’s culture and people? I realize that Conservatives will believe we should be loved and honored for spreading liberty and democracy just as much as Liberals will feel that swelling of pride over ShitBama’s promotion of homo butt-pumping across the African continent, but I wonder what the actual Syrian refugee will see and think rather than what what many of you out there want him to say or feel?

Let us imagine a Syrian father or mother arriving at our shores and seeing western libertarian culture for the first time with their own eyes. Do you think they will see the trendy fashion sense of our women, or do you think they will see the immoral whoredoms of a decadent people? I find it just as hard to believe a Syrian father would revel in the idea of his son being enticed by an American girl who dresses like a prostitute as I would believe a Syrian mother would want a daughter to present herself like an immodest slut for the gratification of a whore-mongering American boy who’s understanding of love and sexuality comes from a smart phone full of porn videos. Do you think Syrian husbands will respect American husbands and the exposure of their wives? Will Syrian wives feel comfortable with their husbands going out into our sex-saturated communities? I find it very likely that the current state of our moral decline will offend them continually, and their stay here will be a very insular one. I do not believe they will have any interest in assimilating because the state of our culture will disgust them, as it often disgusts me. In point of fact there is no reason to believe they will see us any differently than a devout Christian might. Now I wouldn’t claim myself to be a particularly good Christian, but I certainly understand the feelings I imagine Syrians might experience here. I don’t want my wife for example to feel like she needs to compete with the whoredoms of this culture any more than I would want my son’s first experience with a woman to be with a girl who looks more like a hooker than a lady. My desire is for my son to go into his marriage bed with purity beside a lady who is equally pure. Do you believe a Syrian Muslim will feel differently? I don’t.

Do you believe Syrian women with traditional views of culture and family are going to be pleased with the devaluing of traditional roles and with having their religious views dismissed as oppression? What happens when a Syrian woman is approached for the first time by a lesbian feminist who is curious about what lurks beneath the hijab? Will she be dismissively flattered, or will she be repulsed by the corruption of the sisterly bond women enjoy into something deviant and perverse?

Will the Syrian refugee be appreciative of the liberty Americans enjoy and abuse, or willl they accurately see the self-involved corruption that has overtaken a land that once stood for more than the perpetual demand of rights and the abject refusal of any and all responsibility that should accompany them? Will they understand that freedom of speech means a redneck is at liberty to call them camel jockey and sand nigger? When one considers freedom of speech,it serves nothing to protect civilized, popular speech because such speech is never in need of protection. It is only the speech that people don’t like which needs to be defended, otherwise there is no speech worth hearing because all speech becomes little more than flattery and bullshit that merely reinforces what the listener has already decided is truth. Without the inclusion of unpopular, yes, even hate speech, there is no speech worth listening to. All speech shall decline into an amalgamation of nonsensical equalization that is not worthy of hearing. Will the Syrian understand this, or will he listen and say, ‘These disgusting Americans cry all the day of their imaginary hardships without any sense of real suffering.’

What will the Syrian think of our gun culture? In a world where weapons represent either the totalitarian abuses of dictators or the excessive radicalism of fanatical, hyper-religious zealots, will the Syrian understand that in American tradition, the people are the law, and the people are it’s enforcement? Americans themselves hardly understand it. Most Americans today believe that the right to bear arms is ascribed to some unofficial militia out there somewhere, the purpose of which is now largely fulfilled by law enforcement or the military. They have not even the most cursory grasp that it is significant how the Second Amendment ascribes the right to the people rather than the militia. The reason for that should be obvious. The people are themselves the militia. Most Americans themselves do not today fully understand that American citizenship involves the preservation of our laws and liberties not merely from a criminal element or a foreign invader, but from our own government above all. If Americans themselves don’t recall their own history, how is a Syrian refugee supposed to feel anything other than intimidation by Bubbas with guns? Is this where Syrians will feel comfortable?

Despite any assurances, Syrians will be met here with one of two reactions. There will be a fraudulent welcome from the left and a suspicious distrust from the right. The left will pretend to welcome them and will bombard them with niceties about respecting their beliefs and embracing their culture, and in doing so they will apply pressure to these refugees to make equal allowances of things like fag marriage, abortion, and the rise of social secularism. The arrogance of liberalism is such that they are convinced that by being nice in a multi-cultural void of virtue or decency, Muslims will be happy to abandon their core beliefs. There is no reason to believe they will do so. Conservatives are nearly as bad. Unless you’re willing to jump up into a public setting, declare Christianity your equal and praise American liberty from the roof tops, you’re not likely to be trusted or welcomed. Obviously a decent, moderate Syrian Muslim can’t do that because he makes himself and his family a target for violence from radicals by doing so. The Syrian refugee confronted with these two brands of reception is going to have little choice but to insulate himself from us through the establishment and expansion of yet another subculture that will serve only to further divide our already fractured society. They will add to our division, resent us for our trouble, and resist the influence of our culture over their children, with violence if necessary. And yes… some of them, perhaps many, will be radicalized.

In my opinion, bringing Syrian refugees here is destined to be a highly predictable disaster for them and us. There will be terrorism as a result, whether by radicalization of refugees when they get here or by ISIS converts mixed in among them. There will be no vetting of them because it’s simply not possible to investigate their backgrounds with their home country torn apart by civil war. There are likely no records available to request, and it is silly to believe the Assad regime would cooperate with any requests for background information. The only terrorists we will catch will be the ones we already know about and are already looking for. This will not protect us from nominal refugees who become radicalized in the course of fleeing Syria or coming here. There is no possible way to prevent ISIS from turning individuals we are unaware of. The idea that we can vet ten thousand people adequately from the war torn shell of a country that used to be Syria is complete fucking nonsense. There is hardly enough infrastructure left to keep water and power on in many places let alone access the institutions that would have public records about people’s less savory associations. Ridiculous bullshit. No vetting shall take place. Pixie dust.

This leads to one of two outcomes. We will have a Trump-like fortress America with walls on all borders, or we will be returning to the Middle-East in force. My guess is the latter. There will be more terrorist attacks not less, and I imagine we will see a number of them before the next election. ISIS does not want us to believe we are safe here an ocean away. They want us to feel decidedly unsafe, and with that goal in mind they will make every effort to attack us again, having already said publicly that Washington DC is a primary target.

The ShitBama legacy will be that the next President, regardless of who it is shall be taking us right back to the Middle-East, right back to Iraq, and we will likely be there for the rest of our lives. Remember, we’re still in Japan and Germany. You can argue about whether we should have ever been there to start with, and my personal view would be no, because the Hussain regime was a balance against Iran, but once we go and remove ol’ Saddam, we have an obligation to stay until there’s a stable government to replace him that is capable of maintaining civilization. It should be obvious to all concerned that we left too early for the sake of an arbitrary campaign promise made by SuckBama toward winning an election rather than any concern over national, regional or global security. It is utterly predictable, everyone knows it, nobody wants to admit it, and yet it is entirely obvious that we are headed back to Iraq for round three of the quagmire that is now the caliphate of ISIS. It’s time to deal with the reality of the situation and put aside the medical water bong. ISIS wants us back in Iraq, and they’re going to attack us as many times as it takes to get us there. The short lived victory of DunceBama will become one of the laughing stocks of our history when we are forced to return, a victory for them on the face of it as they drive our agenda. BoreBama has already given them that victory by doing this extraordinary disservice to whomever his successor shall be. They will gain further victories with every dead soldier that comes back to us as they now determine a significant portion of our foreign policy. Trump’s fortress America sounds better and better, even if it isn’t feasible.

So why talk about Iraq in conjunction with Syrian refugees? Well, the problem is related. It is the absence of a stable government in Iraq that makes it possible for ISIS to establish their not so little caliphate in both Iraqi and Syrian territories, and it is Iraq that is the key geographically to dealing with the wider problem in Syria. We do after all still have a friend or two despite the weakness of this pathetic and inconsequential President.

Now is a great time for ButtBama to take a break from offending our Muslim allies with his distracted fixation on homo ass-pounding and start getting serious with with our relationship to Saudi Arabia. The reason for this is simple geography. From Saudi Arabia, we drive ten thousand troops over the border due North and seize Rutbi. This is the trunk of a tree maneuver. From Rutbi we build the bow of the tree in three directions or branches with an additional fifteen thousand troops that are a combination of round the clock air cover and elite special forces units to cut off the three main approaches to Rutbi. From there we drive five thousand troops due West to the Syrian border. Here is where we build a safe zone for Syrian and Iraqi refugees. There is easy access for humanitarian aid from Jordan and the region is defensible as a wide open territory.

This is also where coalition forces can push North along the Syrian Iraqi border to cut ISIS in half and start to push both East and West to wipe the mother fuckers off the map. This is how we can start right now to help the Syrian refugees in a real and tangible way, to help them reclaim their own country rather than displacing them to a continent on the other side of the goddamn planet, which can only serve to feed their distrust and resentment of the West. I know… nobody’s listening. Nobody wants to be responsible for Iraq 3: The Triquel. Yet this is how we easily and conveniently deal with this mess. You can’t deal with Syria without dealing with Iraq. The bastards simply hop on their camels and float back and forth across the desert border without any restraint. And you can’t win a war with an air campaign. You fucking dillweeds should have learned that from Vietnam, but when it comes to remembering your own history, y’all got your heads up your asses and think the FailBama drone war is going to do something somehow, like a swarm of mosquitos harassing a rhinoceros.

Everybody knows that a real man is capable of admitting when he’s wrong, and a real leader will own his mistakes and fix them. Only a pussy tries to hide his failures beneath the cloak of a bullshit narrative that everyone knows is false. ISIS is not contained. It is expanding in all directions and acquiring more and more power, wealth, territory and prestige. It is the bold caliphate exploding onto a global scene in defiance of the West and to the radical, conservative, even nominally Islamo-centric thinker, it is a beast of extraordinary admiration and wonder. It’s a goddamn lion roaring in the wild against a ridiculous rainbow pony on a cartoon for little girls. ShitBama is a fucking pussy and everybody knows it. The difference between me and most of you is I’m willing to say it. And what’s laughable about it is that this mess would be so easily fixed if the Sissy-in-Chief would just come out with it and admit what a fucked up mess he’s made. The American people are extraordinarily forgiving of leaders who are willing to own up to their mistakes and commit to fixing them.

The ObamaPology could go something like this:

“My fellow Americans, I fucked it up. I thought when we were ready to leave Iraq, the Iraqi government had security well under control, and it would be safe for us to move on from the region. We underestimated the strength, resilience, and commitment of ISIS, and in doing so, we made a bigger mess than the one we had before. We left a void of power that allowed a terrible adversary to fester and grow. It’s my fault. I stepped in a really big pile of camel shit and made a goddamn mess all over the Middle-East which is mow being tracked into every continent by Islamic fundamentalist radicals. For this reason, we’re going back to Iraq. We’re going back in full force, we’re gonna do it right this time, and we’re not gonna stop until we rip the fucking guts outta every last member of ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Goodnight, God bless America, and pray for your leaders… especially me.”

This is the BamaPology that would redeem his legacy, and save him from going down in the books as the weakest candy-ass in the history of the American Presidency. Of course, in order to do that, he’d have to man up and admit his mistakes. We all know he’s too big of a cunt to do so. He’d rather distract you with bullshit about gun control and climate change while ISIS busily plots to build on the successes of Paris and San Bernardino.

And the Syrians? It’s a fucking disaster in the making. There’s no reason to believe the good ones want to come here, and there’s also no way to prevent them from feeling resentment about being displaced so far from home. What they’ve seen already is our lack of compassion for their difficulties and suffering in our abject refusal to assist them in their homeland where they’ve actually needed us. It is our lack of humanity that has left them at the mercy of ISIS on one side and the Assad Regime on the other complete with its ally in Putin’s Russia and falling barrel bombs on their children. Do you think you shall convince them of your good will and happy thoughts after abandoning the region which led to the rise of ISIS to begin with, then exasperating their displacement from their homes by taking them as far from Syria as possible so you can put their children in public schools where their religious traditions will be undermined with propaganda lessons about homo marriage? Do you think you shall do them a service in this that shall inspire their love and appreciation? They will fucking hate you and it is entirely predictable. Only a goddamn fool doesn’t see this for what it is. This is not a choice of their own making, to accept the light and dark sides of a libertarian Western society and immigrate here of their own volition. This is a choice that is being imposed on them to select the lesser of two evils by virtue of their refugee status, the making of which we are very much responsible for at least in part.

As you all go about discussing whether they should or should not be allowed to come, the real question remain unasked and undiscussed. Do they even want to come here? Why yes, you think, we are so amazing after all. When you stop congratulating yourselves on how amazing you are and how you think all the world wishes they were little Americas, maybe we can have an honest conversation about how much of the world doesn’t really like our liberty, and it is very easy to imagine that Muslims from Syria may very well not like us, not want to come here, not want their children to acquire our world view, and may thoroughly resent being packed into airplanes against their desires for no reason other than that they have no where else to go. Maybe we can have a conversation about generating some good will in that region by helping them regain a foothold in their homeland rather than using them as props of our oh so compassionate inclusiveness. They’re not fucking stupid. Do you honestly think they won’t see through the exploitation of their plight? It’s a goddamn election year. Back and forth the candidates go with their arguments about compassion verses security. You think it’s about them, don’t you? They know it isn’t. It’s about FuckBama’s imaginary legacy and who will replace him. What it’s not about is helping the Syrians, and it never was. If the dumb fucks gave a shit about helping them, they would never have let it comes to this to start with. The half hearted measures of training an insignificant fifty or so fighters and sending them into fray to have their lines broken and see them run for it or switch sides to save their own asses easily demonstrates just how little we give a shit about these people, and to say otherwise is a fucking delusion. Let’s come out with it, shall we? Fuck Syria. We don’t give a rat’s ass about those people. If we did, we’d be helping them there instead of bringing them here.

Let me close with a special Christmas wish. To any American servicemen or kind-hearted civilians in Syria, to any allies of America, to any Christians hiding from the blood-thirsty and barbaric murder of Islam, to the odd moderate Muslim who’d rather mind his own business than hate his neighbors and support the blind savagery of a 7’th Century death cult… to anyone who is good in Syria, or at least not consumed with a raping and killing lust for evil… a very merry Christmas to you. It would be great if my country’s leadership gave a shit about you, but I wouldn’t want to lie about that so close to Jesus’ birthday.

Yet It Continues


With the dormer side nearly complete, I’ve been focusing on the entrance side. You can see the top third of the roof failed. People may not be aware that if you live in an area where you get freezing our snow, 15 pound paper just ain’t gonna cut it. Plus, the cap has to be perfect… And it wasn’t LOL.

I laid two layers of thirty pound paper, and I’ve got it about two thirds put back together. This is as good as it gets in my view. A lot of the roof planks had water damage as well, so I ended up doing a lot of work there before I repapered it. Getting there. More to come…

Mix In


So a friend of the Mrs. asked me to assess a little project for her, an elderly lady. Happens to be a vintage 70’s hope chest by Lane. Yeah… It’s well worth the cost of restoring, I told her. Hmm… now it’s in my shop LOL. Okay, so another project to finish; why not? Ah well. She’s good people.