Friday, July 8, 2016

The Speech that Trump Will Give

Donald Trump will give this speech or an edited version of it.  He will win in a landslide, because he genuinely loves this country and is running against an obvious crook whose only goals are money and power for herself.

My fellow Americans,


On social media and in the press, there have been terrible accusations that I am somehow racist. Really.  I know, hard to believe, right? They're accusing me of that. Nothing could be further from the truth. My whole life, I have welcomed people of all races and religions into my businesses, into my campaign, and into my home and family.  Bigotry has no place in America and has never had a place in my life. When I say that I want to make America great again, and trust me, we ARE going to make America great again; that's a promise to all Americans no matter what their backgrounds. As Americans, we treat everyone as an individual, regardless of their race, religion, or ethnic background. We don't go around dividing up the country by race or whatever, that's not who we are.  And that's what I've done my entire life.  My record and the example of my personal life speaks for itself.

You know, there was a time in America when we were all getting richer. Blacks were getting richer. Hispanics were getting richer. Asians and Jews were getting richer. Both men and women were getting richer. Crime was going down too. But then we had decades of stupid trade deals, stupid foreign-policy and stupid wars, and stupid immigration policies. Look where we are today. We've all suffered because the politicians in Washington have been looking out for the people who give them money, these big corporations or listening to harebrained schemes from so-called intellectuals.  If you want to know the truth, it's the minorities that have suffered the most under the stupid policies. Making America Great Again will help the people that have been suffering, all people.

So, when I say were going to build a wall with Mexico, it's because drugs and crime are coming over the border, that's an undisputed fact.  Who doesn't believe that criminals and drugs and terrorists aren't just walking across the border with Mexico. Who is hit worst by drugs and crime? The poor and minorities.  That's why we're building the wall.  When I say were going to end immigration from these Muslim nations, until we figure out what's going on, it's because we know that ISIS is using our stupid immigration policies to send terrorists to this country. Making America great again means protecting Americans from terrorists and criminals. When I say we're going to end the stupid trade deals with China, it's not because I hate the Chinese I love the Chinese. But having stupid trade deals with them hurts our American workers. That isn't part of making America great again. When I criticize the Iraq war, it's because Americans of all races died in those wars and yet we still allowed the rise of ISIS and lots of other bad things to get going in the Middle East. Trust me, you haven't heard the half of how bad it is. I love our troops, all our troops, of all races, and we need to keep them out of stupid wars that we don't win. Because as Americans, we're going to start winning again.

Now you're seeing all this racial tension and these terrible killings across the country.  Police are dead, just because they are police, and you know we love the police. Frankly, I blame this on Obama and the Democrats, I really do. Their whole policy as been to divide up and classify Americans by race by gender by sexual orientation your name it. So when trouble happens, we don't ask how we should fix this as Americans, we talk about race, which just inflames the situation.  They should've been bringing America together.  That's exactly what I'm doing because I love all these Americans and making America great again means making it great for all.  Were going to bring Americans together as one great big loving family and we're going to Make America Great Again.






Monday, July 4, 2016

A Republic - If You Can Keep It

Hope you are celebrating the birth of the greatest nation today.  I like to remember that the nation was not founded in revolution against the concepts and rights afforded British peoples, but to attain the rights the founders were due because they were Englishmen.  Even though the language of the Declaration is universalist, its concepts trace a direct lineage to the Magna Carta.

When we look at the specific abuses King George is accused of committing, we see that he thwarted the proper functioning of Republican form of government.

  • He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
  • He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
  • He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 
  • He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 
  • He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
  • He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
On this day, we celebrate the founding of a government constrained by constitutional limits.  We have work to do to save this Republic from despotism.  I am reminded of this quote from Benjamin Franklin, when asked after the Constitutional Convention whether we had a Republic or a Monarchy:

“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
  “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Saturday, July 2, 2016

One Market to Rule Them All - The Death of Industrial Society

Note: This post is still a work in progress. Your comments are welcome to help improve concepts being worked.

More brilliant minds than mine have noticed the intersection and codependency of leftist society and technological society.  Only more recently, and less noticed is that leftist belief is correlated with low fertility rates and leftism is correlated with feminism.  Further, leftism (of the cultural variety) and technological progress seem to be uniquely products of European societies, by which I include Canada, Australia and the United States. How did this evolutionary dead end come to exist; what are its root causes in terms of evolutionary biology? Is technological society is an evolutionary dead-end or is there a way out?

First what do I mean by leftist?
The leftist is oriented toward large scale collectivism. He emphasizes the duty of the individual to serve society and the duly of society to take care of the individual. He has a negative attitude toward individualism. He often takes a moralistic tone. Me tends to be for gun control, for sex education and other psychologically "enlightened" educational methods, for planning, for affirmative action, for multiculturalism. He tends to identify with victims. He tends to be against competition and against violence, but he often finds excuses for those leftists who do commit violence. He is fond of using the common catch-phrases of the left like "racism, ""sexism, " "homophobia, " "capitalism," "imperialism," "neocolonialism " "genocide," "social change," "social justice," "social responsibility." Maybe the best diagnostic trait of the leftist is his tendency to sympathize with the following movements: feminism, gay rights, ethnic rights, disability rights, animal rights, and political correctness. Anyone who strongly sympathizes with all of these movements is almost certainly a leftist.'
From the same author:
Among the abnormal conditions present in modern industrial society are excessive density of population, isolation of man from nature, excessive rapidity of social change and the breakdown of natural small-scale communities such as the extended family, the village or the tribe.
Modern society is cut off from the roots of man's recent evolution.  However, in modern industrial and technological society, in addition to the jarring discontinuity with the natural order, man also experiences significant loss of freedom over the activities of life that are meaningful. The lack of autonomy inherent in modern technological life is oppressive to the human spirit, but technological society cannot function without it.  We need lanes for cars and speed limits to limit wrecks.  We need workers to follow instructions because large scale disasters like widespread power outages can result from human failure.  But the result is a loss of autonomy that is irreconcilable with human nature.

As a result, we oversocialize our youth to get them to adapt to industrial society.  We do this because to date, industrial society has overwhelmed all other forms of social organization through possession of superior technology.  The most efficiently ordered industrial societies have defeated the others and serve as the model, but at a heavy price in human freedom.  This oversocialization produces a large number of people who feel helpless and weak and lacking in autonomy.  They are unable to experience themselves as powerful individuals.  They become leftists:
But the leftist is too far gone for that. His feelings of inferiority are so ingrained that he cannot conceive of himself as individually strong and valuable. Hence the collectivism of the leftist. He can feel strong only as a member of a large organization or a mass movement with which he identifies himself.
The industrial system has a need for ever expanding economic output.  Until recently, that output has been increased in part by bringing women and minorities into the work force, increasing the overall labor participation rate.  (Productivity forms the other portion of rising output, but is not of interest here.) Leftism has contributed by clearing political and cultural hurdles that might have slowed this trend. Since the conditions that produce the leftist mindset have the seemingly good intentions of adapting children to industrial society and the leftist mindset in turn produced more workers, it is no wonder that the culture has lurched leftward rapidly.  Simultaneously, with more women in the workforce, with work itself being less physically demanding, current evolutionary pressure has produce more feminine men and more masculine women.  The traditional bonds of marriage, religion, and nationalism that were impediments to these outcomes have become the targets of leftism because these cultural institutions are barriers to increasing the work force.

Feminism is a subset of leftism with special emphasis on denying the truth that women are generally physically and emotionally weaker than men and have a genetic predisposition to play a different role in society than men.  Feminism seeks to not only destroy any sane legal protections for the weaker sex, but to destroy marriage (through divorce and the promotion of gay marriage) and to expand government so that women need not depend on any husband for financial support for her offspring.  This result is feeds the industrial system initially by supplying  more women to the labor force.

But human beings cannot evolve fast enough to keep pace with these changes.  As a result, women actually long for the very virility in men even as they decry it.  However, the vicious circle of industrialization and leftism has delivered a population of men unable to rise to this challenge.  Further, because traditional European monogamy has been destroyed, a large portion of the male population has little hope of establishing a permanent family.  Woman in society are like petulant children who have not been given any limits, they continue to push past supposed boundaries while secretly hoping for their imposition.  But alas, society is no longer capable of imposing any social order.

Modern social change is characterized by:
  • Breakdown of traditional sexual morality
  • Unrootedness, that is lack of identification with a locale and its people
  • Universalism, a belief in the actual equalism of all people, genders, etc.
  • Low fertility 
  • Androgyny 
  • Pathological altruism or empathobesity
Feminism is a evolutionary maladaptation to industrial society that is sowing the seeds of the destruction of western civilization.  The low fertility will ultimately result in a the death of a culture overwhelmed by sheer numbers by more procreating races.

Borrowing from concepts popularized and refined on the blog Chateau Heartiste, I make the following assertions regarding the current feminized political environment.

  • The invitation by feminized political systems to bring in young, virile men from other cultures as a "shit test" to the androgynous beta male western culture.  A "shit test" is simply a test of reproductive fitness to see if the male under test has the emotional wherewithal to counter body blows to the ego by a woman.  Males who pass demonstrate their fitness for reproduction.
  • Low fertility is the unintended consequence of feminism, and is just now beginning to threaten technological society.  However, universalist belief that low birth rate can be compensated by importing Arabs, Africans or Mestizos workers has not fully collided with the reality of those cultures failure to produce reliable and intelligent workers.
  • The exact biological mechanism causing increasing androgyny is unknown.  Reversing its trend will prove difficult lacking knowledge of its pathology.
  • High African fertility rates will result in pressures to allow African emigration to conquer European societies (including Canada, U.S. and Australia.)  A sort of world-wide "Camp of the Saints" with African refugees substituting for Indian refugees will result.

Other Explanations

I want to consider that technology might not be the direct cause of leftism, but that both technology and leftism arise out of a common root cause.  We might consider why advanced technology has arisen in advanced civilization at all and how leftism is related.  In Biohistory, Jim Penman argues that the rise of technological civilization come from the ability of cultural artifacts like religion to mimic natural conditions that influence human behavior.  The cultural beliefs that conservatives and/or traditionalists embrace that led to the rise of civilization are undermined by its own success.  To some extent this parallels the argument in "Industrial Society and Its Future."

A weak point about these cultural systems is that they are vulnerable to the effects of abundance and population density. Wealthy urban societies with plentiful food tend to abandon ascetic behaviors, such as restrictions on sexual activity, which mimic the effects of food shortage. This in turn leads to society-wide change in temperament and behavior which undermine success. In effect, the greater the wealth and density of a society’s population, the harder it is to maintain the cultural strategies responsible for the society’s rise. In the chapters to come we propose that the collapse of civilizations, along with their replacement by people from less-developed societies, can be understood in this way.


Any way out?

In general, religious whites have higher fertility rates than the non-religious whites.  Given that religious belief is heritable, will religious belief make a demographic come back?  If so, how will the evolutionary pressures of industrial society be overcome.  Possession of superior technology has proven throughout history to be an important part of Darwinian societal success.  






Tuesday, June 7, 2016

Today's California Election

At the promptings of my good friend Leslie Eastman, I am blogging today on the California election.   I stopped regular blogging a while back because I felt that my relative expertise regarding policy and limited government solutions were useless amidst a rising tide of cultural garbage.  Who cares about a nuanced strategy to defeat ISIS if we are willing to commit cultural suicide before the terrorists even reach our shores.  I am supporting Trump because he moved the Overton Window and is allowing us to even have a debate on these taboo subjects; but it is a measure of how swiftly America has fallen that views that were mainstream even 20 years ago are now considered extremist.  A few thoughts:

  • Never have I voted with such dread as today. Futility of elections when culture is in the toilet never more apparent, even if #Trump wins. (From my twitter feed.)
  • The minimum wage vote in San Diego is more proof of the cultural rot.  People vote for this, not on the basis that the minimum wage hike helps the poor, which it will not, but because "the feels".
  • Mayor Faulconer in San Diego is the kind of pussy Republican who is indistinguishable from leftists except for his fellating of local business interests.  He has implemented the entire liberal agenda.  And I voted for him, because the alternatives were even worse for my local tax rate.
  • Hillary's apparent victory today fills me with disgust as it makes clear that the Democratic party cares not one whit for the criminality of its nominee.
Damn. I feel better already.

On the lighter side, I am flying this flag for about a month to show the depth of my respect for Islam.


Thursday, May 5, 2016

Libertarian Thought Experiment

Imagine if you will, that libertarians have taken over a state and seceded from the United States.  Libertarians ideals are fully implemented. There is no minimum wage for example, and libertarians from the rest of the United States have migrated there.  How long would this last?

I ask this because libertarians are among those on the right who call for open borders.  The practical effect of an initially successful libertarian state would be an initial economic success that would attract those without skills to work at wages that are illegal in the U.S.  How long before the libertarian businessmen of Libertopia were making fat profits selling goods produced with low cost labor back into the U.S.? How long before Libertopia is overrun with migrants from cultures who don't value limited government?  How long before they have the votes to end libertarianism and vote themselves minimum wage hikes, benefits and extended unemployment benefits?

The fact is that generally, throughout history, only a few cultures have been in favor of limited government with separation of powers, such as the United States has had.  Further, those cultures have concentrated in Europe.  There is good evidence that some of this predisposition is heritable. Unlimited immigration from the Middle East, Africa and Latin America means bringing voters to America who don't value limited government and separation of powers as well as other rights, like freedom of speech.  Those of us who support a political system inherited from England will get out-voted by increased immigration.

The conundrum for my libertarian friends is that strict libertarianism destroys libertarian society.

Saturday, April 30, 2016

The Confederate Conundrum

Over at the Alternative Right blog, Matthew Heimbach makes the case for flying the Confederate battle flag.  He is unapologetic about the inherent racism in the symbol and I applaud his honesty.  He also deplores the greed and lack of humanity that led to the importation of slaves from Africa, to be fair. The crux of his argument follows:
This flag has become a symbol of the Confederate soldier, but also White resistance to federal tyranny and forced multiculturalism. The men who fought under it rejected the idea of multiculturalism and an empire to rule over them, instead supporting a movement that would allow them self determination. States Rights is a part of this ideology, but it must be understood within the context of the people at the time knowing that their racial extended family was part of an organic State, not just lines on a map. 
While not consciously, this seem to be in rebuttal to Lincoln's second inaugural, which makes reference to the causes of the Civil War as well.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
So which was it? Resistance to cultural annihilation or merely limiting slavery?  Even though a lifelong admirer of Lincoln, like most Americans, I am struck that Lincoln is a bit disingenuous here.  Restricting the expansion of slavery was only the first step that the abolitionist Republican party desired, and, through the course of the Civil War, abolition succeeded.  But Heimbach is also a little off the mark because the Southern leadership knew they were fighting for the preservation of slavery in perpetuity.  The South rightly saw the election of Lincoln as the beginning of the end for slavery and struck at the North while they thought the odds favored them.  That they fought to perpetuate the evil of slavery cannot be glossed over in the defense of the flying of the Confederate flag; which Heimbach does not do.

But what of the dilemma of self determination within one's own group?  African-Americans are still only partially integrated into the whole of American society.  In San Francisco's Chinatown, the displacement of ethnic Chinese due to economic forces wrought by Airbnb has brought protest and angst, as the Chinese desire their own community.  The success of Spanish language television is evidence of slowing integration of Hispanics into mainstream American society.  When lower class whites self segregate it's called racism and when upper class whites do it, it is politely ignored or glossed over.  We encourage every ethnic group except Europeans descendants to self-segregate in the name of multiculturalism.  The balkanization of America seems inevitable as long as cultural marxists hold sway in leading the direction of America.

Further, there is scientific evidence that our brains are hardwired to be more accepting of people like ourselves.  Tribalism is deeply embedded in our make up. So America has a natural barrier to overcome, and seems to have done so right up until the 1960s.  At this point in history, it seems that our success is coming apart.  Why?  I feel as though we are not asking the right questions.

The right question to ask is, why were we successful in being absorbing other cultures into our society in the first place?  The answer has to do with unspoken agreement about the nature of the culture and the relative numbers of people who were not part of it.

American culture and political theory derives from England. The American revolution was essentially an English one, in which the colonists objected to the impositions of the crown, because they violated their rights as Englishmen.  The nation was founded with a language and culture inherited from England, perhaps Great Britain.  Its institutions and the logic of its judiciary were inherited from English experience with separation of powers.  Over time, new immigrants were expected to accept this regime, learn English and assimilate.  Rather than from a set of universalist beliefs, our nation is founded on a particular set of beliefs about our rights that derive from our English cultural antecedents. I discussed the difference between universal and national rights in a prior post.

Additionally, like it or not, there seems to be a genetic component to political belief and one's view of rights.  This leads me to conclude that the current antipathy to the Anglo-centric European view of limited government can be traced in part to the increased immigration from nationalities unfriendly towards that view of government.  This has been exacerbated by an increased leftism among white people who some feel guilty over the dominance that European peoples have had over the rest of the world.  The left has turned against the culture of their forefathers and sought alliance with immigrants from lands hostile to American and European hegemony.  This explains in part the left's support for open borders.  (Libertarians in favor of open borders are deluded into thinking that all cultures are amenable to concepts of limited government, when this desire is in fact limited to a very few nationalities.)

It is in this context that I have to re-examine my long time dislike of the Confederate battle flag.  While it has the taint of slavery, it is also the most recognizable expression of a desire to preserve and Anglo-centric European culture in America.  In my view, it is a culture worth preserving because it gave us the founding fathers, and somewhat paradoxically, Lincoln; and the most free and prosperous nation the world has ever seen.  As I quote very often, Leftists tend to hate anything that has an image of being strong, good and successful.  American traditional culture is all of that, which makes it worth preserving.

As to why were we successful for a while and no longer seem to be?  I lay the failure at the doorstep of feminism and leftism, really the same things.  We started telling ethnic groups that they no longer needed to assimilate and rewarded them for not doing so.  We started bringing in massive numbers of immigrants from cultures whose values were inimical to our own. We started undermining traditional societal roles, undermining social cohesion.  We started undermining the white middle class through globalism and mass immigration.  We undermined white middle class by undermining marriage through feminist doctrine.  We started undermining social cohesion by an assault on our society's traditional belief in Christianity.  As a result of these assaults, many people in American society no longer see themselves as Americans, but as some "other" such as Black, Hispanic, or Muslim.  Given that a larger number of Americans self-identify this way, and given the power of identity, is it any wonder that the idea of America is being overthrown?

But ultimately, the rights of people as individuals and their rights as members of groups are on a collision course.  Given the large numbers of whites in the country, I can only see conflict ahead if a sense of national identity is not restored.  So whites have a reasonable right to fly the confederate flag in protest against an organized attempt to marginalize their culture.  But isn't the answer.

What is needed is a counter-synthesis to the prevailing synthesis of leftism and traditionalism that governs our culture.  This is why there is an alt-right that looks at these issues not through the prism of policy or law, but through the perspective of cultural heritage that is biologically inherited.  The problem still to be solved is how to assimilate those who lack the genetic propensity to accept the cultural and political norms that founded the nation; and how to ostracize and defeat the traitorous left that seeks to destroy the most successful culture the world has ever seen.



Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Universal vs. National Rights

In a future post, I will describe a notion of national identity dependent upon cultural antecedents.  However, to do so I need to define a difference between universal and national rights.  In a critique of the alt-right, Cathy Young quotes Steve Pinker on the subject of political equality:  
Political equality is a commitment to universal human rights, and to policies that treat people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups; it is not an empirical claim that people are indistinguishable. Many commentators seem unwilling to grasp these points.
However, if we are going to discuss the preservation of a national culture as a part of national preservation itself, I think we need to distinguish between universal and national rights.  Cathy Young is skewing the terms of the debate because any number of rights might be considered universal, when this is not in fact true.  For example, the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights declares this right that is not recognized by American courts (see welfare reform case law):
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
So, I would say that universal rights are more limited and consist of a very small set of rights:
  • The right not to be arbitrarily deprived of life or property.
  • The right to impartial treatment under the laws of their nation.
  • The right not to be tortured.
There might be a few others, but all of the other rights in the UN Declaration are not universal, because they are not universally acknowledged across all cultures.

This is not to say that there are not other rights.  What of freedom of speech, or religion, you might ask.  Are these not universal rights?  My answer is no, they are American rights, and to some extent the rights of Englishmen.  The rights of Americans derive in no small part from the founders interpretation of the rights of Englishmen.  The failure of the Crown to respect the colonists rights as Englishmen was the key justification for the American Revolution.  However, these rights were expanded and codified into the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the Constitution.

So when Cathy Young attempts to the limit the terms of debate to a commitment to "universal rights" she is so altering the terms of the debate about nationhood as to make it meaningless.  We say, with regards to the issue of national culture, if one wishes to be afforded the same national rights on offer as everyone else, then one has to accept membership in our nation.  One's failure to accept membership in the American Nation, uttering G** D*** America as Obama's Reverend Wright famously did, is to also reject the expectation of fair treatment from other citizens as a fellow American.  This is the crux of the alt-right challenge to the national conversation.  To participate in the life of this American culture, one must identify as an American.  If one identifies primarily as an "other," Black or Mexican for example, but not really as American, perhaps because one believes that to do so is to identity with a White nation, then one forfeits credibility and participation in the national debate.  

Our national identity traces back to an Anglo-centric culture that improved upon and built upon the rights of Englishmen.  It has also imported some other aspects of European culture as well.  Most of the peoples who have emigrated to America have joined that vision and added that vision of our national culture.  This national culture values freedom, self-sufficiency, rule of law, and individual responsibility.  It uses the English language and the language of Christianity because they best convey the national culture.  In order to be afforded the right to be treated as an individual requires submission to the national values and treatment of others as individuals.  

The conclusion is clear. Speak our language and share our culture because this is our land.  We are under no obligation to accept those who do not.  Further, we are under no obligation to accept immigrants from lands where our values are not respected.  We will judge who is fit to enter America based on the historical commitment and ability of their country of origin to join our culture.  This is our assertion of our national rights.  Finally, we do not accept that the native born should cut themselves off from the mainstream of American culture that would afford them opportunities for success.