Sunday, January 15, 2017

Pragmatism v. Moralism, plus a Comment on Originality

First, the originality. Some SJW on Facebook really hates the quibcags I do, and stated that he didn't want them on his page, or whatever you call it. When asked why, he said that it wasn't "original work" (he's a cartoonist) and I'm some kind of poltroon who "steals" quotes from people. Then he deleted all my comments. Well, the cartoonist half of this blog disagrees. That's Baloo. He puts the quibcags together, but either one of us might come up with the ideas. Interestingly, this blog is a collaboration, and therefore a better thing than either one of us could make individually. And that's the quibcag theory, too. A quibcag is usually a "collaboration" between some anime artist, some person who said or wrote something very meaningful and pithy, and Baloo (and often me, too), who puts them together. Actually, the Facebook fellow just wanted an excuse to reject the quibcags, because they very effectively refute his silly SJW arguments.

Okay, that's my rant about that. Now, as you know, our liberal/neocon leaders are all horrified that Trump might work out a mutually beneficial relationship with Russia (they all seem to prefer armed conflict with Russia) and are doing everything they can to undermine any efforts in that direction. And it's not just that. Trump threatens to drain the swamp, and many of our politicians have money invested in all the alligators and other creatures there, and will do their best to prevent Trump from upsetting their lucrative apple carts, and I can mix metaphors with the best of them!

Over at Had Enough Therapy? [link}, Stuart Schneiderman performs a public service by refuting the left's arguments in favor of belligerence towards Russia with quotes from the left, including some from Andrew Young (if you're not old enough to know who he is, click here [link]), of all people, which we excerpted for the quibcag up there. And here's what Stuart wrote:

A New Cold War with Russia?

Barack Obama is riding off on a wave of glory. The media is pushing the narrative that Obama really was the Messiah—and thus that the media was right, the American people notwithstanding.

And the same media have been peddling the story that Donald Trump is the Antichrist. Thus must mean that they are looking forward to the Second Coming of Christ… after they destroy the Antichrist. 

As always, all good things are to the credit of Barack Obama. All bad things are the fault of Republicans, whether Trump or G. W. Bush.

It is such a flagrant lie that it rates with the notion that Hillary Clinton was the most qualified presidential candidate in American history. Anyone who believed that suffers from a thought disorder.

Today, the national hue and cry is directed against Russia. Obama spent eight years ceding authority and power to Russia (and to China, if you wish).  The picture of an all-powerful Russia—one that was pulling the strings in the American election by manipulating a weakened American mind--  makes clear that Obama yielded to Russia, just as he yielded to Iran and just as he let the Chinese do what they wanted. Attacks on Russia show that Obama made Russia powerful.

Incidentally, how did it happen that, according to this scenario, the American mind is so easily manipulated?

And now Obama’s supporters are insisting that Donald Trump get into a fight with Russia. They have been attacking Rex Tillerson for being soft on Russia. Mostly, this is coming from the left, the same left that cheered Barack Obama’s retreat from world leadership. Though naturally, John McCain and Lindsey Graham have hopped on the bandwagon.

Where Trump seems to be reviving the policy of détente, even Republicans like Marco Rubio are beating the drums for toughness against Russia. For the record, Rubio’s mindless insistence that prospective Secretary of State Rex Tillerson declare Vladimir Putin a war criminal tells us that many people seriously overestimated the political savvy of Marco Rubio. Can you imagine an American Secretary of State making his opening gambit in a negotiation with Putin the statement that Putin is a war criminal?

Anyway, the long knives are out for Donald Trump. Leftist forces have been in overdrive trying to discredit his election and to undermine his administration… even before it starts. It tells us that however much Barack Obama was courtly and eloquent and reasonable in his own comportment, he was ultimately a divisive president. 

Anyway, the other night on Tucker Carlson’s show, many of us saw a conversation between Tucker and Stephen Cohen.  See this link also. Cohen is a retired academic, an expert on Russia, who often writes for The Nation—which is not a publication of the alt-right. As it happens, Cohen is married to Katrina vanden Heuvel, the publisher of The Nation. 

Cohen believes that Trump wants to pursue a policy of détente toward Russia, a policy that was first practiced by Richard Nixon,that was denounced but eventually revived by Ronald Reagan. But, he says that certain forces do not want this to happen and are trying to delegitimize the Trump administration in order to produce a new Cold War. Moreover, Cohen suggests, those who are blaming Putin are trying to find someone to blame for the failure of the Obama administration foreign policy.

Read the rest here:
Quibcags: The businessgirl in the first one I found here [link]. The hacker in the second one is, of course, Hatsune Miku 初音ミク), sometimes referred to as Miku Hatsune.

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Nationalism, Globalism, Imperialism, and Trump

Lots of posts on this blog have dealt with nationalism v. globalism. Just enter the latter word in the search box over there to the right and you'll find many of them.  But like a lot of important concepts, it doesn't hurt to point out the difference and its significance over and over again, because "nationalism" is  still a dirty word to the MAG (Media, Academia, Government, not to be confused with MAGA, which is an unfortunate coincidence as acronyms go. Maybe I should use GAM instead).

But if nationalism is a bad thing, then its opposite must be a good thing, right? I've always maintained that globalism is the opposite, because if you don't have sovereign countries, you must have, in effect, one big government over the whole world. Joseph Pearce uses "internationalism" as the opposite, which seems to mean precisely the same thing as "globalism." And Pearce goes on to say that "internationalism" and "imperialism" are essentially the same thing, and he has me convinced, because what is imperialism other than the expansion of a national government to rule other nations as well? Rome was once a nation, and it expanded its authority to all of Italy at first, and finally to the Roman Empire as we remember it.

And the United States, whatever it calls itself, has been operating as an empire for decades, extending its rule over such far-flung places as Iraq, Vietnam, and Libya. And our liberal/neocon leaders seem to think that somehow our empire should include Ukraine and the Baltic states and various places in the Caucasus, right up to the borders of Russia. Bad idea. Joseph Pearce thinks so, too. His essay is from:

by Joseph Pearce

If Donald Trump fights the globalist Empire and defends the weak against the strong, he will be a nationalist; if he employs his strength against the weak for what he claims to be American interests, he will be an imperialist. So, is there any indication as to which President Trump will be?…

It seems that nationalism in its various guises is on the rise. It also seems that the political establishment, or what might be called the liberal ascendency, is not very happy with the phenomenon. The response from the liberal globalist old guard has been, for the most part, shrill and irrational, animated by a reactionary descent into the reductionism of stereotypes and name-calling. Thus, anyone who voted for Donald Trump or for Brexit is a xenophobe, a fascist, a racist, a bigot or any number of other labels that can be spat venomously in the venting of one’s spleen. Amateur psychologists will note that this sort of knee-jerk name-calling, and descent to the language of the lowest common denominator and the stereotype, is not that dissimilar from the manner in which xenophobes, fascists, racists and bigots conduct themselves. There is, therefore, more than a little irony in the manner in which such mudslinging and smear-mongering have replaced rational discourse.
It is, however, in the spirit of rational discourse that we should proceed, irrespective of the anti-fascist fascism of the enemies of reason.
Let’s begin with a basic definition of nationalism as a belief in the political sovereignty of nations. Its antonym is internationalism, a belief in the absence or minimizing of the political sovereignty of nations. Beyond this basic and fundamental definition, of which we should never lose sight, there are different manifestations of nationalism, as there are different manifestations of internationalism.
Take Irish nationalism, for instance. It would seem to have little or nothing in common with British nationalism. Indeed it is, at its core, antagonistic towards British nationalism. Isn’t this the problem with nationalism? Doesn’t it lead to tensions between nations? Isn’t the answer to such tensions their eradication by means of some form of internationalism which weakens or destroys the cause or source of enmity between nations? If there were no nations, the argument runs, there could be no enmity between them. This is true, to be sure, but it’s like saying that if there were no neighbours there would be no enmity between them. Nations are like neighbours; like the poor they are always with us. We can only destroy them by placing something far worse in their place. Were anyone to seriously believe that a One World government would be better in terms of political liberty than the relatively smaller governments of sovereign nations, they know nothing of the nature of political power. Nor would it eradicate tensions among nations, which might then be called merely “regions.” Faced with a globalist Empire, we would see the rise of “regionalism” demanding political freedom from Big Brother. And this is, in fact, exactly what we are seeing today. The rise of nationalism is nothing other than a healthy rebellion against the globalist Empire.
But what of the problem of nations hating nations? What of the British and the Irish? These are good questions but they are rooted in a misunderstanding of the political relationship between nations. Most of us fail to understand that the tension between nations is not caused by nationalism but by internationalism. Thus the problem between the British and the Irish is not rooted in nationalism but in imperialism, the latter is merely a synonym for internationalism. When one nation imposes its will on another nation, it is acting as an imperial power, not as a national power. Since this is so, a true nationalist can never be an imperialist because an imperialist is an internationalist. An English nationalist, as distinct from a British imperialist, does not seek to impose English power on Scotland, or Ireland, or Wales. On the contrary, insofar as he is a nationalist he respects the nationalism of his neighbours and would welcome an independent Scotland and Wales, as he welcomes an independent Ireland. In this sense, one who boasts that the sun never set on the British Empire is not a British Nationalist but a British Imperialist. In the same sense it can be seen that the Nazis were not German nationalists but German imperialists, as the German invasion of Poland illustrated all too grimly.
Having discussed what nationalism is and, equally importantly, what it isn’t, we can perhaps better judge whether Donald Trump is truly a nationalist. If he seeks to liberate the American economy from the encroachments of globalist economic imperialism, as he has promised he will, he will be acting as a nationalist. If he comes to the aid of a small sovereign nation, at that nation’s request, when it is the victim of the imperialism of another nation, he could be said to be acting in accordance with nationalist principles; if, however, he exerts American political muscle on small sovereign nations to their detriment, in order to pursue America’s interests, he will be acting as an imperialist or internationalist. Thus, for instance, Germany’s invasion of Poland in 1939 was an act of imperialism, whereas Britain’s declaration of war on Germany in order to defend Poland was not; Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was an act of imperialism, whereas the USA’s declaration of war on Iraq to liberate Kuwait was not. On the other hand, the USA’s invasion of Iraq in 2003, deploying weapons of mass destruction on the dubious grounds that Iraq possessed such weapons, was an act of imperialism.
With these criteria in mind, we can begin to judge whether Donald Trump’s presidency will be nationalist or imperialist. If he fights the globalist Empire and defends the weak against the strong, he will be a nationalist (and a hero); if he employs his strength against the weak for what he claims to be American interests, he will be an imperialist (and a villain). For the sake of justice and peace, we can all hope he proves to be a nationalist, and not an internationalist, imperialist, and globalist.
Books by Joseph Pearce may be found in The Imaginative Conservative Bookstore.
Ex-Army here again. I agree with practically everything Pearce says above, except that his classification of acts of nationalism and imperialism may be a trifle oversimplified, if only because almost all acts of imperialism such as those he mentioned can be justified, or at least obfuscated, by explanations that make them seem like acts of nationalism. And the converse is often true as well. And where do you put invasion of country A because it is oppressing its own people? But the basic principle remains, and is valid, despite the efforts of politicians to confuse the issue.
Quibcag: These three girls are what is known as Nyotalia, which is the female version of Hetalia, which you can find explained here: Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア). That is, while most or all of the Hetalia characters are male symbols of various countries, the Nyotalia characters are their female versions. I of course usually lean towards Nyotalia, because they're cuter. Now, I picked this illustration because it was very appealing visually, but I'm not certain which countries are symbolized here. The one on the right looks a lot like the USA girl that I've seen elsewhere, and the center one certainly looks Japanese. And if I had to bet, I'd say the one on the left is the UK.
Maybe you can figure it out for sure. I got the image from

Friday, January 13, 2017

Viktor Orbán on Borders, Christianity, and Civilization

It's funny how these things work. A snapshot of the world situation would look this way — countries with sensible, patriotic leaders: Hungary, Russia, China (as near as I can tell), Israel, Poland; countries with flaky, unpatriotic leaders: the United States, Canada, the UK, France, Germany. And there are many more in each category, but these are the ones I'm fairly sure of. This would lead you to think the first group are countries with sensible electorates, while the second group have ditzy electorates. Not necessarily so. That was a snapshot, but things change. In a few days, the United States will move from category two to category one. 

This is triggered by the fact that Hungary, of all places, seems to have a super-sensible patriot at the helm, in the form of Viktor Orbán. Maybe there's something about living in the ruins of a communist dictatorship that sharpens the mind. Sharper than the minds of our local liberals and neocons, most of whom, to be frank, are communists of one sort or another, though they dress it up and call it by other names like "progressive" or "neoconservative," while fighting actual progress and/or trashing our history and heritage and calling a slightly skewed version of progressivism some kind of opposition to progressivism instead of the fellow-travelerism that it is.

And, here is Viktor Orbán himself, on the subject of borders. This is from Gates of Vienna [link]:

“The World is Not Moving Towards Order, But Rather in the Direction of Jittery Unpredictability”

The following speech was given yesterday by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán at a swearing-in ceremony for new special units of Hungarian border guards. CrossWare, who translated the speech for subtitles, includes this explanation of the new guards’ duties:
These are military-level units, but under the Ministry of Internal Affairs (like police). They are kind of like border control SWAT teams. The literal translation of their name is “Border Hunter”.
Mr. Orbán, as usual, speaks the truth clearly and eloquently. There is no other national leader in the West who is willing to discuss mass immigration so frankly.
Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for the subtitling:

For a transscript of his speech, go to:


Quibcag: Crusader girl is from

What makes Trump tick? And why does he tick so WELL?

What makes Trump tick? Pretty much the same thing, or set of things, that makes a great many Americans tick, and that includes me.

It's not a matter of ideology in the usual sense. If you think of the dominant ideologies here in America — the virtually identical liberalism and neoconservatism — both are hysterically hostile to Trump because he doesn't belong to either and doesn't even seem to respect either. He adheres to something deeper. Below, Victor Davis Hanson calls it "traditionalism," and that covers Trump's attitude better than any other single word I can think of. It includes a great many things that have been lost over Trump's lifetime and mine — moral and ethical things, and some things that are just symbolic. Perhaps most importantly, traditionalism includes patriotism, which of course requires nationalism if it is to mean anything at all, and nationalism is the opposite of globalism, and if the liberals/neocons believe in anything, it's globalism. And of course both groups despise and fear patriotism, calling it "xenopobia" or "bigotry," or any number of such terms.

Over at Vox Day's site [link], there is a long  quote from Hanson, and Vox's own reaction:

The Politics of the Possible

Classicist and historian VDH attempts to make sense of the Trumpist ideology, such as it is:

Trumpism promotes traditionalism. Trump showcases “Merry Christmas!” because his parents did. He believes in dressing formally and being addressed as Mr. Trump. And he insists that his children be well-behaved and polite.

You might object that Trump is thrice-married, Petronian in his tastes, and ethically sloppy or worse in his own business dealings. No matter: Trump seeks a return to normalcy all the more. His personal excesses apparently spur his impulses for traditional norms.

Perhaps Trump is like many Baby Boomers as they enter their final decades: They look back at their parents and grandparents, and wonder how they put up with their offspring — and see how far this generation has fallen short of their forebears’ ideals, which in turn sparks a desire for a return to normalcy in the wayward. Deists were believers in the abstract who otherwise shunned a living Christianity yet thought that active religion had social value for others. Similarly, Trump is a non-practicing moralist who believes traditional morality can restore structure and guidance to society.

So Trump is foul-mouthed but wants a return of decorum; he has been conniving but thinks his own recklessness is not necessarily a model for the nation.

National Greatness 

Nationalism is another Trump axiom — the deliberate antithesis to the progressive and Socratic idea of being “a citizen of the world.” In Trump’s mind, the U.S. is a paradise thanks to its exceptional values and the hard work of past generations; the mess elsewhere (to the degree Trump worries about it) is due to human failing that is not America’s fault. Trump laments self-inflicted misery abroad but feels that he and his country are not culpable for it, and, other than Good Samarian disaster or famine relief, we cannot do too much about it in the long term.

Read the rest here:
Quibcag: Doesn't seem all that relevant, does it? Well, it is, though. The girl in the foreground is Narue of The World of Narue (Japanese: 成恵の世界 Narue no Sekai). She is an immigrant. From some alien world. Unlike a lot of immigrants, she assimilates and loves her new home.

Thursday, January 12, 2017

Защитники! (Guardians)

Quick, somebody tell the liberals/neocons about this movie! It's probably proof of Russia's bad intentions towards everybody. You gotta love the bear guy (Ursus). I'll bet he doesn't think "unabashed bigotry" crept into the Kremlin when Putin was elected [link]. I hope little Marco doesn't see this. It might make him cry.

Read more about this here:

Libertarians and/or Fascists?

Matt Bailey sent this in:

Ex-Army, interesting line of conversation:

Someone said,
"People hate SJW's because they sh*t on everything. They are so annoying that they can make natural sworn enemies like libertarians and fascists work together."

Which is a fair enough observation. But I reply:

"Is it nature or artificial ideological framing which makes the two enemies?
Most libertarians I (I believe the SJW cuck-shills are outliers and possibly infiltrators) want to live in an America that is a lot more like 1955. This was kind of the premise of Harry Browne's Clinton-era book Why Government Doesn't Work.
Most fascists want to live in an America that is a lot more like 1955.
So it seems like they want the same thing, with occasional arguments about how to get there."
Ex-Army says: Best explanation I've seen so far as to why we need to have pas d'ennemi à droite. Actually, when I first started this blog, I called it "Ex-Army, Fasco-Libertarian," but nobody got the point.
Quibcag: an old one. I don't know where the girl is from.

Wednesday, January 11, 2017

President Sessions?

Reprint from

This is an oddity from Breitbart [link] that intrigues me. Before Trump got into the race for the nomination, my first choice for President was indeed Jeff Sessions, largely because he's a hawk on immigration, and also because of his generally conservative orientation, with a populist bias. Actually, that sounds a lot like Trump, doesn't it? That explains his choice of Sessions for Attorney General. But I think it less likely that Sessions would have beaten Hillary, had he been nominated. After all, we've just witnessed some downright political genius on the part of Trump, using liberal tactics against liberals, hitting back harder when he's hit, and using technology to make an end run around the hostile press.

But if somehow he had been elected, Sessions would indeed make a great President. Read on:

A Look Back at the Remarkable Presidency of Jeff Sessions


In the just-completed 2024 presidential election, the Republican Party has won the White House for a third consecutive time—only the third instance in a century that the GOP has managed this feat.
So it’s worth pausing over the origins and causes of this political achievement—this Republican “triple play.” In particular, we might ask: What additional political force has given the GOP this newfound political muscle? After all, from 1992 to 2012, the GOP had lost four of six presidential elections—and five of six in the popular vote. And yet the Republican presidential victories of 2016, 2020, and 2024 cannot be denied: Even the Main Stream Media are now willing to concede that GOP strength is more than just “a blip.”
In fact, if we examine these Republican win streaks, we can identify some commonalities. In each instance, we can see that one political figure stands as decisive in building the Republican Party’s national strength. Way back in the 1920s, the key force for the GOP was President Calvin Coolidge, who inherited the wreckage of Warren G. Harding’s presidency in 1923 and won big in his own right in the 1924 election. In office, Coolidge was so popular that he bequeathed a strong Republican majority to his successor in 1928.
In the next GOP win streak, in the 1980s, the Republican main man was President Ronald Reagan. In the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections, the Gipper was the big winner, and his popularity helped George H.W. Bush win another thumping victory in 1988.
And most recently, in the Teens and Twenties, the undeniable architect of sustained Republican success was the 45th President, Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III of Alabama. His victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016 was relatively close, and yet his re-election in 2020 was a landslide. And as we have just seen, President Sessions’ continued popularity made it easy for his anointed successor to hold the White House in 2024.
So yes, over the last eight years, President Sessions has indeed consolidated a new Republican majority. In particular, we can identify three pillars of strength:
First, by virtue of his long service to the Republican Party, he held the Republican base.
Second, by virtue of his strong stance on key issues of principle, he solidified the support of Tea Partiers and Constitutionalists. Crucially, he recaptured the allegiance of the United States Independence Partythe group of disaffected Republicans that had split from the GOP over the immigration issue.
Third, by virtue of his populist appeal, Sessions brought over a great many centrist Democrats, who were dissatisfied with former President Barack Obama but nevertheless fearful of most Republicans. Wits of the time said that Sessions was a “gateway drug” for wandering Democrats.
During the Obama years, Sessions, then in the US Senate, stood out. He was a solid conservative vote on virtually all issues, from taxes to guns to Life, yet nevertheless he took bold positions on immigration and globalization that jolted the open-borders libertarian hegemony that then prevailed within the GOP. As he said repeatedly, a truck driver is just as important as a billionaire. That is, protecting the jobs of ordinary Americans were just as much a priority as protecting the profits for venture capitalists. Indeed, Sessions showed his Southern spunk: He wasn’t afraid to mix it up with liberal Democratic billionaires. Ideological purists were horrified; ordinary Americans were delighted: Finally, someone in Washington was willing to fight for them.
Sessions thus pointed the way to a new and powerful kind of politics with broad national appeal: It was sometimes called “populism,” although others preferred to call it “Middle Class Conservatism.” For his part, Sessions eschewed labels; to him it was just common sense.
Yet by whatever name, Sessions’ brand of politics proved wildly popular in his home state of Alabama; in 2014, he was the only US Senator, in either party, who was unopposed for re-election. Moreover, Sessions’ message resonated to a larger audience than just the Yellowhammer State. His staunch opposition to Obama’s amnesties of 2014, 2015, and 2016 made him a national hero. Indeed, he was admired by many Democrats who could see that the rising tide of illegals flooding into the country was jeopardizing not only their wages at work but also their safety at home.
Thus Sessions emerged as an important national figure. And yet as we remember, during the Obama years, he was not only not generally seen as a future president, but he himself actively swatted down rumors that he might throw his hat in the ring.
Still, the presidential speculation about Sessions continued. In those years, GOP strategists were hungry for victory; after all, the Party had lost the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections by wide margins. Notably, Republican politicos knew all too well that their candidates in ’08 and ’12 had virtually no appeal to swing voters. And so many Republican thinkers came to believe that that a more populist message could bring disaffected Democrats—of the type who had once voted for Ronald Reagan—back into the Republican fold.
Read the rest here:
Afterword: We at Ex-Army agree with the intro, and would like to add that while we, too, supported the Sessions for President movement, before Trump entered, we feel that Trump is simply better at getting his message across than any politician in recent memory, and therefore was more likely to win the election, but, given his ability to appeal directly to the people without going through the press, will be more able than anybody else to put through a conservative-populist-nationalist program, just about the opposite of the decades-long Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama program.