The Third Testament

Posted on December 24, 2024 by thezman

Yesterday’s post regarding the future of Christianity inadvertently set off a debate about whether the Bible is fake. Is the collection of books we call the Bible, anything like the texts the original Christians used either in written form or as part of the oral tradition while they were forming up in the first century? Most Christians accept the argument that the Bible is the product of a long process that started after the life of Christ and his disciples, while others insist the Gospels are firsthand accounts.

The flash point in yesterday’s post was the line about the Gospels being written roughly a century after the events they describe. This should not be a controversial assertion as the majority of biblical scholars think the Gospels were likely written between AD 66 and 110 with the usual uncertainty. That is not a century after the life of Christ, so that is a bit of an exaggeration, but that has no impact on the general point. Early Christians were not waving around Bibles, because the Bible did not exist.

That does not mean the Bible is fake, but it does mean the Bible as we know it would be a strange thing to early Christians. They would recognize the stories, as the written texts were no doubt relying on oral sources. Most scholars think the stories about Christ and his disciples were part of the proselytizing of early Christians, used to convince their audience that Jesus was a miraculous figure. The stories also served as examples for early Christians facing their own persecution.

The way to view the Gospels is as part of a marketing campaign for the new religion that also formed the basis of the new religion. After all, Christianity, like any human organization, had to answer the question, “Who are we?” and what followed is what must always follow and that is a collection of rules that define who is inside the group and who is excluded. Fundamental to being a Christian is accepting that Christ is the son of God and the symbol of God’s covenant with mankind.

The Gospels as a sales pitch offend some people, but it should not, as close to half the New Testament is exactly that and no one complains. The Letters of Paul are clearly intended to support and grow the Christian audience. While much of the content was written to address specific theological issues in the early Christian communities, all of them contain encouragement to believers in the face of persecution, urging them to live in a godly manner and to spread the faith.

The point being is that much of what we think of as the Bible was written by men to address the issues faced by early Christians. Like Christianity itself, those early stories evolved in their telling and then further evolved as they were written and rewritten as circumstances warranted. Even the first effort at formalizing these written texts did not stop this process. The mere act of writing them in Latin meant the first Bible was different from the first written Gospels.

Of course, the Bible was written by men and then rewritten and edited by men, which means errors and omissions. Figuring this out is impossible. Why was the Gospel of Saint Thomas left out of the Bible? Probably because it was not anywhere near as popular as the Synoptic Gospels. Maybe early Christian scholars thought there was a whiff of gnostic heresy in those alleged sayings of Jesus. Whatever the reason, it was most likely not a question of authenticity.

Not only were whole texts excluded, but parts of the included texts have been excluded and rewritten since the first efforts to write them down. This story about a hidden chapter of the Bible was floating around recently. The media claims are overdone, but it does reveal that the editing process started soon after the writing process began and went on for centuries. Much of what we think of as the Bible is the result of practical decisions within the limits of the age.

This is the primary argument against literalism and sola scriptura. You cannot accept the Bible as the literal word of God when it was clearly written and heavily edited by men, with all the errors that come with man’s actions. Similarly, it cannot be the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice when it was compiled by men who were not infallible. Instead, the Bible is to be viewed as a living thing within a living Church that adapts to present reality.

The counter to this argument is that as soon as people start talking about a document as a living thing, they will soon be trying to kill it. This has been the history of the American republic and the Constitution. Everyone who speaks about the “living constitution” is plotting to stab a knife through some part of it. Once people start talking about the Bible as mere inspiration, it is not long before the leaders are embracing sodomy while the congregation is talking about converting to Islam.

Putting aside that debate, the history of the Bible tells us that like the Church itself, the Bible is part of an evolutionary process. Christianity did not spread around the globe and survive to this day, because it was unable to adapt. The Bible itself, with its errors and omissions, survives because of those errors and omissions. The reason people can debate this is because of those imperfections. After all, evolution is driven by defect which turns out to be superior to the standard.

Perhaps that is what lies ahead for the Church. Maybe a third testament, perhaps a collection of yet unwritten texts, adapting the core message of Christ to the modern problems of a technological society, is in the future. No doubt, there will be people who hate it and long debates about what should be in included and excluded, but in the end a timeless message must adapt to the times. It is how we got Mormons. Perhaps for Christians, there is a Joseph Smith waiting to be born.

If you like my work and wish to donate, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar or a Substack subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars through the postal service to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 1047 Berkeley Springs, WV 25411-3047. Thank you for your support!

Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.

Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sa***@mi*********************.com.

Big Top Politics

Posted on December 19, 2024 by thezman

The internet is having a good laugh at the release of police bodycam video from an incident that occurred at the home of Nick Fuentes last month. The police were called when Fuentes allegedly pepper sprayed an old Jewish woman and then threw her down the steps of his house. In the bodycam video, the police officer inexplicably asks Fuentes if he is a white supremacist and he responds by telling the cop that he is a Mexican, so he cannot be a white supremacist.

Fuentes is a media savvy character, so it is entirely possible that he said this old joke knowing the video would end up on the internet. Back in his early days as an online influencer, he would often claim to be a Mexican or a multiracial person as a joke but also so he could avoid being called a white nationalist. Like all cult leaders, Fuentes takes every opportunity to signal to his people by using insider language, so it is likely that he said this to the cops for that reason.

According to news reports, Fuentes has been charged with assault and will start the legal process this week with his first court appearance. This is the reason the local prosecutor released the bodycam video. One of the ironies of the bodycam phenomenon is that it was to prevent cops from framing innocent black bodies, but it is now mostly used by prosecutors to sway public opinion. They routinely dump the video to make the accused look bad.

That aside, this event does touch on some more serious issues related to politics in the mass media, technological age. Thirty years ago, Nick Fuentes could not exist, and we know this because David Duke had ceased to exist. Duke was Nick Fuentes for the analog age and had a media run in the late-1980’s. That was before the internet when the media had tight control over who was and was not on the main stage and the many smaller stages that relied on the main stage.

Duke got the attention of the media in 1988 when he ran in a special election in Louisiana for a vacant state house seat. Reagan was about to leave the scene, and the usual suspects were looking for a new electoral strategy. They hoped they could make Duke the face of conservatism, so this local character was turned into a national figure when he managed to win the special election. For a few years he would get called to do national media until the media got tired of him.

Fast forward to this age and Nick Fuentes is doing a similar act, but instead of getting the attention of national media, he has used a mastery of new technology to insert himself in the new media that is the result of the new technology. First it was as a live streamer within the alt-right ecosystem and then as a street activist and number one fan of Donald Trump. Once he got a following, he leveraged this to get noticed by other online characters with large audiences.

There is where the parallel ends. Once the media got tired of David Duke, his fifteen minutes were up no matter how hard he tried. In this age, internet personalities can force their way into public consciousness, even when the major media operations choose to ignore them. That usually requires being outrageous in such a way that they trend for a day on social media. Of course, that means all these characters are in a race to see who can be the most outrageous.

That is why Fuentes is now going to court. His antics attracted local loons to his home and his response, probably designed to get maximum attention online, has him facing assault charges. This is not unique to Fuentes. Non-political influencers rely on the same strategy to increase their clout. Andrew Tate exists because he packaged old man-o-sphere ideas in an outlandish package. The modern influencer is famous mostly because they are good at getting attention.

Therein lies the problem. Andrew Tate is a great example of how the attention seeking crowds out everything else about him. Few people who recognize his name know anything about his act. Whatever issues he is trying to promote are lost in the carnival atmosphere that must exist around him in order for him to retain clout. You see the same thing with Nick Fuentes. The engine of the online influencer must constantly be fed with new ways to get attention.

This is why mainstream politics have become ridiculous. To get into politics, you must show an ability to get attention. Then you must be willing to play the role required to hold office. This selects for people who either lack authenticity and dignity or are willing to trade those things to win office. The result is a politics dominated by two-dimensional profiles controlled by the producers who underwrite their role in the great drama that is American politics.

Another thing about this Fuentes business is it presents people with a political dilemma because the reason a Fuentes exists is because he elicits strong feelings for or against the character he plays online. If an actor gets attacked at his home for playing a villain in a film, it is an easy call. People know he is an actor. The trick of the online influencer is to strongly link the character them play online with their real self. It is not as easy to separate the fictional Fuentes from the real Fuentes.

Putting aside the fictional Fuentes, it is easy for people to side with the guy who must put up with kooks banging on his door. Gassing an old Jewish woman may not be the best response, but it is understandable. In a sane world, the cops would tell the old woman to stop harassing Fuentes. They would warn Fuentes about gassing old Jewish women who knock on his door. Both would have been forced to apologize to one another and the matter would be put to bed.

Of course, in a sane world, Fuentes would not exist and the crazy people who need him to exist would not exist. Perhaps, as a step toward a return to normalcy, the judge will make the old woman stand on the street corner wearing a sandwich board that reads, “I like to harass Mexicans.” Fuentes could be made to stand on the opposite corner with a sandwich board that reads, “I beat up old women.” Just imagine how many impressions that would get on Twitter!

It is tempting to look at this seedy affair as proof things are terminal. Politics is now overrun by carnies, so nothing serious can be done. Yet, things are happening in Washington primarily because the world’s biggest shit poster happens to be the world’s richest man and pals with another shit poster, Donald Trump. They attacked the spending bill in Congress and then support for it collapses. Perhaps even in the circus of American politics good things can happen with the right ringmaster.

Promethean Thoughts

Posted on December 18, 2024 by thezman

A popular argument in certain circles is that Christianity is to blame for the decline of the West, because it is blamed for various ills in the West. Individualism is often blamed on Christianity, because within most Christian sects, the individual has a unique relationship with God that is not dependent upon his relationship to his society, ethnic group or tribe. Another complaint is that Christianity demands openness, which invites in the sorts of elements antithetical to social solidarity.

There are many variations on this general theme and all of them have some kernel of truth to them. It is the heart of the rather silly argument behind the “woke right” nonsense promoted by crackpots like James Lindsay. He has created a new political scale where one end is any form of exclusivity, which he calls “woke” and the other end is complete openness, which he calls “classical liberalism.” It is mostly nonsense, but it does illustrate the anti-Christian claims about liberalism.

Professional Christians do themselves no good in this regard by embracing and celebrating nation wrecking ideas like open borders, diversity, the worship of nonwhites and an obsession with Israel. Most low-church ministers sound like the tourism minister from Israel fused with the HR manager at a major corporation. Of course, the more traditional churches are in deep with open borders, often getting government contracts from people who would like to stamp out Christianity.

In the final reckoning, the Christian churches and their entrepreneurial advocates will have much to answer for over their role in the crisis of the West. The question is whether this is the logical result of Christianity, or is it a novelty that grew from the spread of liberalism, particularly the American form of it. After all, 18th century Christians were not in favor of open borders, and they certainly did not think the worship of Israel was their reason to exist.

For those looking to absolve Christianity, that is the starting point. From the conversion of Europe into the 16th century, Christianity fit neatly into and was an integral part of the feudal order that ruled Europe. The Church provided a moral framework for the secular rules, but also provided a moral authority for them. The Church was the ultimate answer to the question, “who says?” whenever it was not obvious that the king was the person with final authority in his domain.

It is only when people started to question the set of reciprocal obligations and duties that defined the European political order that we see changes in the relationship between Christians and the prevailing social order. The Protestant revolution was as much a result of the weakening political order as it was disputes over the traditions and practices of Christians. In other words, the changes in the political order can be blamed for the revolution within Christianity.

Further context is the fact that the Church was a different thing in the later Middle Ages than what it was at the end of the Roman Empire. The Christianity that evolved to flourish and survive within Rome, had to further evolve after Rome. It continued to evolve to flourish within the new feudal order that defined Europe. Once the feudal order began to collapse, the Church evolved to adapt, often with localized versions to meet localized political changes.

The same framing can be applied to America. In the New World, the old religion was free to evolve and do so under unique circumstances. The Calvinism of the Old World arrived in New England, along with Anglicanism and Presbyterianism. Soon, every Christian sect of the Old World was setting up shop in the New World, quickly evolving and splintering into new versions to meet new conditions. America was a great experiment for more than just self-government.

What we call progressivism has its roots in this Christian experiment. A century ago, progressive literature was riddled with references to Scripture. The reason for that is it had its roots in Christian movements like abolitionism, social reform movements and the Social Gospel movement. The argument against slavery that animated the Civil War were not economic or political in nature. The abolitionists were acting upon their sense of moral justice informed by their Christin faith.

The way to understand America since Gettysburg is to think of it as a religious crusade masquerading as a country. The covenantal form of nationalism that still turns up in our politics has roots in the founding the country. Northern nationalism in the Civil War, for example, was linked to America’s alleged destiny to free the world. It was not enough to celebrate self-determination. America had a duty to help all people free themselves from domination and that started with the South.

This is the error people make when trying to blame liberalism for the current crisis or blame Christianity for the liberalism. American liberalism of the type the Framers embraced was replaced by a variant that borrowed the modes of thought from Protestant Christianity but eventually left out God and Scripture. The hole of authority has been filled with vague concepts like the “tides of history” and other expression that can be replaced with “the side of the angels.”

This creates a dilemma. It is clear that Christianity in the Old World evolved to meet the challenges of the changing political order, driven by the spread of Old World liberalism, but it is also clear that the new forms of Christianity informed that liberalism, and in the case of America, created a fusion of the two. That new ideological and theological cause, dressed in the garb of reason and pragmatism, then dominated the West, at the point of gun, until we have reached this point.

In the end, blaming liberalism or Christianity is a fool’s errand. The root cause probably goes much further back. For example, universalism is only possible in a cosmology that has just one God. In a world of many gods, there are many sources of moral authority, so therefore no one can claim a single moral order. Then you have the curse of reason that was given to us by the Greeks. If there is one God and one morally correct way of living, then our reason should be able to discover it.

The good news for the Christians is that the religion has shown an ability to adapt that no other faith has managed. Judaism has survived for longer, but only as a folk religion serving a tiny minority. Christianity has survived as a majority religion, through the ups and downs of Western civilization. Despite its current condition, it will most likely adapt and once again give cause to the flourishing of Western people. The same fate probably does not await liberalism or progressivism.

Deep State Nemesis

Posted on December 16, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about how the primary goal of American foreign policy is to create chaos, a post about the challenge of buying an old truck, and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

One of the more difficult things for people to accept is that sometimes things happen that benefit no one and for reasons under no one’s control. Other than natural disasters, people just assume that everything happens for a reason and someone wanted it to happen because they gain to benefit from it happening. Conspiracy theories are born when it is not clear who made something happen. This need to know the who and why for everything gets filled by the conspiracy theory.

The collapse of Syria is a great example of this. Everyone just assumed this was another American regime change operation. Then we got stories about how it was the Turks who backed the rebels and wanted Assad gone. Once the Israelis started grabbing land, the usual suspects came in with their usual theories. There is even a theory that the Russians wanted Syria to collapse to create a quagmire for the Americans to manage in the Middle East.

All these theories make some sense, if you ignore the things that make no sense whatsoever, like the dangers of creating chaos in the region. The Israelis might be happy Assad is gone for emotional reasons, but having a bunch of Islamist warlords operating on their border just added a lot of new costs to their budget. The United States now has a new problem to manage. Guarding those Chevon oil fields suddenly got more expensive and more complicated.

Then you have the fact that there are many players on the Syrian board. Before you get to the big players, you have six factions within the rebel coalition. Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, called HTS in Western media. They are backed by Turkey, Qatar, the CIA and led by a guy who looks like the main character from the move The Dictator. He wants to create an Islamic state in Syria. This group used to be called ISIS of Syria but now is pretending to be a kinder, gentler ISIS.

Remnants of the Assad Regime are now forming up in the Alawite areas they still control and presumably they will get support from Russia and Iran. Then there is FSA/SNA and allied groups, that have been supported by Turkey, Qatar, the U.S. State Department, and the CIA. The Kurds, called SDF, have the protection of the American military operating in the region. ISIS still exists, with backing of pro-Islamic forces, along with regional tribal and Islamic groups.

What we now have is an area a little bigger than the state of New York controlled by a collection of war lords that do not like one another very much. The most likely outcome of this arrangement is a civil war between the groups. The only reason anyone would want such an outcome is if they have no exposure to it. In other words, there is no reason to think that anyone wanted this outcome, at least none of the countries exposed to whatever comes out of Syria.

This brings us back to that default formula. Everything happens in the world for a reason because someone stands to benefit from it. The cost-benefit for everyone with an interest in Syria is already negative and promises to get much worse as things travel their natural course. In the end, someone might make something of it, but right now it is a chaotic mess. Who would want this result? The answer is no one because no one saw it as a possible outcome.

Instead of a game of four-dimensional chess, Syria is an example of the lack of second order thinking by the Turks and Americans. Since 2011 both sides have supported anti-Assad groups for different reasons. Erdogan is obsessed with the Kurds, who operate in Turkey, Syria and Iraq. The United States backed anti-Assad group because Assad was tight with Russia and Iran. Their goal was to put pressure on Russian and Iran with a slow bleed of Syria.

Based on the associated media campaign, it is clear the United States and Turkey thought this would be a repeat of past flare ups. The rebels would make some attacks, but the Syrian army would push them back. After all, the Syrian army was a quarter million men with the support of Russia and Iran. The rebels numbered around thirty thousand and lacked air power and modern equipment. Instead, the Syrian army collapsed and Russia and Iran did not come in to save them.

Like all large-scale human societies, Syria was a complex system made more complex by relentless pressure from outside. Those outside failed to appreciate this complexity, so they did not plan for what would come from it once they started making changes to the conditions in which that complex system existed. Like a bomb disposal crew randomly cutting wires, the whole thing blew up and now everyone with a connection to the region is scrambling to adjust to a new reality.

Instead of being an example of the cleverness needed for the popular explanations about why Syria collapsed, especially the more conspiratorial ones, Syria is an example of a lack of those things. No one seems to have understood what was happening inside the Syrian system and no one thought much about what could come from monkeying around with the conditions inside Syria. It is the result of a lack of second and third order thinking, not four-dimensional chess.

The thing about this situation is it should have been obvious to all concerned that collapse was a possibility even before the rebel attack. In other words, this scheme was obviously stupid, but the main players did it anyway. This is not the first time the United States has been this stupid. Libya, Tunisia, Egypt are three great examples of the same poorly conceived scheme. If not for the Egyptian military, the Muslim Brotherhood would be controlling most of North Africa.

It is a good reminder for those who love chanting about the Deep State. The same people who create these debacles around the Muslim world are making decisions about all sorts of things, foreign and domestic. In a complex world, the default assumption about why anything happens is Hanlon’s razor. “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence, neglect, or ignorance.” What we are seeing In Syria is a combination of all three.

The Long Retreat

Posted on December 12, 2024 by thezman

One of the things that got the “new right” buzzing in the closing months of the election was the sudden pullback by corporations on the DEI front. A bunch of large companies announced they were terminating these programs. This led to the online wing of the “new right” to confidently say “we are winning!” It was part of a wave of pro-Trump confidence that kicked in during the final six weeks of the election. After the election, the same forces sense they can clear the field of DEI.

That is the subtext to this post by Christopher Rufo, who has made a lucrative career out of opposing the DEI machine. It is a letter to the Trump transition team urging them to reverse the various executive orders creating the DEI bureaucracy within the federal bureaucracy and replacing it with a “colorblind” evaluation system. By acting quickly, Rufo thinks, the new administration can deal a death blow to the DEI movement, while momentum is on their side.

Rufo is smart to point out that public sentiment has shifted strongly against DEI, so Trump would not be battling with a hornet’s nest if he does this. Rufo frames his approach as low hanging fruit that would make Trump’s voters happy without spending too much political capital. On the other hand, the closest thing to eternal life is a government program, regardless of origin. Every president has dreamed of killing at least one government program. None have succeeded.

To his credit, Rufo seems to get this reality. Merely rescinding these executive orders would change nothing, as these race operations are now enshrined in the budgets of the main government agencies. More important, the workforce inside these agencies are committed to defending them because of the iron law of bureaucracy. The people actually running these agencies are solely committed to defending every paperclip that exists inside their agency.

There is something else missing and that is any thought as to why private corporations have made a big deal out of killing these programs. The main reason is they have proven to be bad public relations. It is not the existence that is bad public relations, but the over-the-top embrace of these race programs. Execs were sold on these being a great way to built favor with the diverse public. It turned out that they had no impact on sale, despite claims to the contrary.

In other words, the marketing campaign in favor of these programs became a pointless hassle for the companies doing it. Anyone who has spent time in a corporation understands that management is always ready to eliminate a pointless hassle, especially one that has no revenue stream. Like the company that puts up a sign that reads, “Under New Management”, these companies are hoping to turn a bad marketing scheme into a second chance with their customers.

The programs themselves, however, have not changed much as all. Again, anyone familiar with corporate life knows that “diversity” has been a part of the system for decades, long before Mr. Rufo noticed them. The DEI department will simply be renamed and folded back into human resources. The reason for that is these are a necessary defense against lawsuits. Diversity programs are a defense against lawfare, which is as permanent as a government program.

No matter what the public might think about any of this, the lawfare will continue, which means diversity pogroms will continue. The reason the lawfare will continue is, in part, to keep the diversity rackets going. There has always been a lot of coordination between the diversity pogroms and the lawfare. The main reason, however, is the law requires the diversity lawfare to continue. The civil rights revolution created a legal framework to impose what cannot happen naturally.

The point of the Brown case was not simply to overturn the Court’s 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, but to lay the foundation for a new moral order within the law that future cases and future legislation could build upon. This is exactly what happened over the following decades. Katzenbach v. McClung, for example, gave Congress a broad, extra-Constitutional mandate to address discrimination. In that case, they found a way to ban discrimination, despite having no jurisdiction.

This is what the “new right” fails to grasp about their calls for “colorblind” policies and the dismantling of DEI. What they want is not just impractical, but legally impossible, as a result generations of jurisprudence. The courts have repeatedly affirmed the two truths of our current legal framework. Discrimination is always bad and therefore always assumed to be illegal. Inclusion is always good and therefore should be the outcome of constitutionally defendable policies.

That means a “colorblind admission policy” at Harvard would be discriminatory if the result is a tiny number of black undergrads. It sounds insane, but by the logic of the law, it is perfectly reasonable. Our legal framework is not just eliminating observable discrimination, but also fostering inclusion. This is why the DEI people say it is not enough to be not racist. You must be anti-racist, by which they mean creating an inclusive racial environment everywhere.

This is why the war against DEI is nothing more than hacking at the leaves. The roots of the problem go back much further than the current racial fads and they have sunk deep into the psyche of the managerial class. It is why the word “inclusion” and variations on it salt the language of the ruling class. They are all about openness, because openness is the highest moral good according to the civil right ideology. This is not a front brain thing for them. It is a part of their internal logic.

It is not all bad news, however. The “new right” campaign against DEI has had the unintended side effect of delegitimizing the civil rights ideology. People have grown used to mocking this stuff, which is a small step from rejecting the primary goal of civil rights ideology, which is the open society. This was the motivation behind the censorship campaigns. The ideologues understand that if you can mock any part of the regime, you can mock all of it.

In this regard, Christopher Rufo and the “color blind new right” are a rearguard action, defending what they can of a regime that is losing legitimacy. It is an attempt to meet the public halfway. They get rid of the more odious parts of the regime but keep the parts that make the regime possible. That is the play of a loser, so the rise and prominence of the “color blind new right” is a positive. The generations old racial regime is in retreat in the face of an increasingly skeptical populace.

The Show Is Over

Posted on December 10, 2024 by thezman

An interesting bit of subtext to the assassination of the United Healthcare CEO is how the reactions to it reflects the shifting politics in America. Twenty years ago, the general reaction online would have been what you see in television police dramas. The vast majority of the public would have been cheering on the police as they searched for the killer, while his family was paraded in front of the cameras. The dead guy would have been the unquestionable victim of a terrible crime.

On top of that, the people we call conservatives would have been waddling about in their comfort fit chinos, beating their chests about crime and the demonization of capitalism by the people we call the left. As soon as it was clear that the perpetrator was a white male, the people we call the left would have been tub-thumping about the need for gun control and maybe white male violence. Both sides would have done their act in front of predictably adoring audience.

Both sides have tried their normal act, but the world has changed and that means the audience is not as interested in the old shows. The people we call the left got this right away and stuck to giggling about the victim being the head of one of those evil health insurance companies they have been demonizing for decades. They were sure the killer was one of their own, due to his wearing a dark hoodie. In fact, a lot of people in the dissident camp assumed it was an Antifa too.

Based on the news reports, we can eliminate Antifa from the story. The guy they arrested has “pepe” in his social media profiles and is a fan of Uncle Ted, the avuncular character knowns as the Unabomber. While it is unlikely that he is “our guy”, he is clearly a young man who escaped the old political paradigm. He does not fit the left’s version of a hero or the right’s version of a villain. He has become a bit of a folk hero for many of the people who voted for Trump.

That last bit is what is vexing to the right-wing influencers. Their script does not have a section for this sort of character. The main job of conservatives is to celebrate and defend corporate power, but the bulk of their audience has long ago become fed-up by the abuses of corporate America. It was not the government banning them from the internet or cancelling their bank accounts. It is not the government race-swapping cultural content or running ads in favor of buggery.

There you see the big change in attitudes that is vexing legacy politics. For the last decade or so, it is the people we call the left who have been cheering on corporate America as they made war against our rights. The people we call conservatives sat silently as this went on. The CEO of United Healthcare could have been an anarcho-capitalist for anyone knows, but for the general public, he is the faceless symbol of corporate greed and avarice. People have had enough of it.

This case also reveals that the old American love of the outlaw is still there, buried under the piles of corporate slop. As the great Southern bard observed, outlaws touch the ladies somewhere deep down in their soul. America is a woman, so she has always had a love for the outlaw. The reason for that is the old frontier sensibility tells us that sometimes, you need the outlaw, because sometimes, a man needs killing and you cannot do that within the law.

That ties in neatly with the whiff of revolution in the air. The election of Donald Trump and the apparent acceptance of it by the political class has people thinking about more than just “owning the libs” in an election. To a lot of people, the bad guys look scared right now and this event feels like a nice reminder to them that there are worse things than losing an election. If the 2016 election was a warning to the ruling class, then the 2024 election is the final warning.

There is another angle here. The people we call the left have been demonizing health insurance companies for a long time. In typical booshie fashion, the rhetoric has gone well beyond factual criticism. Since Hillary Clinton waddled onto the stage, the left has been calling healthcare companies parasites that must be destroyed. Logically, it means the people running them are evil parasites who must be destroyed. Inside the real halls of power, people are making the obvious connection.

What the 2024 revealed is there has been a shift in the economic elite. Some members have figured out that there is real danger for them, and they backed Donald Trump and continue to back him as he prepares to take power. Elon Musk is not bunkmates with Trump by accident. This will not be a repeat of the first administration. Some members of the economic elite want reform because they do not want to be on the wrong end of the next viral assassination video.

In other words, it is not just the change in public attitudes that has the chattering classes vexed, but also the change in the economic elite. The killing of that CEO kicked over more than just the rock of public opinion. It revealed the growing angst of the economic elite in response to changing public opinion. Even though it was just one young man on a mission, it is a reminder that history has often pivoted on one man or one event, setting off a chain of events.

When the desires of the economic elite align with the desires of the populace, things can start happening in a hurry. That is the conclusion of this big study on how policy is formed in America. A decade ago, researchers discovered what has been obviously true since the dawn of time. Every society has an elite and they generally get what they want, despite public attitudes, but they always get what they want when they are on the side of the people.

This is why the chattering classes are struggling with this story. It is why they will put the whole thing on ignore now that the killer has been caught. They have been selected and trained to play particular roles in an old show, but now the curtain is falling on that show, so they must scramble for parts in the next show. The reason for that is the audience has changed and now the producers are changing along with them. Luigi Mangione put a bullet in all the old acts.

Decades And Weeks

Posted on December 9, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about being smart, stupid and lucky, a post about the proper way to assassinate rich people on the streets on New York, and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

Lenin famously said, “There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen” The world has just experienced, and perhaps is continuing to experience, those weeks where decades happen. There is the war in Ukraine, of course, which keeps tempting the world to the abyss, but now there is the collapse of Syria, which promises to make the Middle East more dangerous. On top of that is the political crises in South Korea, France and Romania.

The easiest to diagnose is the Ukraine crisis, which has been creeping toward a conclusion most have understood since it started. The Russian army is slowly grinding up the Ukrainian army, which is slowly retreating. Slowly has been slowly becoming quickly, leading to rumors that big changes await Kiev. Zelensky has all but volunteered to be Trump’s personal footstool to find out what, if anything, Trump plans to do about Ukraine in 2025. The answer is probably nothing.

For their part, the Russians seem to have decided that they will have to sort things out despite whoever is running American foreign policy. The thing to watch is who Tucker Carlson has on from the Trump team after he returns from Russia. There is a good chance that Tucker is operating as an unofficial go between for Trump or who Trump will trust to manage the Ukraine problem. Regardless, the end of Project Ukraine promises to be weeks where decades happen.

The problem that promises to create lots of chaos for the world is the unexpected collapse of the Assad regime in Syria. One of the things you must learn when doing business in the Arab word is that nothing is ever as it appears. That is most certainly true with the fall of Assad and his exile in Russia. While it is clear that the Turks trained and supplied the “rebel” army, made up of mercenaries from around the Muslim world, it is unlikely that they anticipated this result.

It is also certain that the United States and Israel had a hand in developing this “rebel” army and setting it on its course. Like everyone else, they appear to have been unprepared for this result. Strangely, the Russians and the Iranians seem to have anticipated this result or at least were the first to see what was happening, so maybe they had a hand in this as well. The Russians have been operating in that part of the world for generations, so they understand Arab reality.

What we know is that Syria is now “controlled” by a collection of Muslim fanatics who have little in common with one another. They lack the resources and manpower to remain in control for long, so that means the many other factions and their sponsors will be looking to either flow into the void left by Assad or carve out more space for themselves in what used to be Syria. Iran, Russia, Israel, the United States and the Gulf countries will be backing their proxies in this chaos.

As an aside, the Trump demand that the United States stay out of the Syrian crisis is only going to make things worse. One reason is we will see a flood of refugees from Syria into Europe. This will be done on purpose to draw the West into the conflict, despite what Trump says. Then you have the portion of the foreign policy blob that exists to “manage” the Middle East. There is zero chance that they stay out of of what they see as an early Christmas present.

The Arabs are not having all the fun. South Korea just had an attempted coup, which saw the current president try to arrest parliament. The parliament fought back against martial law and then the president backed down. Then parliament tried to impeach the president but could not find the votes. If you want a laugh, Costin Alamariu did a piece on the bizarre politics of Korea. If North Korea decides it is time to invade South Korea, no one should be surprised.

Europe also is experiencing weeks in decades now. The Romanians tried to have an election, and things did not turn out as expected. They carefully followed the rules of “our democracy” by banning opposition parties and making sure the media ignored anyone questioning the authority of the regime. The result was the “far-right” candidate won a big victory in the first round and was holding a massive lead heading into the second round, so the Romanians annulled the election.

The reason they annulled the election is they said there must have been Russian interference causing the unexpected result. You see the logic of “our democracy” in how Western rulers operate. “Our democracy” is a system that always confirms their righteousness and their right to rule. Any other result means someone or something has sabotaged “our democracy.” Since “our democracy” is sacred, any means necessary must be employed to defend it, even annulling elections.

There is something similar happening in France. Last summer, the French populist party scored a stunning win in the first round of legislative elections. This is the party led by the Le Pen family. They were poised to win a majority in the national Assembly until Macron conspired with the other parties to rig enough seats to prevent it. Then Macron finked on his partners and appointed a prime minister none of his partners liked, which has now led to the collapse of the government.

Convention says that when the government is paralyzed this way, there are new elections to break the deadlock. The only way this can happen is for Macron to resign, which he is not going to do, because Notre démocratie est trop importante pour la laisser aux mains des électeurs. This means France is currently without a government, other than Macron playing the organ grinder’s monkey to Trump. French bonds are now less attractive to investors than Greek bonds.

The political chao in France is a foreshadowing of what lies ahead for all the EU countries as the bill for Project Ukraine comes due. Germany is headed for elections in 2025, and they are desperately trying to avoid a Romanian result, so they will probably jail anyone who could be a problem. Britain is now ruled by a party that is slightly less popular than rectal cancer. The opposition party, the Tories, is led by a clown they imported from Nigeria.

Overall, the European economy is in serious trouble. It is a thing that Western media ignores, for the most part, but anyone doing business in Europe or with companies having exposure to Europe understands. It turns out that an economy built on cheap energy from Russia performs poorly when that cheap energy from Russia is replaced by expensive energy from America and even more expensive energy from Russia, sold through Asian intermediaries.

What all of this points to as we close out the year is that what lies ahead is a time when decades happen in weeks. The looming chaos that is the next Trump administration only adds to the uncertainty. Through no fault of his own, Trump will inherit an empire surrounded by chaos of its making but lacking the human capital to understand the problems and set them right. Instead, it will be old solutions to the new problems, meaning this may seem like a calm time by comparison.

A Jury Of Your Peers

Posted on December 5, 2024 by thezman

Most people assume that you have a constitutional right to a “jury of your peers”, but no such right exists in the law or reality. The phrase does not appear anywhere in the text of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. In the debates over the new Constitution, there was no use of this phrase. Like the phrase, “separation of church and state”, it is one of those ideas that snuck in long after the Constitution was adopted and people have come to accept it is a real thing that exists in the law,

The Constitution is rather vague on the matter of juries. Article II states that “the trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury” but that is a far cry from requiring a “jury of your peers.” The closest it gets is the 6th Amendment which begins with, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.”

What the Constitution tells us about juries and jury trials is that they need to be speedy, local and impartial. Otherwise, it is up to the states and localities to sort out the mechanics of the trial and the nature of juries. The Framers could have been more specific but they either assumed it was not necessary, given the customs of the age, which had been handed down over many generations, or they thought it best for states and localities to work out the details.

In the 18th century, no one could have imagined a jury drawn from vagrants, imbeciles and lunatics, so there would have been no need to provide against it. Juries were composed of respectable people, almost always men. Since crimes were all state crimes, it made sense to defer to the states on the process. By the time the Constitution was adopted, every state had a court system, and they were generally modeled on the English system for obvious reasons.

This is one of the many flaws in the Constitution. It was created by men who lacked the imagination to provide for the rise of a universal and timeless moral code that included men pretending to be women and drug addicts having an unquestioned right to roam the streets, harassing the citizens. They failed to appreciate the need to have two-digit IQ people, barely able to dress themselves, sit on juries in cases involving complex technical issues in narrow technical fields.

Daniel Penny is on trial for his life in New York City and his fate will be decided by people who may not be able to read at a high school level. New York City is now famous for madhouse juries, lunatic judges and ideological prosecutors who use the former two conditions to persecute their ideological enemies. Everyone outside the ideological fever swamps understands that Daniel Penny is on trial because he is a white and the crackhead was black.

If Daniel Penny was getting a jury of his peers, the bare minimum requirement would be that the jurors be American citizens. We know that at least one juror is a recent migrant from South America. Of course, his peers would include those who have jobs and can read and write at a college level. Given the endless racial agitation, a jury of his peers would have to white or at least majority white. The jury sitting in judgement of Daniel Penny meets none of the qualifications.

This is not a New York City problem. Kyle Rittenhouse is celebrating the three-year anniversary of his acquittal. Everyone assumed he would be found guilty in a rigged trial by a crooked judge, because this has become the norm. He got lucky and was charged in a jurisdiction dominated by sensible white people, including the judge. He was also blessed with unusually stupid prosecutors. As a result, he got a fair trial, and the jury promptly acquitted him of the charges.

The Rittenhouse case is an exception to the general rule of the American legal system which is that you will never get a fair trial or a jury of your peers. Instead, you will face an ideologue for a judge and a jury of randomly selected simpletons. This is true on civil cases as well as criminal cases. Elon Musk is fighting the courts over his Tesla compensation because the Delaware judges hate him. Even the richest man is subjected to trial by ideological madmen.

This is not a new phenomenon. The corruption of the legal system that gave us the civil right revolution has also eaten away at the judicial system. The maxim that anything that hints of discrimination is immoral has resulted in jury selection becoming little more than drawing names from a hat. The names in the hat are composed of people too stupid or lazy to avoid jury duty. The peremptory challenge of prospective jurors has slowly disappeared from the system.

Like the phrase, “separation of church and state”, the right to a “jury of your peers” has become a sad joke. The state has become a weird secular theocracy rooted in the progressive lunacy that gave us the civil right revolution. The state now makes war on actual churches in the name of a religion it pretends is a set of timeless, universal moral principles rooted in reason. As a result, a “jury of your peers” is a threat issued by the clerisy running the system.

Destruction of the law is always the last phase of egalitarian ideologies. Because men are not naturally equal, they must be made unnaturally equal. For everyone to be a peer of everyone else, the tall must be made short and the strong must be made week, because the opposite is not possible. The law becomes a weapon in the war against the people who make society possible. The civil rights revolution was an act of revenge against the capable and it is reaching its logical end.

Immigration Morality

Posted on December 4, 2024 by thezman

One of the remarkable things to happen in the last election cycle was the preference cascade that quietly happened regarding immigration. Five years ago, the best you could hope to hear from normie and the people who prey on him in the political system is that “illegal immigration” is bad. They still clung to “legal immigration” as some sort of magical incantation that put them on the side of angels. Then suddenly, normie was holding up signs that read, “Mass Deportation Now!”

There is a practical reason for the change. Trump ran on the immigration issue in 2016 and to the surprise of the beautiful people, it was not disqualifying. They were sure they had properly anathematized the issue but there was Trump talking about Mexican rapists and Muslim bans. They responded with violence against Trump supporters and the usual stuff about Hitler. Meanwhile, the Trump administration was using the administrative state to clamp down on immigration.

That created a contradiction. On the one hand, the Cloud People were attacking the Dirt People for being anti-immigrant bigots, even though the Dirt People continued to hold romantic views on immigration. On the other hand, the negative results of immigration were slowly declining as immigration declined. Then like a windstorm, Biden comes in, opens the border and suddenly everyone is now getting to see the results of open borders policy in their neighborhood.

Imagine the government starts doing something about the snake problem, thus reducing the snake problem, but at the same time telling you that you need to stop complaining about the snakes. Since you see fewer snakes, you can go along with the program as it tracks with what you are seeing. Then the government starts dumping snakes in your yard while still calling you an ophiophobe. The scales fall from your eyes and the eyes of others, and you get a ophiophobic preference cascade.

It is far too soon to tell if Trump is serious about immigration, but it was the one thing he did well in his first term. Fighting the Republican Party, the courts and the administrative state, they still managed to reduce illegal crossings to a trickle. They also slowed up the legalization process and the visa process. Now that immigration has a bad odor about it, especially among the economic elites, he should be able to make some lasting changes to the system in his second term.

This tracks with the last crackdown on immigration a century ago. After immigrants started killing rich people, culminating in the Wall Street bombing, rich people suddenly had their own preference cascade experience. It turned out that romantic notions about immigration were no defense against bombs, so they started demanding reform to the immigration system and finally the end of immigration entirely. For most of the 20th century, America suffered little from immigration.

Another aspect is the morality of immigration. For a long time, the nation wreckers kept the debate within economics. Immigration in the general sense was good for the economy, thus it was assumed to be morally good. The sequence was to first sacralize the economy, defined in the interest of the ruling class, then declare things like open borders good for the economy. That meant only a bad person who hates the economy could oppose immigration.

This worked in the abstract until real issues that cannot be addressed economically brought the issue back into the domain of morality. Coeds being murdered by Mexican migrants, Hattians eating your pets and Venezuelan gangs taking over apartment buildings cannot be dismissed with economics. The Haitian cat-eaters were a great example of how some people benefit from immigration, while the rest suffer. It showed that immigration privatizes profit and socializes costs.

What we see happening is that immigration is becoming a moral issue. In addition to the cat eating stuff, the name calling has lost its punch. Suddenly, people not only started to realize that everyone else is tired of immigration, but they were also tired of being called Hitler by degenerates and deviants. Those old people waving “Mass Deportation Now!” signs at Trump rallies were the result of people suddenly free from the old moral constraints on the immigration issue.

The rich people are noticing. Elon Musk was doing the old civic nationalist stuff about legal versus illegal immigration in the summer, only to see his posts buried in negative comments about the morality of immigration. Trump has toned that stuff down as well, which means he no longer feels the need to bend the knee to the plaque on the side of the Statue of Liberty. It will not be long before libertarians are writing about the damage done by Emma Lazarus.

In a larger context, this is just the start of a process that will have to reach back to the root causes of the immigration issue. For example, there are millions of able-bodied men in the social welfare system. There are millions of people in pointless cubicle jobs who could be in productive work. The social welfare state was not a solution poverty but a solution to upper-middle-class people feeling sad about poverty. The result is a vast warping of the economy, especially labor markets.

Instead of addressing this colossal mistake, the workaround was to both import millions of low-cost workers into America and export industries to low-cost countries through the fiction of “free trade” policies. De-industrialization and immigration share the same root cause, which is the bourgeoise progressive fantasies about the just society that took over the ruling classes in the last century. It is another reminder that ideology is just another word for morality.

The Antidote

Posted on December 3, 2024 by thezman

A central feature of the democratic society is mendacity. The more democratic the culture, the less honest the participants. The reason for that is simple. The goal in a democratic system, whether it is a marketplace for goods and service or a political system for setting public policy, is to win the crowd. You do not necessarily have to win a majority, but you need enough to lie about having a majority. To do that you must say anything to bring the mob to your side.

This is the reason we know or care about Socrates. Ancient Athens was a democratic society, where rhetoric was the prized skill. The reason for that is status was rewarded to those who could win over their fellow citizens through argument. Inevitably the truth stopped mattering very much, as people tend to believe a good story, especially one that flatters them, over objective reality. Socrates skillfully argued in favor of the truth over rhetoric, so the Athenians voted to kill him.

Lying is a funny thing as everyone lies about something, usually in a moment of weakness or in an effort to be prudent. As a result, normal people think of lying as a thing you do reluctantly. You lie about not having broken something at work, even though in the long run honestly would be your better option. You tell the friend that his new car is great, even though you think it is ridiculous for a middle-aged man to be driving around in a Miata. It hurts to say it, but friendship requires it.

While everyone lies, most people are honest. They think the truth matters, even if the truth is unwelcome. You want the doctor to tell you the truth about your health, not because it will have an impact on your health, but because it is your health, and you have a right to know the truth about it. This sense of entitlement with regards to the truth stems from the fact that all humans possess the tools to conceive of what with think is reality and therefore we are entitled to reality.

It is why most people struggle to accept that there are people who are not honest, so they do not struggle with the lie. In fact, they take pleasure in tricking people, even when the truth would serve their interest. Unlike the honest person, the Democratic Man sees truth telling as a weakness. He speaks the truth only when forced into it and seems to see it as a weakness. For him, the truth is bait to lure in the honest to trick them into something they would otherwise resist.

An example of this is in The Atlantic, a publication that has become the symbol of democratic mendacity. In less democratic times, it was a journal for the intellectual class of the WASP ruling elite. Now it is a vulgar tabloid used to insert falsehoods into the media ecosystem. This post from David Frum is a perfect example. Everything about it is a lie from the very first sentence. From there is a clever monument to the art of lying to trick the intended audience.

“For more than four decades before Donald Trump assumed the presidency, the FBI director was a position above politics” is what someone once described as a lie so colossal that people assume there must be some truth to it because they cannot believe that anyone would lie so infamously. Bill Clinton fired the FBI Director, Bill Sessions, as soon as he came to power. He replaced the capable Sessions with the thoroughly incompetent Janet Reno.

The fact is every position in Washington is political. You cannot be in politics without being political, which means taking a side. David Frum surely knows this, but he likes lying and he has an agenda. One of the funny things about this type is they often start with a kernel of truth around which they wrap their lies. In this case, the kernel of truth is that the FBI helped the media drive off Nixon. The schemers are hoping a similar thing happens (again) once Trump takes office.

This is just one recent example. You can scan the regime media sites and find hundreds of examples on a daily basis. We live in a time when the only reasons to consume mass media are entertainment and to learn what is not true. People like David Frum make being funny on social media much easier. If you see an assertion of fact in the Wall Street Journal, then you know what is not true about that particular subject and can eliminate it from the set of possible truths.

The question, from a sociological and analytical perspective, is whether the system produces the mendacious or whether it simply elevates them. Since Grog sold Trog a bad wheel, lying has been a part of human society. Along with it we have evolved various ways to guard against it, both individually and collectively. Among European people, social rules evolved to sort people between the trusted and the untrustworthy, creating moral societies rather than tribal ones.

Therefore, if liars have always been an issue for human society, it means the proliferation of liars is a product of the current rules. We are becoming a low trust society either because we are conditioning each generation to prize mendacity over the truth or the system rewards the mendacious over the honest, thus flooding the public square with shameless liars. The lack of shame is a critical piece, as moral societies rely on shame to govern behavior.

The counter to this is someone like Tutus Oates. He was an English priest who fabricated a conspiracy to kill Charles II. This was the “Popish Plot” that made him quite famous and wealthy for a time. This was just one of his many lies and schemes that often had no obvious benefit to him. Like Hillary Clinton, he loved lying. Eventually, people caught onto his tricks, but again like Hillary Clinton, he used more tricks to escape the hangman’s noose and continue with his mendacity.

This perfect example of the modern pundit lived in the 17th century when democracy was limited to arguments among nobles after too many drinks. This was the restoration, a time when popular government had a very bad odor. Of course, one could argue that the flickers of democracy under Cromwell fertilized the ground where the seeds of mendacity had lied dormant. Still, in a decidedly undemocratic society a trickster like Oates was able to thrive for a little while.

None of this may seem to matter, but Western people evolved over thousands of generations to exist in high trust societies. Unlike the tribal people of sub-Saharan Africa who organize around the tribe or the people in the Middle East who organize around the clan, Europeans organize around a set of moral codes. The proliferation of liars who have undermined social trust are making Western societies unlivable. The next step is they become ungovernable.

What that means for the reform minded is that for reform to work, Western societies must become hostile to people like David Frum. Either they sink in status to the point where they are nothing more than a warning to others or they find life in a high trust society too terrifying, so they self-deport. In other words, the goal of reform must be elevating candor to the highest quality, as the necessary antidote to the mendacity that has come to dominate the modern West.

The Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Category Archives: Badder Thoughts