Bloody shovel

We shall drown, and nobody will save us

The Alt-Right

So… Hillary Clinton just gave the alt-right the public spotlight. People are Googling like crazy, and people like Richard Spencer are gloating like they haven’t in years.

By the way, Richard if you’re still in Japan by all means give me a call. I could use some hairstyling advice from you. I’m sure he’s getting Japanese groupies just by standing out there in Tokyo looking good and white. He should do some activism while he’s there.

Anyway, so the alt-right is trending, and I guess I should say something. Am I alt-right? Of course I am. Why? Because I say so. I’ve been writing about how language works. Words exist to be useful. What’s the point of having the word “alt-right”? To make friends among fellow dissenters from the progressive mainstream. So yeah, I’m alt-right. I also want a wall. And I could use more readers.

I’m probably the most disagreeable alt-right out there, in that my specialty is pointing out how every single political idea out there is either stupid or impractical, and I use profuse examples from ancient and modern history to make the point. Recently I’ve been pointing out why political ideas are either stupid impractical, and why they still keep coming up because the point of having political ideas is not their brilliance or practicality, but just to get some status points in ad-hoc local signaling games.

But hey, don’t let me discourage you. Because I’m also the guy with the best theory about what the alt-right is about, why it happened, why it’s getting bigger, and why it isn’t going anywhere. Unless the solution we don’t want happens. Or the dysgenic trends just keep going on forever.

So this was my clumsy attempt to catch some of the spotlight that Hillary Clinton was so nice to give us. Oh, by the way, I also have the best theory about what the Clintons are about.

I should get myself a fancy brand. The Philosopher of the Alt-Right. Or maybe something more specific. The Schopenhauer of the Alt-Right. Suggestions are welcome.

 

Correct Naming

Master Xun (荀子 Xunzi):

夫民易一以道,而不可與共故。故明君臨之以埶,道之以道,申之以命,章之以論,禁之以刑。故民之化道也如神,辨埶惡用矣哉!今聖王沒,天下亂,姦言起,君子無埶以臨之,無刑以禁之,故辨說也。實不喻,然後命,命不喻,然後期,期不喻,然後說,說不喻,然後辨。故期命辨說也者,用之大文也,而王業之始也。名聞而實喻,名之用也。累而成文,名之麗也。用麗俱得,謂之知名。名也者,所以期累實也。辭也者,兼異實之名以論一意也。辨說也者,不異實名以喻動靜之道也。期命也者,辨說之用也。辨說也者,心之象道也。心也者,道之工宰也。道也者,治之經理也。心合於道,說合於心,辭合於說。正名而期,質請而喻,辨異而不過,推類而不悖。聽則合文,辨則盡故。以正道而辨姦,猶引繩以持曲直。是故邪說不能亂,百家無所竄。有兼聽之明,而無矜奮之容;有兼覆之厚,而無伐德之色。說行則天下正,說不行則白道而冥窮。是聖人之辨說也。詩曰:「顒顒卬卬,如珪如璋,令聞令望,豈弟君子,四方為綱。」此之謂也。

Which translates as:

The people can easily be unified by means of the Way, but one should not try to share one’s reasons with them. Hence, the enlightened lord controls them with his power, guides them with the Way, moves them with his orders, arrays them with his judgments, and restrains them with his punishments. Thus, his people’s transformation by the Way is spirit-like [i.e. religious]. What need has he for demonstrations and persuasions? Nowadays the sage kings have all passed away, the whole world is in chaos, and depraved teachings are arising. The gentleman has no power to control people, no punishments to restrain them, and so he engages in demonstrations and persuasions.

When objects are not understood, then one engages in naming. When the naming is not understood, then one tries to procure agreement. When the agreement is not understood, then one engages in persuasion. When the persuasion is not understood, then one engages in demonstration. Thus, procuring agreement, naming, demonstration, and persuasion are some of the greatest forms of useful activity, and are the beginning of kingly works.

When a name is heard and the corresponding object is understood, this is usefulness in names. When they are accumulated and form a pattern, this is beauty in names. When one obtains both their usefulness and beauty, this is called understanding names. Names are the means by which one arranges and accumulates objects. Sentences combine the names of different objects so as to discuss a single idea.

Persuasion and demonstration use fixed names of objects so as to make clear the proper  ways for acting and remaining still. Procuring agreement and naming are the functions of demonstration and persuasion. Demonstration and persuasion are the heart’s way of representing the Way. The heart is the craftsman and overseer of the Way. The Way is the warp and pattern of good order. When the heart fits with the Way, when one’s persuasions fit with one’s heart, when one’s words fit one’s persuasions, then one will name things correctly and procure agreement, will base oneself on the true disposition of things and make them understood, will discriminate among things without going to excess, and will extend by analogy the categories of things without violating them. When listening to cases, one will accord with good form. When engaging in demonstration, one will cover thoroughly all the reasons. One will use the true Way to discriminate what is vile just like drawing out the carpenter’s line in order to grasp what is curved and what is straight. Thus, deviant sayings will not be able to cause disorder, and the hundred schools will have nowhere to hide.

One kind of person is brilliant enough to listen to all cases, but has no combative or arrogant countenance. He has generosity enough to extend to all sides, but does not make a display of his virtue in his appearance. If his persuasions are successful, then all under Heaven is set right. If his persuasions are not successful, then he makes clear his way but lives in obscurity—such are the persuasions and demonstrations of the sage. The Odes says:

Full of refinement and nobility,
Like a jade tablet or scepter is he,
So lovely to hear and lovely to see.
The contented and tranquil gentleman
Serves as a model universally.
This expresses my meaning.

Translation from Eric Hutton’s Xunzi. Pretty good translation, I must say.

And yes, Classical Chinese writing really is that short.

The Will To Not Power

I’ve written extensively about monarchy. And for good reason. We’re all here in great part because we share our criticism, or at least disillusion about democracy. Some critics of democracy come from the long reactionary tradition, going back to the De Maistre and the opponents and the French Revolution. But most of it today, at least on this corners of the internet, derives from libertarians figuring it out that democracy isn’t quite conducive to liberty. Certainly not in a theoretical way. Hans Herman Hoppe put it best, wrote a whole book about it, saying that if economic theory made any sense, monarchy was the best system of government. Moldbug run his whole blog on that. He used to troll Larry Auster in that the modern world suffers from “chronic kinglessness”, then went away praising Henry VII Tudor.

My answer to that is that if you know your history you know that monarchy doesn’t work like Filmer or Hobbes said it did. The theory was good; but an absolute ruler is just that, a theory. In practice power gets exercised by the people who seek power. And a king won’t necessarily seek power. He may be a shy man; or a dissolute hedonist. Or have a strong mother who won’t let him. Or have powerful ministers who craftly dodge his attempts at exercising him his royal prerogative. Modern governments are a mess. Old royal courts were also a big mess. And it’s all written down.

Still, some people keep on not getting the joke. Mostly because they don’t want to get the joke. It’s convenient for them to keep on theorizing in how awesome monarchy is. Filmer and Hobbes were amongst those. The modern Japanese right is also like that.

As I said the modern Japanese right has been organizing for some time around the need to reform the Constitution. Or more frankly, to scrap the present one and come up with a new one. They just won the election and they’re getting to it, but they’ve been planning for some time. In 2012 the LDP, the perennial ruling party, or more specifically the right wing of the LDP, announced their draft for a new constitution. It scraps article 9, which forbids Japan from (nominally) having military forces. And it changes article 1. Article 1 right now says:

Article 1. The Emperor shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the People, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.

And this they want to change into:

Article 1. The Emperor is the head of the State and shall be the symbol of the State and of the unity of the people, deriving his position from the will of the people with whom resides sovereign power.

You can see the total list of changes here, in very good English.

So anyway, the change isn’t very big. But the whole thing of the “head of state” has the internet right, which like the Western alt-right but 100 times bigger, very excited with talk of having a proper monarch and all that. And all that’s very cool, but they seem to have forgotten to actually ask the emperor. And he’s not playing ball.

In July 13, the whole country was startled when the public broadcaster, NHK, announced that the emperor had the intention of “abdicating”. The wording was pretty ominous, “生前退位”, “abdicating in life”, but the actual wording is “giving away the throne”. The proper wording would be 譲位 “passing the throne to”. The wording kinda meant the emperor was abolishing the institution. That mostly was just a careless journalist not knowing his imperial vocabulary, but still. The very fact of rumors coming out of the imperial household was completely unheard of. And to make it worse, later in the very same day, the Imperial Household Agency, the government bureaucrats who run the palace, denied the whole thing. Nothing to see here!

So not only rumors were coming out of the imperial palace; but there were conflicting rumors. That’s even worse. Something was seriously amiss here. But for weeks nothing happened. Until last week, the Emperor gave a press conference.

First of all, the Emperor is not supposed to do that! He shouldn’t be talking to the people besides any predetermined royal business of his. But he had something to say, and he said it. And what did he say? That he’s old, that he’s busy, that there’s a lot of stuff to do, he’s not able to do it, so he thinks it better if he leaves the throne so that the tasks of the emperor don’t suffer.

The whole thing was weird. Weird in the eyes of monarchists. The Emperor is the royal person. He can do what he wants. He’s not a bureaucrats with tasks to do. That’s secondary. But the Emperor doesn’t see it that way. He mentioned the word “symbol” 8 times. Because that’s his job under the current constitution, to be the “symbol of the nation”. Apparently he feels very strongly about his job as a symbol, and wants someone to do it if he’s unable to. But that’s not the idea of the monarch that people have these days. He’s to be the head of state! The symbol thing is just some word. But he doesn’t see it like that. He feels he has a job. He feels like the right wants to change his job. And he surely doesn’t want to do it. He doesn’t even want to be there when the whole thing happens.

The left has rushed to argue that this is the Emperor’s way of protesting against the rightist shift. And they have a point. Imperial sovereignty in pre-war Japan led to the military declaring war to the whole world in the Name of the Emperor. And the Showa Emperor, Hirohito, the present emperor’s father, grew to resent that. When the famous Yasukuni shrine went fascist and declared that the war criminals punished by the US in the Tokyo trials were also enshrined there, the Emperor never again visited the shrine. His son, the present Emperor, has never gone himself. The Imperial Household is not amused by rightist nostalgia of pre-war Japan. They are in the left.

And if the present emperor is in the left, you haven’t seen his son. The crown prince, Naruhito, is married to a Foreign office bureaucrat, who is always sick, unable to do her princess duties, unless she has to go to Europe. Then she’s always healthy and stays long periods of time shopping in Paris. She hates the imperial bureaucracy, and they hate her back. And the crown prince is fully on her side. He has protested several times on how the imperial bureaucracy treats women badly. You know where this goes.

And, to make matters funnier, the crown prince has one only child. A daughter. Which under the present imperial household regulations, can’t inherit the throne. There was some attempt at reforming that, and allowing a future empress. But then the crown prince’s brother had a baby boy, and he became the next in line. But once the crown prince becomes the Emperor, he will most certainly push to reform the law to get his daughter on the throne some day. And he will have the full support of all the Japanese left.

So you have a monarchist right, which dreams of traditional monarchy, fighting a leftist royal house who wants nothing to do with it. They want to be fancy bureaucrats on a salary doing a “symbol” job. But the right doesn’t care. Their monarchism isn’t about the monarch. It’s just some convenient Schelling Point they got to make friends amongst themselves and sell bullshit to the populace. Which is what politicians do.

And you could say that of any political idea. The content is secondary. The consequences are completely besides the point. What counts is what works in the political arena. What gets retweeted. What gets you votes. How ideas develop depends on that, not in actual internal logic or likely consequences.

Social Constructs

Razib Khan recently wrote a good post about how retarded the whole tirade on “social constructs” can be. Gender is a social construct! Sports should be integrated! Come on. As a scientist it’s natural he gets pissed at the whole thing.

I commented there a while ago about how, you know, leftists are actually right. Race is a social construct. Gender is a social construct. They got that exactly right. It’s a rather profound point, and I’ve been thinking on exposing my argument a bit better. It’s a linguistic argument, but that’s what I do.

Let’s put it more precisely. Race is, obviously, not a social construct. But “race” is a social construct. As “gender” is a social construct. The same way “car”, or “moon”, or “democratic republic” is a social construct. Words are social constructs. That’s how language works. Word meanings are social conventions. There’s nothing else to it. If you raise a child in a community where the word “car” is used to refer to a certain subset of vehicles, then that’s what a “car” is. If you raise a child in a community where “fascists” is used to mean a certain subset of low-status people, that’s “fascists” are.

Of course there’s a lot of details about how children adopt the usage of words. Sure, language, as so much else, is a social convention. Most human behavior, indeed the behavior of most social animals is conventional. People from different places walk in different ways. Samurais pre-1860s famously had to be trained by French officers to run properly, as samurai practice was to lower your back and run in small steps like a 6 year old kid after shoplifting. Language works the same way. A sensitive person can tell accents and little quirks of speech at the village, even the family level.

But why would people adopt those conventions? That’s the real question. Why do people in villages adopt every tiny little intonation quirk? Part of it is just human instinct: people are mimetic creatures, as the late René Girard liked to say. But instinct evolved for a reason. To put it simple, adopting conventions is useful. It helps you get by. It gets you more status than you would get by not adopting the convention. Humans adopt behavior which is useful to them. Humans are pragmatic.

And so language use depends on its pragmatic nature. Race is, certainly, not a clear cut category. Humans can mix. There are continuums of genetic clusters. But humans, at least since the modern era, have classified humans in different races; often according to very crude markers such as skin color. Andaman Islanders aren’t at all African; no genetic test will cluster them with Nigerians. But if you found one at your local grocery store you would most likely call him black. Why? Because it’s useful. If Andaman Islanders were all incredible geniuses who gave you 10 bucks every time you met them, soon enough people would find a way of telling them apart from other dark skinned, kinda African-looking people who don’t give 10 dollar bills at first sight. But in real life, dark skinned, kinda African-looking people tend to behave in similar ways; so there’s no particular necessity to notice their little differences and tell them apart. Nigerians, Jamaicans, Kenyans and Somalis are interchangeable for most purposes. The same way people don’t care to tell apart Irish from Italians from Swedes in America. They do in Europe! Because it’s useful to do so. Not in the US: so they’re all white.

Wittgenstein made himself famous by basically destroying the whole academy of philosophy by pointing out the, on hindsight, obvious point that Philosophy is based in a misunderstanding of how language works. How people use language in daily life. Words don’t have definitions, they don’t have essences. Writing books about single words is completely pointless. Words are things we use in particular contexts; the use changes all the time. It’s all convention, and conventions are dynamic, pragmatic affairs.

Everything is a social construct; because society is very important for human life. Many people, in particular the sort of person who would read this blog, often can’t understand why most people believe common progressive ideas. Surely humans aren’t all equal! Surely open borders doesn’t make sense! Surely spending millions on transexual toilet rights is pointless! Why does anyone take all this seriously? Well, because it’s useful. Because not doing so brings very concrete social consequences.

If you put your finger in a fire, it burns. It hurts a lot. If somebody comes later and tells that you that fire doesn’t burn, to put your finger in the fire; you are likely to protest. Of course it burns. It hurts like crazy. But most things in life aren’t like that. Nobody has ever got burnt due to global warming. Most ideas don’t have immediate consequences. If somebody tells you that “Muslims belong in Germany”, unless you have been stabbed by a Muslim recently, the proposition doesn’t have real consequences for you. It’s just a set of words. Your reaction to that proposition doesn’t depend on your memory of getting your finger burnt. The only real consequences to that conversation is the opinion that your peers will have about you. So if your memory about talking on Muslims belonging in Germany is that any contrary opinion gets your peers mad, and results in you having lower status; well your reaction will be “sure, Muslims belong in Germany. Merkel is awesome”.

The vast majority of ideas don’t have physical consequences; all they have is social consequences. They are status markers. Whether Muslims belong in Germany or not won’t get your finger burnt immediately. It may over the long term, but human brains don’t work like that. You learn behaviors to avoid danger and earn pleasure. And social disapproval by uttering non-progressive opinions are as harsh and immediate as a burnt finger in a fire.

So the reaction of most people to any abstract proposition like that will rely on their calculation of the social consequences of their particular reaction to that proposition. As it happens, being a good progressive gets you status and approval; not being a good progressive gets you low status and disapproval. So of course most people will do whatever gets them status and approval. The few contrarians like us who disagree, do so because of different experiences, because they don’t see the point in earning that sort of status, or, in many cases, because they are like the philosophers who Wittgenstein made fun of, and are just not getting the point. Taking stuff literally when you’re not supposed to. That’s not how language works.

You could make a meta point about “social construct”. It of course means that definitions are social conventions, which is a completely accurate point. But how is the string “social construct” used in actual language usage? A mere frequency analysis would tell you that “social construct” is a string that leftists use in order to crack down on bad people. You could perfectly define “social construct” as “a word whose definition is set by the Cathedral, and which denying it would get you in real trouble so shut up already”. When people come out of their way to state that “race is a social construct”, that’s not a scientific point. All they mean is “race is what I and my friends say it is and shut up you fascist”.

Note that they don’t really need to be aware of the difference. Surely some people understand that “social construct” is supposed to mean a concept deriving its meaning from social convention. But plenty of people just have picked up “social construct” being used in leftist agitation, got what’s used for, and imitated that usage themselves. You don’t need to be aware of the origin of words; only how they’re used. That’s the etymological fallacy at the micro level.

I’ve had hour long conversations about how to define “racist”. But “racist” in common usage means “bad person who I can easily accuse of disliking black people in order to ostracize him”. That’s how the language game is played. You can contest that kind of usage, and word usage indeed changes a lot all the time. But changing social conventions requires power. Political power. Because, of course, everything is politics. That’s a point the left understood a very long time ago. Even if they won’t say so.

Shifting Right

Just in case anybody was concerned, no, I wasn’t killed at any of the recent Islamic murders in Europe in the last few weeks. And I really didn’t have much to say about it. My last post stood as an almost miraculous oracle of why Islamic murders happen, and why they will continue to do so. And voila, they continued to do so. And of course, as I said, European governments did nothing of importance to address the problem. Because they can’t.

But now some days have gone on without further incidents, so it’s time to change topics. I could write about Japan, which has gone through two very important elections, elections for the Senate in July 10th, and elections for the governorship of Tokyo in July 31st. The Senate elections gave a large 2/3 majority to the right, which in Japan it’s defined as nationalists who want to change the constitution, apparently to, among other changes, delete the clause that “The Emperor has the responsibility to uphold the constitution”. So they want nominally absolute monarchy. Nominally, of course, Japan’s emperors haven’t counted for shit for thousands of years, and the next emperor in line is known to be a wimpy liberal whose wife spends more time shopping in Paris than attending Shinto rituals.

Some say that Japan will go bankrupt before any constitutional change can be decided on; but financial crises do not stop political change: they accelerate it. Usually in a bad way. As things stand, Japan is on course to enter a rightist singularity of ever accelerating nationalist madness. And lack of money will only fuel the fire. Interesting times.

The Tokyo election was somewhat different: the incumbent, recently elected (2 years on the job) governor of Tokyo, Masuzoe, was busted because of misuse of government funds. The dude was spending big money travelling first class, spending weeks on a time on pointless foreign trips. But that’s a long standing Tokyo tradition, his predecessor was even worse than him. The guy was completely busted by the media, and he didn’t get it. What have I done wrong? The Tokyo bureaucracy obviously loved the guy, who was never around, so they had free hands to do what they pleased; another long standing Japanese political tradition.

The guy did get it coming in many ways. He was a textbook sociopath, narcissistic fuck who has published dozens of inane books about how awesome he is; multiply divorced, is known to have multiple mistresses, all of them with his children, whom he refuses to support. A nasty piece of work he was. But that isn’t immediately disqualifying for office; and in any case everybody knew that before the election, and he got the job anyway. So there’s no good theory about why suddenly the establishment went against him. As I am a great believer that the face is the mirror of the soul, please take a look at the guy.

e8889be6b7bbe8a681e4b880

The only plausible reason I can think of is that he was in cahoots with the Koreans. Tokyo has a famous issue with a lack of daycare centers; and the guy canceled a daycare center building in order to sell the land for cheap for the construction of a Korean school. Koreans don’t have children; nobody has in Tokyo, there’s no good rationale for a second Korean school. Obviously this was about money and patronage; first thing the guy did in office was go on a trip to Seoul and bend his back to the Korean president. And that looks bad. Baaad. Bad! in Japan. So powerful forces started to conspire against him; his arrogance made him look bad in the media, who realized that shitting on the guy got them better ratings; one thing led to another, and the guy got busted. Oh well.

So they held new elections a week ago. And it got interesting because the ever-ruling party, the LDP, i.e. the right, the party of Abe, couldn’t agree on a candidate, and thus split. The LDP is the ever ruling party of Japan, running the place almost uninterruptedly since 1945. But like I always say about monarchy, the nominal power structure doesn’t mean anything. If there’s many parties competing for power, people will organize themselves around that. If there’s a single party running the place, people will form factions and bicker inside the single party. The amusing thing about the Japanese LDP is that the faction system is formalized: there are nominal factions, which call themselves “factions”, which openly meet in congress centers and conspire for their benefit in front of everyone. It’s pretty funny.

The divide lines among the LDP are pretty obvious; especially so in regional centers such as the Tokyo council. Basically it seems that the Tokyo legislature is run by this big old corrupt ogre, which runs a huge pork machine which basically controls the whole of Tokyo. Again tell me if he just doesn’t look like a big old corrupt ogre.

profphoto

Well this guy has been running Tokyo for a decade or so, and for this new election he of course wanted to run his own candidate, somebody who was willing to allow him to run his pork machine for a small commission. And so he got some boring old ex-minister, Masuda. What’s funny is that this Masuda guy had been Minister of the Interior years ago; and one of the things he did was send huge amounts of money out of Tokyo out into the provinces, in order to help the struggling countryside. “How can you put this guy to run Tokyo? He’s the enemy!”

But that was missing the point. The guy as Minister of the Interior did what the Minister of the Interior bureaucrats wanted him to do: get them bigger budgets. And as Governor of Tokyo he presumably would do what the big old corrupt ogre wanted him to do: get him bigger budgets, and help him come up with new bullshit projects with the excuse of the 2020 Olympics, which have already become an obscene money drain.

But surprise, surprise, some other faction of the LDP decided that his couldn’t go on. While this big old corrupt ogres go on wasting money on pork, at this rate even Tokyo is going to go bankrupt. No, we need Reform™. We need to cut on bureaucratic waste and entrenched interests. And so this lady, also from the LDP, declared her candidacy. Ms. Koike.

as20160629001448_comml

Big old corrupt ogre went batshit crazy. He threatened with firing her from the party, announced that she would get no electoral support. And he sent a memo to all Tokyo party members, saying that if any party member, including their families, supported Ms. Koike, they would be immediately fired. Including family members! Yes, Japan is going back to the middle ages.

The first news reports were that Ms. Koike had effectively committed suicide; she had no party machine, no voter pool, no support from the party. She would lose badly, get expelled from the party, and die the lonely death of a traitor spinster. And those news got the left excited. Because yes, I haven’t mentioned it, but Japan does have a left. And as the right is getting righter, the left is getting lefter.

Japan used to have a Soviet-aligned Socialist Party during the Cold War; whose party leaders went to North Korea to celebrate the birthdays of Kim Il Sung and stuff like that. That’s besides the official Communist Party, which is still around. The Socialist Party never managed to win an election, and after the Cold War it slowly disintegrated. For a while the remnants formed the Democratic Party, which was supposed to be a modern, Blair-Clinton kind of thing. They never managed to amount to much, but they did win the 2009 election, just in time to preside over the big 2011 Tsunami. Besides the Tsunami they botched everything they did; basically they were dumb, and the bureaucracy sabotaged everything they wanted. So since 2012 the Democratic Party has been dead, completely suppressed by the amazing Abe charisma.

The solution the Democratic Party chose since 2015 was to… ally with the Communist Party. Yep. I’ve no idea who convinced whom but this madness actually happened, with predictable results. The Democratic Party went full retard on leftist insanity, arguing for increased immigration, voting rights for foreigners, new feminist laws, gaymarriage, abolishing nuclear power, that sort of stuff. Stuff which is not exactly popular right now because Japan is undergoing a rightist singularity as we speak. But the Left is the Left is the Left, and their solution is always to move lefter. So they made an alliance with the Communist Party, and given that the right had split before the Tokyo elections, they thought they stood a chance. So they selected as a candidate this guy, Mr. Torigoe.

726327b51117d3d963a91d0288e80e5d

Now you can see from his hairstyle, that this guy is a complete douche. He’s also a leftist douche. 75 years old, he’s a remnant of the old Soviet aligned left, those who were students in the 1960s. He made his living as a leftist journalist, so he had plenty of brand recognition. But the guy also happens to have multiple cancers, and show clear signs of dementia. He’s 76 after old. Also, being a leftist douche, he was found to have harassed dozens of young women. Kinda like Sartre and all other famous leftists have always done. I mean, what’s the point of being a leftist celebrity if you can’t get young pussy through it? That’s the actual motivation, ideology is the means to an end.

Anyway, the Democratic and Communist parties thought they could pull a Tokyo governorship with this guy, but the election was so completely inept that they botched it spectacularly. And I mean spectacularly. Mr. Leftist Douche came in third place. The puppet of the Tokyo pork machine came second. And… oh yeah, Ms. Koike the outsider won the election. Reform won the day.

It’s unlikely she will be allowed to get away with much; the governor doesn’t have that much power. But I don’t know; perhaps there are sectors of the Tokyo bureaucracy that she can use for her ends. Bureaucrats play divide and conquer with politicians; a skilled politician has to play divide and conquer with his bureaucrats. Structurally speaking bureaucrats are usually better able to run tight loyal ships to avoid that kind of attacks, while politicians are more vulnerable to it. But Ms. Koike has a reputation for being tough as nails. And yes, she is also hard-right. “Let’s change the constitution and have an army”-right.

That shouldn’t matter much, but as thing stand today, being a “let’s have an army” politician is a fairly good way of gaining support from a wide set of people. There’s lots of conspiracies about “secret sects” like Nihon Kaigi that are conspiring to get Japan back into the Middle Ages, which is driving the US foreign policy circles crazy right now; and while it can’t get that simple; the fact is that being on the right in Japan pays. So people move to the right. It doesn’t pay to go crazy Nazi; there’s plenty of those, and they are very unpopular. But a smart degree of rightist signaling gets you a long way. And that’s not thanks to media support. The mainstream media is, generally, batshit leftist, and they overwhelmingly supported the rapist leftist douche. What is rightist though, is the internet, and some more fringe sectors of the media, such as news weeklies and the like.

The funny thing is that Schelling points right now, while still functioning as Schelling points, are all slowly shifting in different directions. And that is a worldwide trend. Interesting times.

Toxic Arab Masculinity

I was mildly surprised to see that I was getting hits from the Inthenews subreddit. Apparently a very nice reader posted a link to my recent post on how Islam in the West creates perverse incentives for the Establishment to double down on feminism and other progressive articles of faith, knowing that the native white population will back them as a convenient Schelling point against the tribal enemy, Islam. He says my post predicted exactly the sort of psycho who killed 84 people in Nice in July 15th, and I must say that I did.

Let’s take a look at the murderer, Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel. Apparently he drunk alcohol like a sponge, smoked pot, went to nightclubs, ate pork, and didn’t give a shit about Ramadan. He was a classic low IQ hoodlum who was more than happy to enjoy the hedonism that French culture offers to all men. His close acquaintances called him a “piece of shit”. And yeah, that’s a piece of shit if I ever saw one. And I’ve seen a lot.

As tends to happen with low IQ hoodlums he did have some luck with the ladies, and was married. With three daughters. I expect having three daughters, no sons, didn’t exactly please him. Having a wife also can’t have been very fun, given his penchant for booze and nightclubs. So again, as tends to happen with low IQ hoodlums, he often beat his wife. He also couldn’t hold a job, so his wife recently divorced him.

So now you have this low IQ hedonistic hoodlum who finds himself divorced by his wife, with three daughters, who will take a large part of whatever meager income he can make as a truck driver or whatever job a low IQ hoodlum is capable of doing. Which isn’t a lot. If you’re into having fun, and Mr. Lahouaiej (French spelling really is retarded) seems to be very much into having fun, seeing yourself in debt bondage for at least two decades to a family which you can’t even enjoy; well that sucks. That sucks very much. So he went postal.

Is Islam to blame? Well, yeah. The guy did shout Allahu Akbar while running over and shooting 84 people in Nice. The equivalent low IQ hoodlum, were he a white Frenchmen, which does happen, would have probably just shot himself, in extreme cases maybe shoot his wife and then himself. Were he a Christian he most certainly wouldn’t go kill innocent people shouting Christ is Great, or Richard Dawkins is my Hero, if he were an atheist.

But low IQ hoodlums who happen to be Muslim have a different way out. They can get to the mosque, meet some of their buddies, get an intensive jihad session by some 105 IQ Arab nerd, and suddenly realize that indeed his life sucks, that he’s fucked for life, that it’s all the fault of those damn infidels, and that Allah is merciful and provides him a way to die like a hero. Just get a weapon of some sort and kill a big bunch of people. Allahu Akbar.

So yeah, Islam is to blame. Islam is a necessary condition. Is it a sufficient condition, though? Certainly not. You need to be a low-life good for nothing kind of asshole to get yourself in that sort of situation in the first place. The trick is that, as it happens, Muslims tend to come from low IQ, high-impulsiveness populations who are way more likely than native Europeans to become a low IQ hoodlum. And modern European culture produces huge amounts of low IQ hoodlums. It provides them easy sex, cheap booze, drugs of all sorts, and an individualistic and hedonistic culture that pretty much dares you to not be a hedonistic fuck. Especially France, if I may say so.

So yes, it’s complicated. But not that complicated. At any rate having Muslims around in our culture just makes it inevitable for these things to happen. And blaming Islam is a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

Brazilification

Given present demographic trends, that is immigration and the birth rates of different ethnic groups, the data clearly points towards what I call Brazilification, i.e. Western countries eventually getting the demographics of Brazil.

Now, Brazil as a country has a lot going for it; that with nice beaches and hot girls. But its demographics and its politics aren’t precisely one of its strengths. Nor its murder and mugging rate. For some reason Rio de Janeiro was chosen to host the 2016 Olympics, and man, the thing is not looking good.

brazilian-police-welcome-hell-sign-640x480

I had thought that the Brazil government wasn’t that stupid, and that the armed forces, if only them alone, had to enjoy high status and good pay. But no, apparently the Brazil government really is that stupid. How does that look for Brazilification of the Western world?

Who knows, who knows. The French are quite fond of striking too! Right now I guess this troops are well paid; but hungry and unpaid French troops holding machine guns in central Paris; well that would be something. France doesn’t have a tradition of military coups; not since the great man. But one’s gotta eat.

 

Brexit has made a lot of people write about how it symbolized the end of an era of ever greater integration and trade globalization. Now the trend is broken. The Olympic games are also a very powerful symbol of globalization, and the recent games have shown also signs of breakdown; billions stolen by corruption rackets; countries left with tons of debt and useless buildings left to decay. It won’t be long until some Olympic Games really bomb it, and the whole thing is abolished for good. Now that would be a fine symbol of the end of an era.

 

The Clam and the Sandpiper

There’s an old Chinese saying: when the Sandpiper and the Clam fight each other; it’s the fisherman who profits just by sitting there. While in English it doesn’t make much sense, in Chinese it’s exactly 10 characters, which roll beautifully off the tongue. 鷸蚌相爭,坐收漁翁之利.

0df3d7ca7bcb0a464d083c696963f6246b60afbc

Anyway, so Britain is now in turmoil after Brexit happened against all expectations; Cameron is out, and now they gotta look for a new leader to manage what is really a fairly complicated process.

So Boris Johnson left the race; ostensibly he was “backstabbed”. A commentator in Japan said that Boris never expected Brexit to happen, and the prospect of having to go himself to Brussels to negotiate is way more work than he’s willing to do; so he bailed. I don’t know.

So now there’s this Gove guy, who is Scottish, pretty ugly, a horrible public speaker and… well, see for yourselves.

I was going to call him a cuck after watching the first half of his speech, but after this part, I suspect that an interest for the sexual pleasure of his wife is not quite what’s wrong with him. His affliction is rather more commonplace.

So this is one choice, an ugly gay Scott. There’s another choice, apparently more popular. Theresa May. She has many things going on for her; but mostly it’s just that she looks and sounds a lot like Margaret Thatcher; and that’s a good thing in Britain. So the PM post is pretty much hers.

What about her, though, is she any good? I can’t say, but I was pleasantly surprised by this.

 

Referendums about the EU have been run in many countries in Europe for decades; they usually turn out negative, but the vote is routinely ignored. I, and I suspect most people in Europe were convinced that even in the event of a Brexit vote, that the EU and the UK elite would conspire to null the results and just go on with business as usual.

But no, the British government is actually committed to carrying this out. So this obviously is not some popular revolt of old evil racist white people. A big chunk of the elite, big enough to carry this out to the overwhelming dismay of the permanent bureaucracy, is very much committed to Brexit.

This is a good thing, of course, but it means we should reconsider many of our assumptions about the global elite of politicians, bureaucrats and big business, and how they’re hell-bent in creating a Global Brazil with brown pluralities in all Western nations, populist politics made impossible so the elite can keep feeding us degenerate entertainment and mass produced garbage in the name of Progress.

Now of course the most elite parts of the Brexit campaign have come out to say they have no intention of limiting immigration; and that’s their prerogative. If anything they should be lauded for admitting so at this timing. But at any rate, it appears that large parts of the elite have reached the conclusion that globalist institutions are not in their interest.

It follows that we should look at exactly how this elite in-fighting is occurring; who is fighting whom? Who will be the fisherman? I’m certainly just sitting here.

The Spectre of Nationalism

After some lazy Youtube pastes, I guess it’s time to write something interesting about Brexit. You’ll have to forgive my delay as I was too busy getting drunk in celebration. Or in despair. I don’t know.

The ghastly forces of nationalism are sweeping now across Europe, liberals say. “Racism is out of the bottle”, they say. The European project, the liberal world order is in danger, they say. Oh yes, yes it is. And they are right to be frightened.

Perhaps people out of Europe don’t know, but in Europe, at least in academic circles, the EU is talked about as an almost godly institution. The most successful piece of institutional engineering in human history. A professor of mine had almost tears in his eyes when he talked how the EU “went against entropy”, fighting all odds in integrating all European states into a superior, sacred institution of peace and prosperity. And then some Nigel Farage with goofy shoes comes and takes 60 million Britons out.

Naturally all the bien-pensant are horrified. Truly, really horrified, horrified as if a zombie just showed up at your window. The EU in Europe is worshipped in a way probably similar to how the early Catholic Church was worshipped in the early Middle Ages. It must have looked like a miracle that while myriad Goths and other barbarians completely destroyed the Western Roman Empire, the Church not only survived, but thrived with a very sophisticated organization across the whole of Europe, North Africa and the Middle East. That the Christian Church was able to conserve some modicum of civilization in those times was truly a miracle. It must have seemed that truly God was with them.

God thus appeared to be with the EU in the decades after WW2. 70 years of peace. Increasing economic and political integration. If you’ve read your European history it’s certainly nothing short of a miracle. Of course the 70 years of peace might have something to do with the US Army garrisoning most of the continent, but you’re not supposed to notice that much. The key to becoming a leading scholar in human society is selective noticing. It’s more important to figure out what not to know, than what to know.

But anyway, indeed the EU was an impressive enterprise. Whatever model of government you have, everyone agrees that people in general don’t like to give away power. Whether you think parliament rules, or the people rule, or the permanent bureaucracy rules; it doesn’t matter who calls the shots, whoever does it is supposed to like doing so, and on principle wouldn’t want to give it away. But in Europe they did. Little by little European nations were stripped of their power and they all celebrated it.

While the actual integration followed a very complex set of carrots and sticks; it helped that the EU project had a very good rationale. Europeans had been slaughtering each other for centuries. That had some good things; it gave incentives for research into bigger ships and stronger cannons. That research trickled down into the civilian economy and eventually gave us the industrial revolution. China invented gunpowder, but by the 1500s it had to rely in Portuguese cannons to defend itself, because in China research into cannonry just didn’t pay. The huge Middle Kingdom didn’t fight wars, only rebellions every many decades, and those didn’t require cannons. China was into gun control, and they were pretty good at it. Europe wasn’t into gun control. In Europe it was war all the time, for whatever reason. Eventually the slaughter got so out of hand during the 30 Years War that the Peace of Westphalia was signed.

Henceforth European states were to respect sovereignty. That is, you don’t wage war because of what some other king has done in his country. You don’t do that. Kings have the right to do whatever the hell they want inside their country. Even religion doesn’t matter. The idea was good. But it still didn’t work; European countries kept finding excuses to slaughter each other and went on developing more advanced weaponry all the same. Eventually Europe invented the mother of all weapons: Nationalism.

Academics recently like to talk about “institutions”. Others like to talk about more abstract cultural traits. “Social technology” as some call it. If someone is still around in 200 years to write a World History of Technology, Nationalism will be there written as the foremost political technology ever invented by humankind. Nationalism destroyed the Ancien Regime. It revolutionized politics and war. It changed the world forever.

In the tribal, pre-state era, a “band of brothers” would ride to some foreign area, fight the local men, grab their gold and women and share it amongst them. If for some reason the bros didn’t want to go back, they’d go to some area, kill the local men, and take their land (and gold and women, if any). This went on forever. Analysis of ancient DNA is just telling us the story of how many populations have been completely replaced repeatedly over time. When states formed, however, this dynamic changed. A king doesn’t mind beating a neighbour and taking its gold, or perhaps the land. He’s likely not that much in need of taking their women. But at any rate he has no interest in emptying the land. A king wants taxes; he doesn’t care who pays them, whether his tribe or someone else’s. In fact a king is, more likely than not, not of the same tribe as his soldiers. So it’s not in his interest that the tribes that he rules over gain more land and thus more power. Eventually some tribal lord might rally his tribesmen against the king.

No, no. The way for a king to secure his place on the throne is to play divide and conquer on his own subjects. Ideally there will be no tribes whatsoever; the people will be separated into nuclear families, forbidden from worshipping ancestral gods. Their only social obligations will be with the state, i.e. the king. That was the gist of the Shang Yang reforms in 360 BC, what Solon did in Athens, what the Roman Senate did to its people, shuffling the tribes every few years. The Catholic Church did mostly the same to the Germanic kindreds in Western Europe. It was wildly successful, and produced what we understand as Civilization. Which is good.

So when a King has to fight a war, he pays for his soldiers, in hard cash. If he can’t he doesn’t go to war. No more bands of brothers, no more fighting for the tribe. No more exterminating neighbors. That’s bad for business. Of course it still happened, if the foreigners were uncivilized themselves and one couldn’t expect much tax from them short term. Still, the incentive was to take the land with the peasants untouched.

Nationalism was in essence a return to the emotional state of pre-state tribesmen. Soldiers weren’t expected to fight for cash, or for traditional bonds of vassalage. Soldiers fought for their country, for the homeland. For the tribe. A pretty massive tribe, tens of millions strong. Pretty weird tribe if you ask me; but people ate it up. Nationalism was wildly popular. It of course didn’t come out of a vacuum; the printing press, universal schooling and improved transportation did change cultural interaction so that people inside the same country ended up having the same degree of cultural uniformity as a 1,000 BC tribe.

But of course Nationalist War has the same incentives as Tribal War: kill off the men and take their land for good. We call that now ethnic cleansing. Nationalist people are committed to their nations. They won’t pay tax to a foreigner; not as much as a countryman would. Remember French rule of the Ruhr? And besides, industrial economies make turnover much easier: you can ship millions of your own people to the vacated territory in months, and they’ll start producing right away. So there’s no downside to removing the foreigners.

Nationalist War was gruesome stuff. The Napoleonic Wars, the American Civil war, the Franco Prussian war, World War 1. Of course the scale of these wars weren’t just due to nationalism, much of it was just superior technology; better weapons, better transportation. And bigger populations. World War 1 gave us machine guns, gas and air bombing, killing millions in months. After World War 1 there was an attempt to blame nationalism and stop it right there. But it didn’t work. The opposite happened: Mussolini perfected Nationalism, and then Hitler took it to its logical conclusion. Total, industrial tribal war. With ethnic cleansing of enemies as its explicit mission.

We all know how that ended. The conclusion was that Nationalism was bad. And it wasn’t an unreasonable conclusion. It makes a lot of sense. Nationalism had, if not caused, certainly aggravated World War 1. Why did all those millions of young men volunteer to be slaughtered by machine guns in Northern France? For the glory of their nations. Why did Germany wage war against the first, second and third most powerful nations on Earth at the same time? To gain lebensraum for the German nation. Why did Italy, of all people, dream of taking Dalmatia, Albania, and run a colonial empire in Africa? Certainly not for the juicy tax revenue that those territories would bring to the state! It was all because of a stupid nationalist signaling spiral where the most popular kids were those who came up with the wackiest plans for the glory of the nation.

And so it was deemed, again not unreasonably, that Nationalism was bad. After World War 1, when the same conclusion was reached, the popular idea among the elite was that we needed World Government. No small part of the impetus behind the global communist movement that consumed the elite of the Anglosphere was the idea that communism was a good path in order to achieve World Government: communism could out-compete nationalism for support of the working class masses. Read on that time, H.G. Wells, Keynes, all those were really into World Government.

Alas, again, Nationalism won that battle by morphing into its more evolved form, Fascism, that great innovation of Benito Mussolini. Mussolini was an old school socialist who after WW1 found out that the post-war evolution of socialism  into a World Government cult wasn’t going to fly. He had been in the war, he had seen the power of nationalism. So he invented nationalist socialism, and man, he hit the jackpot. Fascism swept over most of Europe in no time.

The elite, i.e. Western governments and their financial elites kept holding their World Government dream, though. Even F.D. Roosevelt, who borrowed a trick or two from the fascists, appeared to have been a very devout member of the World Government cult. After WW2, however, the Anglo-Soviet split made all dreams of World Government impossible. I guess we have Stalin to thank for that.

The dreams of World Government shattered, the only feasible alternative was to do try a local implementation in the US-occupied part of Europe. And so we got the EU. European nations were to disappear and integrat into something bigger, so they would stop waging war against each other. Again this was a good idea. War is bad. World War 2 was horrible. But dismantling the nations is easier said than done. By any account, in pure Marxist theory, the Soviet Union should have dismantled all its constituent “nations” and run a purely communist paradise of the workers. And yet what we got was Lenin’s “theory of nationalities” and a hodgepodge of national republics. In fact some backward tribes which could have been easily dissolved had instead Soviet anthropologists and linguists sent to standardize their languages and document their culture. Even abroad, the Soviets didn’t dismantle East European nations, they just occupied them, defanged them, but kept the nations neat and separate.

The thing is, European integration is a very dangerous idea; more dangerous than the original founders perhaps ever thought. In theory the EU was supposed to abolish all legal borders, dissolve national governments and rule the whole continent from a unified government. Ideally all Europeans would speak one language and follow one set of rules. You certainly can’t have a common market if the local bureaucracies can’t communicate with the center, and workers aren’t willing to move to different regions because of language barriers.

But imagine that: a truly unified Europe. I used to like the idea, and that should tell how utterly dangerous it is. For better or worse, the apparatus of modern nations was built by nationalism. It presupposes nationalism. Modern states have unified laws, unified school systems, unified media industries. Modern states, by purpose or by accident, unify the culture of their subjects. Modern states create nations. A unified Europe would create a unified European nation. And what would that European nation be about? What do Europeans have in common? Their biological heritage and their history. That is, the white race and Christianity.

Wow wow, wait a second. The mere thought of a unified Europe of 800 million people, organized around its common bonds of Race and Christianity is… dangerous. It’s dangerous to particular peoples who I will not name to avoid my comments section filling with retards. And it’s dangerous to the whole world, really. The last time Europeans were proud of their race and religion they went on a rampage across the whole world, where not a square mile of territory was left undisturbed. You could say European colonization was good for them; that we brought them civilization. Well, the locals are apt to disagree, and even if it were true, the locals today would rather not have the process repeat itself again. Susan Sontag said the white race is the cancer of human history. A cancer it’s not, the other races are still around. But the white race no doubt was a straight, strong, painful punch in the face for other countries.

And so European integration can’t happen. It can’t work, because we don’t allow Europeans to bond around the only thing they have in common. Instead we feed them a diet of bullshit about how Europeans are bounded by European values of tolerance and human rights. Which doesn’t make any sense. Europeans went along for thousands of years without any appreciation for tolerance and rights for women and minorities. Our very parents weren’t into all this tolerance and rights stuff. Were they bad people?

Any ideology is going to produce winners and losers; if only to the extent that an individual’s nature fits the ideology better or worse. If you’re into the quiet contemplation, any society that gives high status to monks is going to be a good deal for you. If you’re into booze, feasting, fucking and fighting; you’re gonna become very fond of Viking society. If you’re into tea, poetry, war and can’t stand women, you’re probably going to enjoy Islam. Ideally any ideology is going to evolve into a set of memes that give status to productive and upright people who help in the upkeep of civilization, and give low status to harmful people, but not so low they rise in violence.

Europeans today are supposed to base their identity on their tolerance and support of human rights, i.e. their obedience to the latest academic fad. Who wins from this arrangement? People who are by nature into tolerance and obedience to the latest academic fads. Those get to be elite. If you’re not into tolerance and have no inclination to support the latest academic fad no matter how absurd; and you can’t fake it well enough, well you’re not going to be elite. Who’s going to be elite? Women. Phonies. Clintons. Those are doing ok.

But what about men? Normal, average men, who like booze, like fighting, like competition, have no appetite for intellectual bullshit and little ability to fake it? Well modern Europe doesn’t like you. No status for you. And no status doesn’t mean what it used to be. In the old days you could be a brute, despised by the Church and by polite society. But you had your society, you could be a brute peasant with a peasant job and a peasant wife and kids. Not anymore. We don’t have classes now. Peasant women go to the city to try to get into polite society. There are no peasant jobs anymore; and to the extent that they are, they are done by actual Asian peasants in their homelands or in yours.

For the average men it is beyond obvious that Nationalism was a better state of affairs. Yes, you were likely to be sent to Northern France and be killed because your stupid generals had decided you were to be sent as cannon fodder until the enemy machine gun run out of ammo. Which it never did. But still, you had status. You had dignity. You had a society which told you you were awesome; a society where your natural inclination for typical manly stuff: loyalty, bravado, physical exertion, absurd penchant to fight because of stupid differences, were deemed to be noble and sacred virtues.

But not now. A woman uses her natural inclination for nagging her husband to no end; and she’s a great woman exercising her rights and using her intellect. A phony uses his natural inclination to make up some arcane bullshit about human rights; and he’s a great intellectual. A normal person uses his powers of reason to notice something obvious about human nature; and he’s a heartless bigot.

Nationalism evolved as an ideology in the era of mass politics. In those days, power was decided by who could assemble the biggest mob, the biggest army, the biggest electoral coalition. Nationalism was organic marketing. It was a very good sell. Progressivism isn’t a good sell. It was a relatively good sell when World War 2 had killed so many millions that Nationalism didn’t sound such a good idea; and when the economy was growing so much that a life of endless hedonism and pandering to every whim sounded completely feasible. People don’t notice their social status while life is getting better.

But life isn’t getting better any longer. And nobody remembers World War 2. Progressive society is rigged against native men; is it any surprise that they’re turning back to Nationalism? Progressives believed their own lies. They were too slow. The old European nations had to be destroyed before this happened. But they couldn’t pull it off. The EU as this sacred, precious project of order created out of entropy; but the old national states had their own bureaucratic elites, and surprise surprise, they haven’t really surrendered that much power. Most importantly they haven’t surrendered their money. To this day the EU budget is 1% of Europe’s GDP. Yes, EU nations were trolled into joining their currencies into the Euro; but they’ve been haggling between each other ever since about every single issue of economic policy.

The only way to get the Euro to work was for Germany to pay everyone off; make the local bureaucracies of every single country of Europe be better off by taking German’s money that by holding on to their national turf. Pull a Song Dynasty. But stingy Germany wouldn’t do it. Germany couldn’t do it. The German electorate just didn’t want to. And why would they? Germany is perhaps the most anti-nationalist nation in Europe. Kids are taught untold times how evil the German nation has been and how nationalism is the worst thing ever. Holding the national flag is a semi-criminal act.

And for good reason! World War 1 was stupid and it wrecked the whole continent for good. World War 2 was even stupider and it basically wrecked Germany forever. Nationalist spirals are a bad idea and Germany shows it better than anyone else. But you can’t dissolve a nation by telling her so. You have to actually dissolve the nation. And the EU didn’t do that. Germany is still Germany. It has 80 million Germans who speak German and have a common culture. You can tell them that their culture is tolerance and human rights; but it’s not; their culture is the German language and the myriad little German habits that they have in common. And to destroy that you have to stop teaching the German language and physically dissolve the people among others. Like Stalin did when he sent the Koreans and the Chechens to Kazakhstan. Heck, even that didn’t work, as his successors reversed the policy.

Bureaucratic inertia has allowed the European nations to subsist way beyond the expiration date of Progressivism. Progressivism only works when the going is good. Now it isn’t that good anymore, and people can fall back into their good old Nationalism. Yes, Progressives have the state apparatus. They have modern technology that makes preventing and crushing riots much easier than before. They have their massive unproductive schooling apparatus that keeps young people loyal to Progressivism until well in their mid 20s. And they have tens of millions of foreign barbarians in European soil paid to defend the state.

But as I pointed out, those foreign barbarians are a double-edged sword. Yes, they will fight Nationalism. They have nothing to gain from a nativist restoration. But Progressivism isn’t being that good for them either. They came here too late. The economy isn’t good anymore; so all progressivism has to offer them is taking their women and children out of their authority. Given that offer they might as well fall back into their tradition, i.e. Islam. Which is backward, not very fun, and likely to get them killed if they take it seriously; but it at least gives them status as men.

Neoreaction, the alt-right, the manosphere, religious traditionalism; all we have in common is the realization that contemporary society is rigged against the average man; and if men withdraw from society there is no way to maintain civilization. Which is why civilized people do not have children. Why the economy is declining. And why old ideologies are rising back all across the world. China just sent a warship into Japanese waters. Muslims are fighting their enemies across the world. England just voted to leave the European Union. Donald Trump might become the President of the United States.

I’m not into Nationalism myself. I know the history and it’s all pretty stupid. I assume that the smarter Muslims aren’t into Islam that much either. But we’re not given the choice of a perfect thing. Politics is the art of the possible. And all the possible alternatives aren’t looking very good these days. Interesting times ahead.

 

 

Rhetoric

Is a lost art.

It shouldn’t be though. In the age of Youtube, good speeches are more relevant then they used to be. Such a complete punch in the face to the liberal order as Brexit only happened because a big chunk of the British elite was able to make its case with this kind of eloquence.

We got much to learn.