Category Archives: Culture

Who’s In Charge

Posted on by

The alt-right boys are fond of talking about the various red pills and how their issue is the “ultimate red pill.” They are not entirely wrong. People are willing to accept some things more than others. All of us bob around in an ocean of agit-prop, pumped out by the people that rule over us. That is, though, the ultimate red pill. All the stuff we believe about democracy, our political order and the intentions of the people who rule over us, is mostly nonsense. Our ruling class is no different than any other in human history.

Steve Sailer is fond of talking about the Deep State, mostly as a way to explain how the people in the ruling class collude with one another against the interests of the voters and their elected officials. It is not a conspiracy, with Ernst Blofeld controlling the world from his secret lair. It is more like a community of like minded people, who exist within the high ground of the society. They hire one another, they socialize, their kids marry each other and they try to keep elected officials from screwing up their grand designs.

A good recent example is Alexei Navalny. He is the latest Russian opposition leader to cause trouble for Putin. He was recently arrested for trying to stage a protest of Putin’s run for another term in office. Navalny was just another guy until he spent time at Yale in the World Fellows Program. Then all of a sudden, out of the blue, he became a crusader against financial corruption in Russia. It is not like any important people in America have connections to Yale. It is probably just a massive coincidence.

Putin, of course, is enemy number one for the Washington political elite. That means Mr. Navalny will be celebrated in the American media, while reliable politicians are sent out to tell us how Putin is the next Hitler. No one voted for this and no one in the elected class gives a damn about Alexei Navalny, but the people who were there before the politicians showed up, and will be there after they are gone, do care so everyone cares. It all sounds conspiratorial, but it is just the way countries run, even America.

Another example of this is this story about John Forbes Kerry causing trouble in the Middle East. He is telling the Palestinians to not cooperate with Trump as he expects a new president within a year. It’s totally a coincidence that Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor, was in the same prep school as John Forbes Kerry. In fact, they were on the lacrosse team together. Now, only a conspiracy nut would think there is any connection here. What are the odds that these two classmates talk about politics?

Again, it is not some wide ranging, multi-generational conspiracy. Every society has its elites and those elites control the state. For example, twenty-two families have controlled Guatemala since 1531. Another twenty-six families have married into this core group of elite families. The result is one percent of the population, the descendants of the Conquistadors, has controlled the country for over 450 years. It is why their political elites tend to look like Old World Spaniards, rather than the indigenous Indian tribes.

In the case of America, year after year our elite colleges turn out a new crop of boys and girls from the best families. Many go into government, some go into media, others go into finance. Most go onto live self-actualizing lives in the top floors of American society. Their parents and friend’s parents help them along wherever they land. If it is government, they bounce from assignment to assignment, eventually landing in one of the Senior Executive Service positions. Or even better, a presidential appointment.

What does this all mean?

It means elections do not matter all that much. Sure, getting Trump rather than Clinton is important, but that is just an exception to the rule. Clinton, Bush and Obama were pretty much the same guy. Their administrations were stocked with the same cronies that stocked the other administrations. Maybe they had slightly different ideas on how to sacrifice white Americans in the service of Israel, but otherwise they were on the same page on the big stuff. The people voted and then the people in charge ignored them.

Of course, this means those super-Progressive women are crazier than you think. These women, walking around thinking they are revolting against the patriarchy, are actually the vanguard of its defense. The proof that liberalism is a cult is that the members are sure they are a revolutionary vanguard, defending the status quo against the general public. That is a degree of madness that exists only in mental hospitals and revivals. It is why there is no reasoning with a Progressive. They have descended into madness.

It also means changing the current trajectory of the nation is not happening at the ballot box. As Steve Sailer noted today, the people in charge have gone insane. The orgy of anti-Americanism, particularity the hatred for whites, is a group psychosis. Fixing this is not going to happen with elections. It changes when the ruling class changes and that probably means the swankier parts of Cloud Country will experience car bombs, IED’s and assassinations. One Arthur Bremmer is worth an election full of ballots.

Pot Heads

Posted on by

One of the stranger developments in the last twenty years has been the slow semi-legalization of marijuana. Some states have gone down the “medical marijuana” road while others have legalized it. Federal law has not changed, with regards to marijuana, but the enforcement has changed. In theory this should result in an irreconcilable conflict, but so far, the Feds have cooperated with the states to avoid problems. Jeff Sessions has indicated that is about to change, but a year in and there has been no change.

One interesting side effect of legalization is there are now for-profit businesses catering to potheads. That means there is a lobbying group representing their interests in state capitals and in Washington. The Sessions move to re-impose Federal law on states that have legalized weed, may mean Congress moves to fix the law. Regardless of how you feel about legalizing drugs, these sorts of conflicts are intolerable. The most likely solution is to get the Feds out of the retail side of drugs and leave them to do interdiction.

A consequence of this process that no one has considered is the precedent. Usually, Federal law forces changes in state laws. That has been the way Progressives have undermined personal liberty and imposed all sorts of madness on the people. The most recent example is homosexual marriage. In this case, states have eroded the legitimacy of the Federal government and may force the Feds to follow the lead of states. The Left is trying something similar with immigration. It is a defense in depth strategy.

There has been enough time to evaluate the claims from libertarians about crime and drug prohibition. Initially, Colorado experienced a slight drop in crime, but then they experienced a sharp uptick in crime. As is always the case, the potheads will say the rise in crime is unrelated, but the prohibitionists will counter with the same point about the initial drop in crime. The reality is drug prohibition was never a factor in street crime. A drug taker is not going to alter his behavior, just because he can buy his drugs from a legal retailer.

Similarly, the administrative costs of prohibition will never change, even with legalization, for the simple reason government never shrinks. We could wipe all of the laws off the books tomorrow, meaning nothing is illegal, and we would still have the same number of cops, judges, lawyers, a prison guards. It is one of the many things libertarians do not understand about society. Government does not grow because it is attempting to meet a need. Government grows because it can. Government never needs a reason.

The movement to legalize marijuana is providing a real world test of claims about habitual use of cannabis. We now have lots of people consuming THC through a range of methods. Smoking anything will have deleterious effects on cardiovascular health, but what about eating THC-lace gummy bears? Of course, legalization means a much wider range of users too. While getting weed has not been difficult for a long time, it still meant dealing with criminals and some people fear that more than effects of drug taking.

This large genetic study links habitual marijuana use with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. A study in New Zealand a few years ago showed that people who started smoking marijuana heavily in their teens and had an ongoing marijuana use disorder lost an average of 8 IQ points between ages 13 and 38. The National Institutes of Health are doing a major longitudinal study, tracking a large sample of young Americans from late childhood to early adulthood to track the effects of long term marijuana use.

We could very well discover that drug legalization is a disaster for public health. People have instinctively believed that taking mind altering drugs is bad for a person in the long run. There is a reason that every culture has had rules about things like alcohol. People may not have understood the biology of these substances, but they assumed that anything that alters perception should be used in moderation. As we know with alcohol, legalization means moderation is impossible to enforce. We have a lot of drunks.

We also have a lot of ways of dealing with drunks. Where the written law ends, the unwritten laws begin. American society has lots of unwritten rules for mitigating the effects of legal alcohol. Those unwritten rules have not yet materialized with regards to legalized weed. Can an employer refuse to hire someone who is a casual user of cannabis? Can we develop a test to know if someone is too impaired to operate a motor vehicle? If marijuana legalization is going to go forward, the culture will change in response.

Another wrinkle is that no society has ever had to confront the immediate, widespread distribution of mind altering drugs. Imagine lots of smart chemists getting into the synthetic drug business and Amazon taking over the logistics from the ghetto rats. That has been the result in Colorado, where clever marketers and creative inventors have produced a wide range of THC delivery vehicles. Imagine what happens when Big Pharma gets into the business. We could quickly be swamped with drugs and drug takers.

None of this argues for or against legalization. At present time, there is no right answer on that question. It is a question of trade-offs. Societies normally have work through these by trial and error. It is what federalism is supposed to do in America. Fifty states can sort through the issues, learning from one another until arriving at a regime that works for their particular situation. Right now, the public strongly favors legalization, so that’s the way to bet. For Washington, this is an easy one. It means doing less to get more votes.

Class War As Race War

Posted on by

There is an interesting post up this week over at the American Renaissance¹ website, that I have been puzzling over a bit. What struck me initially about it is the opening line, “Why we must unite across class lines.” That’s not a phrase you hear much these days from politicians, activists or certainly polemicists. In fact, class does not get much of a discussion at all in polite circles. The closest we get to a class debate is snide remarks from cosmopolitans about the people shopping at Walmart.

On the Right, discussion of class has long been forbidden. This was mostly due to the fact that conventional conservatism in America is really just right-wing Progressivism. The official Right and Left agree on the big philosophical items. Their quarrels are mostly about tactics and rhetoric. In the latter, the so-called Right carried the day, so discussion of social class is mostly forbidden. We are an egalitarian society where your status is determined by how well you serve the state.

The author of the AmRen piece then goes on to explore the gap between official rhetoric on racial diversity and objective reality. Our ruling elites systematically arrange their lives so they have the least amount of diversity as possible. Whole sections of cities have been ethnically cleansed so young white hipsters can have cool places to live. Meanwhile, urban blacks, with the miracle of Section 8, are dumped into lower class white suburbs, where they set about recreating their normal chaos in otherwise stable white areas.

This compulsory diversity is not just destroying the white working class, it is hollowing out the white middle-class. Urban female hipsters are free to sing the glories of miscegenation, while they send their super white kids to the private day school, and socialize with people who look like them, think like them and live like them. As we hate-thinkers would put it, we are seeing the systematic Brazil-ification of America, where the white urban elite is turning Middle-American is to caramel colored favelas.

This is familiar ground to readers here, but it is the proposed solution that does not get much attention.

So does our hope lie with the proles? The big difference between Orwell’s 1984 and 2018 is that Orwell’s elites did not bother to indoctrinate the masses, on the ground that the proles’ fidelity to Big Brother was considered irrelevant. By contrast, in our diversity dystopia the masses are at the core of the Left’s indoctrination project. Our “proles” are the ones forced to suffer a bad education in integrated schools. They are the ones subjected to violence, harassment, and intimidation. And they are the ones told, again and again, that any resistance to this makes them betrayers of who we are as Americans, deplorable traitors in need of ever-more reformation.

Leadership may not come from the proles, but good sense and votes will. Those who bear the burdens of diversity see its damage most clearly. It is no accident that Donald Trump swept the white working-class vote.

Whatever our own particular economic station, we all have a role to play in restoring working- and middle-class white America. We should be hiring our own people, tutoring our own people, supporting scholarships for our own people, and doing our best to build schools and cultural institutions that can be healthy environments for our own people.

Growing up in the underclass, my exposure to bourgeois sensibilities about class came mostly through the movies. Movies and TV shows featuring the white working class as protagonists, only did so as a canvas onto which the writers could paint pictures of the multicultural paradise. White union men learned they had to accept blacks into the union in order to succeed. Archie Bunker had to see George Jefferson as just a dark skinned version of himself, in order to rise above the limitations of his class.

The Left’s class warfare was always a hoax played on the white working and middle classes. The offer was better economic conditions, as long as blacks were allowed to have some too. It was always a bait and switch. Whites got high divorce rates, their daughters dating black guys, rocket high inequality and the looming threat of minority status. By any measure, the Left’s agenda for the white working classes has been a disaster. It’s why the great white die off is the shadow hanging over all of us.

We are  seeing a replay of this now with immigration. “Fellow white people! You’re gonna get lots of cool restaurants and cultural diversity, and a police state, well mostly a police state. Open Borders!” All the promises of open borders and globalism are a deliberate lie, using appeals to morality to overcome practical objections and economic arguments to overcome cultural objections. Just as accepting racial integration in exchange for economic prosperity was a disaster for whites, open borders will be too. That’s the goal.

Our side embracing the rhetoric of 1960’s Progressive class warfare seems a bit strange, but it is one entry point for introducing racial consciousness to the discussion. Every time someone sees a politician address the concerns of the white working class, the audience hears it is OK to be white. Whenever white people, even hipster college professors living in urban oases, engage in talk about the white working class or the white opioid epidemic, being white gets re-legitimized and re-normalized in the greater culture.

The second line of that AmRen post is a line from Orwell, “If there is hope,” wrote Winston, “it lies in the proles.” Orwell wrote in a time when it was assumed that Africa was for Africans, Asia for Asians and the West was for white people. The olden thymes were an argument between whites about how whites would deal with one another. Our age will be an argument between whites about how we defend ourselves, our lands and our posterity from the rest of the world. That starts with defending the white working class.

¹I will be attending the American Renaissance conference this spring. if you are interested in attending, sign up is here.

The Marie Antoinettes

Posted on by

I was watching the sports ball games over the weekend and this ad for the US Marine Corps kept popping up during the broadcast. I do not watch a lot of television so I am late to the party on this. It appears the ad was cut last spring. My first reaction was, “Why would anyone send soccer moms into combat?” That is what it looks like in the video. The actress looks like she is an office clerk playing paintball at the company retreat. My second thought was, “Who do they think is watching this stuff?”

The answer to the last question is they simply do not know who is watching this stuff. They just imagine who they hope is watching it. The fact is the people who rule over us no longer know much about us. The Marines are not as bad as the other branches, but they too are staggering around in the thick fog of the estrogen laced miasma known as multiculturalism. That means they are slowly detaching from reality, confusing the much dreamed for future with present reality. They think G.I. Jane is real.

This confusion between what they wish for and what is present reality is all over the mass media. Most TV ads now have race mixing, despite the fact it remains relatively rare in American society. According to TV, the average American family is a black guy with a white wife and two Asian kids. Because Progressives are so fixated on whatever they currently imagine as Utopia, they inevitably begin to confuse their dreamed for world with the real world. You can see that in this Washington Post infographic story.

The short setup tells you right away that the people who put this together are not living in the same America as the rest of us. “We asked people to contemplate what it means to be American in this time of upheaval and rapid change” is not a statement about present reality. The last eight years were a period of turmoil and upheaval. What is going on now is a return to something close to normalcy, but to the cult of rage heads determined to smash up American society, order and normalcy is what they imagine to be Hell.

Notice how they say that 102 randomly selected people speak for the rest of us. That is because they look at people as talking meat sticks. For all their talk of diversity, they think there is no difference between a Yankee plumber and Arab goatherd. We are all just talking monkeys to them. Worse yet, they are so arrogant that they think they can round up a hundred or so opinions and figure out what the rest of us are thinking from that random sample. These people look at us as zoo animals and they are our keepers.

The real tell is the complexion of the images in the graphic. They think the great brown future is already here. I went through the pictures and did a rough, back of the envelope census. The break down: 42% white, 8% Jewish, 21% black, 6% Asian, 11% Hispanic and 12% other, which is Muslims, Indians and Amerinds. What this reveals is just how much the typical Washington Post employee hates white people. They can barely stand to look at us, much less ask our opinion. Of course, they really hate white men.

Also note the obsession with people being united. This is the hallmark of the religious fanatic. The fanatic sees any deviation from the permissible as an assault on the order they imagine as perfection. The popular conception of fascists is they were people who violently oppose coloring outside the lines. It is once again an example of how the Left conjures demons that reflect its true soul. For Lefty, the dream is a world where everyone thinks and acts exactly as there are required, to serve the Great Hive.

What this post story and the tidal wave of idiotic media ads reveals, though, is what the people in charge currently imagine as the glorious future. The utopian minded are sure that the promised land is just over the next hill. In the case of the lunatics ruling over us, they believe the future is a land full of mulattoes, who have internalized the lessons of the one true faith to the point where they no longer possess an individual self. America is just one big petting zoo designed so corpulent cosmopolitans can have a variety of restaurants.

The old paleocons like Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, were heavily influenced by James Burnham. They looked at American elites as an emerging managerial class. They were mostly right about the contours of the new ruling class, but the one thing they could not get right is the sharp disconnect between the current ruling elite and the public. The managerial state cannot withstand contact with reality, so it seeks to insulate itself from it. Walk onto a college campus or government compound and you are no longer in America.

That is because the people who rule over us are no longer Americans. You see that in the reactions to Trump and the new populism. The elites of both parties are so sure Trump is backed by foreigners, because the things Trump says and does are completely alien to the elites of both parties. Paul Ryan and Nancy Pelosi would be more comfortable around Trump is he was a talking lizard man. A space alien would make more sense to them than a white person expecting his government to look out for his interests.

Circling back to those ads we see on mass media and stories like the one I linked, it is not as much about proselytizing with these people as it is about make believe. The all white ad companies making these ads are not promoting miscegenation. They imagine that as the future and they want so deeply to believe that the masses want that future, they are incapable of portraying reality. With few exceptions, we are ruled over by a class of people with the same grasp of reality as Marie Antoinette.

The Answer Is Always More

Posted on by

One of the more entertaining bits of black humor on Steve Sailer’s blog are the stories he posts about how every problem can be solved with more immigration. No matter the problem, someone will have a reason why the solution to it is more immigration. It’s as if our elites have a bizarre form of Tourette’s, where any stimulation causes them to blurt out lines from Emma Lazarus. When the lunacy of their claims is pointed out, the response is usually just a blank stare, suggesting their enthusiasm for open borders is involuntary.

The reason for this is the people championing open borders are not working from a set of facts, or arguments from those facts. Sure, the indentured servant lobbies are thinking in economic terms. The refugee lobbies want the money spigot to remain open, but these are relatively small influences on public debate. The vast majority of people championing open borders have no monetary incentives. They are doing it because they view the issue in purely moral terms. They are pro-immigrant in the same way normal people are pro-life.

Among the cognitive elites, there is a strong social incentive for embracing ever more extreme positions on the popular fads of the moment. It’s how we went so quickly from tolerating homosexuals to embracing mentally disturbed men in sundresses. Similarly, it is how miscegenation went from casual outlier to the only acceptable form of mating. When it comes to immigration, the furthest possible extreme is open borders, so the game is to come up with ever more creative ways of justifying it.

When looking at it in moral terms, it helps explain why both types of Progressive have gone berserk on the issue of immigration. Fundamentally, the so-called Left and the so-called Right share the same moral framework. Both sides of Progressivism embrace an intolerant, smothering set of universal principles rooted in the blank slate. All people everywhere are the same and interchangeable. As Senator Lindsey Graham would put it, people don’t exist as flesh and blood beings, but rather as ideals.

Anyway, it is good to keep that in mind when seeing so-called conservatives make their pitch for open borders. This piece in the hilariously misnamed American Conservative is a a rather bizarre attempt to justify redefining temporary to mean permanent.

That’s why this recent decision will be particularly advantageous for MS-13. Realistically, the federal government will be unable to enforce this immigration policy. Likewise, the vast majority of the 200,000 Salvadorans are unlikely to voluntarily leave. Instead, they’ll live in the shadows as prey for MS-13.

Trump has masterfully used MS-13 as a straw man in the immigration debate. The constant references to this glorified street gang leave the impression that most illegal immigrants are violent felons. It is a particularly artful tactic, given that 80 percent of voters believe that illegal immigrants convicted of a felony should be deported.

However, the vast majority of the 200,000 Salvadorans aren’t violent criminals. Although Hurricane Mitch is listed as their official reason for refugee status, the reality is that a high percentage of these people fled to the U.S. to escape violence in El Salvador.

Those who do return will be much more vulnerable back in El Salvador where MS-13 and their rival, Barrio 18, control large swaths of the country. In turn, assets these immigrants acquired while working in the U.S. will eventually be appropriated by these gangs.

There is a common misconception that a “weak immigration policy” led to the rise of MS-13. In fact, it was the aggressive deportation policy of the Clinton administration that transformed MS-13 into a transnational criminal organization.

You see how this works?

Enforcing the law creates more criminals. This sort of sophistry that has become common, because there is no rational argument in favor of open borders. As Americans have become familiar with the facts, the open borders people are left with mendacity as their only option. Coming up with the most extreme justifications inevitably leads to defending the indefensible, not on merit, but as a form of virtue signalling. Demanding easy access to Americans by bloodthirsty criminal gangs is extreme in the extreme.

This quest for the most virtuous position on the immigration topic answers the question posed in this post by Sailer. If all people are the same, that we’re just interchangeable meat sticks, there can be no moral justification for inequality and diversity. Our elites see diversity as the result of some evil force. Nothing can be too extreme when combating evil. More important, one cannot be seen by his coevals as beyond the pale when he is engaged in combating evil. The crazier the better when it comes fanatics.

It’s also why appeals to reason never work with these people. We are ruled over by fanatics, convinced that anything worth doing is worth overdoing. They are like addicts seeking a high more intense than the one before it. You don’t talk an addict out of his blind quest for the ultimate high. He has to find that limit on his own. That usually means dying in a pool of his own vomit. That’s most likely the fate of our rulers. They will realize they have gone too far just as the trap door snaps open and they begin the drop.

Remembering Futures Past

Posted on by

A few times a year, I re-read some classic science fiction, just for some variety, but also to see if it still works. One of the funny things about our age is the past is increasingly more alien to us than any imagined future. Reading stories, written in the 1950’s, that depicted life in the far off future, you get some insights into the society that laid the groundwork for our age. Often times, though, it reveals the foolishness and, in retrospect, absurd optimism, about the future and technology common in the last century.

The old science fiction guys got some things right about the future. Jules Verne, who is the father of science fiction, had amazing insights into the future of technology. You can read Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea today and it still holds up pretty well. On the other hand, a lot of science fiction turned out to be wildly wrong about the future, even by the standards of fiction. I recently re-read The Martian Chronicles and it is laugh out loud terrible in parts. It is corn-ball pulp fiction now.

Of course, people were much more optimistic about the future in the heyday of science fiction writing. If you would have told Ray Bradbury in the 1950’s that man would not be on Mars by 2018, he would have thought you were a ridiculous pessimist. Of course, man would be exploring the solar system in the 21st century. We would have conquered human suffering, united as one and be riding around in nuclear powered flying cars. Instead, the future is trans-gendered otherkins stalking your daughters in public toilets.

We cannot blame the people of the last century for not seeing this stuff coming. We are living it and it still seems impossibly insane. For Americans in the 1950’s, optimism about the future was natural. America had conquered the world, saving Western Civilization from itself. Technological progress was making life comfortable, even for the poorest. There was no reason to think we were heading for a bad turn. It is a good lesson that no matter how bad things are now, they can get worse. The future is not written.

Reading The Martian Chronicles, I was reminded of something that turns up in old black and white movies. That is the acceptance of casual violence. In the 1950’s, fictional characters would say things like, “You better give it to me straight or I’ll bash your teeth in” to some other character playing a store clerk. In one of the Bradbury stories, a man from earth arrives on Mars and starts talking with the Martians. The conversations are peppered with threats of personal violence, but in a casual, haphazard manner.

Imagine going into the local retail store and seeing one of the customers telling the clerk that he was going to bash in his skull if he did not hop to it. I doubt fist fights were a regular feature down at the piggly-wiggly, but the threat of personal violence was a common occurrence in movies and fiction. It is reasonable to think that the people in the audiences for this stuff found it perfectly normal that men talked to one another in this way, which suggests it was how people talked in their normal lives.

Similarly, most of the characters in Bradbury’s future smoked. In one story, the first thing the earth men do when they land on Mars is have a smoke. Maybe Bradbury was a smoker, but his best writing is when describing the joys of smoking on Mars. I guess it makes sense to think that the future will have better versions of the stuff you really enjoy today. Imagine going back in time and telling sci-fi writers that in the future, men would not only not be on Mars, but smoking would be a crime. They would think you were crazy.

The other thing about old sci-fi, and it jumps out in The Martian Chronicles, is the fascination people had back then with rockets and nuclear technology. It makes perfect sense. Both seemed impossibly amazing to the people of the time. The fascination with nuclear energy is amusing in hindsight. Science fiction writers 70 years ago thought it was perfectly logical that tiny nuclear reactors would replace all of our energy sources. Still, nuclear powered garments to keep you warm at night is laughably silly in hindsight.

Putting that aside, it is amusing to look back at these conceptions of the future. Many were wildly wrong, because they wanted to be wildly wrong. It is fiction, after all. It is easy to forget that writers in the first half of the last century were expecting their stuff to be read by men with high school level educations. Granted, a 1950’s high school education was much more than what we see today, but the audience was not a collection of literary sophisticates. The job of the writer was to entertain, not lecture, the reader.

Still, reading old science fiction has a utility to our age, which goes beyond mere amusement. The people of that era, producing this stuff, were optimistic about the future. They were committed to building a better world. Granted, it all went to shit in the 60’s and we have yet to pull out of the death spiral, but they did not know what they could not know. Our generations do not have that excuse. We have the hard lessons of failed social experimentation. We have no excuse for tolerating this stuff. We know better.

An Immoderate Age

Posted on by

Last week, this ridiculous article in the New York Times generated some attention on alt-right social media, mostly because it allowed for some petty bickering. Anytime the media does a story on alt-right people, the guys not mentioned take the opportunity to say bad things about the guys that were mentioned in the story. John Derbyshire said everything that needed to be said about the Times piece in this post at VDare. In it, he referenced his old column on the topic and the corresponding version from Jared Taylor.

Taken together, it is good example of how the hive mind is unable to address reality on its own terms. Mx. Audrea Lim, of the New York Times piece, cannot consider the possibility that there could be more than two opinions on a subject. For her and the others in the Progressive hive, there are good people, the people inside the walls, and bad people, those outside the walls. The good people hold the correct opinions, while the bad people have other opinions, which are all bad. That is as much of the world she needs to know.

As you see with Derb and Taylor, there is a wide range of opinion on the Dissident Right about subjects like race, identity, immigration, race-mixing and diversity. Even the alt-right has a diversity of opinion on these subjects. Calling any of these people “white supremacists” is about the dumbest thing possible, but it is just one of the many scare phrases Lefty has for those outside the walls. Not only are there few, if any, white supremacists on the Dissident Right, there are more than a few non-whites.

The fact is, the Dissident Right, in all its permutations, exists because our Progressive overlords lack the capacity to understand nuance. Take miscegenation, for example. It is a fact of life that some small number of females, of any race, will have a mating preference for males outside their race. Males are far less choosy, as their biology favors the shotgun approach to reproduction, while the female favors the rifle approach. This reality is just salt in the stew of life and if left alone nothing anyone need worry over.

For people in the hive, this is an impossibility. You either completely and totally embrace something, or you completely and entirely reject it. It is why they squeal about homophobia if you are not enthusiastic about the latest perversions. The Progressive mind cannot accept the possibility of being indifferent to something. It is why our television shows and movies are now packed to the gills with race mixing. Even though our rulers live like Klan members, there is no limit to the amount of race mixing they will pack into the culture.

The hive minded also struggle with abstract reasoning. Richard Spencer likes using the concept of an ethnostate to explain his opinions on race and identity. It is a useful way of getting people to break free from the concrete world of the here and now to imagine an alternative ordering. Spencer is not advocating for a new country to be carved out of Canada as a new white homeland. It is a mental model meant to illustrate certain points about race and identity. The hive minded, however, assume he wants a honky homeland.

Diversity is the salt in the stew. Some races like more than others, but no people wish to be overrun by people not like them. The Chinese have always been careful to limit the number of non-Chinese into their lands and limit where they can go in China. Africans tend to murder anyone not in their tribe. Europeans, in contrast, are fine with cosmopolitan cities, where you see lots of diversity, as long as the home team remains in charge and atop the social structure. Like seasoning, diversity works in moderation.

That is the core problem in the modern age. Our rulers lack anything resembling moderation. If a little immigration is good, then they want unlimited immigration. If a few temporary guest workers are good, they want the entire white workforce replaced by helot labor from over the horizon. The vulgarity of having Americans train their foreign replacements at places like Disney is driven by a near total lack of moderation. If one Hindu is good, a whole building full of them will be heaven on earth!

We live in an immoderate age. We saw that in the past election and we are seeing it now in the efforts to craft immigration reform legislation. No one would oppose a small, limited amnesty for some illegal invaders, who have been here for a long time. As long as it comes with tough measures to limit further invasions and protections against future backsliding on the issue. Trump’s wall creates a permanent lobby in Washington in favor of border protection. Programs like e-Verify alter the hiring culture to prevent labor abuse.

The package of proposals from the White House is reasonable and sensible. It is a practical response to a public policy problem. If the compromise includes legalizing a few hundred thousand invaders, a civilized people can accept it. But the people in charge are incapable of moderation, which is why they blew up the talks and are demanding a blanket amnesty with no conditions. Again, the hive minded can only understand the world in binary terms. It is those inside the walls versus those outside the walls.

There is no reasoning with fanatics. As much as many on our side want to believe that practical issues are what is behind the multicultural madness, the fact is the people pushing it are not reasonable people. They are all or nothing people. That is why this cannot end well. The people in charge either succeed in pulling the roof down on the rest of us, or the rest of us are forced to do what is necessary to dislodge the lunatics that have seized the high ground of the culture. Moderation is not the answer to fanaticism.

This will not end well.

Life After The Afterlife

Posted on by

Is it possible for humans to have a transcendent moral code if they no longer believe in an afterlife? Some Christians today argue that it is impossible to have any sort of morality without belief in Christ, but that is largely a self-serving claim. God’s role in the affairs of man, in the Christian context, is primarily as the ruler of Heaven. Those, who live a moral life, a Christian life, will spend eternity in Heaven. The people who live wicked lives, will be condemned to an eternity out of the sight of God.

All of the word’s great religions have an afterlife. The Abrahamic faiths, of course, all share a similar conception of Heaven and Hell, with God ruling the former and Satan ruling the latter. Eastern religions have more esoteric approaches. Buddhists believe in a cycle of death and rebirth. Through eventual enlightenment, they hope to escape this and achieve Nirvana, an end to suffering. Hindus believe that through knowledge and wisdom, you can achieve a liberation of the soul in the afterlife.

The conception of an afterlife as a reward and an escape from human suffering is relatively new to humanity. The Greeks did not have an afterlife. A Greek lived his life so he would be remembered. Maybe his shade would end up in Hades, but that was not much of a reward. The morality of the Greeks assumed that punishment for angering the gods happened in this life. Sacrifices to the gods were all about getting good fortune now, not after death.

The Egyptians had an afterlife, but it was only for the elite. Given their habit of burying servants with the dead, the afterlife could also include the attendants. Like the great man’s other possessions buried with him, it was assumed he would need some slaves and servants once he entered the afterlife. It does not appear that this conception of an afterlife spawned a corresponding moral code. It was not a reward for a life lived well, but a reward for having been born to the right station in life.

It is largely believed that the people who gave mankind the concept of an afterlife, one open to everyone who lived righteously, were the Zoroastrians. They believed those who lived on the side of good spent the after life in the House of Song, which they also called the Abode of Light. The Zoroastrians taught that everyone, who followed a proper code, could live forever and that the soul mattered. Those who sided with evil in this life would be condemned to an eternity of darkness and torment.

The Zoroastrians gave us the concept of God and Satan. Ahura Mazda is the creator of the world and father of the two spirits, Spenta Mainyu and Angra Mainyu. The former is the “good” spirit, the latter, is the destructive and evil one. This conflict between good and evil is central to Zoroastrianism and provided the foundation of their moral philosophy. It is also the first known example of a religion basing a moral code on something beyond the here and now.

The Jews picked this up from their time in captivity. The Pentateuch has no reference to Satan, but the Book of Job, written much later, has Old Scratch. In Daniel, Heaven and Hell appear for the first time. Given the history of the Jewish people at this time, it is most likely that they borrowed these concepts from the Zoroastrians. The Satan that Jesus describes is pretty much the Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu. Christian morality is entirely built on the concept of the battle between good and evil.

This is why Nietzsche blamed the Zoroastrians for morality. He and most Europeans scholars of the age were familiar with Zoroastrianism and understood its influence on the Abrahamic religions. Thus Spake Zarathustra is his effort to turn Zoroastrian moral philosophy on its head. Rather than an eternity of good versus evil, he has a re-imagined Zarathustra discover his error and correct the mistake. Nietzsche is a tough read, but the implication is there can be no morality without God.

The question for our age is can we maintain a moral code when no one believes in God or an afterlife? This is clearly something our betters struggle with, even though they do not think of it in these terms. The New Religion that progressives are trying to impose upon us has no explicit god or eternal reward for the faithful. Instead, they are forced to conjure mystical stand-ins like the “tides of history”. Even their appeals to science are really just appeals to an unnamed and mystical deity.

Right wing progressives suffer from the same dilemma. It is not an accident that you never hear conservative pundits make explicit appeals to Christian morals or even Jewish morality. Instead, they argue that Donald Trump is immoral because he vexes the shade of Ronald Reagan or Bill Buckley. They may not come out and call these guys deities, but they certainly treat them as prophets. Their gods are the people from the past who fit their current needs.

This is the root of our current cultural troubles. For example, on whose authority was racism made a mortal sin? If it is, then what? From whom do you ask forgiveness? If the racist and the anti-racist molder in the same ground together after death, what is the point of being a devout anti-racist? Perhaps that’s the real reason they are digging up Confederate soldiers. They lack an afterlife beyond the graveyard, so that will be their heaven and only the righteous will be buried.

Now, it does not follow that we are condemned to an age of coercion. The Greeks got along fine without worrying about the afterlife. They did have a set of gods, who had to be mollified. Otherwise, bad things would happen to man in this life. Given the shape of our nature cults and the fanaticism of our secular elites, it is clear that we have not evolved past the point of needing a transcendent morality. That suggests some new deity will replace the Christian god..

Alternatively, the recent efforts to fashion a civic religion will fail as it lacks the necessary moral authority to induce voluntary compliance. The Christianity that flowered in the Middle Ages may be on the ropes, but something new will surely spring from its ruins. Perhaps the flood of Islam into the West is part of that process. The soul abhors a vacuum. Maybe we are on the edge of a great religious experiment, like that which birthed Zoroastrianism.

Bright

Posted on by

The other day, I watched the movie Bright, staring Will Smith. It is a remake of Alien Nation, except with Orcs and Elves, rather than space aliens. The Elves are the Jews of this imaginary world, as they are smart and run everything. The humans are the whites, keeping society running, while the Orcs are the blacks, occupying the underclass and subjected to discrimination. As you would expect, the Orcs are the victims of human bigotry and they are kept out of jobs, for no reason other than their phenotype.

While it is primarily an action movie, the not so subtle subtext is that normal prejudice is a bad thing. Will Smith is the bigoted human cop, who is forced to work with an Orc partner. He finally learns to trust and treat Orcs as an equal. They do not over do it, but that is one of the subplots in the movie. The movie is three parts action flick, one part buddy-cop movie and one part sermon on the joys of diversity. There is also the requisite race-mixing, as they give Will Smith a white wife. The future is Orcs, Elves and Mulattoes!

Again, it is mostly a really good action movie with some novel twists and turns that make it fun, despite the moralizing. I must admit, I winced when the humans were mean to the Orcs and I was happy when Smith overcame his Orcism. The people making movies get that white audiences want to feel bad at racism and feel good at inclusiveness. They know what sells and they are good at pushing the right buttons. Our rulers have been preaching civic nationalism for generations and it has infected all of us to some degree.

That is probably one reason why audiences really liked the movie, while critics mostly thought it was stupid. It is not unusual for the opposite to be true, where critics love a movie, but audiences hate it. The movie review business is riddled with payola and pompous poseurs. Usually though, the critics will be right about a bad movie. I suspect the happy talk on overcoming prejudice works particularly well on whites, who are sick and tired of the endless griping about race. That and Will Smith is the model black guy.

The interesting thing about this movie, though, is they do not present the multicultural future as a paradise of diversity. Instead, it is more like Brazil where the underclass is huge and the middle class is small and fragile. In this context, the Elves live in beautiful, gated communities, away from everyone else. The humans and Orcs are mixed up in the squalor, with the humans having a marginally better existence. It is a future where diversity is tolerated out of necessity, but everyone dreams of their own ethnostate.

The other strangely realistic aspect is the gross inequality. The Elves live like royalty, as they are at the top of the social order. They are clean, white, and orderly. Everyone else is dirty, dark and disorderly. The implication is that the Elves pit Orcs and humans against one another, in order to exploit them. The result is the world extreme diversity is a world of poverty, for all but the elite. Imagine if the whole country was like New York City, where the elite live in penthouses and everyone else in tiny apartments.

That is the reality of multiculturalism. The hidden cost of maintaining order inevitably bankrupts the middle-class. The people at the top are always getting their beak wet first and they will do what they must to protect themselves and their position. That means the cost of maintaining order falls on the middle, which quickly disappears. University towns exist in idyllic diversity, because billions are hoovered out of the surrounding economies to support the paradise. The university town scales up to be Brazil.

The movie does not spend much time contemplating the Elf class. All we learn is they live apart, but control society, with the help of human assistants. They do give us a surprisingly frank portrayal of the Orcs. They are physically superior to humans and they have an affinity for hip-hop culture, but most are too dumb to do anything other than menial jobs. The Orcs are so obviously a deliberate analog to modern blacks that I am shocked they get away with it. I guess having Will Smith as the star is the antidote.

The strange thing about Hollywood is the future they imagine is usually rather unimaginative. It is either a hellish apocalyptic world, where order has broken down, or it is a soulless nirvana of glass and stainless steel. While the later may lack the grit and chaos of the former, it always has some malevolent force at its core. I cannot think of an example of a movie where Hollywood creates a future that is nicer than the present. The stuff might be nicer, but the people are always less happy. Hollywood is not a town of optimists.

I am as intolerant as any normal man when it comes to Hollywood proselytizing, but I had no trouble looking past it and enjoying the movie. The basic concept is clever by the standards of modern movie making and it will surely turn into a franchise, given how well it has done with audiences. I do not have Netflix, but it is available on Kodi. I am using Genesis Reborn, which is a great implementation. If you are looking for a cheap couple hours of video entertainment, Bright is a good action movie.

A Pointless Ramble About YouTube Stars

Posted on by

Every week, I get e-mails from the social media platforms suggesting ways to promote my podcast. Spreaker sends out something a few times a week. Mostly these e-mails are tips about metadata, topic descriptions and video features. They seem sensible, but I cannot help but wonder if it matters all that much. A professionally done, cleverly described and expertly distributed video on model train collecting is still going to be a video of interest to people into model trains. Ultimately, content is the determining factor in this stuff.

That said, it is useful to wonder why some YouTube people have huge audiences and why others have small audiences. Until recent, PewDiePie was unknown to me, despite his having fifty-nine million subscribers. He is the #1 YouTube personality. Having watched some of his videos, I sort of get it. Young people are wired to imitate one another, which is why pop culture is a young person thing. PewDiePie plays video games and tells naughty jokes that very gently and subtly lampoon modern piety. Kids like seeing that stuff.

On the other hand, someone like June Nicole Lapine has close to a million YouTube subscribers. She pitches herself as a liberal anti-feminist and her videos are intended to be satires of social justice warriors. Not being an unmarried millennial woman, I am probably hard wired to not get her appeal. I watched some of her videos and she is annoying and her act is trite. The earnestly stupid female who really, really cares about stuff has been done to death. At least I thought so, but apparently not.

While reviewing the above videos, this channel was suggested to me by the gods of YouTube. The assumption is they recommend channels based on prior viewing, which means some portion of June Nicole Lapine’s audience is into husky lesbians. The star of that show appears to be a carny, who bills herself as a lesbian comedian. She has half a million subscribers and seventy thousand Twitter followers. After watching some of her videos, I am reminded of why the phrase “jolly lesbian” does not exist.

Now, half a million subscribers is not big by YouTube standards. To crack the top-100 you need twenty times that number, but most of the top channels are professionally produced music channels, backed by global corporations. Given that there are (maybe) four million adult lesbians in America, it suggests that Arielle Scarcella has figured out how to tap into this audience, so to speak, that is not easily understood by watching her videos. The people watching and enjoying her work, are vastly different people from anyone I know.

It is easy to be puzzled by the popularity of alien performers, but in researching this post, I did learn that Filipinos share the American distaste for the Speedo. That aside, I was made aware of a popular alt-right YouTuber named Andy Warski. His channel has over 250 thousand subscribers. He hosted a marathon debate between Richard Spencer, Sargon, Styx and some others, which is how I learned of him. His live show set some sort of record for viewers, but I do not have numbers on it. He mentioned it in his show.

Now, I follow the alt-right and listen to some of their bigger personalities. I never heard of the Warski guy until last week. Watching some of his videos, I am thinking he smokes a lot of weed and has a drawer full of hacky sacks. I am not getting the popularity, but maybe I am simply too old to appreciate bro talk anymore. There was a time in my life when my peers used the words “dude” and “whatup”, but that was a long time ago. As with PewDiePie, young bros probably like listening to other young bros talk bro stuff.

I watched some of the Spencer – Sargon battle on that Warsky show and I kept wondering how Sargon got popular. In fact, it was the genesis of this post. Every time he said something stupid, which was pretty much every time he spoke, I thought, “why would anyone like this guy?” He is just a portly British version of Goth Fonzi. Yet, he has 750 thousand subscribers to his channel, most of whom are probably Americans. According to his Patreon page, he makes $8,000 per month as a YouTube star.

Like many of these popular YouTube stars, Sargon’s gimmick is assurance. He soothingly repeats the platitudes his listeners desperately want to be true. Americans always assume a British accent means intelligence, so Sargon’s fans are being told they are right about the world, by a smart British guy, who sounds confident and reasonable. It is why his clash with Spencer was a disaster for him. He was revealed to be a petulant, argumentative airhead. His act only works when he is unchallenged and scripted.

It is a good reminder, though, that the audience for libertarian self-flattery is much larger than realism. People like easy answers and magical thinking. It is why the number one right-wing Progressive is Ben Shapiro. His podcast is number one in terms of downloads, according to those claiming to know these things. I am always suspicious when rankings are used in lieu of hard numbers, but a search of YouTube reveals his Daily Wire stuff gets about 250 thousand views. His channel has half a million subscribers.

All of that said, the people popular in their YouTube segment all have a couple things in common. One is their presentation is calm. Internet video is like television. It is a cool medium. Shouting and craziness on video, come off like shouting and craziness in person. You can be a crazy Mark Levin, screaming like a madman on radio, because radio is a hot medium. The better YouTube people could just as easily be doing their show from your bedroom. Most shoot their shows from their bedrooms and living rooms.

The other thing they do well is they make no effort to imitate the legacy media. YouTube is not public access TV or a poor version of cable. The authenticity of the presentation seems to be what works. People like hearing people like them confirm what they think about the world. Watching a polished TV airhead repeat threadbare platitudes, even soothing ones, is not as effective as hearing a friendly voice, which sounds like you, saying the things you think in private. YouTube is a collection of mirrors that clap.