Tag: history

A failure of proposition propaganda

Yesterday, I took a Twitter poll. I asked who best defined what it was to be an American. 702 people voted.

38%: The 1st U.S. Congress
02%: Israel Zangwill
02%: Emma Lazarus
58%: Thomas Jefferson

What this tells us is that while the #AltRight has a long way to go, most people are not dumb enough, or intelligent enough to engage in the necessary rationalizations, to take the ludicrous “proposition nation” concept at face value.

Nations refer solely to people, not polities or political constructs. People are distinguished by DNA. If your DNA is Chinese, you are not and you will never be Norwegian, German, Bantu, or American.

Those attempting to sell the “proposition nation” concept are doing so for self-serving purposes; it is a 19th century concept created by immigrants and foreigners in order to elevate their status to the level of the native population.

The fact that it is an ahistorical lie is sufficient to demonstrate its falsity, however, the fact that it is now being used to attack both the English and Swedish nations indicates that it is spiritually malevolent and has been incorporated into the Kalergi Plan.

Remember, it is not merely America and the white race that is targeted for destruction by the Neo-Babylonians, it is every nation and every race.

“The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.”

But both Man and Devil are fallible. I am the man of the future and I am not what they were expecting. And for every Babylon, there is an Assyria and an Achaemenid empire.

UPDATE: It gets better. According to the ADL, the poll was “Hate on Display”. Because parentheses are Hitler.

An interesting theory

Kit Marlowe’s murder may have been a royal hit:

After years of intensive research Francis Hamit is satisfied that he
knows exactly how and why the Elizabethan poet and playwright
Christopher Marlowe died on May 30th, 1593.

“It was a hit,” Hamit
said, “A political assassination for reasons of state, ordered by Queen
Elizabeth herself. Marlowe professed atheism, which would have been no
big deal if he had not been the most famous and popular playwright of
the Elizabethan stage. His fame meant that the deed had to be done
secretly. Marlowe was also one of her spies and worked for the Secret
Service under Sir Francis Walsingham and Sir Robert Cecil. The other men
in the room with Marlowe at the time of his death were all friends of
his and long-time agents for the Crown.”

“Marlowe infiltrated the
Jesuit Seminary at Rhiems as a spy in 1585, and probably did other
missions. He was part of Sir Walter Raleigh’s group of freethinkers, the
so-called ‘School of the Night,’ and gave a lecture about atheism. His
former chambermate and lover Thomas Kyd was arrested for having
atheistic literature and revealed under torture that the documents were
Marlowe’s. Additional accusations from informers got Marlowe arrested by
the Privy Council and he was under investigation and restrictions when
he died.”

I have no idea if it is true or not, but I suspect there is a pretty good novel to be found in the notion.

Jonah Goldberg and the end of Holocaustianity

A Twitter discourse:

Jonah Goldberg ‏@JonahNRO
1. Apologize for racist & Jew-hating, “kids” as they celebrate murder etc. 2. ????? 3. Total GOP victory. @Nero’s grand 2016 strategy.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Jonah, no one under the age of 40 gives a damn about Holocaustianity anymore than they do about the Sicilian Vespers.

Jonah Goldberg ‏@JonahNRO
Vox, 1. That’s horseshit 2. Even if it wasn’t, that’s not an argument for saying disgusting and bigoted things for laughs.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
How much do you care about the Left calling you racist? That’s how much #AltRight cares about being called anti-semitic.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
What do those called anti-semites for supporting Trump have to fear? They’ll be called anti-semites a second time? So what?

Hank Coates ‏@hankhank30
complete and utter horseshit. I went to school with holocaust survivor grandkids. Fuck that fascist.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Nobody cares. The Hispanics don’t care. The blacks don’t care. The Asians don’t care. Most whites don’t anymore.

Milo Yiannopoulos ✘ ‏@Nero
The left robbed racist, sexist and homophobic of meaning. The right did the same to anti-semitic. No one under 40 cares about any of them.

Nunuya Bizinizz ‏@wahrbear
I’m confirming @voxday’s assertion here. Early Millennail Jew and I really find holocaust whiners embarrassing.

AltRightJew ‏@AltRightJew
agreed. Unless you lived through it and endured it, not really interested in hearing you whine about it.

Jonah Goldberg ‏@JonahNRO
All day this crap. Thanks @nero and @voxday your friends get your back

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Jonah, you know I respect you. But you did go after @nero…. and this was really nothing. I didn’t even call out the VFM.

Milo Yiannopoulos ✘ ‏@Nero
Guilt by association! A classic Leftist debate tactic. Also: you started it.

He who must not be named

Commentary is terrified by the online brigades of the Alt Right:

The unapologetically racist element of neo-reactionary thinking connects intellectuals like Yarvin and Land with the masses they otherwise disdain, evincing the rumblings of a nascent neo-reactionary political coalition. But what really ties together all these seemingly disparate strands—the neo-reactionary intellectuals, the crude Twitter trolls, the highfalutin white supremacists, and the billionaire presidential candidate—is misanthropy. Pollsters may need to develop a new category in the wake of the Trump phenomenon: “resentment voters.” Within the demographic of lower-middle-class white men, Trump is popular in a variety of misanthropic subcultures, many of which did not really exist until the Internet provided them with a way to communicate and organize. Unsurprisingly, he is the subject of a great deal of discussion and admiration in the pickup-artist, or “seduction community,” of men who chat online and gather at conferences to complain about how feminism has destroyed dating culture while simultaneously discussing strategies for bedding as many women as possible. After Trump declared early in the campaign season, apropos of nothing, that supermodel Heidi Klum was “no longer a 10,” a popular blogger from the “men’s rights” movement approvingly wrote, “The alpha does not qualify himself to women, ever. He expects women to qualify themselves to him.”

What also unites the alt-right is a conspiratorial anti-elitism. Policies and principles don’t matter, nor do obsolete ideological divisions like left and right, because the American system itself is a sham. “Why are sh-t-tier whites voting for Trump, a barbarian who can’t even write a grammatical tweet in fourth-grade English?” Yarvin asks. “Because they’re done with being sh-t on by their ‘betters,’ who think invading Iraq and starting civil wars in Syria and Libya is a brilliant use for a third of their income.” In distinction to Bernie Sanders supporters, who at least know what they want to do with the reigns of power, these people loathe our social and political institutions and offer no alternative. Trump and the alt-right want to break everything and watch the world burn, like Heath Ledger’s Joker in The Dark Knight, and they believe (hope?) that somehow everything will sort itself out. America, using a term that will be familiar to the real-estate tycoon, is a “tear down.”

What we are seeing here is a convergence of three phenomena: neo-reactionary philosophy, popular discontent, and a charismatic leader. Successful political movements need all three. As far-right traditionalists, Yarvin and Land claim to despise populism, and people more generally. “Predisposed, in any case, to perceive the politically awakened masses as a howling irrational mob, [neo-reaction] conceives the dynamics of democratization as fundamentally degenerative: systematically consolidating and exacerbating private vices, resentments, and deficiencies until they reach the level of collective criminality and comprehensive social corruption,” Land writes. And like many of the Republican office-holders and conservative media personalities who’ve glommed on to Trump while railing against “elites,” the neo-reactionary thinkers are themselves elitists.

But they, too, are just as unscrupulous in hitching their wagon to a popular movement in hopes that it will advance their agenda. In a 2008 installment of his Open Letter, Yarvin mused about himself as the Vaclav Havel of neo-reaction—the philosopher king who may one day find himself carried on the shoulders of a society demanding revolutionary change—or, failing that, its Machiavelli. For, “in order to make an impact on the political process, you need quantity. You need moronic, chanting hordes.” Well, he has them now.

One doesn’t have to share the normative interpretations of alt-right counter-history to believe that these thinkers have a point in arguing that human societal development is not a process of inexorable progress. Though conservatives have criticized President Barack Obama’s frequent invocation of “the right side of history” to justify his positions on issues ranging from gay marriage to counterterrorism, Americans have become largely inured to the idea, expressed by Ronald Reagan, that their country’s “best days are yet to come.” What if they’re not? What if things are about to get a whole lot worse?

I take no little pleasure in the fact that while the mainstream media doesn’t have any trouble in naming Allum, Milo, Moldbug, or Nick Land, they need to resort to weird, inaccurate descriptions –  a popular blogger from the “men’s rights” movement – rather than mention me directly.

It’s rather amusing. For over a decade, I was inaccurately described as a “conservative”. For perhaps the last three years, I’ve been described as an MRA, again inaccurately.

Is it really that hard to say “Supreme Dark Lord of the Evil Legion of Evil” or “bestselling political philosopher” or even “right wing radical”?

Apparently.

Anyhow, they shouldn’t be terrified of us. They should be terrified by the fact that we are right and their system, the one that they believed had ended history, has failed. Everything is on the table now and anything can happen.

Conservatism and progress are dead ends

A commenter at Steve Sailer’s observes as much:

Social conservatism, which is largely concerned with morals legislation, is essentially dead, and has been since the Supreme Court Lawrence decision in 2003 (as Scalia correctly prophesied.) Thus anyone could have predicted the victory of SSM, and the discovery of all manner of rights in terms of sexuality, since, apparently, one’s membership card in LGBTQQIV2A is the only self-identification that means anything (not race, not religion, not language, not culture: just with whom and how you like to have sex: this includes asexuals of course, the “A” above: there’s another one for Allies.) So Ross can just give up on that. The same pertains to third trimester abortions or anything else, because virtually any attempt to police human conduct (except the ingestion of drugs, of course) can and will be carried into an argument about our innate right to do whatever we want.

Hawkish internationalism is also a dead letter, since we just had a decade or more of foolishly prosecuted wars, and one can (some cynically, I suppose) claim that with the most pressing issues for the DOD being the extension of selective service registration to women, and the integration of transgender drill instructors into the the Marine Corps Recruit Depots, it is highly unlikely that there will be any non-foolishly prosecuted wars in the near or far future.

Free market economics is also dead, since the American economy has already been heavily socialized by a variety of government controls, restrictions, and, most importantly, benefits, which the citizenry (at this point) cannot live without.

So Reagan is dead, so is Reaganism. The only question is what can we do to improve the lot of regular Americans, materially, and what can we do to generate some kind of purpose for our people and our nation.

The correct approach is not to attempt to save, or fix, the United States of America. As I noted back in 2004, it’s dead. It is no more a true nation than Yugoslavia, or South Africa, or the Austro-Hungarian Empire were.

The long term American focus should be on successfully doing what the South Africans failed to do, which is peacefully dividing the empire between the various nations. This will no doubt be difficult for many to accept, but it is what is going to happen anyway, and the sooner that “conservatives” understand that this is the only way to preserve the actual nation, as opposed to the mythical “proposition nation” which is now based on nothing more than Magic Dirt Theory, the more likely it is that they will be able to come away with something sustainable.

The very great irony is that the combination of multiculturalism, feminism, and propositionism is collectively less societally viable than North Korea’s insane political economy. North Korea is a totalitarian nightmare, but it has indubitably remained Korean, in fact, more Korean than England is English or Germany is German.

History demonstrates that a nation can survive evil kings and nightmarish ideologies, but may not be able to survive what many, if not most, in the West today consider “progress”. One really should be inspired to completely reassess one’s ideology when it is observably more societally destructive than Juche.

The case for separation

Fred Reed asks Black Lives Matter if they prefer integration and being subject to the white man’s laws or separation and freedom to live as they see fit?

In reading the endless complaints by blacks about shootings by the police, I usually find it hard to know what really happened. As far as I am aware, the media never allow an unedited interview, or any interview, with the police charged with the shootings but allow endless commentary by people who weren’t there.

I am also often puzzled by the motivation of the cops. Do they confer in the morning and say, “Hey, let’s shoot some totally innocent black guy in front of witnesses who probably have cell phones?” And why are cops not brutalizing Latinos, only blacks, especially in LA, which provides a target-rich environment?

If I could, I would speak to BLM as follows:

I cannot determine what you want. There seems to be a great deal of anger but little clarity. Discussion usually wanders off into demands for justice, but without specifics.

Since I am looking for practical recommendations, let us begin by acknowledging the circumstances we face. You say that white cops mistreat blacks, sometimes brutally. This is true. I have seen some of it, and know of more. White cops seldom like blacks, nor blacks, white cops. The cultures are irreconcilably different. On the other hand, beatings of whites, Latinos, and Asians by gangs of blacks are far outnumber beatings of blacks by white cops. In sum, no love is lost and I do not see a lot of moral high ground. So:

Do you want white policemen excluded from black neighborhoods?

The available answers are “yes,” and “no.” I do not mean to be abrupt about this, but vague considerations of abstract justice, alleged discrimination, and racism do not provide usable answers. So, do you want white cops pulled from black neighborhoods, or not? It’s one or the other.

Personally I think it wiser not to have whites policing blacks. I don’t want to see white cops raped in media circuses. Nor do I want blacks to be mistreated by white cops. It seems to me that BLM should support segregation of police as it would eliminate any possibility of racist behavior.

Speaking as a historically aware Red Segregationist, the eventual and ultimate solution will be segregation, war, and ethnic cleansing. The homogenous nations have always come out of heterogeneous nations, they are not the result of geography. The great sin of apartheid was not that it separated South Africa’s blacks and whites, but rather, that it kept them together in an immoral manner that permitted South Africa’s whites to economically prey upon South Africa’s blacks.

And if you say that you oppose segregation, then I ask you this: do you seriously support stealing more American Indian land by eliminating our reservations? Or is it merely a matter of moral posturing rather than principle?

DNA is destiny. Even those of us who are of mixed race are ultimately forced by everyone else into one tribe or another; look at those who deny science, heritage, and family alike by declaring that I am, regardless of my self-identification, a “white” – whatever that might be; precisely what nation is that? – by virtue of nothing more than my physical appearance.

Anacyclosis and the problem of productivity

Economics, free trade, the minimum wage, technological advancement, immigration, and the Singularity are all pointing towards the same problem, as Fred Reed notes:

People of IQ 130 and up tend to assume unconsciously–important word: “unconsciously”–that you can do anything just by doing it. If they wanted to learn Sanskrit, they would get a textbook and go for it. It would take time and effort but the outcome would never be in doubt. Yes, of course they understand that some people are smarter than others, but they often seem not to grasp how much smarter, or what the consequences are. A large part of the population can’t learn-much of anything. Not won’t. Can’t. Displaced auto workers cannot be retrained as IT professionals.

Few of the very bright have have ever had to make the unhappy calculation: Forty times a low minimum wage minus bus fare to work, rent, food, medical care, and cable. They have never had to choose between a winter coat and cable, their only entertainment. They don’t really know that many people do. Out of sight, out of mind.

Cognitive stratification has political consequences. It leads liberals to think that their client groups can go to college. It leads conservatives to think that with hard work and determination…..

It ain’t so. An economic system that works reasonably well when there are lots of simple jobs doesn’t when there aren’t. In particular, the large number of people at IQ 90 and below will increasingly be simply unnecessary. If you are, say, a decent, honest young woman of IQ 85, you probably read poorly, learn slowly and only simple things,. Being promoted, or even hired, requires abilities that you do not have. This, plus high (and federally concealed) unemployment allows employers to pay you barely enough to stay alive. Here is the wondrous working of the market.

The Polybian system of anacyclosis proceeds in the following order:
1. Monarchy, 2. Kingship, 3. Tyranny, 4. Aristocracy, 5. Oligarchy, 6. Democracy, and 7. Ochlocracy.

Some would say that we are living under a democracy, but this is observably not true. Rather, it appears we are somewhere between (4) and (5), even though the Aristocracy is not readily apparent. In reality, the theory probably needs to be updated, but regardless, the observable fact is that the transnational cognitive elite has no regard for the common masses, and more importantly, no longer requires them in order to maintain its standard of living. The logical conclusion is that the increased irrelevance of the competent white middle and working classes is why the former is entirely willing to replace them with an even more irrelevant, and less intelligent population who can be much more easily subdued and eliminated in time.

That sounds diabolical, but logic suggests that it is the purpose and the intended consequence of Cultural Marxism. It seems woefully short-sighted to me, but if one thinks only in terms of one’s own lifetime, I suppose it might be of some appeal.

The feudalism of the Middle Ages required peasants for agriculture. But the technofeudalism of the future doesn’t appear likely to require peasants for anything. So what will be done with them? What will be done with us? The long and bloody history of Man does not suggest an optimistic answer.

Kasich endorses amnesty

I find it hard to believe that anyone in Ohio is genuinely supporting this overtly anti-American lunatic:

1) “God Bless” Illegal Immigrants

Illegal immigrants are a “critical part of our society,” John Kasich told the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce last October. “For those that are here that have been law abiding, God bless them,” Kasich said—arguing that illegals “should have a path to legalization.”

2) “I couldn’t imagine” enforcing our current immigration laws: “That is not… the kind of values that we believe in.”

On the GOP debate stage in February, Kasich told millions of American voters that enforcing the nation’s immigration laws is not “the kind of values that we believe in.”

“I couldn’t even imagine how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here, leaving their children in the house,” Kasich said. “That is not, in my opinion, the kind of values that we believe in.”

3) Kasich likened deporting the illegal population to Japanese internment camps

“To think that that we’re just going to put people on buses and ship them to the border—look at our World War II experience where we quarantined Japanese—I mean it’s a dark stain on America’s history,” Kasich said in November.

“We shouldn’t even think about it,” Kasich said of the “nutty” idea:

    “I don’t know many people that believe we should deport 11 million people—just because people shout loud doesn’t mean they’re a majority. I think most Republicans would agree that you can’t deport 11 million people. We shouldn’t even think about it. What are you going to do? Break their families up?”

I don’t think the people still relying on sob stories and worrying about breaking families up don’t understand that the long term alternative to repatriating most of the 60 million post-1965 immigrants is civil war. The USA is heading towards partitition at an increasingly rapid rate, and the more foreigners who are involved in the process, the more vicious the ethnic and religious cleansing is likely to be.

The dirt is not magic. The USA is not magically exempt from the same rules of power, politics, and war that have stricken nearly every other multiethnic society in history at one time or another. There is absolutely nothing preventing what has happened many times elsewhere from happening on US soil.

The post-1965 invasion is the largest invasion in all of human history. Think about it. What are the chances that it doesn’t end in violence? What is the scenario that doesn’t involve various ethnic groups scrabbling ruthlessly for power?

Deporting the illegals is only the first step to avoiding a nightmare, but Kasich is determined to keep making things worse.

Queens at war

A historical study of European queens produces some unexpected results:

After sifting through historical data on queenly reigns across six centuries, two political scientists have found that it’s more complicated than that. In a recent working paper, New York University scholars Oeindrila Dube and S.P. Harish analyzed 28 European queenly reigns from 1480 to 1913 and found a 27 percent increase in wars when a queen was in power, as compared to the reign of a king. “People have this preconceived idea that states that are led by women engage in less conflict,” Dube told Pacific Standard, but her analysis of the data on European queens suggests another story.

Interestingly, Dube and Harish think the reason why queens were able to take part in more military policy can be explained by the division of labor that tended to happen when a queen — particularly a married queen — ruled. Queens managed foreign policy and war policies, which were often important to bring in cash, while their husbands managed the state (think taxes, crime, judicial issues, etc.). As the authors theorize, “greater division of labor under queenly reigns could have enabled queens to pursue more aggressive war policies.” Kings, on the other hand, didn’t tend to engage in division of labor like ruling queens — or, more specifically, they may have shared military and state duties with some close adviser, but not with the queen. And, Dube and Harish argue, it may be this “asymmetry in how queens relied on male spouses and kings relied on female spouses [that] strengthened the relative capacity of queenly reigns, facilitating their greater participation in warfare.”

The queens’ marital status made a difference here; as the authors write,
“among married monarchs, queens were more likely to participate as
attackers than kings.” If a queen were single — which was the case with
13 of those they studied — she was more likely to be attacked compared
to the times when a king was in power, perhaps because her country was
seen in the outside world as being more vulnerable and thus easier to attack.

Ironically, as Nate pointed out, this means that female leaders are more strongly correlated with warfare than religion. And it would be hard to argue that this relationship is not causal, given the fact that the queens were responsible for the decision to go to war.

The preference cascade

Glenn Reynolds makes a connection between the Trumpening and #Brexit:

In America, Donald Trump — who many of the experts thought had no chance — is dominating the polls. In Britain, meanwhile, much of the public seems to be mobilizing in favor of exiting the troubled European Union — a British Exit, or Brexit.

Writing in The Spectator, Brendan O’Neill puts this down to a class revolt on both sides of the Atlantic. And he’s right as far as he goes, but I think there’s more than just a class revolt. I think there’s also a developing preference cascade. O’Neill writes: “In both Middle America and Middle England, among both rednecks and chavs, voters who have had more than they can stomach of being patronised, nudged, nagged and basically treated as diseased bodies to be corrected rather than lively minds to be engaged are now putting their hope into a different kind of politics. And the entitled Third Way brigade, schooled to rule, believing themselves possessed of a technocratic expertise that trumps the little people’s vulgar political convictions, are not happy. Not one bit.”

Well, that’s certainly true. Both America and Britain have developed a ruling class that is increasingly insular and removed from — and contemptuous of — the people it deigns to rule. The ruled are now returning the contempt.

Robert Prechter predicted this more than a decade ago. It’s also happening in other European countries. This is what happens when the social mood changes. The blithe, mindless optimism that permits the populace to be used and abused by the financial elite is gone. People are seeing more clearly now, and they are beginning to recognize what was done to them, and by whom.

There will be a reckoning. There will be many reckonings. And unfortunately, not all of them will be pretty, or even civilized.

When the tide goes out, it’s easy to see who was naked all along.