Vladimir Putin’s Seven Smartest Moves


Next to Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, the most vilified figure in America today has got to be Russian President Vladimir Putin. The media portray him as the next incarnation of Hitler, the man behind all the evil in the world. As Charles Goyette recently joked on lewrockwell.com, if someone spills their coffee at Starbucks it has to be Russia’s fault. Yet Putin consistently gets over 80% approval ratings from his own people. Clearly, there’s something the mainstream media isn’t telling us. As an avid reader of international news sites, I have a different view. I see Putin not as an evil dictator, rather as one of the most capable leaders of this century. The following are seven reasons why I think the man’s a genius.

1. Russian Renaissance
After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia was decimated, its industries failing, its people unemployed and hungry. Life expectancy and birth rates fell precipitously, while alcoholism and suicide rates soared. To make things worse, the vultures of Western capitalism swooped in, looting Russian national assets for kopeks on the ruble. As the 1990’s came to a close, the Russian people elected Vladimir Putin and his party, United Russia. Putin put a stop to the hemorrhage, re-acquiring some of those stolen Russian assets and deporting or imprisoning those oligarchs who wouldn’t play by the rules. If only we had this kind of leadership in America – not only do our financial criminals escape prison, we reward them with bailouts.

2. Trashing the Terrorists
While American financiers were busy subjecting Russia to economic “shock therapy,” America’s intelligence apparatus, cheered on by neo-conservative pundits, was attacking Russia’s Islamic underbelly. Jihadists fighting for Chechen independence committed numerous acts of terror, including the horrific 2004 shooting of hundreds of innocent schoolchildren in the town of Beslan. Putin’s subsequent crackdown on Chechnya was harsh, but Russia could not afford to have a hotbed of Islamic terrorism on its southern flank. Unlike France and Germany, Russia has the will to deal with radical Muslims who attack their host country.

3. Reclaiming Crimea
Speaking of subversion, the 2014 coup d’etat in Ukraine, in which the popularly elected pro-Russian President Yanukovych was replaced by pro-Western Poroshenko, was a typical plot fomented by the CIA and its “civil society” puppets. One of the new government’s first actions was to stir up trouble by passing laws discriminating against Ukraine’s ethnic Russian minority. No doubt Putin realized that America’s main goal in instigating this putsch was to deprive Russia of its strategic naval base in the Crimean port of Sevastopol. He took the logical step of annexing Crimea, which is a historic part of Russia with an overwhelming majority of ethnic Russians. It did not “invade,” as Russian troops were already stationed there. Nor was the change unwelcome; in a referendum, about 90% of the voters favored rejoining Russia. Despite the presence of international observers, Western officials called the election a sham. They saw no parallel with America’s meddling in Serbia and the “independence” of the province of Kosovo against the wishes of the Serbian people. No, that was entirely democratic.

4. Surviving the Sanctions
After the so-called “invasion” of Crimea, the US quickly imposed economic sanctions on Russia and pressured its European allies to do the same. The American media could hardly contain its delight about the suffering of the Russian people, which would surely cause them to reject the evil Putin. They could not have been more wrong. The Russians rallied around their leader and his popularity increased. Furthermore, the sanctions were a wake-up call which led Russia to develop its own financial infrastructure and forge closer ties with China and Iran. This tough period will benefit the Russian economy in the long run while hurting America’s allies, especially the Germans, who had enjoyed a profitable trading relationship with Russia.

5. Banning the Bastards
One of the dirty tricks in the play book of the American Deep State is the non-governmental organization or NGO. Supposedly harmless and neutral, they often help foment disorder and plot “color revolutions” in any nation that opposes American hegemony. Ukraine is a prime example, along with other countries on Russia’s fringes such as Georgia. In 2015 Putin decided that enough was enough, and banned such busybody organizations as George Soros’ “Open Society Foundation” and the so-called National Endowment for Democracy from operating in Russia. By the way, Russia does have a political opposition, part of which is pro-Western and anti-Putin. Political freedom is still alive in Russia, just not for organized foreign subversives.

6. Saving Syria
The American propaganda war against Russia has hit a new low with allegations of Russian “war crimes” in Syria. Yet it was America that stoked the flames of rebellion in the first place, tearing apart a nation that was once peaceful and prosperous. Not coincidentally, Syria was an important Russian ally on the site of the nation’s only military base outside the former USSR. At the verge of defeat by the fanatics of ISIS and al Qaeda, the Syrian government requested Russia’s help in defending itself. Unlike the busybody Americans, Putin did not seek regime change, merely to restore peace. In September 2016, the US destroyed the hard-won truce by “accidentally” bombing a Syrian Army position, allowing ISIS terrorists to gain territory. Now Russia is working to end the siege of Aleppo by helping the Syrians defeat the Islamic terrorists that infest the eastern half of the city. American leaders weep crocodile tears at the inevitable civilian casualties while ignoring the much more terrible crimes that their ally Saudi Arabia is currently inflicting on its impoverished neighbor Yemen. It is not Putin who should face a war crimes tribunal, but our “friend” King Salman.

7. Minding His Own Business
The last in the list is something that Putin most likely did NOT do, despite the hysterical claims of the US government and its lapdog media. They have accused the Russia government of hacking the computers of the Democratic National Committee and plotting to influence the upcoming Presidential election. Putin has denied any involvement, and in my view, he’s wise to stay out of it, since such interference would probably backfire. Of course, the media offers no real evidence, just  the allegations of a private security firm called CrowdStrike, hired by the Democratic National Committee to investigate the breaches. Interestingly, CrowdStrike’s CTO Dmitri Alperovitch is a member of the Atlantic Council, a well-known neo-conservative (anti-Russian) think tank. Many people believe that the American establishment is inventing these allegations out of whole cloth to provide a scapegoat in case the election does not go the way they want it to.

I’m not saying that Putin is right about everything, nor am I denying that Russia has problems. For example, there are reports of bigotry and violence against gays, though nothing like the death penalty they face in Saudi Arabia. I would personally not choose to live in Russia because of its censorship of pro-gay speech, and its banning of “offensive” words and memes. All thing considered, however, it’s probably not much more restrictive than the suffocating political correctness that muzzles America’s corporate media.

Vladimir Putin is no Hitler. He is a democratically elected politician, not a tyrant. In the context of Russian politics, he’s a moderate, walking a fine line between pro-Western and hard-line influences. Under Putin’s tenure as President and Prime Minister, Russia has returned from the brink of being a failed nation to once again be a proud world power.

Thanks to the following off-beat, alternative, and deplorable sites for their enlightened and unbiased coverage of Russian issues: lewrockwell.com, antiwar.com, thesaker.is, consortiumnews.com, voltairenet.org, theduran.com, zerohedge.com, unz.com, and alternet.org. Thanks also to wikipedia.org, whose article on Putin was less biased than I expected it to be. Putin meme from http://knowyourmeme.com/videos/33177-vladimir-putin.

If you admire Vladimir Putin, or if you despise him, you’ll like my books. Check them out here.



Photo: Gavin McInnes at Super Deluxe’s Make Funny Not War event at SXSW 2008, by Matthew Schuler.

In my recent article on the Alt-Right, I tried to be as inclusive as possible. It’s a broad movement of dissident conservatives and libertarians, not just a bunch of neo-Nazi skinheads as Hillary portrays us. I admit that there are those within the movement who say “you’re not Alt-Right unless…” for example, you must support a white-majority America. Sorry, guys, but on the Internet, there are no gatekeepers. Nobody has the right to determine what the Alt-Right is or isn’t.

While we’re on that topic, one person I accidentally omitted from my list was the co-founder of Vice Magazine, Canadian-expat punk rocker and comedian Gavin McInnes. He considers himself to be an anarchist rather than Alt-Right (I myself am both of those things) but people place him there on the spectrum because of his edgy, anti-PC humor.

McInnes is a favorite of mine. Being by nature a Midwestern nicey-nice, I find offensive humor particularly hilarious. I don’t care whether it’s Howard Stern picking on Baba Booey, Parker and Stone mocking Mormonism, Triumph insulting nerds, or the Wayans Brothers goofing on everybody. McInnes, like Donald Trump, is crude, crass and tells it like he sees it.

While doing on-line research on McInnes for this article, I was surprised by the amount of venom and hatred people have for the man. There were dozens of spiteful screeds by Social Justice Warriors gloating about the fact that he had been booted from his position at the Rooster Ad Agency because of a particularly offensive article he’d posted on August 12th. What could he have said to finally cross the line?

You may not be aware of this, but in the Bizarro universe of Social Justice, there is a pecking order of official victims. That’s why Jesse Jackson could refer to NYC as Hymietown and not get drummed out of polite society, while Eddie Murphy caught hell for making an AIDS joke. It turned out that the uber-powerful group McInnes had offended was transsexuals. Thinking back to this year’s heated bathroom controversies, I realized that the “T” in LGBT was now at the top of the victim pyramid.

Disclosure and disclaimer: in my participation in the “Out Loud” theater group sponsored by Phoenix Pride, I’ve become acquainted with several transsexuals, and I’ve become quite sympathetic to their condition. One of the pieces we staged was a very moving poem about a drag queen who becomes a real woman only in the afterworld. Though I couldn’t care less what strangers think of me, I don’t wish to offend anyone I consider to be a friend. I hope that if any of them read this, they don’t interpret it as a personal attack.

McInnes’ article, “Transphobia is Perfectly Natural,” appeared on a website called Thought Catalog. In response to numerous complaints, they took the article down, replacing it with a scathing critique. As a libertarian, I believe that it’s their right to do so. But the name Thought Catalog implies impartiality. It’s all well and good to preface the article with a “content warning,” and to include an opposing view. But I’m a grown-up and this is not Iran or China. Don’t tell me what I can and can’t read, assholes.

By this point, I had to read this uber-offensive article. I found a repost of it here. As I expected, there’s plenty of crude, graphic language. McInnes sees transsexualism as a form of mental illness and deplores how progressives support them mutilating themselves in a futile quest for happiness. He adds that he doesn’t know any transsexuals over 40 because they so frequently commit suicide. The politically correct rejoinder would be that they do so because of the cruel intolerance of society, which is why meanies like McInnes must be silenced. I imagine that this evil article alone probably caused seven or eight troubled teens to kill themselves.

Pardon my obvious sarcasm, but McInnes has the right to speak his mind, and he’s not responsible for anyone’s self-hatred. Remaking society is a fruitless task. Rather than demanding that some authority figure make the bad man stop, it’s a million times more effective to support LGBT groups who provide counseling services. I know from personal experience that basing your self-worth on other peoples’ approval is a mistake; you have to accept yourself first.

Speaking of psychology, the banned article seems like a bit of a confession on McInnes’ part. He is quite frank about the discomfort the idea of gender surgery causes him, a squeamishness that I share. Yes, people own their own bodies and I believe they should be free to do whatever they want with them, up to and including suicide. But the thought of amputating healthy tissue gives me the creeps. Heck, I’m even opposed to circumcision.

Like McInnes, I worry about transsexuals’ mental health. In this PC atmosphere which glorifies gender reassignment surgery, some people may see it as a magical cure for their unhappiness. What happens if the happiness doesn’t come, and they’re left with only regret? For some people, the transition may be an irreversible mistake.

In summary, I think McInnes sincerely believes what he’s saying, and that he says it out of genuine concern for the transgender community. Just be gay, he urges; you don’t need to mutilate yourselves. You may accuse him of being ignorant and projecting his hangups on people who really, really want to change their sex. But if would be wrong to call him a hater, and you can’t blame him for anybody’s self-destructive behavior.

The Alt-Right is Alright!

Vile Faceless Minions

Some of my favorite Alt-Right villains: Vox Day’s Vile Faceless Minions

“Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.” – Barry Goldwater

Hillary Clinton is at it again, smearing Donald Trump and those who support him as racist extremists who shouldn’t be taken seriously. The Alternative Right, or Alt-Right, is a hotbed of Trump support and thus suspect. It’s important that, rather than taking Clinton’s extremely partisan word for it, we take a look at these so-called Alt-Right-wingers and what they really stand for.

The Alt Right are a loose collection of pundits, bloggers, and activists, mostly former conservatives or libertarians, who have “come out of the closet” with their true politically incorrect opinions. As the “social justice” leftists who dominate the media continue to restrict the range of acceptable thought, many Alt-Rightists believe they must speak out now, lest the “hate speech” police silence them forever.

The Alt Right exists because mainstream conservatives – whom they hilariously call “cuckservatives” – have given up the battle and surrendered to the “social justice” warriors without a struggle. They’ve caved on every significant issue from the Rebel flag to unisex bathrooms.

Alt Rightists refuse to parrot the “social justice” nonsense that polite society espouses. They include such figures as immigration patriot Pat Buchanan, #Gamergate figure Vox Day, human biodiversity guru Steve Sailer, gay free-speech activist Milo Yiannopolous, and South African expat Ilana Mercer. These people speak out for truths that should be self-evident  but are now deemed heretical. Below are ten examples of unspeakable Alt Right truths.

  • Campus “rape culture” is a myth propagated by angry anti-male feminists.
  • There are only two sexes, and wanting to be something one is not doesn’t make it so.
  • So-called “white privilege” ended fifty years ago and is not a valid excuse for anyone’s personal troubles.
  • Islam is not a “religion of peace” or tolerance; the proof is in the Koran itself.
  • Western civilization is the current peak of human accomplishment and is well worth defending.
  • The USA has no “responsibility to protect,” help, or democratize people in other countries, only to leave them alone.
  • Traditional gender roles exist because men and women are different, with different priorities, strengths, and weaknesses.
  • Diversity is not “our strength,” it’s irrelevant at best, and the mindless pursuit of it leads to arbitrary, divisive quotas.
  • Immigration to the USA is a privilege, and we Americans have the right to choose whom we will welcome.
  • White middle-class voters are not angry about the rise of minorities, but because government and big business have stolen their savings and shipped the best jobs overseas.

My personal theory as an Alt Right sympathizer is that the “one percent” have endorsed political correctness because it’s an effective way to divide the rest of us into warring camps. Fussing about unisex bathrooms and gay wedding cakes diverts our attention from the good hard screwing we’re getting from the IRS, the banks, and the insurance companies. That’s why the progressive media is so hysterical about Donald Trump. I don’t agree with everything he advocates, but his opposition to corporate-sponsored trade deals like NAFTA and the TPP are in my opinion, sufficient reason to support him.

I’ll end this with a surprising note. I’m going to thank Hillary Clinton for her “Alt Right is evil” speech. Any publicity she gives to the movement, even hysterical criticism, will help make it stronger in the end.

P.S. I just heard Hillary say that Trump would abolish the “bedrock Constitutional principle” that makes the children of illegals born in America into citizens, A.K.A. “anchor babies.” I say, what other nation tolerates this kind of nonsense? Go Trump!


My 2016 Election Predictions


Above image from patheos.com

Most of the 11 or so people who follow my blogs and my Facebook author page are probably aware of my bias on the upcoming elections. After really pissing off some old friends with my recent post bashing Gold Star dad Khizr Khan for his work on behalf of the terrorist state of Saudi Arabia, I’ve decided to quit pussyfooting around and make my unvarnished opinions public. After that, I plan to take up Zen meditation and only blog about things which I can spin in a positive way, unless of course, the sky turns out to be actually falling. Submitted for your approval below are my predictions and odds for the four, yes four, major candidates.

Hillary Clinton
Best case: Clinton’s reign is a continuation of the Obama administration, with the US muddling along through a stagnant economy, botched foreign interventions, and increasingly stifling political correctness. Congress manages to nip the worst of the Clinton agenda in the bud. She does manage to appoint a totally unqualified transgender lawyer as Attorney General. Social justice warriors blame whites and Republicans for “lack of progress” and incite fierce riots in the inner cities.
Worst case: Clinton is the “fall gal” for the Evil Globalist Agenda, which I believe is this: America’s individualist culture must be destroyed. Christian, conservative, and libertarian websites are shut down by “hate speech” laws ratified by a progressive-dominate Supremed Court. The Draft is renewed for men AND women, to provide cannon fodder for the US invasions of Syria and Iran. Local police are forced to carry out door-to-door confiscation of private firearms, which provokes open rebellion and the secession of ten states. Vladimir Putin, furious with the admission of Ukraine to NATO and the US carpet-bombing of the Russian-speaking rebel areas, threatens nuclear war.
Odds of winning: Despite being ahead in the jury-rigged polls publicized by the media, Clinton is despised by half of the population, so I’ll say 50%.
Personal stake: I would vote for Satan Himself before voting for Hillary.

Donald Trump
Best case: Trump becomes the American Putin (who is viewed by the Russian people not as a dictator but a national savior.) He takes down Wall Street, arrests corrupt bankers, and breaks up the big banks and health insurance monopolies. He withdraws from NATO and NAFTA and scuttles the TPP. Congress blocks the building of the  border wall, so Trump instead promotes a constitutional amendment banning government benefits for illegals and ending “birthright citizenship” for their kids. It passes, causing millions of them to self-deport. The economy briefly tanks but then begins to recover. On the downside, Trump finds legal ways to arrest his most vocal critics. The inner cities experience devastating riots as welfare benefits are cut, and most large cities are put under martial law.
Worst case: Trump’s administration is like that of Arizona’s Sheriff Arpaio, presenting a “get tough” image with little substance. Congress blocks Trump’s most radical reforms and begins impeachment proceedings within the first 90 days. Trump’s executive order repealing Obamacare leaves nothing in its place and millions are left without coverage of any kind. Several liberal coastal states threaten to secede. Trump negates the Iran nuclear deal, causing the frustrated mullahs to start an actual nuclear weapons program (as opposed to the current one, which exists only in the minds of the neocons.)
Odds of winning: Despite also being despised by half of the population, Trump’s supporters are better at getting out the vote, so I’ll say 55%.
Personal stake: I will hold my nose and vote for Trump if there appears to be any chance that Lucifer, I mean Hillary, could win my home state. By the way, that’s very doubtful.

Gary Johnson
Best case: The allegedly libertarian Johnson wins as a Congressional compromise after a deadlocked electoral college. As President, Johnson muddles along like Jimmy Carter or Gerald Ford, managing to enact modest cuts in entitlements and military spending. The economy grows, albeit very slowly. Johnson’s biggest success is to replace Obamacare with a voucher system and repeal laws that prevent health care competition, giving the public much-needed relief from astronomical health insurance premiums.
Worst case: Same as the above, except that Johnson’s weak-minded cuts to government engender fierce opposition from “entitled” public dependents as well as conservatives frustrated by a lack of progress. With his approval ratings at rock bottom, Johnson’s firing of mutinous neoconservative generals causes the first successful military coup in US history.
Odds of winning: Believe it or not, I think the above scenario has an actual chance as the Establishment desperately tries to prevent Trump from winning, especially if Clinton’s legal situation worsens. The Republican-controlled Congress is likely to see any former Republican governor, even a proponent of legalized weed like Johnson, as the least evil outcome. I’ll say 5%.
Personal stake: If Ebeneezer Scrooge, oops I mean Trump, appears to have Arizona sewed up, I will hold my nose and vote for this very un-libertarian libertarian to maximize Johnson’s popular vote totals in the event of the above scenario.

Jill Stein
Best case: Stein extricates the US from all foreign conflicts and cuts contributions to NATO, balancing them with increased funding for the UN. Her plan to replace Obamacare with a single-payer system is blocked by Congress, as are most of her socialistic economic reforms. She does manage to allocate savings from military cuts to enact Medicare coverage for otherwise un-insurable citizens, thus taking most of the pressure off the failing health care exchanges. Stein becomes wildly popular with her partisans, who blame Republicans for blocking her agenda. Middle Americans, relieved at the economy’s continued slow recovery, ignore the ubiquitous SJW-inspired protests.
Worst case: Same as above, except that much of Stein’s socialist agenda is enacted as law. Her programs for free universal medical care and college education cause the US to spend its way into hyperinflation and eventual national bankruptcy. Stein presides over a disaster comparable to Maduro’s Venezuela.
Odds of winning: Zero. The major media will work overtime to marginalize Stein, as they believe (correctly) that she will take votes from Clinton.
Personal Stake: I will vote for Stein if and only if Trump and Johnson drop out and she is the only alternative to Mephistopheles, I mean Clinton.

Disclaimer: The above article is satire and I don’t actually believe that Clinton is Beelzebub. Besides, it’s my understanding that Hell is equipped with an impenetrable Glass Ceiling.

Note: You may have noticed that the percentages do not total up to 100. There’s a simple explanation for this. President Obama has declared that all Americans must give 110% toward our nation’s economic recovery.



From ‘Tim’ on http://www.zombietime.com/mohammed_image_archive: Graffiti from Hamburg, Germany in 2006. The caption reads: “Hallo Mittelalter ’06” — “Hello Middle Ages ’06”.

Call me callous, but I’ve been enjoying the media shit-storm (sorry, but no other word describes it better) over Donald Trump’s proposal to put a moratorium on Muslim immigration to the US. In their self-righteous fit of hysteria, the mainstream pundits have displayed their complete ignorance and hypocrisy. Is Trump as bad as Hitler? Or is the reality more nuanced? Though I’m not a Trump supporter, I am dismayed by this lack of respect for the man’s honest opinion, whether one agrees or not. Furthermore, I have three questions for those who want Trump disqualified, deported, or worse for his so-called “hate speech.”

1. Why the fuss over immigration when the US has killed literally millions of Muslims since it became the “unipolar power” at the end of the Cold War? For example, America’s embargo on Iraq in the 1990’s caused the deaths of at least 500,000 Iraqi children. Madeleine Albright, former US ambassador to the UN, stated on national TV that this was “worth it” if there was even a chance of toppling Saddam Hussein. Where was the media outcry over such callous indifference to human life? Where also, is the media when our Nobel Peace Prize-winning President conducts drone strikes against “targets” (that is, human beings) with neither a properly declared state of war nor due process of law?

When the US military bombs hospitals; it’s called an ‘accident,” or ‘collateral damage,’ When it bombs Afghan wedding parties, all deceased males between 15 and 55 are classified as ‘terrorists.’ So I ask the mass media: how dare you make such a fuss over religious discrimination, as bad as that may be, when you ignore mass murder?

2. Why don’t Western nations have the right to determine what sorts of immigrants will be most likely to assimilate into their cultures? All Middle Eastern governments do that. Not only does Saudi Arabia not admit Christians and Jews, it hasn’t even tried to help resettle the Syrian refugees – people made homeless by its clandestine support of ISIS. Where’s the media outrage over that? Even Israel, America’s most beloved ally, favors Jews as immigrants, refuses re-entry to Palestinians it has ejected, and won’t acknowledge the authenticity of black Jews from Ethiopia. Where is the furor over this bald-faced racism?

Yet America and its European allies are expected to accept anyone and everyone, and in massive numbers, regardless of the effects on their own citizens. The Internet is abuzz with stories of refugees from Islamic countries committing a hugely disproportionate number of sexual assaults against Swedish women – though of course the government and media suppress this fact. I am not saying that all male Muslims are rapists (unlike Trump, I don’t believe in  sweeping generalizations,) but through the lens of Islamic culture, independent Western woman are viewed as whores whom it is acceptable to abuse. Where is the outrage from feminists over this horrific injustice? Why do they instead focus on the video gaming community (“Gamergate”), making these hapless nerds out to be evil misogynists because of their verbal harassment of a single untalented female hack?

3. Why is Islam the darling of the progressive left? I don’t believe more than 1% of these people have ever read the Koran. One needs to consider the Islamic scriptures in their entirety, not from the cherry-picked quotations of propagandists. Yes, the Koran has calls for tolerance, but its also exhorts Muslims to “smite the infidels,” to force them into conversion, slavery, or at best second-class (“dhimmi”) citizenship. Under Islamic law, a woman is worth half as much as a man, and gays are to be executed immediately. Any white European religion that advocated any of these would be rightfully shunned and condemned as evil. Perhaps most outrageous is the fact that a Muslim man can marry girls as young as 9 years old. Remember the public reaction to people like David Koresh and Warren Jeffs, who practiced and condoned the forced marriage of underage girls? Americans were, in my view, righteously outraged. Where is the outrage over Islam?

I’m not saying that all Muslims are evil, or that there aren’t progressives among them. In fact, I strongly favor granting refugee status to those Muslims who have been condemned for ‘heresy’ by fundamentalist governments such as Iran and Saudi Arabia. These so-called heretics are the people who will, if we assist them, allow Islam to adapt to the 21st Century. However, I am an unapologetic bigot against conservative Muslims who believe in Sharia law, as practiced in those countries. If I were ever to hire employees, I would no sooner consider hiring (or doing business with) a Wahabbist Sunni or a Khomeini-following Shiite than a Nazi or KKK member. Yet under current US labor laws, I’d be subject to prosecution.

This is my prescription: If we’re going to admit Muslims freely to the US, it’s time to repeal laws against religious discrimination. Religion, unlike race (or sexual orientation) is a choice. If we do admit refugees, there should be absolutely no government support for them – let Muslim organizations raise money to help their own. As for Europe (and Canada)  – they seriously need a revolution. Barring that, these nations need to repeal all hate speech laws, reform or abolish their anti-gun laws (so their citizens may defend themselves, since the police cannot or will not), and vastly reduce the welfare state. No longer should unemployable Muslim fanatics be supported by the taxpayers of the nations they hate.

Lastly, and most importantly, the US and its NATO allies must immediately cease their military interventions in the Islamic world. Perhaps some Muslims really do hate us for our freedom, but surveys have shown that they hate us far more for killing their friends, families and neighbors in our unnecessary and inexcusable wars.


The Cultural Marxists Set Their Sights on Linux


In Stephen J. Vaughan-Nichols’ recent article in Computer World, he labels Linux creator Linus Torvalds as a “bad boss.” He quotes developer Sarah Sharp’s complaints of a culture of open source development that allows participants “to get away with subtle sexist or homophobic jokes.” Vaughan-Nichols goes on to say that he hopes that companies and organizations can begin to “enforce civil behavior.”

This sounds fair and reasonable, but don’t be fooled. It’s a rallying call for Cultural Marxists and other Social Justice Warriors to enforce their bland, joyless idea of civility upon software geeks like myself. SJW’s are experts at hiding behind noble sounding rhetoric when calling for authority figures to seek out and crush any true diversity of culture or opinion.

Linus Torvalds (despite his legendary blunt personal style) is not the problem; it’s people like Sharp who can’t tolerate a bit of criticism or an off-color joke now and then. Nobody forced her to donate her time to the open-source community. Despite her well-respected technical abilities, the community is better off without people like her.

I predict we’ll see a steady stream of articles such as Vaughan-Nichols’, claiming that the open-source community is being hurt by as exodus of, or a missed opportunity to include, thin-skinned individuals like Sharp. I can’t speak for the community, as I’m more of a cheerleader than a participant, and I’ll leave any official response to the management of the Linux Foundation. But if you ask me, this is yet another SJW lie. I’d estimate that the crude, insensitive computer nerds (such as myself) that Sharp despises outnumber the ‘special snowflake’ diversity types ten to one. There IS no vast cohort of the excluded oppressed programmers, because for whatever reason (cultural, educational, etc.) these candidates are scarce. That’s why Silicon Valley firms hire ‘Diversity Managers’ to seek them out and recruit them.

I’m not saying that we software engineers are all straight white or Asian males, nor should we be. I for one have no problem with having more female, gay, black, and Latino participation in our community. Those statistics are, however, completely irrelevant. As a libertarian, i believe it’s the individual that matters, not the color of one’s skin or the configuration of genitalia. Nonetheless, the culture of the majority should NOT have to adapt to the minority; it’s the other way around, as it should be in any organization. We men would never be allowed to enter a female-dominated institution or industry and redesign it to our liking just because we’re in the minority. That would be like an American moving to Mexico and demanding people speak English, or going to Saudi Arabia for the nude beaches.

Here is my personal view: as long as an organization can function smoothly, and work relationships don’t degenerate into personal attacks, any newcomers need to get used to the heat, or get the heck out of the kitchen. I’m not yet to the point of agreeing with sci-fi writer / game developer Vox Day, who advocates that we purge SJW’s before they can purge us. But I’m leaning more that way every day.

Credit: image “Bad Attention” from www.wpclipart.com,


Time to Abolish Reality?


I’m a writer of fiction, which means I spend a lot of time inventing scenarios that aren’t real. I also like to think that I’m good at distinguishing an actual news stories from a hoax. Occasionally I’m fooled, because reality itself has become strange – such as the story of a kid being expelled from school for doing PHP, which the administrators didn’t realize was a programming language. Thankfully, that was a hoax. Two days ago, for the first time, I was taken in by a story that appeared to be straight out of The Onion, but was actually real.

It appeared on Alex Jones’ infowars.com, a site well known for conspiracy theories and making innocuous events seem menacing. The headline was “Trannies want you to say ‘birthing individuals’ instead of ‘pregnant women.’” The gist of the article was that LGBT activists had persuaded the Midwives Alliance of North America to adopt politically correct language (such as ‘pregnant people’ instead of ‘mothers’) on their website. A group of midwives complained about this in an open letter, and a transsexual activist in turn accused them of ‘trans hatred.’

I was flabbergasted to discover the story was no exaggeration, but 100% real. The MANA website does indeed contain this bizarre PC language, and I quickly found a post by Trevor MacDonald on the Huff Post Parents blog, called “Transphobia in the Midwifery Community.” Mr. MacDonald, as a parent, don’t you have better things to do?

Being a conspiracy buff, I tend to see everything as connected. Mr MacDonald’s rantings bring to mind one of my favorite topics, magical thinking. Perhaps because we humans are the only animals with language, we ascribe to it more power than it actually has. This is why the ancient Hebrews considered the ‘name of God’ to have immense power; thus they mandated death by stoning for anyone uttering it casually. Likewise, Muslims see the Koran as being more than the message contained on its pages; therefore its ‘desecration’ will provoke violent protests. Millions of people seem to live in a Harry Potter world, where uttering the name ‘Voldemort’ will bring the Dark Lord to their door.

Such beliefs aren’t confined to the religious. Our society is awash with secular ‘social justice’ activists who flip out over mere words. Conservatives see this as the influence of Antonio Gramsci, a Marxist theorist who advocated promoting revolution by attacking the cultural foundations of society. That may be so, however, I blame the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis.

Sapir and Whorf were two linguists who never actually collaborated. Their ‘hypothesis’ is the idea of linguistic relativity, that a language determines the way its speakers experience the world. Benjamin Whorf is best known for his study of the Hopi language, in which he speculated that its lack of past tense verbs influenced the way its speakers experienced time. This idea was all the rage in the psychedelic 1960’s. It was the basis for Robert Heinlein’s 1961 novel Stranger in a Strange Land, in which the lone survivor of a Mars expedition is discovered, having been raised by the spirits of deceased Martians. His knowledge of the Martian language gives him a special view of the universe, as well as psychic powers. As much as I enjoyed the book, it was, alas, fiction. Even Whorf’s theories appear to have fallen out of favor in the linguistic community.

In other words, though language may influence our view of the world, it can’t change reality. Wishing for something won’t make it so. Even surgery can’t change biology. Woman can have babies; men can’t. If the facts of life intrude on someone’s fragile self-concept, that’s unfortunate.

Transsexuals have more serious issues to confront than ‘transphobic’ speech. A 2013 survey found straight Americans to be more accepting of gays and lesbians that they are of transsexuals. Perhaps it’s squeamishness; the thought of a man having his genitalia removed makes many of us cringe. Despite having these feelings myself, I support transsexuals in their personal struggles.The transsexuals I’ve met seem to just want to be accepted for who they are.

On the other hand, if I were an evil doctor bent on destroying the LGBT movement, I would secretly promote the social justice warrior mentality. Nothing scares the straight world more than outsiders who want to ‘corrupt’ their children and forcibly change their lifestyles. This is why Americans perceive ISIS/ISIL as such a threat, and why many people suspect it to a gigantic psy-op – evil, murderous and barbaric, but a psy-op nonetheless.

Yes, I support the LGBT community’s quest for acceptance and equality. But attacking the straight world for being straight is not the way to accomplish that.

Illustration is “Cinny Bun System” by Thunder Falcon on publicdomainpictures.net.


Sympathy for the Puppies


I’ve been following the Hugo Awards controversy with great amusement. First there was the rebel alliance of Larry Correia‘s Sad Puppies, then the “faceless minions” of Vox Day‘s Rabid Puppies, threatening to overthrow the alleged leftist bias of science fiction. Now the Social Justice Warriors of the Empire have struck back: at this year’s Worldcon, the more “progressive” elements of sci-fi fandom banded together to declare five major categories as “no award.” Supposedly this was to deny the Puppies and their “right wing” followers the chance to select their preferred winners.

So whom should I support? On the one hand, I hold many of the SJWs’ liberal social views on topics such as religion, gay marriage and reproductive choice. On the other hand, when I say I support diversity in views and lifestyles, I actually mean it. I would never reject a book simply because its author was an evangelical Christian, Mormon, white nationalist or some other such demonized category. Nor would I automatically advocate a work because its author was, for example, black or transgender. It would have to be good. I award no points for political correctness.

Of course, this being theoretically a free country, the anti-Puppy fans had every right to do what they did, but in my view, their actions were extremely childish and counter-productive. Not only did they punish works whose authors were actual right-wingers, but anybody that the Puppies happened to recommend, including those of their “progressive” ilk.

Don’t get me wrong; if certain people want to criticize other people and/or shun their works for their sincerely held beliefs, they have every right to do so, for whatever reason.You’re free to assume that I’m gay because the protagonist of Fidelio’s Automata is gay. It doesn’t matter, and even if it didn’t, it would be none of your beeswax. If that bothers you, don’t read it. On the other hand, am I sufficiently loyal to the LGBT cause? Yes, to the degree that it doesn’t impinge on our First Amendment right of free association. Oops, did I just advocate freedom? I’m sure I didn’t earn any SJW brownie points with that one. In fact, anyone reading any of the preceding blog posts would probably assume I’m far left, far right, or just plain crazy. It’s probably not beneficial for boosting my readership, but I can’t seem to help myself.

One of these days, I hope the sci-fi Left will grow up and stop obsessing about the opinions and identity of authors, and concentrate on quality of the writing. Until that glorious day, I am one with the Puppies in that I totally agree with is that this modern-day resurgence of political intolerance is un-American and just plain wrong.

Photo courtesy of PublicDomainPictures.net. (Not that my own dogs aren’t cute in their own way, they’re just far out of puppy-hood.)