Monthly Archives: January 2020

The Red-Pilled Leftist?

In the write-up portion of his Friday podcast,* Z Man muses on the possibility certainty that the Democrats will screw Bernie Sanders over in favor of some Wall Street creature:

A lot of people moved into dissidents politics when they saw how the so-called conservatives responded to Donald Trump in the primary. Something similar could happen to Progressives when they see their party side with Wall Street to block Sanders. It’s possible the party could literally throw in with a billionaire to stop the Sander’s movement….

…it is an intriguing possibility that will offer up opportunities for dissidents. No one knows what will happen when a bunch of white Progressives get red pilled.

All due respect, but I’m pretty sure I know what happens, and so do you.

First things first.  What happened to “conservatives” in 2016 was: They got knocked over the head with the realization — in retrospect, so very very fucking obvious — that the Republican Party has nothing to do with conservatism, and hasn’t for a long long time.  The GOP is the Big Business Party, full stop, and Big Business has nothing to do with conservatism.  Never has done.  Just look at the behavior of the Robber Barons.  Does J.D. Rockefeller fixing world oil prices look conservative to you?  If the choice is between rule by J.D. Rockefeller and rule by J.V. Stalin, I know which one I’m picking, but just because Rockefeller is to the “right” of the Vanguard of the Proletariat doesn’t make him any kind of conservative.

Dissidents have been pointing this out for years.  Big Business is actually the natural home of proselytizing Leftists, because both the impulses and methods are the same: Control of what can be done, said, and thought, enforced by restricting access to products.  Just as there’s no need to rack up the expense of running a gulag when you can just cut off a dissident’s ration card, so there’s no point in agitating for state repression when you can just deny a dissident a bank account.  What are they going to do, build their own Internet?  Start another Wall Street in some place like Omaha?  Ask the wildcatters who tried to go against Standard Oil how that worked out.  J.D. drinks your milkshake.

There is effectively no conservative party in America, and again, we dissidents have been pointing this out for years.  But it took the GOP backstabbing one of their own for many normal Americans to start figuring this out.  “Conservatism” means “looking out for your own.”  Stuff like NAFTA obviously hurts America; therefore, no conservative could possibly support NAFTA.  But all non-Trump Republicans do, ergo….

Americans want to remain Americans.  Trump got that, which is why he won… over the vigorous, nasty, and ongoing objections of the Republican Party.

But if actual Americans have no authentic voice in American politics, then neither do actual Progressives.  The Bernie Bros had a point in 2016.  The Dems really did do everything in their power to rig their primaries in favor of Hillary, and does anyone really doubt that if by some miracle Bernie had won anyway, he soon would’ve slipped in the shower and fallen on seven bullets?  The Bernie Bros got with the program and grudgingly voted for Herself anyway, of course, but only by way of the same vicious binary logic of actual conservatives voting Republican — if the choice is between unbridled predatory capitalism (as they see it) and slightly less predatory crony capitalism with a few #Woke noises, they’ll very grudgingly pick the latter.

Just as there’s no real conservative party in America, there’s no real “Progressive” party either.  Everyone but Bernie makes increasingly bizarre #Woke noises — e.g. Lyin’ Liz Warren vowing to let a transgender child pick her Secretary of Education — but Progressives would, it’s increasingly clear, sacrifice all that “intersectional” crap for some real reform.  Single payer health care, for example.  They figure — correctly, by the “logic” of their fundamental assumptions — that trannies would benefit from this, too… whereas the tranny-child-approved EdSec is an empty gesture from a bought-and-paid-for Wall Street shill.

Just as a vote for Trump was the only way for real Americans to express their deep, heartfelt desire to remain Americans, then, a vote for Bernie is the only way for real Progressives to reaffirm their Leftist faith… and like the Republicans with Trump, the Democrats are going to do their damnedest to take the Bernie option off the table.

There’s a historical analogue for this, of course.  You’re not gonna like it, but you know it.

Cat Fancy was an alliance between the realists on both sides of the Left/Right divide.  Every other “Right” party in Weimar openly longed for the impossible: the restoration of the Kaiser.  Every other “Left” party was full of Marxists — international Socialists, which in practice meant that if they attained power, Germany would be ruled from Moscow as a Soviet province.  The Left-realists wouldn’t give up their faith in scientific socialism, but they refused to knuckle under to Russians.  The Right-realists wouldn’t knuckle under to Russians either, but they understood that the Kaiserreich’s glory days were gone for good.  Cat Fancy threaded the needle as the only party dedicated to helping Germans, and only Germans, as Germans.  

That’s what you get when you red-pill a bunch of Leftists: They join up with the red-pilled Rightists, because they all want the same thing.  Pick any dissident Rightist blog.  When they write about “banksters” etc., you could be forgiven for thinking they plagiarized it out of the Daily Worker circa 1924.  We’re supposed to be shocked at Bernie’s people wanting to put Wall Street types in work camps, but how many of us actually have a problem with it?  I’ve got several million White boys, killed in someplace unpronounceable or dead from opiate overdoses, who’d like a word with the Wolves of Wall Street.

I’ll go ahead and let my freak flag fly: the only reason I’ve got a problem with Bernie sending the Morgan Stanley boys to work camps is because it’s Bernie signing the orders.  Donald Trump could give the whole lot of them helicopter rides, and I’d be the first guy signing up for the pay-per-view broadcast.  And I’m a moderate.  As a historian, I know what Fascism entails — the lesser of two evils is still evil.  But I also understand the alternatives  — the lesser of two evils is lesser.

Maybe it won’t work out that way.  But I know how I’m betting.



*I don’t listen to podcasts.  I’m sure Z Man’s is good, but as I read 20x faster than I listen, I simply don’t have the patience for them.  Same deal with YouTube videos.
Loading Likes...

Grade Grubbers

Y’all no doubt recall Hanlon’s Razor:

Never attribute to malice what is adequately explained by stupidity.

You probably also recall the Severian Corollary:

Some stupidity is so stupid, you actually hope it’s malice.

The psychology of this fascinates me, and not just because some handsome, well-endowed bloke named it after me.  Take this, for instance.  As McCain points out, everyone who cares to know — and many, many, many people who don’t — know that Eric Ciaramella is the so-called “whistleblower.”  Likewise, anyone with more than three brain cells to rub together knows that Ciaramella is your standard-issue hyperpartisan Democrat operative.  Here he is, for example, hanging out with Joe Biden’s people and a bunch of Ukrainians at an NSC meeting back in 2015

Pretending that this guy’s name is super-secret spy information is so dumb, it makes anti-sense, what with the Streisand Effect and all.  And yet, all the Media people still carry on like Trump’s campaign guy just Tweeted out the nuclear launch codes or something.  And that carrying-on, in turn, seems positively genius compared to building a “case” around an obvious partisan’s hearsay, especially after the Streisand Effect has really kicked in and anyone not living under a rock has learned that he couldn’t possibly know what he claims to know….

… and yet, here we are.  I might have to retire the Severian Corollary, since malice and stupidity have overloaded the dilithium crystals and we’re about to be sucked into a supermassive black hole of absurdity.  In an effort to salvage it, though, let me suggest: College.

How can people be so dumb as to believe this?  Not “act as if” they believe this, since no one is that good an actor.  For every Nancy Pelosi who knows full well it’s an op, there are five Adam Schiffs, Jake Tappers, etc. who, even though they’ve undoubtedly been briefed on the op, still somehow believe it’s real.  I know, I know, it makes my brain hurt, too…. but there’s precedent.  Passionately believing the truth of something you know to be false is the hallmark of campus culture.

It’s pretty simple, actually.  As one only gets tenure by publishing, and since only original “research” gets published, the Humanities would cease to exist if their professors confined themselves to things like “evidence” and “reason.”  Shakespeare, after all, isn’t around to write any more sonnets, and we’ve long ago examined all probable causes of big historical events like the Civil War.  The only thing to do, then, is entirely decouple the Humanities from reason and evidence.  This is Postmodernism, and it’s so successful because it starts with an impossibility — it’s a fact, the PoMos declare, that there’s no such thing as a fact.

See what I mean?  People like Stanley Fish, Richard Rorty, Fredric Jameson et al aren’t stupid; they know full well they’re embracing a contradiction.  But they are people.  Specifically, they’re people with very cushy one-percenter lifestyles that they’d have to give up if they acknowledged the glaring contradiction, so they …. don’t.  It seems incredible, typed out nakedly that way, but everybody does it all the time.  Atheists think believers do it, of course, and believers feel the same way about atheists.  We’re all sure that deep down, sports fans know they’re just rooting for laundry.  Every pet owner has dropped some food on the floor and caught a glimpse of how thoughtlessly your beloved Fido would eat you if you happened to keel over dead.  On the great list of glaring contradictions people live as if they believe, “the fact that there’s no such thing as a fact” might not even crack the top ten.

If the professors believe it, of course, then so must the students.  Whether the average college kid actually in his heart of heart believes this stuff can, of course, never be known… but they all sure as hell act as if they do, and it’s functionally the same thing.  The one ray of hope is that the average college kid, like the average human, is pretty dumb.  Most likely he just scribbles down “no such thing as a fact” in his blue book at midterm time and promptly forgets the whole thing….

… but I trust y’all see where this is going.  One doesn’t make it into the ranks of the elite Blue Checkmark Twitter Commandos by scraping by with a two-point-something GPA.  You’ve got to really sell it if you want an A in Homi Bhabha‘s class.  So they do.  Nobody even attempts Postmodernism without being naturally verbally dexterous, and when you throw in the sacerdotal lingo that “will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need …partially [conceal] your meaning even from yourself,” well, it’s not hard to see how they start believing that bullshit they themselves helped invent is actually the truth.


Loading Likes...

Rule by Lunatic

The best case for divine right monarchy is the voters’ behavior in a democracy.  Unfortunately, the worst case for divine right monarchy is: divine right monarchs.

England’s James I, for instance, was a deeply weird dude.  Though he wrote a whole book about his divine right to rule, he kept his weirdness sufficiently in check so as not to alienate his court.  Alas, his heir didn’t bother, and we know how that turned out.  And so it went with just about any divine right monarch — the more people who actually saw him, the flimsier the theory seemed.  History is full of examples of kingdoms “ruled” by insane kings, but not too many of kingdoms thriving when the people knew the king was a lunatic.  Feebleminded monarchs are generally kept under lock and key by their courtiers, or they end up Epsteined.

Even democracies once understood this.  Pick any 19th century American legislator, for example.  As P.J. O’Rourke once said about rock stars, to call one of these guys a drunken, borderline-illiterate pervert just means you’ve read his autobiography.  But they knew enough to keep it sufficiently in check around the voters, so that so long as they didn’t actually Chappaquiddick someone, they’d face no repercussions.

Speaking of Chappaquiddick, the Media has always been complicit in the great game of Fool-the-Rubes.  They only do it for Democrats now, of course, but that’s the real problem these days: the Media has been doing all this for so long, and so successfully, that they no longer feel the need to bother.  Just as Charles I decided to let his freak flag fly because hey, why not, I’m the king, so the Democrat-Media complex went all-in in 2008.  You watch these guys — Don Lemon, say, mocking Trump voters as illiterate hicks — and the expression on their face is one of relief.  It feels good to finally let it all out, and the more you do it, the better it feels.

The problem, though, is that they’re not the only ones watching, and we’re not just watching them.  Given CNN’s ratings, Don Lemon could be forgiven for thinking that only close friends and family catch his act.  But more than a few people are watching the sham-peachment fiasco, and if what they see on Lemon’s face is relief, what they see on Adam Schiff’s is sheer, bug-eyed lunacy.  Pick your prominent Democrat — Schiff, Pelosi, Nadler, AOC, Warren, Bernie, Biden — and watch ’em with the sound off.  These’ people are quite literally insane in the membrane.  If they didn’t have staffers to put in their dentures and brush the crumbs off their lapels, you’d mistake any one of them for schizoid hobo panhandling on a street corner.

It never ends well when the People start getting a good look at the feebleminded king.  We’re seeing a LOT of feebleminded kings these days, and the longer this “impeachment” nonsense drags out, the more of them we’ll see.  Consult a basic history text to see what happens next.

Loading Likes...

On Entropy

One of the most potentially revealing moments in your life is when you blow a sure thing.

It’s the Little League championship.  Your team is the Junior Yankees; the other kids are the Bad News Bears, but, you know, actually bad.  You’ve been crushing them all season, just like you’ve crushed everyone else all season long.  Now it’s the final game and you’re guaranteed to crush them again…. but you don’t.  In fact, the unthinkable happens.  I think it very little exaggeration to say that what happens next has a major impact on how your life will go:

A good coach will get his team together and lead them over to congratulate the winners with grace.  Then he’ll tell his guys look, these things happen.  They played an exceptionally good game; we played an atypically bad one; and sometimes the ball takes a whole season’s worth of funny hops in a single inning.  It happens.  In losing, we’ll act like we did when we were winning — like gentlemen — because how we behave is far more important than our record.

A bad coach will start blaming something, anything.  The opposing coach pulled some dirty trick.  The umps blew the calls.  The sun was in our eyes.  A terrible coach will start blaming his own players, or even worse, allow his players to start blaming each other.  There’s no coming back from that.  You’re a Democrat for life.

I’m not blaming all our culture’s problems on the conspirazoid mindset, but it’s a major component of most of them.  Lukacs, Gramsci, and Marx himself set the pattern for the Left a century and a half ago.  Faced with the failure of their predictions, they had two choices: To reevaluate their holy scriptures, or to blame the entire universe for not getting with the program.  Obviously they chose the latter, and now every newspaper in the land asserts that 60 or more million Americans are incorrigible idiots whenever we vote the wrong way.  Maybe we have a different opinion of our own best interests, since it’s, you know, our lives?  Nah, can’t be — we’re all just racists.

Our side’s equivalent, of course, is The Eternal Jew.  Could it possibly be that our opponents do dumb, shortsighted, spiteful shit because they’re just people, and dumb, shortsighted, and spiteful has been the human default since we stopped swinging in trees?  Of course not; Bibi Netanyahu is behind it all.

The truth, as Frank Herbert put it, is that the most persistent principles in the universe are accident and error.  There’s no emotional release for saying that, though, and when you’re all charged up — be it from a championship game or a political fight — that emotional energy has to discharge somehow.  Any organization, no matter how loose, has to find a mechanism for channeling that energy in a productive direction.  How, one wonders, did the Bosheviks do it?

Loading Likes...

Education, the Genetic Fallacy, and the Spectrum

If Adolf Hitler wrote a book about effective public speaking, wouldn’t it be wise to read it?  Teach it in class, even, since the guy obviously knew a thing or two?  If for no other reason than to help avoid being suckered in by potential Hitlers?

Or let’s say Charlie Manson wrote a book about being a cult leader.  You’d think that one would be on the reading list for every Psych and Soash 101 class in America, right?  If only so that college students — probably the key cult recruiting demographic — aren’t such easy prey?

Something similar actually did happen back in the days.  History professors, for instance — the near-majority of which were conservative up until about 30 years ago — used to assign Mao’s little red book fairly regularly, on the theory that the guerrilla experience back in Mao’s salad days likely had a wide-ranging influence on his later worldview and behavior.  Hitler didn’t write that public speaking book, of course, but selections from Mein Kampf often showed up in humanities seminars… as did selections from Lenin, Kwame Nkrumah, and the like, because these guys understood something profound about the human condition, that made them effective leaders.

Nothing like that happens today, as far as I can tell, and I spent a lot of time in a wide variety of ivy-covered halls.  Part of it, of course, is the general, catastrophic decline in reading comprehension among today’s student body — Lenin was a wonderfully effective polemicist in his day, but for the modern kid it might as well still be in Russian — but a lot of it isn’t.  A much bigger part of it is that modern kids can’t overcome the genetic fallacy, and a large part of that, I argue, is the autism spectrum-like effect of social media.

The genetic fallacy, you’ll recall, is the inability to separate the idea from the speaker.  Or, if you’re under age 40, it’s simply “communication,” as our public discourse nowadays proceeds in very little other than genetic fallacies.  Try it for yourself.  We all know what kind of reaction you’ll get in respectable circles if you say “You know, Donald Trump has a point about….”, but you can do it on “our side” of the fence, too.  Watch: Obama was right about Race to the Top.  No, really: Compared to W’s No Child Left Behind bullshit, pretty much anything short of letting kids be raised by wolves would’ve been better (and hey, even being raised by wolves worked out ok for Romulus and Remus).  Even with the qualifier attached, almost everyone on “our side” instinctively bristles — we’ve been so conditioned by the words “Obama” and “race,” especially in close proximity, that we can’t help ourselves.  Even I do it.

It’s especially bad for the younger generations who, as I keep arguing, have been effectively autismized (it’s a word) by social media.  Twitter, especially, is so constructed that “replies” can come in hours, days, months, years later.  Blogs too for that matter — one of the reasons we close the comments here after a few weeks is to prevent drive-by commenters clogging things up trying to re-litigate something from years ago.  Modern “communication” must take place in discrete, contextless utterances.  That being the case, understanding a statement in context is impossible — I repeat, impossible.  So Lenin (or Hitler, or Mao, or William F. Buckley, or the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man) didn’t have a point about ___; because that requires understanding how his point fit into the larger context of his thought, his times, his culture, his world.  None of that shit fits into a tweet, so we’re trained to respond to the name  — Lenin (etc.) is either a good guy or a bad guy, full stop, so anything he says about anything must be good or bad, automatically.

I hardly need to elaborate on the effect this has on our public culture.  If Our Thing really wants to get serious, the first thing any “organization,” no matter how loose, must do is: Ban social media.

Loading Likes...

The Emotion is the Tell

It never ceases to amaze me how, in our information-saturated culture, people still take stuff at face value.  If it’s on the printed page, or especially on the screen, people just turn their critical faculties off.  Let me start with a story:

My last semester of college was a total blowoff.  I already had enough credits to graduate at the end of the previous term, but I figured that since I was on scholarship, I might as well use the remaining time to really lock down a job.  One fell into my lap over the break, but it was too late to withdraw my registration and file for graduation.  And that wasn’t all.  My GPA was such that I could’ve failed every single class in that final semester and still graduated.  And finally, the job was all the way across the country….

In short, absolutely nothing I did, or didn’t do, that final semester meant anything at all.  I was as responsibility-free as an “adult” human can ever hope to get.

This had some interesting consequences.  I got laid a lot more, for one thing — sorry about the crudity, but it’s a great illustration of the principle.  The principle being: “When you truly don’t care, you project this invincible vibe that attracts people.”  My friends were all shocked — not just about the getting laid part, but the fact that my whole personality seemed to change.  I am not, as you might imagine, the most outgoing, happy-go-lucky guy, but that semester I was.

I mean, why not?  I’d hit on varsity cheerleaders and sorority goddesses.  I turned in wildly counter-intuitive assignments, just to see what would happen.  I signed up for Intro to Conversational Chinese.  Totally bombed it, but seriously, why not?  I’ve always wanted to know if I have a knack for languages (turns out I don’t), and that was the hardest one in the course catalog.  So long as I stayed alive and out of jail, I could do whatever the hell I wanted… so I did.

The lesson I drew from this: Certainty is liberation.  It’s bliss.  I still had anxieties, of course — e.g. how was I going to do in my new life, all the way across the continent? — but in my current context, I had no worries at all.  I was King of the Dorm, because, quite simply, I could afford to be.  I had three hots and a cot, endless free time, and a give-a-damn meter stuck on zero.

If I were quicker on the uptake, I’d have identified that instant as my turn to the Shitlord side of the Force.  What in god’s name am I doing, hitting on the homecoming queen?  Doesn’t matter.  She could blow me off so viciously that dudes three blocks over would wince and cover themselves,* and I couldn’t care less.  Why not shoot for the moon?  If I win, I’m a dorm legend; if I fail, I’m still a dorm legend for having the balls to try it.  In two months, I’ll be a thousand miles away and nobody will care about either of us.

Fast forward a decade or so.  Now I’m in grad school, and the lessons of my brief time as King of the Dorm are coming back to me full throttle.  No one else on this earth, I assure you, is so dogmatically certain of anything as ivory tower types are of everything.  What they believe today might be 180 degrees from what they believed yesterday, but they still believe it with a fanatical zeal that would make Torquemada blush.  Whatever “it” is, it is the capital-T Truth, and they alone possess it….

So why are they always so fucking miserable?

Let’s stipulate, for instance, that gender really is just a social construction.  Even if it’s not, you’re dogmatically certain of this.  Crucially, everyone else in your world is equally dogmatically certain, so even if it’s not, it is.  Shouldn’t you be much, much, much happier?  So you’re really a wingless golden-skinned dragonkin.  Cool.  Everyone else is 100% on board with this.  You should be the happiest wingless golden-skinned dragonkin on earth… but you’re not.  You’re miserable, and you do your damnedest to make every single other person you come in contact with miserable, too.

As a wise man once put it, if you run into an asshole in the morning, well, you just ran into an asshole.  If you run into nothing but assholes all day, then you’re the asshole.

Same question to atheists.  I can understand nonbelievers being tormented by their uncertainty, but an atheist is dogmatically certain there’s no god… so why aren’t y’all happier?  Why, exactly, does the kid with cancer make you mad?  The universe, you’re sure, is nothing but the random collision of atoms.  It sucks for the kid that those atoms collided in that particular way, but why are you mad?  More to the point, why are you mad?  It’s like getting mad at gravity for that apple bonking you on the head.  There’s no cosmic injustice without cosmic justice.  I’d expect a zenlike calm, but instead, every time I write something about atheism (which I really don’t very often), I get a whole bunch of sour, bitter, angry atheists dropping in to tell me that I’m the asshole.

Take it out as far as you like.  You want to know why “impeachment” is a sham?  Turn on the tv, but leave the sound off.  Does Adam Schiff look like he believes a word he’s saying?  Does anyone?

We’re so saturated with information that we’ve forgotten how to read people.  We’ve forgotten how to engage our critical faculties.  I’ve long said that the easiest way to refute a Liberal “argument” is simply to take it seriously, and follow it out logically.  The same is true for people.  If they actually believe what they say, then they’d behave in a certain, predictable way.  They don’t behave that way, ergo….



*She didn’t.  She didn’t go out with me, of course, but she was very nice and gracious, as most truly pretty girls are.  Another valuable lesson learned.
Loading Likes...

The Endless Now

In the comments to the previous post, MBlanc46 makes the case for the honorable nonbeliever.  I agree — it’s certainly possible for a nonbeliever to be concerned with his honor, reputation, etc.  As I wrote yesterday,

one only defends one’s dignity and honor if one believes he’ll be called to account for them, and who’s going to do the accounting?  There is no God, and as for the bar of History, what could that possibly matter to a cultural marxist?

Perhaps I could’ve phrased this better.  As longtime readers know, I believe a “right-wing atheist” is an impossibility.  As Orwell (I think) put it, an atheist doesn’t disbelieve in God, he actively dislikes Him.  Since actively disliking Him is a repudiation of the entire Western tradition, the best an atheist can do is some flavor of libertarianism… which is, and always was, a heresy of the Left (they’re kissing cousins to Bakuninite anarchists).

A right-wing nonbeliever, by contrast, is not only possible, but pretty common.  I myself was one for years.  The key is that “bar of History” stuff, above.  The best practical definition of conservatism I’ve heard is “planting trees you won’t live to sit under.”  I’ll die, and though nothing of me will remain, my home, my community, my nation, my civilization, my people will remain… and I did my part, however small, to ensure it, by living my life well.  My honor is my loyalty, as someone or other once said.

None of that matters to the cultural marxist, though.  How could it?  As I wrote yesterday, to the fanatic, the past is one long catalog of freely chosen error.  Nor is there any meaningful future to a fanatic.  That seems wrong, I realize, but consider that time passes through contrast.  People will be born and die in the Communist Utopia, but since everyone will always have everything, human activity will be exquisitely pointless….

Ignore what Leftists say.  Watch what they do, and it’ll soon be obvious that what they long for above all things is stasis.  They want everyone and everything to be one way, and one way only, forever.  Homosexuals are the most flamboyant example.  Imagine that — having your entire life defined by your sexual attraction.  I like blondes, but you know, if the right brunette came along I’d go for her.  Heck, I’d even go for a ginger (I know, I know, I’m a monster).  But according to the Left, that’s not allowed.  I like blondes, and therefore I’m only allowed to like blondes.  Oh, and I can only vote for Bernie Sanders, because he’s the attracted-to-blondes candidate, and I must support abortion, and use the word “cisgendered,” and….

Thus, to the Leftist there’s no past, and no future either.  There’s only now, and the only thing that matters now is power.  How could it be otherwise?

I sometimes think that converting a Leftist could be as simple as showing him he has a choice.  Hey, maybe you are gay (attracted to blondes, whatever).  I’ve lived my life under the complete control of my gonads.  It was called “high school,” and I didn’t like it very much… as, I assume, you didn’t either.  But you know what?  I grew up.  I don’t let my johnson lead me around anymore, and you don’t have to either.  You sure as hell don’t have to let your wang determine your position on foreign affairs, or the marginal tax rate…..

There’s more to life than now.

Loading Likes...

The Stakeholder State

I suppose I have a professional obligation to the historians of the future to have some thoughts on impeachment.  These are they.  As with lots of stuff here, it’s more disconnected thoughts than an essay, so make of them what you will.

In a way, I’m glad the Dems were dumb enough to impeach the President.  For one thing, it reemphasizes a life lesson that, like all truly useful life lessons, is lethally easy to forget.  I’m not a gambling man, but you can bet the farm and the kids’ college fund on the phrase “surely they’d never be dumb enough to ____.”  The very fact that you find yourself thinking “they’d never be dumb enough to ____” is a guarantee that they are, right now, at this very instant, ____.

More importantly, though, this is the logical endpoint of “democracy,” and now everyone gets to see it firsthand.  In theory, democracy works by channeling competing vices.  If men were angels, no government would be necessary, James Madison said, but since they’re not the best we can do is incentivize bad people to do good things in pursuit of their own selfish interest.  It’s a nice thought, but it can only work (if, indeed, it can work) in a culture like Madison’s, in which public men are concerned about their dignity, honor, and posthumous reputation.

Obviously none of those hold in Current Year America, since they were all invented by the Pale Penis People, and even if they weren’t, they can’t matter to atheists anyway — one only defends one’s dignity and honor if one believes he’ll be called to account for them, and who’s going to do the accounting?  There is no God, and as for the bar of History, what could that possibly matter to a cultural marxist?  To them, as to their Puritan forbears, “history” is really soteriology.  The past is nothing but a catalog of freely chosen error.  For the fanatic, “history” begins anew each dawn, because why study endless iterations of Error when you already have the Truth?

You could offer Pelosi and Schiff places on Mt. Rushmore if they called off “impeachment,” and they’d just stare at you googly-eyed…. well, ok, I realize that Schiff’s always googly-eyed, and Nancy’s facial muscles haven’t been able to move since 1986, but y’all get the point.  To the fanatic, who is in possession of the full, complete, and eternal Truth, the only thing that matters in this world is power.  It’s as true for Pelosi as it was for Oliver Cromwell.

So why not “impeach” the President?  If you’re sure you’re going to lose the next election anyway — and as blackpilled as I am, I’m pretty sure a concussed orangutan could beat any one of those goofballs — why not try to shoot the moon?  It’s not like you’re going to face any personal consequences, because not one of the so-called “opposition” has threatened to impeach anyone from the “other side.”  Which, since that’s the first thing any honest opposition would do, means that Schiff and Pelosi will walk away scot free, ready willing and able to do it again (they’ve already all but announced that if this fails, they’ll impeach Trump again if he wins in November).  They’re all, Democrats and Republicans alike, playing Washington Bingo, which is the Glass Bead Game for retards — nobody really knows what it is or why anyone bothers, but it keeps them occupied in nice cushy offices, with weekends in the Hamptons.

Democracy always devolves into ochlocracy, as some Dead White Male said, but since the last Dead White Male died centuries before Twitter, he didn’t realize that ochlocracy was just a pit stop on the way to kakistocracy.

“Democracy” only works — if, in fact, it does work, which is a very fucking open question — in a stakeholder society.  When Madison and the boys pledged their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor to each other, they meant all of that literally — Washington could well have died a pauper, Alexander Hamilton ordered his cannon to fire on his own house, and so on.  They had skin in the game, which is why they were so public-spirited — if they screwed up, they personally would have to live with the consequences.  These days, of course, getting “elected” — or even selected to run for “election” — is a free pass to Easy Street.  The rules apply only to the plebs, and only so long — and, insh’allah, the day is soon coming — as we have to pretend to let them “vote” on stuff.

So, sure — why not “impeach” him?  “Convict” him, too, for all I care — I’ve already seen all three rings of the circus; I don’t need to see them again, every six months, for the next four years.  It’s not a question of if we descend into open police-state thuggery and / or civil war; it’s a question of when.  And since everything I wrote above continues to apply, the Democrats’ next step is obvious.  “Impeachment” didn’t work?  Time to go to the gun.  Bernie Sanders’s goons are already talking about putting us in gulags.  Warren’s and Biden’s people have better opsec, but you know they don’t disagree with the sentiment.  And since they’re convinced that nothing bad will ever come to their neighborhood — and they have every reason to believe this — why not give Antifa some real weapons and a nudge?


Loading Likes...

Arguing with God

Thomas Hobbes blamed the English Civil War on “ghostly authority.”  Where the Bible is unclear, the crowd of simple believers will follow the most charismatic preacher.  This means that religious wars are both inevitable, and impossible to end.  Hobbes was born in 1588 — right in the middle of the Period of the Wars of Religion — and lived another 30 years after the Peace of Westphalia, so he knew what he was talking about.

There’s simply no possible compromise with an opponent who thinks you’re in league with the Devil, if not the literal Antichrist.  Nothing Charles I could have done would’ve satisfied the Puritans sufficient for him to remain their king, because even if he did everything they demanded — divorced his Catholic wife, basically turned the Church of England into the Presbyterian Kirk, gave up all but his personal feudal revenues — the very act of doing these things would’ve made his “kingship” meaningless.  No English king can turn over one of the fundamental duties of state to Scottish churchwardens and still remain King of England.

This was the basic problem confronting all the combatants in the various Wars of Religion, from the Peasants’ War to the Thirty Years’ War.  No matter what the guy with the crown does, he’s illegitimate.  It took an entirely new theory of state power, developed over more than 100 years, to finally end the Wars of Religion.  In case your Early Modern history is a little rusty, that was the Peace of Westphalia (1648), and it established the modern(-ish) sovereign nation-state.  The king is the king because he’s the king; matters of religious conscience are not a sufficient casus belli between states, or for rebellion within states.  Cuius regio, eius religio, as the Peace of Augsburg put it — the prince’s religion is the official state religion — and if you don’t like it, move.  But since the Peace of Westphalia also made heads of state responsible for the actions of their nationals abroad, the prince had a vested interest in keeping private consciences private.

I wrote “a new theory of state power,” and it’s true, the philosophy behind the Peace of Westphalia was new, but that’s not what ended the violence.  What did, quite simply, was exhaustion.  The Thirty Years’ War was as devastating to “Germany” as World War I, and all combatants in all nations took tremendous losses.  Sweden’s king died in combat, France got huge swathes of its territory devastated (after entering the war on the Protestant side), Spain’s power was permanently broken, and the Holy Roman Empire all but ceased to exist.  In short, it was one of the most devastating conflicts in human history.  They didn’t stop fighting because they finally wised up; they stopped fighting because they were physically incapable of continuing.

The problem, though, is that the idea of cuius regio, eius religio was never repudiated.  European powers didn’t fight each other over different strands of Christianity anymore, but they replaced it with an even more virulent religion, nationalism.  It took two devastating wars to finally put that iteration of religious mania to bed, but since bad ideas never die, virulent nationalism was replaced by cancerous globohomoism.  Cuius regio, eius religio, and since every member of every Western government that matters is a globohomo fanatic…

I trust y’all see where this is going.  Just as there was no arguing with a Puritan about Calvinism, or a Nazi with lebensraum, or a Communist about History (in practice, about the inevitable triumph of the Soviet Union), so there’s no arguing with a globohomoist about the poz.  And like Calvinists, and Nazis, and Soviets, they won’t stop until they’re ground down to utter exhaustion, because they can’t stop.  There’s no possible compromise with Antichrist.

Things are moving very fast now.  There’s no violence at the big 2nd Amendment rally in Virginia yet, but the day’s not over.  And even if it ends peacefully, God willing, the next one won’t…. and there will be a next one, of course.  There’s no chance in hell that the globohomoists will wise up and learn the lessons of history, because for the fanatic, there is no history.  Nor is there any such thing as an honest mistake.  The past, all of it, is one long catalog of freely chosen error, and the only lesson worth learning from it is that your enemies must be exterminated, lest their errors persist to corrupt a new generation.

Loading Likes...


Like the college guy with the hot girlfriend who becomes habituated to demoralizing, degrading, bankrupting insanity, so the American people with politicians.  Whatever “representative government” is supposed to be, it sure as hell ain’t this.

Army combat veteran and Congressman Max Rose (D-NY) has released a statement breaking party lines to oppose Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution.

That’s it.  That’s the news.  That a Democrat is voting other than Nancy Pelosi wants him to vote.  The Left considers this a huge betrayal, while the Right is hailing it as some kind of big victory.  My analysis is more Kent Brockmanesque — I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, democracy simply doesn’t work.

The context — “Nancy Pelosi’s War Powers Resolution” — doesn’t matter at all.  That’s not to say it isn’t a serious issue, worthy of real debate.  We could start with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution and the War Powers Resolution.  The latter replaced the former and is still in effect, at least theoretically, though it’s hard to see how much American military action since 1973 is covered under it.  But that would require some thought, and some historical literacy, so let’s talk about what “everybody knows.”

For instance, everybody knows that if Obama had taken out Soleimani, the same folks who are currently freaking out would be ecstatic.  The only thing that moistens the thighs of the Media-Academic Complex more than a live terrorist is a dead terrorist cruise-missiled by a Democrat president.  The Bin Laden raid was a gross violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, but it’s still the first thing Lefty brings up when he wants to sound tough.  (Soleimani, not that it matters, was tooling around a combat zone wearing the uniform of an avowed US enemy).

So, too, everybody knows what would’ve happened if the Republican House had brought a “war powers resolution” to the floor limiting Obama’s freedom of action:

Again, there are real, big, important issues at stake here — can Pakistan send commandos into New York if they find out a guy on their hit list is living there? — but none of them would matter in the slightest to the “debate.”  The content doesn’t matter.  At all.  Only the form.

Let me put this as clearly and calmly as I can: This is gibbering insanity, and yet we conduct all our political affairs this way. This “war powers” nonsense pales in comparison to sham-peachment, for instance, where we’ve got Nancy Pelosi crowing that “we’ve been working on this for two and a half years,” when the so-called “crime” he’s being “impeached” for happened — if it happened, which of course it didn’t — in 2019.  “High crimes and misdemeanors,” they announced almost from the moment the last vote was counted, will be whatever they need them to be.

Then look at the fallout. A lone Democrat, NY rep Jeff Van Drew, voted against “impeachment.”  And then he switched parties.  Think about that for a second.  What could “representation” possibly mean, when the Party requires such lockstep loyalty that you have to abandon it to vote against it on a matter of grave historical consequence?  The removal of a sitting US president is bound to have grave, global ramifications, for years… and yet, both sides all vote in lockstep, to the point where any dissenter actually has to go over to the other, lockstep-voting side.

So, too, with the “trial,” whenever that actually happens.  Here too, everybody knows that Pelosi is only delaying the transmission of the articles of impeachment — which is unconstitutional in itself, as if that has ever mattered — in order to bribe, cajole, threaten, intimidate, or otherwise sweet-talk a few “Republicans” more than just Snowe, Murkowski, and Pierre Defecto.  Again, think about that.  We know how these clowns are going to vote, regardless of the evidence.

Again, this is a situation of the utmost consequence.  You’re gonna be in the history books for this, one way or another.  Short of actually voting to declare war on China or something, this is probably the most consequential action a Senator could ever be expected to vote on…. and yet, we all know how it’s gonna go.  Is there anyone, anywhere, so naive as to think that, say, Martin Heinrich (D-NM, a guy I picked at random) is going to break ranks?  Or that however Pierre Defecto ends up voting, it’s based on anything other than who offered him the sweetest deal?

THIS. IS. LUNACY., and yet, everyone in America simply accepts it as given.  We even clap for “bipartisanship,” for pete’s sake, like the good little trained seals we are.  As far as I’m concerned, the actions of our “representatives” are the strongest possible argument for divine-right monarchy.  At least when the Duke of This schemes with the Earl of That to assassinate the King because the King awarded the Duke’s mistress to Baron The Other Thing, they’re being no better than they ought to be.  “Democracy” asks everyone, voters and representatives alike, to be better than they ought… and then cheers when they turn out to be worse scoundrels than we thought.

Loading Likes...