Secession enters the mainstream

The New York Times publishes a remarkably balanced article on the topic of Texas secession:

In Texas, talk of secession in recent years has steadily shifted to the
center from the fringe right. It has emerged as an echo of the state
Republican leadership’s anti-Washington, pro-Texas-sovereignty mantra on
a variety of issues, including health care and environmental
regulations. For some Texans, the renewed interest in the subject serves
simply as comic relief after a crushing election defeat. 
But for other proponents of secession and its sister ideology, Texas
nationalism — a focus of the Texas Nationalist Movement and other groups
that want the state to become an independent nation, as it was in the
1830s and 1840s — it is a far more serious matter. 
The official in East Texas, Peter Morrison, the treasurer of the Hardin
County Republican Party, said in a statement that he had received
overwhelming support from conservative Texans and overwhelming
opposition from liberals outside the state in response to his comments
in his newsletter. He said that it may take time for “people to
appreciate that the fundamental cultural differences between Texas and
other parts of the United States may be best addressed by an amicable
divorce, a peaceful separation.” 
For the record, I am in favor of self-determination.  That is the key, I think, for secession supporters to win liberal/progressive support.  American liberals, for all their ability to double-think, simply cannot permit themselves to oppose self-determination, since it is one of the foundations of their perspective on foreign policy.  While some of them will be able to concoct a convoluted conceptual structure that allows them to vehemently support foreign self-determination while denying it to Americans, most of them will not.  It is too integral to their view of the world.
And for the record, I am entirely in favor of self-determination for Texans as well as the other American states.  Liberals like to point out that the “Democratic” states subsidize the “Republican” states; a fact which omits one extremely relevant point which I shall point out and walk through the math in a future post.  Secession advocates should use this fact and the self-determination argument relentlessly, as encouraging the left to declare “good riddance” will be key to winning their support for the eventual, and inevitable, secession of several American States.

Feminism ends in the brothel

Back in 2006, I think it was, I wrote about how the combination of feminism,  immigration, and post-Christianity would lead inevitably towards reducing women’s choices to the brothel or the burqah.  That point is rapidly arriving in both Holland and the UK:

Anything-goes Amsterdam has long been hailed as a sex mecca. The red-light district attracts thousands of customers, many of them tourists, who walk through alleys where half-naked prostitutes prance in the windows of some 300 brothels illuminated with scarlet bulbs.

A century ago, the brothels were banned to stop the exploitation of women by criminal gangs of Dutch men. But gradually the sex establishments crept back, with the authorities turning a blind eye.

In 2000, after pressure from prostitutes (demanding recognition as sex workers with employment rights) and Holland’s liberal intelligentsia (championing the choice of women to do what they wished with their bodies), the brothels were legalised. The working girls got permits, medical care, and now there are 5,000 in the red-light district.

But things went badly wrong. Holland’s newly legal sex industry was quickly infiltrated by street-grooming gangs with one target: the under-age girl virgin who can be sold for sex.

The men in the gangs are dubbed — incongruously — ‘lover boys’, because of their distinct modus operandi of making girls fall in love with them before forcing them into prostitution at private flats or houses all over Holland, and in the window brothels. The lover boy phenomenon has appalled Dutch society, not least because of the sheer numbers of girls involved.

Holland hopes the rot will be halted. Last year, 242 lover boy crimes were investigated by police, half of them involving the forced prostitution of girls under 18. Campaigner Anita de Wit says this is a fraction — ‘one per cent’ — of the true number. ‘There are thousands of girls being preyed on by male gangs in Holland,’ she says.  Anita visits schools to warn girls exactly what a lover boy looks like, and makes no bones of the fact that most of the gangs are operated by Dutch-born Moroccan and Turkish men.

‘I am not politically correct. I am not afraid of being called a racist, which would be untrue. I tell the girls that lover boys are young, dark-skinned and very good looking. They will have lots of money and bling as well as a big car. They will give out cigarettes and vodka. They will tell a girl that she is beautiful.

‘The gangs know who to pick out: the girl with the confidence problems, with the glasses, or who looks overweight. They flatter her and seem like the “knight in shining armour”. She is drawn to her new boyfriend like a magnet.’

There has never been a society that survived the loss of its religion and its children.  The end game for secularism, equalitarianism, and multiculturalism is not the shiny, sexy, It’s A Small World scientopia of post-religious dreams, it is what is already being witnessed in present-day Amsterdam.  This is not progress, this is a return to the pagan world that was defeated with the passing of Julian the Apostate and Diocletian.

The problem isn’t that the feminist revolution “backfired’, the problem is that it was a revolution of 180 degrees that marked a return to ancient societal patterns.


The menace of hope

The NYT smells Republican blood in the water and goes for the kill:

 Funny how quickly some principles collapse when given the right kind of shove. One day, the Republican Party is rock-ribbed restrictionist, dedicated to the proposition that unauthorized immigrants are an invading army of job stealers, welfare moochers and criminals whose only acceptable destiny is to be caught and deported — the border fence forever, “amnesty” never. The next day: never mind. The party suddenly discovers the merits of a working immigration system. Senators like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who once bravely supported bipartisan reform but slunk away late in the last Bush administration, are scratching at the door again, as if the last five years never happened.

All it took was an election in which millions of Latino voters — many of them the wives and husbands, sons, daughters, grandchildren, cousins, co-workers and friends of those despised “illegals” — overwhelmingly chose President Obama over the man who promised to be deporter in chief. They rejected Mitt Romney by 3 to 1, according to exit polls. Asian-Americans did, too. Republicans looked at a changing America, saw a future of decline and irrelevance for the party, and concluded that immigrants weren’t so bad after all.

One more amnesty and we’ll establish the permanent left-liberal majority!  You can almost feel them desperately trying to conceal their glee.  What is remarkable is that they can’t seem to understand that the current travails of Illinois and California are what happens when left-liberals get what they want.  It’s like letting a five year old kid child drive.  There’s going to be a crash, it’s going to be bloody, and everyone is going to blame those who weren’t behind the wheel.

This is much more A Phantom Menace than A New Hope.


Church of England delays suicide

I’m a little surprised at the result of the Synod vote as I was confident that the Anglicans were literally Hell-bent on following the Episcopalians in their death spiral into the historical dustbin of post-Christianity:

In a knife-edge decision at a special sitting of the Synod in London, bishops
and clergy voted through the change by large majorities.  But the measure failed to secure the required two thirds support among
representatives of the laity by just 6 votes.  Although 324 members of the Synod voted in favour of the change, 124 voted
against and 11 abstained.

It’s amazing that so many churches are determined to follow the world rather than the Word.  But then, it was written that they would do precisely that.  I wouldn’t go so far as to say that a nominally Christian denomination that ordains women isn’t Christian, merely that it won’t be Christian for long.


Krugmanocracy

Tim Geithner is going to end this depression now!

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said Friday that Congress should
stop placing legal limits on the amount of money the government can
borrow and effectively lift the debt limit to infinity.  On Bloomberg TV, “Political Capital” host Al Hunt asked Geithner if he believes “we ought to just eliminate the debt ceiling.”

“Oh, absolutely,” Geithner said.

Not satisfied with this intellectual victory, Paul Krugman celebrated by calling for a 91 percent tax rate.  The amazing thing is that wasn’t even the craziest thing in his column.  He also asserted: “We are, morally, a much better nation than we were.”

His claim puts me in mind of the Book of Isaiah. “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for
light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for
bitter.”


No, don’t move

Karl Denninger inadvertantly recommends spreading the Blue virus:

[T]he people of California passed a ballot measure to tax themselves
and give the money not to a state program but rather to a bunch of
banksters.  There’s no solution to stupidity that is lawful; your only lawful option if you live in that craphole called California
where people vote to steal your money using the guns of the government
as a means to compel you to to turn it over and then give it to a bunch
of thieves on Wall Street — not even spending it on a program to
benefit you and your children — is to move.

While it is moderately amusing to think of the devout goodthinkers of California patting themselves on the bank as they  piously vote to raise taxes that use the California schools as a funnel to the banksters, it is a mistake to permit Californians to go anywhere but another proud blue state.  Because it’s only a matter of time before the ex-Californians start looking around and wondering if life wouldn’t be better for everyone if things were done the wonderful way they were back in California.

And aside from New Yorkers, I’ve never known any group of people more dedicated to informing you of their origins than Californians.  It was bad enough at my university that the one girl from Minnesota used to roll her eyes and sarcastically mutter “hey, Minnesota buddy!” in my direction if we both happened to be in the vicinity of two Californians congratulating each other on their mutual state of residence.  Granted, they’re not quite as obnoxious as Parisians, but it’s still ridiculous.


Ron Paul on secession

This weekend I got a couple of calls from
the media asking me questions about Rick Perry, our governor here in
Texas and the statements he made about possible secession. Now, he
didn’t call for secession, but he was restating a principle that was
long held and at least in the original time of our country, and that is
that there was a right to secession.

Actually, after the Civil War, nobody believes there is a so-called
right to secession, but it is a very legitimate issue to debate because
all of the states that came into the Union before the Civil War
believed they have a right to secede and New England in the early part
of the 19th century actually considered it, and nobody questioned them
about whether they had the right to do it or not.  Since the Civil War, it’s been sort of a dead issue, but he brought
it up. It stirred the media and believe me, it really stirred some of
the liberal media where they started really screaming about what is
going on here. “This is un-American”, I heard one individual say, “This
is treasonous to even talk about it.”

Well, they don’t know their history very well because if they think
about it, it’s an American tradition. It’s very American to talk about
secession. That’s how we came into being. Thirteen colonies seceded from
the British and established a new country, so secession is very much
an American principle.

What about all the strong endorsements we have given over the past
decade or two of those republics that seceded from the Soviet system? We
were delighted with this. We never said, “Oh no. Secession is
treasonous”.

No. Secession is a good principle. Just think of the benefits that
would have come over these last 230-some years if the principle of
secession had existed. That means the federal government would always
have been restrained, not to overburden the states with too much
federalism, too many federal rules and regulations.

But since that was all wiped out with the Civil War, the federal
government has grown by leaps and bounds and we have suffered the
consequences, and we need to reconsider this. It’s not un-American to
think about the possibility of secession. This is something that’s
voluntary. We came together voluntarily. A free society means you can
dissolve it voluntarily. That was the whole issue was about.
Just remember one of the reasons that Wilson drove us in
unnecessarily into World War I. He talked about what we have to give,
have every country in the world the benefit of self-determination, a
good principle. Of course, I don’t think he really believed that. But
self-determination is a good principle. It’s a very American principle,
so to me it’s a shame that we can’t discuss this.

You know, it’s interesting that so many of us have been taught for so
many years, and as long as I can remember from the first grade on up
taking the pledge of allegiance that we have a republic that’s
“indivisible” and we have been preached that and preached it. So
therefore, there is no contest, no question since the Civil War that we
have even the thought that this could happen.

But you know what a lot of people don’t talk about and they really don’t even know about is who wrote the pledge to the flag.
The pledge to the flag came from, for instance, Bellamy, an avowed
Socialist who wanted to put into concrete in the pledge this principle
of being indivisible, and he did it, you know, for the celebration
ironically 400 years of the celebration of the landing of Christopher
Columbus, so it was in 1892.

I mean, the pledge of allegiance has not been here, you know, all our
history. So I think it’s worth of discussion. I think people should
discuss this because right now, the American people are sick and tired
of it all and I think the time will come when people will consider it
much more seriously is when the federal government can no longer
deliver. That time will come when the dollar collapses.

No matter what they do and how many promises they have and how many
bailouts they have, they can’t do it if the money doesn’t work. So then,
the independence of the states will come back and it doesn’t mean that
you’ll be un-American to even contemplate what might have to be done
once the dollar crashes.

It’s really not a question of a right of secession so much as a question of the American right to self-determination.  Are those who live in “the land of the free and the home of the brave” truly less free than Libyans, Iraqis, and Croatians?  Moreoever, if America is a conceptual nation, then obviously it cannot be a geographic location, nor can it be concepts that are intrinsically opposed to the original concepts.  It should be readily apparent that secular big government forced union “America” cannot properly be considered American, regardless of whether one considers the matter in terms of conventional nationalism or the conceptual nationalism so beloved of the melting pot mythmakers.

We already know the union of the forcibly United States will be divided.  The younger union of the Soviet Socialist Republics broke apart 23 years ago.  The European Union is visibly fracturing already.  The much older union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England will be voting on its dissolution soon.  The only thing we don’t know is when the division will take place.  As I have stated before, my expectation is that it will take place by 2033.


Decline and fall: the picture

As you look at this graph produced by Steve Sailer, keep in mind that, with a few exceptions, America was founded by married white Protestants of English extraction.  Then recall that there is not a single white Protestant on the Supreme Court and neither party saw fit to nominate one for President. And then recall that demographics is destiny.

Some on the right claim that it would be a mistake to engage in the same racial politics that have created a left-wing majority.  That is like trying to play football without acknowledging the newfangled rule that permits the forward pass.  Racial politics are now the rule, and the only way the right can win is to start playing the game and taking advantage of its numerical advantages while it still can.  The conventional abstract appeals to “freedom” and “America as an ideal” so beloved by conservative Republicans are the political equivalent of “three yards and a cloud of dust”.


WND column

Obama and America’s End

Eight years ago, I wrote a column about “the continued stink of an
extinct republic as it decomposes into dictatorial empire” titled, “You can’t fix a corpse.”
It was readily apparent, even then, that the constitutional nation,
founded upon the revolutionary tradition of the rights of Englishmen,
was already dead. So why does it feel as if something important has
changed as a result of the recent presidential election? Why is there a
sense of significant and lasting change for the worse in the political
wind due to the re-election of Barack Obama?


Hope vs Math

Pat Buchanan appeared inclined to bet on the latter in his pre-election column:

[W]hoever wins today, it is hard to be sanguine about the future.  The demographic and economic realities do not permit it.

Consider. Between 1946 and 1964, 79 million babies were born – the
largest, best-educated and most successful generation in our history.
Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, both born in 1946, were in that first
class of baby boomers.

The problem.  Assume that 75 million of these 79 million boomers survive to age 66.
This means that from this year through 2030, an average of nearly 4
million boomers will be retiring every year. This translates into some
11,000 boomers becoming eligible for Medicare and Social Security every
single day for the next 18 years.  Add in immigrants in that same age category and the fact that baby
boomers live longer than the Greatest Generation or Silent Generation
seniors, and you have an immense and unavoidable increase coming in
expenditures for our largest entitlement programs….

With government in the U.S. at all levels consuming 40 percent of
gross domestic product, and taxes 30 percent, taxes will have to rise
and government spending be controlled or cut. The alternative is to
destroy the debt by depreciating the dollars in which it is denominated –
i.e., by Fed-induced inflation.  But you can only rob your creditors once. After that, they never trust you again.

There is another social development rarely discussed.  The workers who are replacing retiring baby boomers in the labor force are increasingly minorities.  Black folks and Hispanics alone account now for 30 percent of the population – and rising rapidly.  Yet these two minorities have high-school dropout rates of up to 50
percent in many cities, and many who do graduate have math, reading and
science scores at seventh-, eighth- and ninth-grade levels.

Can their contributions to an advanced economy be as great as were
those of baby boomers of the ’60s and ’70s, whose SAT scores were among
the highest we ever recorded? U.S. scores in global competition have
been plummeting toward Third World levels.

Let’s just say that I expect the de facto social policy of seeking to replace white male Anglo-Saxon Protestant products of intact families with a labor force that increasingly consists of uneducated, illegitimate, irreligious female people of color to work even less effectively than the Roman attempt to replace Roman citizens with German barbarians in the legions.

The bizarre thing is that it is the numerate and historically aware portion of the population that is decried as benighted, outdated, and anti-science by the bien pensantry.  They are betting on hope and belief in the inevitability of “progress” against mere population demographics and math.  In the immortal words of Pepper Brooks: “It’s a bold strategy, Cotton. Let’s see if it pays off for ’em.”