Right Wing Fighter

Month: February, 2017

The Classics will not save America

I’ve noticed in more traditional right-wing establishments, such as Hillsdale College, a tendency to think that classical education will save the country.

It wont, and here’s why.

A classical education’s chief goal is to give you a sense of the breadth of the world, chiefly by emphasizing ancient history, novels and other literature across many centuries, and perhaps even an ancient language, like Latin.

It seeks to mimic the broadness of learning that many thinkers from long ago had experienced in their youth. Plato, for example, was exposed to a great number of different disciplines: mathematics, botany, medicine, drama, history, astronomy, and more besides. This breadth of learning is also present in many Renaissance, Romantic, and Enlightenment thinkers.

Through this means, they hope to build the country ‘from the ground up’ as it were. They consider sometime in and around the founding to be the halcyon days of the human race. And they seek to recreate those people in our time by educating them in the same way.

But it wont work for several reasons.

First, the economics of life are totally different. Whilst work has always been demanding, many jobs did not require semi-constant learning in order to keep ahead. Engineering, computer programming, medicine, to name a few, are constantly developing at a rate that didn’t exist in 1787. This puts a much greater demand on the average worker to keep up to date with his job. In removes a great deal of mental energy needed to cultivate a wider range of knowledge.

Second, many people got an education ‘against their will.’ The fact is, 1787 could be a time of incomparable boredom. Unless you enjoyed hunting, fishing, horseback riding, or hiking, there wasn’t a lot you could do by yourself. And if people were busy doing other things, sometimes all you could do is sit down and read. Many people must have read for boredom’s sake who wouldn’t have otherwise. Novels were big back then, because they were one of the most effective and least demanding ways to escape the present.

Third, the people were different. America was around 60% English in 1787. Today it’s hard to tell. But with the huge influxes of Germans, Irish, Italians, Poles, not to mention others, the fact is America is not made of the same people it was in ’87. Of course, to many supporters of classical education, ethnicity is meaningless and a person is perfectly moldable via education. This, incidentally, is another holdover from the classical era: many people thought that education was all that made a difference between people. Nowadays, with the intermixing of different ethnicities within a single nation, anyone who is willing to see the facts about ethnicity can do so.

There are more reasons why this classicalist approach will fail. But these are the most cogent.

Why so much advocacy for ‘following your passion?’

In advertising all across the United States, ‘following your passion’ is touted as a reason to do anything. In fact, I just saw an ad for a college that said you could ‘follow your passion’ by going to the school and learning the trade you want to work.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with people doing the kind of work they want to. If they can, they certainly should. But with so much emphasis on ‘following your passion’, obviously more is at work.

At back of these ads is a philosophy. Put simply, it’s to ‘make yourself happy.’ There’s never any question of using your education to serve the nation. There’s never any question of using it in conjunction with others to make your government, profession, or society generally better. Instead, it’s totally about you.

Why? Because anything else is considered a surrender to responsibility. You’re not supposed to feel responsibility. You’re not supposed to work for other people. Doing that is written off as naive, or ‘morally’ wrong. ‘Ya only get ahead by takin’ for yourself’ goes the mantra. ‘An’ anyone who looks out for others is a weakling.’

There are millions of people who natively think it’s wrong to look out for someone else. Why? Because they are so wired to think that the only ‘moral’ thing to do is take care of themselves. I kid you not.

And that’s where all this thinking comes from: a certain kind of people who think the only ‘right’ thing to do is to serve yourself.



Masculine and Feminine

This is a big topic.

But I want to add to the table something that hasn’t been covered before.

On the right, it’s typical to talk about the ‘feminine virtues’ and the ‘masculine virtues.’ What follows typically is a general list of attributes that philosophers and a certain amount of public opinion consider to be the virtues of either sex.

But something that has been missed is the difference in ethnic conceptions of what a man or woman are.

Let me give you two examples:

To the Irish, a man is powerful, direct, unconcerned about people’s feelings, and generally something of a bull. His lack of concern for hurting people’s feelings is considered an admirable expression of his directness. His rough-and-ready style is considered a healthy sign of maleness. The ability to ‘take a joke’ is considered essential to manliness. Being easily offendable, even for legitimate reasons, is considered a sign of weakness. To an Irishman, strength and thickness of skin are considered essential to making it through life.

Now consider the Germans. They consider a man, first and foremost, is one who fulfills his responsibilities. Germans are not impressed by expressions of raw strength. Germans consider that we are all, in our various social ‘platoons’ as Burke would call them, responsible to each other for good behavior and for supporting each other. Additionally, the highest goals of a German, socially speaking, are to be considered respectable and credible. Thus, a man who fulfills his duties, who is effective, efficient, intelligent and clear-minded, who has a clear understanding of the world, is the best sort of man. To a German, understanding the world and being able to address it in a forthright, efficient manner are essential to getting through life.

Now which one is “right”? How can one fabricate an abstract concept of male and female when such a concept must always be either:

A: Drawn straight from the ethnic expression of a male or female;


B: A cobbling together of various ethnic expressions of male and female?

The point is, male and female have never existed outside of a particular ethnicity. Thus abstract conceptions miss the point, because they have never existed, and can’t be pasted on top of a real person’s behavior, since his ethnicity will always dictate much of his personality.

So what can be done?

I think a partial answer is in the Bible. If one reads various passages in the New Testament, it’s clear that the typical conception of proper female behavior reaches beyond what’s mandatory in the Bible. This is not to say these conceptions are automatically wrong. But the point is they are not morally mandatory.

Additionally, consider the woman in Proverbs 31. Under the typical, 50s-esque conception of womanhood, she is far too efficient and self-directed. In essence, she runs the entire house and contributes materially to the family income. Apparently so much so, that her husband is at liberty to take up politics.

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.

12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.

13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.

14 She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar.

15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.

16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.

17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.

18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.

19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.

21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet.

22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple.

23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.

24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.

Consider particularly verse 16, where she visits a field, of her own accord decides to buy it, and then plants a vineyard herself. Here we see a degree of executive action and physical labor outside the bounds of what is typically considered womanhood.

Now, none of this is meant to fall into the liberal lie that there are no such things as men and women. This is meant to express that the male and female virtues are dependent on our ethnicity. Additionally, this is meant to express that there is more room for fluidity than we tend to think.

So what’s to be done?

Men and women should live within the bounds of the Bible, insofar as anyone can since we are imperfect. Beyond that, they should express their particular ethnic expression of man or woman. Is this ‘ideal’? No. But the ideal is always chimerical, since it never takes into consideration the physical reality of what is possible.

As a final note, I’m not a fan of the woman in Proverbs 31. I take the chapter to be an expression of a particular kind of virtuous woman, and therefore not something I have a moral obligation to like. My conceptions involves a greater degree of co-dependence. Also, clearly the relationship between herself and her husband is much more of a materially focused partnership. I, myself, am German, and therefore I want a much greater emphasis on understanding, conversation, and coordinated activities between myself and my wife. We Germans are very intimate with those we love. For me, the woman in Proverbs 31 is too business-like and distant.


Since I promised to write at least once a day for a week, I want to say I’m sorry for missing yesterday. The day was so busy that blogging just flew out of my head. I’ll make up for it today by writing two posts.

AP “Fact Checks” Trump

From the AP:

In President Donald Trump’s estimation, the U.S. border isn’t merely porous, it’s “wide open.” Darkness and danger are everywhere, even Sweden. American infrastructure isn’t just in need of improvement but it’s in “total disrepair and decay.” The health law is not only flawed, but it’s an “absolute and total catastrophe.”

His apocalyptic view of everything he intends to fix leaves no nuance, but that’s where reality often resides. For example, Trump himself actually likes parts of former President Barack Obama’s health overhaul, such as the extended coverage for older children. And the U.S. remains an economic powerhouse able to transport goods in a stressed system of roads, bridges and ports that are not in total decay.

‘Merely porous’? Do they have any conception of what a border is? The whole point of a border is to not let anyone through. It’s not meant to only let some people through.

Besides, our border is wide open. When somewhere between 10 to 30 million illegal aliens are in this country, there is no other definition for the border than that it’s wide open.

Of course, the AP prefers it that way, since that helps Democrats.

Additionally, darkness and danger are everywhere. Did they see the Ferguson riots? Stores smashed. People attacked.

What about the gang violence everywhere? Even neighborhoods that were perfectly safe ten years ago are getting gangs that never used to leave the big cities. Some of the gangs weren’t even in the country in the first place before Obama took office.

That’s not to say these problems can’t be solved. They can. But the problems must be clearly recognized.

And of course this is happening in Sweden too. They idiotically opened their borders wide open and have let in scum and thugs. Only now are they starting to regret it. It will be a long road before Sweden sends back the immigrant criminals they’ve invited in.

As for Obamacare, it is a catastrophe. People that were paying $60 dollars a month for health insurance are paying $600. Isn’t that a catastrophe? How much money does the AP think the average Joe has on hand to pay for health coverage? Obamacare is a disaster and must be repealed.

As for roads and bridges: I’ve seen roads that are so pock-marked they look more like a part of the moon. I’ve seen bridges that looked iffy to cross. The infrastructure in this country is bad, because of decades of Democrat and Republican neglect.

On all these points Trump is absolutely correct. The AP’s “fact check” is just a bundle of lies put forth to try to keep people from seeing what is all around them. It’s meant to obscure the reality of life in America today.

Outrageous: DHS Chief Kelly says no to ‘Mass Deportations’

From NBC:

“Let me be clear, there will be no mass deportations, everything we do in DHS will be done legally,” DHS Chief John Kelly said during a press conference following meetings with Mexican officials. “The focus of deportation will be on the criminal element, all of this will be done in close coordination with Mexico.”

Well obviously everything done at DHS will be done legally. Seeing as the illegals are here illegally, deporting them is entirely legal!

The entire point of the DHS is to keep the country safe. Additionally, it’s the responsibility of the US government to maintain our sovereignty in every regard. Simply focusing on the ‘criminal element’ is a surrender of our national sovereignty. Mexico, and other countries, have no right to dump their unwanted people on us.*

I’ve questioned how useful Kelly would be at DHS. He struck me as a by-the-book wooden board kind of Marine officer.** The fact is, unlike what many people think, military men usually make poor leaders. Their entire conception of leadership is to execute the system that already exists. In this case, it’s the anti-American political establishment of the day. Military men are never bold. And they are never independent thinkers. The military, especially the Marines, demands obedience to superiors. When a man spends his entire life in that kind of environment, it saps him of all independence of thought.

As a final note: what is it with Trump appointees and not speaking in line with what Trump has said? Do they think he doesn’t mean it? Are they trying to gain media kudos by going along with ‘respectable (liberal) opinion?’ Or is it that they disagree with Trump and are acting on what they think?

I think it’s the last one, that they don’t agree with his nationalism and are trying to push what they think. No offense meant to Mr. Trump, but he needs to find better people.



* For decades Mexico, and other countries, have deliberately sent their criminals and unproductive citizens to the US in order to get rid of them.

** Kelly is a retired Marine Corps General.

Why is willpower so endlessly championed?

In Western media, willpower is endlessly championed. Why? Because it is inclusive.

The idea is that, since everyone has willpower, you can become anything you like as long as you will hard enough. The idea that people have definite personalities, that they have in-built strengths and weaknesses is anathema because it limits what people can be.

That’s why, in superhero movies, the hero always ends up willing his way to victory over a better opponent. Can you think of a single recent superhero movie in which the hero isn’t either outnumbered or over-matched?

Even the Rocky movies, which I like minus some of their language*, champion the power of willpower to overcome superior opponents.

In Rocky and Rocky II, Rocky is fighting a much better boxer. But yet he succeeds because of his determination to pound his way through each fight.

In Rocky III, Rocky is up against Clubber Lang, a much stronger, tougher boxer. Rocky loses his first fight against him. But wins in the end because of his will to reinvent his boxing style and thus outmaneuver his opponent.

In Rocky IV, Rocky is up against a steroid-fueled giant, who isn’t such a bad boxer either. Again, Rocky wins because of his will to succeed, even though he’s being pounded by someone who can allegedly punch twice as hard as a normal boxer.

And in the final movie, Rocky Balboa, Rocky makes a comeback at age 60 against a 30-something year old opponent. Basically, Rocky would be toast. But luckily, his opponent breaks his hand early in the fight which gives Rocky an edge. Still, he couldn’t have stuck it out, except for his will.

Now, the reason Rocky movies are well-known as feel good movies, is because they give the viewer, any viewer, the sense he can succeed if he just pushes hard enough. Obviously this isn’t true. Without talent, all the pushing in the world wont make a success. You have to leverage your natural abilities to succeed.

But, as is well-known, liberalism values inclusiveness above almost everything. This is because exclusion prevents the individual’s will from being paramount. Something is in his way. He is excluded. And thus, his will is thwarted.

This is why there’s so much hubbub about so-called ‘transgender’ people. To liberals, it’s the purest expression of will vs. restriction. People don’t understand why the topic raises such fury, because they don’t understand that what the liberals really want is an unobstructed will. Not obstructed by God, nature, laws, people’s opinion: nothing. This is why the right only makes vague slippery-slope arguments against it. They don’t understand what the battle is really about.

And that is why inclusiveness is paramount to liberals: it removes certain obstacles to the will.**


* Rocky V doesn’t exist for me. It was such a bizarre, weird mistake of a movie that I’m surprised Stallone ever made it.

** To wax autobiographical for a moment: this is why I’ve never been a liberal: I’ve never believed that an unobstructed will is a virtue. Second, I’ve never believed it was possible.

80% of Americans Oppose Sanctuary Cities

80% of the American people oppose sanctuary cities, according to a Harvard-Harris poll published by The Hill.

This should be a slap in the face to the Democrats who support sanctuary cities.

Also, as Sundance of the Conservative Treehouse points out, the poll over-sampled Democrats. 39% of the respondents were Democrats, whilst Dems only make up 25% of the population. The poll did over-sample Republicans slightly. But not by 14%!

There’s more data in Sundance’s post, so be sure to check it out: here

By the way: I was right!

It’s a bit late to do a victory lap now. But I don’t want to miss the opportunity to point out that all the people who said Trump couldn’t win were wrong. This includes several commenters at this site.

Obviously I wasn’t the only one saying Trump could win. But I was one of the most consistent and one of his earliest supporters. (In fact, I supported him since his first day in the primary).

I recognize it’s considered bad form to tell the losers that they’ve lost. You’re ‘supposed’ to be ‘gracious’ in victory. Which apparently means letting nasty, profane, anti-American folks say and do whatever they want, and then you’re supposed to ease the burden of their defeat by not pointing out their defeat.

But since they were so snarky, nasty, and wretched about it, I don’t care about being ‘gracious.’


What now, Ted Cruz?

Cruz has been keeping a pretty low profile lately. Since losing the primary, he’s confined himself to routine Senate activities. No more picking fights with Mitch McConnell to boost himself in the primaries. No more Reaganisms about America.

So what will he do now?

He’s obviously personally ambitious, so he’s not out of the running for losing the primary to Trump. He’s not going to give up.

My guess is that he’ll try to position himself as the leading light of the Senate. Sort of an elder-statesman in his forties. He’ll probably pick a few fights with Trump over the next eight years in order to build an independent image. But for the most part he’ll probably position himself with Trump against the establishment. And so garner some of Trump’s popularity for himself.