Monthly Archives: June 2018

Noah Future

Posted on by

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

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

[snip]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Various Stuff

Posted on by

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

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

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

This Week’s Show

Contents

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

The Poz

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Venezuela’s Future — and Ours

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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


source: tradingeconomics.com

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

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

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

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

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

The Nature of Diversity

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Defending Our Own

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Dissident Right

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

This Week’s Show

Contents

  • 00:00: Opening
  • 02:00: The Prevailing Orthodoxy
  • 12:00: The Dissident From The Orthodoxy
  • 22:00: Race and Ethnicity
  • 32:00: Sex and Gender
  • 42:00: View From The Right
  • 52:00: Our Mt. Rushmore
  • 57:00: Closing

Direct Download

The iTunes Page

Google Play Link

iHeart Radio

Full Show On Spreaker

Full Show On YouTube

The Immorality Of Immigration

Posted on by

Every ruling elite has certain primary duties. These are obligations that come before anything else. Regardless of the form of government, the rulers  have to maintain things like public order. Being the tribal chief is useless if your people are in chaos. For that matter, having a tribal chief is useless if it means living in chaos. Therefore, one of the primary duties of all rulers in all times and all places is to maintain public order by enforcing laws and local customs.

There are other primary duties of the ruler, like organizing the common defense, that are universal to all forms of government. Then there are primary duties that are peculiar to a people or to a form of government. If the ruler is understood to be a god, then the ruler and his retainers have to maintain that myth.  In modern western countries, protecting property rights and enforcing contracts is counted as a primary duty of the state in order to maintain its legitimacy

One of the more destructive things to happen to America over the last half century is the sacralizing of immigration by the elites. The endless repetition of the nonsense phrase “nation of immigrants” has turned a temporary expedient a century ago into an essential element of the nation’s founding mythology. The fact that immigration is a violation of the state’s primary duty to the people is excused because the immigrant now has a superior place in the moral order.

In a country like America, one that allegedly is built on consensual government, citizenship has great value. In fact, the most valuable thing to a citizen of a representative democracy is his citizenship. The reason for this is that citizenship is an ownership stake in the country. In theory, the American government was voluntarily founded as an agreement among individuals, invested with the power to secure mutual protection and regulate the relations among its members.

If you had the option of selling your citizenship, let us say at some sort of auction, there would be no shortage of bidders. For example, there is no shortage of buyers for the EB-5 visa, which costs $500,000. That is right, you can buy citizenship from the US government. Your citizenship is something of value and therefore, the state has a duty to protect it, just as they have a duty to protect your property rights. This is a primary duty of government.

When the American government hands out citizenship to millions of foreigners every year, it is stealing the value of your citizenship and giving it to someone else. This is no different than a company diluting the value of its shares by selling additional shares. It is why open borders fanatics swear that immigration makes us all richer, despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. They know it is essential that people believe this as even the sacred immigrant is not enough to justify theft.

The argument from open borders people is that immigration is not just holy and beneficial. It is perfectly legitimate. The trouble is, when 50% plus one vote to rob the 50% minus one, it is still theft, even if it comes after an election. This is why America is not a democracy and it is also why democracy was famously called two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. The very nature of democracy makes it an immoral form of rule because of the theft problem.

Additionally, a primary duty of the modern state is the maintenance of equality before the law. In fact, this is what makes the law legitimate. Not only do all citizens have a say in what laws are passed, but those laws apply to all citizens equally. The very nature of immigration violates this principle. Immigration steals from some citizens for the benefit of foreigners and the connected. This is true for quasi-immigration schemes like guest workers, as well as for permanent settlement.

If the primary duty of the state is to safeguard the citizens, including the value of their citizenship and maintain equality before the law, then immigration by its very nature is a direct violation of the social compact. It makes a mockery of the very idea of consensual government and sows distrust among the people. It is why all mass immigration quickly leads to a breakdown of order, because it erodes the legitimacy of the ruling authority, as the people see they are no longer willing to fulfill their basic duties.

That does not preclude all immigration. It is just that the bar is extremely high. In order to justify that which is naturally and always immoral, the offset must exceed the cost of the deed. Since this is impossible in the modern age, the open borders people have been forced to turn morality on its head, claiming the first duty of the state is to foreigners at the expense of its own citizens. It has turned America into a bust out where the value of your citizenship is stolen.

The White Not

Posted on by

When one people conquer another people, there are a number of ways they can cement their dominance. One is for the ruler of the winning side to make himself the ruler of the losers, maybe marrying a high-ranking female of the losers. If the ethnic differences between the winners and losers are small enough, this can work out well. In this case, it is not really one people defeating another, so much as one set of rulers besting their relations, who happen to be rulers of another wing of the family. It is a family squabble.

Of course, the other end of the spectrum is when a different people defeat another people. The most likely outcome is some form of genocide. The winners kill off the males or maybe sell them into bondage, while distributing the women as wives to their men. The alternative to this is to simply kill off the losers. Genocide is a lot easier when the vanquished are alien to the victors. Most likely, the point of the conflict was to take the land the losers had been occupying, so killing them off makes perfect sense.

A third way of cementing your dominance over a conquered people is to erase their language and culture. Instead of killing off the men or committing full scale genocide, you take away their religion, ban their customs and force them to use your language for any official business. The first generation is going to resist, but the second generation is going to see the opportunity and adopt the new ways. The benefit of this approach is it turns some portion of the vanquished into an asset that works to support the victors.

The British tried a form of this with the Welsh in the 19th century. For centuries, the Welsh had been a thorn in the side of the English. Despite their numerical advantage, the English were never able to drive them off. King Offa of Mercia built a giant earth works to wall off the Welsh from the English in the 8th century. That was not because the Welsh were a trouble-free population. In the 15th century, Owain Glyndŵr led his people in revolt against the English. For Shakespeare fans, he is Owen Glendower in the play Henry IV.

The English solution in the 19th century was something called the Welsh Not. The British used it in Welsh schools to discourage the use of the Welsh language. A kid caught speaking his native tongue was given the “Not” which was usually a piece of wood on a string he hung around his neck. If he heard another boy speaking Welsh, he could rat him out and the “Not” would pass to him. At the end of the day, the boy with the “Not” got a beating. Alternatively, children were caned whenever they were caught speaking Welsh.

Something similar is happening in English speaking countries today, except the people in charge are attempting to rub out the native culture by un-personing anyone who says or does normal things. People are routinely punished for noticing the obvious or speaking truths about reality. The point of the punishment is to discourage normal behavior, just as the British wanted to discourage speaking Welsh. Every day, we get examples like this one, where the bizarre and deranged are elevated over the normal culture.

The systematic effort to turn bathhouse doggerel into art, at the expense of respectable Western literature, is not so much about elevating the depraved, as it is an assault on the culture. The people doing this are not motivated by a desire to help the degenerates. The point of the exercise is to discredit literature that comports with the norms of Western society. It is the same motivation behind larding up movies and television with vulgarity, even though the audience finds it revolting. Contempt for the audience is the motivation.

It is tempting to assign rational motivations to the PC idiocy, but that is always a mistake when talking about the clash of cultures. The motivations are purely emotional. When the Left flips out over someone noticing a logical flaw in their education policy, it is not the flaw the angers them. It is who is pointing it out. It is why pointing out the endless contradictions and hypocrisies of the Left is a waste of time. In a world of “who? whom?”, the only logic at play is determining who is attacking whom. The point of the attack is manifest.

Like the banning of bagpipes and tartan in Scotland, the Welsh Not probably did more to build Welsh nationalism than break it. It provided motivation for the Welsh to preserve their language. The rallying point was the Welsh-language bible, which was used in Welsh churches. Instead of the language and customs being erased as intended, the British ended up inculcating a deeper sense of identity in the Welsh people. The long-term result has been a modern revival of Welsh and a drive toward greater autonomy for Wales.

It remains to be seen if the current assault on normalcy has the same effect on the normal white people in English speaking countries. Tommy Robinson may be a flawed player in the great battle over immigration in Britain, but he has become a rallying point. The alt-right in America may be a dumpster fire, but the outlandish treatment of them by global corporations has opened a lot of eyes to what’s happening in America. Perhaps the war on whiteness has reached a tipping point and white people are becoming race aware.

Squid Ink

Posted on by

If you scan the so-called conservative sites these days, the remarkable thing is the dullness of them. The writing is mediocre, at best, and the arguments are mostly washed-out ideas from the 80’s with a heavy dash of libertarianism. The major issues of this age, immigration, identity, populism, and nationalism are largely ignored. When they bother to pick them up, it is to take swings at the growing army of people to their right. The main role of so-called conservatism is to confuse and discourage the rank-and-file conservatives.

This old column from Jonah Goldberg is a good example. It is in the style that he has become mocked for of late. It is where he lards up his text with Borscht Belt gags, along with a bunch pointless dissembling. The post is supposed to take a stab at defining conservatism, but he just does a bunch of name dropping, while making a hash of the subject. His jocular style is intended to put the reader at ease, while his hemming and hawing is supposed to make it seem like conservatism is up for debate.

Now, Goldberg is just an affable guy, who does not want to cause any trouble, while pretending to be an intellectual. I am surely giving him too much credit for suggesting his incoherence is intentional. His latest book is so bad that I suffered from vicarious embarrassment while reviewing it. Even so, he is not alone. If you look around the so-called conservative intellectual space, it is a parade of mediocrities spouting banal nonsense that mostly defends the status quo against criticisms from the Right.

One argument against mediocrity is Ben Shapiro, who is pitched to us as a pint-sized wunderkind. He has a billionaire backer for his web site, a perch at National Review and the full support of Conservative Inc. If that stuff does not impress you, Shapiro did manage to get into Harvard at 16 and graduate at 20. Even the Left has started promoting him as the conservative voice of his generation. Here he is explaining the core principles of conservatism at a Young Americans Foundation event a couple of years ago.

In that speech, he starts out by claiming conservatism is about fairness of opportunity, rather than fairness of outcome. Then he says conservatism is about individual rights and individualism. He makes the point a few times that group identity is invalid, which is rather amusing coming from a guy who sports a yarmulke all the time. He actually says we should target people who discriminate and use the law against them. Not so long ago, conservatives warned that this was the ultimate goal of the Left. Now, here we are.

Individualism sounds fine, especially if you are a member of a small group hoping to topple the large group. If you can convince the large group that it is immoral for them to stick together, then you can pick them off one at a time. That is why there has never been a military organized around individualism. It is also why conservatism never embraced individualism. Deracinated and atomized people are easily conquered, which is why his people have made group loyalty their defining characteristic for a thousand years or more.

Shapiro is a smart guy, so he surely sees the contradictions. That means he says things about conservatism that he knows are false, or at least at odds with what has been the core of conservatism for centuries. Maybe it is just what sells, and he is just an ambitious person willing to do anything to get ahead. None of that really matters because the net effect is the same. The well-meaning young people who look to guys like Shapiro to put structure around their temperament are swimming in squid ink.

One reason conservationism is now a dog’s breakfast of libertarian nostrums and reworked liberal platitudes is that conservatism is short of conservatives. The people carrying the banner for Official Conservatism do not know the first thing about what it means to be conservative. It is as if they have spent their lives trying to avoid the great conservative thinkers. There is no trace of intellectual giants in the ideas of the modern conservative. Take for example the great quote from the philosopher Michael Oakeshott.

To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

Now, it takes immense talent to write something so powerful and insightful with such an economy of language. No one can be blamed for not having that skill. On the other hand, how is it possible to read that, as a conservative, and not immediately understand that being on the Right is not about individualism or anti-racism or any of the other ridiculous fads popular on the Left? The answer is they are either too dumb to see it or they hope their readers don’t see it. In other words, the squid ink is intentional.