The Indian Question

Posted on December 27, 2024 by thezman

Fifty years ago, the late political humorist P.J. O’Rourke did a piece for National Lampoon called Foreigners Around the World. It featured exaggerated stereotypes of various races and ethnic groups, along with over-the-top descriptions meant to satirize what was called racism at the time. The piece is preserved online, even though the magazine is long gone. The humor does not hold up, if it was ever humorous, but it is a good starting place for thinking about the immigration debate.

Even when satirizing the idea of racial and ethnic descriptions, the piece cannot help but reflect the hierarchy with regards to how Americans view the world. Fifty years ago, people could be honest about such things, but if you could do a poll today where the respondents are given truth serum, they would most likely rank foreigners similar to how O’Rourke inadvertently ranked them. Of course, the race and ethnicity of the American would play a big role in the ranking.

Black people, for example, would rank Africans at the top and East Asians at the bottom of their list. East Asians would rank Africans at the bottom. White people would rank East Asians at the top, because they see them as the model minority. The tiger mom business a decade ago was driven by upper-middle-class white women who thought the tiger mom explained why the math club was dominated by Chinese kids. Every race and ethnicity have their own ranking.

The one group everyone would put at the bottom, without needing truth serum is South Asians, specifically Indians. Over the last thirty years America has been flooded with migrants from almost every nook and cranny of the globe. Most noticeable are those from South America because of their numbers. In the summer, every business park and suburban neighborhood is littered with Hispanics cutting the grass. The next most noticed group is the South Asians.

Despite their small numbers, relative to Hispanics, South Asians stand out because of their jarring alienness and their reason for being here. Employers import Indians to depress middle class wages and displace American tech workers. As a result, middle-class white people notice them and unlike Hispanics, who white people tend to admire for their work ethic, the Indians have a very negative reputation. Not even the most deluded immigration romantic likes South Asians.

This has come as a great shock to Elon Musk and his tech bros. For some reason he decided to use Christmas Day to announce that he wants Trump to fill your neighborhood with Indians so he can win something. This set off a multi-day firestorm over the topic of Indian immigration. The tech bros were poleaxed by the reaction, as they had no idea how much the average American dislikes Indians. So much so that even yelling “racism” has no impact.

There are a lot of reason for this. Every American has called their bank or the help line for some bit of electronics, only to get someone who is obviously an Indian, despite using an American name. What follows is endless frustration. Of course, we have the stories of Americans being fired and then replaced by Indian guest workers. Now we have the Indian phone scammers targeting old people. During Covid, Indian scammers were on the cutting edge of Covid scams.

Daily, the average American, regardless of his race or ethnicity, is reminded of these alien weirdos who make his life difficult. Much like how gypsies are the one group Europeans are allowed to hate, without being called racist, Indians are becoming that group for Americans. It is perhaps not a coincidence that the origin of the people called gypsies is most likely the Indian subcontinent. Regardless, when it comes to South Asians, Americans of all types have a negative opinion.

There are justifiable reasons for this growing anti-Indian sentiment. The main reason is we do not need Indians. No one has ever said, “This place would be perfect if we fill it up with Indians.” All the arguments in favor of importing Indians do not hold up to scrutiny, so people assume those are deliberate lies. When the official explanation is not trusted, then people are free to conjure their one explanation. Vivek Ramaswamy discovered that when he came out in favor of infinite Indians.

The immediate assumption was that he was in favor of importing his countryman to take your job and take over your neighborhood because they are his countryman. That puts a massive hole in his image as the example of the “New American.” In fact, in one tweet he may have created a majority in favor of not just ending immigration from India, but starting the remigration process. Of course, it also makes it impossible for him to cry racism when he is clearly motivated by race.

Given that Musk and his tech bros were deluged with negative comments, we may have just witnessed a preference cascade with regards to Indians, but perhaps also with immigration in general. Five years ago, Musk would have been able to get away with this, because people would have assumed it was immoral to oppose immigration, much less Indian immigration. Now they are seeing that most everyone around them holds the same negative view of immigration, especially from India.

Immigration patriots are also helped by the fact that the so called tech bros are mostly flim-flam men. Silicon Valley stopped innovating long ago and now relies of financial legerdemain for skim billions for the economy. Vivek Ramaswamy is a pretty good example of this reality. Look at how he got rich and you wonder how he is not sitting in a federal prison, which is itself a reminder that the people promoting Indian immigration are not the most honest people in America.

It is not all good news. In response to getting blasted on his own platform, Musk has rolled out a new censorship scheme so he and his tech bros will not get the sads reading their feed. Regardless of what the people think, the oligarchs are going to plow ahead with their nation wrecking schemes. Even so, as Asad just learned, you cannot rule over a hostile public forever. This Twitter event was not Ceausescu’s famous last speech, but perhaps a foreshadowing of what is to come.

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***@*********************ns.com.

Corporate America

Posted on December 26, 2024 by thezman

Just in time for Christmas, the “tech bros”, who jumped on the Trump bandwagon last summer, launched a campaign on Twitter in favor of infinite Indian migration, for all the long ago debunked economic reasons. The trigger for this was Trump naming someone calling himself Sriram Krishnan to an advisory board. This person was a Kamala supporter, in addition to being a strong advocate for bringing all his countryman to live in your neighborhood.

It is unlikely that Trump thought much about Sriram Krishnan before naming him to this advisory board, as it is not an important post. It looks like he took the recommendation of David Sacks, who is running a technology advisory board for Trump. David Sack is an open borders fanatic for all the expected reasons. He spent Christmas day trying to justify Sriram Krishnan’s appointment as “America First”, while also defending unlimited immigration from India.

It was not just David Sacks trying to subvert the meaning of American First. Elon Musk took time away from not celebrating Christmas to push the idea of unlimited immigration from India as well. Like all the tech bros, nation wreckers and open society types, his claim rests on the obvious lie that India is full of future Einsteins that America must recruit in order to win. What we win by turning your neighborhood into a New Delhi slum is never explained, because it is a lie.

This episode is a good reminder that modern America is cursed with one of the worst economic elites in human history. Most of what they do adds nothing to the country or the stock of human capital. Silicon Valley is now just financial flim-flams and financial legerdemain masquerading as a tech sector. Like the Wall Street economy, the Silicon Valley economy is just a skim, not a lot different than how the mafia operated Las Vegas or the Teamsters Union back in the 1970’s.

The main difference between the mafia and the current oligarchs is the mafia knew it was the mafia, while the current oligarchs think they are some weird combination of religious leader and entrepreneurial genius. Elon Musk is Valentine Michael Smith from the Heinlein novel, Stranger in a Strange Land. Instead of promising sexual liberation, he is selling motorized doorstops and trips to Mars. The original Valentine Smith came from Mars and this one wants to return.

It is easy to hate the oligarchs as sociopathic greed heads, but they are a symptom of a deeper problem with post-Cold War America. The reason these guys exist is that after the Cold War, America fell into an old bad habit of seeing itself as nothing more than an economic zone to be exploited. This is a current in American history that goes back to the colonies, when the New World was nothing more than an untapped economic zone to be exploited by who got to it first.

This is something Tocqueville observed in his travels around America. There has never been an enduring sense of American identity, other than the idea that making money is the heart of American liberty. The way to avoid the exploitative relationships common in the old world is to maintain a free economy so that anyone can get rich. The concept of “Fuck You Money” is based in this belief. You can get rich enough to not fear coercion from the government or the other rich people.

One main reason people admire Musk is he is the ultimate example of the guy who has achieved “Fuck You Money” status. He is the world’s richest man and the world’s biggest shit poster online. Instead of bending the knee to the Indians running Twitter, he bought the platform for probably two or three times its value. In reality, Musk paid $44 billion for what amounts to a poorly coded message board. He overpaid for it because he has “Fuck You Money”.

Many in the MAGA movement slobber over Musk because of this, but there is an evil that lies behind all of it. Oligarchs like Musk do not see America as their home, but as a company they just acquired. The triumphalism of the tech bros is that they now think with Trump in the White House, they can do what Musk did with Twitter, to the whole country and reorganize it for their purposes. They are the board that took the company called America private and now plan to reorganize it.

This is the next turn of the wheel in the managerial revolution that kicked off a century ago with the rise of the American empire. The large shareholders have become disenchanted with management, so they are shaking things up. The trouble is the shareholders are not American in any meaningful sense. If they think this guy is as American as those with just one passport, then their definition of citizen is no different from their definition of employee.

It is tempting to call this feudalism, mostly because feudalism has an odor about it, but the feudal elite actually had a bond with the peasants. The feudal order started with the reciprocal relationships between the elites, but it also included vertical relations that bound the top to the bottom. The king had a duty to his people. In this age, the oligarch has no duty to his employees. They are mere economic units to be exploited in order to fulfil his obligations to his fellow shareholders.

What we are seeing is an effort to transform the fundamental relations between the citizens and the state, but also among the citizens themselves. Your duty to your neighbor is now the same as your duty to Apu in IT, who was just flown in from Bangalore to replace your neighbor. Everyone is now supposed to see themselves as employees of America Inc., which is now run by people who view you as an expense to be reduced and a liability to be eliminated.

It is not a big leap from using the income statement to justify unlimited Indian immigration to using it to justify involuntary suicide or the deportation of citizens who are no longer working out for American Inc. If economics trump the moral arguments against immigration, then there are no moral arguments that can trump economics when it comes to anything else. Once citizenship is defined as employment, everything and everyone is a slave to the bottom line.

The flaw in this is no rational man will sacrifice for his CEO. The transactional relationship between employer and employee cannot work for a society, because of the fundamental compact at the heart of every human society. The people tolerate and even sacrifice for the elites in a human society, because those elites provide protection through the mechanism of government. If those elites are no longer willing to provide protection, then the reason to tolerate them evaporates.

Perhaps this is the sign that we are fully in late-stage managerialism. The economic elites sense America Inc. is faltering, so they step in to force a change in management, without understanding the root cause of the problem. They view Trump as a turnaround specialist who can reverse the fortunes of the enterprise, while maintaining the transactional relationship between themselves and the people. In the end it must fail because American is not a corporation. It is a people.

Evolutionary Christianity

Posted on December 23, 2024 by thezman

Note: Behind the green door I have a post about how the best path to a healthy life is to ignore your health, a post about the bastardization of the college football postseason, and the Sunday podcast. Subscribe here or here.

One of the most important dates on the Christian calendar is Christmas, the day set aside to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. There is a 1-in-365 chance that Jesus was born on December 25, but no one knows when Jesus was born. The date is of no great significance to the life of Christ. What matters is he was lived and died, and his life and death are the root of the world’s most important religion. To Christians, the life of Jesus is the most important event in human history.

Whether Christianity is still the most important world religion is the most important part of that first paragraph, given the state of Christianity in the world. In Europe, where Christianity evolved and flourished in the Roman empire, Christianity is no longer an important part of the culture. The trappings of Christmas remain, largely for commercial reasons, but otherwise Christianity is just about gone. Islam and managerial liberalism are the most important religions in Europe.

In the United States, Christianity remains under assault by the usual suspects but remains an important part of the culture. Even in the secular regions, the cultural framework of Christianity remains in place. God has been replaced by “the tides of history” and Scripture with the latest slop from progressivism, but these things are just filling the hole left in the Christian framework. In the more normal parts of the country, Christian churches still dot the countryside.

There is no question that Christianity is on the wane in the Western world and that spells trouble for the Church globally. It is tempting to wonder if Christianity has a future at all, but the better question is what will it become in the future? The story of Christianity is survival and evolution. What we think of as Christianity today is nothing like what the early Christians experienced. Even medieval Christians would find modern Christianity to be weird and heretical.

For example, early Christians would be puzzled by the reliance on Scripture by many modern Protestant sects. The Gospels were not written until roughly a century after the life of Christ and his disciples. The first “Bible” was assembled by St. Jerome around A.D. 400 and included 27 books of the New Testament. In 382 A.D., the Council of Rome finished the process of determining the 73 books of the Bible. There were probably millions of Christians before there was a single Bible.

Then you have the fact that the Christianity that emerged from the Levant and began to spread around the Roman Empire ran into both Roman paganisms, but also the much more potent paganism of the Germanic barbarians. Many of the things we associate with Christianity were borrowed from these pagans. James C. Russell argues in his book, The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, that the culture and religion of Germanic pagans shaped Christianity.

Of course, there are “Bible believing Christians” who reject these claims, but these people are practicing a form of Christianity that could not exist if not for the evolution of the Church into the late Middle Ages. It was the revolution within Christianity that gave us Protestantism and to some degree its secular partner liberalism. The dynamic between the two is a hot topic today in dissident circles. There would be no “Bible believing Christians” without this evolutionary process.

This evolution of Christianity also helps explain why it survived at all. A handful of radical Jews changed the course of human history, by creating something that has motivated men to die for their belief in it. In 303, the Roman emperor Diocletian issued a series of edicts rescinding Christians’ legal rights, setting off a decade of persecutions, just as the early Christian were beginning to codify their faith. Despite this, the Church not only survived, but became much stronger.

There is a good argument to be made that the success of Christianity was due to its struggle in the face of persecution. Early Christians had to be smart, courageous, and resourceful to maintain their religion. This selected for the sorts of people who were willing to take on the enormous challenge of maintaining, spreading, and developing a fundamentally new moral and cosmological outlook. The early Christians had to be to the far right of the bell curve.

Another way to think of it is that Christianity was a new mind virus that quickly evolved to spread among its new host. It then had to evolve even faster once it broke out of its original population. When efforts to eradicate it came, it once again evolved rapidly to adapt to the changes in its host population. Like the common cold or the flu, there are lots of variant of the original Christian virus now. In the end, they all promise the same thing for those infected.

Still another evolutionary way of thinking about how Christianity survived and thrived is that it is a mutation in human thought. Until Christianity, monotheism was limited to Jews and Zoroastrians. Universalism did not exist. These two mutations combined in Christianity and spread through the life, struggle, and death of early Christians until it became a dominant trait. The irony here is that some Christians dispute evolution, but they would not be here if evolution were not real.

The point of all this is not to rustle the sensibilities of those Christians who think the reason for the Church is it is the will and word of God. The point is that Christianity exists at all because it has adapted and survived far worse that the commercialization of Christmas and the “happy holidays” nonsense. Christianity is facing a new challenge in the West, one to which it will have to adapt, while maintaining the thing that has allowed it to survive, which is the hope and courage it provides the believer.

The reason the West is in crisis is the new religion, that which the managerial class struggles to understand, even while they are preaching it, is not able to provide an answer to the questions Christianity has always been able to answer. Those questions are “Who says?” and “Why should I listen?” Men will live and die in defense of the answers to those questions. Whatever Christianity becomes on the surface, it will thrive because it answers the most important of man’s questions.

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.

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.

Minority Rule

Posted on December 11, 2024 by thezman

While most see the collapse of Syria as just another Middle East country thrown into chaos by the American government, it is a good lesson in the dangers that come when a distinct minority rules over the majority. The ISIS rebels get the credit, but the real blame lies with the way in which the Syria state was structured. Until now, Syria was ruled by one of the many minorities in the region. That minority is a mysterious ethnoreligious group called the Alawites.

The place to start is with the people. Syria has some of the oldest communities in the world, dating back to the ancient world. Maaloula, a village in western Syria, is one of the last remaining places where Aramaic is spoken. There are Christian communities that date back to Rome. Of course, Islam has been in the area now called Syria since the time of Mohamed. There is also the ethnoreligious group called the Alawites, which split from Shia Islam at some unknown point in the past.

The origins and identity of the Alawites are a mystery. There are roughly four million of them in the region. Their legends say they are descendants of the followers of the eleventh Imam, Hasan al-Askari. The reason he is called the eleventh Iman is because he was one of the twelve imams who claimed to be the spiritual and biological successors of the Mohamed. These are the founders of Shia Islam. Exactly how they became this distinct subgroup within Islam remains a mystery.

Now, Shia Islam is itself a minority within Islam. Roughly ten percent of all Muslim belong to a sect within the Shia designation. The vast majority of Muslims, especially in the Arab world, are Sunnis. Unsurprisingly, the relations between the Sunnis and Shia have never been good. One result of this enmity between the two camps is that the Sunnis, who make up seventy percent of Syria, claim the Alawites are not just heretics and non-believers, but not even Arabs.

That last claim is not without some merit. There has been a great deal of effort to gloss over the ethnic realities in that part of the world. Western experts are sure that there is no such thing as biological reality, so differences in people, even genetic differences, are explained as cultural differences. The locals, however, understand that the Levant has been the land of invaders, and they left behind more than just their buildings and some of their cultural practices.

That aside, the Alawites have been a highly clannish and resourceful group, often creating problems for the local rulers. The Ottomans tried to suppress them on multiple occasions, but also found them useful in roles requiring skill, like tax farming and managing the empire’s finances. When the Europeans came to dominate the region in the 19th century, the Alawites proved useful to their new rulers. It turns out that every ruler needs smart and clever people.

It is this ability to run complex systems that eventually allowed the Alawites to take control of Syria. That and their clannishness. Under the French, the Alawites played a key role, which gave them access to power and resources. After independence, their resourcefulness and understanding of the systems left by the Europeans allowed Hafez al-Assad and his Ba’ath Party to seize power. The Alawites, despite their numbers, were smarter than their rivals.

As an aside, one of the many claims about the Alawites by the Muslim majority is that they supported Israeli independence and had a long working relationship with the Jews in the region. This is generally considered a smear, but it is clear that the Alawites were willing to work with other minority groups in the region. The Assad family famously protected the Christian communities in Syria, for example. Minorities have a funny habit of sticking together against the majority.

That aside, a country run by a distinct and distrusted minority is never going to be stable, especially when the minority is tiny. This is why the Assad government had been ruthless at times when dealing with the Sunni majority. To keep the peace, the government had to make clear to anyone thinking otherwise that the government would use maximum force to maintain the peace. Minority rule is always made worse by the tactics necessary to maintain it.

Of course, the Assad led Syria had been useful to the West for a long time, so they got the support they needed to maintain themselves. Until now, it had been assumed that chaos in Syria would be bad for the region and bad for Israel. As a rule, confident countries seek stability in their diplomacy. Now that the official policy of the United States is to spread chaos around the world, Assad was an easy target for the now familiar regime change operation.

Regime change was possible in Syria because it was a minority government ruling a hostile majority. Western sanctions starved Syria of the cash it needed to bribe enough of the majority into supporting them. Turkish and American terror groups operating within Syria put constant pressure on the government. The reason Assad fell so quickly to this hodgepodge of ISIS radicals is the Alawite system collapsed. The ISIS mob was simply the straw that broke the camel’s back.

This is what makes Syria a timeless lesson. No society run by a distinct minority can be stable, as the majority will always distrust that minority. Even when minority rule results in good times, as in the case of colonial Africa, the majority will find reasons to resent that minority. In fact, the good times allows that resentment to slowly build under the surface of apparent tranquility. As soon as bad times come, the majority revolts and the laws of large numbers takes its course.

Syria is why the Israelis have no interest in ruling over Arabs. They could take control of Gaza and the West Bank, for example, but they would be viewed as a minority ruling a hostile majority, so expulsion is their preferred option. In the oldest part of the world, the people still understand the oldest lessons. One of those is that a minority ruling a majority must always be a temporary condition. In the end, numbers always matter more than even human capital. The majority wins in the end.

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 Z Blog

Sports, Culture and Other Stuff

Category Archives: Culture