Our Marxist Allies?

Serious question, prompted by a couple posts that have sprung up in the last couple days. One is from the ZMan, whose post The Corporate State reminds us that the bulk of the thought policing and stifling of free speech going on these days is done not by a Orwellian tyrannical government, but by global corporations. This isn't necessarily true in the entire western world. In most of Europe, and even Canada, people are actually sent to jail for their sins when they dare to express disapproval for a protected class of people. (Such as by stating a dislike for immigrants.) In America you won't be jailed for saying those things, not yet anyway, but the left still has great capacity to deplatform those speakers, unperson them, and destroy their careers. Twitter, while private, is something of the national commons. On Twitter one can make assassination threats and say the most vile things about white people and still keep their little blue checkmarks, while prominent right-wingers are kicked off at every opportunity. One made a game out of it, making new accounts and seeing what ridiculous things he could be suspended for. Eventually he resorted to just posting picture of puppies. (Puppy complacence is genocide.)

The second post was written in response to a column that appeared in the Independent recently by an old-school Marxist who defends the Alt Right and Steve Bannon. The blog post was called Marx Would Line Today’s Leftists Up Against the Wall and Shoot Them which fairly well gets the entire point across. If you ever read the Communist Manifesto - which is freely available online and not really that long - you'll be struck by two observations. First, at how much of the modern left comes straight out of the Communist Manifesto. The book is all about class struggle and oppression, and the modern left is absolutely obsessed with oppression. And second, at how much of the modern left stands in stark contrast to the ethos of the Communist Manifesto. Instead of class warfare, they focus on identity warfare. (We refer to them as Cultural Marxists, but a better term would be Identity Marxists.)

In Marx, there was oppression, but their was a clear bogeyman: the bourgeoisie, what we'd today call the global capitalists and global corporatists. (Or for short, just globalists.) The Communist Manifesto actually bemoans the destruction of national identities and the erosion of the patriarchy by globalist influence. Can you believe that? Marx was a white supremacist and a misogynist, at least by the modern left's attitude towards such opinions. They have taken the oppression dynamics from Marx but turned around allied with the bad guy! Especially since Obama took office. That's when things really changed. Before Obama, the left held protests against American imperialism, rioted at NWO meetings, despised the EU, and railed against cronyism. Now they defend all those things! Just another example of the ol' libtard switcharoo, as I call it. And as the Republican Party is being taken over by anti-establishment conservatives, the left is becoming even more unhinged in their defense of such things. There is nothing in the current environment that could please Marx. Look at all the welfare. We call it socialism, but it's not truly Marxist, it's just democratic governments bribing their voters. It's socialism where people yield power to the state instead of gaining it. Under Marxism the people are supposed to take control of the means of production. (From economic power comes political power.) Instead the corporations are taking the means of production, and they are using their positions to exert political power. Look at Twitter policing political discourse, and all the Congressmen on the corporate dole. The left never even tried to account for the fact that their candidate was somehow worth nine figures.

It's strange to say, with as much as we rail against communists around here, but true Marxists are our natural allies at this point. We have the same common enemy, and share some degree of their complaints. The question is, how many genuine Marxists exist these days? The left today somehow managed to select the worst aspects of socialism and global capitalism and combine them into a single soul-crushing nation-wrecking cancerous ideology. Marx looks pretty decent in comparison.

The Prophecy of the Triggering

Apologies for the slow output. I've had a computer issue.

One of the lessons we've learned in the last couple years that would should make sure not to forget is that antagonizing the left is a worthy goal in and of itself. We learned the lesson from many angles. Writers like Vox Day theorized that leftists always project. Thus, their constant insults and and accusations reveal their own weaknesses. Trump goaded the media into producing massive media coverage for himself, fueling his presidential victory. The heroic autists of 4chan showed that the left couldn't be reasoned with, but memes carried enormous persuasion potential. Their recent "It's Okay to be White" campaign has been brilliant. These are the key lessons to take away from the wildly successful and highly unexpected emergence of the non-establishment right.

The media attack Trump for being petty. I sometimes feel inclined to agree with them. There was recently a video where Trump met with children of the White House Press Corps. I believe they were dressed up for Halloween. He spent most of the time berating the press. A couple jabs were okay, but it seemed excessive. I'm not much for politicizing children, and after things like that you can understand why some people dislike him.

More recently, Trump took the opportunity to hijack a ceremony honoring Amerindian military veterans to jab at Elizabeth Warren for crafting a fake Indian ancestry to get employment advantage. He's not wrong to do so, but at that particular time, it seems a little crude. And that's the difference between regular people, and Trump, who seems to act on a whole different level.

Shortly after the election, Anonymous Conservative - who analyzes politics through psychology and the effect of the brain's amygdala - predicted that in the coming months liberals' amygdalae would become so agitated that many would only find relief by dropping out of politics altogether. He also suggested that Trump would become increasingly popular through his term and that by the 2020 election many would have no memory that they were ever rabidly opposed to his candidacy. The strategy he proposed was to keep relentlessly driving away at their amygdalae. If I were Trump, I would have relented. I wouldn't be able to make those constant petty jabs. He does. He's the relentless madman. And it's working. Here was Keith Olbermann's tweet right after the incident.

He's quitting! Of course he makes an excuse, but this doesn't end Trump, who has referred to Warren as Pocahontas many times already. This hasn't ended his presidency; it's ended a rival. Olbermann is a liberal nut job and has been increasingly unhinged in the last view months. Someone made a collage a while back of his tweets, and it's just manic profanity, beneath even the dignity of this lowly blog to publish. We've been expecting him to snap. Well, now he's quitting. AnonCon was right. And so was Trump. His insults seem unnecessary, but only when you don't understand how this political war is being waged at a psychological level. Whether Trump is intentionally shorting their circuits or he just comes at this naturally is immaterial. The results are the same either way.

Here's another example from today.

When Pelosi and Schumer didn't attend a meeting called by the president to discuss North Korea's latest display of nuclear aggression, he re-arranged the chairs so that their seats would be clearly visible on the television broadcast. Can you imagine McCain or Romney pulling such a stunt? Of course not, which is why they lost to a limp-wristed communist. Was it childish? Pelosi sure thinks so.

Trump made sure everyone knew that Pelosi and Schumer skipped the meeting, then Pelosi turned around and made sure everyone knew that Ryan and McConnell attended. What a dunce! To most of his supporters, the fact that he'd relegate Ryan and McConnell to "props" is just icing on the cake. The cost of all this? Trump appears petty. Okay, so be it. But that's nothing new. And it's a relief. Because they said he was a Nazi. Compared to Nazi, petty is pedestrian.

Being petty costs Trump nothing. He is driving his enemies to defeat, at almost no cost. He drives them mad and saturates their bandwidth. In the latest Project Veritas video (consider donating to them this Christmas season) a Washington Post employee admitted on hidden camera that the organization is constantly distracted from other things by it's need to respond to Trump. This is insider confirmation that Trump is indeed Saturating the Media Bandwidth. The media is the primary weapon of the left and they are hindered from their agenda of destroying America because they just can't stop spewing Trump hatred, and he keeps handing them all the petards they can get their hands on. So far the prophesy is holding up nicely. He is driving his opponents off the field entirely.

Who is Outing the Pervs?

Something big is happening in The Cult right now. Leaders are being deposed by sexual abuse / harassment claims in two of the three major liberal institutions. (Media and government, with academia being the third.) Those destroyed in the past few weeks have included some of the biggest players in that world, and all rumors are that there's more to come. What is going on here?

The most apparent answer is that these men are just paying a debt that has naturally come due. It's an open secret that Hollywood is run by perverts and pedophiles. It makes sense that accusations long held secret would snowball if they ever got started. Once some women came public about Weinstein, and he was under the gun, it was much easier for many women to come public. But we're seeing it spread other places. An NPR talk-show host. A long-standing Democratic Congressman. It's entirely possible that outing former harassers has just become the trend, but the timing is a little suspect. Why now?

Anytime powerful people are exposed for hedonism we should at least raise an eyebrow because much of the elite are tied together by their hedonism. There is a world of evidence out there, much outed by Alex Jones who even managed to go undercover at Bohemia Grove, and confirmed to a fair degree by the Podesta emails, that the powerful engage in lewd sexual acts and occult rituals. That is the loyalty pact. Not only do they signal their allegiance by engaging in such silly deeds as worshiping Moloch or participating in mock cannibalism rituals, but they make themselves vulnerable. Each in the circle can be trusted, because anyone who gets too far out of line can be destroyed by the others. Think of Bill Clinton flying on Jeffrey Epstein's Lolita Express plane to his private island. Everyone knows what happened on those flights. He indulged in underage prostitutes. Epstein no doubt has substantial evidence. Thus he has power over Clinton, one of the most powerful people in the world. The elite power structure is welded tight with those kinds of leverage relationships.

So, again, anytime someone powerful is exposed for hedonism, we should raise an eyebrow. Was this coincidental, or were they outed by someone else powerful? So there are a couple other theories that must be considered here. One is that the liberal power elite are imploding. The Democrats are largely evicted from power in Washington, and they are spasming in their death throes. We can only hope. Another possibility is that they are being done in from the outside. Who could have surveilled the power landscape, probed for weakness, gathered the necessary evidence, and is now using it to crush his enemies? Could it be Trump? Our instincts tell us he isn't that savvy, and that he's too new to the game, but on the other hand we've learned never to underestimate him. We're just speculating at this point, but the thought that Trump is playing serious political hardball behind the scenes and using their own internal leverage against them is, well it would be political jiu jitzu on a level we've never seen before. 

That might just be too good to be true. Either way, we'll still get to enjoy watching the scumbags drop like flies.

Live and Let Die?

A commenter on one of the blogs linked on the sidebar said that today is a sad day down in Australia because a gay marriage referendum just passed 60%-40%. Another commenter responded:

Why is that a sad day? Marriage is a commitment between two people. What difference does it make what sex either of those two people are? And just exactly why is that any of your business at all?

It's a seductive argument. It's also a quintessentially libertarian argument. Of significant note is that it's an argument at all. We're so used to "debating" liberals that we almost get surprised having to combat opinions that have any rational merit to them. Liberals are infuriating, but eventually taking the time to explain all the ways they are wrong gets boring. Libertarians are in a higher intellectual weight bracket, so let's beat up on someone our own size for a change, huh?

Before we get into this, I'd ask the readers here to take a minute and think about this comment. Do you agree with it? Disagree? Try to craft a counterargument in your own head. If you read this blog regularly it's likely you disagree, but can you explain why? I'll take my stab at it below.






The comment isn't quite an argument, but it's close. An argument consists of a claim supported by evidence. In this case, the claim is that one should not care who gets married. The evidence is that no one who is not gay married is affected by gay marriage. That's not technically evidence, it's more of a claim in and of itself, but it works. We shouldn't expect him to prove a negative. He can't prove we aren't personally affected by gay marriage, but he can challenge us to provide countering evidence and, if none is provided, his original claim holds. Let's take up his challenge.

Let's generalize his statement a bit. What we're talking about is ethics or morality. The underlying principle is that one has complete license so long as they don't directly harm another. That is the core of libertarianism. But what about indirect harm? Does one have complete license if it indirectly harms another?

It is not easy to quantify the effects of morality on civilization. Take Rome for example. It is largely believed that late Rome's decadence led to its fall. We can't be for sure to what degree that behavior contributed to collapse. Maybe Rome was doomed to fall anyway because it was over-extended, and the morality of the people was of little consequence. To know for sure, we'd need many Rome-like examples, and an approach for quantifying morality in ancient civilizations.

Another approach is to make analogies to domains where we can make measurements. Instead of morality, let's look at intelligence. One's intelligence is correlated to one's economic success. Few would contest such a notion, and statistical analysis supports the claim. Here's the key question: does the intelligence of others affect one's outcomes? Does national intelligence affect personal wealth? It would seems so, but the degree to which it does really is surprising. The correlation between average national IQ and personal wealth is six times higher than the correlation between personal IQ and personal wealth. That is remarkable. One's success is more tied to the attributes of the nation than one's own personal attributes. It's better to be a dummy in a smart nation than the Einstein of the idiots. Those of us living in America surely note the phenomenon. Thus, when someone chooses to be less intelligent, it does harm us, albeit indirectly.

To round out the argument, we must make the case that wealth follows national morality in the same way that it follow national intelligence. We can look at history to settle this one. The question should be, did nations that rose to power tend to have strong or loose morals? This is so obvious it hardly needs to be discussed. Look at the great powers of last century. America, Russia, Japan, Germany, England...all rose with strict moral codes. It's amusing that so many Americans these days like to mock Victorian-era prudes, yet those prudes built the advanced civilization they so frivolously disregard today. And in no great or wealthy civilizations in all history was gay marriage remotely tolerated. Even in the closest example, the Athenian empire, where homosexual behavior was common, it was in temporary arrangements between men who still married women and raised children. If gay marriage gives a national advantage, then why was the behavior shunned by nearly every culture and civilization?

Darwin answers the question pretty easily. Civilizations tend not to permit gay marriage because it tends to lower the chances of success. It's as simple as that. Libertarianism and liberalism both assume we live and die as a collective of individuals, rather than as a society, despite all evidence to the contrary. The best they can claim is, but now things are different! It's possible they're correct. Maybe technical advances are so profound that they negate the hard lessons our ancestors learned over many thousands of years of trial, error, and death. It's possible, but it's also very risky to assume human societies are that much different than they ever were.

The Left Keeps Cultural Cohesion With Minimal Cost

The last post discussed how the left, having been brutally contradicted over the past year or two by reality, almost seem to invite humiliation on themselves, in a masochistic sense. The theme of that post was something to the effect of they aren't even trying anymore. This post will look at it from a slightly different perspective, which is they don't have to try.

Societies benefit from cultural cohesion, and engage in activities to maintain that cohesion. Throughout most of history those cohesion behaviors have tended to be religious or at least superstitious. Societies developed priestly castes to enforce the cultural cohesion. That cohesion gave the nation a survival advantage. They were able to punch above their weight versus tribes that were less united. But those cohesion behaviors carry a cost. In the very first book of the Bible we are given the story of Cain and Abel making food sacrifices to their diety. That is quite a cost. Less food means fewer people can be fed; a smaller population means a weaker nation. The benefits of cultural cohesion must have outweighed the energy costs. This should be a familiar event for those familiar with the work of Dr Joseph Tainter. Societies adapt complexity to solve problems, which comes at a cost in energy.

The Romans kept order through rule of law, effective provincial administration, and through military force. But even they also made sure to maintain cultural cohesion through religion, with magnificent temples and rituals. They paid for those costs through conquest of increasingly distant opponents, and by control of agriculturally productive regions such as Sicily and Egypt. In pre-European America the natives engaged in human sacrifice, notably of children, to appease the gods. Those societies were willing to pay an extreme cost to maintain the priestly caste's imposed social order. It's interesting that the civilizations noted for human sacrifice, the Mayans, Incans, and Aztecs, were the only highly complex nations, who also built great pyramids and monuments. The far less complex, semi-nomadic tribes of North America aren't know for their human sacrifice. We can reasonably suppose that previous complex societies of North America, such as the one that built the burial mounds in Cahokia, also engaged in human sacrifice or similarly costly cohesion behaviors. It's also likely that the incurred costs contributed to their collapse. But that's something of a truism. All costs contribute to the collapse.

Non-religious societies have their own cohesion behaviors. Japan is enormously cohesive, and largely non-religious. They are kept in line by social expectation and judgment. Think of the Japanese salarymen, who lose face if they come home too early. They must not be very important to come home so early. So they come home late. They dilly dally at work, then head to the pachinko bar for a spell, before finally coming home at a respectable time. The inefficiencies are obvious, but more costly is that households are practically fatherless. The results show, with the "grass eaters" afraid to leave the house and the shocking number of young people who just don't have sex at all. Fatherlessness destroys societies, especially in a place like Asia, where the men are low-T to begin with. Think about it: the Japanese are about the smartest and most conscientious and most orderly people on Earth, and they're headed to extinction if they can't fix their social cohesion imbalances.

America is similar to Rome in that cultural cohesion has been maintained through religion and rule of law, but there are some uniquely American cohesive attributes, such as a social code of reciprocative personal liberty, an ethos of equality, and the conviction that success can be found in industriousness and hard work. Modern secular America has its own quasi-religious rituals, such as the 4th of July and standing for the national anthem before baseball games. There are costs to cultural cohesion in America, with vast resources dedicated to indoctrination, but they fall far short of murdering our own children. Perhaps that's part of our great success. We can suppose the following principle: nations have the greatest survival advantage when they can get the most cultural cohesion for the least cost.

And that brings us to the left. They are their own unique culture defined by r-selected psychologies and an innate rejection of traditional society. There are great institutions enforcing their cultural cohesion in media, education, and government. However, the left don't shoulder the burden for maintaining those institutions; they compel everyone to support them through taxation, requiring educational credentials for employment, controlling information channels, etc. Sort of like with corporate welfare, which engages in Privatizing Gains and Socializing Losses, the left is constantly striving to extract the most gains from national institutions while minimizing the costs to themselves. (Nearly all of Bernie Sanders' platform, save for some anti-corruption rhetoric, follows from this foundation.)

Co-opting institutions with minimal cost isn't their only advantage. The most potent lefty cohesion behaviors seem to bear almost no cost at all, which are virtue signaling and lying. In the last post we examined how the left is routinely embarrassed when their outrage is contradicted by reality. We supposed that they may actually enjoy humiliation. And indeed we see examples to confirm our suspicions, like Antifa's Professor Giraffe, a total lefty nutjob who engages in sexually humiliating behavior. So self-hatred is certainly an aspect. But also we have to note that leftists don't have to be right because they pay almost no cost for being wrong. They're not even trying, because they don't have to. They can get all the cohesion benefits of virtue signaling and lying but incur few of the costs.

Let's look at a recent example. Recently it was discovered that an act of racist vandalism at the Air Force Academy was false-flag vandalism committed by the alleged victims. When it originally happened, the media was on it like flies on fruit. The general in charge gave a wonderfully "virtuous" response which condemned the racism and garnered millions of YouTube views. If it wasn't intended as an attack on Trump, it certainly was treated as one. The media praised it to the moon and back for its moral clarity, in juxtaposition with Trump's morally ambivalent stance regarding the Charlottesville fiasco. To us, it was just incredible. Because after Charlottesville, Trump, who loves to kid and clown, was the only adult in the room. The alt-right & neo-Nazi protesters looked bad, Antifa looked bad, the media and mainstream politicians looked bad. Only Trump had the fortitude to call it for what it was; an ugly event where idiots on both sides were engaging in unacceptable behavior. The left was outraged. Trump is head of America's largest and most powerful institution. America's institution's are supposed to condemn the misdeeds of the right, not the misdeeds of both sides!

As tends to happen, reality had her way. It was found that it was, in fact, false-flag vandalism. Trump's "moral ambivalence" was justified to the maximal possible extent. It was savage karma. Did the media outlets admit the reality, or pay any price whatsoever for their outrageous coverage? Of course not! They doubled down. CNN described the revelation as "unfortunate." Can you imagine that? They found it unfortunate that there weren't, in fact, gratuitous acts of racism in the Air Force Academy! They also argued that the general's words were powerful and true no matter what the specifics of any particular incident. All attacks on Trump are valid, whatever the facts.

No one is going to be punished for any of this, the false vandalism, the hysterical reaction, the complete lack of journalistic integrity, none of it. Generally speaking, political lefties are only punished when they absolutely have to be. In the Giraffe Boy link, the professor was in fact suspended, but for hoping for the deaths of his own students! That's how far they have to go. Even if he is fired, he'll quietly be hired by some other sympathetic college. He'll be fine. They just don't get punished. Look at all we know the Democrats were doing in the election. There were some token firings, but they're all fine. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is still a Congressman; Donna Brazille lost her CNN slot but has a great book deal. The only person in jail is Anthony Weiner, serving a short sentence for, again, soliciting minors for sex. To be punished, liberals have to engage in the most egregious behaviors: wishing for the deaths of their students, getting caught rigging their own election, and pedophilia. Even then, the consequences are minimal or even trivial.

The point of all this, if you're concerned I've run off the rails here, is that liberals get enormous cultural cohesion with almost no cost at all. They are united in hate under a false narrative and when reality rears her head they just scurry along to the next faux outrage. According to our postulate from above, they must incur a survival advantage. They seem to. There is evidence of some long-term costs. CNN's viewership is down; Fox News is leading the pack. The kids coming up in school are pretty conservative for their age bracket. The problem with the long-term is that, in the long-term, the Democrats shift the demographics enough that the lefties and foreigners can outvote the American nation in every national election. We're very close to that point, right now. Saying that there are long-term costs to liberal cohesion behaviors is not very helpful when, in the long term, given the current trajectories, they win anyway.

This post is running much longer than normal, so we'll leave it here, at the statement of the problem, with no suggestion for solutions. The problem is that those who hate us and want to kill our nation maintain cultural cohesion with minimal cost. Right-wing cohesion comes with great risk and cost. This is the number one problem we face. If we don't find a way to change the equation so that leftist cultural cohesion is more expensive than our own, we lose. No matter what else do. We'll address this problem more in another post very soon.

This Wreckage Will Self-Destruct

The Democrat party is a dumpster fire. They have been almost totally ousted from power in Washington by the electorate. The suffered a humiliating defeat at the hand's of a man they routinely depicted as an incompetent bozo. They had all their dirty laundry aired for anyone willing to take a peak. The total embarrassments have been devastating. Here are just a few, of many. They asserted Trump had no real mathematical chance to win the primary or general elections, and he won both handily. They said the electors would throw the election to Hillary, and then she had the most deserters of any candidate in over a hundred years. They gave Jill Stein $7 million for recounts that were to overturn the election, and they actually expanded Trump's lead, thanks to all the voter fraud in places like Detroit. They promised across the board they would leave the country if Trump was elected, and yet no one left. These are just a few examples. There are many more that could be listed.

If there's anything we learned from the great Dr Drew of Loveline, it's that people subconsciously find ways to relive past traumas. Such a theory is the only thing that can explain the left's behavior. They aren't even really being embarrassed by the right anymore. They seem intent on doing it to themselves. Have you noticed that we haven't seen any prominent examples of Trump media-baiting with his Twitter account like he did so successfully during the campaigns? Probably because he doesn't need to. He doesn't have to try. All he has to do is be himself, have fun, feed fish, stuff like that, and watch the left implode around him.

Yesterday the media outlets, most notably The Guardian, ran with the depiction of Trump committing an embarrassing faux pas in Tokyo. During a Koi-feeding ritual, Abe gently cast food into the small pond, while Trump, the blundering ogre, gracelessly dumped his whole box of food into the pond, which actually threatens the health of the fish! But the thing is, like all public presidential events, it was videotaped. The depiction was thoroughly debunked within minutes. Both used the spoons to cast food, then Abe dumped the remainder of his box in, and Trump followed suit. It's just boring mundane ceremony. Literally feeding carp. The left created a scandal out of it that lasted but a few mere minutes. We might be tempted to explain the blunder as a result of desperation; the left is so thirsty for any win that they grasp at anything. But this case was so trivially debunked that we have to suspect they actually wanted to be humiliated. Not even a fake journalist could expect the ruse to succeed. We've seen the media stop trying to do real news, and now it seems they aren't even trying to do fake news. One wonders how low this can all go.

There was another terrible shooting this weekend. Anyone paying attention has surely noticed the trend. After every shooting, the left flies into a fury before the bodies are even cold, blaming evil Republicans and calling for more federal gun laws. Even a few months ago they were more careful about it, waiting for some facts before they totally ran with it. But now, after being routinely contradicted, they rush right into it. They must love being wrong so much they just can't help themselves! And the facts in this one sure don't disappoint. The assailant was a convicted domestic abuser, who spent a year in military prison. He was already prohibited from gun ownership by federal law. Not only that, but he was brought down by a civilian who was an NRA member with a legal AR-15. This is brutal karma for the left. Not only were the desired laws already in place, but the shooting spree was ended, not executed, by a lawful gunowner. It's hard to imagine a scenario to more decisively shatter the left's gun-control agenda. They ran right into it.

In more fun news, Donna Brazille has written a scathing book against Clinton, describing how she commandeered the DNC to rig the election against Bernie Sanders. As recently as last week Democrats were ridiculing right-of-center outlets like Fox News for covering fairy-tale Hillary scandals instead of Trump/Russia. They must ridicule their own now, I suppose. And in fact the Clinton camp responded by accusing Brazille of buying into "Russian-fueled propaganda." Isn't this marvelous? Truly enjoyable to watch all of this! I never would have thought that Brazille would come out guns blazing like this. I could see her piling on as it was already falling apart, but she's leading the charge! There were many rumors that Clinton treated Brazille like shit. They must be true. Brazille was constantly humiliated, she was publicly exposed sneaking debate questions, and lost her CNN role over the incident. She wants revenge.

Since the motif under examination here is the Democrats doing themselves in, we really must look at the Mueller probe. We won't really know if the probe is a political witch hunt or a reasonable attempt at enforcing the law until the pieces started to fall. We suspect the former, but let's suppose the latter, for a moment, and imagine that Mueller is all about bagging crooks, whoever they are. If that's the case, then that's the only way key criminals from the Obama or Clinton orbits will ever see justice. Think about it. Trump can't go after them. Recently he received a lot of criticism for spurring the justice department to go after Clinton. The criticism has merit. We don't want things to devolve to the point where each incoming administration starts rounding up political opponents of the previous tenure. There's a lot of conflict of interest for Trump to take some of the desired swamp-draining action. Even if Trump pushed for an independent counsel himself there would be widespread cries of impropriety. But it was the Democrats that set up the independent counsel. While we don't have much reason to trust Mueller, we also note that the left specialize in hoisting themselves with their own petards. There may be a lot of poetic justice ahead for us.

Mothers Build Nations

The alt-right has a tendency to be male-oriented. This has less to do with sexism and more to do with the fact that it is a reactionary movement against a gynocentric liberal orthodoxy that treats men as inherently evil and flawed. Thus, we spend a lot of time making arguments that are verboten by the Cult, such as evidence that the income gap arises from biology not bigotry, or that children raised without fathers have remarkably reduced odds for social mobility. We don't spend a lot of time arguing in favor of the value of women because the current culture values women. There's not much to argue about. Still, it's worth keeping in mind the vital role that women play, and that without them our movement is doomed to whither and die.

Ideologically, we are mostly concerned with order. There are three major pillars of western civilization: freedom, justice, and order. The left is obsessed with justice, and the right with freedom. Order is ignored in the left/right paradigm. The alt-right is here to remind everyone that order is essential, and that the old social orders existed for a reason. Western civilization requires all its pillars in place and in proportion. Runaway justice leads to communism. Runaway freedom leads to anarchy, which is why we beat up on libertarians so much. Runaway order leads to fascism, which might explain why they are so quick to call us fascists, for daring to pay attention to the need for order at all. These aren't theoretical postulates; history provides all necessary empiricism for justice, freedom, and order gone wild.

The notion that the old social orders matter implies much of the alt-right platform. Families matter. Culture matters. Nations matter. Alt-right is a loose term, but nationalism is always assumed. We reject the multi-cultural experiment and posit that civilizations are built on the backs of nations. We note the historical precedent that destruction of the nation proceeds collapse of the society, and suspect that there's no magic in post-modernism which alleviates the causality.

It's been said that civilization is men's attempt to impress women. Whatever the motives, civilization is certainly built by men. Even today, when every college and corporation is desperate to hire women engineers, the vast majority remain male. Men may build civilizations, but women's role is even more important: they build nations. The key distinction between male and female is that sperm are plentiful and eggs are rare. Men are valuable but expendable. Women must be protected. If a tribe lost most of its men, it would still have a shot at survival. It would be highly subject to invasion, resource shortages, and rampant catfighting, but if it could solve those problems the tribe might restore itself in a single generation. A tribe that lost most of its women would be permanently reduced. Perhaps the men could steal women from a neighboring tribe, but at the cost of greatly altering their own tribe's genetics.

Not only are women essential for maintaining genetic identity, but they also steer the culture of the nation. Values and psychological attributes are largely established by five years of age. Thus, culture is built by mothers. Without women on board, even strong cultural movements are not likely to survive more than a generation. Women are also social creatures, more so than men, and have high influence on social dynamics. It's always important to have women supporting whatever it is you're trying to sell. (Every successful band is aware of this.)

If nationalism is the goal, women are the solution. Men can't build nations. Only women can do that. To succeed, we must strive to bring at least as many women as men into the fold. Fortunately, there is a fairly successful technique for making women conservative: marry them. Adacious Epigone has shown that, while women are much more likely than men to vote for socialist policies overall, married women vote about the same as men, whereas single women vote massively for the left. And this makes sense. The left values woman as individuals, woman as consumers, and women as political entities. The right values women as mothers and nation builders. Single women vote for policies that benefit the individual. Married women vote in the interests of family and nation.

The number one rule that men of the alt-right need to keep in mind is something their mothers probably taught them a long time ago: don't hit girls. Some openly suggest we should eliminate women's suffrage, based on the observation that socialist policies reliably followed women's suffrage by about fifteen years in western countries. Perhaps they have a point, but that is no way to make the kinds of friends we need to make. Attacking our prominent women won't get us anywhere either. Vox Day dismisses Lauren Southern as "a blonde who says obvious shit." Of course she says obvious shit; she's alt-right! Most of what we do is just to note the observations that we aren't supposed to note. It needn't be complicated. Really he's probably just annoyed that a journalist is getting more attention than an intellectual. The alt-right has no shortage of core intellectuals. It's success hinges on effective social engagement. To the extent that the alt-right helped elect Trump, it wasn't through syllogisms, but through memes. That was the key insight that powered a radically successful guerrilla social media campaign. Let's not force ourselves to relearn old lessons. Other thinkers like to punch at our social assets. The Zman loves to jab at Gavin and Milo, even though their social reach dwarfs his own respectable following. Of course the social activists will garner a greater social response than dry intellectuals. That is normally the case in any social movement. Complaining about it seems a bit immature, even selfish.

When it comes to women, we should err on the side of shameless promotion. There are many great women who produce content we should be sharing. The Cult does everything in its power to make women fearful of the alt-right. The most effective counter is to make sure the women of the alt-right have as much exposure as possible. Here are a few, presented in no particular order. I'll update any notable omissions.

• Brittany Pettibone
• Tara McCarthy
• Lana Lokteff
• Wife With a Purpose
• Roaming Millennial
• Lauren Southern
• Blonde in the Belly of the Beast
• Ann Coulter
• Blaire White (token trans of the alt right)

The Offense Malicy

In a recent post, WM Briggs pointed out the Offense Fallacy in response to a recent incident where a British university student was expelled for quoting the Bible to argue that gay marriage is a sin. It is telling that someone like Briggs, who mostly blogs about statistics, would feel compelled to opine on the topic. He must be, like us, aghast that the nation that spawned Richard the Lion-Hearted and the world's first global empire has become so self-minimalized that Bible quotations are mortal sins requiring draconian punishments.

The Offense Fallacy is the belief that any action or statement is immoral if it offends anyone. The moral hazard is that it gives any person the power to invalidate anything another does by simply being offended, or merely by pretending to be offended, which so often seems the case. Generally speaking, feelings (fake or real) are not logical constructions. We can't logically disprove the Offense Fallacy, because it's really not an argument. Briggs provides a clear enough practical counterexample. He is offended by the ruling of the university. Therefor the ruling is immoral and must be reversed! None of this is conceptually difficult. We teach even young children that they'll never be able to please everyone. That is very similar to telling them that anything they do is liable to offend someone. If it is impossible not to offend at some point, and offense is a mortal sin, then the only moral choice is to do nothing. And the only way to really do nothing is to commit suicide. (The left, being something of a death cult already, would naturally adopt such stances.)

Briggs gives the Offense Fallacy, if anything, too much credit, for example by calling it an argument. It is not an argument at all. It is just a rule. Don't offend anyone. There's no argument. It's backed by ethos, not logos. The problem isn't that it's illogical. The problem is that, as we discussed in There Are No Rules, Only Excuses, inconsistently enforced rules are merely convenient tools for tyranny. The No Offense rule is probably the most inconsistently enforced rule out there. It's meant to be inconsistent, and enforcement is entirely identity-based. Men can't offend women. Whites can't offend "minorities". Straights can't offend gays. And so on. The trend is apparent. The rule should more correctly be stated those perceived to be strong are not permitted to offend those perceived to be weak. This is a somewhat more logically defensible rule, at least. The British student was wrong because Christianity is seen as strong and homosexuality as weak. (Yes, the rule is drowning in bigotry). And Briggs's offense at the ruling is insubstantial since he is a strong white male and the offense comes from an institution working in the interests of the weak.

The real problem is much deeper than a logical fallacy. Western society has decided that its primary goal is to root out oppression from society, yet it has also determined that the most oppressive thing on earth is western society. Liberalism is an autoimmune disease, where the body is attacked by its own immune system. The selectively enforced No Offense rule is just a means to an end. We must destroy our society to stop oppression. Unchecked egalitarianism is no less dangerous than unchecked greed. (And, if only body count is considered, it is much more dangerous.) This is the reason the alt-right doesn't tend to beat up on Muslims. Yes, they're invaders, but it's perfectly natural that they would be. Islam is like pneumonia. It's always there, always trying to kill us. It's a manageable threat until our immune system is compromised. When someone with AIDS dies from a pneumonia infection, we say they were killed by AIDS. Similarly, the west is being killed by liberalism, which is suppressing its own immune system with No Offense rules.

The Sanity of Cynicism

Cynicism is a word with heavy negative connotations. "You're being cynical" is never intended as a compliment. But there is something of a disconnect between this perception of cynicism and its role in reality. Most of the interesting people are cynics. Without cynicism we don't get great sarcasm or satire or stand-up comedy. Cynicism is associated with bitterness or eternal negativity; with those who can never be pleased. And yes, many are like that, but there is another side of cynicism. The dictionary defines the term with the negative connotations. But what of positive cynicism? Perhaps I'm not familiar with the proper term here, or it is missing from the language. A free-thinking person with high expectations will be lumped in with negative cynics, even though they are cut of entirely different cloth. These are the kinds of people we will be referring to here.

There is a world of difference between the man who can never be pleased and the man (or woman) who is waiting to be pleased. Imagine a ballet aficionado who loves that mode of art more than anything, but lives in some isolated country with only terrible ballet companies. He would be constantly displeased with every performance. To most people, he would be indistinguishable from the negative cynic. The ballerinas would dismiss his harsh reviews since he seems incapable of saying anything nice. And yet, if a wonderful company finally emerged, he would become their most loyal patron, would sing their praises, and would experience immense satisfaction. The cynic doesn't exist for the purpose of spreading negativity. To the contrary, he lives to share his love with the exquisite, the inspired, and the divine, but he is too principled to give undeserved praise. When the artist is a master, no one is more moved than the cynic.

To really know the cynic, we must compare him to his opposite. The opposite of a cynic merely adopts the values of whatever social entity they belong to and champions those values with incessant optimism. Most ambitious people are these kinds of anti-cynics, and they dominate leadership in government, in corporation, and even in the military, where they are called careerists. Careerists are people who's only goal is rank acquisition, so they wrap themselves in a shiny coat woven from the core values of their institutions. Their whole life becomes an act to portray a character who exhibits the traits most likely to be promoted. They are hypersocialized. They acquire all the values and behaviors they think society wants them to have. Their innate characters and intellects are squashed.

Such people acquire great benefit in the material world. In fact, it would be perfectly advisable for a cynic to adopt the role of the anti-cynic, just so long as they don't lose grasp of their own identity and values. Stoics knew that, even if they were held as slaves, the essence of their being was eternal and could never be altered or destroyed. There is much to risk in cynicism. Cynics are rarely powerful. Power requires latching onto a group identity, which requires a cynic to either forgo their free-thinking and high expectations, or to at least pretend to. Most of human social dynamics consists in picking sides. The true cynic says, "I have deep reservations with both sides."

I have found it interesting that, upon giving open support to Trump, I was quickly dismissed by most of my liberal friends as just a narrow-sighted Republican partisan, despite no additional supporting evidence. In fact, I have longed loathed the Republicans, and never voted for Bush, McCain, or Romney. I'm well aware that I couldn't be elected dogcatcher as a Republican because I don't pretend to be religious or strongly opposed to abortion. Conversely, I couldn't be elected as a Democrat, as I'm not a 3rd wave feminist or an Islamophiliac. The only path to power, if I was so-inclined and capable, would be to adopt one of the roles and run with it, which they all do. (Yes, even Trump.)

Despite the significant costs of cynicism, the rewards are the sanity and satisfaction that can only be acquired by living life in accordance to one's values, innate character, and observations of reality. Ultimately everything the anti-cynic is doing is to play pretend. They pretend they have values and qualities where they don't. They pretend to give optimistic praise where it supports the illusion they are crafting. They pretend that their adopted side is without flaw. One of the strongest recurring themes in this blog is a disgust with people who discard their human traits of observation, reasoning, and logic. The anti-cynic does all this. They trade in their precious and sacred gifts for the chance to ride of the waves of social circumstance. They are, by their actions, less human. Cynicism is the key to personal salvation. Jesus was quite the cynic, was he not?

Brett Stevens wrote an excellent piece a couple weeks ago called Entropy and Heat Death. Entropy is the effect of nature that drives systems to change states, and always in the direction of greater disorder. We can think of the entirety of our physical existence as harnessing available energy to maintain order in the face of the constant eroding force of entropy. We make the choices most likely to aid us in our eternal battle against disorder. Social dynamics are analogous. We are compelled constantly towards social disorder. Only through effective harnessing of energy can we maintain civilization. We make the choices that seem most likely to aid in that goal, usually based on experience and intuition. The point that Stevens was making was that, because post-modernists (fancy word for liberal) want us to pretend all choices are morally equivalent, we completely neuter our ability to fight entropy. It's like saying that it doesn't matter whether or not you insulate the walls of your home because no life choice is better than another. Of course we know better because we quickly pay the price for the mistake. But the costs of societal mistakes are paid out in the scale of human lifetimes. We can run seriously off the tracks before the inevitable corrective forces have their way with us.

The anti-cynic is our enemy. They don't give preference to the best ideas and solutions. They don't make the necessary distinctions between good and bad. Thus, they are just as useless as the liberals. But they're even worse, because they act from the state of pure self-interest. Many liberals have great desire to sustain civilization, they are just misguided in approach. The anti-cynic is only interested in their status. They'll gladly sink the ship so long as they get to play captain as it dips under. Only the cynic is fully dedicated to the task of keeping the boat righted and on the proper course. Without cynics civilization would implode within a generation.