Sunday, February 7, 2016

Machines: A Sad Wisdom

     [In light of the recent acceleration of racial, ethnic, and “religious” tensions, I felt it appropriate to repost this piece which first appeared at the old Palace Of Reason in August of 2004. -- FWP]

     We've grown so proficient at so many marvelous things. Yet we're failing as a society, because of what we've forgotten, or neglected.

     Each weekday morning for the past thirty years, I've awakened to the droning of an alarm clock-radio, have quaffed coffee made by a timer-triggered process so that it would be ready when I awoke, have risen and showered in precisely heated water, have shaved with a razor that's a marvel of precision technology, have pulled a cup of yogurt from my refrigerator for breakfast, and have driven off to work in a device Walter Chrysler once called "the most wonderful machines ever built by Man."

     Seldom have any of these machines failed me. Oh, there've been a few cases. But when I contemplate the trivial costs of maintenance and repair they exact from me, and their astounding reliability over protracted periods without significant attention, I am humbled by the achievements they represent.

     I have a particular fascination with cars. Cars used to be far simpler than they are today -- but they're far more reliable today than ever before, despite their exponentially greater complexity and capability. In the past ten years, four cars have passed through my hands, have accumulated more than 400,000 miles in all -- enough to circumnavigate the globe at the equator sixteen times -- and have produced a total of one mechanical failure among them: a dead battery.

     Marvels of technological plenty and endurance are all around us. You say the blade you put in your razor this morning had a burr on it that scratched your face? How much did it cost? And what about the three hundred blades before that one? Did the coffeemaker spring a leak and leave a puddle on your counter? Spend another fifty bucks on a new coffeemaker and be happy. Are you exercised about your hard disk failure? Allow that a device that rotates at 7200 RPM and did so reliably for three years or more might just have an excuse to succumb to the stresses.

     Our machines are truly marvelous. Perhaps more marvelous than any other of their aspects is how well they resist the abrasions of the environment around them. Our species...well, it's not quite so marvelous as it once was.

     Our worst problem developed along the margins of our moral thinking. It's been conceded for quite a while that a man under sufficiently extreme survival pressures will naturally depart from the laws and moral strictures that govern ordinary times, no matter how devoted he is to those things under happier circumstances. But until about forty years ago, this was not considered a justification for outlawry or amorality, merely an explanation for some of it. Then developed the notion, which quickly gathered currency, that if we'd all react a certain way under sufficient stress, then those who did so ought not to be penalized for it.

     For a while, it sounded good. But it was the entering wedge for the concept of moral relativism. The promoters of that concept started from the premise that an excruciatingly difficult context ought to excuse, rather than merely explain, departures from upright behavior. From there they developed the proposition that moral standards depended on context and other factors so greatly that uniform, acontextual rules were inherently unfair, and ought to be discarded.

     Moral relativism is now the dominant moral concept of our time. "Whatever's right for you" is its watchword. It condones everything and condemns nothing, because the full context of a man's deeds, with all its pressures and constraints, can only be known to him. How, the relativists ask, can we possibly judge his actions when we can never know what it was like to be him, in his position, faced with his choices?

     But a man is a machine of a peculiar kind. He's a learning machine, who gathers critical information about the suitability of his behavior from the consequences thereof. When the consequences are good -- that is, when they advance him toward his goals, or reduce his costs or sufferings -- they encourage him to do more of it. When the consequences are bad -- that is, when they cause him to move farther from his goals, or to incur pain or loss -- they discourage him from repeating it, possibly forever.

     Behavior is suitable if it is both profitable and tolerated. Under an acontextual moral standard, many profitable behaviors are not tolerated; indeed, we try to make them unprofitable by punishing them, whether informally by techniques ranging from disapproval to ostracism, or formally, through the force of the law. Under the relativistic non-standard, punishment is itself discouraged, and those behaviors acquire a new appeal.

     But even the most complete hegemony for moral relativism, in which no bad deed is ever punished by anyone in any way, can prevent the human learning machine from functioning as its Designer intended. It merely changes what we learn.

     When we behave uprightly but see ourselves bypassed by others who've lied, cheated, stolen, and acted cruelly without penalty, our attachment to wholesome norms of conduct is weakened. Worse, our ability to transmit those norms to our children is weakened as well.

     When we refrain from exploiting the weak, but others show no such scruples and are rewarded for it, we come to resent both the exploiters and their victims: the first for destroying our illusions, the second for providing the means.

     When we answer the urgings of our hearts and give of ourselves for others' benefit, but then discover that we've been played for fools by cynical exploiters, we become hard, and far less receptive to the pleas of others in need.

     By Von Neumann's Law of Requisite Variety, human society, like any other multiply connected network, will be dominated by those elements that have the most available states and behaviors. Under the regime of moral relativism, that advantage belongs to the unscrupulous. They will lord it over the rest of us specifically because they defy all law and suffer no consequences for it, neither internally imposed by conscience nor externally imposed by society.

     Why this topic today? Because the C.S.O. and I have discovered, just these past two days, that we've been had. An exploiter reached us through our better natures, extracted quite a bit of good from us, and would have had still more. What wised us up and put a stop to it was coincidental, and quite fortunate for us. The damage was considerable, but it could have been far worse. Still, we can feel our hearts hardening -- not merely toward this person, but toward whoever might cross our path in the future, whether his need of succor was genuine or contrived.

     The human machine never stops learning, until it stops completely.

A Real Constitutional Attorney Explains the Legality of the Oregon Standoff.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Grand Ideas And Unifying Conceptions

     During my years in physics, I was mesmerized by the really “big ideas:” the attempts to arrive at grand unifications of the major physical laws. Anyone who’s progressed far in the sciences will tell you that that’s a short cut to professional irrelevance. Normal science – what Thomas Kuhn called “mopping-up operations” – is performed at the margins of already-established major theories. Grand ideas that propose to introduce wholly new fundamental concepts that unite all previous learning are the province of very few – and very few who’ve dedicated themselves to exploring such ideas are remembered as significant.

     But grand ideas have an undeniable appeal. They promise something the more common reaches of scientific investigation do not: top-down simplicity.

     A proposed grand idea entices investigators and adherents with the siren song of unlimited knowledge: a broad-spectrum ability to predict outcomes that more limited conceptions cannot equal. That’s the whole reason such ideas matter. Einsteinian general relativity didn’t merely clarify a set of minor cases in gravitation, relevant only to enormous masses you and I will never visit. Rather, it encompassed Newtonian gravitation completely, by extending the ability to predict gravitational phenomena beyond the domain in which Newtonian gravitation is accurate. In doing so, it upset quite a lot of academic applecarts, which is why Einstein received his Nobel Prize not for general relativity but for his much later work on the photoelectric effect.

     Grand ideas in the sciences are revolutionary (cf. Kuhn). Most revolutions fail of their purpose: i.e., the overthrow and replacement of the existing order. Which is why young researchers are advised to moderate their ambitions if they want to be “successful” scientists.

     But let’s not spend an entire screed on the sciences. Grand ideas are even more important in the day-to-day lives of ordinary men.

     Grand ideas in religion, politics, economics, and general ethics have shaped the history of the world – and not by animating individual “great men,” but by energizing their followers. Consider all the following:

     ...and so forth. (I’ll leave contemporary “thinkers” on “ethics,” nearly all of whom are villains, to my stronger-stomached Gentle Readers to investigate, should the fit take them. It’s a nice day, and I don’t want to spoil it.)

     The most important thing about the above ideas and similar ones is their utility as simplifying constructs. Each of them permits the easy deduction of rules applicable to more specific situations. Also, because they derive from a common “ancestor” rule, the “descendant” rules exhibit consistency. Ralph Waldo Emerson and his frequently misquoted maxim notwithstanding, people value consistency greatly. We prefer to see it exhibited in the words and deeds of those, near or far, whose decisions and actions affect us.

     Which is why so many Americans have come to hate government and politicians with an incandescent fury.

     The most powerful ideas among the grand ideas are those which are consistent with one another. This has proved to be the aspect of American thought contemporary “thinkers” and “educators” are most ardent to obscure.

     The grand idea Americans probably value most commonly is that of the rule of law: the idea that the law is superior to individual identities. Isabel Paterson considered this the cleavage idea that separates the “Society of Contract,” wherein all men are under the same binding rules, and the “Society of Status,” in which one’s identity determines which laws apply (or don’t) to him. Under such a unifying conception, a public official could not – in theory, at least – get away with behavior that would get a private citizen prosecuted. Under the implied framework for law and justice called constitutionalism, no organ of government could legitimately transgress those bounds, for a government of any sort is merely an agent – a hireling – with assigned responsibilities and delegated powers. What is illegal for a private citizen would be just as illegal for any agent of the State.

     In his 1850 manifesto The Law, Frederic Bastiat laid great emphasis on this principle:

     But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

     Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case— is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system....

     Can the law, whose necessary sanction is force, be reasonably employed upon anything beyond securing to every one his right? I defy anyone to remove it from this circle without perverting it, and consequently turning force against right.

     Note how neatly Lockean natural rights, the rule of law, and Confucian / Christian ethics mesh. They’re entirely consistent with one another as regards the principles of secular law and justice. (Judaism comes a-cropper on the subject of the punishment of “sin” according to Mosaic / Levitical prescriptions; cf. John 8:1-11.) Note also that the convergence of those three grand ideas in the United States was the first time it had ever happened. It required the combined efforts of several geniuses, Thomas Jefferson most notable among them, which makes it small wonder that it should have taken so long.

     I’ve suggested in the past that these three ideas are like quarks: no one of them can be pulled away without causing the product to decay irreversibly. Which is why the attempt to insert an alien grand idea into our national mélange is ringing an alarm bell heard from border to border and coast to coast.

     The rule of law in the U.S. has already sustained considerable shocks due to “anti-discrimination” laws that tread on our freedom of association in the commercial sphere. Further damage to it arrived in the form of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act, and various court rulings concerning mandatory “reasonable accommodations” on the grounds of various physical handicaps. But as bad as these things are, there was more and worse to come, owing to the swelling numbers of Muslims resident in the U.S.

     Regulatory bodies petitioned for mandatory religious accommodations to Muslim employees – in particular, exemption from certain duties and the mandatory provision of prayer breaks during the work day – have been all but unanimously favorable to such demands. That Islam is not a “handicap” in the exact sense, and that “freedom of religion” cannot imply the privilege of imposing one’s personal religion and its obligations upon others, have been granted no weight in the arguments over such accommodations. Yet employers who seek to exclude Muslims from their workforces face extraordinary legal and social pressures to accept them.

     Yet this is not the thrust of my thoughts for this morning. Rather, I’m here to point out that Islam and its demands are wholly inconsistent with the three consistent, coherent grand ideas cited in the previous segment. If I may be permitted a physics analogy, Islam is a speeding neutron aimed point-blank at our national ideological nucleus – and no American literate enough to read an English translation of the Qur’an can legitimately be ignorant of it.

     Ironically enough, Islam is itself a grand idea. It unifies religion, governance, all matters of ethics, and all aspects of daily life however trivial within a single envelope. Its guiding principle is “Allah wills it.” Its inconsistency with Americanism is total. The two can never, ever be reconciled. Yet our political elite continues to demand exactly that, while working to import ever more Muslims to our shores. To suspect them of a hidden agenda is only natural.

     Islam isn’t the only threat on our national radar. There are other grand ideas, such as socialism, that are just as inconsistent with the American nucleus. All such ideas must be resisted a outrance. However, our ability to resist them has already been weakened by prior incursions such as those mentioned above. It calls into question whether our national identity and our confidence in it will suffice to beat them away.

     This has been a rather discursive essay. Grand ideas are like that: they imply many things; their threads of implication trail off in many directions. That doesn’t diminish their importance. Indeed, if anything, it heightens it.

     I’ve recently taken some flak from one particular Gentle Reader about my choices of subjects. He should know better; I write about what’s uppermost on my mind, without regard for anyone’s preference of topic. However, knowing better and doing worse is part of our human folly. Among those who find the thoughts I’ve set down today important and stimulating, let the discussion commence.

Quickies: Important Advice... women in or near locales infested by Muslims:

     Needless to say, any “social justice warrior” who views the above will wet his/her/its pants at the suggestion that those poor, oppressed Muslim “refugees” could possibly be responsible for the rapes and molestations occurring throughout Europe. No! It must be those evil white patriarchal cis-male defenders of the oppressive international capitalist conspiracy! Ban them! Confine them to reservations surrounded by twenty-foot concrete walls topped with broken glass and barbed wire, for the sake of the poor oppressed brown people! There’s no time to lose!

     Gun sales, including easily pocket- or purse-concealed handguns, are up sharply throughout the United States. At a time when the police won’t even look cross-eyed at anyone with skin darker than Taylor Swift for fear of a protest from CAIR or ISNA, this is simple good sense – and the SJWs will have no luck talking Americans out of it.

Stunning clarity from a brave Muslim.

Friday, February 5, 2016

Quickies: Concerning Return Of Kings And Its Attackers

     Concerning the cancellation of the Return of Kings-sponsored International Meetup event, the feminist harridans and assorted beta, gamma, delta, and epsilon males who marshaled the vicious attacks on the event probably think they won something. They did not. I regard the following snippet from this essay by Davis M. J. Aurini as expressing the heart of the matter:

     A final word for all of those who attacked us, slandered us, and threatened us; we, the men who would defend you against those who would enslave and exploit you; we who fight, not for ourselves, but for the future. We will remember who you are, and we are a larger chorus than you know.

     That ex-boyfriend who stole your heart? One of us. That charming married man at your office, with the beautiful wife? One of us. That wise mentor who helped you more than you’ll ever know? One of us. And we saw what you said about us, without even knowing who we were.

     The battle for civilization will be neither quick nor easy. We will win, but not without great struggle and many casualties amongst those who refused to pick a side. So remember something: when you or your womenfolk are being viciously assaulted and raped by third world savages whom you defended while decrying us—or by some gestapo thug, whom you empowered to oppress us, their breath rancid with garlic and rotting teeth—

     That is the future you chose by standing against men of virtue.

     Indeed. Their regrets may arrive sooner than anyone can imagine.

It was a summer evening,
Old Kaspar's work was done,
And he before his cottage door
Was sitting in the sun,
And by him sported on the green
His little grandchild Wilhelmine.

She saw her brother Peterkin
Roll something large and round
Which he beside the rivulet
In playing there had found;
He came to ask what he had found,
That was so large, and smooth, and round.

Old Kaspar took it from the boy,
Who stood expectant by;
And then the old man shook his head,
And with a natural sigh,
"'Tis some poor fellow's skull," said he,
"Who fell in the great victory.

"I find them in the garden,
For there's many here about;
And often when I go to plough,
The ploughshare turns them out!
For many thousand men," said he,
"Were slain in that great victory."

"Now tell us what 'twas all about,"
Young Peterkin, he cries;
And little Wilhelmine looks up
With wonder-waiting eyes;
"Now tell us all about the war,
And what they fought each other for."

"It was the English," Kaspar cried,
"Who put the French to rout;
But what they fought each other for
I could not well make out;
But everybody said," quoth he,
"That 'twas a famous victory.

"My father lived at Blenheim then,
Yon little stream hard by;
They burnt his dwelling to the ground,
And he was forced to fly;
So with his wife and child he fled,
Nor had he where to rest his head.

"With fire and sword the country round
Was wasted far and wide,
And many a childing mother then,
And new-born baby died;
But things like that, you know, must be
At every famous victory.

"They said it was a shocking sight
After the field was won;
For many thousand bodies here
Lay rotting in the sun;
But things like that, you know, must be
After a famous victory.

"Great praise the Duke of Marlbro' won,
And our good Prince Eugene."
"Why, 'twas a very wicked thing!"
Said little Wilhelmine.
"Nay ... nay ... my little girl," quoth he,
"It was a famous victory."

"And everybody praised the Duke
Who this great fight did win."
"But what good came of it at last?"
Quoth little Peterkin.
"Why, that I cannot tell," said he,
"But 'twas a famous victory."

     [Robert Southey, “The Battle of Blenheim”]

     Remember Cologne.

Political Elites And “Magic Dirt”

     It’s not that long ago that the badly maligned and generally underappreciated John Derbyshire soliloquized on this subject:

     In the past couple of decades we’ve seen the rise of one particular explanatory strategy [for racial differences in academic performance and social conduct]. That strategy recently acquired a name—or possibly it’s had the name for a while and I only just recently noticed. Whatever, I really like the name: Magic Dirt.

     The core idea is that one’s physical surroundings—the bricks and mortar of the building you’re in, or the actual dirt you are standing on—emit invisible vapors that can change your personality, behavior, and intelligence.

     That’s why, for example, you read so much about “bad schools” or “failing schools.” The thing to be explained is that schools whose students are overwhelmingly non-Asian minorities—blacks and mestizos—get much worse results on academic tests than schools whose students are majority white and East Asian. This has been so for decades, defying even extravagantly expensive efforts to change it, like the Kansas City fiasco of the 1990s.

     Parsimonious explanation: innate differences in behavior, intelligence, and personality between the races.

     Magical explanation: Bad schools! The bricks and mortar of these schools, the asphalt of their playgrounds, are giving out invisible noxious vapors that enstupidate the kids!...

     Magic Dirt theory is a key component of immigration romanticism, too. Sure, Mexico and Central America are messed-up places, and presumably their inhabitants played some role in messing them up. If we just move thirty or forty million of those people to the U.S.A., though, our Magic Dirt will transform them into civic-minded Jeffersonian yeomen!

     Now watch as the great Mark Steyn applies his clarity and intellect to Europe, with particular application to Germany:

     There’s only one element to “magic dirt” thinking that these two thinkers leave largely unaddressed...which, of course, is why you’re reading this essay.

     Now and then, a fiction writer will express an important idea more clearly than any pundit or “policy wonk.” Here’s a case in point:

     How did they use electricity in Hell? But outside the power plant was an athletic man chained to a wheel-less bicycle set in concrete in front of the exhaust pipe of the generator. Black smoke poured around him, almost hiding him from view.

     As we watched he began pedaling furiously. The hum of the gears rose to a high pitch—and the generator inside died. There was a moment of quiet. The man pedaled with sure strokes, faster and faster, his feet nearly invisible, his head tucked down as if against a wind. We gathered around, each wondering how long he could keep it up.

     He began to tire. The blur of his feet slowed. The motors inside coughed, and black smoke poured out. He choked and turned his head away, and saw us.

     “Don’t answer if you’d rather not,” I said, “but what whim of fate put you here?”

     “I don’t know!” he howled. “I was president of the largest and most effective environmental protection organization in the country! I fought this!” He braced himself and pedaled again. The hum rose, and the generator died....

     Corbett had to be guessing when he suddenly asked, “You opposed thermonuclear power plants?”

     The guy stopped dead, staring as if Corbett were a ghost. The dynamo lurched into action and surrounded him with thick blue smoke.

     “That’s it, isn’t it?” Corbett said gently. “You stopped the nuclear generators. I was just a kid during the power blackouts. We had to go to school in the dark because the whole country went on daylight savings time to save power.”

     “But they weren’t safe!” He coughed. “They weren’t safe!”

     “How did you know that?” Benito asked.

     “We had scientists in our organization. They proved it.”

     But of course this is Hell, a place of ironies surpassing all Earthly ironies. And so...

     When I looked down, Benito was fumbling through saddlebags attached to the stationary bicycle.

     The man cried “What are you doing?

     Benito took out papers. The man snatched at them, but Benito backed away. He read, “Dear Jon, I could understand your opposition to us last year. There was some doubt about the process, and you expressed fears all of us felt. But now you know better. I have no witnesses, but you told me you understood Dr. Pittman’s demonstration. In God’s name, Jon, why do you continue? I ask you as your sister, as a fellow scientist, as a human being: why?”

     He began pedaling again, ignoring us.

     “You knew?” I demanded. He pedaled faster, his head bent. I leaned down and put my face close to his. “You knew?” I screamed.

     “Fuck off.”

     Big Juju wins again. Too much, but appropriate. As we walked away, Jon screamed after us, “I’d have been nothing if I gave up the movement! Nothing! Don’t you understand? I had to stay as president!”

     Ponder that for a moment while I fix more coffee.

     There are some things that cannot be said too often. This is one:

Politicians worship power.
They’ll do anything to get and keep it.
It trumps all their other priorities.

     Inversely, a politician who feels himself losing power will react to that more powerfully than to any other symptom of decline. But to appreciate the range of possible conditions under which a top-tier political figure will feel such a decline, one must appreciate the nature of political power.

     Political power is power over others. The magnitude of that power varies directly with:

  • Its scope: i.e., what range of behaviors and interactions with others it covers;
  • Its numbers: i.e., how many persons are subject to it.

     Thus, the ruler of a nation whose population is increasing, whether by birth or by immigration, can assess his power as increasing as well...but the ruler of a nation whose population is declining has every reason to feel that he’s losing power with each subject that emigrates or dies.

     When Mark Steyn asks “Can you have Germany without Germans?” he asks a question that would occur to a free man, uninterested in power over others. But that’s not the question that would be uppermost in the mind of an Angela Merkel. She would think, “How can I be Chancellor of Germany without subjects to rule?” The “solution” to her “problem” is a simple one: import them.

     Of course, her “solution” involves the infliction of many evils upon those native Germans that remain. Does that matter to her? If at all, only as a minor consequence to what she views as a necessity. In the mind of a top-tier politician, power trumps all other considerations. The rights and prerogatives of others barely register on Merkel’s thoughts.

     Political power is, of course, a form of status. Other kinds of status appeal to other kinds of people, such as the “environmentalist” in the citation from Niven and Pournelle’s Inferno. And indeed, the sort of “status uber alles” behavior observable among politicians will be easily found among those who put some other kind of status – e.g., wealth or popularity – above all other considerations.

     However, among all the relational varieties of status, only power is wholly addictive and utterly noxious. Politicians never willingly retire – and the longer they enjoy power, the more willing they become to do anything to enlarge and keep it. Consider the recently deceased Arlen Specter, or the odious Jim Jeffords, for examples of the tenacity of the power-luster’s grip. Consider further the conscienceless, remorseless drive of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the presidency. Granted, the same suspicion applies to any candidate on either side of the fence, but in Mrs. Clinton we have a particularly egregious case.

     In summary: To explain European power-mongers’ willing acceptance of savage Middle Eastern hordes, a goodly fraction of them likely terrorists-to-be, for their new subjects, combine their agony over the decline of their nations’ populations with the wishful thinking that allows one to believe that “everything will be all right if I can just fix this one thing.” Sprinkle with “magic dirt” and bake in a moderate European oven for about a year...then run as far and as fast as you can.

Thursday, February 4, 2016

On Seeing Clearly And Acting Sincerely

     I’ve said this before – and I wasn’t the first to do so then, either – but if you claim to believe in a right, you’re ethically obligated to defend it even when it’s exercised by the lowest sons of bitches in all of creation. Yet any number of persons, including some whose behavior generally marks them as intelligent and honest, will fail to abide by that principle when it pertains to some person or group of which they disapprove on other grounds.

     For example: I despise feminists and hold them in extreme contempt. Yet I would never argue that they have no right to express themselves. I might mock their sentiments – indeed, I often do – but suppressing the expression thereof is beyond the pale for one who believes, as Oliver Wendell Holmes so memorably put it, that freedom must include “freedom for the thought we hate.”

     To appreciate the import of the above, one must:

  • See clearly: to distinguish that which is tolerable from that which must be opposed;
  • Act sincerely: to proceed on the same ethical basis one would want others to employ toward oneself.

     To do otherwise is to betray the most important fundamental obligation any man can face: the obligation to be honest with himself.

     After that rather heavy intro, you’re probably wondering what it is that’s got me so exercised. At least, you’d better be, or I’ve wasted more than two hundred words already with a lot more in prospect.

     If you don’t know of Daryush “Roosh” Valizadeh, he’s a relatively important figure in the “red pill” or neomasculine movement. Without going into excessive detail, that movement is a rejection of contemporary feminism and its presumptions in preference for older standards for male conduct and relations between the sexes. It might not be perfectly accurate to describe the “red pill” man as a traditionalist, but he certainly shares a number of convictions and assumptions with the American man of a century ago.

     Roosh runs two popular websites:

     Both sites are dedicated to the exploration and promulgation of neomasculinism. They promote:

  1. The treatment of reality as an absolute;
  2. Masculine self-respect and self-improvement;
  3. The rejection of feminist attitudes and propaganda;
  4. The treatment of women as what they represent themselves to be.

     The first three of those ribs of neomasculinism would draw enough fire all by themselves. The fourth one has enraged feminists worldwide.

     The “red pill” man strives to see past a woman’s pretensions. He infinitely prefers a traditionally feminine woman to an “I am woman, hear me roar” type. However, he will treat a woman according to her claims and her behavior. For example, if she claims to be “strong,” she can fix her own flat tire. This is sometimes called the rejection of “white knighting.”

     In particular, the “red pill” man treats ladies like ladies and sluts like sluts. Roosh himself has issued several short books of instruction on getting sexual access to the latter category.

     Now, it doesn’t matter whether you approve or disapprove of any of the above. They’re Roosh’s opinions and the opinions of other men who’ve flocked to his banner. That’s a substantial group of men, tens of thousands scattered across the seven continents, who like to get together occasionally for conversation and general conviviality. Indeed, Roosh has tried to facilitate such get-togethers through the abovementioned websites.

     And feminists hate him with a passion that verges on violence:

     President Obama, US Department of State,

     We petition to have Return of Kings, a misogynistic online community, classified as a terrorist organization. Their current work is to inspire fear in women and feminists, and they have threatened assault, rape, and cause bodily harm to any who intervene or speak against them. Their current plans are to hold world wide gatherings this coming weekend. Their leader, Daryush Valizadeh (aka "Roosh V") has said that these meetings are being held as an attempt to legalize rape, and he has already been banned by multiple countries from entering, on the grounds of his promotion of sexual assault and treatment of women.

     Terrorism is most fundamentally defined as "actions designed to create fear/terror," and Return of Kings only intent is to terrify women.

     Every claim of fact in the above petition is an outright, slanderous lie. It’s merely a component in feminists’ war against neomasculinism and the convergence of its adherents. The top half-dozen entries at Return of Kings tell of feminists’ most recent efforts at defaming Roosh and those who agree with him.

     Nor is this the first time. Roosh’s other attempts to hold public events have been harassed and threatened with violence. Feminists in Toronto tried their best to prevent him from entering the country. When that proved impossible, they strove to disrupt the talks he’d scheduled. In defense, Roosh took to announcing the locations and times at the last possible moment, despite the inconvenience and expense that would inflict upon him and those who wished to hear him.

     This has been increasingly the Left’s response to any attempt by those who differ with it to assemble or express themselves. Feminists, the “angry ugly-girl” component of the Left coalition, are among the most militant of its sectors, for a simple reason: women can get away with much more violence, vandalism, and unacceptable public conduct than any other group, with the possible exception of homosexuals.

     From the above and many comparable incidents affecting gatherings of conservatives, libertarians, religious traditionalists, and so forth, it becomes plain that Western society is partitioned between those who respect the right of free expression and those who, from their conduct, clearly despise it. It’s not enough merely to note it and deplore it. Something must be done about it – and that “something” cannot be confined to mere words.

     Don’t expect assistance from any level of government. Governments thrive on fear and social discord. The State avidly exploits those things to the extreme detriment of our rights. The assertion and defense of the rights to free expression and peaceable assembly must be a private, voluntary matter, even if it entails the embrace of considerable risk.

     Websites and newsletters dedicated to ideas unfriendly to the Left must multiply and be carefully superintended. Attacks on them must be expected and, as far as possible, thwarted before they can arise. Hostile institutions must be identified and proclaimed as such.

     Gatherings must be publicly and unabashedly proclaimed. They must be provided with security forces – armed security forces – prior notice of which will be given to local law enforcement, along with documentation of the necessity. Attempts by local “authorities” to forbid such security provisions must be countervailed. Here in the United States, we have the Second Amendment; in other countries the matter will be more difficult, but the need will remain.

     Last but far from least, attempts to slander persons and associations disliked by the Left must be countervailed with facts and analysis of the reasons for such campaigns. Remember always that to accuse a man of a violation of the law, even a misdemeanor, is legally actionable. Make use of the mechanisms available for punishing such calumnies.

     Will it be easy? No. Will it be safe? No. But it becomes ever more imperative as the Left strives to shred the all-important social contract on which any degree of freedom is based. Moreover, it’s most important that Americans sincere about the rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence and protected by the Bill of Rights stand ready to defend those rights even when they’re exercised by persons we disagree with. No other stance is worthy of one who claims to believe in freedom.

Bedrock principles of post-constitutional America.

The West never came close to proletarian revolution. The Left likes to believe that it did. They like to argue that "Franklin Roosevelt saved capitalism from itself." This is another way of saying that John Maynard Keynes saved capitalism from itself. Both arguments are incorrect. Roosevelt and Keynes met only once. Roosevelt correctly assessed Keynes as a mathematician, not an economist. This was true. Keynes got his degree in mathematics, not economics. Roosevelt was the source of what we call Keynesianism, 1933-36, not Keynes, whose General Theory appeared in 1936. But scholars like to believe that academic arguments shape the world. They don't. They conform what has already begun to take root in the thinking and practices of the general public.

When men decided that "thou shalt not steal" means "thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote," the Keynesian worldview was born. This view is dominant today. Marxism is dead. So is cultural Marxism.

To win this battle, we must persuade men that "thou shalt not steal" means this: it is immoral to steal, with or without majority vote.[1]

This immoral approach to government is true at all levels of government in the U.S. and throughout the West. In the U.S., a vital corollary of this theft is that if any proposed federal spending – the most profligate of all government spending – isn't in aid of one of the enumerated powers of Congress in Art. Sect. 8 it doesn't matter.

Thus, (1) Theft is ok and (2) the use of the money is ok, regardless of any constitutional limitation.

[1] "Cultural Marxism Is an Oxymoron." By Gary North , Gary North 's Specific Answers, - 7/1/14.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Ultra-Quickies: A Hypothetical Alteration To The Franchise

     Imagine, just for the sake of an interesting thought experiment, that instead of being an individual property, the vote were a family property. That is: the privilege of casting a vote in some election would apply to a recognized family, perhaps as registered with the local school district.

     That’s one vote. For the entire family. Not one for Dad, one for Mom, and one for each spratling over the age of eighteen.

Which member of the family, in your estimation, would be most likely to decide how that vote would be cast?

     Give your opinions in the comments.


     The Scary Medical Procedure is, ah, behind me, and I’m feeling reasonably good for the first time in some weeks, so I plan to put the day to fiction, assorted chores, and fun stuff to “fill up the corners.” So have a few miscellaneous observations of the world we live, make that the world we endure.

     1. Does This Come As A Surprise?

     I certainly hope not:

     Bernie Sanders supporters are very enthusiastic, but seem a little short on political philosophy. A reporter from CNN recently asked attendees at a Sanders town hall event to describe socialism.

     Josh Feldman reported at Mediaite:

     CNN’s Baldwin Asks Sanders Supporters to Define the Word ‘Socialist’

     At a recent Bernie Sanders rally, CNN anchor Brooke Baldwin asked some of his supporters to define the word socialism. And, well, some of them didn’t exactly know…

     Baldwin showed her video of the very enthusiastic Sanders supporters she spoke with on CNN earlier today. A few of them contrasted Sanders with Hillary Clinton.

     Considering the pitiable state of American education, particularly in the critical subject of history, I’d have been shocked if the reverse had been found.

     2. An Eye For The Ironic.

     David Thompson has it:

     Meanwhile, on feminist Tumblr…

     Someone wants to buy a shirt that bears the immensely radical slogan “you cannot weigh beauty” and is promptly horrified to discover that said shirt is available in different sizes.

     Apparently, sizing clothes is triggering and oppressive.

     Remember, friends: feminism is lunacy. It consists of:

  • The denial of reality;
  • The hatred of men;
  • A quest for power.

     There is absolutely nothing good about it.

     While we’re on this subject, be sure to enjoy Dystopic’s latest.

     3. The International Assault On Christianity.

     There’s a lot of it going around:

     Xi Jinping’s crackdown on civil society appears to be moving onto sacred ground. The Chinese government has just arrested the pastor of China’s largest official Protestant church, as Time reports:
     Pastor Gu Yuese, also known as Joseph Gu, was placed under “residential surveillance in a designated location” — the official term for facilities known more commonly as “black jails” — in the city of Hangzhou last Thursday, according to U.S.-based Christian rights group China Aid.

     Gu, who headed Hangzhou’s prominent Chongyi Church, was reportedly removed from his post by China’s Three-Self Patriotic Movement (TSPM), the Chinese Communist Party–sanctioned authority that regulates churches, 10 days prior to his detention. He had been vocal in his opposition to the government’s destruction of crosses atop church buildings in China’s Christian-dominated eastern province of Zhejiang, a campaign that began in 2014.

     “His arrest marks a major escalation in the crackdown against those who oppose the forced demolition of crosses,” Bob Fu, president and founder of China Aid, said in a statement. “He will be the highest-ranking national church leader arrested since the Cultural Revolution.”

     While we express our horror and anger over still worse atrocities, such as ISIS’s routine beheadings of Christians who fall into their hands, let’s not forget the oppressions being committed by “legitimate” governments...including some with which “our” government holds regular intercourse.

     (Speculate on the nature of that “intercourse” as you please.)

     4. Words Fail Me Dept.

     Seriously, sometimes there are no words:

     After visiting the United States, three members of the “UN Working Group of Experts on People of African Descent” led by Mireille Fanon Mendes-France (previously seen cheerleading a lawsuit by Caribbean nations against Great Britain for the slave trade) has suggested not only that the United States pay reparations for slavery, but that it also establish a National Human Rights Commission. The statement, based on a preliminary visit interviewing a limited number black activists, immediately became fodder for the anti-American propaganda machine.

     It doesn’t suffice that we spilled the blood of 800,000 Americans to end slavery. It doesn’t suffice that we’ve spent multi-trillions upon welfare for the remote descendants of slaves. It doesn’t suffice that Negroes get preferential treatment under the law for everything from hiring to lending. For as long as white Americans’ consciences remain prickable over this 150-year-dead practice that virtually every other country in history condoned at some point, America’s enemies will use it as a stick to flog us with.

     If I were to set down in pixels what I’m thinking right now, I’d have a “protest march” outside my front door by noon. But then, I’ve already done that, haven’t I?

     Get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. Now!

     5. Still Believe There’s Such A Thing As An Honest Democrat?

     Time to lay that shit down, boyo:

     As a senator, Secretary of State John Kerry sent at least one email to Hillary Clinton from his personal account that has now been classified as secret, the State Department confirmed on Tuesday.

     The largely redacted May 19, 2011, email from Kerry — then the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee — “was sent from a non-official account,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said on Tuesday.

     That account, Kirby added “is no longer active.”

     Kerry, of course, was a key figure in the calumnious “Winter Soldier” hearings about our troops’ conduct in Vietnam. He’s also the miscreant who threw someone else’s medals over the White House fence, claiming at the time that they were his. He’s also heavily associated with “Hanoi Jane” Fonda. Yet the Democrats felt he would be a suitable presidential nominee in 2004.

     Irving Kristol’s categorization of the Democrats as the Evil Party (“There are two parties in America: the Stupid Party and the Evil Party, and I'm proud to be a member of the Stupid Party.”) has never before seemed so accurate nor so on-point.

     6. Government-Controlled Journalism.

     Germany has it:

     A retired media boss at a major German state broadcaster has admitted his network and others take orders from the government on what — and what not — to report.

     National public service broadcaster Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen (ZDF), which was recently forced into a humiliating apology for their silence on migrant violence and sex assault is being drawn into a fresh scandal after one of their former bureau chiefs admitted the company takes orders from the government on what it reports. He said journalists received instructions to write news that would be “to Ms. Merkel’s liking.”

     Former head of ZDF Bonn Dr. Wolfgang Herles made the remarks during a radio event (from minute 27) in Berlin where journalists discussed the media landscape. Moving on to the freedom of the press, the panel chair asked Dr. Herles whether things in Germany had got “seriously out of whack.” With an honesty perhaps unusual in Germany, Dr. Herles replied that ordinary Germans were totally losing faith in the media, something he called a “scandal.”

     No, Dr. Herles. It’s not a scandal. It’s the inevitable consequence of being caught lying to you audience. Someone who festoons his name with his academic attainments should be intelligent enough to grasp a simple matter of cause and effect.

     “A managed democracy is a wonderful thing, Manuel, for the managers...and its greatest strength is a free press when ‘free’ is defined as ‘responsible’ and the managers define what is ‘irresponsible.’” – Professor Bernardo de la Paz, in Robert A. Heinlein’s The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress

     That’s about all the badly depleted lining of my stomach can take for now, Gentle Reader. Have a nice day.

Cause People

     [I’ve received numerous requests to repost this old chestnut, which first appeared at the Palace Of Reason on June 29, 2003 -- FWP]

     Cause People can be very difficult. Trying. Often hazardous to your health. But they're getting a progressively larger fraction of the media's attention, so it's well to be up on their characteristics and migration patterns.

     If you're blessedly unacquainted with this subspecies of homo sapiens terrestrialis, and would like to explore, uh, what you've been missing, here's the official Palace Of Reason Cause People Anthropological Summary And Spotter's Field Guide. Have fun.

     1. Habitat

     Cause People are mostly found along the coasts, in the large population centers. They wear uniform-like clothing, talk in typeset phrases, and evaluate everything according to how it relates to their favored Cause. Certain institutions cater exclusively to Cause People, though the nature of those institutions has changed over time. Once it was coffee shops; today it appears to be specialty bookstores. If you locate one of these watering holes, you can reap a large number of sightings in a very short time.

     2. General Characteristics And Life Cycle

     At the center of the adult Cause Person's biocycle is, of course, the Cause. The Cause need not be any particular idea or belief. All that matters is that it have first priority in the mind of the Cause Person, to the near-total exclusion of all other considerations.

     Political affiliation provides several Causes. Special interests and fixations on various kinds of perceived threats provide many others. The typical Cause Person selects from a wide assortment of Causes early in his adulthood, attaches himself to it, and afterward nurses from it as the source of all right and justice.

     After forming the attachment, the Cause Person acquires his characteristic mode of expression. Affiliation with a Cause is normally expressed with a limited vocabulary. Therefore, the elements of that vocabulary will appear in the Cause Person's speech with very high frequency. Take note! Continual repetition of a small group of words or phrases can be a tip-off that you've spotted a variety of Cause Person of which you weren't previously aware. It's well to carry a pocket notebook for such occasions as these.

     3. Mating Patterns

     Cause People tend to be endogamous. There have been cases of out-breeding, but these are rare. Particularly attractive female Cause People can engender great consternation among males not of their sect, for which reason the temptation to "fraternize" must be stoutly resisted.

     Though endogamous, Cause People do not "breed true." Possibly because of the difficulty of inculcating their specialized vocabulary in the young, their offspring usually come to regard Mom and Dad as nuts. However, this opinion is normally repressed until Junior has his own car.

     4. Tips For The Field Observer.

     If you decide to "go for the gold" -- investigate a gathering of Cause People at close range -- you must adopt the appropriate camouflage. As you might expect, this will include your dress, your accessories, and your verbal behavior. Some quick tips:

  • Do not approach "world peace" Cause People while carrying a badge or a gun, or wearing a Nuke The Moon T-shirt.
  • Do not approach "drug legalization" Cause People in a suit, or while carrying a briefcase or a martini.
  • Do not approach "pro abortion" Cause People while wearing a crucifix.
  • Do not approach "slavery reparations" Cause People while wearing white skin.
  • Do not approach "Bush Is Hitler" or "free Palestine" Cause People at all.

     Your verbal behavior, including body language, must strive to match that of the Cause People around you. This is critical. Cause People in large numbers can be dangerous, to your sanity if nothing else. Upon detecting an outsider in their midst, they converge on him -- first retracting their most attractive females to a protected zone -- and strive to attach him to their Cause. Their frequency of success varies, but there have been some disturbing reports. Some years ago, an investigator from Nebraska, a typical non-Cause middle American, attended a party among "social justice" Cause People in Southern California's famous Malibu preserve. He gave himself away rather early in the affair -- his blond crew-cut might have done it -- and was promptly swarmed under by tract-bearing specimens repeating "peace," "oppression," "genocide," "historical crimes" and "equality" at a rate that swamped the installed monitors. He was recently found in a Hare Krishna compound, making beaded curtains for sale at Los Angeles International Airport.

     5. Excursion And Reattachment.

     The attachment to a Cause, though long-lasting, is not certain to be permanent. A Cause Person can detach from his Cause under the right pressures. The nature of those pressures depends on the Cause Person's particular situation. Sexual starvation and economic privation are common reasons for detachment.

     However, the yearning for a Cause can reassert itself after an interval of detachment. Therefore, marriage between Cause People and non-Cause people can provide interesting surprises to the latter party. The apostate Cause Person seldom returns to his earlier Cause; that would be too much like admitting to fallibility. But there are many Causes in the world, all of which cry for one's allegiance. The apostate Cause Person may find himself emotionally naked until he's reattached himself to one of them. A regular paycheck and frequent sex can help to attenuate the cravings, but these are not guaranteed preventatives. A word to the wise.

     6. Gratuitous Bad Pun

     Since no Curmudgeonly emission would be complete without at least one bad pun, regard the following exhortation, seen on a lapel button in Manhattan by a Palace associate.


     This slogan was printed over the silhouette of a condom. Don't say your Curmudgeon didn't warn you.

We pause from the drumbeat of "Assad the Butcher."

The regional and international analysts agree on the Saudi origin of al-Qaeda.

Last year, an Al-Qaeda terrorist, sentenced to life imprisonment in the US, said that members of the Saudi royal family sponsored the terrorist network in the 1990s.[1]

The Saudis are the one we so ardently support in our relentless and unconstitutional war against Syria. Does their relentless support of terror phase us?

Why, no. Not in the least. We drink their bathwater just as we always have.

The United States is perfectly fine with Wahhabism, the most malevolent interpretation of Islam south of Jupiter, the flavor of Islam that keeps Muslims in fear of their lives and the rest of the world in thrall to savages.

[1] "Saudi Interior Ministry Admits Saudi Regime Aid to Al Qaeda." By Pundita, 2/2/16.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Quickies: The Iowa Caucuses And What Will Follow

     Just a few quick thoughts about last night’s developments.

     Ted Cruz’s first-place finish in Iowa isn’t easily dismissed, but Iowa, though the first state to hold primaries, has misled American poll-watchers before. Rick Santorum squeaked out a narrow victory there in 2012, before going down for the third time and never being heard from again. What Iowa does tell us is that a “retail” operation, well staffed and ready to engage voters one at a time and in the smallest groups, remains an important facet of politicking in our era – perhaps the most important one.

     The media are lavishing disproportionate attention on Marco Rubio for finishing third, just behind Trump. This might be their Plan B for the collapse of Jeb Bush’s campaign. Remember that the media are wholly aligned with the Democrat Party. Thus, when they favor one Republican over another, it’s because they believe their chosen Republican is the one the ultimate Democrat nominee will find easiest to defeat. Rubio, whose Senate career started with much fanfare, since then has demonstrated a willingness to waffle, to fudge on the facts, and to trim his sails for votes and favorable coverage. These are not general-election assets for a Republican candidate.

     The most interesting news of the evening is, of course, about the contest between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. At this point (5:30 AM) it remains uncertain, with a small fraction of a percentage point separating the two.

     The significance of Sanders’s strong showing cannot be denied. His candidacy once looked like a joke, which it clearly is not. His support was supposed to come from fringe elements, e.g., aging hippies and granola faddists, yet a great many younger voters have flocked to his banner. Given the slimness of Clinton’s lead over him in a state not nominally favorable to his message, his tally, whether it places him first or second, will be a blow to Clinton’s candidacy.

     It still seems unlikely that Sanders will get the Democrats’ nomination. However, should he get it, his strength in the national election must not be underestimated. Republicans must take whoever the Democrats nominate quite seriously. Remember their Secretary of State project, and their success at winning several regional elections through vote fraud.

     At this point, the winnowing of the Republican field will begin. Candidates with 1% or 2% showings in Iowa will find their funding squeezed as their backers grow willing to consider other candidates. Thus, we may expect the “undercard” candidates to wind up their campaigns fairly soon, along with one or two of the lower-placed “marquee” aspirants.

     However, beyond the departure of Martin O’Malley, donor infidelity is unlikely to affect the Democrats. Clinton has immense backing that will remain faithful to her, for reasons not entirely derived from her prospects for victory. Sanders’s financial support arrives in dribbles, but the multiplicity of its providers raises it to a flood. Money will not be the deciding factor on the Left.

     Of course, innumerable persons, some with regular bylines in major periodicals, will be asking themselves “What does this mean for Trump?” Given the oddity of his Iowa campaign, which had essentially no retail component and was “timeshared” with his many visits to other states, that remains to be seen. But while Trump is many unfortunate things, he’s not unintelligent. He’ll draw the moral from his second-place finish. Will he act on it, given the size of his ego and his reluctance ever to admit a mistake? That, too, remains to be seen – but it’s the most important element in the constellation of factors that will determine the future of his campaign, and this time around he seems serious about wanting to be president.

And yet, this is the core premise of Western economic.

Systemic fragility doesn't respond to central bank jawboning or Keynesian claptrap; unlike those "policy tools," fragility is real.

The core narrative of central bank/cartel capitalism is centralized agencies have the power to limit downturns and extend credit-based "good times" almost indefinitely. The centralized power bag of tricks includes fiscal policies such as deficit spending to boost "aggregate demand" in downturns and monetary policies such as lowering interest rates to zero and buying assets, a.k.a. quantitative easing.

"The Global Economy Could Fall Farther and Faster Than Pundits Expect." By Charles Hugh Smith, Of Two Minds, 2/2/16.

Who wrote this guy into the script?

A clever expression of the realities of American kabuki politics:
Trump is showing up what a farce Republican presidential “races” have become in recent elections.

First an establishment candidate is selected. Let us call him, um, Romney. Then a number of other figures are invited to participate in the traveling stage show, but like the majority of contestants in the Ms. Universe contest, they are just there to make up the numbers. Some of them will have been offered other minor offices as a reward for their participation, others will just be pleased to get the name recognition.

There has to be a woman, a black guy, and a a selection of governors from Republican strongholds around the nation. There will be a Hispanic or two, a Catholic, a New Englander, a Hillbilly, a Southerner, and someone from California.

The black guy will be allowed to act as pacemaker for the first few furlongs of this horse race, but will inevitably drop out when the sexual allegations are released. The woman will get the attention of a few male voters who would not otherwise have paid attention if she has nice legs, and will remind women that their daughters could become lawyers too.

But this is not a real contest. Coming into the final straight the candidate with the Wall St. money riding on him will pull away and pass the winning post easing up. Just a training gallop for the big one later on.

Now this year, along comes Trump and enters the race without being invited, much to the chagrin of those who had arranged for Bush Mk. III to win the warm up race in a canter. Even worse, he gives the electorate the impression that he might do something about some of the things that affect their lives.

It is almost as if we lived in some kind of a democracy where people who had different ideas and points of view could run for political office.

Comment by Jonathan Mason on "Republican Terror and Anger." By Paul Gottfried, The Unz Review, 12/29/15.

Monday, February 1, 2016

Quickies: The End Of The Day

     I’d intended to post something pithy today – perhaps another “Is Anger Sufficient” piece, which strikes me as necessary to complete the thoughts in the first two – but I’ve been excessively busy with mundane chores and, quite frankly, worn out from fear over an upcoming medical procedure. It’s used up my energy, and I must leave you with this quick thought for today.

     An Establishment that dominates a society the great majority of which is opposed to its premises and policies must master misdirection, sleight of hand, and disguises. When it appears that an uprising against it might have coalesced, it will deploy all its weapons to defend its hegemony. One of those weapons will be the fabrication of a seemingly charismatic leader disguised to offer the insurgency hope that it has found a standard-bearer, but who is, in fact, an Establishment creature.

     I’ve disabused myself of the notion that Americans will rise to restore the former Republic without a charismatic leader. At one point I thought Ted Cruz might prove to be such a leader...and there are times when I still harbor hope for that worthy. But the Donald Trump phenomenon bids fair to knock Cruz completely out of contention – and how? With nothing but bluster, promises, the veneer of an “outsider,” and the willingness of far too many Americans to vote based on his rhetoric while ignoring his record.

     If you’re a Trump supporter, please think this over. Really, really hard.

The true face of open borders.

Open border fanatics at the University of Santa Barbara protested the U.S. Customs and Border Protection recruiters at a campus job fair.

The College Fix reported that about 50 students descended on the campus quad Thursday, holding posters that read “we are human” and “undocumented unafraid,” while chanting “f**k your borders, f**k your walls.”

“We do have undocumented students here on campus who are at potential risk,” said UCSB graduate student Idalia Robles to The College Fix. “This is a very triggering event for people in those circumstances. There is no space on this campus for an organization that continues to threaten the safety of students.”[1]

Note dog whistle phrases "undocumented students" (illegals), "triggering event," and "safety of students." The unmentionable words here, however, are "ethnic hostility," "stupidity," "vulgarity," and "contempt."

Contempt for America is the take-away lesson here. America – the propositional nation.

Whatever that proposition is, it isn't respect for the law.

[1] "Students to border patrol: ‘F**k your borders’ [VIDEO]." By Ryan Girdusky, RedAlert Politics, 1/30/16.