American Blasphemy

Blasphemy is the act of insulting or showing irreverence to God, or any other deity if that’s how you roll. But it also applies to anything considered sacred. And while we’ve abolished blasphemy laws in the West, at least as applied to Christianity (yay, I guess?), we still have blasphemy laws up the wazoo and don’t kid yourselves.

Sacred cows are alive and well in these United States. I’m going to speak blasphemously here, but let’s just say that your personal feelings and attitudes towards sodomy and it’s practitioners or baby killing, or even firearms ownership, can make you a persona non grata here in America . . . if they’re the wrong decision.

If you are of a certain chromatic disposition, saying the exact same thing as another can either be a-okay or complete verboten, enough to remove you from polite society.

You don’t even have to say anything mean or hateful. Just “wrong.”

Meanwhile, it seems like the only religions that have any sort of protection against verbal assault, no matter how mild, are either of the indigenous variety, or the one whose adherents get rather stabby/bomby at the merest hint of criticism.

So essentially, blasphemy laws, the current state of which in America is a weird and deadly combination of the hecklers’ and assassins’ veto. Continue reading “American Blasphemy”

The Influence of Art (and Other Hypocrisies)

[Preemptive request: I don’t buy the “video games cause school shootings” argument, so kindly don’t spam the comments to the effect that I do. Thanks.]

It’s a well known fact that violent video games create violent people. Except when they don’t.

It’s just like movies and TV: These things have absolutely no effect on the behavior of those who watch them. Unless they do.

The President waded into this recently after the terrible school shooting in Parkland, Florida, suggesting a summit to discuss the effect that video games have on young impressionable minds. He was widely mocked for this. It’s settled science, after all, that video games don’t make players violent gun nuts.

But they do turn gamers–especially white male ones–into misogynistic racists who hate gays. Or something. I don’t know.

And movies and TV, which influenced people to stop smoking, most emphatically don’t make viewers more violent. Except when they do. But they also paved the way for America to accept gay marriage. Except showrunners and moviemakers are unbiased souls who just want to make art and not propaganda. I guess.

My point is that this entire debate is pointless nonsense. Of course art influences people. How couldn’t it? Continue reading “The Influence of Art (and Other Hypocrisies)”

You Can Stop for One Day

On Twitter, I recently posted a series of common complaints that infect the American media around every single major holiday. Although they are based on actual expressions of outrage I have seen since at least the early 1990s, the whole thread was intended to be humorous.

At least, thought it was humorous.

This was done in anticipation of Thanksgiving in America, a holiday that is supposed to either be about (a) an early-17th century feast of thanks held by the New England colonists and the local Indian tribes, or (b) thanking God for His blessings. Either way, the day is supposed to be about family, friends, thankfulness, and reflection on what one has.

It is a day of rest, even. And for many, it is a day of overeating and watching football.

If you’re a normal human being, Thanksgiving is awesome.

Yet to others–let’s call these people “joyless freaks”–Thanksgiving is all about bitching and moaning about how awful the United States is, how terrible and racist its colonists and Founders were, and increasingly, about how uniquely awful white Americans of European extraction are and why they should all just die.

Oh, and vegans always try to get in on the act as well. Continue reading “You Can Stop for One Day”

No Nice Things

Boycotts and coffee and anger oh my!

For starters, let me say that (1) I fully support boycotts, because people can do whatever the hell they want, (2) it’s nigh impossible to make “voting with your dollar” have any impact if there aren’t enough dollars involved, and (3) your pious market-worshipping friend who can’t stop pleasuring him- or herself to Kirk’s ten principles can cram their bowtie up their rear end as they whine about “stooping to their tactics.”

Don’t you get it? Croaking “muh principles!” as your side–whatever your side may be–continuously loses while you righteously complain is worse than useless.

People who hate you and everything you stand for tend not to respond to self-satisfied virtue, no matter how forcefully asserted. In fact, your principles make them dig in even further. People respond best to pain. And I’m a civilized society, economic pain is far more preferable to physical pain.

This is why we “can’t have nice things,” as the cliche goes. This is also why I am a full proponent of retaliating in kind. Every single side in this sick, sad country will not learn until we’re all poorer, more unhappy, and less-willing to share what we think.

Yes, this means things will get worse before they get better. Boo hoo. The world is not a perfect place. Deal with it.

Continue reading “No Nice Things”

The Dangers of Staying “Above It All”

Is there an “artistic temperament”? Do people of only certain political stripes go into the arts more than others?

Both Brian Niemeier and Rawle Nyanzi have discussed these recently, with Brian focusing more on the traditional Right’s refusal to fight as the Left fights, with Rawle concerned more with why conservatives don’t go into the arts despite lamenting that they have no influence in the arts.

Rawle believes that the temperament is informed by politics:

Art is not immediately useful; it neither grows your food nor supplies your energy. Except for a handful of megastars, art is low-paid. Most artists rely on either a job or on other people to support them in their endeavors; “don’t quit your day job” is a cliche for a reason, as is “starving artist.” It requires the mind to break with conventional modes of thinking and spend much time speculating on bizarre possibilities. Art requires one to focus on emotion.

This is as far from the conservative mindset as one can get.

Brian, for his part, is quite harsh in his assessment of conservatives’ unwillingness to fight:

. . .conservatives are cowards. They talk a good game about standing on principle, but the inescapable conclusion is that they don’t really believe what they’re saying. People who truly believe in and are informed by principles act on them.

I’m inclined to agree with Brian, but this refers especially to a certain type of conservative. The kind that’s probably a midwit at best but wants everybody to think they’re smart, so they parrot what the culture at large tells them is the right thing to think–a culture that is against everything they purport to stand for, mind–while offering some nominal opposition.

This is yet another reason why the “conservative/liberal” dichotomy is inaccurate and outdated, and the real distinction is globalist/nationalist. Great men and women of the past who’d be considered on the Right today fully understood the importance of emotion and rhetoric. Modern “conservatism” feels artificial and soulless in a lot of respects.

But let’s stick with the terms that we have.

Does this all mean that conservatives are at, as Rawle puts it, a psychological disadvantage when it comes to the arts?

I say no. Continue reading “The Dangers of Staying “Above It All””

The Center

No one wants to be “extreme.”

It feels icky and will get you disinvited from all the cool kids’ parties. Besides, these days reasonable conversation about important issues seems impossible.

One of the biggest problems is the logical fallacy that supporting X’s right to do something equals support for X and opposition to Y.

 

This is how unintelligent people see things. Unintelligent people, or dishonest ones.

You can see the left/right polarities in politics, philosophy, economics, and in many, many other field–even the arts.

Reaction against constant politicization is completely rational. Jamming politics down everyone’s throats is tiring and it prevents any meaningful solutions from being formed.

Someone has to be right, right? Someone has proposals that’ll work better than others, don’t they?

Enter the centrists.

A new trend is to describe oneself as centrist, meaning–according to what I call the nü-centrists–“one who looks at things from both sides.”

“Centrism is NOT agreement with parts of both sides!” I’ve been told.

“Centrism isn’t being a moderate!” they say.

Except…it kind of is.

You see, as with most things, it doesn’t matter what YOU wish a word meant, it matters what the word actually means and how the society views the term.

In other words, the term “centrist” is horrible branding. It has way too much baggage and means in the majority of people’s minds exactly the opposite of what the nü-centrists want it to mean. Continue reading “The Center”

Book Review: Dangerous by Milo Yiannopoulos

Book cover of Dangerous by Milo Yiannopoulos

Oh boy. I’m going to get into trouble with this one.

A third of the people reading this probably think Milo Yiannopoulos is the scum of the Earth, a third might be huge fans, and the other third either finds him mildly annoying or doesn’t know who the hell he is at all.

Me? I’m a fan. I can’t deny it–the guy cracks me up.

Is Milo (I refuse to type it as MILO the way he insists; I know what he’s trying to do, but it’s just dumb) a perfect human being, or even a good one? Arguably no. But I like that he sticks it to the people who need sticking to, and he pisses them off so much.

I’ve only written about Milo once before, back in the summer of 2016 when he got banned from Twitter for life. I’m not going to rehash this here, since this is a review of Milo’s debut book, Dangerous. But I do think a quick primer on the man is in order.

Milo Yiannopoulos is a gay, British-born half-Greek, half-Jew, Catholic who considers himself a conservative, but is really only conservative in that he believes in a hands-off approach to government and is an absolute free-speech fundamentalist. He used to write for Brietbart, and was the editor-in-chief of the site’s tech vertical, until some of his words got him into trouble (more on this below).

He brutally mocks lots of the politically correct crowd’s favorite sacred cows, including Islam, feminism, the university system, other gay people, Democrats, Republicans, celebrities, identitarians, Ben Shapiro . . . basically anybody he can get a rise out of.

He is vulgar, he makes a lot of dick jokes, and isn’t shy about the fact that he has done (and still does?) copious amounts of drugs and has a fetish for black men. In his personal life, he’s about as conservative as a 1970s rock star, but politically I guess he’s more on the libertarian/populist side. Oh, and he’s a huge fan of Donald Trump. Like, gigantic.

He has been accused of being an anti-Semite, a homophobe, an Islamophobe, a misogynist, a racist, a Nazi, a shameless self-promoter, a narcissist, and a jerk. It’s funny because both the far-left and actual neo-Nazis hate him and wish he’d die and burn in hell. This might mean he’s doing something right, right?

Milo Yiannopoulos in a fur coat Well, there was that whole accusation about being pedophilia apologist.

See, Milo was all set to have Simon & Schuster release this book–they had paid him an obscene advance and everything–but then some comments he made on a YouTube interview some months ago resurfaced where he talked about his gay sex experiences as a thirteen-year-old boy with an adult–this is actually called hebephilia, sexual attraction to persons aged around 14-16–suggesting that such things are natural in the gay community, and should in fact be encouraged. It was enough for Simon & Schuster to drop Milo and for him to resign from Breitbart . . . even though George Takei said a similar thing once and faced no repercussions.

(A note: I don’t know much about gay culture and so on, but apparently young gay men having sexual experiences with older gay men is not an uncommon thing, or necessarily frowned upon. I’m not defending or condemning anyone, I’m just stating facts.)

Despite the fallout Milo’s college speaking tour rolled on, gaining even more steam with each controversy. He decided to self-publish his book, which by all accounts has been a success. The title, Dangerous, comes form the name of his speaking tour, which is also a nickname for himself: “The Dangerous Faggot.”

So how dangerous is Dangerous? Continue reading “Book Review: Dangerous by Milo Yiannopoulos”