Author: VD

Mailvox: the grasshoppers cry

NL makes an emotional appeal in defense of Social Security:

You said, “What it cannot afford to do is to permit them to increase while simultaneously spending more on…. massive income transfers to the elderly, the poor and other unproductive classes. “

HOW DARE you say this about the “elderly”. The generations like your ma and pa that worked hard all their lives to get us what we have TODAY. They are OWED their retirement and to have a decent live after.

WE OWE our parents everything for all the blessings we have today. Most just live on a moderate pension and Social Security. As for the poor, I hope you are NOT talking about the widows and the fatherless. (No, not the abandoning kind.) As a Christian you know you are breaking “Honor thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long upon the earth”? If you feel they should not have their monies and call them “unproductive”.

This prodigiously stupid response to my WND column yesterday is, alas, a fairly typical one. The Baby Boomers, as is their narcissistic wont, are clearly in complete denial about the mathematically inevitable consequences of the grand Ponzi scheme that is Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They don’t seem to grasp that the large numbers that made them such a cultural force from the 1960s onward now renders them a vast financial anchor on the nation that will inevitably have to be cut loose in some manner. Like a vast plague of locusts, they devoured the nation’s harvest and its seed corn.

If the collective “ma and pa” had worked hard all their lives rather than borrowing money to live beyond their means, there wouldn’t be any need for this melodrama. But they didn’t. They spent everything they earned, they spent everything their children will earn, and they spent everything their grandchildren will earn… assuming they weren’t among the millions of women who murdered their children and eliminated future generations post-1973. The elderly of America not only don’t deserve much in the way of respect, they will be extremely fortunate if they are not forcibly exiled to metaphorical ice floes for their inter-generational financial crimes. They not only ransacked the present, they raped the future.

The elderly are presently the wealthiest segment of the nation. Extracting more wealth from the young and transferring to the irresponsible elderly is not only a mockery of justice, it is rubbing salt in the wound. And one does not honor one’s father or mother by robbing from someone else and presenting one’s aged parent with the proceeds of one’s crimes. But it should not surprise us that an aging Baby Boomer would attempt to turn theft into a Biblical injunction.

Not every Baby Boomer is responsible for the crimes of his generation, just as every National Socialist wasn’t responsible for the crimes of the SS-Totenkopfverbände. But that doesn’t make the crimes, or the inevitable consequences of those crimes, disappear.

Mailvox: facing fear

Whatever wonders if I mean it:

It’s just that when I hear Vox say something along the lines of “pick a fight with your wife in order to work out your fear issues”, then I start wondering if he’d really do that if he was in someone else’s shoes.

Yes, absolutely, because it’s not a question of “picking a fight” at all, but rather not going out of your way to avoid conflict. There is a crucial difference there. Conflict avoidance can be a good thing, but not when it is driven by nothing more than cowardice. I believe in the principle of conquering your fears by facing them. When I was young and a little afraid of the dark, I used to sneak out of the house and wander through the woods at night. Not only did my fear of the dark disappear, but I soon came to love it. I also developed an aversion to sunlight and discovered that I rather enjoyed biting attractive young women in the neck, but that’s probably just a coincidence.

When Ender briefly developed a reflexive fear of the ball after a foolish coach allowed him to get shellacked in goal for more than 45 minutes from the penalty spot, I bought him some wrist pads, taught him a modified martial arts block, then spent about 20 minutes a day charging towards him and throwing the ball directly at his face from the penalty spot. I also taught him to step forward into the ball and attack it by blocking it on his padded forearms. He soon realized that it didn’t hurt and by the third day, he wasn’t the least bit afraid of the ball anymore. By the end of the season, he had acquired the nickname “toro” for the way he would fearlessly charge toward attacking players and cut down the angles of their close-range shots as they approached goal.

The core concept of Game involves consciously emulating the behavior of those who naturally succeed where you fail. This is a concept that is applicable to a far greater range of human behavior than the male pursuit of women for short-term sexual pleasure.

No place for cowards

Marriage is no place for cowards. No woman wants to be married to a man she can intimidate, even if she tries from time to time. Men have to realize that if they want to have a happy home, they have to be a man about facing up to conflict.

Remember the old saying, “Home is Where the Heart is?” That only applies if you relish being in your home in the first place. And that ‘aint gonna happen if you live every waking moment in your home, fearful of upsetting your wife. Lying to her to try and avoid upsetting her only makes it worse, because even if you don’t consciously realize it, you will hate yourself for living a lie.

Home is supposed to be your sanctuary. Your place to rest, relax, and recharge, so that you can get ready to go out and face the world another day…knowing you can come home and let your guard down and just enjoy the company of your family upon your return. How can you do that when you’re afraid of doing or saying something, and than having to deal with an upset tyrant of a spouse?

That is because you are not supposed to be under the dominion of her emotional state in the first place.

I understand that for many men, this is a concept that is much easier to agree with than to put into effect. But if you are under the dominion of a woman’s emotional state, you have to break free of it for her sake as well as your own. How can you be relied upon if you are constantly being blown to and fro in the winds of her emotional hurricanes? How can she feel secure with a protector who is a pushover? However, keep in mind that it’s also important not to overdo it with your reaction, as so many men and women do when they have finally resolved to act against their habitual behavioral patterns.

Remember that practice makes perfect. The man in control of himself doesn’t fear the rage of an out-of-control woman anymore than the boxer fears getting hit. He has absolutely no doubt that he can take the shot because he has taken it before. So, look for opportunities to practice facing up to your fear. The next time you find yourself tempted to shade the truth or avoid telling her something because you are afraid of her reaction, first remind yourself of the Litany Against Fear and then assume that you’re going to be busy not exacerbating the situation by giving into your own emotions for the next 15 minutes.

I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me….

Then go and tell her whatever trivial thing you suspect is going to set her off and refuse to react regardless of how she emotes. Then, once the storm has blown itself out, smile and go about your business. You will almost surely find yourself thinking that it really wasn’t that bad after all. And that should give you the strength required to face up to the next emotional storm when it becomes necessary.

I love being in my home. I love being with Spacebunny. But then, I’m not afraid of her emotions.

The new caliphate rises

Somehow, I don’t think we’re going to end up with liberal representative democracies in Egypt, Tunisia, Bahrain, and now Libya:

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is believed to have fled the capital Tripoli after anti-government demonstrators breached the state television building and set government property alight. Protesters appear to have gained a foothold in Tripoli as banks and government buildings were looted while demonstrators have claimed they have taken control of the second city Benghazi. It is thought up to 400 people may have died in the unrest with dozens more reported killed in Tripoli overnight as protests reached the capital for the first time and army units were said to have defected to the opposition…. A coalition of Libyan Islamic leaders has issued a fatwa telling all Muslims it is their duty to rebel against the Libyan leadership and demanding the release of all jailed protesters.

It’s interesting to consider the juxtaposition between what is happening in the Middle East and what is happening in Wisconsin. It is apparent that the leader’s sense of his own legitimacy and the military’s support for it plays a significant role in his willingness to stand firm or not. Which raises the question. If the millions of so-called “birthers” began to protest in Washington DC demanding to see Obama’s birth certificate, how long would it take before he fled from the White House?

But that’s neither here nor there as it’s not going to happen. The more important question is when we are going to start seeing mergers between the various Muslim nations. This will be a significant sign that the Ummah is girding up for a new wave of expansion into the Dar al-Harb.

In tangentially related news, Steve Sailer notes that the US media is opposed to electing a new people when it happens in other countries: “It’s funny how much more readily the American MainStream Media grasps how unfair it is for the government to elect a new people in Bahrain—while they cheer it on in the U.S.”

The collective Vanilla Ice

Some of the comments at the Black Gate on yesterday’s post regarding the decline and fall of the fantasy novel really have to be read to be believed. There has been a great deal of what appears to be willful obtuseness and a determined inability to understand standard definitions on display, but there’s not much that needs to be said against an argument that relies upon the idea that the basic concept of Western civilization has no intrinsic meaning… although it would certainly make for an amusingly meta defense of post-modernism in modern fantasy.

In any event, I replied thusly: Matt and [B], there appears to be little to discuss with either of you on the subject of Western civilization, still less its observable decline in demographic and other terms, as your knowledge of the concept clearly doesn’t even rise to the level of Wikipedia. Nor is this the proper venue to explain the principium contradictionis, so I suggest you read up on what the “Western world” and “the Occident” are and how they have been defined for decades, if not centuries. What you have presented, Matt, is not a rebuttal, but rather a collection of contorted wordplay and suppositions which attempts to avoid the manifestly obvious. Let me put it in terms you might be willing to acknowledge. Suppose you were to write a modern fantasy set in America circa 2010, but completely leaving out all science and technology. Don’t you think that would create a ludicrously false image of both the setting and the basic mindsets of the characters? Then suppose that people began claiming this omission of science and technology as well as scientific modes of thinking actually presented a more realistic understanding of the period than its inclusion. That would border on the insane, wouldn’t you agree?

Read the rest of my reply at the Black Gate. And if you feel moved to comment there, be considerate and polite. Playing hardball is completely fine here, but it is not the way things are done there.

Matt has also written what I consider to be a more relevant post on the moral aspect of the subject that you should find interesting.

WND column

The Battle for America’s Credit Card

The eyes of the Republican blogosphere are concentrated on Wisconsin these days, as the public employee unions and Democratic senators are lashing out in a desperate and futile attempt to defend the status quo of unsustainable state debt. But despite the mediagenic circus of shut-down public schools, doctors dispersing fraudulent sick notes and teachers waving misspelled signs, the battle between the unions and Republican Gov. Scott Walker is not one that demands reinforcement from either the blogosphere or the tea party.

The focus of the fiscally prudent should be on Washington, not Wisconsin. This is because the outcome in Madison is assured, whereas the one in the national capital is not. While both situations are unsustainable, Wisconsin has already reached the outer limits of its debt expansion. The federal government has not. Wisconsin’s limits are externally imposed, whereas Washington’s are not, at least, not in the near term.

Sleepshops for Boomers

Most of the Baby Boomers didn’t bother saving for retirement. Apparently they were too young and cool and numerous for that.

The 401(k) generation is beginning to retire, and it isn’t a pretty sight. The retirement savings plans that many baby boomers thought would see them through old age are falling short in many cases. The median household headed by a person aged 60 to 62 with a 401(k) account has less than one-quarter of what is needed in that account to maintain its standard of living in retirement, according to data compiled by the Federal Reserve and analyzed by the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College for The Wall Street Journal. Even counting Social Security and any pensions or other savings, most 401(k) participants appear to have insufficient savings.

I say we Logan’s Run them. Stick a disc in their hand, and when the retirement money runs out, it turns black. After what they did to our generation, sleepshops are better than they deserve.

At the Black Gate

Last week, I read with great interest the discussion that began with Leo Grin’s comparison of the heroic fantasy fiction of J.R.R. Tolkien and Robert E. Howard with the anti-heroic fantasy fiction of Joe Abercrombie. As this is a topic that has interested me for years, I certainly have a number of thoughts regarding it. However, since I am a political commentator who is correctly said to be well outside the ideological mainstream of the SF/F community, I think it is best to begin by pointing out to those on both sides of the spectrum who may be eager to turn this into a political debate that this is not a political subject, but rather a historical, literary, and philosophical one. And as such, there is no need to argue over whether the trajectory over time that Grin observes is desirable or not, since that is a matter of perspective and personal opinion.

Regardless of one’s ideological self-identification or opinion on the specifics of Grin’s observations, it should be eminently clear to all and sundry that something material and significant has changed within the field of fantasy fiction in the 71 years that separate Howard’s final publication from Abercrombie’s first one and the 52 years that separate the publication of The Return of the King from The Blade Itself. I should also point out that I offer no personal criticism of Joe Abercrombie here, as he merely happens to serve as a representative of modern fantasy fiction and one of its more accomplished representatives at that….

Read the rest of what is a rather lengthy post on the link between literary decline and societal decline over at Black Gate.

Pull the plug

Considering how one of the primary consequences of the NRO-endorsed neocon objective of “spreading democracy” has turned out to be spreading sharia everywhere from Afghanistan to Egypt and Iraq, it’s well past time to declare the concept a complete failure:

On NRO Friday, Paul Marshall lamented the Obama administration’s fecklessness, in particular the president’s appalling silence in the face of the death sentence Said Musa may suffer for the crime of converting to Christianity. This is in Afghanistan, the nation for which our troops are fighting and dying — not to defeat our enemies, but to prop up the Islamic “democracy” we have spent a decade trying to forge at a cost of billions.

This shameful episode (and the certain recurrence of it) perfectly illustrates the folly of Islamic nation-building. The stubborn fact is that we have asked for just these sorts of atrocious outcomes. Ever since 2003, when the thrust of the War On Terror stopped being the defeat of America’s enemies and decisively shifted to nation-building, we have insisted — against history, law, language, and logic — that Islamic culture is perfectly compatible with and hospitable to Western-style democracy. It is not, it never has been, and it never will be.

It only took 10 years to figure out the obvious. How much longer will it take for conservatives to realize that permitting barbarian immigration is not, in fact, beneficial to the stability or survival of Western civilization?

A failure of atheist logic

A former atheist contemplates the irrationality of atheist opposition to religion:

I had something of an epiphany. One night, after a long dinner, I was walking back to my hotel in downtown Salt Lake City at 2am and I suddenly realised: I felt safe. As any transatlantic traveller knows, this is a pretty unusual experience in an American city after midnight.

Why did I feel safe? Because I was in a largely Mormon city, and Mormons are never going to mug you. They might bore or annoy you when they come knocking on your door, touting their faith, but they are not going to attack you. The Mormons’ wholesome religiousness, their endless and charitable kindliness, made their city a better place. And that made me think: Why was I so supercilious about such happy, hospitable people? What gave me the right to sneer at their religion?

From that moment I took a deeper, more rigorous interest in the possible benefits of religious faith. Not one particular creed, but all creeds. And I was startled by what I found. For a growing yet largely unnoticed body of scientific work, amassed over the past 30 years, shows religious belief is medically, socially and psychologically beneficial…. Crucially, religious people lived longer than atheists even if they didn’t go regularly to a place of worship. This study clearly suggests there is a benefit in pure faith alone — perhaps this religiousness works by affording a greater sense of inner purpose and solace in grief.

This begs the question: Given all this vast evidence that religion is good for you, how come the atheists seem so set against it? They pride themselves on their rationality, yet so much of the empirical evidence indicates that God is good for you. Surely, then, it is the atheists, not the devout, who are acting irrationally?

Not only acting irrationally, but arguing nonsensically as well. I have pointed out on occasion the way in which the desire of some atheists to kick out what they see as a crutch out from under religious believers is an indication of a malicious character. If atheists persist in their attempts to destroy religious belief in light of this growing body of empirical evidence of the beneficial nature of religion, it will prove that their primary motivation is neither truth nor reason, but pure malice and ill-will.

Moreover, such evidence is one more nail in the coffin of Freudian pseudo-science. Since real science indicates that religious belief is good for you versus the Freudian claim that it is unhealthy, those atheists who still cling stubbornly to the outdated Freudian position will be revealed as overtly anti-science, their scientific pretensions notwithstanding.

Don’t miss the comments. It is always amusing to see the self-professed “intelligent” and “educated” atheists revealing their blatant ignorance by citing the usual nonexistent prison statistics, misleading divorce statistics, and imaginary military history.