How Not To Be Boring

Posted on July 3, 2018 by thezman

There are few things worse than conversing with a boring person. I’m not talking about quiet people. A person who keeps his own confidence is often thought of as mysterious or complex. Their silence makes them interesting. A boring person is almost always someone who talks a lot, revealing that they are not very interesting. Boring people are such a menace, that there is a whole area of etiquette about politely getting away from the boring guy at a social event.

So, what makes a person boring?

More important, how can you avoid being seen as a boring person?

The first thing you notice about boring people is they never seem to have a point to their stories and anecdotes. Stories must have a point. No one cares about what you had for lunch, unless it was something bizarre or unusual. If you had a delicious turkey club for lunch, that’s not something anyone wants to know. Now, if the waiter stripped naked and ran screaming into the street after serving you that delicious turkey club, then you have a story with a point. That’s an amusing tale.

Your stories and anecdotes don’t have to be amusing. What’s important is you have some reason for telling the story. This is a courtesy to the listener. By having a point, you are showing respect to the listener, whether it it by sharing information with them or making them laugh with an amusing story. When your stories are pointless recitations of mundane events, you are, whether you realize it or not, insulting the audience. At the minimum, you are wasting their time, which is just as bad.

You should also avoid unnecessary details. That story about the waiter stripping down and running into the street is a good example. If you spend five minutes describing the menu and the turkey sandwich, then thirty seconds on the naked man, you made an amusing tale into misery for your listeners. Sure, a little setup to the big reveal is a good way to create tension, but a little goes a long way. In a social setting, a good story is one that avoids extraneous details.

The easiest way to avoid loading up your sixty second story with ten minutes of tedium is to never explain the obvious. This is the most common error boring people make when telling a story. For some reason, they think they need to explain what everyone on earth has known since childhood. In the case of our turkey club, the boring person will actually explain what he means by turkey club or maybe even talk about the history of the turkey club. When in doubt, skip it.

Another way to avoid being the boring guy everyone avoids is to never tell a story that requires a back story. Boring people often start a story that should last three minutes, then veer into a long back story. For example, the they will veer into a story about how they met their lunch companion in the turkey club story. The result is a dull story about the lunch companion, plus a dull description of the turkey club. This is misery for listeners and is an unacceptable price for the pay-off.

The boring also have a funny habit of talking over people. They ignore the little things others do to signal to the boring that they need to stop talking. The boring are strangely competitive in their dullness. If you notice people starting to speak as soon as you take a breath, or they start looking at their phones, you are the boring guy. You are not going to improve this situation by talking louder or talking over any interruptions. Take the hint and wrap up your story.

A good way to stop yourself from being that guy is to always invite others to tell their story or comment on the topic of conversation. People will find your turkey club story more interesting if you showed interest in their lunch story. A little active listening goes a long way. It not only keeps you from droning on about the delicious turkey club, it makes you seem more interesting to others. Boring people are selfish people, in that they are only interested in their point of view, in far too much detail.

Finally, if it is a story you tell often and the listener is someone you know well, assume you told them the story, because you almost certainly did. Start with “If I told this before, stop me” or maybe, “I probably told this story before…” This gives them the right to stop you from boring them with the 80th retelling. This is a courtesy to the listener and it makes you seem more interesting. This is flattering to the listener and and they will think better of you for it.

¡ Viva México!

Posted on July 2, 2018 by thezman

Europeans who worked in colonial Africa would say, “Africa Wins Again” whenever some project went sideways. The point was that no matter how well-intended or well designed, the best ideas of Westerners would fail. The implied reason was that Africa was the way it was, because it was full of Africans. This expression must have been common during colonialism, as it always turns up in first-person accounts of the post-colonial years. There was simply no way to beat nature.

That’s what comes to mind whenever a Latin American country makes the news for some reason. A decade ago, libertarian economists like Tyler Cowen were sure that Argentina and Brazil were on their way to first world status. Sensible people knew that the Latin Way would eventually win. Argentina is back to begging the West for bailouts and Brazil is teetering on social and political collapse. It turns out that the Latin Way always wins too. There’s no beating nature.

Mexico just had an election and the winner is promising to prove every cold-hearted Anglo north of the border right about the nature of Mexico.

Veteran Leftist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has been elected president of Mexico, winning the largest landslide in his country’s recent history in a remarkable routing of what he terms “the mafia of power”.

Promising to combat corruption and drive down record crime rates, Mr Lopez Obrador captured 53 per cent of the vote, according to preliminary results – a historic victory for the party he created.

Voters decided in their millions to turn their backs on the two parties which have ruled Mexico for almost 100 years, and finally give him a chance – sending his supporters into a frenzy.

The American media will never honestly report about anything, so we can expect them to celebrate this guy as the antidote to Donald Trump. You just know they will find some way to link his rise to the election of Ocasio-Cortez. Alternatively, they will swear Trump caused it. It depends upon how things unfold. If chaos ensues, then you can be sure it will be blamed in Trump’s rhetoric. In reality, this is just Mexico being Mexico. Here’s a summary of AmLo’s platform:

Amnesty to all drug cartels.

No longer will work with U.S. immigration enforcement.

Nationalize oil industry.

Farm subsidies.

Elimination of multinational corporate influence on farming.

Support and assistance for economic growth plan:

using •mass migration of Mexican nationals into Southern U.S.,

create AmeriMex border region, and

remittance of earnings back to Mexico as initiative for rapid domestic economic growth.

Now, in fairness to Mexicans, the two main parties have become so corrupt that voting for either is just a vote for the status quo. That means a country largely controlled by two murderous drug cartels and a political elite willing to protect them. Just how much money the Mexican ruling elite makes from the drug business is hard to know, but they have grown rich off the free trade scams operating at the border. They have also helped facilitate the waves of migrants entering the United States every year.

Obrador is probably a good result for Americans. He will no doubt make an excellent bad guy in the coming war with Mexico. That is where things are headed, whether anyone realizes it. The Mexican government is incapable of ending the flow of drugs into the US and they have no choice but to facilitate the flow of migrants. That means the border will have to be closed and most likely guarded by the US military. That is an option the public will support, if Mexico is led by a nutty Marxist who hates America.

Putting that aside, it is another reminder that Mexico is a failed state. The central government retains control of Mexico City and the immediate area surrounding it, but the rest of the country is controlled by drug cartels. One reason the political elite facilitates migration is they skim from the remittances back to Mexico, from their people living in America. Carlos Slim, the owner of the New York Times, owns the Mexican phone company, which means he gets a taste, every time Pablo calls home from America.

Those old enough to remember will note that NAFA was supposed to prevent this from happening. Instead, it has been a disaster for Mexico, making the people poorer, while their elites grew rich. Mexico was never going to withstand unfettered contact with the first world, for the simple reason it was never a modern country and is never going to be a modern country. The human capital of Mexico cannot sustain it. This is a reality of the human condition that people used to know, until there was money in pretending otherwise.

Now, America has a failed narco-state on its southern border, thanks to the greedy we politely call globalists. You will note that everything these pirates of the new economy touch eventually falls to pieces. That is because this form of economic activity can only thrive in chaos, so it works to create it. A disordered world, where sovereign people no longer have control of their borders, lurches inexorably toward chaos. Instead of Vikings raiding the West, the last 30 years has been men in suits raiding the West.

Chaos always results in a reaction and that reaction is usually authoritarian. That is what is happening in Mexico and will happen in Brazil and Argentina. If those countries are lucky, the authoritarians will be like Pinochet and the result will be a pruning of the political elite and the imposition of order. It is always a coin flip with strongmen. For every Peisistratus, who restores order and economic balance, you get a Nero. The history of Latin America suggests the latter is the way to bet, but maybe this time will be different.

There Will Be Blood

Posted on July 1, 2018 by thezman

In a healthy and orderly society, the ruling class maintains a set of rules for arbitrating disputes, allocating power and disciplining transgressors. The rules governing the ruling class are intended to defend the ruling class from internal threats, as well as external ones. The rules make sure that people entering the ruling elite are the sort who will improve and defend the system. It also protects those new members, by giving them an orderly path up through the hierarchy.

Imagine if it was acceptable in the Senate for a back bencher to murder his rivals in order to gain a senior position in the Senate. That could be tempting to an upstart, but then again, killing off newcomers would also make sense. Having rules against murdering rivals protects everyone. An orderly system of distributing power and promoting new people up the hierarchy encourages everyone in the ruling class to defend the ruling class system.

It’s why so-called conservatives rush to the nearest microphone to disavow challenges from their right. They always frame it is a choice between reasonable compromise versus unreasonable extremism. Their calls for civility are essentially a defense of the current order. The rules work for them, as it allows them to enjoy a one percent lifestyle as the opposition to the Left. While not as gratuitous, progressives will also call for civility when they sense a threat from their Left.

That’s what makes the debate on the Left about tactics interesting to those on this side of the great divide, even though we have no role in the debate. There is no one speaking for our issues in the halls of power and our people are excluded from the political debate. On the other hand, the most radical progressive crazies get at least an audience with the people in charge. This Atlantic piece gives a little hint that maybe the moderate middle is about to collapse.

American politics is today a brutal boxing match of harassing confrontations. The disagreements renew two enduring questions: one philosophical, one historical. Is political harassment civil? And do the ugly political confrontations signal a sharp departure, or have they always existed in the United States of America?

Moderates in both major political parties have long argued no on both fronts. Their political brand is unity. They pursue the absence of tension. That has meant avoiding confrontations through building political bridges high above the audible river of children crying in detention facilities, in police cars and cells, in abandoned schools, in abuse-infested homes, in rat-infested apartments, in searches for incarcerated and deported parents, in funeral homes over closed caskets, in plantation shacks after their first whipping, and in slave auctions fearing their new harassers.

These political moderates classify as uncivil those, like Donald Trump, who would toss children into those crying spaces. They classify as uncivil those, like Maxine Waters, who run down into those crying spaces and call for the all-out harassment of the harassers. They look down on both the Trumps and the Waters’ from the heights of their self-styled civility. They look down on those crying children—and their comatose or raging defenders—and counsel patience, preaching a religious belief in the American political process.

Now, you have to put aside the fact that the author of that piece is a ridiculous person with a fake name. His lack of authenticity is part of the act that gets him a place in the prevailing orthodoxy. The angry black man routine allows him to play the part of house anti-white among the ruling class Progressives. If he had stuck with his birth name, he would be forced to play a different role, as no one is going to take seriously a guy playing the Malcolm X part with the name “Mister Rogers” and sporting a cardigan.

What matters is his argument that justice requires the just to be uncivil, by which he means overthrowing the rules. After all, incivility is by definition the rejection of the rules of discourse. Radicals have always been attracted to this formulation, as they always imagine themselves as the righteous underdog fighting the powerful system. In the last century, this was at least plausible, if not entirely accurate. Communist revolutionaries wanted a new system. The New Left was in revolt against the previous generation.

Today, the Progressives are in total control of American life. If you doubt this, name a left-wing web site that has been banned from the internet. The terrorist group Antifa is allowed to operate on Twitter and Facebook. Post FBI crime stats on social media and you risk being doxed by a Huffington Post writer and losing your job. In other words, the people in total control of the system are now losing faith in the system, because they do not think it is effective enough at crushing their enemies. Ibram X. Kendi wants more blood.

This is not surprising. From Robespierre through Marxism, into the multiculturalism of today, the Left has always been a spiritual cause, because all of their schemes require a certain type of person, a certain moral understanding. Ultimately what is required for their society to work is a certain moral order that can only be imposed. As Progressivism has curdled into an anti-white ascendancy, it means erasing all traces of whiteness, which is going to mean erasing white people. You cannot do that and remain civil.

What we are seeing is that the anti-white ascendancy that was birthed by cultural Marxism, brings with it the same defects as Marxism. That is, it lacks a limiting principle, so it inevitably proceeds to the most extreme expression of its core beliefs. There was no end to radical intolerance in 20th century Marxism. There will be no end to the racial bloodlust by anti-white radicals. It is why anti-whites are offended by calls to civility. The inevitable end point of their ideology is unrestrained vengeance against whites.

A dozen years ago, Mark Steyn made the point that the history of ruling elites reforming themselves is not very encouraging. That was in the context of immigration. All these years on, we see that our ruling classes have done nothing to stem the flood of migrants into the West. Therefore, it is hard to imagine them standing up to the anti-white radicals they have cultivated the last few decades. Guys like Ibram X. Kendi exist to hate whitey and they will not be restrained by calls for civility or compromise.

Noah Future

Posted on June 30, 2018 by thezman

Lefty rage gets all of the attention because they control the media Their endless tantrums about losing the 2016 election, as well as their increasingly shrill anti-white rhetoric, is flooding the zone. Lost in all of this is the collapse of neoconservatives into a squalor of vulgarity, dishonesty, and paranoia. Whatever it was, the political movement of Norman Podhoretz and Irving Kristol is now just bigoted rage-heads. This Noah Rothman column is a good example.

The word “ethics” appears prominently in the biographies of the authors who co-wrote a recent Washington Post op-ed lamenting the “taboo” associated with “talking about overpopulation.” Frances Kissling is the president of the Center for Health, Ethics, and Social Policy. Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University. Only Jotham Musinguzi, the “director general of Uganda’s National Population Council,” doesn’t mention “ethics” in the bio. That’s good because the Malthusian views promulgated in the piece are anything but ethical.

[snip]

Because population control is not a problem in the developed world, where birthrates are declining below even replacement rates, population controllers tend to fixate on sexual habits in the developing world. The authors of this op-ed are no exception. They draw an almost always fallacious straight-line projection to conclude that—in the unlikely event that nothing changes between today and 2100—a population crisis should afflict a variety of Sub-Saharan African nations. To avert this crisis, they advocate promoting and supporting proper sexual hygiene, to which almost no one would object. But their authors’ core agenda isn’t the distribution of prophylactics. They seek to de-stigmatize abortion in the equatorial world, which is controversial for reasons that have nothing to do with faith. After all, it was The Population Bomb and its progenitors that lent renewed legitimacy to old arguments that inevitably result in targeting black and brown populations with sterilization and eugenics.

This is the default approach for Rothman and most of the neocon tribe. Instead of simply disagreeing with someone, they first paint the person as immoral, beyond the pale and therefore fair game for whatever accusation they can conjure. Before offering any evidence, Rothman strongly implies the authors of the Washington Post article are unethical people. He never backs this up with evidence. The fact that he does not like or understand their argument is enough for him to slime the authors.

If you read the WaPo article, you’ll see that it is a good faith effort to talk about the population explosion in Africa. They blame Paul Ehrlich for discrediting the topic of population growth, because they are forbidden to discuss the real issue. To talk about the world’s most important graph, is to risk being called a racist by slime merchants like Noah Rothman, so they dance around it. The piece is actually fair and reasonable, given that it appears the Washington Post.

Now, Rothman is a stupid person, so it is no surprise that he is wildly ignorant of Malthus and population issues. Stupid may be the wrong word. Ignorant is a better word, as he makes to no effort to know about these things. He’s too busy claiming everyone who disagrees with him is immoral. His game is to attack and then cry out in pain when the other side mounts a defense. His likes to paint himself as the moral actor, forced to do horrible things to his enemies.

He is also a serial liar. He smears people all the time and then lies to their face about what he wrote. This classic Tucker Carlson segment is a great example. Rothman lies in his column about something Carlson said. When confronted with it, he then lies about what he wrote. When his own words are read back to him, he changes the subject, only to start lying about what the Secretary of Defense said. When confronted on that, he starts lying about other stuff. Noah Rothman is incapable to telling the truth.

Again, whatever it was, neoconservatism is now just a death cult. It is a strange blend of Zionism and anti-majoritarianism, that lacks an intellectual core. The list of neocon thinkers is not exactly a glittering array of heavy weight intellectuals. Rothman is a smarmy twerp. John Podhoretz is a vulgarian. Max Boot appears to be struggling with mental illness. Bill Kristol is a bitter old fool. Jonah Goldberg is a frumpy dufus. It’s like a Jewish version of the Kennedy family, minus the homicides.

That gets to the heart of it. The Jewish century was powered by a generation of Jewish men who were smart, educated and embraced by a majority ruling class that had built the foundation of the American empire. Not only could neoconservatism only happen in America, it could only happen in Cold War America. Today’s America is a different place and today’s neocons are a collection of feckless heirs, playing make believe as they squander their inheritance. The term of art is reversion to the mean.

Just like the reckless kid with a trust fund, the neocons have caused a lot of damage and continue to be a menace. Their efforts to undermine Trump’s Korea initiative and their efforts to entangle us in the Syrian civil war are two obvious examples. The fact that the New York Times and Washington Post are festooned with these loons, means they will pollute public discourse for a while longer. The good news is that guys like Noah Rothman are the future of the movement, which means it has no future.

Various Stuff

Posted on June 29, 2018 by thezman

I’m back to the shotgun format for this week. The single issue format got a lot of good feedback, so I think I’ll do more of those. I have to think of some topics first, to make sure it is sustainable, but I’m confident that will not be a problem. Last week was one of the most downloaded issues I’ve done. Anything that has race in it gets a lot of traffic. That says a lot about the audience, but it says a lot of about our age too. Race is real.

For this episode, I’m back to a cornucopia of unrelated items I saw this week. I thought about doing a show around the upcoming libertarian convention, but I think an hour of sperg-bashing would be gratuitous, so I have just one segment on it. If there is a common thread to this week’s show, it is that the gap between Left and Right is growing. It really does feel like the public is coming to the realization that it is time for a divorce.

This week I have the usual variety of items in the now standard format. Spreaker has the full show. I am up on Google Play now, so the Android commies can take me along when out disrespecting the country. I am on iTunes, which means the Apple Nazis can listen to me on their Hitler phones. The anarchists can catch me on iHeart Radio. YouTube also has the full podcast. Of course, there is a download link below.

This Week’s Show

Contents

00:00: Opening (Music)
02:00: The Trouble With CivNats (Link) (Link) (Link)
12:00: Us And Them (Link) (Link)
22:00: Bad Science (Link) (Link)
32:00: Clown World (Link) (Link)
42:00: An Unbridgeable Gap (Link) (Link)
47:00: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (Link) (Link)
52:00: Intolerable (Link)
57:00: Closing (Link) (Music)

Full Show On Spreaker

The Poz

Posted on June 28, 2018 by thezman

I do not have a cable subscription, so the habit of channel surfing is unavailable to me, which means I miss much of what passes for pop culture. If I watch a movie, it is off the pirate system or from Amazon. TV shows I can binge watch off the Kodi, without having to sit through the commercials. Frankly, it is the only way I can watch television now. The commercials are so full of multicultural proselytizing, that I cannot make it through a normal show. That said, there are some shows that are not full of Multikulti agit-prop.

Someone told me the TV series 12 Monkeys was fairly good, so I binged on the first couple seasons recently. The series is based on the movie, which was a time travel flick starring Bruce Willis. The basic premise is people in the future send people back in time in an effort to find the people who caused a great plague. The idea is to alter the timeline by preventing the plague or figuring out the nature of the plague in order to create a treatment or vaccination against it. In the movie, Bruce Willis was a time traveler.

The trouble with all time travel movies is that they can never figure out how to manage the obvious problem of paradoxes. The writers usually fixate on it, as it makes for interesting possibilities, but they lack the smarts to make it work. Sometimes you have old self going back in time to give young self answers, like what happened with Biff in the Back to the Future series. Other times, the old self accidentally alters something in the past, only to return to a wildly altered future, his present. Then he has to go back and fix what he broke.

In this series, the writers actually do a good job avoiding the hackneyed time travel plot gimmicks and produce a good plot that respects the “reality” of time travel. I do not want to give too much away, but it you read the book The Man Who Folded Himself you will appreciate what the writers did with time travel. The show is relatively free of poz. No heroic homosexuals, no superhero women, no magical negros. It is mostly unknown white actors doing a serviceable job acting out a reasonably well-done television script.

Now, no series about time travel can make it to the air without having some scenes about the characters going back in time to Nazi Germany. That is an unknown part of the secret law that was passed in the 60’s. We get that nonsense in this series, but it is brief, even though they obliquely try to blame the cause of the time travel conspiracy on the Nazi scientists experimenting on Jews. It is the one bit of subversion that was tucked into the script after it was written, on instructions from the people producing the series.

The relative lack of poz in the series got me thinking about propaganda in movies and when it became so heavy handed. I had the movie Death Wish on my list, the new version, not the 1970’s version, so I watched it along with the original last weekend. I had not watched the original with Charles Bronson in decades. Frankly, I had forgotten just how bad he was at acting. Then again, the 1970’s featured a lot of really bad acting in popular movies. Maybe the audience just liked the stilted dialogue and clunky style.

For those unfamiliar, the original Death Wish was made during the last Progressive inspired black crime wave, which they started in the late sixties. By the 70’s, most cities were unlivable because feral blacks were running wild in the streets. Death Wish is about a normal middle-class white guy who loses his family to home invaders and decides to become a vigilante. The original makes the killers three Jewish guys, one of whom is Jeff Goldbloom, so even in the 70’s, movies were poz’d up on the race issue.

That said, the woman issue is where you see the difference. In the opening to the original, Bronson is at the beach with his wife, who is portrayed as a normal traditional wife. She likes looking like a woman and being complimented on her looks. Bronson’s character enjoys her being a woman and acts like a normal man. Throughout the movie, women play normal female roles. Whenever I watch an old movie and see how women were cast in their roles, I realize what a great mistake it was giving into the feminist harpies.

The new version does the same thing with the race issue, of course. We have reached the point now where it is forbidden to portray blacks as anything other than noble victims or admirable heroes. That means we have to pretend the nation’s crime problems are the fault of white street gangs using outdated slang from the olden thymes or conspiracies operated by evil white men. Otherwise, the remake is a decent version that is free of the usual multicultural junk that makes most movie watching miserable.

I have developed an interest in 1970’s pop culture, mostly because it seems so alien to me, even though I was alive to remember some of it. I was too young to notice most of it, so seeing it through old man eyes in the current age, it feels like another world. It also reveals that the multicultural assault on our society did not start last week. This is a long term, multi-generational war on us that started before most of us were born. This scene from the 1971 Dirty Harry movie is a warning from the long gone past.

Venezuela’s Future — and Ours

Posted on June 27, 2018 by thezman

There are a lot of ways to describe the new political divide. We have nationalists versus internationalists, globalists versus populists and identitarians versus multiculturalists. All of those are true, but another way of thinking about it is that the debate is now moving upstream. For a long time, public debate was focused on economics or maybe politics. Those are downstream from institutions, culture, and biology. Now, the debate has moved upstream, to the stuff that really matters.

Not everyone has figured out that the debate has changed. The Bernie Bros, for example, are like the Japanese soldiers, who were cut off in the war and lived in the jungle for years, still fighting the war. The Bernie Bros still think the Democrats are the party of the working man, as if anyone in Washington cares about the working man. The legacy conservatives are similarly trapped in a bygone era. You see that in this post, by our old friend Sloppy Williamson, on the ravages of socialism on Venezuela.

The United States has resigned in protest from the UN Human Rights Council, which has a long and ignominious record of protecting the world’s worst abusers of human rights. The proximate cause of the U.S. resignation was the council’s unwillingness to act on the matter of Venezuela, where the socialist government of Nicolas Maduro is engaged in political massacres and the use of Soviet-style hunger-terror against its political enemies. Venezuela remains, incredibly enough, not only protected by the Human Rights Council but an active member of it, an honor shared Vladimir Putin’s Russia and its political assassins, the People’s Republic of China and its organ harvesters, and the Castro dictatorship in Cuba with its torturers and al paredón justice.

Venezuela and North Korea could not be more dissimilar in terms of their respective cultures, peoples, and histories. And yet they have arrived in approximately the same place: at the terminus of F. A. Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom.”

For generations, it has been an article of faith among conservatives that everything depends upon economics. Get the economics right, then the miracle of the marketplace will usher in the the age of bliss. Choose the wrong eco9nomic model and terrible things must follow. Bad tax policy not only makes people poor, it makes them corrupt, violent and cheat on their wives. Like Marxists, they think the system makes the man, so there is a moral imperative to adopt the correct economics.

Well, what about Venezuela? What’s really going on? Here’s the per capita GDP.

That’s in constant dollars and it shows a remarkable thing. After the turmoil that brought Hugo Chavez to power, the Venezuelan economy started a nice run. Per capita GDP is a benchmark number that economists love to use to measure the health of a country. Here’s what wages look like in the country:

source: tradingeconomics.com

Now, wages and economic growth don’t tell the whole story. Venezuela suffers from the curse of natural resources, which in her case is oil. What dumb people call socialism is just the way things operate in countries with limited human capital. The elites monopolize the natural resources and the profits that come from selling them on the international market. They spread enough money around to prevent a revolt, but keep the majority for themselves.

In other words, what ails Venezuela is not ideology. It is biology. It is the way it is because of its people. What determines the nature and character of a country is not the tax code or the regulatory regime. Venezuela lacks the human capital to operate a modern economy. It has and always will suffer from the smart fraction problem. That is, it lacks a large enough smart population to carry the rest of the population into a modern economy. It is stuck in a model suited for its people.

Put another way, it is people, not pots. Replace the Venezuelan population with Finns and they will figure out how to make a mild form of Nordic socialism work. Fill the place up with Japanese and the country will look like an Asian tiger. Fill up the United States with Latin Americans and it is going to start to look like Latin America. That’s why your newly imported replacements are running on platforms familiar to anyone getting ready to vote in the upcoming Mexican elections.

Of course, the reason that raging cucks like Sloppy Williamson avoid the obvious is that it is much safer to focus on trivialities. Lefty mobs are not going to swarm his Rascal Scooter as long as he avoids taboo subjects. That and these guys have been playing the role of useful idiot for so long, it is second nature. They operate like a cargo cult, convinced they can pretend it remains the 1980’s and it will magically be so. National Review is like a weird living museum to the Reagan era.

The world has changed and the debate has shifted upstream. People are noticing that when you elect a new people, you don’t actually end up with a new people. You end up with a culture that reflects the biology of the people you imported. Whites in America are now coming to terms with the choices in front of them. Keep their head down and play make believe while they are replaced, or risk moral condemnation for defending their heritage and their culture. That’s the debate.

The Nature of Diversity

Posted on June 26, 2018 by thezman

Imagine an island that is suddenly populated with one hundred couples, each with a unique last name. No couple has the same last name. Further, they continue the tradition of the females taking the male’s last name upon marriage. As these couples reproduce, their children will marry one another. Couple A1 has a couple of boys who marry the girls from Couple C2. This is not a controlled experiment, so nature can take its course and people are free to marry who they like.

Obviously, some couples will have all girls and some couples will have no children, but infertility and a lack of interest in children is not that common, so the number of childless couples will be quite small. At the same time, “Fertile Myrtle” is not an unusual phenomenon either and some men have a near uncontrollable sex drive. That means there will be quite a few big families to counter the infertile couples and those couple that choose not to reproduce.

If all couples have one male child and one female child, both of whom make it to sexual maturity and reproduce, then the population remains stable. The number of last names will also remain constant, as each male heir will continue the family name. Given this is a small island, a few extra children, or the “heir and spare” model will make sure that the family names live on, and the population remains steady. In this scenario, we can come back in a dozen generations and things are about the same.

If each generation has 10% of the females unable to bear children, it will take about twenty generations before almost everyone has the same last name. The decline in last names happens fast initially. Something similar happens if 10% of the couples have only female children that make it to adulthood. Throw in the fact that each generation may not have enough females for all the males and the decline of last names will progress toward one single last name.

Obviously, lots of couples will have all boys or all girls. Since this island does not have video games or feminism, getting busy with the opposite sex will be the main form of entertainment. That means some couples will have lots of kids, but others will be more restrained and have one or two kids. The bigger the family, the lower the odds of having all girls or all boys, but it happens. If that is just ten percent of the result, we still end up with one last name in twenty generations.

Why would anyone care about this? Well, it is a good way to understand how a trait can flow through a population, resulting in a unique population. Instead of last names, let us use a pronounced brow ridge, indicating high intelligence. If this is a trait passed through the male line of the A1 family, and that family has plenty of males each generation, then that male trait will become ubiquitous in twenty generations like we saw with the last name idea.

Since a prominent brow line is desirable, men with it will have a greater chance to reproduce, increasing the spread of those genes. On the other hand, let us say the one guy in our one hundred founding couples with the brow ridge drowns while out for a swim, before he had kids. That means this highly desirable trait, both from a biological as well as reproductive reason, is removed from the gene pool forever. Our island will be full of homely dumb people.

This is a simplified and rather crude way of illustrating how a desirable trait can flow through a population. This is how we have so many dog breeds. Humans short-circuited nature, through selective breeding, thus selecting for specific traits. After enough generations, one breeder ended up with Great Danes, while another ended up with Dachshunds, so to speak. A famous example of this is the creation of a domesticated foxes by a Russian geneticist named Dmitry K. Belyaev.

Another way of understanding this is to imagine our island paradise flourishing with a high fertility rate over many generations. Then resource scarcity sets off competition among the islanders, eventually leading to a tyrant. He correctly sees that the issue is the left-handed and has all of them killed. In future generations, anyone found to be left-handed is killed. It will not take long, in fact it could literally happen overnight, for the population to lose the left-handed trait.

This is a good way to understand the natural diversity of people. When modern humans emerged from Africa, the most likely origin, we carried almost all of the traits present in humans today. As people spread out around the globe, nature found some traits much more useful in the new environment, so those traits thrived. Nature also found some traits deleterious and strongly selected against them. Overtime, we got the diversity of man we see today that tracks with geography.

It is why the phrase “scientific racism” indicates stupidity. Just as there is great diversity in the domestic dog, there is diversity in humans. Denying observable reality is a few clicks less reasonable than witchcraft or astrology. It also means multiculturalism is, in effect, a war on nature, as it is an effort to obliterate human diversity. Mixing everyone together into a gray slurry is just a primitive minded war on nature, which we have decided is immoral. it is is also suicidal.

Defending Our Own

Posted on June 24, 2018 by thezman

Wishful thinking says that the various tribes in the coalition of the ascendant, the people we call the Left in America, will turn on one another. The laws used to punish white people for being competent society builders will be used by the new tribes against the coalition and the whole thing will collapse. Then there was the point that the people leading the coalition are the most tribal people on earth. This is now playing out in the lawsuit against Harvard.

Harvard is not about education. It is about credentials. When you major in math at Harvard, or any elite college, you are not learning a different math from the math majors at UMass/Boston. Look through the course catalog of an elite college and it is noticeably less rigorous than most state universities. Entrance to an elite university is both an IQ test and social proof. If you get accepted to Harvard, you are smart and you have the right temperament to be in the ruling elite.

What is playing out in this Harvard lawsuit is that the dominant tribe in the coalition is fighting to defend its position against this insurgent tribe, which has figured out how to game the admissions system. In order to prevent Harvard from becoming 50% Asian, they have rigged the system. The trouble is this is just the same sort of discrimination that Jews argued against last century. Instead of WASP’s blocking Jews from admission, it is Jews blocking Asians on cultural grounds.

It is important to remember that this is not about access to an education. Exactly no one thinks you learn more at Harvard than at UCLA or the University of Virginia. In fact, land grant universities, like Michigan or Wisconsin, offer vastly better education facilitates than the Ivy League colleges. What Harvard has is a credential that opens the doors to the nation’s ruling elite. At Harvard, you are with the future rulers and that has value to the current rulers.

The most probable outcome of this is the court eventually sides with Harvard, by fashioning some ludicrous exception to the laws that govern everyone else. After all, the current Supreme Court is made up of nine Ivy League graduates. Look down at the roster of the Federal bench and you will not see many guys named Wong who graduated from Cal State Fullerton. The whole point of having power is to use it to reward your friends and punish your enemies.

Now, this is amusing from the dissident perspective, but it is also useful, in that it proves an essential point. That is, individualism is a sure way to get trampled by a motivated identity group. The people on top of the regime got there by sticking together and working for their common good. The people suing them over admissions practices are doing so as a group. In the world of progressive politics, group identity is the top-level domain, it trumps everything else in the fight for position.

The same thing is happening to America as a whole. As of 2011, America was 60% non-Hispanic white. A majority of school aged children are non-white. Given the endless flood of migrants into the country, the die is cast. Within the next generation, whites in America will be a minority. Given the level of nastiness we see towards whites all over the popular culture, while whites remain a majority, imagine how aggressive and violent our new overlords will be when we are a clear minority.

This proves the other point about the multicultural creed. It inevitably must lead to lawlessness and group identity politics. Lee Kuan Yew was right, “In multiracial societies, you don’t vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion.” Look at majority-minority places around the world, or even cities in America with lots of diversity. Everyone puts their tribe above all else.

For generations now, white people have been bathed in the poaching liquid of individualism. Subversives like Ben Shapiro still preach this stuff, even while he sports a yarmulke and fingers his two passports. The frontier mentality is part of the romantic mythology of an America most white people cling to like a life raft. Libertarianism is really just a weird romanticism for a past that never existed and future that has been foreclosed by multiculturalism.

This will change as reality becomes clearer. The general lawlessness we see among our ruling classes is noticed. When white people enter “white couple” in a google image search and it returns all race mixers, a white identitarian is born. This battle between our would-be over-class and our current over-class is the sort of thing that opens the eyes of white people about the reality of America. Eventually, those words from Lee Juan Yew become a habit of mind.

The Dissident Right

Posted on June 22, 2018 by thezman

This week I thought I would try something different and do an entire podcast on just one issue, rather than pulling segments together from stuff that caught my eye during the week. The reason is mostly variety, but I have also been seeing the phrase “Dissident Right” turn up around the internet. Before some millennial tries to define the term into some bespoke sissy philosophy, I wanted to put some markers down about what the term means.

I am not sure if this will be a regular thing. If I get a good response, then maybe I will do other podcasts on single topics like this. If people hate it, then I will forget the whole thing and pretend it never happened. The goal here was to put together something that people could think about, but also send to their confused normie friends and family to help them make the journey to our side of the great divide. I will be doing some posts on the topic as well.

I have one special announcement this week. Tomorrow I will be on the Happy Homelands podcast hosted by RamZPaul and Tiina Wiik. It is a censor friendly live show about the news items of the day. Someone named Junes Lokka will also be on the show. He is a Finnish activist. You can post questions in the YouTube chat window and maybe someone will answer them. This is my first live show, so we shall see how it goes.