Friday, December 30, 2016

Putin, Trump, Obama and Our Shared Interests with Russia

The current insanity over the Russian hacking of DNC emails, not yet proved in my opinion, is another tempest in a teapot.  It has merely provided Obama another opportunity to demonstrate his petulance and contempt for Trump.  It's ironic that the hacks, as revealed on Wikileaks, demonstrate just how corrupt the media and Democratic party are.  Their collusion is only surprising as to the vastness of its extent.

Worth considering is the extent to which our nation's interests align with Putin's.  This is not the same as admiring Putin, who is a dictator and likely murderer.  But he is also the leader of a singularly important nation, whose interests have changed since the cold war.  Full disclosure, I am a former officer in the U.S. Submarine force, but that doesn't influence my thinking here.

First and foremost, both Russia and the U.S. have an interest in isolating and defeating Islamic extremism.  Russia is ringed by Muslims 'stans on its southern border.  Their experience with the Chechens demonstrated the need to contain the spread of extremism.  The U.S. interest in this matter is actually less clear, but certainly, our security from terrorism has to top the list.  With this common interest, cooperation with Putin on defeating ISIS in Syria, keeping the Sunnis and Shiites divided to contain extremism makes sense.  For the record, I don't think that the Arab Muslim world can ever be democratic due to the high rates of consanguineous marriage; Steve Sailer laid this out over a dozen years ago.

The other conundrum with Russia is the confluence of continued warfare in the Middle East and the Russian violation of the Ukrainian border and seizure of Crimea.  One of the key sources of conflict in the Middle East are the asinine borders that do not respect natural geographic feature or traditional tribal regions.  The rise of ISIS stems from the fact that Sunni tribes in both eastern Syria and western Iraq feel greater kinship to each other than to Shiite governments in Damascus and Baghdad respectively.  A redrawing of the borders is necessary to end the incessant warfare and migration crises.  But the U.S. is wedded to a policy of strictly maintaining the sanctity of borders worldwide.  We believe that a failure to do so would allow mischief to break out along Chinese, Indian, or other regions.  This is where Russia comes in.  Their seizure of the Crimea was just, in my opinion, given that it was stolen from the Russian federation in the 1950s by Khruschev.  Were we to grant the legitimacy of some border changes with Russia, they might be amenable to a deal where we redraw Middle East borders, as a one-time exception to the sanctity of borders policy.

I believe that the future of Europe has been put in danger by Muslim migration.  Dealing with the root causes, other than Merkel's fecklessness, is in our long term best interest. Only Europe and the Anglosphere share our values, so helping to save them from themselves is in the U.S. national interest.

The final way in which our interests align also involves Europe.  For various political reasons, Putin has postured as the only defender of traditional Christian values.  I doubt that he is sincere, but his example in promoting these values stands as a contrast to the current European model of attempting to destroy Christianity within the borders of Western European nations.

So I applaud Trump for his tweet.    

He knows he has time to deal with Putin.  Putin smartly decided not to retaliate against Obama's petulance, which was the alpha male move.  A relationship based on mutual respect and recognizing shared interests will serve the U.S. well when it comes to Russia.  Since Russia abandoned international Communism, our interests can often be aligned.

Thursday, December 29, 2016

Natalist Nationalist Policies

I have staked out a position as a limited-government nationalist, but haven't delineated how that differs from standard conservatism or from more right-wing proposals from the alt-right.  Here are two natalist policies consonant with the desire to keep America great into future generations.

A key issue for nationalists is the high levels of immigration, illegal and otherwise.  Much of the apologia for allowing the immigration centers around low U.S. birth rates the need for more workers.  But importing people who lack the intellectual or cultural wherewithal to successfully integrate into our European (and more specifically Anglo-Saxon) society is a death sentence for the Bill of Rights in the long term. (To be clear, I am calling for an end to all immigration immediately with an emphasis on building a wall at the southern border.)   What should be done to ensure the future of our people and a future work force?  Increase the birth rate of the native born.  I know that natalist policies have been a mixed bag; but I ultimately believe that incentives matter and can work in this area.  For example, the high rates of illegal immigration have kept down wages for nannies, and at least one study linked this to higher birth rates of native-born Americans when compared to Europeans. 

Tax policy can provide huge incentives for couples to have children.  But we want couples who are already successful to have children because they have already demonstrated genetic fitness, and because they have the financial resources to provide for children.  I propose a massive increase in the child tax credit that is a percentage of adjusted gross income. The total value of the credit should be in the range of 5% of AGI per child capped at $1 million in income.  That means a couple earning $200,000 per year would get a $20,000 credit for two children.  That might be too generous, I would need expert help to get the incentive just right.  Basing the credit on a percentage of AGI would also encourage couples who already have children to earn more money, which can only help the economy and their kids.

Another key issue is that college bound women waste their peak fertile years in college.  However, for the benefit of our society, it is best to educate women to eventually join the work force.  In order to increase the birth rate, we need some way to encourage college-aspiring women to have babies starting at 18 but still retain the opportunity for college. This might be remedied by a policy that provides scholarship money to woman who delay the start of college to have children.  This policy is intended to have "unintended" consequences.  First, I know that many such women who have a child will not want to return to work or college soon.  My gut instinct, based on some reading, is that removing more women from the work force and returning them to traditional roles will result in a more traditional and conservative society.  Fat young women who have no business being in college, as evidenced by their selection of critical dance theory as a major, are a ready source of "troops" for leftist causes.  Further, pregnancy alters the brains of women; I would bet that it does so in ways that make women more amenable to supporting traditional societal norms.  

I intend to write more about both natalist and nationalist polices.  If you are reading this column by way of twitter, I wrote this for John Rivers, whom I follow.  He makes great points, but I keep thinking that more detail is needed to implement national policy that will achieve the results we mutually desire.  Just hating the left isn't going to change the trajectory of the nation.  Since we are descendants of the people who invented Western civilization and modern industrial society; there's no reason to believe we can't start to figure out how to reverse the current trends in America that put us on a trajectory towards third world dictatorship.

Thursday, November 17, 2016

From Libertarian to Conservative to Nationalist

Some of my friends stopped talking to me about politics as I have made a journey from libertarian to right-wing nationalist.  I owe my friends an explanation.  Everyone else is welcome to read of course, but if I don't know you, I may not publish your comments.

First, I want the same things that I always wanted for this country; limited government, liberty, the rule of law, entrepreneurial culture, and an expanding economy.  I came to realize that although libertarians and even conservatives claim to want those things as well, the way they pursue those ends undermines their goals.  It's a little like happiness, if you want to be happy, you don't pursue material possessions and partying, which might seem like the road to happiness. Instead, you pursue worthwhile goals, you find your place within your community and in relation to God.  Then you find joy, a much deeper emotion, and more happiness.

The key break with conservatives is the realization that all men are not created equal.  They may be equal in the eyes of God, or we may value equal treatment before the law for the citizens within our borders.  But not all peoples are equally adept at thriving in a society of limited government and advanced technology.  But this equalist fantasy pervades conservative thinking. They fantasize that majorities of mestizos, arabs, and blacks can become conservative voters; so they refuse to address a key way that the left defeats conservatives, by importing peoples whose children and great-grandchildren will vote for socialism and less freedom.  You can call me racist, but that wouldn't address the truth of my argument.  The left lies and says that by increasing the diversity of America, it makes America stronger.  In fact, racial diversity harms social cohesion, as many studies have shown.  But conservatives eschew truthful arguments for fear of being called racist.  In fact, their fear of being called bad names and not receiving approval from their leftist colleagues, acquaintances, and neighbors always puts them on the defensive, so THEY ALWAYS LOSE the culture war.  As Andrew Breitbart famously said, politics is downstream of culture.  This is why I have abandoned the niceties of policy discussions of tax codes and other mainstream conservative topics.  Until we build a social consensus about acceptable norms that are based on the traditions of our European forebears, we are doomed to extinction by a combination of immigration and being out-bred by an imported permanent underclass.

When one considers what the "good life" consists of, it cannot be a life devoted to mere material possession or self-interest.  Taking one's place in a community of shared values is a key to long-life happiness.  Intact families that produce new generations to carry on our work are the linchpin of this joy.  Our shared values based on shared religious conviction that allow us to agree on how to raise children and set their moral compass.  By definition, multiculturalism is a direct threat to these shared values.  Conservatives have no answer as to how to combat this, because they are unwilling to risk approbation by saying political incorrect things.  They are unwilling to say that Islamic belief is incompatible with freedom and democracy; that a mestizo underclass will always vote for socialism; or that blacks are dependent on the good-will of whites in our society.

Further, our lack of cultural cohesion leads to an atomization that also helps the left; atomized people, disconnected from their communities, are susceptible to believing in anything.  Further, they can be intimidated and made compliant without the intervening structures of church, community, and strong social organizations to protect them.  The belief in unrestricted individualism that underlies contemporary conservative and libertarian thought actually works against their own goals by disconnecting people from community.  In my nationalist view, we seek to take our place in our community and do the work that God grants us; we are willing to enforce our community norms, passing down the religion and traditions of our forefathers.  Because we also want limited government, we are not asking for government enforcement of our norms; merely non-interference in our right to discriminate and censure those who violate our values. Further, we seek a government that doesn't enshrine in law practices inimical to our religious and cultural convictions; so we oppose gay marriage, and marijuana legalization, as two examples.  We recognize that it is a tightrope to walk with respect to government overreach, especially concerning drug use.  But the recent spate of legalizations of marijuana just shows that politics is indeed downstream of culture.

The other key reason for my break with conservatives is that conservative politics only "wins" when it benefits globalists, never when they protect average Americans.  NAFTA was passed with Republican votes, and without unrestricted immigration, might have been good for America.  But conservatives did squat to control the border when Republicans held Congress.  The truck driver from Scranton may not follow politics much, but he knows when he is getting screwed.  He may not vote for the Democrat because they voted for regulations that make his job harder and more expensive; but he knows that Republicans won't ever roll it back. I'm tired of voting for people who say their policies will help Americans in some abstract way, but whose only victories come when big business is helped.  (By the way, the Democrats are even worse about this, but they don't claim to be a conservative party.)

As a practical matter, limited government nationalism mostly will agree with conservatives on many policy matters, and I seek an anti-Marxist alliance with libertarians and conservatives.  The difference is emphasis, the willingness to use so called hate-facts, and brave cries of racism from the left.  Ending immigration, illegal and otherwise is made the top priority.  Allowing Middle Eastern strongmen to enforce the peace to prevent chaos that results in migration crises is another goal.  The policies of the nation will be judged on the impact to the nation as a whole.  As Trump said, "America First."  But ultimately, politics and policy is no longer the goal; I want to change the tone of the culture.  The only policy that really matters is immigration, because your culture is highly dependent upon your ancestry.

Tuesday, November 1, 2016

San Diego Voter Guide - Vote NO!

My TrumpNation Guide To San Diego Ballot Propositions.

In a previous post on California ballot measures, I mostly recommended voting NO.  I am repeating this same recommendation for local ballot initiatives in San Diego.  There is all sorts of disguised skullduggery afoot, as I explain below; so if you don't know, Vote No!

Measure A. 1/2 Cent Sales Tax for SANDAG. NO
They say they will fix potholes with the money; maybe they will maybe they won't.  They can spend the extra money however they want within the listed priorities.

Measure B. Lilac Hill Development near Escondido. YES
The developers are having troubles with the seemingly endless regulation needed to build a project of this size.  So I say yes, as part of my bid to poke the eye of all regulators.

Measure C. Hotel Tax for Downtown Charger Stadium. NO
Raises the hotel tax to build a stadium downtown for the Chargers.  Just say no to professional sports owners getting sweetheart deals from cities.

Measure D. Competing Hotel Tax Measure for Charger Stadium. NO
Supposedly a better deal for taxpayers than Measure C; but my same objection to funding billionaires businesses applies.

Measure E. Removal of City Officials. NO
Provides for removal of "mayor, city attorney and City Council members to forfeit their job outright if they are convicted of a felony, found civilly liable for fraud or declared incapacitated by a court."  Source: VOSD.  Only voters should remove elected officials.  Further, this opens up the door for judicial shenanigans.  A friendly judge could declare the mayor "insane" and voila, the City Council President is Mayor.

Measure F. Probation Period for City Attorneys. NO
This measure would decrease the probationary period for city attorneys from 2 years to 1 year.  The elected City Attorney needs the right to shape the staff, so no. Plus, if this is a problem it can be a campaign issue.  It was one reason I voted for Jan Goldsmith in 2008, because he promised to clean up the managerial practices of the then City Attorney  We need to fix issues by electing the right people, which is why I am voting for Trump.

Measure G. More Teeth for Police Oversight. NO
This would give the Citizens Review Board a new name, more power to investigate and issue subpoenas.  This might be good if the San Diego police were doing a bad job.  But I fear that the police will get hamstrung and crime will rise as a result, like we are seeing in Baltimore, New York, and Chicago.

Measure H. Change to City Contracting Legal Language. NO
Supposedly uncontroversial measure removes requirement to publish advertisement of contracts in local paper, so too bad, NO! Much good work in uncovering corruption has been performed by perusing public documents.  Dave Maass is an example of someone who has done such work.

Measure I. Keep San Diego High School in it Current Location. NO
Directs the city to lease a portion of Balboa Park to the school district which would keep San Diego High in its current location.  I can't help but think this will also save taxpayer dollars and save the flagship high school.

Measure J.  Take More Money out of Mission Bay RentalsNO
Increases from 25% to 35% the amount of money that the city can shift out of Mission Bay Park to other parks from the rents it produces.  Seems unfair to me.

Measure K.  November Elections No Matter What Happens in June. NO
Requires a run off for Mayor and other offices even if the winner of the June primary got over 50% of the vote.  Since Republicans turn out better during primaries, this favors Democrats.  If Democrats want their lazy voters to make a difference, turn them out in June. 

Measure L.  November Elections for Ballot Measures. NO
Allows certain type of ballot measures to only be voted on in November.  Why bother having a June election if it is meaningless?

Measure M. Raise Limits on Affordable Housing City Manages. NO
This would increase the number of units of "affordable housing" the city is allowed to manage.  Stop all the regulations that prevent new homes from being built instead.

Measure N.  Taxes on Marijuana if LegalizedNO
The only good that would come of legalized weed would be a reduction of violence due to no more black market.  This would re-establish the black market and the violence by raising the price of marijuana above street prices. As we have seen in New York City with the death of Eric Garner, cigarette taxes kill.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Twatter, Fazeborg, and Gulagoogle

The big tech companies are treading dangerous ground. They are lying to their users, and by extension they are lying to their advertising. But before I explain, a quick note about twatter. Twitter, whose founder, Jack Dorsey, never saw a fascist jackboot he didn't want to shine with his own spittle, is an outrage amplification machine. Something about the media is addicting. And the more the outrage, the more addicting it feels. I honestly have been getting better night sleep by limiting my daily exposure to Twitter.

The basic problem with big tech is that their claim to be neutral in American politics in the dialogue between right and left is provably false. Everyone knows this intuitively, yet they all continue to claim how evenhanded they are.

Scott Adams has stated this more eloquently than I will be able to. In describing his position if he is in fact being shadowbanned, he said.
If one political party can use the machinery of social networks to reduce free speech, that is an attack on American values at the deepest level. As a patriot, I would feel obligated to help kill Twitter. (And you wouldn’t want to bet against me.) 
I understand Twitter is looking for a buyer. If management is shadowbanning me, that would be breach of fiduciary responsibility, screwing both the shareholders and the employees who hope the company can be purchased. In my view, shadowbanning would make Twitter too toxic to own. That toxicity – treason in my view – would transfer to the buyer.
There are two key issues, one moral, one legal.  Let's take the legal one first.  If the search/promotion/display policies of any of these platforms claim to be neutral, but in fact are being manipulated actively for political reasons but the stated policy of the network is to let the users decide, then they may run afoul of the law, as advertisers using their platforms aren't getting what is expected.  Scott Adams nails the ethical piece, as claiming to be a free speech platform, but secretly suppressing speech is tantamount to treason to our nation's founding principles.

I especially loathe Jack Dorsey and hope he eventually suffers the traditional penalty meted out to traitors.


Reader Foxfier provides a helpful link about a suit brought by American Freedom Law Center on this topic against Twitter and Facebook.  This suit will probably lose, but I like the "public square" argument, that these platforms form the equivalent of a street corner, where the free speech of individuals can't be suppressed based on viewpoint.

I would love to see lawsuits based on securities violations or false advertising by these corporations, because I think they are more vulnerable there.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

If You Don't Know, Vote NO!

My TrumpNation Guide To California Ballot Propositions.

In the off chance that Hillary won't destroy the Republic if elected or that Donald Trump will benefit from a miracle from God, there are propositions in California that have the potential to do more damage.  My policy positions align with Trump's in that we seek to end to the endless corruption whereby globalist corporations use the forces of government to screw ordinary (that is deplorable) Americans.  Since most ballot propositions proceed from these monied interests or the from the Democratic party, but I repeat myself, follow this simple advice.  If you don't know, Vote No!

Proposition 51. $9 billion in bonds for education and schools. NO
More money for the rat hole of the public education system. Privatizing all schools will kill the teacher's unions, a never ending source of corruption in politics.

Proposition 52. Voter approval of changes to the hospital fee program. NO
It's supposed to save MediCal, so No.  Also, every time we make it harder to use legislative discretion to balance the budget, it is used as an excuse to raise taxes.

Proposition 53. Projects that cost more than $2 billion. YES
Forces a public vote on revenue bonds over $2 billion.  Revenue bonds are supposed to be paid for by future income, which never actually shows up.  This might help reign in the legislature.

Proposition 54. Conditions under which legislative bills can be passed. YES
Publish legislation on the internet for 72 hours prior to a vote.  Sure, why not, just adds to the late Friday bad news dump we're already used to.

Proposition 55. Personal income tax increases on incomes over $250,000. NO
We haven't driven enough business owners and upper middle class out of California?

Proposition 56. Increase the cigarette tax by $2.00 per pack. NO
Of course, they are coming after all you #Deplorables who smoke.  As we have seen in New York City with the death of Eric Garner, cigarette taxes kill.

Proposition 57. Felons convicted of non-violent crimes. NO
More loosening up of criminal justice system, which is already a disaster.  We saw a surge in shoplifting from the last Proposition 47 which reduces sentencing for smaller crimes.

Proposition 58. Repeal ban on Bilingual education in public schools. NO
We're in America, speak English.  Also, English immersion has helped Hispanics assimilate, so the left is pissed and wants to keep them down.

Proposition 59. Repeal the First Amendment. NO
Directs the California delegation to work to overturn Citizens United.

Proposition 60.  Require the use of condoms in pornographic films. NO
Are you f***ing kidding me?  Also, this would make the real names of pornographic film performers public, because... who knows.

Proposition 61.  Prescription drug price regulationsNO
Make the state pay less for drugs. How? Who knows? Unintended consequences?  

Proposition 62. Repeal the death penalty. YES
I don't trust the government to fairly administer the death penalty.  Also, look at all the special circumstances that merit consideration of the penalty; how much longer before being a #deplorable merits death?

Proposition 63. Background checks for ammunition purchases. NO
You bitter clingers aren't getting enough police state surveillance? Take this.

Proposition 64. Legalization of marijuana and hemp. NO
Here is where I change from conservative-libertarian to nationalist. Marijuana isn't good for productivity of working class and upper middle class Americans.  We need to change the culture on this as well.  KTCat would approve of my change of heart.

Proposition 65. Grocery and retail carry-out bags. NO
I have no idea what this is, but the left is saying No, so that Proposition 67 can pass, which is more stupider.  I say vote No on all of them.

Proposition 66. Speed Up Death penalty procedures. NO
Speeds up death penalty procedures.  Since I oppose death penalty, I also oppose this.

Proposition 67. Prohibition on plastic single-use carryout bags. NO
How am I supposed to pick up dog poop without left over plastic bags.  I reuse all the plastic bags i get from the grocery store, so all of the arguments for this are lies.

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.

Monday, April 11, 2016

A Better Apology for Ian McEwan

Ian McEwan was recently savaged by Social Justice Whoriers in Britain for making the unremarkable remark that “. . . I tend to think of people with penises as men.”  He was attempting to wade into some stupidity within the LGBT community and its eating of its own through consumerist identitarianism.  Of course, being a writer but not really a believer in anything, he issued an apology.  I thought his apology to be rather insincere and pro forma.  As a public service announcement, I offer Mr. McEwan, free of charge, this much improved apology.

I am sorry that your lack of self-awareness caused you to be offended by my common-sense remarks.  As a member of the Western cultural elite, I am sorry that we have failed you.  We have allowed to wallow in childish self-pity over your condition.  I am sorry that we have allowed you to believe that physical and chemical self mutilation are legitimate answers to your mental illness.  I am sorry that we have not provided you with the support to resist your irrational urges of self-harm.  I am sorry that we haven't provided you with the intellectual fortitude to think honestly and handle the truth.  I am sorry that we have allowed our culture to become so debased that we cannot discern mental health from illness.  For all this we are deeply sorry.  I sincerely hope that trannies and your poz sympathizers will cease visiting your deep self-loathing on what remains of healthy society.

Monday, March 21, 2016

Traitors, Cretins and Racism

"Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel," Samuel Johnson famously warned us, inveighing against a false patriotism that is only a cover up. Recently, scoundrels have taken to calling their critics racists as their last refuge.  It's an attack intended to silence debate and to squelch freedom of speech through mob intimidation.  Merely being accused of doing a single racist thing, true or not, can cause an American to lose their job, lose their business, or being assaulted by random strangers on the street.  Mob rule intended to violate Americans' rights runs contrary to our founding principles.

So if you are calling someone racist, I am going to just assume you're lying.  Second, I'm going to assume you're a traitor because you want to deny an American their rights.  And I'm going to call you what on your treachery and betrayal.  

You've been warned.

Thursday, March 17, 2016

The Longest Ovation

Dick Cheney is disliked by the left and the right alike.  The left sees him as some sort of Darth Vader to Bush's Emperor Palpatine, leading us into unnecessary war and torture.  The right sees him as part of the larger failings of the Bush administration that gave us Obama and Medicare Part D.  But he was the recipient of the longest standing ovation I have ever witnessed.  Allow me to explain.

In October 1991 (approximately) I was nearing the end of 18 months of study at Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey after 8 years of sea duty.  The first Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm, had ended that February with the unexpectedly complete and swift expulsion of Saddam's forces from Kuwait. When the war had started, no one knew how long it would take or if it was even a wise move.  At the time, I was ambivalent about the war, worried that that it would unleash instability in the Middle East.  But victory so complete and total tends to wipe away such doubts.

Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense at the time, and he had come to Monterey to deliver a talk about some new strategy that I frankly can't remember.  I was in the military a long time and have seen my share VIPs, including the President.  It is customary for members of the military to come to attention (i.e. stand up, with an erect bearing) at the arrival of the VIP.  Later, when he is formally introduced, there is some polite applause to welcome him.  This day would be different.  When Cheney was introduced, the clapping started, and we stood.  We clapped and we clapped and we clapped.  Then we clapped some more.  It went on like that for well over 15 minutes, maybe more.  If that doesn't sound like much, try it yourself.  No one wanted to stop.  Every time I think of that moment in time, I tear up.

I am speaking for myself, because I have never discussed it with anyone who was there.  But here is the context.  I joined the United States Navy under the long shadow of the Vietnam War.  The greatest country on earth lost that war, and it stung.  Then we were humiliated by our inability to rescue hostages from students and ayatollahs in Iran; then Marines were blown up by the hundreds in Beirut.  And in my heart of hearts, I knew that we were better than that.  I knew at least that my force, the submarine force, was ready, willing, and able to deliver nuclear punishment to our nation's enemies if called upon.  But we still looked like losers.

Then, in 1991, we won total and undeniable victory. The Gulf War was vindication.  It was vindication of the billions that Reagan had spent restoring our capability.  It was vindication of our fighting spirit.  It was vindication of our belief that we were the greatest fighting force on the planet.  Even though the President is Commander in Chief, the SecDef is the leader of all of the armed forces, without other duties.  We were really clapping for ourselves, for the sacrifices we all had made, and for the belief that we were successfully serving a great republic.  It was a day to be proud of what we had accomplished.  So we just kept applauding.  It was a good day.

. . .

Many of my friends question my support for Donald Trump.  I can only say that he taps into my deep loathing of being on the losing side and my deep sense of nationalism and identity as an American.  It may be that he is a charlatan; but no other candidate seems genuinely interested in restoring our pride as a nation.  Not as a conservative nation, but as a nation, period.

Monday, March 7, 2016

Why Immigration Is THE Issue - Again

I was challenged on Twitter yesterday as to why immigration is my number one issue.  So I thought that a little recap is in order.

1. It's about fairness and the rule of law.  The culture of this country is sliding towards conditions that foster dictatorship.  Specifically, how one is treated before the law depends on one's circumstances.  Whether it is Hillary getting away with blatantly illegal activity on her server or Obama unlawfully granting amnesty to millions of illegals; were on a path where consequences for illegal activity is determined by a political elite ruled by a donor class.

2. The public wants the border enforced and the politicians won't do it.  The failure to control illegal immigration is indisputable evidence that our system of government has become rigged against the interests of the people as a whole.  Unlike the courts ramming through gay marriage, which never won any popular votes; there is not even a fig leaf of constitutionality in this question.  The Congress has the power to set immigration policy and the President the duty to enforce it.

3. It is an assault on the standard of living and even the lives of the working class.  Kurt Schlichter said it best:
Amnesty was a great idea for bubble people who think illegal immigration satisfies some sort of libertarian ideal, or who only experience its impact by being able to hire a cheaper nanny. It’s a pretty great idea for the illegals too. But leave your nice neighborhood and go where a high school grad who was born here can’t get a job as a roofer since any general contractor who doesn’t hire illegals is going to go broke because his competition will. Tell somebody whose daughter is shot dead in front of him by an illegal who got arrested five times but never got deported that it’s an act of love.
. . .
Immigration and free trade are generally good, but they impose real costs and our base is getting handed the bill. These folks have been asking us for help, and what was our response? Shut up, stupid racists.
4. We have a right to expect assimilation of our culture and ideals.  The current failure to enforce the border is leading to a ghettoization of Spanish speaking illegals who are not assimilating. We have lost the national will to demand assimilation of sub-cultures within our society as a prerequisite to group success.  Until this changes, we have the right to call for an end even to legal immigration if we so desire, in order to ensure that new immigrants share our dedication to freedom, limited government and rule of law.  Further, it is our right to restrict immigration to countries that cherish those values, so that we might preserve our own.

5.  Unlimited Immigration Does Not Benefit AMERICANS as a whole.  I keep having to say this.  We are demanding that the government of the United States operate in a manner that benefits all Americans, not just the few who benefit from illegal competition for wages.

You may view my long history of discussing this topic.  It is comprehensive.

Sunday, February 21, 2016

Why Nationalism Trumps Conservatism

The conservative critique of Donald Trump is that he is not a conservative.  This tautology begs the question of why it is necessary to be a conservative to secure the Republican nomination and the Presidency.  Americans care little for ideology but care a great deal about putting the interests of all Americans first, so conservatism isn't a winning electoral strategy.  The people are looking for a system to ensure that they are provided a level playing field and the opportunity to better their lives.  The unexpected popularity of Trump and Sanders suggests that Americans think that neither conservatism nor liberalism achieves those ends.  In theory, both philosophies claim to do so, but in practice, not so much.  When a nationalist candidate comes along and tells Americans they are getting a raw deal from their government; it resonates, and for the socialist as well.

Both parties talk to a tough line about helping the average American, but the selective application of their principles results in benefits redounding to special interests which destroys trust in the system.  For example, Republicans had the opportunity, with big majorities under George W. Bush and a reasonable excuse, the war on terror, to put an end to illegal immigration.  Illegal immigration puts downward pressure on the salaries of the lower middle class.  Later, when Obama, supposedly the champion of these same folks, made the problem worse; conservatives beat their chests but did nothing practical to stop his extra-legal executive orders.  There could have been hard-nosed negotiations that put money for extending a wall or other effective measures to deter illegal immigration, but the conservative party just resigned itself to defeat.  Meanwhile, abuse of the H1B visa program by employers such as Disney and big tech firms goes uninvestigated.  Employees, that is average Americans, lack the ability to easily move between jobs, which is well documented.  Allowing foreigners to compete for jobs inside this country, either because of illegal immigration or visa abuse is an unfair tilt of power to employers; but the conservative party cares not.

Meanwhile, Republicans seem willing to push for policies that help large corporations and Wall Street while claiming to do so in the name of the free market.  But we end up with a battle to end just one egregious program, the Export-Import Bank, which many Republicans fought with a zeal we wanted applied in opposition to Obama's illegal amnesty programs.  Further, conservatism has resulted in budgets that just continue the status quo, because it suits the big money backers of the GOP just fine.  Name a single program killed by the GOP when they held legislative majority over the last 30 years?  They are happy to talk a good game and collect rents from big business.

On the left, the ACA (Obamacare) was purportedly intended to help the uninsured.  It's only real effect has been to provide a few new customers to insurance companies and the pharmaceutical industries, who effectively wrote much of the legislation.  80% of those who were uninsured prior to the ACA's passage remain uninsured; 20% is usually a failing grade on any scale.  It is so bad, that Bernie Sanders can truthfully run a campaign to end the problem of the uninsured.  A second example: The financial crisis of 2008 swept the Democrats into power in D.C. In response, they passed the Dodd-Frank so called financial reform measure.  Rather than addressing the problems causing the crisis, they essentially promise to bail out big financial institutions by enshrining the "too big to fail" doctrine into law.  The bad lending and the perverse incentives will continue to enrich the banking class, while the liberals claim to be fighting Wall Street for the common man.

But enough of the failures of liberalism as practiced by the modern day Democratic party.  The second reason that nationalism wins is identity.  When I am at work, out shopping or watching a football game; I think of myself as an American, a Christian, and a San Diegan.  (Californian? Not so much anymore.)  My identity as an American is much stronger than my merely political identity as a conservative, and I am a very political person.  For the average voter, the national identity is even more dominant.  Identity trumps ideology, always.  I am an American long before I think about being a conservative or Republican.  Further, nationalism serves as a glue that binds us together across classes.  The overlooked story of the last two decades is the extent to which American elites no longer see themselves as Americans per se, but as part of a global elite.  Zuckerberg of Facebook is seen in Germany undermining nationalism there, by suppressing anti-immigrant sentiment.     The average person sees this and sees a political system where the establishment of both parties is in league with internationalists to the detriment of their own interests.  How else to combat the tilted playing field than to embrace that our identity as Americans and the candidate who most explicitly makes the case to work for our interests, not the interests of the elite and not the interests of the poor and oppressed around the globe.   Conservatism is the answer to a situation of low trust across our society; Nationalism is a glue to engender greater trust.

The other reason for nationalism is that we are again at war with a global ideology.  Communism, fascism and Radical Islamism (by which I mean the current Wahabbist strain of Islam) were and are ideologies intent on remaking the world.  Fascism wasn't defeated by democracy, but by nations acting in their own self-interest; intending to maintain their own identities.  Ditto for communism.  The Soviet Empire crumbled from within because its constituent nations successfully achieved autonomy for their own peoples.  That autonomy didn't usually take the form of democracy, but powerfully destroyed a communist empire nevertheless. Right now, Radical Islamism is attractive because the boundaries of the Middle East have not been drawn to align tribes and peoples into true nations.  Nationalism will be needed to eventually defeat this form of Islam and allow Islam to recede to a  religion and shed its identity as a political movement.  Ultimately, we need nationalism to secure the peace, with each tribe to its own country, secure within its own borders.

P.S. Just after I published this, I saw a link to a John Derbyshire article on the meaning of nationalism that highlights and amplifies some of what I have said; alas more eloquently.