Monday, October 9, 2017

New York Times Nearly has Moment of Clarity, Catches Self

A recent article in the New York Times begins with
Do you remember what monstrous, contemptible or demonstrably false thing Donald Trump said one year ago? Six months ago? O.K., last week? Probably not.
Taken in isolation, these sentences are a wonderful confession. Do you recall specifically any monstrous, contemptible, or demonstrably false thing Trump has uttered? No? Why not? We understand why that would be so: because Trump's mainstream persona is a fictional character propagated by the corporate media. Sure he blunders, talks off the cuff, rebukes his enemies, and engages in Twitter frenzies, but he's not really said anything monstrous or contemptible. Doesn't it seem dangerous for the New York Times to be reminding readers of the vacuousness of it's own propaganda? It's a risky move. Fortunately the author is very smart, like all journalists, and immediately catches himself and steers towards the proper narrative of Trump hatred.
The effect of this presidency-by-horrors is to induce amnesia in the public, as if we’d all been given a memory-loss drug.
The reason people can't remember Trump's Hitleresque diatribe is not because it is imaginary, but because Trump is so extraordinarily evil he has actually caused mass amnesia among the voting left! It just makes too much sense.

The author, being principled and not at all a mindless political hack, follows up in the next paragraph with his strongest evidence to support his claim, that Trump has said many "monstrous, contemptible, and demonstrable false things."
To recap: A year ago, Trump lied repeatedly in his first debate with Hillary Clinton, and was reminded that he had called women pigs, slobs and dogs. Six months go, he settled for $25 million two lawsuits and a fraud case regarding his phony university, a huckster scheme that duped people out of their personal savings. And last week, he unleashed an attack on the free-speech rights of athletes, using a profanity that could not be repeated on the news without a warning to children.
This is the hard evidence. That Trump doesn't hold the highly sexist viewpoint that women are, by virtue of their magical lady parts, above rebuke. That he settled a politically motivated lawsuit that was threatening to derail his nascent political career. And that he, the President of the United States of American, criticized public figures for openly disrespecting the traditional symbols of the United States of America. The horror.

The article goes on like that, I imagine. I didn't finish reading it and neither should you. Well, not unless you want to learn how to be a properly devout practitioner of the leftist religion. In that case, the article is quite instructive. Some commentators on the right, such as ZMan, have noticed that in the modern era observing things has become something of a moral crime. For instance, it's not acceptable to notice that black people commit way more crime than everyone else. We aren't supposed to notice, and certainly aren't allowed to comment, aspects of reality that contravene the narrative. (Perhaps this is generally true of religions.)

The author has nearly made a disastrous blunder. He's noticed something. He's noticed that, off hand, he can't really think of anything awful Trump has said. He's worried that his observation is akin to thought crime, is terrified that other people might be noticing the same thing, so he engages in proper rationalism to bury the apparent contradiction. It also makes for a wonderful vehicle to rehash the narrative and to give their acolytes their necessary serving of Trump hate on a slow hate day.

Friday, October 6, 2017

Central Government Requires Strong Borders

In yesterday's post, Gun Control Requires a Weak Military and Strong Borders, we made the case that gun control requires strong borders. It's in no way a novel thought. (Although I don't hear anyone talking about the other part: that the ethos of the 2nd Amendment demands either a weak military or a strongly armed citizenry.) We can't have gun control without strong borders. Likewise, we can't have drug enforcement without strong borders. We can't have an immigration policy without strong borders. There's a general principle here, laid out by Heartiste in his post Age of Chaos. He quotes a commenter from Steve Sailor's blog,
One of the main functions of a central government is to control the country’s borders. That is why there is a central government. This used to be more military based, with occasional actual wars, but today it is about who comes across the border, who gets to stay, in other words migration policies.

In the last few decades this core function performed by central governments has been gradually abandoned. So when parts of these larger states – like Catalonia in Spain – look at their capitals they don’t see much value. With unguarded and open borders, large centralised states make no sense.

This is one reason for the rapid increase in separatism. There are of course many others, cultural, economic, linguistic, etc… But I believe opening borders also creates a vacuum in the centre of the current states. Almost nothing they do makes sense with open borders and mass migration. How can there be educational or health policies with open access from outside? Or a normal labor market leading to a normal economy? Or cultural policies? Mass migration with effectively unprotected borders make all central state functions pointless. One reaction is an increased desire to separate by constituent parts of the state. This is what the Brussels (and Washington) ruling elites don’t get. They have been so obsessed with not allowing a ‘power vacuum’ internationally, that they stopped caring about not creating a de facto governing vacuums inside the countries they are supposed to be governing.

Disintegration is one consequence of not having effective external boundaries. The global mandarins have been dreaming about a seamless, integrated, one-world with no borders global super-state (or a smaller European one), but they lost sight of how that changes the dynamic inside their existing countries. We are heading towards a period of more nationalism, more separatism, more disintegration that is really just re-integrating in a different way what has been stupidly abandoned by the global utopians. It will be messy. I wish both Catalans and Spaniards good luck – but if Madrid wants to stop the separatism, they should do their job and control the external borders.
The principle is that you can't have central government at all without strong borders. And the great irony is this hits liberals harder than conservatives, as they are generally the big-government affecionados. Pick the liberal agenda, and it's failures can be described in terms of weak borders. Healthcare/welfare: unaffordable when one fourth of all Mexicans are in the US trying to get on the dole. Gun control: laid out in yesterday's post. Heavy handed policing: essential when cops are fighting well-funded narco-terrorists on American streets. Gay rights: most threatened by the type of immigrants who would shoot up a gay night club. This is just as true for state and local governments as it is for the federal government. Witness the success of California's extra gun control, or in Massachusetts's attempt at statewide healthcare.

At this point the federal government doesn't really do much other than operate a military and try to bribe votes by redistributing wealth just the right way. That is not a recipe for long-term success. A government that no longer protects its borders is like when a popular company is bought up by a corporate holder, who cuts costs to profit off the name brand. Eventually the name brand is ruined, but no matter; the corporation made its profit. The same is true of government that is taken over by globalist influences. The government no longer offers the quality service it once did. It can go for some time in that manner, living off its fatty reserves, but eventually people wisen up.

Life is a continuous series of forces and counterforces; trends and countertrends. Ebb follows flow. We on the dissident right are horrified at the collapse of national borders by liberal central governments, and yet that collapse will be what does those same governments in. To quote Sun Tzu, as we frequently do here: Stand by the river long enough and the bodies of your enemies will float by.

Thursday, October 5, 2017

Gun Control Requires a Weak Military and Strong Borders

Recently this video came up in my facebook feed. It's a spoof of a man committing a modern-day workplace mass shooting armed with weaponry from the era in which our 2nd Amendment was ratified. In the time it takes him to rearm his muzzleloader, the office has cleared out.

It brings up a very good point. Weapons aren't the same as they were back then. A disgruntled maniac in a hotel balcony could not have killed 50 revelers in 1789. A single man's capacity to kill many of his neighbors has greatly increased. Many argue that we must reduce the firepower available to the citizenry to avoid mass shootings.

However, to do so in a linear, reactionary fashion risks subverting the entire purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately people get too hung up on the literal wording of our Bill of Rights and lose sight of the intended meaning. The 2nd Amendment could be worded something like the people shall be permitted sufficient arms to overthrow their government if necessary. Not perfect, but at least it tells the pedantic shall not be infringed sticklers to take a hike, as well as those who pretend the law is about recreational use. It probably should include something about reasonable self defense as well, but the 2nd Amendment was written as guidance for the balance of physical force between the government and the governed. The 1st Amendment was to prevent a government monopoly on propaganda, the 2nd Amendment was to prevent a government monopoly on firepower. There should never exist the condition where a significant majority of the people wish to overthrow their government but are cowed by the fear of massacre. (Which is always the case in a tyranny.)

It seems to most of us that we've long passed the point at which the 2nd Amendment provided a fair balance of firepower. The government is allowed to have bombers, attack helicopters, and tanks. Not only are we not allowed those weapons platforms, but we are not allowed the countering weapons either, such as SAMs and RPGs. A face-off between the American people and the American government would be extremely one-sided. Look at how our military mows through Muslim armies & militias (when allowed to engage freely). Even the most dirt-poor Jihadis are better armed than us, the AK-47 being a far more powerful rifle than anything we're allowed. One could make the argument that, since we don't stand a chance rebelling against the federal government anyway, there's no point in allowing semi-automatic rifles that are often turned against innocent crowds by madmen.

However, a recent event does provide evidence that these firearms do indeed empower the people against an overreaching government. In the Bundy ranch incident, a large number of armed civilians stood off against armed government officers. The government officers wisely determined their best outcome was a Pyrrhic victory, and stood down. The Bundies and some of the others, probably a bit arrogant from their victory, went on to stage another showdown in Oregon which was thwarted by authorities. The cause being defended was much stronger in Oregon (Nevada being quite dubious in my opinion), but they failed nevertheless. The difference was all about turnout. Nevada showed that a significant number of armed citizens can exert power over a government armed with tanks and nukes.

Whatever the current balance, the principle remains largely intact. The stronger the firepower of the government, the stronger the firepower of the people must be. It's pretty apparent. If the government has machine guns we can't beat them with rocks. (But woe the government armed with only scissors.) For the ethos of the 2nd Amendment to hold (and who is going to argue that the people should be powerless against their government?) requires something of an arms race to maintain a balance of power. The obvious solution, if one wishes to reduce civilian firepower, is to also reduce government firepower. Thus the balance is maintained.

The counterweight to this is that the military-intelligence complex isn't just used to maintain domestic control, but still serves it's primary role of preventing and deterring foreign invasion. We can't realistically reduce our military to an army of scissors when the Russians still have nukes pointed at us, and when the Mexicans would probably love to reclaim the US Southwest if they thought they could get away with it. So we must maintain a military strong enough to deter foreign aggression, knowing that one cost is a more heavily armed citizenry required to maintain an internal balance of power. The problem with this should be obvious to anyone. The United States does not keep a military strong enough to defend from foreign aggression, but one strong enough to enforce US global hegemony. We can see right away that the 2nd Amendment and global empire are incompatible. This puts conservatives in a bind. Which do they cherish more? The Constitution, or American empire?

Hopefully the answer is obvious, and liberals won't mind the answer either. A more lightly armed populace and a greatly reduced military are just what they're hoping for. But they won't like the other side of it.

Today they're saying we need to have a national conversation about gun control. No, we don't, actually. We could, but it would be entirely academic. A while back this blog proposed Group-Based Gun Control, which could also be thought of as distributed gun control or patronage gun control. I think it's a great idea, but it doesn't matter, because it fails for the same reason as all gun control measures. Until our government can reliably keep illegal drugs out of the country, or even illegal people for that matter (let alone having them in the tens of millions), the notion that they could properly enforce any gun control is ludicrous. It's cliche, but when our government outlaws guns, only outlaws will have guns. Even the recent shooting which they're rallying around featured illegal weapons. The Bataclan massacre killed even more in a country with strict gun control. We could cite examples endlessly. If the left really wants gun control, they have to allow strong national borders, and probably enforcement of state borders as well. Conservatives won't go for internal border checks because it limits freedoms. Liberals won't want it because it limits social justice, and they like to import voters through porous borders. So it'll never happen, so we won't have gun control. They should give up, not because gun control is a bad idea, but because they aren't willing to pay the price for it.

As for me, I'm willing to have gun control, so long as the balance of power against the government is maintained and there is the option of reasonable self defense. Bring our boys home, lock down the borders, and let's solve this problem of maniacs with machine guns. Everything else is just theatrics.

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Liberals Kill Conservatives

There is an ongoing series of posts on this blog called Muslim Kill Liberals. These posts highlight examples of Muslims killing individuals who are known to be vocally pro-refugee, or when they attack populations with a high degree of those beliefs. There is certainly some amount of shadenfreude within those posts.

It seems we may soon require another similar series for liberals killing conservatives. The recent mass shooting in Las Vegas likely fits the bill; before that we had a crazed lefty shooting up GOP congressmen; and before that we had a rash of BLM-inspired shootings against cops and whites.

The lefties are, naturally, screaming foul about our gun-control problem, and to some extent I will agree with them. I think we can all agree we don't want crazy people in possession of high power weapons, even if we can't agree on how to go about that. But what we really have is a liberal-control problem. We've been watching it unfold, the hysterical, hyper-partisan propaganda. We've said it will ignite a civil war, and now we're having politically motivated massacres on the streets. If we don't get the liberal hysteria in check one way or another, we will be partly to blame for what follows, just as the pro-refugee terror victims are partly at fault for their own demise.

It's always seemed to me that the rabidly pro 2nd Amendment crowd would be less excited for their cause if ethnic gangs starts citing those rights for themselves. I don't really understand the point the open-carry activists are trying to make (I think they generally just want attention), but you can be sure their advocacy for open-carry would lose steam if every Jamal and Jorge walked around with a piece strapped to his side, citing his constitutional license to do so.

In fact, if your political agenda included disarming the US citizenry for the purposes of introducing oppressive governance, your best way to get popular support for that would be to see that lots of white conservatives were being shot by liberals and minorities. The liberals are preaching violence against whites because it serves their long-term objectives. If whites conservatives decide to allow themselves to be disarmed for their own protection, they will only ensure their victimization into the future.

Friday, September 29, 2017

Invasion Hypocrisy Doesn't Exist

Alt-right is a loose term, but if there is one stance we all share, it is the the opposition towards the invasion of white countries by the rest of the world. There is certainly an element of white nationalism to that, but most of us, I reckon, are omni nationalists. We believe in nationalism for everyone. Every nation gets a homeland. That's the western tradition we've had at least since Westphalia, and up until so recently.

Supposedly there is hypocrisy in all this. For instance, if I stated that the US should not become a white-minority country, every liberal within earshot would proudly proclaim my hypocrisy, since white people took the lands from the Amerinds. So it's hypocritical for white people to take a moral stance against invasion now. But those claims of hypocrisy can only be made by people so insulated from reality that they have no comprehension of the natural order of things.

Lets look at an example a little further from home, to get a little extra objectivity. Every last alt-righter is fully abhorred at the Muslim invasion of Sweden. But who do we criticize? Just looking at this blog, who gets the blame? The Muslims? Hardly. I ridicule the Swedes every chance I get. For the Muslims to engage in resource warfare is perfectly normal. I don't know of anyone making the claim that Muslims should not invade Sweden, on moral grounds. No, what we say is that the invasion should not be allowed by the Swedes, on the moral grounds that people have a duty to preserve their nations, and should not be condoned by the rest of the world, on the moral principle of omni nationalism.

We think the Muslims are immoral for a lot of reasons, but not because they are amassing in places that will provide them resources. Doing so is perfectly natural. Likewise, we can't condemn our white ancestors for invading places like North America and Australia. We'd expect that the displaced peoples be given some sort of homeland, in reverence to omni-nationalism. In America, the Indians are allowed to live in highly autonomous reservations. It's probably not good enough, but it's far better than nothing. Most conquered peoples in history have not fared so well. 

There are two characteristics of the white invasion of America that bear scrutiny. One is a widespread lack of honor in the tactics of invasion, and the other is the degree to which Europeans engaged in profiteering over nation building. Our forebearers had a habit of breaking nearly every treaty they made with the Amerinds. Promises were made to keep things stable until such time as the application of force worked in the favor of whites. While diplomatic deceit was not created by Europeans (and is much more associated with the Eastern tradition), it is not a proud legacy. Frankly, we expect better of ourselves. Also, lands were not always settled for noble causes. Europeans had the tendency to import cheap labor from all around to build highly profitable plantations. While building economic engines is an admirable pursuit, it should be done with long-term goals, and without violating the dignity or rights of other people. Hawaii became a minority nation because of immigrant labor, as did many other places. Europeans didn't hesitate to import black African slaves to any location they might be useful. As such we see many black-dominated countries in the Caribbean today and strong populations in the American southwest and in the cities. As we're aware, every place with a black-majority population is an economically depressed locale, save the places that are fortunate to reside on popular tourist destinations.

Clearly there is room for criticism of white imperialism, and we in the dissident right are as quick to point them out as anyone (and probably with more clarity). But, that's not to say that white people were immoral for finding underdeveloped lands and building more advanced nations on those lands. This has been the natural way since time immemorial. We owe our existence to a very long history of more developed people displacing the backwards. Otherwise we'd have remained as tree-dwelling proto-humans. 

At the end of the day it's pretty damn simple. The morality of invasion is going to depend on what side you're on. Here's a way to argue with liberals if you get into it with them over invasion hypocrisy. Was it moral for the Nazis to bomb London? (They will say no.) Was it moral for the Americans to bomb the Nazis? Their heads will spin at this one, because as much as they hate America, Nazis are the real bogeyman in the prog cult. Ultimately there will be much handwaving about Germany being the aggressors or human rights atrocities, but you can see how you can easily corner them into agreeing that the morality of war acts depends on the side of the observer more than anything.

All this goes to show why we're just ever so slightly torn on the Swedish/Muslim holy war. On the one side we have a great affinity for the Swedes, who share our western European lineage and culture, and we recognize the right of all nations to exist. But we acknowledge that the Muslims are adhering to the natural order, whereas the Swedes are so infected with liberalism that they beg and pay to be invaded. When we look at things from a very wide view, and try to mute our personal biases, we find we must respect the Muslims' natural inclination for conquest, and cannot respect the Swedes' unnatural preference for national suicide.

Vonnegut on Equality of Being

In Equality as a Gauge for Political Stance we followed the progression of the term equality, and determined that the final state of equality was "equality of being." In such a definition we have moved from equality meaning no man is divine, to equality under the law, to equality of opportunity, to equality of outcome (where we generally are today), to equality of being. Under equality of being, no person is allowed to be significantly better than another in any regard. Beauty, brains, and ability must all be hidden, or some sort of handicap will be applied.

Kurt Vonnegut was hip to this all the way back in 1961 when he penned the short story Harrison Bergeron. Consider this to be a must-read in the genre of dystopian fiction. Here it is as read by Jordan Peterson. (Starts at 5:34, if the time link doesn't work.)

Tuesday, September 26, 2017

We Can't Wait for the Apocalypse

Recently the Bloody Shovel blog made an observation that has been previously made on this blog. From his recent post, Primitvism,
If modern civilization collapses, which is a possibility given the relentless action of the worldwide IQ Shredder that we call “modernity”, then humanity will never get a second chance to start industrial civilization ever again. By lack of cheap fuel mostly. We’d be stuck, at best, with a Chinese style “high-level equilibrium trap“, basically the middle ages going on forever.
From this blog's post, Energy Regression: the Looming Apocalypse,
The problem is in acquiring oil. The first time we discovered oil it was quite simple. In places like Pennsylvania it was so accessible it could sometimes be found right at the surface. (Which is why we see oil brands such as Pennzoil and Quaker State). As we used the oil to power society we were able to develop increasingly sophisticated techniques to get the less accessible oil. Now we're fracking and running deep-sea oil rigs. There is no way a primitive society can get to that oil. And there's no way a primitive society can build solar panels or nuclear plants. If society fails now, it fails forever. The next big energy regression might well be permanent.
No one truly wants  to endure a collapse scenario, but many see it as both inevitable and necessary to realign society with reality. It's comparable to the stock market. Everyone knows there will be a crash eventually, and that the markets can keep running in fantasyland forever. Many of us with a survivalist bent imagine that all we have to do is prepare to bunker down for the inevitable calamity, let harsh reality clear out the limp-wristed invalids that permeate our society, and then the hardy folk can re-establish order based on an honest understanding of the human condition. A society build on blood, sweat, and brains.

The energy regression throws a monkey wrench in everything. We seem to be at an impasse. We can't save society, we can only respond appropriately as the natural cycle of growth and decay ebbs. But we must save society, or it is lost forever. Sure, we could live primitive lives. Many of use would even prefer such a scenario. But what does that mean in the long term? Humans live in a world of no advancement, stuck on this rock until the sun eventually destroys it? Okay, it doesn't sound that awful, but it doesn't seem right either. We were meant for something more than that. The idyllic shire life is for hobbits. Humans need to be working towards something.

However we reclaim society, it will not be through debate or the political process, but through strength. Either we will finds ourselves in an environment where the strong gain a survival advantage (the natural way), or we start killing our opponents once we believe we can do so without being killed ourselves. The former is morally superior, but the latter is there if you need it. The first scenario is something of a balancing act. We know that the longer we wait for the corrective action, the more intense it will be. If the apocalypse comes too soon, it won't do it's job of cleaning house and the problems will not be properly fixed. Wait too long and the apocalypse wipes out everything and we find ourselves rebuilding from a primitive state. But we've passed the technological threshold where we could simply hit the societal reset button. We'll never get back to an era of abundant fossil fuels. Ever. Even if we push past our petro dependency we face the same conundrum. An energy regressed society cannot rebuild fusion reactors, no matter how smart and capable the people.

Think of the enormity of our situation. If we screw this up too bad, we screw it up forever. That has never been the case before. The modern society cannot survive mass irrationality. I wonder if this isn't a universal predicament. The species succeeds over its environment, but then grows so soft it decays and destroys itself. Is this why we've not encountered intelligent alien life?