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?

Monday, September 25, 2017

TDS Grows Stronger

In the 2016 election cycle, we were shocked, but also delightfully entertained, by a phenomenon known as Trump Derangement Syndrome, or TDS. While we despair that such a significant portion of the voting public is highly irrational, watching Trump trigger lefties, often through innocuous action, was a thing of beauty. There has been a hope, but also a fear, that after taking office the opposition would observe that the hysteria wasn't very realistic, and TDS would wane, and the next four years would be kind of boring.

We now observe, regretfully but also gleefully, that TDS is here and stronger than other. The big news over the weekend was that Trump tweeted that the US flag and national anthem should be respected. (More specifically, that NFL players who kneel during the anthem should be fired.) The response has been the normal media fake outrage coupled with statements of condemnation from sports-world celebrities.

Yes, the president of the USA is being condemned for defending the symbols of the USA. He's doing his job. It as if the Pope was being condemned for stating the Cross should be respected. (Not that the current Pope would say anything like that.) As the leader of the country, making any statement other than the symbols of the nation should be respected would be a dereliction of duty. It would be treasonous. What's expected, it seems, is Merkelesque hatred for one's own country. The new norm is Obama apology tours. White nations and white leaders are expected to grovel in self-hatred. White people who aren't self-hating are called racists or white supremacists. Think about that.

Also amusing is the media now bandying about some poll that said something like 2/3 of the American public think Trump is a divisive figure. Which is amusing coming from the mainstream media, who have for two years now portrayed Trump as a racist, misogynist, anti-Semitic, Russian traitor, without a shred of evidence. The poll is just as much an indictment on the lugenpresse as it is on Trump's tweeting habits. Poll: 2/3 of Americans believe what they've been brainwashed to believe. To the extent he is divisive, he is clearly dividing American into two camps. Those who are openly hostile to America, its symbols, and its history, and those who are not.

Thursday, September 21, 2017

Something Suspicious in Sweden

Open threats of Islamic terror, and government inability to handle it, is the new normal in multicultural Europe.

The Swedish government let in half a million third-world Muslims and now declares, "Only you can prevent terror attacks." It's not just that the message betrays the governments' inability to handle the mess it created, but it's not genuine. Image the scenario.

Government: Report to police if you see something suspicious.
Concerned Swede: Hi, I'd like to report something suspicious. I'm seeing hordes of foreign invaders in nearly every city. Many are openly hostile to Swedish laws and customs.
Government: You have been sentenced to 10 years for hate think. Your cellmate will be Ahmed. Try not to be racist. We will now increase refugee welfare.

Another scenario.

Swede: I'd like to report a suspicious person.
Police: Can you describe the suspect?
Swede: The suspect is human.
Police: Race?
Swede: There is only one race; the human race.
Police: Gender?
Swede: I cannot assume someone's gender.
Police: Name?
Swede: Revealing the name may stoke right-wing extremism against a protected ethnicity.
Police: Thank you for your report, you are a model citizen. **explosions in background**

You almost feel inclined to start rooting for the Muslim invaders. The Swedes deserve to lose their country at this point.

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Venezuela Abandons the Petrodollar

The Economic Collapse Blog is reporting that Venezuela is abandoning the petrodollar.
The government of this oil-rich but struggling country, looking for ways to circumvent U.S. sanctions, is telling oil traders that it will no longer receive or send payments in dollars, people familiar with the new policy have told The Wall Street Journal.
The article also quotes Christopher Doran:
In a nutshell, any country that wants to purchase oil from an oil producing country has to do so in U.S. dollars. This is a long standing agreement within all oil exporting nations, aka OPEC, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. The UK for example, cannot simply buy oil from Saudi Arabia by exchanging British pounds. Instead, the UK must exchange its pounds for U.S. dollars. The major exception at present is, of course, Iran.
This means that every country in the world that imports oil—which is the vast majority of the world’s nations—has to have immense quantities of dollars in reserve.

As described on this blog in Global Reserve Currency: Army of the Modern Empire, the US benefits from maintaining global reserve currency status because financial punishments can be unilaterally levied on other countries. This allows the US to maintain a global empire with a fairly small military, but it requires her to use the military against threats to global reserve currency status.
The American path to war almost always begins with a threat to the dollar's monopoly on the trade of energy commodities. 
 American foreign policy actions become highly predictable when viewed as through the lens of maintaining hegemony over the trade of energy resources. Unless something has changed, we should expect a strong reaction from the US regarding Venezuela. Direct military intervention has not been the normal way for Americans to influence Latin American countries, although it has happened. The common route is clandestine support for whichever faction, no matter how brutal or undemocratic, best serves American interests. We have to assume that the American deep state has tried very hard in Venezuela, but failed. The primary goal with Latin America has been to prevent the rise of anti-American socialist states. Rebuking the petrodollar is tantamount to declaring war against the American empire. The US options amount to redoubling her clandestine efforts, organizing an international reaction, intervening with direct military force, or giving up on the global empire project, which they will attempt more or less in that order. The last one might seem laughable, but Trump is a wild card here. It seems that his administration has been co-opted by neocons, but at the same time Trump is not personally a neocon, and he likes to be the one calling the shots.

Thursday, September 14, 2017

Price gouging: a feature, not a bug

Something we were treated to in the last couple weeks with the hurricanes in Texas & Florida was indignant outrage from price gouging in the affected regions. There were many examples of prices for gas, water, and airline tickets increasing tenfold. This shouldn't be terribly surprising. Prices respond to demand; that's like day 1 of microeconomics. What's a little more surprising is how easily the situation evoked communist messages. Memes from liberals cried this was finally proof that capitalism is evil. On facebook this video was being passed around, garnering 16 million views. Let's look at a couple screen grabs out of that.

Businesses are trying to MAKE MONEY off of hurricane victims. Oh, the horror! Guess what, that's what businesses do! The opposite headline would read: Businesses REFUSE SERVICE to hurricane victims.

You know what else skyrocketed? Demand for fuel, ice, and lumber throughout the state.

Opposite headline: customer stranded in hurricane zone because all flights quickly sold out.

In other words, it's time for resources to be free. Welcome to r-selected philosophy. There should be no competition for resources; they should be free.

As a thought exercise, imagine a scenario where disaster hits. A town has 100 residents and one store. That store has 100 cases of water. The store must decide whether or not to raise water prices. If they do not, there are three possible outcomes.

  1. High trust society. This is what liberals assume. The store doesn't seek to make an unfair profit and each resident takes just what they need, a single case, and everyone gets a case. This is the ideal scenario, but relying on this in reality would be a nice way to die of thirst. Liberals assume a high-trust society while doing everything to destroy it. Conservatives wish to preserve the high-trust society we had.
  2. Hoarding. The most likely scenario is that each customer buys more than one case to ensure they have enough in a worst-case scenario. So 50 people each buy 2 cases, and 50 people are turned away.
  3. Misuse. Kevin buys 50 cases so he'll be able to keep watering his weed grow operation throughout the emergency. 50 people are turned away.
  4. Illegal markup.  Mark sees a business potential and buys 50 cases. He sells them at double price. This is no different than if the store had raised prices, but Mark profits instead and pays no sales taxes.

On the other hand, the business could raise prices, which discourages hoarding and misuse. It's the best you can do, short of a high-trust society. It might put a stronger burden on the poor, but that can be avoided through preparedness. Everyone knows they should maintain emergency preparedness, and that it may cost them if they do not. Rich people can afford to neglect preparedness; the rest of us can't. With a little personal responsibility, and a high-trust society, these problems would not have arisen. But that would be the conservative solution. They don't want the conservative solution. They don't even really want a solution. They just want the state be in charge of distributing resources. They want communism.

Monday, September 11, 2017

Global warming is caused by climate skepticism

Another liberal meme.

The message here is that natural disasters wouldn't occur if we didn't have a government that doesn't "believe" in science. What I love about liberal memes is how much wrong they can cram into a little image macro. Let's count the ways.

  1. Science is not a belief system. One might believe in Christianity, or true love, or leprechauns, but science is a process of sorting out objective truth from the soup of human subjectivity. We don't believe in science; we apply it to the problems at hand. We on the right tend to be skeptical of climate science because of its perversion by government funding and liberal orthodoxy in academia. No one on the right says they "don't believe in science." We are the science defenders, and studies confirm that conservatives are more science literate than liberals. We just happen to know that science, like all human endeavors, is subject to corruption and we seek to defend its purity. There is a word we use for viewing science as a belief system rather than an analytical tool: scientism. Those who create & share memes like this tip their hands.
  2. What government doesn't "believe" in science? The obvious implication here is that this is Trump's fault because he is a climate non-believer for pulling us out of the Paris accord. Well, okay, he's been president for about half a year. Probably not enough time for his evil policies to destroy the Earth, right. But Obama was president for nearly a decade before. In fact, 16 of the last 24 years the government was run by so-called climate believers. So why did the world go to hell under their watch?
  3. It assumes the government can do anything about climate change, even if it wanted to. The great paradox of big government is that whatever problem it tries to fix it makes worse. Not only that, but the science believers are completely incapable of stating how much we should attenuate our economy to stop global warming. For all we know (and we skeptics suspect), we could knock the entire global economy back to the stone age and the earth would continue to warm, as it has done for the ten thousand years or so since the last glacial era. Liberals don't actually believe the government can stop climate change because they don't promote solutions that might actually work; they only want to destroy a capitalist society where some people do better than others. Because if we were serious about cooling the earth, we could probably do it. Paint the deserts white, seed clouds, launch a massive solar shield; anything to reduce the amount of sunlight that is converted to heat. But, of course, they don't really care about the problem of warming, who is causing it, or how to solve it. This is political warfare in disguise.
  4. The big one is that it assumes global warming is caused by climate change skepticism. The lefties have themselves in a comfortable safe space on this issue. If you pushed them, they would immediately retreat to the position of, "of course we know that climate change is caused by emissions, not climate denial, because blah blah blah..." Yet, they still act as if it was caused by mere skepticism itself. The reality is abstracted away so that skepticism is equated with worldly sin. If pushed on the issue they can pretend it's not a religion long enough to make the annoying sinner go away so they can go back to playing climate crusader. This makes sense if you understand how the left is organized. By and large, leftists don't set their own agenda; they are guided by propaganda. Liberal elites are the most hypocritical carbon abusers on the planet. They don't the issue to be too literal about emissions. That is, they don't want their attack dogs turning back on them. So they steer their underlings not to obsess over emissions as much as beliefs. Climate change is not a matter of scientific debate or even an ideological battle so much as religious warfare.
While you're praying for Houston and Florida and the other places, let's not forget the one group that needs it most. Pray for liberals. Perhaps only divine intervention can save them.

Thursday, September 7, 2017

When you create false premises, climate change is real

From the trusty Facebook feed:

Note that the "once in every 500 years" part is put in quotes, with no attribution. 500 years according to whom? Harvey was a Category 4 hurricane, a very serious storm to be sure, but not unusual. Certainly not "every 500 years" unusual. Harvey was particularly destructive because it stalled out over one area, but they can't be blamed on higher temperatures. Hurricane Camille did the same in 1969 over Appalachia. There are numerous hurricanes that have dumped nearly as much as Harvey on a single spot in the US.

Irma is a true monster of a storm, but not unprecedented. It is still weaker than Hurricane Camille or the Labor Day Hurricane of 1935. Perhaps it will strengthen, but forecasts show it hitting Florida at Category 3 strength this weekend. Hurricane Andrew was a full-power Cat 5 when it ravaged Florida in 1992. Hurricane Hugo was a Category 5 Cape Verde type hurricane like Irma and hit the Carolinas at Cat 4 strength in the 1980s.

There is nothing to indicate these are "500-year" storms. Someone made that up and used it to "prove" climate change (where climate change means their theory of cataclysmic man-made global warming). The most humorous commentary has come from Richard Branson, the billionaire owner of airlines and cruise ships, who complained that his private luxury resort island, which he accesses by private jet and helicopter, was leveled by Irma, which he blames on global warming. None of this is Branson's fault, of course, as he has worked tirelessly to ridicule global warming skeptics. He seems to have convinced himself that global warming is caused by skepticism rather than actual carbon emissions.

Thursday, August 31, 2017

It it Ain't Communism, It Ain't Christian, Pt 2

As mentioned in If it Ain't Communism, It Ain't Christian, liberals like to conflate Christian values with communism. Then they beat up on Christians for hypocrisy whenever they fall short of the Marxist ideal.

This dynamic has been on full display for the last couple days with the witch hunt of Houston-based MegaChurch pastor Joel Osteen. Social media is running wild with headlines like Joel Osteen Can’t Get His Story Straight On Why He Didn’t Offer His Megachurch As A Shelter. That article includes a link to this interview.

What part of his story is he not keeping straight? The building was indeed flooding. The government entities enacting disaster responses did not, at the time, ask his church to become a shelter. What was he expected to do, just throw his doors open anyway? For whom? I can't find any media accounts of anyone being turned away from the official city shelters in the period that Lakewood Church was closed. But to hear their accounts, there were masses of cold starving orphans knocking on the doors and Osteen was standing on the roof with a megaphone politely encouraging them all to piss off. And if he opened the doors, then what. They'd sit in the seats of the church auditorium and eat what? What to drink? Was Joel just expected to have all those things on hand in case of cataclysmic flooding? What about medical staff and equipment? Are churches expected to have these at the ready at a moment's notice? The city and higher governments coordinate these things. The church served as a shelter when the organizers asked them. They also mobilized volunteers and supplies to help out however they could. What did people expect him to do, work miracles? Do liberals actually think he's supposed to be Jesus or something?

None of this hysteria is rational because no one really knows why the church responded as it did. Maybe Osteen is a greedy asshole. I can't tell. He sure does live lavishly. But he did explain why the church responded as it did, and no one has really specified what he should have done differently, or the flood victims who were negatively impacted. This is just the same shit as always. It's oppressor/oppressed dynamics. It's communist values. It is the expectation that material wealth be redistributed from rich to poor. That is the prime objective. Any hesitation is met with indignant outrage. No one right now really knows if Osteen should have acted differently. No one can cite any party harmed by Osteen's decisions. No one has made the case that he would have made the situation any better had he responded differently, or that he wouldn't have made things worse. None of that logic matters, of course. Witch hunts are inherently illogical.

Wednesday, August 30, 2017

Old Man Yells at Cloud

If the oil economy causes global warming, and global warming causes hurricanes, then what city is more to blame than Houston? Taking the crazy old man's argument to its logical conclusion, and it just amounts to victim blaming. I haven't had the immense please of arguing this one out with any liberals, but I can guarantee it would take less than two minutes before they blamed the 10% of Houston that are straight white males for being the recipients of petrol largess, while the oppressed 90% saw no benefit whatsoever from Houston's heavy oil industry.

 Also, I can't help but note that cities housing 2 of the 3 largest oil hubs in the US have been drowned by acts of nature. If Cushing, OK gets taken out by a freak earthquake or tornado we can be certain that Mother Nature is methodically exacting her revenge. I'm not an ideologue on the climate change issue, I'm just very skeptical of the scientism cult and Big Research. If it appears that oil cities are being ravaged by angry gods, I am prepared to make whatever human sacrifices are necessary to regain their favor.

Bernie isn't posing a question when he says we need to determine global warming's contribution to Hurricane Harvey. He's making a statement. He's saying it was climate change. The implication is clear, and all that's left is to round up the details. Like everything Bernie says, his statement betrays some lack of understanding on subject, even for a tweet.

To get the understanding that Bernie wants "tomorrow", we must ask two questions. (1) What is the effect of global warming on hurricanes? and (2) What is the global warming? Clearly, we must know how much the Earth has warmed since some previous time to know its effect, and we can't be entirely sure of that, with all the measurement corrections and cherry-picked sensor data. But even most climate skeptics agree the warming is a bit over one degree per century, so let's go with that.

As to the other question, every eco-obsessed halfwit knows for certain the science - Holy Science! - tells us that global warming means stronger hurricanes. That certainty comes from studies such as this one run by Nature in 2006. While I have no reason to doubt their analysis, can you spot the flaw in making the conclusion that global warming drives stronger hurricanes?
Researchers at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta examined data for a range of climate variables thought to contribute to the formation of hurricanes in categories 4 and 5, the upper end of the strength scale. Only sea surface temperature showed a strong correlation with the observed increase in the occurrence of these storms since 1970.
At first blush it makes sense. Hurricanes are fueled by heat. More heat $$\rightarrow$$ stronger hurricanes. That is junior high science. Everyone can understand it! No one can deny that kind of scientific fact! But it is a simplistic understanding. College-level thermodynamics gives a better insight. Hurricanes are heat engines. (Most people have at least heard that.) Higher temperature does not mean more heat. Technically speaking, heat is the movement of thermal energy caused by a temperature gradient. There must be a temperature differential for heat engines to run. Hurricanes are powered by temperature differences between the sea and the atmosphere, as well as within the sea and within the atmosphere.

The study narrowed in on surface temperature but said nothing about the other variables. Of course, if all other things are held constant, higher surface temperatures drive stronger hurricanes. That's to be expected. But we could get a similar effect by holding surface temperate constant and lowering deep sea and upper atmosphere temperatures. What really matters is the thermal gradient.

If the global temperature rises, the surface of the ocean will warm. But so will the atmosphere. And so will the rest of the ocean (which will lag but catch up). There's no reason to expect that global warming will only increase the temperature of the ocean's surface.

So how much did global warming contribute to Hurricane Harvey? How much did a monarch butterfly flapping its wings in South America last June contribute to it? It's hard to say. It's not due to global warming that a hurricane would strike a hurricane-prone locale during peak hurricane season. And it's not due to global warming that the storm would happen to stall out and dump almost all its contents over coastal Texas. And it's not due to global warming that Houston is a concrete jungle on a flood plain. But for Bernie, this isn't about science. It's about blame. Oppression causes all bad things. Houston must be a victim of evil greedy capitalist forces. It's just a bit inconvenient for him that so much of the Houston-oppressing oil economy would happen to reside in Houston.

Tuesday, August 29, 2017

Pathological Empathy

Empathy is becoming a much-bandied word these days, especially from our friends on the left. Empathy is the capacity or tendency to understand the viewpoint and emotional state of another. It is a virtue, but it is a weak virtue. If Sheila has empathy for Larry, we're only talking about Sheila's internal state, and how it relates to Larry's internal state. If Sheila's behavior is not affected by her empathy, then it is irrelevant. This is in contrast to a strong virtue like courage, which describes a person's actions in the face of fear or uncertainty.

Most psychological conditions seem to stem from a shortage or excess of some human trait. It is not healthy to have too much anger, nor is it healthy to have too little. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders does not list a disorder for an excess of empathy. The lack of empathy is sociopathy, which often drives ruthless blind ambition. Sociopathy is especially onerous in our loose-knit democratic society, where power comes from popularity, popularity comes from image, and sociopaths are chameleons who can quickly adopt whatever image will lead to power.

We can imagine what an excess of empathy might look like: someone so overwhelmed by the emotional states of others that they can't function normally in the world. Such a person would find it difficult to socialize, conduct business, or even turn on the TV. While we all know people who seem to have a bit too much empathy (I'm sure the average man believes the average woman to be over-empathetic), pathological empathy must be rare enough, as it is not even given it's own designation in the manuals.

Pathological empathy may not exist in the literal sense, but there is reason to suspect that the term empathy is mostly not being used in the literal sense. When tumblrinas talk about their empathy, they aren't saying, "I can easily relate to the viewpoint and emotional state of others." Clearly they can't. They're saying, "I care," which is quite different. "I'm empathetic" describes my relation to your condition. "I care" just describes me. In this usage, claims of empathy are used to declare allegiance to the Cult of Caring. Look at me! Look how much I care! It's just so much virtue signaling.

Empathy is not just an abused term, but it has been hijacked entirely, much like racism, which is now just a generic term meaning evil that is applied only to conservatives. (see here) Empathy just means virtue, and only gets applied to liberals. The radical lefties lack any sort of visible virtue, so they create one. Empathy is a soft-virtue, so it's near impossible to disprove. They can then justify any horrible stance they want through the lens of caring. We care about blacks, we are virtuous. White conservatives don't care about blacks, so they must be eliminated with violence. We know their caring is a sham. But they don't have to really care. It's difficult to prove a lack of caring. Just pretending is enough.

Today's big story from the liberal media, besides Melania's shoe choice for boarding a plane, is that Trump displayed a lack of empathy in Houston. Apparently he didn't hug enough of the destitute to quench their insatiable thirst for victim voyeurism. Caring is as difficult to prove as to disprove. How could Trump prove that he really cares about the people in Houston? More importantly, why does it matter? Is he showing effective leadership, or is he not? I don't recall CNN attacking Obama's lack of empathy when he golfed while Baton Rouge was inundated. (Recall that candidate Trump was the first prominent political figure to visit that region.) Just as with baseless charges of racism, if you hear accusations of a lack of empathy, or boasts of one's own empathy, you can be fairly sure you're dealing with an unprincipled lefty with a shortage of any real, demonstrable virtues.

The good thing about this empathy nonsense is that no one actually gives a shit about it. We all know it's a ruse. Do you think Trump was concerned that the media, fresh off calling him a Russophillic traitor and neo-nazi racist, are now calling him weak on empathy? He's probably getting a kick out of it, and noting just how watered-down their assaults are getting.

Monday, August 28, 2017

Dogma Behind Progressive Hate Speech

I don't use Twitter, but it might be a nice idea if I ever decide it's time to discard my last remaining bit of faith in humanity.

These comments aren't disturbing just because they're incredibly hateful. They're disturbing because they're so ironically stupid. How does one, in a single sentence, call for ethnic cleansing against a race that is undesirable because they are racist, without one's head exploding? Your instinct might be to explain logically why calling for the death of a race for racism any reason makes you a racist genocidal monster. But you really need to understand the Prog cult first.

Progressivism seems to be just Protestantism gone secular. Take WASPy Puritanical Christianity, swap out theology for some worldly virtues, and you're left with Progressivism. The transformation took place after World War II, when youth church attendance started to plummet.

Protestantism, already heavily saddled with Enlightenment principles, replaced its Christian mythology with World War II mythology. Satan became Hitler, demons became Nazis, and forces of evil became oppression. Sins against the Father became crimes against humanity. The 1st Commandment was rewritten to state: Thou shalt not be racist. Racism is the cardinal sin, to the extent that other sins can be largely ignored. The great virtues are no longer piety or humility, but diversity and inclusiveness. Jesus was replaced with MLK Jr., angels with social justice advocates. The concept of original sin remains. All are inherently guilty of the great sin of racism, but only white people. It is, after all, primarily a white religion.

When lefties, like those who Tweeted about the hurricane, say white people are racist, they don't mean literally racist. They couldn't possibly, as it's in itself an incredibly racist thing to say. No, they are just hurling the worst insults in the lefty lexicon. When I was a kid the worst thing you could call another boy was a faggot. There was a taboo against homosexuality, the slander carried weight, so that's what you used. You weren't providing commentary on a young boy's sexual nature. You were calling him the meanest and most disrespectful name you could muster. The leftists are doing the same when they call everyone a racist, white supremacist, a Nazi, or, their new favorite term, a "Nazi sympathizer." They're just hurling what to them are the worst insults imaginable. This is why it's a fool's errand to explain the illogicality or incorrectness of these statements. To do so is to engage in an adult conversation with petulant children. "Well actually Billy, I couldn't possibly be a faggot because I kissed Susie just last week." Such a response is not going to have any effect on Billy or his potty-mouthed taunting. It might even encourage him to double down. Likewise, we should not lob their insult grenades back and engage in what Vox Day calls DR3 (Dems are the real racists). DR3 is to be avoided because calling people we don't like racist and fascist endorses the Progressive cult worldview, which is the last thing we should do.

This all provides context for the Nazi symbolism we see from some on the far right. There is an argument for it after all, because, what could possibly be a larger middle-finger to the Progs than the open display of Nazi symbols? In that sense, the swastika is the banner of anti-Progressivism. Perhaps we should all wear swastikas to rub their noses in it! The problem with all that is that, while they are an abstract concept in the Prog religion, Nazi still existed in the real world and were very reckless and genocidal. Don the symbol to trigger libtards and suddenly you're brandishing the propaganda of an enemy that killed many American soldiers and committed countless atrocities in Europe. What's needed are symbols that snub Progs without alienating us from decent ordinary Americans. (The American flag actually does very nicely for this.)

Tuesday, August 22, 2017

The Self-Actualization of Conor MacGregor

Here's a ten-minute video that was put together about the self-actualization of MMA star Conor MacGregor.

Pretty powerful stuff. And motivating, too. It's easy to get bogged down by life and forget there is a higher plane of existence out there. Get your internal house in order (Sort yourself out bucko, is what Jordan Peterson would say) and you can rise above the mucky mucky, and anyone can do it. One doesn't need to be a superstar, celebrity, or other bigwig to achieve self-actualization. 2400 years ago Diogenes found self-actualization as a homeless philosopher.

Another public persona may have come to your mind on viewing this. Trump displays all the characteristics of a self-actualized man. The relentless work ethic, stubborn persistence, brutal honesty, religious-like sense of a calling, and even the childlike temper and antics, are all just as present in Trump as in MacGregor.

Self-actualized people trigger the hell out of leftist radicals and SJWs. Trump is the epitome of a lefty trigger. He literally drives them crazy, and this is far and away his finest attribute. Ideologically Trump isn't all that conservative. He's not significantly more conservative than Democrats were during the Clinton administration. But his persona is the anti-liberal. The left live in the Marxist worldview that the entire world is just a battlefield of oppression dynamics. They despise any challenges to their belief of insurmountable forces of evil in the world. Leftists reject the notion that our outcomes are tied to our self-determination and personal ethics rather than the product of endless victimization. To them there is only one way these people rose to the top: they are oppressors. MacGregor is also labeled as a bigot and racist by left-wing activists. I theorize that if the issue was properly researched, we'd see that self-actualized people are highly likely to be vilified by progressives.

In Equality as a Gauge for Political Stance we postulated the five stages of equality. Self-actualized people stop at equality of opportunity, and perhaps even short of that, because they know they can rise to the top no matter what their starting position. If equality is a gauge for political stance, these people are, by their nature, conservative. The final stage is equality of being, where people are prevented from achieving more than the norm. Self-actualized people will be the first ones targeted by mediocrity zealots. A society that suppresses its self-actualized people has fated itself to stagnation and outcompetition by outsiders. It's the tiny minority that combine profound creativity and work ethic to birth the "black swan" events that advance society. These are the people who work 80-hour weeks for years to see their vision through. They are the movers and shakers. We normies just ride in their wake.

Metallica's James Hetfield is another self-actualized man. Check out his interview on Joe Rogan's podcast. He exudes the kind of confident zen-like state that MacGregor describes. He spends the first 30 minutes talking about bee keeping. Metal icons don't talk about bee keeping. He's risen above playing the role he's expected to play. And no surprise. He long ago penned the self-actualization anthem.
And the road becomes my bride
I am stripped of all but pride, so in her I do confide
And she keeps me satisfied, gives me all I need
And with dust in throat I crave
Only knowledge will I save, to the game you stay a slave
Rover, wanderer, nomad, vagabond
Call me what you will
But I'll take my time anywhere
Free to speak my mind anywhere
And I'll redefine anywhere
Anywhere I roam, where I lay my head is home
And the earth becomes my throne
I adapt to the unknown, under wandering stars I've grown
By myself but not alone, I ask no one
And my ties are severed clean
The less I have the more I gain, off the beaten path I reign
Rover, wanderer, nomad, vagabond
Call me what you will

Monday, August 21, 2017

Selective Singlethink

This is a montage (by my understanding not comprehensive) of the media badgering Trump during the election campaign to disavow David Duke*, and Trump routinely doing so. Supposedly these are news organizations, which means they should strive to provide their audiences with new information. Yet they convey zero new information when they ask him if he disavows Duke 25 years after he first did so, and a day after he most recently did so. Trump disavows Duke and doesn't care for his support. That's the story. By bringing the subject up constantly the outlets are seeking to psychologically condition their audience. By forcing Trump to constantly talk about Duke, they're are training people to subconsciously associate him with Duke. Not only that, but the insinuation is always what about Duke, why have you failed to disavow? The audience is left with the impression that Trump has hesitated to disavow America's favorite bogeyman, even though he hasn't. This is how they were able to build the belief that Trump is a white supremacist, even though Trump has never said anything remotely to that effect, and his immigration policy was largely indistinguishable from that of Democrats during the Clinton administration.

Now we see they are similarly pushing the notion that Trump is "embracing neo-nazis." Despite the fact that he specifically denounced white supremacists and neo-nazis by name, the narrative is that Trump needs to be impeached for publicly supporting them. They've justified this narrative because Trump also denounced left-wing violence. The message from the left would seem to be: if you question our violence you are a nazi. At any rate, I've had success quoting Trump's statement on facebook, often baiting with something like, "this is what Trump should have said."
No matter the color of our skin, we all live under the same laws. We all salute the same great flag, and we are all made by the same almighty God. We must love each other, show affection for each other and unite together in condemnation of hatred, bigotry and violence. We must rediscover the bonds of love and loyalty that bring us together as Americans.

Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans. We are a nation founded on the truth that all of us are created equal. We are equal in the eyes of our creator, we are equal under the law and we are equal under our constitution. Those who spread violence in the name of bigotry, strike at the very core of America.
This tends to garner positive feedback. People heap on praise on it and they agree that's what should have been said, and even ask why Trump didn't say that. I then inform them that it is actually Trump's statement, from the same news conference in which they say he embraced neo-nazis. What do you think their reaction would be? Something like, "Wow, maybe I was wrong about Trump on this issue. Thanks for sharing the source so I could directly analyze the comments for myself rather than relying on the media spin." Lol. Sorry for the camp humor, just trying to lighten the mood. While we would never expect to hear that, we would expect responses of the type, "well sure his speechwriters wrote that but we know what he really thinks" (the Trump-is-a-racist-no-matter-what-he-says-and-does fallacy), or "by calling out Antifa he's supporting fascism" (a childish black-white stance on morality, as well as high gullibility to marketing). Which of those responses do you suppose I see the most?

Actually I get no responses at all. None. By my little trick I've forced the person to realize that their own impartial judgment of Trump's statement flies in direct contrast with their strong opinions on it. And because they didn't recognize the quote, I can assume that they didn't know what Trump actually said at all. Why don't they comment? Because they don't know what to say? Because they're embarassed and bail out of the convo asap? Maybe, but my experience with debating liberals online is that they usually have something to say and they don't get too embarrassed by logical contradictions.

The reason they don't comment is they would have to admit they had read it. By saying anything at all, or even so much as giving a reaction, they admit that they are now aware of the contradiction. By not commenting, they can pretend they didn't read it at all. They never saw it; it never happened. They can continue to believe that Trump issued a pro-nazi statement, just as they believe he didn't disavow David Duke. This is what brainwashing looks like. I think Orwell got it a little wrong. He said the characters in 1984 displayed doublethink, the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in their mind at the same time. Or, as I think of it, an immunity to cognitive dissonance. But did they really? When they switch from we're at war with EastAsia to we've never been at war with EastAsia, they aren't really holding two contradictory ideas in their minds at all. No, they just flush the first out entirely, and convince themselves it never happened. It's not doublethink, it's selective singlethink. It's not an immunity to cognitive dissonance, otherwise they'd have no problem responding to my posts. It's just extreme confirmation bias, where contradictions to bias are rendered invisible no matter how prominently they are presented. Are you scared about the future yet? I am.

It's probably all gloom & doom from here on out, but that doesn't mean we can't have a little fun with it. What ridiculous things can you get them to pretend doesn't exist so they don't disturb their established biases? Make it a game. Be creative. Then we'll get together and share selective singlethink war stories over beers sometime before The Purge begins.

*Aside: who the fuck is David Duke anyway? I venture onto some pretty far-right forums and I've never seen a reference to Duke. I don't know anything he's ever said or his stance on any issue. Does anyone? The most I know is that he was once a high-ranking clan member, but is no longer a member. Which can't be so terrible in itself, given the praise Democrats threw onto Robert Byrd. Previous Klan membership is not enough, so why is Duke given an evildoer level on par with Satan himself? Something else that has been noticed: Twitter has been purging alt right accounts feverishly, especially since Charlottesville, and virtually no one is verified. Yet Duke, the paragon of evil, maintains a verified account. (Twitter says 49K followers. I wonder how many are just reporters waiting for Duke to say something racist so they can beat the crowd in demanding that Trump disavow the latest outrage). If Duke is a hate peddler, and Twitter is banning hate speech, then why is his account up still? The answer must be that either Duke doesn't actually say anything bad enough to be considered hate speech, or he does but they don't want to banish their bogeyman and lose a convenient weapon of psychological association with evil.

Unfazed by recent favorable press, Antifa resumes savage public behavior

This weekend there was a massive protest of a small free-speech event in Boston by the Democrat's (and Mitt Romney's) favorite communist political action group, Antifa. As always the anti-democratic action was justified by calling the other side nazis. (In a previous era in MA they would have been called witches.) Official Boston Antifa Twitter called for the removal of classical liberals and supporters of the US Constitution. (Which is sedition under US code, where you at Sessions?) Police went to Twitter to kindly ask Antifa heroes against fascism to please stop throwing bottles of urine at them. When reached for comment, Arnold Schwarzenegger stated, "it's okay for Antifa to throw rocks and bottles of piss at cops and classical liberals."

Boston's own mayor thanked protesters for standing up to white supremacy. For a while the only defense against the white supremacy label has been to be non-white, and now even that is not a valid defense! What is an Indian that liberals don't like? A white supremacist. What's a flamboyant gay Jew arguing against feminism? A nazi.

Conservative political action needs to look like this. Make them protest the most ridiculous things. Right-wing extremists should temper their personas or stay home, or be sent home. At this point I assume anyone trying to organize right-wing events like what was seen in Charlottesville are saboteurs who should be blacklisted. There does, at least, seem to be a silver lining to it; it has fueled despicable behavior from the left. The didn't gain a PR victory in Charlottesville by peaceful action or providing sober commentary on the right's use of universally despised symbols. They did so by being violent and crude. That behavior has been reinforced and they are now out there damaging themselves. The goal for dealing with Antifa should be to find ways to reinforce their bad behavior that are not huge PR disasters for the right.

Sunday, August 20, 2017

Democracy's Demographic Demonry

Here at the Emergent Sea we're into omni-nationalism. (How is that for positive labeling, rayme4raw?) That means nationalism for everyone. Every nation gets a home and practices self-determination. People might quibble over what a nation is, but usually that's only people who aren't operating in good faith. We intuitively know one when we see it. A nation is a people united by a unique ethnicity, culture, history, and language. We understand the difference between a Mexican and an America and an Inuit. Liberals think an American is anyone who currently resides on American soil, but they are experts in contradicting common sense.

Self-determination means a nation self-regulates. They decide how the nation will live and what to do with the land on which they find themselves. There is also the notion of reciprocity. The Turks may self-determine they need to invade Elbonia for more resources, but then that sort of denies the Elbonians of their right to their own self-determination. Nations can determine to be ruled if they like. It sounds unlikely, but then it happens. Look at Puerto Rico, the American territory with only a very minor independence movement. They are a different nation that Americans, yet choose to be governed by Americans anyway.

While it's never really stated, nations have a duty to preserve themselves. Before we lived in the crazy times such a concept didn't need to be stated. It was just the natural way. Now that we're in crazy times, it's still not stated because that would be racist, somehow. The people of a nation have a culture, language, ethnicity, and some land that were given to them by their forebearers, and they should preserve their heritage and pass it on. Of course, we can't compel a nation to preserve themselves. If they seek to destroy their own nation there isn't much we can do. Nations should engage in self-preservation, but we can't really make them.

There seem to be about three ways that nations can die: conquest, outcompetition, and democracy. Conquest we understand pretty easily. If the Turks sweep in and kill every last Elbonian, then Elbonia ceases to be a nation, relegated to the history books, which we mostly be full of lies. Outcompetition death is slowly ceding ground to a more powerful neighbor until there's not much left to call a nation. This was largely the case with Amerindians. They were not killed off so much as they were pushed into the margins. The final way to kill a nation is through democracy.

The real problem is what we might term free-domain democracy, where headcounts are all that matters, and people are free to move around however they want. It's always been remarkable to me that I can move to any state, to any city, and to any neighborhood, and the people already living there have zero input into having me as their new neighbor. I'm not sure which part is more dangerous, the free-domain attribute or democracy itself, but combined they are a nation-grinding machine. Let's look at some examples.

First we might look at western countries like America and France. These are nations with very strong identities, yet are being diluted by immigration (free-domain aspect). It would be one thing if the French maintained full control of France but, because of democracy, the French nation loses control of France with each immigrant that enters. France becomes less and less interested in preserving the French nation as it becomes less French. And soon France just won't be very French at all. We can see that if a democratic nation loses vigor in preserving itself, it sets down on a slippery path to doom from which it cannot recover. Not without jettisoning democracy, at least.

Another example is Tibet, which is a nation but no longer a country, having been annexed by China. The Chinese have done what they can to control Tibet demographically, by dumping ethnic Chinese into the region and encouraging the Tibetans to water themselves down through intermarriage. This may be a boon to China's empirical stability, but is a threat to humanity. The uniqueness of the Tibetan people should be preserved. China is not a democracy but the effect is the same. If they can crowd out the Tibetans as much as possible, they can more easily justify polices that are friendly to the Chinese at the expense of the Tibetans.

The final example is Hawaii. Hawaii is only 10% Hawaiian. When they were annexed by the US in 1898 they were 20% Hawaiian. Just a few decades before that they were 97% Hawaiian. The largest ethnic group in Hawaii today is Japanese, followed by whites. The Japanese are there largely because US businesses dominated the islands and recruited Japanese laborers as plantation workers. The Hawaiians were outnumbered before 1898 but still ruled the islands through their monarchy. It's pretty appalling really. The Americans drastically altered the islands' demographics, then forced democracy on them, meaning the Hawaiians lost control of their own lands. They are so hopelessly outnumbered today that there's no chance of Hawaiians regaining control of their islands. They are doomed to forever be a minority in their own land.

The most amazing thing about this is that liberals, who hate whites and shriek oppression constantly, don't say much about Hawaii. I'm sure they do some, but not loud enough that it ever really reaches me in the midwest. Yet here is a pretty clear example of the things they rail against. Why don't they decry the demographic destruction of Hawaii? Perhaps because Hawaii is something like a dream scenario for them, where no one is the majority.

We might say the Hawaii isn't unique, just a special case of the Amerindians displaced by whites. However, whites didn't so much displace them as had them displaced by a 3rd party. Hawaii might be more similar to southern colonies like Mississippi, where Amerindians were replaced with blacks. This is in contrast to the northern colonies, where they built European states populated mainly by Europeans. In the north they were building a civilization. In Hawaii and Mississippi they were profiteering; taking land from one group and labor from another and reaping the profits. Displacing the natives to build great cities and states is at least more justifiable than than short-term business gains. And the results show. Mississippi is the poorest state in the union and Hawaii the most liberal. We are paying now for the near-sightedness of many of our forebearers, and, had they practiced omni-nationalism, we'd be in a much better situation today. Violating omni-nationalism is, in the long-term, a losing bet. There's actually a fourth way nations die. Nations that engage in imperialism often end up destroying themselves.

Friday, August 18, 2017

Courage, the Anti Anxiety

"I have anxiety." It's a common phrase you hear today. People are fairly open about it, even talking openly about their medication and whatnot. Leftists display psychological conditions (typically undiagnosed) on their social media profiles as if they are badges of honor, which always include some form of anxiety, PTSD, or similar.

Saying you have anxiety is something like saying you have feet. Anxiety is a normal functioning of the brain to protect us from situations we aren't prepared to handle. When I was a child I told my mother that I wished I didn't feel pain. She replied that there are people in the world who actually don't feel pain, and their lives are not so easy. For one, they must constantly monitor themselves for injuries that could lead to life-threatening infections. It became clear that pain served a vital function after all. As a parent now, I've watched as pain provided a feedback for my daughter to learn to walk and function in the world safely.

Anxiety seems to work in a similar fashion. It keeps us from situations that could cause us harm. We understand what it means when people say they have anxiety: they have too much anxiety; they feel anxiety when they really shouldn't. It's rightfully an undesirable psychological condition. It exists on a spectrum, but too many treat it like a binary condition. To them, anxiety is a disease, like cancer or hemophilia, and you have it or you don't. And I suspect many use it as a handicap, as an excuse for lack of achievement, success, or whatever. It's yet another form of oppression.

Most people are over-anxious these days, for lots of valid reasons. We all wish were less so, a little more calm, a little more cool and collected. I would advise that the last thing people should internalize is I have anxiety. To do so is to work from a position of defeat. A better mindset is I need to develop more courage. Work towards a positive goal, rather than thinking yourself fundamentally flawed. Courage is the ability to overcome anxious self-doubt and act in accordance with one's values and intellect, rather than to react to one's uncontrollable emotions. Courage enables us to exercise our full capacities as human beings. Giving in to fear despite our better judgment reverts us to a more animal-like mode of existence.

The core thing to know about anxiety is that you can't reason your way out of it. (Anyone who experiences public speaking anxiety, as I do, understands this.) The amygdala is the brain structure that triggers anxiety. It exists in a deeper, older portion of the primal human brain, and it doesn't care much what the cerebral cortex tells it. The amygdala is just a pattern-matching function. It scans the environment and, if it finds great uncertainty or matches it to previous situations where harm occurred, it triggers the anxiety state. You can't tell it what to do. You can only update its historical data records. It's no different than training a dog. You can't tell the dog what to do, only train it through an ample amount of positive and negative reinforcement in a regimen of gradually increasing difficulty. We take the same approach to learning to play basketball or guitar. We know in our head what good music sounds like, or what a basketball player should be doing, but we can't talk ourselves into a great shooting technique. We must train ourselves through repetition.

Anxiety is just psychological pain, and it drives people to avoidance behavior (to the point of safe spaces being implemented in many of our educational and corporate institutions). The same can be said of exercise. Lifting weights is difficult and painful. Squats are tortuous, in my opinion. Successful athletes learn to appreciate the burn, because they know that's where the improvement occurs, and they seek it out consistently. They also learn not to push too hard, otherwise they will overly exhaust or injure themselves.

The amygdala is entirely analogous. Anxiety is the burn. The brain hack is to learn to appreciate the burn because it is making you stronger. If instead of avoiding anxiety you seek it out, you'll find that it will take increasingly stressful situations to feel the same anxiety. Speaking to an audience of two used to make you anxious; now it takes five. And then ten. And so on.

There is no way to cure anxiety but to enter the stressful situation and demonstrate to your amygdala that everything is fine, and to do that routinely. The only way to do so is to muster up some good old fashioned courage. Not once, but routinely. Make courage a lifestyle decision and in six months you'll be amazed at how much more enjoyable life is.

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

RE: Facing the Coming Government Shutdown

Some commentary on Brett Stevens's recent post, Facing the Coming Government Shutdown.
[A] currency backed by debt is not as valuable as one backed by industry or other actual value.
Why would that be so? I suspect he may be violating The Compounding Debt Fallacy, an extremely common misunderstanding I see from smart people on the right. Why is a debt (i.e. contract) backed system lower in value than, say, a shiny-metal backed currency? And how do you back a currency by industry? The value of the debt backed currency derives from the US government's authority to enforce legal contracts.

He quotes from the Washington Post:
Jacob Funk Kirkegaard, a senior fellow at the non-partisan Peterson Institute for International Economics, argues in a new report that once you take these kinds of tax breaks into account, the U.S. actually devotes far more resources than many other countries to “social spending” — spending on pensions, health care, family support, unemployment, housing assistance, and similar benefits meant to help people out in hard times. And, compared with most advanced countries, the U.S. gets far less bang for its buck in terms of health outcomes and equality.

…The U.S. offers huge amounts of what Kirkegaard calls “tax breaks for social purposes,” including the Earned Income Tax Credit, tax-exempt pension contributions, and new tax breaks for Americans to buy health insurance. In contrast, many European governments give services or cash benefits directly to their citizens, but then take some of that money back by taxing those cash benefits, or the person’s spending more generally.

…Once you add in that private social spending and the effect of taxes, it changes the ranking entirely. Now the U.S. devotes more to social spending than Sweden, the U.K., Germany, and Denmark – actually, every other advanced country except France.
This is a subject that was discussed on this blog in January in the proposition for an Energy Backed Currency. In EBC, the government controls spending but income comes in solely through energy sales, removing their ability to tinker on that end. Currently the fiscal policy is like a ship with rudders at each end. The actions at one end can be negated by actions at the other and they can do sneaky things like redistributing wealth at the taxation end but calling it okay because they didn't increase spending.
In addition, the more we are in debt, the less stable we are as an investment, which makes companies and other countries value our currency lower than it could be.
Why should we worry about being a foreign investment? When foreign countries invest in America, they own a part of us. We lose a part of our sovereignty. America is rich enough that it isn't starving for foreign investments. And why would we want other countries to value our currency? Driving up the dollar hurts our manufacturing and other export sectors, furthering the state of America as a nation that doesn't make things, and is forgetting how to make things. Foreign entities acquiring our currency is the same as us acquiring debt. How does, say, China, acquire dollars? They trade real value for them, in the form of goods and services. At any time, China can use its dollars to extract real wealth back out of America. Thus we are in debt to whoever holds our currency, and have lost some of our sovereignty.
This leaves the US with two grim choices, which Trump is brave enough to take on where no other American politicians will:

1. Default and lose currency value, or
2. Cut social programs and pay off the debt

Our present path leads to the first option. At some point, we will simply have borrowed too much. The experts will tell us that since our debt service is still under 10% of the budget, we are doing fine, but the real effects will be secondary. Our currency will lose value, we will lose prestige, and our government will be manipulated by foreign debtors.
The first option is indeed the only real option. US debt is sure to implode at some point. In addition to this, the vast sums of US currency in foreign exchange reserves means that, if there is ever a run on the dollar, foreign entities will unload their dollars as fast as possible, sucking wealth back out of the US. The only way to prevent that scenario will be for the US to debase the dollar, and to do so while we're strong enough, militarily, to get away with it. The causal chain of currency devalued $$\rightarrow$$ manipulated by foreign debtors is not sound. No, devaluing the currency will be the only way to reduce manipulation by foreign debtors.

From here out Steven's transitions from economics to a political discussion.
For those on the Alt Right, a transition to minimal American government — funding military and infrastructure alone, and leaving everything else to the states — would be an optimal scenario. With the fall of entitlements, diversity also will fall, and with that, the economic model of the circular Ponzi scheme will fail. At that point, the US will politically fragment as it already has socially.
Agreed, this is the ideal outcome, and one in which we might even get some help from some on the left, as long as they don't think we're agreeing with them on anything.

I read Brett Stevens almost daily. My biggest gripe is that he writes so much it is hard to keep up with it (not the worst gripe in the world, to be sure), but when you see these kinds of economic fallacies mixed in you have to wonder what else is askew. The bigger point here is that even the smartest guys out there misspeak about the economy. If you, the reader, understand the criticisms made here and start seeing them for yourself in the wild, then you understand economic reality better than the vast majority of Americans, which is knowledge that may one day work well in your favor.