Saturday, October 13, 2012

Olave's Gulch

This post is, in part a review of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and in part an update on my plans for the foreseeable future.

Ayn Rand: Atheist?

For the first part of the very long novel, characters disappear from the view of the main character, Dagny Taggart.  This disturbs her increasingly; she does not think that the characters are literally dying, but it does seem that they are committing suicide in some sense.  When she tries to talk one out of leaving her employ, and the larger world, he hints that he is going to a better place.

Later it is revealed that the disappearances are caused by the honeyed, and ultimately true, words of a charismatic inventor whose last name sounds a little like "god".  Dagny produces wings almost effortlessly (by serendipitously locating an extremely well-designed aircraft Rand quaintly describes as a "monoplane") and pursues one of the escapees into an electromagnetically-concealed valley in Colorado.  She is knocked unconscious in the plane crash and opens her eyes to see Galt Almighty, and hear him, in one of the few beautifully simple exchanges in the novel, "We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?"  What exactly he means is left to the reader's imagination; to me he meant that there is no reason to get to emotionally invested in the ratrace in a society dominated by parasites.

In Galt's Gulch, Dagny has a joyful reunion with most of her former friends, the few redeemable people from the world of Atlas Shrugged, who, far from having "committed suicide", are happily situated in a valley free of parasites (whom Rand terms "moochers and looters", having in the 1950s not made the acquaintance of any hippies, gender feminists, or race Marxists).  She begins her friendship with Galt on platonic terms, not knowing him carnally until she encounters him again on, or rather within, the mundane earth.  Her successful quest to be reunited with him betrays his whereabouts to the authorities, who spirit him away and scourge him electrically with a machine.  He even goes so far as to give them advice on how to repair their machine when it breaks down, but Dagny and her confederates arrive on the scene armed to the teeth, kill several of the irregulars guarding the torture operation, and rescue their prophet, bearing him away angelically in another plane.  They speed off back to the Gulch to wait out the tribulation.

So I suppose I have made it plain that I don't consider Atlas Shrugged to be an atheistic work, but rather, the bible of a fictitious religion.

Der Untergang des Weltschmerzes

I don't own a monoplane, and, if I did, I couldn't fly it off to a place where my talents would attract neither scoffers nor moochers.  What I can do, however, is stop taking it all so seriously.  Stop taking politics so seriously, stop shaking my fist at racial Marxism, stop brooding over gender feminism, stop frowning about the decline of the sunset lands, etc.  Pay a little more attention to the night sky, to a fine meal, to music, to the fall colors, and above all, to my family.  Stop absorbing despair or at least--stop mainlining despair.

This will require some willpower.  So far it is proving easier than I had expected.  I haven't watched any of the Virgil Goode Not Invited events (presidential debates).  I haven't been to iSteve or Those Who Can See or Jew Among You or HBD Chick's place in several days.  As of yet I feel no strange withdrawal symptoms.  Time will tell.

To all the alt-rightists out there, young and old:

Keep on looking for truth, keep on speaking truth.  Be brave but be cautious.  If you choose to stay online, or move on, that is your choice and only one person knows what is best for you.  Above all, know whom in your community you can trust, and whom you cannot.  

Saturday, September 22, 2012

The Semantic Attack on Our Nationhood

An anonymous iSteve reader comments:
Lately, I hear US a lot. US president, US military, US economy.
What happened to American president and American military and American economy? Is it politically incorrect because North America includes Canada and Mexico?
And there is Central America and South America. In that sense, I suppose everyone from Canada to Chile is an American.
So, is the thinking.... "why should only the people of United States be called Americans?"
I reply:

It's a thin semantic veil over an attempt to abolish Americans as a people ... to delete our nationhood through superior pedantry.  It's very difficult to turn "United States" into a demonym.  (Additional: Also note that "United States" is a very generic term; any group of states who feel a sort of unity could call themselves "united states", just as Brazilians can call themselves "Americans".  The term "United States" may need to be deleted for that reason.)

I've called myself "United Statesian" from time to time as a lark. (I've also called myself a "gringoy".)

Mexico has a right to determine its immigration policy. Canada has a right to determine its immigration policy. The USA has the right to find jobs for people equal in number to the population of Ontario. People from Mexico are Mexicans; people from Canada are Canadians; people from the United States are ...?

A pretty effective question mark, isn't it?

I remember a very nice but PC Briton trying to describe my nationality. "People from the States." That will be abolished soon too, most likely. Australia has states; Mexico has states. I hope to heaven this will be resolved in a bloodless end to the compact and the States will go their own ways. I already have a demonym for the people of my region, upper half New England and the Atlantic Provinces: Acerican. It refers to the genus of the ubiquitous maple trees; by rhyme, it alludes to our (North) American heritage; it also hints at our dry wit. And it doesn't have to be shared with Inuits and Chileans.

Honestly the whole semantic game reminds me of the day all the (Marxist) English teachers in the country decided to forget what a disjunct is so they could abolish the most common usage of the term "hopefully", leaving all other disjuncts (frankly, unfortunately, simply) untouched. Or how the primary usage of "to discover" was abolished in order to insult Columbus; apparently now the term only means "to be the first person to locate something", yet you don't hear English-department Marxists correcting someone when they say "I have discovered a new cafe up the street!"

Recall that Newspeak didn't abolish the word "free", just the standard sense of it. You could still say "This dog is free of fleas."

So what do Marxists have against hope, discovery, and America? To ask the question is to answer it.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

A New Workout I Made Up

I put on my fifteen pound weight vest and my ten pound leg weights, put my feet up onto a cooler, and did thirty partially-inverted pushups.

Then I put on my wraps and boxing gloves and shadow-boxed for a good while.  I did fifty toe-raises.  Then I did twenty slightly-upright pushups using a staircase.  Then I switched to three-pound hand weights, shadow-boxed some more, and did some sprinter's curls.

Then I dry-fired my snubby Smith & Wesson with a laser trainer I made out of a checkout-line laser pointer, duct tape, meat skewer, and elastic band.  I did find that my aim was less steady, but I could keep the point on the green masks on the wall (which was probably five or six yards away).

Then I did twenty more pushups and did some elbow- and knee-strikes against my heavy bag.  (I don't punch the heavy bag because my right wrist is wonky.)

I haven't figured out what to call it yet.  Probably some clever like "My Workout" or "This Workout I Do".  That would be cool.

Psychology versus Sociology

The trouble with our study of depression is that it relies on psychology rather than sociology--not because psychology is better, but because it is individualistic.  Nothing wrong with individualism per se, but it can't rationally be applied to massive secular trends like anomie, bulimia, cutting, depression, egomania, and whatever starts with an F.

Finding out the individual reason why so-and-so won't come outside and hates talking to people is pointless because it only forces you (if you have enough honesty to continue questioning) to explain the enormous coincidence implied by "everyone found invidual/unique/psychological reasons to become unreasoningly despondent 36 hours after global leftist hypercapitalist nihilism destroyed culture, family, and our entire way of life".

Sunday, September 2, 2012

Brief Farewell

Well over a year ago, I made a pledge to the Republican Party that I would stay in their party for at least a year.  Ron Paul's candidacy was the reason I extended my pledge.  I decided that if he were treated fairly at the national convention, and if the eventual nominee said anything against immigration, even just illegal immigration, I'd stay in the party and give [Romney] a fair hearing against the Constitution Party candidate in November.

There's no reason for me to spend much time on this.  The national convention decided that the results of the Maine state convention were unfair in a pro-Paul, anti-Romney direction.  This is an intensely tendentious conclusion, because fairness never prevented Republicans from excluding Rep. Paul, and Paulist viewpoints, from GOP events over the campaign season.  I don't like being put in the position of defending a libertarian (and an ex-Libertarian) I barely agree with (Paul's stand on The Issue, immigration, is weak in a way that is completely consistent with his libertarianism).

The GOP establishment has made me do that, so I say: Farewell.  Your nomination process told me I could support someone who was against indefinite detention, affirmative action, health care centralization, and the rest of the establishmentarian attack on my people.  You told me my vote would be counted.  You lied, as I fully expected you too.

I'll be changing my registration to unaffiliated at my next opportunity.

Wednesday, August 15, 2012

Geoffrey Ingersoll Thinks Muslims are a Race

In a very strange piece of writing (I'm not sure if it is supposed to a news article or not), Ingersoll has decided that calling for the widespread torture and murder of Whites is comparable to declaring that 10% of Muslims (a group he apparently thinks are a racial subgroup of "brown people") support terrorism.

Of course, Sura 9:29-30 pretty much calls upon all Muslims to commit terrorism until non-Muslims have all been financially enslaved:
You shall fight back against those who do not believe in GOD, nor in the Last Day, nor do they prohibit what GOD and His messenger have prohibited, nor do they abide by the religion of truth among those who received the scripture, until they pay the due tax, willingly or unwillingly.
The Jews said, "Ezra is the son of GOD," while the Christians said, "Jesus is the son of GOD!" These are blasphemies uttered by their mouths. They thus match the blasphemies of those who have disbelieved in the past. GOD condemns them. They have surely deviated.
So it would be reasonable to say that all devout Muslims support terrorism.

Incidentally, King Samir Shabazz is a former member of the Nation of Islam, which, according to some of the whiterpeople I've known, isn't a "real Muslim organization" ... because Islam is really a religion of peace.  (One of these whiterpeople came from San Francisco, home of the Zebra killings, so of course she had to do some rhetorical gymnastics in order to separate the murder of her city's people from the Nation of Islam; failing to do so would have caused some discomfort given the nature of left-coast leftism.)

Ingersoll's hatchet job is instructive for several reasons:

A.  He lasted for a whole sentence discussing planned Black-on-White violence before shifting attention (and blame) to "right-wingers" (most of whom are probably not WN / race-realist / White Zionists in the first place).

B.  He revealed, probably unintentionally, that the reason leftists have a soft spot for gay-hating, woman-bashing, slavery-condoning Muslims is that leftists think Muslims are "brown", and leftists love anyone "brown".  (Hesperado has several good article on this; they are linked here.  Hesperado believes "Muslims are not a race!" is a pretty weak mantra for anti-Islam apologists; I agree with him in a way, but I'm still going to call J-school race Marxists on it when they try to racialize Islam.)

C.  He apparently thinks it is just fine for him, and Business Insider, to give attention to terrorists, but not for Rupert Murdoch to do so.

It's all the usual J-school racial Marxism: shift the blame, cover up the crimes of leftist shock troops, make everything into a racial issue unless it would reflect badly on Black or Marxists, etc.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

American Fifth Position

So, here is my current tally of Presidential endorsements by alt-right bloggers:

For Barack Obama, Democrat Party: 1 (by Borepatch)
For Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party: 1 (by Aretae)
For Mitt Romney, Republican Party: 1 (by nydwracu)

To that I will add 1 for Virgil Goode, Constitution Party.  I'll keep this post short.

Here are some ratings at one of the few ratings groups I care about.  (For some reason they haven't rated Goode, even though they linked to one of his op-eds.)

The comments on the other bloggers' pages are interesting.  Obviously I don't agree with those bloggers on this particular matter, and I have little philosophically in common with Aretae (though my position on this election is probably closer to his than the others).

Since there is no real way to predict the future, I figure I will vote for the person who I agree with the most.  I don't agree with Borepatch that a victory for Obama will increase support for the Tea Party, since a victory for Obama may result in a well-enforced ban on the Tea Party, and every political organization outside the DemocRINO mainstream.